Bain Capital - GST Steel - Obamas Commercial

[IDBillzFan]

Well, the polling says otherwise. Obama is leading nationally still and in a lot of swing states. If Romney loses, it will be because Romney is a very weak candidate.

 

Just because people are out of work and things aren't great, it doesn't mean people will automatically elect Romney. A lot of people may think that Romney could do no better or even worse than Obama.

The polling says that the economy and jobs are far and away THE #1 issue with American voters. No one gives a CRAP about likability except a bunch of liberals who know they have absolutely, positively NOTHING positive to otherwise say about Obama.

 

"So, what do you think about the job Obama is doing as president?"

 

"Well, he's very likable."

 

See how stupid that sounds?

 

Probably not.

[TheMadCap]

 

Just because people are out of work and things aren't great, it doesn't mean people will automatically elect Romney. A lot of people may think that Romney could do no better or even worse than Obama.

 

 

well, maybe so. I believe the race will continue to be very uncertain until the debates begin. If Romney can't defeat Obama in the debates, then he is truly doomed, to put it in an obvious light...

[Doc]

Well, the polling says otherwise. Obama is leading nationally still and in a lot of swing states. If Romney loses, it will be because Romney is a very weak candidate.

 

Just because people are out of work and things aren't great, it doesn't mean people will automatically elect Romney. A lot of people may think that Romney could do no better or even worse than Obama.

If Romney loses, it's not because he's a weak candidate. It's because people are stupid and/or entitled. The main problem is the economy/jobs. Based on Barry's failure in that area, the election should be a runaway for Romney.

[fjl2nd]

The polling says that the economy and jobs are far and away THE #1 issue with American voters. No one gives a CRAP about likability except a bunch of liberals who know they have absolutely, positively NOTHING positive to otherwise say about Obama.

 

"So, what do you think about the job Obama is doing as president?"

 

"Well, he's very likable."

 

See how stupid that sounds?

 

Probably not.

 

You're taking this to the extreme here. A lot of people are actually fine with the way Obama is doing the job. If things aren't recovering fast enough for you or you think Romney could somehow do a better job, then vote for him.

 

But I'm sure lots of voters are thinking why change now in the middle of a recovery? Will Romney do better? What does he bring to the table that helps me and the economy?

[DC Tom]

Millions upon millions of people are out of work with absolutely NO prospects. Bills are due. Houses are still being foreclosed on. Companies continue to cut back (HP just cut 26,000 people this week), and you knuckleheads continue to think that the American people will re-elect Obama because he's likable.

 

You have a desperate over-estimation of the American voter. If likability is the single most important criterion for most people. If it weren't, Lyndon Johnson would have been a two term president, and Bob Dole would have beaten Clinton.

 

I'm more confused that people find Obama likable. I always feel like he's a patronizing "ask not what you can do for your country, ask what the evil rich fat-cats can do for you!" son of a B word.

[fjl2nd]

If Romney loses, it's not because he's a weak candidate. It's because people are stupid and/or entitled. The main problem is the economy/jobs. Based on Barry's failure in that area, the election should be a runaway for Romney.

 

Define failure though. The private sector has been growing for 2-3 years. And what does Romney bring to the table to create more jobs and spur the economy. Frankly, I'm not sure either guy has the tools to do it.

Edited May 24, 2012 by fjl2nd

[DC Tom]

Define failure though. The private sector has been growing for 2-3 years. And what does Romney bring to the table to create more jobs and spur the economy. Frankly, I'm not sure either guy has the tools to do it.

 

Romney's got a better understanding of the private sector, a background that actually includes dealing with money, and has actual executive experience (more than Obama had when elected, and still more than Obama has now). I'll take that over money mismanagement, no concept of business, and state senator/activist/US senator who never stopped campaigning for office any day of the week. Odds are he's likely to do fewer blisteringly stupid things.

 

Plus...if you put a hoodie on him, he could be Ronald Reagan's son.

[fjl2nd]

Romney's got a better understanding of the private sector, a background that actually includes dealing with money, and has actual executive experience (more than Obama had when elected, and still more than Obama has now). I'll take that over money mismanagement, no concept of business, and state senator/activist/US senator who never stopped campaigning for office any day of the week. Odds are he's likely to do fewer blisteringly stupid things.

 

Plus...if you put a hoodie on him, he could be Ronald Reagan's son.

 

LMAO. That last line is hilarious.

 

Romney worked in the private sector so let's elect him? How about we take a look at his policies first. What is he actually going to do when he gets there?

[GG]

LMAO. That last line is hilarious.

 

Romney worked in the private sector so let's elect him? How about we take a look at his policies first. What is he actually going to do when he gets there?

 

I like how being a GOP governor of a very left leaning state qualifies as having less executive experience than a part term Senator?

[Magox]

You wanna read some funny ****?

 

check this out

 

President Obama, Executive in Chief of criticizing the cruelties of private equity, is more than happy to plead for donations from people who make their money in the industry. During daylight hours, he’s America’s “Robin Hood.” By night, though, he can be found schmoozing people at firms such as Blackstone — a major player in private equity.

 

But here’s where it gets better. Obama is speaking at TPI Composites (a producer of blades for wind turbines) in Newton, Iowa later today. Expect to see him promote clean energy tax credits — and laud himself for pushing public funds to help get these companies get off the ground.

 

(After all, there’s no way they could possibly survive without the government helping them out, right?)

 

Except they can. And they did.

 

It turns out that the bulk of financing ($68 million) for TPI (like most non-Obama affiliated companies in America) has come from private equity. (Source, Source, Source.)

 

In comparison, the nine million in stimulus funds they received is just a small chunk of the pie.

 

Then again, this is exactly what we should expect from a President who provided the best investment we’ve seen in some time, according to the Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen:

 

 

A]s Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, “Throw Them All Out,” fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week it’s not the president’s job “to make a lot of money for investors.” Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.

 

 

So, President Obama, we’re left scratching our heads and wondering: What’s the truth about your feelings? Is private equity the monster you’re making it out to be, or is it just another part of a healthy capitalist system.

 

UPDATE: In Obama’s prepared remarks at the wind factory, he says:

 

 

OBAMA: “First up on the list – It makes absolutely no sense that we actually give tax breaks to companies that ship jobs and factories overseas. No sense at all. It’s time for Congress to end the tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and use that money to cover moving expenses for companies that bring jobs back to America.”

 

Of note: TPI Composites has factories in Mexico, China and Turkey.

 

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/24/obama-visiting-wind-turbine-factory-where-private-equity-blows-govt-financing-away/#ixzz1vpo0zX2j

 

 

You can't make this **** up

[DC Tom]

Romney worked in the private sector so let's elect him? How about we take a look at his policies first. What is he actually going to do when he gets there?

 

No...but his experience, regardless of where it was acquired, is more applicable to the position than Obama's. Hell, arguably Romney's experience is more applicable to the presidency that Obama's presidential experience. (Yes, that's hyperbole...but not by much.)

 

His policies are almost irrelevant. It's rare that a president has such carte blanche that his policies matter all that much. Of the policy statements Obama ran on, basically only health care got anywhere, and even then, with an extremely friendly Congress, it was a completely ineffective, watered-down half-assed bull **** version of what he wanted.

 

And that's not just Obama...name a Bush policy that survived reality after 2000. Or Clinton. Or Bush the First. Reagan, at least, managed to implement his vision of "fiscal responsibility". Whoever the next non-Obama president is - be it Romney this year, or whomever in 2017 (or, God forbid, Biden within the next four), their policy desires will run afoul of reality within 24 hours of inauguration.

 

So I really don't give a **** about what his policies are going to be, as much as I do "Does he have a sound grasp on reality?" And yeah, I'd say the guy that can read a balance sheet, turn around companies, deal with the politics surrounding the Olympics, then not completely implode as a Republican governor of a state basically belonging to the Kennedys probably has a sounder grasp on reality than the guy that gives Russia a reset button and lets France take charge of a military campaign. Magic underwear notwithstanding.

 

A]s Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, “Throw Them All Out,” fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.”

 

So what. A single statistic, standing alone, is meaningless.

 

Tell me how much private investment in alternative energy companies went to Obama supporters. If it's substantially less than 70%...THEN this is a story. Otherwise, it's nonsense.

[Magox]

No...but his experience, regardless of where it was acquired, is more applicable to the position than Obama's. Hell, arguably Romney's experience is more applicable to the presidency that Obama's presidential experience. (Yes, that's hyperbole...but not by much.)

 

His policies are almost irrelevant. It's rare that a president has such carte blanche that his policies matter all that much. Of the policy statements Obama ran on, basically only health care got anywhere, and even then, with an extremely friendly Congress, it was a completely ineffective, watered-down half-assed bull **** version of what he wanted.

 

And that's not just Obama...name a Bush policy that survived reality after 2000. Or Clinton. Or Bush the First. Reagan, at least, managed to implement his vision of "fiscal responsibility". Whoever the next non-Obama president is - be it Romney this year, or whomever in 2017 (or, God forbid, Biden within the next four), their policy desires will run afoul of reality within 24 hours of inauguration.

