Quick Question For Republicans

You say we can't raise taxes on the rich because they are the "job creators". Mitt Romney's tax return that he released said he made over $20 Million and paid 14% in taxes. How many jobs did he create with his fancy "job creator" tax rate? Any? Maybe some accounting jobs in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands where he hides millions to avoid paying taxes... such a patriotic American!
VendettA12 VendettA12
31-35, M
6 Responses Sep 10, 2012

An idiot is as an idiot does.

You are obviously jealous because you have not been able to achieve what he has. Therefore, you, like Obama just want to spread the wealth. That's what is not Patriotic. America was founded and grew by those who took personal responsibility for themselves. The Government dole will never create capital.

If you run around spouting the "spread the wealth" line, then you are a first class moron. Have you noticed that Romney has been running from his 47% comments ever since he made them? But dim-witted conservatives (such as yourself) proudly repeat those idiotic statements. Ya, Retired and disabled veterans don't know anything about taking personal responsibility for themselves.... hahaha. Please keep spouting your idiotic talking points - Obama should be paying you for helping to get him re-elected.

You completely missed my point. You guys go ahead and argue about how many jobs he created / destroyed years ago with Bain. Ask anyone that knows anything about private equity firms, and they'll tell you that their mission is not to create jobs, but to create PROFIT. And I will give him credit, he's a shrewd and extraordinarily selfish person that is very good at making money, but that has nothing to do with creating jobs. Don't know the difference? Just look at the stock market. After the crash, businesses made changes to make themselves more profitable, just look at how much the stock market has increased since Bush left office. But that doesn't equal jobs. It's pretty much weaksauce to bring up Staples and Sports Authority, it's much more relevant to discuss his record while governor of Mass, when that state was 47th in job creation. But in this story I'm talking about 2010, the year that he made 21 million while campaigning. Republicans say that the rich are the job creators. How many jobs did he create in 2010? I thought rich people created jobs with all their riches, so that's why we have to give them massive tax cuts?

If you could make your point as well as Romney can, perhaps you could bring your thoughts to a logical conclusion.

yep troll!

he created a lot of jobs in India

How many jobs did he create? Quite a few. Bain Capital helped a number of companies such as Staples, Sports Authority and more. Now...how many jobs has Barack Obama created since becoming president? Well...there are fewer jobs today than when Obama first took office.

Now...I'm sure you are thinking...well, Obama inherited a mess. It's all Bush's fault. Or any of the other tiring, brainless talking points from the left. He's had 4 years. The economy is at a standstill. Obama wants 4 more years...and has not proposed any change in his direction...of growing government which simply does not work.

I will leave you with something to ponder. Let's say you win the lottery. Suddenly, you are a multi-millionaire and you decide to look to someone to help you invest your money. Who would you choose as your financial planner. Romney, or Obama?

Typical. Your source is from a progressive media outlet. You're only getting a partial picture only.

he forgot Union Wire Rope 2000 jobs lost- source my neighbor he was one of the 2000.

I really got a wonderful laugh at your reply Goodogstay! You are such a Progressive.

First - you apply Alinksy's 1st prinicpal of radicalism..."attempt to trash the other person's credibility" by blasting Rush, Fox News, etc. Why not thrown in Glenn Back and Sean Hannity while you're at it.

Second - the "facts" from the article you site only give a partial picture.

Third - you claim that "Bain Capital purchased profitable companies which employed thousands of American workers, sold off all the companies' assets, laid off all the workers. took huge commissions for themselves, and then declared bankruptcy......
This happened at nearly every company which Bain bought" Simply untrue.

Let's talk job creation first of all...
Bain invested in Staples when it had only one store, and fewer than 200 employees. Bain invested in Sports Authority when it had fewer than ten stores. Unfortunately, there are no public data to say how many people were employed at that time. At the end of 1998, Staples had more than 42,000 employees, Sports Authority had almost 14,000. At the end of ’98, the Gartner Group had almost 3,000, and Steel Dynamics had over 500. So at the beginning of 1999, when Romney left Bain Capital, these four companies alone employed almost 60,000 total employees. Those companies have continued to grow, and by the end of 2011, the following employment stats indicate the following. Staples had about 89,000 employees. Sports Authority is now a private company, but last reported employee numbers in 2006 at 14,300 employees. In addition, Gartner Group had over 4,400 and Steel Dynamics had over 6,000 employees. So, using the most recently available data, these four companies alone employed almost 125,000 total employees. The four companies I list created 60K jobs while Romney was at Bain. And doubled that amount since he left. The 125K jobs created trumps the 6K you list.

Perhaps you don't think it's fair to give Romney credit for jobs gained while he wasn't at Bain. Fair enough...I'll roll it back to 60K. But then you lose KB Toys..acquired by Bain in 2000 (after Romney left for the olympics) which shed the vast majority of those 3500 jobs in 2008 when it declard bankruptcy...LONG after Romeny left.

GS Industries? You haven't even begun to understand this story. Bain invested in this company back in 1993. It was an antiquated steel mill. It had been losing money and shedding jobs for years before Bain invested. At its peak, GS Industries employed over 4500 employees. If they lost 750 on Romney's watch, think of how many were lost before Bain invested. Ultimately, this company, as all of the so called "failures" you list above, declared bankruptcy. This occurred not because of Bain pilfering assets as you suggest, but because market factors. GS Ind. was an inefficient steel mill, and couldn't compete with foreign imports. Even GS Ind's CEO, Mark Essig admitted that to be the reason for their failure. Bain tried to save them, but couldn't. What Bain did do was prolong the inevitable. Ironically, Bain invested in a steel startup called Steel Dynamics. They implemented the newest technologies and have thrived. Today they employ over 6000 employees with an average salary of more than $80K per year. Add that one to the positive side of the ledger.

KB Toys...same deal - failed because of competiion. The retail toy industry is tough business. Toys are no different. Wal-Mart and K-Mart have done more to crush retail toy competition than anything else. BTW - Bain is also an investor in Toys-R-Us - which is successful. Add that one to the ++ jobs ledger.

I can go on, but why bother. The point is, Private Equity firms like Bain help companies get started, or assist companies in trouble. There are wins and there are losses. You're progressive article does not list some of the other failed companies in which Bain invested. But to suggest that Bain is somehow responsible for the failure of these firms is flat out wrong.

@josycd: Union Wire Rope? Really, because the Union Wire Rope plant was shut down in the late 1980s, long before Bain ever invested in Armco's (parent company's) steel plants.

Hey Progressives: repeat after me, the Obama Mantra:

4 more weeks...
4 more weeks...

In 2010 and 2011 Romney's tax returns indicate he made about $34 Million dollars, and he did not pay very much in taxes. He is rich and successful, so he must be one of them 'job creators' that McConnell and ***** keep talking about. So how many jobs did he create in 2010 and 2011? And if he's not "creating jobs", then why does he get to pay so little in taxes again?

This is what I love most about liberals and progressives...let's surround ourselves in lies, half-truths, deceit, spin and attack someone's personal character.

Do you even know how much Romney paid in taxes? Do you know what form of taxes he paid? The percentage that gets tossed about is 14% - most of which are capital gains taxes. It's the same stupid liberal logic that allows progressives to spout off how Warren Buffet pays less income tax than his executive assistant. Which is true because Buffet does not pay himself an income. His earnings come via capital gains. So while Buffet pays less INCOME tax, he still pays a lot more in taxes overall than his admin.

14% probably sounds like Romney "isn't paying his fair share." Because let's face it, that the ONLY thing you liberals can ever say about someone that's become successful.

But here's something else for you libs to chew on...Romney's charitable contributions

Tax year Taxable income Charitable donations Donations as % of income
2010 $21.7 million $2.98 million 13.73%
2011 (est) $20.9 million $4 million 19.14%

Reports have Obozo giving about 1% of his income to charity, and some report has high as 5%. Rich progressives like John Kerry and Al Gore...barely give anything...much less than 1% So...tell me again about who's not paying their fare share and how trickle down economics doesn't work.

What doesn't work is trickle up government - like we have with the current administration. But hey...Obama is very good at spending OUR money on his lavish vacations. Or picking all those losers with his green technology initiatives.

And wasn't Baraft awesome at the debate? Could his *** have been kicked any harder? Guess he's not so swift on details of the issues. And damn...it sure does suck when his speeches are prepped or he can't rely on his teleprompter! And Obummer has two more debates to get ready for. You can psych yourself up and tell yourself he'll do better next time. Not likely though. He proved he wasn't very good at debating Hillary when he ran back in 2008. McCain isn't good at it either, so it wasn't much of a challenge. But Romney is a lot sharper than Obozo.

You can talk smack about Romney all you want. Obama's record sucks, and he has to rely on trashing Romney to distract everyone from the truth...that he's not a good leader for this country. And the majority of the people (read voters) know it too.

The thing I enjoy most about libs and progressives - they accuse conservatives of all the things they actually do. I have not lied, have backed every thing I've stated - and YOU KNOW IT! You can't dignify a response because you have nothing left - other than to bring up something about my personal life.

Yep - I am a tranny. And I'm a conservative because I believe in freedom and the constitution. I don't need the government to grant me any special privledges. Most people don't give a rat's *** about my personal life. But the times I've been ridiculed for crossdressing - it's come from liberals. I've found that the party of tolerance ain't all that tolerant.

This is perfect and what is so much fun about progressives...it's so easy to predict what's coming next. These sorts of discussions almost always follow the same pattern and not necessarily in this order.

The confrontation or challenge. Your data versus my data. Your "Romney destroys jobs" vs. my "Romney creates jobs."

When you are faced with facts during the confrontation, attempts are made to discredit the information. You sarcastically questioned my sources, asking if they were Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. As if somehow, tossing about those names immediately discredits their validity. Alinsky would be proud.

When you can't discredit the data, then come the personal assaults. While you have repeatedly said you could care less about crossdressers, yet you continue to make it an issue. If you didn't care, then why would you spent so much time on my profile, getting to know many of the details about my personal life...my transvestism, the types of clothes I like wearing, the fact that I enjoy getting wet, and even the bit about me writing pantyhose reviews. Yet you maintain that it's Romney that has an issue with it. Me thinks you protestith too much.

After the personal attacks, and all else fails, then come the temper tantrums and ridiculous accusations. You've called me a liar, referring to my "pack of lies." Then you say I haven't backed up anything I've stated, not even once. Well...which is it? A pack of lies, or nothing?

And then there is the whole bit about Romney being a homophobe. Any proof of that? And that he wouldn't approve of me. I thought this thread was about creating jobs. Absolutely ridiculous.

Congratulations GoodDog, you are a graduate of Progressive Obedience School.

charity? seriously? I thought we were talking about taxes. He paid 14%, because its capital gains. And yes that equals not paying a fair share. Tax rates are at historic lows, and the wealth concentration at the very top is at perilous highs. When societies become as stratified as ours is becoming, then the system is not stable. This is like the Gilded Age, all over again. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/10/09/first-gilded-age-yielded-to-progessives-can-todays/

I care not what he (or anyone else) gives to charity or to their church. I care what he gives back to the system that he has raped for such obscene profits.

Why is it that dim witted conservatives continue to try (and fail) to make fun of Obama's name? Is his actual name too difficult? This is a very common occurrence, and I haven't figured it out yet. (Look- it's Mitt Dumney! hee-hee aren't I clever??) Do you see how ******* pathetic juvenile name calling is? It makes me feel weird, like I'm replying to a child.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I couldn't give less of a **** about you being a tranny or how much of a homophobe Mitt is. This is the part where I point out that you still haven't offered a valid response to the questions I raised in regards to how many jobs Mitt has created while he has been enjoying his low tax rate the past two years. The country has lost out on revenue from Mitt that would have been received in past decades. The republican justification for that is to claim that we can't raise taxes on billionaires like Romney, since he's a job creator... well, how many jobs has he created in the past two years? I'll be over here, holding my breath as I anxiously wait for your surefire brilliant response.....

Wrong again. I provided answers and they are valid. Look above. Your original question was about job creation - not job creation the last two years. The man has been campaigning over the last two years - so no one has that answer.

I understand your contempt for conservatism. You believe the rich don't pay their fair share. Remember that slightly less than half the American public doesn't pay federal income tax. Want to boost income tax rates on the wealthy to collect more revenue? Fine. What is the reason? As Obama puts it...fairness. Great - how is "fairness" going to help the economy? How fair is it when half the country is shelling out taxes while the other half isn't. How much more money do you want to make it fair? Under Obama's plan, the projected increase in tax revenue amounts to about $80 billion over a 10 year period. Big Whoop! It's a spit in the bucket when the federal gov't. is running trillion dollar annual deficits.

Romney is a millionaire, not a billionaire - but that's just a minor point. Obama want to raise the tax rate on individuals earning $250K per year or more. Many of those are small business owners. And who employs the most workers in the US? Why small business of course.

Only a bunch of complete economic idiots would propose tax increases during a stagnant economy or recession. Unless of course, your objective is to drive this country off the fiscal cliff of course, then raising taxes during a recession is brilliant.

So indeed - go for it. Raise taxes when it's completely foolish economically - because it's "fair."

Honestly - in four more weeks we will know the answer to the question everyone is really wondering. Hint...Obama is losing in the polls now.

Is reading comprehension not one of your strengths? I have only talked about the years that Mitt has released his returns, which means the last couple years. Doesn't matter that he's campaigning, he still fits the repubs definition of a job creator, so as the standard bearer ofg your silly party, I want to know how many jobs he's creating with his privileged capital gains tax rate. I understand why you don't want to address the subject, since it completely destroys your justifications.

The Bush tax cuts have blown a massive hole in our deficit. own up to it. It's not a drop in the bucket. Remember budget surpluses under Clinton? look at the path of our deficit since your party's leader turned those surpluses into massive deficits.

Once again I will be anxiously waiting to hear and dispel your simple talking points.

As for Romney being a millionaire instead of a billionaire, no one knows, because his financial disclosures are all of the "greater than" variety... such as he owns assets over here greater than $100 Million... who knows what the totals are

ROFLMAO!!!!

I cannot believe you went there! Actually I can. No one in the progressive movement will ever stretch the boundaries of an IQ test. You question my reading comprehension? You lack far too much education and critical thinking skills. I can whoop you in this little debate with half my brain tied behind my back.

Now, my little low sloping foreheaded progressive...where should I begin?

Well...I think it's safe to say we can agree to disagree on the job creation element. Let me burst your other bubbles...

Let's start with the Bush tax cuts. Afterall, no argument with a progressive is ever really complete without a "let's blame Bush" campaign. I guess we should call your "Bushers"

Here's a question for you...in what year did the USA take in the most tax revenue in history? Hint: it was during the Bush tax cuts!!! 2007. The 03 Bush tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

The position that progressives take that the Bush tax cuts were the cause of the massive budget deficits is the biggest myth around. Two wars and massive entitlement spending caused the deficits under Bush. By the way, democrats took control of the house and senate in '06, and THAT is precisely when the economy to began to tank.

With respect to taxes...and I'll write this so that even you can understand...there is a different between tax rates and tax revenue. Tax revenue is what's needed to cover the spending of our gov't. Tax rates on the other hand, are the vehicles that help us determine how much to pay. The thing about tax rates...they can impact human behavior. For example, when one lowers the capital gains taxes, more people invest in the stock market. When more people invest, the economy grows. And when the economy grows, tax revenue increases. Plain and simple economics.

Now, what do progressives want to do? Increase tax rates during a stagnant or even recessive economy. There is little to no economic growth, so therefore, the country has lost tax revenue. But as we learned in Tax Rate 101, changing tax rates impacts behavior. Add a tax burden to small businesses (yes - little business generating $250K or more) and they won't hire as many people, they won't invest in as much capital...thus further stagnating growth, and thus reducing tax revenue.

I do remember those surpluses during the Clinton administration - and you have totally stepped in it. However, you are a progressive. Now here is a question for you. Who is responsible for creating the budget? Hint: it ain't the president. Congress creates the budget. The president merely signs off on it. Clinton takes credit for the budget when it was a republican house and republican senate that produced the budget. But I guess you missed that day in your high school US government class. You simply have no clue what you are talking about. The surpluses were created under a republican congress and were dramatically eroded after democrats took control of the house and senate.

I'm sure you want to blame the collapse of the housing market and the devastation to the economy on "those evil, greedy, Wall Street bankers." But I'll bet you don't know a lick about the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) or what redlining is, how it started (during the Carter Administration thanks to ACORN), and then was given additional teeth by Clinton, who circumvented congress and leveraged the treasury department coercing the banking industry into making bad loans. Yes, it's so much easier for the gov't to blame those evil bankers, when it was gov't. that initiated the problem and then threw gasoline on the fire by insuring those bad mortgages thru Fanniemae and Freddiemac, who in turn sold the bad mortgages bundled as MBS (mortage back securities) or "derivatives" if you want to get all fancy about it. The gov't. has it's finger prints all over creating the financial crisis this country is in. And the solution progressives come up with? More government!!

Einstein's definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.

Why don't we shift the conversation away from the past (Bush, Clinton, etc.) and the future (Romney) and let's talk about the present - Obama.

First, let me ask you a serious question Vendetta12. Are you a socialist? It is your right to be a socialist if you believe in the ideology. Do you believe in redistribution of wealth? What if it's YOUR wealth? Do you believe this country should redistribute your wealth?

Obama is a socialist. He was a card carrying member of the New Party - which is considered to be a radical socialist party. He joined on Jan. 11, 1996.

I'm guessing you are just like many other progressives...you are OK with the fact that the gov't is hooked on OPM (other people's money). The reason you're ok with it, is the same reason the gov't is ok with it. It's not your money the gov't is wasting. Here's food for thought...Obama is a socialist, anti-imperialist and a globalist. So...he wants to sock it to the rich in this country, there is little doubt. But where do you think that money will get redistributed? Here in the US? Well...a global socialist will find other purposes for that money, besides distributing it in the US. It will be distributed around the world...from the rich to the poor. Here's the catcher...even the poor people in the US, are rich by world standards. So, whether you are rich or you are poor, as long as you are an American, Obama will want to come after your money too.

And how about Fast and Furious? Have you heard of it? I knew about it for more than a year after it was finally discussed in the main stream media. How do you like the fact that Obama is helping cover up a "botched gun running scheme" that led to the death of a US border agent and about 200 Mexican nationals? The gun running scheme is really nothing more than an attempt to repeal the 2nd amendment.

How do you like Obama's position on foreign policy? Gotta love the Arab Spring and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. The administration claims the attack on the US Embassy in Syria was "spontaneous" resulting from an insensitive movie run on YouTube.

How about the billions spent on "green energy" losers like Solyndra.

Or the jobs that could have been created if the Keystone Pipeline wasn't blocked by gov't. And those oil rigs in the gulf of Mexico that are now producing oil for PertoBra (Brazilian company), instead of the US. And that George Soros is a major shareholder in PetroBra, and that the US gave PertoBra $2 Billion is seed money?

Then you have to love that $787 billion stimulous bill, right? That's created roughly 0 net new jobs. Fortunately, the regime just announced that the unemployment rate just dropped to 7.8% After months and months of zero growth (it takes about 185,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with college grads and others entering the job market for the first time) we suddenly spike to more than 800K jobs! This on the heals of Romney spanking Obama in the debates. Wow...amazing fabrication...errr...I mean accomplishment.

The list goes on and on. Anything you come up with, I can and will shoot down with facts and data.

But here's the best part. Obama is in trouble. His administration knows it, and so does most of the American public. Obama can't run on his record. If he could, he wouldn't be running such a smear campaign against Romney. And all of your points above are in true progressive form, mere attempts to trash Romney (or Bush or insert the name of republican).

Even the poll data oversampled with democrats are indicating Obama is in trouble. You're too young to remember it sonny, but It's Jimmy Carter vs. Ronald Regan all over again. History is not on the side of the democrats for this election. And world history is not on the side of progressives.

And with that, I will sign off of here. I've made my points. If this were a boxing match, the refs would have stopped the fight long ago, declared me the victor, and send your carcass to the morgue.

< Anything you come up with, I can and will shoot down with facts and data. ...> talk about ROFLMAO! Someone flush the toilet, that post is so full of **** I can't hardly breath around here.

In this story and in the comments I have repeatedly focused on asking about how many jobs Mitt has created in the past two years, thank you for acknowledging your utter failure to grasp that point.

You are all over the map in that post, I have to hand it to you, you managed to work in Soros, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, wealth redistribution, and also the latest 'scandal' where apparently Obama is in control of the BLS. If Obama is in charge of the jobs numbers, why did he 'allow' the unemployment rate to be so high for his entire term? Couldn't he just have them say unemployment has been at 6% the whole time? lolz. You fotgot to bring up his birth certificate, and also forgot to bring up Ayers and Wright, maybe you should make up for that in the next post.

Your going to lecture me on how the CRA and redlining caused the housing crash? Pathetic. I've worked in mortgage lending since 2000, so your assertion that the big bad government 'coerced' banks into making garbage loans is pure fantasy.

You subscribe to the right wing myth that lower taxes = more jobs. I didn't bring up Clinton to give him credit for determing the budget in the 90's, because even simpletons such as yourself know that budgets are passed thru the house. The 90's are relevant, though because Obama's 'radical' wealth redistribution tax hikes are actually a sensible return to tax rates in the 90's. Were we a socialistic nation in the 90's when the rich paid 39% instead of 35%? pathetic job performance under Bush tax rates vs exploding economy under higher tax rates in the Clinyon years...Obama extended the Bush tax rates, and has extended his anemic job growth. higher taxes encourage investment, but lower taxes encourages speculation, which leads to bubbles in the economy, especially since Phil Gramm's legislation.

I am not going to spend too much time refuting every ridiculous claim in your last post. Instead of rambling on for an hour, how about you just present one or two of your 'best' points that you want me to address?

14 More Responses

Though I'm not a republican, what I'm wondering about is what he's so scared of that's contained in the other ten years of taxes that he won't release. If a platform is ba<x>sed on lies as his is, then most of the time is spent on hiding the truth from others and yet he still has time to slam Obama on every issue that he knows nothing about. <br />
<br />
Jobs? Him? He could care less about anything that isn't himself!

Obama didn't look so good in the debates. His appeal as "eye candy" on "The View" just didn't bear fruit.