Obama looks very uncomfortable
 

It must be that he is talking economics.

18 small business tax breaks. Complete BS.

lolololollol

Romney's is kicking some black commie butt!

this will help you barrack

http://www.arcadia93.org/pics/damballa6.jpg

I laughed when I heard him say that too. It was hilarious. 18 small business tax breaks....sure.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/24/smal...uts/index.html

Evil Obama hates business.

its said for the idiot part of the voters :1orglaugh

No he doesn't..He's not stupid. He simply doesn't respect business.

He thinks the federal government should manage everything.

Wait I thought this thread was about 18 tax cuts for small business? Then I linked to show its true and now the thread is about something else?

Zero tax increases, not cut any essential programs, not increase revenue from the middle class,increase military spending by 2 trillion and continue tax cuts costing 5 trillion as a means of handling the deficit. You really think that math works minte? He will run up the debt faster than Obama ever did, find ways to have his cronies profit from it and leave the middle class holding the bag. Exactly the same way he did it when he busted out businesses at Bain...on a much larger scale.

I'm not thrilled by Obama but if you think Romney would be good for our nation you are either having your ability to reason clouded by the lure of a tax cut, or you are more gullible than I imagined. He is trying to buy off voters with tax cuts the same way he bought off execs at kb toys before milking it for good credit and forcing it into closing.

The last time someone bought votes with tax cuts, he lead us into an unfunded war of choice and turned a surplus into a depression.

You are not paying attention to the debate. You are clearly to clouded by your own opinions.

I am watching.so I will keep this short.

What Obama has done these last 4 years has not worked.

What Romney is selling might not work either. But I know that what Obama proposes *again* has failed. I also know that many small businessmen are united in the fact they have lost confidence in this administration and with that, are holding back on investing any further in their business.

If you are listening to what Romney is saying, and you understand simple math... What he promises, can not happen, as a matter of basic arithmetic.. So what would happen has nothing to do with what he is claiming. He may as well say he will send everyone a check for 3 million dollars. It also isn't true, but it is no less untrue than the other nonsense he is saying.

Obama looks like he is gonna vote for Romney!

And Obama, just said that health care premiums are rising at a slower rate. We renewed our group in July. It is up 14% this year. Last year it was 11%. Along with the higher cost,the copays are up and the prescription drug benefit went from $10 - $20.

You may want to clean your television screen.

It's worked great for me. :thumbsup

the candidate i liked before the debates is willing!!

You must have some kind of lag where you are. At the end of Bush and the beginning of Obama 15-20% was considered normal.

He didn't say 'minte's health care costs' he said health care costs overall. Since it is a statement that can be verified its easy to find out if his statement is true. The same way you started this thread about something that epitome linked fact about. The problem with Romney is that his statements about the future are patently false... But you need to use math to notice ;)

How many people are on the group policy you are paying for? Is it over 100,200?

It should be a single payer program... And neither of them will even discuss that because they are both paid for by pharma and insurance companies.

Relentless. I have a degree in mechanical engineering. I have forgotten more about math than you will ever know.

I am not interested in Obama's or Romney's fuzzy math. Everyone realizes it's at best speculative. It's about confidence in a leader. Obama has lost that confidence among people who own businesses and actually hire people.

I believe that Romney is doing well in the debate and his polling will show it tomorrow.

Well it isn't. So deal with reality.

I pay for my own. I thought you were an advocate of that?

That's nice..but how many more beyond YOU do you pay for. What is the demographics of the group you employ? Are they all young healthy bucks... Or are there some young ladies of child-bearing years? Or do you discriminate and not hire older workers that are more likely to need some type of longterm care..

insurance is a scam. having to pay out is the last thing they want to do. the first thing they want to do is collect and look for reasons to deny when the time comes. what a screw job.

In the end does it matter who won the debate or who will win the white house?

Unless winning the election comes with the ability to jettison the current house and senate and start over nothing will change or be drastically different.

Well the company I devote my time to full-time is Canadian so none of that matters. I am a contractor however and there are two of us and I pay for the both of us. Until ObamaCare passed I was declined coverage whenever I would apply ... pre-existing conditions.

My last "real" job was VP of an insurance brokerage in the top 5% nationwide. Insurance costs were a consideration but we certainly didn't obsess over them... just a cost of doing business. Our group coverage was one of the things I oversaw and it wasn't as bad as most try to make it out to be. Employer contribution worked out to about $350/mo per head.

Edit: The group coverage was an HMO. On my own I pay $237 for 80/20 coverage with $1,000 out of pocket annual deductible and a $4,000 annual cap on out of pocket costs. Prescriptions for $4 for generics, $30 brand.

Very funny, It wasn't even a debate :thumbsup

The cost for our current Blue Cross - Blue Shield is over $1300 a month for the family plan. We pay 70% ,the employee pays 30. We had people drop it this year. The 30% was more than they wanted to contribute.

You're paying 70% for the entire family coverage? That's awesome for you and I give you MAJOR props for that, but covering that much is not the norm.

As for the rate you're paying, it's within $100 of the average for yearly family coverage.

Minte,

If businesses all did what you say yours does, we would not be in the predicament we are in... You do understand most non-union businesses do not provide 70% of the premiums for a worthwhile health care plan right? Laws are in place to protect people from a government, corporation or individual who does NOT do the kinds of things your company does according to your posts. Insisting on regulating insurance, taxation, occupational safety and everything else as if the rest of the country was doing what you claim your company is doing would be short sighted at best... Or disastrous at worst.

This debate was A big win for mitt, if he didn't win tonight he was probably done. He won by dodging his own record, saying things that aren't true and not getting called on it by Obama. All sadly good traits for a modern politician, and horrible indicators of where our country is headed under either of these two candidates.

I have degrees as well. Ironically nobody needs more than an elementary education to do the calculations necessary to be fully aware Romney is lying to them.

Cutting taxes for people over 250K, while not cutting things designed to bolster the middle class (like mortgage interest deductions), not increasing the debt, not changing SS or Med for anyone currently old enough to be using them, not cutting key programs like food stamps, adding 2 trillion to the military... If that could be done even a 2nd grader could understand the basic math and all he has to do is explain the details to get 100% of the vote. Unfortunately lying about it being possible is not sufficient, especially when his entire track record is one of lying to execs and employees for the purpose of running up massive amounts of debt, bleeding them for his own profit and then busting them out at the end with no regard for the jobs lost, companies bankrupted or people impacted.

It doesn't take a mechanical engineer, or all my years of schooling to figure that out.

That sounds expensive, we pay 775 with kaiser for full family, 1500 deductible and 3500 max out of pocket... 30 doctors visit, 10 prescription, chiropractor, dental and vision included..individual plans are about 330 / month..

Average family rate in US is $15k a year. There are a lot of variables that determine your actual rate though.

This is a company plan, guaranteed coverage and it covers pre existing conditions

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/24/smal...uts/index.html


You should read a little bit more and listen better :thumbsup

AMEN AMEN AMEN --- DOWN WITH "BUMBOMMA" out of orfice PLEASE --- yeahhhh :1orglaugh

Oh the irony....:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Please stop showing facts. They contradict this alternative world Obama they have created.

Maybe you should do the same.. This is from that article.

Many are renewals of tax breaks that already existed. Others are expansions of previous breaks. And every time a measure gets renewed, the Obama administration is counting it as yet another tax cut

:thumbsup

.

You didn't read the article that was posted either...what were the odds of that.

Also, might consider reading your post prior to pressing the submit button.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/f...teps-1.4072614

"OBAMA: "Gov. Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut -- on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts, that's another trillion dollars -- and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn't asked for. That's $8 trillion. How we pay for that, reduce the deficit, and make the investments that we need to make, without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans, I think is one of the central questions of this campaign."

THE FACTS: Obama's claim that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion doesn't add up. Presumably, Obama was talking about the effect of Romney's tax plan over 10 years, which is common in Washington. But Obama's math doesn't take into account Romney's entire plan.

Romney proposes to reduce income tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, says that would reduce federal tax revenues by $465 billion in 2015, which would add up to about $5 trillion over 10 years.

However, Romney says he wants to pay for the tax cuts by reducing or eliminating tax credits, deductions and exemptions. The goal is a simpler tax code that raises the same amount of money as the current system but does it in a more efficient manner.

The knock on Romney's plan, which Obama accurately cited, is that Romney has refused to say which tax breaks he would eliminate to pay for the lower rates."



.:2 cents:

The $5 trillion figure comes from the fact that Romney has proposed to cut tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the estate tax and alternative minimum tax. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that would reduce tax revenue by nearly $500 billion in 2015, or about $5 trillion over 10 years.

Romney says he will make completely unspecified cuts to programs, close unnamed loopholes and end unidentified tax breaks to make it revenue neutral. Obama rightly pointed out that if you ended every loophole for people earning 250K or more, you can't get close to enough revenue to balance the equation. Therefore, Romney's claim that he will do this without burdening the middle class or raising the deficit is a patently false lie.

In simple math that would be: 5 trillion minus X where X can not include an increase in debt or any additional burden on the middle class.
We can not solve for X because Romney inexplicably plans to keep X a secret until after the election, but there is no X other than divine intervention that would fit.

Obama rightly pointed out it is in fact 5 trillion less revenue, and Romney can counter any time he wants by clearly identifying X for us. Until he does, he owns the 5 trillion in lost revenue he has promised and gets no credit for X which he has failed to solve. Obama did say some disingenuous things last night for sure, but this was not one of them.

if they actually let all the candidates running for president and not just "the two" (bullshit) parties speak the debates would be worth watching.

"OBAMA: "Independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Gov. Romney's pledge of not ... adding to the deficit is by burdening middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more."

THE FACTS: That's just one scenario. Obama's claim relies on a study by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. The study, however, is more nuanced than Obama indicated.

The study concludes it would be impossible for Romney to meet all of his stated goals without shifting some of the tax burden from people who make more than $200,000 to people who make less.

In one scenario, the study says, Romney's proposal could result in a $2,000 tax increase for families who make less than $200,000 and have children.

Romney says his plan wouldn't raise taxes on anyone, and his campaign points to several studies by conservative think tanks that dispute the Tax Policy Center's findings. Most of the conservative studies argue that Romney's tax plan would stimulate economic growth, generating additional tax revenue without shifting any of the tax burden to the middle class. Congress, however, doesn't use those kinds of projections when it estimates the effect of tax legislation."




If simpler tax legistlation stimulates growth, (which it always does), then tax revenues to the government will rise due to more people paying more income taxes.


.

Ahh yes, if we just grow the economy by a massive amount and call that X then it all makes sense. We should use that for all of our planning personally.

Why don't you borrow a million dollars you have no ability to repay on the theory that you will do 'something unspecified' with it to grow your personal finances by enough to repay it.
South Park summarized that theory as
1 - Collect Underpants
2 - ???
3 - Profit!

That is not the kind of economic policy I'd expect from any intelligent conservative.

Even the right leaning Washington post has said the counter-analysis is bogus
you can read more from them here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/27/wonkblogs-comprehensive-guide-to-the-debate-over-romneys-tax-plan/?print=1