Romney responds to Obama’s ‘silver spoon’ jab

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Romney responds to Obama’s ‘silver spoon’ jab

A day after President Barack Obama declared, "I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth," a not-so-subtle swipe at Mitt Romney's wealth, the former Massachusetts governor responded by accusing the president of "attacking people" instead of "attacking problems."

...

"I'm certainly not going to apologize for my dad and his success in life," Romney told Fox News. "He was born poor. He worked his way to become very successful despite the fact that he didn't have a college degree, and one of the things he wanted to do was provide for me and for my brother and sisters."

Romney accused Obama of "taking aim at anybody he can find these days" to avoid his own political problems.

"I know the president likes to attack fellow Americans. He's always looking for a scapegoat, particularly those (who) have been successful like my dad," Romney said. "I'm not going to rise to that. This is a time for us to solve problems. This is not a time for us to be attacking people, we should be attacking problems."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-responds-obama-silver-spoon-jab-162821879.html

nice burn
 
Voltaire said:
That shit won't work out well for Obama. I say keep it up all the way until the election.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that Romney wouldn't have removed legislation like Glass-Steagall and favoured Wall Street massively, given the same circumstances? The man was a corporate raider for God's sake.

Here is the three minute version for the terminally inattentive.


Here is the full version for the more cerebally endowed.

 
Last edited:
I don't agree with Mitt's positions but I'm tired of hearing about how rich he is. Like it's some kind of mark against him. He ran a company well, so maybe he can do well with a nation. I'm certainly not putting a homeless person in the oval office, they could be a drunk, druggy, dealer, basket case. If you want to vote obama, do it because of his position on topics, not because he's black or because he's not richer than mitt.
 
Yurt said:
that has nothing to do with obama's jab tom....further...it was a dem president who signed off on that.
Click to expand...

Mitt's retort was nothing more than a goddamned lie. Mitt was born very wealthy and his family got a $100,000 US welfare payment when they returned from their ex-patriot status in Mexico (due to their marital disagreements) despite their already enormous wealth. Keep up the lying, Mitt. It ain't anything new for you.
 
Gatorman said:
Mitt's retort was nothing more than a goddamned lie. Mitt was born very wealthy and his family got a $100,000 US welfare payment when they returned from their ex-patriot status in Mexico (due to their marital disagreements) despite their already enormous wealth. Keep up the lying, Mitt. It ain't anything new for you.
Click to expand...

he was not born very wealthy. tell me...what exactly did mitt lie about?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Do you really think that Romney wouldn't have removed legislation like Glass-Steagall and favoured Wall Street massively, given the same circumstances? The man was a corporate raider for God's sake.
Click to expand...

LOL @ Corporate raider. You all pretend he went into healthy companies and just fired everyone and sold off the assets. I know it is popular to paint him as such... but companies likes Sports Authority, Staples, Warner etc... wouldn't be around today if they hadn't been either invested in as a start up (Staples) or turned around like Sports Authority/Warner etc...

Yes, some companies laid people off, a far better alternative than going out of business and everyone being out of a job. Other companies ended up going under. That is a big part of business. If everyone succeeded at every business they created, we would all be one person shops.
 
Superfreak said:
LOL @ Corporate raider. You all pretend he went into healthy companies and just fired everyone and sold off the assets. I know it is popular to paint him as such... but companies likes Sports Authority, Staples, Warner etc... wouldn't be around today if they hadn't been either invested in as a start up (Staples) or turned around like Sports Authority/Warner etc...

Yes, some companies laid people off, a far better alternative than going out of business and everyone being out of a job. Other companies ended up going under. That is a big part of business. If everyone succeeded at every business they created, we would all be one person shops.
Click to expand...

Funny, most everything sold at Staples used to be sold at empty buildings on mainstreet that once held stores which employed americans and sold goods created in America by americans.
You act as if Staples is a good thing. It is not. Thousands upon thousands of americans do not thank Mitt.
 
Superfreak said:
LOL @ Corporate raider. You all pretend he went into healthy companies and just fired everyone and sold off the assets. I know it is popular to paint him as such... but companies likes Sports Authority, Staples, Warner etc... wouldn't be around today if they hadn't been either invested in as a start up (Staples) or turned around like Sports Authority/Warner etc...

Yes, some companies laid people off, a far better alternative than going out of business and everyone being out of a job. Other companies ended up going under. That is a big part of business. If everyone succeeded at every business they created, we would all be one person shops.
Click to expand...

Whilst enriching themselves in the process and loading the companies with massive debts through leveraged buyouts.

Billions of dollars were being made in the field of leveraged buyouts in the roaring 80s, and Romney was fully in the game, continuing to ratchet up his favored strategy. On the campaign trail in 2011, Romney said his work had “led me to become very deeply involved in helping other businesses, from start-ups to large companies that were going through tough times. Sometimes I was successful and we were able to help create jobs, other times I wasn’t. I learned how America competes with other companies in other countries, what works in the real world and what doesn’t.” It was a vague summary of what was a very controversial type of business. In his 2004 autobiography, Turnaround, Romney put it more bluntly: “I never actually ran one of our investments; that was left to management.” He explained that his strategy was to “invest in these underperforming companies, using the equivalent of a mortgage to leverage up our investment. Then we would go to work to help management make their business more successful.”
Romney’s phrase, “leverage up,” provides the key to understanding this most profitable stage of his business career. While putting relatively little money on the table, Bain could strike a deal using largely debt. That generally meant that the company being acquired had to borrow huge sums. But there was no guarantee that target companies would be able to repay their debts. At Bain, the goal was to buy businesses that were stagnating as subsidiaries of large corporations and grow them or shake them up to burnish their performance. Because many of the companies were troubled, or at least were going to be heavily indebted after Bain bought them, their bonds would be considered lower-grade, or “junk.” That meant they would have to pay higher interest on the bonds, like a strapped credit-card holder facing a higher rate than a person who pays off purchases more quickly. High-yielding junk bonds were appealing to investors willing to take on risk in exchange for big payouts. But they also represented a big bet: if the companies didn’t generate large profits or could not sell their stock to the public, some would be crippled by the debt layered on them by the buyout firms.
The arcane domain of corporate buyouts and junk-bond financing had entered the public consciousness at the time, and not always in a positive way. Ivan Boesky, a Wall Street arbitrageur who often bought the stock of takeover targets, was charged with insider trading and featured on the cover of Time magazine as “Ivan the Terrible.” Shortly after Romney began working on leveraged deals, a movie called Wall Street opened. It featured the fictional corporate raider Gordon Gekko, who justified his behavior by declaring, “I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them! … Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.”
Click to expand...

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/02/mitt-romney-201202
 
Rune said:
Funny, most everything sold at Staples used to be sold at empty buildings on mainstreet that once held stores which employed americans and sold goods created in America by americans.
You act as if Staples is a good thing. It is not. Thousands upon thousands of americans do not thank Mitt.
Click to expand...

so staples doesn't employ americans? staples doesn't sell goods made in america? staples is a great thing. thousands upon thousands do not thank mitt? cite.
 
Its not that being from money is bad.

Its being all about money and having no idea what is good for people makes you are poor choice for people.
 
And then, a day later, Romney goes after Obama for "golfing" and "jetting around the world."

It was a good burn for a news cycle, I guess...
 
Gatorman said:
Mitt's retort was nothing more than a goddamned lie. Mitt was born very wealthy and his family got a $100,000 US welfare payment when they returned from their ex-patriot status in Mexico (due to their marital disagreements) despite their already enormous wealth. Keep up the lying, Mitt. It ain't anything new for you.
Click to expand...

I'll admit curiosity as well as to where was his lie? Your post addresses nothing Mitt said in his comment.
 
Onceler said:
And then, a day later, Romney goes after Obama for "golfing" and "jetting around the world."

It was a good burn for a news cycle, I guess...
Click to expand...

What would be really interesting, imo, is if this board had a truly undecided voter (if such a voter actually exists) who knows they are going to choose between Obama and Romney (as opposed to a third party candidate) and see how they respond to all this back and forth partisan b.s. we spew at each other every day. Meaning what do they see as most important.
 
Onceler said:
And then, a day later, Romney goes after Obama for "golfing" and "jetting around the world."

It was a good burn for a news cycle, I guess...
Click to expand...

apples/oranges...perhaps you could cite what you're talking about. because mitt defending his economic status is different than what obama is doing as president. then again, since you didn't cite or show exactly what mitt said in context, it might not be apples/oranges.
 
cawacko said:
What would be really interesting, imo, is if this board had a truly undecided voter (if such a voter actually exists) who knows they are going to choose between Obama and Romney (as opposed to a third party candidate) and see how they respond to all this back and forth partisan b.s. we spew at each other every day. Meaning what do they see as most important.
Click to expand...

To any intelligent independent voter, both comments would (hopefully) just be dismissed. Clearly, there are much bigger fish to fry in this election. The idea that there is (gasp!) a candidate who was born w/ wealth (and let's not forget, Obama is doing okay himself), or that a Prez golfs & takes vacations, is just campaign BS...
 
Gatorman said:
Mitt's retort was nothing more than a goddamned lie. Mitt was born very wealthy and his family got a $100,000 US welfare payment when they returned from their ex-patriot status in Mexico (due to their marital disagreements) despite their already enormous wealth. Keep up the lying, Mitt. It ain't anything new for you.
Click to expand...

1) Mitt was not born wealthy. Mitt's father became wealthy when he turned American Motors around.

2) Do link us up to the $100k welfare payment info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top