OT: FACT CHECK: Convention speakers stray from reality

Page 2 of 9  
Children, children ...
Words can be so divisive.
The way I interpret the whole exchange about "building" is that someone claimed that (some) businessmen who built their businesses had done so without any help whatsoever. Which was an overblown claim of course, and literally impossible. The retort was that people surely would have been there mentoring those businessmen, educating them from childhood, financing their ideas, etc. etc. And yes, they couldn't have gotten "there" without a public works infrastructure (unless they did everything by walking on Indian trails, and bartering in person). Childish claims all, from both sides. But then we are in election season, and everything gets weighed on ridiculous scales or blown up out of all proportion.
Now I am afraid that the "good" intentions of Romnay and Ryan to rein in expenditures are falling by the wayside as the rank and file Republican lawmakers realize that MedicAid, MediCare, Social Security, flood relief etc, are all things that the electorate likes. So how are they going to finance the military, keep "entitlements" solvent and without cutbacks, increase employment, and all those other empty promises? Oh, I get it, unfunded mandates, let the states and locals do it ... Yeah ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why should I get a tax deduction for being stupid enough to pay high CC interest rates?
Those loopholes are easily eliminated with a simple flat tax.
The only problem with a flat tax is the people they would vote on it are lawyers and a simple tax system would put the lawyers and accountants out of business.
Under poverty level, no tax. Up to say, 50K would be one rate, maybe 50 to 100 a slightly higher rate, anything over 100k is a bit higher yet. The entire form can fit on a 5 x 8 card.
No deductions for anything, no allowance for dependents.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are these marginal rates like now or flat rates?

--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Flat rates. I don't know enough details to determine what that rate should be, but it is not difficult for the Fed budget people. Once you reach a threshold of about $100k income it is the same rate even if you make millions.
You have no kids? No deductions. You have two kids, no deductions You have ten kids, no deductions, nor do you have self control.
Own a house? Congratulations, but no deductions.
Have a high priced accountant? So what, no deductions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 09/01/2012 05:27 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Hard work brings wealth and wealth brings privilege. One of those privileges should be total exemption from taxes. After all, once you have earned your wealth you shouldn't have to give it up to support the poor and lazy.
Let the poor/lazy people pay the taxes. Then they would have an incentive to get off their asses and work for a change.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 17:42:23 -0400, homme de la maison

I don't want to support the lazy, but you do have to support infrastructure that we all use.
We need "the working poor" to do the jobs they do though. Does not matter how wealthy you are, you still need toilets cleaned, tables bussed, car washed, etc. Those are respectable jobs that people work at to make a meager living. Some of those people just don't have the mental capacity to become wealthy. They deserve respect for what they do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Have a couple accountant and attorney friends who think it may unconstitutional (I never did understand their reasoning, but largely because it so technical) for the Feds to tax munis. That could be an interesting possibility.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They object because it would be less work for them. Of course you don't understand their reasoning, they want it that way so you pay them to do the job for you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

These are friends, they neither are my accountants or attorneys since they ARE friends, discussing stuff over beers. (Which also add to the confusion now that I think about it.-grin).
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Flat rates wouldn't make any sense at all. Someone making $100,001 would pay a *lot* more tax than someone making $99,999. That's senseless.

So what, not going to happen. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 17:51:21 -0400, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Depends on how it is structured. It could be a tier. At $99,999.99 you pay 5%. On the Additional 2 you pay 6% or whatever the rate is determined to be.
There are many simple methods that are fair and simple to both calculate and administer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

By definition that would be "marginal" and "progressive", not "flat", just as we have now (albeit without today's deductions).

There is no such thing as "fair". The question was whether your proposed rates were flat or marginal. You answered "flat", but, I gather by your latest post, you meant "marginal" *and* "progressive". IOW, new boss, same as the old boss. Ick.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you look at the legislative history, it was actually the Dems who insisted on this, messing with the Medical Deduction and a couple of other things in order to pay for the cuts. RR was agnostic.

--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which I still think is the biggest reason we are in the fix we are today. Interestingly enough the first five years of the GOP takeover starting in '95 acutally saw a couple percentage point drop in the average year-over-year increase in expenditures in the previous 5 years. However the next 5 years (actually after the 4th) the increase had actually expanded over what it was the 5 years before the takevoer. Basically even the GOP found out how much fun it was to spend money and joined the Dems (who knew from 42 years of previous experience). Isn't bipartisanship be definition a GOOD thing (g). Now, the GOP is talking a lot like a reformed alcoholic in the vehemence of their talk about how they REALLY mean abstention this time.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who exactly is supposed to have claimed that? Did someone jump up and claim it in the audience? Romney? I didn't hear anyone claim it. It's a strawman. But I do think that someone who started say an AC business and built it over 20 years so that now he has 10 employees, does deserve the overwhelming credit for doing it himself. And the roads that those trucks go down, the business DID help build through the income taxes, fees, real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc it pays.
>Which was an overblown claim of course, and

So, who made this specific claim that Obama felt the compelling need for a president to respond to?

Those on MediCaid are unlikely to vote for Republicans, so that isn't a concern. If the budget can grow by 40% in just 4 years, logic would suggest that it's also possible to reign in that growth. It's going to happen with or without Romney. The only difference is that with Romney it may happen without a finacial calamity like Greece ocurring. Leaving it to Obama and the Democrats, that is exactly where we are headed. $16 tril and growing by $1.2tril more each year.

A lot of it can and will be done on inauguration day. The key to bringing the deficit down is to reduce spending AND to get the economy growing again. To address the latter part, Romneyy can:
A - Make it clear that he is pro-business and the anti-business agenda is over That any regulation that stands in the way of business, including the EPA, is now taking a back seat to the current #1 problem, jobs.
B - Approve immediate construction of the Keystone pipeline. That provides jobs and brings more energy from a US ally into the country
C - Immediately open as much US land to oil/gas exploration as he can. And send legislation to Congress to open up all that he can't, including ANWR. That will have an immediate psychological effect on the price of oil. And within a few years, we will have the benefit of more oil. Had Obama done that in Jan 2009, we'd have that oil and those jobs today. But they didn't with one reason being, well it would take years for the oil to get out of the ground. Bet Obama wishes he had done it now.
D - Get Obamacare repealed, lifting the uncertainty and burden for business.
E - Find all the nimrods in the Labor Dept that were responsible for trying to screw Boeing by blocking it's new plant in SC. Fire every last one of them
F- Just having a president who doesn't go around making dumb, anti-business speeches, like the one under discussion, that alone will be a big positive in giving people encouragement and changing the mood.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

To me it was a response to the slogan "We built that"

Republican administrations after WWII increased the deficit more than democrats.

Yes but just left and right firing people and cutting programs isn't going to do it.

Obama has been cutting taxes on small businesses. EPA is responsibly increasing our health and welfare. It's greedy coal and oil companies that want less regulation. They need to carry the environmental and health costs, not shift it to John Q. Public.

Nonsense. Keystone is a red herring. The jobs it would generate are minimal. The environmental costs of shale is tremendous, but that will be born by the Canadians. But we need ironclad guanratees that Keystone won't leak or damage sensitive areas. I was in Alaska this spring and for all the hullabaloo there was, it ended up being environmentally sound. So if the oil etc companies really want to construct something it can be done following the rules.

It's a tradeoff. DO you want to be able to save some wild areas or not? The current fight about Shell and the acrtic drilling is a good example. I think Shell finally won, but not until they had shown they were going to follow the rules.

Most of Romneycare will stay in its current Obamacare form, as it should. Too far to go back now, everyone likes it. Yes you have to pay for care!! No way around it. But now it will be more equitable.

Labor management fight. Yawn. I'm not as pro-big labor anymore as I was, but that fight is mostly over now. Funny that Boeing (and Airbus) are still having problems fitting the parts made all over the world by different countries' factories fit together as they should. But it is good that the poor in SC now get good jobs. They'll probably unionize at some point.

Dumb is always bad, whether left or right. Ask Clint.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If the coal and oil companies pay more for environmental and health costs, they just raise prices and John Q pays for it.
The real question, what regulations are needed and which, if any, should be scrapped?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Exactly my point - free market capitalism. The cost of energy should take all costs into account. That should mean also that photovoltaics should pay for the pollution of the mining etc of all those rare earth minerals.

Those are the "social engineering" and lobbying "costs" of legislation. NOT TRIVIAL!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is BS, since ANY administration's impact on spending and thus the debt is marginal. Congress, afterall, passes the Budget. All of RR's budgets were rather gleefully declared "dead on arrival" in press conferences put on by the Dem leaders. You already know how I think Bush II was an exception to the rule, at least in practice. SO I won't bore you with that again.

Worked for the private sector's who has very largely delevered over the last few years. They'd be willing to spend their money if they had any kind of transparency over more than a week or ten days.

Actually Keystone is a pretty good example of the problem. They had everything sorted out, the permits were in order, etc. Then Obama pulled back the okay (from reports thoroughly pissing off the the Canadians who were assured we had a deal). It is not happenstance that the "review" is due AFTER the election.

Not hardly. The Feds already pay less than 60 cents in MCare dollars than the Evil Insurance Companies. MCaid is even less. Even the trustees of MCare note that their payments to Hospitals are less than the costs. Recent study indicates that for oncologists MCare only pays about 57% of the costs. It is gonna be interesting to see if many docs actually hang around in the biz or find jobs elsewhere with Pharma,etc.

Most of the Boeing hooha wasn't about unions anyway. This was largely related to having jobs in many countries so those countries would either buy Boeing planes for their airlines or, in the cases where they aren't state run, put some pressure on the airline to buy Boeing. (Of course Airbus does this, too.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.