President Obama just earned my vote for 2012

[JGlass]

YOU GUYS ARE TOO BIASED. WHY DON'T YOU SAY ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT KARL ROVE?

 

[Slyfox696]

The second sentence comes close to contradicting your prior point though, which is the reason I questioned it to begin with.

I have never disputed or doubted Democratic reasons are politically and financially motivated, although watching that video I really feel Obama was being sincere, and not just trying to score votes.

But given the fact both parties are motivated by money and votes, my vote will never go to the party which tries to ruin the lives of millions of people, and even our country as a whole, just for money and votes. And that's what I feel the Republican party is doing.

 

[shattered dreams]

To be fair, while I do not personally buy into it a whole lot, there is some method to the "madness" behind why the Republicans want to distribute the money they way they suggest.

I do agree about there seeming to be a sincerity about Obama on some issues that makes him more desirable than a lot of politicians.

YOU GUYS ARE TOO BIASED. WHY DON'T YOU SAY ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT KARL ROVE?

Shh. The grown ups are talking.

 

[Slyfox696]

To be fair, while I do not personally buy into it a whole lot, there is some method to the "madness" behind why the Republicans want to distribute the money they way they suggest.

Are you referring to the creation of jobs/trickle down effect? Because history suggests that economic theory has never held true.

 

[shattered dreams]

Trickle down is likely bullshit. The idea that less restrictions and burdens on businesses fosters more employment opportunities isn't.

 

[Slyfox696]

Trickle down is likely bullshit. The idea that less restrictions and burdens on businesses fosters more employment opportunities isn't.

I disagree. Outsourcing is already a major problem in this country. Paying workers horrible wages just so your employment rate drops does not solve any problems. I remember reading research which suggests history has shown businesses are far more likely to pocket money if they're not forced to spend it. Hell, the Bush Era Tax Cuts were enacted back in what, 2001? Where's our unemployment rate today?

Obviously, government intervention into the private sector is a fine line. But if I can hire 5 American employees for $8 an hour, or 20 Mexican employees for $1 an hour, which route am I more likely to take?

 

[shattered dreams]

Outsourcing is indeed a problem. If you force businesses to pay more taxes why would you expect it to get better? The US actually has just about the highest Corporate tax rate in the world. Yes, there is an insane amount of loopholes that can allow them to drop the percentage but calling them loopholes is often misleading. You do not get to skip paying taxes without having to do something usually equivalent to re-investing in some way or another. You argued extensively that no one should blame Netflix for passing on the price of doing business to the consumers. If you are advocating businesses paying more then why would you not expect them to have less money for employees among other things?

With credit so hard to access at the moment I am not especially convinced that investing in the middle class pays much dividends. If you give them money they are just going to put it in the bank if they have excess. That doesn't do the country much good.

There is no easy answer here though.

 

[Slyfox696]

Outsourcing is indeed a problem. If you force businesses to pay more taxes why would you expect it to get better?

Because corporations get taxed on profits, not revenues. If you are investing more of your money into your own business, you'll pay less in taxes to the government, while simultaneously improving your business.

The US actually has just about the highest Corporate tax rate in the world.

Which has been shrinking slowly but surely over the last 50 years, and at which rate it's been suggested the tax rate doesn't meet the growth of wealth these wealthy people have experienced.

Yes, there is an insane amount of loopholes that can allow them to drop the percentage but calling them loopholes is often misleading. You do not get to skip paying taxes without having to do something usually equivalent to re-investing in some way or another.

Unless you're General Electric, profiting $14.2 billion dollars, and not paying a single penny in taxes. Two years in a row.

You argued extensively that no one should blame Netflix for passing on the price of doing business to the consumers. If you are advocating businesses paying more then why would you not expect them to have less money for employees among other things?

I'm advocating businesses putting more money in the hands of their employees, who then become consumers putting the money back into the hands of business.

With credit so hard to access at the moment I am not especially convinced that investing in the middle class pays much dividends. If you give them money they are just going to put it in the bank if they have excess. That doesn't do the country much good.

But that's exactly what the big corporations are doing. They're just pocketing that money, giving bonuses to CEOs, etc.

I know I've related this example on the forum before, but I'll do it again now.


Pretend there's an economy with $100 available. In this economy, there are ten cars, each worth $10. You have two choices. One person can have the full $100 and afford to buy all ten cars. Or you can split the money up and given ten people $10, and they can buy one car each. Either way, there's enough money for all ten cars to be bought.

How many people need to own ten cars?

 

[shattered dreams]

Because corporations get taxed on profits, not revenues. If you are investing more of your money into your own business, you'll pay less in taxes to the government, while simultaneously improving your business.

How does the governement deciding how they should use the money of their business entice them not to take it over seas where they can pay less tax and have the freedom to use the money they make as they see fit?

Which has been shrinking slowly but surely over the last 50 years, and at which rate it's been suggested the tax rate doesn't meet the growth of wealth these wealthy people have experienced.

Which still doesn't change the original point in the least.

Unless you're General Electric, profiting $14.2 billion dollars, and not paying a single penny in taxes. Two years in a row.

They employee over 700 people in their tax department alone which is a big reason they can strategically organize and use their resources to accomplish this.

I'm advocating businesses putting more money in the hands of their employees, who then become consumers putting the money back into the hands of business.

Where is the evidence that people are putting this money back into the economy? Necessities and rainy day funds don't do much for the economy.

But that's exactly what the big corporations are doing. They're just pocketing that money, giving bonuses to CEOs, etc.

Are you serious, bro? Seems way to emotional and slanted to be a Sly post. CEO compensation is a legit issue, yes, but this sentiment is ripe with exaggeration.

I know I've related this example on the forum before, but I'll do it again now.

Pretend there's an economy with $100 available. In this economy, there are ten cars, each worth $10. You have two choices. One person can have the full $100 and afford to buy all ten cars. Or you can split the money up and given ten people $10, and they can buy one car each. Either way, there's enough money for all ten cars to be bought.

How many people need to own ten cars?

Where is the motivation for innovation here? Actually where is the motivation for anything here? In theory I agree with you but in practice it just doesn't work. I'd like to see some more socialism mixed into our policies but they just become a mess in a capitalist society.

 

[Slyfox696]

How does the governement deciding how they should use the money of their business entice them not to take it over seas where they can pay less tax and have the freedom to use the money they make as they see fit?

The government isn't deciding how they use the money. The businesses are certainly welcome to pay taxes or move.

But if they want to do business in the US, and more appropriately, earn money from US citizens, then they should contribute to the general welfare of the society.

They employee over 700 people in their tax department alone which is a big reason they can strategically organize and use their resources to accomplish this.

Okay? Not understanding your point.

A company makes billions of dollars in PROFITS (which means the number of people in their tax department is irrelevant), and pays not one cent to the government, while I GROSS $35,000 a year and pay thousands of dollars to the government, just in income taxes?

In what world, exactly, would you consider that fair?

Where is the evidence that people are putting this money back into the economy? Necessities and rainy day funds don't do much for the economy.

Are you serious, bro? Seems way to emotional and slanted to be a Sly post. CEO compensation is a legit issue, yes, but this sentiment is ripe with exaggeration.

What? You're telling me money people don't have is going to be put into a bank, while simultaneously telling me money that companies DO have, and is NOT being spent, is an exaggeration?

If the idea of giving companies more money and more freedom will lead to more jobs, why has the unemployment rate gone from roughly 4% when George Bush took office, to 9-10% today, when these wealthy companies are paying MUCH less in the way of taxes?

This isn't fiction, this is fact. Companies are paying far less in taxes, many business are recording record profits, and unemployment is more than double what it was before the tax cuts. Where is your proof less taxes on the wealthy businesses creates more jobs?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming unemployment solely on tax cuts, I'm just pointing out there is no relation that less taxes lead to more jobs.

Where is the motivation for innovation here?

Where's the motivation for innovation now? The RIAA has spent MILLIONS of dollars in lobbying money and lawsuits just to PREVENT innovation, because they currently have a stranglehold on the music industry, and hate the idea of digital music.

What motivation for innovation is there when you're making greater profits than ever before and paying less taxes off of it?

In theory I agree with you but in practice it just doesn't work. I'd like to see some more socialism mixed into our policies but they just become a mess in a capitalist society.

I'm not advocating socialism at all. Why do people think paying taxes to support a government which serves all Americans is socialism? I'm arguing for people to make equal sacrifices for the good of the country. If you make $10 a week, and I make $200, but we both get taxed 20%, who suffers more? Who is making the greater sacrifice? After taxes, you're left with $8, and I have $160. I can buy 16 cars, and you can't even buy one.

