Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Mitt Romney and The Cosmic 47 Percent


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
The Mittster shares a connection to 47% with Star Trek Programs. Cue Twilight Zone music!

 Irony is piled on irony as Mitt's base of support came from Southern states that are more dependent on federal aid and from the elderly on Social Security which Romney lumped in with his the 47% he dismissed as people he didn't wouldn't waste his concern on as Buzzflash pointed out, but who actually have earned their retirement.  (Social Security receivers must be part of the 47% as pointed out by many pundits, because, otherwise, "47%" of the population could not possibly be filled out by the "takers".  Also included were low wage earners, mostly those with children that also do not pay "income taxes" but are likely to pay Social Security tax if they work and sales tax if they shop for anything but exempted food products, as well as gasoline tax if they use that product, and many assorted taxes that they cannot avoid if they heat their homes at all, etc.  (They also helped support gas taxes if the food they bought came from anywhere further than a few blocks away from their home).

And though, the minimum wage has fallen far below the real needs of Americans, which is why at least the government gives people with children more of a deduction on their taxes than if they were childless, Romney was ready to throw those people away in his election and apparently was going to force the poorest workers in the US to pay more taxes to support his tax cuts for fat cats he had planned.  And Mitt Romney was the least extreme of the Republicans running in the primary after John Huntsman dropped out.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Romney Demonstrated For War and Draft, Then Refused to Serve


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Kinda Weird and creepy, but somewhat in line with what Dubya did, jumping in front of other eligible applicants in the Texas Air National Guard so he didn't have to go to "Nam".

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

New Info: What Mitt Romney Was Hoping No One Would Notice In His Tax Returns


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Leave it to Ed Schultz to figure our what Mitt Romney thought Americans and our news media would be too stupid to find in his tax returns. I've clipped the most embarrassing part I can remember and put it up here for you. Other pundits may have noticed, but I didn't hear about these creepy parts of Mitt's dealings till Ed talked about them.

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Video: Why Students at Stanford Shunned Young Mitt Romney



And how and why Romney avoided the draft though he believed the Vietman War was good.  (He even demonstrated against anti-draft demonstrators.)

Still he refused to go and deferred until he had a high lottery number.  (The draft lottery was based on your birthday. So there were 366 choices. You stood for it for one year, at which time a new lottery was held for the next batch of eligible young men who would stand for it, and usually no one with with a birthday that ranked over 150 were required to report to the enlistment center.)  Bill Clinton did the same, using deferments based, not on his powerful and wealthy father, but on his brainpower that got him scholarships (Clinton's parents were not rich and, in fact, his mother had left his step-father I think by that time. Clinton's own father died in a car accident in the months before he was born, IIRC.).  But Bill Clinton was against the war on moral grounds.  Mitt Romney was for the war, and would have gotten a relatively safe, assignment, like Al Gore's (who was the son of a Senator), but dodged, just like Cheney and other Chickenhawks.

Even at that though, the unauthorized use (or claim thereof) of a troopers uniform is creepier still.  As others have pointed out, the Washington Post article that exposed Romney's known bullying past also relates a tale of Romney in collusion with two friends, staged the governor's son dressing in  trooper uniform arresting the young men on a double date an leaving the two young women apparently stranded in the middle of the night by the side of the road.  The article does report though the young women were back in their dorms by 11:00 pm.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

AP: Men Lost More Jobs at the Start of Bush's Great Recession, Women in the Latter Part Because of Demographics, Republican Intransigence.

Nothing left to sell
Cue Depression Music for Mr. R-Money

He delivers BS  that sounds suspiciously like a Karl Rove talking point and as easily disproven.  Even at that though the Associated Press does half a job of debunking it.  The other half would have put Republicans in a bad light.  Mustn't go there, right AP? 

Picture above shared using Flickr native coding and allowed by Creative Commons License Attribution 2.0 Generic  (CC BY 2.0).  Rollover to see Flickr name of photographer why has no connection to this blog or blogger. 

The AP did a half-baked analysis of Governor Romney's, Karl Rovish assertion that 92.3% of jobs lost under Obama were those held by women. The writer tells us  that condition developed because men bore the brunt of job losses in the first 13 months of the Great Recession that happened before Obama came into office:
Romney's math is solid as far as it goes. But more men than women have lost jobs since the recession began — that's why economists called it a "man-cession."
 In blaming Obama for "turning the clock back 20 years on American women," as the Romney campaign puts it, Republicans are hoping to counter Obama's perceived advantage with female voters. But they ignore how recessions generally — and the last one in particular — unfold, and they hold Obama accountable for the state of the economy from the time he took office, before his policies could make any difference.
But the AP report continues
Women were more heavily represented in jobs that suffered in the recession's later months and beyond, as revenue-strapped state and local governments laid off teachers and cut other public-sector workers.
Still, even that, though technically accurate, doesn't show the totality of the real picture.  In fact, after the Republicans grabbed the leadership of the House in the 2010 election and even before they have been working to harm women's employment chances.  First by cutting the stimulus and requiring that much of the package focus on tax cuts.  But later, after they came into power in many states as well as the US House of Representatives by promising more jobs, they instead, in the states, first cut taxes for the wealthy and businesses, and then tried to decimate the public worker sector including in education the cornerstone of progress for Americans.

If you're really strapped for cash you don't take what little money you have and go throw it at the nearest group of millionaires, and then go home, start throwing your family out of the house so you can live in it alone, and afterwards still expect them to look at you as a benevolent leader of the group.  In fact, you would seem a tyrant to them more interested in pleasing fat cats than in taking care of your family, which is actually what the Republican party is all about.  After all Republicans, are reliant on political advertising purchased using the money of the top 1% of businesses and individuals.  This is never aired adequately in the press because the news media depends for its funds on the same wealthy people.

So, less even than the effect of male jobs being lost, jobs women have held in our states and counties were decimated at least twice by Republican governance, once by the recession that took away the good paying jobs for men coupled with Republican intransigence in the US House, and then by the GOP in 2011 which, like we saw in Wisconsin, bumped as many public workers as they could out of jobs because they themselves were sitting in good publicly funded jobs, but saw a better future for themselves as being repaid by the Koch brothers and other like-minded people they court with tax cuts and destruction of state and federal government jobs, most of which had been stable and well paid with benefits which allowed men and women to raise and educate their children in  a little bit of comfort.

And the GOP has forced cuts to the length of time a person can receive unemployment benefits .If a man or woman has to forgo retraining for a type of job that can be held, to support his or her family immediately he or she might have to take a cleaning job at the local market or fast food joint.  One free to work longer at regaining employment could take classes and get a good middle class job that sets his or her family on the path to creating great futures for their kids and a good retirement for themselves.

So, in fact, the GOP has been  the primary culprit in male and female job losses as they cut unemployment benefits, and safety nets.  It is typical though that they then come out and blame Obama for that which the GOP has been actively achieving in their quest to gain total control of the nation so they can sell your rights to a good life for your family to multimillionaires.

Why don't they just put a sign on it.

NOW OWNED BY BAIN CAPITAL.  WORKERS CAN REAPPLY FOR JOBS (AT DRASTICALLY LOWER WAGES} STARTING MONDAY. 

That is if they don't just take all of those degraded employment opportunities and outsource them to China anyway.   That would fit right into the Romney/GOP game plan that has actually helping China and the 1% destroy our economy.

Thanks for nothing, GOP.

Friday, March 2, 2012

Mitt Romney Should Tell Rush Limbaugh to Stop Endangering Young Women, or Fire Him (and yes he could do that).

Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial
OKC Bombing Memorial

The 1995 attack was one inspired by hate speech politics

Picture shared using native code found at Flickr site and allowed via Creative Commons license Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0).. Roll over picture to see name of photographer who has no relation to this blog or blogger.

First of all we must remember that hate speech does threaten lives of their target and similar people.  In particular, I'd like to remind people of  two instances in which hate speech resulted in one or more people taking action to kill or attempt to kill persons targeted by the words or similar person(s) to the subject of the speech and in one case many other people.

Just last year, after a period of hate speech aimed at our President, Barack Obama, a young man with mental problems was inspired to shoot at a White House window, apparently in the hope that the bullet would enter the interior and find the president.  According to the reports the bullet broke through the outer decorative window, but was stopped by a second layer of glass that was bullet proof (the two layers are the solution to keeping the building looking like it should from the outside while protecting our commander in chief, his family, and staff inside).  The shooter did not know that the president was away on a state trip at the time and appeared to be very intent on killing someone within the White House in any case.  Right wing talkers acknowledged that fact quickly enough as they passed a bogus story that the shooter was an integral part of the Occupy DC crowd, a guess that was disproved by federal investigators, though still not accepted by many on the right.

