Poll Position: Who’s right about Romney’s time at Bain?
(Note: Apologies for the late Poll Position today, but I wanted the ethics reform post to be online all day.)
This week has seen one of the more amazing attack lines in any GOP presidential primary. It seems some Republican candidates think Mitt Romney was too much of a capitalist.
Well, that’s not exactly how they’d put it. Texas Gov. Rick Perry (yes, he’s still running, despite barely beating the combination of Buddy Roemer and “total write-ins” in New Hampshire) refers to Romney’s career at Bain Capital as “vulture capitalism,” not venture capitalism. A so-called Super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich produced a 28-minute video titled “When Mitt Romney Came to Town” about a company in South Carolina — the site of the next primary — bought by Bain.
Who's right about Romney's time at Bain Capital?
- Gingrich and Perry (178 Votes)
- Romney and his defenders (95 Votes)
- Who knows? (38 Votes)
Total Voters: 311
Loading ...Their attacks have been lauded by some on the right, and virtually everyone on the left, as an appropriate critique of Romney’s claim to have been a job creator in the private sector and/or a good way to toughen up Romney for the general election against Barack Obama. (I didn’t realize Gingrich and Perry were running for “presidential sparring partner” instead of president.) But Gingrich and Perry have also been fiercely criticized by many on the right for making pandering, un-nuanced attacks on capitalism merely to boost their electoral chances.
Who’s right?
That’s this week’s Poll Position question. Answer in the nearby poll and in the comments thread below.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
388 comments Add your comment
td
January 14th, 2012
3:39 pm
MarkV
January 14th, 2012
3:29 pm
And is it not true that most all scholars state that social democracy is a form of socialism? Is it or is it not true that the progressives in the United States consider themselves to be social democrats? Is it or is it not true that Obama calls himself a progressive?
I believe all of the statements are true and as a result it is an accurate definition to call Obama a socialist. A more accurate definition would be social democrat but a socialist is still accurate.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 14th, 2012
3:40 pm
redneckbluedog: [Lil' Barry Bailout] HATES Barack Obama with a passion beyond politics….Perhaps he is racist….I would remind him that Barack Obama is half-white
—————————–
There’s a word for folks like you who make decisions about people without any supporting facts–prejudiced.
redneckbluedog: Prejudiced.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 14th, 2012
3:46 pm
Welcome to the Occupation: Romney…pays a measly capital gains rate and therefore pays a rate almost half what average Americans pay
——————-
All Americans, rich or poor, pay the same capital gains rate.
Your talking point clearly identifies you as an envious, greed, economic know-nothing.
Linda
January 14th, 2012
3:46 pm
Welcom@3:10, Are you serious? The first & foremost reason that any business, large or small, exists is to make a profit. A college student can’t last one day in Econ 101 without understanding the fundamental concept of a business. An entrepreneur doesn’t wake up one day & want to go out & create jobs. He begins with an idea. Jobs outside his own are merely byproducts, a means to grow his business & make even more money.
The definition of businesses can’t be changed any more than the definition of the economy.
The goals of the businessman (owner of the company) is no different than the goals of his employees. It’s about money. Everyone is working to maintain &/or improve their standard of living & enrich themselves.
Employees’ jobs might be hands of their employers’, but, at the same time, the employers’ businesses are in the hands of their employees.
Employers have the right to fire, but employees have the right to quit.
Businesses compete with each other for the best employees. Employees compete with each other (resumes) for the best jobs at the best businesses.
There are many who are born with opportunity, but the fact is that the majority of business owners were they themselves employees, who went out on their own, worked 24/7, brought their families into the business with no compensation, mortgaged their homes, sold possessions, sacrificed & risked everything they had. Some make it. Some do not.
That’s the US economy.
td
January 14th, 2012
3:50 pm
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
3:32 pm
“We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them”
The way todays progressives and Obama words this is called Social Justice.
“him as “social democrat”, even that tradition has long been committed to markets and capitalism more than to a strict interpretation of Marxist principles. Am I wrong?”
But is it not true that Marx said a country must first become a socialist nation before it can become a pure communist nation?
Hillbilly D
January 14th, 2012
3:52 pm
The first & foremost reason that any business, large or small, exists is to make a profit.
That’s why anytime I walk into a business and they have one of those “Mission Statements” on the wall, I just chuckle to myself. Who do they think they’re fooling? They’re there to get my money and I’m there to get something they have, that I want or need. Let’s just drop the charade and get the transaction done, we’re all adults.
