If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   The best zingers from last night's Presidential Debate (w/video)   (core.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 142
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

3180 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Oct 2012 at 8:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-04 08:18:17 AM
I prefer Ding Dongs. Or maybe Twinkies.
 
2012-10-04 08:28:07 AM

xanadian: Or maybe Twinkies.


Or just twinks.

/zing!
 
2012-10-04 08:40:12 AM
Gay jokes? Dudes.
 
2012-10-04 08:44:08 AM

oldfarthenry: Gay jokes? Dudes.


The proper term is "homo-funnies". You bigot.
 
2012-10-04 08:45:33 AM

xanadian: I prefer Ding Dongs. .


cheapandsleazy.net
 
2012-10-04 08:45:43 AM

Magruda: You bigot


The proper term is "other-agitated." You douche.
 
2012-10-04 08:46:28 AM
Franken should raise hell over Romney stealing his "not entitled to your own facts" line.

Especially when Romney was using it too pass off lies.
 
2012-10-04 08:46:31 AM
Uh... nevermind.
 
2012-10-04 08:48:57 AM
Sigh. We should've realized that "zingers" was something the media came up with to give themselves something to report after each debate.
 
2012-10-04 08:50:04 AM

Vodka Zombie: The proper term is "other-agitated."


Implying that us elders are stereo-typically frustrated? YOU'RE AGEIST!
 
2012-10-04 08:50:49 AM
So was the circus good, guys?
Did it engage you?
Do you feel emotionally involved in the conflict of the protagonists?
Was there enough moral gray area to keep you entertained?
Pepsi or Coke? Final answer.
 
2012-10-04 08:53:41 AM

timswar: Franken should raise hell over Romney stealing his "not entitled to your own facts" line.

Especially when Romney was using it too pass off lies.


Romney basically alternated between calling Obama a liar and telling lies himself all night.

Admittedly with all the passionate intensity of a carnival barker/ginsu knife salesman at a local Fair.

Surprised that people fell for it at all, much less in the numbers I'm seeing.

Watching American media achieve "consensus" is some eye opening stuff for a simple forest dweller like myself.
 
2012-10-04 08:54:54 AM
I don't understand. Was Romney calling his sons a bunch of liars?
 
2012-10-04 08:56:22 AM
So Big Bird shows up? It would have been better if the Count would have. Some of that math was deplorable.
Zingers from Ding Dongs. Wish there had been a Welcome Back Kotter Marathon on instead.
 
2012-10-04 08:56:58 AM

oldfarthenry: Vodka Zombie: The proper term is "other-agitated."

Implying that us elders are stereo-typically frustrated? YOU'RE AGEIST!


Shouldn't that be "age-ian"? Or would that be racist?

/just wondering.
 
2012-10-04 08:57:07 AM
I'm just shocked that a Republican saying "you aren't entitled to your own facts" didn't segfault the universe.
 
2012-10-04 08:57:59 AM

salvador.hardin: I don't understand. Was Romney calling his sons a bunch of liars?


Romney made a good point though that he stands by. You never say the same thing twice.
 
2012-10-04 08:58:54 AM

Bhruic: I'm just shocked that a Republican saying "you aren't entitled to your own facts" didn't segfault the universe.


is he implying facts should be shared? sounds communist.
 
2012-10-04 09:00:00 AM

quatchi: Romney basically alternated between calling Obama a liar and telling lies himself all night.


Kind of disappointed that Obama didn't really call him out on the obvious stuff. Although the shear volume of lies would have been tough to keep up with.

Also, Jim Lehrer was terrible.
 
2012-10-04 09:00:07 AM

quatchi: Admittedly with all the passionate intensity of a carnival barker/ginsu knife salesman at a local Fair.


Exactly.

Romney shone with vim and vigor, and gave a passionate argument to the American people to believe in the mathematically impossible, bullsh*t policies he's pushing.

I did enjoy how he threw conservatism under the bus. I wonder how the Freepers are doing...
 
2012-10-04 09:00:16 AM

salvador.hardin: I don't understand. Was Romney calling his sons a bunch of liars?


fruit. tree. magic underwear.
 
2012-10-04 09:00:38 AM

timswar: Franken should raise hell over Romney stealing his "not entitled to your own facts" line.

Especially when Romney was using it too pass off lies.


It's a much older saying than that, iirc. According to the internet, it's attributed to various people going back to the 50s, sort of an old wive's type of saying. Also, my mother used to say it all the time, which supports that theory.
 
2012-10-04 09:02:01 AM

timswar: Franken should raise hell over Romney stealing his "not entitled to your own facts" line. Especially when Romney was using it too pass off lies.


You could tell he was just waiting for an opportunity to try and shoehorn that one in somewhere.
 
2012-10-04 09:03:25 AM
ChocoBliss > Zingers
 
2012-10-04 09:04:12 AM

scarmig: So was the circus good, guys?
Did it engage you?
Do you feel emotionally involved in the conflict of the protagonists?
Was there enough moral gray area to keep you entertained?
Pepsi or Coke? Final answer.


i3.kym-cdn.com

That's good stuff, I'm going to have to remember that.
 
2012-10-04 09:04:25 AM

Vodka Zombie: Magruda: You bigot

The proper term is "other-agitated." You douche.


The proper term is "pink hole goo dispenser". You turd.
 
2012-10-04 09:04:45 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Kind of disappointed that Obama didn't really call him out on the obvious stuff. Although the shear volume of lies would have been tough to keep up with.


The one thing I wish Obama would have said (and I don't subscribe to the idea that Obama should have had an argumentative debate, it would have made him look petty to do a tit-for-tat, but...) is that he should have hit Romney on this 'taxation hurts jobs' idea. It's an easy lie that's believable by people who don't understand business and economics, and if true (which it's not) then the anti-tax ideals of Republicans are reasonable.

He could have said simply: "Look, corporate taxation doesn't affect jobs. Demand affects jobs. Businesses are taxed on their profits. If they hire someone else, that money is an expense, uh, not a profit, and is deducted. Businesses hire when demand dictates no matter what the tax rate."
 
2012-10-04 09:06:20 AM

Magruda: oldfarthenry: Gay jokes? Dudes.

The proper term is "homo-funnies". You bigot.


What's really funny is I was actually not trying to be punny. I guess my Freudian slip is showing...
 
2012-10-04 09:06:42 AM
"All right, fine. If you want an experienced public servant, vote for me. But if you want to believe a bunch of crazy promises about garbagemen cleaning your gutters and waxing your car, then by all means, vote for this sleazy lunatic."

i187.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-04 09:07:31 AM

The zinger about "And I've got to tell you, Governor Romney, when it comes to his own party during the course of this campaign, has not displayed that willingness to say no to some of the more extreme parts of his party." was pretty good. Likewise "And now, five weeks before the election, he's saying that his big, bold idea is, `Never mind.'"

Romney didn't really zing. But in the interest of fairness, I thought Romney had some good points about Too Big to Fail.

Sorry, but that's just not -- that's just not the facts. Look, we have to have regulation on Wall Street. That's why I'd have regulation. But I wouldn't designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That's one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank. It wasn't thought through properly. We need to get rid of that provision because it's killing regional and small banks. They're getting hurt.


It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that zing. And that just doesn't have a zing.
 
2012-10-04 09:07:52 AM

Magruda: Vodka Zombie: Magruda: You bigot

The proper term is "other-agitated." You douche.

The proper term is "pink hole goo dispenser". You turd.


That's a penis.
 
2012-10-04 09:09:41 AM

andrewagill: The zinger about "And I've got to tell you, Governor Romney, when it comes to his own party during the course of this campaign, has not displayed that willingness to say no to some of the more extreme parts of his party." was pretty good.


See, that line resounded with me, because, let's face it, Romney has been pandering to the whackadoos waaaay too much.
 
2012-10-04 09:09:43 AM

timswar: Franken should raise hell over Romney stealing his "not entitled to your own facts" line.

Especially when Romney was using it too pass off lies.


What is this? A liberal said it at some point so no matter who said it first it's suddenly his or hers?

Franken may have used that line but he certainly didn't come up with it himself. Particularly comical given that Franken is fond of spewing up things that are not facts at all while pretending that they are.
 
2012-10-04 09:10:34 AM

xanadian: I prefer Ding Dongs.


resources3.news.com.au
 
2012-10-04 09:12:03 AM

hillbillypharmacist: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Kind of disappointed that Obama didn't really call him out on the obvious stuff. Although the shear volume of lies would have been tough to keep up with.

The one thing I wish Obama would have said (and I don't subscribe to the idea that Obama should have had an argumentative debate, it would have made him look petty to do a tit-for-tat, but...) is that he should have hit Romney on this 'taxation hurts jobs' idea. It's an easy lie that's believable by people who don't understand business and economics, and if true (which it's not) then the anti-tax ideals of Republicans are reasonable.

He could have said simply: "Look, corporate taxation doesn't affect jobs. Demand affects jobs. Businesses are taxed on their profits. If they hire someone else, that money is an expense, uh, not a profit, and is deducted. Businesses hire when demand dictates no matter what the tax rate."


How can I tell you weren't a finance major?
 
2012-10-04 09:13:01 AM

Diagonal: oldfarthenry: Vodka Zombie: The proper term is "other-agitated."

Implying that us elders are stereo-typically frustrated? YOU'RE AGEIST!

Shouldn't that be "age-ian"? Or would that be racist?

/just wondering.


Actually, homophobic, because the island of Lesbos is in the Aegean Sea.
 
2012-10-04 09:13:26 AM
And not one "Oh SNAP!" moment the whole night.
 
2012-10-04 09:13:39 AM

TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?


So, you feel that businesses would hire just for the hell of it if they get a tax break...even if there were no demand?
 
2012-10-04 09:13:45 AM

xanadian: Magruda: Vodka Zombie: Magruda: You bigot

The proper term is "other-agitated." You douche.

The proper term is "pink hole goo dispenser". You turd.

That's a penis.


No, that's a "clap-trap plunger".
 
2012-10-04 09:14:10 AM

jayhawk88: scarmig: So was the circus good, guys?
Did it engage you?
Do you feel emotionally involved in the conflict of the protagonists?
Was there enough moral gray area to keep you entertained?
Pepsi or Coke? Final answer.

[i3.kym-cdn.com image 320x320]

That's good stuff, I'm going to have to remember that.


The not so funny thing is, we all predicted this would happen. 0BAMA LOSES DEBATE--RMONEY DECLARED EMPEROR FOR LIFE!!!!

/STAY TUNED!!!
 
2012-10-04 09:15:16 AM

xanadian: andrewagill: The zinger about "And I've got to tell you, Governor Romney, when it comes to his own party during the course of this campaign, has not displayed that willingness to say no to some of the more extreme parts of his party." was pretty good.

See, that line resounded with me, because, let's face it, Romney has been pandering to the whackadoos waaaay too much.


Uh, yeah. That's why I quoted it and called it a zinger.
 
2012-10-04 09:15:56 AM

TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?


Oh good, someone is finally here to explain why trickle down economics really works.

*sits back and watches with rapt attention*
 
2012-10-04 09:16:30 AM

xanadian: I prefer Ding Dongs.


4.bp.blogspot.com

Really, two hours and there's a minute of lame snaps. WEAKSAUCE!

/14 hours to TDS.
 
2012-10-04 09:17:32 AM

randomjsa: Franken may have used that line but he certainly didn't come up with it himself. Particularly comical given that Franken is fond of spewing up things that are not facts at all while pretending that they are.


That, and physically attacking people who don't agree with him.
 
2012-10-04 09:17:49 AM
http://www.uproxx.com/webculture/2012/10/vintage-romney-ryan/

Oh hey have you heard that there's a big presidential debate going down tonight in Denver, home of the Mitt Romney's favorite Chipotle employee? Well there is! And while it's highly likely that human eloquence machine Barack Obama will wipe the floor with painfully awkward cyborg Mitt Romney, both sides are hilariously trying to lower expectations about their candidate's performance.

This was prior to the debate, of course, but you know they have spin all worked up.
 
2012-10-04 09:18:57 AM

quatchi: timswar: Franken should raise hell over Romney stealing his "not entitled to your own facts" line.

Especially when Romney was using it too pass off lies.

Romney basically alternated between calling Obama a liar and telling lies himself all night.

Admittedly with all the passionate intensity of a carnival barker/ginsu knife salesman at a local Fair.

Surprised that people fell for it at all, much less in the numbers I'm seeing.

Watching American media achieve "consensus" is some eye opening stuff for a simple forest dweller like myself.


I tried very hard to watch the debate last night as a low-information voter. Not nonpartisan, but I tried to forget all the things I knew about the campaign.

Romney destroyed Obama.

To anyone who's been paying attention, Romney looked like he had a new platform, though. I have no idea if that's going to sink him (the teabags are NOT happy today, assuming they actually heard what Romney said), but Romney stood in front of the American people, divorced himself from his party and from parts of his campaign, told a few bald-faced lies, and absolutely won the presentation game.

// son of a biatch
// Chris Hayes was spot-on in his analysis last night, too:
// Obama is absolutely welded to a professorial, not-directly-confrontational style in debates, and saves the attacks for ads
 
2012-10-04 09:19:55 AM

quatchi: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Oh good, someone is finally here to explain why trickle down economics really works.

*sits back and watches with rapt attention*


I especially want to see how the Romney version of trickle down will be explained.

How exactly does changing the way your taxes are calculated without significant changes to the tax amount owed get businesses to create jobs?
 
2012-10-04 09:20:41 AM

TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Kind of disappointed that Obama didn't really call him out on the obvious stuff. Although the shear volume of lies would have been tough to keep up with.

The one thing I wish Obama would have said (and I don't subscribe to the idea that Obama should have had an argumentative debate, it would have made him look petty to do a tit-for-tat, but...) is that he should have hit Romney on this 'taxation hurts jobs' idea. It's an easy lie that's believable by people who don't understand business and economics, and if true (which it's not) then the anti-tax ideals of Republicans are reasonable.

He could have said simply: "Look, corporate taxation doesn't affect jobs. Demand affects jobs. Businesses are taxed on their profits. If they hire someone else, that money is an expense, uh, not a profit, and is deducted. Businesses hire when demand dictates no matter what the tax rate."

How can I tell you weren't a finance major?


"Sir, our employees can't keep up, and we are weeks behind on providing our services, and customers are getting upset. I think that another skilled worker would be appropriate, and net us about 180% of his salary."

"But we'd have to pay tax on the extra profit he brings in, right? Well screw that. You're fired."
 
2012-10-04 09:21:36 AM
My take on it all:

Romney will reverse Obama's medicare "cuts".
Romney won't make any education cuts.
Romney won't cut military spending.
Romney won't raise taxes.
Romney will eliminate the deficit.

If he can do all that, then he deserves to be emperor of the world.
 
2012-10-04 09:21:45 AM

randomjsa: timswar: Franken should raise hell over Romney stealing his "not entitled to your own facts" line.

Especially when Romney was using it too pass off lies.

What is this? A liberal said it at some point so no matter who said it first it's suddenly his or hers?

Franken randomjsa may have used that line but he certainly didn't come up with it himself. Particularly comical given that Franken randomjsa is fond of spewing up things that are not facts at all while pretending that they are.


\FTFY, YT
 
2012-10-04 09:22:04 AM
Meh. Best Romney zinger was when Obama complained about 2.8B in tax cuts to the evil oil energy companies, as if it was a huge number, and Romney returned with "you gave 90B in tax cuts to green energy, almost fifty years worth of oil energy tax cuts, and lots of those companies are now bankrupt." What a colossal waste of money.
 
2012-10-04 09:23:30 AM

MayoSlather: You never say the same thing twice.


It was a wise man, Garak I believe, who said, "Never tell the same lie twice."
 
2012-10-04 09:23:43 AM

mightybaldking: My take on it all:

Romney will reverse Obama's medicare "cuts".
Romney won't make any education cuts.
Romney won't cut military spending.
Romney won't raise taxes.
Romney will eliminate the deficit.

If he can do all that, then he deserves to be emperor of the world.


While invading Iran.
 
2012-10-04 09:23:52 AM

TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Kind of disappointed that Obama didn't really call him out on the obvious stuff. Although the shear volume of lies would have been tough to keep up with.

The one thing I wish Obama would have said (and I don't subscribe to the idea that Obama should have had an argumentative debate, it would have made him look petty to do a tit-for-tat, but...) is that he should have hit Romney on this 'taxation hurts jobs' idea. It's an easy lie that's believable by people who don't understand business and economics, and if true (which it's not) then the anti-tax ideals of Republicans are reasonable.

He could have said simply: "Look, corporate taxation doesn't affect jobs. Demand affects jobs. Businesses are taxed on their profits. If they hire someone else, that money is an expense, uh, not a profit, and is deducted. Businesses hire when demand dictates no matter what the tax rate."

How can I tell you weren't a finance major?


According to the economic fantasies of the far left, expectations of after tax profits have absolutely no impact on decisions to invest or expand. Doesn't even enter into the equation.
 
2012-10-04 09:24:11 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: quatchi: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Oh good, someone is finally here to explain why trickle down economics really works.

*sits back and watches with rapt attention*

I especially want to see how the Romney version of trickle down will be explained.

How exactly does changing the way your taxes are calculated without significant changes to the tax amount owed get businesses to create jobs?


BECAUSE IT DOES ADAM SMITH THE KOCHS AND RONALD OF REGUS SAID SO AND THE 80S WERE AWESOME AND GROWTH WILL SAVE US AND JOBS AND JESUS

// and furthermore
 
2012-10-04 09:24:50 AM

radioshack: Romney returned with "you gave 90B in tax cuts to green energy


Ninety billion! Ninety billion! That's as many as 90 billions - and that's terrible!
 
2012-10-04 09:28:15 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Kind of disappointed that Obama didn't really call him out on the obvious stuff. Although the shear volume of lies would have been tough to keep up with.

The one thing I wish Obama would have said (and I don't subscribe to the idea that Obama should have had an argumentative debate, it would have made him look petty to do a tit-for-tat, but...) is that he should have hit Romney on this 'taxation hurts jobs' idea. It's an easy lie that's believable by people who don't understand business and economics, and if true (which it's not) then the anti-tax ideals of Republicans are reasonable.

He could have said simply: "Look, corporate taxation doesn't affect jobs. Demand affects jobs. Businesses are taxed on their profits. If they hire someone else, that money is an expense, uh, not a profit, and is deducted. Businesses hire when demand dictates no matter what the tax rate."

How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

According to the economic fantasies of the far left, expectations of after tax profits have absolutely no impact on decisions to invest or expand. Doesn't even enter into the equation.


Romney claimed that his tax changes will NOT greatly change the over all tax burden. The rate reductions will be balanced by eliminating other deductions. So his brilliant plan will not change the after tax profit expectations of the Noble and Heroic Job Creators.
 
2012-10-04 09:31:33 AM

Dr Dreidel: I tried very hard to watch the debate last night as a low-information voter. Not nonpartisan, but I tried to forget all the things I knew about the campaign.

Romney destroyed Obama.


Except that Romney came off like a teenager spinning blatantly untrue promises in an election for high-school student government and couldn't wipe that stupid smirk off his face, whereas Obama did at least come off as an adult, albeit a long-suffering one getting a bit annoyed that he has to put up with this adolescent bullshiat.

Neither was particularly terrible, neither was particularly great. Romney exhibited maybe a bit more force of personality, but fell into basically every trap that Obama set to get him to say something that would make him sound stupid, sleazy or useless under later analysis. Because the thing about the debates is that they don't mark the entirety of the low-information voter experience. They mark the _start_ of it. Meaning that the people that see the debates as the beginning of election season are still going to see all the analysis and fact-checking (since they're paying attention now) pointing out Romney's gaffes, offensive statements, and blatant falsehoods over the next few days, where Obama didn't really give them any sound-bytes to play with.

The big bird bit already has wings, for instance (heh). I'm betting that the 5 trillion in spending increases becomes a common-knowledge thing, too, since they went back and forth on it enough that every newspaper and show in the US is going to go over it.
 
2012-10-04 09:36:33 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Kind of disappointed that Obama didn't really call him out on the obvious stuff. Although the shear volume of lies would have been tough to keep up with.

The one thing I wish Obama would have said (and I don't subscribe to the idea that Obama should have had an argumentative debate, it would have made him look petty to do a tit-for-tat, but...) is that he should have hit Romney on this 'taxation hurts jobs' idea. It's an easy lie that's believable by people who don't understand business and economics, and if true (which it's not) then the anti-tax ideals of Republicans are reasonable.

He could have said simply: "Look, corporate taxation doesn't affect jobs. Demand affects jobs. Businesses are taxed on their profits. If they hire someone else, that money is an expense, uh, not a profit, and is deducted. Businesses hire when demand dictates no matter what the tax rate."

How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

According to the economic fantasies of the far left, expectations of after tax profits have absolutely no impact on decisions to invest or expand. Doesn't even enter into the equation.


Although studies have shown that tax rates may have some effect on job creation and entrepreneurial decision-making, some entrepreneurs maintain that tax rates are not pressing concerns for those deciding whether to start a business or hire new employees. For example, longtime entrepreneur Paul Abrams admits that taxation rates "have never played a role, positively or negatively, in [his] ability to raise capital or decisions to invest it." Similarly, celebrated entrepreneur Warren Buffet avers in a "New York Times" editorial that he has never seen an entrepreneur "shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain."
 
2012-10-04 09:37:03 AM

TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?


Because he can speak in complete sentences?
 
2012-10-04 09:38:28 AM
Obama should've been confrontational toward his opponent. He wasn't calling Romney out on any of the crap he was slinging (and BOY was that a pile of crap) and he had plenty of opportunity to do so. I think Obama misunderstood the reason that Americans were even watching: we want a boxing match. We don't need to be told what policy positions the candidates are taking, we already know that. We've been hearing that for a year and a half now. It's old news, it's boring. I need to hear candidates issue challenges to opponent's positions. Romney delivered challenges, Obama disengaged and acted like Romney didn't exist for the most part. He needs to do better than this on the next round. It's not gonna change my vote, but that was pathetic.
 
2012-10-04 09:40:18 AM

Jim_Callahan: Neither was particularly terrible, neither was particularly great. Romney exhibited maybe a bit more force of personality, but fell into basically every trap that Obama set to get him to say something that would make him sound stupid, sleazy or useless under later analysis. Because the thing about the debates is that they don't mark the entirety of the low-information voter experience. They mark the _start_ of it. Meaning that the people that see the debates as the beginning of election season are still going to see all the analysis and fact-checking (since they're paying attention now) pointing out Romney's gaffes, offensive statements, and blatant falsehoods over the next few days, where Obama didn't really give them any sound-bytes to play with.


Oh, I get it. It's not like I smoked so much last night that I ACTUALLY forgot the last year of the campaign (not for lack of trying...), but expect the polls to show at least a national 2-3 point bump for Romney. I shudder to think what that looks like in middle America, where bullshiat of the Romney flavor sells particularly well.

On the taxes/math thing, to my interpretation of a low-info voter, Romney had a plan and Obama's liberal math didn't like it. Maybe I'm an incredible pessimist, but I think Romney, at least for the night, won that exchange.

The debate was horribly moderated, and the questions so generic and seemingly purpose-built for answer-evasion, but I say again: Romney won the presentation.

// Obama's facts and Romney's past be damned
// hopefully both will again be relevant and the "liberal" media won't let Romney throw another 12 months down the memory hole
// anyone who still believes that trope (tripe?) after last night's analysis is Emperor-farking-John-Tojo-Birch conservative
 
2012-10-04 09:41:19 AM
I thought Obama did great at keeping his composure during the debate. Romney always comes across as a nervous-sounding speaker. Unfortunately, I can see how it looked like a Romney win to low-information voters. Romney was repeatedly calling Obama a liar throughout the debate. Obama didn't really come back with anything along of the lines of "No, it's actually true because..." or "You're lying about...".

Also, Obama really needs to shorten his responses. He covers so many things in each response, I don't think most of it sticks. What I was constantly waiting for was for him to just say "I just have one question for Gov Romney. Exactly what deductions and loopholes would you try to close to make up for your tax cuts?" That's it. Don't throw his inability to name specifics right in the middle of a five-minute speech. Ask a short, direct question.
 
2012-10-04 09:42:26 AM
i1.kym-cdn.com
i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-04 09:43:15 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Romney claimed that his tax changes will NOT greatly change the over all tax burden. The rate reductions will be balanced by eliminating other deductions. So his brilliant plan will not change the after tax profit expectations of the Noble and Heroic Job Creators.


Ah, but therein lies the genius. They won't effect the tax burden, but they will provide more money for BOTH people and government. That's right, he's gonna change the tax code so you get to keep more of your money and so does the government. This magic brought to you by the power of complete bullshiat.
 
2012-10-04 09:43:43 AM

Dr Dreidel: The debate was horribly moderated, and the questions so generic and seemingly purpose-built for answer-evasion, but I say again: Romney won the presentation.


I had such high hopes for the moderator, but holy crap was he horrible. By the end of the night, he was basically getting biatch-slapped by both candidates when he tried to get them to stop talking.
 
2012-10-04 09:44:49 AM

thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?


No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.
 
2012-10-04 09:45:55 AM

NeoCortex42: I had such high hopes for the moderator, but holy crap was he horrible. By the end of the night, he was basically getting biatch-slapped by both candidates when he tried to get them to stop talking.


The next moderator should pick up a baseball bat and place it on the table the first time someone interrupts him.
 
2012-10-04 09:47:05 AM
well, since the CNNMSLSDMSMLSMATM all agree that Romney won, I can only conclude Fartbongoloid won.
 
2012-10-04 09:47:43 AM

TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.


I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.
 
2012-10-04 09:48:02 AM
I hate to inject any seriousness in this thread, but does anyone know of a good place to go and read the transcript?
 
2012-10-04 09:50:03 AM
I should have said website.

funzyr: I hate to inject any seriousness in this thread, but does anyone know of a good place to go and read the transcript?

 
2012-10-04 09:50:43 AM

hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.

I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.


Where do they come out of? Losses?
 
2012-10-04 09:50:52 AM

funzyr: I hate to inject any seriousness in this thread, but does anyone know of a good place to go and read the transcript?


Link
 
2012-10-04 09:52:16 AM

TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.

I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.

Where do they come out of? Losses?


Please tell me you are trolling.
 
2012-10-04 09:54:04 AM

thurstonxhowell: funzyr: I hate to inject any seriousness in this thread, but does anyone know of a good place to go and read the transcript?

Link


Speaking of zingers!
 
2012-10-04 09:54:53 AM

hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.

I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.

Where do they come out of? Losses?

Please tell me you are trolling.


I'll admit I'm trolling when you admit you don't know the difference between a P&L and income statement.
 
2012-10-04 09:56:54 AM

hillbillypharmacist: I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits.


If not from profits, or money borrowed in anticipation of future profits, where do the funds businesses use to invest in new capital and labor come from?
 
2012-10-04 09:57:26 AM

thurstonxhowell: funzyr: I hate to inject any seriousness in this thread, but does anyone know of a good place to go and read the transcript?

Link


Thank you. I know I was being lazy.
 
2012-10-04 09:59:05 AM

TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.

I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.

Where do they come out of? Losses?

Please tell me you are trolling.

I'll admit I'm trolling when you admit you don't know the difference between a P&L and income statement.


"The statement of profit and loss follows a general form as seen in this example. It begins with an entry for revenue and subtracts from revenue the costs of running the business, including cost of goods sold, operating expenses, tax expense and interest expense. The bottom line (literally and figuratively) is net income (profit). "

Payroll is an operating expense. It does not come out of profit.
 
2012-10-04 09:59:20 AM

Wyalt Derp: radioshack: Romney returned with "you gave 90B in tax cuts to green energy

Ninety billion! Ninety billion! That's as many as 90 billions - and that's terrible!


Shorter Romney:

Tax cuts are bad.

I won't cut taxes.

I'll cut taxes...

...but not much.
 
2012-10-04 10:01:05 AM

hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.

I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.

Where do they come out of? Losses?

Please tell me you are trolling.

I'll admit I'm trolling when you admit you don't know the difference between a P&L and income statement.

"The statement of profit and loss follows a general form as seen in this example. It begins with an entry for revenue and subtracts from revenue the costs of running the business, including cost of goods sold, operating expenses, tax expense and interest expense. The bottom line (literally and figuratively) is net income (profit). "

Payroll is an operating expense. It does not come out of profit.


Son, expenses are subtracted from profit. Did you fail math?
 
2012-10-04 10:02:01 AM

TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.

I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.

Where do they come out of? Losses?

Please tell me you are trolling.

I'll admit I'm trolling when you admit you don't know the difference between a P&L and income statement.

"The statement of profit and loss follows a general form as seen in this example. It begins with an entry for revenue and subtracts from revenue the costs of running the business, including cost of goods sold, operating expenses, tax expense and interest expense. The bottom line (literally and figuratively) is net income (profit). "

Payroll is an operating expense. It does not come out of profit.

Son, expenses are subtracted from profit. Did you fail math?


Not profit. Revenue.
 
2012-10-04 10:02:45 AM

TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.

I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.

Where do they come out of? Losses?

Please tell me you are trolling.

I'll admit I'm trolling when you admit you don't know the difference between a P&L and income statement.

"The statement of profit and loss follows a general form as seen in this example. It begins with an entry for revenue and subtracts from revenue the costs of running the business, including cost of goods sold, operating expenses, tax expense and interest expense. The bottom line (literally and figuratively) is net income (profit). "

Payroll is an operating expense. It does not come out of profit.

Son, expenses are subtracted from profit. Did you fail math?


Only if you have more expenses than you planned for. Profit is after you have covered all your expenses, not before.
 
2012-10-04 10:05:05 AM

hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.

I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.

Where do they come out of? Losses?

Please tell me you are trolling.

I'll admit I'm trolling when you admit you don't know the difference between a P&L and income statement.

"The statement of profit and loss follows a general form as seen in this example. It begins with an entry for revenue and subtracts from revenue the costs of running the business, including cost of goods sold, operating expenses, tax expense and interest expense. The bottom line (literally and figuratively) is net income (profit). "

Payroll is an operating expense. It does not come out of profit.


No, you're misreading the quoted paragraph. Revenue is profit, and any expenses other than golf club membership or corporate jets is just the godless communist worker and/or Oppressive Federal Government stealing from the White Christian Men, the God ordained stewards of this country.
 
2012-10-04 10:05:06 AM

hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.

I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.

Where do they come out of? Losses?

Please tell me you are trolling.

I'll admit I'm trolling when you admit you don't know the difference between a P&L and income statement.

"The statement of profit and loss follows a general form as seen in this example. It begins with an entry for revenue and subtracts from revenue the costs of running the business, including cost of goods sold, operating expenses, tax expense and interest expense. The bottom line (literally and figuratively) is net income (profit). "

Payroll is an operating expense. It does not come out of profit.

Son, expenses are subtracted from profit. Did you fail math?

Not profit. Revenue.


When did revenue come into this discussion?
 
2012-10-04 10:06:00 AM

TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.

I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.

Where do they come out of? Losses?

Please tell me you are trolling.

I'll admit I'm trolling when you admit you don't know the difference between a P&L and income statement.

"The statement of profit and loss follows a general form as seen in this example. It begins with an entry for revenue and subtracts from revenue the costs of running the business, including cost of goods sold, operating expenses, tax expense and interest expense. The bottom line (literally and figuratively) is net income (profit). "

Payroll is an operating expense. It does not come out of profit.

Son, expenses are subtracted from profit. Did you fail math?


You did. Profit is the result, not part of the equation. That is revenues - expenses = profits. Nothing is "subtracted from profit".
 
2012-10-04 10:07:59 AM

TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.

I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.

Where do they come out of? Losses?

Please tell me you are trolling.

I'll admit I'm trolling when you admit you don't know the difference between a P&L and income statement.

"The statement of profit and loss follows a general form as seen in this example. It begins with an entry for revenue and subtracts from revenue the costs of running the business, including cost of goods sold, operating expenses, tax expense and interest expense. The bottom line (literally and figuratively) is net income (profit). "

Payroll is an operating expense. It does not come out of profit.

Son, expenses are subtracted from profit. Did you fail math?

Not profit. Revenue.

When did revenue come into this discussion?


When a customer writes you a check for $100, it's revenue. If you spent $90 to provide the service (including payroll), your profit is then $10.

Taxes are assessed on $10, not $100.
 
2012-10-04 10:11:36 AM

TheDumbBlonde: When did revenue come into this discussion?


Just admit it, you don't know the difference between profit and revenue.
 
2012-10-04 10:12:14 AM

hillbillypharmacist: When a customer writes you a check for $100, it's revenue. If you spent $90 to provide the service (including payroll), your profit is then $10.

Taxes are assessed on $10, not $100.


You might want to write slower so some people can keep up.
 
2012-10-04 10:13:31 AM

hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.

I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.

Where do they come out of? Losses?

Please tell me you are trolling.

I'll admit I'm trolling when you admit you don't know the difference between a P&L and income statement.

"The statement of profit and loss follows a general form as seen in this example. It begins with an entry for revenue and subtracts from revenue the costs of running the business, including cost of goods sold, operating expenses, tax expense and interest expense. The bottom line (literally and figuratively) is net income (profit). "

Payroll is an operating expense. It does not come out of profit.

Son, expenses are subtracted from profit. Did you fail math?

Not profit. Revenue.

When did revenue come into this discussion?

When a customer writes you a check for $100, it's revenue. If you spent $90 to provide the service (including payroll), your profit is then $10.

Taxes are assessed on $10, not $100.


Payroll expense is not what you think it is... and again to your original post..you are taxed on INCOME not profit...
 
2012-10-04 10:14:52 AM

thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: When did revenue come into this discussion?

Just admit it, you don't know the difference between profit and revenue.


I failed the CPA exam.
 
2012-10-04 10:15:28 AM

TheDumbBlonde: Payroll expense is not what you think it is...


Tell us what you think it is.

TheDumbBlonde: you are taxed on INCOME not profit...


The company I work for is taxed on profit, not income.
 
2012-10-04 10:15:45 AM
Drake's Devil Dogs
 
2012-10-04 10:16:19 AM

thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: Payroll expense is not what you think it is...

Tell us what you think it is.

TheDumbBlonde: you are taxed on INCOME not profit...

The company I work for is taxed on profit, not income.


Not it's not.
 
2012-10-04 10:16:55 AM

TheDumbBlonde: Son, expenses are subtracted from profit. Did you fail math?


That actually got a belly laugh. I don't care if you are trolling, that is the sort of high grade stupid that can only be met with laughter.
 
2012-10-04 10:17:16 AM

TheDumbBlonde: ..you are taxed on INCOME not profit...


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-10-04 10:18:09 AM

TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.

I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.

Where do they come out of? Losses?

Please tell me you are trolling.

I'll admit I'm trolling when you admit you don't know the difference between a P&L and income statement.

"The statement of profit and loss follows a general form as seen in this example. It begins with an entry for revenue and subtracts from revenue the costs of running the business, including cost of goods sold, operating expenses, tax expense and interest expense. The bottom line (literally and figuratively) is net income (profit). "

Payroll is an operating expense. It does not come out of profit.

Son, expenses are subtracted from profit. Did you fail math?

Not profit. Revenue.

When did revenue come into this discussion?

When a customer writes you a check for $100, it's revenue. If you spent $90 to provide the service (including payroll), your profit is then $10.

Taxes are assessed on $10, not $100.

Payroll expense is not what you think it is... and again to your original post..you are taxed on INCOME not profit...


uh, no, you are certainly taxed on profit.
 
2012-10-04 10:18:14 AM

TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: Payroll expense is not what you think it is...

Tell us what you think it is.

TheDumbBlonde: you are taxed on INCOME not profit...

The company I work for is taxed on profit, not income.

Not it's not.


This is why you failed the CPA exam. You don't know things. Don't act like you do.
 
2012-10-04 10:21:02 AM

TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Kind of disappointed that Obama didn't really call him out on the obvious stuff. Although the shear volume of lies would have been tough to keep up with.

The one thing I wish Obama would have said (and I don't subscribe to the idea that Obama should have had an argumentative debate, it would have made him look petty to do a tit-for-tat, but...) is that he should have hit Romney on this 'taxation hurts jobs' idea. It's an easy lie that's believable by people who don't understand business and economics, and if true (which it's not) then the anti-tax ideals of Republicans are reasonable.

He could have said simply: "Look, corporate taxation doesn't affect jobs. Demand affects jobs. Businesses are taxed on their profits. If they hire someone else, that money is an expense, uh, not a profit, and is deducted. Businesses hire when demand dictates no matter what the tax rate."

How can I tell you weren't a finance major?


Please tell me what is wrong with his statement. I'll be waiting.

/business major
 
2012-10-04 10:23:14 AM

TheDumbBlonde: Payroll expense is not what you think it is... and again to your original post..you are taxed on INCOME not profit...


"People" people are taxed on incomes. No matter how much you spend on "operating expenses" - eating, housing, clothing - you're taxed on it just the same.

"Corporate" people are taxed on profits. Things like payroll, R&D, rent, and certain supplies are not taxed.

// did you really go to business school?
// Christ, I majored in a social science and I know that
 
2012-10-04 10:23:34 AM
This is the part of the discussion where the semantic point is made that the Internal Revenue Code uses the term "income" and not "profit," and so even though everyone clearly understands what hillbillypharmacist means in his distinction between income and profit, if you contrive to use language solely as defined by the IRC, he is technically wrong, THE BEST KIND OF WRONG.
 
2012-10-04 10:23:55 AM
"If that's true, I need a new accountant."

- Mitt Romney in response to tax breaks for moving factories overseas.
 
2012-10-04 10:24:21 AM

MayoSlather: salvador.hardin: I don't understand. Was Romney calling his sons a bunch of liars?

Romney made a good point though that he stands by. You never say the same thing twice.


And then Romney proceeded to spend the debate saying the same thing over and over and never addressing the question originally put to him.
 
2012-10-04 10:24:24 AM

thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: Payroll expense is not what you think it is...

Tell us what you think it is.

TheDumbBlonde: you are taxed on INCOME not profit...

The company I work for is taxed on profit, not income.

Not it's not.

This is why you failed the CPA exam. You don't know things. Don't act like you do.


CPA exam? That's Introduction to Financial Accounting
 
2012-10-04 10:26:06 AM

kronicfeld: This is the part of the discussion where the semantic point is made that the Internal Revenue Code uses the term "income" and not "profit," and so even though everyone clearly understands what hillbillypharmacist means in his distinction between income and profit, if you contrive to use language solely as defined by the IRC, he is technically wrong, THE BEST KIND OF WRONG.


It's true, I should have said revenue.
 
2012-10-04 10:26:44 AM

kronicfeld: This is the part of the discussion where the semantic point is made that the Internal Revenue Code uses the term "income" and not "profit," and so even though everyone clearly understands what hillbillypharmacist means in his distinction between income and profit, if you contrive to use language solely as defined by the IRC, he is technically wrong, THE BEST KIND OF WRONG.


No, we don't understand what he means because he isn't making sense. Profits are not income. Profits are the net outcome before expenses are subtracted - at which time the remaining amount becomes profit. He is stating that you are taxed on that net outcome before expenses, which is utter bullshiat.
 
2012-10-04 10:28:25 AM

Epoch_Zero: kronicfeld: This is the part of the discussion where the semantic point is made that the Internal Revenue Code uses the term "income" and not "profit," and so even though everyone clearly understands what hillbillypharmacist means in his distinction between income and profit, if you contrive to use language solely as defined by the IRC, he is technically wrong, THE BEST KIND OF WRONG.

No, we don't understand what he means because he isn't making sense. Profits are not income. Profits are the net outcome before expenses are subtracted - at which time the remaining amount becomes profit. He is stating that you are taxed on that net outcome before expenses, which is utter bullshiat.


Now, now. I'm stupid and you're obviously a racist.
 
2012-10-04 10:29:36 AM

Gotfire: "If that's true, I need a new accountant."

- Mitt Romney in response to tax breaks for moving factories overseas.


It pissed me off so much that Obama did not reply to this. The insourcing bill that got blocked in the Senate earlier this year was plenty specific on what parts of the tax code were being changed to get rid of outsourcing deductions.

I don't know if Obama was intentionally holding back during this debate so he didn't look aggressive, or if he really is that out of practice. Hopefully he changes tactics before the next debate.
 
2012-10-04 10:29:56 AM

TheDumbBlonde: Now, now. I'm stupid and you're obviously a racist.


If you're any older than 12, you should be embarrassed by this. Welcome to ignore.
 
2012-10-04 10:31:42 AM

TheDumbBlonde: Epoch_Zero: kronicfeld: This is the part of the discussion where the semantic point is made that the Internal Revenue Code uses the term "income" and not "profit," and so even though everyone clearly understands what hillbillypharmacist means in his distinction between income and profit, if you contrive to use language solely as defined by the IRC, he is technically wrong, THE BEST KIND OF WRONG.

No, we don't understand what he means because he isn't making sense. Profits are not income. Profits are the net outcome before expenses are subtracted - at which time the remaining amount becomes profit. He is stating that you are taxed on that net outcome before expenses, which is utter bullshiat.

Now, now. I'm stupid and you're obviously a racist.


I said the profits were near.
 
2012-10-04 10:31:59 AM

thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: Now, now. I'm stupid and you're obviously a racist.

If you're any older than 12, you should be embarrassed by this. Welcome to ignore.


Win.
 
2012-10-04 10:44:34 AM

TheDumbBlonde: Payroll expense is not what you think it is... and again to your original post..you are taxed on INCOME not profit...


What the hell I don't even

/Accoutant
 
2012-10-04 10:47:26 AM
A P&L is another term for Income Statement, btw. P&L is layman, Income Statement is technical.

What an embarrassing thread for TheDumbBlonde.
 
2012-10-04 10:49:57 AM

Epoch_Zero: Profits are the net outcome before expenses are subtracted - at which time the remaining amount becomes profit.


Profits minus expenses equals...profits. Thanks for clearing that up, Egon.
 
2012-10-04 10:58:03 AM
Sales Revenue = Price (of product) X Quantity Sold

Gross profit = sales revenue minus cost of sales and other direct costs

Operating profit = Gross profit minus overheads and other indirect costs

EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) = operating profit + non-operating income

Pretax Profit (EBT, earnings before taxes) = operating profit minus one off items and redundancy payments, staff restructuring minus interest payable

Net profit = Pre-tax profit minus tax

Retained earnings = Profit after tax minus Dividends


From Link
 
2012-10-04 11:00:25 AM

kronicfeld: Epoch_Zero: Profits are the net outcome before expenses are subtracted - at which time the remaining amount becomes net profit.

Profits minus expenses equals...profits. Thanks for clearing that up, Egon.


Nice catch.
ftfm
 
2012-10-04 11:08:23 AM
My point is that we're all talking about the same thing. What gets taxed is your gross income NET OF all allowable deductions, which, of course, include all the costs associated with compensating an employee. If your new employee brings in $110,000, and all the costs associated with that employee total $90,000, you have $20,000 in profit from that employee. Your after-tax take-home from that $20,000 may be $17,000 or $15,000 or something else depending on the tax rate, but as long as it's a positive, there shouldn't be any less incentive to hire that employee.
 
2012-10-04 11:16:36 AM

randomjsa: Particularly comical given that Franken is fond of spewing up things that are not facts at all while pretending that they are.


Such as?
 
2012-10-04 11:16:53 AM

...
Pretax Profit (EBT, earnings before taxes) = operating profit minus one off items and redundancy payments, staff restructuring minus interest payable

Net profit = Pre-tax profit minus tax

Retained earnings = Profit after tax minus Dividends


Now, the interesting question is, what would be the net effect of changing these definitions to:

Pretax Profit (EBT, earnings before taxes) = operating profit minus one off items and redundancy payments, staff restructuring minus interest payable (NO CHANGE)

Pretax Retained earnings ( Pretax Profit - dividends)

Retained Earnings (PreTax Retained Earnings - Taxes on same)

And then we tax dividends as income (having not been previously taxed)?
 
2012-10-04 11:17:39 AM
Sorry about the missing /b. My Bad.
 
2012-10-04 11:20:38 AM

mightybaldking: And then we tax dividends as income (having not been previously taxed)?


I think that's the proper way to do it, myself. It would encourage more dividends to be distributed, I bet.
 
2012-10-04 11:24:33 AM

hillbillypharmacist: mightybaldking: And then we tax dividends as income (having not been previously taxed)?

I think that's the proper way to do it, myself. It would encourage more dividends to be distributed, I bet.


Is that necessarily a good thing? What are the unintended consequences?
 
2012-10-04 11:30:46 AM

mightybaldking: Is that necessarily a good thing? What are the unintended consequences?


I dunno, I haven't thought that far ahead. But it would clear up the double taxation foofaraw and avoid the appearance of impropriety.
 
2012-10-04 11:30:51 AM

TheDumbBlonde: Son, expenses are subtracted from profit.


Epoch_Zero: No, we don't understand what he means because he isn't making sense. Profits are not income. Profits are the net outcome before expenses are subtracted - at which time the remaining amount becomes profit.


So.... profit minus expenses equals profit?

TheDumbBlonde: Now, now. I'm stupid and you're obviously a racist.


No, he's stupid too. It's tough to say who is stupider at this point. Though you may be trolling
 
2012-10-04 11:31:01 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: According to the economic fantasies of the far left, expectations of after tax profits have absolutely no impact on decisions to invest or expand. Doesn't even enter into the equation.


They don't. Taxes are a very minor effect on actual business providence.

I've said this before to you, and I'll say it again: Stop worrying about businesses or rich people not having enough money to produce goods or hire work. If there's work to be done and businesses need to expand operations or hire more labor, they will find the money. They always find the money. Finding the money is the least of their worries. They will borrow it, sell off stock, apply for grants/subsidies, seek loans and financing through banks, investors, venture capital, or do whatever it takes to leverage the additional work orders -- there are countless ways to raise capital. But they have always been able to find the money from somewhere if there is demand.

Once again: Don't worry about businesses not having enough money. That's the last thing you (and the economy) need to worry about.
 
2012-10-04 11:36:02 AM

Ishkur: Once again: Don't worry about businesses not having enough money. That's the last thing you (and the economy) need to worry about.


But...but...Bobby Newport said that Sweetums Candy might leave Pawnee if he doesn't win the election!!!
 
2012-10-04 11:41:33 AM

TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: Now, now. I'm stupid and you're obviously a racist.

If you're any older than 12, you should be embarrassed by this. Welcome to ignore.

Win.


This, ladies and gentleman, is what happens when you come into an argument armed with nothing but what your non-educated parents told you all of your short life.
Google, it's not a misspelled version of what you did to your sister last night.

I highly recommend avoiding both of those activities.
 
2012-10-04 11:55:10 AM

hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: hillbillypharmacist: TheDumbBlonde: thurstonxhowell: TheDumbBlonde: How can I tell you weren't a finance major?

Because he can speak in complete sentences?

No, because he is obviously does't comprehend the difference between income and profit.

I believe it is the republicans who like to pretend that investment and payroll come out of profits. If that were the case, then it makes perfect sense to reduce those taxes as much as possible. Of course, it's not the case.

Where do they come out of? Losses?

Please tell me you are trolling.


Sorry. Reality is not allowed to conflict with Talking Points.
 
2012-10-04 11:55:56 AM
Romney reminds me of a surly French man trying to return cold soup in a restaurant.
 
2012-10-04 11:59:10 AM
Amazing.

You guys are arguing semantics about whether the penetrative depth the IRS should use on your fellow Americans should be measured from the choad, or base of the shaft.
 
2012-10-04 11:59:45 AM

dittybopper: randomjsa: Franken may have used that line but he certainly didn't come up with it himself. Particularly comical given that Franken is fond of spewing up things that are not facts at all while pretending that they are.

That, and physically attacking people who don't agree with him.


Did you know that Al was on the wrestling team in high school?
blogs.citypages.comAl Franken seen here practicing his wrassling moves.
 
2012-10-04 12:01:37 PM

GAT_00: xanadian: Or maybe Twinkies.

Or just twinks.

/zing!


What? No love for slats, hoops, and chips?

And do you like your twinks alone, or with Mystery Pods, for that extra Float Force goodness? (Just add slats for an extra boost!)

/Obscure
 
2012-10-04 12:06:45 PM
I've been in business for 25 years and I have no idea what you're talking about so here's Obama with a pancake on his head.

www.faithmouse.com
 
2012-10-04 12:16:19 PM

scarmig: You guys are arguing semantics about whether the penetrative depth the IRS should use on your fellow Americans should be measured from the choad, or base of the shaft.


You're right, taxes are a form of rape.
 
2012-10-04 12:43:53 PM

bullwrinkle: dittybopper: randomjsa: Franken may have used that line but he certainly didn't come up with it himself. Particularly comical given that Franken is fond of spewing up things that are not facts at all while pretending that they are.

That, and physically attacking people who don't agree with him.

Did you know that Al was on the wrestling team in high school?
[blogs.citypages.com image 422x377]Al Franken seen here practicing his wrassling moves.


Looks like some folks just can't let go of a good smear, even when it's just another mediocre photoshop, eh?

thinkprogress.org

Or do you just have a thing for men in diapers?
 
2012-10-04 01:59:08 PM
No I don't have a thing for men in dipers (not that there is anything wrong with that) but it's all in fun after all even mentioning Palin in a thread there is a slew of posts with pancakes and turtles and what would a Romney thread be without skinny head contemplating potatoes.
 
2012-10-04 03:19:46 PM

ABQGOD: Sigh. We should've realized that "zingers" was something the media came up with to give themselves something to report after each debate.


No man, this is serious. Why aren't you treating this with the seriousness it deserves. Here's our wardrobe psychologist to talk about what the patterns on the candidates' ties say about their confidence levels.
 
2012-10-05 12:27:46 AM

andrewagill: The zinger about "And I've got to tell you, Governor Romney, when it comes to his own party during the course of this campaign, has not displayed that willingness to say no to some of the more extreme parts of his party." was pretty good. Likewise "And now, five weeks before the election, he's saying that his big, bold idea is, `Never mind.'"

Romney didn't really zing. But in the interest of fairness, I thought Romney had some good points about Too Big to Fail.

Sorry, but that's just not -- that's just not the facts. Look, we have to have regulation on Wall Street. That's why I'd have regulation. But I wouldn't designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That's one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank. It wasn't thought through properly. We need to get rid of that provision because it's killing regional and small banks. They're getting hurt.

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that zing. And that just doesn't have a zing.


Too big to fail was intendid to mean that they arn't allowed to make highly risky investments, like what got them all in trouble in the first place. If they follow the rules, and crap goes down that risk those banks, the government will back them. If they are caught breaking those rules, the people in charge of those banks go to jail.
 
2012-10-05 02:15:52 AM

redheededstepchild: Too big to fail was intendid to mean that they arn't allowed to make highly risky investments, like what got them all in trouble in the first place. If they follow the rules, and crap goes down that risk those banks, the government will back them. If they are caught breaking those rules, the people in charge of those banks go to jail.


No, it's meant to mean that they have to be allowed to make risky investments, because they know that the US taxpayer will have to bail them out or go bankrupt himself.
 
2012-10-05 02:33:42 AM
Yes, that's exsactlly why banks want it crushed. It limits what a bank can do to "make" money. They can't do the risky stuff they use to, and limits the kind of risks they can take. That's why it was needed in the first place. It also increases the amount they have to have in real assests to make failing more costly to the people who control it.
 
2012-10-05 03:39:51 AM
Here, I'll make it better. The banks were a 21 year old busted who lost their apartment and had to move in with their parents. They now have to by their parents rules, but they don't have to live in a cardboard box on the street.
 
Displayed 142 of 142 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report