Falcon A wrote:L. Tom was calling out the likes of Romney as I believe he is evidence of the problem.
And what then, is your evidence of this? Why should I believe that claim? The use of the key terms debt and entitlement, at this time, and under these particular social and economic conditions (for which Romney and the vast majority of entrepreneurs and businesspeople (excepting those who seek rent from the state rather than create wealth in a free, competative market) bear no responsibility), really can have no other interpretation.
The trickle down doesn't work...
There is no such thing as "trickle down" economic theory. This is a fiction invented by the Left, not anything that ever came out of either conservatism or libertarianism.
and Romney's a prime example. He spoke of starting out with 'nothing', eating dinner off an ironing board, etc.... Ok, he had humble beginnings and made it on his own. Given. If he says so.
Just knots your stomach, doesn't it?
At what point was/is it time to reinvest, start a company or otherwise spend some of that $250,000,000.00?
My understanding of "trickle-down theory" as invented by Reagan,
Neither Reagan, Kemp, Wanninski, Gilder, the Heritage Foundation, or any other conservative ever invented anything called "trickle down theory." This is an invention of the Left (primarily from within the liberal media of the time) and has no basis in reality.
and explained to my elementary school-aged brain by my straight ticket Republican father, was that the wealthy have more cash to spend on boats, cars, buildings, clothes, etc. etc. These rich customers are what creates jobs. The middle class build the toys for the rich, in a manner of speaking. The problem arises when the wealthy aren't spending enough and the cash never trickles down.
This is a holy high crock and has nothing to do with supply-side theory and the microeconomic dynamics surrounding it. The rich spending enough has nothing whatsoever to do with why the investing and job creating classes are important, nor how their entrepreneurial and investment activity creates wealth and jobs in the socioeconomic strata below them. This sounds like nothing more than a mutant and rather vulgar form of Keynesianism. I'm just about done with this...
Where is it, gaining interest in off-shore accounts? Fine, but that's not a good example for one running for President of the United States.
Lots of people, liberal and conservative, do it to escape our crushing tax burdens on risk, savings, investment, and entrepreneurship, and that's why they do it, for the most part.
Especially when he hasn't explained how he's going to cover his tax cuts.
Right...
Tax cuts are not "paid for," falcon. That's Washingtonspeak, and could only be believed there or by people who worship at its shrine. When taxes are cut, government has a very simple remedy to offset any lost revenue. Its called spending cuts.
Rocket science, that.
He'll still make hundreds of millions more in his career, and maybe a few more regular Joe's will climb a rung or two on the ladder of this wonderful capitalist society; or at least be able to buy a new pair of shoes.
Yup. We're a society overwhelmingly populated by desperately poor, oppressed proletarian masses, struggling and yearning to be free (cue The International).
Mitt and his wealthy friends feel entitled to a tax benefit, at the expense of others, and that's not right.
1. There is no such thing as a "tax benefit at the expense of others!" Falcon, whoever you are: Mitt Romney's personal earned income, earned through his own productive economc activity (known as "work" in normal parlance) DOES NOT BELONG TO ANYONE ELSE BUT HIM. Falcon, Mitt Romney's own money, earned by doing productive work that is desired by his clients in a free, open, competitive market for those services, DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU. IT DOES NOT BELONG TO ME. IT DOES NOT BELONG TO HARRY REID. IT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. No one has a preemptive claim upon the fruits of the labor of others. When people do claim to have a preemptive claim upon the fruits of the labor (the property) of others, and confiscate it for themselves, either personally, or through third parties, there's a name for that, and its called "serfdom." At greater levels of confiscation, it becomes little more than a form of slavery. That's what confiscating the unpaid labor of others is, Falcon.
If Romney's taxes were zero, there would and should be criticism of such a condition, but what could not be said is that anyone else had born some expense because of it.
We had better grow up, intellectual and morally, and very quickly, as a people, because if we don't, we are headed over a cliff and into a pit that we will never be able to crawl out of in any foreseeable future.