Well, monopoly is one of the main problems for a free market. Corporations and politics have become intertwined which keeps markets from working properly. I don't believe any company should be allowed to become "too big to fail", or labeled as such. This attitude promotes reckless behavior and malinvestments where they don't take into full account the consequences of their actions.

Other than that, the government has no idea what they are doing with the economy. They presume to know what interest rates should be and what amount of money should be printed. It is hard for people to save money when a savings account gets 1/2% interest and your only other choice is to invest in a stock market that is uncertain. Once all the money that has been printed recently starts circulating prices more likely than not will go up on many things. When they create more money out of thin air it is basically an undeclared tax. There are many people that are in debt in this country and their policy seems to promote spending and ignore savings which is essential for investment.

Here is a great example of how those with money use it. You can look at this example through the point of view that Obama wants you to see, which would be "Mitt Romney invested $4.5MM into a company and reaped a ridiculous $30MM profit and he should have to pay his fair share!!".

_____

In 1986, Bain provided $4.5 million to two supermarket executives, Leo Kahn and Thomas G. Stemberg, to open an office supply supermarket in Brighton, Massachusetts The fast-growing retail chain went public in 1989; by 1996, the company had grown to over 1,100 stores, and by 2008, over 2,000 stores. Bain Capital eventually reaped a nearly sevenfold return on its investment, and Romney sat on the Staples board of directors for over a decade.

_____

Now you can look at it through the way I see it, and some others on here see it... Romney put at risk $4.5MM, knowing full well he may lose ALL of that money, and in the end that invested, that yielded him a nice profit, helped create a company that now employs over 90,000 people. This investment helped improve the lives of many many people, WHY should we sit here and pout saying "well he's fucking rich so he needs to pay his damn fair share".

thoughts? factual opinions? I'm interested to hear what people think (I am not interested in hearing how Romney only cares about the rich and how much money he has).

edit: and to build on top of this, staples went public and was bought up by tons of investors (including 401k's, pension funds, mutual funds, etc.) and has split 7 times and pays quarterly dividends to people who buy and hold the stock.

Last edited by hokiefan 13 years ago

take what i have to say however you want. but to me, it seems all you are saying because he is willing to take a risk he shouldnt have to pay for his gains. because he employs people, he shouldnt have to pay any money, those who he employs should. im not going to say i dont agree with you that some sort of reward should be placed towards individuals who risk money for the sake of making more money, that untimely creates jobs. but isnt exempting them from any loss taking it too far? maybe everyone should "risk" their hard earned cash, whether its 50K or 20Mil and not pay anything. and lets face it, they would not employ 1 individual if they weren't making money as a result of that employee. America is suppose to be a democracy no? then why is it okay for certain individuals to get preferential treatment? and i will take you one step furthur, not in anyway arguing against what you said before, i actually agree with you, i just want to see where your stand is on it. you talk about entitlement, the poor feeling they are entitled to something they arent, the money the rich make. but let me ask you this, are not all citizens of america entitled to equal treatment, equal opportunities. like getting medical treatment, attending a good school or civil services?

now bare in mind i do not live in the USA so all i said is what ive seen and experienced while there.

edit: im sorry but i do not wish to rewrite what i wrote so i am just going to clearify here. when i say no loss, or not pay anything, i mean the small amount they do pay compared to what they make. the loop holes they use and exploit in order to stay rich.

thanks NV for your post and opinion. I think he should have to pay tax on what he earns, no doubt about it. But I don't think he should get fleeced like certain folks say he should, the folks that just want to stick it to the rich. If Barack Obama was serious about "uniting" this country, he wouldn't be out there separating everyone into groups like upper class and 1% and pitting people against each other. "yeah we need to work together to get stuff done, but at the same time, we gotta just fuck the shit out of those rich guys bank accounts because they have stuff we don't and they don't need that stuff because I don't have that stuff."

to answer your other question, I think everyone should get equal treatment and I think we should help those who absolutely cannot help themselves. Everyone has access to healthcare, if you go to an ER, they have to treat you, no matter what. It is not possible for them to turn you away. Obamacare doesn't help people get insurance that don't have it, it will instead levy a fine on those people who don't buy it. The poor already have access to medicaid. Everyone has access to public schools, but the only solution our government has posed to fix bad schools is to throw more money at them, rather than create incentive for schools to compete for students. The government continues to support the unions that make it impossible to fire bad teachers or reward good teachers, everything is based on tenure.

Everyone has the freedom to make whatever they want of themselves, I just think people get caught up that if they make poor decisions, they don't want to accept the responsibility for it. If you chose to do drugs, fuck around in school and get bad grades, that's on you, no one else.

"Under Obama, for every $7 we’ve had, we’ve spent nearly $11 (or, to be more exact, $10.95). That’s like a family that makes $70,000 a year — and is already knee-deep in debt — blowing nearly $110,000 a year." - US Treasury Department / The weekly standard

That's the math that doesn't add up, simple arithmetic.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH WE WILL C WHO WINS

yup he had to borrow and spend lots of money to get us out of recession ole W put us in!

I like the idea of the fairtax that Gary Johnson supports. Basically it is a consumption tax where you are taxed on what you spend and not on what you earn. Since companies will not be taxed, they will be able to deliver products to markets cheaper, so the consumption tax would not significantly raise prices. This is a brief explanation of the plan through Johnson's website: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/economy-and-taxes

THE U.S. TAX SYSTEM IMPOSES AN ENORMOUS toll on productivity through high marginal rates, absurd complexity, loopholes for the well-connected, and incentives for wasteful decisions. A better, fairer system will be:

* Abolish the Internal Revenue Service.

* Enact the Fair Tax to tax expenditures, rather than income, with a 'prebate' to make spending on basic necessities tax free.

* With the Fair Tax, eliminate business taxes, withholding and other levies that penalize productivity, while creating millions of jobs.

* Suggested Reading: www.FairTax.org

Fair tax would be Great! I'm for it, i read the book a few years ago.