A more serious case happened in 1995 when a young man who had heard for 2 years that something needed to be done to pay back "federal agents" for the disastrous confrontation at the Branch Dividian compound in Waco, Texas. in 1993.  You may have heard about the solution the young man decided on.  It's called the bombing of the Oklahoma City Alfred P Murrah federal building and killed 168 or 169 people most of which were not federal agents involved in the 1993 action nor Ruby Ridge incident also cited by Wikipedia as inspiring the attack and, in fact, included children in a day care center that Timothy McVeigh knew of according to news reports surrounding the bombing.  For some reason his partner Terry Nichols never seems to have faced a threat of full justice for the bombing, but McVeigh was executed in 2001.

Still, there are many more instances in which hate talk seems to have been followed by violence and murder aimed at similar people.  After decades of listening to hate rants against the IRS, a man in Austin flew a plane into a local IRS office.  Just  weeks later, a young man exited the subway train to the Pentagon and tried to kill the guards and enter the building in attack mode.  That young man had visited Austin after the IRS plane bombing incident apparently in solidarity with the man who flew the plane though he didn't know him.  Another man attacked the holocaust museum in DC killing a guard about the same time as the other attacks.  A strain running through these men was  that they seemed to have listened to a lot of right wing rhetoric about the evils of the government and certain minorities.

So what should we say about Rush Limbaugh's attack on a young woman who had gone on TV talk shows to tell us about her friend who needed birth control pills because the hormones contained in them would keep cysts from growing on her ovaries, but couldn't afford to keep paying $1200 a year for the product.  The young woman did not complain about needing pill coverage for herself, only to protect a friend's health.  (The friend who did not receive the treatment she needed via insurance from her Catholic University became unable to continue the treatment because she was a student and couldn't afford the cost.  The lack of the hormonal treatment led to a large cyst on an ovary, removal of the ovary, a poor prognosis for child bearing, and the young woman exhibiting signs of entering menopause at the age of 32.

But Rush Limbaugh said that Ms. Fluke, the woman who went on talk shows and tried to testify before Congress wanted pills for herself, for having sex, and that she was having so much sex she couldn't afford protection, therefore Ms. Fluke wanted us to pay for her birth control and that made her a slut, and American citizens her pimp.  Then Mr. Limbaugh demanded sex tapes from the young woman in pay back for providing her birth control.

Of course, that rant is ridiculous, and makes one wonder what Mr. Limbaugh is doing, if anything, with his young wife.  I don't mean to make fun, but there are simple facts that you would think that any man would learn from a wife if they have marital relations.

Birth control pills must be taken 3 out of 4 weeks, and then a break week without pills is inserted to promote a menstrual period.  It does not matter if the young woman has little sex or a lot of sex, the pill schedule is the same.  You cannot stop taking the pills because you are taking a few days or weeks off from sex.  You must follow the plan even if you are having no sex for a while to keep from developing hyper fertility preceded or followed by heavy bleeding.

I don't want Mrs. Limbaugh to get in trouble if she is being badly controlled by her husband and finds it safer to ask for money by saying she needs more birth control because they have so much sex, but I do know that Rush is not likely to be reading my blog so I will say that the  idea he has of how birth control is achieved very wrong.

But mistaken as he is, he is piling on so much dispersion that it is likely to push some unstable person to attack Ms Fluke or another young woman acting in the attacker's mind as a surrogate.  As I showed above, attacks on surrogates have happened repeatedly after the right had demonized individuals or groups that were similar to the people attacked.

So, we have Limbaugh verbally attacking young women and putting them at risk of physical attack by his followers.

But who can stop him?

It turns out that Mitt Romney can stop Rush Limbaugh  because Bain Capital into which Mitt Romney is likely to have a lot of money invested owns a substantial portion of a company that employs Rush Limbaugh.  The Republican primary candidate earned 42.7 million dollars from Bain Capital in 2010 and 2011 according to the tax returns he released to the news media. Info from Celebrity Net Worth .  Though his title is "Retired Partner" for the company, the amount of remuneration he received says he has a lot of money invested in Bain Capital.  When you have that amount of money in a company, you can control what it does by threatening to withdraw your dollars from their enterprise.

Mitt Romney therefore can control Bain, but how does Bain control Limbaugh's boss?

According to American Dream Blog which appears to be a Libertarian publication, "Bain Capital is one of the primary owners of Clear Channel".

According to Wikipedia on Clear Channel
On November 16, 2006, Clear Channel announced plans to go private, being bought out by two private-equity firms, Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital Partners for $18.7 billion, which is just under a 10 percent premium above its closing price of $35.36 a share on November 16 (the deal values Clear Channel at $37.60 per share
(The American Dream blog used the same excerpt.  I followed their example.)

More from The American Dream:
The deal was finalized in 2008.  Today, Bain Capital is still one of the primary owners of Clear Channel.
and Wikipedia itself reports at above linked site:
On July 24, 2008, Clear Channel held a special shareholder meeting, during which the majority of shareholders accepted a revised $36-per-share offer from Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners.The company announced on July 30 that it would offer shareholders either $36 in cash or one share of CC Media Class A common stock for each share of Clear Channel common stock held.
 The two latest excerpts above are important for those who might think that there is no reason to believe that Bain can control Clear Channel  talk show hosts despite being a primary owner of the station.  Notice that the work done on acquiring an interest in Clear Channel was set up to get control of the station with many important right wing pundits just about the summer of 2008  when Mitt Romney was hoped to be in the leading candidate in the Republican primary, and heading for the 2008 general election.

Therefore, Bain and it's powerful "Retired Partner" bought enough interest in Clear Channel to control the speech of the pundits on the station, an immensely valuable asset for someone who wants to be president.

So tell Mitt Romney to have a talk with Rush Limbaugh.  Young women deserve a contrite public apology from the talk show host, and if they don't get one.  Mitt Romney should have the man fired.  The former Massachusetts governor intends to wield power to control speech at Clear Channel or get rid of hosts that won't be controlled for his personal uses.   He should do the same for a young woman who is not a candidate and has been put in danger along with others of our sex by a hate filled pundit.

Mitt Romney holds the key.  If he won't use it for women, then we need to know that, since he wants to be our president.  Everyone needs to know whether Mitt Romney will stand up to Rush Limbaugh and have him apologize or, if he doesn't, will fire the man who hates and endangers women.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Is GOP Playing Belgium to China's Germany For Illegal Campaign Donations?

Autumn Colors Lake Crabtree NC 0469
Somehow Bad News is Always Worse As the Days Grow Shorter
But fall color helps keep the spirits up.
Picture is used with Creative Commons license via Flickr's native placement and attribution coding. Rollover for name of photographer, or click on it to go to original site



Reading an article on the Solyndra collapse, I sense there is a possibility that China undercut an amazing American chance to create better solar cells.


Republicans say": Welcome.

World wide trade is good. but at the expense of a better system created by Americans?

Read:

And instead of warning Americans, Republicans are using the incident to attack the president. As usual they are waging a phony political battle to try to unseat the one person who has the best chance to help our nation escape a Europe-like melt down.

After all is Rick "no social security" Perry or Mitt "jobs destroyer" Romney going to do that for us?

The LA Times article does not come out and say that China is playing economic warfare games, it just notes that as Solyndra was trying to gain a workable market share with a superior product suddenly the Chinese started dropping the price of their inferior flat solar panels until Solyndra really had no choice other than to give up the fight when they couldn't get another large loan from the government.

So, if anything, the Republicans shouldn't be blaming the Obama administration for lending money to Solyndra, (which was backed by both Democratic donors and Republican donors), but for giving up too early.

But, still it is unknown how far the Chinese would go in cutting prices and it was likely to be unfathomable what the outcome could be. The government may have done the best thing after all.

The best way to know whether if Solyndra was a victim of an economic act of war is to see if China now raises the price of their flat, less efficient, solar panels. If they do, I think we have our answer, and we should do something about it.

Tarriffs? Fund companies making cheaper solar panels in the US?

Don't bother asking the GOP leaders though. They have their little story all set up.

For those of you uncertain of how China can give illegal donations check out the Citizen's United decisions which allow corporations and others to give unidentified donations. That's how. You think the govt of China is going to tell us how they are waging war on our economy?? Republicans love the unidentified corporate donations, so they're likely to love Chinese participation in their campaigns. Now wonder they have no problem with Citizens United while they promote the bipartisan Solyndra as a Democratic problem. That's so
Belgium.

I tell you that I don't worry about a little Crony Capitalism though I don't think you can call the Solyndra loans by that name since people donating to both Republicans and Democrats were heavy investors in the company. What I fear more is Crony Fascism, the kind of deals I see coming out of the GOP and China.

And BTW, China, I am no longer so sanguine that you want to buy our baseball team out here in Los Angeles if you are going to play economic warfare on our green energy companies.

You can read a report on Solyndra's history at the LA Times which does not hint of any suspicion of economic warfare at: Solyndra's collapse is a tale of too much dazzle.