Winning our Future PAC, which supports Newt Gingrich, put out a movie attacking Romney’s time at Bain Capital. Even Newt called on the PAC to remove or revise the inaccuracies in it. The super PAC has agreed to do just that, but has offered some still legitimate questions for Romney to answer.
Perhaps Romney should answer the questions. His record, be it in the public or private sector is fair game. If Romney doesn’t want to answer the questions now, what if he had to answer them as the GOP nominee. If he doesn’t want to answer them now, maybe there’s a reason.
Do I personally care? Not particularly. But winning this election is incredibly important, and I want a nominee who can stand up to criticism, and explain what needs to be explained, because they’ll have to at some point. If Romney becomes the nominee he’ll have to answer a lot more questions than last time.
Blogs For Victory 
No way Romney should answer these questions. If recent electoral politics has taught candidates anything, it is the public wants a blank slate to project their hopes upon.
Two hours later and Mitt has picked up Huntsman’s recommendation. Mitt happens. No way should he release his tax returns either. That is just Newt being sad and pathetic. Newt is starting to act like academic liberal.
Romney, has set back as #2, watching the conservative candidates vying for the alternative, to the moderate, splitting their vote. When the one candidate with the largest national name recognition got the top slot, he was threatened, thus he let the dogs loose on him. All the while portraying he was above it all. Now that the shoes on the other foot, his foot shoulders are crying fowl, an attack on capitalism. The man that wants the highest office in the land, running on his business record, is above scrutiny of that record. What is the suggested strategy? Hide under the covers. Get some broad shoulders, it’s politics.
Romney needs to fight this vulture capitalist charge by illustrating what groups of normal people gained from Bain, like a pension fund for teachers or some such group. If he just made money for already rich dudes that is not going to play well. There is nothing wrong with Vent Cap but the main goal is to make money not create jobs. This is a test for Romney and so far he is failing it.
The new identifier for rabidly radical Liberals is “vulture capitalist”. Once that phrase is uttered, the rest is just more RRL noise. I think Romney has to address that as well as set the record straight on what he did.
Of course, to a collectivist mindset, dozens of companies struggling in mediocrity is far better than a handful failing and most succeeding. It’s all about “leveling the playing field”, you know.
“…the main goal is to make money not create jobs…” but usually the only way to increase the bottom line is to increase production and/or sales, and that means adding personnel—creating jobs. So while the eeeeeeevil capitalist is thinking of making more money, that tends to mean creating more jobs.
“…the main goal is to make money not create jobs…”
This illustrates, though, the basic difference between the way Conservatives and Progressives look at business.
I do not believe it was the rabidly radical Liberals” who used the term “vulture capitalists” but was in fact Rick Perry – and to some extent Newt Gingrich.. The “rabidly radical Liberals” have not said that much at this time from what I have observed. Instead, most of the radical talk has come from fellow conservative Republicans. Please put blame from whence it came. It is cowardly to blame those who did not commit the “sin”.
Considering what happened to Gingrich in Iowa, attacking his consulting firm, Center of Health Transformation, for having a legal contract for services with Freddie Mac, which Freddie Mac was responsible for the hiring and agreed to the payments for services, a service which was provided over a eight year period. Ads portraying that this business man did something sinister for receiving large sums of money for the work his firm did. There is one big question.
When Gingrich asked for the things that were false and misleading be denounced, he was told get some broad shoulders, this is politics. As far as Romney stopping them, he said he couldn’t have anything to do with what the PACs do. In the debate, asked about the contents of the ads, Romney said he hadn’t seen it, then minutes later said “What I saw…” Did he see them or not?
Before Gingrich’s super PAC, Winning Our Future, came out with its ad that was hyped, Gingrich was asked about it. His response was that he hoped it was factual, truthful, accurate. Upon it’s release fact-checks found it to be not factual, truthful, accurate. What did Gingrich do? He publicly demanded anything that wasn’t factual, truthful or accurate to be edited from the ad; if it couldn’t be done, he wanted the ad off the air altogether.
Now Romney could have done what Gingrich did but didn’t. The question is, was Romney’s response to his PAC’s ads in Iowa, corporate lawyer legalism or self serving politics? I say both. Is this how he ran his businesses? Is this how he will be president, if elected?
