Obama's campaign caught lying, again.

[kraychik]

There's so much to unravel with this recent dishonest smear from Obama's campaign. Let's start with the campaign's coordination with friendly leftist news outlets (including CNN, MSNBC, NPR, CBS, ABC, and the New York Times) to carpet bomb much of the mainstream media with the message of Romney being dishonest about his tenure with Bain Capital, citing an old Boston Globe article citing SEC filings that listen Romney as the CEO of Bain Capital until sometime in 2002, three years after Romney stated he left Bain Capital in 1999. What the leftists in the media are hoping is that their audience is ignorant about how certain people often sit on boards after their real work with the organisation is complete, for various reasons.

In John King's own words after the 2:30 mark in the video, "they (the Romney campaign) say that he (Romney) left in February 1999, but it took almost two years to have the new management team put in place and that they are required by law until that new team is in place to list Mitt Romney. Is there any evidence, Anderson, that he had a hands-on role? No. I today have either spoken or communicated by email with four current or former Bain officials, three of these four are Democrats, two of them are active supporters of Obama in campaig n 2012. They were all there at the time. They say Mitt Romney left in a hurry in February 1999 to take over the Olympics, and he was never involved after that to their knowledge. Not at any meetings, not signing any documents, not involved in any deals. Again, three of these four are Democrats, they say what the Obama campaign is saying isn't true."

What's great about this story is that the Obama campaign has spent tons of money parroting this lie in certain battleground states, and this strategy of lies has been a huge failure, as the needle hasn't moved in favour of Obama. So the Obama campaign just burned through a lot of money and coordination with its leftist media allies to no avail. Hopefully this is another sign of desperation from the Obama campaign, which it seems to be.

More fundamentally, it shouldn't matter whether or not Romney was involved with Bain Capital during a time where their operations were associated with outsourcing jobs abroad. That's called capitalism, sometimes jobs are outsourced, and sometimes they're insourced. To run against that, which is a staple of the Obama campaign, is to run against capitalism. Obama is essentially running a campaign against free markets.

What's also ironic is that Obama is essentially the outsourcer-in-chief, he was destroyed millions of jobs and sent billions overseas to chase the phantom of "green jobs" (much like Dalton McGuinty). He has no shame, however, in accusing a demonstrated creator of wealth as the killer or jobs. With the left, everything is always upside down. Edited July 13, 2012 by kraychik

[guyser]

[they are required by law until that new team is in place to list Mitt Romney. What's great about this story is that the Obama campaign has spent tons of money parroting this lie in certain battleground states, and this strategy of lies has been a huge failure,

IOW, no lie.

Unless you are lying about the lie, in which case....

Edited July 13, 2012 by guyser

[kraychik]

IOW, no lie.

Unless you are lying about the lie, in which case....

The point is simple, and that is that Romney had no meaningful involvement with Bain Capital's operations after he left in February of 1999, although the Obama campaign is dishonestly stating otherwise. One of Obama's campaign spokespersons went so far as to imply that perhaps Romney is a felon, and that he lied to the SEC.

[kraychik]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9c5SGj1ES8

Here Obama exposes his economic illiteracy. While being interviewed by fellow leftist Charlie Rose (who famously stated weeks before the election in November of 2008 with several other leftist pundits, including Tom Brokaw, that they didn't really know anything about Obama), Obama delivers the Marxist narrative of business interests (self-interest) not necessarily being in line with the greater good "creating jobs". What Obama clearly doesn't understand the creation of wealth and the benefit this delivers to society in broad terms.

Obama in his own words:

"...there are questions there (about Romney's professional record with Bain Capital) that have to be asked... was his focus creating jobs?"

Since when do people go into business to create jobs? This is a perfect example of how the left doesn't understand elementary economics. Self-interest is the goal, and one of the beneficial externalities of self-interest in a free market economy is the creation of employment.

"If you're the head of a large private equity firm or hedge fund, your job is make money, it's not to create jobs, it's not even to create successful businesses, it's to make sure you're maximizing returns for your investors".

This is the Marxist narrative as pure as you're gonna get it from Obama. He continues on to talk about how his job is to "think about the workers", as if the interests of one group (the owners, the management, the investors, the capitalists) are diametrically opposed (to borrow a phrase from a Reagan speech in the early 80s) to the interests of the other (the workers, the labourers, the proletariat).

Here are two hilarious exchanges between the clueless leftist pundits Brokaw and Rose, and two other folks that I mentioned earlier admitting they don't know anything about Obama a week before the election. What they do know, however, is that they're both gonna vote for him. The first video has Rose with two leftists from Newsweek, the second video is Rose with Brokaw admitting they don't really know anything about then presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9341

Here is the gem of the second video:

"I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is", says Charlie Rose, "professional journalist", a week before the 2008 election.

"No, I don't know, either", replies Tom Brokaw, another "professional journalist", a week before the 2008 election.

Earlier in the video, Brokaw states, "We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy. China has been not examined at all."

To that, Rose interjects, "Which is astonishing!".

Again, these are two "professional journalists", openly stating they know nothing about Barack Obama, a week before the election in November of 2008. Nevermind any of that, Obama is still "a curious mind" according to Brokaw, and he'll vote for him anyways.

It doesn't get any funnier than this. Edited July 13, 2012 by kraychik

[guyser]

The point is simple,

So simple you dont get it? Far right wingnuts do that I guess.

Lets make it simple, Was he or was he not still the lead guy at Bain until a replacement was found?

Can you say yes or no ?

[kraychik]

So simple you dont get it? Far right wingnuts do that I guess.

Lets make it simple, Was he or was he not still the lead guy at Bain until a replacement was found?

Can you say yes or no ?

He was the CEO, but not the lead guy. Those two things are not always one in the same. I realise that you don't understand this, although I've explained it in detail earlier. I know people who sit on executive boards of certain organisations (for instance, a charity) that they have virtually no involvement with. This can occur for various reasons, which you're obviously not interested in discussing honestly. So I'll leave it at that.

[guyser]

He was the CEO, but not the lead guy.

Those two things are not always one in the same.

I realise that you don't understand this,

Let me tell you a little secret ....The CEO is the lead guy, there is no one higher than he is. The CEO is the top decision maker.

although I've explained it in detail earlier.

No you didnt. You may have tried, but utterly failed. Anyhow, lets not stop here, more comedy to come.

I know people who sit on executive boards of certain organisations (for instance, a charity) that they have virtually no involvement with.

No you don't , thats a load of crap. But nice try!

Yeah, its called a Board of Directors and they meet typically only a few tiomes a year. They are entrusted with protecting investors interests ( like profitability and stability)

This can occur for various reasons, which you're obviously not interested in discussing honestly. So I'll leave it at that.

Honestly? Ha....mucho richness here.

Obviously you are young, very young. But hey , thats ok, you mayu grow up and learn about these things if you shut your mouth long enough.

But word to the wise, dont spout nonsense when there are plenty of people who know all about this.

Your obvious deflection, vis a vis "which you're obviously not interested in discussing honestly. So I'll leave it at that.is pretty much an admission you dont know shite from shinola.

Edited July 13, 2012 by guyser

[guyser]

He was the CEO, but not the lead guy.

Thanks, you prove Romney lied.

tsk tsk....

Want to make a thread about how silly it was? He was for all intents and purposes gone, but he was still the legal go to guy, also the guy who would face the heat if the proverbial **** hit the fan.

Then knock yourself out with your ODS .

Youre a birther too huh?

tsk tsk

[kraychik]

I won't go into personal details, but as I've said, I know people who sit on executive boards who've had no substantial involvement with the relevant organisations for years. Whether or not you understand this is not my problem. The same thing obviously took place with Romney after he left Bain Capital in February 1999 but remained the CEO until he was completely replaced due to legalities.

As was already stated in the second paragraph of my opening post, four Bain Capital officials that John King directly communicated with confirmed Romney's story of him having no meaningful involvement with the first after his departure. It is not I who needs to grow up, as clearly you subscribe to a mythology of all executives of all organisations maintaining meaningful involvement with their respective organisations in all circumstances. This simply isn't the case. It's not the case with people I know personally, and it wasn't the case with Romney. What the Obama campaign is doing, without success, is hoping that enough Americans are ignorant enough to believe Romney's official status as CEO necessitates that he was still actively involved with the affairs of Bain Capital even after he left in February of 2009.

