Media Endorsements of Presidential Candidates

[Tino]

[/size]

Two unsupported assertions.

Oh by all means, let me help.

I'm not going to listen to this whole video since it was obviously put together without objectivity, but I will just address the first point as an example of why it is misleading and doesn't support your argument.

The video contrasts these two statements, which you claim supports your assertion that he is lying. Here are the two statements:

1. "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans."

2. "We're going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20%, including the top 1%"

Romney explained this clearly in the debate. In statement 1 he is referring to the total taxes paid. In statement 2 he is referring to the tax rate. So the question is how can he lower the tax rate without also lowering the total taxes paid? Again, he addressed this in the debate. He is eliminating tax deductions and loopholes that disproportionately benefit higher-income people, such as (again, example given in the debate), the amount of income that can be offset by mortgage interest deductions. This makes a lot of sense since it's a good idea to encourage people to own a home, but we don't need to also incentivize them to buy a 2nd or 3rd vacation home.

If you evaluate candidates by just listening to the other side, you'll just be duped by their rhetoric.

TRUTH, bitches.

[festive1]

Ummm... I'm glad someone thought Romney made any sense in the debate. The burning question I would have asked is: Why does my family, which makes significantly less than Gov. Romney, pay 30% of our income in taxes, while he only pays 14%? Sure, even at his lower percentage rate he pays more in actual dollars. However, Gov. Romney would not experience a cramp in his lifestyle if he payed double what he has in taxes. So why not tax those making greater than 250,000 a year more? Closing loopholes will help, but not all the way (trying to get Romney's tax rate equivalent to that of middle income Americans).

[Tino]

Ummm... I'm glad someone thought Romney made any sense in the debate. The burning question I would have asked is: Why does my family, which makes significantly less than Gov. Romney, pay 30% of our income in taxes, while he only pays 14%? Sure, even at his lower percentage rate he pays more in actual dollars. However, Gov. Romney would not experience a cramp in his lifestyle if he payed double what he has in taxes. So why not tax those making greater than 250,000 a year more? Closing loopholes will help, but not all the way (trying to get Romney's tax rate equivalent to that of middle income Americans).

I believe the simple answer is that his is investment income, which is taxed at a lower rate than wage income, since the money used to fund the investments was already taxed at the wage income rate. If Romney's income was wage income it would be taxed at a vastly higher rate than yours, unless you happen to be in his wage income bracket.

As for not cramping his lifestyle by paying double, I'm sure you are correct. As a mormon he would already by tithing 10% of his gross income to the church, and his tax returns show that he donates a lot of money to charities.

[festive1]

Why shouldn't investment income be taxed as wages? Perhaps not across the board, but for people whose annual income is over a certain amount, I'm in favor of this. Yes, the money initially invested was taxed at wage levels (though not always, there are different forms of investments that get around that with the use of pre-tax dollars), but being this is Romney's only source of income, shouldn't it be seen and treated as his wages? Romney doesn't have a job. He doesn't have to get up and go into an office every day. He simply sits around being a master of the universe while his hedge-fund managers and trust accountants make him even wealthier. Not to mention his Cayman Island and Swiss bank accounts, where I'm sure he squirrels away a lot of money and investments to avoid being taxed. Just an aside, I'm using Romney as a convenient example, everyone who shares his top bracket status should be more heavily taxed as well.
Tithing is all well and good, but that money is only going to help the church and those that the church deems worthy of their charity, not the general public. Churches should be taxed, with the exception of their charitable organizations (which should be set up as separate, non-profits), but money that churches bring in for their own use should be taxed.
The American Dream, is just that, a dream. Social mobility is at a standstill, if not running in reverse. Work your ass off all you want, chances are very high that you will never earn even a quarter of what Gov. Romney is worth. I'm all for rewarding those that do well, but not at the expense of others. In my view when someone earning $16+ million a year (without even having a job) is only paying 14% in taxes, that's needlessly hoarding money that could be used for far better purposes.

[Tino]

Why shouldn't investment income be taxed as wages? Perhaps not across the board, but for people whose annual income is over a certain amount, I'm in favor of this.

I'm not a tax policy expert but here are a few reasons that come to mind:

1. Raising taxes on investments hurts retirees living off their investments.

2. Targeting high-investment-income people targets the most mobile group of people in the world. Many/most would want to live elsewhere to avoid the tax and they have the means to do so (and they're not tied down to a job). So you ultimately lose revenue rather than gaining it. If your purpose is to raise revenues, its counter-productive. If your purpose is to just punish people who have been financially successful, most will avoid it.

3. Taxing investments at the same rate as wages just incentivizes people to keep working longer, or retiring later, thus remaining in the labor pool and holding onto jobs that could be held by others. In other words, it raises unemployment.

4. You won't like this one, but a sense of fairness and proportionality. The top ten percent of income earners in the US already pay the highest share of taxes (45%) of any nation on earth. The next highest is Italy at 42% but most of the G8 nations are in the 20s and low 30s. See http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wate...larger-sh/ for more on this.

In my view when someone earning $16+ million a year (without even having a job) is only paying 14% in taxes, that's needlessly hoarding money that could be used for far better purposes.

I think you get into very dangerous territory when you start having the government decide that someone else's assets or property could be used for far better purposes. It's not far from there to deciding that you have nice child-bearing hips and we need more babies.

[festive1]

I'm not a tax policy expert but here are a few reasons that come to mind:

1. Raising taxes on investments hurts retirees living off their investments.

Note that I stated investments should be taxed at wage level for those above a certain level of income, this does not include grandparents who survive on their meager pensions and social security.

2. Targeting high-investment-income people targets the most mobile group of people in the world. Many/most would want to live elsewhere to avoid the tax and they have the means to do so (and they're not tied down to a job). So you ultimately lose revenue rather than gaining it. If your purpose is to raise revenues, its counter-productive. If your purpose is to just punish people who have been financially successful, most will avoid it.

As you point out in your fourth statement, we already tax these high income earners at a higher rate than anywhere else, but they haven't moved yet. I agree that there is a tipping point at which people will leave rather than pay taxes, but where exactly does that point lie? Plus, I think a sense of nationalism plays into this as well, not everyone would leave, some will see it as their duty as well-off Americans to stick around and help out the little guy (a la Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, though admittedly they are in the minority).

3. Taxing investments at the same rate as wages just incentivizes people to keep working longer, or retiring later, thus remaining in the labor pool and holding onto jobs that could be held by others. In other words, it raises unemployment.

Again, I'll point to my support of taxation of investments at wage levels for individuals who earn over a certain amount.

4. You won't like this one, but a sense of fairness and proportionality. The top ten percent of income earners in the US already pay the highest share of taxes (45%) of any nation on earth. The next highest is Italy at 42% but most of the G8 nations are in the 20s and low 30s. See http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wate...larger-sh/ for more on this.

You've got to look at the big picture on this... The top 10% of income earners in the US range from making about $175,000 a year on up. There's a huge difference between being at the bottom of the top 10% and earning 175k a year and being closer to the top of that 10% and earning $16 million a year. There are a lot of people who earn $175k a year and still struggle to pay their mortgages and kids' education costs (either private school or university/college tuition). They should be individually more fiscally responsible (buying a $600,000 house as opposed to a $1.5 million dollar McMansion) as well as being held to a lower tax standard than someone earning a multi-million dollar a year income. Where do I get this figure?? It's slightly outdated from 2003 found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_i...ted_States
But as the 2012 census showed us, the income disparity of Americans increased so I'll stand by that. The pyramid is so lopsided one should look at accumulated wealth, rather than income... http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0...ot-income/

In my view when someone earning $16+ million a year (without even having a job) is only paying 14% in taxes, that's needlessly hoarding money that could be used for far better purposes.

I think you get into very dangerous territory when you start having the government decide that someone else's assets or property could be used for far better purposes. It's not far from there to deciding that you have nice child-bearing hips and we need more babies.

Perhaps... and I'm not saying that the government couldn't learn a thing or two from the private sector, the bureaucracy is silly, often crazy, and ultimately results in a huge waste of money. But if we were taxing high income earners at greater rates, revenue would increase giving the government more funding for things like education, infrastructure, health care, etc. I'm not just saying, "Take the wealthy swine's money!!" I'm also saying tax them at equitable rates and use the resulting revenue for things we (as an American people) need. I'm not saying they shouldn't get to vote to decide what is done with said extra revenue. They should still be able to vote for leaders who would use this money for whatever it is they would want to see it spent on.
For what it's worth, I'll throw this in too: I support a cap on how much one can leave in inheritance to one's family/dependents/children. I'd allow for leaving one's wealth to a charitable non-profit organization, but surely Gov. Romney's kids (and grandkids, and great-grandkids for that matter) would be completely financially comfortable and secure if he were only allowed to leave each of them, oh let me pick a number out of thin air here, $5 million.

[DeistPaladin]

If you want to read a cogent and pithy case for voting for Mitt Romney, click the link a read the Las Vegas Review-Journal's endorsement editorial:

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/for-presiden...16161.html

I got as far as this point in the article:

to business owners: "You didn't build that."

You do realize this is a lie, right?

The full quote is Obama said that small business didn't build the roads and bridges. These were constructed by community tax dollars. His whole point being that prosperity comes from all parts of the community doing their part, small businesses, corporations and the government.

That this article continues to circulate the quote-mine that became the slogan for the RNC (this should tell us something), is a sign not just of right-wing bias but dishonesty.

And when will conservatives admit that trickle down economics combined with deregulation doesn't work?

Conservative ideas were tried during the Bush administration. Massive tax cuts for the wealthy to add to the deregulation of markets. And what did we get? The most pitiful job growth since the Great Depression followed by a catastrophic economic collapse.

[Tino]

I got as far as this point in the article:

to business owners: "You didn't build that."

You do realize this is a lie, right?

I know the theme this month is to insist that everyone who is, or is for, Republicans is lying but you're lying yourself when you say "this is a lie."

First, the quote from the article:

"This summer, the president famously said "the private sector is doing fine," and to business owners: "You didn't build that.""

Now the relevant part of the President's speech:

"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. "

The President did say those words, and was addressing small business owners, so this quote isn't a lie. Your statement is. So, you do realize you lied, right?

Now as to your argument about what the President meant by it - yes we've all heard the explanation that the "it" is the government infrastructure, and not the business. You believe that explanation. I don't believe it. I think Obama went off script and was being candid about his view. If not, why the need to say "If you've got a business". The statement means the same if you don't have a business - the government still built the infrastructure. So why start it with "If you've got a business..."

But going further, his whole point is stupid. Government doesn't build stuff. Our taxes pay for it, generated by businesses, and private sector companies build it. And to the extent that Government has a role, it's generally state and local government, not Federal. Much of the infrastructure that my small business relies on - electricity, telephones, data networks - were built by commercial businesses. The roads and bridges were built by my county government. Yes, there are some federal projects - the federal highway system comes to mind - but again, all paid for by revenues originating in the private sector.

[DeistPaladin]

I know the theme this month is to insist that everyone who is, or is for, Republicans is lying...

Probably because Republicans are lying their asses off. We have an unfinished discussion on that point in another thread.

Now the relevant part of the President's speech:

"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. "

The President did say those words, and was addressing small business owners, so this quote isn't a lie. Your statement is. So, you do realize you lied, right?

Really?

Do I have to explain to you what quote mining is and why it is deceitful? One would think as an atheist you would already be familiar. Here's a link to bring you up to speed.

In quote mining, the target always does say "those words". The lie is when you edit the quotation or wrench it out of context in order to deceive your audience as to what the target said. This is precisely what Romney did to the Obama speech.

Now as to your argument about what the President meant by it - yes we've all heard the explanation that the "it" is the government infrastructure, and not the business. You believe that explanation. I don't believe it.

The point isn't what you or I believe. The point is what he said. While I know it is part of modern conservative custom to live in a post modernist world where everyone is entitled to their own facts, I'm afraid that reality doesn't conform to what you believe. Again, why I have to explain this to an atheist is beyond me.

So why start it with "If you've got a business..."

To counter the Randite philosophy that dominates our economic discourse. There is the attitude among the 1% that they work their magic and prosperity follows. In reality, it takes many parts of a society to create a strong economy.

Too much has been focused lately on concentrating more wealth into the hands of Wall Street, assuming what is good there is good for Main Street. In reality, a robust middle class and working class are needed for a prosperous first world economy. If you own a small business, you should be aware of this, because who is going to buy your products if the middle class disappears?

I fear that if America stays on its course toward tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation and outsourcing, we will eventually find ourselves a third world nation, with the top 1% owning everything and the rest living in squalor. Actually, when it comes to wealth distribution, we're already comparable to many third world nations.

And no comment on the failure of trickle down economics?

[Tino]

Probably because Republicans are lying their asses off.

Another unsupported assertion.

In quote mining, the target always does say "those words". The lie is when you edit the quotation or wrench it out of context in order to deceive your audience as to what the target said. This is precisely what Romney did to the Obama speech.

The source of all this isn't Romney, it's the Las Vegas Review-Journal's endorsement of Romney.

The point is what he said.

What he said was "If you've got a business – you didn't build that." I think you're better off arguing what he meant, but again, we don't agree on what he meant. I do think that what he said is what he meant.

And no comment on the failure of trickle down economics?

Earlier I tried to get you or someone else to clarify what you think the term "trickle down" means, with no meaningful response on the subject. Romney isn't offering something he calls "trickle down" so I can't comment on it until you define what it is.

---

For what it's worth, I'll throw this in too: I support a cap on how much one can leave in inheritance to one's family/dependents/children. I'd allow for leaving one's wealth to a charitable non-profit organization, but surely Gov. Romney's kids (and grandkids, and great-grandkids for that matter) would be completely financially comfortable and secure if he were only allowed to leave each of them, oh let me pick a number out of thin air here, $5 million.

Our unalienable rights in the US include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If Romney's pursuit of happiness includes leaving a very large inheritance to his heirs, then it is his business, not anyone else's. I don't want to give up my rights in this area, and I don't want anyone else judging what is right for me. If we did I'm sure there would be lots of people with opinions on all sorts of things, like whether parents with three kids should be able to be completely comfortable and secure with, oh let me pick a number out of thin air here, two kids, and give the other kid to some couple who find themselves infertile. No thanks.