Latest Diablo 3 News
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Romney and Bain?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by BobCox2, Jul 14, 2012.

  1. krischan

    krischan Europe Trade Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    30,176
    Likes Received:
    1,150
    Trophy Points:
    416
    A big YAY from me as well!

    So we have FINALLY put an end to the debates?

    *passes out*

    We will never agree on how much it is, however.



     
  2. Technomancer

    Technomancer Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    3,261
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    174
    I'm curious too. It sounds like they're not making big hay of it yet. I know he can't, but I think he would fare better with independents if he didn't run away from Romneycare so hard, and actually used his experience to tout "Hey, I've done this. I know what's wrong with Obamacare and how to fix it." But then he would be drawn, quartered, and devoured by wolves.

    WE are finally getting it?!!! DOOD!! That's what we've been trying to say for... years!! I totally agree that extremes (and I would say anywhere within 25% of the ends points) are evil and wrong. If we can agree that little bits of things aren't inherently evil, we can then talk about where is the appropriate point of balance. No one wants total government control, and if they do they can go **** a nuclear fuel rod!! Of course, there is still plenty of room for disagreement on where the line should be, but that's a debate that can actually go somewhere other than heck.

    That was one of the low points of the debate. People can really use some free info on something that nobody likes to think about: their end-of-life arrangements. Asking people the question does wonders because most people DO NOT want to be hooked up to some machine in a mockery of life for months or years. I sure as **** don't. No one in my family does. We've discussed this matter. Most people haven't. It wasn't about trying to *get* people to say "I don't want that", it was about giving someone the *opportunity* to say it. And, since that is coincidentally where a huge chunk of elderly care money is spent, it is fiscally relevant as well. Even if it wasn't, funding for the "death panels" (aka living wills) was a good idea. I'm sure stillman would like to pounce all over this issue, but what I remember of his opinion is a bit much for me.


     
  3. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,516
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    509
    Which would also be entertaining. See, I think Romney is cutting his own throat by <not> cozying up to the TEA Party/Libertarian/free market voters, and somehow pretending that acting the McCain role he's playing it safe. Yes, TEA types hate the socialism displayed by this Marxist president, but that doesn't mean they'll show up to vote for the lesser of two weevils (per the Ron Paul thread).
    Hardly. Y'all shout me down when I label as "socialist" a belief that bigger/more centralized is better. It ISN'T better, by default, yet it is most certainly socialist. Progressives are the people who believe that continually increasing the socialism of gov't will eventually yield a beneficial result; it's not a Democrat/Republican issue.
    The discrepancy which you fail to realize is that just because I rail against socialism hardly means I don't recognize it in my own nation, and in my own life. I've spent only a small percentage of my nearly 40 working years actually in non-state employment, and that was largely summer jobs and about three years as a code monkey in software chop-shops.
    The reality of the disagreement is that Obamacare has removed the decision from the hands of the patient and place it in the hands of an unaccountable bureaucratic panel. This <IS> socialism, and while the current decision under private care also is placed in the hands of a 'death panel' of insurance company staff, the customer is able to use their own money-power to affect the decision more explicitly (by paying more for longer sustenance).



     
  4. jmervyn

    jmervyn Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    15,516
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    509
  5. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    8,908
    Likes Received:
    527
    Trophy Points:
    220
    Grauniad. It is a pun from a time when typo's were a major feature of the newspaper, back in the 80's (and probably before then). When [mechanical] type-setting was used, but the reference has carried on to today.

    The public perception was that The Grauniad suffered far more typos than any other national newspaper, very noticeably more than the other dailies. English humour. You either get it or ... you can't.

    It has been alleged that it was Private Eye that coined the phrase, but I don't think that claim could be proved one way or the other.
     
  6. Turnip

    Turnip Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    So why is Socialism in itself bad, is it just the inefficiency? You'd think with such a ridiculously high gini index America would be jumping on any chance they had to lower the income inequality despite the small loss in efficiency, its sort of putting a damper on your demand for products with people having such a small disposable income and it seems to be kind of drying up your jobs. It sounds a lot better back in the day when wealth was more distributed and you only one person working, and the rich didnt hold all the wealth.

