• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama shows he is the candidate who better understands the economy

AdamT said:
Small companies that pay at an individual rate? What do you mean?
Click to expand...

he might be talking about how the plan places individuals into the insurance pool for small businesses. They used a similar method in Massachusetts, and naturally this has decreased the premiums for the individual market significantly . But has lead to some pretty drastic rates increases for small businesses
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
I don't think either of them or experts in economics, regardless of their ideological bent. What's more important is to see who their advisers are.
Click to expand...

Which one ran a profitable business and which one didn't
 
AdamT said:
Okay, you're talking about pass-through taxation. So, first of all, very few small businesses actually make enough money to get into the top tax brackets: I believe the figure is around 3%. Second, this is obviously a choice that small businesses make. If they want to they can incorporate and enjoy the pleasure of double taxation. Third, the tax you're talking about doesn't apply to a business -- it applies to the individual income of someone who may or may not own a small business. If you have a small business and use pass-through taxation then the business doesn't pay any income tax at all.
Click to expand...
They pass it on to the people who then buy less as an inflation spiral takes off. Good plan.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
They pass it on to the people who then buy less as an inflation spiral takes off. Good plan.
Click to expand...

Is that what happened in the 90s? Or from the late 40s to the 80s, when tax rates were far higher? :roll:
 
NAKED N00B said:
link


Unfortunately, the Republicans think that a national economy is a business and can't understand or don't want to understand why the differences are so important.
Click to expand...

At this point, Obama does seem to be the better choice between the two. That being said, Obama is not a good choice, just slightly better than Obama.
 
Ikari said:
At this point, Obama does seem to be the better choice between the two. That being said, Obama is not a good choice, just slightly better than Obama.
Click to expand...

Now thats liberalism in one amazing post..
 
AdamT said:
Okay, you're talking about pass-through taxation. So, first of all, very few small businesses actually make enough money to get into the top tax brackets: I believe the figure is around 3%. Second, this is obviously a choice that small businesses make. If they want to they can incorporate and enjoy the pleasure of double taxation. Third, the tax you're talking about doesn't apply to a business -- it applies to the individual income of someone who may or may not own a small business. If you have a small business and use pass-through taxation then the business doesn't pay any income tax at all.
Click to expand...

Businesses are people. Especially, businesses that are not incorporated. Some person owns that business and all the assets of the business. As such, the owner is always paying the taxes for the business. Small businesses can't always pass along additional costs and remain competitive.
 
Obama knows how to destroy and economy.. thats what he was made to do.. so he knows economy and he knows that every move he makes hurts the economy.. hes not just stupid, hes stupid but he is the trojan horse to destroy us into a nanny state..
 
AdamT said:
Last time I checked Obama actually proposed LOWERING the corporate tax rate, but at least you finally got the GDP figure right. :thumbs:
Click to expand...



Do you have a link to the legislation that he submitted?
 
AdamT said:
Okay, you're talking about pass-through taxation. So, first of all, very few small businesses actually make enough money to get into the top tax brackets: I believe the figure is around 3%. Second, this is obviously a choice that small businesses make. If they want to they can incorporate and enjoy the pleasure of double taxation. Third, the tax you're talking about doesn't apply to a business -- it applies to the individual income of someone who may or may not own a small business. If you have a small business and use pass-through taxation then the business doesn't pay any income tax at all.
Click to expand...


Is Obama aiming to hike taxes on ‘small business’? - The Washington Post

<snip>
The result, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, is that only 3 percent of all “small businesses” paying taxes would be affected by Obama’s plan to lift marginal tax rates on families making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000. (See page 25 of the JCT report.) That group — about 750,000 taxpayers — accounts for 50 percent of the estimated $1 trillion in business income reported in 2011. The other 97 percent of “small businesses” shared the rest — and under Obama’s plan, they would get to keep their Bush-era tax cuts.
<snip>
 
AdamT said:
Is that what happened in the 90s? Or from the late 40s to the 80s, when tax rates were far higher? :roll:
Click to expand...



When tax rates were far higher, pre-90's, there were a bunch of deductions that now don't exist, like Credit Card interest for one.

In one of his races, one of Ted Kennedy's unsuccessful challengers noted that he know nothing about business because his businesses always lost money. Well, he was half right. He knew business pretty well and knew that you don't pay tax on a loss.

If you raise rates on the rich, the rich will find a way to not pay because they rig the game. Put us all in the same boat, make the rates reasonable and eliminate all deductions. Every single one. Pay what you owe.
 
Ikari said:
At this point, Obama does seem to be the better choice between the two. That being said, Obama is not a good choice, just slightly better than Obama.
Click to expand...



Spending has increased by more than 800 Billion /year while revenues have dropped by about a hundred billion. The economy is in the dumper. There are 3.5 million fewer Americans working right now than there were 4 years ago today. The U6 unemployment rate is up around 15%.

What could you possibly be looking at that would make you think that obama has even the first clue as to what makes the economy go?
 
Travis007 said:
Now thats liberalism in one amazing post..
Click to expand...

And that's a completely worthless post with no value what so ever in one sad, partisan post.
 
code1211 said:
Spending has increased by more than 800 Billion /year while revenues have dropped by about a hundred billion. The economy is in the dumper. There are 3.5 million fewer Americans working right now than there were 4 years ago today. The U6 unemployment rate is up around 15%.

What could you possibly be looking at that would make you think that obama has even the first clue as to what makes the economy go?
Click to expand...

He did inherit a rather poor economy to start with. But do not mistake my post, I was not praising Obama's ability. I think he's pretty much at zero, it's just that Romney goes the extra mile and has dug even further down.
 
AdamT said:
Is that what happened in the 90s? Or from the late 40s to the 80s, when tax rates were far higher? :roll:
Click to expand...

Maybe you can point to the type of computerization revolution that we had in the 90's that's happening today? If companies didn't computerize after Windows 95 and Office 95 productivity software came out they went under quickly. The economy prospered despite Clinton's tax hikes not because of them.
 
Prof. Peabody said:
Maybe you can point to the type of computerization revolution that we had in the 90's that's happening today? If companies didn't computerize after Windows 95 and Office 95 productivity software came out they went under quickly. The economy prospered despite Clinton's tax hikes not because of them.
Click to expand...

Err, how old are you, chief? Because companies actually started computerizing in the 70s and 80s. I know because I was designing some of their databases.
 
:lamo

Whats the difference between Bain taking over failing businesses and making them successful and the Fed taking over the auto industry, shutting down and reorganizing certain factories resulting in layoffs and forcing dealerships to be shutdown against their will for the 'greater good'?

Nothing.

Obama SO understand business. I mean...he has so much EXPERIENCE with business. Just look at the communities he has organized. And hey...hows that unemployment rate doing...no...not the manufactured numbers they are reporting...thats obscene enough to prove Dood 1 is incapable of doing the job. No..I mean the ACTUAL unemployment rates...the one that includes massively underemployed individuals and the people that have simply left the work force? Hows that unemployment rate for minority groups doing?

Oh...to be true...Romney has many faults...but claiming Obama 'understands' business is moronic. But understanding pandering to his crippled dependent base? Dood 1 has that down to a science.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
I don't think either of them or experts in economics, regardless of their ideological bent. What's more important is to see who their advisers are.
Click to expand...

Good point. Romney has chosen mostly former Bush advsors for the economy and Bush neocons for his foriegn policy advice. It is a sad day when the best this "businessman" can do is more of the same failed policiies of GW Bush.

.Romney Economic Outsider Image Backed by Bush-Era Policy
By Lisa Lerer - May 7, 2012 12:00 AM ET .
Mitt Romney is campaigning across the country as a business-turnaround specialist, casting himself as a political outsider who understands “the real economy.”
Yet to craft his economic plans, the Republican presidential candidate has turned to a group of Washington insiders.
Among the financial and business experts advising Romney’s campaign are Columbia University’s R. Glenn Hubbard and Harvard University’s N. Gregory Mankiw, both economists who headed the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. Rounding out the team are former Missouri Senator Jim Talent and onetime Minnesota Congressman Vin Weber, now Republican lobbyists at Washington-based firms.
Click to expand...

Romney Economic Outsider Image Backed by Bush-Era Policy - Bloomberg
 
Prof. Peabody said:
Maybe you can point to the type of computerization revolution that we had in the 90's that's happening today? If companies didn't computerize after Windows 95 and Office 95 productivity software came out they went under quickly. The economy prospered despite Clinton's tax hikes not because of them.
Click to expand...

So those tax hikes did prove something then. You CAN have a booming, vibrant economy with the Rates that Clinton had. We are about to see a repeat performance.
 
iguanaman said:
So those tax hikes did prove something then. You CAN have a booming, vibrant economy with the Rates that Clinton had. We are about to see a repeat performance.
Click to expand...

Or that they would only survive during a BOOMING economy. Link HERE
 
Ikari said:
At this point, Obama does seem to be the better choice between the two. That being said, Obama is not a good choice, just slightly better than Obama.
Click to expand...
I like that, even with the probable mis-type! Because they are in truth interchangeable.
 
Ikari said:
He did inherit a rather poor economy to start with. But do not mistake my post, I was not praising Obama's ability. I think he's pretty much at zero, it's just that Romney goes the extra mile and has dug even further down.
Click to expand...




In what pursuit did Romney fail. Beyond that, in what pursuit did Romney fail in the astronomical proportions that the obama has failed in this job?
 
code1211 said:
In what pursuit did Romney fail. Beyond that, in what pursuit did Romney fail in the astronomical proportions that the obama has failed in this job?
Click to expand...

He failed in his four years of elective office, or was at best average. Unless you count Obomneycare as a success....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom