http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_evS-T-c35M&mid=574
They say he got rich by destroying small businesses...
Here is the guy who made the film...
Meet the Billionaire Who Wants to Help Newt Gingrich Destroy Mitt Romney
By Dashiell Bennett | The Atlantic Wire
Newt Gingrich may not be able to win the Republican presidential nomination, but with the help of a wealthy casino magnate with powerful allies around globe, he's going to do everything he can to make sure Mitt Romney doesn't either. After pledging for months to avoid negative campaigning, a pro-Gingrich "super PAC" is now pushing an anti-Romney documentary that features interviews with working-class people who were the victims of Bain Capital layoffs. Advertisments promoting the film will run across South Carolina in the run-up to next week's primary.
That PAC — called Winning Our Future — is paying for the ads with a huge influx of cash that it just got from Sheldon Adelson, a Las Vegas billionaire with ties to China, Israel, and the Bush family. That's him on the far right, sitting next to Israeli President Shimon Peres and George W. Bush in 2008. Adelson, who Forbes listed at the third-richest American in 2008, has quietly become Gingrich's biggest backer. On Saturday it was announced that he gave $5 million to Winning Our Future, and some reports say he plans to spend as much as $20 million before the campaign is over. It may not be enough to save Gingrich's bid, but it could be enough to burn down the Republican front runner in the process.
Adelson grew up in the working class neighborhoods outside Boston and got started in business selling toiletries to hotels. He later dropped out of college, became a mortgage broker and ran a tour business. According to this profile from The New Yorker in 2008 (which is an excellent primer on Adeleson's rise to power), he made and lost more than one fortune, but then in 1979, he started a computer trade show in Las Vegas. (Comdex, an ancient ancestor of this week's CES.) Within a decade, his success with the show led him to purchase the old Las Vegas Sands Hotel. That was was he went from "merely rich" to a billionaire. He built a massive convention center next door, turning the city into a huge business destination, then tore down the aging casino itself and built the Venetian, a massive complex with shopping, restaurants, spacious hotel rooms, indoor canals, and of course, a glittery casino that exemplified the "new" opulent Las Vegas.
It was around the time that he bought the Sands that Adelson, who grew up as a Massachusetts Democrat, had a conversion to Republicanism, after befriending William Bush, the brother of George H. W. Bush. A relative newcomer to the world of the super rich, Adelson had the same proverbial epiphany that most newly rich people make when they see their 1040, arguing: "Why is it fair that I should be paying a higher percentage of taxes than anyone else?" The rest is obvious history.
As Adelson gained influence in Vegas, he began to spread his reach around the globe. In 2004, he made a deal with the Chinese government to open the first American-owned casino in Macao, a move that multiplied his wealth fourteen times in the last decade. As a demonstration of his closeness China, he allegedly helped kill a Congressional bill denouncing Beijing's 2008 Olympic bid.) He has also been a major player in Israel-American politics, donating millions to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, until abandoning the group after they supported an increase in aid to the Palestinians, who he considers an "invented people." He met with President George W. Bush in the White House to lobby against peace negotiations and worked to oust former Israel Prime Minister (and former friend) Ehud Olmert after he declared a willingness to negotiate a two-state solution. In 2007, he opened in his own free daily newspaper in Israel that has been called a mouthpiece for current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In America, the 78-year-old billionaire has aligned himself with Gingrich who shares similar views on Israel. He was the biggest supporter of American Solutions for Winning the Future, a different PAC that Gingrich personally ran before he was a candidate, and was replaced with the "independent" Winning Our Future. Legally, Winning Our Future and the Gingrich campaign must remain separate, but this latest move only underscores how flimsy those rules are and how massive an influence super PACs are having on the primary. When essentially one person can keep an entire ad campaign alive, even after the candidate it means to support ceases to be viable, that's a discouraging fact of American politics. It's also one that won't quell any fears about the power of the 1%.
In any case, it's clear that Gingrich's supporters, with Adelson's help, mean to take down Romney, no matter what it does to Gingrich's reputation or the general election chances of any Republican nominee. Like Gingrich, Adelson appears to be a man who doesn't forget or forgive a slight, and isn't afraid to get his hands dirty. And also one with a nasty temper.
One more story from The New Yorker article gives some insight into his personal business style. As the story goes, a former colleague once recorded a meeting where Adelson was giving orders to his staff and when Adelson later complained that they didn't follow his instructions, the colleague offered to play the tape to prove that they had. Adelson's response: 'What are you guys, crazy? Who are you gonna believe, me or the tape?'
Lets see. . .Bain is an investment firm. Part of what they do is to invest in companies that are failing and attempt to save them.
Romney's business was to purchase companies that were in bankruptcy and either save them, or liquidate them. Out of all of the businesses they purchased 22% could not be saved, and had to be liquidated. The liquidation of those assets saved the creditors millions, avoiding a negative bankruptcy situation. It also saved many smaller investors from bankruptcy. 100% of the employees of those companies lost their jobs. Wow! That's exactly how many would have lost their jobs if Bain hadn't intervened.
78% of the companies that Romney invested in were turned around and made profitable (an unbelievable record for an investment capital firm). As part of the restructuring of those companies, wasteful practices were eliminated and that includes thousands of jobs!. . .but without Bain, all of the jobs at all of those companies would be gone. So, that means that the tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of jobs that exist today, would not be there if Bain had not intervened.
To any logical person, that is very positive. In fact, it seems to mirror exactly what needs to take place in our government right now. The left may be able to play this note with their base, but it won't fly with educated people.
You must have missed stories like this...
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/06/romney-company-profited-as-steel-mill-it-owned-closed-government-bailed-out-pension-plan/
Mitt Romney company profited as steel mill it owned closed, government bailed out pension plan
Reuters Jan 6, 2012 – 10:17 AM ET
It was funny at first.
The young men in business suits, gingerly picking their way among the millwrights, machinists and pipefitters at Kansas City's Worldwide Grinding Systems steel mill. Gaping up at the cranes that swung 10-foot cast iron buckets through the air. Jumping at the thunder from the melt shop's electric-arc furnace as it turned scrap metal into lava.
"They looked like a bunch of high school kids to me. A bunch of Wall Street preppies," says Jim Linson, an electronics repairman who worked at the plant for 40 years. "They came in, they were in awe."
Apparently they liked what they saw. Soon after, in October 1993, Bain Capital, co-founded by Mitt Romney, became majority shareholder in a steel mill that had been operating since 1888.
It was a gamble. The old mill, renamed GS Technologies, needed expensive updating, and demand for its products was susceptible to cycles in the mining industry and commodities markets.
Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they'd been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as US$400 a month.
What's more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44-million to bail out the company's underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12-million on its $8-million initial investment and at least $4.5-million in consulting fees.
Hey, they tried to save several companies that couldn't' be saved. If you look at this realistically, then again, it's not a negative.
Worldwide Grinding Systems was facing immediate bankruptcy, because it did not have the funds to update and compete. All of those jobs would be gone. Bane stepped in and restructured the company, investing in the new equipment that they needed to continue operating. The company remained in business for 10 more years, before Bane made the determination that additional investment could not produce a profitable enterprise.
So, the workers in this plant got 10 additional years of employment that they would not have, and an opportunity to turn the company around that they would not have.
To blame Romney because one of his investments failed after a 10 year resuscitation is kinda like blaming the paramedics for saving your grandmother. Sure, she lived for another 10 years after her heart-attack, but she still died!
Except the paramedics didn't make 4.5 million in consulting fees and 4 million for services rendered.
I have no opinion of Bain Capital except for its implications for Mitt. I think most people are unaware that such companies exist and are surprised that people who have never gotten their hands dirty have such influence on workers lives. It reinforces that 1% image that he carries around.
Kind of like that hilarious commercial a stock brokerage company used to run so successfully, "We make money the old fashioned way....we work for it".
Mitt says, "I like firing people."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBOqLxzGTx8
Corporations basically have two driving factors:
1. Sell lots of stuff (mostly to the middle class)
2. Make the stuff as cost effectively as possible (employ as few of the american middle class as possible through increased production or outsourcing).
Mitt Romney is a smart corporate leader.
I don't have a problem with Romney buying up failing companies and doing (or at least trying to do) what needs to be done to save them. I do think it's a little odd how he manages to make a profit even on the ones that go bust, though. It makes me suspect that he, at least in some cases, was parting out otherwise profitable companies at the expense of other stakeholders because he stood to make more money for himself that way.
Strong stuff....POTUS OBAMA will destroy Mitt
http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNkmKfJ0J-i445agf_JEhxuFhJ2Xrnf9YQDL1dylEF9F1RPbCrZA)
Perry Doubles Down on "Vulture Capitalist" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-perry-doubles-down-on-vulture-capitalist-criticism-of-mitt-romney/2012/01/11/gIQAziWqqP_blog.html)
Quote"There's a real difference between venture capitalism and vulture capitalism," Perry told Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity Tuesday night. "Venture capitalism we like. Vulture capitalism, no. And the fact of the matter is that he's going to have to face up to this at some time or another, and South Carolina is as good a place to draw that line in the sand as any."
Perry cited two companies in Gaffney and Georgetown, S.C., that he said had lost jobs while the venture capital firm took in millions of dollars. He accused Romney and Bain of "picking their bones clean" rather than working to "clean up those companies, save those jobs."
I love this line of attack -- which Gingrich also seems to relish. It simultaneously validates some of the Occupy core ideas and indicates that there's some appetite within the GOP for those ideas.
Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are both 99%ers. Who'd'a thunk.
Quote from: we vs us on January 12, 2012, 09:26:24 AM
Perry Doubles Down on "Vulture Capitalist" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-perry-doubles-down-on-vulture-capitalist-criticism-of-mitt-romney/2012/01/11/gIQAziWqqP_blog.html)
I love this line of attack -- which Gingrich also seems to relish. It simultaneously validates some of the Occupy core ideas and indicates that there's some appetite within the GOP for those ideas.
Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich are both 99%ers. Who'd'a thunk.
Meh, no different than "voodoo economics" in 1980. This is the same Perry who was lambasted for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Remember?
Gingrich and Perry are circling the drain, they are desperate.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 12, 2012, 09:28:51 AM
Meh, no different than "voodoo economics" in 1980. This is the same Perry who was lambasted for calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme. Remember?
Gingrich and Perry are circling the drain, they are desperate.
Well sure, I definitely agree. But they both still think that nailing Romney on his 1%ness is good politics. They wouldn't be selling if people weren't buying.
Quote from: we vs us on January 12, 2012, 09:30:55 AM
Well sure, I definitely agree. But they both still think that nailing Romney on his 1%ness is good politics. They wouldn't be selling if people weren't buying.
Not sure about Perry, but Gingrich would be a 1%'er. Romney would do well at this point to continue to focus on Obama and brush off the anti-Romney's like dandruff on his shoulder.
I read that they are trying to quiet the whole Bain thing down. I think its short sighted for the party to try and muffle Gingrich et al on this subject because they think it might look like they are attacking capitalism. They are best to face it now rather than during the general. Perry may actually be doing the party a favor. Let's see how Mitt responds.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 12, 2012, 09:32:54 AM
I read that they are trying to quiet the whole Bain thing down. I think its short sighted for the party to try and muffle Gingrich et al on this subject because they think it might look like they are attacking capitalism. They are best to face it now rather than during the general. Perry may actually be doing the party a favor. Let's see how Mitt responds.
All Romney really needs to do is point out all the positives venture capitalists can do vis-a-vis "jobs saved and jobs created". Venture capitalists are not in business for altruistic reasons, they exist to make money. Based on the scale of investments they make- hundreds of millions to billions, millions in profits is not excessive. Romney seems to understand economics and how both business and government are run. He's got a successful track record. What does Gingrich bring to the table? A four year reign as a petulant speaker of the house. Other than that, he's a career politician and college professor, sounds like the current president, yes? Perry is simply desperate. He's just looking for someone to like him.
Not saying this in response to you, but it's almost as if 1/2 of this country really has no clue who creates jobs and how jobs are created outside the government realm.
Obama is going to have enough problems to answer to in the general. In addition, he's funded, in part, by venture capitalists as well.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 12, 2012, 09:46:18 AM
Not saying this in response to you, but it's almost as if 1/2 of this country really has no clue who creates jobs and how jobs are created outside the government realm.
All we know is what we're told. Look at what we listen to. "Romney care is totally different from Obamacare." etc.