GodHatesTrash, p.b.u.h.
January 14th, 2012
4:04 pm
Let’s face it – racism motivates many, if not most, Obama-haters. It’s no accident that Obama-haters are most prevalent in Dicksea, where racism is enshrined and glorified in the persistent victimology of The Lost Cause and the anti-government States’ Rights movement.
Since McCarthy and Nixon, the GOP has focused on fanning the flame of white lower-and-middle class fears of various bogeymen and women – communists, atheists, intellectuals (which to your typical Georgian means a high-school graduate), hippies, women, foreigners, immigrants legal and “illegal”, homosexuals, and, of course, that old stand-by, colored folks. Obama is black, and has a funny sounding name, and an Ivy League education.
Three strikes as far as the k*k*kooks in the tea party are concerned. His wife is educated too – strike four – and an Ivy League grad – strike five. The socialist thing is just window dressing, an attempt by the haters to change the subject from their fears – xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, racism, homophobia, femiphobia – and their lack of intellect back to their bogeyman, the black man Obama.
Boo!
MarkV
January 14th, 2012
4:10 pm
td @3:39 pm “And is it not true that most all scholars state that social democracy is a form of socialism?”
Simple answer: No, it is not true.
Linda
January 14th, 2012
4:25 pm
The demagoguery continues. You cannot agree that Obama is a socialist, but you can all agree that he is a progressive since he admitted it.
http://www.progressive.org/mag/nichols0109.html
Personally, I don’t think progressives hold a glass of water above socialists. They’re about the same. One just sounds better.
Obama is also a nationalist, sort of like Hugo Chavez. He has nationalized 2 of the 3 auto makers, the largest insurance company in the world (AIG), student loans, health care, air, etc.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
January 14th, 2012
4:29 pm
I’m married to a minority and I still think obozo is a pos.
Just sayin…
GodHatesTrash, p.b.u.h.
January 14th, 2012
4:52 pm
Wife or hostage, Curly?
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
5:02 pm
Little Barry bailout All Americans, rich or poor, pay the same capital gains rate.
Yes, but how many Americans’ income consists ONLY of capital gains.
The answer? Very few.
C’mon, buddy, read your Marx.
Linda
January 14th, 2012
5:07 pm
Liberals can only focus on skin-color & forget that there are 10 areas of discrimination. All they can see is that Obama is black, or at least half-black.
What if an old, straight-haired, white Lesbian Chinese-American Christian woman, dressed in overalls & using a wheelchair, who believes in individual salvation, disagrees with Obama’s policies?
Maybe she is discriminating against Obama on the basis of age, race, color, gender identity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, (un) disability AND creed.
The race card is getting old. Pick some new material from the list above.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
5:08 pm
Bailout, in other words, poor people don’t
By definition, the poor — like the middle class — live on their earned wages. Aside from the one-off lottery winner or inheritor a la Eddy Murphy in Trading Places, the poor don’t have capital gains.
For the Mitt Romneys of the world, ALL of their income is through capital gains, i.e. unearned. Adam Smith spins in his grave at the stranglehold these people have on our economy. And we want to make this guy president?
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
January 14th, 2012
5:13 pm
It is interesting that in a country that supposedly values hard work, people that work for their income have it taxed as high as 38%, while rich folks that inherited their money (Romney’s fortune was started by cash he inherited from his very successful father) pay far less, and often nothing at all for the money they ‘earn’.
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
January 14th, 2012
5:16 pm
Most stupid white people are racists. Most stupid white people vote Republican.
There. I’ve dumbed it down so even a tea partier can understand it.
Linda
January 14th, 2012
5:19 pm
Welcome@5:02, You’re leaving out step one. Before investors pay capital gains taxes, they have to make a profit on an investment that they made with MONEY. Most investors invest MONEY they received from income from a job, income that they paid federal & state taxes on.
Call any financial planner or stock broker. You will learn that most of their clients are employees or retirees from public or private sector jobs. While you are on the phone, set up an appointment & start investing now. Don’t cash out any investment until you retire.
Linda
January 14th, 2012
5:26 pm
Welcome, If capital gains are unearned, what are capital losses?
Ross Perot
January 14th, 2012
5:28 pm
MarkV is splitting hairs on various forms of socialism.
