Video: Layoff Artist in Chief hits Romney on Bain

posted at 8:41 am on May 14, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama’s campaign has a new ad and a new micrsosite to go with it, both freshly minted today.  The ad is titled “Steel,” and it attacks Mitt Romney on the closure of a steel plant after Bain took over, with the attendant job losses that occurred.  It’s an expected line of attack — Newt Gingrich used it in the primary, to very little effect — but the video itself doesn’t add anything new to the argument, and goes too long to be an effective spot:

Frankly, I’m surprised that they’re rolling out this attack this early in the cycle.  This ran out of steam in the Republican primary not because Republican voters love layoffs, but because it’s pretty easy to dismantle this argument.  It loses its effectiveness quickly.  Bain was responsible for a significant net creation of jobs, not net elimination.  Not every deal is going to work out in business, but Bain did a lot better under Romney than just a break-even record, too.  And while it’s a natural attack on the One Percent for Team Obama, it highlights Romney’s business experience and economic acumen at the expense of their own man.

Besides, as Jim Geraghty points out, it’s not as if Obama has never laid off any workers.  Two years ago, as part of the deal that dumped billions of dollars into two American automakers, Obama used the force of government to shut down hundreds of auto dealers and lay off tens of thousands of workers — many perhaps unnecessarily:

The report by Neil M. Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program of the Treasury Department, said both car makers needed to shut down some underperforming dealerships. But it questioned whether the cuts should have been made so quickly, particularly during a recession. The report, released on Sunday, estimated that tens of thousands of jobs were lost as a result.

“It is not at all clear that the greatly accelerated pace of the dealership closings during one of the most severe economic downturns in our nation’s history was either necessary for the sake of the companies’ economic survival or prudent for the sake of the nation’s economic recovery,” the report said.

About a year ago, G.M. informed more than 2,000 dealers that some or all of their franchise agreements would not be renewed in October 2010. Chrysler eliminated 789 dealers, or about a quarter of its network, with less than a month’s notice.

Both carmakers voluntarily rescinded some terminations — 666 at G.M. and 50 at Chrysler — which, the report said, “suggests, at the very least, that the number and speed of the terminations was not necessarily critical to the manufacturers’ viability.”

Geraghty notes that Obama will have to use the same defense that Romney has for deals like the one highlighted in “Steel”:

I’m sure Obama fans will insist, “but the layoffs under our guy are completely different!” They’ll insist that in order to preserve the entire institution during a time when its continued operation was jeopardized, it was necessary to lay off certain branches and employees… which is, of course, precisely what Bain Capital was doing, or at least what the management of Bain Capital believed it was doing.

The name of the microsite featuring the attacks on Bain is “Romney Economics.”  At least Romney’s works.


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

CHUTZPAH!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 14, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Willard should hit back with a spot called “Steal”

Lost in Jersey on May 14, 2012 at 8:47 AM

There is a big difference – Obama targeted donors to Republicans with his dealership closures.

Steve Eggleston on May 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM

I’m sure Obama fans will insist, “but the layoffs under our guy are completely different!” They’ll insist that in order to preserve the entire institution during a time when its continued operation was jeopardized, it was necessary to lay off certain branches and employees… which is, of course, precisely what Bain Capital was doing, or at least what the management of Bain Capital believed it was doing.

Unlike Obama though, Romney and Bain Capital didn’t rely on billions from taxpayers. He needs to hit him on that too.

Doughboy on May 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM

Rich. Rush did a couple segments last week about how President Obama’s Administration is continually cooking the unemployment figures. Nothing Mitt Romney has done has even come close. But we knew Bain would come up. Mitt should immediately compare the success stories about jobs saved through Bain investments with the companies that didn’t end up going under. Then he should talk about Solyndra.

He should ask President Obama how many agents were laid off becasue of Fast and Furious too.

hawkdriver on May 14, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Willard should hit back with a spot called “Steal”

Lost in Jersey on May 14, 2012 at 8:47 AM

That’s a great idea, but it would take a mini series to get to all the material.

BettyRuth on May 14, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Gingrich did a lot to inoculate folks against this angle of attack on Romney… it’ll be interesting to see how team Romney counter punches as there are ample avenues of attack and I expect that all will be exploited.

gatorboy on May 14, 2012 at 8:55 AM

So now we know this week’s distraction attack talking point …. Bain! Bain! Bain!

farsighted on May 14, 2012 at 8:56 AM

We have a bloated federal government. I want a chief executive who will lay off the Department of Education, NEA, TSA, EPA, et al.

rbj on May 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Frankly, I’m surprised that they’re rolling out this attack this early in the cycle. This ran out of steam in the Republican primary not because Republican voters love layoffs, but because it’s pretty easy to dismantle this argument. It loses its effectiveness quickly. Bain was responsible for a significant net creation of jobs, not net elimination.

The Democrats again attempt to appeal to the most ignorant about economics people in our society. And they will find those ignorant people on our college campuses in droves. Education is a valuable thing!

thuja on May 14, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Never let the truth get in the way of a campaign ad.

msupertas on May 14, 2012 at 8:58 AM

The report, released on Sunday, estimated that tens of thousands of jobs were lost as a result.

“It is not at all clear that the greatly accelerated pace of the dealership closings during one of the most severe economic downturns in our nation’s history was either necessary for the sake of the companies’ economic survival or prudent for the sake of the nation’s economic recovery,” the report said.

Why does everything Obama throws at Romney end up being a boomerang? This is the consequence of having a terrible record, and implementing one incompetent policy after another. Obama can’t attack Romney on substance, he can’t attack him on morals bc Romney basically lived like a Boy Scout, so class warfare is all he has. And that isn’t going anywhere. Tough rocks, Obummer. You made your bed, now lie in it.

smellthecoffee on May 14, 2012 at 8:59 AM

I’m in the steel industry, and I’d like to share an article from my May issue of Modern Steel Construction. Before you think Obama’s going to be able to fool people into thinking he’s pro-American industry, check out this bit:

Yet despite all these “good” indicators, construction activity only increased by 2% in 2011 compared to 2010, and that was from a record low level of 64% below the peaks of 2006 and 2007. Why isn’t construction rebounding?

The answer is actually rather straightforward: Any focus placed on the government-reported unemployment rate is misdirected

You read that right. That’s from John Cross, P.E. who is the AISC vice president. MSC is not a political mag. It covers things like new developments in steel construction, new software for designing buildings, etc. Obama’s lost the American Industry vote. So Obama can crow “Bain” all he wants.

Weight of Glory on May 14, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Wasn’t it two years after Romney left Bain that this steel mill closed?

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Am I misremembering? I thought Gingrich hit Romney on Bain in SC, right before he went on to a huge victory there. Why would you say the Bain ads had very little effect?

cjw79 on May 14, 2012 at 9:01 AM

I’d say that America’s corrupt overreaching unions, by creating big market openings for other nations, is the real story of greed. It’s the unions that never adapted to changing markets, and didn’t allow enough flexibility. They’re the ones that ruined the big American steel industry.

RBMN on May 14, 2012 at 9:01 AM

a very powerful, very effective ad….mittens is in deep doo-doo!

Pragmatic on May 14, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Hit back Mitt

Evening rattner was a little harsh on dear leader using this on mornin joe

But msdnc has their marching orders, play this ad nausem
Evil Mitt

cmsinaz on May 14, 2012 at 9:03 AM

It’s not just the layoffs from all the car dealerships that Obama forced to close. It’s the millions of people that have lost their jobs since Obama became president.

Anyway, good luck with this argument Obama. Most voters want a president who knows how to run a business, unlike yourself.

eyedoc on May 14, 2012 at 9:03 AM

a very powerful, very effective ad….mittens is in deep doo-doo!

Pragmatic on May 14, 2012 at 9:02 AM

dude, the only thing in deep doo-doo…is your head.

HumpBot Salvation on May 14, 2012 at 9:04 AM

+1 farsighted

cmsinaz on May 14, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Am I misremembering? I thought Gingrich hit Romney on Bain in SC, right before he went on to a huge victory there. Why would you say the Bain ads had very little effect?

Yes, you’re “misremembering”, since Romney never had a prayer of winning South Carolina. I predict this ad will have no effect or actually help Romney (which will make me laugh my butt off.)

eyedoc on May 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM

If Americans are really really stupid, the ad will work. I can’t believe they’re that stupid.

RBMN on May 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Am I misremembering? I thought Gingrich hit Romney on Bain in SC, right before he went on to a huge victory there. Why would you say the Bain ads had very little effect?

cjw79 on May 14, 2012 at 9:01 AM

You are misremembering. Newt won South Carolina based on his trashing of Juan Williams and John King at 2 GOP debates. The Bain attacks were never effective for either him or Perry. In fact, a lot of conservatives(including many who were not exactly Romney fans) were PO’d at Newt for going there.

Doughboy on May 14, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Yes, you’re “misremembering”, since Romney never had a prayer of winning South Carolina. I predict this ad will have no effect or actually help Romney (which will make me laugh my butt off.)

eyedoc on May 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM

I thought he was leading there immediately after NH.

cjw79 on May 14, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Mitts answer:
Solyndra…

right2bright on May 14, 2012 at 9:09 AM

You are misremembering. Newt won South Carolina based on his trashing of Juan Williams and John King at 2 GOP debates. The Bain attacks were never effective for either him or Perry. In fact, a lot of conservatives(including many who were not exactly Romney fans) were PO’d at Newt for going there.

Doughboy on May 14, 2012 at 9:08 AM

I do remember a lot of anger directed at Newt for going there, but I guess I don’t see how anyone can conclude that the Bain ads had little effect, but his berating of a debate moderator did. How do we know that?

cjw79 on May 14, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Liberals , (and Obama) never will understand the difference between government business models—that don’t care if they operate in the red—and private businesses that actually have to achieve a profit to remain structurally viable.

Rovin on May 14, 2012 at 9:10 AM

If Americans are really really stupid, the ad will work. I can’t believe they’re that stupid.

RBMN on May 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM

President Obama is the answer to your rhetorical statement…yes, they are.

right2bright on May 14, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Of course lsm will cry that dear leaders layoffs are totally different

cmsinaz on May 14, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Romney might have a trademark claim on the domain name.

p0s3r on May 14, 2012 at 9:15 AM

A steel mill closed? Only saw that happen several dozen times growing up in W-PA.

forest on May 14, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Uh huh, meanwhile the CEO of the United States has laid off so many people that you would need a Cray to compute the actual numbers.

Bishop on May 14, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Yes right2bright @9:09

cmsinaz on May 14, 2012 at 9:17 AM

I do remember a lot of anger directed at Newt for going there, but I guess I don’t see how anyone can conclude that the Bain ads had little effect, but his berating of a debate moderator did. How do we know that?

cjw79 on May 14, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Because of his poll numbers after those debates. He rocketed into the lead after those debate performances. And on the flip side, his mediocre debate in Florida led to his collapse in the polls(well, that and Mittens’ barrage of negative ads).

Doughboy on May 14, 2012 at 9:17 AM

This is high hypocrisy coming from the jug eared idiot who set the policy for the Employment Prevention Agency.

wildcat72 on May 14, 2012 at 9:18 AM

odd.. I thought Bain invested their client’s money and returned those investment returns back to them.. Guess I don’t know much about business compared to our resident Scholar-In-Chief

gatorboy on May 14, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Am I misremembering? I thought Gingrich hit Romney on Bain in SC, right before he went on to a huge victory there. Why would you say the Bain ads had very little effect?

cjw79 on May 14, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Because Romney’s loss in South Carolina had nothing whatever to do with the Bain issue. Romney lost because South Carolina evangelicals didn’t want to vote for a Mormon.

Eichendorff on May 14, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Mistakes, losses, and layoffs are always better when done on an industrial scale at the federal level. This administration is not above ruining an industry so that it can rush in and “save” it. And rest assured they are not satisfied with the partial takeover after the 2008 crash.

http://www.fiscalwars.wordpress.com

stout77 on May 14, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Because Romney’s loss in South Carolina had nothing whatever to do with the Bain issue. Romney lost because South Carolina evangelicals didn’t want to vote for a Mormon.

Eichendorff on May 14, 2012 at 9:25 AM

I imagine they’ll set aside their scruples in November.

cjw79 on May 14, 2012 at 9:32 AM

I meant to say “Mittens is neck-deep in $hit!”

Pragmatic on May 14, 2012 at 9:33 AM

What’s a steel mill?

/every college student.

hillsoftx on May 14, 2012 at 9:33 AM

nomittens! nobama!

Pragmatic on May 14, 2012 at 9:34 AM

nomittens! nobama!

Pragmatic on May 14, 2012 at 9:34 AM

That’s pragmatic?

farsighted on May 14, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit drives a stake through the heart of thisone before it even climbs out of its coffin.
He points out that Romney left Bain in 1999 and General Steel went belly up in 2001. Oops.

Curmudgeon on May 14, 2012 at 9:39 AM

But it is effective at playing to the chronically stupid, unable to recognize what happens to 100% of business going under, without a Bain Capital, or others that will assume great risk for great rewards.

MNHawk on May 14, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Also lost in the garbage Zero created with the auto bailout was that contract law was shredded. He also bought, with our money, the unions some time to live a little longer.

Kissmygrits on May 14, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Because Romney’s loss in South Carolina had nothing whatever to do with the Bain issue. Romney lost because South Carolina evangelicals didn’t want to vote for a Mormon.

Eichendorff on May 14, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Every SC voter I spoke with (I live on the border and am related to/work with/worship with many of them) said they saw it as their mission to extend the primary. There is a high level of contrarianism in SC and they were determined not to vote for the favorite at this stage.

Add in Newt’s willingness to re-define the argument, his somewhat reformed personal life, Perry’s surprising weakness and Newt’s regional appeal, and that’s why Newt won SC and GA, too. I have never thought of him as a superior candidate to Romney, but voting for Newt was the only way I could be sure that Mitt would become a more aggressive candidate.

This evangelical really liked Romney in 2008. I just want to know that the 2012 version is at least as strong as the 2008 version.

rwenger43 on May 14, 2012 at 10:01 AM

…it’s odd that a very good line for GM manufactured in Tenn. just happened to be non-union…and was a concern that GM had to close.

KOOLAID2 on May 14, 2012 at 10:02 AM

I imagine they’ll set aside their scruples in November.

cjw79 on May 14, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Yes, they are lining up already to vote for a Muslim dog-eater. Compared to that, Mormons are evil incarnate.

Archivarix on May 14, 2012 at 10:03 AM

He points out that Romney left Bain in 1999 and General Steel went belly up in 2001. Oops.

Curmudgeon on May 14, 2012 at 9:39 AM

pppffttt … If Bush is still responsible for our economic mess after 3 1/2 years, Willard could certainly be responsible for General Steel 2 years after he left.

Lost in Jersey on May 14, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Weak tea. This line of attack from President Richard Face, who thinks ATMs are responsible for unemployment.

It is a shame that this nitwit and his legion of ’99%ers’ are trying to ruin it for the rest of us.

H.E. Pennypacker on May 14, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Yep, Barry is an economic powerhouse.

You’ll note that NO businesses have been asking Barry to drop by and tout his economic policies. Rumor has it that they’re all afraid of catching Solyndraitis. Which grew out of Caterpillaritis.

GarandFan on May 14, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Just got back from voting. Go Mitt! Go Ted! Yea Texas!

annoyinglittletwerp on May 14, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Obama is following the liberal script and it’s not fooling anybody this time around as a matter of fact it’s getting to be comical watching him do his lines with a straight face while we laugh out load.

mixplix on May 14, 2012 at 10:34 AM

This line of attack from President Richard Face, who thinks ATMs are responsible for unemployment.

H.E. Pennypacker on May 14, 2012 at 10:05 AM

What do you expect whose entire energy policy is banning domestic drilling, handing out billions to his bundler buddies, and insisting we check the inflation of our car’s tires?

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Does the most anti-business president in American history really want to talk about the economy?

No one at Obama HQ thought they should stick to non-sensical issues like gay rights and dogs?

milcus on May 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Romney should make an ad then about the dealership shutdowns. And wasn’t gender and race considered when they decided who to shut down? And the bondholders that got screwed and the white collar employees who didn’t get any bailout for their pension fund. I remember this happening but I bet many people have forgotten all the jobs that Obama killed.

magicbeans on May 14, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Happy Nomad on May 14, 2012 at 10:42 AM

True. I can’t even begin to tell you how low my expectations were are the start of the Wizard of Aahhs reign of terror, but somehow he has managed to exceed them to the detriment of us all.

H.E. Pennypacker on May 14, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Romney should make an ad then about the dealership shutdowns.

magicbeans on May 14, 2012 at 11:04 AM

He could also point out that Bain never screwed bond holders, including mutual fund investors. Only the federal government can do something illegal like that, sweeping aside and ignoring hundreds of years of bankruptcy law.

farsighted on May 14, 2012 at 11:27 AM

heh, wonder what Karl Rove is doing today?

ctmom on May 14, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Geraghty, part of the GOPe propaganda machine.

Etch-a-Sketch = YAWN! McLame 2.0

Jayrae on May 14, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I know liberals thought this and the Seamus story would easily reelect Obama, but it’s pretty thin gruel.

Romney does need to be prepared though, this will likely be the centerpiece of Obama’s case against Romney. It’s really all they have now.

If I were Romney’s campaign, I’d hammer the point home about all the job cuts and plant closings the Obama Administration made with the auto industry. It neutralizes this attack fairly quickly.

BradTank on May 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Hotair then: OBAMA YOU NEED TO GET THE AUTO SECTOR TO CUT JOBS TO HELP IT SURVIVE

Hotair now: OBAMA WHY DID YOU DO WHAT WE WERE DEMANDING THAT YOU DO

Dave Rywall on May 14, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Romney and Bain Capital didn’t rely on billions from taxpayers.

Doughboy on May 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM

No, just millions. Bain looked for government subsidies and sweeteners in deciding what to do with the companies it bought.

And as much as the Right would like to sweep this under the rug, Bain loaded up that company with waaaaaaay too much debt. The feds had to come in and bail out their pension fund. Yet the “consultants” walked off with millions that could have made the pension fund solvent.

Sorry, but Bain stinks.

alwaysfiredup on May 14, 2012 at 12:52 PM

And as much as the Right would like to sweep this under the rug, Bain loaded up that company with waaaaaaay too much debt.

Bain forced investors to loan money to the company? How did they manage that?

The feds had to come in and bail out their pension fund. Yet the “consultants” walked off with millions that could have made the pension fund solvent.

Could have? Since when is it a firm like Bain’s job to fund underfunded pension funds? Since when does a dying company borrow money to fund their pension fund instead of trying to stay in business? Who would loan a company money on that basis?

Shouldn’t the presious management of the company have made sure the pension fund was properly funded all along? Whose fault is it that it wasn’t? If the pension fund was underfunded when Bain took over it is the fault of the managers of the company prior to Bain involvement, isn’t it? If Bain was to be held legally responsible for the under funded pension sunf as part of getting involved they would almost certainly have passed up the deal and let the company fail. In which case the feds would have still had to bail out the pension fund, maybe ten years earlier than it did.

While the company still failed, indications are Bain kept it afloat for almost ten years. The company may have gone under and the employees may have lost their jobs many years earlier than they did, with the same severance, health insurance, and pension problems.

Sorry, but Bain stinks.

alwaysfiredup on May 14, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Bain tried to help salvage the company. When firms like Bain do this they assume risk. Naturally they try to mitigate that risk. Wouldn’t you if it was your money at stake? Wouldn’t you want Bain to do that if it was your money they were using?

Did Bain do anything illegal? I think the PBGC would have come after Bain if they thought Bain was legally responsible for the under funded pension fund. Should what Bain did be made illegal?

Is the argument that firms like Bain should not be permitted to try to salvage mismanaged dying companies? In which case either the companies such firms salvage would go under and everyone working for them loses their job, or the federal government would have to step in, as it did with Government Motors.

So the options are…

1) Do not permit firms like Bain to try to salvage mismanaged dying companies, forcing them to liquidate.
2) Let firms like Bain try to salvage mismanaged dying companies, saving many of them and many jobs. Some will still fail. But, of course, companies like Bain must make a profit or they go out of business, too.
3) Have the feds decide which companies should be left to their fate and which should be saved, using taxpayer money, a la the Government Motors model.

Which do you prefer?

farsighted on May 14, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Hotair then: OBAMA YOU NEED TO GET THE AUTO SECTOR TO CUT JOBS TO HELP IT SURVIVE

Hotair now: OBAMA WHY DID YOU DO WHAT WE WERE DEMANDING THAT YOU DO

Dave Rywall on May 14, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Obama and you then – close Gitmo

Obam and you now – genius for not closing

Obama and you then – it is unpatriotic to increase debt

Obama and you now – a few more billion for bailouts…so that you can blame congress in Oct. for not getting it.

Spontaneously combust, all of you, for hypocrisy.

Schadenfreude on May 14, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Thank you TrueConservatives(TM) Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich for warming up this line of attack for Obama.

Swerve22 on May 14, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Obama and you then – close Gitmo

Obam and you now – genius for not closing

Obama and you then – it is unpatriotic to increase debt

Obama and you now – a few more billion for bailouts…so that you can blame congress in Oct. for not getting it.

Spontaneously combust, all of you, for hypocrisy.

Schadenfreude on May 14, 2012 at 1:38 PM
—–
Uh, no. But thanks for baselessly putting words in my mouth. I’ve never commented here on Gitmo closing or staying open, but here it is for you, little boy:

Me then on Obama saying he’d close Gitmo: f*ckn’ right

Me now on Obama not closing Gitmo: you failed to follow through on your promise to close Gitmo and you piss me off

Me then on increasing the debt: do it, cut the military, end Bush tax cuts, end oil subsidies (drop in the bucket, I know, but people you clowns shrieked like babies over NPR’s 180 million like it was the straw for the camel’s back), increase taxes on the rich

Me now on increasing the debt: do it, cut the military, end Bush tax cuts, end oil subsidies, increase taxes on the rich

Dave Rywall on May 14, 2012 at 3:20 PM

So Obama’s auto deal didn’t work? Ed, you’re a dishonest clown.

underceij on May 14, 2012 at 3:24 PM

So Obama’s auto deal didn’t work? Ed, you’re a dishonest clown.

underceij on May 14, 2012 at 3:24 PM
—–

OBAMA GET THEM TO LAY OFF PEOPLE AND FIX THE UNION BLOATED AUTO INDUSTRY GET THEM TO DITCH ENTIRE LINES OF CARS WHATEVER IT TAKES OR THE DEATH OF THE USA AUTO INDUSTRY IS ON YOUR SHOULDERS

okay, done

NO NO NO YOU LAID OFF TOO MAY PEOPLE YOU DID IT WRONG AND ALSO WE ONLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT TINY PART OF THE RESRUCTURING NOT THE FACT THAT THE INDUSTRY IS COMING BACK JUST THE LAY OFFS AND ALSO THIS WAS ALL ROMNEY’S IDEA

Dave Rywall on May 14, 2012 at 3:47 PM

underceij on May 14, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Dave Rywall on May 14, 2012 at 3:47 PM

You fellas might want to try breaking your meds in half when you take them.

Here is some news from earlier this year that might have escaped your keen eyes although it is from that notorious wingnut outfit…HuffPo?

H.E. Pennypacker on May 14, 2012 at 4:06 PM

micrsosite microsite

Just sayin’

tom on May 14, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Romney lost because South Carolina evangelicals didn’t want to vote for a Mormon.

Eichendorff on May 14, 2012 at 9:25 AM

That old excuse again.

Romney lost because he didn’t give South Carolina evangelicals a good reason to vote for him.

Blame the politician, not the voter.

tom on May 14, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Here is some news from earlier this year that might have escaped your keen eyes although it is from that notorious wingnut outfit…HuffPo?

H.E. Pennypacker on May 14, 2012 at 4:06 PM
—–
What, the fact that some loans to GM and Chrysler were paid back in full and the gov’t still owns a stake? Old news.

I’m happy they bailed them out. I’m happy they paid back about 10 billion in loans. Time will tell what they get for their ownership stake.

Why aren’t you happy the loans were paid back so fast?
Why do you want the stock to drop so the ownership stake is worth less when they sell it off?
Why aren’t you happy that they made drastic cuts to become more competitive?
Why aren’t you happy people are buying Chrysler and GM vehicles?
Why can’t you support your fellow Americans?
Do you think only democrats work in the auto industry?

Dave Rywall on May 14, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Dave Rywall on May 14, 2012 at 4:34 PM

All of this is old news.

IF the government would have let GM go through a normal, orderly bankcruptcy, then I (and most other folks here) wouldn’t care. And guess what? GM would still exist, workers would still have jobs, and cars would still be rolling off the lines.

If you can’t see how the intervention into this bankruptcy by this administration was wrong for all parties except the UAW, then there is need to rehash it with you. You can continue your life fact free, and I will bid you, adieu.

H.E. Pennypacker on May 14, 2012 at 4:56 PM

There is a big difference – Obama targeted donors to Republicans with his dealership closures.

Steve Eggleston on May 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM

brilliant post!

many a car dealership didn’t forget – oh, they were in red states or counties

I tried but couldn’t find a way to send comments to Mitt’s website
without going into a pit of vipers in their facebook page

audiotom on May 14, 2012 at 6:45 PM

At a time when absolutely no would loan another dime to GM under any conditions…to prop GM up and hand it over to the unions Comrade Chairman Obama screwed private GM bondholders out of about $30 billion (I bet anyone who considered lending GM money near the end is glad they did not), giving them a mere pittance share of equity in a government and union run company in return. He handed GM about $50 billion in taxpayer money for an over 50% equity stake. and then gave most of the rest of the equity in what essentially became Government Motors to the unions. That is in addition to the $6-9 billion loan of taxpayer money, which GM “paid back” using other taxpayer money. I wish the bank would give me the money to pay off my mortgage with them no strings attached, wouldn’t you?

Where was Warren Buffet through all of this? Didn’t he think this was a great deal and want in on it? No? Hmmm.

There is not a ailing corporation in the world with a book value under $10 billion that would not look great financially if you essentially gave it an over $80 billion shot in the arm — not as a loan, no strings attached except the ones pulled by politicians and government bureaucrats. And yet GM still does not look good enough to private investors investing their own money to drive the stock price up anywhere near the levels predicted by, guess who, the government.

Socialist government takeover and financing of the means of production corporations sucks.

Government Motors will continue to be mismanaged by government boot licking bureaucrats. GM will almost certainly ultimately fail, again.

Traders may buy and sell GM stock, or short it, to make short term gains. I wonder what the turnover is for the non-union and government owned share of equity. I would like to see the investor profile for that equity. Anyone buying GM stock as a long term investment needs to have their head examined.

I hope all of the libs who think the illegal government buyout of GM (it was not a bailout) was such a great and wonderful thing have at least 5-10% of their investment capital in GM stock, to back their mouths up with their money. I bet the percentage is not even 0.001%. Their investment managers and advisers know better.

And then there’s Solyndra,and so on and so forth.

farsighted on May 14, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Disgusting, dishonest attack from Obama. All Obama can do is smear a good man like Romney. Makes me more motivated to support Romney.

So help me, Romney is going to win this election, if I have to fly to Ohio myself and register 5000 new Republican voters.

bluegill on May 14, 2012 at 10:15 PM