1st Debate

• gut

  And so what does Obamakare mean for those middle class Americans when employers drop coverage and they have to foot the bill themselves?
  
  The IRC is not just a hodge-podge of middle class welfare, it's also a hodge-podge of deduction and loopholes for corporate and wealthy welfare, as well. It's nothing more than a monstrosity of subsidies to various taxable entities. It's why, despite drastically different tax policies over many many years, historically we pretty consistently average about 18.2% of GDP.
  
  But let's talk about how Obama is going to work with Congress to promote his agenda....Oh wait, we've seen that movie and it was a ginormous flop.
• QuakerOats

  bases_loaded;1287094 wrote:Was last nights ass beating a hate crime?

  ROFLMAO
• QuakerOats

  gut;1287125 wrote:And so what does Obamakare mean for those middle class Americans when employers drop coverage and they have to foot the bill themselves?

  And/or how about the five taxes in obamaKare that will crush the middle class? obama is hoping to get elected before they find out how he is screwing them. What a hypocrite he is.
• gut

  QuakerOats;1287168 wrote:And/or how about the five taxes in obamaKare that will crush the middle class? obama is hoping to get elected before they find out how he is screwing them. What a hypocrite he is.

  It's really just sad and comical to see how the Dems attack and parse Romney's ideas and give Obama an absolute free pass.
  
  When it comes to fiscal and economic policy, Romney is head & shoulders above Obama. The guy who really deserves the scrutiny is the one whose failed policies and agenda have given us the past 4 years.
  
  Then you have people saying "well, how is Romney going to work with Congress to accomplish his goals". Do you really want to go down that road? Shall we talk about how Obama has worked with Congress to accomplish his goals (whatever those are, the guy defines lack of substance)?
• queencitybuckeye

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1287001 wrote:Sure you can, but then you'll find out that it's not the rosey picture you thought it was. What you saved in labor was quickly made up in shipping costs, opportunity costs from delayed said shipping, inconsistencies in your product performance, piracy of your said procduct.. you know.. all the stuff companies are finding out about now

  I'm in the software business, so several of these aren't applicable, but your point that outsourcing is not magic is noted and confirmed by experience in prior jobs.
  

  If you were smart you'd at least send it to China since that's where a lot of your product will be sold. India would be a waste.

  India is still the "sweet spot" between price and performance in software outsourcing, although the landscape is rapidly changing.
  
  
  Your position seems to have a decent measure of being pro-job yet anti-business. The two simply do not work together. Instead of forcing me to consider taking my ball and playing in a different park, does it not make more sense for the government to work with me?
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  queencitybuckeye;1287201 wrote:I'm in the software business, so several of these aren't applicable, but your point that outsourcing is not magic is noted and confirmed by experience in prior jobs.
  
  
  
  India is still the "sweet spot" between price and performance in software outsourcing, although the landscape is rapidly changing.
  
  
  Your position seems to have a decent measure of being pro-job yet anti-business. The two simply do not work together. Instead of forcing me to consider taking my ball and playing in a different park, does it not make more sense for the government to work with me?

  So how is a 20% marginal tax rate going to help you if you're supposedly going to carry the same tax burden with the end of deductions. Mitt isn't being very specific about how his tax plan works.
  
  I assumed you were in manufacturing. India would still be a hotbed for software, yes.
• O-Trap

  

  I actually spit out water when I heard the following last night:
  
  "The Social Security system is fundamentally sound."
  
  Dafuqusmokin?
• gut

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1287218 wrote:So how is a 20% marginal tax rate going to help you if you're supposedly going to carry the same tax burden with the end of deductions. Mitt isn't being very specific about how his tax plan works.
  
  I assumed you were in manufacturing. India would still be a hotbed for software, yes.

  It's not about outsourcing. Lowering marginal rates means business owners keep more of their next dollar. But it's a question of incentives, and since additional revenues are taxed at lower rates it encourages growth, investment and hiring. And we've seen this time and again in the past every time taxes are cut. What makes this "radically" different is by going after deductions/loopholes it offers more to pay for it than the dubious expanded base/growth claims.
  
  Again, Mitt explained this very clearly and it's being so distorted and misunderstood it begs the question if people were actually listening to learn something, as opposed to hearing things they wanted in order to criticize.
  
