I would like to acknowledge a few recent actions in the political realm.
Mayor Cory Booker - For speaking out against the Obama-camp's attacks on Romney-Bain.
Mitt Romney - For speaking out against the proposed Rev. Wright PAC ads.
Now, I'm not saying that either of these politicians are free from blame, but we need to stop attacking 'the other party' solely on the fact that they are the other party. All of these attacks distract from more important issues like jobs, debt, foreign policy, etc...
I'll applaud when I see it last.
and lies count as nauseating too, right?
Didn't last long:
Romney? going to tell Rubio to knock it off?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07 … ama-video/
And I think I know why he did it too...because Obama compared the gvt of Israel to Hamas...which is absolutely true. In fact, a professor at Hebrew University claims Hama was a creation of Israel....to control the mideast conflict, by controlling both sides.
Rubio is an Israeli-Firster. And my president has the GUTS to take them on.
IF Romney says nothing to denounce Rubio's attack: his words to be civil mean nothing.
First, I don't have sound so I can't listen to what he says. Did Rubio attack Obama's record or Obama?
Second, this is from 10 months ago. Are you just looking for some Republican attack so you can denounce Romney? Notice I pointed out an example from each side of the aisle... we should encourage our politicians to act this way, not just immediately go back on the attack. You take up the position that doing something right once means nothing, let's get back to attacking each other.
Obama's attack was on what Romney did at Bain capital..how is that any more personal than attacking Obama's record as president?
How come R's can attack Obama's record, but attacking Romney's record is too personal?
Besides, this truce- thing of Romney's is new. He has been personally attacking Obama for months. Why is he all of a sudden calling for it to stop?
And what good is it for him to act like he's going to be civil, but then his surrogets come out and do the same thing anyway. If he mean it-he would denounce this kind of thing when it comes from anyone, imo.
Obama's attacks about Romney-Bain are horribly off-track. It would be like saying Solyndra is the total sum of Obama's work on jobs. The fact is, 80% of companies under Romney-Bain increased revenues, and a similar percentage increased jobs. Many were facing bankruptcy when Bain stepped in. I've detailed these facts many times, but the Bain bashers never come out of the woodwork to address the facts. Instead, people latch onto one example of a time when a factory was closed, regardless of whether or not it would have closed years earlier without Bain, regardless of the industry which was being decimated by foreign competition, regardless of who was actually responsible for approving a $1 billion plant while the company was only enjoying small profits, etc, etc, etc.
I was applauding a Democrat for speaking out against Obama's tactics, and Romney for speaking out against a conservative PAC's tactics. We need more of that, but you keep acting like it doesn't matter. I think partisanship is a huge problem, so I'm glad to see people stand up for what they think is right.
Romney did denounce the Wright attacks when they were coming from someone else. That was the whole point.
But he was making them himself just months ago! That is my point. It's fine until HE starts getting attacked. Then it's time to play nice.
And I just now heard a news clip....
Romney: Pual Ryan's plan, UNLIKE THE PRESIDENTS, is at least a serious attempt to fix the problems."
......what happened to the end of personal attacks?
LMC, did I condone anything other than those two statements?
I don't like it when EITHER side plays dirty. My point is that we should encourage the good behavior from our representatives, but I guess it will never happen. Notice that when I brought this up, you immediately went back to the old attack. That's the whole problem.
Again, personal attacks are different than attacks on record.
So what is Mitt complaining about???
No one attacked him personally....it's about what he did at Bain Capital.
and if he wants to say it--he better play it. Or he's just another bag of hot air.
UNLIKE THE PRESIDENT....the president is not serious about fixing problems....is that is? And how is that NOT a personal attack?
I've addressed this. Firstly, Obama's team is focusing on one of Bain's investments to try and show all of Romney's record. Secondly, Romney wasn't even working at Bain when the company went bankrupt. Thirdly, Bain would give management a financially vested interest in running the company(tying their salary to profits), but not necessarily run the business or be involved in its decisions. Fourthly, the steel industry was decimated by foreign competition, and this particular company might have very well gone bankrupt years earlier without Bain's intervention. Fifthly, Bain didn't have the advantage that Obama has of being able to spend as much money as they wanted to create jobs. If Bain did what Obama(and other presidents before him) has done, Bain would have gone bankrupt.
Not to mention that ROMNEY was criticizing a conservative PAC for plans to attack Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright.
What are you talking about that has to do with Romney's comments?
Can you provide a source please? I happen to agree that Obama is more concerned with 'social fairness' than economics, seeing as he admitted as much during his 2008 campaign, but I can't talk about this quote you are referencing, as a search for it pulled up 0 results.
We have a man running for office who was the governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Yet no one is talking about his record of achievement (including Romneycare, which he has dropped like a hot potato) in that capacity.
The focus on Bain is (I feel)getting old. It's time to move past the obvious point that Romney is an opportunistic capitalist and ruthless in business.
That's a given in the shark infested waters of high level consulting.
Even if Romney wanted us to think his Bain experience is transferrable to POTUS and he will run the US like a management consultant (which he can't), there is more to economics and MUCH MORE to running the country than there is to "salvaging" (giving the benefit of the doubt here to Romney/Bain) failing companies!
Does he really have the vision or the breadth to lead this nation?
Character (or lack thereof) aside, there are real WEAKNESSES on foreign policy and social policy and basic understanding of the complexity of the job.
Romney has a full plan for health-care. I think he doesn't bring the issue up because many Americans don't understand the concept he is promoting: state's rights. Romney has no problem with a Romney-care style system being in place on a state level, but he would never want his Mass. plan to be a federal plan.
Instead, he will return that power to the states. This is very good, as it promotes competition. He also wants to allow people to purchase plans across state lines, furthering competition.
If two neighboring states take two different paths to healthcare, everyone will be able to compare the effects. If one policy leads to high costs, it can be changed, people can move to another state, or(under Romney) purchase better healthcare from another state.
The focus on Bain has always been off-track anyway. People have shown they aren't interested in Bain's record. I have created half a dozen threads with specifics of revenues and jobs before and after Bain stepped in with companies, with full sourcing to SEC filings, page numbers, etc... and people just ignore it because it doesn't fit with what they were told by the media. I've looked at his work at Bain in more depth than, probably, 99.9% of Americans, and I'm impressed with the results.
Knowledge of what companies need to be successful is definitely something that can help the POTUS fix our economy. It's not everything, but it's a big chunk economically.
We should look at what he did as governor.
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployme … achusetts/
One thing he did was lower unemployment, if that's the sort of thing you want to attribute to the governor.
2001 - 3.7%
2002 - 5.3%
2003 - 5.8%
2004 - 5.2%
2005 - 4.8%
2006 - 4.8%
2007 - 4.5%
Without Obamacare starting the conversation and being a catalyst at the federal level, states would have no incentive to change. They would keep doing what they've been doing and the results would keep getting more dire with unhealthier populations and more people uninsured.
Especially in cash strapped states.
I live in usually progressive and enlightened California and I know whereof I speak on this.
PS. People are going to move out of state in the hopes of getting a better insurance rate? How realistic is that, really?
Massachusetts did it all on its own.
I listed moving as one option. I moved states for a job, if someone thinks it is worth it they can move too. But opening up competition between the states is the best option.
That is what I thought you meant but wanted to make sure.
You moved states for a job. Of course that makes sense.
My point is that not everyone is able to get their health benefits through work or take the kind of job that pays benefits. Period.
For them, the idea of moving states in the quest to obtain health benefits or get better rates on health benefits is an uphill battle at best and futile at worst.
That problem will not be fixed by interstate competition between health plans.
Here's some good, bi-partisan news:
GOP Governors contradict Romney, tout job growth and improving economy http://thkpr.gs/Jj3NCp
Now let's see how they spin it to hurt Obama. AND let's see if Romney gets in on it. My guess is he will.
The first thing that came to my mind reading that is that the spin will be it's the states where there is a strong Republican governor that are bouncing back. It's all due to the governors' superior management of their state and reining in spending and cutting entitlement programs and blah blah blah.
They will use themselves as models for what needs to be done on the federal level and point out that bounceback and growth at the federal level has not been as strong or fast as in their states.
And, by implication, a strong Republican in the White House is the only one who can achieve the same stunnng economic turnaround for the country.
If I'm wrong I will be very happy not to be right on this!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/ … h-in-2012/
Hmmm. The regions where economy is expanding are all in red states, with the exception of Seattle and Silicon Valley.
Side note: Forbes sure is a great example of the liberal media, isn't it?
I agree with you JaxsonRaine.
Civility between candidates is much more productive than underhanded smearing.
Unfortunately, the whole purpose of PACS is to get the nasty smears out there without them directly tainting or being attributed to the actual candidate.
Groups like Swiftboaters for Truth get to fire sh@t torpedoes while candidates like George W. Bush get to pretend to know nothing about it and pretend not to endorse it, but sit back and watch the destruction and reap the benefits anyway.
Politics is a filthy business.
I grew up in a strongly R state, I remember listening to Limbaugh while building our house with my dad, etc...
Now though, I've learned that neither side has the monopoly on being right, and sadly both sides hurt America by trying to make the other side look bad. R's and D's will both present bills for jobs, but include things they know the other side doesn't want. When the other side doesn't vote for it, everyone points fingers 'R's are against jobs!' 'D's are against jobs!'. If we could just have simpler bills that focus on one issue at a time, we could at least get the things we agree about done.
But you're right, it's a filthy business. Unfortunately we consider it the norm for our elected representatives to spend more time smearing others than doing work.
Are you proposing to get rid of earmarks from the bills?
Keep the bills uncomplicated and focused on one single issue?
But, but, but.....
That's the whole challenge of legislation! Weeding through and figuring out what is really in each bill and what passing it (or not) will really do and who it will really benefit (and hurt).
Imagine if they did what you propose?
We wouldn't need elected representatives!
The whole ponderous system has been built around itself to protect those INSIDE.
Job security plain and simple.
Sorry, I must have been on pain killers if that's what I suggested...
I know... well, kinda. It's not the challenge, because they don't actually read what they pass as law. The challenge is to figure out what is in each bill without reading it!
Yeah, it pretty much sucks.
Reform legislative procedures. Reform tax code. Shrink government.
"When you're president… Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot." —President Obama
I don't think Romney has a clue...or cares about everybody in the country.
I'm telling you--he slashed eye and dental care for poor kids when he was gvr....at the same time Cape Cod Hospital was bragging about a new operation that allowed a 76 yr old man to "get back on the golf course"---both paid for by tax dollars.
A rising tide should lift all boats. More tax cuts for the wealthy, while cutting needed programs for the poor is allowing people to sink.
I'm not even going to bother responding to you anymore if you don't respond back. You just move from attack to attack to attack, without opening it up for discussion. It's pointless.
And you are so pro-Romney it's pointless too. Even your opening salvo was all pro Romney.
What debate do you want? You want Romney's policies, I want Obama's.
We had 8 years of yours--I think we deserve ours!
You want them to be respectful to each other, but every day Romney says something demeaning about Obama.
I will leave you alone.
We are made up minds, and more Romney cheerleading I don't need.
My opening salvo was the two most recent instances in Google News of a politician speaking out for what they believe to be right against their own party.
You keep making attacks, dodging my points, and moving onto new attacks ignoring what I was saying. I wanted discussion.
We haven't had 8 years of Romney's policies. You think that I love everything Bush did automatically? I'm sick of every president diluting the dollar, I want, more than anything, fiscal responsibility and a real focus on private sector jobs.
Romney is Bush on steroids, IMO. More tax cuts for rich, MORE cuts to programs for needy, MORE allowing business and banks to do whatever the heck they please....
And my point to you is that Romneys' so-called civiliy is fake.
"In general though, the Republican Party's presumptive nominee has gone out of his way to embrace the anti-Obama fringe, in the form of today's right-wing media complex. The Romney campaign has built strong ties with Fox News, The Drudge Report, and with an array of far, far-right websites that traffic in every imaginable type of anti-Obama hysteria, and do it on a daily basis.
Indeed, the Romney campaign seems determined to wage a general election campaign battle alongside the anti-Obama fringe, in a way that Sen. John McCain did not four years ago.
Recall that earlier this month the Huffington Post reported that in effort to reach out to right-wing bloggers and online journalists, Romney met with dozens of conservative writers for two hours during an on off-the-record gathering in Washington, D.C. The bull session centered around ways the bloggers and writers could help Romney's campaign with its messaging, and how they could most effectively distribute opposition research on Obama."
He has no intention of stopping the character assasinations of Obama....He just wants Obama to play nice, while the R's go in for the kill.
And I know you have seen the story that Booker got lots of campaign cash from Bain? Makes him suspect as well.
Does his record in Massachusetts mean anything to you?
From deficits to surpluses, funded a 'rainy-day' fund, and lowered unemployment.
I'll defend his Bain record as well, but no Bain Basher has ever taken me up on a real discussion of it(with the exception of one person on debate.org, who conceded the debate in the second round after I posted primary sources with all the facts).
Health exchanges are due to start in 2013...if the SC doesn't kill ACA, or the R's do.
I lived it. He cut cut cut from poor. Signed the Quinn Bill for cops, and promoted a prosecutor who helped frame an innocent man for murder.
They called him FeeFee...cause he said No New Taxes, but made up for it by raising fees and fines.
In other words...rather than get money from those who have plenty...he came running to those who have not.
Lowered unemployment? We ranked 37 in job creation...and this was in the booming 90's!
let me ask you...what is the purpose of a corporate raider? Jobs? Or money for the bottom line?
I'm not interested in the surface info about Bain...the brochure info....I want the underground stuff I'v been hearing about....the money-laundering and fraud.
"Hard to justify rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company" -- Newt Gingrich on Bain
Can you provide sources for this information?
Yes, lowered unemployment.
2001 - 3.7%
2002 - 5.3%
2003 - 5.8%
2004 - 5.2%
2005 - 4.8%
2006 - 4.8%
2007 - 4.5%
5.8% to 4.5%
Talk about a loaded question. Corporate raider?
Purchase Ampad, increase revenues by 50% every year, create new jobs. Yeah, that's a bad thing, right?
Fine, let's talk about it. Bring up some info and sources. Mostly, I just see people talking about what they read in the media, no real information.
Yeah, I don't respect Newt for his attacks on Bain. Like I've said, I've gone through the data and seen the effects Bain had on companies. More revenues and more jobs in almost every case.
http://www.gotchamediablog.com/2012/05/ … ed-by.html
36K from Bain Booker? Money talks, and your BS walks.
Ok... what BS?
Your first post was 'meh, who cares if a politician does something good once, we should only care if it becomes habit'. My stance I've made clear.
I wouldn't mind Obama attacking Romney's record at Bain if he would be honest and accurate. Instead he brings out the former union leader at SCM, who wouldn't agree to taking pay cuts when their division was losing money.
Sometimes, if a company is going under, you have to make cuts. It's like surgery, it can hurt, and it can take time to heal, but without it you're going to die.
No-my first "meh" was...I'll believe it's REAL if I see it continue....
And it has NOT. RMoney is denigrating Obama as usual....his army is out in force, NOTHING has changed, except he wants everything hush hush about himself.
And Obama is being honest about Romney. He said if making money is your main concern, you don't know what the job of president requires.
It requires that you think of how all Americans can get a fair shot......
Romney is not about that. He is about making sure the top tier get more.
With the government, you can run a huge debt and not go under.
You can't do that with businesses. Do you think Obama's strategy for stimulating jobs would have worked with any private business?
Romney's work in the private sector required money. NO COMPANY can provide stable jobs without turning a profit.
Answer this, is it better to cut 20% of jobs at a company that is losing money every year, or lose all of the jobs when the company goes under?
That's not what he did. He too over companies with borrowed money, loaded them with debt, bankrupted them and skimmed from the top.
Vulture is the correct term.
You say that, but have you ever look at the financial reports for a SINGLE company related to Bain, before and after?
I have. Companies increased revenues, increased profits, and increased jobs.
Do you really want to say that, I'll be more than happy to walk you through the data(real data, not just someone saying it).
No--I saw the you-tube video of the men who lost jobs when the steel mill closed.
you know--real people, like me and my experience with him, which doesn't count to you I guess.
You still haven't answered my question.
If you had a business, that was losing money, would it be better to fire 20% of the workers, or lose everything so everyone loses their jobs?
As far as specific companies, some were closed because unions wouldn't take pay cuts(You haven't answered how a company is supposed to operate by losing money every year), some were old technologies that were phased out(typewriter manufacturing), and some were decimated by foreign competition(lots of steel mills have been closed because of foreign competition).
"Can you provide sources for this information?"
I LIVED IT!!! He was my gvr. What other source do you need? Ask another Massachussite why don't you--since you don't believe me!
"Mostly, I just see people talking about what they read in the media, no real information."
ummm, hello----what other info is info?? Unless you lived it...that's what it is!
But, his boss was 3rd ranking member of Mossad....red flags should be activated.
Read 'The Last Circle'....your eyes will be opened to USA, Israel, Mossad.
Bain Capital was in the business of making money for themselves. Everything else was secondary.
And how many jobs created is worth the jobs lost? IF they were in it for the jobs....NONE would have been lost.
Gingrich was right about a lot of things he said about Romney...but you will never see it.
If you can't provide sources for your information, then we have to take your word as 100% fact. The problem with that is that you've already shown yourself to be incorrect about the unemployment rate during Romney's term.
Just like talking to a laid off worker isn't the right way to understand what happens when a plant closes down. You have to look at financials.
Media reports aren't truth just because they are media reports. For instance, most people think that GE paid no taxes last year, but got a huge refund. That's just not true.
The REAL information comes from financial reports, primary sources. It's basic when doing any research that you look for solid, primary sources.
And that has what to do with Romney's record at Bain and Massachusetts?
Funny thing about capitalism, if ANY company puts jobs ahead of profits, they will go bankrupt. You can only have as many jobs as you can pay for. Maximizing profits in a company allows the company to expand. There is NO other way to expand a company than to increase its profits.
NONE? Many of the companies Bain bought into were going out of business, in bankruptcy or starting the process. It is MUCH better to cut 20% of jobs than to lose them all.
No company can keep jobs if they are losing money. Explain to me how a company is supposed to do that.
Do you want to talk about actual facts? Do you want to look at the companies that were going down the drain and were saved by Bain?
Or, do you want to keep dodging facts and changing the subject?
By the way, do you want to address Romney's record with the unemployment rate as governor, or do you still insist that he didn't improve it?
OK...I heard a man on the radio this morning...he said the reason unemployment was low during Romney's reign here in Mass, is because it was so bad, people were leaving here in droves!
and I was wrong...we were not 37th in job creation, but 47th. This man said there was no one here looking for work, and that is why the uneployment rate was so low.
and no--I can't google to show a link...can't even you-tube anymore........I have a malware...HAPPILI...business is ruining my computer, with their corrupt money-grubbing advertising ways.
The only info I can get must come through twitter...until they infect that!
right now, the script is minute....can barely make it out. Thanks business-vultures!!
How is a redirect virus related to business?
Massachusetts' unemployment rate was under the national average the whole time, so if that had to do with lack of available jobs, then it is a problem that existed before Romney took office.
"Bain Capital was in the business of making money for themselves. Everything else was secondary."
from Ralph Deeds thread:
"In fact, Bain Capital — like other private equity firms — was founded and managed for profit: ideally, huge amounts of gain earned legally and legitimately. Any job creation was a welcome but secondary byproduct.
The language in one prospectus seeking Bain Capital investors was clear: “The objective of the Fund is to achieve an annual rate of return on invested capital in excess of the returns generated” by other investments. Any job creation was accidental."
by Susan Reid4 years ago
WHat do you think?I think the Dems are finally learning to play in the mud. Yay!Democrats to Romnney: 'Stop whining' over felony remarkPosted byCNN's Kevin Liptak(CNN) – The suggestion this week from a top Obama...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
Well duh!No wonder Romney's focusing so much on his Bain experience!His job creation record as governor of Massachusetts is not exactly impressive.47th out of 50 states on his watch.Wow.And we want this man as our...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
Bain is still sending jobs to China and stuffing money in Mitt Romney's pockets. The latest victim of Bain's vampire capitalism are the workers in Sensata Technologies in Freeport, Illinois. Sensata was profitable in...
by Dr Billy Kidd4 years ago
Turns out that Romney showed the press a partial tax statement for 2010. It was discovered thereafter that a significan section of his tax form is missing. That part, by law, tells what the overseas investments do. For...
by Dr Billy Kidd4 years ago
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last week that Obama has a secret agenda for his second term. I'm wondering what that is. Romney did not say. Or is this the old psychological trick of projecting your fault on...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
Private equity fund operator Steven Rattner provides a fair assessment of Romney's record at Bain here:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/opini … ef=opinion
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.