Romney to Obama: Where are the jobs, Mr. President?

posted at 11:46 am on May 5, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The Obama campaign keeps trying to change the subject in this election from jobs and the economy to almost anything else — contraception, Swiss bank accounts, Seamus the Roof-Ridin’ Dog, whatever works.  Republicans have countered these arguments, but when they do so, they run the risk of making the distractions work for Obama.  Yesterday, Mitt Romney wrote a lengthy column in the Cleveland Plain Dealer that put the focus of the election squarely on the issues that matter most to American voters:

Dear Mr. President,

Welcome to Ohio. I have a simple question for you: Where are the jobs?

Good question.  Here is a graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that shows the level of employment, seasonally-adjusted, for the time Obama has been in office.  Bear in mind that this doesn’t account for population growth in 3-plus years, but is just the number of jobs in the US economy:

We have still fallen short of the level of jobs the US had when Obama first took office.  In fact, over the last two months, the number of jobs has actually declined, from 142,065,000 in February to 142,034,000 in March and 141,865,000 in April.  That last drop was a significant 169,000 jobs.  And here’s why that hasn’t impacted the topline jobless rate:

Obama’s policies has people fleeing the workforce.  We are now at a 30-year low in the civilian population participation rate.  It’s a generational disaster, and one that has largely taken place during the recovery rather than the crash:

Romney places the blame squarely on Obama:

I recognize, of course, as do all Americans, that you inherited an economic crisis. But you’ve now had three years to turn things around. The record of those three years is clear. Your policies have failed, not only in Ohio, but across the nation.

The results are a continuing tragedy for millions upon millions of people. Everywhere I go, I meet Americans who are tired of being tired, and many of those who are fortunate enough to have a job are working harder for less. This is not the way it is supposed to be in America. This is not the way it needs to be.

Mr. President, forgive me for being blunt, but when it comes to economic affairs, you’re out of your depth. Unlike you, I am not a career politician. Unlike you, I’ve spent more than two decades working in the private sector, starting new businesses and turning around failing ones. Undoing the damage you’ve done will be a daunting challenge. But I’ve learned a thing or two about how government policies can kill private investment and stifle job creation and I have a plan to get government out of the way.

Blunt is the only thing that the Obama campaign understands … and fears.  This is the theme that Romney needs to hammer over the next six months.  Don’t get too distracted by War on Wimmenses and dog-crate nonsense.  Obama and his team know they can’t compete on jobs and the economy and will do anything to change the subject.  This op-ed is a good start in focusing voter attention back on jobs, the economy, and Obama’s disastrous performance on both.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

We are now at a 30-year low in the civilian population participation rate.

Ironice hos Prez Liberal has taken us back to the days when women stayed home.

PattyJ on May 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Ironice hos Prez Liberal has taken us back to the days when women stayed home.

PattyJ on May 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Only now, men do.

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Jazz Shaw has an excellent blog piece on Keystone right above this blog post..Good reading..:)

Dire Straits on May 5, 2012 at 2:55 PM

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Or perhaps you measure Debt to GDP?

Buy Danish on May 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM

And if Romney had been President, unemployment in Ohio would be far higher. Mitt would have let the entire auto industry sink.
bayam on May 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM

No, he would have had them go through a structured bankruptcy which would have allowed them to emerge stronger without the weight of unsustainable plans and benefits. The difference Mitt and O’s is Mitt wouldn’t have stolen from Senior Creditors to pay off his cronies at the U.A.W.

Buy Danish on May 5, 2012 at 1:37 PM

This cannot be repeated enough. People either don’t understand how a chapter 13 bankruptcy works OR they are ignorant (willfully or otherwise) such that they can only mimic the Obama talking points, which are nothing but lies & misrepresentations.

These are the same morons who go around saying the Lilly Ledbetter Act “guarantees fair pay for women” when it doesn’t do anything like that — it extends the time to bring a wage discrimination claim from the first discriminatory paycheck to the most recent discriminatory paycheck & applies equally to men & women who may have such a claim. It doesn’t even make proving such a claim any either. Yet, all over the MSM we’ve got people saying that Obama “saved” GM & Lilly Ledbetter guarantees fair pay for women.

But one thing is for sure: even if Obama “saved” GM & even if Lilly Ledbetter guaranteed fair pay for women, it doesn’t matter if you can’t get a job. And everyone who doesn’t live in a fantasy world built on fan-fiction starting: “IF Romney had been POTUS these last 3 years, it would have been worse” knows that for a fact.

Dark Star on May 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Obie is blocking to keep his base in line..The green folks outnumber the unions that Keystone would affect..Plus those unions will not be put out of business because we will still need oil..The “greens” are much more passionate about this issue..imho..:)

Dire Straits on May 5, 2012 at 2:51 PM

..:)

Dire Straits on May 5, 2012 at 2:57 PM

*Chapter 11 bankruptcy, not chapter 13.

