Page 28 of 56 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 557

Thread: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

  1. #271
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,692

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Hey Hatuey...I cant help but wonder if our resident token 'young money millionaire' is going to pass on his success to his children or if he is going to make them start from the same starting point as every ghetto or impoverished Appalachian state trailer park kid. Does that mean they will be 'entitled'? Will you expect them to work hard at school? To have jobs as a teenager? To achieve at college? To work hard at business? To commit to a family while also committing to a successful career? Will you champion his growth and success, facilitated by his hard work but certainly enabled by the successful foundation you put in place? If so...to coin our current commander in chief...

    If you had a son, he would like like Mitt...

    Kinda why Obamas comments are so foolish but expected. Gotta bang that class warfare drum. Lord knows he is going to make his two beautiful childs hit the streets. Oh...wait...he and M'Obama are dumping 48k a year in their bank accounts tax free. Theres a little bit of entitlement there. And we see that as a GOOD THING... a bi-roduct of parents hard work and success. Just dont tell all those heathen that Obama is preaching to.

  2. #272
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,692

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinkie View Post
    This is an entirely different argument from "vote for the businessman who grows jobs".

    It's also not how I see Romney's record, but it's less preposterous than Grant's claim.
    Its the same argument. If you take failing businesses and turn them VERY successful you are growing jobs. Conversely...if you are a community organizer and your 'community' is Chicago...you are...well...in the words of that New Hampshire voter..."not even qualified to run a lemonade stand". And it shows.

    All Im saying is...apply the same standard. If you insist on judging Romney by an incomplete review of his record, than you HAVE to apply that same standard to Obama. He 'saved' GM (his words) by firing tens of thousands of people and dumping billions and billions of taxpayer dollars into it.

  3. #273
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio, USA
    Last Seen
    12-10-12 @ 07:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,316

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Its the same argument. If you take failing businesses and turn them VERY successful you are growing jobs. Conversely...if you are a community organizer and your 'community' is Chicago...you are...well...in the words of that New Hampshire voter..."not even qualified to run a lemonade stand". And it shows.

    All Im saying is...apply the same standard. If you insist on judging Romney by an incomplete review of his record, than you HAVE to apply that same standard to Obama. He 'saved' GM (his words) by firing tens of thousands of people and dumping billions and billions of taxpayer dollars into it.
    You are comparing apples to oranges. The purpose of a business is to make money, and anything it can do towards that goal is amoral because the objective is amoral.

    By contrast, the purpose of our government is to serve our needs. The failure to do so is immoral. You cannot look at a profit & loss statement for a government and conclude it was successful or not, as this is not the yardstick.

  4. #274
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,048

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Hey Hatuey...I cant help but wonder if our resident token 'young money millionaire' is going to pass on his success to his children or if he is going to make them start from the same starting point as every ghetto or impoverished Appalachian state trailer park kid.
    Daughter already goes to a public school in St Maarten. - I don't like privates schools. And don't have any Ivy league connections I could count on for a ride into Yale. Get a job at 15 like my wife and I did if you want your own money. The rest of your post? Don't care for it. Same old collage of nonsensical yelling only you seem to understand.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #275
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinkie View Post
    How is this anything other than a redistribution of wealth to those YOU see as more deserving of it, Grant?


    Saving companies is a redistribution of wealth? I suppose you can look at it that way but in any case I think we can agree that it was a very good thing for those employees and the overall economy.. And of course he did it without taxpayer money.
    Point is, thousands lost their jobs, and thus anyone who believes jobs growth is a task government should perform should not vote for Romney.
    Thousands lose their jobs when companies fail and Romney worked to save many thousands of jobs that would otherwise have been lost. That is no small accomplishment, Pinkie.

    I was pointing the foolish but logical extension of your argument. Please, feel free to start babbling about William Ayers, if you feel you must.[/QUOTE]

    No, I don't feel the need. Everyone should be aware of Barrack Obama's past by now and if they still want to vote for him knowing what everyone else knows then we just chalk it up to democracy.

  6. #276
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,048

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Saving companies is a redistribution of wealth?
    Show us an example of a company Mitt Romney saved. Show us the ideas/programs he himself provided/implemented in order to save the company. Your claim is only as valid as the information which supports it. So let's take Staples. How did Romney save Staples?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #277
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinkie View Post
    The government needs more money and he's discussing who should pay that increase.
    So he's talking tax increases.

    I suppose he'll let the Bush tax cuts expire in January then. Is that your take?

  8. #278
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinkie View Post
    Wrong. There is a capital gains rate, and the only interest expense a family may deduct is mortgage interest, which BTW, has been deductible as long as we have had an income tax.
    There is indeed a capital gains rate. There is also a corporate rate on the same money. If you pay 35% and then you pay 15%, what have you paid? This is why both men agree that we desperately need to reduce our corporate tax rates - precisely because our current code discourages savings and investment. If you want to save your money, you face a tax rate of up to 50%, but if you spend your money instantly, your tax rate is 0%, and depending on what you spend it on, it might go into the negatives.

    No, there's a hefty penalty on remaining single and childless. However, IMO, "encouraging stable families" is no more the proper goal of a tax that "discouraging smoking". Taxes should raise revenue, period.
    There is no hefty penalty for remaining single and childless - your tax rate remains as it is. There are significant incentives to remain single after you have had children. I ran the numbers for just three programs and found out that a low-income family with two kids stood to lose thousands. And that is why over the past few decades we have seen our lower-income families respond to those incentives, and raise children in broken homes, with disastrous consequences for the kids.

