Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

by duck Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:41 pm

Just curious what everyone thought of the second presidential debate. Without getting into the partisan charge/counter-charge bullshit, I thought from a strategic and stylistic standpoint it was a victory for Obama. His objectives were to dispel the weak image he portrayed in the first debate, woo women voters, and influence the undecided. I thought he accomplished all three. The last objective was clearly the most important, as most people have their minds made up and the real battleground is for the remaining swing voters. Apparently Obama got a higher rating in this debate by such voters. Romney had his moments too. I thought he had a slight advantage in the "alpha dog" posturing at the beginning of the debate and he continues to appear more poised and presidential than Obama. As a side note, I thought the questions and moderator tended to favor Obama.

When you add it all up, however, and measure the impact of the debate, I expect that Obama will see a bump in the polls. In fact, barring some shocking development in the last three weeks, I predict that Obama will be reelected.

by Guest Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:27 pm

duck wrote:Just curious what everyone thought of the second presidential debate. Without getting into the partisan charge/counter-charge bullshit, I thought from a strategic and stylistic standpoint it was a victory for Obama. His objectives were to dispel the weak image he portrayed in the first debate, woo women voters, and influence the undecided. I thought he accomplished all three. The last objective was clearly the most important, as most people have their minds made up and the real battleground is for the remaining swing voters. Apparently Obama got a higher rating in this debate by such voters. Romney had his moments too. I thought he had a slight advantage in the "alpha dog" posturing at the beginning of the debate and he continues to appear more poised and presidential than Obama. As a side note, I thought the questions and moderator tended to favor Obama.

When you add it all up, however, and measure the impact of the debate, I expect that Obama will see a bump in the polls. In fact, barring some shocking development in the last three weeks, I predict that Obama will be reelected.

I was otherwise occupied during the debate--but saw a late night rebroadcast on CNN... What's interesting to me is the (claimed scientific) polling that liberal-biased CNN did following the debate... About 10% more undecided's likely to vote felt Obama won the debate, but the polling reflected a trend that I would be putting together gorilla warfare teams on the ground for if I were directing Obama's reelection campaign... Specifically--Romney is trending WAY higher--back to where he was months ago--in the issues that really matter most to the majority of polled undecided's (who will actually decide the election) The very same people who concluded on balance that Obama won the debate--determined that Romney is decidedly the better choice on the economy, deficit reduction, job creation and taxes.

JnC is correct about one thing: Being a good debater doesn't get you elected--and these are the bedrock issues trending away from Obama that hit closest to home for most people--and predominantly WHY PEOPLE GO VOTE... It'll be interesting... Cool

by JnC4GB Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:58 pm

The first thing you have to go over before drawing any conclusions from polling data is the metrics of how the poll was conducted.

The poll you are referencing here was of "undecided voters." In other words, "low-information voters" i.e., mostly comprised of the disinterested and the ignorant.
In addition, this group was according to the data "somewhat more Republican than the country as a whole" plus included more men than women.

Taking these things into account can point to reasons why Romney polled higher as someone to better handle the economy. Adding to that, shit, LOOK at the man. If you were casting a "money man" you couldn't ask for a more stereotypical image. He literally seems like a man who wipes his ass with $100 bills. Hell, if I had to choose between him and Obama as to who should handle my stock portfolio even I would be tempted to go with Rmoney.

But there's MUCH more going on here than that. Romnney's big swinging dick act last night did him no favors -especially with where he needs the most help: women voters. Stomping on the neck of moderator Jim Lehrer was good alpha-male showmanship. But doing it to a overweight middle-aged woman? Nosomuch. I could go on, but the short story is unlike the 1st debate Romney didn't move the needle forward last night.

Duck, I am curious that you thought Romney seemed more "poised and presidential". As with other's feelings about him regarding the economy, perhaps your preconceived notions of what a president should "look like" had some influence there because I thought Obama was FAR AND AWAY more "poised and presidential." Whereas Romney kept making me think of this guy:

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

by Guest Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:12 pm

JnC4GB wrote:The first thing you have to go over before drawing any conclusions from polling data is the metrics of how the poll was conducted.

