2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

I don't get why creating a climate thats business friendly within reason is a bad thing.

Say you increase the corporate tax rate to 35% instead of Romneys 25% proposal and all of a sudden an evil corporation making $100 million is paying $35 million instead of $25 million.

I don't think the corporate tax rate should be raised, it should be lowered, but ALL tax loop holes should be closed at the same time. No idea where you get this. I'll ignore that ridiculous "evil corporation" comment as it's misguided and inaccurate to say the least.

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

How many people can be hired with that extra $10 million. How many extra capital assets could be bought. How much R&D could be done with an extra $10 million. And we're going to trust that money to a dysfunctional government?

10 million? That's cute. How about you try 5 TRILLION dollars. Here people were thinking that corporations were doing bad. Nope, record setting profits and the CASH to prove it.

Idle corporate cash piles up | David Cay Johnston



Might want to rethink that because I think 5 trillion dollars put back into the economy can make the world of difference.

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

The bottom line is corporations don't care. They go where it's in their best interest. It's not personal to them. You raise taxes, force them to buy equipment to conform to ridiculous EPA regulations, raise capital gain taxes discouraging people from investing in the stock market and you can watch them go elsewhere along with potential jobs. They want to stay here. Logistically it's better to stay in the States closest to most of their customers, heck a lot of companies want to stay in the States but we're making it harder and harder.

Not true. Even if they DO move overseas, who do you think is going to have the purchasing power to buy their products? The people in the 3rd world country they're at? No, their customers will still be back in the states. Legislation can be passed to deal with companies like this, much like it should be passed on these rich people dropping their US citizenship to avoid taxes. Fine, you want to leave the US, then you stay gone and your products don't enter our country. Somebody will take their place?

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Bottom line we keep trying to punish the companies that could be giving us jobs and producing better and better products with higher taxes, costly regulations, and a population thats finding it harder and harder to invest in the stock market (which saw a lot of middle class people move up a few classes during the bull markets of the 80's and 90's).

Explain to me how we are "punishing" companies when I showed you directly that they are hording cash? Companies are fine. It's small businesses that need the help.

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

We need to drop the grudge with Wall Street and let them get back work and in turn put people back to work. Granted regulations have their place and are vital to fair play but many of the laws passed by this administration have been overkill

Hilarious. Explain to me how the Wall Street fiasco happened. De-regulation. Yes, all this happened because of deregulation that happened back during Clinton's term. So, you think deregulating is going to solve it, when history shows you otherwise?


Deregulate EPA restrictions = Companies will abuse the environment

Deregulate Banking industry = Banks will perform recklessly

Deregulate the workers environment = Corporations will create a unsafe environment

(and this applies to the food, drug and health care industries)

You said it yourself. Corporations do not care, and this applies to anything. The are void of morality and conscience. In a perfect world, deregulation would indeed be unnecessary, but as long as humans are involved, it'll be needed to keep corruption in check. Wonder how long its going to take for RedskinsRat to come up with these damn robots we need to run things?. Jesus christ on a cracker he's holding up society's greatness!!

I will agree with you that there are probably too many restrictions on businesses, but I think many of these restrictions probably should be removed for small businesses. I wouldn't put it past many of the larger companies to lobby for these types of legislation in order to stifle competition in their markets.

[NC_Skins]

Also, when people grip about the 1% not paying their fair share, the really are talking about the .0025%. It doesn't take much income to hit the 1%, and most of those guys are probably not tax dodging. It's the super wealthy that are dodging taxes. The Mitt Romneys, Koch brothers, Warren Buffet.....

You don't think these guys below paid big time for legislation for these types of loopholes?


The fortunate 400 | David Cay Johnston

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each. This is one of many stunning revelations in new IRS data that deserves a thorough airing in this year’s election campaign.

To give this a sense of scale, the top 400 are financial giants compared to Mitt Romney. It took Romney a quarter century of smart work to build up a fortune that his campaign says is between $190 and $250 million. The top 400 made about that much in one year.

Romney says that those of us who tell these hard facts about the zero-to-low tax burdens of the richest Americans are promoting class warfare. Income inequality, according to Romney, should be discussed only “in quiet rooms.”

If you agree with Romney then keep quiet. If not, now is the time to spread the word and encourage robust and thoughtful debate, just as the framers of our Constitution intended.

[NC_Skins]

Has my credibility been restored yet Sammy?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Y

House Republicans Pass Drought Relief and Delay Farm Bill - Bloomberg

Did you read this?They passed a bill for cattlemen...and NO ONE else, not ranchers ,not farmers.Sammy ...ya got to stop with this.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Has my credibility been restored yet Sammy?

