RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


MrRodgers -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/8/2011 11:33:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

... The tax system is fucked up. The image of Buffet and his secretary's respective tax rates was compelling. That's an example of framing the issues in a way that favors him.


I don't disagree with the tax system being a huge problem.  And yes, it isn't right that Buffet's rates are lower than his secretary's.  But evoking Buffet as a poster boy for the rich wanting to pay more is ridiculous considering his own company's tax problems.

quote:

We file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and in state, local and foreign jurisdictions. We are under examination by the taxing authorities in many of these jurisdictions. With few exceptions, we have settled tax return liabilities with U.S. federal, state, local and foreign tax authorities for years before 2002. We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years at the IRS Appeals Division within the next 12 months. The IRS has completed its examination of our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2005 and 2006 tax years and the proposed adjustments are currently being reviewed by the IRS Appeals Division process. The IRS is currently auditing our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2007 through 2009 tax years. It is reasonably possible that certain of our income tax examinations will be settled within the next twelve months.


Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 2010 Annual Report (quote from page 56)


If any of Buffet's companies have a tax problem, they are the company's problem...not his.




MrRodgers -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/8/2011 11:35:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

Hmmm, it's funny, because a lot of people say the play book hasn't changed for the Republicans, but Ron Paul is a Republican and he has been against the wars since the beginning, wants to shut down the bases outside the U.S. around the globe, audit the Federal Reserve and ultimately abolish it because of the huge sums of money passed out to foreign banks, corporations and the like....none of this sounds like what you're accusing the Republicans of with a broad brush.

As to Perry, and most of the other candidates, I would agree, but a party is full of people with differing ideas.

Obama very readily signed the second Bail Out...which gave trillions to the wealthy, but no one seems to ever bring that up.

It's brought up all of the time. I bring it up. It is premier evidence of America's great free market [sic] socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/8/2011 11:41:51 PM)

My point had nothing to do with buffet's companies' tax problems. My point is that Obama has put it in such a way and attached such an image to it, that the repubs would look foolish arguing it. Who is going to say that it makes sense for the secretary to have a higher tax rate? The repubs will have to respond with something a lot more convincing than buffet isn't a suitable poster child. They are going to have to explain, to an already exasperated public, why increasing the tax rate for people like buffet doesn't make sense. Good luck to 'em.
quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

... The tax system is fucked up. The image of Buffet and his secretary's respective tax rates was compelling. That's an example of framing the issues in a way that favors him.


I don't disagree with the tax system being a huge problem.  And yes, it isn't right that Buffet's rates are lower than his secretary's.  But evoking Buffet as a poster boy for the rich wanting to pay more is ridiculous considering his own company's tax problems.

quote:

We file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction and in state, local and foreign jurisdictions. We are under examination by the taxing authorities in many of these jurisdictions. With few exceptions, we have settled tax return liabilities with U.S. federal, state, local and foreign tax authorities for years before 2002. We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years at the IRS Appeals Division within the next 12 months. The IRS has completed its examination of our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2005 and 2006 tax years and the proposed adjustments are currently being reviewed by the IRS Appeals Division process. The IRS is currently auditing our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns for the 2007 through 2009 tax years. It is reasonably possible that certain of our income tax examinations will be settled within the next twelve months.


Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 2010 Annual Report (quote from page 56)





popeye1250 -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 1:11:47 AM)

I could only watch for 5-7 minutes, I was in AGONY!
God is he STUPID!




servantforuse -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 5:17:33 AM)

I didn't watch a minute of it. Packers / Saints pregame coverage preempted that stupid speech here in Packer nation.




samboct -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 5:40:25 AM)

Actually, it dawns on me that Obama just stole a page from St. Ronnie's playbook. Ronnie had a Democratic congress, and whenever there was something he wanted to do, but couldn't, well, it was always the fault of the damn Congress. He had them shaking in their boots because he was popular. I think Obama's trying the same trick- pointing out that they blocked his idea for a larger stimulus, that they're lying when they say that it didn't work, and that the pork barrel stuff added to the bill was their fault.

He's got one problem though. Back then Congress was functional. These days, it's not. (There was a recent interview with Jim Cooper a blue dog Democrat in the NY Times recently that made very interesting reading about how Congress became dysfunctional- and he lays it squarely on Newt's broad ass.) I thought calling them out on the idea that we should wait 14 months till the next election cycle to do something was long overdue- that if the stated goal of the Republicans is to toss Obama out, well, what does that say for what the country is going through now?


