Despite facts to the contrary, Romney

[BDBoop]

I wonder why Maddow doesn't run a list of Obama's lies.

Oh, this isn't just A list. This is an ongoing list that is tallied up every week.

And it's not Maddow. It's Steve Benen (as was clearly stated, or let me guess: You didn't go to the link.)

Are you trying to tell me that the blog that has Maddow's name on it that is on the MSNBC website has nothing to do with Rachel Maddow? If not, your point makes no sense because I sill wonder why she has a list of Romney's lies without also posting a link of Obama's lies. That seems to me to be a bit one sided, and a complete abdication of her responsibility as a journalist. If you are, I will simply laugh and point to the fact that her picture is on the fracking blog.

Dude. She didn't write the list. She doesn't control the list. Yes, Mr. Benen's blog is on her site.

You really need to calm the **** down. You take yourself waaaaaay too seriously.

 

[BDBoop]

World of Mitt Believe.

Yeah, it was in the comments. Credit where credit is due.

 

[BDBoop]

Mitt Romney's Three Big Lies - Business Insider

The biggest of the Bain-financed firms that Romney brags about for “growing jobs” was Staples, which began in 1986, when two supermarket executives, Leo Kahn and Thomas G. Stemberg, came up with the idea for a stationery and office-supply super-store, which became Staples. Bain invested nearly $2 million in it, and sold out in 1990 at around $15 million.

Of course, Staples did produce jobs. And it made lots of money for its investors. But unfortunately, Staples also put out of business many thousands of small local stationery and office-supply stores. Was the balance in the Staples case really a net plus for jobs?

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has published throughout the 22-year period from 1990-2012 the number of employees working in this retail segment: They’ve tracked the “Production and Nonsupervisory Employees” in “Office Supplies and Stationery Stores.”

This 22-year period fortunately covers virtually all of the direct jobs-impact that actually resulted from Bain’s success in its Staples investment – both the jobs-created and the jobs-lost, from the office-superstore phenomenon that Staples pioneered.

These data show that, during this 22-year period, the number of employees in this segment declined by about ten thousand until 1993, then increased 50,000 under Bill Clinton (when 19 million private nonfarm jobs were being added to the nation’s economy, so this sector was adding jobs at only one-quarter the rate the national economy was), then lost 60,000 jobs from 2000-2012.

There was a net loss of 13.5% or 18,000 jobs throughout this retail field, during this 22-year period in which Staples was adding jobs continually. In this 22-year period, the entire national economy increased employment 46%; so, Staples’ superstore model was simply decimating employment in its field.

An associated graph shows that the “Average Weekly Earnings” of these workers during those 22 years rose 71%, which was less than the 78% increase in the Consumer Price Index during that period. Thus, Bain’s investment actually drove real wages down in this jobs-category – down by 4% – in this field that had shrinking employment, while Staples was adding to its workforce, and national employment grew. And this was the net income-impact to workers throughout America, in the case, Staples, that Romney is the proudest of, for his supposed record as a “job creator.”

A separate report has explained these results: its category “NAICS 45321” shows that the “productivity” of workers in these stores soared five-fold during the period. Productivity rises as stockholders extract increasing profits from each dollar spent on wages – all of the “productivity” benefit goes to stockholders. Workers don’t receive it.

Bain’s investment did produce millions in profits for Bain’s investors, and tens of thousands of jobs at Staples.

So, although Bain’s investment did produce millions in profits for Bain’s investors, and tens of thousands of jobs at Staples, it reduced lots more jobs than that throughout its field, and it also reduced the real wages in the reduced number of jobs that remained at the end of those 22 years.

And this is without even considering any of Bain’s flops, the businesses that they placed deep into debt and that went bankrupt and lost all employees. Although those investments were generally also very profitable for Bain (from fees), even Romney doesn’t claim that they produced jobs.

Overall, then: since Staples represented Romney’s best jobs-case, but still was net-negative for the nation, on both employment and wages, Romney at Bain clearly produced net losses for America’s workers, on both jobs and pay. (And, of course, he also clearly produced investment-losses for the “stockholders” in the competing stores: “Mom and Pop.&#8221

So: Romney’s claim to have produced 100,000 jobs at Bain is a flat-out lie. Even his Staples investment didn’t produce any jobs, but reduced jobs – and that’s his best case.

Some people tell me, in response to this, “Well, but Staples lowered prices for consumers.” Irrespective of whether that claim is true, Mitt Romney is not asserting that he lowered prices for consumers. He asserts that he increased employment in the national economy. But he actually reduced America’s employment.

Bookmarked for the next "Yada-yada, Staples, blah-blah bullshit" argument to hit the boards.

 

[Katzndogz]

I figured out that obama did all those things without Romney saying so.

 

[BDBoop]

Hello? Romney was lying. So you figured out something that wasn't true.

 

[blackhawk]

The Maddow blog oh my freaking god that's what counts as a source now that's as bad as someone from the right using Sean Hannity as source about Obama in fact it might be worse at least Hannity doesn't pretend to be a actual journalist.

 

[BDBoop]

The Maddow blog oh my freaking god that's what counts as a source now that's as bad as someone from the right using Sean Hannity as source about Obama in fact it might be worse at least Hannity doesn't pretend to be a actual journalist.

Bullshit. The assertions are cited.

And I'm glad Hannity doesn't pretend, though it does cause me to wonder what his credentials are, and why people pay such close attention to what he says.

 

[Katzndogz]

Hello? Romney was lying. So you figured out something that wasn't true.

Romney was telling the truth, which I knew long before your made the post.

 

[BDBoop]

No. He wasn't. I know you're going to back your Messiah from here to election day, but you're not going to do that without me popping up every so to set your ass straight.

 

[blackhawk]

The Maddow blog oh my freaking god that's what counts as a source now that's as bad as someone from the right using Sean Hannity as source about Obama in fact it might be worse at least Hannity doesn't pretend to be a actual journalist.

Bullshit. The assertions are cited.

And I'm glad Hannity doesn't pretend, though it does cause me to wonder what his credentials are, and why people pay such close attention to what he says.

Cited by who one left winger citing another? People listen to him because he is political partisan who tells people what they like to hear the same as Limbaugh, and Beck and the partisans of Matthews, Maddow, and Schultz on the left.No one listens to any of these people for accuracy, truth, or facts they listen because they trash the other side and praise their side it's really not that hard to figure out.

 

[BDBoop]

The Maddow blog oh my freaking god that's what counts as a source now that's as bad as someone from the right using Sean Hannity as source about Obama in fact it might be worse at least Hannity doesn't pretend to be a actual journalist.

In July 2009, The Atlantic named Benen one of the top 50 most influential political commentators in the United States.

 

[Mad Scientist]

All I hear from the Left is how "FoxNews isn't a real News Agency" and then those same Libs post stories from MSNBC which is owned by G.E. and they OWN the White House!

MSNBC anchors take text messages directly from the White House while on air. Why do you Libs even watch that channel at all? Because Mr. Maddow is gay? Is that all?

 

[BDBoop]

Fox went to court to declare themselves not a news agency.

 

[duanrrk]

I guess that if you repeat a lie often enough, eventually the sheep will take it as the truth
[

 

[BDBoop]

What a lovely first post. Everybody on the board thinks you're talking about the 'other guys.'

 

[Toro]

Mitt Romney's Three Big Lies - Business Insider

The biggest of the Bain-financed firms that Romney brags about for “growing jobs” was Staples, which began in 1986, when two supermarket executives, Leo Kahn and Thomas G. Stemberg, came up with the idea for a stationery and office-supply super-store, which became Staples. Bain invested nearly $2 million in it, and sold out in 1990 at around $15 million.

Of course, Staples did produce jobs. And it made lots of money for its investors. But unfortunately, Staples also put out of business many thousands of small local stationery and office-supply stores. Was the balance in the Staples case really a net plus for jobs?

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has published throughout the 22-year period from 1990-2012 the number of employees working in this retail segment: They’ve tracked the “Production and Nonsupervisory Employees” in “Office Supplies and Stationery Stores.”

This 22-year period fortunately covers virtually all of the direct jobs-impact that actually resulted from Bain’s success in its Staples investment – both the jobs-created and the jobs-lost, from the office-superstore phenomenon that Staples pioneered.

These data show that, during this 22-year period, the number of employees in this segment declined by about ten thousand until 1993, then increased 50,000 under Bill Clinton (when 19 million private nonfarm jobs were being added to the nation’s economy, so this sector was adding jobs at only one-quarter the rate the national economy was), then lost 60,000 jobs from 2000-2012.

There was a net loss of 13.5% or 18,000 jobs throughout this retail field, during this 22-year period in which Staples was adding jobs continually. In this 22-year period, the entire national economy increased employment 46%; so, Staples’ superstore model was simply decimating employment in its field.

An associated graph shows that the “Average Weekly Earnings” of these workers during those 22 years rose 71%, which was less than the 78% increase in the Consumer Price Index during that period. Thus, Bain’s investment actually drove real wages down in this jobs-category – down by 4% – in this field that had shrinking employment, while Staples was adding to its workforce, and national employment grew. And this was the net income-impact to workers throughout America, in the case, Staples, that Romney is the proudest of, for his supposed record as a “job creator.”

A separate report has explained these results: its category “NAICS 45321” shows that the “productivity” of workers in these stores soared five-fold during the period. Productivity rises as stockholders extract increasing profits from each dollar spent on wages – all of the “productivity” benefit goes to stockholders. Workers don’t receive it.

Bain’s investment did produce millions in profits for Bain’s investors, and tens of thousands of jobs at Staples.

So, although Bain’s investment did produce millions in profits for Bain’s investors, and tens of thousands of jobs at Staples, it reduced lots more jobs than that throughout its field, and it also reduced the real wages in the reduced number of jobs that remained at the end of those 22 years.

And this is without even considering any of Bain’s flops, the businesses that they placed deep into debt and that went bankrupt and lost all employees. Although those investments were generally also very profitable for Bain (from fees), even Romney doesn’t claim that they produced jobs.

Overall, then: since Staples represented Romney’s best jobs-case, but still was net-negative for the nation, on both employment and wages, Romney at Bain clearly produced net losses for America’s workers, on both jobs and pay. (And, of course, he also clearly produced investment-losses for the “stockholders” in the competing stores: “Mom and Pop.”)

So: Romney’s claim to have produced 100,000 jobs at Bain is a flat-out lie. Even his Staples investment didn’t produce any jobs, but reduced jobs – and that’s his best case.

Some people tell me, in response to this, “Well, but Staples lowered prices for consumers.” Irrespective of whether that claim is true, Mitt Romney is not asserting that he lowered prices for consumers. He asserts that he increased employment in the national economy. But he actually reduced America’s employment.

Bookmarked for the next "Yada-yada, Staples, blah-blah bullshit" argument to hit the boards.

That's a very weak argument. All technology and innovation displaces older businesses.

Also, the author is absolutely clueless about productivity.

It's hard to take this article seriously.

 

[BDBoop]

 

[BDBoop]

Mendacious Mitt: Romney's bid to become liar-in-chief | Michael Cohen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Back in the old days (that is, pre-2008) it would have been considered unimaginable that a politician would lie as brazenly as Romney does – for fear of embarrassment or greater scrutiny. When Joe Biden was accused of plagiarizing British Labor Leader Neil Kinnock's speeches in 1988, it derailed his presidential aspirations. When Al Gore was accused of exaggerating his role in "inventing the internet" (which, actually, was sort of true), it became a frequent attack line that hamstrung his credibility. Romney has done far worse than either of these candidates – yet it's hard to discern the negative impact on his candidacy.

Romney has figured out a loophole – one can lie over and over, and those lies quickly become part of the political narrative, practically immune to "fact-checking". Ironically, the more Romney lies, the harder it then becomes to correct the record. Even if an enterprising reporter can knock down two or three falsehoods, there are still so many more that slip past.

It's reminiscent of the old line that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. In Romney's case, his lies are regularly corrected by media sources, but usually, in some antiseptic fact-checking article, or by Democratic/liberal voices who can be dismissed for their "partisan bent". Meanwhile, splashed across the front page of newspapers is Romney saying "Obamacare will lead to a government take-over of healthcare"; "Obama went on an apology tour"; or "the stimulus didn't create any jobs". Because, after all, it's what the candidate said and reporters dutifully must transcribe it.

 

[Liability]

Why are libs so concerned with Mitt's problems with honesty but utterly unconcerned with Pres. Obama's absolute lack of honesty?

 

[BDBoop]

Same exact thing in reverse from this side.