    How so? Yes, there are limits on deductions for the expenses associated with passive income and hobbies, but these are necessary to curb tax avoidance.
    it reduces the available capital supply to start businesses with, and reduces the return on investment that incentivizes business formation.

    I dunno whether I agree with this or not.
    well how about you go ahead and decide to agree because I'm Just So Cute


    Kitty says Please






    Seriously, however, the deduction available for interest encourages investing on the margin, which does indeed inflate bubbles and cause periodic bursts that harm the rest of our economy, on top of general corporate indebtedness, which makes our economy less nimble at adjusting to and fixing new realities.

    Not sure about your numbers, but yes, the cost of compliance is too high. I'd support a flat tax partially for this reason -- however, the costs associated with third party reporting are offset by their efficiencies and the tax avoidance they inhibit.
    I'm not quite sure what you are addressing there.

    What complexity? The IRS Code's? Unless you can explain which loophole you are closing, I cannot agree.
    Which specific ones? There are thousands. The Tax Code of the United State of America runs to over 73 thousand pages long, and is an undecipherable smouldering mess so complex and convoluted that even the IRS does not fully understand it. Romney has alot to close, but complexity reduction conjoined with lowering nominal rates to retain revenue is the key to any successful tax reform, and so the question really is simply how far in the right direction we move.

    I have argued that we should impose a flat tax of 25% on any income above 200% of the poverty line, and a negative tax of -50% on any income not earned below that amount (which would replace our conglomerate of mixed and matched and counteractive and contradicting social programs with a single stream of government aid which would ensure that not a single man, woman, or child in America would live in poverty). But we were talking about Romney, not cpwill.

    This is my "don't kid a kidder" face, cpwill. No way will Romney do any such thing.
    actually that is the centerpiece of the economic platform he is running on. If he fails to do such a thing A) he looks like an idiot and B) he probably doesn't want to get reelected.

    Look, I don't trust Romney any further than I can throw him to do what I think is the right thing. But I do trust him to look out for his political self-interest, and fortunately in this case his political self interest aligns with the countries. I do trust Obama, but unfortunately I trust him to do alot of wrong things because he does not fully understand their impacts.

    First, no one can predict that any closed loophole will generate more revenue. There'll be pushback from the sector who had been enjoying it, and the tax bar is VERY creative. Second, only a naive person could believe Romney will "end corporate welfare", as he'd be defeating the interests of his core constituency as well as betraying the "promise" of trickle down.
    Firstly, Romney has never promised trickle down - that is a straw man. Conservatives do not believe in trickle-down any more than liberals believe in communism and death panels. We believe that people left to their own freedom typically allocate their resources better than government does on their behalf.

    Secondly, there are two ways to predict the effects of closed loopholes - statically and dynamically. Static methodology tends to wildly overestimate projected revenues from rate increases, but Dynamic methodology tends to depend more upon assumptions about how people will behave under altered incentive structures (ie: that people tend to do what they perceive to be in their financial best interest).

    What "loss of uncertainty"? There's an unavoidable efficiency cost associated with every change to the IRS Code.
    Currently no one even knows what their tax rates will be in three months. No one knows what the full cost of Obamacare will be, what he full cost of Frank-Dodd will be, or what next giant porker is working it's way down the regulatory framework. When you cannot predict with any certainty your future costs, when you cannot operate on the assumption of general stability, the incentive to invest in new capital, new plants, and new employees is sharply reduced.

    My uncle, for example, currently runs a small construction business with around 50 employees, which he built from the ground up through blood, sweat, and 16 hour days, with no college degree. He has no idea what his tax rates will be on January 3 (though he is still responsible for preparing to pay them), but he does know that if they go up significantly, he will have to lose someone in order to keep the business in the black. Why in the world would he hire someone now, when he would just have to turn around and fire them (and others) tomorrow, with a loss of resources that makes it more likely that more of his current workers would lose their jobs?

    BP Oil Spill? Ring any bells?
    Yup. Two things.

    1. More oil is spilled from tankers bringing oil to our shores than from rigs off our shores - the greater threat for pollution isn't oil that we produce domestically, its oil that we import. If you want to decrease the pollution impact of fossil fuels, then we need to shift a greater share of our consumption to home-grown production and away from foreign production.

    2. The BP Oil Spill largely occurred because of our drilling restrictions - we pushed production miles out away and forced them to drill miles further down, which increases the complexity, difficulty, and possibility of fault exponentially. Allowing them to drill closer in would reduce the threat, again, exponentially.

    Romney was a fund manager who did a lot of mergers and acquisitions, cpwill. I know these guys and their henchmen -- they might possibly have lower morals than your average politician.

    OTOH, I do not know any corrupt college or law school professors.
    Romney was a turn-around artist who specialized in taking failing enterprises and making them successful. That is what companies like Bain do, it's how they make their money. As for corruption, Romney is a friggin boy scout - it's almost annoying.
    Last edited by cpwill; 10-06-12 at 01:32 PM.

  9. #279
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Show us an example of a company Mitt Romney saved. Show us the ideas/programs he himself provided/implemented in order to save the company. Your claim is only as valid as the information which supports it. So let's take Staples. How did Romney save Staples?
    I gave you a list of several companies he saved. If you are that curious do your own research.

    In fact you should have done that by now in order to familiarize yourself with the Candidates and what they have to offer the country.

  10. #280
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' [W:108]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Show us an example of a company Mitt Romney saved. Show us the ideas/programs he himself provided/implemented in order to save the company. Your claim is only as valid as the information which supports it. So let's take Staples. How did Romney save Staples?
    Hm.

    Well, why don't you ask Staples' Founder?



Page 28 of 56 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •