2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Gerald McGrew]

CES,

If ever there was a clear demonstration of how your hyper-loyalty to the Republican Party clouds your thinking ability, this is it.

I stated, "you also tried to tell us that saying blacks support Obama simply because he's black isn't the slightest bit racist."

And this is how your brain processed it:

I never tried to tell you that blacks support Obama simply because he is black.

Like I said...you need to get yourself checked.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES,

If ever there was a clear demonstration of how your hyper-loyalty to the Republican Party clouds your thinking ability, this is it.

The reverse is actually true. Your hyper-loyalty to Obama is what keeps you from seeing things clearly, and it is what makes you call things that aren't lies, lies. Even if the Bloomberg article was wrong, or misquoted the President of the Jeep brand, that wouldn't make Romney wrong. But, the fact is, even the Detroit News said the Bloomberg article was accurate. And, if it's accurate then it's not a lie, and you know it. All you folks are bitching about is that it is not being cast in a favorable light and explanations and subsequent "clarifications" by a different executive at Chrysler are not being given the weight you think they should be given.

Is Mr. Manley of Jeep a liar? Did he not mean to say that they were considering moving Jeep manufacturing to China? If not, then Romney is not lying at all, and is merely relying on a different executive than you are. If you say Mr. Manley is lying or didn't mean to say what he said, then you'll have to present evidence of that. Merely citing a subsequent statement that can arguably be "damage control" to avoid Chrysler being saddled with accusations of being bailed out and then considering moving jobs to China doesn't cut it. Under similar circumstances, if the situation were reversed, I wouldn't be calling Obama a liar.

I stated, "you also tried to tell us that saying blacks support Obama simply because he's black isn't the slightest bit racist."

And this is how your brain processed it:

I never tried to tell you that blacks support Obama simply because he is black.

Like I said...you need to get yourself checked.

You need to learn basic reading comprehension. If you would try to read what people write, instead of just making up in your head what you think they "really mean" then you might be able to engage in a decent exchange of ideas. As it happens, you seem incapable of doing that, which is why you are often muddled and confused.

[Gerald McGrew]

It seems inability to read properly is a common trait among conservatives.

When a Chrysler exec says "We’re reviewing the opportunities within existing capacity” as well as “should we be localizing the entire Jeep portfolio or some of the Jeep portfolio" in a Bloomberg article that starts off with, "Fiat SpA (F), majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country, according to the head of both automakers’ operations in the region", it's pretty clear to most intelligent people that they're thinking about when they re-open some of their Chinese plants, do they manufacture all their models there, or just a subset? The key word there being "models".

But dumb ass conservatives read that as, "ZOMG!! They're moving all production to China!!", and even after the companies repeatedly come out and say, "That's not what we're doing. The politicians are lying", conservatives still stick to their original dipshit reading, even to the point of making it a centerpiece of their presidential campaign.

So either they really are stupid enough to not understand what was said, or they know what they execs meant but don't care (are lying). Stupid, or liars? Take your pick.

[Coito ergo sum]

It seems inability to read properly is a common trait among conservatives.

When a Chrysler exec says "We’re reviewing the opportunities within existing capacity” as well as “should we be localizing the entire Jeep portfolio or some of the Jeep portfolio" in a Bloomberg article that starts off with, "Fiat SpA (F), majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country, according to the head of both automakers’ operations in the region", it's pretty clear to most intelligent people that they're thinking about when they re-open some of their Chinese plants, do they manufacture all their models there, or just a subset? The key word there being "models".

But dumb ass conservatives read that as, "ZOMG!! They're moving all production to China!!", and even after the companies repeatedly come out and say, "That's not what we're doing. The politicians are lying", conservatives still stick to their original dipshit reading, even to the point of making it a centerpiece of their presidential campaign.

So either they really are stupid enough to not understand what was said, or they know what they execs meant but don't care (are lying). Stupid, or liars? Take your pick.

Once again, you have interpreted the language of Mr. Manley in a way that you feel is more favorable. However, Mr. Romney's interpretation is within in keeping with the words used. It is also, certainly, conceivable that the later quotes from Fiat executives is designed to insulate the company from crticism. The fact that Manley himself did not come out to correct or clarify is interesting in that regard.

Moreover, no company can commit to never moving jobs overseas. So, the statement of the executive you folks have quoted -- that they will not move the US jobs to China -- left open ended like that is largely meaningless. He's saying only "right now we're not," but in weeks or months, that statement can change.

