Romney: Income Inequality should be discussed in "Quiet Rooms"

No matter how you spin it, Romney was saying that the hoi-polloi should just leave discussion of income inequality to their betters. Pray let's not let the unwashed mob take part in the dialogue!

It won't work, of course. The increase in income inequality over the past thirty years, along with the corruption of government by money, are going to be the main issues of this campaign. I can fully understand why he doesn't like that. It means he will lose.
 
In 1965, the average CEO pay was 26 times his average worker's pay.

Today, it's over 500 times.

Why do you suppose that is? What caused it? What justifies it?
 
In 1965, the average CEO pay was 26 times his average worker's pay.

Today, it's over 500 times.

Why do you suppose that is? What caused it? What justifies it?

It is not that CEOs have done a better job since 1965. US corporations have lost ground in the global markets but CEOs have demanded more pay. They have also seen a larger increase in pay and benefits than their foreign competitors
 
No matter how you spin it, Romney was saying that the hoi-polloi should just leave discussion of income inequality to their betters. Pray let's not let the unwashed mob take part in the dialogue!

It won't work, of course. The increase in income inequality over the past thirty years, along with the corruption of government by money, are going to be the main issues of this campaign. I can fully understand why he doesn't like that. It means he will lose.

No, he wasn't. You might think he was - that is your opinion. That he was not is my opinion.

What I do happen to agree with is that the decisions need to be made with critical thought rather than partisan bullshit.
 
In 1965, the average CEO pay was 26 times his average worker's pay.

Today, it's over 500 times.

Why do you suppose that is? What caused it? What justifies it?

Quiet Room negotiations that represent both sides...As Bush put it:

"The haves and the have mores"
 
No matter how you spin it, Romney was saying that the hoi-polloi should just leave discussion of income inequality to their betters. Pray let's not let the unwashed mob take part in the dialogue!

It won't work, of course. The increase in income inequality over the past thirty years, along with the corruption of government by money, are going to be the main issues of this campaign. I can fully understand why he doesn't like that. It means he will lose.

No, he wasn't. You might think he was - that is your opinion. That he was not is my opinion.

What I do happen to agree with is that the decisions need to be made with critical thought rather than partisan bullshit.

honey, what he said was the worst type of elitism. he very clearly stated that anyone who talks about income inequality is "envious" and saying those discussions should "take place in quiet rooms".. was saying, essentially, that we "shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it". it was incredibly patronizing. i don't think he meant it to be that. i think he can't help himself.
 
You have just repudiated the entire concept of America. The American model has always been to make a bigger pie.

The only rational answer to your question is those who take the risk get the greatest reward.

The workers take the greatest risk. Their lives, their families, their wellbeing depend on the job.

Investors generally invest money they can afford to lose. That's a far smaller risk.

That's what's wrong! It's this kind of thinking. The workers don't take a risk at all. Whether the company does well or does poorly, the worker gets paid. Unless the company fails. Many times the company fails because the workers refuse to hold up their end of the work for hire bargain. They expect to get paid no matter how badly the company does. That's no risk.

If a company in need of financial capital tells investors that the investment will not get a significant return because the workers demand more money, the company will not get an investment and it will fail. The risk simply won't be taken!

When a company makes a bad decision it is the worker who is first in line to pay the price. It is the workers who are asked to take cuts, the worker who is laid off. The company failing is the last resort
 
No matter how you spin it, Romney was saying that the hoi-polloi should just leave discussion of income inequality to their betters. Pray let's not let the unwashed mob take part in the dialogue!

It won't work, of course. The increase in income inequality over the past thirty years, along with the corruption of government by money, are going to be the main issues of this campaign. I can fully understand why he doesn't like that. It means he will lose.

No, he wasn't. You might think he was - that is your opinion. That he was not is my opinion.

What I do happen to agree with is that the decisions need to be made with critical thought rather than partisan bullshit.

honey, what he said was the worst type of elitism. he very clearly stated that anyone who talks about income inequality is "envious" and saying those discussions should "take place in quiet rooms".. was saying, essentially, that we "shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about it". it was incredibly patronizing. i don't think he meant it to be that. i think he can't help himself.

I just don't see it that way. Your interpretation is based on your political views. Mine is based on mine. I was quite clear about what he said. And I don't disagree. Issues like income inequality should be debated by our lawmakers - and they should do like fucking grown ups, not lying about each other. I'm tired of politicians lying about each other for point scoring. It bores me, and worse than the boredom, it divides people. I would quite like my political 'leaders' to fucking 'lead' by example - that is to have honest, open discussions about what needs to be done.

I see plenty of 'envy' on this forum. So he is not wrong about that. I would prefer that we not have policy based on envy.... just like I dislike laws based on kneejerk reactions. They are almost always bad, unworkable, laws.
 
Your opinion is not 'context'. I suggest you read up on Bains Capital and find out exactly what companies they have invested in and the outcomes of those investments. Then come back and tell me exactly how 'evil' it is.

I'll wait.


Sister, I was talking about Bain six months ago and how it was going to be what does in Romney. The only thing that is mildly surprising me is that the REpublicans are the ones bringing it up.

If you really think getting rid of a good-paying union job at AmPad or GS Steel is made up for by giving someone a crappy retail job at Staples, then I think you are sort of deluded...

The Staples employess will be voting for Obama.
 
Your opinion is not 'context'. I suggest you read up on Bains Capital and find out exactly what companies they have invested in and the outcomes of those investments. Then come back and tell me exactly how 'evil' it is.

I'll wait.


Sister, I was talking about Bain six months ago and how it was going to be what does in Romney. The only thing that is mildly surprising me is that the REpublicans are the ones bringing it up.

If you really think getting rid of a good-paying union job at AmPad or GS Steel is made up for by giving someone a crappy retail job at Staples, then I think you are sort of deluded...

The Staples employess will be voting for Obama.

I'm not your sister. We are not related.

But it's nice to see that you're stupid enough to decide how thousands of people that you don't know are going to vote. You are TruthMocker's stupid.
 
Your opinion is not 'context'. I suggest you read up on Bains Capital and find out exactly what companies they have invested in and the outcomes of those investments. Then come back and tell me exactly how 'evil' it is.

I'll wait.


Sister, I was talking about Bain six months ago and how it was going to be what does in Romney. The only thing that is mildly surprising me is that the REpublicans are the ones bringing it up.

If you really think getting rid of a good-paying union job at AmPad or GS Steel is made up for by giving someone a crappy retail job at Staples, then I think you are sort of deluded...

The Staples employess will be voting for Obama.

I'm not your sister. We are not related.

But it's nice to see that you're stupid enough to decide how thousands of people that you don't know are going to vote. You are TruthMocker's stupid.

I talked to some folks in my office who are just starting to pay attention to this...

No support for Romney. A few of them like Ron Paul, which is kind of scary.

Fact is, if you are working at Staples without benefits and just hoping for a better oppurtunity, there's no good reason for you to vote for Romney.

Guy is gonna be a disaster for the GOP. Mark my words.
 
In context, all those things still sound really horrible.

Only to a fucking idiot.

You clearly do not understand 'context'. Which is what makes you a fucking idiot.

You are the one that does not understand context. You spew nonsense about what you believe romney was trying to say instead of focusing on the words that actually came out of his mouth.

LAUER: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?

ROMNEY: You know I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like. But the president has made this part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach and I think it'll fail.

So what in that context changes the fact that romney clearly states that it's fine to talk about it in "quiet rooms"?

You seem to be expanding on those two words and adding things like "Rational, calm, honest debate by policy makers" and yet I didn't see that in his actual words so where did you get your interpretation?
 
Sister, I was talking about Bain six months ago and how it was going to be what does in Romney. The only thing that is mildly surprising me is that the REpublicans are the ones bringing it up.

If you really think getting rid of a good-paying union job at AmPad or GS Steel is made up for by giving someone a crappy retail job at Staples, then I think you are sort of deluded...

The Staples employess will be voting for Obama.

I'm not your sister. We are not related.

But it's nice to see that you're stupid enough to decide how thousands of people that you don't know are going to vote. You are TruthMocker's stupid.

I talked to some folks in my office who are just starting to pay attention to this...

No support for Romney. A few of them like Ron Paul, which is kind of scary.

Fact is, if you are working at Staples without benefits and just hoping for a better oppurtunity, there's no good reason for you to vote for Romney.

Guy is gonna be a disaster for the GOP. Mark my words.

The war on the American middle/working class that has been going on for decades is like any other long costly war...

...everyone knows someone who was a casualty.
 
I think Romney's words speak for themselves.

"I like to be able to fire people"

"Corporations are people, too, my friend."

"I can't have illegals, I'm running for office, for pete's sake!"

"I'll bet you $10,000."

I can see why he'd want to have this conversation in a quiet room. In public, he says these asspoundingly stupid, insensitive things where even Conservatives are starting to realize they've been had!

Are you being deliberately thick as pig shit or do you genuinely not understand that meaning of the word 'context'?

Explain the statement above about corporations being people in whatever context you feel is necessary and relevant.

If corporations are people then shouldn't they pay taxes at the same rate as real people in their income brackets?
 
Are you being deliberately thick as pig shit or do you genuinely not understand that meaning of the word 'context'?

Explain the statement above about corporations being people in whatever context you feel is necessary and relevant.

If corporations are people then shouldn't they pay taxes at the same rate as real people in their income brackets?

Yes, and every shareholder should be criminally liable for corporate crimes.
 
You have just repudiated the entire concept of America. The American model has always been to make a bigger pie.

The only rational answer to your question is those who take the risk get the greatest reward.

The workers take the greatest risk. Their lives, their families, their wellbeing depend on the job.

Investors generally invest money they can afford to lose. That's a far smaller risk.

That's what's wrong! It's this kind of thinking. The workers don't take a risk at all. Whether the company does well or does poorly, the worker gets paid. Unless the company fails. Many times the company fails because the workers refuse to hold up their end of the work for hire bargain. They expect to get paid no matter how badly the company does. That's no risk.

If a company in need of financial capital tells investors that the investment will not get a significant return because the workers demand more money, the company will not get an investment and it will fail. The risk simply won't be taken!

BS. My brother took a job with microsoft down in texas last year. Microsoft told him it would be a full time position so he moved down there for the job. About 3 months in microsoft "decides" that this job and others that were hired at the same time were temp jobs and laid off my brother and a bunch of his coworkers. He risked everything to move down there for a real job. In the end he moved back home in debt because he couldn't find any other work in that area. 4 months later microsoft calls him back and offers him a "new" position. needless to say he did not take it.

Furthermore there are many instances where employees invest in the company that they are working for and if it goes under they take the risk of losing their investment.

So thanks for your BS that workers risk nothing.
 
Of course it is as straightforward as that! The complaint of income inequality has its basis in nothing but envy and jealousy. The very people who complain the loudest are the most unwilling to put forth the effort to raise their income! They prefer to use envy. It isn't fair that one person makes more than another. What someone DOES to make more money than another is out of the discussion.

Again, tell us about that jealousy and envy of the pay and benefits of public sector employees. We heard plenty of that recently.

How is that when you say anything negative about an MBA like Romney raking in millions playing Monopoly with real life companies and people, it's class envy and jealousy,

but when you bitch about a teacher with a masters degree being greedy and overpaid at 60,000 a year with decent healthcare and a retirement plan,

magically it's a perfectly legitimate issue.

How does that work exactly?

What Romney does is more important and worth more than what the teacher does. Sorry. It's true. If you have a company that's struggling would you hire Romney to infuse it with money and manage a turn around or a teacher? Efforts of venture capitalists like Romney don't always work. Sometimes the company will fail. Sometimes no matter how hard the teacher works with an individual student, he or she is still going to get failing grade. As companies like Staples and Sports Authority grew and hired thousands more people, those workers would likely disagree with you. They owe their jobs to Romney, not to the teacher.

It depends, is this teacher going to have access to the cash that bain capaital had at it's disposal and is this the teacher that taught romney how to do what he did at bain capital??

LOL

Oh and let's flip it the other way.

You need to learn astrophysics, would you hire romney to teach you about it or would you hire the teacher who has worked in that field and actually knows what they are doing?

Your analogy is beyond moronic. Of course if you wanted to infuse money into a company you would go to someone with money and not a teacher. Everyone knows teachers don't have that kind of cash.

lol
 

Forum List

Back
Top