Lost . . .
in the discussion of the inconsistencies between Mitts assertion that he left Bain in February 1999 and the incontrovertible fact that he was representing something different to multiple state and federal government agencies when it suited him . . .
is the unbelievable statement that
'if you want free stuff, vote for the other guy.'
Mitt Romney is among the most fortunate individuals on the planet. This guy pays a lower tax rate than many because his income is characterized as capital gain. He goes even further to make every effort to reduce that rate with cross border tax avoidance schemes.
But this comment about free stuff is just over the top. Who's getting the free stuff here? Follow me over the squiggle
A quote from Jim Manzi's book in an article penned for Megan McArdle's blog on The Atlantic addresses Mitt perfectly.
Many entrepreneurs hold the opinion that "I did it all on my own," which may be well adapted to leadership success in certain situations, but it is objectively myopic.
The entrepreneur relies on an ecosystem of venture capitalists, risk-taking purchasers, and so on.
This ecosystem itself rests on a deeper foundation of collective, government-led enterprise.
The delivery of our software, for example, depended on the existence of the Internet, which is the product of a series of government-sponsored R&D efforts, in combination with subsequent massive private commercial development.
Government funding has been essential to much of the university science that entrepreneurs have exploited.
Honest courts and police are required for functioning capital markets and protection of assets;
physical infrastructure is required for the roads and running water without which we would not spend much time thinking about artificial intelligence software.
At the absolute foundation, national armed forces protect the whole system against external aggression.
All of our exciting technical and economic innovations ultimately require men to stand watch all night looking through Starlight scopes mounted on assault rifles--and die if necessary--to protect our commercial, law-bound society.
Would you do this to protect a billionaire hedge-fund manager who sees his country as nothing more than lines on a map?
snip
Thus the inherent tension built into the very structure of innovation manifests itself as the fundamental tension of democratic capitalism:
winners in this scenario require shared resources produced by the losers.
That is, the market economy requires broad social consent. Why should those who lose out in market competition give it?
emphasis added by diarist
Jim Manzi is founder and Chairman of Applied Predictive Technologies, and the author of Uncontrolled: The Surprising Payoff of Trial-and-Error for Business, Politics and Society from which the above quote is taken.
The article appeared at this link: http://www.theatlantic.com/...
Mitt Romney is one of the ultimate examples of wanting the free stuff summarized above by Manzi.
He is much more a welfare queen than the folks to whom that label is oft applied by the right wing.
A small plea:
I really wish we could avoid using the term vulture capitalism. Vultures are a family of birds which includes condors and they serve a very useful purpose on this planet.
Instead refer to Romney's activities as parasitic capitalism, which more clearly communicates the notion that the parasite is feeding off the table of the host.
Examples of parasites? Leeches and tapeworms. And those words fits Romney well. What kind of sociopath says he likes to be able to fire people? If you've ever had to terminate someone's employment, you would know that's not something to 'like' in any way shape or form.
I conclude with a quote I found as I was researching this post.
Shorter Manzi:
“Each of us in this room has warmed ourself at fires we did not build, and each of us has drunk from wells we did not dig.”
— Mark Shields