PDA

View Full Version : Why won't Romney defend Bain as capitalism?



Soflasnapper
07-18-2012, 02:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Defend capitalism!"—that's the advice Mitt Romney is now receiving from all and sundry.

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute offers a particularly forceful statement this morning on NRO:

But for some reason, on this issue as on so many others, Romney has been unwilling to make a full-throated defense of capitalism. Over the weekend, Romney and his surrogates were repeatedly asked whether outsourcing was a legitimate businessstrategy. They declined to answer. Worse, Romney has indulged in his own demagoguery, attacking the president for being “the real outsourcer-in-chief.”

The "for some reason" is an especially nice touch. Can Tanner truly not know what the reason is? OK, here goes:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>For 20 years now, the GOP has been giving away the votes of professionals, upper-income non-whites, college-educated women, and other comparatively economically successful groups.

The party has rebased itself on the votes of whites without a college degree. Mitt Romney must gain almost two-thirds of their vote in 2012 to have any realistic hope of winning the White House. [Because Obama leads among almost all ethnic groups other than Whites-- my comment]

Non-college whites are the most alienated and pessimistic group in the electorate and also the most nationalist. They may resent the "foreigner" Barack Obama, but there is one thing they hate even more: outsourcing—and those who do it.</span>

Tanner is right that free trade, including outsourcing, raises national income in the aggregate. But it does not raise the incomes of each and every one of us individually. Trade creates losers as well as winners. John Stuart Mill proposed a solution to this conundrum more than 150 years ago: trade freely, then tax the winners to compensate the losers. That solution is not congruent with the Cato Institute philosophy. Result: losers and prospective losers—and they know who they are!—fear outsourcing. The losers and prospective losers also happen to provide the GOP with much (or most) of its voting muscle.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>You want to change that dynamic? You'll have to reorient the party to a new voting base—one that does not thrill to the music that the Romney campaign has been playing all this week.</span></div></div>
David Frum, former conservative W speechwriter (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/18/defend-capitalism.html)

Uh, David? That means it cannot be done. Reorient the party to a new voting base? By November? Inconceivable, really.

LWW
07-18-2012, 02:56 PM
Romney is not a capitalist.

Soflasnapper
07-18-2012, 03:33 PM
I almost agree, except he passes for the vampiric vulture capitalist that our system has now devolved into some time ago.

Late stage, decadent financial capitalism. Looting, for lack of a better term.

pooltchr
07-18-2012, 03:56 PM
I would put Romney's business background up against Obama's any day. Oh, that's right...Obama doesn't have any business background at all. Sorry.

When I was growing up, we encouraged people to work hard and become a success. In our society, we generally measure success by the amount of wealth accumulated. So, by that standpoint, Romney is a very successful business person. So when did success become something to vilify? Only since our socialist president took office.

If I were Romney, I would pound home the fact that, yes, I'm wealthy, I worked hard to get there, and I know what it takes, and that's why I am the best person to help others succeed as well. Is the economy better off in the hands of a successful businessman, or a community organizer??????????????

Steve

Soflasnapper
07-18-2012, 04:32 PM
I somewhat agree. Romney for national business person of the year!

But not for president. Have we ever elected someone from the business world as president? Generals, yes. Governors, US Senators, yes. Actors, and union presidents, yes (some think that guy was the best evah!).

H. Ross Perot tried, and was defeated. They talked about Lee Iacoca, but he never tried.

cushioncrawler
07-18-2012, 04:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.....Tanner is right that free trade, including outsourcing, raises national income in the aggregate.....</div></div>No it duznt -- but it might, if u hav full employment.
Well, u havta ask yourself, hav u got full employment -- are u feeling lucky punk.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.....You want to change that dynamic? You'll have to reorient the party to a new voting base—one that does not thrill to the music that the Romney campaign has been playing all this week.</div></div>I hates peeples that say reorient when they shood say reorientate -- especially when the context inkloods asia, eg china.
And Bernanke last nite sayd "whether or not" -- kut hiz nuts off too -- "whether" dont need no "or not" -- thats a tautology.
mac.
Hell off with all their nuts.

pooltchr
07-18-2012, 06:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Have we ever elected someone from the business world as president? Generals, yes. Governors, US Senators, yes. Actors, and union presidents, yes (some think that guy was the best evah!).

</div></div>

Well, we elected a community organizer and he has proved to be completely ignorant of how business and the economy work. (If you own a successful business, you really didn't make it happen...someone else did.) WTF is that??????????????

So, I think having someone who actually has run a business, been responsible for making payroll, and making a profit might just be the kind of president we need to straighten this mess out...or at least get us back on a path toward, rather than away from, the kind of country our founding fathers set up..

Steve

Qtec
07-19-2012, 01:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney is not a capitalist. </div></div>

OMG.

Obviously he is a Socialist because his whole aim in life is to create jobs and if if he makes some money along the way, then great.

Q

Soflasnapper
07-19-2012, 03:33 PM
I take old school capitalism to involve the use of retained profits to grow a business, or using issuing equity (stock shares) to the market to raise capital to grow a business.

Even real companies making real things don't do it this way so much anymore, rarely issuing new stock offerings to raise money, not retaining profits to grow the business, and instead, issuing debt (bonds) at interest to raise money.

Financiers (who aren't really in real business, just pushing around pieces of paper and getting an overly large cut for their services, IMO) are the end result of this evolution.

They borrow hugely, take out (fake, borrowed) 'profits' hugely, and then leave the drained carcass on the side of the road for the public to pick it up and deal with it.

Yes, if you want someone who really knows how to load up debt, pay the insiders a huge amount of money that wasn't even earned as a profit, and then bankrupt the company in what amounts to a Mafia-style bust-out 'business model,' by all means, Romney is your man.

Some of us think there has been entirely too much of that kind of 'business' already, and shrink from putting such a bust-out artist in charge of things, because he's probably not the best guy to make reforms in the very method of his 'success' over the years.

pooltchr
07-19-2012, 04:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">load up debt, pay the insiders a huge amount of money that wasn't even earned as a profit, and then bankrupt the company in what amounts to a Mafia-style bust-out 'business model,' </div></div>

Sounds an awful lot like Obama's reign as president..
Steve

Soflasnapper
07-19-2012, 04:45 PM
Not really, in my view, but if so Obama was an amateur at the technique. The Mittster is the master of it.

The way the money is going, Mitt is the leader of a leveraged buyout group, that is buying the country to still further loot it.

What's left to loot? All the mineral resources, the money owed the SS trust fund (definitely in their long term sights), more money to be 'earned' as 'profits' in the defense and extractive industries, and expenses to be pushed off onto the public as 'externalities'-- more pollution, illness, injury, penury, starvation and death.

Bleak in a way that makes this desultory and anemic recovery a paradise by comparison.

Qtec
07-20-2012, 01:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What's left to loot? </div></div>

The Government of the USA. Basically everything that the Govt pays for. Prisons is a prime example, now they are going after education money and HC money.

Did you see this (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/dollars-and-dentists/)

I posted this earlier.


Q

eg8r
07-20-2012, 02:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not really, in my view, but if so Obama was an amateur at the technique. The Mittster is the master of it.

</div></div>Both options suck and neither are the correct person to get us out of this problem.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
07-20-2012, 09:08 AM
I caught the headline level topic but haven't looked into it yet.

Some things I just say, yeah, that sounds right, and don't look at the details. Big issues with health care and insurance is one of those things.

Soflasnapper
07-20-2012, 09:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not really, in my view, but if so Obama was an amateur at the technique. The Mittster is the master of it.

</div></div>Both options suck and neither are the correct person to get us out of this problem.

eg8r </div></div>

That's a very respectable position, and it leads to the obvious question, what then to do as of November?

Third party vote? Sit it out? Write in someone's name? Or give into this choice and hold your nose and choose one of the two who can win? How are you going to roll when it's time?

eg8r
07-23-2012, 02:09 AM
Last time I went third party. This time I have no idea.

eg8r