No, he's better qualified to make multi-millions of dollars for the elite by corporate raiding. Yes, when he was governor of Massachusetts the states job numbers went up---unfortunately the jobs were going up over the whole country and Massachusetts was actually 47th out of 50 states in job increases. Plus a large part of those Massachusetts jobs were (gasp!) government jobs.
Chipmunk - As I said last time you brought this up, Massachusset has been coming apart at the seems do to unfriendly business climate. Romney is given much credit for dismantling the barriers to business and allowing Mass to get jobs at all.
"Barriers to business" is nothing more than code for the plundering of the country for the benefit of the few. Why do Republicans keep denying the obvious? Record profits for the corporations and the rich DO NOT equate to decent wages for the general population--they are the exact opposite. Any country has only so much "wealth", and if you support systems that promote the transfer of that country's wealth to a small number of people, then the rest of the population HAS to suffer. The US has experienced almost unprecedented profits for corporations and individuals, but despite Republican claims that that means increased jobs and advancement for the middle class, it's obviously meant the exact opposite. Just look at the facts, like the difference between worker and company owner earnings.
So Romney is a rich successful business man, Why is that a problem? and why wasn't it a problem when a rich democrat was running for president like Kennedy, or Kerry? Why wasn't the Whitewater Development Corporation a problem for democrats when Clinton was running? <br />
The way Romney earned his money was legal, unlike the Clintons.
If you count bankrupting companies and outsourcing jobs to maximize profit for CEOs then yes, he's very successful. It may be a legal way to "earn" money, but it's certainly far from ethical.
Lets take a look at the record Romney put $600,000 of Bain Capitals money into Staples, it is now a national store that employs thousands. 0bama put $535 million into Solyndra it went bankrupt and all the employes are out of work. Romney put $18 million into Steel Dynamics, it is now the #1 producer of carbon steel in the US. 0bama put $35.2 billion of your money to jumpstart the clean energy industry, all it has produced is red ink. Since Obama took office, 6.3 million Americans have fallen into poverty. The comparisons go on and on and in every case Romney comes out way ahead.
I think the last thing America needs is an asset stripping , downsizing , vulture capitalist for their next President.
Not sure how this would apply to this election. Romney was not a 'vulture capitalist" who ******** assets. In fact, no less than Bill Clinton called his career with Bain "Sterling" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bill-clinton-praises-romneys-sterling-business-career_646351.html. The mayor of Boston - also a democrat - also said in the last 24 hours that attacks on Bain are unfounded.
You know, nobody mentions the fact that Bain Capital has also given campaign contributions to Obummer. Also, that there were tons of jobs saved by venture capital firms like Bain. Example: the people working for Staples -- 2,000 stores in 26 countries. I'm sick and tired of attacks on free enterprise. <br />
I feel that Romney has a very realistic view of what it takes to promote a good working environment -- more so than the community organizer-in-chief.
Mitt Romney is a douche.
That could be Obama's slogan
Wow, how can anyone argue with a well reasoned argument like that?
I know right! It's fullproof.
Yes he is for the simple fact that He has actually worked at a real job and helped create and save jobs..Taco bell, staples to name just a few. Yes he helped close business's but since they were losing money and would never make money it made more sense to stop pouring money down the rabbit hole(unlike Obama who still is wasting money on failed company's) and put it where it could do the most good. At least he tried and hasn't blamed everyone else when it didn't work. Unlike Obama who never worked,never owned or operated a business, creates more regulations to curtail business and has raised the corp tax to the highest in the world? And ya'll wonder why companies are leaving? Business is in business to make a profit(not greedy profit like the banks or wall street) and to provide a honest living for their workers.Your going to see more business's close and move out of country if Obama is re-elected & then you'll really see a socialist country that is going to be like France
Mitt Romney has created thousands of jobs through his work at Bain Capital and by understanding how private industry works.<br />
Obama has shown he is a weak leader who can't figure out how to build jobs - we'll have spent $6 trillion in deficits by the end of his first term (more than Bush in 8) and have nothing to show for it.<br />
Romney has more business experience than Obama, is better prepared to lead than Obama (he was governor - not one of a 100 senators). Romney went to the same schools and probably got better grades. (He was top 5% of his class and we know that because top 5% students get special awards which obama did not get.) He's just an all around better choice.
Romney is the better choice, but far from my ideal. I believe he will do a better job at creating jobs, and I doubt if he'll get in bed with unions, or put money by the billions into ventures that go belly up.
he cant be any worse
Romney is yet another semi-clueless silver-spooner who will mess things up and be a puppet for all the wrong people at a critical point in time which could put the U.S. in a position from which it might never recover...If that sounds great,.then go ahead and vote for him..You won't be disappointed.
Unlike Obama, who has spent $5 trillion so far to see unemployment go UP and our economy in the toilet.
I don't understand your remark , it sounds like you don't like Romney because he is just like 0bama.
I don't think either one will be very effective at producing jobs.<br />
For that matter, I don't think you Americans will ever see a president with the balls to stand up to Corporate American and say " All right you bastards, if you want to do business in this country, then you will invest in this country. No more bullshit. You have an obligation contribute to the health of this country by keeping Americans employed with decent wages. This business of closing your plants in America so that you can hire cheaper labiur in other countries Will Stop Now."
The government can stop that easily by doing away with confiscatory taxes and expensive burdensome regulations. They have made it profitable to move out of the country, they need to make it desirable to move back.
You could have writtten that ____ years ago- fill in
You know, business used to invest in the country before government decided to take a "hard line." Now they invest in India and China instead, which have booming economies and a standard of living that is skyrocketing while ours is in freefall. You try to make the "line any harder" and the corporation will just move their marketing, sales and support branches over to India as well. (Don't think it can happen? Remember that there are more English speakers in India than in the United States.)
And that will happen when Whoever is President tells The unions that they aren't the ones in charge and stop pricing the workers out of business's just so they can make more payola
Just look at what is happening to California with all their high corp taxes and regulations, Companies are moving to Texas or Nevada faster then ever because they are business friendly
I think he might be good at helping his cronies to make money. There's no guarantee that this would generate onshore jobs.
No doubt he will produce jobs, but I can assure you those jobs are not the kind of jobs you like to have. Low wages and little to no job security. So what's the difference between being unemployed and working in a Romney-job?<br />
Then I'd say Obama does things better. He may create fewer jobs, but he does invest in decent wages and job security. Those are the kind of jobs you want to have, the kind of jobs America needs.
No. A record of coporate greed and failed economic policies led to him completely stagnating massachusetts' economy. His single term as governer should prove that the public wasn't impressed.
You want to compare Massachusetts 4.6 unemployment rate with Romney as Governors with 0bama's 8.2 unemployment rate as president, go right ahead.
yes because as we all know a state with about seven million people is analogous to a county with three hundred million... Romney was elected during the real estate boom and few states had such a rise in property value as Massachusetts. Also don't forget that the reason MA's unemployment record was so low was because of workers in MA going out of state for work, about 3.5 percent of the population actually. That's despite the fact that output of goods and services increased 9 percent, which was only the 14th lowest in the nation for growth. Not to mention the fact that average median household income fell during his term. I think the numbers speak pretty clearly, Romney was a failure as a governer.
I would love to compare Romney's state governing to 0bama's except it's hard to compare a governors job to a community agitators job so were stuck with comparing it to 0bama's abysmal performance as president. In that comparison Romney is better by several orders of magnitude.
At least obama didn't make a career out of laying people off and closing businesses to protect the owners and investors. He had one of the worst records on job creation out of the country during his term. You really think he's going to do it this time, when it's completely out of his hands? Get real.
They're clones - no difference in policies, except Romney wants to start WW3 - that might stimulate a few jobs until the debt bankrupted us. Jobs are stimulated by increased demand for employees. Employers pay employees taxes. It is a cost of hiring someone. Lower costs always stimulate demand, so the true way to actually stimulate the economy and create jobs - eliminate payroll income taxes. You'd have an economic boom unlike anything since the industrial revolution. It's so easy to do also without a drop in Government revenues. Have the US treasury issue money instead of the Federal Reserve. Fees and interest collected by the Federal Reserve (a privately held bank owned by the power elite) equal tax revenue from payroll taxes. End the Fed and income taxes, and the economy would go crazy. ie vote Ron Paul
they cant really help produce jobs...........economy is no longer controlled by politicians
Mitt Romney is a fool. Massachusetts went down the drain while he was governor. He cares about nothing but money--on an individual or corporate level. For those who are old enough to remember--he's George Romney's son. Enough said.
Not true about the Mass economy at all.
actually if you take a look at the numbers it's completely true.