Exploring Opinions on Mitt Romney's Candidacy

[turbo]

Can Romney survive tonight's debate? I generally don't watch these, but I may tonight.

 

[AlephZero]

There's an iinteresting take on this in an op-ed piece in today's Financial Times. Why is MR being so defensive about all this. He could be plugging the message "Sure I have a track record as a company turnround specialist, and that's exactly the skill set that is needed to downsize the bloat in Washington."

Why shouldn't that play well with what the FT describes as "the world's most capitalist poltical party"?

This could turn into a war of attrition between the anybody-but-MR and anybody-but-NG campaigns, and that won't do Obama any harm at all IMO.

 

[turbo]

This could turn into a war of attrition between the anybody-but-MR and anybody-but-NG campaigns, and that won't do Obama any harm at all IMO.

Not a bad analysis. Both have so much baggage and negatives that Obama can come out of this looking pretty good.

 

[rhody]

http://mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

59 Policy Proposals That Will Get America Back To Work
1. Maintain current tax rates on personal income
2. Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
3. Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
4. Eliminate the death tax
5. Pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system over the long term that includes lower,
flatter rates on a broader base
6. Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percent
7. Pursue transition from “worldwide” to “territorial” system for corporate taxation
8. Repeal Obamacare
9. Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework
10. Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements
11. Ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process
12 Provide multi-year lead times before companies must come into compliance with
onerous new environmental regulations
13. Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy
14. Impose a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies
15. Require congressional approval of all new “major” regulations
16. Reform legal liability system to prevent spurious litigation
17. Implement agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea
18. Reinstate the president’s Trade Promotion Authority
19. Complete negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership
20. Pursue new trade agreements with nations committed to free enterprise and open markets
21. Create the Reagan Economic Zone
22. Increase CBP resources to prevent the illegal entry of goods into our market
23. Increase USTR resources to pursue and support litigation against unfair trade practices
24. Use unilateral and multilateral punitive measures to deter unfair Chinese practices
25. Designate China a currency manipulator and impose countervailing duties
26. Discontinue U.S. government procurement from China until China commits to GPA
27. Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals
28. Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities
29. Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct
pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas
30. Amend Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview
31. Expand NRC capabilities for approval of additional nuclear reactor designs
32. Streamline NRC processes to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors on or adjacent to
approved sites, using approved designs, are complete within two years
33. Conduct comprehensive survey of America’s energy reserves
34. Open America’s energy reserves for development
35. Expand opportunities for U.S. resource developers to forge partnerships with neighboring countries
36 Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States
37. Prevent overregulation of shale gas development and extraction
38 Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research
39. Utilize long-term, apolitical funding mechanisms like ARPA-E for basic research
40. Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law
41. Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit
42. Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certification election
43. Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month
44. Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws
45. Prohibit the use for political purposes of funds automatically deducted from worker paychecks
46. Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor
47. Eliminate redundancy in federal retraining programs by consolidating programs and funding streams,
centering as much activity as possible in a single agency
48. Give states authority to manage retraining programs by block granting federal funds
49. Facilitate the creation of Personal Reemployment Accounts
50. Encourage greater private sector involvement in retraining programs
51. Raise visa caps for highly skilled workers
52. Grant permanent residency to eligible graduates with advanced degrees in math, science,
and engineering
53. Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
54. Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
55. Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates
56. Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition
57. Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP
58. Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services
59. Pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment

Nice find Oltz, a pithy summary of his positions on everything that matters to him. If I could listen to a speech from each of the candidates like this addressing each item, I might be drawn into the political process, without it I am afraid that I will be a lurker at the fringe.

Off topic, RobD, every time I see your Avatar of Feynman, it reminds me of how much I miss him and how we need more great physicists like him. Thanks for the reminder.

Rhody...

 

[Evo]

Nice find Oltz, a pithy summary of his positions on everything that matters to him. If I could listen to a speech from each of the candidates like this addressing each item, I might be drawn into the political process, without it I am afraid that I will be a lurker at the fringe.

I can make a list too, anyone can, how will these be done and why, what are the pros and cons, and can or should they be done and how will each one of these supposedly help the mid to lower classes? Obviously I don't see a lot of these as being good for anyone but the rich and the business owners. Repeal the death tax? Yeah, that's going to help me...NOT.

For deaths occurring in 2011, up to $5,000,000 can be passed from an individual upon his or her death without incurring federal estate tax.[2]

How many members here are planning to inherit more than $5 million?

I personally disagree with half of that list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

 

[rhody]

I can make a list too, anyone can, how will these be done and why, what are the pros and cons, and can or should they be done and how will each one of these supposedly help the mid to lower classes? Obviously I don't see a lot of these as being good for anyone but the rich and the business owners. Repeal the death tax? Yeah, that's going to help me...NOT. How many members here are planning to inherit more than $5 million?

I personally disagree with half of that list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

Yeah some things on his list bother me too Evo. I have been to political rallies before, and I must say, no hard questions were asked. I felt cheated and a fool for playing the game and wasting my time, you know me by now, no BS kind of guy, who do what he says he will. I would make a horrible politician, I would offend everyone in some way or other.

Inherit 5 million ? Wouldn't that be nice...

Rhody...

 

[turbo]

I can make a list too, anyone can, how will these be done and why, what are the pros and cons, and can or should they be done and how will each one of these supposedly help the mid to lower classes?

It's easy to make bullet-point lists with no details. It's also easy for the "faithful" to fall in behind you and read their own wishes and preconceptions into each of the points. Until perceptive people start tearing apart that list and asking for details, Romney is off-the-hook as an "idea man". I'm not surprised that his list is so long and wide-ranging. Can't really hurt him in the debates.

Also, has anybody bothered to notice that the President can't legislate? He can propose and he can twist some arms or perhaps even offer to trade key administrative appointments for favorable legislative votes, but until a law comes across his desk, he has no real authority under the Constitution. He can sign, veto, or pocket.

 

[AlephZero]

Also, has anybody bothered to notice that the President can't legislate?

Nah, you're never going to get elected that way. Only democrat presidents can't legislate, if you are a Republican.

 

[ThomasT]

... I don't see a lot of these as being good for anyone but the rich and the business owners. ...

Yeah, Romney's definitely a status quo guy. Not that that's entirely bad. But it isn't particularly inspiring, and doesn't seem to offer any real improvements that would benefit the majority of Americans.

Romney's undoubtedly smart, a good family man, emotionally/behaviorally stable, and he doesn't "wear his religion on his sleeve". I think he'll win the GOP nomination primarily because people will find less to not like about him than the other GOP candidates.

But I predict that, wrt one on one debates with Obama, Romney will tend to project that shallow "used car salesman", political opportunist, pro-corporation, anti-populist sort of image, while Obama's rhetoric will again tend to inspire (even if Obama's disappointed a lot of people wrt his first term).

 

[russ_watters]

Do you have anything that shows it's not true?

Which part? The "another white collar criminal" part is quite a stretch from "most legally thorny", which is all the article says. I'd say gravennewworld has come nowhere close to the burden of proof required to make such a claim.

 

[Oltz]

I can make a list too, anyone can, how will these be done and why, what are the pros and cons, and can or should they be done and how will each one of these supposedly help the mid to lower classes? Obviously I don't see a lot of these as being good for anyone but the rich and the business owners. Repeal the death tax? Yeah, that's going to help me...NOT. How many members here are planning to inherit more than $5 million?

I personally disagree with half of that list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

Evo that is the Point right now you are taxed on ALL inheritance he (and many others) want to roll that up to 5 Million so when You inherit your 100K or whatever its yours with no tax bill as who ever earned it was already taxed on those earnings.

I know a fam ily who ran a Bakery they had roughly 2 Million in equipment and property involved in the bussiness. The Father passed suddenly and they litterally had to sell off a 30% interest in the family bussness to pay the inheritance tax on the company or fold.

I do not know what your situation is you may inherit debt but if you have any real amount of money in your future rolling the death tax up to 5 Million is for you.

 

[daveb]

Hello...Occam here...could it be because it isn't true?

When I say I never heard about it, I mean the fraud that was committed, not Romney's involvement or non-involvement in it. Then again, management kept us in the dark about most things as they ran the company into the ground.

 

[CAC1001]

^ People who have been around long enough to see companies destroyed when their pension funds were supposedly "overfunded" and were taken over, and lost their jobs due to predatory tactics used by "venture" capitalists may never be persuaded to pull the lever for Mitt. He is out-of-touch with voters, IMO, and older voters especially. Too many of us have been on the receiving end of his brand of capitalism. He seems like an earnest and pleasant guy, but I think his past will haunt him. That leaves Gingrich as the "inevitable" candidate and he has even more personal (and belt-way) baggage to be seriously considered in the general election.

Private equity isn't all about vulture capitalism. Vulturing is one type of private equity, but there are others. What is interesting is that one would think that if Romney was of the vulture sort of capitalist, he would have been fully prepared to handle any such attack on his background in that sense.

And if he is not the vulture capitalist, one would think he would still be prepared as his opponents will try to make him out to be the vulture type. He needs to point out that in the process of turning certain companies around, you sometimes have to fire people to prevent the whole company from going under. This is exactly what President Obama did with GM and Chrysler to save them. People got laid off, dealerships were closed, but it was to save the companies (well actually the auto unions really I think) from going under.

It really is strange, the GOP were practically given this election, but I feel they are handing it over on a silver platter to the Democratic party simply on the basis of having such horrible candidates.

 

[Evo]

On the tax question I think Romney should say,

"I paid $3 million in taxes in 2010."

In answer to follow up questions about percentages, he should say,

"I paid $3 million in taxes in 2010. I gave away another $3 million in charitable donations in 2010"

of which half actually went to the incredibly wealthy Mormon Church, not really a charity, IMO, but did lower his taxes.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/24/10222105-q-a-what-romneys-tax-returns-reveal-and-omit

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-tax-returns-show-more-43-million-135129751.html

 

[ThomasT]

I'm wondering, can a reasonable, critically thinking person truly be a Mormon? The whole scenario just seems silly to me. But that's, of course, just my perspective and opinion.

But I have to wonder about an apparently intelligent person who gives millions of dollars to such a religious establishment. So, I wonder about Romney.

He seems like a good and smart person. But he's a self professed Mormon. So, I have to consider the possibility that he's somewhat willfully ignorant. And I don't want a willfully ignorant person to hold the highest administrative position in the US.

 

[skeptic2]

Why single out Mormons? The same question can be asked of any religion.

 

[ThomasT]

Why single out Mormons? The same question can be asked of any religion.

I agree. So, I wonder if a reasonable, critically thinking person can be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Mormon, or ... whatever.

 

[Rob D]

I agree. So, I wonder if a reasonable, critically thinking person can be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Mormon, or ... whatever.

Your point hinges on our individual core beliefs or lack thereof, which is deeply private, but I must agree with you in that I tend to see very religious people as delusional or even worse dishonest. However, and despite the tithe thing (it is after all only money) I do not think that Romney is a deeply religious man.

At least I hope that he is not.RD

 

[ParticleGrl]

Evo that is the Point right now you are taxed on ALL inheritance

No, you aren't. The federal exemption is currently something like 5 million. Only estates worth more than $5 million are taxed at all. The exemption has been 2 million since at least the Bush presidency.

I know a fam ily who ran a Bakery they had roughly 2 Million in equipment and property involved in the bussiness. The Father passed suddenly and they litterally had to sell off a 30% interest in the family bussness to pay the inheritance tax on the company or fold.

This doesn't make much sense- their estate planner must have been horribly incompetent. On top of the fact that you value their estate as below the exemption (so there wouldn't have been tax anyway), there are lots of games that can be played with property (tax free gifts, property left to the spouse, etc).

 

[ThomasT]

Your point hinges on our individual core beliefs or lack thereof but I must agree in that I tend to see very religious people as delusional or even worse dishonest. However, and despite the tithe thing (it is after all only money) I do not think that Romney is a deeply religious man.

At least I hope that he is not.


RD

Well, afaik, we have no way of knowing for sure. Therefore, I can't vote for Romney, because he's either an adherent to what I consider to be a nonsensical religion, or he's lying.

 

[daveb]

Why single out Mormons? The same question can be asked of any religion.

I agree. So, I wonder if a reasonable, critically thinking person can be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Mormon, or ... whatever.

Your point hinges on our individual core beliefs or lack thereof, which is deeply private, but I must agree with you in that I tend to see very religious people as delusional or even worse dishonest. However, and despite the tithe thing (it is after all only money) I do not think that Romney is a deeply religious man.

At least I hope that he is not.


RD

Not to hijack the thread, but I would like to point out that the Dalai Lama would probably be considered "deeply religious" - so being religios doesn't necessitate non-critical thinking.

 

[ThomasT]

... being religious doesn't necessitate non-critical thinking.

I think that, wrt theistic religions, to a certain extent, it does.

 

[turbo]

This doesn't make much sense- their estate planner must have been horribly incompetent. On top of the fact that you value their estate as below the exemption (so there wouldn't have been tax anyway), there are lots of games that can be played with property (tax free gifts, property left to the spouse, etc).

Not only incompetent, but inept. A long-running business should have had depreciated its property, equipment, etc over the years, greatly simplifying the process of preparing it for purposes of inheritance.

 

[daveb]

I think that, wrt theistic religions, to a certain extent, it does.

To some yes, but I would apply it to persons rather than religions (well there are probably exceptions to that, which I can't mention due to pf rules). However, there are theistic religions that believe in rational thought and critical thinking.

 

[ThomasT]

To some yes, but I would apply it to persons rather than religions (well there are probably exceptions to that, which I can't mention due to pf rules). However, there are theistic religions that believe in rational thought and critical thinking.

Well, we don't want to get too far off topic here. But I'll just say that I don't know of any theistic religions that value rational thought and critical thinking over church dogma. You can PM me with a reply to this, so as not to sidetrack the thread.

 

[daveb]

Back to Romney and his taxes, if he (or anyone) running for President didn't take advantage of every tax break they legally could, I would say that negates their ability to be a president since I want them to be as efficient as legally possible in the execution of the duties of office (the assumption being they weren't as efficient as possible in paying taxes). This is why I find the argument by some of "If Buffet thinks he paid too little taxes then he should write a check to the government" to be completely irrelevant and even a littel ignorant of the underlying argument. I would say, "If Buffet thinks he paid too little in taxes, then he should change the tax code" which is kind of what he is trying to do (by supporting politicians who want to change the code in the way he thinks it should be). It also works in reverse (if you think you're paying too much, support politicians who will change it in your favor).

So I don't fault him for paying so little - it is a question of the tax code.

 

[ThomasT]

Back to Romney and his taxes, if he (or anyone) running for President didn't take advantage of every tax break they legally could, I would say that negates their ability to be a president since I want them to be as efficient as legally possible in the execution of the duties of office (the assumption being they weren't as efficient as possible in paying taxes). This is why I find the argument by some of "If Buffet thinks he paid too little taxes then he should write a check to the government" to be completely irrelevant and even a littel ignorant of the underlying argument. I would say, "If Buffet thinks he paid too little in taxes, then he should change the tax code" which is kind of what he is trying to do (by supporting politicians who want to change the code in the way he thinks it should be). It also works in reverse (if you think you're paying too much, support politicians who will change it in your favor).

So I don't fault him for paying so little - it is a question of the tax code.

I agree with this. Imo, any clearly thinking person is going to minimize his debt to the republic. But I maintain that the tax code favors the rich, and that no major party candidate is likely to oppose that status quo.

 

[Rob D]

Not to hijack the thread, but I would like to point out that the Dalia Lama would probably be considered "deeply religious" - so being religios doesn't necessitate non-critical thinking.

If I may beg to differ, being a Buddhist myself and based on what I had heard from his speeches and what I've read, although His Holiness is a "deeply spiritual" man I do not believe that he holds a belief in a god or higher power. One of the delightful aspects of Buddhism is that it requires of the practitioner no belief in a higher power. In this way it could be argued that it is more of a philosophy than a religion.

You Tube has several videos of His Holiness discussing quantum physics in an informed manner. I would reckon that that you could consider that to be an indicator of critical thinking.


RD

 

[Angry Citizen]

Back to Romney and his taxes, if he (or anyone) running for President didn't take advantage of every tax break they legally could, I would say that negates their ability to be a president since I want them to be as efficient as legally possible in the execution of the duties of office (the assumption being they weren't as efficient as possible in paying taxes). This is why I find the argument by some of "If Buffet thinks he paid too little taxes then he should write a check to the government" to be completely irrelevant and even a littel ignorant of the underlying argument. I would say, "If Buffet thinks he paid too little in taxes, then he should change the tax code" which is kind of what he is trying to do (by supporting politicians who want to change the code in the way he thinks it should be). It also works in reverse (if you think you're paying too much, support politicians who will change it in your favor).

So I don't fault him for paying so little - it is a question of the tax code.

In a way I agree with this, but in another way I don't. Romney is particularly disgusting not because he pays low taxes, but because of his job description which just so happens to entail paying low taxes. This guy is the best example possible of the excesses and inadequacies of capitalism. This guy came from rich parents, led companies in predatory capitalist ventures, and then pats himself and other rich people on the back for supposedly being better than the peons who can't game the system like him.

The candidates fielded this election by the Republican Party are without a doubt the sorriest group of people I've ever seen, and I can't help but pity anyone who would actually vote for one of them. At least Rockefeller Republicans were respectable, even if I disagreed with them...

 

[Jasongreat]

In a way I agree with this, but in another way I don't. Romney is particularly disgusting not because he pays low taxes, but because of his job description which just so happens to entail paying low taxes. This guy is the best example possible of the excesses and inadequacies of capitalism. This guy came from rich parents, led companies in predatory capitalist ventures, and then pats himself and other rich people on the back for supposedly being better than the peons who can't game the system like him.

The candidates fielded this election by the Republican Party are without a doubt the sorriest group of people I've ever seen, and I can't help but pity anyone who would actually vote for one of them. At least Rockefeller Republicans were respectable, even if I disagreed with them...

ROmney did come from rich parents, he also donated his whole inheritance to a university. He is a shining example of what can happen to each of us in the US with hard work and dedication. He lead his company in taking over failing companies, and trying to turn them around, in doing so he made his investors an average return of over one hundred percent while having a success rate of over eighty percent. He seems like a pretty competent manager to me. By the way, that Medicare fine did result from one of the companies Bain took over, however he nor the other board members were ever implicated. The investigator who saw the facts, never even thought Romney was implicated much less alleged to be involved.

 

[Angry Citizen]

ROmney did come from rich parents, he also donated his whole inheritance to a university.

Support requested.

He lead his company in taking over failing companies, and trying to turn them around

Do you have any idea how vulture capitalism works? It's the Herman Cain policy. Go in, fire a bunch of people, then destroy the standards of living for those that remain. Charge them for your 'services', then watch as their company burns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampad). Furthermore, under Romney's tenure, Bain had about a 50/50 success rate with turning companies around. I wonder what the business success rate would've been sans Bain Capital's immoral parasitism? And lastly, vulture capitalism in and of itself is essentially risk-free, like running a Las Vegas casino. You turn a profit regardless. Not exactly the hardest company to lead.

He is a shining example of what can happen to each of us in the US with hard work and dedication.

He is a shining example of why the 1% in this country need to be taken down a notch or twenty. He epitomizes the advantages given to the richest of the rich: highly respected education; networking with other richest of the rich; and convenient steps taken to ensure he was not eligible for the draft. He never had to work his way through life. Life was handed to him on a silver spoon. The people who really need to meet the 'real world', as you call it, are the ultra-rich Republicans who pat themselves on the back for snatching victory from the jaws of certain victory.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Vulture capitalism works the same way real vultures work. They don't kill, they eat dead carcasses. They play an essential role in the ecosystem. The idea that they take things of value and trash them is childish.

 

[ThomasT]

Vulture capitalism works the same way real vultures work. They don't kill, they eat dead carcasses. They play an essential role in the ecosystem. The idea that they take things of value and trash them is childish.

This seems to me to be true to a certain extent. But then I do agree with Angry Citizen that vulture capitalism, like what wild vultures do, is essentially risk free ... as long as one has the stomach for it.

But, while I don't want to disparage Romney because he was born into privilege and learned to effectively manipulate the system to his advantage, I don't want a person like Romney to be the chief administrator of the country. He represents, and will act in behalf of, the status quo. So, if the goal is to improve America for most Americans, then Romney isn't, imo, a good choice.

 

[Rob D]

This seems to me to be true to a certain extent. But then I do agree with Angry Citizen that vulture capitalism, like what wild vultures do, is essentially risk free ... as long as one has the stomach for it.

But, while I don't want to disparage Romney because he was born into privilege and learned to effectively manipulate the system to his advantage, I don't want a person like Romney to be the chief administrator of the country. He represents, and will act in behalf of, the status quo. So, if the goal is to improve America for most Americans, then Romney isn't, imo, a good choice.

I'm afraid that you are allowing a rather glaring misconception to sneak into your thesis and that is the apparent belief that a "man of the people" will continue to pursue altruism and not descend into avarice and self promotion. We are currently in the midst of just such an experiment. How's that working out for you?

 

[Angry Citizen]

I'm afraid that you are allowing a rather glaring misconception to sneak into your thesis and that is the apparent belief that a "man of the people" will continue to pursue altruism and not descend into avarice and self promotion. We are currently in the midst of just such an experiment. How's that working out for you?

Not too bad actually. Employment's up, economy is improving, foreign relations are great, military has been cut down to size, Iraq War is over, Afghanistan is drawing down, financial protections have been put in place to limit bank transgressions, climate change is at least being fought (even if it is like taking a rubber sword to an iron dragon given the level of commitment seen by this administration), and on the whole, things are better than they've been for a long, long time. The only significant problem I have with Obama, aside from his overwillingness to compromise with Republicans, is his human rights record. The NDAA alone is an evil I don't think I'll ever forgive him for, unless he takes some major steps to get it killed in the judicial branch (for instance, having a volunteer be 'indefinitely detained', letting him go, then letting the volunteer sue in federal court based on rights violations).