|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 05 2012 14:25 CatharsisUT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 12:19 CajunMan wrote:
If you seriously believe that's how Bain worked you really need to not vote because your understanding is very limited.
All companies bought by Bain are failing and going out of business. Bain's job is to take the business and restructure it so it can A) Survive and B) Make a profit. Without Bain every person in every business they purchase would be out of work instead of only some. To say Bain just buys businesses and fires people is ignorant and stupid because they would have no job if not for Bain. I suppose your angry about them making a profit off of helping businesses survive as well?
That's not actually true. PE firms buy a wide range of companies. Some of them are struggling, but most of them aren't. Sometimes it's a family business that the founders are ready to retire from. Sometimes it's a part of a larger company that wants to change its focus. There are a huge number of rationales for PE transactions, so it's not fair to say that every company they buy would be out of business otherwise. HOWEVER, you make a very important point, which is that Bain and other PE firms make the most money when their investments are successful. The goal is always to leave the company as profitable as possible (when you sell a company, the buyer generally pays some industry-appropriate percentage of earnings; the higher the earnings, the better Bain does). So yes, sometimes that means moving/consolidating production facilities, but IMO that's not a bad thing. Improved efficiency is a constant of business. It certainly hurts the people whose jobs are lost, but it's inevitable. PE gets a bad wrap for that kind of thing because they are often seen as the instigators. If you want to read more about the PE aspects of the election, Dan Primack writes for Fortune about the industry, and his takes on the election have thus far been fairly insightful from someone who knows how the industry actually works.
Or you can just read about Romney and his Bain record!
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/mitt-romney-is-lying-again-20120830 (more in depth here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829 )
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829
|
question: if you lower tax rates, but close loop holes, and this causes a net increase in revenue, isn't this infact a tax increase? or vice versa?
How come no one brings this up?
|
Australia8532 Posts
On October 05 2012 14:45 Sadist wrote:
question: if you lower tax rates, but close loop holes, and this causes a net increase in revenue, isn't this infact a tax increase? or vice versa?
How come no one brings this up?
There is a difference between raising the rate of tax and ensuring people pay the rate they should. There is a huge conceptual difference between increasing revenue by closing "loopholes" and raising the rate of tax. The former is attempting to enforce the proper tax rates on those that aren't paying what they're meant to, the latter is attributing a rate to a specific class for all people within that class.
|
On October 05 2012 14:12 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 14:01 Zaqwert wrote:
One thing Obama supporters consistently fail in is seeming to not realize that Obama offers no specifics either.
Romney is just making lots of grand promises to win and you seem super eager to point out all the details missing from his statements.
But then you turn around and give Obama a free pass, just like everyone has been doing for years. The guy is an empty suit. Actually, that is completely false. The Obama tax plan, which is featured in his 2013 budget, is extremely detailed. The budget is 256 pages long and I posted it myself a couple of pages ago. Here it is again. And, in case you missed it, here is his jobs act. Romney's the one who's not giving specifics - certainly not Obama.
So Obama's 'plan' is to dust off old bills and get a budget passed?
What's in that 256 page budget that hasn't already been voted down and is substantial enough to be noteworthy? Anything? Again, I'm not reading the whole thing...
|
On October 05 2012 14:45 Sadist wrote:
question: if you lower tax rates, but close loop holes, and this causes a net increase in revenue, isn't this infact a tax increase? or vice versa?
How come no one brings this up?
IMO that's the proper way to view it. The net effect of the tax changes.
|
On October 05 2012 14:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 14:45 Sadist wrote:
question: if you lower tax rates, but close loop holes, and this causes a net increase in revenue, isn't this infact a tax increase? or vice versa?
How come no one brings this up?
IMO that's the proper way to view it. The net effect of the tax changes.
Actually it can change depending on what social science tell us about tax evasion, even if you would pay the same. People are funny like that, such as the social science tells us that choice makes people happy but more choice while although may even benefit you more that you'll most likely end up dissatisfied due to raising of the bar as choices increase.
|
I don't know people are still talking about Romney's tax loophole deduction stuff. Studies have already shown that it is impossible to give that large a tax cut and make it up with tax loopholes. Like there aren't enough loopholes. Why do people keep bringing this up?
Am I the only one who thought it was weird that both Romney and Obama suggested lowering the corporate tax rate despite the fact that no corporations actually pay the corporate tax rate...
I mean I think Exxon Mobil's effective tax rate was like 2% last year...
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
They both want to reform the corporate tax code so corporations will pay more effective taxes.
|
Russia and China are both probably praying Romney wins, he already gave Russia the power to intervene in Europes missile defense program with a single stupid comment, imagine him as President flip flopping around
|
On October 05 2012 14:45 Sadist wrote:
question: if you lower tax rates, but close loop holes, and this causes a net increase in revenue, isn't this infact a tax increase? or vice versa?
How come no one brings this up?
It's a purely semantic difference between raising taxes and eliminating deductions, though eliminating deductions is slightly more advantageous for people without tax lawyers. People pay more in the end.
If you are lowering tax rates to the extent that some population has more money in their pocket after considering which deductions you are eliminating then you mathematically must raise the amount some people are paying. Romney has at times said that small businesses, the middle class, and corporations will all have more money and the rich will pay the same amount, which has left most of us (including Obama and analysts) wondering where exactly the money will come from.
|
On October 05 2012 21:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 14:45 Sadist wrote:
question: if you lower tax rates, but close loop holes, and this causes a net increase in revenue, isn't this infact a tax increase? or vice versa?
How come no one brings this up?
