Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
‘Buffett Tax’ and truth in numbers
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:51 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:figured he was talking about the 15% capital gains tax rate
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:52 AM
PIZMOBEACH
... fully loaded, safety off...
Quote:Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace: Its only hard to understand if u are willfully misunderstanding it. You have to deliberately ignore everything that is common knowledge about Obama's position on the defecit, and what he has said before, and squint really really hard thru a microscope and attempt to dissect words and force them into a meaning u want, instead of what the average person would easily comprehend by using their brain for ten seconds.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:58 AM
STORYMARK
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:25 AM
Quote: Starting in 2007, Bain Capital began retaining various lobbying firms to pressure lawmakers to keep open a loophole that allows much of the earnings by private equity managers to be taxed as capital gains rather than the top income bracket of 35 percent. http://jumpstoneblog.com/tag/bain/ a quote from a Reuters article. Quote: Critics say the 15 percent rate for carried interest is an unfair tax break because investment managers, as Romney was, are providing a service that should be taxed at the higher rate paid by wage earners. Democrats in Congress have come close to raising the rate to have it equal the rate paid on "ordinary" or wage income but fierce lobbying has paid off so far for the private equity, venture capital and hedge fund industries. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/24/us-usa-taxes-romney-idUSTRE80N07320120124 was also the recipient of government subsidies, by the way:Quote: The history of Staples, a company that Bain grew from a single store, is a hallmark of the Romney record. Staples’ rapid growth, however, drew on substantial state subsidies. In 1996, Tom Stemberg, a close Romney business partner leading Staples, met with Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening, a Democrat, to negotiate a package of taxpayer sweeteners to build a new distribution center in Hagerstown. The Glendening administration, using a “Sunny Day” fund of discretionary development money, awarded Staples $2.3 million in grants and low interest loans. The following year, as Glendening prepared for his reelection campaign, top Staples executives maxed out in donations. Stemberg and his colleagues gave a total of $16,000. A similar story played out in Connecticut, where Staples landed a deal in which taxpayers subsidized over $6 million in low-interest loans for the company to construct a distribution center in Killingly in 1998. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/21/romney%E2%80%99s_record_as_a_crony_capitalist/ More on subsidies to Romney/Bain's "success stories":Quote: Reporting from Washington — As Mitt Romney defends his record running a private equity firm, he frequently points to a fast-growing Indiana steel company, financed in part by Bain Capital, that now employs 6,000 workers. What Romney doesn't mention is that Steel Dynamics also received generous tax breaks and other subsidies provided by the state of Indiana and the residents of DeKalb County, where the company's first mill was built. .... As Bain made its investment, the state and county pledged $37 million in subsidies and grants for the $385-million plant project. The county also levied a new income tax to finance infrastructure improvements to benefit the steel mill over the heated objections of some county residents. Another steel company in which Bain invested, GS Industries, went bankrupt in 2001, causing more than 700 workers to lose their jobs, health insurance and a part of their pensions. Before going under, the company paid large dividends to Bain partners and expanded its Kansas City plant with the help of tax subsidies. It also sought a $50-million federal loan guarantee. "This is corporate welfare," said Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst with the Washington-based Cato Institute, which encourages free-market economic policies. DeHaven, who is familiar with corporate tax subsidies in Indiana and other states, called the incentives Steel Dynamics received "an example of the government stepping into the marketplace, picking winners and losers, providing profits to business owners and leaving taxpayers stuck with the bill." http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/12/nation/la-na-bain-subsidies-20120113 Quote: But a closer look at Bain’s record under Romney reveals that the company relied on the very government subsidies that Romney and Tea Party conservatives routinely denounce as “crony capitalism.” The Los Angeles Times ran a big story yesterday about Bain’s investment in Steel Dynamics, which received $37 million in subsidies and grants to build a new plant in DeKalb County, Indiana. An analyst at the Cato Institute called it “corporate welfare.” Romney has recently pointed to Steel Dynamics as one of his success stories at Bain, including in a new ad, which contributed to the 100,000 net jobs he’s claimed to have created at the firm (an incorrect figure he’s subsequently had to walk back). He never mentions that government subsidies played a major role in ensuring that success. Phil Mattera, research director for Good Jobs First, provides a few more examples of the government subsidies Bain received during Romney’s tenure at his blog, Dirt Diggers Digest. GS Industries. In 1996 American Iron Reduction LLC, a joint venture of GS Industries (which had been taken private by Bain in 1993) and Birmingham Steel, sought some $20 million in tax breaks in connection with its plan to build a plant in Louisiana’s St. James Parish (Baton Rouge Advocate, April 6, 1996). As the United Steelworkers union noted recently, GS Industries later applied for a federal loan guarantee, but before the deal could be implemented the company went bankrupt. Sealy. A year after the 1997 buyout of this leading mattress company by Bain and other private equity firms, Sealy received $600,000 from state and local authorities in North Carolina to move its corporate offices, a research center and a manufacturing plant from Ohio (Greensboro News & Record, March 31, 1998). In 2004 Bain and its partners sold Sealy to another private equity group. GT Bicycles. In 1997 GT, then owned by Bain and other investors, decided to move its manufacturing operations to an enterprise zone in Santa Ana, California. Being in the zone gave the company, which was later purchased by Schwinn, special tax credits relating to hiring and the purchase of equipment (Orange County Register, July 9, 1999). These subsidies didn’t always provide the return states and localities were looking for. Seven hundred and fifty workers lost their jobs, for example, after Bain took over GS Industries. “They walked out of here with millions,” said one former steelworker. “They left us with nothing.” By the way, it's not been mentioned that Romney's deal with Bain gave him a portion of Bain's profits IN PERPETUETY--in other words, he makes money without ever doing anything to earn it, off deals which cost (and continue to cost) people their livings. Nice "work" if you can get it...
Quote: Critics say the 15 percent rate for carried interest is an unfair tax break because investment managers, as Romney was, are providing a service that should be taxed at the higher rate paid by wage earners. Democrats in Congress have come close to raising the rate to have it equal the rate paid on "ordinary" or wage income but fierce lobbying has paid off so far for the private equity, venture capital and hedge fund industries. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/24/us-usa-taxes-romney-idUSTRE80N07320120124 was also the recipient of government subsidies, by the way:Quote: The history of Staples, a company that Bain grew from a single store, is a hallmark of the Romney record. Staples’ rapid growth, however, drew on substantial state subsidies. In 1996, Tom Stemberg, a close Romney business partner leading Staples, met with Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening, a Democrat, to negotiate a package of taxpayer sweeteners to build a new distribution center in Hagerstown. The Glendening administration, using a “Sunny Day” fund of discretionary development money, awarded Staples $2.3 million in grants and low interest loans. The following year, as Glendening prepared for his reelection campaign, top Staples executives maxed out in donations. Stemberg and his colleagues gave a total of $16,000. A similar story played out in Connecticut, where Staples landed a deal in which taxpayers subsidized over $6 million in low-interest loans for the company to construct a distribution center in Killingly in 1998. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/21/romney%E2%80%99s_record_as_a_crony_capitalist/ More on subsidies to Romney/Bain's "success stories":Quote: Reporting from Washington — As Mitt Romney defends his record running a private equity firm, he frequently points to a fast-growing Indiana steel company, financed in part by Bain Capital, that now employs 6,000 workers. What Romney doesn't mention is that Steel Dynamics also received generous tax breaks and other subsidies provided by the state of Indiana and the residents of DeKalb County, where the company's first mill was built. .... As Bain made its investment, the state and county pledged $37 million in subsidies and grants for the $385-million plant project. The county also levied a new income tax to finance infrastructure improvements to benefit the steel mill over the heated objections of some county residents. Another steel company in which Bain invested, GS Industries, went bankrupt in 2001, causing more than 700 workers to lose their jobs, health insurance and a part of their pensions. Before going under, the company paid large dividends to Bain partners and expanded its Kansas City plant with the help of tax subsidies. It also sought a $50-million federal loan guarantee. "This is corporate welfare," said Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst with the Washington-based Cato Institute, which encourages free-market economic policies. DeHaven, who is familiar with corporate tax subsidies in Indiana and other states, called the incentives Steel Dynamics received "an example of the government stepping into the marketplace, picking winners and losers, providing profits to business owners and leaving taxpayers stuck with the bill." http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/12/nation/la-na-bain-subsidies-20120113 Quote: But a closer look at Bain’s record under Romney reveals that the company relied on the very government subsidies that Romney and Tea Party conservatives routinely denounce as “crony capitalism.” The Los Angeles Times ran a big story yesterday about Bain’s investment in Steel Dynamics, which received $37 million in subsidies and grants to build a new plant in DeKalb County, Indiana. An analyst at the Cato Institute called it “corporate welfare.” Romney has recently pointed to Steel Dynamics as one of his success stories at Bain, including in a new ad, which contributed to the 100,000 net jobs he’s claimed to have created at the firm (an incorrect figure he’s subsequently had to walk back). He never mentions that government subsidies played a major role in ensuring that success. Phil Mattera, research director for Good Jobs First, provides a few more examples of the government subsidies Bain received during Romney’s tenure at his blog, Dirt Diggers Digest. GS Industries. In 1996 American Iron Reduction LLC, a joint venture of GS Industries (which had been taken private by Bain in 1993) and Birmingham Steel, sought some $20 million in tax breaks in connection with its plan to build a plant in Louisiana’s St. James Parish (Baton Rouge Advocate, April 6, 1996). As the United Steelworkers union noted recently, GS Industries later applied for a federal loan guarantee, but before the deal could be implemented the company went bankrupt. Sealy. A year after the 1997 buyout of this leading mattress company by Bain and other private equity firms, Sealy received $600,000 from state and local authorities in North Carolina to move its corporate offices, a research center and a manufacturing plant from Ohio (Greensboro News & Record, March 31, 1998). In 2004 Bain and its partners sold Sealy to another private equity group. GT Bicycles. In 1997 GT, then owned by Bain and other investors, decided to move its manufacturing operations to an enterprise zone in Santa Ana, California. Being in the zone gave the company, which was later purchased by Schwinn, special tax credits relating to hiring and the purchase of equipment (Orange County Register, July 9, 1999). These subsidies didn’t always provide the return states and localities were looking for. Seven hundred and fifty workers lost their jobs, for example, after Bain took over GS Industries. “They walked out of here with millions,” said one former steelworker. “They left us with nothing.” By the way, it's not been mentioned that Romney's deal with Bain gave him a portion of Bain's profits IN PERPETUETY--in other words, he makes money without ever doing anything to earn it, off deals which cost (and continue to cost) people their livings. Nice "work" if you can get it...
Quote: The history of Staples, a company that Bain grew from a single store, is a hallmark of the Romney record. Staples’ rapid growth, however, drew on substantial state subsidies. In 1996, Tom Stemberg, a close Romney business partner leading Staples, met with Maryland Gov. Parris Glendening, a Democrat, to negotiate a package of taxpayer sweeteners to build a new distribution center in Hagerstown. The Glendening administration, using a “Sunny Day” fund of discretionary development money, awarded Staples $2.3 million in grants and low interest loans. The following year, as Glendening prepared for his reelection campaign, top Staples executives maxed out in donations. Stemberg and his colleagues gave a total of $16,000. A similar story played out in Connecticut, where Staples landed a deal in which taxpayers subsidized over $6 million in low-interest loans for the company to construct a distribution center in Killingly in 1998. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/21/romney%E2%80%99s_record_as_a_crony_capitalist/
Quote: Reporting from Washington — As Mitt Romney defends his record running a private equity firm, he frequently points to a fast-growing Indiana steel company, financed in part by Bain Capital, that now employs 6,000 workers. What Romney doesn't mention is that Steel Dynamics also received generous tax breaks and other subsidies provided by the state of Indiana and the residents of DeKalb County, where the company's first mill was built. .... As Bain made its investment, the state and county pledged $37 million in subsidies and grants for the $385-million plant project. The county also levied a new income tax to finance infrastructure improvements to benefit the steel mill over the heated objections of some county residents. Another steel company in which Bain invested, GS Industries, went bankrupt in 2001, causing more than 700 workers to lose their jobs, health insurance and a part of their pensions. Before going under, the company paid large dividends to Bain partners and expanded its Kansas City plant with the help of tax subsidies. It also sought a $50-million federal loan guarantee. "This is corporate welfare," said Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst with the Washington-based Cato Institute, which encourages free-market economic policies. DeHaven, who is familiar with corporate tax subsidies in Indiana and other states, called the incentives Steel Dynamics received "an example of the government stepping into the marketplace, picking winners and losers, providing profits to business owners and leaving taxpayers stuck with the bill." http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/12/nation/la-na-bain-subsidies-20120113 Quote: But a closer look at Bain’s record under Romney reveals that the company relied on the very government subsidies that Romney and Tea Party conservatives routinely denounce as “crony capitalism.” The Los Angeles Times ran a big story yesterday about Bain’s investment in Steel Dynamics, which received $37 million in subsidies and grants to build a new plant in DeKalb County, Indiana. An analyst at the Cato Institute called it “corporate welfare.” Romney has recently pointed to Steel Dynamics as one of his success stories at Bain, including in a new ad, which contributed to the 100,000 net jobs he’s claimed to have created at the firm (an incorrect figure he’s subsequently had to walk back). He never mentions that government subsidies played a major role in ensuring that success. Phil Mattera, research director for Good Jobs First, provides a few more examples of the government subsidies Bain received during Romney’s tenure at his blog, Dirt Diggers Digest. GS Industries. In 1996 American Iron Reduction LLC, a joint venture of GS Industries (which had been taken private by Bain in 1993) and Birmingham Steel, sought some $20 million in tax breaks in connection with its plan to build a plant in Louisiana’s St. James Parish (Baton Rouge Advocate, April 6, 1996). As the United Steelworkers union noted recently, GS Industries later applied for a federal loan guarantee, but before the deal could be implemented the company went bankrupt. Sealy. A year after the 1997 buyout of this leading mattress company by Bain and other private equity firms, Sealy received $600,000 from state and local authorities in North Carolina to move its corporate offices, a research center and a manufacturing plant from Ohio (Greensboro News & Record, March 31, 1998). In 2004 Bain and its partners sold Sealy to another private equity group. GT Bicycles. In 1997 GT, then owned by Bain and other investors, decided to move its manufacturing operations to an enterprise zone in Santa Ana, California. Being in the zone gave the company, which was later purchased by Schwinn, special tax credits relating to hiring and the purchase of equipment (Orange County Register, July 9, 1999). These subsidies didn’t always provide the return states and localities were looking for. Seven hundred and fifty workers lost their jobs, for example, after Bain took over GS Industries. “They walked out of here with millions,” said one former steelworker. “They left us with nothing.” By the way, it's not been mentioned that Romney's deal with Bain gave him a portion of Bain's profits IN PERPETUETY--in other words, he makes money without ever doing anything to earn it, off deals which cost (and continue to cost) people their livings. Nice "work" if you can get it...
Quote: But a closer look at Bain’s record under Romney reveals that the company relied on the very government subsidies that Romney and Tea Party conservatives routinely denounce as “crony capitalism.” The Los Angeles Times ran a big story yesterday about Bain’s investment in Steel Dynamics, which received $37 million in subsidies and grants to build a new plant in DeKalb County, Indiana. An analyst at the Cato Institute called it “corporate welfare.” Romney has recently pointed to Steel Dynamics as one of his success stories at Bain, including in a new ad, which contributed to the 100,000 net jobs he’s claimed to have created at the firm (an incorrect figure he’s subsequently had to walk back). He never mentions that government subsidies played a major role in ensuring that success. Phil Mattera, research director for Good Jobs First, provides a few more examples of the government subsidies Bain received during Romney’s tenure at his blog, Dirt Diggers Digest. GS Industries. In 1996 American Iron Reduction LLC, a joint venture of GS Industries (which had been taken private by Bain in 1993) and Birmingham Steel, sought some $20 million in tax breaks in connection with its plan to build a plant in Louisiana’s St. James Parish (Baton Rouge Advocate, April 6, 1996). As the United Steelworkers union noted recently, GS Industries later applied for a federal loan guarantee, but before the deal could be implemented the company went bankrupt. Sealy. A year after the 1997 buyout of this leading mattress company by Bain and other private equity firms, Sealy received $600,000 from state and local authorities in North Carolina to move its corporate offices, a research center and a manufacturing plant from Ohio (Greensboro News & Record, March 31, 1998). In 2004 Bain and its partners sold Sealy to another private equity group. GT Bicycles. In 1997 GT, then owned by Bain and other investors, decided to move its manufacturing operations to an enterprise zone in Santa Ana, California. Being in the zone gave the company, which was later purchased by Schwinn, special tax credits relating to hiring and the purchase of equipment (Orange County Register, July 9, 1999). These subsidies didn’t always provide the return states and localities were looking for. Seven hundred and fifty workers lost their jobs, for example, after Bain took over GS Industries. “They walked out of here with millions,” said one former steelworker. “They left us with nothing.”
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:44 AM
BLUEHANDEDMENACE
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:51 AM
Quote:We have reached the point in this country where I go to my news organizations for comedy and my comedians for news.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:13 PM
RIONAEIRE
Beir bua agus beannacht
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:20 PM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Quote:Originally posted by RionaEire: Hi Nick, haven't seen ya in a while, welcome back.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:27 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 4:46 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: ...the mere use of the words "TAX CUTS" is all you need to know. The 15% tax rate is NOT a tax cut, it's been around for some time and nobody views it as cutting current taxes. The Bush tax cuts are just that: TAX CUTS, intended to expire after ten years, extended a year and coming up soon to see whether those TAX CUTS will be extended again.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 5:39 AM
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 6:09 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 6:13 AM
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 6:28 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace: I am quite glad that you decided to post more context for this quote. This makes it even clearer that nowehere in his speech did the Pres say that the Buffett Rule would fix the deficit.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 6:35 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: The Bush tax cuts are just that: TAX CUTS, intended to expire after ten years, extended a year and coming up soon to see whether those TAX CUTS will be extended again.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 7:08 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace: Wow, Enter the Strawman. So the one rule wont fix the defecit at all means it wont help? What kind of silly logic is that? "I owe you a hundred bucks, But I only have ten right now so why bother giving it to u?" this statement, which is absurd, would approximately follow your logic. Seriously Rappy, is this one of your trolling attempts? Or do u actually believe what u r saying?
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 7:27 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace: I am quite glad that you decided to post more context for this quote. This makes it even clearer that nowehere in his speech did the Pres say that the Buffett Rule would fix the deficit. Do you see those words in the expanded quote? cuz I dont....I see u are still trying to flog the dead horse, while proving the opposing point.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 8:02 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Low taxes weren't the cause of the deficit, so why would anyone think that raising taxes will even help solve the problem ?
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 8:11 AM
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 9:12 AM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Quote:Why not say something like, “Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else, like education and medical research, a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we're going to have to give up some of both.”
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 9:14 AM
Quote:Low taxes weren't the cause of the deficit
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 10:39 AM
Quote:Obama's language is pretty standard for someone making a case for something. If politicians weren't allowed to make cases for things, but only to lay out the truth exactly and honestly - well, I think that would hurt Republicans more than Democrats.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 12:07 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Hey Nick; noticed you earlier and meant to say "hi", but forgot.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 1:05 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Low taxes weren't the cause of the deficit, so why would anyone think that raising taxes will even help solve the problem ? Math. I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 1:21 PM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Quote:Low taxes weren't the cause of the deficit What?? The Bush tax cuts added something like 2 trillion to the deficit just while he was in office. So that's 2 trillion and counting... It's not personal. It's just war.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 1:46 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: You truly ARE a sheep.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 2:08 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: You truly ARE a sheep. Says the laughable joke of a man who furiously fights for the rights of his feudal lords. "Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 3:06 PM
Thursday, February 2, 2012 4:43 AM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Because he's making the case specifically for ending the tax cuts - not the need to cut spending as well (a point on which there is already concensus and no case needs to be made).
Thursday, February 2, 2012 5:38 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: But the President specifically says "Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else, like education and medical research, a strong military and care for our veterans?" I'm not sure how folks parse "keep our investments in everything else" to mean "reduce our investments in everything else".
Thursday, February 2, 2012 5:48 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: "Keep" as opposed to "getting rid of". The president is arguing against the much held position on the right that cuts are the only solution. If you try that the cuts would be so deep as to make those programs inadequate and as such make our past investments into them worthless. By increasing taxes the cuts would not have to be as deep, and some programs my not have to be cut at all.
Quote: Ending subsidies for millionaires and billionaires “Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else—like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both.” • We don’t begrudge financial success in this country, but asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes is just common sense. • When millionaires get tax breaks they don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit or somebody else has to make up the difference. • Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. • If you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up.
Thursday, February 2, 2012 5:52 AM
Thursday, February 2, 2012 5:58 AM
Thursday, February 2, 2012 6:44 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace: Ready to admit u were wrong yet?
Thursday, February 2, 2012 6:48 AM
Thursday, February 2, 2012 6:58 AM
CAVETROLL
Quote:Originally posted by RionaEire: A Cavetroll a chara, If you stop talking to people because they swear too much then you won't have very many people left to talk to, I guess it will be just you and me, but I swear Firefly style, I say rut a lot and a couple of other lesser swears, so eventually you wouldn't be able to talk to me either. So your plan is unrealistic and will leave you with few comrades in life.
Thursday, February 2, 2012 7:23 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace: Except, of course, that he has said, numerous times. But I guess those dont count.
Thursday, February 2, 2012 7:31 AM
Quote:But the President specifically says "Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else
Quote:But recognize that the anti-wealthy populist rhetoric is mostly political expediency. It distracts from the serious issues the country faces — creating jobs and closing long-term budget deficits."
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: "Profit is the difference between the cost of manufacture (raw materials, capital investment, physical plant and wages) and distribution and the selling price of the product." However, raw materials are free, until you pay someone to dig them up, chop them down, build the turbine etc. (raw materials = free + labor). Capital is nothing more than the accumulated value created by labor (capital = labor). Wages are the cost of labor. (wages = labor) And distribution is labor and fuel (fuel = raw materials + labor) and equipment, (equipment = raw materials + labor). 'Cost' comes down to labor. "The selling price is also influenced by supply and demand." Assuming a free market and a rational vendor and consumer, which don't exist. Gee, for someone who claims to know something about economics, you sure have left a lot out of your analysis.
Thursday, February 2, 2012 8:56 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace: Except, of course, that he has said, numerous times. But I guess those dont count. Not really, since this discussion is about what was said in the State of the Union Address. That's what I continue to quote, and you continue to try to rebut. Anyway, by your own rules, stated here, http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=50889 the more important the forum, the more important the impact of the statement. Therefore, by your rules, what the President says, or doesn't say, in the State of the Union Address - arguably his most important and most watched speech of the year - should count more than a speech at some university, that didn't get national coverage. When you also consider the fact that the President's own website's analysis of the State of the Union Address doesn't even mention deficit reduction, except when explicitly linked to increasing taxes on the rich, it seems your arguments don't have much of a leg to stand on.
Thursday, February 2, 2012 9:15 AM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: But he specifically doesn't say "Or do we want to keep all our investments...". Nor is that necessarily implied. He could've made the effort to say 'some of', or 'reduce', but that's less emphatic. As I say it's standard language of persuasion.
Thursday, February 2, 2012 9:18 AM
Quote:That $ didn't vanish, into thin air,did it? It wasn't spent, on goods and or services, which were provided by people who made, sold and provided those services, was it ? And those transactions...no, they weren't TAXED, now, were they ? Taxed by the federal govt ?
Quote:The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were: Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28% Defense spending increases: 15% Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13% Increases in net interest: 11% Other non-defense spending: 10% Other tax cuts: 8% Obama Stimulus: 6% Medicare Part D: 2% Other reasons: 7%[30]
Thursday, February 2, 2012 4:42 PM
Quote:If he says "keep our investments", and doesn't qualify it, how can he mean he's talking about keeping less than "all" our investments.
Friday, February 3, 2012 3:23 AM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: I hear people use this kind of language all the time when they're being emphatic, or just lazy. I'd say Obama's speechwriters were being both here; it probably could've been worded better - something just as emphatic, but less ambiguous.
Friday, February 3, 2012 3:47 AM
Friday, February 3, 2012 7:26 AM
Friday, February 3, 2012 8:11 AM
Friday, February 3, 2012 10:21 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace: Enjoy life in your bubble. The rest of us will stay out here where words actually mean what they mean, instead of what you would like to interpret them as. Its clearly no longer worth discussing with you, as you are chewing the same stale soup over and over and hoping it will taste different each time.
Quote: Thanks to Congress shitting all over the country last summer, hiring has gone back down the tubes, at least in the consumer products space I work in...
Friday, February 3, 2012 10:35 AM
Friday, February 3, 2012 10:39 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: Yeah, they just waited until this summer so that... Ah, nevermind. Its the RapTard.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL