Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

Another Mid-Summer Strummer Rant!

Why are we pursuing the question of Romney’s involvement with Bain while he was running the Winter Olympics?  The question we should be pushing regards the degree to which he was running and/or profiting from Bain’s outsourcing of American jobs while LOBBYING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR OVER $300 MILLION WORTH OF OUR TAX DOLLARS TO PROP UP THE OLYMPICS?

If he’s such a private market whiz, why couldn’t he do this without soaking the tax payers?  In the end, he didn’t save the Olympics…WE DID!!!…while he was profiting from the company he owned shipping US jobs overseas.  Either he was involved at Bain, or he was clamping his eyes shut while keeping his hand wide open.  And then funneling public money to pad his resume as the savior of the Olympic games.

Of course, there is one thing for which he deserves credit.  He transformed the credit he took for the Olympics into political capital that he then employed to provide Massachusetts with health care.

If this jackass is elected, I’m leaving the country.  Oh, wait, I’m already leaving the country.

In the mean time, I want the press to start pressing him for specifics.  How exactly will his experience help him spur job growth?  Is he going to close his eyes while someone he hires ships jobs overseas?  Is he going to lobby the federal government for tax money?  Obviously not.  He can’t pass health care as Obama already did it and he’s committed himself to repealing it.  Or is he going to repeal it and replace it with a Massachusetts type plan, essentially a maneuver to seize credit for what we already have?  Is he then going to repeal Social Security in order to replace it with a Social Security program?  Maybe he can repeal the Declaration of Independence in order to declare our independence from Great Britain himself.

Do independent voters really believe he’ll be able to convince his fellow anti-patriotic plutocrats to shoulder the risk involved in investing in a sputtering economy?  

And in the mean time, let’s stop all this talk about “running the Olympics” when the more accurate description of what he did was lobby for the Olympics.

Here, I’ll formulate the question for everyone:  In 2000, was Mitt Romney running Bain or simply profiting from its outsourcing of jobs while lobbying the federal government for over $300 million of our tax dollars to pad his resume for his run for Governor of Massachusetts?


Categories: Uncategorized.

/ 12 Comments

12 comments

  1. Strummerson

    The villagers are beginning to seethe that Mittens has yet to invite St. Sarah of Wasilla to their quadrennial counter-reformation council.  Watch out for the pitchforks Willard!!!

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/n…

    Why do I think an invitation will be extended publicly multiple times in the next few days?

  2. fogiv

    …the O campaign start to raise questions regarding Romney’s ‘rescue’ of the Olympic Games. Actually, I’d wager it’s likely, especially since Romney has launched his new ‘cronyism’ line of attack. As they say, timing is everything.  I’m betting they let mittens dig a little deeper into the ‘Obama grants favors to his wealthy contributors’ shit before they pounce…

    …and it’s not just the Federal BAIL-OUT that they’ll be able to point to, as you’ve done here strummy. What about when Romney was ‘retroactively retired’, and focused solely on ‘saving the Olympics’ and simultaneously steering money to newly cristened Olymipic sponsers like Mattell (at the time, partly owned by…Bain).  Or how about Sealy, the official mattress of the Winter Games (yep..Bain Capital = majority owners).  Or hey, how about how Marriott hotels being the official supplier of hotel rooms? This this shock you, i know:  Romney sat on Marriott’s Board from 1998 – 2002. A retroactive retirement gig, apparantly.

  5. Strummerson

    Mattea Kramer’s “Four dangerous myths about government spending”

    http://www.salon.com/2012/07/1…

    Let’s commit these few figures to memory and shout them from the gutters to the mountaintops (and across the interswamp of course).  Some highlights:

    Spending Myth 1:  Today’s deficits have taken us to a historically unprecedented, economically catastrophic place.

    This myth has had the effect of binding the hands of elected officials and policymakers at every level of government. It has also emboldened those who claim that we must cut government spending as quickly, as radically, as deeply as possible.

    In fact, we’ve been here before.  In 2009, the federal budget deficit was a whopping 10.1% of the American economy, and back in 1943, in the midst of World War II, it was three times that – 30.3%. This fiscal year the deficit will total around 7.6%. Yes, that is big. But in the Congressional Budget Office’s grimmest projections, that figure will fall to 6.3% next year, and 5.8% in fiscal 2014. In 1983, under President Reagan, the deficit hit 6% of the economy, and by 1998, that had turned into a surplus. So, while projected deficits remain large, they’re neither historically unprecedented nor insurmountable.

    …

    Spending Myth 2: Military and other national security spending have already taken their lumps and future budget-cutting efforts will have to take aim at domestic programs instead.

    The very idea that military spending has already been deeply cut in service to deficit reduction is not only false, but in the realm of fantasy.  The real story: Despite headlines about “slashed” Pentagon spending and “doomsday” plans for more, no actual cuts to the defense budget have yet taken place. In fact, since 2001, to quote former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, defense spending has grown like a “gusher.”  The Department of Defense base budget nearly doubled in the space of a decade.

    …

    Spending Myth 3: Government health-insurance programs are more costly than private insurance.



    …

    Health spending is indeed growing faster than any other part of the federal budget. It’s gone from a measly 7% in 1976 to nearly a quarter today – and that’s truly a cause for concern. But health care costs, public and private, have been on the rise across the developed world for decades. And cost growth in government programs like Medicare has actually been slower than in private health insurance. That’s because the federal government has important advantages over private insurance companies when it comes to health care. For example, as a huge player in the health-care market, the federal government has been successful at negotiating lower prices than small private insurers can.

    …

    Spending Myth 4: The Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – will bankrupt the federal government while levying the biggest tax in U.S. history.

    Wrong again. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this health-reform legislation will reduce budget deficits by $119 billion between now and 2019.  And only around 1% of American households will end up paying a penalty for lacking health insurance.

Comments are closed.