Michelle!! You shoulda' left this line out!!!

[Dr. Chuckles]

Let us see, as governor of MA he lowered educational standards, brought job growth to one of the lowest in the nation, brought them that mandate you Romneybots love so much at 3 times the cost, and made things a lot worse there when he started. At Bain capital he outsourced american jobs overseas to save himself a buck or two, cut medical coverage, destroyed businesses he says he creats, and made a lot of money for a couple of people.

In other words, like always you don't know jack about Romney, and you just have a knee jerk republicon reaction to Obama because of his brown skin. Is it true, or did you hear it on fox news?

lol, do you throw out the racism charge in every post you make? FYI: treating it as your personal political totem in every post tends to dull it's sting

 

[CJ 2.0]

So taxes are "confiscation"? And since when has "reducing tax expenditures" been used as a code-word for raising taxes? Who said that? I certainly didn't say that! Reducing tax expenditures, to me, means cutting the budget. Anyhow, I don't feel a need to defend it until you can tell me who is using the term that way. Also, I was confused by your first sentence. What are you referring to in that sentence that I said earlier?

Yes. Taxation is confiscation - seizure of private property on a non-discretionary basis that is made irrispective of the goods and/or services provided to the individual in exchange. Different than, say, a user fee, which is a government fee tied directly to the value of a service.

Which again isn't to say that it's bad, but the word is still the right one.

Look, at the end of the day I think I support the right of a woman to kill her unborn child for convenience (i.e., I am "pro-choice"). But I don't feel the need to dress up my view in some rosy nomenclature that is designed to hide what the belief truly is. Call it like it is and make a decision in spite of that.

Don't call it "reducing tax expenditures" or "letting the Bush tax cuts expire", call it confiscating the economic output created by citizens' labours. "Letting the Bush tax cuts expire" is no different than a government going to a farm and unilaterally taking more of the farmer's crop.

You know our "tax freedom day" in Canada is in July? More than 6 months of every year, the entire value of my labour is confiscated by the federal government.

Now of course we are different than the traditional despot. The money confiscated often is put to the collective good and indeed my own individual good. I get free (somewhat sub-standard) health care. I get the roads and bridges and all that stuff. I get an education system for other people's kids (while I pay for private school). And the like. And certainly some level of taxation is justified. But that doesn't change the nature of what taxation is, it only changes the justness of that taxation.

And again, my issue with Obama is not so much he wants to increase taxes. You guys desperately need it (and probably a national sales tax too). My problem is his attitude and worldview about what taxes are and how much gratitude is owed by society to those who pay it.

 

[CJ 2.0]

To be fair, I'm not the one who thinks that capital investment creates demand for goods and services.

I am also not the one who thinks the decision to hire people is based on taxes.

But both of those things are right.

Capital investment increases demand for capital goods (like machinery, bridges, computers, etc). These, in turn, allow society to produce more output using existing resources. Demand for consumer goods and services is driven by other factors, but certainly income and productivity are fuindamental drivers here too.

Re the second one, payroll taxes are key. Income taxes I agree not as much. Payroll taxes to me are absolutely ridiculous, and your system of essentially treating health care as a payroll expense rather than using the public tax system (whether through vouchers or through public pay) seems the absolute worst of both worlds.

But no, my objection to higher taxes is on the more basic philosophical perspective that at some point the rest of society cannot sustain its claim on the fruits of other people's labours.

That and if I had to pay 75% income taxes like in France you can be damned sure I would not work as hard and I would not buy as much stuff.

 

[zeusomally]

Obamacare is a new tax on everyone.

Also, Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire for businesses. Even small businesses.

This is actually a very deceptive and alarmist claim that many republicans have been making for some time. First of all, they are VERY broadly difining "small business" to ANY business owner who reports busineness income. A recent treasury analysis clearly shows that letting the BTCS expire on the top 2% would not impact most small businesses and that only 2.5% of businesses would be impacted. Here is the link on this study http://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...-04-Small-Business-Methodology-Aug-8-2011.pdf.

Well, I never said, "detrimental". That's your wording, not mine. But, as to the regulations...

Heritage Foundation:

Did you seriously just try to reference me to a study by the Heritage Foundation?!! I'll address any specific regulatory gripes you have, but I'm not even going to begin to attempt to sift through a study produced by such a blatantly partisan source.

Obamacare, for starters. Frank-Dodd has made it almost impossible for poor people to get a credit card, giving rise to the payday loan outfits that the Libbos hate so much.

You do realize, don't you, that ObamaCare or not, we are paying through our teeth for the millions of uninsured in this country, right. It is "hidden" cost, but it is very real and ObamaCare merely addresses it and tries to make the system more efficient. Interestingly enough, the same Heritage Foundation that you cited above actually proposed Obamacare. It was proposed as a market solution to healthcare and as a counter-proposal to Hillarycare. Funny how the conservatives in Congress have changed their tune on it now that it is a Democratic president supporting it.
I know nothing of the Fran-Dodd bill in regards to people getting credit cards. Please inform me more. And yes, payday loan outfits are criminal, but perhaps instead of looking at the reasons why they popped up in the first place, we should work to outlaw them.

 

[Objective Voice]

A dozen or more of the US's major unions have their pension funds at Bain. I guess Romney did something right...since he started the company from squat.

@ Justa -- I'm not ignoring you. I posted a whole series of things here just a few days ago, but damn if I can find my POST or the link I got it from. I'll keep looking.

Let's see if your logic holds up.

So, Bain Capital borrows a large portion of its investment income from banks in order to finance the acquition of small companies.

Many of those companies are "flipped", their assets liquidated and in many cases the company is left with nothing but debt that they've now become responsible to the bank to repay.

Meanwhile, our banking system nearly collapsed taking pension funds with them.

So, I guess since BCIP did manage to save a few companies from going under you can say he did do "something" right. But he did so much more that was wrong than most people realize. (Read more in Rolling Stone magazine article, "Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital")

 

[Debra]

You must be kidding me!!!! For a President and a party who's spent months and months villifying Mitt Romney based on how much money he has, this is such an absurd statement. She shoulda' left it out. And anyone who says Mitt Romney hasn't made a huge and wonderful difference in people's lives doesn't know jack.

Comments?

You left out the first part,
For Barack success is not how much money you make,it's the difference you make .......

This is not an attack on Romney ! Seriously Maggie what a low blow to attack the first lady taking words out of context, changing the meaning it's a typical GOP thing to do but she was explaining money isn't how they measure success, a lot of Americans feel that way... The Bain attacks were never because Romney is rich they were attacking How he made his money (at the expense of others) and how out of touch Romney is .....I just got off the aircraft, These cookies don't look homemade, corporations are people,
I gaffawed, the trees re the right height , etc etc the guy is awkward he also has a very priviledged attitude, from leading the bullying of that poor gay student to refusing to release his tax returns he seems to think he doesn't have to answer to the American people, the , " it's our turn" comments that mitt and Anne throw around are also very arrogant. There is a question of integrity and character I am not sure Mitt has proven he has any. You go ahead and keep thinking this is an attack on his wealth your believing exactly the spin they threw at you, you can't see the forest past the trees.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Let's see if your logic holds up.

So, Bain Capital borrows a large portion of its investment income from banks in order to finance the acquition of small companies.

Many of those companies are "flipped", their assets liquidated and in many cases the company is left with nothing but debt that they've now become responsible to the bank to repay.

Meanwhile, our banking system nearly collapsed taking pension funds with them.

So, I guess since BCIP did manage to save a few companies from going under you can say he did do "something" right. But he did so much more that was wrong than most people realize. (Read more in Rolling Stone magazine article, "Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital")

Depends. What happened to those assets. Stripping out assets from a less productive company and selling them to be used in something mroe productive isn't necessarily a bad thing and isn't really destruction.

Consolidating beer production, say, so that you can shut down a plant and then selling the plant to someone else who converts it to produce ethanol may cost some redundant beer workers their jobs, but it ultimately makes the economy and the businesses involved more efficient and makes us all better off.

And your banking system neaerly collapsed because of regulatory capture that involved both republicans and democrats, but which started with your meddling in the mortgage maket to make home ownership more available to people who couldn't afford it, was made worse by the govenrment using quasi-public institutions to absorb some of the risk of these loans and was made fatal by your govenrment's allowing the banks making these junk loans to completely off-load the risks of these loans to third parties while hiding the extent of the risk involved in those assets. It had nothing to do with the kind of work Bain did, which actually was pretty inspiring to those actually paying attention for non-political reasons.

 

[apdst]

Well, wait a second. That is what I said. Here is my quote from the earlier post which YOU highlighted in responding to me: " it is well known(indisputable in fact) that Bush's tax cuts caused the relative wealth in this country to flow upwards". Isn't this the quote you were taking issue with? If not, please cite the quote that you are disagreeing with.

You're saying too different things. Pick one and roll with it, then we can debate it.

If this is the one you're going with, then tax cuts won't make wealth, "flow upwards". It's impossible.

 

[zeusomally]

And again, my issue with Obama is not so much he wants to increase taxes. You guys desperately need it (and probably a national sales tax too). My problem is his attitude and worldview about what taxes are and how much gratitude is owed by society to those who pay it.

A lot to address in your previous post, but your main point of contention seems to center around your last statement. The problem with the Conservative right these days is that they are staking out an extreme position of Individualism. We in this nation have always balanced Individualism with Community and have always recognized that the government plays a very important role in promoting and balancing those two very important impulses. The TeaParty and the Conservative right, however, is now trying to rewrite our history and convince the American electorate that it was selfish individualism(everyone pursuing their best self-interests) that made our country great. It is not only historically inaccurate, but extremely dangerous to our Democracy and our economy. Obama has been going out of his way in recent days to emphasize that government does and can provide a very important role in protecting and promoting individual liberty(and thus, individual initiative) as well as the collective(community) well-being.
But the right-wingers have hijacked the debate and are wrongly insisting that government only impedes the economy. It's a very new and radical notion, and Obama should be praised, not villified, for pointing out that Community and Individualism are important and that government is central to getting the balance right.

 

[zeusomally]

You're saying too different things. Pick one and roll with it, then we can debate it.

If this is the one you're going with, then tax cuts won't make wealth, "flow upwards". It's impossible.

Okay, so I think I understand you now. And let's get something clear here: I am speaking specifically of the Bush Tax Cuts and have made that clear from the beginning and have stated so in every one of my posts. So, yes, I do believe that the wealth in this country did indeed flow upwards after the BTC's. Economists speak of money "flow" all of the time when speaking of the way in which it moves within an economy and it is well established that tax policies directly impact in which direction money flows. But if that word is bothering you, I'll state it in another way: The money saved through the Bush Income Tax Cuts went to the top 5% of wage-earners, and this created a greater income-disparity in our nation.

 

[apdst]

This is actually a very deceptive and alarmist claim that many republicans have been making for some time. First of all, they are VERY broadly difining "small business" to ANY business owner who reports busineness income. A recent treasury analysis clearly shows that letting the BTCS expire on the top 2% would not impact most small businesses and that only 2.5% of businesses would be impacted. Here is the link on this study http://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...-04-Small-Business-Methodology-Aug-8-2011.pdf.

Expiration of the Bush tax cuts will result in a tax hike all coporations, no matter how big, or small they are. And, before you say it, small businesses are corporations, too.

Did you seriously just try to reference me to a study by the Heritage Foundation?!! I'll address any specific regulatory gripes you have, but I'm not even going to begin to attempt to sift through a study produced by such a blatantly partisan source.

Don't like the message...shoot the messanger. Yes?

You do realize, don't you, that ObamaCare or not, we are paying through our teeth for the millions of uninsured in this country, right. It is "hidden" cost, but it is very real and ObamaCare merely addresses it and tries to make the system more efficient. Interestingly enough, the same Heritage Foundation that you cited above actually proposed Obamacare. It was proposed as a market solution to healthcare and as a counter-proposal to Hillarycare. Funny how the conservatives in Congress have changed their tune on it now that it is a Democratic president supporting it.
I know nothing of the Fran-Dodd bill in regards to people getting credit cards. Please inform me more. And yes, payday loan outfits are criminal, but perhaps instead of looking at the reasons why they popped up in the first place, we should work to outlaw them.

Again, whether, or not you agree with Obama's policies is irrelevant. The fact that Obamacare exists illustrates the point I was making.

 

[CJ 2.0]

A lot to address in your previous post, but your main point of contention seems to center around your last statement. The problem with the Conservative right these days is that they are staking out an extreme position of Individualism. We in this nation have always balanced Individualism with Community and have always recognized that the government plays a very important role in promoting and balancing those two very important impulses. The TeaParty and the Conservative right, however, is now trying to rewrite our history and convince the American electorate that it was selfish individualism(everyone pursuing their best self-interests) that made our country great. It is not only historically inaccurate, but extremely dangerous to our Democracy and our economy. Obama has been going out of his way in recent days to emphasize that government does and can provide a very important role in protecting and promoting individual liberty(and thus, individual initiative) as well as the collective(community) well-being.
But the right-wingers have hijacked the debate and are wrongly insisting that government only impedes the economy. It's a very new and radical notion, and Obama should be praised, not villified, for pointing out that Community and Individualism are important and that government is central to getting the balance right.

Yeah, I see where you are coming from, but I see it a bit differently. To me, the tea party reacton was driven by the perception (which is not wholly wrong) about Obama's views and attitudes. I also think that the republicans do have a very firm view of community and do support it ovwer individuality but they don't do it at the political level, they do it at the local community and religious level. Just different ideas of where the right balance is (but said in a breathtakingly reactionary and unappealing way).

I suppose most of us have seen the studies that right-leaning folks on aggregate seem to give more to charity. That makes intuitive sense to me. The right believes it is the individual's responsibility to do stuff. The left believes it is the govenrment's responsibility (both are exagerations but it illustrates the point). It also makes sense to me that high taxation would displace charitable contributions as the govenrment confiscates more of a person's discretionary earnings. I would give more, but it's kind of hard, even being "rich" with marginal tax rates over 46%, 13% sales taxes, 10k in property taxes, a big mortgage, school for the kids, etc. Might give a few thousand more if the government stopped taking 46% of every extra dollar I earned and only took 40%.

And yes, I do believe the republicans are right in terms of the overall Obama regulatory agenda, particularly on energy but on lots of areas of the economy.

 

[apdst]

Okay, so I think I understand you now. And let's get something clear here: I am speaking specifically of the Bush Tax Cuts and have made that clear from the beginning and have stated so in every one of my posts. So, yes, I do believe that the wealth in this country did indeed flow upwards after the BTC's. Economists speak of money "flow" all of the time when speaking of the way in which it moves within an economy and it is well established that tax policies directly impact in which direction money flows. But if that word is bothering you, I'll state it in another way: The money saved through the Bush Income Tax Cuts went to the top 5% of wage-earners, and this created a greater income-disparity in our nation.

That's like believing in the Easter Bunny.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Okay, so I think I understand you now. And let's get something clear here: I am speaking specifically of the Bush Tax Cuts and have made that clear from the beginning and have stated so in every one of my posts. So, yes, I do believe that the wealth in this country did indeed flow upwards after the BTC's. Economists speak of money "flow" all of the time when speaking of the way in which it moves within an economy and it is well established that tax policies directly impact in which direction money flows. But if that word is bothering you, I'll state it in another way: The money saved through the Bush Income Tax Cuts went to the top 5% of wage-earners, and this created a greater income-disparity in our nation.

Can you cite to this? I had understood that his was a very broadly-based tax cut and only 40 billion or so would be gained by increasing taxes on the 5% to undo the busgh tax cuts

 

[zeusomally]

First, it debunked your notion about redistribution. The rich pay way progressively way much more still under the BTC's.

You want some wealth ? Go get some. You need not take it from anyone. Just create it.

When did I ever say that the rich don't pay progressively more, even under the BTCs. I never said that, so there is no way you can debunk something that I never claimed. Where did I say that the BTCs weren't still progressive? Go ahead. Show me where I ever said that!
Second of all, it didn't debunk my claim about wealth redistribution. The money saved by the BTCS went disproportionally to the wealthies earners. Look at it this way: A middle class guy with and AGI of 30,000 might pay 15% federal income tax for a burden of 4,500. A man with AGI of 300,000 and a tax rate of 35% would pay 105,000. Bushy comes along and tells the middleclass guy he gets a tax decrease of 3% and the wealthy guy gets a tax decrease of 1.5%. So now the AGI 30k guy only has a tax burden of 12% and pays 3600 taxes for an additonal savings of $900 that he gets to take home thanks to Bush. The 300k guy now pays only 33.5% on his income for a bill of 100,500, which saves him 4,500. So even though the tax RATE decreases for the poorer individual, the tax SAVINGS disproportionatly go to the wealthy individual. This, and there is no way about it, it causes the total share of wealth to shift upwards and causes more income disparity. The poor got some savings, but the rich got even more. And that, is the BTCs in a nutshell and how it redistributed income.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

Let's see if your logic holds up.

So, Bain Capital borrows a large portion of its investment income from banks in order to finance the acquition of small companies.

Many of those companies are "flipped", their assets liquidated and in many cases the company is left with nothing but debt that they've now become responsible to the bank to repay.

Meanwhile, our banking system nearly collapsed taking pension funds with them.

So, I guess since BCIP did manage to save a few companies from going under you can say he did do "something" right. But he did so much more that was wrong than most people realize. (Read more in Rolling Stone magazine article, "Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital")

I read the article of few days ago. It makes the claim, as you do, that Bain has saddled the company with the bank-debt used to purchase the company. A neat trick, I agree, except it never says how Bain pulls such a stunt. So if Bain puts down $10 million of its own money, and is able to borrow $50 million from such as Chase, and buys a company for $60 million, how does Bain saddle the company with debt ?

 

[rocket88]

"such a fine line between stupid and genius"...David St Hubbins

And yet, you haven't crossed it.

 

[apdst]

When did I ever say that the rich don't pay progressively more, even under the BTCs. I never said that, so there is no way you can debunk something that I never claimed. Where did I say that the BTCs weren't still progressive? Go ahead. Show me where I ever said that!
Second of all, it didn't debunk my claim about wealth redistribution. The money saved by the BTCS went disproportionally to the wealthies earners. Look at it this way: A middle class guy with and AGI of 30,000 might pay 15% federal income tax for a burden of 4,500. A man with AGI of 300,000 and a tax rate of 35% would pay 105,000. Bushy comes along and tells the middleclass guy he gets a tax decrease of 3% and the wealthy guy gets a tax decrease of 1.5%. So now the AGI 30k guy only has a tax burden of 12% and pays 3600 taxes for an additonal savings of $900 that he gets to take home thanks to Bush. The 300k guy now pays only 33.5% on his income for a bill of 100,500, which saves him 4,500. So even though the tax RATE decreases for the poorer individual, the tax SAVINGS disproportionatly go to the wealthy individual. This, and there is no way about it, it causes the total share of wealth to shift upwards and causes more income disparity. The poor got some savings, but the rich got even more. And that, is the BTCs in a nutshell and how it redistributed income.

Someone making $30,000 a year isn't going to pay anything.

The rich folks realized more savings, because they saw higher tax payments. That's just common sense. What's the problem?

 

[Eighty Deuce]

When did I ever say that the rich don't pay progressively more, even under the BTCs. I never said that, so there is no way you can debunk something that I never claimed. Where did I say that the BTCs weren't still progressive? Go ahead. Show me where I ever said that!
Second of all, it didn't debunk my claim about wealth redistribution. The money saved by the BTCS went disproportionally to the wealthies earners. Look at it this way: A middle class guy with and AGI of 30,000 might pay 15% federal income tax for a burden of 4,500. A man with AGI of 300,000 and a tax rate of 35% would pay 105,000. Bushy comes along and tells the middleclass guy he gets a tax decrease of 3% and the wealthy guy gets a tax decrease of 1.5%. So now the AGI 30k guy only has a tax burden of 12% and pays 3600 taxes for an additonal savings of $900 that he gets to take home thanks to Bush. The 300k guy now pays only 33.5% on his income for a bill of 100,500, which saves him 4,500. So even though the tax RATE decreases for the poorer individual, the tax SAVINGS disproportionatly go to the wealthy individual. This, and there is no way about it, it causes the total share of wealth to shift upwards and causes more income disparity. The poor got some savings, but the rich got even more. And that, is the BTCs in a nutshell and how it redistributed income.

Look, if one pays more disproportionately when taxes are raised 5%, one should also save more when all taxes are lowered 5%.

It is that simple.

You made a false claim, that the wealthy got back a "disproportional amount". Incorrect. They got back a larger amount, but proportionally, it was the same increment. In fact, the progressive gap widened. Your example is a joke.

 

[iliveonramen]

I read the article of few days ago. It makes the claim, as you do, that Bain has saddled the company with the bank-debt used to purchase the company. A neat trick, I agree, except it never says how Bain pulls such a stunt. So if Bain puts down $10 million of its own money, and is able to borrow $50 million from such as Chase, and buys a company for $60 million, how does Bain saddle the company with debt ?

That's what a leveraged buyout is.

It's not some trick it's how they work.

 

[zeusomally]

Can you cite to this? I had understood that his was a very broadly-based tax cut and only 40 billion or so would be gained by increasing taxes on the 5% to undo the busgh tax cuts

We need to do much more than roll back the BTCS. We need to close the loopholes that the corporate interests have increasingly been using to avoid taxes and we need to begin practicing some good old Reaganesque policies of using tariffs to punish companies that wish to use 3rd world labor to destroy American Industry. It's much more complicated than just rolling back the BTCs. And here is a link to how the BTCs redistributed wealth disporoportionatly upwards: What the Tax Cuts Cost | Cost of Tax Cuts

 

[CJ 2.0]

We need to do much more than roll back the BTCS. We need to close the loopholes that the corporate interests have increasingly been using to avoid taxes and we need to begin practicing some good old Reaganesque policies of using tariffs to punish companies that wish to use 3rd world labor to destroy American Industry. It's much more complicated than just rolling back the BTCs. And here is a link to how the BTCs redistributed wealth disporoportionatly upwards: What the Tax Cuts Cost | Cost of Tax Cuts

tax cuts are not costs.

I will look at the link.

 

[CJ 2.0]

tax cuts are not costs.

I will look at the link.

ok, I looked.

Do you have a better source?

 

[Arbo]

Here. From 2010. IRS numbers. It includes the BTC's:

Note that the top 5% earned 34.73% of all income, with their increment being all those who had income above $159,619. annually. Yet paid 58.72% of all income tax collected.

Glad to see that info put into spreadsheet form. How can anyone read that, even seeing the effective tax rates, and still claim the 'fair share' nonsense is incomprehensible.

Wow, I further up the food chain than I thought...

 

[zeusomally]

Look, if one pays more disproportionately when taxes are raised 5%, one should also save more when all taxes are lowered 5%.

It is that simple.

You made a false claim, that the wealthy got back a "disproportional amount". Incorrect. They got back a larger amount, but proportionally, it was the same increment. In fact, the progressive gap widened. Your example is a joke.

Okay, we're playing semantic games here. But I'll clarify for you. The BTCs resulted in savings to the American Tax Payer. Of the total savings, the top 5% got a larger portion of the total money. I was referring to the total money at play, not the tax rates themselves.
And, once again, I never said it wasn't progressive. What I said was that it widened the gap in income disparity. If someone earning 50k saves $900 under Bush's Tax Cuts and someone earning 300k saves 4,500 dollars, then we have seen the gap between the wealthy and the middle class grow even wider in terms of their disposable income. I do not understand why you are continuing to play word games and not realize how this is a clear case of wealth being redistributed upwards.