Romney and the tax thing

[quote name='Knoell']I stopped at this - "The main problem is the simple fact that the rich don't spend their fucking money. They sit on it and sit on it"

Because on the same breath you will complain about Wall St making too much money on the backs of companies they invest in.

Contradict much?

I will ask you the same question I asked Myke, how is twice the PERCENTAGE not enough?

In the past I have heard people on this forum saying we should go back to the 70+% era(which in and of itself is not what they think it was). Greed, and Foolishness[/QUOTE]

I didn't say anything about making too much money on the backs of companies they invest in. I pointed out that Romney has been outed as being one of the groups of investors who buys a company in distress for less than it is worth, sucks all the value out of the company, and then throws it away. What did he do with the profits from those companies? Invest in more or sits on it, like I said. Where are the jobs from those companies? Gone. Its not like he invested in those companies for some altruistic reason, he did it to amass more wealth. Wealth which he will continue to use just a fraction of to make himself richer and the vast majority of which he will sit on.

I could go the way of "I asked you first" for not answering my rather direct question of why do you fight for them but I'm fairly certain the reason you avoided it is because you just don't know why you fight for them. Maybe its some delusional sense of "fairness" like I mentioned or perhaps its that faint hope that one day you'll be one of them. Got some sad news for you, you won't be a millionaire. The sooner you realize that and do yourself a favor and stop fighting for them, the better off you'll be.

Why is twice as much percentage not enough? Because they don't NEED it all. Its opulence, decadence, and greed that we as a society were somehow taught isn't a big deal anymore after being ruled by those people with all the money up until 1776. Can they have nicer stuff because they work harder? Absolutely. What do they do with all that money except buy gold plated Hummers; $10, 20, 50, 100 million mansions; or whatever other luxury item is chic at the moment. Its sick, plain and simple, that we're supposed to somehow feel sorry for someone in the highest tax bracket because they couldn't afford to remodel the pool at their 3rd house because they pay twice the percentage of taxes an average family does. You know what happens when the average family runs low on cash? Its not the pool they're worried about but rather the mortgage on their home.

The rich can worry about themselves, they have plenty of people to do that for them if they think their 30% is unfair. I will concede that 70% is unfair as well but more than 30% is hardly going to hurt these people's bottom lines but rather they might have to give up 1 more of their luxury items for the year.

[quote name='mykevermin']Thanks for the explanation, RvB. If you're into leisure reading that will make your blood boil, I'd recommend Hacker and Pierson's "Winner Takes All Politics" and Michael Lewis's "The Big Short." The former is about the influence of wealth on our political system on the whole, the latter a very thorough journalistic account of the financial crisis, with special emphasis on the hot potato nature of ARMs, CDOs and the like.[/QUOTE]

I probably won't get to them for a while but I added them to my Amazon wish list, they seem like they'll be interesting reads.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Neither. I want spending to go down.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']*this*.

Obama's statement is exactly what's wrong with Washington (notice I didn't mention a particular political party here). The idea of cutting spending is so alien to them, they can't even consider it part of the equation. It's either "tax and spend" or "debt and spend"... How about cut and spend?

The funny thing is, I'm not even against the idea of raising taxes - but not until Washington shows that they're going to use that increase in revenue wisely. Something they haven't shown the slightest hint of.

Also, just because I love the topic of taxes so much... we can all agree that what Romney is doing is pretty much legal (though some of the off shore business is questionable). All of you who are in here crying about Romney's finances should make sure you file your state taxes correctly this year - including paying for the use tax on your internet purchases (as applicable). I mean, surely no one in here would be so hypocritical as to blast Romney for using legal loopholes to avoid his "fair share" of taxes while you are actually circumventing the law to avoid paying your own "fair share"...[/QUOTE]

It's a valliant effort gentlemen, but I already raised the issue that we should reduce spending before we try to increase revenue, and it somehow got answered with, "Why should we? Foreign aid is a small amount." Then I suggested we significantly cut military spending too and the usual suspect far left posters went off on some other rant that didn't hold my interest and didn't address military spending. Probably for the sake of continued argument since those same people likely share my opinion of: get our military the hell out of most foreign countries.

Up next, the three of us will be called stupid, insane, and/or heartless. Much like the economy, it's cyclical.
 
Defense spending is one area that spending can (and should be dramatically cut). Other than that it's drop in the bucket things like foreign aid (that many times is buying peace) and some wasteful spending from redundancies and inefficiencies etc. That stuff can be scaled back, but you're not looking at enough savings to make a dent in the deficit.

And all that money that can be saved through slashing defense etc. is needed elsewhere--and not just for paying down the debt.

We need to up spending in a variety of areas if the US wants to remain a world leader and not become a second rate world power in the coming decades.

-Building and upgrading infrastructure (roads and bridges, power grid, broadband speed and availability etc.)

-Investing in research and development. The US used to lead in these things, now many (if not most) new major technologies are being developed in other countries. Clean energy is one area where we should be trying to be the world leader in new developments as that will be the next major tech revolution.

