Bad news for Mitt Romney
Michael Tee ·
January 5, 2012 at 8:20pm
Saw this on Twitter. It's fairly...devastating.
- Comment (149)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
- Let your voice be heard! Join the conversation -- or start your own.
- Follow your favorite Contributors and fellow Members
- Enjoy Premium Podcasts
- Read Member-initiated conversations
- Keep tabs on your favorite conversations
- Like, Quote or Share your favorite post or comments
- Receive special Member-only invitations... and more!
Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place. Join today!
Already a Member? Sign In
Comments:
May '10
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
Compare and contrast with Santorum on American manufacturing.
Aug '11
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
Fair or not, this is what the DNC is prepared to unleash on Mitt Romney, should he get the nomination. Which is why he should not get the nomination.
Dec '11
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
Nobody likes a scavenger no matter how necessary for the circle of life.
May '10
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
It's not fair, inasmuch as competition from overseas and union overreach bankrupted American steel. But that "he doesn't care about jobs, he cares about money" line will tell with a lot of voters.
I sure hope Santorum gets a fair hearing. He understands these voters. He comes from the same place they come from, and he shares their values and concerns.
Aug '10
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
Sorry ,but anything with Moveon.org written on it is anti-American, whether it is directed at Romney or not.
The argument is weak, the steel business in America went away long ago. Armco was a shell and the folks at Bain Capital were there before the folks at KKR, or Forstmann, or someone else. Armco turned in AK Steel and moved some assets to some other location in the US where the unions were more interested in making steel . Missouri's inability to get Right to Work (thanks Dick Gephardt !) has cost it billions.
We know the ads are coming. Everyone seems worried about this one, for instance.
So what , it's their money ! We need EJ Hill to make a picture showing
Geithner, Bernanke, Obama, Trumka, Andy Stern in the same shot, but up their waists in money, and a caption showing whose money is it . Our money !!
Move on , please.....
Edited on January 5, 2012 at 4:46pmOct '10
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
I am just very uncomfortable with this idea that we need to subsidize manufacturing. Manufacturing as a percentage of the US economy is declining, but manufacturing as a percentage of the global economy is declining. It's a global phenomenon, and it's a sign of our prosperity, not decline.
Dec '11
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
Mark Perry FTW:
Excluding recession-related decreases in 2001 and 2008-09, America's manufacturing output has continued to increase since 1970. In every year since 2004, manufacturing output has exceeded $2 trillion (in constant 2005 dollars), twice the output produced in America's factories in the early 1970s. Taken on its own, U.S. manufacturing would rank today as the sixth largest economy in the world, just behind France and ahead of the United Kingdom, Italy and Brazil.
In 2009, the most recent full year for which international data are available, our manufacturing output was $2.155 trillion (including mining and utilities). That's more than 45% higher than China's, the country we're supposedly losing ground to. Despite recent gains in China and elsewhere, the U.S. still produced more than 20% of global manufacturing output in 2009.
May '10
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
Todd
I am just very uncomfortable with this idea that we need to subsidize manufacturing. Manufacturing as a percentage of the US economy is declining, but manufacturing as a percentage of the global economy is declining. It's a global phenomenon, and it's a sign of our prosperity, not decline. · Jan 5 at 7:45am
Lower tax rates is not subsidizing.
In a perfect free world market, it wouldn't be called for. But under the circumstances--economic, political, and international--I think it's prudent and wise.
I think the US has good sound reasons, including national security reasons, for wanting to incentivize the growth in domestic industry.
Dec '10
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
Todd
I am just very uncomfortable with this idea that we need to subsidize manufacturing. Manufacturing as a percentage of the US economy is declining, but manufacturing as a percentage of the global economy is declining. It's a global phenomenon, and it's a sign of our prosperity, not decline. · Jan 5 at 7:45am
While part of this is due to increased labor productivity-- which is good-- part of this is also due to the fact that our financial elites are making cargo-containers of cash with fictional investments, accounting chicanery, and exploitative labor practices using free government money.
I told James of England these ads were coming. I just thought they would have the discipline to wait longer.
That man, and men and women like him, will never, ever vote for Mitt Romney. Make your peace with it. Now just ask if his vote is necessary or not for a GOP victory. I think it probably is. I also think we will be enjoying another four years of President Obama.
Mar '11
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
It appears that among all those evil "establishment" conservatives that we've heard so much about, Santorum is already recieving a fair hearing.
Oct '10
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
katievs
Lower tax rates is not subsidizing.
In a perfect free world market, it wouldn't be called for. But under the circumstances--economic, political, and international--I think it's prudent and wise.
I think the US has good sound reasons, including national security reasons, for wanting to incentivize the growth in domestic industry. · Jan 5 at 7:52am
I agree that lower taxes applied "across the board" are not subsidies, but offering a lower rate for one industry while leaving the higher rate for everyone else is a subsidy.
May '10
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
Todd
katievs
Lower tax rates is not subsidizing.
In a perfect free world market, it wouldn't be called for. But under the circumstances--economic, political, and international--I think it's prudent and wise.
I think the US has good sound reasons, including national security reasons, for wanting to incentivize the growth in domestic industry. · Jan 5 at 7:52am
I agree that lower taxes applied "across the board" are not subsidies, but offering a lower rate for one industry while leaving the higher rate for everyone else is a subsidy.
Unless we're going to be economic absolutists, then the question (IMO) should be whether it's sound and sensible policy. We use tariffs, tax incentives, etc. to encourage behavior that's in the best interests of the country. If we judge that it's in the best interests of America not to outsource all manufacturing and agriculture, say, to foreign countrires--many of whom are hostile--then we do well to buttress those sectors of our economy through special incentives, etc.
That's very different from bailouts and crony-capitalism designed to enrich particular people or companies at the expense of the competition.
Edited on January 5, 2012 at 5:38pmAug '10
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
How, exactly, did Bain Capital "make millions" off the purchase and closure of a single factory?
Edited on January 5, 2012 at 5:22pmDec '11
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
Misthiocracy: How, exactly, did Bain Capital "make millions" off the purchase and closure of a single factory? · Jan 5 at 8:21am
Edited on Jan 05 at 08:22 am
Tooling can add up real quick.
Jan '11
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
I think it's good for the Dems to put out these ads for Romney to defend himself against. We as a society have to decide whether we will prop up businesses that aren't competitive, like GM, and become a socialist nation that bails bad companies out to save unproductive union jobs, or not. If we as a society can't stomach weak corporations and industries being allowed to fail, we will never recover and we don't deserve to. Any candidate from the GOP who isn't willing to speak this truth will do no favors to the country. Our candidate needs to make the case that bad companies and banks need to be allowed to fail, no matter how painful in the short run, because doing otherwise cripples us in the long run. A republican candidate needs the mandate to pursue and promote the tough choices needed to get our economy back on track.
Edited on January 5, 2012 at 7:36pmAug '11
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
We have to remember that the Democrats have spent a good long time brainwashing the American People into believing that "the rich" are the enemies of the state. (Never mind that they are actually the benefactors of the state.) It will take a good long time to undo this brainwashing, and it won't happen before November.
Does Romney have the ability to defuse the attacks that will come his way just for having money? I think we have a nice little echo chamber here, and may not realize how many people actually sympathize with the Occupy nuts.
May '11
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
Why would the owners of a profitable steel mill sell it?
I'd like to see the pre-Bain financials of that shop along with related jobs-longetivity projections.
Edited on January 6, 2012 at 6:40amOct '10
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
@ katievs
But how does anyone know what amount of manufacturing is the correct amount for the US? Our manufacturing sector is still the or close to being the largest in the world. Our manufacturing output is double what it was in the 70's. Should it have been triple?
I have no idea, and no one does. It should be based on people's preferences and choices absent policies that distort those decisions.
But let's assume that we could determine the optimal level of manufacturing output and design policies that will help us achieve those manufacturing objectives (kind of sounds like Soviet style central planning, doesn't it).
Won't the political process eventually be taken over by those interests that will be most affected by these policies? I don't have the time, money or energy to go up to Washington and lobby Congressman against these special subsidies. But these corporations that will receive the benefits will have a huge incentive to craft these policies in their favor, and make sure that those subsidies are never repealed.
So I would argue that it has everything to do with crony capitalism.
Jan '11
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
I did not find this devastating at all. Companies are supposed to go out of business if they're not profitable or if their owners feel that their capital can bring greater returns in an alternative endeavor. But I'm not an economic populist who buys-in to these sob stories.
Jan '11
Re: Bad news for Mitt Romney
Yes, this is all I want: a candidate who is not afraid to say the unpopular things that have to be said. Hard to do for a politician, though; especially when some portion of your own political base can't bare to hear what has to be said and who are suckers for the emotional tugs from stories such as this one.