Breaking news: Huntsman dropping out of GOP race and endorsing Romney.
The Republicans just lost their best candidate. I do not understand why the Republicans did not rally around this man – he is the one candidate who could beat Obama.
Sunny,
On what do you base that assessment?
In all of the debates he gave very well thought our answers. He was the Governor of Utah for two terms, balances the budget, created jobs (more than Romney), left the state in excellent condition; has served overseas as ambassador and is very familiar with the Chinese culture; he is not a bomb thrower; has always been very conservative. He and his wife have a very strong marriage, have five children of their own and adopted two Chinese daughters that were basically left to die by their parents. Has two sons serving in the Navy. This is a very decent man that many independents would have voted for – and I hope he runs the next time. I would vote for this man. He doesn’t have the baggage that the other GOP candidates are carrying around.
My only problem with Huntsman is that I don’t think he has any fire in his belly. He is too bland, and not forceful enough to confront the media and the Obama machine, which would rip him too shreds regardless of how moderate he is. Keep in mind, our next candidate will not only have to confront Obama, but they will also have to run against the media, which will do everything they can to keep Obama in office. We need someone who can give it back just as much and I don’t see Huntsman doing that.
I have no problem scrutinizing Romney’s record, but to attack him from the left was inexcusable, and really made me look at Gingrich in a different light. Can we all just admit that we are all adults here, and that free market capitalism isn’t perfect, but historically it is a far superior economic model that has generated a higher standard of living for all classes of society than any other alternative model – ie: socialism? The end result of what Romney engaged in at Bain was a huge net positive of new jobs, but some ventures were not successful, as it is in the real world, and whether or not he engaged in raiding pensions is purely subjective. If he broke the law, then indict him, if he did not, and you are still overly critical, then work to change the law, but this incessant whining is childish.
Honestly, liberals today remind me of the spoiled children of rich parents who are constantly complaining that their parents are not spending enough money on them.
Newt Gingrich wanted to run a positive campaign, leaving the record of Obama as the record to be scrutinized. Gingrich wanted each candidate lay out their vision of what they would do to address the issues that concern the American voters. Gingrich wanted the differences each of them had on those issues through debates. While debating is his strong suit, the reason he tried promoting the Lincoln-Douglas style debates was to eliminate what we saw in the last debate with George Stephanopoulos and the current form of debating. After debating Herman Cain and others, in that form of debate, he challenged Mitt Romney and he declined.
As I said before, Gingrich didn’t start this. After the assault in Iowa, Gingrich had a choice. He either had to put on boots and wallow in the gutter with the others or bow out of the race. The other candidates in this race aren’t raising millions of dollars to coronate Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee. Since Romney helped facilitate the direction of this election cycle, the questions proposed on his record, in the private sector, needs to be answered. Not only does he have to define what venture capitalism is, for the average American voter but he also has to articulate, better than he has, what Bain Capitol represented, what his actual role was in it’s success or failures and what was his benefits or sacrifices made from his work. This isn’t about North Carolina, the Republican Party or the nomination, it’s an address to the nation. If he doesn’t and he gets the nomination, believe me, the Obama campaign and the DNC aren’t raising hundreds of millions of dollars for a Sunday afternoon social.
Russ,
Romney didn’t start anything, like it or not “negative” politics has been around a long long time and that will not change. Gingrich needs to man up, realize that and live with it.
Russ and Barstool,
In my opinion, Romney does not have to explain what “venture capitalism” is, but he may want to be more vocal on the success’s he had. I thought Sunny actually said it well the other day in explianing how many pension funds are invested in Bain and how those profits help school teachers, etc. It’s also important to note that Obama has received more campaign contributions from Bain than Romney did, a fact of which I would certainly make well known.
Clueless
Would the teacher’s pension funds be invested in Bain if the government didn’t allow the benefit to be tax exempt?
(I don’t see any historical evidence this.)
Now you’re arguing to not make pension investments tax exempt? Why in the hell would you do that? That money will eventually be taxed whether on Cap gains, or regular income upon withdrawal, so to disincentivize investment, which this would surely do, would have a negative impact not only on investment, but also on many investors retirement portfolios.
Would the teacher’s pension funds be invested in Bain if the government didn’t allow the benefit to be tax exempt?
Would you contribute to your 401K if the contributions were not tax exempt?
Clueless and JR
It is a very recent phenomena for the US govt to encourage stock market investments for the average person via tax exemption. Like the home owners exemption, it subsidizes particular areas of the economy.
I would not contribute to my 401k if it was not tax exempt. Maybe it is a mystery to you, but people managed to plan for old age long ago and in other countries they still do so without the benefit of the NYSE. My retirement has less money in it than if I had placed it in a bank at zero interest, so I probably would have invested the extra money in land or a local business.
Just like there is no right to a job, there is no right to a pension that keeps pace with inflation. There is no right to cheap prescriptions for the elderly or for much of Medicare. I always ask on bfv for a coherent philosophy for when the government should get involved in the market, but nobody here seems up to the challenge.
barstool,
You are either being dishonest or have a very short retention span. I have told you on numerous occasions that I fully support the governments role in incentivizing investment and/or savings through the tax code. It just makes good sense, however when the government actually does the investing, ie: Solyndra, then I have a huge problem. Like I said, this is not really tax exempt money as it is tax deferred money because these funds will eventually be exposed to taxation. So there is no harm in encouraging risk or prudence, as in the case of savings, on behalf of the individual or business in terms of tax codes.
“Honestly, liberals today remind me of the spoiled children of rich parents who are constantly complaining that their parents are not spending enough money on them.” Cluster
Excuse me Cluster, but who is acting like spoiled children of rich parents right now? This is a fight the GOP is having – not “liberals”. I know you like to blame liberals for everything, but come on and man up that it is the conservatives that are eating their own. You will have plenty of time to whine about the liberals as soon as the GOP picks its candidate and the Democrats start in after your pick, which is suspect is going to be Romney.
So how are all of you liking the Super Pacs right now?
Clueless
Should the government allow me to deduct the purchase of an antique car or piece of art if I think it will appreciate in value faster than other purchases?
Do I have to go through a middle man?
If the problem with the economy is people are saving too much instead of spending should the government be in the business of discouraging savings?
Sunny,
I think you need to step back and ask yourself, which party is blaming the rich? Which party is clamoring to tax the rich? Which party is telling their constituents that greed and free markets are the reason that they are losing their homes? Which party is blaming credit card companies for getting people into debt? Which party is telling constituents to “punish your enemies”? Which party is telling everyone that conservatives want “dirty air” and “dirty water”, and if it wasn’t for them, nobody would care about them?
You, Sunny, are one of the spoiled children asking for more handouts from Mom & Dad.
I believe that Gingrich started out calling for a “positive campaign” by all the other candidates because he knew he had a lot of negatives with his past. That was, if he could get everyone to agree to complete civility, no one would bring up his past “mistakes” as he so often has called them. He didn’t want anyone coming after him and by making the public think that he was going to evoke Reagan’s 11th Commandment, no one would bring up all of his past sins. And the other candidate have pretty much complied to Newt’s request. However, for the Super Pacs, this is a much different issue. They have put their money where their mouth is – after all, money is free speech. So it is somewhat hypocritical of the complainers here to gripe about Romney beating up on poor Newt Gingrich. If Newt has the money that Romney has access to, believe me he would use it to destroy Romney and any other candidate who might get in his way.
My point is, Gingrich started with a positive campaign. He got the lead and was attacked. Yes, negative ads happen in politics but if your going negative be accurate. Secondly, part of the attack was that Gingrich was involved in making money in the private sector, legally consulting Freddie Mac and somehow that is wrong. Gingrich complains about falsehoods on what he did for Freddie Mac, remember he was also accused of lobbying for them, he’s told to get broad shoulders, this is politics. Yes, it is politics but if anyone questions Romney’s dealings with Bain Capitol or anything else, it isn’t scrutinizing Romney’s record in the private sector, no, it’s now an attack on capitalism. In essence, two different standards for each candidate. Plus, it’s Perry throwing the phrase “vulture” capitalism out there, not Gingrich. At least not to my knowledge.
One problem with your analysis is the “just change the law” quote. It implies that government should regulate continually to meet the desires of the majority.
I would also question the “Good” that VC firms do for pension funds. A national sales tax would get the government out of subsidizing homes and pensions, education and health insurance. If employers gave their employees money instead of nontaxable benefits the VC market might be better off or worse, it is hard to know.
why doesnt romnie address obama’s eligibility…
i cant see my self endorsing any GOP candidate that will not make it an issue and stick with it…oblunder was a british citizen at birth..and is not eligible to be POTUS…ever…and…sufficient factual information proves that the bogus long form birth certificate was forged…
you have to ask…why would they forge the birth certificate if it existed in HI records…why would they refuse to investigate oblunders SSN issue…why would the refuse to take up facts about oblunders school history…if they were loyal to the constitution and not some other issue….why would they not use these facts right up front if for no other reason than to draw the Tea Party into their favor…
no…there are no viable candidates…if they dont want to uphold the US Constitution from the start…i dont think they ever will
” The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” SLAUGHTERHOUSE CASES, 83 (page 73) U. S. 36 (1872)
Really, jso3, haven’t you beaten this dead horse long enough? Obama is a US citizen and has been since the day he was born. Get OVER it. His mother was a US citizen. Seriously, you are such a fool to keep whining about something that is not an issue. Is this all you have? You have gotten so tiresome with this same old stupid complaint.
is that all ya got…omission…and misdirection?
get over it..its true…your false god is a FRAUD…go whine about people standing up for the truth somewhere else loser….where the rest of the stooges hang out…of course you mental midgets dont think the constitution is worth fighting for…we got your number…who cares if you are tired…your stupid too and you dont run about bragging about that…
As a candidate seeking the highest office in the land, will you immediately challenge Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to appear on the 2012 ballot?
last of this 4 part deal on the LF BC…shows that someone is lying about the birth certificate…why would they need to if it were real?
The democrats are mixing politics and religion again:
On the Sunday before the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett visited Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta to give a political speech,
Looking forward to the outrage from the MSM.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/valerie-jarrett-blasts-republicans-pulpit_616821.html
Val must not have gotten the “separation of church and state” memo.
Should the government allow me to deduct the purchase of an antique car or piece of art if I think it will appreciate in value faster than other purchases? – barstool
You remind me of GMB – I think he asked pretty much the same stupid question just the other day. If that antique car was going to be resold through your dealership, then maybe yes. If you owned an art gallery and was reselling the piece of art, then yes, as both of those items would then be considered capital acquisitions, and tax exemption could possibly save you enough money to encourage you to buy more. If these items were strictly for personal pleasure, well then no. It’s a common sense thing.
It’s a common sense thing is a dodge for “I have no coherent philosophy, I go with what benefits a group of people I associate with.”
Thanks for the comparison with GMB.
The point you’ve made is there must be a middle man. I am tax exempt if I BET On the stock market for my retirement, not if I bet on antique cars or art. But,but,but,but the stock market is a safe bet you’d say. I say that is just a bunch of bs meant to artificially drive up demand for a finite supply of stocks.
Do you really think people invest in IRA’s for anything but personal gain? Purchasing art work even for personal pleasure with the hope of a future profit seems just as reasonable as buying twice the house you need in the hopes of a big return down the line.
I say that is just a bunch of bs meant to artificially drive up demand for a finite supply of stocks.
You may well be right. I wasn’t in the room when the original legislation creating individual retirement accounts was debated and passed. And, even though you can’t hold certain collectables in an IRA, you can hold more than just stocks, bonds and mutual funds.
barstool,
When people invest in the stock market, where do you think that money goes? Do they just get a piece of paper they hope will appreciate? That money goes to the company to expand, develop and employ, all of which great benefit the aggregate market. When someone buys a piece of art, it has no economic stimulus, other than to the party you bought it from.
Any other stupid observations?
Do you really think people invest in IRA’s for anything but personal gain?
Yes BUT, they are making that money available to the free market for people to borrow and innovate. The guy you bought the art from does not make that money available to any one other than his pot dealer.
I think barstool needs an econ 101 class
Clueless
You really are a gullible moron. If you paid 10 dollars for a share of stock and sell it to me for 20 dollars the company does not get the 10 dollar difference. That is what pensions invest in.
It is hard to believe there are retards like you who still believe the whole spiel about the stock market being used to expand and employ. Maybe with the IPO or issue of new stock which are rare. There is an a lessening relationship between jobs and the market. Obama is much more interested in the former which is why he has a chance of winning in 2012.
If you were to invest in an up and coming artist who would otherwise stop painting, you would have 1. Wisely invested for your future 2 Kept someone employed. 3. If he became a master he might hire assistants ..
You don’t know at all what purchases are going to make people innovate and all those other things.
Again, it is not the governments job to encourage a particular kind of gambling from it’s citizens. it shouldn’t subsidize land purchases, art purchases, stock purchases etc. You can try all day to rationalize the interference.
Of course if making money available to the free market is a goal, the government could tax savings to force people to make it available.
stool,
Stop and just think for a moment – where do you think the “savings” of hard working Americans goes? The bank uses those money to fund car loans, small business loans etc, so that money is directly available to the free market. And incidentally, the government is keeping interest rates artificially low in an effort not to discourage borrowing, but who it is punishing are those who save, so in sense the government is taxing savings.
Stocks are bought and sold all day long and the trading thereof directly affects the companies value. If I bought the stock at 10, and sold it to you at 20, that means that the company indirectly used my money to expand and employ, resulting in an increase in the net worth of the company, which in turn increases the stock value to 20, and of which is the new basis. If enough of you see the value in the stock at 20, then many of you will buy, further increasing the net worth of the company, of which then you may sell at 30. And if the company is wise in their growth and management, that trend continues.
Capiche?
Clueless
The government is keeping the interest rates ARTIFICIALLY low according to you. Banks can charge whatever they desire. You might not know, but any interest on savings accounts is taxed in that year. That is a big difference between IRA’s and CD’s.
Clueless
If you have a piece of shiny metal worth 10 dollars and I buy it from you for 20 what does it mean? That somehow the new price is going to create new jobs?
It means that for some reason, I think in the future people will be willing to pay more than 20 for the shiny metal. Maybe they think the shiny metal has some inherent value. Maybe they think there will be less shiny metal available in the future. It has little to do with mining of the metal. It is speculation pure and simple.
The same is true for stocks. If it were mostly as you say, there would not be thousands of quants graduating every year from MBA programs.
Again, the government needs to get out of the Casino game. The housing bubble would not have occurred without the mortgage deduction, capital gains slight of hands and of course Freddie and Fannie. The same thing is going to happen in the stock market and it will be the fault of subsidies.
If you have a piece of shiny metal worth 10 dollars and I buy it from you for 20 what does it mean? That somehow the new price is going to create new jobs?
That’s not even a close comparison. The increase in price of the shiny piece of metal is not tied to the value of any company or enterprise, it is simply a stand alone product with the value determined by the end user. The stock value directly effects a companies net worth and their leverage, allowing them to borrow, expand, employ, etc.
” That’s not even a close comparison. The increase in price of the shiny piece of metal is not tied to the value of any company or enterprise.” – Clueless
It seems rather obvious, that the price of the shiny metal would be tied to the value of any company that mines the metal and would lead to more people going into mining of said metal. The same would be true for oil.
You are just wrong and obstinately so. If 100 employees at Google write an efficient program to take 50 percent of the market in social media their stock price would go up as people see that they have more power. The efficiency would result in a net loss of jobs.
You are still thinking about Mark’s bygone era of make-mine-build stock companies which rapidly evaporating. Take a look at the top 10 of fortune 500 companies.
I have no coherent philosophy, I go with what benefits a group of people I associate with. – barstool
So IRA’s and the stock market only benefit people I associate with?? You are one of the more ill informed teachers I have ever known, with the exception of Casper.
Clueless
The idea that stock investments should be taxed deferred but a person can’t take off their credit card debt from their taxes is a political choice not a logical one.
You could say credit cards benefit everyone, but wanting a tax deduction for credit card debt would benefit mainly the credit card companies.
You really need to go back to school to improve your reading comprehension.
I honestly don’t know what you just said in that post about credit card debt, but it’s not the first time. Going back to this:
You don’t know at all what purchases are going to make people innovate and all those other things.
That’s why it’s called speculation. But the aggregate market is usually never wrong, and that is why those who risk the most, benefit the most. I have a sense you don’t much like the stock market or capitalism for that matter. It’s as if you feel that if the rules are not what you consider to be fair, than the system is worthless.
The idea that stock investments should be taxed deferred but a person can’t take off their credit card debt from their taxes is a political choice not a logical one. – barstool
So you would choose to reward bad decisions?
