There’s this:
Romney wants to keep jobs here so much he uses imaginary cases of people not keeping jobs here as evidence:
Actually, two problems: It’s not true and even if it was, he’s a hypocrite.
So now that I have shown that Romney claims to be against the outsourcing of American jobs to China - even going so far as to [del]lie[/del] invent a story about Jeep doing so to smear Obama - can we stop wondering if Romney is a hypocrite and instead answer my question:
How can we trust Romney’s tough talk on China and job outsourcing there when he cannot even stop it from happening within his own portfolio?
Nope, you haven’t proved that. Let’s look at what Romney says in your second link, which is pretty much what he says on his web site (your link in the OP):
These are weasel words, for sure, but his point is that he is going to fight for “fair trade”, and that when we have “fair trade”, that will create jobs in the US. He never defines what “fair trade” is, btw. It’s just political blather to hide the fact that he is not against outsourcing.
Same think in your link to NBC. He’s going to clamp down on “cheaters like China”. What does that mean? how is China “cheating”. He doesn’t say. Maybe he means currency manipulation, but who knows? He’s as specific here as he is about his tax plan.
You will never here him bash CEOs for shipping jobs overseas. He doesn’t blame corporations. He blames “cheating” by China and the lack of “fair trade”.
Really? So when Romney uses a specific example of an American company literally shipping jobs overseas and decries it - who cares that it’s complete fiction - that is somehow not the same as what is happening at Sensata? Really? That’s your argument?
He doesn’t just use weasel words. He used an example that directly correlates to what Bain is doing with Sensata. Only it is bad when Chrysler does it? Or are you contending that he didn’t think it was bad if Jeep is doing it. In which case, why did he bring it up? Just to have another thing he lied about?
Oh, and here I thought we were having a civilized discourse of sorts for a change. Not going your way, I suspect, so now I’m just “bitching”. End of my participation, then, since it’s now obvious that you’re just spoiling for a fight.
So according to John Mace, if we modify this Romney quote
And just change a few words:
the mere changing of the proper nouns makes them totally different! :rolleyes:
Either that or Romney is really not against job resourcing to China, he’s just against other things China does that takes American jobs.
Which might be true, but then I have to ask why did he even bring up Jeep as an example of anything to begin with? Romney is not accusing China of manipulating currency to force Jeep to relocate their jobs there. He is not claiming that China dumped a bunch of cheaper Jeep-like cars in America which is killing jobs here.
No. He specified a situation where he decried a company moving jobs directly from America to China.
Exactly what is happening at Sensata by a company that Romney started and who still puts millions in his pocket every year.
So yeah… He’s a hypocrite.
OK, so Romney has no direct control over Sensata. Does that mean he can’t say anything about it? Has he some compelling moral obligation to keep his pie hole closed? Since when? The notion of American workers having to train Chinese to take their jobs? He can’t say anything about that?
He’s decrying trade that isn’t “fair” as the cause for the jobs allegedly being shipped overseas. He says nothing about whether Chrysler is to blame. He’s making a weak attempt to blame an alleged action by a US corporation on inaction by Obama. That is, not clamping down trade that is not “fair”. He also says that he’s going to fight for “every good job”, but says nothing about what he’ll do for jobs that aren’t “good”. It certainly leaves the door open that certain jobs aren’t “good” and aren’t worth fighting for.
Well, first of all, he has said nothing about what Bain is doing with Sensata, so we don’t know what his thoughts are about it. I contend that he is blaming inaction by Obama in creating an environment where companies were encouraged to ship jobs overseas. Now, I don’t believe for one second that he’s right. I doubt he believes it, either. It’s political blather.
But he has never, to my knowledge, called CEOs or investors out for “shipping jobs overseas”. He has never said they shouldn’t do it, only that he wants to create conditions where they won’t want to do it. If you can show that he has, I’ll gladly concede that you have shown hypocrisy on this issue.
Wait, so when Mitt suggested that allowing GM, Ford, and Chrysler to go through bankruptcy would be a good thing because it would allow them to “shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs,” he wasn’t talking about sacking all the workers, closing down the plants, and moving production out of the United States?
What was the plan, then? Bringing in Oompa-Loompas and moving everything to a single factory that’s bigger on the inside than it is on the outside?
Right, he brought up Jeep doing this because he thought it was a keen thing and he hoped it would happen more often…
News I read said Jeep isn’t doing any such thing. Has that changed, or am I misreading your last sentence?
Romney was incorrect in stating that Chrysler was moving jobs to China. His first link on the subject points that out.
But he’s trying to blame Obama for this, not Chrysler. He’s claimed that Obama isn’t “tough enough” on China. Has he ever proposed legislation aimed at US companies to prevent them from outsourcing? Has he ever called CEOS “Benedict Arnolds” for outsourcing (like Kerry did)? No. He blames China and Obama, not the corporations or the CEOs. It’s a pretty stupid position to take, but that’s not unusual for Romney.
Ah right… “I want to close all the loopholes… That I, myself, had zero moral or ethical problems jumping through myself.” It’s Obama’s fault that Bain Capital is shipping off jobs to China! Naturally!
It sure would be great to have Mitt Romney in the White House so he can stop himself from doing that…
Are you thinking this is a case of: “Well, the opportunity is there, so I’d be a fool not to take it, but the opportunity shouldn’t be there and that’s what I’ll change”?
Sort, but more along the lines of “it makes business sense to do this because China is ‘cheating’ and Obama is letting them, but I’ll prevent China from ‘cheating’ and so it won’t make business sense (at least for the ‘good jobs’).”
Still, one needs to remember that Romney has not been involved with Bain for almost a decade now. His retirement package in 1999 paid him part of the profits through 2009, and I believe he still gets some money from deals that aren’t completely closed, but the idea that he is somehow involved in the day-to-day workings of Bain today is ludicrous. And the idea that if he decries one act of offshoring he must decry all such acts publicly is also ludicrous.
If he were to suddenly start pressuring Bain to make or kill certain deals, he’d be rightly criticized for manipulating his former company for political gains.
Which is ridiculous.
Nobody said that he was directly involved. Only that he was profiting handsomely from his former company to this day:
I disagree completely and would condemn those who were critical of such a move. As I said in my OP:
It’s not political gain if he does this, it’s for the good of the country, the good of those employees at a profitable company, and it shows that Romney is serious about keeping jobs here and it’s not just a talking point.
Yes, fighting for the good jobs, like being CEO or an investor.
That’s true, but don’t you think it would bolster his argument a little better to decry an act of offshoring that was actually happening, instead of one that wasn’t?
A funny sort of evolution. Nationalism used to be a cornerstone of the authoritarian right mentality. Very foundation of classical fascism. Now, business is more “international”, it has much less any “patriotic” element. They still pretend to it, as it enhances their standing, but they have no real loyalty to any country, be it Germany or the US. China is still new at this whole capitalism thing, they are still very intently nationalistic, like the Japanese, they regard the success of their businesses as the advancement of their country.
American business is all grown up, and has long since set aside such sentimental concerns. Maybe that’s a good thing. Fucked if I know.
Yes, it would.