Quote:
Originally Posted by askmrjesus
Romney started Bain, with two other guys. I don't know exactly how many Cayman based entities they had back when he was in charge, but I'd be willing to bet it was more than a few.
The point is, Romney is not going to turn his back on all his business buddies if elected. The loop holes will get bigger, not smaller.
There is a lot of talk in Republican circles about entitlements for the "poor". Welfare, food stamps, Social Security, yadda, yadda, yadda. Yet the Republicans don't seem to have any aversion to Corporate Welfare in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and loop holes. So again, the idea of "entitlements" for the rich are OK, but not for the poor. They want it both ways, and the hypocrisy is staggering.
|
There is a lot of talk about entitlements for a few reasons. One is because because entitlements make up the majority of government spending. Another is because most other programs need action by the government to spend more money while entitlements demand more money all on their own. The amount of money entitlements will require is only going to see massive increases without significant changes.
As far as subsidies, tax breaks, and loop holes for corporations we still have one of the highest marginal corporate tax rates in the world and, depending on who is doing the study, we have one of the highest effective corporate tax rates in the world as well. For all the gnashing of teeth about corporations keeping foreign profits overseas to avoid taxes, we are also one of the few countries in the world that taxes foreign profits at all. Then consider that, despite all that corporate welfare, corporations are still moving HQs and operations overseas. How much sense does it make to further increase the penalty of having more operations than are absolutely necessary based in the US?
Quote:
Originally Posted by askmrjesus
That's true. Then again, a lot of those companies (especially those in the financial industry) wouldn't be so weak if adequate regulations were in place, to prevent them from making deals that should have never been made. Deals that were focused on short term gains for wealthy investors, with ZERO concern for the less wealthy, and the impact made on the economic security of the country as a whole.
JC
|
Regulations were removed specifically to increase the number of mortgages that were approved since the government (comprised of administrations and legislators from both sides of the isle over a long period of time) believed that home ownership was a "good" thing. They were mistaken. Regardless, it shouldn't have taken regulations to keep financial institutions from making loans to people who were unlikely to be able to repay them. Regulations or not when the result of a company's decisions is it will go bankrupt without government intervention that is flat out shitty management and is a detriment to investors, wealthy or otherwise.