patrick.net

Good perspective.

My friend, a republican and mormon, and I were discussing why i intensely dislike Mitt Romney. My answer:

I have trouble with someone who believes that, based upon my income alone, I'm a welfare baby with no redeeming qualities. His perception is that I don't matter because I don't have earning power, nor do I own $$$$$$ worth of investments. He believes that I'm not worthy of healthcare (although, thank heavens, my employer provides insurance); but his opinion is that people should go to the ER and get treated for acute conditions rather than to provide preventive care that would actually save money and free up the ER time.

Mitt was born with a silver spoon so far up his ass that he has no touch of reality. His horse has better health insurance than most of Americans - and his children are so priveledged (as was he) that they will never have to perform a day's work in their entire lives.

Mitt Romney used daddy's money to become a corporate raider, send jobs overseas and blame it on "they system" when the companies went bankrupt because of his intervention. He doesn't understand compassion, caring, the philosophy of the mormon church to not flaunt wealth, live simply and treat others with respect in the manner which you would like them to be treated.

Mitt is a liar - he says one thing when the cameras are rolling, but another altogether when he thinks he's among friends (republican fundraisers). He, like GW before him, has trouble with the truth and is merely a talking head.

He is offensive in his condescending attitude toward those who are less fortunate than he - which is much of the world.

This is my opinion, of course. I'm willing to say it on a website known for people who levy personal attacks based on their perception of my views, rather than my actual opinion.

If these other anonymous posters were to post their honest opinion rather than to simply make nasty accusations, their single message might have more meaning. However, I will be branded a "liberal" and personally attacked for stating my views of this useless piece of shit presidential candidate whose entire campaign is being financed by billionaires who don't want to pay taxes...

The real problem with his "47%" comments was it got caught on tape.

Finally people had PROOF of a forked tongue.

You can delude yourself someone is a friend, or an ally, or at least "not such a bad person". That is until you overhear them talking smack about you when they think you can't hear it. Suddenly your lurking tiny suspicion they are a fraud crystalizes.

Vicente says

The real problem with his "47%" comments was it got caught on tape.

Everything is on video today, yet politicians still think they say one thing to one group and the exact oppose to another group, and no one will be the wiser. They have yet to grasp the concept of an information age.

elliemae says

[Romney's] opinion is that people should go to the ER and get treated for acute conditions rather than to provide preventive care that would actually save money and free up the ER time.

Hi Elliemae, I like you and often like your comments, and I can't stand Romney, but because I do like you I want to say something about this one point. The myth of preventive care supposedly saving money was disproved by the CDC and the experience of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, where spending increased instead of going down. In particular, unnecessary diagnostic radiation can be lethal.

"What's new is that CT is being marketed as a preventive or proactive health care measure to healthy individuals who have no symptoms of disease
[but there are] No Proven Benefits for Healthy People"

"FDA doctors and scientists...blew the whistle on serious health and safety violations on medical devices being approved by the FDA. One CT colonoscopy device that they exposed made it onto the market, 600 to 800 times the radiation dosage of similar devices that are more effective"

Also the test results are often ambiguous so they lead to many unnecessary procedures that can cause further injury and premature death. I mention this only because I personally know women who think they are being responsible when they get themselves irradiated, even though it increases their risk of getting cancer.

Vaccines save money, but insurance covers few vaccines and vaccine coverage remains limited under ObamneyCare. Also going to the dentist twice a year is a good idea, but ObamneyCare does not cover that.

Romney is a hypocrite because he signed legislation requiring everyone to pay for medical "preventive care" and now finally he says they could go to the emergency room instead, but the fact of the matter is, when it comes to health, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Malpractice kills more than 100,000 Americans annually, and hospitals injure 20% of patients. 5-year survival rates are distorted and inflated to make it seem like "early detection saves lives," when in fact it often doesn't; Elizabeth Edwards had all the $ and insurance in the world, and she died at 61 instead of maybe 60 if she had done nothing at all, but she is counted as a "success" because she endured her diagnosis for more than five years. A neighbor died of cancer, he had what people call Cadillac insurance so he did every possible procedure, and afterwards a friend summarized it well: he should simply have gone on vacation and enjoyed his last few months. The first five Presidents lived a median of 82 years, the only one to die prematurely was Washington and that was because he agreed to medical care (which in those days consisted of bleeding the patient and administering possibly toxic remedies). They had no access to "modern medicine," it didn't exist. A lot of what's advertised on TV is toxic now, maybe not quite as bad as bleeding people deliberately but not much better. There are a few useful things, e.g. vaccines, but insurance usually does not cover them. The best predictor of longevity is education, not money and certainly not medical insurance. Anyway I wish you well, your life is your own, I only hope you won't get yourself unnecessarily irradiated into an unnecessary cancer.

