Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Monday, May 14, 2012

Mitt Romney's Personal Recession

Posted by on Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:40 PM

ThinkProgress says:

In its effort to sell Mitt Romney as someone who understands the economy and knows how to create jobs, one of his campaign’s early talking points was that he helped create 100,000 jobs during his tenure at Bain Capital. The campaign repeated the claim throughout the primary, despite a glaring lack of evidence to support it (even Sarah Palin doubted it).

Romney eventually stopped repeating the talking point, which advisers had difficulty defending under pressure, and now it seems Boston has completely Etch A Sketched the number and severely lowered the number of jobs Romney is supposed to have created at Bain.

BuzzFeed’s Zeke Miller reports that, in the wake of the Obama campaign’s new ad attacking Romney’s record at Bain, the “new Romney jobs math” is significantly more modest than the old. This time, the campaign is asserting that Romney created a meager and vague “thousands of jobs” at Bain and “tens of thousands” of jobs as governor of Massachusetts.

That means that Mitt Romney personally lost more then 90,000 jobs sometime in the last few months. All those imaginary people are now out of work! Meanwhile, to combat this morning's Obama ad, the Romney team has put out a commercial about how Bain Capital created a steel mill:

 

Comments (20) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Zebes 1
Bain Capital: We Get It Right, Sometimes! Let our free market, hit-or-miss ideals be the guiding light of the American recovery.
Posted by Zebes http://www.badrap.org/rescue/index.html on May 14, 2012 at 3:48 PM · Report this
2
What a joke. Creating or destroying jobs is utterly irrelevant to the Bain Capital's of the world. Their sole purpose is maximizing profits. It doesn't matter much to the market how they accomplish this, including firing everybody and selling companies off piecemeal.

You'd think Romney as a Republican could just own that, but I guess even the Tea Party cares about jobs.
Posted by Westside forever on May 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM · Report this
3
Why are democrats so concerned with numbers, logic, and reason. Cant you understand that God didn't want those people to have jobs...
Posted by Random Poster on May 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM · Report this
Gay Dude for Romney 4
Obama's job losses just in Solyndra (with tax payer investments, not private investments) and other green energy bankruptcies deserve similar scrutiny. 1100 lost at Solyndra alone.
Posted by Gay Dude for Romney http://mittromney.com on May 14, 2012 at 4:14 PM · Report this
Grrr 5
Wasn't this basically addressed by Seattle Weekly on an investigative piece about Bain Capital and the closure of Georgetown and Amco Steel?
Posted by Grrr on May 14, 2012 at 4:16 PM · Report this
Free Lunch 6
@4 - You think Solyndra has gotten inadequate attention? It's practically in the news daily, even though it went bankrupt eight months ago.

Also, I'm pretty sure that lending money to a company that ended up mismanaging it is a weak comparison to actually taking management control of a company, loading it up with debt, and then driving it into bankruptcy - making millions in the process - as Bain did with GST Steel.
Posted by Free Lunch on May 14, 2012 at 5:53 PM · Report this
7
@2
"Their sole purpose is maximizing profits."

Just to make sure we're on the same page we're talking about maximizing the profits at Bain Capital, right?

Because Bain got paid even if the victim company lost money.
Even if the victim company went bankrupt.
Even if the victim company shut down completely and laid off all of its workers.

And then Romney sent his share of those profits to a nice vacation in a Swiss bank account.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on May 14, 2012 at 6:03 PM · Report this
8
Except Romney left Bain in 1999, and the guy who closed the plant in 2001, Jonathan Lavine, is an Obama bundler/fundraiser.

Rich liberals can be utter dicks to the working man just as easily as rich conservatives.
Posted by delbert on May 14, 2012 at 6:12 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 9
"I created hundreds of thousands of jobs. No, you won't find any account of them in the records, but they were created in Massachusetts. No, I am under no obligation to provide you with any evidence of that."
Posted by Urgutha Forka on May 14, 2012 at 8:18 PM · Report this
10
@9 As opposed to Obama, who killed hundreds of thousands of jobs in oil (no exploration on Govt land), gas (no Keystone pipeline), coal (42% of WV voted for a felon with a mullet instead of Obama in the Democratic primary), and all the non-union jobs at GM & Chrysler (700+ dealerships were closed by the Obama Admin).

And the promised jobs in green energy? Ha! sucker...
Posted by delbert on May 14, 2012 at 9:56 PM · Report this
11
@10
You seem to be using a different definition of "killed" than what I am familiar with.

"As opposed to Obama, who killed hundreds of thousands of jobs in oil (no exploration on Govt land), ..."

So who lost the job that they'd had for 5 years exploring for oil on government land?
No one?

"... coal (42% of WV voted for a felon with a mullet instead of Obama in the Democratic primary), ..."

Mullet equals killed? I'm not following the logic there.

"... and all the non-union jobs at GM & Chrysler (700+ dealerships were closed by the Obama Admin)."

Are the dealerships owned by GM?
I was under the impression that the dealer owned the dealership and bought the cars to resell them.

And on that last one, didn't Romney want to let GM go bankrupt?
Didn't Romney oppose the federal bailout?
So doesn't that mean that Obama saved jobs there?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on May 14, 2012 at 10:19 PM · Report this
malcolmxy 12
he probably did create 100k jobs...just had to destroy 1 million to do it.

MA is #1 in health care and education access, though.

#6 in per capita income, too, up from #10 during his tenure. {just like a bad economy is the last guy's fault , a good one is the product of the success of his policies...or blind luck...darts usually beats analysts, anyway.
Posted by malcolmxy on May 15, 2012 at 2:16 AM · Report this
13
@11 Active leases on Federal land were cancelled which means people that would have been working to explore for oil didn't get the opportunity.

You should thank God for Dick Cheney allowing private companies to explore for oil on private land, otherwise the price of gas would have tripled instead of just doubling under Obama.
Posted by delbert on May 15, 2012 at 6:19 AM · Report this
14
@4 I have to laugh at the Republican indignation that the U.S. lost half a billion dollars in loan guarantees to Solyndra. Dozens of companies have gotten support to jumpstart the U.S. alternative energy industry. Half a bil isn't nothing, but compare it to one bank's recent trading losses. JPM Chase, the loudest recent opponent to bank speculation restriction rules, blew over two billion that they're willing to admit to so far.

Yeah, so Solyndra was a fail. So what? Government doesn't have a worse record than industry, and we need both to get anywhere, unless you're hellbent on going back to the Middle Ages.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on May 15, 2012 at 6:47 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 15
@13: should i thank dick cheney for the poisoned water tables that unregulated fracking will leave our country?
Posted by Max Solomon on May 15, 2012 at 7:15 AM · Report this
venomlash 16
@13: "You should thank God for Dick Cheney"
Excuse me, nearly threw up in my mouth there.
Posted by venomlash on May 15, 2012 at 7:50 AM · Report this
long-time reader 17
If you're trying to attack Obama about Solyndra, get it right. The point is that he wasted money, not that he destroyed jobs. In fact, it was money wasted trying to CREATE or SAVE jobs. Ah-durrh.
Posted by long-time reader on May 15, 2012 at 8:37 AM · Report this
18
@13
"Active leases on Federal land were cancelled which means people that would have been working to explore for oil didn't get the opportunity."

So what you are saying is that no one lost the job they were doing at that time.
At the worst, possible jobs did not become actual jobs.
But no on performing an actual job lost that actual job.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on May 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM · Report this
19
@13
"otherwise the price of gas would have tripled instead of just doubling under Obama."
http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_char…
You meant to say how they doubled under Obama to not quite what they were in year 8 of Bush's presidency right?

In the end, the president has very little control over gas prices. If a president had much control over gas prices you'd see significant drops in price before every election. You can't get too mad at Obama for prices today any more than we could get mad at Bush for prices during his term. It's supply and demand and nowhere except in Republicans wildest wet dreams does the USA have enough of the world supply that we can't expect to have any substantial impact on the price in that way. On the other hand, we do account for a very large percentage of the demand so that's an aspect of the price we can definitely impact. For example, if people were to get rid of their SUV's and/or live closer to where they work, we could dramatically reduce our use of gas and thus significantly reduce the price.
Posted by Root on May 15, 2012 at 12:21 PM · Report this
aliencoffebandit 20
i'm going to try my best to not read any more news about romney and as little about the elections as possible. the absurdity is too much to handle
Posted by aliencoffebandit on May 15, 2012 at 3:24 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy