The Tax Haven Issue Returns

[ClydeR]

As you will vividly recall, when Rick Perry was still running and I was supporting him, I said that the purpose of Romney's investments in offshore tax havens was to avoid United States income taxes. Romney specifically denied that he paid lower taxes as a result of sheltering his money offshore than he would have paid if he had invested his money in the Untied States. At the time, I said he was lying. Two new investigations back me up.

The Obama camp is not being shy about raising the issue. Former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland didn't mince words.


“Oh, what a contrast, my friends, between these two men who would be president!” Strickland said, standing outside the Wolcott House Museum. “President Obama is betting on America and American workers, and Mitt Romney is betting his resources in the Cayman Islands, in Bermuda, in Switzerland and God only knows where else he is putting his resources.”

Strickland was referring to Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts) and Associated Press (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mystery-offshore-firm-hint-larger-romney-wealth-16708686) investigations into perfectly legal – but politically controversial — off shore accounts Romney has held, in apparent efforts to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Romney had not disclosed some of these accounts in previous public filings.

“Think about it, think of this, a man who wants to be the president of the United States took his great wealth, and instead of investing that great wealth in America, the country he hopes to lead, he somehow chose to find the tax haven, Switzerland, where he opened up a bank account,” Strickland said. “He invested in the Cayman islands, has a corporation in Bermuda, and he took money from shadowy south American investors when he started Bain Capital and now my friends, he conveniently has decided that he will not release his income tax returns. Doesn’t it make you wonder what Mitt Romney is trying to hide from the American people?”

More... (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/obama-campaign-co-chair-in-ohio-slams-romneys-off-shore-accounts/)

When your nominee is a pioneer in outsourcing jobs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romneys-bain-capital-invested-in-companies-that-moved-jobs-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_story.html) who invests his personal fortune in overseas tax havens, instead of the United States, you've got to wonder if you chose the right nominee.

[~Rocktar~]

As opposed to a tax and spend socialist who's single greatest claim to fame now is creating the means to direct economic enslavement of the population to the government. Most people will take outsourcing over enslavement most days of the week.

Troll harder.

[AbnInfamy]

creating the means to direct economic enslavement of the population

Wait, I don't think I understand. Aren't I already economically enslaved by the government by the taxes I'm already paying?

[Jarvan]

Wait, I don't think I understand. Aren't I already economically enslaved by the government by the taxes I'm already paying?

No.. If you pay taxes, you are enslaved the the 50% of the country that doesn't.

[Valthissa]

When your nominee is a pioneer in outsourcing jobs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/romneys-bain-capital-invested-in-companies-that-moved-jobs-overseas/2012/06/21/gJQAsD9ptV_story.html) who invests his personal fortune in overseas tax havens, instead of the United States, you've got to wonder if you chose the right nominee.


For some reason the word 'outsource' is being used in the media as if it were synonymous with 'offshore'.

As I am certain everyone here knows, outsourcing is simply subcontracting instead of doing the work in house.

I have done outsourcing analysis on welding, CFD analysis, mil-spec painting, and laser drilling to mention a few. No oversea supplier was considered in my analysis. We now outsource painting and welding but have retained welding and CFD analysis capability in-house. There was probably a net reduction in jobs, but not becasue the work was sent overseas.

I expect to be increasingly annoyed by the use of the word outsource (without qualification) until after the election.


C

[Warriorbird]

For some reason the word 'outsource' is being used in the media as if it were synonymous with 'offshore'.

As I am certain everyone here knows, outsourcing is simply subcontracting instead of doing the work in house.

I have done outsourcing analysis on welding, CFD analysis, mil-spec painting, and laser drilling to mention a few. No oversea supplier was considered in my analysis. We now outsource painting and welding but have retained welding and CFD analysis capability in-house. There was probably a net reduction in jobs, but not becasue the work was sent overseas.

I expect to be increasingly annoyed by the use of the word outsource (without qualification) until after the election.


C

Since when was politics about the actual meaning of words? In this very thread we have a Republican healthcare plan (it was the plan Newt pushed when he ran the show and Romney passed in Mass.) referred to as "the means to direct economic enslavement of the population to the government."

[~Rocktar~]

Since when was politics about the actual meaning of words? In this very thread we have a Republican healthcare plan (it was the plan Newt pushed when he ran the show and Romney passed in Mass.) referred to as "the means to direct economic enslavement of the population to the government."

It wasn't good then either. Who made it doesn't change isn't value over all.

[ClydeR]

For some reason the word 'outsource' is being used in the media as if it were synonymous with 'offshore'.

A rose by any other name..

No matter if you call it outsourcing or offshoring, the fact is that Romeny fired U.S. workers and shipped their jobs to India and China. Then he cashed out of the U.S. companies and invested his profits in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, Bermuda and other tax havens. Since he made a fortune by firing American workers, couldn't he at least invest it in America?

[Ashmoreth]

A rose by any other name..

No matter if you call it outsourcing or offshoring, the fact is that Romeny fired U.S. workers and shipped their jobs to India and China. Then he cashed out of the U.S. companies and invested his profits in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, Bermuda and other tax havens. Since he made a fortune by firing American workers, couldn't he at least invest it in America?

In all fairness, it's often a better business decision to ship jobs to other countries because of the restraints and regulations imposed in this one. For example, domestic rail shipments must be insured by the railroads up to the full value of the goods shipped (Carmack Amendment 14 USCA 14706). Shipments of the same goods done under an international through bill of lading can be insured as low as $500 per shipping container (COGSA).

Second, when he made the money, he was taxed at whatever tax rate is applicable to the type of investment he made, whether it was regular income or capital gains. The fact that he took his money, already taxed at least twice (when the corporation made it and when it was disbursed to him) and put it an bank account in another country doesn't mean anything at all. It's not even an investment in the traditional sense of the word, it's just sitting in an account. It has already been taxed by the US. What do you want? A third tax, or maybe he should be forced to invest in govt. bonds?

Third, the problem of American companies shipping out jobs is a function of the aforementioned ridiculous regulations an the fact that the labor is cheaper overseas. You can't get too upset with Romney for doing the exact same thing that has been done by almost every large American industry. Even the auto-industry that Pres. Obama "saved" produces goods in Mexico and elsewhere. And lets not even think think about the green energy businesses that received our tax dollars to purchase parts from overseas. If you want businesses to remain in America, you are going to have to accept that the regulations are overly burdensome and do something about it. If you aren't willing to do that, I guess you just have to be happy with the at least double taxation we already take from people.

[Archigeek]

99.9% of the reason jobs get shipped overseas is that they're willing to work for peanuts overseas. Other than altruism, why would you want to pay someone $15 an hour here when someone in China will do the same job for less than that for the whole day? And with no benefits cost? Regulatory savings made by shipping the work overseas are a small consolation when compared with the additional hassles with quality control and local government, added shipping logistics, etc.

I think the real question is, do we want to drive our labor costs down to meet the overseas model, or encourage the overseas labor costs to go up? Because what we're seeing is a form of equalization, that is likely to continue. It's not just factory labor and call centers either. Any sort of labor can conceivably be done overseas, except for the obvious things like construction labor.

[ClydeR]

The fact that he took his money, already taxed at least twice (when the corporation made it and when it was disbursed to him) and put it an bank account in another country doesn't mean anything at all. It's not even an investment in the traditional sense of the word, it's just sitting in an account.

Nice try, but no.


One aspect of Romney's wealth that has come under some scrutiny are his investments in Cayman Island. Brad Matt of Ropes and Gray, Romney's trustee who handles his family's funds, clarified today that those investments are in "third party entities," not funds, and that it does not constitute a foreign account but rather a foreign investment.

More... (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romney-made-42-million-paid-14-percent/story?id=15423615)



Why do you think he put his money in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg and Bermuda? Seriously. What do you think was his motivation?

He claims that he did not pay any less tax because of it. Do you think he is being honest about that? I think he's lying. And I think he's let the lie go on for so long, even after multiple experts have said it's probably not true, that now he can't discuss the issue at all.

I'm not saying he did anything illegal. Instead, I'm saying that he used a legal maneuver to lower his taxes and then lied about it.

[Valthissa]

A rose by any other name..

No matter if you call it outsourcing or offshoring, the fact is that Romeny fired U.S. workers and shipped their jobs to India and China. Then he cashed out of the U.S. companies and invested his profits in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, Bermuda and other tax havens. Since he made a fortune by firing American workers, couldn't he at least invest it in America?

I assume we can agree that words have meaning (this is my Latrinsorm impersonation). My objection was not to your post, since you were just paraphrasing a newspaper article, but to the way the article makes outsourcing sound evil.

Outsource has a current meaning in business (according to my five minute research, it seems that it is a relatively new word, dating to the late 70's). This meaning is not 'close american plant, open plant overseas'. My objection is to the use of outsource by the media as if it were synonymous with offshoring. I suppose I am sensitive to the use of outsource in this manner having led more than one outsourcing initiative.

Based on what Politifact and WaPo's Factchecker say, the statement 'the fact is that Romeny fired U.S. workers and shipped their jobs to India and China' is not well supported (which is not the same thing as being baseless).

As far as tax avoidance, in a famous case Judge Learned Hand wrote:


Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible.Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: Taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions.I personally wish Romney, and other wealthy Americans, would keep their capital in the US, regardless of how their fortunes were made. I don't think a tax code can be written that doesn't encourage some form of tax avoidance.

C

[ClydeR]

As far as tax avoidance, in a famous case Judge Learned Hand wrote:


Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible.Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: Taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions.I personally wish Romney, and other wealthy Americans, would keep their capital in the US, regardless of how their fortunes were made. I don't think a tax code can be written that doesn't encourage some form of tax avoidance.

C

Are you saying that you believe Romney used overseas tax havens for the purpose of reducing his U.S. tax obligations? Romney says he did not. He just thought those were cool places to invest. It had nothing whatsover to do with the fact that every one of them happens to be a known tax haven, if you trust Romney.

[Ashmoreth]

I couldn't agree more, except that I consider all of the wage controls that make overseas labor so much cheaper as part of the regulatory scheme. I was just picking the shipping example as a way to illustrate that we have laws directly favoring shipments coming from overseas at the expense of local production. I don't think we should reduce wages down to the dollar a week wages they have in other countries. That's not possible. I have no idea how to fix the major problem that third-world economies have a labor pool willing to work for nothing, and the regulatory burdens are only a part of that problem. But unlike Clyde I don't see the benefit of blaming Romney for what are simply economic realities. It's no more Romney's fault that some guy in Thailand is in such a crappy situation that he will work for nothing than it is Obama's. It sucks that we've come to the point where the only way for many businesses to stay afloat is to ship jobs overseas. The only two things I can think of to even help would be to provide massive economic incentives to keeping companies manufacturing here, probably in the form of a tax break, or imposing a huge import tax on overseas goods to negate production disparities. Since neither of these has any legitimate change of being implemented, the best thing we can do is take away those regulations, like Carmack, that don't serve a rational purpose and aren't a huge political issue.

[Parkbandit]

Nice try, but no.

Why do you think he put his money in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg and Bermuda? Seriously. What do you think was his motivation?

He claims that he did not pay any less tax because of it. Do you think he is being honest about that? I think he's lying. And I think he's let the lie go on for so long, even after multiple experts have said it's probably not true, that now he can't discuss the issue at all.

I'm not saying he did anything illegal. Instead, I'm saying that he used a legal maneuver to lower his taxes and then lied about it.

I would point out that most of his wealth is tied up to investments that he has no say in.. and has been that way since prior to 2008 when he was running for President the first time.

But that would ruin your daily liberal troll spew...

[Parkbandit]

I couldn't agree more, except that I consider all of the wage controls that make overseas labor so much cheaper as part of the regulatory scheme. I was just picking the shipping example as a way to illustrate that we have laws directly favoring shipments coming from overseas at the expense of local production. I don't think we should reduce wages down to the dollar a week wages they have in other countries. That's not possible. I have no idea how to fix the major problem that third-world economies have a labor pool willing to work for nothing, and the regulatory burdens are only a part of that problem. But unlike Clyde I don't see the benefit of blaming Romney for what are simply economic realities. It's no more Romney's fault that some guy in Thailand is in such a crappy situation that he will work for nothing than it is Obama's. It sucks that we've come to the point where the only way for many businesses to stay afloat is to ship jobs overseas. The only two things I can think of to even help would be to provide massive economic incentives to keeping companies manufacturing here, probably in the form of a tax break, or imposing a huge import tax on overseas goods to negate production disparities. Since neither of these has any legitimate change of being implemented, the best thing we can do is take away those regulations, like Carmack, that don't serve a rational purpose and aren't a huge political issue.

If you don't support Obama's "Bottom Up Poverty" policy, you must be a racist.

[Ashmoreth]

Nice try, but no.





Why do you think he put his money in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg and Bermuda? Seriously. What do you think was his motivation?

He claims that he did not pay any less tax because of it. Do you think he is being honest about that? I think he's lying. And I think he's let the lie go on for so long, even after multiple experts have said it's probably not true, that now he can't discuss the issue at all.

I'm not saying he did anything illegal. Instead, I'm saying that he used a legal maneuver to lower his taxes and then lied about it.

I do think he is being honest about that. Fact is he put money that had already been made in the offshore accounts. The current US tax code doesn't include any "wealth tax." You don't pay taxes just because you have money in the bank, unless of course you invest that money to make more money (then you only pay tax on the "more money" and not on your original investment). So, since the money in the offshore accounts is already his after-taxation dollars, he wouldn't be paying taxes on it anyway, except the interest derived from it.

I don't know if you are saying there should be some sort of tax if you have accumulated earnings over a certain dollar amount, but even you feel that is a good idea (which I would disagree with), the fact is that the tax code isn't set up that way. We don't tax people just because they have money. Where would you draw the line at too much? Is 10M too much money for one person to have? What about 1M?

Policy considerations aside, the fact remains that his after-tax dollars are just as untaxable in a BoA account as they are in a Cayman account.

[Warriorbird]

If you don't support Obama's "Bottom Up Poverty" policy, you must be a racist.

I've wished for a while that Obama actually was the evil socialist you make him out to be as opposed to a shameless copier of Republican policies which then get declared the ULTIMATE EVIL! by Republicans.

I love hearing from Romney about how his healthcare plan in Mass wasn't a tax but Obama's is.

[ClydeR]

I would point out that most of his wealth is tied up to investments that he has no say in.. and has been that way since prior to 2008 when he was running for President the first time.

