That interview was pretty bland. I seem to recall the last interview Obama did with "60 Minutes" lasted the whole hour.
That interview was pretty bland. I seem to recall the last interview Obama did with "60 Minutes" lasted the whole hour.
I thought the interview started out pretty slow, but Ryan looked like he's chomping at the bit to get out there. Looks like it's going to be a hell of a fight. I like that, and I think the nation needs it.
Yes, he is an energetic and very articulate person who would undoubtedly be able to deliver his message without referencing Russian and his front porch, which is a welcome change, but Ryan is not running against Obama, Romney is. I believe we have the classic case of the number 2 outshining the number 1.
ha ha good joke sir
"Cut taxes for the rich and place the burden squarely on everyone else to make up for the resulting increase in revenue shorftall, all the while praying for trickle down to finally work." How long does such a segment really need to be?
there's no such thing as taxing a country to wealth.
Cut taxes for the job creators to match the levels of our global competitors and restrict the size and role of government so that the private sector can push this economy to new heights. In particular, reduce mindless, vote-buying federal spending, reform entitlements so that our children can have them too, and confront the ginormous power and abusive tactics of public employee unions that are sucking the blood out of the middle class.
Because it worked soooo well for Bush?
Tax breaks/incentives need to be directly tied to hiring new employees. Those companies that hire get tax cuts. Those that don't, don't. Hire first, tax cut comes after. We've seen the tax cut first, hire later version. Not falling for that again.
I don't need more cash [to start hiring again] I need more sales. That means if anyone needs a tax cut it's the consumer.
Consumers need a job a hell of a lot more than they need what amounts to pocket change in a tax break. My point is to incentivize hiring through tax breaks for those companies that do hire, but you already knew that. I'm all for rewarding companies that hire and punishing the shit out of those that grow profits solely through downsizing. Any company showing profits while laying people off should be taxed into extinction.
I agree completely, which is why I said "if anyone needs a tax cut"... meaning if all we're going to do is cut taxes, cut them where they'll be most effective.
Seriously, if all that occurs is that my business gets a tax cut when I hire, I'm still not going to start hiring.
Won't comment on your latter comment, too radical! : )
Companies aren't generally started to create jobs. They're started to create profits.
Fine. Then they pay the appropriate tax. I'm just saying that if a company wants a tax break they need to hire. You don't get a tax break just because you don't like paying the going rate. I don't like writing a check on April 15th either, so where's my tax break?
I'm sure your intentions are good, but this is a perfect example of good intentions paving the road to Hell. Think about it. The last thing any market needs is a tax policy that distorts supply and demand. Why not go a step further and outlaw layoffs? Makes as much sense. The more the govt takes in taxes, the less there is in the market to create goods and services.
Actually, most companies are small companies and they are started to create jobs, one job to be exact. And in a formal sense of the word, profit is not necessary, only receipts enough to cover the costs of production and overhead, and the owner's wage.
that's stupid, make it ultra complicated and encourage faux hiring.
No opposition from me I hate corporate welfareI'd like to see the fed out of the picture. A simple tax code with no loopholes. I don't like the idea of an out of touch behemoth incompetent bureaucracy trying to micromanage entities they know nothing about through arcane tax codes.Have you hired someone recently?
Do you normally respond to those of us on your ignore list?
I don't want to outlaw layoffs. If a company is having trouble they should be able to do whatever they need to in order to remain in business. What I'm saying is a company doesn't get a tax break just for the asking. What do "we the people" get in return for that break? It's especially disconcerting when companies expect a tax break while telling the individual they have to pay more to make up the slack.
trying to use the tax code to control behavior will backfire.
With the attitude you have the olny rational thing to do is to fire all the workers and close up shop , what a numb nuts emotional tax plan there loser.
No hire, no tax break. Simple as that. They don't get something just for the asking. They have to earn it! How's about this. Since it's been deemed corporations are people, then people should have all the benefits of a corporation. Where's my corpoarte tax break? Where's my corporate welfare? Where's my corporate make work program? Where's my bailout? Where's my money that YOU owe me just for being in business?
If all you are asking for is a tax incentive for those companies that hire. I don't see anything wrong with that. The problem is if you punish those that don't. As long as it's left as an incentive, I don't think that distorts supply and demand.
However, here is where the problem will lie. Obviously you are going to put conditions on new hires right? So the government might demand these are high paying jobs right? Otherwise what is to stop a company from cutting their wages in half and collecting a tax break on top of that. That leads us down the slippery slope of companies over hiring to capture a tax break then getting saddled with a bloated payroll when the economy turns south. Would we then be exaggerating the economic cycles and creating even more volatility.
At the end of the day, we create a somewhat artificial marketplace which defeats the purpose of having a free market. I would support something like this only for one year and let it expire. Just to kick start things. I would not want this as a permanent solution.
For sure it's more complicated than what I threw out, but we need to have the discussion. I can tell you the working class just isn't going to roll over for Romney and hope things work out. What are we going to get for this corporate tax break? Romney needs to spell that out. I'm not asking that with an adversarial tone, but it's needs to be answered.
Connecting tax breaks to business expansion does make some sense - but it's not just hiring employees, it should also cover buying new equipment (someone else hires) or any form of strengthening the business that makes it worth for the owner to take additional risk.
The caveat here should be that we want smaller government, not larger. Give this to Obama and he'll first hire 50,000 IRS agents to supervise and micromanage the new thing... a la "did you hire enough dumb blondes or are you still over-represented in the smart brunettes category which is not a protected group?" and "are your napkins from a union (democratic) shop or did you get them from the devil?" etc etc...
Btw, convicted felons are now a protected group in Washington DC and who knows where else: http://washingtonexaminer.com/eeocs-protection-of-felons-could-hurt-minority-hiring/article/687071
Not a bad idea, not bad at all. I can also appreciate Mav's point that we don't want to create something artificial or that can be gamed too easily. Romney and Ryan are both smart guys who should be able to come up with a plan which provides these incentives for corporations and gives some kind of guarantee to the working class that they're not being suckered. They need to get on it right quick.
Now that tax break we have received. I won't say who approved it as that will just start another fight, but you make a good point.
I know what you're thinking, but, not wanting to start another fight, I will not say how I know. HOWEVER, you're dead wrong, no question about it!
Cut Big Business's Corporate Welfare
by Tad DeHaven
With the federal government closing in on its fourth consecutive budget deficit in excess of $1 trillion, the national debt is hurtling toward dangerous levels. If the nation is to avert a debt crisis, federal policymakers need to aggressively balance revenues. Business subsidies, or "corporate welfare," are a good place to start.
A new study from the Cato Institute estimates that the federal government will spend almost $100 billion on corporate welfare this year. That includes direct and indirect subsidies to small businesses, large corporations and industry organizations. These subsidies are handed out from programs in many departments, including the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development.
Americans are sick and tired of crony capitalism, which should make business subsidies ripe for cutting. Indeed, the federal government's bailout of the financial industry has galvanized the public's perception that business interests enjoy disproportionate political favor. A 2010 Pew Research Center/National Journal poll found that only 13 percent would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supported federal loans to banks, while 46 percent said they would be less likely.
While subsidies for "clean energy" enjoy more public support than those for banks, their outcomes are damning. Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have been lost year after year on businesses that were simply not financially viable â the solar power firm Solyndra being the most famous example. Politicians often justify business subsidies by claiming that they are needed to fix supposed imperfections in the marketplace. But as the ongoing debacle with clean energy subsidies shows, policymakers do not possess special knowledge that enables them to allocate capital more efficiently than markets. When the government starts choosing industries and technologies to subsidize, it often makes bad decisions at taxpayer expense.
The hit to taxpayers is problem enough â the damage done to the broader economy is arguably worse. Policymakers, for example, have long argued that the government should subsidize housing to make the "American dream" available to more people. But that dream has turned into a nightmare in the aftermath of the housing meltdown and financial crisis, which was precipitated, in part, by government efforts to foster homeownership. However, instead of learning their lesson, policymakers have continued to intervene and subsidize. In recent years, they have been using the Federal Housing Administration to try to help prop up the housing market and the agency's lending portfolio has soared to more than $1 trillion. That might be all right for the banking industry since the FHA insures lenders for 100 percent of the principal and interest on mortgages it backs, but it could spell trouble for taxpayers and the economy down the road.
The problems with such subsidies are therefore evident even when one assumes that policymakers are motivated by the noblest of intentions. The reality is that lawmakers often have base parochial interests in mind when they support subsidy programs. During a Senate committee hearing on the Department of Energy in February, Sen. Al Franken, Minnesota Democrat, spent his allotted time badgering Secretary Steven Chu about a federal loan his department conditionally approved for a company in his state in 2010 but had yet to be finalized. On the other side of the aisle, dozens of congressional Republicans â many critical of the administration's energy subsidy policies â were found to have quietly sent letters to Mr. Chu requesting handouts to businesses in their backyards.
An even better example is farm subsidies, which redistribute wealth from taxpayers to a small group of relatively well-off farm businesses and landowners. In 2010, the average income of farm households was $84,400 â or 25 percent higher than the $67,530 average of all U.S. households. Numerous large corporations, and even some wealthy celebrities, receive farm subsidies because they are the owners of farmland. Yet policymakers make grandiose claims that the handouts are necessary to "preserve the nation's food supply," even though their chief motivation is to curry favor with their farming constituents.
Therein lies the biggest obstacle to cutting these subsidies: special interests. Whereas the cost of each particular subsidy represents just a tiny portion of the average household's total tax bill, the businesses that receive subsidies have a strong incentive to spend time and money cajoling policymakers into protecting their benefits. Lawmakers are surrounded by political operatives and persistent lobbyists representing countless special interests. The result is an endless stream of input encouraging them to spend more money.
The recent failure of congressional Republicans to rein in corporate welfare â despite campaign promises to seek substantive budget cuts â demonstrates the power that the special interests wield in Washington. Freshmen Republicans from the "Tea Party class" were instrumental in passing a bloated farm bill out of the House Agriculture Committee. In June, only 33 percent of GOP freshmen voted to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant program, which subsidizes businesses. In May, most freshmen voted to spare the Economic Development Administration. Republicans also recently teamed up with Democrats to save a program that subsidizes airlines. And 127 Republicans joined most Democrats in voting to defeat an amendment that would have shut off the Department of Energy loan program that gave birth to Solyndra.
Ultimately, the voting public will have to hold members responsible for continuing to lavish subsidies on commercial interests. Policymakers need to be forced to explain why they chose to support corporate welfare at a time when the government's red ink is mounting and the average worker continues to face economic uncertainty. Otherwise, the business-as-usual attitude in Washington that so many policymakers claim to be against will continue to lead the country toward fiscal Armageddon.
People do have the benefits of a corporation: it's called sole -proprietor.
nobody OWES you anything, jack-off.
So a person acting as a sole proprietorship has the same benefits as a corporation? You might want to look that up.
From what I know and like/agree with, no serious conservative wants just a blind cut in taxes below the already established levels (that include the cuts of 10 years ago.) What the country needs, imo and the opinion of many others, is a smarter tax framework: simplify/flatten taxation overall, cut loopholes and exemptions and lower marginal rates, capital gains tax, and corporate rates to make us competitive globally, especially in the capital repatriation tax area. Most important: make these changes revenue neutral as they are meant to improve the economy and not to put a few extra $$ in anyone's pocket.
My favorite: make sure everyone pays some income tax so they have skin in the game, no free-loaders, except in extreme cases. Workfare and not welfare is in this category too.
My other favorite: any politician who utters the words "fair share" will be taxed double for the following year. Fair would have been if each American paid the same amount every year... or even the same percentage... To make the system work, we're way past that point, and "fair" has become whatever every hypocritical demagogue wants it to mean year after year, a signal like "vote for me and let's go get THEIR money!"
1st]Good points. Gov Romney introduced Rep Ryan as ''the next president'' Funny but maybe prophetic.[Not a prediction,LOL]
Actually President Ryan's plan [or VP Ryan] calls for @ 10% federal tax rateon first $100, 000;
then 25% 0n rest. Real estate mortgage deduction, Church/charity, those maybe impossible to get rid of
MRC has already busted some media for pretending Rep Ryan dosen't have enough private sector experience, as if Chicago community orgs have anything to do with private sector experience.
No one ever claimed David Barton or Rep Ryan is infallible;
Rep Ryan voted for GM bail out..................
I really don't see why not... especially the mortgage deduction. So, give them a timeframe to phase out (no surprises) and get that one off the books. It clearly tends to favor the wealthier among us, and encourages people to buy more house than they can afford, etc.
The charity deduction is a bit trickier, but, fundamentally, I don't see the problem: You want to contribute? Contribute. That's all, leave the government out of it, it's as simple as that. Charities will initially get a hit from the deduction thing, but also a boost as people's available income after tax will look bigger.
So, imo, get them all out, make the tax system as flat and simple as possible. Then, assign the IRS excess personnel to TSA, as they are already experts at patdowns
This is very disappointing if true.
I have been an avid "60 Minutes" viewer my entire life and consider them to be a "fair" program when it comes to politics. But this is very disappointing to me.
This is the part that readers claim was edited out of the broadcast, which if true would be journalistic malpractice:
Ryan added, âMy mom is a Medicare senior in Florida. Our point is we need to preserve their benefits, because government made promises to them that theyâve organized their retirements around. In order to make sure we can do that, you must reform it for those of us who are younger. And we think these reforms are good reforms. That have bipartisan origins. They started from the Clinton commission in the late â90s.â
I saw this clip on WGN news today during our lunch break. It's obvious they, 60 minutes, thought it would make Ryan look to human. The radical left knows he's a COLD BLOODED MONSTER, so we can't have him showing any kind of concern or compassion, now can we.
I expect that from MSNBC but not from "60 Minutes". I can't believe they would tarnish their reputation like that.
No real big deal, we're used to that. Fox (eg, O'Reilly, Hannity) will pick it up and correct the record, assigning a fair amount of blame too. Plus, Ryan already knows that he has to repeat this very thing like a gazillion times between now and November. So, we'll live to fight another day.
Here goes: http://www.therightscoop.com/60-min...re-senior-in-florida-of-romneyryan-interview/
I quit watching 60 minutes decades ago when they fell head first into the liberal sewage tank.
it was a shame. they were once tough on everyone... or close enough that it did not feel like I was watching propaganda.
No need for me to look it up.
When I was operating as a sole proprietor it was superior to incorporating. Your mileage may vary.
I'm going to be operating my trading business as an LLC but that's just because I want to stack the odds in my favor of being considered a professional trader in the eyes of the IRS.
If you are so sure incorporating gives you unfair advantages, why don't you start one yourself? hmmm
I have been running my trading business as a proprietorship under section 475 (number changed recently) for about 14 years now... No problem with the IRS - was audited twice and they gave me no grief (or fines etc) whatsoever. They were actually very polite, but they do like lots of information, which we traders should have available. The first time they wanted me to supply a more complete cost data set, and the second time they wanted to see all my business receipts. It was a bother but no problemo either time.