Romney is funny

[Nebe]

How anyone can support Romney after his history at Bain Capital or what ever that place is spelled is beyond me... Lets see.. Bain Capital buys a company, fires everyone and outsources the jobs overseas..

mmmm yeah.. thats patriotic.

[Sea Dangles]

Running a business is about the bottom line,when a new leader comes in loyalty is not the issue.Profit margin is pretty much the only factor stockholders are concaerned with.
Romney has business experience
Romney knows youmust balance a checkbook
Romney will not tolerate giving money to the sad sacks of society
So all the armchair patriots who drive imported automobiles or hire immigrants workers on the cheap can speak up about how to be an American.
If Obama is still inspiring hope with anyone,raise your hand and be ridiculed.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Running a business is about the bottom line,when a new leader comes in loyalty is not the issue.Profit margin is pretty much the only factor stockholders are concaerned with.
Romney has business experience

So we should run the USA on the basis of shareholder value?

It is incredibly rare for a large company to have a compact with it's employees where everybody is genuinely in it to keep the ship afloat. Perhaps the only one I can think of is Lincoln Electric Corp...

Romney knows youmust balance a checkbook

Didn't MA lead the country in debt per person when he was Gov?

Romney will not tolerate giving money to the sad sacks of society

Sure he will.

It's easy to make grand promises about letting the poor fend for themselves when you're on the campaign trail pandering to ex-Palin devotees.

But once that decision will be recorded in real statistics of child malnourishment and homelessness under your watch things get a bit more tricky.

So all the armchair patriots who drive imported automobiles or hire immigrants workers on the cheap can speak up about how to be an American.

Every car these days is imported. Your GM or Ford is jacked with nearly 1/2 it's parts parts made in Mexico or other countries. That Toyota or BMW might have just been assembled by Americans in South Carolina, Indiana or Tennessee depending on the model.

If Obama is still inspiring hope with anyone,raise your hand and be ridiculed.

Bush wasn't inspiring hope in 2004 and yet he won. People don't vote for the best choice, they vote for the least worst choice.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Bush wasn't inspiring hope in 2004 and yet he won. People don't vote for the best choice, they vote for the least worst choice.

-spence

when you are doing a decent job, inspiring hope isn't essential to getting re-elected....

when you are doing a lousy job...well...you say stuff like this

AP Interview: Obama Says Romney Holds "Extreme" Views | RealClearPolitics

this election will be about changing vectors....we know where the current vector is taking us and consistently 60% don't like the current vector RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Direction of Country
....which means that the guy resposible for the current vector in large part is going to have to convince most of the country that it makes sense to continue on, despite the lack of any substantial improvement now or on the horizon for the important indicators, or he's going to have to convince a majority that the vector proposed by his opponent will be worse...that'll be a tough sell, particularly if the current economic/employment vector continues to slide...


http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106512...four-years-ago
You Are Probably Worse Off Than You Were Four Years Ago

All told, this is a stunningly bad economic record for an incumbent president to run on. The fact that Obama’s still the favorite testifies to how uniquely terrible the Romney-Ryan ticket is, and perhaps also to how much blame extremist congressional Republicans deserve for consistently blocking nearly every plausible avenue to economic recovery. Still, there’s no avoiding the fact that the economy has worsened over four years for the typical American household, even as it has improved for the one percent. Thank goodness Mitt Romney is about the last person on earth who would ever want to point that discrepancy out.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

when you are doing a decent job, inspiring hope isn't essential to getting re-elected....

when you are doing a lousy job...well...you say stuff like this

AP Interview: Obama Says Romney Holds "Extreme" Views | RealClearPolitics

Actually Obama appears quite lucid in that article. He's also exactly right, on big issues like abortion, immigration, health care etc... the GOP platform has taken a hard right stance which compared to Romney's history is quite a radical shift.

this election will be about changing vectors....we know where the current vector is taking us and consistently 60% don't like the current vector RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Direction of Country
....which means that the guy resposible for the current vector in large part is going to have to convince most of the country that it makes sense to continue on, despite the lack of any substantial improvement now or on the horizon for the important indicators, or he's going to have to convince a majority that the vector proposed by his opponent will be worse...that'll be a tough sell, particularly if the current economic/employment vector continues to slide...

I don't believe people assign the current vector to Obama, they're smart enough to understand the issues that face the country are much, much larger than the past 3+ years.

I also don't believe most people think the country needs a big ideological shift but rather just basic governmental responsibility. This is independent of party...

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually Obama appears quite lucid in that article. yeah, "small" is the word I would use He's also exactly right, on big issues like abortion, immigration, health care etc... the GOP platform has taken a hard right stance which compared to Romney's history is quite a radical shift. where has the GOP platform shifted radically or otherwise on these BIG issues?


I don't believe people assign the current vector to Obama .....some applaud and some disdain the better living through more encompassing government vector...he is the assignee , they're smart enough to understand the issues that face the country are much, much larger than the past 3+ years. you (and Zimmy) can't seem to decide whether they're smart enough or not smart enough, either way another gross generalization

I also don't believe most people think the country needs a big ideological shift but rather just basic governmental responsibility. This is independent of party...if most people(reference the RCP poll) feel the country is headed in the wrong direction consistently over a long period, that might indicate the desire for a big idealogical shift which is actually not a shift but a return to our founding ideals and principles in response to the BIG idealogical shift currently being forced on us...most people can't help it, it's ingrained in us as Americans...at least "most people"

-spence

tossing around the "extreme" card is a little silly and desperate sounding...it's been grossly overused

[likwid]

Originally Posted by scottw

tossing around the "extreme" card is a little silly and desperate sounding...it's been grossly overused

Then stop using it.

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - Search Results

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

He's also exactly right, on big issues like abortion, immigration, health care etc the GOP platform has taken a hard right stance which compared to Romney's history is quite a radical shift.


spence

not exactly....


"The 2012 platform adopted the identical pro-life language that has been in the platform since the late Rep. Henry Hyde inserted it in 1984 in Dallas."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...form-best-yet/


"The platform sections on immigration are examples of how closely social and fiscal issues and costs are intertwined. It is in favor of the rule of law, against any kind of amnesty, and supports requiring employers to use e-Verify to make sure their employees are legally in the United States. It also takes a strong stand for approving photo IDs before allowing someone to vote."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...discrimination
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...t_work_permits
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._control_first
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...mmigration_law


"the platform calls for repealing Obamacare"
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ealth_care_law\

"Most voters still support repeal of President Obama’s national health care law "


what was he "exactly right" about Spence?
what and where "exacty" is this "radical shift" and/or "hard right stance" in the GOP Platform ?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...same_of_romney
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...or_wrong_track

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

So we should run the USA on the basis of shareholder value?

It is incredibly rare for a large company to have a compact with it's employees where everybody is genuinely in it to keep the ship afloat. Perhaps the only one I can think of is Lincoln Electric Corp...


Didn't MA lead the country in debt per person when he was Gov?


Sure he will.

It's easy to make grand promises about letting the poor fend for themselves when you're on the campaign trail pandering to ex-Palin devotees.

But once that decision will be recorded in real statistics of child malnourishment and homelessness under your watch things get a bit more tricky.



Every car these days is imported. Your GM or Ford is jacked with nearly 1/2 it's parts parts made in Mexico or other countries. That Toyota or BMW might have just been assembled by Americans in South Carolina, Indiana or Tennessee depending on the model.


Bush wasn't inspiring hope in 2004 and yet he won. People don't vote for the best choice, they vote for the least worst choice.

-spence

When he ran that company he was not auditioning for the presidency,he was merely trying to make it profitable.

Debt per person isa deceiving statistic if you don't understand what debt really is;wealthy people can incur more more debt as a result of their wealth and per capita income. (see CT)

Spence,like most dems the picture you paint regarding the nations sad sacks is purely sensationalism.Put the broad brush away,anyone with common sense can understand there is too much abuse of the current system.The Palin comment is puzzling to me but typical of one who may be grasping at straws.

Thank you for explaining the ins and outs of car assembly but either you missed the point or didn't understand it.

Do you really think another 4 years of Obama is going to benefit the United States Jeff?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

When he ran that company he was not auditioning for the presidency,he was merely trying to make it profitable.

He was trying to deliver shareholder value. The point being that the type of leadership that requires might not be what the country needs, yet that's what he's selling...

Debt per person isa deceiving statistic if you don't understand what debt really is;wealthy people can incur more more debt as a result of their wealth and per capita income. (see CT)

The stat was state debt per capita. As I've noted this in the other thread there are many reasons for this, but if the current US debt is owned by Obama I'd think Romney would own MA at that time, and it wasn't that good.

