Romney gave millions to charity. Biden gave $369

samson7842 said:
orejon4, I wish more people understood this.

In the 80's when Reagan took office, things weren't so great but they were on the up swing. You could come out of high school, get a job, work hard and build a nice life for yourself and your family. Often you could work in the factory and make more money than your teachers back in high school. You could send your kids to a public school and know they would get a great education. Gas was cheap.

About that time conservatism started to take hold. It was heralded as the solution to all of the ills that liberalism's "Great Society" had either caused or failed to address. History shows us conservatism could not deliver on it's promises. And, at the very least, made things worse.

Fast forward to today and even if you have a college diploma, it's still a struggle to live the American dream. My parents worked as care givers in mental facilities. These were not positions that required special training. They worked a typical 40 hour work week. Yet, they were able to raise a child, purchase two homes in safe neighborhoods, three good running vehicles (a new car every five years), and take yearly vacations. Plus, they had really great health insurance. A young couple today, fresh out of high-school (hell, my mother never made it past the 8th grade) could not do what my parent's did.

Our school system is a joke. Our students are steadily falling behind other countries. Charter schools, as a whole, are no better than the public schools they've replaced. And, they don't have to take disabled or mentally challenged kids.

Where I live gas is $4.37/gallon for regular unleaded. Where are our alternatives?

If conservatism was so great, why have things gotten this bad? Notice, I said "conservatism" not Republican. Because Dems have basically embraced a lot of conservative principles. It's more about ideology than party affiliation. In all due actuality, Obama is further right than Clinton. And Clinton was pretty centrist. Neither are, or were, classically liberal.

There is something I learned about in school called, "Occam's Razor." Which basically means the answer with the easiest explanation is correct. So, I apply that to what I've seen happen to this country since conservative ideals began to really take a hold, the only conclusion I can come to is conservatism doesn't work for the average working man. One need only look at the state of our country for evidence.

I think the Bible teaches us to know a tree by the fruit it bares. After 30 years of conservatism, financial planners are telling people owning a home may not be such a great goal. In my opinion, that's some bitter tasting fruit.
Click to expand...

This. :smt115

And a bit more on the economy:

The Greek Debt Crisis As Harbinger of Things to Come

April 2012

By Jack Rasmus

From Z Magazine

The crisis in Greece is not a sovereign (government) debt crisis. That’s the surface appearance of the problem. The below-the-surface struggle is about how bankers, bondholders, and speculators—together with their politicians in government—can offload the cost of the bad assets they created onto the Greek people.

The news reported in the western press is that big banker, hedge fund, private equity financiers from northern Europe, UK, and the U.S. are willing to lose 70 percent of the value of their existing bonds. But the fact is that a 70 percent reduction covers only 30 percent of the bonds outstanding for Greece that have become bad assets.

The reported Greek debt is somewhere between $300 and $400 billion. The current loan in question to Greece is about $170 billion. But the real Greek total debt is likely around $600-$650 billion. That’s just about equal to the total on hand for the entire European bailout fund—around $4 trillion to cover not only Greece, but Portugal (for another $200 billion), Spain and Italy (more than a trillion), as well as other economies also increasingly in trouble, such as Hungary, Austria, Belgium, and soon perhaps even economic stalwarts like Norway whose housing bubble is now about to burst.

In other words, the Greek and overall Eurozone debt crisis is far from over. If you want to see what a bona fide economic depression in the 21st century looks like, look at Greece:

* One out of two youth unemployed
* General unemployment in excess of 25 percent
* GDP collapsing
* Wages falling by 20-40 percent
* Pensions shrinking
* Jobs melting away at an increasing rate

Austerity is a doomed solution to a debt crisis. Austerity is a maneuver by bondholders and bankers to buy time, in the false hope that somehow so-called market forces will stabilize so that they won’t have to sell their bonds at a loss.

Greece today is a good example of how an economy cannot “austerity” its way to recovery. Cutting the income of those who are doing the spending is not a path to recovery—as Obama and Congress will find out in 2013. Already the $2.2 trillion U.S. deficit cuts mandated in 2011, which are scheduled to take effect after the November 2012 national elections, will slow the U.S. economy to less than 1 percent GDP growth. Those aren’t my numbers; they’re the cautious Congressional Budget Office’s numbers.

There are only three ways to get out of debt-driven, global economic contraction. One way is to generate inflation. Inflation reduces the real value of the debt. But austerity leads to deep recession and depression and a further collapse of prices (deflation) of all kinds, especially wages.

The second way to resolve a debt crisis is to grow the economy. That produces more income and tax revenues, which enable a paying down of the debt. But austerity means just the opposite of economic growth. The third way is to liquidate the debt; that is, let the bondholders and bankers take their losses. WYO

So far, policymakers have failed to achieve the former—growth and inflation—and will continue to refuse the latter—liquidation of bad assets—since liquidation translates into massive losses and likely bank defaults. So in the interim, bankers, bondholders, and speculators continue to make workers and taxpayers pay.

It’s not just Greece we’re talking about. The Obama administration’s three economic recovery programs since 2009 were similarly designed to buy time. The subsidies to states, cities, the unemployed, schools, and the like were designed to put a floor under the massive collapse of consumption that was occurring in 2008-09—but only for one year. After the year, the $300-plus billion in tax cuts passed in 2009—and the additional $802 billion in tax cuts in 2010—were supposed to kick in and result in business investment and job creation in the U.S. But it didn’t happen that way. Big corporations continued to sit on a $2.5 trillion cash hoard. Meanwhile, U.S. multinationals sit on a $1.4 trillion excess cash hoard stuffed away in offshore subsidiaries in order to avoid paying U.S. corporate income taxes.

None of the above possible approaches to resolving a debt crisis— economic growth, reflation, or liquidation—is on the policy agenda in the U.S. and the Eurozone. In Europe, since late last year, the European Central Bank (ECB) has been delaying the crisis by flooding banks with a mountain of cheap loans—just as the U.S. Federal Reserve bank has been doing the past three years. In other words, the global capitalist banking system has been getting constant liquidity injections composed of zero interest loans and so-called quantitative easing —i.e., the Fed printing money to buy up bad assets from banks and lenders.

But the Federal Reserve has done a horrible job at reflating or growing the economy in the process. The trillions it has spent on bailing out the banks, printing money, buying banks and mortgage lenders’ bad subprime loans—at or near full purchase price instead of the 15 cents on the dollar they are worth—has resulted in the Federal Reserve spoon-feeding speculators around the globe and pumping up stock markets, real estate, currency speculation and volatility, oil and commodity prices, and financial securities in general. The money and credit from the Fed has not gotten to those parts of the economy that need it most.

The Fed is not broke. It can always print money. It’s just that Fed policy is itself broken. The bad assets are still there. The Fed and Congress have offset the bad assets on the private balance sheet and, in so doing, have mirrored those bad assets on the public balance sheet side. So it not only failed to remove (liquidate) the bad assets, it doubled them. Now the public sector has become as fragile as the banking sector. Liquidation is abhorred by bankers and bondholders as they don’t want their asset values reduced or expunged. They want the people to pay for the losses. And that is Greece today—and the U.S. by 2013 and beyond.

Jack Rasmus is the author of Obama’s Economy: Recovery for the Few. His website is: www.kyklosproductions.com and his blog, jackrasmus.com.
 
Last edited:
samson7842 said:
orejon4, I wish more people understood this.

In the 80's when Reagan took office, things weren't so great but they were on the up swing. You could come out of high school, get a job, work hard and build a nice life for yourself and your family. Often you could work in the factory and make more money than your teachers back in high school. You could send your kids to a public school and know they would get a great education. Gas was cheap.

About that time conservatism started to take hold. It was heralded as the solution to all of the ills that liberalism's "Great Society" had either caused or failed to address. History shows us conservatism could not deliver on it's promises. And, at the very least, made things worse.

Fast forward to today and even if you have a college diploma, it's still a struggle to live the American dream. My parents worked as care givers in mental facilities. These were not positions that required special training. They worked a typical 40 hour work week. Yet, they were able to raise a child, purchase two homes in safe neighborhoods, three good running vehicles (a new car every five years), and take yearly vacations. Plus, they had really great health insurance. A young couple today, fresh out of high-school (hell, my mother never made it past the 8th grade) could not do what my parent's did.

Our school system is a joke. Our students are steadily falling behind other countries. Charter schools, as a whole, are no better than the public schools they've replaced. And, they don't have to take disabled or mentally challenged kids.

Where I live gas is $4.37/gallon for regular unleaded. Where are our alternatives?

If conservatism was so great, why have things gotten this bad? Notice, I said "conservatism" not Republican. Because Dems have basically embraced a lot of conservative principles. It's more about ideology than party affiliation. In all due actuality, Obama is further right than Clinton. And Clinton was pretty centrist. Neither are, or were, classically liberal.

There is something I learned about in school called, "Occam's Razor." Which basically means the answer with the easiest explanation is correct. So, I apply that to what I've seen happen to this country since conservative ideals began to really take a hold, the only conclusion I can come to is conservatism doesn't work for the average working man. One need only look at the state of our country for evidence.

I think the Bible teaches us to know a tree by the fruit it bares. After 30 years of conservatism, financial planners are telling people owning a home may not be such a great goal. In my opinion, that's some bitter tasting fruit.
Click to expand...
Great post, I'd like to add a little more and offer my own insights.

In my opinion, I think this is known as "The Great Decline". We won't really "recover" anytime soon. Economic stress is here to stay with us and we will have to adapt. I know that when the first Bush was in office, we were actually in a recession back then (1988-1992). When Bill Clinton won the presidency, the economy began to rebound and things improved under his leadership. We didn't even have a fiscal deficit back then, we had a large surplus. And about the school systems, I'm not sure what happened. We used to be #1 in having the most college graduates, I know that. And you're right that we will still struggle with a college degree. Without a college degree, you're more prone to poverty, lack of health insurance and incarceration.

An alternative energy that we could use in place of gasoline would be electricity. Hence, the release of electric cars. The electric car movement attempted to start in the 1990s, but was halted by (as you say) conservatism. The electric car push has came back recently. Two cars that I know of which are powered by electricity include the Nissan Leaf and the Mitsubishi-I which are released to the general public. Both cars cost just under $40,000.

Lastly, you're probably correct about Obama, but I fear that there is no ideal politician to turn to. Obama isn't perfect, but we will have to work with him. The only two other options are Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, which wouldn't work for the benefit of this country either. We are also aware that immediately after the election, the economy will basically take a "shit" on New Years Day in 2013 if Congress cannot agree on a fiscal proposal for our country. We may actually fall back into a recession because economic growth would hover around 0.2 or 0.3%. Some projections project a decrease in economic growth for that year, so a new recession really is possible.
 
Last edited:
So I seen a SS agent guarding Romney yesterday, do you have any idea how bad I wanted to yell "Where da ho's at!?" I would of lost my job with the quickness tho.
 
4north1side2 said:
So I seen a SS agent guarding Romney yesterday, do you have any idea how bad I wanted to yell "Where da ho's at!?" I would of lost my job with the quickness tho.
Click to expand...

LOL, at first I have to confess that SS made me think WWII. Too many old movies, I guess. You would have been like Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles!

[YOUTUBE]jGQ-ISsDm8M[/YOUTUBE]
 
The Dark Knight said:
The American consumers created the profits. We can keep going round and round if you'd like.
Click to expand...

These companies wouldn't exist for consumers if Bain Capital and other private equity groups don't step in and save them for collapsing. They take a huge risk in trying to turn something around and should reap the rewards of their success. I'm not rich, but I don't mind if somebody else gets rich by taking risks in business. Everybody wants to shame a person like Romney for being successful. If you shop or work at any one of these companies, you should give a thank you to Bain Capital:

AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel.
 
jameswilson1 said:
These companies wouldn't exist for consumers if Bain Capital and other private equity groups don't step in and save them for collapsing. They take a huge risk in trying to turn something around and should reap the rewards of their success. I'm not rich, but I don't mind if somebody else gets rich by taking risks in business. Everybody wants to shame a person like Romney for being successful. If you shop or work at any one of these companies, you should give a thank you to Bain Capital:

AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel.
Click to expand...

If you shopped at one of these companies, most likely you could have those services provided by another provider if they failed. As for whether Bain's efforts were a 'turnaround' or 'asset-stripping' and 'efficiencies' (read: get rid of workers) is up for debate. And for the life of me, I don't know when the rights of shareholders began to trump the rights of workers. If it was on a democratic basis, the sheer superior numbers of workers should trump the rights of shareholders.
 
orejon4 said:
If you shopped at one of these companies, most likely you could have those services provided by another provider if they failed. As for whether Bain's efforts were a 'turnaround' or 'asset-stripping' and 'efficiencies' (read: get rid of workers) is up for debate. And for the life of me, I don't know when the rights of shareholders began to trump the rights of workers. If it was on a democratic basis, the sheer superior numbers of workers should trump the rights of shareholders.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, a turnaround typically can't happen without selling off assets or letting go of employees. It is the quickest way to bring cash back into the business. Business is not for the faint hearted. You never want to see people let go of their job, but that is the harsh reality of the world we live in. As for shareholder rights vs. employer rights...that's another tough situation. Employees have to remember they are getting paid a salary, benefits, time off, etc...that is what they are entitled to. Anyone who is investing in their retirement with a 401k or other plan is a shareholder. And in most cases, that number is far greater than the number of workers.
 
jameswilson1 said:
Unfortunately, a turnaround typically can't happen without selling off assets or letting go of employees. It is the quickest way to bring cash back into the business. Business is not for the faint hearted. You never want to see people let go of their job, but that is the harsh reality of the world we live in. As for shareholder rights vs. employer rights...that's another tough situation. Employees have to remember they are getting paid a salary, benefits, time off, etc...that is what they are entitled to. Anyone who is investing in their retirement with a 401k or other plan is a shareholder. And in most cases, that number is far greater than the number of workers.
Click to expand...