That "age-old ruse (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/when-mitt-romney-attacked-ted-kennedy-about-his-bl)"? That's what Romney called blind trusts in 1994 when he was attacking Ted Kennedy for having a blind trust.

And just how blind is Romney's trust? Did you know that out of all the millions of investment opportunities open to the trustee of the blind trust, who just happens to be Romney's long-time lawyer, the trustee chose to invest more than $1 million in a company managed by Romney's son? Quite a coincidence.

http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romneys-blind-trust-not-blind-140241848.html

[ClydeR]

I don't know if you are saying there should be some sort of tax if you have accumulated earnings over a certain dollar amount, but even you feel that is a good idea (which I would disagree with), the fact is that the tax code isn't set up that way. We don't tax people just because they have money. Where would you draw the line at too much? Is 10M too much money for one person to have? What about 1M?

I'm saying that by investing the money in an offshore IRA, he was able to use a "blocker corporation," as described in numerous articles like this one (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/politics/romneys-returns-revive-scrutiny-of-offshore-tax-shelters.html?pagewanted=all) to reduce his taxes. If he had invested in an IRA in the United States, he would not have been able to use a blocker corporation and would have been required to pay some serious taxes on the earnings in the IRA.

Romney says he is paying the same amount of tax from having his IRA in an overseas tax haven as he would if he had it in the United States. And I'm saying that he's lying.

That's just the reason for one of the Cayman Islands investments. Who knows about the investments in the other tax havens?

[Tgo01]

I've wished for a while that Obama actually was the evil socialist you make him out to be as opposed to a shameless copier of Republican policies which then get declared the ULTIMATE EVIL! by Republicans.

Which policies is Obama copying from Republicans? Why were these plans "evil" when Republicans suggested them but are "good" now that Obama suggests them?

[Warriorbird]

Which policies is Obama copying from Republicans? Why were these plans "evil" when Republicans suggested them but are "good" now that Obama suggests them?

Cap and trade.
The Romney healthcare plan.
The Rubio immigration plan.

You seem to have reversed "good" and "evil" in your answer. They were wonderful to Republicans when they suggested them, but when Obama suggests them they're the "worst thing ever!"

[Tgo01]

So three?

[Warriorbird]

So three?

So now you're going to try to attack what I say by the number of them. Cool.

Mightn't they be some of the more major things Obama has proposed? They might!

You can throw on financial industry and automotive industry bailouts, which first came in under Republican presidents too.

[Tgo01]

So now you're going to try to attack what I say by the number of them. Cool.

I'm not attacking anything. But hearing "shameless copier of Republican policies" I'll admit I was expecting more than three things yes.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not attacking anything. But hearing "shameless copier of Republican policies" I'll admit I was expecting more than three things yes.

Of course you are, so I threw another one on for your benefit. You could throw on all that Obama's done related to the detention of American citizens suspected of terrorism and "undeclared war" too.

That's six, all of which are just fine when Republicans do them but "tyranny" when Obama does.

[Tgo01]

Of course you are, so I threw another one on for your benefit. You could throw on all that Obama's done related to the detention of American citizens suspected of terrorism and "undeclared war" too.

That's six, all of which are just fine when Republicans do them but "tyranny" when Obama does.

Sort of like how Democrats thought Bush should be tried as a war criminal yet they think Obama deserves a Nobel Peace prize for following Bush's policies?

[Archigeek]

Look, the thing is, Republicans got boned by Clinton when he played the co-option game. it's just taken them a couple of administrations to figure out how to respond to a Democrat who co-opts their ideas. The alternative is to say, "hey, great idea, glad we thought of that". That's what they did during the Clinton administration, though the tone was more like, "hey, that was our idea!", and it didn't get them anywhere, so this time around they've decided to deny that they had the ideas in the first place. The basic goal is "deny victories of any sort at any cost". That's been the plan in congress, why do you expect it to be any different now that the election is getting closer?

[Parkbandit]

Cap and trade.
The Romney healthcare plan.
The Rubio immigration plan.

You seem to have reversed "good" and "evil" in your answer. They were wonderful to Republicans when they suggested them, but when Obama suggests them they're the "worst thing ever!"

I must not be a real Republican, because I dislike the cap and trade and the healthcare plans. The immigration plan shouldn't be an executive order, but put through Congress and be made a law. And no, that's not the Dream Act.

[Warriorbird]

I must not be a real Republican, because I dislike the cap and trade and the healthcare plans. The immigration plan shouldn't be an executive order, but put through Congress and be made a law. And no, that's not the Dream Act.

Noteworthily, you liked Reagan when his people came up with Cap and Trade and you probably didn't oppose it when it was pushed through bipartisanly for sulfur dioxide. It was a huge moneymaker and helped clean up the country.

You're going to vote for Romney even though he came up with the healthcare plan and believe it when he claims he didn't raise taxes in Mass. yet Obama's mandate is a "tax."

You probably voted for Rubio, who came up with said immigration plan. He gets his plan passed without even having to worry about Congress (who obviously now have to choose to oppose it because Obama did it.)

[AnticorRifling]

So is it hope and change or is it "well this bad stuff was here when I got here so I'm gonna keep doin it"? You can't have both.

[Warriorbird]

So is it hope and change or is it "well this bad stuff was here when I got here so I'm gonna keep doin it"? You can't have both.

I think the aim is "Wow, I did some things when when these people opposed me even when I used their legislation."

We'll see how well it works. I think it still seems sort of funny to people that Romney's now stating his own healthcare idea for the whole country is evil. It doesn't really suggest much Republican "Hope and change." and it's awful tough to propose new ideas to run on when Obama steals them (insert Rubio.)

The negative campaigning will be "OMG you failed to do stuff!" versus "Romney doesn't know what he wants + invented outsourcing."

Theoretically it should be "I'm an actually good businessman." versus "I had Bin Laden killed when Bush didn't and I managed to do a couple good healthcare things." It won't be.

[Latrinsorm]

No.. If you pay taxes, you are enslaved the the 50% of the country that doesn't.You think the rich are enslaved to the poor?
I assume we can agree that words have meaning (this is my Latrinsorm impersonation).I would have said "surely", but I have been waiting YEARS for someone to make an Airplane rejoinder and so far nothing. :(

Also, when will White Haven respond to these allegations?

[Ashmoreth]

We'll see how well it works. I think it still seems sort of funny to people that Romney's now stating his own healthcare idea for the whole country is evil. It doesn't really suggest much Republican "Hope and change." and it's awful tough to propose new ideas to run on when Obama steals them (insert Rubio.)


I think the Romney stance can be fairly distinguished on the difference between state and federal power. Besides he never said it's evil. He merely said it was a bad idea at the federal level and has called it a tax. The latter is nearly compelled by the SCOTUS decision, which said the legislation could be upheld ONLY because it might be qualified as a tax. Based on the reaction on both sides of the isle, I think the vast majority view is that the decision to call it a tax is flawed but it's either a tax or it's unconstitutional. The President has said this and you certainly wouldn't fault Romney for agreeing with the President, would you? Furthermore, Romney has at least a chance to argue that in Mass. the bill was passed under the valid police power and doesn't need to be supported by a taxing power, making it not really a tax. I think that argument is BS because I don't care what power someone cites to tell me what I have to buy, but it's there to be made.

As to the former, there is a very strong argument that it is a bad idea at the federal level. First, I personally have little faith that the federal government can get it right. If healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP go down because the government gets involved I will probably die of shock.

I agree with the underlying premise here though, which is that Romney isn't the best choice to trumpet a conservative agenda. However, his weakness in that area may give Pres. Obama some difficulty in attacking him as a hardliner.

[Parkbandit]

Noteworthily, you liked Reagan when his people came up with Cap and Trade and you probably didn't oppose it when it was pushed through bipartisanly for sulfur dioxide. It was a huge moneymaker and helped clean up the country.

I was in College and not politically active at all. Also noteworthy, I don't just agree to everything the President does just because his name ends in an "R". You should try it sometime.


You're going to vote for Romney even though he came up with the healthcare plan and believe it when he claims he didn't raise taxes in Mass. yet Obama's mandate is a "tax."

Yes. And like I have said from day 1, I would vote for a pair of shoes over Obama if they were running for President.. Just like you are going to vote for Obama, even though he "stole" all these plans from Republicans... which you didn't like then but now fully embrace.



You probably voted for Rubio, who came up with said immigration plan. He gets his plan passed without even having to worry about Congress (who obviously now have to choose to oppose it because Obama did it.)

He has stated the reasoning for disliking the way Obama went about it.. which was to circumvent Congress completely. You should read up on it.

[Reliel]

I would vote for a pair of shoes over Obama if they were running for President.

3696

[Warriorbird]

He has stated the reasoning for disliking the way Obama went about it.. which was to circumvent Congress completely. You should read up on it.

Hilarious. Not traditional powers of the President that all of them use! Noo!


I was in College and not politically active at all. Also noteworthy, I don't just agree to everything the President does just because his name ends in an "R". You should try it sometime.

Right. Because I haven't said that I disagree with Obama over a number of things (particularly including bargaining away his mandate on healthcare). You still supported him. Next comes the bit where you make up stuff that I apparently disagree with him on.


Yes. And like I have said from day 1, I would vote for a pair of shoes over Obama if they were running for President.. Just like you are going to vote for Obama, even though he "stole" all these plans from Republicans... which you didn't like then but now fully embrace.

One of your favorite trolling attempts. Did I say I somehow disagreed with these? Nope. You've actively suggested that Republican ideas mean he's some sort of socialist, however, which is ludicrous. These actually suggest he's more of a centrist than I would like.

[Warriorbird]

I think the Romney stance can be fairly distinguished on the difference between state and federal power. Besides he never said it's evil. He merely said it was a bad idea at the federal level and has called it a tax. The latter is nearly compelled by the SCOTUS decision, which said the legislation could be upheld ONLY because it might be qualified as a tax. Based on the reaction on both sides of the isle, I think the vast majority view is that the decision to call it a tax is flawed but it's either a tax or it's unconstitutional. The President has said this and you certainly wouldn't fault Romney for agreeing with the President, would you? Furthermore, Romney has at least a chance to argue that in Mass. the bill was passed under the valid police power and doesn't need to be supported by a taxing power, making it not really a tax. I think that argument is BS because I don't care what power someone cites to tell me what I have to buy, but it's there to be made.

As to the former, there is a very strong argument that it is a bad idea at the federal level. First, I personally have little faith that the federal government can get it right. If healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP go down because the government gets involved I will probably die of shock.

I agree with the underlying premise here though, which is that Romney isn't the best choice to trumpet a conservative agenda. However, his weakness in that area may give Pres. Obama some difficulty in attacking him as a hardliner.

Romney himself suggested it would be a good idea for the whole country, multiple times and in his book.

[AnticorRifling]

Theoretically it should be "I'm an actually good businessman." versus "I had Bin Laden killed when Bush didn't and I managed to do a couple good healthcare things." It won't be.

I think you mean "I finished what someone else started and I'm taking the credit even though I probably had extremely little to do with it and I managed to do a couple of healthcare things, not good, not bad, but things."

[Warriorbird]

I think you mean "I finished what someone else started and I'm taking the credit even though I probably had extremely little to do with it and I managed to do a couple of healthcare things, not good, not bad, but things."

Or maybe "I finished something that somebody else didn't give a fuck about but members of his party don't want to admit that because it hurts their entire worldview." Bush said Osama wasn't an issue countless times. Obama was right about Pakistan for a long damn time. I even said it here.

You better believe McCain would've taken credit and you and others would be cheering him on for it if he was President. But because it's Obama he "probably had extremely little to do with it."

[Parkbandit]

Hilarious. Not traditional powers of the President that all of them use! Noo!

Read what Rubio said about it... which I agree with. "B-b-but other Presidents did it, that must mean it's ok!" Derp.



Right. Because I haven't said that I disagree with Obama over a number of things (particularly including bargaining away his mandate on healthcare). You still supported him. Next comes the bit where you make up stuff that I apparently disagree with him on.

I would never steal your schtick of making shit up just so I can argue against it. That's all you, kid.



One of your favorite trolling attempts.

Case in point.. unless you can somehow read my mind and know this is one of my favorite. Either you are REALLY bad at communicating or you are just an idiot. It's probably a combination of both.



Did I say I somehow disagreed with these? Nope. You've actively suggested that Republican ideas mean he's some sort of socialist, however, which is ludicrous. These actually suggest he's more of a centrist than I would like.

Lulz @ Obama being a centerist. That's hilarious.

[Parkbandit]

Or maybe "I finished something that somebody else didn't give a fuck about but members of his party don't want to admit that because it hurts their entire worldview." Bush said Osama wasn't an issue countless times. Obama was right about Pakistan for a long damn time. I even said it here.

You better believe McCain would've taken credit and you and others would be cheering him on for it if he was President. But because it's Obama he "probably had extremely little to do with it."

All Romney has to do is concentrate the focus on the economy.. and he wins. If he allows Obama to take him off message, then he will lose.

Obama's record on the economy is abysmal. Yes, yes.. we know.. he inherited it from the Evil Bush! It's not his fault! He's trying!

Summer of Recovery. Part 3.

[Warriorbird]

It'll be hilarious if OMG Socialism! starts to backfire more.

[Ashmoreth]

Romney himself suggested it would be a good idea for the whole country, multiple times and in his book.

Like Obama's "evolving" stance on gay marriage? Or on the issue of an individual mandate? People being open to changing their minds is a bad thing now? Granted it's easier to believe that both of them made all of the statements for political reasons.

[Parkbandit]

It'll be hilarious if OMG Socialism! starts to backfire more.

Keep focus on the economy.

Bring up the job numbers.

Bring up that more people went on disability last month than got a job.

Keep asking "Are you better off in 2009 than you are now"

Bring up the debt.

Bring up the deficit.

Bring up how much of a failure Stimulus was.

Bring up Solindra.

Bring up Fast and Furious.

Stay on message.

Romney wins.

[Warriorbird]

Like Obama's "evolving" stance on gay marriage? Or on the issue of an individual mandate? People being open to changing their minds is a bad thing now? Granted it's easier to believe that both of them made all of the statements for political reasons.

So pitch me on how this makes Romney somehow "hope and change."

[Parkbandit]

So pitch me on how this makes Romney somehow "hope and change."

He simply has to illustrate what "Hope and Change" got us 4 years ago..

Economy, economy, economy.

[Back]

He simply has to illustrate what "Hope and Change" got us 4 years ago..

Economy, economy, economy.

So you'd have us believe Romney is the answer to job creation and the economy? The guy who made his millions at a company that aggressively laundered failing companies for profit? The guy whose company while creating some jobs also cut more jobs and outsourced jobs so they could hire workers at lower wages with less benefits? The guy who is the epitome of what "gaming the system" is with his offshore accounts? Yeah, sounds like you're hitting the crack pipe again. He sounds like the WORST person for the job.

[Parkbandit]

So you'd have us believe Romney is the answer to job creation and the economy? The guy who made his millions at a company that aggressively laundered failing companies for profit? The guy whose company while creating some jobs also cut more jobs and outsourced jobs so they could hire workers at lower wages with less benefits? The guy who is the epitome of what "gaming the system" is with his offshore accounts? Yeah, sounds like you're hitting the crack pipe again. He sounds like the WORST person for the job.

I would say not to believe everything you see on a political ad.. but I think we both know that would be a complete waste of effort on my part.

Wallow in your ignorance... keep drinking the kool-aid.

[Androidpk]

I'm no fan of Romney but after the last 4 years I have zero faith in Obama doing anything worthwhile. Granted I don't see Romney being a whole lot better but you know what they say about the lesser or two evils.

[Back]

When Romney says he wants to help America and the economy its code for "I want to help Wall Street and all my white rich friends".

[Androidpk]

When Romney says he wants to help America and the economy its code for "I want to help Wall Street and all my white rich friends".

So what? Look at Obama's top donors, he may lambast Wall Street but he'll certainly take their money hand over fist.

[Warriorbird]

So what? Look at Obama's top donors, he may lambast Wall Street but he'll certainly take their money hand over fist.

Why exactly wouldn't he?

[Androidpk]

Why exactly wouldn't he?

There's no reason for him not to, he's just another typical politician playing the game of politics.

[Warriorbird]

I'm no fan of Romney but after the last 4 years I have zero faith in Obama doing anything worthwhile. Granted I don't see Romney being a whole lot better but you know what they say about the lesser or two evils.

Would you continue to have faith if Romney wins and the country goes further downhill?

[Androidpk]

Would you continue to have faith if Romney wins and the country goes further downhill?

Reread what I said, I don't have faith in either one of them to actually address the issues bogging down our country.

[Riltus]

Keep focus on the economy.

Bring up the job numbers.

Bring up that more people went on disability last month than got a job.

Keep asking "Are you better off in 2009 than you are now"

Bring up the debt.

Bring up the deficit.

Bring up how much of a failure Stimulus was.

Bring up Solindra.

Bring up Fast and Furious.

Stay on message.

Romney wins.

You forgot one - his foreign policy credentials.

Bring up - To avoid military service, while the nation was at war and democracy imperiled worldwide, our 'coiffeur pour messieurs' abandoned America's women and children by fleeing the country and taking refuge in a foreign socialist state.

I've got a good idea! Let's make him Commander in Chief.

Laissez les bons temps rouler.

[Warriorbird]

You forgot one - his foreign policy credentials.

Bring up - To avoid military service, while the nation was at war and democracy imperiled worldwide, our 'coiffeur pour messieurs' abandoned America's women and children by fleeing the country and taking refuge in a foreign socialist state.

I've got a good idea! Let's make him Commander in Chief.

Laissez les bons temps rouler.

When he was underage?

[Riltus]

When he was underage?

Say What? He's about four weeks older than me and I was drafted in August '66. I'm just pissed that I missed the opportunity of serving with such a great American.

Mark

[Androidpk]

When he was underage?

Uhh.. Romney was 18 when he got the first of four draft deferments.

[Warriorbird]

Oh. My fault for not understanding French. I thought you wrote Head of State in French, Mark. Nevermind. Romney certainly avoided it.

[Parkbandit]

When Romney says he wants to help America and the economy its code for "I want to help Wall Street and all my white rich friends".

It was stupid for you to use this on Bush/Cheney and Halliburton... it's equally stupid for you to use it on Romney and Wall Street.

[Warriorbird]

It was stupid for you to use this on Bush/Cheney and Halliburton... it's equally stupid for you to use it on Romney and Wall Street.

Bush, Cheney, and Halliburton stood against the excesses of Wall Street and stopped the 2008 economic downturn I heard.

[Kembal]

Stay on message.

Yeah, if you think Romney is able to do that, good luck. The last week alone had his campaign declare the mandate wasn't a tax, and then had him contradict that and say it was a tax, but that somehow, the exact same mandate he passed in Mass. wasn't a tax.

He's now stuck on immigration as well. Obama took out his attempted pivot by taking Rubio's plan and making it into an executive order. If the argument from Republicans is going to be "well, he bypassed Congress", last I checked, Congress doesn't need permission from the President to propose legislation. The obvious answer would be to propose something to be put into law. The last thing Romney wants, though, is actual immigration legislation that moves the ball forward in any way for illegal immigrants, because it'd turn off his base. Thus you see his speech to the Latino Coalition last month being full of platitudes and very short on specifics.

Add in Romney's $100 million+ IRA account plus all his offshore tax haven investments, and there's no way he'll be able to stay on message. People are going to keep asking questions about it, and his campaign is not going to be able to deflect the attacks for 5 months. I'd expect in the next few weeks for there to be major calls for him to release more of his tax returns.

[Archigeek]

Yeah, if you think Romney is able to do that, good luck. The last week alone had his campaign declare the mandate wasn't a tax, and then had him contradict that and say it was a tax, but that somehow, the exact same mandate he passed in Mass. wasn't a tax.

He's now stuck on immigration as well. Obama took out his attempted pivot by taking Rubio's plan and making it into an executive order. If the argument from Republicans is going to be "well, he bypassed Congress", last I checked, Congress doesn't need permission from the President to propose legislation. The obvious answer would be to propose something to be put into law. The last thing Romney wants, though, is actual immigration legislation that moves the ball forward in any way for illegal immigrants, because it'd turn off his base. Thus you see his speech to the Latino Coalition last month being full of platitudes and very short on specifics.

Add in Romney's $100 million+ IRA account plus all his offshore tax haven investments, and there's no way he'll be able to stay on message. People are going to keep asking questions about it, and his campaign is not going to be able to deflect the attacks for 5 months. I'd expect in the next few weeks for there to be major calls for him to release more of his tax returns.

This is what makes this election so interesting to me. You have a sitting president who is clearly vulnerable, and yet you have a challenger who doesn't seem able to capitalize. For one, in spite of the weak economy, the Obama campaign's strategy moves have been a pretty good effort to buy votes and to cut off the Romney campaign's possible moves. Even congress is helping; just look at the whole fast and furious thing. I'm sure some political strategists are saying, "just let it go you idiots!" but they just can't call off the dogs because the house doesn't do "called off", even though everyone knows that isn't going to stick to the wall, and is off message.

And then you have Romney. He comes off as so disconnected from the real world that most people live in, that people have a very hard time relating to him. His attempts to appear normal fall flat. And then look at what he does with the real opportunities for humility that could get people to feel like they can relate: as a college kid, he held down some gay kid and cut his hair. Ok, he's far enough removed from college that I'll kind of give him a pass on some college stupidity, but what I won't give him a pass on is claiming that he doesn't remember the incident. That's bullshit. You do not forget holding down some kid and forcing a haircut on him... unless you did it on a regular basis, which seems unlikely. He had a golden opportunity to show some humanity and say he deeply regretted it. Instead he claims he doesn't recall the incident. Nah, that doesn't help you connect with the American people. The same thing happens over and over in varrying degrees. He gets these golden opportunities to appear human thrown in his lap, and instead of using them he stands there like a wooden doll and says something awkward. It's hugely obvious that he's lived a life of privilege, and can't relate to those who don't. The Obama campaign, or some PAC with lots of money, will be jumping all over his life of luxury.

Normally, Bill Clinton had it right when he said "it's the economy stupid" but who knows this time around. Obama continues to poll alright in spite of it. In the meantime, the other half of an election really is a contest of charisma, and Romney, in spite of being a reasonably attractive guy, still manages to have the charisma of baboon's butt. He has no charm, no colorful anectdotes, nothing but a willingness to change stance as the political winds dictate. He's no Ronald Reagan that's for sure.

We'll see how it ends in November. It should be interesting.

[Back]

I just remember that bullshit picture of him doing laundry like a regular guy. A regular guy would not be wearing pristine clothes, let alone a button down shirt tucked into his jeans with a belt, and using one of those quarter cent boxes of tide. What a joke.

[Parkbandit]

You forgot one - his foreign policy credentials.

Bring up - To avoid military service, while the nation was at war and democracy imperiled worldwide, our 'coiffeur pour messieurs' abandoned America's women and children by fleeing the country and taking refuge in a foreign socialist state.

I've got a good idea! Let's make him Commander in Chief.

Laissez les bons temps rouler.

Wait, what was Obama's foreign policy credentials prior to people like you having the great idea of making him Commander in Chief?

Back on topic: The economy and how Obama might be the most inept President in our lifetime... even being more inept than Jimmy Carter.

[Warriorbird]

Wait, what was Obama's foreign policy credentials prior to people like you having the great idea of making him Commander in Chief?

Back on topic: The economy and how Obama might be the most inept President in our lifetime... even being more inept than Jimmy Carter.

That makes an interesting analog: The nice liberal as terrifying "danger to all humanity!" that Republicans would do anything to even prevent reasonable successes for.

Insert the Republican Congress struggling against their own ideas under Obama and George Bush's lawyer negotiating with Iran to keep holding the hostages to finish off Carter.

At least the current situation is politics.

[Parkbandit]

That makes an interesting analog: The nice liberal as terrifying "danger to all humanity!" that Republicans would do anything to even prevent reasonable successes for.

http://manuelluz.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/hyperbole.jpg



Insert the Republican Congress struggling against their own ideas under Obama and George Bush's lawyer negotiating with Iran to keep holding the hostages to finish off Carter.

At least the current situation is politics.

I don't even know what you are trying to say.. but I see you are somehow blaming Bush. Awesome.

[Warriorbird]

I don't even know what you are trying to say.. but I see you are somehow blaming Bush. Awesome.

It's okay. You're still completely clueless about events you were theoretically an adult for.

[Riltus]

Wait, what was Obama's foreign policy credentials prior to people like you having the great idea of making him Commander in Chief?

Back on topic: The economy and how Obama might be the most inept President in our lifetime... even being more inept than Jimmy Carter.


I think you meant to say people such as me; but why so testy?

And just to stay on topic, I'm sure that when Ole Cut and Run is elected you'll get a few more pennies in your pocket from the implementation of his tax cut plan, and we can finally dispel the notion that 'freedom isn't free'. Thanks for clearing that up.

Hey everyone, let's go shopping!

Mark

[Kembal]

Wait, what was Obama's foreign policy credentials prior to people like you having the great idea of making him Commander in Chief?

Back on topic: The economy and how Obama might be the most inept President in our lifetime... even being more inept than Jimmy Carter.

I see you're trying to stay on message.

Ok, tell me Romney's economic plan.

[Lulfas]

I just remember that bullshit picture of him doing laundry like a regular guy. A regular guy would not be wearing pristine clothes, let alone a button down shirt tucked into his jeans with a belt, and using one of those quarter cent boxes of tide. What a joke.

To me, that is the thing that is going to kill Romney. He keeps trying to pretend to be an "everyman", and it just shows in every single attempt that he isn't. Feels like he shoots himself in the foot every time.

[Parkbandit]

I see you're trying to stay on message.

Ok, tell me Romney's economic plan.

http://www.mittromney.com/jobs

Start there, then there are a number of links that he has on his website.

[Back]

http://www.mittromney.com/jobs

Start there, then there are a number of links that he has on his website.



Mitt's Plan Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation’s tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.

Individual Taxes America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.


Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
Eliminate the Death Tax
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)


Corporate Taxes The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.


Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
Switch to a territorial tax system
Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)



Meat for the rich and scraps for the middle class. Does anyone actually believe this bullshit?

[Archigeek]

I think the one thing I would agree with is strengthening and making permanent the R&D tax credit. Most of the rest is bull that we can't afford to make happen anyway. Very much pie in the sky.

If you really want to help business and streamline government, how about we take some areas of control out of the hands of states and make them federal. For example, in my business, every state in the US uses the International Building Code as a basis for their code, yet every state has their own code with minor tweaks etc. That's all fine and it has taken years to get everyone close to on the same page, and yet, an architects license isn't portable across state borders. I have to spend rediculous amounts of time and money fighting through red tape to do any work in any other state, even though the rules are essentially the same everywhere. This discourages competition and costs clients money, money that goes right into the pockets of people who's job is entirely just to cut through red tape. Get rid of that crap instead of trying to raid the cookie jar and raise the debt through the roof.

There are tons of examples of wastefulness like the one mentioned. Streamline that garbage and you will have accomplished something for businesses. It's not the tax rate, it's the pain in the ass factor that hurts business.

[Vorpos]

What's Obama's plan? Turning America into Haiti one city at a time? Wait until one of your relatives has to wash with a milk jug on the front porch. Then we'll see what bullshit you actually believe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/google-street-view-naked-florida-woman_n_958363.html

[Parkbandit]

[/LIST]


Meat for the rich and scraps for the middle class. Does anyone actually believe this bullshit?

The middle class needs to get back to work.. the best way to do that is to encourage the evil rich bastards to hire them.

Unless you somehow believe that poor people do all the hiring?

[Parkbandit]

What's Obama's plan? Turning America into Haiti one city at a time? Wait until one of your relatives has to wash with a milk jug on the front porch. Then we'll see what bullshit you actually believe.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/google-street-view-naked-florida-woman_n_958363.html

She's not poor, she's bathing in pure bottled spring water!

[Parkbandit]

I think the one thing I would agree with is strengthening and making permanent the R&D tax credit. Most of the rest is bull that we can't afford to make happen anyway. Very much pie in the sky.

If you really want to help business and streamline government, how about we take some areas of control out of the hands of states and make them federal. For example, in my business, every state in the US uses the International Building Code as a basis for their code, yet every state has their own code with minor tweaks etc. That's all fine and it has taken years to get everyone close to on the same page, and yet, an architects license isn't portable across state borders. I have to spend rediculous amounts of time and money fighting through red tape to do any work in any other state, even though the rules are essentially the same everywhere. This discourages competition and costs clients money, money that goes right into the pockets of people who's job is entirely just to cut through red tape. Get rid of that crap instead of trying to raid the cookie jar and raise the debt through the roof.

Most small businesses don't have to worry about doing much interstate work. Like it would benefit you, but not benefit any of my companies since I only work in Florida now.

I do agree though that there is WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY too much red tape with all governments though.. but I don't believe that turning everything over to a federal government is the answer.



There are tons of examples of wastefulness like the one mentioned. Streamline that garbage and you will have accomplished something for businesses. It's not the tax rate, it's the pain in the ass factor that hurts business.

I think it's both to be honest. My third highest invoice that I pay monthly, behind insulation and labor.. is Uncle Sam. That is ridiculous.

[Archigeek]

Most small businesses don't have to worry about doing much interstate work. Like it would benefit you, but not benefit any of my companies since I only work in Florida now.

I do agree though that there is WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY too much red tape with all governments though.. but I don't believe that turning everything over to a federal government is the answer.

I think it's both to be honest. My third highest invoice that I pay monthly, behind insulation and labor.. is Uncle Sam. That is ridiculous.

There are some government entities that are bending over backwards to make things easier. I've found that to be the case in local building departments across the country in the last couple of years. But generally there are way too many hoops to jump through, that are just there for protectionism or as a reason to charge a fee. Here's another example that we run into: many states require that you have a local address to do business in that state, even if your company isn't in that state. And yet they allow it to be a forwarding address at an office somewhere in the state, with no one from your actual company there. All this does is create a business model for companies that do nothing but set up these addresses and charge you a yearly fee. If you get some mail, they forward it to your real address. This entire racket adds absolutely nothing productive (I can provide the state with my real address just as easily as I can the fake one) and just costs me money.

Another example: I found it amusing listening to some politician who didn't want the new narcotic drug prescription registries to be federal, because that would make it more difficult to manage. This is the age of information people! How in the world can you possibly believe that 50 databases is somehow less of a quagmire than 1? I think he just feels that his voting base likes state's rights, and his POV is based entirely on that, not on what would work better. I don't care if the federal government is in charge of it, let it be privately managed, but having each state with its own database is a real pain for those who are trying to look at the data, and a giant waste of money. Surely the entire database could fit on one PC tucked in the corner of a small office somewhere. Instead, surely there are beaurocrats in every state who each have jobs managing a database that could all be one database instead. This is the same kind of problem I have in my business, and that CRB always likes to talk about in health insurance portability. We can't on the one hand be encouraging people to send work overseas and on the other hand discouraging people from doing work in other states.

[Latrinsorm]

What's Obama's plan? Turning America into Haiti one city at a time?Well thanks a lot, now everyone knows!! Can't anyone keep a secret anymore? Yes, as a libral (sic) I have to admit that President Obama's plan is in fact to turn America into Haiti. Think about it... he's from Kenya! Those are both foreign places with those people! QED.

[Back]

The middle class needs to get back to work.. the best way to do that is to encourage the evil rich bastards to hire them.

Unless you somehow believe that poor people do all the hiring?

You still believe that "tax breaks for the rich = more jobs for everyone"? C'mon, man. Its just not true. I don't know how people can even make that correlation.

[Parkbandit]

You still believe that "tax breaks for the rich = more jobs for everyone"? C'mon, man. Its just not true. I don't know how people can even make that correlation.

Ok Backlash, let me hear your plan to lower unemployment.

[Androidpk]

Ok Backlash, let me hear your plan to lower unemployment.

WW3 would do the trick.

[Back]

Ok Backlash, let me hear your plan to lower unemployment.

How about hiring people for infrastructure projects? Use our tax dollars to pay people's wages. Just off the top of my head.

[Androidpk]

Use our tax dollars to pay people's wages.

What a novel idea!

[Parkbandit]

How about hiring people for infrastructure projects? Use our tax dollars to pay people's wages. Just off the top of my head.

So.. your plan would be to tax people money.. use that money to hire people for infrastructure? How long do you believe this would be sustainable?

Are you of the mindset that the government should be the primary employer in the country and everyone just pays taxes to keep it going?

[~Rocktar~]

You still believe that "tax breaks for the rich = more jobs for everyone"? C'mon, man. Its just not true. I don't know how people can even make that correlation.

There was this decade called the 80's where less tax rate and less goverment regulation produced a hell of a lot more wealth and jobs than we have now . . .

[Back]

So.. your plan would be to tax people money.. use that money to hire people for infrastructure? How long do you believe this would be sustainable?

Are you of the mindset that the government should be the primary employer in the country and everyone just pays taxes to keep it going?

If I'm not wildly off base I do believe thats how taxes work?

The concept of the USA being the sole corporation fails as soon as there is no more competition.

[Parkbandit]

If I'm not wildly off base I do believe thats how taxes work?

The question wasn't about how taxation works.. the question was how to fix the economy.



The concept of the USA being the sole corporation fails as soon as there is no more competition.

I have no idea what you are attempting to say here.

[ClydeR]

The Romney donor from the Hamptons at his fundraiser nailed it completely. Should nail ladies even get to vote?


"He's the first and only candidate for the president of the United States with a Swiss bank account, with tax shelters, with tax avoidance schemes that involve so many foreign countries," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said on CBS' "Face the Nation." He's one of several high-profile Democrats who spoke out on the Sunday morning news shows.

Romney may have unintentionally helped the Obama campaign.

Republican donors driving Mercedes, Bentleys — and in one case a candy red 2013 Ferrari Spider — crowded into a series of closed-door Romney fundraisers in the Hamptons, New York's exclusive string of waterfront communities on Long Island's South Shore. Wall Street bankers and brokerage house chiefs, among others, make the area their weekend playground. Romney's Hamptons swing follows a weeklong vacation at his lakeside vacation home in New Hampshire.

More... (http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-want-romney-explain-offshore-accounts-212438884.html)




A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.

"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."

More... (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-hamptons-fundraiser-20120708,0,4909639.story)

The article says they served chocolate mint cupcakes for dessert at Romney's fundraiser.

[ClydeR]

The Romney campaign read a statement about the taxes on Fox News..


Kevin Madden, a Romney spokesman, gave a more detailed defense in a statement read on Fox News Sunday.

“He hasn’t paid a penny less in taxes by virtue of where these funds are domiciled. His liability is exactly the same as if he held the fund investments directly in the U.S.,” Madden said. “As a U.S. citizen, he is accountable for U.S. taxes. Some investments in some foreign countries can be tax havens. But Mitt Romney does not hold any such investments.”

More... (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/democrats-renew-attacks-on-romney-s-money-20120708)

I have two things to say. First, it's not true. Second, he still hasn't explained why he keeps his fortune invested in overseas tax havens, instead of in the United States.

[Kembal]

http://www.mittromney.com/jobs

Start there, then there are a number of links that he has on his website.

You do recognize that the plan on the website contradicts itself, yes?

Because it has all that stuff Back quoted on taxes, and then has the gem of a line in the section on spending:


Set Honest Goals: Cap Spending At 20 Percent Of GDP

Any turnaround must begin with clear and realistic goals. Optimistic projections cannot wish a problem away, they can only make it worse. As president, Mitt’s goal will be to bring federal spending below 20 percent of GDP by the end of his first term:

Reduced from 24.3 percent last year; in line with the historical trend between 18 and 20 percent
Close to the tax revenue generated by the economy when healthy
Requires spending cuts of approximately $500 billion per year in 2016 assuming robust economic recovery with 4% annual growth, and reversal of irresponsible Obama-era defense cuts

What's referred to in bold is the tax revenue based on the current tax setup. The tax cuts he proposes would drop that even further, causing even more deficit spending.

I also like how he proposes a $500 billion cut per year starting in 2016, but then can only find about $300 billion in cuts right now if you read his proposals farther down the page, and he refuses to cut defense spending (in fact, he's going to reverse Obama's cuts, which I think wipes out all the savings he proposes to make).

Your thoughts?

[Parkbandit]

You do recognize that the plan on the website contradicts itself, yes?

Because it has all that stuff Back quoted on taxes, and then has the gem of a line in the section on spending:

What's referred to in bold is the tax revenue based on the current tax setup. The tax cuts he proposes would drop that even further, causing even more deficit spending.

When Kennedy, Reagan and George W cut the tax rates, tax revenue increased... tax cuts don't automatically mean a drop in revenue as you suggest.




I also like how he proposes a $500 billion cut per year starting in 2016, but then can only find about $300 billion in cuts right now if you read his proposals farther down the page, and he refuses to cut defense spending (in fact, he's going to reverse Obama's cuts, which I think wipes out all the savings he proposes to make).

Your thoughts?

It's mostly a political gimmick to give him time once he gets into office. "I'll cut spending by BILLIONS of dollars... in 4 years.." It's not quite on the level of gimmick as Obamacare was.. but it's still a gimmick.

And I'm all about cutting Defense spending. We currently have more Admirals in the US Navy than we do ships.. that's fucking retarded. I do believe it has to be done slowly though... allowing the private sector to recover first. Defense should be one of the Federal government's top priorities, but the amount of money we spend there is insane.

[Kembal]

When Kennedy, Reagan and George W cut the tax rates, tax revenue increased... tax cuts don't automatically mean a drop in revenue as you suggest.

I think it's important to note that Romney is not claiming that will happen with his tax cuts. He says he'll end certain tax breaks in order to help make up the lost revenue, though he doesn't specify which breaks he's going to eliminate. Quoting the Tax Policy Center (non-partisan):

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm


The plan would recoup the revenue loss caused by those changes by reducing or eliminating unspecified tax breaks, thereby making more income subject to tax. Gov. Romney says that the reductions in tax breaks, in combination with moderately faster economic growth brought about by lower tax rates, will make the individual income tax changes revenue neutral compared with simply extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He also promises that low- and middle-income households will pay no larger shares of federal taxes than they do now.

I can easily guess two of the tax breaks he'd have to take out to make that happen: the mortgage interest deduction and the employer-provided health insurance exemption. I don't see how that reconciles with the promise indicated in the last sentence.



It's mostly a political gimmick to give him time once he gets into office. "I'll cut spending by BILLIONS of dollars... in 4 years.." It's not quite on the level of gimmick as Obamacare was.. but it's still a gimmick.

And I'm all about cutting Defense spending. We currently have more Admirals in the US Navy than we do ships.. that's fucking retarded. I do believe it has to be done slowly though... allowing the private sector to recover first. Defense should be one of the Federal government's top priorities, but the amount of money we spend there is insane.

So in other words, he's promising things in his campaign that a) he can't deliver on or b) if he does deliver on them, it'd create the exact opposite effect of his promises. You think the media is going to let these pass untouched?

I don't see how he stays on message if he keeps laying these mines for himself to step on.

[Parkbandit]

So in other words, he's promising things in his campaign that a) he can't deliver on or b) if he does deliver on them, it'd create the exact opposite effect of his promises. You think the media is going to let these pass untouched?

I don't see how he stays on message if he keeps laying these mines for himself to step on.

Of course the media will not let those pass untouched... Romney's a Republican. One thing we can say about today's US media.. they really vet those Republicans.

[ClydeR]

The Romney campaign read a statement about the taxes on Fox News..


Kevin Madden, a Romney spokesman, gave a more detailed defense in a statement read on Fox News Sunday.

“He hasn’t paid a penny less in taxes by virtue of where these funds are domiciled. His liability is exactly the same as if he held the fund investments directly in the U.S.,” Madden said. “As a U.S. citizen, he is accountable for U.S. taxes. Some investments in some foreign countries can be tax havens. But Mitt Romney does not hold any such investments.”

More... (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/democrats-renew-attacks-on-romney-s-money-20120708)


I have two things to say. First, it's not true. Second, he still hasn't explained why he keeps his fortune invested in overseas tax havens, instead of in the United States.

Not even Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina believes Romney when Romney says he invests in tax havens for unspecified reasons that are completely unrelated to tax savings.


Mitt Romney shouldn't be criticized for using off-shore tax havens because "it's really American to avoid paying taxes, legally," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday ...

"It's a game we play," Graham said. "Every American tries to find the way to get the most deductions they can. I see nothing wrong with playing the game because we set it up to be a game."

More... (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/lindsey-graham-taxes-romney.html)

Graham apparently agrees with me that Romney is lying.

[Parkbandit]

Not even Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina believes Romney when Romney says he invests in tax havens for unspecified reasons that are completely unrelated to tax savings.

Graham apparently agrees with me that Romney is lying.

Which laws is Romney breaking? I keep hearing about these zomgoffshore accounts.. but I haven't heard of what tax evasion charges are being drafted against Romney.

If Romney is actually evading taxes illegally, maybe he should just get a job with the current administration... They have had a history of hiring people like that.

[AnticorRifling]

Is someone saying (especially in the part you quoted) that he's breaking a law or are they saying that he isn't being honest as to the reason's that he is doing, legally, what he is doing?

[Parkbandit]

Is someone saying (especially in the part you quoted) that he's breaking a law or are they saying that he isn't being honest as to the reason's that he is doing, legally, what he is doing?

Reading through the thread, it's inferred that he is doing something against the law. If they are only trying to paint him as a cheap millionaire that is trying to squirrel away all of his money.. they need only look at his charitable giving to know that's foolish.

[Jarvan]

It isn't about if what he is doing is legal or not. It's about the headlines and news bites.

That's all the "common man" listens to. So when they see 5 headlines saying "Romney hides millions in secret accounts" they wouldn't see that it's not hiding, that it isn't illegal, or that 99.9999% of all wealth people do the same thing, including all the rich liberals. Also, it's a matter of Hey look look over there.. instead of, this is what I am doing.

[ClydeR]

Which laws is Romney breaking? I keep hearing about these zomgoffshore accounts.. but I haven't heard of what tax evasion charges are being drafted against Romney.

Although I cannot be certain since he won't release his records, I doubt Romney broke the law. I think he invests in tax havens for the same reason as everyone else -- to save taxes. Romney says that's not the reason he invests in tax havens. If he's not investing in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and so on for tax reasons, then why is he doing it?

The point, which I know you understand, is that he is lying about his motivation. Doesn't that bother you?

[Latrinsorm]

Reading through the thread, it's inferred that he is doing something against the law. If they are only trying to paint him as a cheap millionaire that is trying to squirrel away all of his money.. they need only look at his charitable giving to know that's foolish.
It isn't about if what he is doing is legal or not. It's about the headlines and news bites.

That's all the "common man" listens to. So when they see 5 headlines saying "Romney hides millions in secret accounts" they wouldn't see that it's not hiding, that it isn't illegal, or that 99.9999% of all wealth people do the same thing, including all the rich liberals. Also, it's a matter of Hey look look over there.. instead of, this is what I am doing.It's about whether he's lying about it, and if so why.

Does anyone really care if Romney tells a stupid lie like this? No. This is a ClydeR thread.