# Mitt Romney...Socialist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 23, 2012, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437 "2012-01-23T21:46:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2012, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/1 "2012-01-23T21:46:50Z")
Romney ran a [photo-op in Florida today with a few foreclosure victims](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/mitt-romney-foreclosure-florida_n_1223394.html), trying to lay their pain at the feet of former Fanny/Freddie “historian” Newt Gingrich. But it appears the Romneybot had a misfire while trying to sympathize with one of the victims (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > “Yeah. It’s just tragic, isn’t it? Just tragic, just tragic,” Romney said. “We’re just so overleveraged, so much debt in our society, and **some of the institutions that hold it aren’t willing to write it off and say they made a mistake, they loaned too much, we’re overextended, write those down and start over**. They keep on trying to harangue and pretend what they have on their books is still what it’s worth.” I happen to agree with what Romney is saying here–the mortgage debt held by many banks is suspect either because of overextension or fraudulent practices. But this is actually to the left of the Obama administration, who is currently [bent over backwards](http://www.businessinsider.com/states-score-25b-settlement-in-deceptive-foreclosure-practices-suit-2012-1) to avoid having the banks face a real day or reckoning. When the foreclosee also mentioned that his wife is a realtor now filing for bankruptcy, he went on: > [@](#): > > “That’s tragic,” Romney said. “In some cases, **if the debt is not in something you can service, it’s like you have to move on and start over away from those debts**. It’s helpful if you get an institution that’s willing to work with you, but if you don’t you have no other option.” So…Mitt is recommending strategic default to homeowners, moral hazard be damned. I thought only our corporate overlords were afforded that luxury. My guess is Mitt will be walking back these comments as soon as John Thornton gets him on the phone. Frankly I think his reaction stems from a natural application of principles he followed in private equity (e.g. if the debt isn’t worth servicing or looks suspicious, just default and move on), but it also seems kind of muddled–he hasn’t really thought thru the issue or considered the position of his banker-friendly party. Either way, I’d be surprised if Newt doesn’t use this in the debate tonight… ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2012, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/2 "2012-01-23T22:37:53Z")
Eh, FWIW, I agree with Mitt here. But it’s bizarre to call him a socialist. He’s a professional capitalist, and he’s talking like a sensible capitalist here. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2012, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/3 "2012-01-23T22:53:26Z")
Oh yes, 100% a socialist. Thank God someone has finally revealed the truth behind the mask! ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2012, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/4 "2012-01-23T23:00:24Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Eh, FWIW, I agree with Mitt here. But it’s bizarre to call him a socialist. He’s a professional capitalist, and he’s talking like a **sensible capitalist** here. So, socialist. ---
**Author:** ![Svejk\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@Svejk\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svejk_1)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2012, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/5 "2012-01-23T23:05:57Z")
Every time you think that any mainstream American politician might be a socialist, remember this: There are no socialists in mainstream US politics. To call any mainstream US politician is either to be disingenuous, or to be stupid. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2012, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/6 "2012-01-23T23:12:34Z")
> [@Svejk\_1](#): > > There are no socialists in mainstream US politics. To call any mainstream US politician is either to be disingenuous, or to be stupid. I’m obviously being facetious, but if [all the GOP candidates](http://www.thenation.com/blog/163585/note-gop-candidates-obamas-no-socialist) consider Obama’s economic policy to be socialist, and one of them supports a policy to the left of Obama…as [Mitt would say](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/romney-on-ad-sauce-for-the-goose-now-sauce-for-the-gander/), “what’s sauce for the goose is now sauce for the gander.” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2012, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/7 "2012-01-23T23:26:00Z")
> [@](#): > > There are no socialists in mainstream US politics. To call any mainstream US politician is either to be disingenuous, or to be stupid. I assume you’re excluding Bernie Sanders? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/8 "2012-01-25T17:52:14Z")
Well, he said “mainstream”. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/9 "2012-01-25T18:21:11Z")
> [@Svejk\_1](#): > > To call any mainstream US politician is either to be disingenuous, or to be stupid. Do you think anyone in this thread is seriously calling the Mittster a socialist? (I’m not sure if you do or don’t, just asking.) Because all I see is a plea for a little consistency. To call Obama a socialist would be disingenuous or stupid, so it’s only fair that the people who do so also call Romney a socialist, since they have supported broadly similar policies. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/10 "2012-01-25T18:26:31Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, he said “mainstream”. Dude’s a senator, caucuses with the majority party and is a longtime political fixture in his (admittedly small) home State. What else does he have to do to be considered “mainstream”? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/11 "2012-01-25T19:09:54Z")
Strategic default is not a moral hazard issue. It’s a perfectly legit business decision, as has been discussed about 10 millions times already on this message board. You have a contract with the bank or institution holding your mortgage: make your mortgage payments or they get your house. Paul Krugman defined moral hazard thusly: “any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly.” Looks like the “bot” in question here is the OP, whose knee-jerk reaction was that if Romney said something, he must be wrong. What Romney is proposing, from the OP’s link is exactly what you’d propose to avoid a moral hazard: > [@](#): > > “Don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom,” Romney said last October. “Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up. … The Obama administration has slow walked the foreclosure process … that has long existed and as a result we still have a foreclosure overhang.” ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/12 "2012-01-25T20:24:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Strategic default is not a moral hazard issue. It’s a perfectly legit business decision, as has been discussed about 10 millions times already on this message board. > > You have a contract with the bank or institution holding your mortgage: make your mortgage payments or they get your house. > > Paul Krugman defined moral hazard thusly: “any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly.” > > Looks like the “bot” in question here is the OP, whose knee-jerk reaction was that if Romney said something, he must be wrong. > > What Romney is proposing, from the OP’s link is exactly what you’d propose to avoid a moral hazard: I agree, but that’s not the problem: The problem is that Romney’s words now are inconsistent with his statements in October that we should “not stop the foreclosure process”, and I suspect many in the GOP (like, I dunno, [the attorney general of a state about to hold a primary](http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-23/attorneys-general-say-foreclosure-terms-may-cause-moral-hazard-.html)) would think strategic default encourages moral hazard. My comment about moral hazard was meant sarcastically, as was my comment that Romney is now a socialist based on this. I thought that was rather obvious, but perhaps I underestimated just how hard it is to discern the sarcasm when the “normal” positions of the Republican candidates are so ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/13 "2012-01-25T20:35:19Z")
Mitt, for once, is being consistent. When Bain took over companies, they forced the companies to take on debt to buy out Bain (with fees of course.) If the debt proved too much, the companies walked away from the debt by declaring bankruptcy. What is new here is his first statement, which isn’t about the homeowner defaulting but about the bank renegotiating the loan and writing off some of the debt. Is that a common Republican position? Is Mitt so shaken that he is returning to his liberal ways? ---
**Author:** ![Svejk\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@Svejk\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svejk_1)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/14 "2012-01-25T20:56:57Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > I’m obviously being facetious, but if [all the GOP candidates](http://www.thenation.com/blog/163585/note-gop-candidates-obamas-no-socialist) consider Obama’s economic policy to be socialist, and one of them supports a policy to the left of Obama…as [Mitt would say](http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/23/romney-on-ad-sauce-for-the-goose-now-sauce-for-the-gander/), “what’s sauce for the goose is now sauce for the gander.” > [@Ludovic](#): > > Do you think anyone in this thread is seriously calling the Mittster a socialist? (I’m not sure if you do or don’t, just asking.) > > Because all I see is a plea for a little consistency. To call Obama a socialist would be disingenuous or stupid, so it’s only fair that the people who do so also call Romney a socialist, since they have supported broadly similar policies. These are fair points, and I can see why one would want more consistency, but much more I would like to see people no longer using the term socialist to describe mainstream US politicians (other than Bernie Sanders :D) because it does not really serve as an accurate description of political stances in most cases, but is really intended to offend and scare off. It pollutes the debate (which I’m sure people in this thread feel as well). > [@Simplicio](#): > > Dude’s a senator, caucuses with the majority party and is a longtime political fixture in his (admittedly small) home State. What else does he have to do to be considered “mainstream”? Actually I was not aware of this Senator, it’s been interesting reading up on him! I’ll have to amend my blanket statement to include him in the future. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2012, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/15 "2012-01-25T22:34:46Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > I agree, but that’s not the problem: The problem is that Romney’s words now are inconsistent with his statements in October that we should “not stop the foreclosure process”, and I suspect many in the GOP (like, I dunno, [the attorney general of a state about to hold a primary](http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-23/attorneys-general-say-foreclosure-terms-may-cause-moral-hazard-.html)) would think strategic default encourages moral hazard. That’s not “strategic default”. That’s an attempt to force the banks to restructure the loans, which does have an aspect of moral hazard. Strategic default is when the homeowner decides to walk away from the loan the let the banks foreclose on the property. That’s how the original contract was written, and letting it play out without interference is how how avoid moral hazard. > [@](#): > > My comment about moral hazard was meant sarcastically, as was my comment that Romney is now a socialist based on this. I thought that was rather obvious, but perhaps I underestimated just how hard it is to discern the sarcasm when the “normal” positions of the Republican candidates are so ridiculous. Yeah, when people don’t get your sarcasm, it’s their fault. :rolleyes: Why don’t you restate your case without sarcasm and let’s see how it stands up. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/16 "2012-01-26T06:14:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Strategic default is when the homeowner decides to walk away from the loan the let the banks foreclose on the property. That’s how the original contract was written, and letting it play out without interference is how how avoid moral hazard. I agree; if you want an argument, take it up with the GOP. In the summer of 2010, they [introduced a motion in the House to penalize strategic defaulters](http://washingtonindependent.com/86756/house-republicans-target-strategic-defaulters) by forbidding them from obtaining FHA loans. I think it’s fair to say that the GOP is not in favor of strategic default (whether or not they directly call it a “moral hazard” is only a question of the rhetoric they use; though I think in this case you’re splitting hairs, I’ll concede the AG’s never directly called strategic default a moral hazard). > [@](#): > > Yeah, when people don’t get your sarcasm, it’s their fault. :rolleyes: > > Why don’t you restate your case without sarcasm and let’s see how it stands up. Romney’s latest comments seem to endorse strategic default. This appears to contradict his previous statements and the expressed concerns of the GOP establishment regarding strategic defaults by the “wrong” sort of people–you know, the ones who may actually need FHA loans (dog whistle!). If Romney stands by his current position, he is to the left of these Republicans and (IMO) to the left of Obama’s banker-friendly policies. Therefore, if the GOP thinks Obama is a “socialist”, wouldn’t Mittens also qualify? To be fair, I really can’t understand how anyone could think calling Romney a “…socialist?” should be taken at literal face value. I also don’t really believe Romney is literally a robot, nor do I claim to have a photo where President Obama is literally bent over backwards when dealing with banking issues. Yes, that is also sarcasm. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2012, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mitt-romney-socialist/610437/17 "2012-01-26T13:04:40Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > I also don’t really believe Romney is literally a robot, nor do I claim to have a photo where President Obama is literally bent over backwards when dealing with banking issues. Yes, that is also sarcasm. So, you **do** have a photo? :dubious: 😃