So you think that raking in millions and letting government pick up the tab is true capitalism.
Yet you don't have to support the Occupy movement to know that the playing field is pro-business, not pro-market. So it is disingenuous on Romney's part to decry welfare dependency as a poison to be fought when he has been more than happy to go before the government, role up his sleeve and have another form of poison injected into his arm and then come back for more. Romney is equally disingenuous to suggest that any criticism of his tenure at Bain Capital is an attack on free enterprise itself especially when he never practiced free enterprise in the first place. Mitt Romney is what I would call a corporate welfare bum.
I wish that was the way this issue was taken on.
Where did I say that? I only objected to the *way* Newt and Santorum attacked Romney, not to them attacking him per se. I would have much rather they'd attacked RomneyCare, gun control, or on his business being in bed with big government, if it was.
The *way* it was done gives the Dems ammo against whichever Republican becomes the nominee. They'd make the attacks anyway, but now they can use excerpts from those ads.
No, but no one mentioned subsidies to this point. I'm against local governments attempting to bring in business by giving them subsidies. Tax breaks is a different issue. I don't have much objection to them as long as they are temporary, and must be paid after the fact if the company leaves the area with a given time, somewhat longer than the tax break time. Infrastructure is also a different issue.