The President of Jeep said what he said. You don't believe him, and you believe the later statements of a different Chrysler executive. Also fine. I wouldn't call you a liar for finding that more persuasive or for suggesting that Romney is wrong or not taking into consideration pertinent information that may be relevant. But, to go so far as to trumpet the constant Liberal mantra shouted anytime they disagree with someone -- ie. Liar!!!! - is unwarranted and unjustified here.

You DISAGREE. That doesn't make Romney a liar. Try to puzzle that out.

[kiki5711]

Romney Caught Trying to Swiftboat the Auto Rescue

Nov 01, 2012

One of the most deceptive jujitsu moves in modern campaign is known as swiftboating: trying to turn one of your opponent’s strengths into a weakness. Given the centrality of Ohio to electoral success less than a week from today (!), it should be no surprise that the Romney team choose that locale to go after the success of the President’s auto rescue.

Full disclosure: as a member of the President’s economics team I strongly advocated for the rescue, as per both my principal (the Vice-President) and the view held by myself and others that the employment costs would be particularly steep in communities that comprised the relevant supply chains. When you think about auto jobs, don’t just think about the factory at the end of the line where they assemble the cars and trucks. Think about all the small and medium size manufacturers that make those parts.

That’s where many of the new jobs in Ohio are coming from and it’s an important piece of evidence for the bailout’s success. Which makes it catnip for the Romney swiftboaters.

Dana Milbank takes this apart in this AM’s WaPo, but the gist is that Chrysler recently announced that they’d be expanding production of Jeeps—adding new plants—in China to help sell into that market. Note that they’re not talking about shifting US production overseas. They’re talking about tapping a trend that I’ve written about before here at OTE: producing closer to your target markets.

But in Romney-world, this became an attack on the President auto rescue because according to the campaign, Chrysler was planning to move all of their US production of Jeeps to China. Romney: “I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China.”

Milbank prints the response from an aghast Chrysler exec:

Romney’s fiction was apparently based on a misreading of a Bloomberg News report a few days earlier, which said that Chrysler would resume production in China for the first time since parent Fiat SpA bought the company — in addition to Chrysler’s production in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio.

“Let’s set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China,” Chrysler executive Gualberto Ranieri wrote in a statement, using italics for emphasis. “A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.” Ranieri said the conclusion that it was moving all production to China was “a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats.”

But what’s particularly ridiculous here is that Romney is criticizing Chrysler’s global expansion. Since when do conservatives object to that? Is there anyone who believes for a nanosecond that expansion abroad by US multinational’s would be viewed critically by a Romney administration?

Back here in reality what we should be debating right about now is the relative positions of the candidates on policies that really matter to both auto production here and investment abroad. Gov. Romney opposed the government’s role in GM and Chrysler’s managed bankruptcy. Given the absence of private financing at the time, had he been in charge, these companies would have been facing liquidation. Instead, as the chart shows, the American auto industry has added 250,000 just since its turnaround (and not that this chart is a few months old; autos employment is up to 250K and sales are on track for 15 million this year).

Moreover, on international tax policy there are big, important differences that haven’t gotten enough emphasis so far. Gov. Romney’s plan is to allow multinationals to avoid paying any American taxes on their overseas earnings, a clear incentive to outsource, and one according to economist Kim Clausing would lead to 800,000 jobs shifted overseas.

Note the difference between this and the Jeep case. The Chrysler executive cited above explicitly denounced shifting production overseas. Clausing’s analysis, however, suggest that Romney “territorial” tax plan would incentivize precisely such shifts.

The President’s plan is to increase the tax incentives for producing here, not abroad. These include a lower corporate tax rate with benefits for manufacturers and for onshoring formerly offshored work, paid for in part by closing loopholes that currently make it cheaper to produce abroad. Given my view of the most relevant elasticities in play here, the most potentially helpful proposals in this space are President’s minimum tax on foreign earnings (a whack at tax havens) and an end to deferral (where foreign earnings can be endlessly held abroad).

Look, neither candidate should pretend to be against globalization. It’s deeply woven into the fabric of our economy and our lives and that’s not going to change. And if successful American companies want to expand abroad to sell more directly in those markets, good for them–they’re not displacing workers here. It’s especially silly for Romney to take a position against this, and even more so given that his position has nothing to do with the reality of the Jeep case.

But public policies should not increase the incentives to produce abroad. If anything, they should go the other way. Obama’s do, Romney’s do not.

QED.

[mistermack]

I find it unbelieveable that Romney would expect Chrysler to sell into China cars made in the US.

It's hard enough to sell that shit to Americans. He's living in a dream.

Making it in China for sale in China is a positive step. And there was never any prospect of any significant volume of sales, at US prices.

[Warren Dew]

Once again, you have interpreted the language of Mr. Manley in a way that you feel is more favorable. However, Mr. Romney's interpretation is within in keeping with the words used. It is also, certainly, conceivable that the later quotes from Fiat executives is designed to insulate the company from crticism. The fact that Manley himself did not come out to correct or clarify is interesting in that regard.

Indeed. The guy in charge of Asia says Jeeps will be made in China; the guy in charge of the U.S. says Jeeps will be made in the U.S. Given that the production costs are much lower in Asia, I wonder which guy will win?

[Ian]

Conservatives never seem to get tired of trying to spin the baloney. The logic is: if those darn fact-checkers prove you to be incorrect, even on big issues instead of petty stuff, just keep repeating yourself and enough people will believe you. Jeep's moving Ohio jobs to China... Obama went on an "apology tour"... the economy has only gotten worse... the fiscal deficit is growing... middle class taxes have gone up... Obamacare is a "government takeover"... tens of millions of people will lose their insurance once Obamacare goes into effect... another massive tax cut along with spending two trillion on the military will balance the budget... "You didn't build that"... Obama blew ninety billion on green energy in a year... the government has gotten bigger since 2009... etc... etc... etc...

On the other hand, I guess that would have to be the kind of logic you get next to if your anti-Obama candidate is Mitt Romney of all people.
I often feel sorry for you Republicans (and by extension the country) because you don't have a McCain to hold up as a standard-bearer this year. You're dealing with Mitt Frickin Romney in your own way.

But there's a big difference between spinning an opinion and dealing in falsehoods, guys. Don't assume the rest of us can't see the difference.

[kiki5711]

Once again, you have interpreted the language of Mr. Manley in a way that you feel is more favorable. However, Mr. Romney's interpretation is within in keeping with the words used. It is also, certainly, conceivable that the later quotes from Fiat executives is designed to insulate the company from crticism. The fact that Manley himself did not come out to correct or clarify is interesting in that regard.

Indeed. The guy in charge of Asia says Jeeps will be made in China; the guy in charge of the U.S. says Jeeps will be made in the U.S. Given that the production costs are much lower in Asia, I wonder which guy will win?

HERE IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF SHIFTING/SPINNING/LYING, WITH REGARDS TO A STATEMENT AND TOTALLY TWISTING THE MEANING OF THE FACTS

MINNI ME ROMNEY/LIAR = ALL HIS FOLLOWERS

It's some kind of "brain-freeze" they all got. Line a virus.

[Tero]

Why is Montana 3 electoral votes? There is nobody there. Is 3 the least you can get?
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalcu ... ttleground

OK, it seems to be senators plus congressmen gives the number

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

[JimC]

Will the erection be over soon?

[kiki5711]

Bernie Sanders Exposes 18 CEOs who took Trillions in Bailouts, Evaded Taxes and Outsourced Jobs


There really is no shame. The Wall Street leaders whose recklessness and illegal behavior caused this terrible recession are now lecturing the American people on the need for courage to deal with the nation’s finances and deficit crisis. Before telling us why we should cut Social Security, Medicare and other vitally important programs, these CEOs might want to take a hard look at their responsibility for causing the deficit and this terrible recession.

Our Wall Street friends might also want to show some courage of their own by suggesting that the wealthiest people in this country, like them, start paying their fair share of taxes. They might work to end the outrageous corporate loopholes, tax havens and outsourcing provisions that their lobbyists have littered throughout the tax code – contributing greatly to our deficit.

Many of the CEO’s who signed the deficit-reduction letter run corporations that evaded at least $34.5 billion in taxes by setting up more than 600 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens since 2008. As a result, at least a dozen of the companies avoided paying any federal income taxes in recent years, and even received more than $6.4 billion in tax refunds from the IRS since 2008.

Several of the companies received a total taxpayer bailout of more than $2.5 trillion from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.