The poll you are referencing here was of "undecided voters." In other words, "low-information voters" i.e., mostly comprised of the disinterested and the ignorant.
Wow... Amazing conclusion... The poll was specifically, *undecided voters likely to vote* That largely eliminates the bulk of those disinterested and ignorant, doesn't it? Beyond that--specifically within this category, you hold the lion's share of those, unlike you, who not beholden to either party and follow the facts to arrive at a consensus with their heart--not work backward from a predetermined conclusion and massage the perception of the crime to fit the preestablished punishment... This segment constitutes some of the most thoughtful, intelligent and critical-thinking members of the electorate...and it, quite frankly, surprises me that this is an understanding that you've gone Milani on...

Taking these things into account can point to reasons why Romney polled higher as someone to better handle the economy. Adding to that, shit, LOOK at the man. If you were casting a "money man" you couldn't ask for a more stereotypical image. He literally seems like a man who wipes his ass with $100 bills. Hell, if I had to choose between him and Obama as to who should handle my stock portfolio even I would be tempted to go with Rmoney.

You're fucking kidding right? LOL Oh, you'd be tempted to put next week's grocery money on Smokin' Joe Frazier in the heavyweight title bout against Grandma Gherkin swinging a big pickle, too right? Good God man! You're floating out there among the lilly pads with a cork in your ass taking advice from Mr. Turtle on 40 yard dash sprinting tactics for the disabled...

But there's MUCH more going on here than that. Romnney's big swinging dick act last night did him no favors -especially with where he needs the most help: women voters. Stomping on the neck of moderator Jim Lehrer was good alpha-male showmanship. But doing it to a overweight middle-aged woman? Nosomuch. I could go on, but the short story is unlike the 1st debate Romney didn't move the needle forward last night.

I liked it. What it said to me was the man has principles--and when he feels those principles are violated--he will step up and do whatever is necessary to bring that injustice back into equilibrium... Obama was making claims that the man felt violated by--and so therefore he stood up and made himself heard. That's what I want in a leader--sitting across the table from China, for example, as the new world order is battled on... You're right on one point, however...it doesn't necessarily make you friends with everyone--but the best leaders never are...and never aspire to be...

Duck, I am curious that you thought Romney seemed more "poised and presidential". As with other's feelings about him regarding the economy, perhaps your preconceived notions of what a president should "look like" had some influence there because I thought Obama was FAR AND AWAY more "poised and presidential." Whereas Romney kept making me think of this guy:

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

by duck Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:46 pm

JnC4GB wrote:The first thing you have to go over before drawing any conclusions from polling data is the metrics of how the poll was conducted.

The poll you are referencing here was of "undecided voters." In other words, "low-information voters" i.e., mostly comprised of the disinterested and the ignorant.
In addition, this group was according to the data "somewhat more Republican than the country as a whole" plus included more men than women.

Taking these things into account can point to reasons why Romney polled higher as someone to better handle the economy. Adding to that, shit, LOOK at the man. If you were casting a "money man" you couldn't ask for a more stereotypical image. He literally seems like a man who wipes his ass with $100 bills. Hell, if I had to choose between him and Obama as to who should handle my stock portfolio even I would be tempted to go with Rmoney.

But there's MUCH more going on here than that. Romnney's big swinging dick act last night did him no favors -especially with where he needs the most help: women voters. Stomping on the neck of moderator Jim Lehrer was good alpha-male showmanship. But doing it to a overweight middle-aged woman? Nosomuch. I could go on, but the short story is unlike the 1st debate Romney didn't move the needle forward last night.

Duck, I am curious that you thought Romney seemed more "poised and presidential". As with other's feelings about him regarding the economy, perhaps your preconceived notions of what a president should "look like" had some influence there because I thought Obama was FAR AND AWAY more "poised and presidential." Whereas Romney kept making me think of this guy:

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

JnC, I think the reason I find Romney to be more "poised and presidential" is the same reason you'd probably want him to manage your stock portfolio. He has a certain charisma that you find in leaders. You are right that it's related to a slimy salesmanship ability, but isn't that the essence of politics? Obama has his own charisma too but it's a little different. Obama is a spellbinding orator in the tradition of the great black gospel preachers. However, in a face-to-face encounter he doesn't possess the same pizazz Romney does.

JMHO... the way I perceive and react to them. How the voters do so may be a different story.

You raise another interesting point. I think Romney is going to lose women voters for the way he got pushy with Crowley. Obama pushed his limits as well later in the debate but it didn't seem as condescending as the way Romney did it. Again, just honest immediate impressions on my part. I have no idea how this will play out in the minds of women voters.

by duck Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:55 pm

_HD_ wrote:
duck wrote:Just curious what everyone thought of the second presidential debate. Without getting into the partisan charge/counter-charge bullshit, I thought from a strategic and stylistic standpoint it was a victory for Obama. His objectives were to dispel the weak image he portrayed in the first debate, woo women voters, and influence the undecided. I thought he accomplished all three. The last objective was clearly the most important, as most people have their minds made up and the real battleground is for the remaining swing voters. Apparently Obama got a higher rating in this debate by such voters. Romney had his moments too. I thought he had a slight advantage in the "alpha dog" posturing at the beginning of the debate and he continues to appear more poised and presidential than Obama. As a side note, I thought the questions and moderator tended to favor Obama.

When you add it all up, however, and measure the impact of the debate, I expect that Obama will see a bump in the polls. In fact, barring some shocking development in the last three weeks, I predict that Obama will be reelected.

I was otherwise occupied during the debate--but saw a late night rebroadcast on CNN... What's interesting to me is the (claimed scientific) polling that liberal-biased CNN did following the debate... About 10% more undecided's likely to vote felt Obama won the debate, but the polling reflected a trend that I would be putting together gorilla warfare teams on the ground for if I were directing Obama's reelection campaign... Specifically--Romney is trending WAY higher--back to where he was months ago--in the issues that really matter most to the majority of polled undecided's (who will actually decide the election) The very same people who concluded on balance that Obama won the debate--determined that Romney is decidedly the better choice on the economy, deficit reduction, job creation and taxes.

JnC is correct about one thing: Being a good debater doesn't get you elected--and these are the bedrock issues trending away from Obama that hit closest to home for most people--and predominantly WHY PEOPLE GO VOTE... It'll be interesting...

It will indeed be interesting, HD. I agree that Romney has established himself better on economic issues. More to the point, many Americans have felt the squeeze the last four years and they are going to blame Obama for that, whether or not he or his predecessor is the root cause of that. Americans traditionally vote with their pocketbook. Nevertheless, it's hard to unseat an incumbent, especially one with a particular broad base of support as Obama does with the rainbow coalition. All the polls so far give Obama the lead and most importantly his projected electoral vote lead is stronger than the raw numbers. Obama's votes better translate to electoral votes. If he takes one or two of the swing states, it's all over.

This is why I believe that even though an almost equal number of Americans may vote for Romney, Obama will win.

by JnC4GB Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:04 pm

"undecided voters...This segment constitutes some of the most thoughtful, intelligent and critical-thinking members of the electorate"
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by JnC4GB Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:24 pm

" (Romney) has a certain charisma that you find in leaders. You are right that it's related to a slimy salesmanship ability, but isn't that the essence of politics?"

Well, that certainly explains a lot about your cynicism and repulsion about this subject. But you are setting the bar pretty fucking low on leadership, my friend. Makes idealists like me sad to see a candle so thoroughly snuffed out. But to be honest, I'm pretty much there with you, Duck. It is an awfully ugly and sad state of affairs.

But once everyone's candle goes out...what happens then?

Fuck that. I'm not going to go quietly into the good night without a fight.
Fuck these fuckers.

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

by throttleplate Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:04 pm

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

by Guest Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:08 pm

JnC4GB wrote:" (Romney) has a certain charisma that you find in leaders. You are right that it's related to a slimy salesmanship ability, but isn't that the essence of politics?"

Well, that certainly explains a lot about your cynicism and repulsion about this subject. But you are setting the bar pretty fucking low on leadership, my friend. Makes idealists like me sad to see a candle so thoroughly snuffed out. But to be honest, I'm pretty much there with you, Duck. It is an awfully ugly and sad state of affairs.

But once everyone's candle goes out...what happens then?

Fuck that. I'm not going to go quietly into the good night without a fight.
Fuck these fuckers.

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

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

by duck Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:29 am

JnC4GB wrote:" (Romney) has a certain charisma that you find in leaders. You are right that it's related to a slimy salesmanship ability, but isn't that the essence of politics?"

Well, that certainly explains a lot about your cynicism and repulsion about this subject. But you are setting the bar pretty fucking low on leadership, my friend. Makes idealists like me sad to see a candle so thoroughly snuffed out. But to be honest, I'm pretty much there with you, Duck. It is an awfully ugly and sad state of affairs.

But once everyone's candle goes out...what happens then?

Fuck that. I'm not going to go quietly into the good night without a fight.
Fuck these fuckers.

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

JnC, just because I've lost faith in our political system doesn't mean I've abandoned my ideals. In fact I would say I more earnestly and realistically pursue them. I try to make my political statements and affect social change with my life style and in my actions.

For example, I try to minimize my use of gasoline. My wife owns a Prius and I drive as little as possible, often opting to bike for short distances. There was one year in the mid nineties in which I drove less than 3000 miles the entire year. Most of my automotive use involves chauffeuring my daughter to her various activities but I try to carpool as much as possible and now that she's a teenager, we encourage her to use public transportation.

We still need to do more but our house has many green features. I try to resist our consumerist culture by not pissing away money on shit I really don't need. I try to stay fit and, except for my weaknesses for beer and burnt animals, I generally eat well. I'm not a bigot or a racist. Yadda yadda, you get the point.

I don't want to come across as a pious asshole but I believe that actions speak louder than words. IMHO, pulling a lever in a voting booth is just a meaningless gesture if your actions don't mirror your political beliefs.

So, no, the candle inside of me is not out... I just don't want to depend upon the fuckers in Washington to keep it lit for me.

by Guest Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:41 am

duck wrote:
JnC4GB wrote:" (Romney) has a certain charisma that you find in leaders. You are right that it's related to a slimy salesmanship ability, but isn't that the essence of politics?"

Well, that certainly explains a lot about your cynicism and repulsion about this subject. But you are setting the bar pretty fucking low on leadership, my friend. Makes idealists like me sad to see a candle so thoroughly snuffed out. But to be honest, I'm pretty much there with you, Duck. It is an awfully ugly and sad state of affairs.

But once everyone's candle goes out...what happens then?

Fuck that. I'm not going to go quietly into the good night without a fight.
Fuck these fuckers.

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

JnC, just because I've lost faith in our political system doesn't mean I've abandoned my ideals. In fact I would say I more earnestly and realistically pursue them. I try to make my political statements and affect social change with my life style and in my actions.

For example, I try to minimize my use of gasoline. My wife owns a Prius and I drive as little as possible, often opting to bike for short distances. There was one year in the mid nineties in which I drove less than 3000 miles the entire year. Most of my automotive use involves chauffeuring my daughter to her various activities but I try to carpool as much as possible and now that she's a teenager, we encourage her to use public transportation.

We still need to do more but our house has many green features. I try to resist our consumerist culture by not pissing away money on shit I really don't need. I try to stay fit and, except for my weaknesses for beer and burnt animals, I generally eat well. I'm not a bigot or a racist. Yadda yadda, you get the point.

I don't want to come across as a pious asshole but I believe that actions speak louder than words. IMHO, pulling a lever in a voting booth is just a meaningless gesture if your actions don't mirror your political beliefs.

So, no, the candle inside of me is not out... I just don't want to depend upon the fuckers in Washington to keep it lit for me.

Well then you, Sir--are not a hypocrite... Good post. Nice job... Very Happy

3000 miles in a whole year? Fuck... Shocked

I do that in a month sometimes--and I have to admit, you won't catch my ass being packed into a Prius any time soon... Wink

by duck Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:01 pm

I have to admit, I'm not wild about the Prius. Because I'm tall I get a little claustrophobic in the damn thing and the visibility in the rear view mirror is very poor. The dashboard is distracting too... like a fucking pinball machine. However, it's her car and she uses it 99% of the time, so I just STFU.

by Guest Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:22 pm

duck wrote:I have to admit, I'm not wild about the Prius. Because I'm tall I get a little claustrophobic in the damn thing and the visibility in the rear view mirror is very poor. The dashboard is distracting too... like a fucking pinball machine. However, it's her car and she uses it 99% of the time, so I just STFU.

As you should, my friend... To me--what you drive is a very personal decision...and those who compromise end up not loving their ride. You should love your ride. It represents freedom...and who likes to choose to compromise on their freedom? Cool

by JnC4GB Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:24 pm

duck wrote:

JnC, just because I've lost faith in our political system doesn't mean I've abandoned my ideals. In fact I would say I more earnestly and realistically pursue them. I try to make my political statements and affect social change with my life style and in my actions....So, no, the candle inside of me is not out... I just don't want to depend upon the fuckers in Washington to keep it lit for me.

Of course it hasn't and that not what I meant when I wrote that. That's on me. I hope you know I meant on the macro.

Jeez, Duck I said it before and I'll say it again, maybe it's because Lance Armstrong is finally taking it up the ass, but you're on fire lately, old man! Good work, amigo.

That said, I'm afraid I WILL have to report you to Social Services on child abuse charges for making your daughter ride public transportation in Oakland. Cool

by Guest Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:35 pm

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

by duck Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:59 pm

JnC4GB wrote:
That said, I'm afraid I WILL have to report you to Social Services on child abuse charges for making your daughter ride public transportation in Oakland.

No worries. I've taught her how to use her semi-automatic weapon. Very Happy

by KBen Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:14 pm

I liked it. What it said to me was the man has
principles--and when he feels those principles are violated--he will
step up and do whatever is necessary to bring that injustice back into
equilibrium... Obama was making claims that the man felt violated
by--and so therefore he stood up and made himself heard. That's what I
want in a leader--sitting across the table from China, for example, as
the new world order is battled on...

and no doubt China would like that as well, but the American workforce may want to start brushin up on their Mandarin if it comes to pass...

Is This Why Romney Won't Talk to Sensata Workers Whose Jobs Are Being Shipped to China?

On the campaign trail Romney says we shouldn't ship jobs to China and should "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]" on China trade problems. But he refuses to help or even meet with the Sensata workers whose jobs are being shipped to China right now.

Why the refusal to line up his actions with his promises? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] explains how part of Romney's $400,000/week income comes from ... get this ... shipping jobs to China!

First, the background...

Sensata -- Happening Today

Mitt Romney started the "private equity" firm Bain Capital. Bain
purchases companies using "leveraged buyouts" that borrow huge sums
using the purchased company's own assets as collateral, uses the
borrowed money to immediately pay itself, then cuts costs by doing
things like sending jobs to China, cutting wages and manipulating tax
rules to cut taxes owed, along with standard big-business practices like
consolidating business units, taking advantage of economies of scale
not available to smaller competitors, squeezing distribution channels
for price cuts and other practices that bring competitive advantages.
(See "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]") After reorganizing the purchased companies [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

One company Bain Capital purchased is Sensata, a sensor manufacturer
that makes key components for our automobile supply chain. Sensata then
announced it is closing a factory in Freeport, Ill., and sending the
manufacturing and jobs to China. (China is engaged in efforts to
dominate American auto supplies. See "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]" and "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].")

Bain/Sensata brought in Chinese workers and made the Freeport workers train them.
Bain/Sensata is moving the equipment out of the Freeport factory and
shipping it to China right now. The Freeport employees have set up a
camp outside the factory that they call [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
and are trying to stop the Bain trucks that are moving the equipment
out for shipment to China. Supporters were arrested this week, trying
to stop those trucks.

The Sensata employees heard Romney on the campaign trail, and somehow
got the idea that he opposes sending our jobs to China. So they asked
him to come to Freeport/Bainport and help them. Read on to learn about
Romney's response to the Sensata workers, and how Romney is actually
making big money right now from shipping their jobs to China.

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

"The week before they came they took the American flag down outside the plant. The week after they left they put it back up."

The China Problem -- The Public Gets It

During the George W. Bush administration we lost more than 50,000
factories and at least 6 million manufacturing jobs directly to China.
(Never mind the effect on the supply chains, the grocery and clothing
stores where those people shopped, etc... The foreclosures, the
bankruptcies, the misery...) Thanks, George!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
shows what happened to our manufacturing base immediately after Bush
took office. Seriously, look at this chart and see if you can just
guess why we have such a terrible economy today:

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

The public gets it -- the problem is China. Polls show that the public
overwhelmingly -- by percentages in the 80s and 90s for Democrats and
Republicans alike -- understands that a huge part of our economic
troubles come from the ways we have been shipping jobs, factories and
industries to China.

ABC News, from July: "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]"

Nearly 9 out of 10 Republicans and Independents and 91
percent of Democrats said they support "Buy America" preferences,
according to the survey, which was conducted by the Democratic-leaning
Mellman Group.

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

When it comes to trade with China, the poll found that
voters emphatically support tough action on Beijing's cheating on
currency and other trade obligations.

Another, from a key state: "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]."

Romney Can Read Polls

One thing the Romney campaign can do is read polls. So Mitt Romney sees the polls and says he wants to do something about China.

The Hill: "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]"

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

The Hill: "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]"

So, on the campaign trail Romney says he will stand up to China's
cheating, and opposes companies that send jobs and factories to China.

Romney Refuses To Help -- Even Talk With -- Sensata Workers

Romney wants to be president, and polls show that the public
overwhelmingly wants something done about the problem of jobs and
factories moving to China, and the resulting pressure that puts on the
rest of us and on our economy. So Romney says he will do something about
it.

But Romney's current actions are opposite his current words. He [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] manipulation, but [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
to ask the Republican House leadership to bring the China currency bill
up for a vote, and refuses to ask more than 60 Republican co-sponsors
of that bill to sign a "discharge petition" that would force a vote.

And Romney refuses to even meet with Sensata workers. When asked if Romney would help these workers, the Romney [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]:

"Governor Romney has not worked at Bain Capital for over a
decade, but for four years President Obama has been presiding over an
economy that is creating too few jobs and sending more jobs overseas.
Despite the president being invested in Sensata through his personal
pension fund, and the government owning a major Sensata customer in GM,
President Obama has not used his powers to help this situation in any
way." -- Curt Cashour, Romney Campaign Spokesman.

Why is Romney saying he wants to do something about the trade problem
with China, but refusing to actually do anything about the trade
problem with China? Here is one possible reason.

Romney Making Big Money From Bain Sending Sensata Jobs To China

A must-read news report today by Sharon LaFraniere and Mike McIntire in the New York Times explains. "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]" (emphasis added, for emphasis),

Mr. Romney also has millions invested in a series of Bain funds that have a controlling stake in Sensata Technologies,
a manufacturer of sensors and controls for vehicles, aircraft and
electric motors that employs 4,000 workers in China. Since Bain took
over the operation in 2006, its investment has quadrupled in value. Bain
continues to own $2.6 billion worth of Sensata's shares.

Two years ago, Sensata bought an operation that made automobile
sensors in Freeport, Ill. At the first meeting with the plant's 170
workers, Sensata managers announced that by the end of 2012 all the equipment and jobs would be relocated, mostly to Jiangsu Province. Workers have staged demonstrations, pleading for Mr. Romney to intervene on their behalf.

Chinese engineers, flown to Freeport for training on the
equipment, described their salaries as a pittance compared with Freeport
wages. Tom Gaulrapp, who has operated machines at the factory
for 33 years, said he fears he will go bankrupt after he loses his job
on Nov. 5.

"This goes to show the unbelievable hypocrisy of this man," he said of Mr. Romney.
"He talks about how we need to get tough on China and stop China from
taking our jobs, and then he is making money off shipping our jobs
there."

So there you have it. Mitt Romney says he opposes sending jobs to
China, and says he will "crack down" on China. But he refuses to do
things that he could do right now that would make an actual difference
right now. And it turns out that right now he is making big money from
Sensata and other companies that are sending people's jobs to China
right now.

Laying off American workers -- usually shipping the jobs to China --
and pocketing their wages for themselves is the story of the rise of the
wealth of the 1%, and the decline of the American middle class. It is
the Romney/Bain/Sensata business model. And the remaining workers have
to do the jobs of the laid-off workers, often for lower pay, and are
threatened with losing their jobs, too, if they don't like it.

by Guest Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:40 pm

Jeezus Ben... Out of respect to you--I read enough of that to determine that the thesis was coming from a completely biased perspective...

Here's the one thought I'll leave you with: For the last decade given the disparity in labor cost (which is the highest component in the cost of manufacturing) between China and the US--as CEO, there isn't a board of a publicly traded corporation in america that wouldn't have fired your ass long ago if you, short of building double-wides, hadn't shipped your manufacturing overseas... Why? Because all your competitors did and you'll go bankrupt trying to compete otherwise. That means ALL jobs lost, Ben...

This isn't about Romney or Bain Capital, my friend... It's about a tidal shift to a global economy...and developing nations offer a FAR lower labor rate in that cost equation to produce goods... Very simple. Nothing more...nothing less... Like it or not--It's the way efficient markets were designed to work, my friend...

by KBen Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:35 pm

_HD_ wrote:Jeezus Ben... Out of respect to you--I read enough of that to determine that the thesis was coming from a completely biased perspective...

Here's the one thought I'll leave you with: For the last decade given the disparity in labor cost (which is the highest component in the cost of manufacturing) between China and the US--as CEO, there isn't a board of a publicly traded corporation in america that wouldn't have fired your ass long ago if you, short of building double-wides, hadn't shipped your manufacturing overseas... Why? Because all your competitors did and you'll go bankrupt trying to compete otherwise. That means ALL jobs lost, Ben...

This isn't about Romney or Bain Capital, my friend... It's about a tidal shift to a global economy...and developing nations offer a FAR lower labor rate in that cost equation to produce goods... Very simple. Nothing more...nothing less... Like it or not--It's the way efficient markets were designed to work, my friend...

waaaay too easy to get you to come galloping to the defense of anyone slapping the corporate dong Razz

by Guest Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:01 pm

KBen wrote:
_HD_ wrote:Jeezus Ben... Out of respect to you--I read enough of that to determine that the thesis was coming from a completely biased perspective...

Here's the one thought I'll leave you with: For the last decade given the disparity in labor cost (which is the highest component in the cost of manufacturing) between China and the US--as CEO, there isn't a board of a publicly traded corporation in america that wouldn't have fired your ass long ago if you, short of building double-wides, hadn't shipped your manufacturing overseas... Why? Because all your competitors did and you'll go bankrupt trying to compete otherwise. That means ALL jobs lost, Ben...

