EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 683
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
Darknat
United States122 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On October 05 2012 23:49 Darknat wrote: The numbers are irrelevant. We the people create jobs, not the government. We the people create government, too. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On October 05 2012 23:49 Darknat wrote: The numbers are irrelevant. We the people create jobs, not the government. If so, don't blame the government for the unemployment, the economy, and the debt. After all, you, the people, aren't creating enough jobs. | ||
|
Adila
United States874 Posts
On October 05 2012 23:49 Darknat wrote: The numbers are irrelevant. We the people create jobs, not the government. Funny thing is, if you don't factor in all the government jobs that were lost, unemployment would be much, much lower. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 05 2012 23:56 Adila wrote: Funny thing is, if you don't factor in all the government jobs that were lost, unemployment would be much, much lower. Yeah, 600K jobs were cut from government payrolls under Obama. That would probably drop the unemployment rate another 0.4-0.5% if they were still there.  (Obama took so long to fake the numbers because he wanted to do it at a time where it would have the most impact on his reelection chances, duh) | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 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. That was me and that's fine. Nobody was guessing that BLS would "find" 875,000 more employed people month/month. (household survey) Expectations were from 8.1 up to 8.2. My call was under 100k. And 115k expected...114k actual... 15k wasn't a big leap either way. (payroll survey) Fact is 114k does not keep up with population growth. And I also think Romney's 250k/month (x 48months = 12 million) jobs average over 4 years is a pipe dream as well. Think about it this way. Bernake is pumping in $40 billion per month into the economy and all that is buying us are 115k new jobs. That's $350,000 of "stimulus" per new job. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8076 Posts
On October 05 2012 23:49 Darknat wrote: The numbers are irrelevant. We the people create jobs, not the government. Awesome rethoric. I laughed out loud. | ||
|
ey215
United States546 Posts
| ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
ey215
United States546 Posts
On October 06 2012 00:29 Souma wrote: Considering U-6 was up past 17% in 2009 and has been in slow and steady decline ever since, I think we're doing fine. These things take time, and although things could have been better (no thanks to obstructionism) I'd say things are faring decently. Like I said, same is better than rising but you'd think from some of the press coverage/reaction in this thread the 7.8 U-3 number is the sign that things are just humming along great in this recovery. Let's just not get ahead of ourselves. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 06 2012 00:29 Souma wrote: Considering U-6 was up past 17% in 2009 and has been in slow and steady decline ever since, I think we're doing fine. These things take time, and although things could have been better (no thanks to obstructionism) I'd say things are faring decently. I'd be shocked if we're not buzzing five years from now. It's a great opportunity to be an entrepreneur right about now. I fully intend to open my own business in the next year unless I get called to DC. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On October 06 2012 00:17 RCMDVA wrote: And I also think Romney's 250k/month (x 48months = 12 million) jobs average over 4 years is a pipe dream as well. Romney is just going by Moody's projections of what will happen if the fiscal cliff is avoided. Economic growth/recovery tends to build on itself... once hiring starts up, there will be more demand, leading to more hiring, etc etc. Then the question becomes when will hiring really start back up? It could look something like 100k jobs/month for 2013, but shoot up to 400k jobs/month for 2016. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
The polls have shown Obama as a clear favorite, but I do think the results are kind to him by a point or two. (of all the reasons I've heard discussed, my favorite idea is that there has been enough complaints of pollster conspiracy on the far right that these people are now not answering the polls, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy) I guess this all makes him a small favorite heading into the final month. The polls early next week ought to give us an idea of how much the debate helped Romney, and a few days after that they should begin to reflect the new unemployment numbers. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On October 05 2012 20:34 DoubleReed wrote: 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... Studies, including the TPC study, have shown that there are plenty of loopholes available to close to make up for the rate cuts. As for the corporate tax rate, both are suggesting that the rate gets lowered and loopholes get closed so a 2% effective rate is less likely to happen. Plenty of corporations already do pay a high tax rate. Exxon paid a 42% rate in 2011. GM paid 1.8% in 2011. Their rate was low because Obama gave them some extra tax credits to hide how much his bailout cost. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On October 06 2012 02:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Studies, including the TPC study, have shown that there are plenty of loopholes available to close to make up for the rate cuts. As for the corporate tax rate, both are suggesting that the rate gets lowered and loopholes get closed so a 2% effective rate is less likely to happen. Plenty of corporations already do pay a high tax rate. Exxon paid a 42% rate in 2011. GM paid 1.8% in 2011. Their rate was low because Obama gave them some extra tax credits to hide how much his bailout cost. The rate cuts of "$5 trillion" would be about $500 million per year. At current rates, there are about $1.1 trillion in lost revenue due to deductions or "loopholes" http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/26/pf/taxes/tax_credits/index.htm If we take into account the new rates he's proposing, that's something like 80% of $1.1T = $880 billion in revenue that could be added by eliminating deductions. So indeed, it would be possible to completely offset an across-the-board reduction of all tax rates by 20% if we eliminated about 57% of the deductions (by cost). As it turns out, 42% of the deductions are the five listed in that article (health care/insurance, retirement savings, HMID, capital gains, EITC). So one possibility would be getting rid of everything else. However, charitable deductions and student loans are also fairly popular. (Giuliani suggested charitable deductions should be eliminated. I agree, especially considering that some of these things end up being ideological/political in nature, but I think churches would put up huge opposition to this since it also benefits them.) Capital gains seems like something the GOP will not budge on. I'd like to see the health insurance and HMID gone, particularly the latter since I think it has really distorted the housing market and encouraged individuals to buy houses they can't afford and contributed to sprawl. It has also been proposed that, since eliminating specific deductions encounters strong opposition from the people who benefit from those deductions, instead we could simply cap the total deductions a person is allowed to make at a certain amount. From a practical perspective, I like this idea as well. | ||