Government serves everyone, and in this day and age, it seems to serve big business far more than the lone American. Seems to me big business ought to make the same sacrifice everyone else should. I mean, did you watch the Obama speech I posted? Are you really telling me it's okay for people on Social Security to have to skip meals, just so the CEO of a big oil company can purchase that fourth helicopter? That's fair? That's an equal sacrifice, for the good of our country?

 

[shattered dreams]

The government isn't deciding how they use the money. The businesses are certainly welcome to pay taxes or move.

They are if to not pay high taxes they only have a few options of ways to reinvest that money. They are increasingly choosing to move which is why I pointed out how competitive the rates in the US are in the scope of the global economy.

But if they want to do business in the US, and more appropriately, earn money from US citizens, then they should contribute to the general welfare of the society.

Now they contribute nothing to society? I do not see how you can say that with a straight face.

A company makes billions of dollars in PROFITS (which means the number of people in their tax department is irrelevant), and pays not one cent to the government, while I GROSS $35,000 a year and pay thousands of dollars to the government, just in income taxes?

I doubt it is irrelevant to the people that have those jobs. My point has been it is ridiculous to act like they do not pay any taxes just because. Maybe if you understood what they do to not have to pay you might understand why you do. It sounds unfair but I guarantee you it isn't that simple.

If the idea of giving companies more money and more freedom will lead to more jobs, why has the unemployment rate gone from roughly 4% when George Bush took office, to 9-10% today, when these wealthy companies are paying MUCH less in the way of taxes?

Why didn't the stimulus packages to the middle and lower class fix the economy if your way is right? None of this is that simple and you know it. Economies work in cycles among a million other things.

Where is your proof less taxes on the wealthy businesses creates more jobs?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming unemployment solely on tax cuts, I'm just pointing out there is no relation that less taxes lead to more jobs.

I find that hard to believe. I think one of your key mistakes is that you are only focusing on the wealthiest businesses opposed to all businesses, including small businesses.

Where's the motivation for innovation now? The RIAA has spent MILLIONS of dollars in lobbying money and lawsuits just to PREVENT innovation, because they currently have a stranglehold on the music industry, and hate the idea of digital music.

And how is that working out for them? In your scenario they do not have to fight to keep it the way they like it. With competition they do. People act like it is all to easy to just spend some money and get what you want out of Washington no matter what. It just doesn't work that way.

What motivation for innovation is there when you're making greater profits than ever before and paying less taxes off of it?

The motivation to stay on top so you do not get caught behind the times like the RIAA or to be the one that takes down the RIAA and reaps the rewards.

I'm not advocating socialism at all. Why do people think paying taxes to support a government which serves all Americans is socialism? I'm arguing for people to make equal sacrifices for the good of the country. If you make $10 a week, and I make $200, but we both get taxed 20%, who suffers more? Who is making the greater sacrifice? After taxes, you're left with $8, and I have $160. I can buy 16 cars, and you can't even buy one.

Maybe you do not deserve one. We already have a staggered tax rate. At some point continually shifting the burden onto the rich just because they can afford it isn't "fair" either.

Government serves everyone, and in this day and age, it seems to serve big business far more than the lone American. Seems to me big business ought to make the same sacrifice everyone else should. I mean, did you watch the Obama speech I posted? Are you really telling me it's okay for people on Social Security to have to skip meals, just so the CEO of a big oil company can purchase that fourth helicopter? That's fair? That's an equal sacrifice, for the good of our country?

Depends why they have to skip that meal in the first place IMO. I'd be in favor of seeing a change to wealth distribution but if you do it through charity I just do not see the point. It is easy to pay for a meal here and there but millions everyday starts to add up quick.

 

[Dwayne_Jason]

I fucking agree with everything you just said. I don't know if people hate him cuz he's black or they don't like how awesome he is

 

[Slyfox696]

Now they contribute nothing to society? I do not see how you can say that with a straight face.

I'm sorry, I quit reading after this comment. Things like this are why so many people cannot stand to debate with you, because you say some of the most off the wall things.

Did I EVER once say anything about contributing nothing to society? Anywhere? Did that come up anywhere?

There's a difference in twisting people's words, and just making shit up. You haven't quite learned the difference yet, or if you have, you don't practice it. We were having a good conversation until this comment. At this point, I'm finished because, all in all, I do enjoy conversing with you, until you start doing this kind of thing. So, I'm going to try this approach, and see if you can't better yourself for the future.

 

[shattered dreams]

You said they should contribute to the general welfare of society in a way that to me implied they didn't. Something I thought was ridiculous and am glad that you apparently were not suggesting. I was enjoying this conversation as well. Rare to have such a quality discussion on a non-wrestling topic around here.

Somewhat topical article I just read that you might be interested in: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43915204/ns/business-us_business/

 

[shattered dreams]

Best article I have read on the realities of our economic situation. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43929476/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

I like what Obama said but this is closer to the brutal honesty that I think we need to see sooner than later in Washington. Unfortunately, I have little confidence we ever will because the truth is akin to political suicide. We need to raise taxes on everyone, we need to place an extra burden on the rich, we need to cut social security and medicare etc., we need to fix the healthcare system. That pretty much effectively pisses off everyone and goes against some powerful lobbies. It is an especially tough pill to swallow in these tough economic times but the longer we wait the more drastic these measures are going to have to be.

 

[Slyfox696]

we need to cut social security

Never understood this theory. If you want to cut Social Security, then I'm guessing you also cut down the percentage taken out of each month's paycheck for Social Security? I don't know how much each monthly payment for Social Security, but I pay 14% to my retirement fund (public education retirement in Missouri), so let's use that as an example, as I saw some where else someone use that rate.

If you're going to cut the benefits the government pays to me when I'm eligible for Social Security, then it's flat out theft to continue to demand the same payment from my paycheck each month. Furthermore, how many people die long before they're able to even begin recouping the money they've paid in?

Cutting Social Security is despicable. People have given up a percentage of their paycheck their entire life, knowing full well they would never come close to getting back what they've paid in. Now we're going to tell future generations that even though you're having more money taken out of your check than ever before, the government is going to give you less in return than ever before? Absolutely despicable. The fact is, for many people, Social Security is barely enough to maintain a decent standard of living. Sure, it's easy for young people and for legislators to say let's take money from the elderly, because we're young, and no one's touching the benefits of the government workers.

How about instead of cutting Social Security, we cut out pork barreling projects, such as the infamous Gravina Island Bridge to Nowhere, which remarkably was given renewed funding earlier this year? You're telling me it's okay to cut millions of dollars from the rightful owners of that money, but not okay to cut money from the near $400 million dollar bridge which will serve 50 people and an airport?

Perhaps if the government was more concerned about not stealing money from those who rightfully own it, and less concerned about using public money to buy votes, this whole debt thing could be solved a little easier.

 

[shattered dreams]

Umm, we have to cut both dude. Anything in the millions barely scratches the surface of the social security issue eventual issue anyway. It sucks that the entitlement programs are in such bad shape but it should hardly be surprising with the age distribution of the population. If we continue as is then younger generation pays in even more money and will not get anything at all out. Everything has to be seriously reformed. There is no debate about this. Both parties do continue to sweep this issue under the rug and it grows into a bigger issue everyday. The older population votes more and as a stronger block and outnumber the youth significantly anyway. If you leave those programs as is they will bankrupt the country in a way that will make the current squabbling over a few trillion look like chump change. The programs simply are not sustainable. Social security isn't even as bad as one of the medi-programs. It is a bad situation but as long as everyone digs their feet in and plays the not me game things are going to get a lot worse.

 

[Shocky]

Sorry Shocky, I know you've claimed to be Republican, but I just can't get behind what Republicans have been trying to sell. You're still my hero though.

No No No, just saw this. I'm more of a Libertarian then anything. I have voted for my fair share of Democrats and Republicans, and am usually never happy with the results either way.

 

[klunderbunker]

Social Security makes money. I think it's solvent for like 25 years or so but it's losing money due to it being raided. Part of the national debt is money owed to the SS fund.

 

[shattered dreams]

The Social Security issue is a complicated one for sure but you obviously have to start thinking about reform sooner than later for something that is only solvent for 25 or so years. Sly seemed to become quite excitable when presented with Reagan facts. Well Social Security was last reformed under you guessed it Reagan.

KB, isn't medicare solvent for only 5-6 years or something like that? I think it is already operating at a loss or something like that.

 

[The Bearded One]

and am usually never happy with the results either way.

One of the reasons I no longer vote.

 

[Serious Jones]

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

 

[ChickenWaffles]

Good promo