Romney is funny

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

How anyone can support Romney after his history at Bain Capital or what ever that place is spelled is beyond me... Lets see.. Bain Capital buys a company, fires everyone and outsources the jobs overseas..

mmmm yeah.. thats patriotic.

His record at Bain was largely successful. The company you refer to, and which Obama campaign spews the drivel that you have bought into, GS Steel, was already on the verge of collapse when Bain invested in it, in order to return it to profitability. Actually, Bain kept the company running for seven years longer that it would have if it hadn't taken over. We were being flooded with cheap steel imports during this period and many steel companies (about 30) went out of business. Bain was accused of loading the company with debt in order to suck money out of it for consulting fees, etc. But GS Steel had outdated equipment, was in financial difficulty due to the cheap imports, so money had to be borrowed to update the company and grow it to a competitive size if it was to be profitable. So the Obama campaign team accused it of being driven by greed and profits rather than caring about jobs. It is obvious that the nature of business is driven by profit. Without profit there would be no jobs. The investment failed and the company went bankrupt. The jobs from GS Steel were not outsourced overseas.

As an interesting sidenote to Obama's team painting Bain as an evil vampire that sucks the life out of business, so far Obama has received $150,000 in campaign contributions from Bain. Democrats have received more contributions from Bain than have Republicans. In the last three election cycles, Bain employees have given Democrats $1.2 million (mostly from top executives), and have given Republicans over $480,000. Obama, in spite of defining Bain as greedy corporate job destroyers, has hired Bain executives to help his administration or his campaign. He named Boris Borshteyn, a former consultant for Bain Capital, to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In Jan. 2012 he named Jeffrey Zients as his acting budget chief. Zients worked at Bain & Co. from 1988 to 1990. And Obama hired Jonathan Levine as his major fund raiser for his campaign. Levine is the person who was ACTUALLY in charge of Bain Capital at the time GS Steel went bankrupt. So Obama hires the man who was actually in charge during the time when he accuses Romney of being responsible for the layoffs.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

His record at Bain was largely successful.

While I would agree that calling out a single anecdote to pain a larger picture isn't exactly fair, I do think assessing what Romney might have really learned at Bain is fair in context of how he might apply it to Presidential leadership.

A large private equity firm like Bain isn't like a normal business. Certainly private equity serves a necessary purpose in the marketplace, but these organizations are known for pushing the envelope when it comes to secrecy, intentional organizational complexity and tax avoidance schemes.

Romney made a hell of a lot of money at Bain and by some reports continued to after he technically left the company. It's interesting that with the transparency which usually accompanies a Presidential nominee, we still understand very little about Romney's fortune.

That Romney is being so tight lipped on the subject does leave several questions lingering.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

While I would agree that calling out a single anecdote to pain a larger picture isn't exactly fair,

It isn't even inexactly fair, and in the case of Romney/Bain, the picture painted by Obama's team is a distortion verging on a lie.

I do think assessing what Romney might have really learned at Bain is fair in context of how he might apply it to Presidential leadership.

So now he must not only disclose tax returns, but also what he has learned? Perhaps Obama should disclose what he learned in college by disclosing his school records.

A large private equity firm like Bain isn't like a normal business. Certainly private equity serves a necessary purpose in the marketplace, but these organizations are known for pushing the envelope when it comes to secrecy, intentional organizational complexity and tax avoidance schemes.

You could say the same thing about most members of Congress. And tax avoidance "schemes" are available to everybody. There is an abundance of investment firms, estate planners, and tax preparers who advertise their ability to shelter your income from taxes. If venture capital firms "are known for pushing the envelope when it comes to secrecy," perhaps they are merely exercising their 14th Ammendment right to privacy, as do those who get abortions. You imply that there may be some unnamed thing wrong, or perhaps illegal(?) about these things.

Romney made a hell of a lot of money at Bain and by some reports continued to after he technically left the company. It's interesting that with the transparency which usually accompanies a Presidential nominee, we still understand very little about Romney's fortune.
That Romney is being so tight lipped on the subject does leave several questions lingering.

-spence

Nor do we understand much about the fortunes of the vast majority of members of Congress, including Pelosi and Reid who shout for the disclosure of Romney's tax records for the last 10 years instead of only the two years that he is submitting. They submit financial disclosures that are required by Congress, but not tax records which are far fuller and more detailed. Their claim is that they are not running for President. Well, they have as much to do with tax policies, and maybe more, as the President. Why shouldn't We the People know what venture capital firms they invest in and in what tax schemes they take advantage of and in which offshore tax shelters?

You are typically vague on the subject of leaving several questions lingering. That the questions are posed originally by Romney's opponents also leaves questions lingering. Could it be that they want to see those tax records, as legal as they apparently are, to find "evidence" that Romney is not "in touch" with the rest of us. That he is one of the rich one percenters who get special tax breaks and don't live by the same rules that the rest of us have to live by. Is that also why Pelosi and Reid and most members of Congress refuse to release their tax records? Nancy Pelosi's husband heads one of those super secretive venture capital firms, and the details of his tax records are not being disclosed in her financial disclosure to Congress. Yet they can accuse Romney of the same "secrecy" because they are not running for President?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Nor do we understand much about the fortunes of the vast majority of members of Congress, including Pelosi and Reid who shout for the disclosure of Romney's tax records for the last 10 years instead of only the two years that he is submitting. They submit financial disclosures that are required by Congress, but not tax records which are far fuller and more detailed. Their claim is that they are not running for President. Well, they have as much to do with tax policies, and maybe more, as the President. Why shouldn't We the People know what venture capital firms they invest in and in what tax schemes they take advantage of and in which offshore tax shelters?

I'm not sure Harry Reid has that significant of a fortune so to speak. Pelosi is certainly loaded by comparison, although still nothing close to Romney.

The congressional disclosure might not be as clear as a tax return, but it does give a pretty good picture of where interests may lie. By contrast Romney is pretty much tight lipped saying his hundreds of millions are all in blind trusts. Go away, nothing to see here...

It's interesting as well he says he's said in the past that disclosing his returns isn't fair as it would show his tithing which is intended to be private, but yet he has disclosed some. So why not the others?

This really has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with politics. Romney has largely built his fortune using tax schemes that even if legal are a prime example of the elite playing by a different set of rules than everybody else. Taxes are a big issue this election and under the GOP plan Romney would likely end up paying even LESS in a disproportionately dramatic manner.

If voters are going to make a decision based largely on trust, I'd like to see pretty much everything on the table.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure Harry Reid has that significant of a fortune so to speak. Pelosi is certainly loaded by comparison, although still nothing close to Romney.

Harry Reid has far more than most of us and his position in Congress has helped him acquire it. Pelosi's husband heads Financial Leasing Services, Inc., a venture capital and real estate firm. Seeing as how venture capitalists are painted as highly secretive, tax scheming, financial vampires, shouldn't we get detailed tax returns included in her financial disclosures? And it is Congress that legislates tax policies, so congressional disclosures should be as detailed as presidential disclosures. Congress has more control of tax policies than the President, and can gain as much, or more, from their legislation than the President.

The congressional disclosure might not be as clear as a tax return, but it does give a pretty good picture of where interests may lie. By contrast Romney is pretty much tight lipped saying his hundreds of millions are all in blind trusts. Go away, nothing to see here...

Craig Holman, a gvt. affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a non-partisan watch dog group said "Senior public officials, especially members of Congress and presidential candidates, should be required to disclose their tax returns so that the public can monitor conflicts of interest." Congress has the power to legislate against "secret" tax shelters, and had it completely during Obama's first two years, but did no such thing. And it controls what members must financially disclose, but when it comes to tax returns, Congress is "tight lipped." Could it be that disclosures and restrictions would impede the personal gains of its members, who control tax policies? Yes.

Tax returns reveal assets and investments in a way congressional financial disclosures don't. Those disclosures offer no direct information on tax liabilities and no requirement for reporting spousal income other than the source, but not the amount of any income over $1,000. When it comes to valuation of investments or reporting income on the annual disclosure forms, only broad numbers such as between $250,000 and $500,000, or $1 million and $5 million, which makes it difficult to know how much a lawmaker will benefit from competing tax plans. Darrel West, a vice president of left leaning Brooking Institution, said that congressional financial disclosures don't provide the same level of detail as a tax return--which makes it difficult to determine how politicians will benefit from tax policies.

In a McClatchy investigation, only 17 of Congress's members gave their tax returns. The reporters requested returns, anonymously, to examine in detail how members would personally be affected by changes in tax laws, including income tax rates as well as capital gains and dividends and deductions for expenses. Most, including Pelosi, Reid, and Wasserman, the loudest callers for Romney's returns, chose to keep their tax liabilities a secret. Of the meager 17 who disclosed, most got large deductions for interest on personal and investment real estate.

It's interesting as well he says he's said in the past that disclosing his returns isn't fair as it would show his tithing which is intended to be private, but yet he has disclosed some. So why not the others?

Romney already has disclosed more tax returns than members of Congress who never had to disclose ANY, certainly not 10 years worth, when they ran for office, and only disclose annual disclosures which don't offer the detail necessary for voters to know how tax policies affect them. Detailed spousal incomes are not reported, and some have investments offshore, including Bermuda in which a Romney investment has been criticized.

This really has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with politics. Romney has largely built his fortune using tax schemes that even if legal are a prime example of the elite playing by a different set of rules than everybody else. Taxes are a big issue this election and under the GOP plan Romney would likely end up paying even LESS in a disproportionately dramatic manner.

Exactly. Privacy is OK for some, but not others. It has everything to do with politics. Somehow, we are to believe that how Romney made his fortune will color how he operates as President. But that does not apply to members of Congress. They will, somehow, legislate for our benefit, whatever they define that to be, but Romney will line his pockets. Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman, et. al., will maintain their privacy and try to deny Romney's so that it will not be shown that they are "guilty" of some of the same things with which they wish to hammer him. I will give the congress persons the benefit of the doubt and assume that none of them has done anything illegal, but merely taken advantage of rules they created. Those are the same rules Romney followed.

The Founders were wealthy, and to a great extent on the basis of not being burdened with taxes. Yet we consider Washington to be our greatest President. How would he fair in today's political climate? Comparatively speaking, he was far wealthier than Romney. Did his wealth or tax evasion cause him to be a bad/unworthy/evil destroyer of the middle class for his own gain? Haven't most Presidents been wealthy? Do we assume that they sought the office to secure even more wealth? Didn't we once assume that wealthy candidates would be more trustworthy than poor ones, since they didn't need the money?

Romney made his under rules that he didn't create, and rules that Congress legislated, much to their own benefit. Are Congressional members in it for the money? Should we know all the details of their finances? Do you really believe that Romney cares that much about more wealth that he will risk his presidency by s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g more wealth from the middle class? Could it be that if indeed, Ryan's plan will allow him to pay even less taxes (Reid Claims he doesn't pay any now, how much less can you get) it would allow the economy to grow so that all will benefit?

If voters are going to make a decision based largely on trust, I'd like to see pretty much everything on the table.

-spence

If everything is on the table, then decisions will not be largely on trust. If you want to see everything on the table, that should apply to ALL politicians and judges.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If everything is on the table, then decisions will not be largely on trust. If you want to see everything on the table, that should apply to ALL politicians and judges.

I'll certainly agree that those in positions of public authority should be held to a high standard. Congress has the ability to legislate away potential conflicts of interest which doesn't have any real value for their constituents.

But again the real issue here isn't privacy but policy. Interesting new Pew poll on American's opinions.

The poll found that many Americans believe rich people to be intelligent and hardworking but also greedy and less honest than the average American. Nearly six in 10, or 58 percent, say the rich don’t pay enough in taxes, while 26 percent believe the rich pay their fair share and 8 percent say they pay too much.

http://www.boston.com/business/perso...CnN/story.html

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I'll certainly agree that those in positions of public authority should be held to a high standard. Congress has the ability to legislate away potential conflicts of interest which doesn't have any real value for their constituents.

But again the real issue here isn't privacy but policy. Interesting new Pew poll on American's opinions.


-spence

As far as policy being "the" issue, Congress has much power over policy, so should not be exempt from the same scrutiny as presidential candidates. But policy is not only the purview of all our governments from local to federal including all the branches of those governments, even their judiciarys, it also requires the participation of The People in and their influence on those governments. That participation and influence was originally intended to be more direct on, and closer to, those governments. It has progressively become more distant and indirect, almost to the point of subservience. We seem to lack the will, desire, or "time" to devote to the more constant participation that is demanded to preserve the power that once was bequeathed to us. We are hearded into polls structured to elicit responses which can be used as evidence to support "policies" concocted by distant, unelected bureaucrats--quite as Woodrow Wilson, one of the fathers of progressivism, said must be done to influence us in the direction of the will of the administrative state.

The Pew poll that you link doesn't impress me with a rational meaning to exist. What is the purpose of a poll of the opinions of a basically uninformed, uninvolved (except for personal gain) selection of people. You asked previously in this thread in a response to Sea Dangles "So we should run the U.S.A. on the basis of share holder value?" One might ask, in response to your linked poll "So, should we run the U.S.A. on the basis of polls?"

Was a poll like this done in 1800, or 1840, or 1875, 0r 1900, or 1932, or 1960? Would average American opinions of the rich been appreciably different in the past?

If it has any meaning, it is a blue print for waging class warfare. If polls show a "majority", or "most" Americans believe that the wealthy or Republicans "favor" or "will benefit" the wealthy if elected, then government by polls demands that we never elect a rich person or a Republican. And, after purging the rich and Republicans from government, we find that politicians still get wealthy and there is still disparity in income and wealth among the people, even though the income gap would have narrowed due to policies of middle class and poor politicians who favor the middle class and poor and which would have dwindled the rich class and its creation of wealth, there would obviously be more work to be done. The middle class, having more opportunity for education, employment and wealth (decreased as it might be) would by dint of greater intelligence and wealth than the poor, have more access to the seats of government, and by downsizing the economic scale due to the suppression of wealth, there would be less opportunity for the poor to rise out of poverty, so the income gap would again grow and the public opinion polls of the now greater numbers of poor would begin to resemble your poll, with the middle class now being the wealthy who could not be trusted as much as the poor, and who would be seen as greedy, and who would be viewed as favoring the middle class over the poor. So, by public opinion poll, the middle class would have to be purged from the functions of government, and the poor would rule, becoming more plentiful as wealth and greed, and dishonesty were removed from the seats of power, and what wealth remained, would be distributed to the poor, by poor politicians who favered and benefitted the poor. And the poor would multiply so that virtually all would be poor . . . and equal . . . so class warfare would no longer be necessary.

So, Spence,how should we run the U.S.A.? Might it be better to run it by a system of individual freedom to pursue individual dreams garanteed by immutable laws and inalienable rights? Or by the opinions of shifting majorities discerned by polls and an administrative system that directs the opinions to respond to such prefabricated polls?

Communism has been tried and been found very wanting. Socialism seems to work better for a longer period of time but then degrades in the direction of communism. Neither system satisfies the human potential and desires of disparate natures, of those with different inherent capabilities and the ensuing dreams of realizing those capabilities.

I know you've professed a desire for "fairness" and "responsibility" in government, but haven't stated how those would be achieved, nor even what they mean. So, Spence, how should we run the U.S.A.?