Problem is, I feel like old people won't care, and they're the ones who actually pay attention to silly political TV commercials. We'll need to add at the very end: "AND ROMNEY WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSES TOO." Said very ominously, of course.
Love the commercial. What was Mitt's role at Bain after leaving for the Olympics? He still made plenty of money off of the KB deal it seems like. Was he an investor but not owner?
Love the commercial. What was Mitt's role at Bain after leaving for the Olympics? He still made plenty of money off of the KB deal it seems like. Was he an investor but not owner?
Just take a look at his tax returns, all the answers are there.
Oh wait.
i still think what he's hiding is that he doesn't tithe.
Problem is, I feel like old people won't care, and they're the ones who actually pay attention to silly political TV commercials. We'll need to add at the very end: "AND ROMNEY WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSES TOO." Said very ominously, of course.
THis is definitely a problem. Not to be glib about it, but the only people who care have DVR. This info needs to get to them another way.
Just take a look at his tax returns, all the answers are there.
Oh wait.
i still think what he's hiding is that he doesn't tithe.
That's interesting. My real life political coffee klatch was saying yesterday that they think he doesn't want people to see how much he actually does tithe. I can't wait to present this interesting counter argument.
Problem is, I feel like old people won't care, and they're the ones who actually pay attention to silly political TV commercials. We'll need to add at the very end: "AND ROMNEY WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSES TOO." Said very ominously, of course.
THis is definitely a problem. Not to be glib about it, but the only people who care have DVR. This info needs to get to them another way.
It just needs to go viral. Young people will see it on social media, old people on tv.
Problem is, I feel like old people won't care, and they're the ones who actually pay attention to silly political TV commercials. We'll need to add at the very end: "AND ROMNEY WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSES TOO." Said very ominously, of course.
/ded
At least I died before they could take away my license.
I will have to read more later but I know he is not comparing Greece, but he made mention of the illusion that debt was a problem (or at least that is how it read. I do admit a bias against him and his misogynistic ways so I will try to read more with an open mind when I don't have a clingy teething toddler on me. Literally, it's like we are now joined)
The only Obama ads I've heard have been on Pandora. The election will be declared before our polls even close.
I can see how cons probably won't wade in here, but I'm curious if this information concerns his supporters.
I am not s supporter but as Taibbi has bias and, based on the DB article some months ago, it probably doesn't help with taking him as a great straight-reporter, as opposed to one with an agenda/bias/what have you.
I am not s supporter but as Taibbi has bias and, based on the DB article some months ago, it probably doesn't help with taking him as a great straight-reporter, as opposed to one with an agenda/bias/what have you.
What is Taibbi's bias, in your opinion? He has been incredibly critical of Obama, too. He is anti-wall street, I guess that's a bias. But he doesn't have a party-specific agenda.
Bias is more with the RS, but his sexist comments in the past color my view that he is a true reporter. I am very fine with him being anti ws, for sure.
I think this is right. My understanding is that they found cash-rich companies that had major structural problems. Rather than use the cash to fix the structural problems, they first drained out the cash by loading the company up with debt, and collecting a huge profit, and then collected more money advising them on how to fix the structural problems that were made even worse by the extra debt.
The companies probably would have gone bankrupt or needed to lay people off. The problem was that Bain collected the money that would have gone towards things like paying severances to workers, keeping workers on the rolls for another year or two longer, and paying off other creditors.
No, I completely get that and I'm not saying that Bain was the solution to turn these companies around - in fact it was exactly the wrong thing for many of these companies. But I don't necessarily think it's entirely fair for Bain to be blamed for people losing their jobs if it was going to happen anyway. These companies clearly needed a real turnaround solution. They didn't seem to be able to execute on their own, and Bain certainly didn't help (except for themselves).
First, with respect to the job losses, I think that it sounds as though Bain did at least one of a few things wrong in each instance. 1. It accelerated those job losses, forcing people out of work much quicker; 2. It left the company without sufficient resources to offer severance packages (or sufficient notice of the lay-offs) while simultaneously paying out multi-million dollar bonuses to executives; and 3. it diverted cash from other creditors, like suppliers or lenders, as well as the stockholders (which might have included employee pension funds), during the bankruptcy process, leaving those other entities holding the bag, while Bain got ginormous payouts. The point isn't that bankruptcy could have been avoided (though it sounds as though in some instances that it may have been able to), but whether Bain made the magnitude of the bankruptcy better or worse. Perhaps if Romney was willing to talk about his experience at Bain, he could explain how Bain helped mitigate the effects of the inevitable bankruptcies, but until then, I've got no other evidence beyond this article on which to base my impression that he made it worse.
Second - and more importantly - you are missing the forest through the trees here. The job losses are just an smart and easy way for the Dems to spin it in a 15 second commercial which is why I brought it up, but that's not really the point of the piece, nor is it why I'm completely disgusted with Romney in a way I was not previously. The piece explains in common sense language what Romney's business experience is really all about:
He was not a job creator.
That's the take away. Was he a job destroyer? Meh, depends how much benefit of the doubt you want to give him in terms of whether these companies would have gone belly up without Bain. But, that's not really important. Instead, I now call BS on the idea that Romney was some savior of business, helping companies succeed and building them up so they could. Sure he was "successful" - but now we know what he was successful at - gutting companies through legalized bribery of the executives, pocketing millions, and accelerating the demise to the company to the detriment of everyone else. Frankly that is not business experience that I consider to be noble, nor do I want anyone who has made a living in Wall Street piracy anywhere near the White House.
My amount of rage over Romney right now is almost blinding. The next person who tells me they like Romney's business experience without having any information to back that up is going to get an earful.
The only Obama ads I've heard have been on Pandora. The election will be declared before our polls even close.
I can see how cons probably won't wade in here, but I'm curious if this information concerns his supporters.
Nah. Although I love the idea for a political ad based on this information, I can see that being spun as Obama hating capitalism. OMG he's a socialist!
Romney found a way to make millions and millions of dollars. Good for him. IMO, the way he did this (on the backs of average employees) is a denouncement of capitalism in general. He just milked the system. Honestly, it's not why I disagree with Romney, although I also don't think business experience means anything when you're running for public office.
The only Obama ads I've heard have been on Pandora. The election will be declared before our polls even close.
I can see how cons probably won't wade in here, but I'm curious if this information concerns his supporters.
I am not s supporter but as Taibbi has bias and, based on the DB article some months ago, it probably doesn't help with taking him as a great straight-reporter, as opposed to one with an agenda/bias/what have you.
Honestly, I'm open to another perspective on Romney's experience at Bain Capital.
But since Romney has declared it off limits, and no other reporter has been up for the task of doing some investigative work on their own, WTF is the public supposed to do? Ignore the only substantive piece yet written on Romney's experience over the last two presidential campaigns because he might have a bias?
i still think what he's hiding is that he doesn't tithe.
That's interesting. My real life political coffee klatch was saying yesterday that they think he doesn't want people to see how much he actually does tithe. I can't wait to present this interesting counter argument.
this is my husband's theory -- he *does* tithe and since it is 10% of his income, he posits that it's probably more than he paid in taxes to the federal government. so DH says that's why he doesn't want us to see it - because he paid more $$ to LDS than to the govt.
I am serious about this video. If someone can get the facts and sources together for me and help me come up with a script (I see images have already been taken care of), I will totally make this video.
I honestly think it's too complicated for the average American to understand. I am pretty confident that most people by now have heard the rhetoric around "Romney is a great businessman!" and choose to discount any information that runs counter to that assertion.
Oh, I don't know - it all depends on whether the reporter is willing and able to explain it.
I don't think it's that complicated, really. Most Americans "got" Goodfellas, didn't they? They got that the mob who "saved" the restaurant in the short term were really just using them, opening up huge lines of credit, ordering merchandise in the front door, just to sell it out the back and never pay the bills, all while their families and friends were eating and drinking for free.
If they got that scene in Goodfellas, they get what Bain Capital does.
I think Romney defenders are going to focus on this point here:
"This is the real world," he said, "and in the real world there is nothing wrong with companies trying to compete, trying to stay alive, trying to make money."
Isn't this Capitalism at is finest? I feel like I hear this argument a lot from my co-worker.
That argument is a distraction. For the sake of the argument, concede that yes, Bain inducing companies to go deep into debt to pay them, is indeed the apex of capitalism. Woohoo for Bain for making a lot of money.
But how does that experience apply to running the US government - who will we steal from and who will we drive into debt, exactly? What part of Romney's Bain experience shows that he knows how to get rid of debt, create jobs or create stability - or that he has any interest in doing any of that without aa huge payday for himself?
The only Obama ads I've heard have been on Pandora. The election will be declared before our polls even close.
I can see how cons probably won't wade in here, but I'm curious if this information concerns his supporters.
I am not s supporter but as Taibbi has bias and, based on the DB article some months ago, it probably doesn't help with taking him as a great straight-reporter, as opposed to one with an agenda/bias/what have you.
Ah, Taibbi has bias....as in, "Taibbi speaks with a strong voice, and it's not mine, therefore it must be bias"?
It seems to me that Taibbi's bias is that he resents it when a crook isn't called a crook just because he wears a suit and tie. But facts can always be refuted, regardless of one's bias in presenting them.