1. Post #1
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    September 2010
    8,080 Posts

    Am I the only one who sees the irony here?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 47Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  2. Post #2
    metromod.net
    _Chewgum's Avatar
    April 2010
    2,216 Posts
    So who will employ police, firemen and teachers?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4Funny Funny x 1Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  3. Post #3
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    September 2010
    8,080 Posts
    His last line is just the funniest thing to me. It's like child logic.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 33Funny Funny x 2Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  4. Post #4
    President of the Westboro Baptist Church Fan Club
    Dennab
    February 2012
    2,084 Posts
    Help the American people!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  5. Post #5
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    I can understand why one would argue that hiring a lot of teachers, firefighters, and police officers wouldn't be the best idea right now, as funding is virtually non existent.

    However, Mitt Romney is making no sense.

    We could.. you know.. raise taxes and hire more people, creating more jobs. Not private sector jobs, but they're still jobs that will feed families and help stimulate an economy.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  6. Post #6
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    September 2010
    8,080 Posts
    I can understand why one would argue that hiring a lot of teachers, firefighters, and police officers wouldn't be the best idea right now, as funding is virtually non existent.

    However, Mitt Romney is making no sense.

    We could.. you know.. raise taxes and hire more people, creating more jobs. Not private sector jobs, but they're still jobs that will feed families and help stimulate an economy.
    This is Romney were talking about, the guy is running on a platform based on jobs, while criticizing the creation of jobs and his former job was buying companies up to liquidate them. Therefore, killing jobs.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 13 (list)

  7. Post #7
    DeathDoom's Avatar
    September 2008
    1,102 Posts
    Sometimes I wonder if politicians actually know what they are saying, or if they are just spouting a bunch of loosely related government terms and then end with "Help America!!!!!!!" to make it sound like they actually meant something.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5 (list)

  8. Post #8
    Gold Member
    sHiBaN's Avatar
    April 2006
    4,094 Posts
    Sad part is people actually support this guy, of all things to be concerned about
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 16 (list)

  9. Post #9
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    September 2010
    8,080 Posts
    Sad part is people actually support this guy, of all things to be concerned about
    The middle of America is a truly, truly, scary place.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 11 (list)

  10. Post #10
    NeonpieDFTBA's Avatar
    January 2012
    964 Posts
    His last line is just the funniest thing to me. It's like child logic.
    Hey, my 11 year old brother is offended by the idea that Mitt Romney could match his level of thinking!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Funny Funny x 22Friendly Friendly x 2 (list)

  11. Post #11
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    This is Romney were talking about, the guy is running on a platform based on jobs, while criticizing the creation of jobs and his former job was buying companies up to liquidate them. Therefore, killing jobs.
    I'll defend Bain Capital in the sense that when a company is tanking horrendously, jobs are going to be lost. I don't think that is necessarily Mitt Romney being evil, just more so the nature of the beast. When a company is tanking, jobs will be lost, not matter who is behind the wheel.

    Now I may be wrong, I'm just going off of the few stories I have heard of Bain Capital. If you could link me to some stories of them just being outright ruthless, I would appreciate that.

  12. Post #12
    Gold Member
    OpethRockr55's Avatar
    October 2008
    1,976 Posts
    I'll defend Bain Capital in the sense that when a company is tanking horrendously, jobs are going to be lost. I don't think that is necessarily Mitt Romney being evil, just more so the nature of the beast. When a company is tanking, jobs will be lost, not matter who is behind the wheel.

    Now I may be wrong, I'm just going off of the few stories I have heard of Bain Capital. If you could link me to some stories of them just being outright ruthless, I would appreciate that.
    If a company falls, others rise to take its place, meaning more jobs for competing companies. We're only condoning shitty business practice and putting a nice home up for the assholes who want to bring the whole fucking thing down for their own gain.

  13. Post #13
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    If a company falls, others rise to take its place, meaning more jobs for competing companies. We're only condoning shitty business practice and putting a nice home up for the assholes who want to bring the whole fucking thing down for their own gain.
    Companies rise all the time, regardless of whether or not another one is booming or tanking. A CEO would rather have a company come in and save a the ship rather than let it sink. Companies like Bain Capital are going to get a bad rap any way you cut it because they come in and do the dirty work. They slim cut budgets, workers, and pay back enough so the company can survive rather than disappear.

    You should be angrier at the CEOs who let the company get there in the first place.

  14. Post #14
    Gold Member
    AugustBurnsRed's Avatar
    May 2009
    5,644 Posts
    Police? No, we have more than enough and its already a money sink. Firemen and teachers i agree with though.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 3 (list)

  15. Post #15
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    I can understand why one would argue that hiring a lot of teachers, firefighters, and police officers wouldn't be the best idea right now, as funding is virtually non existent.

    However, Mitt Romney is making no sense.

    We could.. you know.. raise taxes and hire more people, creating more jobs. Not private sector jobs, but they're still jobs that will feed families and help stimulate an economy.
    To make any impact on the economy, we would need to create A LOT of teachers and firefighters.

    You don't employ these people because it benefits the economy, you employ them because it serves the public. Teachers may help benefit in the long term, but not the short term.

    Also, raising taxes is a bad idea for economic stimulus.

  16. Post #16
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    To make any impact on the economy, we would need to create A LOT of teachers and firefighters.

    You don't employ these people because it benefits the economy, you employ them because it serves the public. Teachers may help benefit in the long term, but not the short term.

    Also, raising taxes is a bad idea for economic stimulus.
    When people have jobs, they spend money they earn from those jobs. When companies sell a lot of widgets, they hire people to make more widgets. It does help the economy, not more so than private sector jobs, and that is why I mentioned that fact. Public employees do not help the GDP like private sector employees do.

    I feel like you may have misunderstood what I was saying.

    Raising taxes does not help with economic stimulus, but cutting taxes does not create jobs.

  17. Post #17
    Archimedes's Avatar
    April 2012
    5,327 Posts
    Yeah! Fuck public safety and education!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  18. Post #18
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    When people have jobs, they spend money they earn from those jobs. When companies sell a lot of widgets, they hire people to make more widgets. It does help the economy, not more so than private sector jobs, and that is why I mentioned that fact. Public employees do not help the GDP like private sector employees do.

    I feel like you may have misunderstood what I was saying.

    Raising taxes does not help with economic stimulus, but cutting taxes does not create jobs.
    Cutting taxes does create jobs. Especially when you cut corporate and middle class taxes. When corporations have more revenue, they tend to expand operations. Couple this with people having more money to spend due to lower taxes, and you get some form of stimulus.

    I think it's just a bit of a non-point to say that creating more teachers and firefighters will help the economy because you don't create these jobs specifically to help the economy, and they are less efficient than other methods of economic stimulus.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 4Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  19. Post #19
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    Cutting taxes does create jobs. Especially when you cut corporate and middle class taxes. When corporations have more revenue, they tend to expand operations. Couple this with people having more money to spend due to lower taxes, and you get some form of stimulus.

    I think it's just a bit of a non-point to say that creating more teachers and firefighters will help the economy because you don't create these jobs specifically to help the economy, and they are less efficient than other methods of economic stimulus.
    Cutting taxes does not create jobs. It is a myth still held by far-right corrupt conservatives. Even Forbes agrees that cutting taxes does nothing but cause deficits. http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercoh...s-create-jobs/

    When taxes are cut, companies pocket the excess. When taxes are high, they reinvest their profits instead of paying the top tax rate.

    Jobs are created based on if they can offset the long term cost of that position based on the profit they plan to gain. Not because the tax is 30% and not 35%.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  20. Post #20
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    Cutting taxes does not create jobs. It is a myth still held by far-right corrupt conservatives. Even Forbes agrees that cutting taxes does nothing but cause deficits. http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercoh...s-create-jobs/

    When taxes are cut, companies pocket the excess. When taxes are high, they reinvest their profits instead of paying the top tax rate.

    Jobs are created based on if they can offset the long term cost of that position based on the profit they plan to gain. Not because the tax is 30% and not 35%.
    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21100842522311
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...47272704001343

  21. Post #21
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    Looks like we both cited sources that say otherwise. Well, lets take a look at the history of how taxes effect jobs in America.


    http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...charticle.html

    Edited:

    Higher taxes force companies to reinvest, because companies would rather reinvest than pay more in taxes.

    When taxes are cut, they take pocket the excess. History has proven it.

    Edited:

    Even my far-right conservative, Obama's a muslim, his birth certificate is fake, economics teacher said you will not fix the deficit without raising taxes. Anyone who tells you that is lying.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3 (list)

  22. Post #22
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    Looks like we both cited sources that say otherwise. Well, lets take a look at the history of how taxes effect jobs in America.


    http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...charticle.html

    Edited:

    Higher taxes force companies to reinvest, because companies would rather reinvest than pay more in taxes.

    When taxes are cut, they take pocket the excess. History has proven it.

    Edited:

    Even my far-right conservative, Obama's a muslim, his birth certificate is fake, economics teacher said you will not fix the deficit without raising taxes. Anyone who tells you that is lying.
    You're talking about different things and simply quoting a graph.

    Correlation =/= causation. The reason why growth was high during times of higher taxes is due to other variables in the economy. In fact, high taxes are beneficial to economies during times of high growth because it helps control money supply and lower debt. The problem is that the taxes are done in response to periods of economic growth, they aren't done to spur economic growth.

    Also, deficit and economic growth are two different things. You do need to raise revenue to decrease the deficit, but the deficit is not something that needs to be lowered during times of economic recession and recovery. The debt needs to be raised, because stimulus needs to be done. Of course care has to be taken to make sure debt is still controlled, but we are not at a point where our debt will run away from us yet.

  23. Post #23
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    You're talking about different things and simply quoting a graph.

    Correlation =/= causation. The reason why growth was high during times of higher taxes is due to other variables in the economy. In fact, high taxes are beneficial to economies during times of high growth because it helps control money supply and lower debt. The problem is that the taxes are done in response to periods of economic growth, they aren't done to spur economic growth.

    Also, deficit and economic growth are two different things. You do need to raise revenue to decrease the deficit, but the deficit is not something that needs to be lowered during times of economic recession and recovery. The debt needs to be raised, because stimulus needs to be done. Of course care has to be taken to make sure debt is still controlled, but we are not at a point where our debt will run away from us yet.
    Hm, you raise very good points. I will have to do further research on the situation for myself.

    Though I still have a hard time buying the fact that lowering taxes will help. What dictates a companies expansion is their success, not the tax rate. If a company sees a room to make a profit by expanding, they will expand, no matter the tax rate. When taxes are cut, companies still pocket the profit, and there is no denying that companies reinvest their money far more often when taxes are higher, as they want to pay less taxes.

    None the less, I will continue to look into it further.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  24. Post #24
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    Hm, you raise very good points. I will have to do further research on the situation for myself.

    Though I still have a hard time buying the fact that lowering taxes will help. What dictates a companies expansion is their success, not the tax rate. If a company sees a room to make a profit by expanding, they will expand, no matter the tax rate. When taxes are cut, companies still pocket the profit, and there is no denying that companies reinvest their money far more often when taxes are higher, as they want to pay less taxes.

    None the less, I will continue to look into it further.
    The idea is that when all companies have to compete with each other, and demand for products grows due to other stimulus programs, companies need to expand their operations in order to stay competitive.

    Lowering tax rates on corporations is not a fix alone. When you only lower corporate tax rates, you are right, companies just pocket the profit. However, when you have the middle class with more money in their pockets, and infrastructure projects which creates temporary jobs and encouragement for companies to expand, you will get net economic growth.

    Politicians and voters tend to look at the economy too simplistically. They think lowering taxes will benefit the economy, or a new infrastructure program will benefit the economy, or raising taxes will benefit the deficit, when none of these things alone will necessarily help at all. A comprehensive plan is needed, not just one quick fix idea.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  25. Post #25
    Gold Member
    ASmellyOgre's Avatar
    June 2008
    4,495 Posts
    I love how civil and frank this discussion has been. At any rate, while I'm not necessarily for lowering taxes or raising them (economics is a monster you don't tackle without incredible study), I'm certainly concerned about tax loopholes. Most of all, I'm concerned about the ridiculous capital gains tax rates. While not technically a loophole, people treat it like one. The regular income on the highest tax bracket is already taxed at historically low rates, and people use income from capital gains to essentially push it down lower. Even if we can't agree about taxing the rich more, I'm sure any rational man would agree to taxing them at the rate we say we will.

  26. Post #26
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    I love how civil and frank this discussion has been. At any rate, while I'm not necessarily for lowering taxes or raising them (economics is a monster you don't tackle without incredible study), I'm certainly concerned about tax loopholes. Most of all, I'm concerned about the ridiculous capital gains tax rates. While not technically a loophole, people treat it like one. The regular income on the highest tax bracket is already taxed at historically low rates, and people use income from capital gains to essentially push it down lower. Even if we can't agree about taxing the rich more, I'm sure any rational man would agree to taxing them at the rate we say we will.
    Well, there is a good reason for the capital gains tax. It helps encourage the rich to invest their money, which ends up benefitting the economy more than having it be taken out as pure income.

    However, it's been shown that lowering the CGT to 15% hasn't really helped the economy much(if at all), so raising it back up to 20% wouldn't be that big of a deal.

    Edited:

    But I would be wary of any tax rises.

  27. Post #27
    Gold Member
    Thy Reaper's Avatar
    April 2006
    809 Posts
    Well, there is a good reason for the capital gains tax. It helps encourage the rich to invest their money, which ends up benefitting the economy more than having it be taken out as pure income.

    However, it's been shown that lowering the CGT to 15% hasn't really helped the economy much(if at all), so raising it back up to 20% wouldn't be that big of a deal.

    Edited:

    But I would be wary of any tax rises.
    Wouldn't the ability to make money encourage the rich to invest, regardless of taxes? If the CGT is at the same tax rate as normal income, or gains are taxed as income, they'll still want to make money? And even if all they do is save it, the returns in savings must be coming from some form of investment at the bank level.

