Welcome to PatsFans.com

Q: If Romney Should Know the Economy b/c He's Rich...

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, May 2, 2012.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,529
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Shouldn't people who are richer know the economy better?

    Romney's net worth, $250M...
    Mitt Romney Net Worth | Celebrity Net Worth

    Buffett's net worth, $44 billion...
    Warren Buffett Net Worth ‹ 2012 Celebrity Net Worth

    Bill Gates' net worth, $61 billion...
    Bill Gates Net Worth 2012: $61.3 Billion - Wealth Inside Story

    Sooooo, basically, Buffett and Gates should have a better idea of what's good for the economy... and they both favor raising taxes on the rich.

    Romney? He says "look at what Obama did and do the opposite."

    4.1 million jobs created under Obama... guess Romney wants to lose 4.1 million jobs...

    PFnV
  2. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    #87 Jersey

    Would you be open to revamping the current tax code we have to close all of the loopholes which are abused or even redoing the whole thing to make it an easier document to follow and work with?

    My issue with outright raising taxes and not fixing what is broken about the code is that once the gov gets a certain percentage of most things, it usually doesnt give it back.

    I have stated on here many times that I am for everyone paying whatever their rightful share is, but would prefer to fix first and raise later if it is deemed necessary.
    Last edited: May 2, 2012
  3. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,529
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    In principle, yes. In fact I often felt that way when I was a little baby businessman, that I would pay more if I just didn't have that day or two of hell trying to figger it all out.

    My problem is with tax "reformers" that always just coincidentally come up with more regressive taxation.

    Right now, I don't think they should give it back. That's been the reverse of the case for many years now, by the way. Think about what you hear from pubbies about how letting the Bush rates sunset -- as they told everybody they were supposed to. That's how they sold the rates, they're temporary. Horrible fiscal policy, but we did it.

    Now, if you let the sunsets happen, it's "raising taxes."

    I'm okay w/the perspective that some of what we do has to come from cuts. I'm not okay with the perspective that you can't ever ever ever raise taxes. Our revenues are at record lows, and our deficits are at record highs.

    My problem with "starve the beast" rhetoric is that a lot of what taxes go to is necessary. We've been bleating "starve the beast" for decades, and we always do go after various programs. We've also had a bunch of very specific very expensive responses to the last spasmodic bubble-fueled disaster. So naturally I can see how we're all mad that we spent money on a response. However, there's no excuse for the boondoggle of the Bush tax rates.

    ::shrug:: okay, but while doing that, please don't also get in high dudgeon about how terribly in debt we are. I'm not saying you personally do that, I don't think I've seen you going on that tear, but if you normally do, don't, while waiting to see whether stuff is fixed right.

    And while fixing, I just think we should have as our guiding principle that there will be some redistributive effect, because progressive taxation is a desirable counterpoint to the tendency in a capitalist system to concentrate wealth in a way that is inimical to a society's continued existence.

    PFnV
  4. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    A: Absolutely not. The reason why people, at least myself anyway, feel that Romney "knows" the economy, is cuz he's been an executive both in the private sector, and at the government level. Also, he's been a very successful business man for the better part of his life. Being "rich" isn't the determining factor.

    As for taxes, if those two want to pay more, they can. I'd ask them why they don't. How come Buffett doesn't like to pay what the IRS tells him he owes, or better yet, why did he take $20+ million in deductions off his gross income? Do as I say, not as I do.
    Last edited: May 2, 2012
  5. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    #87 Jersey

    Agreed, I am not looking for a regressive system, just looking for a simpler, working system.

    For instance, Ricky Perry’s “postcard” idea...I thought it was a simple enough idea and liked it. No frills, no questions or confusing forms, just a “you made this, you owe us that”.

    As for my preference in fixing our tax code then coming back for a raise if need be...its really as simple as “If somethings broke, you fix it”.

    I would be interested to see what our country’s revenues from tax would be if we closed every loophole. I honestly have no idea what the loopholes that people and companies take advantage of cost us each year, but I would guess that it is quite a bit.

    If simply fixing the code gets us that revenue and we bring our financial house in order, great. I think we have a progressive enough tax system as is that the bones are there if you will.

    Now if we close all the loopholes, as well as cut spending (significantly) and make our government more efficient (a guy can dream right?) and then incremental rates as they are don’t suffice, then yes, lets have a discussion about raising the rates.


    I think raising first, while ignoring the clear broken-ness of our tax system isn’t the way to get us back on track.

    As for the Bush tax cuts on the “job producers” I used the analogy of excise tax on cigarettes in a discussion with Wolf once and I think it fits here. You raise taxes on smokes to disuade the behavior.

    With the Bush tax cuts, we cut the taxes of people in a hope they would return that money by and large into the system, through jobs etc.; the desired outcome being a trickle down effect. Doesn’t seem to me that that really happened...instead the money from the cuts was kept close to the vest of those getting the cuts.

    D
  6. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3


    Buffett is being sued for 4B in unpaid taxes....:singing:


    Funny libs shining about the unfairness of the tax code they spent 90 years fabricating and they oppose the flat tax that is transparent and fair.
  7. Why?PJ

    Why?PJ Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    the more you write the more clueless everyone knows you are. 99% of what the feds waste money on is flat out illegal.
  8. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,529
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Somebody call PJ's mommy and tell her he's on her computer again...

    Got something to contribute, PJ? Do feel free to. Otherwise "everybody knows" you're hijacking the thread & personally attacking the other members

    Bye now.

    pFnV
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,529
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    BTW, Drew, on the way to closing all loopholes (& goring all the oxes,) it would be interesting to see who wins and loses & the economic impact.

    Last observation: Also prepare the country for far more "thou shalt/thou shalt not" regulation.

    You can have a simple tax code, but you lose the ability to encourage/discourage behavior.

    So if a given behavior use to be discouraged, you just fine people for it. Really, what's the diff, other than the psychological "police state" feeling?

    PFnV
  10. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Yeah but what are loopholes?

    What do I pay if I go out and buy $3000 in carpet and then spend a day or two installing it in someone's house and then get a check for $4000?

    Is it a loophole that I'm not taxed on the $3000 in carpet?

    Is it a loophole that I'm not taxed on the tools I have to buy?

    Or the supplies?

    Or the gas/cargo van expenses?

    Or any help I hire?

    Seems to me that if we do this with the tax code it'll kick off a giant fight over what's a legit expense and what's a loophole. I can also assure you that y'all will be putting your own carpets in if us carpet installers loose those legit write offs. I'd speculate that the carpenters, plumbers, electricians, painters... ain't gonna be thrilled either.
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,529
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Hey, of course I'll be putting in my own carpet, I just lost this huge mortgage interest deduction... :eek:

    It can be said in two seconds - "elminate all the loopholes." But that translates to goring the sh1t out of a lot of people's sacred cows.

    You noted one outcome that reflects the reason there are all those deductions -- the desire for small biz to flourish (and biz in general.) Okay, well, maybe it is most fair to have one rule for everybody, no writeoffs. Maybe you will get back in lower rates what you gave up in your capital writeoffs.

    What about writing down bad debt? Changes everything. A big lurch toward paying up-front -- but then the consumer is left trusting the workman to do the work. Maybe that would work itself out.

    How about other things we want to encourage, such as charitable giving or retirement savings?

    We use the tax code to steer people toward outcomes in the common interest. Without the writeoffs, that all becomes random. Much less charity, for example, and so -- in the future -- way more poverty assistance. Same goes for poverty assistance to the elderly, which is coming anyway. And poor us, still broke.

    The one advantage is that everybody would already be confused as hell. Their own situation may be "win," "lose," or "draw." How would they know they're affected differently if you cram in enough tax at the outcome that they actually have to pay what they spend, as a nation? In other words, we'd all take this giant hit, but at least you could set the target at a realistic revenue figure.

    There are scads of bad outcomes I can think of off the top of my head, but as I say, keep it progressive, and collect from people & businesses what the country needs to pay its bills, and I could see myself sacrificing to get there.

    But once again, you need to commit to dealing w/the greater need for poverty assistance opened up by the poverty assistance gap
  12. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Romney should know the economy, from a business perspective, because he built and ran businesses and generated tremendous wealth for himself, shareholders and employees. Isn't this similar to how Obama should be a better representative on the world stage because his background is so "diverse"?
  13. Drewski

    Drewski Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    #87 Jersey

    PFnVA/SD,

    Just for clairification I wasn't thinking of business expenses as "loopholes"

    Was going more with the idea that, using the world as their oyster, the mega wealthy and corps get funny with their money.

    Offshore accounts with no 1099s, claiming your corp profits in Lowcorporatetaxistan, while you claim all of your losses here and pay nothing, subsides to oil, drug companies, big agra... etc etc etc. Those were more the areas I was going with.

    Im not out to punish rich people, small business people or what have you. Sh!t, I wanna be rich as I can be :) But if taxing our incomes is the best vehicle we have come up with to date to help pay to run the show, then tax em. Don't allow Acme Inc. to make $50B in profits doing business here, but pay nothing because they have a back office one room shop is another country.
  14. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    Does Romney personally understand economics more than Obama?

    Absolutely without a doubt, of course he does.

    Does Romney understand what makes a business successful or flourish more so than Obama?

    Absolutely without a doubt, of course he does.
  15. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Does Obama know more about Constitutional law than Romney?

    Absolutely without a doubt, of course he does.

    (errr that whole law is unconstitutional)
  16. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    And I'm sure you're correct...but what's THE single most important issue with voters for the coming election?

    Answer: The Economy

    And besides, the subject matter of this thread has nada to do with constitutional law knowledge, does it?

    If Romney Should Know the Economy b/c He's Rich...
    Last edited: May 3, 2012
  17. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,378
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    Why would business expenses be viewed as a loophole?
  18. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    If I woke up tomorrow and fell out of bed with what Romney (or any of his kids) had handed to him when he was done with his mission, I'd choke on the silver spoon, extract it from my gullet, and proceed to make a billion dollars. Then I'd make my wife work her arse off in the mansion raising our kids and save her from cancer and whatever else made her sick or uncomfortable.

    There are so many more Americans out there more qualified to be President if the only qualification that matters is knowing how to build a business from NOTHING and survive without the massive safety nets guys like Romney enjoyed. I'm guessing my buddy who was homeless and fatherless as a teenager yet managed to build a kick-azz plumbing business is more qualified to be the President if all you're looking for is business acumen.

    The myth that we need a businessman to straighten out the mess created by businessmen is absurd beyond belief, not to mention a classic fallacy of logic. Putting the fox in charge of the henhouse hardly ever works.
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,529
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Yeah, he does. He also knows more than you, no matter how many times you repeat on the internet a list of right-wing talking points that use the word "constitution."

    Who on the court is really old right now, say, within four years of the inevitable, just out of curiosity? The right's been toeing a pretty consistent line for a while now, regardless of all their talk about "strict constructionism."

    But, hope springs eternal, and to my knowledge, SCOTUS has not yet ruled on "that whole law."

    The interesting part is that the options remaining will be real-life single-payer care, and horrendous outcomes we eventually will not stand for.

    And socialist health care, my friend, does not have the problem of "forcing someone to buy insurance." It will, however, make righties cry about how terrible their taxes are.

    PFnV
    Last edited: May 3, 2012
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3

    A group is offering 10k for anyone who can come up with a transcript for Obama from Columbia, Havard or Occidental.... just to verify the grades of the Constitutional genius.
  21. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yeah, I work in healthcare finance in Massachusetts. I know exactly what Obamacare will do.
  22. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    What will it do?
    I just want to have it in writing for future "Wow! You were right! Congratulations!" or "Aw, man! You weren't even close!"
  23. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,529
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Two things, special K:

    1) if you work in health care finance in Massachsetts, you know what Romneycare will do. Oh that's right, never mind... :singing:

    2) I juxtaposed Romneycare/Obamacare against single-payer for a reason. The point is we have three choices: Bullsh1t (the status quo ante); "ObamneyCare"; or Single-payer.

    Any objective analysis will very quickly prove the third option to be the best.

    Don't bother, you're not objective. Not like me :D

    PFnV
  24. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    Here's an FYI my friend....both right AND left-leaning middle class Americans do not want to pay any more taxes.

    Do you actually believe democrats are always ok with any increase in taxes? If so, you are dead wrong and you know it.
  25. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Silly me, as I thought there was value in obeying laws about confidentially.. where is O'Keefe when you need him.

    Interesting that there was no curiosity about Reagan, Bush I and most other presidents undergraduate records... now there is.
  26. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,529
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Yes, everybody would like all the candy.

    However, Charly is more likely to understand than Augustus Gloop that it will rot your teeth and make you fat, and that if you eat all of it there will be none left for any of your kids.

    On the left it's much better understood that you have to be careful handing out the candy -- since it's led directly to the mess you constantly decry, tax cuts for everybody, and enormous national debt.

    Little clue for ya, PR: We all know that you get more goodies yourself if your tax rate is lower. Some of us understand, however, that (a) there are valid uses for tax dollars and that (b) whatever the validity of our past expenditures, we owe the money for those expenditures, and the amount we owe makes it necessary that we start paying up.

    PFnV
  27. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    Double post....:confused2:
    Last edited: May 4, 2012
  28. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    24,998
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0 / -7

    I really like your "clues" cuz you're such a wicked smaht fella! THANKS!

    I see your #1 fan, Darryl keeps following you around with "Likes" everytime you respond to one of my posts....kinda cute, aint he?:p

    So if we ALL have to pay, that means EVERYONE. So I'll pay more taxes if we cut social welfare...after all, that's the only way 25% of our population can kick in and help out...right?

    We can't just ask 20-30% to kick in extra....
    Last edited: May 4, 2012
  29. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    #1 all Romneycare did was increase the Medicaid/MassHealth rolls, that also swelled the state budget by 25%

    #2 Medicaid/MassHealth does not reimburse very well. Access has been impacted as regional providers try to remain profitable by mixing payers in their panels and some completely refuse to see new Medicaid or even new Medicare patients. The cost of services is greater than the payment received. Reimbursement will be potentially further impacted by the state going to a capitated system based on state-GDP.

    #3 Single payer gives full control to the government to decide what will be reimbursed for how much and under what circumstances. I wouldn't want to cede that control to anyone. I do believe that there should be a single billing method that's more consistent so that we can set our payment schedules to track back to service lines more effectively. Cost/management accounting is an art, far from a science, but in healthcare it's more like alchemy.

    #4 The "status quo" is still the best in the world. The problem you have is that you have people who want unlimited access to the best health services in the world so they can live longer. If you reduce 1) access, 2) quality or 3) longevity -- yeah, healthcare will get cheaper. But, you have to want to sacrifice them. No one I know does. Otherwise healthcare spending will continue to climb. The controls the government has tried to establish don't work as evidenced by the insolvency of their systems. I think the patient deserves a true bill -- not one inflated to the shell game of payers. And then I think the patient, consulting with their doctor, should be able to make a decision about whether they want services rendered. Move to a government system and that relationship between patient and doctor goes right out the window -- the doctor is constrained by the policies and regulations set forth by the central agency in charge and the whims of whatever political party is in charge. GOP in charge? No abortions. Democrats in charge? All fetuses with deformities are terminated.

    The final way you can reduce cost is to reduce compensation -- where the Medicare reimbursement rates and policies are modified and is already happening thanks to both the ARRA and the ACA. A 300 bed hospital with a 45% Medicare payer mix will lose $10 million in reimbursement (you could ask Kaufman Hall and Associates but I don't know if they publish those figures). So they pay of providers and healthcare workers will have to go down... which funnily enough directly impacts SEIU who championed the law. Healthcare executivies will manage to their budget... the problem right now is it's still tough to determine exactly what that budget is and if everything goes based on the projections, there will be staffing and compensation cuts -- reduce staff and again you get hit with issues of access and quality.
  30. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    You seem to have this strange obsession about "likes," PR. Feeling unloveable as well as powerless today?

    You remind me of the guy at the picnic who's so concerned about keeping the ants off his blanket and away from his crumbs that he completely misses the bear who steals the entire picnic basket.

Share This Page