Baasha
Golden Member
Although Mitt Romney is a great example of success and fulfilling the "American Dream", he is not the right candidate for the presidency of the US.
The main reason is that a country is NOT a company.
When Romney was at Bain, he had the freedom to streamline the infrastructure of the company in several ways, one of which was laying off several people. Nobody will argue that that's a "bad" thing; when a company is in over its head in terms of expenses, one of the best ways of turning things around is to make a tighter work force and increase output/efficiency. This is often done through layoffs and other corporate restructuring deals such as M&A etc. Of course, the employees who get laid off are not happy but they are free to look for and join other companies.
A country cannot and should not function in such a manner. If a country is being run, or is running, inefficiently, a leader (POTUS for instance), cannot just jettison people, analogous to layoffs, to make things work more efficiently. Everyone, every single person who is a citizen of the US, needs to be served and cared for. Thus, cutting vital services for the poor, elderly, and disabled is not only heartless, it is downright foolish. Such people cannot be "laid off" into the Pacific Ocean or the Atlantic Ocean (or Mexico/Canada for that matter). As the POTUS, a leader is expected to come to a middle ground of sorts, taking into consideration ALL aspects of the population. This will inevitably lead to compromises from all sides; expenses that are absolutely necessary for the poor/disabled, and reigning in other expenses that are wasteful in the long run; corporate subsidies for instance.
It is therefore disingenuous to tout Romney as a "good" leader due to his experience at a Private Equity firm like Bain that did not have to reconsider when laying off people or taking over smaller/lesser fortunate firms. There is no element of compassion, even-mindedness, or consideration for all required when leading a private company. Such qualities are required of a leader of a nation. Hence, it is better to choose a leader who has shown himself to be selfless rather than selfish. It is perfectly okay, in western society today, to be selfish in the private domain; it should NOT be okay for a candidate for the POTUS.
Barack Obama was a constitutional law professor and a graduate of Harvard Law. He could have gotten a cushy job with some private law firm and minted money. Instead, he chose to put his skills and knowledge toward the betterment of society. Whether that actually worked or not is not the issue, the intent behind it is what counts.
I think this really is crux of the "debate" between the left and the right; both have good points but ultimately, when a nation is comprised of people of all walks of life, it is imperative that a potential leader exemplify selflessness.
Those who are resourceful enough and have strong support structures through family and connections can make it on their own; they just need the government to get out of the way. Those who are not so fortunate need help and should not be left to the elements to fend for themselves; it is what separates us from animals.
Romney, with his excellent education and experience in the private sector, can be a great adviser to the POTUS for businesses. As POTUS, he simply is not a good fit. Plus, who wants a POTUS named Willard? XD
The main reason is that a country is NOT a company.
When Romney was at Bain, he had the freedom to streamline the infrastructure of the company in several ways, one of which was laying off several people. Nobody will argue that that's a "bad" thing; when a company is in over its head in terms of expenses, one of the best ways of turning things around is to make a tighter work force and increase output/efficiency. This is often done through layoffs and other corporate restructuring deals such as M&A etc. Of course, the employees who get laid off are not happy but they are free to look for and join other companies.
A country cannot and should not function in such a manner. If a country is being run, or is running, inefficiently, a leader (POTUS for instance), cannot just jettison people, analogous to layoffs, to make things work more efficiently. Everyone, every single person who is a citizen of the US, needs to be served and cared for. Thus, cutting vital services for the poor, elderly, and disabled is not only heartless, it is downright foolish. Such people cannot be "laid off" into the Pacific Ocean or the Atlantic Ocean (or Mexico/Canada for that matter). As the POTUS, a leader is expected to come to a middle ground of sorts, taking into consideration ALL aspects of the population. This will inevitably lead to compromises from all sides; expenses that are absolutely necessary for the poor/disabled, and reigning in other expenses that are wasteful in the long run; corporate subsidies for instance.
It is therefore disingenuous to tout Romney as a "good" leader due to his experience at a Private Equity firm like Bain that did not have to reconsider when laying off people or taking over smaller/lesser fortunate firms. There is no element of compassion, even-mindedness, or consideration for all required when leading a private company. Such qualities are required of a leader of a nation. Hence, it is better to choose a leader who has shown himself to be selfless rather than selfish. It is perfectly okay, in western society today, to be selfish in the private domain; it should NOT be okay for a candidate for the POTUS.
Barack Obama was a constitutional law professor and a graduate of Harvard Law. He could have gotten a cushy job with some private law firm and minted money. Instead, he chose to put his skills and knowledge toward the betterment of society. Whether that actually worked or not is not the issue, the intent behind it is what counts.
I think this really is crux of the "debate" between the left and the right; both have good points but ultimately, when a nation is comprised of people of all walks of life, it is imperative that a potential leader exemplify selflessness.
Those who are resourceful enough and have strong support structures through family and connections can make it on their own; they just need the government to get out of the way. Those who are not so fortunate need help and should not be left to the elements to fend for themselves; it is what separates us from animals.
Romney, with his excellent education and experience in the private sector, can be a great adviser to the POTUS for businesses. As POTUS, he simply is not a good fit. Plus, who wants a POTUS named Willard? XD
Last edited:
