Posted on 01/11/2012 5:04:47 PM PST by PAR
But Catherine, this is not a question of Romney's ethics.
No one has accused Romney of dishonesty. This is an attempt to inflame people already disposed to distrust capitalism. Unfortunately, that includes a large number of "conservatives."
POTD
Bain borrowed 10 million from the fed and never paid it back. Romney stuck US with the bill while he used the 10 million to pay himself and his partners bonuses of 4 million bucks.
Does that sound like Fannie/Freddie to you?
Bain would buy a company, borrow enormously after manipulating its appraisal, take out huge sums from THE BORROWED MONEY to pay themselves, and then stand by as the company naturally went bankrupt since the earnings appraisal had been manipulated.
It isn’t a matter of fair. It’s a matter of treating this the same way as we treat insider trading...it’s destructive of a free market.
Romney manipulated the laws of bankruptcy, corporation, and appraisal.
The democrats will destroy him, pound him to a pulp in a campaign against Obama.
Little tough to discern the above but re: Rick Perry. His words are (somewhat desperate) political attacks and are not to be taken seriously. We're sophisticated enough to understand that, right? He has a long, clear record of overseeing a very low state regulatory business environment here in Texas. Check it. I've owned and operated a business since 1995, and the vast majority of regulations here are Federally imposed. In the increasingly unlikely event that Perry would ever sit in the White House you can be confident in his laissez-faire executive approach to the economy.
There are problems with Perry, but you're barking up the wrong tree. And it sure doesn't make Santorum any more attractive.
It looks to me like Gingrich and Perry, in a 48-hour period, somehow managed to ruin at least one component of the obama team’s well-planned, very expensive October Surprises for Romney. The Dems are probably watching all this and cursing a blue streak because their Scorched Earth, “Wall-Street-is-Evil” lynching of romney has just been pre-empted. Bwaaa haaa haaa!
Yeah, boy. Those GOP elites sure picked themselves a winner in romney, didn’t they? They’re all so compromised themselves, they couldn’t even see just HOW unelectable romney is!
I mean... What did they think the Occupy Movements were ABOUT?!
I’m sitting here watching Rove bloviate on Hannity and had a epiphany. There is a direct relationship between his Pucker Factor and the number of times he begins his sentences with the word, “Look...”
Lord, forgive me for enjoying this so much.
Hear, hear! I see this as a win, win situation. If people would stop the hand-wringing they may just see the glass is half full. But only if conservatives keep pointing out how questioning ethics is NOT equivalent to questioning capitalism. BIG difference. This gives conservatives a chance to show the world that we really DON'T want to push Grandma off the proverbial cliff.
BTW, Sarah Palin just spent 10 minutes on Hannity taking up for Perry on this, trying to help him out by reframing the question to one of ethics. Interesting to watch. Twice, she said something like, "I think what Rick Perry is saying is..." (paraphrasing)
Newt shouldn't have backed down this morning. It makes him look wishy-washy. Again. I bet he's kicking himself now that romney has essentially said his behavior was no different than obama's with GM bailout.
The best thing about all this is that Santorum got to stay out of the fray.
Every time I read the company name “Bain Capital”, and what it has done with some companies it has purchased, I keep hearing “Cerberus/Dan Quayle/Chrysler”.
Is it just me, or is there a lot of selective indignation going on?
I pray every night that mittens is NOT the pubbie nominee, but puhleez get over the whole asset stripping thing. That’s what some companies do, and do well.
Having studied the Founders speeches and writings in defense of what they considered to be the economic dimension of liberty, Gingrich should use this opportunity to expose the founding concept for generations who have never been taught how America became a place of opportunity, prosperity and plenty--until the so-called "progressives" reinvented the concept into one of their own making which is, in fact, "regressive."
The word "capitalism" is being thrown about without definition as to its relationship to liberty or to America's founding ideas.
How do current talking points on "capitalism" relate to ideas contained in the following essay, excerpted from "Our Ageless Constitution,"a 292-page history of the ideas of liberty in America.
"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise." - Thomas Jefferson
"The enviable condition of the people of the United States is often too much ascribed to the physical advantages of their soil & climate .... But a just estimate of the happiness of our country will never overlook what belongs to the fertile activity of a free people and the benign influence of a responsible government." - James Madison
America's Constitution did not mention freedom of enterprise per se, but it did set up a system of laws to secure individual liberty and freedom of choice in keeping with Creator-endowed natural rights. Out of these, free enterprise flourished naturally. Even though the words "free enterprise' are not in the Constitution, the concept was uppermost in the minds of the Founders, typified by the remarks of Jefferson and Madison as quoted above. Already, in 1787, Americans were enjoying the rewards of individual enterprise and free markets. Their dedication was to securing that freedom for posterity.
The learned men drafting America's Constitution understood history - mankind's struggle against poverty and government oppression. And they had studied the ideas of the great thinkers and philosophers. They were familiar with the near starvation of the early Jamestown settlers under a communal production and distribution system and Governor Bradford's diary account of how all benefited after agreement that each family could do as it wished with the fruits of its own labors. Later, in 1776, Adam Smith's INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS and Say's POLITICAL ECONOMY had come at just the right time and were perfectly compatible with the Founders' own passion for individual liberty. Jefferson said these were the best books to be had for forming governments based on principles of freedom. They saw a free market economy as the natural result of their ideal of liberty. They feared concentrations of power and the coercion that planners can use in planning other peoples lives; and they valued freedom of choice and acceptance of responsibility of the consequences of such choice as being the very essence of liberty. They envisioned a large and prosperous republic of free people, unhampered by government interference.
The Founders believed the American people, possessors of deeply rooted character and values, could prosper if left free to:
|
|
Such a free market economy was, to them, the natural result of liberty, carried out in the economic dimension of life. Their philosophy tended to enlarge individual freedom - not to restrict or diminish the individual's right to make choices and to succeed or fail based on those choices. The economic role of their Constitutional government was simply to secure rights and encourage commerce. Through the Constitution, they granted their government some very limited powers to:
Adam Smith called it "the system of natural liberty." James Madison referred to it as "the benign influence of a responsible government." Others have called it the free enterprise system. By whatever name it is called, the economic system envisioned by the Founders and encouraged by the Constitution allowed individual enterprise to flourish and triggered the greatest explosion of economic progress in all of history. Americans became the first people truly to realize the economic dimension of liberty.
Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
Maybe not, in the strictest, purest definition of "venture capitalism." We all know that capitalism is good and socialism is bad. Newt and Perry aren't saying anything differently; they're just playing hardball (Finally.)
But think about this for a minute and think outside the box. Obama's handler's were planning to rape and pillage romney on this. It's all about "perception," not actual "reality."
If they make the public have the "perception" of Romney as the Evil-Wall-Street-Satan, they win. It's not about reality with them; it never IS. They were planning on saving this for the summer, after Romney wrapped up the nomination, then dragging out the OWS crowd again for a little more civil unrest against 'evil Wall Street greed.'
Okay, okay... our delicate sensibilities were offended by hearing fellow conservatives attack the Bastion of Conservatism -- good ol' healthy Capitalism. So what? It's all good in the long run.
Oh, it's fine to question it when it's some lib dem doing it. But we're supposed to ignore it when the chosen GOP winner may be guilty of similar practices.
“If what Bain did wasn’t “fair”, should we change the law so the government can decide whether owners of companies are being “fair”? “
It has nothing to do with fairness or even what is legal. If the goal is to make president the biggest predatory (but legal) vulture capitalist, then you ought to be voting for George Soros.
This debate is about whether Romney created anything or just stripped assets and piled pensions onto the government. As far as I can tell, it is a mixed bag. So game on, Mitt you have some ‘splainin to do!
And I have to tell you, if we were all to become vulture capitalists there would be nothing left, no matter how legal it is.
It’s not about legality, the question is, do we want somebody in the White House who has no problem with making taxpayers pay for their actions, while they enjoy the profits of those actions?
[Even if he were a “vulture capitalist,” there is nothing “unethical” about vulture capitalism. ]
Here’s a test. I do business brokerage and know how vulture capitalism is played and even have enough money to make a moderate play. If you work at a small to say $5 million company, why don’t you send me their address and I’ll start working my “legal ethical vulture capitalist” schemes on that company for the fun of it.
You see, there is almost always a way to milk a going concern legally and I’m learning a lot from the Bain story. So obviously you will be anxious to support capitalism and prove how sincere you are by giving me your employers name.
Even if it is a big company, maybe I can set off a short run on it, all legally of course.
Ah, I love the smell of burning capitalism in the morning.
Apparently, and we shall see, Mittens has been performing legal abortions on the American employees.
[Yeah, boy. Those GOP elites sure picked themselves a winner in romney, didn’t they?]
Yup. Whoooboy McDolRomney is stinking up the place. And if, as is likely, their chosen one goes down to defeat defending Obomneycare, TARP, the GM bailout, abortion, gun grabbing etc, there will be absolute hell to pay in the GOP.
What were they thinking, always too smart by half.
[It’s not about legality, the question is, do we want somebody in the White House who has no problem with making taxpayers pay for their actions, while they enjoy the profits of those actions?]
I’ll go with that explanation too.
bttt
What tab are you being stuck with? Are you referring to the bankruptcy agreement of GST Steel?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.