Paul Ryan Discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al_Moritz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DeSanto said:
Offshore havens saved microsoft 7 Billion in taxes…

wcyb.com/news/money/Offshore-havens-saved-Microsoft-7B-in-taxes-Senate-panel/-/14590736/16678378/-/acyj6iz/-/index.html

just thought I’d throw that out there. I know earlier in this thread there were some heated debates on this matter.
Click to expand...
Read the article. It says over and over and over this is NOT ILLEGAL. If you think a law is unfair, then work to repeal it. But don’t toss this out as some kind of nefarious plot. BTW I pulled up the Obama’s personal tax return and went through it.

He had substantial “foreign income” and used a special method of calculating tax to save himself a chunk of change. Are we supposed to think ill of President Obama for having foreign income and using the law to reduce taxes?

What does this have to do with Ryan? I saw you post the same article that was unrelated to another thread as well. Just want to stir the pot a bit or ???

Lisa
 
ishii said:
I think its better to acknowlege our differences rather then gloss over them in a phony display of unity. Our country is divided. One side wants is basically conservative and the other side is basically liberal (for lack of better terms). We all know that generally speaking, the liberal side is more secular, supports govt. programs as a way of solving societal problems. The other side believes more in the free market and private institutions as a way of dealing with our problems. Of course I’m generalizing, but I think that is a fair characterization. Of course there is another segment that probably doesn’t really think or care much about politics - what I call the “muddled middle” and they likely don’t really get excited much unless they see their lifestyle threatened. If the economy goes south, look for the muddled middle to vote for the guy whose solution is to lower taxes and find new sources of energy to keep prices down. The muddled middle cares more about who won monday night football or who is going to win Dancing with the stars than they do our fiscal policy, divorce rate, or the morality of abortion.

I don’t think its realistic to think people who fundamentally disagree with each other can simply roll up their shirtsleeves and “find common solutions to our problems”. Such a view is naive, imo. One side will win, the other will lose. There may be some oppurtunity for common ground, but ultimately, one side will win. The liberal side has been winning - Obama-care, abortion rights, etc. It is time for the other side to win a few.

Ishii
Click to expand...
If you view democracy as inherently morally better than a one party system like Cuba’s… then I guess you run into a dilemma. You must in some measure love the other side for winning at times, lest democracy be no more. Which kind of begs the question if in the American two party system if legalized abortion turns our being a good at - least part of the time.

One thing I think the Democrats are right in is reinvestment in the nation - including its citizens per education. Developmental economics strongly believes in the state leading in reinvestment in it nation rather than simply letting economic growth “trickle down.” Didn’t work in Brazil. That Brazil has reinvested in itself (and the United States once led the world in publicly funded secondary education, which arguably helped made its workforce the most productive on earth) is why the average quality of life of its citizens has risen. And that was largely accomplished under a left-wing (but as president he drew more to the middle) President that had a third grade level education, lost a finger working in a factory, led a union, and shined shoes as a little boy raised in abject poverty by a single mother. Abraham Lincolns’ occur in Latin America today but no longer in the United States.

Every U.S. President has to come from a select few universities and move within a certain elite circle to be tapped on the shoulder.
 
LisaA said:
Read the article. It says over and over and over this is NOT ILLEGAL. If you think a law is unfair, then work to repeal it. But don’t toss this out as some kind of nefarious plot. BTW I pulled up the Obama’s personal tax return and went through it.

He had substantial “foreign income” and used a special method of calculating tax to save himself a chunk of change. Are we supposed to think ill of President Obama for having foreign income and using the law to reduce taxes?

What does this have to do with Ryan? I saw you post the same article that was unrelated to another thread as well. Just want to stir the pot a bit or ???

Lisa
Click to expand...
allvoices.com/contributed-news/13048161-ryan-calls-cayman-islands-where-running-mate-romney-has-accounts-the-place-to-hide-money

I just wanted to prove a point. I was dogged earlier in this thread, as you know, by people unwilling to admit that YES, the rich do “hide” their money in off shore accounts. “Hide”. Now I finally got someone to admit it, the man of the hour himself. I know it’s not illegal, never claimed it was. The money isn’t going into our economy. That was my point and apparently Ryan agrees with me. There is much more to it, yes. But, can you just let me have my moment.
 
DeSanto said:
allvoices.com/contributed-news/13048161-ryan-calls-cayman-islands-where-running-mate-romney-has-accounts-the-place-to-hide-money

I just wanted to prove a point. I was dogged earlier in this thread, as you know, by people unwilling to admit that YES, the rich do “hide” their money in off shore accounts. “Hide”. Now I finally got someone to admit it, the man of the hour himself. I know it’s not illegal, never claimed it was. The money isn’t going into our economy. That was my point and apparently Ryan agrees with me. There is much more to it, yes. But, can you just let me have my moment.
Click to expand...
I still don’t get your point. A) money isn’t “hidden” if everyone knows about it B) Paul Ryan was talking about our HIGH taxes as a reason money stays offshore and were we to reduce our tax rates we might be able to lure these businesses back to America.

He spoke of capital formation in the Caymans and other places. If businesses weren’t penalized, regulated and taxed to death they’d be far more likely to form and operate in America. He wasn’t talking about “hiding” the money as if this was a way to cheat the government but that it’s a way to legally reduce taxes. We should be, as Paul Ryan said, giving businesses incentives to stay here and also to repatriot foreign earnings without being taxed to death.

I know this is your crusade so to speak, so enjoy the moment. But the theme of Ryan’s talk speaks to the point Ryan and Romney have been making all along, America is hostile to business. It’s stupid, counterproductive and damaging to our economy. One day they might figure out that part of something is more than all of nothing.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
I still don’t get your point. A) money isn’t “hidden” if everyone knows about it B) Paul Ryan was talking about our HIGH taxes as a reason money stays offshore and were we to reduce our tax rates we might be able to lure these businesses back to America.

He spoke of capital formation in the Caymans and other places. If businesses weren’t penalized, regulated and taxed to death they’d be far more likely to form and operate in America. He wasn’t talking about “hiding” the money as if this was a way to cheat the government but that it’s a way to legally reduce taxes. We should be, as Paul Ryan said, giving businesses incentives to stay here and also to repatriot foreign earnings without being taxed to death.

I know this is your crusade so to speak, so enjoy the moment. But the theme of Ryan’s talk speaks to the point Ryan and Romney have been making all along, America is hostile to business. It’s stupid, counterproductive and damaging to our economy. One day they might figure out that part of something is more than all of nothing.

Lisa
Click to expand...
I know Apple had this issue. Most of their $100 Billion was off shore and they would have to pay $50 Billion in taxes to bring it all back to the US.

Somehow, I don’t think their share holders, employees, customers, vendors, etc. would like that too much…
 
Caldera said:
LOL… I saw your first reply. Would you like to see Obama re-elected, Scott?
Click to expand...
At this point, I couldn’t care less. Obama will bring more big government, quickly. Romney will bring more big government, slowly. At this point, maybe we just need to destroy the economy quickly so we can really reform government and make one that is more representative of the people, and not of corporations, investment banks, and union bosses.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
At this point, I couldn’t care less. Obama will bring more big government, quickly. Romney will bring more big government, slowly. At this point, maybe we just need to destroy the economy quickly so we can really reform government and make one that is more representative of the people, and not of corporations, investment banks, and union bosses.
Click to expand...
Romney will gradually reduce government. There is only one choice now for this election. I know you are upset…
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
At this point, I couldn’t care less. Obama will bring more big government, quickly. ** Romney will bring more big government, slowly.** At this point, maybe we just need to destroy the economy quickly so we can really reform government and make one that is more representative of the people, and not of corporations, investment banks, and union bosses.
Click to expand...
Caldera said:
Romney will gradually reduce government. There is only one choice now for this election. I know you are upset…
Click to expand...
THere is nothing in Romney’s plan that I have seen that will reduce government. Stagnate its growth, maybe, but not reduce. Even Ryan’s budget doesn’t shrink the size of government, it merely slows its growth.
 
Persuader said:
Yes, we generally take people off their life support if they are brain dead. Why? Because no mental properties remain. If they did, we would not take them off life support.

Yes, of course it’s based on religion. Regarding abortion, there are some crucial questions to ask. First you may ask why life has value at all. Then you can ask what makes people especially valuable (more than other animals, say), what is bad about dying and so on. These are not scientific questions per se, although they can be informed by science to a certain degree. These are primarily philosophical and legal questions.

Now, I have presented a view one can take to answering these questions. The response seems to be lacking in argument while remaining quite confident in claiming that the view is random, arbitrary or nonsensical. At the same time, responders seem to imagine that it’s enough to say that the fertilized egg has human DNA and is an organism (human being). But it doesn’t help you to say that a fertilized egg has human DNA (because that doesn’t tell us why we should value that). What you need is an answer to the crucial questions, and I am very sure that those answers will be religious if you are a Catholic. And as you say, that is fine, but don’t try to pretend that the answers are scientific when that is clearly not the case.
Click to expand...
The science is easy. Separate distinct human life is present the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg.It has been those who promote the culture of death who have been trying to twist the science. Coming up with absurd assertions like “life doesn’t begin until implantation” or “human life deserves no protection unless the Mother says it does” or “society has the right to determine what human life deserves protection and what does not”.
 
estesbob said:
The science is easy. Separate distinct human life is present the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg.It has been those who promote the culture of death who have been trying to twist the science. Coming up with absurd assertions like “life doesn’t begin until implantation” or “human life deserves no protection unless the Mother says it does” or “society has the right to determine what human life deserves protection and what does not”.
Click to expand...
Bob, I gave up trying. To quote the wisdom of ancient philosopher Michael McDonald, “What a fool believes, he sees, and no wise man has the power to reason it away.”
 
LisaA said:
I still don’t get your point. A) money isn’t “hidden” if everyone knows about it B) Paul Ryan was talking about our HIGH taxes as a reason money stays offshore and were we to reduce our tax rates we might be able to lure these businesses back to America.

He spoke of capital formation in the Caymans and other places. If businesses weren’t penalized, regulated and taxed to death they’d be far more likely to form and operate in America. He wasn’t talking about “hiding” the money as if this was a way to cheat the government but that it’s a way to legally reduce taxes. We should be, as Paul Ryan said, giving businesses incentives to stay here and also to repatriot foreign earnings without being taxed to death.

I know this is your crusade so to speak, so enjoy the moment. But the theme of Ryan’s talk speaks to the point Ryan and Romney have been making all along, America is hostile to business. It’s stupid, counterproductive and damaging to our economy. One day they might figure out that part of something is more than all of nothing.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Whatever. Ryan admits off shore accounts are to “hide” money. that’s all I was after, someone to admit it. All this other stuff is fine and dandy. I was not arguing why they hide money off shore, wether it was right or wrong, legal or illegal. Ryan himself said it and he proved my point. That’s it. Nothing more to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top