The Real Mitt Romney

[Stormieweather]

Adak, you know about Sensata, right?

Sensata

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Adak, you know about Sensata, right?

Sensata

Yes. And I know Romney left Bain Capital 12 (TWELVE) years before Sensata was moved to China.

But what is the truth?

If Bain Capital's activities are to be scrutinized and linked to Mitt Romney 12 years after he left the company, President Obama's activities within the past four years should surely receive the same attention.

Consider Obama's Job Czar, Jeffrey Immelt. According to a 60 minutes program, the CEO of GE was "unapologetic" about the fact that "half his workforce is overseas". How many jobs have been outsourced by GE? 25,000, according to the Huffington Post. The 170 positions reportedly being outsourced by the Bain-controlled organization pale in comparison.

Consider President Obama's failed "Green Stimulus" investments. When the "green" companies were not laying off thousands of employees and/or going bankrupt, a huge chunk of taxpayer money used to support the ill-advised program went overseas.

As a matter of fact, four Democratic senators actually called on the Obama administration "to halt spending on a renewable energy program in the economic stimulus package until rules are in place to assure that the projects use predominantly American labor and materials." They noted that "more than three-fourths Of $2 billion spent on wind-energy projects supported by the stimulus package had gone to foreign companies."

If Americans are looking to hold anyone accountable for wasteful spending overseas (and in general), they should look to the current president. This story may be significant if the same rules of outrage applied to both parties; and since they clearly do not, this news is just another example of faux outrage and dirty politics.

When will you learn that what you hear from the media, can't be trusted at face value?

CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF.

[Stormieweather]

Romney founded and ran Bain for FIFTEEN years. It does the same thing now that it did then, under his leadership. He was fully aware and approved of outsourcing to Chinese sweatshops. In fact, at a recent fundraiser here in Florida he mentioned his personal tour of one...


Chinese Sweatshop


So I should trust what YOU say at face value? No thanks. I do my own research and decide what to believe.

[Adak]

I never said don't do you own research and decide for yourself. I encourage that, but in this case, you've reached the wrong conclusion.

Did Romney make the stupid laws, tax codes, and treaties, that made it profitable for our companies to move to China?

NO!

You have to work (and live) within the laws that you are given, by those in government. You know that, everybody knows that.

Saying that Romney moved Sensata 12 years after he left Bain, is a terrible argument to make because:

1) Romney didn't make the laws that made it possible and in some cases profitable, to move a company to China.

and

2) Romney had nothing to do with the movement of Sensata, anywhere, since he'd left Bain over a decade before this happened.

So your whole argument is just an attempt to smear Romney with anything you can. You'll have to do better, because this case certainly doesn't work.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

Did Romney make the stupid laws, tax codes, and treaties, that made it profitable for our companies to move to China?

NO!

You have to work (and live) within the laws that you are given, by those in government. You know that, everybody knows that.

So if it's not locked down it's free stuff? Laws do not cover everything. As a matter of fact, the more libertarian and tea partiers are arguing for less laws. The assumption is that government protections are unnecessary because the free market and innate human compassion will provide the necessary checks and balances.

Mr. Romney proved this wrong. If there was the least fiscal advantage to destroying companies or moving them overseas, even companies that were stable and profitable before being loaded with leveraged debt, then these companies were torn down.

In the primaries Gingrich pilloried Romeny for this. This was not 'creative destruction', this was destruction by loophole.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by richlevy

So if it's not locked down it's free stuff? Laws do not cover everything. As a matter of fact, the more libertarian and tea partiers are arguing for less laws. The assumption is that government protections are unnecessary because the free market and innate human compassion will provide the necessary checks and balances.

You're mixing business policy with charity/welfare policy, and throwing in a little Conservative vs. Liberal philosophy?

Wow! Can you narrow that down to something more specific?

Mr. Romney proved this wrong. If there was the least fiscal advantage to destroying companies or moving them overseas, even companies that were stable and profitable before being loaded with leveraged debt, then these companies were torn down.

"The least fiscal advantage", I take big exception to. You don't take over a company and take on that level of risk, for a small chance of an upturn. If the company wasn't able to jump up a BIG step (in the opinion of Bain Capital), then Bain Capital wouldn't have been there.

In the primaries Gingrich pilloried Romeny for this. This was not 'creative destruction', this was destruction by loophole.

Yes, and Gingrich's association with the truth, suffered because of it. He was working with hardball politics, and that's how the game is played. Politics is not a particularly polite field of endeavor. The voters eventually saw it was b.s., and let him go. He had his own skeletons in the closet, from the way he treated his first wife and son, after he left them. (Quite mean spirited, if I do say so. Gingrich is NOT a nice guy.) He is a smart guy, but his problem is, he has a lot of wacko idea's, stacked right next to the great idea's. When he reaches for one, he frequently gets the other kind.

[Stormieweather]

double post