Magox Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 How pathetic does the REST of the GOP field sound, when criticizing Romney for his ¨¨firing¨¨ people comment? They sound like a bunch of liberals. Thats what you want in a president, someone who is going to make the cuts necessary to make the system flow more efficienty and guide us to a direction where demand dictates jobs. Plain and simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 How pathetic does the REST of the GOP field sound, when criticizing Romney for his ¨¨firing¨¨ people comment? They sound like a bunch of liberals. Thats what you want in a president, someone who is going to make the cuts necessary to make the system flow more efficienty and guide us to a direction where demand dictates jobs. Plain and simple Corporations, profits, free-enterprise, and competition are tools of the devil, Magox. Romney should be burned at the stake for attempting to return failing businesses to profitability through LBOs. He should have let these companies go out of business as nature intended rather than intervene and lay people off. Has he no conscience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 To quote Austin Powers... "Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh? Eh comrades? Eh?" <Austin, the Cold War is over. We won.> "Oh, smashing! Groovy! Yay capitalism!" Now they're all just grasping at straws. So, he was part of a venture group that forced companies to focus on core competencies, increase profits and cut dead weight in sectors that are unprofitable/not as profitable as they should be... and Romney is supposed to apologize for this? By and large, those people found other jobs (or should have) where they were more productive. Nobody is owed a job if what they're doing doesn't directly create a profit or is of some use/value toward creating a profit. How does anyone think this country's economy recovered in the '80s and boomed in the '90s? Hint: It wasn't because Bill Clinton waved a wand in the air --- no matter how much that man may think his penis has magical properties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 To quote Austin Powers... "Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh? Eh comrades? Eh?" <Austin, the Cold War is over. We won.> "Oh, smashing! Groovy! Yay capitalism!" Now they're all just grasping at straws. So, he was part of a venture group that forced companies to focus on core competencies, increase profits and cut dead weight in sectors that are unprofitable/not as profitable as they should be... and Romney is supposed to apologize for this? By and large, those people found other jobs (or should have) where they were more productive. Nobody is owed a job if what they're doing doesn't directly create a profit or is of some use/value toward creating a profit. How does anyone think this country's economy recovered in the '80s and boomed in the '90s? Hint: It wasn't because Bill Clinton waved a wand in the air --- no matter how much that man may think his penis has magical properties. It´s going to be up to Romney to make this logical argument in a way that most independents will be able to understand.. And everything I have seen out of Romney makes me believe that he can. Having said that, I´m listening to some of these extreme right wing kooks, and the disdain they have for Romney. I just hope they decide to go out and vote for Romney in the general elections, my guess is that they will, but damn their dislike for Romney is evident, and it wouldnt surprise me that more than what I anticipate decide not to participate in the elections. But again, I´m guessing their hatred for Obama will trump their dislike for Romney enough to go out and vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) And even then, it's not like Bain and Romney were the kind of corporate raiders like the Richard Gere character in "Pretty Woman." The WSJ has a more fair assessment here. Their model at the time when they started out was risk, but high reward. Much of the time, they entered at the company's request when it was already struggling. In some businesses, the investment didn't work out and both the company and Bain lost $. Nothing's perfect. But on what they were successful with, they were successful. And they didn't stick around investing good money after bad in situations they couldn't help --- a business sense that either Obama never learned, or isn't styled with his politics. WSJ | Romney at Bain: Big Gains, Some Busts Amid anecdotal evidence on both sides, the full record has largely escaped a close look, because so many transactions are involved. The Wall Street Journal, aiming for a comprehensive assessment, examined 77 businesses Bain invested in while Mr. Romney led the firm from its 1984 start until early 1999, to see how they fared during Bain's involvement and shortly afterward. Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost. ... Many of the Bain companies emerged from reorganization healthier, just as, for instance, General Motors did a few years ago. And, as the article states, in many cases, the business experienced trouble years after Bain's relationship with them ended, with many of them happening in the 2000-2001 downturn. Edited January 10, 2012 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 And even then, it's not like Bain and Romney were the kind of corporate raiders like the Richard Gere character in "Pretty Woman." The WSJ has a more fair assessment here. Their model at the time when they started out was risk, but high reward. Much of the time, they entered at the company's request when it was already struggling. In some businesses, the investment didn't work out and both the company and Bain lost $. Nothing's perfect. But on what they were successful with, they were successful. And they didn't stick around investing good money after bad in situations they couldn't help --- a business sense that either Obama never learned, or isn't styled with his politics. WSJ | Romney at Bain: Big Gains, Some Busts And, as the article states, in many cases, the business experienced trouble years after Bain's relationship with them ended, with many of them happening in the 2000-2001 downturn. More like Gordan Gecko if we're choosing movie characters. It appears Romney's opponents are going to try and make the link from VC/PE to "greed is good" and then bring it full circle to the greed mentality that caused the subprime crisis and subsequent Great Recession, and before you know it Romney will be culpable for backing up garbage mortgages with credit default swaps. Given the public's general animosity toward and ignorance of the financial sector, it will probably work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 More like Gordan Gecko if we're choosing movie characters. It appears Romney's opponents are going to try and make the link from VC/PE to "greed is good" and then bring it full circle to the greed mentality that caused the subprime crisis and subsequent Great Recession, and before you know it Romney will be culpable for backing up garbage mortgages with credit default swaps. Given the public's general animosity toward and ignorance of the financial sector, it will probably work. This will be the number one attack issue, independents wont give two ***** about romneycare, it will all be about the occupy wallstreet theme of greed, and Romney is the perfect villain for that role. So as Romney says, this will be a battle for America´s soul, capitalism vs democratic social justice policies. It will be up to Romney to explain to the independents that capitalism in its entirety is a net plus for our economy and that Obama has failed miserably when it comes to reviving the economy. I don´t care how you slice it and dice it, if the workforce was the same size that it was in 2008, the unemployment rate today would be at 10.9% And that is a failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Pathetic? Yes. Acting like Liberals? No. Actually they are following the example of Mitt Romney who did the exact same thing to Obama with the "If we keep talking about the economy we'll lose" commercial was was totally bull. So really, he deserves this and I hope it nails him right in the butt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Pathetic? Yes. Acting like Liberals? No. Actually they are following the example of Mitt Romney who did the exact same thing to Obama with the "If we keep talking about the economy we'll lose" commercial was was totally bull. So really, he deserves this and I hope it nails him right in the butt That ad by Romneys Pac was cheesy. But if you noticed, I stated that Romneys ¨firing¨ comment was a gaffe, simply because the optics allow it to be, even though it was taken out of context. But you are missing the whole point of my post, it wasn´t that they took what he said out of context it was the actual content of the attack Thats what you want in a president, someone who is going to make the cuts necessary to make the system flow more efficienty and guide us to a direction where demand dictates jobs. Plain and simple In other words, what I´m saying is that they are attacking his capitalist credentials and tremendous success he had and painting him as some sort of ¨corporate raider¨ . That´s not what wise ¨conservatives¨ would do, it wreaks of desperation, and at the end of the day will hurt those ¨conservatives¨ that choose those line of attacks. Now for the liberal lemmings, you guys will eat that **** up, because thats your type of red meat, much like abolishing EPA, education system is fodder for the right. Edited January 10, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Romney got nasty with Newt. Maybe this is just a little coming back at him. Edited January 10, 2012 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 Romney got nasty with Newt. Maybe this is just a little coming back at him. That´s ok, it´s the line of attack that I question. What sort of conservative criticizes one for effectively and successfully implementing the free market system? Firings have to happen in some circumstances, if you read the WSJ findings, most of the businesses they took over were on the verge of failing, and he turned most of those companies around. That´s what is in question here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 That ad by Romneys Pac was cheesy. But if you noticed, I stated that Romneys ¨firing¨ comment was a gaffe, simply because the optics allow it to be, even though it was taken out of context. But you are missing the whole point of my post, it wasn´t that they took what he said out of context it was the actual content of the attack In other words, what I´m saying is that they are attacking his capitalist credentials and tremendous success he had and painting him as some sort of ¨corporate raider¨ . That´s not what wise ¨conservatives¨ would do, it wreaks of desperation, and at the end of the day will hurt those ¨conservatives¨ that choose those line of attacks. Now for the liberal lemmings, you guys will eat that **** up, because thats your type of red meat, much like abolishing EPA, education system is fodder for the right. Oh, it was Romney's pac? Ok. So The Republicans doing it without the big bucks are bad but the Pac money makes frat boy innocent? As to the capitalism thing. It's sad. I think corporations are great, I think Big Government is also great, but people don't like either and that's just how it goes. Obama will defend health care while Mitt will defend outsourcing. Whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 Oh, it was Romney's pac? Ok. So The Republicans doing it without the big bucks are bad but the Pac money makes frat boy innocent? As to the capitalism thing. It's sad. I think corporations are great, I think Big Government is also great, but people don't like either and that's just how it goes. Obama will defend health care while Mitt will defend outsourcing. Whatever I didn´t say it was ok, I said it was cheesy. In other words, without taste. And as to your last comment, Mitt will defend outsourcing? ok, if you wanna get ridiculous, then Obama will defend Socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 He should have let these companies go out of business as nature intended rather than intervene and lay people off. That's what he advocated when the auto companies were bailed out. And then if it happened he would have blamed Obama for all the auto workers and suppliers that lost their jobs. What a hypocrite. Or should I say, flip-flopper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 That's what he advocated when the auto companies were bailed out. And then if it happened he would have blamed Obama for all the auto workers and suppliers that lost their jobs. What a hypocrite. Or should I say, flip-flopper. So he's a hypocrite based on how you thought he'd react to a hypothetical situation?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 So he's a hypocrite based on how you thought he'd react to a hypothetical situation?? He's a hypocrite for opposing saving GM and Chrysler. If he could have directly profited from it, he would have supported it. So much for standing up for the middle class, Mr .001%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 He's a hypocrite for opposing saving GM and Chrysler. If he could have directly profited from it, he would have supported it. So much for standing up for the middle class, Mr .001%. Try creating an original thought, it´s kinda cool, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 That's what he advocated when the auto companies were bailed out. And then if it happened he would have blamed Obama for all the auto workers and suppliers that lost their jobs. What a hypocrite. Or should I say, flip-flopper. Yes.... Because brokering private investment in a venture capital firm is exactly the same as a trillion-dollar government bailout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Try creating an original thought, it´s kinda cool, really. Magox's fall back line when anyone doesn't fall in lock step with his position- Pathetic really. ah but back to Youtube on the subject at hand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0utylpiwstE&feature=g-u&context=G2cc4dbcFUAAAAHgAEAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 11, 2012 Author Share Posted January 11, 2012 Magox's fall back line when anyone doesn't fall in lock step with his position- Pathetic really. ah but back to Youtube on the subject at hand youtube.com/watch?v=0utylpiwstE&feature=g-u&context=G2cc4dbcFUAAAAHgAEAA Of course, you totally missed the whole point of what I was saying. But thanks for playing youtube boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts