Thursday, September 20, 2012

Romney is Not the Greatest Candidate

For Romney the people that actually do the work that make his profits possible are "freeloaders". He gets enough money to actually pay some income tax. Not that he works. He just gets the money others create. He gives some of that money they created to the government via his income taxes so HE is the one bringing value, whereas the workers that don't get to keep much of the value they create, and hence don't earn enough to pay INCOME taxes are the slackers. Never mind that they actually pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than Romney. There are other taxes besides the income tax. That's irrelevant. They are freeloaders because Romney says that there is one specific tax that they don't pay.

This is quite ironic. I mean, Romney has been running for President since like 2007. Who can just run for President for 5 years? I can't just quit my job and run for President. I have obligations. I have to go into work and accomplish some things in order to earn a salary, because I have to provide for myself and my family. I can't just sleep in every day. But Romney can. And yet he sees himself like he's the hard working one and tomato pickers and janitors are lazy. They get up in the morning, Mitt. They are on their feet. You are probably sleeping. You are the freeloader.

Stewart later covers the Fox News spin, which is also fun. I'll just provide a link here.


Chad said...

I am liking him more and more everyday. He's growing on me.

Chad said...

What you have to understand Jon - which I doubt you ever will - is we (generalized Right) we aren't necesarily against higher taxes. We are absolutely against how those taxes are spent and the culture being created through entilements.

It is also funny that you target a guy that is only worth about $215 million net. Where is your hatred for Gates ($51 Billion) or Buffet ($44 Billion) - why aren't you after them especially since they are on your side. With their kind of money they could directly help a lot of people. Mitt's piddly $200 million would not go very far.

Examinator said...

I'm assuming you are having a shot at Jon.

Speaking for me I actually boycott Microsoft products seeing them what they are 2 parts bullshit 2 parts marketing scam 1 part product. I use Open Office (free), Firefox (free) and Linux (oops free again) all these products are built/ supported and updated by the users.

I've also outed Gates on this site pointing out that his key goal today is to win a Nobel peace prize he's a faux lefty. I've also clearly ripped into his predatory capitalist notion of Malthusianism ( the biggest gorilla does what it wants and tough for every thing else.)

If you are talking wider I'd suggest it is your *perceptions * are WELL off beam.

I'd suggest that it is you who doesn't get it. I've pointed out before that conservatism/capitalism ( the basis for the 'generalised right?') that came up with social security, and SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, oh yes Nationalism as the justification NOT to move production off shore. It wasn't the Socialists, Communists or the 'left' they were over 100 years later. Please read the seminal text 'wealth of nations' by Adam Smith .

Let's call a spade a spade and 'not a manual implement for performing specified indentations or movements in the strata and sub strata of the earth's crust' …. according to you and the misinterpretation of 'generalised right (sic)' follow the philosophy of oligarchy or plutocracy.

Either way the single fundamental difference is that the so called 'left' is about Control/Power of the means of production being in the hands the public (democracy) where as the so called 'generalised right (sic) (including Romney) favours control of society must be in the hands of *a few *and presumably rich (not democracy). Simply put the difference is one wants to spread 'the well being' as wide as practical and the other (latter- day right ) want the opposite.

Of course like the site name says applies …..Prove me Wrong.

PS before you go off in some emotional based attack note my words weren't personal but specific to the apparent misinterpretation and false assumptions. The current (latter-day right..sic) are trying to redefine the definitions to exclude the unpalatable SELFISHNESS of their reality and the very clear contradictions in Current version of CORPORATE (predatory... read Malthusian) capitalism which has been pointed out bears little or no relationship to either philosophy.

Examinator said...

Did you see this?
IMHO more than a little disturbing.

Chad said...

Ex - I assume you replied to my comment, but I just wanted you to know that I very rarely understand a single reply that you post so I have decided to no longer try. Jon and I may disagree, but normally his posts are filled with links and data and his ideas are at least inside this atmosphere.

Chad said...

If you notice - generally your the very last post on every topic. IMO its not because you've offered a slam dunk response, but rather you've left everyone scratching their head saying WTF?

Chad said...


I was thinking about this a bit more when watching my daughters dance class then again at Caden's BBall practice and even when we went down to look at a new car waiting for the dealers offer - your post seems more angry then normal. Most of the time your really analytical, base thing on fact and figures, but when you go after the rich or Mitt it almost seems personally - what's happening?

It's like when you say that Mitt does nothing, but earns all this cash - where is your evidence that he didn't/doesn't work 60, 70 or 80 hrs a week? Do you have time cards or do you evidence that he sleeps in? It seems to me that you doing something you hate and that is basing an arguement less any hard facts. Do you actually know how much or little Mitt put in?

Also - are you arguing that a janitor or a tomato picker works harder because it is manual labor, is that your arguement? Although manual, it is a position, a skill if you will that 100% of able bodied human beings can perform with little or no training. The labor portion is the only reason that this particular person has a job.

I guess I am not sure what your exactly arguing - I think the idea of a working hierarchy has and will always exist. The bottom shovels the poop, the middle manages the poop scooper, the upper middle sells the poop, the top watches all the pieces move around the game board. After 10-15 years the pieces move up and the cycle repeats.

Just saying sir.

Jon said...

I saw this Chomsky interview where he was presented with a criticism from some famous person and it was based on a misrepresentation of what Chomsky had said. But he was very calm about it and just said that when he says things some people just can't even hear the words. They cannot comprehend what is being said.

And I think you're kind of at that point. On the right there are certain perceptions, like the one you make here. Liberals hate the rich. And then they are surprised that we don't criticize all rich people. If I hate rich people then in your mind I should have more criticism for people that have more money.

But I don't hate rich people. What have I said that would lead you to believe I hate all rich people?

Bob Dutko does this all the time. "Why doesn't the left attack Oprah and Michael Moore. They are rich too, and the left hates rich people." They don't. Why would you think such a thing?

Some people get rich in immoral ways. Romney is an example. Acquire a company, break the law and raid the pension fund, walk away from the ruins and leave the elderly that are now counting on those pension funds with nothing. Yeah, that ticks me off because I have empathy. I can imagine what it would be like to be elderly and no longer have a pension. A pension that you had already earned. They had done the work and already earned that future salary, but Romney just took it and acts like this makes him some sort of contributer. He's a "job creator" because he raided a pension fund and now has a lot of money. Now they are poor thanks to him and they don't make enough money to pay INCOME taxes and so that makes them free loaders and loafers. What kind of a person robs the elderly and then blames them because they have no money?

I'll let you be the judge if that comes across as angry. I'm not really trying to be, but if it sounds that way fine. Robbing the elderly should make anybody mad. And it's a rich man who doesn't need the money robbing the poor elderly man that really needs it. In the Bible David was enraged with righteous anger at the story of a rich man that took a goat from a poor man rather than using one of his own. We should be angry at this.

For some reason though it doesn't seem to sink in for you that to me this is what is immoral. You say "Gates has more money than Romney so if Jon is logical he'll hate Gates more." Are you reading the words I'm typing? The way Romney acquired the money makes all the difference. And the fact that he basically stole it and then has the gall to say he shouldn't have to pay as high a tax rate as ordinary poorer people, well that to me is just outrageous.

Examinator said...

For your understanding, I am no fan of Bill Gates for similar reasons to why you don't like Romney. he was/is a 'facilitator' rather than a creator. Even today a large part of Bills wealth comes from from non creative sources. Strategic buying of patents, exclusivity deals, vertical market control etc. Recent industry info suggests MS get as much as 40-55%% of it's revenue without producing a thing. One can only wonder how many jobs would exist if these non productive earner didn't exist or owned by others who put the money into creation.

He didn't write DOS nor Windows the latter was created by Peter Norton from Apple.

One needs only to look at the history of MS and their predatory behaviour to conclude that it's success is similarly basis to Bain's. (if you want I'll go through it in detail.)

It's not that they've got money or even lots of it. It's simply about HOW they ACQUIRED IT and what this says about his competence/integrity as someone who will affect the welfare of not only 300 million Americans but billions world wide.

I think it's fair to say that Romney has the born to rule mentality and his grasp on the real world i.e. what the world NEEDS as opposed to the continuation of corporate/rich dominance (rightly called Oligarchic or plutocratic rule not Conservatism or 'Right')is deficient.

His absolute lack of ground level involvement (unlike Obama)....his career path including a 5 year run indeed smack of self interest. Achieving Prez is more for self gratification than real interest in improving the lot of ALL the voters. The video leaks make that abundantly clear.

One of the issues I face is that I have so much information in my head that I tend to think others understand what I'm on about. Researching to find actual quotes/ references would be so time consuming as to make making a point in context very difficult. If anyone wants specifics and unable to find them I'll make some time to comply.

Chad said...

JC - Thanks for the clarity, but again you just claimed that Romney committed a crime. He has not been charges with anything and I suspect that if you dive into Berkshire and Hathaway as deep and sharp as Bain - you will find similar or even uglier occurrences.

Immorality to what standard? So Bain stripped one company and a group of people of their money because their company was dying for profit, but also for capital to invest in another healthier company that survived and thrived. For the steel mill that died (and would have died, in fact died a horrible death during a second try), a mill was born and is now strong - net over net more jobs created. What's interesting is that you advocate taking more money from some to hand over to others and that to you is moral - again to what standard? We've already established that the Bible and the Constitution are no longer guides - the Left has done a great job at destroying both so what standard are you speaking of?

Businesses die without Bain, Pensions that have been over promised and are under funded go away without Bain. At least give some credit where credit is due and say that Bain makes money and eventually creates jobs before the fire turns the burning house to ashes.

I will agree with you on one point, I don't like reading about pensions being raided - I really think that is bad form big time and one reason we contribute zero to any company 401k. There is parts of Bain that I don't agree with - I am not a Lemming, but as long as what they do stays within the letter of the law then it is business. I suspect that if you had the opportunity to speak to Romney behind closed doors, he would agree with you about some of this.

Are you getting your I5 today or have you decided to pass on the upgrade? Get mine this morning - cost me a 25 year old bottle of scotch to avoid those lines and to get mine set aside, but it is worth it.

BTW enjoy the class reunion Sat if your going. I contributed the cake plus a little more, but won't be there.

Jon said...

Yes I am going tomorrow and to the game tonight. I was wondering if you'd be there. Too bad. But I'll have a piece of cake in your honor I guess.

You don't do your 401k? Man I can't believe it. This is one of the biggest tax breaks you'll get. It can't be raided like a pension. I'd rethink that one if I were you.

As far as whether Romney committed crimes, let me start by saying that even if he didn't that doesn't mean what he did wasn't wrong. Here's a good article telling you some of the legal things he did to acquire money. It's long, but I think would be worthwhile for you. I suspect he committed crimes, but yeah, it's not proved. But this doesn't change my point, which is this. The WAY the money is acquired is very relevant. Do you agree? There's a difference between a thief and a brain surgeon, right? Both may be rich, but I'll object to one and not the other. Do you understand that my problem with Romney is not that he has a lot of money? Plenty of people that have a lot of money I have no problem with. This right wing caricature of the left that they just hate anybody that has a lot of money is just silliness. I think it's a way of dodging a very important question. How did Romney and Goldman Sachs (major contributers for Romney) make their money? Read the article from Rolling Stone to find out. Now, you may read it and not object to the way he made money. Fine. But I think these methods are morally repugnant. We don't have to agree on whether these methods are repugnant. But you need to at least recognize that I am not objecting to the mere fact that some people are wealthy. This is not the first time you've claimed I have a problem with the fact that some people are rich and it's not the first time I've corrected you, so I'm hoping you can acknowledge that you are misunderstanding me here.

What standard? Let's use the Bible if you like. I'm fine with it. I like the Bible. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Does Romney do that? That's the Golden Rule. Basically the prime directive. Jesus was asked to summarize the entire OT law, and you know what he said? Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Is that what Romney did? No. He said that legally he can destroy KB Toys while making millions, so that's what he will do. Read the Rolling Stone article and you'll find that the guy that pounded the pavement for 38 years was fired with zero severance because Romney had taken out hundreds of millions in loans against the company and so they needed to fire people in order to service the interest payment on those loans. That's not following a biblical standard.

Here's the Apostle Paul writing in 2 Corinthians chapter 8.

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.”

I think I can put the question to you. What is your standard? Because it's not the biblical standard. It's not what Jesus would do.

Jon said...

Yeah Ex, I'm aware of what you say regarding Gates and I believe you are right, though I'm not an expert on it. I chose Moore and Oprah as my examples for that reason. As far as I know they acquired their wealth in an honorable way. Not by raiding pension funds or using dirty tricks to suppress the existence of superior products like Romney and Gates.

Examinator said...

No comment beyond this watch this
Then consider ROMNEY'S panning the 47%?
And consider what is missing from predatory capitalism