Romney's real job creation record

1. 76

   Mighty Momposted 11 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 national economic-commander-in-chief because....???
   
   From
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-b … 36470.html
   
   
   Bain's Not Just Fair Game, It's the Only Game
   Michael B. Keegan
   Posted: 05/22/12 12:47 pm
   
   Obama supporters are seething and the RNC is dancing with delight in the aftermath of Newark Mayor Cory Booker's nonsensical comparison of ads exposing Mitt Romney's real record on job creation with racially tinged attacks on Barack Obama's former pastor.
   
   The RNC thinks that it caught the Dems with their pants down, inadvertently admitting that Romney's work at Bain Capital should be off limits. But the indisputable fact is that Romney's experience at Bain is completely fair game -- Romney himself made that choice when he decided to present it as his chief qualification for the presidency. In fact, it's beyond fair game: if this election is truly about jobs and the economy, then Bain is one of the only games in town.
   
   Romney, attempting to shed his record as Massachusetts governor as fast as he can, has chosen to run almost exclusively on his record as a "job creator" at Bain. Pay no attention to the governor behind the curtain, whose state ranked 47th of 50 states in job creation during his term! In the process, he's mixed up some of his "job creation" numbers and cherry-picked the facts he's chosen to tell the American people. Romney keeps telling us his side of the Bain story. But are we to completely ignore the very real stories of factories shut down and American jobs lost? Let's hear all sides of the story. Isn't that what elections are all about?
   
   And let's also have an honest conversation about whether or not Romney's success in making money for investors through his position at Bain qualifies him to be president. Venture capital and private equity have a role to play in our economy. But making money for investors doesn't mean that you know how to make the economy work for all Americans. As President Obama pointed out yesterday, the goal of a private equity firm is to create wealth, not jobs -- most often, to make as much money as possible for a few investors. The goal of a president needs to be an economy that works for everybody. That's a critical difference.
   
   Both candidates agree that this election is about the fundamental direction that our country will take for the next four years. We should embrace this. How about this simple concept: Let's have that full debate about all aspects of the relevant experience of both candidates and let the voters decide.

   replyreport
2. 71

   Cagsilposted 11 years ago

   I don't want that idiot in office. He isn't for equality or equal rights, which is enough for me to say that I don't want this idiot in office.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      screamingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, he would definately be about helping the wealthy. Unions would be one of his first hits. Unions set the wage bar for many none union shops. If not for the unions, non union factories would pay a lot less, leaving the businesses and stockholders to make a lot more money at the worker's expense.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         But isn't that the whole idea?
         Making the owners and stockholders the most possible profit with the least possible investment?
         The disparity between worker pay and 'top management' pay is obscene and those guys make a bundle even if they tank the company.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            screamingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Thats so true, they reap the reward, and we the taxpayers are left with the tab of lost retirement funds and the unemployed while top management vacation in the Bahamas..

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Gotta hand it to them, tho.
               Those pension shortfalls should be taken out of (mis)management's hides, NOT picked up by the taxpayers.
               But that's exactly how these guys roll.

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Sort of like Obama's deals?

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Like anyone who bails out a private company and rewards the people who sunk it while sticking taxpayers with any bill for a private company.
                     
                     If company agrees to pay the government back, that's different.

                     replyreport
                     1. 93

                        habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        But, as you know, the gubmint doesn't always get paid back with Obama's deals.

                        replyreport
3. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   Read this for one:
   
   http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/23/news/ec … /index.htm
   
   Romney turned a deficit into a surplus, and tried to lower taxes. Massachusetts isn't exactly a competitive state for corporate tax rates. Romney did try to get some taxes lowered, but couldn't get everything he wanted done.
   
   Unemployment did better under Romney than before, but Massachusetts could have done better if they lowered their corporate rate from 9.5%.
   
   BTW, Romney closed tax loopholes and put stricter examination on claimed deductions and expenses for corporations.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      JaxsonRaine,
      I hope the Romney campaign is paying you well for your efforts.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Nobody wants a discussion...

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Shanna11posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Nobody wants to consider that someone they dislike actually did some good. It's hard to get people to consider things that go against their narrow view in the world. And that was NOT directed at anyone on this thread in particular. That's a statement that's true of most everyone.

            replyreport
      2. 60

         Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         He's probably getting paid more than you are from the Obama campaign, Republicans usually know how to make money democrats usually just waste it on bright shiny things.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Bright shiny things being fellow citizens.
            Nice that you recognize the beautiful potential in others.
            We do!

            replyreport
   2. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      A race to the bottom in taxes and public services.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Ralph, do you really think, when living in a country with one of the highest effective corporate tax rates, that it's smart for a state to charge another 9.5% when other states are lower?
         
         By that reasoning, we should all just pay 100% taxes and let the government provide everything for us. Is that what you want?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            justmesuzanneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Reductio ad absurdum is a mode of argumentation that seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, thus arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Yep!

               replyreport
               1. 65

                  Jim Bryanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I think you meant Effective Marginal Corporate Tax rates, as I'm sure you don't mean Effective Average Corporate Tax Rates. The US Marginal Tax rate at the HIGHEST level is 35%, BUT we aren't even in the Top 10. Number 1, Aruba has a Marginal Tax Rate (at the highest level) of 58.95%. Number 10, Ireland has a Maximum Marginal Effective Tax rate of 48%. Number 2 Sweden is 56.6%, and the rest of the Top Ten are OECD as well. These numbers are from KPMG LLP, and represent numbers released in an article dated 17 May 2012.
                  
                  I'm sure you didn't mean Effective Average Corporate Tax Rates because those are concerned with ACTUAL amount companies pay, which is often negiligible. Many research companies pay negative rates, for instance.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Marginal is the listed tax rate.
                     
                     Effective is what companies actually pay.
                     
                     When I say average effective tax rate, I mean the average rate companies actually pay.
                     
                     Ireland's marginal corporate tax rate is 12.5%(with 25% on certain types of income). Not 48%. No idea where you got that figure.
                     
                     http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesand … sures.aspx
                     
                     Aruba isn't part of the OECD, but it's rate is 28%
                     
                     Sweden is 26%.
                     
                     US is 40%.
                     
                     These are from your own KPMG
                     
                     http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/whatwedo/ … table.aspx
                     
                     The US has the highest MARGINAL corporate tax rate among OECD countries.
                     
                     You probably still think GE got a tax refund, don't you?
                     
                     The average EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate in the US averages around 27%, where the OECD average is 20%. It gets more complicated by sector, where effective rates range from 23%-39%.
                     
                     http://taxfoundation.org/files/sr195.pdf

                     replyreport
                     1. 65

                        Jim Bryanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I withdraw my stats from the previous post. I read an article about the subject yesterday, claiming KPMG as the source but didn't have time to find the original data. I relied on the author to be truthful (since they sourced the data) but apparently expected too much of them. Again, I apologize, I was deceived, not trying to deceive and will make better attempts to verify such information in the future.
                        
                        I also never mentioned GE. However, the Citizen's For Tax Justice report from June 1, 2011 (which is what I think you are referring to) doesn't say that either. Individuals are the ones who generally qualify for "refunds," while corporations enjoy subsidies and other tax benefits. What that study says on page 2 is that from 2008-10 that GE paid an effective tax rate of -45.3% (receiving $4.7B) after computing the tax benefits received minus the amount of taxes they actually paid, etc. Employees of GE's own subsidiaries quote this report fairly often. If GE doesn't deny it, why should you?
                        
                        http://www.ctj.org/pdf/12corps060111.pdf

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           I'm glad to see someone who is open to ideas.
                           
                           The CTJ report has two major problems, I wrote about it somewhere else.
                           
                           Off the top of my head, I only remember one problem(lol). They combine the tax rate on regular operations and the tax rate on investments, and then average them out.
                           
                           They do this for a specific reason, because GE Capital's tax rate can fluctuate from -200% to +200% from year to year, depending on when gains and losses are realized, among other things.
                           
                           If you look at solely regular operations, and leave out investments, and average those year to year, GE pays an effective tax rate of 17%(I'll be happy to find the sources of this for you if you want).
                           
                           Then, if you look at the investment side of it, and average it out from year to year, I believe the rate averages 23%.
                           
                           It was either 2008 or 2009 that GECS had something like a -140% tax rate, which is why that report was able to claim what they claim.
                           
                           
                           I'm sorry, I usually pull out GE because most people believe the NY Times article they read about GE not paying any taxes.

                           replyreport
                           1. 65

                              Jim Bryanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              I'm not seeing a match in your statistics with the report I linked. I haven't read the NYT article. To avoid issues like the one that happened yesterday, I tend to try and review the source data myself, again, I just didn't have time.
                              
                              Regardless, the Marginal tax rate of any country is meaningless. The actual tax rate is, but only in a relative way. It doesn't matter, for instance, what the actual tax rate is in Afghanistan, no one wants to move factories there. Corporations aren't moving businesses overseas based on tax rates, they are doing it to take advantage of lower labor costs (in the case of manufacturing), access to natural resources (oil, timber, mining, etc), or access to new markets (retail, banking etc).
                              
                              For example:
                              You have a business in Sometax City. In Sometax City you pay 40% corporate flat tax on your profit of $20K/mo. If all other factors were the same, would you rather stay where you are or move to Notax City and pay 0% taxes but only make $10K/mo profit, or move to Majortax City and pay 55% flat taxes on a profit of $30K/mo? Which allows you to take home the most money?

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 I'm not saying all businesses go to the place with lower taxes, but it is a consideration. With multi-national corporations especially, they locate their operations where they make the most business sense. Many times, tax rates come into play. The CBO found that certain types of business investments can be taxed up to 30% higher in the US than in other developed countries.
                                 
                                 It's also important when attracting investors. International investors, looking for new investments, have to consider tax rates. Two companies might perform the same in different countries, but investors will be taxed, on average, 7.5% higher in the US than elsewhere.
                                 
                                 http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbof … atetax.pdf

                                 replyreport
4. 76

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   Cags,
   You and LMC both lived under Romney Rule in MA.
   We don't seem to hear much about him from hubbers.
   Then again, we don't hear much from you guys about Deval Patrick or William Weld either.
   

   replyreport
   1. 93

      habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Romney got 72.2% of the MA votes in the GOP primary.
      Santorum lost in PA.
      Gingrich got 47.2% in his home state.
      Obama got 64.66% in the IL primary in 2008.
      
      Evidently, Romney isn't hated in MA.

      replyreport
5. 76

   lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

   William Weld was a social progressive and a fiscal conservative. He could have fun...liked to drink, and once jumped into a drink (drunk)
   
   His downfall was the Big Dig. His bud was Bechtel....later to be of Iraq fame. But he was fair....didn't destroy people because they were dem. Kennedy was big on Big Dig with him.
   
   Romney came in during the Rush era. By then, all the radio was righty hate-talk, and the R's ruled the protest vote.
   All I really remember from him was that he cut eye and dental from poor kids, while he upped the benefits of police, and seniors were having luxury operations...cost no option. That really bugged me. Very much so. because little kids are the ones who really need the care...and he was saying: heck with you.
   
   He did brag about not taking a salary...but he just invented a job, and gave it to his friend.
   Patrick they call Tax it all Deval. But he has brought business here with tax breaks, and inventive ideas, and green energy. Jobs are up, tourism is on the rise, and he re-instated eye and dental for kids!
   
   But of course, here it's still righty talk radio...and he gets the tax and spend liberal label. And the radio people really really Hate Obama.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Brought business with tax breaks?

      replyreport
      1. 76

         lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         tax incentives. And he was pro-wind-farm. Koch killed it.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I thought you wanted more taxes on businesd

            replyreport
6. 76

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   Bold predictions.
   Romney is claiming unemployment will be under 6% after his first term.
   Oops.
   Turns out that's already the official prediction.
   But you go right ahead and take credit for it, Mitt!
   
   According to a January 2012 Congressional Budget Office analysis, the unemployment rate is already expected to hit 6 percent around 2016. The nonpartisan budget-cruncher put out a forecast predicting that as "economic growth picks up after 2013, the unemployment rate will gradually decline to around 7 percent by the end of 2015, before dropping to near 5½ percent by the end of 2017."

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Its all stupid anyway. Unemployment doesnt tell the syory anymore. 8% unemployment now is what 11% was three years ago

      replyreport
   2. 69

      Teddletonmrposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This is what Romney  actually said; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwYXfBPNR7s

      replyreport
   3. 93

      habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Um, Romney predicted that in September 2011, months before the CBO.
      
      http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … down-to-6/

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Don't let facts get in her way she's on a roll.

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hello?
            Romney's implication was that unemployment would go down as a RESULT of him being elected POTUS.
            The CBO is saying unemployment will go down to that level whether Romney is POTUS or not.
            
            Don't let facts get in the way of Romney the magnificent clairvoyant!

            replyreport
   4. 0

      screamingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Economy is on the upswing, last thing we need is Romney implimenting the Ryan Plan and the recession starting all over again.

      replyreport
7. 76

   lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

   He's going with Bush/Cheney people for foreign advisors....neo-con again. He was praising Cheney.....now I'm scared.

   replyreport
8. 76

   lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

   "Romney closed that $1.2 billion gap and passed a balanced budget. But as we noted in 2007, his oft-touted cuts in wasteful programs and duplicate agencies made only a small dent, saving about $10.5 million dollars, according to an estimate by the independent, nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. More significant was the $277 million that Romney cut from the state’s local education aid budget and the $130 million cut from higher education, moves that shifted at least part of the tax burden onto towns and counties.
   
   There’s another misleading aspect to Romney’s claim that he closed the deficit without raising taxes. He increased government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars.
   
   As we wrote in 2007 when Romney was making his first presidential bid, Romney in 2003 doubled fees for court filings (which include marriage licensing fees), professional registrations and firearm licenses. Romney also quintupled the per gallon delivery fee for gasoline. All told, the fees raised more than $400 million in their first year. Romney also “closed loopholes” in the corporate tax structure, a move that generated another $150 million in increased revenue.
   
   In addition, Romney cut aid to local cities and counties. In 2004, Romney cut nearly 5 percent, or about $230 million, from the local aid budget. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, representing the state’s cities and towns, said Romney’s cut “forced communities statewide to cut services and raise local taxes and fees.”
   
   
   FeeFee and Chop Chop......that's how he does it, That way, his rich buds can keep all their wealth--because poor and middle class people maintain the state.
   
   http://factcheck.org/2011/12/unproven-j … romney-ad/

   replyreport
9. 76

   lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

   Can anyone tell me why the rich got richer and the poor got stuck, and the middle class fell??? anyone?
   
   If the tax rates are SO injurious to rich people....how it it their incomes increased 500 fold over the past 30 years--2000-2008 in particular?
   
   and if they can't afford to pay taxes...how is it they can give 250 mil to Romney's election campaign?

   replyreport
10. 66

    Ralph Deedsposted 11 years ago

    It's a complete fiction that private equity is a job creating process. The truth is precisely the opposite. The first thing that's done in a private equity takeover is  lay workers off, slash wages and benefits, close plants and load the company up with debt. And if that isn't sufficient, declare a "strategic bankruptcy" and terminate the pension plan, stuff their pockets with money and walk away. Romney is a smiling "greed is good" Gordon Gekko.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Listen, you say that, but can you provide a single instance, with verifiable proof, of that happening?
       
       What about the facts I provided where revenues were increased, profits increased, and jobs increased?

       replyreport
       1. 66

          Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I acknowledge that in some cases sales, profits and employment increased. But even in those cases the employment increase at a Bain company resulted in lost jobs at a competitor--e.g., Staples was quite successful, but it put plenty of small stationery and office supplies stores and their employees out of business with the net effect a decrease in jobs. I'm not suggesting that this process is evil but rather that calling private equity an engine of job creation is a fiction. Maybe somebody will study the issue and produce a doctoral thesis on it. In the meantime, it seems to me quite clear that Bain's objectives had nothing to do with job creation.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             In some cases? I have yet to see a single verifiable instance of that not happening.
             
             
             
             First, you state it as a fact that the net effect was a decrease in jobs, with no proof, just as your other claims.
             
             Secondly, creating new efficiency in the market is a very, very good thing. When we come up with a better way to get a job done, it frees up labor for other uses. In today's world we have people working on making electronics, aircraft, we have people in finance, skilled trades, etc... This is only possible because not very many people have to work to make the food and clothing for everybody else. If we didn't have efficiency like this, most everybody would still have to be working their own homestead. Anytime the marketplace can increase efficiency, it's a good thing. Yes, the invention of computers put a lot of typewriter jobs out of business(Bain is blamed for closing a typewriter plant when the union wouldn't agree to a pay cut), but it not only created a lot of new jobs in the computer industry, but the efficiency of computers created efficiency in every sector.
             
             With Staples, and other similar stores, companies were able to free up a lot of time that was spent shopping at dozens of vendors. The net effect is extremely positive.
             
             
             
             Almost any advancement in the market will make some previous process obsolete, but new efficiency opens the way for new efficiency. That's why we are able to keep creating new jobs, even though we are constantly phasing out old jobs.
             
             Yes, Bain's objectives weren't specifically directed at creating jobs, but they still did. It's absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming they didn't create jobs when every case you look at, they did.
             
             Are you clear on the tax rate issue as well?

             replyreport
             1. 76

                Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Meg Whitman created a heck of a lot more jobs with e-bay than Romney ever did at Bain.
                Didn't qualify her to be governor of California. In fact, despite setting the NATIONAL record for campaign spending, Whitman lost in a landslide. Because we the people saw through her.
                There are some eerie similarities between Meg and Mitt.
                
                A former job in a vulture capital firm doesn't qualify Romney to be president of the United States. Any more than "pizza king" Herman Cain was qualified to be running the country.
                The US economy is more than one company at a time and your argument is disingenuous.
                
                The point is, Romney did have transferrable experience as governor. And yet he is distancing himself from that experience as hard and as fast as he can.
                Does he think people won't notice?
                

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   Too many fallacies.
                   
                   1 - Just because someone is successful with one company doesn't mean they know how to be successful with any company. Romney showed time and time again that he can turn a floundering company around.
                   
                   2 - Just because one person doesn't get elected doesn't mean that all people who share one characteristic with that person can't/shouldn't be elected.
                   
                   3 - Seeing through one person doesn't have anything to do with Romney.
                   
                   Show me with FACTS how Bain was a vulture capital firm.
                   
                   Again, comparing Romney to someone who had experience with one company isn't the same thing. Romney worked with lots of companies, and showed he could help them be successful time and time again.
                   
                   I believe Romney wants to debate Obama on each others' records actually.

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      screamingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      If Romney was so interested to creating and saving jobs, why didn't he track the numbers of jobs he created? Because all he cared about was making money, whether jobs were lost or not. He has no actual number, that's why it keeps changing.

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                         Because he was more concerned with fixing companies than keeping track of those kinds of statistics. It's pretty unfair to say that he didn't care about jobs at all, especially considering that he did create jobs over and over again.

                         replyreport
11. 76

    Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

    Exactly my point.
    And just because someone is successful with one company and than another company does not mean they know how to be successful with entire industries or the economy in general.
    
    How would you propose turning Bain's "savior" tactics into national jobs policy?
    You can't.
    Apples and oranges.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Right, he just showed success in turning around businesses in the manufacturing, retail, service, and financial industries(I'm sure there are more).
       
       By creating a business environment that is business-friendly. Lower corporate taxes, less regulations where possible, incentives for research and development, as well as forcing China to start playing fair to make sure that manufacturing gets its fair shake in America. There's more, you can read what Romney has released so far for his economic plans.
       
       You have to understand that Romney knows how to make failing companies succeed. He knows what obstacles they face from foreign competition, from government taxes and regulations, and internally. Knowing what the problem is is the first step in being able to fix it.
       
       It's ridiculous that people keep pushing the 'his experience doesn't matter' agenda. Let me ask this question. All things being equal, would you rather have a candidate who showed extreme success across multiple industries in the private sector, or a candidate with no business experience, when facing double-digit unemployment? Someone who doesn't know what the problem is can't fix it.

       replyreport
       1. 76

          Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          ???
          Obama faced double-digit unemployment in the face of a recalcitrant Congress and has brought it down to 8%.
          The official projections are less than 6% unemployment by 2016 under Obama, which is the same prediction Romney is making for his own ability to control unemployment.
          So... since the jobs outcome is going to be the same regardless of candidate, that's not much of a plug for Romney's abilities, is it?
          Nor is his record of MA being 47th out of 50 states on his watch.
          That's dismal, really.
          
          

          replyreport
          1. 0

             JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             It's not actually 8% though. U3 unemployment doesn't count people who stop looking because they can't find a job or can't afford to keep looking. It doesn't count people whose benefits run out.
             
             
             
             It's nice to hear that it's down to 8%, but it's really not. We've reached a point where U3 unemployment data doesn't mean the same thing it meant before.
             
             With Obama, we might reach 6% U3 unemployment, but we'll still have double-digit U6 unemployment.
             
             There were 10,000 less people working in 2011 than in 2009, but we are told that unemployment dropped even though there were less jobs...
             
             With Romney, we can get U6 unemployment back down. In other words, we can get people working, not just get them off the unemployment list(not the same thing)

             replyreport
             1. 76

                lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                How's that?
                How is Mitt going to get people working again?
                
                Because he's Republican, and Tea-Bagger congress will work with him?
                
                Or because wages will be so low, the 500+ level of disparity between actual workers and lazy-bum ceo's will be more than worth their while?
                
                Why not hire NOW?
                Why wait for Mittens?
                
                CON spiracy, that's why. Gingrich said it: "Say NO to Obama, so he can't gvr, then we will come in to "fix" it."  no matter who suffers in the interim.....
                
                There's a word for that.

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   The only way to get people working, is to get corporations hiring. Lower tax rates, removal of unfair regulations, working to counteract the unfair competition from China, to name a few things.
                   
                   I've gone over the wealth disparity with you before. You won't address it. The bottom 50% live in debt. They have no wealth. Of course there is a disparity. It's not Republicans' or Democrats' fault that people live outside their means.
                   
                   Corporations aren't hiring now because of taxes and regulations, among other things. If we provide incentives(you praised MA's governor for providing tax incentives to corporations didn't you?), the corporations will come in.
                   
                   Obama won't do that. He thinks we have a low tax rate. Liberals like to quote corporate taxes as a % of GDP to show that our rate is low, without understanding that it's a completely irrelevant standard.
                   
                   I don't like Gingrich, but can you provide a source for that quote?

                   replyreport
                   1. 76

                      lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Lower taxes my a$$. They had 10 years of lower taxes...and what did they do?
                      
                      Sent the jobs overseas.
                      
                      Why don't they follow? Get the heck out of here if they have no loyalty!!
                      
                      WE the people make their business...they want to treat us like step-bums....who NEEDS them?

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                         10 years of lower taxes? Not corporations.
                         
                         http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokou … d-larg.jpg
                         
                         The rate has been basically the same for 20 years.

                         replyreport
       2. 66

          Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          "Romney knows how to make failing companies succeed."
          
          That might be helpful but the Presidency requires far more than that. Being President is not remotely similar to being CEO of a private equity firm. Romney's endorsement of the Ryan budget reveals a lot about his priorities and where he's coming from. Basically his attitude is similar to that of Goldman Sachs, JPMorganChase, et al, take care of ourselves and our rich clients and fxxk the poor. Romney said he doesn't worry about the poor.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             It is helpful. Someone who knows what our companies need is more value, from a jobs-perspective, than someone who doesn't.
             
             
             It always seems to go like this. "Mitt Romney was a vulture! Oh, he created jobs? You have proof? Well, he was still a bad man. Anyway, running a country isn't like running a business. Well... yeah, I guess he does know what problems companies face, but that doesn't mean he'll be able to do anything to help them..."

             replyreport
12. 76

    lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

    He eats the life out of people to make a profit. Vulture.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       LMC, your hatred makes you irrational, you are blind to facts... it's not a good thing.
       
       Let it go. You have to see that neither side has a monopoly on being right or wrong.
       
       I know you are blinded, because you can't even acknowledge that Romney created jobs at companies if I provide factual proof for you.

       replyreport
       1. 76

          lovemychrisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          It's not hatred, it's disgust.
          
          Mind if I define my own feelings for a change?

          replyreport
13. 76

    Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

    This WashPo article is so spot-on I decided to post the entire thing.
    'xactly.
    
    Why neither Obama nor Romney wants to talk about Romney’s record
    
    Posted by Ezra Kleinat 03:16 PM ET, 05/25/2012
    
    Why are we talking about Bain Capital again?
    
    The answer, it seems, is that the two presidential campaigns want it that way. The Romney campaign wants us talking about Bain Capital LLC because Mitt Romney says his time leading the firm prepared him for the presidency.
    
    
    (BRIAN SNYDER - REUTERS) “Having been in the private sector for 25 years gives me a perspective on how jobs are created that someone who’s never spent a day in the private sector, like President Obama, simply doesn’t understand,” he told Time. This, the Romney campaign suggests, is the critical contrast between the two candidates. Their candidate learned about job creation at Bain. Barack Obama learned how to quote Saul Alinsky at open mike poetry jams in Chicago.
    
    The Obama campaign wants to discuss Bain because its team believes it shows Romney is unqualified for the presidency. Romney knows how to strip a business for parts, and to make investors and himself rich, but he doesn’t know how to expand opportunity or how to look out for workers left behind by economic dislocation.
    
    “If your main argument for how to grow the economy is ‘I knew how to make a lot of money for investors,’ then you’re missing what this job is about,” Obama said this week. In other words, Obama learned how to help fired steelworkers in Chicago. Romney learned how to fire them at Bain.
    
    The conversation between the campaigns would make perfect sense if Romney had quit Bain in 2010 to begin running for president. He didn’t. He left Bain in February 1999 to run the Olympics. And then, rather than returning to the firm, he ran for governor of Massachusetts and won. So we are, mercifully, freed from having to investigate every investment he made at Bain in order to uncover clues about how he would govern. We can just look at his record.
    
    Which leads to the next question: Why have we spent approximately no time talking about Romney’s governorship?
    
    The answer, again, is that neither campaign really wants to. The Romney campaign wants to avoid it because Romney governed from the center in ways that could now alienate the right. In a Republican Party looking for a true conservative, Romney sees little but danger in his record. His signature legislative accomplishment was the forerunner to “Obamacare.” Meanwhile, his state ranked 47th in job creation during his term. (So much for the secret knowledge gleaned from Bain about how to create jobs.)
    
    The Obama campaign doesn’t want to discuss it because Romney’s centrist record as governor might comfort independents, who otherwise may fear that Romney is a creature of the right. “I think people recognize that I’m not a partisan Republican, that I’m someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive,” Romney said in 2002.
    
    His health-care reform extended coverage to the uninsured, undercutting the image of a rapacious private-equity pirate. Although his state didn’t create many jobs, unemployment nevertheless fell from 5.6 percent to 4.7 percent while he was governor. In a country that’s looking for an alternative to Obama but is scared of the extremism of the modern right, the Obama camp doesn’t see much upside in emphasizing Romney’s moderate gubernatorial record.
    
    But that record may not be a good predictor of Romney’s potential presidency. In Massachusetts, Romney governed a blue electorate, and negotiated with a Democratic legislature. If he wins the presidency this fall, he will almost certainly be negotiating with a Republican House and Senate, which would be swept into office along with him.
    
    We don’t have to pore over every decision Romney made in Massachusetts to discern what he would do in Washington if elected. Romney and the Republicans in Congress have explained exactly what they intend to accomplish -- and their plans are remarkably in sync.
    
    The budget prepared by Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, and the Romney campaign’s general-election platform look quite similar. Both would cut taxes while flattening the tax code. Their Medicare-reform plans look similar; Ryan even modified his original draft to make it look more like Romney’s, which allows seniors to choose between traditional fee-for-service Medicare and private options. Their plans to increase defense spending are alike, as are their plans to cut domestic spending and to turn Medicaid, food stamps and other safety-net programs over to the states.
    
    Because it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which Romney is elected and Republicans don’t hold the House and win control of the Senate, Republicans wouldn’t be stymied by Democratic opposition. They would have the votes to pass their agenda. True, they won’t get a filibuster-proof majority of 60 in the upper chamber, but Ryan’s budget is, well, a budget, which means it could be passed through the budget reconciliation process -- and couldn’t be filibustered. To enact a radical change of direction, Republicans need only a simple majority of votes.
    
    Given that stark reality, perhaps I should rephrase my initial question: Why are we spending so much time discussing what Romney did at Bain ... instead of what he will do as president?

    replyreport
    1. 93

       habeeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Good article.

       replyreport
14. 76

    lovemychrisposted 11 years ago

    Bush on steroids. Republicorp USA.

    replyreport
15. 66

    Ralph Deedsposted 11 years ago

    The Lesson of Bain Capital
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/opini … ef=opinion
    
    "More than one-fifth of Bain's acquisitions went bankrupt, while Bain usually made money."

    replyreport
    1. 69

       Teddletonmrposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       PBS reviews   Bain Capital
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPaJ5qCTDRE

       replyreport
    2. 0

       JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       1 - Did they go bankrupt under Bain or after someone else took over? Most stories I've seen, Bain no longer owned the company when it went bankrupt.
       
       2 - Were they already heading for bankruptcy before Bain stepped in? This was Bain's specialization, finding troubled companies with potential.
       
       3 - What kind of bankruptcy? Were jobs lost, or was the company restructured? Many companies are able to save themselves and become profitable through bankruptcy.
       
       4 - What was the cause of the bankruptcy? 50% of American steel mills went bankrupt by 2000 due to foreign competition.
       
       A simple observation like that doesn't give any real information.

       replyreport
    3. 0

       JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Both GM and Chrysler went bankrupt...

       replyreport