The Real Mitt Romney

[Adak]

I never said don't do you own research and decide for yourself. I encourage that, but in this case, you've reached the wrong conclusion.

Did Romney make the stupid laws, tax codes, and treaties, that made it profitable for our companies to move to China?

NO!

You have to work (and live) within the laws that you are given, by those in government. You know that, everybody knows that.

Saying that Romney moved Sensata 12 years after he left Bain, is a terrible argument to make because:

1) Romney didn't make the laws that made it possible and in some cases profitable, to move a company to China.

and

2) Romney had nothing to do with the movement of Sensata, anywhere, since he'd left Bain over a decade before this happened.

So your whole argument is just an attempt to smear Romney with anything you can. You'll have to do better, because this case certainly doesn't work.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

Did Romney make the stupid laws, tax codes, and treaties, that made it profitable for our companies to move to China?

NO!

You have to work (and live) within the laws that you are given, by those in government. You know that, everybody knows that.

So if it's not locked down it's free stuff? Laws do not cover everything. As a matter of fact, the more libertarian and tea partiers are arguing for less laws. The assumption is that government protections are unnecessary because the free market and innate human compassion will provide the necessary checks and balances.

Mr. Romney proved this wrong. If there was the least fiscal advantage to destroying companies or moving them overseas, even companies that were stable and profitable before being loaded with leveraged debt, then these companies were torn down.

In the primaries Gingrich pilloried Romeny for this. This was not 'creative destruction', this was destruction by loophole.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by richlevy

So if it's not locked down it's free stuff? Laws do not cover everything. As a matter of fact, the more libertarian and tea partiers are arguing for less laws. The assumption is that government protections are unnecessary because the free market and innate human compassion will provide the necessary checks and balances.

You're mixing business policy with charity/welfare policy, and throwing in a little Conservative vs. Liberal philosophy?

Wow! Can you narrow that down to something more specific?

Mr. Romney proved this wrong. If there was the least fiscal advantage to destroying companies or moving them overseas, even companies that were stable and profitable before being loaded with leveraged debt, then these companies were torn down.

"The least fiscal advantage", I take big exception to. You don't take over a company and take on that level of risk, for a small chance of an upturn. If the company wasn't able to jump up a BIG step (in the opinion of Bain Capital), then Bain Capital wouldn't have been there.

In the primaries Gingrich pilloried Romeny for this. This was not 'creative destruction', this was destruction by loophole.

Yes, and Gingrich's association with the truth, suffered because of it. He was working with hardball politics, and that's how the game is played. Politics is not a particularly polite field of endeavor. The voters eventually saw it was b.s., and let him go. He had his own skeletons in the closet, from the way he treated his first wife and son, after he left them. (Quite mean spirited, if I do say so. Gingrich is NOT a nice guy.) He is a smart guy, but his problem is, he has a lot of wacko idea's, stacked right next to the great idea's. When he reaches for one, he frequently gets the other kind.