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
Dusty
January 14th, 2012
8:09 pm
Well, goodness, all this fuss over socialism. And don’t ask me about the particulars. I just know that some things Pres. Obama has done do not suit me. Need I say ObamaCare and the seemingly blindness to the national debt. That’s it. Maybe a few more things! But those are the biggies!
Anyone cold today? I’m sitting here in a “warm” house with a fleece lined jacket zipped around me. Maybe you are fussin’ to keep warm. Come on. I had a good day with sunshine! I’d build a fire tonight but I’m too lazy.. (Confession is good for the soul!)
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
8:10 pm
Streetracer: “f one takes a risk (gambles if you will) and wins they nare penalized with high taxes”
We need an economic system that rewards not gambling but co-determination between labor and management and ownership, and long-term growth in products that benefit the whole of society, not to mention the earth. That requires some degree of social planning and regulation to control capital accumulation. There is no such thing as an invisible hand or a natural market logic that benefits society at large.
Michael H. Smith
January 14th, 2012
8:16 pm
And a Marxist by any other name or degree is not to be considered a fascist, a socialist or a communist. Just a mere “social democrat”?
Social democracy
19th Century usage
In the 19th Century, the term “Social Democrat” was used as a broad catch-all for international socialists owing their basic ideological allegiance to Karl Marx or Ferdinand Lassalle, in contrast to those advocating various forms of utopian socialism. In one of the first scholarly works on European socialism written for an American audience, Richard T. Ely’s 1883 book, French and German Socialism in Modern Times, Social Democrats were characterized as “the extreme wing of the socialists” who were “inclined to lay so much stress on equality of enjoyment, regardless of the value of one’s labor, that they might, perhaps, more properly be called communists.”[3] Ely continued:
“They have two distinguishing characteristics. The vast majority of them are laborers, and, as a rule, they expect the violent overthrow of existing institutions by revolution to precede the introduction of the socialistic state. I would not, by any means, say that they are all revolutionists, but the most of them undoubtedly are. * * *
“The most general demands of the social democrats are the following: The state should exist exclusively for the laborers; land and capital must become collective property, and production be carried on unitedly. Private competition, in the ordinary sense of the term, is to cease.”[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
All the fruits of one root. Case closed.
td
January 14th, 2012
8:17 pm
Welcome to the Occupation
January 14th, 2012
8:10 pm
Europe already are democrat socialist and the majority of this country does not want to head in that failed direction. If you want to be a socialist then might I suggest that you consider moving to Europe.
td
January 14th, 2012
8:19 pm
Michael H. Smith
January 14th, 2012
8:16 pm
And what you just explained is the progressive movement in the United States and it is what Obama believes in and inspires to lead us too.
Michael H. Smith
January 14th, 2012
8:28 pm
td
January 14th, 2012
8:17 pm
We have gone so far in that Marxist or socialist direction already it boggles the mind to seriously think about it.
Don’t think so, then tell me one and I only want one… one thing that a federal government regulation does not effect in our everyday life in some way, shape, form or fashion?
I can’t honestly think of one.
Michael H. Smith
January 14th, 2012
8:32 pm
td
January 14th, 2012
8:19 pm
You’ll get no argument to the contrary from me on that point my friend; and it began with none other than Democrat President Woodrow Wilson
Dusty
January 14th, 2012
8:38 pm
Anyone wanting to read a sensible well balanced piece should consider National ReviewOnline with Deputy Editor Kevin Williamson’s “Obama, Incompetent or Evil”.
Much of it is about the feelings of citizens concerning the president i. e. evil or incompetent. Williamson projects his thoughts on how Romney might govern or one more fiery might work with Congress. It is a thoughtful practical review. I think we need more of this kind of political journalism.
Michael H. Smith
January 14th, 2012
8:57 pm
From ~ Obama: Incompetent or Evil?
Among my correspondents, there are many who are very plain about the fact that they would rather lose with Gingrich or Santorum than win with Romney.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287921/obama-incompetent-or-evil-kevin-d-williamson?pg=2
We have some very foolish people on the right that will literally cut their noses off to spite their own ideological faces.
Dusty
January 14th, 2012
9:16 pm
Michael H. Smith, 8:57
I feel like foolish people on the right might change their mind when it comes time to vote. They might think twice before they would take that misstep. There’s still time to think again and I believe they will.
td
January 14th, 2012
9:24 pm
Dusty
January 14th, 2012
9:16 pm
One of the main reasons Obama is in office is because some on the right sat out the 08 election (especially social conservatives). If you take a look at what happened in 10 with the turnout then I think you could come to the conclusion that they have learned their lesson. Now a good many of the Ron Paul supporters are a different question. The large majority of the young one voted for Obama in 08 and I think they will either sit out 10 or vote Libertarian.
Linda
January 14th, 2012
9:41 pm
Welcome@7:44, One of the points I would like to strongly make is that the fed. govt. is not entitled to any more taxpayer money. Congress has not been exactly keen on stewardship. It has not only run up a natl. debt of over $15 T, but it has spent every penny in both the social security & medicare “trust” funds. Those funds are now full of chits, that is, little pieces of paper that have big letters of IOU. Unfunded liabilities are at the tune of $117.2 T. There is no reason to believe that any additional tax dollars sent to DC will be spent in any way that the average American taxpayer deems appropriate. Sending more money to DC is equivalent to giving a drug addict more drugs.
1. No, the wealthy do NOT pay the lowest tax rate perhaps, ever.
2. Borrowing money at near zero cost, what we’ve been doing for 4 yrs., hasn’t worked.
You refer to the 90% tax brackets in the ’50s. A contributor today opined about how top earners, both individuals & corporations, evade taxes. That’s true. When those 90% tax brackets dropped from the ’50s, it was John F. Kennedy in the ’60s who brought it to the attention of the govt. that, regardless of the tax brackets, fed. revenues remain the same. He said:
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”
– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference
Here’s other quotes by JFK on taxes & revenues:
http://swampbubbles.com/bubble/john-f-kennedy-taxes
Historically, regardless of tax rates & brackets, tax revenues have remained the same. Raising taxes DOES NOT increase tax revenues, no more than raising the minimum wage increases the number of jobs.
MarkV
January 14th, 2012
10:02 pm
Michael H. Smith @8:16 pm: “Social democracy 19th Century usage”
How appropriate. That is what we need. 19th Century usage.
Linda
January 14th, 2012
10:14 pm
Welcome@8:10, We already have an economic system. It will never be changed without the entire Constitution being overthrown. We are a republic & were an experiment in capitalism that has worked & will work until the end of the world. We are a light of the world!
Labor will NEVER OWN private companies except when progressives such as Obama are allowed to meddle in privately owned companies & micromanage bankrupt companies! What am I saying! That is what has & is happening! You are right!
We need to benefit the earth? Are you talking about politicians in DC & the UN capping & trading our air & making global warning going away by burying our air? My goodness. I was unaware that politicians were a cure-all.
Linda
January 14th, 2012
10:42 pm
MarkV among others are plants from the Obama adm. on this blog. Smile, you are on arsenic camera.
Dusty
January 14th, 2012
11:12 pm
No, Linda,
I don’t think that MarkV is a plant from the Obama administration. “Plants” are usually just diplomatic enough to make a point. They don’t want to be obvious.
MarkV is simply cantankerous although close to the facts. He is certainly not trying to “win over” anybody. In fact, I believe he dislikes propaganda or what he considers to be propaganda. He’ll never win a popularity contest but he might make a debate a bit interesting.
MarkV
January 14th, 2012
11:13 pm
Linda @10:42 pm
At last somebody has managed to see through my disguise. Bravo, Linda!
MarkV
January 14th, 2012
11:16 pm
Dusty @11:12 pm
Come on, Dusty, you are getting soft. Are you trying to spoil my fun?
Linda
January 14th, 2012
11:18 pm
No, Dusty. He’s just as incompetent & as arrogant as the rest of the adm.
Linda
January 14th, 2012
11:21 pm
Dusty, See what I mean?
Dusty
January 14th, 2012
11:24 pm
OK! Hang ‘em from the highest yardarm, mates.. We’ll have no foolishness here!!
