Romney's Taxes

[doom&gloom]

see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...es_652850.html

My comments:

1) he don't pay a whole lot in taxes
2) showing evidence of how the FIRE economy controls tax policy
3) he donates a LOT of money, my guess is mostly to the Mormom Church though I don;t know
4) it would be nice of more people who earned that much donated as much

[vt]

Re: Romney's Taxes

see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...es_652850.html

My comments:

1) he don't pay a whole lot in taxes He paid an average of 20%, but if you add in charitable contributions the total of both is 38.5% over 20 years. This is far more than any Democrat I've seen, though to be fair there may have been some. I would argue that money that didn't go to the church would have helped far more of the poor than taxes, which are filtered through some highly paid federal bureaucracies.

2) showing evidence of how the FIRE economy controls tax policy Benefiting both parties.
3) he donates a LOT of money, my guess is mostly to the Mormom Church though I don;t know
4) it would be nice of more people who earned that much donated as much

Precisely.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...6pLid%3D209085

Romney served as head of the Winter Olympics without pay

Romney served as Governor of Massachusetts without pay

He could have been a billionaire, instead he went into public service. He is a very decent human being.

[Raz]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Precisely.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...6pLid%3D209085

Romney served as head of the Winter Olympics without pay

Romney served as Governor of Massachusetts without pay

He could have been a billionaire, instead he went into public service. He is a very decent human being.

It would certainly seem so. But most of the media wants Obama so you won't hear any positive spin on this.

IF I thought Romney would bite the hand that fed him and didn't put forth the totally insane idea of increasing defence (empire defence, that is) spending
I'd actually consider voting for him.

I don't see how he could be worse than the asshat who's presently holding the office.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Romney's Taxes

It would certainly seem so. But most of the media wants Obama so you won't hear any positive spin on this.

IF I thought Romney would bite the hand that fed him and didn't put forth the totally insane idea of increasing defence (empire defence, that is) spending
I'd actually consider voting for him.

I don't see how he could be worse than the asshat who's presently holding the office.

once again, Raz, I agree with you completely!

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Romney served as head of the Winter Olympics without pay

Romney served as Governor of Massachusetts without pay

He could have been a billionaire, instead he went into public service. He is a very decent human being.

Romney may be a decent human being but I worry that he is terribly misguided having been born into a wealthy, influential family and having been around wealthy, elite people in academia and business his entire life. I don't think Romney has ever had to live as a regular person in his entire life and deal with the worries regular people have about earning a living and saving enough to provide for their families today and their own retirement for the future. It's one thing to work as a garbage man for a few days knowing that you'll eventually go back to some high-flying job and a massive fortune; it's another thing altogether working as a garbage man or other relatively unskilled labor and having no more than a few months' living expenses in savings and not obviously good prospects if one's position is eliminated.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's a decent human being, it seems Romney fails to realize how very harmful FIRE economy policies are to a nation and to workers in the production-consumption economy. How else could a decent person knowingly engage in and stomach the ugly reality of what often happens with leveraged buy-outs? Most certainly, a good number of LBOs Bain Capital did while Romney headed the firm were purely asset-stripping operations and not true business building/improvement strategies. There are too many levels of indirection between Romney and the people who suffer most from policies that benefit the FIRE sector, of which Romney is a part, for Romney to get an idea of what's really going on in this country.

At least, that's the impression I get based on his biography and what he's said publicly so far. There's always the possibility that he really does understand things and is just saying what he's saying to get the FIRE sector votes and, if elected, as a decent man, he'll screw the FIRE economy. One can hope.

[cjppjc]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Jonh Corzine also went into public service, instead of rolling up his money total. I'm not sure these guys do this for altruist reasons.

[vt]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Franklin Roosevelt and the Kennedy's also came from great wealth and privilege, so your concern about Romney has no foundation.

As far as leveraged buyouts go, you should take each one separately to analyze if they hurt the job situation. If there had been no buyout would the company have gone bankrupt?
If some lost their job, but the company was then saved and turned around, then this may have prevented even greater job loss. Some of these companies may have restructured and increased hiring. If too many jobs were shifted overseas, that's a concern.

The concept of free trade is based on work being done where it is most efficient. Unfortunately jobs have been lost in manufacturing; but gained in services; albeit at lower wages.
The good news is that, according to an article in the Economist a few months ago, manufacturing jobs will be coming back to the U.S. in the next few years as new techniques take hold.

We need to improve training programs, as well as have our schools better prepare students for the jobs of the future.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Franklin Roosevelt and the Kennedy's also came from great wealth and privilege, so your concern about Romney has no foundation.

Romney appears to want even less regulation of the financial system and he seems to have terminal foot-in-mouth disease. I'm quite certain the Kennedys never campaigned on a platform of making things even better for the wealthiest strata of society and I suspect the same is true for FDR. I won't even bother going in to how callous I find Romney's remarks about the 47%

As far as leveraged buyouts go, you should take each one separately to analyze if they hurt the job situation. If there had been no buyout would the company have gone bankrupt?

The problem I have with many LBO deals is that companies that are otherwise fine are taken over, loaded down with debt, and then the shares are re-floated. These companies typically struggle or ultimately go bankrupt. It's difficult to quarrel with firing people and offshoring jobs if that is what is required to allowed to the company to survive. However, all too often, it seems like a scene out of Wall Street: "Why do you need to wreck this company?" "Because it's wreckable, all right?"

The good news is that, according to an article in the Economist a few months ago, manufacturing jobs will be coming back to the U.S. in the next few years as new techniques take hold.

Currency depreciation, past and continuing, is making American workers a real bargain.

[vt]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Romney's 47% remarks were callous, though we did not get his complete statement as the tape left out a couple of minutes. But Obama's "you didn't build that" was just as callous.
Remember both are captives of the fire economy.

I pray Romney will do a "Nixon to China" and shift FIRE to TECI. Romney has said he would close loopholes.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Romney's 47% remarks were callous, though we did not get his complete statement as the tape left out a couple of minutes. But Obama's "you didn't build that" was just as callous.
Remember both are captives of the fire economy.

I have nothing but unkind things to say about Obama. He is an utter failure as a president and, in my mind, I'm weighing whether he is a worse president than George W. Bush. Quite an "accomplishment" for a first--and, hopefully only--term.

I pray Romney will do a "Nixon to China" and shift FIRE to TECI. Romney has said he would close loopholes.

Agreed. If elected, I hope Romney acts on the strong moral compass I believe he has but I also hope Romney gets a better feel for how things really are for most regular Americans.

[BadJuju]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Romney and a strong moral compass? That is as rich as 'Change we can believe in.'

[don]

Re: Romney's Taxes

I have nothing but unkind things to say about Obama. He is an utter failure as a president and, in my mind, I'm weighing whether he is a worse president than George W. Bush. Quite an "accomplishment" for a first--and, hopefully only--term.

Since he was virtually George Bush III where's the surprise . . .

[c1ue]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Agreed. If elected, I hope Romney acts on the strong moral compass I believe he has but I also hope Romney gets a better feel for how things really are for most regular Americans.

Given Romney's many and varied flip flops in order to be politically acceptable, it seems hard to imagine a change of heart once he takes office.

As I said before, the choice for President right now is between the devil's advocate and the devil. The advocate has already shown his colors, now you're hoping the devil will change his stripes.

[Ghent12]

Re: Romney's Taxes

Romney may be a decent human being but I worry that he is terribly misguided having been born into a wealthy, influential family and having been around wealthy, elite people in academia and business his entire life. I don't think Romney has ever had to live as a regular person in his entire life and deal with the worries regular people have about earning a living and saving enough to provide for their families today and their own retirement for the future. It's one thing to work as a garbage man for a few days knowing that you'll eventually go back to some high-flying job and a massive fortune; it's another thing altogether working as a garbage man or other relatively unskilled labor and having no more than a few months' living expenses in savings and not obviously good prospects if one's position is eliminated.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's a decent human being, it seems Romney fails to realize how very harmful FIRE economy policies are to a nation and to workers in the production-consumption economy. How else could a decent person knowingly engage in and stomach the ugly reality of what often happens with leveraged buy-outs? Most certainly, a good number of LBOs Bain Capital did while Romney headed the firm were purely asset-stripping operations and not true business building/improvement strategies. There are too many levels of indirection between Romney and the people who suffer most from policies that benefit the FIRE sector, of which Romney is a part, for Romney to get an idea of what's really going on in this country.

At least, that's the impression I get based on his biography and what he's said publicly so far. There's always the possibility that he really does understand things and is just saying what he's saying to get the FIRE sector votes and, if elected, as a decent man, he'll screw the FIRE economy. One can hope.

I don't see why it should be a requirement to have been a "regular" person before becoming President. You can't have grown up as a boy and a girl. You can't have been simultaneously poor and rich at one instant in time. It just seems discriminatory to use "wealthy background" as a source of discrimination, especially since he didn't squander his wealth but actually increased it (or so they say).

There's no way Romney will get my vote unless he swaps his VP pick for a different Paul. That being said, I would take his background, a wealth creator and former governor, over the current President's any day of the week! That include's our current President's background as having one full term in office!

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Romney's Taxes

I don't see why it should be a requirement to have been a "regular" person before becoming President. You can't have grown up as a boy and a girl. You can't have been simultaneously poor and rich at one instant in time. It just seems discriminatory to use "wealthy background" as a source of discrimination, especially since he didn't squander his wealth but actually increased it (or so they say).

I have never expressed the opinion that it should be a requirement that a presidential candidate have lived as a regular person before to qualify for the position. I do, however, express, a concern that such a person may not truly understand the plight of the average American in these difficult times and will work to enact policies that will be harmful to them. It's all too easy for a person who has never had to worry about making a living to see less fortunate people and say things such as, "You're not making much money because you're not working hard enough," "Stop being a mooch collecting unemployment benefits and get a job," and "Who cares if the jobs are being off-shored? Just move up the value chain and get a higher-paying job." This is exactly the impression Romney gives me when he speaks of the 47% being moochers. I fully believe some of those 47% are parasites but to say 47% of the taxable populace are moochers is just a bit much.

Oh, and by the way, Marie Antoinette's, "Let them eat cake," was not said so much in disdain for the peons so much as it was advice in the vein of, "if there is no bread, then why not eat cake?" She was utterly out of touch with the fact that a person who could not afford bread could even less afford cake.

There's no way Romney will get my vote unless he swaps his VP pick for a different Paul. That being said, I would take his background, a wealth creator and former governor, over the current President's any day of the week! That include's our current President's background as having one full term in office!

I am no apologist for Obama (I will not vote for him and, if it were possible, I would cast an "unvote" for him that subtracts one from the number of votes he gets) and am only expressing an opinion on one of the two most likely outcomes of this years' election. Being in Texas, I believe that no matter how I vote, Romney is going to win my state's electoral college votes.