-Improving the education system at all levels. The US if falling way behind many other countries on pretty much every educational achievement measure. And that's a big part of why some many things are being invented and developed elsewhere. Our country is getting dumber, while others are getting smarter.

-Dealing with medicare and social security. People have paid into these programs and deserve the coverage, so it has to be funded. And we should be providing such safety nets for people who can't save enough to care for themselves in old age--which will be an increasing population as the middle class continues to shrink.

-Various efforts to combat multi-generational poverty and make upward mobility actually possible again. Rather than the current trend where the poor stay poor and many middle class kids end up worse off than their parents.

etc.
 
Some more about the loophole Romney uses to pay 15% even though it's not capital gains on his own income.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...make-him-rich/2012/01/25/gIQA4N9OQQ_blog.html

Romney may reconsider tax break that helped make him rich

As a private-equity fund manager, Romney benefited from the “carried interest” loophole that taxed much of his income at Bain Capital at 15 percent. Now it seems he’s willing to reconsider the tax break that helped make him rich, the Wall Street Journal reports:

If elected president, Mitt Romney might consider ending a tax break that helped the former Massachusetts governor accumulate his fortune, an aide suggested Tuesday. ... Lanhee Chen, the candidate’s policy director, indicated in a call with reporters the candidate might be willing to reconsider a tax break known as “carried interest” as part of a comprehensive tax overhaul. ... There are “a number of exemptions, deductions, credits, administrative treatment of income ... that would be addressed in tax reform,” Mr. Chen said.

The story notes that Romney praised the carried interest break for private-equity and hedge fund managers back in 2008
Click to expand...

And here's the story noted in the last sentence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...at-15-percent/2012/01/17/gIQA7d8g5P_blog.html
 
[quote name='berzirk']It's a valliant effort gentlemen, but I already raised the issue that we should reduce spending before we try to increase revenue, and it somehow got answered with, "Why should we? Foreign aid is a small amount." Then I suggested we significantly cut military spending too and the usual suspect far left posters went off on some other rant that didn't hold my interest and didn't address military spending. Probably for the sake of continued argument since those same people likely share my opinion of: get our military the hell out of most foreign countries.

Up next, the three of us will be called stupid, insane, and/or heartless. Much like the economy, it's cyclical.[/QUOTE]

I think you missed the point.

Intentionally no doubt but still, cutting "foreign aid" would not make basically any impact on the deficit/debt.

Your butt hurt is presumably because you are embarrassed you were off by a few hundred percent.

Feel free to use "far left" as an insult just spare me when you aren't taken seriously.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Defense spending is one area that spending can (and should be dramatically cut). Other than that it's drop in the bucket things like foreign aid (that many times is buying peace) and some wasteful spending from redundancies and inefficiencies etc. That stuff can be scaled back, but you're not looking at enough savings to make a dent in the deficit.

And all that money that can be saved through slashing defense etc. is needed elsewhere--and not just for paying down the debt.

We need to up spending in a variety of areas if the US wants to remain a world leader and not become a second rate world power in the coming decades.

-Building and upgrading infrastructure (roads and bridges, power grid, broadband speed and availability etc.)

-Investing in research and development. The US used to lead in these things, now many (if not most) new major technologies are being developed in other countries. Clean energy is one area where we should be trying to be the world leader in new developments as that will be the next major tech revolution.

-Improving the education system at all levels. The US if falling way behind many other countries on pretty much every educational achievement measure. And that's a big part of why some many things are being invented and developed elsewhere. Our country is getting dumber, while others are getting smarter.

-Dealing with medicare and social security. People have paid into these programs and deserve the coverage, so it has to be funded. And we should be providing such safety nets for people who can't save enough to care for themselves in old age--which will be an increasing population as the middle class continues to shrink.

-Various efforts to combat multi-generational poverty and make upward mobility actually possible again. Rather than the current trend where the poor stay poor and many middle class kids end up worse off than their parents.

etc.[/QUOTE]

I always enjoy your posts. I think they are well thought out, and don't follow a party line, they just make sense. I agree with damn near all of that. If we maintain an annual debt, while spending far more money on Americans, I'm alright with that. Pissing away money overseas is where my ass gets chapped.

Our foreign policy is such a disaster, probably the worst it's been since the Cold War, that the aid we're providing, trying to buy peace, is likely more damaging than it is helpful.

While I've learned (thanks to this thread) that foreign aid is a small amount, if we're talking about reducing spending, why not reduce frivelous spending, regardless of the amount. That's how so much shit gets grandfathered in, "we've just always spent on this, so it must be right."

Everything should be technically on the table for cuts. Many should be removed quickly, but it all needs some housecleaning and new layer of varnish.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Your butt hurt is presumably because you are embarrassed you were off by a few hundred percent.

Feel free to use "far left" as an insult just spare me when you aren't taken seriously.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. I'm glad you educated me on it. I had assumed for a long time that it was a greater expense.

