At the same time, according to CBO, the economy will remain sluggish, partly because of higher taxes.

Who knew, higher taxes are a drag on the economy?

The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery

The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change.

Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation...

Making an already weak economy even worse is the intent of the Cloward/Piven Strategy. It is imperative that we view the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan's spending on items like food stamps, jobless benefits, and health care through this end goal. This strategy explains why the Democrat plan to "stimulate" the economy involves massive deficit spending projects.

Just compare Cali to Texas to see what economic model works best.

At least Obama had the sense to postpone these major tax increases until after the elections.

"Who knew, higher taxes are a drag on the economy?"

You mean like the Clinton economy? Oh no, we can't have that!

Danni,

you'll have to take it up with Obama and the CBO, as they are the ones apparently who have forgotten all about Clinton raising taxes to boost his economy.

Only a liberal would make the connection between higher taxes and economic growth.

"Who knew, higher taxes are a drag on the economy?"

Or someone who has watched it happen during their life several times, only a liar would claim that it hasn't.

A catchy little tune for you.

M-I-C____K-E-Y______O-B-A-M-
A__V-I-L-L-E

#8 | Posted by danni

So higher taxes grow the ecomomy? Is that your position?

Or someone who has watched it happen during their life several times, only a liar would claim that it hasn't.
#8 | Posted by danni

Coincidence does not prove cause and effect. If government did not feed off of the private economy, it wouldn't need one.

That's it. Let's all live off of government. We don't need no stinkin market economy.

"If government did not feed off of the private economy, it wouldn't need one."

One example of where you have an real vibrant and growing economy without a government?

#8 | Posted by danni
So higher taxes grow the ecomomy? Is that your position?
#10 | Posted by paneocon

What no answer? Too specific a question?

"So higher taxes grow the ecomomy? Is that your position?"

We had a rapidly growing economy and higher taxes at the same time, you figure it out. The right would be so much happier if the Clinton administration had never happened.

Reagan raised taxes in the 80's and the economy grew.

We should tie the highest tax rates to the unemployment rate, if unemployment rises so do tax rates, if unemployment rate falls so would tax rates. That would make it in the interest of the wealthiest Americans to create more jobs.

Don't bogart that joint, my friend.

We had a rapidly growing economy and higher taxes at the same time, you figure it out.

Gee Sheeple, I'd think that would be the dream tax system for believers in supply side economics. It would be their opportunity to prove that their economic theory works or it would be the end of that economic theory once and for all.

Gee Sheeple, I'd think that would be the dream tax system for believers in supply side economics. It would be their opportunity to prove that their economic theory works or it would be the end of that economic theory once and for all.

""To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." Paul Krugman, 2002"

In 2002 that was a pefectly good idea, by 2004 it was not.

"Who knew, higher taxes are a drag on the economy?"

You mean like the Clinton economy? Oh no, we can't have that!

#5 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL, you mean like the reagan economy? Oh no, we couldn't have that!

We should tie the highest tax rates to the unemployment rate, if unemployment rises so do tax rates, if unemployment rate falls so would tax rates. That would make it in the interest of the wealthiest Americans to create more jobs.

#16 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 03:10 PM

Rich people don't just "create jobs". They invest capital if they feel they can profit, which often results in job creation. When government is hostile toward wealth-producers (as it is right now), those with capital hunker down and refuse to invest.

"If government did not feed off of the private economy, it wouldn't need one."
One example of where you have an real vibrant and growing economy without a government?
#12 | Posted by danni

It's not a question of government or no government. It's a question of how much government. Under controlled circumstances, fire has many beneficial properties. When it's out of control, it destroys anything in its wake. Clearly to any rational person, government is out of control.

Clinton was a centrist, he signed welfare reform, NAFTA, and he raised some taxes and lowered others in compromising with the Republican controlled Congress.

That said Clinton had two economic bubbles during his economy which distorted the economic numbers unless you are in a bubble economy like his you will get different results.

We should tie the highest tax rates to the unemployment rate, if unemployment rises so do tax rates, if unemployment rate falls so would tax rates. That would make it in the interest of the wealthiest Americans to create more jobs.

Rich people don't create jobs and never have but it is fun watching the ignorance around here suggesting such a thing.

"LOL, you mean like the reagan economy?"

No, I mean the post 1993 Clinton Economic Plan economy. Reagan's economy was built on debt. If calculated now with an inflation calculator Reagan left 4.5 trillion in debt and Bush 1 left another couple trillion. Clinton fixed that and we had prosperity at the same time.

"Clinton was a centrist, he signed welfare reform, NAFTA, and he raised some taxes and lowered others in compromising with the Republican controlled Congress."

No argument here, I want bi-partisan government again but we can't have that if the GOP sticks with the Norquist pledges against any revenue increases.

BTW, Clinton's tax increase was hardly bi-partisan, not one Republican voted for it.

Rich people don't just "create jobs". They invest capital if they feel they can profit, which often results in job creation. When government is hostile toward wealth-producers (as it is right now), those with capital hunker down and refuse to invest.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2012-01-31 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag

Rich people don't create anything. Now you hit the hammer on the head...."wealth-producers" and that is the problem.

We should be killing the wealth producers for job producers.

In 2002 that was a pefectly good idea, by 2004 it was not.

Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 03:16 PM | Reply

No, it was NEVER a good idea.

To suggest it is ever a good idea to create distortions of such proportion in an economy is to support the economics of misery.

Who feeds you this stuff?

Intentionally causing the misallocation of capital will lead to the necessity to liquidate (see todays housing market, prior tech stocks, etc) so that the misallocated capital can be re-allocated. This liquidation may be not only capital resources, but also human resources.

No, I mean the post 1993 Clinton Economic Plan economy. Reagan's economy was built on debt. If calculated now with an inflation calculator Reagan left 4.5 trillion in debt and Bush 1 left another couple trillion. Clinton fixed that and we had prosperity at the same time.

#27 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag

You're just delusional.

every president for the last 40 years is based on debt, and clinton was no different other than minipulating the way the numbers were calculated to show he was less of a contributor.

Hope you like your social security because clinton stole that to reduce your supposed debt....LOL

Key word is if nothing changes. Ironically, the CBO is trying to have it both ways right now as they blame extending the Bush tax cuts for the problem while warning against raising taxes. We have to either end the tax cuts (which will raise taxes) or extend them (which won't). The CBO cleary warns against both.

"No, it was NEVER a good idea."

Most people thought it was right after 9-11.
When you say "never" or "always" I think generally nonsense follows.

"They invest capital if they feel they can profit"

It's not just that. The tax rate has a lot to do with it as well.

Scenario A: The tax rate is 90% on profits. Are you more or less likely to reinvest in your company now, or...

Scenario B. The tax rate is 9% on profits. More likely to take it out now?

Note: I'm not suggesting the rates be 9%, or 90%, or anything close. But higher rates, comparatively, give more incentive to reinvest, be it via equipment, workers, whatever. I don't know what the right balance is, but this one isn't working, and higher rates did the last time they were in place.

"Hope you like your social security because clinton stole that to reduce your supposed debt....LOL"

Baloney. Look it up, SS was in just as good shape when he leftoffice as when he took office; solvent to approx. 2037. When he left though the other parts of the budget were also coming under control.

higher rates did the last time they were in place

Sort of. In the "old days," companies outsourced their headquarters for lower taxes, now they outsource their employees for lower wages.

"now they outsource their employees for lower wages."

Then they should be penalized with taxes, let them choose either give to the government or to employees.

"now they outsource their employees for lower wages."

Then they should be penalized with taxes, let them choose either give to the government or to employees.

Scenario A: The tax rate is 90% on profits. Are you more or less likely to reinvest in your company now, or...

Less likely to invest. Far more likely to move off shore or close up shop.

