Since when do conservatives hate capitalism?

GOPUSA ^ | January 10, 2012 | Bobby Eberle

[americanophile]

What do conservatives stand for? What do conservatives believe in? Those seem like simple questions, and as a conservative, I can tell you exactly what I stand for and believe. The problem comes from what I'm hearing from our GOP presidential candidates who call themselves conservative. In their quest for the Republican nomination, it seems these "conservatives" will embrace any idea in order to attack another candidate. The latest is an assault on capitalism... yes, capitalism! What's next? Supporting higher taxes and bigger government?

As noted in a story on CNSNews.com, GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney is under attack by his fellow opponents, namely Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry. Why, you ask? Because Romney ran Bain Capital, which would restructure and reorganize companies in order to make them profitable. In doing so, everything that would be involved in saving a company was on the table: selling assets, trimming work staff, modernizing... you name it.

Oh the horror of it all! Gingrich and Perry are blasting Romney for not relying on the government, not going for corporate bailouts, but rather, for handling corporate woes in the private sector.

Imagine you had a company of 10 employees. Suddenly, the demand for your product grew, and you had to hire 10 more. Now the company of 20 employees is rolling right along. The company is making a profit and all is well. But now, the equipment has gotten old, the economy has slowed down, and the demand for the product is just not what it used to be. The company is in the red. It is no longer a company that needs or can support 20 employees.

[greeneyes]

“It’d be one thing if Newt were attacking Romney’s capitalism from the right, and you certainly could. But he’s not. He’s saying Mitt “plundered,” that his receiving compensation wasn’t fair, that a certain amount of wealth is too much, etc. It’s not that he called him greedy and left it at that. He called him greedy in an Obama manner, i.e. from the perspective of distributive justice and assuming that certain ways of earning money on the free market is akin to theft.”

Language is language. I don't assign descriptions to either the right or the left. And I never heard Newt say that a certain amount of wealth is too much. Nor did I hear him use the word theft. Nor is Newt the only one - Huntsman and Perry are giving Romney plenty of grief too.

However, I do think that Romney needs to be prepared to answer just such accusations, because they will be coming fast and furious from the Obama machine.

What I did hear was legitimate questions that any board member would ask any CEO regarding his reasons for taking so much money from the company whether in dividends or personal salary etc that the company could not survive and left the taxpayers on the hook paying for the pensions.

After all, when engaging in rightsizing, and turnaround efforts, we all know there will be failures, and the people who are shareholders and investors often lose too.

The company exists to make a profit for the shareholders(owners), and the CEO and the board have a fiduciary responsibility to insure that the decisions made and salaries/fees do not bankrupt the company.

It is not at all clear whether that fiduciary responsibility was met, or indeed what info was considered and decisions made.

As a practical matter, Romney needs to explain it all fully, so that voters can decide whether they really think from a pragmatic stand point that Romney's CEO career is really what we want front and center in a campaign against Obama.

I would prefer that just the facts be disclosed without all the characterizations and hyperpole. Ie forget the words predatory, etc. Just tell me the facts, and I'll decide what descriptor should be used myself. Sadly even the NEWSpapers don't just tell the facts anymore.

[FlingWingFlyer]

I still think ECONOMIC FREEDOM is a better term to use. Karl Marx used the terms “capitalism” and “capitalists” almost as though those things were evil. That is what is wrong with the morons currently attending our “colleges” and “universities”. They think of capitalism in the same way Karl Marx thought of it. Capitalism, bad. Communism, good. The #Occupiggies would look REALLY foolish badmouthing ECONOMIC FREEDOM.

[greeneyes]

“What you are engaging in is misdirection. This is NOT about capitalism in general but Romney’s business ethics specifically.
You can blow all the smoke that you like, it will not change that Romney is a liar and dishonest.”

I agree. This is NOT about Capitalism. It is about Romney, and his decisions and methods. Making such firms the face of capitalism is like making a bounty hunter the face of law enforcement.

[onyx]

Aren't you sweet?

Why not listen to Newt Gingricch himself?

This video is perhaps Newt’s best explanation, which had the hostile Scarborough thinking by the end (note also Newt defends Romney on the “firing” question)

[onyx]

Aren't you sweet?

Why not listen to Newt Gingrich himself?

This video is perhaps Newt’s best explanation, which had the hostile Scarborough thinking by the end (note also Newt defends Romney on the “firing” question)

[DJ MacWoW]

Great analogy!

[greeneyes]

Thanks. I hope it gets through the chatter.

[TheOldLady]

Keep the Monsters Away
Donate Monthly

Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign up
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today

[Osage Orange]

Well okay....it’s all your fault and I feel better!! : )

[ozzymandus]

That’s my job!

[rwilson99]

It would be crazy to nominate someone who liked to shoot people, because you expected them to defend the 2nd amendment.

It would also be dumb to nominate someone who made $50 abortions possible, because you expect him to be prolife.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


You are ALL Wrong ...

Newt's criticism about Mitt Romney ISN'T against CAPITALISM ... it's about Mitt Romney's long-standing SEVERE LACK of BASIC HUMAN ETHICS and DECENCY ... all powered by Mitt Romney's GREED, GREED, GREED ...



I'm a proud Tea Party Conservative, Business Owner (Coggeshall Engineering Associates Inc.) and a clear-minded Newt Gingrich supporter ...

I'm sure that Newt (perfectly) AGREES that Mitt Romney had the LEGAL RIGHT to run Bain Capital as he saw fit ... just as Ebeneezer Scrooge had EVERY RIGHT to run his own business ...

After all, Newt Gingrich and I are "dedicated" hard-working capitalists ...



So WHAT (exactly) did Mitt Romney do wrong ?

Just like Ebeneezer Scrooge forced widows and orphans to go "homeless" in the Christmas snow ... because Scrooge was a GREEDY S.O.B. ...

Mitt Romney not only made MILLIONS buying troubled corporations ... but then Mitt's ABSOLUTE FREAKING GREED compelled him to take the "Ebeneezer Scrooge Option" ...

and like the Cold-Hearted S.O.B. Bastard Mitt is ...

FIRE, TERMINATE thousands of (innocent) people (workers) who DID NOT NEED TO BE FIRED AT ALL ...



Why ? Mitt Romney's SATANIC GREED ... Period.

"Gentle and Smiling" Mitt Romney is a Sociopathic GREEDY Bastard ... I'd say more ... but the Admin Moderator is watching ...

How about just that the ONLY difference between an Arrogant Obama and Mitt Romney ... is that Obama is "only" half-white ...



.

[PieterCasparzen]

So you would vote for Old Man Potter, from “It’s A Wonderful Life”? Afterall, he was a “good” capitalist.

IMHO...

I've always thought the Potter-Bailey question is very illustrative.

Of course, both characters had good and bad characteristics, all of which probably were not within Capra's intent - which one can only assume was to paint George as the good and Potter as the bad.

George Bailey was certainly a giving character, evidenced by his helping others and continuing to operate the "building and loan" out of selflessness and a sense of moral obligation, at least according to the impressions the script undoubtedly wants to convey.

But of course George's character could be seen to have a few flaws from the point of view of quality entrepreneurialism.

1) He had a "dream" of travelling the world that he "put aside" in the purported interest of "family" and the B & L. But he really let those dreams negatively affect his whole frame of thought and create a lot of resentment in him. Either travel or stop obsessing over it already. While dreams are good in that they provide goals, many an entrepreneur has messed up royally by allowing unrealistic dreams to cloud their judgement.
2) The script implies that George's loan underwriting left a lot to be desired and that borrowers should be given mortgages even though they could not afford an adequate downpayment. We learned over the past few years that this is a recipe for failure for both borrowers and lenders. Was the movie simply an appeal for the Community Reinvestment Act ?
3) George apparently maintained very thin personal finances and this is portrayed as financially acceptable and a demonstration of George's good character while his "building and loan" barely got by. Being entirely financially wrapped up in one make-or-break venture, is, of course, something that is highly risky and unwise, and certainly should only be attempted when one has some chance of financial recovery and has an appetite for risk. George would certainly be unable to give much for charity in his financial state; the implication was that he was helping people via his freewheeling B & L business. Of course, a failed business certainly hurts many people.

Mr. Potter's business practices were standard fare in that day; uncollateralized lending was much less prevalent than it is today. His negative portrayal is mostly supported by his lack of friends and charity, as well as his personal vendetta against the Bailey's and the B & L.

