Mitt Romney vs The President

[Badger]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

[Badger]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

I like this common American misconception, that being a good businessman makes you a good political leader.

No one ever said that Romney's vast amount in the private sector will guarantee he'll make a good President. But it's certainly something good to have when running for President.

Actually, Romney has basically said that many times. Short of the absolute word "guarantee", it's a central premise to his candidacy.

@ Winfield: So I should be impressed by someone who was born a multi-millionaire and managed to become a multi-multi-millionaire? While I realize that model is central to Republican economic theory, his success is akin to being born on third base and scoring a run on an outfield fly, not actually hitting a homer himself.

Horatio Alger, Bill Gates, or Lee Iacocca he ain't.

[Badger]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

I like this common American misconception, that being a good businessman makes you a good political leader.

No one ever said that Romney's vast amount in the private sector will guarantee he'll make a good President. But it's certainly something good to have when running for President.

Actually, Romney has basically said that many times. Short of the absolute word "guarantee", it's a central premise to his candidacy.

@ Winfield: So I should be impressed by someone who was born a multi-millionaire and managed to become a multi-multi-millionaire? While I realize that model is central to Republican economic theory, his success is akin to being born on third base and scoring a run on an outfield fly, not actually hitting a homer himself.

Horatio Alger, Bill Gates, or Lee Iacocca he ain't.

Your acting like managing your investment portfolio and exponentially growing it is a bad thing.  Unlike others who squander their riches, Romney grew his investments.  Its similar to how the US economy needs to be nurtured and grow.  We are not some 3rd world country in need of a Horatio Alger.  We are a mature economy, with high wage workers as opposed to low-wage workers, and strong Unions who want a share in dwindling corporate profits.  

Do you want someone who's never been in the game and has no idea how to manage a fortune 500 company (like Obama) or do we want a proven leader who won't destroy a fortune 500 company (like Romney).  

Oh, Milhouse. You are absolutely adorable!

[Badger]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

I like this common American misconception, that being a good businessman makes you a good political leader.

No one ever said that Romney's vast amount in the private sector will guarantee he'll make a good President. But it's certainly something good to have when running for President.

Actually, Romney has basically said that many times. Short of the absolute word "guarantee", it's a central premise to his candidacy.

@ Winfield: So I should be impressed by someone who was born a multi-millionaire and managed to become a multi-multi-millionaire? While I realize that model is central to Republican economic theory, his success is akin to being born on third base and scoring a run on an outfield fly, not actually hitting a homer himself.

Horatio Alger, Bill Gates, or Lee Iacocca he ain't.

Your acting like managing your investment portfolio and exponentially growing it is a bad thing.  Unlike others who squander their riches, Romney grew his investments.  Its similar to how the US economy needs to be nurtured and grow.  We are not some 3rd world country in need of a Horatio Alger.  We are a mature economy, with high wage workers as opposed to low-wage workers, and strong Unions who want a share in dwindling corporate profits.  

Do you want someone who's never been in the game and has no idea how to manage a fortune 500 company (like Obama) or do we want a proven leader who won't destroy a fortune 500 company (like Romney).  

Oh, Milhouse. You are absolutely adorable!

so which union do you belong to?

None, but you assume otherwise when I state a multi-millionaire scion of a family fortune may not be the best judge to balance the competing interests of the middle class and corporate boardrooms?

You, sir, are more entertaining than cable

[Badger]

Companies are already sitting on a record level of accrued capital, but are reluctant to invest it when consumer confidence and spending is skittish and weak. The standard GOP nostrum of across the board tax cuts which inordinately favor the wealthy is a bass ackwards way of stimulating consumer spending when the wealthy actually spend a smaller portion of their income, but rather would invest further on the inactive pile of cash businesses are already sitting on.

Regardless, I'm not "prejudiced" against successful families, cupcake, just not all gaga about the "business acumen" of someone born rich who became richer. Besides, anyone who talks about "running government like a business" is horribly misguided. Talk of running government like a non-profit corporation that's designed to fulfill certain functions rather than make its owner's wealthy is closer to the mark.

[Badger]

Companies are already sitting on a record level of accrued capital, but are reluctant to invest it when consumer confidence and spending is skittish and weak. The standard GOP nostrum of across the board tax cuts which inordinately favor the wealthy is a bass ackwards way of stimulating consumer spending when the wealthy actually spend a smaller portion of their income, but rather would invest further on the inactive pile of cash businesses are already sitting on.

I agree with this.  The problem is not taxation, it is economic uncertainty, and to a lesser degree, extreme disruption due to regulatory change (either through formal rulemaking or breaking unwritten rules).

Still sticks squarely to Obama, but I agree the issue isn't something solved by the classic GOP tax cut rhetoric.  Businesspeople simply aren't talking about taxes, it's more like: "OMFG the government is nuts, what's next?"

My nitpicking differential would be that from what I've read, few to no one is holding off investment over uncertainty re: implementation of health care reform or Dodd-Frank. Being business, they aren't jumping for joy over the regulations, but aren't especially bothered by it outside the few markets specifically affected (and even there the consensus is "we'll deal with the changes just fine").

If both the aformentioned laws were repeled tomorrow, little would change in the wanting level of investment. The problem, again, comes all back to lack of consumer confidence and purchasing.

[Badger]

That maybe a matter of perception, I agree. The input I'm getting from two family members who are very highly placed in the health insurance or HCR consulting industry.

My point was less that the health insurance industry and banking industry aren't at all cautious about the implementation of HCR and Dodd-Frank---there is caution stemming from this to be sure, though not paralytic fear of investment from what I hear--and more as a decided to Milhouse's ideological screeds claiming that such reforms are the primary cause of weak business investment throughout the entire economy.

[Badger]

That maybe a matter of perception, I agree. The input I'm getting from two family members who are very highly placed in the health insurance or HCR consulting industry.

My point was less that the health insurance industry and banking industry aren't at all cautious about the implementation of HCR and Dodd-Frank---there is caution stemming from this to be sure, though not paralytic fear of investment from what I hear--and more as a decided to Milhouse's ideological screeds claiming that such reforms are the primary cause of weak business investment throughout the entire economy.

But my point is that fear of the future is restraining spending.  Fear of increased Regulation, oversight, and taxes is preventing businesses from forecasting revenues for the next year to 5 years necessary to plan growth, hiring, and strategy.  Both consumers and businesses are saving their money because they are scared of losing their jobs, losing profits/revenue.  Why would a business hire someone for the next 2 years, when they have to increase benefits as well, and with these taxes they are spending that money on Health care benefits that would otherwise be going to a new worker.  Why don't you just ask any small business owner what's wrong with the economy?

I have. The universal answer: No one's buying.

The only world where HCR and Dodd-Frank are inhibiting consumer spending is in the make believe right wing blogoshpere you apparantly inhabit. You have a right to your ideology, but if your argument is "Vote Republican: We'll repeal Obamacare and Big Government restraints on Wall Street, then people will have money and confidence to spend and jump-start the economy", well, you couldn't be more emperically wrong, and such blind ideological adherence in the face of reality is only an argument for supporting Democrats. At least there's a chance their policies might work.

[Badger]

It's a vicious cycle of both.  Consumer spending is driven by consumer confidence is driven by employment optimism is driven by company hiring activities is driven by profitability is driven by consumer spending...

The problem, at its core, is that the current leadership is letting this continue virtually unabated, and the only solution is to sit in a room with extremely wealthy CEOs planning how to jump-start the economy (translation: pad the bottom line for shareholders).

That's why this sticks to Obama.  He's big government, which doesn't understand a damned thing about business, and when he tries to, he ends up in bed with big labor and/or big business.  That's not economic recovery, that's the oligarchization of America.

Dodd-Frank was fought tooth and nail by Wall Street and the banking industry. The amount spent on lobbying against the bill was unparaelled even by Washington standards. The health care industry did not exactly roll over and play dead for HCR either.

I agree that Obama's efforts in these areas have been less than fully satisfactory, but how often is that due to the wholly oligarchy-friendly GOP fillabustering everything to death? The choice seems to be between a party that will occassionally make baby steps towards breaking down the oligarchic forces you complain of, and another party that wholeheartedly embraces their unchecked expansion. An easy choice in my book.