  Now something Mitt didn't go into detail about is the implicit removal of corporate welfare. Companies (including those filing as individuals) that are doing well are paying the highest marginal rates. These are the people best equipped to reinvest and grow (vs. those being propped-up with corporate welfare, muddling along on deductions, etc...). It's not without it's risks and downsides, but that's a long debate. It's very pro-capitalism in the sense that what it does is relieve strong companies from subsidizing poor ones and makes it more attractive for those good companies to invest and grow.
  
  As for outsourcing, there's not really anything this tax plan says about that. But certainly to the extent that companies outsource or invest overseas because of lower tax rates you make the tax regime here more competitive (and that should have some positive affects).
• gut

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1287218 wrote:So how is a 20% marginal tax rate going to help you if you're supposedly going to carry the same tax burden with the end of deductions.

  Most tax actions have winners and losers, this plan has more. The 2/3 of people who don't itemize are probably net winners, or at least not losers.
  
  Those in the 80-98% range might see some modest increases...The "middle class", including many making $100-$200k that are frequently grouped as "rich millionaires" when it suits some, and "middle class" when it suits others (on both sides of the aisle).
  
  Look, I expect to pay more taxes under Romney. That I think this is inevitable no matter who we elect, and a natural progression of runaway socialism, is beside the point. I'm not even debating if I'll pay more under Obama (probably). I'm not afraid of a modest tax increase if the economy starts doing much better.
  
  Really, who could quibble with higher taxes if wages go up even more? Under Obama wages are down. That's hosing the middle class more than some dubious potential tax increase from Romney would.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  gut;1287238 wrote:It's not about outsourcing. Lowering marginal rates means business owners keep more of their next dollar.

  Last night Mitt said that the 20% rate cut was not going to lower your tax burden bc he was getting rid of the loopholes and deductions. So how are they keeping more of their next dollar?
• lhslep134

  

  gut;1287125 wrote: The IRC is not just a hodge-podge of middle class welfare, it's also a hodge-podge of deduction and loopholes for corporate and wealthy welfare, as well. It's nothing more than a monstrosity of subsidies to various taxable entities. It's why, despite drastically different tax policies over many many years, historically we pretty consistently average about 18.2% of GDP.
  

  Yup, that's my main point. The people who get f*cked by all of this are the people who don't have access to expensive tax lawyers whose job is to maximize the 'loophole'-age of their clients' tax liabilities.
  
  Find a way to attack that, and THEN you're on to something (loophole/deduction elimination).
• gut

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1287278 wrote:Last night Mitt said that the 20% rate cut was not going to lower your tax burden bc he was getting rid of the loopholes and deductions. So how are they keeping more of their next dollar?

  Let's say you make $100k a year and pay $25k in taxes. The combination of rate cuts and deductions eliminated means you still pay $25k taxes (on average, there will be winners and losers but on net the goal is revenue neutrality). But now you only pay 28% on your next $10k in income, vs. 35% or whatever it is. Your marginal rate drops 20%, meaning you keep 20% more of the next dollar you earn.
• gut

  lhslep134;1287292 wrote:Yup, that's my main point. The people who get f*cked by all of this are the people who don't have access to expensive tax lawyers whose job is to maximize the 'loophole'-age of their clients' tax liabilities.
  
  Find a way to attack that, and THEN you're on to something (loophole/deduction elimination).

  How does losing a loophole you don't take advantage of and getting a 20% cut screw you? Good lord, son, think about what you just wrote. That's a ringing endorsement of Romney's plan!
• FatHobbit

  

  Obama acuses Romney of being dishonest during the debate.
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/debate-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
  
  
  
• gut

  FatHobbit;1287324 wrote:Obama acuses Romney of being dishonest during the debate.
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/debate-main/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
  
  
  

  LMAO, every time Obama tried that tired punch in the debate he got bitch-slapped for it. He couldn't sell the lie then and it won't sell after-the-fact.
  
  Talk about lack of substance. Obama doesn't have any - he can't respond substantively to Romney's plan and just keeps parroting a talking point which is, in all honesty, in considerable dispute.
  
  Now, Obama COULD attack the plan debating winners vs. losers (with regard to job creation - it won't "benefit" the wealthy equally). He COULD attack it as potentially little more than tax efficiency (with very marginal gains, relatively speaking, from reduced complexity). He COULD attack it on the basis of transition costs in a fragile economy.
  