Sam




Louve00 -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 6:00:47 AM)

Ok, my opinion of it all was it was a good speech, and the beginning of his campaign for re-election.  If people were looking for answers like, we are building x amount of schools, public facilities, donut shops, whatever, I think they are looking to be led by the nose by a president they don't really care for to begin with. 

I don't think the president can give details as much as he is trying give opportunity to people to make the details.  I think this is a lot like "The secret", if you ever heard of that.  As it turned out the "Secret" was never really a secret at all, but common sense knowledge that if you continue to persevere, if you stay optimistic, if you keep re-thinking things when they don't go right, eventually you'll succeed in your endeavors.  That was the "secret" [8|] (and I don't roll my eyes because I thought the secret was a bunch of bunk, but I think it was a secret because people wanted an A. B. C. way of having it all layed out for them to find the road to success, when you yourself have to make your own success.)

We all say we don't want things crammed down our throat.  Nothing seems to be getting crammed down our throats as much as opportunity.  In the 30's, during the Great Depression, America built itself out of its mess by rebuilding America.  Working on railroads, on bridges, on roads.  America today has failing dams, unstable bridges and many more structures that need attention to stop all the crumbling, which only further makes us immediately invest in fixing things when a disaster occurs.  If construction companies can hire more people, and at the same time increase the wages of their workers, while getting a tax break on payroll taxes, that, to me, is a start.  It's not supposed to be a written in stone...gov't will forever more help you know, but its a start.  And it puts money into pockets that haven't had money in a while.  And all those empty pockets are the pockets that have been proven to spend and put it back into the economy.  So while nothing concrete...no absolute plan to dictate to us how to fix this was put forth, I believe an opportunity was put forth.  It will be up to us as to whether we reject that and fight it and say it won't work, or to take advantage of it and give it a shot.  One thing is for sure.  Fighting and doing nothing and just quickly saying "this won't work" has accomplished nothing, so far. 

I wish I had more time to state my opinion here, but my time runs short today.  Maybe later I will have time to come back and see what more was added to this thread.  But I don't think there is a magic answer or plan to this problem.  I think its a lot of ingenuity by the people, a little help from the gov't, a lot of bickering being stopped so people can work together and share ideas and a wish on a wing and a prayer that will start us back on the right track.  [sm=2cents.gif]








FirmhandKY -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 6:30:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

They are going to have to explain, to an already exasperated public, why increasing the tax rate for people like buffet doesn't make sense. Good luck to 'em.

I think part of the reason for Buffet's "low tax rate" is his reported income:

Warren E Buffett
Total Compensation
$0.10 mil (#492)

5-Year Compensation Total
$0.50 mil


Warren Buffett's salary stays at $100,000 in 2008
By STEPHEN BERNARD, The Associated Press
Friday, March 13, 2009

NEW YORK — The world's second-richest man, Warren Buffett, wasn't even the highest paid employee at Berkshire Hathaway's 19-person headquarters again last year.

Buffett, chairman and CEO of the Omaha, Neb.-based company, received a total of $175,000 in compensation in 2008, the same amount he received a year earlier, according to regulatory filing made Friday.

This is what he is saying now:

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 14, 2011

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

Seems a little strange ... and perhaps misleading ... "paid on my behalf"?

So his actual, legal, taxable income is somewhere between $175k and maybe $350k, but over $6m is paid 'on his behalf"?

Sounds like there is some creative accounting going on somewhere ... perhaps to make a political point?

I used to respect Buffet, but  ... not so much any more.

If he believes he should pay more taxes, then perhaps it would be better if he either simply wrote a check, or if he said specifically that the "loopholes" that he is using should be changed.

Firm




StrangerThan -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 6:34:17 AM)

A couple of things...

First, the speech itself  -  I didn't watch it. I waited for the recap. Actually, I didn't have a chance to watch it, but not sure I would have if I had. It didn't take long. Yahoo had the recap posted in the middle of the night. I know because I was up with sick family.

I've read several op/ed pieces over the past few weeks related to the perception of Obama as weak and ineffective. These were all leftist pieces by the way, and most linked off Yahoo. Anyone who has Yahoo as a homepage shouldn't need the qualifier as leftist, but I'm not hunting links for people this morning. If they want to look for them, that;s where they are and were. The grandstanding of the past week or two, re the go straight to hell's, the barbarians, the take em outs, the hanging of blacks from trees, combined with what even Yahoo sees as a political speech as much as proposal to address the jobs problem, are pretty much centered around giving him campaign fodder.

Whether it will work or not depends on how Republicans respond. I don't think they can just say no. Two issues are hitting Republicans hard right now. One is taxes. Obama has been after tax increases for a while. I don't agree we should hit anyone harder right now. What Republicans cannot do however, is go back to telling seniors, we're going to have to cut your benefits or restructure them to get the deficit under control,  which anyone with half a brain knows is pretty much the same thing.

They also need to be wary of the payroll tax issue. It makes no sense to many people to say we're against raising taxes, and on the flip side say, we're against easing up on you where taxes are concerned. I understand there are better ways to spend money to get the economy rolling. What I also understand is the government ignores fuel and food costs in their inflation figures, and people are paying those costs regardless of what the government says. I understand a lot of people are employed are under-employed. A few more dollars in their paychecks might not turn the tide for them, but it does give the feeling that there's an understanding of the stress.

The same with the 99'ers. The debate over creating an entitlement class is going to run into a brick wall if we have people starving across the winter. All the lofty plans aside, give me some heart and soul along with breaks to business.

Second the response: Republicans need to sign on to a few things without much fuss. Extend the benefits. Don't quibble over the ss tax cut. Neither make any sense. When they fight, they need to stand on solid ground. I'm tired of hearing tripe from both sides that basically says, it won't work. And as far as campaign time, they have their own bully pulpit in Perry and Romney. The biggest way they can fail right now is to take the threatening tone, the over bearing tone, the do it my way or else tone, lying  down. Half the shit he proposed will do nothing for months anyway. Sign on to the feel good stuff, because America needs some feel good. Back claims with numbers, statistics, and the business side of both Romney and Perry. Basically if I was Perry, I'd be waiting for him to say something about his job creation under stimulus. I'd grin, say yeah, but ya know, I did half of it for you. If you want to learn how to create jobs, come to Texas. I'll hold class just for you.

Republicans also need to be hunting ways to make a difference NOW, not next year, nor at some visionary point in the future where more stimulus would have an affect, if it had one at all.

There are plenty of ways to deal with his proposals effectively, provide some relief for people, work towards getting the economy back on track, and crap on what has mostly been political posturing the past couple of weeks leading into and including his speech.

What isn't going to work, is just saying no.
Just me.




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 6:50:12 AM)

you know he makes income other than from salary, right? Anyway, again, not my point. It is how the issue was framed. The repubs are going to have to do better than just saying buffet is a bad example
The whole speech reeked of desperation, the more I think about it. It was exactly the speech I would have liked to have heard 2 years ago, but I really feel it is all too late, for reasons I have already posted. So what we are left with is that the 99 weekers are now a protected class and we are giving up any semblance of preserving SS, although maybe Medicare will remain, if the current users have their benefits adjusted. Fuck.
Ou kno
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

They are going to have to explain, to an already exasperated public, why increasing the tax rate for people like buffet doesn't make sense. Good luck to 'em.

I think part of the reason for Buffet's "low tax rate" is his reported income:

Warren E Buffett
Total Compensation
$0.10 mil (#492)

5-Year Compensation Total
$0.50 mil


Warren Buffett's salary stays at $100,000 in 2008
By STEPHEN BERNARD, The Associated Press
Friday, March 13, 2009

NEW YORK — The world's second-richest man, Warren Buffett, wasn't even the highest paid employee at Berkshire Hathaway's 19-person headquarters again last year.

Buffett, chairman and CEO of the Omaha, Neb.-based company, received a total of $175,000 in compensation in 2008, the same amount he received a year earlier, according to regulatory filing made Friday.

This is what he is saying now:

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 14, 2011

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

Seems a little strange ... and perhaps misleading ... "paid on my behalf"?

So his actual, legal, taxable income is somewhere between $175k and maybe $350k, but over $6m is paid 'on his behalf"?

Sounds like there is some creative accounting going on somewhere ... perhaps to make a political point?

I used to respect Buffet, but  ... not so much any more.