I know your numbers were deliberately extreme, but the more profit is taxed the less people will work toward earning a profit, which means less business expansion. Why expand and grow (which produces new jobs) if the government is going to take most of my earnings?

Then they should be penalized with taxes, let them choose either give to the government or to employees.

#39 | Posted by danni

They'll just move offshore and your beloved government would get nothing.

Why is it almost everyting lefties advocate involves puhishment, penalties and coersion?

They'll just move offshore and your beloved government would get nothing.

That was my point. Danni missed the first half of my sentence.

companies outsourced their headquarters for lower taxes, now they outsource their employees for lower wages.

Raise taxes and the only change is WHY they outsource. We need to pass laws requiring both headquarters AND majority of lowest wage earning employees be based in America or you get massive taxes to do business here.

"I know your numbers were deliberately extreme, but the more profit is taxed the less people will work toward earning a profit, which means less business expansion."

Want to point to any time in the last century when that proved to be true?

"We need to pass laws requiring both headquarters AND majority of lowest wage earning employees be based in America or you get massive taxes to do business here."

Sounds good to me.

the more profit is taxed the less people will work toward earning a profit, which means less business expansion."

Want to point to any time in the last century when that proved to be true?

Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 03:40 PM |

You said it yourself. When profits were taxed, companies reinvested to LOWER THEIR TAXABLE PROFITS.

The problem starts with lower profits means lower stock value which means less investors which means less capital to work with which means layoffs and cuts.

Baloney. Look it up, SS was in just as good shape when he leftoffice as when he took office; solvent to approx. 2037. When he left though the other parts of the budget were also coming under control.
#36 | Posted by danni

You are so easy to fool. Clinton was using SS surplus to cover his deficits, but the funds stayed on the books. It was the kind of fraudulent accounting that only government could get away with. As of 2011, money has to be taken out of general revenues to cover the SS deficit. On the books, it is still in surplus.

Sounds good to me.

#44 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 03:42 PM

That is the trick Danni. We are a HUGE consumer society and it is a privilege to have access to us as a customer base. Make them pay to do business here or make them base their business here. Their choice.

"We need to pass laws requiring both headquarters AND majority of lowest wage earning employees be based in America or you get massive taxes to do business here."

We tried that in the past. It was called "Smoot-Hawley" and it was an epic failure. So much so that even FDR made repealing it part of his first campaign plank.

Gee Sheeple, I'd think that would be the dream tax system for believers in supply side economics. It would be their opportunity to prove that their economic theory works or it would be the end of that economic theory once and for all.

#19 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 03:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Chicago supply side economics is Friedman's bullshit. Don't ascribe that to me. Friedman lifted most of it from a good economist, Irving Fisher, and then fucked it all up into a monetary bomb.

We tried that in the past. It was called "Smoot-Hawley" and it was an epic failure

Different world today. Maybe it is time to revisit and adapt it.

"Clinton was using SS surplus to cover his deficits"

As was Reagan.
And Bush.
And as Dubya did.
And as Obama did, until the fund went underwater.

Apples to apples, Clinton came the closest, and actually did balance the budget, albeit the ones he left to Dubya. But Clinton was literally months away from true surpluses, and we would have been there had Dubya not purposely altered the sights of the ship of state.

"The problem starts with lower profits means lower stock value which means less investors which means less capital to work with which means layoffs and cuts."

INvestment into industry is motivated by consumer demand, you have to have customers for goods, when you tax higher, businesses reinvest profits and hire more people, that increases consumer demand which makes investment worthwhile. As long as unemployment is so high demand will not increase and no matter how low the tax rate is investment will not go to manufacturing to satisfy non-existent demand.

Most people thought it was right after 9-11.
When you say "never" or "always" I think generally nonsense follows.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hitting yourself in the head with a hammer is NEVER a good idea.

Sometimes bad ideas are just bad ideas Danni, of course there's no R's and D's assigned to them so you are confused, I know.