|
jacosajh
2919 Posts
On October 04 2012 10:47 TheFrankOne wrote: He did make hundreds millions and hundreds of millions of dollars, I always assumed he would understand business, the guy is by no means dumb. His tax policy is a joke though. His numbers are impossible and hes backed away from specifics ("20 rate cut" vs "nothing that increases deficit") tonight, not put any forward. I guess people are still posting here so... The tax code is complex. Again, as an accountant, I know this too well. When people start having discussions about it I just don't bother. Because I know having to explain A will lead to having to explain B, C, D, which will lead to having to explain E, F, G, and so on. You don't have that much time in 2 minutes, and you can't just run an entire speech on it. Even if you did, people will nitpick at a small part of your change, for example, A, C, and G and tell people how it doesn't work, it's contradictory to this and that, etc. That is basically what happened. Obama just says "oh, so you want to tax poor people more" (and many people believe it because it's what they've been told time and time again). This puts the burden on Romney to what, explain his entire plan which he doesn't have the time to do, and even if he did, many people wouldn't simply understand it to begin with (or else they wouldn't believe what Obama just said), only to have parts and pieces to be taken out of context again? Like I said, I was thoroughly impressed by how well Romney presented his points. Because I have a better understanding than the average person of the implications behind them. Yes, he's rich, but I know MANY people who are rich but extremely stupid. I've worked for several. I believe the principles he's talking about do make sense and his summary points, if he truly believes them, were much stronger than Obama -- who seemed to not even know anything about tax law or Dodd-Frank (which he, errr... signed). Common, his reply was like a blanket statement for what happened in 2008. After this, I do believe Romney is a much much much much better man to lead this economy. All other things aside. On a side note, I thought it was extremely hilarious when he said "maybe I need to get a new accountant" when talking about the tax credits for sending jobs overseas. But maybe it's just an accountant thing lol. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On October 06 2012 02:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Studies, including the TPC study, have shown that there are plenty of loopholes available to close to make up for the rate cuts. Yes, and then you (and this also goes for jacosajh who just posted above me) arrive to this little fact included in the study that I already reminded you of a few pages ago: The key intuition behind our central result is that, because the total value of the available tax expenditures (once tax expenditures for capital income are excluded) going to high-income taxpayers is smaller than the tax cuts that would accrue to high-income taxpayers, high-income taxpayers must necessarily face a lower net tax burden. As a result, maintaining revenue neutrality mathematically necessitates a shift in the tax burden of at least $86 billion away from high-income taxpayers onto lower- and middle-income taxpayers. This is true even under the assumption that the maximum amount of revenue possible is obtained from cutting tax expenditures for high-income households. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On October 06 2012 02:34 jacosajh wrote: I guess people are still posting here so... The tax code is complex. Again, as an accountant, I know this too well. When people start having discussions about it I just don't bother. Because I know having to explain A will lead to having to explain B, C, D, which will lead to having to explain E, F, G, and so on. You don't have that much time in 2 minutes, and you can't just run an entire speech on it. Even if you did, people will nitpick at a small part of your change, for example, A, C, and G and tell people how it doesn't work, it's contradictory to this and that, etc. That is basically what happened. Obama just says "oh, so you want to tax poor people more" (and many people believe it because it's what they've been told time and time again). This puts the burden on Romney to what, explain his entire plan which he doesn't have the time to do, and even if he did, many people wouldn't simply understand it to begin with (or else they wouldn't believe what Obama just said), only to have parts and pieces to be taken out of context again? Like I said, I was thoroughly impressed by how well Romney presented his points. Because I have a better understanding than the average person of the implications behind them. Yes, he's rich, but I know MANY people who are rich but extremely stupid. I've worked for several. I believe the principles he's talking about do make sense and his summary points, if he truly believes them, were much stronger than Obama -- who seemed to not even know anything about tax law or Dodd-Frank (which he, errr... signed). Common, his reply was like a blanket statement for what happened in 2008. After this, I do believe Romney is a much much much much better man to lead this economy. All other things aside. On a side note, I thought it was extremely hilarious when he said "maybe I need to get a new accountant" when talking about the tax credits for sending jobs overseas. But maybe it's just an accountant thing lol. The US tax code may be meandering and overly complex, but it is not quantum physics. This entire post reads like a giant smokescreen; "Well, I'm an accountant and taxes are hard, so lemme tell you that according to my expertise Romney is right and Obama is wrong." As kwizach and paralleuniverse among others have shown, the economics and financial communities themselves have different opinions on the plans (or lack thereof) presented by both candidates, meaning your whole diatribe boils down to partisan tomfoolery. "Holier than thou" is not a credible form of argumentation, but I suppose an accountant might not know that. | ||
| ||
