The Goat Pen

Newt is not my candidate of choice either, but I loved the dressing down he gave John King.

eCat wrote:
Don't get me wrong, they won't vote for Obama. They just aren't going to vote for Romney.

Owlman wrote:

eCat wrote:
Don't get me wrong, they won't vote for Obama. They just aren't going to vote for Romney.

If they vote, they'll vote for Romney. Who else they going to vote for? Gary Johnson? He won't get any press for any of them to know about him, not without some sort of push/endorsement/support from Ron Paul. And Paul won't do that for the above reasons.

Maybe Johnson can buy some superbowl commercial time.

and when polls show that 75% of the people support the occupy movement, that isn't going to bode well for Romney

eCat wrote:This is how I see it - I could be way off base but I don't think so

You look at a guy like Mitt Romney or John Huntsman and I think its a valid question to ask

if it weren't for the infrastructure of this country, from the community they lived in ,the college they attended, the business environment made available to them (for their fathers mainly) - would they be where they are today? Alot of Americans like to buy into the "America is the land of opportunity for those that want to work hard and get ahead" but what we really don't want to talk much about is the obligation we have as an American to make sure the people following us have that same opportunity.

For the most part that opportunity still exists but the hurdles to get there for many Americans is much tougher. The days of a high school educated student working their way into the 3/2 with the white picket fence with a new chevy in the driveway and the new Kelvenator in the kitchen are gone.

And if you talk about the obligation a wealthy capitalist has to society, then you are labeled anti-free market or a socialist.

Now I'm not in favor of a payroll tax - I firmly believe that if you provide a days worth of work, you should get paid a fair days wage and there is no gain on either side. That kind of service transaction was never intended to be taxed by the founders of this country. However, if you take your money and invest it or otherwise utilize it where in the sense your capital is doing the work as opposed to you, then that is the clear definition of a capital gain, and that was intended to be taxed.

Now is 15% too much? not enough? I don't know but I do know that this idea that the wealthiest Americans are job creators is a bullshit premise pushed down on the middle class who are scared to death of losing their jobs, and they buy completely into the idea that reducing taxes on the wealthiest Americans translates into more jobs for America. And that might be true to some extent for white collar jobs, but the people that are on the government dime - those parents of 49% of kids who are on free or subsidized lunches, the 52% of Americans who pay little or no income tax, the 1 out of almost 2 that are at or below the poverty line in America aren't white collar job holding people. They don't have 401K's or pensions and working a $10 an hour job in a service industry is about as close as they are going to get to corporate America. They are the people who can't wrap their head around how America is the largest manufacturer in the world, yet has seen its manufacturing base of jobs decline steadily since the 1970's.

Mitt Romney is a perfect example where his vast resources in terms of his own personal wealth or the wealth he controls thru investment firms is not concerned with job creation. And no I'm not buying into the talking points about buying a company, raiding it and laying off workers -but I am pointing out that there is very little in his process that relates to "giving back" to those people I mentioned above. Yea, he might help a guy like me - either by investing in my company or providing a investment opportunity for my 401K but to those people mentioned above they don't see it - matter of fact, whatever help I do get either directly or indirectly is probably offset by the fact that I'm having to give some of it back at the state and local level to support the people mentioned above - from the cost of my ever increasing healthcare to the levy increases and bonds that I have pay to keep the schools, fire, police and various services in the black every year.

So that goes back to my point - Does a Mitt Romney have an obligation to this country for providing him, his father, his children with the opportunity to become a 1%, or is his obligation no more by % than the $45K a year blue collar guy? If you assume everyone has the same opportunity from birth, does a person who ends up in a job making X regardless of why have more obligation than a person in job Y? Should a person who puts in an 8 hour day of hard labor be taxed less or more than a person who earns their income from interest or increased value of their holdings?

It seems to me we've gotten to the point that the wealthiest people in this country believe that because of their work and status, they aren't obligated to pay for the opportunity they've been given to insure that those who follow them have the same, and over the years, the working class (up until the financial meltdown) were led to believe that was in their best interest even when the data in front of them suggested otherwise.

Now I know someone could say "how can you say the wealthiest don't pay their fair share, half of Americans don't even pay taxes" but that is confusing the issue. The issue is that half of America doesn't have incomes that merit paying taxes - and asking why that is, and how do we fix that is the issue.