The Official Willard Mitt Romney Thread

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Draft dodger Romney


source: Huffington Post

Romney's (non) military record faces new scrutiny


SAN DIEGO — On a stage crowded with war heroes, Mitt Romney recently praised the sacrifice "of the great men and women of every generation who serve in our armed services."

It is a sacrifice the Republican presidential candidate did not make.

Though an early supporter of the Vietnam War, Romney avoided military service at the height of the fighting after high school by seeking and receiving four draft deferments, according to Selective Service records. They included college deferments and a 31-month stretch as a "minister of religion" in France, a classification for Mormon missionaries that the church at the time feared was being overused. The country was cutting troop levels by the time he became eligible for the draft, and his lottery number was not called.

President Barack Obama, Romney's opponent in this year's campaign, did not serve in the military either. The Democrat, 50, was a child during the Vietnam conflict and did not enlist when he was older.

But because Romney, now 65, was of draft age during Vietnam, his military background – or, rather, his lack of one – is facing new scrutiny as he courts veterans and makes his case to the nation to be commander in chief. He's also intensified his criticism lately of Obama's plans to scale back the nation's military commitments abroad, suggesting that Romney would pursue an aggressive foreign policy as president that could involve U.S. troops.

A look at Romney's relationship with Vietnam offers a window into a 1960s world that allowed him to avoid combat as fighting peaked. His story also demonstrates his commitment to the Mormon Church, which he rarely discusses publicly but which helped shape his life.

Romney's recollection of his Vietnam-era decisions has evolved in the decades since, particularly as his presidential ambitions became clear.

He said in 2007 – his first White House bid under way – that he had "longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam." But his actions, Selective Service records and previous statements show little interest in joining a conflict that ultimately claimed more than 58,000 American lives.

Still, he repeatedly cites his commitment to public service and the nation's military while campaigning for president.

"Greatness in a people, I believe, is measured by the extent to which they will give themselves to something bigger than themselves," Romney said in San Diego last week to a Memorial Day crowd of thousands, flush with military veterans of all ages.

He did not address his own Vietnam history that day. And his campaign has refused to comment publicly on the subject over the past week.

Political rivals, military veterans among them, suggest that Romney's own decision not to serve in the military is in conflict with his pro-military rhetoric.

"He didn't have the courage to go. He didn't feel it was important enough to him to serve his country at a time of war," said Jon Soltz, who served two Army tours in Iraq and is the chairman of the left-leaning veterans group VoteVets.org.

Critics note that the candidate is among three generations of Romneys – including his father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, and five sons – who were of military age during armed conflicts but did not serve.

As a presidential candidate in 2007, Romney told The Boston Globe he was frustrated, as a Mormon missionary, not to be fighting alongside his countrymen.

"I was supportive of my country," Romney said. "I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there, and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam."

Indeed, Romney strongly supported the war at first. As a freshman at Stanford University, he protested anti-war activists. In one photo, he's shown in a small crowd of students, smiling broadly, wearing a sport jacket and holding up a sign that says, "Speak Out, Don't Sit In."

But the frustration he recalled in 2007 does not match a sentiment he shared as a Massachusetts Senate candidate in 1994, when he told The Boston Herald, "I was not planning on signing up for the military."

"It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft," Romney told the newspaper.

But that's exactly what Romney did, according Selective Service records. He received his first deferment for "activity in study" in October 1965 while at Stanford.

As Soltz notes, the younger Romney was under no obligation to seek a college-related deferment.

"Vietnam was a war that the poor and the people who couldn't afford to go to college had to go to," Soltz said.

After his first year at Stanford, Romney qualified for 4-D deferment status as "a minister of religion or divinity student." It was a status he would hold from July 1966 until February 1969, a period he largely spent in France working as a Mormon missionary.

He was granted the deferment even as some young Mormon men elsewhere were denied that same status, which became increasingly controversial in the late 1960s. The Mormon church, a strong supporter of American involvement in Vietnam, ultimately limited the number of church missionaries allowed to defer their military service using the religious exemption.

But as fighting in Vietnam raged, Romney spent two and a half years trying to win Mormon converts in France. About that same time, Romney's father would famously speak out against Vietnam, declaring that he had been "brainwashed" by military officials into supporting the conflict.

Young Romney's comments indicated his support had waned, too.

"If it wasn't a political blunder to move into Vietnam, I don't know what is," a 23-year-old Romney would tell The Boston Globe in 1970 during the fifth year of his deferment.

His 31-month religious deferment expired in early 1969. And Romney received an academic studies deferment for much of the next two years. He became available for military service at the end of 1970 when his deferments ran out and he could have been drafted. But by that time, America was beginning to slice its troop levels, and Romney's relatively high lottery number – 300 out of 365 – was not called.

Romney's past may not be enough to hurt his popularity in this year's election among veterans, who typically lean Republican.

A Gallup survey released last week found that veterans prefer Romney over Obama by 58 percent to 34 percent. That voting bloc, consisting mostly of older men, makes up 13 percent of the adult population. Obama won the presidency four years ago while losing veterans by 10 points to Sen. John McCain, a former Navy pilot.

Still, some veterans say Romney's reluctance to serve irks them.

"I volunteered for the draft. Romney could have, too. Simple as that," said Wade Lieseke, of Nevada, who served as a helicopter gunner in Vietnam from 1969 to 1970.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Draft dodger Romney


. . . Romney avoided military service at the height of the fighting after high school by seeking and receiving four draft deferments, according to Selective Service records. They included college deferments and a 31-month stretch as a "minister of religion" in France, a classification for Mormon missionaries that the church at the time feared was being overused.

. . . and this mofo is urging military action against Syria :eek:

Send his draft dodging azz. :angry:


" . . . some veterans say Romney's reluctance to serve irks them."



I'm one of them. :angry:


P.S.

And that goes for you too AAA; :lol:

Talking that leadership bullshit. You step up. Put your mail bag down. Lay your civilian guns down. Pick-up a GI issue and your ticket to Syria/Iran.


.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

P. the fuck S.

I don't have a problem wiyh someone having not served in the military. But I do have a problem with some som-bitch dodging service, then anxious to talk about taking military action and/or putting some other mofo and/or his/her child in the line of fire that he dodged.

This could be a separate thread.

 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: New Jersey On-Line

Mitt Romney leads Obama among veterans, but why?

Just 24 of our 44 presidents served in the U.S. Armed Forces before taking office, suggesting Americans are not necessarily opposed to picking presidents without military experience. But the upcoming contest between President Obama and Mitt Romney is unique in recent history: the first such race since World War II in which voters won't have a veteran to vote for from either major party.

Obama may have been commander-in-chief since taking office, but he never served in the U.S. Armed Forces. Romney isn't a veteran either.

Since neither candidates is a vet, you might think neither would have a competitive edge in with demographic. You might even give the edge to Obama, who was at the helm for the capture of Osama bin Laden and the drawdown of American service members in Iraq after nearly a decade of armed conflict in that country. Or you might guess Romney wins vets' favor, perhaps because he has promised to protect military spending.

In fact, according to a Gallup poll this week, 58 percent of veterans prefer Romney, compared to just 38 percent who support Obama. Gallup even attributes Romney's advantage among male voters overall to his particular advantage among veterans, noting nearly 1 in 4 men have served in the military.

In explaining the contrast, Gallup points to its 2009 report showing military veterans tend to skew Republican, positing that either a) the experience of being in the military leads people to think along conservative lines, or b) conservatives are more drawn to military service in the first place. But Gallup doesn't suggest whether Romney's individual characteristics or experiences are attracting more supporters among military veterans.

Romney may have the lead among military service members -- and among managers and executives, business owners and workers in smaller industries including manufacturing, transportation, installation and repair, and farming fishing and forestry -- but Obama is strongly favored by the 37 percent of working voters who are professionals and service workers, according to another recent Gallup poll. Obama also fares better (by about 4 percent) among those without military service.

Share your thoughts: How important is it to have a president who has served in the military? What qualities do you associate with military service that you would like to see in a president? Which candidate -- Romney or Obama -- do you think would make a more effective commander-in-chief, and why?
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor

About the post above

Gallup poll oversamples republiklan and older voters in their statistical model of their "typical voter". This is because outside of presidential election cycles, a much smaller percentage of younger and non-white voters participate in elections. The over 60 white people almost always vote in all elections, mid-term, local & presidential. If President Obama's 2008 voter demographic template is equaled in the 2012 race — then Obama wins re-election in a landslide. This is why voter suppression is such a critical part of the republiklan national election strategy.

Military Donations To Obama’s Campaign
Dwarf Romney’s Numbers
<blockquote>
"Although much has been made of the tendency of veterans to vote Republican, Obama actually won in 2008 among veterans under the age of 60."
</blockquote>
13187.png.jpeg


May 29, 2012

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/29/military-donations-to-obamas-campaign-dwarf-romneys-numbers/

 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Thanks for the clarification, however as I have stated earlier, republicans will automatically get 35% of the vote just by having an "R" in front of a candidate.

They have been voting against their own interests since the late 1960s and yet can't figure out why they are in the predicament they are in.

They Southern Strategy has been in full effect since Tricky Dick.
 
Last edited:

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
This is politics. Obama cannot effectively run on his record

If you say so.

Can Romney "effectively run on his record "?

source: ABC News

Obama Camp Accuses Romney of ‘Breathtaking Hypocrisy’ on Jobs

Which candidate for president inherited a contracting economy during his first term in office and presided over a gradual recovery that turned job losses to gains?

The answer: Both President Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

How quickly those jobs were added and how the gains compared to those achieved by their predecessors and peers is, however, the subject of intense debate between the rival presidential campaigns.

Romney has assailed Obama for an unemployment rate lingering above 8 percent and regularly blames him for a net loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs since taking office.

Obama has been hammering Romney for Massachusetts’ 47<SUP>th</SUP> out of 50 ranking in job growth when he was governor — a rate below the national average and lower than when he took office, dragged down by job losses early in his term.

But Republicans, in defending Romney’s record, appear to be pushing a double standard — effectively claiming the governor should not be judged for the losses in his first year in office while President Obama should.

Romney campaign advisers insist Democrats’ attack on Romney’s performance while governor, as featured in a new Obama campaign TV ad, glosses over what was an upward employment trend on Massachusetts jobs between 2003 and 2007.

“They’re averaging out over the four years so they’re bringing down the gains of his fourthyear in office, which shows the real impact of his policies and diluting it with the first year in office when he came into office and it was 50<SUP>th</SUP> in job creation,” Romney adviser Ed Gillespie said on Fox News Sunday.

Labor Department data shows that in 2003, as Romney took office, Massachusetts ranked at the bottom of states in job creation. Four years later, it ranked 30th — an upward trend seemingly lost in the average 47th ranking for 2003-2007 when Romney was in office.

“@MittRomney inherited a bad economy AND MADE IT BETTER,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said on Twitter. “Obama hasn’t. 4.7% vs 8.2% unemployment. #BigDifference.”

Democrats argue that if trends matter most — particularly to account for inherited economic losses — then the Romney campaign isn’t giving Obama credit where it’s due.

“They use a different standard to assess President Obama’s record,” says deputy Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter in a new web video. “We know he inherited an economy exponentially worse than what Mitt Romney inherited. Yet these same people blame the president for job losses that occurred in January 2009 – the very month he was inaugurated and months before any of his policies took place.

“The hypocrisy is breathtaking, even for Romney,” she says.

The U.S. economy — in the middle of an 18-month recession — shed 800,000 jobs the month Obama took office and several months that followed. Since March 2010, it has added private sector jobs each month, totaling 4.3 million jobs over 27 months, according to Labor Department data.

While Obama took office with unemployment at 7.8 percent, it was quickly on the climb, reaching 10 percent in October 2009 at the height of the recession. Since the February 2009 Recovery Act took effect and other economic stimulus measures followed, unemployment has slowly declined, now holding at 8.2 percent last month.

“President Obama took office in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression. The country had lost nearly 4 million jobs in the six months before he took office,” Cutter says. “So the question really is, are they kidding? Or, do they expect people to take this seriously?”

While the campaigns duke it out over jobs records, however, voters may be more focused on whether they personally have a job and what the candidates’ plans mean for their future.

According to the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 52 percent of Americans said the economy is the single most important issue in their vote with preferences for Obama and Romney dividing along economic sentiment.

Among voters who are more hopeful than anxious about the country’s economic future, Obama leads Romney, 59 to 37 percent. Those who are more anxious prefer Romney, 61 to 33. (Fifty-seven percent of registered voters identify as more hopeful, according to the poll.)

A similar dynamic is seen among voters when asked about their view of the jobs picture in their area. The more jobs are seen as available, the more likely voters are to back Obama. Those who see a “very” difficult job picture back Romney, 63 to 33 percent.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Down With Tyranny

Three Generations of Romneys Have Avoided Military Service While Pushing A Corporate War Agenda


Although the biggest news out of Massachusetts this week was about how Scott Brown worked to weaken Wall Street reform while taking Wall Street cash, there was an important Romney story we shouldn't let disappear in the corporate media vacuum without a trace. Sure, from March 2011 to June 2011, Brown and his leadership PAC received at least $660,000 from finance sector, and sure, he also received $70,500 from lobbyists that represented Wall Street clients such as Credit Suisse, JPMorgan, ING, and other securities and investment firms, but the Romney story goes way back to when Scott Brown was still fooling around with camp counselors and priests.

Romney's a year older than I am. We both came of age at the height of the war against Vietnam. Obama was still a child at the time of that war. I was very much opposed to it. Romney very much supported it-- at least verbally. We both went abroad. I wasn't drafted because we had a lottery system and my number was so high that I would have been one of the last to ever be called up but I didn't want to live in a country-- couldn't live in a country-- that was committing genocide against the peasants and workers in Vietnam. I had this idea that if I paid any taxes at all, it was like buying napalm to kill children. I spent almost 7 years abroad.

Romney went abroad too-- to avoid military service in a war he was all for. He escaped the draft by invoking his "right" to serve Mormonism as a missionary-- and lived in a palace in France. His dubious record is being looked at more closely.
On a stage crowded with war heroes, Mitt Romney recently praised the sacrifice "of the great men and women of every generation who serve in our armed services."

It is a sacrifice the Republican presidential candidate did not make.

Though an early supporter of the Vietnam War, Romney avoided military service at the height of the fighting after high school by seeking and receiving four draft deferments, according to Selective Service records. They included college deferments and a 31-month stretch as a "minister of religion" in France, a classification for Mormon missionaries that the church at the time feared was being overused. The country was cutting troop levels by the time he became eligible for the draft, and his lottery number was not called.

...But because Romney, now 65, was of draft age during Vietnam, his military background-- or, rather, his lack of one-- is facing new scrutiny as he courts veterans and makes his case to the nation to be commander in chief. He's also intensified his criticism lately of Obama's plans to scale back the nation's military commitments abroad, suggesting that Romney would pursue an aggressive foreign policy as president that could involve U.S. troops.

A look at Romney's relationship with Vietnam offers a window into a 1960s world that allowed him to avoid combat as fighting peaked. His story also demonstrates his commitment to the Mormon Church, which he rarely discusses publicly but which helped shape his life.

Romney's recollection of his Vietnam-era decisions has evolved in the decades since, particularly as his presidential ambitions became clear.

He said in 2007-- his first White House bid under way-- that he had "longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam." But his actions, Selective Service records and previous statements show little interest in joining a conflict that ultimately claimed more than 58,000 American lives.

Still, he repeatedly cites his commitment to public service and the nation's military while campaigning for president.

"Greatness in a people, I believe, is measured by the extent to which they will give themselves to something bigger than themselves," Romney said in San Diego last week to a Memorial Day crowd of thousands, flush with military veterans of all ages.

He did not address his own Vietnam history that day. And his campaign has refused to comment publicly on the subject over the past week.

Political rivals, military veterans among them, suggest that Romney's own decision not to serve in the military is in conflict with his pro-military rhetoric.

"He didn't have the courage to go. He didn't feel it was important enough to him to serve his country at a time of war," said Jon Soltz, who served two Army tours in Iraq and is the chairman of the left-leaning veterans group VoteVets.org.

Critics note that the candidate is among three generations of Romneys-- including his father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, and five sons-- who were of military age during armed conflicts but did not serve.

As a presidential candidate in 2007, Romney told the Boston Globe he was frustrated, as a Mormon missionary, not to be fighting alongside his countrymen.

"I was supportive of my country," Romney said. "I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there, and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam."

Indeed, Romney strongly supported the war at first. As a freshman at Stanford University, he protested anti-war activists. In one photo, he's shown in a small crowd of students, smiling broadly, wearing a sport jacket and holding up a sign that says, "Speak Out, Don't Sit In."

But the frustration he recalled in 2007 does not match a sentiment he shared as a Massachusetts Senate candidate in 1994, when he told the Boston Herald, "I was not planning on signing up for the military."

"It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft," Romney told the newspaper.

But that's exactly what Romney did, according Selective Service records. He received his first deferment for "activity in study" in October 1965 while at Stanford.

As Soltz notes, the younger Romney was under no obligation to seek a college-related deferment.
"Vietnam was a war that the poor and the people who couldn't afford to go to college had to go to," Soltz said.

After his first year at Stanford, Romney qualified for 4-D deferment status as "a minister of religion or divinity student." It was a status he would hold from July 1966 until February 1969, a period he largely spent in France working as a Mormon missionary.

He was granted the deferment even as some young Mormon men elsewhere were denied that same status, which became increasingly controversial in the late 1960s. The Mormon church, a strong supporter of American involvement in Vietnam, ultimately limited the number of church missionaries allowed to defer their military service using the religious exemption.

But as fighting in Vietnam raged, Romney spent two and a half years trying to win Mormon converts in France. About that same time, Romney's father would famously speak out against Vietnam, declaring that he had been "brainwashed" by military officials into supporting the conflict.

And when Romney's Mormon mission ended, he immediately requested and received another two years worth of academic studies deferments so he could study business techniques and dark skills he would later use as one of the nation's most disreputable vulture capitalists.​
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
This is politics. Obama cannot effectively run on his record

If you say so.

Can Romney "effectively run on his record "?


source: Washington Post


Romney’s Bain Capital invested in companies that moved jobs overseas



Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.

During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

While economists debate whether the massive outsourcing of American jobs over the last generation was inevitable, Romney in recent months has lamented the toll it’s taken on the U.S. economy. He has repeatedly pledged he would protect American employment by getting tough on China.

“They’ve been able to put American businesses out of business and kill American jobs,” he told workers at a Toledo fence factory in February. “If I’m president of the United States, that’s going to end.”

Speaking at a metalworking factory in Cincinnati last week, Romney cited his experience as a businessman, saying he knows what it would take to bring employers back to the United States. “For me it’s all about good jobs for the American people and a bright and prosperous future,” he said.

For years, Romney’s political opponents have tried to tie him to the practice of outsourcing American jobs. These political attacks have often focused on Bain’s involvement in specific business deals that resulted in job losses.

But a Washington Post examination of securities filings shows the extent of Bain’s investment in firms that specialized in helping other companies move or expand operations overseas. While Bain was not the largest player in the outsourcing field, the private equity firm was involved early on, at a time when the departure of jobs from the United States was beginning to accelerate and new companies were emerging as handmaidens to this outflow of employment.

Bain played several roles in helping these outsourcing companies, such as investing venture capital so they could grow and providing management and strategic business advice as they navigated this rapidly developing field.

Over the past two decades, American companies have dramatically expanded their overseas operations and supply networks, especially in Asia, while shrinking their workforces at home. McKinsey Global Institute estimated in 2006 that $18.4 billion in global information technology work and $11.4 billion in business-process services have been moved abroad.

While the export of jobs has been disruptive for many workers and communities in the United States, outsourcing has been a powerful economic force. It has often helped lower the prices that American consumers pay for products and created a global supply chain that has made U.S. companies more nimble and profitable.

Romney campaign officials repeatedly declined requests to comment on Bain’s record of investing in outsourcing firms during the Romney era. Campaign officials have said it is unfair to criticize Romney for investments made by Bain after he left the firm but did not address those made on his watch. In response to detailed questions about outsourcing investments, Bain spokesman Alex Stanton said, “Bain Capital’s business model has always been to build great companies and improve their operations. We have helped the 350 companies in which we have invested, which include over 100 start-up businesses, produce $80 billion of revenue growth in the United States while growing their revenues well over twice as fast as both the S&P and the U.S. economy over the last 28 years.”

Until Romney left Bain Capital in 1999, he ran it with a proprietor’s zeal and attention to detail, earning a reputation for smart, hands-on management.

Bain’s foray into outsourcing began in 1993 when the private equity firm took a stake in Corporate Software Inc., or CSI, after helping to finance a $93 million buyout of the firm. CSI, which catered to technology companies like Microsoft, provided a range of services including outsourcing of customer support. Initially, CSI employed U.S. workers to provide these services but by the mid-1990s was setting up call centers outside the country.

Two years after Bain invested in the firm, CSI merged with another enterprise to form a new company called Stream International Inc. Stream immediately became active in the growing field of overseas calls centers. Bain was initially a minority shareholder in Stream and was active in running the company, providing “general executive and management services,” according to SEC filings.

By 1997, Stream was running three tech-support call centers in Europe and was part of a call center joint venture in Japan, an SEC filing shows. “The Company believes that the trend toward outsourcing technical support occurring in the U.S. is also occurring in international markets,” the SEC filing said.

Stream continued to expand its overseas call centers. And Bain’s role also grew with time. It ultimately became the majority shareholder in Stream in 1999 several months after Romney left Bain to run the Salt Lake City Olympics.

Bain sold its stake in Stream in 2001, after the company further expanded its call center operations across Europe and Asia.

The corporate merger that created Stream also gave birth to another, related business known as Modus Media Inc., which specialized in helping companies outsource their manufacturing. Modus Media was a subsidiary of Stream that became an independent company in early 1998. Bain was the largest shareholder, SEC filings show.

Modus Media grew rapidly. In December 1997, it announced it had contracted with Microsoft to produce software and training products at a center in Australia. Modus Media said it was already serving Microsoft from Asian locations in Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan and in Europe and the United States.

Two years later, Modus Media told the SEC it was performing outsource packaging and hardware assembly for IBM, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Computer Corp. The filing disclosed that Modus had operations on four continents, including Asian facilities in Singapore, Taiwan, China and South Korea, and European facilities in Ireland and France, and a center in Australia.

“Technology companies, in particular, have increasingly sought to outsource the business processes involved in their supply chains,” the filing said. “. . . We offer a range of services that provide our clients with a one-stop shop for their outsource requirements.”

According to a news release issued by Modus Media in 1997, its expansion of outsourcing services took place in close consultation with Bain. Terry Leahy, Modus’s chairman and chief executive, was quoted in the release as saying he would be “working closely with Bain on strategic expansion.” At the time, three Bain directors sat on the corporate board of Modus.

The global expansion that began while Romney was at Bain continued after he left. In 2000, the firm announced it was opening a new facility in Guadalajara, Mexico, and expanding in China, Malaysia, Taiwan and South Korea.

In addition to taking an interest in companies that specialized in outsourcing services, Bain also invested in firms that moved or expanded their own operations outside of the United States.

One of those was a California bicycle manufacturer called GT Bicycle Inc. that Bain bought in 1993. The growing company relied on Asian labor, according to SEC filings. Two years later, with the company continuing to expand, Bain helped take it public. In 1998, when Bain owned 22 percent of GT’s stock and had three members on the board, the bicycle maker was sold to Schwinn, which had also moved much of its manufacturing offshore as part of a wider trend in the bicycle industry of turning to Chinese labor.

Another Bain investment was electronics manufacturer SMTC Corp. In June 1998, during Romney’s last year at Bain, his private equity firm acquired a Colorado manufacturer that specialized in the assembly of printed circuit boards. That was one of several preliminary steps in 1998 that would culminate in a corporate merger a year later, five months after Romney left Bain. In July 1999, the Colorado firm acquired SMTC Corp., SEC filings show. Bain became the largest shareholder of SMTC and held three seats on its corporate board. Within a year of Bain taking over, SMTC told the SEC it was expanding production in Ireland and Mexico.

In its prospectus that year, SMTC explained that it was in a strong position to meet the swelling demand from other manufacturers for overseas production of circuit boards. The company said that communications and networking companies “are dramatically increasing the amount of manufacturing they are outsourcing and we believe our technological capabilities and global manufacturing platform are well suited to capitalize on this opportunity.”

Just as Romney was ending his tenure at Bain, it reached the culmination of negotiations with Hyundai Electronics Industry of South Korea for the $550 million purchase of its U.S. subsidiary, Chippac, which manufactured, tested and packaged computer chips in Asia. The deal was announced a month after Romney left Bain. Reports filed with the SEC in late 1999 showed that Chippac had plants in South Korea and China and was responsible for marketing and supplying the company’s Asian-made computer chips. An overwhelming majority of Chippac’s customers were U.S. firms, including Intel, IBM and Lucent Technologies.

A filing with the SEC revealed the promise that Chippac offered investors. “Historically, semiconductor companies primarily manufactured semiconductors in their own facilities,” the filing said. “Today, most major semiconductor manufacturers use independent packaging and test service providers for at least a portion of their . . . needs. We expect this outsourcing trend to continue.”
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: WBUR

The First President With A Swiss Bank Account?


0709_romney2-620x422.jpg


During the recent GOP primaries, Newt Gingrich observed, “I don’t know of any American president who has had a Swiss bank account.” Mitt Romney recently had one, along with holdings stashed in tax havens such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

Coerced Disclosure

Earlier this year Romney released, after much coercion from his Republican rivals, 550 pages of tax returns for the past two years. His income was $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million last year. Some of that money came from funds based in the Cayman Islands, a notorious tax-free zone. He also had a $3 million Swiss bank account until 2010 when his financial adviser closed it because it might be “politically embarrassing.” You think?

While much of Romney’s wealth and holdings are hidden, news organizations have been digging and are uncovering plenty of embarrassing information. Much of his income sits in tax-advantaged funds that are overseas, complex and largely hidden. If he is elected, it’s safe to assume no president has ever had foreign holdings as vast, complex, and secretive as Romney’s.

An IRA No American Has

The Wall Street Journal was puzzled over how Romney’s IRA could have exploded to be worth as much as $102 million. How can that be when the maximum annual contribution is normally $2,000 per taxpayer? Theories include Bain having put an artificially low value on its shares when Romney originally bought them. No one but Romney and his tax lawyers know for sure.

Creating Jobs — For China

It’s well known that Bain Capital bought and sold American companies and shipped their jobs to other countries. But less known is what an investigator for the Washington Post found: “Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.”

Bain took over one company that they later merged with another to form Stream International which helped software companies set up overseas operations.

After the Post story, the Daily Kos web site wondered, “If you lost your job to outsourcing in the mid-1990s or thereafter, it’s fair to wonder if it was a Bain company that told your boss how to go about it, or ran the call center that took over your work.”

The Bermuda Angle

The Associated Press found that for 15 years a mysterious Bermuda-based enterprise of Bain called Sankaty HighYield Asset Investors Ltd. “was not listed on any of Romney’s state or federal financial reports. The company [named for a Nantucket lighthouse] is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed, including one that recently posted a $1.9 million earning — suggesting he could be wealthier than the nearly $250 million estimated by his campaign.”

AP found that quietly “Sankaty was transferred to a newly opened trust owned by Romney’s wife, Ann, one day before he was sworn in as Massachusetts governor in 2003, according to Bermuda records… The Romneys’ ownership of the offshore firm did not appear on any state or federal financial reports during Romney’s two presidential campaigns. Only the Romneys’ 2010 tax records, released under political pressure earlier this year, confirmed their continuing control of the company.”

The Cayman Mystery

In a much-anticipated Vanity Fair article, Nicholas Shaxson delved into Romney’s finances and discovered that “For all Mitt Romney’s touting of his business record, when it comes to his own money the Republican nominee is remarkably shy about disclosing numbers and investments.” He uses loopholes that allow him and other very wealthy people to skirt tax laws.

ABC News found that it is not apparent on his financial disclosure form, but Romney has unknown millions in his personal wealth parked in the Cayman Islands, which has no income tax, capital gains tax, or corporate tax.

The Domino Effect

In a widely reported AP story, Sankaty was shown to be “part of a cluster of similarly named hedge funds run by Bain Capital… The offshore company was used in Bain’s $1 billion takeover of Domino’s Pizza and other multimillion-dollar investment deals more than a decade ago.” Hold the anchovies but could I have extra tax breaks with that?

All In The Family

From a Reuters OpEd by Felix Salmon, we learn “The blind trust that the Romney camp cites to deflect questions about potential conflicts of interest? It invested $10 million in a hedge fund [called Solamere] co-founded by Tagg Romney. The trustee, Romney’s personal lawyer R. Bradford Malt (yes, that’s his actual name), explains his investing philosophy by saying that he ‘liked Solamere because of its diversified approach and because he knew the founders.’”

Conservatives Won’t Like This.

Romney is bellicose about Iran’s nuclear threat and calls Russia “our number one geopolitical foe,” but AP found that his family trusts invested in both Russian and Iranian oil companies as recently as 2010. Similarly, Romney’s blind investments didn’t see trades in companies whose business operations as clashing with Republican and Romney’s conservative orthodoxy on stem cell research, abortion, and the morning-after pill. Romney says the trust is managed “to conform to my positions.” Hmmm.

No Ordinary American

Romney pays a lower tax rate than most Americans — about 14 percent — because most of his income comes from investments rather than wages. If Romney had income like ordinary Americans get in their paychecks, he would have had to pay about 35 percent to the IRS.

Romney and his campaign aides always defend his financial dealings by saying he never broke the rules. If that’s true, we should change the rules. As for the relevance of Romney’s investments, they say a great deal about his attitude toward tax laws, shipping jobs out of the country, and his ever-changing postions on social issues.
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
Tricky Mitt: He's Not A Crook Right?


Tricky Mitt: He's Not A Crook Right?

Cenk Uygur and Michael Shure discuss a new TV ad from MoveOn.org against Mitt Romney called 'Tricky Mitt'. CBS News called the ad "one of the harshest ads of the 2012 campaign season yet".
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=c90c098a50d1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Can't blame the so called liberal American press for this one!

Mitt Romney "Worse Than Palin" Brits Say



<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7lnhVWtT0YQ?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


<script src="http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?height=315&deepLinkEmbedCode=Y3YTEwNDrBzUayF__WODEhDQcnvuQR51&video_pcode=RvbGU6Z74XE_a3bj4QwRGByhq9h2&embedCode=Y3YTEwNDrBzUayF__WODEhDQcnvuQR51&width=560"></script>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator


Can't blame the so called liberal American press for this one!


Mitt Romney "Worse Than Palin" Brits Say


Mitt Romney "Worse Than Palin" ???

Yes, according to Charles Krauthammer, the right-wing commentator who usually finds every excuse to attack Barack Obama. Krauthammer pronounced himself befuddled by Romney's flare of incompetence! :eek:

These sorts of trips, Krauthammer said on Fox News Thursday night, are easy. You express solidarity with the allies, listen, nod your head, and say nice things or nothing at all.

Instead, Romney questioned his hosts’ ability to run the Olympics, raised doubts about Londoners’ community spirit, and violated protocol by publicly mentioning a meeting with the head of MI-6. “It’s unbelievable, it’s beyond human understanding, it’s incomprehensible,” Krauthammer, normally a paragon of self-confidence, sputtered. “I’m out of adjectives … I don’t get it.”

Okay, roll that opening line from T.O., again:

<marquee bgcolor="#000080" scrollamount="3" direction="up" loop="true" width="35%"> <center> <font color="#ffffff"><strong> "Can't blame the<br> <br> so called liberal American<br> <br> Press for this one!"</strong></font></center></marquee>

:lol: :lol: :lol:


 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Think Progress

Romney Cuts Off Press Access To Israeli Fundraiser Following London Gaffes (Updated)



Following a series of well-publicized gaffes in London, Mitt Romney’s campaign may be trying to restrict press access to the former Massachusetts governor as he travels to Israel, violating a pre-negotiated agreement.

Romney, who is flying with a group of reporters on his international trip, had agreed in April to allow limited media coverage of all finance events held in public spaces. But on Saturday, the campaign suddenly reneged on that deal and announced that a fundraiser with big-money American donors — including controversial casino magnet Sheldon Adelson — in Jerusalem’s King David Hotel would be “closed press“:
But Romney’s campaign announced Saturday that it would block the news media from covering the event, which will be held at the King David Hotel. The campaign’s decision to close the fundraiser to the press violates the ground rules it negotiated with news organizations in April, when Romney wrapped up the Republican nomination and began opening some of his finance events to the news media.

Under the agreement, a pool of wire, print and television reporters can cover every Romney fundraiser held in public venues, including hotels and country clubs. The campaign does not allow media coverage of fundraisers held in private residences.

Campaign spokesman Rick Gorka declined to explain the campaign’s decision to violate protocol with the Jerusalem event. Pressed repeatedly by reporters to offer an explanation, Gorka said only that the fundraiser was “closed press.”
“That’s all I’ve got for you — it’s closed press,” Gorka said.

Politico notes that Romney “allowed press into his London fundraiser Thursday night.”
Update


Reversing itself in the face of complaints, Mitt Romney’s campaign said on Sunday it will permit the news media to cover a Jerusalem fundraiser that caps the presumed Republican presidential nominee’s trip to Israel,” the National Journal reports.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator





"Kiss my ass"

“This is a holy site for the Polish people”




 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
Lupica: Think Ryan will fight for the little guy? That's rich! Why almost anyone woul

Lupica: Think Ryan will fight for the little guy? That's rich! Why almost anyone would be better


splash-ryan.jpg
Here is what really happens now that Mitt Romney picks Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate: Romney gives the hardliners in his party, and especially its Obama-hating fringes, the candidate they really want.


lupica13n-1-web.jpg

Mitt Romney's running mate Rep. Paul Ryan is all ears to the concerns of the Republican Party's wingnuts.



Here is what really happens now that Mitt Romney picks Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate: Romney gives the hardliners in his party, and especially its Obama-hating fringes, the candidate they really want.

The guy running for vice president becomes the guy the modern Republican Party wishes were running for President.

This is Ryan’s party, not Romney’s. The Republicans never wanted Romney, it’s why everybody except Dwight Eisenhower became a front-runner in the early innings of this campaign. No matter how Tea Party tough Romney tried to talk, they could never forget the moderate Romney was as governor of Massachusetts.

They wanted a zealot like Ryan. Now they’ve got one. Already you hear that Romney picks Ryan to be his game changer the way John McCain picked Sarah Palin. But there is a difference. Palin only played the part of an ideologue, like a part she was playing in the school play. Ryan, a child of privilege from Wisconsin no matter how much he tries to sound like some blue-collar kid, really is one.

So at a time when the American people hate Congress more than at any other time in the country’s history, Romney goes to the House of Representatives and gets Ryan. You know why Chris Christie, populist governor, would have been a better choice than Ryan?

Because almost anybody would have been.

Tell yourselves all you want that the candidate for vice president doesn’t make a difference. Most of the time you’d be right, just look at Joe Biden. But this time it matters. In all the big ways, this now becomes Barack Obama’s vision for the country — one where government actually isn’t the great Satan — against Ryan’s.

This is the current boy wonder of the Republican Party against someone, Obama, who played the exact same part once for the Democrats, as he went from state senator in Illinois to the White House faster than Usain Bolt.

And no matter how much back-tracking Ryan tries to do over the next weeks and months, it all starts with a vision of the country that involves him, Paul Ryan, out of Janesville, Wis., part of the founding family of that town, wanting to throw out about 75 years of social services in this country first chance he gets, tell you all about how Medicare and Social Security ought to work.

Whatever Ryan says, what he is talking about — if he gets his way and helps Romney get the White House, if somehow over the next three months the two of them can turn around a Romney campaign going the wrong way — is fundamentally altering programs that have been the honorable best of this country, ones that help Americans who need help the most.



This all comes from someone who has never had to worry about a job or paycheck or health care for a day of his life, someone who read the complete psycho-babble of Ayn Rand as a kid and never got over it, who thinks he’s John Galt in “Atlas Shrugged,” actually talking about individualism vs. “collectivism” with a straight face.

Ryan’s defenders are quick to tell you that what is essentially his voucher plan for Medicare doesn’t involve anyone o ver the age of 55, which sure ought to be some consolation to more than 75 million baby boomers set to retire in this country.

I went back on Sunday and read what Ryan said in his big star turn, his State of the Union response last year. The money quote was about how if big government went unchecked “we will transform our social safety into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.”

It is the great, unchecked lie of guys who think the way Ryan thinks about America: That too many of those getting money from the government, for anything, really are lazy slackers looking for handouts.

Oh, sure. When you break down Ryan’s plan for Medicare to its essentials, he doesn’t mind giving you a handout — in the form of a voucher — with which you can theoretically buy insurance, if you can afford it. But if you run out of money at some point down the line, or you get really sick, well, you’re on your own. Or just screwed. To say that it is oversimplification or misrepresentation is like misrepresenting a baseball as being round.

It really is kind of wonderful, if you think about it.

Ryan wants to come across as an America-saving idealist. But somehow none of his solutions for making us rich again involve cutting the defense budget. And never ever, Good Lord no, involve taxing people with real money. His kind or Romney’s.

Mitt Romney, a good guy who constantly seems to be running away from the leader he once was in Massachusetts, clearly seems to think he’s given the people what they want with Paul Ryan. Just not the people who can get him elected.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ele...s-rich-article-1.1135069?pgno=1#ixzz23R9d3PeR
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
ib0ONIx9VhOoOK.png


Romney Pushes On With Discredited Welfare Attacks



117399_600.jpg



August 22, 2012

by Julie Pace


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...TRATEGY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

MIDLAND, Texas (AP) — Mitt Romney claims he's got a winner with his criticism that President Barack Obama is giving welfare recipients a free ride. Never mind that aspects of his argument against the Democrat are factually inaccurate.

