Mitt Romney and his ‘not very much’ problem
As an aside in acknowledging that he pays roughly 15 percent of his income in taxes, a lower share than many middle-class Americans, Mitt Romney also mentioned that he “gets speaker fees from time to time, but not very much.”
Campaign disclosure forms express that “not very much” in stark numerical terms: $374,000 in speaking fees from February 2010 to February 2011, when Romney ceased accepting paying gigs in order to run for president full time.
From Romney’s point of view, his description of that income is correct and understandable. If you have an estimated net worth of $270 million, $374,000 truly is “not very much,” a mere 0.14 percent of your wealth. On the other hand, from the point of view of most Americans, that same sum is really quite a lot. In fact, Romney’s income from speeches alone would put him in the fabled top 1 percent in terms of household income.
The issue is relevant not because it feeds some sort of voter envy over Romney’s wealth. It’s relevant in terms of perspective. Romney’s dismissal of $374,000 as “not very much,” when in fact it’s more than 99 percent of American households make each year, tells you a lot about how the world looks through his eyeballs. As the son of one of Detroit’s most powerful auto executives, and as a highly successful venture capitalist himself, he has experienced the world from a very different vantage point than most of his fellow Americans.
Does that matter? Well, the GOP critique of Barack Obama has focused on a claim that, raised partially overseas, he was not exposed to the full “American experience” and is thus less than fully American. He doesn’t understand us; he’s not one of us. That’s the crux of the whole “birther” phenomenon, as well as claims from the likes of Newt Gingrich that Obama is an “anti-colonialist” who somehow absorbed the political viewpoint of the foreign-born father that he almost never saw. It has even led black Americans as diverse in viewpoint as Cornel West and Herman Cain to question Obama’s authenticity as an American black man.
In a sense, Romney also grew up and continues to reside in a foreign land, a place with very different rules, customs and culture than most Americans experienced. It formed his world view in a way that he can never fully escape, in part because there is little evidence that he had tried. And on the campaign trail, that managerial instinct to focus on the numbers rather than the human impact reveals itself repeatedly.
It comes across, for example, when Romney tried to claim recently that he too has lived in fear of getting the pink slip, although his campaign later ducked questions about when that fabled time might have occurred. It was akin to John Kerry asking “who among us does not like NASCAR”? And when asked in Nevada — ground zero of the foreclosure boom — what should be done to address the housing crisis that continues to put hundreds of thousands of American families out of their homes, Romney’s blunt answer was “don’t try to stop the foreclosure process, let it run its course and bottom out.”
That is the viewpoint of a CEO or outside consultant who is trained to see workers as units of production, and desperate homeowners clinging to their property as an obstacle to efficient markets. Don’t get me wrong: There is a place, even a need, for such bottom-line attitudes in a capitalist system.
The question that voters have to answer in 2012 is whether that place is the White House.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
564 comments Add your comment
Adam
January 18th, 2012
11:29 am
Libertarian: All of our presidents are wealthy and entitled…especially the liberal God JFK and his corrupt entitled family.
And every single one looked down on the little people, calling them jealous.
Revisionist history is great isn’t it?
Mary Elizabeth
January 18th, 2012
11:29 am
Welcome to the Occupation @11:02 a.m.
(1) “Anyway, the bottom line is that in the days of the Roosevelts there was at least a certain sense of noblesse oblige among the patrician class in this country, however grudging and cynical, that did nonetheless prove workable.”
————————————————————-
When I wrote FDR and JFK’s had visions of more “breadth, depth, and humanity” than Romey’s, I was speaking of them as unique individuals, with their separate and unique perceptions, and not as representatives of the “patrician class” which practiced “noblisse oblige” from a programmed responsibility to duty and honor.
==========================================
(2) “Romney is a great example of how far we are today from those days — nowadays there is no such attempt by the ruling class to offer such a compromise on the horizon. As a result, I think we can expect great turbulence and a further slide into banana republic status in the future.”
—————————————————-
Power corrupts. . .
Like Abraham Lincoln, we must never become cynical in the face of our times and in the face of our particular adversities, but we must, instead, continue to believe that “the people” will rise up and claim, again, their rightful inheritance to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as citizens of this great nation, founded by outstanding men of vision.
Matti
January 18th, 2012
11:29 am
Libertarian: “Well, screw it…lets find a poor unemployed person and make them president.”
Hey, I know! How about we elect Presidents who came from humble, common beginnings, and worked hard to make himself successful? You know the whole bootstrap path to the American dream thing! The values of hard work and perseverance! We can respect somebody like that! (Unless, like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, he runs as a Democrat, and then the Republicans have to backtrack on the importance of those values in favor of the silver spoon kids… as usual.)
Paul
January 18th, 2012
11:29 am
Donation 11:22
What’s your point? That millionaires shouldn’t contribute significantly to the church to which they belong?
So it’s okay for wealthy Catholic politicians to donate significantly to the Catholic Church?
Same for Baptists and other protestants?
Or our Muslim Congressman?
What’s your point?
Look before I leap...
January 18th, 2012
11:30 am
(ir)Rational
January 18th, 2012
11:25 am
carlos – Thanks. I’ll take that as a compliment because I would consider myself a capitalist, and I am most definitely in this for myself. As a matter of fact, I might feel bad for you if you were poor, living on the streets and going hungry, but I’m not going to feel bad enough to quit doing what I’m doing to try and get ahead. Definitely not going to advocate the idea that the government needs to take more of the money I’ve worked for to support you. But that’s just me. I realize I’m opening myself up to criticism for my views, but I don’t care.
Pretty much mirrors the thinking of ole King Louis and Marie and look what happened to them.
(ir)Rational
January 18th, 2012
11:33 am
Look before I leap… – Yeah, doubt that’s going to happen today, but you’re welcome to try if you would like. Better bring a lot of friends, cause you’re not going to succeed otherwise.
Adam
January 18th, 2012
11:33 am
Libertarian: To drive the point home about Demcorats proposing not just rate changes, but actual REFORM, here’s something you should look at (kind of an overview) of the last Democrat supercommittee proposal that was rejected because it included…. wait for it…. tax reform:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SuperComDems.pdf
A short description I found on this: “$2.3 trillion deficit-reduction package, split between spending cuts and tax increases. The new revenue would include about $300 billion to $350 billion in savings from attacking a specific set of tax breaks, including those going to oil and gas companies and ethanol producers. The remaining $650 billion in revenue would come through a future process of broad-based tax reform that would cap the individual tax rate at 35 percent—instead of letting it rise to 39.5 percent when the Bush tax cuts expire—and enact corporate tax reform. ”
Now, stop lying and saying the Democrats only want to raise tax rates.
stands for decibels
January 18th, 2012
11:34 am
I’m interested in hearing from the stalwart progressives if they think that’s enough, if they think that’s fair. It’s 8 points up the scale from Mitt. Is that far enough up?
Since you asked, and I might qualify as a stalwart progressive–sounds ok to me. (I’d probably have a higher rate kick in at income above, oh, say $370,000 or so per year.)
ty webb
January 18th, 2012
11:35 am
“Who knows? In another forty years you may actually deem it worth doing something about…”
yeah, like camp out on the street, defecate in public, rape other squatters, etc., etc. All the while providing cover for a “hope and change” president who is the biggest tool of “wall st.” in the history of tools…that worked out so well the first time around, except 40 years from now, maybe it’ll be the robots that are occupying…and by “robots” I mean the literal kind, as opposed to the present wealth envy “robots” currently stinking the place up.
Adam
January 18th, 2012
11:37 am
md: If they could afford them, they’d have the money to pay the bill………pretty simple concept.
Ignoring entirely the reasons why someone might suddenly be unable to afford a mortgage, and also ignoring the many foreclosures that happened due to bank legal trickery/thievery (such as foreclosing on houses the bank doesn’t even own, or foreclosing on houses without notice, etc etc).
Not so simple after all, is it?
USinUK
January 18th, 2012
11:38 am
“(Unless, like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, he runs as a Democrat, and then the Republicans have to backtrack on the importance of those values in favor of the silver spoon kids… as usual.)”
well said!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 18th, 2012
11:38 am
Ummm. yep……..they are called foreclosures……..which means whoever it is/was doesn’t have the money to pay the bill.
Well it seems that someone has confused the existence of a foreclosure as “evidence” that they “bought more than they could afford” or that it was “the real problem”. Foreclosures happen for a variety of reasons. Someone making a $1 million can certainly afford a $500k house. However if their company goes bankrupt after they bought it because the entire housing market collapsed and there were no loans for people to buy houses and then they lost there house to foreclosure, the problem was not “affording” at time of purchase.
Can we have some “choice” of honest discussion and NOT bumper sticker oversimplifications and “evidence” that is meaningless for the proposition cited.
AmVet - “A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the word means." ~Barry Goldwater
January 18th, 2012
11:39 am
Like Abraham Lincoln, we must never become cynical in the face of our times and in the face of our particular adversities, but we must, instead, continue to believe that “the people” will rise up and claim, again, their rightful inheritance to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as citizens of this great nation, founded by outstanding men of vision.
Selah.
We cannot, we must not, if for no other reason than our posterity, allow this Two Americas to go forward any more.
And if as my hero wrote that means blood must be spilled, I’ve lived one helluva life and I’m fully prepared to give up some of mine.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must pay for all they get. If we ever get free from all the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and, if needs be, by our lives, and the lives of others. ~Frederick Douglass
Adam
January 18th, 2012
11:39 am
ty: as opposed to the present wealth envy “robots” currently stinking the place up.
That’s right, they’re just jealous of people who take showers or something.
I maintain that you are a d*ck.
md
January 18th, 2012
11:40 am
“Since1971, the average American family has seen almost NO financial benefit from their own rising productivity.”
As they take their spoils, jump into their Infintis and head down to Wal-mart for their bigger cart full of foreign made goods.
$50 billion a month shipped OUT of this country……..yet that has no effect on anything according to some.
AmVet - “A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the word means." ~Barry Goldwater
January 18th, 2012
11:40 am
ty, let the adults discuss these matters…
Paul
January 18th, 2012
11:40 am
sfd 11:38
What?!!? Don’t you know progressives want to take everything rich people have?
At least, that’s what the conservatives here say!
Stephenson Billings
January 18th, 2012
11:40 am
“Since1971, the average American family has seen almost NO financial benefit from their own rising productivity.”
Shoot. I guess I’ll just stop trying then. Where’s my food stamps?
Adam
January 18th, 2012
11:41 am
Keep Up: Can we have some “choice” of honest discussion and NOT bumper sticker oversimplifications and “evidence” that is meaningless for the proposition cited.
Of course not. Evidence is whatever one wants it to be now. Everyone’s a scientist because they can redefine anything to mean whatever they want it to mean and live in an alternate reality if they feel like it. That’s freedom.
cosby
January 18th, 2012
11:41 am
Gee Jay, this makes no sense. First, Romney’s tax rate is full evidence that he IRS and the illegal tax code needs to go away – Fair Tax – Romney raised with a silver spoon..but why do you not ask the same questions of Barry Soetoro – Private School, Columbia – who or how was it paid for, trips overseas while in school – who or how was it paid for. A big house in an elite section of Chicago on a community organizers compensation – really and a lot thrown in – really – where did this money come from? I am not defending Romney, but look at any of the elite and ask the same questions…or better yet, ask why people show up in congress with little assets,then walk away with millions…this is what you should be focused on and not just one Republican Candidate…but then you like the Socialist Democratic Party…biased reporting at its best.
AmVet - “A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the word means." ~Barry Goldwater
January 18th, 2012
11:41 am
Ditto, md…
Libertarian
January 18th, 2012
11:42 am
“I have previously shown you many ways in which the Democrats have put forward proposals that involve BOTH tax rate adjustments AND other stuff”
No you haven’t adam. The last time we had this conversation you had a list of democratic proposals. Everything on your list but one amounted to raising rates only.
Every conservative I know wants to move towards consumption-based taxes. Hence Romney, Buffett, and their billionaire buddies would pay more tax when they buy yachts, jets, and sports cars.
Paul
January 18th, 2012
11:42 am
Stephenson
Americans of average means and circumstances don’t qualify for food stamps.
Look before I leap...
January 18th, 2012
11:44 am
(ir)Rational
January 18th, 2012
11:33 am
Look before I leap… – Yeah, doubt that’s going to happen today, but you’re welcome to try if you would like. Better bring a lot of friends, cause you’re not going to succeed otherwise.
Nope, not today and not tomorrow.
And I am not advocating such action either. We won’t see the peasants rushing the gates of the White House with a guillotine in tow. We’ll see economic collapse. The uber-rich folks will have big houses and no servants, no gas to put in the yachts and private jets or folks to pilot them.
If you squeeze out the middle class (merchants and professionals) and strangle the lower class (the worker bees), what do you have left?
Jay
January 18th, 2012
11:44 am
This whole “if you think taxes should be higher, then write Uncle Sam a check” argument is one of the loonier ploys out there.
It’s like saying, “if you think the deficit’s too big, then write Uncle Sam a check,” or “if you think defense spending is too low, write the Pentagon a check.” In neither case would the check in question have any real impact. Even Warren Buffett doesn’t have the checking account needed to make a real impact. You’re advocating some inconsequential symbolic gesture when what we need are major systemic changes.
Paul
January 18th, 2012
11:44 am
cosby
If you’d perused the thread before posting, you’d find Romney wants to lower taxes for people in his situation while Pres Obama wants to raise them.
md
January 18th, 2012
11:44 am
“Ignoring entirely the reasons why someone might suddenly be unable to afford a mortgage, and also ignoring the many foreclosures that happened due to bank legal trickery/thievery (such as foreclosing on houses the bank doesn’t even own, or foreclosing on houses without notice, etc etc).”
You and keep seem to have this problem equating the choice to borrow as a given right or something………..bottom line, it’s a gamble to borrow money to pay for ANYTHING. Once upon a time (and some today), folks saved up and paid cash for their purchases……including their homes.
You 2 are discounting those very same people today.
Back to the simple concept…….don’t want to gamble on losing a home…..pay cash.
It IS a choice. But so are all the excuses you two will come up with.
AmVet - “A lot of so-called conservatives don’t know what the word means." ~Barry Goldwater
January 18th, 2012
11:45 am
Billings, the former marine told us essentially that very thing last night.
He posted some idiotic Boortz link positing some idiotic proposition that one is actually better off working for minimum wage and living in Section 8 housing than to make $60K per year.
Intellectual honesty is apparently also at a dear premium out there in the GOP’s parallel reality.
stands for decibels
January 18th, 2012
11:45 am
Don’t you know progressives want to take everything rich people have?
I’ll admit this much. Occasionally, when those who start crying and moaning about the fact that–shock, horror!–America has a debt that we’ve accumulated over the centuries and that we need to start payin’ it down NOW, dammit, and that there just ain’t no way we could raise enough to get into surplus by merely taxing available income…
yes, I have mentioned that a government could simply start confiscating accumulated wealth, if getting that debt paid off were really all that important.
I’m not serious, of course. But we *could* do that if it really made soooo much sense to pay down the gosh-durned debt. Which it really doesn’t, nor will it until we get everyone working again who wishes to work.
Adam
January 18th, 2012
11:45 am
md: As they take their spoils, jump into their Infintis and head down to Wal-mart for their bigger cart full of foreign made goods.
And buy STEAKS with FOOD STAMPS. OH THE HUMANITY.
You know, I can get an Infiniti for $2000 if I want. It’ll be a used one, but you won’t be able to tell because they have looked nice for many many years. I’ll wash it carefully so that I look like I am a status symbol, and I will have people judge me at Wal Mart when I buy food and then go to the car, but none of them will actually say anything to me, they’ll just gripe about it on the internet. All the while they will assume things about my life that are wildly off base. The story in their head is more important than reality.
mm
January 18th, 2012
11:46 am
“And that’s perfectly legal. Hence why many conservatives want tax reform. All democrats want is it raise the current rates. That’s not going to solve the problem.”
Completely stupid comment. Dems and indies want the rates to be equal. You either raise the capital gaisn or lower the income tax. Repubs want the poor and middle class to pay the bills while the rich pay little to nothing.
Libertarian
January 18th, 2012
11:47 am
Matti
January 18th, 2012
11:29 am
JFK?
ty webb
January 18th, 2012
11:47 am
“ty, let the adults discuss these matters…”
will do, heading over to the “Momania” blog as we speak.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 18th, 2012
11:47 am
Adam — “And buy STEAKS with FOOD STAMPS. OH THE HUMANITY.”
ZOMGWTFLOLBBQ
stands for decibels
January 18th, 2012
11:47 am
some idiotic proposition that one is actually better off working for minimum wage and living in Section 8 housing than to make $60K per year.
I can totally see Boortz’ audience actually believing this.
Adam
January 18th, 2012
11:48 am
Libertarian: No you haven’t adam.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/01/18/mitt-romney-and-his-not-very-much-problem/?cp=3#comment-834133
Easy enough for you? If you like I will go back and find your response in which you said TWO of the things on my list were not tax rate changes. And btw, stop acting like I gave you a complete list. If you were REALLY paying attention, I wouldn’t have to give you a list at all and you wouldn’t believe this nonsense that “Democrats only want to raise rates.” Who is talking in your ear telling you that crap?
libertyhill
January 18th, 2012
11:48 am
Some of the GOP contenders are decrying non-GOP sources exposing their positions. Now, that’s funny!
Here’s (4) research papers on Mitt Romney
http://thelibertyjournal.com/2012/01/18/there-is-more-mitt-romney-opposition-research-besides-the-mccain-200-page-paper/
Dearie
January 18th, 2012
11:49 am
What difference does it make how much money he has? Most of our members of Congress are wealthy people. What is their tax rate? Who cares?
Let’s not stray from our country’s current problems. Jobs and economy
Can Mitt Romney’s experience in turning companies around and solving their financial and personnel problems be the asset we concentrate on? Romney has proven he can do what Obama has not been able to accomplish in 3 years. Facts are facts. Go with a winner. Running a country is more like running a business than a community.
Paul
January 18th, 2012
11:50 am
sfd
Lemme see if I get this: more people working = more income = more revenue, some of which could be used for a long-term, orderly application towards the debt.
You sure ’bout that?
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 18th, 2012
11:50 am
and md moves the goal posts…….
FEAR (False Evidence Appearing Real)
January 18th, 2012
11:51 am
Mittens will continue to offer his weak strawman defense of wealth envy in the coming weeks/months. What he fails to understand is that Americans have happily elected the super rich to the White House (FDR and Kennedy to name a couple). Mitten’s problem is he has no humanity. And he’s a transparent phony. Obama will mop the floor with him.
Adam
January 18th, 2012
11:51 am
You and keep seem to have this problem equating the choice to borrow as a given right or something
No, YOU are the one making a claim that foreclosures are evidence that every single one of them, or a majority, knew ahead of time they would not be able to afford what they were purchasing. That is what you are saying when you say “They bought what they could not afford” whether you CHOOSE to admit that is what you are saying or not. You have judged people for events they could not have anticipated, even with hindsight.
Making this argument about how massive amounts of people could have somehow anticipated that they would lose their jobs or banks would foreclose on their houses without notice and/or on a house they didn’t even own is ridiculous.
josef
January 18th, 2012
11:52 am
Dearie
“Running a country is more like running a business than a community.”
And I would posit that therein lies the problem…we’ve ceased to be a community and have become a business.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 18th, 2012
11:53 am
Dearie — “What difference does it make how much money he has?”
As we keep telling you, it doesn’t. What matters is that he’s opposed to paying more, and that he’s demonstrated that he’s utterly disconnected from the issues facing Americans of low and moderate means.
“Most of our members of Congress are wealthy people. What is their tax rate? Who cares?”
Everyone should care, IMO.
“Can Mitt Romney’s experience in turning companies around and solving their financial and personnel problems be the asset we concentrate on?”
We can focus on that, too. I look forward to pointing out how Bain extracted wealth from companies at the cost of American jobs.
Libertarian
January 18th, 2012
11:53 am
Adam, nothing you read online is true. Its all biased (esp Huff Post). But fine, whatever..ok dems want to get rid of tax breaks to oil, gas, and ethanol producers. Good for them. How does that solve the problem of Romney/Buffet/Soros et al only paying 15% or less? It doesn’t. And, i don’t consider “cuts to future spending” to be real budget cuts.
I’m talking about a complete tax code overhaul…not picking more winners and losers…which is what congress has spent the last 20+ years doing by manipulating the tax code.
stands for decibels
January 18th, 2012
11:53 am
You sure ’bout that?
so sure I think I’ve said about a million times in here that cutting spending at a time of high unemployment is… well, this guy’s sign speaks for me.
Adam
January 18th, 2012
11:54 am
Dearie: Running a country is more like running a business than a community.
No, it isn’t.
Mary Elizabeth
January 18th, 2012
11:54 am
AmVet @11:39
“We cannot, we must not, if for no other reason than our posterity, allow this Two Americas to go forward any more.”
————————————————————————–
Yes, indeed!
But, we do not need to spill blood – as MLK demonstrated – in order for our nation to become more responsive to its average citizens. We can accomplish that end through the power of persuasion (as we are attempting here) and through the power of the ballot box.
(We may, however, need a little help from the courts to insure that the power of the ballot box remains unsullied.)
Susan73
January 18th, 2012
11:54 am
Here are thoughts I have gathered through the discussion that appeal to me. I know that Gingrich does no appeal to me. He is knowledgeable and proud He has proven himself to be big on ideas and small in making them happen. I like Santorum and I believe Romney is the best prepared and genuinely good leader this nation has produced in many years.
I’ve got a better idea, why not require all the candidates to release they’re tax returns? And even better than that, how about anyone in elected office release they’re returns for 5 years before, during the term and 5 years after they leave office. How the heck do all these persons come in as average working persons and leave multi-millionaires?????????
Daniel
January 18th, 2012
11:56 am
What is wrong with making money and not paying anymore taxes than you legally have to? I’m sure there aren’t many people that make big donations to the IRS when it is not required.
md
January 18th, 2012
11:56 am
“Someone making a $1 million can certainly afford a $500k house. However if their company goes bankrupt after they bought it because the entire housing market collapsed and there were no loans for people to buy houses and then they lost there house to foreclosure, the problem was not “affording” at time of purchase. ”
Then they should have paid cash and taken the uncertainty out of the equation………they made the choice to include more risk into the transaction…….
reebok
January 18th, 2012
11:57 am
Mitt’s going to get his head handed to him in the General Election. The more people know him, the less they like him. But perhaps another beating in the GE will cause the GOP to tack back towards the center, where ‘moderate’ is not considered an insult.
Libertarian
January 18th, 2012
11:57 am
mm
“Dems and indies want the rates to be equal. ”
Um, excuse me? Equal? Like 15% across the board? I’d be fine with that.
“Completely stupid comment.”
I’ll take that as a compliment, considering the source.
Adam
January 18th, 2012
11:57 am
How does that solve the problem of Romney/Buffet/Soros et al only paying 15% or less?
This is called “moving the goal posts.” Let’s back up now and go with the original point: Do Democrats ONLY want to raise tax rates, and have NEVER proposed any tax reform? If we expand this a bit and say “most Democrats” don’t want tax reform or “Rarely do Democrats propose tax reform” you would STILL be wrong on this point. Admit that.
Now as for the capital gains problem, I do not know of any proposal by ANYONE that would fix the problem. The onus of fixing that is not entirely on the Democrats btw. Why should they do all the work when the government has two major parties and two houses of Congress, each controlled by a different party? How about coming together to work on it?
Adam
January 18th, 2012
11:59 am
Libertarian: I’m talking about a complete tax code overhaul…not picking more winners and losers…
In other words, the only tax plan that is acceptable is one no one has proposed on either side?
Libertarian
January 18th, 2012
11:59 am
Adam
“Who is talking in your ear telling you that crap?”
There is a little mini Sean Hannity with a pitchfork and spiked ears on my shoulder.
Do you think your life will change if Romney is elected vs. if Obama is elected?
md
January 18th, 2012
12:00 pm
“You know, I can get an Infiniti for $2000 if I want. It’ll be a used one, but you won’t be able to tell because they have looked nice for many many years. I’ll wash it carefully so that I look like I am a status symbol, and I will have people judge me at Wal Mart when I buy food and then go to the car, but none of them will actually say anything to me, they’ll just gripe about it on the internet. All the while they will assume things about my life that are wildly off base. The story in their head is more important than reality.”
The “Infiniti” was for Am……inside joke.
But, you get my point…..or should. 50 billion a month going offshore and that has no effect on wages in this country??
Please……
stands for decibels
January 18th, 2012
12:01 pm
Do you think your life will change if Romney is elected vs. if Obama is elected?
Everyone’s lives are affected by decisions a President makes. the SCOTUS appointments alone affect future generations in very real ways.
Adam
January 18th, 2012
12:01 pm
md: Then they should have paid cash
Shoulda woulda coulda
They should have known the economy would collapse when it did, they shouldn’t have chosen to be born to parents who only had a middle class income, they shouldn’t have drank sodas at any point in their life…. all that is judgment that has no bearing on the actual point – that people bought what they thought they would be able to afford based on all available information they had at the time. That is ALL anyone can hope for. They didn’t all go out and deliberately borrow to buy things they knew they would default on, or that they thought they would even have a good chance of defaulting on.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 18th, 2012
12:02 pm
Dearie: “Running a country is more like running a business than a community”
I’d go even further than josef and state flatly:
running a country is diametrically opposed to running a business and the two approaches are in fact antagonistic.
Read Krugman the other day for a good explanation.
The purpose of a business – at least a large one, a corporation – is to make money. It has nothing whatsoever to do with promoting the general welfare and well being of a country. It will never, ever choose to do something because it is in the benefit of society unless it is forced to. Period.
Stephenson Billings
January 18th, 2012
12:04 pm
“The power to tax involves the power to destroy” – Justice John Marshall
Adam
January 18th, 2012
12:05 pm
Libertarian: Do you think your life will change if Romney is elected vs. if Obama is elected?
I care about more than myself, and I care about future generations. Not whether or not my own personal life will change, except when it comes to the loonies who want to change government for the worse by coming in and claiming everything we ever did in the 20th century was unconstitutional because Amendments 11 to infinity don’t matter and “state’s rights!” and other such nonsense.
Enforced social darwinism is contrary to the concept of a law based society.
md
January 18th, 2012
12:05 pm
“No, YOU are the one making a claim that foreclosures are evidence that every single one of them, or a majority, knew ahead of time they would not be able to afford what they were purchasing. That is what you are saying when you say “They bought what they could not afford” whether you CHOOSE to admit that is what you are saying or not. You have judged people for events they could not have anticipated, even with hindsight.
Making this argument about how massive amounts of people could have somehow anticipated that they would lose their jobs or banks would foreclose on their houses without notice and/or on a house they didn’t even own is ridiculous.”
Every single person borrowing money should ask themselves “what if”, and base their borrowing gambles accordingly…….
And no, I never said a thing about knowing ahead of time that they would be in that situation……but they certainly should have anticipated the possibility.
That is where your naivete comes into play……..the risk is always there…….ALWAYS…..when borrowing money. Discounting that FACT is an easy excuse……….which you are very good at coming up with.
Stephenson Billings
January 18th, 2012
12:05 pm
“Politicians never accuse you of ‘greed’ for wanting other people’s money — only for wanting to keep your own money.” [Joseph Sobran]
scrappy
January 18th, 2012
12:05 pm
“PS: HE is Exactly the kind of president we need. Yes, if those houses were foreclosed three years ago, we would see a reviving housing industry right now.”
Even if this were true – which it is most likely not – are we prepared to handle the side affects of all these foreclosures? More homeless, more empty houses (which can be linked to more crime), more poverty, more people unable to get loans, more people not buying anything = less demand = less economic recovery. etc. etc.
The people element is realizing that because you let the foreclosures happen (at such a scale, not saying forclosures should never happen) the people don’t just evaporate, they have to go somewhere, with no money and no hope.
CJ
January 18th, 2012
12:05 pm
ty webb, “Bravo! Mr. President, raise CJ’s taxes!”
Evidently ty webb doesn’t want to pay more in taxes. He wants to benefit from defense, Medicare, Social Security, highways, ports, damns and levies, technology, medicine, safe food and drinking water, transparency in markets, and the rest, but he’d rather run deficits than help pay for it. The opposite of a fiscal conservative and the very definition of a welfare queen.
Stephenson Billings
January 18th, 2012
12:06 pm
“The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”[H. L. Mencken]
RB from Gwinnett
January 18th, 2012
12:07 pm
Jay – “This whole “if you think taxes should be higher, then write Uncle Sam a check” argument is one of the loonier ploys out there.”
I guess if I posted on a public forum I’d be willing to pay a “few thousand more” and then welched on that every time I was asked if I “HAD” paid a few thousand more, I’d write that too.
Jay, if you firmly believe the government should have a “few thousand more” of your dollars to make itself solvent, give it to them. The only possible reasons for not doing so are you lied to us about that, or you’re just plain greedy. Take you pick, Jay. Man up or shut up.
Stephenson Billings
January 18th, 2012
12:07 pm
“In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, ‘Make us your slaves, but feed us.’” [Dosteovsky's 'Grand Inquisitor']
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 18th, 2012
12:07 pm
Then they should have paid cash and taken the uncertainty out of the equation………they made the choice to include more risk into the transaction…….
And thus we seem to have a glimer of comprehension of the leveraged buyout
RB from Gwinnett
January 18th, 2012
12:07 pm
Anybody know how many dollars Romney paid vs. Obama?
stands for decibels
January 18th, 2012
12:08 pm
Even if this were true – which it is most likely not – are we prepared to handle the side affects of all these foreclosures?
No.
(THBAEOSATSQ.)
Adam
January 18th, 2012
12:08 pm
md: I am not following you down the choices rabbit hole again. You are simply wrong about that.
No, there is no “people SHOULD HAVE done this or that.” That is an excuse in itself, an excuse to judge anyone based on information that was completely unavailable to the person or group you are judging.
Stephenson Billings
January 18th, 2012
12:08 pm
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” – Thomas Jefferson
Stephenson Billings
January 18th, 2012
12:09 pm
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not – Thomas Jefferson
md
January 18th, 2012
12:10 pm
“And thus we seem to have a glimer of comprehension of the leveraged buyout”
It is always a risk/reward situation………too many focused on the reward aspect during the speculative housing bubble.
Stephenson Billings
January 18th, 2012
12:11 pm
From next door:
Top complaints about Mitt Romney:
#1 – he is too successful
#2 – he wears “mom jeans”
#3 – he pays the taxes as required by law
#4 – he gives away a lot of money
#5 – he invests money he has
Can we try squeezing some actual policy in our discourse people?
Libertarian
January 18th, 2012
12:11 pm
Adam
January 18th, 2012
12:05 pm
You didn’t really answer the question. It was a simple question. It just seems to me that many liberals on this blog love Obama so much and get so worked up over defending him. I just don’t get it. So I’m just wondering if you really believe that anything will change regardless of who is elected. Even if Obama gets elected in 2012, a Republican will inevitably get elected in 2016 since these things are usually cyclical.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 18th, 2012
12:11 pm
That is where your naivete comes into play……..the risk is always there…….ALWAYS…..when borrowing money
And we come full circle in the moving of the goal posts. IF the risk is always there when borrowing and lending, then the claim that actual foreclosures are paid for by “others” fails to account that the lender had already built in a risk factor in the rate and its practices.
And how do we know she is a witch?……
Adam
January 18th, 2012
12:11 pm
RB: Anybody know how many dollars Romney paid vs. Obama?
Ah, the old “If you don’t pay X amount of dollars then shut up, knave” argument.
If Romney paid $100,000 in taxes in a year, then so should the person who only makes $50,000. That is STUPID. The dollar amount doesn’t matter, the percentage DOES. If as you earn more and more money you are paying less and less percentage, that is a REGRESSIVE tax system, opposing both a progressive tax system and the usual floated idea by some nutty conservatives of a FLAT TAX.
Jay
January 18th, 2012
12:11 pm
No, Mr. Billings, the biggest danger to democracy is voters gullible enough to believe that bright people such as Jefferson ever said such a thing.
Which he did not.
Adam
January 18th, 2012
12:14 pm
Libertarian: If you are trying to find out what I think will actually change things, it will be voting for people in Congress who understand the poor and middle class on an empathetic level, and also will fight for those same people – for the MAJORITY of Americans. That also involves not voting for people who want to dismantle government or take money away from people out of some misguided idea that doing so will give them “incentive” to do better.
ty webb
January 18th, 2012
12:14 pm
“Evidently ty webb doesn’t want to pay more in taxes.”
Correct! Especially since I’m not receiving more of those “benefits” than any of my neighbors.
md
January 18th, 2012
12:14 pm
“No, there is no “people SHOULD HAVE done this or that.” That is an excuse in itself, an excuse to judge anyone based on information that was completely unavailable to the person or group you are judging.”
Completely unavailable?
“What if” should be a common variable in every borrowing transaction. One might want to start with “what if I lose my income?”……….or not.
Excuses are easier……………
Jay
January 18th, 2012
12:15 pm
“A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have…
Jefferson never said THAT either.
Come on. If you’re going to preach respect for the Founding Fathers, as you should, then at least show the minimal level of respect needed not to put silly words in their mouths.
Adam
January 18th, 2012
12:15 pm
Billings: Can we try squeezing some actual policy in our discourse people?
No one can pinpoint what Mitt Romney’s ACTUAL policies would be if he were elected.
Adam
January 18th, 2012
12:15 pm
LUNCH
Link?
January 18th, 2012
12:15 pm
Adam banks would foreclose on their houses without notice and/or on a house they didn’t even own is ridiculous.
Could you provide a link on the % of homes this actually occurred?
Also….How many months should a homeowner be allowed to stay in their home without paying before being foreclosed?
Also….How many weeks would employee’s show up to work if on payday they were told “we are short of money so we aren’t going to be paying any employee’s this week”?
Just asking
philosopher
January 18th, 2012
12:15 pm
Paul January 18th, 2012
11:29 am
January 18th, 2012
11:29 am
Donation 11:22
What’s your point? That millionaires shouldn’t contribute significantly to the church to which they belong?
I tell you what concerns me about this: Mittens repeatedly uses his “business experience” to tout how great he would be at turning the financial state of America around. Well, if you look at his “”business experience” and you see how he stepped over everyone, including his own dog, in his path and fired tens of thousands of real live human beings in his steamrolling path to furthering his great wealth…and in the process, contributed millions of dollars and stocks from the businesses he owned and worked for and gave that to further the “business” of the LDS, you should be concerned. His way of doing “business” is not OK by me. I guess we’ll find out in November if the majority of Americans want the Muslim, birth-certificateless, socialist out so bad that they will sell their souls for this….
John Galt
January 18th, 2012
12:16 pm
You mean Romney’s rich? WE MUST HATE HIM AND ENVY HIM!! We do NOT want a successful person in the White House!!
My name is Barack Obama, and I approve this message.
(ir)Rational
January 18th, 2012
12:17 pm
Jay – You’re right, Ford said the first one. Who knows who said the second one.
carlosgvv
January 18th, 2012
12:17 pm
(ir)Rational
It’s just a matter of time untill a sensible Socialist candidate is elected President. When that happens, Delta will be ready when you are.
stands for decibels
January 18th, 2012
12:17 pm
“Who among us does not love NASCAR?”
–Thomas Jefferson
Libertarian
January 18th, 2012
12:18 pm
Adam
January 18th, 2012
12:14 pm
Oh the old “democrats care about the poor and middle class and Republicans hate them” argument? (see I can do that too).
You mean good folks like Nancy Pelosi? With her net worth of over $35 million? I’m sure she understands the poor and middle class.
Brosephus
January 18th, 2012
12:18 pm
Okay, it’s been about 15 minutes since Jay posted “RB, in 2010 Obama’s effective tax rate was 23 percent.”
I’m interested in hearing from the stalwart progressives if they think that’s enough, if they think that’s fair. It’s 8 points up the scale from Mitt. Is that far enough up?
Not a stalwart progressive, but I’ll say hell no to the question is that far enough up. If somebody’s making $80k and paying a 35% rate, why should somebody who’s capable of paying that same rate without hurting their income pay a lower rate. I’m not suffering from wealth envy as I’ve traversed a few tax brackets in the twenty-plus years I’ve been working. I don’t have a problem with paying more taxes, as part of those taxes end up paying for things that positively affect my life on a daily basis.
As was stated earlier, we are all job creators, so that bs about “job creators” is just that, pure bovine fecal matter. Nobody in the 1% is going to invest in a company unless they see it as a viable means of positive returns. That company will not show positive returns without a demand AND customer base for their product.
md
January 18th, 2012
12:19 pm
Adam……you do know that the folks out there that pay cash for everything (yes, they do actually exist) are just shaking their heads at your excuses………..
Welcome to the Occupation
January 18th, 2012
12:20 pm
Mary Elizabeth: “When I wrote FDR and JFK’s had visions of more “breadth, depth, and humanity” than Romey’s, I was speaking of them as unique individuals, with their separate and unique perceptions, and not as representatives of the “patrician class” which practiced “noblisse oblige” from a programmed responsibility to duty and honor.”
I have to disagree with you here. When looked at in historical perspective, the progressive policies of the Roosevelts cannot be separated from their roles as representatives of their class position. And secondly, the enormous instability and turbulence of American society in that period — which we’re just now starting to get a taste of again now — had everything to do with their efforts to propose reforms.
They — correctly — realized that if capitalism was to be saved from itself, it would have to be the patrician class that led the effort. Part of our crisis today is precisely the decaying of that class.
(ir)Rational
January 18th, 2012
12:20 pm
sfd – Pretty sure you’re trying to be funny, but I’ll go ahead and raise my hand and say I don’t.
carlos – Really? If that ever happens in my lifetime, then hopefully Delta will still go wherever I want to go.
CJ
January 18th, 2012
12:23 pm
ty webb, Especially since I’m not receiving more of those “benefits” than any of my neighbors.
I’m not advocating Clinton tax rates for you alone. I’m advocating Clinton tax rates for you AND your neighbors.
(I noticed you have the word “benefits” in scare quotes. That’s the trouble with you welfare queens. You take, but you don’t even know or appreciate what you’re getting in return for your taxes. In short, you wallow in your ignorance…with pride.)
getalife
January 18th, 2012
12:24 pm
Our founding fathers would be planning another revolution to start over.
The days of being rich and successful for hard work are over.
Now it is bribes to our corrupt government for the rich to get richer.