[kraychik]

Your obvious deflection, vis a vis "which you're obviously not interested in discussing honestly. So I'll leave it at that.is pretty much an admission you dont know shite from shinola.

Thank you for the personal attack.

[kraychik]

He was for all intents and purposes gone, but he was still the legal go to guy,

You just contradicted yourself. In your earlier post you stated, incorrectly I should add, that all executives are directly involved in the regular affairs of their respective organisations. I indicated that I know people personally who sit on executive boards of organisations who have had no meaningful involvement with their respective organisations for years. Your response was to call me a liar. Yet here you are, now conceding that Romney was, "for all intents and purposes gone". Which is it? Was he attending regular meetings and playing a meaningful role in the direction of Bain Capital as you stated all executives do, or was he really "gone" from Rain Capital after his departure in February 1999 to work on the Olympics? The false innuendo from the Obama campaign is that Romney was directly involved with operations that were associated with outsourcing of jobs from America. This is clearly untrue, and the narrative you are subscribing to due to your compulsion to disagree with me.

The truth is Romney had no meaningful relationship with Bain Capital after his departure in 1999, and had to stay on board as the CEO due to legalities. This has been confirmed many times, and most recently via communications John King has had with four Bain Capital executives (three of whom are Democrats and two of whom are actively supporting Obama's 2012 campaign) who have stated that Obama's campaign is dead wrong on this. The video is posted above.

Thank you for exposing the left.

[kraychik]

Here's John King in another video breaking through the false innuendo from the Obama campaign, as well as shattering the illusions of guyser who believes that all executives have direct involvement with the management of their respective organisations.

John King quotes one of the former Bain Capital executives, "Steve Pagliuca (a current Bain official) says the Boston Globe report and what the Obama campaign is saying now is simply untrue. Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics. He was had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm, or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure." Edited July 13, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

Here is leftist Washington Post giving the Obama narrative three out of a possible of four Pinnochios, describing it as a deceitful narrative.

Do Bain SEC documents suggest Mitt Romney is a criminal?

The Obama campaign is blowing smoke here. Meanwhile, the weight of evidence suggests that Romney did in fact end active management of Bain in 1999. He stated that in a federal disclosure form he signed, under threat of criminal penalties. He said he was a “former employee” in a state disclosure form. A state commission concluded 10 years ago that he did, indeed, leave Bain in 1999. Investors in Bain funds were told he was not part of the management team.

[BubberMiley]

I find it mind-blowing that there really are people stupid enough to believe the corporate media is leftist.

[kraychik]

I find it mind-blowing that there really are people stupid enough to believe the corporate media is leftist.

Thank you for the insult.

[Argus]

Here Obama exposes his economic illiteracy. While being interviewed by fellow leftist Charlie Rose (who famously stated weeks before the election in November of 2008 with several other leftist pundits, including Tom Brokaw,

You know, just because someone doesn't have a shrine to Adolph Hitler in their basement that doesn't make them a leftist.

that they didn't really know anything about Obama), Obama delivers the Marxist narrative of business interests (self-interest) not necessarily being in line with the greater good "creating jobs". What Obama clearly doesn't understand the creation of wealth and the benefit this delivers to society in broad terms.

You have such a 1950s mentality about business. What's good for GM is no longer necessarily good for America.

Not all business creates jobs. Sometimes it takes jobs away. How does it create wealth when business shifts jobs to Asia or Mexico? It creates wealth for the elites, I suppose, but without jobs there's no necessity that wealth will ever 'trickle down' to the working man.

That's not Marxist, btw. Your understanding of conservatism seems to be about the same as Socialist's understanding of Socialism.

Since when do people go into business to create jobs? This is a perfect example of how the left doesn't understand elementary economics. Self-interest is the goal, and one of the beneficial externalities of self-interest in a free market economy is the creation of employment.

You're correct in that creating jobs is not the focus of business. In fact, business prefers to create as few jobs as possible. But the whole narrative of the Republicans is that we need to be nice to the wealthy and to the corporations because they're 'job creators'. If you're flatly admitting that creating jobs is not something business necessarily does maybe you should argue with the Republicans.

"If you're the head of a large private equity firm or hedge fund, your job is make money, it's not to create jobs, it's not even to create successful businesses, it's to make sure you're maximizing returns for your investors".

This is the Marxist narrative as pure as you're gonna get it from Obama.

I'm confused. How is Obama being a Marxist by stating the obvious?

He continues on to talk about how his job is to "think about the workers", as if the interests of one group (the owners, the management, the investors, the capitalists) are diametrically opposed (to borrow a phrase from a Reagan speech in the early 80s) to the interests of the other (the workers, the labourers, the proletariat).

In some ways they are. Certainly in terms of workers benefits and salaries they are.

[guyser]

You just contradicted yourself. In your earlier post you stated, incorrectly I should add, that all executives are directly involved in the regular affairs of their respective organisations.

Where?

Another lie I guess.

I indicated that I know people personally who sit on executive boards of organisations who have had no meaningful involvement with their respective organisations for years. Your response was to call me a liar.

You probably dont. Thats ok, try and puff up the chest elsewhere.

Yet here you are, now conceding that Romney was, "for all intents and purposes gone". Which is it? Was he attending regular meetings and playing a meaningful role in the direction of Bain Capital as you stated all executives do, or was he really "gone" from Rain Capital after his departure in February 1999 to work on the Olympics?

You need to go learn a lesson about corporate governance. When thats over, they will have taught you that whether or not someone is 'there' , the title of same person will be held directly responsible.

So yes, he can be gone, and still be liable. Funny how that works huh? BTW.. Gr 10 economics class.

The false innuendo from the Obama campaign is that Romney was directly involved with operations that were associated with outsourcing of jobs from America. This is clearly untrue, and the narrative you are subscribing to due to your compulsion to disagree with me.

No no, its because you have not a clue and I am teaching you grasshopper. Become a master and this knowleedge will be yours too.

The truth is Romney had no meaningful relationship with Bain Capital after his departure in 1999, and had to stay on board as the CEO due to legalities.

So in other words....you lied.

Thank you for exposing the leftright .

Dont worry, I dont need an apology. This was fun.

[kraychik]

You know, just because someone doesn't have a shrine to Adolph Hitler in their basement that doesn't make them a leftist.

Hitler was a leftist.

You have such a 1950s mentality about business. What's good for GM is no longer necessarily good for America.

Not all business creates jobs. Sometimes it takes jobs away. How does it create wealth when business shifts jobs to Asia or Mexico? It creates wealth for the elites, I suppose, but without jobs there's no necessity that wealth will ever 'trickle down' to the working man.

This demonstrates that you are a fake conservative. The same attitude criticised ATMs for displacing bank teller jobs, perhaps when the wheel was invented your ideological ancestors were cursing the loss of jobs for slave labourers. The principles of economics are the same today as they were in the 1950s. You expose your leftist ideology in that you don't understand free markets.

That's not Marxist, btw. Your understanding of conservatism seems to be about the same as Socialist's understanding of Socialism.

Obama is parroting a Marxist narrative of this eternal conflict between various arbitrarily-defined classes of people. It's class warfare dressed up as "reasonable management of free markets".

You're correct in that creating jobs is not the focus of business. In fact, business prefers to create as few jobs as possible. But the whole narrative of the Republicans is that we need to be nice to the wealthy and to the corporations because they're 'job creators'. If you're flatly admitting that creating jobs is not something business necessarily does maybe you should argue with the Republicans.

Business prefers whatever is profitable, which more often than not creates jobs. You are still parroting a leftist narrative where certain policies constitute being "nice to the rich" at the expense of others. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Since you are a fake conservative, however, you don't understand this. "Creating jobs" might as well mean creating useless bureaucracies to address some non-existent social ill which essentially serves as a taxpayer-funded employment agency.

In some ways they are. Certainly in terms of workers benefits and salaries they are.

Not necessarily. Businesses cannot simply offer professionals a salary of $20K per year and expect to attract quality talent. In a competitive free market environment, salaries are commensurate to value. Free markets force businesses to pay appropriate salaries. It is in the best interests of the business to attract the best talent it can afford, and this drives up the cost of labour as the skills and experience of the worker rises. How much will your Big Mac cost if every teenager working as McDonald's is being paid a $100K salary with benefits including breast implant surgery? The market will determine these things, not the direction of political masterminds like Obama.

