Politics What did Romney and the GOP do wrong?

These companies do not exist. To the contrary many large publicly traded corporations are not run with shareholder returns as the number one priority. We are in an environment where management looks for short-term quarterly home-runs so they can get bonuses, salary increases, better job offers, and bumps in the the stock price so options and grants can be exorcized. Gorwing long-term enterprise or book value is what is best for shareholders. Traders are a different animal.

There is a book I read about 15 years ago - Built To Last - I don;t recall the author, but the companies you describe don't last long. Companies built to last do the opposite of what you describe, many in business and making profits over 100 years - and shareholder value is reflected in that.
--- merged: Dec 11, 2012 at 4:48 PM ---

the top 1% pay a bigger share of the total.




Bush Tax Cut Secret: Rich Paid Even More - Investors.com--- merged: Dec 11, 2012 at 4:53 PM ---

You mean like the working poor people who shop at Wal-mart buying goods made in China because the prices are affordable? And Wal-mart because they work their a$$ off to lower prices so people can buy food and clothing for their children? Or are you talking about the unions who only want to put Wal-Mart out of business so working people are forced to shop at stores with unaffordable prices?

 

My impression was that Ron Paul was not interested in getting Tea Party support. I could be wrong, but I do not recall him ever talking to a Tea Party group or talking about the Tea Party movement. There could have been a meeting in the middle with a focus on fiscal responsibility.

Gas is still cheaper and more efficient. The market is not ready for battery powered cars. I would suggest that other alternatives will win over batteries anyway, i.e., natural gas.

I favor a consumption tax. Live like a billionaire, pay taxes like one.

We disagree. I think people should be able to do what they want with the money they earn - again I think consumption taxation is a better way. Tax Paris Hilton based on her lifestyle, not based on the money her grand-father made.
--- merged: Dec 11, 2012 at 5:06 PM ---

If the chart does not factor in the value of goods and services received it is of little value. For example if family A receives $100,000 in grants for children to go to school, that is not income but it sure has value. If family B does not get that benefit, but actually used income, perhaps the gap is not as wide as some would think.
--- merged: Dec 11, 2012 at 5:09 PM ---

Grow up - played this game with my sister when she was 4 years old - you are stupid - you are stupider - no you are stupid...give me a break.
--- merged: Dec 11, 2012 at 5:14 PM ---

There are societies that have different economic values than those found in the US - the point (which you seemed to miss) is that given a capitalist culture those who do not effectively participate are subject to the good will of others.

Your use of sarcasm falls flat when you purposefully base your sarcasm on avoiding what was actually written but instead a straw-man argument. I enjoy sarcasm and the best sarcasm is on point - try again, I think you can do better.

 

No, I'm specifically speaking about people who make nothing but numbers move around on paper and computer screens. People who buy and sell companies then cut the employees benefits and pay to the point they can no longer afford anything but Wal-Mart. Eventually they cut until the employees can't afford to keep their job so they strike and the hedge fund guys simply ship the jobs offshore. But then I think you know exactly who I'm talking about.

And for the record Wal-Mart doesn't work their ass of to lower prices. They buy cheap shit, mostly made overseas, and and sell it at a low margin because they can. They've moved into communities and under sold local shops and killed any and all competition. Here in Mexico, and as it's now coming to light in other countries too, they bribed and broke both US, local and foreign laws in the process. Wal-Mart's worked it out in their bottom line most likely that it's cheaper to break the law and pay the fine then follow the rules and the law.

 

If I were speaking I would say this real slow, hoping that the impact sinks in - taxes on income are a burden to those trying to get rich - those already rich have options to avoiding taxes and basically pay what they want to pay.

 

You are basically talking about the plot in the movie Wall Street. Out of all business activity that kind of stuff is not even a measurable percent of a percent. If a company is healthy they generally are not subject to what you describe. The latest unhealthy company in the news is Hostess - I think those brands will survive and the employees that survive with those brands will become part of a much stronger and financially stable company.

My wife and I start shopping at Wal-Mart about 5 years ago, now we do almost all our grocery shopping there - name brands in some cases are 50% cheaper than in the other grocery stores. And what also strikes me is that Wal-mart hires all kinds of people, even those who are not considered attractive by most peoples standards and people you know real could use the job - I respect that. You can keep your Abocrmbe and Fitch/trader Joe's snobs and high prices (I bet some of their stuff comes from China too)

Not familiar with what you describe or if it is unique to Wal-Mart - so I won't comment.
--- merged: Dec 11, 2012 at 5:41 PM ---

This is still related to my Oprah point, that you don't get and I don't expect you to get followups to that. I a society dominated by capitalism in order to be the best or even to do well, you have to be a dog gone good capitalist - or as I put it a greedy capitalist pig. I have no idea how someone can not understand something so simple and clear unless they do it on purpose.

No it is not. A tax on income is a burden to those earning income. A tax on income is not a tax on wealth. A tax on income is not a tax on a person's ability to use or consume resources!

In order for a poor person to accumulate wealth in this country they have to first earn income. Those who have already accumulated wealth can see their wealth grow without the need for income.

 

And you get this 1% number where?

I do not shop at Sam's or Wal-Mart at all. Not only have they forced several friends out of business I often find their cheap crap is just that- cheap crap. I did a little research and found the printer cart. I was buying from them at a reduced cost had reduced ink. They have brand name t-shirt or socks but they're extremely thin and last but a couple washings. They make deals with suppliers where they set the price and to meet that price the quality suffers. This isn't always the case but between that and their illegal business practices it's enough to keep me shopping elsewhere. If I every get to the point I just must have 12 pairs of underwear for 6 bucks I'll figure out a way to make my own before I shop Wal-Mart.

It's easily found.

Wal-Mart’s Mexico Bribery Case Ripples Outward - NYTimes.com

They have stores here in the Yucatan that were built on ancient Maya sites, completely illegal. Same thing with Aztec site up near DF. It's a pretty big story here and it's coming to light now that Wal-Mart has used the same tactics to open store in other Central and South American countries.

 

This comment indicates that you have some confusion as to the definition of income, Ace.

in·come (nkm)
n.
1. The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments.

How does wealth grow without employing at least one of these?

Or maybe you are talking strictly about interest earnings.

 

Semantics, I'd guess. Income should mean all financial gains made. However, it could be taken to mean "the money we make that is subject to income tax".

If we agree that they are fundamentally the same, we could argue that (for example) capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as "income".

 

ace, your "argument" was not worth anything more than that. they almost never are. maybe try a bit harder to do something beyond kneeling in front of the backwater conventional wisdom of the right and nod your head in vigorous agreement. i maintain a pollyanna faith that it's possible. i also recognize that it is unlikely to ever happen.

 

In a society dominated by capitalism, in order to be the best or eve to do well, one must be e a greedy capitalist pig?

What a warped vision.

Unless you place little or no value or teachers, cops, writers, nurses, and even lil old public interest workers like me. These are the folks the tax code should be supporting, not those who desire to accumulate wealth for the purpose of having more money than they could ever spend in a lifetime.

And that is how an effective progressive tax system should work. Altering the tax code in the manner of the Bush tax cuts did nothing to grow the middle class or stimulate the economy. Instead, it increased the income inequality in the US (among the worst in industrialized countries) at a cost of $trillions to the national debt. Is that how you define success?

This one's for you, Ace-- Money, it's a gas, Grab that cash with both hands, And make a stash

 

First, common sense. I interact with small business people everyday - doctor, mechanic, cleaner, restaurant owner, etc., they are just regular folks doing the best they can no drama, no movie making material. I interact with corporate people every day - bank, large chain stores, phone company, etc., these people are doing the best they can - they are not trying to take advantage of me - they represent a company and a product or service at a price, that I need or has my interest - again no drama, no movie making material. I still have connects with corporate executives, they are doing the best they can, no drama, no movie making material. I follow business and the US economy religiously, there are typically a small number of stories that generate the type of coverage that warrants national interest in a dramatic type way. Most business is conducted honestly. so on it face I can not accept your premise without something to justify it.

This above is a talking point. A small business does can not compete with Wall-mart or any other big box store. A small business has to focus on a niche and do those one or two things a big box store can not do. If a business owner just sits back and let's the big box stores eat his lunch, perhaps it is time for retirement. I am close friends with a man who owns a hardware store, mow run buy his daughter and her husband. His store is surrounded buy 6 Lowes and Home Depot stores, North, South, East and West all within 10 miles of his store. His store is doing fine because he has relationships with contractors and the community in addition to having employees who know what they are talking about. No doubt he has challenges competing on price, but he was getting it done before and now his daughter is getting it done. At one time he affiliated with Ace Hardware, but found it was not worth it and went back to being an independent.

I don't typically buy non-branded items from Wal-mart, so I can't comment on the quality of those item. When I buy nationally advertised name branded items the quality is the same - but the marked price is usually significantly less.
--- merged: Dec 12, 2012 at 6:09 PM ---

In context it is clear to me that "good" referred to being highly effective within the system of capitalism. Here it is in context:

If you found that to be confusing, I can and perhaps should stop being brief and stop using colloquialisms - heck even a rat-bastered, son of a gun, can be a doggone good capitalist pig.

If a guy is the MVP on the football team that won the Superbowl last year, that would make him a football player. The guy who is at the top of the capitalist game, he would be a capitalist. Those who engage in the activity of playing football are football players. Those who engage in the activity of free market capitalism are capitalist. Are all capitalists greedy and pig like? Depends on who you ask - but greedy pig is not a phrase often used to be taken literally - of course people are not pigs - and there are degrees of greed, but when people consume/store more than they need as almost all Americans do, perhaps it is reasonable to call it what it is -greed. When I call it what it is I am not being judgmental, I don't know if "greed" is a dis-qualifier for heaven, do you know?.

Yes. The list is a long one. First, income earned in illegal activity typically is not declared as income and is not taxed as income. In the US tax code income has a specific definition, many forms of income are excluded - that is the whole discussion about loopholes and deductions.

In the US people are taxed on Adjusted Gross Income, or AGI. And even after that tax credits can be applied modifying the actual tax owed to the government. Two households can have the exact same top line income and end up with very different tax obligations. One of the questions the Supreme court is going to take up is - should gay households be treated different from straight households in this regard. I say everyone should be treated the same under tax law, tax consumption.
--- merged: Dec 12, 2012 at 6:21 PM ---

The issue with capital gains is determining when the gain is realized. A long-term capital gain can be held "on paper" for decades and in the case of corporation virtually forever. However, appreciated capital is a useable asset. If a New Yorker bought a 5th Ave. apartment 50 years ago and still holds it, the value of the use could be a million or more annually and there may be an imbedded capital gain of multiple millions - how would you tax that? Compared to the guy today, he would have to have an income perhaps in the neighborhood of $10 million or more to afford the same lifestyle on 5th Ave. Under our current tax code the first guy simply gets richer every year and the second has the burden (self-inflicted of course) of paying a boatload in income taxes. I don't have sympathy for either guy, I am just illustrating a point that is applicable on various scales.
--- merged: Dec 12, 2012 at 6:28 PM ---

Amphiboly fallacy, I can not respond and you know it. Man-up and be specific.
--- merged: Dec 12, 2012 at 6:38 PM ---

Even people who belong to unions engage in capitalism. Collective bargaining is all about getting value in the market. Only the foolish leave money on the table when it can be put in their pocket. Perhaps you are the exception to the rule - perhaps you don't work deals as best you can for your best benefit. Or, perhaps you are one of the lucky ones who has someone else looking out for you - doing your dirty work - figuratively speaking. When my mother was alive I looked out for her, I did what needed to be done - she could hold on to being a nice and giving person and not deal with the competitive market place after her divorce from my father. Some do depend on the good-will of others and it comes in many forms.

 

Typical load of Acespeak rather than address the issue that I raised.

Why is a tax policy that does not contributes to economic growth , but instead leads to more concentrated wealth and greater income equality and at a cost of $trillion, a good policy for the country?

 

You toss out a number like 1% and can not accept my "premise without something to justify it." Only you Ace, only you. Anyone else I'd think they were being ironic. But this is the type of response you make a lot. I find my common sense tells me it's a tactic you use 87.074%.

It's not a talking point. And I have no idea what-

I talking specifically about branded items. I bought an HP ink cartridge from Wal-Mart and found it lasted less then a few weeks. I did a little research and found the item code on the cartridge was different then the one on HP's web store. Little more research and I found out why. They make it solely for Wal-Mart and it contains less ink so you need to purchase it more often.

This isn't something Wal-Mart is doing and other big box stores are not. I've always owned John Deere riding mowers. I usually tried to buy them used as they nearly last forever but I have purchased new when a fire wiped out my storage/lawn shed and I couldn't find a reasonable priced used model . One day I was in Home Depot and saw they had JD mowers. Now I knew from dealing with my local dealer obtaining the rights to sell/service JD parts and equipment is no small feat. I checked out the mowers being offered at HD and found the mower decks were not metal but plastic. The motor wasn't a Kawasaki, which was the main motor JD was using at the time, but rather some off brand, made in China, motor I'd never heard of before. I was in need of new blades and almost bought a set at HD, they were nearly 1/2 the cost. I grabbed the size I needed and just my my hand I could feel they didn't weigh has much as the one's I bought from the dealer in the past. Even the packaging didn't look right. When I went back to my local dealer to buy the blades I asked him about the mowers at HD. He told me his dealer assoc. was considering legal action against both JD and Wal-Mart as they'd been assured a "territory" by JD and the HD sales violated the terms of those territories.

The owner of Snapper Mowers had to nearly sue Wal-Mart to keep his products off their shelves. I can't speak in terms of specific on the case but I remember reading they were trying to force him somehow to allow them access to his product line.

 

Maybe this will help: Why the GOP Wont Admit Supply Side Has Failed.

It really always gets back the Republicans wanting to kill Social Security and Medicare.