Intrade: Obama will win easily, Dems easily retain Senate

[davekc]

We are burnt toast if obama wins. Don't even start with their both the same because that is so far from the facts its painful seeing some can't figure that out.

Sent from my Fisher Price X900 via EO Forums

If Obama wins and the next four years are anything like the last, it will be a rough go for the country. Mickey Mouse running against Obama should be a landslide but, like I mentioned, it has nothing to do with who the candidate is. One is promising freebies and one is promising cuts. Basically is that simple.

 

[layoutshooter]

EVERYONE should pay the same RATE if we must have an income tax, NO one should pay no tax. The idea of a 'progressive tax' is Marxist. It is a means of keeping people in their place.

There should be NO income tax. Our corporate tax rate is one of, if not the, highest in the world. FAR too high.

High taxes are killing the economy. They are retarding commerce and one of the primary reasons, along with massive government spending, that so may are out of work.

 

[Pilgrim]

Except that the 'makers' also take from the government, [how much did Romney get from the government to help bail out the Olympics?]

Nothing - he gave his salary to charity.

It was furnished with broken desks cast off by federal agencies. Its stairs were so steep that Cindy Gillespie, the head of federal relations for the Olympic committee, refused to have guests visit.
"It was a nightmare — I couldn't stand it," Gillespie recalled. "But Mitt just adored it. He thought it was totally appropriate."
The message, of course, was that frugality was the new watchword of the organization, which had been battered by revelations that Salt Lake officials had showered more than $1 million in gifts on International Olympic Committee members in their effort to land the 2002 Winter Games.
Scaling down the Washington office was one of the many moves that Romney made to wipe out the scars of profligate spending. Recruited in February 1999 to take over the beleaguered Olympic committee, Romney deferred his $280,000-a-year salary until the Games were over and its finances secure, then donated it to charity. (He had taken a leave from Bain Capital, but was still receiving substantial payments from it.) He got rid of catered food for board meetings and instead offered pizza at $1 a slice.
Mitt Romney was in his element for 2002 Olympic Games - Los Angeles Times

 

[cheri1122]

Mitt Romney's controversial Olympic past draws scrutiny - World - CBC News



Mr Romney didn't take a salary that he could well afford to forego, but that's not what I referred to at all.
I love the part about the billions of dollars that "would probably have been paid for [infrastructure improvements] by the government anyway"......
But it's not 'taking' when he asks for government money to help out, huh?

 

[davekc]

There is certainly some of the rich that take advantage of the system but just by the numbers, they are a small percentage.

A small percentage of those who influence legislation? Who benefit from cronyism? Who can buy 'creative accountants' to invent ever more esoteric tax loopholes? Who cheat the government by fraudulent billing [as in defense & medical/health care industries]?

You have a us verses them mentality when close to half the population is tied to some type of government program and the other half are paying for it.

Except that the 'makers' also take from the government, [how much did Romney get from the government to help bail out the Olympics?] and the 'takers' may not pay income tax, [like the big boys], but they still pay a lot of other taxes, and the seniors have worked their whole lives to collect SS - it's not quite a scenario of productive people vs lazy bums, as Mr Romney and others portray it.

One of the reasons I think everyone should pay a tax of some sort.

They already do: sales tax. And I agree the tax code needs revised, but cutting rates for the top percenters [as Romney wants] isn't the right way to fix the economy, or it wouldn't be broke now!

No doubt you have some of the rich taking advantage of the system. Just not enough of them on the take to balance out the costs of entitlements. I do agree the retired folks are entitled to their money. No argument there. But that doesn't erase the fact that it is still a entitlement that they will draw alot more than they ever put in. Just a sad reality and someone has to pay for it.

Romney wants taxes cut across the board but the biggest one is the corporate tax. Why? Simple. Corporations are fleeing the US for tax havens in foreign countries where it is cheaper. Problem is, they take the jobs with them.

As for sales tax, that has nothing to do with Federal taxes. That is local and state tax. They pay nothing for entitlements unless they pay a payroll tax (for their own SS) and nothing for the military or anything else that is funded by the Feds. Its that other half that is footing that bill.