[Argus]

Hitler was a leftist.

Drivel.

This demonstrates that you are a fake conservative. The same attitude criticised ATMs for displacing bank teller jobs, perhaps when the wheel was invented your ideological ancestors were cursing the loss of jobs for slave labourers. The principles of economics are the same today as they were in the 1950s. You expose your leftist ideology in that you don't understand free markets.

You seem confused. You are equating the increase in productivity gained by innovation computer technology to simply shipping the jobs overseas. Further, you're ignoring the topic - which is how what is good for business is good for everyone else. All I've pointed out was that what's good for business is not necessarily good for everyone else.

As to ATMs, btw, you're once again inventing a left-right narrative which really is out of place. As an example, during the depression, Milton Hershey observed steam shovels in operation as he was expanding his facilities. He was told that they did the job of 30 men. His reply was "Get rid of them and hire more men". Hershey was demonstrating his interest in helping out the community. Was he a "leftist", one of the most successful capitalists in American history?

Obama is parroting a Marxist narrative of this eternal conflict between various arbitrarily-defined classes of people. It's class warfare dressed up as "reasonable management of free markets".

The conflict between the workers and the bosses pre-dates Marx by quite some time (read up on the French revolution some day). It has been dormant in the US up until the last few decades, when the wealthy classes and corporations made use of their money and influence to make repeated changes to the tax codes in order to pay lower and lower taxes. The media owned by the wealthy today claim that even a minor increase in taxes on the wealthy would virtually destroy the economy. And some idiots buy it. But back in the 50s, a very economically successful time in America's history, taxes on the wealthy and on corporations were far higher.

The fact is society costs money to run. The efforts by the moneyed class to avoid paying for it, and to shift the burden onto the shoulders of the middle class while simultaneously depriving the lower class of aid or assistance is turning America away from its roots. America used to be known for its class mobility, but no more. It has fallen way back, so much so that if you're born poor in America today, you'll probably die poor.

Business prefers whatever is profitable, which more often than not creates jobs.

More often than not? How much more often? And what kind of jobs? How many jobs have been moved overseas by business in order to cut costs? Many millions. And how does that help the American worker?

You are still parroting a leftist narrative where certain policies constitute being "nice to the rich" at the expense of others.

No, I'm parroting the Republican narrative. They're the ones who say the 1% are 'job creators' and that taxing them would destroy their ability to create jobs.

Not necessarily. Businesses cannot simply offer professionals a salary of $20K per year and expect to attract quality talent. In a competitive free market environment, salaries are commensurate to value.

But what if it's not a competitive free market environment? What if the fix is in? What if business uses the desperation of people long out of work because of a bad economy to force wages lower? What if business uses its contacts in government to allow it to bring in low rent foreign workers to replace native workers at lower wages?

How much will your Big Mac cost if every teenager working as McDonald's is being paid a $100K salary with benefits including breast implant surgery?

The other side of that question is, who is going to buy cars and big screen TVs and houses when all the good jobs have moved overseas? Who is going to buy them when the average wage moves down to a subsistence level?

Edited July 13, 2012 by Argus

[kraychik]

ou seem confused. You are equating the increase in productivity gained by innovation computer technology to simply shipping the jobs overseas. Further, you're ignoring the topic - which is how what is good for business is good for everyone else. All I've pointed out was that what's good for business is not necessarily good for everyone else.

What difference does it make whether or not a person loses their job due to increased technological innovation (an ATM, for instance), or whether it's outcourced to another country due to cheaper operation costs (i.e. manufacturing being shipped to China)? Your Marxist argument is the same in either case, you are claiming that business interests are contrary to the interests of "the worker". This is straight up Marxism, and reveals your lack of understanding of basic economics. I don't begrudge you for this, as this sort of ignorance is common. It's not like basic economics is standard curriculum in high schools, you have to go out of your way to learn this and understand this, unforuntately.

As to ATMs, btw, you're once again inventing a left-right narrative which really is out of place. As an example, during the depression, Milton Hershey observed steam shovels in operation as he was expanding his facilities. He was told that they did the job of 30 men. His reply was "Get rid of them and hire more men". Hershey was demonstrating his interest in helping out the community. Was he a "leftist", one of the most successful capitalists in American history?

This is all about the left and the right. You are parroting the Marxist narrative of economics, where the government is required to manage elements of the economy because of this imaginary conflict between business (capitalist) and worker (proletariat) interests.

As far as Hershey goes, what business is it of mine, or the government's, how he chose to run his private operations? If he wanted to spend more money for whatever reason, that's on him. It is not him who is the leftist, but it's you who is one inch away from openly stating what you want government intervention to manage the economy because business will inevitably crush the worker. You Marxist narrative continues below...

The conflict between the workers and the bosses pre-dates Marx by quite some time (read up on the French revolution some day). It has been dormant in the US up until the last few decades, when the wealthy classes and corporations made use of their money and influence to make repeated changes to the tax codes in order to pay lower and lower taxes. The media owned by the wealthy today claim that even a minor increase in taxes on the wealthy would virtually destroy the economy. And some idiots buy it. But back in the 50s, a very economically successful time in America's history, taxes on the wealthy and on corporations were far higher.

Thank you for openly stating that you subscribe to the Marxist doctrine and false historical, political, and economic narratives of class warfare. Now we have you on the record, if you weren't on the record before. Of course, the "media owned by the wealthy" never suggests that raising taxes on the rich is a bad idea, right?

Here is one of endless examples of leftist media outlets parroting the "eat the rich" narrative. Norah O'Donnell from CBS states that a tax cut, I repeat, a tax cut would cost taxpayers $850 billion over the next ten years.

Bizarrely, CBS’s O’Donnell Cites ‘Cost to Taxpayers’ of Maintaining Current Income Tax Rates

Although one of many examples, Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS, is a known Democrat and Obama bundler. Same goes for CNN's founder Ted Turner. And on and on and on and on. And what is Obama's economic policy? Tax the rich.

The fact is society costs money to run. The efforts by the moneyed class to avoid paying for it, and to shift the burden onto the shoulders of the middle class while simultaneously depriving the lower class of aid or assistance is turning America away from its roots. America used to be known for its class mobility, but no more. It has fallen way back, so much so that if you're born poor in America today, you'll probably die poor.

This is 100% pure not-from-concentrate Marxism. Straight up class warfare. Hilariously, over 50% of Americans don't pay a federal income tax, and America's tax system is in fact more progressive than Canada's. Let me translate that for you into easy English, America's top tier of income earners shoulder a greater portion of the total income tax burden (both federal and state, where applicable) than their equivalents in Canada. Despite this, Marxists like yourself who pretend to be conservatives still believe in this fantasy about "tax cuts" for "the wealthy" and them not "paying their fair share". Absolutely ridiculous.

More often than not? How much more often? And what kind of jobs? How many jobs have been moved overseas by business in order to cut costs? Many millions. And how does that help the American worker?

It's not about "the American worker" and it's not about "big business". It's about the market determining these outcomes free from the encumbrance of economic illiterates like yourself who think you can outthink the market, which is essentially the collective wisdom of all the millions of people in Canada and the USA making decisions every second of every day in their own best interests. We have no obligation to preserve redundant jobs simply because it belongs to this beloved class of the the proletariat American worker. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, but unfortunately you've bought into the class warfare narrative.

Here is a great video where Reagan shatters the Marxist narrative that you're parroting. Fast forward to 21:30 to get to the part I'm talking about.

No, I'm parroting the Republican narrative. They're the ones who say the 1% are 'job creators' and that taxing them would destroy their ability to create jobs.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, which is an economic principle you don't understand. Raised costs on "the 1%" (another Marxist fantasy popularised by the recent OWS agitators) are simply passed onto everyone else in one way or another. What you don't understand is that the economy is like an ecosystem, we're all interconnected. When you start messing around with it, which is of course sometimes required, you mess with all of it.

The other side of that question is, who is going to buy cars and big screen TVs and houses when all the good jobs have moved overseas? Who is going to buy them when the average wage moves down to a subsistence level?

This is the endgame of the Marxist political prophecy. "The capitalist will sell you the rope with which you will hang him". You are channelling Lenin. It's hilarious that cybercoma described you as on the right of the political spectrum. Of course, cybercoma is a communist, so it sort of figures that anyone with a smidgen of conservatism in them, which you may have displayed once or twice, is automatically a "right-winger".

Edited July 14, 2012 by kraychik

[Shady]

The Washington Post gave the Obama campaign 3 pinocchios for their ridiculous lies about Romney. Obama can't run on his record, because it's abhorrent. So he's basically forced to sling as much mud as he possibly can.

CNN has also debunked the Obama campaign 3 pinocchio lies.

CNN: Two “active” Obama supporters at Bain confirm Romney left in 1999

And now FactCheck.Org weighs in as well. The result? More lies from Obama.

Romney’s Bain Years: New Evidence, Same Conclusion

But the Obama campaign objected, claiming that Romney remained a part-time manager even while he was living in Utah and running the Olympics. We responded, finding the campaign’s evidence “weak or non-existent.”

FactCheck.Org

Obama and his campaign are completely pathetic, grasping at anything to distract from his terrible record as President. I expect things to get even worse, with some of his surrogates bringing up the "Mormon" issue as well. No 'Morning In America' theme for Obama like during Reagan's re-election. No 'Don't change horses in midstream' like during Clinton's re-election. It's going to be lies, smears, and innuendo all the way until November when this clown finally loses his job.

[The_Squid]

Don't feed the troll

[BC_chick]

Since when do people go into business to create jobs? This is a perfect example of how the left doesn't understand elementary economics. Self-interest is the goal, and one of the beneficial externalities of self-interest in a free market economy is the creation of employment.

IOW, people don't go into business to create jobs.

[BC_chick]

Drivel.

You seem confused. You are equating the increase in productivity gained by innovation computer technology to simply shipping the jobs overseas. Further, you're ignoring the topic - which is how what is good for business is good for everyone else. All I've pointed out was that what's good for business is not necessarily good for everyone else.

As to ATMs, btw, you're once again inventing a left-right narrative which really is out of place. As an example, during the depression, Milton Hershey observed steam shovels in operation as he was expanding his facilities. He was told that they did the job of 30 men. His reply was "Get rid of them and hire more men". Hershey was demonstrating his interest in helping out the community. Was he a "leftist", one of the most successful capitalists in American history?

The conflict between the workers and the bosses pre-dates Marx by quite some time (read up on the French revolution some day). It has been dormant in the US up until the last few decades, when the wealthy classes and corporations made use of their money and influence to make repeated changes to the tax codes in order to pay lower and lower taxes. The media owned by the wealthy today claim that even a minor increase in taxes on the wealthy would virtually destroy the economy. And some idiots buy it. But back in the 50s, a very economically successful time in America's history, taxes on the wealthy and on corporations were far higher.

The fact is society costs money to run. The efforts by the moneyed class to avoid paying for it, and to shift the burden onto the shoulders of the middle class while simultaneously depriving the lower class of aid or assistance is turning America away from its roots. America used to be known for its class mobility, but no more. It has fallen way back, so much so that if you're born poor in America today, you'll probably die poor.

More often than not? How much more often? And what kind of jobs? How many jobs have been moved overseas by business in order to cut costs? Many millions. And how does that help the American worker?

No, I'm parroting the Republican narrative. They're the ones who say the 1% are 'job creators' and that taxing them would destroy their ability to create jobs.

But what if it's not a competitive free market environment? What if the fix is in? What if business uses the desperation of people long out of work because of a bad economy to force wages lower? What if business uses its contacts in government to allow it to bring in low rent foreign workers to replace native workers at lower wages?

The other side of that question is, who is going to buy cars and big screen TVs and houses when all the good jobs have moved overseas? Who is going to buy them when the average wage moves down to a subsistence level?

OMG, Argus! Great post.

I never knew you had it in you...

[bleeding heart]

I agree. Argus undermined his "arguments" nicely.

IOW, people don't go into business to create jobs.

Seriously. Obama makes the same point kraychik made...and so Obama is a "Marxist."

Edited July 14, 2012 by bleeding heart