s5
- 8 comments
- 1 likes given
- 9 likes received
Bio not provided
"But a visionary is an implementer of visions, not an acquirer of dollars."
Those dollars sure do help with implementation, though. And if an acquisition earns you enough dollars to implement your next vision with all your own resources and plenty of lessons learned, then, sounds like a win to me.
@PaulEmekaEze Yes, I truly believe that Bill Gates has entirely different motivations than Mitt Romney. They are different people with different accomplishments, all of which are a matter of public record.
Interestingly, it was back when I had a much more shallow understanding of Romney as a person that I admired him. From a distance, he looked to be a politician who genuinely understood and cared about effective public policy. Even as an Obama supporter, I thought it would be fine if Romney were to win. Not ideal but fine. But as Romney introduced himself more to the public, listening to Romney *in his own words* and examining the life experience that Romney himself has chosen to highlight, it became clear to me that his values do not line up with mine. I saw a sense of entitlement and genuine contempt for people beneath him, and I do not want that in a president. This is my personal opinion formed after a year of seeing him in action, and is not up for debate.
As for the rest, the recycled anti-Obama buzzwords ("enigma!" "socialist!") are beyond tiring. I miss the days of original thought, before punditry in the news media turned everyone into robots.
@MattThompson @Jacurtis For example, Apple's multibillion dollar war chest. They couldn't figure out what to do with it, so they're paying some of it out in dividends, and sitting on the rest. Net jobs created? Zero. Lower taxes would do nothing to turn that idle money into jobs or any other productive use.
In fact, the exact opposite may be true. Back when marginal rates were incredibly high (70% or whatever it was), tech companies would engage in large scale, open-ended research, because it made more sense to spend their money on *something* than to pay it all out in taxes. Look at AT&T Bell Labs. A pure research institution that would not exist today. Intel had a similar initiative that they shut down just a year or two ago because it did nothing for their bottom line, but had plenty of worthwhile research projects.
@PatrickR @joewardpr @JustinPollard @JudyWang You can't go to jail for not paying your taxes, unless you engage in criminal tax evasion. If you don't pay your taxes, you enter an installment agreement. If you don't pay your installment agreement, your punishment is a lien or a levy. If you can't ever hope to pay what you owe, you file an offer in compromise and reduce your liability. "You go to jail for not paying taxes" is a willful misunderstanding of the tax code, breathlessly repeated for others to nod along to like they're at church.
Is tithing in the LDS church voluntary? Does not paying lead to excommunication? Do you face diminished standing as others distance themselves from you? I genuinely don't know how it works. But a rule enforced by enormous pressure from your closest family, friends and community is "voluntary" only to the most ardent pedants.
All I see is a continuous of the same pattern. Romney does the bare minimum expected of him, not out of a spirit of giving or love of humanity, but out of obligation, and only if there's a net benefit to his balance sheet. Whether or not he would be effective as president than Obama is besides my point. Compared to a Buffet or a Gates, Romney is not an extraordinary person. He is out for himself and no one else. Which is his right, just as it is my right not to admire or respect him.
This is my assessment of Romney's life and accomplishments. Yours may differ. But I dislike Romney not because he has wealth, and I'm weary of hearing that accusation. I dislike him because what he does with his wealth is boring and self-serving.
@joewardpr @JustinPollard @JudyWang Most of Mitt Romney's charitable contributions are to the LDS church or otherwise related to his Mormon affiliation:
I'm not going to pretend to know what the LDS church does with their money. But giving a percentage of your yearly income because that's just what you're expected to do is an entirely different thing than what someone like Bill Gates does. Giving money out of obligation to maintain a large organization vs funding novel innovations to benefit humanity. Not all charitable contributions are spent in the spirit of charity.
@Jacurtis "a new 35% tax starting next year related to Obamacare." "50% of our country on welfare." Unbelievable, apocalyptic statements supported by impossible percentages pulled out of thin air. Welcome to the comments section, or as I prefer to call it, the bottom half of the internet.
The problem that Samuel Jackson (and, well, basically everyone else) is articulating is not merely that Mitt Romney is rich. It is that he is rich *and also* devoid of compassion for people who are not rich, and his wealth tears other people down rather than lifts them up.
Mitt Romney sees the role of business as a vehicle for maximizing wealth as an end goal, while Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have larger aspirations to benefit humanity, using their wealth as a means to that end. That is a massive difference, and as others have pointed out, is what's behind the "out-of-touch" qualifier.
Finally, let's not forget Mitt Romney wants very much to build and entrench a class system like the one you left. He is not self-made; he came from privilege. Granted, much of that wealth was wealth he built himself, but he did not arrive on the shores of America with nothing but a backpack and a dream. He came from money and privilege, and created more money and privilege, at the expense of others lesser than him.
I value wealth and success, and do not begrudge others who are successful. But people who lack basic humanity, like Mitt Romney, do not deserve respect.
Good analysis, but the question is not "is there a business model that allows HBO to survive on the internet?". Rather, we need to be asking "what new business models and production methods are able to produce television programming of the same scale and quality?"
From the perspective of fans/viewers, the survival of HBO is irrelevant. It doesn't matter to me whether Time Warner or CNN or HBO can stay in business. What matters to me is whether or not programming like Game of Thrones can find a source of funding to be written, filmed, and produced, and distributed over the internet. Maybe there is a leaner, meaner model by a new kind of company that can produce content on the same scale. Maybe there isn't. But in the end, only the content matters, not the networks.