Quantcast

Who would be a Better President? Ron Paul or Mitt Romney?

Jarod Kochman 2012/08/05 02:33:27
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Neither
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Kirk To... Kiosk Kid 2012/08/13 22:51:19
    Kirk Torsten
    Your reply merely proved my point. The loopsholes make the effective tax rate 18.5%, which is far too low. The effective tax rate should never dip below 22% or your playing with fire. The Bush tax cuts lowered those rates to historically low levels. Did it work? NO! It led to the greatest recession since the great depression and may very well lead to the collapse of the dollar. Now I learn that you had a part in hiding corporate money. How can you sit there and defend these practices when big business is making record profits and paying less than the average family. I cannot believe that my entire career has been defending parasites like you.
  • Kiosk Kid Kirk To... 2012/08/14 14:24:46 (edited)
    Kiosk Kid
    Let me explain it to you one more time because it is going way over your head. On foreign trade the profits will always be declared in the country with the lowest tax rate and the expenses will be declared in the country with the highest tax rate.

    No company in the world is going to pay the US corporate tax rate of 39.6 percent tax when they can pay another country 25 cent on a dollar of profit.

    They are using an accounting rule called “transfer pricing.” These is nothing being hidden, the only question is which country you want to pay taxes to. You will always pick the country with the lowest tax rate.

    Can Democrats do any about it? No, it is an international account procedure that is include in all trade agreements. Therefore, until the US lowers it corporate tax rate to be competitive, nobody will pay the US taxes on foreign trade and they don't.

    Lowereing it to 25 percent would make the US competitive with Western Europe but that is the only solution. If you lowered it to 20 about 75 percent of corporations would pay the US over another country.

    BTW, the Bush tax cuts increased Federal revenues 789 billion in just 4 years. Marxism doesn't work!
  • Kirk To... Kiosk Kid 2012/08/14 14:52:41 (edited)
    Kirk Torsten
    Sounds like a catch 22 where the middle class loses again. If the US lowers rates, others will lower their rates to maintain their competitive edge. The only winners here are the corporations. You remind me of the words of Einstein, "the only thing that prevents me from learning is my education". You need to toss that education of yours out the window, because your ideas, which I assume come from your education, is precisely what is destroying the worlds economy. Open your eyes for once and see things from the peoples perspective.
  • Kiosk Kid Kirk To... 2012/08/14 15:56:23
    Kiosk Kid
    +1
    I don't make the accounting rules. There has to be a rule to determine where a company declares their profits. A company has to be able to buy and sell a product from and to its subsidies in another country.

    The fact is today, the US is not receiving its fair share of corporate tax revenues from international companies. The only one that can change that is Democrats. Ryans plan is to reduce corporate taxes to 25 percent and that would increase US corporate tax revenues. GE would pay some taxes to the US government.


    The middle class only looses because the US has the higest corporate tax rate in the world and jobs are sent overseas as a result. Fanancial reform alone caused 100 thousand jobs to go overseas.

    Liberals simply don't understand that their regulations have an effect on jobs. The first thing a new regulation causes is cost accountants to go to work figuring out how much the regulation is going to cost and the best way to minimize the cost.

    Liberals just don't understand these companies are international they do not need the US. The US needs them. If Wall Street left New York, New York would look some what like Detroit.
  • jeane Kiosk Kid 2012/08/14 18:55:03
    jeane
    +1
    Again - thank you KK - KEEP TEACHING! This nation is ignorant when it comes down to its own financial well being.
  • Kirk To... Kiosk Kid 2012/08/14 22:38:17
    Kirk Torsten
    I completely understand what you are saying, but the solution is not lowering the tax rate for the reasons I stated above. When free trade came into existence that's when things began to fall apart. I think a re-evaluation of trade practices may be the solution we need. Of course, you will likely disagree with that as well.
  • Kiosk Kid Kirk To... 2012/08/15 01:07:11
    Kiosk Kid
    Naturally, I disagree. Free trade has been going on forever. The problem is how governments collect taxes when the trade is between a company and its subsidiaries in a foreign country. Which country gets to collect the taxes?

    We are talking about the issue of transfer pricing. At what price does a company buy or sell the product? Does that price include a profit?

    You said the tax rate will continue to decline. I don’t think it will because at some point no government would make any tax money.

    Therefore, I think the governments will agree to the same tax rate because it will be a better option than getting nothing.

    At this point Liberals are causing the US to get nothing. The smart thing to do is drop the tax rate to find a number that governments will agree.

    Solve the problem! What will governments agree on? If country X wants a trade agreement then the tax rate is Y. Simple! Our only problem is Liberals.
  • Kirk To... Kiosk Kid 2012/08/15 05:44:12
    Kirk Torsten
    Your very articulate when explaining your position, but i don't think you thoroughly think things through. You have not considered the fact that labor is cheaper elsewhere nor the fluctuations in the value of currency. The simple solution is non-free trade, i.e., TARIFFS. This creates an environment that will no longer allow the company to find cheaper labor because their ass is gonna get taxed when they cross the border with the product. They will then be left with no choice but to produce the product where it is intended to be sold.

    Now in response to you blaming liberals. Really!? I cannot fathom how people choose to blame one party over another. With the exception of a few individuals, both parties vote according to who lines their pockets. You may disagree with that, but the plain and simple truth is the corporations wouldn't be spending billions lobbying to get what they want if it didn't work. Conservative or liberal, you get the same results. Truthfully, I would like to see a Paul/Kucinich administration and wouldn't care which one was president. With those two at the helm the only corporation that would benefit is the one that produces the veto stamp.
  • Kiosk Kid Kirk To... 2012/08/15 14:59:10
    Kiosk Kid
    When you move 600 jobs overseas you better have everything completely thought out to the smallest detail. You better have the logistics thought out.

    Restricting trade was one of the 3 main reasons of the great depression which countries will take into consideration in coming to an agreement on a common tax rate.

    You need to look no further then history. The civilizations that thrived were the ones that had free trade.

    What you want is protectionism that is a loser. Look at the former Soviet Union and China when they restricted trade. Look at North Korea. How does the UN normally punish a country? Of course, trade sanctions.

    Unions would be way to powerful just like the teachers unions are now. The US is in the loosing position at this moment and has been since 1986. The corporate tax rate was a concession to Tip O’Neal to support Regan’s other tax cuts. The Liberals ideology of taxing the Rich. Well, who is richer then corporations.
  • jeane Kirk To... 2012/08/13 18:02:19
    jeane
    +1
    LOL - you are talking to a COST ACCOUNTANT LOL lol cartoon
  • Kiosk Kid jeane 2012/08/13 19:15:58 (edited)
    Kiosk Kid
    +1
    GE paid zero in taxes to the US, Why?

    Also to use the accounting Procedure of transfer pricing, you have to have a subsidy in the country. Therefore not only will every company in the world want to pay Canada taxes but they have to create jobs in Canada.
  • jeane Kiosk Kid 2012/08/13 19:22:33
    jeane
    +1
    Most of us don't realize this KK - that is why people like you are so important. Keep teaching dear friend.
  • Kirk To... jeane 2012/08/13 22:20:15 (edited)
    Kirk Torsten
    You assume he is a "Cost Accountant". I also assume that he is educated in such based upon his reply. However, he merely proved my point that the average taxes paid is 18.5% and this is due to the reasons he cited. Furthermore, as is well documented, multi-billionaire Warren Buffet paid less % in taxes than his 60k per year secretary. So this 39.6% that nothing more than an illusion.

