Mitt Romney Announces New Job Plan and No Tax on Savings for Middle Class

[bangmeister]

I'm really curious as to how much ya know about economics. I want to know yall's theory as to why we are in this "economic recession".

[dalecampbl5]

you save the middle class by not voting for the party that hates the middle class...that's the Republicans. The republicans hold middle class accountable for the bad that happens, but boy, when you are rich and you lobby them with 1000K of dollars, all of a sudden you are no longer accountable. Banking CEOs got bail outs and BONUSES while crashing their banks or laying off lower tiered workers. Don't vote for the party that hates the middle class, people.

[bangmeister]

@dalecampbl5 Vote for no one except Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the only legitimate conservative in washington. All other republicans says they're republicans but are actually democrats at heart

[dalecampbl5]

@bangmeister Ron Paul is an ideololgical disaster waiting to happen. He won't win the GOP primary. Ron Paul is a lunatic...he doesn't like there to be government regulation...and like GW BUSH he wants government to be as small as possible (so he says at least). We cannot someone like that. Ron Paul also wants taxes to go as low as possible. We've had 10 years of bush tax cuts...where are the JOBS?

[electricguitarplayr]

@dalecampbl5 Between 2003 and 2007 7 million jobs were created.

[dalecampbl5]

@electricguitarplayr Where did you get your sources? GW BUSH created or netted 3 million jobs...that's pretty pathetic considering that each year some 700K or more new people enter the work force EVERY YEAR!!!

[electricguitarplayr]

@dalecampbl5 The 7 million were between 2003 and 2007. He did lose jobs later on. But Romney could do better in coming up with a real Tax Reform plan like what Reagan did in 1986.

[dalecampbl5]

@electricguitarplayr you really piss me off you little GOP lying sack of crap. go to Wikipedia and look up "Jobs created during presidential terms." It starts tracking progress from FDR all the way to OBAMA...GW BUSH is the only president who had a negative job growth in a term (his last term obviously). But the most important part is HE'S THE ONLY PRESIDENT SINCE FDR to have had a negative job growth...that means he ranks LAST in job growth compared to LIB/GOP!

[bangmeister]

@dalecampbl5 I see you like the idea of asking the government permission every time you have to wipe your ass. The reason the economy is like it is is because there were regulations for everybody except bankers. Why? Because congress was lobbied by bankers. Bankers made highly risky loans to the world but since they weren't regulated they kept on going until the bubble popped. That along with corporations outsourcing their manufacturing to foreign countries is why there are no jobs

[dalecampbl5]

@bangmeister why do right wingers always use such hyperbole? Are you not capable of thinking in more moderate and realistic terms? Has anyone ever asked for government permission to wipe their ass? If they have, please spell me his name. The government regulation regulated me but not bankers? WHAT!?!?! Does my personal life perfectly mirrors the duties and responsibilities of the bankers' lives? Yes outsourcing is a problem and so is Ron Paul.

[bangmeister]

@dalecampbl5 Okay then who is your ideal candidate?

[dalecampbl5]

@bangmeister none of them are my ideal...my ideal I guess in historical terms would be FDR....he really got America going after the Great Depression and SOME of his programs are still in existence today. Glass Stegall was also in effect until Bill Clinton repealed it, and yes I dislike Clinton greatly for repealing Glass Stegall. BUT yes, FDR type president or a Teddy Roosevelt type would be great.

[bangmeister]

@dalecampbl5 FDR's National industrial Recovery Act actually prolonged the great depression. He raised taxes during a time when everybody was broke

[dalecampbl5]

@bangmeister you know you guys will spin shit either way since we can never go back in time and prove you wrong. you keep up this tax cut shit, that doesn't work. FDR raised taxes ALOT, and for the next 45 years, taxes on highest income earners were at least 50% and most of the time around 70% to 90%. you'd think 45 years of HIGH TAXES would've caused another depression...NOPE, think again.

[bangmeister]

@dalecampbl5 Quite a hyporbole, since when does one spin shit?

[producermark11]

Obama DID NOT raise taxes ... know your facts before you speak lies !

[whoo689]

"Uncertainty about rising health care costs, however, is far from new. The National Federation of Independent Business, which represents more than 350,000 small firms, published a problems and priorities survey in June 2008. It ranked the concerns of small businesses, and health care costs topped the list even before Obama took office. Health care costs have topped the group's surveys for more than two decades now."

[whoo689]

Jeff Immelt, the head of GE, doesn't seem all that concerned about "overregulation." Bill Gates has YET to say anything about it.  These are BILLIONAIRES whose companies have a large stake in the world econ. NONE of them are bitching about Obama's "overregulation." In fact, McClatchy recently did a SURVEY of small businessmen and found that FEW, if any, thought that regulation was a major concern, or at least a disproportionate one relative to others.

[whoo689]

Any IDIOT can give a speech about how "businessmen all over the country are telling me that Obama's regulations and taxes are killing jobs." I want PROOF.

Btw, if overregulation were REALLY such a big deal, how come it seems to be only RIGHT-WING businessmen who are speaking out? I don't see many obviously left-wing businessmen saying it. Esp. not Warren Buffet, as rich as he is.

[whoo689]

One would THINk that if 'regulations' and 'uncertainty' about taxes and regulations were SUCH a chilling factor, MORE BUSINESSMEN WOULD SPEAK OUT, not simply, "Talk to us Republicans in private." Pfft... They're lying out their asses. Give me at least a dozen businessmen who've ACTUALLY said that Obama's "overregulation" is a reason why he's not hiring. NAME NAMES

The fact that very few of them are ACTUALLY going public about this in a substantive way suggests the gop is full of it.

[whoo689]

The GOP's "jobs plan" can be summed up in a few words: Repeal and Cut. That's about it. Nothing of any substance, really. Nothing to restore consumer and household demand.

Funny how they can't name a SINGLE JOB that's been "killed" by Obamacare or any of these OTHER regulations they claim have such a "chilling effect." Not a SINGLE CEO that I know of has ACTUALLY said, in a press release or media appearance (or whatever), "I had to cut all these jobs b/c of regulations."

[whoo689]

Rather than helping the 70% who DRIVE economic growth (consumers), these bozos think targeting the less-than-30% is somehow gonna be the 'magic bullet' of job creation. Simply b/c it VIOLATES their ideology to admit that a) businesses don't always do the right thing or even the smart thing b) American executives are pretty short-sighted, to be honest and c) government CAN and sometimes MUST do things like restore demand first.

[whoo689]

low-demand recession, what makes GOPers think that MASSIVELY cutting taxes for them will do any good, TOO? If they couldn't make use of the $2 Trillion in capital with the already-low rates here now, why would they SUDDENLY be able to create all these new jobs just b/c of a little extra cash? Who says they WOULD? Would tax cuts improve their profits significantly and demand? Not really

[whoo689]

It's so funny how GOPers say we need to "expand energy production" here in the states, like Obama REALLY 'killed' SOO MANY jobs because he put a halt on, say, offshore production. Please... Was "energy production" REALLY keeping us from going into a depression when it came to job growth? I'm sure there were SO MANY jobs being created in that sector before the BP spill and Obama's crap.

Gimme a break. Btw, if ALREADY-LOW tax rates like 35% still don't motivate much job creation, in a

[whoo689]

But do Republicans EVER question what businesses do? HELL NO. They just take it as a GIVEN that whatever business wants and does MUST be the "right way to go." Because, "the market knows best", after all.  We can't question our "Wall Street elders", after all. They "give you job opportunities and pay, so just shut up and take it."

Trickle-down economics is just that- the rich pissing on the other 99%.

[whoo689]

Americans are HURTING and have been for a while. Average and median wages have STAGNATED while they keep getting RICHER AND RICHER. why?? Have executives REALLY gotten "so much better" at running businesses than they were in the 1960s?  We see our wages fall or stagnate while THEY (the top 1-2%) GET MORE. If you wanna measure 'success' simply by how much money a company makes, then MAYBE these execs (some of em, anyway) deserve it, but if you wanna measure it by REAL indicators, then no.

[whoo689]

It really has been the Robin Hood economy, these last 30 or so years. The "miracle recovery" of the Bush era was phony, as anyone who actually looks at the data will realize. Shitty jobs, constant job losses month after month with ONLY A LITTLE net job increase, resulting in only 3 million net new jobs. Many companies that get LARGE tax cuts using that money to create jobs overseas rather than at home. Companies and Republicans telling us that repatriation at just 5% will "create jobs."

[whoo689]

When in fact we saw PLENTY OF JOB LOSSES, and the companies mostly just bought back their own stock to raise its value. How sleazy...

It's time for REAL economic growth, and that includes better schools, infrastructure investment, healthcare reform, etc. etc. It's NOT just giving away all these freebies to business and hoping they'll use it 'wisely' to create jobs. I find it heavily ironic how GOPers bitched about Obama's "hope" as being "too idealistic" or whatever.

[whoo689]

But Republicans and supply-siders are the biggest HOPERS OF ALL. They just HOPE that giving all these goodies to business will result in massive job growth. No government investment whatsoever needed. Just throw all these incentives at businessmen and assume that they'll "know what to do." I'm sorry, but it's a little more complicated than that. This anti-government nonsense does not get us anywhere except a ditch. We tried tax cuts and low regulation, and it crashed our econ.

[whoo689]

The postwar era up until the 1970s had TREMENDOUS job and wealth growth in this country. The middle class was finally becoming a reality for A LOT MORE AMERICANS than ever before. But there was no massive deregulation or gigantic tax cuts. Truman, Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ didn't give away all these freebies to business. In fact, they did quite a bit of GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT in the econ., ironically. Yes, JFK/LBJ passed fairly large tax cuts and incentives, but even those can't account for

[whoo689]

ALL of the growth in the '60s. After all, the top marginal tax rate was still 70%. The Great Society was implemented. This idea that "big government' automatically hinders business and economic growth is NONSENSE. There is NO CORRELATION between government size and economic growth. NONE. It depends more on finding the RIGHT KIND OF MODEL, and there is more than one way to get wealthy. The Asian Tigers didn't exactly adopt the American model, for starters.

[whoo689]

The praise/blame for various effects of globalization rests squarely on the shoulders of BUSINESS, by and large. Offshoring, for example. American companies whine about how "uncompetitive" they are against, say, Japanese companies b/c they're losing a little bit of profit. Or their "stock value is declining", so they have ship jobs overseas and "increase profit", which is PHONY b/c they're not actually adding any REAL value to the co., just cutting costs.

[whoo689]

I'm so TIRED of this bs about "how much the economy has changed." PFFT

BUSINESSES have changed it. THEY are the ones who drive growth and the economy! THEY are the ones who make the technologies! They do the R&D and such. Yes, governments CAN sometimes fuel that growth through various policies, but by and large, it's BUSINESS that led globalization, economic changes, etc. The BUSINESSMEN themselves, as a collective whole, were responsible. There was no mysterious "Force" that globalized.

[whoo689]

Let's look at the "business success stories" of the GOP candidates, shall we? We've got Mitt Romney, who "did a great job" organizing the Olympics once (ooh, the Olympics. big fucking deal). He was head of an EQUITY FIRM, one of those financial firms that doesn't really create much of anything, esp. TANGIBLE products, and simply buys up other firms, moves money around, etc. He then created his OWN company that was similar in structure. THAT is how he made his millions.

[whoo689]

Not by creating awesome new manufacturing jobs or companies or anything like. But by simply moving money around and/or giving loans to startups or something like that.

Then we have Herman Cain, who supposedly "turned around" Burger King and Pillsbury (fair enough, I guess), as well as being the head of a mid-sized pizza chain known as Godfather. Before Cain even got in the race, I didn't even KNOW Godfather fucking existed. Shows us how "great" he was...

[whoo689]

Then we go to Michele Bachmann. She always touts how much of a "job-creator" she was, along with her possibly-gay-and-repressing-it husband Marcus. Wanna know what HER 'great business' was? A COUNSELING FIRM! THAT'S IT. Bachmann and Associates is nothing special. Btw, there are rumors that it engages in disproven bs like reparative therapy for gays. AND her firm has been known to take MILLIONS in subsidies!

I'm sorry, but these people are full of it.

[whoo689]

There are plenty of MUCH MORE VIABLE businessmen who actually CONTRIBUTED a lot more to society in, for example, Silicon Valley. And get this: A LOT OF THE BUSINESSMEN ARE LEFT-WING! Not ultraconservative jackoffs. Steve Jobs probably was a Democrat, for all we know. I mean, he WAS a Buddhist, or at least used to be, and I can't imagine him being a Republican. Bill Gates is something of a liberal, at least if you look into the kinds of causes he's funded.

[whoo689]

The businessmen who actually REALIZE that, as Elizabeth Warren rightly said, NO ONE GETS RICH ON HIS OWN ENTIRELY, usually tend to be left-wing. Those who DENY all the help from taxpayers and tax-funded projects that paved the way for their success tend to be right-wing or Wall St. shills. They just ASSUME that their "genius" and ability to get some capital led them to BECOME MILLIONAIRES OR BILLIONAIRES OVERNIGHT, and no one deserves credit.

[whoo689]

Businesses making BILLIONS in annual profits bitching about "overregulation" are pretty hard to take seriously, if you ask me. When I think of OVERREGULATION, I think about places like the Soviet Union or Zimbabwe, not the U.S. I think of not being able to make a decent profit. Overregulation DOES NOT entail still being able to make billions in profit. It's just not believable. I mean, MAYBE, to some extent, some sectors have small businesses that ARE 'overregulated', but

[whoo689]

I'm not sure to what extent that's actually true. If anything, pro-growth proposals should be targeted more toward SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED businesses. Wealthy businesses are DOING FINE. They can handle this shit. But I'll admit that maybe we DO need to ease up on startups and less-wealthy businesses that have a harder time breaking through. Unfortunately, the GOP's proposals are too wide and sound like just massive giveaways to the super-rich to most Americans, I think.

[whoo689]

But these asshole Republicans CONTINUE to lie out their asses about how it's "overregulation" that's SOMEHOW preventing job growth, even though, really, only a HANDFUL of Obama's regulations could have ANY 'massive' effect like the GOP claims, and each of them pretty much deals w/ a DIFFERENT SECTOR.

Btw, cap n trade AND the EFCA have YET TO BE PASSED and will not likely be passed before Obama's first term is up. The "overregulation" crap doesn't pass the smell test. It's an excuse.

[whoo689]

Whenever it takes a while for the economy to grow, conservatives and Republicans ALMOST ALWAYS first BLAME THE GOVERNMENT and assume it MUST be the government's fault. It doesn't occur to them that MAYBE something is wrong with the economy or consumer demand?? MAYBE THAT'S the key problem? 

But of course, they believe that the market ALWAYS "works", and there's pretty much no such thing as 'market failure.' That if we just deregulate a lot, the market will work to its fullest extent.

[whoo689]

It doesn't matter HOW MANY tax cuts, deregulations, etc. you give business. AS LONG AS demand is low, there's not gonna be much growth! Businesses don't have confidence because of lack of demand, not because they "fear regulations" so much. Btw, since when is it SOO HARD for a small businessman (and esp. a wealthy businessman) to calculate what the impact on his business's income would be if his taxes went up a mere 4.6% (assuming it makes over 250k)?? We DO have things called calculators.

[whoo689]

Calculators, computers, software like Quicken, etc.

[whoo689]

I find it ASTONISHING how the rich bitch and whine about "My taxes going up 4.6%" from a low 35% when THEY SURVIVED MUCH HIGHER RATES until just 30 years ago! For almost half a century, the top tax rates were well over 50%. But America's economy didn't STAGNATE just because of it. But we're being told that, in order to PREVENT FURTHER DECLINES IN GROWTH, we can't raise taxes on the rich a mere 5% from just 35%?? This is NUTS!

[whoo689]

America ALREADY survived 39.6%. It's something called the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION! 8 years of tremendous growth, including 22 million jobs. Going BACK to those rates will somehow "doom" the recovery? Gimme a break

[whoo689]

The key to growth is DEMAND. Without demand, it's not possible. Companies can't profit without a stable consumer base.

[whoo689]

Should really be called the, "Give the rich everything they want and just HOPE that millions of jobs will fall out of the sky immediately." What a joke... SUPPLY-SIDE DOESN'T WORK!