The use of “BAD DECISIONS” is a moral judgement. If
Amazona: “Of course, to a collectivist mindset, dozens of companies struggling in mediocrity is far better than a handful failing and most succeeding. It’s all about ‘leveling the playing field’, you know.”
There are several things wrong with this. For one, the “collectivist mindset” is a boogeyman of Ama’s imagination. Hence the “collectivist mindset” vs. profits is a false dichotomy; there needs to be a reasonable balance between the competing imperatives of workers’ needs and owner/investor/shareholder profits.
Ama: “’…the main goal is to make money not create jobs…’ but usually the only way to increase the bottom line is to increase production and/or sales, and that means adding personnel—creating jobs. So while the eeeeeeevil capitalist is thinking of making more money, that tends to mean creating more jobs.”
Job creation has become one of the most widespread, least-examined canards of the right. Cluster says “The end result of what Romney engaged in at Bain was a huge net positive of new jobs.” I’d like to see stats on that. I suspect that fewer, not more, families were able to earn livelihoods in the wake of Bain’s activities, but a much smaller number of investors and executives (including Mr. Romney) did very well indeed. But without proof, either claim is suspect.
A “mediocre” group of companies (in Amazona’s parlance) might make somewhat less profit than one mega-company on steroids, but provide satisfying jobs for a greater number of workers. It’s what mom and pop businesses in towns all across America did before big box retailers came along and monopolized actual free enterprise nearly out of existence.
Sometimes companies that are run fairly and safely provide better jobs for more people than companies stripped down and maximized for profit. Indeed the goal of many companies is to make profit at the expense of all else. A case in point: the wholly preventable 2010 explosion at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia that killed 29 workers. In 2009 Massey Energy had over 500 citations for unrepentant and flagrant safety violations at that mine; in the month prior to the disaster there were 57 citations. Investigators concluded Massey “intentionally neglected safety precautions to increase profits.” Those profits were not used to create more jobs. Rather, the company spent “vast amounts of money to influence elections” see http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/96334/upperbigbranchreport.pdf .
That would be exhibit A of an “evil capitalistic system run amok.” Profits that should be used at least in part to insure the basic security of its workers instead is used to buy politicians and intimidate regulators into turning a blind eye to dangerous, exploitative and wantonly destructive business practices. Federal regulation with teeth is the only realistic means of bringing such corporate behavior to heel – and that’s exactly what Republicans are falling all over each other to pledge to eliminate.
Finally, if “the new identifier for rabidly radical Liberals is ‘vulture capitalist'” and “once that phrase is uttered, the rest is just more RRL noise,” then might we conclude that once you start talking about “rabidly radical liberals” or “collectivists”, the rest is just right-wing gibberish?
Federal regulation with teeth is the only realistic means of bringing such corporate behavior to heel – and that’s exactly what Republicans are falling all over each other to pledge to eliminate.
Dennis, could you give an example or two of Republicans pledging to eliminate federal regulations with teeth?
Dennis,
It’s been a while, how are you? Allow me to address your post:
Hence the “collectivist mindset” vs. profits is a false dichotomy; there needs to be a reasonable balance between the competing imperatives of workers’ needs and owner/investor/shareholder profits.
Not so fast on the false dichotomy. It was just this last summer that many of the Occupy darlings were indeed calling for an end to profits in the name of equality and collectivism, and that is a movement that Obama praised. Secondly, who decides where the equilibrium is between those “competing imperatives”? And why are the necessarily competing? Shouldn’t management and labor be on the same page? How about labor markets? Shouldn’t the market determine labor value rather than some subjective analysis of imperatives?
“The end result of what Romney engaged in at Bain was a huge net positive of new jobs.” I’d like to see stats on that. I suspect that fewer, not more, families were able to earn livelihoods in the wake of Bain’s activities,
Take one company for example. Bain was the main investor behind Staples, a company that now employs over 74,000 people nation wide. What humors me about people like you dennis is that you use the failures of capitalism as an indictment on the model as a whole, completely over looking the fact that capitalism has created a higher standard of living to more people than any other economic model bar none.
the wholly preventable 2010 explosion at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia that killed 29 workers.
Sounds like government regulations, and regulators, didn’t do their job, and neither did the justice department. You see dennis, in a situation like this, conservatives actually want regulations that WORK, and a justice department that ENFORCES. Liberals always over look the culpability of government when it comes to situations like this, but are the first to champion regulations when all it means is more union members. Conservatives would prefer that regulations and regulators actually do their job and effectively regulate, preventing the few abuses in the private markets. Why can’t liberals wrap their small minds around that fact?
Cluster, fine thank you and happy new year. When have I ever used the failures of capitalism as an indictment on the model as a whole?
Capitalism, along with healthy regulatory mechanisms and a progressive tax system, have allowed the largest middle class in history to grow to maturity in the during the last century. The model as a whole has worked quite well. The things I indict are unrestrained greed, monopolies, dishonest and predatory practices. All of these would, if permitted – and have – thrived under the good name of “capitalism”, but would destroy the middle class and probably capitalism itself (as we know it) within a generation if allowed to.
Republicans have traditionally pushed back against government regulation, most notably financial and environmental regulations. I’ve heard about half the GOP debates so far and I don’t think there’s been a single one in which every candidate at some point didn’t name regulations generically as an enemy of job creation, and make the reduction or elimination of regulations a tacit campaign pledge.
Reasonable people may disagree about the extent to which government regulations should be applied to markets and corporate activity. But I believe most reasonable people agree that regulators should do their job effectively, and would also choose to fund them adequately that they might do so.
You name Staples as an example of Bain Capital’s successes, but that was a startup back in the 80s. I question the job-creating results of Bain’s leveraged buyouts, the kind of business Romney quickly transitioned Bain into and which is the focus of greater scrutiny now.
The things I indict are unrestrained greed, monopolies, dishonest and predatory practices. – dennis
Which are the minority and can be dealt with quite effectively via the justice department. A department that Bush used well in indicting Enron, Global Crossing etc., but could have gone further. Obama has abdicated this responsibility.
Republicans have traditionally pushed back against government regulation, most notably financial and environmental regulations. – dennis
And rightfully so. The goal is to strip away at the layers of regulations that strangle this economy and end up with regulations that actually work, are effective, and administered by a smaller, smarter government. I would think that should be a goal everyone would embrace.
Cluster, it was sensible financial regulation that allowed our economy to keep growing through America’s biggest boom years. It was financial deregulation, most significantly undoing of the Glass-Steagall Act – yes, signed by Clinton but at the behest of Republicans – that began our rapid downfall as banks began to use depositers’ money for speculation.
We all know where Phil Gramm’s deregulatory ideology (“I look at subprime lending and I see the American Dream in action.”) ended up taking us. Unbridled greed inevitably took the place of responsible growth. Even Greenspan seemed shocked – shocked! that deregulation could be so destructive so fast. Yet now Ayn Rand is the virtual economic patron saint of the Right. What a splendid moral icon.
As for environmental regulations, before the EPA we had rivers so polluted they caught fire – now the GOP wants to rid us of the onerous, strangling regulations that give us and our children clean water and air. You want regulations that work and are effective? What exactly would those be anyway, starting with the premise that human activity doesn’t affect climate at the macro level and the earth is so big and constant it’s arrogant for we humans to think we can actually mess it up?
Shall we presume you have no stats on that “huge net positive of new jobs” that have been created by Bain’s leveraged buyouts?
Another ignored statistic in the mythology of “job creation” via capitalizing giant concept stores like Staples is the number of jobs lost by small independent businesses unable to compete with the volume purchasing and discounting of big box retailers. In my town there were several office supply/stationary stores who were unable to remain in business once Staples and Office Depot came to town.
The best downtown bookstore I’ve ever patronized was put out of business by Borders – at the mall, of course. Now nobody can walk or bicycle to a bookstore, everybody has to go by car. The personalized service and sense of community of the old store is just a memory. You can be sure that for every town where a new Walmart has brought convenience and cheap merchandise to the masses, there are multiple mom and pop businesses elsewhere that have been killed. Not to mention that big box retailers’ merchandise is largely imported, which has greatly contributed to sending manufacturing jobs abroad.
Romney says corporations are people. But small business – independent capitalists, the true free enterprise of actual people – is plowed under by corporate giants with unlimited wealth. When this happens on a large scale it used to be called a monopoly, now it’s euphemistically called “job creation”.