Mitt Romney - prep school bully

[erfalf]

If I've got this straight. You are criticizing Romney for not really being a business man as much as a government insider, yet you support the quintessential political insider? Is Romney just not enough of a political hack?

[Hoss]

Yeah, because we know he did that all on his own, right?

Hey, the righties right now are blaming Obama for this.  He's not void of fault but let's not kid ourselves Colin.  There's enough blame to go around.  For someone who had six years of a Republican controlled congress, he sure didn't spend like a fiscal conservative, now did he?  What was it you said?  "Like a drunk sailor on leave"?

[Gaspar]

If I've got this straight. You are criticizing Romney for not really being a business man as much as a government insider, yet you support the quintessential political insider? Is Romney just not enough of a political hack?

Dude burned ants as a kid.  Isn't that enough?

[Conan71]

Hey, the righties right now are blaming Obama for this.  He's not void of fault but let's not kid ourselves Colin.  There's enough blame to go around.  For someone who had six years of a Republican controlled congress, he sure didn't spend like a fiscal conservative, now did he?  What was it you said?  "Like a drunk sailor on leave"?

I actually do think the tax cut was the appropriate response to the slowdown we were encountering toward the end of the Clinton Admin.  His biggest failing was maintaining a tax cut in the aftermath of a national emergency then creating another stupid bureaucracy as a knee-jerk response to 9/11, then still not doing anything to raise revenue under an economy which was pretty robust even as we faced multiple costly national disasters.

There's plenty of documentation he tried to reign in the derivatives and financial markets and he was blocked multiple times.  That's what sparked the ultimate collapse in the first place.  Sometimes I wish he'd have made us just deal with it in 2001 instead of continuing to put bandages on the problem and hoping it wouldn't blow up again until he left office.

From the psychological aspect, Bush was far more pro-business (in liberalspeak that translates to: anti-environment, starve the poor, and throw grandma under the bus) than Obama.  Obama kept on beating on the economy for over two years instead of inspiring any confidence in it.  A major component to every recession or depression is the confidence people and companies have in the economy and it's leadership.  If people perceive the actions of an administration are anti-business and the leader is saying the situation is bleak, they can sit on their money and wait for a more business-friendly environment.  The perception is even more powerful than reality when you are speaking to people who can afford to hire new people (or spend money in the consumer economy) or simply sit on their wallet.

[nathanm]

Obama talks a good game, but what has he done significantly different than President Bush in terms of corporate welfare?

Not much other than words. Congress (where the real problem lies) hasn't exactly been amenable to the idea of eliminating corporate welfare. Welfare is actually a bad term, since it implies that you get help only when you're down. I did the math the other day, over the last 10 years on the order of 10% of the profits from the oil business have come from government tax breaks, subsidies, and whatever else we give them.

Maybe I haven't looked closely enough at their financial statements, but the big guys seem to be doing well enough to not need to take our tax money.

Conan: please provide the documentation of the Bush administration's efforts to do anything about subprime and derivatives. Maybe I missed something, but I recall the last real effort was when Brooksley Born tried to use the CFTC to regulate derivatives, which Congress quickly forbade (largely at the behest of Larry effin' Summers and Alan Greenspan). I don't remember any action on the part of Congress or the administration to change the law such that derivatives could be regulated or even brought into the public eye until Dodd-Frank, which of course had most of the useful regulation and the requirement that derivatives contracts be traded openly dropped before passage.

[Conan71]

Not much other than words. Congress (where the real problem lies) hasn't exactly been amenable to the idea of eliminating corporate welfare. Welfare is actually a bad term, since it implies that you get help only when you're down. I did the math the other day, over the last 10 years on the order of 10% of the profits from the oil business have come from government tax breaks, subsidies, and whatever else we give them.

Maybe I haven't looked closely enough at their financial statements, but the big guys seem to be doing well enough to not need to take our tax money.

Conan: please provide the documentation of the Bush administration's efforts to do anything about subprime and derivatives. Maybe I missed something, but I recall the last real effort was when Brooksley Born tried to use the CFTC to regulate derivatives, which Congress quickly forbade (largely at the behest of Larry effin' Summers and Alan Greenspan). I don't remember any action on the part of Congress or the administration to change the law such that derivatives could be regulated or even brought into the public eye until Dodd-Frank, which of course had most of the useful regulation and the requirement that derivatives contracts be traded openly dropped before passage.

Posted multiple times on this forum by multiple posters, use the Googlez it's out there.

[Teatownclown]

I actually do think the tax cut was the appropriate response to the slowdown we were encountering toward the end of the Clinton Admin.  His biggest failing was maintaining a tax cut in the aftermath of a national emergency then creating another stupid bureaucracy as a knee-jerk response to 9/11, then still not doing anything to raise revenue under an economy which was pretty robust even as we faced multiple costly national disasters.

There's plenty of documentation he tried to reign in the derivatives and financial markets and he was blocked multiple times.  That's what sparked the ultimate collapse in the first place.  Sometimes I wish he'd have made us just deal with it in 2001 instead of continuing to put bandages on the problem and hoping it wouldn't blow up again until he left office.

From the psychological aspect, Bush was far more pro-business (in liberalspeak that translates to: anti-environment, starve the poor, and throw grandma under the bus) than Obama.  Obama kept on beating on the economy for over two years instead of inspiring any confidence in it.  A major component to every recession or depression is the confidence people and companies have in the economy and it's leadership.  If people perceive the actions of an administration are anti-business and the leader is saying the situation is bleak, they can sit on their money and wait for a more business-friendly environment.  The perception is even more powerful than reality when you are speaking to people who can afford to hire new people (or spend money in the consumer economy) or simply sit on their wallet.

Larry Summers pleaded for more stimulus only to be cut short. Looks like he was right. The economy drags on to the tune of slow growth.

Conan, where'd you get your degree in economics? CMC?

[nathanm]

Posted multiple times on this forum by multiple posters, use the Googlez it's out there.

Funny, if I do a search for "bush derivatives regulation" I get one article talking about how Bush admin appointees kept telling Congress derivatives regulation was not only unnecessary but harmful to the economy and a bunch of others talking about Clinton's failure to regulate them when he had the chance (and one article quoting him as saying that was a mistake).

The only person I know of that made any move in that direction was Sheila Bair, but she didn't even see the problem until 2007 or 2008. (which she once stated herself on Frontline, IIRC) Given that it was her agency, the FDIC, that would end up on the hook for thousands of bank failures, it makes a certain amount of sense she would have said something.

[AquaMan]

I didn't know the guy burned ants with a magnifying glass. Welcome to the club Mr. R. They asked for it.

That aside, I find it interesting that Conan and others would dwell on Mr. R's business expertise. I seem to remember a difference between knowledge and skill at a micro level versus a macro level. R's experience in business has been pretty narrowly constructed and I don't think of the world that way anymore. If countries overseas, like Greece, China or France sneeze, we feel fever, aches and pain over here. How does he take his experience at making money and translate it to dealing with countries with totally different goals and systems.

Making huge sums of money ain't all that in some countries, especially if it was on the backs of others rather than through resource exploitation, ingenious products or labor.

[Conan71]

I didn't know the guy burned ants with a magnifying glass. Welcome to the club Mr. R. They asked for it.

That aside, I find it interesting that Conan and others would dwell on Mr. R's business expertise. I seem to remember a difference between knowledge and skill at a micro level versus a macro level. R's experience in business has been pretty narrowly constructed and I don't think of the world that way anymore. If countries overseas, like Greece, China or France sneeze, we feel fever, aches and pain over here. How does he take his experience at making money and translate it to dealing with countries with totally different goals and systems.

Making huge sums of money ain't all that in some countries, especially if it was on the backs of others rather than through resource exploitation, ingenious products or labor.

Silly me!!!  President Obama's economic success has been so amazing, why on earth would I figure you would vote for anyone else?

In addition to having more than a basic grasp of economics, Romney has run a government budget, ostensibly quite successfully.  Romney rescued an Olympics which was destined to be a bust.  That's a good deal more experience than Mr. Obama brought to the office.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Dude burned ants as a kid.  Isn't that enough?

Now THAT was fun!!

[AquaMan]

Silly me!!!  President Obama's economic success has been so amazing, why on earth would I figure you would vote for anyone else?

In addition to having more than a basic grasp of economics, Romney has run a government (small state) budget, ostensibly (judgment call) quite successfully.  Romney rescued an Olympics which was destined to be a bust (again, limited scope).  That's a good deal more experience than Mr. Obama brought to the office.

I expected no less from you. But it doesn't answer the question, it merely attempts to denigrate Obama as having had no experience either. Well, if that was true, it isn't now and if you believe he has been such an abject failure with that previous lack of experience, why would you want to make the same mistake again?

Truly, the thought was not mine. An economist friend of mine pointed out that Romney's experience on a micro level of making money off of our system would be practically useless on a larger world stage and that the global/macro view is what we need to succeed economically.

[Red Arrow]

Well, if that was true, it isn't now and if you believe he has been such an abject failure with that previous lack of experience, why would you want to make the same mistake again?

Some people learn more from their experiences than others.  Spin that however you want.

[Ed W]

Silly me!!!  President Obama's economic success has been so amazing, why on earth would I figure you would vote for anyone else?

In addition to having more than a basic grasp of economics, Romney has run a government budget, ostensibly quite successfully.  Romney rescued an Olympics which was destined to be a bust.  That's a good deal more experience than Mr. Obama brought to the office.

I came across this on Wikipedia over the weekend, Conan.

Romney worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks by coordinating a $300 million security budget. Overall, he oversaw a $1.32 billion budget, 700 employees, and 26,000 volunteers. The federal government provided $382 million of that budget, much of it because Romney lobbied Congress to provide money for security- and non-security-related items. An additional federal $1.1 billion was spent on indirect support in the form of highway and transit projects.

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

One positive note, and that's Mitt and his wife donated $1 million of their own money to the Olympics and he donated the $1.4 million he received in salary and severance to charity.  But there's no denying that the federal government (and presumably the state though it's not mentioned) contributed more than half the money to support the Olympics.  Transit projects are a good use of federal funds in such an effort because they don't go away when the Games are over, yet I could see the tea party fundamentalists being in a lather over it.  And I wonder if our current Republicans in the Senate would filibuster a similar use of federal funds just to deny Mr. Obama any kind of positive accomplishment.

[Hoss]

I came across this on Wikipedia over the weekend, Conan.

Romney worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks by coordinating a $300 million security budget. Overall, he oversaw a $1.32 billion budget, 700 employees, and 26,000 volunteers. The federal government provided $382 million of that budget, much of it because Romney lobbied Congress to provide money for security- and non-security-related items. An additional federal $1.1 billion was spent on indirect support in the form of highway and transit projects.

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

One positive note, and that's Mitt and his wife donated $1 million of their own money to the Olympics and he donated the $1.4 million he received in salary and severance to charity.  But there's no denying that the federal government (and presumably the state though it's not mentioned) contributed more than half the money to support the Olympics.  Transit projects are a good use of federal funds in such an effort because they don't go away when the Games are over, yet I could see the tea party fundamentalists being in a lather over it.  And I wonder if our current Republicans in the Senate would filibuster a similar use of federal funds just to deny Mr. Obama any kind of positive accomplishment.

Is the world flat?  Well, to the Tea Partiers, anyway....