Obama's campaign caught lying, again.

[bleeding heart]

Here is a great video where Reagan shatters the Marxist narrative that you're parroting.

But...but..kraychik....that's...name-dropping!

Remember?

[cybercoma]

The point is simple, and that is that Romney had no meaningful involvement with Bain Capital's operations after he left in February of 1999

Except for his signatures on their deals. That's not meaningful I guess.

[waldo]

Since when do people go into business to create jobs? This is a perfect example of how the left doesn't understand elementary economics. Self-interest is the goal, and one of the beneficial externalities of self-interest in a free market economy is the creation of employment.

"If you're the head of a large private equity firm or hedge fund, your job is make money, it's not to create jobs, it's not even to create successful businesses, it's to make sure you're maximizing returns for your investors".

so... all that Romney emphasis on learning how to create jobs, on knowing how to create jobs... that's Romney expressing to the American public his, as you say, 'free market economy self interest'?

Mitt Romney: "I have a record of learning how to create jobs"

[waldo]

Except for his signatures on their deals. That's not meaningful I guess.

Romney backdating his retirement 3 years to 1999... that's a nice touch. I expect he needed the 3 extra years of Bain pension benefits!

[cybercoma]

All I've pointed out was that what's good for business is not necessarily good for everyone else.

As an example, during the depression, Milton Hershey observed steam shovels in operation as he was expanding his facilities. He was told that they did the job of 30 men. His reply was "Get rid of them and hire more men". Hershey was demonstrating his interest in helping out the community. Was he a "leftist", one of the most successful capitalists in American history?

But back in the 50s, a very economically successful time in America's history, taxes on the wealthy and on corporations were far higher.

America used to be known for its class mobility, but no more. It has fallen way back, so much so that if you're born poor in America today, you'll probably die poor.

But what if it's not a competitive free market environment? What if the fix is in? What if business uses the desperation of people long out of work because of a bad economy to force wages lower? What if business uses its contacts in government to allow it to bring in low rent foreign workers to replace native workers at lower wages?

The other side of that question is, who is going to buy cars and big screen TVs and houses when all the good jobs have moved overseas? Who is going to buy them when the average wage moves down to a subsistence level?

Sometimes you sound exactly like the NDP and you don't even know it.

Edited July 14, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

What difference does it make whether or not a person loses their job due to increased technological innovation (an ATM, for instance), or whether it's outcourced to another country due to cheaper operation costs (i.e. manufacturing being shipped to China)? Your Marxist argument is the same in either case, you are claiming that business interests are contrary to the interests of "the worker". This is straight up Marxism, and reveals your lack of understanding of basic economics. I don't begrudge you for this, as this sort of ignorance is common. It's not like basic economics is standard curriculum in high schools, you have to go out of your way to learn this and understand this, unforuntately.

Only a fool deals in absolutes. That's exactly what you're doing. Argus is intelligent enough to know that sometimes corporate interests are not in the interests of workers or society. On the other hand, you want to claim that they're always in the interest of society. In order to show you that you're wrong, all one needs to do is show a single example of when corporate interests are not in the interest of society. Argus already gave you two major examples 1) shipping jobs overseas for cheaper labour, and 2) bringing in foreign workers at lower prices. Therefore, your argument has been completely dismantled unless you can find some way to reconcile with your corporatist views the fact that corporate interests aren't always in the interests of society or workers. There are many ways to do this, but you don't seem to be doing it.

[cybercoma]

OMG, Argus! Great post.

I never knew you had it in you...

Although I disagree with Argus about a lot of things, what I give him the utmost credit for is having a sophisticated and nuanced perspective on things. He doesn't usually deal in absolutes, as I mentioned above, which makes him an interesting and challenging poster to debate.

[kraychik]

Only a fool deals in absolutes. That's exactly what you're doing. Argus is intelligent enough to know that sometimes corporate interests are not in the interests of workers or society. On the other hand, you want to claim that they're always in the interest of society. In order to show you that you're wrong, all one needs to do is show a single example of when corporate interests are not in the interest of society. Argus already gave you two major examples 1) shipping jobs overseas for cheaper labour, and 2) bringing in foreign workers at lower prices. Therefore, your argument has been completely dismantled unless you can find some way to reconcile with your corporatist views the fact that corporate interests aren't always in the interests of society or workers. There are many ways to do this, but you don't seem to be doing it.

Who determines these social best interests? You and other leftist philosopher kings? The examples provided are not examples of the free market "hurting society". There is a tangible benefit to many people when the operational costs of business are reduced, either through automation (for example, ATMs replacing bank tellers or self-scanning machines replacing cashiers at grocery stores) or outsourcing overseas (for example, textile manufacturing primarily being done in Asia due to lower labour costs). This benefit is ignored by those on the left like yourself, or perhaps you don't even know what the benefit it. The costs of goods and services are reduced. The best example in modern times is Walmart, which has been the single strongest deflationary force in North America in recent years. Ironically, the very people at the bottom of the financial ladder who leftists like yourself claim to stand for are actually stood upon by you and your fellow-minded socialists and communists. When the costs of goods and services are artificially increased via leftists policies that you, Argus, BC_Chick, and bleeding heart are all clearly in favour of, who bears the brunt of this? Not the reviled rich, but the virtuous poor. So when you call for government intrusions that force business to "save jobs", you're driving up costs, making everything more expensive. Your same nonsensical argument which is essentially an attack on free markets can be made to oppose the development of the wheel, which certainly put certain labourers out of business, in your mind.

The sad truth is that the policies of government intervention into correcting the market crushes the poor, while you pretend to speak in their own best interests. Argus' entire narrative was Marxist in origin, pitting one class against another as if the economic interests of all people aren't harmonised at the broad level. As usual, the benevolent leftists want the collective wisdom of millions of people making decisions every second of every day in their own best interests to be improved by economic illiterates virtuous masterminds.

I have to admit one last thing. While I do find it entertaining to come into internet discussion forums and completely destroy leftist argumentation grounded in complete economic ignorance, it does depress me as well. The sad fact is that basic economics isn't compulsory anymore in a public education. Of course this is by design, in order to keep ordinary folks ignorant, but it does depress me. Especially considering that you folks vote.

[kraychik]

Although I disagree with Argus about a lot of things, what I give him the utmost credit for is having a sophisticated and nuanced perspective on things. He doesn't usually deal in absolutes, as I mentioned above, which makes him an interesting and challenging poster to debate.

What a surprise, a socialist loves Argus' nonsensical views of the economy. I saw right through him when I first encountered him, and accurately described him as what he was: a leftist.

[kraychik]

Sometimes you sound exactly like the NDP and you don't even know it.

Well said. He sounds like a communist. I am in full agreement with this post.

[kraychik]

I agree. Argus undermined his "arguments" nicely.

Seriously. Obama makes the same point kraychik made...and so Obama is a "Marxist."

Actually, I completely destroyed Argus' false arguments. And yes, Obama certainly subscribes to many Marxist principles. He plays the class warfare game regularly, and parrots this false narrative of competing interests between two classes, the capitalists the rich and the proletariat "ordinary Americans", in the context of a zero sum game. This is pure, unadulterated, not-from-concentrate Marxism. You might as well be honest about it.

Edited July 14, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

Don't feed the troll

I love this, you come in here with a one-liner post that contributes nothing, and tell others not to talk to me. I, of course, contribute high-quality posts that deal with core issues. You, on the other hand, provide forgettable one-liner posts that make no difference to any thread you participate in.

Your desire to censor me (that's three leftists now that want me censored, exposing the contempt the left has for freedom of speech) tells us everything we need to know about you. You fear actually engaging me, and fear that others might actually read my posts and learn something.

[kraychik]

Except for his signatures on their deals. That's not meaningful I guess.

He didn't sign any deals. If you'd actually read the first post you'd know this to be true.

I will repost it for your benefit (I also highlighter the important stuff for your convenience):

In John King's own words after the 2:30 mark in the video, "they (the Romney campaign) say that he (Romney) left in February 1999, but it took almost two years to have the new management team put in place and that they are required by law until that new team is in place to list Mitt Romney. Is there any evidence, Anderson, that he had a hands-on role? No. I today have either spoken or communicated by email with four current or former Bain officials, three of these four are Democrats, two of them are active supporters of Obama in campaig n 2012. They were all there at the time. They say Mitt Romney left in a hurry in February 1999 to take over the Olympics, and he was never involved after that to their knowledge. Not at any meetings, not signing any documents, not involved in any deals. Again, three of these four are Democrats, they say what the Obama campaign is saying isn't true."

[kraychik]

IOW, people don't go into business to create jobs.

The Soviet Union was in the business of creating jobs. So is North Korea. Cuba as well.

On a serious note, if you understood economics, you wouldn't parrot this leftist rhetoric. Free markets create more jobs and wealth than any other economic system. Of course, leftists like yourself aren't concerned with prosperity, you're concerned with a warped perception of equality (of result). Leftists think they can remove failure and hardship from life through benevolent masterminds directing our societies.

[Argus]

Sometimes you sound exactly like the NDP and you don't even know it.

Don't imagine you have some sort of insight into my politics that I'm not aware of, Cybercoma.

I've often expressed my admiration for much of what the social democratic Nordic countries have accomplished and the societies they've built. The truth is I do not embrace the totality of any particular ideology. I am a pragmatist. As such, I admire what works and disdain what does not. I will take bits and pieces from anyone's philosophy if it seems to function well over time.

At to the NDP. While their intentions are often noble their pretentious belief in their own superior morality and attempts to persuade or force others to accept theirs as "the only true path" is a huge failing for me. And let's not even get into their believe that government should solve everyone's problems and their fiscal incompetence.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Argus

[kraychik]

Don't imagine you have some sort of insight into my politics that I'm not aware of, Cybercoma.

I've often expressed my admiration for much of what the social democratic Nordic countries have accomplished and the societies they've built. The truth is I do not embrace the totality of any particular ideology. I am a pragmatist. As such, I admire what works and disdain what does not. I will take bits and pieces from anyone's philosophy if it seems to function well over time.

You've taken much more than "bits and pieces" from communism when you talk about economics. Thankfully for the forum, and unfortunately for the leftists, I am here to dismantle your false narrative.

[bleeding heart]

Actually, I completely destroyed Argus' false arguments.

Oh, ok. You just forgot to post the demolition. Perhaps you've still got it in your files?

Edited July 14, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Argus]

You've taken much more than "bits and pieces" from communism when you talk about economics. Thankfully for the forum, and unfortunately for the leftists, I am here to dismantle your false narrative.

kraychik, not only don't you know what conservatism is, you clearly haven't a clue what Marxism or Communism are.

You DO realize all you're doing is giving people here a good laugh, right?

Edited July 14, 2012 by Argus

[Argus]

What difference does it make whether or not a person loses their job due to increased technological innovation (an ATM, for instance), or whether it's outcourced to another country due to cheaper operation costs (i.e. manufacturing being shipped to China)?

To the individual, probably not much. To the economy, quite a bit.

Your Marxist argument is the same in either case, you are claiming that business interests are contrary to the interests of "the worker".

I wish you would stop making bold declarations about ideology when you clearly don't have more than a basic grasp about what those ideologies entail. What I stated was that what was good for business, or what business wants is not necessarily good for workers. This is absolutely undeniable.

This is straight up Marxism

,

No, it's reality, something you appear to be as unfamiliar with as you are with conservatism, Marxism and Communism.

and reveals your lack of understanding of basic economics. I don't begrudge you for this, as this sort of ignorance is common. It's not like basic economics is standard curriculum in high schools, you have to go out of your way to learn this and understand this, unforuntately.

Do tell? And where did you study economics? I took is as a series of electives because it was easy and didn't involve much work beyond the mathematical formulas.

This is all about the left and the right.

Not actually true. It's about right and wrong, about what works and what doesn't.

You are parroting the Marxist narrative of economics, where the government is required to manage elements of the economy because of this imaginary conflict between business (capitalist) and worker (proletariat) interests.

The government is required to manage certain economic interests and to regulate business. When it fails you get the 2008 Lehman disaster which almost plunged the world into depression. You also get mass sickness from poorly handled food, lead in children's toys, and clothing that bursts into flames. Not to mention collusion and price fixing among business, false statements and unsafe use of drugs, and predatory lending activities, unsafe dumping of chemicals, and explosions in oil drilling rigs.

Not that we don't get all that anyway, of course, but government at least keeps it somewhat in check.

Thank you for openly stating that you subscribe to the Marxist doctrine and false historical, political, and economic narratives of class warfare. Now we have you on the record, if you weren't on the record before. Of course, the "media owned by the wealthy" never suggests that raising taxes on the rich is a bad idea, right?

You've ignored my statement about class warfare predating Marx. Why? No answer for it. I will admit my statement was imprecise. I should not say "the media" make that claim. Rather, various mouthpieces make that claim through the media, and as with Goebbels, endless repetition seems to have had some effect. Nevertheless, no one seems able to explain how other nations with far higher taxes (and entitlements) seem to be functioning with considerable economic and social success.

This is 100% pure not-from-concentrate Marxism. Straight up class warfare. Hilariously, over 50% of Americans don't pay a federal income tax, and America's tax system is in fact more progressive than Canada's.

American's tax system is riven with loopholes which allow corporations and the wealthy to avoid taxation. Now I myself have decried the fact that so many don't pay taxes on the other end of the spectrum as well. That is do to well-intentioned (but often counter-productive) liberal social engineering. Nevertheless, the fixation of the Republican Party (bought and paid for by the wealthy and corporations) has, for the last twenty five years, been lowering taxes for the rich. And statistics have shown this has resulted in a growing income inequality and a plummeting social mobility.

It's not about "the American worker" and it's not about "big business". It's about the market determining these outcomes free from the encumbrance of economic illiterates like yourself who think you can outthink the market,

No. I think "the market" is just another one of the many subjects of which you are nearly entirely ignorant.

It actually IS about the worker, and doing what's best for the worker. A nation exists to benefit its people, not its corporate entities. Governmental action ought to be designed with that in mind. Unfortunately, the Republican Party operates on the reverse principal, since most of them seem to be whores eager to sell themselves to whatever corporate lobby group promises them a fat payout after their political career ends.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, which is an economic principle you don't understand. Raised costs on "the 1%" (another Marxist fantasy popularised by the recent OWS agitators) are simply passed onto everyone else in one way or another.

Really? How so? How is it that a multi-billionaire whose determination to accumulate yet more billions is delayed by higher taxes somehow harms the middle class? The belief that all the wealthy will leave, along with all their corporations, if taxes are raised seems oddly out of place when one considers Germany's success at keeping both.

By the way, I'm in favour of increases in the taxes for ALL, not merely the wealthy. I think the corporations should have their loopholes removed, the middle class should pay more, and even the lower middle class, and some of the poor should be paying at least something, as well.

[Guest galyakuma]

çàöåíè êëèïèê Çîîïàðê Ñïàñèáîñ.

...

[punked]

The Washington Post gave the Obama campaign 3 pinocchios for their ridiculous lies about Romney. Obama can't run on his record, because it's abhorrent. So he's basically forced to sling as much mud as he possibly can.

CNN has also debunked the Obama campaign 3 pinocchio lies.

And now FactCheck.Org weighs in as well. The result? More lies from Obama.

Obama and his campaign are completely pathetic, grasping at anything to distract from his terrible record as President. I expect things to get even worse, with some of his surrogates bringing up the "Mormon" issue as well. No 'Morning In America' theme for Obama like during Reagan's re-election. No 'Don't change horses in midstream' like during Clinton's re-election. It's going to be lies, smears, and innuendo all the way until November when this clown finally loses his job.

Just one question for you Shady.

when his opponent challenged his residency qualifications to be the Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney swore under oath to the Massachusetts Election Commission that he did have an ongoing relationship with Bain management, and several of its portfolio companies, including Staples, Marriot, and LifeLike.

As, this morning's Boston Globe details declarations by his lawyer, and Romney's use of these same exact declarations of his sole stock ownership, being chairmen of the board, president, and receiving an "executive" salary of over $100,000 a year, (not dividends) to convince the election commission that he was still a Massachusetts resident.

Which truth are we supposed to believe now, Romney?

What lie do you want me to believe. This lie or that lie? Maybe they are both lies. They both can't be the truth so what is it Shady?

[Pliny]

You've taken much more than "bits and pieces" from communism when you talk about economics. Thankfully for the forum, and unfortunately for the leftists, I am here to dismantle your false narrative.

I'll do what I can to help.

Unfortunately, our society in both Canada and the United States has taken "bits and pieces" from communism and other forms of socialism such as Fascism and have left the populace with little understanding of what politically is occurring. We are stuck with the central bank and a fiat currency and a universal single payer health care system in Canada (soon to be established in the US or some such facsimile), among other things. Most of the populace have some vague idea of communism and fascism as being totalitarian and have some fear of them with liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats in the States, calling each other by these names. The end will come when the State is initiated to wipe out these threats to totalitarianism through totalitarianism. Socialism seems to escape everyone's attention as being an evolutionary process towards the same end, that being the total state. When our politicians don't have a clear concept of socialism they unwittingly grab socialist "bits and pieces" from academics and ideologues whose job it is to aggrandize the State and make the politician feel valuable and popular to his constituents, offering them bread and circuses which they will vote for themselves. These "bits and pieces" eventually add up to total social engineering but few notice or recognize they are heading in that direction. Somehow, although a monetarist more fascist type economic system prevails it is confused as capitalism and kept around to take the blame for society's ills. Another confusing "bit" that is foisted on an economically illiterate public. And the greatest failing of those kept economically ignorant is their inability to relate cause and effect. What necessity is there to do so when government is supposed to right all wrongs that it sees and tells its populace what is necessary for them to correct and/or regulate and keep you safe - you never realize how lucky you are the State is there for you. The thing that politician's don't realize is that their social programs while perhaps initially helpful it eventually expands and becomes economically unmanageable - especially in light of the fact other special interests will be demanding and voting for their entitlements, over time the whole house of cards becomes economically unsustainable. Especially from a productive sector heavily burdened with regulations and taxation expected to pay for all the burgeoning circuses that must "sustained".

Sound money, a free market, private property and a government that does not attempt to manipulate the economy through, granting favour and privilege, keeping the public ignorant of what it is actually doing, controlling wages and prices, inflation and other ills, is the way toward the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of the citizens of a nation.

Hope that didn't muddy up the waters too much. The leftists argument here appears to be a spouting of regurgitated socialist rhetoric that is sold as the social duty of government in any caring-sharing nation, that you have no clue, have no basic grasp of Marxist ideology, are a troll and everyone is having a good laugh.

Thanks for your refreshing point of view.

[Shakeyhands]

Ahhhhhhh... This thread is refreshing! I remember a certain candidate being "swift boated" not so long ago, does everyone else remember the right leaning posters being so disgusted by this that they spoke out for that candidate?

The hypocrisy astounds....

[bleeding heart]

Thanks for your refreshing point of view.

Even if I thought your post had merit--and I think any possible merit is already demolished by your apocalyptic notion of creeping socialism--that you find our resident reactionary screecher and arrogant Cassandra to be "refreshing" is almost as damaging to your thesis as is your "all that is bad is leftist" simplistic "logic."

Since, at bottom, you and kraychik have a roughly one-note critique of a complex and multi-varied political/economic/social system, you might want to match the brevity of your thesis with a brevity of style; from now on, simply respond to everything with "the Left! the Left!" It sums it up perfectly, and frees up your time for some anarcho-capitalist pursuits, such as hiring private security firms to keep the dangerous masses out of your gated community.

(ooops...did I say "community?" I mean "contiguous collection of atomized individuals.")

Edited July 15, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Pliny]

Even if I thought your post had merit--and I think any possible merit is already demolished by your apocalyptic notion of creeping socialism--that you find our resident reactionary screecher and arrogant Cassandra to be "refreshing" is almost as damaging to your thesis as is your "all that is bad is leftist" simplistic "logic."

Since, at bottom, you and kraychik have a roughly one-note critique of a complex and multi-varied political/economic/social system, you might want to match the brevity of your thesis with a brevity of style; from now on, simply respond to everything with "the Left! the Left!" It sums it up perfectly, and frees up your time for some anarcho-capitalist pursuits, such as hiring private security firms to keep the dangerous masses out of your gated community.

(ooops...did I say "community?" I mean "contiguous collection of atomized individuals.")

I suppose you would find it "a complex and multi-varied political/economic/social system". When one first starts driving a car it is complex but as you "progress" it becomes an easier task and perhaps simpler than you initially thought. You just have to go through a learning process. Soon you will be thinking on your own along with the rest of the "contiguous collection of atomized individuals." and may even be able to make a statement of ideas that you as an individual arrive at.

Here are two pieces of information that are inarguable if one cares to look through history: 1. Governments tend, over time, to centralize power. 2. They debase the people's currency. These things happen over time almost inversely proportional to each other.