Hey, I dislike extremists on both sides. I know you wouldn't like it, but I consider you and a handful of others to be quite similar to Knoell, in the sense that you're at the extremes of your respective parties. Don't get butthurt when your comment history alligns you so. :razz:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Thanks for the explanation, RvB. If you're into leisure reading that will make your blood boil, I'd recommend Hacker and Pierson's "Winner Takes All Politics" and Michael Lewis's "The Big Short." The former is about the influence of wealth on our political system on the whole, the latter a very thorough journalistic account of the financial crisis, with special emphasis on the hot potato nature of ARMs, CDOs and the like.[/QUOTE]
I'm surprised you also didn't recommend Griftopia and Shock Doctrine.;)

[quote name='berzirk']It's a valliant effort gentlemen, but I already raised the issue that we should reduce spending before we try to increase revenue, and it somehow got answered with, "Why should we? Foreign aid is a small amount." Then I suggested we significantly cut military spending too and the usual suspect far left posters went off on some other rant that didn't hold my interest and didn't address military spending. Probably for the sake of continued argument since those same people likely share my opinion of: get our military the hell out of most foreign countries.

Up next, the three of us will be called stupid, insane, and/or heartless. Much like the economy, it's cyclical.[/QUOTE]
L.O.L. my friend. L.O.L.

If you can't tell the difference between cutting all programs across the board, which you seem to support, instead of focusing on the largest line items, the problem isn't that of the "far left." I mean fuck, do you think that PBS should be cut-off from government funds or have their budgets slashed some more as well? Or what about higher-education?
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'm surprised you also didn't recommend Griftopia and Shock Doctrine.;)


L.O.L. my friend. L.O.L.

If you can't tell the difference between cutting all programs across the board, which you seem to support, instead of focusing on the largest line items, the problem isn't that of the "far left." I mean fuck, do you think that PBS should be cut-off from government funds or have their budgets slashed some more as well? Or what about higher-education?[/QUOTE]

As a former comedian, any laugh is a good laugh. Glad I could bring some joy :p

I don't think PBS should be cut-off, and I don't have strong opinions on federal money to higher ed. The one thing I would freely admit is that giving more money (or the same amount) to higher ed is far less dangerous and damaging than giving it to crazy dictators so they can shit in golden toilets.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Not at all. I'm glad you educated me on it. I had assumed for a long time that it was a greater expense.

Hey, I dislike extremists on both sides. I know you wouldn't like it, but I consider you and a handful of others to be quite similar to Knoell, in the sense that you're at the extremes of your respective parties. Don't get butthurt when your comment history alligns you so. :razz:[/QUOTE]
No false equivalence there either!:roll:

Comparing a know-nothing right-wing parrot like knoell to someone like msut77, who happens to be a smartass on occassion, but usually drops some actual knowledge on people is just plain dumb and dishonest. You might as well say that astronomers are the same as astrologists and you hate them both because they're on the extremes of science and hokum.
 
[quote name='berzirk']It's a valliant effort gentlemen, but I already raised the issue that we should reduce spending before we try to increase revenue, and it somehow got answered with, "Why should we? Foreign aid is a small amount." Then I suggested we significantly cut military spending too and the usual suspect far left posters went off on some other rant that didn't hold my interest and didn't address military spending. Probably for the sake of continued argument since those same people likely share my opinion of: get our military the hell out of most foreign countries.

Up next, the three of us will be called stupid, insane, and/or heartless. Much like the economy, it's cyclical.[/QUOTE]

I'm all for cutting defense spending, we're not at war, we don't need to spend that much money on defending ourselves. Plain and simple. One way we could do that would be accountability in defense spending. These far too much secrecy and lack of accountability with defense spending that its staggering. It might be somewhat easier to understand our defense spending if we had almost any clue at all what the money was going to. For god's sake, we have the 2nd largest standing army and we're still told on a regular basis that we don't have enough troops. How, why?

Foreign aid, while easy on the surface to get incensed about shouldn't go anywhere. We have very little goodwill across the world, if we cut foreign aid completely the little bit of goodwill we have will dry up. As others have pointed out though anything compared to defense spending is really just a drop in the bucket.

Cutting salaries of congressman, elected officials, etc. are fun things to poke at as being wasteful but these just won't make a difference.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Cutting salaries of congressman, elected officials, etc. are fun things to poke at as being wasteful but these just won't make a difference.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I agree, the amounts are negligable, but if we cut spending for 25 drop in the bucket, silly expenditures, it adds up. The big one is military obviously, but foreign aid appears to be around 50B. If you can find 10 more "50B's" out there, we're cutting a half a trillion in spending, and that starts to make a dent. Just because it's a relatively small amount, doesn't mean it's money well spent.

I'm with Uncle Bob on this one. Let the government show they are capable of cutting spending, then make the case for trying to raise tax revenue, and more people will be receptive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='berzirk'] Let the government show they are capable of cutting spending, then make the case for trying to raise tax revenue, and more people will be receptive.[/QUOTE]

You are just being silly.

There is no reason to entertain this level of stupid.

A while back you were asked to make (rather attempt to make) an argument that there is some utility in taxing billionaires less.

Like you know, how it was originally sold to the American people.
 
You are just being silly.There is no reason to entertain this level of stupid.A while back you were asked to make (rather attempt to make) an argument that there is some utility in taxing billionaires less.Like you know, how it was originally sold to the American people.
Click to expand...
I've seen you post some stupid things on this board, but this one takes the cake. Cutting spending money that doesn't exist is silly and a level of stupid that need not be entertained? Ugh.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You are just being silly.

There is no reason to entertain this level of stupid.

A while back you were asked to make (rather attempt to make) an argument that there is some utility in taxing billionaires less.

Like you know, how it was originally sold to the American people.[/QUOTE]

Sweet. So we've covered stupid, silly is essentially covering insane. Now all we're waiting for is for someone to cover heartless, then we're ready to have big boy discussions while we wait for our next cycle.

So you don't think we need to cut federal spending, or the government shouldn't make efforts at that before raising taxes? Hunh. I disagree...and I'm stupid.

It's a pity, because I'd enjoy talking about these issues so much more in person, because I think people choose to be more civil with that method of communication, and there would be a real discussion, but we're stuck with the tools at our disposal I suppose.

Feel free to stop entertaining.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Not at all. I'm glad you educated me on it. I had assumed for a long time that it was a greater expense.

Hey, I dislike extremists on both sides. I know you wouldn't like it, but I consider you and a handful of others to be quite similar to Knoell, in the sense that you're at the extremes of your respective parties. Don't get butthurt when your comment history alligns you so. :razz:[/QUOTE]

I don't mind that you're an ignoramous.

However it is grating that you are so proud of it.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I've seen you post some stupid things on this board, but this one takes the cake. Cutting spending money that doesn't exist is silly and a level of stupid that need not be entertained? Ugh.[/QUOTE]

Next time make some sense
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't mind that you're an ignoramous.

However it is grating that you are so proud of it.[/QUOTE]

Ah man! Now I'm blushing. Thank you for the constuctive comments. I cling to CAG comments personally, in fact I print most of them out and put them up on the ceiling in my bedroom, so I can stare at them at night.

Thank you for this post. It's not going on the ceiling, it's getting framed and put up right next to my Doctorate in Applied Mouseclicking from the University of Phoenix!

This is such...serious...business.
 
[quote name='Msut77']A while back you were asked to make (rather attempt to make) an argument that there is some utility in taxing billionaires less.[/QUOTE]


It goes back to the Friedman model of "this works so let us break it" which is/was piggybacking on "your theory is bad on paper but works, mine works on paper but is bad in application." Add that to the (R) principle of ignoring reality in favour of their delightful whimsy and suddenly taxing the highest income earners less gets skewed into "they'll use the extra money to create jobs" which of course hasn't happened but that doesn't matter because it will, at least in theory, happen eventually.
 
Well you can't expect the party that all but rejects science to understand the difference between theory and practical application.
 
I also don't expect the party that preaches to practice that whole kindness and forgiveness thing either
 
[quote name='berzirk']Oh, I agree, the amounts are negligable, but if we cut spending for 25 drop in the bucket, silly expenditures, it adds up. The big one is military obviously, but foreign aid appears to be around 50B. If you can find 10 more "50B's" out there, we're cutting a half a trillion in spending, and that starts to make a dent. Just because it's a relatively small amount, doesn't mean it's money well spent.

I'm with Uncle Bob on this one. Let the government show they are capable of cutting spending, then make the case for trying to raise tax revenue, and more people will be receptive.[/QUOTE]
This is a horse-shit argument. In case you haven't noticed, we've been picking at the little things like ACORN, PBS, EPA, DoE, etc for decades while rapidly expanding the DoD past any savings from areas cut. Foreign aid is less than 1% of the budget at $35b in FY2011 compared to $550b to the DoD alone, without counting other military related agencies that bring the military spending total to $1.5t. Where the hell else are you going to cut when literally everything except military spending has been cut?

You have a 24 ounce filet mignon with a 2lb stuffed Maine lobster on your plate and you're worrying about the cracked pepper on your coleslaw. Maybe it's time to start worrying about that filet or lobster instead of the cracked pepper.
 
Not to mention that as the wealthiest nation in the world, I don't think that a little charitable aid is exactly out of line, especially when it amounts to so little of our overall spending. Granted I do think we should make better attempts at making sure the aid goes to what it's intended for, be it food or medicine etc..
 
[quote name='berzirk']It's a pity, because I'd enjoy talking about these issues so much more in person, because I think people choose to be more civil with that method of communication, and there would be a real discussion, but we're stuck with the tools at our disposal I suppose.[/QUOTE]

Now you are just being dishonest.

You don't want to have a conversation, you are not even attempting to defend lower tax rates for millionaires because there is no evidence it does any good.

Which is why the only working definition for conservative is "someone who is in favor of aristocracy".
 
[quote name='berzirk']Ah man! Now I'm blushing. Thank you for the constuctive comments. I cling to CAG comments personally, in fact I print most of them out and put them up on the ceiling in my bedroom, so I can stare at them at night.

Thank you for this post. It's not going on the ceiling, it's getting framed and put up right next to my Doctorate in Applied Mouseclicking from the University of Phoenix!

This is such...serious...business.[/QUOTE]

np
 
[quote name='dohdough']This is a horse-shit argument. In case you haven't noticed, we've been picking at the little things like ACORN, PBS, EPA, DoE, etc for decades while rapidly expanding the DoD past any savings from areas cut. Foreign aid is less than 1% of the budget at $35b in FY2011 compared to $550b to the DoD alone, without counting other military related agencies that bring the military spending total to $1.5t. Where the hell else are you going to cut when literally everything except military spending has been cut?

You have a 24 ounce filet mignon with a 2lb stuffed Maine lobster on your plate and you're worrying about the cracked pepper on your coleslaw. Maybe it's time to start worrying about that filet or lobster instead of the cracked pepper.[/QUOTE]

I think people on both sides of the aisle are starting to get pissed?

Most of the conservatives on this board are right-wing talk show junkies and die-hard Republican party loyalists (independent my ass) but the backlash against Romney shows me that conservatives are starting to understand that giving the rich a free ride is not a productive economic strategy.
 
[quote name='dohdough']This is a horse-shit argument. In case you haven't noticed, we've been picking at the little things like ACORN, PBS, EPA, DoE, etc for decades while rapidly expanding the DoD past any savings from areas cut. Foreign aid is less than 1% of the budget at $35b in FY2011 compared to $550b to the DoD alone, without counting other military related agencies that bring the military spending total to $1.5t. Where the hell else are you going to cut when literally everything except military spending has been cut?[/QUOTE]

Please show where I have said Military spending is rad and we should keep spending that much. We're discussing federal spending on CAG, not in front of Congress. If I'm ever asked to create a federal budget plan, I'll gladly put in the time and effort to research it more. Offhand comments and opinion seem more than adequate for a videogame forum. I've heard of ACORN, but I couldn't tell you what they do. I don't really care.

[quote name='Clak']Not to mention that as the wealthiest nation in the world, I don't think that a little charitable aid is exactly out of line, especially when it amounts to so little of our overall spending. Granted I do think we should make better attempts at making sure the aid goes to what it's intended for, be it food or medicine etc..[/QUOTE]

I agree. I think we should increase our funding of health/medical programs, the AIDS money Bush II was instrumental in funding is also wonderfully spent money. Why can't more of this be done through NGOs? Now explain what charity Israel, Egypt, or Afghanistan need. Have you visited any of these countries? Our money goes into the pockets of the powerful, or to further illegal activities that our administration condemns, it doesn't go to the people.

[quote name='Msut77']Now you are just being dishonest.

You don't want to have a conversation, you are not even attempting to defend lower tax rates for millionaires because there is no evidence it does any good.[/QUOTE]

Shit. I hate it when people know my intent in things I say and I don't. You're right. Your opinion is more valuable, hell, it's so much more valuable, you can inform me on the foundation of my comment.

When have I said lower tax rates for millionaires is good? Christ almighty, let me make my own dumb comments, don't fabricate them.

When I have face to face conversations with people, we agree, disagree, finish our coffee, and talk about our kids. We don't throw childish insults back and forth. Maybe I give you too much credit and assume you're capable of the same civility face to face. If I have, please accept my apologies.

Love,

Berzirk
 
[quote name='camoor']I think people on both sides of the aisle are starting to get pissed?

Most of the conservatives on this board are right-wing talk show junkies and die-hard Republican party loyalists (independent my ass) but the backlash against Romney shows me that conservatives are starting to understand that giving the rich a free ride is not a productive economic strategy.[/QUOTE]
It'd be nice if this was the case, but I just don't see it. They just plain don't like him and he doesn't really energize anyone. Obama really raised the bar for likability/charisma in presidential candidates and the conservatives have been desperate to find someone to compete with it. That's why Jindal and Cantor were thrown into the mix as relative unknowns. Looking young doesn't give street cred anymore than selecting a milf as running mate to appeal to women. It's too transparently cynical. The last guy they had was Reagan and I don't see anyone in the current stable honestly beating a democratic opponent in 2016, not to say that it won't be close.
 
[quote name='dohdough']It'd be nice if this was the case, but I just don't see it. They just plain don't like him and he doesn't really energize anyone. Obama really raised the bar for likability/charisma in presidential candidates and the conservatives have been desperate to find someone to compete with it. That's why Jindal and Cantor were thrown into the mix as relative unknowns. Looking young doesn't give street cred anymore than selecting a milf as running mate to appeal to women. It's too transparently cynical. The last guy they had was Reagan and I don't see anyone in the current stable honestly beating a democratic opponent in 2016, not to say that it won't be close.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. I'll likely end up voting for Obama this election (been trying to get back into voting, even if there isn't a candidate I strongly support), as he's far less dangerous than whoever the Republicans will nominate. I think Christie is the only person who would have a shot in 2016, but no doubt he has some dirty (very large) laundry that will come out and prevent him from moving on. The media digs Christie, he's quick on his feet, and (I don't think at least) he doesn't fit the mold of really rich old guy, which is what the past few candidates have been.
 
[quote name='dohdough']It'd be nice if this was the case, but I just don't see it. They just plain don't like him and he doesn't really energize anyone. Obama really raised the bar for likability/charisma in presidential candidates and the conservatives have been desperate to find someone to compete with it. That's why Jindal and Cantor were thrown into the mix as relative unknowns. Looking young doesn't give street cred anymore than selecting a milf as running mate to appeal to women. It's too transparently cynical. The last guy they had was Reagan and I don't see anyone in the current stable honestly beating a democratic opponent in 2016, not to say that it won't be close.[/QUOTE]

Romney may be kind of wooden, but overall I don't think he's that uncharismatic. It's not like Newt or Santorum are a laugh-a-minute (beyond their policies ZING)

No - I think there's something more to the Romney backlash, if we were still fighting the BS social policy warz then they would be attacking Mormonism and dissecting his stance on abortion. But outside of Santorum supporters most folks don't seem to give a shit about that.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Agreed. I'll likely end up voting for Obama this election (been trying to get back into voting, even if there isn't a candidate I strongly support), as he's far less dangerous than whoever the Republicans will nominate. I think Christie is the only person who would have a shot in 2016, but no doubt he has some dirty (very large) laundry that will come out and prevent him from moving on. The media digs Christie, he's quick on his feet, and (I don't think at least) he doesn't fit the mold of really rich old guy, which is what the past few candidates have been.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...I see what you did there! But I think that's something that might hold him back. I can't remember the last fat president since Taft or T. Roosevelt and if we've learned anything from the Kennedy/Nixon debate, it's that you gotta look good on tv and he does not look good. I don't know if his pedigree as a NE republican governor will help him, but he wouldn't last more than 1 poll in the sad comedy that is currently the republican primary. From what I know of him, he's too boring for this circus.

Hell, I can vote for Elizabeth Warren, but I'm probably going to vote Green...LOLZ.

[quote name='camoor']Romney may be kind of wooden, but overall I don't think he's that uncharismatic. It's not like Newt or Santorum are a laugh-a-minute (beyond their policies ZING)

No - I think there's something more to the Romney backlash, if we were still fighting the BS social policy warz then they would be attacking Mormonism and dissecting his stance on abortion. But outside of Santorum supporters most folks don't seem to give a shit about that.[/QUOTE]
I dunno...Romney isn't really playing the Southern Strategy yet or getting too much into the culture wars, but he's been pretty big on class war talk, which interestingly enough, is probably hurting him Because he hasn't been talking about culture wars that conservatism is losing. Beyond the other reasons I gave, using culture wars will also work against Romney and the establishment wants a semblance of a fight for the presidency to grease their real bid for the office in 2016. This is just my opinion of course, but I'm sure we all agree that in general, conservatives will circle the wagons and pull that lever for Romney. This is the only explanation I can think of that would tell us why we've been having flavors of the week for the past few months.
 
[quote name='camoor']conservatives are starting to understand that giving the rich a free ride is not a productive election/re-election strategy.[/QUOTE]

ftfy
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Is "offhand" doublespeak for "uninformed"?

Also, omg want surf and turf now.[/QUOTE]

I'd say more like mildly informed, but on some topics it could vary as widely as uninformed.

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."
-Socrates
 
[quote name='Magus8472']It's a tax on capital gains. Generally, if you invest $1000 of your after-tax wages and later cash out that investment for $1500, all of the $500 gain and none of the $1000 return of principal is taxed at that time. Likewise, if the same investment yielded a return of $500, you'd have suffered a $500 capital loss, which results in a tax deduction. There may be circumstances where this scheme doesn't make facial sense (such as when the gain is entirely attributable to inflation), but those mostly have little to do with double taxation.

Granted, there are areas of the tax code which do call for taxation of the same sum twice, the most prevalent of which is in the case of a dividend from a C Corporation. There, however, two separate entities (the corporation and the shareholder) are each paying a tax independent from one another, so even then the kind of "double taxation" of the individual you're talking about isn't occurring.

EDIT: And by the by, the corporate tax issue is likely one of the factors behind the increase in the proportion of business filing as S Corporations, LLCs, and other entities which don't pay federal corporate tax.[/QUOTE]

I know that :D

It's not technically double taxation, but in effect it could be... as you pointed out, there is inflation and gains on paper don't always amount to real gains and vice versa.

The basic point is that there are vastly different scenarios
1. When you have a bunch of money invested and are using gains as your income, the capital gains rules give you, in effect a tax break relative to working people who get a salary.

2. When you earn the same amount through your job and just try to invest some of your money to keep up with inflation, the government makes this more difficult, by taking away some of the profit. Also, there are no guarantees of gains and depending on when you buy/sell, you can show a gain on paper, while having a net loss...

The above 2 scenarios favor the already rich and make it harder for one to join those ranks.

If it were up to me, I would tax income and capital gains in parallel. Just as with income tax, if ones capital gains are below a certain amount (a few thousand), this should be tax free. Also, the scale should probably be progressive too just to balance things out... Of course this should be done in conjunction with significant spending cuts to try to keep these rates as low as possible.
 
Ok, Mitt is either an idiot or thinks the American people are idiots enough to not question this bullshit reasoning:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...ims-he-actually-pays-a-50-tax-rate?via=blog_1

RAMOS: You just released your tax returns. In 2010 you only paid 13 percent of taxes while most Americans paid much more than that. Is that fair?

ROMNEY: Well, actually, I released two years of taxes and I think the average is almost 15 percent. And then also, on top of that, I gave another more 15 percent to charity. When you add it together with all of the taxes and the charity, partiularly in the last year, I think it reaches almost 40 percent that I gave back to the community. One of the reasons why we have a lower tax rate on capital gains is because capital gains are also being taxed at the corporate level. So as businesses earn profits, that’s taxed at 35 percent, then as they distribute those profits as dividends, that’s taxed at 15 percent more. So, all total, the tax rate is really closer to 45 or 50 percent.

RAMOS: But is it fair what you pay, 13 percent, while most pay much more than that?

ROMNEY: Well, again, I go back to the point that the, that the funds are being taxed twice at two different levels.
Click to expand...
 
Enough people believe that double taxation is a thing that the Romney line might just hold some water. You cant put anything past people anymore, you just cant.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Enough people believe that double taxation is a thing that the Romney line might just hold some water. You cant put anything past people anymore, you just cant.[/QUOTE]

The even more WTF thing is he is basically equating charitable contributions to taxes. LMAO
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Romney is a smart guy. I'm thinking the latter. He really thinks people are that stupid.[/QUOTE]
I'm guessing he has an idea, but leaves it up to the accountants to figure out the details as well as for plausible deniability. He's smart enough to know what he should have no business knowing.
 
[quote name='BigT']I know that :D

It's not technically double taxation, but in effect it could be... as you pointed out, there is inflation and gains on paper don't always amount to real gains and vice versa.[/QUOTE]

Sure, and that's one of the reasons capital gains are taxed at a lower rate. But you're right, the underlying problem is that preferential rates on capital gains disproportionately favor higher-income taxpayers, if for no other reason than they're the only ones in position to take advantage of them.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I didn't say anything about making too much money on the backs of companies they invest in. I pointed out that Romney has been outed as being one of the groups of investors who buys a company in distress for less than it is worth, sucks all the value out of the company, and then throws it away. What did he do with the profits from those companies? Invest in more or sits on it, like I said. Where are the jobs from those companies? Gone. Its not like he invested in those companies for some altruistic reason, he did it to amass more wealth. Wealth which he will continue to use just a fraction of to make himself richer and the vast majority of which he will sit on.

I could go the way of "I asked you first" for not answering my rather direct question of why do you fight for them but I'm fairly certain the reason you avoided it is because you just don't know why you fight for them. Maybe its some delusional sense of "fairness" like I mentioned or perhaps its that faint hope that one day you'll be one of them. Got some sad news for you, you won't be a millionaire. The sooner you realize that and do yourself a favor and stop fighting for them, the better off you'll be.

Why is twice as much percentage not enough? Because they don't NEED it all. Its opulence, decadence, and greed that we as a society were somehow taught isn't a big deal anymore after being ruled by those people with all the money up until 1776. Can they have nicer stuff because they work harder? Absolutely. What do they do with all that money except buy gold plated Hummers; $10, 20, 50, 100 million mansions; or whatever other luxury item is chic at the moment. Its sick, plain and simple, that we're supposed to somehow feel sorry for someone in the highest tax bracket because they couldn't afford to remodel the pool at their 3rd house because they pay twice the percentage of taxes an average family does. You know what happens when the average family runs low on cash? Its not the pool they're worried about but rather the mortgage on their home.

The rich can worry about themselves, they have plenty of people to do that for them if they think their 30% is unfair. I will concede that 70% is unfair as well but more than 30% is hardly going to hurt these people's bottom lines but rather they might have to give up 1 more of their luxury items for the year.



I probably won't get to them for a while but I added them to my Amazon wish list, they seem like they'll be interesting reads.[/QUOTE]

The reason I didn't answer your question was because I didn't read past that point. See the part where I said I stopped there? That is where I stopped reading. If you don't understand that then it is pointless to even continue.

As for you insisting that I am fighting for the rich? I am fighting for fair taxation. Just because someone makes 20,000 and I make 80,000 does mean that I should pay a higher amount of taxes. However somewhere in that you all lose the ability to decipher the fact that a percentage of the higher of two numbers is already more. But beyond that little fact is that in addition to paying a higher amount, they are paying twice that higher amount, and you want them to pay more. Sorry but the wealth in this country is not the governments property to do with as it will, or even decide that someone has TOO much. WE allow the government to centralize a portion of OUR money to make the country around us stronger and more prosperous. The government does NOT control the money and decide we can have our allocated amounts.

Maybe just maybe, if the government had some sort of plan ONCESOEVER to put a higher tax rate to good use, I could be behind a temporary increase. However all I hear is we need to raise taxes to spend more. Even the money that is now free from the Iraq war, Obama is already planning to spend. Give me a god damn break.

And also like I said why don't we close a few loopholes before deciding to raise the rates on the vast majority of millionaires who really do pay their fair share.
 
[quote name='berzirk']It's a valliant effort gentlemen, but I already raised the issue that we should reduce spending before we try to increase revenue, and it somehow got answered with, "Why should we? Foreign aid is a small amount." Then I suggested we significantly cut military spending too and the usual suspect far left posters went off on some other rant that didn't hold my interest and didn't address military spending. Probably for the sake of continued argument since those same people likely share my opinion of: get our military the hell out of most foreign countries.

Up next, the three of us will be called stupid, insane, and/or heartless. Much like the economy, it's cyclical.[/QUOTE]

Like I said in the above post, in Obama's SOTU address he is already planning to spend the money freed up from the war. While it is a valiant effort to reinvest in our infrastructure, I thought the reason we could not lower the deficit was because of said war.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The reason I didn't answer your question was because I didn't read past that point. See the part where I said I stopped there? That is where I stopped reading. If you don't understand that then it is pointless to even continue.

As for you insisting that I am fighting for the rich? I am fighting for fair taxation. Just because someone makes 20,000 and I make 80,000 does mean that I should pay a higher amount of taxes. However somewhere in that you all lose the ability to decipher the fact that a percentage of the higher of two numbers is already more. But beyond that little fact is that in addition to paying a higher amount, they are paying twice that higher amount, and you want them to pay more. Sorry but the wealth in this country is not the governments property to do with as it will, or even decide that someone has TOO much. WE allow the government to centralize a portion of OUR money to make the country around us stronger and more prosperous. The government does NOT control the money and decide we can have our allocated amounts.

Maybe just maybe, if the government had some sort of plan ONCESOEVER to put a higher tax rate to good use, I could be behind a temporary increase. However all I hear is we need to raise taxes to spend more. Even the money that is now free from the Iraq war, Obama is already planning to spend. Give me a god damn break.

And also like I said why don't we close a few loopholes before deciding to raise the rates on the vast majority of millionaires who really do pay their fair share.[/QUOTE]

I didn't bother reading your whole post but you absolutely are a lackey of the rich.

Whatever else we can talk about fairness, flat tax rates, whatever - it won't change the fact that you are a lackey of the rich.

It's just undeniable that you stick up for the rich in every conceivable situation - you are a lackey of the rich.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Romney is a smart guy. I'm thinking the latter. He really thinks people are that stupid.[/QUOTE]

Bingo - there is absolutely no way that a former corporate raider hasn't memorized how much he paid in taxes down to the penny.

The job of those guys is to go into a company and assess dense financial records to determine which parts of the business can be sold off for a profit and which parts should just be mothballed.

The idea that someone skilled in dissecting complex corporate financial records wouldn't know about his own personal finances down to the penny is absurd.

He's not an aw shucks Mormon, this is Gordon Gekko runs for President
 
Like I said in the above post, in Obama's SOTU address he is already planning to spend the money freed up from the war. While it is a valiant effort to reinvest in our infrastructure, I thought the reason we could not lower the deficit was because of said war.
Click to expand...
There is no money that is being freed up from the war, seeing as the two wars are being paid for by debt.
 
[quote name='camoor']I didn't bother reading your whole post but you absolutely are a lackey of the rich.

Whatever else we can talk about fairness, flat tax rates, whatever - it won't change the fact that you are a lackey of the rich.

It's just undeniable that you stick up for the rich in every conceivable situation - you are a lackey of the rich.[/QUOTE]

It appears public shaming is going to have an effect.

Also, I am not getting into this again but the lower/middle class cons are definitely bootlickers. It is the peasant mentality, they would rather lie about it then own it for some reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']Also, I am not getting into this again but the lower/middle class cons are definitely bootlickers. It is the peasant mentality, they would rather lie about it then own it for some reason.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, as long as people like them have someone else to shit on, they don't feel so bad about their own situation because they aren't ni-...welfare queens...lazy minorities...well, you know...not "us.";)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top