• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

If Mitt Romney was serious.

Funny how the supposed liberal biased media did not run with this clear anti-romney story.

They bit theirselves in the ass when they started to run others into the ground for being rich.

But then realized that Obama's rich, too.

My Dad just the other week said 'yeah but - Obama's not *as* rich as Romney' . . . LOL . . . I reminded him of a sermon he once preached in which he was using southern-heat as a metaphor. "Is there any difference once it gets to be 100% humidity and *hot* outside? It could be 95 or 115 - but it's still *hot*"
-Same thing when it comes to rich. At some point you have exceeded the mark where the difference between 500,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 doesn't matter - it's a damn hell of a lot of money - you're freaking rich.
 
Actually that gesture would be all substance despite the reality it might have no effect. The fact he backed up his claims despite his earnings, and despite the decisions his friends and partners were making is actual substance to his words. This would be a substance action and that is where you are wrong. this would be actions backing up words, and when you talk about style without substance you are talking about him not backing up his talk with actions.

Well, you've made it clear that you think Romney should make an empty gesture...a useless gesture...because that will somehow convince you that he is sincere about his expressed aims. You think he should engage in these typical liberal actions even though he is quite clear in his positions that he is not liberal.

Frankly, I don't think you will EVER see this type of action from him.

You will, however, see this type of empty gesture from the likes of Obama, Biden and their ilk. You would be better served looking for such action from them.
 
Yes, but romney is not trying to make things best for Bain anymore. His goal is to make things best for the country which should set him at odds with bain. The fact that he has not put himself at odds with Bain is the point. This is why obama leads people. he is at the front of the protests speaking for people. He has been there. Romney has not been there, and he is trying to say he is. If he had never said he was looking out for the middle class and was just concerned with needed sacrifices and cuts that would be hard on people I would not have an argument. However, he says he is the defender of the middle class. he says he is looking out for them and is going to take on china, and while he says he is going to do that he sides with china and makes money off of outsourcing jobs to them. Hell, he has enough money, if he was a man of concience he would sell his stock in bain and invest in a good company.

He actually has to back up his claims with actions, and when he says he has changed from the greedy profit oriented businessman who doesn't care about what he destroys as long as he makes a buck he has to actually do something to show it, and his actions say he is still the same old greedy bastard.

I direct your attention to the highlighted phrase above.

Can you cite a reference to some event or time when Romney said what you say here? Can you, maybe, quote him ever saying he was a "greedy profit oriented businessman who doesn't care about what he destroys as long as he makes a buck"? When did he ever say he changed from your characterization of him to something else?

I await your references.

In respect to the rest of your post...you might desire him to act like a liberal...this might make you gravitate toward him, maybe even vote for him (I kind of doubt that, though)...but frankly, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. He won't make such empty gestures to pander to votes. You would be better served looking to Obama for such actions.
 
and if Obama and other "Tax the Rich" were serious they would write a check to the US Tres. for the additionals dollars they feel the rich should pay.

oh wait. Obama is following existing tax code. Unless you can show were Romney is breaking any laws your point is just political bias.

it's ok dude. Just ignore it until your own job gets outsourced.
 
Near the most useless post I've read in a while.
Really? You can't see the humor in remarking that Mitt Romney won't pander for votes? I mean, it's not entirely his fault, he's been undoubtedly strong armed into entirely reinventing his belief system due to his constituency, but the claim is still unmistakably an unknowing attempt at humor.
 
Really? You can't see the humor in remarking that Mitt Romney won't pander for votes? I mean, it's not entirely his fault, he's been undoubtedly strong armed into entirely reinventing his belief system due to his constituency, but the claim is still unmistakably an unknowing attempt at humor.

shrug...

If you dispute my statement, then do so. Cite events...produce references. But don't waste my time with empty, irrelevant rhetoric.
 
Look, you really shouldn't expect a Republican and conservative like Romney to employ the tactics of the Democrats and liberals...the tactics of sticking their noses into other people's business...the tactics of trying to tell others that "I know better than you".
When companies and investors use profits resulting from tax breaks sold to the American public as "job-creation" measures to hire Chinese workers and invest in Chinese companies, at the expense of American jobs, how is that not "our business"?
 
Obama would.

Obama would what?

Did Obama go around and take questions from the Solyndra employees? No... he was busy trying to make sure his campaign donor could get his contribution out of the deal the day before it went under...

You have the wool still pulled over your eyes...

He still hasn't answered "Sweetie"s question, yet...



IIRC... everyone in that factory was laid off... during the Auto buyout...
 
When companies and investors use profits resulting from tax breaks sold to the American public as "job-creation" measures to hire Chinese workers and invest in Chinese companies, at the expense of American jobs, how is that not "our business"?

shrug...

Then end the tax breaks.

Heck, that's what Romney wants to do. Obama...not so much.
 
it's ok dude. Just ignore it until your own job gets outsourced.

I am retired, debt free and living well.
Not to derail, but have any of you looked at where some of the Obama stimulas money went? Here is a clue, it all did not stay in the US.
 
it's ok dude. Just ignore it until your own job gets outsourced.

um "dude" do you realize the things that cause jobs to get oursourced is high (usually union driven) labor costs and high taxes?

Obama is promoting union and high personal income and capital gains taxes...

Romney wants to bring the corporate tax rate down to be competitive globally, and wants to promote right to work legislation, as well as to keep personal income taxes low, keep capital gains taxes low (even to eliminate capital gains for those making under $200K so even the low income families can begin to invest in the future and the markets)... and to eliminate the repatriation tax, to allow people and companies that make profit overseas to be able to bring that capital home to invest here...

Romney's approach better helps address the causes of outsourcing...

Obama is clueless as to how the entire economy works... He still thinks he's going to fix everything by increasing taxes, and using government money to union labor forces to prevent outsourcing... That's the equivalent of the people in 1940 who were clinging to isolationism... It just doesn't recognize the reality of what's going on... We are in a globalized marketplace, where our high costs of labor and our high tax rates make us less desirable places for companies to be able to make profit... We need to win this economic war by becoming a more viable world economy... not an isolationist economy which gets in trade wars and has government supported industries... Ask Cuba how that works... Ask North Korea how that works... Ask China how that worked... China blew that course of action out of the water, and has gone forward with capitalism, cheap labor, low taxes... Hong Kong showed them the way with that... places like Qatar, UAE, etc. have also followed that similar example, and the one of Monaco... to be the most influential economic centers in the world... That's what we need to do...
 
I can't prove a negative, but you can certainly find a more credible source.

You are using that wrong. In this case ed made a statement that would be a thing you could disprove. I am not asking you to show proof of nothing. I am asking you to show proof that Mitt Romney actually supports these workers like he said he would. That was a really bad attempt to pretend you could not prove anything. The lack of activity is the proof I am right, all you need is some activity. Try again junior.
 
They bit theirselves in the ass when they started to run others into the ground for being rich.

But then realized that Obama's rich, too.

My Dad just the other week said 'yeah but - Obama's not *as* rich as Romney' . . . LOL . . . I reminded him of a sermon he once preached in which he was using southern-heat as a metaphor. "Is there any difference once it gets to be 100% humidity and *hot* outside? It could be 95 or 115 - but it's still *hot*"
-Same thing when it comes to rich. At some point you have exceeded the mark where the difference between 500,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 doesn't matter - it's a damn hell of a lot of money - you're freaking rich.

Again, this is not about Obama's failings. This is about Mitt's claims. If you want to bring up Obama's past you are free to do it in another post. This is about how Mitt is not living up to his word. Obama could be the biggest liar on the planet and it does not effect the argument because Mitt is doing the opposite of what he says he would do.
 
Well, you've made it clear that you think Romney should make an empty gesture...a useless gesture...because that will somehow convince you that he is sincere about his expressed aims. You think he should engage in these typical liberal actions even though he is quite clear in his positions that he is not liberal.

Frankly, I don't think you will EVER see this type of action from him.

You will, however, see this type of empty gesture from the likes of Obama, Biden and their ilk. You would be better served looking for such action from them.

yes, I think he should take an action and do what he says. You can say what you want about it's emptiness. It is nice that you admit Mitt doesn't believe in any of that and the gesture woyuld be a lie anyway, but he should at least make it. If you want us to skip to the end where he really just cares about money and doesn't care any for the american worker or even for america then that is fine I am glad you got to the end and you realize Mitt's gestures are empty in this case.
 
I direct your attention to the highlighted phrase above.

Can you cite a reference to some event or time when Romney said what you say here? Can you, maybe, quote him ever saying he was a "greedy profit oriented businessman who doesn't care about what he destroys as long as he makes a buck"? When did he ever say he changed from your characterization of him to something else?

I await your references.

In respect to the rest of your post...you might desire him to act like a liberal...this might make you gravitate toward him, maybe even vote for him (I kind of doubt that, though)...but frankly, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. He won't make such empty gestures to pander to votes. You would be better served looking to Obama for such actions.

Ok, so you are admitting he is a greedy corporate guy who will say anything to become president. If you are voting for him for that reason please don't let me stop you. If that what you think would make a good president that is your opinion and I agree that you are fully aware of what he is doing. We are in agreement here.
 
yes, I think he should take an action and do what he says. You can say what you want about it's emptiness. It is nice that you admit Mitt doesn't believe in any of that and the gesture woyuld be a lie anyway, but he should at least make it. If you want us to skip to the end where he really just cares about money and doesn't care any for the american worker or even for america then that is fine I am glad you got to the end and you realize Mitt's gestures are empty in this case.

You're shouting into the wind here.

They're not voting for "Romney," they're voting for "not Obama." Anything Mitt does, it doesn't matter to them. He's not a Democrat, and his name isn't Barack Obama.

I
 
Has Obama done anything in the US business climate to keep jobs here in the US? No, he hasn't.

He has, however, promised to dig even deeper into the pockets of American businesses. The only alternative may be to use cheaper foreign labor, or close the doors permanently.
 
Right now there are workers in Illinois being put out of their jobs because a company that Mitt Romney owns stock in, and it is a lot of stock, is outsourcing jobs to china. There is cheaper labor over there, and their american counterparts who are being laid off are being asked to train their chinese replacements. First, I know Mitt does not head bain anymore and cannot make decisions for them. Second, Mitt stands to make a lot of money off of this deal.

Now if mitt Romney is who he says he is, wouldn't he reach out to the decision makers and ask them to make a different decision and keep the american workers? I would have to imagine a large stockholder, who is also an old executive of the company, and a man running for the presidency of the US might hold a little sway in this decision. Right here, right now Mitt has a chance to make an effort to save real people's jobs in america. He has a chance to stop outsourcing and save american middle class families like he wants to as president. It is also a chance to show that he truly is on the side of american workers, and the american people. Nothing bad except for maybe a loss in profits from his stocks could come from asking them to stop this.

Now let me ask the romney supporters, why isn't he doing it? Why won't he even see these people. Why won't he even make a request on their behalf. Obama would.

You have got to be kidding me.

'We'd like Mitt Romney to come to Freeport, see what this is doing to this community, and contact his friends that run Bain Capital and say "this is absolutely the wrong thing to do" and save our jobs,' worker said.

And, by the way, asking DP board members to watch a 7-minute video because you can't Google another source is rude.
 
Bain is a capitol management firm whose goal is, you guessed it - profit. It's what they are in business for and they owe a fiduciary duty to their stock holders to make that their number one priority. If you knew a little more about corporations, you'd know they all have that duty and that priority. Romney could plead til he was blue in the face, the board of directors at Bain will not abandon that duty. Even if Romney were running the joint and he took such measures, he'd be out on his ass without a parachute before he took his next breath.

But that's not the real issue here tererun. You started an OP asking a question as if you would ever consider not voting for your messiah. That's just disingenuous. Wouldn't matter if Romney were golden and had given all his money and Bain stock away, you and a whole lot of Obamites still wouldn't even consider voting for him.

However, what you don't get is that those who have decided to vote Romney aren't affected by your so-called questions (which are really just political ads for your fellow). And the undecideds, they're currently showing signs of being turned off by the spaghetti your guy has been throwing against the wall (to see what sticks).

Your time would be better spent trying to find a way to help your chosen one defend his record, something he's been unable to do thus far.
 
Right now there are workers in Illinois being put out of their jobs because a company that Mitt Romney owns stock in, and it is a lot of stock, is outsourcing jobs to china. There is cheaper labor over there, and their american counterparts who are being laid off are being asked to train their chinese replacements. First, I know Mitt does not head bain anymore and cannot make decisions for them. Second, Mitt stands to make a lot of money off of this deal.

Now if mitt Romney is who he says he is, wouldn't he reach out to the decision makers and ask them to make a different decision and keep the american workers? I would have to imagine a large stockholder, who is also an old executive of the company, and a man running for the presidency of the US might hold a little sway in this decision. Right here, right now Mitt has a chance to make an effort to save real people's jobs in america. He has a chance to stop outsourcing and save american middle class families like he wants to as president. It is also a chance to show that he truly is on the side of american workers, and the american people. Nothing bad except for maybe a loss in profits from his stocks could come from asking them to stop this.

Now let me ask the romney supporters, why isn't he doing it? Why won't he even see these people. Why won't he even make a request on their behalf. Obama would.

This is exactly why I wonder what people are thinking when business is called "job creators". They are not "job creators" they are a business and it's a business of making money.
Job creation is a by-product, that is if they choose to make money here.
 
I think this is a good discusssion to be having because it speaks to an underlying issue which is "character". The overriding issue, of course, is jobs and the best way to earn money and stimulate the economy. The "Romney Way" would be through private equity. However, the right way would be the example Bain Capital Investments used under Mitt Romney when he "invested" in the office supply start-up company, Staples. But that's not the Romney investment model. His has been to find the most vulnerable companies, invest very little capital in them, liquidate the company under the guiese of "streamlining" and cutting cost, but what he and his investors really did in such cases (some, not all) was raid these companies for higher pay-outs to their investors leaving the company to fend for itself.

Now, the excuse commonly given is "we tried, but it didn't work out" and few could argue against their attempts. After all, look at what's happening now with this company in Illinois. Instead of questioning the private equity model used, people are instead saying "listening to the whinners whine". Or they're injecting politics into the equation when it's not an issue of political idealogy nor political parlor tricks that's in question, but rather the personal integrity and character of the man that is.

So, although Mitt Romney may not officially head Bain Capital Investment any longer, IMO if you're running for President of the United States and you just recently got caught on camera stating before a group of your supporters that 47% of the population are victims for which you subsequently and apologize for and you claim to want to create 12 million new jobs in America, don't you think that the worst Mitt Romney could do is ask his friends at Bain not to follow through with this measure? Sure, he might get rejected but he could atleast try to put his integrity where his mouth is.

I think people should watch this documentary, "The Choise 2012". It gives you a glimps into the character of both presidential candidates.
 
Bain is a capitol management firm whose goal is, you guessed it - profit. It's what they are in business for and they owe a fiduciary duty to their stock holders to make that their number one priority. If you knew a little more about corporations, you'd know they all have that duty and that priority. Romney could plead til he was blue in the face, the board of directors at Bain will not abandon that duty. Even if Romney were running the joint and he took such measures, he'd be out on his ass without a parachute before he took his next breath.

clownboy,

You are correct. That is the whole purpose of Bain Capital Investments - to find ways to turn a profit. But that's the problem with the private equity model typically attributed to Mitt Romney. Watch the documentary I linked to above, "The Choice 2012", and you'll come across a segment that discusses exactly how Romney's former private equity firm started out doing good things - being an true investment arm to businessmen who have a good business plan coming to Bain seeking seed money - to a company that seems to pry on small companies that are faultering but still have enough of an upside to make a small investment that nets hugh "capital gains" for Romney and his investors especially if the company goes belly-up. They walk away with millions leaving the company to fend for itself.

So, again I'll say you're right about the investment arm of Bain Capital, but the larger issue I believe tererun is trying to get people to see is "where exactly does Romney's loyalties lay", and is he truly a man of integrity? You get a glimps of that by looking at Romney's tax plan. Take note of what he'd do with the capital gains tax rate - a true indicator of where his loyalties lay based largely on his private equity model.
 
Back
Top Bottom