PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Steve Jobs as CEO, and arguably the most controlling CEO of any Fortune 500 company in the past decade, was found not guilty when he claimed to have no knowledge of the stockoptions backdating issue. Now that was huge, and something that related directly to him. But he was found not guilty, because even when you're absolutely on top of every thing you're concerned about in a firm, even then some things can go by unnoticed. Should we blame Steve Jobs for that, even though someone in his employ made the decision without his knowledge? I'd love to hear that argument.
When Romney is practically running the Winter Olympics, do you honestly think the nuances of Private Equity ethics should be churning in his mind when he has employees underneath to worry about that for him?
cartoon_soldier
Member
And if Steve Jobs ran for President, that would affect him.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Isn't the GOP already doing so? Anti-Obama ads have already been cut on the Las Vegas issue, Fast and Furios scandal, things companies did that got Stimulus money, etc.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Good lord, is Romney just the worst presidential candidate in history or what?
This scandal is completely going to stick and who knows, maybe Democrats will win the House back, I could see Republicans sitting this one out if this guy is the alternative. Especially if he goes for such a blatant hailmary by choosing Condi as VP, how did that work for Mondale?
This scandal is completely going to stick and who knows, maybe Democrats will win the House back, I could see Republicans sitting this one out if this guy is the alternative. Especially if he goes for such a blatant hailmary by choosing Condi as VP, how did that work for Mondale?
Not even close to being the same thing, ese.
Hey, there's our first false equivalency argument of the day!
And also what cartoon_soldier said.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
And I think we'd have to agree that it would be unfair to hold that against him.
Similarly, it would be unfair to hold Fast and Furious against Obama.
The fact that some dems, especially on this board, have been in a larger uproar about something as ridiculous as title semantics when compared to their more sombre reflection of Obama's candidacy in regards to Fast and Furious, is particularly illuminating.
balladofwindfishes
Member
You just gave your full approval to the Obama administration to use every single thing Romney ever did, I wonder if you realize that.
Because you, and the GOP, at already attacking Obama for incidents like that. And so if you approve of one, you have to approve of the other, after all, that's the point you're making, isn't it?
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
cartoon_soldier
Member
It would be an issue if Steve Jobs claimed that he left Apple at X date and had no idea of ANYTHING that went on at Apple.
Romney isn't saying he had no knowledge about something specific. Just everything. He had 4 different titles during that time. Oh, and he IS claiming credit for any jobs that were created at Bain during that time.
You already have so I'm not for sure why your asking.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Yet it's not an issue say, when Steve Jobs had majority share of Apple making him the outright owner, and was CEO, and was the head of the macintosh project, but had zero clue what the other half of Apple was doing when they worked in the same exact building? Because that's what happened.
And now let's assume that Steve Jobs goes off to run the Winter Olympics. Now we're to assume he knows what's going on at Apple?
balladofwindfishes
Member
if he's president, owner and CEO, yes
if he didn't, why did he collect a paycheck for a job he didn't do?
Jobs is responsible for the people he hires, but not necessarily their actions unless someone can prove that he had absolute knowledge of the issue. Jobs actually is responsible for what happened in that issue, but not necessarily the criminally underlying in it. There is more to the term 'responsibility' then blame, it is also a matter of making adjustments IF irregularities show up.
The reason we are getting on Romney's case is because he is trying to blast Obama for the stuff that is done on his watch (of which he won't deny either so its not like he is a hypocrite for asking the same from Romney) and yet despite being in a position of power, he refuses to take responsibility of ANYTHING, I repeat ANYTHING his company has done including the stuff he has apparently signed off on.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
And with one sentence, you have formed an argument against the entire concept of being a shareholder. Well done.
But that's a petty and vindicative reason for calling him out on this.
balladofwindfishes
Member
well it's too bad Romney wasn't just a shareholder, then. He wasn't, he was CEO, president and owner.
Ok, so let's say he didn't have a clue what was going on and really didn't attend any meetings or do anything...
That means his sworn testimony to determine whether he could be governor or not in 2002 was a lie.
You see why this is a problem?
He wasn't just a shareholder... And is this really a good argument to bring up in this election? I don't ask this to you, but in general. Romney is now making the argument that he made a massive salary, more than most Americans by doing admittedly nothing at all while campaigning on cutting taxes for those who make a lot of money. Does anyone see a problem with that, too, because I think it's kind of crazy...
Exactly.
The thing is, I don't think Mittens or Bain didn't anything illegal when he was still working with them, but rather he (and Bain) did things that don't make for good optics for running for the presidency. Completely fair to ask about such things.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
Romney said that he went back to MA for both social and business reasons. He specified board meetings. That really doesn't constitute as 'running the daily affairs of the business'. So no, I don't think this is a problem at all.
He owned the company and was the CEO. Of course he can set his own salary. Why the fuck shouldn't he?
About cutting taxes on the rich, well that's an economic point of view that he stands by. It's like if a poor man became a President and favored raising taxes on the rich, we should be able to draw a motive to his policy. That would be equally ridiculous.
So you agree that Obama should have zero blame for the economy?
Dr. Pangloss
Member
How do you feel about Kenneth Lay?
He just said today in his interview that he doesn't recall even once coming back for meetings...
I don't believe so. He just doesn't agree with the Bain attack.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
I'm of the Krugman persuasion. I'd say he hasn't been active enough in pulling the economy out through government investment.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Racist Ron Paul newsletters all over again.
What options does he have as president to create policies for government investment. Congress has to do that.
He was deeply involved with the stimulus legislation, and Krugman thinks he should have gone for something bigger. I agree, but I'm not sure if it would have been possible with the blue dogs.
Right-wing persuasion.
At least, that is what I gather from a few posts and threads I have seen in the past. I could just be wrong at reading Devil's Advocates.
TacticalFox88
Banned
On one hand I'm glad Romney is being exposed as the shitbag he is even more. But fuck if I wish this would've came out during October.
Ultimately I agree but I don't know how he can argue that Romney bears no blame while he is CEO and being paid for it.
airmangataosenai
Member
The past few days have been incredible, Mitt Romney has brass balls (Nay, of steel). He honestly is trying to sell to the general public that he owned a company and in addition served as its CEO and President and yet for 3 years had nothing to do with the company whatsoever. Not only that, but you even demand an apology from someone who suggests otherwise. Gawdam son!
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Way to miss the point. Why is he drawing a salary if, by his own admission, he's not doing anything and more crucially not taking responsibility for anything? If the CEO makes no decisions and has no responsibility for the decisions of those he delegated power to, what justification is there for him being a paid member of the company?
And on the ownership standpoint: owning a company is not and should not be a ticket for free money.
No one said he shouldn't. But he's literally saying he did nothing and had no responsibility. That doesn't exactly square with the typical American (and more conservative) view that those who make more simply work harder. He's defying this view and actively saying you can hold that job and do nothing. He's also showing first hand that people who make that kind of money aren't job creators. Again, he admits he had no responsibility. How was that creating jobs again?
I just think it's an interesting corner that the Obama campaign has pushed him into. I don't think actual small business owners and even everyday workers are going to buy that or even like it at all.
It's a stupid economic view that, in my opinion, is debunked partially by his own admission in this very instance. The economic view holds that you can't tax the job creators more, because then they won't create more jobs. What jobs would not be created by taxing Romney more on that money he made as CEO? What exactly would he do if he were taxed more? He's already admittedly doing nothing at all.
I'm guessing they would argue that even if he wasn't doing anything NOW, he worked hard to get up to where he was so all subsequent lack of effort is completely warranted since he paid his dues.
I'm inclined to believe Romney is telling the truth here, FactCheck.org is standing by their claim. http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/
Another link from this site I found interesting, an empty claim from the Obama campaign that Mitt Romney was shipping jobs overseas http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
I was hoping the Obama team would be better than this kind of empty claim shit
Another link from this site I found interesting, an empty claim from the Obama campaign that Mitt Romney was shipping jobs overseas http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
I was hoping the Obama team would be better than this kind of empty claim shit
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
How in the world is it 'free money'? No one has the moral authority to deny you a wage, regardless of how much work you do, if you own the company. When you make an investment, you're investing into the future potential of that organization. If your company tanks, you take responsibility. If someone you placed in a position of responsibility screws up while you're away, you get rid of him. It's that simple.
There is no such thing as free money. As long as it's legal, and not unethical as far as you know, you earn as much as you make.
While there is an argument to be paid about lower taxes, and especially lower capital gains taxes, I too think Romney has a fairly unintelligent tax policy as highlighted thusfar in his campaign.
Does anyone else think Romney and the GOP were caught completely off guard at how unrelenting and brutal the Obama team would be on Bain and other issues? They probably knew Obama would attack him on Bain, his refusal to release tax returns, and other stuff, but not to this extent. That's the only thing I imagine that could explain this sloppy job the Romney campaign is currently doing. This is amateur hour stuff at best. Or maybe they thought the anti-Obama sentiment was enough to ride them into the White House.
Maybe the GOP have gotten too used to going up against Milquetoast Democratic opponents.
Maybe the GOP have gotten too used to going up against Milquetoast Democratic opponents.
Meh, Factcheck.org, like Politifact, like Glenn Kessler, is just another arm of the Republican party that occasionally says bad things about Republicans.
There's the problem with his whole argument. He's saying he had no responsibility at all in anything they did after 1999. What you're saying is correct. If you have a position of responsibility, then you're responsible for what goes on, whether or not your'e there for the day to day. You don't get to get off easy with an "It wasn't me" when you are in that kind of position, yet that's exactly what he was trying to do.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
From FactCheck.org
Boom.
Boom.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Am I the only thing be confused at what point he's trying to make here?
- Status