Michelle!! You shoulda' left this line out!!!

[Mithros]

that is not accurate - and for reference I would point you to the constant worries about the increase in difference between the wealth of the top and the wealth of the bottom. redistribution is indeed seen as a good in and of itself for that purpose by many in the (D) party.



....no.... you are confusing "conservatism" with "anarchy".

Limiting implies a barrier that cannot be surpassed. The "limit" in question is a 3% increase on the top marginal rate. That's not a limit on success, but it is consistent with a view that those who have benefited the most owe a debt to those they benefited from.

And I don't think I'm confusing the two. If this were even 2008 I think you'd have a point. But the Republican party of today is different. There aren't any good regulations, there isn't any good domestic spending. Government's job is to step in when someone is violating someone else's rights.. That's it. It's a fair assessment of the current state of the Republican party.

 

[Paschendale]

What would the average citizen they governed be worth today??

That's the point.

Romney and his type have been pissing on the middle class for 3 decades. IMO, if you vote for Romney, you're opening your mouth and lapping it up.

This is kind of the larger point. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Mitt is somehow a black hole of evil. He's probably a decent guy. Which is more than the right wing will usually say about Obama. The trouble is that his priorities are totally incompatible with most of ours. His priorities are to generate more wealth for the wealthy. A tiny minority benefits while the majority suffers. He probably thinks this is a good thing. He's wrong. And he and his ilk will do a lot of damage to the lives of many if given more power.

I think it is a huge overreaction to suggest that the First Lady's comment was directed squarely at Romney, but who knows. Maybe it was. And it's not an inaccurate position to take. The quality of a person's character and the good they do for others is far more important than how much money they have. What's weird about that? I'm glad to see that Romney does some good. I don't think any sane people ever really thought he didn't. I disagree that helping fund a church is a good deed, but that's my position and I'm well aware that it's not universally held.

But the movement that Romney represents is the opposite. It is centered on a person's worth being determined by their wealth. It's part of the decades long ideas behind Trickle Down. It's part of the outcry that rich people shouldn't be paying taxes and poor people are mainly lazy moochers. It's part of the conservative Supreme Court justices' many decisions that make it more difficult for poor people to have a fair shot in the legal system. It's part of the Citizens United decision that is allowing a few billionaires to exert an inordinate influence over our elections. It's part of the demonization of unions.

Whether Romney personally believes that is immaterial. The movement whose ideals he will further does believe that. And that movement is the antithesis of a free and democratic America.

 

[hazlnut]

No, my dear. It has everything to do with his wealth. Without looking it up, what is his stand on Education in America? Without looking it up, what his proposal for helping Americans achieve the American Dream? Without looking it up what does he advocate for Social Security? The Middle East? You don't know. You know the talking points you've read -- some of them from here for which we can all feel sorry for. (Ha!) But you don't know.

It's all about Bain Capital. I posted a very informative thread about Bain's many successes and few failures. I've posted the fact that a dozen union pension funds invest in Bain, colleges, left-wing organizations. So this demon of a company, this devil in disguise, Disney, seems good enough for them. How hypocritical.

When Obama can't run on his record, he has nothing left but to bash his opponent with character assassination. Being wealthy is nothing to apologize for. It's something to be proud of. Shame on us.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...-sterling-business-career.html#post1060873309



Read my posts on this thread. Then open your own mouth. Or better yet, keep it shut.

I was replying to your post re: the wealth of other popular American presidents and pointing out that, depending on the time, the middle class had high quality of life. And the working class had real opportunities to climb the ladder. Today that is a fantasy.

If you believe that Romney and the super-wealthy care about anything except getting out of paying taxes, then vote for Romney.

If you run the country the same way you run a fund, that would mean cutting the funding for any institution that underperforms. Mitt Romney is the worst possible person to solve this country's problems.

 

[justabubba]

ah, so being a liberal excuses you from not having any clue what struggles the average american faces?

no, having a clue about what the average American faces is what excuses one from not having a clue
pity i needed to have to explain that

 

[MaggieD]

no one is saying having wealth is bad
some of our most beloved presidents are on that list
and that is because that - despite their wealth - they espoused political actions that were beneficial to the common citizen
which is something that is not found in romney; by his words or deeds

Keep moving the goal posts. I'll keep moving my tight end. Ha! What many people are saying is that he can't govern because he's out of touch with reality -- because of his money. I see no difference. Romney hasn't had a chance to implement anything that would benefit this country. You haven't even read his position on the issues. You've picked up what the media and the Obama Campaign has been puttin' down for months. Use your own brain.