Many of the companies also have outsourced hundreds of thousands of American jobs to China and other low wage countries, forcing their workers to receive unemployment insurance and other federal benefits. In other words, these are some of the same people who have significantly caused the deficit to explode over the last four years.

Here are the 18 CEO’s Sanders labeled job destroyers in his report. (All data from Top Corporate Dodgers report.)

1). 1. Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $1.9 billion tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? Over $1.3 trillion.
Amount of federal income taxes Bank of America would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $2.6 billion.

2). Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $278 million tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? $824 billion.
Amount of federal income taxes Goldman Sachs would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $2.7 billion

3). JP Morgan Chase CEO James Dimon
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? $416 billion.
Amount of federal income taxes JP Morgan Chase would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $4.9 billion.

4). General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $3.3 billion tax refund.
Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve? $16 billion.
Jobs Shipped Overseas? At least 25,000 since 2001.

5). Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $705 million tax refund.
American Jobs Cut in 2010? In 2010, Verizon announced 13,000 job cuts, the third highest corporate layoff total that year.

6). Boeing CEO James McNerney, Jr.
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? None. $124 million tax refund.
American Jobs Shipped overseas? Over 57,000.
Amount of Corporate Welfare? At least $58 billion.

7). Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
Amount of federal income taxes Microsoft would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $19.4 billion.

8). Honeywell International CEO David Cote
Amount of federal income taxes paid from 2008-2010? Zero. $34 million tax refund.

9). Corning CEO Wendell Weeks
Amount of federal income taxes paid from 2008-2010? Zero. $4 million tax refund.

10). Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $74 million tax refund.

11). Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2009? Zero. $55 million tax refund.

12). Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2009? Zero. $1 million tax refund.

13). Marsh & McLennan Companies CEO Brian Duperreault
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $90 million refund.

14). Qualcomm CEO Paul Jacobs
Amount of federal income taxes Qualcomm would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $4.7 billion.

15). Tenneco CEO Gregg Sherill
Amount of federal income taxes Tenneco would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $269 million.

16). Express Scripts CEO George Paz
Amount of federal income taxes Express Scripts would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $20 million.

17). Caesars Entertainment CEO Gary Loveman
Amount of federal income taxes Caesars Entertainment would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $9 million.

18). R.R. Donnelly & Sons CEO Thomas Quinlan III
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $49 million tax refund.

Eighteen of the 80 CEOs who signed the call for deficit action are actually some of the biggest outsourcers and tax cheats in America. First, they crashed the economy in 2008. They followed that up by taking billions in taxpayer bailout dollars. Their next step was to outsource jobs and evade taxes. Now they are calling for action on a deficit that they helped create over the past four years.

Bernie Sanders is exposing the hypocrisy of these CEOs, and every American should understand that if Mitt Romney is elected president, these pigs see potential for unlimited feeding from the taxpayer trough. Only by standing together can we tell these CEOs that the bill has come due, and it is time for them to pay.

We can tell these gluttons of our dollars that the all you can eat taxpayer buffet is now closed.

http://www.politicususa.com/bernie-sand ... -jobs.html

[Coito ergo sum]

“Well, ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ is back - not for gays in the military. It's President Obama's new policy for questions about Libya. Don't ask, don't tell."

“Have you seen that new Obama campaign ad that equates voting with sex? It’s kind of clever. It uses innuendo to try and woo young female voters.”

“Like one line says,” he continued, “'Your first time shouldn't be with just anybody. It should be with a great guy who really understands women.’"

“But, on the other hand, if it is your first time, you might want to do it with someone who doesn't need eight years to get the job done. That's all I'm saying. That's all I'm saying.”

- Jay Leno -

[Coito ergo sum]

Why is Montana 3 electoral votes? There is nobody there. Is 3 the least you can get?
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalcu ... ttleground

OK, it seems to be senators plus congressmen gives the number

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Yes -

We have 435 members of Congress
We have 100 Senators
That equals 535.
Add 3 for Washington, DC, and that's 538. Half of that is 269, which is why 270 votes are needed to win.

[MrJonno]

“Well, ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell’ is back - not for gays in the military. It's President Obama's new policy for questions about Libya. Don't ask, don't tell."

How comes the UK has the same policy there and as far as I can no one whether they are left or right wing has considered anything other than a success (at least compared to Iraq or Afghanistan).

I really can't stand the current British government but Libya was one of the few things they did right