This isn't about Romney or Bain Capital, my friend... It's about a tidal shift to a global economy...and developing nations offer a FAR lower labor rate in that cost equation to produce goods... Very simple. Nothing more...nothing less... Like it or not--It's the way efficient markets were designed to work, my friend...

waaaay too easy to get you to come galloping to the defense of anyone slapping the corporate dong

LOL! It is what it is, Ben... There is nothing there in the way of a defense of anything... There's nothing to defend. Of course, you can perceive it good, bad or ugly--depending upon your standpoint--but the fact remains, it's reality in a capitalistic global environment. I try not to waste my resources hating on reality--merely to understand/accept what it represents and make it best work for me and those I love... It's like playing Monopoly and bitching about why Boardwalk and Park Place demand such higher rent than the nice fixer-upper you hold on Baltic Avenue... It's because--them's the rules--and that's the game and therefore that's the way things are. You want Park Place--then go get it... The God's make everything available to those just willing to pay the price...

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:50 am

JnC4GB wrote:But there's MUCH more going on here than that. Romnney's big swinging dick act last night did him no favors -especially with where he needs the most help: women voters. Stomping on the neck of moderator Jim Lehrer was good alpha-male showmanship. But doing it to a overweight middle-aged woman? Nosomuch. I could go on, but the short story is unlike the 1st debate Romney didn't move the needle forward last night.

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

by JnC4GB Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:57 pm

_HD_ wrote:
Jeezus Ben... Out of respect to you--I read enough of that to determine that the thesis was coming from a completely biased perspective...

HD's next post we're supposed to read?
An opinion piece on bias written by L. Brent Bozell III, a conservative Christian, conservative writer and activist.

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

by Guest Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:28 pm

JnC4GB wrote:_HD_ wrote:
Jeezus Ben... Out of respect to you--I read enough of that to determine that the thesis was coming from a completely biased perspective...

HD's next post we're supposed to read?
An opinion piece on bias written by L. Brent Bozell III, a conservative Christian, conservative writer and activist.

True...but that doesn't mean his point that to the impartial observer-- Candy Crowley clearly overstepped the bounds of her role and interjected herself, through her bias, into the scope of the debate, does it? Or are you prepared to argue that she didn't? Please do... I'd like a nice shredded beef sandwich for lunch... Very Happy

by JnC4GB Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:32 pm

[quote="KBen"][color=blue]

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

[quote]

Yep, emerging nations and third-world countries will always offer a cheaper deal for manufacturing. But the key word that HD doesn't bring up is "regulating." Dubya came in and deregulated US industry on this subject to "help" US business interests, supposedly. Look at the graph during his 8 years in office. That pathetic decline was due to the FACT that the Bush administration PUSHED for the "outsourcing" of high-tech and manufacturing jobs to countries like India, China, Russia, South Africa, Eastern Europe, Costa Rica, and the Philippines. Shit, remember when Dubya awarded a $50 billion dollar government contract for homeland security computers & services to the Bahamas-based Accenture corporation? He could have selected any one of a dozen or so American based companies, but for some reason he gave it to a foreign based company. Then the Bush administration tried to cover up these middle class job losses by getting fast-food workers reclassified as "manufacturing workers" (and yet it's the GOP who cry that the latest lower unemployment numbers are "fixed" LOL.). Think it's a fucking accident George Bush wasn't part of the Republican National Convention or that Republicans shriek like little girls at the mention of his name crying out "It's Obama's economy!!"
Just like it would under Romney, under Dubya the middle class got fucked over while the 1%ers got more and more of the pie --and now pay the lowest tax rate since the 1940s. Anybody who buys into this current line of GOP CYA bullshit that the Democrats "hate success" and want to engage in "class warfare" is a flat-out moron.

by Sponsored content

Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2

Re: Obama vs. Romney, Round 2