Romney's tax returns:
I understand and agree with all you say, except that buying stock increases the value of the company. It doesn't (unless purchased from the company for cash). It only increases the perceived paper value, which has nothing to do with actual value. Should the company go under, liquidating everything, the value of the stock will not affect what is paid for the assets one iota.
It has always seemed to me that a true investment in a business would be one in which dividends paid would equal, and more, the price of the investment over time. Instead nearly all profit and income from investing comes from the hope that other investors will purchase your investment for an inflated price. A paper (inflationary) profit that is not reflected anywhere else in the economy; no increase in productivity, no more goods produced. Can you tell I'm no economist?
The same arguments for increased value can be held for any transaction any business makes; should we not, then, cut sales taxes because it increases the value of the company as well as promoting sales (improving the economy)?
I actually do agree with tax rates of higher earning people - they pay too much. Unfortunately that is a necessity of civilization; the poor and middle class simply cannot afford to keep the country running. Not fair at all, but necessary.
"Whenever liberals run out of arguments"
I haven't run out of arguments by a long shot.
"or the other side is obviously right,"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"they go for the boring Ad Hom attack."
I haven't said anything attacking you. Only your terrible ideas.
"Jeff can't address my points,"
Try making a valid one. Then we'll see what happens.
"The fatal flaw with all liberals is their belief that non-liberals are stupid."
The fatal flaw with some conservatives is their belief that all liberals are alike.
"That's why they are so shocked and angry when they lose."
This presupposes a loss.
Hello Wayne. Nice to see ya!
You made a statement in your post that caught my eye: “We have a president employed in our White House who has not even proven that he graduated from college yet claims it so. Most employers will fire you for lying on that item so why are we not entitled to vet Mr. Obama.” It makes me want to ask you, “just whom are you relying on to do the vetting?”
I am probably not as bright as you are when it comes to politics, Wayne, but I know how to use Google. Here is what I found in less than 5 minutes:
A January 2005 Columbia College Today profile of Barack Obama as a Columbia alumnus. {1}
A Columbia College press release from November 2008 identifying him as "the first College alumnus to be elected President of the United States." {2}
Finally, for the closet "Obama didn't go to Columbia" enthusiasts, please read up on the requirements for attending Harvard Law School. President Obama would not have been admitted to Harvard in 1988 without proving he had an undergraduate degree. If he wasn't attending Columbia from 1981-83, he would have had to complete two full years of coursework at (and graduate from) some other accredited college. However, it should be noted, his time between the end of his Columbia days in 1983 and his entering Harvard Law in 1988 is accounted for (a) working at the Business International Corporation, (b) employed at the New York Public Interest Research Group, and (c) serving as director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago. Furthermore, no other school has ever identified him as an alumnus, nor does anyone purport to have encountered him as a classmate or student at any other college or university during that period. {3}
So, Wayne, you can see why I recommend folks do a little research before they believe and repeat what other folks tell them. Many a time it has saved me from making a fool of myself. Feel free to check out my sources and pass them on to your friends.
Thank you again, Wayne, for sharing your thoughts.
{1} http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct_arc … /cover.php
{2} http://www.college.columbia.edu/news/ba … presidency
{3} http://www.law.harvard.edu/prospective/ … ligibility
Related Discussions
- 115
Historical data on taxing the rich
federal income tax rates history, During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he came into office.)What does it mean, though? For the duration of Eisenhower’s presidency, that rate affected individuals...
- 106
Socialism and high taxes are not equivalent
One of the greatest criticisms leveled at socialist and perceived socialist nations is their high taxes, usually reinforced with the example of France and it's high tax rates under a newly elected socialist government.Let's examine that claim factually, a quick analysis will prove it false.For...
- 37
Romney Debate Tactic: There's a name for that!
The Gish Gallup. Who knew?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/0 … ish-Gallop
- 24
Is Mitt Romney throwing the ball and hiding his hand?
"On Aug. 10, 2011, the night before Mitt Romney participated in a Republican primary debate in Iowa, the Republican nominee took an extraordinary step: He unloaded a boatload of stocks that may have been problematic in his run for the Oval Office....
- 198
When is Mitt Romney going to make public his tax returns?
In recent history, every presidential contender has had to show the American people that he or she conducts their affairs in an open and honest way. Mitt Romney is not the exception. His resistance to releasing these returns, as encouraged by many in his own party, creates a reason to believe that...
- 126
Trump said at the first debate that it is good business not to pay taxes, do you
Trump said at the first debate that it is good business not to pay taxes, do you agree with him?At the same time he is talking about the Military shrinking. Maybe he doesn’t know that taxes pay for the Military. Taxes also pay our infrastructure, schools, police…etc.