Mitt Romney drumming up money with the well-heeled

[NUpolo8]

another good read:

 

Thurston Howell Romney

By DAVID BROOKS

 

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

 

It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. The people who receive the

disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?

 

 

Well since they're throwing around student loan forgiveness, so yeah, free money to go to college is a freeloader.

 

And yes, some Republicans are huge fans of big Government. They aren't very smart and are easily turned in circles.

 

 

And I think Romney's got a huge deck stacked against him. He already started running a campaign where the media on "his side" ain't sold on him (see my stupid Republicans comment) and the ones against him are quick to just pillory the guy at the slightest misstep. And to top it off, some of his higher ups aren't very good at their jobs, and he's afraid to fire them because that kicks off a media sh#tstorm too.

 

Fun game, politics.

 

anyone who goes to a public college benefits from welfare.

 

To a point. They still send you a bill though, which goes to my theory about everyone paying something,(not really my theory, just a theory I believe in).

 

When they get that bill, some pay it, some pay it, bitch about how crappy it is, and get scholarship/loan/job. Some get it, bitch about it, and pitch a tent saying it should be free.

 

I like the first two sections of people.

[sd'sker]

i do not worry about the debt or deficit as much as you do. and, no, i do not think 90% is fair, but that is the point. fairness. so, just because taxing the rich a fair amount (whatever that may be) will not erase the debt, they should not have to pay their fair share?

Not even sure what to say after reading that. You and I probably wouldn't be as far off from each other then either of us think when it comes to fairness for taxes, especially when it comes to loopholes but I am a lot more worried about the debt and deficit then the precise percentage that the rich should pay. Why? Because our country's debt will vastly affect me and you more then what the rich pay in taxes. While there is a valid argument debating what the rich pay, the reality is it's taking the eye off the ball when it comes to fixing our bigger problems.

this study seems to disagree with you:

 

New Study Finds Tax Cuts For The Rich Cause Income Inequality, Not Economic Growth

 

tell me how narrowing income inequality does not help you or me?

 

It's the Inequality, Stupid

Eleven charts that explain what's wrong with America.

 

—By Dave Gilson and Carolyn Perot

 

| March/April 2011 Issue

 

so, we help build the middle class. they spend more because they have more disposable cash and job security, tax revenue goes up, deficit and debt go down. but it takes an infusion of money from somewhere and the only entity willing or able is the gov't.

[huskerXman]

Just for fun let's say whoever gets elected decides to tax the rich 90% and we find out afterwards we are still screwed trying to get out of this debt. What's the next step?

we live in a world where people pay fair taxes.

 

What is fair in your eyes?

 

I read other husker boards(but only post here) and you remind me of a poster from that site.. Do you post on that site as well?

[huskerXman]

No, the problem with this country is ignorance, ignorance thinking one side is better than the other. They BOTH lie to your face, they both have turned this country to the brink of ecomonic collapse and most you of fight back and forth about how good your side is.

 

The government set the wheels in motion for collapse in a couple more years. You can't run a government, or any business for that matter, with the kind of debt we have. You can't just print more money and hope to spend you way out of trouble. You have to make tough decision about cutting back.

[huskerXman]

One last thing, no amount of taxing the rich will make the slightest change in the nation debt, PERIOD.

[carlfense]

Hate to be this guy, as Romney could have said it a lot differently than he did, but I'm glad he's at least saying people who are dependent on the Government for their food is a) not the best idea ever and b) likely to vote for current incumbent.

You're conflating two things that are not necessarily overlapping. Romney was talking about the 47% of people who don't pay federal income taxes. You seem to think that means that those people are dependent on the government for food.

 

Any evidence that the 47% of people who don't pay federal income taxes are likely to vote for Obama? I've got evidence seems to hint that they're more likely to vote for Romney. Just curious.

[carlfense]

One last thing, no amount of taxing the rich will make the slightest change in the nation debt, PERIOD.

Despite the emphatic "PERIOD" . . . your statement is false.

[carlfense]

My basic problem with Obama derives from his constant and excessive use of class warfare. This country is already too divided. He was supposedly going to be a "uniter" and "healer".

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/60150-new-poll-puts-mitt-romney-in-the-deep-end/page__view__findpost__p__983017

 

*snicker*

[knapplc]

For those of you having kittens about the website where this video in the OP is hosted, here's a link from a more reputable news source, CNN: LINK

[knapplc]

And here's another. Mitt's not doing damage-control, he's doubling down:

 

 

Romney Stands By Comments In Video

 

COSTA MESA, Calif.—Mitt Romney stood by his comments captured on a hidden camera at a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year in which he called supporters of President Barack Obama "victims" and said they are reliant on government handouts.

 

In a hastily arranged news conference Monday night, he called his words "off the cuff" and "not elegantly stated," but given several opportunities to back off the comments, he did not.

 

Romney said he was merely talking about the "political process of drawing people into my own campaign." He described the incident as a "snippet of a question and answer session" and called on the full video to be released to show the question and his response in its full context.

 

Mitt must be a Neil Young fan - "It's better to burn out than to fade away."

[huskerXman]

One last thing, no amount of taxing the rich will make the slightest change in the nation debt, PERIOD.

Despite the emphatic "PERIOD" . . . your statement is false.

 

Really? How so?

[huskerXman]

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/08/09/why_taxing_the_rich_does_not_work_99172.html

 

.

.

.

So, if you tax away $200,000 from "the rich", GDP goes down by about $100,000 per year, federal revenues go down by about $18,000 per year, and total employment goes down by one job. This is how "spreading the wealth" actually works. This may account for why "taxing the rich" is, inexplicably for Progressives, not popular with voters.

Now, $200,000 is more than $18,000, so doesn't "taxing the rich" at least leave the federal government better off? No, it does not. This is because to get the $200,000, the federal government has to give up $18,000 per year in tax revenue from then on. The present value of $18,000 per year is about $620,000. So, when the federal government taxes $200,000 away from "the rich", it makes itself worse off by $420,000, the country as a whole becomes poorer by $3.4 million, and Joe Lunchbox loses his job.

"Wait!" the Progressives might cry. "We don't tax assets, we tax income!"

Well, the death tax, which Progressives love, is a pure tax on assets. It often forces the immediate, direct, and inefficient liquidation of assets to pay the tax. This is why the death tax is so economically destructive, and probably why it is opposed by a vast majority of the public. However, let's look at the income tax, which is the Progressives' favored vehicle for "taxing the rich".

[knapplc]

Because quite obviously if we tax the rich the debt would decrease. It may be a drop in the bucket, but it's still a drop more than we had before.

 

 

 

 

The argument against closing the tax freebie and loophole entitlements the rich receive is that the whole system is broken, so fixing this small problem won't help much. That's a piss-poor argument, considering how the Right Wingers spend so much time crying about the entitlements given to the very poor. It's OK to give tax entitlements to the rich, but not food and shelter to the poor. The argument makes zero sense.

[knapplc]

From the "realclearmarket" link provided by huskerXman above:

The government doesn't want factories, office buildings, or oil wells. It wants cash. So, taxing the rich forces them to liquidate assets. This liquidation is accomplished financially, rather than by actually tearing down factories and selling them for scrap.

 

 

 

At the concrete level, what happens is that money that would otherwise have gone to create new nonresidential fixed assets is redirected to buy some of the rich taxpayer's existing assets. The rich person then hands this money over to the government. The end result of this process is that government has more money, and the rich person-and the economy as a whole-has less nonresidential fixed assets.

 

The same concept applies for the lower classes: By taxing me, that means money is going to taxes that I would otherwise have spent, taking money out of the economy and thus decreasing the economy. So I should not be taxed so we can save our economy. You can cry about the lack of "nonresidential fixed assets" or you can cry about the lack of liquid assets in the hands of the middle class - either way, that money, that asset, is no longer in the market, it's in the hands of the government.

 

This argument is a non-starter.

[Ziggy]

Would anyone care to argue that cutting taxes actually increases revenue by the government? And that most generally our economy rebounds best when given said tax cuts during a recession.