#30 | Posted by moneywar

We should be killing the wealth producers for job producers.
------------------

Mark Zukerberg had two venture capitalist (rich people) who invested their money in Facebook so he could start that company, and the same goes for Microsoft and Google. This i why the major internet players are from the US and not Europe, because in Europe they tax wealth.

Without wealth you won't create jobs and never will, but it is fun watching the ignorance around here suggesting such a thing.

INvestment into industry is motivated by consumer demand

Profit more. You can have a million customers, but if the profit margin for each is 3 cents and I have 200,000 customers with a profit margin of $3.00, I will get more investors even though I have a smaller customer demand.

"Make them pay to do business here or make them base their business here. Their choice."

Yep!

Why do companies go public? Why did Apple, Microsoft, and Google go public? Because they need investors (rich people) to buy their stocks so they could take the money and grow their companies and created jobs.

when you tax higher, businesses reinvest profits and hire more people,

No they don't!

They downsize, close up shop or move offshore.

The more you tax profit the less people are going to be willing to produce in order to achieve it.

What you are suggesting defies logic because it defies basic instinctive actions. The more you tax production the less people are going to produce.

"You can have a million customers, but if the profit margin for each is 3 cents and I have 200,000 customers with a profit margin of $3.00, I will get more investors even though I have a smaller customer demand."

Details for each business are different but as we have been going in this country, we don't have enough customers. We don't have enough demand because so many are unemployed or underemployed. It is in the long term interests of our largest corporations to help maintain a middle class in this country and elsewhere, a race to the bottom will eventually destroy their business.

#52 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

By using the conclusion of your argument as the justification for your argument you are creating a logically invalid argument...

See also circular argument.

"when you tax higher, businesses reinvest profits and hire more people, that increases consumer demand"

How can something that happens after the hiring be the cause of the hiring?

That's like saying someone got shot in the head because they died.

It is in the long term interests of our largest corporations to help maintain a middle class in this country

I agree.

Danni,

When you get past the "Left/Right" bullshit, you will find we actually agree more than we don't. We separate where you think the DNC will help and I don't. It is that simple.

"The more you tax production the less people are going to produce."

Nonsense. YOu are going to produce as many as you can sell at a profit. If taxing higher creates jobs and thus puts money into the pockets of potential customers then those tax rates, which you reinvest profits to avoid, actually have helped your business.

"Make them pay to do business here or make them base their business here. Their choice."

Yep!

#56 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 03:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

And if they disobey?

The black market will take over, just as it does every time the government stands in the way of supply and demand.

It'll be awesome, we'll have people being shot for smuggling in Nike's like they used to be shot smuggling Levi's into E. Germany.

Why do you hate people so much? Especially the poor which your isolationist/protectionist policies of scarcity squarely target?

"We separate where you think the DNC will help and I don't. It is that simple."

I know, we'll be seeing the same situation in 11 months that caused you to decide Obama isn't going to do anything to really fix the economy. He says this time will be different, I don't blame you for being skeptical but the other guys running aren't even willing to discuss letting those tax cuts expire.

"Why do you hate people so much?"

Poor people aren't poor when they have good paying jobs. Why do you hate poor people, why don't you want them to have good jobs?
What you seem to want is the status quo, most Americans don't.

Nonsense. YOu are going to produce as many as you can sell at a profit. If taxing higher creates jobs and thus puts money into the pockets of potential customers then those tax rates, which you reinvest profits to avoid, actually have helped your business.

If you tax profit at a higher rate you are disincentivizing production.

Why produce if the government is going to take even more of my hard-earned profits?

Do you have any concept of the risk/reward ratio?

The bigger the potential reward the more people are going to be willing to risk. That risk involves starting a new business or expanding an existing business. Reducing the reward via higher taxes on profits results in a reduction in risk-taking.

What you are suggesting is at odds with instinctive human behavior. It's downright nonsensical.

Poor people aren't poor when they have good paying jobs.

Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 04:12 PM | Reply

But the economic positions you espouse lead not to jobs or prosperity, they lead to despotism, uncertainty, scarcity and, historically, violence.

You have taken the first steps on the road to recovery by realizing that surpressing interest rates (which is the supply/demand intersection for money) and subsequently inflating the currency creates massive distortions in the market place.

And, you cannot question the reality that is the current housing market. The wreckage of said policies.

Do you know what has happened over the past three years? Bernanke has kept the interest rate at zero while printing money non-stop. It has little to do with R and D.

So where's the bubble right now danni? It's growing like a giant zit because not only are we actively inflating it, but we are also using every fiscal trick to keep the past misallocations of the housing bubble from clearing the market.

What you seem to want is the status quo, most Americans don't.

#65 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 04:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

WTF are you talking about? The status quo is a repeat of 2002-2006 but from a much worse starting point.

#65 | Posted by danni

Poor people aren't poor when they have good paying jobs. Why do you hate poor people, why don't you want them to have good jobs?
What you seem to want is the status quo, most Americans don't.
-------------------
For you dummies who don't think wealth creates jobs or taxes don't matter just take a look at the last two CENSUs they had the West (not the west coast) and the South as winners. Why is that? Because that is where the jobs moved to. Why did the jobs move West and South? Because they can make more profit.

danni, your Econ teachers should hang their heads in shame.

Reagan raised taxes in the 80's and the economy grew.

#15 | POSTED BY TAXMAN AT 2012-01-31 03:07 PM | REPLY | FLAG: SORTA RIGHT

President Reagan raised the taxes after we got out of the recession - not during.

But higher rates, comparatively, give more incentive to reinvest, be it via equipment, workers, whatever. - Danforth

I understand your logic, but it works in businesses that have no outside investment, or is in no need of future investment. But not one that needs investment to keep going, part of the equation of investing is when am I going to get my money back plus, if taxes keep someone from cutting me a check, or it takes too long, then its not someplace I would invest.......

The problem now isn't reinvestment, but basic investment increasing the tax rate to get a return on investment will only decrease the amount of money being invested in business within the country.

Your inflation analogy also comes into play in the same way. Balancing these out is not easy. Should the tax rate be the same as labor?...... It should be if you don't want me not to invest.....

President Reagan raised the taxes after we got out of the recession - not during.
#71 | Posted by MSgt

Reagan raised the taxes for promises of spending cuts from Democrats. Guess which party kept their promise? Reagan's failure was not shutting the government down to force the issue and getting in from of a camera and calling the Dems out.

To be honest, if the gov can increase taxes by 43% and economic growth only goes from 2.2% to 1%, I am okay with that. My issue is that spending must be equal to or preferably much less than the $3.3T they will have in revenue. If spending continues to increase - and I mean in absolute terms, this country is fucked regardless of the tax revenue. If we rolled back spending to $2.2T/year and started to truly tackle the national debt - not the deficit only - I would be in favor of a tax increase. Until spending cuts (and I mean absolute - not cutting planned increases) are forthcoming, I say not another fucking dime of my money. This means massive cuts to defense, entitlements, and everything else across the board. Which candidate is willing to do that? Other than Ron Paul, I don't see any.

"I understand your logic, but it works in businesses that have no outside investment, or is in no need of future investment."

Nonsense. I work with my clients on the cusps all the time, and because of the nature of arts work, it's not unusual to change tax brackets every few years. If they're about to be in a higher bracket, I'll point out how much cheaper reinvestment is, by comparison: why not by that new computer when it's only going to cost 66 cents on the dollar? (I'm including state tax.) It's also the same tack I use to talk folks just above, say, the 25% threshold into a Traditional IRA, at least enough to get them back to the 15% marginal rate.

"Your inflation analogy also comes into play in the same way. Balancing these out is not easy. Should the tax rate be the same as labor?."

50 years ago it was thought unconscionable work should be taxed more than opening dividend checks for a living. Now it's SOP. I like interest and STCGs being treated like ordinary income. And I'd be comfortable with indexing LTCGs to inflation, but slashing the rates 40% or 60% after only one year is bogus. Dividends are paid out annually, so they should be taxed at ordinary rates.

Ignoring the derp-laden CSN link the actual CBO numbers look encouraging.

Be Well.

Rich people don't just "create jobs". They invest capital if they feel they can profit, which often results in job creation.

A lot of rich people are like Mitt Romney, who created massive wealth for himself without creating jobs. Whether Bain destroyed a company or saved it, Bain made a fortune. The only jobs he's truly responsible for creating are the couple hundred people who worked at Bain.

There's a huge difference between job creators like Steve Jobs and wealth creators like Romney.

There's a huge difference between job creators like Steve Jobs and wealth creators like Romney

Steve created 43k jobs in the US and about 700k contractor jobs in China.

Jobs so horrible that people kill themselves over the ridiculously long hours and complete lack of worker dignity or reasonable pay.

The more Spud looks into Foxconn the worse Jobs looks.

Butt thats a subject for another day.

Your essential point remains valid.

Rmoney was a vulture capitalist at Bain taking companies and either chopping them up and selling them piece by piece or instituting better management and increasing profits.

Whether he did more of the former than the latter or vice versa is a hot topic of debate right now.

Be Well.

#77 | Posted by rca

A lot of rich people are like Mitt Romney, who created massive wealth for himself without creating jobs. Whether Bain destroyed a company or saved it, Bain made a fortune. The only jobs he's truly responsible for creating are the couple hundred people who worked at Bain.

There's a huge difference between job creators like Steve Jobs and wealth creators like Romney.
--------------
With a statement like this, you could qualify as the chief economist for Greece.

BINGO PANECON

you have exposed the dirty little secret radical leftists here dont want to admit...barry can talk of all sorts of breaks etc..BUT soon, as in after election time...the bill will come due...the piper will have to be paid...etc etc etc

There's a huge difference between job creators like Steve Jobs and wealth creators like Romney.#77 | Posted by rcade

Yes Jobs created most of his jobs in Asia and China and Romney created American jobs in the companies he invested in.

Yes Jobs created most of his jobs in Asia and China and Romney created American jobs in the companies he invested in.

At Bain, Romney drove numerous companies into bankruptcy. He saddled them with huge debt that was first used to pay Bain massive dividends and did nothing to improve the fortunes of the company. Thousands of workers lost their jobs because Bain came into their lives.

"Yes Jobs created most of his jobs in Asia and China and Romney created American jobs in the companies he invested in."

Romney's company, Bain, outsource all kinds of jobs. Many of the claimed 100,000 jobs created, weren't created in the US.

#At Bain, Romney drove numerous companies into bankruptcy. He saddled them with huge debt that was first used to pay Bain massive dividends and did nothing to improve the fortunes of the company. Thousands of workers lost their jobs because Bain came into their lives.
#82 | Posted by rcade

That has nothing to do with job creation statement in #81 | Posted by paneocon. But since you want to change the discussion, it's called capitalism, survival of the fittest and absorption of the weak.

In your world would the government come in and nationalize all those failing companies so that they could keep their failing ways and their underperforming management and employees? That kind of thinking makes Karl Marx so proud.

#83 | Posted by danni

Link?

Steel manufacturing jobs and retail jobs are domestic. Do you want to discuss all the money and jobs Barry has created overseas with US tax dollars?

"Do you want to discuss all the money and jobs Barry has created overseas with US tax dollars?"
Do you actually understand why it would be impossible right now for him to prevent that?

"Steel manufacturing jobs and retail jobs are domestic."

Not all steel is domestic, we import steel from China every year.

#82 | Posted by rcade

At Bain, Romney drove numerous companies into bankruptcy. He saddled them with huge debt that was first used to pay Bain massive dividends and did nothing to improve the fortunes of the company. Thousands of workers lost their jobs because Bain came into their lives.
-----------------
You could teach a class in Private Equity, maybe in Cuba.

Not all steel is domestic, we import steel from China every year.
#88 | Posted by danni

You need to read the news a little more.

Steel Dynamics Says Romney-Led Bain Funded Its Success

That's not the view at Fort Wayne, Ind.-based Steel Dynamics (NASDAQ:STLD - News), where Bain invested just as the company was getting off the ground in 1994. Today, Steel Dynamics is the fifth-largest U.S. steel maker, employing 6,437 workers, according to Chairman and just-retired CEO Keith Busse.

But it goes further than that, Busse says. For every steel worker directly employed, there are three or four jobs created by a network of suppliers. He estimates the total employment base as the result of Steel Dynamics' success at around 25,000.

But since you want to change the discussion, it's called capitalism, survival of the fittest and absorption of the weak.

There's good capitalism and bad capitalism. Plenty of capitalists make money for themselves and their employees without destroying companies through massive debt the way Bain did.

Romney chose a particularly shitty way to make his millions.

it's called capitalism, survival of the fittest and absorption of the weak.

That is Darwinism. Capitalism keeps in mind that you need customers tomorrow as well. As Ford said, he paid his employees enough so they could afford the product they made.

There's good capitalism and bad capitalism. #91 | Posted by rcade

Oh please, happy face capitalism like GM take overs and bad capitalism like Fannie and Freddie?

Romney chose a particularly shitty way to make his millions.
#91 | Posted by rcade

I doubt this will change your mind but is is a reasonable overview of Bain for a source you lefties seam to trust.

You mean like the Clinton economy? Oh no, we can't have that!

#5 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 02:35 PM | Reply |

Danni means the Microsoft, IBM, Apple and countless other PC related jobs- all had nothing to do with Clinton or his tax policies- economy grew in spite of Clinton, not because of him

Rich people don't create jobs and never have but it is fun watching the ignorance around here suggesting such a thing.

#26 | Posted by moneywar at 2012-01-31 03:20 PM | Reply

I know moneywar-- all my best jobs have been provided by the poor- only way to turn this thing around is to turn the US into Haiti.

"Danni means the Microsoft, IBM, Apple and countless other PC related jobs- all had nothing to do with Clinton or his tax policies- economy grew in spite of Clinton, not because of him."

Gee, that's not what Bill Gates says, but hey, what would he know?

"when you tax higher, businesses reinvest profits and hire more people, that increases consumer demand which makes investment worthwhile"-Danni

consumer demand is tied to number of employees? so your business failed because you were understaffed? Danni you truly are one the stupidest people on this planet.

"Danni means the Microsoft, IBM, Apple and countless other PC related jobs- all had nothing to do with Clinton or his tax policies- economy grew in spite of Clinton, not because of him."

Gee, that's not what Bill Gates says, but hey, what would he know?

#97 | Posted by danni at 2012-02-01 03:28 PM | Reply |

Bill Gates credits Clinton with the success of his company? that I didnt know, or is Gates claiming that the popularity of PC's was tied to tax rates- no interest in computing until the taxes reached a certain point- is that your point?

@8
Danni,
I'll gladly go back to Clinton taxes if you will go back to Clinton spending.

Or I should say Gingrich spending. We would have a 200 billion surplus instead of a 1.4 trillion deficit.

Clinton was a centrist, he signed welfare reform, NAFTA, and he raised some taxes and lowered others in compromising with the Republican controlled Congress."

No argument here, I want bi-partisan government again but we can't have that if the GOP sticks with the Norquist pledges against any revenue increases.

#28 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-31 03:22 PM

I HAVE to finish your post on this everytime but I dont mind..the full story is the truth..

blowjob billy was DRAGGED by a gop congress to so all the things that you guys love him for.........

AND you dont REALLY MEAN you want bipartisan govt..NOT IN THE LEAST>.you want dems to be able to do whatever the hell they want and the gop line up to kiss thier asses......'AINT GONNA WORK NO MO NO MO..AINT GONNA WORK NO MO"