Page 30 of 56 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 557

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

  1. #291
    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]
    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Romney "saved" them? By doing what? Being on the board of directors for companies hardly qualifies as having "saved" a company anymore than being CEO means you've founded them. Let's take Staples, what measures, did Romney take to "save" it?
    Staples isn't the only company of course. Did you listen to the speech by the founder of Staples? You really should start doing your own research.

    And it is the board of directors who decides which companies are worthwhile trying to save, or in which to invest. You really don;t know much about this do you. It seems you just don't get it.

  2. #292
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,045

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Why thats just horse****, young money. She is 'entitled. She is a member of the 'entitled' class that benefits from successful parents. She will have education opportunities many wont have.
    Such as what? More teachers? Pencils made from baoba wood? Lol. Nonsense. If you call somebody having opportunity and being entitled to success the same thing you've completely misunderstood the point of "land of opportunity".
    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

  3. #293
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,045

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post

    Staples isn't the only company of course. Did you listen to the speech by the founder of Staples? You really should start doing your own research.

    And it is the board of directors who decides which companies are worthwhile trying to save.
    No no. You specifically claimed Romney saved Staples. Saved it from what? As far as I can see he served on the board of directors on it. So what did Romney save Staples from? You made the claim. Now back it up.
    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

  4. #294
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,045

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Hatuey becomes a Ron Paulite to defend Obama!
    Really? I didn't know belief in a right to opportunity was exclusive to Pauligans. Oh wait, you're doing that thing where you come up with a nonsequitur to avoid the fact that you don't have a point. Lolz oh you.
    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. #295
    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 cpwill View Post
    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.
    You are mistaken, cpwill. If a business has $50 in capital gains and $50 in ordinary income, those two pots of money are taxed as such. Capital gains are not taxed again as ordinary income.

    The issue of "double taxation" refers to the taxation of both a corporation and its shareholders, and could only be eliminated if there were NO tax on corporate income and capital gains.


    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.
    First, the impact of tax liability on anyone's inclination to marry is speculative/specious. Second, of course there is a penalty on single, childless taxpayers -- but there is also a head of household rate structure for single taxpayers with children.

    it reduces the available capital supply to start businesses with, and reduces the return on investment that incentivizes business formation.
    Rather a reach, don't you think? Anything that lowers savings and investments has this effect.

    well how about you go ahead and decide to agree because I'm Just So Cute


    Kitty says Please


    You are adorable.

    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.
    What "deduction available for interest"? The mortgage interest deduction? Yes, it incentivizes home ownership -- IMO, incentivizing socially desirable social behaviors is not a proper function of a tax, but hey, we have always done it.

    Is Romney planning to allow people to deduct their credit card interest? Because I think that would be a horrendous idea.


    Third part reporting -- e.g., W-4's filed by the employer on the employee with the IRS and copied to the employee -- reduce that employee's cost of compliance and reduce tax avoidance. If we eliminated it, everyone would be paid "under the table".


    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.
    Cpwill, do you know why the IRS Code is so complex? The government taxes wages. The taxpayer disguises his wages as a loan from his business. The government does up a test for authentic loans. The taxpayer skirts the test. The government closes the skirt loophole.

    Etc.


    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.
    I liked the cpwill plan.


    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.
    This is just naive. To get elected, all his Top 2% supporters realize Romney must convince a sizable portion of the middle class to vote against their own best interest. They are not offended by his doublespeak, and no, if elected he will do nothing to corporate welfare unless he increases it.

    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.
    Neither one has a 1:1 match with the nation's interests, and even the nation has no one, identifiable interest, apart from growing the economy.

    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.
    No one with any sense believes in trickle down -- it's a ginned up excuse to confiscate middle class income for the wealthy.

    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).
    Doubtless. What is their track record? How do they adjust fpr 7 Million changes to the IRS made at one time?

    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.
    I agree, and I opposed Obamacare for this reason. Still not voting for Romney; he'll do the very same thing and the beneficiaries will be wealthy people.

    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?
    There are things government could do to help your uncle, but neither candidate will engage in lifting the regulatory burden on small businesses. That said, the fiscal cliff the most appalling tax scheme of my entire life IMO.
    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.
    Of course there are counterarguments. We could do this all day. Why are we exporting oil to China, if we want to be "energy independent", for example?

    My point was, not all energy is valuable to me on a cost/benefit analysis. Like the Keystone Pipeline.


    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.
    I was regulating insurance companies at the height of M&A frenzy, cpwill. Some failed because they were invested in junk bonds, etc.

    I have a low opinion of the morals of such people, but as I said, operating a business is an amoral endeavor -- at least, this is the justification the business community uses for the harm they cause.

  6. #296
    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
    No no. You specifically claimed Romney saved Staples. Saved it from what? As far as I can see he served on the board of directors on it. So what did Romney save Staples from? You made the claim. Now back it up.
    Yes. Staples was on that list of several companies Romney saved, or grew, or invested in. He did all of this, and if you do some research you'll discover all of this and more.

    Did you listen to the speech given by the companies founder?

  7. #297
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,677

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Such as what? More teachers? Pencils made from baoba wood? Lol. Nonsense. If you call somebody having opportunity and being entitled to success the same thing you've completely misunderstood the point of "land of opportunity".
    Such as BETTER opportunities. BETTER support. BETTER access to colleges. Oh no...I think we BOTH understand the "land of opportunity" quite well. I came from a pretty ugly home situation, busted my ass, built a future, and created opportunities for my kids and grandkids. I taught them hard work and then provided them the opportunity to start life on the 4th and 5th step and not the basement floor. I suspect you are doing similarly for your child. And BTW...thats the same thing Romneys dad did. Your child is 'entitled' to a better life merely from the benefits and advantages you provide. Does that mean she doesnt have to still work hard? Of course not. Just that her starting point is different.

  8. #298
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,677

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

    I wonder...did anyone actually watch the video? Something very telling is the response of the crowd. Know what? They are going through the motions. The thrill is gone.

  9. #299
    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 Grant View Post
    What claim was that?
    Uh, yours, Grant.

  10. #300
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,045

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Yes. Staples was on that list of several companies Romney saved, or grew, or invested in. He did all of this, and if you do some research you'll discover all of this and more.

    Did you listen to the speech given by the companies founder?
    No. You claim Romney saved Staples. Now provide the evidence he did. Not just bland claims. Show us how. What he did etc.
    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

Page 30 of 56 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... 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
  •