If he believes he should pay more taxes, then perhaps it would be better if he either simply wrote a check, or if he said specifically that the "loopholes" that he is using should be changed.

Firm





ClassIsInSession -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 6:55:36 AM)

Way to rock on that analysis! Wow. You definitely nailed it down.




farglebargle -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 6:56:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

Just last year, we got a deduction, may paycheck got slightly larger, and when I say slightly it was like $25 a paycheck bigger. At the end of the year I got a tax bill of $600, and I made exactly the same wages as the year before. That's what I'm talking about.



Your problem is that you can't do math.

$25 /week * 52 weeks = $1300 take home

$1300 take home - $600 additional tax liability = $700

You still netted a savings of 700 bucks.





ClassIsInSession -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 7:10:06 AM)

Really I think one thing that hasn't caught on but will be a trend, and it would be a very good thing for any politician to back would be to start looking at the transporting costs for goods. Let's face it, gas has risen from .98/gallon in 1999 to now, almost $4.00/gallon. That's a 400% increase.

This lends itself in my opinion to a really justifiable analysis of whether globalization makes sense to continue. If we removed the NAFTA/TAFTA/WTO subsidized trading, and made it a level playing field, it may well be that reviving manufacturing in the U.S. would make a whole lot of sense. How many people could be put to work making everything from glassware, to sunglasses, injection molded products and the like if we simply quit paying to trade with China and other emerging economies?

Wages and taxation have been the primary drivers for globalization, and automation has cut into the need for works as well, but with a 400% increase in shipping costs, i.e. gasoline, sans the subsidies, we may well find that many products could more effectively be manufactured locally and cut the shipping costs substantially.

The same thing holds true for agriculture. You stop by your local WalMart and read where most of the produce is coming from. Guatamala, Mexico....you look at seafood, coming from Asia. All great and wonderful right? But with energy costs moving steadily up, isn't it time to start buying your local farmer's produce and meat?

Localization is the wave of the future. The pendulum will have to swing back.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 7:11:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

you know he makes income other than from salary, right? Anyway, again, not my point. It is how the issue was framed. The repubs are going to have to do better than just saying buffet is a bad example
The whole speech reeked of desperation, the more I think about it. It was exactly the speech I would have liked to have heard 2 years ago, but I really feel it is all too late, for reasons I have already posted. So what we are left with is that the 99 weekers are now a protected class and we are giving up any semblance of preserving SS, although maybe Medicare will remain, if the current users have their benefits adjusted. Fuck.
Ou kno

Sweet, I think we are more in agreement than not.

I guess my main point about Buffet is that it is just more political theater than anything of substance.

Firm




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 7:17:26 AM)

With the power outage here I didnt see the speech yet, only summaries.

Its smoke and mirrors, as expected. Payroll tax holidays just defer taxes or benefit cuts to the future. They will have temporary (read: before the election) stimuative effect (though not as much as the brilliant economists on his staff think) on the spending side, but will do nothing to solve the real problem we have...no one is investing in business. In fact this bill could be labeled another "Aid for China" act, because a lot of the stimulated spending will be on foreign goods, but those countries never have to pay back the stealing from SS. And yes...this (unlike the SS Trust Fund investing in Treasuries) IS stealing from SS.

The market is commenting as well, down nearly 200 points.

Another campaign speech, another economic lie to America.




FirmhandKY -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 7:19:19 AM)

FR:

AP does a FACT CHECK on the "Obama plan":

FACT CHECK: Obama's jobs plan paid for? Seems not
By CALVIN WOODWARD and TOM RAUM
Associated Press
Sep 9, 4:41 AM EDT

Extracts:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's promise Thursday that everything in his jobs plan will be paid for rests on highly iffy propositions.

It will only be paid for if a committee he can't control does his bidding, if Congress puts that into law and if leaders in the future - the ones who will feel the fiscal pinch of his proposals - don't roll it back.

Underscoring the gravity of the nation's high employment rate, Obama chose a joint session of Congress, normally reserved for a State of the Union speech, to lay out his proposals. But if the moment was extraordinary, the plan he presented was conventional Washington rhetoric in one respect: It employs sleight-of-hand accounting.

...

OBAMA: "Everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything."

...

Essentially, the jobs plan is an IOU from a president and lawmakers who may not even be in office down the road when the bills come due. Today's Congress cannot bind a later one for future spending. A future Congress could simply reverse it.


...

OBAMA: "Everything in here is the kind of proposal that's been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, including many who sit here tonight."

THE FACTS: Obama's proposed cut in the Social Security payroll tax does seem likely to garner significant GOP support. But Obama proposes paying for the plan in part with tax increases that have already generated stiff Republican opposition.


OBAMA: "It will not add to the deficit."

THE FACTS: It's hard to see how the program would not raise the deficit over the next year or two because most of the envisioned spending cuts and tax increases are designed to come later rather than now, when they could jeopardize the fragile recovery.

...

OBAMA: "The American Jobs Act answers the urgent need to create jobs right away."

THE FACTS: Not all of the president's major proposals are likely to yield quick job growth if adopted. One is to set up a national infrastructure bank to raise private capital for roads, rail, bridges, airports and waterways. Even supporters of such a bank doubt it could have much impact on jobs in the next two years because it takes time to set up.

When the AP is convinced that the "Obama Plan" is a bust, it does not bode well for him ...

Firm





tj444 -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 7:19:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

Really I think one thing that hasn't caught on but will be a trend, and it would be a very good thing for any politician to back would be to start looking at the transporting costs for goods. Let's face it, gas has risen from .98/gallon in 1999 to now, almost $4.00/gallon. That's a 400% increase.

This lends itself in my opinion to a really justifiable analysis of whether globalization makes sense to continue. If we removed the NAFTA/TAFTA/WTO subsidized trading, and made it a level playing field, it may well be that reviving manufacturing in the U.S. would make a whole lot of sense. How many people could be put to work making everything from glassware, to sunglasses, injection molded products and the like if we simply quit paying to trade with China and other emerging economies?

Wages and taxation have been the primary drivers for globalization, and automation has cut into the need for works as well, but with a 400% increase in shipping costs, i.e. gasoline, sans the subsidies, we may well find that many products could more effectively be manufactured locally and cut the shipping costs substantially.

The same thing holds true for agriculture. You stop by your local WalMart and read where most of the produce is coming from. Guatamala, Mexico....you look at seafood, coming from Asia. All great and wonderful right? But with energy costs moving steadily up, isn't it time to start buying your local farmer's produce and meat?

Localization is the wave of the future. The pendulum will have to swing back.

One huge reason for NAFTA and the other free trade agreements is the US needs friendly sources of oil, that means oil from Canada, Columbia, Brazil. You bitch about the price of gas, well, if you dont have those friendly sources of oil you would be paying a whole fuck of a lot more for it and what would that do to the us economy? Btw, if the US doesnt want Canadian and other friendly sources of oil, China sure the fuck does...

eta- for the oil issue alone, anyone that thinks any govt will get out of the free trade agreements is dreaming, neither of the two parties will do that, even if they are election promises (hint- they will lie to you). The US needs the oil way too much.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/who-will-step-up-to-meet-oil-demand/?ref=oilsands




slvemike4u -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 7:52:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

I didn't watch a minute of it. Packers / Saints pregame coverage preempted that stupid speech here in Packer nation.
Another informed voter chimes in......?




Lucylastic -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 8:05:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Is it your contention that he does not have a bill to submit to congress at this time ?
Are you suggesting he just stood up in front of Congress and the American people and lied to us all ?
Are you really that stupid?


He kept saying that it was imperative to pass this bill. That it is a time sensitive issue. As it stands RIGHT NOW, there is no bill in front of the house or Senate to pass.

We do not know what will be in it and we do not know how much it will cost. Parts of it are being left up to a committee that he has no control or vote over.

Yet, you are maintaining that it will be the Republicans' fault if this bill does not pass. Completely ignoring the fact that the Republicans do not hold a majority in the Senate.

So, all that being said, Mr. Obama should have been saying, "Pass this speech" as that is all the congress has to go off of, rather than "Pass this bill."

This is not the first time that Congress has been chided for not passing what is not in front of them.

question..if the house doesnt pass a bill, it doesnt even get sent to the senate does it?




slvemike4u -> RE: Opinions on President Obama's Jobs Speech... (9/9/2011 8:07:47 AM)

Nope...and why would anyone presuppose that this President can not convince a Democratic controlled Senate to pass his bill ?




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875