Mitt Romney outraises Barack Obama; Barack Obama outspends Mitt Romney

From The New York Times:

Obama Spends the Most, but Romney Raises More

By Nicholas Confessore and Derek Willis | Published: July 20, 2012

President Obama outspent Mitt Romney 2 to 1 in June even as Mr. Romney far outraised him, according to campaign reports filed on Friday with the Federal Election Commission, leaving Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party with significantly less cash on hand than Mr. Romney and the Republicans as polls show a head-to-head race.

Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee spent $70.8 million in June, including about $38 million on television advertising, as the president’s campaign sought to batter Mr. Romney over his ties to Bain Capital, the private equity firm.

Mr. Romney and the Republican National Committee spent $38.8 million, including about $11 million on television advertising — more than double what Mr. Romney’s campaign spent in May but far less than Mr. Obama.

But because money raised for the election cannot be spent until after the two parties hold their nominating conventions at the end of the summer, Mr. Obama appears to have far more money available to spend in the critical weeks ahead, when each candidate seeks to define the other.

In other words, President Obama is able to spend more before the conventions, due to federal election laws, than is former Governor Romney, because the President had no (serious) primary opposition. This seems to your Editor like a wholly unbalanced law, which enables incumbents a window in which they can exercise an unfair advantage over challengers.

But, that said, as the Times noted, the race is a dead heat right now, according to the polls, and this is after the President’s campaign dramatically outspent the Romney campaign in a media blitz trying to capitalize — pun intended — on Mr Romney’s role at Bain. As noted here, that campaign strategy hasn’t seemed to have worked all that well. Perhaps this has been just wasted money by the Obama campaign, or perhaps the President would be far behind without such expenditures; no one can know what would have happened without them.

Karen noted:

President Obama’s campaign spent $38 million on ads and $58 million overall in June, while Romney’s campaign spent less than half that and continue to build up its reserves for the fall campaign.

Obama’s campaign raised $46 million in June, including a $17 million transfer from a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee, but it spent $58 million and saw its cash on hand fall to $97.5 million.

That $97.5 million figure is far more than Romney’s official campaign had at the end of June: $22.5 million. But the Romney effort is stashing huge reserves in its joint fundraising committee — nearly $58 million — and the Republican National Committee has nearly $90 million on hand, meaning that between the three, the Romney effort has about $170 million in cash.

Obama, meanwhile, doesn’t have such large cash reserves in his joint committee or the DNC. His joint committee has just $9 million, and the DNC’s June report showed $37.5 million cash on hand. (Read More)

Wow, it seems Obama’s about a good a steward of his campaign money as he is of taxpayer funds.

Expect to hear the liberals cry about “money in politics” because the only money they like in politics is money in the hands of Democrats.

Karen’s point is well-taken: our friends on the left certainly didn’t complain when Senator Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL) broke his promise to remain within the public financing system in 2008, after he decided that he could significantly outraise and outspend Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in the general election campaign. The campaign button on the left will take you to the Romney campaign website, where you can make a donation to help President Obama to get a four-year-head start on his presidential memoirs. Your Editor has already made one donation to the campaign, and will be donating more.

The election is still 3½ months away, and anything can happen, but this is good news.

62 Comments

  1. Pingback: Mitt Romney Now Tops Obama in Campaign Cash | The Lonely Conservative

  2. It’s almost as if most voters don’t really care what Mitt Romney did as CEO at Bain Capital a decade ago — though he did make a solid profit for his employers — but are more concerned about what President Obama is doing, or failing to do, right now.

  3. I have made this point before, and will make it again, President Obama did the right think in attempting to jump start various start-ups in the solar industry. The government does this sort of thing frequently. What was not foreseen was the sudden availability of cheap natural gas from the fracking process, making the solar enterprises sudden failures. And speaking of fracking, not only does the process produce more greenhouse gases which will exacerbate further our global warming problem, but also the process itself not only contaminates groundwater drinking water supplies, but it also liberates natural gas itself, methane, which is four times more powerful a greenhouse gas than it carbon dioxide. So solar and wind and even nuclear remain far better energy alternatives.

    Second point: Your figure does not include the jobs shipped overseas, the pensions lost, shareholder value lost from companies which went bankrupt, all these negatives not included in Romney’s road to “success”. To me, this does not constitute a complete success story, it constitutes making profits from the losses of a very large number of people. But then, this is how you extremists are, ignoring the big picture in the total scheme of things.

  4. Solar energy, unless you live in Phoenix maybe, it a dumb idea. Where do you get energy when the sun isn’t shining, or, more obviously, at night? Ditto for windmills when there’s no breeze. Obama should have known better than to waste money on such ventures.

  5. WW wrote:

    I have made this point before, and will make it again, President Obama did the right think in attempting to jump start various start-ups in the solar industry. The government does this sort of thing frequently. What was not foreseen was the sudden availability of cheap natural gas from the fracking process, making the solar enterprises sudden failures.

    Really? Last time you addressed this, you blamed the Chinese government subsidies to their own solar panel industry for causing the prices of panels to drop. Now it’s fracking. I do wish that you’d make up your mind! :)

    [Comment edited: it included a further quotation from Wagonwheel that I had intended to address, but was interrupted by real life. -- Editor]

  6. “Solar energy, unless you live in Phoenix maybe, it a dumb idea. Where do you get energy when the sun isn’t shining, or, more obviously, at night? Ditto for windmills when there’s no breeze. Obama should have known better than to waste money on such ventures.”

    Eric, then you know nothing about using the uses of solar energy. Typically it is used by installing solar panels on the roof of a house or on a stand near a house. It can be used to heat your hot water, and as a supplement to the house heating system. Or a home can be designed and situated in such a manner as to trap heat from the sun. Solar panel panel arrays can be installed in fields and the electricity produced can be fed into the grid in the same manner that wind produced electricity can. The solar generated electricity can also be used to charge batteries for energy storage, and can also be stored by pumping groundwater into high storage tanks.

    Were you really unaware of these uses of solar energy?

    The whole idea is to reduce the need for fossil fuels, thus reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases regarding global warming, and to save money in the long run on fuel and energy costs.

  7. “Really? Last time you addressed this, you blamed the Chinese government subsidies to their own solar panel industry for causing the prices of panels to drop. Now it’s fracking. I do wish that you’d make up your mind! :)

    Well that’s true to; thanks for the reminder.

    [Comment edited to repair broken html tag; no changes made to text. -- Editor]

  8. “You have no proof that Romney shipped jobs overseas, that’s just another LIE.”

    The “LIE” is yours, Eric, either intentionally or in ignorance, you choose!

    Here, read this:

    “A couple of weeks ago, the Washington Post published a report detailing how Bain Capital, under Mitt Romney’s leadership, invested in companies that specialize in outsourcing American jobs, creating a surge of media and public interest in his relationship to the private equity firm. Since then, the Romney campaign has offered one lame comeback after another — from splitting hairs over the terms “outsourcing” and “offshoring” and trying to drum up VP speculation, to flat out “whining” as Karl Rove put it — in an attempt to distract voters from the real issue: Mitt Romney has personally made, and continues to make, millions from shipping American jobs overseas.

    Decimating American jobs through offshoring is a main element of what we’ll call the Romney Economy, an economic ideology that focuses exclusively on enriching America’s wealthiest individuals via tax cuts for the rich, and a business ideology centered on taking over companies, siphoning off the profits, laying off workers, and leaving crummy low-wage jobs for everyone else. Exemplified by Bain Capital, the Romney Economy involves sacrificing the jobs, security and well being of working Americans in order to funnel wealth to a relatively few extraordinarily rich folks in the financial industry.”

    There are links withing the above article detailing Romney’s outsourcing of jobs.

    Thus, it is a fact: Mitt Romney has personally made, and continues to make, millions from shipping American jobs overseas.

    This is the record on which Mitt Romney thinks he can run. His Bain Capital record is ripe for continual attack, and you can be sure he will be attacked on it, with vigor.

    Do we want for our next President a person who has made millions on outsourcing American jobs, I ask?

  9. The solar generated electricity can also be used to charge batteries for energy storage, and can also be stored by pumping groundwater into high storage tanks.

    Were you really unaware of these uses of solar energy?

    My point is it is not a reliable source for making electricity, and especially not on a large scale, such as powering a whole city.

  10. Thus, it is a fact: Mitt Romney has personally made, and continues to make, millions from shipping American jobs overseas.

    You have not provided any evidence that Romney shipped a single job overseas. It’s a big fat lie, just like I said.

  11. The question is – who has the greater incentive to lie, Romney, a devout Mormom, or Perry, an atheist and moral relativist (not to mention, a proven liar right here on this site)?

  12. I have absolutely no objection to private entrepreneurs investing their own money, and the money of other private individuals or companies who voluntarily choose to invest in solar panel manufacturers, or solar power stations, or anything of the sort. And I have provided concrete for a solar power project, though neither my company nor I personally have money invested in the solar plant project. If the project succeeds, great, more power to them — pun intended.

    But this is not something in which the federal government should be involved. If the plant is a success, great; the federal government will see some tax money from the project. If not, the federal government will still see some tax receipts, from the money already paid out for steel, solar panels, my concrete, labor, all of the things which have gone into the construction of this still unfinished project.

  13. Last week Lockheed Aviation announce the development of a ground based laser technology for recharging small battery operated drone aircraft in flight.

    If Lockheed can use lasers to send wireless electrical power over relatively short distances, maybe they can refine the technology so ground based stations can receive power from solar energy collectors in high orbit where the sun’s radiant energy is many times stronger than the highly filtered energy we receive on the surface.

    This new technology may well be the holy grail of solar energy. It may be a good idea to consider buying Lockheed stock.

  14. Wagonwheel wrote:

    This is the record on which Mitt Romney thinks he can run. His Bain Capital record is ripe for continual attack, and you can be sure he will be attacked on it, with vigor.

    Oh, I’m sure y’all will, but at least so far, it doesn’t seem to have done you much good. From the Times article quoted in the main article above:

    Mr. Obama and the Democratic National Committee spent $70.8 million in June, including about $38 million on television advertising, as the president’s campaign sought to batter Mr. Romney over his ties to Bain Capital, the private equity firm.

    Mr. Romney and the Republican National Committee spent $38.8 million, including about $11 million on television advertising — more than double what Mr. Romney’s campaign spent in May but far less than Mr. Obama.

    You pursued that track, outspent the Republicans two-to-one, and in that time frame Governor Romney closed the gap and pulled even with President Obama in the polls. At least so far, what you’ve tried hasn’t worked.

    Do we want for our next President a person who has made millions on outsourcing American jobs, I ask?

    Well, at least he succeeded in something; that’s more than President Obama can say.

    Mitt Romney was CEO at Bain Capital more than a decade ago; Barack Obama is President of the United States right now. The American people are concerned with right now, and the ability of the President and his Administration to make this country a better, more prosperous place. Perhaps Mitt Romney won’t succeed in doing that — no one can know until he actually tries — but we do know that Barack Obama can’t do that.

    You keep on and keep on screaming, “OMG, Romney’s rich!” but that looming 8.2% unemployment rate is standing over your pumpkin heads, and that is what the American people are really concerned about.

  15. ropelight wrote:

    This new technology may well be the holy grail of solar energy. It may be a good idea to consider buying Lockheed stock.

    But, but, but Lockheed-Martin is a Defense contractor! It would be morally wrong to invest in LMT! :)

  16. Mitt Romney was CEO at Bain Capital more than a decade ago; Barack Obama is President of the United States right now. The American people are concerned with right now, and the ability of the President and his Administration to make this country a better, more prosperous place. Perhaps Mitt Romney won’t succeed in doing that — no one can know until he actually tries — but we do know that Barack Obama can’t do that.

    You keep on and keep on screaming, “OMG, Romney’s rich!” but that looming 8.2% unemployment rate is standing over your pumpkin heads, and that is what the American people are really concerned about.

    As I said elsewhere, the Obama people want to run like a cheap pair of pantyhose from his actual record, which explains these desperate attacks on Romney’s business career.

  17. If Lockheed can use lasers to send wireless electrical power over relatively short distances, maybe they can refine the technology so ground based stations can receive power from solar energy collectors in high orbit where the sun’s radiant energy is many times stronger than the highly filtered energy we receive on the surface.

    The problem with this is, even if the laser technology worked, it would be prohibively expensive to put enough solar panels in space to make a difference here on Earth. Presently it costs about a million dollars to launch a pound of cargo into space, so imagine the cost of a giant array big enough to power a city. Finally, orbiting panels, just like land based ones, would still spend half their time in darkness, making them useless 50% of the time.

  18. “”

    You keep on and keep on screaming, “OMG, Romney’s rich!” but that looming 8.2% unemployment rate is standing over your pumpkin heads, and that is what the American people are really concerned about.

    No, Mr Editor, I never said that.

    But I will tell you what does worry me about Romney: He has been a leader in the culture war which has been waged in this country ever since the ’70′s. Romney’s Bain Capital has been a pioneer in this war, and to great success for Romney and his fellow vulture capitalists, who have made tens of billions of dollars by bankrupting companies and outsourcing/off-shoring American jobs. As we speak, Bain Capital’s net worth is about $63B!

    The good news is that this has made American corporations highly efficient and profitable, therefore attractive to shareholders.

    Unfortunately, recessions along the way, and now this Great Recession, have caused the retail stock investors and pension funds tons of money. On the other hand, the top 1% have thrived, and have an inordinately large proportion of our nation’s wealth, I believe the largest proportion in our history. This amount of power in the hands of a few is terrible news for our Republic, in my view.

    Here is my reading assignment to those of you who care about the direction of our country, especially the direction it might go if Mitt Romney is elected, thinking that he may govern the way he led Bain Capital. It is a piece by Benjamin Wallace-Wells, published in the New York Magazine last October. I predict that you will be surprised by the business model for Bain Capital and the ramifications thereof, both the pluses for running highly efficient businesses, and the minuses about what happens to the workers in the whole process.

  19. And speaking about reading assignments, here is another piece published in the NYT, also last October, by Frank Rich, focusing on a comparison between the Bonus Army veterans who occupied DC in 1932, and the Occupy Wall Street movement of last year.

    Commenter “SBLEWIS” had this to say about Frank Rich and how he sees the last 75 years of our history, which he/she calls a “hangover”, a very thought provoking piece to be sure:

    “Frank Rich is a good soul. He has a decent understanding of where things stand. He has no clue how we got where we are.

    Frank is an unreconstructed FDR liberal. He cannot read the bond market. He cannot read cause and effect. Nor can those who have comment, it seems. New York Magazine self-sorts. It’s pathetic. It’s the New York Scene gone national.

    The Norwegian socialist misses the point. The USA is not Norway. Norway is a suburb, a lovely sweet spot, hardly a great nation.

    It’s complex. Recovery from the horrific run up to The Crash and The Great Depression, the fear of our WW II experience, the Nazis, Japan, and our terrible method in victory, Reserve Currency Status and Cold War numbness from messing with Stalin, all that and more simply went to our head.

    If ever we were balanced, we lost it then. The nation and the people in charge just lost their gyroscope. Every liberal went nuts, and The John Birch types collapsed into a Dark Hole in Cyberspace to reconstruct themselves as The Tea Party – with drunk, insane, perverted Senator Joseph McCarthy forgotten.

    We lost it. The grand experiment in Free Lunch from The New Deal acquired Third Party Pay in Medicine to destroy ethic there, enabling ramped with more and more addiction in the barbells of society, the bond market was ignored, every inebriate in journalism went on a tear as we left the punch bowl at the FED’s Thanksgiving table for 75 years with the resulting cancer of the arbitrageur’s CDS, CMO, CDO, SIV and other forms of banking insanity in a world without SEC, a FED gone south, and a Congress for Sale, and The White House cowardly and complicit no matter which party slept there.

    Who was sober after all that?

    When – if – we stop doing all these things and take a cold, sober look at ourselves, together – when New York Liberals from a Nation Gone Soft sober up – when Frank Rich learns markets and market structure and stops blaming the 1% who are pathetic in their greed and pathological in their way – when journalism resolves to learn, study, ask the questions that matter of those who would can and would teach – when we discover the Terminal Cancer of Enabling – when we return to the books, study and reflect around the table together – when medicine again attracts only those who come for the calling – when we discover what we have done to our democracy with Money in Politics and SCOTUS stops confusing this with Free Speech – when these things and many more rise to the frontal lobe of a nation gone crazy –

    We may have a chance. Sobering up was never easy.

    Recovery from this 75 year hang-over will take a good long while.

    Meanwhile, we and the world we lean lead will be in danger.

    It is up to us.”

  20. WW quoted:

    We lost it. The grand experiment in Free Lunch from The New Deal acquired Third Party Pay in Medicine to destroy ethic there, enabling ramped with more and more addiction in the barbells of society, the bond market was ignored, every inebriate in journalism went on a tear as we left the punch bowl at the FED’s Thanksgiving table for 75 years with the resulting cancer of the arbitrageur’s CDS, CMO, CDO, SIV and other forms of banking insanity in a world without SEC, a FED gone south, and a Congress for Sale, and The White House cowardly and complicit no matter which party slept there.

    Who was sober after all that?

    Sounds to me like he was drunk when he wrote it. That isn’t a serious piece, but a rant.

  21. WW wrote:

    And speaking of fracking, not only does the process produce more greenhouse gases which will exacerbate further our global warming problem, but also the process itself not only contaminates groundwater drinking water supplies, but it also liberates natural gas itself, methane, which is four times more powerful a greenhouse gas than it carbon dioxide. So solar and wind and even nuclear remain far better energy alternatives.

    From Investor’s Business Daily:

    Plunge In CO2 Output Due To Natural Gas Fracking

    By MERRILL MATTHEWS | Posted 07/17/2012 05:45 PM ET

    The most underreported recent environmental story has been the dramatic decline in energy-related carbon emissions — nearly back to mid-1990s levels, and falling.

    Maybe it’s because that story just doesn’t fit the left’s mantra that traditional energy sources are destroying the environment.

    The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) June energy report says that energy-related carbon dioxide fell to 5,473 million metric tons (MMT) in 2011.

    That’s down from a high of 6,020 MMT in 2007, and only a little above 1995′s level of 5,314 MMT.

    Better yet, emissions in the first quarter of 2012 fell at an even faster rate — down 7.5% from the first quarter of 2011 and 8.5% from the same time in 2010. If the rest of 2012 follows its first-quarter trend, we may see total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions drop to early-1990s levels.

    That’s a very positive environmental story, and yet you probably haven’t heard a word about it. Especially from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which couldn’t keep tyrannizing the states if the truth got out — and now that tyranny has the blessing of a federal appeals court.

    A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently rejected arguments by several states and industry groups that the EPA was overstepping its authority and using strong-arm tactics to regulate greenhouse gasses.

    As we learned from former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s comment about a crisis being a terrible thing to waste, the heavy hand of government regulation can get a lot heavier if it can claim it’s addressing a crisis. And highlighting a huge decline is energy-related carbon dioxide emissions doesn’t fit the crisis scenario.

    So why the decline? It would be hard to credit either political party. As EIA figures show, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions had been rising steadily for decades — through both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses. They were rising in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president, and continued to rise when George W. Bush was in office.

    However, emissions began to fall after 2007, when Barack Obama was only a second-year senator — so he doesn’t get the credit.

    The most likely explanation for the decline is the shale gas revolution, made possible by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

    Increasingly, power plants are turning to natural gas because it has become abundant, and therefore cheap. And though technology is improving our ability to reduce emissions from coal usage, natural gas is still a much cleaner source.

  22. “Sounds to me like he was drunk when he wrote it. That isn’t a serious piece, but a rant.”

    You wish, Mr Editor!

    Actually, the paragraph after the one you quoted is the meat of the rant. We are in the process of repeating the Fall of the Roman Empire due to excesses and neglect, in my view, I am sad to say. Syria may be the model for our eventual demise, unless we change soon.

    I am guessing that you have not had time yet to read the Benjamin Wallace-Wells piece, as I am certain it would produce a comment from you.

  23. Perry said:

    We are in the process of repeating the Fall of the Roman Empire due to excesses and neglect, in my view, I am sad to say.

    I actually agree, since the fall of the Roman Empire was due to the massive excesses (Bread and Circus) of the totalitarianized Roman government. Our government is too busy taxing the producers excessively, spending money excessively, and neglecting the US Constitution, which would prevent the vast majority of that spending if actually followed.

    Glad to see Perry finally come around to the Constitutional Commonsense Conservative side of the fence after all those years of Perry’s wandering around lost in the wilderness of failed Leftist excess and neglect, which is indeed destroying the US.

  24. But I will tell you what does worry me about Romney: He has been a leader in the culture war which has been waged in this country ever since the ’70′s. Romney’s Bain Capital has been a pioneer in this war, and to great success for Romney and his fellow vulture capitalists, who have made tens of billions of dollars by bankrupting companies and outsourcing/off-shoring American jobs. As we speak, Bain Capital’s net worth is about $63B!

    You keep making these claims (bankrupting companies, outsorcing jobs) without a shred of proof. That suggests you are lying, and since this has been pointed out to you before, you KNOW you are lying.

  25. bankrupting companies and outsourcing/off-shoring American jobs

    Crunch time, Perry. List EXACTLY how many companies Romney bankrupted, and EXACTLY how many jobs he outsourced. That’s what you would do if you were honest, but we all know you’re not.

  26. “You keep making these claims (bankrupting companies, outsorcing jobs) without a shred of proof. That suggests you are lying, and since this has been pointed out to you before, you KNOW you are lying.”

    It looks like Eric has finally become so desperate that he now believes that not answering his question at all constitutes a lie. You are a crumpling piece of work, Eric.

    “Crunch time, Perry. List EXACTLY how many companies Romney bankrupted, and EXACTLY how many jobs he outsourced. That’s what you would do if you were honest, but we all know you’re not.”

    Ha! Eric is now requesting evidence when he never ever supplies any of his own! And then, if I don’t comply with his command, I am dishonest. Your hypocrisy is overwhelming, Eric.

    I want you to read the following op/ed, take notes, then reply with your findings from the piece. See here for all the answers to your questions, Eric:

    “America’s recovery from recession has been so slow that it mostly doesn’t seem like a recovery at all, especially on the jobs front. So, in a better world, President Obama would face a challenger offering a serious critique of his job-creation policies, and proposing a serious alternative.

    Instead, he’ll almost surely face Mitt Romney.

    Mr. Romney claims that Mr. Obama has been a job destroyer, while he was a job-creating businessman. For example, he told Fox News: “This is a president who lost more jobs during his tenure than any president since Hoover. This is two million jobs that he lost as president.” He went on to declare, of his time at the private equity firm Bain Capital, “I’m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs.”

    But his claims about the Obama record border on dishonesty, and his claims about his own record are well across that border.

    Start with the Obama record. It’s true that 1.9 million fewer Americans have jobs now than when Mr. Obama took office. But the president inherited an economy in free fall, and can’t be held responsible for job losses during his first few months, before any of his own policies had time to take effect. So how much of that Obama job loss took place in, say, the first half of 2009?

    The answer is: more than all of it. The economy lost 3.1 million jobs between January 2009 and June 2009 and has since gained 1.2 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s nothing like Mr. Romney’s portrait of job destruction.

    Incidentally, the previous administration’s claims of job growth always started not from Inauguration Day but from August 2003, when Bush-era employment hit its low point. By that standard, Mr. Obama could say that he has created 2.5 million jobs since February 2010.

    So Mr. Romney’s claims about the Obama job record aren’t literally false, but they are deeply misleading. Still, the real fun comes when we look at what Mr. Romney says about himself. Where does that claim of creating 100,000 jobs come from?

    Well, Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post got an answer from the Romney campaign. It’s the sum of job gains at three companies that Mr. Romney “helped to start or grow”: Staples, The Sports Authority and Domino’s.

    Mr. Kessler immediately pointed out two problems with this tally. It’s “based on current employment figures, not the period when Romney worked at Bain,” and it “does not include job losses from other companies with which Bain Capital was involved.” Either problem, by itself, makes nonsense of the whole claim.

    On the point about using current employment, consider Staples, which has more than twice as many stores now as it did back in 1999, when Mr. Romney left Bain. Can he claim credit for everything good that has happened to the company in the past 12 years? In particular, can he claim credit for the company’s successful shift from focusing on price to focusing on customer service (“That was easy”), which took place long after he had left the business world?

    Then there’s the bit about looking only at Bain-connected companies that added jobs, ignoring those that reduced their work forces or went out of business. Hey, if pluses count but minuses don’t, everyone who spends a day playing the slot machines comes out way ahead!

    In any case, it makes no sense to look at changes in one company’s work force and say that this measures job creation for America as a whole.

    Suppose, for example, that your chain of office-supply stores gains market share at the expense of rivals. You employ more people; your rivals employ fewer. What’s the overall effect on U.S. employment? One thing’s for sure: it’s a lot less than the number of workers your company added.

    Better yet, suppose that you expand in part not by beating your competitors, but by buying them. Now their employees are your employees. Have you created jobs?

    The point is that Mr. Romney’s claims about being a job creator would be nonsense even if he were being honest about the numbers, which he isn’t.

    At this point, some readers may ask whether it isn’t equally wrong to say that Mr. Romney destroyed jobs. Yes, it is. The real complaint about Mr. Romney and his colleagues isn’t that they destroyed jobs, but that they destroyed good jobs.

    When the dust settled after the companies that Bain restructured were downsized — or, as happened all too often, went bankrupt — total U.S. employment was probably about the same as it would have been in any case. But the jobs that were lost paid more and had better benefits than the jobs that replaced them. Mr. Romney and those like him didn’t destroy jobs, but they did enrich themselves while helping to destroy the American middle class.

    And that reality is, of course, what all the blather and misdirection about job-creating businessmen and job-destroying Democrats is meant to obscure.”(h/t P/K)

    Here’s more corroboration of Romney’s lies and distortion from Robert Schlesinger of US News:

    “As his briefly front-running campaign sunk in the polls under relentless punishment from Mitt Romney’s “super PAC” allies in the days before the Iowa caucuses, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich caused a brief stir by matter-of-factly telling a TV interviewer that Romney is a “liar.”

    “Why are you saying he’s a liar?” his apparently shocked interlocutor pressed. The notion that Mitt Romney routinely makes statements lacking a factual basis should not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the campaign. On the left, Paul Krugman has marveled that no other candidate has ever “lied so freely, with so little compunction.” On the right, The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison wondered about why he lies, concluding that the former Massachusetts governor is “so contemptuous of the people he tells lies to that he never thinks he will be found out.”

    With Romney sweeping Iowa and New Hampshire and leading in the polls in South Carolina, this is a good time to catalogue some of Romney’s greatest hits thus far.

    “100,000 new jobs.” Romney has repeatedly claimed that during his tenure at Bain Capital, “net-net, we created over 100,000 jobs.” His campaign defends the figure by tallying the current employment totals of some companies Bain aided. That’s a stretch in and of itself, but it’s also not a net figure. It lacks the balancing context of how many jobs were destroyed by Bain. As the Los Angeles Times reported in December, while Bain helped some companies grow, “Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy.”

    Indeed, the Wall Street Journal looked closely at Bain’s record under Romney and found that 22 percent “either filed for bankruptcy or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses.” Which is not really terribly surprising: Bain’s raison d’etre is not job creation but wealth creation for its investors. As Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler noted in an article Monday calling Romney’s “100,000 jobs” figure “untenable,” Romney and Bain “never could have raised money from investors if the prospectus seeking $1-million investments from the super wealthy had said it would focus on creating jobs.”

    As a corollary, when Romney’s record has been criticized, he has dismissed criticisms as an attempt to “put free enterprise on trial.” It’s not an attack on free enterprise. It’s an attack on Romney’s strained attempt to spin his successful record of wealth-creation into one of job-creation. It’s also a recognition that while a net good, the free market has its destructive side—and it’s a fair question to ask, whether voters consider experience in that sort of vulture capitalism as a good qualification for the presidency. Do they want government to be run more like that kind of business?

    Obama’s jobs record. By Romney’s own logic (touting jobs created but ignoring jobs lost), his attacks on President Obama’s economic record are nonsensical. He told Time that Obama “has not created any new jobs,” and he told Fox News last week that Obama has “lost” 2 million jobs as president. This is indeed a net figure, but also a misleading one. When Obama took office, the economy was shedding jobs at a rate of nearly 1 million jobs per month, losing roughly 3 million during the first four months of 2009. But presidential policies don’t take effect as soon as the incoming chief takes his oath. Once Obama’s policies started to take effect, the trend turned. The country had added 3.2 million private sector jobs over the course of 22 straight months of private sector growth. By Romney’s definition, the president has created more than 3 million jobs—not enough, but also not none.

    In fact the biggest drag on job growth is the 600,000 public sector jobs that have disappeared under the auspices of budget austerity. As my colleague Danielle Kurtzleben reported in September, “government jobs are being shed by the tens of thousands almost every month, hindering an already weak recovery.”

    “Entitlement society.” Romney has argued that Obama “is replacing our merit-based, opportunity society with an entitlement society,” where “everyone is handed the same rewards, regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risk.” As New York’s Jonathan Chait has observed, “This accusation is approximately as accurate as claiming that the Republican Party wants to pass laws forbidding poor people from making more money.” The idea that President Obama (or any Democrat) advocates for equality of outcomes simply lacks a basis in fact.

    It’s an important fabrication, because it marks a turning point in Romney’s attacks on Obama. Previously the president was characterized as ineffectual, but not a socialist. Forced to battle to win the GOP primaries, Romney has adopted the Tea Party’s extremist rhetoric. It won’t play with swing voters, even delivered in his polished drone.

    Defense cuts. In an October speech on national security, Romney promised to “reverse President Obama’s massive defense cuts.” One problem: Pentagon spending has gone up under Obama, from $594 billion in 2008 to $666 billion. The 2011 request was for $739 billion. As Rick Perry would say, “Oops.”

    No apologies. Romney has said that Obama “went around the world and apologized for America.” This is part of the conservative, dog-whistle meme that Obama is un-American (and possibly even a foreigner!). While the notion of an international apology tour is a staple of the conservative case against Obama, it is also fictitious. The Washington Post’s fact-checker concluded that “the claim that Obama repeatedly has apologized for the United States is not borne out by the facts, especially if his full quotes are viewed in context.” Don’t hold your breath waiting for an apology from Romney on this one.

    “Mitt.” It’s a small one, but might be my favorite. During a debate in November, when moderator Wolf Blitzer introduced himself by saying that “Wolf” is really his first name, Romney greeted the audience by saying, “I’m Mitt Romney, and yes, Wolf, that’s also my first name.” In fact, Willard is his first name. It’s a lie notable for being so mundane: Why would someone fudge their name? It’s almost as if he can’t control himself.”

    So, Eric, here is your assignment, tell me what you think of Romney’s character, in 10 words or less. Here’s my answer in 3 words: Romney’s character stinks.

    Thank you for your request, Eric!

    PS: I know you are a busy man, Eric, so for you I have highlighted a few lines in each piece, knowing the you will appreciate that.

  27. I note the first huge wall-o-text has no link, no citation, no nothing. I also note that during the Primary season when it looked like “Anyone but Romney” was going to win the nomination, Perry was full-on in favor of Romney as the only reasonable Republican choice. Now that Romney has won the nomination, Perry is full-on hating all over Romney and pushing the radical Leftist lies. Very typical of the Leftists who deign to tell us who to pick, knowing full well that they will demonize anyone we pick, no matter how middle-of-the road our pick is.

  28. The mark of a man is how he performs under pressure. Here’s an example of Mitt Romney’s performance.

    When the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee (SLCOC) was in danger of failing to provide the necessary venues and associated support for the 2002 Winter Games they turned to Mitt Romney for help. He quickly responded to the emergency call.

    Romney voluntarily left his highly profitable business to take over the scandal plagued 2002 SLCOC which was $379 million short and sponsors were reluctant to continue participation. Romney reorganized the committee, raised the necessary funds, and revived sponsor enthusiasm to the extent the Games were an outstanding success.

    Yet, Perry says Romney’s character stinks. Readers can decide for themselves which one is a man of character, and which one stinks

  29. “I note the first huge wall-o-text has no link, no citation, no nothing. I also note that during the Primary season when it looked like “Anyone but Romney” was going to win the nomination, Perry was full-on in favor of Romney as the only reasonable Republican choice. Now that Romney has won the nomination, Perry is full-on hating all over Romney and pushing the radical Leftist lies. Very typical of the Leftists who deign to tell us who to pick, knowing full well that they will demonize anyone we pick, no matter how middle-of-the road our pick is.”

    As usual, when John disagrees with the facts, he attacks the messenger. That is very weak.

    My first choice actually was Jon Huntsman, Romney was my second choice. I was looking for a good debate of the issues, with each candidate being intelligently challenged.

    At the time, I was unaware that Romney was such a liar, which negates any debate challenge from him, because he is not to be trusted. This is why I say that Romney’s character stinks.

    By the way, ropelight, Romney’s performance re the SLC Olympics was exemplary, but I do note, he relied heavily on Federal government support to the tune of more than $1 billion, which should be born in mind when he claims that his effort resulted in $100 M profit, which I assume is income less expenses. But yes, he made right a terribly corrupt Olympic Committee at that time, to his credit for sure!

    I also think he had a good record as Governor of MA, where he worked across the aisle to solve problems, though his job creation effort ranked MA 47th in the nation. His RomneyCare was a resounding success, a part of his record from which he is now distancing himself.

    But these lies and distortions, we Americans cannot be happy with them. They raise a character issue which must be considered. How will he perform when we would all be depending on him were he elected?

    In contrast, President Obama has a pretty good record during his term of multiple serious crises, and should be reelected.

  30. No, Perry, nobody in their right mind accepts anything Paul Krugman, “the Nobel Prize winning fraud”, has to say. And I did not give the fraudster Krugman that name. A very important educator at Harvard did. And you know full well that nobody here accepts anything Krugman says; that’s why you were too embarrassed to actually cite him or link him as you quoted him far beyond “fair use”.

  31. There were two reasons I did not use a link, although I did cite him surreptitiously, you might say. And that is, I know I am dealing with all right wing ideologues on this blog, but I wanted you to read what he had to say, which you probably would not have done if you had the link. The other reason is that our Editor has this set up so that I can use only one link, otherwise the post goes into moderation.

    Moreover, may I point out to you that I did cite another reference, which pretty much corroborates the points which Krugman made?

    That said, I know you love to make up your own facts without citations, so you are a fine one to complain about the lack of a formal citation. You pontificate on here like you are absolutely right about everything you claim. Your track record does not justify such claims on your part, except to other members of your tribe!

    Besides, what do you care about Romney? You said you refuse to vote for him, since your first choice is Sarah Palin. That says something about you right there.

    The fact remains, Romney lies and distorts the truth, which is a reflection on his character, as is his movement to the extreme right in order to please Republican extremists.

  32. There were two reasons I did not use a link, although I did cite him surreptitiously, you might say.

    No, you did not cite him.

    And that is, I know I am dealing with all right wing ideologues on this blog, but I wanted you to read what he had to say, which you probably would not have done if you had the link.

    As I said, you knew we would reject “the Nobel Prize winning fraud” so you were too embarrassed to cite him as you quoted him far beyond “fair use” permissions in copyright law.

    The other reason is that our Editor has this set up so that I can use only one link, otherwise the post goes into moderation.

    Simple solution: Make two comments, one per link.

    That said, I know you love to make up your own facts without citations

    That absolute falsehood (calling me a liar) has been rejected by everyone in here, except for the one person who is well-known for lying and has been called out by the Editor for lying: you.

    Besides, what do you care about Romney? You said you refuse to vote for him, since your first choice is Sarah Palin.

    That is a lie. I said I refuse to vote for Romney and I gave a list of reasons why. Absolutely none of those reasons involved Sarah Palin, even tangentially. If you look at all my oblique defenses of Romney, you will not find a single article or comment from me that has come anywhere near supporting Romney’s candidacy, at all.

    I have also defended Barack Obama against inappropriate attacks, writing an entire article in Obama’s defense at the other site, as has the Editor and, I believe, Yorkshire. I have also shown great respect for Leftists with whom I stridently disagree. So your thinly-veiled attempt to smear me fails every examination.

  33. WW wrote:

    But I will tell you what does worry me about Romney: He has been a leader in the culture war which has been waged in this country ever since the ’70′s. Romney’s Bain Capital has been a pioneer in this war, and to great success for Romney and his fellow vulture capitalists, who have made tens of billions of dollars by bankrupting companies and outsourcing/off-shoring American jobs. As we speak, Bain Capital’s net worth is about $63B!

    Mr Romney is no longer part of Bain Capital, and hasn’t been for a decade, so he hasn’t been responsible for all of that $63 billion in net worth, but he was responsible for a good chunk of it. And that means that he succeeded in doing the job for which the directors of Bain hired him. Compare that with Barack Obama, who took a country $10,626,877,048,913.08 in debt, and turned it into a country $15,874,365,457,260.40 in debt. Mitt Romney returned an over 100% profit to Bain’s investors; Barack Obama upped federal spending to over 24% of GDP, pushed for and passed a huge stimulus bill, and our credit rating has been lowered and unemployment is still sky-high. During Mr Romney’s four years as Governor of Massachusetts, state unemployment dropped from 6.3% to 4.6%; during Mr Obama’s 3½ years as President, unemployment went from 7.8% to 8.2%. Mr Romney took over the Salt Lake City Olympic organizing committee, which was facing a $379 million loss, and turned it around so that the city made a $100 million profit; Mr Obama invested in solar panel manufacturers, with government money, and lost over a billion dollars.

    Mr Romney has succeeded in most of his ventures; Mr Obama has failed in his.

  34. WW wrote:

    At the time, I was unaware that Romney was such a liar, which negates any debate challenge from him, because he is not to be trusted. This is why I say that Romney’s character stinks.

    Really? Yet you are staunchly defending the President who promised to:

    • Close down the Guantanamo Bay detention center for terrorist prisoners; it’s still open;
    • Cut the deficit in half before the end of his first term; don’t make me laugh!
    • Secure ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; he hasn’t even submitted it to the Senate;
    • Allow five days of public comment before signing bills; promise broken;
    • Not allow Administration officials to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years; broken several times;
    • Raise the federal minimum wage to $9.50 an hour; never even attempted.

    There are literally dozens of broken promises by our failed President, some of which did not require the consent of Congress and others in which he never even tried to submit to the Congress.

    Is Mitt Romney dishonest? I don’t know, maybe he is. Is Barack Obama dishonest? I do know; he certainly is! But at least Mr Romney is successful at things; the only thing Mr Obama has ever succeeded at is getting elected. In a choice between a mostly successful, possible liar, and a mostly unsuccessful, definite liar, the sensible voter chooses the former. Mitt Romney might not be the perfect candidate, and certainly isn’t a perfect man — no one is — but he’s a lot better choice than the man who holds the office today.

  35. Perry, nothing in that long winded piece supported your claim that Romney shipped jobs overseas, so I don’t know why you bothered to post it.

  36. “100,000 new jobs.” Romney has repeatedly claimed that during his tenure at Bain Capital, “net-net, we created over 100,000 jobs.” His campaign defends the figure by tallying the current employment totals of some companies Bain aided. That’s a stretch in and of itself, but it’s also not a net figure. It lacks the balancing context of how many jobs were destroyed by Bain. As the Los Angeles Times reported in December, while Bain helped some companies grow, “Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy.”

    This is what you call attack by innuendo. No facts are given, no sources listed, only assertions which the author (apparently the loathsome Paul Krugman) couldn’t be bothered to prove. And no list of outsourcing, either, which appears to be pure fiction.

  37. I agree with John H. Posting a piece by Paul Krugman while hiding his name was pretty sneaky, Perry. Plus, if you’re going to quote someone, you should at least say who it was, that’s just common courtesy. Of course, by now you know that Krugman exploited the Tucson shooting for his own partisan, political reasons, so he’s not going to get much respect around here.

  38. That said, and though you should have listed Krugman’s name, I at least credit Perry for attempting a detailed response, even though nothing in it had to do with the initial subject, namely, Romney’s alleged outsourcing of jobs.

  39. So, Eric, here is your assignment, tell me what you think of Romney’s character, in 10 words or less. Here’s my answer in 3 words: Romney’s character stinks.

    There is nothing in that piece to suggest that Romney is anything but what he appears to be – an honest, ethical, successful businessman. And it’s the latter that drives Dems nuts. They hate wealth and success, just as Obama’s statemnents a week ago suggest. It’s sad to see people who resent that someone else has been successful in life, but envy and resentment seem to be the emotions the Obamatons want to appeal to.

  40. From that article:

    But his claims about the Obama record border on dishonesty, and his claims about his own record are well across that border.

    Start with the Obama record. It’s true that 1.9 million fewer Americans have jobs now than when Mr. Obama took office. But the president inherited an economy in free fall, and can’t be held responsible for job losses during his first few months, before any of his own policies had time to take effect. So how much of that Obama job loss took place in, say, the first half of 2009?

    This is supposed to be a Romney lie, yet Obama got his Stimulus passed his first month in office, so from that point on it became his economy. Romney is not lying.

  41. You’d be hard pressed to find any major company who hasn’t outsourced jobs Wagonwheel. And it would be impossible to find any corporate manager who hasn’t cut jobs to stop losses, especially when a company is on the ropes. Exactly what would you do if you were trying to save a company? Would you keep spending money on unnessessary payroll or trim the fat? I just don’t understand your gripe. You seem to think that a community organizer and failed president is some kind of god but a successfull businessman is evil incarnate. What’s up with you? Is it really just envy and jelousey or is it something deeper? I’d bet if Romney were a Democrat he’d be okay in your book since there a many successful Democrat businessmen. So it must be some sort of pathological hatered of anyone with an (R) after his name.

  42. No envy, no jealousy Hoagie, although I know it makes you feel good to think those are my motives, because it enables you to continue with your negative narrative in order to justify your political position against people like me.

    I can understand some of what needs to be done when companies are weakening, but for a vulture capitalist to come in and make tons of money on bankruptcy and killing jobs, sorry, I think there are better ways to do this. Staples was an example of a success story, and Bain/Romney deserve credit and reward for that. But there were other examples which were not success stories, from which Romney and his Bain partners profited anyway, by bankrupting a company and destroying American jobs. This is why this part of it is called vulture capitalism, and apt name, I’d say.

    But even that was not my point. My point was Romney’s outright lies, which I covered in detail with two citations providing the facts, which you should agree is a character issue.

    Why did you not respond to the points made, Hoagie? Answer: You are not interested in the facts, rather, only in furthering your ideological position against the American middle and poor. That’s not being honest, Hoagie, it is being partisan and inhumane, while ignoring facts and refusing to deal with them.

  43. So it must be some sort of pathological hatered of anyone with an (R) after his name.

    That is extremely clear, actually. When Romney looked ready to lose to all the “anyone but Romney” candidates, Perry was singing Romney’s praises, and singing them hard. Now that Romney is the presumptive Republican nominee, Perry has all sorts of vile hate going on for Romney — whom Perry had endorsed for the Republicans only a few short months ago. Reminiscent of the New York Times treatment of the Left-of-Center John McCain in 2007/2008: love him before the nomination, demonize him after the nomination.

  44. “This is supposed to be a Romney lie, yet Obama got his Stimulus passed his first month in office, so from that point on it became his economy. Romney is not lying.”

    The stimulus was not effective in an instant, Eric. In fact something like 40% of it was tax cuts, which take effect gradually. Moreover, there were not too many “shovel ready” projects ready to start immediately, so they took time as well.

    This approach of yours is just like blaming President Obama and the Dems from day one in January 2009, at a time when the economy was in free fall. That’s partisan crazy!

    Because the President’s stimulus II, the Job Act, was not supported by Republicans, the States did not benefit, instead we have lost about 600,000 public sector jobs, including teachers, police, firefighters, and the like, sending some cities into bankruptcy as well. Now I am well aware that there were other contributing factors, stimulus II would have provided more revenue coming in from taxes on salaries of jobs which were ended.

    This is why we needed more stimulus, but the Republicans would have none of it, mainly because their first priority was to keep President Obama to one term, to hell with the country!

  45. Eric wrote:

    There is nothing in that piece to suggest that Romney is anything but what he appears to be – an honest, ethical, successful businessman. And it’s the latter that drives Dems nuts. They hate wealth and success, just as Obama’s statemnents a week ago suggest. It’s sad to see people who resent that someone else has been successful in life, but envy and resentment seem to be the emotions the Obamatons want to appeal to.

    And the biggest problem for the Democrats is that their attempts to smear Governor Romney aren’t working. They outspent the Republicans two-to-one in June, attacking Mr Romney on the Bain Capital issue, and they are continuing those ads even now, but Mr Romney has been gaining in the polls, not losing ground. I suppose that it’s possible that the President would have lost even more ground without those ads and that spending, though we can’t know what would have happened without them, but it sure seems to me as though the public are more concerned with the economy today, and President Obama’s lack of success there, than they are with what Mr Romney’s company was doing a decade ago.

