8
   

Does Obama actually understand business?

 
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 09:52 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
It is right in saying that business owners should recognise the contribution of societies systems to their wealth, and provide support for those systems.


That is Obama's whole point in a nutshell, very well and simply put.

Quote:
Then, once a company succeeds and grows and gives back, Obama just wants more.


You are aware that we currently pay the lowest taxes than we have in years, are you not? You are also aware that we have a deficit that needs fixing, are you not? Corporations have been paying the least with all the loopholes and what not but they have been profiting the most. Obama is saying since they have been paying the least (relative to their worth) and profiting the most, and we need revenue, then the very highest in the land can afford to pay more and they need to pay more. If they make tax hikes across the board, then the middle class is just keep dwindling down. If they make tax cuts across the board then the economy is just going to keep dwindling down. To fix the deficit most economist agree that we need more revenue along with some smart cuts in government.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 10:39 am
@revelette,
How can he be "aware" of anything that has to do with the facts? The infrastructure doesn't stop working just because a business "gives back" what he thinks is owed. McG's biggest problem is the simple fact that he thinks he knows how to determine what benefit any business receives from the American business environment. FACT: It just can't be measured.

0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 10:58 am
@revelette,
Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the loopholes and actually gather the taxes that are owed at current rates instead of just raising the rates across the board for everyone?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 11:03 am
@McGentrix,
True, but that problem has existed during both democratic and republican rule in Washington DC.

"Make more sense" is a strawman argument without much basis in reality.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 11:06 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the loopholes and actually gather the taxes that are owed at current rates instead of just raising the rates across the board for everyone?


Sure, good luck with that. I seem to recall that it's your side of the fence that wants unlimited corporate donations to candidates and outside spending groups in elections; these large donations are done in large part to PROTECT loopholes.

Large corps - not necessarily small businesses - LOVE complexity in the tax code. They would fight against simplifying the code tooth and nail. Do you think that the GOP would be willing to ally with the Dems against them, to make something happen? I can't see it.

Cycloptichorn
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 11:16 am
@McGentrix,
Changing the effective rate changes the effective rate. Either way it's a tax increase.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 11:31 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I don't recall seeing a big push from the Dems to stop all the things you listed. They take the same advantage as the GOP does so please don't try to make them appear innocent in this particular topic.

Simplify tax code, kill the loop holes, collect money owed. No reason for a tax increase at all. Fix the system instead of trying to put a band aid on it.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 11:37 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

I don't recall seeing a big push from the Dems to stop all the things you listed. They take the same advantage as the GOP does so please don't try to make them appear innocent in this particular topic.


Oh yeah, that's totally true. The Dems are pretty complicit. I will say that they have tried a few times over the years to end some of the tax loopholes that big businesses take advantage of, but to be fair, they've almost always focused on businesses that traditionally support the GOP.

Quote:
Simplify tax code, kill the loop holes, collect money owed. No reason for a tax increase at all. Fix the system instead of trying to put a band aid on it.


It's just impossible to do what you are suggesting without a Congress which is willing to work together and negotiate on bills, instead of reflexively oppose the other side. This is one area where I will point a finger at the GOP - just try and get Cantor in the House to even SAY the word compromise, or even consider working with the Dems on anything. He and the ideological group he represents would rather die than compromise on anything at all.

A bill that 'killed the loopholes' would be opposed from every special interest there is. There's zero chances of such a bill passing without a strong sense of cooperation between the parties. And, as such a move would likely be considered a major win for Obama in the end, there's very little chance the GOP would support it, period, even if it did make sense.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 11:41 am
@Cycloptichorn,
McG doesn't understand his own party's platform on taxes. His remarks may sound logical, but he doesn't understand the reality of Washington DC and the GOP's advocacy against tax increases by any means.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 01:12 pm
This is a good one.

0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 01:30 pm
I can't hear well enough to understand youtube, which is why I usually find a transcript somewhere.

I am assuming from some of the comments they are referring to another distortion by fox and other conservative pundits over Obama's clinton comment?

If so:

Quote:
At this point, getting video clips of President Obama from Republican campaigns is like getting an article pitch from Jayson Blair. It might tell a good story, but you need to run down the source and triple-check. Jim Geraghty points to our latest example, a rapid-response video from the RNC that clips Obama's speech from Oakland.




Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan—and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.




Pretty stupid! As Geraghty points out, with a smorgasboard of links, the economy is still horrible three-and-a-half years after Obama took office. But what was the rest of the quote?



I'll cut out government spending that’s not working, that we can’t afford, but I’m also going to ask anybody making over $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rates they were paying under Bill Clinton, back when our economy created 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history and everybody did well. Just like we’ve tried their plan, we tried our plan -- and it worked. That’s the difference. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for a second term.




What are the chances? Another radical Obama quote that's just a clipped version of something all Democrats believe. Obama wasn't talking, at this moment, about his own economic record. He was arguing that the economy had grown and the deficit had shrunk when marginal tax rates were higher. (Of course he doesn't want to raise all those rates, which undercuts his point about the deficit.) This is a bog-standard part of the 2012 message. "The President also believes that the top 2% should return to Clinton-era income tax rates," said David Plouffe this month, "when the United States created 23 million jobs and ran the biggest budget surplus in history." Obama has tried a bunch of things, but Clinton-era tax rates on income over $250,000 is not among them.




So the truncated version of the Obama quote is insanely misleading. At best, it'll only appear in $10.4 million or so of TV ads


source
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 01:37 pm
@McGentrix,
Even if the loopholes were fixed, the tax rate is lower than it ever has been and we can't sustain it just by cutting, we need some revenue as well.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 02:21 pm
@revelette,
100% true! We need revenue to support all the wars/defense department, infrastructure, and all the necessary social services that includes schools and our legal system. If you starve those to death, our country will die.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2012 10:08 pm
@McGentrix,
There is no meaningful difference between the candidates' understanding of business in a presidential election.

Each party has some general ideology on which they think are best for business and society (whose interests are both cooperating and competing at times) and each will try to spend political capital convincing people on the branding.

If you buy it, either way, you are being gullible. Make your decision on which policies you believe are better for the society you want, the superficial side of politics that seeks to brand these policies into presidential packaging is just that: packaging.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jul, 2012 10:47 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Good conclusion; also, if we can rely on history, democratic administrations have done better for the majority of Americans over republican ones.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2012 08:25 am
@Robert Gentel,
I disagree. I'd say there is a tremendous difference in understanding between the two. Obama has a history of making "out of context" comments and "gaffes" demonstrating his lack of understanding of business. Romney has a long history in the private sector creating and running businesses.

To say their is little difference is like saying a guy that builds cars and a guy that drives cars has the same understanding of cars.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2012 08:37 am
@McGentrix,
To carry your analogy further, though, does either of those activities prepare you for creating a transportation policy?
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2012 08:38 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
I disagree. I'd say there is a tremendous difference in understanding between the two.


Even if true it's just not very meaningful to the choice of president. Someone with extensive business acumen does not necessarily translate into someone who favors policies that are economically sound.

It sounds compelling, a business guy is the best guy to fix the economy. But running a business is nothing like running an economy and this argument counts on the majority of people being ignorant enough not to realize the difference between an economist and a business man.

Quote:
Obama has a history of making "out of context" comments and "gaffes" demonstrating his lack of understanding of business.


That's just stupid political mudslinging. Just like the "gotchas" on Romney for his tone-deaf gaffes about liking to "fire" people etc are. This is just vapid political hot air.

Each candidate understands business well enough to be president, you should worry about their understanding of macroeconomics (and even then you really just need to know what school of thought they subscribe to) not what kind of gaffes you read about.

Quote:
Romney has a long history in the private sector creating and running businesses.


So? That doesn't mean he'd be a good macro-economic leader, it's an implication made to the ignorant.

Quote:
To say their is little difference is like saying a guy that builds cars and a guy that drives cars has the same understanding of cars.


"Understanding of cars" is a very apt comparison. I recommend you give as much weight to "understanding of business" when selecting your next president as "understanding of cars."
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2012 08:38 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
To carry your analogy further, though, does either of those activities prepare you for creating a transportation policy?


Exactly.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Aug, 2012 09:47 am
@McGentrix,
Yup, we had GW Bush for eight years, and during his tenure, he lost jobs - the worst since the Great Depression. GW Bush also "created" the Great Recession, and he was a "business man." * He failed at it miserably. Experience? Yes, but the results ended up in a world financial crisis.

Also, if you have bothered to keep up with the news on Romney's experience at Bain Capital, nobody actually knows how many jobs he created or destroyed. There are anecdotal reports of a paper mill his company took over where the employees wages and benefits were reduced - or lost.

Romney will not show his tax returns, because he's hiding something he knows will damage his candidacy for president.


 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/21/2025 at 10:28:28