Romney

[uchetal]

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/attachment.php?attachmentid=483750&stc=1&d=1342098557

[uchetal]

I mistakenly doubled posted this picture however...this man it double trouble as he has an agenda to omit many rights thousands have fought years to have.

[Faldur]

You do know there is a politics forum?

[uchetal]

...and mistakenly put in in the general discussion category. My apologies.

[Willie Escalade]

We already know what he stands for...

[Prospero]

Why won't he release his tax returns? Here i a nice thoughtful piece from the new Yorker - as even leading Republicans askwhy the candidate is being so cagey.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/07/why-wont-romney-release-more-tax-returns.html

Four main possibilities.
1. He has had extremely high levels of income
2. it will reveal he has even more big offshore accounts
3. He has made lots of deeply embarassing investments
4. He has managed to avoid paying much tax at all.

What a splendid President he will make!

[Ben]

Why won't he release his tax returns? Here i a nice thoughtful piece from the new Yorker - as even leading Republicans askwhy the candidate is being so cagey.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/07/why-wont-romney-release-more-tax-returns.html

Four main possibilities.
1. He has had extremely high levels of income
2. it will reveal he has even more big offshore accounts
3. He has made lots of deeply embarassing investments
4. He has managed to avoid paying much tax at all.

What a splendid President he will make!

He's extremely secretive. We don't know how much cash he has in offshore bank accounts. Is it $300 million? $400 million? Is it a billion bucks? But we should remember who this guy is. His background. I mean, he isn't, say, a professor of public ethics like Clive Hamilton.
He didn't own and operate a small business or a medium-sized business. And was actually concerned and committed to creating jobs. (Big corporate capitalism is NOT about job creation. It's about wealth creation -- for the owners. It's based on private profits. And you do that any which way you can. Even if you have to break the law.
The sole goal is: maximizing money. Not jobs. Not being good stewards of the environment. Not a deep concern with morality. Not concern and care about future generations. Not concern about the 30 million other species on this planet. Those are externalities. And you have to avoid thinking about that "stuff" otherwise you couldn't do your job.
And Romney has come out of this world. Is he a bad person? No. His training and thinking come out of this.
Is he a moral person? Yes, of course. As in everyone has their own internal morality.
But its a morality I firmly disagree with -- :))

[Ben]

Mitt Romney, a Felon? "No!" Says Romney Spokesman- YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2SQszpWpZI&feature=plcp)

[Odelay]

Why won't he release his tax returns? Here i a nice thoughtful piece from the new Yorker - as even leading Republicans askwhy the candidate is being so cagey.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/07/why-wont-romney-release-more-tax-returns.html

Four main possibilities.
1. He has had extremely high levels of income
2. it will reveal he has even more big offshore accounts
3. He has made lots of deeply embarassing investments
4. He has managed to avoid paying much tax at all.

What a splendid President he will make!


We already know all those things. Which one of those things haven't we already surmised from his 2010 tax return and various other financial reporting that we've read? Answer: none.

The simple fact is he won't divulge more because he's a pussy.

He rides bitch on a jet ski. Someone tell me how this guy isn't a complete pussy.

[Prospero]

Ben - I simply don't buy the notion of an individual and private morality. That way total chaos lies. I think there are measures of ethics and morality which are universal - and Romney falls way short. But you're correct - in the world he was bred in the creation of private wealth is the be and end all. He is a shapeshifter.

[ed_jaxon]

He would still be better than Bush.

[Prospero]

He would still be better than Bush.

But fortunately Bush isn't running....

[buttslinger]

A Matter of Perspective

To some people on this chart, Bush and Cheney were not bumbling fools, Bush and Cheney were GODS. Water to wine, healing the sick? Who gives a shit? These guys could pass regulations and tax policies that would turn a million dollars into ten million dollars!!! GODS!!!

[Prospero]

Friend of mine met Cheney recently. Said he was a likeable old devil.

[thombergeron]

I met him once before he was veep, and he was indeed a charming guy. He would have you killed without even thinking about it, but he's got a friendly smile and a warm handshake.

[buttslinger]

When my niece was working at Border Books, he set off the alarm when he walked through the electronic sensor at the exit door. He and the Secret Service guys stopped and stared at my niece who had a whole armful of books, and she gave them the "move on" look. Either he was stealing a book or his pacemaker set off the alarm. haw haw haw.