It's a purely semantic difference between raising taxes and eliminating deductions, though eliminating deductions is slightly more advantageous for people without tax lawyers. People pay more in the end. If you are lowering tax rates to the extent that some population has more money in their pocket after considering which deductions you are eliminating then you mathematically must raise the amount some people are paying. Romney has at times said that small businesses, the middle class, and corporations will all have more money and the rich will pay the same amount, which has left most of us (including Obama and analysts) wondering where exactly the money will come from.
Easy to promise the world while running for anything when most of the people who'll vote for you have a sub standard IQ level and can't comprehend money doesn't grow on trees.
|
Well I was wrong on NFP under 100k. Came in at 114,000.
Stunningly the unemployment rate dropped .3% down to 7.8%.
So the working age population was +206,000. Jobs grew by +114,000. And the the unemployment rate was crushed.
We'll be at 6.0% unemployment by Spring!
|
On October 05 2012 21:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 14:45 Sadist wrote:
question: if you lower tax rates, but close loop holes, and this causes a net increase in revenue, isn't this infact a tax increase? or vice versa?
How come no one brings this up?
It's a purely semantic difference between raising taxes and eliminating deductions, though eliminating deductions is slightly more advantageous for people without tax lawyers. People pay more in the end. If you are lowering tax rates to the extent that some population has more money in their pocket after considering which deductions you are eliminating then you mathematically must raise the amount some people are paying. Romney has at times said that small businesses, the middle class, and corporations will all have more money and the rich will pay the same amount, which has left most of us (including Obama and analysts) wondering where exactly the money will come from. He claims the revenue will come from growth and the deficit will be slashed through cuts. How growth is supposed to balance the budget is beyond me though as growth surely isn't a short term solution to anything.
Again though, the only thing he has said of any substance with regards to his claims is that he would "cut anything he wouldn't want to borrow from china to keep running". In essence, an extremely vague statement because it just means that what he will cut will be decided at a later date, giving voters no clear understanding of just what he plans to do.
As an outside observer, I don't think Obama has a particularly amazing plan. But at least he can be held accountable for his plan. Romney is just spouting a bunch of vague promises and wherever he has actually said something concrete, he takes it back the second he is criticised for it.
|
I have no problem with Obama's policies but he seems extremely weak as a president. His debate was a prime example of his failings. Even when the opportunity comes to get what he wants (when Romney tells a giant lie), he doesn't pursue it. Intellectually I doubt he's doing it intentionally, but emotionally I almost feel like he's a paid off to be intentionally inert. Hillary would have been the exact opposite in that respect I think. That woman scares me but I'm pretty sure whatever she wanted, her will would be done one way or another.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
This is GREAT news!
The decrease in the unemployment rate appears to be driven by real economic growth, as the economy added enough jobs to drive the rate down even as more than 400,000 new people entered the labor market, according to Labor’s household jobs survey. The household survey — Labor’s other main measure of employment — put the number of jobs added in September at 873,000. The household figure, which is used to calculate the unemployment rate, has a larger margin for error than the survey of employers. The 114,000 figure is based on a survey of employers’ payrolls. Labor also revised its August payroll jobs figure to 142,000 up from its initial figure of 96,000 jobs. The department released a final July figure of 181,000 up from its previous estimate of 141,000 jobs. “This shows that the job market is steadily improving,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82068.html?hp=t1
Look, guys! 400,000 government-leeching-non-personal-responsibility-taking slackers finally decided to get off the couch. Praise the Lord! Hallelujah!
|
|
|
On October 05 2012 14:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 14:12 kwizach wrote:On October 05 2012 14:01 Zaqwert wrote:
One thing Obama supporters consistently fail in is seeming to not realize that Obama offers no specifics either.
Romney is just making lots of grand promises to win and you seem super eager to point out all the details missing from his statements.
But then you turn around and give Obama a free pass, just like everyone has been doing for years. The guy is an empty suit. Actually, that is completely false. The Obama tax plan, which is featured in his 2013 budget, is extremely detailed. The budget is 256 pages long and I posted it myself a couple of pages ago. Here it is again. And, in case you missed it, here is his jobs act. Romney's the one who's not giving specifics - certainly not Obama. So Obama's 'plan' is to dust off old bills and get a budget passed? What's in that 256 page budget that hasn't already been voted down and is substantial enough to be noteworthy? Anything? Again, I'm not reading the whole thing...
Why should I be the one "reading the whole thing" if you're the one asking the question? Compare his tax plan to Romney's and you'll immediately see whose one is detailed.
|
Employment up quite a bit with last month's reports and adjustments from the previous periods. I read some guy gloating that the numbers were bad because Obama made no mention o jobs in a speech yesterday, and I'd like to tell him "up yours".
It almost seems to me that many republicans are happy when the unemployment numbers are bad-- it's like they're happy Obama looks bad and his reelection chances drop rather than an indictment of his policies themselves.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 05 2012 23:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
Employment up quite a bit with last month's reports and adjustments from the previous periods. I read some guy gloating that the numbers were bad because Obama made no mention o jobs in a speech yesterday, and I'd like to tell him "up yours".
It almost seems to me that many republicans are happy when the unemployment numbers are bad-- it's like they're happy Obama looks bad and his reelection chances drop rather than an indictment of his policies themselves.
Well, that kind of was their plan ever since he took office. They don't care about policies. They care about making Obama look bad.
|
Nice to see some conservatives already calling the jobs numbers a fabrication and lie.
If such was the case, why did it take so long for Obama to manipulate the numbers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