  28. Post #28
    USER HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY - RETRY CONNECTION IN 5 MINUTES
    Dennab
    February 2006
    22,239 Posts
    Wouldn't the ability to make money encourage the rich to invest, regardless of taxes? If the CGT is at the same tax rate as normal income, or gains are taxed as income, they'll still want to make money? And even if all they do is save it, the returns in savings must be coming from some form of investment at the bank level.
    That's true, but the investment in the banks goes towards different parts of the economy. They want to encourage investment into companies and innovation, not into mortgages and credit cards.

  29. Post #29
    Gold Member
    Splarg!'s Avatar
    September 2005
    2,432 Posts
    Hah. The video ends and I just see these two thumbnails:

    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 8 (list)

  30. Post #30
    Gold Member
    Thy Reaper's Avatar
    April 2006
    809 Posts
    That's true, but the investment in the banks goes towards different parts of the economy. They want to encourage investment into companies and innovation, not into mortgages and credit cards.
    Bank returns must be less than direct investments, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable for the banks, so there is already a capitalistic incentive to invest directly. Right now, you can expect almost an order of magnitude greater returns from stock compared to a savings account, so I don't think any additional incentive is needed, or helpful.

    On the other hand, if the people buying the products of the companies being invested in had more money to spend, those companies would probably need less money to be invested on average, avoiding some of the issue.

  31. Post #31
    Facepunch Babysitter
    BANNED USER's Avatar
    July 2009
    12,390 Posts
    I'm not saying this because I hate Romney, I'm saying this because it's true.

    Mitt Romney is a fucking moron, and should not be allowed to say anything unless he has facts that support his mindless vocal vomiting.

  32. Post #32
    GenPol's Avatar
    June 2012
    546 Posts
    Mitt Romney is a retarded animal.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Linux Netherlands Show Events Funny Funny x 4Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  33. Post #33
    beep
    codemaster85's Avatar
    January 2006
    7,634 Posts
    I'll defend Bain Capital in the sense that when a company is tanking horrendously, jobs are going to be lost. I don't think that is necessarily Mitt Romney being evil, just more so the nature of the beast. When a company is tanking, jobs will be lost, not matter who is behind the wheel.

    Now I may be wrong, I'm just going off of the few stories I have heard of Bain Capital. If you could link me to some stories of them just being outright ruthless, I would appreciate that.
    What bain capital did was they would buy out companies that were doing fine and thriving. Then they would raise the worker quota to ridiculously high requirements to make it look like they were failing, and then they would liquidate them for the worker's pensions. The company is fully of greedy assholes basically stealing from workers.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  34. Post #34
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    What bain capital did was they would buy out companies that were doing fine and thriving. Then they would raise the worker quota to ridiculously high requirements to make it look like they were failing, and then they would liquidate them for the worker's pensions. The company is fully of greedy assholes basically stealing from workers.
    Can you provide some links to support this please? Not that I honestly doubt this, but Bain Capital is also a venture capital firm that has bought some start up and helped them succeed, LinkedIn being a major one.

  35. Post #35
    beep
    codemaster85's Avatar
    January 2006
    7,634 Posts
    Can you provide some links to support this please? Not that I honestly doubt this, but Bain Capital is also a venture capital firm that has bought some start up and helped them succeed, LinkedIn being a major one.
    Romney’s private equity firm, Bain Capital, bought companies and often increased short-term earnings so those businesses could then borrow enormous amounts of money. That borrowed money was used to pay Bain dividends. Then those businesses needed to maintain that high level of earnings to pay their debts…

    * Bain in 1988 put $5 million down to buy Stage Stores, and in the mid-’90s took it public, collecting $100 million from stock offerings. Stage filed for bankruptcy in 2000.

    * Bain in 1992 bought American Pad & Paper (AMPAD), investing $5 million, and collected $100 million from dividends. The business filed for bankruptcy in 2000.

    * Bain in 1993 invested $60 million when buying GS Industries, and received $65 million from dividends. GS filed for bankruptcy in 2001.

    * Bain in 1997 invested $46 million when buying Details, and made $93 million from stock offerings. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003.

    Romney’s Bain invested 22 percent of the money it raised from 1987-95 in these five businesses, making a $578 million profit.
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...PIb0bbNn1ZkgaJ

    Romney also denies he had part in it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Informative Informative x 4 (list)

  36. Post #36
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    Ah, very well. Thank you for pointing this out.

  37. Post #37
    Gold Member
    GnomeMan's Avatar
    December 2009
    1,102 Posts
    I don't even know what to say besides "That is perhaps one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard."
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  38. Post #38
    Haunted by a dark and stupid past
    Key_in_skillee's Avatar
    December 2009
    3,244 Posts
    The problem isn't that companies aren't growing. The problem is only the big companies are growing, and they're also putting a ton of money into convincing people not to tax them.