Sorry.

Dark Star on May 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM

We’re all friends here. Can you honestly say you’d be making excuses posts like that had the economy turned around drastically during the (ahem) first recovery summer?

No one with any understanding of the financial crisis and the nature of a balance sheet recession actually expected a fast turnaround. None of the top economists on Wall Street held that expectation. I’m not surprised to hear that Glenn Beck followers think differently.

If not for the stimulus, this country would have experienced zero economic growth whatsoever during the first leg of the ‘recovery’. But this comes as no surprise- modern economies have been fighting depressions over the last 5 decades with fiscal policy. Economists on Wall Street and elsewhere in the private sector expected growth to slow once the stimulus effect ended.

I completely agree that today’s levels of government spending, especially in entitlements, threaten to lead the country toward a financial disaster.
But you have to understand that the main cause of today’s deficits- relative to 2007- isn’t government spending as much as lower tax revenue. Lower tax revenue is caused by higher unemployment rates which in turn reflects repressed consumer demand. You’re not going to fix today’s problems simply by cutting spending.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Obie is blocking to keep his base in line..The green folks outnumber the unions that Keystone would affect..Plus those unions will not be put out of business because we will still need oil..The “greens” are much more passionate about this issue..imho..:)

Dire Straits on May 5, 2012 at 2:51 PM

For now perhaps, but it will be very tempting to drop gas prices come October :) Maybe the first “good” October Surprise ever. And I think the greenies will still vote for Obama anyway, just to see how many businesses he can kill in a second term.

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I never said it was Bush’s fault.
 
bayam on May 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM

 

I never said it was Bush’s fault today.
 
bayam on May 5, 2012 at 2:35 PM

 
FIFY
 

Maybe that was part of the problem? The second leg of Bush’s tax cuts occurred in a health economy (reason for Greenspan’s opposition). Based on painful lessons of the past, economists generally oppose stimulus or debt-fueled growth when the economy is growing. By the time the economy cratered in 2008, there was no room for even further tax cuts. Whoops.
 
If you look at tax and stimulus policy under just about every previous president, but set a precedent that probably will never be repeated.
 
bayam on April 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM

 

If you look at tax and stimulus policy under just about every previous president, Bush set a precedent that probably will never be repeated.
 
bayam on April 10, 2012 at 2:41 PM

 

The deficit doubled during the Bush years. It’s not Obama who’s responsible for our current deep recession / depression or the massive federal debt.
 
bayam on September 7, 2010 at 2:38 PM

rogerb on May 5, 2012 at 3:07 PM

The recession never ended and it won’t end until Obama is retired. They know it’s Obama and company blocking economic growth.

I don’t know if anyone here watched that TV Series “American Horror Story” but in the very first episode the real estate agent is explaining to the parents that they probably won’t be able to get any kind of good price for their house: until we get that failure out of the White House.

I don’t remember exactly what she said, but it was harsh. Pretty funny to hear in on a MSM TV Show.

And of course, she’s correct, even if she is fictional.

So, I think there’s a consensus that Obama is pretty bad. People need to come to the conclusion that Romney would be an improvement.

Jocon307 on May 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM

You’re not going to fix today’s problems simply by cutting spending.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

I disagree..Plus raising taxes on the rich ($ 250,000) folks is not going to help..:)

Dire Straits on May 5, 2012 at 3:09 PM

I completely agree that today’s levels of government spending, especially in entitlements, threaten to lead the country toward a financial disaster.
But you have to understand that the main cause of today’s deficits- relative to 2007- isn’t government spending as much as lower tax revenue. Lower tax revenue is caused by higher unemployment rates which in turn reflects repressed consumer demand. You’re not going to fix today’s problems simply by cutting spending.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

If the folks I have talked to are any indication, the primary reason businesses aren’t hiring right now is Obamacare. Which can rightly be blamed on Obama and the congressional dems. And if high unemployment is the key reason the economy is stagnating Obama deserves the credit as well.

Mind you, I don’t really trust the GOP to actually repeal O-care, even with super majorities in congress and control of the WH. I do think that if the Supreme Court kills O-care, it will be a net gain for Obama, as many businesses will start hiring again.

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 3:04 PM

You could be right..It would not suprise me at all..But if he allows Keystone that means his interal polling numbers are in the tank..:)

Dire Straits on May 5, 2012 at 3:12 PM

No one with any understanding of the financial crisis and the nature of a balance sheet recession actually expected a fast turnaround.

So…did Biden lie back in 2009?

Did Geithner?

Did Obama?

Did most of the Democrat Congress?

That stimulus was supposed to get all of us back to work with shovel-ready jobs, which would drive the rest of the economy, and lift us all out of “Bush’s recession”…or that was the sales jingle at the time….

2012…and now the meme is nobody expected a fast turnaround from “Bush’s recession/”

Now there’s something we haven’t thought of…a whole career field ignored.

Perhaps if the Administration had hired throngs of unemployed as official goal post movers…we’d be looking at maybe 4% maybe 5% unemployment instead of this +8% [205] unemployment that all the smart one’s in this Administration just can’t deal with.

coldwarrior on May 5, 2012 at 3:13 PM

We’re all friends here. Can you honestly say you’d be making excuses posts like that had the economy turned around drastically during the (ahem) first recovery summer?

 
…I’m not surprised to hear that Glenn Beck followers think differently….
 
bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

 
I didn’t think you’d answered the question at first. Turns out you did.

rogerb on May 5, 2012 at 3:14 PM

So, I think there’s a consensus that Obama is pretty bad. People need to come to the conclusion that Romney would be an improvement.

Jocon307 on May 5, 2012 at 3:08 PM

What are Romney’s specific proposals to spur on job creation?

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 3:15 PM

[205] s/b [20%].

dammit.

coldwarrior on May 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

No, he would have had them go through a structured bankruptcy which would have allowed them to emerge stronger without the weight of unsustainable plans and benefits. The difference Mitt and O’s is Mitt wouldn’t have stolen from Senior Creditors to pay off his cronies at the U.A.W.

Buy Danish on May 5, 2012 at 1:37 PM

This cannot be repeated enough. People either don’t understand how a chapter 13 bankruptcy works OR they are ignorant (willfully or otherwise) such that they can only mimic the Obama talking points, which are nothing but lies & misrepresentations.

Dark Star on May 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM

You are living in the Glenn Beck zone. Do you actually believe what you’re typing? Please share with us a single article from the pre-bankruptcy days that outlines an actual, viable plan among major creditors that enabled the auto companies to continue as going concerns. Or point to quote from Hank Paulson or another Bush official in the same light.

Romney’s pathetic excuse is nothing but that… at the time, there was no viable bankruptcy path for either GM or Chrysler. The bondholders sought an exit via asset sale. Given the fact that those assets had book values nowhere close to their actual market value, those creditors would have been fortunate to recover dimes on the dollar. Believe it or not, no US or foreign companies wanted to acquire US automaker plants or machinery in the Midwest, not to mention other assets spread across Detroit.

Without the bailout, there would be no US auto industry today.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Without the bailout, there would be no US auto industry today.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

What about Ford?

kingsjester on May 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Without the bailout, there would be no US auto industry today.

Yep.

True dat.

That one auto company that did not get an Obama-bailout?

Gone.

Forever.

Have you driven a Ford lately?

coldwarrior on May 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM

kingsjester on May 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Young whippersnapper…beat me by milli-seconds. :-)

coldwarrior on May 5, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Hit Barry for his War on Jobs and the War on the Economy.

galtani on May 5, 2012 at 3:22 PM

coldwarrior on May 5, 2012 at 3:20 PM

It was too easy. :-)

kingsjester on May 5, 2012 at 3:22 PM

You could be right..It would not suprise me at all..But if he allows Keystone that means his interal polling numbers are in the tank..:)

Dire Straits on May 5, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Realistically the election will come down to less than 5% of voters swinging one way or the other. I think a serious drop in gas prices would go a long way towards accomplishing that for any incumbent president, including Obama.

At the moment, Romney’s entire election victory strategy seems based on the expectation that the economy will remain very weak, that unemployment will remain huge, that gas prices will be at historically peak levels, and that no one will ask Romney any questions about his time as Governor. If any of those factors change for the better between now and November, Obama will more than likely win.

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 3:24 PM

rogerb on May 5, 2012 at 3:07 PM

I thought we were discussing the balance sheet recession, which was caused by the collapse of the housing market. I have never blamed the housing bubble on Bush. Bubbles happen.

I do think that if the Supreme Court kills O-care, it will be a net gain for Obama, as many businesses will start hiring again.

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 3:11 PM

I’m afraid you’re too focused on a political talking point and excuse. Obamacare falling at the hands of the Supremes won’t change the underlying lack of consumer demand. It’s consumer demand that actually drives economic growth and hiring in this country. When people start talking about ‘confidence’ or ‘outlook’ or ‘mayan calendars’ be very suspicious. After all, some parts of the economy are growing like wildfire, but only where there’s strong consumer demand.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM

What about Ford?

kingsjester on May 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM

I was actually thinking of Toyota, aren’t they mostly made in Georgia now? Or does than not count as the US Auto industry?

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 3:26 PM

rogerb on May 5, 2012 at 3:07 PM

wow …. do you archive everyone like that ???

conservative tarheel on May 5, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Perhaps non-union shops don’t count in bayam economics.

kingsjester on May 5, 2012 at 3:28 PM

What are Romney’s specific proposals to spur on job creation?

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Repeal Obamacare. I’ve heard people claim they’ve talked to others who’ve said the primary reason business aren’t hiring right now is Obamacare so Mitt’s promised to repeal it and that should in turn spur job creation.

alchemist19 on May 5, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Have you driven a Ford lately?

coldwarrior on May 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM

What about Ford?

kingsjester on May 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Sorry, I should have explained whey Ford was a strong backer of the bailouts of its competitors, esp during Congressional testimony. Ford and every other expert realized that without the bailout, the vast majority of the US auto supply chain would have collapsed- all the part manufacturers that build components found in every domestic car.

According to Ford executives at the time, the fall of its suppliers would have been such a hard blow to Ford’s ability to manufacture vehicles that Ford would have followed GM into failure. That is, Ford needed the bailout to save GM and Chrysler in order to survive itself.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:30 PM

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:30 PM

But, they refused to take any money.

kingsjester on May 5, 2012 at 3:32 PM

I’m afraid you’re too focused on a political talking point and excuse. Obamacare falling at the hands of the Supremes won’t change the underlying lack of consumer demand. It’s consumer demand that actually drives economic growth and hiring in this country. When people start talking about ‘confidence’ or ‘outlook’ or ‘mayan calendars’ be very suspicious. After all, some parts of the economy are growing like wildfire, but only where there’s strong consumer demand.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I work in a hospital, so there is a lot of fear over what O-care will do once fully implemented. I expect a lot of consumers are also worried about their healthcare insurance being dropped by their employers thanks to O-care. That might well lead a lot of people to be cautious with their money today, for fear of what will happen in the future. Without O-care swinging over peoples heads, consumer spending might well increase. We won’t know until its either fully implemented in a year or so, or the Supremes kill it.

I still think that the SC killing O-care helps Obama, whereas if the SC find in favor of O-care, it helps Romney but hurts the country and may well lead to out eventual collapse.

Not really sure what Mayan calenders has to do with anything though.

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Repeal Obamacare. I’ve heard people claim they’ve talked to others who’ve said the primary reason business aren’t hiring right now is Obamacare so Mitt’s promised to repeal it and that should in turn spur job creation.

alchemist19 on May 5, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Do you really believe that Romney/Boehner/McConnell will actually repeal Obamacare?

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Obama’s ideology is antithetical to productive workers and individualism. Yet we have a party apparatchik here pissing on our backs and telling us it is raining.

Seriously, I hope you and your family suffer immeasurably in the coming years.

tom daschle concerned on May 5, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Hey, c’mon, Prezz O cares about jobz…
his own.

n0doz on May 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

rogerb on May 5, 2012 at 3:07 PM

 
wow …. do you archive everyone like that ???
 
conservative tarheel on May 5, 2012 at 3:27 PM

 
Nah. ~30 seconds of google. Handy stuff.
 

I’m not surprised to hear that Glenn Beck followers think differently…
 
bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

 

You are living in the Glenn Beck zone. ..
 
bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

 
The ad hominems are coming out, so it’s probably safe to call this one. Y’all have fun.

rogerb on May 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

When, ever, have progressive punctilious pedantic pronouncements proven practical?

coldwarrior on May 5, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Do you really believe that Romney/Boehner/McConnell will actually repeal Obamacare?

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Boehner already voted to repeal it, McConnell voted against it and supported the House’s efforts to repeal it last year, Romney’s walked himself so far out on that one by saying over and over again at nearly every campaign stop that he’ll sign a repeal bill that not doing so would kill him politically so, yes, I think they will do it. Whether the Democrats will have the power to stop them is still up in the air but repeal polls so well amongst the general public and is such a strong motivating issue for the Republican base that it leads me to believe they’ll all do what they can to get it killed.

alchemist19 on May 5, 2012 at 3:46 PM

alchemist19 on May 5, 2012 at 3:46 PM

You have far more faith in these people than I do. I’ve never seen either party reduce Federal power once they were in the driver’s seat and Obamacare gives the government nearly infinite power over the people. Talking tough about repeal is easy when you aren’t in a position to do anything, likewise, voting against something is easy when you can’t stop it passing.

If Romney had beaten McCain in ’08, and gone on to defeat Obama, and then spent his first term pushing for Romneycare at the Federal level, I seriously doubt the GOP leadership would have done anything to prevent it from becoming law and the dems would be running on repealing it right now. And I wouldn’t believe them either.

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 4:00 PM

The American people (myself included) are hungry for a politician to propose an alternative plan from political and economic elites to make the economy work for more people than it currently does by having the taxpayers give those people Free Government Stuff.

libfreeordie on May 5, 2012 at 12:43 PM

F-ixed.

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2012 at 4:07 PM

None of the top economists on Wall Street

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Name them.

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2012 at 4:10 PM

You are living in the Glenn Beck zone.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Yeah, you’re right. Living in the Paul Krugman zone is so much more rewarding.

K- (K for Krugs)

Del Dolemonte on May 5, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Wash, Rinse, Repeat…dailly if necessary, until November 6, 2012.

txmomof6 on May 5, 2012 at 4:19 PM

The ad hominems are coming out, so it’s probably safe to call this one. Y’all have fun.

rogerb on May 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Hmmm, I thought they became extinct at the end of the last Ice Age?

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 5, 2012 at 4:22 PM

You have far more faith in these people than I do. I’ve never seen either party reduce Federal power once they were in the driver’s seat and Obamacare gives the government nearly infinite power over the people. Talking tough about repeal is easy when you aren’t in a position to do anything, likewise, voting against something is easy when you can’t stop it passing.

If Romney had beaten McCain in ’08, and gone on to defeat Obama, and then spent his first term pushing for Romneycare at the Federal level, I seriously doubt the GOP leadership would have done anything to prevent it from becoming law and the dems would be running on repealing it right now. And I wouldn’t believe them either.

Buckshot Bill on May 5, 2012 at 4:00 PM

I don’t know that I have far more faith than you, I just figure the best way to stem the tide (and God willing reverse) the growth of the federal government is to get as many Republicans in DC as possible. They might only be on my side half the time but that’s better for the country than Democrats who are actively seeking to undermine it every day they’re in power.

I don’t like to deal in hypotheticals so I don’t want to get into alternate universe scenarios from ’08 but I will say it’s not out of the question for Congress to buck a president who is advancing an agenda they don’t like. Witness the Bush/McCain/Kennedy amnesty debacle.

alchemist19 on May 5, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Without the bailout, there would be no US auto industry today.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

In case no one has told you yet you are dumber than a fence post.

Rio Linda Refugee on May 5, 2012 at 4:30 PM

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

You are living in the Glenn Beck zone.

I have no idea what Glenn Beck’s position was on this fiasco. I wrote about it quite a few times and never once referred to Beck.

Romney’s pathetic excuse is nothing but that… at the time, there was no viable bankruptcy path for either GM or Chrysler.

How did Obama’s “viable” plan differ from Romney’s “pathetic excuse of a plan”?

The U.A.W. sacrificed nothing in this deal. Zero. Zip. Nada. Chrysler workers got the same pay, same jobs at same locations they held before as a predetermined requirement of the sale to FIAT (Which Obama arranged) and required them to pay retirement benefits. Without this labor demand they may have paid a higher price for the assets and thus increased the value of the Senior creditors claims. Obviously the goal was to save jobs but they are very highly paid and I see no reason why they shouldn’t have gotten a pay cut and substantial benefit cuts.

Buy Danish on May 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

How did Obama’s “viable” plan differ from Romney’s “pathetic excuse of a plan”?

Bush and Obama had a plan to bailout the industry. Romney’s “bankruptcy” plan would have resulted in the liquidation of GM and Chrysler.

Obviously the goal was to save jobs but they are very highly paid and I see no reason why they shouldn’t have gotten a pay cut and substantial benefit cuts.

Buy Danish on May 5, 2012 at 4:33 PM

I’m not defending the unions jobs or pay or anything along those lines. To me it doesn’t matter what kind of job it is, as long as it’s an American job.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 4:41 PM

A hair under 8% unemployment and just under $3.50/gallon by Sept/Oct, by hook or by crook. Just watch.

Christien on May 5, 2012 at 4:41 PM

You are living in the Glenn Beck zone. Do you actually believe what you’re typing? Please share with us a single article from the pre-bankruptcy days that outlines an actual, viable plan among major creditors that enabled the auto companies to continue as going concerns. Or point to quote from Hank Paulson or another Bush official in the same light.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I don’t even listen to Beck, so besides proving you know nothing about me, your question proves that you know nothing about how bankruptcy works — at all. If you want a course on it, there are several seminars across the country that can help you. Contact your state’s local bar association, CLE division, and they can help you find one in a city near you.

I’m not your teacher, but I will say this: Chapter 7 is a liquidation bankruptcy (for consumers & businesses) where you sell everything to pay off creditors on a pro rata basis & (if you are a business) close down. That’s how most people — and obviously you — think of bankruptcy. However, there are other chapters in the bankruptcy code (hence the different names). Chapter 13 (consumer) and Chapter 11 are specifically designed as restructuring plans that do not call for liquidation but allow for pay off of creditors while allowing the debtor to retain their property (they are even called “debtors in possession”). In the case of businesses, that means they continue as a going concern while undergoing bankruptcy.

You want an article? Look at the entire Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, but specifically pay attention to 11 USC §1108, which allows the debtor in possession to act as trustee & continue to operate the business. Two cases I can think of off the top of my head are United & US Airways, which both filed Chapter 11 bankruptcies in 2002 and remain, while in their respective bankruptcies and remain to this day, ongoing concerns.

As far as your question (by implication) that the 2005 changes to the Bankruptcy Code effect anything, again, it again shows you don’t know anything. The main effect of the 2005 changes were to consumer Chapter 7 bankruptcies, not Chapter 11 bankruptcies. There were some minor changes about how long a court can extend leases under Chapter 11, etc. but nothing like what you are vaguely trying to imply that dramatically altered Chapter 11 to make it impossible for a business to operate as a going concern while undergoing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Dark Star on May 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM

And if Romney had been President, unemployment in Ohio would be far higher. Mitt would have let the entire auto industry sink.

If the Tea Party stopped blocking legislation such as the Inhofe- Boxer highway bill, more Americans would be employed in an the economy headed toward lower unemployment. Current employment levels shouldn’t be seen as a single party problem.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Not true. General Motors would have gone through ordinary bankruptcy proceedings — as a strong majority of Americans STILL believe it should have — and if the UAW refused to take concessions and sunk their own company, the sinking would have been on them. OR, they would have taken the concessions and GM would have come out of bankruptcy with a neutered union and greater opportunity for profitability. Instead, the UAW got a big fat corrupt government payoff from hard-working folks like me, and their inevitable bankruptcy at the hands of that corrupt union was just kicked down the road a few years. THAT is what voters are not likely to forget in 2012.

Rational Thought on May 5, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Bush and Obama had a plan to bailout the industry. Romney’s “bankruptcy” plan would have resulted in the liquidation of GM and Chrysler.

I’m not defending the unions jobs or pay or anything along those lines. To me it doesn’t matter what kind of job it is, as long as it’s an American job.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 4:41 PM

I was going to stay out of this but if I bite my lip any harder I’m going to draw blood.

What’s wrong with American jobs making Hondas or Toyotas or BMWs? If what you claim is true about no other manufacturers wanting to come to Michigan and create auto industry jobs is true then the fact they will go to Tennessee and create jobs instead tells you all you need to know about the business and political climate the people in Michigan have created for themselves by their own actions. When the day of reckoning was as easy to see coming as it has been for years with the Detroit auto makers the idea that we should all bail them out when the time comes to reap what they’ve sown is as offensive to me as it is stupid.

alchemist19 on May 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Dark Star on May 5, 2012 at 4:46 PM

No one is questioning the structure or validity of US bankcruptcy laws. You don’t seem to realize that both GM and Chrysler had no way to continue operations without massive lines of additional credit, which the private sector was unwilling to provide.

Neither company had the cash flow to continue operating as going concerns. Bankruptcy alone could not address that problem or address long-term debt obligations and other balance sheet problems handing over both companies.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

What’s wrong with American jobs making Hondas or Toyotas or BMWs? If what you claim is true about no other manufacturers wanting to come to Michigan and create auto industry jobs is true then the fact they will go to Tennessee

I don’t want to put down people working at foreign automakers, but this country’s destiny isn’t to provide other nations with cheap labor. Of course it matters who owns the auto company. Germany has strong unions at all of its domestic plants, so let’s not just assume that union jobs are the only competitive problem in US industry.

I’d recommend you read Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/

.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 5:09 PM

alchemist19 on May 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Yep. Also Kia and Hyndai have been expanding operations in Georgia and Alabama and that means more American jobs…

Buy Danish on May 5, 2012 at 5:09 PM

If the Tea Party stopped blocking legislation such as the Inhofe- Boxer highway bill, more Americans would be employed in an the economy headed toward lower unemployment. Current employment levels shouldn’t be seen as a single party problem.
bayam on May 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM

This bill?:

“The 1522-page bill contains $7 billion in tax increases, including onerous taxes on inherited IRAs. It also continues the wasteful union handouts under Davis-Bacon.”

And I thought the Stimulus was supposed to provide gazillions of shovel-ready jobs.

Buy Danish on May 5, 2012 at 5:16 PM

alchemist19 on May 5, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Yep. Also Kia and Hyndai have been expanding operations in Georgia and Alabama and that means more American jobs…

Buy Danish on May 5, 2012 at 5:09 PM

What we really need to see is a new, non-union car manufacturer born in the South- not more foreign companies hiring Americans as their local cheap labor and comparable to jobs found in Vietnam and Thailand. What’s taking so long?

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Obama has a job.

All his cronies have jobs.

What’s the problem?

profitsbeard on May 5, 2012 at 5:22 PM

I don’t want to put down people working at foreign automakers, but this country’s destiny isn’t to provide other nations with cheap labor. Of course it matters who owns the auto company. Germany has strong unions at all of its domestic plants, so let’s not just assume that union jobs are the only competitive problem in US industry.

I’d recommend you read Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/
.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 5:09 PM

How do you square your view that it’s not this country’s destiny to provide other nations with cheap labor with your earlier statement that it doesn’t matter what kind of jobs they are, so long as they’re American jobs?

alchemist19 on May 5, 2012 at 5:26 PM

What we really need to see is a new, non-union car manufacturer born in the South- not more foreign companies hiring Americans as their local cheap labor and comparable to jobs found in Vietnam and Thailand. president who is pro-business and whose policies will lead to economic growth so the rising tide lifts all boats so we all get richer and prosper instead of equally sharing the misery. What’s taking so long?

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 5:17 PM

FIFY

alchemist19 on May 5, 2012 at 5:29 PM

What we really need to see is a new, non-union car manufacturer born in the South- not more foreign companies hiring Americans as their local cheap labor and comparable to jobs found in Vietnam and Thailand. What’s taking so long?
bayam on May 5, 2012 at 5:17 PM

I don’t know but I would imagine it’s because it’s cheaper to manufacture parts in Korea than in the USA. As for labor, supply/demand:

When the Kia factory was first announced, a staggering 43,013 job applications were received via the Internet in just one month, a record-setting number according to Georgia Quick-Start, Kia’s training partner. Seventy-five percent of the applicants were from Georgia, 97% had a high school education or equivalent and nearly 30% had completed a two or four-year college program…

The wages paid to workers at the new factory range from $14 to $20 per hour. Using a median of $17 per hour, that works out to $ 2,720.00 per month. That’s significantly less than the typical Big Three Detroit worker and only about $180 more than the $2,540 (in U.S. dollars) paid to the average Korean factory worker, according to the National Statistics Office of Korea. (And that’s a national average. Korean autoworkers are, as they’ve long been here, some of the country’s manufacturing elite.)

That may not sound like a lot, but the cost of living and quality of life in Georgia is much better than in Detroit. Obviously the demand is there for these jobs and KIAS are in high demand from consumers.

Buy Danish on May 5, 2012 at 5:32 PM

FIFY

alchemist19 on May 5, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Ha! That too!

Buy Danish on May 5, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Not true. General Motors would have gone through ordinary bankruptcy proceedings — as a strong majority of Americans STILL believe it should have

You can look up any number of financial analyses from 2009… bankruptcy isn’t a magic bullet.

G.M. will require $40 billion to $70 billion in debtor-in-possession financing to create a new version of G.M. and dispose of its assets, according to people familiar with the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/business/26auto.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Detroit is an economic disaster, while “Kia breathes life into Old Georgia Textile Mill Town”.

Buy Danish on May 5, 2012 at 5:39 PM

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Can you explain this?:

The near inevitability of the G.M. case is a sharp contrast to the resistance put up by company executives, including Rick Wagoner, the former chief. His steadfast refusal to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection while the company reorganized was a factor in his ouster in March at the behest of the Obama administration, which has been keeping G.M. alive with billions of dollars in loans.

Buy Danish on May 5, 2012 at 5:47 PM

I think Romney has B.O. rattled here in Ohio, LOL

OOPS!… Obama Forgets The Little Wifey Michelle Back On Air Force One (MUST SEE VIDEO)

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/war-on-women-president-obama-forgets-michelle-obama-leaving-air-force-one-must-see-video/

ROFL, so funny.

bluefox on May 5, 2012 at 5:58 PM

The deficit doubled during the Bush years. It’s not Obama who’s responsible for our current deep recession / depression or the massive federal debt.
 
bayam on September 7, 2010 at 2:38 PM

At least learm the difference between debt and deficit before you wade into the deepend, you dumbass.

Chuck Schick on May 5, 2012 at 6:06 PM

The deficit doubled during the Bush years. It’s not Obama who’s responsible for our current deep recession / depression or the massive federal debt.
 
bayam on September 7, 2010 at 2:38 PM

is it really too much to ask you to learn the basic difference between debt and deficit, dumbass?

Chuck Schick on May 5, 2012 at 6:09 PM

When it comes to the economy, Obama is the plague.

VorDaj on May 5, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Romney will never take the fight to Obama.

ABRmorons ad nauseum on too many threads Jan to May, 2012.

Basilsbest on May 5, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Rational Thought on May 5, 2012 at 4:53 PM

that was my take as well ….

conservative tarheel on May 5, 2012 at 6:48 PM

I recognize, of course, as do all Americans, that you inherited an economic crisis.

I absolutely hate and refute this idea that Presidents inheret anything. Presumably they knew the status of the ecomomy before they took office. When they take the oath of office, they assume the responsibility for whatever the reality is.

Happy Nomad on May 5, 2012 at 8:16 PM

You have a point..:)

Dire Straits on May 5, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Dear Mr. President,

Welcome to Ohio. I have a simple question for you: Where are the jobs?

My college grad daughter & friends would like an answer please, and hurry!

TN Mom on May 5, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Thanks, Ed. Help keep us focused on what’s important.

Burke on May 5, 2012 at 11:10 PM

NEVER trust ANY politician if you don’t want to be made a fool of, and since liberal politicians have a looong track record of being hypocrites I decided to see how well Governor Romney performed:

Massachusetts was one of just four states that by the time of the financial crisis still had not recovered all the jobs they had lost during the 2001 recession. And, as Romney’s opponents have pointed out, the state ranked 47th in job creation during his term.

Unlike Obama, Romney took office during an economic uptick. Massachusetts had a net job growth of 1.4 percent under Romney. However, that was far slower growth than the national average of 5.3 percent. As Romney’s opponents have frequently, and correctly, noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th in job growth over the entirety of Romney’s term.

Expected.

DannoJyd on May 5, 2012 at 11:48 PM

ABRmorons ad nauseum on too many threads Jan to May, 2012.

Basilsbest on May 5, 2012 at 6:41 PM

MittBots still distracted by blatant hypocricy instead of focusing on his record while Governor of Mass. Won’t they be surprised!

DannoJyd on May 5, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Obama is already cutting and slashing . . . Romney had better get tough and stay that way because the Republican Party and this nation cannot take another McCain.

rplat on May 6, 2012 at 8:17 AM

I recognize, of course, as do all Americans, that you inherited an economic crisis.

Enough Romney, stop the equivocating, obfuscating and pandering. If you persist in putting a band aid on him every time you rip him, you’ll lose.

rplat on May 6, 2012 at 8:23 AM

But you have to understand that the main cause of today’s deficits- relative to 2007- isn’t government spending as much as lower tax revenue. Lower tax revenue is caused by higher unemployment rates which in turn reflects repressed consumer demand. You’re not going to fix today’s problems simply by cutting spending.

bayam on May 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

I disagree with your theory as a primary cause. The main cause is not so much lower tax revenue, though it’s a factor; the main cause is the purposeful refusal of the Dems to pass a budget, so they are rolling the $1-trillion stimulus into the budget year after year, without making it look like they actually are blowing the deficit out year after year.

It’s sneaky and illegal and unconstitutional. Harry Reid should be tried for fiscal treason.

cane_loader on May 6, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Don’t get too distracted by War on Wimmenses and dog-crate nonsense. Obama and his team know they can’t compete on jobs and the economy and will do anything to change the subject.

This is absolutely the point.

Zero’s record of economic competence is disastrous, as you would expect from a hardcore socialist. Romney needs to constantly remind people that the current situation is unacceptable and fixable by someone vaguely competent.

CorporatePiggy on May 6, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Romney talking about creating jobs is so freckin funny.

All Obama has to do is come back with: How many jobs did you create in MA, Etch-a-Sketch?

While you wre governor your state was 47 out of 50 states in creating jobs.

We have created jobs and we are moving forward on that front.

Do not let Romney take us back to the Bush policies that caused the Marked to crash. Do not let Romney take us back to the BUsh policies and their wars.

oldyeller on May 6, 2012 at 10:40 AM

The Democratic Party, very reminiscent of the profoundly underhanded Communist government of the old Soviet era, is what’s a continuing tragedy for millions upon millions of people.

Allendundit on May 6, 2012 at 4:15 PM

The Democratic Party, very reminiscent of the profoundly underhanded Communist government of the old Soviet era, is what’s a continuing tragedy for millions upon millions of people.

Allendundit on May 6, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Many are successfully making the same point about the Republican Party because the GOP has all too often followed the Liberal Way and played dirty politics. Liberal Romney [Google Gov. Mitt Romney] should be able to drive that point home in no time and that is why he should never have been nominated.

DannoJyd on May 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Romney needs to constantly remind people that the current situation is unacceptable and fixable by someone vaguely competent.

CorporatePiggy on May 6, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Many Conservatives believe Romney is not the competence we need, but he’s still (as I said in another thread) Eddie Haskell to Obama’s Jason Voorhees. I have little choice but to accept Eddie Haskell as a placeholder until competence shows up.

swinia sutki on May 7, 2012 at 6:30 AM

Good news is that Obama is “causing” oil prices to go lower. Seems to me, however, he and his puppet masters started the manipulation a little too early.

sdbatboy on May 7, 2012 at 11:08 AM

What is Mittens’ plan to create jobs? …. still waiting.

Pragmatic on May 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM

We have created jobs and we are moving forward on that front.

oldyeller on May 6, 2012 at 10:40 AM

You must be deranged to think Zero has created any jobs at all. All he has done for three years is destroy them.

dogsoldier on May 7, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Boehner already voted to repeal it, McConnell voted against it and supported the House’s efforts to repeal it last year, Romney’s walked himself so far out on that one by saying over and over again at nearly every campaign stop that he’ll sign a repeal bill that not doing so would kill him politically so, yes, I think they will do it. Whether the Democrats will have the power to stop them is still up in the air but repeal polls so well amongst the general public and is such a strong motivating issue for the Republican base that it leads me to believe they’ll all do what they can to get it killed.

alchemist19 on May 5, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Will Romney waste any political capital to fully repeal Romneycare or will he hide behind the Democrats? Interesting observation you think?

Please, hold the applause!

jjnco73 on May 8, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2