Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 10:46 PM Aug 2012

Mitt Romney: Big Business 'Doing Fine' In Most Places

Mitt Romney: Big Business 'Doing Fine' In Most Places
By Sam Stein

<...>

Appearing at The Lafayette Club in Minnetonka Beach, the Republican presidential candidate offered the following remarks, per the pool report.

I'm going to champion small business. We've got to make it easier for small businesses. Big business is doing fine in many places -– they get the loans they need, they can deal with all the regulation. They know how to find ways to get through the tax code, save money by putting various things in the places where there are low tax havens around the world for their businesses. But small business is getting crushed.

Romney's right, of course. Big business is "doing fine" in many places. Corporate profits are high. The stock market has recovered from the recession. The biggest banks are bigger than they were prior to the 2008 crash.

But the phrase sticks out nonetheless. After all, it was what President Barack Obama used in his much-maligned take about the state of the private sector. And while the private sector is certainly a far bigger economic scope than big business, one has to imagine that the Republican National Committee would have had a field day if the president had made a similar utterance.

Then there is Romney's comment about the use of "tax havens" to save money. This, too, is true. It's something that both he and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), have said they want to eliminate to make their tax cuts deficit-neutral. But for someone who used offshore accounts (Romney says he did not lower his tax bill through these accounts) and whose company did so as well, it comes off as ironic.

"Must be a joke," jested Obama campaign spokesman Danny Kanner, in a tweet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/23/mitt-romney-big-business-doing-fine_n_1826597.html


Gawker Posts 950 Pages Of Bain Documents (updated 2x)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021186310

“If challenged in court, Bain would lose."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021189869

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

ChoppinBroccoli

(3,784 posts)
1. Most. Inept. Campaign. Ever.
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 10:54 PM
Aug 2012

Way to derail one of your billion-dollar Super PAC's ad campaigns, Mitt.

Mitt Rmoney: the gift to the Democratic Party that keeps on giving.

CabCurious

(954 posts)
4. He is absolutely right about that. Was he drunk and accidentally being honest?
Thu Aug 23, 2012, 11:14 PM
Aug 2012

* Record corporate profits & Wall Street values.
* They sit on $3.6 trillion in cash.
* More millionaires and billionaires every year.
* Lowest real tax rates on the rich since 1928.

CORPORATE PROFITS


WAGES AS PERCENTAGE OF THE ECONOMY

aint_no_life_nowhere

(21,925 posts)
6. I'm sure the GOP talking heads tomorrow will spin romney's statement as different from O'bama's
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 12:13 AM
Aug 2012

Right now they're trying to come up with a spin that's disgusting enough to bear the Republican label.

Trillo

(9,154 posts)
7. "small business" is one of those code words that means something else.
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 01:27 AM
Aug 2012

There were some scandals over the last couple of decades with the SBA, something about "small business"es that got favorable loans were not so small, but were in fact rather large corporations.

Undoubtedly Romney would put his own personal spin on the loan programs, and what he means by reduce "red tape" but I'd guess screaming "small biz" is in fact a coded message that means something quite different than helping sole proprietors, mom & pops who have one or two employees.

 

mick063

(2,424 posts)
8. The "job creators" have an alternate investment path.
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 01:56 AM
Aug 2012

Whenever they throw a tantrum because government legislation or union bargaining negations don't go their way, they can simply invest in hedge funds.

A nice avenue to punish the working class when they misbehave. Almost as fun as gambling in Vegas as well. Seven hundred trillion is the latest notional value i have seen. Meanwhile, the government is a relatively small (compared to hedge funds) 14 trillion in debt and "entitlements" must die because of it.

The Capital strike is a highly effective tool when unregulated derivatives can be invested in via unmonitored e-mail. The "job creators" can find an easy means to invest in "no jobs" instead.

This explains the record profits with little job growth. It is all very simple. The "job creators" are not investing in jobs. Of course the "dumber than a box of rocks" press is just as fooled as the typical American citizen. The press even came up with a slick new moniker. They called it a "jobless recovery".

Because the government does not invest in derivatives, their funds are almost always providing job creation. But the "job creators" hate this as well. It makes their capital strike much less effective and they don't want to be taxed to pay for job creation anyway. Thats right. Not only do the "job creators" not want to create jobs with their own money, but they don't want to be taxed by the government to create jobs either. Especially when that tax money can be used as an incentive to bribe them in to creating jobs. Of course the GOP puts a slick description to it. They call it an "incentive" to "lure" business.

Local governments "lure" Walmart with new streets and street lamps. Throw in a tax break as well. Mom and Pop stores aren't big enough to lure. They have to pay full price. On a state level, "incentives" are used to "lure" business from other states. It quickly becomes an "arms race" between several states and in the end, all states are losers because all of them have provided discounts to "lure" business in. On the Federal level it is similar, except that big business must be "lured" back home from foreign countries or "lured" from the much more entertaining hedge funds.


Then there are the over producers. They need to be paid not to produce. Corporate farms typically enjoy this subsidy. We certainly can't have them invest in something else that might "lure" them away from farming an overproduced crop. We must pay them to keep them right here. Of course you can thank your local Congressman for his influence in "keeping them here" as well. Yes....he did it by giving them "incentives".

In unison these politicians tell us that we will "grow our way" out of recession and the best way to do it is with "incentives"

Incentives are actually middle class money. The 30% tax rate that we get deducted from our salary. Good lord....the "job creators" certainly can't pay that much. They will lose their "incentive" and they will never be able to "grow" us out of this mess.

CabCurious

(954 posts)
10. Bingo. Today's "job creators" are sitting on $3.6 trillion in cash
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 08:59 AM
Aug 2012

It isn't like the old days where big money went into manufacturing and investments in industry.

Today's big money treats companies like commodities to short.

Bandit

(21,475 posts)
11. putting various things in the places where there are low tax havens around the world
Fri Aug 24, 2012, 09:13 AM
Aug 2012

Seems he is suggesting they avoid paying American taxes.. How patriotic of him....Shows he has great love for this country...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Mitt Romney: Big Business...