Posted on 01/13/2012 6:14:08 PM PST by VinL
Furthermore, making a profit is only one component of owning a business. Whatever happened to the idea that you are responsible for your workers and to the larger community? Too often, people feel like just pawns in a ‘game’ of ever increasing largesse for the top dogs. The big shots are always the winners – often getting payouts in the millions when their companies fail — and the “losers” are left to figure out how to eat or buy clothes for their children. (A new study found that $100 million “golden parachutes” have become commonplace for failed CEOs).
Romney’s “class envy” claim is predicated on a lie we often here from the uber-rich and their defenders: the highest goal and achievement for Americans is to be wealthy, when all most people want is to be able to provide a decent lives for their families…
The unlikely hero in this tale has been Newt Gingrich, who has been making the most coherent argument for ethical capitalism. Says Gingrich, what we want is, “a free enterprise system that is honest. . . fair to everyone and gives everyone an equal opportunity to pursue happiness.” Criticizing Romney’s brand of free enterprise, (Newt)said, “It’s not fine if the person who is rich manipulates the system, gets away with all the cash and leaves behind the human beings.”
Be still my heart.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Gingrich is the Big Government statist guy who has been feeding at the government trough all his life. He thinks government can provide the solutions to our problems. He is an inside the Beltway influence peddler who used his position to gain wealth. He supports amnesty. He supports a "robust guest worker program."
Kerry-Gingrich “debate” on Global Warming
At one point, Gingrich said, "We're not arguing over whether it [a plan to fight global warming] should be urgent. We're arguing over whether bureaucracy and litigation is a better way to be urgent or whether science and technology translated by entrepreneurs into products is a better way to be urgent."
Finally, Kerry relented. "I'm excited to hear you talk about the urgency," he said. But "what would you say to Senator [Jim] Inhofe [R-Okla.] and to others in the Senate who are resisting even the science?"
Gingrich didn't hesitate. "My message," he said, "is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading of the atmosphere." The pro-Kerry crowd applauded.
"And do it urgently?" the senator pressed.
"And do it urgently, yeah," the former speaker replied. "I think there has to be, if you will, a green conservatism," he added.
April 10, 2007
NANCY PELOSI: Hi. I’m Nancy Pelosi, lifelong Democrat and Speaker of the House.
NEWT GINGRICH: And I’m Newt Gingrich, lifelong Republican, and I used to be Speaker.
PELOSI: We don’t always see eye-to-eye, do we Newt?
GINGRICH: No. But we do agree our country must take action to address climate change.
PELOSI: We need cleaner forms of energy and we need them fast.
GINGRICH: If enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation we need.
April 18, 2008
What a bunch of garbage.
I'm not the one attacking free enterprise.
PING! POW! BOOM!
Perhaps, dear xzins. On the other hand, I think in all likelihood one would find him in squeaky-clean compliance with whatever statutes are on the books. Even if they stink.
To me, Romney is the consummate Technocrat. This is at once his greatest strength, and what makes me feel uneasy about him. He is an extraordinarily able manager of large, highly complex organizations. He sticks to the letter of the law; he follows the rules. But to me he seems tone-deaf to the Spirit that underlays our laws, the Constitution (federal and state, since as Governor of Massachusetts, he was chief custodian of the Massachusetts Constitution written by no less than John Adams).
Elsewhere you wrote that Romney had a deplorable record as governor. To me, a citizen of Massachusetts, it was definitely a "mixed bag." We Massachusetts citizens had gay marriage foisted on us — against the popular will — during Romney's tenure. The way this was done stank to high heaven.
The state legislature could not pass a bill: Few members wanted to have their name attached to a "yea" vote. Romney was threatening to veto it anyway. Perhaps they were secretly hoping that the Supreme General Court would do their dirty work for them. And that's just what happened. The Court said that the Massachusetts Constitution requires recognition of gay marriage on "equal protection" grounds. (This would probably be news to John Adams.)
I think Romney should have objected to this charade on Constitutional grounds: As an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative powers by the judiciary. But he remained silent. Now we have "gay marriage" in Massachusetts. (And plenty of "gay divorce," too.)
RomneyCare has provided coverage to the most indigent in our society, made possible by imposing an "individual mandate" on all citizens, enforced through the Department of Revenue. On constitutional grounds, Romney ought to have objected (IMHO) to this unconstitutional usurpation of the liberty of the people of the Commonwealth. Not to mention that the program is coming in way over cost projections, and the taxpayers will be tapped to make up the difference, I'm sure.
ObamaCare is basically RomneyCare Redux. I don't know how Romney can ever live that down with conservative voters....
Again, what Romney is really good at, is managing large-scale, highly-complex projects, such as straightening out the mess at the Olympic Committee, wracked by scandal and on the verge of bankruptcy. And, closer to home, the new access system to the Sagamore Bridge over the Cape Cod Canal. Since WWII, the access to the bridge has been via a rotary, which integrated both local traffic and high-speed traffic coming off a major highway in a highly dangerous "mix master" notorious for accidents and fatalities.
This was an enormous, highly complex engineering project, involving large "public takings" of long-established family businesses and other commercial interests. Eminent domain is never a fun experience; but I note the displaced holders must have been satisfied they were compensated at fair market value, for I have heard no public reports to the contrary.
In the end, Romney's beautiful new access system was built on-time and under-budget.
In the end, what troubles me about Romney is that he's a "letter of the law" guy, who is relatively unmoved by considerations of the "Spirit of the Law" of historical American tradition and experience.
Finally, this is what makes him a "Technocrat" in my eyes....
This socialist nonsense will sell with the left and the media, but main street won’t buy into it. Main street will figure out pretty quickly that it won’t be long before the new “monitors of ethical capitalism” will come for their slice of the American pie.
**********************
Stop, WM, please. There is neither free enterprise or capitalism in bipartisan present day America.
Here’s what Main Street knows:
That the elite BIPARTISAN “monitors” (read oligarchy) of our country sold us out on the day of the bank bailout. We resoundingly said “NO!”, arguing that capitalism says there is no such thing as “too big too fail”!
And they said:
“________ you, you peons. Capitalism exists for the little people- not for us up here in the ruling class. If we make mistakes, we take your money, and make up for our losses. And in passing, be advised that we are going to increase the price of gas, oil, your ATM fees, your food costs, and suck the equity out of your home to offset the costs. Any objections, you Un-American punks?”
At least, Newt is speaking to the issue- and we know it’s resonating- because the Establishment, en masse, is attempting to assassinate him. The least we should do is commend Newt’s courage in doing so.
What a bunch of garbage.
*********
What garbage? Do free enterprise, capitalism and free markets exist in in America today. Tell me?
Bonus question: What other Republican candidate has done as much as Gingrich to implement the Reagan revolution?
Keep in mind that Gingrich has since admitted that he was wrong on the Global warming hooey, and IIRC, even confessed that his reasons for supporting Scozzafava were made in error.
Keep in mind Reagans' sage standard -- that if you agree with a candidate 75 or 80 percent, that should be good enough.
Gingrich is far from perfect, and you have never, and will never, see me (or any other Gingrich supporter that I've seen on FR) claiming otherwise.
But LIKE THOMAS SOWELL, one of the finest conservative thinkers in America, I think it's quite clear that Gingrich is far and away the best bet we've got in our pool of candidates.
More important, ROMNEY IS A STATIST and STATISM IS OUR ENEMY. Compared to Romney, Gingrich is an angel.
Yet everything you and many others here are doing, along with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, which is heartbreaking for this long-time fan, is AIDING AND ABETTING ROMNEY, albeit indirectly.
On balance, Gingrich has done ONE HELL OF A LOT MORE GOOD than bad in the halls of American government, and right now, he is the most courageous and aggressive one doing bloody battle to take down Romney, who represents statism, which is our REAL enemy.
Yet because you insist on twisting his attack on Romney's poor business ethic as an attack on capitalism in general -- and YOUR CONSCIENCE MUST TELL YOU your take is disingenuous -- you are paving the way for Romney.
Snap out of it!
The thing that disturbs me most about him is a quality that he shares with Baraq Obama, and that is a complete lack of sincerity. I do not doubt Mitt Romney's management abilities. This country would be blessed to have a chief executive of his caliber. BUT, I have zero confidence in what he will do once he takes office. Because he is not sincere, I have no way to gauge what he will do once he takes office. Consider Obama. When he ran for office, he made a huge deal out of closing Guantanamo. But once elected, it became clear that he really didn't care one way or the other whether it remained open or not. There was no sincerity in his earlier claims that closing it was the right thing to do. Likewise with Romney, I cannot trust his words in this campaign. He says that he will completely throw out Obamacare. But will he really do that once elected? I have no way of knowing.
It is because of this need for sincerity and integrity that I support Rick Santorum. He is one who does not shy away from core beliefs no matter what audience he is facing. And because of that, I trust him to hold fast to what he believes. That's all I can ask.
As has become abundantly clear, neither is Newt Gingrich.
He is, however, one of the few who has gone on offense and is becoming bloody in a necessary battle to take down the worst and biggest enemy in the Republican party, Mitt Romney.
When you go against Gingrich now, you are HELPING Romney, whether or not you care to acknowledge it.
Don't need to Brother. All the silly charges have been responded to in detail. How about giving me a working definition of "unethical". The term is getting thrown around a lot, but I have yet to see how Bain violated any laws.
First, Newt was a contractor with Fannie and Freddie. He was not an employee or a member. They purchased a service from him via contract. At the SAME TIME, so did the Department of Defense, particularly the War College. Are we to believe that contracting in one agency is fine, but contracting in another is not?
Newt was given all kinds of contracts after he left govt. The contracts he was given were from govt agencies, or govt sponsored enterprises. He traded his influence for millions was that "ethical capitalism"?
I don't know if you will recall it, but when this influence peddling came up I defended Newt's right to make a living and asked what laws he broke. Now Romney is attacked for running a successful venture capital firm and because he broke no laws he is accused of being "unethical". Gingrich is a real hypocrite.
The issue was there. Gingrich used it.
Most politicians use the issues that present themselves, especially when they're behind.
No heroism was involved, and probably not much principle either.
Just politics.
Thank you.
We have see so many solid posts detailing the charges and the facts of what actually transpired we should be able to recognize this line of attack on Romney is only going to backfire.
im still having a difficult time combining the 'greengrinch' with the point shavin 'paul crewe'...
ethical capitalism from a guy who whores himself to anybody/anything that could make a buck, with the full force of his insider connections and strong arms of big gov to get the payday ???
mittens is the nominee...its been set in stone...ole noot is just accumulating a bit more of a retirement plan and influence to sell, at taxpayer cost of course...
yeah for ethanol and cap & tax...*IF* its done by an 'R' guy ???
Exactly. The RDS is so over the top that Gingrich and his followers are willing to blow up what's left of the party.
Did Bain invest in abortion clinics?
This is a great point, but even if the business had failed they did nothing wrong. In fact people who are able to organize capital and put it to work to try and salvage failing businesses should be admired. I hope hey make a bunch of money for their efforts.
I notice you left out Santorum. Why?
Given Newt's position on amnesty, an issue I care very much about because I believe an amnesty would destroy this country with the stroke of a pen, I would choose the lessor of two evils, Romney. But Santorum is not out of this. I would choose him over both Romney and Gingrich.
Keep in mind that Gingrich has since admitted that he was wrong on the Global warming hooey, and IIRC, even confessed that his reasons for supporting Scozzafava were made in error.
A conversion on the road to the White House. Newt changes his positions on issues the same way he does on wives and religions. He will take whatever position satisfies his needs and ambitions.
More important, ROMNEY IS A STATIST and STATISM IS OUR ENEMY. Compared to Romney, Gingrich is an angel.
I say Gingrich is just as much a statist as Romney if not more. Gingrich was for the individual mandate before he was against it. He supported and still supports the biggest expansion of the entitlement programs since 1965, the Medicare Part D prescription drug program.
On balance, Gingrich has done ONE HELL OF A LOT MORE GOOD than bad in the halls of American government, and right now, he is the most courageous and aggressive one doing bloody battle to take down Romney, who represents statism, which is our REAL enemy.
He talks a good game, but when you look at the facts, he has feet of clay. And remember, he is the only sitting Speaker ever to receive a reprimand and financial penalty from the House, a body controlled by the Reps. 85% of his Rep colleagues voted in favor of the reprimand. He cheated on his first two wives. I believe that people like Gingrich and the political elites are the problem, not the solution to our problems.
lol, correct you are, except I am sure you meant the unethical Dems and unethical GOP establishment politicians. Let’s not be stingy on the credit for unethical behavior ;-)
*************
LFR, obviously we are kindred spirits on this. But, I do hold the DC elitist GOP Establsihment to be more unethical than the Dems- because- the GOP is trying to convince you and I that they are on OUR side. And they’re not- they’re using us to get elected. At least,we know where the Reids, Pelosi’s Kennedys et al stand-— they are avowed socialists.
The “conservative” Beonhners (sp) and McConnells get in the backroom with Reid, laugh at us, and sell us out by further embedding socialism into constitutional America.
But yes, agreed, “the credit for unethical behavior” is widely shared in DC.
Well Newt aka noot wants a speech at the convention where he says what a great guy Romney is and how we should vote for him and then to sell another book called : “How I turned the Republican party against corporate greed and excess profits” with many guest spots on the MSNBC shows.
I doubt that anyone on FR is arguing against capitalism as Friedman describes it. Seems to be some dispute over whether the formulation "ethical capitalism" is meaningful or necessary.
The thing is capitalism "as she is done" in the real world offers a lot of kinks and irregularities that a more abstract discussion doesn't take into account. Mitt apparently thinks gov't interference is fine and you can take advantage of subsidies and taxpayer bailouts and still call it "capitalism" and howl that if anyone disagrees, they're anti-capitalist. I think much of the disagreement on these threads is that one side is arguing from "pure" free market capitalism, of a sort which doesn't, never has, and never will exist, while the other side is focusing on the real world irregularities.
And without a moral and ethical framework -- and moral and ethical people -- the bare bones of capitalist theory don't work, or not for long. Take enforceability of contracts: even when both parties act in good faith, the courts are full of contract disputes because the parties interpret different phrases differently. And that's when neither party is living by the rule of "Never give a sucker an even break!" But this happens often enough too -- some people really do try to cheat others by contract.
As I understand it, a free market presupposes the free exchange of information, but lots of information is confidential or privileged or "insider information", probably some more justified than others. Are trade secrets, protected by the courts, a violation of the free market because they interfere with the free flow of information? That would make corporate piracy justifiable -- though of course the pirates are no more willing to share it than the original owners.
Should companies make public who makes what salary (most at least used to discourage any employee from telling anyone what he made). It would certainly free up information; it might also cause chaos and nobody would get anything done.
There are just lots of things that the abstract expression of capitalism doesn't cover, and people being what they are (whether you want to call it human nature or Original Sin), the abstract expression isn't going to work like some sort of Platonic Ideal.
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.