The debate we’re having is over whether or not Wall Street should be deregulated, and whether or not taxes on high-income individuals and capital gains should be cut even lower than they were in the Bush years. That’s a real debate – if a bizarre one to be having only four years after the financial crisis.
Bizarre doesn’t even begin to describe it. I want to get rich on Wall Street too, because that way, the normal laws of life, and probably too of physics, won’t apply to me.
Brian says: “The debate we’re having is over whether or not Wall Street should be deregulated”
What the heck? Where is this alleged debate happening? Who anywhere thinks “Wall Street should be deregulated”? As far as I can tell, a debate (not THE debate, whatever that’s suppose to mean), is whether to keep the stupid, burdensome regulations we currently have, or add even more stupid, burdensome regulations. No one’s talking about deregulating squat, and anyone who says otherwise shows themselves to have the mental powers of a bumper sticker (i.e., a typical member of today’s MSM). Note that no one is talking anymore about key words like Too Big To Fail, unwinding, leveraging, etc. I guess Dodd-Frank solved everything, which makes it funny that no one is talking about that monstrosity either…
Beyng says: I don’t buy Millman’s point. The campaign in 2008 was about venting our resentment against Bush and against Wall Street. (Both protests came to naught in a cruel ironic twist, of course.) The campaign in 2012 is about “jobs”–whatever the hell that means. The time for “sticking it” to Wall Street has come and gone, and no one who isn’t already predisposed against Romney cares about the Bain affair. The results of the G.O.P. primaries proved it: Romney’s time at Bain hasn’t been a dark secret; it’s been well known since the beginning, and Republicans, for whatever reason, didn’t care.
Moreover, income taxes aren’t an issue in this campaign. Obama has already captured the issue by maintaining (and increasing!) tax cuts on the “poor” and middle class, and Romney obviously won’t be proposing anything different. No, my friends, this campaign will hinge on nothing but rhetoric, I suspect.
Scott in PA says: The debate we’re having is over whether or not Wall Street should be deregulated, and whether or not taxes on high-income individuals and capital gains should be cut even lower than they were in the Bush years.
According to Mitt’s website, he supports maintaining the cap gains rate at the current level. And he supports lower marginal rates for all, not just the despised “high-income” individuals. And it’s a bit extravagant to suggest he wants to “deregulate” Wall Street.
Pete S says: What was the rationale for his campaign before he started running away from Bain? I know his stated rationale now is to undo everything Barack Obama has done, but Romney started actively running for president before Obama was nominated and was trying to establish the background before Obama became a Senator. What reasons did he give then for wanting to be president?
Pete S says: Its almost like Romney is pursuing power for power’s sake, which sounds very much like a Wall Street success story.
thehova83 says: Apparently the media loves talking about Bain. But this story has had close to zero impact on the poll numbers.
alcogito says: Mitt Romney and Bain Capital? How about Obama — the Bane of Capital?
With all the talk of Bain Capital, let us consider the bane of capital. Speaking at a campaign stop in Roanoke, Virginia, President Barack Obama set business owners straight: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.” Powerful stuff. “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. … If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”…
He does not understand what it means to research a product for years, risking all of one’s life savings and borrowing and seeking investment capital, hoping for that breakthrough that might fill a need. He does not know what it is to sell a consumer product and, one day, have an extraordinary insight that, by tweaking the product just a bit, it can open doors to satisfy millions of needs. He does not understand because he didn’t build that. Someone else made that happen.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/obama_the_bane_of_capital.html#ixzz20zJNee00
Gus says: alcogito, I’m sure you’re aware the key to your quoting of Obama is the ellipses, indicating that words are missing that give context. He’s not saying that businessmen didn’t build their businesses, he’s saying that the national infrastructure (schools, roads, bridges) that make their businesses possible was built by all of us.
Tom S says: Citing the American Thinker usually indicates that there was little actual thought involved in the post.
Obama was saying that the legal, commercial, communications, and transportation infracture in this or any country makes successful entrepreneurship and the private sector possible. This infrastructure resides in the government, without which, the private sector would be much weaker (a glance at our history shows that); so in that sense the business owner is not “alone.”
To snark a bit, if the product was designed and marketed in Virginia, there is a pretty good chance that it was in response to a government contract…
JonF says: ReL But this story has had close to zero impact on the poll numbers.
True, but from the Democrats’ perspective it keeps Romney on the defensive and turns his business experience from something he can brag about into something dubious, the same strategy the GOP pursued against Kerry in 2004, re: Swiftboating. That didn’t affect the poll numbers either, but it neutralized Kerry’s war record, and kept him flailing at his critics rather than campaigning against Bush.
Church Lady says: Obama’s Bain campaign is also based on Ted Kennedy’s very successful senate campaign against Romney in 1994, which focused on Bain, and led over time to a very large win, as Romney was left with no real argument for why he should be elected.
