Romney's record at Bain Capitol: Does it matter?

[Conan71]

If Obama had worked at a PE firm or Romney were the Democrat candidate, I'm sure we'd be hearing only the good about PE firms from those who are in the tank for Obama this time around.

[nathanm]

If Obama had worked at a PE firm or Romney were the Democrat candidate, I'm sure we'd be hearing only the good about PE firms from those who are in the tank for Obama this time around.

Yes, looking at Romney and seeing someone who will only accelerate the deterioration of the issues I find most important means I'm in the tank for Obama. It doesn't help when I look at those he's surrounded himself with and see a bunch of Bush-era holdovers. Nor does it help when he waxes poetic about how great it is to have Cheney advising him. It's also not helpful to my disposition when he claims Obama is attacking "free enterprise" when he's actually just talking about LBO shops.

Bain is just a distraction beyond Romney being caught out in a blatant exaggeration of his job creation record. The only good it does is provide a starting point for a national discussion about how capitalism and free enterprise should be harnessed to work best for all of us and not just a subset of us.

[Hoss]

He's qualified to run the country because he can read a balance sheet?

that's like saying Gaspar's qualified to be governor because he makes BBQ sauce.

http://thepage.time.com/2012/05/23/the-complete-romney-interview-transcript/

And sometime recently, he said unless Obama had unemployment down to 4 percent, his Presidency would be a failure.  Yet he says his target is six percent.

Could someone please extract the foot out of this guys' mouth?

[Hoss]

If Obama had worked at a PE firm or Romney were the Democrat candidate, I'm sure we'd be hearing only the good about PE firms from those who are in the tank for Obama this time around.

Let's not forget though that it's Romney who has brought his experience as a PE into the race.  It may be his undoing in the end.

[Gaspar]

Let's not forget though that it's Romney who has brought his experience as a PE into the race.  It may be his undoing in the end.

I don't think so. . .I'll say it again. . .21 million employees, $15 trillion in debt, and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Sounds like the U.S. could use Bain!

[Hoss]

I don't think so. . .I'll say it again. . .21 million employees, $15 trillion in debt, and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Sounds like the U.S. could use Bain!

But when a state underperforms, you can't just spin it off....I fail to see why being a good businessman = good president.  Bush was a good businessman by all accounts.

Enough said.

[Conan71]

But when a state underperforms, you can't just spin it off....I fail to see why being a good businessman = good president.  Bush was a good businessman by all accounts.

Enough said.

I fail to see where community organizer, state representative, and Jr. Senator = good president. 

It's about leadership Hoss, and discerning who has a better track record of innovation and leadership.  Who has worked in the real world and actually created or helped create jobs.  What we have now is a bunch of academians applying theory to the economy, health care, etc.  Personally, I don't think McCain would have done any better of a job the last four years.  He's taken leadership on issues in the Senate but he's never run anything I'm aware of.  I also think we may have wound up with a much deeper role in Afghanistan and Iraq under McCain.

I will give President Obama an "A-" on foreign policy so far.  I'd give him an A+ if it weren't for his tenuous position on Israel.  His economic record is a complete disaster and that's the main issue in the country right now.  They want us to believe it's about a war on women, a culture war, or poor race relations but those are just distractions from the real issue and the real failure of the Obama administration for millions of Americans.

[Hoss]

I fail to see where community organizer, state representative, and Jr. Senator = good president. 

It's about leadership Hoss, and discerning who has a better track record of innovation and leadership.  Who has worked in the real world and actually created or helped create jobs.  What we have now is a bunch of academians applying theory to the economy, health care, etc.  Personally, I don't think McCain would have done any better of a job the last four years.  He's taken leadership on issues in the Senate but he's never run anything I'm aware of.  I also think we may have wound up with a much deeper role in Afghanistan and Iraq under McCain.

I will give President Obama an "A-" on foreign policy so far.  I'd give him an A+ if it weren't for his tenuous position on Israel.  His economic record is a complete disaster and that's the main issue in the country right now.  They want us to believe it's about a war on women, a culture war, or poor race relations but those are just distractions from the real issue and the real failure of the Obama administration for millions of Americans.

I never said he was or wasn't.  I'm just trying to keep the response to the subject of the thread.

Marshalls.

[Red Arrow]

But when a state underperforms, you can't just spin it off...

Maybe we can get rid of a few under-performers.  Let's start with California.

[nathanm]

His economic record is a complete disaster and that's the main issue in the country right now.

A complete disaster, really? The guy had employment rising again within months. Corporate profitability has been near records since he took office. Would you like him to also round up all the CEOs and kick them in the teeth repeatedly until they agree to hire more people?

Red Arrow, California has a revenue problem, not a spending problem. That's what happens when you fix property taxes at 1978 levels.

[Conan71]

A complete disaster, really? The guy had employment rising again within months. Corporate profitability has been near records since he took office. Would you like him to also round up all the CEOs and kick them in the teeth repeatedly until they agree to hire more people?

Red Arrow, California has a revenue problem, not a spending problem. That's what happens when you fix property taxes at 1978 levels.

Corporate profit is at near record levels as businesses are making do with fewer employees.  Job creation has been anemic by any standard.

[nathanm]

Job creation has been anemic by any standard.

Well, other than his predecessor and Hoover, yeah. That's what happens when government spending is significantly reduced in the middle of the worst economic period since the great depression. Demographic shifts are making the numbers look even worse.

And really, since we bottomed out prior to the Census, employment has grown about as fast as it did under Bush (between the trough and peak) despite the decrease in government-sector employment. Bush presided over increasing government sector employment and posted the same numbers. Clearly, his economic plan was better. Also interesting is that from the first day to his last day in office, Bush had a fairly significant net loss of jobs. Thus far, Obama is in the positive.

So the answer to Reagan's question "are you better off today than you were four years ago," is "yes" for a lot of folks. Republicans have done a pretty good job of rewriting history and shifting much of the blame for the crash itself (and even TARP) to Obama, though. I think it's fairly clear the public doesn't really trust either the Democrats or the Republicans right now. Those who aren't part of the Republican faithful seem even less sympathetic to the Republican narrative than the Democratic one, though. Not that they really like either one. They recognize that both parties are largely corrupt and hate them for it.

I think folks are ripe for a real change, but the only alternatives presented so far have just been nuttier versions of the existing parties rather than something new.

[Conan71]

Well, other than his predecessor and Hoover, yeah. That's what happens when government spending is significantly reduced in the middle of the worst economic period since the great depression. Demographic shifts are making the numbers look even worse.

And really, since we bottomed out prior to the Census, employment has grown about as fast as it did under Bush (between the trough and peak) despite the decrease in government-sector employment. Bush presided over increasing government sector employment and posted the same numbers. Clearly, his economic plan was better. Also interesting is that from the first day to his last day in office, Bush had a fairly significant net loss of jobs. Thus far, Obama is in the positive.

So the answer to Reagan's question "are you better off today than you were four years ago," is "yes" for a lot of folks. Republicans have done a pretty good job of rewriting history and shifting much of the blame for the crash itself (and even TARP) to Obama, though. I think it's fairly clear the public doesn't really trust either the Democrats or the Republicans right now. Those who aren't part of the Republican faithful seem even less sympathetic to the Republican narrative than the Democratic one, though. Not that they really like either one. They recognize that both parties are largely corrupt and hate them for it.

I think folks are ripe for a real change, but the only alternatives presented so far have just been nuttier versions of the existing parties rather than something new.

His job creation numbers suck even compared to that economic whiz Jiminy Carter.

Those who still are out of work aren't better off than they were four years ago.  That's what could and should kick Obama's donkey in the fall.  People who are still impacted by the sluggish economy and job picture could care less what job creation was like under Bush, Clinton, Bush, & Reagan.  All they care about is why they aren't working now and who is presiding over the economy.  After four years, previous presidents are pretty irrelevant to an election.

[erfalf]

Did I miss the memo where government spending was reduced? I thought we just reduced the increase. You know, baseline budgeting.

And while I believe Bush deserves plenty of blame (he does for sure), I have noticed that much of the hub ub on spending lately has tried to use 2009 as a baseline. Granted Bush was President, but who controlled Congress?

[Gaspar]

His job creation numbers suck even compared to that economic whiz Jiminy Carter.

Those who still are out of work aren't better off than they were four years ago.  That's what could and should kick Obama's donkey in the fall.  People who are still impacted by the sluggish economy and job picture could care less what job creation was like under Bush, Clinton, Bush, & Reagan.  All they care about is why they aren't working now and who is presiding over the economy.  After four years, previous presidents are pretty irrelevant to an election.

From Droopy's Malase Speech:
"I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation's problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice."

As President Carter learned, voters will be looking for the candidate who can deliver them the perception of CERTANTY.

Jimmy Carter called it "A Crisis of Confidence" and he hit the nail on the head, though he did not possess the leadership or personality to correct it.  Lack of confidence and uncertainty are emotional factors, and more powerful in an economy than almost any other critical factor.  It requires leadership to change perception.

As I've said before, the primary problem with mechanisms like Keynesian modeling is that they treat people in a mechanical factor to predict outcomes.  Doesn't work that way, never has, never will. Because the future is always unknown, individuals rely a great deal on emotion, to make decisions.  Though we are technically out of recession and have been for years, the emotional position that many individuals take is that the recession lingers.  This keeps employers from hiring and businesses from expanding. 

Why does it linger?  Blow after blow of promises to raise taxes. Direct indictment after indictment of the investment market that drives business in this country.   A paralysis of congress caused by pushing legislation through crisis rather than debate.  No clear budget capable of garnering a single vote from either party.  A program that rewards tight financial markets. A clear focus on the production of entitlement programs to buy votes instead of economic growth to earn votes.