Proponents of state socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Social democrats advocate redistributive taxation and government regulation of capital within the framework of a market economy.[6]
I think this is the form that he would prefer. Interesting to note, most Europeans never realize home ownership, they are permanent renters from the wealthy or state housing. I am going out on a limb saying that MarkV would prefer to rent and have the Government subsidize his existence, see previous reference on Libya, as opposed to discipline himself intellectually to try and become one of the 1%.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 14th, 2012
5:33 pm
GodHatesTrash, Superstar: It is interesting that in a country that supposedly values hard work, people that work for their income have it taxed as high as 38%
—————————
Your klown prince Obozo apparently doesn’t value hard work. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be planning to raise income tax rates next year.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 14th, 2012
5:36 pm
Welcome to the Occupation: How many Americans’ income consists ONLY of capital gains.
————————
Don’t know, but there aren’t many idiots in that group. I guess that’s what you call “smart money”.
If you want to be taxed at the capital gains tax rate, get your income from investing instead of working like an old mule. Duh.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
5:38 pm
Ross Perot: “see previous reference on Libya, as opposed to discipline himself intellectually to try and become one of the 1%. ”
You think making it to the 1% is about discipline?
Whatever helps you reconcile yourself with the current system I guess.
Linda: “If capital gains are unearned, what are capital losses?”
Doesn’t really matter, does it? I mean, why should we be concerned with the losses of gamblers?
MarkV
January 14th, 2012
6:08 pm
Ross Perot @5:28 pm: “MarkV is splitting hairs on various forms of socialism.”
Really? And as evidence of that you have sumitted the following?
“Proponents of state socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Social democrats advocate redistributive taxation and government regulation of capital within the framework of a market economy.[6]”
What you have shown is what I have argued, that social democracy is not socialism
As for the rest of your post, it is so silly it is laughable. Your limb would quickly break. You know nothing about me, and your reference to Libya is a nonsense (why don’t you show it?).
td
January 14th, 2012
6:13 pm
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
5:08 pm
Bailout, in other words, poor people don’t
By definition, the poor — like the middle class — live on their earned wages. Aside from the one-off lottery winner or inheritor a la Eddy Murphy in Trading Places, the poor don’t have capital gains
This is a mute argument since the bottom 47% of wage earners pay $0 in Federal income tax.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
January 14th, 2012
6:13 pm
It looks like trashman got evicted from another public park and now uses this blog to spread his filth, disease and natural inbred liberal perversions.
And, as usual, all of the decent people are forced to hold their noses and walk the long way around this nasty public display.
ew
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
January 14th, 2012
6:20 pm
RCP South Carolina Avg: Romney Lead Slips to 4.7
Now that the freaks in New Hampshire have had their say, we can move on to what the American people think.
Romney won’t be the nominee.
Linda
January 14th, 2012
6:21 pm
Welcome, There are liberals who believe that high income people have enough money & that the fed. govt. deserves all of it over & above what it thinks is fair. Liberals believe that there is point where enough money is enough.
High earners have a choice of what to do with their extra cash. They certainly don’t hide it under their mattresses. They can:
1. spend it on themselves. They can buy fancy homes, cars, boats, trips, etc. They support the people who work in the manufacture & installation of lumber, flooring, windows, doors, kitchen appliances & cabinetry, etc. They support the people on the auto assembly line, hotel maids, cooks & bellmen. They send their kids to private schools, supporting teachers.
2. invest it. When people invest in the stock market, they are supporting companies & providing capital for them to, in turn, invest in more factories & equipment, which creates JOBS.
3. donate it. Universities, colleges, hospitals, museums, etc. include wings & entire structures named after individual donors.
The entire reasoning behind a low capital gains tax rate is to encourage investment in American businesses & therefore, the American economy, & therefore, the US worker.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
6:35 pm
td: “This is a mute argument since the bottom 47% of wage earners pay $0 in Federal income tax.”
The vast majority of the population — the 99% — lives on their wage income and has to have earnings above a certain level to even be able to pay Federal income tax. The 1%, by contrast, of course lives on capital income.
So pointing out the fact that many people pay no Federal income tax tells us nothing except that the SYSTEM itself isn’t working, i.e. isn’t providing anything close to full employment (which of course is exactly how the capitalists and industrialists want it, as they fiercely oppose anything approaching full employment because it is in their interests to keep workers a little hungry, and docile).
Linda
January 14th, 2012
6:37 pm
Welcome, You have NO way of knowing whose income is from capital gains or wages or commissions or fees, especially Romney. The means of payment does make one person more or less evil than another. The amount of payment does make one person more or less evil than another. Fat cats are neither fat nor cats not bad.
Streetracer
January 14th, 2012
6:42 pm
Welcome etc @ 5:38
Your last statement pretty much sums up what is wrong with your arguments. If someone risks money and is successful we should tax those profits, but if they are not “Oh well, they were just a gambler”. Do you not see the contradiction in those positions?
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
6:43 pm
Romney won’t be the nominee.
Ooh there’s gonna be some hurtin in conland in about another 3 weeks when Romney is crowned the nominee.
Linda
January 14th, 2012
6:46 pm
Welcome, No! 99% of Americans do not live on their wage income. 99% of Americans do not have a wage. Some are retired, self-employed, unemployed, incarcerated, disabled, etc.
The top 1% do not live on capital gains. Hollywood, professional athletes & CEOs do NOT get paid via capital gains.
Your statement regarding capitalists & industrialists is about as kinky as it gets. Where are you coming from?
td
January 14th, 2012
6:50 pm
MarkV
January 14th, 2012
4:10 pm
td @3:39 pm “And is it not true that most all scholars state that social democracy is a form of socialism?”
Simple answer: No, it is not true.
I think you just got to the point of being intellectually dishonest. You know as well as I do that most scholarly work done on the subject since the late 1800’s states that social democracy and other such term is a form of socialism. Go do a little reading of the following:
Donald Busky’s Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Jim Tomlinson’s Democratic Socialism and Economic Policy: The Attlee Years, 1945-1951, Norman Thomas Democratic Socialism: a new appraisal or Roy Hattersley’s Choose Freedom: The Future of Democratic Socialism.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
7:06 pm
Streetracer: “If someone risks money and is successful we should tax those profits, but if they are not “Oh well, they were just a gambler”. Do you not see the contradiction in those positions?”
The problem is in your initial terms “risk money” and “is successful”, because when you define it that way there’s nothing that differentiates this activity from the most banal sort of Las Vegas gambling.
I think the kind of investment we’re aiming for here is the kind that benefits society and provides jobs, and these types of investments have always been provided by the government. Classic exampe: the Internet.
td
January 14th, 2012
7:12 pm
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
7:06 pm
“I think the kind of investment we’re aiming for here is the kind that benefits society and provides jobs, and these types of investments have always been provided by the government. Classic exampe: the Internet.”
That is called being a democratic socialist. Thank you for admitting that you are one.
The government has a poor track record of late in its “investments”. The energy movement is about to crash and burn all over Obama’s plate. BTW: The internet was built for military purposes as well as GPS’s. I have no problem with investing in military R&D but I am guessing you just might.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 14th, 2012
7:14 pm
td, saying that MarkV is intellectually dishonest is a redundant statement.
And he’s borderline psychotic as well.
MarkV
January 14th, 2012
7:14 pm
td @6:50 pm
Sorry td, my answer stands. I have done more reading of this than you will ever do, and I have more life experience of this matter than you will ever have.
But since you are so relentless, I will turn the tables on you. Just answer the following questions:
1. Is it or is it not true that socialism is fundamentally different from capitalism?
2. Is it or is it not true that any definition of capitalism contains a version of the following; “An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production and distribution is maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means?”
3. Does Sweden, which is considered the primary example of a social democracy, have a private ownership, or state ownership of the major parts of the means of production?
MarkV
January 14th, 2012
7:16 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate! @7:14 pm
Since you have been already proven a liar, I wonder who would pay attention to your insults.
Linda
January 14th, 2012
7:19 pm
Welcome, Are you for real? You must be leading us on. No one can be that skewed in their thinking. If you believe that only the fed. govt. benefits society & provides jobs, you are a lost soul. Maybe you are unaware that the fed. govt. is out of money & won’t be investing in diddly squat for the next upteen decades.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 14th, 2012
7:22 pm
MarkV, the problem is that only you believe I have lied, therefore, I never did.
Seek professional help. You need it badly.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
7:24 pm
Linda, you’re certainly correct about the different groups that make up the 99% and the fact that the 1% are not all capital gains earners. I was oversimplifying to illustrate my point.
Your statement regarding capitalists & industrialists is about as kinky as it gets. Where are you coming from?
I’m simply pointing out the fact the main impetus for the rollback of the “Keynesian” consensus of the 1950s and 60s was not so much a rejection of government investment or deficit spending per se, but it was a rejection of the Keynesian argument for the priority of employment as a primary goal for fiscal policy. The capitalists never liked that because the lower the unemployment rate falls, the bolder and more demanding the workers get.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
7:30 pm
td: “I have no problem with investing in military R&D but I am guessing you just might.”
The very example I cited for an original government investment that led to an explosion of growth and jobs, not to mention technological innovation — the Internet — was of course originally launched by the military.
MarkV
January 14th, 2012
7:30 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate! @7:22 pm: “MarkV, the problem is that only you believe I have lied, therefore, I never did.
That is the third lie just today. You have not even bothered to deny the other two:
Let’s repeat. You had written, “… you post under another name.” Later you wrote, “I never stated that you posted under another name…” A lie. And you claimed in the latter post that you had written, “… but that you don’t use your FULL name.” You had not written that. A lie again.
td
January 14th, 2012
7:31 pm
MarkV
January 14th, 2012
7:14 pm
td @6:50 pm
Sorry td, my answer stands. I have done more reading of this than you will ever do, and I have more life experience of this matter than you will ever have.
Since I do not know your academic history or your work experience and you do not know mine either then how can you make such a statement? Unless, you have a PhD in political science then I think my credentials can stand side by side at a minimum to yours.
Your first two questions are true and Sweden is not by your definition a socialist nation but it is by many scholars and by a common sense reading of a social democracy.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
January 14th, 2012
7:34 pm
MarkV, Please send me via an e-mail to Kyle Wingfield proof that your real name is MarkV. Otherwise, your particularly creepy responses to me literally have no bearing on this “discussion”.
Or you could just hang out at Bookman’s blog as I suggested where your particular psychotic behavior would seem normal.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
7:44 pm
Linda; “Maybe you are unaware that the fed. govt. is out of money & won’t be investing in diddly squat for the next upteen decades.”
The Federal government has access to all the money it could possibly want. It’s just that it doesn’t really want the money. Here’s why:
1) taxation, the wealthy pay the lowest tax rate perhaps ever, and government revenue as a percentage of GDP is the lowest since Herbert Hoover, so the problem is not a lack of money, but a lack of political WILL to tax those who are best off and whose incomes is soaring as never before. May I remind you that in the 1950s under the Keynesian regime top tax brackets were well into the 90%s (not that’s not a typo); and
2) we are the only country whose currency is the world’s reserve currency and right now our interest rates are at historically low levels, meaning we can borrow at near zero cost. So there is no way to argue that we cannot utilize this advantage to finance new public investments, job programs, and other avenues for pulling us out of the recession. The only reason we do not, once again, is because of a lack of political will.
Streetracer
January 14th, 2012
7:48 pm
Welcome:
You are kinda missing the point here. If one takes a risk (gambles if you will) and wins they nare penalized with high taxes. Right? Seems to me that the losers should also be compenstaed for thier lose. Based on your perceptions is that not reasonable?
MarkV
January 14th, 2012
7:53 pm
td @7:31 pm: “Your first two questions are true and Sweden is not by your definition a socialist nation but it is by many scholars and by a common sense reading of a social democracy.”
Thank you for agreeing with me. However, it is not “my definition.” Sweden is not a socialist nation, and it is a social democracy. Case closed.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
8:01 pm
Streetracer: “f one takes a risk (gambles if you will) and wins they nare penalized with high taxes”
In short, yes, that’s right.
Linda
January 14th, 2012
8:06 pm
Welcom@7:24, Keynesian economics is what the fed. govt. has been trying since ‘08. It didn’t work during the Great Depression & it has not worked during this Great Recession. The govt. has NOT been able to increase demand by pouring trillions of money into the economy. This time it was with money we did not have. Borrowing it has led to a debt that has already led to a downgrade of our credit, soon to be repeated. Printing it out of thin air has led to inflation that has been anti-progressive, hurting the folks at the bottom the most. All the economic stimulus bills, the trillion that has been poured into housing, etc. have been complete failures. We need to throw the shovel out of the ditch, if it’s not too late.
There IS no argument that the “priority of employment as a primary goal for fiscal policy.” The argument is how & who creates jobs. The govt. certainly does not, never has & never will, not to the extent of those needed.
Every member of congress should be required to repeat Econ 101, as if they ever passed it in the first place OR CARE. The economy is as natural as a river. All the fed. govt. has done is impede its flow with way too many regulations, & at the same time, tried to stimulate it to run, as if it would not do so, if merely left alone. Temporary gimmicks lead to more uncertainty.