  But Obama is incapable of any of that because he's an economic ignoramus. That's the real reason for his poor performance last night. He couldn't go toe-to-toe and get pummeled even worse. He was just hoping to escape that debate still standing.
• QuakerOats

  I wonder if moochelle gave him a good spanking too when they got back to the hotel. She looks really pi$$ed.
  
  
• gut

  QuakerOats;1287326 wrote:I wonder if moochelle gave him a good spanking too when they got back to the hotel. She looks really pi$$ed.

  Well, if they believe their own lies then Romney really cheated his way to stealing that debate from them.
  
  5 trillion! 5 trillion! 5 trillion! 5 trillion! 5 trillion!
  
  
• stlouiedipalma

  If Mitt was being dishonest last night I will be sorely disappointed. After all, he said that he wasn't lowering taxes on the wealthy, those with pre-existing conditions would be able to get coverage under his new health care plan, Medicare will remain unchanged and that he was lowering taxes on the middle class. That sounds like a guy I could vote for.
  
  I know, it runs counter to what he's been saying on the stump but perhaps he's decided that he needs to have a more moderate vision of America. That's why Obama wasn't able to challenge him on his promises and policy statements. I kind of like this new Mitt. I hope he doesn't pull out the etch-a-sketch and change it all back.
• gut

  Well, kudos for keeping an open-mind. But I don't see the inconsistency or pivot to the middle (not on the economic topics discussed last night). Simply put, the liberal media has misrepresented him.
  
  I think it's pretty desperate and weak for Obama & friends to run around today crying "Romney lied!". Well, if he did, then why was Obama unable to effectively call him on it? I'm sure it will work with the stronger parts of his base, but then he was never in trouble there. Obama doesn't have the knowledge or mastery of economic fiscal policy to confront Romney directly, so he runs around arguing against the strawman Romney he's created.
• believer

  

  gut;1287345 wrote:Obama doesn't have the knowledge or mastery of economic fiscal policy to confront Romney directly, so he runs around arguing against the strawman Romney he's created.

  To be fair it's the strawman the media helped him create. The crazy thing is, even the MSM was beside itself after last night.
• gut

  believer;1287348 wrote:To be fair it's the strawman the media helped him create. The crazy thing is, even the MSM was beside itself after last night.

  True, I was just being lazy with that statement.
  
  The real shame is that we only have one guy with an idea of how to fix things, and Obama is completely incapable of having a productive debate on the issue.
  
  I mean, if anyone wondered why the economy is in the tank right now Romney ticked off all the major reasons. And the big one is the POTUS doesn't have any ideas or understand the workings of business and the economy. It was painfully obvious. Fortunately for Obama the average voter doesn't understand any better than he does and so he can struggle to the finish line on platitudes and soundbites.
  
  I'm reminded of how "you didn't build that" was taken out of context. Well, it was but it wasn't. Obama believes the wealthy and businesses exist to fund the govt and to fund redistribution. Obama doesn't care about the size of the pie, he's only concerned with how the govt divides it up. Mitt nailed it, absolutely pegged Obama with his "trickle down govt" comment.
• gut

  By the way, did anyone catch how Obama looked ready to jump out of his suit when Romney said "I've been in business for 25 years, now maybe I need a new accountant but I've never heard of tax breaks for sending jobs overseas".
  
  I assume that is the result of a bastardization of trade/tax credits for overseas operations. It's technically not a tax break for "sending jobs overseas" but rather designed to offset double-taxation on overseas profits to encourage repatriation for investment in the US. So Romney left himself open there, but Obama trapped himself with rhetoric that strongly distorts the truth.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  gut;1287300 wrote:Let's say you make $100k a year and pay $25k in taxes. The combination of rate cuts and deductions eliminated means you still pay $25k taxes (on average, there will be winners and losers but on net the goal is revenue neutrality). But now you only pay 28% on your next $10k in income, vs. 35% or whatever it is. Your marginal rate drops 20%, meaning you keep 20% more of the next dollar you earn.

  Well that certainly has deficit neutral written all over it :/
• gut

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;1287362 wrote:Well that certainly has deficit neutral written all over it :/

  You're hopeless. I can't explain it any more simply. Take a class, you have a lot to learn about taxation and terminology.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  gut;1287364 wrote:You're hopeless. I can't explain it any more simply. Take a class, you have a lot to learn about taxation and terminology.

  You need a math class bc any way you spin it it equals less taxes coming in. You can't tell me hes not depending on a better economy to balance out the deficit.