Tired of hearing those annoying BP commercials where they tell you how great their toxic soup in the Gulf of Mexico is? Me too. Someone finally spoofed their happy-go-lucky ads with one that is entirely more accurate. Check it out:
Archive for June, 2012
Billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson is taking the plunge into the general election with a $10 million donation into the Restore Our Future Super PAC that is run by Mitt Romney. Adelson is the latest in a string of millionaires and billionaires giving generously to the Romney Super PAC. What do they expect in return for these massive donations?
Like the old saying goes — follow the money. Billionaire tycoons and Wall Street have a preferred candidate in this election. The financial sector has donated nearly $40 million to Romney vs. $5 million to Obama. They’re expecting Romney to follow through on his campaign promise to repeal the financial reforms put in place by Obama. It also doesn’t hurt that Romney’s policies advocate a 20 percent tax cut largely targeted at the wealthiest Americans, including Romney himself who would save $5 million a year.
Who’s going to pay for that tax cut windfall for the wealthy? The poor, the sick, the elderly, the unemployed. It’s immoral, but money always has its ways of corrupting people. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, corruption is a whole lot easier business.
There are a lot of differences between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but this one really stands out (click the image to resize):
What you do with your talents says a lot about who you are as a person. There’s nothing wrong with going into business. Indeed, creating a small business from the ground up is not only admirable, challenging and risky, it also provides jobs for people. But when you make money by destroying companies, jobs and communities, it is hard to make the case that you have the skill set to make a good president.
Mayors, governors and Congressmen are often condemned for supporting policies that personally benefit themselves. These conflict of interests in policy will often lead to electoral defeat and possibly criminal prosecution for corruption. It’s very rare that a president is leveled with that kind of criticism, even though they are in charge of implementing and executing the nation’s laws.
As it turns out, Mitt Romney is in one of those few instances where a president or presidential candidate is pushing for policies that would lead to personal enrichment. An analysis reported by the Detroit Free Press shows that Mitt Romney would save an astonishing $5 million if his tax policies were implemented instead of President Obama’s:
Obama’s plan would hit couples making more than $250,000 per year from several directions, raising their tax rate, dunning them more for investment income, and limiting their tax deductions. People like Romney with earnings from private equity management would lose a big tax break. And Obama would establish a rule, named after billionaire Warren Buffett, to ensure that households taking in more than $1 million a year pay at least 30 percent in taxes.
It gets a lot worse. Romney’s tax plan calls for cutting everyone’s tax rate by 20 percent. While that may seem fair on the surface, the practical application means that the top 1% will have a much more sizable cut than the rest of taxpayers. The wealthy would see their rates fall from 35 percent to 28 percent under Romney. Meanwhile, the lowest tax bracket would only fall from 10 percent to 8 percent. That might mean a few hundred extra dollars for a person near poverty, but the corporate CEO on Wall Street will literally save millions — not to mention the enormous amounts of debt it would take to pay for these tax cuts that benefit mainly the super rich.