2012 President?

[ih8music]

of all the stupid "controversies" this ATM thing might take the prize for being the dumbest.

[KevinG]

of all the stupid "controversies" this ATM thing might take the prize for being the dumbest.

 

Remember when McCain mocked Obama on the tire gauge thing? That was pretty dumb.

 

The Right tends to take things on face value and never really sees the nuance in arguments or points. Remember this is the party that brought us No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act and other such gems.

[Guest Jules]

There's nothing wrong with what Obama said. It is completely accurate.

 

You can't just make companies hire people. I remember a couple years ago when Cat posted record profits. People were all up in arms that they should hire more people, even though they didn't need to. Silliness.

[IRememberDBoon]

of all the stupid "controversies" this ATM thing might take the prize for being the dumbest.

 

not even close. but this is up there

 

 

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201109130004

[Guest Jules]

I love those black clips.

[ih8music]

not even close. but this is up there

 

 

http://mediamatters....tv/201109130004

 

That's funny. I don't recall too many other on the right running with that particular complaint about Obama's paper clip, though.

[Tweedling]

If you believe that automation of tellers, check out lines or robots in factories (all of which have been around for a long time) have accounted for a recent change in our economy and should be served with a council then I see how you would find his statements in line. I just thought he could have come up with a better example. Is this a controversy. I don't think so, I just thought it would be something to throw into this thread.

What would I like for him to say? I think he should keep saying what he's been saying. And do you seriously wonder if I understood the article or are you just being a wise ass?

[IRememberDBoon]

I love those black clips.

 

haha! exactly!! i used to go into documentation meetings with them all the time.

[Guest Jules]

If you believe that automation of tellers, check out lines or robots in factories (all of which have been around for a long time) have accounted for a recent change in our economy and should be served with a council then I see how you would find his statements in line. I just thought he could have come up with a better example. Is this a controversy. I don't think so, I just thought it would be something to throw into this thread.

What would I like for him to say? I think he should keep saying what he's been saying. And do you seriously wonder if I understood the article or are you just being a wise ass?

I'll agree he could have come up with a better example. I read it as he was talking more in general terms rather than in reference to "recent changes."

[KevinG]

There's nothing wrong with what Obama said. It is completely accurate.

 

You can't just make companies hire people. I remember a couple years ago when Cat posted record profits. People were all up in arms that they should hire more people, even though they didn't need to. Silliness.

 

So CAT has record profits right? But large corporations need tax breaks so they can hire more people and get this economy rolling again. But you say they don't need the workforce because of efficiencies.

 

If a corporation is getting tax breaks and incentives from the government they should be hiring. Or the money should be put back in to education to help people get better jobs.

[Guest Jules]

Tax breaks or no tax breaks, no company is going to hire people if they don't need them. It doesn't make sense.

[KevinG]

Tax breaks or no tax breaks, no company is going to hire people if they don't need them. It doesn't make sense.

 

Exactly, but the line of the GOP is businesses need tax breaks and deregulation so they can get the economy going again. Tax breaks and deregulation are the crux of the GOP plan to fix the economy.

 

What they country needs is investment in itself, infrastructure, and education. These can only be done by the government, it requires government spending.

[Guest Jules]

Companies don't need tax breaks. People do.

[ih8music]

People need good paying jobs. And since companies won't hire them until demand for their goods & services increases (which I completely agree with, btw), then who's left to hire them? That's right, the goddamned evil government.

[KevinG]

Companies don't need tax breaks. People do.

 

I agree, unfortunately that is not what the GOP seems to think. They want to give tax breaks to corporations and the very wealthy, while cutting services to the poor (which is a tax increase just by another name).

[KevinG]

If you believe that automation of tellers, check out lines or robots in factories (all of which have been around for a long time) have accounted for a recent change in our economy and should be served with a council then I see how you would find his statements in line. I just thought he could have come up with a better example. Is this a controversy. I don't think so, I just thought it would be something to throw into this thread.

What would I like for him to say? I think he should keep saying what he's been saying. And do you seriously wonder if I understood the article or are you just being a wise ass?

 

You threw this out, you said the Obama could do better (which "I think he should keep sating what he's been saying" makes no sense btw). I think his point was apt and easily understandable. We obviously got two different things out of the article. I am wondering if you understood the point Obama was trying to make. To me, in your comments, you didn't. That is just me. I am not trying to be an ass, but I tend to come off that way.

[Guest Jules]

What are these magic "tax breaks" the corporations are to receive?

[KevinG]

What are these magic "tax breaks" the corporations are to receive?

 

Seriously? I did a quick google on GOP corporate Tax Breaks, got these an more.

 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/122902194.html (Wisconsin state politics but that is where I live)

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-28/small-business-tax-break-prompts-debate-on-economic-benefits

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html (an article about the stimulus bill which had corporate Tax breaks in it, in an attempt to appease the GOP)

http://articles.boston.com/2012-03-12/business/31154490_1_aig-spokesman-mark-herr-oversight-panel-american-international-group

 

They are not magic

[IRememberDBoon]

People need good paying jobs. And since companies won't hire them until demand for their goods & services increases (which I completely agree with, btw), then who's left to hire them? That's right, the goddamned evil government.

 

the employment numbers show that govt jobs are shrinking and private jobs are growing. but see as soon as the numbers show something good from Obama it will be a lie

 

tax breaks = ZERO jobs. weve had the biggest tax breaks in history the last ten years and NO job growth. speak to that please

[Guest Jules]

Wisconsin is adding a lot of jobs right now. Most of which have a lot to do with that evil Governor of yours.

 

Seriously?

 

Hold the smug crap please.

[KevinG]

Wisconsin is adding a lot of jobs right now. Most of which have a lot to do with that evil Governor of yours.

 

 

 

Hold the smug crap please.

 

I am the one on my high horse Jules? For christsakes you called a pretty well known fact about the GOP's love for corporate tax breaks "magic." Like they didn't exist. Either you are baiting me or blind to what GOP does. I provided solid answer to you question on tax breaks and you come back and call me a name. Good job there. If anyone is smug here it is you.

 

Also on Scott Walker, you do not live in this state, you have not been effected by his policies.

 

The job number thing is laughable. First when Walker presented his numbers:

Wisconsin Department of Revenue’s Chief Economist, John Koskinen, offered a presentation last week to Walker staff members and state economic officials accountants from the Association of Government Accountants wherein he made the case for an alternate system of measuring job creation—one that would be ‘unique’ to the Badger State."

http://www.forbes.co...ection-miracle/

 

So Wisconsin is using different rules then the rest of the country. I don't want to get into this too much but, you can read about the different types of models here:

 

Current Population Survey

Current Employment Statics

 

So ok let's take the CPS model in March Wisconsin gained 7,000 jobs. Whereas Illinois (a state with a Democratic Governor gained near 17,500. So if you use the same model for the country as a whole Wisconsin ain't doing so hot.

 

Walker is a Governor who ran on 250,000 new jobs in his first term. Which is 50-60 thousand new jobs a year. He didn't even get half that.

 

I am not going to go into all the reasons I think Gov. Walker is bad for WI (I could go on for pages on cuts to education, the destruction of labor, the John Doe investigation, the whole Badgercare thing). This is not the place for such discussions.

 

But I want to make a point here, Scott Walker is my governor. I do not like him, I do not agree with him, we have two very different ways of how and what Government's role in society is and should be. I have never once called him evil, please do not put words in my mouth.

[Guest Jules]

For the record, I did not call you a name. Not sure what you're referring to there.

 

Your article list is all over the place...

- The Wisconsin article is a year old.

- the Bloomberg and NYTimes articles refer to tax breaks on small businesses (less than 500 employees). How is this ever a bad idea?

- the AIG thing is a whole different animal, specific to one company.

 

Also, going back a few more posts, the "very wealthy" are people too. The same people who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country.

[KevinG]

For the record, I did not call you a name. Not sure what you're referring to there.

 

Your article list is all over the place...

- The Wisconsin article is a year old.

- the Bloomberg and NYTimes articles refer to tax breaks on small businesses (less than 500 employees). How is this ever a bad idea?

- the AIG thing is a whole different animal, specific to one company.

 

Also, going back a few more posts, the "very wealthy" are people too. The same people who already pay the majority of the taxes in this country.

 

You called me smug, I took offense.

 

Sorry my articles where all over the place. I found some more, but I am not sure what that would do, I believe you know how to use Google as well s I do. Anyway this is back to my original point. I will try to break it down and the points.

 

1) Corporations should not be required to hire if they don't need to

2) Corporations have been given tax breaks to encourage job growth

3) If there is no need to hire why should they be given tax breaks?

4) Tax breaks for corporations do not bring jobs

 

Why not instead of giving tax breaks to corporations we use the money for education, infrastructure, etc. Or better yet tax breaks for all Americans, not just the wealthy or the poor.

 

Here is the thing about the very wealthy on their tax rate. Mitt Romney for example pays 13.9% of his income in taxes. This is because his income (like the majority of the wealthy) is from investments. My tax rate was 21.3%. I work 40-50 hours a week. Why is does Mitt get to pay 7% less to the government then I do? Income is income, money needs to be taxed. Would it be great if both Mitt and I paid 13.9%, yes it would, is that feasible, no.

 

Yes the wealthy pay the majority of the taxes, but why does that group get to pay less of what they earn than the middle class. It is not about amounts it is about percentages, it is about fairness. Please tell me how it fair that some people get to pay less of their income than others?

[Guest Jules]

Yes the wealthy pay the majority of the taxes, but why does that group get to pay less of what they earn than the middle class. It is not about amounts it is about percentages, it is about fairness. Please tell me how it fair that some people get to pay less of their income than others?

 

Well this whole notion is a little misleading in my opinion. Yes, Mitt Romney (and other weathly people with big investment incomes) pay a lower percentage on the capital gains so their effective rate appears low. However, where do you think the money originally comes from that these people use to make these investments? Yes, from regular income taxed at the "normal" highest tax rate. So, you can argue the capital gains rate should be higher or the same as regular income, but remember the original income was taxed at the highest rate. Seems simple but many people don't grasp this.

[ih8music]

"We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. [...] Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?"

 

- Ronald Reagan in '85, months before he signed the '86 Tax Reform Bill which, among other things, eliminated the special rate for capital gains, taxing them the same as ordinary income (up to 28%).