Romney team hits back at Obama's 'job destroyer' attack

One thing Romney absolutely has no ground on President Obama is on his defense record. Because as you all know, the mark of a good president is to only have 2 or less major terrorist acts occur under your watch. Obama hasn't had any and he got Bin Laden. I'd say his record at protecting America is absolutely stellar and that's what we look for in a president. Can they keep us safe from terrorist attacks? At least under two of them? We need to know this.

Turns out that Obama is fond of Bain Venture Capital. His new acting OMB director used to work at Romney's old company.

In the last paragraph on the White House Office of Management and Budget page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/organization_office

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Zient http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/new-obama-omb-director-bain-alum/317976

And it no doubt would gall you to learn that conservatives give more to charityt than do progs and lefties. do the search

I heard so-called libertarian neo-cons give all the allowance their mommy gives them to charity too.

Note, Romney didn't try to deny the claim. He just hit back.

The media is now biased because they report the truthful location of a candidate. (shaking my head) That's a new one on me.

Liberals are not known for "giving until it hurts".

Yes, not known. When it hurts, we don't let on.

On the other hand, conservatives must be giving until it hurts all the time because we constantly hear them piss and moan when someone suggests they pitch in and help. Perhaps they are more like hypochondriac givers: every little bit hurts them and they let everyone around know it.

It's King Day here in the U.S., and the words of Dr. King on that topic are just as true now as they ever were: "A society based upon justice will have minimal need of charity." We liberals, therefore, turn our attention to the constant work of creating a society better in tune with that ideal.

Do you give til it hurts? I rather doubt it.

Liberals are not known for "giving until it hurts". There are exceptions of course, but that is essentially the way it is. As has been pointed out, conservatives are generally more compassionate and give much more to charity than do liberals. The goal of the Left is not to give to charity, but to force other people to give their money to the types of charity (ie. government programs) that they would prefer money be spent on rather than allowing people to choose to give to the charity that they believe is most deserving. It's simply the same thinking that compels a Liberal to support coercive collectivist solutions to social problems rather than rallying individuals to freely give to a cause. I should point out one significant exception and that is Habitat for Humanity. Most all people readily advocate and support this charitable cause as it is voluntary, inexpensive, and by all accounts hugely successful.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of charitable giving by Obama and Biden compared to Romney and which charities they chose to support.

Any group that goes out and attacks capitalism is in fact, not conservative

The groups backing Gingrich and Perry in their attacks on Romney's record at Bain would vehemently denounce anyone who said they were not conservative. Observing the situation as a liberal, it's clear that this is one of those Marxist-style ideological squabbles over whose interpretation of economic doctrine, in this case capitalism, is the most pure.

All they had to depend on was their principles. When they abandoned them, they lost all respect. By the way, I have to say, that I'm a bit surprised that you chose to raise these nonsensical arguments about conservatives

Well, it is clear, as you have stated, that a bunch of these "conservative" candidates have apparently abandoned their principles. There's nothing at all "nonsensical" about pointing that out.

familien probleme

""The point is that American generousity is great, but I don't want hear any chest thumping over it. Few Americans give til it hurts. And that is because they are beholden to money and wealth. "

Americans are the most generous people on the planet.There are any number of articles online to prove this. And it no doubt would gall you to learn that conservatives give more to charityt than do progs and lefties. do the search.

Beholden to wealth? And what - none of that in your adopted home of Japan?

Do you give til it hurts? I rather doubt it.

Those who claim to be? Gingrich and Perry were vetted and supported by various Tea Party organizations. Their attacks on Romney are funded by right-wing organizations who can't stand Romney. What does this example clearly show: You can't trust the right-wing when there's power up for grabs. Put more simply: You can't trust the right wing, period.

yabits. Any group that goes out and attacks capitalism is in fact, not conservative. They certainly don't believe in the free-market. Those attacks are what I would expect to hear coming from someone of Obama's ilk. Dems typically depend on the politics of greed and envy for votes. Hearing their arguments echoed from those who claim to be on the right is extremely disappointing. Its like they are shifting their positions as political winds determine. Thats what I don't like about Romney. And with them doing that, it puts them in the same camp as him, without any of his counterbalancing experience. All they had to depend on was their principles. When they abandoned them, they lost all respect. By the way, I have to say, that I'm a bit surprised that you chose to raise these nonsensical arguments about conservatives. Particularly since they can more easily and readily applied to those on the left, who are known for their hypocrisy and class warfare.

I can't recall Obama ever calling upon his experience in the private sector when explaining policy. Does he have any experience?

I believe he has in fact been out shopping a few times.

I can't recall Obama ever calling upon his experience in the private sector when explaining policy. Does he have any experience?

@yabits;

Thanks for not making any comment on the fact that the attack against Willard's Bain ties is not being led by the Liberals, but by the Tea-Party-approved candidates -- mainly Gingrich and Perry. It's just so obvious.

No problem. It is just as ridiculous for Republicans to attack capitalism as it is for Democrats. Barry's re-election campaign is already on the attack against Romney because he actually believes in free markets.

Return to my statement: "[Obama] inherited an economy that was bleeding jobs at the highest rate since the Great Depression." The key word is "rate."

The fact is, the economy was bleeding jobs up to an unemployment rate of 10.8% until Reagan finally got it under control. Unemployment was down to 7.2% when he was re-elected. Therefore, Reagan was able to bring unemployment down 3.6% during his first term. Obama would have to bring unemployment down to 6.4% by this November to achieve the same feat. Pent up business demand should get him down to 8% easily. But that is iffy given to Obama's desire to regulate, tax, and run up unprecedented debt. There are two million less jobs today then when Obama took office. He is failing.

The unemployment rate in 1976 was edging towards 8%. I find it amazing how conservatives forget that inflation was so bad during Nixon's terms that he enacted "wage and price" controls.

I agree. Nixon was a liberal when it came to domestic policy. Price controls, affirmative action, and the establishment of the EPA. If it wasn't for the Vietnam War that he "inherited" from Kennedy and Johnson, he would never have been ousted from office. Democrats loved his progressive domestic policies, that's how he won re-election in a landslide. The problem is that it took a conservative like Reagan to implement sound economic policies to end it. Carter just made it much much worse. In other words, he failed miserably as a president just as Obama has.

The attacks [on Romney's record with Bain] primarily came from those who claim to be on the right...

Those who claim to be? Gingrich and Perry were vetted and supported by various Tea Party organizations. Their attacks on Romney are funded by right-wing organizations who can't stand Romney. What does this example clearly show: You can't trust the right-wing when there's power up for grabs. Put more simply: You can't trust the right wing, period.

their values seem to shift, throws them more in line with Romney, who seems to jump from principle to principle

Lesson: You can't trust the Republicans. They know no fundamental truth other than the one that compels them to attain power by any means necessary. Their values and principles will shift according to the situation. One of their key traits, amply displayed on this board, is to blame Democrats for everything. Even worse than that, they attempt to demonize Democrats because that is the only way they can hope to look acceptable by comparison.

I'm surprised you are still trying to push your own mis-information, to try to deflect blame from Carter.

Pretending that the 39th president didn't inherit an economy with a serious inflation problem from his predecessors is a lie. But it's one that the conservatives who are so willing to shift from principle to principle are willing to accept. Just as it is a factual delusion to deny that the 44th president didn't inherit an economy that was shedding jobs faster than any time in the past century, save for the Great Depression.

Funny. That attack has been led by the Tea-Party-favored candidates of Gingrich and Perry. What does that tell you about "conservative" values? Tells me that they are situational in nature and that any attack on a fellow "Republican" is fair game when power is being sought after.

Sorry for not responding to this point sooner yabits. I agree with what you are saying about those candidates. The attacks primarily came from those who claim to be on the right, though as we can see from this board, they are echoed and repeated by those on the left. As I said above, I don't like Romney. Prior to their attacks on capitalism, I would have supported Gingrich, and I might have held my nose and supported Perry. Their desperate attacks against Romney, and as you said, their values seem to shift, throws them more in line with Romney, who seems to jump from principle to principle. So the only decent candidate left is Paul. Who is, sad to say, a nutcase. Despite all this though, there is not a single candidate who would be less qualified, or make a worse President then our current incumbent.

I find it simply amazing how so many ignorant conservatives want to promulgate the misinformation that the economy was fine until Carter inherited it.

We've had this discussion before. I'm surprised you are still trying to push your own mis-information, to try to deflect blame from Carter. There is no question he was the worst President in US history, and not just because his inept leadership on the economy. But because Americas position in the world became significantly worse. Admittedly, part of the reason he is viewed so poorly, is because his predecessor, Reagan was so successful in reversing and undoing his missteps. Nevertheless, its seems pointless to argue this point, with you, when you are one of the fringe who view Carter this way, not because of reality, but simply because the man has a D next to his name. If he had had an R, I would bet you would be like nearly all Americans who view the Carter Presidency as a huge mistake. And who cast Carter, at least until our current administration, as the worst President in US History.

@Wolfpack:

Thanks for not making any comment on the fact that the attack against Willard's Bain ties is not being led by the Liberals, but by the Tea-Party-approved candidates -- mainly Gingrich and Perry. It's just so obvious.

I do deny it because the facts say otherwise. The unemployment rate was much higher during the stagflation downturn that Reagan "inherited" from Jimmy Carter. That recession was definitely worse...

Return to my statement: "[Obama] inherited an economy that was bleeding jobs at the highest rate since the Great Depression." The key word is "rate."

The facts prove my statement exactly right on. The unemployment rate going into the last two years of the Bush administration was around 5%. In the last half of 2008 and heading into 2009 the Bush mismanagement caused the rate to nearly double to the "official" rate of around 9.3%.

I find it amazing how people seem to forget the perplexing quandary facing America due to stagflation

I find it simply amazing how so many ignorant conservatives want to promulgate the misinformation that the economy was fine until Carter inherited it. The unemployment rate in 1976 was edging towards 8%. I find it amazing how conservatives forget that inflation was so bad during Nixon's terms that he enacted "wage and price" controls. Jerry Ford had a stellar plan: issuing buttons that said "W.I.N." (whip inflation now -- the equivalent of "Just say No to higher prices.")

So from a nearly 8% unemployment rate to the high under Reagan of 9.7%, the economy was nowhere near shedding jobs at a rate comparable as what occurred during the last year of Bush's regime.

Although the recession ended six months after he took office, Americans still feel like they are enduring a recession.

President Obama has done such a rotten job since he took office that even The Daily Kos had to admit it. This is his record he owns it.

Median income has fallen more since recession ended than it did during the recession

by Laura ClawsonFollow for Daily Kos Labor

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/11/1025265/-Median-income-has-fallen-more-since-recession-ended-than-it-did-during-therecession#comments

He inherited an economy that was bleeding jobs at the highest rate since the Great Depression. No fair-minded American would deny that fact.

I do deny it because the facts say otherwise. The unemployment rate was much higher during the stagflation downturn that Reagan "inherited" from Jimmy Carter. That recession was definitely worse than the one that ended five months after Obama took office. The idea that the current economic crisis is the worst since the Great Depression is one being pushed by Democrats to justify Obama's poor performance on the economy. The only thing that is the worst now since the the Great Depression is the US's national debt.

I find it amazing how people seem to forget the perplexing quandary facing America due to stagflation in the late 1970's and early 80's. Under Reagan, unemployment went from a high of 10.8% to 7.2% at the time of his re-election in 1984.

"I will be held accountable.… If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."

My guess is the Obama will not want to be held accountable since he has failed to bring the economy around. Although the recession ended six months after he took office, Americans still feel like they are enduring a recession.

You would think that everyone would like to be able to get the best deal. Is it only conservatives that like to get the best value for their money? If so, what does that say about Liberals

I had a key decision to make early on whether or not to produce our product with American talent or to seek out talent outside the U.S. and save quite a bit of money. I never really hesitated: I have gone with American talent all the way and it's proven to have been the right move. No "bean-counter" would have ever approved of it, however. Being an American myself, keeping our developments in American hands and minds as much as possible is a key value for me.

Conservatives can chide that kind of old-fashioned loyalty, while they point out people who don't wear a flag on their lapels.

Liberals can attack Romney's tenure at Bain all they want.

Funny. That attack has been led by the Tea-Party-favored candidates of Gingrich and Perry. What does that tell you about "conservative" values? Tells me that they are situational in nature and that any attack on a fellow "Republican" is fair game when power is being sought after.

But the fact is, many times more jobs were created than lost.

Conveniently, it is "fact" you can't back up or support. More conveniently, we have Willard's own words saying how much he thinks it's a good thing to fire people. President Obama has never said any such thing. He inherited an economy that was bleeding jobs at the highest rate since the Great Depression. No fair-minded American would deny that fact.

Personally as a voter and a citizen I'm willing to pay a little more in taxes if it will HELP. The only way to "fix" the financial issues in the US is the same thing that always works. Raise taxes, cut wasteful spending (which is hard to do with politicians trying to cater to lobbyists), and of course make the government more efficient and streamlined. But many people won't hear it. Nobody really wants to pay more taxes, but if they're smart they'll be willing to make sacrafices to help fix and improve the situation. The citizens have to do their part, and the politicians have to do their part and with the way things are neither side is helping to improve anything. Can't have your cake and eat it too, and can't expect to get everything for nothing.

This has been an intresting discussion. I have not as of yet decided whom I want in office. I am watching, listening, reading as much as I can.

I want to thank the group minus one individual for keeping the discussion on for the most part about the person and policies - not about their religions. Many persons I know have come to me and have told me that because I amO LDS (Mormon), they know who I am voting for. Just because Romney and Huntsman are of my same faith does not mean that I think they are the best for the job based on that fact. Learning others thoughts of business, health and other past items all of these candidates have done or can offer - is a good eye/earfull.

I am sure that I dont like where America has been recently nor where its heading at its present direction. I am looking, praying, listening, reading and pondering with all the intelligence God our Father in Heaven has given me and to others who can teach me what I dont know - towards making my as best informed decesion on whom to vote for this November.

I dont have facts I can print here for or against either party.. But I do think slander against others is petty and shows immaturity - also tells me that the person doing the slander really doesnt have much to stand on, so they feel the need to knock the others down.

As Laguna has stated, you leave yourself open. I see that as a sign of someone whose power of reasoning never gets beyond a very shallow zone. (Hence a conservative outlook.)

That's a pretty shabby statement to make about Molenir - who has to this point ha trumped every weak argument you've made in attacking Romney's tenure at Bain. Molenir has also been schooling you on how businesses make money and how job creation is the happy by-product of a successful business. Businesses cannot exist if their reason for existing is to create jobs. That is what Communist countries did and history has proven that to be a flawed model. You might say that it is "shallow" to think otherwise.

I must give additional credit to Molenir for his pointing out the many wasteful and corrupt dealings of the Obama administration that some would like to imagine never happened.

@yabits:

Willard has said he enjoys firing people.

And "Barry" doesn't? It seems that 2 millions Americans have lost their jobs since he became president. President Obama also just announced the layout of tens of thousands of American military men and women.

I'm not a big fan of Romney but like a few others here, given the damage done by Obama, he would be a much, much better alternative than four more years of $5 trillion in new debt and overall economic mismanagement. You are clearly using Romney's words out of context to make him out to be someone he clearly isn't. This is what he actually said - in context this time...

“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I want to say, you know, I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”

You would think that everyone would like to be able to get the best deal. Is it only conservatives that like to get the best value for their money? If so, what does that say about Liberals (and a of Romney's competitors in the primaries)? It says that they are not as concerned about the value of things and are wasteful. This is really what we see by this attack on Romney's mindset of wanting to maximize the use of available resources. For Liberals, $5 trillion in additional debt is not such a big deal - as long as they are able to attain their ideological goals (ie. no changes in calcified programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and beginning new government programs such as ObamaCare that will waste huge amounts of money - especially after ten years).

Liberals can attack Romney's tenure at Bain all they want. But the fact is, many times more jobs were created than lost. I think it's great that the Bain issue has come up now. First, it gets the issue out front and discussed now and will blunt it's utility for Obama later when the campaign really gets underway. It will also show that Romney's company took control of companies that surely would have failed not they not been given further invested in, and saved or created tens of thousands of more jobs than otherwise would have existed. This compares favorably with the 2 million jobs that Obama failed to save or lost during his tenure as president.

And that is why economics ALWAYS dominate the elections, and why we get these crazy suggestions that the government can increase jobs without turning into a communist government or a bloated beaurocracy that will destroy freedom before collapsing. Most Americans see money, money, money and want to see more, more, more in their own pockets more than anything else in the world. Its a sickness.

So true. Greed and individualism gone mad.

I thought Liberals didn't believe in all of that God stuff. I don't either really but just saying....

lol, best comment I've heard all day!

Not making anything of tangible value; not making a profit - "making money." Yes, undoubtedly Romney excelled at that.

In order to make money, you must exchange goods or services. This is true regardless of the position you are in. Whether the good you are providing is your time and energy, or whether it is the ownership of your own ipod. Or as might be the case, partial ownership of a company or part of a company. Goods and services are being provided and exchanged. Romney was good at his job, which at the time was to oversee Bain capital.

Concrete examples would be appreciated here.

How many do you need? Should I go down the list? From Solyndra to Fast and Furious, the list is very lengthy.

Concrete, I said.

Again, how many examples do you want/need? Shutting down oil production in the gulf, adding massive new regulations on banks and small businesses. I could continue, do I really need to, or are you capable of doing a small amount of research for yourself?

Ah! This is more plaster of paris than concrete, but it's a start. Can you name, say, one Obama-instituted regulation that has had a negative effect on the economy?

Certainly, I could name dozens. See above.

Okay, I think that this is as concrete as we need to go. Thanks for your input, though.

Rape and murder is obviously a very extreme example, and I would hope untrue, nevertheless, for some kool-aid drinkers, even on this board, an accurate description.

As someone who does recognize and knows better from firsthand experience, profit is not the primary goal.

Really? So you aren't in business to turn a profit? Is that what you are saying? I know I am. Without profit, I'm wasting my time.

No. There is a marked difference between companies like Bain and others that exist with a successful business model which allows for consistent job creation. Using money to make more money for a relative few already-wealthy people is vastly different from using money to create opportunities for "ordinary" people to practice and grow their talents and skills to produce better products and services for ordinary consumers. I don't believe you could ever understand that.

Based on what you are saying, and extrapolating it, you are more in favor of state ownership. Again, taking your statement to its logical conclusion. You are implying that it is the duty and role of those with money, to provide for, and create jobs for those without. That is not the case however, excepting in places like Cuba, or some former communist states.

This needs to be put squarely and clearly in front of voters: Bain took over one company by pumping in $30M and taking out over $160M, by stripping and selling assets and killing jobs. One ordinary voter has asked: "Would $120M have been enough of a return if it could have saved a few hundred jobs?" If Romney's answer is "No," the voters need to understand that in no uncertain terms, and decide accordingly.

So what you are saying, is that he acquired a business for 30 million, and sold it a few years later for 160 million. Now see, I view that as a huge success. Causing a companies net value to grow by more then 500% is somehow bad? Which planet are you from again?

This assessment would mean something if it came from someone who didn't have such a poor ability to think and reason. President Obama's slow, steady, rising poll numbers are just one indication otherwise.

Coming from a hardcore, died in the wool, kool-aid drinker, I cannot view this as anything but a compliment. See, you like so many other kool-aid drinkers, view everything with the idea that everyone who disagrees with you, is either less intelligent then you are, or simply evil. Since in fact most people in the US disagree with you, that means, to you, most people are either idiots, or evil. Your referring to me as being stupid, is therefore quite a compliment. If you were meaning to be insulting, then referring to me as smart, that would have been truly insulting.

In contrast to you, I tend to view you kool-aid drinkers as being either deluded fools or hardcore partisans. I'm not really sure which you are. Though based on your posts, I generally lean towards the latter explanation. Oh, and please point out the steadily rising poll numbers you refer to. Pretty much every poll I've seen shows Obama as tanking. Though November is still quite a ways off.

@ElBuda Mexicano:

South Carolina is always the butt of jokes up in North Carolina, as my amigos from the North tell me.

No they don't - believe me. North Carolinian's wish they had the choices and low taxes that people in South Carolina enjoy. That's why so many people from up north and other parts of the US move to SC to retire. It's a beautiful state that until about 40 years ago suffered too long under Democrat misrule.

Romney is still some kind of anti Christ, my Evangelical cousins back in the USA told me so, so it must be true, right??

I thought Liberals didn't believe in all of that God stuff. I don't either really but just saying....

As it is to all of us. Else why are we exchanging our time and energy. Even someone like yourself should recognize this, profit is the primary goal.

As Laguna has stated, you leave yourself open. I see that as a sign of someone whose power of reasoning never gets beyond a very shallow zone. (Hence a conservative outlook.)

As someone who does recognize and knows better from firsthand experience, profit is not the primary goal. Yes, we need "air" to breathe. But our primary purpose and goal is not to breathe air. Likewise, maximizing profits takes a back seat to other goals that we consider far more important over the long haul towards the care and feeding of a sustainable business.

Bain was the same as every other company.

No. There is a marked difference between companies like Bain and others that exist with a successful business model which allows for consistent job creation. Using money to make more money for a relative few already-wealthy people is vastly different from using money to create opportunities for "ordinary" people to practice and grow their talents and skills to produce better products and services for ordinary consumers. I don't believe you could ever understand that.

Romneys job was to do what was in the best interest of the company, not necessarily what was in the best interest of those who were then employed by companies owned or operated by Bain at the time. It was a job he performed very well.

This needs to be put squarely and clearly in front of voters: Bain took over one company by pumping in $30M and taking out over $160M, by stripping and selling assets and killing jobs. One ordinary voter has asked: "Would $120M have been enough of a return if it could have saved a few hundred jobs?" If Romney's answer is "No," the voters need to understand that in no uncertain terms, and decide accordingly.

Sorry, but trying to claim Obama has been anything but an unmitigated disaster for the US, from beginning to end, is just a joke.

This assessment would mean something if it came from someone who didn't have such a poor ability to think and reason. President Obama's slow, steady, rising poll numbers are just one indication otherwise.

Molenir, why do you leave yourself so wide open?

He also has successfully managed ... the state of Massachusetts.

This is precisely what Republicans hate about him! (I would say "object," but that implies rationality.)

Jobs were never a consideration at all, neither providing them, or eliminating them. What was of concern was making money.

If you'd absorbed the above exchanges, you would have realized we'd acknowledged this, but thank you for providing that uniquely American expressio

n, "making money." Not making anything of tangible value; not making a profit - "making money." Yes, undoubtedly Romney excelled at that.

There is simply no question his administration has been both incompetent and corrupt.

Concrete examples would be appreciated here.

Additionally many of his decisions have had serious negative impacts on the economy, prolonging the recession unnecessarily.

Concrete, I said.

The additional burdensome regulations have likewise had significant negative effects on the economy, with real impacts on every American, as there are many people who have been laid off, and have been unable to find work, simply because companies aren't hiring in todays business climate.

Ah! This is more plaster of paris than concrete, but it's a start. Can you name, say, one Obama-instituted regulation that has had a negative effect on the economy?

He could rape women, and murder babies.

Okay, I think that this is as concrete as we need to go. Thanks for your input, though.

With Bain, the idea was just to make a small handful of people very rich while thousands lost their jobs.

Umm, no it wasn't. Despite the desperate attempt to cast it that way. Jobs were never a consideration at all, neither providing them, or eliminating them. What was of concern was making money. As it is to all of us. Else why are we exchanging our time and energy. Even someone like yourself should recognize this, profit is the primary goal. People are employed by companies, not to provide a livelihood to them, or their families, but rather because companies need work done. Bain was the same as every other company. Its goal was to make money for its owners and operators. Romneys job was to do what was in the best interest of the company, not necessarily what was in the best interest of those who were then employed by companies owned or operated by Bain at the time. It was a job he performed very well.

I agree, the typical one deemed "good" by Fortune magazine or Bloomberg, may turn out to be a horrible president, just as a humble community organizer may turn out to be a darned good one.

I laughed when I read your comment here Yabits. Sorry, but trying to claim Obama has been anything but an unmitigated disaster for the US, from beginning to end, is just a joke. There is simply no question his administration has been both incompetent and corrupt. Additionally many of his decisions have had serious negative impacts on the economy, prolonging the recession unnecessarily. The additional burdensome regulations have likewise had significant negative effects on the economy, with real impacts on every American, as there are many people who have been laid off, and have been unable to find work, simply because companies aren't hiring in todays business climate. About the only ones who think Obama has been even slightly decent, are kool-aid drinkers. And for them, it really doesn't matter what he does. He could rape women, and murder babies. As long as he has a D next to his name, they would still defend hm.

My point remains: a good CEO does not necessarily make a good president. The last "business" president the US had (excluding Bush, who rode on his family's coattails) was Herbert Hoover.

Except that Romney is not just a business President. He has had far more then just a successful term as CEO. He also has successfully managed an Olympics, and the state of Massachusetts. No, there is no question that he has the skills and talent to handle the Presidency. Indeed, far and away better then the current occupant. Assuming that Romney does get the nomination, it will come down to a question of politics and trust. Who do people trust to manage the country, and who are they more aligned with politically.

And yes, there are yacht clubs in South Carolina, and yes, the majority of those voters are most likely Republican. What would you have the article begin with: "When Rick Santorum stood in front of voters at a home for single mothers?"

Nah....Just the truth

3 p.m.: Rick Santorum holds a town hall at Beaufort Yacht & Sailing Club in Beaufort, S.C.

I guess that was the best place to hold a public meeting.

A CEO guiding a growing business will do just what you have mentioned; those dissecting a mature business are in the Bain vein.

Agreed, and a very good point it is. One of the major challenges arises because those coming in to a mature business have, in essence, "inherited" it, and will almost certainly be driven by something other than a founder's vision.

My point remains: a good CEO does not necessarily make a good president.

I see your point. But it goes back to the question of just what is a "good CEO." I agree, the typical one deemed "good" by Fortune magazine or Bloomberg, may turn out to be a horrible president, just as a humble community organizer may turn out to be a darned good one. Touting Willard's "experience" in the private sector without really looking at his record of creating jobs is foolish and asking for trouble. In that case, rejecting his "CEO experience" is the wise thing to do.

With Bain, the idea was just to make a small handful of people very rich while thousands lost their jobs. When Willard claims he was worried about receiving a pink slip, people have to laugh at the spectacle of a guy with millions of dollars to back him up trying to relate his experience to the "common man."

A "good" CEO is like a "good" dog, yabits - and I mean that with no ill intent. A spitz or a sighthound will act quite differently to stimuli, though they are both being "good." A CEO guiding a growing business will do just what you have mentioned; those dissecting a mature business are in the Bain vein.

My point remains: a good CEO does not necessarily make a good president. The last "business" president the US had (excluding Bush, who rode on his family's coattails) was Herbert Hoover.

he did what CEOs are supposed to do, maximize return on capital.

I would put forth the notion that a good CEO has to do something slightly different. ROI is just a measurement. As the owner of a growing business, my main purpose is to drive myself and others towards a vision of really great products and services that provide a return on our customers' investment in us. The "bean counters" have a very limited role in what we do, but in vulture capital firms like Bain, they hold great power.

