The Goat Pen

What's the difference between that and the Kennedys?

The moaning of people who keep saying that successful individuals were only successful because they had advantages over others is just them wnating an excuse for their own failures.

The Kennedys weren't trying to say they struggled (at least after Joe got all that money as an early version of a drug kingpin). They said they sympathized with those struggling and proposed legislation and policy to address that. Doesn't sound like apples to apples, to me, as far as comparing to Romney.

This conversation has nothing to do with anyone moaning about successful people having advantages over others.

No internet since yesterday am. No electricity for past hour.

As for the Kennedy's. Never tried to pass themselves off as strugglingl financially. At the same time, they didn't hide from military service which was dramatized. The younger Kennedy's don't have that advantage.

Successful individuals are not ONLY successful b/c they had advantages over most other people (certainly many people with advantages have squandered their advantage by way of any number of personal shortcomings), but you're a fool if you don't think the majority of successful people started with some (many) advantages. Sure, we all love the story of the poor disadvantaged guy who pulled himself up by his bootstraps and made a fortune, but that is rare. Most millionaires today began life 3 steps ahead of the game. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but to act like most millionaires today created it all themselves from scratch with no help or advantages save their mighty will to succeed and refusal to fail is pure fantasy....

The reason the Kennedys didn't have to put on an air of "false struggle" is because nobody cared that they were rich. But, I guess for Romney it is a big deal, and that he's "out of touch" because of his wealth.

hedge wrote:Successful individuals are not ONLY successful b/c they had advantages over most other people (certainly many people with advantages have squandered their advantage by way of any number of personal shortcomings), but you're a fool if you don't think the majority of successful people started with some (many) advantages. Sure, we all love the story of the poor disadvantaged guy who pulled himself up by his bootstraps and made a fortune, but that is rare. Most millionaires today began life 3 steps ahead of the game. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but to act like most millionaires today created it all themselves from scratch with no help or advantages save their mighty will to succeed and refusal to fail is pure fantasy....

It is not rare. It happens all the time, and still does. one fourth of my "millionaire clients" didn't even go to college.

BTW, "millionaire" is not a wealthy benchmark anymore. The top 1% are worth at least $6 million.

motherfucker was born on 3rd base and thinks he hit a home run!

How many presidents started out as Joe the Plumber?

sardis wrote:I guess for Romney it is a big deal, and that he's "out of touch" because of his wealth.

Nope, that's not why many people say that he seems (or is) out of touch. I can't think of any major party Presidential candidate in modern times who was not wealthy when they ran for President. He seems out of touch because he does not appear to possess the capacity to connect with people. On a Meyers Briggs scale, he would definitely be a ISTJ or ISTP. I thought Mayor Bloomberg was bad in that way, but Mitt is worse.

sardis wrote:The top 1% are worth at least $6 million.

I don't think that's accurate.

Bumped into this during my readings today...

"No man will ever carry out of the presidency the reputation which carried him into it."

--Thomas Jefferson, third U.S. president

I'm at a point where I say we're going to have to tax the wealthy.

We can't continue to go down the path of spending with minimal cuts.

Reagan presided over our biggest military build up since WWII and the tax rates for the wealthiest Americans were around 50%. Now they are below 37%. The Bush tax cuts have added noticeable cuts to revenue without adding any noticeable effect to our economy.

Romney is talking about increasing or maintaining Pentagon spending while creating more tax cuts, and people buy into that shit year after year from the GOP.

Obama doesn't get a free pass by any means but he is a democrat - He is just doing what democrats do. No one is surprised with a hiker is mauled by a grizzly bear, no one is surprised when a democrat spends money.

But people think GOP spending is strictly for the good of the country, like it pains them or something to have to do it - so it doesn't really count.

shit drives me crazy.

would like to know the tax rates in 92/3/4/5 when this country got rich and balanced the budget

did they really think that slogan out when they decided to put Mitt Romney standing beside it?

I found this

------------------------------------

In 1943, U.S. corporations paid nearly $1.50 in taxes for every $1 paid by individuals. By 1960, this amount had already fallen to just over 50 cents in corporate taxes for every $1 from individuals. But the trend continued over the following decades. By 2010, corporations were taxed about 22 cents for every dollar paid by individuals, about one-seventh the relative proportion they paid in 1943.

These figures contradict the deceptive claims of pro-business commentators who love to complain about how U.S. corporate tax rates--nominally 35 percent of income--are "the highest in the world."

Current



Clinton

crashcourse wrote:would like to know the tax rates in 92/3/4/5 when this country got rich and balanced the budget

I think fed income tax rates were about 3% higher at the highest bracket and cap gains were taxed about 5% higher. Corporate rates are lower, too. I don't remember what the middle/low bracket rates were.

In fairness, however, it's not just tax rates that will impact the deficit. So, a Clinto era roll back won't be a panacea.

think we would balance the budget today with clinton tax rates

you aren't balancing any budgets with 8.3% unemployment and two wars.

Even Reagan implemented tax cuts near the end and ran a deficit

The difference between upper bracket going to 39.6% from 35% is about $80 billion a year, that's it. If you have the poor pay in as they did under clinton you can add another $120 billion. Not enough. Raise the top rate another 10% to 50% top rate you only add another $160 billion? Woefully short.

Crash, Clinton's balanced budgets has spending at less than 20% of GDP. We are currently at 25%. That's about $800 billion difference. If you go back to clinton rates and decrease spending by $800 billion a year, you bridge your trillion dollar defecit.

Simple

Bklyn wrote:

sardis wrote:I guess for Romney it is a big deal, and that he's "out of touch" because of his wealth.

Nope, that's not why many people say that he seems (or is) out of touch. I can't think of any major party Presidential candidate in modern times who was not wealthy when they ran for President. He seems out of touch because he does not appear to possess the capacity to connect with people. On a Meyers Briggs scale, he would definitely be a ISTJ or ISTP. I thought Mayor Bloomberg was bad in that way, but Mitt is worse.

sardis wrote:The top 1% are worth at least $6 million.

I don't think that's accurate.

It is more like $8 million

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... ot-income/

I agree with you on Romney not connecting with the average man. he is used to a hierarchy style leadership, which works, but shields you from the sensitivities of the average joe. He connects with the Republican governors. They all endorsed him over the other R candidates because they could see how much more qualified he is to solve the financial mess. People like Newt, Rick, and Ron appealed to teh average joe, but anyone with any business sense knew they were not qualified to handle like Mitt would be.

I thought Mitt was the most qualified to handle the financial crisis in 2008. My problem with him is he won't do it because he won't get a mandate from the base. He'll just be George Bush II. He'll be more hands on, and with Ryan behind him more aggressive on cutting waste but in the big picture I'm afraid it won't be much.

Success will be defined by taking a 1.2 trillion deficit down to 600b by year 2.