Convention junkies can obsess details here!

[Rover]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

I hate those kind of criticisms. Do people really think Romney doesn't support the troops or understand the gravity of having them committed to that conflict?

Yes to the first, no to the second. Dick Cheney "supported the troops" but he had no idea what he was advocating and wouldn't take a dissenting view seriously. I don't get the sense that Romney understands the implications of what he's advocating. The whole START treaty ridiculousness for example. Same with outsourcing middle east foreign policy to Israel and bombing Iran first chance he gets. Or keeping troops in Iraq (which he advocated). Or an undending committment in Afghanistan (which he also supports).

If John McCain or John Kerry forgets to salute the troop, no big deal. They've earned a pass. Romney? Not so much. This is the same guy who equated having his sons serve on his campaign to serving in the armed forces.

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Yeah I don't think anywhere is anyone talking about small business owners paying more.

Obama sure is! He says anyone with income over $250,000 should pay more. If you own a small business, draw a reasonable salary, and declare business income on your personal tax return, you almost certainly will be hit with a tax increase. If between your salary and your business profits, if your taxable income isn't over $250,000, given all the risk you take on, then there is no point in being in that business in the first place (unless it is a start up or a part-time hobby).

In addition, all of the myriad taxes and rules of PPACA also require owners of small businesses to pay more as well.

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

However entertaining (or not) Clint was, I think the people running the convention made a mistake having Clint on the podium during prime-time. They'd have been much better served having the Staples guy on during that time slot; he was very good. Romney's partner from Bain Capital also was very good. That's the story that needed to be told instead of an uneven stand-up routine by someone who seems to have forgotten about 1/3 of his lines.

There also was a very revealing nugget in Romney's speech that has been overlooked, and I think it deserved more attention.

He started out working at a consulting firm (Bain & Company), which gave advice to businesses. Romney then said "if our advice really is so good, why don't we put our own money behind it?"

Not sure how much anyone else has had to deal with consultants; one frustrating part of the experience is that they really aren't accountable for their advice much of the time (I know there are significant exceptions to that statement, so all three of you consultant folk out there, take it easy....). The consultants come in, do their studies, write their report, get paid, and are on their way (yes, I know some consulting firms also then sign a followup implementation contract, but still, they do not suffer direct adverse consequence from giving advice that doesn't work).

If these consultants lose their own money if their advice doesn't work, it makes their advice a lot more credible, no?

It was kind of funny when Romney talked about the Obama campaign buying their supplies from Staples, or Michelle Obama praising the work of Bright Horizons.

[Jimjamesak]

Obama sure is! He says anyone with income over $250,000 should pay more. If you own a small business, draw a reasonable salary, and declare business income on your personal tax return, you almost certainly will be hit with a tax increase. If between your salary and your business profits, if your taxable income isn't over $250,000, given all the risk you take on, then there is no point in being in that business in the first place (unless it is a start up or a part-time hobby).

In addition, all of the myriad taxes and rules of PPACA also require owners of small businesses to pay more as well.

Ok. So if you really wanted to help small businesses why not change the laws that say they have file their taxes as part of their personal taxes? It might also kind of help close that little loophole of using a money losing "business" to keep taxes down.

I'm sorry, I know putting ideas out there is frowned upon in the current political environment...

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Ok. So if you really wanted to help small businesses why not change the laws that say they have file their taxes as part of their personal taxes? It might also kind of help close that little loophole of using a money losing "business" to keep taxes down.

I'm sorry, I know putting ideas out there is frowned upon in the current political environment...

why do we want to "help" anyone in particular at all? For many people the idea of government as impartial referee enforcing the same rules equitably for all has a lot of appeal. There's been way too much picking winners and losers or favoring one group over another.

Why do you think the tax code has so many exemptions exclusions deductions etc? The government is playing favorites left and right. Why pick out one group and say they are bad because they are successful? why pick out another group and say we'll help them out?

corporate welfare is a game played equally well by both parties. crop subsidies, guaranteed loans, tax credits, left and right, D and R, .....

If you don't have a lobby working for you you are screwed. there is no taxpayer lobby, there is not much of a small business lobby. big business will do just fine no matter who is in office (notice how many of them donate to both parties, eh?)

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Yes to the first, no to the second. Dick Cheney "supported the troops" but he had no idea what he was advocating and wouldn't take a dissenting view seriously. I don't get the sense that Romney understands the implications of what he's advocating. The whole START treaty ridiculousness for example. Same with outsourcing middle east foreign policy to Israel and bombing Iran first chance he gets. Or keeping troops in Iraq (which he advocated). Or an undending committment in Afghanistan (which he also supports).

If John McCain or John Kerry forgets to salute the troop, no big deal. They've earned a pass. Romney? Not so much. This is the same guy who equated having his sons serve on his campaign to serving in the armed forces.

I don't agree that a civilian has to bend the knee to the military rhetorically in order to demonstrate his support of the troops. I think the Cheney example is actually perfectly indicative of what I'm saying -- that whole cadre of chickenhawks used American blood and treasure to build their personal bank balances, but they were always sure to salute and say the right words, so the rubes bought their act as "patriots." It's the equivalent of the "Christians" who waddle around spreading their love of wealth and their detestation of kindness and altruism, but as long as they throw in a few herpa-derp Amens they're covered.

Judge by deeds, not words. I don't care if a candidate doesn't mention with quivering voice "our brave men and women in uniform" if he's simultaneously feeding them into a woodchipper to fatten his friends' portfolios.

[Jimjamesak]

why do we want to "help" anyone in particular at all? For many people the idea of government as impartial referee enforcing the same rules equitably for all has a lot of appeal. There's been way too much picking winners and losers or favoring one group over another.

Why do you think the tax code has so many exemptions exclusions deductions etc? The government is playing favorites left and right. Why pick out one group and say they are bad because they are successful? why pick out another group and say we'll help them out?

corporate welfare is a game played equally well by both parties. crop subsidies, guaranteed loans, tax credits, left and right, D and R, .....

If you don't have a lobby working for you you are screwed. there is no taxpayer lobby, there is not much of a small business lobby. big business will do just fine no matter who is in office (notice how many of them donate to both parties, eh?)

And therein lies the problem with politics today. I offer a solution, you ramble.

[joecct]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Ok. So if you really wanted to help small businesses why not change the laws that say they have file their taxes as part of their personal taxes? It might also kind of help close that little loophole of using a money losing "business" to keep taxes down.

I'm sorry, I know putting ideas out there is frowned upon in the current political environment...

The country had the will to reform the code back in the mid 80's. I don't think they do now. Now, it seems, many want what government can do for them, not what they can do for themselves.

I posted before -- GAAP for business, then some flat (or semi flat) rate for individuals with minimum (or none) deductions.

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Looks like Clint Eastwood's needling of Obama last night got under his skin:

http://rhetorican.files.wordpress.co...at-s-taken.png

[Scarlet]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Romney aides distancing themselves from the decision to put him on stage without a polished script.

[Old Pio]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Romney aides distancing themselves from the decision to put him on stage without a polished script.

And the Times provides credible analysis here? For Kool aid drinkers, perhaps. As usual, all critical comments are anonymous. Maybe they could run that big expose about McCain's "affair" again. Bollocks.

Here's how the debate on Eastwood shakes out: that latent heterosexual libstain git Paul Begala on one side and the American icon on the other. Game, set, match.

[Old Pio]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

I don't agree that a civilian has to bend the knee to the military rhetorically in order to demonstrate his support of the troops. I think the Cheney example is actually perfectly indicative of what I'm saying -- that whole cadre of chickenhawks used American blood and treasure to build their personal bank balances, but they were always sure to salute and say the right words, so the rubes bought their act as "patriots." It's the equivalent of the "Christians" who waddle around spreading their love of wealth and their detestation of kindness and altruism, but as long as they throw in a few herpa-derp Amens they're covered.

Judge by deeds, not words. I don't care if a candidate doesn't mention with quivering voice "our brave men and women in uniform" if he's simultaneously feeding them into a woodchipper to fatten his friends' portfolios.

Have we ever thanked you for being there to point out America's short comings, real and mostly imagined? Those of us who live in Rubistan are grateful you'd take the time to think of us. Just one question: don't you ever get tired of that sh*t? Ever?

[state of hockey]

Looks like Clint Eastwood's needling of Obama last night got under his skin:

http://rhetorican.files.wordpress.co...at-s-taken.png

I like how responding means that the person or persons you are responding to got "under your skin." I have noticed the same thing around here too.

Crap. You think that you have gotten under my skin.

[Slap Shot]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

I like how responding means that the person or persons you are responding to got "under your skin." I have noticed the same thing around here too.

Crap. You think that you have gotten under my skin.

[SteveP]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

And the Times provides credible analysis here? For Kool aid drinkers, perhaps. As usual, all critical comments are anonymous. Maybe they could run that big expose about McCain's "affair" again. Bollocks.

Here's how the debate on Eastwood shakes out: that latent heterosexual libstain git Paul Begala on one side and the American icon on the other. Game, set, match.

Dennis Miller chimed in as well

DNC Guest Speaker, Sandra Fluke. RNC Guest Speaker, Clint Eastwood. Yeah...that's about right.

— Dennis Miller Show (@DennisDMZ) August 30, 2012