    Also whats with small government people wanting a large military, you dont think spending more than every other country is a bad idea? Especially when they are all allies anyways. You could save a lot of people with that wasted money.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2012
  7. BobCox2

    BobCox2 Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    12,554
    Likes Received:
    217
    Trophy Points:
    495
    During his losing Senate run against Ted Kennedy Romney demanded that Ted Kennedy provide his tax returns on the basis of the public's right to know:
    "It's time the biggest-taxing senator in Washington shows the people of Massachusetts how much he pays in taxes," Romney said in April of 1994, according to a report in the Boston Globe.
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...
    In 2002 Mr. Romney also demanded that his opponent (who had released her tax returns whilst Mr. Romney declined to provide his returns) provide her spouse's return.
    ...and this morning, in defense of his refusal to be forthcoming with the American voter, Romney used as a defense that John Kerry's SPOUSE had not provided her tax returns, totally ignoring that Senator Kerry had provided numerous returns.
    At this point I'm not so sure that it is the failure to provide tax returns that will do the most damage to Mr. Romney, but it will be the exposure of his lack of character and consistency which will inflict the most damage.
    This man's principles and ethics are simply a mess.
    *As for taking Mr. Romney's word that there's nothing to be concerned about, to just trust him to tell the truth the linked Boston Globe article has a nifty little example of how Mr. Romney misrepresented his residency filing and then went back and amended his filing when the situation became uncomfortable.
    Boston Globe
    Anyone else noticing a pattern here?
     
  8. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane Diabloii.Net Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Some people might say so, but for me it's a moral issue. I believe theft is wrong.

    1. Disparity in wealth is not necessarily a problem, if everyone's wealth is made through voluntary association and trade.
    2. The large income disparities we see now are not the result of voluntary association and trade, but the very interventions in the market that socialists lobby for.

    It is strange, isn't it? I like to meet the two parties in the middle: we should get rid of both social welfare and the military-industrial complex. ;)



     
  9. BobCox2

    BobCox2 Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    12,554
    Likes Received:
    217
    Trophy Points:
    495
    OK we got a VP for Romney,
    with Ryan At least if Romney's elected the hard line Republicans can bump him off with out having to Palin for it.
    :D
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2012
  10. jimmyboy

    jimmyboy Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    IMO, socialism = unstable economics, the mirror opposite of trickled-down economics. Albeit both appeal to the general minions, both are laughing stocks in any respectable school of economics.

    Re Paul Ryan. I prefer a more moderate Republican. One more mature particularly with foreign policy to balance out Romney's limited foreign policy experience. IMHO, Ryan reminds me of a young domestic-oriented Dick Chenny.

    It's unfortunate that Romney failed to pick Jeb Bush as his running mate. That would have been a lock for my vote.
     
  11. Stevinator

    Stevinator Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347

    Jeb is a non-starter because his name is bush.



     
  12. BobCox2

    BobCox2 Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    12,554
    Likes Received:
    217
    Trophy Points:
    495
    I LOLed at the pick

    http://www.nationalmemo.com/mitt-romney-heaves-a-hail-mary-to-paul-ryan-surrenders-to-the-far-right/


    After a blasting in the polls and a haranguing by right-wing pundits, Mitt Romney decided that he should use the biggest statement of his primary campaign to try to win over a group of voters that never wanted him: right-wing Republicans. It’s exactly what John McCain tried to do. And I’m trying to remember: How did that work out for him?
    Paul Ryan is the choice the Wall Street Journal editorial board, the choice of the same self-satisfied right wing intelligentsia that still thinks the Iraq War was a good idea. These are people who think that RomneyCare is worse for Mitt than the Ryan Budget will be. In short, they’re the same crew of Bush-Cheney backers, boasting decades of unmatched experience in being wrong about everything.
    Yesterday we said that Mitt wouldn’t pick Paul Ryan. And if he did, it would be an awful choice. Conservative blog The Blaze said that Ryan should stay right where he is because his plan has become the platform of the Republican Party. Conservatives on Twitter who launched the hashtag #GiveUsRyan are calling this their Christmas morning.
    What these “conservatives” don’t know or don’t care about is that pollsters have already determined exactly how embracing Ryan will hurt Romney. In a recent series of surveys and focus groups, Democracy Corp discovered revealed the toll that the Congressman from Wisconsin might have on the Republican ticket — even if he weren’t on the ticket.

    President Obama’s lead against Romney more than doubles when the election is framed as a choice between the two candidates’ positions on the Ryan budget– particularly its impact on the most vulnerable. The President makes significant gains among key groups, including independents and voters in the Rising American Electorate (the unmarried women, youth, and minority voters who drove Obama to victory in 2008). This is an important new finding; highlighting the Ryan budget’s impact on the most vulnerable seriously weakens Romney.


    By picking Ryan, Romney has made this case for the President. This is why our Editor-in-Chief Joe Conason has called Barack Obama “the luckiest politician in the history of democracy.”
    The notion that Mitt Romney needs a smug, young guy who thinks retired people, students and the poor have it too good is something that could only occur to billionaire-funded right wing thinkers, those who believe that the lesson of 2004 is you can’t win on wanting to vote someone out. You need to give people something to believe in. And what Paul Ryan believes will appeal only to people who hate government with a passion.
     
  13. Elly

    Elly Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 1997
    Messages:
    4,560
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    472
    ahh boo, it would have been great to see Palin up there. Romney and Palin would be priceless. She was such good value last time.
     
  14. Technomancer

    Technomancer Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    3,261
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    174
    Oh boy. Retirees in Florida won't be able to wait to vote for the guy that wants to replace their healthcare with a low-limit coupon that any insurance company would refuse, on pain of being rejected by their shareholders.

    Actually, Jeb Bush doesn't sound like too bad a guy. I'm in the minority I'm sure, but I don't let the name bother me. From everything I've heard about him, he would have been a better president than his brother. For a Republican, I kinda like him. He seems mature, intelligent, and reasonable. He was the one actually being groomed for the White House, because the family knew Dubya wasn't quite cut out for it. Unfortunately, he'll probably never get a fair crack at it now.

    +1 on wishing it was Palin, but this is a reasonable 2nd.
     
  15. Stevinator

    Stevinator Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Bob, (I'm playing a little devil's advocate here--so fair warning), don't you think they were going to tie Romney to Ryan's plan anyhow? Since those votes are sunk anyway, why not embrace the right?

    And Tech, don't you know? Old people LOVE coupons!


    Anyway, in all seriousness, While Ryan's voucher plan is bold, ambitious and actually does try to solve the problem, I'm not sure that's the way to do it politically. You could instead quietly ration away a lot of unneeded services (and gently increase the price of medicare over time) and not suffer a loss of votes from old people. by putting this out there, ryan made a name for himself, and he fundamentally changed the debate. he may not win (I have a feeling obama will win with or without our endorsements), but if you step back, ryan has had an enormous impact on what conversation we have. Plus I get why Romney, a business guy would pick him. he's used to walking into dysfunction and finding the one guy who's bright enought o try something. I may not like everything in ryan's plan (his tax plan is very regressive because it drops capital gains taxes completely--which ironically, would mean romney wouldn't have to pay taxes (since he's paid mostly in equity) , which is what the dems are falsely accusing him of now).

    You gotta look at it from other people's perspectives.


    Anyway, so yeah you'll see those ads you're predicting, but no one is talking about how things should be. Ryan's plan has a bunch of stuff in it that sucks. Unfair taxes, destined to fail voucher program (because my 90 year old grandma, who can barely drive down the street to walgreens, and forgets to take her heart pills is going to analyze 10 different insurance policies in any effective way). But it also has good ideas. Block granting medicaid to let states figure out how to administer it could actually work out really well. States already manage welfare, unemployment, etc. so maybe we can see some synergy there. I may not agree with ryan on everything, but i like that he's actually working on some kind of solution. more politicians should be policy wonks.

    whew. nested parentheses. yikes. The sad thing is, I actually talk like that. stream of consciousness. I tried to fix, but you'll have to just read it out loud.
     
  16. KillerAim

    KillerAim Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Please explain why retirees in Florida and Stevinator’s grandmother should be concerned about Ryan’s plan when they are specifically excluded from being affected by the plan? His changes only applies to who are born in 1956 or later.

    1. Capital Gains are paid on dividends and gains on sales of capital.
    2. Dividends are directly linked to company’s Net Income, while capital gains on sales are indirectly linked to Net Income. (You usually make a gain on a sale if the company is more valuable than at the time of your purchase. The increase in the projected value almost always comes from an increase in expected earnings.)
    3. The corporate tax rate on net income equals 35%.
    4. Therefore, Romney and all others (anyone invested in a pension plan, 401k plan, etc.) have already had 35% in taxes deducted from their revenue.
    5. Now, Capital Gains Tax Rates vary from 0% in special cases (regular income plus capital gains still leaves you in the 0% to 15% regular income tax rate category), to the normal 10% to 35% (from low income, long term gains to high income, short term gains).
    6. Therefore, all earners of capital gains have had those earnings taxed at a rate from 35% to 58%.
     
    BobCox2 likes this.
  17. Technomancer

    Technomancer Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    3,261
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    174
    But... I mean...

    [​IMG]


    ALL IS LOST!!! ALL IS LOST!!!!


     
  18. Stevinator

    Stevinator Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    The thing about old people is that the young people keep turning into them. one day you and I (with luck, though if i can't keep up all this health kick stuff, i may never join you in ripe old age) will be old and our families will worry about how we'll decide how to spend our vouchers when we can barely drive or remember to take our pills. I appreciate your mindset of self-interest, but I think my concern is valid.


    The 35% doesn't come from revenue, it comes from earnings after expenses, so you're being a little misleading, but not on purpose. Here's where this all fails. The corporation is its own separate entity. it makes income, it is taxed. it pays it's owners or employees or whatever, they have to pay tax on that income. If you don't like that, you don't have to form a separate entity. you operate as a sole proprietor, and pay the same taxes everyone else gets. There are even ways to do this with a LLC.

    Mitt himself said that corporations are people (whether he meant that they're made up of a group of people or not doesn't matter, he actually said they were people and hasn't recanted--if it was a gaffe (and it may have been), it was poor timing since the citizen's united thing was going on, so he got stuck having to stand by his statement, but he has stuck by it nonetheless. i suppose that says more about mitt than it does about whether capital gains should be taxed, so i'll digress.

    If corporations are their own separate entity then they are, and should be taxed as such. Obama wants to talk about a buffet rule? Where do you think buffet's wealth comes from? long term capital gains (not all of it, but a lot). And really, even if you tax long term capital gains at the same rate as other income, it's still a better deal, because you get to defer paying the taxes on that gain until you actually sell it (we don't tax paper values). This is the only fair way, and I agree with it, but you essentially get to keep rolling the gains along like an IRA. That's the real reason buffet is so undertaxed. he'd have to sell everything to take his tax hit. obama can raise rates on millionaires all obama wants he's barking up the wrong tree.



     
  19. KillerAim

    KillerAim Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    121
    Does your family make your 90 year old Grandmother fill out and pay her own taxes? Does your family force her to handle, on her own, all of the responsibilities involved in living in the modern world (paying bills, handling repairs around the house or negotiating with service companies to take care of the repairs, cooking, cleaning, and yard work)? If not, then why are you arguing that Seniors will be forced to make such decisions without any help from family, friends, or advisors?


    I’m a CPA / economist with close to 40 years in the industry and I used the financial terminology correctly. Please note that I specifically said that the 35% corporate tax rate was based on Net Income. When a percentage of After Tax Net Income is paid to the Stockholders as dividends, that becomes revenue/income for the Stockholder. As the old saying goes, ”Please Don’t try to teach your Grandma how to suck eggs”.

    Thank you for proving my point. The Net Income generated by a sole proprietorship is treated as regular income and taxed at the normal rates. The same income generated by a corporation and then distributed to its stockholders is taxed twice. So, unless you are arguing that all businesses should be sole proprietorships (talk about bring an Economy to a screeching halt! -- Little way to generate capital to work with, very limited options for anyone trying to save for his/her retirement, etc.), then you are admitting that Mitt and Buffet would be paying taxes on their investments even if there was no capital gains taxes.
     
    BobCox2 likes this.
  20. Technomancer

    Technomancer Diabloii.Net Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    3,261
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    174
    So, I guess wages for workers shouldn't be taxed either since the money they are being paid comes from company revenues that have already been taxed? Sweet deal.
     

Share This Page