In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.
This line is kind of funny because the XL Pipeline was both "shovel ready" and paid for with private funds yet it is not going to be. This issue caused a huge rift in the unions because they were largely going to be union jobs. I recently read something about the Koch brothers benefiting from the XL pipeline and Buffett benefiting from it not being built... weird...
There is also the issue of the war funding coming from borrowed money.
Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.
Unless the companies are doing something illegal this is BS. If a company (say Heinz) builds a ketchup plant in India to make ketchup for sale in India why should that money be taxed as income in the US? Don't demagogue companies for working under the existing rules. Also why does Obama want to get rid of the existing tax incentives for manufacturing in the USA, you know, the ones that he calls a subsidy for Big Oil?
Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.
I'm surprised this one made it into the speech. While Buffett pays less as a percentage of his income in taxes he pays a higher dollar amount than his secretary.
When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference - like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet.
False Dichotomy. No where does he even suggest that spending could be cut. It's either the very rich (such as Obama) or the working poor who have to feed the federal coffers
The greatest blow to confidence in our economy last year didn't come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?
The debate was not simply over paying the bills it was over borrowing money to pay bills.
The vision he lays out is a good one and I find myself in agreement with about 85% of what he wants to achieve. Where I have a problem with him is the means with which he wants to use to achieve these goals.
I also found it funny that he had Steve Job's wife in the audience when he was talking about tech companies and manufacturing in China. I was expecting him to point out that Apple offshores its manufacturing to China yet he didn't say anything. In fact Apple had a very good profit margin of 23.95% in 2011 compared to evil Exxon Mobil with a much smaller profit margin of only 9.75%. How much of Apple's profit margin is due to manufacturing overseas? How much of that profit margin would be eaten up by moving manufacturing back to the USA?
I also forgot the auto bailout strawman and how he conveniently left off the fact that Ford declined bailout funds. Opposition to the auto bailouts was not led by a "let them fail" attitude but by a "let the system work as designed" attitude. Those bailouts went against existing contract law and screwed over investors. Investors like old folks on fixed incomes and pension funds.
I also forgot the auto bailout strawman and how he conveniently left off the fact that Ford declined bailout funds. Opposition to the auto bailouts was not led by a "let them fail" attitude but by a "let the system work as designed" attitude. Those bailouts went against existing contract law and screwed over investors. Investors like old folks on fixed incomes and pension funds.
I'm very happy to hear his ideas for the tech industry though. I like that idea, and the idea that we should push for better education to get people hired in high tech industries.
Also, I took some classes at Central Piedmont Community College! Funny, it was a crap hole of a community college when I went there.
Ah, I thought so. Once again your grasp of what a logical fallacy is evades reality. You conveniently labeled points with which you disagree as "logical fallacies" and misidentified one as a false dichotomy.
The keystone pipeline has way more concerns then just a bit of red tape, just a note on that one.
Also on the autobail out, Ford declined the funds because at that time they didn't need it, but I remember Ford asking them to bail out the other car manufactures because if they both went under Ford would have faced a situation where many of the mutal part manufactures would have gone under causing them to most likely then need a bail out.
Ah, I thought so. Once again your grasp of what a logical fallacy is evades reality. You conveniently labeled points with which you disagree as "logical fallacies" and misidentified one as a false dichotomy.
I only labeled one point as a logical fallacy and it is a false choice. There are more than two options available but is framed as there only being two options .
I can't help but think that the thing going through every congressman's mind during this speech is "I need to be the first to clap/boo, that will get me more votes!"
yea, while I didn't watch the speech (on a business trip) I heard Scott Brown clapped more then any of the other republicans which makes sense since he's running for reelection in a very liberal state.
Ah, I thought so. Once again your grasp of what a logical fallacy is evades reality. You conveniently labeled points with which you disagree as "logical fallacies" and misidentified one as a false dichotomy.
I only labeled one point as a logical fallacy and it is a false choice. There are more than two options available but is framed as there only being two options .
Your antecedent was about "all the logical fallacies." Even the "false dichotomy" is incorrect. Your citation does not present an exclusionary either/or scenario but compares two extremes to vilify the widening income gap. Please show me where Obama indicated that there is no middle class.
Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.
I'm surprised this one made it into the speech. While Buffett pays less as a percentage of his income in taxes he pays a higher dollar amount than his secretary.
Percentage is what matters, not the dollar amount. Most Americans believe in a progressive tax rate, you don't, that's fine, but right now most people believe the rich should be paying more.
Indeed. Mitt Romney paid 13.9 percent on his vast income last year. I paid 32 percent. That's a bit incongruous. It gets worse when you consider that I don't have the advantage of additional millions sitting in untaxed offshore accounts (where, by the way, it is doing nothing for so-called Republican job-creation efforts that they claim trickle-down Reaganomics produces).
Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.
I'm surprised this one made it into the speech. While Buffett pays less as a percentage of his income in taxes he pays a higher dollar amount than his secretary.
Percentage is what matters, not the dollar amount. Most Americans believe in a progressive tax rate, you don't, that's fine, but right now most people believe the rich should be paying more.
If Tick's quote is exact, then I agree with him in at least that the wording of that sentence should not have made it into the speech because it's saying something slightly differently than what should be said. Sure, it's an extremely minor quibble, and the difference is obvious to anyone that cares... but it's still bad form.
Comments
But seriously, teaching abstinence to teenagers is like counseling fire to tone it down on all the heat.
Abstinence did fail one time... but that was an act of God
Some people in this world you don't have to meet before knowing they're a total asshat.
There is also the issue of the war funding coming from borrowed money. Unless the companies are doing something illegal this is BS. If a company (say Heinz) builds a ketchup plant in India to make ketchup for sale in India why should that money be taxed as income in the US? Don't demagogue companies for working under the existing rules. Also why does Obama want to get rid of the existing tax incentives for manufacturing in the USA, you know, the ones that he calls a subsidy for Big Oil? I'm surprised this one made it into the speech. While Buffett pays less as a percentage of his income in taxes he pays a higher dollar amount than his secretary. False Dichotomy. No where does he even suggest that spending could be cut. It's either the very rich (such as Obama) or the working poor who have to feed the federal coffers The debate was not simply over paying the bills it was over borrowing money to pay bills.
The vision he lays out is a good one and I find myself in agreement with about 85% of what he wants to achieve. Where I have a problem with him is the means with which he wants to use to achieve these goals.
I also found it funny that he had Steve Job's wife in the audience when he was talking about tech companies and manufacturing in China. I was expecting him to point out that Apple offshores its manufacturing to China yet he didn't say anything. In fact Apple had a very good profit margin of 23.95% in 2011 compared to evil Exxon Mobil with a much smaller profit margin of only 9.75%. How much of Apple's profit margin is due to manufacturing overseas? How much of that profit margin would be eaten up by moving manufacturing back to the USA?
Also, I took some classes at Central Piedmont Community College! Funny, it was a crap hole of a community college when I went there.
Also on the autobail out, Ford declined the funds because at that time they didn't need it, but I remember Ford asking them to bail out the other car manufactures because if they both went under Ford would have faced a situation where many of the mutal part manufactures would have gone under causing them to most likely then need a bail out.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/ford-motor-co-does-u-turn-on-bailouts/ (it didn't stop them from being critical after they lobbied for it though :-p)
Oh wait, they have a law that forces sterilization of Transgender people...
/goddammitsomuch