Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official 2012 Presidential Election Obama v. Romney Thread « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 ... 135

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #630 : October 06, 2012, 05:28:14 PM »

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. ;-)

God you are a moron...

Who the hell said that the only reason a company moves jobs overseas is to get a deduction for it? Not the president. Not anyone in this thread. As usual, you are arguing a completely irrelevant point.

Anything that provides a potential benefit for an action can be considered an incentive. Your highlighted comment illustrates the president's point, if only you were smart enough to realize it. Providing the same tax relief to a company that is moving jobs to another country to exploit cheap labor and harming the economy as you do one that is spending their money domestically is idiotic and counterproductive. You are rewarding behavior that is harmful to the economy by allowing companies to exploit a tax break created with the intention of helping the economy. The president is talking about making a distinction on those two things. Money spent domestically deserves a tax break. Money spent to harm the economy should not be getting one. His comments were watered down for mass consumption, but were not in any way incorrect.

Funny how you all were so opposed to "nitpicking" on that pesky, but ACTUAL definition of what fraud is, yet you all are going over this issue with as fine-toothed a comb as you possibly can.  ::)


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 45987
Offline
« #631 : October 06, 2012, 05:34:12 PM »

CBW - Obama has repeatedly stated that companies get tax breaks for moving/moving jobs overseas.  It occurred again in the debate.  I don't believe there are incentives to move companies overseas. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17691
Online
« #632 : October 06, 2012, 05:36:53 PM »

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. ;-)

God you are a moron...

Who the hell said that the only reason a company moves jobs overseas is to get a deduction for it? Not the president.

Incentivize = motivate. That is precisely what he said and precisely why you are trying to rationalize it.  Your inclusion of the word "only" is a strawman. 

What you are trying to say (and the the President should have said, but did not because it is not sexy enough for the "great unwashed") is that the presence of a deduction does not act to dissuade companies from moving. Like I said, Obama wants to tax companies who want to move by eliminating the normal everyday deduction if it is associated with overseas movement.

You are rewarding behavior that is harmful to the economy by allowing companies to exploit a tax break created with the intention of helping the economy.

No amount of spinning from you (and no one spins like the "black hole") changes it. Amusing to watch you try though, especially when you ADMIT is spin for the great unwashed:

His comments were watered down for mass consumption

"Water down" is a characterization that only a TRUE BELIEVER like you would use

You called me a moron and a bunch of things and then went on TO PROVE MY POINT ..... ROFLMAO
« : October 06, 2012, 05:43:36 PM VinBucFan »

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #633 : October 06, 2012, 05:37:54 PM »

CBW - Obama has repeatedly stated that companies get tax breaks for moving/moving jobs overseas.  It occurred again in the debate.  I don't believe there are incentives to move companies overseas.

They do, dbuc. Claiming moving expenses on shipping jobs overseas is a tax break. A deduction is a tax break, and a tax break is an incentive. No one is saying it's the only reason. That is the straw man that Vince decided to introduce to the discussion.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 45987
Offline
« #634 : October 06, 2012, 05:40:54 PM »

A company gets such "breaks" or deductions for moving - the destination is inconsequential.  Could be within the US or not.  That's bs and certainly not consistent with the implication offered by the President.  I moved my company a total of 2 miles and some (not all) expenses were deductible.
« : October 06, 2012, 05:43:19 PM dbucfan »

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17691
Online
« #635 : October 06, 2012, 05:42:42 PM »

CBW - Obama has repeatedly stated that companies get tax breaks for moving/moving jobs overseas.  It occurred again in the debate.  I don't believe there are incentives to move companies overseas.

