MARCELL DAREUS POWER

"free trade and outsourcing all manufacturing in detroit to mexico and china, then ill know you are serious. when you say the drug war should end and is the new jim crow, then ill know you are serious. when you talk about capitalist encirclement/anti-union encirclement, then ill know you are serious. when you talk about the 67 riots and the history of the cultural south in michigan, then ill know you are serious..." --- me mdp did you read what i said?

because private sector debt takes money from workers, public debt takes from rich people, or at least in theory it should, if you have a progressive tax system, which we dont...

i believe he paid 13.5% in 010... if you also count tax subsidies for that fiscal year, (tax subsidies are not income), that number is even lower... say you get 100$ from business a, and that is your capital gains for that year, part of those capital gains are not his, but belong to tax payers, ie, free money. hypothetically, 20$ of that could be totally free. hes only paying 13% on his 80$ from capital and labor, the other 20% doesnt matter and wouldnt exist if it werent for capital injections from govt. ( essentially the govt is taxing their own invetment, while giving free money to mitt. ) 13% on 80$, plus the extra free money left over after the tax on that free 20$. its the same thing as me giving you a million dollars and then when you make money off that, you only pay 13%... who cares, the extra is free money that you didnt earn. you cant get free capital gains, and then say im being taxed on my money, its not his money. this is why you have to count the free gains against his tax rate... agian, its even lower if you count tax subsidies.

Yes, when bain injects capital, they want to maximize profits. so company x has failed for whatever reason, bad management, better competition, bad investments, risky actions, w/e it may be. keep in mind this happens with the wealth labor creates and sustains. what happens is bain will offer new capital with contractual obligations that tear up old ones. so get rid of unions, streamline and create an environmnet favorable for bain profits and profits for company x and their capital owners. in other words, labor suffers when company x fails or when a investment firm like bain comes in. many times a firm like bain capital will leverage that company out and insure the risks. creating a win win for capital owners and shareholders while many laborers get fired when the bottom falls out. its the last resort to gain a buck when you know the game is over. it would be one thing if the company was democratically owned and then agreed to this or were risky themselves or whatever. but here labor is subject to the whim of capital, even though they created the vast majority of property. its called alienation from surplus value. a key property loss in capitalism. this just becomes exacerbated to a comical level and immoral level when corporations and investment firms get tax subsidies from the tax payer. so again, company x is in bankruptcy, ( through the fault of capital decisions, not workers), gets tax payer loans indirectly from the government( ie bain capital), and then either makes workers pay the price for their risk, or they defualt all together and take the parachute from companies like aig or the govt. keep in mind this insurance is not applicable to workers and what they created, which was lost by shareholders and capital owners. student loans work the same way, where investment firms are insured through the tax payer if that person defaults. many times that person will pay half their loan plus interest before they default, and the govt will cover the rest plus 20%, (120%)... not to mention grandparents and parents co-sign, so they even go after co-signers before they default, and then take the rest through govt protection. its a situation where riskier loans are more profitable, becaue its a guarantee the govt will bail that investment firm out. again, a win win... this is why subprime was so profitable, rates could rise and rise and all the time, they were rooting for default, because the govt would back up all risk, creating incentive to raise interest rates to ungodly levels. hey, its free money! again, this is not a democratic/republic of govt. the doctrine here is to protect corporations. this is why the auto bailout was different, they kept chrysler and gm from cutting and running after the bailout, ie cover the loss plus some profits from the tax payer and start a new plant in china/mexico. worker friendly and business friendly are different and it is zero-sum from a structural view. paul farmer in his book pathologies of power talks about this. great read!

you see there is this thing called a social conservative... ie racist...

socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us workers... :wallbash: :wallbash:

oh jesus christ...lol

because one is exploitative and slavery, the other is freedom and autonomy... but hey, try not to think...

when you blame the right for free trade and outsourcing all manufacturing in detroit to mexico and china, then ill know you are serious. when you say the drug should end and is the new jim crow, then ill know you are serious. when you talk about capitalist encirclement/anti-union encirclement, then ill know you are serious. when you talk about the 67 riots and the history of the cultural south in michigan, then ill know you are serious... that whole constitution thing sucks huh?

rasmussen only counts likely voters, ie, if your white and rich, you are likely to vote. if you are poor and black, you will not vote...

which was the right thing to do, because although its not a purely owned state enterprise like the post office now, it forced the corporation to keep workers with the bailout instead of cutting an running... you see, most of the time there is a bailout for capital, ie banks, investors, etc. the auto bailout was for workers primarily. to big to fail happens because of government intervention created by lobbying from the big business sector. this is why romney was against the auto bailout, it was worker friendly. the auto bailout was a great example of democratic socialism, similar to europe. you see, when bailouts occur for hyper corporate structures, the right loves it... but when protection occurs for workers, thats socialism... lol dont like getting called out on your bs?

So we didnt install the shah or saddam?

so if company x takes losses, does labor get bailed out or do they lose their job? so much for risk takers...lol what a load of bs. tax subsidies for capital, but not labor. again, hypocrisy. as far as investment, if company x is struggling and they get capital infusion, those profits are not taxed or at a very low rate( especially when you consider subsidies). where as labor gets taxed at a higher rate, and they get no bail out for losses, they just get fired. one person brings his body and mind, the other bring cash or tools, yet we have different rules for different classes.

thats for capital gains, unfortunately this tax write off doesn’t apply to labor…who helps create any profit. So if company x loses profit, capital gets bailed out by the govt but labor gets !@#$ed… You see in the “ real world” this is called hypocrisy… lol which helped bain capital, lol This is incredible logic. So if a person gets all his money from capital gains, ie from his initial investment of a corporation, and he owns that corporation, then he pays zero taxes, because the profit is viewed as part of a corporation and not a person, ahhh…. But if a corporation wants to lobby, it’s a person… So for taxes, im not a person and I don’t pay taxes For lobbying, I am a person and can bribe people…- ironically to not be called a person so I don’t pay taxes… Classic… you know why? because all of them are in poverty or close to poverty... this is the equivalent of going up to a starving person and taking half his pizza and then going up to the owner of pizza hut and giving him that pizza from the starving person...

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/12/nation/la-na-bain-subsidies-20120113 "Bain Capital began looking at investing in the steel start-up in late 1993. At the time, Steel Dynamics was weighing where to locate its first plant, based in part on which region offered the best tax incentives. In June 1994, Bain put $18.2 million into Steel Dynamics, making it the largest domestic equity holder. It sold its stake five years later for $104 million, a return of more than $85 million. As Bain made its investment, the state and county pledged $37 million in subsidies and grants for the $385-million plant project. The county also levied a new income tax to finance infrastructure improvements to benefit the steel mill over the heated objections of some county residents. "I'm very pro-business, but I'm not pro-business-welfare," said DeKalb County resident Suzanne Beaman, 58, who fought the incentives. Steel Dynamics "would have done fine without our tax dollars, I have no doubt." Another steel company in which Bain invested, GS Industries, went bankrupt in 2001, causing more than 700 workers to lose their jobs, health insurance and a part of their pensions. Before going under, the company paid large dividends to Bain partners and expanded its Kansas City plant with the help of tax subsidies. It also sought a $50-million federal loan guarantee."

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460519/major-corporations-no-taxes-four-year/?mobile=nc

you see, when you spend, and continue to cut taxes to 1930 levels, you create a deficit... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg yeah the real world, when i take a loss, i dont get that... lol what a joke... so basically if a corporation takes losses compared to whatever metric, they get free money. WOW! you need to see what tax subsidies romney received vs his income tax rate of 14%... its like me paying 20% in taxes but then the govt cuts a check covering that loss.

if you count the amount of tax subsidies bain capital received, then romney probably paid zero. maybe 1%... lol hell ge got 18.9 in tax subsidies. not only did they not pay taxes, they took your tax dollars...lol isnt it great! a poor person cleaning **** pays roughly 20% a billionaire pays zero! so i guess supply side economics means rich people dont pay taxes... in other words, go !@#$ yourself poor people!

its called corporatism, not democratic/republic govt.... you see its not govt, its corporations using govt against the people....

ironically, ge doesnt pay taxes, and neither does mitt romney. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/notax2012.pdf only poor people should pay taxes...

corp or tanney will make the ps

like everything, would go 5 cbs, and 8 dlineman..

Per capita money income in past 12 months (2010 dollars) 2006-2010 -texas $24,870 $27,334 if this is the avg, then the median is even lower...

thats household income... meaning all people in the house, not an individual job... way to not tell the truth. again, its about 20 or close to it, or in other words, pathetic... texas also leads the nation in lower wage jobs.