[onoway]

 Vampyr, on 2012-July-16, 17:37, said:

Have the Republicans really screwed this one up, or do they think Obama is unassailable so they might as well not bother finding someone who has a chance?

Someone sent me a video yesterday with some (self identified) economist suggesting a very complicated scenario where Romney doesn't win on the first ballot and then everyone switches their second ballot vote to Ron Paul. He said Ron Paul had not officially withdrawn from the race, just said he is no longer campaigning.(?!?) As someone mentioned above, American politics are quite fascinating. Is Ron Paul ending up as Republican candidate actually possible?

[PassedOut]

It'll be interesting to find out how much this stuff about the Bain years, the off-shore bank accounts, and the undisclosed tax returns hurts Romney. For sure, once some folks latch onto a notion it's damned near impossible to get them to give it up: Arpaio: Obama birth record definitely forged

Quote

Members of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's posse said in March that there was probable cause that Obama's long-form birth certificate released by the White House in April 2011 was a computer-generated forgery.

Now, Arpaio says investigators are positive it's fraudulent.

Seems hilarious, but this guy is an actual sheriff in Arizona.

[Phil]

 mike777, on 2012-July-16, 18:20, said:

sidenote it comes across very rude to call him Obama...he is the President of USA and please at least respect the office.

Actually, "king" seems more fitting.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2012-July-18, 08:43, said:

It'll be interesting to find out how much this stuff about the Bain years, the off-shore bank accounts, and the undisclosed tax returns hurts Romney.

he's been a hugely successful businessman, nobody disputes that, nor should they... what "stuff" from the bain years in which he actually ran the company are you interested in? what business practices did bain participate in with which you disagree?

[mike777]

 luke warm, on 2012-July-18, 15:38, said:

he's been a hugely successful businessman, nobody disputes that, nor should they... what "stuff" from the bain years in which he actually ran the company are you interested in? what business practices did bain participate in with which you disagree?

I think the point is he has not been moral in his practice and may be a felon if you listen to the what the advocates for the President say. They concede he made hundreds of millions of bucks.

This raises the question can Republicans argue that capitalism can be moral, ethical and good for society or should we move more towards say Social Democracy, however you may prefer to define that.

Given 2008 and the issues raised here, people wonder...

[Winstonm]

I think this article explains the problem Romney has with Bain. From the Washington Post (emphasis mine):

Quote

In 1999, Romney took a leave from Bain Capital to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. But from 1999 to 2002, he was listed on Securities and Exchange Commission documents as Bain Capital’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president.” He says he was an absentee executive who had neither knowledge of nor control over the decisions Bain made during this period. Then, when he subsequently decided to run for governor of Massachusetts, he signed papers dating his retirement from Bain to February 1999 — the actual date on which he ceased to be involved in, and responsible for, the company’s actions.

In other words, while Romney was running the Olympics and thinking about launching his campaign for governor, he kept his position at Bain in case he wanted or needed to return to it. He managed to complete one job and explore running for another all without losing his first job.

There’s nothing illegal about this. There’s nothing even wrong with it. Romney is clearly an effective negotiator and a prudent individual — both admirable qualities. But he is also a presidential candidate who is arguing that the tax code needs to do more to reward risk taking and the safety net needs to make it more difficult for those who don’t take risks. To that end, he has proposed large tax cuts for the rich and deep cuts to the social safety net.

Yet, his actions with Bain show he is not willing to takes risks himself.

[mike777]

 Winstonm, on 2012-July-18, 16:17, said:

I think this article explains the problem Romney has with Bain. From the Washington Post (emphasis mine):



Yet, his actions with Bain show he is not willing to takes risks himself.

To that end, he has proposed large tax cuts for the rich and deep cuts to the social safety net.

deep cuts to the social net?

I would expect overall spending on the net to increase under Romney, but I suppose that depends on how you define cuts.

Deep cuts in taxes on the rich, I again think these words are pretty loaded but ok...

It seems he has taken on some risk to himself but ok....maybe he should take on more risk.

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2012-July-18, 15:38, said:

what business practices did bain participate in with which you disagree?

Why should I disagree? In politics, candidates often get hurt whether or not the attacks against them hold water, don't you know?

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2012-July-18, 16:17, said:

I think this article explains the problem Romney has with Bain. From the Washington Post (emphasis mine):



Yet, his actions with Bain show he is not willing to takes risks himself.

Avoiding risk when possible is not the same as not taking risk. And anyway, a little softening of the macho cowboy impulse is always welcome in a president.

University faculty often take a leave of absence to tackle some other job for a set period of time. Rarely do they surrender their tenure. Why would they? Of course there are limits, at some point a guy has to take up his faculty duties or resign his position. But many colleagues have, for example, served a term with the National Science Foundation overseeing grants and then returned to the university.

With this issue, I think (to borrow from Dorothy Parker?) there is no there there.

[Zelandakh]

 Winstonm, on 2012-July-18, 16:17, said:

Yet, his actions with Bain show he is not willing to takes risks himself.

You could argue that being able to manage 2 jobs at once is not a bad trait in a President. You could also argue that reducing financial risk would be a pretty good thing for the USA right now. He has made a lot of money using the loopholes in the American financial system to his advantage; perhaps someone who understands how the financial systems work would be a good person to have in charge at a time of financial crisis. Finally, I seem to recall hearing a few years ago that Obama had the most effective money-making campaign in political history, anywhere. That may or not be true but I doubt that he is going to be on the streets any time soon. When was the last time a (genuinely) poor person did become President?

[mike777]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-July-19, 01:21, said:

You could argue that being able to manage 2 jobs at once is not a bad trait in a President. You could also argue that reducing financial risk would be a pretty good thing for the USA right now. He has made a lot of money using the loopholes in the American financial system to his advantage; perhaps someone who understands how the financial systems work would be a good person to have in charge at a time of financial crisis. Finally, I seem to recall hearing a few years ago that Obama had the most effective money-making campaign in political history, anywhere. That may or not be true but I doubt that he is going to be on the streets any time soon. When was the last time a (genuinely) poor person did become President?

agree with most of what you said except main point....


Romney did not make hundreds of millions based on tax/fin loopholes....but I understand many think so......
No poster says wow Romney is brilliant job/money/maker....

--


this is kind of the main point....they think Romney is rich as a result of lack of moral fiber or cheat.

[Zelandakh]

 mike777, on 2012-July-19, 02:11, said:

Romney did not make hundreds of millions based on tax/fin loopholes....but I understand many think so......
<snip> (sorry mike but I do not like quoting 10 lines when 1 is sufficient; it was bad netiquete when I was young)

Say I allowed you to set up mike777 as a business group and to divide it into mike corp and 777 ltd. Now you to buy up millions of dollars worth of assets for mike corp using debt, which you transfer to 777 ltd. Shortly thereafter you declare 777 ltd bankrupt but keep all of the assets under mike corp. You are now extremely wealthy and have no debt. Would you consider this a generally sustainable model (assuming everyone tried it) or a loophole in the system?

Please note that I am not saying there is anything wrong with the business practise of working in this way. It is completely normal. I know of at least one individual who did do the equivalent of this, by borrowing obscenely, transferring all of the major assets into his partner's name, and then going back to the creditors and threatening to declare bankruptcy if they did not take a serious reduction in the debt (something like 3p per pound). It is not something I would personally want to be involved with and therefore it is understandable that it might be considered immoral.

[mike777]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-July-19, 02:47, said:

Say I allowed you to set up mike777 as a business group and to divide it into mike corp and 777 ltd. Now you to buy up millions of dollars worth of assets for mike corp using debt, which you transfer to 777 ltd. Shortly thereafter you declare 777 ltd bankrupt but keep all of the assets under mike corp. You are now extremely wealthy and have no debt. Would you consider this a generally sustainable model (assuming everyone tried it) or a loophole in the system?

Please note that I am not saying there is anything wrong with the business practise of working in this way. It is completely normal. I know of at least one individual who did do the equivalent of this, by borrowing obscenely, transferring all of the major assets into his partner's name, and then going back to the creditors and threatening to declare bankruptcy if they did not take a serious reduction in the debt (something like 3p per pound). It is not something I would personally want to be involved with and therefore it is understandable that it might be considered immoral.

so again this is a moral point.......is he a moral man. Is Romney a moral man...which comes back to the main point.


"Now you to buy up millions of dollars worth of assets for mike corp using debt"

btw I would ask why do you loan me money to buy up assets for an immoral purpose but ok...you do in your example. Does that make lenders immoral?

in any event please lend me 100 billion today...Ipromise I will repay you......geez........If I dont you can take my house and car...just lend me 100 billion today....If I spend the billion I will just decl

"It is not something I would personally want to be involved with"


This poster says he would consider Romney immoral.

The entire point is silly.

[Zelandakh]

 mike777, on 2012-July-19, 02:50, said:

so again this is a moral point.......is he a moral man. Is Romney a moral man...which comes back to the main point.

There are very few people who are not moral in one way or another. The question should be whether his morals match yours, or, better yet, whether his morals would be good for the country. As a Mormon I have no doubts that Romney has very strict morals.

 mike777, on 2012-July-19, 02:50, said:

btw I would ask why do you loan me money to buy up assets for an immoral purpose but ok...you do in your example. Does that make lenders immoral?

Since when has investing been an immoral purpose. Obviously the money was lent on the expectation of getting a return on the investment. Most such investments do not result in a bankruptcy. Incidentally, your final question is one of the major roots for anti-semitism in Europe. For my answer: no, I do not consider lending to be immoral but I respect those who think it is.

 mike777, on 2012-July-19, 02:50, said:

This poster says he would consider Romney immoral.

Did I? I would prefer my words to come from myself and not for you to decide for me what I meant, thank you very much.

[mike777]

or

 Zelandakh, on 2012-July-19, 03:09, said:

There are very few people who are not moral in one way or another. The question should be whether his morals match yours, or, better yet, whether his morals would be good for the country. As a Mormon I have no doubts that Romney has very strict morals.



Since when has investing been an immoral purpose. Obviously the money was lent on the expectation of getting a return on the investment. Most such investments do not result in a bankruptcy. Incidentally, your final question is one of the major roots for anti-semitism in Europe. For my answer: no, I do not consider lending to be immoral but I respect those who think it is.



Did I? I would prefer my words to come from myself and not for you to decide for me what I meant, thank you very much.

as I said if you quote me in full...your point is silly......or nonexistant

If you think he is a moral. honest man.......lets move on......

if not then vote for the other guy..

[Zelandakh]

 mike777, on 2012-July-19, 03:11, said:

as I said if you quote me in full...your point is silly......or nonexistant
If you think he is a moral. honest man.......lets move on......
if not then vote for the other guy..

Let's go back a moment. I wrote:-

 Zelandakh, on 2012-July-19, 01:21, said:

You could argue that being able to manage 2 jobs at once is not a bad trait in a President. You could also argue that reducing financial risk would be a pretty good thing for the USA right now. He has made a lot of money using the loopholes in the American financial system to his advantage; perhaps someone who understands how the financial systems work would be a good person to have in charge at a time of financial crisis. Finally, I seem to recall hearing a few years ago that Obama had the most effective money-making campaign in political history, anywhere. That may or not be true but I doubt that he is going to be on the streets any time soon. When was the last time a (genuinely) poor person did become President?

Nothing there about morality. You then brought the subject of morality into the thread and finally accused me of considering Romney immoral. Please re-read my post quoted above and point out to me where there is even a hint of anti-Romney morality. Your arguments have been completely cyclic. First you created the issue, then when someone responds and shows you are talking complete bo!!ocks you want to move on. Well, as it turns out I cannot just move on and vote for the other guy because I live in Europe. The point I was making, although it seems such an awfully long time ago now, is that Romney's record at Bain can be spun positively as well as negatively and that if Obama's team are going to attack Romney for being rich then they are in danger of being seen to be living in a Washington glass house. I also asked the question as to the last President to be poor. It seems practically impossible for such a person to reach office of any sort under the current system.

Finally, I note that this is precisely the kind of crap that has driven mikeh away from these forums in the past and, sadly, seems to have driven him away again. Mike, if you are still reading, let me say that you are missed - please do not let the a§§holes get you down. The vast majority here value your input immensely.

[luke warm]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-July-19, 03:31, said:

Finally, I note that this is precisely the kind of crap that has driven mikeh away from these forums in the past and, sadly, seems to have driven him away again. Mike, if you are still reading, let me say that you are missed - please do not let the a§§holes get you down. The vast majority here value your input immensely.

is that you, mike?

[Winstonm]

Quote

this is kind of the main point....they think Romney is rich as a result of lack of moral fiber or cheat.

I don't think this is so. I think there is a distinction between creating personal wealth and job creation, though. Romney has more in common IMO with T. Boone Pickens than Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.

[billw55]

 Winstonm, on 2012-July-18, 16:17, said:

Yet, his actions with Bain show he is not willing to takes risks himself.

Of course. All intelligent people make decisions to reduce their risk, both financially and otherwise. Risk reduction is smart business and smart politics, and a positive characteristic in a candidate.

[Winstonm]

 billw55, on 2012-July-19, 06:53, said:

Of course. All intelligent people make decisions to reduce their risk, both financially and otherwise. Risk reduction is smart business and smart politics, and a positive characteristic in a candidate.

That's way too broad of brush - risk reduction may be smart business - or it may not be. In Romney's case, it was not business risk but personal risk he reduced.

This does not make him a bad guy - but it does not lend itself to promoting terrific job-creating business acumen, either.

His actions show his character, not his business sense.