When you have the facts behind you, you don't need gimmicky slogans like "Yes We Can" and "Forward" and you don't need to run TV ads 24 hours a day. If the most important quote people can take away from your debate is "horses and bayonets", I would consider that a failure. Romney donated almost 30% of his income to charity last year. Obama has historically given 1% and Biden even less. We know that 10% went to the Mormon Church in the form of tithes, but that still leaves 20% more that was given to other charities. http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/21/t...ated-29-percent-of-income-to-charity-in-2011/
You do realize I said "respected source" yes? The daily collar was started by a past Cheney aide. No brownie points for you. I'll be right back with a summation of where romneys charity goes. A point you failed to address. In 2010, Mitt Romney took $3 million in charitable deductions on his tax return, against adjusted gross income of $22 million. $1.5 million was a direct cash donation to the LDS Church $1.5 million was a stock donation to the Romney's private foundation, which is called the Tyler Foundation. The Tyler Foundation, in turn, gave away $647,500 in 2010, of which $145,000 went to the church. (The Tyler Foundation is controlled by the Romneys, so any money the Tyler Foundation gives away is effectively money the Romneys are giving away) In 2010, therefore, Romney gave third parties (other than his foundation) a total of $2.1 million, with a total of $1.7 million going to the church. 78% of Romney's donations in 2010, therefore, went to the church. In 2009, meanwhile, Romney's private foundation gave away a total of $631,000. This was comprised of four gifts: The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints ($600,000) My Sister's Keeper ($5,000) The Becket Fund ($25,000) Mass General Hospital Cancer Center ($1,000) In 2009, therefore, 95% of the money Romney's foundation gave away went to the church. (Interestingly, the Becket Fund, the second-largest recipient of Romney's donations in 2009, is also a religious organization. It promotes "religious liberty.") Combining the 2009 and 2010 gifts that we know about, the Romneys gave away a total of $2.8 million to third parties (other than the Romney foundation) in 2009 and 2010. Of this, $2.2 million, or 80%, went to the church.
So let me get this straight, you are criticizing the man for giving away millions in charity when Obama/Biden barely give away their gas money to charity? lol! OK, let's please get back to the electronic voting machines quickly because this conversation is going nowhere.
I'd refer to the thread where this very thing was discussed already but I'm at work ATM and quite frankly..I don't give a fuck about Romney or his charitable giving. Love how you think he shits roses tho. Quite entertaining really.
Nope, I just think he's the best qualified person for President out of the two candidates. Which is a lot different than Democrats who treat Obama like he's the second coming of Jesus Christ. For someone who yells out "fair share" every two seconds Obama sure is stingy with his money. Hell, I give more money out than Biden every year and I don't make nearly the amount of money he does.
Hold on why do you think he's more qualified. If you dont like Obama and want him out of office but you think Romney is more qualifued? Wouldnt the person with actual Presidential experience be more qualified?
No, because if that were the case Obama wouldn't have become President in 2008. He was a Senator for 3 years before becoming President. The reason I say Romney is more qualified is based on the issues our country is facing. I think his strategy to create more jobs and boost incomes for middle class families is better than Obama's.
Whats his plan again? Btw I dont care how much experience you have as senator or governor being President of the US definitely different and nothing really prepares you for it rxcept maybe already being president
A summary of romneys 5 point plan according the The All Knowing Alialinoakoko: 1 point for you (maybe) 4 points for Romney. Oh, wait.. There's not enough time to explain the maths. My bad.
Here's my issue James. Anyone who has built a considerable amount of his fortune on breaking companies up and shipping jobs overseas has a really poor track record as far as job creation in the US. The plan sounds really good, but I doubt he'll keep his promise.
That is the biggest misconception. A private equity invests in failing companies to try to turn them around. So these companies would be laying off everyone if someone like Bain Capital did not come to save the company. They also have started some of the biggest companies in the country. I've posted this list a few times, but it's an impressive list: AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel. I would imagine that these companies have created a few jobs...
Venture capital firms do not 'save' companies. They provide shareholder value, i.e. giving investors the biggest bang for their buck, whether that means restructuring or firing everyone and engaging in asset-stripping. They do not buy firms that are 'failing', they buy firms where they identify a profiteering opportunity. They buy them if they're in trouble, on the verge of bankruptcy, as well as successful but undervalued on the market. If they identify a chance for profit, in they go.
So you say that "buying a company in trouble that was successful but undervalued" is not saving the company? I would say that is the very definition of saving them. If they do not invest, then everybody loses their jobs. They take a huge risk because the company may still fail, so of course they are rewarded if the company turns around and is a success. If your friend's business is failing, but you see a great opportunity and give him $100,000. Is it bad that you make $200,000 when his business turns around and is booming?
If a company is successful, I fail to see how purchasing it helps anything. It is simply throwing money at a firm. The capitalist economic system depends on endlessly bidding prices of assets upward, regardless of the actual utility of the move. Venture capital firms buy assets at a low price simply to charge more for them, even when it's not necessary. They do this for successful companies without restructuring them as well as for those in trouble. And if you give someone needed capital to keep their business going, I don't see how that justifies such an exorbitant return. Excessive rents are part of what pushes the capitalist economy into perpetual crisis.
If you have a successful company, everyone is going to want to purchase it. That's why you have companies like Google & Microsoft who tried to acquire Facebook before it went public. Acquisitions are supposed to add value to your company, sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. But in the case of private equity firms, they are either starting a company or saving a failing company. This is a completely different process than a company buying another company. Private equity firms are investing your money in hopes to get a return when the company turns around or does well. They are taking a huge risk with these businesses and everyone is rewarded when they are successful. Most people are quick to say "well the companies they invested in laid people off". Yes, but you need to understand that everyone would have been laid off if they hadn't invested. So as an example, the private equity firm says we'll give you $20 million but you need to lay off 5% of your staff. So is having 50 people laid off better than the full 1000 employees losing their job?
I don't think you understand how Bain capital made the majority of its wealth as a private equity firm, James. Buying a struggling company, saddling it with tens of millions in debt, forcing that company to pay your exorbitant eight figure consulting fee, then watching that company forced to shed labor or relocate its operations overseas to remain profitable isn't what most Americans would call a successful job creator. Maximizing sharehoder value was Bain's #1 mission statement, creating jobs was entirely incidental. AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel. Bain didn't start Burger King, Toys R Us, Warner Music Group, The Weather Channel, Domino's Pizza or DUnkin DOnuts. Hell I doubt they helped establish any of those companies, except Staples. Stepping in as a principal investor when a company is struggling doesn't mean 'you built that'.:smt039
No, I'm not sure you know how Bain works. They will either invest or acquire the company. They are equity investments, not debt investments. Most of the companies are looking to raise funds or sell because they are already in a huge amount of debt. The companies in that list were acquisitions of Bain Capital and I would say they are doing pretty well today as a result of the extra capital. What you also fail to realize is that maximizing shareholder value is a good thing. So many people with 401K's or other retirement funds might be working that work with Bain Capital got a great return on investment.
Yeah maximizing shareholder value is good if you own stock in a company, but it's not necessarily good for the real economy. That's why the Dow Jones topping over 13,000 was called a jobless recovery, because although stock prices rebounded under Obama which was great for Wall Street, the jobs didn't follow along. Per share value has little to do with actual jobs in today's economy.
It is twofold- shareholder value is great for owners of stock. But it is good for the real economy because these companies create jobs and competition. Stock prices can increase as the company starts to operate more efficiently. But job growth will only happen when spending increases on the other side. To do this, people need more money in their paychecks every month. This is why Romney advocates lowering marginal tax rates 20%.
