President Barack Obama is casting Mitt Romney as a greedy, job-killing corporate titan with little concern for the working class in a new TV ad debuting today.
In the president's most forceful attempt yet to sully Romney before the November election, the ad recounts the demise of GST Steel under Bain Capital, the Republican's private equity firm.
750 workers lost their jobs, health insurance, severance pay, even pensions when the Kansas City, Missouri, company closed in 2001.
"It was like a vampire," says Jack Cobb, a steelworker for 30 years. "They came in and sucked the life out of us."
The ad, at the unusual length of 2 minutes, will run in five battleground states: Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Colorado.
Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul points out that hat the bankruptcy and layoffs at GST Steel occurred after Mr. Romney had left Bain in 1999. But, of course, Romney maintained a financial interest in the company after departing to run the Salt Lake City Olympic Games.
Steven Rattner, who oversaw the auto rescue under President Obama, called the Obama ad "unfair" on today's MSNBC's Morning Joe because it assumes that companies should care about their employees.
But Rattner also pointed out that Romney opened himself up for such an attack by claiming that Bain has a strong overall job creation track record.
"Mitt Romney made a mistake ever talking about the fact that he created 100,000 jobs," said Rattner. Watch it:
By the way, the Obama ad may look familiar because it's quite similar to the 28-minute documentary King of Bain, released in January 2012 by Romney's GOP rival Newt Gingrich just before the South Carolina primary. Watch it:
And that makes the Obama "Romney is a job destroyer" attack line BI-PARTISAN!
Ed will discuss the new Obama ad tonight on The Ed Show at 8pET on MSNBC with Dave Foster, a union leader who was there at the time.
Leave a Comment:
I love it. xoxoxo Pres O
If Romney wins I will take Michelle Bachmans citizenship in Sweden.
go now free loader.
Not nice, but of course you are only here to flame.....maybe while you are here you would like to read this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61HbcIpKL7E&feature=endscreen&NR=1
William Lutgen, That was a terrific ad by Obama. My feeling is that nothing succeeds like reality. Just tell it like it IS! Only ROMNEY has to lie about ROMNEY!!
Romney is a corporate raider, a job killer, an out of touch sociopath, a power hungry millionaire, and a pathological liar. His job creating record in MASS as governor was horrible. I think it was 47th in the nation. If he should win in November, he will treat Americans as he did his dog. He will see to it that he and his fellow 1 percenters get richer at our expense.
He and Ryan share a disdain and contempt for the average person in this country. It shows in everything they do and everything they say. Together they will dissolve all safety nets and play corporate raider on America.
Here's one from the newtster that is even better India.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB8WwWGa7Vk
Then you love this one.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkkp4IFoXDs&feature=relmfu
Hilarious MOM! This comment from the link was good.
Here's another good one, c/o the quitta from Wasilla.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDOykmey7-I
chemdmd,
there are as many repub/bagger freeloaders as there are of the "democrat" kind. supporting President Obama or does not make us freeloaders. we do, however, worry about the elderly, the disabled, the children, the poor, and minorities, including women in this country.
"everyday freeloader" repubs are just as concerned about their loss of social security, medicare, and medicaid as you accuse us of.
I wonder if Joe comprehends the stunning irony of his position? He says "...it's demagogic, to say that Mitt Romney created unemployment..." - yet isn't that the very type of claim Obama's opponents have been making for the past 3 years? If you listen to them, one would think that everything was wonderful until the day Obama swore the oath of office, then within hours the economy tanked and millions of jobs were lost, all of being his fault.
And the argument made that Bain Capital is a fine, upstanding model of what capitalism is all about who has nothing to be ashamed about is ludicrous, depending upon which side you come down on. For decades, American businesses CREATED products and services and sold them on the open market for profit. They HAD to care about their employees - to a degree - in order to be able to function as a business. But the phenomenon of corporate raiders like Bain is relatively new in the American economy - businesses whose goal is simply the creation of profit that specifically comes AT THE EXPENSE of the workers and eventually the companies themselves. To consider this as good or noble requires a truly sociopathic mindset, without empathy or remorse.
Don't these profit whores understand that their relentless, single minded pursuit of wealth regardless of collateral damage to American workers and the economy is ultimately a terminal illness? Once they have squeezed out every last dime they can and left a wasteland of shuttered businesses and destitute, unemployed American citizens behind them, they are destroying their own customer base. It's not like China or the European markets are clamoring for American made goods - so that means an ever dwindling number of people who can even afford their products, and even they will be hesitant to spend their money. If that is what capitalism is all about, I'll happily accept other alternatives!
That's why the raiders like Romney put their funds in offshore accounts. So they can live somewhere else after the collapse. This country means nothing to them. Only the money they can get out of it.
Happy, I couldn't have said it better myself! I have been asking myself a few questions, hoping that I am not the only one thinking this way... 1-- If the Ryan budget makes it thru the Senate and somehow comes to pass, exactly WHO does the Republican Party think is going to have any money left to go out and spend this country back to prosperity? The top 20% don't go out asnd spend money like the rest of us do, so who is going to be buying the cars, tvs, washers/dryers, etc that is part of the equation to getting us out of the economic slump? 2-- Why is it such a bad thing for employers to care about their employees? No employees means no business. It's not as if the owner of the steel mill, car manufacturer, electronics fabricator are going to be out there on the work floor, sweating behind a forklift, assembly line, or foundry pit. They hire others to do it for them. You need to take care of those who make the goods that puts the money in your pocket. Republicans just don't seem to understand that part... Possibly because they never had to be the guy on the foundry floor, or running the forklift?
If the workers didn't show up for work, would the factory still run? Nope.
If the CEO and the Board of Directors didn't show up for work, would the company still run? Sure it would. They aren't necessary and don't do any of the work.
Sure the factory would stop...until those workers (especially your very low skilled workers) are replaced or the factory is simply moved to an area where people will do the work (think the exodus of manufacturing from the northeast and rust belt to the south).
Also, you could get rid of upper management, CEO's, the board of directors, etc. and let the workers run the operation....until they run it into the ground and the business fails. It would be idiotic for me to believe that companies (especially manufacturing) are not successful without good, front line, blue collar employees, but isn't it just as idiotic to believe that those companies would be successful without strong upper, executive management?
That is the way every successful business, organization, etc. throughout the history of time has been set up. There is a reason that the guy on the assembly line isn't making complex financial and legal decisions. There is a reason he doesn't make nearly as much as upper management.
Poor loose once again shows his ignorance on just what a CEO does or a stock holder does. Here is a clue loose they CEO is paid to decide what products are made and if quality control needs to be tightened or loosened. Thats all they do, it takes maybe a 2 hour meeting, oh and every quarter they decide if a product should be continued or stopped, really loose a monkey can make better decisions then most CEO's. A stock holder does even less he just puts money into a business and votes on who the CEO is. Yeah loose really hard work that can't be done by workers. The workers could probably do it better in fact because they know how products are put together as well as buying the finished product.
Let's see...should I follow the advice and knowledge I have obtained through my college education and years of real world corporate working experience OR should I follow your advice Whom? Haha...tough choice. Let me know when you get back to the real world Whom.
Why? You've never been there.
Hilarious as always Chris... however your witty insults can't cover you or Whom's lack of business or economic knowledge.
Loose Cannon,
If you produce salt - perhaps the workers could handle production and marketing without upper management. Any multinational or multidivisional corporation however, would require capable upper management to function. The real question is the whether CEOs are providing value added to a degree that justifies their compensation packages.
1971 the CEO/employee compensation ratio was 30.6% in 2009 264.4%. Interlocking directorates make these ever increasing salaries possible. The question worth debating is whether the contribution they make to the company is worth their compensation. (On average a Japanese CEO's might get about 1/10 the compensation of a US CEO.)
Adam_Selene
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/daily-brief/2011/01/26/revisiting-income-inequities-and-the-ceo-employee-gap/
Adam,
I very much agree with your point and I think you can make the point in any organization or company there are people that are overpaid and people that are underpaid. I am sure you can do a study and come up with a list of CEOs and other upper management that are worth every penny, while others are wildly overpaid - and you could also make that argument with workers going down the line.
My issue (beside the absurd statements above from Whom and Chris regarding the uselessness of upper management) is many on the left seem to to feel that pay and benefits should somehow be regulated under the premise of fairness. A privately held of publicly traded company has every right to compensate their employees as they see fit. If you have an issue with how a business is run you don't have to do business with them, work for them, or purchase shares of them. Companies are in the business of making money - if they don't then we all lose.
As the Mafia always says-"He made money for his friends."
Loose Cannon,
No problem with the compensation if it is truly "market driven" - I get concerned when it is inflated through the circular backscratching possible with interlocking directorates populated by other good old boy CEOs.
If you occasionally want to have posting exchanges where you receive more intelligent responses than "...go back to your delusions and let the sane people speak, your insane GOP talking points are rather useless you stupid teabagger", wander over to Maddow some time. Higher class of trolls - though the posters there will still insult you, they will take an entire page to do it in and will be generally more polite about it. Now and then someone might even agree with you.
If you prefer it here - I understand - sometimes only a bag of sliders will hit the spot.
Adam_Selene
Thanks for the tip. I occasionally will catch some of Maddow's show, but have never checked out her blog. I do enjoy this blog and the Ed Show, but it seems like I do more arguing than debating most times, it is kind of a guilty pleasure I guess - I think I just like getting fired up when I see some of ridiculousness (in my opinion) that is posted. There are some good people to talk to and discuss issues with here - even if we don't agree on most issues.
Romney's claim to fame is that he created 100.000 job's while at Bain Capital.He was there 15 yrs. that's 6,666 average per yr.President Obama created 4,000,000 jobs in 3 1/2 years that's1,142,857 job's per yr.Now who's the job creator?He also claims at one time he saved the Olympic's.How many job's did that create? President Obama saved the auto industry,saving over 1,000,000 jobs. Again who's the job creator? And finally Pres.Obama did it all without the help of one republican!
joca 11, Seems Republicans only help themselves. The 99 percenters do not matter to them.
President Obama created 4,000,000 jobs in 3 1/2 years
Over 5 million less working people today than when Obama took office.
Over 8% unemployment for the past 3 1/2 years, over 40 million on food stamps.
All of it started under Bush.
You keep complaining he hasn't fixed Bush's mess yet.
In 2004, economists said it would take 50 years to repair the damage Bush had done. And that was 4 years before he was gone.
There were more people working in Dec 2008 than today.
Furthermore the economic melt down was due to the fact people stoppaying their house payments.
Had nothing to do with Bush, in fact Bush wanted to put fannie & freddy under the control of the fed in 2003, but barney frank said "I want to roll the dice".
Get you facts correct there liberal.
That ole line of bull$hit blaming bush only worked in 2009, blame the man in charge today Obama.
I have a nice list of Barney & Friends quotes from the early part of the decade. Like Barney saying Freddie and Fannie were in great shape and should lend more and broaden the base. Also interesting that the current fiasco with Morgan Stanley- after Barney-Chris bill passed as the Democrats demanded to protect us from stuff like this. Of course, MS was heavy into lobbying and campaign donations- so the implementation was pretty favorable to them from the Bush White House. (well- he's fun to blame. It was actually Team Obama, but what the heck. This is MSNBC.)
So you expect the downturn to end intantly when a new President is sworn in. I really didn't believe anybody was that ignorant about econimics. And don't forget about the do nothing house. The repubs campaigned on Jobs, Jobs, and more Jobs. Instead, they blocked every bill that would help. You and the Newtser sound the same. OH, that's right, you use the same book for your propaganda.
Stupidita,no sense answering your comment,your user name say's it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkkp4IFoXDs&feature=relmfu
Let's see why are so many people unemployed today? What is the reason many lost their jobs in the first place? The recession, the recession which started under Bush.