How many of them made insanely stupid comments like "Borrow it from your parents" or "Let them eat cake".....evidencing that they are completely out of touch with the vast majority of the electorate?

Please link to a quote by Romney that says, "Let them eat cake." I have a big surprise for you. There are millions of Americans that can loan their children money. That avenue is a valid resource. It is not as if he said, "Ask your parents for the money, they can afford it." That's not what he said. It's what you want to hear, but it's not what he said.

Pretty sure he has made huge differences in peoples' lives but not so sure on the wonderful part. Especially after he signed MA socialist healthcare system into place.

He left the state in much better condition than when he left it. Why do you think the only thing the opposition has on Romney is RomneyCare during his tenure?

It's not about who has money and who doesn't. It's always been about who is more in touch with those who don't have money. Off the top of my head, Kennedy increased social security payments, increased unemployment payments, increased minimum wage, provided funds for homebuilding for the poor, increased welfare, and supported unions. FDR, I don't think I even need to go into much detail.

Both of these presidents were wealthy, but realized the success of their presidency was contingent upon whether they had a positive or a negative impact on those less fortunat than themselves.

It speaks to the whole point Michelle Obama was making. Sucess is not money.

Now it's not about money. See my first comment in this post.

 

[cpwill]

Limiting implies a barrier that cannot be surpassed. The "limit" in question is a 3% increase on the top marginal rate.

plus an increase in the investment tax, plus an increase in the regulatory burden. however, here I was speaking to the intellectual movement behind the platform rather than the platform itself, you are correct. However, what do you think the implicit assumption behind the claim that we need to reduce income disparity is? That we will magically come up with trillions for the poor without having to get it from anywhere?

That's not a limit on success, but it is consistent with a view that those who have benefited the most owe a debt to those they benefited from.

yes, and Republicans would probably then point out that generally the upper income earners are already paying more than their share of taxes vice income, which means that the people that they benefited from, by and large, are themselves.

And I don't think I'm confusing the two. If this were even 2008 I think you'd have a point. But the Republican party of today is different. There aren't any good regulations, there isn't any good domestic spending.

That is incorrect, both by the lights of the GOP platform (the standard you used above) and the intellectual movement behind it.

Government's job is to step in when someone is violating someone else's rights.. That's it. It's a fair assessment of the current state of the Republican party.

That is a fair assessment of the direction we would seek to move in, pushing Government back to focusing on the issues of the commons. But conservatives are chock-a-block with ideas on how to improve education, welfare, etc. You may disagree with those ideas, but do not pretend that we do not have them.

 

[hazlnut]

This is kind of the larger point. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Mitt is somehow a black hole of evil. He's probably a decent guy.

He's absolutely a decent guy with a lovely wife.

But as a group, the super-wealthy hedge fund and private equity people are greedy ****s who create a black hole of selfish evil.

If you bring that particular group mentality to D.C., it will be Bush on steroids.

 

[Mithros]

I wouldn't bet bet my life on that, let alone $20. Suffice to say that Romney has done nothing illegal, but he is not one to be in touch with the less fortunate. Unless you can enlighten me on his community work, of which I am not aware.

Absolutely, charitable giving is the exact opposite of a tax shelter. For the highest of highest income earners, give 100$ and Uncle Sam gives you back 35$. That leaves you with 65$ less than not giving at all.

It's only abusive if you're benefiting yourself with the charitable donation.. and the IRS is pretty darn good about enforcing that.

 

[MaggieD]

He's absolutely a decent guy with a lovely wife.

But as a group, the super-wealthy hedge fund and private equity people are greedy ****s who create a black hole of selfish evil.

If you bring that particular group mentality to D.C., it will be Bush on steroids.

What do you know about Bain Capital? Absolutely nothing except what you've read from talking points. Why don't you educate yourself? What are you afraid of? Here's Bain Capital's record. Here's a list of the things these greedy pigs have done:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...-sterling-business-career.html#post1060873309

 

[Born Free]

China and India are very proud of the jobs Romney created for them.

Please read my post #63, I see you missed it.

 

[disneydude]

Please link to a quote by Romney that says, "Let them eat cake." I have a big surprise for you. There are millions of Americans that can loan their children money. That avenue is a valid resource. It is not as if he said, "Ask your parents for the money, they can afford it." That's not what he said. It's what you want to hear, but it's not what he said.

Marie Antoinette....when educated about the reality that the people were starving and that they had no bread made the statement "Well....then let them eat cake". Romney shares the same "Marie Antoinette" mentality. Oh....people in America are struggling, kids need ability to get student loans and grants to finance a college education to help them get the knowledge and skills to get good jobs in the future?.....well....."let them borrow it from their parents".

Maggie....you keep attempting to pull the wool over people's eyes and claim that liberals are "villifying" Romney because of his wealth. That is little more than playing the "martyr card". It isn't Romney's wealth....its his "Marie Antoinette" attitude and understanding of everyday Americans.
You act as if nothing about Romney is open for discussion. You don't want to talk about Bain....you don't want to talk about Romneycare.....you don't want to talk about his record as Governor....you don't want to talk about what Romney/Ryan's proposals do to the middle and working classes in America. All you want to do is cry "class warfare" and play victim. Sorry....but Romney's ability to relate to the struggles of average Americans is relevant....try as you might to make it not so.

 

[cpwill]

This is kind of the larger point. I don't think anyone is suggesting that Mitt is somehow a black hole of evil. He's probably a decent guy. Which is more than the right wing will usually say about Obama.

....Did you miss the last night of the GOP convention?

 

[Zyphlin]

Well...I will say one thing. The attacks on Romney aren't motivated based on his wealth. Much like attacks on Obama, attacks on Romney are motivated at their foundation on one thing....Partisanship. The need to attack the other guy. Once you get that foundation, then you simply find excuses and means to further it...in this case, his wealth. But it's not the baseline reasoning. The continued discussion about former wealthy Presidents highlights this...those that basically go about things in the way the Democrats like are "in touch" with people and are "good" but those that view things like Republicans are '"out of touch" with people (ignore that the country is pretty evenly split with people who think one way or the other) and are "bad". It's not about Romney's wealth, it's about partisanship...wealth is simply the vehicle, just as the notion of Obama being an "elite" or having foreign influences in his upbringing isn't the rooted but rather the vehicle for which partisan desires are launched.

Though it does make discussions pretty pointless. When simply being Republican deems one to be "out of touch" and not wanting anyone whose not the "upper class" to do well is your baseline for discussion it becomes evident no reasonable, objective, intelligent discussion can actually occur because you're effectively not actually talking to a person, you're talking to a regurgitation of talking points.

 

[cpwill]

no, having a clue about what the average American faces is what excuses one from not having a clue

oh.... so "having a clue" is the same thing in your view as "being liberal". Must be nice to live in a non-falsifiable world like that.

 

[American]

no one is saying having wealth is bad
some of our most beloved presidents are on that list
and that is because that - despite their wealth - they espoused political actions that were beneficial to the common citizen
which is something that is not found in romney; by his words or deeds

An Inside Look At The Millions Mitt Romney Has Given Away - Forbes

 

[cpwill]

Ok, but that doesnt answer the question i was asking.

Did his donations exceed what would benefit him from a tax standpoint?

Actual question.

Then the answer is yes, for the simple reason that any donation exceeds what benefits you from a tax standpoint. The only amount you can write-off is that which you give.

If I give away $100,000 and thus do not pay taxes on it, I am not $35,000 wealthier, I am $100,000 poorer. I am simply not $135,000 poorer.

 

[CJ 2.0]

i will acknowledge that romney, by his actions, has certainly benefited himself and his immediate family
others, not so much

Political blinders at their best.

I really don't understabd. You can be pro-Obama and pro progressive policies and politics all you like. I just don't understand how or why you should let your desire to be right and to see your policy objectives achieved fundamentally warp your willingness to perceive objective reality.

This isn't a judgment call issue. The guy performed a wide range of selfless acts to people in his community. From all of that conduct, he seemed, and seems, a genuinely good guy.

Which doesn't mean you should vote for him. But it does mean that you should reject the empty democratic talking abouts about how eevill he his.

 

[MaggieD]

Maggie....you keep attempting to pull the wool over people's eyes and claim that liberals are "villifying" Romney because of his wealth. That is little more than playing the "martyr card". It isn't Romney's wealth....its his "Marie Antoinette" attitude and understanding of everyday Americans.
You act as if nothing about Romney is open for discussion. You don't want to talk about Bain....you don't want to talk about Romneycare.....you don't want to talk about his record as Governor....you don't want to talk about what Romney/Ryan's proposals do to the middle and working classes in America. All you want to do is cry "class warfare" and play victim. Sorry....but Romney's ability to relate to the struggles of average Americans is relevant....try as you might to make it not so.

I'll talk about Bain. But I won't talk about it the way you and other Liberals choose to talk about it. I've backed up pretty much every one of my assertions with links. More than I can say for others that just spit out talking points from the Democratic Party.

Here's Bain:

Is Bain really a gang of corporate buccaneers who plunder their ill-gotten gains by outsourcing, euthanizing feeble portfolio companies and giving cancer to the spouses of those whom they fired? If so, union bosses, government retirees, liberal foundations and elite universities thrive on the wages of Bain’s economic Darwinism.

If, however, these institutions relish the yields that Bain Capital generates by supporting start-ups and rescuing distressed companies, 80 percent of which have prospered, then this money is honest — and Team Obama isn’t.

More at: Look who parks their cash at Bain - NYPOST.com

And here are the companies they've saved...the jobs they've saved and created...and the Democratic organizations that invest with them. A thread I set up for just this purpose: http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...-sterling-business-career.html#post1060873309

But posters don't want facts. They don't want to have to read. They just want to spout. I'm tired of it. I'm sick of the election focus on the board, but I'm not going to just let the lies go on. Liberals? They're not going to change their minds. Others? Maybe they'll get something from it.

 

[CJ 2.0]

I've never read Atlas Shrugged, although many people have recommended it to me. I thoroughly enjoyed The Stand - read it five times - I don't plan on blowing up anything any time soon. You don't pick and choose when you read books like that? I certainly do.

Why do you think President Obama doesn't want his college records released? I think I know why. Do you?

Every successful high level manager/executive believes that management leads by getting out of the way. That's not a demon's philosophy.

In re "We Built It" -- Weren't they talking about roads?? And bridges??

Atlas shrugged is good for philosophy but a mess of a book. If you are going to pick one up, read the Fountainhead. Same basic points, less heavy handed preaching, and a much more reasonable read.

Having said that, this quote from Atlas resonates to a T with the entire messaging of the Obama campaign:

““He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”

“Who?”

“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”

She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”


And if you know where things ended up in that narrative, how closely it aligns to the Obama's "you didn't build that" talking points, it's pretty scary.

 

[hazlnut]

What do you know about Bain Capital? Absolutely nothing except what you've read from talking points. Why don't you educate yourself? What are you afraid of? Here's Bain Capital's record. Here's a list of the things these greedy pigs have done:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-...-sterling-business-career.html#post1060873309

I know quite a bit about hedge funds and private equity.

There is an entire industry in D.C. that's dedicated to gathering inside information about policy decisions. They form relationships with congressional staff in order to get information before it goes public. This particular industry serves ONLY hedge funds and private equity. Before a regulatory decision is announced, or a committee report is released, the smallest but most success group of investors get a heads up. And this is still legal.

They are successful because they have figured out away around insider trading rules.

Carried interest is a small part of tax code that applies ONLY to hedge fund managers and private equity. They lobbied for and got a legal way to declare a huge chuck of their income 'capital gains'. Only carried interest has little to do with interest. It's bonus compensation, something normally recorded as ordinary income.

If you really want to understand Wall Street and culture of greed, read American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis. It's more about the 80's but in a lot of ways, we're there again.

Too Big to Fail is sociopathic. Hedge funds and private equity, as group, the industry creates a very dangerous body without remorse.

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

That last one is how the Romney team counters any criticism of a Bain deal that has a negative outcome.

 

[JRog]

I know quite a bit about hedge funds and private equity.

There is an entire industry in D.C. that's dedicated to gathering inside information about policy decisions. They form relationships with congressional staff in order to get information before it goes public. This particular industry serves ONLY hedge funds and private equity. Before a regulatory decision is announced, or a committee report is released, the smallest but most success group of investors get a heads up. And this is still legal.

They are successful because they have figured out away around insider trading rules.

Carried interest is a small part of tax code that applies ONLY to hedge fund managers and private equity. They lobbied for and got a legal way to declare a huge chuck of their income 'capital gains'. Only carried interest has little to do with interest. It's bonus compensation, something normally recorded as ordinary income.

If you really want to understand Wall Street and culture of greed, read American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis. It's more about the 80's but in a lot of ways, we're there again.

Too Big to Fail is sociopathic. Hedge funds and private equity, as group, the industry creates a very dangerous body without remorse.

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others.
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society.

That last one is how the Romney team counters any criticism of a Bain deal that has a negative outcome.

Absolutely. They've taken the "risk" out of "risk begets reward".

 

[CJ 2.0]

Yeah, if only the Romney's had had to face the kind of thing that Americans have to face, the real gut clenchers, like, say, a life-threatning illness or something...

Anyone else find it ironic that Romney just doesn't get the common man because he is wealthy, but Ted Kennedy is a paragon?

There have not been many presidents that has done more harm to the middle and lower classes than Obama.

incidentally, there have not been many more destructive and harmful policies to poor people than rich welfare programs.

Sometimes people need to separate intention from effect and judge only on the later. Because, let's be honest. Businesses don't give a f*** if they create any jobs. And you know what? They shouldn't.

Even so, businesses that don't give a f*** about creating jobs still do it a whole lot better than left wing governments directing the public purse towards that end.

And until the left understands why that is, they will never be able to do what I have always thought they should - use right wing policy to further left wing goals. Because tyhey are not mutually exclusive. If you are going to confiscate money to benefit various left wing interests and objectives, you might as well do it in a way that destroys the least value everywhere else, so that it doesn't ultimately make it too difficult for the economy to pay for all of those projects.

 

[Mithros]

plus an increase in the investment tax, plus an increase in the regulatory burden. however, here I was speaking to the intellectual movement behind the platform rather than the platform itself, you are correct. However, what do you think the implicit assumption behind the claim that we need to reduce income disparity is? That we will magically come up with trillions for the poor without having to get it from anywhere?

When you move the tax burden from one group to another you are effectively redistributing wealth. That's just as true if Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire as it was when Bush implemented them in the first place.

yes, and Republicans would probably then point out that generally the upper income earners are already paying more than their share of taxes vice income, which means that the people that they benefited from, by and large, are themselves.

That isn't true. Payroll taxes represent the largest percentage of most Americans tax burdens and yet they are absent from your analysis. Someone making 30k a year is paying an effective rate of about 16%, 14.2% of it in payroll. In fact, while the total federal tax burden increases to about 32% at 200k, it begins to drop the more you make. Due to capital gains, special rules like carried interest, loss harvesting to make capital gains losses count against earned income, etc.. The richest .1% pay far less than the rest of the top 1%.

That is incorrect, both by the lights of the GOP platform (the standard you used above) and the intellectual movement behind it.

That is a fair assessment of the direction we would seek to move in, pushing Government back to focusing on the issues of the commons. But conservatives are chock-a-block with ideas on how to improve education, welfare, etc. You may disagree with those ideas, but do not pretend that we do not have them.

In three days of the Republican convention, as well as throughout Romney's entire campaign has not been a single specific regulation or an endorsement of any domestic spending. Republicans want to cut the size of government to 18% of GDP. They want Defence spending to be increased to 6%, Medicare to be capped at 5%, SS to be capped at 6%, and Medicaid and CHIP cut to 1%. That means the entire remainder of the government is to be funded essentially through rounding errors.

So.. While it might not be the position of all Republicans, I think it's totally fair to say that the current Republican party opposes regulations and domestic spending.

 

[CJ 2.0]

or hunger
or homelessness
or joblessness
or financial desperation
or having nowhere to turn

romney, like many of his apologists, is without a clue

You know where I wouldn't turn? To a 100+k education in womyn's studies funded by loans?

And of course the other problem is that left wing policies generally make all these things worse and extend them to more people.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Tell me what Obama knows about it.

He knows what his type have always known:

Populares - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personal power and the enhancement of personal fortune by casting himself as one of the masses against the patricians and making it seem he was interested in advancing their interests.

Nothing really new here.