1) Mr. Potter felt the opposite of George in terms of George's imprudent planning and actions; Potter was the better businessman. It was as if he foresaw the Real Estate crash of '08 as a result of loose loan underwriting standards.
2) During the Depression, many people besides Mr. Potter snapped up investment bargains; doing so in and of itself would not make Mr. Potter "evil". Every time someone sells property, someone else is on the other side of the transaction buying.
3) There is no indication of Mr. Potter's charity, though the implication was certainly that he never gave anyone a nickel. Charity would have been a better avenue towards helping the poor than saddling them with mortgages they can't afford. The absence of charity on Mr. Potter's part of course would give credence to the storyline of his "meanness". Mr. Potter had little to no goodwill in the town, which is something that a smart businessman would seek to rectify, though not at the expense of sound practices.

To summarize, though George had some good characteristics and Mr. Potter had some bad ones; the implication that they were all one way or the other places the script in the realm of idealism. Personally, I prefer to read between the lines and view the characters from my own perspective instead of the through the idealistic lens of the movie. Having the town sink into "Pottersville" is an outcome that all too often is what business gravitates towards, and certainly it is a far less desireable outcome than "Bedford Falls" for the citizenry. The true "heros" would be both employers and employees who are hard-working, smart, patient and charitable; somewhat of a mix of both George and Mr. Potter.

[BlackElk]

Good for you!

[BlackElk]

Do you also imagine that Andrew Jackson sympathized with Jacobins and the French Revolution? After all, he really did a number on Nicholas Biddle’s national bank and we did not get another imposed until just before World War I. In between we managed to enjoy the Industrial Revolution, win the West and to fight the Civil War, all with neither a Federal Reserve Bank or Mr. Biddle’s infamous predecessor of same.

[Daveinyork]

Just one word is all that is necessary - Freedom

[Zionist Conspirator]

Do you also imagine that Andrew Jackson sympathized with Jacobins and the French Revolution? After all, he really did a number on Nicholas Biddle’s national bank and we did not get another imposed until just before World War I. In between we managed to enjoy the Industrial Revolution, win the West and to fight the Civil War, all with neither a Federal Reserve Bank or Mr. Biddle’s infamous predecessor of same.

Jackson began his political career as a Jeffersonian--the party that supported the Jacobins. And he was regarded as a dangerous radical as well.

You mentioned Mr. Biddle but not Mr. Hamilton or Mr. Washington. Was their central bank "infamous" as well?

[cdcdawg]

I’m curious as to what the conservative outcome would have been. Turn the company around, despite the overwhelming trend in the market? Keep the company going, while losing more money? What?

[BlackElk]

Unquestionably. Every national bank here has been a naked powergrab to centralize capital and to farm ordinary folks. If you have ever wondered why the Washington/Hamilton Federalist Party was soon dead as a doornail just a few years after John Adams the Elder was defeated by Jefferson, look no further than Hamilton's economic policies and their bank. Then the elitists regrouped as various short-lived mini parties that were generally beaten like a rented mule. Then the elite formed the Whig Party to crank up central government expenditures on the excuse of "internal improvements" which generally served commercial interests and old money in the Northeast at that. After the Whigs collapsed of their own weight of favoritism for centralized economic power after minor and quite temporary successes (Harrison/Tyler 1840) (Zachary Taylor/Millard Fillmore 1848), next came the Know Nothings and the pro-business but otherwise then radical Free Soilers/Republicans who promptly triggered the most ruinous war in American history but consolidated its own partisan future for the first time. Today, the GOP has the same money disease as Federalists, Whigs, and early Republicans but has otherwise become the replacement for the Jacksonian Democrats and their common touch. Today's Demonrats are run by elitist radicals who hate morality and our country and have successfully solicited the support of a vast array of the financially spoiled and privileged elitists who share the Demonrats' hatred of those who "cling to their guns and bibles."

Meanwhile the most prominent member of Mr. Biddle's family, Sindey Biddle Barrows, is renowned as the "Mayflower Madame." Kind of a chip off the very old block concentrating her efforts in a slightly different field.

Ronald Reagan began his political involvement as a member of the party of Jefferson and Jackson (the oldest in Western Civilization) and became a Republican, as he always said, not because he left the Democrat Party but because it left him.

I also regard Aaron Burr (Jonathan Edwards' grandson and a founder of Tammany Hall) as having fired the most wisely directed bullet in American history. He delivered America from Hamilton.

[donna]

The individuals responsible for the failure take the loss. No taxpayer money involved. That’s conservative.

The Republican outcome appears to be; the individuals responsible become millionaires and buy the Presidency - just like the Soros plan.