This debate is driving me nuts.

[_Molok]

Watching these debates makes me long for some kind of test before people could vote. It's sickening watching those two buffoons pander to the lowest common denominator for an hour and a half. If the average American voter was even the tiniest bit informed about the politics of their country, these kind of circus shows wouldn't exist.

[_bcspace]

Watching these debates makes me long for some kind of test before people could vote. It's sickening watching those two buffoons pander to the lowest common denominator for an hour and a half. If the average American voter was even the tiniest bit informed about the politics of their country, these kind of circus shows wouldn't exist.

There was this cool Sci Fi novel turned movie in which one could vote only if one had done two years of Federal Service. The government was obligated to find service for anyone who desired regardless of skill or aptitude and ranged from subjects for medical experimentation, to teaching, to military service.

One of the notions was " life and liberty exist only if they are deliberately sought and, often, bought painfully by great effort and sacrifice". The democracies of the 20th century, according to the novel, had collapsed because "people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted... and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears." The line concerning "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence is criticized as unrealistic.

"The franchise is today limited to discharged veterans" instead of anyone "...who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37 °C"

I don't think you'd want this type of system though it does seem to have some merits. But I certainly do believe the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots from time to time.

Can any of you guess the name of this novel and movie without Googling? The movie was much less focused on the politics and theory of the novel and more on the action.

[_cinepro]

Watching these debates makes me long for some kind of test before people could vote. It's sickening watching those two buffoons pander to the lowest common denominator for an hour and a half. If the average American voter was even the tiniest bit informed about the politics of their country, these kind of circus shows wouldn't exist.

Romney should totally say that. At a fundraiser.

[_Molok]

Watching these debates makes me long for some kind of test before people could vote. It's sickening watching those two buffoons pander to the lowest common denominator for an hour and a half. If the average American voter was even the tiniest bit informed about the politics of their country, these kind of circus shows wouldn't exist.

Romney should totally say that. At a fundraiser.

Ha!

[_EAllusion]

If Obama had won, you surely would not have considered the process "absurd".....that being said, what is so absurd about it? It was the same process that got Obama elected....oh i see...you are correct...absurd.

I am not rooting for Obama to win. Even after I say I hate Obama, all you can manage is to assert that I'd change my view if my boy Obama did better.

I think the process is absurd because the debates are a pony-show that tell you little to nothing about how a presidential candidate will govern.

I put "won" in quotes because the debate isn't so much a debate as a side-by-side infomercial and there is no measure of victory outside of how it impacts perception and consequent election chances.

[_Brackite]

Debate Ratings Update: Final Numbers Boost Broadcasters, As ABC Tops All Networks:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/deb ... ks_b148852

[_EAllusion]

There was this cool Sci Fi novel turned movie...

You're thinking of Starship Troopers, which was a parody of militaristic fascism.

Appropriate for you, I guess.

[_Kevin Graham]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a ... 3643_n.jpg

I have to wonder if this was their plan all along?

Because Romney really did say some truly big lies last night.

[_Jason Bourne]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/420505_542389845786702_1659283643_n.jpg

I have to wonder if this was their plan all along?

Because Romney really did say some truly big lies last night.

Pretty funny.

[_Jason Bourne]

Do you know where the 3% comes from? I have bunches of small business cleints that own pass through entities and would thus see higher taxes on their small business income. If corporate taxes are cut I think they should also cut the rates the same on pass through income from S Corps and Partnerships.

Yes. I own an S Corporation myself.

Cool. Don't know what your tax rate is but it they lower taxes on C Corps you better lobby that they treat pass through business income the same way. Or consider terminating your S election.

Yes salaries are deductible. But higher taxes do mean less profits for say expansion. I have a client that wants to vertically integrate his manufacturing business and doing so could add 10-15 jobs. But he says if his taxes go up it will hurt cash flow enough that he may reconsider.

Help me out here. What expansion expenses would not also be deductible? Please explain.

Well that depends. He builds a building. It is deductible over 39 years. He buys equipment. Depending on the depreciation rules which have been in flux the past few years he may be able to write off the equipment immediately or over 7 years. Some of the costs may be deductible immediately but likely not most. If he bowers the interest is deductible but not the debt service because of course the debt is deductible based on what it is spent for and when. It all boils down to cash flow and taxes impact cash flow.

Also, we're talking about an additional $4,600 on every $100,000 of income above $250,000. That hardly seems like enough to affect 10 to 15 jobs (unless... are they, perhaps, part-time babysitters?), even if he were to pay them out of after-tax profits

.

I did not say I agreed with him I am just telling you what he said. However this fellow pays about a 45% marginal rate when you add in state taxes (we are in a high tax state). The 4.6% increase would cost his company net income to be about $150k more in tax. Is that enough to stop him from expanding? I have not run the numbers but he seems to think so. Much of his profits are reinvested. His company is an S corp. He typically does not distribute much of his profits beyond what is needed for taxes though he does take a hefty salary.