The quickest way to bring cash back into a business, is to let those who actually perform the work own the company and determine what is needed to restore profitability. Distant shareholders are not interested in making the company function properly, only in getting revenues increased, regardless of what that means for the company's viability long-term. That usually means asset-stripping, even if the company could be ultimately made stronger through innovations, etc. Shareholders are notorious for their lack of the long-view, and are usually concerned about the next quarterly report.

And most venture capital firms have a smaller, much more select group of investors and investments in them are prevented by many pension plans, particularly the large, public ones. And I disagree with your comment about the harsh reality of the world we live in. This world has been structured, not by some sort of happenstance, but due to clear policy choices that flow from what should be democratically structured bodies. However, because of the disproportionate share of influence that finance capital exerts over our laws and trade policy, shareholders exert an influence that far exceeds their numbers.
 
orejon4 said:
The quickest way to bring cash back into a business, is to let those who actually perform the work own the company and determine what is needed to restore profitability. Distant shareholders are not interested in making the company function properly, only in getting revenues increased, regardless of what that means for the company's viability long-term. That usually means asset-stripping, even if the company could be ultimately made stronger through innovations, etc. Shareholders are notorious for their lack of the long-view, and are usually concerned about the next quarterly report.

And most venture capital firms have a smaller, much more select group of investors and investments in them are prevented by many pension plans, particularly the large, public ones. And I disagree with your comment about the harsh reality of the world we live in. This world has been structured, not by some sort of happenstance, but due to clear policy choices that flow from what should be democratically structured bodies. However, because of the disproportionate share of influence that finance capital exerts over our laws and trade policy, shareholders exert an influence that far exceeds their numbers.
Click to expand...

If you have run a business then you know what I'm talking about. I ran a small business for five years. We had 12 employees and even letting go of 3 people when times were tough was incredibly difficult for me. But do I just let my business go under so I don't have to fire anyone? In business, there are good times and bad times and unfortunately sometimes people have to be let go to make the company viable in the long term...that is why it is a harsh reality. The principles of business don't change whether you're a small company or large corporation. I agree that most investors have a very short term view of the business, but they ultimately don't make the decision of the company...the CEO and Board of Directors decide the direction of the company. If workers really believe in the business, then they will invest their money and become shareholders too.
 
jameswilson1 said:
If you have run a business then you know what I'm talking about. I ran a small business for five years. We had 12 employees and even letting go of 3 people when times were tough was incredibly difficult for me. But do I just let my business go under so I don't have to fire anyone? In business, there are good times and bad times and unfortunately sometimes people have to be let go to make the company viable in the long term...that is why it is a harsh reality. The principles of business don't change whether you're a small company or large corporation. I agree that most investors have a very short term view of the business, but they ultimately don't make the decision of the company...the CEO and Board of Directors decide the direction of the company. If workers really believe in the business, then they will invest their money and become shareholders too.
Click to expand...

I have run my own lobbying and consulting firm for 9 years, with varying degrees of success over the years, so I am familiar. My overall argument and where we disagree is that I don't believe that capital is the sole arbiter of the well-being of a company, and object to market supremacy as the sole measure of an entity's functioning. Workers generally do not have the resources to invest and I believe that their work is their investment and that no additional finances should be necessary for them to control their jobs and lives. As for CEOs and Boards of Directors setting the direction of the company, I'm sure you know that the board itself is comprised of representatives of those same large investors and their interests are usually centered around short-term gain and providing upper management with comfortable salaries and 'perqs'. The well-being of the entity itself is almost never a concern, simply profit generation, in whatever form that takes: liquidation, reorganization, or simply shuttering a plant.
 
orejon4 said:
I have run my own lobbying and consulting firm for 9 years, with varying degrees of success over the years, so I am familiar. My overall argument and where we disagree is that I don't believe that capital is the sole arbiter of the well-being of a company, and object to market supremacy as the sole measure of an entity's functioning. Workers generally do not have the resources to invest and I believe that their work is their investment and that no additional finances should be necessary for them to control their jobs and lives. As for CEOs and Boards of Directors setting the direction of the company, I'm sure you know that the board itself is comprised of representatives of those same large investors and their interests are usually centered around short-term gain and providing upper management with comfortable salaries and 'perqs'. The well-being of the entity itself is almost never a concern, simply profit generation, in whatever form that takes: liquidation, reorganization, or simply shuttering a plant.
Click to expand...
The unfortunate side effects of pure capitalist is they ignore the concept of social welfare not to mention the concept of loyalty. When you develop this model of use you up and throw you away you give workers the incentive to do just enough to not get fired whipe they leap frog to another job. Why would I give you the best of me if you see minimal value in me. You dont get innovators with the next great idea that way.
 
orejon4 said:
I have run my own lobbying and consulting firm for 9 years, with varying degrees of success over the years, so I am familiar. My overall argument and where we disagree is that I don't believe that capital is the sole arbiter of the well-being of a company, and object to market supremacy as the sole measure of an entity's functioning. Workers generally do not have the resources to invest and I believe that their work is their investment and that no additional finances should be necessary for them to control their jobs and lives. As for CEOs and Boards of Directors setting the direction of the company, I'm sure you know that the board itself is comprised of representatives of those same large investors and their interests are usually centered around short-term gain and providing upper management with comfortable salaries and 'perqs'. The well-being of the entity itself is almost never a concern, simply profit generation, in whatever form that takes: liquidation, reorganization, or simply shuttering a plant.
Click to expand...

Capital is not the sole arbiter of success, but it is the most important factor for struggling companies facing default/bankruptcy. These are the companies that Bain Capital and others are looking to save. My argument is that Mitt Romney and others are not bad for investing their money to attempt to turnaround a business. Unfortunately, people are let go in these types of transactions. I agree that for most employees, work is their investment. But my point if that they are compensated for that investment. But they are not guaranteed a job when times are tough. I'm not saying I like it, it's just the reality.

I agree there are "corporate raiders" out there who simply buy a company and liquidate companies for profits. But if you look at the list of companies I provided earlier for Bain Capital, almost all of them are successful thriving businesses creating tens of thousands of jobs. I believe we should reward and encourage risk taking and success. I feel like we look at people like Mitt Romney as evil people just because they're successful. Or even worse, feel entitled to more of their money because they're successful. You took a risk starting your lobbying and consulting firm and you have been in business 9 years which is an amazing thing. You deserve whatever financial rewards come with that.
 
The Dark Knight said:
The unfortunate side effects of pure capitalist is they ignore the concept of social welfare not to mention the concept of loyalty. When you develop this model of use you up and throw you away you give workers the incentive to do just enough to not get fired whipe they leap frog to another job. Why would I give you the best of me if you see minimal value in me. You dont get innovators with the next great idea that way.
Click to expand...

If you don't want to be involved in a capitalist business and believe in social welfare, go work for a non-profit. Loyalty does not exist in for-profit business. An employee can leave for a new job at any time and an employer can fire you at any time. That is simply the way it works. Trust me, it is not easy to let people go. As I said in my last post, I had to let go of 3 people when I ran a small business and it is the hardest thing in the world to do. They were people I knew personally and their families. Even the most innovative company in the world, Apple, has let go of employees.
 
jameswilson1 said:
If you don't want to be involved in a capitalist business and believe in social welfare, go work for a non-profit. Loyalty does not exist in for-profit business. An employee can leave for a new job at any time and an employer can fire you at any time. That is simply the way it works. Trust me, it is not easy to let people go. As I said in my last post, I had to let go of 3 people when I ran a small business and it is the hardest thing in the world to do. They were people I knew personally and their families. Even the most innovative company in the world, Apple, has let go of employees.
Click to expand...

Innovative? Apple makes cheap shiny shit. Their products dobt make the world better it just employs the Chinese. As far as marginal utility is concerned their products arent better just newer and flashier
 
The Dark Knight said:
Innovative? Apple makes cheap shiny shit. Their products dobt make the world better it just employs the Chinese. As far as marginal utility is concerned their products arent better just newer and flashier
Click to expand...

That point was referencing your comment that "you don't get innovators that way". I was just pointing out that Apple has let go of employees as well. I'm not the biggest fan of Apple products myself, but they have been a Top 10 innovative company on the Forbes list for at least a decade.
 
jameswilson1 said:
That point was referencing your comment that "you don't get innovators that way". I was just pointing out that Apple has let go of employees as well. I'm not the biggest fan of Apple products myself, but they have been a Top 10 innovative company on the Forbes list for at least a decade.
Click to expand...

The os was 6 years ago but now they produce over priced plastic that isnt better because of function but because of name. Another company that leeches off American consumers but invests overseas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom