MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell explains what strippers and Mitt Romney have in common. Plus, he actually praises Newt Gingrich. Watch for details.
Gingrich rewrites Romney on capitalism
-
Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:24 AM EST
Leave a Comment:
- 2012
- 2011
- 2010
Discuss this post
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
About The Last Word
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell airs at 10pm ET, Monday through Thursday on MSNBC. The show channels O'Donnell's extensive background in politics and entertainment.
Excellent piece. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. A man who profits at the expense of others has no business running our nation. www.joshuatreecamping.org
Excellent,but the last of Newt's statement was cut off in the video clip and that's a shame considering what he was saying.
You got to give the devil his due. Remember the movie Wall Street with Michael Douglas. Well Mitt Romney is no Michael Douglas, he's the real thing!!
Remember Edward, the character, in Pretty Woman and his epiphany at the end when he forsakes making billions to join James Morse to BUILD ships? I find Pretty Woman to be a wonderful romance movie but also, just as importantly, a moral story. Vivian also had her epiphany through Edward to give up the quick money from prostitution and return to school to become a productive person. Pretty Woman is much more than a simple movie if one has a brain and actually uses it.
We'll all be better off reelecting Obama and moving forward with a moral tone shared by most.
Lwarence, let's find a positive way to highlight the dark side of venture capitalism / LBO firms. Pretty Woman is an excellent movie that illustrates the difference between capitalism doing good things and capitalism doing destructive things. As you know, Edward was in the business of making money by buying companies and selling the parts. Vivian lickened this practice to stripping cars. Edward remarked that at least his practice was legal (but did not defend its morality). Vivian ultimately leads him to his epiphany whereby he foregoes making billions to become a partner with James Morse to help save James' long-held but struggling business of building ships. Edward reflected on the days of his childhood during which he built things with his blocks and erector set and realized making money with other people's money to get rich is morally hallow. While, to me, this is just as much as a heart warming scene as is the end when Prince Edward returns to save Princess Vivian it also is highly illustrative of man's morality. Yes, this is just a fictional story but is no less illustrative of what is truly important and what is truly moral as is the fictional book entitled the Bible.
Comparing strippers who make an honest living to feed their children may be less "sexy" (intended pun) than a nurse working in a children's hospital, but sure is honorable compared to Willard's greedy plundering. Lawrence, I wish you didn't equate the hard work of these honest women to this vulture capitalist.
I want someone to follow through more on this. Did Bain mortgage this company to the hilt in order to have that 180M available? And then take it out? If so, didn't they stiff a bank (or similar) bigtime when they bankrupted out this company? I know... legally stiff, but stiff just the same. What financial entity was it, and did the federal reserve back it? If so, did we, as citizens, once again get screwed?
The formula / common practice used in an LBO that Baine and other private equity firms is to cause the company / business to become highly leveraged with debt first then the equity firm acquires all or a portion of the company's equity second. The valuation ascribed to the stock purchased by the equity firm is less than what it would have been had the company not been leveraged. The debt taken on by the company to facilitate the LBO is always greater and at less favorable terms to the company than prior to the LBO. The finacial risks assumed by the private equity investors is always substantially less than the bondholders and banks while the upside rewards always go to the equity investment firm. Remember Pretty Woman when Vivian asked Edward "you don't really have billions to buy the company" to which Edward responds no and that he gets banks to come up with the billions. This story really and truthfully illustrates the business practice of private equity firms. Clearly, private equity firms play a vital role in assisting a failing business to access financial capital as a last resort and restructure there business is a positive manner for sustained long-term growth but this role has been used merely as a quick means for enriching private equity firms and their clients rather than the primary intent of restructuring companies for long-term sustainable growth. Recall Vivian's quip to Edward that he does what car thieves do, steal and strips cars and sell the profitable parts. Recall Edward's retort, what he does is legal but also recall that he does not say it is moral or ethical. Keep in mind, financiers are solely concerned with making money for their self-interests and do not make decisions based in part on morality or ethics. While I do not like Gingrich at all he did make an astute and intelligent comment during an interview regarding Romney and Baine capital and I paraphrase...just because it is right, legally, does not mean it is the right thing to do. Morality is in the view of the beholder and maybe Romney and others actually believe what private equity firms do is moral but I sense, with sunshine on the practices of private equity firms and the highly dangerous practice of LBO's, many if not most will disagree.
Now, generally speaking, for all you self-proclaimed Christians, do you think Jesus would be pleased with what has occurred relative to the practices of Wall Street banks, our alleged democracy and many if not all of our politicians. Do you think Jesus would be happy with politicians who enter office with modest wealth and lifestyle and then become rich during and after their PUBLIC service? How do you think Perry and Santorum became wealthy given where they came from before office? The pay is not great for public servants but the monetary benefits from writing books, doing speeches and peddling influence is great. Of course we only have our self to blame since the majority of us don't vote and for those who do many do not invest the time and energy to become true participants in the democratic process by at least becoming knowledgeable of the true facts underlying an issue. So long as the majority don't vote and be passive participants in our democracy the special interests groups and the minority will continue to disrupt what a true democracy is meant to be...to reflect the will and values of all the people and for all the people. Do we want power and wealth to define our democracy? Do we want narrow minority morals, values and interests to control our democracy?
In the case of "Compassion -v- Venture Capitalism," I'm certain that Bain Capitol has its success stories, but if Mitt Romney lined his already-wealthy pockets from the demise of Bain's failed companies while workers & their families suffered ... that alone should disqualify Mitt Romney from any moral nomination.
Of course a success story is in the eye of the beholder. Where is Warren Buffet on this matter. He is a truly moral man and makes business decisions that are both financially motivated and morally based. No one could ever call Mr. Buffet a man trying to make a quick buck! He takes risks in his investments and he makes them to hold for years to come...not a flipper!
Was it really necessary to call the Bible a "fictitious book"? Look, Grant, I'm sure I'm with you probably close to 100% when it comes to how this country is being run and how it should be run. But it does you, nor the liberal/progressive cause, any good to attack the Christian faith, which is what you just did. The Bible, FYI, is not one book at all, but 66 (not counting the apocrypha), written over a period of at least 2,500 years, in many different styles. Much of the Bible is "fiction", in the sense that "fictional" novels are often written to express a very real truth. The Bible has been going strong for a mighty long time, and it will continue to because of the timeless truths it contains, both about God and humanity, something that atheists, agnostics, and fundamentalists either don't know or have forgotten.
I think that your attack on the Bible as "fiction" is a reaction to the follies of fundamentalism, and if so, that's a distaste that you and I share. A lot of us Christians are not fundmentalists. Comments like yours remind me of a lot of the folks in the so-called "pro-life" camp; they have a lot of people who would be their friends in a lot of ways, but they manage to alienate those same people with their myopic viewpoint. You may find this revelatory--there are more than a few of us Christians who are fairly "conservative" theologically, whose take on scripture causes us to be "liberal" politically and socially. Please remember to be good to your friends--even the Christian ones.
Look, I am not attacking Christian faith and I do believe the Bible is a fictional in the sense that it is not fact based. But the Bible is a wonderful story that offers many valuable lessons. I did not attack Christianity but challenged those of faith to be true to Christ teachings and not be selective on which one's to follow. If I hear one more time a person of religious faith speak out against abortion except in the case of incest, rape and the life of the mother it will be one too many times. If your faith believes that abortion is the taking of a life and should be criminalized then such a conviction must cause you to believe there are no exceptions that permit abortions. You can also see we still live in a man's world in that if the abortion doctor is to found guilty of the taking of a life then so must be the mother who is a co conspirator in the abortion. Those who demand justice for the unborn must look to both. Naturally, while abortions are terrible and should be avoided at all costs but this is a private matter between the woman and her higher power. The notion that some would even go as far as to criminalize the control over contraception is so radical and beyond rational thought and explicitly denies innate human behavior...people will have sex just saying no such the fight against drugs is instructive but far from reality. Yes, I tend to drift off in thought.
Does Lawrence still believe the 'Grand Bargain' is a bluff by the President? Hah!
MSNBC perpetuates peasantry by its' duplicity with the WH and its' lack of coverage of NDAA. It is one-stop shopping for the blind-ideologue. Freedom is maintained by a vigilant press and a discerning public. MSNBC: Do your job!
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
― James Madison
Please define what freedom is and means. One person's freedom can be another person's loss of freedom> There is no such thing as collective freedoms. There is always a balancing act such as your right to smoke and my right to clean air. A business's right to do business and the citizen's right not to be subjected to its harmful actions. The right of the majority to determine laws and the right of the minority to be protected from the majority's will. Constrained freedom works and unconstrained freedom does not. How about we repeal all laws the restrict our freedoms such as safety measures for our and society's benefit? Is this what you mean by freedom. Freedom, unchecked, is a bitch.
Habeas corpus for one thing. Without it there can be no real freedom.
Mitt Romney demonstrates a pattern of behavior unfit to lead our nation as president and unbecoming of a civil servant.
He is running a campaign for president largely relying on his knowledge and success as a business person who created jobs and made profits for investors. Too many troubling questions are raised refuting his authenticity which he does not address appropriately and thoroughly.
He promotes his success running the Olympics but does not promote other accomplishments as a civil servant. He has a record of changing ideological positions on too many important issues. Worst of all, there's a record showing that he habitually makes deceptive statements.
He purchased and destroyed all records of his gubernatorial term and refuses to make his tax returns public. Acts that should raise the ire of every other tax payer. What is he hiding?
As president would he chop shop American's assets to foreigners in exchange of profits gained by his friends and business partners abroad?
Maybe. He could also sell out our civil liberties were they still available.
Why is Romney holding his assests in Blind Trusts and his money in overseas banks? Only individuals who want to evade taxation and responsibility make such choices. Does anyone know how many companies and stockholders are suing Romney or his capital corporations for skinning their businesses and investments? This would be another reason for Romney to conceal his assets and make his money inaccessible to those holding court ordered judgements against him and his business..
This video is a excellent illustration of the legalized thievery in unfettered and unregulated capitalism. On the street these venture capital corporations are called loan sharks!
In light of this administrations repeal of the people's Constitution and Bill of Rights by signing NDAA into law, President Obama has lost all credibility. I hate to say it, but he has deceived the American people in a massive way with his New Years Eve signing of this legislation. This has been ignored by the mainstream media.
Don’t be fooled, the INDEFINITE DETENTION provisions in NDAA are a neo-cons wet-dream.
Below is really good segment with Cenk on The Young Turks discussing key provisions in NDAA, sec. 1021 and sec. 1022. Below that is an excellent breakdown of sec. 1021.
.youtube.com/watch?v=-gstBozWfhQ&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&feature=plcp
.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html
Also google the following along with "NDAA":
ACLU
Human Rights Watch
National Lawyers Guild
Justia
The Guardian
Salon
Business Insider
Grant, thanks for the response, and, as I think I alluded to in my earlier post, I'm with you politically in what you said--100%. Actually, just to be true to accuracy, most of the Bible is "fact-based"--there really was an Abraham, an Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses...John the Baptist, Jesus, Sts. Peter and Paul, etc., and they really did and said at least some of the things they're given credit for. I'm one of those Christians who believes in an inspired Bible, not an inerrant one--trust me when I say that there's a big difference between the two terms. My aim in challenging what you said was and is something I remind myself of all the time--to not give the right wing any validity in their claims that if you're a liberal, you're biased against Christians, and, of course, to keep the political coalition against the far-right together and strong, and make it stronger. There's just too much at stake these days. Please write when you feel like it--come to think of it, that goes for quite a few of you bloggers whose names I've seen a lot on these things. Peace, one and all!
I wish everyone would stop conflating Capitalism with Free Enterprise. Such is part of the Big Lie of USA Capitalism, and Mit Romney.
The true entrepriser works alone or with one or more partner(s). The relationship is contracted and cannot be unilaterally changed. Everyone shares in all the fruits of their labor according to the contracted relationship.
The capitalist lives off of the labor of others who receive only what the capitalist desires to pay them; and the capitalist can change the relationship unilaterally. Thus the capitalist lives by limiting the freedom of enterprise of the laborer.
The ultimate capitalism is chattel slavery, for two reasons: 1) the capitalist claims all the fruits of the employee's labor. 2) Insofar as the textbook definition of Capitalism regards the ownership of the means of production, the slaver owns them all, including the laborer.
On the other hand, the ultimate Free Enterprise is Communism, where each person shares equitably in the fruits of the enterprise as a matter of course, contributing what he/she can, to the good of the enterprise and of all other persons; and the relationship cannot be unlaterally changed.
Lawrence, this bit doesn't compute. Your example of strippers/nurses is just not analogous to Romney/other workers. Strippers aren't really exploiters, if that's what you intended to convey; they're sexy workers whose jobs I just can't see as harmful to the public. Don't get pious on us.
Also -- can you please, PLEASE get your guests to speak in a normal human speed? Chris Hayes still retains the velocity of his frequent appearances on Olbermann, where regulars had to learn to keep up with Keith. But Hayes and the lady professor who were on tonight were supersonic, like little mouseketeers who language could hardly be deciphered.