Romney Cheated in Debate?

[Buddy]

There is no natural balance of capitalism. The natural balance if there is one is: profits stay private. For everything else there is a government handout.

I am a bit of a purist, I agree with profits staying private but abhor goverment handouts to anyone...businesses and individuals alike. I agree with tax breaks as incentives to locate businesses to a given area but I totally disagree with most anything more than that. Selling municipal bonds for a football stadium has to be the stupidest idea I have ever heard of and I have no idea why anyone in office might think this would be a good idea. However, rich people get rich and stay rich by having the ability to evaluate the environment in which they are operating and doing what needs to be done to maximize their profits. Bain Capital and Romney didn't do anything immoral or illegal, they just profited from the environment in which they operate. Who in their right mind would voluntarily maximize their own tax burden or losses? Romney's group didn't acquire profitable companies that were running efficiently so that they could gut them and sell off the pieces. They bought companies at a discount because they were failing and retooled them to be profitable. Most of the time, that involves staff changes or relocation. Nevertheless, a reduced staff or relocated staff is far more beneficial than a company run into the ground and bankrupt that apparently now gets to be bailed out with taxpayer money.

[Buddy]

I will point out two things. 1) Bush's political career was basically over after 2004. He didnt have to worry about re-election. He wasnt going to run for another office. If your assertion, that he knew what was about to happen, is true, he would have taken steps to correct it so he wouldnt have to be linked to the worst economic crisis in decades. Bush was a big believer in the "natural balance" and it backfired on him.
2) Romney supported the measures you equate to dumping gasoline on the fire, and hasnt told us how his current policies will be different then Obama's current ones. Mitt Romney is certainly not a "natural balance" candidate.

I agree with both of statements and have a problem with Bush and Romney for their actions. However, they are both far closer to my beliefs than is Obama or Clinton. Romney agreed with someone's dumb decision and is certainly not my ideal candidate but I feel that he will make far fewer dumb decisions in the future than Obama. I would like to vote for someone far more fiscally conservative than Romney or Obama but I don't have a viable alternative at this time.

[TheWalrus]

Rob, you are absolutely correct that I advocate the Federal Government deregulating everything that they possibly can and leaving the bulk of regulation to the states.

You want the states to regulate interstate commerce?

[rob19]

Rob, you are absolutely correct that I advocate the Federal Government deregulating everything that they possibly can and leaving the bulk of regulation to the states. I am not advocating anarchy but rather a simple set of parameters and rules for businesses to operate under. Because much of the regulation we have was enacted as a response to an acute situation, it ends up having very unintended long-term effects. Consequently, I think we need to wipe about 1/2 of the regulation and branches of the Federal Government (FG) out and let the market decide what is needed and what is not. The market will naturally have booms and busts, prosperity and recession...the government does not need to get involved on either end.

You are also correct that deregulation of the banks allowed for the housing collapse, however you also must recognize why that deregulation occurred (in order to increase home ownership among low-income and minority groups) and who initiated and enacted the deregulation (The Clinton Administration). The deregulation itself did not cause the bubble and collapse, it was initiating the deregulation to achieve higher home ownership then guaranteeing the loans through Fannie and Freddie and allowing Fannie and Freddie to package the loans into mortgage backed securities and the subsequent derivatives of those mortgage backed securities. All of the politicians/Bureaucrats along the way are to blame...Clinton, Bush, Barney Frank, Charles Schumer, Chris Dodd, James Johnson (Fannie), and a host of other players on both sides of the isle that either directly influenced what happened or stood by and watched it happen. Then, adding horrible insult to injury, the FG tries to put out the fires of their own making with gasoline by trying to bail these banks and the auto industry out (Bush and Obama Administrations are both guilty of this...equal blame from me!) with taxpayer money.

The banks did what banks do...they assessed the prevailing winds of the economy and made money off of it. When the FG agreed to guarantee mortgage loans that clearly never should be issued in the first place, they signed the death warrant for the US economy. Clinton and his cronies were long gone before the crap hit the fan and Bush nearly made it out of the woods before the bottom fell out. Obama definitely inherited a mess that I do not blame him with the mess he walked into but he has done exactly the wrong things to fix it...he took a bad situation and made it much, much worse. This is evidenced in the stagnant economy, ridiculous debt, and insane burden of regulation facing

I'm as unhappy as anybody that we bailed out the fatcats on Wallstreet, but what would you propose we do? Let the banks go bankrupt & have everyone lose their money? Have countless businesses (both small & large) who fiance with those banks go out of business? The reality is we just might have had to bail them out. So if we're forced to 'foot the bill' for the bankers when they collapse, wouldn't you advocate making regulations to ensure that that doesn't happen again? Now, please do correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially are you advocating we just 'trust them' to not do the same type of things that started the whole collapse to begin with? I'm all for smaller government, I just don't know you can trust everyone to operate under ethical means.

[Spesh]

I agree with both of statements and have a problem with Bush and Romney for their actions. However, they are both far closer to my beliefs than is Obama or Clinton. Romney agreed with someone's dumb decision and is certainly not my ideal candidate but I feel that he will make far fewer dumb decisions in the future than Obama. I would like to vote for someone far more fiscally conservative than Romney or Obama but I don't have a viable alternative at this time.

Thats fair. Im not being sarcastic when i say that. We get alot of people on here who declare Romney is going to fix everything or is the most conservative man on the face of the planet. This post is probably the most honest opinion ive seen in the last year about why to vote for Romney.

[Buddy]

You want the states to regulate interstate commerce?

No, but I do want the least amount of regulation possible to encourage as much interstate commerce possible. Like I said earlier, there is a role for the Federal Government but it is far, far less than what we have today. That is one of the things that sets the US apart is the rights of the states and decentralization of power. We are moving toward a very centralized power and I detest the thought of it.

[Buddy]

I'm as unhappy as anybody that we bailed out the fatcats on Wallstreet, but what would you propose we do? Let the banks go bankrupt & have everyone lose their money? Have countless businesses (both small & large) who fiance with those banks go out of business? The reality is we just might have had to bail them out. So if we're forced to 'foot the bill' for the bankers when they collapse, wouldn't you advocate making regulations to ensure that that doesn't happen again? Now, please do correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially are you advocating we just 'trust them' to not do the same type of things that started the whole collapse to begin with? I'm all for smaller government, I just don't know you can trust everyone to operate under ethical means.

I know that most people are uncomfortable with the idea but yeah, I would have let the banks, GM, and Chrysler hit the ground and shatter. Many of the banks/companies involved would not have failed and they would have been far more cautious in the future in their business ventures. As it stands, the banks and big industry as a whole do not fear failure because Uncle Sam will jump in and throw cash at them. So, they can be wholly irresponsible with regards to risk because they are guaranteed not to fail. Like I said, the economy's death warrant was signed when the mortgage standards were forcibly lowered and the resulting loans were ultimately guaranteed by congress and paid for by the US taxpayers.

Once the crap hit the fan, everyone pointed fingers at each other...yes, the same ones on both sides of the isle who had beat their chests about the record levels of home ownership and particularly the level of home ownership among blacks and other minorities. Then, the coup de gras...in the government's feeble attempts to placate the people who demanded "Something be done!", they have fortified the institutions that they were supposed to be harnessing and reprimanding. Dodd-Frank has served no other real purpose than to eliminate much of the competition that the big banks face in local and regional banks as they can not afford to comply with the new regulations.

So, the government took a functional and strong economy during the Clinton years and "tweaked" it to pander to a demographic. In doing this, they ignited a furious economic bubble that brought unimaginable wealth and prosperity for a little while. The party didn't last long though and most of the wealth turned out to be bad debt. The bad debt was then transferred to the taxpayers as was the burden of the people who lost their jobs in the wake of the fiasco. Like I have said all along, keep the government's hands off of the economy and control their spending and we won't likely find ourselves in the disaster that we are in.

[Buddy]

Thats fair. Im not being sarcastic when i say that. We get alot of people on here who declare Romney is going to fix everything or is the most conservative man on the face of the planet. This post is probably the most honest opinion ive seen in the last year about why to vote for Romney.

I really appreciate that Spesh, I really do. I am not always right and Lord knows that politicians lie every time their mouths move so all we can do is align ourselves with whomever fits our criteria the closest and hope for the best. The scary part is that despite my fiscal conservatism, I am actually quite socially liberal. I truly believe in personal choice, personal freedom, and personal responsibility - we need a new party...the MYOB party. If something does not impose on anyone else, I think it should be legal. What you do in your home with your money and your time is up to you as long as you stay out of my business. That is why I so strongly support state's rights, municipal rights, and personal rights - delegate to the lowest possible level. Theoretically, this would allow each level to be much more effective as they could focus on a much narrower spectrum of responsibilities.

Romney is a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He is conservative by Massachusetts standards but certainly not by rural South Texas standards. I do think he is a very good businessman and has a very strong grasp of the economy that very few people could equal. So, I will cast my vote for him and hope he can right the ship. You, my friend, will have to choose your own course. Hopefully, I have given you something to think about anyway. That is why I enjoy reading, debating, and discussing politics, religion, the economy and such because I can learn and make decisions with the greatest amount of information possible.

[Buddy]

GWB got admitted due to coming from a prestigious family. I'd bet money on that. Most Politicians inherit their fortune and Political Capitol from their parents, which implies strong family connections. As much as it makes me angry, having connections is more important that intelligence when it comes to getting admitted to most of these Universities. Obama is different in that he didn't have any of those connections.

Seeing how Obama is a self-made man, I don't see how you could even begin to believe he is an "idiot in the real world". That's reserved for people who ride Daddy's coattail through life and never learn how to stand on their own 2 feet. Someone who comes from poverty to earn a way into Harvard University, and eventually into the highest office in the U.S., is not an "idiot in the real world".

Again, there are dozens of things you can blast Obama for, most of which I would probably agree with you on. However, trying to paint him as unintelligent or not street smart is ridiculous. That is partisan election year propaganda...

I would do a little more research before I stated that Obama is a self-made man. He has been successful, too successful in fact. How does one go from a nobody to president of the US in record time with no tangible accomplishments other than being able to speak eloquently? How does one get a birth certificate sealed and school records sealed? If everything is legitimate, why all the secrecy? I know that most all politicians lie and hide stuff but this is just odd. He also has had some very powerful mentors and supporters from a very early age. He may not have come from money and power but he has been surrounded by it for quite a while. I don't know what the actual facts are regarding his education or meteoric rise to super-stardom but I can tell you that it does appear he had a whole lot of help along the way.

[Locke]

I would do a little more research before I stated that Obama is a self-made man. He has been successful, too successful in fact. How does one go from a nobody to president of the US in record time with no tangible accomplishments other than being able to speak eloquently? How does one get a birth certificate sealed and school records sealed? If everything is legitimate, why all the secrecy? I know that most all politicians lie and hide stuff but this is just odd. He also has had some very powerful mentors and supporters from a very early age. He may not have come from money and power but he has been surrounded by it for quite a while. I don't know what the actual facts are regarding his education or meteoric rise to super-stardom but I can tell you that it does appear he had a whole lot of help along the way.

The definition of a self-made man is starting from nothing and ending with everything you want. How does Obama not fit that description...?