Mitt Romney Scandals

[Juan_Bottom]

"http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001628-Base-Broadening-Tax-Reform.pdf[/url].

Is that enough?

Why would anyone vote for this guy? Well, they hate Obama more than they love America.

[Symmetry]

My bad on editing the link above, it's now fixed, and I'll repeat it:

Here, from the Tax Policy Center.

[Night Strike]

Regarding Juan's poster: Michelle Obama just doesn't get it. When a person follows the American Dream and achieves success, they DO leave the door open for others to follow because their success allows them to hire people who will work for them and alongside them. It's that success that improves the economic situation for many people. The Obamas think that successful people are simply greedy people and that the government must come in to take their money and hand it out to other people (while taking the government's portion off the top). That is not how an economy runs successfully, which is why you've seen our economy stuck in this horrible situation throughout his tax and spend presidency.

[BigBallinStalin]

Even if you (somehow) figuratively close the door after succeeding, if you're making profits, and if the market is allowed to be competitive, then this potential profit acts as a signal for other entrepreneurs to walk through that figurative door. In other words, it doesn't matter if you hold the door open and reach for people or not. They'll come if they realize the profit potential and if there's free entry (in the legal sense).

[Juan_Bottom]

Regarding Juan's poster: Michelle Obama just doesn't get it. When a person follows the American Dream and achieves success, they DO leave the door open for others to follow because their success allows them to hire people who will work for them and alongside them.

Took me a while to find it, but this post reminds me of this cartoon:


There's no "holding the door open" when you're raising taxes on the Middle class, lowering wages, raising the cost of education, ect ect ect ect

All you're doing is creating Socialism for the rich.





Of course, the rising cost of education is directly linked to a lack of government funding. And Romney supported the government pulling out of funding of Pell Grants. They'd rather they only had to pay for your education if you go to war for them. And the falling wages is linked to NAFTA, but more importantly it's tied to the destruction of Unions. Collective bargaining power leaked in 1970.

their success allows them to hire people who will work for them

So anyway. NS doesn't get it. The American Dream isn't that I grow up and work for him. And if they were hiring people, then our unemployment rate wouldn't be at 12%. The times when our economy was the healthiest were when we had the greatest distribution of wealth, because then people could afford to buy sh*t, which is how an economy works. Our economy sucks so bad because we have no jobs and no money. It's history. And Obama gets it.

[Woodruff]

Regarding Juan's poster: Michelle Obama just doesn't get it. When a person follows the American Dream and achieves success, they DO leave the door open for others to follow because their success allows them to hire people who will work for them and alongside them. It's that success that improves the economic situation for many people.

So in your world, "success" for poor people is that they get to come work for you? Because that's how it sounds.

[Woodruff]

So anyway. NS doesn't get it. The American Dream isn't that I grow up and work for him. And if they were hiring people, then our unemployment rate wouldn't be at 12%. The times when our economy was the healthiest were when we had the greatest distribution of wealth, because then people could afford to buy sh*t, which is how an economy works. Our economy sucks so bad because we have no jobs and no money. It's history. And Obama gets it.

No, no, no...rich people are the job creators. Desire for products and the ability to purchase those products...that has nothing at all to do with job creation!

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=164509&p=3600267&hilit=+job+creators+#p3600267

[Night Strike]

Regarding Juan's poster: Michelle Obama just doesn't get it. When a person follows the American Dream and achieves success, they DO leave the door open for others to follow because their success allows them to hire people who will work for them and alongside them. It's that success that improves the economic situation for many people.

So in your world, "success" for poor people is that they get to come work for you? Because that's how it sounds.

No, that's just one way for people to become successful. Many other people could become successful if the government didn't make it so hard to start new businesses due to regulatory hurdles. I read a story just this week about a woman who was trying to sell a new type of pregnancy pillow online, but she had to pay 15 different "pillow-tag fees" to register her pillows as safe in those states. Her total for that was about $3,000 annually. It's crap like that which causes too many regulatory hurdles for too many people.

Of course, the rising cost of education is directly linked to a lack of government funding. And Romney supported the government pulling out of funding of Pell Grants.

Actually, college prices are going up because the government has made it too easy for people to get "free" money and students aren't forced to shop around for the best value. Furthermore, if schools weren't sitting on a cumulative trillions of dollars of endowments, they could easily lower their tuition. One Ivy League school (I think Harvard) has enough money in endowments to fund the full degree program for every incoming freshman for the next 50 years. Yet they keep raising their charges without accountability simply because people can just go to the government to get the money necessary to pay those charges.

[AndyDufresne]

Regarding Juan's poster: Michelle Obama just doesn't get it. When a person follows the American Dream and achieves success, they DO leave the door open for others to follow because their success allows them to hire people who will work for them and alongside them. It's that success that improves the economic situation for many people.

So in your world, "success" for poor people is that they get to come work for you? Because that's how it sounds.

No, that's just one way for people to become successful. Many other people could become successful if the government didn't make it so hard to start new businesses due to regulatory hurdles. I read a story just this week about a woman who was trying to sell a new type of pregnancy pillow online, but she had to pay 15 different "pillow-tag fees" to register her pillows as safe in those states. Her total for that was about $3,000 annually. It's crap like that which causes too many regulatory hurdles for too many people.

Can you go into more detail about the regulatory hurdles? Anecdotal stories are nice, but pretty much nothing.


--Andy

[Night Strike]

Regarding Juan's poster: Michelle Obama just doesn't get it. When a person follows the American Dream and achieves success, they DO leave the door open for others to follow because their success allows them to hire people who will work for them and alongside them. It's that success that improves the economic situation for many people.

So in your world, "success" for poor people is that they get to come work for you? Because that's how it sounds.

No, that's just one way for people to become successful. Many other people could become successful if the government didn't make it so hard to start new businesses due to regulatory hurdles. I read a story just this week about a woman who was trying to sell a new type of pregnancy pillow online, but she had to pay 15 different "pillow-tag fees" to register her pillows as safe in those states. Her total for that was about $3,000 annually. It's crap like that which causes too many regulatory hurdles for too many people.

Can you go into more detail about the regulatory hurdles? Anecdotal stories are nice, but pretty much nothing.


--Andy

How are they "pretty much nothing" when they are direct stories about how government actions are directly harming people who are trying to start businesses? And if you don't want to look at new businesses, you should look at the medical device manufacturer who announced last week they could not afford to build a new plant to expand their business because of the impending 2.5% tax on medical devices (that they would be producing) in addition to the other expanding costs to employers under Obamacare.

[AndyDufresne]

Anecdotal stories are pretty much nothing without the evidence to show that the contents of the story were created by said regulatory hurdles, that is what I mean. I just wanted to see you go into more detail about the regulatory hurdles, since honestly I don't know them all, and you seem to know more by your comments.

Also, don't get so jumpy! Just an honest question!


--Andy

[Night Strike]

Anecdotal stories are pretty much nothing without the evidence to show that the contents of the story were created by said regulatory hurdles, that is what I mean. I just wanted to see you go into more detail about the regulatory hurdles, since honestly I don't know them all, and you seem to know more by your comments.

Also, don't get so jumpy! Just an honest question!


--Andy

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/penalty-of-law-meet-an-american-entrepreneur-thats-battling-against-govt-red-tape-via-a-maternity-pillow/

[Nola_Lifer]

Why are you blaming the government for these regulations? Do you know why they had to regulate pillows and mattress? Because the manufactures(also know as businesses) were stuffing them with whichever kind of material they decided to put in there. Dead rat? Why not? STUFF IT! So then the government stepped in a said hey you can't do that, so those little tags you see is to make sure businesses are honest. Don't blame government when businesses are doing the wrong things.

[Juan_Bottom]

New Polls Show Romney In Trouble
Romney has begun slipping in every single poll. Americans now have a 48% unfavorable opinion of him. Furthermore, 63% of Americans think that he should release his tax records, and about 49% of American's think Obama is smarter with taxes. How does Romney's campaign respond? They say that the race really hasn't started yet and no one is paying attention yet.

But how does Mitt Romney himself respond?

Romney Wants Business Record Removed From Obama Campaign Attacks

“[O]ur campaign would be-- helped immensely if we had an agreement between both campaigns that we were only going to talk about issues and that attacks based upon-- business or family or taxes or things of that nature."

[...]

“[W]e only talk about issues. And we can talk about the differences between our positions and our opponent's position.” Romney said of his own campaign: “[O]ur ads haven't gone after the president personally. … [W]e haven't dredged up the old stuff that people talked about last time around. We haven't gone after the personal things.”

In response, First Read asked, "Is Romney really saying that scrutinizing his business record -- which he has held up as one of his chief qualifications to be president -- is personal?"

Is he behaving like an insecure wimp?

[Juan_Bottom]

Romney tries again to add a commoner's touch to his campaign by visiting millionaire farmer

Romney is also catching hell from local liberal farmers for visiting a millionaire to ask him how his crops are doing. lol

I didn't think this was a big deal but they are talking about it on NPR Dubuque and some of these guys feel really insulted. They're saying that it shows that Romney is out of touch with farmers.

[Night Strike]

Is he behaving like an insecure wimp?

No, but it does indicate the complete bias in Newsweek:




By the way, your Huffington Post attack piece is completely out of context. Romney was clearly referring to the completely false attacks of him ultimately killing the wife of a man who was let go from a job with a company that Bain Capital had taken over, not about his real job record.

[Juan_Bottom]

That can't be true, because that was not an Obama ad. That was a citizen's united - style superpac ad. So an agreement with Obama's campaign wouldn't do anything.

Ever consider that maybe Newsweek isn't biased, they're just dismissing stupid bullshit instead of treating it as anything resembling legitimate news or facts? Kind of like Jon Stewart only they don't make a joke out of it. The only network that wants the brand of "conservative commentary" is Fox and it's notoriously lack-wit and dumb.
And did you read that article?

[Night Strike]

That can't be true, because that was not an Obama ad. That was a citizen's united - style superpac ad. So an agreement with Obama's campaign wouldn't do anything.

Actually, that has already been proven false. Those PACs are not supposed to be in contact with the actual campaign group, yet all the information for that PAC ad was garnered from a press conference put on a few months ago by an Obama campaign manager. The campaign manager learned the libelous details from that presser and shared them with the PAC.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why are you blaming the government for these regulations? Do you know why they had to regulate pillows and mattress? Because the manufactures(also know as businesses) were stuffing them with whichever kind of material they decided to put in there. Dead rat? Why not? STUFF IT! So then the government stepped in a said hey you can't do that, so those little tags you see is to make sure businesses are honest. Don't blame government when businesses are doing the wrong things.

(and to answer Andy's question)


Why must the government monopolize regulation?

The government, primarily through its politicians and chief bureaucrats, has the incentive to monopolize regulation, so that all credit can go toward itself, thus allowing the government to capture more votes which will be used to justify any increase in its revenues through taxation and deficit spending. The government can continue its means of extracting wealth from the people in a "justifiable" manner while shifting all blame to the market for any failures caused by the unintended consequences of its own public policy. It's a great system for them, but not for consumers and honest businesses, and we see this game being played all the time (e.g. the 2008 depression, bailouts, etc.).

Now these regulatory services are necessary, but it doesn't follow that the government must monopolize regulation because there are alternatives.


What are the alternatives?

A legal system should protect the rights of its own citizens, and when some businesses violate such rights (through fraud and by creating harmful products), then they should be punished. However, over time, we have seen limited liability become shortened for the businesses.

Over time, certain economic interest groups have appealed to the government to promote limited liability for superficial reasons (e.g. stimulate more growth, create jobs, more wealth, etc.). These superficial reasons get politicians elected, so they definitely agree to this advice. However, the underlying reason of promoting shorter limited liability was to ensure that business stakeholders would now legally suffer less consequences for their illegal actions. This is the essence of crony capitalism/political capitalism.

Their efforts have resulted in an (un)intended consequence which has undermined the effectiveness of legal institutions in protecting the consumers because a more extensive liability would hit the pockets of the stakeholders significantly harder for the "mistakes" caused by the business. Limited liability laws have benefited the politicians and economic interest groups who secured this state-granted privilege while the consumers pay the costs.


Why not have competitive regulatory agencies, or rather certification agencies, fulfill this role?

Although trademarks signal to consumers the relative quality of the products of producers, regulatory agencies could also behave in the same manner. With the state-granted monopolies abolished, the current bureaucratic regulatory agencies would have to compete with other regulatory agencies on the market. And, if any of those regulatory agencies fail in their job, guess what? They'll be taken to court, and will tend to have their profit margin reduced for operating poorly.

With monopolized regulation, the regulatory bodies don't have profit and loss incentives; they face bureaucratic incentives. When FEMA failed New Orleans, did FEMA go bankrupt? What about the Army Corps of Engineers who built the levees? Did they go bankrupt? No! But this is absurd because the threat of bankruptcy and profit and loss incentives maintain a tendency for businesses (such as competitive reg. agencies) to adhere to the preferences of their consumers while being held accountable for their own actions.



Are you interested in learning more?

Public Choice:
See James Buchanan, Gordon Tullock (who are the founders)
A wiki search will lead to more recent articles. Search journal databases for articles of interest.

Political Capitalism/Crony Capitalism:
See also George Selgin's "regulatory capture"
Gabriel Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism

Regarding law and democracy:
James Buchanan
Vincent Ostrom
Peter Schumpeter
Bruce Benson - The Enterprise of Law


All of the above blend on the topics I discussed in my post. If you had to read one book, I'd recommend Triumph of Conservatism. It's written by a neo-Marxist too!
If not that, then Bruce Benson's is excellent.

[Juan_Bottom]

That can't be true, because that was not an Obama ad. That was a citizen's united - style superpac ad. So an agreement with Obama's campaign wouldn't do anything.

Actually, that has already been proven false. Those PACs are not supposed to be in contact with the actual campaign group, yet all the information for that PAC ad was garnered from a press conference put on a few months ago by an Obama campaign manager. The campaign manager learned the libelous details from that presser and shared them with the PAC.

Interesting seems to be legit. If the info was gleamed from a press conference then I could hardly blame Obama for the ad.

Who's got sauce?

[BigBallinStalin]

How many politicians have been caught organizing directly with their Super PACs?

I'll assume that number is extremely small, maybe even 0.

Does this suggest that politicians honestly do not organize directly with their Super PACs, or does this suggest that enforcement is very ineffective*?


*(who actually oversees this? Politicians? Maybe politically appointed bureaucrats? Hmm....)

[Woodruff]

Regarding Juan's poster: Michelle Obama just doesn't get it. When a person follows the American Dream and achieves success, they DO leave the door open for others to follow because their success allows them to hire people who will work for them and alongside them. It's that success that improves the economic situation for many people.

So in your world, "success" for poor people is that they get to come work for you? Because that's how it sounds.

No, that's just one way for people to become successful. Many other people could become successful if the government didn't make it so hard to start new businesses due to regulatory hurdles. I read a story just this week about a woman who was trying to sell a new type of pregnancy pillow online, but she had to pay 15 different "pillow-tag fees" to register her pillows as safe in those states. Her total for that was about $3,000 annually. It's crap like that which causes too many regulatory hurdles for too many people.

Can you go into more detail about the regulatory hurdles? Anecdotal stories are nice, but pretty much nothing.

How are they "pretty much nothing" when they are direct stories about how government actions are directly harming people who are trying to start businesses? And if you don't want to look at new businesses, you should look at the medical device manufacturer who announced last week they could not afford to build a new plant to expand their business because of the impending 2.5% tax on medical devices (that they would be producing) in addition to the other expanding costs to employers under Obamacare.

You haven't even provided a cite. For all we know, this is just another one of your Blaze things that has no actual substance to it.

[Night Strike]

Regarding Juan's poster: Michelle Obama just doesn't get it. When a person follows the American Dream and achieves success, they DO leave the door open for others to follow because their success allows them to hire people who will work for them and alongside them. It's that success that improves the economic situation for many people.

So in your world, "success" for poor people is that they get to come work for you? Because that's how it sounds.

No, that's just one way for people to become successful. Many other people could become successful if the government didn't make it so hard to start new businesses due to regulatory hurdles. I read a story just this week about a woman who was trying to sell a new type of pregnancy pillow online, but she had to pay 15 different "pillow-tag fees" to register her pillows as safe in those states. Her total for that was about $3,000 annually. It's crap like that which causes too many regulatory hurdles for too many people.

Can you go into more detail about the regulatory hurdles? Anecdotal stories are nice, but pretty much nothing.

How are they "pretty much nothing" when they are direct stories about how government actions are directly harming people who are trying to start businesses? And if you don't want to look at new businesses, you should look at the medical device manufacturer who announced last week they could not afford to build a new plant to expand their business because of the impending 2.5% tax on medical devices (that they would be producing) in addition to the other expanding costs to employers under Obamacare.

You haven't even provided a cite. For all we know, this is just another one of your Blaze things that has no actual substance to it.

Scroll a couple posts after that one.

[Woodruff]

So in your world, "success" for poor people is that they get to come work for you? Because that's how it sounds.

No, that's just one way for people to become successful. Many other people could become successful if the government didn't make it so hard to start new businesses due to regulatory hurdles. I read a story just this week about a woman who was trying to sell a new type of pregnancy pillow online, but she had to pay 15 different "pillow-tag fees" to register her pillows as safe in those states. Her total for that was about $3,000 annually. It's crap like that which causes too many regulatory hurdles for too many people.

Can you go into more detail about the regulatory hurdles? Anecdotal stories are nice, but pretty much nothing.

How are they "pretty much nothing" when they are direct stories about how government actions are directly harming people who are trying to start businesses? And if you don't want to look at new businesses, you should look at the medical device manufacturer who announced last week they could not afford to build a new plant to expand their business because of the impending 2.5% tax on medical devices (that they would be producing) in addition to the other expanding costs to employers under Obamacare.

You haven't even provided a cite. For all we know, this is just another one of your Blaze things that has no actual substance to it.

Scroll a couple posts after that one.

Oh hell, it WAS just another one of your Blaze things. I thought I was just being sarcastic.

[Night Strike]

Oh hell, it WAS just another one of your Blaze things. I thought I was just being sarcastic.

The Blaze is a news and commentary site. If you think they're posting something false that I post on here, disprove it.