MarkV
January 14th, 2012
11:39 pm
Right, Dusty. Or let them walk the plank! Give them what they deserve.
I hope your birdbath is heated like ours these days.
Night.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2012
12:57 am
Mitt Romney is a pathetic slug.
And he’s a perfect choice to lead a slime-bag Republican party.
Michael H. Smith
January 15th, 2012
6:19 am
MarkV@10:02 pm – How appropriate. That is what we need. 19th Century usage
For those who may have problems following the proverbial yellow brick road (so to speak) that leads one through a brief informative history of the not so wonderful world of Marxism in search of United Socialist States of America – better know as the U.S.A., presently under the mismanagement of comrade dear supreme ruler of class warfare barack “lil barry” hussein obama.
Present Usage
Social democracy advocates the creation of legal reforms and economic redistribution programs to eliminate economic class disparities between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.[7] It advocates the development of an economic democracy and the development of cooperative business organizations as an alternative to private enterprise.[21]>[22] One example of a modern social democratic economic plan was the Meidner Plan in Sweden which was enacted in 1982 and promoted a gradualist market socialist achievement of social ownership through taxation on private enterprise and transferring of the money gained to socially-owned investment funds that gradually will result in wage-earners gaining a controlling share in their enterprises;[20] although by the early 90’s the Social Democrats had lost their enthusiasm for it.[23] Practical modern social democratic policies include the promotion of a welfare state, and the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure workers’ rights.[24] The Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International in 1951, attended by many social democratic parties from across the world, committed adherents to oppose Bolshevik communism—especially Stalinism, and to promote a gradual transformation of capitalism into socialism.[18]
Many of the policies espoused by social democrats in the first half of the 20th century have since been put into practice by social democratic governments throughout the industrialized world. Industries have been nationalized, public spending has seen a large long-term rise, and the role of the state in providing free-to-user or subsidized health care and education has increased greatly. Many of the reforms made by social democrats in Europe, such as the establishment of national health care services, have been embraced by liberals and conservatives, and there is no support outside of a radical fringe for a return to 19th-century levels of public spending and economic regulation. Even in the United States, where no major social democratic party exists, there are regulatory programmes (such as public health and environmental protection) and welfare programmes (such as Medicare[25] and Medicaid[26]) which enjoy bipartisan support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
All the fruits of one “Marxist” root.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 15th, 2012
6:56 am
Linda: 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.
———————–
That’s why the America-hating Democrat party wants to increase the cap gains tax rate–so we’ll have less investment.
And don’t forget what Klown Prince Obozo said during the campaign–he’d increase the cap gains tax rate even if it meant lower revenues…out of a concern for “faaaaaaaairness”.
For real Americans, Obozo’s eviction from our White House can’t come soon enough.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 15th, 2012
6:59 am
Welcome to the Occupation: I’m a pathetic slug.
And if I went over to Bookman’s blog, the average IQ of both blogs would increase.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 15th, 2012
7:00 am
Fixed.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 15th, 2012
7:13 am
MarkV: That is what we need. 19th Century usage.
————————-
Too bad Democrats don’t believe in 19th century usage. If they did, they wouldn’t be called “liberals” because 19th century liberals believed in, you know, liberty. Today’s liberals fear real freedom because it means they get less control over peoples’ lives.
Streetracer
January 15th, 2012
7:20 am
LBB:
I’m not sure I agree totally with your 7:13. I think that at least part of the fear is having to control their own lives. You know, like support themselves and stuff.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 15th, 2012
7:33 am
You’re absolutely right. That is a major fear of the rank-and-file Democrat and is what drives their decision on election day–”which candidate will give me the most stuff? God help me if I have to pay my own cell phone bill.”
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
January 15th, 2012
8:33 am
I see the tinfoil hat club worked late and got up early last night, wanting to rollback the 20th century.
How quaint. How cute. How stupid.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 15th, 2012
8:46 am
I think I hear a [intellectual] gnat buzzing around.
Jefferson
January 15th, 2012
9:20 am
Those who think you can run the gov’t like that, know little about Congress’s ablility to funtion.
