Originally Posted by muppetry
So let me see if I understand you correctly. You are complaining that his generalization, like all generalizations can break down if applied in a very specific manner?
That really can't be what you are claiming though right because that is true of all generalizations. They are generalizations for a reason.
I've no idea what generalization you are talking about. All I've done is address the specific statements that he made, and drawn conclusions from them. Are you arguing now that my conclusions are wrong because he didn't mean specifically what he said, rather than that what he said was correct?
Mitt was speaking to a group of fundraisers and was not giving speaking exclusively about the nature of voters and their motivations. He used a generalization. Everyone has to use generalizations because we do not have enough time in our day to rationalize every conclusion we present.
Almost every generalization breaks down when exceptions are found. As an example when Obama declares that the "rich" don't pay their fair share, does he really mean 100% of all rich people all the time?
Certainly you understand what a generalization is and how to use them. Are you honestly claiming Mitt's claim about 47% of the population was a long, detailed and rationalized statement instead of a generalization?
I think it's obvious what they are alleging - that he actually did a lousy job rescuing the company and accepted substantial government help in the process. If that were true then it would be very relevant, given his position on this subject, recent comments, and that one of his selling points in standing for president is his economic and business acumen. The question is whether or not it is true. I suspect that the reality is not as bad as they portray.
How can it be true or false when what they allege isn't about law but about intentions, and state of mind? They aren't saying the law has been broken. The government help was restructuring loans with a bank and the bank had been take over by the FDIC.
Here's the Washington Post on the matter.
Meanwhile, Bain & Company also owed $38 million to the Bank of New England. But the Bank of New England had made many bad loans, faltered and by early 1991 had been seized by the federal government. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. sold the bank to Fleet Financial, a Rhode Island bank, and a Fleet subsidiary was tasked with trying to collect on the outstanding loans.
After months of negotiations, the outstanding loan was reduced by $10 million, including forgone interest.
The FDIC deals with this problem constantly when it seizes banks, figuring out how it can get the most money out of distressed loans. Changing the terms or reducing the loan is fairly typical, as the FDIC indicates in its Guide to Bank Failure.
The FDIC’s Resolution Handbook also says (page 80):
Restructuring a loan for a financially distressed borrower is normally more productive for the receiver than foreclosing on the collateral or initiating lawsuits to collect the debt. Maximizing recovery on failed institution assets is the receiver’s responsibility, and litigation expenses can very rapidly consume any funds recovered
The FDIC tries to collect as much as possible, but ultimately has to make good on deposits at least up to $250,000. (In the Bank of New England case, the limit was $100,000 at the time, but the agency decided to guarantee all deposits.) But any shortfall is made up through assessments made on FDIC-member banks.
That’s right — no taxpayer money is involved. The FDIC prides itself on not taking taxpayer funds.
So does this qualify as a “bailout”? The dictionary definition of bailout refers to “ rescue from financial distress.” By that standard, some of the Bain Capital deals so heavily criticized by the Obama campaign, such as Ampad and GS Industries, might qualify as “bailouts.” A more proper term — the one used by the FDIC — is “loan restructuring.”
Cutter’s statement is cleverly and carefully worded, since it never mentions taxpayer funds. But her introductory sentence — “Mitt Romney knows better than anyone that business can’t always do it alone” — certainly suggests taxpayer funds were involved. The clear implication is that he benefited from a bailout like the Wall Street banks during the financial crisis.
That’s not the case, though one can get into a theoretical argument as to whether the FDIC’s money, once collected from banks, is actually then “government money.”
Once again I'm disappointed that you can't discuss this without going off on another rant about Obama. Yes - we know that you can't stand the guy, and that you believe that there are double standards in the way that they are treated, but it is still possible to debate one without bringing up the other. But if you want to compare the two cases in question, I think it is a poor comparison, because it contrasts an isolated sound bite from an Obama speech with a significant set of actions in Romney's career. A much better comparison would be with Obama's voting record as a Senator, for example.
Additionally, I would argue that the Obama clip criticism is a bit desperate:
People are citing sources that are biased, misleading and clearly engaging in a double-standard. Rolling Stone has as political news, Sarah Silverman cracking jokes about Voter ID and other such nonsense.
It isn't news but people treat the claims of these writings that should barely even considered as opinion pieces, as facts. On the flip side they are disavowing factual and first hand statements by the actual president of the United States as "too old."
That doesn't show desperation on my part, it shows desperation on their part. Look at the title of their threads. They are strawmen from the very beginning. They've been listening to Obama set them up for so long that a logical fallacy is actual logic to them now. Obama uses this prop in every speech. "Some say...." and then he knocks it down. It's practically a verbal tic with the man.
As for comparisons, we know Obama's voting record as a State Senator. It was voting "present" and also supporting doctors who don't help babies born alive during botched abortions. However what difference will that make to you or his supporters who rationalize it away as "too old" or as a "poor comparison."
I highly doubt there will ever be a comparison that will not qualify as "poor" to you because you haven't even been willing to concede that Romney is allowed to use generalizations which again, is what all political speech uses.
If he is referring to anything more sinister than our existing systems of taxation to fund infrastructure and social programs for the poor then I'm not seeing it. Not that I'm expecting the more right-wing elements to agree with it, but it fits well within mainstream Democratic principles.
It isn't about agreement or disagreement. The claim was that it couldn't be considered because it was "too old" and thus even though it was a first person source, shouldn't be considered for political discussion or thought.
Some of us also remember Joe the Plumber from 2008 and spreading the wealth around which of course isn't from 1998.
Obama talks continually about the Clinton tax rates and how good everything must have been with them but always fails to mention the rates were higher for those earning less than $250k as well. If, as Democrats claim, the majority of the tax cuts went to the rich, and if as they claim, the tax cuts for the poor and middle class amounted to almost nothing, since what they pay not is often nothing, why not just let the extension expire and watch the economy march on?
I mean sure Joe the Plumber pays an extra $24 a month or something along those lines but the claim is they get extra millions to billion from the rich. Shouldn't that be a reasonable compromise from anyone who isn't a pure partisan or an extremist with their class warfare rhetoric?