The Real Mitt Romney

[DanaC]

I must admit, over here we all get the giggleshits when American pundits refer to Obama as a 'socialist'.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I must admit, over here we all get the giggleshits when American pundits refer to Obama as a 'socialist'.

The GOP can't use "communist" to scare voters any more, so the new boogeyman is a "socialist".

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

The GOP can't use "communist" to scare voters any more, so the new boogeyman is a "socialist".

Then how would you describe him, to an American? He's MUCH MORE left than a "liberal" has normally been described. I agree he's obviously not a communist.

I like the term "statist", because he's trying to move the fed state, into every part of our lives.

And I don't WANT the state into every aspect of my life. That requires a LOT of tax money to support it, and THAT leaves me with both little money, and little freedom.

Does "little money" and "little freedom" sound like something you want?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Adak

Then how would you describe him, to an American? He's MUCH MORE left than a "liberal" has normally been described. I agree he's obviously not a communist.

I like the term "statist", because he's trying to move the fed state, into every part of our lives.

And I don't WANT the state into every aspect of my life. That requires a LOT of tax money to support it, and THAT leaves me with both little money, and little freedom.

Does "little money" and "little freedom" sound like something you want?

He's not the one trying to put the state into womens' bodies.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

Then how would you describe him, to an American? He's MUCH MORE left than a "liberal" has normally been described. I agree he's obviously not a communist.

MUCH LESS left than a liberal.
Center to center right. It's hard to think of something he's proposed or done that wasn't proposed or done by the moderate Republicans of yesteryear. The Overton window strategy has worked; Obama's a big disappointment to liberals, but he'll get the votes because in every way Obama failed them, Romney's worse.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

MUCH LESS left than a liberal.
Center to center right. It's hard to think of something he's proposed or done that wasn't proposed or done by the moderate Republicans of yesteryear. The Overton window strategy has worked; Obama's a big disappointment to liberals, but he'll get the votes because in every way Obama failed them, Romney's worse.

Obama has stated that under his system of cap and trade, our electric rates "would necessarily skyrocket". He wants to also run all our coal fired electric power plants so "they would go bankrupt".

I call that VERY liberal.

But today, we have YET ANOTHER stimulus money being flushed down the shitter, to the tune of 249 Million Dollars!

Let's hear it for Obama's stimulus plan!!

Battery maker A123 files for bankruptcy protection

By TOM KRISHER, AP Auto Writer – 5 hours ago

DETROIT (AP) — After years of struggling in the nascent market for electric cars, battery maker A123 Systems Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection Tuesday.

The filing drew criticism from Republicans who claim the Obama administration has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on alternative energy companies like A123.

The company received a $249 million Department of Energy grant three years ago with high hopes that it would help foster a U.S. battery industry. At the time, the country was far behind the world leaders, Korea and China.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...6f9fb2b7fac279

WHEN, WHEN, WHEN, will Obama stop flushing our money, down the toilet, by the hundreds of millions of dollars?

[Flint]

Any chance...?

[ZenGum]

Never mind the math(s).

4.a is explicitly contradictory with 2. Slipping in "also" and "end up" doesn't help.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by BigV

...
I find it *counterintuitive* to say the least that the first thing a business would want to do with newfound cash is to hire new people. Business are built to increase profit, not to expand employment opportunities. Their reason for existence is to increase profits and they take the path or least resistance to do so.
...

This is true--as people will follow human nature, businesses will do what it is natural for them to do. This is the fundamental idea behind policies designed to 'piggyback' on people's natural tendencies--as opposed to 'engineering' results.

For example, business A. pays slightly less in taxes, they will invest this in growing their business, thus growing their profit (assuming the same margin, getting 'bigger' produces more revenue). So, they add production, increase output, and service new customers. Every part of the industry they are a part of incrementally increases in capacity.

Is it a direct a direct correlation--they made enough extra to justify hiring a set amount of additional staff? No, probably they will try to get more productivity out of their existing employees, have them work longer hours and such.

But the point is that when business capacity grows, at some point you will need additional workers to do that work. The industry certainly doesn't exist just to hire people, but all of those businesses will need to hire people to get that extra stuff done. The bigger they are, the more they make, the more workers they need.

That's the basic idea--businesses WANT to grow so they can make more money!

Oh, and when they make more money, there is more to tax.

Originally Posted by BigV

...
How can households pay the same amount of tax if they have fewer deductions, meaning their taxable income is greater?

The way I understood it is because the rate is lower.

Originally Posted by ZenGum

4.a is explicitly contradictory with 2. Slipping in "also" and "end up" doesn't help.

My apologies, I couldn't figure out a good way to diagram that Point 1. and Point 4. happen at the same time. If the tax rate going down and the deductions being eliminated happen at the same time, they cancel each other out--there is no net effect.

Theoretically, mind you. I'm just trying to explain what I thout the idea was, since I did not find it to be confusing, but rather simple.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Flint

For example, business A. pays slightly less in taxes, they will invest this in growing their business, thus growing their profit (assuming the same margin, getting 'bigger' produces more revenue). So, they add production, increase output, and service new customers. Every part of the industry they are a part of incrementally increases in capacity.

I question this line of thinking because American (non-financial) corporations are sitting on $5 trillion, yes that's a T, in cash reserves.

[Stormieweather]

You need more customers in order to expand. Businesses don't just expand because they have extra money, they expand because demand is higher for their product/service (and they can't squeeze any more out of their current resources).

And that means more cash is needed in the consumer's pocket. In most cases, small business customers are the middle class. Give the middle class more cash and they will buy more with it which will give small businesses reason to expand.

Right now, corporate cash is at an all time high. Why? Not enough demand for products to justify expansion. Why? Not enough cash in the middle class's pocket with which to buy more products.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Flint

For example, business A. pays slightly less in taxes, they will invest this in growing their business, thus growing their profit (assuming the same margin, getting 'bigger' produces more revenue). So, they add production, increase output, and service new customers. Every part of the industry they are a part of incrementally increases in capacity.

But business expenses are deductible, so if they want to invest in growing their business, they can do that pretax anyway.

Plus, if a "small business" is not only making $250,000 in taxable income, but making enough over $250,000 that the extra money taxed at that rate is significant, they are not the local corner store that politicians want you to picture when they use the phrase "small business".

[Flint]

But we're talking about small businesses--think Hank Hill's boss on King of the Hill. Buck Strickland wants to make more money to spend on gambling and hookers. He can't increase his margin, so to make more he has to get bigger. He has to add customers, he has to increase capacity, and he ends up needing another truck driver to make those extra deliveries.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Agreed. Both supply (companies investing) and demand (customers spending) are important but I would argue that the supply side is not as widely recognized today so needs to be emphasized more.

I do want to make the point that in response to an increase in demand, companies can increase supply in two ways: hiring more workers or making their current workers more efficient. Historically, technology moved slow enough that increasing productivity wasn't an option but I think we are approaching the threshold where it may be cheaper (in general) for companies to increase supply by simply increasing productivity, not the amount of workers. I think this, along with technology allowing lower skilled workers to replace higher skilled workers (think manager positions), explains much of our current economic "recovery".

--snip

this.

Originally Posted by glatt

Stormie is correct. The myth that the Republicans are pushing this election is that small businesses are the job creators. That's not true. Businesses are reactionary. They get busy and they hire more help. They get busy when the consumers start buying their product or service more. Consumers buy more when they have more money to spend, (or feel like they have more money to spend and are willing to charge it.)

--snip--

The most effective way to stimulate the economy is to get consumers to start spending.

this.

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

You need more customers in order to expand. Businesses don't just expand because they have extra money, they expand because demand is higher for their product/service (and they can't squeeze any more out of their current resources).

And that means more cash is needed in the consumer's pocket. In most cases, small business customers are the middle class. Give the middle class more cash and they will buy more with it which will give small businesses reason to expand.

--snip

this.

Originally Posted by Flint

But we're talking about small businesses--think Hank Hill's boss on King of the Hill. Buck Strickland wants to make more money to spend on gambling and hookers. He can't increase his margin, so to make more he has to get bigger. He has to add customers, he has to increase capacity, and he ends up needing another truck driver to make those extra deliveries.

Let me ask you a question Flint, regarding supply and demand in our economy at this time. Buck Strickland aside for the moment, do you think the current limit on our economic growth is related to--in any way--insufficient supply? Like, there's not enough stuff out there to buy? Empty store shelves, stores that could sell it if only they had it? Not enough propane, anywhere??

I'll tell you what it looks like from here, in my house, and in the economic lives of everyone I know. We're all spending *as fast as we can*. There is plenty of supply, there's plenty of demand, what there isn't is plenty of money. The balance of money has tipped dramatically toward businesses and away from workers, spenders, buyers, customers.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

You need more customers in order to expand. Businesses don't just expand because they have extra money, they expand because demand is higher for their product/service (and they can't squeeze any more out of their current resources).

I'm sure that is a valid variable here. I'm not an economist. But I do know that businesses want to grow and get bigger, and that it takes an investment in increasing capacity (buying a new truck, machine, or computer, for example) in order to get bigger. That takes money.