[youtube]rodifJlis2c[/youtube]
How Did Mitt Romney Get So Obscenely Rich? Robert Reich Explains - YouTube
Were you aware of this?
How Did Mitt Romney Get So Obscenely Rich? Robert Reich Explains - YouTube
Were you aware of this?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How Mitt Romney Got Rich
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Nicely done.
I was unaware of that video. (There are so gosh darned many of them!)
But there's no need to watch it, since I respect Romney's choice to be obscenely rich.
But there's no need to watch it, since I respect Romney's choice to be obscenely rich.
tytlyf
Not Religious
Why wouldn't you watch it? Do you respect Rmoney's choice if that means immorally reaching the goal?
tytlyf
Not Religious
I think you don't want to watch it because he's a democrat. He's credible if you ask me.
Oh, no...I find some Dems interesting & insightful, but just not him.
Moreover, videos are a tedious way to get info compared to an essay.
Even libertarian videos bore me....except for some of Penn Jillette's.
Paul Krugman has an interesting take on how Romney got rich and what it means -- and doesn't mean -- for a Romney presidency.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/o...?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120706
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/o...?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120706
Well, I watched the video. There is nothing wrong with using the current tax laws to your advantage. All this moral hoopla is nothing but class warfare and an attempt to demonise the Republican candidate and get Obama reelected.
Why not just change the tax laws that allow these loopholes instead of attacking Romney for being smart enough to figure out how to make money during the current system?
I think the whole thing was brilliant. Most of these companies where going to tank anyway and the people who worked for them where screwed anyway.
Look at it another way, at least the company is still in business instead of failing. Some times you have to cut the dead wood out of the forrest.
Why not just change the tax laws that allow these loopholes instead of attacking Romney for being smart enough to figure out how to make money during the current system?
I think the whole thing was brilliant. Most of these companies where going to tank anyway and the people who worked for them where screwed anyway.
Look at it another way, at least the company is still in business instead of failing. Some times you have to cut the dead wood out of the forrest.
Don't you just love it when people who aren't in business analyze it for political purposes?
It's like watching sausage being made, but without getting any sausage when it's over.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Robert Reich? Seriously? Couldn't find a neutral narrator?
Anyone that's sucked in by this Democrat campaign BS has obviously never been in business. First of all what he doesn't say is that the 15 per cent capital gains tax is only paid to anyone who can show a gain of investment. If the owners had no money invested than anything they received would have been counted as income and taxed accordingly. The investors that put money into the business probably had already paid income tax on money earned. So in reality they are taxed twice. Also of the 78 companies that Romney had anything to do with only three went under. No one talks about the other 75 (such as ChicFilet) that are still viable. Give me a break.
Anyone that's sucked in by this Democrat campaign BS has obviously never been in business. First of all what he doesn't say is that the 15 per cent capital gains tax is only paid to anyone who can show a gain of investment. If the owners had no money invested than anything they received would have been counted as income and taxed accordingly. The investors that put money into the business probably had already paid income tax on money earned. So in reality they are taxed twice. Also of the 78 companies that Romney had anything to do with only three went under. No one talks about the other 75 (such as ChicFilet) that are still viable. Give me a break.
Unions should have died a dignified death back in the 1980's. No intelligent businessman wants anything to do with unions and the more outsoursing a company does, the more profitable it becomes.
That is the reason a company is in business, to make money for the shareholders.
Who are the shareholders? People who are saving and investing for retirement!
Ask Robert Reich what he thought of the free trade agreement?
The government screwed the American worker by allowing these imports to enter our country and then you demonise the business man for outsourcing when he is just trying to keep his company competitive.
Businessmen don't make the rules, they just try to compete with the rules gave to them and stay in business.
Once again, the sole purpose of a business is NOT to gainfully employ people, the whole point is to make money for the shareholders.
What Reich says in the video is spot on and accurate -- and nothing you've said refutes even a single one of Reich's facts.
Try again.
Once again, the sole purpose of a business is NOT to gainfully employ people, the whole point is to make money for the shareholders.
I see you are not refuting any of Reich's facts -- but merely changing the subject. Nice.
no-body
Well-Known Member
Once again, the sole purpose of a business is NOT to gainfully employ people, the whole point is to make money for the shareholders.
Right which is why they shouldn't get tax breaks or other special benefits from the government. "Job creators" my ***.
Sweet Jesus Phil, you go ballistic when I quote the Heritage Foundation and you can't even get by the title of this video without seeing obvious bias? Since when is getting rich obscene?
I did not change the subject at all, I said the facts are correct and 100% legal and Reich should attack the people who write the tax laws instead of people who have to abide by the tax laws.
One thing is incorrect however, when he says "who pays?", people who do not pay any federal income tax hardly qualify for "YOU DO". Many folks get income credit and actually receive money from the government they never even had deducted from their income in the first place.
How can a person receiving income credit be paying for the Bain Capital thing?
How can almost 50% of wage earners who pay zero in federal income taxes be paying for anything?
Unemployment insurance is paid for by the employer not the employee, so how does the little guy get the credit for footing the bill for unemployment?
When I quote the Heritage foundation, I can see obvious bias. Why are you so blind here and believe making money is obscene? You really cannot see the bias here?
Really? :help:
Last edited:
OK, who writes the tax laws? Why not attack them? You know, the old black guy who has a condo in the islands and was censured in congress but still got reelected in spite of his plundering?
We could never let the blame land where it is appropriate, lets just demonise anyone who is sucessful in business and actually does write a check to the government.
You know how they say people who don't vote should not complain?
I say people who do not write checks to the government have no dog in this fight.
Capital gains are taxed differently, that is the law of the land. If you don't like this system, change it, not attack people who don't make the law just have to abide by the law. Geeze!
Obscene wealth is a problem for Romney with many leftish voters.OK, who writes the tax laws? Why not attack them? You know, the old black guy who has a condo in the islands and was censured in congress but still got reelected in spite of his plundering?
We could never let the blame land where it is appropriate, lets just demonise anyone who is sucessful in business and actually does write a check to the government.
You know how they say people who don't vote should not complain?
I say people who do not write checks to the government have no dog in this fight.
Capital gains are taxed differently, that is the law of the land. If you don't like this system, change it, not attack people who don't make the law just have to abide by the law. Geeze!
But it raises a question....why wasn't it a problem for Kerry?
Was it because he acquired it by marriage, rather than making it himself?
Is the luck of a profitable marriage nobler than business?
It's easy for someone like Obama to criticize Romney's business practices,
since to have no such experience is to be without sin.
Last edited:
tytlyf
Not Religious
Not sure where you get the notion that democrats have a problem with obscene wealth. I have no issues with it, my parents are very well off and always vote republican strictly for the tax loopholes, etc.
My problem with obscene wealth is how it's obtained. That's the difference. I wouldn't say Mittens got there in the most moral way. Probably ruined a lot of people's lives in the process.