The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[CaneBrain 95]

I actually thought it sounded completely irrational. He tries to pretend he has three hours worth of examples but really he has the same gripe as a ton of huge corporations: the health care bill. That's why it's the only thing he actually cited.He keeps "hearing" the word redistribution----what on earth is that argument? Seriously? The corporate tax rate is the same as it was under Bush I believe. Same with the income tax rate for wealthy. Obama hasn't actually redistributed a damn thing. That's just fear-mongering. I think Obama used that actual phrase one time. I think he keeps "hearing" what he wants to hear.Steve Wynn knows that if the GOP is in charge he will get a better deal. This is just whiny grandstanding to try and rig the game even more in his favor.

[ShakeZuma 585]

I mean jesus christ, have you two seriously never had to make any sort of business decision before? seen someone else make one? had a dream about planning a business decision? for fuck's sake, it's really not that hard to understand that businesses use forecasts to plan (plan = staffing = hiring) and if there isn't very much certainty in the stability of the current business environment (taxes, regulation, etc.) then the less certain they'll be in their plans, and MORE likely they'll be to not take risks. everything a business does is based on a CBA and if you can't prove the benefits in your CBA within a level of certainty, it ain't getting done.

[akoff 0]

I mean jesus christ, have you two seriously never had to make any sort of business decision before? seen someone else make one? had a dream about planning a business decision? for ****'s sake, it's really not that hard to understand that businesses use forecasts to plan (plan = staffing = hiring) and if there isn't very much certainty in the stability of the current business environment (taxes, regulation, etc.) then the less certain they'll be in their plans, and MORE likely they'll be to not take risks. everything a business does is based on a CBA and if you can't prove the benefits in your CBA within a level of certainty, it ain't getting done.

obviously not....that should be very clear to anyone.

[CaneBrain 95]

I mean jesus christ, have you two seriously never had to make any sort of business decision before? seen someone else make one? had a dream about planning a business decision? for fuck's sake, it's really not that hard to understand that businesses use forecasts to plan (plan = staffing = hiring) and if there isn't very much certainty in the stability of the current business environment (taxes, regulation, etc.) then the less certain they'll be in their plans, and MORE likely they'll be to not take risks. everything a business does is based on a CBA and if you can't prove the benefits in your CBA within a level of certainty, it ain't getting done.

And I believe when they talk publicly they overstate how much instability they are dealing with because they know that they will get a better deal with a Republican in the White House. I just spent a year reading and writing briefs about how the private sector ****ed us all in the butt. Not a huge leap to think they might act in their own self-interest when talking politics, sorry. I don't take Steve Wynn's complaints as gospel.Much like Wynn, you list a bunch of potential factors and then default to complaints about benefits, i.e the Health care bill. All the other regulations and taxes facing businesses are exactly the same as during Bush's presidency when the PRIVATE SECTOR almost bankrupted the Earth with their greed and stupidity.I'm sure if I just understood business I would always believe what a business person says. From 2002-2007, a lot of people who make business decisions and probably dream about business decisions sold investors mortgage backed securities that they said were AAA rated based on the assumption that the housing market would continue to rocketship upwards. Ha, ha....business! Always correct no matter what they say! Did Countrywide do a CBA on what would happen if 75% of the home loans they gave out defaulted? Did AIG do a CBA on what would happen if all the mortgage backed securities they insured went down the tubes? Or are business people not infallible, not always smart, not always trustworthy, and probably just as self-serving as UNIONS (gasp!) when it comes to political talk?No, I'm sure if I had made lots of business decisions this would all make sense to me. Totally.

[iZuma 764]

wait what? when did I say anything about benefits or the health care bill? what are you reading? either way, you missed my point in that businesses make their planning decisions based off of FORECASTS and FORECASTS are based off of FUTURE predictions and FUTURE predictions are not based off of what is the climate is right now but what it is expected to be in the FUTURE. and do you think that maybe, as a lawyer working on business cases, that you might be getting a slightly skewed version of how businesses operate normally, since, you know, the cases are already in litigation or whatever?edit: wait, so are you making the argument that since businesses are self serving, try to gain edges base on government set parameters, and are occasionally off in their predictions, that they are therefore bad and shouldn't be allowed? cause if that's the case, well, nevermind.

[CaneBrain 95]

wait what? when did I say anything about benefits or the health care bill? what are you reading? either way, you missed my point in that businesses make their planning decisions based off of FORECASTS and FORECASTS are based off of FUTURE predictions and FUTURE predictions are not based off of what is the climate is right now but what it is expected to be in the FUTURE. and do you think that maybe, as a lawyer working on business cases, that you might be getting a slightly skewed version of how businesses operate normally, since, you know, the cases are already in litigation or whatever?

I represented the businesses. Just saying. Steve Wynn is calling Obama a pure socialist even though nothing he has done comes even close to that level. I think that they OVERSTATE what their FUTURE FORECASTS say. I know this because I saw all the BANKS FUTURE FORECASTS from 2002-2007. They were MILDLY OVERSTATED. Steve Wynn sounds to me like just another spoiled billionaire who is throwing a public tantrum because Obama is only willing to give big business 80% of what they want instead of their usual 104% rate from the GOP.I think based on the evidence of Enron and Tyco and the mortgage crisis and the way the ratings agencies went along with it.......I am inherently skeptical of the complaints of a business lobby CRYING about possibly having SOME regulation (and I can't stress possibly enough because apparently none of those businesses noticed in their future forecasts that Obama is a pushover on these issues). Much like most of the conservative posters here are inherently skeptical of everything the government does.

[iZuma 764]

oh ok so you're not actually talking to my points on not being able to properly forecast due to uncertainty and how this affects job creation... nevermind then. and I apologize, but I probably won't be able to respond anymore today since I'll be busy working, at a business, trying to screw the middle class out of their hard earned money.

[CaneBrain 95]

edit: wait, so are you making the argument that since businesses are self serving, try to gain edges base on government set parameters, and are occasionally off in their predictions, that they are therefore bad and shouldn't be allowed? cause if that's the case, well, nevermind.

No, I'm saying I don't necessarily believe Steve Wynn is telling the full truth and I don't trust big business to regulate themselves in the slightest.That's kind of a far cry from saying they should not be allowed. Conservatives are always trying to paint a liberal as being a straight up commie who wishes the government controlled everything. I don't feel that way. And that system would be very bad for me personally.I just trust what a business person says about as much as Henry trusts what a congressman says. And if the best Steve Wynn can do in that article is a bunch of empty rhetoric and name calling with a promise that "he totally could spend 3 hours giving reasons" then I give it about the same credibility as you would to an article by some liberal think tank that declared Obama was doing a great job.

[CaneBrain 95]

oh ok so you're not actually talking to my points on not being able to properly forecast due to uncertainty and how this affects job creation... nevermind then. and I apologize, but I probably won't be able to respond anymore today since I'll be busy working, at a business, trying to screw the middle class out of their hard earned money.

not sure I could be more clear that I think he is overstating the uncertainty. I think the actual meltdown itself is far more responsible for the lack of job creation than anything Obama did. I think that disappointing employment numbers for a few years after a financial collapse are pretty logical and understandable. I chuckled at the last line though. Of course, as long as we are stereotyping, what you are really doing is you are busy working, at a business....a business that underpays you so the CEO can make 400x what you do and then complain that Obama is mean before visiting his house in Monaco where he keeps his yacht so he doesn't have to pay taxes on it to America, the country he loves.

[akoff 0]

not sure I could be more clear that I think he is overstating the uncertainty. I think the actual meltdown itself is far more responsible for the lack of job creation than anything Obama did. I think that disappointing employment numbers for a few years after a financial collapse are pretty logical and understandable. I chuckled at the last line though. Of course, as long as we are stereotyping, what you are really doing is you are busy working, at a business....a business that underpays you so the CEO can make 400x what you do and then complain that Obama is mean before visiting his house in Monaco where he keeps his yacht so he doesn't have to pay taxes on it to America, the country he loves.

this from a lawyer...priceless

[Roll the Bones 74]

not sure I could be more clear that I think he is overstating the uncertainty. I think the actual meltdown itself is far more responsible for the lack of job creation than anything Obama did. I think that disappointing employment numbers for a few years after a financial collapse are pretty logical and understandable. I chuckled at the last line though. Of course, as long as we are stereotyping, what you are really doing is you are busy working, at a business....a business that underpays you so the CEO can make 400x what you do and then complain that Obama is mean before visiting his house in Monaco where he keeps his yacht so he doesn't have to pay taxes on it to America, the country he loves.

Not to mention how much he loves doing business in a country with no human rights, no environmental policy and no worker's rights. You can beat, fire, sexualize, brutalize employees with abandon for mere pennies a day and send them home to their hovel. It's an absolute dream for business owner I tell ya! health care, hahahaha

[hblask 1]

So Steve Wynn, who is personally responsible for thousands of jobs, is just making shit up, right?So what about someone who is responsible for another couple thousand jobs? Say, the founder of Home Depot:Bernie Marcus speaks:

BD: What's the single biggest impediment to job growth today?Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

continued at link

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

Just based on stuff I've read from this forum or researching stuff in response to posts in here, I'm starting to think that individual income taxes should be raised, but business taxes should be lowered.

[SilentSnow 1]

Just based on stuff I've read from this forum or researching stuff in response to posts in here, I'm starting to think that individual income taxes should be raised, but business taxes should be lowered.

The only two good reasons to have a corporate tax I can see are--To prevent people from hiding personal expenditures as a corporate expense. -So foreign investors will have to pay taxes on what they make in the US. I would be in favor of eliminating corporate taxes entirely as long as we could reasonably restrict those two scenarios.

[CaneBrain 95]

Just based on stuff I've read from this forum or researching stuff in response to posts in here, I'm starting to think that individual income taxes should be raised, but business taxes should be lowered.

I'd be fine with this. They have trouble collecting business taxes from the largest corporations anyway.

[mrdannyg 274]

I'm going from memory from an economics history textbook, but I believe that corporate taxes were supported for a long time by the notion that saving was bad. Corporate taxes were supposed to prevent successful small businesses from keeping their profits 'in-house', and encourage them to be paid out, where they would be more likely to be spent.So yeah, corporate taxes aren't great. As Cane implied, they're mainly paid by smaller businesses, because larger corporations just pay accountants and lawyers enough that they're smarter than the government's, and don't pay much in taxes.There'd need to be some tweaking done to corporate gains and dividend taxes.

[85suited 0]

Just based on stuff I've read from this forum or researching stuff in response to posts in here, I'm starting to think that individual income taxes should be raised, but business taxes should be lowered.

I pay enough F**king taxes already.

[CaneBrain 95]

I pay enough F**king taxes already.

Everybody's innocent in Shawshank....

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm going from memory from an economics history textbook, but I believe that corporate taxes were supported for a long time by the notion that saving was bad. Corporate taxes were supposed to prevent successful small businesses from keeping their profits 'in-house', and encourage them to be paid out, where they would be more likely to be spent.So yeah, corporate taxes aren't great. As Cane implied, they're mainly paid by smaller businesses, because larger corporations just pay accountants and lawyers enough that they're smarter than the government's, and don't pay much in taxes.There'd need to be some tweaking done to corporate gains and dividend taxes.

Corporate taxes are paid by the consumer via higher prices.Tax breaks force companies to invest in stuff.

[mrdannyg 274]

Corporate taxes are paid by the consumer via higher prices.Tax breaks force companies to invest in stuff.

Both are oversimplifications to the point of being more wrong than right. But not all wrong I suppose.

[hblask 1]

Both are oversimplifications to the point of being more wrong than right. But not all wrong I suppose.

The first part is an interesting question (are higher taxes passed on to consumers?)This first came to my attention as a question of whether a tax cut would be passed on to consumers, or removing the employer portion of SS would be passed on to employees. In the end, it's a very complicated picture, but I think to analyze it you have to admit that not everyone is the same. Some people like working, some people like driving heavy machinery, some people want to get by with as little effort as possible, some people can throw a football 60 yards and hit a moving target. So if we could give everyone equal economic power and resources at a specific point, a year later, the vast majority would be back to where they were before the equalization, and by 10 years it would be hard to tell it had ever been "equalized".In other words, while luck plays a role, over the long run ability and drive matter much more.So what does that have to do with the original question? The point is, the top performers in society will always demand a certain amount of income to provide their skills, because those people have many choices and little competition. The people at the bottom of the economic ladder -- the lazy and the stupid -- will always fall behind, and get a smaller slice of the pie. So basically, the distribution of money/wealth is determined by the drive of the people at the top. They will work harder if they can get x% more than taking it easy. That amount varies by individual, but the average will tend to stay the same. Basically, I think that division of wealth will remain the same, but raising taxes lowers the total profits to be had. That reduction in profits will be spread through the economy in the same proportion as the wealth was spread in the first place. So if it used to be $100, split $50/$25/$20/$5, and now is reduced to $80, it will be split $40/$20/$16/$4. Basically, everyone would accept a 20% reduction in income (or income reduced by higher prices), which will hurt the poor way more than the rich.What about that $20 that was taken? If we give it to the federal government, probably $10 of that is just deadweight loss -- the equivalent of digging holes and filling them back in. The other $10 is dispersed politically, to those with the most political pull. Is that the poor and the needy, or the lobbyists and corporations? Is it the people who make the machinery of war or the students in poor neighborhoods? What if we had just kept that money in the poor neighborhood in the first place?

[brvheart 1,752]

are higher taxes passed on to consumers?

?? Is this rhetorical?**full disclosure: I didn't read the rest of your post.

[hblask 1]

?? Is this rhetorical?**full disclosure: I didn't read the rest of your post.

I think it's an interesting (if confusing) discussion because we always hear that taxes are passed on to the consumer, and that is clearly true to a point. But nobody every discusses the opposite side of that: if consumers get a personal tax cut, are those savings passed up to the employer? It certainly seems that at least some of it will be, since it lowers the hiring cost. (You don't need to pay as much to lure workers from other, higher-taxed areas).My point was that the overall cost burden is what matters, and the actual point of collection is probably irrelevant. More taxes = higher relative cost structure = less economic activity, up and down the spectrum, and those costs will be distributed according to however that society normally distributes costs/benefits.

[brvheart 1,752]

I think it's an interesting (if confusing) discussion because we always hear that taxes are passed on to the consumer, and that is clearly true to a point. But nobody every discusses the opposite side of that: if consumers get a personal tax cut, are those savings passed up to the employer? It certainly seems that at least some of it will be, since it lowers the hiring cost. (You don't need to pay as much to lure workers from other, higher-taxed areas).My point was that the overall cost burden is what matters, and the actual point of collection is probably irrelevant. More taxes = higher relative cost structure = less economic activity, up and down the spectrum, and those costs will be distributed according to however that society normally distributes costs/benefits.

You mean other than economists? Because it's absolutely a vital part of free-markets to understand that in the long run if personal taxes are lowered, then people will be willing to work for less money.

[akoff 0]

The first part is an interesting question (are higher taxes passed on to consumers?)This first came to my attention as a question of whether a tax cut would be passed on to consumers, or removing the employer portion of SS would be passed on to employees. In the end, it's a very complicated picture, but I think to analyze it you have to admit that not everyone is the same. Some people like working, some people like driving heavy machinery, some people want to get by with as little effort as possible, some people can throw a football 60 yards and hit a moving target. So if we could give everyone equal economic power and resources at a specific point, a year later, the vast majority would be back to where they were before the equalization, and by 10 years it would be hard to tell it had ever been "equalized".In other words, while luck plays a role, over the long run ability and drive matter much more.So what does that have to do with the original question? The point is, the top performers in society will always demand a certain amount of income to provide their skills, because those people have many choices and little competition. The people at the bottom of the economic ladder -- the lazy and the stupid -- will always fall behind, and get a smaller slice of the pie. So basically, the distribution of money/wealth is determined by the drive of the people at the top. They will work harder if they can get x% more than taking it easy. That amount varies by individual, but the average will tend to stay the same. Basically, I think that division of wealth will remain the same, but raising taxes lowers the total profits to be had. That reduction in profits will be spread through the economy in the same proportion as the wealth was spread in the first place. So if it used to be $100, split $50/$25/$20/$5, and now is reduced to $80, it will be split $40/$20/$16/$4. Basically, everyone would accept a 20% reduction in income (or income reduced by higher prices), which will hurt the poor way more than the rich.What about that $20 that was taken? If we give it to the federal government, probably $10 of that is just deadweight loss -- the equivalent of digging holes and filling them back in. The other $10 is dispersed politically, to those with the most political pull. Is that the poor and the needy, or the lobbyists and corporations? Is it the people who make the machinery of war or the students in poor neighborhoods? What if we had just kept that money in the poor neighborhood in the first place?

well said and so true