Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/us/politics/companies-ills-did-not-harm-romneys-firm.html?_r=1" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06...tml?_r=1</a> Important article on Romney's Bain record. Nearly 20% of the companies they controlled during Romney's tenure filed for bankruptcy and laid off workers, yet Bain continued to make money off of these companies until the very end. Is this capitalism? I suppose. Is it ethical, is this the kind of person we want for President? I certainly don't think so. Government isn't a business, and attempts to run it as such almost always prove disastrous (see also, privatized prisons).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Not to mention the very important WashPost story this week that outlined how many of the companies Bain invested in during Romney's tenure offshored American jobs to cheaper countries. Of all that's come out about Bain, that's probably the strongest indictment, IMO. Bain not only did so, they were among the first to start the devastating practice, being called "pioneers" in offshoring. Obama was all over it immediately. Romney's campaign could only issue the weak “This is a fundamentally flawed story that does not differentiate between domestic outsourcing versus offshoring" - hoping to muddy the waters, and hoping people just swallow that and don't check to see that the Post story was actually quite detailed about which jobs were outsourced to (usually cheaper) US labor markets, and which were offshored to decidedly cheaper foreign labor markets. There was plenty of both. Bottom line: Romney made a boatload of money shipping American jobs overseas. <Government isn't a business, and attempts to run it as such almost always prove disastrous (see also, privatized prisons).> Fun fact: the last two US presidents who were primarily businessmen were Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush. One led us into the Great Depression, the other into the worst economy since the Great Depression. Both needed Democratic presidents to fix things, though neither could do so overnight, and both had to endure cries of "socialism!" or worse. But Romney's claims that we need a businessman to fix our economy just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh - and another Romney claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny? His claim to have "saved" the 2002 Salt Lake City olympics. From Salt Lake magazine, no less: <a href="http://saltlakemagazine.com/blog/the-myth-of-mitt-1/" target="_blank">http://saltlakemagazine.com/bl...-mitt-1/</a> "Because in the decade that followed, no one has done more to remind the world of the questionable ethical origins of the 2002 Olympics than Romney. Never mind that the scandal itself had little to do with Salt Lake City, never threatened the viability of the Games and was, in historical context, an Olympic-sized trifle. Notes Robert Garff, former SLOC chairman, “I never thought there was a time when the Salt Lake Organizing Committee was in danger of failing in its duties.” But Romney, of course, uses his so-called "saving" of the games as another biographical point that supposedly shows why he'd be a good president. As the magazine points out, it's a(nother) myth. Romney was good at one thing: making tons of money for himself and a handful of other wealthy people. He was not good at creating jobs (and in fact sent plenty of American jobs overseas), not a very good Governor of MA (47th in job creation), overstates his role in the Olympics... all his "strong points" are being exposed as bogus.
Originally Posted By barboy Let's see........ on one hand we have a centrist flying a liberal banner who has proven to us that he can't be trusted and on the other hand we have a fiscally unethical centrist waving the conservative flag who most definitely should not be trusted. Hey Monte, please show me what's behind curtain #3 for I'm willing to risk getting a goat gnawing a carrot complete with stem and leaf.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Fun fact: the last two US presidents who were primarily businessmen were Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush. One led us into the Great Depression" Hoover was a Keynesian just like FDR.
Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/romney-s-bain-yielded-private-gains-socialized-losses.html" target="_blank">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...ses.html</a> And now Bloomberg does another review and finds Bain made money by privatizing profits and socializing their losses. Mitt's a perfect Republican.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Drip, drip, drip... I liked this summation too (from the link): "Enriching investors by taking leveraged bets isn’t a qualification for a job requiring long-term vision and concern for public welfare. It is appropriate to point that out to voters. "
Originally Posted By HRM <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...ses.html" target="_blank">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...ses.html</a> >> "And now Bloomberg does another review and finds Bain made money by privatizing profits and socializing their losses. Mitt's a perfect Republican. " << Just read this... some good points; however, it's important to note, the piece is an op-ed piece. Interesting points though.
Originally Posted By Vic Sage Isn't it weird that even though the President's campaign spent over $25 million on attack ads distorting Romney's record, the polling numbers show a closer rate? Is there anything positive the President can say at this point to get over 50% of the voters to give him a second term? Or is the fact that 63% of the nation thinks we are heading in the wrong direction to big an obstacle to overcome?
Originally Posted By HRM Quite possibly true, it's the economy! But has Romney put forth an actual plan; step 1, step 2, step 3... about what he will do to turn the economy around? Saying he would "Obama-care" on day 1 does nothing to solve the Health Care crisis or control cost, which is one of the biggest negative drivers on the economy. What is his plan?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA The Obama Administration has done a TERRIBLE job of marketing the President and the job he's done. I watched The President and First Lady on CBS This Morning on Friday. They were being interviewed by Charlie Rose, and they acted like they were on a wedding video saying hello to the bride and groom. 'Blah, blah, blah' -- 'ha ha ha' -- 'my wife is my rock' -- 'the Presidency hasn't changed him' -- la la la' They sure weren't behaving like a a team who wants to be re-elected. Grrrrrr.....
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<But has Romney put forth an actual plan; step 1, step 2, step 3...>> Candidates rarely present their plans, especially this far out from the election. By doing so, it gives the other candidates ammunition to blast the plan to pieces. Second, if there are strong merits, then others can begin cherry picking for themselves. It's strategically better to force the incumbent to defend his/her record. However, Obama will out spend Romney a minimum of 4:1. That pretty much makes him a shoe-in.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>However, Obama will out spend Romney a minimum of 4:1. That pretty much makes him a shoe-in.<< Huh? It's post-Citizens United. Romney has already outpaced Obama in fundraising for June and conservative super-pacs are light years ahead of liberal pacs.
