Romney

Well not to defend Romney but if (and that's a big if) he were to become President ALL of his money, investments, etc. are required to be placed in a blind trust where he has NO info on what the investments would be so that he wouldn't be able to sway his presidential decisions based on any investments he would have.

But I agree there must be something very, very bad for him not to release his returns.

I don't see Romney as a man of integrity and I hope some of the people in this country who think he'll save them from the economic mess will finally wake up and smell the roses!

LornaDoone wrote:Well not to defend Romney but if (and that's a big if) he were to become President ALL of his money, investments, etc. are required to be placed in a blind trust where he has NO info on what the investments would be so that he wouldn't be able to sway his presidential decisions based on any investments he would have.

True, but in Romney's case that would be closing the barn door after the horses are out. He's been involved with so many companies and so much financing, domestic and international, that he surely knows who benefits from what.

Both Bush Presidents made a lot of their money in oil before being elected. You don't have to look far to see how some of their actions could be seen as protecting their and their cronies' oil interests. Blind trusts don't wipe the history slate clean; they just keep a particular person from writing too much of it in his own hand.

Way2Old4Dis wrote:

LornaDoone wrote:Well not to defend Romney but if (and that's a big if) he were to become President ALL of his money, investments, etc. are required to be placed in a blind trust where he has NO info on what the investments would be so that he wouldn't be able to sway his presidential decisions based on any investments he would have.

True, but in Romney's case that would be closing the barn door after the horses are out. He's been involved with so many companies and so much financing, domestic and international, that he surely knows who benefits from what.

Both Bush Presidents made a lot of their money in oil before being elected. You don't have to look far to see how some of their actions could be seen as protecting their and their cronies' oil interests. Blind trusts don't wipe the history slate clean; they just keep a particular person from writing too much of it in his own hand.

And it keeps him from being blamed; he can always play the "Hey, it's in a blind trust, I didn't know where the money was going". That's what he's doing now with the retirement package he got from Bain. A lot of the money went into buying companies that were then dismantled and the jobs outsourced, to his enormous benefit. But it's in a blind trust, so hey, what can he do?

missa and way2

Both of you make very good points.

I think I look at the two candidates and Romney's plan makes no sense if you look at the 8 years of Bush economics. What he and Ryan are proposing I think will further push us into a depressed economy.

What is most important though is how to get our "do nothing" or worse obstructionist Congress to get off their asses and start doing something.

Look, if they think President Obama's plan is not good, then they need to come up with something better than trickle down economics because there are millions of Americans who are suffering from that type of economic plan.

What pisses me off to no end is that the Republicans keep saying that President Obama did NOTHING to help the economy when they blocked any legislation he did put in front of them and WORSE did nothing themselves.

What I hope is that the American people wake up out of their Rush Limbaugh, Tea Party (owned by the Koch Brothers) foggy dream worlds! The American people need to get off their asses and start looking at what has really been going on for the last 11 years (yes, taking a hard look at Bush's record) and the obstructionist behavior of our Congress, and finally say "Enough is enough!"

I agree with you totally Lorna. The issue is that the young people that I have spoken to feel powerless. They don't believe their vote will change much as congress seems intent on blocking legislation. In the past the debates have energized the voting public, but I'm concerned that the public is so disenchanted with government that voting will suffer.

Now, now. In all fairness to the Republicans in Congress, they did manage to find the time to hold 33 separate votes to repeal the new health care law. Thirty-three. That took some doing. Let's give credit where it's due.

Ironic wit - love it, Way2

Way2Old4Dis wrote:Now, now. In all fairness to the Republicans in Congress, they did manage to find the time to hold 33 separate votes to repeal the new health care law. Thirty-three. That took some doing. Let's give credit where it's due.

Wow, I must take back my comment about how they've been a "do nothing" Congress!

I'll have to change it to a "Spending too much time on bullshit" Congress instead!

From Deadline:


Romney Strategist’s Ties To George Clooney

Given how much Republicans hate Hollywood in general, and George Clooney in particular because of his Obama fundraising and Democratic Party activism, you’d think any associates would be radioactive to the GOP. Nope. Stuart Stevens is currently Mitt Romney’s chief campaign strategist, chief campaign ad maker, and chief campaign speechwriter. Despite the fact he was the political consultant for Clooney’s 2011 political movie The Ides Of March and 2003 political TV show K Street. In fact, Stevens has many Hollywood connections: he was a UCLA Film School grad student, a one-time fellow with the American Film Institute, and a credited TV writer on Northern Exposure, I’ll Fly Away, Commander In Chief (also a consultant producer - see below.)

Stevens now has a bullseye on his back because of a new Politico article which is creating big buzz over the last 24 hours. It says Republicans are blaming Stevens for all the recent stumbles in Romney’s presidential campaign. It claims Stevens was responsible for the many rewrites to Romney’s RNC speech that left out mentions of Afghanistan or Al Queda or troops serving in war zones. It also claims that Stevens arranged for Clint Eastwood’s rambling RNC speech with that chair. (Stevens ”loved the idea of the tough-talking American icon greeting the millions of viewers tuning in.”)

Stevens’ official bio stresses his Hollywood ties. It says he was “educated at the UCLA Film School and is also a former Fellow of the American Film Institute”. And that he’s “written extensively for network television including the Emmy Award winning CBS series, Northern Exposure, the critically acclaimed and Emmy Award winning NBC/PBS series, I’ll Fly Away, the NBC series Mr. Sterling about a U.S. Senator, and serving as Co-Producer on HBO’s original series K. Street, working with George Clooney and Steven Soderberg, as well as Consulting Producer on ABC’s Emmy Award winning series, Commander in Chief about the first female President of the United States.”

Most recently Stevens consulted on Clooney’s 2011 political film The Ides Of March whose Sony Pictures’ Blu-ray even contains a 7+ minute sit-down with Stevens about ‘What Does A Political Consultant Do?’ Clooney met Stevens while working with Soderbergh on the HBO political series K-Street. Clooney directed, produced, co-wrote, and stars in The Ides of March and is quoted as saying that “Stuart was a really valuable voice. We would send him things and say, ‘Tell us where we’re going wrong. Tell us what you would do in this situation.’”

Stevens has been working on GOP presidential campaigns since 1996 (Bob Dole’s) and did both Dubya’s, and then switched from McCain’s to Romney’s. The DC-based media consultant is one-half of the Stevens & Schriefer Group as well as author of a book, “The Big Enchilada”, about the 2000 Gore-Bush campaign. Stevens helped put together that year’s GOP convention bio film introducing George W Bush to the nation. Stevens has said in interviews he’s a big fan of Charles Guggenheim’s Oscar-winning biopic on Bobby Kennedy shown during the 1968 convention, as well as Harry Thomasn and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason’s The Man From Hope about Bill Clinton shown at the Democratic Convention in 1992. Very interesting indeed.

Controversial private fund-raiser video where Romney, among other things, says that nearly 1/2 of US citizens will vote for President Obama because they are rely on government support. And part of his comments stated that "it wasn't his job to worry about those people."

Here's the link to the CNN article.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And in Huffington Post they state that Romney has commented that he isn't sorry and stands by his comments!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

One blog post in Bloomberg News had an opinion piece stating that Mitt has just lost the election with the release of his comments in that secret video.

What had me howling out loud was a comment made and then the two comments afterward, below for your enjoyment:

twinkletwan 6 minutes ago

My wife is going to Medical School, we have a disabled kid, and we pay very little income tax due to the slowing building trades (my business is down over 30%). As a college educated, middle class family who votes, I was surprised by Mr. Romney's candor regarding his feelings about the middle class and working poor.

We work to pay our way, we contribute to our communities, we care for our neighbors, but pay little in Federal income tax. Mr. Romney has written us off.



James Parsons in reply to twinkletwan 3 minutes ago

He's not talking about you, but those that are sucking you dry.



Ernie Santella in reply to James Parsons 1 minute ago

He can suck me. Mitt's a douchebag!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Every Presidential election you can hear my husband throughout our home comparing the Dems/Reps trying to convince anyone with a vote, to vote republican, it's been real quite around here.

Got this little goodie in my email this morning and thought I would share...it really is just a matter of "simple economics" who to vote for. When everyone is doing well on the bottom half, the top half flourish all the more because the middle class and the poor have money to spend.

My white male millionaire friend is voting for WHO!?!


I got a call from my buddy last night to come watch Sunday Football, drink a couple beers, and just catch up. We talk politics like we watch football: We mutually respect each other's right to be who we are, but also take great pleasure in giving each other crap about our teams, our candidates, and our economic philosophies.

On my way over last night, I was smiling to myself while coming up with my top ten list of reasons why he should vote for Obama. Not to change his vote, mind you, but just to get him riled up and fire something back over beers. Deep down, I knew he was going to vote for Romney. His business ventures put him in the top one percent, income-wise; He is a big critic of the welfare state; He's a socially-moderate, fiscally conservative Catholic (rarely attending, though); He thinks and works hard to fulfill his own self-interest in his business and personal life, and feels no need to apologize for that.

So, I got to his place and settled into my beer, passed a round of chewing tobacco over to him (you can take the boy out of Missouri, but you can't take the Missouri out of the boy), smiled a smartass smile, and asked him the question I had been waiting for.

"So, who are you voting for for president?"

"I'm not sure," he said completely seriously, "but I think I'm going to vote for Obama."

I nearly choked on my Skoal.

If there's a slam dunk vote for Romney, I thought, this guy was it. I even half-heartedly tried to talk him out of it (I wasn't going to give up easily on having at least SOME sort of debate), telling him that his income bracket would seem to lend itself to Romney's economic promises just as much as his business management needs would find relevance with Romney's promises to ease the regulations governing short-term lending or whether he provided his employees with health-care. I talked about how critics of Obama's economic policies say that all of this uncertainty about government intervention/regulation makes banks/investors more skeptical about investment and has slowed the recovery. As devoid of legitimate talking points as the (R) platform is, there's enough nuggets there when, turned over the right way, are worthy of debate. I mean, who did he think he was, ruining my sparring match by freaking agreeing with me?

But, aside from not really liking that Romney is a Mormon, he said that his decision was based on, of all things, economics and prospects for his business. Without revealing too much personal information about him, his business caters to low to middle class families in an area with a large (nearly 50%) Latino population. He just said matter of factly (to paraphrase) - "I'm a numbers guy - and my numbers have been better under Obama, just like they were under Clinton. If those guys keep my customers coming through the door, I'll pay the 35% tax and not blink."

He added that a big part of it was that he can take (the equivalent of) food stamps for his business as well, so in a way the artificially-expanded middle class as a result of low-income entitlements is a big help to his bottom line. As long as a government is committed to maintaining a certain level of support for low income people, he will maintain the volume he needs to succeed as a business. In addition, he provides health care voluntarily anyway for all of his full-time employees ("It's just smart", he says, "because it allows me to find the right people, keep them healthy and happy, and keep them around."), so he's really not worried about Obamacare running him out of business - it will actually save him money to the extent that it makes health care cheaper.

On the Latino population, he also worried about what the immigration crusade mentality will do to his customer and employee base. This includes losing business from undocumented, poorly documented, or even legally documented families depending on how far the anti-immigration people (which includes Romney and more prominently Ryan) take that. In an area with a 50% latino base, this could devastate him. He also related a story to me of one of his regular employees, a green card holder who is paying the $800 to get her citizenship process dealt with. She was really nervous about the test and figuring out where to get the cash to go through the process, but she was more nervous about what people who advise that community are saying will likely happen if Romney is elected. Though most people think Obama is going to win, she didn't want to take the chance of being too far back in the line for citizenship that would rapidly form if Romney is elected and the Republicans start trying to get rid of Mexicans.

Life is Interesting.

Vote for Obama.
=
Thanks for the Rec List Guys. Only time in since I joined in '03 I've been on it lol.

Daily Kos

Thanks Lighterside, interesting read. Gonna pass this one off to my hubbie, since he use to be a Mexican Citizen, went through the green card process, and has been a citizen of the US since 1990. How he became republican? Hanging out with too many Texas Good OLD Boys!

lucy wrote:Thanks Lighterside, interesting read. Gonna pass this one off to my hubbie, since he use to be a Mexican Citizen, went through the green card process, and has been a citizen of the US since 1990. How he became republican? Hanging out with too many Texas Good OLD Boys!

You're welcome...yeah, I can see how that could happen! LOL What bothers me is their mistreatment of the poor. I just don't get it. For people who "claim to be good Christians" CONSTANTLY...wouldn't taking care of the sick, the poor and the elderly be on the TOP of their list; instead they're trying to pull the rug out from under them? Boggles the mind!

This is a review by one of the leading conservative pundits of Romney's latest gaffe:

Thurston Howell Romney

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: September 17, 2012

In 1980, about 30 percent of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today, as Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has pointed out, about 49 percent do.

In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown by more than 700 percent over the last 50 years. This spending surge, Eberstadt notes, has increased faster under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.

There are sensible conclusions to be drawn from these facts. You could say that the entitlement state is growing at an unsustainable rate and will bankrupt the country. You could also say that America is spending way too much on health care for the elderly and way too little on young families and investments in the future.

But these are not the sensible arguments that Mitt Romney made at a fund-raiser earlier this year. Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.

It says that Romney doesn’t know much about the political culture. Americans haven’t become childlike worshipers of big government. On the contrary, trust in government has declined. The number of people who think government spending promotes social mobility has fallen.

The people who receive the disproportionate share of government spending are not big-government lovers. They are Republicans. They are senior citizens. They are white men with high school degrees. As Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution has noted, the people who have benefited from the entitlements explosion are middle-class workers, more so than the dependent poor.

Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that.

The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.

The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.

But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.

People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.

Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.

Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?


Frank Bruni is off today.

David Brooks, NYT

And this is something that Romney should have considered before he opened his mouth and sank his candidacy...most of the people he's talking about reside in RED states and are veterans, senior citizens as well as those who are the working poor but are not able to support a family on minimum wages:

17 Sep 2012 09:22 PM

Did Romney Just Lose The Election?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Scott Thomasson@scotthomasson


Romney might want to check this map of that 47 percent, by state: twitpic.com/avrlm4 | full list: bit.ly/U5NihJ

17 Sep 12 Reply
Retweet
Favorite


Josh Barro puts his neck out:


You can mark my prediction now: A secret recording from a closed-door Mitt Romney fundraiser, released today by David Corn at Mother Jones, has killed Mitt Romney's campaign for president.

On the tape, Romney explains that his electoral strategy involves writing off nearly half the country as unmoveable Obama voters. As Romney explains, 47 percent of Americans "believe that they are victims." He laments: "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

So what's the upshot? "My job is not to worry about those people," he says. He also notes, describing President Obama's base, "These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax."

This is an utter disaster for Romney.

I agree with that. But the future is unpredictable. What we do know is that Mitt Romney has no intention of appealing to the 47 percent of Americans he regards as pathetic parasites. That's a novel way of campaigning for president.

Andrew Sullivan, Daily Beast

silly girl wrote:From Deadline:


Romney Strategist’s Ties To George Clooney

Given how much Republicans hate Hollywood in general, and George Clooney in particular because of his Obama fundraising and Democratic Party activism, you’d think any associates would be radioactive to the GOP. Nope. Stuart Stevens is currently Mitt Romney’s chief campaign strategist, chief campaign ad maker, and chief campaign speechwriter. Despite the fact he was the political consultant for Clooney’s 2011 political movie The Ides Of March and 2003 political TV show K Street. In fact, Stevens has many Hollywood connections: he was a UCLA Film School grad student, a one-time fellow with the American Film Institute, and a credited TV writer on Northern Exposure, I’ll Fly Away, Commander In Chief (also a consultant producer - see below.)

Stevens now has a bullseye on his back because of a new Politico article which is creating big buzz over the last 24 hours. It says Republicans are blaming Stevens for all the recent stumbles in Romney’s presidential campaign. It claims Stevens was responsible for the many rewrites to Romney’s RNC speech that left out mentions of Afghanistan or Al Queda or troops serving in war zones. It also claims that Stevens arranged for Clint Eastwood’s rambling RNC speech with that chair. (Stevens ”loved the idea of the tough-talking American icon greeting the millions of viewers tuning in.”)
...

One can only conclude that Stevens is, in fact, a double agent masquerading as a Republican, whose mission is to destroy any semblance of Romney credibility.

I'd like to go on record as saying that one major reason for Romney's impending defeat will be that, come election day, Republicans will stay away in droves.

I think they long ago decided that he'd be the best placeholder until they can get someone comparatively decent to run in 2016. But insulting the half of America that makes the country run, and using the death of an ambassador to score political points, and refusing to disclose his entire financial history -- nobody but the diehards will actually lift a voting finger for this guy. Stick a fork in him; he's done.

They are all puppets on a string.

Maggy wrote:They are all puppets on a string.

And men like the Koch brothers are the ones pulling the strings.

Mark McKinnon on Why Time Is Running Out for Mitt Romney

Ex-Bush aide Mark McKinnon keeps waiting for Romney to turn his campaign around and show the right stuff. After the 47 percent tape, he’s not sure that moment will ever come.

Mitt Romney is running out of time, and voters like me are running out of patience. I’ve been giving Romney the benefit of the doubt, assuming that at some point during this campaign he would reveal some things about himself that would give me some insight into who he really is and what drives him. And that I would be compelled to support him.

I took a lot of heat from Republicans when I stepped out of John McCain’s campaign after the 2008 primaries. I still supported McCain, and voted for him, but I just didn’t want to be the tip of the spear attacking Obama. I thought he was a decent and honorable man—as I still do—and that his campaign would be good for the country. And I didn’t think it would be good for McCain’s campaign to have a soft trigger man in the slot.

But, I’m still a Republican. Trying to be, anyway. The progressive caucus is a lonely one these days. Nevertheless, we soldier on in hopes of regaining a voice in the party.

Well, the release of the Romney tape was a moment that certainly revealed something about him. But not what I was hoping for. Just the opposite. It reveals a deeply cynical man, who sees the country as completely divided, as two completely different sets of people, and who would likely govern in a way that would only further divide us.

In Romney’s view, 47 percent of Americans will vote for Obama because they are the 47 percent who do not pay income taxes. If you are part of that group, then you are a “victim…dependent on government” who believes you are “entitled to health care.” And there is no way you’d vote for him anyway. (Well, that last part may be true now.)

This is a deeply cynical view of America. Not to mention wrong. And it’s a long way from the compassionate conservatism that welcomed more Americans into the Republican Party under President George W. Bush.

What about seniors on limited incomes who do not pay taxes? What about veterans? What about even middle-income families with young children and the deductions that go with them? They are not victims, although they might now view themselves that way under a Romney administration.

Now I honestly don’t know what Romney can do to win support from the voters he needs to gain a majority. I thought the debates would be an opportunity, but he has dug his hole so deeply now, I don’t know if he can pull himself out.

How can anyone support a candidate with this kind of a vision of the country? Isn’t a divided America under Obama what folks on the right rail against?

I’ve been asked how Romney turns things around at this point. I’ve been a consistent voice warning against writing off his campaign in September. Because I’ve been there before when people wrote off the Bush campaign in 2000.

But, now I honestly don’t know what Romney can do to win support from the voters he needs to gain a majority. I thought the debates would be an opportunity, but he has dug his hole so deeply now, I don’t know if he can pull himself out. Does he get up and say, “I was just kidding. I don’t see half of America as victims. I just needed to raise some money, and I got a little carried away talking to the 1 percent.”

I loved Michelle Obama’s line in her speech: “A presidency reveals who you are.”

So do campaigns.


And mark me down as one Republican not happy with what is being revealed about Mitt Romney.

Mark McKinnon has served as principal media adviser for hundreds of campaigns for candidates, companies, and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono, and has helped to engineer five successful presidential primary and general elections. McKinnon is a cofounder of No Labels, a non-profit organization dedicated to bipartisanship, civil discourse, and problem solving in politics. Mark McKinnon is Media Guy.

Daily Beast

Hi, I would say that Romney is killing himself. In a magazine, it featured Obama's and Romney's views on Social Security, Medicare & financial security. Quite interesting, Obama's are better. I don't know what will help bring this country back, but it'll take years, of doing the right thing, making the right choices & making the Congress & House of Representatives stop fighting each other because of political say so, do what is right to get us back on course. The Rep's & Dem's need to examine themselves. Actually, they don't really care, they are getting a good paycheck, health benefits & retirement benefits for life. Take some of that away & make them work the right way for their money!!

Now, I'll get off my soap box and go outside later and have a glass of wine!!

wine?
which kind of?

SANGRIA baby. LOL

huh......


Shangri-La ?

cindigirl wrote:Hi, I would say that Romney is killing himself. In a magazine, it featured Obama's and Romney's views on Social Security, Medicare & financial security. Quite interesting, Obama's are better. I don't know what will help bring this country back, but it'll take years, of doing the right thing, making the right choices & making the Congress & House of Representatives stop fighting each other because of political say so, do what is right to get us back on course. The Rep's & Dem's need to examine themselves. Actually, they don't really care, they are getting a good paycheck, health benefits & retirement benefits for life. Take some of that away & make them work the right way for their money!!

Now, I'll get off my soap box and go outside later and have a glass of wine!!

Great observations Cindi...I wonder how long those people would work if we took their benefits away? It's happening to people all over America because employers can't afford to continue to provide health insurance due to overwhelming greed in that industry. Between the insurers and the healthcare providers who think they should all be millionaires overnight, what chance does the small business owner have to offer such benefits unless the government steps in and regulates the unbridled greed in the industry.

We can't leave the markets unchecked anymore. We've seen what deregulation bears upon the open markets...unbridled greed abounds and there's no decency left in "big business"...making a modest profit and paying your employees their share for their share of your success went out the window LONG AGO!

We're dealing with the "I, Me, Mine" generation on steroids! Social justice and concern for one another isn't fashionable anymore.

I have great respect for Mark McKinnon. He's always presented himself as an open minded individual, who is quite willing to work with the other side on common ground. He's slow to berate or denegrate anyone and tries to find the honorable way to run a campaign. He's a Republican now (fiscally conservative but a social progressive) (formerly a fiscally conservative Dem) and I would vote for him in a second but he won't run for office himself because he knows how he would have to compromise his principles and that's something he's not willing to do.

Lighterside wrote:......and there's no decency left in "big business"...making a modest profit and paying your employees their share for their share of your success went out the window LONG AGO!

You're right Lighter - whatever happened to "profit sharing" practices companies had years ago?

Profit sharing was replaced with stock options only for the executives so their focus is on getting the most bang for their buck in their stocks. Best way to do that is reduce costs to increase profits so the first thing they do is fire people or outsource those jobs.

I work for a company where the executives do NOT get stock options and they don't earn millions of dollars in yearly compensation. They spread the wages throughout the staff and they give the employees yearly bonuses if the company profits warrant it. When the financial crisis hit, the FIRST thing they did was all the top executives took an across the board pay cut before they asked the employees for concessions.

For several years certain higher paid grades were asked to take a pay cut - this from the management and sales staff and then when the business got better their pay was reinstated.

See we ALL took a hit not just the rank and file!

That's what companies with a solid base stressing integrity and providing products of value to the customers can do.

Until the executives in big business start realizing that they really are NOT worth as much as their overblown egos tell them they are worth and start working to make sure the get and RETAIN customers, instead of focusing on how many millions of bonuses and stock options they can get, our country will continue to be divided and our financial future will continue to suffer.

integrity

yes

Since 2006 my husband's company has been shrinking. They went from 2 facilities and 250 employees down to 1 facility and a skeleton crew of 80. And even for those 80 employees, they could no longer afford the health insurance costs, since the premiums escalated to $33,000/mo to cover the employees and their families.

They cut my husbands salary 20% and we lost all his benefits and profit sharing (since there was none) and have been waiting for things to turn around, since then.

The work they do is "metal finishing" which tells you a great deal about what's happening in America. WE don't make things anymore.....or we didn't under the Bush Administration. The great exodus of manufacturing jobs started to leave the US under the end of the Clinton Administration (NAFTA anybody remember that?) and the steady loss of factories here (over 400,000) has helped lead to this crisis for the middle class.

We can see that President Obama is turning the tide with tax incentives to bring back the factory jobs because my husband's company is building new lines to bring in new business, which is being manufactured here in America once again.

I'm hoping that we get the medical coverage and the salary back, sometime soon because it's been very hard to hang on when I also got laid off shortly after his salary was cut and it's been pretty difficult without health insurance. If Romney were to get elected....all bets would be off and the trend of work coming back to the US would be gone.

ETA: To give you an example of how these policies hurt Americans every day, my sister has lost THREE jobs to India! While living in California, she worked for Prudential and they closed their facilities there and moved them to India....she had to train her replacements. They had an opening in the Chicago offices for her and she moved back to Chicago. Two years later...they sent her job to Inida and she had to train her replacement.

She's now working for a mortgage lender who was bought out by a British Company and guess what....her job is going to India and they are in the process of training their replacements. Half the company is gone already but she's one of their best collection managers and they have been shifting her to dept after dept to keep her going until they finally close the facility altogether.

Can you imagine losing THREE jobs to India through no fault of your own? Well it's happening all over America! This election is a fight for the SOUL of American business and how it will be conducted for decades to come and if we send the wrong message my sister's story won't be that unusual.

Lighterside: I stopped posting months ago and actually took a long break as I decided the less I knew about George's private life the better. But I've been back recently and have especially been interested in this thread. You all have given me hope. I know so many people who have lost their jobs and simply can't find anything to replace them. I also know many good people who believe the bull they see on all those ads paid for by the Koch brothers so when I began to read the posts on this thread, I regained my faith in my fellow Americans.

Lighter, I don't know what you do for a living but you are a wonderful writer and the piece you wrote above should really be copied on other blogs as well. I hope it's okay but I've been copying your pieces as well as those by Lakin and LornaDoone and sharing them with friends who are sitting on the fence. You women rock!

I hope your sister finds a job with someone who intends to stay put. And to those posters who are out of work; have faith. It took me quite some time but I finally found another job. It will happen for you too.

Thanks Mizerello and by all means, use anything you think is of value. I'm on my way out the door this morning...it's 6:30 am here and I'm on my way to Iowa to canvass for the President. It'll take us 2 and a half hours to get to where we're going but we'll put in a full day knocking on doors in this battleground state.

We will win this election one door at a time!

This is a very humorous little piece that I received by email and I thought I would share...but like all good jokes, it has some truth to it!

Dear Red States,


If you manage to steal this election again, we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes California , Hawaii , Oregon , Washington , Minnesota , Wisconsin , Michigan , Illinois , and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California .

To sum up briefly: You get Texas , Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85% of America 's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama . We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq , and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the country 's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines, 90% of all cheese, 90% of the high tech industry, 95% of the corn and soybeans (thanks Iowa!), most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92% of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia. We get San Francisco , Hollywood , and Yosemite , thank you.

Additionally, 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the war, the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico .

Peace out,
Blue States

Thanks for sharing Lighter!!!

I got this in an email and thought I would share it as it exemplifies the real problems which arise from unbridled corporate greed and NO...CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE, no matter how many times Romney repeats that lie!

This election is a fight for the soul of our country and how big business is going to treat their workers for generations to come. Everyone has a right to compensation but the "geniuses" at the top aren't the only ones who make or break a company! It's success is built on the sweat and toil of it's workers every bit as much as the business decisions made by the people at the top and there once was a code of good business practices to share that success with everyone that was followed. But as we can see with the corporate greed of today, not only won't they share it's profits with the workers anymore for a "job well done", the greed at the top has decimated the middle class by shipping our jobs overseas to lower paying markets and abandoned them completely, in it's thirst for bigger bonuses at the top.

This is the basic problem in American business today and WHY it's so important to vote for what's BEST for all Americans and stop the bleeding of the middle class and the poor. There's nothing wrong with being rich or wanting more, it's HOW you go about gathering that wealth and at WHOSE expense, that is at issue:



I’ve worked at American Crystal Sugar (ACS) for 38 years and many of my co-workers have been with ACS for decades.

We are proud to have been a part of building the company to be a leader in the industry. We helped ACS make record profits last year. But what did we get for our dedication and hard work?

CEO David Berg—who made $2.4 million in compensation in 2011—and ACS board members tried to force us to take major cuts in health care and agree to the elimination of seniority rights, then locked us out after we offered another proposal that was fair for everyone. We have been locked out now for more than 14 months.

Sign my petition now to tell American Crystal Sugar you won’t stand for their corporate greed.

Today, we are launching a boycott of ACS products until CEO Berg and the company end the lockout and come back to the table with workers to negotiate a fair contract.

This is not just about our families. The greed of Berg and ACS board members has taken an economic toll on entire communities across the Midwest.

Small businesses that relied on my co-workers and me for revenue are losing business, and some even are closing. Sugar beet farmers are being forced to “turn under” their crops and are seeing significantly lower payments for their beets compared with what they get from other sugar producers.

Giving working families, communities and customers the shaft while pulling in record profits after operating 50 years with a skilled union workforce is simply wrong. Will you stand with me against American Crystal Sugar greed?

Sign my petition at the link below:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In Solidarity,

Mel Morris
Proud American Crystal Sugar production worker and BCTGM Local 167G member

---