published Thursday, January 12th, 2012

Voter Enthusiasm

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

145
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
John_Proctor said...

You hit the nail on the head again, Clay. There is a lot of ABM, Anyone But Mitt, angst in the Republican primaries as they search for the best candidate to lead us back into the 19th century. (Or the 1st century in Andrew's case.)

And the howling dogs will start in three, two, one. . .

January 12, 2012 at 12:16 a.m.
nucanuck said...

It looks as though neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are going to have much enthusiasm for their respective candidate.

While Ron Paul is a weak candidate, he is pushing two themes that resonate with the broader American electorate.

1) We have to regain control over the debt based financial system.

2) We need to bring American troops home from around the world and let other countries solve their own problems.

If either Romney or Obama would push those two concepts, we would have an easy winner in November.

Will it happen? Not a chance. We are going all-in for a decon five collapse no matter which party is in the saddle.

January 12, 2012 at 12:58 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

OH, HERE WE GO

You're right, JP, but I don't see how main stream republicans, tea party backers, conservatives, evangelicals, or any other faction of the GOP, can be thrilled with Mitt. First, Mitt's a very awkward public speaker. He's getting better with a tele-prompter, but things get a little crazy when he tries to free style.

It's been a long day, so I'll briefly offer these other choice chestnuts:

Romney's tax plan, according to a CAP Action Fund analysis of Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan group, will give the top 1% an average tax break of $126, 450. The study also indicated that Romney tax pla will raise taxes on half of the middle class with children.

I saw an informative story a few days ago. NBC reporter Chuck Todd sat down with Newt Gingrich during a long campaign bus ride. Gingrich questioned Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts where he was elected as a pro-choice moderate, appointed liberal judges, and created a government health care plan which featured an individual mandate.

Gingrich also talked about Romney's tenure at Baine Capital. Gingrich read an article in the Wall Street Journal about Romney's business practices. Newt said, in one instance, that Baine invested $30 million, extracted $180 million in profit, and a few months later the company went out of business. What would have happened, Gingrich wondered, if Baine had only taken $90 million in profit? Would those people still have a job?

Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it right.

January 12, 2012 at 1:11 a.m.
carlB said...

Romney keeps putting himself in the "trickle down" and depressing the US workers category. when it gets down to two candidates, that is when we will not be wasting our time discussing the "wanta bee's"

January 12, 2012 at 1:37 a.m.
328Kwebsite said...

Now that RomneyCare is a gift to the entire nation from the GOP, our city will prosper. Our insurance companies will profit thanks to the Republican Party's determination to make socialism the American way. Far superior to the fraud based economy they advocated during the Bush administration.

January 12, 2012 at 2:43 a.m.
fairmon said...

The media is very obvious in their effort to ignore Ron Paul by not including him in discussions and begrudgingly giving him limited air time or print exposure to explain his position on the issues. Journalist label him based on their personal prejudice with terms like extremist, radical, isolationist which are all wrong. None of them acknowledge the correctness of his emphasis on adhering to the principles of the constitution with state sovereignty and responsibility emphasized. He repeatedly explains that we are not the world police and should only be engaged in war when congress declares war. They don't like his comparison of America's behavior to that of the British that tried to force their rules of government on us which the founders fought to escape. He is the only member of either party that recognizes the peril of our economic dilemma. No one to date has found where his voting record where he is not consistent in depending on the constitution and the bill of rights to determine his vote for or against legislation or government programs.

Too many voters accept the media portrayal and fear mongering instead of reaching their own conclusion based on principles and facts for him to be elected.

January 12, 2012 at 5:19 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Another indication of how you leftists are unafraid of Mitt Romney. You may just be right. But think about this, another four years of Obama should be enough for at least some of you to stop blaming others for his presidential blunders. Some of you are just beyond hope on the realization of that.

January 12, 2012 at 6:27 a.m.
EaTn said...

If ever the extreme right plan to form a new political party, now is the time. Either way, Obama is likely to be reelected but at least the new party would gain footing for 2016. There is very little reason for the independents and far right to fight for Mitt.

January 12, 2012 at 6:29 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Republican and Democratic enthusiasm just shot up over night , thanks to this video "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" This is the most brutal video I've ever seen. Romney is pure evil. He's a sociopath. Mitt ruined thousands of American manufacturing jobs, whole towns and people's lives. These poor Americans were decimated by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. I can't see him winning the heartland and south after this. Can't see him winning anything after this documentary. Now that this real life horror video is out, this is going to change the game. Big time. Thanks to Newt for exposing Mitt Romney.

No one should settle for a corporate raider as President. Romney raked in hundreds of millions of dollars and put Kay Bee Toys, an American commercial laundromat factory, DDI, a small paper company bought by AmPad, InterPath and hundreds of other good American companies all out of business. He is disgusting. If one doesn't care about the citizens of this country, why is he running for President? Romney has a lot of nerve thinking it is okay to destroy lives then run as our leader. He must see an opportunity to exploit more of the country is probably the reason.

January 12, 2012 at 6:36 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

I think that a more apt lead-in to the campaign sign would have been:

My opponents are worse

January 12, 2012 at 7:38 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

harp3339 said... "The media is very obvious in their effort to ignore Ron Paul by not including him in discussions and begrudgingly giving him limited air time or print exposure to explain his position on the issues"

Ron Paul's speech after New Hampshire turned my Mom. She said it was the first time she heard the full Ron Paul message, unfiltered and unedited by the media.

Alprova, by "turned my Mom" I mean that she decided she is going to support Ron Paul.

January 12, 2012 at 7:57 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

There is no doubt that Ron Paul energizes his base. The question is whether he can expand his base enough to actually win elections.

I am skeptical that he can attract enough additional supporters to even win any of the Republican primaries, much less win in the general election against Obama. I don't think that more media attention would alter that result. That is because too many of his beliefs are outside the mainstream of the American public.

I want to emphasize that I am not saying that he doesn't garner fervent followers; I'm just saying that I don't think that there aren't enough potential converts to his cause to win elections.

January 12, 2012 at 8:16 a.m.

Yes, today Mitt Romney is a difficult candidate for many Conservatives to accept. But come November 2012, he'll be very acceptable.

January 12, 2012 at 8:59 a.m.
riverman said...

I would certainly prefer a Venture Capitalist as President rather than a Community Agitator who goes around teaching people how to apply for food stamps, welfare and Public Housing. Oh, I forgot, that is the Democrat base.

January 12, 2012 at 9:05 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Nice cartoon and comments (by the averages here), but the sign may overstate Gov. Romney's support. A quarter of the GOP backs him (and a fifth backs Ron Paul). But for the other 75%, he's not their first choice (Bachmann), not their 2nd choice (Perry), not their 3rd choice (Cain), not their 4th choice (Gingrich), and not their 5th choice (Santorum). Is he their choice at all, even to the extent in the cartoon? If he's nominated, we shall see. IF Gov Romney wins the nomination, maybe Rep Paul or Speaker Gingrich will decide conservatives need an alternative to Rombama.

I haven't looked at Bain Capital, but companies come and go all the time. Romney lost his slim chance at my vote when he told Sean Hannity a few weeks ago that states should do Romneycare. He calls himself a conservative, and he gave us Romneycare, the father of Obamacare? That's a big, strategic (even logistical) problem, not just a tactical problem of Bain investments. As for the 1st century, dead people stayed dead and virgins non-pregnant in those days just as in these days. That Jesus was conceived without lovemaking and rose up alive from the dead shows that He outranks President Obama and all the presidential wannabes. His life shows personal voluntary compassion--true love--not the bogus version taxing producers to pay people not to work until the big government runs out of other people's money. Jesus rejected making war against Caesar (many Jews of those days wanted to make war), but He wasn't in Caesar's pocket either. And saying "Jesus is Lord and Christ" when Caesar was lord of the only superpower of those days is like saying "Jesus is the Inaugurated President" in the days of president Obama, or "Jesus is the sworn-in mayor" in the days of mayor Littlefield. ("Christ"=messiah=anointed, which I'm paraphrasing by "inaugurated" and "sworn in" since we don't anoint rulers with oil in the US, though our British friends MAY anoint their kings/queens.) He wasn't focused on politics as Marx and Mohammed were, but when politicians want good political advice, He does offer some: let good people live good lives in peace ('to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men'), terrorize evildoers, praise doers of good, and balance the budget for these limited jobs. (Read I Timothy 2 and Romans 13 for the theory, and perhaps also I Samuel 8 for the practice.) He can bring us to His presence in Heaven avoiding the flames of Hell, and to the resurrection of Life avoiding the resurrection of damnation when He comes back, but that wanders rather far from Gov. Romney's prospects.

January 12, 2012 at 9:13 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48 said: “Romney's tax plan, according to a CAP Action Fund analysis of Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan group, will give the top 1% an average tax break of $126, 450. The study also indicated that Romney tax plan will raise taxes on half of the middle class with children.”

Shame on you, Blackwater48. Candidate Romney - the human pretzel - says the only place you can talk about things like tax policies, income inequality, and such is in the quiet room.

January 12, 2012 at 9:33 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

News_Junkie said... "I am skeptical that he can attract enough additional supporters to even win any of the Republican primaries, much less win in the general election against Obama."

I certainly share your concern about the primaries. The electorate has been pretty well brainwashed to abandon our liberties and the Constitution in favor of perceived government guarantees.

I am not so sure about the general election however. I think Ron Paul could steal the middle away from Obama and bring real positive change to this country.

January 12, 2012 at 9:58 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

BigRidgePatriot said... I think Ron Paul could steal the middle away from Obama and bring real positive change to this country.

Your statement only makes sense if you conclude that Ron Paul is more of a centrist than Romney. In recent days, Ron Paul has declared that he is more conservative than Romney.

Like every political commentator that I've seen who has weighed in on the question, I believe that if Ron Paul runs as an independent, that will assure that Obama gets re-elected, because that will split the conservative vote.

Having Ron Paul run as an independent helps Obama's reelection chances more than if Romney named Sarah Palin as his running mate, and we all saw how well that worked out in 2008.

January 12, 2012 at 10:26 a.m.
limric said...

Good cartoon. Clay Bennett gets it. Mitt (the robot) Romney WILL be the Republican nominee. It’s a done deal.

The question now is whether the Democrats and progressives can rope the Bain Capital albatross around Romney's neck. This depends on how effectively they can boil down complex dealings of investment banking business in terms that average people can relate to. The same way the right branded Obama as a socialist, the left needs to brand Romney as a banker and not a successful business man as he likes to claim. By equating what Romney did at Bain Capital to what the bankers did to bring about the great recession and its aftermath. So here are some fun talking points and catchy phrases.

Bain Capital was essentially a bank, not a Business. Romney was the Head Banker, not the Business Man. Romney and his cronies were GAMBLING with other people's money, like the bankers who decimated the housing market and the economy. Like bankers Romney practiced 'heads I win, tail you loose'. Romney and Bain made millions even from the companies that failed and went bankrupt. They put up small amounts of their own money and borrowed the rest to buy companies. They paid themselves millions in 'bonuses', and 'management fees' whether the companies they bought succeeded or failed. When companies failed, they declared bankruptcies and walked away leaving other people holding the bag and fired employees out in the cold. What Romney did at Bain might be legal but it was not moral. Romney's companies went bankrupt, yet he made millions. But an unemployed student cannot declare bankruptcy and walk away from his or her student loans. Romney wants to be the President to help his Banker Buddies. Which in reality is true, but you get the idea.

The Republicans will in turn rely on their tried and true method – turning truly creepy people into victims. This contrived combination of tragedy and heroism is why a nation of dolts will be signing up for the Romney machine. He will be portrayed with the saintly victimhood of Sarah Palin combined with the capitalist job-creator who was a Tea Party cult object in 2010. Social issues be damned! Romney will ensure that we get the one thing that this country can’t do without on its path to hell: further deregulation of Wall Street. And millions of fools will rage and weep at the way Democrats are persecuting this noble, wealth-creating soul.

January 12, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.
onetinsoldier said...

Boring Cartoon Clay. Low hanging fruit and such.

A MESSAGE TO ALISON GERBER;

You have done a great disservice to your readers and Chattanooga as a whole. Today you headline the closing of Food Lions but your new policy keeps Chattanoogans from speaking out on an issue in a forum of consensus. Bilo is now a monopoly and this will hurt everyone of us in a very basic way, and disproportionately hurt the poorest among us. I can't believe that even the far right idiologues believe that this is a good thing. This part of the Country should still have memories of the "Company Store" and the cost of no competition. This is Geograpic Market Allocation and violate of Anti Trust laws.

This is what venture capitalism brings you. NO CHOICE.

January 12, 2012 at 10:52 a.m.
moonpie said...

You have to give it to the Tea Partiers and hard-core conservatives who are so devoted to priniciple that they have trouble getting behind the only electable person in their own party. Mitt is running hard to the right in this primary, which he should do. Conservatives don't seem to trust him. One of McCain's major mistakes was to continue to run to the right even after the primary, when he needed to run toward the center to capture independents.

To have conservative change in the White House, you must first get elected. To get elected, you have to find someone who is electable. I just don't any other candidate who is viable.

Unless he suffers a major gaff or public embarrassment, he will get the nomination. Republicans, if they want to win, should rally support.

January 12, 2012 at 11:01 a.m.
MickeyRat said...

Limric,

Yea yea yea. That’s a pretty good. But you’re always a bit to wordy.

This is much simpler will hit people in the gut. This is where votes derive.

A picture of Mitt Romney smiling with both hands giving the thumbs up sign. The caption will read, "The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made." :Groucho Marx

January 12, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

News_Junkie said... "Your statement only makes sense if you conclude that Ron Paul is more of a centrist than Romney. In recent days, Ron Paul has declared that he is more conservative than Romney."

I don't think it is that simple. Paul is more conservative fiscally but far more "liberal" socially. I would argue that Paul's position on defense is also more conservative but I think in most circles he is labeled as more liberal on defense.

The establishment republicans lose many in the middle with their social "conservatism" and obsession with projecting power across the globe. Paul is a big exception in these areas.

January 12, 2012 at 11:11 a.m.

I wonder where the sign like this was 4 years ago when Obama & Clinton were running so close. But hey I guess if you can say winning a state by over 41,000 votes is close then so be it.

January 12, 2012 at 11:24 a.m.
lumpy said...

It's amusing how the left seems to have decided that the enthusiasm level for Republicans is not very high. Pure ignorance and wishful thinking. Not only that, most independents have left him for good.

You don't speak for me. I'm pumped. If Romney makes a really good choice for VP, like Marco Rubio, Obama will be in deeper trouble.

January 12, 2012 at 11:28 a.m.
bret said...

To paraphrase James Carville, that GOP dog keeps spitting out the Romney pill, but eventually it will swallow the pill.

January 12, 2012 at 11:33 a.m.
EaTn said...

As the old saying goes, the closer to closing time the better they look, but come morning you will be sober and they won't look so good.

January 12, 2012 at 11:53 a.m.
Nosense said...

@Onetinsoldier:

Bilo is now a monopoly and this will hurt everyone of us in a very basic way, and disproportionately hurt the poorest among us. I can't believe that even the far right idiologues believe that this is a good thing. This part of the Country should still have memories of the "Company Store" and the cost of no competition. This is Geograpic Market Allocation and violate of Anti Trust laws.

This dosen't even make sense! Pubix, Super Walmart, Greenlife are three major competitiors with Bi-Lo. Not to mention places, like Family Dollar, Dollar General and Sav-a-lot. Apparently, Food Lion could not successfully compete with these companies and are forced to change there business model.

Did you even read the artcile?

January 12, 2012 at 12:10 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

BigRidgePatriot:

You are correct in that Ron Paul's view on social issues are more in accordance with those of liberals than with those of conservatives. I also agree that, accordingly, he won't alienate the moderates as much as Romney. If you closely examine the positions he has taken in this primary season, Romney is clearly not a moderate. For a detailed discussion of this point, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/extremist-in-pinstripes/2012/01/09/gIQAl0eKoP_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions.

Nevertheless, Ron Paul is downplaying the social issues in his campaign and, for the most part, the issues on which his views diverge from the Republican base are not prominent in the primary election cycle. Accordingly, to appeal to the center, Ron Paul would have to drastically re-orient the focus of his campaign in the general election. His ability to successfully convince the general public that he is really a centrist after all of his efforts to win the Republican primary is highly questionable.

January 12, 2012 at 12:15 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

lumpy said... . . . most independents have left him [meaning Obama] for good.

Every single poll I've encountered shows that Obama polls better among independents than any of the contenders for the Republican nomination.

That is a function of the Republican party having shifted dramatically to the right in the past few years. This is shown by the fact that Ronald Reagan would not have even a remote chance of winning the nomination if he were in the 2012 Republican primary contest. (If you actually research his background, Reagan was known as "The Great Compromiser" and raised taxes 11 times during his presidency.) While that made his an effective president (in terms of successfully advancing his agenda) then, those positions are an anathema to the current Republican base.

January 12, 2012 at 12:24 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Here's a link to an article discussing a very recent poll showing that if Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, Obama will win the election: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ron-paul-is-the-most-dangerous-man-in-the-republican-party/2012/01/11/gIQApX05qP_print.html

The article also says that is unlikely, because if he did, that would doom Rand Paul (his son) from ever getting the Republican nomination, and Rand Paul is intent on eventually running for President (and, as a practical matter, no third party candidate can win the presidency).

January 12, 2012 at 1:03 p.m.
chet123 said...

Romney is backed by Rush Limbaugh...So whats the problem?....dont rush knows what good for the republicans ...HHmmmmmm!..Stop complaining and "Goose Step" as you usually do....hup 234! hup 234! hup 234!.....

January 12, 2012 at 1:34 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

I saw that sign yesterday! It's in the yard of the local Democratic headquarters. Even they don't want King Kenyan back for another 4 years

January 12, 2012 at 1:41 p.m.
lumpy said...

Obama will not win enough states to win the election in November.

Democrats have buyers remorse, independents are angry because he fooled them in '08 into believing he wasn't an extremist and Republicans are on a mission to get rid of him.

It doesn't matter who the candidate is, he'll have my support, because anybody, anybody, even Hillary Clinton, is better than this guy.

Chet, you democrats are the goose steppers. You're suckers for a demagogue. You squash debate and self-examination in favor of the mob.

Chet, you're also uninformed. I listened to Rush Limbaugh yesterday, and to his own words, not fifth or sixth hand, like you get it.

Limbaugh has been blasting the Republican establishment for years. He's been blasting them for their Democrat Party light approach. He's been blasting them for pushing Romney. He's been attacking Gingrich and others for piling on Romney while sounding like Dems.

He thought Romney was a better option in '08 because he was a more conservative choice. Limbaugh was very critical of McCain. Limbaugh is only defending Romney in this instance, but he's been blasting the Republican Party establishment for pushing Romney. You need to get your facts straight. Limbaugh is not backing Romney. You should should go the source rather than MSNBC.

January 12, 2012 at 2:44 p.m.
potcat said...

lumpy, lumpy, lumpy.........lump

January 12, 2012 at 2:51 p.m.

Wait, Democrats are abandoning Obama en masse because he's not liberal enough for them, while simultaneously marching in step in mindless loyalty to him? And at the same time, the independents think he's too much of an extremist?

Talk about self-contradictory. It's like Romney will be when talking about Obama's health care plan. And all Obama will have to say is "But Mitt, it's your plan, we even went to the same Kinko's as you did!"

Don't know about Rush Limbaugh and his position on Romney, but Romeny, with his venture capitalist past, I'd say he'd be quite adept at giving private profit while exposing public risk. I also wonder which states he is planning to downsize. Think he'll try to sell California back to Mexico? Alaska back to Russia? Maybe he'll spin off Michigan!

January 12, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.
nucanuck said...

If the election ends up being Romney vs Obama, we will have two bought and paid for corporate candidates whose first allegiance is to keeping tax dollars flowing to the military industrial complex and back-stopping to-big-to-fail banks. They are twinsies and the people of America still won't have a place at the table.

That bodes for a bad result, whoever wins between those two.

January 12, 2012 at 3:53 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Onetinsoldier said: “This part of the Country should still have memories of the "Company Store" and the cost of no competition. This is Geograpic Market Allocation and violate of Anti Trust laws.

If you thought "The Company Store" was a bad deal, what do you think about a future Company Congress or a Company Political Party? Apparently, the Republican National Committee filed a brief yesterday challenging the federal ban on direct corporate donations to politicians:

The Republican National Committee filed an amicus brief in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals today challenging the century-old federal ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates for office. If successful, the challenge would further weaken the clean elections laws that were decimated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Citizens United struck down laws setting limits on the amount corporations could spend to influence elections via outside advocacy, but maintained the ban on direct corporate contributions.

http://blog.pfaw.org/content/republican-party-comes-out-support-direct-corporate-contributions-candidates

January 12, 2012 at 5:09 p.m.
fairmon said...

sandyonsignal...

I Am not a Romney supporter.

Q...What would you do with a company that you loan money or invest in or buy and they can't make a profit and pay you back, they are bankrupt, do you keep adding to your at risk capital. People invested in a business to make a return on their invested money instead of for benevolent reasons, shame on them. I own stocks, including a capital investment group, and depend on the dividends to supplement my income. If you are smart enough to invest in an IRA or 401k you need corporations to do well also. Q..Did you check out the fact that college and teachers pension funds are major stock holders in Bain. Q.. Did you know those companies were almost bankrupt and those companies could have rejected the money and contract offered them. You don't like free markets and I think they are the only way this country will survive.

If you work for a for profit business and I buy it and it is not profitable and can't be made profitable you need to plan on being unemployed. People are hired to be productive and help make a business successful, however, some think hiring someone is like adopting them and should provide for them from Gretal to grave. I would guess if you work it is in the public sector where profits are not a criteria and if more is needed to fund you business he government can extract more from the citizenry.

January 12, 2012 at 6:54 p.m.
alprova said...

Francis wrote: "Obama will not win enough states to win the election in November."

Wanna bet?

"Democrats have buyers remorse, independents are angry because he fooled them in '08 into believing he wasn't an extremist and Republicans are on a mission to get rid of him."

The Republicans are going to lose.

"It doesn't matter who the candidate is, he'll have my support, because anybody, anybody, even Hillary Clinton, is better than this guy."

That's strictly your opinion and nothing more. You don't begin to speak for anyone but yourself.

"Limbaugh has been blasting the Republican establishment for years. He's been blasting them for their Democrat Party light approach. He's been blasting them for pushing Romney. He's been attacking Gingrich and others for piling on Romney while sounding like Dems."

Not many people really care what Limbaugh thinks these days. He's lost a great deal of his clout over the past few years.

January 12, 2012 at 7:57 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Nucanuck said: "If the election ends up being Romney vs Obama, we will have two bought and paid for corporate candidates . . . They are twinsies."

Actually, I do see a big difference between these two individuals. According to Mr. Romney, the citizens in this country who have concerns about the unfairness of our tax structure and the fact that economically our Nation is beginning to resemble a banana republic are just envious of really successful people. Clearly, President Obama doesn’t share Mr. Romney’s low opinion of his fellow citizens. He seems to recognize the dangers associated with banana republics and understands that economic inequality issues are important to American society.

President Obama has also demonstrated that he is willing to discuss these issues in an open and public fashion. Although Mr. Romney hasn’t hestitated to approach a wide range of issues in public including the marriages of one of his opponents and what a woman can and cannot do with her own body, he seems to think economic inequality issues should not be discussed openly in public – he says such discussions should be reserved for quiet rooms. Since I don’t know of any room large enough to to seat us all, I suspect that what Mr. Romney actually has in mind is something like Dick Cheney’s old boardroom - with a few reserve seats.

Personally, I think Mr. Romney needs to enroll in some kind of fast track American history class. Indeed, this country was founded upon certain principles and a banana republic economy was not one of them. And while I suppose King George felt that people like John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington were just envious of his wealth and success, he eventually learned the hard way that this was the case. The reality is that our current banana republic economy is a danger to our democratic society and it needs to be openly addressed.

January 12, 2012 at 11:56 p.m.

harp3339, try looking at it another way. Why would you, a potential employee, work for somebody who wouldn't take care of you, who would throw you out to the wolves because you got sick, because a family member got sick, or any number of other potential incidents? Why would you work for somebody who wouldn't pay you enough? Why would you work for somebody who only wanted to extract the maximum labor they could from you before moving on? Investing in yourself means you don't make that kind of choice if you can.

But your way? It's like one-sided serfdom. At least the feudal lords were supposed to provide certain obligations to their subjects. You don't even seem to recognize the other side of the issue.

Besides, profit isn't always done ethically. A company can make a profit while committing many a crime. At the extreme, see organized crime. Quite a good deal of money goes through those hands. But even beyond that, there's more than a few other examples, from corporate raiders like Icahn, Milken, and others, to exploitation of a market through nefarious means like Enron.

Even the Ferengi have some kind of rules.

BTW, speaking of pensions, Mitt Romney already put the government on the hook for at least one pension plan. Yay capitalism supported by government intervention! It's good when it saves the capitalists! He's probably had more than a few golden parachutes.

I don't need one of gold, I'll take a regular one. Is that too much to ask? Apparently so.

mountainlaurel, a truly cynical mind would say Obama does think something like that, but is just lying to us in order to exploit us. That would require substantially more cynicism than I possess though.

Or maybe I'm just foolishly optimistic, and think people really do mean what they say.

January 13, 2012 at 12:04 a.m.
nucanuck said...

ML,

Yes there are differences between Obama and Romney and IMO, Obama is the stronger of the two for a number of reasons, BUT on the issues that most affect America, a new financial structure and an unsustainable military structure, the two men are working for the same boys. If we don't take care of the biggest issues, we cannot reverse course.

January 13, 2012 at 12:31 a.m.

-

The sad thing with this election is the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be wasted on campaigns adds for both sides. I wonder just how much of a dent all that money would make in the national debt or how many jobs it could create? It would be nice if there was a limit on the money each candidate could use and no outside PAC's allowed to contribute either. Then all politicians would be judged on merit and not their last TV commercial.

January 13, 2012 at 12:40 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

CLASS WARFARE

Mountain Laurel wrote, I think Mr. Romney needs to enroll in some kind of fast track American history class. (emphasis mine)

There you go again, ML, introducing CLASS into the discussion. Why go there? Are you envious? Are you resentful?

Just kidding. I'm sitting in a 'quiet room' mulling over the republican talking points, but I wanted to take a moment to say, 'Thanks.' I always enjoy your posts.

Anyway, let's return to the rant already in progress...

The republicans have trotted out two tried and true lies to help deflect scrutiny over Romney's reign at Bain Capital.

ENVY and RESENTMENT. The fat cats claim that us poor working folk resent rich people but that's just not true. Few people, for example, were more beloved than Steve Jobs. Bill Gates is also filthy rich and generally well liked although he never achieved Jobs' icon status. Likewise, Lady Gaga, Warren Buffet, Tom Hanks, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, &c., &c., are rich Americans who are neither envied nor resented. Actually, some of these people are greatly admired.

WAR on CAPITALISM

First of all, there is no war on capitalism. Some of us want to know a little more about the guy who wants to be president of the United States. He doesn't get to set the rules. He said he has experience creating jobs in the private sector. He's not special. Capitalism is not under attack. This is about the business principles of one particular guy at one particular company.

And even though Romney is still refusing to release ANY tax returns, Mitt is convinced that we all want to be just like him:

Cold, aloof, and out-of-touch.

January 13, 2012 at 1:31 a.m.
fairmon said...

happywithnewbulbs said... harp3339, try looking at it another way. Why would you, a potential employee, work for somebody who wouldn't take care of you, who would throw you out to the wolves because you got sick, because a family member got sick, or any number of other potential incidents? Why would you work for somebody who wouldn't pay you enough? Why would you work for somebody who only wanted to extract the maximum labor they could from you before moving on? Investing in yourself means you don't make that kind of choice if you can.

Regulations are in place that prevents dismissing employees for your examples, credible employers agree with and support those, in fact many exceed those requirements.

It is not an objective for investors to move on but to make a business secure and profitable. Those with the initiative to acquire and demonstrate a skill that makes them valuable to an employer has the option of not accepting an employer's offer they don't like.

Unemployment under 5% will have employers competing for employees and force compensation and other offers favorable to employees. Neither party is proposing free enterprise and less government interference that will increase employment. The keystone pipe line is a good example of a dysfunctional government preventing the creation of thousands of good paying jobs plus less dependence on sources from countries that don't like us.

January 13, 2012 at 4:05 a.m.
fairmon said...

Did Obama and the government not do the same thing in the auto industry that capital venture companies do? They replaced management, shut down some locations and dealerships plus reduced employee compensation to save the remaining business and employees. In that case they even acknowledged that profits were essential and the company was bankrupt. Obama and others claim the government/tax payers will realize a profit on the investment. How dare Obama and the government make a profit on behalf of tax payers. Is Obama and co. a vulture capital venture operation? Another point of interest is the government consulted with Bain consulting to determine the best action to take and accepted their recommendations.

Would most reasonably intelligent people not expect a return on their high risk investment? How many would invest in a company that only operated to provide employment and would keep borrowing money from investors to continue even if they could never pay them back? Wait, that sounds like the government that keeps borrowing money with no plan to ever pay the debt but to keep increasing it, hopefully at a sightly slower pace.

January 13, 2012 at 4:42 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Harp, What Bain does isn't building and helping companies. It is helping themselves, even if it means ruining good paying manufacturing jobs. They aren't investing for the long term, it is for the short term. Not all of the companies they do leveraged buy-outs on are obsolete and inefficient. Many were well to do, Bain went in to get their hands on pensions and assets of that company. So what if Bain's claim to fame is Staples? A Staples employee is not an American manufacturing job. The manufacturing jobs are the good jobs that keep towns alive and support a middle class. Those types of jobs were eliminated by Bain. They were outsourced to China. So office supplies are made in China now, while Americans work in stores owned by Bain Capital and Mitt Romney. This does not create a thriving economy. Eventually, without good paying jobs this slows down our economy and your 401-k will feel the effects of it.

Let's look at one of the hundreds of companies done in by Romney: Interpath out of Raleigh, North Carolina. Interpath worked on creating a fiber optics network for high speed web hosting. It is similar to what EPB is doing today which is a bit of worry that Bain will target them. Interpath was owned by Carolina Power and Light. Back in the late 90's, tech was moving fast and Interpath quickly grew to 700 employees with good paying jobs. Romney and Bain went in as an investment partner with Carolina Power and Light to bring them more cash, this is when growth ended and the company saw its demise. People were let go right away. Half of the work force (remember this isn't some obsolete, long ago company like Smith-Corona this is state of the art) were let go in one day. As this worker wrote: "One morning shortly thereafter we came to work and found a letter on our work chairs. The letter instructed each employee to go to one of two assemblies. My assembly consisted of the by-now familiar pep talk—starting with how the company had such a bright future and followed by an assurance that we had been “chosen” to be part of that future. When we came out of that assembly the rest of the employees were gone. It was like they had vanished into thin air."

More lay offs followed, soon the company was slashed to 110 workers, and they were given a choice: move to Maryland or good bye. A few months later, the company was sold to AT&T for $300 million and Bain/ Romney walked away with a fine profit. The Research Triangle area lost the most: nice paying jobs and a good company.

This is what Mitt did. This is what he will do to our country. Destroy, outsource and ruin the middle class, while, he, the .001% profits. He is amoral, evil and greedy. Do you want him as your boss? How about as the leader of our nation?

January 13, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.
alprova said...

harp3339 wrote: "Regulations are in place that prevents dismissing employees for your examples, credible employers agree with and support those, in fact many exceed those requirements."

There are many more out there who know full and well how to get around such laws and do on a regular basis.

On January 20, 2009, I was pulled one-on-one into a conference room by the CEO of the company I worked for and was terminated "because my wife's medical insurance claims were too high." I was thanked for the good job I did but he had 300 other employees to think about.

Up to that day, I thought I was working for a "credible" employer. On top of that, they fought tooth and nail to attempt to prevent me from filing for unemployment compensation, claiming that I had voluntarily separated. I appealed it and won because they failed to produce any evidence or one person who would testify that I had indeed left the company voluntarily.

" The keystone pipe line is a good example of a dysfunctional government preventing the creation of thousands of good paying jobs plus less dependence on sources from countries that don't like us."

Are you aware of all the parties involved that are opposed to the project? In addition to environmentalists, American oil companies have filed lawsuits to stop its progress and no less than 50 members of Congress are opposed to it as well.

On July 6, 2010, House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman urged the State Department to block Keystone XL, saying in a letter to the department that "this pipeline is a multi-billion dollar investment to expand our reliance on the dirtiest source of transportation fuel currently available on the planet."

Landowners in the path of the pipeline have complained about attempts to seize their land through lawsuits to allow the pipeline on their property even though the controversial project has yet to receive federal approval. As of October 2011, TransCanada had 34 eminent domain actions against landowners in Texas and 22 in South Dakota. Are you so easy to dismiss the rights of people to retain private ownership of property that they have owned for many years?

Koch Industries is poised to be a big winner from the pipeline. In May 2011, Congressmen Waxman and Rush wrote a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee,urging the Committee to request documents from Koch Industries which relate to the Keystone XL pipeline.

The Keystone XL pipeline controversy doesn't just surround jobs. It is not just being protested by environmentalists. The oil that would flow through that pipeline would be filthy. People are poised to be thrown off of lands that they have owned for decades.

January 13, 2012 at 9:10 a.m.
timbo said...

Well, I don't like Romney much but he has one attribute that I find profoundly attractive... HE AIN'T OBAMA.

January 13, 2012 at 9:22 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Blackwater 48 wrote: And even though Romney is still refusing to release ANY tax returns, Mitt is convinced that we all want to be just like him: Cold, aloof, and out-of-touch.

One would have to be cold, aloof and out of touch to be able to destroy American families and towns like he did. I don't see how anyone with a conscience could let hardworking Americans suffer like he did. In the film "When Mitt Romney came to Town", a woman stated: "it was never enough for him'. A person like that doesn't want to get close to people. He is in it for himself and his infinite greed.

January 13, 2012 at 9:22 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova...

You must be at least 130 years old to have all the experiences you refer to, owning and operating and selling 3 businesses, being disabled, caring for an ailing wife, having strokes but launching a new business and hiring people. If you were terminated for the reasons you give and did not initiate litigation for disparate treatment you made a major mistake. A buusiness with only 300 people is not a very big business and certainly not large enough to be self insured.

High sulfur oil that can be refined to meet standards is better than being dependent on oil from the middle east and our good friend Chavez. You and others insist we should all do whatever is necessary for the greater good, where is that attitude on this issue?. The land issues are reconciled and the pipe line owner agrees to reroute it to alleviate concerns. The DOE has outlined what is needed and the owner agrees to those conditions. China is pursuing the oil and a pipe line will be constructed to the Canadian coast to enable shipping to Asian countries. China is investing in and making commitments to other sources around the world. China has a 5, 10 and 20 year plan compared to our 90 day reactionary campaign behavior. Don't be surprised if Americans aren't paying $4+ by year end. Invest in oil companies to off set the increased cost. $5-7 oil may be a good thing since that would force our dysfunctional leaders to do something.

January 13, 2012 at 9:51 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

harp3339 said... "Did Obama and the government not do the same thing in the auto industry that capital venture companies do?"

Good point, there are many similarities. The main difference though is that the Obama administration prioritized protection of a democrat voting block (GM Union members) over the health and profitability of the company.

January 13, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.

sandyonsignal said...

Harp, What Bain does isn't building and helping companies. It is helping themselves, even if it means ruining good paying manufacturing jobs.

Sandy I have never known anyone buy into a company with the hopes it will not succeed. Sometimes decisions have to be made about the poor management of companies and with that staff reductions are necessary. It may result in cutting 200 hundred jobs to save 800 hundred jobs. But I am sure the employees of Staples and Sports Authority can tell you much better than I how much they appreciate Bain.

January 13, 2012 at 10:51 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

The reason why Romney does not want to realize his tax return is because he doesn't want people to know that he is only in the 15% tax bracket. That's because he is still receiving large distributions from Bain Capital (pursuant to the agreement they entered into when he left). Those amounts are taxed as long-term capitals gains (at the 15%) tax rate.

Thus, despite the fact that he may get many millions of dollars in income in a year, his income is only taxed at 15%. If you are an ordinary worker, you are in a higher tax bracket than Romney if your taxable income is $39,600 or more. Thus, Romney is in a lower tax bracket than most of the middle class.

I am not speculating about Romney's income. This information is readily available if you search on Google News.

Note that many of the Republican candidates are arguing that capital gains shouldn't be taxed at all. That would mean that Romney would pay no taxes.

An even worse case is John Paulson, who earned 4.9 billion dollars in 2010 for running a hedge fund. Those amounts were all taxed at the 15% tax rate.

Something is very wrong when somebody who earns billions of dollars in a single year is in a lower tax bracket than many secretaries and janitors.

January 13, 2012 at 11:06 a.m.

harp3339, yes, regulations are in place. Why? Because that's what we want government to do, since we can't trust the companies to do it on their own. Can't even trust the churches, and apparently ministers don't have the same regulations protecting them. That was in the news this week. Sad, really. I can somewhat understand it, but damn, it really makes me tear up that a church would behave that way. And if they will, a company operating for business purposes, well, that's just a guarantee they would as well. And with the unequal levels of power, there's not much the given worker can do.

You may seek to invest simply for monetary profit, but others do not. Others realize that there is more to life. That there are other ways to profit than just the financial. Perhaps you need to be visited by three Christmas spirits, I don't know. For example the Keystone pipeline, while some people think it will lead to jobs, others think the risk of it will be that it shall cost more jobs, since it could be too much of a risk, too much of a bother, and even not economical. Yet you repeat your mantra, of jobs, jobs, jobs, and condemn those who see otherwise, without a thought or consideration towards their side.

That points me to not letting the pipeline go through, since the support for it is not willing to consider the potential risks. Anybody who comes across that way to me, makes me think of them as a con artist. Maybe you don't intend that, but the more you do it, the less I trust you and other.

As for the Auto industry, no, the government receivers, they weren't vultures, since if they were, they'd have been a lot more rapacious. For example, they could have divested the US manufacturing operations, like some offered to do for those companies back in the 90s. That would not be in their charter though, so they didn't. They stuck by their duties, and followed them reasonably well. You could, however, say that the board of those companies were not, since they may have wanted the government to bail them out. I would require a bit more investigation before committing to that myself, as I think they were just short-sighted and incompetent in their lust for profit, but they may have been somewhat criminal. Not quite the evidence behind it that say Enron offered though, so maybe it'd be ok to just fire them, not imprison them as a lesson to all that some things are wrong. Sadly, I don't think even that happened.

As for debt, believe it or not, government is not, and should not be in the short term business. It's a long term process, and yes, that may mean a continual series of loans and debts. Some people are against debts, ever. That is for religious reasons. I can't support the same of the government. Sorry.

January 13, 2012 at 11:18 a.m.

ltusol, there's more than one path to success, and Bain has often chosen the slice and dice method, as opposed to the grow and nurture method. There may be profits behind that, but there's reasons to not be supportive of it.

That they've also done it with taking the government on the hook is yet another reason to not trust them.

But still, the government cannot and should not be operated like a private company. Otherwise we might as well draw up a list of states to sell off.

BigRidgePatriot, try the previous opinion, it's already been discussed. All James O'Keefe proved is...somebody who wanted to be an agent provocateur could be one, not that a real problem existed.

January 13, 2012 at 11:28 a.m.
alprova said...

"You must be at least 130 years old to have all the experiences you refer to, owning and operating and selling 3 businesses, being disabled, caring for an ailing wife, having strokes but launching a new business and hiring people."

1.) I'm 53 years old. 2.) I just recently opened my third business. 3.) I have not claimed to be disabled. 4.) My wife is fully recovered and has been for most of the past three years. 5.) I indeed suffered a total of five relatively minor strokes last year, but am now doing fairly well in spite of them.

"If you were terminated for the reasons you give and did not initiate litigation for disparate treatment you made a major mistake."

Harp, please join the real world. People are fired all the time in situations where it boils down to one person's word against another. I couldn't begin to prove the true circumstances surrounding my departure and I think you know it.

"A buusiness with only 300 people is not a very big business and certainly not large enough to be self insured."

I assure you that the company was/is most assuredly self-insured. I kept the books. I knew every penny in that came in and every penny that went out. You're a little naive if you think that a company's size is the only factor in determining whether or not it can fully fund it's own health care coverage. The company was quite lucrative and could easily afford to do it.

"High sulfur oil that can be refined to meet standards is better than being dependent on oil from the middle east and our good friend Chavez."

Be that as it may, the costs associated with refining such dirty oil kind of defeat the argument that oil from "friendly" sources would translate into cheaper fuel. Why do you think the oil companies are opposed to it?

"You and others insist we should all do whatever is necessary for the greater good, where is that attitude on this issue?"

What greater good are you referring to? I see nothing at all good in the problems that have become a part of the project.

"The land issues are reconciled and the pipe line owner agrees to reroute it to alleviate concerns."

That is not true. The eminent domain lawsuits are still pending. Reroutes are still being studied and proposed. Environmental impact studies are still in limbo. Putting the project on hold was the right thing to do until all issues have been resolved.

"The DOE has outlined what is needed and the owner agrees to those conditions."

The lawsuits are still flying.

"China is pursuing the oil and a pipe line will be constructed to the Canadian coast to enable shipping to Asian countries. China is investing in and making commitments to other sources around the world. China has a 5, 10 and 20 year plan compared to our 90 day reactionary campaign behavior."

And the population of China is now breathing air that you can't cut with a knife.

January 13, 2012 at 11:40 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

happywithnewbulbs said... "All James O'Keefe proved is...somebody who wanted to be an agent provocateur could be one, not that a real problem existed."

It seems to me that he proved it is pretty darn easy to vote multiple times in New Hampshire if you want to. A requirement for a picture ID to vote would close that defect in the integrity of the voting system.

January 13, 2012 at 12:36 p.m.
Haiku said...

Unlike many of today’s candidates, the founders didn’t find it necessary to constantly wear religion on their sleeves.

Five Individuals Who would really P*ss off today's religious right wing politicians and conservatives:

George Washington: "The father of our country was nominally an Anglican but seemed more at home with Deism. The language of the Deists sounds odd to today’s ears because it’s a theological system of thought that has fallen out of favor. Desists believed in God but didn’t necessarily see him as active in human affairs. The god of the Deists was a god of first cause. He set things in motion and then stepped back. Washington saw religion as necessary for good moral behavior but didn’t necessarily accept all Christian dogma. He seemed to have a special gripe against communion and would usually leave services before it was offered. Washington was widely tolerant of other beliefs Stories of Washington’s deep religiosity, such as tales of him praying in the snow at Valley Forge, can be ignored. They are pious legends invented after his death.


John Adams: ***"who followed Washington in office was a Unitarian, although he was raised a Congregationalist and never officially left that church. Adams rejected belief in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, core concepts of Christian dogma. In his personal writings, Adams makes it clear that he considered some Christian dogma to be incomprehensible.

In February 1756, Adams wrote in his diary about a discussion he had had with a man named Major Greene. Greene was a devout Christian who sought to persuade Adams to adopt conservative Christian views. The two argued over the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. Questioned on the matter of Jesus’ divinity, Greene fell back on an old standby: some matters of theology are too complex and mysterious for we puny humans to understand."***

Adams was not impressed. In his diary he wrote, “Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

As president, Adams signed the famous Treaty of Tripoli, which boldly stated, “[T]he government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion….


Then there's Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Thomas Paine(although Paine was never elected to the presidency. These individuals are often quoted by far right wing conservative politicians as being ultra religious. That's the platform they're riding on to lasso in conservative voters. They claim the Amerian founding fathers" were ultra religious who would be disgusted with today's more liberal society. However, the truth is, these individuals had more insight and were more liberal for their time and would be denounced, attacked and unelectable with today's right wing politicians. They'd likely be attacked and accused of * Jesus! And mutilating Bibles!

January 13, 2012 at 12:52 p.m.
Haiku said...

continued:

Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Paine would make such organizations as the ACLU look like a bunch of pikers in comparison.

Madison, who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, also opposed government-issued prayer proclamations. He issued a few during the War of 1812 at the insistence of Congress but later concluded that his actions had been unconstitutional.

January 13, 2012 at 1 p.m.

BigRidgePatriot,But the problem is only one caused by a person trying to convince us there's an issue with it. This points to there not being an actual problem to solve.

Why open up another defect in this solution to an only nominal problem, namely potentially depriving genuine persons of their vote, for something that doesn't even register as a real problem? Sounds like you're making things worse for the innocent to prevent something that isn't truly a trouble. That kind of punitive behavior is contradictory to several principles of American jurisprudence.

But as I've said before, if you're going to require photo ID for exercising a right, start by requiring the state to provide it, then I'll believe you have a genuine interest in avoiding problems caused by identity while avoiding imposing anything on the innocent. Is it really that hard to say that the State MUST make a best effort to provide you with some form of acceptable identification before they can deprive you of an ability to exercise your rights? That's my requirement for these laws. Am I asking too much?

Of course, you'd also want to have a real system for testing Photo ID. It's not like "Photo ID" is necessarily a genuine inspection, where is the press to have them actually validated in a substantive fashion at the election booth?

That, and the demands that voting systems be fixed where the real problems occur, not the phantom ones. Such as the press to get away from paper ballots and into electronic systems. But Ireland just said "Screw it, this stuff sucks" to a bunch of electronic voting machines. Unfortunately, this occurred after wasting over 50 million Euros on it. Can we learn something from their experience, and avoid making expensive mistakes like that?

January 13, 2012 at 1:32 p.m.

The VERY best thing I can say about OBOOB is that he's a monstrous hypocrite and thinks were're all too damn stupid to see it. Look at that bozo packing his administration with executives who have worked in private equity firms, yet he has the audacity to lay into Romney. WHAT A D*&K! There AIN'T one damn reason to vote for this leech. Look at him grabbing for power. He has the mentality of a pimp.

January 13, 2012 at 2:52 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

ROMNEY'S DRAWING FIRE FROM REPUBLICANS, NOT OBAMA

CT is criticizing Obama for having the audacity to lay into Romney.

I don't recall the President criticizing Romney by name. Gingrich, Perry, and even Sarah Palin believe it's okay to ask the presumptive republican nominee to prove his claims of job creation. Hard to see anything wrong with that.

As a political junkie, I'm surprised the conservatives aren't attacking Romney on his record as Massachusetts governor. Defender of gay rights, self-proclaimed advocate of a woman's right to chose, and the architect of a state run health care system with an individual mandate provision.

Romney defenders point out that he was a candidate in a heavily Democratic state and had to work with the Democratically controlled legislature. He even appointed, as Gingrich noted, liberal judges.

All we can conclude from his time in the governor's mansion is that Romney has demonstrated the proclivity to say whatever he must to get elected and we have no idea how he will govern if he is, in fact, elected president.

January 13, 2012 at 3:48 p.m.

Check out today's news blackwater. He did just that.

Obama got more contributions from Bain than Romney has.

Hey, blackwater, you're describing Oboob in 2008. He was a fraud. Oboob ran as a moderate then ran to the left when he got in. You Democrats crack me up with your double standard.

January 13, 2012 at 4:22 p.m.

A pimp and a venture capitalist have a lot in common. Get somebody else screwed while you take away the cash.

Pimps have better hats though.

January 13, 2012 at 4:24 p.m.
rolando said...

SS,DD. Hohum.

January 13, 2012 at 4:53 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

It amazes me that so many conservatives believe that people are so riled up against Obama that there will be a groundswell of people voting for whomever the Republican candidate is, with the result that Obama will be defeated. That belief is completely contradicted by the facts.

The number of people voting in the Republican primaries that have transpired so far is essentially the same in 2008, when many Republican voters were demoralized by the legacy the the W. administration. An even more telling fact is that, if you subtract the number of people who voted for Ron Paul, the number of the people who voted in the Republican primaries in 2012 was less than the number in 2008.

(I don't consider Ron Paul to be a "true" Republican, for three reasons. First, he ran as a presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party int the past. Second, he has not unequivocally ruled out running as a Libertarian party this year. Third, his views are much more aligned with those of the Libertarian party than they are with those of the Republican party. For example, I doubt that few Republicans are in favor of legalizing drugs, prostitution, and same-sex marriage, which are all basic tenets of libertarian philosophy.)

January 13, 2012 at 5:50 p.m.
rolando said...

And how do the Independents feel about it, newsJunkie? They determine the outcome of all elections, after all. It isn't just the Repubs who vote No-Rombama.

But, between the courts and the cross-over Dems, we will probably end up with Rombama...and lose yet again...to the nation's everlasting regret.

January 13, 2012 at 6:07 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

rolando:

I agree with you completely; the election will be decided by the independents.

Interestingly enough, the polls show that the largest political party is the Democrats, with independents being second, and Republicans being third.

All of the polls that I've seen saw that the independents favor Obama over each of the Republican candidates. Not too surprisingly, the amount that Obama is favored depends on the particular candidate that he is matched against. In all of the polls, Romney does the best against Obama of all of the Republican candidates.

You need to clarify your remark about "the courts." It isn't immediately apparent to me how the courts would influence the outcome of the election in favor of Obama. That's particularly true in light of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court decided the outcome of the 2000 election (in favor of W.).

January 13, 2012 at 6:42 p.m.

Depends on whose polling you believe.

But at this stage, I think it's a bit too far away to call.

Besides, if you're not already covered with enough everlasting regret from the Bush II election, I wonder how much you think you need.

Personally I was saturated enough when I learned about the Tilden election.

January 13, 2012 at 6:46 p.m.
sangaree said...

Boehner, MIA?

Can anyone tell us where in the world is Boehner and even Cantor for that matter? It seems they've disappeared.

Update: Boehner/Seems to have taken a trip around the world on the taxpayers dime. Since repubs like to cry, whine and complian about the President and the First Lady alleged extravagant trips, where's the outrage?

Last known whereabouts: Speaker of the House, Boehner, is jet setting around the globe with Dave Camp, the Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, instead of stopping the impending middle class tax increase.

Eric Cantor: Instead of bringing a comprehensive jobs bill to the house floor, Eric Cantor is flying around France and the Middle East.

Hal Rogers was named as the "Prince of Pork" has headed off to sunny Australia and New Zealand.**

Where's the outrage! from you repubs???!! Or are you too busy beating up on and hating on the President and First Lady to see who's really screwing you?

stay tuned! More on where in the world is............?

January 13, 2012 at 7:07 p.m.

Well, I'm in the Conservatory with Colonel Mustard, with a Candlestick.

Just in case anybody was curious about where I am.

January 13, 2012 at 7:12 p.m.
ITguy said...

Boehner can't be out of the country. Congress is NOT in recess. If they were in recess, Obama could make recess appointments.

January 13, 2012 at 7:34 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

With all of the negative attention that Romney has been getting lately (principally relating to his work with Bain), my guess is that he will do worse in the polls against Obama in the near future. Furthermore, I think that more "dirt" will be dug up on Romney in the future, furthering lowering his image at that time. But those may only be short-term effects.

By way of contrast, the critics have been all over Obama continuously for the past three years, so I suspect that there is nothing more of major importance (that has already transpired) to attack him with.

What I see as a major factor that is incapable of being quantified is how the partisan spending will play out. Obama is known for his prodigious fundraising ability. On the other hand, my guess is that Karl Rove and the Koch brothers (through their related entities will contribute substantial dollars to the campaign.

My prediction is that neither side will have a significant advantage over the other, although that pure speculation on my part.

January 13, 2012 at 7:51 p.m.
carlB said...

BigRidgePatriot said... The electorate has been pretty well brainwashed to abandon our liberties and the Constitution in favor of perceived government guarantees.

BigRidgePatriot said... The main difference though is that the Obama administration prioritized protection of a democrat voting block (GM Union members) over the health and profitability of the company. January 13, 2012 at 10:36 a.m. ---------------------Reply: BigRidgePatriot, I do not believe you want to understand the real facts involved with either of these situations. If you did. then your opinion would be completely wrong.

January 13, 2012 at 9:29 p.m.

Probably why ITGuy said Congress, not the Senate. Since the same fake sessions are being applied, it's very telling that the Speaker of the House could leave the country.

January 13, 2012 at 10:08 p.m.
rolando said...

Last I read, NewsJunkie, a VA court just barred all Republican candidates from its ballots, except Rombama and Paul. Be interesting to see what the jhudge will say when one of the excluded wins the primary...bar them from the general, ya think?

The real Florida election was decided by the voters; its Supreme Court tried to overturn the voters' decision in violation of its own state laws; the SCOTUS threw the case back in their face for re-evaluation because of that state law violation. They decided to just drop it. "Hanging chads" and hesitation marks, indeed.

He lost, plain and simple; even here at home.

The old "The SCOTUS did it!" argument is so debunked. Read the decisions.

January 13, 2012 at 10:34 p.m.

rolando, they weren't barred, they were just told they didn't meet the qualification requirements for the primary. So they can't possibly win it. Should they win the nomination, I would not say it matters, since as far as I know it has nothing to do with the qualifications for the general election. However, I believe it was a federal court in Virginia though, not a state one, and the ruling was due to the untimeliness of the motion more than the merits.

As for Bush v. Gore, the biggest lesson we should have learned from that was to not let horrible ballot designs and other election tabulation methods be utilized, but I don't think we even got that, at least not nationwide.

tu_quoque, except the reason the Senate could not adjourn was because the House refused to do so, and the House is very much conducting such pro-forma sessions, you can watch them on C-Span.

It'll only take about a minute. That's less than a commercial break!

January 13, 2012 at 10:57 p.m.

tu_quoque, so let's see, "they must get the permission of the House" and the house is conducting pro form sessions of less than a minute, refusing to admit it has adjourned.

Huh.

I think they're both in Recess, and Boehner being out of the country shows the sham for what it is, a sham.

January 13, 2012 at 11:28 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

tu_quoque:

You got one right and one wrong.

You were right about the GOP turnout being at record levels. Here's a link to an article confirming that point: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577155083535100196.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

You were wrong in that there have been two GOP primaries; Iowa and New Hampshire. You can read that in the article I cited above.

January 13, 2012 at 11:56 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

**rolando said...

Last I read, NewsJunkie, a VA court just barred all Republican candidates from its ballots**

If you follow the news closely, you would learn that those Republican candidates were barred because they failed to follow the simple rules of Virginia regarding what is required to be performed to be listed on the ballot. For example, they failed to observe the requirement that a Virginia resident must collect the requisite signatures. Any candidate whose campaign staff is so inept that they can't even accomplish basic tasks like that doesn't deserve any sympathy in my book.

By way of contrast, Romney's campaign has been very tightly structured and run. While he has made some gaffes, such as saying "I like to fire people" and "corporations are people." In general, though, it is a well-oiled machine. Admittedly, he has a significant advantage in that it is well-financed.

Similarly, Ron Paul has a highly efficient and effective campaign staff. He is a model of how to conduct politics on the retail level, particularly in Iowa.

January 14, 2012 at 12:08 a.m.
fairmon said...

hwtnb said...

that's what we want government to do, since we can't trust the companies to do it on their own.

Laws and regulations are necessary due to the 5% that are not reliable and responsible. I would prefer to trust a business person that needs me to buy their product or service than any government that seeks to extract as much from me as possible.

I do invest for financial gain which is the reason. Why else would I risk investing hard earned money in a business that may not succeed. It is not practical to not invest and let the government inflationary behavior reduce the value to much less. Someone has to try to earn enough to pay taxes, who will provide for those that don't invest, work or plan for their future. I donate liberally to charitable causes but find those other ways to profit you suggest don't help those entities nor do those other ways spend well at the grocery nor for other necessities.

January 14, 2012 at 12:19 a.m.

Tq, so what you're saying is that it is meaingful that Boehner has left, not just the building, but the country?

NJ, I believe the objection being made is a techical one, due to it being a caucus in Iowa. I would not say it is a substantive difference though. Also the goPp does have an enthusiasm gap. New Hampshire is an open primary state, that means even if the total turnout was higher, more people could be independents or Democrats.

January 14, 2012 at 12:25 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

tu_quoque:

If corporations are people, then Romney is a serial murderer, given all of the corporations that he has driven into bankruptcy!

January 14, 2012 at 12:54 a.m.

Tq, Th location of boehner is important in showing how phony the sessions are. A farmer does not go on vacation when it is harvest time. You seem to be focusing more on thev commenters here, and if we're going to do armchair psych-analysis, I would day your fixation indicates you love us all.

Maybe you should start thinking more about boehner.

You are also not thinking about insurance companies in the proper frame. They make money off gambling that you won't need services. Hence their preference for "firing" their customers who need service. I've had it happen with my home insurance when a storm hit.

NJ, now now, he's kept them alive, like Frakenstein's monster, but with half the soul.

A free market for insurance will not be free. It will cost us.Now if Romney wants to talk health service provision that would be good.

January 14, 2012 at 1:15 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "If you are are referring to the Government Motors/UAW bailout as anything other than a scam perpetrated on the U.S. taxpayers then you are deranged."

Tell that to the more than 209,000 employees who still have jobs as a result of our Government investing in the now (as of January 2011) #1 automobile manufacturer in the world.

Tell that to the investors, who have enjoyed a nearly $6.00 price increase in stock prices since it tanked at $19.00 a share.

All loans that GM took out have been paid.

When the time is right, which will come when the economy booms again, the Government will be able to sell its shares in GM at a profit.

Right now, GM is doing much like the rest of America. Its hanging on hoping for better days, but by golly they are still alive, thanks to those who did care about its future.

It's very hard for someone who is not directly affected by what would have happened had GM been allowed to fail, to understand how badly this country would have suffered.

I am an American who had no stake whatsoever in GM at the time, but I understand what a loss for this nation it would have been, had our Government not stepped in at the time to offer assistance to them.

January 14, 2012 at 1:43 a.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "Since the U.S. Government needs no interaction with the other nations on Earth, why should our elected representatives bother visiting them?"

That's a rather naive position you have there.

"That type of activity only leads to ill advised entanglements that will result in all types of sad outcomes for us."

By all means, please elaborate, if you dare.

"We've got all we need, right here inside our country, to have a successful and rich nation without any interference from those losers."

Now you're expressing sheer ignorance.

The United States cannot survive on its own and never has been able to. We are the worlds largest importer of goods from other nations. We also sell to other nations $1.3 trillion in exports.

January 14, 2012 at 1:58 a.m.
alprova said...

Four Pinocchios for King of Bain

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/four-pinocchios-for-king-of-bain/2012/01/12/gIQADX8WuP_blog.html

Even Newt is calling for the removal of the video from the internet by his SuperPac, due to its rampant inaccuracies.

People and politicians are going to eventually learn someday that voters with a little intelligence are sick and tired of baseless attacks on leading candidates. The truth is so easy to find these days. Lies do nothing but backfire on those that offer them.

January 14, 2012 at 3:30 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

More Pious Baloney from Newt. He knows he isn't suppose to have contact and influence over Super Pacs. When did Pacs ever strive for accuracy and truth?

I don't agree with WaPo's assertions about the 4 lies. The first three are excused because it said Romney left Bain at that time. There needs to be more investigation into Romney's influence after giving up C.E.O. He laid the ground work for these four companies to be destroyed. Just because he gave up the throne at Bain, does not mean he was without strength.

The 4th one is lame. The 'so-called lie" came from a woman distraught about losing her home. She cried and watched it the whole time as they drove away, then she said and "he has 15 homes". WaPO calls this a lie because he only has 3. Whatever. This is coming from someone who doesn't really know and confused Romney with McCain (who has 15 homes just doesn't know how many he owns). Point is her mistake is hyperbole but it doesn't warrant calling out by WaPo. They had to search long and hard for inaccuracies.

If anything WaPo needs to call out Gingrich for trying to influence a Super Pac.

January 14, 2012 at 7:30 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

tu_quoque:

I forgot that Iowa was a caucus, rather than a primary because the net effect on who becomes the GOP nominee is basically the same. But you are right, in that they are different in some respects.

After pondering it a bit overnight, I recalled what was my basis for saying that the GOP turnout was less than in 2008. The 2012 numbers include the Ron Paul voters, and I (as well as most political commentators) do not consider them to be true Republicans. If Ron Paul decides to eventually run as a Libertarian candidate later this year (and those voters support him rather than the Republican nominee) that will prove this point.

Stated in a more succinct manner, if you subtract the votes for Ron Paul from the totals in Iowa and New Hampshire, then the (revised) vote count is actually down from 2008.

January 14, 2012 at 9:27 a.m.
News_Junkie said...

I want to provide some background for my prior post in which I stated that if corporations are people, then Romney is a serial murderer because of all of the corporations he bankrupted.

A study of the Bain deals by the Wall Street Journal (which is not a liberal-leaning newspaper) showed that 22% of those corporations either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors. To view that article, go to: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694.html

January 14, 2012 at 9:36 a.m.
carlB said...

Even with the new District lines drawn by the party in control, will the voters just accept their votes being taken for granted even if they do not like what the Republicans are doing in depressing them and the workers? The voters/workers should already have enough proof of the trend occurring in all of the Republican controlled States to take away their bargaining rights, depressing their wages and benefits, not mattering whether the workers are Republican or Democrats. What is there to prevent the voters from taking on the responsibility of crossing over "party lines," showing they will not stick to the party's political policies and Ideologies that destroys this Republic and takes government's purpose back to the mind set that it was prior to FDR's New Deal policies. This has been the objectives of Capitalism and the Republicans ever since they were against FDR's New Deal policies. Now the Republicans and the Capitalist think they have a winning combination with this Republic on the verge of another great depression, with the National financial weakness of the country caused by the fraud and the global economy/free trade agreements. Do the Republicans and the Capitalist have the voters in the "right" frame of mind of hating the unions, hating the workers who have health care and retirement plans and the "big government" that FDR's policies created. Now it is President Obama's policies placing the controls on the private financial systems, for helping the people by wanting to help create jobs here, while the private systems are not helping without receiving subsidizes and incentives from the tax payers. Have the voters been convinced by President Obama's enemies that he must be voted out of office, letting the Republicans to continue destroying this Republic? If not then, the voters will have to take things "in their own hands," voting for whom is best for them and this Republic in the long-term. We have already had a "dose" of the elected Congress looking out for themselves and the Capitalist instead of our citizen workers. We, the US consumers, also need to help reduce our trade deficit with the global corporations, forcing them to reinvest in more manufacturing plants here, creating jobs making the goods that are now imported. The KEY to recovery is the creation of middle class manufacturing jobs and the decrease in the cost of living expenses while decreasing the "wage gap," with sacrifices made by everybody, not the depressing of the middle classes and not forcing an increase in the number of people living in Poverty.

January 14, 2012 at 9:42 a.m.
carlB said...

Did all of the unfinished carry over critical issues from the Cheney/Bush W. occur from bad judgment, by accident or from the deliberate political policies and the ideologies of the Party that was in control for eight years?

January 14, 2012 at 9:46 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Blackwater48 said: “The republicans have trotted out two tried and true lies to help deflect scrutiny over Romney's reign at Bain Capital – Envy and Resentment.

Guess you haven’t read the latest edition of republican fat cat bible, Blackwater48. It says envy is wrong, but lies, greed, theft, and corruption are OK and should be praised.

January 14, 2012 at 10:48 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

How many days are they going to leave this lame excuse for a cartoon up?

January 14, 2012 at 12:12 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

According to Romney's theory, it would be wrong to condemn the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernie Madoff, because that would be an attack on capitalism. Furthermore, it was a travesty for the communists employed by the government to have prosecuted Madoff for his exemplary capitalistic activities.

January 14, 2012 at 12:16 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

Operative word for Republicans in 2012:

SETTLE!

January 14, 2012 at 12:27 p.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

One of my favorite Republican stories in 2012 so far:

GOP Candidate Passed Off ‘Home Economics’ Degree As ‘Economics’ Degree

Click to read more

Too Funny!

January 14, 2012 at 12:32 p.m.
dude_abides said...

BRP... you are hilarious! You remind me of Statler and Waldorf, the grumbly old codgers in the balcony on the Muppets Show. Even your avatar looks more stodgy than brave. Actually, I may have an idea for you in your "Quest for Firing Bennett." More than a few Asians (notably, Tibetans) have had at least moderate success in applying heat to the man in a novel and permanent way. I refer, of course, to self-immolation. Throw in a post ignition bear hug for the atheist/isolationist tu_quark, and don't forget to film it.

January 14, 2012 at 1:06 p.m.

Harp, sorry I did not see your reply earlier. I think your rhetorical 5% is overly optimistic, but that is my experience. I also have experiences with many businesses who only want to extract as much profit from me as as they can, without concern for me. Certainly, a government behaving the same way wold be unacceptable, butthen that is why the government should be beholder to the citizens. As a whole mind you, there will always be some grouch individuals who cannot be satisfied. Should they become predominant, well, that will be a sad state of affairs all around.

I do not recall making any specific suggestions on how to invest, just simply saying that investing for pure profit is not always desirable. That therre are gains besides the financial. For example, I just saw home Jeff Foxworthy put some lands he owned into a conservation easement. He could probably have made some more money in other ways. He chose another path.

By the way, the biggest drivers of inflation are the financial wizards who want a growing market, the government is just going along.

Tq, and I chose cost to describe the market itself, rather than the price of insurance. There is a reason I included the rest of what I said, your selective quoting, while not as deceptive as a recent PAC ad, missed that. My apologies for breaking up the lines though, if that mislead you. Still, like I said, it'll be a costly market, not a free one, and I gave the reasons for it in the prior lines, which you didn't quote.

But you want to know something? It is the insurance company who wants to be be making the decisions for my healthcare. In other words, they are the ones getting confused about what is what. That is a cost I do not care to pay. Hence my saying that the market for such insurance will not be free. It'll cost us.

If we want to get the problem solved, I say solve it at the provision of health care level instead.

January 14, 2012 at 4:06 p.m.

You're worrying about GM taking taxpayer money? For what reason, when there's dozens of others doing the same, bailout or no bailout. The Fortunate 500 is full of companies glad to suck off the government teat. And have been for decades, so don't even think to blame it simply on Obama. They've had lobbyists for a while. Of course, the lobbyists are part of the whole rotten system, so if you really wanted to do something to save money, you'd do something about that.

Not to mention shareholder money, with the golden parachutes the CEOs get.

BTW, here's a metaphor for you:

Some of Romney's Bain investments are like buying a donkey, starving it half to death, working it the rest of the way, then making the government pay to have it moved to the knackers, and you pocket the glue profits!

January 14, 2012 at 4:31 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

tu_quoque:

I don't dispute that Bain had some great successes, as well as failures.

The point that I was trying to make, in an admittedly inarticulate fashion, is that Romney is trying to mislead people when he claimed he was a job creator at Bain. His job there was to create profits for investors. The creation or destruction of jobs was entirely collateral to the object of the enterprise, which was to provide a substantial return to the investors.

I don't dispute that Bain produces great returns. But if you claim that Bain did a great job of creating additional jobs, he has not proven that point, all he has made is an unsubstantiated allegation.

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post has examined Romney's claim that he has created 100,000 jobs and found that claim lacking for a number of reason. For example, that number includes jobs that were created many years after Romney left Bain. Furthermore, both Romney and Bain refuse to provide any documentation by which those job creation numbers can be verified or disputed. Thus, in the complete absence of any evidentiary proof, Romney's claim must be rejected.

January 14, 2012 at 4:34 p.m.
fairmon said...

hwtnb said...

If we want to get the problem solved, I say solve it at the provision of health care level instead.

That may happen but the results will not be pretty. The government cannot force people to enter the health care provider field nor can they force Dr's to continue in that field. The delays in getting care and the lack of good available providers in another case of government intervention in the free markets will yield results similar to every other intervention in the markets instead of constitutional regulations.

It appears your confidence in government's intelligence and credibility and mine differ significantly. We are not likely to ever agree much on that opinion but I enjoy reading your perspective on issues. It doesn't appear that you attack and consider the "other party" as totally bad and yours as all good.

January 14, 2012 at 5:58 p.m.
fairmon said...

Romney did not create a single job and neither has Obama. They have both intfered with and skewed the markets and prevented American job growth. For a job to result there first has to be a need or desire for a product or service that people are willing to pay for. That product or service has to be competitively priced with other sources. The more people able and willing to buy the offering the more the need increases requiring an increase in the capacity to provide it. The only role of government should be limited to assuring fair competition among providers and regulations to protect the health and safety of people. It is essentiallly that simple. However, politicians prefer picking winners and losers and interfering in free markets. A well run and managed business will do well and others will fail. There has been no free market process in the U.S. for more than 70 years.

January 14, 2012 at 6:19 p.m.

harp3339, the government can force people to continue in that field, when said persons took the government's money to pay for their education. Or I suppose, they can pay it back. I know that from direct experience with a person in that situation. You can argue up and down all day whether such incentives work, but you'll find they're already doing it, not just in health care, but in tons of other fields, and have been for decades. So there's plenty of data if you really want to slough through it. Might even be a few private companies doing the same thing, but maybe not.

In terms of delay of getting care, and available providers, again, you want to take a good, honest look at other countries, you'll see they do quite fine. All the ballyhoo about waits in Canada, or the UK, or people who go to the US from Canada don't really stand up to a true scrutiny. If they have deficiencies in one area, they're more than made up for advantages in another. Even if they were not though, here's the thing, the US system is STILL broken in substantial ways. Medical bankruptcies are a problem. The non-payers are a problem. The resorting to emergency care instead of preventive is a problem. The overpayments for aspirin are a problem. And so are infections in hospitals, but that's another matter, and I'm not sure the US is substantially worse in that regard, that's just a recent problem which has come up.

One thing you don't understand though, is that I don't have the confidence in the "government's intelligence and credibility" that you think I do, as I have as little confidence in that as I do with the private persons acting on their own. Human beings range from corrupt to incompetent, and that's just unavoidable.

But here's the thing. There's a reason why the government is supposed to representative, and should be open to scrutiny and discussion. Such transparency means the confidence you think I have isn't necessary. Not that the governments always live up to that ideal as it stands, but at least in principle, I can make them operate in a glass office building without the clamor of complaints about it being an invasion of privacy. The same level of examination won't apply to a private company.

So no, I'm not confident in them. I'm just more comfortable with the level of inspection I can require.

BTW, I think you'll find that fair competition and the safety of the public is not a simple process at all. And sometimes even the best managed company will fail, not because of anything in terms of poor leadership, but unpredictable events that could not be ascertained by any human being.

January 14, 2012 at 6:29 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

Here's a link to an article discussing why four candidates will not be listed on the Virginia GOP primary ballot: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/politics/virginia-gop-primary-ballot/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

January 14, 2012 at 7:54 p.m.
alprova said...

tuquoque wrote: "The investors paid $33 at the IPO so I would say that some of them are less than happy."

Ah, but not everyone who holds stock in GM bought their shares when it was first offered.

"At that IPO the U.S. government sold some of its shares at that that $33 number even though it needed $45 to break even, so we lost billions at that time."

Not really. Stock losses amounted to a $14 billion loss. This also includes the Government making good losses paid to former GM stockholders.

Had the company not been salvaged, it would have cost the federal government about $28.6 billion in lost tax revenues and assistance to the unemployed in just the first two years alone, according to the Michigan-based Center for Automotive Research. Doing nothing would have likely cost more than twice as much the bailout.

"Now the price is holding around $20 and at the next stock offering we will need to get $54 to break even, so it looks as though more loses are in store."

Actually, the stock is just shy of $25.00 a share. And nothing is lost until it is sold.

"The estimates now are that we will lose from $15 to $25 billion dollars on just the bailout funds. On top of that the treasury will not collect up to $45 billion in future taxes that GM was forgiven by Obozo."

Again, so far, the losses are a bargain, compared to what would have been lost had GM been allowed to fail.

"With that much taxpayer money pumped into G.M. no wonder the bean counters can make the company look profitable. They’re operating on our dime."

About a dime is all you can claim as your share of cash that went into GM.

Would you like me to mail you a check so you'll feel better?

January 14, 2012 at 7:58 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Poll Finds 43 Percent Of People Believe God Helps Tebow Win

LOL... the Teabow Party!

Anybody here believe that God would choose an athletic team and help them defeat other teams that also pray to Him?

BTW... God must HATE Tebow this week!

January 14, 2012 at 10:15 p.m.

Even the WasingtonPost? I know it's a mantra to conservatives that the media I is all liberal, but no, not t he Post.

You would also do well o note that you have a post from a specific section, by a specific writer. Glenn Kessler, I would not label him as partisan myself, either way, but I have seen some sloppier facts from him. On both sides. Sloppier than I would want with such a column.

Reading the comments is funny though, so like here.

January 14, 2012 at 11:07 p.m.
hambone said...

Harp, your wrong!

All government has to do is cut taxes on the "job creaters" and the "job creaters" will hire a work force and fill a warehouse up with product and wait for someone to buy it!!

January 14, 2012 at 11:43 p.m.
carlB said...

tu_quoque said... CarlB:

If you are are referring to the Government Motors/UAW bailout as anything other than a scam perpetrated on the U.S. taxpayers then you are deranged. January 13, 2012 at 10:11 p.m.


Reply: tu_quoque, of course the need for the GM loans or subsidies to keep them in operation was a "scam" and "black mail." GM would have been willing to bust the UAW. They have been investing Billions of dollars inplants outside the USA for yeARS. It is the same story that the Capitalist and Senator Corker and others have wanted to do to the US workers and as we know, the trend of depressing our citizen workers is continuing. Obama did the right thing to prevent the shut down of GM here in the USA, thus preventingthe3 loss of many jobs added to the 700,000s per month caused from the 2007 deep recession. t

January 15, 2012 at 12:21 a.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Even the Washington Post said Obama was using phony accounting on the auto bailout."

I read your link and found not one mention in it about GM. The figures quote by myself are true and correct in regard to GM.

Even if those figures quoted by the writer about Chrysler are remotely true, a $1.3 billion loss is still a bargain compared to what the Government would have lost if all those jobs had been lost in bankruptcy.

I again state that people not affected one way or another had those jobs been lost forever seem to be the most critical of the Government for working to save those jobs.

That would not have been the case had your own job been in jeopardy.

January 15, 2012 at 4:29 a.m.
rick1 said...

Al, why did couldn't GM have been restructured under the ordinary reorganization process? If you are going to say financing was not available the government could have provided funds without also usurping the bankruptcy process.

January 15, 2012 at 8:41 a.m.
carlB said...

rick1 said... Al, why did couldn't GM have been restructured under the ordinary reorganization process? If you are going to say financing was not available the government could have provided funds without also usurping the bankruptcy process.


Reply: rick1, Are you forgetting the "master plan" of the global corporations? Instead of bringing in the lower cost labor and having to deal with the safety and EPA regulations most of our corporations have moved the plants to the lower monetary value countries. In return what is it costing the US tax payers to get the (foreign) global corporations to invest in manufacturing plants here in the US just to provide jobs? The voters/workers should already have enough proof of the trend occurring in all of the Republican controlled States to take away their bargaining rights, depressing their wages and benefits, not mattering whether the workers are Republican or Democrats. What is there to prevent the voters from taking on the responsibility of crossing over "party lines," showing they will not stick to the party's political policies and Ideologies that destroys this Republic and takes government's purpose back to the mind set that it was prior to FDR's New Deal policies. This has been the objectives of Capitalism and the Republicans ever since they were against FDR's New Deal policies.

January 15, 2012 at 11:31 a.m.
alprova said...

I don't see that the bankruptcy process was usurped. They were required to provide a plan that would work to reorganize the company and return it to profitability. Concessions from unions were also a part of that plan.

The only thing different that I recall was done was to pay a portion of funds to make good part of investments to stockholders who were left holding the bag when GM tanked.

Can't people who are looking at this thing from the outside in see for just one second that had Chrysler and GM been allowed to fail, adding nearly a half million to the jobless rolls, been detrimental to an entire nation?

GM may not be this nation's #1 employer, but they are the world's #1 automaker. What was done three years ago has returned that company back to profitability. Jobs were salvaged. Jobs have been created. More jobs will be forthcoming in the future as business picks up.

Yes, there have been losses. There will be more losses to come. But the losses amassed are nothing compared to what would have been lost had GM and Chrysler went completely out of business.

There's a bigger picture that some people refuse to look at.

January 15, 2012 at 11:43 a.m.
rick1 said...

Al, don;t you agree this is nothing but crony capitalism. With the way Obama took GM through bankruptcy it screwed creditors and stockholders in favor of the UAW. GM could have gone through bankruptcy with out the UAW being taken care of ahead of the creditors and jobs still would have been saved.

January 15, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al said: "Can't people who are looking at this thing from the outside in see for just one second that had Chrysler and GM been allowed to fail, adding nearly a half million to the jobless rolls, been detrimental to an entire nation?"

Can’t people who are on looking from the outside see that this just gave the federal govt that much more power? I don’t want the govt influencing jobs in that way. Create an economic environment that promotes growth and new business opportunities instead.

“GM may not be this nation's #1 employer, but they are the world's #1 automaker. What was done three years ago has returned that company back to profitability. Jobs were salvaged. Jobs have been created. More jobs will be forthcoming in the future as business picks up.”

But that money was stolen from me. How is this justified regardless of the outcome?

“But the losses amassed are nothing compared to what would have been lost had GM and Chrysler went completely out of business.”

How do we know this? What’s wrong with filing Chapter 13 and reorganizing? Maybe no jobs would have been lost. Maybe they would have been stronger today as a result. If shareholders would have lost money (which don’t get me wrong cuz I wouldn’t want that to happen either), then that’s also the risk of investment.

Besides, supporting the UAW in that way was just a way to buy votes. I didn’t think the govt was allowed to directly give money to unions. Am I wrong on that?

Al, you own a bvsiness if it fails should the government come and bail you out? If not, why? You provide jobs aren't those just as important and the jobs at GM?

January 15, 2012 at 2:49 p.m.

The money wasn't stolen from you. You have consented to tax collections, if the money isn't allocated how you prefer, see your elected representatives, not a court of law.

January 15, 2012 at 5:22 p.m.
rick1 said...

I haven't consented to tax collections. Taxes are taken out of my check every pay period without my consent. If I fail to pay me taxes the government will seize my bank accounts, my property or I may go to jail. So please explain to me how I consented to tax collections.

January 15, 2012 at 7:01 p.m.

Well, I don't know your situation, but let me ask some questions to ascertain where you stand:

Have you cut yourself off from the jurisdiction of the government? Are you receiving the benefits of its actions? Have you registered to vote? Are you currently in arms against the government?

Seems like a whole host of potential consent to me. If your circumstances are different, please do tell us what you've done to render yourself non-consenting to paying your taxes, but so far as the use of force in collection goes, that they cannot reply purely on your self-aware and free decision is a sad reflection of humanity, but should you wish to reform the system to work according to that kind of principle, you are more than welcome to make that argument. It will require changes not just in tax collection, but law enforcement, torts, child welfare, and the public health.

January 15, 2012 at 7:12 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.