-
It’s.The.Law
May 20, 2013 | 19 comments
-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 228 comments
-
The Pigs of Pigford
April 30, 2013 | 71 comments
Special Report
Creative Destruction, Properly Understood
A primer on this primary’s hottest issue.
(Page 2 of 2)
And were there YouTube a century ago, one can imagine a bitter movie being made about any of these great men by the few, or even not so few, whose lives were disrupted by the inevitable creative destruction of capitalism:
Narrator: So, Ethel, I know this is difficult for you, but what happened after Thomas Edison came to town?
Ethel: Our lives were never the same. I worked the afternoon shift at the Amalgamated Wick Company, supplying wicks to Acme Candle and Sealing Wax Inc. But once those electric lights came along, people only needed candles for séances and church services. I lost my job and have never been able to look at a light bulb again with having a panic attack.
Narrator: And Obediah, how did Henry Ford impact your life?
Obediah: I used to be the chief street sweeper in Rockport, Illinois. Our residents had the finest horses and buggies in the state. What’s more, we had the finest Illinois grain to feed the horses, and so sweeping the streets was such a pleasure, with large piles of the best horse manure a person could ever hope to shovel. It was never too runny, never too smelly — unlike the stuff I had to clean up as a boy growing up in Arkansas. Once the Tin Lizzie came along, though, people stopped appreciating the fine aroma of our well-fed horses, the fine consistency of their excrement, and instead rode around in those furless masses of steel and rubber, leaving the streets horribly clean, with an unnaturally s**t-free smell in the air. Can I say “s**t” on the wireless?
Yes, Ethel and Obediah were hurt, at least for a time, by the inventions of others which improved the lives of millions. And while nobody is claiming that Mitt Romney belongs in a pantheon with greatness like Ford, Edison, and Gates, the arguments against him could almost as easily have been made against them or against any other businessman competing in the marketplace.
The argument is easy to make because someone who lost his job is a sympathetic face to pose as a victim of a heartless capitalist. But it’s the wrong argument, the wrong yardstick, especially for a presidential race where the issue is the long-term benefit of the entire nation. Would it have been better had Ethel and Obediah’s jobs never gone away?
As Cox and Alm put it, “The disruption of lost jobs and shuttered businesses is immediate, while the payoff from creative destruction comes mainly in the long term. As a result, societies will always be tempted to block the process of creative destruction, implementing policies to resist economic change.
“Attempts to save jobs almost always backfire. Instead of going out of business, inefficient producers hang on, at a high cost to consumers or taxpayers. The tinkering shortcircuits market signals that shift resources to emerging industries. It saps the incentives to introduce new products and production methods, leading to stagnation, layoffs, and bankruptcies. The ironic point of Schumpeter’s iconic phrase is this: societies that try to reap the gain of creative destruction without the pain find themselves enduring the pain but not the gain.”
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.13.12 @ 6:27AM
Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry are themselves examples of creative destruction, peddling outdated class warfare as times have moved on.
Old Soldier| 1.13.12 @ 7:32AM
Amazing that two supposed "conservatives" could utter such leftist nonsense.
I wouldn't vote for either of them ever.
Nancy in NC| 1.13.12 @ 9:32AM
Me either...well, at least not in the primary. Anybody but Obama.
beebop2| 1.14.12 @ 3:03PM
Newt is starting to resemble an evil albino pumpkin.
rhoetus| 1.14.12 @ 3:48PM
LOL, I just sit my coffee all over my monitor! :-)
Way to go beebop2
Margie| 1.14.12 @ 4:37PM
Duh. And what is Obama beginning to resemble to you all???
fckewe| 1.15.12 @ 2:20AM
The first real Presidential President we have had in 50 years. Johnson almost qualified, but he caved to McNamara and chickened out of the consequences in 68.
chuck| 1.15.12 @ 9:00AM
Holy sh*t! You are truly the dumbest person we have ever had post here at AS, way beyond, purp, Toddard, Alan Brooks, and all the other trolls.
fckewe| 1.16.12 @ 2:00PM
I am a 1%er, in Mensa. Thanks for sharing your IQ and other disabilities with us. My condolences to your parents, choosing the shame of spawning YOU over the shame of a double suicide at your birth.
No other President has withstood the virulent racism and mass TREASON of a Congress in more than 151 years. No other Congress has had so many opportunities to fix the National Crisis and COMPLETELY failed as gracelessly as this Congress of RED party traitors. Their failure as a body of legislators to address the business of the citizens of the United States makes keeping GITMO open a VERY SMART move.
Obama's decision to NOT use the Patriot act to arrest, detain and interrogate the 242 RED party Householes and the 54 RED party Senators proves My statement that this is the most presidential President America has had since Kennedy.
Johnson was a coward, GOing to war and abandoning his troops!
Nixon was not just a crook, but a flaming coward as well.
Carter was in impotent fool
Reagan designed and implemented the wholesale theft of wealth from the working and middle class through deceit and abandonment of American Principles. Bush was his puppet and deliberately avoided finishing a war just to perpetuate the RED party agenda of terminal,continuous warfare as an economic engine.
Clinton DID manage to get a blowjob form a Jewish girl, but in stead of being proud, he allowed a 2 year hiatus from Government by Newt Gingrich and crew.
BUSH II dismantled the US Constitution not only because of his personal endtimes religious dogma and his apocalyptic hopes for the return of Jesus, not only for the family business of oilgreed, but also because this Connecticut bred imposter of a Texan was as spineless as he was ignorant in allowing Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to corrupt the sanctity of Democracy by terrorizing AMerican's into accepting the Patriot act, private armies supplied and trained by the taxpayer and the fomentation and furtherance of that terror by failure to control the ports and borders of this Nation.
SO, that being said in the face of your nonexistant rebuttal of My statement ( name calling is not evidence) I rest My case on the tombstone of your ignorance.
skip| 1.18.12 @ 11:46AM
One requires only a shred of common sense, not mensan credentials, to logically conclude the 1.16.12 @ 2:00PM post above - consisting of nothing more than emotional prattle devoid of reason and experience - reveals not only the unintelligence and dishonesty of a typical liberal, it reveals the lack of integrity of a typical liberal.
Mender| 1.13.12 @ 3:22PM
There's a big difference between something being a legal business practice and something being above criticism. Example other people have made: if Mitt was the successful owner of a chain of porno shops (I don't want to think about what the films would be like but anyway!) would you still see him as having the business expertise Washington needs? What if he was a medical marijuana supplier in California?
Ivan Ivanovich| 1.14.12 @ 7:17AM
You have just discribed the "Strawman" arguement.
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.13.12 @ 9:49AM
Dear Ross: Once again, you're out there LECTURING Gingrich, and now, Perry, because their attacks on Romney's activities at Baine, are unseemly, and will Hurt the image of Conservatism, and the Free Market. It's not right. It's not Fair. And, they shouldn't do it.
Interesting. Cause, ya know, it all could have been avoided. If ROMNEY had stuck to the issues. If ROMNEY had just obeyed Reagan's 11th Commandment. None of this would be happening.
I agree with you. He's not a Vulture Capitalists. Not at all. What he IS, is a Vulture Candidate.
He fell behind. He panicked. And he did a Classic: Ready, Fire, Aim, on Newt Gingrich. And, with his Money? He could afford a Saturation Bombing. And, that's what he did.
I don't recall Gingrich going after any of his rivals, in any of the Debates. Even though he was stuck in No Man's Land, for most of the season. He just kept plugging along with his: "This is what I would do".
Same with Perry. Perry was running on his RECORD of Job Creation in Texas. He came on the stage like Helicopter at a Barbecue. (I don't know what that means. I just made it up) He was Brash. He Flew Jets. He killed, KILLERS.
Apparently, you Boy was starting to get nervous.
Everybody knows that it was ROMNEY People, who leaked everything on Herman Cain. It was ROMNEY People, hammering Rick Perry's lack of Book Smarts. And, soon, both men were gone. It had worked.
But, he got greedy. And, when Gingrich moved in to 1st Place, and then skyrocketed past the rest of the field, Romney let fly, with everything in his Quiver. Reagan's 11th Commandment was Dead.
What happened next, was why you're writing this column, today. Gingrich did something that Romney, in his Arrogance, failed to consider: He fired back. He returned Scorched Earth, from whence it came. "When Perry saw what Newt had done. He gave Mitt Romney 41." (Credit that to Artistic License)
And, now all of Romney's supporters are BITCHING. All of the Establishment Republican Pseudo Conservatives, are Killing Gingrich and Perry, for what Romney brought on himself, with his dismissal of Reagan's wise Council.
This is the lesson of Blind Ambition, made worse, with Millions of Dollars.
This ain't the NFL.
The 1st person that threw the Punch, gets the Flag. Not the guy who threw one back.
buckeyeman| 1.13.12 @ 10:27AM
So what Ross said was accurate but he shouldn't have said it because you don't like Romney? You write some decent posts, Tim, but this one is nonsense. It's not that Romney supporters are bithching. It's that non Romney supporters like me are agape at the crap coming from Newt and Perry. Not just agape, furious.
Vern Crisler| 1.13.12 @ 11:05AM
Good post. I like that, vulture candidate.
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.13.12 @ 11:16AM
Stop CRYING, because your Boy can Dish it out, but he can't take it.
I never said that Kaminsky was right about anything other than, Romney isn't a Vulture Capitalist.
What he is, and what his Pals, like you, are, is a PUNK. He brought this on, Himself. He's got nobody to blame, but Himself.
And, don't say that you guys aren't "Bitching". You're doing it, right now, Idiot!
What I wrote was RIGHT ON TARGET. The MFer started all of this, and now he's acting like a PUNK*SS, because someone's giving it back to him.
He hit the Hornet's Nest with a Stick. If he's SHOCKED that the Hornets came out, after him?
Then, maybe he's not the right guy for the job, after all.
Al Adab| 1.13.12 @ 11:34AM
As everyone here knows, I am a lifelong Movement Conservative and do not wish to see Romney become the GOP nominee. We have followed his wing of the party to defeat too many times and it does not serve Conservative principle.
Nonetheless, his actions and the actions of Bain are entirely defensible and proper. When did we ever come to believe that an employee "owns" his job or that employees "own" the companies for which they work?
If government operated with the same employement principles that market driven companies do we could eliminate or drasticly reduce the size of many agencies sucking up taxpayer dollars. That is one strong suit whch Romney does possess.
Oldefarte| 1.13.12 @ 2:46PM
TLP: Please explain to us ignorant ones exactly what Romney did to Perry, Ginguich and Cain that deserves their combined/coordinated attack upon Romney's professional experience in the PRIVATE SECTOR [and which is not only argumentatively destructive of capitalistic theory in general but also will become cannon-fodder for Obama/Democrats against Romney if he ends up the Republican nominee]? It would be completely understandable and justifiable for them to attack Romney on his tenure/decisions while being Massachusetts' governor [ie Romneycare], but to assault his private industry stewertship within the private sector is asinine, un-American and traitorous IMHO. As the old saying goes, ALL'S FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR [IE POLITICS] but their using capitalism as a weapon of said war in way beyond the pail and their motives should become highly suspect by taxpayer-voters IMHO!!!!!!!!
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.13.12 @ 6:16PM
All right Mr. Ignorant. I'll try.
#1: 40% of all of the Political Ads, taken out in Iowa, were Attack Ads on Gingrich, by Romney.
#2: If, as you say - "ALL'S FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR [IE POLITICS]" then, by your own definition, NOTHING is beyond the pale. (Not "Pail") Idiot.
I'll say it, again: Your boy can Dish it out, but he can't take it.
That makes him a PUNK.
If he's the Nominee, I'm voting for him. I'd vote for YOU, if that was my only choice. But, I don't have to like him.
And, I don't.
Oldefarte| 1.14.12 @ 11:42AM
I have been very complementary [on numerousl occasions here] of you and your commentary previously, but your sarcasm above is unwarranted and you obviously are arrogant little ass*ole in general. Re-read my post DUMBARS, as I'm not saying that Ginguich should never attack-argue with Romney, just not against his PRIVATE ''''''BUSINESS''''' PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE! Read the GD words and don't accuse others of being an 'idiot' when you are obviously guilty of not understanding someone else's meaning yourself. Oh, and STICK IT WHERE YOUR SUN DOESN'T SHINE [from here forward] AND TWIST IT SIDEWAYS, you arrogant little prick [and learn some humility]!!!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 1.14.12 @ 1:18PM
PS DUMBARS, the following is what I was asking you to provide an answer to [not your asinine NON-answer], but I guess Rush is intelligent enough to provide answers whereas you ARE NOT:
"..... Newsmax..Limbaugh: Newt's Attacks May Be 'Good Move' Saturday, January 14, 2012 08:05 AM..Top conservative talker Rush Limbaugh says Newt Gingrich may have made a "good move" by raising Mitt Romney's Bain dealings -- even if the criticisms had some mistakes.Limbaugh, on his show Friday, also noted that Gingrich's Bain attacks came after Romney allies spent millions of dollars in negative ads attacking Gingrich, which Gingrich has said included falsehoods or distortions of his record.
Rush read Gingrich's statement asking his supporters that run Winning Our Future Super Pac to fix their video about Bain or pull it.
Rush said: "Newt Gingrich released the following statement calling for truth and accuracy from campaigns and so-called 'Super-PACs' supporting candidates. 'The American people have a right to know the facts about the records of the men and women who are asking them for their vote. Governor Romney is running as someone who knows how to create jobs. In fact, he has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs while at Bain Capital. However, numerous analyses have said that figure is as inaccurate as President Obama's claim to have "saved or created" millions of jobs. Furthermore, Governor Romney's experience as a portfolio manager did not help him create an environment in Massachusetts that was friendly to job creation.'"
Rush continued: "It goes on, but basically what Newt is saying here, what he announced today, "I am calling for the Winning Our Future Super-PAC supporting me to either edit its 'King of Bain' advertisement and movie to remove its inaccuracies, or to pull it off the air and off the internet entirely," and I am urging Romney to do the same."So Newt is seeking the high ground. Newt says, (imitating Newt) 'Okay, I'll pull my lies out if Romney...' uh, sorry 'I'll pull our errors out.' I don't even think he's making it contingent on what Romney does. He's just saying he will do that. Gingrich is repudiating the things that are wrong in his super PAC ad, and now they're trying to put pressure on Romney to do the same thing. 'I am calling for the Winning Our Future Super-PAC supporting me to either edit its 'King of Bain' advertisement and movie to remove its inaccuracies, or to pull it off the air and off the internet entirely.'"Limbaugh suggested that Gingrich may have just raised an issue about Romney that Obama was surely to raise before the election.Limbaugh continued: "Now, you could say that if Newt had not gone nuclear already -- if Newt hadn't gone nuclear this past week -- this could have been a good move, and it might still yet be a good move. Because in the process of nominating and electing candidates, you do want to know who they are. You do want them vetted. That's been our problem with the media and Obama all along. Nobody vetted the guy, and nobody's gonna vet him now. "That's why it's gonna be up to our candidate to do it and our powers that be don't want that to happen 'cause they think it's gonna frighten the independents. So, you can say Newt had a great idea but didn't execute it well because he was the recipient of 96% of all the negative ads in Iowa, and it just flipped his wig.....'
Oldefarte| 1.14.12 @ 1:21PM
PSII: For your idiotic information, neither Romney nor any othe candidate is 'my boy', so don't show your asinine ignorance by stating this STUPIDLY [as possibly your BOY indicated previously]!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 1.14.12 @ 1:50PM
TLP aka Clint: Oh and also add this...seems like ol Newt is getting some political flack for attacking Romney's PRIVATE business experience rightfully so:
'....NewsmaxGingrich Backs Away From Anti-Romney Film Friday, January 13, 2012 10:21 PM
By: Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich called on supporters on Friday to correct or scrap a just-released documentary that portrays rival Mitt Romney as a corporate raider who cost thousands of Americans their jobs. It was a dramatic turnaround for Gingrich, who had hammered Republican front-runner Romney over his role in the 1980s and 1990s at Bain Capital LLC, which bought companies and overhauled them.Gingrich said he would instead spend the next week criticizing Romney's stint as governor of Massachusetts, where he steered a moderate course on issues like abortion, taxes and gun control."He can't defend his governor's record, it's too liberal for South Carolina," Gingrich told reporters at an event in Duncan, South Carolina.The former U.S. House of Representatives speaker continued chiding Romney on Friday for his record in business, but his appeal to Winning Our Future, a pro-Gingrich group separate from his campaign, came as he faced increasing pressure to back off such attacks.Winning Our Future, a "super" political action committee than can raise unlimited funds, sponsored the anti-Romney documentary "King of Bain."Clips of the film are being aired in ads for Gingrich before South Carolina's Jan. 21 Republican primary. The primary is widely seen as perhaps the last chance for conservatives to stop Romney from running away with the Republican presidential nomination to challenge Democratic President Barack Obama in the Nov. 6 election.Gingrich has drawn criticism from some conservative and business leaders who say he is attacking free enterprise, a tenet of Republican politics.Many South Carolina voters do not appear to hold Romney's business record against him - even in Gaffney, the town where Bain opened and then shuttered a photo-album manufacturer two decades ago, eliminating 150 jobs."He actually took those companies over to make them strong and make money. That's business sense," said Carroll Hammons, an underemployed tool-and-die worker in Gaffney.
Gingrich and Winning Our Future have been besieged by complaints about the accuracy of the anti-Romney film.Fact checkers at the Washington Post called it a "highly misleading portrayal of Romney's years at Bain Capital."At a campaign stop in Orlando, Florida, hours after that review was published, Gingrich called on the PAC to "either edit out every single mistake or pull the entire film."ROMNEY REBUTTAL...The film uses footage of distraught middle-class Americans who blame Romney's deal-making for their woes, and mixes images of closed businesses with clips of Romney that make him look vain, foolish or greedy.Romney's campaign fought back on Friday, releasing a television ad in South Carolina that defended his record at Bain. During speeches to voters, Romney's theme was a defense of free enterprise.The way to restore job growth is "not to walk away from free enterprise," but to "hold fast to the that system and make it work for the American people," Romney said at a campaign stop in Aiken, South Carolina.The core message of Romney's campaign is that he has the business savvy to rebuild the U.S. economy, reduce unemployment and rebuild manufacturing because of his private-sector experience.Gingrich questioned Romney's claim that he created tens of thousands of jobs at Bain and said that by contrast, he helped create 27 million jobs during his two decades in Congress.The Bain attacks, if they were to take hold among voters, could leave Romney more vulnerable to assaults by Obama's campaign and PAC this fall, assuming Romney is the Republican nominee.
But many strategists said Gingrich's attacks appeared to have strengthened Romney by rallying party leaders who have worried the former governor of relatively liberal Massachusetts is too moderate.Romney leads Gingrich in polls of voters in South Carolina. Four years ago, he lost the state badly to Senator John McCain, the eventual Republican nominee.Capturing South Carolina would make Romney three-for-three in the state-by-state race to win the Republican nomination. Romney's previous wins came in Iowa and New Hampshire. Gingrich finished fourth in both those contests.
The fight between the two Republicans goes back to late December, when attack ads run by Romney supporters knocked Gingrich from the top spot in opinion polls in Iowa."Somebody (who) is running for president ought to have the courage to stand up for the truth," said Gingrich, who has scoffed at Romney's claim he could not control the actions of the PAC that supports him.Earlier this week, Gingrich defended the "King of Bain" film, while emphasizing he had no relationship with the PAC that was releasing it.
In calling on Winning Our Future to re-examine the anti-Romney ad, Gingrich also urged Romney to edit or remove ads that Gingrich said contained "gross inaccuracies" about him.
Gingrich was in Florida on Friday to raise money and open a campaign office. Florida holds its presidential primary on Jan. 31. Romney held a 12-point lead over Gingrich in Florida in a Quinnipiac poll this week.....'
Nancy in NC| 1.13.12 @ 2:48PM
So two wrongs make a right? He did it, so it's OK if I act like a jackass?
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.13.12 @ 6:24PM
That's right.
I prefer: Payback's a B*tch.
Or, if you like: Revenge is a dish, best served Cold.
Apparently, your of the opinion that: He did it first, so nobody else can do it, back.
Give me a break.
He's got nobody but HIMSELF, to blame. He p*ssed on the 11th Commandment, and now he's paying for it. Which is why it was there, in the first place. To PREVENT these In-House P*ss Fights.
Oldefarte| 1.14.12 @ 11:46AM
Hey, dumbars, it's YOU'RE or YOU ARE, not 'YOUR'....you arrogant little prick!!!!!
Margie| 1.14.12 @ 4:04PM
Hey, Oldfarte,
Check out how Reagan abandoned the 11th Commandment and won against Ford by so doing.
Didn't know that.
Personally, "not speaking ill" of an opponent to me means keep your mouth shut.
That isn't something anybody should do, as long as what they're saying is THE TRUTH.
If it happens to be the ILL truth, too bad.
The so called 11th Commandment isn't a real commandment, wasn't written in STONE or given by GOD.
It's a stupid political idea IMHO.
The truth is the truth and should be spoken, let the chips fall where they may.
And that's God's way.
As to Newt & Romney sittin' in a tree, k=i-s-s-i-n-g??
Sheesh!!!
This stuff gets hard to follow.. and I wonder just how many people are really even paying attention to it, no less able to even grasp it. Don't forget, we're political junkies here compared to most I'd venture to say.
But LYING or misrepresenting ANYBODY, whether candidate or NOT is just plain WRONG, and NOT fair play.
Just my humble opinion!!
RCV| 1.14.12 @ 10:02PM
Not only did he not prevail over Ford by attacking him (Ford won the nomination), but as the very article you quote notes, his attacks on Ford contributed to Jimmy Carter's victory in the fall. Gingrich's savage attacks on Romney may ultimately do the same for Obama.
Margie| 1.15.12 @ 2:14AM
The point I am trying to make here is, Reagan won by telling the truth.. he didn't lie about Ford, did he?
He told the truth about him and people respected it.
That's why Reagan was able to win Democrats.
He let the chips fall where they may.
How can you not tell the truth about an opponent?? Aren't you trying to BEAT him??
Lying is one thing and is wrong, who respects that??
So, if Newt isn't being truthful, he'll pay the price.
Margie| 1.14.12 @ 4:05PM
Forgot to post link:
While popularized by Reagan, "The Eleventh Commandment" was created by then California Republican Party Chairman Gaylord Parkinson. In his 1990 autobiography An American Life, Reagan attributed the rule to Parkinson, explained its origin, and claimed to have followed it.[3]:
The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It's a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.
The goal was to prevent a repeat of the liberal Republican assault on Barry Goldwater, attacks which contributed to Goldwater's defeat in the 1964 presidential election.[1] East Coast Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller labeled Goldwater an "extremist" for his conservative positions and declared him unfit to hold office.[1] Fellow Republican candidate for Governor George Christopher and California's liberal Republicans were leveling similar attacks on Reagan. Hoping to prevent a split in the Republican Party, Parkinson used the phrase as common ground. Party liberals eventually followed Parkinson's advice.[1]
Christopher would lose to Reagan in the Republican primary, and Reagan would go on to defeat incumbent Governor Pat Brown, the father of current (and former) governor and former California Attorney General Jerry Brown.
Reagan followed this "commandment" during the first five primaries during the 1976 Republican primary against incumbent Gerald Ford, all of which he lost. He abandoned this approach in the North Carolina Primary and beat Ford 52-46, regaining momentum and winning a majority of delegates chosen after that date. Some analysts credit Reagan's attacks as seriously to have weakened Ford in his contest with his general election opponent and eventual successor, Jimmy Carter.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....mmandment_(Ronald_Reagan)
TrueBlue | 1.13.12 @ 7:42PM
So you'd rather they just turned the other cheek and moved on? Newt tried that and people complained that he was just taking it instead of fighting back. So he fights back and people complain...
My issue with the attacks is that they are obviously leaving out pertinent information. Was the 20% failure rate intentional? Was someone under his leadership/supervision (as the CEO, the buck stops at Mitt) cooking the books? Or was it just bad luck that had those companies fail at such a high rate?
If the answer to the first two questions is yes, THAT is a problem, it's immoral behavior. If the answer to the third question is yes then the attacks need to stop. I was angry at first, but now I'm more curious as to what the rest of the story is. I don't like Mitt because he's a flip-flopping politician, if he is also a vulture he needs to drop out of the race just on principle (or his lack thereof).
Ivan Ivanovich| 1.14.12 @ 7:23AM
Not to impune any candidate, but just to look at your logic. Would anyone be allowed to break "Reagan's 11th Commandment" if they were running against Hitler.
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.14.12 @ 7:54AM
Go back to Russia, dumb*ss.
Hitler ain't running. Hitler ain't gonna be running, EVER.
At least, not in this Party.
Oldefarte| 1.14.12 @ 11:48AM
You don't capitalize 'Party' when you don't specifically identify same [ie Republican Party or Democratic Party], '''''dumb*ss'''''!!!!!!!
fckewe| 1.15.12 @ 2:28AM
And it only goes to show you EXACTLY what Mitt the Shit is made of. It also shows the true Republicanism of the other cutthroats you people declare as better than the smartest guy in the oval Office since kennedy. also the one with the most integrity.
Johnson quit, Nixon was a CRook, Ford was worse because he let the crook escape justice to have Agnew's job, Carter was a coward, Reagan destryed the economy by selling out America to corporate interests, Bush was a week away from stopping a genocidal tyrant but abdicated, CLinton got a blowjob, which I aplaud him for, but the RED party thought it was much to young a thing to do. Think about it, How often does a Goyim get a knobjob from a JAP?
WE ALL KNOW exactly the kind of schmuck Bush was.
Obama's main fault is trusting the RED party leadership to HONESTY seek bipartisan solutions for the RED party's collapse of the world economy.
fckewe| 1.15.12 @ 2:29AM
Oh, and recess appointing agency directors because the SENATE is all about STONEWALLING and Obstructionism. Which in this economic climate, is treasonous!
Clint| 1.13.12 @ 10:08AM
The Issues Are Leveraged Buy Outs And Bain's Handling Of Leveraged Buy Outs And Romney Comparing Bain Work To Auto Industry Bailout And The Fact That The Obama Administration Consulted Mitt Romney’s Former Firm, Bain Capital, On The Controversial Government Bailout of GM and Chrysler.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
Oldefarte| 1.13.12 @ 2:48PM
That's STUPID and you don't know WTF you're taliking about [through your anal cavity obviously]!!!!!!!!!
Clint| 1.13.12 @ 8:23PM
Mr. Fart, You Seem So Very Upset.
Was It Something I Said ?
I Was Referring To Information On National Review's The Corner. Tell Them.
However, You're Still A RINO-CINO Apologist, Fart And Obviously, Your Pants Are FOS.
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
Clint| 1.13.12 @ 9:42PM
When Romney ran Bain Capital, his word was not his bond.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ory_1.html
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
Oldefarte| 1.14.12 @ 11:50AM
Was Paul's word his bond in those newsletters perhaps?????????
Nick099| 1.13.12 @ 10:13AM
So I guess no questions should ever be asked of your Romney???? He is the choice. It is clear right??? No one can question his stellar record right????? It is all roses to you eh??? It is also OK for the clean-ut Mitt to spend millions attacking Gingrich personally in Iowa and New Hampshire along with the imbecile Paul???? That is OK right???? But no one dare fight back right??? Only is your delusional world. Romney is acting like a bully and you deride those that wish to fight back. Spoken like a true Mass. Moderate.
beebop2| 1.13.12 @ 5:44PM
I don't presume to speak for anyone other than me. I was a Perry supporter. I have never been a Romney fan -- I have called him mitless -- here repeatedly. But what Perry and Gingrich have done of late is attack ME and what I believe in. So? My reaction to how this impacts Romney is SECONDARY to how it speaks to me.
I worked for a PepsiCo subsidiary for 22 years. During that time, the company hired folks just like Bain twice and in the first instance, I watched wonderful colleagues leave our three story headquarters building. The last time, they caught me. I have to tell you ... it hurt like hell and it derailed my plans for myself, but the organization grew stronger and leaner and it is the single largest contributor to PepsiCo's profitability. I have no residual bad feelings for the organization. They did what they needed to do to return a profit to their investors ...
I find Gingrich to be the least admirable politician in the world at large. Any country ... He has a screw rolling around somewhere in the flabby grey matter between his ears. No wonder his wife always looks miserable ... she's a blonde married to someone dumber than her! Imagine!
Peppermint Tea| 1.13.12 @ 7:00PM
I watched the 28-minute smear job on Romney and Bain, and like the above writer, I too have been fired, laid off, twice in my life. My impression is that the smear may have worked 30 years ago when people worked for one company, but now we watch and say, "Yeah, you lost your job. You had to move to find another. So I did. Tell us the other half of the story where you found a job and quit whining. "
The other thing the smear never explains is how Bain could swoop in, lay people off, destroy the company, AND make millions of dollars selling it and/or the assets. Seems if they were just destroying it, they would have to sell it for LESS, not more. I'm just saying.
Clint| 1.14.12 @ 3:25AM
Mittens' Campaign Money Trail.
Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $199,800
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
Bank of America $126,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250
EMC Corp $117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co $112,250
The Villages $97,500
Vivint Inc $80,750
Marriott International $79,837
Sullivan & Cromwell $79,250
Bain Capital $74,500
UBS AG $73,750
Wells Fargo $61,500
Blackstone Group $59,800
Citigroup Inc $57,050
Bain & Co $52,500
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
Oldefarte| 1.14.12 @ 11:53AM
Paul's "Campaign Money Trail": Clit $5; Jack $3; the Lake Jackson Too Short Shorts Society $100!!!!!!
Margie| 1.14.12 @ 4:07PM
LOL!!
MikeG| 1.14.12 @ 10:45PM
Clint, you are as crazy as Margie. Are you two related?
Margie| 1.15.12 @ 2:17AM
MikeyG:
I see the Papist Troll has a new moniker today!!
Isn't that just a little bit crazy??
fckewe| 1.15.12 @ 2:32AM
Aren't Papists Catholics? Humn, and I believed you when you said you were NOT a racist about Obama.
Margie| 1.15.12 @ 8:24PM
A Papist is a person who believes the Pope instead of Christ.
Anthony| 1.13.12 @ 10:49AM
Agreed. Newt is once again a victim of his ego and appetite for attempting to be too clever by half. The phrase Vulture Capitalism is something some snot nosed staffer gets a better title for by coming up with the phrase. Oh, it's so clever and smart, don't you know!! Kinda like Voodoo economics!!
Newt knows better, but he despises Romney for what Romney did to him in Iowa, so Newt has once again lost control of himself with this Marxist B.S.
Newt had better get a hold of himself or he is finished, and that leaves Santorum as the only conservative left.
A. C. Santore| 1.13.12 @ 11:27AM
In this relatively short campaign, Gingrich has demolished all of the respect I once had for him - his intelligence, his smart politics, his successes and contributions.
Shame on him for allowing his ego to rule, and, if Obama wins in November, for contributing to the hell to come under Obama's second term.
I was taught from my earliest years never to use this expression, but I have to use it now: Newt (and Perry), please SHUT UP!
fckewe| 1.15.12 @ 2:34AM
Since you have repented of the foolish sin of respecting Gingrich, you will be forgiven if you do the penance of 200,000 hail Mary's and 100,000 acts of contrition. That means paying ALL your taxes and reporting all your income.
Pat Leath| 1.14.12 @ 1:09PM
Ultimately, the Republican Party is going to nominate a northern elite. Romney is backed by people that want to maintain the status quo in DC. American's need to take a risk to change Washington and they do not seem to have the guts to vote out the old club and build a new 21st century America. How sad.
rhoetus| 1.15.12 @ 2:15PM
And that's the truth! We need a return to Federalism and deregulation with a real plan to actually cut spending which is the only way to get control over the debt. Ron Paul is the only candidate that is promoting actual spending cuts.
Pete| 1.13.12 @ 1:08PM
So Romney has this opportunity to explain why firing people is a good thing. Why it is necessary to optimize the company and produce efficiency which creates more jobs and better jobs. If he can not do that he is either gutless or does not understand a free market. Lets face it Obama will be labeling Romney as the leader of the 1 percent. He better 'splain himself.
Mender| 1.13.12 @ 3:25PM
I'm sure Mitt Romney can explain how he's really sorry he had to fire all those people and he can prove it by showing all the money he donated as an issue dear to his heart to fund job centres and community colleges to help people retrain. And can point to Bain's impeccable record of being straight with its employees as early as possible that they should start looking for new work.
Oh wait, he can't. Oh well.
fckewe| 1.15.12 @ 2:37AM
More jobs, better jobs? If 10,000 people work in Office supply stores, and One company borrows money to expand, won't a lot of those jobs just shift from store A to store B? That's not CREATING jobs, it's and employment Ponzi Scheme.
Alan Brooks| 1.13.12 @ 9:06PM
Kaminsky finally gets to the point:
creative destruction is what we do best. In fact Darwinism in general is the God of not only this world, but also of our entire cosmology.
And now we have reached the stage we can admit we worship Adam Smith as our Lord and personal savior, not God.
Alan Brooks| 1.13.12 @ 10:51PM
"And now we have reached the stage we can admit "we worship Adam Smith as our Lord and personal savior, not God."
Meant to write Jesus, not God-
but they both live at the same address.
fckewe| 1.15.12 @ 2:39AM
Allah and Buddah are their roommates! They all wear the same clothes and they share shoes and underwear.
rhoetus| 1.15.12 @ 11:21PM
No we don't.
http://www.amazon.com/Religion.....=8-1-fkmr0
Mimi| 1.13.12 @ 7:25AM
When the colleges teach Economics do they include GOOD MORAL thinking? Fairness ? Those who run an HONEST business...Thrives.
People recognize the difference from miles away. We have a long list of successful enterprises who have survived the ups and downs and been in business for years...all Honest PLAYERS! What good can come from the ill-gotten gain!
Old Soldier| 1.13.12 @ 8:43AM
What is immoral about a company downsizing and surviving instead of going bankrupt? What is bad about laying off some employees instead of all of them?
This Vulture Capitalism stuff is leftist idiocy.
Mimi| 1.13.12 @ 8:58AM
Downsizing is legit....Let Romney put forth honest ,true facts about his role at Bain...also let's see the tax returns....In his quest to destroy opponents he takes a " teeny -fact" out of context and blows it up .....along with the money he's doing GREAT.... at least for now with 3 conservatives sharing the vote total . We need to get ONE only....it is only then the Conservative has a chance!
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.13.12 @ 9:13AM
No. No Facts. No coming forth. No Tax Returns. No Medical Records. No Financial Statements.
NOTHING!
I'm sick and tired of Playing by a separate set of rules.
When that MFer opens the Vault, and releases HIS SH*T? Then we'll talk. But not until.
I wana see his Social Security Number. I've heard that it's not a Hawaii Number, at all. It's a Connecticut Number.
I wanna see his Passport. His College Papers. His Scholarship Papers.
WHAT IS HE HIDING?!
And, when did WE THE PEOPLE, lose the right to know WHO and WHAT our Leaders are?
I want the TRUTH!
Oldefarte| 1.14.12 @ 11:56AM
Folks, I think that I have uncovered an amazement perhaps. TLP and Clint are one and the same obviously [or either busom buddies]. Check out TLP's capitalization emphasis of every word used. Are they one and the same possibly? Earth-shattering, amazing!!!!!!!!!!
Margie| 1.14.12 @ 4:13PM
That IS interesting about the Caps, as I have taken note of Clint's slithering posts for a couple of years here.
Did you notice the other day when Clint actually made a comment with NO caps.. all perfectly done? Proving he is fully capable.. and that his usual Clint posts are just a facade.. a character that he uses.
One thing I know for certain about the so called man, he's an utter fraud.
And I know for a fact he's used my name before to post things I never would say.
God knows, and He sees ALL!!!
Zak Klemmer | 1.14.12 @ 9:19PM
He knows how to find all your documents - you betchya!
John - TMF| 1.13.12 @ 9:03AM
No, unfortunately it is very real. Not all companies that are taken over are failing, some are just looking for capital to expand, or make critical transitions.
Been involved with too many such great "deals" to not have seen it. Ask a healthy Chrysler Corporation that "merged" with Daimler only to be stripped of its vast R&D funds, and dumped. Ask any of the computer software firms that were basically healthy who were taken over by CA how they felt about the "deal" after the lockouts, layoffs and chinzy severance packages.
When your business model and line to profitability is to make money off of dismembering companies don't be surprised that some folks aren't going to cotton to it too much.
1. Bain IS Democrat. Like most of Wall Street and the Banking industry Bain butters whatever side of the bread gets them the best goodies, and they lay the butter heavy on the Democrat side of the slice(s).
2. Vultures are the undertakers of nature. They are necessary, but who wants them roosting in your back yard? Ever smelled them? Yeesh. And yes they will kill the occasional pet Yorkshire Terrier in a pinch. And as to undertakers... that's a business that is necessary, but who isn't creeped out by the whole thing, except maybe other funeral directors?
The issue isn't capitalism. It's Bain, Bain's business methods, and specifically Romney's involvement with it.
Remember BUSINESS does not equal CAPITALISM. Business is Business, and capitalism isn't needed or required.
r/TMF
Vern Crisler| 1.13.12 @ 9:50AM
Someone once said that capitalism is just what people do when left alone by government, so I'd say it's actually a precondition for business.
Perhaps it might be helpful to distinguish between capitalISM and capitalISTS. The latter are not always the best selling point of the former.
John - TMF| 1.13.12 @ 10:15AM
Good point, but yes and no to the initial proposition. Businesses exit successfully and happily quite apart from capitalism. Businesses exist in every form of economy from pre-industrial merchantile command economies, to modern Euro-Socialism... to the Maoist Marxism (really Fascism) of the modern Chinese corporate state.
However if I may modify it a bit since the premise is interesting... Capitalism is a precondition for fairly operated successful independent businesses, and it is a necessity of a truly free society.
Thanks for the lack of hyperbolic vitriol Vern... discussions are always better without the shouting.
R/John
Mimi| 1.16.12 @ 5:38PM
Vern...I don't type...I use capitals to EMPHASIZE...saves on the typing...it takes me forever to POST!
Iwas forced to take MATH and Science as a kid...no business!
biomedlives| 1.19.12 @ 7:15PM
I wonder what would have happened during the financial meltdown if the government had left everything alone.
Kade| 1.13.12 @ 10:11AM
Seems to me what Romney did was similar to a person running up his credit card big time and then declaring bankruptcy, but even worse in that he decimated many workers lives and relied on a federal bailouts of their pensions.
Why are both the left & right GOP pundits defending Romney and using bogus anti-capitalism charges to insulate his Bain Capital conduct? Amazingly, liberals Rudy& Rove have joined forces with Rush & Hannity to shut Newt & Perry up lest the real Bain truth be told.
This is proof that big-money elites have a common bond -- a greed is good mentality. Alas, if this mantra is now the core principle of the once moral Republican Party we are in deep trouble.
Old Soldier| 1.13.12 @ 11:42AM
No - he was unwinding companies that had run up their credit cards and couldn't pay.
fckewe| 1.15.12 @ 2:41AM
What is right about liquidating a pension fund and pocketing the equity? What is wrong with sharing ANY of the plan with the workers who invested their lives with the company? What's wrong with cornholing the money away in the Cayman Islands and not paying a penny of TAX on American Revenue?
????
Nancy in NC| 1.13.12 @ 9:31AM
I read recently that Wharton School of Business finds it difficult to find students with ethics.
Business doesn't make people evil; evil people make business bad.
Our moral compass is broken; why do we expect different results?
Old Soldier| 1.13.12 @ 9:48AM
Bah. I've done my share of consulting and project management. Companies in trouble need the consultants because they aren't being honest with themselves.
They don't want to hear that their business is failing, that they are falling behind, or that their customers are unhappy. They would rather kick the can like a Congressman and hope the gravy train lasts a while longer.
It's up to the consultant to be honest about the mess they are in.
Purp| 1.13.12 @ 12:59PM
Consultant honest? Bah - they talk about "cash cows" and milking a client... parasites all.
Purp| 1.13.12 @ 12:58PM
Good Point!
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 9:59AM
Mimi,
Honest and ethical players survive because the information costs necessary to do business with them is minimized. When you trust someone you don't spend an lot of time auditing them or writing "bullet-proof" contracts, etc. It's cheaper and why you often seen culturally related people grouped in the same industries. A dishonest player may when in the short run but ultimately fails because the cost of doing business with that player is higher.
Morals and personal integrity are only incidental; they make it easier to do the right thing but even a thief can, in principal, run an honest business.
Ill-gotten gains presuppose some coercion. To my knowledge no one was held up by Bain Capital. They were in business to make money (the alternative to profitability is bankruptcy) and would be fools to intentionally close a firm that would be more profitable if open. But if you are heading for bankruptcy, is it better to wait until all creditor's funds have been paid out in salaries or to close the business while there is still something of worth to the creditors. Tell me if you know of anyone who was not paid, in full, for his work for any of these companies.
skip| 1.13.12 @ 3:05PM
Mimi,
Both 'intangible assets' and 'intangible liabilities' affect the net income of all businesses.
For example, Ford did not receive any federal bailout money. When shopping for an automobile I will go to Ford first because of that fact. This is an 'intangible asset' for Ford. GM and Chrysler both received federal bailout money. When shopping for an automobile I will not go to either GM or Chrysler because of that fact. These are 'intangible liabilities' for GM and Chrysler.
The free market system will self-regulate itself, provided the federal government does not interfere.
Jack in Wi.| 1.13.12 @ 7:33AM
I ran a rough, competitive business that usually employed several hundred people. It is vital to survival, that business' have the abilty to make employment ajustments quickly because of market conditions. I hired, fired, and laid off thousands of people over the years because of these reasons. Newt Gingrich hasn't ever run a lemonade stand in his life. He and Perry are both guys with their snouts in the pubic trough, their whole lives. Romney shold be beaten for other reasons. Some of them are. He was for the bailouts, crony capitalist, Romneycare, soft on abortion and a chicken hawk warmonger in a country that is sick to death of such people. He hasn't got a clue on how to get this country out of the mess it is in. It is Ron Paul or ruin, and always has been.He has been right for decades. Romney is just a failed one term governor, of the most liberal state in the country.
mcr| 1.13.12 @ 8:18AM
Mr Paul has spent many many years at the government trough himself. Mr. Paul talks a good game, problem is, he has no record to back it up.
Jack in Wi.| 1.13.12 @ 9:00AM
Ron Paul was in private medical pracice for over 30 years. He refuses to participate in the lavish Federal pension system. That is unlike Newt who gets a huge pension and Santorum.He as a Doctor. has made thousands of life and death executive discissions.
Nick099| 1.13.12 @ 10:09AM
And he has taken no legislative leadership role in 26 years. He just takes his ball and sits in the corner scowling at the others in the room. He is not leader. He is a nay-sayer whose drivel sounds half-good. It´s the other half you should worry about.
buckeyeman| 1.13.12 @ 10:36AM
Don't forget that Dr. Paul continued to practice medicine for many years after he was elected to Congress. He went home on weekends and continued to treat patients.
"And he has taken no legislative leadership role in 26 years" It's pretty hard to "lead" politicians who are statists lining their own pockets. His record isn't perfect, and, frankly, he's not a very good candidate, but he's the most consistent candidate out there.
Vern Crisler| 1.13.12 @ 9:54AM
Just look at the Lew Rockwell site if you want to see Ron Paul's agenda for America: anti-George Washington, anti-Lincoln, anti-Reagan, anti-Buckley, anti-Rush, anti-Sarah, anti-conservative, anti-American.
Clint| 1.13.12 @ 10:00AM
Dr.Ron Paul Is A Real Conservative,Who Has Read George Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address & The Old Right.
George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"
William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
fckewe| 1.15.12 @ 2:45AM
If Will and Buckley were correct, Iraq would either have been allowed to sell oil in Euros OR the fraudulent invasion would have 'FIXED' them and their Democracy would be indestructible... instead of failing within 2 weeks of the last American combat soldier leaving the country.
TommyFrisco| 1.13.12 @ 5:58PM
Good point. I think of Ron Paul more as a contrarian than a constitutionalist.
Kade| 1.13.12 @ 10:26AM
Did you jack up the company’s debt, strip it of its assets and then fire everybody leaving them twisting in the wind?
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 10:52AM
Kade,
How to you jack up a companies debt? If you borrow money for one purpose and divert it to another you have committed a fraud on the lender. If a lender gives you money without a security he is a fool. If you want to jack-up a companies debt, you keep a failing business open when it should be closed.
How do you strip a company of its assets? If you take something owned by the company, you are a thief - unless you own the company and therefore owns its assets.
How do you leave an employee twisting in the wind? Did you not pay him?
If you have deliberately shuttered a going concern, you have shot yourself in the foot.
fckewe| 1.15.12 @ 2:46AM
Not if you pocket $4million dollars in Federal bailout funds. you REALLY need to learn how arbitrage works sir!
John Navratil| 1.15.12 @ 3:26PM
fckewe,
Was Bain Capital the only entity to which this was available? You will find no one here supporting Federal bailouts of anything. Bain did not obtain these companies by compulsion, they bought them. When you own something you may, or should be able to, do with them as you wish. If the previous owners were unable or unwilling to do as Bain did that is a problem for them. When those owners sold to Bain, they considered the trade acceptable. When you sell me something, you have no claim of any future profits I may make with what you sold me, as Home Depot has no claim on profits from the sale of the home I build with the building supplies I buy from them. If you sell me a wrecked automobile, do not complain if I make a profit parting it out.
You presume I know nothing of arbitrage, however the markets were available to all players. It's worth noting that the arbitrageur doesn't always win, either.
W| 1.13.12 @ 12:34PM
Kade
It is obvious your are an Obma/OccupyWS plant
Kade| 1.13.12 @ 12:59PM
W.
I am a lifelong Republican -- a social, strong military and free enterprise Reagan conservative. Did you know Reagan was not that enamored with big business but he liked small business and the common man. Reagan won by landslides because many blue collar and middle class Americans saw a man who loved America and thus in turn loved them.
There is a chilling PC attack charge now among establishment Republicans that if you are against corrupt and shady business practices or for the American worker you are a leftie. This says a lot about the core values of the GOP and why they are pushing empty suit Romney.
Purp| 1.13.12 @ 1:01PM
is that your answer to everything?
W| 1.13.12 @ 3:13PM
Only to the obvious,Purp,
Oldefarte| 1.13.12 @ 2:52PM
BS, tell the GD truth! Paul's OBGYN professional/private enterprise [medical practice]adventure qualifies him to run the government of the USA? You're a DA!!!!
Derek Leaberry| 1.13.12 @ 5:28PM
Good post. Romney also tried running to the left of Ted Kennedy on homosexual "rights." Pandered. As for your grammar, you forgot the l in public.
martin j smith| 1.13.12 @ 7:56AM
Romney is getting a taste of the kind of attacks Obama is likely to throw at him and believe me Obama's attack machine will be far worse and we and he better know it. So while I buy the argument that Newt and Perry's criticisms are the wrong issues
_ I mean that Rmney Care is the mother load because it is directly related to Obama Care--Perry and Newt's misdirected attacks being as they are --misdirected--never the less these kinds of attacks are likely to come to any the candidates under the Republican line from Obama. Again from our side the issues for Romney should be those that could be viewed as compatible with Socialism.
John - TMF| 1.13.12 @ 7:59AM
I am constantly amazed at the "religion" that has formed around the utopian principle of the "free market". Thou shalt not speak up to your master and lord!
Gingrich and Perry bring up a very valid issue about a candidate's corporate history. Romney started this because he is using his operation of Bain Capital as a major qualification for fitness for the presidency.
So how come Bain and Romney get the Obama treatment when it comes to that stated qualification? Are we not allowed, without being called names, or our free market values called into question to note that Bain's business was problematic? Bain's operation methods, how it took over, the promises that it made, and the promises that it broke are fair game, especially given the issue at hand. Romney's ethics, business or otherwise are fair game.
Are we not allowed to wince at the over statement of the benefits of cutting up organizations and selling off the pieces? Ok, fair enough Bain employed people. Some of the companies that Bain took over survived and some even prospered. The fact remains that many individuals were affected by the "business activity" and ended up on the unemployment lines. Politics is a "people" game, not a "business". People vote, businesses don't.
So it is fair game to claim the virtues of unfettered capitalism without examining the effects on individuals and groups within the society? It is useful to note that we got here because such unfettered capitalism lead to some very serious negative social impacts.
Things don't happen without a reason. The people fired by Bain's activities are just like any other snubbed customer. The one in seven rule applies... if not at a greater ratio.
And one last thing.... Since when is it valid or gospel to conflate BUSINESS with CAPITALISM/FREE MARKETS? Businesses have existed and will exist in any sort of economic system, just ask the Chicomms... They'll tell you as you read the news on a Chinese made monitor, using a Chinese made computer, while your Chinese made coffee pot brews your morning Joe...
Criticizing Bain Capital's operations, business plan, methods, management, and Romney's involvement with all of that is completely fair, without a shred of involvement with the Free Market.
We make value judgments over what businesses are good and which are operating on the dark side of shady. I will not be bludgeoned into refraining from making that judgement by the vitriol.
The Hyperbole is the thing that has gotten far out of hand. Romney made Bain's business operations fair game.
Just remember that when defending Romney and Bain, you are defending a Liberal Democrat who masquerades as a conservative, and a BUSINESS that donates heavily to Obama and the Democrats.
Regards, John - TMF
Vern Crisler| 1.13.12 @ 9:56AM
John, just how are you defining capitalism?
John - TMF| 1.13.12 @ 10:37AM
Um... wow you just asked me to perform a John 3:16 on the "Wealth of Nations"...
Lemme see...
An economic system where capital goods and services are made available governed by the laws of supply and demand.
Then of course as you have ably noted, comes the hard part... Humans run it.
r/John
Mender| 1.13.12 @ 3:28PM
And run it according to what we consider to be socially acceptable.
I hate to say it but I think Michael Moore made a good example here: we don't let people sell crack cocaine because it's socially damaging. If it feels like something isn't worth allowing or just destroys good businesses for short-term gain, it doesn't have to be legal if we don't want it to.
George S| 1.13.12 @ 4:38PM
WRONG!!!!!
Capitalism is the economy of a free people. Free to offer their labor to the market place and free to accept or decline the labor of others from the market place.
Simple as that.
Larry| 1.14.12 @ 4:01AM
So, George, you believe in allowing people to sell crack cocaine on the basis of the principles of the free market? When large parts of the population are addicted and can't or (far more likely) won't work and can't be productive in any kind of employment, what will our businesses do then?
Think a little bit more closely and carefully about this. A capitalist society really depends upon a virtuous people who value industriousness and hard work. I don't just mean socially virtuous people, either. This is where religion, philosophy, and ethics come into play. Without those elements, your definition is meaningless.
George S| 1.13.12 @ 4:46PM
And let me further add that capitalism is not a "System". A system implies methods or formulations that that are overseen or administrated in order to function as intended. An Education System. A railway system. A parliamentary system.
Capitalism is freedom and when people are free to engage in commerce, the so-called laws of capitalism simply reflects human nature in their free state to bargain for their own benefit.
There is no capitalism administration; no one determines what goods are to cost; no one to assign wages to tasks; no one to determine what crops to grow and when, etc. But doesn't all that sound like Obama's administration? That's why it's called a command economy because it has all the components of a "system"
Larry| 1.14.12 @ 4:05AM
Okay, it isn't a "system" in the same sense that you refer to it, but there are underlying principles and principles of personal habits of mind and body that go into what is (in my opinion) wrongly called "capitalism." People are adopting Marx's term for it without thinking. I call it the free market. If you don't try to think about this systematically, there will be problems. I highly recommend reading the works of Wilhelm Roepke, if you already haven't, especially The Humane Economy and Economics of a Free Society. I think Roepke does a good job of outlining and explaining in detail what I mean.
fckewe| 1.15.12 @ 2:52AM
George is RIGHT! There ARE no principles save Caveat Emptor and He Who Dies With The Most Toys Wins. Capitalism is DESIGNED to support the wicked and the vicious. The more little old ladies you can snake out of their pensions, the better a Capitalist you are, according to George.
Not a RINO| 1.13.12 @ 8:08AM
Romney is not a true venture capitalist.
Wall Street Journal
Repeat After Me: Bain Capital Is Not A VC Firm
http://blogs.wsj.com/ventureca.....a-vc-firm/
Forbes.com
So Did Romney Create 100,000 Jobs Or Not?
"...Bain often made money by laying off employees, getting government subsidies, or re-selling companies quickly for profit."
Laying off people, and re-srlling companies is creative destruction, and part of free-market capitalism, but gov't subsidies?
Mitt Romney no stranger to tax breaks, subsidies
LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/na.....8299.story
Free market, free enterprise capitalists do not seek bailouts, corporate welfate or gov't subsidies. Romney is not a free enterprise capitalist. He is a RINO.
Nancy in NC| 1.13.12 @ 9:08AM
You are probably right, however why are Perry and Gingrich carrying Obama's water for him?
wodiej| 1.13.12 @ 9:18AM
Uhm, they are trying to keep Obama's twin from taking up where Obama leaves off.
Kade| 1.13.12 @ 11:39AM
Best post of the day Woiej.
Alas, the GOP and their media Romney shills are morphing into Gordon Gekko –like the Dems they have no core values, except for avarice.
fckewe| 1.15.12 @ 2:53AM
But he's NOT A CROOK, just like Nixon.
VonMisesJr| 1.13.12 @ 8:40AM
The real crime is that Obama and the so-called progressives are implementing a centrally planned command economy that prohibits innovation and capital formation. This is what they should be talking about!
The irony is that the Dutch had windmills several hundred years ago, and we found much better and more consistent ways to harness energy. Go to an inner-city school and they still have shared computers and mostly computer illiterate teachers. Our federal government is a maze of antiquated computer systems that do not communicate with each other since there is no market forces to create efficiency.
Government almost never leads to technology advances except when they outsource space and related products to private sector technology firms. And we have seen from Solyndra and the electric car, that they often do a horrible and corrupt job.
Nancy in NC| 1.13.12 @ 9:10AM
Right on target just like your namesake.
DRed| 1.13.12 @ 9:34AM
What evidence do you have that Obama is trying to implement a centrally planned economy?
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 10:19AM
DRed,
Obamacare, for one. Putting unions of the board at GM (working both sides) for another. Picking winners and losers through targeted "green initiatives" for yet another. Federal funding for local government jobs........and on and on
VonMisesJr| 1.13.12 @ 10:42AM
John, thanks for your comments. Ignore Dreadful. He is a troll from MoveOn. His mama must be so proud.
DRed| 1.13.12 @ 10:43AM
John, there's a huge difference between those things and a centrally planned economy. Government involvement in the economy does not equal central planning. Putting a union on the board of GM is certainly not central planning-the union isn't controlled by the government. 'Obamacare' doesn't control the health care industry. Something like Solyndra-that was a bad idea, but it wasn't controlling the energy sector, was it?
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 10:58AM
DRed,
OK, I'll add blocking issuance of drilling permits to the list.
Government involvement in the economy is, by definition, central planning. If they are involved, they are making market decisions. Someone decided to stiff the GM bond-holders! They didn't do it themselves. Tell me Obamacare doesn't set prices. The government put the unions on the board of GM. Rational owners would never put the same party on both sides of the negotiating table.
I see no difference at all.
DRed| 1.13.12 @ 11:23AM
No, John. Central planning (at least in the sense of a centrally planned economy) involves total government control over some sector of the economy.
As for GM, it looks like the director that you think represents the unions is actually representing their employee benefit trust. A lot of the value of that trust is tied up in ownership of GM stock. So he seems to have an interest in seeing GM, rather than the union, do well. In any event, that's certainly a long, long way from a command economy.
Look, in general, I agree that having the government pick winners and loosers in the economy is a bad idea. I certainly don't agree with everything the Obama administration has done. What drives me nuts, though, is people like VMj who run around calling Obama a communist. It's just a lie.
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 11:38AM
DRed,
You may benefit from rereading the definition. Economic planning is directing economic activity outside of the market. Most economies are mixed with a degree of non-market inputs. It most certainly is not total government control of a sector of the economy. That would be Socialism - and another criticism of Obama. I agree, Obama is not a Communist, but then again, no Kremlin leader has been either - that's for the masses not the masters.
VonMisesJr| 1.13.12 @ 1:02PM
John,
Your are wasting your time. Isn't Dred full of linear thinking and conformity with groupthink? What a horrible way to live being a cog in the wheel of a giant machine.
Rush said the best gift he could give someone was that they not give a damn about what anyone else thinks. It is liberating. But some will fight to the death to try and make you join a collective where you by definition cannot think for yourself.
Glad I am me and you are you.
Frank Speaking| 1.13.12 @ 1:22PM
When you take in the full impact of military spending on the US economy it is clear we already have a planned economy.
It is what President Eisenhower was warning of when he cautioned the nation of the creation of the "military-industrial complex."
Thom| 1.13.12 @ 5:17PM
That's funny Frank. Military spending is around 4-5% of GDP but somehow this accounts for the 50% of GDP that all branches of government take out of it?
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 2:09PM
VonMisesJr,
I am lapsed sinner who can't resist feeding the trolls. I'll have to say that DRed doesn't appear to suffer from the preachy arrogance of some of the others. I can't agree with DRed, but he is much more pleasant to disagree with.
VonMisesJr| 1.13.12 @ 3:05PM
But watch John, he will get last word even if it takes all weekend.
And I agree that it is fun presenting them with a dilemma or a conundrum that short circuits their pre-wired craniums, and confounds them since there is no response in the MoveOn playbook.
Have a nice weekend.
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 10:08AM
VonMisesJr,
Just one of a million simple examples....
Wouldn't it be nice if the DMV outsourced driver's licensing? I got my pilot's licence without visiting a government office. In Texas, my kids had to take a driving course - I could give it, but it was cheaper and easier for me to pay $300 to a driving school. Why not go the next step and have them issue the license and send the paperwork to the state. The only people who would need to visit a government office would be those without the necessary authorization or equipment.
Mender| 1.13.12 @ 3:30PM
"Go to an inner-city school and they still have shared computers and mostly computer illiterate teachers. Our federal government is a maze of antiquated computer systems that do not communicate with each other since there is no market forces to create efficiency."
No, it's because the state has no money for capital investment because you want government to be small. Feel free to campaign to change this.
John Navratil| 1.14.12 @ 10:12AM
Mander,
A government which is spending 24% of GDP IS NOT SMALL. Just how much more do you want?
Mender| 1.14.12 @ 12:06PM
European countries spend double that and their citizens (I grew up in London) are used to paying taxes to match. And teacher's pay in the USA is right at the bottom of the first world market.
But my point is that you can have a battered government of decrepit schools, crumbling bridges and low taxes, or have a well-funded government where the computers don't run windows 95 and pay high taxes. That's democracy and different states have chosen to do things differently. But to blame old computers on public service procurement inefficiency is missing the point.
John Navratil| 1.14.12 @ 10:36PM
Mender,
I lived in London myself - Stanmore, actually - north end of what was then the Bakerloo line (Canons Park exit). I attended Harrow County School (not THE Harrow). That was before comprehensive education screwed the entire English education system.
You can take you "bloody Labour government" to quote Alf Garnett and do with it as you please. On the other hand, why don't you live there?
Could it be that, as my brother's Godmother who lives in Kensington has said, that anyone with a brain or ambition has moved to the U.S. Do you have a brain? Is it better over there? Tell all! Give us the Full Monty!
U.S. Teachers pay is NOT at the bottom of the first world market (my sister-in-law is a teacher). For nine months of work (they often work during the breaks), they are paid quite reasonably. Then add the pensions. I'll be most interested in seeing any data you might wish to provide to the contrary.
If the fact that computers are unavailable today is not due to mismanaged budgets (I reject procurement inefficiency as a diversion - procurement is certainly not the problem) is missing the point, I cannot imagine what the point is.
As to your codicil - it is a typical red herring to suggest that when budgets are tight, that which is to be curtailed is that with the highest utility to the most people. It's never closing the Bureau of Silly Walks, but always the USDA beef inspectors and Air Traffic Controllers (see Clinton-Gingrich).
Mender| 1.14.12 @ 12:18PM
But where I agree with you is that government should try to match expenditure to taxes the public is willing to pay, sure. But government tries to do too much-it should be more honest with the public. When California cuts its budget, it shouldn't cut back maintenance, it should cut the total mileage of roads open.
JimH| 1.13.12 @ 9:04AM
I’ve read Smith, Von Mises, Hayak, Schumpeter and Friedman. I think the free market is the only moral choice for an economy. I believe I understand ‘Creative Destruction’. I know some businesses fail and others will arise from the remains of these failures. I know some succeed only after reducing costs, albeit by increasing productivity, outsourcing or reducing benefits. I know that while this can cause pain for some it benefits the economy as a whole because capital is more efficiently used. I am no expert on the activities of Bain Capital. I do not claim to know the details of their operations. I can only speak to appearances. If the appearance belies the facts then it is my mistake. The appearance to me is that in some cases they invested in some companies and these companies succeeded. How much their investment and involvement in these companies helped in the success I can’t say. In other cases companies they invested in failed. Now I could be completely wrong and if I am I’m sure someone will let me know, but it looks like Bain Cap. came in and extracted what value they could prior to these companies going under. By saddling these companies with increased debt they may have accelerated the demise. Maybe from a Laissaiz- faire perspective this was a valuable service to the economy by thinning the herd of the sick and weak. The one thing that seems clear is that regardless of the success or failure of the underlying companies Bain Cap. invested in, Bain Cap itself made out very well. It may all be perfectly legitimate, but from the perspective of promoting a candidate it would be easier if the candidates business success did not involve at least in part the misfortune of some of those who worked for him.
Nancy in NC| 1.13.12 @ 9:12AM
Very good post.
And if government subsidies were available, Bain should take advantage. They didn't make the rules, but they would be fools not to play by them. Get rid of government subsidies, not Bain Capital.
Nancy in NC| 1.13.12 @ 9:19AM
And why should lousy businesses survive anyway? Perhaps some of the companies that failed were just bad...bad money managers and/or poor quality merchandise.
It's disheartening to see fellow GOP folks do the work of the left. It tells me more about Gingrich and Perry than it does about Romney (and I'm not a Romney supporter). The message I get is all about ego and self interest, and to heck about what is good for the country. Our number one job should be to see the backside of Mr. Obama...going away.
Nick099| 1.13.12 @ 10:07AM
A very thoughtful analysis, that could not have been better stated.
Stefan Stackhouse| 1.13.12 @ 9:09AM
The problem with Gingrich and Perry is that they are running in the wrong primary. They should shift over to the other side, where they'll fit right in. They would be doing us all a genuine service, too, giving Obama competition for his party's nomination.
Nancy in NC| 1.13.12 @ 9:14AM
You're right. They both have lived off the largesse of the public. What they heck do either (or Obama) know about the free market?
Ross Kaminsky | 1.13.12 @ 9:10AM
I am not arguing that Bain is or ever was a perfect, or perfectly-behaved company. My primary point is that the singular focus on Bain's impact on employment is not the right way to approach the question.
Nancy in NC| 1.13.12 @ 9:13AM
It was an excellent article, Ross; very thought provoking. Thanks.
Al Adab| 1.13.12 @ 12:08PM
Bain is being made an issue because, quite simply, The Left believes business should be run by government. Sadly too many citizens, soon to find themselves subjects of Ceasar, think likewise.
W| 1.13.12 @ 12:51PM
Al Adab
Great insight.
We need a vulture capitalist type to go through the budget and eliminate useless agencies and cut expenses.
You cannot keep a failing business alive just to maintain employment becaue this will bankrupt the business. These critics think you should run a business like you run the government to maintain employment. A business cannot tax and borrow indefinetely like a governmet, although with the example of Greece, even govenrments are learning there is a limit to tax and borrow.
Al Adab| 1.13.12 @ 2:39PM
W:
As you know I do not wish Romney as the nominee, however his abilities and actions with Bain are in his favor not to his detriment. See my 11:34 above.
RCV| 1.14.12 @ 1:03PM
Bain is being made an issue largely by Gingrich, and in a most destructive way. I saw the video on Bain and honestly thought I might have been watching a Michael Moore "documentary", little different in tone and content than "Roger and Me". I used to think of Romney as the guy who would say or advocate anything that would help his political prospects, but Newt has taken the crown with this ill-considered move. That hit piece will be played over and over again in the general election, but by people who really believe the point it makes.
W| 1.14.12 @ 2:08PM
I always thought Newt was not very principled given his conduct as Speaker, and making ads with Pelosi, but this attack is the worst any Republican has made against another Republican in recent history. Maybe someone can remember a worse attack, but I can't.
I am surprised about Perry, he seemed like a decent candidate.
This ad will be used over and over by Obama. This ad guarantees that Newt and Perry will not be able to campaign or effectively support Romney if he is the candidate.
RCV| 1.14.12 @ 2:17PM
You're right. It may thus have eliminated his prospects as a VP candidate. Rubio may have that field to himself now, if he wants it. I think we can safely say that Haley Barbour has taken himself out of the running!
W| 1.15.12 @ 12:00PM
Yes, Haley is out, regadless of the merits of the pardons. Haley must have known it would kill his VP chances, so he must not have wanted to run. If Romney is the nominee, Rubio is the most obvious choice to win Florida, and the Hispanics. McCain got 10% less of the Hispanic vote than GWB. Santorum would help in Pa and Ohio.
TommyFrisco| 1.13.12 @ 4:42PM
Ross, this discussion came up because Romney is claiming to have created 100,000 jobs. That makes saved or created jobs an important part of the debate. That is the most important issue in this election, is it not?
I agree that employment numbers should not be used to judge whether or not Bain is an ethical company, but the tactics that they used to make money is a factor and it could expose Romney's true character. It is certainly difficult to determine his values when we compare his words to his political record.
wodiej| 1.13.12 @ 9:16AM
What Romney and Bain did may be legal but it's unethical. Not only were good paying jobs lost, severance and pensions were halved. So those agreeing w this form of capitalism won't mind when it's their turn to take one for the team eh?
Capitalism should not just be about making a profit and certainly not a 900% one like Romney and Bain made. It should be about the workers who built the company w their hard work and dedication. If they absolutely find it impossible to do that, they should at least compensate the workers fairly. This is why so many jobs have gone out of the US. It's called corporate raiding. And if you approve of this greedy, unethical practice then don't whine about the US going down the toilet w Obama in charge. This is why the GOP is no longer conservative. It's all about the money.
Ryan| 1.13.12 @ 9:24AM
Here's the problem, and I'm not justifying Bain here, just pointing out a few general issues.
One, should a company continue to pay high salaries if it is failing?
Two, if a company cannot make a profit, then how can it pay employees and provide a living for families?
Nancy in NC| 1.13.12 @ 9:25AM
You have some points, but you lost me with "it should be about the workers who built the company w their hard work and dedication". Spoken like a true Marxist.
Good businesses will fairly compensate their workers. However, there would be no company if it were not for the business owner in the first place; you know, the guy with the idea and the means to put that idea to work. Steve Jobs (and others like him) created a lot of millionaires, but he made the most, as he should.
I just haven't seen the facts to support your premise.
Kade| 1.13.12 @ 10:59AM
Nancy
You are now a Marxist if you extol hard working Americans who help build major corporations?
There was a time not so long ago when both worker and companies were loyal to one another and did not have this super-greedy cutthroat mentality.
This disdain the GOP now has for the American worker and middle class is the last straw for me. I will now register as an Independent.
Man, I really miss Ronnie.
Kade| 1.13.12 @ 11:05AM
By the way Nancy didn’t Steve Jobs outsource a lot of Apple to Communist China?
The Republican Party is now mostly libertarian and elitist, not conservative or patriotic, and has an anti-American streak running through them.
Nancy in NC| 1.13.12 @ 2:55PM
His remark sounded too much like "workers of the world unite." Of course, management and workers should be on the same team; and in great companies they are. One can't survive without the other.
Kade| 1.13.12 @ 4:00PM
Well that statement would alarm me too Nancy.
RCV| 1.14.12 @ 2:21PM
You know, I am a liberal Democrat. But the reality is that Bain Capital and other venture capital firms are necessary and useful in a capitalist economy. Far from destroying healthy businesses and putting people out of work, they are an efficient way of salvaging business that prospects of survival that would otherwise go bankrupt, and freeing up capital for investment in enterprises that will provide long term emploment.
RCV| 1.14.12 @ 2:21PM
sorry - should read "with prospects of survival".
JimH| 1.13.12 @ 9:29AM
I’m not saying Romney necessarily did anything wrong from a legal standpoint and possibly not even an ethical one. What I’m saying is his business experience is a tougher sell to the public as a good thing than say someone like Steve Jobs. If Romney had been an executive for a cigarette company, a legal business fulfilling a market need, how keen would the GOP be on pushing his business background?
DRed| 1.13.12 @ 10:08AM
Isn't the idea that capitalism rewards success and punishes failure? Making millions of dollars while a company you ran goes bankrupt seems like a perversion of that, no?
buckeyeman| 1.13.12 @ 10:43AM
Perhaps, except that's not what happened. Bain capital purchased or invested in existing businesses that were already in trouble. That was their specialty. Most of these businesses subsequently survived. Some did not. Would you condemn a surgeon because some of his patients died?
DRed| 1.13.12 @ 10:56AM
Bain did a great job of ensuring it's investors got paid, which is admirable. But it seems to have ensured good returns on investment by taking decisions that were not always in the best interest of the companies that it bought. That doesn't mean that Bain capital is evil, but it's not really healthy capitalism either.
JimH| 1.13.12 @ 5:33PM
I would if I thought that the doctor gave less then his best effort in saving the patient because was planning on harvesting the organs.
Kade| 1.13.12 @ 10:45AM
Exactly wodiej. And the talk radio pundits who embrace this unscrupulous and anything- goes conduct under the umbrella of capitalism are not conservative either. Greed is their primary principle -- they need to read proverbs.
This Bain controversy is revealing the character not only of the liberal Romney but also his pseudo-conservative media shills.
Kade| 1.13.12 @ 12:01PM
Woiej
Good post.
The decimation of America’s industry and good-paying jobs started with lefties Clinton / Gore’s NAFTA and now the suicidal outsourcing our corporations, banking and engineering is a bedrock of the GOP (libertarian, not conservative) economic doctrine -- the ultra-greedy corporate / government/ media elite have sold out America and its middle class.
Vern Crisler| 1.13.12 @ 9:24AM
I notice that Ross in his hall of fame of capitalism didn't mention J D Rockefeller, who used every trick in the book to kill off his competition. To the extent this was legal, it was good for the economy in the long run. However, it doesn't mean we'd have wanted Rockefeller as a political leader. Similarly with other 19th century capitalists, who justified their practices by citing vulgar Darwinism -- survival of the fittest. Some of capitalism's worst enemies are capitalists.
The executioner serves a necessary purpose in society, but few would want him as a political leader. Similarly, the sort of thing Romney did with Bain, aside from seeking government subsidies, is a necessary part of the efficient use of capital. So Romney may have been a good capitalist, presiding over the execution of faltering companies, but that does not mean we want him as President.
Ross | 1.13.12 @ 6:33PM
It wasn't my list...it was Gingrich's list.
Larry| 1.14.12 @ 4:13AM
Ross, you always seem to attract the most comments! Lol!
Ross Kaminsky | 1.17.12 @ 10:42PM
Larry, that's half the fun! Thanks for playing along.
Jae Ellenburg| 1.13.12 @ 9:49AM
I understand progression and embrace it in order to propel our economy by leaps and bounds, however, you cannot compare what Mitt Romney has done in the past to great Americans such as Ford and Edison. Competition is great and both of these mens' inventions helped to put our nation well ahead of the other competition by their genius. In contrast, Romney and Bain saw opportunities to make a quick buck by taking over struggling companies and then liquidating them to pocket millions for themselves. This is not the type of Capitalism Ford and Edison embraced. It is a disgrace and it is immoral!
Nick099| 1.13.12 @ 10:04AM
Nice try. But take a look again from the macro-perspective. There is good and bad in Romneyś career. Not that he did anything illegal. In your article you dismiss workers losing their jobs as inconsequential. That may sound nice in your little cigar clubs in Manhatten or elsewhere in trader-world, but not in those affected areas. Sorry buddy, without having to waste more time broadening your perspective the bottom line is this: Wall Street is important...but a cog in the machine, just like the economy is an important engine that drives the nation. Business leaders are generally good in their field...to a point. Letś not forget 2008....they should have seen that coming from a mile away....and some of them helped it along. They voted for Obozo overwhelmingly and gave him huge sums of cash...and got repaid in spades. Romney is just not the visionary leader needed here. He also runs a scorched earth campaign...he brought this barrage upon himself.
John Navratil| 1.13.12 @ 10:33AM
Nick099,
Let's say you have just bought a struggling concern. I presume you bought it because you thought you could turn it around to profitability. Perhaps by firing incompent workers or managers? Perhaps by downsizing? Perhaps by innovation?
Now you find this will not work out and that you will not be able to save the company. What do you do? Obviously you would like to cut your loses. Perhaps you can find a buyer who CAN turn the company around. Perhaps not, and you must ultimately liquidate the assets.
Do you keep the door open and continue ordering from your vendors? If your vendors know what you know, they will not extend credit. If they don't should you tell them?
In the end, the workers are going to lose their jobs. Do you tell them?
If you want to keep the workers on as long as possible, you stiff your creditors in order to keep the payroll until the last dime is spent. Is that the moral and ethical position?
Fortunately, the interest of the owner is to maximize his return. He shutters the business, pays the creditors and keeps what, if anything, is left. As an owner, or a shareholder, he is last in line.
The workers are laid off sooner than they might have been, but at least the creditors don't have to lay-off their workers when the end finally arrives.
Old Soldier| 1.13.12 @ 11:47AM
In a Macro perspective, you want profitable efficient companies. The sick companies need to be turned around - which Bain did with Staples and others - or liquidated.
The worst thing we could do is keep a sick company going (GM) without fixing it's problems. That's just throwing good taxpayer money after bad.
Al Adab| 1.13.12 @ 12:09PM
Thank you. Concise.
Gussie Fink-Nottle| 1.13.12 @ 4:11PM
"The worst thing we could do is keep a sick company going (GM) without fixing it's problems." Actually, we 'fixed' most of its problems, by putting losing parts of GM into one company that was liquidated, and money-making parts into the 'new' GM.
I'd wondered aloud why Obama didn't step in by Borders, for example, by putting losing stores with their leases into one corporation which they liquidate, and money-making stores into a 'new' Borders that's very profitable. Think of all the jobs that could've been saved by this subterfuge...
My other brilliant idea: The US Government could've taken over Madoff's Ponzi scheme and kept it solvent indefinitely, thereby keeping investors from losing 50 billion!
See what can be done with some crative accounting?
W| 1.13.12 @ 4:36PM
Isn't this what Enrod did?
skip| 1.14.12 @ 10:05AM
The U.S. government's coerced 'ponzi scheme' of social security/medicare has American citizen 'investors' on the hook for at least 150 trillion in total unfunded liabilities which cannot possibly keep 'solvent indefinitely' either the government or the citizens despite some 'very creative accounting' that merely requires $500,000 from each and every citizen to 'fix'.
Thom| 1.14.12 @ 10:10AM
The new GM would be bankruput tomorrow if you removed the tens of billions it was lent to keep it operating. Its problems were not fixed else it won't need the tens of billions it got and still uses for a loss to the taxpayers who will have to pay all the taxes and interests to cover a real loss.
Clint| 1.13.12 @ 10:10AM
Again.
The Issues Are Leveraged Buy Outs And Bain's Handling Of Leveraged Buy Outs And Romney Comparing Bain Work To Auto Industry Bailout And The Fact That The Obama Administration Consulted Mitt Romney’s Former Firm, Bain Capital, On The Controversial Government Bailout of GM and Chrysler.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
Ryan| 1.13.12 @ 12:28PM
The story you reference was retracted. It was a different Bain.
Gussie Fink-Nottle| 1.13.12 @ 4:04PM
Correct. That was Bain Consulting, not Bain Capital.
Oldefarte| 1.13.12 @ 2:55PM
Bain's venture capitalism has absolutely no connection/comparison to Obama's/Democrats' bailout of Detroit [to essentially benefit their labor union supporters] and you're FOS!!!!!!
Clint| 1.13.12 @ 8:19PM
I Was Referring To Information On National Review's The Corner. Tell Them.
However, You're Still A RINO-CINO Apologis, Fart And Obviuosly, You Pants Are FOS.
We Are Being Set Up By The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
cicero| 1.13.12 @ 11:46AM
Business is neither "bad" nor "good". It either is profitable and survives, or is unprofitable and does not survive. Stealing and cheating is "bad". Is anybody accusing Romney or Bain Capital of stealing or cheating? If not, let's move the discussion into relevant territory.
This whole dialogue going on in the press and the primaries' discussions revolves around the sorry fact that our voting public is so woefully educated in matters of economics of a basic order. One example only is needed: we keep hearing about how the auto companies (GM and Chrysler) got bailed out. You are aware of the fact that ALL of the shareholders lost ALL of their money, and ALL of the bond holders lost 90% of their money. These companies were not bailed out. They were liquidated. The viable assets were then given to NEWCO, and NEWCO's stock was given gratuitously to the UAW and the Federal Government.
The party of stupid rides again. They have the perfect opportunity to educate the voting public on the difference Capitalism and crony Socialism (Fascism), and are giving it up. Time to return to the nominating convention format that existed prior to 1972.
David T| 1.13.12 @ 12:56PM
It's clear that the Bain Capital model of business is not the classic, entrepreneurial model of a Ford, or a Gates, or a Jobs, but in a free economy both models provide value. It's also clear that if Obama gets re-elected, it's a sure thing Ethel and Obediah will get their old jobs back.
Frank Speaking| 1.13.12 @ 1:17PM
the author's understanding of Schumpeter's "creative destruction" stops half way through Schumpeter's analysis.
this is what come from using Cliffs Notes or Wikipedia as a primary source.
Schumpeter's "creative destruction" was his analysis of how capitalists themselves would be the cause of capitalism's ultimate and inevitable collapse.
Events of the past thirty years are proving his analysis to be accurate—it is capitalist zealots who have brought capitalist economies to their knees and it will be the same unrepentant capitalist zealots who will deliver the coup de grâce.
Bob K.| 1.13.12 @ 2:19PM
William F. Buckley Jr. agreed with you. Remember his admiration of a saying of Willi Schlamm, who with WFB Jr, was co-founder of National Review?
"The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists!"
Read his essay about it here:
http://old.nationalreview.com/.....200907.asp
The voting public knows this instinctively. That is why Romney is going to have real rough going if he is the nominee.
megalass| 1.13.12 @ 1:43PM
Outside of the country-club faction of the GOP, it is understood that some ways of making a buck are more ethical than others. We are all united
in a belief in free enterprise and that is why, unlike Democrats, we propose no legislation or fines targeted at business models we find sleazy.
But that does not mean that we have to like those businesses or the persons who run them. It is not an attack on capitalism to disdain a strip-club
owner or a buy-out firm because both involve "helping" those who have run out of other options. These owners may be providing a service, but Mother Teresa they ain't.
I think that Speaker Gingrich's critique of Romney will resonate with South Carolina voters, even if it is slightly unfair, because paybacks are
hell and Romney has earned this one. Secondly, I don't think the Main Street pro-business Republicans identify with the Wall Street set very
much. A guy who has a dream to start a brick-and-mortar business, works all hours and spends his own money to get up and running and lives
in the same community as his employees is not a natural soul-mate of a dude with a Harvard MBA, a parent who was the Governor of
Michigan and the ability to whip up a mean spreadsheet from 800 miles away.
Bob Grant| 1.13.12 @ 2:19PM
The attacks on Romney demonstrate poor judgement on Perry's part and in addition poor temperament on Gingrich's.
Folks, this is all part of the process: Who can survive the tests and who can't.
Like him or not, Romney is holding strong against the others and provides more proof that he should be the nominee.
Bob K.| 1.13.12 @ 2:23PM
Actually he is reminding the voting public that often capitalists have personal flaws as William F. Buckley, Jr. did here:
http://old.nationalreview.com/.....200907.asp
Oldefarte| 1.13.12 @ 2:58PM
The following describes the crisis facing this country following November of 2012 [and hopefully most of you understand same]:
'....Newsmax..Obama Plans to Accelerate Ideological Course in Second Term ..Friday, January 13, 2012 12:54 PM.By: David Limbaugh...On this we can agree with President Barack Obama: Everything he stands for is at stake in 2012.Obama told 500 fawning sycophants in Chicago that he is unrepentant about his policy agenda and intends to treat us to more of the same, much more, in a second term.Obama said, "Everything that we fought for is now at stake in this election." Lest there be no mistake, he repeated the message in the smaller settings of private homes.We can endlessly debate whether he is such a devoted ideologue that he's blind to his policy failures, whether he's willing to sacrifice the economy and the fiscal integrity of the United States for his perceived higher good of radical redistribution, or whether he really intends to do harm, but these are moot questions anymore.
Under any of these possibilities, the fact remains that he is hellbent on accelerating his present course, not reversing it, on dictating, not working within his constitutional constraints, much less building a bipartisan consensus.
Hubris and defiance are his trademarks, not humility. He said, "If you're willing to work even harder in this election than you did in the last election, I promise you, change will come."This should send cold chills up our spines. By "change," he means more of his unpopular, failed agenda. He has repeatedly indicated that he is frustrated with the process of republican government and that he would be much more comfortable as a dictator.He has also said many times that he believes his goals are so important that he intends to implement them with or without Congress, through executive or administrative usurpations. He has done more than talk; he has acted in contravention of the Constitution and intends to continue in that vein.What he might do in a second term is frightening to those who believe in freedom and equality of opportunity, that our current pattern of discretionary and entitlement spending is not just unsustainable but also guaranteed to destroy the country, and that we cannot preserve our freedom if we persist on a course of unilateral disarmament.Just consider how brazenly Obama has pursued his unpopular agenda even while facing re-election. Think how he joked about having made a hollow promise of shovel-ready jobs when there is no such thing and how he is unchastened by the colossal waste of Solyndra and pursuing more of the same. Consider how he cavalierly refuses to account for his promise to keep unemployment capped at 8 percent and how he assured us, on his honor, that his designated stimulus cop, Vice President Joe Biden, wouldn't allow a dollar of waste to go unpunished in his stimulus plan.
Chew on his refusal to listen to the public when it resoundingly rejected Obamacare, rebuffing his agenda in the U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts and again in the 2010 congressional elections.
Ponder his petty partisanship, bullying, demonizing, and class warfare and his frequent invocation of the race card. Can you conceive of how he'd act as a four-year lame duck?
You all surely heard Obama, thinking he was speaking only to friends, boast that he was for a single-payer plan but that it might take 15 years to implement it. Remember this when his supporters tell you Obamacare won't degenerate into socialized medicine. Those waivers he unilaterally issued to buy off companies now won't be available next time around when the full force of Obamacare rains down its dark waters.
Think about his Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will have 15 bureaucrats once Obamacare is up and running, when he won't have to worry about 2016. Before you pooh-pooh this, you'd better do your research on his healthcare mentors' (e.g., Tom Daschle, Donald Berwick) philosophy about the macabre rationing of healthcare for the aged.
So, call me an alarmist if you will, but I think it's almost irrational not to be very concerned about an Obama second term. Even if you don't subscribe to some of the horror scenarios of death panels and the like, how about his intention to continue to press forward with his radical green agenda despite the fact that it won't work to reduce global temperatures and despite the public's opposition to it?More importantly, how about his absolute refusal to restructure entitlements or his refusal to lead his party's Senate to pass a budget after 1,000 days? Or his insistence on another stimulus package when unemployment — even using the distorted metrics the administration is now using — is still at 8.5 percent and it would add another half-trillion dollars to the national debt?
By rights, Obama shouldn't get 10 percent of the vote in November. Even those who want to punish the "wealthy" should understand that once you completely gnaw off the hand that feeds you, you will starve, too....'
George S| 1.13.12 @ 4:25PM
Remember during the 90's and 00's how you opened your employee monthly 401k statements and were gleefully surprised how much it increased? Were you complaining that the venture capitalists managing your fund were doing all these nasty things Romney is accused of? Of course not! When it comes to your account, you demand action. Now that we see how the sausage is made, we all pretend to be disgusted. If you feel that strongly about Bain's practices, check your hypocrisy at the door and write your favorite charity a check for the capital gains on your retirement accounts.
David| 1.13.12 @ 6:10PM
Wow, judging simply by the comments here, Palin, Rubio, Jindal, and DeMint need to pick a conservative candidate quick, so that we can all get behind one candidate put an end to all of the in-fighting. The person above it all right now is Santorum, and I suspect he will remain above it all.
folks, this is information on Santorum from RedState. It was published on January 6, 2012.
I keep telling everyone to get behind Santorum now - support him with five bucks. Forget Perry and Huntsman and Gingrich and Paul. Santorum can win - and win as a conservative.
The following is From RedState.
Here are his ratings from when he was in Congress:
American Conservative Union — 88%
National Right to Life Committee — 100%
Americans for Tax Reform — 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee — 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce — 88%
League of Private Property Voters — 94%
Now remember, this is Santorum’s House ratings, in a DEMOCRAT district. How many Republicans in Democrat areas vote this conservative? Kirk? Snowe? That’s conviction! Santorum is NOT a ‘big government conservative’ but an across-the-board mainstream conservative with a solidly conservative voting record, albeit marred with the support for earmarks and some spending bills that many Republicans in Bush eara fell prey to.
Yet another source that looks at Santorum’s record is Jen Rubin, who likewise absolves Santorum of the phony claim that he is a big-government conservative:
“While in Iowa, Texas Gov. Rick Perry tried to begin a line of attack on Rick Santorum claiming that the former Pennsylvania senator is a big-government conservative. That attack seems poorly thought through (shocking, I know from such a meticulous campaign) for several reasons.
First, Santorum is to the right of Perry in some important ways. Santorum opposed the Troubled Assets Relief Program; Perry wrote a letter on the day of the Senate vote urging Congress to pass legislation to avert a meltdown. Santorum, as we saw in the debates, is likewise to the right of Perry (and Newt Gingrich, for that matter) on immigration.
Indeed, Santorum’s supposed deviations from conservative orthodoxy are similar those of his rivals. He voted for earmarks and highway funds. Gov. Perry took the money. Santorum voted for Medicare Part D; Gingrich lobbied for it, and Perry said in a debate that he wouldn’t repeal it.”
“And finally, Santorum has put together an aggressive spending reduction plan. He’s for the balanced-budget amendment. He’s embraced Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan. He’s in favor of Social Security reform, against energy subsidies, for privatizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and in favor of repealing Obamacare. The guy is no liberal when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Is he to the right of Gingrich? Yes. To the left of Ron Paul? Yes. But so are most GOP voters.”
Where Santorum deviated from the conservative line, like his vote on NAFTA and his support for earmarks, he was doing the exceptional thing, and those deviations were in most cases catering to his constituents. But UNLIKE most Northeast Republicans, that ‘catering’ did not extend to abandoning conservative principles again and again. They’ve been the exception to the rule that Congressman and Senator Rick Santorum held. With his support for lower taxes, prolife and profamily policies, conservative Judges, for balanced budgets and entitlement reform, against McCain-Feingold, for school choice, against TARP and Frank-Dodd. Rick Santorum has had a solid and mostly consistent conservative voting record.
Santorum further has a solid and conservative agenda for President. Romney timidly talks of getting spending maybe down to 20% of GDP. Rick Santorum fully supports the Republican balanced budget amendment that caps spending at 18% of GDP. He wants lower tax rates for all, going to a 10%/28% two tier tax rate and lowering corporate tax rates.
While Gingrich criticized the Ryan roadmap, Santorum embraced it. Newt supported Medicare Part D, supported at one time healthcare mandates, and supported all the Bush programs that conservatives object to in Santorum’s voting record. Romney has gone further of course, embracing not just TARP, but healthcare mandates and failing to even fully criticize the Obama stimulus spending. Only Gingrich or Santorum will wage a campaign that fully challenges Obama’s whole agenda and actually works to repeal it. Newt has pegged Mitt Romney rightly as a Massachusetts moderate, but Newt is not without flys in his ointment either, from global warming to embracing Hillary, Pelosi and Al Sharpton (!) at various times in attempts to ‘reach across’ bipartisanly.
The bottom line is that between Newt, Santorum, and Romney .. Santorum is the one who is most fiscally conservative and who will have the most fiscally conservative administration as President.
Both Newt and Santorum are conservative. Just not perfect conservatives. For those who say that Santorum is not a ‘true conservative’, I would argue simply that if an 85% ACU rating and leadership on conservative issues in Congress for almost 2 decades is not enough, you will NEVER find a ‘true conservative’ in the Presidential field.
For the rest of us without that fine a filter, yes, Rick Santorum is a ‘true conservative’. Conservatives will be happy with his SCOTUS picks, his support of our military, his support for life, his tax reform and entitlement reforms, his pro-energy policies, his economic growth agenda, his fiscally responsible budgets, and his appeal to get America working again.
Thom| 1.13.12 @ 6:17PM
A basic understanding of macro/micro economics would go a long way in defusing these distorted questions about the workings of a free market but given the lack of an education system in this nation we are left with masses of ignorant people without a shred of common sense about some pretty basic econ truths.
One of those universal truths that “government” distorts in many destructive ways is “something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you today”. Examples of this abound but two simple ones will show the nature of the beast.
My “property” is assessed by “government” at 2x the value it was 6 years ago and taxed the same. There are no buyers at that price. Millions of houses sit empty with an assessed “value” that no one is willing to pay yet government says that is its worth and I must pay taxes on that imputed “worth”. Is my property really worth that in reality? When I offered to cut off a piece of my new found imputed “wealth” and send it in as payment the “government” insisted that I pay in “Cash”. Where does “cash” come from? It comes from an exchange for my “labor” which in turn is subject to the ebb and flow of the market’s judgment of what my labor is worth is it not? What if the market says my “labor” is worth less today than yesterday? The year before? The decade before? Where does the “cash” that government demands in payment for its assessed value of my property come from if no one will buy my property for that price or even a portion of it?
Second, my salary and benefit cost is in the money for my industry which means my benefit cost is 50% over my salary. I’ve worked for companies that changed hands 2, 3, 4 times and still got paid an ever increasing salary going on 40 years. The UAW benefit cost over their rather generous starting salary before the latest contracts talks is 160%. The UAW benefit cost is greater than my salary and that is the floor labor cost for the big three domestic automotive companies. One year of a UAW pre paid medical family plan cost is 2/3rds my 40 year life to date medical cost to myself and my employers. All three domestic UAW run companies are living on borrowed money to the tune of about 90 billion. They say they are making a “profit” but would be bankrupt tomorrow if that money were removed from subsidizing their operations. Another universal econ truth is businesses go out of business when their cost of operations exceeds their revenue. The Chevy Volt, produced and subsidized off of borrowed taxpayer money, is a vivid example of what happens when people running a company won’t adjust their business model to meet consumer demands rather than the demands of a labor force living way beyond what the market is willing to pay for their services…..
Simple economic truth, you can only force so many people to pay more than your labor is worth so long beyond the point where revenue will exceed cost and any business stay viable. Buggy Whip manufactures aren’t in big “demand” these days and the few that are still around probably do ok but the market will not support unreasonable Buggy Whip prices simply because they used to be worth more in the past. The UAW thinks they are exempt from market forces and “own” the jobs, salaries and benefits they’ve become accustomed to over the decades… The Market said otherwise and the Government stepped in to subsidize an unsustainable business model that depends on profits from vehicles costing substantially more than the average wage earner can “demand” for his or her labor and consequentially their revenues fall below their rather large fixed labor cost labor even when you aren’t paying them a salary but still have to pay them a benefit cost greater than the average salary in the country.
Understanding the difference between what the market will bear and how foolish much of our economy is based upon a falsely imputed “wealth” is the first step in staying employed and not finding yourself unemployed and unemployable at the same time. Many of those on long term unemployment payments think real highly of their “worth” to an employer but the market will only value such overvalued assets so long.
Thomas| 1.13.12 @ 6:45PM
We are a capitalist society, but maybe more importantly we are a society founded on Judeo-Christian values. It’s a unique society - this mix of capitalism and these religious principles is what makes us unique. We cannot have one without the other. Without these religious principles acting as our guidelines for ethical behavior there is potential for capitalism to become a cold secular system that destroys our very essence as a society. The combination of the two allows us as individuals and a nation to thrive.
I really feel ethics are important in our society - the belief of treating people with dignity and in earnest is a necessary component of capitalism in America. These are our Judeo - Christian beliefs. These are our guiding principles. These beliefs work beautifully alongside capitalism and make us a better people and country. Profits at all costs without a moral compass are not what America is all about. If American capitalism does not include our investment in its people on an ethical plain while making profits we are lost and we will lose the argument to the socialist’s agenda.
We always as conservatives make constitutional arguments about whether our Founding Fathers would want this to be their America. I ask you the same question – the way Bain treated some of these companies - is this the capitalistic society – the country the Founding Fathers founded with the love of God – is this the country they died for and suffered hardships – is this how they wanted their fellow Americans to treat each other? The answer is no.
Gingrich is right - it is ok to question unethical behavior within the capitalist model - he is not attacking capitalism.
JimP| 1.13.12 @ 6:46PM
It is ironic that so many of the people giving Newt a hard time about being "anti-capitalist" support a candidate [Romney] who is a big government, high tax, high regulation, creeping socialism politician that, given enough time, will kill capitalism. This is just another point that exposes the Newt attackers as hypocrites and Romney too IMO. All the over sensitive reactions by some business people, analysts and politicians to the "anti-capitalist" attacks on Romney are missing the point that Gingrich has been making but has been drowned out by their hysteria.
Romney isn't for free markets as much as he is for markets essentially under the control and for the primary benefit of the elites. We already have a class war in this country and it has been going on for a very long time. It’s the Ruling Class vs. the Country Class. Acknowledging this conflict doesn’t make me a socialist. It means I have a functioning brain. Romney, Democrats and the other elitists inside the beltway, on Wall Street etc have no qualms about accruing wealth for themselves, but they don’t favor policies that would create a rising tide for everyone a la Reagan- to name just one- nor do they want to create an “opportunity society” that expands opportunity to the utmost and completely across the socio-economic spectrum. Romney is a status quo politician and businessman. He’ll “nibble around the edges” of the tax code, but this kind of activity primarily aids those who are already more well off than average. As a businessman he knew how to make the existing system work for him and his investors. In the process he gained fabulous wealth and created a number of retail chain businesses that pay minimum wage, while many people ended up losing their jobs. Maybe they would have lost their jobs anyway. Bain’s private equity operation’s purpose was to make maximum return on investment regardless of consequences. That’s part of the capitalist system. A number of people lost their jobs while Romney made a gigantic fortune. Rightly or wrongly this isn’t a pretty picture if you are a politician. This imbalanced ‘picture’ offends Americans’ sense of fairness. [Yes, the Dems know about our sense of fair play and have used it to manipulate people and get themselves elected. It isn’t per se a socialist proponent’s code word] So, Romney looks like a rich guy who gets even richer because he knows how to work the system while little people lose their jobs. Then after making hundreds of millions of dollars he makes a career of running for office so he can support the kind of policies that are harmful to the economy and expanding economic opportunity from top to bottom, but allow the already rich and well connected to remain wealthy. This is what Newt has been trying to get at when I’ve heard him speaking on this issue. Maybe I missed his original statement. Romney would maintain the current system which is controlled by and for the elite, well connected cronies of DC, Wall Street, the Left Coast and the Northeast Corridor. If saying that makes me a class warrior, then make the most of it. But, be sure and understand I want a flat tax of 5% for income and business, a Paul Ryan type reform of entitlements and I want to starve the beast in DC. Washington doesn’t need 18% of GNP. Let’s see how low they can go before the streets are filled with tumbleweed.
Another thing I think Newt is getting at is Mitt’s avarice [def: insatiable desire for riches; inordinate miserly desire to gain and hoard wealth.] This is a character flaw/trait. It is coincidental to capitalism. I think avarice is why Mitt has had such a hard time explaining his business activities. He was just in it for the money and as soon as he collected enough to finance his political career he was running for office and supporting policies that limit opportunities for the little people, quite a few of who lost their jobs thanks to Mitt, and he’s for policies that gradually rob people of their freedom and leave them under the control of elites like Mitt running the government.
We need a guy who creates the conditions for all businesses and people to have the best chance to succeed. One who will limit if not reduce government control. Mitt ain’t that guy because he’s not a Reagan conservative. He is for the status quo with a nibble here or a nibble there. Romney is not a conservative and anyone supporting him can’t legitimately claim to be a conservative either. Romney’s character and trustworthiness are legitimate issues. Newt is returning the smear favor. Mitt’s supporters are being soreheads [crybabies] about it. If I have to choose between Newt and Mitt, I’ll take Newt.
One good thing about all this is it has exposed all the Rockefeller Republicans who write at conservative blog sites. I’m making a list and factoring their RINO tendencies into everything the say from here on.
Tom| 1.13.12 @ 9:19PM
You sound like Newt, one long winded incomprehensible paragraph.
JimP| 1.14.12 @ 5:59AM
It did get run together when I posted it. For that I am sorry. When I typed it, it was four paragraphs.
I'll add your name to my list as one of the soreheads, Tom.
Thom| 1.14.12 @ 9:50AM
Getting text written somewhere else into this blog properly formated is a problem...
JimP| 1.14.12 @ 10:56AM
Tom, I'm so sorry I didn't break out my comment properly into one sentence sound bites that your very limited attention span could digest. I've been told how difficult it is for folks with IQ's below 70 to grasp anything other than the simplest concepts. How totally insensitive of me. Anyway, if it helps, try separating each sentence with double spaces. This will have the effect of simplistic sound bites for the mentally challenged people like yourself. You still won't understand, because by the time you finishing reading the sentences the November election will be over.
Here's a simpler plan. Vote for Gingrich, Santorum or Perry in the primary. Don't vote for Romney. See, simple enough even for you. LOL
JimP| 1.14.12 @ 6:11AM
Here ya go, Tom. Just for you buddy. LOL You probably still won't get it, but miracle do happen sometimes.
It is ironic that so many of the people giving Newt a hard time about being "anti-capitalist" support a candidate [Romney] who is a big government, high tax, high regulation, creeping socialism politician that, given enough time, will kill capitalism. This is just another point that exposes the Newt attackers as hypocrites and Romney too IMO. All the over sensitive reactions by some business people, analysts and politicians to the "anti-capitalist" attacks on Romney are missing the point that Gingrich has been making but has been drowned out by their hysteria.
Romney isn't for free markets as much as he is for markets essentially under the control and for the primary benefit of the elites. We already have a class war in this country and it has been going on for a very long time. It’s the Ruling Class vs. the Country Class. Acknowledging this conflict doesn’t make me a socialist. It means I have a functioning brain. Romney, Democrats and the other elitists inside the beltway, on Wall Street etc have no qualms about accruing wealth for themselves, but they don’t favor policies that would create a rising tide for everyone a la Reagan- to name just one- nor do they want to create an “opportunity society” that expands opportunity to the utmost and completely across the socio-economic spectrum. Romney is a status quo politician and businessman. He’ll “nibble around the edges” of the tax code, but this kind of activity primarily aids those who are already more well off than average. As a businessman he knew how to make the existing system work for him and his investors. In the process he gained fabulous wealth and created a number of retail chain businesses that pay minimum wage, while many people ended up losing their jobs. Maybe they would have lost their jobs anyway, but will we ever know for sure? Bain’s private equity operation’s purpose was to make maximum return on investment regardless of consequences. That’s part of the capitalist system. A number of people lost their jobs while Romney made a gigantic fortune. Rightly or wrongly this isn’t a pretty picture if you are a politician. This imbalanced ‘picture’ offends Americans’ sense of fairness. [Yes, the Dems know about our sense of fair play and have used it to manipulate people and get themselves elected. It isn’t per se a socialist proponent’s code word] So, Romney looks like a rich guy who gets even richer because he knows how to work the system while little people lose their jobs. Then after making hundreds of millions of dollars he makes a career of running for office so he can support the kind of policies that are harmful to the economy and expanding economic opportunity from top to bottom, but allow the already rich and well connected to remain wealthy. This is what Newt has been trying to get at when I’ve heard him speaking on this issue. Maybe I missed his original statement. Romney would maintain the current system which is controlled by and for the elite, well connected cronies of DC, Wall Street, the Left Coast and the Northeast Corridor. If saying that makes me a class warrior, then make the most of it. But, be sure and understand I want a flat tax of 5% for income and business, a Paul Ryan type reform of entitlements and I want to starve the beast in DC. Washington doesn’t need 18% of GNP. Let’s see how low they can go before the streets are filled with tumbleweed.
Another thing I think Newt is getting at is Mitt’s avarice [def: insatiable desire for riches; inordinate miserly desire to gain and hoard wealth.] This is a character flaw/trait. It is coincidental to capitalism. I think avarice is why Mitt has had such a hard time explaining his business activities. He was just in it for the money and as soon as he collected enough to finance his political career he was running for office and supporting policies that limit opportunities for the little people, quite a few of who lost their jobs thanks to Mitt, and he’s for policies that gradually rob people of their freedom and leave them under the control of elites like Mitt who run the government.
We need a guy who creates the conditions for all businesses and people to have the best chance to succeed. One who will limit if not reduce government control. Mitt ain’t that guy because he’s not a Reagan conservative. He is for the status quo with a nibble here or a nibble there. Romney is not a conservative and anyone supporting him can’t legitimately claim to be a conservative either. Romney’s character and trustworthiness are legitimate issues. Newt is returning the smear favor. Mitt’s supporters are being soreheads [crybabies] about it. If I have to choose between Newt and Mitt, I’ll take Newt.
One good thing about all this is it has exposed all the Rockefeller Republicans who write at conservative blog sites. I’m making a list and factoring their RINO tendencies into everything the say from here on.
Zak Klemmer | 1.14.12 @ 6:56PM
Free enterprise will be replaced by Fascism: Everything for the State, Nothing outside the State, Nothing against the State. The military-industrial complex in a nutshell.
Tom| 1.14.12 @ 10:55PM
No improvement in the content, Jimmy. Took three seconds to skim to see you are a NewtHead.
You are a snarky sissy, just like Newt. Keep thinking you are smarter than the rest, just like Newtie, and a pompous windbag like Newtie.
Hot tip: If you can't make your case in clear language in one or two paragraphs, then you have no case.
Put away your thesarus and learn how to write.
POST American| 1.13.12 @ 8:52PM
-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------
That Social Darwinist tenet or FREE
'May--sin--Re' ----set before us yet again
without examination, without question,
without context ---as if from God himself.
-URGENT BLAST FROM THE PAST-
"Whatever the price of the Chinese revolution,
it has obviously 'suck-seeded' not only in
producing more efficient and 'dead-ick-ated'
administrations-----but also in fostering
morale and 'calm-unit--he' of 'PERP-US'.
The social experiment in China under
Chairman MAO's leadership is one of the
most important and 'suck-cess-full'
in 'HIS-story'."
-David Rockefeller
NY Times
August 1973
----You betcha'!
BTW ---an est. 90 MILLION exterminated
by the RED Chinese state ---entirely
in 'peacetime' ---their scholarly estimates.
90 MILLION and, as one and all across
Mongolia, Tibet, Manchuria and North
Korea can tell ----still climbing.
"Authoritarian RED China is to be the
Globalist 'Model for the world'".
-ALEX JONES
(Endgame documentary)
"Creative destruction' ---properly understood.
REMEMBER, Gingrich and Romney
------are THEM.
Margie| 1.13.12 @ 9:09PM
Jesus is coming back soon. He's gonna take care of it all.. for now, we do the best we can with what we've got.
As for conspiracies~~ the Bible tells us that the Devil, God's Enemy.. has pulled the wool over the entire World.
Have you had your spiritual eyes opened yet?
"We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the Evil one." 1 Jn. 5:19.
Coming to Christ is the ONLY Way.
"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.
skip| 1.14.12 @ 12:54PM
"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants, and entrusted his wealth to them . . . "
" . . . each according to his ability"
" . . . the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them"
" 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.' "
" His Master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant!' "
"The man with two bags of gold also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more"
"His Master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant!' "
"Then the man who had received one bag of gold came . . . 'I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground' "
"His Master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! . . . you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest' "
" . . . 'take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags' "
" 'And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth ' "
(Matthew 25:14-30)
~
It would seem that Jesus, intelligently and honestly based on reason and experience devoid of emotional prattle, was a free market capitalist, and rather unsympathetic to those not carrying their own weight, a fact lost on every single unintelligent and dishonest emotionally prattling liberal devoid of any and all reason and experience.
What a surprise.
Margie| 1.14.12 @ 4:29PM
And yet, He has mercy upon whoever He has mercy, and He hardens the heart of whomever He Wills. Rom. 9:18.
But yes, Jesus did NOT preach the so called "Social justice" Gospel!!
Margie| 1.14.12 @ 4:32PM
p.s. A happy new year to you and yours, skip.
skip| 1.14.12 @ 9:42PM
Thanks, and same to you, in this the year that historians hopefully look back on as the year liberalism officially croaked, since it was the last year democrats ever held a majority in either the house, the senate, or the oval office.
POST American| 1.13.12 @ 10:10PM
"No man knows when Christ returns"
He will come like a thief in the night,
when NO ONE expects.
So much for that COP OUT.
Further
"The 'End of Days' rap, and the rapture
spiel were virtually unknown before
the late 1800's. They were BOTH brought
in and skilfully deployed by the capstone
(--ROT-child and the 'hidden masters')
to NEUTRALIZE genuine Christian
indignation that would never have stood
for the cultural degradation and TREASON
before. Remember, Rev. Charles Finney was
himself a 33rd degree 'May--SIN' and
the Scofield Bible revival was largely
funded by the Rothchilds."
Destruction of the culture
Destruction of the family
Destruction of the very individual
END of the Republic ---and ALLLL
sovereignty worldwide
The stated agenda of the
'ILL-loom--inned' ones.
----------------------------------TAKE HEED.
Margie| 1.14.12 @ 4:25PM
Actually, Jesus says we won't know the HOUR or the DAY, it doesn't say we won't know.
"But of that Day or that hour no one knows, not even the Angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Mk. 13:32.
And then He goes on to say "Watch!"
In Matthew 24, Jesus gives us a basic run down of what to look for, and what is going to take place right before His return, so we have a pretty good idea of what's going to happen, and IS happening right now.
What are you saying is a cop-out, exactly??? And by whom or what??
As to the "Rapture" it isn't in the Bible.. but just read 1 Thess. 4:17 to see what GOD says:
"..then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord."
It's all in the Bible.. HIS Truth, HIS Words.. He gave us the Bible so that we COULD know, and SEEK after HIm and His Will.
astonerii| 1.13.12 @ 11:00PM
It is a cute analogy to what Bain did, if it was even remotely similar. Seems to me that creative aspect is completely missing from the Bain lexicon. It really must be a great way of life to look at an ongoing concern, see that it is somewhat inefficient, but far more importantly, that it has not used all of it's own leverageable assets. I could take that over for $1,000, but it can be leveraged to pull $12,000 from suckers that I can convince to invest in it through loans and bonds. We can then take $4,000 of that leveraged money and give it to ourselves immediately leaving the company with $8,000 to keep the fires going for a while and they can hope someone with better morals than me comes along and helps them actually succeed so those suckers do not lose everything, but if they do, hey at least I got mine!
I am trying to find the creation aspect of this. Anyone care to help?
TommyFrisco| 1.13.12 @ 11:03PM
Ross,
What matters in this discussion is how it's going to affect the general election if Romney becomes the nominee. If you want an insight, take a look at the 2006 Governor's race in Michigan. Granholm was the incumbent Gov. over a state with severe financial problems. Dick Devos (CEO of Amway) was the successful businessman who had the experience to fix the problems. When Granholm (D) ran ads saying that Devos (R) sent Michigan jobs to China, it was all over for DeVos. Can Romney prove that he didn't send jobs to China? Even if he didn't, how can he prove a negative?
BackToBasics| 1.14.12 @ 2:21AM
The largest "Creative Destruction" process I see going on is not the one that exists on a business/corporate level but is the national one that will determine if America survives or not.
In a strictly business sense, in 2012, it is difficult to know how well "Creative Destruction" works within a country when its' globalist-minded federal government intervenes in so many ways. For 20 years, increasingly high business taxes and regulations, devastating illegal immigration policies and too much legal immigration, and the allowance and even promotion of businesses to move to foreign lands are just some of the problems that interfere with a true gauge of "Creative Destruction at a business level."
Almost every paragraph in the article invokes the benefits of this process. Yet in almost every case cited, the new invention or business flourished within the country as a whole. Thomas Edison, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Ford, etc. kept most of the jobs inside of the US allowing the secretaries, candle-wick and carriage makers etc. to get new and often better paying jobs at the new businesses and corporations that were created. The Federal government did not create laws and tax disincentives to push the bulk of these industries out of America as we see happening now in some misguided venture to attempt to create world prosperity and stability at our expense.
I'd like to hear Romney and the other candidates discuss more on what measures they will take to reverse the capital and business/corporate and jobs outflow from America. Without a conservative, America-First leadership we won't even have much business left to test this process on and that will eventually lead to the ultimate Creative Destruction test for America itself on a national level.
Zak Klemmer | 1.14.12 @ 6:43PM
Interventionism by government in both taxation and regulation are the motivation for business and individuals to move off-shore. Immigration is mealy a symptom of people escaping the destructiveness of their own government, i.e. Mexico.
BackToBasics| 1.15.12 @ 11:03PM
I know the case for the current wave of immigration is more political and due to poverty rather than strarvation or war. Yet, I do not for a moment beleive that America is at the mercy of this wave and can do nothing to slow it down to a trickle, let alone feed, educate and medicate a large percentage of them. Mexico has had corrupt government and poverty for more than a lifetime and yet we did not see these numbers of illegals swamp our country until a ramp-up started after the 1986 amnesty signed by Reagan. I liked Reagan but this was one of his weaknesses for sure.
I agree that intervention by government is the a motivation for businesses to move offshore but this interventionism is also complicit with corporate and individual greed. I believe in capitalism but not to the point of defending what is now turning into a modern-day equivalent of the later 19th century robber barons.
Kade| 1.15.12 @ 9:35AM
Excellent post Basics.
For starters we need to pullout of Clinton’s NAFTA and the other free trade agreement sellouts, which permits global corporations to outsource our vital industry. Shipping entire factories along with our technology & engineering overseas is not even trade, which is an exchange of goods.
Of course the Romney defenders will say that doing this is anti-capitalism -- alas, libertarian (not conservative) and unscrupulous globalists have hi-jacked the once pro-American GOP.
BackToBasics| 1.15.12 @ 11:28PM
I appreciate the support, Kade. I agree that we should pullout of NAFTA which was promoted by both Papa Bush and Clinton. Some will immediately say I am advocating tarrifs and trade wars. I am not but America generally did well in the 200+ years prior to NAFTA being signed. Rhetorically, why are NAFTA and other trade treaties that allow the increased looting of America so sacrosanct? Prior to NAFTA we were better off for decades than now and the world GDP was still increasing in that time.
POST American| 1.14.12 @ 2:36AM
----------------------------P.S.-----------------------------
And one and all need to follow the
'ILL--loom--inned' ones as they diligently
censor things n the web.
We've already reported the delete of
John C. Coleman's devastating disclosures
viz a viz the Tavistock creation of 'cult-your'.
Now we notice they've deleted ALLLL reference
to Washington's BALK of 'MAY-SIN-Re'
with his revelations on the Illuminati
berthing in the New World. They've even
deleted ALLLLL mention of the fact that
Washingon's last act of soul --was to become
a baptised Calvinist.
Dying time IS truth time.
The entries on Arminian Heretic's
Charles G. Finney's 'mission' to subvert
sound doctrine with tent show enmeshment
fantasy shows has also been massively
cut.
Nevertheless ----------WORD IS OUT.
------------------HUAC/ Nuremberg-------------------
-----------tick ---tick -----tick -----tick
Margie| 1.14.12 @ 5:35PM
I just looked up Arminianism and apparently they rejected predestination??
Ya know.. thats' the problem with having denominations.. and with following men instead of God.
You end up leaving Jesus.
It never fails to astonish and sadden me how people choose to do this, when God gave us the Bible so that we could learn of Him and His Will!!
I'll stick with what God actually says about predestination:
"We know that in everything God works for good with those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose.
For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the Image of His Son, in order that He might be the first-born among many brethren.
And those whom He predestined He also called; and those whom He called He also justified; and those whom He justified He also glorified.
What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us?" Romans 8:28-31.
willspeaks | 1.14.12 @ 6:25AM
All of the companies that Mr Kaminsky mentions created new products that people wanted, thereby putting other companies out of business. Trying to equate Bain Capital with Apple Computers or Henry Ford is a big stretch.
The most loathesome practice of PE firms like Bain is "Dividend Recapitalzation". As I understand it, you aquire a company through an LBO, then you leverage the company again to pay yourselves "Dividends" out of the debt!, at the same time piling debt on the company making it weaker in the process. Bain and other PE firms do this consistantly and it is how they can make money even if the host company goes under. I always thought that dividends were paid out of profits after you got the company humming along, not from borrowing.
Newt is right when he says that this is not traditional capitalism as we know it in America. Conservatives are making a big mistake with this knee jerk defense of Bain, we are making Bain the face of the free market and playing right into the socialist's hands.
Bain Capital is very good at what it does, and has made massive returns on it's investments, all well and legal, but don't try and blow smoke up my nether regions and tell me the what Bain practices is "Creative Destruction Properly Understood"
BackToBasics| 1.14.12 @ 5:34PM
Informative and concise. It probably wouldn't hurt if you were to send this to Rush Limbaugh. He's defending Bain as the American way.
Kade| 1.15.12 @ 9:11AM
Dittos. Rush is covering for Romney’s predatory and bailout capitalism.
Rush is a stealth globaist in spades -- remember his vigorous defense of the Dubai Ports sellout of America, And Rush still absolves the banksters for their complicity in TARP and other backdoor bailouts, including Helicopter Ben continually printing monopoly money to rescue the global mega banks.
Richard Bailey | 1.14.12 @ 9:59AM
The goal of private equity is ROI, not jobs. This should neither be a Democrat or Republican issue. Steve Pagliuca of Bain ran for Ted Kennedy's seat as a man of the people shortly after Bain laid off 600 in a small Hudson Valley, New York town costing the State of NY an estimated $250 million. I saw this first hand - http://theaccidentalhumanist.blogspot.com/
Clint| 1.14.12 @ 12:05PM
" In its recent look at Romney's record with in 77 companies he worked with at Bain, the Wall Street Journal said that 22% of them filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed up shop within eight years of the fund's initial investment. "
Romney Is A Job Gravedigger.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
Margie| 1.14.12 @ 4:31PM
Romney vs. Obama???
That's too easy: Romney!
And BTW~ Ron Paul has dug his own grave. He's a JOKE.
Alan Brooks| 1.14.12 @ 7:36PM
Paul isn't a liar such as Dr. StrangeNewt.
Alan Brooks| 1.14.12 @ 7:38PM
...and stop picking on Catholics in a way somewhat similar to the manner in which some Arabs and Shiites pick on Israel.
It is a large mote- take it out of your eye.
Margie| 1.15.12 @ 2:02AM
I'm a Christian, therefore I speak the truth. And I'll never stop.. so Alan, when are you going to repent and believe the Gospel of Grace??
Zak Klemmer | 1.14.12 @ 4:33PM
In MHO the real issues are:
1. Federalism- LBJ and Nixon started the government in Washington DC on the path of destroying the sovereignty of the states, the 10th Amendment.
2. Government Debt: Since 1981 the national debt grew from One-trillion to over 15 Trillion dollars.
3. Welfare programs have been created to buy votes; Medicare in 1965 under LBJ and prescription drugs under George W. Bush. Worse are the programs that reward destructive behavior such as benefits for children born out of wedlock. All these programs are unsustainable and alone they will bankrupt the country.
4. Regulations that destroy the private sector’s ability to initiate voluntary economic exchanges. Private sector employment is dependent on economic growth. Even government is dependent on growth to balance their budgets.
5. When government power exceeds the limits proscribed in our constitution we all lose. Not just our freedom but our nation’s ability to survive- ultimately this will destroy society.
6. Honesty in the media. If voters are only going to listen to sound bites, talking points and clichés this not only destroys the credibility of the media but hampers and destroys the ability of most voters and our youth to understand facts underpinning objective reality.
7. Wars on everything under the sun: cancer, crime, poverty, drugs, guns, fat, sugar, and every other fear in the public’s mind. Self-government requires individual responsibility. Politicians know this but they cynically feed on the weakness of human nature.
8. Government agencies out of control working against individual freedom: FBI, BATF, EPA, etc.
9. The tax code. Confiscates private initiative and wealth creation for the detriment of society transferring power to government against individuals and the private sector. The tax code punishes risk-taking and rewards those who live off of government subsidies and programs.
10. Entangling alliances, has our society become so corrupt due to government that these issues cannot be fixed without a revolution? Czechoslovakia had a non-violent “Velvet” revolution when the communist government lost all authority to use force against the people.
BackToBasics| 1.14.12 @ 5:25PM
Good points. From your post - "Welfare programs have been created to buy votes; Medicare in 1965 under LBJ and prescription drugs under George W. Bush."
And the worst part of all is that I doubt it gained any votes of consequence for the Republican Party.
You mentioned the 1 trillion dollar debt in 1981. True, I still remember Reagan's speech about it where he said 1 trillion dollars is a stack of $100 bills that was 64 miles high. Now in 2012 the stack is almost 1000 miles high and growing by almost 100 miles per year.
Zak Klemmer | 1.14.12 @ 4:34PM
Other issues are a side-show.
POST American| 1.14.12 @ 9:04PM
-------------BLAST FRON THE FUTURE!----------------
FOX News Update 2015:
"Unrest and disorder now enter their
6th month in America and across the
world. Seems folks are somewhat upset
after the government announced the
unplugging of all currency in the wake
of restructuring. This coupled with the
end of pensions and the disclosure that
one and all are now----well------sterile
has folks in a tizzy. But don't be upset
if you can't get to the supermarket or
get the noisy crowds away from your
neighborhood ----help is on the way.
The US government has revealed they'll
be receiving a helping hand ---as 2.5 MILLION
Red Chinese security operatives will he
pitching in to make things work better.
----Many areas are reporting the opening
of scores of new Chinese restaurants to handle
the coming traffic. And. in an ALL American touch,
Bill Gates himself will be helping out
in coordinating the operations from his
state of the art command center in Shanghai.
---And that't what friends are for---"
-----------HOPE YOU GET THE 'NO' JOKE-----------
-----------------or is it the 'in the know' joke?
Zak Klemmer | 1.15.12 @ 10:39AM
"Political power comes from the barrel of a gun."
rhoetus| 1.15.12 @ 2:21PM
I tried to post the above quote in Chinese but the software would not let me. LOL
Zak Klemmer | 1.14.12 @ 10:41PM
There is nothing wrong with Bain or private equity firms. Businesses exit to participate in the market place serving their customers and owners/shareholders. Employees are just a necessary part of the process.
POST American| 1.15.12 @ 1:15AM
"--Doctors now report that in every
case of breast cancer, when they
operate, they find the
cancers are filled ---FILLED with
chemicals from cosmetics, plastics,
processed foods, bottles, cans, dyes
inks and paper products.
Understand, just about ALLLLL the
chemists are EUGENISTS. They've
done this on purpose."
-ALEX JONES
Info Wars
In other words, Bisphenol A et al.
--------------------FINAL WORD------------------------
------------------------HUAC/ Nuremberg et 2012
ChieEngineer| 1.15.12 @ 11:57AM
I never realized there were so many simple-minded people who otherwise appear to be well educated and knowledgable.
Instead of falling into the sanctimonious trap of posing as the correct cliche of free markets, why not take a step further and examine whether Bain and Romney, bought, sold and liquidated companies in order to provide excessive compensation for doing nothing constructive.
From Investopedia:
Investopedia explains 'Corporate Raider'
Companies have used a variety of strategies to thwart the efforts of corporate raiders. These include shareholders’ rights plans (poison pills), super-majority voting, staggered boards of directors, buybacks of shares from the raider at a premium price (greenmail), dramatic increases of the amount of debt on the company’s balance sheet and strategic mergers with a "white knight."
Famous corporate raider Carl Icahn used tactics such as taking a company private, compelling a spin-off, calling for an entirely new board of directors or calling for a divestiture of assets to make a fortune with his hostile takeovers.
Let's take an example: X buys a company that is in financial trouble, but could be turned around for profitable operations. Instead, they scheme on how to boost the apparent equity (including price per share) by infusing just enough capital to temporarily stabilize the company. Their real intention is to charge (since they control at least 51 % of the stock) is to liquify the component parts at a greater value then the sum. This is done with "leverage", aka OPM, Other People's Money, with a high return expected, as in venture capital for start ups.
So how do you get high returns for companies in financial trouble that are dissolved or declared bankrupt? Usually by deception. Declaring in the beginning to revive the firm, but really planning to pillage it, leaving workers and and common stock investors penniless.
A little research will reveal that Bain is full of Obama supporters, who as a group overwhelmingly contributed to his campaign as registered Democrats. Why is that? Of course it would not be the abuse of Crony Capitalism, protection from prosecution, and favorable regulatory treatment for political payoffs, would it?
rhoetus| 1.15.12 @ 4:40PM
Chief Engineer: Sadly there are many people that work in the financial sector GS being the most infamous that give heavy financial support to Democrats. "Social Justice" is really an ersatz religion committed to establishing an equality of condition. It amazes me how many of the Ivy League educated eliets accept this philosophy.
Lee W. McKnight | 1.15.12 @ 5:31PM
Ross has the basic concept of creative destruction more or less right. Classically understood, it is orthogonal to finance, and instead is about entrepreneurs backing new technologies to create new products - and destroy old industries and jobs along the way.
Romney could argue that Bain was merely accelerating the process, and placed some winning, and some losing bets, along the way. The true record of Bain as job creator (in the United States?) versus job destroyer requires further research; but in this naturally politicized context, all analyses are suspect for bias for or against Romney's presidential ambitions.
For more on the concept of creative destruction, see: 'Creative Destruction,' by Lee W. McKnight and Andreas Kuhn, in William Sims Bainbridge, eds., Leadership in Science and Technology (Sage, 2011); or Lee W. McKnight, Paul Vaaler and Raul Katz, eds., Creative Destruction. Business Survival Strategies in the Global Internet Economy, MIT Press, 2001, 2002, 2004 (Japanese Translation) 2007 (Chinese Translation).
toyotabedzrock| 1.15.12 @ 7:51PM
I guess the GOP has fooled itself at this point, renaming theft creative destruction.
Fact is that other much better off countries do not allow this type of "creative destruction".
jmulcahy| 1.16.12 @ 3:39AM
Citation please. Name a "better off" country that prohibits private equity investment.
POST American| 1.16.12 @ 9:36PM
----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE--------------------
"Globalism, 'Free Trade',
USURY, TREASON and EUGENICS
are always intertwined. ---ALWAYS."
That's right, always.
After a full century of rampaging,
EUGENICS mongering, unaccountable
Global USURY ----there is NO 'other'
country to speak of or draw a comparison
with.
Unaccountable, psychopathic, fractional
reserve capstone USURY ---IS ABOMINATION.
"I do NOT like the vivisectionist.
I do not want to be his friend.
I do not want to touch his hand."
-Robert Ingersoll
1890
Capstone USURY'S sole long term aim
------IS----- the 'bringing through' of a
pre-chosen, self-appointed 'eel-eat' and bottomless, psychopathic EUGENICS
for mankind.
"If one goes into Indian histories,
the Brahmins speak of MANY depop
operations over the millenium. Purpose
bred EUGENICS itself is very ancient.
There are even records of special and
cross bred people reverting to cannabilism
and being flooded to extinction on the
Black Sea. Indian history records this."
Accept no 'you-femisms', evasions
or equivocations.
Take BACK the language.
KNOW what you're dealing with.
There is NO TIME.
video converter ultimate| 1.17.12 @ 1:58AM
OS X Recovery,
video to dvd creator mac
video converter ultimate| 1.17.12 @ 1:59AM
PDF Converter Mac os,
Make A Quiz,