Author Topic: Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism  (Read 1342 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,827
Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism
« on: January 10, 2012, 03:12:49 PM »
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

Online aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,709
Re: Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2012, 03:58:27 PM »

A light bulb (not the curlycue kind, but a big ole 250 watt-er) should be going off over everyone's head when you go read Jay Nordlinger's piece that Rush is talking about here.

What are conservatives doing, especially Perry and Gingrich, attacking Bain and venture capitalism?  Don't Republicans stand for the free market?  Don't they know the ultimate beneficiary of these attacks is the Democrats and Obama?  Don't they know they sound just like David Axelrod with this line of attack?  Or worse, Al Sharpton whose been quoting Perry on his show as if Perry were "speaking truth to power"?

And to top it off, this criticism of free market capitalism will not win them any favor with Republicans.

I guess we're all socialists now.
NeverTrump wants to deny you YOUR voice, YOUR presidential choice.

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,426
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
Re: Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2012, 04:22:12 PM »
Heard a segment of Santorum on Hannity, wherein he stated he would NOT bash Romney for his business dealings.  A breath of fresh air from Santorum.

But Gingrich and Perry are really, really desparate. This bashing of capitalism is really getting roundly criticized today, as well it should.

Neither Gingrich or Perry has any personal business experience to speak of, having lived for a long time on public payrolls.  They yap and yap, as if government "creates" jobs, like Obama.

Can you say Romney/Santorum?
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2012, 04:22:56 PM »
A venture capitalist is not a Steve Jobs. There is a big difference in the two.  Jobs was a Capitalist with a capital C..........Romney was a capitalist with a small c.......  one got rich creating jobs the other rich getting rid of jobs.

Online aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,709
Re: Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2012, 04:59:42 PM »

I wonder if those folks (ie. conservatives) critical of capitalism (I still can't believe that I'm having to defend capitalism on a purported Republican site) ... anyway, I wonder if those folks know some of their favorite products and services were were brought to them by venture capitalists?  Or, that hospitals and specialty-service clinics are started by venture capitalists?  Or, that civilian space flight is in the works because of venture capital?

Politics really sucks.  But you know I think I better hold my tongue, here.  So well just go to the video tape.

Twilight Zone Opening THEME MUSIC 1962 Rod Serling


Obama and the Democrats go around making noise like they are business gurus and Republicans are sounding for all the world like class warriors.   :thud:
NeverTrump wants to deny you YOUR voice, YOUR presidential choice.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2012, 05:01:00 PM »
Romney started this, ergo he brough this down on himself and the GOP.   :odrama:

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,426
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
Re: Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2012, 05:27:28 PM »
A venture capitalist is not a Steve Jobs. There is a big difference in the two.  Jobs was a Capitalist with a capital C..........Romney was a capitalist with a small c.......  one got rich creating jobs the other rich getting rid of jobs.
I don't need lectures about business.  I managed corporate planning, for years in a F500 level firm, including strategic long range, and tactical short term budgeting.

Business frequently involves reallocating resources, which is what an acquisition often leads to.

The reason it takes a change (acquisition) to do the rearranging is that old, entrenched management may be frozen into inaction, inept, etc.

Companies become inefficient.  Merging two small firms into one medium company can save duplicated functions, at Hq, support functions like HR, accounting, procurement, legal, etc.

At the end of the day, many of the jobs are going to disappear, one way or the other.

BTW successful companies reallocate resources, lay people of for streamling/cost cutting, all the time. They consolidate departments & functions, etc.

So are all successful companies subject to criticism, because they manage efficiently?
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Online aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,709
Re: Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2012, 05:30:08 PM »

Word, truth, word.   :patriot:
NeverTrump wants to deny you YOUR voice, YOUR presidential choice.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2012, 05:45:26 PM »
Then Romney "should" be able to answer this with one hand tied behind his back....   

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 19,426
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
Re: Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2012, 06:51:47 PM »
Then Romney "should" be able to answer this with one hand tied behind his back....   
I doubt he will be surprised to have to, either.

But it is disappointing to learn Gingrich and Perry are so poorly grounded in principles of economic freedom, also known as free market capitalism.

They both have strengths and weaknesses, but I doubt either is going to be the nominee.

Personality-wise I don't like any of them very much.

"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.�  Abe Lincoln

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism
« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2012, 10:25:56 PM »
I doubt he will be surprised to have to, either.

But it is disappointing to learn Gingrich and Perry are so poorly grounded in principles of economic freedom, also known as free market capitalism.

They both have strengths and weaknesses, but I doubt either is going to be the nominee.

Personality-wise I don't like any of them very much.



You didn't before this, either, you are just ticked because someone is finally holding your guy's feet to the fire......   

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,422
  • Chief Dork
Re: Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2012, 12:03:26 AM »
I don't need lectures about business.  I managed corporate planning, for years in a F500 level firm, including strategic long range, and tactical short term budgeting.

Business frequently involves reallocating resources, which is what an acquisition often leads to.

The reason it takes a change (acquisition) to do the rearranging is that old, entrenched management may be frozen into inaction, inept, etc.

Companies become inefficient.  Merging two small firms into one medium company can save duplicated functions, at Hq, support functions like HR, accounting, procurement, legal, etc.

At the end of the day, many of the jobs are going to disappear, one way or the other.

BTW successful companies reallocate resources, lay people of for streamling/cost cutting, all the time. They consolidate departments & functions, etc.

So are all successful companies subject to criticism, because they manage efficiently?

Bravo, very true.  But what matters in a politician, particularly a President, is not that he manages the economy efficiently on his own - that is called fascism for very good reason - but that he manages the policies he implements so that others, without any control by, or subordination to, the President can act as efficiently as possible.  That is the problem with Romney - he has never chosen policies that are intended to, or that do, make it easier for private business to manage its own affairs efficiently.  Romney can be quite good at managing efficiently, I will certainly give him kudos for downsizing parts of the Massachusetts government, but that is not the same thing as understanding how to make it possible for others acting independently to act as efficiently as possible. 

Romney's own record demonstrates that he is not capable of doing that.  Yes, he did great at cutting down parts of the Massachusetts government, but he didn't substantially reduce the overall tax burden on Mass. residents:  shifting a substantial portion of the tax burden from income tax payors to property tax payors and then claiming to have cut taxes is not good governance, it is mendacity.  He also invented Obamacare and the individual mandate, both of which are currently devastating both the Massachusetts state budget and the Massachusetts state economy.  Health insurance premiums have been rising faster in Massachusetts than in many, many other places.

Mitt Romney is a good, efficient manager, but he is singularly incapable of choosing policies that will allow others to manage their own affairs in an efficient manner without him controlling what they do.  In other words, he is a big-government statist, not a free-market capitalist.

He would do great as a Vice President, or as someone in charge of rationalizing the federal civil service; that is where his strengths as an investment manager at Bain Capital are relevant, there and nowhere else.  He will do miserably as a President because his skills at investment management did not translate into the wisdom to choose government policies that would permit others to do what he himself is good at - managing their own affairs efficiently - as his own record as governor of Massachusetts demonstrates.

I thought the point of the conservative/republican philosophy was individualism, self-reliance, and freedom from external compulsion, but apparently it's nothing more than a more efficient nanny-state.

I want a President who will respect my right and my ability to manage my own affairs as I see fit without constant interference by the government; I do not want a President who will choose policies that will subordinate my own freedom and right to choose to his personal views on how I could be running my life more efficiently.

That is the essential philosophy behind Romneycare and the individual mandate - that government is in a better position to tell individuals how to run their own lives more efficiently.  That is why Romney thinks that the individual mandate is a conservative principle:  because he believes that the health care system would run more efficiently if everyone had health insurance (a very debatable point, by the way), he believes that forcing everyone to have health insurance - at the point of a gun - is therefore the correct, i.e., efficient, way to go about governing.

It should be obvious that this is not how conservatives or republicans view the proper role of government vis-a-vis the individual:  the role of government is not to coerce the individual into living his or her life in a manner that the government has determined to be more efficient than the way in which that individual would prefer to live his or her life.

Romney - the guru of efficiency (and I will grant him that) - believes that the way to govern efficiently is to force individuals to live their lives according to the government's view of what is, and what is not, the efficient way to live, without any due regard for how each individual wishes to live his or her life.

That is tyranny, it is not conservativism, either fiscal or social, and it is most definitely not American in any meaningful sense of the term.  It is mere socialism, which inevitably degenerates into tyranny and fascism.

That is why Romney is merely a paler shade of Obama, because his actions, as demonstrated by his record, are motivated by the same apparent belief that the correct role of government is to tell the individual - at the point of a gun if need be - how he or she should be living his or her life, and not to leave individuals as much room as possible to live their lives as they see fit, without regard to whether the way they choose to live their lives adds to, or detracts from, the overall efficiency of society as a whole.

In other words, just like Obama, Romney's record demonstrates that the logical consequence of Romney's policy choices is to make the individual, and the individual's freedom of choice, subservient to the needs of society as a whole, those needs to be determined at the discretion of the government.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 47,422
  • Chief Dork
Re: Making Sense of Republicans Attacking Capitalism
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2012, 12:05:35 AM »
I doubt he will be surprised to have to, either.

But it is disappointing to learn Gingrich and Perry are so poorly grounded in principles of economic freedom, also known as free market capitalism.

They both have strengths and weaknesses, but I doubt either is going to be the nominee.

Personality-wise I don't like any of them very much.



But you do like someone who's view of the government's proper relationship to the individual is to forcibly tell the individual how to more efficiently live his own life and manage his own affairs, without regard to how that individual prefers to live his life or manage his affairs?  You like the guy who would make the individual subordinate to the group on the view that the individual cannot be allowed to make choices that would cause society as a whole to be less efficient - as determined by the government itself?

You do if you like Romney.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf