Big Rolling Stone Article on Mitt:Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney....

Be like Nutella

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

Long piece... excellent IMO, worth a read. Love to hear peoples opinions on how biased it or the writer is/isn't etc

here's a sample... kinda the thesis

"...By making debt the centerpiece of his campaign, Romney was making a calculated bluff of historic dimensions – placing a massive all-in bet on the rank incompetence of the American press corps. The result has been a brilliant comedy: A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place. That same man then runs for president riding an image of children roasting on flames of debt, choosing as his running mate perhaps the only politician in America more pompous and self-righteous on the subject of the evils of borrowed money than the candidate himself. If Romney pulls off this whopper, you'll have to tip your hat to him: No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big of a lie. It's almost enough to make you think he really is qualified for the White House.."

20Cent

Matt Taibbi is a very good journalist his stuff is always good check out other articles on the Tea Party and Wall Street. Regarding bias he's written a lot of criticism of Obama as well not sure if he's a republican or Dem. Think he's probably a dem though.

Be like Nutella

I'll certainly watch out for him from now on... seen him on Obermann few times over the years but don't usually read Rolling Stone.

Here do yee think this will do much damage to Mitt really?
I mean, if it was in a broadsheet it would raise hell but I assume the Reps will put it all down to liberal press crap as usual even though it does really seem like a well researched and thought out article and it just kills him entirely from a moral stand point.. in fact it beggers belief that any balanced thinking intelligent person could vote for him based on that article but I think that's because I forget sometimes that this thing is not about a person per se as opposed to an entire party platform but hey I'm a victim of the 'liberal media' : ) like everyone else. They're not choosing a dictator in November... I forget that sometimes.

Jonny7

Tip of the iceberg

The man wouldn't get 10% of the vote anywhere in Europe, yet he's a contender in the US, not expecting him to win, but if he gets in, I expect a return to the frustration of the Bush era.

Brussels Sprout

Very interesting article. I have to question its balance for the simple reason that a man who engaged wholly in these kind of business practices surely couldn't have made this far in politics. Then again, it is the republicans...

Interesting aside: That kind of leveraged buy out is exactly how the Glazer family took control of Man Utd and saddled the club with massive debts. I'm not sure if they've been creaming money off the top in the same way As Bain was doing though.

Be like Nutella

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I have to question its balance for the simple reason that a man who engaged wholly in these kind of business practices surely couldn't have made this far in politics. Then again, it is the republicans...

yep... my thoughts exactly but until it gets repudiated comprehensively I'm gona take it Taibbi did his research and any case-in-points he refers to are real as are the statements from the various 'expert and/or character witnesses' he coffee'd with etc It's more than a damning piece.. it's a personal vendetta character assassination job of the highest order... and unashamedly so which makes me think it may actually all be true coz if I was Romney and anything in there was wrong or slated me wrongfully and inappropriately I'd have my lawyers sushi this guy for fun. As it stands it's making waves but the Reps are hoping that there's a bush fire break to this thing.. which it will reach once no stupid over zealous Rep feeds the fire by givin it airtime with some soliloquy on Fox etc.. and then there's the Dem Party this week to blow over it so it'll probably just burn slowly in the background til a broadsheet does an Op Ed on it at which point voters will have dug in on each side of the fence. Rolling Stone would've timed this thing for just now... but I think 'affect' and 'readership peak' would have been considered by their Editor separately .. in this case Readership figs was the motive for timing I reckon whereas if it was put out there two months ago it may have actually had more 'affect'. Effect beat out affect in this instance... but then Rolling Stone is not a partisan propaganda rag now is it y'ol Republicans

jill_valentine

It's an interesting piece and as you say, the guy better have done his homework because Romney will have his guts for garters otherwise, but given how unashamedly pro-Obama Rolling Stone has been, I suspect many of Romney's supporters will simply dismiss it as propaganda without actually reading it. Check out the comments beneath it on the RS site, for instance - lots of sound and fury from people dismissing it all as lies and slander etc, etc as a gut reaction, clearly without having read the preceding article.

Memnoch

jill_valentine wrote: »

It's an interesting piece and as you say, the guy better have done his homework because Romney will have his guts for garters otherwise, but given how unashamedly pro-Obama Rolling Stone has been, I suspect many of Romney's supporters will simply dismiss it as propaganda without actually reading it. Check out the comments beneath it on the RS site, for instance - lots of sound and fury from people dismissing it all as lies and slander etc, etc as a gut reaction, clearly without having read the preceding article.

Sadly, it's not possible to support a man like Romney without forcing yourself to be blind to the obvious truths about him. Kind of like being a religious fanatic really.

KyussBishop

He's a good author who has some very good writing on various financial scandals lately; I've not been following his stuff long, but he certainly does his homework.

Be like Nutella

leverage buyout Artist

"... he took over existing companies by putting down small amounts of his own cash, borrowing the rest, typically from a giant investment bank, taking over controlling stakes in companies and then forcing those companies to pay him, either through management fees or through dividends and that's his business formula.."

"..take over a company to extract wealth for its investors..."

hmmm.... sounds familiar

• Take huge donations from millionaires and billionaires to fund your campaign
  
• Make secret promises to those donors (undisclosed individuals in many cases)
  
• Then extract those promised results from the system once you've taken over i.e. tax legislature or amending some regulation hidden in the back of a seemingly innocuous bill etc
  
• The LVO (Leveraged Vote Out)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2EKyDMaZ_4

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Be like Nutella

"The government is now running a deficit of around $100 billion per month, meaning that its borrowing requirements would burn through the entire assets of Bain Capital in about 19 days"

hysterical diatribe eh?

Incorrect... the author actually was referring to the 'brand' of capitalism to which Romney has historically adhered to... that's all... you're wrong.

Matt Taibbi is a respected writer on all things economic and does not believe or try to make you believe that Private Equity and in particular predatory LBO outfits caused the crisis... and he clearly and comprehensively explains in minute detail that it was the cavalier invention and use of derivative financial instruments, products and schemes that contributed to the onset of the crisis. I know you and I are clearly partisan as is everybody in this world in some way or another but read the piece with as open a mind as possible and check the facts in it and understand the thesis before coming off as somebody with fingers in their ears.

20Cent

Another good article in Rolling Stone it seems that Bain was bailed out!
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/mitt-romney-is-lying-again-20120830

Seems Bain is also under investigation for tax fraud according to the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/business/inquiry-on-tax-strategy-adds-to-scrutiny-of-finance-firms.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp

joseph brand

I found a tl; dr for Taibbi's article. (from Reddit)

Buy a company that has a ton of assets (like a factory with machines, contracts with distributors, and an installed consumer base due to a known brand), take out a huge loan to ship it all overseas, make a ton of money on the sale of assets, file bankruptcy, mail the PBGC (the government body that backs up pensions to a guarantee minimum; http://www.pbgc.gov/) a letter that because you cannot cover it, the taxpayers are now on the bill.
You've now sold everything of value and pawned your obligations to your employees off on the tax payers. Cut yourself a check.
And the profit is taxed at a magical 15%.

Venture capitalist, investing in entrepreneurs with great ideas = Good.
Vulture capitalist, preying on vulnerable companies = Bad.

Taibbi isn't anti-Romney. He's anti-dishonesty. He's anti-greed. If Romney falls into those two categories, he has nobody to blame but himself.

Taibbi has a couple of videos on YouTube concerning the LIBOR scandal. Worth a watch.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

Interesting that Unions and Pension Funds are some of the highest investors into Private Equity… isn’t it? :rolleyes:

KyussBishop

Heh, his investigative writings on financial topics over the last number of years have given him plenty of notability, and the writing speaks for itself; one of the latest (as joseph brand mentioned) being his excellent writing on LIBOR.
It doesn't take a degree to be able to see the significance of the issues he writes about (but it does take an effort to avoid addressing those actual issues, and the claims he makes).

The idea that a degree makes someone an authority on a subject, or is a prerequisite for writing about it, is a bit silly/elitist anyway; in a similar fashion to how it's kind of pretentious for someone to use a degree to claim authority on a subject.

Be like Nutella

Is Matt Taibbi an economist? No he is not and doesn't pretend to be... has he done some well respected pieces on economic issues for a very large publication? yes he clearly has as can be found in 2 mins of googling. The college drop out comment is trite and unhelpful... to your case if you have one.

In fact he's done a number of well respected pieces on various issues and has researched a wide range of issues... nothing new here.. most noted journalists are not of economist-pedigree and most of them have done lengthy pieces on economic issues. All of this is fairly obvious in that he is virtually a gonzo journalist who writes for Rolling Stone and not the Journal for gods sake. Guys who use the phrase 'Ass load of money' don't usually write academic or purely business/market focused treatments on economic issues.

All that aside... there is some issues with HOW he worded his piece in some instances although it seems genuinely shot from the hip... which is fine if the central thesis and facts are good. He does seem to have 'some' people confused with his so called attempt to blame the financial crisis on what some are considering he meant venture capitalists and some are taking it as private equity firms. Both understandings are wrong as I've said it's clear on reflection that he was simply alluding to Mitt Romney's history of, lets call it 'Vulture Capitalism' (as one Governor Rick Perry called it) ... in other words when he says 'The Mitt Romney's of this world' he does not mean Mitt Romney as a Private Equity guy in the 90's predating upon failing companies but he DOES mean the type of amoral capitalist philosophy that Mitt clearly subscribed to... while doing those things to make his ass load of money... and consequently his 'Mitt Romney's of this world' comment was aimed at those 'dealers' (in the last 10 years or less) who used the various derivative instruments that were invented, such as CDO's and CDS's (Collateralized Debt Obligations and Collateralized Default Swaps) to magic money out of thin air based on what 'we' know now (and many of 'them' knew then) is unsound principles which do not take market complexity sufficiently into account and so can over time through lack of understanding by the ratings agencies become abused on a massive scale once these instruments get collectivized and chopped up and bandied about in a fast moving global market situation ending in Icelands collapse et al... I digress.

The attitude of these dealers who had no skin in the game per se is very similar to the Romney (and his cohorts) attitude when they did bad things to make quick cash as they had nothing to lose.. they got their fees or dividends either way as was the deal with their master-investment-banker friends before anybody got into bed. Romney is just one of many who've done bad things for money in the last decades. Some senior managers in the largest financial firms were clearly and provably dishonest and did things that had huge knock on effects on the market, some guys pushed the derivatives game way too far when they clearly saw the red flags and forever there has been 'bankers' who have taken advantage of situations using their exclusively clever methods to hood wink people to make money even if their actions cause great harm... not all bankers... not all VC guys... not all private equity guys... and not all dealers and Wall street people... but many and sometimes enough to cause great harm on a scale that can be characterized as 'evil' or at the very least amorally selfish... acting without concern for society.

It's ok to act without concern for greater society when you throw a gum rapper on the street but to outsmart a weak and very old large firm employing hundreds sometimes multi-generations of employee families and using an LBO formula as a strict rule book that can/does/has culminated in the destruction of said firm and said jobs and all the greater societal affects of that destruction ALL WHILE making millions of dollars and consciously designing yourself out of any risk and therefore reducing your likelihood of acting responsibly in that instance or in future instances is NOT GOOD... AND NOT SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF... IT IS DISHONORABLE. The philosophy of the 'Mitt Romney's' of this world as Taibbi puts it, as he meant it, is not conducive to the natural qualities one would hope is expected of a potential president.

To misunderstand it at this point is disingenuous.

Quite clearly the world is trying to deal with the question of how to be prosperous AND how to act with a thought for others... it's an ongoing debate for sure. Ayn Rand would say 'fuk it just do your own thing and selfishness based evolution where the strong are the rich are the best skilled to create prosperous society will solve any equation and any problem and the result will be good' and some 'lefties' as you would call them would say lets all just pick flowers and make some sort of communal soup out of them to feed the poor etc etc... Neither philosophy will ever reign.. because they are not true to our basest nature... which is probably something like 'most want to be rich but most don't want to step on everybody else to get there so lets do what we can to find some way of prospering without being a complete dik'.

Romney acted like a complete dik makin his $250 Million fortune in the manner that he did (not always.. but in many instances and consciously so...well I'm not sure what Mitt is during the day qualifies as conscious;)
.... and Taibbi called him on it correctly, with a well formed argument which served primarily to highlight the great hypocrisy which is Mitt Romney's platform to reduce the countries loan balance when he spent so much of his life blowing it up.... every unemployed guy who lost their job coz Bain tried to 'help' them out pulled a social welfare cheque that inflated the deficit. The hypocrisy is undeniable, even Fortune agreed with it when Dan Primark says (yesterday),

"His overall thesis is correct: There is a fundamental hypocrisy in a former leveraged buyout investor railing against America's ballooning debt. Leveraged buyouts, by definition, add debt to a company's balance sheet -- weighing it down in the short-term so that it can (hopefully) thrive in the long-term."

Be like Nutella

Amerika wrote: »

Interesting that Unions and Pension Funds are some of the highest investors into Private Equity… isn’t it? :rolleyes:

Jaysus that makes no sense at all, Funds are funds... pensions are mad up of a fund or fund mix and that these funds are made up of pots of investments made by private equity companies is neither here nor there. Pensions will follow market return where ever it brings them I suppose you want to blame your 89 year old neighbor who's pension she just collected came from a fund of PE investments which caused a company to go bankrupt in 1987 losing employee A their job which meant he couldn't afford specific healthcare for his wife who subsequently died making that 89 yr old neighbor of yours clearly an accomplice in murder.

But, ideally, your ridiculous point contains THE nugget of wisdom in all of this.

That we as people should actively try to research those things we intend to invest in, in order to make sure we're not adversely affecting society in a terrible way. Thus I hope American voters invest their vote as responsibly as they can in November.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Did you not read the article? The author was referring to the brand of politics.

Amerika

Hmmm… from "no sense" to "ridiculous point" to "THE nugget of wisdom."

It basically is all about politics and a deflection from the failures of the current administration. When it comes to Private Equity, Romney = Bad, Everyone Else = Good.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm… from "no sense" to "ridiculous point" to "THE nugget of wisdom."

It basically is all about politics and a deflection from the failures of the current administration. When it comes to Private Equity, Romney = Bad, Everyone Else = Good.

I would gather that vulture capitalism is bad, innovative capitalism is good.

Be like Nutella

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm… from "no sense" to "ridiculous point" to "THE nugget of wisdom."

It basically is all about politics and a deflection from the failures of the current administration. When it comes to Private Equity, Romney = Bad, Everyone Else = Good.

Yes true that Romney is painted as the evil banker... but he fits the role so well... you can't deny he's so easy to hate for us lefties. Stan Lee couldn't create a better bad guy.

I told ya man, I am not impressed with many of Obama's achievements... my main issue is his Drone war... actually I kinda hate him personally, politically and professionally for it but this Romney cat is just not the guy for the job man he's clearly a total douchebag it doesn't need supporting you just watch his disingenuous face and listen to his completely retarded campaign tripe from the singing to the trying to be average Joe crap and you know, as a human, that this guy needs to be kept wellllll away from the Oval office... it's as simple as that. Just admit he's a douche bag : ) and that you just want Obama out... go on you know you want to... it makes sense it's believable, logical even

Amerika

Deleted User wrote: »

I would gather that vulture capitalism is bad, innovative capitalism is good.

“Innovative capitalism,” such as Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, Mountain Plaza, Amonix Solar, Solar Trust of America, Bright Source, LSP Energy, Energy Conversion Devices, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Ecotality, A123 Solar, UniSolar, Azure Dynamics, and Ener1 just to name a few, are good eh?

Who needs “Vulture capitalism” when we have “Crony Capitalism” utilized with taxpayer dollars right?

southsiderosie

Amerika wrote: »

Interesting that Unions and Pension Funds are some of the highest investors into Private Equity… isn’t it? :rolleyes:

Part of the reason why unions invest in large companies is to take on a shareholder activist role, CALPERS begin a prime example.

Amerika

southsiderosie wrote: »

Part of the reason why unions invest in large companies is to take on a shareholder activist role, CALPERS begin a prime example.

Is CALPERS the exception or the rule?

Amerika

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Just admit he's a douche bag : ) and that you just want Obama out... go on you know you want to... it makes sense it's believable, logical even

I had hopes for Obama after he was elected because of his promises made during the election to move to the middle. When he didn't, and after the midterms and Republicans took the House and made gains in the Senate, I again hoped he would pull a Bill Clinton and work with both parties to get things done. Barack Obama certainly is no Bill Clinton… who I thought did a pretty good job as POTUS after the Republicans took control of Congress. I was a Romney supporter from day one, not a supporter because he is the only one left standing with an (R) behind his name. I believed him to be Conservative enough to get the nomination, and moderate enough to work with both parties after becoming POTUS to help the economy improve, get Americans working again, and cut spending. Sorry to dissapoint.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Where is he denigrated and what are the flaws in his economic reporting?

Be like Nutella

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

no he doesn't have expertise in all things economic.

He is highly respected though... I mean he seems to be. Just like any journalist and author there's gona be a lota people who don't like him or his beliefs etc.. but a quick googlfication there and you'll see all kinds of folks saying how good he is... and for every link I could post and explain you could post one back so lets not go there. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree that

Matt Taibbi is a noted journalist who has done respected work on economic issues IMO

The inference, I take it, that he isn't respected at all or qualified to write on economic issues or business issues is, I assume, that IF the writer can be discredited then the piece has no value? yes?

Well that's not true at all... any assshole can write one great article and whereas the credibility of the writer can then be justifiably debated (Matt Taibbi may be a complete asshole for all I know) the supported facts and stories in their 'mainstream' piece require careful and comprehensive debunking which, I would need you to do, in order to change my opinion on Mitt Romney following Matt Taibbi's piece, which I may add can be found to be lauded and respected all over the net right now (and conversely reduced to lefty hysterics, although not with any great supporting argument as far as I've seen in reading Rep responses to it today which seem to focus either on usual lefty liberal media crap to the disingenuous misunderstanding of the 'mitt Romney's of this world' comment.)

And without further ado ... your opinion that his piece is a bunch of crap is based on .....drum roll please.....

? ? ?

Mjollnir

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

LOL! So because you don't happen to like some of his phrasing, he magically is transformed into some who isn't respected?

Please. You'll have to try harder than that.

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This Ad Hominem of yours only works if he stated things as fact without citation (eg. "If left unchecked the Islamic Caliphate will rise and bring 1000 years of Darkness and that's why we need to impeach Obama because he a Neo-Fascist"). Otherwise, I'm not sure I see the point of your post.

joseph brand

Taibbi talks to Martin Bashir.

Business Insider gives the highlights of the article.

Sometimes you find a gem in the comments section.

Bubba Shawn on Aug 31, 10:33 AM said:
American voters, specifically Republican voters, need to ask what did Republican Nominee John McCain see in Romney's tax returns that made him decide Sarah Palin was a better fit.

So are Bain Capital's leveraged buy-outs what Missouri Republican Senate candidate Akin was referring to when he said"legitimate rape"?

KB toys got F'd in the A.

One of the most pertinent points of his article:

Mitt Romney’s fortune was gained by gaming the government.
"Which brings us to another aspect of Romney's business career that has largely been hidden from voters: His personal fortune would not have been possible without the direct assistance of the U.S. government. The taxpayer-funded subsidies that Romney has received go well beyond the humdrum, backdoor, welfare-sucking that all supposedly self-made free marketeers inevitably indulge in."

The poor and the middle class subsidised his 'legitimate' business practice of saddling vulnerable companies with massive debt. Nice work if you can get it.
If he made so much money putting people out of work, how will he come round to the other way of thinking which involves putting people back to work? Creating employment doesn't seem to be his thing. He's been working for himself for so long, I can't see how he'll be able to work for the people of America. The man seems callous and indifferent to the plight of the workers in the companies he profited from. Now he wants their votes, because he will reduce unemployment and government debt. Uncharacteristic Romney.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

“Innovative capitalism,” such as Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, Mountain Plaza, Amonix Solar, Solar Trust of America, Bright Source, LSP Energy, Energy Conversion Devices, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Ecotality, A123 Solar, UniSolar, Azure Dynamics, and Ener1 just to name a few, are good eh?

Who needs “Vulture capitalism” when we have “Crony Capitalism” utilized with taxpayer dollars right?

I obviously have a different interpretation of "innovative" than you do.

PyeContinental

This one minute video of the man told me everything I need to know about his character.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A

Manic Moran

Well, after reading the three pages of thread, I thought I'd read the five pages of article.

Takeaways:
1) Article doesn't seem to say a damned thing about whether or not I should vote for Romney. Since it doesn't in any way seem to address his policies or proposals, that is a serious flaw in an article in an election cycle for me. In effect, it's a character assasination article. A bad start for getting me on the writer's side.
2) Article does not indicate that Romney ever knowingly (or unknowingly) did anything illegal, which is a character/dealbreaker for many people, including myself.
3) Article may indicate that he was doing something immoral, depending on your point of view. It seems to me to be businesses doing what businesses do: Making money. If the manner in which the money is made offends you, write your congresscritter to get the regulations changed. Like many others, I've been laid off before. Life as normal.
4) Article seems to indicate that he's good at what he sets out to do. I'll rate that as a plus.

NTM

PyeContinental

Manic Moran wrote: »

If the manner in which the money is made offends you, write your congresscritter to get the regulations changed.

I'm beyond sick of reading this fatuous phrase regurgitated again and again.
However, I won't be writing to boards.ie to get it outlawed, nor will I be writing to any politician to demand that immoral financial activities be made illegal. Everyone knows that's not the way the world works, and would be an obvious waste of precious time. To pretend otherwise is risibly disingenuous.

Another opportunity for Romney to display his true character:
http://youtu.be/kVA2Tr_GTlk

Manic Moran

PyeContinental wrote: »

I'm beyond sick of reading this fatuous phrase regurgitated again and again.
However, I won't be writing to boards.ie to get it outlawed, nor will I be writing to any politician to demand that immoral financial activities be made illegal. Everyone knows that's not the way the world works, and would be an obvious waste of precious time.

Why not? There are plenty of financial activities which have been made illegal, why should one more be impossible? And until a better solution presents itself, play the game within the rules presented.

Overheal

PyeContinental wrote: »

I'm beyond sick of reading this fatuous phrase regurgitated again and again.
However, I won't be writing to boards.ie to get it outlawed, nor will I be writing to any politician to demand that immoral financial activities be made illegal. Everyone knows that's not the way the world works, and would be an obvious waste of precious time.

What do you think lobbyists and special interest groups do? why do you think theyre outlawing perfume in californian libraries?

PyeContinental

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why not? There are plenty of financial activities which have been made illegal, why should one more be impossible? And until a better solution presents itself, play the game within the rules presented.

Pretending for a moment that you've lived a few decades on this earth, and haven't noticed for yourself that politics and business are both greedy and self-serving, it would be great if I could think of a succinct way to demonstrate to you that they are, that they're in bed with each other, and they're not interested in any suggestions you or I might have to curtail the speed and ease at which they can enrich themselves.

I doubt you are naive though. I presume you'd claim not to be disingenuous. I don't know why a normal person with their eyes and ears open wouldn't be able to see what seems naturally self evident to me, but I do feel confident that if you don't already agree with me, that you're unlikely to, even after several pages of back-and-forth, which I genuinely do not have the time for.

Overheal wrote: »

What do you think lobbyists and special interest groups do? why do you think theyre outlawing perfume in californian libraries?

I presume you are equating successful outcome for a lobby group (in getting a law changed, repealed, or enacted) with an individual writing to a politician to ask for a change in the law.
If so, it's a false comparison, as you must already understand. Lobby groups have both the pressure of numbers behind them and the incentive of financial reward, and thus are far more likely to be listened to. An individual doesn't offer numbers (not directly at least) but naturally may offer financial reward if they are very rich. Most people aren't though, and therefore can't afford that type of "democracy".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Being as well versed in (employing) logical fallacies as you are, you can see that an ad-hominem attack on him from you does not show he is not a respected economic writer.

Mjollnir

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yawn. More of the same, I see.

A. His being a college dropout is about as relevant as his like or dislike of carrots.
B. A select phrase of two from his writing (in a 'passé entertainment magazine in terminal decline' no less!) cannot rationally be used to to characterize his entire body of work, or it's validity/quality.

Are you absolutely sure you want to take the logical fallacy angle?

Valmont

Move over John Maynard Keynes, Matt Taibbi is in town!

20Cent

Maybe those who don't rate Taibbi could recommend who they think is a good journalist/writer in financial matters?
Particularly if there are links to good articles about Romney and Bain Capital.

Be like Nutella

will one of you please debunk the article if it that bad. I may not agree with you but I can always learn something.

I think his points are valid you don't obviously so debunk them.

KyussBishop

Heh, ya it's pretty silly; there's a lot of sneering at the author, but no effort at all to attack the substance of the article.

By far the easiest way to discredit him and show he is not worthy of respect, is to actually attack the claims he has made and point out the problems; he's an amateur whose writing doesn't demand any respect after all, so it should be easy.

Overheal

It's like the GOP sneering at fact checkers, and not debunking the fact-checking :P

Be like Nutella

as far as I see it there is a limited set of options available to the Republican who is determined to vote for Romney..

1) You know he's a disingenuous bucket of crap but you want Obama out that bad you see no other option.

2) You wholeheartedly believe that he is a complete douche bag BUT will more likely eschew in the changes you see as required on the financial front and that is paramount to you so it's worth taking all the bad with the possibility of change you'd like to see happen i.e. republican ideas for how to fix things realized etc

3) You love the guy... he's your man... you have deep respect for him as a person, a business man... you respect his philosophy, his vision for the future and his past and think that he's got all the qualities you'd wish in a president.

4) Both Obama AND Romney are tools... the whole system is ****ed up and congress has ground to childish stand still and the only thing you can do is vote for your republican party and hope for the best..

so which is it? is he a stand up guy who can fix things and has a past professional career to be properly proud of and a moral compass you would want in the president of the by faaaar most powerful country in the world?

which one are you? state your case for Romney as a person, a business man and as a president to be proud of... but for gods sake back it up guys... with quotes, achievements or historical examples of business practice to be proud of etc

Oregano_State

Amerika wrote: »

I had hopes for Obama after he was elected because of his promises made during the election to move to the middle. When he didn't, and after the midterms and Republicans took the House and made gains in the Senate, I again hoped he would pull a Bill Clinton and work with both parties to get things done. Barack Obama certainly is no Bill Clinton… who I thought did a pretty good job as POTUS after the Republicans took control of Congress. I was a Romney supporter from day one, not a supporter because he is the only one left standing with an (R) behind his name. I believed him to be Conservative enough to get the nomination, and moderate enough to work with both parties after becoming POTUS to help the economy improve, get Americans working again, and cut spending. Sorry to dissapoint.

I know I'm going back here a bit, but how has Obama failed to work with both parties? He has failed, but the how is important. As far as I can make out, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the main reason he has had trouble working with the Republicans in Congress is that they simply refuse to work with him. They won't pass his legislation, or filibuster to delay things going though. They see it as their number 1 aim to get him out of office by any means, and not to make decisions that benefit America as a nation.

Overheal

Oregano_State wrote: »

They see it as their number 1 aim to get him out of office by any means, and not to make decisions that benefit America as a nation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc