• Romney calls on Obama to apologize for Bain attacks
    43 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Lankist;36762830]sharks can help too, racist.[/QUOTE] Time to call the Nation Association for the Advancement of Sentient Fish [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] Also to contribute to the debate Taxes are the lowest they've been in years so the government isn't to blame for taxing businesses into outsourcing
[QUOTE=Lambeth;36762417]If they can't do that please stop calling him a socialist [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] [img]http://i.cubeupload.com/8xDvfU.png[/img][img]http://i.cubeupload.com/fbaDQA.png[/img] Thought the fancy low opacity might look better v:v:v[/QUOTE] Much appreciated, you did what Romney would never do. [editline]14th July 2012[/editline] Help someone out!
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;36763624]Much appreciated, you did what Romney would never do. [editline]14th July 2012[/editline] Help someone out![/QUOTE] Ohgoddamnit. Was going to say, "Help the common man?". But you had to automerge!
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36762837]This is factually wrong, which is odd, because to make this fuckup you need to not understand very basic economics and be incapable of observation. There is a global labor surplus. Transportation and communication costs are at all time lows, and materials markets are extremely efficient, removing all barriers to using foreign labor. All other things being equal, people seek the lowest cost option. Poof. We can all agree other countries have unacceptably low standards of living and wages. These nations have more surplus labor than exists a need for labor in the entirety of the U.S. Indeed, [URL="http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Policybrief30.pdf"]if [B]all[/B] U.S. jobs were moved to China [I]alone[/I], there would still be surplus labor in China.[/URL] There is [I]no[/I] way to beat foreign labor on cost at present, no matter what the government does or does not do. No one is addressing this topic because it is unaddressable within a free market with uncooperative nations. There is also, at present, no way for you to substantiate a claim that government action is directly related to the outsourcing of jobs. If there were, there would exist hard statistics on the enactment of specific regulations and changes in tax rates alongside observed outsourcing, citing multiple nations of varying tax rates and regulatory states. This data does not exist. Feel free to provide it, though it is to the economist community what evidence of divine creation is to biologists, so I'm not holding my breath.[/QUOTE] While you are correct that labor costs elsewhere are low- you can not ignore the fact that increasingly high taxes and costs associated with burdensome regulations put america at even more of a cost disparity.
did you miss the part where taxes are the lowest they've been in decades right now [editline]14th July 2012[/editline] and if you're going to say we need to get rid of OSHA, then fuck having more jobs.
re: [url=http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/]taxes are the lowest they've been in years[/url]
Guys, his username is "H8Entitlement" I think it's pretty obvious he's a troll account.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;36766487]Guys, his username is "H8Entitlement" I think it's pretty obvious he's a troll account.[/QUOTE] then i challenge you to find a post where i am trolling... While taxes are supposedly the lowest level in years (they arent, but only because were paying more "types" of taxes)- it doesnt matter, as only the tax amount relative to ANOTHER countries tax amount would matter (in the scenerio of jobs leaving usa for foreign countries to save money) Count up all the ways your taxed and tell me thats a sane approach to taxation. Granted businesses (and very rich) have tax exemptions for various reasons, but that makes the overall matter worse and not better, as its not a very stable, long term way to plan. Short version- if you owned a business that was going bankrupt would you ride it all the way to the bottom, or sell it to a bain like company in the hopes theyre investment could turn it around (and at the very least they pay you more then anyone else would for the company) And if companies like bain routinely buy undervalued (verge of bankruptcy) type businesses- doesnt it stand to reason some of them JUST MIGHT be beyond saving?
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36766824]then i challenge you to find a post where i am trolling... While taxes are supposedly the lowest level in years (they arent, but only because were paying more "types" of taxes)- it doesnt matter, as only the tax amount relative to ANOTHER countries tax amount would matter (in the scenerio of jobs leaving usa for foreign countries to save money) Count up all the ways your taxed and tell me thats a sane approach to taxation. Granted businesses (and very rich) have tax exemptions for various reasons, but that makes the overall matter worse and not better, as its not a very stable, long term way to plan. Short version- if you owned a business that was going bankrupt would you ride it all the way to the bottom, or sell it to a bain like company in the hopes theyre investment could turn it around (and at the very least they pay you more then anyone else would for the company) And if companies like bain routinely buy undervalued (verge of bankruptcy) type businesses- doesnt it stand to reason some of them JUST MIGHT be beyond saving?[/QUOTE] But the US has low corporate tax compared to other OECDs, which one would presume would make them more likely to operate and expand in the US, at the least providing plenty of jobs in the service and retail sector (which can't be moved overseas). However, if that's not happening it's because companies will employ as few people as possible, regardless of the taxes that they pay. If taxes go down, that money will either be used to expand (good for everyone, but risky), or used to pay dividends for shareholders and bonuses for executive staff. That's not particularly useful for the economy, but it's pretty much risk free and also very attractive to shareholders and the executives, who (surprise surprise) also decide the direction the company goes in. When you match that with the sluggish economy that makes taking risks even more, well, riskier, it would make sense for corporations to take the safe, self-rewarding option - basically taking sorely needing income from the government and using it to make the rich richer without actually creating any new jobs.
Didn't Romney laugh at Mccain for asking him to apologize during the nomination? It's like Romney made a deal with Obama that if he should ever run against him, he would make himself lose.
[QUOTE=rrunyan;36768380]Didn't Romney laugh at Mccain for asking him to apologize during the nomination? It's like Romney made a deal with Obama that if he should ever run against him, he would make himself lose.[/QUOTE] Romney flip-flops more than a fish out of water. Really, this shouldn't come as a surprise.
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36766824]While taxes are supposedly the lowest level in years (they arent, but only because were paying more "types" of taxes)-[/QUOTE] Hey look, a claim which could be easily validated with data and runs contrary to existing data. Maybe you should provide some. (The CBO would [I]love[/I] a more accurate method of calculating real tax burden.) [QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36766824]it doesnt matter, as only the tax amount relative to ANOTHER countries tax amount would matter (in the scenerio of jobs leaving usa for foreign countries to save money)[/QUOTE] Which is irrelevant, because the disparity is so great and so much labor exists in nations with unacceptably low regulation and taxation (unless the idea of China's constant environmental rape and horrid living conditions appeals to you) that attempting to win on cost is idiotic. [QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36766824]Count up all the ways your taxed and tell me thats a sane approach to taxation. Granted businesses (and very rich) have tax exemptions for various reasons, but that makes the overall matter worse and not better, as its not a very stable, long term way to plan.[/QUOTE] Well everybody can agree that the current tax code is fucked, it's a question of how. [QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36766824]Short version- if you owned a business that was going bankrupt would you ride it all the way to the bottom, or sell it to a bain like company in the hopes theyre investment could turn it around (and at the very least they pay you more then anyone else would for the company)[/QUOTE] You're missing the point. In a discussion of "job creation", that approach actually [I]removes jobs[/I] and focuses on owners, not the working class. There's a reason for that quote, [URL="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-bain-20111204,0,343872.story"]"I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation".[/URL] Independent of whether or not the dissolution of jobs is natural, it [I]is[/I] a career founded on serving investors to the point of [URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/06/us-campaign-romney-bailout-idUSTRE8050LL20120106"]hurting the workers[/URL]. You cannot run on a campaign of "job creation" for the middle and lower class as a person who is occasionally a job vulture for the upper any more than a marine can pass for a pacifist. [QUOTE=H8Entitlement;36766824]And if companies like bain routinely buy undervalued (verge of bankruptcy) type businesses- doesnt it stand to reason some of them JUST MIGHT be beyond saving?[/QUOTE] This would be fine if private equity firms didn't affect the likelihood of a company's survival, [URL="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1987639"]like in, say, Europe.[/URL] [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694.html"]But according to everyone except Bain, Bain had a higher failure rate than normal.[/URL] This is actually really easy to counter as a claim- you provide the list of investments you made, you show their failure rate compared to others in the business, you see what happens. Bain won't. [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2012/07/14/is-mitt-romney-a-liability-for-the-private-equity-industry/"]Thus, the private equity industry in the U.S. faces an image crisis.[/URL] If their behavior is defensible, they ought defend it. If it is nothing to be ashamed of, [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjwalker/2012/07/14/35-questions-mitt-romney-must-answer-about-bain-capital-before-the-issue-can-go-away/"]Romney ought be forthcoming.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;36761117]The fuck did you get that from? The issue is that he supposedly left, and therefore wouldn't be making an income from it. But if he never really left, then he collected income without paying the necessary taxes on it.[/QUOTE] No. He paid exactly the taxes prescribed by the law. [editline]14th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36761308]how can you call them successful, then, when almost all the companies they "improve" go under shortly thereafter.[/QUOTE] Probably because they produce things that are no longer needed. Like the ads last year about the guy who's plant was closed. His plant manufactured fucking typewriters. In 2010. Bain laid off some people and kept the company going longer, but it got to the point where nobody was buying what they made anymore. Shit like that happens.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.