The fact is that 71% of income tax is paid by 10% of the population while 2% of the income tax is paid by 50% of the population. Those are tough numbers to dispute. The fact that Romney brought this up as a point of discussion shows that he has the courage to start a past due conversation about how we need to reduce spending by changing a culture of dependence on the government not only by the poor but by corporations in industries such as healthcare, finance, farming and military. Nobody is entitled to anything other than their own personal pursuit of happiness, whatever that means to them.

To say that you have a right to healthcare services is ridiculous. Tell that to the nurses and doctors who are providing that service. Obamacare did nothing to reduce the cost of delivering service by getting the government out of the way and returning to a free market system. Government involvement in any industry always leads to higher costs and lower quality. Sure, you might have better access to some sort of services, but the quality is going to greatly suffer. Meanwhile, private healthcare will continue to provide excellent services to those who can afford it, only it will leave the USA altogether, or a 2-tiered system will form.

As to Romney's perceived privilege I say, so what? The politics of envy is a destructive force but very useful to the Socialist cancer cells that occupy Congress. Many of the wealthy in this country are where they are because they are smart and took risks. He may not be a Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos or Andy Grove but he is right about changing the USA to be the best destination for capital investment in the world. Following that vision will ultimately help the poor the most by providing jobs and opportunities that have gone elsewhere as the government continues to tax and regulate producers to oblivion.

The sheer number of useful idiots in the USA boggles my mind. I suppose it is a side-effect of the culture of entitlement and dependency that the Commies and Socialists have successfully fostered since LBJ went full-tilt on guns and butter. Romney may not have addressed the issue in a very eloquent fashion but, by the responses he received, he most certainly has hit a raw nerve.

JohnLaw says

The fact is that 71% of income tax is paid by 10% of the population while 2% of the income tax is paid by 50% of the population.

I would have no problem with the super-rich paying 0% income tax if they actually created the wealth they have instead of siphoning it from the poor and middle class. The real indisputable truth is that the vast majority of the top 0.1% are parasites who have never contributed anything to the real GDP and do not produce any wealth. If anything, they are massive wealth destroyers and they are rich only because they redistribute wealth from the working class wealth producers to themselves.

As such I have no problem with them being taxed at 90%. It's just a stop gap measure, but until the real solution of stopping these parasites from becoming rich at our expense is implemented, it's the best we can do.

Dan8267 says

The real indisputable truth is that the vast majority of the top 0.1% are parasites who have never contributed anything to the real GDP and do not produce any wealth.

There has been a lot of wealth created in places like China where capital is flowing. Capitalism is not so much an ideology as it is an observation of natural law. One such law is simply stated by the phrase, "Capital goes where capital is loved." Statists can attack the wealthy and tax them to oblivion but the effect is the same and has been played out time and time again; capital flight leading to increased poverty.

Vicente says

The real problem with his "47%" comments was it got caught on tape.

Finally people had PROOF of a forked tongue.

I wonder what happened to the cameraman...

Call it Crazy says

Dude, you need to stop watching MSNBC for your talking points!!

Actually, I don't watch MSNBC at all, but don't let that stop you from reducing me to a stereotype.

Dan8267 says

until the real solution of stopping these parasites from becoming rich at our expense

The real reason for income inequality in the USA is the rapid growth in the finance sector spurred on by government-backed debt expansion through taxpayer guarantees in housing and student loans. Funny how both Democrats and Republicans agree on one thing; keep the status quo alive in finance. To truly reduce income disparity you have to have a government that enforces the rules. Hank Paulson and the FED were acting on the interests of Goldman Sachs and the financial status quo when he used public funds to back stop private bond and derivative holders. Had the banks been held in receivership by the FDIC and AIG gone under, passing losses on to bondholders instead of taxpayers, there would have been immediate and wide-spread pain inflicted on the so-called top .1%. But we live in the law of the jungle, where politicians change the rules as they go to protect their constituents (who most certainly are not the electorate). So keep blaming it on the same politicians who throw crumbs to the masses in exchange for propping up the global banking cartel. The problem is not free market capitalism, it is fascism.

Call it Crazy says

The 0.1% spend more money and "circulate" more dollars in the economy in a week then you spend all year

I'm suppose to be happy that the 0.1% spends money having their yachts shipped by larger boats to the destination where the rich want to sail their boats but are too lazy to actually sail to? Meanwhile the middle class is being eroded, but as long as the rich spend it will trickle down. Sorry, but that theory died with Reagan.

I much rather the middle class have decent incomes and spend the cash. It will circulate better.

Call it Crazy says

You could tax them at 90% and nothing would change, and the economy would crash and burn quicker!!

I'll call your bluff.

Marginal tax rate by year

Empirical evidence shows that times are prosperity are correlated with high marginal rates and low marginal rates immediately precede depressions.

JohnLaw says

Capitalism is not so much an ideology as it is an observation of natural law.

Wealth is not created by capital, but by production. When capital is concentrated into a few hands, consumption declines and production follows. When the system rewards people who engage in zero-sum games rather than increasing production, the real GDP of nations decline and the fake wealth figures skyrocket as real wealth is redistributed from the middle class to a few parasites rigging the system.

Conservatives are always pissed at the skinny parasites on the bottom of the food chain, the welfare queens. Sure, such parasites should not be tolerated, but it is the fat parasites at the top of the food chain that do the real damage to the economy. The middle class isn't shrinking because of people on food stamps or because of lazy blacks. It's shrinking because of the Goldman Sachs of the world.

JohnLaw says

The fact is that 71% of income tax is paid by 10% of the population while 2% of the income tax is paid by 50% of the population. Those are tough numbers to dispute. The fact that Romney brought this up as a point of discussion shows that he has the courage....

Referring to the income tax in isolation ignores the larger picture. The individual income tax is less than half of total federal taxes. More than a third of federal tax receipts consist of FICA, which Romney himself does not pay because his "carried interest" income is re-characterized as capital gains. A working person paying 15.3% FICA (employees see only half because the employer conceals the other half, while self-employed people see the whole thing) on every dollar of income up to $110k pays actually a higher tax rate than Romney.

The fact that Romney chose to focus again on income tax, while ignoring other taxes, shows the "divide and misrule" tactic at work. It isn't courage to stand in a room full of people who pay income tax but not FICA, and say we ought to cut income tax but not FICA.

Also, Romney promises to increase military spending on wars all over the world. He doesn't propose cutting any spending other than ObamneyCare, and he wants to "cut taxes" including repealing the ObamneyCare tax provisions. Personally, I don't believe he's sincere about repealing ObamneyCare, since he signed the same thing and has already waffled about it.

JohnLaw, parts of your comment seemed to reflect a libertarian philosophy, but Combat Hairstylist Romney does not share that philosophy at all. He doesn't take personal responsibility either. From his bullying assault on a younger kid to his enjoyment of "being able to fire people" today, he's a bully and bullies are cowards. I can understand voting for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, but not Combat Hairstylist Romney.

Dan8267 says

When the system rewards people who engage in zero-sum games rather than increasing production, the real GDP of nations decline and the fake wealth figures skyrocket as real wealth is redistributed from the middle class to a few parasites rigging the system.

Now we are agreeing on something. Like I said in my above post, wealth inequality is largely the result of the growth of the FIRE sector over producers. However, I think we disagree on the solution. I think we need to remove the moral hazard implicit in Federal deposit and loan guarantees. Furthermore, introduce a sound currency and break up the global banking cartel. You could do this by eliminating legal tender laws. However, it won't happen when the USG borrows 40% of the money it spends and is completely dependent on the FED inflation machine.

One definition of fascism is when government intervenes in the economy to direct it. The State uses cartels to pursue its agenda. By that standard, I call the current banking cartel part of a fascist system and the root cause of the problem we face.

curious2 says

JohnLaw, parts of your comment seemed to reflect a libertarian philosophy, but Combat Hairstylist Romney does not share that philosophy at all.

Right, I am more Libertarian minded. I am not a Romney apologist but I have similar views on the Federal Income Tax (mainly that it should be abolished!). Personally, I think the current political system is beyond saving. Something is going to give ... and soon. Mitt and Obama are both sock puppets for the status quo who continue to protect the house of debt (bondage) they have built over the past 40 plus years.

JohnLaw says

I think we need to remove the moral hazard implicit in Federal deposit and loan guarantees.

I agree about removing federal loan guarantees. They simply promote the FIRE industry and the shortsighted culture of debt.

But, I think there is a lot to be said for limited FDIC protection of savings. If you look at poor countries, where people live in shacks with nothing, a reason why they stay poor is because they have no safe place to save. If they earn a few coins, those can be stolen. If they buy a radio, it can be stolen. So, they earn what they can eat, and eat it quickly. A prosperous economy depends on savings and investment, people being able to save up so they can buy things they want. Those voluntary savings can become the basis of sound lending and investment, in an economy where banks actually have to (a) earn savers' business instead of borrowing from Uncle Ben and the FHLB system and (b) analyze creditworthiness instead of pushing debt onto anybody with a pulse and then selling it to Fannie, Freddie, and Bubbles Ben.

curious2 says

A prosperous economy depends on savings and investment,

Couldn't agree more and I don't think that eliminating the FDIC would hurt savers. There were plenty of solid private banks around prior to its establishment. The strongest, safest banks attracted the most depositors.

JohnLaw says

There were plenty of solid private banks around prior to its establishment.

WOW, are you insane or something?

do you even read or understand history.

here is a brief explanation why the FDIC was formed.

http://www.fdic.gov/about/history/index.html.

The FDIC was created in 1933 in response to the thousands of bank failures that occurred in the 1920s and early 1930s. As the FDIC celebrates its 75th anniversary, we present a historical perspective on the rich history of protecting consumers.

Historical FDIC insurance limits

1934 - $2,500
1935 - $5,000
1950 - $10,000
1966 - $15,000
1969 - $20,000
1974 - $40,000
1980 - $100,000
2008 - $250,000

Romney: He’s a guy who sold his dad’s stock to pay for college, who built an elevator to ensure easier access to his multiple cars and who was able to support his wife’s decision to be a stay-at-home mom. That’s great! That’s the dream.

The thing about not having much money is you have to take much more responsibility for your life. You can’t pay people to watch your kids or clean your house or fix your meals. You can’t necessarily afford a car or a washing machine or a home in a good school district. That’s what money buys you: goods and services that make your life easier, that give you time and space to focus on what you want to focus on.

Politicofact says

The thing about not having much money is you have to take much more responsibility for your life.

True, but both of your most recent comments are simply copied from Ezra Klein's article and pasted without quotation marks and without attribution.

Politicofact says

here is a brief explanation why the FDIC was formed.

Your source is so unbiased PoliticoCommie.

Dan8267 says

Vicente says

The real problem with his "47%" comments was it got caught on tape.

Everything is on video today, yet politicians still think they say one thing to one group and the exact oppose to another group, and no one will be the wiser. They have yet to grasp the concept of an information age.

Exactly. Obama thought he can cut a better deal to Russians if they can help him re-elected. The real problem is that he got caught by audio.

curious2 says

But, I think there is a lot to be said for limited FDIC protection of savings

I kinda go back on forth on this point. On the one hand, insurance breeds more confidence in the system which reduces the chances of a bank run. But, on the other hand, can you really trust the government to not be captured by monied interests? Maybe the requirement of private deposit insurance along with strict regulatory audits and compliance would work better. But what I have seen over the past years with government regulatory agencies doing anything constructive has made me a complete cynic. Lets face it, it was not a lack of regulation that caused the financial crisis. It was a lack of regulatory enforcement. All of the regulators were captured by industry. How can anyone guarantee it isn't and/or won't happen again?

JohnLaw says

I think we need to remove the moral hazard implicit in Federal deposit and loan guarantees.

More Libertopian nonsense. There's always the belief that removing government guarantees, regulation etc. will bring us "the miracle of the free market".

As a former Libertarian, I now recognize that periods of history with "sound money" and no central banks and no FDIC *STILL* had financial crises. And what happened during these crashes? Bankers STILL ran off with all the money, and the little guy ended up with ZIP ZILCH NADA BUPKUS.

The first Great Depression is one example among many. No, not the one in 1929, the one before that 1873-1879 which was later redubbed as the "Long Depression".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

The notion we can solve all our problems by eliminating protections for depositors should be laughed right out of the room on it's face. It's not moral hazard. Most people who toss this term around don't even understand it's origins. It's not "moral hazard" to insure people's deposits, they are NOT TAKING RISKS with their money when they put it in the bank. That the BANKERS are taking risks with it, is something else entirely.

There was an easy solution to banker gambling. Not allowing giant megabanks that crossed up retail, investment, and insurance. Not allowing banks to be owned across different states. When I grew up, all banks were local and risks were on the balance sheet of that bank not sliced and diced into securities. You want to fix it? Push for Glass Steagall 2.0. The original act brought stability from 1933 to 1999.

JohnLaw says

But, on the other hand, can you really trust the government to not be captured by monied interests?

That is always a risk, and a powerful cautionary argument against big government. Unfortunately in recent decades we have seen selective deregulation and a heavy emphasis on promoting risk, especially in the form of debt.

robertoaribas says

failure to insure banks and unwind those that were insolvent in a practical manner is one of the HUGE errors that made the "great depression" GREAT, instead of merely a depression.

And we have a Fed chair who draws the wrong lessons from history, and he got the job because he draws those lessons. He is an intelligent guy, but paradoxically he is also a "useful idiot," in the sense that he draws the lessons that serve the FIRE industry, so he is comfortable working for the biggest banks and doing their bidding.

On the subject of debt, we have neither deregulation nor sound regulation. We have a government that promotes debt, while failing to regulate adequately the debt industry, because it has been captured by them. In the 99 years since the Fed was founded to promote full employment and a stable currency, unemployment has doubled and the currency has lost more than 95% of its value.

In the 78 years since the FDIC was founded, no saver has ever lost a penny of insured deposits due to bank failure. Bank runs, which used to ruin banks by turning rumors of insolvency into a self-fulfilling prophecy, no longer happen in this country. It took a while for people to gain confidence in the FDIC system, but it works very well.

In some areas, government works. In other areas, it doesn't.

robertoaribas says

The top 10% of earners make 95% of the money, so paying 71% of the taxes is actually grossly underpaying...

Actually the top 10% earn about 50% of all income.

Vicente says

You want to fix it? Push for Glass Steagall 2.0. The original act brought stability from 1933 to 1999.

I'm in agreement on this point. As long as the government back-stops deposits then banking activities on deposits that are insured need to be separated.

Regardless of what the fixes are, deleveraging is going to cause a severe amount of pain. I doubt that we are even in the 3rd inning of this ball game. My main concern is that free market capitalism is being blamed for it. There is no way that the system could have become this over-leveraged without government loan guarantees and a central bank bent on pushing debt to extreme levels.

FlashGordon says

Good perspective.

NO here is the good perspective, because as much as some of you don't want it to get out because it exposes the LibDem game, he isn't wrong.

http://www.MU9V6eOFO38&feature=watch-vrec

Politicofact says

The FDIC was created in 1933 in response to the thousands of bank failures that occurred in the 1920s and early 1930s. As the FDIC celebrates its 75th anniversary, we present a historical perspective on the rich history of protecting consumers.

How lovely a feel good statement. One problem? THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED TO PAY OUT. Have they really the funds available to cover a major crash? THAT is the part most do not examine.

Dan8267 says

The real indisputable truth is that the vast majority of the top 0.1% are parasites who have never contributed anything to the real GDP and do not produce any wealth. If anything, they are massive wealth destroyers and they are rich only because they redistribute wealth from the working class wealth producers to themselves.

That isn't real honestly made wealth, real old money, that is just greed. People who unable to create and build something themselves they just know how to steal and rob others and pocket as much as possible while giving the illusion they are doing something else.

History has seen this shite before.

JohnLaw says

To say that you have a right to healthcare services is ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than saying you have a right to call the cops if you don't pay income taxes.

Imagine this scenario of a woman and her children:

"Help, three guys are climbing into my house!"
"Did you pay income tax?"
"Not last year, I lost my job as a secretary of a tire company six months ago and this year I only work 20 hours a week at Hillbilly's buffet washing dishes for $7.00. Because of my kids I qualify for some food stamps, too."
"Fuck You Then. Literally! Bwahahahaha! Stupid parasite! What do you think, you can just freeload off Police Services? And by the way, bitch, when you get impregnated by these rapists, don't come crying to us, we ain't givin' away healthcare. And, abortion is a sin against Jesus!"

Vicente says

The real problem with his "47%" comments was it got caught on tape.

I think they, the politicians, are all like that. Mitt was just the one who was caught lying. I bet he doesn't even see it as an ethical problem, only as a marketing problem that he wants to address through deceptive advertising.

Of the 47%, half are on Social Security. The vast majority of those had 15% taken out of their paychecks for SS and MC for 4 decades, so they prepaid all their benefits.

Another third make too little money to pay income taxes.

Only about 1/8th of 'em have no job and live off the government. And some of those are disabled.

How much subsidies do the top 1% get? Mortgage Interest deductions, subsidies to the companies they control, etc. Shit some multi-billion dollar businesses would be untenable without subsidies, like large scale commodity agriculture.