 

[davekc]

Mitt Romney's controversial Olympic past draws scrutiny - World - CBC News



Mr Romney didn't take a salary that he could well afford to forego, but that's not what I referred to at all.
I love the part about the billions of dollars that "would probably have been paid for [infrastructure improvements] by the government anyway"......
But it's not 'taking' when he asks for government money to help out, huh?

Depends. It did create jobs at that time and our debt structure was much different then.

 

[cheri1122]

No doubt you have some of the rich taking advantage of the system. Just not enough of them on the take to balance out the costs of entitlements. I do agree the retired folks are entitled to their money. No argument there. But that doesn't erase the fact that it is still a entitlement that they will draw alot more than they ever put in. Just a sad reality and someone has to pay for it.

Well, duh! [lol] The question is why are we blaming those who collect the money [including unemployment, cause they worked for it], instead of the incompetent legislators who didn't plan for it? It's not like the number of people becoming old enough to collect SS was a surprise, right?
And why aren't we blaming the vulture capitalists and corporations who sent the jobs elsewhere, causing the federal government to lose on payroll taxes and pay out on more entitlements? So a handful of already wealthy investors could profit even more?


Romney wants taxes cut acrossed the board but the biggest one is the corporate tax. Why? Simple. Corporations are fleeing the US for tax havens in foreign countries were it is cheaper. Problem is, they take the jobs with them.

Problem is they want to enjoy the cheap labor of other countries, but the amenities of this one - particularly the legal system [paid for with the taxes they don't like!]
If they don't want to support the US government, they ought not to benefit from it, either.

As for sales tax, that has nothing to do with Federal taxes. That is local and state tax. They pay nothing for entitlements unless they pay a payroll tax (for their own SS) and nothing for the military or anything else that is funded by the Feds. Its that other half that is footing that bill.

Taxes need to be revised, for sure, but I can't accept that the wealthy and the corporations are benefactors and the poor and working people are to blame for the problems we face.

 

[layoutshooter]

Creating REAL jobs is bad. I just bought a new boat from an 'evil corporation'. I bought it from Polar Kraft which is part of an even bigger 'evil corporation' known as Nautic Global Group. When people buy boats from those 'evil corporations' there are employees that built those boats and get paid to do so. They in turn pay taxes and buy things that keep others working. It is a VERY bad system. All us hard working people who had the AUDACITY to buy something with the money that we EARNED should have our taxes raised so we can't afford those things and then we can pay all those out of work boat builder welfare.

It seems to me that the 'us vs. them' attitude is the hallmark of the Marxist.

 

[Humble2drive]

I love the part about the billions of dollars that "would probably have been paid for [infrastructure improvements] by the government anyway"......
But it's not 'taking' when he asks for government money to help out, huh?

"billions" is a bit of a stretch. McCain ordered an accounting of the final Government investment and it came out at $1.3 billion.
It is normal for the Olympics to ask for a certain amount of financial support from the Gov't so Rommey wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't request as much as he could to make it successful.

 

[layoutshooter]

ALL of that money spent on the Olympics should have been used to feed the poor.

 

[Humble2drive]

Romney is going to win.

Sent from my Fisher Price X900 via EO Forums

Your sentence got cut off on my computer.
I assume it said: Romney is going to win a lot of criticism for losing a race that was considered a sure thing for the republicans?

 

[Pilgrim]

Mitt Romney's controversial Olympic past draws scrutiny - World - CBC News



Mr Romney didn't take a salary that he could well afford to forego, but that's not what I referred to at all.
I love the part about the billions of dollars that "would probably have been paid for [infrastructure improvements] by the government anyway"......
But it's not 'taking' when he asks for government money to help out, huh?

No - it's not. There's a difference between spending and investment, and in this case the Nation and the state of UT certainly got a return on the money spent on the 2002 Winter Games under Romney's management.

Salt Lake took a different approach to its Olympic Games legacy, striving to position itself after the 2002 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games as more of an all-round sports centre than a centre focused on winter sports. The city’s hosting experience might well have been a disaster. An IOC bribery scandal in the planning stages led to a crisis in confidence in Organizing Committee managers, then a budget trimming by their replacements. Six months before the Games were to begin, terrorist attacks on U.S. soil threw Americans, and the world in general, into turmoil. People around the globe were afraid to fly and were leery of large gatherings in the United States, Americans were emotionally upset, and for many, the notion of attending the Salt Lake Olympic Winter Games became much less appealing.
Rather than give in to naysayers who suggested the event should be cancelled, Salt Lake Olympic Committee (SLOC) CEO Mitt Romney and his committee forged ahead.
The Salt Lake Olympic Winter Games ultimately attracted sell-out crowds and posted a $100-million profit...

After the Salt Lake 2002 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, the Utah Sports
Commission (USC), an umbrella sports organization that contracts with the Utah
government to encourage sports development in the state, decided to focus not on promoting winter sports events specifically but on promoting sports events in general.
Since 2002, USC has attracted almost 200 sports events to the area; 75 percent of them have featured non-winter sports. The combination of Salt Lake’s Olympic Games past and its residents’ keen interest in sports in general has drawn major sports manufacturing companies, and their relatively affluent employees, to the region.

http://torc.linkbc.ca/torc/downs1/LegaciesOfTheGames_ExecutiveSummary.pdf

 

[muttly]

Mitt Romney's controversial Olympic past draws scrutiny - World - CBC News



Mr Romney didn't take a salary that he could well afford to forego, but that's not what I referred to at all.
I love the part about the billions of dollars that "would probably have been paid for [infrastructure improvements] by the government anyway"......
But it's not 'taking' when he asks for government money to help out, huh?

Really grasping by trying to bash Romney over the Olympics. It was in a shambles when he took it over. He left his lucrative business and didn't take a salary as he turned the Olympics into a success. What more do you want from someone?

 

[davekc]

No doubt you have some of the rich taking advantage of the system. Just not enough of them on the take to balance out the costs of entitlements. I do agree the retired folks are entitled to their money. No argument there. But that doesn't erase the fact that it is still a entitlement that they will draw alot more than they ever put in. Just a sad reality and someone has to pay for it.

Well, duh! [lol] The question is why are we blaming those who collect the money [including unemployment, cause they worked for it], instead of the incompetent legislators who didn't plan for it? It's not like the number of people becoming old enough to collect SS was a surprise, right?
And why aren't we blaming the vulture capitalists and corporations who sent the jobs elsewhere, causing the federal government to lose on payroll taxes and pay out on more entitlements? So a handful of already wealthy investors could profit even more?


Romney wants taxes cut acrossed the board but the biggest one is the corporate tax. Why? Simple. Corporations are fleeing the US for tax havens in foreign countries were it is cheaper. Problem is, they take the jobs with them.

Problem is they want to enjoy the cheap labor of other countries, but the amenities of this one - particularly the legal system [paid for with the taxes they don't like!]
If they don't want to support the US government, they ought not to benefit from it, either.

As for sales tax, that has nothing to do with Federal taxes. That is local and state tax. They pay nothing for entitlements unless they pay a payroll tax (for their own SS) and nothing for the military or anything else that is funded by the Feds. Its that other half that is footing that bill.

Taxes need to be revised, for sure, but I can't accept that the wealthy and the corporations are benefactors and the poor and working people are to blame for the problems we face.

Well....let me hit on a few things. I do agree folks should get the unemployment that they paid. That currently is based on 52 weeks. The problem is we now have people doing the 99 weeks and then transition to welfare and other programs.
The poor or "some" not all, of the working people take more of a hit because of the sheer numbers and not paying anything on the federal side and being the biggest draw of costs.
With regards to investors and the like, have to be careful how much you want to demonize them. A lot of your union workers and people with pensions (many underfunded) rely on investors success to cover those costs to the retired folks.
Their function is to make money, not just trend along.

As for saying if companies want to benefit here have to pay a premium isn't going to fly in a global economy. They will go where it is the cheapest to operate. Of course when that happens, there goes the jobs with them. Pretty simple. Threatening businesses would be a major backfire. Obama is trying it and look at whats happening. GDP at a all time low and unemployment skyhigh.
Keep in mind that cheap labor isn't the only major driver. Corporate tax rate at 35 percent (the highest in the world) is what drives alot of it.

 

[Humble2drive]

Well....let me hit on a few things. I do agree folks should get the unemployment that they paid. That currently is based on 52 weeks. The problem is we now have people doing the 99 weeks and then transition to welfare and other programs.

The 99 weeks thing is getting cut back in many states as we speak.
Some people need the extension to live and actively seek employment BUT . . .

For others the mentality is: If I get 99 weeks then I am going to take all 99 weeks, I deserve it!

Case in point:

Saw a couple on a really nice Harley at TA a while back and asked them how often they get to ride.

His answer: Since Obama extended unemployment benefits we can keep riding for another 20 weeks then we will have to get a job.

Holy Crappers Batman! Living high on the "hog" with no worries or no concern for finding a job until they maxed out the bennies.

They must have been those gimme goobers LOS talks about.

 

[Ragman]

One of the reasons I think everyone should pay a tax of some sort.

A flat tax - IMHO

What Is a Flat Income Tax - Details on the Flat Tax

The "flat tax" is an income tax system in which everyone pays the same tax rate regardless of their income. Flat tax systems are in place in several states in the U.S.
Fairness and Simplicity by Eliminating Deductions

Advocates of flat tax systems argue that a flat tax is fair because everyone pays the same tax rate. In addition, flat tax systems eliminate deductions, tax credits, and most exemptions, thereby eliminating biases towards certain behaviors and activities.

Eliminating deductions, tax credits, and complex tax brackets also simplifies the tax code, making compliance easier. Some proponents of the flat tax would like to see the Federal Form 1040 replaced by a simple post card on which you write your wages and multiply it by one tax rate.
Tax Only Earned Income

Another part of the flat tax philosophy is to remove double taxation, by only taxing earned income. Things like dividends, interest on savings, or capital gains that result from investment or increases in asset value would not be taxed under a pure flat tax system. This is seen as increasing the fairness and simplicity of the system, as well as encouraging investment.
Economic Growth and The Flat Tax

Supporters of flat tax systems claim that a flat tax encourages economic growth by avoiding a system in which you are penalized in higher taxes for being productive and earning more money. They argue that progressive tax systems create a penalty against things like hard work, risk taking, and entrepreneurship. The flat tax is supposed to avoid this by taxing every dollar at the same rate.

At the state level, reducing the top income tax rate by moving to a lower flat tax rate is thought to attract and encourage business investment and bring in high income individuals. This is thought to increase overall tax revenue and economic stability.
Arguments Against a Flat Tax

Opponents argue that flat tax systems place an undue burden on the lower and middle class by removing deductions and expanding the tax base to include every level of income. They claim that moving to a flat tax system shifts the tax burden from the rich to the poor, those who are most effected by taxes and least able to pay. By exempting unearned income like interest or dividends, opponents argue, that the working class is supporting the idle rich. Some flat tax systems in the U.S. get around this by exempting from tax those who fall below certain income limits or by offering special exemption or tax credits for lower income individuals.

Opponents of the flat tax argue that progressive tax systems are fair because they tax disposable income (income minus expenses). This viewpoint says that its only fair that the rich pay more because they have more disposable income and therefore a greater ability to pay. They argue that the economy would be better stimulated by decreasing the taxes of the middle class, who make up the largest part of the general public, which would give more people more disposable income to spend on products.

 

[davekc]

The minute you have exemptions for the rich or the poor, it is no longer a flat tax. If we were to do that, it should be inconjunction with a national sales tax. That would lower the flat tax and you recover that money from a part of the economy that pays nothing. Drug dealers to any under the table work would be paying some tax based on their purchasing power.
This would have everyone paying something and the argument of the rich footing the bill would only be driven by their spending. The poor one would expect would buy less, so they would pay less.

 

[davekc]

Your sentence got cut off on my computer.
I assume it said: Romney is going to win a lot of criticism for losing a race that was considered a sure thing for the republicans?

Hard to tell with the current polling. When they are calling doing their surveys, only democrats are home. The Romney people's phones go to VM as they are at work.

 

[Ragman]

The minute you have exemptions for the rich or the poor, it is no longer a flat tax. If we were to do that, it should be inconjunction with a national sales tax. That would lower the flat tax and you recover that money from a part of the economy that pays nothing. Drug dealers to any under the table work would be paying some tax based on their purchasing power.
This would have everyone paying something and the argument of the rich footing the bill would only be driven by their spending. The poor one would expect would buy less, so they would pay less.

Sounds like a plan to me, Lets do it.