Spence,like most dems the picture you paint regarding the nations sad sacks is purely sensationalism.Put the broad brush away,anyone with common sense can understand there is too much abuse of the current system.The Palin comment is puzzling to me but typical of one who may be grasping at straws.

There's abuse all around. For every welfare cheat or public employee with a fat pension you have corporate abuse of the same system.

Thank you for explaining the ins and outs of car assembly but either you missed the point or didn't understand it.

Then what was it?

Do you really think another 4 years of Obama is going to benefit the United States Jeff?

I'd like to see more leadership, but the proposed changes from the GOP I don't see as offering an attractive alternative. There's significant risk of making things even worse.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

People don't vote for the best choice, they vote for the least worst choice.

-spence

Who are we kidding,in the real world, people will vote for the canidate who will most line
their pockets.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

How anyone can support Romney after his history at Bain Capital or what ever that place is spelled is beyond me... Lets see.. Bain Capital buys a company, fires everyone and outsources the jobs overseas..

mmmm yeah.. thats patriotic.

His record at Bain was largely successful. The company you refer to, and which Obama campaign spews the drivel that you have bought into, GS Steel, was already on the verge of collapse when Bain invested in it, in order to return it to profitability. Actually, Bain kept the company running for seven years longer that it would have if it hadn't taken over. We were being flooded with cheap steel imports during this period and many steel companies (about 30) went out of business. Bain was accused of loading the company with debt in order to suck money out of it for consulting fees, etc. But GS Steel had outdated equipment, was in financial difficulty due to the cheap imports, so money had to be borrowed to update the company and grow it to a competitive size if it was to be profitable. So the Obama campaign team accused it of being driven by greed and profits rather than caring about jobs. It is obvious that the nature of business is driven by profit. Without profit there would be no jobs. The investment failed and the company went bankrupt. The jobs from GS Steel were not outsourced overseas.

As an interesting sidenote to Obama's team painting Bain as an evil vampire that sucks the life out of business, so far Obama has received $150,000 in campaign contributions from Bain. Democrats have received more contributions from Bain than have Republicans. In the last three election cycles, Bain employees have given Democrats $1.2 million (mostly from top executives), and have given Republicans over $480,000. Obama, in spite of defining Bain as greedy corporate job destroyers, has hired Bain executives to help his administration or his campaign. He named Boris Borshteyn, a former consultant for Bain Capital, to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In Jan. 2012 he named Jeffrey Zients as his acting budget chief. Zients worked at Bain & Co. from 1988 to 1990. And Obama hired Jonathan Levine as his major fund raiser for his campaign. Levine is the person who was ACTUALLY in charge of Bain Capital at the time GS Steel went bankrupt. So Obama hires the man who was actually in charge during the time when he accuses Romney of being responsible for the layoffs.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

His record at Bain was largely successful.

While I would agree that calling out a single anecdote to pain a larger picture isn't exactly fair, I do think assessing what Romney might have really learned at Bain is fair in context of how he might apply it to Presidential leadership.

A large private equity firm like Bain isn't like a normal business. Certainly private equity serves a necessary purpose in the marketplace, but these organizations are known for pushing the envelope when it comes to secrecy, intentional organizational complexity and tax avoidance schemes.

Romney made a hell of a lot of money at Bain and by some reports continued to after he technically left the company. It's interesting that with the transparency which usually accompanies a Presidential nominee, we still understand very little about Romney's fortune.

That Romney is being so tight lipped on the subject does leave several questions lingering.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

While I would agree that calling out a single anecdote to pain a larger picture isn't exactly fair,

It isn't even inexactly fair, and in the case of Romney/Bain, the picture painted by Obama's team is a distortion verging on a lie.

I do think assessing what Romney might have really learned at Bain is fair in context of how he might apply it to Presidential leadership.

So now he must not only disclose tax returns, but also what he has learned? Perhaps Obama should disclose what he learned in college by disclosing his school records.

A large private equity firm like Bain isn't like a normal business. Certainly private equity serves a necessary purpose in the marketplace, but these organizations are known for pushing the envelope when it comes to secrecy, intentional organizational complexity and tax avoidance schemes.

You could say the same thing about most members of Congress. And tax avoidance "schemes" are available to everybody. There is an abundance of investment firms, estate planners, and tax preparers who advertise their ability to shelter your income from taxes. If venture capital firms "are known for pushing the envelope when it comes to secrecy," perhaps they are merely exercising their 14th Ammendment right to privacy, as do those who get abortions. You imply that there may be some unnamed thing wrong, or perhaps illegal(?) about these things.

Romney made a hell of a lot of money at Bain and by some reports continued to after he technically left the company. It's interesting that with the transparency which usually accompanies a Presidential nominee, we still understand very little about Romney's fortune.
That Romney is being so tight lipped on the subject does leave several questions lingering.

-spence

Nor do we understand much about the fortunes of the vast majority of members of Congress, including Pelosi and Reid who shout for the disclosure of Romney's tax records for the last 10 years instead of only the two years that he is submitting. They submit financial disclosures that are required by Congress, but not tax records which are far fuller and more detailed. Their claim is that they are not running for President. Well, they have as much to do with tax policies, and maybe more, as the President. Why shouldn't We the People know what venture capital firms they invest in and in what tax schemes they take advantage of and in which offshore tax shelters?

You are typically vague on the subject of leaving several questions lingering. That the questions are posed originally by Romney's opponents also leaves questions lingering. Could it be that they want to see those tax records, as legal as they apparently are, to find "evidence" that Romney is not "in touch" with the rest of us. That he is one of the rich one percenters who get special tax breaks and don't live by the same rules that the rest of us have to live by. Is that also why Pelosi and Reid and most members of Congress refuse to release their tax records? Nancy Pelosi's husband heads one of those super secretive venture capital firms, and the details of his tax records are not being disclosed in her financial disclosure to Congress. Yet they can accuse Romney of the same "secrecy" because they are not running for President?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Nor do we understand much about the fortunes of the vast majority of members of Congress, including Pelosi and Reid who shout for the disclosure of Romney's tax records for the last 10 years instead of only the two years that he is submitting. They submit financial disclosures that are required by Congress, but not tax records which are far fuller and more detailed. Their claim is that they are not running for President. Well, they have as much to do with tax policies, and maybe more, as the President. Why shouldn't We the People know what venture capital firms they invest in and in what tax schemes they take advantage of and in which offshore tax shelters?

I'm not sure Harry Reid has that significant of a fortune so to speak. Pelosi is certainly loaded by comparison, although still nothing close to Romney.

The congressional disclosure might not be as clear as a tax return, but it does give a pretty good picture of where interests may lie. By contrast Romney is pretty much tight lipped saying his hundreds of millions are all in blind trusts. Go away, nothing to see here...

It's interesting as well he says he's said in the past that disclosing his returns isn't fair as it would show his tithing which is intended to be private, but yet he has disclosed some. So why not the others?

This really has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with politics. Romney has largely built his fortune using tax schemes that even if legal are a prime example of the elite playing by a different set of rules than everybody else. Taxes are a big issue this election and under the GOP plan Romney would likely end up paying even LESS in a disproportionately dramatic manner.

If voters are going to make a decision based largely on trust, I'd like to see pretty much everything on the table.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure Harry Reid has that significant of a fortune so to speak. Pelosi is certainly loaded by comparison, although still nothing close to Romney.

Harry Reid has far more than most of us and his position in Congress has helped him acquire it. Pelosi's husband heads Financial Leasing Services, Inc., a venture capital and real estate firm. Seeing as how venture capitalists are painted as highly secretive, tax scheming, financial vampires, shouldn't we get detailed tax returns included in her financial disclosures? And it is Congress that legislates tax policies, so congressional disclosures should be as detailed as presidential disclosures. Congress has more control of tax policies than the President, and can gain as much, or more, from their legislation than the President.

The congressional disclosure might not be as clear as a tax return, but it does give a pretty good picture of where interests may lie. By contrast Romney is pretty much tight lipped saying his hundreds of millions are all in blind trusts. Go away, nothing to see here...

Craig Holman, a gvt. affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a non-partisan watch dog group said "Senior public officials, especially members of Congress and presidential candidates, should be required to disclose their tax returns so that the public can monitor conflicts of interest." Congress has the power to legislate against "secret" tax shelters, and had it completely during Obama's first two years, but did no such thing. And it controls what members must financially disclose, but when it comes to tax returns, Congress is "tight lipped." Could it be that disclosures and restrictions would impede the personal gains of its members, who control tax policies? Yes.

Tax returns reveal assets and investments in a way congressional financial disclosures don't. Those disclosures offer no direct information on tax liabilities and no requirement for reporting spousal income other than the source, but not the amount of any income over $1,000. When it comes to valuation of investments or reporting income on the annual disclosure forms, only broad numbers such as between $250,000 and $500,000, or $1 million and $5 million, which makes it difficult to know how much a lawmaker will benefit from competing tax plans. Darrel West, a vice president of left leaning Brooking Institution, said that congressional financial disclosures don't provide the same level of detail as a tax return--which makes it difficult to determine how politicians will benefit from tax policies.

In a McClatchy investigation, only 17 of Congress's members gave their tax returns. The reporters requested returns, anonymously, to examine in detail how members would personally be affected by changes in tax laws, including income tax rates as well as capital gains and dividends and deductions for expenses. Most, including Pelosi, Reid, and Wasserman, the loudest callers for Romney's returns, chose to keep their tax liabilities a secret. Of the meager 17 who disclosed, most got large deductions for interest on personal and investment real estate.

It's interesting as well he says he's said in the past that disclosing his returns isn't fair as it would show his tithing which is intended to be private, but yet he has disclosed some. So why not the others?

Romney already has disclosed more tax returns than members of Congress who never had to disclose ANY, certainly not 10 years worth, when they ran for office, and only disclose annual disclosures which don't offer the detail necessary for voters to know how tax policies affect them. Detailed spousal incomes are not reported, and some have investments offshore, including Bermuda in which a Romney investment has been criticized.

This really has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with politics. Romney has largely built his fortune using tax schemes that even if legal are a prime example of the elite playing by a different set of rules than everybody else. Taxes are a big issue this election and under the GOP plan Romney would likely end up paying even LESS in a disproportionately dramatic manner.

Exactly. Privacy is OK for some, but not others. It has everything to do with politics. Somehow, we are to believe that how Romney made his fortune will color how he operates as President. But that does not apply to members of Congress. They will, somehow, legislate for our benefit, whatever they define that to be, but Romney will line his pockets. Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman, et. al., will maintain their privacy and try to deny Romney's so that it will not be shown that they are "guilty" of some of the same things with which they wish to hammer him. I will give the congress persons the benefit of the doubt and assume that none of them has done anything illegal, but merely taken advantage of rules they created. Those are the same rules Romney followed.

The Founders were wealthy, and to a great extent on the basis of not being burdened with taxes. Yet we consider Washington to be our greatest President. How would he fair in today's political climate? Comparatively speaking, he was far wealthier than Romney. Did his wealth or tax evasion cause him to be a bad/unworthy/evil destroyer of the middle class for his own gain? Haven't most Presidents been wealthy? Do we assume that they sought the office to secure even more wealth? Didn't we once assume that wealthy candidates would be more trustworthy than poor ones, since they didn't need the money?

Romney made his under rules that he didn't create, and rules that Congress legislated, much to their own benefit. Are Congressional members in it for the money? Should we know all the details of their finances? Do you really believe that Romney cares that much about more wealth that he will risk his presidency by s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g more wealth from the middle class? Could it be that if indeed, Ryan's plan will allow him to pay even less taxes (Reid Claims he doesn't pay any now, how much less can you get) it would allow the economy to grow so that all will benefit?

If voters are going to make a decision based largely on trust, I'd like to see pretty much everything on the table.

-spence

If everything is on the table, then decisions will not be largely on trust. If you want to see everything on the table, that should apply to ALL politicians and judges.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If everything is on the table, then decisions will not be largely on trust. If you want to see everything on the table, that should apply to ALL politicians and judges.

I'll certainly agree that those in positions of public authority should be held to a high standard. Congress has the ability to legislate away potential conflicts of interest which doesn't have any real value for their constituents.

But again the real issue here isn't privacy but policy. Interesting new Pew poll on American's opinions.

The poll found that many Americans believe rich people to be intelligent and hardworking but also greedy and less honest than the average American. Nearly six in 10, or 58 percent, say the rich don’t pay enough in taxes, while 26 percent believe the rich pay their fair share and 8 percent say they pay too much.

http://www.boston.com/business/perso...CnN/story.html

-spence

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Nebe

How anyone can support Romney after his history at Bain Capital or what ever that place is spelled is beyond me... Lets see.. Bain Capital buys a company, fires everyone and outsources the jobs overseas..

mmmm yeah.. thats patriotic.

Yup, and NAFTA helped that become eben easier.