Romney/Ryan Lose 2012 Election Thread

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It's not that the private sector knows better. We have history to show it does not and we also know we are all greedy ****s that will do whatever it takes to get a leg up. However, unlike with government, when a company screws up, that company is gone. There are real consequences. Gone are the days of Rockefeller and Vanderbilt monopolizing industries. This is a good thing.

I also think it's worth while to point out that the Government doesn't know any better either. And more importantly, there aren't any real consequences when they screw up. The government is still here, doing their business. They will never be as efficient or careful because they have no competing brand and no pride of ownership(ironic isn't it).

So why saddle us with debt if the end result is no one gets punished? What happens when the government messes up? Like, say the SEC? We all lose.

I don't think you're totally correct with that, or at least I don't think you are appreciating the landscape of business v. politics as it exists today. You're 100% right that we don't have the capitalism of Rockefeller and Vanderbilt (I've been watching History Channel too ), but its also true that today big business is constantly lobbying and supporting elected officials that will make it easier for them to make a profit and harder for them to be held accountable for their wrongdoing. There's a reason the US Chamber of Commerce supports governors, congressmen, senators, and even JUDGES on the ballot. And no its not about taxes with most of those. They are lobbying for laws that increase their bottom lines and they don't worry about who it may hurt.

A corporation has a singular goal: make money for the stockholders. In some ways that is good. In other ways, it is bad. While there's nothing really wrong with the corporation having that goal, the laws should not make it unduly hard to hold bad companies accountable. And the executive branch should be committed to enforcing laws and regulations that were put in place to protect consumers/people.

[JimboDaMan]

If this changes someone's mind... god help us all.

Without a LOT more corroboration it shouldn't. But I'm curious as to whether you've posted the same about things like 'you didn't build that'?

[Corcaigh]

However, unlike with government, when a company screws up, that company is gone. There are real consequences.

So long as that company isn't on Wall Street, in the auto industry, etc.

[GibbsFactor]

I don't think you're totally correct with that, or at least I don't think you are appreciating the landscape of business v. politics as it exists today. You're 100% right that we don't have the capitalism of Rockefeller and Vanderbilt (I've been watching History Channel too ), but its also true that today big business is constantly lobbying and supporting elected officials that will make it easier for them to make a profit and harder for them to be held accountable for their wrongdoing. There's a reason the US Chamber of Commerce supports governors, congressmen, senators, and even JUDGES on the ballot. And no its not about taxes with most of those. They are lobbying for laws that increase their bottom lines and they don't worry about who it may hurt.

And this is why I don't understand why you guys are so partisan. Nothing matters until we get proper campaign finance laws in place. Pay these guys more, give them perks like the military but stop with the corporate buyouts. You are an attorney, no? Then you know who actually writes the legislation we bicker over.

A corporation has a singular goal: make money for the stockholders. In some ways that is good. In other ways, it is bad. While there's nothing really wrong with the corporation having that goal, the laws should not make it unduly hard to hold bad companies accountable. And the executive branch should be committed to enforcing laws and regulations that were put in place to protect consumers/people.

Here's what you are missing. When that corporation is exposed for being to greedy, it's gone. The way the progressive movement is moving in today's American Corporate Capitalism, the net worth of that company in terms of community is more important. Bad business models are "bailed out" when they should be restructured or have had their assets sold off. Like GM.

Then there's the Farm Bill and all of the other subsidies "big government" gives out that directly contributes to "American Corporate Capitalism". Greed has a stranglehold and more government is not the answer. Don't regulate these companies. Banish them.

---------- Post added November-5th-2012 at 04:24 PM ----------

So long as that company isn't on Wall Street, in the auto industry, etc.

Right. If their net worth to Congress' pensions outweigh the debt burden...

[Corcaigh]

Thanks, Corcaigh...debate going on here during MTP yesterday. (on who was gonna go get cigarettes, lol)

The transcript and videos are on their site: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8987534/.../#.UJguiW-HK-0

[Tulane Skins Fan]

And this is why I don't understand why you guys are so partisan. Nothing matters until we get proper campaign finance laws in place. Pay these guys more, give them perks like the military but stop with the corporate buyouts. You are an attorney, no? Then you know who actually writes the legislation we bicker over.

Oh, I'm on board with campaign finance reform. I think democrats lead in this regard lately though, so I don't know how that makes us partisan. Maybe I'm missing your point though?

Here's what you are missing. When that corporation is exposed for being to greedy, it's gone. The way the progressive movement is moving in today's American Corporate Capitalism, the net worth of that company in terms of community is more important. Bad business models are "bailed out" when they should be restructured or have had their assets sold off. Like GM.

Then there's the Farm Bill and all of the other subsidies "big government" gives out that directly contributes to "American Corporate Capitalism". Greed has a stranglehold and more government is not the answer. Don't regulate these companies. Banish them.

I think that's a very optimistic view of how we hold corporations accountable. Big tobacco would be gone. Toyota would be gone. Ford would be gone. Tons of pharmaceutical companies would be gone. Bad doctors would actually have their licenses pulled (which almost never happens). Its not exactly as you say because there are already tons and tons of laws that protect these companies. These laws were written by well-lobbied legislators, and signed by well-lobbied governors/presidents, etc. And then well-lobbied judges threw out consumer protection statutes or upheld "pro-business" laws.

Those corporations that are exposed for being "too greedy" are, sadly, almost never "gone."

I will say one more thing about this though.... just like its not always good to be "pro-business" its not always good policy to just let whatever company makes a mistake go bankrupt. It would have been financial tragedy to let AIG go bankrupt, for example. This is why we have regulations. But those regs must be enforced.

[GibbsFactor]

Oh, I'm on board with campaign finance reform. I think democrats lead in this regard lately though, so I don't know how that makes us partisan. Maybe I'm missing your point though?

Point is that it doesn't matter what color is in control of the leg or exec branches under the current system.

Those corporations that are exposed for being "too greedy" are, sadly, almost never "gone."

I will say one more thing about this though.... just like its not always good to be "pro-business" its not always good policy to just let whatever company makes a mistake go bankrupt. It would have been financial tragedy to let AIG go bankrupt, for example. This is why we have regulations. But those regs must be enforced.

This is exactly my point. When I say American Corporate Capitalism, I'm speaking of the big giant corporations that get all of the subsidies and kill off the mom and pops and startups. Why? Because Ford and Toyota and Johnson & Johnson would be gone. We have a backlog of laws that have given all of the power to the corporations and our answer is more Government regulations?

I'm not buying it. Government Regulations are written by the Fords, Toyota's, GEs and Johnson & Johnson's of the world. They are written in a manner to allow them to maintain their quarterly profits. So why introduce more power to the corrupt federal government that is in the pockets of big business only to further strangle the small businesses?

[Bang]

Are you ****ing kidding me? If a right leaning member on this board posted an article from RedState with unconfirmed allegations, the flaming would have been immediate. Instead, we get a "thanks, I'll pass it along in hopes of influencing votes"? Seriously? Salon is saying things like "may have" and "repeatedly failed to meet accepted standards in 2004 — but a reprimand was withdrawn by the Romney administration in apparent deference to the company’s business interests". Pray tell, link the outbreak to this withdrawn reprimand. All this article does is make allegations. And in no way connects the outbreak to these "violations".

realize: this is a flame, four posts after the one with the article.

In other words, someone who is a left leaning member posted an article with the same criteria, and here you are, doing exactly what you're complaining about.

This doesn't make anything any better.
this is you doing exactly what you think is the problem with the left.
Immediate dismissal and flame, while complaining that this is what 'they' do.

I don't know if it's true or not, but it does raise some questions that bear looking into, no?
if it DOES turn out that his handling of the pharma company led to their lax standards and causing part of this outbreak, then what will the tune be?

~Bang

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This is exactly my point. When I say American Corporate Capitalism, I'm speaking of the big giant corporations that get all of the subsidies and kill off the mom and pops and startups. Why? Because Ford and Toyota and Johnson & Johnson would be gone. We have a backlog of laws that have given all of the power to the corporations and our answer is more Government regulations?

I'm not buying it. Government Regulations are written by the Fords, Toyota's, GEs and Johnson & Johnson's of the world. They are written in a manner to allow them to maintain their quarterly profits. So why introduce more power to the corrupt federal government that is in the pockets of big business only to further strangle the small businesses?

I think I was agreeing with you, but then you just sorta shifted blame from the companies to the government. What I am saying is that there are lots of laws written to shield companies from accountability, and on top of that a lot of executive branches fail to enforce those laws in the name of "pro-business."

Some of these laws are good and some are bad. Its not a question of whether we need more laws or less laws. Its that we need more "good laws." And I don't think the law should protect bad acting companies 100% of the time. And I also think that executive branches should enforce those laws that are on the book.

[GibbsFactor]

I think I was agreeing with you, but then you just sorta shifted blame from the companies to the government. .

That will always be our difference.

I don't accept the fact that the government gets bullied by Corporations.

What I am saying is that there are lots of laws written to shield companies from accountability, and on top of that a lot of executive branches fail to enforce those laws in the name of "pro-business."

Some of these laws are good and some are bad. Its not a question of whether we need more laws or less laws. Its that we need more "good laws." And I don't think the law should protect bad acting companies 100% of the time. And I also think that executive branches should enforce those laws that are on the book.

And we won't get good laws until we get campaign finance laws. Good luck with that.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

And we won't get good laws until we get campaign finance laws. Good luck with that.

Sad but true to a large extent. It seems like we need to Amend the Constitution at this point for that though.

[alexey]

It's not that the private sector knows better. We have history to show it does not and we also know we are all greedy ****s that will do whatever it takes to get a leg up. However, unlike with government, when a company screws up, that company is gone. There are real consequences. Gone are the days of Rockefeller and Vanderbilt monopolizing industries. This is a good thing.

I also think it's worth while to point out that the Government doesn't know any better either. And more importantly, there aren't any real consequences when they screw up. The government is still here, doing their business. They will never be as efficient or careful because they have no competing brand and no pride of ownership(ironic isn't it).

So why saddle us with debt if the end result is no one gets punished? What happens when the government messes up? Like, say the SEC? We all lose.

First of all, let's get something straight about the pride of ownership. Tons of public servants who work for the government do the best that they can, are proud to serve the public good, and work really hard to ensure that the government works well and provides best services as efficiently as possible. More over, many of these people get paid less than than they would get paid in the private industry. So please do not generalize all public servants when you make your disparaging comments.


I'm sure we can agree that there needs to be less government involvement in some cases, more government involvement in other cases, and better government in ALL cases.

In other words, lack of a competing brand and previous failures of the SEC do not eliminate the need for some entity to oversee financial markets... and it is important for this entity to be effective.


Lack of focus on a better working government has always been a problem for me with the GOP politics and the GOP message.

The idea of presenting government as the problem is politically savvy but it is not a smart one. Government is a needed entity that has to be run well in order to us to thrive. Problems with government are solved by fixing problems with government. Adding government is not a solution. Removing government is not the solution. There are different solutions to different problems. Each problem has to be examined and addressed appropriately.

Show me one politician who tells me that government is the solution and show me another politician who tells me that government is the problem... and I'll show you two snake oil salesmen.

[Larry]

Without a LOT more corroboration it shouldn't. But I'm curious as to whether you've posted the same about things like 'you didn't build that'?

I was thinking the same thing, with respect to the link between Obama, and Jeep moving all production to China.

[GibbsFactor]

First of all, let's get something straight about the pride of ownership. Tons of public servants who work for the government do the best that they can, are proud to serve the public good, and work really hard to ensure that the government works well and provides best services as efficiently as possible. More over, many of these people get paid less than than they would get paid in the private industry. So please do not generalize all public servants when you make your disparaging comments.

My mother and father are retired from the government. I can assure you that my comments were not directed at anyone working for the government. Moreover, I was making a high level statement with regards to accountability at the highest levels. I was not making a stab at government workers. By they way, government workers salary has outpaced the public sector for years outside of executive pay.

I'm sure we can agree that there needs to be less government involvement in some cases, more government involvement in other cases, and better government in ALL cases.

Which is why I have an attraction to Mitt Romney's management skills.

In other words, lack of a competing brand and previous failures of the SEC do not eliminate the need for some entity to oversee financial markets... and it is important for this entity to be effective.

The problem comes when that entity becomes compromised. What then? They have all been compromised by the legislation they are sworn to uphold.

Lack of focus on a better working government has always been a problem for me with the GOP politics and the GOP message.

I agree with you. All the way back to Reagan.

That's why I am supporting this particular GOP nominee. His management skills and moderate nature should be great for the country. Much like Clinton was a great moderate.

The idea of presenting government as the problem is politically savvy but it is not a smart one. Government is a needed entity that has to be run well in order to us to thrive. Problems with government are solved by fixing problems with government. Adding government is not a solution. Removing government is not the solution. There are different solutions to different problems. Each problem has to be examined and addressed appropriately.

Government is a system abused by the rich and the poor and left for the middle to pay for.

Show me one politician who tells me that government is the solution and show me another politician who tells me that government is the problem... and I'll show you two snake oil salesmen.

We have two to vote for tomorrow.

[Larry]

I don't accept the fact that the government gets bullied by Corporations.

I seem to remember that Microsoft was convicted of violating antitrust laws, way back under Clinton.

Any word on when they're going to be punished?