Noah is right, that the whole argument for Romney as President is that he was a very successful businessman who made a ton of money at Bain. If that turns out not to be the kind of businessman we want for President, what can Romney argue? That he was the originator of Obamacare? He’s trapped.
Romney’s platform has always boiled down to “I really admire the thought of ME being president. My wife is in love with this picture too.” Other than that, he’s won the sweepstakes to be the lightning rod for all those who don’t like President Obama.
He really does remind me of John Kerry. In 2004, those who despised George Bush couldn’t IMAGINE that anyone would vote to re-elect him, but a modest majority did. Kerry thought he could run as a decorated war veteran (which he was), and NOBODY would bring up that he was a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Romney thought he could run on “I’m a successful businessman,” and nobody would ask “and how did you make your money…?”
In any case, government is NOT a business. It the government is turning a profit, we are in serious trouble. Like they said in the MAD Magazine parody of “The Godfather,” when a mafioso proposed taking over the U.S. government, “everyone knows the government loses money every year. Who wants a piece of that?” The government could use some honest and skilled accountants keeping track of the people’s money, but corporate CEO’s are a whole different set of skills.
TTT says: Beyng: the GOP primaries didn’t hinge on Bain because to a non-trivial part of the GOP base, redistribution of wealth to the rich is a virtue. The whole point of the general election is that Rmoney and his operating software of that day can be attacked from the mainstream. There are different values at work.
Church Lady says: If the government really was run as a business, the first thing the new President would do is increase revenues. Which means, raise taxes.
The most obvious problem the US government faces is cash flow, and it’s very hard for it to reduce expenses. The easiest and most obvious thing to do is increase revenues. In fact, as a business model, the government should not be trying to reduce taxes as much as possible, but increase taxes until it fings that “sweet spot” where increasing tax rates further actually hurts revenues.
That’s what a businessman would do. Which means, Romney has no intention of running the government as a business, doing what’s best for that business. He’s more interested in running the government the same way he ran the companies that Bain took over. Which means, gut the companies, give them extra debt by taking huge profits (tax cuts) for him and his rich cronies, and then leaving them to whimper along as best they can. He’s not interested in doing what’s in the best interests of the government any more than he was interested in doing what was in the best interests of the companies that Bain took over. He’s interested in doing what’s in the best interest of him and his elite business friends. He could care less about everyone else.
Brian says: “If the government really was run as a business, the first thing the new President would do is increase revenues. Which means, raise taxes.”
Do try to stick to the standard talking points–Mitt just loves to fire people, because that reduces costs, and has nothing to do with increasing revenue.
“give them extra debt”
Ha! You make funny joke!
Church Lady says: Well, who is Mitt going to fire? All those military personnel? He’s said he wants to hugely increase the defense department. The clerks who send us our social security checks? Haven’t heard a word about cutting SS or Medicare.
As most everyone knows, most of government spending is tied up in entitlements, defense, and otherwise necessary spending. What little there is of discretionary spending that could be cut, isn’t going to be cut by much either. So firing won’t do. The deficit has to be raised by increased revenues. Which means increased tax receipts.
That can be done in only two ways. One, is for the economy to recover and grow, and produce more taxable GNP. The other is to raise tax rates. A businessman would have no problem with that. Businessmen love to increase revenues. It’s what business is all about.
And yes, the government actually should run at a profit, at least while we’re not in recession, and use the profits to retire the debt. It would take a very long time to do that, so we could run a profit for decades if we needed to. And all that retired debt would mean huge amounts of capital available for private business investment. A win-win.
sjay says: Church Lady has it exactly right re the Mitt “business plan.”
As for the poll numbers, like Baron Scarpia, the DNC has planted the seeds of suspicion in the electorate’s heart and things will go downhill from here.
Has America gotten Amnesia? or are we as stupid as sheep like the wealthy believe us to be? Have we gotten selective and so foolish that we’d think of electing one of the very people who were responsible for getting us in this predicament to get us out? Really? Really?
WAKE UP AMERICA (http://wp.me/p2y5Pu-P) Romney wants to DEREGULATE WALL STREET MORE THAN WHEN THE FINANCIAL CRISIS TOOK PLACE! REALLY? Are we out of our collective minds? Who wants to go back there, faster, farther and a longer way down? if we get the same thing we got the last time will we be given the same prescription, more tax cuts for the wealthy? that’s like a doctor giving you a medicine that starts to kill you and then prescribing a double dose of that same medicine under a different name! You’l die sooner, and without remedy.
“Urgh! Got to….pull myself to…gether! Must….defy….laws of….physics! ……” – The Tick
Useful advice for anyone seeking to make their fortune.