The Official 2012 Presidential Election Obama v. Romney Thread

[Biggs3535]

For Romney to be incredulous over this, makes me think he's not entirely truthful in what he says......"I have no idea what you're talking about".  Well, a business man with 25 years of experience, you'd think he might have an inkling on what POTUS was talking about. Technically, companies can claim a deduction for the costs associated with moving jobs overseas.


Fact Check: Tax break for shipping jobs overseas? Well, sort of

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/fact-check-tax-break-for-shipping-jobs-overseas/#ixzz28QZ9UccM

That "loop hole" could also be used to expense lap dances and hookers, so if I was say there is a "tax deduction"  for Corporations to fund trips to the whore house would you think I was being truthful or disengenuous?

Precisely.  It's an expense, not a tax break, and I was glad to see Obama called out on his political posturing with his "I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas" statement.  An expense isn't a loophole, Mr. President.

First of all, the ability to write off business expenses on your taxes is a tax break. How in the world can you even attempt to argue that it isn't? Secondly, the intended purpose of allowing companies to write off operating expenses is to encourage investment and expansion. Writing off the expense it costs to close a plant and reopen it in another country is outside of the intended scope of the tax break. It's a loophole, and one that needs to be closed. Nothing about his characterization of that is incorrect.

On what planet is anyone taxed on their expenses?  It's not a "break", it's how taxes are calculated.  An example of a tax "break" would hiring a felon, not a friggin' expense.

[chace1986]

thats one bad mother shut yo mouth

That is one badass pic.

I know right.? I uploaded it to my phone and I'm gonna make it my profile pic.

It just says "f*ck you"...but in a good way...ya know?

[Bayfisher]

President Barack Obama touted a progressive attitude on medical marijuana on the campaign trail, but since taking office, Obama's administration has hardened its stance and supporters of the drug are crying foul on the flip-flop.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-12/news/sns-201204121125usnewsusnwr201204110411whisper1apr12_1_medical-marijuana-americans-for-safe-access-kris-hermes

[CBWx2]

On what planet is anyone taxed on their expenses?  It's not a "break", it's how taxes are calculated.  An example of a tax "break" would hiring a felon, not a friggin' expense.

A tax break is anything that provides a savings on your tax liability. The president calling business deductions a tax break is not incorrect or misleading. It's what it is. Deductions are no different from credits or exemptions. They are all tax breaks by definition.

Also, your post suggests that all expenses are tax deductible. That's simply not the case. The IRS does limit what can be deducted and how much of certain expenses can be deducted. The President isn't talking about completely eliminating the ability to deduct business expenses. He is talking about eliminating the ability to claim moving operations to another country as a deductible business expense on the grounds that the federal government should not be incentivising the outsourcing of American jobs. Nothing disingenuous about that given that the current law does do so, and that is arguably not in the spirit of why deductions are granted in the first place, making it a loophole.

[Morgan]

[Biggs3535]

On what planet is anyone taxed on their expenses?  It's not a "break", it's how taxes are calculated.  An example of a tax "break" would hiring a felon, not a friggin' expense.

A tax break is anything that provides a savings on your tax liability. The president calling business deductions a tax break is not incorrect or misleading. It's what it is. Deductions are no different from credits or exemptions. They are all tax breaks by definition.

Also, your post suggests that all expenses are tax deductible. That's simply not the case. The IRS does limit what can be deducted and how much of certain expenses can be deducted. The President isn't talking about completely eliminating the ability to deduct business expenses. He is talking about eliminating the ability to claim moving operations to another country as a deductible business expense on the grounds that the federal government should not be incentivising the outsourcing of American jobs. Nothing disingenuous about that given that the current law does do so, and that is arguably not in the spirit of why deductions are granted in the first place, making it a loophole.

Sure.  Business expenses are loopholes.  That's a reasonable position.

[Morgan]

Tax deduction vs Tax rebate. Not the issue that I brought up. The issue was Romney's incredulousness that he exhibited "I'll have to ask my accountant". Good debate move, but not truthful since he knew exactly what the POTUS's point was.

[dbucfan]

What tax break/loophole/deduction incentivizes companies to move to foreign countries?  I should have added - that doesn't exist for the same operative decision in America.... sorry

[spartan]

Tax deduction vs Tax rebate. Not the issue that I brought up. The issue was Romney's incredulousness that he exhibited "I'll have to ask my accountant". Good debate move, but not truthful since he knew exactly what the POTUS's point was.

You don't know that at all. When you have to to twist the narrative to make it fit like this one, it is not surprising Romney did not have a clue what the President is talking about. I would wager the President didn't have a clue either but it was simply a sound bite he had been given. Even the most favorable "fact checkers" to the President could only come up with a "it's kinda, sorta true" after waffling away for a complete paragraph on how it COULD POSSIBLY be done.

[The Anti-Java]

Look who showed up at the Mitt Romney rally at Pier Park in St. Petersburg today.

He is not saying get rid of PBS altogether, just that it could be privately funded, and I agree.

[The Anti-Java]

For Romney to be incredulous over this, makes me think he's not entirely truthful in what he says......"I have no idea what you're talking about".  Well, a business man with 25 years of experience, you'd think he might have an inkling on what POTUS was talking about. Technically, companies can claim a deduction for the costs associated with moving jobs overseas.


Fact Check: Tax break for shipping jobs overseas? Well, sort of

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/fact-check-tax-break-for-shipping-jobs-overseas/#ixzz28QZ9UccM

Weak sauce.

[Morgan]

Tax deduction vs Tax rebate. Not the issue that I brought up. The issue was Romney's incredulousness that he exhibited "I'll have to ask my accountant". Good debate move, but not truthful since he knew exactly what the POTUS's point was.

You don't know that at all. When you have to to twist the narrative to make it fit like this one, it is not surprising Romney did not have a clue what the President is talking about. I would wager the President didn't have a clue either but it was simply a sound bite he had been given. Even the most favorable "fact checkers" to the President could only come up with a "it's kinda, sorta true" after waffling away for a complete paragraph on how it COULD POSSIBLY be done.

Several posters here knew. Surprised if Romney didn't know.  Small point not really worth much back and forth here.  On another note, I knew that Obama was severely dependent on the teleprompter - the first debate exposed that/magnified that.    The debate also exposed that he may be burned out with the job - 4 yrs as POTUS and all those years campaigning for the job - he really looked like he didn't care whether he won/lost.  Time for new blood? I'm not sure if Romney's trickle-down plan will work, but at least his enthusiasm (along w/ Ryan's) might bring a whole new light to the Oval Office. 

An analogy is like a coaching change in the NFL  -

[VinBucFan]

What the President said was that he wants to TAX companies moving operations overseas. It's just that in the wacky world of politics you call it "eliminating a deduction" and if you really want to pander to the "great unwashed" you say that the deduction has to be eliminated because it incentivizes companies to move overseas even though it does no such thing. Incentivizes?  What a freaking joke.  No American company says " we want to SPEND $70 million moving a plant to South America because we want that deduction -- they would get the same deduction spending the same money here.  Ugh.  They may say we want to move a plant becuase of cheaper labor or less regulations, but that makes "cheap labor" and "less regulation" the INCENTIVE, not the fact that the expenses will be deductible. My goodness, proof of a dumb electorate that people accept that crap.

Funny thing is watching the true believers on here try to rationalize it. You would think CBW has been handing out lessons. ;-)

[spartan]

What it comes down to, and this is true on both sides of the fence is that people here what they want to here. Not only that, in this case corporations are the big bad boogey man and if they only played by the same rules, you would be more successful. The idea of red riding hood and the big bad wolf again!

[dbucfan]

I would be delighted to see someone identify the current tax breaks one gets for sending jobs overseas - that aren't available in the US.  And having scanned this thread I must have missed the listing M organ references.  If someone would be so kind as to direct me to said post I would appreciate it.