    Additionally, people that speak with pictures with no substance regarding the debated issue only shows you are unable to form any rational thought.
  • jeane Kirk To... 2012/08/14 05:31:52 (edited)
    jeane
    +1
    I do not assume, I know that he is a cost accountant that trained other accountants. There is nothing to debate, he is, as usual - correct. I compliment him on his acumen.
  • Odinsown 2012/08/05 15:58:34
    Ron Paul
    Odinsown
    +1
    Of these two? Paul. Simply because Paul is unlikely to involve us in military actions we do not belong in. Also I'd is more likely to veto any new spending bills.
  • w2xad 2012/08/05 15:16:56
    Ron Paul
    w2xad
    No Obongo so it is Willard.
  • ParkMan 2012/08/05 14:24:03
    Mitt Romney
    ParkMan
    +2
    My concern with Paul is that he's got nothing even close to executive experience. As much as people may like what he says, but I'm not comfortable turning control of the federal government over to a guy with little direct experience.

    Yes, I'm aware that he's a very long time Congressman. However, managing a Congressional office is quite a bit different from being Chief Executive & Commander in Chief.
  • Lester ParkMan 2012/08/05 16:26:19
    Lester
    +1
    That is certainly a point worthy of consideration. On the other hand, Paul's experience is with the national government, where he had to deal with the types of issues a US President needs to address. Romney's experience was in a small New England state, whose issues are in many ways different from the issues of other regions of the country, and which of course didn't have any foreign policy. Therefore on the experience question, it seems to me that comparing the two is somewhat like comparing apples and oranges with no clear winner.
  • ParkMan Lester 2012/08/05 21:00:20
    ParkMan
    Thanks - you make a fair point too. If it were not for his very long tenure as a Representative, he don't think he would even be a consideration.

    For myself, I see the experience analysis this way.

    Romney:
    pro:
    - governor of a state. True, it is a small state, but he still needed to organize the government and oversee many different departments. He had to deal with a legislature of the opposing party and find ways to advance his goals as an executive through a legislative body
    - seasoned execute. He built a very successful business who's fundamental business model was increasing the value of under performing companies. He understand business dynamics and how companies function.
    - rescued the Olympics. He came into an Olympics in distress, stabilized the effort, and made it very successful
    cons:
    - no national political experience. He's never dealt with politics at the level he would have to
    - no national executive experience. He was never a cabinet secretary or oversaw a large federal agency.

    Paul:
    pro:
    - deep national political experience. He's been in Congress 20+ years. He understands how congress works and laws are passed at the national level. With his tenure, it would have been nice to see him at some point advance to the point of being a major committee chair or serving ...






    Thanks - you make a fair point too. If it were not for his very long tenure as a Representative, he don't think he would even be a consideration.

    For myself, I see the experience analysis this way.

    Romney:
    pro:
    - governor of a state. True, it is a small state, but he still needed to organize the government and oversee many different departments. He had to deal with a legislature of the opposing party and find ways to advance his goals as an executive through a legislative body
    - seasoned execute. He built a very successful business who's fundamental business model was increasing the value of under performing companies. He understand business dynamics and how companies function.
    - rescued the Olympics. He came into an Olympics in distress, stabilized the effort, and made it very successful
    cons:
    - no national political experience. He's never dealt with politics at the level he would have to
    - no national executive experience. He was never a cabinet secretary or oversaw a large federal agency.

    Paul:
    pro:
    - deep national political experience. He's been in Congress 20+ years. He understands how congress works and laws are passed at the national level. With his tenure, it would have been nice to see him at some point advance to the point of being a major committee chair or serving in the House Leadership.
    con:
    - no national or state level executive experience
    - no high level business experience. It looks like he's run a couple of small businesses, but nothing of significant scale.

    Fair or not, my take Ron Paul is that he's a smart guy with some populist opinions, but that he's not done anything in his career to suggest he'd actually be able to implement them. Further, when he needs to focus on using the Federal government to get stuff done, I question if Mr. Paul would even know how to motivate people to do that.

    Personally, I'm over the allure of well meaning politicians who don't have the experience to be really effective in running the government. So perhaps I unfairly am excluding Mr. Paul, but he seems to be a risk to take right now.
    (more)
  • Lester ParkMan 2012/08/05 22:42:25
    Lester
    +1
    I think you've given a very good assessment of the various pros and cons for both of them.
  • ParkMan Lester 2012/08/06 00:01:31
    ParkMan
    Thank you
  • ladyjane ParkMan 2012/08/06 06:55:40
    ladyjane
    He has more experience then Obama has! He knows a heck of a lot more than you are giving him credit for...
  • ParkMan ladyjane 2012/08/06 07:16:10
    ParkMan
    I don't doubt he has more experience than Obama had when he took office, but that is part of my point. When Obama was elected, my primary concern was his lack of experience. In the 3.5 years since Obama took office, that lack of experience has caused all kinds of problems.

    I also don't doubt he's a smart guy who knows a lot of stuff. However, knowing a lot of stuff doesn't get the trains to run on time.

    It's not that I dislike Mr. Paul, I just don't want another President with little experience. I'm tired of our most important elected position being one where we give a lot of on the job training. Let's get Mr. Paul a significant Cabinet position (Treasury perhaps?) and then try this again in 4 or 8 years.
  • ladyjane ParkMan 2012/08/06 19:38:38 (edited)
    ladyjane
    Ron Paul is number 22 in seniority in the House of Representatives, he sits on the Financial Services Committee, I think he is the chair on the Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee, he also sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee. He was in the USAF AND USANG after that. He has more experience than many of the people serving with him... Let's not forget that he is also a Doctor. I believe that Ron Paul has what it takes to be the President and to pull us out of the mess we are in... I also want to add that he is a loyal patriot!
  • ParkMan ladyjane 2012/08/06 21:48:29
    ParkMan
    I understand you're a fan and I'm not suggesting he's a slouch. But, since we're discussing, here's my take on what you wrote.

    1. number 22 in seniority in the House of Representatives, sits on the Financial Services Committee, I think he is the chair on the Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee, he also sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
    - In the above, I don't see him having had a major leadership position nor a major committee chair role. Chairing a subcommittee doesn't count. Yes, it's good that he's on the financial services & foreign affairs committee, but again, he's not leading anything here. In these roles, I see no executive experience.

    2. He was in the USAF AND USANG after that.
    - We was a captain in the USAF. I'm sure this gives him a good understanding of how the military works and an appreciation for life in the military. I don't expect it gets him ready to be Commander In Chief. A captain commands a small team, but again, this is not executive experience.

    3. he is also a Doctor
    - I'm sure it helps make him more aware of medical issues. It doesn't qualify you to be President.

    4. He has more experience than many of the people serving with him
    - those people are not going to be President either

    5. he is a loyal patriot
    - as am I, but I doesn't make ...



    I understand you're a fan and I'm not suggesting he's a slouch. But, since we're discussing, here's my take on what you wrote.

    1. number 22 in seniority in the House of Representatives, sits on the Financial Services Committee, I think he is the chair on the Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee, he also sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
    - In the above, I don't see him having had a major leadership position nor a major committee chair role. Chairing a subcommittee doesn't count. Yes, it's good that he's on the financial services & foreign affairs committee, but again, he's not leading anything here. In these roles, I see no executive experience.

    2. He was in the USAF AND USANG after that.
    - We was a captain in the USAF. I'm sure this gives him a good understanding of how the military works and an appreciation for life in the military. I don't expect it gets him ready to be Commander In Chief. A captain commands a small team, but again, this is not executive experience.

    3. he is also a Doctor
    - I'm sure it helps make him more aware of medical issues. It doesn't qualify you to be President.

    4. He has more experience than many of the people serving with him
    - those people are not going to be President either

    5. he is a loyal patriot
    - as am I, but I doesn't make me qualified to be President.

    I'm sure he's got fantastic idea and again, I have nothing against Mr. Paul, I just think he's too thinly qualified to take a chance on for such an important position.

    Again, let's get the guy some significant executive experience and have him run again in a few years.
    (more)
  • ladyjane ParkMan 2012/08/07 02:09:58
    ladyjane
    It doesn't matter - no matter what you would find something wrong with him and it's too bad that you can't be more open to the fact that the people running these elections aren't going to put anyone into office that they can't control and take control of the Untied States through. Ron Paul is one they have never been able to sway in their direction... That's what sets him apart from all the rest and makes him the best one for the job....
  • ParkMan ladyjane 2012/08/07 03:23:24
    ParkMan
    Ok fair enough. I didn't realize that Romney was being controlled by those really in charge. Good point.
  • ladyjane ParkMan 2012/08/07 06:20:50
    ladyjane
    I'm not saying that Romney is controlled at this point but we would find out pretty darn quick if he were elected to office...I don't think we can afford a mistake. However - it would be a disaster if Obama got back in...That is something people need to think long and hard about before they vote for him.
  • Tony 2012/08/05 14:21:26
    Ron Paul
    Tony
    +1
    He is getting my vote as a write in.
  • KingdomNow 2012/08/05 14:15:37
    Ron Paul
    KingdomNow
    But the one that will win this time is Romney, who is better than the Fraud.
  • Jensenmk 2012/08/05 13:50:54
    Neither
    Jensenmk
    +1
    Herman Cain or Condoleezza Rice are better choices.
  • Rusty Shackleford 2012/08/05 13:21:36
    Ron Paul
    Rusty Shackleford
    +2
    No doubt.
  • American 2012/08/05 12:14:09
  • wildcat 2012/08/05 12:03:32
    Ron Paul
    wildcat
    +2
    I am a Democrat, but I still can not figure out the Past Republican nominees.
  • Phantom 2012/08/05 11:50:05
    Ron Paul
    Phantom
    +3
    Ron Paul, if he sticks to his word. Romney's just a shill for the wealthy.
  • darwolf 2012/08/05 11:24:40
    Ron Paul
    darwolf
    +1
    Ron Paul
  • 9th of 9 2012/08/05 10:33:21
    Ron Paul
    9th of 9
    +2
    Hands down.
  • WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB 2012/08/05 10:28:28
    Ron Paul
    WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    +5
    If you wish to retain any portion of this present system, and ensure (however temporarily) some modicum of "liberty", then vote Ron Paul.
    Otherwise, vote for one of the other selectees, and your children's doom.
  • Mopvyzo 2012/08/05 10:14:27
    Neither
    Mopvyzo
    +3
    Hopefully we'll never know.
  • sean 2012/08/05 09:56:40
    Ron Paul
    sean
    +4
    first i think GD5, is do a new poll including obama, because i think their was massive voter fraud in the rep. nom. process, who wouldn't want to get rid of the federal reserve corporation, the rothschilds and the other few illuminalti who own it, are now costing americans 500,000 billion in intrest alone each year, ( NOT CHINA AND JAPAN ) end all foreign aid too everyone, get all the troops out of the middle east and africa and around the world, get rid of the CIA, AL QUEDA CREATED BY THE CIA AND THE DRUG TRADE RAN BY THE CIA ALSO, ALL POLLS SHOWED THE ONLY ONE WHO BEAT OBAMA IN A GENERAL ELECTION, WAS RON PAUL..WHILE IT SHOWED ROMNEY LOSING TO OBAMA, BY A FEW %, THEY HAD ROMNEY THE WINNER BEFORE THE RACE EVEN STARTED, PAUL WON EVERY DEBATE IN A LANDSLIDE, THE REASON MOST MEDIA OUTLETS STOPPED DOING POLLS , PAUL IS THE ONLY ONE WHO WANTED TO AUDIT THE FED WHICH SHOWED THEY LENT 16 TRILLION, IN THE PARTIAL AUDIT HE WAS ABLE TO GET, NOW PAUL WANTS TO DO A PHYSICAL AUDIT OF THE GOLD, IN FORT KNOX, BECAUSE THEIR ISN'T ANY LEFT..PAUL HAS ALWAYS BEEN AHEAD OF HIS TIME..AND THE ONLY ONE WHO WOULD HAVE PUT AMERICA AND AMERICANS FIRST..

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/20 18:02:09

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals