KAS Political Stance

Obama On Romney And Private Equity. My Vote For Romney.

Kevin A. Sensenig | July 22, 2014

2012 VIDEO

2012 - YouTube - BarackObama.com

President Obama On Creating An Economy Built To Last

“...And I think it is important to recognize that this issue is not quote \”a distraction\” this is part of the debate that we’re going to be having in this election campaign where everybody from folks on main street to folks on wall street have a shot at success; and if they’re working hard and they’re acting responsibly that they’re able to live out the American Dream.”

“It is set up to maximize profits. And that’s a healthy part of the free market.”

“...I think there are folks who do good work in that area, and there are times where they identify the capacity for the economy to create new jobs or new industries. But understand that their priority is to maximize profits. That’s not always going to be good for businesses or communities or workers.”

“And when you’re president as opposed to the head of a private equity firm then your job is not simply to maximize profits.”

“Your job is to think of how everybody in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who get laid off and how are we paying for their re-training. Your job is to think about how those communities can start creating new clusters so that they can attract new businesses. Your job as president is to think about how do we set up an equitable tax system so that everybody is paying their fair share so that we can invest in science and in technology and in infrastructure, All of which are gonna help us grow. And so if your main argument is \“I know how to make a lot of money for investors\” then you’re missing what this job is about.”

“My job is to take into account everybody, not just some.”

“To repeat. This is not a distraction. This is what this campaign is about.”

COMMENTS

First, it might not be so simple as to “maximize profits” — if you understand that profit can be an important component of the metric. Second, there might be other dynamics to ‘private equity’ that are of dimension and careful work and thought, balance and structure, and also the fluid. Also, you likely have to work with management theory, and layers to the company (each company that you invest in). You have to be able to hire a skilled team, integrate with an existing team, that works both as individuals and as departments or team, and each of these can be broken into type; and knowledge of product and customer and market expectations; and matters of the management layer and the factory or production floor, and design to product to database and/or warehouse to customer.

If however President Obama is the president of the entire nation, then does he ask, “Are you a Republican or a Democrat private equity director” before talking to you or governing in a fair and equable manner? Yet these days (2014) every time he talks about Republicans it’s about how they are a roadblock to progress, and his important work. (This goes back to 2012.) Yet, these Republicans represent some of the people; and there are a significant number of Republicans, both of the people and so represented.

But to turn the entire nation into an ObamaCare specification platform is just not even what I heard here. But is that what Obama means by, “My job is to take into account everybody, not just some.”, several aggregates of the people and various market layers and sets, the laying down of wires at-will through society. ObamaCare theory is grim, for a couple of reasons, and it’s a distraction to get into it here. There are other papers on nxmvc on ObamaCare and its uh problematic theory. (For such, you can start here, or at the home page.)

Obama started his speech by complimenting Cory Booker of Newark for turning that city around; but note that Romeny’s Bain Capital turned around or leveraged a steel company to a distributed steel company, “”. I understand that Romney had a portfolio of companies, many of them quite pleased with the result. Democrats have their portfolio of cities and Republicans have theirs; and likewise states; and likewise policy. There are exceptions to these instances where things worked out, and they likewise should be noted.

But these portfolios should be studied as just that — portfolios. That would be method and structure, and dynamic in analysis and review. Those that worked, portfolios. And their exceptions. Folders.

A city is an entire city, part of the state and the nation; a company is an entire company, and part of various niched market, and part of the city and the state and the nation.

There are some correct statements in what Obama said, but a flawed line of reasoning. He mentions that private equity is important, but then notes only the perils of what might be some instances of it, and ties Romney (in speculation) to only those risk (or implied selfish) aspects, not acknowledging the facts of what Romney may have actually accomplished.

Romney may not have helped his situation by spending so much on luxury then running for president. Dunno. At least that was the Obama campaign theme. I have another idea than this; and the footnote. [1] I think he had a strong center but compromised himself and actually in fact expressed more of the same capitalist theory [2] that would not have acknowledged the technical and policy expertise of say Timothy Geithner and the team at Treasury and the Fed. Therefore, the ball seems to go around, negating actual substance from both parties.

He likely though had some strong, resonant ideas to go with (in fact) what was the careful, meticulous work by Geithner and Treasury and the Fed — that would have strengthened the economic layer. Note that I voted for Romney, for a couple of reasons.

He had I sensed a more complete idea of freedom; and if he’d had recognition of what Geithner and Treasury and the Fed were doing, he might have been perfect, in economic play; and he in any case would have been sane about the economy and business; and he respected various freedoms of expression; I would have expressed a more complete dynamic on birth-life, for discussion and standpoint; when he saw he needed a balance of men/women in government (state of Massachusetts) he simply hired them (women, as well as men), and according to a number of the women in an article that they wrote, they were very pleased with the result; and this confirms what he said about having binders and binders of women (their resumes); he was of the type energy that I recognized; I was not satisfied that he would get foreign policy right, or the actual full dynamic and design and so forth of the Constitution, with respect to the military; but he did make some right calls on this too (maybe) (that is, especially in the right context); he was serious about the budget, and would have actually followed through on some structure and detail; I would hope that he would have left welfare intact, and studied how those on welfare might have an economic layer to step to (without going through created austerity); he needed to be aware of the poor and those in the safety net, and he at least somewhat corrected himself on this; he selected the right vice president candidate, in Representative Paul Ryan, and I wish the Democrats would quite the toxic argument about voucher — it’s (the voucher) simply a categorized check, or that is a check dedicated to a particular purpose, and my understanding was that you could select either to stay in existing Medicare or opt (again it’s your “to opt for one or the other”) for a voucher dedicated to health care services in the free market. I’m not sure what’s so complicated.

Maybe Romney did express support for Sec Treasury Geithner and the team at Treasury and the Fed. That’s a distinction I would have made. I didn’t see it, but I also didn’t follow the campaign as carefully as I could have. I’m now in a position to watch the debates with some framework, and I hope they’re on YouTube or better yet iTunes. If they are, I’ll watch them after a while.

It’s not that you have to copy Geithner; but as I state elsewhere on nxmvc my read is that he was technical and policy, a really apt and strong combination at the time; and maybe for ongoing, also. At least though you have to grasp what he did and study it.

I don’t feel, though, that the environment is a zero-sum matter; but that the EPA has a real sanity layer; if Romney had articulated this (and maybe he did) then he could have factored on behalf of the progressive types the political type of action in the EPA (Obama, it seems) versus the real layer of actual concern in the EPA (either matter of fact, or subtype progressive), for what we do with our surroundings, and what we call natural resources, and the wilderness, and the state forests, and the ocean, and the critters in them, and drinking water.

I am subtype progressive who is 100% GOPPartchment.

Footnotes

1.In my view there might not be anything wrong with wealth per se, at all — you have to be careful in some ways, maybe; just as the poor have their strengths, but have to be careful with the money.
2.I read a paper of his online at his 2012 campaign website, written by an advisor, to speak for Romney, that was the same old failed interpretation of free market (and is called capitalism) that works for a while then another bubble and another recession. Supplementing the Geithner era, maybe Treasury could have factored some things in that Romney would have recognized; so again, I voted for Romney. I have respect for the stable basis, but Romney theory may have opened several junctures up, and worked more fluidly with various layers (dynamic again) such that the Geithner/Treasury/Fed basis could have had more complete expression. (I also think that this is what would happen if at least some or significant aspects of the Republican feature set in their House-passed bills were allowed through the Senate the past couple of years. Good grief. You don’t need to approve of the repeal of ObamaCare, you can scratch that paragraph out, if you’re Senate Leader Harry Reid; but you can certainly negotiate or directly pass some of the rest; ditto for the environment.)