gut;1287359 wrote:By the way, did anyone catch how Obama looked ready to jump out of his suit when Romney said "I've been in business for 25 years, now maybe I need a new accountant but I've never heard of tax breaks for sending jobs overseas".

haha Yeah that was classic.

believer;1287406 wrote:haha Yeah that was classic.

Classic in that is was completely wrong.

All businesses are allowed to deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses including expenses related to moving production off shore...it's small potatoes but the Democrats have introduced legislation that would deny a deduction for ordinary and necessary business expenses related to moving offshore. Such deductions are indeed "tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas"

Even worse, Obama should know this and could've easily responded with a "zinger" "Well actually Mitt we'd deny an ordinary business deduction for moving production offshore which you should know all about since you were a pioneer at it. But of course you've never heard of it because you've got accountants hiding your money in the cayman islands" Yada yada or something lame like that which would have at least played well in the theater of the debate.

lhslep134;1287292 wrote:Yup, that's my main point. The people who get f*cked by all of this are the people who don't have access to expensive tax lawyers whose job is to maximize the 'loophole'-age of their clients' tax liabilities.

Find a way to attack that, and THEN you're on to something (loophole/deduction elimination).

That's exactly what Romney's plan proposes. By eliminating deductions and reducing marginal rates, the plan disproportionately affects those with access to high priced tax lawyers. In other words, if your goal is to simplify the tax code to remove the advantages the rich have, you should be pulling for Romney on this issue.

BoatShoes;1287423 wrote:Classic in that is was completely wrong.

All businesses are allowed to deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses including expenses related to moving production off shore...it's small potatoes but the Democrats have introduced legislation that would deny a deduction for ordinary and necessary business expenses related to moving offshore. Such deductions are indeed "tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas"

Even worse, Obama should know this and could've easily responded with a "zinger" "Well actually Mitt we'd deny an ordinary business deduction for moving production offshore which you should know all about since you were a pioneer at it. But of course you've never heard of it because you've got accountants hiding your money in the cayman islands" Yada yada or something lame like that which would have at least played well in the theater of the debate.

The fact that he didn't use Bain, Cayman, or 47% last night proves Obama knows there are non issues. While he was getting hammered from every angle, he still didn't use those.

As we go forward now with the 2nd and 3rd debates....I truly believe Romney HAS to win the 2nd debate. He simply cannot hope for a tie. I say this because he will probably lose the third debate

The reason I say he has to win the 2nd debate is he needs it to really reset the race

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1287367 wrote:You need a math class bc any way you spin it it equals less taxes coming in. You can't tell me hes not depending on a better economy to balance out the deficit.

It depends on what Congress passes. They may or may not make growth assumptions part of the revenue neutrality. There's plenty in dispute in how it can be accomplished. They can change the estate tax, other deductions can be phased out.

This is classic misdirection and scare tactics. Romney's plan is a good one. Superior to anything Obama has put forward, which is nothing other than to stay the course - something that has given us 4 years of gross underperformance.

BoatShoes;1287423 wrote:Classic in that is was completely wrong.

All businesses are allowed to deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses including expenses related to moving production off shore...it's small potatoes but the Democrats have introduced legislation that would deny a deduction for ordinary and necessary business expenses related to moving offshore. Such deductions are indeed "tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas"

LMAO, that's the exact sort of bastardization and distortion of the issue I was talking about. Moving expenses are a standard business expense - that deduction has absolutely nothing to do with being rewarded for moving jobs offseas. It has absolutely nothing to do with "manufactured" profits because of a deduction that exceeds the expense or exists solely for those moving offshore.

By your logic, any expense a company incurs in manufacturing overseas is a loophole for offshoring jobs. That's just as bogus as most of your posts.

Ty Webb;1287464 wrote:As we go forward now with the 2nd and 3rd debates....I truly believe Romney HAS to win the 2nd debate. He simply cannot hope for a tie. I say this because he will probably lose the third debate

The reason I say he has to win the 2nd debate is he needs it to really reset the race

Good to know that you have the ingredients to the recipe of Romney's success.

It looked to me that Obana is anbivelent in wanting a second term. Romney threw a bunch if soft balls his way and he chose to keep the bat on his shoulder.

I hope Mitt wins. I want to see how the magic plays out. Reduce taxes, increase military spending, change nothing on entitlement spending, enforce his own mandate on healthcare reform, yet somehow increasing national revenues...not to mention the upcoming tag team war in Iran with Israel....and through all of that.....magically reduce the national debt. These magic underpants are uncredible I tell ya.

The debt will escalate, the banks will find their new found corporate welfare to their liking, more wars will be fought and the navy will be rewarded with brand new nuke haulers in the middle east.

And when the national debt hits 20 trillion circa 2014, the unemployment hits double digits once again, the new guy will blame the last guy in power for screwing things up.

Gonna pop some fresh Orville Reddonbocker, prop up my shoes and then LMFO at all the people on here that will be proven wrong.

Uh oh....it's maaaaagic.......

gut;1287491 wrote:LMAO, that's the exact sort of bastardization and distortion of the issue I was talking about. Moving expenses are a standard business expense - that deduction has absolutely nothing to do with being rewarded for moving jobs offseas. It has absolutely nothing to do with "manufactured" profits because of a deduction that exceeds the expense or exists solely for those moving offshore.

By your logic, any expense a company incurs in manufacturing overseas is a loophole for offshoring jobs. That's just as bogus as most of your posts.

Who knew that the new Democrat party became such isolationists?

Footwedge;1287558 wrote:Uh oh....it's maaaaagic.......

Well we all know that Anointed Barry's "Yes We Can" Magic Show has been a bust. I'm thinking it's time to move on.

Footwedge;1287558 wrote:Uh oh....it's maaaaagic.......

Well we all know that Anointed Barry's "Yes We Can" Magic Show has been a bust. I'm thinking it's time to move on.

First off, I just want to state that I don't like either of these candidates. Obama is... well, he's Obama. We all know what he's about. Romney is plasticine in a Stepford Wife sorta way. Blech! to both of them.

That being said, I just read a similar thread on another forum I visit, that is mainly people who are staunchly liberal in just about every category there is. They are all dogpiling the debates in a lament that Obama didn't raise the points of Romney's time with Bain or his comments about the 47%.
Then here I come along and mention that Romney also didn't bring up Obama's past either, including Obama's relationship and involvement with folks like Jeremiah Wright, Ayers and so on. I also said that both candidates were equally respectful as far as that goes and both seemed determined to stick to the topics that were given to them.

You would have thought that I was killing kittens for profit on youtube.

The backlash from my simple and non-imflammatory remarks was astounding. Whereas I thought I was pointing out the obvious and giving credit to both of them - they saw it in a whole other light and ... they were vicious about it. To the point it got comical.
I think it really points out the level of emotion and sentiment that has defined the democrat party for many years now. The party has simply transitioned to the point of: if you are "democrat", you must be liberal, no excuses and that you must be pretty far to the left both socially and fiscally. All or nothing. I have said for a long time now that this is really hurting the party. Perhaps this is why Obama was pretty subdued during the debate. Maybe he's seeing that the party identifying itself as far left only doesn't benefit his interests.
I don't know, it's hard to say and he will never say what was going on with his mind that night.

As for Romney... I don't have much to say about him. IMO, the best thing that can be said about him is Ryan >.>

Footwedge;1287558 wrote:It looked to me that Obana is anbivelent in wanting a second term. Romney threw a bunch if soft balls his way and he chose to keep the bat on his shoulder.

I hope Mitt wins. I want to see how the magic plays out. Reduce taxes, increase military spending, change nothing on entitlement spending, enforce his own mandate on healthcare reform, yet somehow increasing national revenues...not to mention the upcoming tag team war in Iran with Israel....and through all of that.....magically reduce the national debt. These magic underpants are uncredible I tell ya.

The debt will escalate, the banks will find their new found corporate welfare to their liking, more wars will be fought and the navy will be rewarded with brand new nuke haulers in the middle east.

And when the national debt hits 20 trillion circa 2014, the unemployment hits double digits once again, the new guy will blame the last guy in power for screwing things up.

Gonna pop some fresh Orville Reddonbocker, prop up my shoes and then LMFO at all the people on here that will be proven wrong.

Uh oh....it's maaaaagic.......

Yeah, great idea. Root for the president to fail so you can laugh at people. /sarcasm

like_that;1287580 wrote:Yeah, great idea. Root for the president to fail so you can laugh at people. /sarcasm

I'm not rooting for anything. I'm telling what will happen. There are precedents set with case histories galore. Look at Romney's policies and do your own analisys. You think he's gonna magically create jobs? How? You think he's going to reduce the national debt? How? He's calling for cutting taxes and increased spending, especially on the military.

Do the math. Just another lying politician telling you that 2 plus 2 equals 7.

gut;1287491 wrote:LMAO, that's the exact sort of bastardization and distortion of the issue I was talking about. Moving expenses are a standard business expense - that deduction has absolutely nothing to do with being rewarded for moving jobs offseas. It has absolutely nothing to do with "manufactured" profits because of a deduction that exceeds the expense or exists solely for those moving offshore.

By your logic, any expense a company incurs in manufacturing overseas is a loophole for offshoring jobs. That's just as bogus as most of your posts.

Well look, that's the way a lot of protectionists would look at it and a lot of average Joe's have protectionist leanings. You go out to Brook Park or Parma and those folks would be ok with denying deductions to GE for what it expends offshore. I'm not a protectionist really but there are a lot of protectionist democrats (i.e. Sherrod Brown) who respond to this notion and they have introduced legislation that would deny ordinary and necessary business deductions related to expenses made off-shore and offer credits to businesses who brought production back. Maybe you think it is bogus but indeed denying such deductions would create an incentive (albeit small) for businesses to keep their operations on shore. It's not really that outrageous as you're acting it is as Congress denies deductions away from norms all of the time.

The term "tax breaks for jobs overseas" is just part of political theater kind of like when Romney says "Punish China if they cheat."

bases_loaded;1287463 wrote:The fact that he didn't use Bain, Cayman, or 47% last night proves Obama knows there are non issues. While he was getting hammered from every angle, he still didn't use those.

You're giving Obama too much credit. He laid an egg. The only thing Obama "knew" that night was that Michelle was gonna pound him with a strap-on.

BoatShoes;1287613 wrote:You're giving Obama too much credit. He laid an egg. The only think Obama "knew" that night was that Michelle was gonna pound him with a strap-on.

Was it Michelle...or the altitude..or http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/04/Report-Obama-Campaign-Trying-To-Block-Story-About-Blockbuster-Donor-Scandal-After-Raising-Over-150-Million-In-September

Footwedge;1287558 wrote:It looked to me that Obana is anbivelent in wanting a second term. Romney threw a bunch if soft balls his way and he chose to keep the bat on his shoulder.

I hope Mitt wins. I want to see how the magic plays out. Reduce taxes, increase military spending, change nothing on entitlement spending, enforce his own mandate on healthcare reform, yet somehow increasing national revenues...not to mention the upcoming tag team war in Iran with Israel....and through all of that.....magically reduce the national debt. These magic underpants are uncredible I tell ya.

The debt will escalate, the banks will find their new found corporate welfare to their liking, more wars will be fought and the navy will be rewarded with brand new nuke haulers in the middle east.

And when the national debt hits 20 trillion circa 2014, the unemployment hits double digits once again, the new guy will blame the last guy in power for screwing things up.

Gonna pop some fresh Orville Reddonbocker, prop up my shoes and then LMFO at all the people on here that will be proven wrong.

Uh oh....it's maaaaagic.......

Normally, I don't do this, but those bolded words are pretty easy to spell, and you're usually pretty good with spelling. And LMFO doesn't make sense. Might this have been a drink-n-post?

As for your point, however, I think it's dead on.

BoatShoes;1287610 wrote: Maybe you think it is bogus but indeed denying such deductions would create an incentive (albeit small) for businesses to keep their operations on shore. It's not really that outrageous as you're acting it is as Congress denies deductions away from norms all of the time.

Bogus and moronic. Your talking about expenses incurred only as a result of going offshore. But normal business deductions - it's not like it's some big money maker, it's only writing off the expenses incurred.

There's no tax code incentive for moving jobs offshore. Just more of your typical parroting of bullshit rhetoric.

O-Trap;1287661 wrote:Might this have been a drink-n-post?

I laughed.

Ouch.

The apology tour continues .................. laughable

Obama apologizes to Hollywood for debate debacle...

I Can't 'Perform Flawlessly, Night After Night'...

Kicks up character attacks after debate drubbing...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/obama-on-debate-i-was-just-too-polite/?hpt=hp_t2

He was just too polite.

The old saying goes, "Excuses are like assholes, everybody has one". Obama apparently has several.