And my view is pretty similar. If Romney uses that description (which may fly right over the common guy's understanding) and it works, then fine his opponent in the general will have no success in focusing on the issue. If Perry/Gingrich get traction with it then he better find a better answer.
If I were the Romney camp I would welcome this opportunity to show my business acumen. Unless, of course, his group was bungling some of those operations and still making big bucks. That doesn't look good to the worker bees. From what I've heard, only 20% of Bain's stuff were actually long term successes and accounted for most of their returns yet 70% of them made the partners money.
Quote from: Townsend on January 12, 2012, 09:52:41 AM
All we know is what we're told. Look at what we listen to. "Romney care is totally different from Obamacare." etc.
Let's start with Romneycare being state-based and the lack of a Constitutional basis for Obamacare to force people to buy a product they may not want and go from there.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 12, 2012, 10:03:02 AM
Let's start with Romneycare being state-based and the lack of a Constitutional basis for Obamacare to force people to buy a product they may not want and go from there.
So it's ok to do it state by state?
Quote from: Townsend on January 12, 2012, 10:07:21 AM
So it's ok to do it state by state?
That is the million dollar question. It isn't which branch of government makes you provide health care for employees, it is the fact that it is mandated.
Romney can never overcome that argument with some "state's rights" makes it OK talk.
Can you imagine the gamesmanship that would occur if its state by state? The movement of human and medical resources will be awesome. If for instance, Arkansas decides they will embrace mandatory insurance sign-ups and surrounding states do not, then the Arkansans risk is spread over a larger base, their premiums are lower, they attract more medical industry (since there is more pie to be sliced up) which spurs more development and a healthier economy.
Am I seeing this clearly?
Quote from: AquaMan on January 12, 2012, 10:26:39 AM
Can you imagine the gamesmanship that would occur if its state by state? The movement of human and medical resources will be awesome. If for instance, Arkansas decides they will embrace mandatory insurance sign-ups and surrounding states do not, then the Arkansans risk is spread over a larger base, their premiums are lower, they attract more medical industry (since there is more pie to be sliced up) which spurs more development and a healthier economy.
Am I seeing this clearly?
People keep missing the point that compulsory insurance will also bring in previously undesirable risk which may well have the affect of raising rates, not lowering them.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 12, 2012, 10:03:02 AM
Let's start with Romneycare being state-based and the lack of a Constitutional basis for Obamacare to force people to buy a product they may not want and go from there.
I've seen this pop up a couple of times and don't think it actually holds water. In most contexts, insurance is an optional product built specifically to insure against risk -- against the chance that adverse events
might occur. Even the mandated auto coverage insures against the possibility that something MIGHT happen. But health insurance in the US has morphed into something that isn't particularly optional and covers
inevitabilities. Not only things that might happen, but things that WILL happen. So the term "insurance" is really a misnomer. What we have are discount pools for products that we will all buy in some measure at some time. It so happens that the majority of us buy into these pools through our employers who use their group leverage to reduce our buy in costs. It used to be traditional for our employers to also contribute to our buy in costs, but that's being whittled away as the costs of the pools have increased.
Point being: the argument that healthcare is an optional product -- that you can choose not only not to purchase but not to use -- is incorrect. Even if we don't purchase it, we will all at some point use it.
Quote from: we vs us on January 12, 2012, 10:32:50 AM
I've seen this pop up a couple of times and don't think it actually holds water. In most contexts, insurance is an optional product built specifically to insure against risk -- against the chance that adverse events might occur. Even the mandated auto coverage insures against the possibility that something MIGHT happen. But health insurance in the US has morphed into something that isn't particularly optional and covers inevitabilities. Not only things that might happen, but things that WILL happen. So the term "insurance" is really a misnomer. What we have are discount pools for products that we will all buy in some measure at some time. It so happens that the majority of us buy into these pools through our employers who use their group leverage to reduce our buy in costs. It used to be traditional for our employers to also contribute to our buy in costs, but that's being whittled away as the costs of the pools have increased.
Point being: the argument that healthcare is an optional product -- that you can choose not only not to purchase but not to use -- is incorrect. Even if we don't purchase it, we will all at some point use it.
By definition, it's still insurance. Yet, it does differ as health insurance companies have enough "buying power" that they can negotiate preferred rates for their insured. Honestly, I'm not sure how much pressure the insurance companies bring to the table. The providers realize they will get paid at a certain rate when they treat someone with insurance. Someone who does not have insurance represents a far higher risk in payment, therefore, uninsured pay a higher "cash" rate because they are pooled with deadbeats who don't consider paying a medical bill an obligation. Essentially, I'm saying providers are still going to charge a high enough rate on insurance-covered procedures to help cover the losses from the uninsured who don't pay.
The difference between compulsory auto liability and health insurance is that liability is essentially a bond against your negligence to protect and make others whole when you run into them while playing angry birds on your smart phone. Health insurance covers a risk to yourself and your interests, much like carrying comp and collision or homeowner's insurance if you do not have a mortgage on your car or house.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 12, 2012, 10:42:24 AM
The difference between compulsory auto liability and health insurance is that liability is essentially a bond against your negligence to protect and make others whole when you run into them while playing angry birds on your smart phone. Health insurance covers a risk to yourself and your interests, much like carrying comp and collision or homeowner's insurance if you do not have a mortgage on your car or house.
If everyone has health insurance won't that mean I won't have to pay to cover the uninsured?
Quote from: Townsend on January 12, 2012, 10:45:58 AM
If everyone has health insurance won't that mean I won't have to pay to cover the uninsured?
You will be paying to cover the uninsured as the newly insured. You are one of the desirable, healthy risks who will see their rates increase to subsidize the poorer risks who were not in the pool before. People who previously have used the ER as primary care and never had a personal physician will likely start using real primary care using their newfound free spending power in health care while people who are not legally here will still use the ER for primary care.
There are quite a few people out there without insurance due to pre-existing conditions or they simply don't see their health as a priority and never paid for health insurance who will now come into the treatment pool. I hope I'm wrong, but I simply don't see how it's going to make healthcare for the good risks cheaper.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 12, 2012, 11:27:02 AM
You will be paying to cover the uninsured as the newly insured. You are one of the desirable, healthy risks who will see their rates increase to subsidize the poorer risks who were not in the pool before. People who previously have used the ER as primary care and never had a personal physician will likely start using real primary care using their newfound free spending power in health care while people who are not legally here will still use the ER for primary care.
There are quite a few people out there without insurance due to pre-existing conditions or they simply don't see their health as a priority and never paid for health insurance who will now come into the treatment pool. I hope I'm wrong, but I simply don't see how it's going to make healthcare for the good risks cheaper.
Your assumption is that everyone that's uninsured is that way because they're too unhealthy for insurance companies to take risks on. And while that's undoubtedly part of it, a huge part of people being uninsured is because they simply can't afford it, not based on their health.
I'd bet that most of the folks newly brought in to the system would spend their coverage on preventative medicine -- cancer screenings, physicals, twice a year dentist visits, all the basic stuff -- which could impact the bottom line much more positively by simply catching issues before they metastasize (so to speak) and get more expensive to the insurance companies.
Also, re: Romney -- he's going to catch hell for Bain . . . moreso in the general than in the primaries. Republicans are probably the most sympathetic to Bain's niche in the global economy (regardless of whether they actually understand it or not) and so that critique will do the least amount of damage now. When it will really hurt him -- with indies and with Dems (assuming there're many Dems up for grabs this cycle) -- will be in November. If Obama's smart, he'll Goldman-Sachsificate Romney from the beginning, and attach him pretty firmly to the 1%/99% thing. Not hard to do, either. Romney pretty perfectly personifies the 1%.
And BTW, I know the 1%/99% thing gets overplayed but that's really been the lasting contribution to-date of the Occupy people, and it's that way precisely because a lot normal folks feel it to be true. Even if Occupy isn't a part of the general election in any formal capacity, that core idea (1%/99%) is still alive and well and could really and truly be Romney's downfall.
(Disclaimer: and of course Obama gets boatloads of money from the financial industry, too, but Romney -- in ways Obama couldn't ever -- just embodies that country club thing too perfectly.)
I'm guessing that many of our fellow Oklahomans will still forego medical treatment while they're insured because they'll believe it's un-American to seek medical help.
"Ain't gonna git none'o'that Obamacare."
Quote from: we vs us on January 12, 2012, 11:43:48 AM
Your assumption is that everyone that's uninsured is that way because they're too unhealthy for insurance companies to take risks on. And while that's undoubtedly part of it, a huge part of people being uninsured is because they simply can't afford it, not based on their health.
I'd bet that most of the folks newly brought in to the system would spend their coverage on preventative medicine -- cancer screenings, physicals, twice a year dentist visits, all the basic stuff -- which could impact the bottom line much more positively by simply catching issues before they metastasize (so to speak) and get more expensive to the insurance companies.
Granted, there are some who don't have the means to buy health insurance, that's what Medicaid is for. If someone doesn't meet the means testing for Medicaid and refuses to buy their own health insurance, then what is the conclusion? There's a good portion of those who "can't afford" health insurance or regular visits to the doctor's office who
choose not to afford health care. We all prioritize our finances, regardless of income. I've known people making $50K+ a year self-employed and single who don't have health insurance. Instead a Corvette, a $5000 balance on their Best Buy card, or a large boat payment has been their priority.
It doesn't take everyone who is uninsured starting to use the claims pool. Even a 20 or 30% increase in major medical claims could cause huge increases in premiums. As well, start adding up all the MRI's, CAT scans, and PET scans which will now become commonplace and for which we already pay asinine rates and primary care will cause premiums to climb as well.
Our problem in this country with our healthcare system and it's outcomes has more to do with an indifferent attitude toward preventative health care beyond regular PCP visits which starts with simple things like a better diet, regular exercise, avoiding tobacco, and moderate use of alcohol. But we've thrown trillions of dollars at educating the public on healthier lifestyles, taxed the crap out of tobacco, alcohol and regulated all sorts of other detrimental substances and yet there's still a good portion of our population which could be accurately described as unhealthy.
Here comes Palin firing off the port bow...
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ballot-2012/2012/01/12/palin-to-romney-show-proof-of-job-creation-at-bain?s_cid=rss:ballot-2012:palin-to-romney-show-proof-of-job-creation-at-bain (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ballot-2012/2012/01/12/palin-to-romney-show-proof-of-job-creation-at-bain?s_cid=rss:ballot-2012:palin-to-romney-show-proof-of-job-creation-at-bain)
QuoteAs Mitt Romney's main Republican rivals back off from challenging the former governor on his record as head of private equity firm Bain Capital, former GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin backed up Gov. Rick Perry, who has doubled down on calling Romney a "vulture capitalist," saying the Texas Republican is just holding his rival accountable.
"Sometimes it gets rough-and-tumble as you try to hold these candidates accountable for what they are claiming," Palin told Fox News' Sean Hannity Wednesday.
Her defense of Perry strikes some as odd, especially given the advice of other conservatives who have warned Romney's rivals against attacking the GOP frontrunner's business record.
"If you were running a campaign, would that be your line against Gov. Romney?," Hannity asked. "Are they attacking the fundamentals of conservatism, which is we support capitalism?"
"I think what Gov. Perry is getting at is that Gov. Romney has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain and people are wanting to know, 'Is there proof of that claim and was it U.S. jobs created for U.S citizens?'"
"Own up to the claims being made," Palin added. "That's not negative campaigning, that's fair to get a candidate to be held accountable to what's being claimed especially when it comes to job creation."
Romney endured a firestorm of attacks this week concerning his 15-year tenure heading Bain Capital, during which he claims to have created 100,000 jobs. The campaign has yet to produce documentation supporting that number.
....And heeeeere comes irrelevant Sarah to take a shot at ruining another promising GOP campaign.
Someone give her a better reality show, a prime time talk slot on Fox, and a pony already.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 12, 2012, 12:35:51 PM
....And heeeeere comes irrelevant Sarah to take a shot at ruining another promising GOP campaign.
Someone give her a better reality show, a prime time talk slot on Fox, and a pony already.
I think the best thing I ever saw her (well, actually more on Todd) on was Larry the Cable Guy's show "Only in America". He went to Alaska to go moose hunting (yes) and decided he'd head over to the Palin's on Lake Lucille. Todd came out and came off as being an incredibly nice guy and tried to get Larry to go up in his seaplane, but Larry declined.
Couldn't get Sarah on camera save for her retreating from the house to the driveway. Granted it was said she didn't have any makeup on, and the camera got a distant shot of her. For whatever reason, they blurred her face. I found that a little odd.
But then again, considering the source, maybe not so much.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 12, 2012, 12:09:44 PM
Granted, there are some who don't have the means to buy health insurance, that's what Medicaid is for. If someone doesn't meet the means testing for Medicaid and refuses to buy their own health insurance, then what is the conclusion? There's a good portion of those who "can't afford" health insurance or regular visits to the doctor's office who choose not to afford health care. We all prioritize our finances, regardless of income. I've known people making $50K+ a year self-employed and single who don't have health insurance. Instead a Corvette, a $5000 balance on their Best Buy card, or a large boat payment has been their priority.
It doesn't take everyone who is uninsured starting to use the claims pool. Even a 20 or 30% increase in major medical claims could cause huge increases in premiums. As well, start adding up all the MRI's, CAT scans, and PET scans which will now become commonplace and for which we already pay asinine rates and primary care will cause premiums to climb as well.
Our problem in this country with our healthcare system and it's outcomes has more to do with an indifferent attitude toward preventative health care beyond regular PCP visits which starts with simple things like a better diet, regular exercise, avoiding tobacco, and moderate use of alcohol. But Insurance industries, government we've BIG PHARMA and corporations have thrown trillions of dollars atpaid lip service to educating the public on healthier lifestyles, taxed the crap out of tobacco, alcohol and regulated all sorts of other detrimental substances and yet there's still a good portion of our population which could be accurately described as unhealthy.
Agreed except with some adjustment....
You know, ya caint fix broken.....
Vets should be able to access any hospital.
Let's hope Mitty gets the nomination. If moderates switch to Huntsman, he could be trouble... nobody hates Huntsman (with magic underwear) the way most GOP hate Romney.
But I'm loving the way they are circling the wagons around Mitt. All in one place, they'll be easier to pick off. And Sarah now represents the "populist" wing of the GOP. Weird.
Could Mitt Romney be America's first Hispanic president?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/12/opinion/romney-hispanic-roots/index.html?npt=NP1 (http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/12/opinion/romney-hispanic-roots/index.html?npt=NP1)
QuoteOr should I say, "primo!" As much as it embarrasses me to admit it, given some of his views and how he expresses them, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and I could be distant cousins. Romney's father, George, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and so was my grandfather, Roman.
Que? You didn't know that Mitt Romney was half-Mexican? It's true. In fact, if he makes it to the White House, in addition to becoming the first Mormon in the Oval Office, he could also be the nation's first Hispanic president.
Hard to get his bloodline straight....great grand daddy was forced to move into Mexico or face incarceration for having 5 wives at one time.
It will be interesting if he decides to reunify with his blood relatives. He'd be on the spot having them come to the inaugural which won't be happening any way.
Quote from: Teatownclown on January 12, 2012, 02:03:33 PM
Hard to get his bloodline straight....great grand daddy was forced to move into Mexico or face incarceration for having 5 wives at one time.
It will be interesting if he decides to reunify with his blood relatives. He'd be on the spot having them come to the inaugural which won't be happening any way.
So in the Mormon ghettos in Salt Lake City and Provo, do they say: "Who's my mommy!?!?!?!"
Oh, BTW, I liked your edit on my earlier post. Spot-on on the gov't/pharma/big biz connection.
IN re: healthcare expenditures, it turns out that 5% of patients account for 50% of spending. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/5-of-americans-made-up-50-of-us-health-care-spending/251402/)
QuoteThe top 5% of spenders paid an annual average of $35,829 in doctors' bills. By comparison, the bottom half paid an average $232 and made up about 3% of total costs.
Aside from the fact that such a tiny fraction of the country was responsible for so much of our expenses, it also found that high spenders often repeated from year to year. Those chronically ill patients skewed white and old and were twice as likely to be on public health care as the general population.
So the elderly and the chronically ill tend to "overuse" the system. So do people on "public health care," though that could include medicaid (for the poor) or medicare (for elderly of all income levels) so isn't a strike solely against the poor.
The reverse of that number, though -- that 95% of insured Americans only cost the system 50% of its current load -- should be heartening. That means that the vast majority aren't overtaxing the system and are using the their resources intelligently.
This is my shocked face.
We've known for a long time that the old folks are where most of the money goes in health care. I'm OK with that, personally.