Romney gave millions to charity. Biden gave $369

[andreboba]

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.

I'm curious to know where you procured this list. It gives the false impression that Bain Capital is in the business of saving companies and making them viable, profitable entities.

I'm going to post from a thread on another forum about the role of corporatism and why hiring a 'business man' to be POTUS isn't necessarily the most prudent move in a fiscal crisis;


Noam Chomsky explains that corporations, as institutions, are psychopathic; they've no moral conscience.

They can't, by actual law, have any other concern besides maximizing short-term profit. Future generations have no value under the institutional structure of a corporation.

It's not the people who work in them that are pathological. But the institution itself demands that people be less than human. And as Chomsky explains: the nature of being human allows for all sorts of behaviors.
Any one of us, under some circumstances, can either be a monster or a saint.

Sad thing: our culture has adopted corporate values. THAT'S THE CRUX.

And, too, we're inundated with corporate propaganda (advertising) from infancy, through school and into adulthood -- and throughout life. And it tells us, teaches us, in essence, that we should only be concerned about ourselves. No one else matters. The unborn -- meaning future generations -- don't matter.

And it's very rational. It's called rational self interest. It's scary. But rational.


We're what's called: Rational Wealth Maximizers. It's completely rational under the ideology that we're taught. And that's why it's so frightening. You're only concern is short-term personal gain. Nobody else matters. You're kids and grandkids don't matter.


See Europe for reference for those who believe fiscal austerity is the way to achieve economic recovery.

 

[The Dark King]

Stellar post

I'm curious to know where you procured this list. It gives the false impression that Bain Capital is in the business of saving companies and making them viable, profitable entities.

I'm going to post from a thread on another forum about the role of corporatism and why hiring a 'business man' to be POTUS isn't necessarily the most prudent move in a fiscal crisis;


Noam Chomsky explains that corporations, as institutions, are psychopathic; they've no moral conscience.

They can't, by actual law, have any other concern besides maximizing short-term profit. Future generations have no value under the institutional structure of a corporation.

It's not the people who work in them that are pathological. But the institution itself demands that people be less than human. And as Chomsky explains: the nature of being human allows for all sorts of behaviors.
Any one of us, under some circumstances, can either be a monster or a saint.

Sad thing: our culture has adopted corporate values. THAT'S THE CRUX.

And, too, we're inundated with corporate propaganda (advertising) from infancy, through school and into adulthood -- and throughout life. And it tells us, teaches us, in essence, that we should only be concerned about ourselves. No one else matters. The unborn -- meaning future generations -- don't matter.

And it's very rational. It's called rational self interest. It's scary. But rational.


We're what's called: Rational Wealth Maximizers. It's completely rational under the ideology that we're taught. And that's why it's so frightening. You're only concern is short-term personal gain. Nobody else matters. You're kids and grandkids don't matter.


See Europe for reference for those who believe fiscal austerity is the way to achieve economic recovery.

 

[jameswilson1]

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.

Like I said, I'm not the biggest fan of Apple products. But I will give them credit for revolutionizing the digital music industry. The iPod single handledly destroyed the Sony Walkman. And iTunes has almost rendered CD sales obsolete. I personally don't buy their products because they update versions every three months.

My only point on this thread was saying that investment companies and for-profit businesses are not always bad because they lay off employees. It is just the way things work.

 

[jameswilson1]

I'm curious to know where you procured this list. It gives the false impression that Bain Capital is in the business of saving companies and making them viable, profitable entities.

I'm going to post from a thread on another forum about the role of corporatism and why hiring a 'business man' to be POTUS isn't necessarily the most prudent move in a fiscal crisis;


Noam Chomsky explains that corporations, as institutions, are psychopathic; they've no moral conscience.

They can't, by actual law, have any other concern besides maximizing short-term profit. Future generations have no value under the institutional structure of a corporation.

It's not the people who work in them that are pathological. But the institution itself demands that people be less than human. And as Chomsky explains: the nature of being human allows for all sorts of behaviors.
Any one of us, under some circumstances, can either be a monster or a saint.

Sad thing: our culture has adopted corporate values. THAT'S THE CRUX.

And, too, we're inundated with corporate propaganda (advertising) from infancy, through school and into adulthood -- and throughout life. And it tells us, teaches us, in essence, that we should only be concerned about ourselves. No one else matters. The unborn -- meaning future generations -- don't matter.

And it's very rational. It's called rational self interest. It's scary. But rational.


We're what's called: Rational Wealth Maximizers. It's completely rational under the ideology that we're taught. And that's why it's so frightening. You're only concern is short-term personal gain. Nobody else matters. You're kids and grandkids don't matter.


See Europe for reference for those who believe fiscal austerity is the way to achieve economic recovery.

To see the full list of companies that Bain Capital has invested in, you can go to their website or Wikipedia for the full list. I just rounded up a list of household names. And it is not a false impression that Bain is the business of saving companies and making them profitable, viable companies...that is the very definition of private equity companies.

As for Noam Chomsky, he is a philosopher. So now we're entering a philosophical debate of whether capitalism or socialism is better for a nation. This debate could go on forever. Our nation was founded on capitalism. And as a black man, who knows better since the country was founded literally off the backs of our people. Capitalism has its flaws, but it also has created a society where people actually have upward mobility and opportunity. In socialist societies that does not exist. And yes, look what happened in the European countries. This is why Romney is saying be careful because Obama is turning us into a socialist nation. Why do you think immigration is such a big issue in this country. Because we are literally the "land of opportunity".

 

[andreboba]

Capitalism is not a social organizing principle. Democracy and capitalism don't have to be antithetical, but in order for a society to thrive, the institutions of government cannot be subordinated to the dictates of capitalism and the free market.

Everything in our society cannot be commoditized and stuck with a price tag.

This country was NOT founded as a confederation of capitalist colonies for the purpose of free commerce. Where did you even get that from??

Noam Chomsky in this respect is a social systems analyst.
He's describing the system as he sees it, he's not presenting an argument for capitalism versus socialism.

Capitalism never works without rules, and those rules are determined by the state through legislation signed into law. Capitalism has to be stewarded because unchecked it becomes predatory and the victims are the citizens/consumers/....US.

When you recognize that capitalism at its core is amoral, principally it can't be the overriding ethic that governs society.

That's why Romney has endorsed the Ryan budget plan and its slashing of social programs to reduce the deficit. From a corporate point of view, it makes the most sense to place a greater burden of the most disenfranchised because they exert the least political or outside economic pressure on the system.

 

[orejon4]

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.

Here's where we disagree: I do not have a right to destabilize human society just because it's convenient for me. I have a right to make a living for myself within some rules laid down under a democratically agreed framework. Capitalism is not a living being. It is just this: a system. It exists to serve us, not the other way around. And like any other system, its value is determined, not simply by profits, but by the utility it provides to those who devise and subscribe to it, namely - humanity. When it provides more dislocation than welfare, it has outlived its usefulness.

Firms like Bain, I would argue, provide little or no value to society or the economy. We all know that economics measures only aggregate, not distributional, effects. Thus, a million dollars in a millionaire's pocket has no greater utility than a dollar in a million individual hands. The generation of wealth (in resources, capital or labor) is a net positive for human society, but how that wealth is spread is a distributional question. And greater aggregate social welfare is generated by more even distribution among those who work, not a disproportionate concentration in the hands of one who does little productive activity. I am not saying that investors deserve no return for their efforts, but the greater utility is provided by the productive sector of the economy and the finance sector's contribution does not justify the extreme concentration of all wealth in their hands.

To see the full list of companies that Bain Capital has invested in, you can go to their website or Wikipedia for the full list. I just rounded up a list of household names. And it is not a false impression that Bain is the business of saving companies and making them profitable, viable companies...that is the very definition of private equity companies.

As for Noam Chomsky, he is a philosopher. So now we're entering a philosophical debate of whether capitalism or socialism is better for a nation. This debate could go on forever. Our nation was founded on capitalism. And as a black man, who knows better since the country was founded literally off the backs of our people. Capitalism has its flaws, but it also has created a society where people actually have upward mobility and opportunity. In socialist societies that does not exist. And yes, look what happened in the European countries. This is why Romney is saying be careful because Obama is turning us into a socialist nation. Why do you think immigration is such a big issue in this country. Because we are literally the "land of opportunity".

Currently, Germany and the Scandinavian countries have the most stable economies on the planet.

 

[jameswilson1]

Capitalism is not a social organizing principle. Democracy and capitalism don't have to be antithetical, but in order for a society to thrive, the institutions of government cannot be subordinated to the dictates of capitalism and the free market.

Everything in our society cannot be commoditized and stuck with a price tag.

This country was NOT founded as a confederation of capitalist colonies for the purpose of free commerce. Where did you even get that from??

Noam Chomsky in this respect is a social systems analyst.
He's describing the system as he sees it, he's not presenting an argument for capitalism versus socialism.

Capitalism never works without rules, and those rules are determined by the state through legislation signed into law. Capitalism has to be stewarded because unchecked it becomes predatory and the victims are the citizens/consumers/....US.

When you recognize that capitalism at its core is amoral, principally it can't be the overriding ethic that governs society.

That's why Romney has endorsed the Ryan budget plan and its slashing of social programs to reduce the deficit. From a corporate point of view, it makes the most sense to place a greater burden of the most disenfranchised because they exert the least political or outside economic pressure on the system.

I agree with this statement 100% "Capitalism never works without rules, and those rules are determined by the state through legislation signed into law. Capitalism has to be stewarded because unchecked it becomes predatory and the victims are the citizens/consumers/....US."

But when you say the institutions of government cannot be subordinated to the dictates of capitalism and the free market. The current government is actually doing the opposite. The problem is it doesn't allow the free market to run itself. The government bails out whomever it sees fit. And is trying to completely eliminate private industry by simply collecting as many tax dollars as possible and then Obama decides for you where the money should go in whatever program he sees fit.

That's the reason Romney endorses the Ryan plan is because these social programs are placing a burden on everyone in the system, especially the disenfranchised. We have a budget that is out of control and we're mortgaging today and making these harder for our children. Lowering taxes and pursuing a more flatter tax system works because it not only helps people today but actually encourages growth. Right now if I make more money, it's just more money that will be taken from me. Ultimately, it creates a society that doesn't work hard and just looks for a handout from the successful. I think the biggest misconception is that people who believe in capitalism are cold heartless human beings. I believe in capitalism, but I also care for the well being of others. And this thread started by showing how Romney donated millions to charity while Biden gave $369.

 

[jameswilson1]

Here's where we disagree: I do not have a right to destabilize human society just because it's convenient for me. I have a right to make a living for myself within some rules laid down under a democratically agreed framework. Capitalism is not a living being. It is just this: a system. It exists to serve us, not the other way around. And like any other system, its value is determined, not simply by profits, but by the utility it provides to those who devise and subscribe to it, namely - humanity. When it provides more dislocation than welfare, it has outlived its usefulness.

Firms like Bain, I would argue, provide little or no value to society or the economy. We all know that economics measures only aggregate, not distributional, effects. Thus, a million dollars in a millionaire's pocket has no greater utility than a dollar in a million individual hands. The generation of wealth (in resources, capital or labor) is a net positive for human society, but how that wealth is spread is a distributional question. And greater aggregate social welfare is generated by more even distribution among those who work, not a disproportionate concentration in the hands of one who does little productive activity. I am not saying that investors deserve no return for their efforts, but the greater utility is provided by the productive sector of the economy and the finance sector's contribution does not justify the extreme concentration of all wealth in their hands.



Currently, Germany and the Scandinavian countries have the most stable economies on the planet.

I don't believe these companies are "destablizing human society". They are simply trying to stay in business. Let's not make this harder than what it is. If a company is struggling to stay in business they have very few options. If they don't shed a small group of employees, then everyone will lose a job when it goes bankrupt.

I think people are naturally selective at who they vilify. Bain Capital serves a necessary purpose in the economy. They are an intermediary for a struggling business to get help. I'm a big fan of Sea World...they were recently saved from the brink of going under by the Blackstone Group. Now kids can still go have entertaining day with their families, animals will continue to be rescued, more resources will be put into animal education, etc. Will the Blackstone Group make a profit for saving Sea World? Yes. Does it have a big societal impact? Yes.

 

[samson1701]

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.

I hear conservatives use this argument all of the time. It's built on the premise that we somehow dislike Romney because he's successful or we want to punish the rich because of their wealth. That premise is erroneous at it's core.

First of all, paying your fair share of taxes is not punishment. It's something we all must do for our society to function correctly. It would be one thing if the rich were being asked to pay huge percentages of their income in taxes (50% or more), I could understand such fierce opposition. But, that's not the case here. Americans are only asking the rich to pay what they payed under the Clinton years; 39.6%. That's only four percent higher than what they pay now. And, they'd only have to pay that that extra four percent on money they make over $250,000. Everything under that stays the same. I and every other working American have to pay it. Why should they get to pay less? Unless the conservatives consider treating the rich the same as us ordinary Americans a "punishment."

Lastly, Romney may be a business man, but he's shown his brand of corporate leadership would fail the American working class. Romney said it himself; he would have let Detroit go bankrupt. So, all of those workers would be unemployed. Not to mention, all the other businesses that rely on a healthy Detroit based auto industry to pay their workers. That whole region of the country would've gone under. I'm from there and I used to operate a small expediting service. I'd drive from Michigan down 75 to Kentucky and back up. Dropping off and picking up boxes and pallets of parts all along the way. From small shops to truck stops to big manufacturers most of them would have gone under. Small business owners would have had to close up shop if Romney had his way. Fast forward to 2012 and Fox News is reporting that unemployment in that region (and other swing states) is down. If Romney's main strength is his business acumen, then he has already shown himself to be a weak leader and that is the real reason why America doesn't like Romney.

 

[Mighty Quinn]

I agree with this statement 100% "Capitalism never works without rules, and those rules are determined by the state through legislation signed into law. Capitalism has to be stewarded because unchecked it becomes predatory and the victims are the citizens/consumers/....US."

But when you say the institutions of government cannot be subordinated to the dictates of capitalism and the free market. The current government is actually doing the opposite. The problem is it doesn't allow the free market to run itself. The government bails out whomever it sees fit. And is trying to completely eliminate private industry by simply collecting as many tax dollars as possible and then Obama decides for you where the money should go in whatever program he sees fit.

That's the reason Romney endorses the Ryan plan is because these social programs are placing a burden on everyone in the system, especially the disenfranchised. We have a budget that is out of control and we're mortgaging today and making these harder for our children. Lowering taxes and pursuing a more flatter tax system works because it not only helps people today but actually encourages growth. Right now if I make more money, it's just more money that will be taken from me. Ultimately, it creates a society that doesn't work hard and just looks for a handout from the successful. I think the biggest misconception is that people who believe in capitalism are cold heartless human beings. I believe in capitalism, but I also care for the well being of others. And this thread started by showing how Romney donated millions to charity while Biden gave $369.

Capitalism is nothing without contracts. Without certain arrangements the free market essentially doesn't exist. Ordinarily no external government intervention is needed. But look how deceptive contracts with the subprime mortgage crisis tanked the whole economy.

Its not that the U.S. or specifically Obama has this urge to suffocate free market capitalism. Every developed nation took at least some counter-cyclical measures, to offset the downturn and prop up the economy. TARP was successfully repaid. The auto bailout saved thousands of jobs, not only through the infusion of taxpayer money but because the government forced them to restructure.

Government saved capitalism, momentarily, from its own parasitic devices. The problem now isn't regulation, mind you, but demand. Which might explain why businesses complain about regulations most often when things are going really well.

Rich folks typically give to charities for the write-offs. Not to carp on the wealthy or dismiss charitable giving, but charities alone could never bear the brunt. Do people realize Paul Ryan's Ayn Randian budget would gut everything from medicare to the Dept. of Interior? Romney and Ryan see almost no federal obligations worth preserving, other than massive defense spending and upper income tax cuts.

Romney says, also, if you're uninsured and you get sick, hospitals should deny you treatment: "Hey guys, we can't play the game like that,.”

Well, of course. He has other priorities. And it ain't those in need of jobs or health insurance.

 

[The Dark King]

I hear conservatives use this argument all of the time. It's built on the premise that we somehow dislike Romney because he's successful or we want to punish the rich because of their wealth. That premise is erroneous at it's core.

First of all, paying your fair share of taxes is not punishment. It's something we all must do for our society to function correctly. It would be one thing if the rich were being asked to pay huge percentages of their income in taxes (50% or more), I could understand such fierce opposition. But, that's not the case here. Americans are only asking the rich to pay what they payed under the Clinton years; 39.6%. That's only four percent higher than what they pay now. And, they'd only have to pay that that extra four percent on money they make over $250,000. Everything under that stays the same. I and every other working American have to pay it. Why should they get to pay less? Unless the conservatives consider treating the rich the same as us ordinary Americans a "punishment."

Lastly, Romney may be a business man, but he's shown his brand of corporate leadership would fail the American working class. Romney said it himself; he would have let Detroit go bankrupt. So, all of those workers would be unemployed. Not to mention, all the other businesses that rely on a healthy Detroit based auto industry to pay their workers. That whole region of the country would've gone under. I'm from there and I used to operate a small expediting service. I'd drive from Michigan down 75 to Kentucky and back up. Dropping off and picking up boxes and pallets of parts all along the way. From small shops to truck stops to big manufacturers most of them would have gone under. Small business owners would have had to close up shop if Romney had his way. Fast forward to 2012 and Fox News is reporting that unemployment in that region (and other swing states) is down. If Romney's main strength is his business acumen, then he has already shown himself to be a weak leader and that is the real reason why America doesn't like Romney.

Preach brotha preach.

 

[Alinoa]

Capitalism is nothing without contracts. Without certain arrangements the free market essentially doesn't exist. Ordinarily no external government intervention is needed. But look how deceptive contracts with the subprime mortgage crisis tanked the whole economy.

Its not that the U.S. or specifically Obama has this urge to suffocate free market capitalism. Every developed nation took at least some counter-cyclical measures, to offset the downturn and prop up the economy. TARP was successfully repaid. The auto bailout saved thousands of jobs, not only through the infusion of taxpayer money but because the government forced them to restructure.

Government saved capitalism, momentarily, from its own parasitic devices. The problem now isn't regulation, mind you, but demand. Which might explain why businesses complain about regulations most often when things are going really well.

Rich folks typically give to charities for the write-offs. Not to carp on the wealthy or dismiss charitable giving, but charities alone could never bear the brunt. Do people realize Paul Ryan's Ayn Randian budget would gut everything from medicare to the Dept. of Interior? Romney and Ryan see almost no federal obligations worth preserving, other than massive defense spending and upper income tax cuts.

Romney says, also, if you're uninsured and you get sick, hospitals should deny you treatment: "Hey guys, we can't play the game like that,.”

Well, of course. He has other priorities. And it ain't those in need of jobs or health insurance.

So how then is capitalism not evil again?
When you put the mighty dollar before someone's life..who is your god?

How is this a Christian concept?

Or do they just hope that by denying everyone who doesn't have insurance will kill off the parasites and then it would be justifiable to forget Christian values because no needy would need help at that point?

 

[pettyofficerj]

So how then is capitalism not evil again?
When you put the mighty dollar before someone's life..who is your god?

How is this a Christian concept?

Or do they just hope that by denying everyone who doesn't have insurance will kill off the parasites and then it would be justifiable to forget Christian values because no needy would need help at that point?

in god we trust

in money we worship

 

[The Dark King]

So how then is capitalism not evil again?
When you put the mighty dollar before someone's life..who is your god?

How is this a Christian concept?

Or do they just hope that by denying everyone who doesn't have insurance will kill off the parasites and then it would be justifiable to forget Christian values because no needy would need help at that point?

Christian in name but not in practice. That's why most conservatives suck.
And you're right about denying insurance in hopes of killing the needy. Its modern Calavnism where a lot of the GOP act like if God wanted you to live you'd have the money for insurance or he'd magically bestow it on you.
They are plain sickening.

 

[Alinoa]

Christian in name but not in practice. That's why most conservatives suck.
And you're right about denying insurance in hopes of killing the needy. Its modern Calavnism where a lot of the GOP act like if God wanted you to live you'd have the money for insurance or he'd magically bestow it on you.
They are plain sickening.

Maybe romneys Christianity is like this:

Jesus loves me, but you?
You not so much.

 

[Morning Star]

More like..."Joseph Smith told me to donate 10%, so I let the church do all that donating while my name is etched onto the contributions."

Maybe romneys Christianity is like this:

Jesus loves me, but you?
You not so much.

 

[Mikey]

And is trying to completely eliminate private industry by simply collecting as many tax dollars as possible and then Obama decides for you where the money should go in whatever program he sees fit.

Well, the increase in tax dollars could be used to reduce our country's deficits. Don't forget that the country had a credit downgrade a year ago. If our deficits continue to increase, they could warn us eventually (perhaps later this year or next year) that we'll be knocked down from AA+ to AA.

 

[jameswilson1]

I hear conservatives use this argument all of the time. It's built on the premise that we somehow dislike Romney because he's successful or we want to punish the rich because of their wealth. That premise is erroneous at it's core.

First of all, paying your fair share of taxes is not punishment. It's something we all must do for our society to function correctly. It would be one thing if the rich were being asked to pay huge percentages of their income in taxes (50% or more), I could understand such fierce opposition. But, that's not the case here. Americans are only asking the rich to pay what they payed under the Clinton years; 39.6%. That's only four percent higher than what they pay now. And, they'd only have to pay that that extra four percent on money they make over $250,000. Everything under that stays the same. I and every other working American have to pay it. Why should they get to pay less? Unless the conservatives consider treating the rich the same as us ordinary Americans a "punishment."

Lastly, Romney may be a business man, but he's shown his brand of corporate leadership would fail the American working class. Romney said it himself; he would have let Detroit go bankrupt. So, all of those workers would be unemployed. Not to mention, all the other businesses that rely on a healthy Detroit based auto industry to pay their workers. That whole region of the country would've gone under. I'm from there and I used to operate a small expediting service. I'd drive from Michigan down 75 to Kentucky and back up. Dropping off and picking up boxes and pallets of parts all along the way. From small shops to truck stops to big manufacturers most of them would have gone under. Small business owners would have had to close up shop if Romney had his way. Fast forward to 2012 and Fox News is reporting that unemployment in that region (and other swing states) is down. If Romney's main strength is his business acumen, then he has already shown himself to be a weak leader and that is the real reason why America doesn't like Romney.

The Democrats promote a progressive tax code and setup the current capital gains taxes. The reason and he and other wealthy people pay less is because they derive most of their income from capital gains and not normal income. He invested his money and the current capital gains tax rate is 15%. So if you want to pay less in taxes, invest your money. Nobody is complaining when these people lose millions of dollars on their investments. Stop whining about other people's money and focus on your own situation. What people don't realize is that Republicans want to lower the income tax across the board. This will go low and middle income people more money to either save & invest or go out spend. Either way it helps build the economy.

The reason he would have let the automotive industry go bankrupt is because they could have go through a normal bankruptcy process and restructured. Instead Obama threw $30 billion at them in a bailout and nothing was gained. Democrats simply don't understand the private market and try to instead tax all of our tax dollars and make bad decisions with it. We work hard for our money...now let me keep it and make my decisions. I don't need Obama making those decisions.

And your argument against small business owners is flawed too. Romney wants to lower the corporate tax rate. This will allow more business owners to keep more money...thus they can hire new employees or re-invest in new assets.

 

[jameswilson1]

Well, the increase in tax dollars could be used to reduce our country's deficits. Don't forget that the country had a credit downgrade a year ago. If our deficits continue to increase, they could warn us eventually (perhaps later this year or next year) that we'll be knocked down from AA+ to AA.

More taxes could theoretically reduce the deficits if the Democrats didn't create so many programs. That's why the Republicans argue that you reduce taxes so that you can increase revenues. Then you cut unnecessary programs to help lower the deficit. Another big issue is social security. The Annual Report of the Board of Trustees says that social security will run out of money by 2033.

 

[Mikey]

More taxes could theoretically reduce the deficits if the Democrats didn't create so many programs. That's why the Republicans argue that you reduce taxes so that you can increase revenues. Then you cut unnecessary programs to help lower the deficit. Another big issue is social security. The Annual Report of the Board of Trustees says that social security will run out of money by 2033.

Yeah, I've seen articles about the social security. That won't be good for the millions of people that live here, especially the senior citizens.

What programs that the Democrats created do you think should be cut?

My opinion is that both things should be done at the same time, spending cuts and tax increases. We need to make difficult, painful political decisions to improve our economy in the future, but I don't think humanity has the willpower to implement those things. It prefers a "quick-fix" to solve a problem. This is similar to what you said about "Occam's Razor" a few pages ago.