Romney's bogus claim of being a "job creator" debunked!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 3:39 PM GMT
    Unsurprisingly, Romney is full of shit.

    Greg Sargent* Mitt Romney’s central jobs claims revealed to be bogus: Finally! The Romney campaign has now been pressed to justify the central claims he’s been making about jobs and the economy. As I’ve noted here, Romney has been saying over 100,000 jobs were created on his watch at Bain Capital — an assertion that’s never been proven -- while arguing that jobs were destroyed on Obama’s watch, proof that Romney is the superior candidate on jobs.

    And guess what: Romney’s argument has now been revealed to be thoroughly bogus.

    Post writer Glenn Kesler pressed Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom to justify the 100,000 jobs assertion, and he offers this:

    Fehrnstrom says the 100,000 figure stems from the growth in jobs from three companies that Romney helped to start or grow while at Bain Capital: Staples (a gain of 89,000 jobs), The Sports Authority (15,000 jobs), and Domino’s (7,900 jobs).

    This tally obviously does not include job losses from other companies with which Bain Capital was involved — and are based on current employment figures, not the period when Romney worked at Bain.

    Got that? Romney is only counting jobs gained at companies restructured at Bain during and after his years there — and is not factoring in jobs lost — in claiming he created over 100,000 jobs.


    Meanwhile, as the Romney camp concedes to Kessler, in making the claim Obama is a job destroyer, Romney is factoring in the jobs that were lost during Obama’s presidency — before Obama’s policies went into effect. In other words, Romney is calculating a “net” number for Obama, and isn’t calculating a net number for himself. Just wow. As the charts drawn up by Steve Benen and Paul Krugman show, if you apply to Obama the metric Romney is applying to himself, around 2.3 million jobs were created on Obama’s watch.

    While there’s no denying that Obama’s policies haven’t created jobs as fast as we would like, it’s obvious that Romney’s “net” Obama job loss claim is itself silly. That’s because he’s pointing to it as proof that Obama’s policies failed — even though hundreds of thousands of the jobs lost predated the stimulus kicking in. But more broadly, it’s now beyond doubt that the overall comparison Romney continues to draw between the two records is just laughably dishonest. Here’s hoping media outlets will point this out the next 100 times Romney makes these claims.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum/2012/01/04/gIQAGpyJaP_blog.html?tid=sm_btn_tw
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 3:45 PM GMT
    Like all the other Republicans, Romney is a liar.

    Lincoln and Eisenhower must be rolling in their graves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 3:50 PM GMT
    He was correct but did not provide the complete picture. On the balance, private equity tends to be job neutral, with gains and losses roughly offsetting each other, as a study linked from this thread shows. The thing for Romney campaign, or Republicans if he is the nominee, is to net out a complex topic into sound bites so that the most unsophisticated will understand.

    As far as context to the specific back and forth from the blog, those specific allegations would need Romney team's response before conclusions could be drawn.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2048036/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 3:56 PM GMT
    GAMRican saidLike all the other Republicans, Romney is a liar.

    Lincoln and Eisenhower must be rolling in their graves.

    Ah, but wait for it... the RJ Conservaposse, when faced with evidence of Republican lying or malfeasance, will either --

    - Vigorously deny it for as long as they can, or...
    - Throw more distortions into the fray, or...
    - Claim that all politicians do it, including Democrats, to negate any criticism by rolling Democrats into the guilt, typically with little evidence for the charge
    - And if none of that works, hurl ad hominem attacks against those posting unfavorable facts about Republicans

    The net result of the "everyone does it" defense is that ordinary Americans lose all faith in the political process, an essential to the maintenance of a democracy. Which is of no concern to Republicans so long as they think it advantages them and keeps them in power.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 4:05 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidHe was correct but did not provide the complete picture. On the balance, private equity tends to be job neutral, with gains and losses roughly offsetting each other, as a study linked from this thread shows. The thing for Romney campaign, or Republicans if he is the nominee, is to net out a complex topic into sound bites so that the most unsophisticated will understand.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/2048036/


    I think Greg Sargent does a pretty good job of demonstrating that Romney is not "job creator." And once they start running the commercials with all the Americans who lost their jobs because of Bain's desire to ring all the profit out of the businesses they acquired.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jan 04, 2012 4:08 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidonce they start running the commercials with all the Americans who lost their jobs because of Bain's desire to ring all the profit out of the businesses they acquired.



    God forbid a company would try to be successful with a "desire to ring all the profit out of the businesses they acquired". Is that really so unusual?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 4:28 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidGod forbid a company would try to be successful with a "desire to ring all the profit out of the businesses they acquired". Is that really so unusual?

    Except when it becomes a destructive exercise, variously known as pillaging, looting, raiding, running into the ground, and some other terms. Designed not to keep a company alive, but to feast on its carcass.

    Corporate raiding was the subplot to the 1990 movie Pretty Woman with Richard Gere. Profit is good, but killing the goose that lays those golden eggs is not. Bain & Company during Romney's tenure there may have been doing exactly that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 4:29 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 saidonce they start running the commercials with all the Americans who lost their jobs because of Bain's desire to ring all the profit out of the businesses they acquired.



    God forbid a company would try to be successful with a "desire to ring all the profit out of the businesses they acquired". Is that really so unusual?


    Good businesses reinvest profits in the company to grow and expand where possible, they share increased profits with their workers in the form of salary increases and bonuses, or hire more workers, etc. What Bain did was extract whatever profit and wealth could be extracted and then send the many of the businesses into bankruptcy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 4:30 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    CuriousJockAZ saidGod forbid a company would try to be successful with a "desire to ring all the profit out of the businesses they acquired". Is that really so unusual?

    Except when it becomes a destructive exercise, variously known as pillaging, looting, raiding, running into the ground, and some other terms. Designed not to keep a company alive, but to feast on its carcass.

    Corporate raiding was the subplot to the 1990 movie Pretty Woman with Richard Gere. Profit is good, but killing the goose that lays those golden eggs is not.


    You'd think these guys never read "Barbarians At The Gate" icon_rolleyes.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jan 04, 2012 4:31 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    You'd think these guys never read "Barbarians At The Gate" icon_rolleyes.gif



    I suspect you have never actually run a company
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 4:32 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidYou'd think these guys never read "Barbarians At The Gate" icon_rolleyes.gif

    If they read it, they conveniently forgot it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 4:37 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    You'd think these guys never read "Barbarians At The Gate" icon_rolleyes.gif



    I suspect you have never actually run a company


    I run a nonprofit right now. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jan 04, 2012 4:42 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    You'd think these guys never read "Barbarians At The Gate" icon_rolleyes.gif



    I suspect you have never actually run a company


    I run a nonprofit right now. icon_rolleyes.gif



    The operative word being "nonprofit" icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 4:45 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    You'd think these guys never read "Barbarians At The Gate" icon_rolleyes.gif



    I suspect you have never actually run a company


    I run a nonprofit right now. icon_rolleyes.gif



    The operative word being "nonprofit" icon_rolleyes.gif


    Ask anyone who has run a non-profit and for-profit corporation and they'll tell you there's virtually no difference...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 4:57 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 saidonce they start running the commercials with all the Americans who lost their jobs because of Bain's desire to ring all the profit out of the businesses they acquired.



    God forbid a company would try to be successful with a "desire to ring all the profit out of the businesses they acquired". Is that really so unusual?
    Nope, but it sure is like pouring salt into the wounds of the un/under employed because their jobs were cut for profit margins..
    Also doesnt sound so good when you're campaigning on 'creating' jobs.icon_wink.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jan 04, 2012 4:57 PM GMT
    Christian73 said

    Ask anyone who has run a non-profit and for-profit corporation and they'll tell you there's virtually no difference...



    That you are putting a nonprofit that you run (or any nonprofit for that matter) on the same level of a Bain Capital does give me a good chuckle.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jan 04, 2012 4:58 PM GMT
    TropicalMark saidbut it sure is like pouring salt into the wounds of the un/under employed because their jobs were cut for profit margins..


    Yes, granted, the truth hurts sometimes and "Reality Bites" but, like it or not, businesses are in business to make a profit. This should be no surprise to anyone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 4:59 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    You'd think these guys never read "Barbarians At The Gate" icon_rolleyes.gif



    I suspect you have never actually run a company


    I run a nonprofit right now. icon_rolleyes.gif



    The operative word being "nonprofit" icon_rolleyes.gif


    Ask anyone who has run a non-profit and for-profit corporation and they'll tell you there's virtually no difference...
    Thats true.. and sometimes it is much more difficult to run the non profit for several reasons.. one of them being gasp.. profit!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 5:00 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    TropicalMark saidbut it sure is like pouring salt into the wounds of the un/under employed because their jobs were cut for profit margins..


    Yes, granted, the truth hurts sometimes and "Reality Bites" but, like it or not, businesses are in business to make a profit. This should be no surprise to anyone.
    Thats true.. but his history with Bain will definitely hurt him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 5:00 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said

    Ask anyone who has run a non-profit and for-profit corporation and they'll tell you there's virtually no difference...



    That you are putting a nonprofit that you run (or any nonprofit for that matter) on the same level of a Bain Capital does give me a good chuckle.


    I didn't compare the two. You did.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 5:01 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said

    Ask anyone who has run a non-profit and for-profit corporation and they'll tell you there's virtually no difference...



    That you are putting a nonprofit that you run (or any nonprofit for that matter) on the same level of a Bain Capital does give me a good chuckle.
    He didnt put any non profit on the same level as "Bain Capital".. Bain was NOT in the business of creating jobs nor products.. its sole purpose was capital wealth.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jan 04, 2012 5:02 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    That you are putting a nonprofit that you run (or any nonprofit for that matter) on the same level of a Bain Capital does give me a good chuckle.


    I didn't compare the two. You did.






    Really? Guess my NYQUIL haze had me misread...
    Christian73 saidAsk anyone who has run a non-profit and for-profit corporation and they'll tell you there's virtually no difference...
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jan 04, 2012 5:04 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    his history with Bain will definitely hurt him.


    Probably not with anyone who has ever had to make the tough decisions to save a company or make it profitable.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Jan 04, 2012 5:05 PM GMT
    Countdown to Christian going into attack mode in 5...4...3...2...1...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 5:06 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Christian73 said
    That you are putting a nonprofit that you run (or any nonprofit for that matter) on the same level of a Bain Capital does give me a good chuckle.


    I didn't compare the two. You did.






    Really? Guess my NYQUIL haze had me misread...
    Christian73 saidAsk anyone who has run a non-profit and for-profit corporation and they'll tell you there's virtually no difference...
    El Chorro is NOT the same 'level' as Bain Capital.. or is it?