2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRomney denies what he knows about the private sector
Colbert King, Washington Post, 7/6/12
Mitt Romney is betraying his calling.
He brings to the presidential race a record of accomplishment to which few White House contenders can lay claim: W. Mitt Romney knows how to make money.
Some may argue that a money-making ability alone is no qualification to be president. I agree that having a high net worth is insufficient reason to be declared presidential timber.
(...)
Romney knows better, even if his critics dont. The private sector operates to make profits, not jobs.
True, a majority of Americans work in the private sector. But General Motors, Giant Food, the TV networks and others dont exist in order to employ Americans.
(...)
Romney portraying himself as an entrepreneur who altruistically created employment opportunities is not only incorrect but also conveys a false picture of free enterprise. That, in turn, skews public understanding of what the private sector can and cant do; creating a more equitable and just society is one of the things businesses dont set out to do. Romney seems ashamed of touting financial performance as an essential factor in economic growth, choosing instead to come across as a one-man hiring hall.
full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romney-denies-what-he-knows-about-business/2012/07/06/gJQAuXFfSW_story.html
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Tell me it isn't fraudulent to knowingly purchase a profitable company, borrow against it heavily, put the cash in your pocket and instead of paying it back, file bankruptcy.
stuffmatters
(2,574 posts)SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)Once those profits were over so were the jobs. There is no righteous aspect to Romney. Profits are his goals, to meet those goals if a job was created fine, but if a job was ended or shipped overseas, that was fine too. He had a goal, profit. Yes he knows how to make profit. That is not the job of the POTUS, furthermore using the same system he used to make profit as president may very well be the end of our country. Or at least the beginning of the end. He is the worst parts of Bush, Bush Reagan and Nixon all in one.
shanen
(349 posts)The thing that really pisses me off about Romney is that I'm convinced he KNOWS that he is lying. Romney knows the truth and just doesn't care. Contrast that with Dubya, who didn't know and didn't care, or contrast it more exactly with Reagan, who didn't know but did care. I think Romney is most like Nixon, who knew the truth but didn't care as long as he believed he could "fix" the truth. Didn't work for Nixon, and I'm certain it won't work for Romney, though with a neo-GOP Congress behind him, I think Romney can do far more damage than Nixon ever dreamed of. I think the only true thing that Romney could say would be "Vote for me so that government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1% of Americans, shall rule the earth", but he doesn't have the guts to say that.
The other cell? Presidents who knew the truth and cared about it? I'm afraid that mostly makes me think of one-term losers... Remember Ford, Carter, and Poppy Bush? I'm increasingly worried that President Obama may be in a bad neighborhood for winning a second term, though it's also a matter of money.
Anyway, if you can think of ways to turn any of these ideas into effective ads against Romney, may I invite you to the thread at the URL below. Double brownie points for ideas for black hole ads that would only invite Romney's black money SuperPACs to waste large amounts of cash without counteracting the ads.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=37926
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)jmowreader
(50,562 posts)Mitt W. Romney knows how to make money FOR HIMSELF.
True, Mitt W. made cubic shitloads of money when he was running Bain Capital, but his priorities were always:
make money for Mitt W.
make money for Bain Capital
make money for Bain Capital's investors
The companies he bought? Well, let's put it this way: Hurricane Andrew left behind it a slightly larger trail of destruction, but just slightly.