• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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?
 
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?
 
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.

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

Image(023).jpg

Kitty says Please :D


:lol:



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:
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.
 
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? :)


 
Daughter already goes to a public school in St Maarten. :shrug: - 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.
So you ARE going to turn her out at 18 and make her make her own way...right? Oh...believe me...I dig the work at 15 thing. If thats when you started earning, Ive got you beat by about 7 years. I understand hard work. Now...do REALLY want to pretend your daughter is NOT going to benefit from your success? You REALLY want to pretend she isnt going to be 'entitled' :lamo

And if you DONT give her that advantage born by your hardwork, that makes you a reprehensible father and shame on you. Tough being a young money millionaire and staying connected to those slave roots isnt it? Why...you help your child get ahead in life by hard work...people might just call you a Tom...a porch monkey...and...whats that other word you have used...a house nigga? Fight the power, young money...you stand strong, keep working hard and pass on that success to your child. Change the world.
 
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?

There is nobody who pays 35% tax rate and then follows that in the same year with another 15% on the same money.

If there is, please show them to us.
 
So you ARE going to turn her out at 18 and make her make her own way...right? Oh...believe me...I dig the work at 15 thing. If thats when you started earning, Ive got you beat by about 7 years. I understand hard work. Now...do REALLY want to pretend your daughter is NOT going to benefit from your success? You REALLY want to pretend she isnt going to be 'entitled' :lamo

Entitled to what? Success? No. She's not. She's entitled to an education, medicine if she's sick, the occasional hissy fit etc. But entitled to success? No. She has to work for it just like everyone else.
 
Entitled to what? Success? No. She's not. She's entitled to being able to receive an education, medicine if she's sick, etc. But entitled to success? No. She has to work for it just like everyone else.
Just like...say...Romney. Or Obamas kids. Or ANYONE that benefits from the success of their hard working elders.
 
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.


What claim was that?
 
Just like...say...Romney. Or Obamas kids. Or ANYONE that benefits from the success of their hard working elders.

You're stretching. She's not benefiting from my success by receiving an education. She's entitled to an education from the day she's born just like every child. It's what she does with that education that she's not entitled to. In other words, what she doesn't have and the point which you fail to grasp is birthright success. Which is what Obama stated in his quote. 4th page you seem to fail at understanding this small fact.
 
You're stretching. She's not benefiting from my success by receiving an education. She's entitled to an education from the day she's born. What she doesn't have and the point which you fail to grasp is birthright success. Which is what Obama stated in his quote. 4th page you seem to fail at understanding this small fact.
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. She will have parental backing and support that many wont have. She will benefit from your understanding of hard work and success. Like Mitt Romney, like the children of other wealthy parents, your child is 'entitled' and she will have an advantage over others her age. Sure...she has to work hard. Props to you for that. That makes you...just like Romneys daddy.

Oh...we ABSOLUTELY believe in entitlement. You LIVE it. And well done!
 
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?

Do you want details as requested in order to say he and Bain saved companies, but continue the drivel about Bain killing jobs without putting forth the same empirical data you request of others?
 
I'm confused. The Republican Party has been saying this for a while now, and it was true then.

A rightist who doesn't know the difference between 'entitlement' and 'opportunity'. Who'da thunk?

Indeed, "entitlement" is being overlooked in the sentence. I thought this was the argument of conservatives and Republicans. Democrats want to ensure everyone has the opportunity for success. So I don't see why the hub bub about that sentence since it demonstrates common ground.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
Hatuey becomes a Ron Paulite to defend Obama!:lamo

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.
 
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.

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

Image(023).jpg

Kitty says Please :D


:lol:

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom