Debates

[Orange 'n Black]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1350486344' post='1171540']
Not merely to level the playing field, although that is important. Why should a working stiff be on the hook (proportionally of one's wages) more than someone who does nothing more than provide capital? Of course, it is a little more complicated than that, but not much.

A very good reason to raise long-term capital gains tax rates is not ideological, but rather practical. The nation is going bust and that's where some of the money is. Consider this: what are the income levels which are taxed at 25%? Roughly $35,000-130,000 depending on one's tax status (i.e. single/married/household.) Right now LTCGs are taxed at 15%. (Short term capital gains are taxed at normal income levels--that's if one does not hold stock for more than a year.) Increasing the LTCG rate to, say, 18% would raise a significant amount of cash for the government, but still provide a 7% preference to those who invest. Not too terrible a hit in my opinion and certainly more just.

Furthermore, low capital gains rates do not intrinsically "encourage growth in all areas of business." This is a misconception that many people do not comprehend. I do agree that is it possible (and even preferential) to give tax breaks for investments that genuinely encourage growth. But it is not an automatic thing as some folks would have us think, especially those who are good at gaming the system. For example, read the article I linked in my last post.

If one believes in justice, and I think we all do, then it is a reasonable question to ask: Just what forms ought justice take? I would argue that it is possible to ask folks who make money through investment to pay a little more than they do now. Not only because it helps level the playing field contra the working stiff, but also because it is necessary right now.
[/quote]

Point taken, though as a matter of personal philosophy I tend to side with lower taxes for capital gains, investment, etc. Ultimately there is an equilibrium point of taxation that produces maximum revenue (Reaganomics idea), and whether that's higher or lower is up to the actuaries to figure out. That should be the driving force behind setting a tax percentage for any sort of income.

I think that part of the problem with details in the Romney plan is that it really isn't all that detailed. They have plenty of ideas, but they keep talking about creating a bipartisan solution after they win office. Is the Republican Party really prepared to do that? Congress is what worries me in this case, because I think President Romney would be a lot more moderate than Candidate Romney in terms of making compromise.

Kenneth - I said somewhere in the neighborhood of that post that the Romney plan is based on growing the middle class and increasing revenue by broadening the tax base. That's where the makeup in revenue comes from, in theory.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350496001' post='1171628']
and if anybody knows about trolls...



[/quote]

Look, even though it is a fact, I haven't been enough of a troll to point out your kryptonite weakness.

Now I would like to ask a series question. Why doesn't the U.S. use it's own natural resources in order to make money and get themselves out of debt? The U.S. has huge oil stores in Alaska that can pumping barrel after barrel that the government can then sell to refineries or build their own refineries. With the new side drilling technique, they have already proven they can get oil without destroying the environment. Hell they could build oil rigs out at sea. They could even bring Soldiers home to work them.

Now here is two points to think about. Is it possible the U.S. has a hidden agenda of saving that oil until a time when other countries are finally running low on oil, that they could tap their own stores and charge a high amount for it? Or do you think the U.S. isn't doing it because they don't want to piss off all the oil producing countries around the world that would suddenly lose all the business in the U.S.?

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1350495447' post='1171623']
Romney likes to misrepresent things too? Seems like you're a match made in heaven.
[/quote]

Good reply Kenneth. Nice discussion.

[Orange 'n Black]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350496690' post='1171634']
Look, even though it is a fact, I haven't been enough of a troll to point out your kryptonite weakness.

Now I would like to ask a series question. Why doesn't the U.S. use it's own natural resources in order to make money and get themselves out of debt? The U.S. has huge oil stores in Alaska that can pumping barrel after barrel that the government can then sell to refineries or build their own refineries. With the new side drilling technique, they have already proven they can get oil without destroying the environment. Hell they could build oil rigs out at sea. They could even bring Soldiers home to work them.

Now here is two points to think about. Is it possible the U.S. has a hidden agenda of saving that oil until a time when other countries are finally running low on oil, that they could tap their own stores and charge a high amount for it? Or do you think the U.S. isn't doing it because they don't want to piss off all the oil producing countries around the world that would suddenly lose all the business in the U.S.?
[/quote]

This is one of the big selling points of the Romney campaign. In reality, because energy is such a global commodity, its relative impact on the U.S. economy is small. An increase in energy exports would, however, help to reduce the U.S.'s massive trade deficit, which is one of the few "simple answer" solutions to fixing the economy.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1350496968' post='1171638']
Good reply Kenneth. Nice discussion.
[/quote]

Yeah I agree, from sites I have looked at, Obama had almost an equally amount of flubs. I'm just not sure of Romney is bringing up the right subjects in the debates. Romney and Ryan both seem uncomfortable on stage like they have never had to address a group of people. Some of their points are getting lost in translation. I really don't know why they are like this, they have both been in politics for awhile now. It just looks like Obama and Biden have been doing this kind of stuff for the last 4 years.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350496690' post='1171634']
Look, even though it is a fact, I haven't been enough of a troll to point out your kryptonite weakness.

Now I would like to ask a series question. Why doesn't the U.S. use it's own natural resources in order to make money and get themselves out of debt? The U.S. has huge oil stores in Alaska that can pumping barrel after barrel that the government can then sell to refineries or build their own refineries. With the new side drilling technique, they have already proven they can get oil without destroying the environment. Hell they could build oil rigs out at sea. They could even bring Soldiers home to work them.

Now here is two points to think about. Is it possible the U.S. has a hidden agenda of saving that oil until a time when other countries are finally running low on oil, that they could tap their own stores and charge a high amount for it? Or do you think the U.S. isn't doing it because they don't want to piss off all the oil producing countries around the world that would suddenly lose all the business in the U.S.?
[/quote]

Different grade of oil between the US and the Mid East

[Lewdog]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350498867' post='1171657']
Different grade of oil between the US and the Mid East
[/quote]

If the U.S. can put a man on the moon...I'm sure they can think of a way to increase the grade of oil by filtering it in some sort of way. I would bet that Kevin Costner's centrifuge device that was used to help clean the huge oil spill in the Golf of Mexico, it could help separate the oil from any impurities. What also might be interesting, why did Kevin Costner come up with a device like this before the government?

[bengalrick]

[quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1350495173' post='1171620']
He had both houses for 5 months. It was July of 2009 before Franken was sworn in as the 60th vote, and December 8th 2009 was when Brown took over after the death of Kennedy. You do realize that the Current Senate has basically required a 60 vote minimum to get anything accomplished since Obama got in, right? Something about Turtleneck, the minority leader wanting to make Obama a one term president, or hadn't you heard?
[/quote]

Excuses are like assholes........

Isn't the job of a leader to turn around things and make everyone work together? He failed on that. You can't dispute that. You may not like why that happened, but the question is 'did he get everyone to work together for the better of the country?" answer = NO

So he had just majorities in both house and senate. HOW CAN HE NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THINGS WORK THEN? I know why, he tried to stuff policies down the throats of the republicans and they did whatever they could to stuff them back. As someone that thinks that things like Obamacare are going to be detrimental to the state of our economy, I can see why they would do that. I don't believe in the policies of the far left.

You may not agree with my point of view but if your looking for a reason why he couldn't do anything even though he had majorities in the senate and the house, that is why.

[Lewdog]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350500070' post='1171662']
Excuses are like assholes........

Isn't the job of a leader to turn around things and make everyone work together? He failed on that. You can't dispute that. You may not like why that happened, but the question is 'did he get everyone to work together for the better of the country?" answer = NO

So he had just majorities in both house and senate. HOW CAN HE NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THINGS WORK THEN? I know why, he tried to stuff policies down the throats of the republicans and they did whatever they could to stuff them back. As someone that thinks that things like Obamacare are going to be detrimental to the state of our economy, I can see why they would do that. I don't believe in the policies of the far left.

You may not agree with my point of view but if your looking for a reason why he couldn't do anything even though he had majorities in the senate and the house, that is why.
[/quote]

Exactly, especially with his health plan. Now Obama is left hoping that enough Supreme Court Justices retire, so that if he wins the election he can appoint some to pass his plan though. That alone might make it worth everyone dropping Obama.

If already hear from several business owners, that if Obama care somehow comes to fruition, they are going to do one of two things. Either make all employees contractors so they have to take out there own taxes, and because of that the business won't have to give them insurance. The other plan I heard, was cutting everyone's hours to part time. Then they just have to hire more part time employees to cover the business. Then the company wouldn't have to buy insurance for them, they are no longer full time.

This all just sounds like a failed attempt for Obama to make a statement on his Presidency.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350500070' post='1171662']
Excuses are like assholes........

Isn't the job of a leader to turn around things and make everyone work together? He failed on that. You can't dispute that. You may not like why that happened, but the question is 'did he get everyone to work together for the better of the country?" answer = NO

So he had just majorities in both house and senate. HOW CAN HE NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THINGS WORK THEN? I know why, he tried to stuff policies down the throats of the republicans and they did whatever they could to stuff them back. As someone that thinks that things like Obamacare are going to be detrimental to the state of our economy, I can see why they would do that. I don't believe in the policies of the far left.

You may not agree with my point of view but if your looking for a reason why he couldn't do anything even though he had majorities in the senate and the house, that is why.
[/quote]

Yeah because the Heritage Foundation that wrote most of what ObamaCare was based on is a Pinko organization.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350500782' post='1171665']
Yeah because the Heritage Foundation that wrote most of what ObamaCare was based on is a Pinko organization.
[/quote]

I don't give a flying fuck what the Hertiage Foundation did or didn't do. I see one of the largest tax increase in US history, at a time when our economy is sputtering along, a very bad idea. I like to come to my own conclusions based on philosophies that I believe in... I know, hard to fathem

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350500924' post='1171666']
I don't give a flying fuck what the Hertiage Foundation did or didn't do. I see one of the largest tax increase in US history, at a time when our economy is sputtering along, a very bad idea. I like to come to my own conclusions based on philosophies that I believe in... I know, hard to fathem
[/quote]

Im not going to let you get away with a rant on Obamacare and call it far left.

The far left wanted medicare for all, or a public option, this is not far left.

You dont have to agree with it that's completely within your right, I dont I wanted a public option, but you dont get to call it far left and think that's going to stand.

It's not that different than what Romney did in Mass.

[sois]

[quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1350495173' post='1171620']
He had both houses for 5 months. It was July of 2009 before Franken was sworn in as the 60th vote, and December 8th 2009 was when Brown took over after the death of Kennedy. You do realize that the Current [b]Senate has basically required a 60 vote minimum to get anything accomplished since Obama got in, right? [/b] Something about Turtleneck, the minority leader wanting to make Obama a one term president, or hadn't you heard?
[/quote]

What am I missing here, I thought they just needed 51.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1350501108' post='1171668']
Im not going to let you get away with a rant on Obamacare and call it far left.

The far left wanted medicare for all, or a public option, this is not far left.

You dont have to agree with it that's completely within your right, I dont I wanted a public option, but you dont get to call it far left and think that's going to stand.

It's not that different than what Romney did in Mass.
[/quote]

He couldn't even do that right. He is a terrible leader. I wish Hillary would have won in 2008...

So what about the massive tax increase in the middle of a slow economy?

As far as Romney, yeah he did that at the state level... Very different than pushing it down the throats of everyone in the US. There is a big difference from Massachusetts than Kentucky. If you like how Mass does it, move there. If I don't like Obamacare, I have to move out of the US... See the difference?

[bengalrick]

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1350501156' post='1171669']
What am I missing here, I thought they just needed 51.
[/quote]

No they wanted to push things through without having regard for other points of view.... Therefore they needed a super majority so the rep's wouldn't filibusterer. The weakest argument I can possibly think of...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350501308' post='1171670']
He couldn't even do that right. He is a terrible leader. I wish Hillary would have won in 2008...

So what about the massive tax increase in the middle of a slow economy?
[/quote]

I'm not sure if Hilary would have been much different tbh,

My disappointment in Obama is for a great speaker he surely fails at changing the minds of the electorate. That's what needs to happen, the electorate needs to understand how austerity is hurting us, and Obama is failing in that.

[Jamie_B]

Your Senator Rick, just to remind you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc

[Lewdog]

Maybe the U.S. should go back to an election where first place is the President and VP is the guy in second place.



Jamie why are you continually to deflect blame off Obama and unto some organization? Organizations don't vote, create, or enact national policy. They don't have the power to. The President had to sign off on it. You can't make Obama look innocent in this regard.

[|kennethmw|]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350500070' post='1171662']
Excuses are like assholes........

Isn't the job of a leader to turn around things and make everyone work together? He failed on that. You can't dispute that. You may not like why that happened, but the question is 'did he get everyone to work together for the better of the country?" answer = NO

So he had just majorities in both house and senate. HOW CAN HE NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THINGS WORK THEN? I know why, he tried to stuff policies down the throats of the republicans and they did whatever they could to stuff them back. As someone that thinks that things like Obamacare are going to be detrimental to the state of our economy, I can see why they would do that. I don't believe in the policies of the far left.

You may not agree with my point of view but if your looking for a reason why he couldn't do anything even though he had majorities in the senate and the house, that is why.
[/quote]

So does that mean you're an excuse? You come on here talking these right wing points, and because Jamie and Homer are nice you think they have value? THEY DON'T! Fucking Stevie Wonder can see that if you have the most FILIBUSTERS in Congressional History, the party FILIBUSTERING is OBSTRUCTIONIST. EVERYBODY knows that the leaders of the republican congress made a decision, a conscious decision, that they were NOT going to let this President pass ANYTHING if there was anyway that could obstruct it. They didn't give a shit about what was good for the country, they only were concerned with making OBAMA a one term president. They have run like Usaine Bolt away from positions that they have supported for years, neigh DECADES, just to obstruct the country. And Obamacare? You mean the Republican Health Care Plan from 1993, that had an Individual mandate, which was supported by Chuck Grassley in 2009 until Obama can out in support of it? You mean the replica of the plan that Rmoney thought was good enough to be a model for America, until Obama decided to make it the model for America? Just like Simpson/Bowles, that was originally a bill in the senate that had seven republican cosponsors, and would have had teeth, until Obama said it was a good idea, at which point all of the Republicans but 1 voted AGAINST the idea, and the one just didn't vote at all. I just don't get it, when did being Republican and/or Conservative become more important than being AMERICAN? When did "Country First" become "Republican First"?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Lewdog' timestamp='1350501715' post='1171676']
Maybe the U.S. should go back to an election where first place is the President and VP is the guy in second place.



Jamie why are you continually to deflect blame off Obama and unto some organization? Organizations don't vote, create, or enact national policy. They don't have the power to. The President had to sign off on it. You can't make Obama look innocent in this regard.
[/quote]

I'm not I've said very clearly I dont care for Obamacare it isnt a public option. Obama should have fought for that, not take his cue from the Heritage foundation who basicly wrote this pilicy. That's not deniable, no matter how much folks may want to deny it and call Obamacare far left..... it's not.

[Orange 'n Black]

Barack Obama: great politician, bad statesman.

I agree wholeheartedly with Romney's idea to put healthcare in the hands of the states. I don't believe that's the federal government's job.

[bengalrick]

[quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1350501948' post='1171679']
So does that mean you're an excuse? You come on here talking these right wing points, and because Jamie and Homer are nice you think they have value? THEY DON'T! Fucking Stevie Wonder can see that if you have the most FILIBUSTERS in Congressional History, the party FILIBUSTERING is OBSTRUCTIONIST. EVERYBODY knows that the leaders of the republican congress made a decision, a conscious decision, that they were NOT going to let this President pass ANYTHING if there was anyway that could obstruct it. They didn't give a shit about what was good for the country, they only were concerned with making OBAMA a one term president. They have run like Usaine Bolt away from positions that they have supported for years, neigh DECADES, just to obstruct the country. And Obamacare? You mean the Republican Health Care Plan from 1993, that had an Individual mandate, which was supported by Chuck Grassley in 2009 until Obama can out in support of it? You mean the replica of the plan that Rmoney thought was good enough to be a model for America, until Obama decided to make it the model for America? Just like Simpson/Bowles, that was originally a bill in the senate that had seven republican cosponsors, and would have had teeth, until Obama said it was a good idea, at which point all of the Republicans but 1 voted AGAINST the idea, and the one just didn't vote at all. I just don't get it, when did being Republican and/or Conservative become more important than being AMERICAN? When did "Country First" become "Republican First"?
[/quote]

what the hell are you talking about? I'm an excuse? I stopped reading there.

Edit: If Romney comes into office and decides to crush Obamacare, privatize social security, and create vouchers for education, would you want the dem's to filibuster?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1350501948' post='1171679']
So does that mean you're an excuse? You come on here talking these right wing points, and because Jamie and Homer are nice you think they have value? THEY DON'T! Fucking Stevie Wonder can see that if you have the most FILIBUSTERS in Congressional History, the party FILIBUSTERING is OBSTRUCTIONIST. EVERYBODY knows that the leaders of the republican congress made a decision, a conscious decision, that they were NOT going to let this President pass ANYTHING if there was anyway that could obstruct it. They didn't give a shit about what was good for the country, they only were concerned with making OBAMA a one term president. They have run like Usaine Bolt away from positions that they have supported for years, neigh DECADES, just to obstruct the country. And Obamacare? You mean the Republican Health Care Plan from 1993, that had an Individual mandate, which was supported by Chuck Grassley in 2009 until Obama can out in support of it? You mean the replica of the plan that Rmoney thought was good enough to be a model for America, until Obama decided to make it the model for America? Just like Simpson/Bowles, that was originally a bill in the senate that had seven republican cosponsors, and would have had teeth, until Obama said it was a good idea, at which point all of the Republicans but 1 voted AGAINST the idea, and the one just didn't vote at all. I just don't get it, when did being Republican and/or Conservative become more important than being AMERICAN? When did "Country First" become "Republican First"?
[/quote]

WTF maaaaan I have value!!

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/98/Stuart_Smalley.jpg/300px-Stuart_Smalley.jpg[/img]

[quote name='Orange 'n Black' timestamp='1350502032' post='1171681']
Barack Obama: great politician, bad statesman.

I agree wholeheartedly with Romney's idea to put healthcare in the hands of the states. I don't believe that's the federal government's job.
[/quote]

Agree, he's been a horrible statesmen.

The rest not as much.

[|kennethmw|]

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1350502043' post='1171683']
what the hell are you talking about? I'm an excuse? I stopped reading there.
[/quote]

It means your a fucking ASSHOLE, that's what it means. Hopefully, that's short enough for your mind to comprehend!

[Jamie_B]

[img]http://i46.tinypic.com/2vj36tz.jpg[/img]