15
   

How do liberals guage success?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 06:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
What Romney may have done may not be ethical or moral, but were they legal?

I think that's the question.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 06:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I can expound at length regarding the many business practices that Romney and Bain engaged in which don't quite square with the public persona and picture he'd like to present.


Finding politically problematic ways to portray him doesn't equate to him having done anything ethically wrong, merely unpopular.

Quote:
It goes far deeper than layoffs and outsourcing.


It would have to. There is nothing ethically wrong with either.

Quote:
The entire business model of the LBO world revolves around using tax breaks and accounting gimmicks to transfer money from public coffers (in the form of taxes paid by companies) into private hands (in the form of 'management fees' and high debt payments to banks).


There is nothing ethically wrong here either.

Quote:
The layoffs and outsourcing are just the tip of the iceberg, RG.


You say that like they are something wrong, when in fact there is absolutely nothing wrong with either. Merely politically unpopular, but there is a difference.

Quote:
I can link to several articles discussing the methods Bain used to garner profits, if you like, and the negative externalities generated by the use of these methods.


I'd prefer you just tell me in a few sentences what it is that you think might not have been "morally correct". So far you have mentioned:

1) Making layoffs
2) Taking tax breaks and public money
3) Outsourcing

These are not "morally [in]correct". No business is obligated not to lay off its workers. It is not immoral to take public money either, unless you corrupted the public institution to get it, otherwise this is no more morally incorrect than someone cashing a welfare check. Outsourcing is not morally incorrect, it is free market meritocracy.

So basically there is political mud you can sling, but no actual ethical or moral deficiency in the business practices he was part of. There are better ways to question Romney's morality (say the pet thing, or the bullying thing) if that is your thing, because if taking tax breaks or public money, or outsourcing is unethical there is pretty much no such thing as an ethical American (who has never taken a tax break, refund, or any other public money or who has ever bought non-American products).
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 06:47 pm
@Robert Gentel,
RG, I think we have to look at more than whether it's legal with Romney. The reasons are many including the fact that he's been faulting Obama for not creating enough jobs. If Romney destroyed jobs for whatever reasons, and didn't consider other options to keep jobs in the US, there are questions about his ability to create jobs in the US - and whether he could have hindered job creation during the past four years.

There's a thing called hypocrisy that needs to be addressed concerning Romney; his latest boner in the UK is an example of his big mouth and his insulting Obama about not understanding the English. For chrissakes, Obama's mother was English.

I see a racial bigot in Romney.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 07:45 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
Quote:
The entire business model of the LBO world revolves around using tax breaks and accounting gimmicks to transfer money from public coffers (in the form of taxes paid by companies) into private hands (in the form of 'management fees' and high debt payments to banks).


There's nothing ethically wrong here either.


Well, you're clearly wrong here. It is both morally and ethically wrong to pursue a business model in which you screw over workers and taxpayers in order to create massive profits for yourself. But, based on our previous conversations in which you've made it clear that you consider practically nothing a business or it's owners can do to be unethical, I'm not especially surprised.

Not looking to rehash old arguments with you on this matter; Suffice it to say that I don't have much respect for your viewpoint regarding proper ethical behavior and corporate governance - and I would bet that the average American viewpoint on this issue is far closer to mine than yours. After all, we are the ones being screwed over by this behavior.

Cycloptichorn


parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jul, 2012 07:49 pm
@Robert Gentel,
But Americans prefer a President that will put America ahead of himself. It isn't the question of illegality but of emotional connection.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 07:55 am
@parados,
True, just look at what we know of his would be tax policies already.

Quote:
Romney’s plan has five main components. In order of size, they are:

1. Permanently extend the Bush-era tax cuts. Romney would make the 2001-03 tax cuts and the AMT “patch” permanent for everyone, thus precluding the very large tax increases that would otherwise come at the end of this year. Most households would benefit but the largest tax savings would go to those with the highest incomes.

2. Cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Using its assumption that owners of capital bear the full burden of the corporate tax, TPC found that more than half of the tax savings—roughly $100 billion in 2015 alone—would go to the 1 percent of households with the highest incomes. The assumption is controversial among economists, but even if workers or consumers bear part of the tax burden, high-income households would still enjoy a disproportionate share of the benefit of the lower tax rate.

3. Eliminate income tax on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends for households with income under $200,000. Nearly 80 percent of households already pay no tax on gains and dividends—either because they have no investment income or because they’re in the 15-percent tax bracket or below. This cut—about $40 billion in 2015—can only help the remaining 20 percent. Not surprisingly, the bulk of benefits go to high-income households. And, because the threshold would apply only to non-gains and non-dividend income, households in the top 1 percent would get nearly a tenth of the tax savings.

4. Repeal taxes imposed by the health reform legislation. The healthcare legislation raised the Medicare payroll tax by 0.9 percentage points for couples with income over $250,000 ($200,000 for single filers) and imposed a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for the same taxpayers. Repealing those taxes—worth nearly $40 billion in 2015—would help only the high-income households that would otherwise pay the tax. Not surprisingly, about 80 percent of the benefit would go to the top 1 percent.

5. Repeal the estate tax. Only the wealthiest households pay the estate tax so only they would benefit from repealing it—to the tune of roughly $15 billion in 2015.

One omission from Romney’s plan would raise taxes compared with what people pay this year: not extending the remaining tax cuts created by the 2009 stimulus bill and scheduled to expire at the end of 2012. Because those cuts were initially intended to be temporary, the Romney campaign argues that not extending them wouldn’t be a tax increase. The same logic could apply to the 2001-2003 tax cuts but I don’t hear anyone claiming that letting them lapse wouldn’t count as boosting taxes. In any case, not extending the 2009 tax cuts still in effect in 2012 means that Romney’s plan would, on average, raise taxes for households in the bottom two quintiles, relative to what they’re paying this year.

Mitt Romney’s tax plan would cut taxes, by about $180 billion in 2015 alone, relative to current tax policy. And, despite all arguments to the contrary, a disproportionate share of the savings would go to households with the highest incomes.


source

In other words what might make good sense for CEO or hedge firm, would not make good sense for a country as a whole. Should be pretty simple to understand.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 08:11 am
@revelette,
"Bottom two quintiles"

Bottom 40% is easier to read and understand.

Fancy word is fancy.
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 08:14 am
@DrewDad,
I agree, I just kinda skipped over the word and substituted in my mind "lower income bracket" since I didn't know what the word meant and didn't have any big interest in finding out. I do that a lot around here too.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 08:17 am
@revelette,
They do that crap a lot in academia. They like to show off their vocabulary, but they don't realize it degrades their writing.

A lot of folks also abbreviate stuff that shouldn't be abbreviated. Abbreviations make things easier for the typist, but they make the result harder to read.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 08:23 am
@DrewDad,
The IRS releases the data in quintiles. It's not fancy. Just the way it's been for decades.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 09:10 am
@parados,
But if you're writing about it, especially when you're writing for public consumption, you should translate the language into something that's easier to understand.

I doubt that one fifth of the population knows the word "quintile." Wink
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 09:23 am
@DrewDad,
I doubt one third of the population knows the word "triangle".
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 09:27 am
@DrewDad,
The only fifth of the population who will read that piece is likely to be the fifth who knows what the word quintile means.

Cycloptichorn
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 09:28 am
Well, perhaps ya'll can translate this:

Quote:
Our nation's leadership has been perhaps the greatest source of a national entity's good that you've seen on the world stage.


cnn video of Romney interview with Piers Morgan
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 09:31 am
@revelette,
When you are as rich as Romney you can buy more vowels and words than you need. I think he's just showing off.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 09:36 am
I did not read the entire thread; however, in the day's of the Hippies success was based many times, in my opinion, as to "how 'cool' one was." If one was "cool," one was successful. If one can discern that another individual was "cool," with the exclamation, "That's cool!" then one was cool too. Being cool was sometimes equated to the ability to get good marks on tests, etc., yet never supposedly study. Cool people just enjoyed life, yet managed to have the accoutrements of those that delayed rewards by working hard.

By the way, I was never cool.

I suspect that coolness still abounds in adults, but is not mentioned, since it might be considered an atavistic or archaic emotion. (That's cool.)

I also suspect that to be cool, one should also be young. Youth may have some sort of monopoly on coolness, that older folks just cannot have, due to an awareness of mortality.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 09:39 am
@Foofie,
Question Maybe you should go back and read the thread?
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 09:41 am
@revelette,
revelette wrote:

Question Maybe you should go back and read the thread?


That wouldn't be cool. I have no coolness to spare.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 09:49 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Rev read it and re-posted it, yet she admits she didn't know the meaning, although she understood the context.

It's an obscure word, in my opinion, and it's dumb to use it in a piece meant to be read by the general public.
0 Replies
 
Strauss
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Jul, 2012 09:56 am
Drewdad wrote:
It's an obscure word, in my opinion, and it's dumb to use it in a piece meant to be read by the general public.


I beg to disagree.

As people learn a new word, they grasp the concept behind it.

It's evolution and improvement..
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/06/2021 at 04:03:00