Winning The Future!

[oladub]

Romney takes credit for the auto bailouts:

http://www.freep.com/article/2012050...dustry-success


Wow, the moxie of this guy. I don't only hope he loses in the election in a landslide, but I hope the Obama campaign surfaces every dirty skeleton he is hiding in his closet.

For a guy who preaches freedom and pride of country, it's funny [[and borderline treason) that he tucks his millions of dollars away in the Cayman Islands instead of using it to "create jobs". Practice what you preach $hi+bag.

I also hate the attack ads with a burning passion. Really, as much mud as Romney plans on slinging, I have to admit it will be somewhat amusing to see all the different things that Obama uses to rebuke this guy. Mitty has no shortage of soft targets.

"I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet," Romney said.

Consider that Pontiac, Saturn, and Hummer divisions were shut down as well as dealerships. The owners of Chrysler bonds, who had invested in Chrysler, were also punished. This auto company bailouts might have been a page out of the Bain Capital play book except that the UAW was protected for Chrysler and remaining GM divisions. Selling Chrysler to a foreign company temporarily protected American jobs depending on the good will of its foreign owners.

In corporatist Amerika, it makes little difference to Saturn workers or Goldman Sachs executives whether Obama or Romney is President. Romney parks some of his money in Swiss banks while one of Obama's biggest contributors is Credit Suisse, a huge Swiss banks which also is generous with Romney. It is ironic that Obama's campaign money might include money Romney is allowed to shelter overseas.

More good new$ for President Obama. On top of the $100M war chest advantage Obama already has over Romney,George Soros and Other Rich Guys to Infuse
Democrats With $100 Million for Grassroots Efforts

[firstandten]

Romney takes credit for the auto bailouts:

http://www.freep.com/article/2012050...dustry-success


Wow, the moxie of this guy. I don't only hope he loses in the election in a landslide, but I hope the Obama campaign surfaces every dirty skeleton he is hiding in his closet.

For a guy who preaches freedom and pride of country, it's funny [[and borderline treason) that he tucks his millions of dollars away in the Cayman Islands instead of using it to "create jobs". Practice what you preach $hi+bag.

I also hate the attack ads with a burning passion. Really, as much mud as Romney plans on slinging, I have to admit it will be somewhat amusing to see all the different things that Obama uses to rebuke this guy. Mitty has no shortage of soft targets.

Romney's best shot in winning is to do what Repubs are very good at. On issues that they want to take the high ground on, they use obfuscation, misrepresentation, fuzzy numbers, half-truths and if all that fails, tell an out right lie. As an average citizen its hard to find out whats legit and what isn't. For people who are interested in seeing thru the clutter the fact check websites should be in your favorites.

Also the Obama campaign has created the attack watch website to help people sort thru the various mud that gets thrown up against the wall. It also lets you report any attacks you hear so the campaign can respond accordingly.

The beauty of something like this during an election year is that should Obama lose it won't be because he got swift-boated.

[vetalalumni]

"I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet," Romney said.

Consider that Pontiac, Saturn, and Hummer divisions were shut down as well as dealerships. The owners of Chrysler bonds, who had invested in Chrysler, were also punished. This auto company bailouts might have been a page out of the Bain Capital play book except that the UAW was protected for Chrysler and remaining GM divisions. Selling Chrysler to a foreign company temporarily protected American jobs depending on the good will of its foreign owners.

...

At this particular campaign event, Romney went on to also say,

So, I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry has come back.

Details are noteworthy regarding what differentiates candidates. Was private capital anxious or willing to finance the auto bailouts?

[vetalalumni]

I seriously doubt they will have it in the platform. It would do them no good and it might well bring out the haters who otherwise couldn't bring themselves to vote for Mitt

If true, what would it mean that President Obama would lose votes [[net) to Romney on this issue, especially for the two reasons underlined?

[oladub]

Details are noteworthy regarding what differentiates candidates.

Was private capital anxious or willing to finance the auto bailouts?

Very anxious at the right price; Fiat's purchase in the control of Chrysler for instance. Private capital probably won't be as willing to buy bonds in iffy companies like Chrysler in the future though considering how Chrysler bond holders were treated.

It isn't like Americans would have stopped driving cars when theirs wore out. They would have shopped around for what was available. My guess is that without the corporate bailouts, Ford would be stronger and other investors would have purchased dealerships and manufacturing facilities or companies as was useful to them. That is, in fact, what happened when Fiat took over Chrysler. The big difference is that the UAW would have been an even bigger loser without Obama's bailouts.

[rb336]

If true, what would it mean that President Obama would lose votes [[net) to Romney on this issue, especially for the two reasons underlined?

not so much that Obama would lose votes but that people who might not vote because they hate Romney might turn out because they hate gays even more than Obama and Romney. might tip the scales of close states

[firstandten]

Very anxious at the right price; Fiat's purchase in the control of Chrysler for instance. Private capital probably won't be as willing to buy bonds in iffy companies like Chrysler in the future though considering how Chrysler bond holders were treated.

It isn't like Americans would have stopped driving cars when theirs wore out. They would have shopped around for what was available. My guess is that without the corporate bailouts, Ford would be stronger and other investors would have purchased dealerships and manufacturing facilities or companies as was useful to them. That is, in fact, what happened when Fiat took over Chrysler. The big difference is that the UAW would have been an even bigger loser without Obama's bailouts.

What is left unsaid, is that without the bailouts the supplier parts industry would have been decimated. Ford even would have been questionable because many of its supplier base also supply GM and Chrysler and those companies would have gone out of business. Auto makers now days mostly are assemblers, the thousands of parts and its component parts are made by thousands of parts suppliers. To bail out GM and Chrysler was the best decision because to let them fail would have sent shock waves thru out our economy[[which was already in a weaken state) far, far beyond the union guy on the assembly line or the dealerships.

[firstandten]

Romney is such a paradox. When you look at his record as gov of Mass. the state went from 37th in the nation to 47th in job creation. Creating jobs is what he hangs his hat on. While the country during this time enjoyed a 5% growth, Mass grew by 0.9%. Romney closed the 3 billion budget gap he inherited by cutting education, revenue to local governments and raised fees on college students, and mortgages from buying a boat to opening a bar.

This from the self proclaimed business turnaround expert. The one area that he was a success and 62% percent of the people liked what he did, he won't even talk about....Romneycare !!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...-governor.html

[TKshreve]

Romney is such a paradox. When you look at his record as gov of Mass. the state went from 37th in the nation to 47th in job creation. Creating jobs is what he hangs his hat on. While the country during this time enjoyed a 5% growth, Mass grew by 0.9%. Romney closed the 3 billion budget gap he inherited by cutting education, revenue to local governments and raised fees on college students, and mortgages from buying a boat to opening a bar.

This from the self proclaimed business turnaround expert. The one area that he was a success and 62% percent of the people liked what he did, he won't even talk about....Romneycare !!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...-governor.html

What a great post. If you don't mind, I might copy this and start pasting it on every forum/message board I visit. Irrefutable facts are what's for dinner!

[firstandten]

Funny how folks seem to like Romneycare in Mass, individual mandate and all !

[firstandten]

Jerrytimes, to frame this argument as a hate the rich because there making money is simplistic. This is about fairness pure and simple. First of all Obama paid a much higher percentage in taxes than Mitt. Mitt and others like him can game the system so that virtually all of their income is taxed at the CG rate. Most American's income is treated as ordinary income thus taxed at a higher rate.

What the Obama administration wants to do is 1. tax CG at 20% max up from 15% and 2. treating dividends for the upper income folks as ordinary income thus being taxed at 39.6% like the rest of us.

The thought of all your 1% trust fund babies getting their monthly dividend checks at the pool and only getting taxed at 15% while the 99% bust their butt and get there income taxed as ordinary income should strike you as being somewhat unfair.

Job creation depends on demand for a good or service not some 1% guy crying about having to pay a 20% CG tax rather than 15%. Trust me, if the demand is there the jobs will be created.

Do your reseach and understand jobs are being created in this economy, of course not as many as we would like, but as the Repubs don't want to address, the economy when Obama took over was on the brink of collaspe.

Just don't believe the hype when Mitt starts talking about he's a jobs creator because he destroys as many jobs if not more than he creates.

[vetalalumni]

... people who might not vote because they hate Romney might turn out because they hate gays even more than Obama and Romney. might tip the scales of close states

These "people" are a sad lot.

[vetalalumni]

...
Was private capital anxious or willing to finance the auto bailouts?

Very anxious at the right price; Fiat's purchase in the control of Chrysler for instance.
...

Fiat initially acquired a 20% stake that later was allowed to incrementally increase only after agreed upon objectives were met over time. Fiat reached a 58% stake in Chrysler last summer. The bailout and the "right price" included structure beneficial to Chrysler in the long term.

[firstandten]

There is a TV ad making the rounds of the battleground states of which Michigan is one and it shows a mother and her two adult children playing basketball and basically saying because of Obama's spending policies her children will probably not leave the house. In terms of production values its a really well done ad.

We are really starting to see the Citizens United case and the resulting super PAC's really start to throw the money around.

I decided to fact check the ad, and if this is any indication of what we are going to see this campaign season... buckle up this is going to be a wild ride.

http://factcheck.org/2012/05/soft-glove-same-gps-fist/

[oladub]

firstandten, Aren't dividends taxed as ordinary income? What about money in pension funds that is kept in stocks? Will school teachers, government employees, UAW retirees all have to pay 20% on the money their money earns in pension accounts too? I wouldn't mind raising taxes on capital gains in exchange for cost of living being taken into account. in other words, if I or my pension fund invested in a company and kept the stock for 20 years with inflation averaging 2% a year, the sale of that stock would have to increase 40%, not including compounding interest, just to have the same spending power as when it was purchased. Maybe long term investment could be encouraged if government wasn't taxing the inflation it creates before adding the 15% or 20% capital gains tax.

[jiminnm]

oladub, if the dividends meet the IRS definition of a 'qualified dividend' [[excludes REITs, MLPs, preferred dividends, a few other things, ETFs and funds that trade in those investments and those that trade in commodities), then they are currently taxed at a max of 15%. The tax rate may be as low as zero, depending on your other income. Non-qualified dividends are taxed as ordinary income.

Long term capital gains [[investments held over a year) are taxed at a max of 15%. That rate may also be as low as zero, depending on your other income. Short term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. Long term collectible capital gains [[arguably includes gold, silver and the ETFs and funds that invest in them) are taxed at 28%. Capital losses are limited to capital gains plus $3000 per year [[with balances carried over to the next year).

All of these rates will expire at the end of 2012. If they expire, and my memory is correct on 2002-2003 tax law, there will be no more qualified dividends, and all dividends will be taxed as ordinary income. Long term investment capital gains will be taxed at 20%. The collectible rate of 28% will remain.

I don't think that qualified pension plans are taxed, as the plans are essentially trusts that hold the assets for the benefit of the participants and must payout according to the plan and ERISA guidelines. That would include both defined benefit pension plans, that payout primarily money contributed by employers according to a plan formula, and defined contribution plans [[IRAs, 401[[k), etc.). The tax code dictates the taxability of any payouts. The administrators of these plans are paid fees, which are taxable to them.

[firstandten]

The media had a field day when the May unemployment numbers came out about how this will affect Pres. Obama's chances for re-election. Repubs have been trying to crash the economy since 09. They are counting that the numbers will be high enough to deny the Pres a second term. Here's what Thom Hartmann had to say about it.

"You need to know this. For the 27th month in a row – the economy added jobs. Unfortunately – the 69,000 jobs created in May were well below economists' expectations – and the unemployment rate jumped up to 8.2%. And while Republicans and Fox so-called News will likely rejoice over the poor jobs numbers thinking it will give them a better chance in the November elections – the truth is – they're really patting themselves on the back for slowing down our economic recovery. Hell-bent on austerity – Republicans have sucked money out of the economy – cut off unemployment benefits, and investments in education, healthcare, and transportation. As economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, Republicans during the Reagan administration didn't cut government and spending during the recession of the 1980's – they GREW government and increased spending. And if today's Republican Party would just let President Obama do what Reagan did – then there would be 1.3 million more Americans today working as school teachers, cops, and firefighters – critical jobs that our nation needs right now. And our unemployment rate would be below 7%. So what's the difference between today and when Reagan was office? Republicans weren't trying to crash the economy to make Reagan a one-term President."

For those who are concerned about unemployment numbers remember than while private sector hiring has remained constant, the public sector numbers or your police officers, firemen, teachers and the like are taking the hit, driving the unemployment numbers up due to the Repubs scorched earth policies to make Obama a one term president.

[rb336]

Of course, the Repubs want to have it both ways, as Mutt made clear at a press conference yesterday:

he wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.

[Mikeg]

"Winning the Future -'the bottom has fallen out' edition!"

At least the gullible can take comfort in the President's assurances that "the private sector is doing fine".

Pileup at the White House
By Dana Milbank, The Washington Post
Published: June 11, 2012

It has been a Junius Horribilis for President Obama.

Job growth has stalled, the Democrats have been humiliated in Wisconsin, the attorney general is facing a contempt-of-Congress citation, talks with Pakistan have broken down, Bill Clinton is contradicting Obama, Mitt Romney is outraising him, Democrats and Republicans alike are complaining about a “cascade” of national-security leaks from his administration, and he is now on record as saying that the “private sector is doing fine.”

Could it get any worse?

Early Monday morning, Obama learned that it could. His aides delivered the news to him that his commerce secretary had been cited for a felony hit-and-run after allegedly crashing his car three times over the weekend..........

For the White House, it was just the latest entry in the when-it-rains-it-pours ledger. This has been one of the worst stretches of the Obama presidency. In Washington, there is a creeping sense that the bottom has fallen out and that there may be no second term. Privately, senior Obama advisers say they are no longer expecting much economic improvement before the election........

On what basis does "Washington" get that "creeping sense" that there may be no second term for President Obama?

Perhaps the answer can be found in the thoughts and words coming from an influential group of presidential historians that Obama has repeatedly courted since five months into his presidency - a group that includes Michael Beschloss, who once described Obama as "probably the smartest guy ever to become president".

According to Edward Klein, the former editor-in-chief of the NY Times Magazine, the President has invited that same group of presidential historians to three "off-the-record" dinners at the White House, the first in June 2009, another in Nov. 2010 and the most recent in July 2011.

According to Klein, at President Obama's first dinner meeting with the historians

".....one subject was uppermost in his mind: how could he become a “transformational” president and bend the historic trajectory of America’s domestic and foreign policy?

When one of the historians brought up the difficulties that Lyndon Johnson, another wartime president, faced trying to wage a foreign military venture while implementing an ambitious domestic agenda, Mr. Obama grew testy. He implied that he was different, because he could prevail by the force of his personality. He could solve the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, put millions of people back to work, redistribute wealth, withdraw from Iraq, and reconcile the United States to a less dominant role in the world.

It was, by any measure, a breathtaking display of grandiosity by a man whose entire political curriculum vitae consisted of seven undistinguished years in the Illinois senate and two mostly absent years in the United States Senate. That evening Mr. Obama revealed the characteristics—arrogance, conceit, egotism, vanity, hubris and, above all, rank amateurism—that would mark his presidency and doom it to frustration and failure."

Also during that first dinner,

Mr. Obama told the historians that he had come up with a slogan for his administration. “I’m thinking of calling it ‘A New Foundation,’ ” he said.

Doris Kearns Goodwin suggested that “A New Foundation” might not be the wisest choice for a motto.

“Why not?” the president asked.

“It sounds,” said Goodwin, “like a woman’s girdle.”

President Obama's second dinner with the historians was devoted to the question of how he could “reconnect with the public” after the disastrous results of the mid-term elections. The third dinner took place

.....shortly after Mr. Obama and his team botched the budget-deficit negotiations with Congress, and the United States government lost its Triple-A credit rating for the first time in history. It revolved around the theme “the challenge of reelection.”

One of those presidential historians spoke with Klein on the basis that he remain anonymous [[presumably he thinks there is still a slim chance that Obama might get re-elected and he wants to be invited to any future dinners):

“There’s no doubt that Obama has turned out to be a major enigma and disappointment,” the historian told me. “He waged such a brilliant campaign, first against Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and then against John McCain in the general election. For a long time, I found it hard to understand why he couldn’t translate his political savvy into effective governance.

“But I think I know the answer now,” he continued. “Since the beginning of his administration, Obama hasn't been able to capture the public's imagination and inspire people to follow him. Vision isn't enough in a president. Great presidents not only have to enunciate their vision; they must lead by example and inspiration. Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the individual. He and Ronald Reagan had the ability to make each American feel that the president cared deeply and personally about them.

“That quality has been lacking in Obama. People don’t feel that he’s on their side. Obama doesn't connect. He doesn't have the answers. The irony is that he was supposed to be such a brilliant orator. But, in fact, he’s turned out to be a failure as a communicator...... I wouldn’t bet the ranch on his getting reelected."

Thank goodness the President chose not to use “A New Foundation” as the motto for his administration, particularly since it now appears that "the bottom has fallen out"!

[firstandten]

Good post, Mikeg just remember that this election is a marathon not a sprint. There will be good weeks and bad. The pundits will have you think the sky is falling because of a bad week and the path to the presidency is paved with gold because of a good week. All of this is reinforced by questionable polls after polls being taken. At the end of the day you know what your going to get with Obama and you have a pretty good idea of what your going to get with Mitt.

I'm betting that even if people don't like Obama, he's better than four years of Mitt. Thats all its really about.

[Mikeg]

Good post, Mikeg just remember that this election is a marathon not a sprint. There will be good weeks and bad. The pundits will have you think the sky is falling because of a bad week and the path to the presidency is paved with gold because of a good week......

I think you are missing my point. Obama's dinner guests are not the political "pundits" whose job we all know is to impart the spin on the daily news cycle - they're the presidential scholars among the permanent Washington "cognescenti" who are starting to see and admit the fatal communication flaws of this president and how they are hindering his chances for re-election. Once the presidential historians think they smell a loser and admit to it, those in the media who like to think that they write the first draft of history are sure to follow.

[firstandten]

Mikeg- Ed Klein is an man with an agenda[[see the book he wrote) not that its anything wrong with having an agenda, but you are not going to get the most balanced picture with some one like him. He takes those dinners in which Obama wanted some critical feedback from historians. and makes it a statement on how bad his presidency is.

Ultimately neither the historians nor the pundits will make the decision. Of course they will try and frame the argument but the people will decide and I'm betting the people will understand what Obama inherited, the limitations he faced in gettiing meaniful legistation passed and the actual improvements we have seen in the economy and elsewhere and will give him another term.

[vetalalumni]

Mikeg, let me agree with firstandten and say that your post # 244 is noteworthy. Creative as well.

[oladub]

Not sure whose future Obama is winning. Looks like he is trying to slip us into another treaty to circumvent US law. Who says Obama's not business friendly? One take on this is that it is sort of extending NAFTA type agreements to Asia. Good luck US workers.

US Trade Agreement Leak Reveals 'Radical New Powers' for Multinational Corporations

Obama administration agrees to deal that contradicts domestic agenda
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/06/13-5
- note the comments, after the article, not what one would expect in a moderately liberal publication.

[Mikeg]

Mikeg, let me agree with firstandten and say that your post # 244 is noteworthy. Creative as well.

Thanks!

I see that President Obama has a major economic speech planned for today. According to this "analysis" article by Reuters, "In an economic speech on Thursday that could set the tone for months of campaigning, Obama is not likely to unveil new ideas to boost the economy and create new jobs, according to Democrats familiar with the preparations for the address."

He's going to "set the tone for months of campaigning" on the topic of the economy by announcing that he has no new ideas to boost the economy and create jobs!

That "tone" you hear sounds like a winner for Romney!