Election 2012

[infinite monkey]

Meh. Conserves SAY that the 'other side' is doing exactly what they're doing but I don't quite see it.

Asking for tax returns to be released is certainly more understandable than saying a birth certificate is faked.

Pubs have the corner on evil.

[piercehawkeye45]

This is the main reason why I will vote for Obama this year. I've heard all the bullshit how the "upper class creates jobs" even though, as pointed out on this site, it is actually largely from the demand created by the middle class. Then, Romney and Paul want to cut taxes for the rich (you know....because Regan said so) and the middle-class (you know....the people that are struggling) have to to pay the bill.

Mitt Romney’s plan to overhaul the tax code would produce cuts for the richest 5 percent of Americans — and bigger bills for everybody else, according to an independent analysis set for release Wednesday.

The study was conducted by researchers at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, who seem to bend over backward to be fair to the Republican presidential candidate. To cover the cost of his plan — which would reduce tax rates by 20 percent, repeal the estate tax and eliminate taxes on investment income for middle-class taxpayers — the researchers assume that Romney would go after breaks for the richest taxpayers first.

They even look at what would happen if Republicans’ dreams for tax reform came true and the proposal generated significant revenue through economic growth.

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.

“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.

....

The Romney campaign on Wednesday declined to address the specifics of the analysis, dismissing it as a “liberal study.” Campaign officials noted that one of the three authors, Adam Looney of Brookings, served as a senior economist on the Obama Council of Economic Advisers. The other two authors are Samuel Brown and William Gale, both of whom are affiliated with Brookings and the Tax Policy Center.

“President Obama continues to tout liberal studies calling for more tax hikes and more government spending. We’ve been down that road before – and it’s led us to 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent,” said Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams. “It’s clear that the only plan President Obama has is more of the same. Mitt Romney believes that lower tax rates and less government will jump-start the economy and create jobs.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...COX_story.html


Here is the link to the actual report:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa...Tax-Reform.pdf

[DanaC]

Funny how he has discovered the importance of creating jobs in America since he started running for President. Maybe If he and his ilk had taken that stance earlier instead of outsourcing as much as they could to low wage earners in developing economies, their country wouldn't be suffering the way that it is.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Funny how he has discovered the importance of creating jobs in America since he started running for President. Maybe If he and his ilk had taken that stance earlier instead of outsourcing as much as they could to low wage earners in developing economies, their country wouldn't be suffering the way that it is.

I actually wouldn't blame Romney or Bain for the outsourcing.

Right now we are living an increasing competitive globalized world and many of the jobs that were available 20 years ago are disappearing because of the competitiveness. To put it in wording that favors Bain, Bain capital took failing companies, reworked them, and (sometimes) made them successful again. When they "reworked them", they usually cut higher paying jobs and replaced them with minimum wage jobs or outsourcing. While it is obviously bad for the middle class, I see that "reworking" as more reactionary to the current global economic climate then anything else. If this reworking didn't happen, there is a good chance the companies would fail and the jobs would have been lost anyways.

However, I don't see any of this as reasons why Romney should be president.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I actually wouldn't blame Romney or Bain for the outsourcing.

Right now we are living an increasing competitive globalized world and many of the jobs that were available 20 years ago are disappearing because of the competitiveness. To put it in wording that favors Bain, Bain capital took failing companies, reworked them, and (sometimes) made them successful again. When they "reworked them", they usually cut higher paying jobs and replaced them with minimum wage jobs or outsourcing. While it is obviously bad for the middle class, I see that "reworking" as more reactionary to the current global economic climate then anything else. If this reworking didn't happen, there is a good chance the companies would fail and the jobs would have been lost anyways.

However, I don't see any of this as reasons why Romney should be president.

I agree with your conclusion that Romney's work at Bain isn't especially qualifying for the role of POTUS.

I saw your caveat "language favorable to Bain". But. I don't believe it's realistic to hang the heavy label "failing" on the companies that Bain worked over/with. I would say "vulnerable to takeover and possible dismantling" or "more valuable as parts than as a whole". I know this negates your opening caveat, but I feel it is fairer. Bain was never in the business of "saving" (to counterbalance your tag of "failing") any business. They were in the business of making money. Buy low, sell high, sweat equity into a fixer upper, flip this house/company--that was their game. Not rescuing failing companies.

[piercehawkeye45]

I agree with you. I do not think companies like Bain Capital should be revered, but I believe there is a market for Bain largely because of the effects of globalization. I doubt anyone can generalize the reasons why other companies went to Bain to help, however, outsourcing and "rearranging" was probably going to happen no matter what in many of those companies. Bain can be looked at, in certain situations, as making that transition easier for those companies at a profit. On the other hand, Bain can be looked at as pushing outsourcing and minimum wage jobs further than they needed. That is more of a capitalism argument though.

I don't like Bain and what they do but I think that other perspective is important as well. It needs to be recognized that Bain is largely reactionary.

[infinite monkey]

Knock knock.

Who's there?

Bain.

Bain who?

Bain the bathtub, I'm browning.

[BigV]

What do you think it is a reaction to?

[henry quirk]

"Bain is largely reactionary"

I disagree. Bain (and, vehicles like Bain) is (are) the economic version(s) of a maggot colony, eating away at roadkill.

Less the 'reaction' and more a (natural) 'response'.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"Bain is largely reactionary"

I disagree. Bain (and, vehicles like Bain) is (are) the economic version(s) of a maggot colony, eating away at roadkill.

Less the 'reaction' and more a (natural) 'response'.

I'd say that is essentially true. The Dems shouldn't allow Bain to be passed off as a venture capital company though. They need a less loaded term for vulture like maybe maggot. A venture capital company risks money supporting new start ups rather than stripping the bones of weak companies, that is, creating jobs not eliminating them.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Griff

I'd say that is essentially true. The Dems shouldn't allow Bain to be passed off as a venture capital company though. They need a less loaded term for vulture like maybe maggot. A venture capital company risks money supporting new start ups rather than stripping the bones of weak companies, that is, creating jobs not eliminating them.

How about 'scavenger'? Scavengers lurk around for something dead or dying to eat (failing companies) and take in what's left of it. Then they crap it back out in the form of something potentially good and exactly how and where they crap will determine whether it is successful (nutrients for the soil/plants) or just a stanky pile (on your head).

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by BigV

What do you think it is a reaction to?

Instead of digging myself into a hole, I tried to do some quick research on Bain Capital along with positive and negative commentary.

I concede that my "reactionary" comment would only apply to a small amount of businesses that Bain worked with, notably manufacturing businesses. My point with those are recognizing the outsourcing and automation that has happened, and will continue to happen to the US manufacturing sector. Basically, foreign labor and machines are much cheaper than US labor, therefore manufacturing jobs will outsource or automate. Regardless of anyone's view on capitalism, which I will get to later, this will happen and there is nothing we can do stop it. That explains my reactionary comment.


Overall, what I have gotten out of this, is that the agreements and disagreements with Bain Capital depend on how we view "modern capitalism".

Do we value overall wealth over anything else (I see this as trickle-down theory)? In that case, Bain Capital was successful since they, overall, increased capital and jobs for the companies they took over.

Or, do we not value overall wealth over anything else (union jobs, benefits, etc.)? In that case, Bain Capital was very harmful to local communities and businesses.


I disagree with Bain because I see this new modern capitalism as a system that promotes wealth inequality and justifies it by claiming that everyone is better off when overall wealth is higher. On the other hand, the tactics used by Bain have become mainstream, therefore, they were simply just ahead of the curve.

[Happy Monkey]

One of the problems with a vicious cycle is that all of the segments can claim that they're just reacting to the others.

[Stormieweather]

So...the Republican National Convention will be here, where I live, this year. In a few days, actually.

Coincidentally, there is a tropical storm headed right for us. Isaac

We haven't had a "big" one for a very long time and are overdue.

Mayor says he will absolutely evacuate, if needed. Should make for a very interesting week!!

[piercehawkeye45]

Also, I am aware of how they would sometimes basically make money off a dying company but how often would that be? I'm guessing it couldn't happen all the time or else why would anyone allow them to buy them?