Capitalists believe everyone should pay their fair share, or so I’ve been told. “Government has no business picking winners and loser.”

But that’s exactly what it does when private equity firms like Bain can exploit tax breaks to stiff their acquisitions with their bills and run off with a bunch of cash while hardworking Americans go on the unemployment rolls. Or when GE can get out of paying taxes while they force taxpayers to subsidize green initiatives… green energy subsidies Romney fully supported as Gov. of MA. There isn’t an inch of daylight between Obama and Romney on the issues, yet one is a “fascist” and the other is a “conservative.” Give me a break.

It’s amazing how so many of the “right” are acting just like people on the “left” when Newt and Perry started criticizing Romney for his actions at Bain. Why exactly should any criticism of Bain be off limits? As long as they aren’t promoting any laws to limit freedom to operate, what exactly is the big deal? Romney keeps talking about his private sector experience so what’s wrong in actually taking a close look at it? Perry got in trouble for what was written on a rock on a hunting ground he didnt even own!

The establishment is behaving extremely poorly this election and is not only trying to cram a candidate down our throats but is starting to make any actual criticism of that candidate un-conservative! Even this this is a guy who raised taxes, socialized medicine and permanently banned “assault” weapons!

…would be electing a big government Republican. At least with Obama, you can count on divided government. A little paralysis isn’t a bad thing when it comes to spending. An undisciplined Republican could be an absolute disaster, on the other hand.

I think this diary does a nice job of trying to recover a principled basis for what I still perceive as shameless and opportunistic attacks (against a candidate who isn’t even my first choice).

I get really nervous with any Republican who doesn’t understand concepts like creative destruction. Speaking for myself, I’ll drop this if Newt and Perry drop it. If they don’t, I’m to have to find someone else to vote for in a couple weeks, when the circus heads to Florida.

1) There should be no such thing as too big to fail. Break them up (or go with Huntsman’s plan to create a support fund for companies that might be too big to fail). Otherwise, let them fail.

2) Tea Party conservatives disagree from ChamCons (Chamber of Commerce “conservatives) on the issue of jobs.

ChamCons want the cheapest labor possible and damn the American jobs.

Tea Party conservatives still think that American exceptionalism includes jobs as well.

I’m not knocking what Bain did, but there is an attitude difference out there that the GOP establishment doesn’t seem to get.

When profit takes the place of God

conservatives are reluctant to trust capitalism..

With Rick Perry, they threw out their stance against illegal immigration
With Gingrich, they threw out their opposition to Fannie Mae Freddie Mac and other government-private initiatives that brew corruption.

It’s been one bandwagon after the other. There’s no principle and no prudence. Now many are even willing to throw capitalism under the bus in order to pump of their DOA candidates. That’s not what conservatism is about.

I do keep coming back to the idea that criticizing a person’s conduct in the arena of capitalism does not equal criticizing capitalism – in fact I think it is the opposite.

Proposing government solutions to this behavior is anti-conservative, but calling someone a bad actor for the way they operated can be conservative.

It doesn’t help that the information out there on the legitimacy of Bain’s actions is so contradictory. Buying failing companies and pruning them to turn them into successful companies is not a bad thing.

I guess the question is – Did Romney enrich himself at others expense? If so, it is legitimate in a capitalist society, but that doesn’t make it right or praiseworthy.

“I belong to no organized political party. I’m a Republican.”

heh

It takes more than a buzzword to turn off our brains.

The problem most average Americans see is that Wall Street talks a good game about capitalism but then attempts to use the government and other factors to manipulate the market forces to which they claim to adhere. Big Business is not for competition, or free markets, or even labor at market value. Big business is for the bottom line even if that means discarding the principles of capitalism.

We don’t trust them because they have been caught gaming the system too many times. Romney and Bain will rightly or wrongly be painted with that brush. Romney will be characterized as a robber baron who destroys the work of others for fun and profit. The characterization may be wrong but it will be the template.

Has just reached critical levels.

Political approach regarding the economy should be a clear cut ideal; capitalism works, leave it be. Until it isn’t clear cut anymore because emotions or an incongruent ideal gets in the way. In which case crisis ensues and one’s identity is on the line. I wonder how much of our identity as a party we’ll sacrifice in sorting this one out…

Youve’ made me think about this differently. In some ways, the argument for unrestrained capitalism is similar to the argument for drug legalization, human nature being what it is. There are a lot of people who don’t trust the people at the top to do the right thing when there are no (or few) laws in place. We are trained that way from day one in public school, after all!

Economics is one of the most challenging fields. For most people, the deepest they get into it is their own personal bottom line. Anyone who has ever been laid off (which is a very, very large percentage of Americans right now) doesn’t thank the glories of the free market system when they lose their job. They blame the guy at the top who made the decision. In most cases, they question his morals instead of thanking him.

I also think of my parents, who are lifelong Dems and union members. They voted for Obama last time around but they’re disgusted with him right now and will vote for an alternative if given one they can stand. But they don’t trust “the man” and I don’t see them ever voting for someone like Romney. The money in their retirement fund has disappeared over the past several years and, not understanding how it all works, they blame people like him and the “system” that supports him. They see “Wall Street” (whatever that is) as the problem (because Rachel Maddow tells them that every day). (Grrrrr!!!)

Is there a difference between Bain Capital buying enough of a business to rape it, pull out the assets and let it go out of business without losing any of Bain’s money and (except perhaps the initial investment) the MAFIA approach to capitalism which produces the same result? Either way, the little people depending on the business for employment pay the price.

of Mitt’s critics either not liking or not trusting Free-Market capitalism. Each of the other Republican candidates engaging in criticism of him is doing so for their own reasons and using their own particular spin, for example, Newt is bitterly angry over the brutish attacks he endured from Mitt’s superpac in Iowa so, for him, all’s fair in war and politics.

Mitt’s attacks on Newt, including making him the center of all that is evil in the universe because his firm was paid $1.6 Million in fees was, in the opinion of a great many conservatives, just as scurrilous and unprincipled as Newt’s attacks on Mitt because he “…like[s] to fire people…”.

Freddie Mac spent the money. It is THEY who should have to be held to account for what they spent and how they spent it and what they got for the money. $1.6 mil is a fraction of what Mr. Raines received in bonuses.

Governor Perry, OTOH, keeps playing this Compassionate Conservative ploy as if he didn’t get that memo from Rush pointing out that Conservatism IS compassionate by its very nature.

But, looking at the criticism of his conduct at Bain, let’s ask ourselves a question: Just what is it that makes it possible for the management of a firm such as Bain to take control of a company and downsize it, laying off hundreds or even thousands of employees in what some would instantly characterize as heartless, cruel and cavalier and still sleep at night?

They can do so because of their knowledge that those being laid off are experiencing a temporary dislocation, not permanent exile from the workforce and, in the interim, will be covered by unemployment benefits, transfer payments from other taxpayers, buttressed by the argument that by engaging in a bit of ‘creative destruction’ they are creating a stronger and more viable entity that will benefit more people over a longer term that will more than offset the short-term perceived harm. But they, nonetheless, rely upon a feature of our economy that many Conservatives find objectionable because it prolongs the dislocated worker’s misery and stifles his or her incentive to find work. And if the take-over target fails, well, them’s the breaks.

There is a great debate going on right now regarding unemployment benefits and the perpetual extension thereof and this will surely come up once we have settled on (as opposed to ‘for’) our nominee. He’d damn well better be prepared to defend his past and future actions.

This is just a tiny fraction of the background against which this campaign is going to play out. What doesn’t kill the eventual nominee’s chances at getting the nomination will only make him a stronger candidate.

Those that want to stone the critics or short-circuit the process display far less faith in our system of choosing our leaders and the economic system we champion than those very critics. After all, it is a form of free-market capitalism in which they are engaging in the first place.

Romney is a Crony Capitalist at best and a Crony Socialist in all likelihood.

To call him a capitalist is just crap.

This new line of commentary that Tea Partiers hate Capitalism is just B.S.

Any fool can see Romney is no friend of small business Capitalism and the free enterprise system. His entire political career just screams Progressive Cronyism.

Like many Progressives ( Michael Moore, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi) he was all too willing to reap the benefits of the free market when it suits him, but he has consistently tried to deny the benefits of the free market for the rest of us. As far as his conduct at Bain Capital, we really don’t know what decisions or choices he made , but we do know he chose a business that exploits the vulnerabilities of others.

There is no contradiction about a pro-Capitalist free marketer asking questions about the ethics of Romney’s conduct. There are many business practices that are legal but not ethical. For those trying to run a business in the face of a smothering, oppressive regulatory bureaucracy, it does not help when some “capitalists” exploit unethically the public causing all other entrepreneurs to look bad. It only gives more ammunition to those who want to regulate more.

But it appears the story does not end there. Ronney has a close relationship to the nefarious fat cats of Wall Street who have illegally gamed the system for Trillions to their own benefit, and Willard has continued to support their behavior. That is just unconscionable. Crony Capitalism is bankrupting this Country.

Like all Progressives, Willard will say anything to get elected. His current tilt to faux conservatism is just another Progressive ploy. With nearly the entire bought and paid for Republican Establishment pulling every trick in the book to get him nominated, I have no problem with any line of attack against this traitorous Progressive.

The issue is not Mitt’s capitalism. It’s his unscrupulous business practices. Of course, he’s going to try to hide behind the old line, “that’s just capitalism” to hide any discussion of his business practices.

If Mitt Romney is the great businessman he and his supporters proclaim he is, then why do they always try to shut down any discussion of his business record?

We already know that Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected. When you look at his business record, you find that Mitt Romney was willing to do whatever it took to make money.

Most Americans work hard and play by the rules.

Mitt Romney works hard at not playing by the rules.

From a Tea Party conservative, I somewhat disagree with some so called conservative economic policies, my opinion comes from decades of manufacturing, managing from the bottom up as a millwright and historical teachings. I think free and open markets are based on wealth, not notes, loans or debt and are the distortions in our GDP. I consider wealth as being something from a supply, dug or grown from the ground, value is added in processing and transportation then exchanged for a demand, supply and demand. In practical application, it is much more complicated and a more fitting description capitalism. The less you partake in the chain of supply and demand the less genuine wealth is created, and services as such provided by the government destroy wealth. I have noticed over the years that our economics has shifted from creation of genuine wealth to Wall Street banking, almost half our economic activity is now invested in Wall Street and growing at a faster pace the ever before. In my opinion Wall Street should crash and burn not effecting Main Street but has become too big to fail. Our foundation is an innate propensity of self worth coupled with the desire of innovation, individual responsibility, especially the responsibility of individual ownership in the chain of supply and demand, and not banking on Wall Street. Originally, if you could not afford something, you saved, worked for it or looked for individual sponsors, you relied on real wealth and kept away from bank loans but now it is go to the bank for a loan or wagered on speculation as a quick fix. Just as social conservatives place liberty over freedom you should find most economic conservatives place fiscal policies over monetary policies. Therein, your anti-capitalism capitalism direction is wrong. I just noticed Ron Paul use “monetary policies” and in my opinion seems to be going in the wrong direction as well, heck what a mess.

went overwhelmingly for Romney.

Those who “strongly oppose” the Tea Party went for Huntsman. Romney won every other category handily.

Interestingly, Paul’s share of every single category from “Strongly Support” to “Strongly Oppose” the Tea Party was within a couple of points one way or the other, within margin of error, which I found odd. 22%-26% range, tight pattern!

The Tea Party had its one shining moment when it could have said Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death and refused to expand the debt ceiling. It gave in. So, it’s not the heir to the Founding Fathers.

Somewhere along the way, Conservative has come to equal..Curmudgeon. The Tea Party/Perry brand of what they call Conservative is a bunch of old grouches who think the whole world which doesn’t look or act exactly like them, should fall off the earth.

What’s so Conservative about wanting some kind of mass Social Engineering to make everything all standardized the way they like it?

To me, Mitt Romney is the only real conservative in the field because he is not offering to make radical changes to America, he only wants to apply rules as they are written. That to me, means not “do overs” for Too Big To Fail organizations. He brought down the detritus as a raider, not it’s time for the Visigoths to storm Rome and get rid of all the failed ideologues, Transit Advocates, Urban Elitists and the whole range of costly flotsam and jetsam that Obama hauled in with him.

The only free markets are in war zones. There hasn’t been an unregulated or untaxed market in the United States in over a century.

Once the commerce clause became the catch-all for any imagined power in addition to those that were enumerated, this nation became a technocracy — and technocracies despise economic freedom, realizing that they are a greater danger to their power than any of the political freedoms.

We can keep talking about capitalism, but it should be in a historical context or when discussing the “free markets” of Qandahar.

eat our own.

I am not a Mitt supporter, but if you do not get blinded by the trees and lost in the forest:

Mill has both gov. and private exec. experience;

he admits Ronneycare is not working and obamacare needs repealing;

he has mostly aimed his campaign barbs at o and not fellow Reps;

he professes real love and respect for America and has not supported the class warfare and redistributionist ideals of liberals;

he has run a well funded and proficient campaign and received important endorsements;

he isn’t some cons. messiah, but in the immortal words of the Rolling Stones: “You can’t always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.”

instinctively understand, consciously or not, that capitalism and crony capitalism are nearly synonymous, separated only by conscience.

These words were meant to convey stern warning regarding the fragility of our new Constitution:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams, October 11, 1798

The same can be said for free-enterprise, and reflects the current state of our free-market economy.

Besides, capitalism is a Marxist label.