When Bush left office there was a snowballing effect, this ball had been rolling for sometime gaining speed and size so how was Obama supposed to just sto it without being pushed back a couple of feet. You can not expect anyone to be able to just that.
If Obama's way sucks what was the republican plan to create jobs? What did they want?
Thats easy just look at GWB's policies.
What difference does it make? Who cares what they wanted? A Republican didn't get elected so it doesn't really matter does it?
Obama is a Democrat and he's the president.
Defending Obama's job creation policy with a defeated candidate's policy that never existed is an indefensible position.
Romney doesn't have the answers either so you can expect nothing good to happen if he is elected.
As for Obama, every president inherits mistakes of the previous administration(s). If Obama is as brilliant as you all say he is, he knew the scale of the problem going in. Obama is almost done with his first term and all of you are still hanging on to the weak argument that it's all Dubya's fault.
Obama promised he'd turn this around in three years and has only made things worse. At this moment, what Obama is doing or not doing is all that matters. At least, it's all that matters to me. The past is over and even if this situation was caused by Bush, too much energy is being spent blaming and it should be directed at fixing.
If Romney gets elected you can be sure he will blame everything on Obama, and every right wing source will vilify him just as you all are vilifying GWB here. I don't think that will happen. I've said before that I don't think Romney can't beat Obama.
You'd all rather listen to feel good speak from Obama, continue to blame the previous administration for everything that's happened and ignore the fact that Obama continues to be completely ineffective at fixing this.
There is no pill to take, so we will swallow the one that made us ill. That means four more years of Obama.
I am more than comfortable if Team Obama runs on the platform that the recession belonged to Bush and the recovery belonged to the GOP.
I only hope that Team Obama is as idiotic as the folks above in trying to sell that concept to the American Public. You folks need to let them kow that is a winning argument.
All new dumb a@s republicans.
These are for Romney dog Shamus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CUgdUFzPZ8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35PZjVUbC-Q&feature=related
Republicans and the corporations they work for profited from the downturn. The 1%'s income went up 275% while Bush destroyed the economy. They don't want it to end, they want it to continue, and get worse. That's why they block everything Obama tries to do. If he fixes the economy, their massive and unbalanced profits will come to an end.
Interesting that Ed doesn't mention Romney's ad which factually describes Obama's 6 TRILLION dollars in new debt during his Presidency. 6 Trillion dollars borrowed from the Chinese, Saudis etc and a net job loss during his tenure. Now that is truly disturbing.
BOL then we get the psychotic response that pulls numbers out of his shirt pocket and in his opinion they are true. Delusional and not even worth debunking for the 3000th time that has been debunked since Obama was sworn in. Rather strange that number has neither increased or decreased since the first Fox news wind bag first tossed the number out on Obamas first day in office.
Which is exactly what you do.
Nothing new here. You're amazing. Call someone out on making stuff up and then follow it up with a counterpoint that you made up.
Sorry chi but reality is those are not my opinions those are provable facts and guess what chi you are another one who runs off at the mouth with long debunked GOP nonsense. Funny how you are a rightie posting on a left leaning blog and you question left leaning people on their word yet you expect to be taken on your word when in all likely hood you are either a banned re reg or a sock puppet you slip on your hand to run to the rescue of yourself. Why don't I provide links because for some odd reason none of the lefts links are either read or blown off as bias, even if it is from a right wing source. So take that and go worship Reagan I'm sure if you pray to Reagan real real hard he will send a trickle your way. Oh and I rounded off the number of times that you tea baggers repeat debunked nonsense because that number would be close to a million because that is all you tea bagging whiners have been repeating since that low life 3rd rate actor, drug dealing president that is now a sinking rotting piece of garbage first said that nonsense.
Let him trickle on his head and tell him it's rain.
Repeat. If they were provable you'd prove them.
Repeat. Don't you ever have an original thought?
Repeat. I can post here if I want to and just because you're a leftie doesn't make you immune to questioning. I know you don't have any facts to back up your nonsense. Why don't you just be a man and admit it?
Repeat. Boring.
I guess this is another one of your lame attempts at humor.
LOL you've NEVER posted anything from a right wing source. This would mean that you'd have to admit that some information from the right must be factual, which you will never do.
Your left wing sources ARE biased just as the rights are. The fact that you won't wake up is on you.
Yawn. Repeat.
Repeat... Can't you write in English?
Whom, he didn't start running up debt until he was inaugurated. So your statement that Reps claimed he had run up $6 trillion as soon as he was sworn in is really wacky. My source for these figures and the ads is the Monthly Treasury Statement of the US and the CBO both of which have web sites. Or don't you trust the official financial statements of the U.S. Government. But I guess your source which is? is the real one.
You never did answer my question why you hate Ronny Reagan so much. SOmething personal or is it you just don't like a conservatives. You know the one whose policies created tens of millions of new jobs and ended the cold war. Just askin.
First the recession- followed by the most pathetic recovery possible. Obama needs to keep the focus on Bain Capital because he needs voters to not be thinking of how backwards his economic plans are.
Quick- someone name the healthiest company Bain ever took over and raided? You know- the company that was prospering and handing out raises left and right and really growing, then show how Romney killed the growth.
And where were the great tea bagging republicans during all of the weak recovery why filibustering and attacking womens health issues. Here we go again with the normal tea bagging republican whine the democrats didn't fix everything the GOP broke in 3 years or less. Whine whine whine. Really you should start spreading the cheese.
Rusty's really rusting away. That's what happens when you don't use your brain.
Chris- I assume that means you don't have a clue. I'm sure that your Moveon talking points and the Ed Show are searching vigorously for some company that had a chance of recovering that was taken over.
You should just keep silent instead of answering in a way that makes you look foolish.
I realy liked the add Romney ran as well it pointed out how Bain created 6000 jobs in another state where it used to be farmland. Obamas add had several misstakes on it, those guys went bakrupy 2 years after Rodmey had left. They also failed ro mention the ratio of sucesses to failures Bain has had. I would like to know that info if anyone has it.
Bain Capital is not or really ever in the business of creating jobs that is not the success index the firm uses it's about money not jobs and good cheer contrary to Romney's narrative. You know that.
Bain was commodities trading with companies, they bought cheap ones available within their spending margin and then they took investors money to put into it the company. Fix up it up a little and then sell to whoever will pay your prices because they think it's worth it. So they sold them and made off with the money even though many of their ventures were not successful. Romney is trying to claim he has some business experience because he pretends he ran Bain to create jobs and help businesses grow when that's not true. The point of the take over is the shrink the business so you can make more money while still perserving the product.
Romney's only business experience is in the board shuffle not actually being on the ground and building a company and a product like classic american entrepreneurs like a Bill Gates or Ford...etc. like he wants to suggest.
Romney most importantly is a man with no core. He will say anything leaving the rest of us to wonder what he really believes. Romney is hypocritical in this field by trying to say closed door board meetings, three years at harvard make obama a bad candidate on the economy. Mitt worked for private equity which is backdoor meetings and arbitrary numbers and calculations without thinking about the people it will effect. Obama went to harvard for 3 years Romney went 4. Mitt also had a father to buy his way in, Obama did not.
Hell he and Ann weren't actually making a wage when Mitt was going to school, neither of them had employment they lived off the lucrative stock his father left him. So really who's more entitled?
not to mention foreign policy, this cardboard cut out of a politician thinks Russia is actually our "greatest geopolitical foe". The Cold War is over the Russians aren't coming since they lost. Mitt also seems to believe we can grow the military so "large no one would dare challenge it" talk about stupid. The people weren't fighting blow themselves up willingly I can't imagine that's going to scare them
Obama wouldn't have a problem with the re-election if he only lost 750 jobs during his dirst term, but he can't say that can he? The Add doesn't portray the true. The company was near bankruptcy when Bain took it over, Bain kept it alive for another ten years. It was their inability to compete with Japanese steel producers that was responsible for its closure, just like many other steel mills that suffered closure. Obama couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it. And most of you buy it.
Liberals, you all are a funny lot...
So mitt closed a steel mill killing 750 jobs!!!
Obama took office in 2009 and over 12 million people have lost their jobs as of today!!!!
Mitt - "a chocolate coated wasabi"
The people at Bain Capitol will no doubt cite their "success stories" in response to this information. Their examples include Staples, Dominos and Sports Authority. There is no doubt that these companies have been big successes and that their interaction with Bain capital has worked well for them. However, I think they have to be seen in a larger context.
All three are essentially retail establishments that cater to consumers. None of them have produced any new durable goods. Before these companies came along
the demand they now fill was met by small, locally owned businesses. These companies
took market share from the small locally owned businesses and eventually forced
many out of business. Their greater financial power can easily overwhelm the
competition from mom & pop competitors.
While it would be nearly impossible to find statistics to support this, it stands to reason that the overall size of the total workforce in the United States dedicated to the segments these companies represent has been reduced. It seems to me virtually certain that they are providing goods and services with a considerably smaller workforce than all the small businesses that they have forced out. This is the nature of competition in a capitalist economy but I question whether the success of these companies has been an overall benefit to the national economy. It has no doubt been catastrophic for the small locally owned businesses they forced out. Few, if any, new middle class job were created by them.
David, I just have to ask. Would you rather be one of the employees taht had his job saved by Bain or one of the millions that lost their job due to Obama's policies? It appears you are questioning Capitalism itself. What would you replace it with? Capitalism was responsible for taking this country from a small group of English Colonies to the Greatest Military and Economic Power in the world. Capitalism ended the First and Second World Wars, it put a man on the moon, and it fed the world for decades. Capitalism did all this without murdering millions of our citizens that opposed government policies. What other form of Government has achieved so much or even come close?
I don’t question capitalism. What Bain did does not fit my idea of capitalism.
To me, capitalism is about making something useful (food, shelter, clothing, tools consumer goods etc.) and making money from that enterprise. From what I can see, Bain made money by making deals and not by making things.
However I think you are overlapping two different concepts.
Capitalism is an economic system. Capitalism can exist in a republic like ours
or in a totalitarian dictatorship. Our democratic form of government is about
how the government itself operates and makes decisions. There are other nations
where the government is operated by some form of representative democracy where the people have chosen to adopt economic policies that are more socialist in nature than ours. Capitalism and democracy
are not the same thing.
I see the United States victories in the first and second
world wars to be a product of a national effort that I do not believe can
strictly be classified as capitalist. No corporations recruited or trained
soldiers or lead them into battle.
American industrial companies did allow the US to become the arsenal of
democracy. They produced all of the various forms of war making hardware that
our soldiers sailors and airmen needed to win the war. And, they got paid for
it by the taxpayers. Capitalism did not put a man on the moon. The government did that with taxpayer money. I will grant that the taxpayers earned the money
they paid in taxes in a capitalist economy.
As to lost jobs, even Mitt Romney himself concedes that
Pres. Obama did not create the economic situation that we are currently facing. Mr. Romney's complaint has been that the president's policies did not improve the situation enough. Mr. Romney has been vague about what he would
do. He has a lot of talking points and dog whistle statements but I have yet to
hear from him a plan that varies in any meaningful way from that of Pres.
George W. Bush.
David, So would you rather be one of the millions that lost their job under Obama or one that got a job as a result of Bain? I don't know why any one would think some one with the limited or non-existent business experience of Obama could believe he would know the first thing about creating jobs. What is it in Obama background that makes you think he knows what he is doing concerning the economy? I don't think he has any idea about the impacts of his policies. For example Obama's Pay Roll Tax Cuts. Social Security and Medicare are already having problems, his solution was to reduce the money going into the programs. An idiot understands Obama's Policy will do nothing but harm the programs.
Let's put this in the proper perspective....1) Romney wasn't at Bain when this steel company folded, and 2) 11 other steel companies, including the largest Bethlehem Steel all closed the same year. Romney had nothing to do with it...it was foreign steel coming into the US at a cheaper price. Ed and Obama only tell you the biased stories which aren't even half truths and most of their followers are too stupid to check the facts out themselves.
Rufus, It is like I said, Romney is bad because they believed he was responsible for the loss of 750 jobs, while they praise Obama for losing millions. The same holds true for JP Morgan losing 2 billion and Obama losing 5 Trillion, JP is bad Obama great. Progressives are a funny breed.
Romney’s tenure as the CEO of Bain Capital and the adverse impact his decisions had on the lives of workers, and in some cases entire communities; once again brings into focus his deficit of human compassion.
Romney's high school assault is seared into the memories of those that did not actually cut the young boys hair, but Romney cannot recall the incident at all. That seems incredibly unlikely to most people, as it doesn't seem normal.
It is not normal to put your family dog on top of your car to take a trip, but after the animal got distressed to the point of having a bout of diarrhea, how many normal people would wash down the cage and put that poor animal right back into the same distressful situation. The answer is zero. There is a medical term for people that display a lack of normal human compassion!
The Republicans that control the US House of Representatives and therefore our country’s expenditures, has also shown a total lack of compassion buy refusing to approve funding for hundreds of thousands of jobs to fix our antiquated infrastructure. The highways and bridges decay have taken us from the best in the world to somewhere around twentieth in the world.
These are not make–work projects, but critical projects that need to be addressed. The work is needed in every state, and the jobs would also be a tremendous boost to the American economy. There is a very small group of politicians in Washington DC that would not benefit from America’s economic rebound. They are easily recognizable, as they have a couple of chants; Where are the jobs Mr. President? The other; Are you better off now than you were four-years ago? They get to keep the catchy chants only by making sure that American workers can’t find jobs. How sick is that!
I would answer this way to those questions; you are keeping them under lock and key! As to the second question, my response; I could have been much better off, if the GOP congress was not in control!
" There is a medical term for people that display a lack of normal human compassion!" yea....it's called obamasclerosis! By the way, if you are better off today than you were 4 years ago, you must be with the 1%ers. Even though gas prices have come down in the past few weeks...they are still three and a half times what they were when he came into office and that's alot of money out of my weekly paycheck.
I don't kow what is more stupid. Liberals talking about Romneys dog or Conservatives talking about Obama eating dog. Further stupidity concerns both sides with their bullying stories. I find people like Mike, for instance, to be lacking in any substative thought on who would make the better President.
And- does Mike understand that Venture Capital investors don't buy profitable, healthy companies? They buy on the cheap- maybe 30 cents on the dollar or less and try to add capital, management expertise, cut out spots that are far underperforming in an attempt to grow it in value and then convert it to cash by selling the whole or parts of the whole. They do serve a purpose. The same exact purpose the US government did with GM. Provided cash and the chance to re-capitalize and re-structure and then come back with an altered capital structure or operating system. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. That's why they buy on the cheap- it's called a margin of error. It's also how Warren Buffett got his start.
Michael, And Obama pushed a little girl, smoked dope, did cocaine, and eat a dog.
As for the infrastructure didn't Obama already fix all that with the shovel ready projects and the Stimulus?
Great News Today.
It has taken months of bad news, but Democrats increasingly believe that President Obama might just lose his re-election bid.
The latest wake-up call comes in the form of a New York Times/CBS poll showing Republican Mitt Romney in the lead not just among registered voters overall, but with women and independents.
Ed Heads...have a nice day!!....especially whomitmay!
The President has come out and sat down with numerous interviewers and answered questions head on. Mr. Romney will only sit back and pot shot the President following interviews. Why does CNN and other media outlets air the pot shot when Mr. Romney will not sit down with anyone but Fox for and interview. I dont think his pot shot should be broadcasted by media outlets if Mr. Romney is not man enough to set down with some one other than FOX and give his stance and opinions on issues . I can't believe that shows like Morning Joe applaude his strategy to hide from media to avoid having to answer the questions of the people
Questions like show us your college transcripts, thesis, and other college papers that shed light on your personal and political beliefs?
Or- what is it about Jon Corzine that makes you think he is among the brightest and best of American Citizenry?