Cutting Through The Crap

Friday, February 17, 2012

Olympian Job Creator


"I know how to create jobs," says Mitt, when he's not claiming President Obama apologizes for America. And whereas no one seems to be able to come up with evidence of how many he actually did "create" while making hundreds of millions at Bain, what's even more interesting and less mentioned is how he did it. Assuming he did. Thinking about it (there's the problem for teabaggRs), how would it translate into a presidency? A presidency behind which Rs could get.

Because, as I understand it, what Bain did was to find foundering companies and attempt to turn them around. BY INVESTING HUGE SUMS OF MONEY IN THEM. Other people's money. Then, when the time was right, often after laying off employees by the bucketload, selling the company.

Fact is, to the extent that governments can create jobs, it's by investing money in projects. That thing that Romney did when he was successful, and which Obama did (too little, owing to his perceived need to accommodate Republicans) with the Recovery Act.

Mitt "I'll-Say-Anything-If-It'll-Get-Votes" Romney created jobs (let's take it on faith) by taking someone else's money and investing in already-existing companies. Sort of like that thing he hates so much: bailing out Detroit. Which worked. So I'm not saying he shouldn't. But the only way he actually created jobs -- as opposed to coming up with a brilliant product, working hard, taking out loans, risking his own money, spreading the word [adventure capitalism as opposed to venture capitalism] -- was to give money to businesses. Sort of -- what would you call it? -- a stimulus plan.

Funny. I haven't heard anyone point it out, or ask him about it. His (self-described) successes with job creation were the result of policies about which he screams like Oli Sykes. When he was actually a political leader, he failed: Massachusetts, under Romney, ranked 47th among all states in job creation.

To the extent that government can actually create jobs, it's by investing money in businesses and creating projects that hire people. As the Recovery Act did. As liberals claim. When Mitt Romney says he knows how to create jobs, he's right, at least insofar as a president could do it. But in the next breath he lies. Like everything else he says, when reality is uncomfortable, he stakes his claim in exactly the opposite of truth. Which, of course, is exactly how teabaggers like it.


13 comments:

Frank Drackman said...

Jeezo-Beezo, its like that Twillight Zone episode with the expected unexpected ending...
and forfive any typos im typin this with my nondominant right hand while i do youkonwat with the outerh.
no, not that, im charting 2 hrs of vital signs while the pacu nures make sense of the ratsnest of lines the CRNA left like whoopie goldgergs afro, for someone else to figure out.
and thats what sucks about todays 9-5 "providers" when there breaktime comes, there'ye gone
and your ab-so-to-lutely right, 6 trillion dollars of debt is TOO LOW!
make it $60 Trillion Dollasrs, THAT'LL build some hightways.
And Mitts last months news anyway, ive moved my money to that man who's name is a neologism for that frothy mix of lube and fecal matter thats the result of vigorous anal sex,
and They wonder why Obama doesnt like them.
I mean really like them, as in support There being allowed to marry instead of merrily being killed in Iraq/Afghanistan...

Frank

Anonymous said...

Bruce Bartlett's interview a few blog posts back was interesting. Made a strong case for why tax increases are prudent.

On the flip side, despite top tax rates ranging as high as 93%, we've only managed to collect 20% of GDP per year in tax revenue since WW2 (Hauser's Law).

Barry's Budget is >24% of GDP
The Republican's is <20% of GDP.
Guess which one we could NEVER afford based on history?

Due to
Hauser's Law, increasing GDP is the key. Increasing govt tax revenue from the current 15% to the historical max 20% is only a supplement.

Regards,
PT

p.s. Being forced to purchase an Obamacare approved comprehensive health insurance plan covering myriad unwanted/never to be used services is a "tax", since a catastrophic health insurance plan would do the job just fine.

p.p.s. "Stimulus" only works if the money gets there BEFORE the project. These big, fugly wind farms were built YEARS BEFORE the stimulus. It would be comical if it wasn't so tragic.
http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/wind-energy-funds-going-overseas/story/wind-farms-built-before-stimulus/

p.p.p.s. At least the wind farms get rid of those annoying Bald Eagles.

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177

Sid Schwab said...

As I've said many, many, many times, the choice is between a budget that allows for the future needs of the country, vs one that allows only for tax cuts for the wealthy, at the expense of really basic necessities. It's clear where you stand, I guess. It's like that bumper sticker I posted: "You want to take the country back, I want to take it forward."

The highest federal tax rates are, at the moment, severely (Romney's word) below those of the Reagan era, and lower than those of the Clinton era, during which the 1% were doing just fine, thanks.

We (sort of) agree on mandates: that it's too bad Obama adopted that Republican idea instead of the obvious common-sense option. But, for now, it is what it is.

Cory said...

More comments by conservatives "in the bubble".

Sid Schwab said...

P.S., PT: not to get all relevant or anything, but the point of this post was about job creation, and how Mitt (maybe) did it, vs his rhetoric against stimulus, Detroit bailout, etc. Care to share your thoughts on that matter, which I, at least, happen to find sort of interesting. In a MItt's-a-joke sort of way?

Frank Drackman said...

You know what I hate about Mitt?
Besides his waste of a great head of hair, his Herman-Munster-Esqe-Smile, and his voice, which reminds me of the Financial Aid dude in College, telling me how I wouldn't get my diploma till I'd paid my nut.
and if there's really a God(High-5 Sid!)howcome he lets a dork like Mitt walk around with a bad imitation of a 1985 Sonny Crockett?
OK, I had the Sonny Crockett look too,
BACK IN 1985!
and I still remember the day the 2 chicks sitting behind me in Neuroanatomy were laughing about the guy with the baldspot, and I looked around to see who it was, and (Twillight Zone Music)
IT WAS ME!
and nice thang about bein in the Military is you could sort of hide it, with the "high & tight" except now its so high and tight I get thumbs ups from Indians(thanks Joe Biden) You know, the Woo-Woo kind, cause I've got that whole Mohawk thang goin on...
Santorum's the man, and I'd vote for him, if Mrs. Drackman hadn't already made me vote for Gingrich...:(

Frank

Anonymous said...

Where I stand on taxes is clear?

They need to be raised to pay down the debt, period.*

* the caveat being raising taxes and then proposing a budget that is >24% of GDP is unacceptable, is not going to lower the debt, and expands the size/scope of govt.
.................

All that talk from Mitt about govt "job creation" is hot air. They just need to set business friendly policies to grow the GDP and then get the heck out of the way. Sure, an occasional stimulus here or expansion/contraction of the money supply there is ok and even helpful/necessary, but the population has become too dependent on govt support.

Here's some Romney articles from a favorite "thoughtful" conservative:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49350
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49395

PT

Sid Schwab said...

Once again, differences between us aren't as wide as they might seem, although "paying down the debt" might not be the right way to put it. Lowering deficits is the aim; paying down debt will take care of itself if the budget were balanced.

But it's still not clear to me -- especially when you use the cliché about people being too dependent on government -- what things you'd agree need government money. I keep mentioning the things that any country needs to sustain itself, and you keep ignoring it.

I've said before that I agree there's some (possibly impossible) level of taxation that's just right: not so low (like now) that we can't afford necessities, and not so high that it stifles the economy (which hasn't really ever happened). If either of us really knew what we were talking about, we'd be able to come up with presumed costs of the things we felt were important, and how much taxation it would take to pay for them.

As it stands now, in order to maintain your beloved tax cuts and to support your claim of too much dependency, we're making cuts in essentials that are unsustainable past the lifetimes of those that have been calling for them. Which, I guess, is the point: they don't care beyond themselves.

Sid Schwab said...

P.S: Since corporate profits are higher than ever, with lower taxes than in a long time (you know Obama cut taxes on small businesses, right?), and since that liberal anti-business rag The Wall Street Journal points out that regulations actually help job creation, I'm wondering what "business friendly policies" you have in mind that aren't already extant.

Anonymous said...

Increase taxes? As a "9 to 5" provider, I am paying 34%. How does keeping such a large chunk of what 'average' people (not anesthesiologists) make, stimulate the economy? If people were only taxed at a reasonable 'millionaire rate' of 15% then they could use that disposable income to: 1.) save for retirement; 2.) invest, or 3.) buy things. I'm not an economist, but it seems like common sense to me. And how are taxes not being collected? I am sure if I did not pay my taxes (like Tim Geitner) I would go to jail.
And here is a news flash, PT, people with NO HEALTH INSURANCE get healthcare every day in every ER and OR in the country--and those with health insurance pay. Why is it OK for states to mandate car insurance but not health insurance?
Why do people think they will not need health insurance("myriad unwanted/never to be used services")? I guarantee they will..someday, unless they eschew prolonging their life (e.g. if you have appendicitis and do not seek a Dr. S to operate, death likely ensues)
Oh, whoever decided to call rich people "job creators" is brilliant.
DD

Sid Schwab said...

PPS, PT: Here's a divergent view on Obama's latest budget. Job creation, like you requested.

Anonymous said...

Pro-Business policies that should be enacted are as follows:

CEO's being fired by presidential demand.

Public presidential statements saying that he'll bankrupt new coal power plants.

Unconstitutional mandates forcing employers to purchase health insurance plans of yet undetermined cost for every employee. (latest study shows at least a 30% increase in cost; didn't BHO say costs would go down?)

Use the NLRB to prevent large corp's from opening facilities in non-union areas.

Stick it to used car dealers, small time mechanics, & other small businesses that use cheap, old vehicles by passing Cash-for-Clunkers and drying up the supply of older used vehicles and parts.

Reward "Too-Big-To-Fail" companies that made poor choices by bailouts and penalize companies that made wise choices by helping their competitors.

Keep minimum wage levels as high as possible so people with limited skills can't find work during a down economy.

I'm sure there's more....

PT

Sid Schwab said...

Wow. Hope that Foxobeckian koolaid tastes good; it's sure damaging your reality-testing center.