[thombergeron]

This seems like pretty clear evidence that Mitt Romney no longer has any influence whatsoever at Bain Capital. In fact, it looks a lot like the current leadership at Bain is actively trying to derail Romney's presidential campaign.

Workers at Bain-owned plant appeal to Romney to save their jobs (http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/17/us-usa-campaign-bain-idINBRE86G1BP20120717)

[onmyknees]

A Matter of Perspective

To some people on this chart, Bush and Cheney were not bumbling fools, Bush and Cheney were GODS. Water to wine, healing the sick? Who gives a shit? These guys could pass regulations and tax policies that would turn a million dollars into ten million dollars!!! GODS!!!


Give a Man a fish and you'll feed him for a day.......give a man your neighbors fish for a week and you'll have an Obama supporter.

[onmyknees]

It's not a Tax

[onmyknees]

A Matter of Perspective

To some people on this chart, Bush and Cheney were not bumbling fools, Bush and Cheney were GODS. Water to wine, healing the sick? Who gives a shit? These guys could pass regulations and tax policies that would turn a million dollars into ten million dollars!!! GODS!!!


I don't know where you obtained your goofy pie chart.....My data comes from Ernst & Young one of the country's foremost non partisan accounting firms. Pie Chart ? Fail

Tax away my foolish friends. Would it be asking too much for you to read the data and become educated on the effect of taxation ?



Ernst and Young: Obama’s Tax Increase Would Kill 710,000 Jobs


Curtis Dubay (http://blog.heritage.org/author/curtisdubay/)
July 18, 2012 at 11:00 am
(4) (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/18/ernst-and-young-obamas-tax-increase-would-kill-710000-jobs/#idc-container)





A new study conducted by Ernst and Young (http://www.nfib.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=OMV7uZczVaM%3d&tabid=1083) proves conclusively that the President’s tax increase would be devastating to the economy and jobs.
The study finds that, if Congress misguidedly adopted President Obama’s plan to raise taxes on job creators by allowing the Bush-era tax policies to expire for incomes over $200,000 ($250,000 for married filers), the economy and jobs would suffer terribly:

Output in the long run would fall by 1.3 percent, or $200 billion, in today’s economy;
Employment in the long run would fall by 0.5 percent or, roughly 710,000 fewer jobs, in today’s economy;
Capital stock and investment in the long run would fall by 1.4 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively; and
Real after-tax wages would fall by 1.8 percent.
There are almost 13 million Americans out of work today (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf). President Obama’s tax increase would needlessly add almost three-quarters of a million people to that already much too large number. Even those with jobs wouldn’t escape the pain of President Obama’s tax increase, as they would see their wages suffer.
The report validates Heritage’s argument that President Obama’s tax increase plan would badly hurt job creation because it would fall heaviest on the most successful businesses (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/07/obama-s-taxmageddon-tax-increase-would-hurt-job-creation) that employ workers and pay their taxes through the individual income tax (known as flow-through businesses). The study reports:
The concern over higher individual tax rates has also been a focus because of the prominent role played by flow-through businesses—S corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and sole proprietorships—in the US economy and that a large fraction of flow-through income is subject to the top two individual income tax rates. These businesses employ 54% of the private sector work force and pay 44% of federal business income taxes. The number of workers employed by large flow-through businesses is also significant: more than 20 million workers are employed by flow-through businesses with more than 100 employees. (Emphasis added.)
President Obama is fond of saying his tax increase wouldn’t impact 97 percent of small businesses. But those 97 percent of small businesses aren’t job creators. They range from people in their basements selling items on e-Bay to lawyers who practice out of their homes.
The businesses that would pay this tax increase are the businesses that hire millions of workers. Higher taxes on these vital job creators could force them to cut back on their existing workforce and would certainly cause them to slow hiring of new workers.
President Obama couches his argument for tax hikes on the rich in terms of fairness. But it would be anything but fair that millions of unemployed Americans desperate to go back to work would find it harder to land a job to provide for their families because of President Obama’s misguided class warfare.
There can be no doubt any more that President Obama’s Taxmageddon tax increase would devastate jobs. The Ernst and Young study should be the final nail in the coffin for his plan in Congress. It is time for Congress to do what’s right and stop all of Taxmageddon (http://www.heritage.org/issues/taxes/taxmageddon) today.

[BluegrassCat]

I don't know where you obtained your goofy pie chart.....My data comes from Ernst & Young one of the country's foremost non partisan accounting firms.