Those flaws aside, Romney's team is pressing on with the charge that the president ended a provision requiring welfare recipients to work. Romney aides insist the argument is helping them gain ground with middle-class voters anxious about the economy and independents who see Obama's welfare changes as an indication that he is a typical liberal, not a moderate. But the campaign offers little evidence to back up those assertions.

Obama's team, in turn, says Romney's welfare charges are dishonest. Numerous independent fact-checkers, including The Associated Press, have determined that Romney and his surrogates are distorting the facts.

"Everybody who's looked at this says what Gov. Romney's saying is absolutely wrong," Obama said Monday. "They can run the campaign they want, but the truth of the matter is you can't just make stuff up."

But that criticism has done little to persuade Romney and his aides to abandon the welfare issue or even tweak its assertions.

The White House says the waivers Obama approved for states last month would only allow them to drop the work requirement if they can accomplish the same goals using different methods, a move Obama aides said was done at the request of both Republican and Democratic governors.

Romney's welfare push comes with risk for the presumptive GOP nominee. Focusing too heavily on welfare, which had barely registered as a campaign issue before Romney began pushing it, could turn off voters who want to hear the candidates offer specific prescriptions for job growth.

It could open Romney up to criticism that he is injecting race into the campaign and seeking to boost support among white, working-class voters by charging that the nation's first black president is offering a free pass to recipients of a program stereotypically associated with poor African-Americans.

And Romney runs the risk of denting his credibility with voters by peddling an argument that has been widely debunked.

Republican strategists dismiss those concerns, and many are urging Romney to press on with the welfare accusations.

"It's a huge advantage issue for Romney," said Greg Mueller, a conservative strategist. "It cuts right through, beyond the Republican base, to independents and blue-collar Democrats."

Romney has been pushing welfare in most of his public events, telling voters he would "put work" back in the federal program. The campaign has also run three television advertisements this month in battleground states accusing Obama of gutting welfare reform, and two Web videos with the same message.

A Web video released Tuesday, "Only in America," featured a man who grew up on welfare and credited the work requirement for helping his family break out of a "cycle of dependency" and gain economic independence.

Romney's arguments center on a memo the Obama administration issued in July saying it was interested in approving state experiments that will help "find more effective mechanisms for helping families succeed in employment."

The administration said states would not be able to escape the work requirements of the landmark 1996 federal welfare reform law signed by President Bill Clinton. But states may get federal approval to try to accomplish the same goals by using different methods than those spelled out in the legislation.

The administration said the waiver program is a response to concerns from state officials in both parties that the work requirements in the law are too rigid and create bureaucratic hurdles to actually placing welfare recipients in jobs. Officials said the program does not violate the underlying law because of a provision that allows waivers of state plans.

The Obama administration's memo was issued with little notice and angered some Republicans who said the waivers would result in an end of the work requirement.

With Obama and Romney locked in a tight race, some Republicans see the welfare push as a sign that the Republican recognizes he needs to expand his economic argument beyond just jobs if he hopes to break through before November.

"It's a tacit acknowledgement that it's not enough to just hammer the economy," said Steve Lombardo, a Republican pollster who worked for Romney's 2008 presidential campaign. "That will get you to 46, 47 percent, but it won't get you to 51 percent."

Obama campaign officials say they see no evidence in their internal polling that Romney's welfare criticism is helping the Republican gain any ground.

Democrats see Romney's focus on welfare as an attempt to put a wedge between Obama and Clinton, the popular former president who has taken on an increasingly active role in Obama's re-election campaign.

Clinton, seeking to steer his administration toward the political center, signed a welfare reform law in 1996 that replaced a federal entitlement with grants to states. It also put a time limit on how long families can get aid and required recipients to go to work eventually.

Clinton is among those who have called Romney's welfare attacks dishonest and false.



iKonNg82arTfr.gif
iFQBJWJxhJTP7.jpg



<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="8"></hr>

Romney-dad-2.jpg
 
Last edited:

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator

Shocking Poll: Romney Killed Bin Laden? Some Republicans Think So ?....

"A new poll asked Ohio voters who they thought deserved more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden...15 percent of Ohio Republican voters said Mitt Romney is "more responsible" for Osama bin Laden's death than President Obama...".* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=97cb178bce14" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:roflmao:
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
Right Wing Attacking Mitt Romney All Over The Place

Romney is a candidate without a party.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=5b31eac3d1f6" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Greed

Star
Registered
Maybe Mitt isn't releasing his tax returns because it will show a massive decrease in wealth since the recession and not shady investments.

It seems he's only running on the successful business man angle. Maybe he was worth $400-$350 mil but now it's $250mil. That would hurt the only thing he has going for him.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Maybe Mitt isn't releasing his tax returns because it will show a massive decrease in wealth since the recession and not shady investments.

It seems he's only running on the successful business man angle. Maybe he was worth $400-$350 mil but now it's $250mil. That would hurt the only thing he has going for him.


Maybe, maybe not.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

Huntsman on his criticism
of Romney’s foreign policy

<param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=49035844&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc786b34" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=49035844&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>


_______________________________________


I posted this video not so much as for what Huntsman has to say about
Romney's or Obama's foreign policy - - but because I think Huntsman
comes close to articulating what I think is the right assessment of the
present situation and our place in it.


 
Top