What Did He Really Say?
And Why Not?
It Seems Logical To Me...
Let me preface this by saying I'm not a big Mitt Romney fan mainly because he isn't conservative enough for my liking. Then let me add that I also think he is qualified to be the President of this country by leaps and bounds compared to Obama. The fact that Romney is a "big government" Republican, as is Rick Santorum, while I am a "limited government" Constitutional type puts us at odds. However, the recent attack by both Republican candidates and the Democratic Party apparatus wasn't called for in light of what he really said and what they thought he said. It was really all in the delivery, not the message.
I am a consumer and so are you. That was what he was really talking about when he referred to the fact that he liked to fire people. No one takes joy in doing that. I own a business and when I have had to fire, or lay-off, members of the crew it isn't an easy, pleasurable task. But that isn't what Romney was talking about and any person with a bit of common sense knows that. As a consumer, I like the fact that I have the ability to fire any person, company or corporation that isn't providing the type of service I expect to be provided for the amount of money I am paying to provide such service. I do have that right in this country to do just that,
What I don't expect to see happen is for the federal government to interfere with my ability to make that choice myself and have them make it for me. Put in proper context, which it wasn't, Romney was referring to the health care law that the majority of the public didn't want, never wanted and will never want to be foisted upon us where we are mandated to buy something that is a matter of personal choice. You can very easily get stuck with a provider you don't want and then can't get rid of. So then they wanted to extend this into his past with his past relationship with Bain. That isn't what he was referring to and they knew it. What it did do was give them an opportunity to try to connect dots where the connection isn't there.
As with running any business, especially the business that Bain was in, there are successes and failures. That is what the company did for a living. They were in the business of having to step in and take the reins of companies who were in the free fall mode. The auto industry comes to mind in recent history. There are choices that have to be made when you take the risk of doing the "stepping in." This is part of capitalism and the way free markets operate. You either succeed or fail and the notion that everyone should be a winner isn't reality. It would be nice if that were so but life isn't like that. My company's success, or failure, is dependent on the business decisions that I make, not what any government makes for me.
We've seen TARP and we've seen the propping up of the failing auto industry by the government because those cats up there believe that some businesses are "too big to fail." That's a bunch of malarkey. Their failure was based upon their decisions, and in most cases their taking excessive risks and serious flaws in their business plans. In the case of the auto industry the long term effects of excessive union demands contributed to the cause. The fact is that the debate will continue in this country about what to do about failing businesses. So lets look at the choices and particularly what shouldn't be a choice.
Denial that they are failing really isn't an option. They are failing so then the decision has to be made what to do about it. That was the business that Bain undertook. Sometimes a hopeless case is indeed hopeless. But to say just isn't so doesn't make it so. The choices are to 1) break out the shutters or 2) restructure the organization or lastly 3) prop them up. If there is a chance that things can be salvaged then I am a supporter of option 2. But then I'm a capitalist and understand that not everyone who opens and runs a business is going to succeed. This whole idea that it isn't okay to fail escapes me. There will be successes in life and there will be failures. What you learn, or we learn collectively, about the causes of failure should be worth examining. That's how people learn many times - by failing.
An examination of anyone's record during the run for the Presidency should be expected. I can only now appreciate how much Obama's record, or really total lack of one, should have garnered the intense scrutiny of what I see going on right now. Rather than "anoint" a candidate as our left-wing media did, which compromised the media in my mind, he should have been taken to task for being the unqualified, inexperienced candidate he was and we are paying the price for that now. I said examination and not the mud slinging I am seeing of late.
To take what anyone says out of context and spin it in another direction is inexcusable to me. Be you a Republican, a Democrat or like me, an Independent, you should have better sense than to get caught up in what is obviously so apparent. Spin is spin. The truth is also the truth if you bother to step back and look at the real picture. What we need in this nation is an "informed voter," not a pack of jackasses going to the polls based upon any political party spinning them into oblivion. To take something a candidate says totally out of context in an attempt to smear that individual is unacceptable. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich joined the likes of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who I find to be a complete idiot, in spinning something that was legitimate into something it wasn't.
In summary, as a consumer do you like the fact that you have the ability to fire someone who isn't meeting your expectations? It is your money that you are paying them to meet your expectations. Or would you rather have the federal government make that decision for you? Presently, and recent history proves this to be so, the federal government wants to make those decisions for you. Obama wants to be able to dictate who the winners and losers are in the marketplace. Solyndra is a shining example of his thinking. That cost the tax payers to lose a large chunk of change. The free market place should be the honest arbiter of who succeeds and who fails. If I want to fire a business who I find unacceptable I want to retain the right to do so. I "like" having that right to fire them. Most American consumers would agree with that statement minus the spin we have been seeing.
The Frog Prince