Non-partisan? Fail! LMFAO! Of course the very "non-partisan" Chamber of Commerce has no agenda. And it's hilarious that you're willing to embrace Keynesianism when you think it serves the talking points Fox News fed you. "Your data" are as full of shit as you are. If they're "your data" why don't you try to summarize them yourself instead of cutting and pasting. OMK tries to put on big-boy pants but once again shits himself.

If there's any relationship between high taxes on the rich and job growth it suggests that higher taxes are associated with better job growth.

[Ben]

Interesting discussion about Romney w/ Thom Hartmann:

Hartmann Vs. Matthew Vadum - The Importance of Romney's Bain Departure.- YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RmLy0L1cp0&feature=plcp)

[Ben]

Non-partisan? Fail! LMFAO! Of course the very "non-partisan" Chamber of Commerce has no agenda. And it's hilarious that you're willing to embrace Keynesianism when you think it serves the talking points Fox News fed you. "Your data" are as full of shit as you are. If they're "your data" why don't you try to summarize them yourself instead of cutting and pasting. OMK tries to put on big-boy pants but once again shits himself.

If there's any relationship between high taxes on the rich and job growth it suggests that higher taxes are associated with better job growth.

Well, there were high levels of growth in the 50s, 60s and early 70s. When there were high taxes on the fiscally rich.
But you also need to abide by market principles, too.
Which means: markets function properly, as it were, when investment income stays in the country, when sellers bear the full cost of what they produce and when savings is invested in real wealth, not phantom wealth. Those are the three key benchmarks as to how markets are supposed to work.
But growth isn't a good thing. Because you cannot have perpetual growth on a finite planet.
A system based on endless production and consumption isn't sustainable. It's not.
You cannot have endless growth.... I mean, at some point, with respect to population growth, you run out of physical space.
Anyway, it's absolutely insane to think that we can keep growing and growing, endlessly producing and consuming. I mean, even all our waste/garbage will catch up to us at some point.
The planet cannot take this type of despoliation forever.

Paul Ehrlich - Cowboy Economy or Spaceship Economy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylidHBewvWI)

David Suzuki speech-Calgary, Alberta - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jonGU0HI2IQ)

[onmyknees]

Non-partisan? Fail! LMFAO! Of course the very "non-partisan" Chamber of Commerce has no agenda. And it's hilarious that you're willing to embrace Keynesianism when you think it serves the talking points Fox News fed you. "Your data" are as full of shit as you are. If they're "your data" why don't you try to summarize them yourself instead of cutting and pasting. OMK tries to put on big-boy pants but once again shits himself.

If there's any relationship between high taxes on the rich and job growth it suggests that higher taxes are associated with better job growth.


LMFAO.....Our resident economics professor and incurable sycophant reminds me a lot of his idol....their strong suits are not economics, but if we just give them 4 more years...they'll get it down !!!!!!!

Here's a sad sack who sometime ago posts the results a poll conducted by some tiny college because he agreed with the findings. Nothing wrong with that when you're easily fooled.... When asked to provide the control data and footnotes of this poll, ( who did they poll, when did they poll) he either was unable to or chose not to...just take his word....he's that smart. Yet he out of hand dismisses an in depth comprehensive and conclusive study by one of the worlds leading accounting firms with nothing more than a few sentences. Yes...he's that smart....but would you expect anything less from an intellectual dud who belongs to a party whose leader strenuously assures us the penalty for not obtaining health care in NOT a tax, then sends his Solicitor General to The Supreme Court to argue it is a tax, Then moments after the decision is handed down, reverts back to telling us it's not a tax. Can you see how he might just be distracted by shiny objects ? What a moron. My guess is he either didn't read this particular study...or didn't understand it.
And for the record, here's some facts relevant to the firm that worked for months compiling data that he laughingly dismisses...because you guessed it.....he's that smart.
So who ya gonna believe....Ernst and Young or Barry and Bluegrass and 40 straight months of over 12% real unemployment and the worst recovery since The Depression? And don't forget...Barry and Bluegrass are the same economic wizards that told us if we passed the stimulus, we'd be below 6% unemployment by 2012. :confused::confused:


Ernst & Young was ranked . No. 1 in the Forbes Magazine's The Best Accounting Firms to Work For in 2012, claiming that EY treats its employees better than other big firms.
The firm was ranked No. 1 in BusinessWeek's annual list of Best Places To Launch a Career for 2008.
The firm was ranked No. 44 in the Fortune list of 100 Best Companies to Work For, and the highest among the Big Four, for 2009.
Ernst & Young was ranked 4th in Universum's America's Ideal Employers list 2011 and 3rd in its Global Top Employers list.
The firm was No. 34 in ComputerWorld's 100 Best Places To Work For In IT for 2009.
The firm was also placed among the top 50 places in the Where Women Want to Work awards for 2007.
The firm was named as one of the 10 Best Companies for Working Mothers by Working Mothers magazine in 2006.
Over the past decade contributed more to House Republicans, but more to Senate Democrats.


PS.........This just in....jobless claims just surged last week by 34,000 and consumer confidence is down for the 3rd straight month...but hey what would Barry and Bluegrass say? "The Private Sector is doing just fine" !!!

[Stavros]

I guess the President's magic wand isn't working -isn't that what you expect from the incumbent in the White House? And isn't that how you expect President Romney to rescue the national economy? It doesn't matter that you are not an Economics Professor, but your versions of the causes of the USA's economic problems have never addressed core underlying issues which most President's could not control -they may establish frameworks or regimes of regulation, taxation, subsidy and so on, but the USA is part of a global economy and there is only so much a President can do -in the UK we have the kind of government you want there, and our Prime Minister Cameron has just said that we should expect austerity measures to last until 2020, as good an admission of failure from the top as you will get, from a country that doesn't even approach the figures on economic growth you have had under Obama. Needless to say, austerity means posh boys having to slum it with Mumm instead of Louis Roederer. You won't read it but you can find the report here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9410053/David-Cameron-no-end-in-sight-for-austerity.html

As for Ernst & Young, you forgot to mention in your list that they audited four of the feeder funds that were part of Bernie Madoff's famous firm...at one point they were sued for negligence, malpractice and breach of contract-ok the suit was dropped, but it doesn't explain how such Titans of high finance could be duped by some bloke sitting in an office on 53 and 3rd reading Superman comics when he/they were supposed to be investing their clients money...eh?

[thombergeron]

Ernst & Young was ranked . No. 1 in the Forbes Magazine's The Best Accounting Firms to Work For in 2012, claiming that EY treats its employees better than other big firms.
The firm was ranked No. 1 in BusinessWeek's annual list of Best Places To Launch a Career for 2008.
The firm was ranked No. 44 in the Fortune list of 100 Best Companies to Work For, and the highest among the Big Four, for 2009.
Ernst & Young was ranked 4th in Universum's America's Ideal Employers list 2011 and 3rd in its Global Top Employers list.
The firm was No. 34 in ComputerWorld's 100 Best Places To Work For In IT for 2009.
The firm was also placed among the top 50 places in the Where Women Want to Work awards for 2007.
The firm was named as one of the 10 Best Companies for Working Mothers by Working Mothers magazine in 2006.


Totally HIGH-larious that you cut-and-pasted the section from Ernst & Young's Wikipedia page about what a great place it is to work, and failed even to mention the very next section of the Wikipedia article, which details the many fines, judgements, and cease and desist orders levied against EY for things like negligence, falsifying court documents, fraud, violating securities laws, etc -- all things seemingly more relevant to the discussion at hand than the quality of EY's HR department.

You're not even very good at trolling.

[BluegrassCat]

Here's a sad sack who sometime ago posts the results a poll conducted by some tiny college because he agreed with the findings. Nothing wrong with that when you're easily fooled.... When asked to provide the control data and footnotes of this poll, ( who did they poll, when did they poll) he either was unable to or chose not to...just take his word....he's that smart.

Oh dear what a sad little troll you are! University of Michigan = some tiny college. LMFAO! I guess we shouldn't expect more from you. Where did you get your B.A.? At Rikers?

So you're ignorant, that's forgivable, but you're also a liar. I gave you the link to the study's exact methodology. Here it is again liar. http://electionstudies.org/studypages/2008_2009panel/anes2008_2009panel.htm Of course we know what happened. You couldn't figure it out given your 8th grade education and so you lied about it.