I was "fortunate" or unfortunate enough to experience working in a company that was purchased by a vulture capital group, though not Bain. I know firsthand and intimately that people mean nothing to them, other than what they can do for the vultures now. It's why Willard has maintained that corporations are people, and its corollary -- people are corporate entities -- must be true to him also.

Willard has said he enjoys firing people. It sounds to me like a general saying he enjoys killing people. Is that the kind of leader most Americans want? Well, in a relatively short time, they'll get to decide.

"The article is textbook bias. To wit, it starts off "When Rick Santorum stood in front of voters at a yacht club", a yacht club? Nice lead in to get that "rich fat cat Republican meme going."

So basically you're un-happy that the reports mentions Rick rubbing up to the high-rollers, Sail?

"Wasnt the Bush era destroying the car industries and a lot of other things :P"

They were destroying themselves, catering to a deluded national market that was bent on retaining hopelessly un-economical and unreliable vehicles. For once Bush isn't to blame.

He had a very successful, and profitable term as CEO.

Molenir, yes he did, and good for him: he did what CEOs are supposed to do, maximize return on capital. I have a dog, a whippet, and when he diverts a piece of meat, I don't blame him: that is what he does; I blame myself for leaving it within his reach.

Krugman elaborated on this the other day: the skillset that makes a good ＣＥＯ is not necessarily transferable to that of the presidency. Eliminate employee health benefits, say, or outsource labor to a cheaper country, and a CEO is doing his job: he has removed burdens from his balance sheet. It is not a CEOs responsibility to provide insurance or employment beyond what is required by law or regulation; asking anything else is like expecting a whippet to show restraint at the sight of a meat slab. It is not only unnatural; it is undesirable.

A president, though, is the leader of society as a whole. Eliminating enrollees in a health plan may help balance some budget, but it will most likely cost society more overall, as can be seen with America's dismal health level per dollar spent rating. Outsource crucial governmental components without care and you end up with examples such as DynCorp or Blackwater.

Let the CEOs do what they do and the government does what it does. Do not pretend that they are in any way similar.

Actually, what you should realize is that any failure of Obama is due to extension of george bush's time in office -- ie. the debt skyrocketed due to bush and Obama could do nothing against it that the GOP would not say 'no' to. What's more, thanks to Obama, last month's jobless rate was the lowest it's been in... wait for it... a long time (including towards the end of bush's second term!

Way to duck the question smith. I wonder, how long would Obama have to stay in office, and how long would the Dems have to remain in complete control of government, before Dems actually took the blame for the results of the decisions, rather then try to pass the blame on to Republicans. I mean, even back when Dems had complete and total control of congress, Republicans were to blame for everything the Dems screwed up. It was always Republicans getting in the way, that messed everything up. Even with Dems had a filibuster proof majority this was the case.

On the subject of this article. I find it sad, that Republicans themselves are now pointing to Romneys decisions while CEO, and claiming he killed jobs? He had a very successful, and profitable term as CEO. And yet, all the decisions he made, and those made both before and since he was the CEO at Bain capital are now being laid at his feet. I read one article that claimed that he was somehow responsible for workers being laid off by Bain in 2006, some 7 years after he stepped down as CEO. The leaps and contortions required to make this connection are staggering. Would be like saying I am responsible for causing cancer because I own a few shares in a tobacco company. Contrast the nonsense being thrown ad Romney with the question many people have asked, and which smith was so quick to try and deflect. What has Obama done to create jobs? Or since there are tons of examples, perhaps it would be better to ask, what has he done to kill them?

I don't even like Romney. To me, he is George Bush Lite. He's another big government Republican, and I really, really don't want another one of those. However since 95% of Americans would make a better President then our current one, I suspect I'll end up voting for the man if it comes down to him and Obama. I would have preferred either Cain or Bachman. After that, I would have supported Gingrich or, hold my nose, Perry. Until they came out with these moronic attacks. Now I'm left with Paul, who is, to be kind, a nutcase. However even he, nuts as he is would make a better President then Obama, and probably be better for the country then another Big Government Republican like Romney. Sad when it comes down to a choice between a lib with an R next to his name, and a loon like Paul. And then knowing that both would be better then the guy with the D, you have to wonder what the country is coming to.

Wasnt the Bush era destroying the car industries and a lot of other things :P

The two questions are distinctly unrelated, Sailwind. Reductions in social spending are formulaic - they will affect people across the board, nationally, equally. Defense cuts are selective. Ask a general question - "Do you support lower defense spending?" - as opposed to a specific question - "Do you support mothballing Fort Jackson?" - and you are bound to get radically different answers.

And yes, there are yacht clubs in South Carolina, and yes, the majority of those voters are most likely Republican. What would you have the article begin with: "When Rick Santorum stood in front of voters at a home for single mothers?" (Though, truthfully, a Santorum presidency would result in an increase of both, no doubt.)

There is no bias in the article:

The article is textbook bias. To wit, it starts off "When Rick Santorum stood in front of voters at a yacht club", a yacht club? Nice lead in to get that "rich fat cat Republican meme going. As pointed out doesn't even mention South Carolina's small population and the most egregious part.

Kedrowski's university recently polled South Carolina Republicans to ask about reducing the deficit by making cuts to government programs: 73% of voters said they weren't willing to have their current Social Security or Medicare benefits reduced to address budget concerns. More than half said they weren't willing to cut defense spending either.

Define more than half? 51% 59% 75%???? If it's 51% or 52% that means it's pretty much a tie and that a huge chunk of those Republicans, that the article is just trying to paint as hypocrites by omitting facts and details are more than willing to consider defense cuts after all, let's say 49% and that is from a population heavily dependent on the military for jobs and income. It isn't as if the L.A Times doesn't know the exact percentage but felt compelled not to publish it and let readers assume it also 73%.........Textbook Bias.

smith: "last month's jobless rate"

Is in reality, including those who have given up looking for work and who are working only part time but want full time work, is around 15%.

Sailwind, there was once a Japanese columnist who continually claimed that, because Japan had a smaller population than the US, it was natural for it to have a trade surplus: if every citizen from each country bought $100 worth of goods from the other, the US would buy more from Japan. Your argument is similar in its economic confusion. There is no bias in the article: NC would like to "cut the budget," save for the areas from which they primarily benefit. (This is not to mention, of course, deepening Charleston Harbor - Google it.)

Aside from that, if one sets aside the 80% of the budget spent on military and social services (neither of which NC citizens want cut), from where could they cut enough to significantly reduce the deficit? Or are they just mouthing "cut spending!" with no idea of what they are saying?

Willard speaks French and is a closet liberal if the latest attack ads are anything to go buy. Heh, the vindictive and back-stabbing, slander-fest continues..

Romney was named after hotel magnate J. Willard Marriott, his father's best friend, and his father's cousin Milton "Mitt" Romney, 1925–1929 quarterback for the Chicago Bears.

SC also has 20% of its population on Social Security, compared with 13% in California.

Which means that not only does South Carolina have a small population less than 1/2 of Los Angeles county. 20 percent of the small population is over 65 and collecting Social Security. Which as pointed out you have a small state with 7 military bases and 20 percent of population retired and on Social Security your going to get a higher percentage of federal dollars going to to the State. Your bias article could have saved their readers a lot of trouble and included South Carolina's total population so we could say........."Duh".

Willard Mitt Romney (born March 12, 1947) is an American businessman and politician. Ok so maybe according to Wikipedia Willard Mitt (my guess is that it is short for mittens) Romney is still some kind of anti Christ, my Evangelical cousins back in the USA told me so, so it must be true, right??

South Carolina is always the butt of jokes up in North Carolina, as my amigos from the North tell me.

SC also has 20% of its population on Social Security, compared with 13% in California. This in no way, though, makes the article biased, Sailwnd: the fact is that SC Republicans decry Federal spending unless it benefits them, and they seem to think that trillions are being wasted somewhere aside from defense and social programs.

Defense spending will have to be cut if overall Federal spending is to be reduced significantly. One might wonder the necessity of such a large military presence in SC. Wasteful spending starts in your own backyard, though I've heard no Republican voices at all on this issue,

sailwind thank you , So you don't think " WILLARD ROMNEY for PRESIDENT, would be good PR??

Personally, I can see why he decided to go with Mitt as his top moniker.

Laguna,

Your biased LA. Times article omitted a real important fact. South Carolina's population is only 4,561,242. You throw in the seven military bases that the article does mention on top of a very small population and of course they are going to get more federal spending per capita.

sailwind thank you , So you don't think " WILLARD ROMNEY for PRESIDENT, would be good PR??

Ah, those thrifty Red States! They all yearn to cut - no, SLASH Federal spending, unlike their prolific fellow citizens in the Blue States. South Carolina is particularly fed up. But - wait!

South Carolina and its residents benefit from government spending, more so than many other states. For every dollar the state pays in federal taxes, it receives $1.35 in federal government benefits. By contrast, California receives only 78 cents for every dollar it pays in taxes. (LA Times)

And their thrifty Republican voters!

73% of voters said they weren't willing to have their current Social Security or Medicare benefits reduced to address budget concerns. More than half said they weren't willing to cut defense spending either.

As a percentage of the Federal budget: defense, 20%; Social Security: 20%; Medicare, Medicaid: 21%; Safety Net Programs: 14%; interest on the debt: 6%. The remaining fifth is primarily comprised of benefits for veterans and federal retirees (7%), infrastructure (3%), education (3%), research (2%), non-defense international (1%), and other (2%).

The myth is that spending can be "slashed" without cutting defense or social programs. The myth is that great savings can be wrung out of elimination of "waste." Perhaps a fitting place to begin helping our brethren in the Red States understand the beneficial role of the Federal government in their lives is to pass a five-year law mandating Federal expenditures in each state equal that state's contributions.

Where does the Mitt fit in. Here is a man ashamed of his own name and he wants to be president.

Mitt is his given middle name and he prefers to go by it.

Triunvere, thank you, is that his real name,"WILLARD" love that name , has a certain ring to it. Where does the Mitt fit in. Here is a man ashamed of his own name and he wants to be president. You have to give it to President Barack Hussein Obama II, he liked his name and he became a president. Never change who you are.

Is that why I never have as much money as I think I should have? X(

Good thing I don't have to live with dollars.

Thanks for the Miss, though. ;-)

According to my hardcore Evagelical Christian relatives back in the USA, Mormons are a cult and not real Christians so there!! I ain't voting for some brain washed harem loving cult member in Republican clothing. Maybe 666??

Careful sailwind - Warren Buffet has donated about $30 billion to the B&MG Foundation. As on overall proportion, Bill Gates' personal contribution has been minor.

FamilienproblemeJAN. 15, 2012 - 03:01PM JST: Most Americans see money, money, money and want to see more, more, more in their own pockets more than anything else in the world. Its a sickness.

Your statement pertains to materialist people around the world. Those people exists. The majority of people want a job that pays decent to live off, buy a home, raise a family, go on a vacation (savings).

First, money is not the root of all evil. It depends on the owner. Second, unemployment is a big issue which means people are out of jobs and having to support a family. Third, the national debt should concerned everyone because it is them who are going to pay it back through taxation.

What's more, thanks to Obama, last month's jobless rate was the lowest it's been in... wait for it... a long time (including towards the end of bush's second term!

Under Obama.........Real median annual household income has dropped 5.1% since the recession ended, more than the 3.2% decline during the recession itself

Familien,

Bill Gates is worth 45 billion dollars. 10 million comes out to around .02 percent of his wealth. (My calc can't even handle these numbers). A tiny fraction of one percent.

Just for your information: The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has given over 26 Billion dollars to charitable endeavors since its inception.

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: Number of employees: approximately 980 Asset trust endowment: $33.5 billion Total grant commitments since inception: $26.19 billion Total 2010 grant payments: $2.6 billion*

10 million comes out to around .02 percent of his wealth

What is 0.02% of $50 genius? 1 penny. Exactly what I wrote. Time for you to get a new calculator.

You have been on this one for a while Mex. I thought you were joking but you wont let it go. His real name aint Mittens. Never was. But I do like calling him Mittens.

Mitt's real name is "Willard".

Most Americans

Scratch that. Most American voters, and that is not most Americans at all unfortunately.

Math is not your strong point, is it DentShop?

Bill Gates is worth 45 billion dollars. 10 million comes out to around .02 percent of his wealth. (My calc can't even handle these numbers). A tiny fraction of one percent.

If a homeless guy has one dollar, one penny is one full percent of his wealth. Homeless guy wins easy on the pain of giving if he has just one dollar in his pocket, or even far less.

Cant feed the hungry with respect and pennies dude. I will take the $10 mil any day.

You must be a big eater!

Yes I know that Bill's contribution accomplishes more. But my point is that he is not really generous. If half his wealth dissappeared tomorrow, he would not notice until his accountant knocked on his door at the end of the month. The man did not get to be worth 45 billion for being a philanthropist.

The point is that American generousity is great, but I don't want hear any chest thumping over it. Few Americans give til it hurts. And that is because they are beholden to money and wealth. And that is why economics ALWAYS dominate the elections, and why we get these crazy suggestions that the government can increase jobs without turning into a communist government or a bloated beaurocracy that will destroy freedom before collapsing. Most Americans see money, money, money and want to see more, more, more in their own pockets more than anything else in the world. Its a sickness.

smithinjapanJAN. 15, 2012 - 01:08PM JST: thanks to Obama, last month's jobless rate was the lowest it's been in... wait for it... a long time (including towards the end of bush's second term!

Obama didn't contribute to the jobless rate for last month. If we are talking about last month then that has to do with holidays hiring, and high demand for services/products which means over-time and temp workers. It happens every year for the months of November and December.

You can credit Obama for signing the National Defense Authorization Act. You can credit Obama for hiring Richard Cordray for the Consumer Watchdog position. You can credit Obama for Obamacare.

Actually, what you should realize is that any failure of Obama is due to extension of george bush's time in office

The number of Americans living in poverty rose to 46.2 million last year, nearly one in six people, according to the US Census Bureau's annual report.

The 2010 data shows the poverty rate at 15.1%, from 14.3% in 2009.

From a BBC article on Obama's time in office.

he gave a higher percentage of his wealth than say if Bill Gates gave away ten million dollars

Only if the homeless guy has less than $50 to his name

I will have more respect for the giving of the homeless guy

Cant feed the hungry with respect and pennies dude. I will take the $10 mil any day.

Serrano: "Question: What has Obama done to create jobs other than extend the Bush tax cuts?"

Actually, what you should realize is that any failure of Obama is due to extension of george bush's time in office -- ie. the debt skyrocketed due to bush and Obama could do nothing against it that the GOP would not say 'no' to. What's more, thanks to Obama, last month's jobless rate was the lowest it's been in... wait for it... a long time (including towards the end of bush's second term!

Mittens? He's proven indeed to be a job destroyer, not to mention destroying a lot of his personal records from when he was in office as Governor.

really? Guess I'll discard this info, then:

For purposes of the election, yes, you should.

Being ever concerned about money, and getting extremely rich for it, Americans can easily afford to give. But if a homeless guy give away one penny, he gave a higher percentage of his wealth than say if Bill Gates gave away ten million dollars, and so, I will have more respect for the giving of the homeless guy.

“Voters there are overwhelmingly focused on the economy this year

Please. The Americans are always worried about money first. Money, money, money! They hardly ever think about how they could get by and be happy with less. Its always more, more, more and me, me, me. And that is why America is individually and publically up to its eyeballs in debt. And they think the debt will pay itself and so scream for lower taxes.

Anyone telling you pretty stories, like it was Obama's fault, it selling you something. Stop being so gullible and greedy America!

Question: What has Obama done to create jobs other than extend the Bush tax cuts?

Question1: What could he do? Question2: Who voted no?

And tax cuts don't necessarily create jobs you know.

Question: What has Obama done to create jobs other than extend the Bush tax cuts?

Mittens, yup, Mitt Romney's real name, Mittens Romney

You have been on this one for a while Mex. I thought you were joking but you wont let it go. His real name aint Mittens. Never was. But I do like calling him Mittens.

This is going to get real ugly, but I am sure Mr.Obama will not let Mittens, yup, Mitt Romney's real name, Mittens Romney, heard it on the Ed Shultz show they other day, old Mittens will have a fun time trying to explain how he FIRED so many people when he was in charge of that equity firm, Bain Capital. We should call Mittens more like the AX MAN, and his mittens are more like leather gloves, full our sweat and blood that in no hesitation will lob of our heads just to make those in power, RICHER AND RICHER and the regular Joe busting his ass for some factory etc..means nothing to these greedy evil REPUBLICANS.