....well done!

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Has my credibility been restored yet Sammy?

While I don't agree with most of your premises/positions, the above two posts are far better than assclowns and other name-calling.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I don't think the corporate tax rate should be raised, it should be lowered, but ALL tax loop holes should be closed at the same time. No idea where you get this. I'll ignore that ridiculous "evil corporation" comment as it's misguided and inaccurate to say the least.

Great news, you're on-board with the Ryan plan...which lowers the corporate tax rate and closes many (not all) corporate tax loopholes.

I'm a FairTax person so I say no corporate taxes at all. Want to energize the economy....implement FairTax and watch corporations flock to the U.S. Our unemployment will be sub-4%.

10 million? That's cute. How about you try 5 TRILLION dollars. Here people were thinking that corporations were doing bad. Nope, record setting profits and the CASH to prove it.

Idle corporate cash piles up | David Cay Johnston



Might want to rethink that because I think 5 trillion dollars put back into the economy can make the world of difference.

Good article. In the current economic and regulatory climate (thank you Obama/Dems) it would be stupid to try to expand a business and hire. The highest cost to a company is always labor/manpower, hence we have record profits and a jobless recovery. With the technologies we have, why would you pay 10 times the labor cost for a function to be completed?

Explain to me how we are "punishing" companies when I showed you directly that they are hording cash? Companies are fine. It's small businesses that need the help.

Pending tax increases on business if Obama re-elected, increased healthcare costs/regulations to companies in Obamacare, higher energy costs due to Obama being bought/paid for by the environmental lobby, new rules from the NLRB that protect unions (not union-workers, but the unions as an entity), ridiculous and costly EPA regulations, Dodd-Frank costs including manhours (24M).

And while these costs hurt large corporations (who will ultimatey pass costs on to consumers), they strangle and kill small-business. Don't believe me, just go by any strip mall and look at all the "for lease" signs.

Jobs Sputter as Laws and Regulators Go Wild - Forbes

U.S. Banks’ Dodd-Frank Costs May Widen to $34 Billion, S&P Says - SFGate

Dodd-Frank costs US financial sector 24 million man-hours per year for compliance « Hot Air

Hilarious. Explain to me how the Wall Street fiasco happened. De-regulation. Yes, all this happened because of deregulation that happened back during Clinton's term. So, you think deregulating is going to solve it, when history shows you otherwise?

The Wall St. collapse was triggered by toxic mortgage assets which stemmed from gov't intervention in the market. Most other problems we have in an industry or the economy stem from govt's unnecessary interference.

You said it yourself. Corporations do not care, and this applies to anything. The are void of morality and conscience.

and this is how they should operate. There were plenty of regulations in place during the Reagan/Clinton/Bush years of prosperity and no corporations wre running willy-nilly destroying everything in their path. Some were environmentally irresponsible, they got sued or fined and were an example for others. Let a bank or two go belly up and find out how the other banks quickly regulate themselves. Corporations aren't going to do things which hurt their public image or could get them sued....that's what keeps them in check.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Did you read this?They passed a bill for cattlemen...and NO ONE else, not ranchers ,not farmers.Sammy ...ya got to stop with this.

The House bill passed is to provide immediate relief to livestock producers.....while they complete work on a very detailed and complex 5 yr. farm bill to help everyone.

Even if it only delivers partial help, why is it sitting in the Senate......the same Senate that hasn't passed a budget resolution in 3 years.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

While I don't agree with most of your premises/positions, the above two posts are far better than assclowns and other name-calling.

I refer to politicians as assclowns because a good majority of them are assclowns. (as noted by our current state)

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Obama didn't spend thirteen years in Congress and neither was he holding himself up as some fiscal hawk. Rep. Ryan also voted to raise the debt ceiling 7 times under Bush. More phone fiscal conservatism. Not surprising.

Thank God the local media outlets around the country aren't drinking the Rove Kool Aid and taking him to task over his record. The Florida newspapers are pounding him in the headlines.

#Awesome

We knew the liberal media would jump all over him so thats nothing unexpected. BTW Ryan is not running for president its Romney. Even is you want to look at Ryans budget it does not affect anyone over the age 55 but the liberal press seems to leave that out. Like this from Sunday when he was on CBS.

“My mom is a Medicare senior in Florida,” Ryan said. “Our point is we need to preserve their benefits, because government made promises to them that they’ve organized their retirements around. In order to make sure we can do that, you must reform it for those of us who are younger. And we think these reforms are good reforms that have bipartisan origins. They started from the Clinton commission in the late ’90s.”

HotAir.com called the broadcast cut “journalistic malpractice.”

“Ryan’s plan doesn’t affect those already eligible for Medicare,” Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com wrote. “In fact, one of the conservative criticisms of the plan was that he didn’t give current Medicare recipients the option to choose a private-insurance plan, as younger Americans will get once they become eligible. That’s a pretty newsworthy detail, no?”



Read more on Newsmax.com: '60 Minutes’ Edits Out Crucial Point by Ryan
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

This is your insight, outright lies and distortions of Ryan's plan by; the Center for American Progress, Ezra Klein and the Atlantic (plus an article from 2011), all left-wing hacks. LOL, again par for the course with you. How about I give you some insight so you can get your head out of your ass:

In the Ryan-Wyden (Dem, Oregon) plan:
1. No one over the age of 55 would be affected in any way.
2. Traditional Medicare fee-for-service would remain available for all. “Premium support”—that is, government funding of private insurance plans chosen by individuals—is an option for those who choose it. No senior would be forced out of the traditional Medicare program against his will.
3. Overall funding for Medicare under the Ryan-Wyden plan is scheduled to grow at the same rate as under President Obama’s proposals.

This plan is the market giving seniors cheaper, higher quality choices they can take if they wish, with the traditional program remaining an option.

Also, keep in mind that it was Obama and the dems who are gutting Medicare to the tune of $ 700B and will institute health care rationing for seniors under Obamacare.

I'm still trying to figure out which of those articles were outright lies.

True - He supports subsidies for big oil. (look at the voting record I posted)

PAUL RYAN: Voted yes on fat federal subsidies to oil companies just before he told voters he was against them | Uppity Wisconsin

True- Mitt Romney will pay very little (if any) taxes under the Ryan budget. (even Mitt Romney said this in the earlier debate with Newt Gingrich.
Would Paul Ryan's budget give Mitt Romney zero taxes? - latimes.com

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Nothing in the Romney/Paul plan takes from the middle class and gives to the "rich",

So essentially they'll be raising taxes on the middle class yet lowering it for the upper elite.

How Paul Ryan's Tax Plan Measures Up For Americans - ABC News

While Mitt Romney would reportedly pay less than one percent of his income in taxes under Paul Ryan's previous tax plan, most Americans making less than $200,000 would see a tax hike under the budget of Ryan proposed before his selection to be Romney's running mate.

Remember now, Romney has been on record supporting Paul Ryan's budget.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Outright lie #1 from your link on Big Oil: "It ends the guarantee of decent insurance for senior citizens, breaking Medicare’s bedrock promise."

So you have problem with this:

It ends the guarantee of decent insurance for senior citizens, breaking Medicare’s bedrock promise. It slashes investments in education, infrastructure, and basic research, all of which are key drivers of economic growth and mobility. And it cuts taxes for those at the top, asking the middle class to pick up the tab. It’s a budget designed to benefit the top 1 percent at everyone else’s expense.

Now this isn't a outright lie as you claim. Notice it says "decent" before insurance, so definitions of decent are subjective. Romney and crew may think you having to pay 50% of costs is decent, where as a person making 25k per year may think paying 5% costs is decent. (using this as an example so don't go all apeshit here ..kk thnx) Also, I don't think he states that it breaks that Medicare promise for current seniors, just that it does or will and it's factual. You may argue he is presenting hyperbole, but to say he's lying is not correct at all.

But the rest of the article? Yeah, didn't think so.




Guess in the end, those articles ARE correct regardless of your claims of left wing hacks. You presented ONE case for potential hyperbole from one sentence out of a huge article. Really?...lol

[NC_Skins]

GOP pros fret over Paul Ryan - Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

Away from the cameras, and with all the usual assurances that people aren’t being quoted by name, there is an unmistakable consensus among Republican operatives in Washington: Romney has taken a risk with Ryan that has only a modest chance of going right — and a huge chance of going horribly wrong.

In more than three dozen interviews with Republican strategists and campaign operatives — old hands and rising next-generation conservatives alike — the most common reactions to Ryan ranged from gnawing apprehension to hair-on-fire anger that Romney has practically ceded the election.

I'm quite positive somebody up here said that Romney conceded the election by making this selection so grats to whoever that was.

Note: I am not saying that Romney will in fact lose. I don't know and will not be making bets, but I strongly feel that he'll lose now with the fact that Ryan and his budget are aboard.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

GOP pros fret over Paul Ryan - Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com






I'm quite positive somebody up here said that Romney conceded the election by making this selection so grats to whoever that was.

Note: I am not saying that Romney will in fact lose. I don't know and will not be making bets, but I strongly feel that he'll lose now with the fact that Ryan and his budget are aboard.

What else is your liberal media sources telling you. You post this stuff like its news when its just left wing media trying to spin everything. It would be like me posting Rush bashing Obama like that's news.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm still trying to figure out which of those articles were outright lies.

True - He supports subsidies for big oil. (look at the voting record I posted)

Distortion - Here's the detail on what libs (and any website that says "progress" or "progressive" is left-wing) call "Big Oil Subsidies".

All manufacturers except the oil and gas industry get to deduct 9 percent of their revenues before calculating their tax bills. (It’s worth noting that “manufacturing” is so broadly defined that it includes newspapers and software companies in addition to producers of wind turbines and solar panels.) Though oil and gas producers get the deduction, they are singled out for a lower 6 percent deduction.
Let’s review that. The oil and gas industry gets a deduction that is only two-thirds as generous as for all other manufacturers (wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers and even The New York Times, for example), yet the deduction is called a subsidy to oil and gas. The President’s proposal does not eliminate the deduction for any other industry.

Ryan is for closing corporate tax loopholes. Obama and the libs like to point to his votes on Continuing Resolutions to keep the gov't running as supporting big oil....intentional gross distortions are lies in my book.

True- Mitt Romney will pay very little (if any) taxes under the Ryan budget. (even Mitt Romney said this in the earlier debate with Newt Gingrich.

False - the article even mentions that Obama / Dems are pointing to a 2010 budget plan that eliminated capital gains....for ALL Americans. The current plan reduces the CG rate, not eliminates it. The claim that Romney would pay no taxes (or 0.82%) under the current plan is a lie.

So essentially they'll be raising taxes on the middle class yet lowering it for the upper elite.

I've posted this before....it would help if you'd read and understand it. On financial matters, I'll take the Wall Street Journal over ABC or some XYZ for Progress blog.

Review & Outlook: The Romney Hood Fairy Tale - WSJ.com

Romney's at the top of the ticket, here's his plan and it reduces Federal Tax Rates for ALL Americans. "
The heart of Mr. Romney's actual proposal is a 20% rate cut for anyone who pays income taxes. This means, for example, that the 10% rate would fall to 8%, the 35% rate would fall to 28% and all the brackets in between would fall as well. The corporate tax would fall to 25% from 35%.
The plan says these cuts would be financed in a revenue-neutral way. First, by "broadening the tax base," which means reducing or eliminating tax deductions and loopholes as in the tax reform of 1986. The Romney campaign doesn't specify which deductions—no campaign ever does—but it has been explicit in saying that the burden would fall most on higher tax brackets. So in return for paying lower rates, the wealthy get fewer deductions."

Oh and this on Obama's plan: A report commissioned by pro-business groups including the United States Chamber of Commerce and prepared by accounting firm Ernst and Young found raising tax rates for high-income taxpayers could decrease output in the long-run by 1.3 percent of $200 billion and lead to a drop in employment by 0.5 percent or 710,000 jobs.

So you have problem with this:

Now this isn't a outright lie as you claim. Notice it says "decent" before insurance, so definitions of decent are subjective. Romney and crew may think you having to pay 50% of costs is decent, where as a person making 25k per year may think paying 5% costs is decent. (using this as an example so don't go all apeshit here ..kk thnx) Also, I don't think he states that it breaks that Medicare promise for current seniors, just that it does or will and it's factual. You may argue he is presenting hyperbole, but to say he's lying is not correct at all.

But the rest of the article? Yeah, didn't think so.

Unless you consider the existing Medicare system "decent" (which I assume Obama and the Dems do because they want to leave it as-is to go bankrupt in 10 years), absolutely a problem. What part of, "No one over 55 will be affected in any way", and "Traditional Medicare fee for service will be available". Another flat out lie that no matter how you try to spin it is a lie.

Guess in the end, those articles ARE correct regardless of your claims of left wing hacks. You presented ONE case for potential hyperbole from one sentence out of a huge article. Really?...lol

Guess in the end, I was correct.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

What else is your liberal media sources telling you. You post this stuff like its news when its just left wing media trying to spin everything. It would be like me posting Rush bashing Obama like that's news.

Wait, so politico.com is now a "liberal media" source? :confused-



SO, if it isn't Fox News, it's liberal?