Yet he out of hand dismisses an in depth comprehensive and conclusive study by one of the worlds leading accounting firms with nothing more than a few sentences. Yes...he's that smart....but would you expect anything less from an intellectual dud who belongs to a party whose leader strenuously assures us the penalty for not obtaining health care in NOT a tax, then sends his Solicitor General to The Supreme Court to argue it is a tax, Then moments after the decision is handed down, reverts back to telling us it's not a tax. Can you see how he might just be distracted by shiny objects ? What a moron. My guess is he either didn't read this particular study...or didn't understand it.
And for the record, here's some facts relevant to the firm that worked for months compiling data that he laughingly dismisses...because you guessed it.....he's that smart.
So who ya gonna believe....Ernst and Young or Barry and Bluegrass and 40 straight months of over 12% real unemployment and the worst recovery since The Depression? And don't forget...Barry and Bluegrass are the same economic wizards that told us if we passed the stimulus, we'd be below 6% unemployment by 2012.


I asked you to explain "your data." Apparently you can't. No surprise there, you obviously didn't read it and couldn't understand it anyway. Someone told you it supported your extremist ideology so you rush to copy and paste it over here. Do you ever get sick of carrying the water for your masters?

I asked you to explain your belief in Keynesiasm here for tax cuts but not for fiscal stimulus. You couldn't because you don't understand what you're regurgitating. You're a puppet. I provided evidence that there's no positive effect on employment from tax cuts for the rich. Your silence is deafening.

And as the other posters noted, you hilariously proved my point by dishonestly copying the authors' "bonafides" while ignoring their very serious problems. Why don't you find some evidence that Michigan's National Election Study is flawed? (I know you won't because there's no link at the DailyCaller telling you about it).

Thanks for the laughs puppet. Now don't you have a PO to report to?

[buttslinger]

Even a birdbrain can repeat what he hears on the radio, but if you ask him what it means.......he has no answer.

[buttslinger]

Romney profited from the 2008 crash somehow, either by last minute inside information, or not paying taxes at all because he lost money, or he played the system and profited on other people's losses somehow. Stuff that happened that even McCain's boys didn't see.
I also think Obama knows there is real dirt here, or you wouldn't hear him personally calling for them to be released, if he wasn't sure what was in there he would have used his attack dogs to embarass Romney. Whatever is in there is more than embarassing, it's damning, and you're going to hear Democrats refer to it over and over, every time the Republicans mention the economy.

[LABiM75&StrF51]

.


R*Money
(RoMney)

Needs to :ignore: & :salad if he wants to win.


.

[Ben]

I wish Paul would've won the nomination. Then there would've been an actual debate.
Paul, of course, has good ideas with respect to military spending, foreign policy, etc., etc., etc. (Paul wants to make deep cuts to military spending. Not necessarily defense. But military. Ending all these needless and illegal wars. Including the asinine and fruitless drug war. I mean, why don't we have a war on dandruff -- ha ha ha!)
I don't support all of Paul's positions. I just think there would be an actual debate between him and Obama.
Can't see that happening with Obama and Romney. I mean, they serve the same interests and get their cash from the same banking and insurance sector.
The only issue they'll discuss: how far should we lower taxes. And how close should we get to a perfect form of capitalism. Which has never existed. And never will. Because, as George Carlin pointed out, the "owners" don't want that. I'm talking, as Carlin said, about the real owners. Carlin said: FORGET THE POLITICIANS. They are there to give you the illusion that you have choice. You don't. You have owners. They own you. And they certainly own the likes of Obama and Romney. I mean, Romney is poor relative to the extreme wealth of the Koch brothers; exceedingly poor.)
So, why not end all taxes? Let's not fuck about. Let's have pure capitalism. (I, of course, don't support this. But that's what they -- in the words of Carlin: the people that own this place -- are inevitably pushing towards.
But do the billionaire donors of politicians really want a plenary market system? Do they? Do the Koch brothers and executives like Lloyd Blankfein and Rex Tillerson really want a thorough market system where there are no taxes, no subsidies, no bailouts and no externalizing their costs? Well, no. They'd be mad to push for that.
However, they're simply serving their own interests -- and it's fully rational and levelheaded-- to shift the tax base from them to everyone else.
And Romney isn't in this presidential race to "create" jobs. It isn't about that. Nor should it be. He is rational.
And his own good sense dictates to "gain wealth, forgetting all but self."
He's being, well, coyly rational. He's serving, again, his own concerns. He knows that.
And, too, as a rational actor, well, why should he care or concern himself with anyone else? Why? The business world is not benevolent. And can't be.