Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?

[OlgaH]

Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: Nick Hanauer

By Nick Hanauer on December 07, 2011

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.

Trouble is, sometimes the things that we know to be true are dead wrong. For the larger part of human history, for example, people were sure that the sun circles the Earth and that we are at the center of the universe. It doesn’t, and we aren’t. The conventional wisdom that the rich and businesses are our nation’s “job creators” is every bit as false.

I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc.

Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.

That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.

Theory of Evolution

When businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it is like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around.

It is unquestionably true that without entrepreneurs and investors, you can’t have a dynamic and growing capitalist economy. But it’s equally true that without consumers, you can’t have entrepreneurs and investors. And the more we have happy customers with lots of disposable income, the better our businesses will do.

That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When the American middle class defends a tax system in which the lion’s share of benefits accrues to the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

And that’s what has been happening in the U.S. for the last 30 years.

Since 1980, the share of the nation’s income for fat cats like me in the top 0.1 percent has increased a shocking 400 percent, while the share for the bottom 50 percent of Americans has declined 33 percent. At the same time, effective tax rates on the superwealthy fell to 16.6 percent in 2007, from 42 percent at the peak of U.S. productivity in the early 1960s, and about 30 percent during the expansion of the 1990s. In my case, that means that this year, I paid an 11 percent rate on an eight-figure income.

One reason this policy is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the average American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, I go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.

It’s true that we do spend a lot more than the average family. Yet the one truly expensive line item in our budget is our airplane (which, by the way, was manufactured in France by Dassault Aviation SA), and those annual costs are mostly for fuel (from the Middle East). It’s just crazy to believe that any of this is more beneficial to our economy than hiring more teachers or police officers or investing in our infrastructure.

[ML]

Stupidity is not only for poor people.
There are plenty of very stupid wealthy people.
Such stupidity among those who have inherited their wealth is easily understood.
But, as the recent post shows, some who created their own wealth can still be pretty stupid.
Some business people have creative talent, but are still stupid with respect to how economics works.
They are somewhat analogous to singers, actors, etc. who have great wealth, and yet rail against business owners and managers who also attain great wealth.

[ML]

Oh no; Romney stepped in it again.
He was candid enough to state that some 49% of Americans don't pay any Federal Income tax and he knew those folks would never vote for him.
Unfortunately, a 'traitor' was amongst the 'private' group, recorded his remarks, and put them on the Internet.

[GQBlues]

...
You believe businesses became leaner and meaner and in essence became worse. I don't believe they wanted to do that but the factors I listed above is the reason they had to do what they did. If business didn't cut the inefficiencies, and get rid of the worst workers, the alternative is bankruptcy. That could mean forced restructuring by the government or out of business and where everybody loses their jobs....

Well, that pretty much describe the Union now, doesn't it?

[OlgaH]

Stupidity is not only for poor people.
There are plenty of very stupid wealthy people.
Such stupidity among those who have inherited their wealth is easily understood.
But, as the recent post shows, some who created their own wealth can still be pretty stupid.
Some business people have creative talent, but are still stupid with respect to how economics works.
They are somewhat analogous to singers, actors, etc. who have great wealth, and yet rail against business owners and managers who also attain great wealth.

ML, name calling and labeling doesn't require too much intelligence either 

So, why the US business, for example, should invest into the construction of new buildings if they will not be able to sell it?

or why a metallurgical factory should hire more people and produce more metal without taking into account "demand and supply" on the market? or why automobile industry should produce more car than it can be sold? Plus take into that nowadays not every business need "human hands" but just the the machine operators.

Healthy capitalist market is based on the healthy competition, and the core of the healthy market is the small and middle size business.  Corporations like monopolization doesn't help to keep healthy competition including the job market.

BTW, one of our friend is running his two clinics. No, he will not hire an extra nurse but he doesn't mind to leave 50K in Las Vegas during his weekend. ))

[GQBlues]

Oh no; Romney stepped in it again.
He was candid enough to state that some 49% of Americans don't pay any Federal Income tax and he knew those folks would never vote for him.
Unfortunately, a 'traitor' was amongst the 'private' group, recorded his remarks, and put them on the Internet.

IMO what he said echoed what I stated in this thread before, It's tough to beat Obama for no other reason than the majority of his voting base are the social leeches in this society. Why would anyone 'vote' for someone else other than the one who promises to reward them for doing absolutely NOTHING. Not for themselves or for society at large.

Go Obama!

On another matter, FWIW, here's the personal income tax table from 1999-2009:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

[BillyB]

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.

I guarantee you with France's new 75% tax on the people who earn 1 million euros, some of those people are going to leave the country taking their money and business with them. Out of 66 million people, 3000 in France is in that group. Taxing that small group more isn't going to help their economy much but it'll make a lot of poor folks feel better that the upper class is brought down closer to their level even at the cost of jobs.
 

That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.

Theory of Evolution

When businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it is like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around.

That's nice. Whoever wrote that article wants to make a politically correct statement saying that the ordinary consumer is the primary all important job creator. Products need to be made. Who do you respect more? The guy who buys it or the guy who invents it, manufactures it, markets it, and distribute it to millions of people and hires lots of people along the way to create the product, market it, and deliver it? Let's get real here.
 
I have no problem a person gets rewarded for their efforts. Walking into Walmart, buying a t-shirt and paying for doesn't take much effort.
 

So, why the US business, for example, should invest into the construction of new buildings if they will not be able to sell it?

or why a metallurgical factory should hire more people and produce more metal without taking into account "demand and supply" on the market? or why automobile industry should produce more car than it can be sold?
.

I agree and that is an area Obama is not smart in. Developers I know who are trying to get loans from banks have a real need for this loan since they want to create a product that will sell. Since houses aren't selling well, apartments are doing well. Although the economy is bad, population grows and people still need a place to live. Some roads in the city is in serious need of repair. Obama put lots of money into green energy and that is not selling. Too expensive and too little return on green energy.
 

BTW, one of our friend is running his two clinics. No, he will not hire an extra nurse but he doesn't mind to leave 50K in Las Vegas during his weekend. ))

Olga, you should not worry about other people's business. If you're friend earned his money, it is his money to spend any way he likes. If partying in Vegas is his type of fun, that is his business. How would you feel if everyone criticizes you on how you spend your money. It's none of their business.
 
You imply he should hire a nurse with this Vegas money but in the same post you lecture about business shouldn't create without demand. Your friend owns two clinics. I'm sure he's smart enough to realize when demand is there, he will create another job for it. With the extra profits, he can then take 60K to Vegas and they'll love him more since he creates even more jobs for the entertainment industry.

[OlgaH]

Olga, you should not worry about other people's business. If you're friend earned his money, it is his money to spend any way he likes. If partying in Vegas is his type of fun, that is his business. How would you feel if everyone criticizes you on how you spend your money. It's none of their business.
 
You imply he should hire a nurse with this Vegas money but in the same post you lecture about business shouldn't create without demand. Your friend owns two clinics. I'm sure he's smart enough to realize when demand is there, he will create another job for it. With the extra profits, he can then take 60K to Vegas and they'll love him more since he creates even more jobs for the entertainment industry.

BillyB, you have a big imagination that is far from reality. Where in my post I have made any critics on our friend  As he said he set for life and doing well and doesn't need to hire any extra nurse, but extra money he gets he happy to party off, and in his 60s he doesn't plan any extra hiring at all.  He also invested his money into different stocks.

[OlgaH]

Since houses aren't selling well, apartments are doing well. Although the economy is bad, population grows and people still need a place to live.

Ah, exactly, so, how many extra empty condos should be built for rent?

http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/empty-condos-hold-opportunity-in-u-s-housing-crunch/

[BillyB]

Ah, exactly, so, how many extra empty condos should be built for rent?

http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/empty-condos-hold-opportunity-in-u-s-housing-crunch/

Condos are like homes, it has to be bought. Many people don't have the credit to buy so they rent. Your article actually supports what I said ealier. It mentions there's a lack of affordable apartments. Since there is a lack, developers should build but they can't get loans from banks. Obama bailed them out with your and my money and he should have told them to invest that money back into the economy.
 
Olga or anybody here can answer this. If you were President and had to make decisions to fix a bad economy what path would you take? Give more welfare to poor people to ease their pain? Their votes would be nice to have. Give more to the middle working class to ease their pain? Their votes would be nice to have. Assist businesses to survive and thrive. Call it trickle economics if you want but with job creating that helps everybody and with taxes collected on paychecks and businesses, government will have more money for social programs to help the poor.
 
Helping businesses/ business owners won't get you a lot of votes but it may be the right thing to do. The bad part of this is if you help one group of people, others will feel neglected or carry more burden through taxes but if you had to help one group of people, which group is most capable of helping the others when it's healthy?

[OlgaH]

In Foxconn City
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

An eight-hour drive from that glass factory is a complex, known informally as Foxconn City, where the iPhone is assembled. To Apple executives, Foxconn City was further evidence that China could deliver workers — and diligence — that outpaced their American counterparts.

That’s because nothing like Foxconn City exists in the United States.

The facility has 230,000 employees, many working six days a week, often spending up to 12 hours a day at the plant. Over a quarter of Foxconn’s work force lives in company barracks and many workers earn less than $17 a day. When one Apple executive arrived during a shift change, his car was stuck in a river of employees streaming past. “The scale is unimaginable,” he said.

Foxconn employs nearly 300 guards to direct foot traffic so workers are not crushed in doorway bottlenecks. The facility’s central kitchen cooks an average of three tons of pork and 13 tons of rice a day. While factories are spotless, the air inside nearby teahouses is hazy with the smoke and stench of cigarettes.

Foxconn Technology has dozens of facilities in Asia and Eastern Europe, and in Mexico and Brazil, and it assembles an estimated 40 percent of the world’s consumer electronics for customers like Amazon, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola, Nintendo, Nokia, Samsung and Sony.

“They could hire 3,000 people overnight,” said Jennifer Rigoni, who was Apple’s worldwide supply demand manager until 2010, but declined to discuss specifics of her work. “What U.S. plant can find 3,000 people overnight and convince them to live in dorms?”

[OlgaH]

Your article actually supports what I said ealier. It mentions there's a lack of affordable apartments. Since there is a lack, developers should build but they can't get loans from banks. Obama bailed them out with your and my money and he should have told them to invest that money back into the economy.

So how many new affordable apartments  developers should build?

or it would be better to convert the empty condos?

"In March 2011, New York finally announced the first closing under HARP to convert 26 stalled condo units on Lefferts Avenue in Brooklyn into 46 rental units. The units had never been completed or sold on the market in the first place. All units will be affordable to middle-income, but not low-income, families"

[OlgaH]

Helping businesses/ business owners won't get you a lot of votes but it may be the right thing to do. The bad part of this is if you help one group of people, others will feel neglected or carry more burden through taxes but if you had to help one group of people, which group is most capable of helping the others when it's healthy?

Helping businesses? It depends on a business. Businesses that outsources the jobs, no need help, but more taxation on their products  And more taxation on any products from overseas.  Businesses that do care about their US workers and employees they do need a help, but it doesn't mean they should run wild  without environmental responsibilities and safety regulations  forcing workers to work for pennies per hour.

Personally I found that food in our small family restaurants and cafes are much more better and healthy than at some kind corporations 

[BC]

There's always going to be fraud and abuse but should we trust the average guy or below average guy to run the show? Abuse, fraud, and unethical conduct isn't a trait reserved for the rich. Give those guys a billion dollars each and one guy will create a thousand jobs with that money, the average guy may take the money and run toward retirement and travel the world, the below average guy may dope himself till death.

No mention of average guy or below average guy.  I was referring to financial institutions and other large businesses that act in unethical manners with impunity - unless they get caught.  It's a high stakes cat and mouse game with little punishment involved other than fines and plea agreements.  Bottom line, unethical conduct by business and financial institution are pervasive.  Just healthcare fraud and waste alone runs into the hundreds of billions.  http://www.smpresource.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutSMPs/MedicareFraudEstimatesAMovingTarget/Medicare_Fraud_Estimates.pdf

Can't hate the businesses and institutions that create the jobs because they're doing better for the economy than the average guy. It's better to trust and like the guy that's giving you a job than the guy that would rather sit on his money giving you nothing.

Again, no mention of average joe or jane.  The guy that sits on his money pays less taxes by letting others earn money for him.  Romney is a prime example.  A businessman that pays 15% taxes from investments rather than roughly double that for a small businessman dealing in brick, mortar and people operations.  The larger international companies rely on massive offshore operations to lower their tax bill.  The playing field is not level and more people are recognizing this.  I recently rented a car from Dollar car rentals, best price around.  They are being bought by Herz which has some of the highest prices around.  Do you really expect that Dollar rates will remain the lowest on the block?  I don't.  9 major rental companies are in effect being reduced to three.. http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2012-08-27/hertz-buys-dollar-thrify/57343078/1  Is that good for competition?  I think not.
 

Again you blame business. I run a business and I'm not responsible for 9/11 or the house market crash. I blame the housing market crash on Clinton's government to ease the rules for borrowing so poor people can buy a home and the banks for buying into those new rules since the government will loan to the banks and the people for buying homes they can't afford when they lied on their applications.

It's always easy to point fingers, but before you do so check some facts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis  It's a long read but worth it to understand a bit more.

Some portions:

Increasing home ownership has been the goal of several presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush.[121]

In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[123]

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause."[128][129] GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages, but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders into subprime lending.[62]

Although a number of politicians, pundits, and financial industry-funded think tanks have claimed that government policies designed to promote affordable housing were an important cause of the financial crisis, detailed analyses of mortgage data by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Federal Reserve Economists, and independent academic researchers suggest that this claim is probably not correct.[1] [120] Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label securitizations.

lots more inside.

You believe businesses became leaner and meaner and in essence became worse. I don't believe they wanted to do that but the factors I listed above is the reason they had to do what they did. If business didn't cut the inefficiencies, and get rid of the worst workers, the alternative is bankruptcy. That could mean forced restructuring by the government or out of business and where everybody loses their jobs. Going into survival mode isn't a evil thing.

Please re read my post.  It said nothing near what you say that I marked bold.  What I was saying is that demand has adjusted to new levels, a new ballgame if you will.
 

What will work? What country in this work has a economic system in place that will make it so they surpass America's? It's easy to point fingers at problems yet it's hard for people to offer a solution that fixes all. Even with all it's faults, the system we have in place here is still superior to elsewhere.

In terms of 'superior' in absolute numbers maybe, but what is it all about?  Happiness....  That folks are happy and not just showing good numbers.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/00000010500  use the slider scale and put happiness at the top of the list.  Quite a few countries are on par or better than the US.

Here you are blaming businesses again. I know many developers that can't get a loan from banks for their projects to build their business. They are frustrated the banks won't loan money even though they got bailed out. Obama's government bailed out the banks unconditionally. Obama should have told banks to use the money to invest in business because business creates jobs.

Oh... but that would be government interfering in business or?  You surely don't want that.. Can't have it both ways.  It's supposed to trickle down or?    Oh... and btw

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

Another mistake Obama made was with his program to trade in your car for a more fuel efficient car and you get money from the government. American car companies specialize in mid to large cars and trucks so people were buying foreign cars 4-1 over American cars. Our tax money was being used to help other countries economies before our own with this program.

Maybe fuel efficiency was a factor? Maybe even a goal?  Obviously US car makers were not able to meet the demands of customers.

Lot's of tax money was given to companies specializing in green energy. Few people buys that stuff since it's way overpriced so many of the companies went out of business. Too bad money didn't go to struggling companies who actually made products people need or want to buy. A little help for those companies that are important to people's lives may actually save jobs.

The US solar panel market crashed from huge glut of panels produced in China and subsequent dumping.  This had a huge worldwide effect on prices causing many companies to fold.  The US got in the manufacturing game way too late and too little to compete.  That's business.. can't blame Obama and others for not trying though.
 

The only good news I have for my company is I'm surviving while many of my competitors are out of business. Although there are fewer construction projects up for grabs, there are fewer construction companies which means less competition and finally after many years I can actually bid a job for a profit and win the bid. Maybe you think evil companies are getting leaner and meaner and making huge amounts of money but I believe they're just trying to survive.
 
BC, I believe you believe Obama can do the job better than Romney but did you 4 years ago believe the economy would be where it is today when Obama was elected? Surely you have to be disappointed. Obama didn't have to deal with a 9/11 or housing market crash so why is the economy stalling? Blaming this on Wall Street and business is a lame excuse at this point. Remember, it was Obama who promised hope and change if he were elected and it won him a Noble Peace Prize. Hope he delivered, change he did not.

The economy is not stalling.  All indicators are going up, certainly not at the pace some would want, but indeed progressing.  Can't expect a boom recovery, but a slower, steady recovery is probably more healthy in the long run.  I'm certainly not going to change your vote, but you might want to dig into the overall picture a bit more.  Are you doing better or worse since the crash?  Are you able to compete better in a more 'normal' construction environment that is not overheated by credit and speculative booms?

As for Obama, folks have a good feel for his policies now whereas Romney is unable to present a concrete plan.  In fact he says he won't even have to do anything to boost things..  Yeah right.

[Gator]

The economy is not stalling.   

The FOMC disagrees with you.  Nevertheless the vote for QE3 was not unanimous. 
 

    All indicators are going up, certainly not at the pace some would want, but indeed progressing.           

Up?  The signals are mixed but generally suggest the slowest of growth in the US (less than 2%), a recession in Europe and hopefully some improvement at the margin in the emerging world.  However, the year so far is disappointing.
 
The future?  How this morning's AP news from the global bellweather "best of breed" FedEx:

 

FedEx says the global economy is worsening and it's again cutting its forecast for the fiscal year ending in May.  The package delivery company also expects net income for the current quarter ending in November to fall well below
last year's quarter.

Shipments are down and more customers are declining the option of faster shipments.   
 
The prospects for the economy are not good.  There is a race between FOMC and Apple for what will happen first,  QE6 or iPhone 6.   Why would we want another four years of dismal leadership?

[Gator]

And what would they be?
 

You asked me about disincentives to job growth.  I would assume that at the top of the list is economic uncertainty.  There is no direction from Washington, and it is needed.
 
Government regulations are severe burdens and growing.  These regulations take many forms.  Most regulations were written in better economic times, and while many are effective and necessary, many are dubious.  And Washington has not stopped writing regulations, e. g. the "employer mandate" under Obamacare and changes in labor and immigration laws.   While banks have money, new regulations are inhibiting lending, thus restricting business expansion.
 
Also, states add another level of regulation.  Texas has led the nation in job growth, accounting for perhaps half of the total US amount.  Supposedly 25% of the new employees entering Texas come from California.
 

 

[GQBlues]

BillyB-

You said a lot of things upthread that I completely agree with except...

...Here you are blaming businesses again. I know many developers that can't get a loan from banks for their projects to build their business. They are frustrated the banks won't loan money even though they got bailed out. Obama's government bailed out the banks unconditionally. Obama should have told banks to use the money to invest in business because business creates jobs.

While TARP came to fruition in late 2008 (remember the temporary suspension of the presidential campaigns and the call to meeting by Bush to McCain and Obama in which Obama feigned upon?), there was a prolonged debate on exactly how/what to do with the appropriated $300 billion slated for the distressed home situation. That debate took months all through the lame duck session until shortly after the inauguration and Obama's appointment of Czars. It's only <4 years ago for people to forget.

But yes, that money silently 'sizzled' and likely went somewhere else other than the intended if you consider the situation (home market) is pretty much the way it was. You're wrong in the sense it wasn't in the Obama administration that banks got bailed out. It was in his administration that the home rescue plan was drawn up and implemented. Again, where the money went ~ who the heck knows...

 

...Another mistake Obama made was with his program to trade in your car for a more fuel efficient car and you get money from the government. American car companies specialize in mid to large cars and trucks so people were buying foreign cars 4-1 over American cars. Our tax money was being used to help other countries economies before our own with this program....

Again, I agree with one caveat. The US automaker cannot compete on the 'D' Series line market. That had always been the Japaneses market i.e Camry, Accord, Altima, etc..the Chevy Malibu is and always will be a soured Detroit lemonade. The Chrysler Le baron? LOL. However, lately Ford had made stride in the present market as folks are really taking after the Fusion. They already had a fairly good entry before with the Taurus and it kept them in the competition well enough in the early to mid 2000...

But yes, the cash-4-clunker was technically Obama's version of the 'out' portion in the "screw you going *in* and screw you going..." series. The Union was in a huge mess and he has 'promises' to keep.

Lastly, I think BC's relatives in the US are in the Union. 
 

[BC]

Gator,

2% under the current global economic circumstances does not necessarily have to be bad. Just as markets adjust periodically to new influences so will the economy.

Dust needs time and stability to settle.  The more one tries to mess with it the longer it will take.  I highly doubt any political figure can change or speed up the process in a healthy manner.  More than anything patience and a steady course is needed to reach a new point of equilibrium.

If there was great confidence in the ethics and a good sense of responsibility within the business community, regulations would hardly be necessary.  Business has had plenty of chances to regulate themselves and many bubbles that burst have roots in deregulation and government allowing businesses to take the lead.  Only a mess has resulted.

Regulation is only imposed where Business fails.  It's always been that way.  Just look at the wave of regulation that followed  all financial crashes..

The very nature of Business precludes effective self-regulation.

[GQBlues]

...According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html


It is VERY interesting how the media influences and/or decides which events are newsworthy during elections. One can only imagine how news like the above would've been plastered on every news channel had Bush/Republican is presently in office right now...50 days before the election.

Unbelievable!

[Muzh]

Thurston Howell Romney
By DAVID BROOKS

In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, as Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, about 49 percent do.

In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.

But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year. Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.

It says that Romney doesn’t know much about the political culture. Americans haven’t become childlike worshipers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has fallen.

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.

Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.

The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.

The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.

But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play travel sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.

People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.

Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.

Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?ref=opinion&_r=0moc.semityn.www

[Turboguy]

Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?ref=opinion&_r=0moc.semityn.www

I don't have a bit of a problem with the government helping those who can't help themselves but lets say for example you marry a RW and go to the Social Security office to get her a number and what I see in there makes me want to vomit.  There are way too many people who can help themselves but don't have the ambition or desire and prefer to sit around drinking beer, getting high and living off those who do work.

[Faux Pas]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/revealed-inside-story-of-us-envoys-assassination-8135797.html


It is VERY interesting how the media influences and/or decides which events are newsworthy during elections. One can only imagine how news like the above would've been plastered on every news channel had Bush/Republican is presently in office right now...50 days before the election.

Unbelievable!

No but we do get the Susan Rice's and Jay Carney's of the BO Admin repeating over and over about the spontaneous attack because of the film ad nausea. Why are they permitted to spin and lie about such an event? The mainstream media has taken to this latest Romney video as if it's news worthy and even remotely recent to deflect from BO's apology to the very muslim's that attacked an embassy and killed Americans. Fuggin incredible

[Gator]

Regulation is only imposed where Business fails. 

I presume you mean new laws are enacted and regulations written.   How did business fail with healthcare such that we needed Obamacare?   Is Dodd-Frank the correct response to the financial crisis? 
 

 
The current labor initiatives are doing the following according to the US Chamber of Commerce:

-  Rewriting labor laws to effectively abandon secret ballot elections
in favor of card check and creating a mechanism for government appointed
arbitrators to write terms and conditions of labor contracts;

 
-  Amending safety and health laws to expand criminal penalties, reduce
the burden of proof for a conviction, and make officers and directors of
companies personally accountable for criminal penalties;

 
-  A regulation to make union organizing easier for railway and airport
employees, overturning 75 years of precedent; and

 
-  Expansion of vague recordkeeping requirements that will likely lead
to issuance of a new ergonomics standard.

Source:  http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/us-chamber-highlights-continued-barriers-job-creation-annual-labor-day-briefing
 
Next, consider immigration.  Enough already. 
 
As the Chamber wrote, " For those who may doubt the challenges to an employer under this reality, read a few pages of the existing Code of Federal Regulations, or randomly select one of the many court decisions interpreting existing law. Then picture yourself as a small business person or the head of human resources now faced with numerous other changes in a maze of already confusing and daunting compliance obligations."

Republicans want a smaller government.  Democrats want a larger government.   Why is that so?

[GQBlues]

Thurston Howell Romney
By DAVID BROOKS

What a load of stupid liberal propaganda…

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-15/poor-census-low-income/51944034/1

Dunno. The 2010 census reported…

… Broken down by age, children were most likely to be poor or low-income, about 57 percent, followed by older people, those over 65. By race and ethnicity, Hispanics topped the list at 73 percent, followed by blacks, Asians and non-Hispanic whites…

Doesn’t look like your everyday typical Republican to me. Looks just like the ‘poor’ of yesteryears just passed on from one generation to another...

… Among those requesting emergency food assistance, 51 percent were in families, 26 percent were employed, 19 percent were elderly and 11 percent were homeless.

Had Obama not gave away (and is still giving away) billions to the Unions, who at their whim holds the public hostage for more their greed (e.g. Chicago teachers - btw remember Reagan's firing of the Air Traffic Controllers? "No one in public service should have the power to hold the public it serves hostage for their own selfish gain" paraphrased), there should/would be enough to care for the "needy elderlies".

It is reported that almost 49% of Americans are in poverty. Most (89%) live in homes, drives a car and have big flat screen TVs…it is also reported that almost 75% of Americans today are medically classified to be ‘obese’ or overweighed by 2020 ( 7+ years from now)…it doesn’t take much to notice walking down a metropolitan street that the majority of these obese people are Hispanics and Black Americans. So, how the heck can one be ‘poor’ and have so much food to eat at the same time?

How? Become a Democrat, or at least vote for one...
 

[GQBlues]

...No but we do get the Susan Rice's and Jay Carney's of the BO Admin repeating over and over about the spontaneous attack because of the film ad nausea. Why are they permitted to spin and lie about such an event? The mainstream media has taken to this latest Romney video as if it's news worthy and even remotely recent to deflect from BO's apology to the very muslim's that attacked an embassy and killed Americans. Fuggin incredible

Yup...and now the State Dept is *playing* down Rice's statement implying that because of the *sudden* event that took place during the attack, so many information had to be gathered to determine any credible information or intelligence to *accurately* convey to the public...