or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Stark Differences In Policies Between Obama And Romney.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Stark Differences In Policies Between Obama And Romney.

post #1 of 40
Thread Starter 

On some things like healthcare, they're virtually identical, despite Romney's pandering to the TP's in his party, but there are lots of differences elsewhere. Perhaps we can assemble differences in their positions and policies and discuss them here, so we can compare them more thoroughly and see if we like one over the other more on particular issues?

 

It still remains to be seen whether Romney paid any income tax for a ten year period whilst he was at Bain Capital, we won't find out for sure until he releases his taxes, just like his father did. But if elected he would give a whopping average $250,000 in tax cuts to everyone earning over $3,000,000 a year. Obama wants to increase the taxes on the wealthiest and give 98% of people a tax cut. Quite a contrast there.

 

Here's Obama's comments, expected shortly to be broadcast, on Romney's repugnant tax policies-

 

 

"President Barack Obama will use a new report from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center to hammer away at a consistent campaign theme: that Mitt Romney favors the rich, while Obama will help the struggling middle class.

"And yet, the centerpiece of my opponent's entire economic plan is a new, $5 trillion tax cut. A lot of this tax cut would go to the wealthiest 1 percent of all households. Folks making more than $3 million a year -- the top one-tenth of one percent -- would get a tax cut worth almost a quarter of a million dollars. A quarter of a million dollars," Obama will say later in Mansfield, Ohio, according to remarks released by his campaign.

"But it gets worse. Under my opponent's plan, guess who gets the bill for these $250,000 tax cuts? You do. And you don’t have to take my word for it," he will say. "Just today, an independent, non-partisan organization ran all the numbers. And they found that if Governor Romney wants to keep his word and pay for his plan, he'd have to cut tax breaks that middle-class families depend on to pay for your home, or your health care, or send your kids to college. That means the average middle-class family with children would be hit with a tax increase of more than $2,000."

"But here's the thing –- he's not asking you to contribute more to pay down the deficit, or to invest in our kids' education. He's asking you to pay more so that people like him can get a tax cut.""

~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/obama-tax-cuts_n_1728392.html

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2 of 40

So the argument of the article is that Romney paid nothing the last ten years including the four years of the Obama administration. If he did pay, it wasn't because of changes in policy due to Obama but because he was less aggressive in his tax filings thus giving him something  to disclose the last couple years. If we don't re-elect Obama, then Romney will demand a tax cut so he can pay.....less than zero instead of the zero he was paying under Obama the last four years except for when he choose to pay more to look better while running for president.

 

BTW, we want you to know that none of this can be proven and in fact all of it is pure speculation, but it is very scary speculation, we think.....maybe......

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #3 of 40

So, Hands, you're saying that one important difference between these two candidates is that Barack Obama is going to engage in class warfare demagoguery over the fact that Mitt Romney is proposing letting at least one segment of the population keep a little bit more of what they've earned?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #4 of 40
e:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

"It still remains to be seen whether Romney paid any income tax for a ten year period whilst he was at Bain Capital,"

 

 

You're such a whore. 

 

 

Quoted for unwarranted misogynist ad hominem posterity.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #5 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So, Hands, you're saying that one important difference between these two candidates is that Barack Obama is going to engage in class warfare demagoguery over the fact that Mitt Romney is proposing letting at least one segment of the population keep a little bit more of what they've earned?

Class warfare you say?  Yup.  By the rich.  Against the everyone else.  An independent study of Romney's tax proposal shows a 5% decrease in taxes for the wealthiest of the wealthy while everyone else feels a greater burden.  Yup.  That's class warfare indeed.  By the rich.  Against everyone else.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #6 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Class warfare you say?  Yup.  By the rich.  Against the everyone else.  An independent study of Romney's tax proposal shows a 5% decrease in taxes for the wealthiest of the wealthy while everyone else feels a greater burden.  Yup.  That's class warfare indeed.  By the rich.  Against everyone else.

 

And how is this "burden" borne by everyone else? How does cutting taxes for one group mean a bigger burden for anyone else?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Quoted for unwarranted misogynist ad hominem posterity.

 

"Whore" does not necessarily refer to anything sexual.  I think you know this quite well.  Similarly, calling him one is really not argument ad hominem.  He is clearly taking Democratic talking points and regurgitating them.  He might as well be wholly-owned by the Democratic Party.  In other words, a "whore" of sorts.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Class warfare you say?  Yup.  By the rich.  Against the everyone else.  An independent study of Romney's tax proposal shows a 5% decrease in taxes for the wealthiest of the wealthy while everyone else feels a greater burden.  Yup.  That's class warfare indeed.  By the rich.  Against everyone else.

 

Let me guess...just like the Bush cuts, right?  

 

Oh, wait.  The Bush Tax Cuts actually reduced the burden on the lower income brackets.  hmmm.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #9 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Let me guess...just like the Bush cuts, right?  

 

Oh, wait.  The Bush Tax Cuts actually reduced the burden on the lower income brackets.  hmmm.  

 

What's particularly amusing is that, in typical confirmation bias fashion, BR picks up on study from a left-leaning think tank that says they don't like the Republican's tax plan. lol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #10 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

What's particularly amusing is that, in typical confirmation bias fashion, BR picks up on study from a left-leaning think tank that says they don't like the Republican's tax plan. lol.gif

 

The study is total bullshit.  

 

 

 

Quote:
"“It is not mathematically possible to design a revenue-neutral plan that preserves current incentives for savings and investment and that does not result in a net tax cut for high-income taxpayers and a net tax increase for lower- and/or middle-income taxpayers,” the study concludes."

 

 

This is false.  Tax cuts will have a stimulative economic affect...especially the ones Romney is proposing.  Once again, liberals simply cannot understand the basic concept that taxation affects behavior (i.e. the size of the total tax "pie").   

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #11 of 40

Meanwhile the Federal Reserve rolls merrily along printing money out of thin air and keeping interest rates artificially low, encouraging borrowing and discouraging saving, and not undergoing a single full audit in its 100 year history.

 

And our 2 major party candidates want to engage in class warfare and argue over policies that, when you break them down, are really a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #12 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Let me guess...just like the Bush cuts, right?  

 

Oh, wait.  The Bush Tax Cuts actually reduced the burden on the lower income brackets.  hmmm.  

The Bush tax cuts combined with the deregulation and pointless wars is what took our country away from a path toward eliminating the national debt.  Every service that gets cut in an effort to balance the budget now is placing more burden on the lower income brackets.  

 

Furthermore, broadening the base means raising taxes on the poor.  There's no way around that.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #13 of 40

The poor always get the shaft all the time.This is not fair at all.
 

post #14 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The Bush tax cuts combined with the deregulation and pointless wars is what took our country away from a path toward eliminating the national debt.  Every service that gets cut in an effort to balance the budget now is placing more burden on the lower income brackets.  

 

Furthermore, broadening the base means raising taxes on the poor.  There's no way around that.  

 

The Bush Cuts did not contribute to our current problems.  In fact, revenue went up pretty dramatically within just a few years.  The same happened with the Reagan cuts.  That's because tax cuts affect behavior and the size of the total tax pie.  This is something, again, that liberals just refuse to see.  

 

I also disagree about wars being "pointless."  In fact, I find that comment to be an insult to every person and family who sacrificed in those wars.  You may not agree with the Iraq war, but it was not "pointless."  And without question, the war in Afghanistan was justified.  

 

As for broadening the base, it does NOT necessarily mean "raising taxes on the poor."  There are millions of people who are not even close to "poor" and yet pay no federal income tax.  We have people making twice or even three times the poverty level paying NOTHING in federal taxes.  In fact, one half of our population pays nothing.  You can cry and whine all you want, but this is not a sustainable system.  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

The poor always get the shaft all the time.This is not fair at all.
 

 

An objectively false statement.  Completely.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #15 of 40
Thread Starter 
"CEOs' average pay

 

FACT: Among the 299 companies listed in the S&P 500 Index, the average CEO's compensation was $11.4 million in 2010, or 343 times more than the median pay ($33,190) of American workers. The ratio of CEO pay to median worker pay was just 42:1 in 1980, and is currently 25:1 in Europe."

 

"those 299 CEOs have a combined income of $3.4 billion per year, which could pay for 102,325 average American jobs."

 

.....they really care about jobs, don't they!

 

 

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #16 of 40

So? Is that supposed to be an argument for (or against) something?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #17 of 40

Despite what Barack Obama and most leftists (including those here) desire International Data on Living Standards Show that the United States Should Not Become More Like Europe

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #18 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

e:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

"It still remains to be seen whether Romney paid any income tax for a ten year period whilst he was at Bain Capital,"

 

 

You're such a whore. 

 

 

Quoted for unwarranted misogynist ad hominem posterity.

 

You can't ad-hom pure speculation. There isn't a logical point being put forward. What is being put forward is gossip which by definition is an ad-hom. If you say my sister's a slut have I ad-hom'ed your point by declaring your mother's a whore? What if I include the phrase..."it remains to be seen..."? It remains to be seen whether you screwed a goat. It remains to be seen whether you enjoyed anal sex with a donkey. It remains to be seen whether you in fact molested those little boys.

 

See, those can't be ad-homs. They are actual "arguments" for Democrats in this desperate election campaign.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So, Hands, you're saying that one important difference between these two candidates is that Barack Obama is going to engage in class warfare demagoguery over the fact that Mitt Romney is proposing letting at least one segment of the population keep a little bit more of what they've earned?

Class warfare you say?  Yup.  By the rich.  Against the everyone else.  An independent study of Romney's tax proposal shows a 5% decrease in taxes for the wealthiest of the wealthy while everyone else feels a greater burden.  Yup.  That's class warfare indeed.  By the rich.  Against everyone else.

 

The entire way they "feel the burden" is again, pure speculation and not based on any Romney plan, statements or actions. It's called just making shit up.

 

None of it helped Romney. His rate-cutting plan for individuals would reduce tax collections by about $360 billion in 2015, the study says. To avoid increasing deficits — as Romney has pledged — the plan would have to generate an equivalent amount of revenue by slashing tax breaks for mortgage interest, employer-provided health care, education, medical expenses, state and local taxes, and child care — all breaks that benefit the middle class.

 

Romney never said he would undertake those actions. They merely assign them to him. Meanwhile Obama runs trillion dollar a year deficits and no one cares on the Left side of the political aisle.

 

I'm going to generate a study based off Obama's call for reduction in green house gases. When the numbers for his policy projections, don't match my estimated outcomes, I'm just going to assume Obama will start murdering elderly and children until our energy use and need go down.

 

Did you hear that everyone? If Obama is given a second term, the elderly and children will all DIE. It's true because he wants an outcome and since his policies don't give me the number I want, I get to fill in the blanks for what will make it add up. Obama will murder your grandma and the kids!!

 

Wow is it really only August? I've never seen a campaign this desperate. There hasn't been a single difference between Obama and Romney presented. The pretense of differences was just more speculation about Romney since nothing about the Obama platform or record can be run on to win reelection.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #19 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 In fact, one half of our population pays nothing. 

 

Oh good, you already responded to your own post.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 

An objectively false statement.  Completely.  

 

 

Agreed.  Social security, medicare...not nothing.  Not nothing at all.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #20 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So? Is that supposed to be an argument for (or against) something?

 

I believe he's saying two things: 

 

1.  It's not fair.  

 

2.  The government should "do something" about it.  

 

I doubt you're surprised at either statement!  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #21 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Despite what Barack Obama and most leftists (including those here) desire International Data on Living Standards Show that the United States Should Not Become More Like Europe

Americans have much bigger vehicles, consume much more gas, pills and eat far more food, most of it junk food. Wonderful.

 

When comparing data like this it's also imperative to realise the income distribution. For instance Americas top 1% of earners earn far more of the pie than they do in Europe. These averages don't reflect that, or the higher numbers of people living on very little money. They don't reflect either things like access to healthcare, paternity leave or other government services. They also don't show that Americans average more than 30% longer hours worked per week and about 20% more work days per year. They also don't show how Europeans retire more than 3.5 years earlier than Americans. 

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #22 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Americans have much bigger vehicles, consume much more gas and eat far more food, most of it junk food. Wonderful.

 

When comparing data like this it's also imperative to realise the income distribution. For instance Americas top 1% of earners earn far more of the pie than they do in Europe. These averages don't reflect that, or the higher numbers of people living on very little money. They don't reflect either things like access to healthcare, paternity leave or other government services. They also don't show that Americans average more than 30% longer hours worked per week and about 20% more work days per year. They also don't show how Europeans retire more than 3.5 years earlier than Americans. 

 

OK.  Let me ask:  Why is the government's job to address economic inequality?  What you are really advocating is more THEFT of duly-earned monies.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #23 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

OK.  Let me ask:  Why is the government's job to address economic inequality?  What you are really advocating is more THEFT of duly-earned monies.  

Why do you? You're supporting Romney aren't you? Support Ron Paul if you think it's theft, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #24 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Americans have much bigger vehicles, consume much more gas, pills and eat far more food, most of it junk food. Wonderful.

 

lol.gif Why am I not surprised that even good news (that you don't agree with) is spun as bad news? You're amazing.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

When comparing data like this it's also imperative to realise the income distribution.

 

Why? Why does that matter? Income distribution is (leftist) red herring.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

For instance Americas top 1% of earners earn far more of the pie than they do in Europe.

 

You know what I think you're problem is? I think you think the pie is fixed in size, that wealth is a zero-sum game. Am I wrong?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

These averages don't reflect that, or the higher numbers of people living on very little money. They don't reflect either things like access to healthcare, paternity leave or other government services. They also don't show that Americans average more than 30% longer hours worked per week and about 20% more work days per year. They also don't show how Europeans retire more than 3.5 years earlier than Americans. 

 

I get it. You get to use averages and aggregates when it suits your argument but then dismiss them when they go against your claims.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #25 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

lol.gif Why am I not surprised that even good news (that you don't agree with) is spun as bad news? You're amazing.

 

 

 

 

Why? Why does that matter? Income distribution is (leftist) red herring.

 

 

 

You know what I think you're problem is? I think you think the pie is fixed in size, that wealth is a zero-sum game. Am I wrong?

 

 

 

I get it. You get to use averages and aggregates when it suits your argument but then dismiss them when they go against your claims.

If you can't break down the results of information what's the point in having it?

Income Inequality

Aevrage Household income before taxes.

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #26 of 40

So now you're just going to ignore the questions and engage in chart-spam?

 

*pffft*

 

You repeatedly come back to this income and wealth distribution issue without ever explaining why you think it is bad, let alone do anything to prove in any objective way that it is.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #27 of 40
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So now you're just going to ignore the questions and engage in chart-spam?

 

*pffft*

 

You repeatedly come back to this income and wealth distribution issue without ever explaining why you think it is bad, let alone do anything to prove in any objective way that it is.

I've answered these questions from you before many times already. I'll let the following article here this time answer for me-

 

 

"One aspect of "American exceptionalism" was always economic. US workers, so the story went, enjoyed a rising level of real wages that afforded their families a rising standard of living. Ever harder work paid off in rising consumption. The rich got richer faster than the middle and poor, but almost no one got poorer. Nearly all citizens felt "middle class". A profitable US capitalism kept running ahead of labour supply. So, it kept raising wages to attract waves of immigration and to retain employees, across the 19th century until the 1970s.

 

Then everything changed. Real wages stopped rising, as US capitalists redirected their investments to produce and employ abroad, while replacing millions of workers in the US with computers. The US women's liberation moved millions of US adult women to seek paid employment. US capitalism no longer faced a shortage of labour.

US employers took advantage of the changed situation: they stopped raising wages. When basic labour scarcity became labour excess, not only real wages, but eventually benefits, too, would stop rising. Over the last 30 years, the vast majority of US workers have, in fact, gotten poorer, when you sum up flat real wages, reduced benefits (pensions, medical insurance, etc), reduced public services and raised tax burdens. In economic terms, American "exceptionalism" began to die in the 1970s.

The rich, however, have got much richer since the 1970s, as every measure of US income and wealth inequality attests. The explanation is simple: while workers' average real wages stayed flat, their productivity rose (the goods and services that an average hour's labour provided to employers). More and better machines (including computers), better education, and harder and faster labour effort raised productivity since the 1970s. While workers delivered more and more value to employers, those employers paid workers no more. The employers reaped all the benefits of rising productivity: rising profits, rising salaries and bonuses to managers, rising dividends to shareholders, and rising payments to the professionals who serve employers (lawyers, architects, consultants, etc).

Since the 1970s, most US workers postponed facing up to what capitalism had come to mean for them. They sent more family members to do more hours of paid labour, and they borrowed huge amounts. By exhausting themselves, stressing family life to the breaking point in many households, and by taking on unsustainable levels of debt, the US working class delayed the end of American exceptionalism – until the global crisis hit in 2007. By then, their buying power could no longer grow: rising unemployment kept wages flat, no more hours of work, nor more borrowing, were possible. Reckoning time had arrived. A US capitalism built on expanding mass consumption lost its foundation.

The richest 10-15% – those cashing in on employers' good fortune from no longer-rising wages – helped bring on the crisis by speculating wildly and unsuccessfully in all sorts of new financial instruments (asset-backed securities, credit default swaps, etc). The richest also contributed to the crisis by using their money to shift US politics to the right, rendering government regulation and oversight inadequate to anticipate or moderate the crisis or even to react properly once it hit.

Indeed, the rich have so far been able to use the crisis to widen still further the gulf separating themselves from the rest, to finally bury American exceptionalism. First, they utilised both parties' dependence on their financial support to make sure there would be no mass federal hiring programme for the unemployed (as FDR used between 1934 and 1940). The absence of such a programme guaranteed that real wages would not rise and, with job benefits, would likely fall – as they indeed have done. Second, the rich made sure that the prime focus of government response to the crisis would benefit banks, large corporations and the stock markets. These have more or less "recovered".

Third, the current drive for government budget austerity – especially focused on the 50 states and the thousands of municipalities – forces the mass of people to pick up the costs for the government's unjustly imbalanced response to the crisis. The trillions spent to save the banks and selected other corporations (AIG, GM, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc) were mostly borrowed because the government dared not tax the corporations and the richest citizens to raise the needed rescue funds. Indeed, a good part of what the government borrowed came precisely from those funds left in the hands of corporations and the rich, because they had not been taxed to overcome the crisis. With sharply enlarged debts, all levels of government face the pressure of needing to take too much from current tax revenues to pay interest on debts, leaving too little to sustain public services. So, they demand the people pay more taxes and suffer reduced public services, so that government can reduce its debt burden.

For example, California's new governor proposes to continue for five more years the massive, broad-based tax increases begun during the crisis and also to cut state services for the poor (reduced Medicaid funding) and the middle class(reduced budgets for community colleges, state colleges, and the university system). The governor admits that California's budget faces sky-high interest costs and reduced federal government assistance just when the crisis increases demands for public services. The governor does not admit his fear to tax the state's huge corporate and private individual wealth. So, he announces an "austerity programme", as if no alternative existed. Indeed, a major support for austerity comes from the large corporations and wealthiest Californians, who hold the state's bonds and want reassurances that the interest on those bonds will be paid.

California's austerity programme parallels similar programmes in many other states, in thousands of municipalities, and at the federal level (for example, social security). Together, they reinforce falling real wages, falling benefits, falling government services and rising taxes. In the US, capitalism has stopped "delivering the goods", as it so long boasted. The reality of ever-deeper economic division clashes with expectations built up when wages rose over the century before the 1970s. US capitalism now brings long-term painful decline for its working class, the end of "American exceptionalism" and rising social, cultural and political tensions."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/17/economics-globalrecession

 
 

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #28 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Why do you? You're supporting Romney aren't you? Support Ron Paul if you think it's theft, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

 

I really think you can't read.  I said more theft.  That seems to be your method of addressing the inequality.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #29 of 40

 

 

Quote:

I've answered these questions from you before many times already. I'll let the following article here this time answer for me-

 

 

Actually, this doesn't answer a thing.  Now that jimmac is actually attempting to discuss issues, you're like the new...him.  But regardless, let's examine this "article."  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
"One aspect of "American exceptionalism" was always economic. US workers, so the story went, enjoyed a rising level of real wages that afforded their families a rising standard of living. Ever harder work paid off in rising consumption. The rich got richer faster than the middle and poor, but almost no one got poorer. Nearly all citizens felt "middle class". A profitable US capitalism kept running ahead of labour supply. So, it kept raising wages to attract waves of immigration and to retain employees, across the 19th century until the 1970s.

 

Bullshit.  There were poor before.  There were rich before.  The middle class is a relatively new one, only being around for about 100 years.  In the past, we had super rich people....titans of industry like Carnegie and Rockefellar.   The statement "nearly all people felt middle class" is completely absurd.  And lots of people have gotten poorer due to the government.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Then everything changed. Real wages stopped rising, as US capitalists redirected their investments to produce and employ abroad, while replacing millions of workers in the US with computers. The US women's liberation moved millions of US adult women to seek paid employment. US capitalism no longer faced a shortage of labour.

 

And why do you think they did that?  hmm?  

 

 

Quote:
US employers took advantage of the changed situation: they stopped raising wages. When basic labour scarcity became labour excess, not only real wages, but eventually benefits, too, would stop rising. Over the last 30 years, the vast majority of US workers have, in fact, gotten poorer, when you sum up flat real wages, reduced benefits (pensions, medical insurance, etc), reduced public services and raised tax burdens. In economic terms, American "exceptionalism" began to die in the 1970s.

 

No.  Wages for skilled workers have been going up just fine.  It's manufacturing and blue collar work in general.  No longer can one graduate high school, get a job at GM and retire at 60, living a good middle class life all the way.  It doesn't work like that.  In fact, it was a fantasy to begin with.  

 

 

Quote:
The rich, however, have got much richer since the 1970s, as every measure of US income and wealth inequality attests. The explanation is simple: while workers' average real wages stayed flat, their productivity rose (the goods and services that an average hour's labour provided to employers). More and better machines (including computers), better education, and harder and faster labour effort raised productivity since the 1970s. While workers delivered more and more value to employers, those employers paid workers no more. The employers reaped all the benefits of rising productivity: rising profits, rising salaries and bonuses to managers, rising dividends to shareholders, and rising payments to the professionals who serve employers (lawyers, architects, consultants, etc).

Those bastards!  

 

 

Quote:
Since the 1970s, most US workers postponed facing up to what capitalism had come to mean for them. They sent more family members to do more hours of paid labour, and they borrowed huge amounts. By exhausting themselves, stressing family life to the breaking point in many households, and by taking on unsustainable levels of debt, the US working class delayed the end of American exceptionalism – until the global crisis hit in 2007. By then, their buying power could no longer grow: rising unemployment kept wages flat, no more hours of work, nor more borrowing, were possible. Reckoning time had arrived. A US capitalism built on expanding mass consumption lost its foundation

 

Gee, I'm sure it has nothing to do with people being unable to live within their means.  I'm sure it has nothing to do with the Feds making it policy that everyone should be able to buy  a house.  

.

 

 

Quote:
The richest 10-15% – those cashing in on employers' good fortune from no longer-rising wages – helped bring on the crisis by speculating wildly and unsuccessfully in all sorts of new financial instruments (asset-backed securities, credit default swaps, etc). The richest also contributed to the crisis by using their money to shift US politics to the right, rendering government regulation and oversight inadequate to anticipate or moderate the crisis or even to react properly once it hit.

 

Clueless.  I am a teacher, and I am included in the "richest 15%," if not the richest 10%.  

 

 

Quote:
Indeed, the rich have so far been able to use the crisis to widen still further the gulf separating themselves from the rest, to finally bury American exceptionalism. First, they utilised both parties' dependence on their financial support to make sure there would be no mass federal hiring programme for the unemployed (as FDR used between 1934 and 1940). The absence of such a programme guaranteed that real wages would not rise and, with job benefits, would likely fall – as they indeed have done. Second, the rich made sure that the prime focus of government response to the crisis would benefit banks, large corporations and the stock markets. These have more or less "recovered".

 

Oh my God.  FDR's "mass hiring program" was a...well, MASSIVE failure.  Such a program would do nothing to help the economy, because it's 1) Temporary and 2) Funded by tax dollars, which consumes resources.  It certainly wouldn't help wages rise.  T

 

Quote:

Third, the current drive for government budget austerity – especially focused on the 50 states and the thousands of municipalities – forces the mass of people to pick up the costs for the government's unjustly imbalanced response to the crisis. The trillions spent to save the banks and selected other corporations (AIG, GM, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc) were mostly borrowed because the government dared not tax the corporations and the richest citizens to raise the needed rescue funds. Indeed, a good part of what the government borrowed came precisely from those funds left in the hands of corporations and the rich, because they had not been taxed to overcome the crisis. With sharply enlarged debts, all levels of government face the pressure of needing to take too much from current tax revenues to pay interest on debts, leaving too little to sustain public services. So, they demand the people pay more taxes and suffer reduced public services, so that government can reduce its debt burden.

 

 

We spend over $1 Trillion more than we take in...every year.  How long do you think this can go on?  As for corporations and "the richest citizens," they ALREADY are taxed at a high rate.  "...dared not tax the corporations and the richest citizens to raise the needed rescue funds."  What complete bullshit.  You could take all of the richest one percent's wealth..every dime...and it would find the government for like 15 days.  Get real.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
For example, California's new governor proposes to continue for five more years the massive, broad-based tax increases begun during the crisis and also to cut state services for the poor (reduced Medicaid funding) and the middle class(reduced budgets for community colleges, state colleges, and the university system). The governor admits that California's budget faces sky-high interest costs and reduced federal government assistance just when the crisis increases demands for public services. The governor does not admit his fear to tax the state's huge corporate and private individual wealth. So, he announces an "austerity programme", as if no alternative existed. Indeed, a major support for austerity comes from the large corporations and wealthiest Californians, who hold the state's bonds and want reassurances that the interest on those bonds will be paid.

 

Of course, because California has been living high on the hog for 30 years.  What this article calls "public services" actually comprises bloated unions, massive, wasteful welfare programs, and more.  Like the Feds, California must face the fact that it can't spend whatever it wants.  And spending IS the problem, not tax rates that rate too low.  

 

 

Quote:

California's austerity programme parallels similar programmes in many other states, in thousands of municipalities, and at the federal level (for example, social security). Together, they reinforce falling real wages, falling benefits, falling government services and rising taxes. In the US, capitalism has stopped "delivering the goods", as it so long boasted. The reality of ever-deeper economic division clashes with expectations built up when wages rose over the century before the 1970s. US capitalism now brings long-term painful decline for its working class, the end of "American exceptionalism" and rising social, cultural and political tensions."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/17/economics-globalrecession

 

They've got the symptoms right.  Where they fail is the diagnosis, and of course, the cure.  The diagnosis is that government spends too much and taxes too much.  It's just that goddamn simple.  Guess what the cure is?  

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #30 of 40
Thread Starter 

Communist European Elites thank Mitt Romney for the jobs-

 

"The former Massachusetts governor would make U.S. corporations’ overseas profits exempt from U.S. taxes. These profits are already treated favorably under the tax code compared to corporate profits that are earned and reported domestically, creating an inefficient bias toward investment offshore. The favorable treatment of profits that are reported offshore also creates rewards for corporations that shift profits (on paper) out of the United States to foreign countries, including tax havens such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

 

 

Economist Martin Sullivan of Tax Analysts explains:

Under current law, if an American corporation opens a factory in Indiana, the profits of that factory are subject to the 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate. If the same corporation instead opens a similar factory in Ireland, the profits from that factory are subject to a 12.5 percent tax rate [Ireland’s corporate tax rate]. If that factory generates a profit of $100, the choice is between an after-tax profit of $65 in the United States and $87.50 in Ireland. Obviously, U.S. tax law provides a large tax advantage for building and moving factories to low-tax countries.

In recent testimony, Congressional Research Service economist Jane Gravelle explained that a territorial system:

... would make foreign investment more attractive. That would cause investment to flow abroad, and that would reduce the capital with which workers in the United States have, so it should reduce wages. [A territorial system] will increase the after-tax rate of return that firms see abroad, so they will want to move their investments--they would want to make investments abroad, instead of the United States."

~ http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2012/07/hanlon_outsourcing.html

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #31 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

"The former Massachusetts governor would make U.S. corporations’ overseas profits exempt from U.S. taxes. These profits are already treated favorably under the tax code compared to corporate profits that are earned and reported domestically, creating an inefficient bias toward investment offshore.

 

I love the editorializing.

 

:rolleyes:

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #32 of 40
Thread Starter 

Romney getting what he deserves on his taxes, or lack thereof- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DABbkpHzg3o&feature=player_embedded

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #33 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Romney getting what he deserves on his taxes, or lack thereof- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DABbkpHzg3o&feature=player_embedded

 

How do you figure?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #34 of 40

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #35 of 40
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #36 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

FACT: Among the 299 companies listed in the S&P 500 Index, the average CEO's compensation was $11.4 million in 2010, or 343 times more than the median pay ($33,190) of American workers. The ratio of CEO pay to median worker pay was just 42:1 in 1980, and is currently 25:1 in Europe."

 

"those 299 CEOs have a combined income of $3.4 billion per year, which could pay for 102,325 average American jobs."

 

.....they really care about jobs, don't they!

 

 

 

 

Maybe the average CEO gets paid so much because his decisions affects the livelyhood of all those workers.  Maybe they'd rather have a CEO that gets paid 50,000$ a year, doesn't care, and drives the company into the ground so they can all make a very equitable 0$/year... 

post #37 of 40

Strawman.  No one is saying that a CEO should be paid $50k.  In fact, if you would do the simple math in the text that you quoted, you'd find that your $50k number is completely ridiculous.  Hyperbole much?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #38 of 40

Romney deserves every break he can.He is a good human being and cares about others.More tax breaks are good for him.
 

post #39 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Strawman.  No one is saying that a CEO should be paid $50k.  In fact, if you would do the simple math in the text that you quoted, you'd find that your $50k number is completely ridiculous.  Hyperbole much?


Hyperbole is a perfectly fine literary device. 

 

Honestly, CEO's deserve all the money they're paid.  Especially if they produce the goods.  Surely some of them deserve lower salaries, supplemented by bonuses and stock options to encourage performance. 

post #40 of 40

Literary device--not for supporting an argument based in reality.

 

Furthermore, you go on to say that CEOs deserve all their money and then two sentences later say they deserve lower salaries to be supplemented with stock options.  If anything, that just perpetuates the myopic Wall Street focus on short-term gains over long-term sustainability.  

 

Also, this guy.

 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/07/06/duke-energy-ceo-severance-bill-johnson/

 

 

 

Quote:
Bill Johnson resigned after just hours at the helm of the new firm, reports The Wall Street Journal, and walked away with a severance package that could be worth up to $44.4 million.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Stark Differences In Policies Between Obama And Romney.