The Official 2012 Presidential Election Obama v. Romney Thread

[Biggs3535]

I would jump in but currently trying to resolve fan vs supporter...

You need to buy a new "Bull**CENSORED** to English" dictionary.  It helps you understand the opposing side of a debate when they are choking on their own hypocrisy.

[Morgan]

When TIME named Paul Ryan a runner-up in last year’s Person of the Year issue, many were familiar with his proposed budget, but few knew that the Wisconsin congressman stayed fit with the now-best selling P90X workout plan. (Ryan’s father and grandfather died of heart attacks.) In fact, it was Ryan’s fitness regime (and Herculean strength on all things fiscal) that inspired the workout-themed sitting for the Person of the Year; those portraits, photographed by Gregg Segal, appear in this week’s issue.

Read more: http://lightbox.time.com/2012/10/11/paul-ryan-all-pumped-up-for-his-closeup/#ixzz28zxkqSAx

[tripblood]

Good to know your head is in the right places pimp

[spartan]

Romney is intentionally misleading in this comment. Ezra Klein did a good job debunking this myth, or lie if you will,  in a Washington Post article:

What about Romney’s claim that businesses with high-earning owners employ more people — 54 percent, by his estimate? This figure comes from Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante at the accounting firm Ernst and Young. But this figure includes all income to “flow-through corporations” — that is, corporations whose profits are passed along to owners and taxed at normal income tax rates. It thus includes flow-through corporations whose owners pay high rates (such as highly profitable software companies), as well as those that pay much lower rates (such as someone with a part-time freelance consulting business). Romney very seriously mischaracterized the population to which this number refers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/04/romney-says-most-workers-at-small-businesses-will-see-a-tax-hit-heres-why-hes-wrong/

Then please explain to me how this "debunks" Romneys claim. That is, show me,how this paragraph proves that those 3% of  small businesses do not employ 25% of the working population. Show me where it even mentions the number of people these companies employ. In fact show me where it even mentions employees.

[CBWx2]

Romney is intentionally misleading in this comment. Ezra Klein did a good job debunking this myth, or lie if you will,  in a Washington Post article:

What about Romney’s claim that businesses with high-earning owners employ more people — 54 percent, by his estimate? This figure comes from Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante at the accounting firm Ernst and Young. But this figure includes all income to “flow-through corporations” — that is, corporations whose profits are passed along to owners and taxed at normal income tax rates. It thus includes flow-through corporations whose owners pay high rates (such as highly profitable software companies), as well as those that pay much lower rates (such as someone with a part-time freelance consulting business). Romney very seriously mischaracterized the population to which this number refers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/04/romney-says-most-workers-at-small-businesses-will-see-a-tax-hit-heres-why-hes-wrong/

Then please explain to me how this "debunks" Romneys claim. That is, show me,how this paragraph proves that those 3% of  small businesses do not employ 25% of the working population. Show me where it even mentions the number of people these companies employ. In fact show me where it even mentions employees.

It debunks it because not all of what Romney is identifying as those 3% of businesses that employ 25% of the American population are going to be affected by the tax increase either. By not distinguishing between flow-through businesses that are operated as S-Corps and ones that are C-Corps or LLP's, he's misrepresenting the number of employees that would be affected by the tax increase. He is jumbling a number of statistics together to get to a point that the statistics individually don't support. Also stated in the article is that fact that Romney is using statistics formulated by a right wing, partisan study that have not been substantiated by any non-partisan entity. For all we know, they pulled that number from their rectums.

So Romney is right that some small business owners will pay a higher tax rate under Obama’s plan. But that amounts to only 500,000 people, with only about 652,000 employees. The vast majority of small business owners and employees won’t be affected. What’s more, those who are affected might have more reason to hire.

[CBWx2]

Let me simplify it spartan:

You have fact A: About 3% of small businesses are going to be affected by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the top two brackets.

You have fact B: About 3% of small businesses employ 54% of the American work force (not really an undisputed fact, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is).

Romney is asserting that A & B are the same businesses, but in reality, they are not. Some of the businesses that are part of that percentage that employ 54% of the American population are in the 97% of businesses that will be unaffected, simply because of how their business is structured, and how they file their taxes. Most of the small businesses that employ a large number of people (100 or more), fall within that 97% that would be unaffected, and most of the businesses that would be affected are businesses that employ a relatively small workforce, including but not limited to one employee; the person who owns the business.

[spartan]

It debunks it because not all of what Romney is identifying as those 3% of businesses that employ 25% of the American population are going to be affected by the tax increase either. By not distinguishing between flow-through businesses that are operated as S-Corps and ones that are C-Corps or LLP's, he's misrepresenting the number of employees that would be affected by the tax increase. He is jumbling a number of statistics together to get to a point that the statistics individually don't support. Also stated in the article is that fact that Romney is using statistics formulated by a right wing, partisan study that have not been substantiated by any non-partisan entity. For all we know, they pulled that number from their rectums.

"Flow through" are profits that are passed on to the owner of the company and thus taxed as personal income. C - Corps therefore by definition cannot engage in flow through as they pay corporation tax, and any profits are taxed as dividends or capital gains. I think therefore all "flow through" income comes through small businesses. The 54% stat of people employed therefore fits in well with what we know about American small business, that is they employ half of all Americans working. Not only have I not seen this report referenced by Romney as the source of his quote, and feel free to correct me there, but the report itself does not break down the employment figures. If Romney did use this for that stat, he jumped to conclusions, otherwise Klein did.  Based on what I have read, I am inclined to think the latter. Last but not least:

So will Obama’s tax plan depress hiring among firms organized this way? That’s less clear.  Suppose I’m a small business owner who makes $1 million a year and has $200,000 in payroll. If I fired someone making $100,000 in total compensation today, that would increase my income to $1.1 million, and my after-tax income by $65,000, after I take the top rate of 35 percent off.

Now suppose we’re using Obama’s rates. That same firing would only get me $60,400, because of the higher 39.6 percent top rate. So a higher marginal tax rate actually lowers the incentive to fire people and makes hiring look more appealing. Of course, businesses usually hire with the hope that profits go up, and they’ll be less likely to do that with higher marginal rates. But the overall effect on incentives is far from clear."

So assuming all things being equal and Klein is right, his argument is that the business man would be more likely to hire someone because he is getting taxed more and only making an additional 60.5k profit instead of 65k. Personally I think  it is more likely to be the other way around.

Oh yea, one last thing. Klein was the prime mover and originator or "JOURNOLIST". I think that is all your need to know about his objectivity.

[spartan]

Let me simplify it spartan:

You have fact A: About 3% of small businesses are going to be affected by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the top two brackets.

You have fact B: About 3% of small businesses employ 54% of the American work force (not really an undisputed fact, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is).

Romney is asserting that A & B are the same businesses, but in reality, they are not. Some of the businesses that are part of that percentage that employ 54% of the American population are in the 97% of businesses that will be unaffected, simply because of how their business is structured, and how they file their taxes. Most of the small businesses that employ a large number of people (100 or more), fall within that 97% that would be unaffected, and most of the businesses that would be affected are businesses that employ a relatively small workforce, including but not limited to one employee; the person who owns the business.

You have your facts incorrect. Romney stated that the 3% employ half of ALL PEOPLE EMPLOYED BY SMALL BUSINESSES. To take it direct from the debate transcript:

" But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half — of all of the people who work in small business."

The 54% quote?

"And you think, well, then why lower the rates? And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate. Fifty-four percent of America's workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate but at the individual tax rate. And if we lower that rate, they will be able to hire more people."

[Dolorous Jason]

Let me simplify it spartan:

You have fact A: About 3% of small businesses are going to be affected by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the top two brackets.

You have fact B: About 3% of small businesses employ 54% of the American work force (not really an undisputed fact, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is).

Romney is asserting that A & B are the same businesses, but in reality, they are not. Some of the businesses that are part of that percentage that employ 54% of the American population are in the 97% of businesses that will be unaffected, simply because of how their business is structured, and how they file their taxes. Most of the small businesses that employ a large number of people (100 or more), fall within that 97% that would be unaffected, and most of the businesses that would be affected are businesses that employ a relatively small workforce, including but not limited to one employee; the person who owns the business.

You have your facts incorrect. Romney stated that the 3% employ half of ALL PEOPLE EMPLOYED BY SMALL BUSINESSES. To take it direct from the debate transcript:

" But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half — of all of the people who work in small business."

The 54% quote?

"And you think, well, then why lower the rates? And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate. Fifty-four percent of America's workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate but at the individual tax rate. And if we lower that rate, they will be able to hire more people."

You guys are haggling or minor changes in the tax rates , but are missing the major point here : None of it matters , and no rate will balance the budget.

A little perspective for you:
This year, Congress will spend  approx $3.7 trillion dollars.

That comes out to about $10 billion per day.
 
According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. 
 
If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax on the "rich" ( yes , that means stealing  all earnings above $250,000 per year  ) , it would yield the measely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for  only 141 days .

141 days . ( For those keeping score , there are 365 days in a year ).

This is not my opinion , this is simple math. Wake the hell up people . There aren't enough rich people alive you can fleece in order to feed this leviathan we call a government. There's no way out of this without slashing the hell out of government , and learning to take care of ourselves like f*cking adults.

[CBWx2]

Let me simplify it spartan:

You have fact A: About 3% of small businesses are going to be affected by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the top two brackets.

You have fact B: About 3% of small businesses employ 54% of the American work force (not really an undisputed fact, but for the sake of argument, let's say it is).

Romney is asserting that A & B are the same businesses, but in reality, they are not. Some of the businesses that are part of that percentage that employ 54% of the American population are in the 97% of businesses that will be unaffected, simply because of how their business is structured, and how they file their taxes. Most of the small businesses that employ a large number of people (100 or more), fall within that 97% that would be unaffected, and most of the businesses that would be affected are businesses that employ a relatively small workforce, including but not limited to one employee; the person who owns the business.

You have your facts incorrect. Romney stated that the 3% employ half of ALL PEOPLE EMPLOYED BY SMALL BUSINESSES. To take it direct from the debate transcript:

" But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half — of all of the people who work in small business."

The 54% quote?

"And you think, well, then why lower the rates? And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate. Fifty-four percent of America's workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate but at the individual tax rate. And if we lower that rate, they will be able to hire more people."

My bad, I misspoke about that. You are also right about the C-Corp not being a "flow through" thing. But the point still stands. The claim that 3% of all small businesses employ 54% of all those employed by small businesses is unsubstantiated. That figure was derived by a right-wing, partisan study. It's also not true that the same 3% of businesses that allegedly employ 54% of small business employees are all the same 3% of companies the will be affected by the tax increase. If you don't like the Ezra Klein piece, here's another one from Bloomberg that debunks it as well...

One reason for the confusion is that there is no universal definition. The U.S. Small Business Administration counts companies with as much as $35.5 million in sales and 1,500 employees, depending on the industry. Outside government, companies with less than $7 million in sales and fewer than 500 employees are widely considered small businesses.

Two recent reports by Ernst & Young LLP -- one commissioned by the S Corporation Association and another by the National Federation of Independent Business -- took the broad view. They concluded that pass-through companies accounted for almost 95 percent of all business entities in 2008 and employed 54 percent of the private-sector workforce. Romney’s debate-night assertion that the tax increase would cost 700,000 jobs stems from these studies.

Such findings, though, are at odds with those of several other studies, including one in 2011 by the U.S. Treasury Department. It attempted to better define small business by looking at criteria such as income, labor, and other business expenses and tax deductions. Its conclusion: “Many filers are not engaged in business activity as it is traditionally understood.” Just 20 million of the 34.7 million filers reporting pass-through income qualified as a small business, Treasury said. Of those, about one-fifth qualified as an employer.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-04/time-to-debunk-the-myth-of-small-business-as-job-engine.html

[dbucfan]

Like I said - will need to resolve the difference between the two words - and how it exists - just to be able to cope with new to me meanings of even simple terms.  Back to the "is" conundrum

[spartan]

Ernst and Young is hardly a right wing think tank which is where the 54% figure comes from. It is also universally accepted that over 50% of all Americans are employed by small businesses. 

The  claim that 3% of all small businesses employ hlaf of all those employed by small businesses is certainly unsubstantiated. I will grant you that. I have heard it used frequently over the last few years, the first time I believe was on the Neil Boortz show. I do not know what he referenced when he first said that but I believe it was from some report/study. However, with that said, unsubstantiated is a world of difference to lying.

One down 26 to go!

[Morgan]

Lindsay Lohan endorses Mitt Romney



Well, this election is over. Fox News reports on a very important endorsement:

    “I think unemployment is very important for now, so as of now I think (my vote) is Mitt Romney,” Lohan told reporters, including FOX411′s Pop Tarts, at the Mr. Pink Ginseng Drink Launch Party Los Angeles on Thursday night. [...]

    “It’s a long story, but you’re going to have to wait for that,” she remarked, adding that she would have liked to watch the Ryan vs. Biden debate, which had taken place just a couple of hours earlier, but for an unspecified reason, was unable to.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/12/lindsay-lohan-endorses-mitt-romney/

[tripblood]

Great post Morgana

[CBWx2]

Ernst and Young is hardly a right wing think tank which is where the 54% figure comes from. It is also universally accepted that over 50% of all Americans are employed by small businesses. 

The  claim that 3% of all small businesses employ hlaf of all those employed by small businesses is certainly unsubstantiated. I will grant you that. I have heard it used frequently over the last few years, the first time I believe was on the Neil Boortz show. I do not know what he referenced when he first said that but I believe it was from some report/study. However, with that said, unsubstantiated is a world of difference to lying.

One down 26 to go!

Don't jump the gun there, spartan. For starters, the Ernst & Young Study was comprised by Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante. Carroll worked in the Treasury department under G.W. Bush, and Prante is the founder of a right-wing think tank. Also, no one is disputing that half of Americans work for small businesses, and for the sake of argument, I didn't even really dispute the 54% number. The question is if that 3% of businesses Romney claimed would be affected by the tax increase are the same ones that allegedly employ 54% of all those employed by small businesses. I've posted two separate articles that say that this is not true. That by and large, the type of businesses that would be affected aren't ones that employ a large workforce. These are mostly hedge funds, or people who earn large sums of money from speaking fees, book royalties, consulting, etc. as the article states.

You can say he didn't lie. Fair enough. That was my word, not the article's. The article used the word "myth", and I'd say that his statement qualifies. He made an assertion that he presented as fact that is anything but an irrefutable fact. I'd say you still got 27 to go.