patrick.net

xrpb11a says

So Romney is 'accused' of keeping money in offshore accounts to delay or evade paying US taxes for himself or the offshore companies he represented. He did. He mad massive profits for himself and the companies he represented. He's a qualified EXPERT at it. He beat the system within the rules laid out.

pretty much anyone who holds a shares of a small company to large US company be it tech or F500 industry has 'ownership' in cash accounts held overseas to run overseas operations. They are hardly to keep "profits" overseas.. frankly had Ford, IBM, or any other US company "move" those profits to US entity would be near bankruptcy ... falling prey to the competitors...

and of course if you hold a foreign company stock ADR, you also have direct ownership in foreign cash accounts.

Its simply remarkable how the media and crony journalism twists the facts...

I wonder how many lefty crony Communists in Italy are trying to get FIAT on their overseas profits on Chrysler ownership.. its just laughable!

xrpb11a says

Great. He's good at it. Now lets let him do it to China, since they've been screwing the USA over with their trade imbalances and currency manipulation.

Can't do that. Foreigners can't buy majorities in Chinese Corporations. China generally permits only joint ventures.

thunderlips11 says

Can't do that. Foreigners can't buy majorities in Chinese Corporations. China generally permits only joint ventures.

That's right, Romney was successful in this country due his ability to create and or use a business model based on the laws and basic structures of the USA economy. The business of business is to make money, job creation/destruction is a side affect not a goal. I will grant you it was a complex business and Romney is/was a sharp, competent biz guy, that as I listen to him speak is what he is "grounded" in, where he feels comfortable. If that's is what you want for President he is your man among the two choices.

As president he would not be in the position to do what he did at Bain.
I am referring to his "killer instinct" as a businessman.
Put that skillset to work for the USA.

thunderlips11 says

xrpb11a says

Great. He's good at it. Now lets let him do it to China, since they've been screwing the USA over with their trade imbalances and currency manipulation.

Can't do that. Foreigners can't buy majorities in Chinese Corporations. China generally permits only joint ventures.

Homo Economicus. A Legendary Creature, like Bigfoot, claimed to exist by Pseudoscientists.

I think the 'times' should dictate whether we vote for what we 'want' for president versus what we 'need' for president.

There's a time for idealism, and a time for action.

rdm says

thunderlips11 says

If that's is what you want for President he is your man among the two choices.

xrpb11a says

I am referring to his "killer instinct" as a businessman.
Put that skillset to work for the USA.

He would be putting those skills to work for his friends, in much the way that GWB and Cheney were partially interested in their friends at Haliburton and other oil companies when they backed the BS neocon strategies in Iraq.

The president can help direct resources. OBama's goal of directing resources to sustainable energy sources was mostly about a belief in government investment helping us compete in that growing sector. It might not have been so prudently planned. I'm not saying there is no problem there whatsoever.

Unfortunately China and several other countries are kicking our ass in solar. Why do you think that is ? Does it have anything to do with how cozy oil and coal companies are with our government, the extent to which they are basically shareholders in our government ?

Between Obama and Romney which one do you think is more likely to be all about enriching or otherwise taking care of their friends ? Which one is more about positive change ?

Nice graphs comparing Solendra to miltary boondoggles.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solyndras-loan-guarantee-vs.-military-boondoggles/

Compare Enron to Solyndra. The only difference is that Enron was just friends of the admin. Solendra was an idealistic attempt to improve our energy future, both economically and with green tech. But yes friends (crony factor) were involved.

Where were Sean Hannity’s calls for an investigation of the Enron scandal involving millions of dollars in campaign contributions to George Bush, U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm and other members of Congress? Enron Corp. received $1.2 billion in government-backed loans to help build power plants. Where was the right’s condemnation of the cozy relationship between the Bush White House and Enron that enabled Kenneth Lay, then Enron's CEO, to meet with Dick Cheney to help mold the nation's energy policy? Details of Cheney’s talks with Enron officials remained secret, but a memo outlining the discussions revealed the extent to which Enron lobbied to influence government policy.

http://www.examiner.com/article/solyndra-is-no-scandal-compared-to-bush-cheney-s-enron-fiasco

Captain Says

Compare Hitler to Stalin. The only difference is that Hitler was just friends of the admin. Stalin was an idealistic attempt to improve the energy future, both economically and with Scythe and Sickle. But yes friends (crony factor) were involved.

Edited after admonishment.

Any president will be more likely to be all about enriching or otherwise taking care of their friends. ( except carter )

To believe the "positive change" mantra is very ostrich-like...

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6874

marcus says

Between Obama and Romney which one do you think is more likely to be all about enriching or otherwise taking care of their friends ? Which one is more about positive change ?

CAptainDB: please don't put words I didn't say in to a supposed quote from me.

CaptainShuddup says

You might think I'm obnoxious. I don't give a rat's ass.

CaptainDB. MAybe you should have read when I clearly and explicitly (something you should look in to)said, regarding Solendra:

marcus says

I'm not saying there is no problem there whatsoever.

Romney is the son of a politician who observed the best ways to manipulate the economy and the political system, but didn't have the time to apply the lessons in his own life. So, he tutored his son to do it with great success. Romney is the heir designated "rent taker" spawned by our system of politics and lobbying. He never would have been successful on his own.

Sort of like Joseph Kennedy becoming a bank regulator simply for the purpose of learning what he could get away with.

On the other hand, Obama's net worth has quintupled since he took office? Why is it that politicians who are financial failures in every other walk of life suddenly become financial geniuses as soon as they take office?

Follow the money, but nobody ever does to find out how these briberies take place under the radar.

Now we are getting somewhere....

Ceffer says

Romney is the son of a politician who observed the best ways to manipulate the economy and the political system, but didn't have the time to apply the lessons in his own life. So, he tutored his son to do it with great success. Romney is the heir designated "rent taker" spawned by our system of politics and lobbying. He never would have been successful on his own.

Sort of like Joseph Kennedy becoming a bank regulator simply for the purpose of learning what he could get away with.

On the other hand, Obama's net worth has quintupled since he took office? Why is it that politicians who are financial failures in every other walk of life suddenly become financial geniuses as soon as they take office?

Follow the money, but nobody ever does to find out how these briberies take place under the radar.

xrpb11a says

On the other hand, Obama's net worth has quintupled since he took office? Why is it that politicians who are financial failures in every other walk of life suddenly become financial geniuses as soon as they take office?

Follow the money, but nobody ever does to find out how these briberies take place under the radar.

Obama's finances are pretty much an open book (he has released his tax returns unlike Mitt) there has been no indication he has increased his wealth in any illegal way, since becoming President. I recall before he was elected there was some mini-scandal regarding his house or lot next to his house in Chicago. That was about it, he doesn't really seem driven by money, some people aren't. His wealth has increased primarily from books he has written. Clinton is now quite wealthy and it always seemed to me he had more corruptible persona than Obama but I dont believe he acquired his wealth while being President. Becoming President makes you a celebrity and book deals and speaking engagements flow forth.

Quack-Quack = I love your repeated personal attacks on anyone who chooses to have a discourse with you. Nothing new here - move along.

marcus says

CAptainDB: please don't put words I didn't say in to a supposed quote from me.

CaptainShuddup says

You might think I'm obnoxious. I don't give a rat's ass.

I apologize Marcus I was trying to satirize your post.
I should have done it with literal quotes, and not the block quote (X) "Says" forum format.

I don't know what you are talking about.
What 'lie'??

Honest Abe says

Quack-Quack = I love your repeated personal attacks on anyone who chooses to have a discourse with you. Nothing new here - move along.

"His wealth has increased primarily from books he has written. Clinton is now quite wealthy and it always seemed to me he had more corruptible persona than Obama but I dont believe he acquired his wealth while being President. Becoming President makes you a celebrity and book deals and speaking engagements flow forth."

So you are saying the bribery takes place by subsidizing book deals and speaking engagements, with lots of free promotion and publicity? Gee, it's so simple, even a Republican can do it!

Ceffer says

So you are saying the bribery takes place by subsidizing book deals and speaking engagements, with lots of free promotion and publicity? Gee, it's so simple, even a Republican can do it!

And they do, that's the system we have. Regan did it, G W Bush just did a preface and put his stamp of approval on a book called "The 4% Solution". Obama's books were written before he became President but absolutely benefited from him running and becoming President, but I dont think anyone ( well maybe you are) is claiming this is what "drove" him to running, nice side benefit though.