Michael H. Smith
January 15th, 2012
9:27 am
Nah llb, those are just the primitive sounds made by a common Vladimir Lenin species of useful idiot maggot as it is beginning to morph into another drab mundane Marxist garbage pile gnat.
Michael H. Smith
January 15th, 2012
9:30 am
Ability to function… Congress?
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 15th, 2012
9:33 am
The less Congress “functions”, the better. Unless they’re taking an ax to the federal budget.
MarkV
January 15th, 2012
9:36 am
It has been kind of fun poking in the eyes of people, whose arguments consist of throwing around labels like Socialism, Communism, Marxism, mostly without understanding what those terms exactly mean. In the end they have been reduced to citing from Wikipedia (the same people would crucify me if I did that; however, I have no quarrel with the citation) the following:
“Many of the policies espoused by social democrats in the first half of the 20th century have since been put into practice by social democratic governments throughout the industrialized world. Industries have been nationalized, public spending has seen a large long-term rise, and the role of the state in providing free-to-user or subsidized health care and education has increased greatly. Many of the reforms made by social democrats in Europe, such as the establishment of national health care services, have been embraced by liberals and conservatives, and there is no support outside of a radical fringe for a return to 19th-century levels of public spending and economic regulation. Even in the United States, where no major social democratic party exists, there are regulatory programmes (such as public health and environmental protection) and welfare programmes (such as Medicare[25] and Medicaid[26]) which enjoy bipartisan support.”
SO WHAT? Has anybody denied that social democracy has developed from the idea of socialism? “All the fruits of one “Marxist” root.” BIG DEAL! Capitalism has its roots in feudalism. So what? We have roots in a society condoning slavery. As I have already mentioned, opposition of racism is one of the features of socialist ideology. Should we reject it because of that? Do you want to reject Medicare, “which enjoy bipartisan support,” because it is one of the reforms made by social democrats in Europe? Go ahead, tell that to the people, you will see how much support you will get. As I have written before, people will decide what they want, and in the end will get it.
In the end, however, we should realize that all this labeling is a sideshow, which only shows the poverty of the minds of people who are using it. How much easier it is to dismiss something by labeling it Socialism or Marxism or Communism, than to argue whether it is right or wrong.
Michael H. Smith
January 15th, 2012
9:45 am
Congress… budget? They can’t pass one of those!
Then again, why should they bother with the minor technicalities of passing a simple budget they never intend to live within, just raise that immoral failure of leadership debt ceiling lil barry hussein once dramatically lamented publicly and since has long ago FLIP-FLOPPED on, in “taking every side of that issue”.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
January 15th, 2012
9:48 am
The GOP-controlled House did pass a budget, but of course the Democrat Senate decided about three years ago that the whole idea of budgets was too limiting and too revelatory of their liberal fascist intentions.
Finish the job Americans started in November 2010. Evict the America-hating vermin from our Senate and White House.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
January 15th, 2012
9:54 am
KABUL, Afghanistan — A 39-second video purporting to show Marines urinating on dead bodies in Afghanistan is straining U.S.-Afghan relations but is not expected to undo months of work aimed at brokering peace with the Taliban.-Urinal
Aahhh, so we aren’t going to have another Abu Ghraib. Is it because men urinating excites liberals? Is this just a harmless porn flick to them?
Michael H. Smith
January 15th, 2012
9:56 am
It has been painful to people who deny their Marxism to see themselves and their ilk exposed.
Although it has been hilarious to most of us, who not only understand completely (beginning to end) what Marxism and being a Marxist means; as well most us have firmly rejected nearly every aspect of it, label and all: From each according to their ability, to each according to their need ~ Karl Marx.
Pizzaman
January 15th, 2012
10:10 am
Kyle your poll left out one answer: Who cares?
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2012
10:26 am
MarkV, well put in your 9:36.
Actually what is even more unappreciated in all of the smear attempts and name-calling is the way that social democracy itself was always — certainly in the United States — largely an attempt by the ruling class to buy off workers and stave off outright revolution. And that of course gave us in the post-WW II, esp. in Europe, perhaps the most prosperous and successful societies we’ve ever known. In the United States, part of the buy-off involved fierce anti-communism (purging, etc.) from the ranks of unions and worker groups in the North and West, and racial (i.e. racist) policies in the South. All of this began to break down by the 1970s (partly as the South turned against the deal in the wake of the Civil Rights advances) and nowadays this back-history is even less appreciated than before.
Part of the cynical attempts of the right we see today aim to blur these differences by painting even the slightest critique of the current order as “socialist”, “marxist”, or whatever. If only! But Rush Limpo and the other right wing establishment know that to the extent that they paint the Democratic party as a true left organization — rather than the corporatist, pseudo-left outfit that it really is — they win by collapsing the whole political spectrum into a false choice of ‘market capitalism’ and totalitarian leftism.
Rafe Hollister
January 15th, 2012
10:33 am
Tiberius and td
After being away and catching up on this incessant tit for tat description of definitions for types of government, I can say this, you two are the most kind, tolerant, and patient people that I think have ever typed a word on this blog. Linda as well, although I get the impression she tuned it out after awhile.
td
January 15th, 2012
11:16 am
MarkV
January 15th, 2012
9:36 am
Bottom line my friend. If you have ever been in a welfare office and looked in the eyes of a generational recipient then you would see the look of hopelessness and despair. You would see a lost soul with no hopes of ever being able to feel proud to stand on ones on feet. This is what the Socialist/communist/welfare state (whatever you want to call it) does to our fellow human beings. It is pure evil.
You talked about slavery in the past and the looks I have seen are the same looks that I have read about from former slaves. To take the drive to succeed from a man is to put them into a form of slavery. These people are slaves to the government for survival. The question for you to ponder is are today’s generational welfare recipients really any better off then slaves of the past?
Should we help our fellow citizen on a temporary basis when they are down on their luck? Yes we should and I seriously doubt if you will find a capitalist that will disagree with this statement. Should we want the government take care of people from birth to grave? Not just no but H3LL no. The closer we move to socialism/communism/progressivism the closer we are coming to this reality.
td
January 15th, 2012
11:23 am
Rafe Hollister
January 15th, 2012
10:33 am
Thank you for the compliment. I have always believed that most people call names and bash the things they do not understand because either they are uninformed, unintelligent or are scared to face the truth. They say ugly things to get a negative reaction and then the negative reaction can help them justify their original inadequacies. I try real hard not to help them justify their actions so that maybe one day they will examine their believe system and see the error of their ways.
MarkV
January 15th, 2012
12:12 pm
td @11:16 am
My question to you is the following; What does any of what you have just written to do with me, in other words, why are you addressing that to me?
Michael H. Smith
January 15th, 2012
12:45 pm
td
January 15th, 2012
11:16 am
You are correct.
The different names/labels e.g. fascist, socialist, communist, are all correctly used to describe various degrees of one Marxism.
If it waddles like a fascist Duck, quacks like a socialist Duck, swims like a communist Duck… Then it’s still a dang Marxist Duck!
Welcome to the Occupation
January 15th, 2012
1:57 pm
Wow. What a truly pathetic excuse for a discussion.
Dusty
January 15th, 2012
2:42 pm
Well, as we all know, there are usually two sides to one question.
The question here is whether we want a government run by Democratic principles or one run by Republican principles. Supposedly we would run it jointly but that seems to be a problem now.
Democrats want EVERYONE’s needs the responsibility of government. Sounds good except there is no independence when government makes all decisions. Also, there is not enough money for any country to reduce a majority of citizens to dependency.
Republicans want EVERYONE to be self supporting as far as possible. They believe that private enterprise and self reliance maintain independence. They believe the government’s responsibilities should be limited to education, protection and promotion of free enterprise, all on constitutional limitations..
We struggle at this time to integrate the two party principles. We do not believe that one party will support the ideals of another in any way. That is the problem we have to overcome.
Perhaps if we realize the problem, we will reduce its size more quickly. I’m for that.
Before you ask, here’s a start. Obama is a responsible man but I will vote for the more disciplined & experienced Romney. Your turn.