They do, dbuc. Claiming moving expenses on shipping jobs overseas is a tax break. A deduction is a tax break, and a tax break is an incentive. No one is saying it's the only reason. That is the straw man that Vince decided to introduce to the discussion.

can you find the word "only" in my post?  Did I actually type what you are saying I typed?  No

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17691
Online
« #636 : October 06, 2012, 05:44:44 PM »

in·cen·tiv·ized, in·cen·tiv·iz·ing, in·cen·tiv·iz·es
To offer incentives or an incentive to; motivate

the President said that the standard deduction that companies get for any expenses MOTIVATES companies to move overseas. 

The only thing funnier is watching CBW defend it while calling me a moron . . . and then proving my point with his own comments
« : October 06, 2012, 05:47:13 PM VinBucFan »

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #637 : October 06, 2012, 05:50:31 PM »

Incentivize = motivate. That is precisely what he said and precisely why you are trying to rationalize it.  Your inclusion of the word "only" is a strawman. 

What you are trying to say (and the the President should have said, but did not because it is not sexy enough for the "great unwashed") is that the presence of a deduction does not act to dissuade companies from moving.

Vince, you are the one who introduced that straw man. No where has Obama (or anyone else) ever said that eliminating this incentive would end outsourcing. He simply has stated, repeatedly, that we should not be rewarding companies for shipping jobs overseas. Allowing companies to ship jobs to another country tax free is a reward. It is an incentive. As usual, all you are doing is manufacturing an opposing position and arguing against it.

Like I said, Obama wants to tax companies who want to move by eliminating the normal everyday deduction if it is associated with overseas movement.

No amount of spinning from you (and no one spins like the "black hole") changes it. Amusing to watch you try though.

EXACTLY!!!! No need to try to spin what you said here. It is 100% RIGHT, and pretty much proves my point, genius.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17691
Online
« #638 : October 06, 2012, 05:57:44 PM »

Like I said, Obama wants to tax companies who want to move by eliminating the normal everyday deduction if it is associated with overseas movement.

No amount of spinning from you (and no one spins like the "black hole") changes it. Amusing to watch you try though.

EXACTLY!!!! No need to try to spin what you said here. It is 100% RIGHT, and pretty much proves my point, genius.

except . .  . one small detail . . .  that is NOT what Obama said during the debate.  LMAO!

You don't even know whose point you are proving.  Obama did NOT say he wanted to TAX companies that wanted to move.  He said he wanted to eliminate a deduction that HE CLAIMED was MOTIVATING companies to move.  "Incentivizing" means motivating. . . . goodness

The point of my comment was the manner by which the message was delivered, not your contorted (ongoing) post-debate defense.

Hillarious that you call me a moron .. . wow

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17691
Online
« #639 : October 06, 2012, 06:01:05 PM »

He simply has stated, repeatedly, that we should not be rewarding companies for shipping jobs overseas.

LMAO, again that is NOT what he said in the debate.  A reward is something someone receives AFTER performing an act.  Incentivize means to MOTIVATE.  Motivate means to cause someone to perform an act.

Man, this is funny stuff.  Typical CBW madness . . . .  BLACK HOLE

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17691
Online
« #640 : October 06, 2012, 06:04:16 PM »

I promise not to participate in it, but I GUARANTEE you that CBW could go on for six more pages on this topic even though HIS OWN typed words eviscerate his argument. Not only would he go on for six pages, he would do it all the while calling me a MORON and all the while slightly modifying his last position.  ROFLMAO.

"Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest. etc."[/i]
« : October 06, 2012, 06:06:23 PM VinBucFan »

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #641 : October 06, 2012, 06:11:10 PM »

in·cen·tiv·ized, in·cen·tiv·iz·ing, in·cen·tiv·iz·es
To offer incentives or an incentive to; motivate

the President said that the standard deduction that companies get for any expenses MOTIVATES companies to move overseas. 

The only thing funnier is watching CBW defend it while calling me a moron . . . and then proving my point with his own comments

What's the definition of "fraud", Vince?

Actually, there is one thing funnier. While there is that whole deduction thing, which is one incentive, a larger one lies in the fact that companies that outsource manufacturing also receive a foreign tax credit, a tax break that allows them to deduct the amounts they have paid in taxes to foreign countries.

Quote
In fairness, Mr. Obama has other, much more substantial proposals that are aimed at the same general goal of reducing the attractiveness of operating offshore for U.S. businesses. Those include tightening up on tax rules that allow companies to defer U.S. tax on their foreign income, and reducing the ability of companies to siphon profits they earn in the U.S. to overseas subsidiaries.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/05/tax-break-for-shipping-jobs-overseas-explained/

Interesting that the Fox News fact checkers forgot to mention those loopholes that create an incentive to off shore. Would this fit your strict definition of the word "incentive", Vinny PB&J?
« : October 06, 2012, 06:14:28 PM CBWx2 »


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17691
Online
« #642 : October 06, 2012, 06:14:43 PM »

in·cen·tiv·ized, in·cen·tiv·iz·ing, in·cen·tiv·iz·es
To offer incentives or an incentive to; motivate

the President said that the standard deduction that companies get for any expenses MOTIVATES companies to move overseas. 

The only thing funnier is watching CBW defend it while calling me a moron . . . and then proving my point with his own comments

What's the definition of "fraud", Vince?

Actually, there is one thing funnier. While there is that whole deduction thing, which is one incentive, a larger one lies in the fact that companies that outsource manufacturing also receive a foreign tax credit, a tax break that allows them to deduct the amounts they have paid in taxes to foreign countries.

Quote
In fairness, Mr. Obama has other, much more substantial proposals that are aimed at the same general goal of reducing the attractiveness of operating offshore for U.S. businesses. Those include tightening up on tax rules that allow companies to defer U.S. tax on their foreign income, and reducing the ability of companies to siphon profits they earn in the U.S. to overseas subsidiaries.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/05/tax-break-for-shipping-jobs-overseas-explained/

Interesting that the Fox News fact checkers forgot to mention those loopholes that create an incentive to off shore.

hahahahahahahahahahaah . . . .  . OMG . . . . . right on cue . . . .  thanks for PROVING MY POINT in the post right above yours:

I promise not to participate in it, but I GUARANTEE you that CBW could go on for six more pages on this topic even though HIS OWN typed words eviscerate his argument. Not only would he go on for six pages, he would do it all the while calling me a MORON and all the while slightly modifying his last position.  ROFLMAO.

"Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest. If one deflects criticism of a friend or ally simply because they are a friend or ally, that is intellectually dishonest. etc."[/i]

 LMAO, notice the slight shift in the debate . . . . hahaahah. . . . CBW ..  . thanks for the great laugh.  Predictable, but still freaking funny because you just can't help yourself.  Have fun filling up those next six pages!!
« : October 06, 2012, 06:16:25 PM VinBucFan »

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 6893
Offline
« #643 : October 06, 2012, 06:15:54 PM »

VBF and CBW, everybody understands you guys don't like each other so we can layoff you retard, moron rhetoric OK? it serves no useful purpose.

For the record, I think you are both right and you are both wrong. I do not think this "tax deduction" is the end all and be all of a companies decision to relocate overseas. I am in no doubt though that if they can "expense" some or all of the move they will, and the "tax deduction" might well be a tipping point in making it worth while or not. This is common sense.

Now where I believe I am more with VBF is that not only is that PrezBo imply, but it does it deliberately to create another boogey man as I suggested earlier.

Edit: Add on to that, Obama and CBW imply it CAUSES companies to take jobs overseas and that I do not think is true, except maybe in very rare and extenuating circumstances.
« : October 06, 2012, 06:19:37 PM spartan »

deadzone

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3559
Offline
« #644 : October 06, 2012, 06:18:10 PM »

Vote for Roseanne Barr, or write youself in......you'll feel better by doing so.....
  Page: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 ... 135
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official 2012 Presidential Election Obama v. Romney Thread « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools