So if it's not locked down it's free stuff? Laws do not cover everything. As a matter of fact, the more libertarian and tea partiers are arguing for less laws. The assumption is that government protections are unnecessary because the free market and innate human compassion will provide the necessary checks and balances.

Mr. Romney proved this wrong. If there was the least fiscal advantage to destroying companies or moving them overseas, even companies that were stable and profitable before being loaded with leveraged debt, then these companies were torn down.

In the primaries Gingrich pilloried Romeny for this. This was not 'creative destruction', this was destruction by loophole.

The board and bigwigs hire people to conduct consumer studies so they KNOW what customers want, in their car or truck. They learned that pretty well from the Ford Mustang and Lee Iacocca, back in 1961. Iacocca knew what the people wanted.

But that's the company, it's not the gov't. You want a gov't designed car, fine - you buy one. ;)

Since Mitt Romney has never been a Congressman or Senator, no - I don't know what you're talking about when you try to blame him, for the shortcomings of the previous leadership in Washington.

I worked for a corp that went through a capital group like Bain, and yes, it was tough. But before that, it was also tough, as idiots running the company, ran it right into the ground. Every year that was another two or three rounds of lay-offs, and this went on and on. Without the help of the capital group, the corporation I worked for, would have been bankrupt, simply.

The thing is, business markets are always changing. You can't say "we make a good product, so we'll always have a job here". No, you can't be sure of that. Things change, new products are introduced, new technologies are discovered. In my case, SONY came into the field, and just blew us away - HUGE market clout. Plus we had poor managers and management running the company.

When your leaders sign a treaty to permit cheap 3rd world labor, to manufacture our goods and sell it to us, do you really believe it will have NO impact on our jobs, and on companies?

Can you see competing with a labor force working for $2-$5 dollars a day? Of course not, but that is what OUR federal gov't, signed us up to do. :mad:

There have been thousands of companies who have moved overseas or down to South America, in whole, or in part. It's beyond ridiculous to point to ONE company moving overseas 12 years after Romney left from Blain Capital, and say "See! He shouldn't be President, he caused this company to move to China!"

That's not being reasonable, and you know it. Yes, it's tough being RIFF'd - been there, got the T shirt.

A capitalist society is not a fair society (no society is, so nothing new), but those RIFF'd employees should move on and see what they can do NOW, not stand around, waving signs, feeling sorry for themselves.

Completely irrelevant is what you think about Santorum. But again, avoiding a reality that you cannot honestly dispute. The Pope called for Church doctrine imposed on American law. And Santorum agreed. So you pretend Santorum, et al did not say that? Imposing religion on the American people is an extremism ideological principle.

Does not matter what you think. You demonstrate the extremism that Romney must entertain to be elected. You represent baggage that, if eliminated, would make a Romney presidency acceptable.

"A conservative, liberal, and moderate walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Hi Mitt". " Romney must entertain extremism that he once completely rejected. Extremists so dominate that even Romney cannot be honest. Honesty, as so many demonstrated, clearly has not been your strong suit here. Did we not learn anything from George Jr?

You even blamed George Jr's 2007 recession on Dodd-Frank created in July 2010. No informed person could make that mistake. An ideologue. Conclusions made; then facts are invented. Dodd-Frank created George Jr's recession? A perfect example of ideological reasoning. And that is the point. Romney's baggage is ideologues - that you demonstrate.

Extremism is a greatest threat to America, its allies, America's relationship with it allies, the avoidance of war, the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty, another Cold War, economic health, an increasing American standard of living, and the innovations necessary to create solutions to all of our problems.

Romney has a problem that McCain had. That is the point. You demonstrate the baggage that Romney brings to the White House.

You demonstrate how dangerous a Romney presidency would be for everyone in America and the world. It is not a pretty picture - as if we ignore disasters created by George Jr to do it all over again. Because Limbaugh said it was good. That is the point. You demonstrate the rhetoric and lies found in an extremist political agenda.

It was no accident that you lied about a 2007 George Jr recession created by a 2010 law. That mistake is only possible when your conclusion was made by ignoring reality and well known facts.

Nobody is going to prove otherwise to you. That is the point. Extremists have conclusion by even ignoring facts and reality. The people that Romney, unfortunately, brings to the White House.

I agree -- that's why I don't bother thinking about Santorum. He was too right wing for me, and I knew he would be too right wing for the country.

I keep asking you to support your argument that the Pope called for Church doctrine to be imposed on American law.

You keep avoiding it -- because it isn't true??


I'm pragmatic, not extreme. If Obama's policies worked, I'd say "Hallelujah!", and vote for him.

But they haven't worked.

So bending the constitution every way he pleases, doesn't make Obama an extremist? Building more national debt than any President EVER, doesn't make him an extremist? Taking over the health care industry, doesn't make him an extremist?

Get out!

Nope, I just had the wrong name of the bill, on my mind at the time. The current crisis was caused by a change in the fed law and policies, designed to enable a much greater percentage of home ownership.

Congressman Barney Franks was on the committee that oversaw Freddie Mac and Fanney Mae, and testified just six months before the housing market crash, that both these agencies were in good sound financial health. Of course, that was a lie, and they had to be bailed out, shortly thereafter.

That, and the derivatives from Wall St. (which totaled more than a TRILLION dollars of liability), brought about this economic problem.

There were other actions by the feds that helped bring it about, as well, but they were relatively minor.

its hilarious that the entire rest of the developed world regards Obama as a center-right moderate and yet you think he's some kind of extremist.

Obama is extremely moderate. He more than sold out the left wing of the party - he threw the left wing under the bus by extending the disastrous Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, by gutting health care reform by passing what was, four years ago, a CONSERVATIVE plan for insurance mandates without a public option, by expanding extrajudicial execution of even American citizens abroad, by refusing to close Gitmo...

Anywhere else in the western world, Obama would be a moderate conservative. Only in the minds of right-wing nutcases like you, Adak, is Obama even remotely extremist.

I must admit, over here we all get the giggleshits when American pundits refer to Obama as a 'socialist'.

The GOP can't use "communist" to scare voters any more, so the new boogeyman is a "socialist".

I agree with you about the unsustainability of a policy that spends a trillion dollars a year more than we collect in revenues. We agree on that point, but I feel our views diverge sharply immediately after that agreement.

glatt's right. go re-read his post.

Also, the interest on any debt we have already incurred is fixed. It doesn't "increase by just a couple percent". Any increase in our borrowing costs will be known at the time we borrow, and frankly is set by the world attitude about the safety and reliability of return for money invested in Treasury Bonds. Do you know how much it costs to borrow this money? Take a guess.

Any chance...?

Flint, thanks for your patience. Here's what I see in your first description.

check. for the purposes of this thought exercise, let's start here.

and this logically follows

and this logically follows.

paying less taxes logically produces this result, fine.

this is where I get stuck.

I think you're saying this small business owned by someone who gets their income from that business will have more money since less money is being paid in taxes. Ok. BUT. What is this stimulation? There aren't more sales (no logical argument being made for this proposition). More money isn't *coming in*, they're just not paying as much in taxes. What's the business going to do with this marginal amount of additional money? How is this stimulation? There's no way the amount would be enough to justify hiring someone. I have read that the cost of an employee ranges from 1.25 to 1.4 times the base salary.
hm... well, sidetracking myself, perhaps a "small business" could have a tax burden that 20% of which would represent enough savings to pay for a new employee... maybe. However! I find it *counterintuitive* to say the least that the first thing a business would want to do with newfound cash is to hire new people. Business are built to increase profit, not to expand employment opportunities. Their reason for existence is to increase profits and they take the path or least resistance to do so.

But I digress.

All this is moot, since Romney's plan is to make the changes to the tax code REVENUE NEUTRAL. This is service to his pledge to avoid increasing the deficit, which would be a logical result of lower tax revenues as we have previously established. So, respectfully, your point Romney's point that businesses would be stimulated by the increased unchanged revenue/tax burden is supported by wishful thinking only. This is my primary complaint.

by "broadening the base", meaning more money is subject to taxation by the result of fewer deductions. No one telling this story has provided any understandable, reasonable justification for the growth that is required to fulfill these promises. It's like 1 + 1 + 1 = 5. It just doesn't add up, when you look at each point. It's fine to just assert "5", but it's not rational.

Ok, this is the base broadening part I mentioned a moment ago...

But this doesn't follow logically in my mind. How can households pay the same amount of tax if they have fewer deductions, meaning their taxable income is greater? Or are you saying broader base, fewer deductions, lower rates, same tax amount?

Never mind the math(s).

4.a is explicitly contradictory with 2. Slipping in "also" and "end up" doesn't help.

This is true--as people will follow human nature, businesses will do what it is natural for them to do. This is the fundamental idea behind policies designed to 'piggyback' on people's natural tendencies--as opposed to 'engineering' results.

For example, business A. pays slightly less in taxes, they will invest this in growing their business, thus growing their profit (assuming the same margin, getting 'bigger' produces more revenue). So, they add production, increase output, and service new customers. Every part of the industry they are a part of incrementally increases in capacity.

Is it a direct a direct correlation--they made enough extra to justify hiring a set amount of additional staff? No, probably they will try to get more productivity out of their existing employees, have them work longer hours and such.

But the point is that when business capacity grows, at some point you will need additional workers to do that work. The industry certainly doesn't exist just to hire people, but all of those businesses will need to hire people to get that extra stuff done. The bigger they are, the more they make, the more workers they need.

That's the basic idea--businesses WANT to grow so they can make more money!

Oh, and when they make more money, there is more to tax.

The way I understood it is because the rate is lower.

My apologies, I couldn't figure out a good way to diagram that Point 1. and Point 4. happen at the same time. If the tax rate going down and the deductions being eliminated happen at the same time, they cancel each other out--there is no net effect.

Theoretically, mind you. I'm just trying to explain what I thout the idea was, since I did not find it to be confusing, but rather simple.

I question this line of thinking because American (non-financial) corporations are sitting on $5 trillion, yes that's a T, in cash reserves.

But we're talking about small businesses--think Hank Hill's boss on King of the Hill. Buck Strickland wants to make more money to spend on gambling and hookers. He can't increase his margin, so to make more he has to get bigger. He has to add customers, he has to increase capacity, and he ends up needing another truck driver to make those extra deliveries.

You need more customers in order to expand. Businesses don't just expand because they have extra money, they expand because demand is higher for their product/service (and they can't squeeze any more out of their current resources).

And that means more cash is needed in the consumer's pocket. In most cases, small business customers are the middle class. Give the middle class more cash and they will buy more with it which will give small businesses reason to expand.

Right now, corporate cash is at an all time high. Why? Not enough demand for products to justify expansion. Why? Not enough cash in the middle class's pocket with which to buy more products.