Mitt Romney interview: "Stop attacking success"

[B]Romney in Piers Morgan interview: Stop attacking success


(CNN) – Following weeks of questions over Mitt Romney's personal wealth, the presumptive GOP nominee said Thursday that criticism of the nation's wealthy, including his family, would lead to economic demise.

"There are people who are trying to attack success and are trying to attack our success; that's not going to be successful," Romney said in an interview to air Thursday on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight." "When you attack success you have less of it, and that's what we've seen in our economy over the last few years."

The 2012 presidential campaign has centered on debate over Romney's wealth this summer, with President Barack Obama's team raising concerns about the Republican's decision to hold offshore investments and calling on Romney to release tax documents to answer any lingering queries about his financial portfolio.

The White House hopeful has firmly stated he would not release anything further than the two years worth of tax documents that he has already released and annual financial disclosure forms separately required by federal election law.

Romney, whose wealth is worth up to $256 million, has also been railed against over his tenure at the private equity firm he co-founded, Bain Capital. Democrats argue he has been misleading about when exactly he left his position as CEO at the company, saying he stayed on three years longer than he's previously admitted-a time window, Democrats say, in which he would have overseen a period in which the company is now being criticized for encouraging the practice of outsourcing.

Along with defending his personal wealth, Romney and Republicans have strongly stood against Obama's recent proposal to raise taxes on households making more than $250,000 per year, arguing such a move would have a negative impact on the economy and discourage growth.

"Dividing America based on who has money and who hasn't – who is successful and who is less successful… That is not the American way," Romney said.

Obama, defending his tax proposal, has frequently said his policies are not aimed as an attack on the wealthy.

"This has nothing to do with me wanting to punish success. We love folks getting rich. I do want to make sure that everybody else gets that chance as well." Obama said at a campaign stop in Iowa earlier this month. "For us to give a trillion dollars worth of tax breaks to folks who don't need it and aren't even asking for it, that doesn't make sense."

Romney made his comments during a sit-down interview in London, with his wife Ann by his side. The former Massachusetts governor, who headed the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, is in town to attend Friday's opening ceremony for this year's Olympic Games. The stop in London marks the first leg of a three-country trip, which also takes him to Israel and Poland over the next week.

Romney also pointed to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who Romney has admitted his campaign was considering–among others–for his running mate, and quoted a statement the freshman senator frequently makes about class warfare rhetoric.

"I heard Marco Rubio the other day, he said, 'You know, we were poor living in Miami, we saw these big homes across town…my parents never said to us, gee why don't those people give to us some of what they have. They said instead, aren't we lucky to live in a country where with education and hard work we might be able to achieve that ourselves'."

Democrats have especially hammered Romney over his former firm, Bain Capital. Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama super PAC, has released multiple commercials this summer highlighting companies that failed–and their subsequent job losses–after being invested in by Bain. While the company has said most of its companies have succeeded, Romney gave rare insight on Thursday into some of the firm's failures.

"It killed us if something was not successful. If a business we started, for instance, couldn't make it-and there were several like that-but there were several that took off in ways that we never would have imagined. There are a number of businesses that were existing businesses we wanted to make better. Most of them we did make better. Those that we didn't, we felt terrible about," he said.

In the wide-ranging interview, Romney also discussed his position on gun rights in the wake of the Colorado movie theater massacre that left 12 dead and dozens wounded.

The former governor has said in recent days he sees no need for new gun legislation, arguing that people who want to do harm will find a way to get around any further laws.

"The real point has to relate to individuals that are deranged and distressed and to find them, to help them and to keep them from carrying out terrible acts," he said. "Timothy McVeigh, how many people did he kill? With fertilizer? With products that can be purchased legally anywhere in the world, he was able to carry out vast mayhem." '

He added: "Somehow thinking that laws against the instruments of violence will make violence go away, I think is misguided."

Obama on Wednesday made headlines by making his strongest comments yet as president about gun violence. While he called for change, he did not specifically outline any proposals for new gun legislation.

"A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals," Obama said at the National Urban League convention in New Orleans. "That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."

The president emphasized a need for background checks and the prevention of "mentally unbalanced" individuals from obtaining guns. He faulted opposition in Congress for lack of progress made in reducing violence.

"These steps shouldn't controversial. They should be common sense," Obama said.[/B]

i swear everything the Republican party represents seems so twisted and wrong to me. its like they don't use straight forward logic more than twist things to justify/condone the inequities or issues our country faces. nobody is saying give the poor money if you're rich more than paying more in taxes if you make more(over $250k). him citing that Florida senator was just weak :rolleyes: the point is the poor are becoming really dirt poor and there are more of them every day in this poor economy....and yet everyones supposed to pay the same in taxes.

and the gun stuff is still so funny to me with how Republicans continue to pretend taking away guns does nothing :oldlol: and how we're supposed to profile and pre-crime like Minority Report to prevent that stuff from occurring....like thats so much more of a realistic scenario to prevent mass shootings :facepalm

they're just so consistent across the board in their agendas, and the way they logic, twisting the criticisms against them or their causes becomes more ridiculous every time i hear them. it just boggles my mind how people act like both sides are the same when they represent completely different ideals and solutions to our issues. its just unbelievable to me that people buy into that, i could never be a Republican unless i was doing so disingenuously in beliefs, and more based on personal gains.

"[B]Dividing America based on who has money and who hasn't – who is successful and who is less successful… That is not the American way[/B]," Romney said.

I was going to post the GIF of Michael Jordan laughing but had a change of heart. This man is one of the greatest liars in Human History. Actually, I'm leaning towards extremely out of touch, brainwashed or delusional. You have to be one of those things in order to say that with a straight face. I wasn't even going to read this because you had bolded everything, but that caught my eye.

Wow.

This presidential race is tiresome. I dont care about his wealth and at this point and its the major discussion of the election.

[IMG]http://thelastofthemillenniums.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/mitt-romneys-income.png[/IMG]

I just don't see Romney winning the upcoming election. Obama knows how to brainwash people and actually has good common sense.

:banghead: Both politicians suck


I hate politics. Man I hate politics.

[quote=hoopaddict08]I hate politics. Man I hate politics.[/quote]

Be the change you want to see then. Or stop whining.

[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]This presidential race is tiresome. I dont care about his wealth and at this point and its the major discussion of the election.[/QUOTE]


you should when much of his wealth is based off of shipping American jobs overseas.

I get the feeling a lot of the right wingers in power are psychopaths. They really are incapable of having empathy for less fortunate. They try so hard to come off as caring about the middle class but they fool no one.

[QUOTE=kentatm]you should when much of his wealth is based off of shipping American jobs overseas.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because Americans have a God given right to those jobs and other countries don't deserve them.

[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]Yeah, because Americans have a God given right to those jobs and other countries don't deserve them.[/QUOTE]

No they don't, but the US government shouldn't allow companies to ship jobs overseas without heavy fines.

[QUOTE=RoseCity07]I get the feeling a lot of the right wingers in power are psychopaths. They really are incapable of having empathy for less fortunate. They try so hard to come off as caring about the middle class but they fool no one.[/QUOTE]


they are starting to claim the middle class does not even exist.


[URL="http://youtu.be/iIP1if7LrCg?t=1m44s"]http://youtu.be/iIP1if7LrCg?t=1m44s[/URL]



[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]Yeah, because Americans have a God given right to those jobs and other countries don't deserve them.[/QUOTE]


WTF? Why would I want an American President to ship jobs away? Are you even from here?

I get that Romney is being attacked for hypocrisy and why he is being attacked for it but I don't get why outsourcing (or offshoring) gets villified all the time. It's just part of the evolution of the economy.

[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]I get that Romney is being attacked for hypocrisy and why he is being attacked for it but I don't get why outsourcing (or offshoring) gets villified all the time. It's just part of the evolution of the economy.[/QUOTE]


IDGAF about the world economy.

I care about OUR economy.

It does not help the US population at large to continuously ship away well paying jobs just so some exec can make a slightly larger bonus off cheaper labor.

Romney has no swagger, next!

[QUOTE=Jailblazers7]I get that Romney is being attacked for hypocrisy and why he is being attacked for it but I don't get why outsourcing (or offshoring) gets villified all the time. It's just part of the evolution of the economy.[/QUOTE]


Just like we don't allow companies to sell their goods in our country without tariffs, we shouldn't allow American companies to ship jobs overseas, then bring the products back here to sell to our populace. If our labor force has to compete against virtual slave labor overseas without any sort of protection, then there will be no jobs here in America at all.

[QUOTE=kentatm]IDGAF about the world economy.

I care about OUR economy.

It does not help the US population at large to continuously ship away well paying jobs just so some exec can make a slightly larger bonus off cheaper labor.[/QUOTE]

It's called a business dude. If it improves profits, why not do it? They're might already be many costs incurred in the states that could be avoided by going out of state.

And it doesn't matter if you care about "OUR" economy. OUR economy is greatly involved in the world economy.

Levying fines on countries for outsourcing? What the hell is this country coming too? Maybe Romney isn't so wrong after all when talking about "Attacking success." (Dude is a moron. Don't get me wrong.)

If you think about it, failure is rewarded in this country by the government while successful people have to pay for the mistakes of others. I can accept that it's the way it is but Romney does have some truth to that statement.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Just like we don't allow companies to sell their goods in our country without tariffs, we shouldn't allow American companies to ship jobs overseas, then bring the products back here to sell to our populace. If our labor force has to compete against virtual slave labor overseas without any sort of protection, then there will be no jobs here in America at all.[/QUOTE]

Move to Texas. Move to North Dakota. There are jobs there.

Bring the jobs here and people will still b[COLOR="Black"]it[/COLOR]ch about something.

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]It's called a business dude. If it improves profits, why not do it? They're might already be many costs incurred in the states that could be avoided by going out of state.

And it doesn't matter if you care about "OUR" economy. OUR economy is greatly involved in the world economy.

Levying fines on countries for outsourcing? What the hell is this country coming too? Maybe Romney isn't so wrong after all when talking about "Attacking success." (Dude is a moron. Don't get me wrong.)

If you think about it, failure is rewarded in this country by the government while successful people have to pay for the mistakes of others. I can accept that it's the way it is but Romney does have some truth to that statement.[/QUOTE]

Which is all well and fine. However it is in the interest of our population to do so. Therefore the candidate who would levy higher fines would be the proper one.

[QUOTE=Timmy D for MVP]Which is all well and fine. However it is in the interest of our population to do so. Therefore the candidate who would levy higher fines would be the proper one.[/QUOTE]

Or not. Everything the government gets involved in fails. See: educational loans from the government.

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]Move to Texas. Move to North Dakota. There are jobs there.[/QUOTE]

I have a job.

And if everyone that was unemployed took your advice, and moved to the Dakotas or Texas, those jobs would dry up very fast.




In order to have an even balance of trade, you need to be able to ship products to other countries, and not just import everything. When America had a strong manufacturing base, we used to export more than we imported. Now because of outsourcing, it's completely opposite. Nothing is made here. We just import it all.

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]It's called a business dude. If it improves profits, why not do it? They're might already be many costs incurred in the states that could be avoided by going out of state.

And it doesn't matter if you care about "OUR" economy. OUR economy is greatly involved in the world economy.

Levying fines on countries for outsourcing? What the hell is this country coming too? Maybe Romney isn't so wrong after all when talking about "Attacking success." (Dude is a moron. Don't get me wrong.)

If you think about it, failure is rewarded in this country by the government while successful people have to pay for the mistakes of others. I can accept that it's the way it is but Romney does have some truth to that statement.[/QUOTE]


What's this world coming to? Do you think China, Japan, or Korea allow US companies to sell American made products in their country without huge tariffs, or penalties? :lol

It's called evening the playing field.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]I have a job.

And if everyone that was unemployed took your advice, and moved to the Dakotas or Texas, those jobs would dry up very fast.




In order to have an even balance of trade, you need to be able to ship products to other countries, and not just import everything. When America had a strong manufacturing base, we used to export more than we imported. Now because of outsourcing, it's completely opposite. Nothing is made here. We just import it all.[/QUOTE]

That was back when other countries weren't as well developed. Global economy changes. Just the way it is.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]What's this world coming to? Do you think China, Japan, or Korea allow US companies to sell American made products in their country without huge tariffs, or penalties? :lol

It's called evening the playing field.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure corporations are smart enough to figure out how to "even the playing field."

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]It's called a business dude. If it improves profits, why not do it? They're might already be many costs incurred in the states that could be avoided by going out of state.

And it doesn't matter if you care about "OUR" economy. OUR economy is greatly involved in the world economy.

Levying fines on countries for outsourcing? What the hell is this country coming too? Maybe Romney isn't so wrong after all when talking about "Attacking success." (Dude is a moron. Don't get me wrong.)

If you think about it, failure is rewarded in this country by the government while successful people have to pay for the mistakes of others. I can accept that it's the way it is but Romney does have some truth to that statement.[/QUOTE]


what happens when all those high paying jobs leave and nothing replaces them?

oh yea, massive under/unemployment.

you should not go for higher profits just because you can get them.

you need to think about how shuttering a plant affects the communities, businesses, and people reliant on them.

Kill a car plant and you have hundreds out of work, which means they can't spend nearly as much money in the area they live, which means other businesses suffer and fail, which puts an even greater strain on the community to function, not to mention the lost taxes we need to keeps our infrastructure up and running.

So yea, I may be able to make an extra profit on top of my already profitable business returns if I ship it away but is that really the right thing to do?

I say no and anyone shipping jobs away is bad for the country. Its a privilege to live here. We shouldn't drain it dry like a vampire does to an unfortunate victim.



[QUOTE=Balla_Status]Or not. Everything the government gets involved in fails. See: educational loans from the government.[/QUOTE]


completely bullshit falsehood

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]I'm sure corporations are smart enough to figure out how to "even the playing field."[/QUOTE]
:coleman:

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]That was back when other countries weren't as well developed. Global economy changes. Just the way it is.[/QUOTE]


And that's even more of a reason that the government should protect jobs on our home soil.


With your line of reasoning, we would have 90% unemployment.

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]I'm sure corporations are smart enough to figure out how to "even the playing field."[/QUOTE]

If corporations don't care about employing Americans, then why would they care about evening the playing field? They are only chasing profit. They don't care where the source of labor is coming from.

It's up to government through regulations to make sure jobs stay inside its borders.

[QUOTE=kentatm]what happens when all those high paying jobs leave and nothing replaces them?

oh yea, massive under/unemployment.

you should not go for higher profits just because you can get them.

you need to think about how shuttering a plant affects the communities, businesses, and people reliant on them.

Kill a car plant and you have hundreds out of work, which means they can't spend nearly as much money in the are they live, which means other businesses suffer, not to mention the lost taxes we need to keeps our infrastructure up and running.

So yea, I may be able to make an extra profit on top of my already profitable business returns if I ship it away but is that really the right thing to do?

I say no and anyone shipping jobs away is bad for the country. Tis a privilege to live here. We shouldn't drain it dry like a vampire does to an unfortunate victim.
[/QUOTE]
I understand your point, and am interested in what sort of policy(ies) on this matter you yourself propose.

You have to understand the flip side of this, as well. Look at the steel industry or the auto industry. It's not merely just being able to make a bit more profit by shipping out jobs; it can be the difference between success and bankruptcy. Many Americans are used to getting paid a premium for a job that requires no skills or education, and now feel that it is their [i]right[/i] to be paid $70k a year to do something anyone off the street could do.

I do agree that restrictions and penalties could be imposed on companies sending jobs overseas, but I'd be wary of going too far with that.

Just my opinion.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]And that's even more of a reason that the government should protect jobs on our home soil.


With your line of reasoning, we would have 90% unemployment.[/QUOTE]

Sure man. Whatever you believe a politician will say to get your vote.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]If corporations don't care about employing Americans, then why would they care about evening the playing field? They are only chasing profit. They don't care where the source of labor is coming from.

It's up to government through regulations to make sure jobs stay inside its borders.[/QUOTE]

Uh, who's getting taxed for shipping american products overseas? The US government or the corporations?

That's what I meant about "even the playing field."

Government needs to stay the eff out of the corporations way.

Maybe the government gave tax breaks instead of levying taxes on corporations that outsourced, they may get somewhere.

Foreign automakers operate plants in the US too and outscoring is becoming less and less profitable because of rising wages in developing countries and transportation costs.

It's real easy to say "oh, bad companies for outsourcing! Bad!" when you aren't the one who is running a company.

Hmmm, let's see. Let's say you go to the mall to buy a new cell phone; i.e iPhone for this example. Well there are two stores in the mall which sell the iPhone; one for $300 and one for $200. Which one are you going to buy? Why, the $200 one, of course. Why? Because it makes the most sense.

When you are running a business, your job is to ensure the success of that company and to do what you can do to maximize profits. And guess what? If companies stopped outsourcing and only did things within the country, then that $200 iPhone would now be $300 due to the extra costs the companies have to pay. But then of course they aren't going to sell as much of the product due to the increased price, so then they have to reduce the price in order to sell it. Then they are essentially losing money. It just doesn't make good business sense.

As far as taxes go, IMO, there should just be a flat tax. Everybody pays 25% (or whatever % you want to tax, IDC). None of this, pay 63% on the $500,000 you make between 500k and 1M or whatever the absurd marginal tax rates are, lol.

[QUOTE=Juges8932]

As far as taxes go, IMO, there should just be a flat tax. Everybody pays 25% (or whatever % you want to tax, IDC). None of this, pay 63% on the $500,000 you make between 500k and 1M or whatever the absurd marginal tax rates are, lol.[/QUOTE]


we have to make up for the deficit so taxes have to be raised. if the rich vs poor gap continues to grow wider why shouldn't the rich pay more? the poor are barely surviving and keeping up with rent, food, etc. while the rich are flourishing buying yachts, second/third houses, etc. yeah nobody wants a dip in their lifestyles especially the rich but i just don't get why people think everyone should pay the same rate when you factor in the realities of life in America. many rich people aren't even struggling much in this economy while the poor have become poorer, lost their jobs and homeless. it just makes so much more sense for those already earning a lot and living well to sacrifice more than those struggling to survive. again taxes have to hit somebody to bring down the deficit, and the rich earn a significant proportion of America's wealth.

theres just too many generalizations made by the rich that every poor person doesn't work hard, is lazy, just hanging out on street corners collecting welfare, etc. and this idea people will all of a sudden stop trying to be successful because they'll be taxed more is so funny its stupid many Republican politicians insinuate that. lets be real, being rich and paying high taxes still means you're much better off than every poor person. there is just so many talking points they use that are so unrealistic but somehow work on most of America :facepalm ...like the American Dream goes away if rich people are taxed higher, just unbelievable people buy into that. its criminal how they bamboozle people :mad:

[QUOTE=Godzuki]we have to make up for the deficit so taxes have to be raised. if the rich vs poor gap continues to grow wider why shouldn't the rich pay more? the poor are barely surviving and keeping up with rent, food, etc. while the rich are flourishing buying yachts, second/third houses, etc. yeah nobody wants a dip in their lifestyles especially the rich but i just don't get why people think everyone should pay the same rate when you factor in the realities of life in America. many rich people aren't even struggling much in this economy while the poor have become poorer, lost their jobs and homeless. it just makes so much more sense for those already earning a lot and living well to sacrifice more than those struggling to survive. again taxes have to hit somebody to bring down the deficit, and the rich earn a significant proportion of America's wealth.

theres just too many generalizations made by the rich that every poor person doesn't work hard, is lazy, just hanging out on street corners collecting welfare, etc. and this idea people will all of a sudden stop trying to be successful because they'll be taxed more is so funny its stupid many Republican politicians insinuate that. lets be real, being rich and paying high taxes still means you're much better off than every poor person. there is just so many talking points they use that are so unrealistic but somehow work on most of America :facepalm ...like the American Dream goes away if rich people are taxed higher, just unbelievable people buy into that. its criminal how they bamboozle people :mad:[/QUOTE]

How would you feel if that was your money though? I just don't see why it can't be fair and equal to all across the board. I mean, when it isn't your money being lost, sure it can be easy to say- "What's the big deal if they lose more money to taxes when they already have x amount?" But when it is your money that is being lost you might feel differently about it. So yes, it makes so much sense when you are not in their shoes.

Of course many people are not lazy, on welfare, etc. But why should somebody at Taco Bell have to pay a smaller percentage than the person who busted their ass through college and trying to make it for themselves? People wonder why a lot of wealthier people try to get out of paying taxes and honestly, can't really blame them.

[QUOTE=ProfessorMurder]Oh really? Then riddle me this. Why do people camp outside for 300 dollar cell phones when they can go buy a 40 dollar one at a kiosk?

There goes your stupid theory on people logically spending their money.[/QUOTE]

I'm comparing the same phone at two different locations in a hypothetical situation as a dual to companies outsourcing as opposed to keeping it in the country.

But please, continue insulting me, lol. It really helps your argument!

Romney was put in charge of a company whose job it was to either turn other companies around and make them profitable or cut their losses and sell off the assets. I'd say he did it pretty well.

Tax revenues in this country can more than pay for everything that the government needs. The evil people who make more than $250,000 (I'm in that bunch) already pay the bulk of income taxes collected annually. What is with this $250,000 deal anyways? They lump people like me, upper middle class at best, with the super rich. There's a huge difference between $250,000 and $2,500,000 but we're taxed at the same rate. WTF??? It's because Obama and co. have decided that $250,000 and above are evil, hoarding motherfuukers who hate America and the middle class.

Look, I don't like Romney. He's week and 2-faced. But guess what? I feel exactly the same about Obama. He's a total facade. So depressing.

[QUOTE=ProfessorMurder]Two different locations or two different products, doesn't matter. You can create a market no matter what if you know what you're doing.[/QUOTE]

It matters for what I am discussing because the dual is for companies producing product 'x' either here or outsourced to people who can buy the same product at several locations for different prices. Those companies who are looking to build product 'x' can either build it here in America or outsource it somewhere else. It is cheaper for them to have it made by outsourcing. Would they still have a demand for product 'x' if it were made in America and was more expensive? Yes, of course. But it would cost them more to make it and hence the price of x would go up. The problem isn't creating a market; it's how to create a market for the cheapest cost while maximizing profit.

You're essentially saying you can compare apples to oranges by trying to compare a $40 phone 'y' to another $300 phone 'z'.

[QUOTE=ProfessorMurder]Oh really? Then riddle me this. Why do people camp outside for 300 dollar cell phones when they can go buy a 40 dollar one at a kiosk?

There goes your stupid theory on people logically spending their money.[/QUOTE]

You don't have good reading comprehension. Tell me where I can buy a $40 iPhone at a kiosk.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Romney was put in charge of a company whose job it was to either turn other companies around and make them profitable or cut their losses and sell off the assets. I'd say he did it pretty well.

Tax revenues in this country can more than pay for everything that the government needs. The evil people who make more than $250,000 (I'm in that bunch) already pay the bulk of income taxes collected annually. What is with this $250,000 deal anyways? They lump people like me, upper middle class at best, with the super rich. There's a huge difference between $250,000 and $2,500,000 but we're taxed at the same rate. WTF??? It's because Obama and co. have decided that $250,000 and above are evil, hoarding motherfuukers who hate America and the middle class.

Look, I don't like Romney. He's week and 2-faced. But guess what? I feel exactly the same about Obama. He's a total facade. So depressing.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Obama said he would never raise taxes below $250k salaries. Already did that.