Romney and Bain?

[Stevinator]

IMO, socialism = unstable economics, the mirror opposite of trickled-down economics. Albeit both appeal to the general minions, both are laughing stocks in any respectable school of economics.

Re Paul Ryan. I prefer a more moderate Republican. One more mature particularly with foreign policy to balance out Romney's limited foreign policy experience. IMHO, Ryan reminds me of a young domestic-oriented Dick Chenny.

It's unfortunate that Romney failed to pick Jeb Bush as his running mate. That would have been a lock for my vote.

Jeb is a non-starter because his name is bush.

[BobCox2]

I LOLed at the pick

http://www.nationalmemo.com/mitt-rom...the-far-right/


After a blasting in the polls and a haranguing by right-wing pundits, Mitt Romney decided that he should use the biggest statement of his primary campaign to try to win over a group of voters that never wanted him: right-wing Republicans. It’s exactly what John McCain tried to do. And I’m trying to remember: How did that work out for him?
Paul Ryan is the choice the Wall Street Journal editorial board, the choice of the same self-satisfied right wing intelligentsia that still thinks the Iraq War was a good idea. These are people who think that RomneyCare is worse for Mitt than the Ryan Budget will be. In short, they’re the same crew of Bush-Cheney backers, boasting decades of unmatched experience in being wrong about everything.
Yesterday we said that Mitt wouldn’t pick Paul Ryan. And if he did, it would be an awful choice. Conservative blog The Blaze said that Ryan should stay right where he is because his plan has become the platform of the Republican Party. Conservatives on Twitter who launched the hashtag #GiveUsRyan are calling this their Christmas morning.
What these “conservatives” don’t know or don’t care about is that pollsters have already determined exactly how embracing Ryan will hurt Romney. In a recent series of surveys and focus groups, Democracy Corp discovered revealed the toll that the Congressman from Wisconsin might have on the Republican ticket — even if he weren’t on the ticket.

President Obama’s lead against Romney more than doubles when the election is framed as a choice between the two candidates’ positions on the Ryan budget– particularly its impact on the most vulnerable. The President makes significant gains among key groups, including independents and voters in the Rising American Electorate (the unmarried women, youth, and minority voters who drove Obama to victory in 2008). This is an important new finding; highlighting the Ryan budget’s impact on the most vulnerable seriously weakens Romney.

By picking Ryan, Romney has made this case for the President. This is why our Editor-in-Chief Joe Conason has called Barack Obama “the luckiest politician in the history of democracy.”
The notion that Mitt Romney needs a smug, young guy who thinks retired people, students and the poor have it too good is something that could only occur to billionaire-funded right wing thinkers, those who believe that the lesson of 2004 is you can’t win on wanting to vote someone out. You need to give people something to believe in. And what Paul Ryan believes will appeal only to people who hate government with a passion.

[Elly]

ahh boo, it would have been great to see Palin up there. Romney and Palin would be priceless. She was such good value last time.

[Technomancer]

Oh boy. Retirees in Florida won't be able to wait to vote for the guy that wants to replace their healthcare with a low-limit coupon that any insurance company would refuse, on pain of being rejected by their shareholders.

Actually, Jeb Bush doesn't sound like too bad a guy. I'm in the minority I'm sure, but I don't let the name bother me. From everything I've heard about him, he would have been a better president than his brother. For a Republican, I kinda like him. He seems mature, intelligent, and reasonable. He was the one actually being groomed for the White House, because the family knew Dubya wasn't quite cut out for it. Unfortunately, he'll probably never get a fair crack at it now.

+1 on wishing it was Palin, but this is a reasonable 2nd.

[Stevinator]

Bob, (I'm playing a little devil's advocate here--so fair warning), don't you think they were going to tie Romney to Ryan's plan anyhow? Since those votes are sunk anyway, why not embrace the right?

And Tech, don't you know? Old people LOVE coupons!


Anyway, in all seriousness, While Ryan's voucher plan is bold, ambitious and actually does try to solve the problem, I'm not sure that's the way to do it politically. You could instead quietly ration away a lot of unneeded services (and gently increase the price of medicare over time) and not suffer a loss of votes from old people. by putting this out there, ryan made a name for himself, and he fundamentally changed the debate. he may not win (I have a feeling obama will win with or without our endorsements), but if you step back, ryan has had an enormous impact on what conversation we have. Plus I get why Romney, a business guy would pick him. he's used to walking into dysfunction and finding the one guy who's bright enought o try something. I may not like everything in ryan's plan (his tax plan is very regressive because it drops capital gains taxes completely--which ironically, would mean romney wouldn't have to pay taxes (since he's paid mostly in equity) , which is what the dems are falsely accusing him of now).

You gotta look at it from other people's perspectives.


Anyway, so yeah you'll see those ads you're predicting, but no one is talking about how things should be. Ryan's plan has a bunch of stuff in it that sucks. Unfair taxes, destined to fail voucher program (because my 90 year old grandma, who can barely drive down the street to walgreens, and forgets to take her heart pills is going to analyze 10 different insurance policies in any effective way). But it also has good ideas. Block granting medicaid to let states figure out how to administer it could actually work out really well. States already manage welfare, unemployment, etc. so maybe we can see some synergy there. I may not agree with ryan on everything, but i like that he's actually working on some kind of solution. more politicians should be policy wonks.

whew. nested parentheses. yikes. The sad thing is, I actually talk like that. stream of consciousness. I tried to fix, but you'll have to just read it out loud.

[KillerAim]

Oh boy. Retirees in Florida won't be able to wait to vote for the guy that wants to replace their healthcare with a low-limit coupon that any insurance company would refuse, on pain of being rejected by their shareholders.

Ryan's plan has a bunch of stuff in it that sucks. …. destined to fail voucher program (because my 90 year old grandma, who can barely drive down the street to walgreens, and forgets to take her heart pills is going to analyze 10 different insurance policies in any effective way)

Please explain why retirees in Florida and Stevinator’s grandmother should be concerned about Ryan’s plan when they are specifically excluded from being affected by the plan? His changes only applies to who are born in 1956 or later.

his (Ryan’s) tax plan is very regressive because it drops capital gains taxes completely--which ironically, would mean romney wouldn't have to pay taxes

1. Capital Gains are paid on dividends and gains on sales of capital.
2. Dividends are directly linked to company’s Net Income, while capital gains on sales are indirectly linked to Net Income. (You usually make a gain on a sale if the company is more valuable than at the time of your purchase. The increase in the projected value almost always comes from an increase in expected earnings.)
3. The corporate tax rate on net income equals 35%.
4. Therefore, Romney and all others (anyone invested in a pension plan, 401k plan, etc.) have already had 35% in taxes deducted from their revenue.
5. Now, Capital Gains Tax Rates vary from 0% in special cases (regular income plus capital gains still leaves you in the 0% to 15% regular income tax rate category), to the normal 10% to 35% (from low income, long term gains to high income, short term gains).
6. Therefore, all earners of capital gains have had those earnings taxed at a rate from 35% to 58%.

[Technomancer]

And Tech, don't you know? Old people LOVE coupons!

But... I mean...




ALL IS LOST!!! ALL IS LOST!!!!

[Stevinator]

Please explain why retirees in Florida and Stevinator’s grandmother should be concerned about Ryan’s plan when they are specifically excluded from being affected by the plan? His changes only applies to who are born in 1956 or later.

1. Capital Gains are paid on dividends and gains on sales of capital.
2. Dividends are directly linked to company’s Net Income, while capital gains on sales are indirectly linked to Net Income. (You usually make a gain on a sale if the company is more valuable than at the time of your purchase. The increase in the projected value almost always comes from an increase in expected earnings.)
3. The corporate tax rate on net income equals 35%.
4. Therefore, Romney and all others (anyone invested in a pension plan, 401k plan, etc.) have already had 35% in taxes deducted from their revenue.
5. Now, Capital Gains Tax Rates vary from 0% in special cases (regular income plus capital gains still leaves you in the 0% to 15% regular income tax rate category), to the normal 10% to 35% (from low income, long term gains to high income, short term gains).
6. Therefore, all earners of capital gains have had those earnings taxed at a rate from 35% to 58%.

The thing about old people is that the young people keep turning into them. one day you and I (with luck, though if i can't keep up all this health kick stuff, i may never join you in ripe old age) will be old and our families will worry about how we'll decide how to spend our vouchers when we can barely drive or remember to take our pills. I appreciate your mindset of self-interest, but I think my concern is valid.


The 35% doesn't come from revenue, it comes from earnings after expenses, so you're being a little misleading, but not on purpose. Here's where this all fails. The corporation is its own separate entity. it makes income, it is taxed. it pays it's owners or employees or whatever, they have to pay tax on that income. If you don't like that, you don't have to form a separate entity. you operate as a sole proprietor, and pay the same taxes everyone else gets. There are even ways to do this with a LLC.

Mitt himself said that corporations are people (whether he meant that they're made up of a group of people or not doesn't matter, he actually said they were people and hasn't recanted--if it was a gaffe (and it may have been), it was poor timing since the citizen's united thing was going on, so he got stuck having to stand by his statement, but he has stuck by it nonetheless. i suppose that says more about mitt than it does about whether capital gains should be taxed, so i'll digress.

If corporations are their own separate entity then they are, and should be taxed as such. Obama wants to talk about a buffet rule? Where do you think buffet's wealth comes from? long term capital gains (not all of it, but a lot). And really, even if you tax long term capital gains at the same rate as other income, it's still a better deal, because you get to defer paying the taxes on that gain until you actually sell it (we don't tax paper values). This is the only fair way, and I agree with it, but you essentially get to keep rolling the gains along like an IRA. That's the real reason buffet is so undertaxed. he'd have to sell everything to take his tax hit. obama can raise rates on millionaires all obama wants he's barking up the wrong tree.

[KillerAim]

The thing about old people is that the young people keep turning into them. one day you and I (with luck, though if i can't keep up all this health kick stuff, i may never join you in ripe old age) will be old and our families will worry about how we'll decide how to spend our vouchers when we can barely drive or remember to take our pills. I appreciate your mindset of self-interest, but I think my concern is valid.

Does your family make your 90 year old Grandmother fill out and pay her own taxes? Does your family force her to handle, on her own, all of the responsibilities involved in living in the modern world (paying bills, handling repairs around the house or negotiating with service companies to take care of the repairs, cooking, cleaning, and yard work)? If not, then why are you arguing that Seniors will be forced to make such decisions without any help from family, friends, or advisors?

The 35% doesn't come from revenue, it comes from earnings after expenses, so you're being a little misleading, but not on purpose.

I’m a CPA / economist with close to 40 years in the industry and I used the financial terminology correctly. Please note that I specifically said that the 35% corporate tax rate was based on Net Income. When a percentage of After Tax Net Income is paid to the Stockholders as dividends, that becomes revenue/income for the Stockholder. As the old saying goes, ”Please Don’t try to teach your Grandma how to suck eggs”.

Here's where this all fails. The corporation is its own separate entity. it makes income, it is taxed. it pays it's owners or employees or whatever, they have to pay tax on that income. If you don't like that, you don't have to form a separate entity. you operate as a sole proprietor, and pay the same taxes everyone else gets. There are even ways to do this with a LLC.

Thank you for proving my point. The Net Income generated by a sole proprietorship is treated as regular income and taxed at the normal rates. The same income generated by a corporation and then distributed to its stockholders is taxed twice. So, unless you are arguing that all businesses should be sole proprietorships (talk about bring an Economy to a screeching halt! -- Little way to generate capital to work with, very limited options for anyone trying to save for his/her retirement, etc.), then you are admitting that Mitt and Buffet would be paying taxes on their investments even if there was no capital gains taxes.

[Technomancer]

So, I guess wages for workers shouldn't be taxed either since the money they are being paid comes from company revenues that have already been taxed? Sweet deal.