    The Democrats are desperate: they need this election to be about something other than President Obama’s actual record. If they can manage to make it about something else, they have a chance to win, but if the election is about how good a President Barack Obama has been, then they lose.

  46. ” You are not interested in the facts, rather, only in furthering your ideological position against the American middle and poor.”

    You are out of your living mind Wagonwheel. What ideological position do I hold “against the American middle and poor”? That’s just plain stupid to say. There’s someting wrong with a brain that thinks like that.

    “That’s not being honest, Hoagie, it is being partisan and inhumane, while ignoring facts and refusing to deal with them.”

    Again with the I’m a liar screed. And I am partisan just like you are Wagonwheel. At least I know I’m partisan and don’t try and come off like so middle of the road observer handing down his holy wisdom to ungrateful mortals. But how am I inhumane? What, do I run around tripping blind people or something?

    Bain Capital saved companies and when they felt it best bankrupted some. I would do the same, everything can’t and shouldn’t be saved in business. And I suppose if you worked at Bain nothing would ever go bankrupt and if it did you would not earn any money while doing your job. But let me ask you this, how many companies did the Obama economic policy bankrupt? How many jobs were lost because of his failed economic policies? We don’t know because we have no way of tracking that. And how many jobs just in the green energy field did Obamas policies outsource? To China, Mexico or Canada ( where he outsourced his bus).

    You’re not a businessman Wagonwheel, so your opinions on the actions of others who are are pure ignorance and speculation. The same can be said about Obama. We do know one thing, Obama is a bigger failure as president than Carter. And if you really want to see a liar, go back to The Editor’s post of 19:47. There’s the real liar. And they’re the real facts that you need to deal with.

  47. WW wrote:

    The stimulus was not effective in an instant, Eric. In fact something like 40% of it was tax cuts, which take effect gradually. Moreover, there were not too many “shovel ready” projects ready to start immediately, so they took time as well.

    The problem is that the stimulus was not effective at all! If the economy had performed as President Obama projected it would with the stimulus, he’d be claiming — and getting — the credit for it. But the economy did not perform as the President projected it would, didn’t come anywhere close, and President Obama gets the “credit’ for that as well. He added nearly a trillion dollars to the national debt with that one stupid program, and it did absolutely no good.

    Of course, that’s really kind of chicken feed, isn’t it, given that he has added more than $5.2 trillion to the national debt in 3½ years. He told us that it was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” for President Bush to have added over $4 trillion to the national debt, “all by his lonesome,” in eight years, but President Obama has managed to leave President Bush’s record in the dust.

  48. “That is extremely clear, actually. When Romney looked ready to lose to all the “anyone but Romney” candidates, Perry was singing Romney’s praises, and singing them hard. Now that Romney is the presumptive Republican nominee, Perry has all sorts of vile hate going on for Romney — whom Perry had endorsed for the Republicans only a few short months ago. Reminiscent of the New York Times treatment of the Left-of-Center John McCain in 2007/2008: love him before the nomination, demonize him after the nomination.”

    Here we have more of John’s hyperbole. Again, Jon Huntsman was my choice, then came Romney, over a pretty piss poor pool of Republican Presidential candidates. I liked his RomneyCare, and I liked his rescue of the SLC Olympics. I did not know nearly as much about the Bain Capital dark points, and, I did not anticipate the character flaws which have now showed up, in spades. It’s more than his flip-flopping, it is his out and out lying, as I covered in my two cites.

    Your candidate has serious character flaws which make him an unsuitable candidate for your Party. But then, again, you are not going to vote for him anyway, so why are you attempting to defend him, which even that you have not done effectively.

    McCain was an enigma, during his run and now as well. His recent defense of Huma Abeden, along with a handful of other Republicans including Speaker Boehner, against the attacks on her by that silly person known as Michelle Bachman, was another of his glorious moments, as well as his continuing concern about campaign finance issues.

    John McCain is his own person, and marches to his own drum, not in lockstep with many of his extremist Republican Senate colleagues, like Mitch McConnell. Too bad Senator McCain is not Senate Minority Leader!

  49. WW wrote:

    Because the President’s stimulus II, the Job Act, was not supported by Republicans, the States did not benefit, instead we have lost about 600,000 public sector jobs, including teachers, police, firefighters, and the like, sending some cities into bankruptcy as well. Now I am well aware that there were other contributing factors, stimulus II would have provided more revenue coming in from taxes on salaries of jobs which were ended.

    This is why we needed more stimulus, but the Republicans would have none of it, mainly because their first priority was to keep President Obama to one term, to hell with the country!

    If throwing $850 billion at the problem didn’t work, why would throwing even more money, all borrowed from China, have done any good?

    Of course the Republicans opposed most of the President’s second stimulus plan. (A few parts of it were passed.) They opposed it because it wouldn’t work! The first stimulus plan failed miserably, by the markers that the President set for it himself, so there was no particular reason to think that a second stimulus plan would do any good at all.

  50. And more about President Obama’s record, from Karen, the Lonely Conservative:

    Thanks Obama! Poverty Level Still Rising

    July 22, 2012

    Under the leadership of President Obama, poverty is set to hit a level not seen since the 1960′s. Thanks, Obama!

    The ranks of America’s poor are on track to climb to levels unseen in nearly half a century, erasing gains from the war on poverty in the 1960s amid a weak economy and fraying government safety net.

    Census figures for 2011 will be released this fall in the critical weeks ahead of the November elections.

    The Associated Press surveyed more than a dozen economists, think tanks and academics, both nonpartisan and those with known liberal or conservative leanings, and found a broad consensus: The official poverty rate will rise from 15.1 percent in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7 percent. Several predicted a more modest gain, but even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest since 1965.

    Poverty is spreading at record levels across many groups, from underemployed workers and suburban families to the poorest poor. More discouraged workers are giving up on the job market, leaving them vulnerable as unemployment aid begins to run out. Suburbs are seeing increases in poverty, including in such political battlegrounds as Colorado, Florida and Nevada, where voters are coping with a new norm of living hand to mouth. (Read More)

    More welfare is not going to solve the problem. All that does is keep people in poverty.

    In related news, the rich are getting poorer, but don’t expect Obama to make that into an issue.

    Actually, Karen might be wrong about President Obama not wanting to take credit for the rich getting poorer.

    Perry will blame Boooosh, of course, but Barack Obama has been President of the United States for 3½ years now; it’s time for him to man up and take responsibility himself.

  51. But then, again, you are not going to vote for him anyway, so why are you attempting to defend him

    Already asked in this thread and already answered in this thread. It’s the same reason Yorkshire, the Editor, and I all defended that rat Obama, writing actual articles in his defense. But since you’re so absolutely hyper-partisan and “USA be damned”, you cannot understand the fact that we on the Right do actually defend people with whom we vehemently disagree.

  52. The difference between Obama worshipers and Palinistas is very striking. Just listen to the crowds as they speak.

    Obama says something his worshipers like and they all chant:

    O-ba-ma
    O-ba-ma
    O-ba-ma

    Palin says something Palinistas like and they all chant:

    USA!
    USA!
    USA!

  53. Our Editor has written:

    “The problem is that the stimulus was not effective at all! If the economy had performed as President Obama projected it would with the stimulus, he’d be claiming — and getting — the credit for it. But the economy did not perform as the President projected it would, didn’t come anywhere close, and President Obama gets the “credit’ for that as well. He added nearly a trillion dollars to the national debt with that one stupid program, and it did absolutely no good.

    You have no proof of that statement, Mr Editor. There is no way of knowing for sure. But we were headed for Great Depression II from President Bush’s watch, and that did not happen on President Obama’s watch, in spite of the disaster he inherited, which you have steadfastly refused to even acknowledge. That’s disingenuous! Moreover, he has created more jobs is less than one term, than your Bush-43 did in two terms, but no credit for that from you.

    Then if you will click on the link to get to the Rex Nutting piece, we see a comparison of public debt to private debt (household debt), to wit:

    “Cecchetti and his co-authors found that growth can be impaired once nonfinancial corporate debt hits about 90% of GDP, or when household debts hit 85% of GDP, or when public debts hit about 85%.
    In the U.S., household debt has now fallen to 84% of GDP from a peak of 98%. Nonfinancial corporate debt has fallen to 77% from a peak of 83%. Financial sector debt has plunged from 123% of GDP to 89%. Public debt has risen to 89% from 56%.”

    So improvements have been made regarding debt, due to private sector adjustments. The public debt stands out, but as noted, the bulk of that is based on a continuation of Bush policies and a reduction of revenues due to our Bush-induced Great Recession, from which, on a historical basis, will take a long time to fully recover, if ever.

    Of course, that’s really kind of chicken feed, isn’t it, given that he has added more than $5.2 trillion to the national debt in 3½ years. He told us that it was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” for President Bush to have added over $4 trillion to the national debt, “all by his lonesome,” in eight years, but President Obama has managed to leave President Bush’s record in the dust.

    That’s a gross distortion for political partisan purposes, which you keep repeating fraudently! I’ve already dealt with this, with facts, but you keep bringing it up again and again. Is your memory failing at the young age of 58? But here it is again:

    According to this diagram, during Bush’s two terms, the cost of Bush policies was/is #5.1T, and for Obama, extrapolating to 2017, will be $0.93T. This is the proper way to assign responsibility for our increased debt.

    Mr Editor, you continue to bring up the same old stale arguments which have been proven incorrect. The truth of the matter is that private debt went way out of bounds, meaning that poor decision making by the public in terms of borrowing (mortgages, credit cards, etc.), combined with lax lending restrictions by our financial institutions who then created toxic paper by bundling this bad debt and selling it under false pretenses, this is what triggered the Great Recession and the global crisis. And the creators of this mess have gotten away with it and they continue their corrupt practices (see JP Morgan Chase and Barclays, for the latest examples), while the rest of us struggle with our own mistakes in this whole mess.

    More in the next post.

  54. In this cite is a comparison of private debt versus public debt, in which it is obvious that private debt, which rose rapidly over time, taking off during the Reagan Administration, and skyrocketing during Clinton and Bush-43. Here is the principle cause of our Great Recession, private debt peaking at 300% of GDP (compared to public debt peaking at 85% of GDP) much more important than the public spending on which our Editor insists on placing the major blame, specifically on President Obama. Our narrow-minded/partisan Editor is simply wrong!

    “The arguments that the American Government caused this crisis through overspending on entitlements — serving the so-called losers of society — this is the standard line of the Far Right — doesn’t show up in this chart.

    Government debt vis-a-vis Gross Domestic Product is not astronomical, according to this chart. It was not high in 1929 either, the last time the global economy had a heart attack and died. Public Debt is, in fact, at the time of this chart at least, lower than in 1945, when the public financed American involvement in World War II.

    The Far Right illusion is that if government just ‘gets out of the way’ of private enterprise, the world will fix itself. But this chart gives a different picture of reality.

    This chart says it is PRIVATE DEBT that is at astronomical levels vis-a-vis GDP. Private Debt in America was at 240% of GDP in 1929, before the global economy crashed then; and Private Debt in America was at 300% of GDP in 2009 — and is still at 260% of GDP now, higher still than in 1929.

    Of course, there was a real estate bubble and subsequent banking crisis in the 1920′s. In fact, the asset bubble that began in 1921 caused the massive growth in private debt that destroyed the global economy then also. The web site below examines the housing bubble of 1921-1926.”

    The point is that we are ignorant of our own history, such that we should have seen ourselves repeating the same build-up to the Great Depression: housing bubble, wild speculation, and wealth/power moving to a top elite. Moreover, we are forgetting how long it took us to recover the last time, and the role which stimulating the economy played in the recovery.

    Yet even a much more modest stimulus this time, and a rejection of a second stimulus by Republicans (the Jobs Act last fall), cheered on by the likes of our Editor, rejected by the Republicans in Congress, signifies to me that these extremists do not view historic lessons seriously as an aid in guiding how to address a similar economic downfall. As a result, the American middle and poor continue to suffer, while the elite and powerful and greedy 1% thrive.

    If you do not think that this is leading to the total destruction of the American Dream, you are not thinking!!!

  55. “Perry will blame Boooosh, of course, but Barack Obama has been President of the United States for 3½ years now; it’s time for him to man up and take responsibility himself.”

    Actually, Booooosh bears a great deal of the blame, but the American people themselves, of all political stripes, have themselves to blame big time, as my previous two posts demonstrate conclusively.

    Why should it be so surprising to be told that poverty is on the increase following a Great Recession from which we have yet to recover? The same thing happened in the aftermath of the Great Recession, so I suppose that was all FDR’s fault. The fault then, as it is now, is in the hands of those who permitted serious excesses to occur in the under-regulated private sphere, and those who involved themselves in these very excesses.

    Yet the current right wing wishes to reinstate and support similar excesses in order to solve the severe economic downturn which we are experiencing, and they wish to impose more hardship on the middle and poor Americans who have suffered the most from these excesses. This makes no sense whatsoever!!!

    The solution lies in continuing gentle stimulation of the economy while slowly phasing in reductions in government spending. The latter is accomplished by making the provision of Medicare and Medicaid entitlements more efficient, while simultaneously increasing the quality of health care, which is exactly what the PPACA (ObamaCare) is intended to do. We also need to trim the bloated DoD budget.

  56. But there were other examples which were not success stories, from which Romney and his Bain partners profited anyway, by bankrupting a company and destroying American jobs. This is why this part of it is called vulture capitalism, and apt name, I’d say.

    If there were other examples, then give them. Else, all you have are lies, speculation, and innuendo.

  57. The stimulus was not effective in an instant, Eric.

    I’d say it wasn’t effective at all.

    Moreover, there were not too many “shovel ready” projects ready to start immediately, so they took time as well.

    But that’s not the way it was sold to us. Obama clearly implied that those “Shovel ready projects” were just that, projects that would start as soon as the funding was approved. Did Obama lie about that, too?

  58. Because the President’s stimulus II, the Job Act, was not supported by Republicans, the States did not benefit, instead we have lost about 600,000 public sector jobs, including teachers, police, firefighters, and the like, sending some cities into bankruptcy as well. Now I am well aware that there were other contributing factors, stimulus II would have provided more revenue coming in from taxes on salaries of jobs which were ended.

    What did we need another Stimulus for when Federal spending, to judge by the size of Obama’s gigantic deficits, was already through the roof?

  59. “Cecchetti and his co-authors found that growth can be impaired once nonfinancial corporate debt hits about 90% of GDP, or when household debts hit 85% of GDP, or when public debts hit about 85%.
    In the U.S., household debt has now fallen to 84% of GDP from a peak of 98%. Nonfinancial corporate debt has fallen to 77% from a peak of 83%. Financial sector debt has plunged from 123% of GDP to 89%. Public debt has risen to 89% from 56%.”

    This is a bunch of Jabberwocky designed to deflect from the FACT of Obama’s massive inceases of the deficit and debt.

  60. Again, Jon Huntsman was my choice

    The funny thing is, had Huntsman actually won, you’d be trashing him the same way you are Romney.

Comments are closed.