Big Bain Backfire

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

lionshead2010 wrote: I realize this is campaign season and all..but still, there are really two ways to make your building look taller. You can actually build your building higher and sturdier or you can knock the other guy's building down. After more than three years of BS and broken promises, we know how tall the Obama Building is and we know he is not capable of building it any higher or sturdier. He only has one option left if he is going to win this election. He MUST knock Romney's building down.

I know this topic is about the campaign attack on Romney over his doings with Bain...but I would love to have a chat about Obama's foreign policy "success" in Pakistan too.

Then start a new thread.

Who died and left you boss?

lionshead2010 wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

lionshead2010 wrote: I realize this is campaign season and all..but still, there are really two ways to make your building look taller. You can actually build your building higher and sturdier or you can knock the other guy's building down. After more than three years of BS and broken promises, we know how tall the Obama Building is and we know he is not capable of building it any higher or sturdier. He only has one option left if he is going to win this election. He MUST knock Romney's building down.

I know this topic is about the campaign attack on Romney over his doings with Bain...but I would love to have a chat about Obama's foreign policy "success" in Pakistan too.

Then start a new thread.

Who died and left you boss?

And no one died. This is a public forum and what people do on public forums is debate, ask questions, analyze and make suggestions. I suggested that you start a new thread that deal with the topic of Obama's foreign policy in Pakistan... because that topic certainly doesn't apply on this thread. Then tell me. This is a thread about Bain Capital. Except for the few attempted deflections from some of our 285 lefties, the topic throughout has been Bain. Can you explain to me why you would suggest that anyone "chat about Obama's foreign policy "success" in Pakistan too" this thread?

I concede your point but disagree with the snotty reply.

To me the real question is the business performance record of each man who is running for President. I read an article this morning in the LA Times that basically states the upcoming election is a referendum about what type of economics you subscribe to and which form of economics is going to take America out of this funk. Many articles lately make this same point. Obama represents one form of economic beliefs, Romney another. Each side can make some strong arguements about why their flavor of economics is "the best"....but surely there is a correct answer.

I happen to agree with Romney's form of economics but honestly wonder why such an intelligent man (and his team) has such a difficult time articulating his platform to the common people of America. The fact that we are talking at all about Obama's "success" in economics just cracks me up. But we are still talking about it as if he has actually accomplished something. He has been a train wreck for America's economy. But I wonder if Romney can do any better.

Backfiring big time...

Democrats have begun criticizing Mitt Romney’s business record, but a plurality of voters view the Republican’s business past as a positive.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that Romney’s track record in business is primarily a reason to vote for him. Thirty-three percent (33%) see his business career as chiefly a reason to vote against him. Twenty-two percent (22%) are undecided.

Fifty-five percent (55%) voters believe venture capital companies are better at creating jobs than government programs are. Only 26% see government programs as better job creators. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure. That’s essentially unchanged from January.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... 3_disagree

And if you break down the demographics...

The internals show the trap that Team Obama is setting for itself. The 33% who buy their argument comes in slightly under the level of Democrats in the sample. It’s an argument that works primarily to bolster the base, not attract independents. Independents on this question split almost 2-1, 48/25, towards Romney’s business record being a reason to vote for him rather than against him. Emphasizing Romney’s business experience as a venture capitalist plays even more toward Romney among unaffiliated voters, 57% of whom see that experience as better at job creation than managing government programs, which only 23% of independents choose.

In fact, on that latter question, venture capital wins majorities or pluralities in nearly every demographic category, including some key Democratic constituencies. Women overwhelmingly favor venture capital over government programs, 51/26. Younger voters go nearly 2-1 for venture capital, 48/27. With the exception of those making under $20K per year, wide majorities of all income categories favor venture capital. The only demos that break the other direction do so weakly: Democrats (27/43), black voters (21/42), liberals (24/50), under $20K (29/43), and unsurprisingly the political class (34/47). Even union households prefer venture capital by a wide margin, 52/25. [/b][/i]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/22/r ... t-working/

Throw Obama an anchor. Next distraction president?

WHO DIED AND MADE YOU GOD?!?!

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

appleannie wrote: I don't know where Booker's head was at, since Romney is running on his record as a businessman and Bain is certainly a part of that.

Yes he is. A business man who ran a equity firm. The same sort of equity firm that dozens and dozens of public service unions, private unions and private firms invest in on a daily basis. Equity firms that realize up to 11% of their portfolios profits to their pension funds and other retirement devices. Considering how much money unions and other companies make from investments with equity firms do you think those unions and private companies should divest themselves from these big bad equity firms?

Considering how much money is generated for millions of people all across the political spectrum... I think Romney has a really good position to run on... a sucessful businessman who made a lot of money for various public service unions, private unions and private firms.

But what Romney is pushing is his "job-creating" skills with companies like Bain and while equity companies make a lot of money for their shareholders, they average out to a zero sum game where it comes to creating jobs.

appleannie wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

appleannie wrote: I don't know where Booker's head was at, since Romney is running on his record as a businessman and Bain is certainly a part of that.

Yes he is. A business man who ran a equity firm. The same sort of equity firm that dozens and dozens of public service unions, private unions and private firms invest in on a daily basis. Equity firms that realize up to 11% of their portfolios profits to their pension funds and other retirement devices. Considering how much money unions and other companies make from investments with equity firms do you think those unions and private companies should divest themselves from these big bad equity firms?

Considering how much money is generated for millions of people all across the political spectrum... I think Romney has a really good position to run on... a sucessful businessman who made a lot of money for various public service unions, private unions and private firms.

But what Romney is pushing is his "job-creating" skills with companies like Bain and while equity companies make a lot of money for their shareholders, they average out to a zero sum game where it comes to creating jobs.

Ok... let's turn the tables a bit on this. Can you or anyone else on 285 Bound tell me what the employment credentials are for Obama in regards to his knowledge or running a business? His credentials for managing money, payrolls, budgets, hiring, firing, managing employees?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

appleannie wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

appleannie wrote: I don't know where Booker's head was at, since Romney is running on his record as a businessman and Bain is certainly a part of that.

Yes he is. A business man who ran a equity firm. The same sort of equity firm that dozens and dozens of public service unions, private unions and private firms invest in on a daily basis. Equity firms that realize up to 11% of their portfolios profits to their pension funds and other retirement devices. Considering how much money unions and other companies make from investments with equity firms do you think those unions and private companies should divest themselves from these big bad equity firms?

Considering how much money is generated for millions of people all across the political spectrum... I think Romney has a really good position to run on... a sucessful businessman who made a lot of money for various public service unions, private unions and private firms.

But what Romney is pushing is his "job-creating" skills with companies like Bain and while equity companies make a lot of money for their shareholders, they average out to a zero sum game where it comes to creating jobs.

Ok... let's turn the tables a bit on this. Can you or anyone else on 285 Bound tell me what the employment credentials are for Obama in regards to his knowledge or running a business? His credentials for managing money, payrolls, budgets, hiring, firing, managing employees?

Tell me what Reagan did before Gov. He did pretty well by you. Right

jmc wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

appleannie wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

appleannie wrote: I don't know where Booker's head was at, since Romney is running on his record as a businessman and Bain is certainly a part of that.

Yes he is. A business man who ran a equity firm. The same sort of equity firm that dozens and dozens of public service unions, private unions and private firms invest in on a daily basis. Equity firms that realize up to 11% of their portfolios profits to their pension funds and other retirement devices. Considering how much money unions and other companies make from investments with equity firms do you think those unions and private companies should divest themselves from these big bad equity firms?

Considering how much money is generated for millions of people all across the political spectrum... I think Romney has a really good position to run on... a sucessful businessman who made a lot of money for various public service unions, private unions and private firms.

But what Romney is pushing is his "job-creating" skills with companies like Bain and while equity companies make a lot of money for their shareholders, they average out to a zero sum game where it comes to creating jobs.

Ok... let's turn the tables a bit on this. Can you or anyone else on 285 Bound tell me what the employment credentials are for Obama in regards to his knowledge or running a business? His credentials for managing money, payrolls, budgets, hiring, firing, managing employees?

Tell me what Reagan did before Gov. He did pretty well by you. Right

That's not what I asked. I didn't ask any questions about Reagan. I'll try again.

Take a stab at this...

Ok... let's turn the tables a bit on this. Can you or anyone else on 285 Bound tell me what the employment credentials are for Obama in regards to his knowledge of running a business? [/b][/i] His credentials for managing money, payrolls, budgets, hiring, firing, managing employees?

Anyway... this thread is about Obama's Bain strategy tanking. And according to polls, other Democrats and the new media... it's tanking.