 

So I really don't give a **** about what his policies are going to be, as much as I do "Does he have a sound grasp on reality?" And yeah, I'd say the guy that can read a balance sheet, turn around companies, deal with the politics surrounding the Olympics, then not completely implode as a Republican governor of a state basically belonging to the Kennedys probably has a sounder grasp on reality than the guy that gives Russia a reset button and lets France take charge of a military campaign. Magic underwear notwithstanding.

 

 

 

So what. A single statistic, standing alone, is meaningless.

 

Tell me how much private investment in alternative energy companies went to Obama supporters. If it's substantially less than 70%...THEN this is a story. Otherwise, it's nonsense.

 

That's not the point, the point is that the Obama administration is ripping Private Equity, in the sense that the primary function of the business is to create wealth for it's investors at the expense of hard working people of the middle class. Here you have a case where Obama is set to tout this company in Iowa today in a campaign style speech, with money that the government provided, yet it was because of Private Equity, which funded the vast majority of the company that is making it all possible.

 

This is dripping with irony.

[Doc]

That's not the point, the point is that the Obama administration is ripping Private Equity, in the sense that the primary function of the business is to create wealth for it's investors at the expense of hard working people of the middle class. Here you have a case where Obama is set to tout this company in Iowa today in a campaign style speech, with money that the government provided, yet it was because of Private Equity, which funded the vast majority of the company that is making it all possible.

 

This is dripping with irony.

I alluded to Jonathan Lavine, who is a major fund-raiser for Barry, who worked at Bain, also until 1999. With the gist being that it's not alright to have worked for a private equity firm...unless they donated to his campaign.

[IDBillzFan]

What does he bring to the table that helps me and the economy?

He's not Obama. The minute businesses see that Obama is gone, you'll see a recovery that will even make Obama realize how useless he was.

[DC Tom]

That's not the point, the point is that the Obama administration is ripping Private Equity, in the sense that the primary function of the business is to create wealth for it's investors at the expense of hard working people of the middle class. Here you have a case where Obama is set to tout this company in Iowa today in a campaign style speech, with money that the government provided, yet it was because of Private Equity, which funded the vast majority of the company that is making it all possible.

 

This is dripping with irony.

 

I know...but I want my question answered. I keep hearing that only Obama cronies get DoE grants for alternative energy companies. I want to know if that's because of rank favoritism, or simply because the people who own and operate alternative energy companies are more likely to be Greens and vote for Obama.

 

I want people to stop throwing around that totally useless claim until someone can actually back it up. It ain't cronyism until someone shows me that private equity is distributed significantly differently in that sector.

[3rdnlng]

Well that's kind of stupid too. Any good manager, and I have no doubt that Romney is, can relate to any type of person regardless of where they came from, what their background is, their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, income level etc. Romney strikes me as a manager. Obama...not so much.

 

 

If you are viewing my post in an economic sense, then I can see your point about it being stupid. If you view it in the sense that he doesn't understand what it's like growing up in America and our general values and mores. That's what I was referring to.

[fjl2nd]

He's not Obama. The minute businesses see that Obama is gone, you'll see a recovery that will even make Obama realize how useless he was.

 

This is pretty funny.

 

What exactly will change? Demand skyrockets somehow? Taxes immediately go to zero?? Lolol.

[meazza]

This is pretty funny.

 

What exactly will change? Demand skyrockets somehow? Taxes immediately go to zero?? Lolol.

 

I think it has to do more with uncertainty. There is no clear cut view on what Obama will do if he were to be re-elected (since none of his policies would pass congress) so businesses would be hesitant to make moves.

[TheMadCap]

I think it has to do more with uncertainty. There is no clear cut view on what Obama will do if he were to be re-elected (since none of his policies would pass congress) so businesses would be hesitant to make moves.

 

I believe this to be correct, and probably what LABILLZ was refering too...

[DC Tom]

I think it has to do more with uncertainty. There is no clear cut view on what Obama will do if he were to be re-elected (since none of his policies would pass congress) so businesses would be hesitant to make moves.

 

There's no clear-cut view on what Obama will do tomorrow.

 

The whole GM deal didn't just royally !@#$ over investors, it called into question the integrity of an entire segment of the industry that provides working capital to corporations (why would anyone loan money to a company under the possibility that the federal government could unilaterally and without due process cancel the obligation?) What business isn't going to be hesitant in that sort of an environment?