Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua!

Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua.com,  Un foro donde se discute la Politica Boricua aparte de otros temas de actualidad e interes.  Aqui existe la mayor libertad de expresion donde pueden debatir libremente.  Registrate!

 
Como la mayoria de las comunidades en linea necesita registrarse para poder postear en nuestra comunidad, pero no se preocupe esto es un proceso simple que solo requiere minima informacion. Sea parte de Cafe Boricua creando una cuenta con nosotros.  Puede logearse con su cuenta de Facebook o Twitter.

  • Comienze nuevos temas y responda a otros
  • Subscribirse a temas y foros y recibir actualizaciones automaticas.
  • Crea su propio perfil y haga nuevas amistades.
  • Comparta sus posteos o temas en las redes sociales.
  • Personalize su experiencia aqui.
  • Crea una encuesta!   Una gallery de fotos.  Anuncie un evento. 

Animate a participar en nuestro foro boricua!


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
charlie319

Boon Or Bane; Mitt Romney's Bain Capital Record Of "vulture Capitalism"

231 posts in this topic

[quote name='Artaguito' timestamp='1326292726' post='2944844']


[b]Well said, Mr. Lenin! Te falto usar palabras como "burguesia", y frases como "lucha de clases" para completar la ideologia Chemo.[/b]

Te invito a que te eduques en este website para que aprendas mas:

[url="http://www.claridadpuertorico.com/"]http://www.claridadpuertorico.com/[/url]
[/quote]


No te me vayas por la tangente y contesta las preguntas que se te hacen...jajajajajaja

[u][u]En favor de quien[/u][/u] las corporaciones estan reguladas segun tu???....Tu crees que los tratados de libre comercio benefician al trabajador americano???

Vamos nene deleitanos con otra explicacion Salomonica!!!!....jjajajjajaajajajjajaajajajajajajajajajajajaja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Tiemblas...cada vez que vez a Romney..Tiemblas......
Primero que tiene de malo el capitalismo? Que sistema es mejor????
Segundo, cual es la mejor opcion para sacar al Obama de Washington?
Solo hay que observar las actuaciones de los politcios desesperados para reconocer que Romney es la opcion viable.
En politico puro y perfecto como el Obama prometio no existe, tienen que regresar a la realidad.
A los que apoyan a Ron Paul, mas vale revisen bien sus actuaciones en el Congreso aparte de su politica de aislamiento
antes de ponerse a apoyar a este senor.
Los que apoyan al Obama no van a cambiar, apoyan la division del pais, apoyan el mantengo y el socialismo,
viven de envidia, quieren que el gobierno les de todo y en vez de fomentar desarrollo y triunfo, viven bajo la
psicologia que "si yo no guiso, tu tampoco".
La realidad es que hay que votar en contra del Obama o sino de acaba de fastidiar el pais y el futuro de sus habitantes.....
solo hay que ver que TODOS los "economic advisors" del Obama han renunciado..para regresar al sector privado..
porque seria??????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
<p><span style="color:#ff0000;"><em><span style="font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; ">No como lo esta la ingenieria... Cuando eso pase, a duras penas estaras ganando $20.00 la hora... Mientras tu copiloto del dia, Apoo de Mumbai gana lo mismo que tu.</span></em></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; ">Yo he volado aqui par de veces con un copiloto de Mumbai, se llama Sami. El se gana lo mismo que se gana un copiloto americano ya que tiene licencia americana. Aunque yo vuelo carga lo que me protege a mi es los pasajeros que no les gustaria que los pilotos en aviones americanos fueran volados por extrangeros. O sea, clientes dictandole a laindustria, como debe de ser. </span><span style="color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; "> Esa transparencia no existe en la ingenieria o en otras profesiones.</span><span style="color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; "> Tambien el Homeland Security por razones de seguridad le ha hecho casi imposible a extrangeros para sacar las licencias en EEUU. </span></p>
<p><br style="color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; " />
<span style="color:#ff0000;"><em><span style="font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; ">Eso de &quot;defecator&quot; ha de ser por la ducha de heces que te ha caido por tus posturas politicas dignas de un Aznar o Franco. </span></em></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Aznar o Franco? Mejor no lo pudo decir Napoleon, Charlie.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Chemo:<span style="color:#ff0000;"><em><span class="bbc_underline" style="text-decoration: underline !important; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; "><span class="bbc_underline">En favor de quien</span></span></em><span style="font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; "><em> las corporaciones estan reguladas segun tu??</em></span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Esa pregunta no hace sentido, reconstruyela.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; ">Chemo</span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; "><em>: Tu crees que los tratados de libre comercio benefician al trabajador americano???</em></span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Si el tratado de libre comercio beneficia a corporaciones americanas, EL PAIS se beneficia aumentando su riqueza, y de paso se beneficia el pueblo. En India cuando trataron de proteger a la industria de tejedoras manuales cuando las tejedoras automaticas aparecieron lo que lograron fue liquidar la industria textil del pais. Igualmente, tu crees que seria comercialmente viable fabricar mahones o camisas en EEUU, con todas las reglas de OSHA,EEOC, Dept of Labor, etc, cuando te cuesta una fraccion hacerlas en Vietnam? </p>
<p>Para que, para mantener a la fuerza un empleo que no es economicamente justificado? Eso es socialismo y eso nunca termina bien Chemo, ustedes dos, Chemo y Charlie se han convertido en los tipos mas cerraos y le estan dando tremenda batalla por eltitulo de Napoleon.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Mientras India se hundia en ese protecionismo socialista de Ghandi y Nehru, Hong Kong abrazaba lo mas posible el capitalismo que les trajo exito. Esto fue lo que dijo Sir John James Cowperthwaite, arquitecto de la prosperidad de Hong Kong:</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-right: 0px; ">
<p style="margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.3; "><span style="color:#0000ff;"><strong>&quot;In the long run, the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralised decisions of a government, and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster.&quot;</strong></span></p>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Aprendanse eso y dejense de las 'defecadas socialistas' con que ustedes dos se han puesto en los ultimos meses.</strong></div>
</blockquote>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Romney es el candidato mas Obamico que hay porque Huntsman no firmo in RomneyCare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Mobutu Sese' timestamp='1326298065' post='2944853']
Tiemblas...cada vez que vez a Romney..Tiemblas......
Primero que tiene de malo el capitalismo? Que sistema es mejor????
Segundo, cual es la mejor opcion para sacar al Obama de Washington?
Solo hay que observar las actuaciones de los politcios desesperados para reconocer que Romney es la opcion viable.
En politico puro y perfecto como el Obama prometio no existe, tienen que regresar a la realidad.
A los que apoyan a Ron Paul, mas vale revisen bien sus actuaciones en el Congreso aparte de su politica de aislamiento
antes de ponerse a apoyar a este senor.
Los que apoyan al Obama no van a cambiar, apoyan la division del pais, apoyan el mantengo y el socialismo,
viven de envidia, quieren que el gobierno les de todo y en vez de fomentar desarrollo y triunfo, viven bajo la
psicologia que "si yo no guiso, tu tampoco".
La realidad es que hay que votar en contra del Obama o sino de acaba de fastidiar el pais y el futuro de sus habitantes.....
solo hay que ver que TODOS los "economic advisors" del Obama han renunciado..para regresar al sector privado..
porque seria??????
[/quote]


Correcto.

Ademas, la mitad de los Paulistas son liberales que lo apoyan por su anti-intervencionismo, pero cuando salga y se lo pongan de frente a Obama ellos votaran por Obama sin pensarlo dos veces. Aqui hay dos de esos 'defecators' que piensan con la parte baja de sus tractos digestivos: Chemo y Obama.

[quote name='charlie319' timestamp='1326301975' post='2944858']
Romney es el candidato mas Obamico que hay porque Huntsman no firmo in RomneyCare.
[/quote]


Tu acusas a aguien de ser "obamico"? Tu despues de todo lo que has hablado en las ultimas semanas Charlie?

Tu votaste por Obama en 2008, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Te falto el monaguillo? Robbo-Mitt no arrastra a nadie... Paul tiene adeptos cuyo fanatismo opaca a los del corporativista. Lo que podria resultar en in menor numero de votantes republicanos. Edited by charlie319

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Artaguito' timestamp='1326302359' post='2944859']


Correcto.

Ademas, la mitad de los Paulistas son liberales que lo apoyan por su anti-intervencionismo, pero cuando salga y se lo pongan de frente a Obama ellos votaran por Obama sin pensarlo dos veces. Aqui hay dos de esos 'defecators' que piensan con la parte baja de sus tractos digestivos: Chemo y Obama.




Tu acusas a aguien de ser &quot;obamico&quot;? Tu despues de todo lo que has hablado en las ultimas semanas Charlie?

Tu votaste por Obama en 2008, no?[/quote]

Yo acuso a Romney, y no estoy solo en eso... Romney es el candidato que menos contrasta con Obama.

Vote por McCain por no darle el voto a Obama. Edited by charlie319

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='charlie319' timestamp='1326302571' post='2944861']
Te falto el monaguillo? Robbo-Mitt no arrastra a nadie... Paul tiene adeptos cuyo fanatismo opaca a los del corporativista. Lo que podria resultar en in menor numero de votantes republicanos.
[/quote]



Que es lo mas importante para ti Charlie, elegir a Ron Paul o eliminar a Obama?

Para mi es eliminar a Obama. A Ron Paul desde Mima para arriba y abajo de toda la escala democrata lo van a destruir por lo mismo que lo alaban hoy.

Lo que veo de ti es que por hacerle el juego a Chemo, que es esencialmente un incredulo que jugo al mercado, perdio el rado, y ahora le quiere echar la culpa a otros, estas diciendo unas cosas de 'Occupy WS/ Class Warfare' te estan empujando mas hacia la izquierda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
DIVIDE AND CONQUER.....como deben estar contentos en la casa de los Obama.....
Ron Paul no va a ganar nominacion alguna, solo le gusta hacer perder el tiempo a todo el mundo.
Gingrich ahora demuestra como el es en verdad, con razon pocos lo apoyan y ahora, critica a Romney
y ordena a su SuperPac el gastar millones atacando a Romney, lo que el Gingrich no les dice es que la
mayoria de ese dinero es donado por un billonario que apoya a Harry Reid ( senador democrata por Nevada)
y que hace su dinero en el negocio de los casinos en Las Vegas. Luego se aparece Rick "Alzheimer" Perry,
quien tampoco le deja saber a sus seguidores que financia a sus auspiciadores con dinero del estado de Texas,
conocido como : tax-payer financing. Estos senores estan deseperados y cuando el politico esta desesperado
demuestra como en realidad es y que tan lejos se atreve a ir con tal de ganar. Eso lo veremos en el Obama cuando
comienza en verdad la campana presidencial. Como todo el mundo sabe, el Barack gastara su BILLON de dolares en
anuncios en ataques personales al Romney pues record de logros, el Obama NO TIENE. Y las renuncia de su Chief of Staff
confirma que el Obama es "overconfident" pero de economia no sabe un k'rajo.
El Romney no es perfecto, pero la meta es sacar al Obama y en esa mision, el Romney la puede ganar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Lo importante para mi es mejorar la situacion del Pais y nuestros ciudadanos. Prefiero otro cuatrenio de un Obama sin mayoria legislativa que a Robbo-Mitt entregandole mas a sus cofraternos de Dewey, Cheatem & Howe...
No se como seras tu, pero a mi no me cambia nada de Lo que ocurre en un foro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Artaguito' timestamp='1326301880' post='2944857']
<p><span style="color:#ff0000;"><em><span style="font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; ">No como lo esta la ingenieria... Cuando eso pase, a duras penas estaras ganando $20.00 la hora... Mientras tu copiloto del dia, Apoo de Mumbai gana lo mismo que tu.</span></em></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; ">Yo he volado aqui par de veces con un copiloto de Mumbai, se llama Sami. El se gana lo mismo que se gana un copiloto americano ya que tiene licencia americana. Aunque yo vuelo carga lo que me protege a mi es los pasajeros que no les gustaria que los pilotos en aviones americanos fueran volados por extrangeros. O sea, clientes dictandole a laindustria, como debe de ser. </span><span style="color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; "> Esa transparencia no existe en la ingenieria o en otras profesiones.</span><span style="color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; "> Tambien el Homeland Security por razones de seguridad le ha hecho casi imposible a extrangeros para sacar las licencias en EEUU. </span></p>
<p><br style="color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; " />
<span style="color:#ff0000;"><em><span style="font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; ">Eso de &quot;defecator&quot; ha de ser por la ducha de heces que te ha caido por tus posturas politicas dignas de un Aznar o Franco. </span></em></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Aznar o Franco? Mejor no lo pudo decir Napoleon, Charlie.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Chemo:<span style="color:#ff0000;"><em><span class="bbc_underline" style="text-decoration: underline !important; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; "><span class="bbc_underline">En favor de quien</span></span></em><span style="font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; "><em> las corporaciones estan reguladas segun tu??</em></span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Esa pregunta no hace sentido, reconstruyela.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color: rgb(40, 40, 40); font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; ">Chemo</span><span style="color:#ff0000;"><span style="font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; "><em>: Tu crees que los tratados de libre comercio benefician al trabajador americano???</em></span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Si el tratado de libre comercio beneficia a corporaciones americanas, EL PAIS se beneficia aumentando su riqueza, y de paso se beneficia el pueblo. En India cuando trataron de proteger a la industria de tejedoras manuales cuando las tejedoras automaticas aparecieron lo que lograron fue liquidar la industria textil del pais. Igualmente, tu crees que seria comercialmente viable fabricar mahones o camisas en EEUU, con todas las reglas de OSHA,EEOC, Dept of Labor, etc, cuando te cuesta una fraccion hacerlas en Vietnam? </p>
<p>Para que, para mantener a la fuerza un empleo que no es economicamente justificado? Eso es socialismo y eso nunca termina bien Chemo, ustedes dos, Chemo y Charlie se han convertido en los tipos mas cerraos y le estan dando tremenda batalla por eltitulo de Napoleon.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Mientras India se hundia en ese protecionismo socialista de Ghandi y Nehru, Hong Kong abrazaba lo mas posible el capitalismo que les trajo exito. Esto fue lo que dijo Sir John James Cowperthwaite, arquitecto de la prosperidad de Hong Kong:</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; margin-right: 0px; ">
<p style="margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 20px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); line-height: 1.3; "><span style="color:#0000ff;"><strong>&quot;In the long run, the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralised decisions of a government, and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster.&quot;</strong></span></p>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Aprendanse eso y dejense de las 'defecadas socialistas' con que ustedes dos se han puesto en los ultimos meses.</strong></div>
</blockquote>
[/quote]


Este posteo esta tan enredado como tu cerebro!!!...Arreglalo y hablamos!!

jajajajajajajajajajjajajajajajjajajajajajajajajajajajajajaaaa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='charlie319' timestamp='1326305505' post='2944870']
Lo importante para mi es mejorar la situacion del Pais y nuestros ciudadanos. Prefiero otro cuatrenio de un Obama sin mayoria legislativa que a Robbo-Mitt entregandole mas a sus cofraternos de Dewey, Cheatem & Howe...
No se como seras tu, pero a mi no me cambia nada de Lo que ocurre en un foro.
[/quote]

Explicanos como Romney ha entregado mas a sus confraternos......convenceme con evidencia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Mobutu Sese' timestamp='1326308234' post='2944873']

Explicanos como Romney ha entregado mas a sus confraternos......convenceme con evidencia.
[/quote]


Romney es un CORPORATIVISTA promotor de exportar los empleos de los americanos a los chinos ,asiaticos o cualquier pais tercermundista donde la mano de obra sea mas barata....el como la gran mayoria de los politicos de EEUU estan a favor de que ls corporaciones envien los trabajos de nuestros ciudadanos al extranjero creando el desempleo que hoy en dia hay en EEUU...asi de facil!!!...yo no le doy mi voto a ningun politico que fomente el desempleo en EEUU en favor de las corporaciones!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Chemo..como hacen dinero las corporaciones? Como hace dinero Ford? Pfizer? IBM?
Acaso no crean empleos ???? El mundo no es perfecto, para una corporacion sobrevivir
y competir de una manera que haga dinero, estos dias, tiene que exportar la produccion a
China.....sino se va a la quiebra. Ademas imagina cuantos fondos de retiros ( maestros, policias,
bomberos, etc.) dependen de los ingresos de esas coroporaciones..... Cual corporacion existe
para hacer servicio publico y no tener ingresos? Y sin buenos ingresos, que corporacion
puede hacer servicio publico, pagar impuestos, crear empleos,etc.?
Una cosa es ser CEO de una corporacion con fines de lucro y otra ser Presidente..diferentes
problemas y prioridades....no crees????
Mandale los $250 a Romney y celebra! Edited by Mobutu Sese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Mobutu Sese' timestamp='1326308234' post='2944873']

Explicanos como Romney ha entregado mas a sus confraternos......convenceme con evidencia.
[/quote]


No tengo que ir muy lejos:

Bain Capital tied to bankruptcy, closing of KC steel plant
By DAVE HELLING
The Kansas City Star
Bain Capital, a company once operated by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, was involved in the 2001 bankruptcy and closing of one of Kansas City’s oldest manufacturing plants.

[u]Bain, founded in part by Romney, owned a controlling interest in GST Industries Inc., a steel manufacturer that declared bankruptcy in February 2001. As part of the bankruptcy, the company closed the GST Steel plant in northeast Kansas City, laying off 750 workers[/u].

Romney was not a part of the bankruptcy. He founded Bain in 1984 but left in 1999, two years before the filing and closure, although he is believed to have received income from the company after leaving. It isn’t known how much money, if any, Romney earned from Bain’s stake in the steel plant.

Bain’s involvement with GST Steel was detailed Friday by the Reuters news agency. In the story, former workers said Bain had mismanaged the acquisition, loading up the company with debt while earning profits for itself and in the end abandoning some of its pension commitments.

Bain’s business practices have been an issue in the GOP presidential primary, with critics claiming the former Massachusetts governor has been responsible for layoffs and job elimination.
In campaign appearances and debates, Romney has admitted Bain bought some businesses that did not succeed. But he says overall Bain has bought and developed companies that have added employees.

Bain, with Romney at the helm, bought the former Armco Worldwide Grinding System business in 1993, including part of the massive steel plant near the Blue River in northeast Kansas City. A steelworks had operated on the site since the 1880s. At its peak, when it was known as Armco Steel, the plant employed 4,500 people.

That workforce had dwindled dramatically by the time GST Steel took over operations, making steel rods and grinding apparatus.
By 2001, facing increased competition from cheaper imported steel — and [u]several years after a bitter labor dispute at the plant — GST Industries filed for bankruptcy and closed the subsidiary Kansas City operation, dismissing the remaining employees. A spokesman for the company said GST Steel lost $25 million in 2000[/u].

The company also said it could not meet full pension and health care commitments to retirees, the [u]Reuters story said. In August 2002 the federal government, through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., said the company had underfunded its pension obligations by $44 million.[/u]

The pension agency stepped in to pay basic benefits to the plant’s retirees. The benefit paid to GST Steel workers was less than the benefit promised in contract negotiations.

Pension agency benefits were paid for by premiums provided by pension plans and not directly from taxpayers.
In a statement to Reuters, Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams said: “Bain Capital invested in many businesses. While not every business was successful, the firm had an excellent overall track record and created jobs.”

But Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement: “This is a template of what Mitt Romney did as a corporate buyout specialist.”

[left]Newt Gingrich: 'Crony capitalism ... is not free enterprise'[/left][left]By Michael Finnegan[/left][left]8:46 AM PST, January 11, 2012[/left][left]Reporting from Rock Hill, S.C. Opening what could be a make-or-break campaign to win South Carolina's Republican presidential primary, Newt Gingrich defended his criticism of Mitt Romney's role as an investment banker in corporate buyouts that led to job losses.

"Criticizing specific actions in specific places is not being anti-free enterprise," the former House Speaker told a crowd that packed a banquet hall here in upstate South Carolina on Wednesday, rejecting Romney's suggestion that questioning his record as chief executive of Bain Capital was tantamount to attacking free enterprise.

[b]"And crony capitalism, where people pay each other off at the expense of the rest of the country, is not free enterprise," Gingrich said. "And raising questions about that is not wrong."[/b]

On Tuesday night in New Hampshire, Romney accused "desperate Republicans" of joining forces with President Obama in dividing America "with the bitter politics of envy."

Another Romney rival for the Republican nomination, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, has been highlighting Bain Capital takeover deals that caused layoffs at two South Carolina manufacturing plants. And a super-PAC that supports Gingrich plans to air a scathing anti-Romney TV commercial on the topic in the days leading up to South Carolina's pivotal Jan. 21 primary.

Gingrich, who finished in fourth place in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday and the Iowa caucuses last week, hopes to fare better in South Carolina.

But with Perry, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum still in the race, South Carolina’s key conservative evangelicals could fracture their support, to Romney’s benefit. The former Massachusetts governor’s strength is in more moderate coastal areas of the state, where former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. also hopes to pick up support.

It is a dynamic that Gingrich likely must change quickly if his candidacy is to be viable beyond South Carolina.

"I believe that South Carolinians are either going to center in, and pick one conservative, or by default you’re going to send a moderate on to the nomination," Gingrich, his wife Callista at his side, told the crowd Wednesday at the Laurel Hill banquet hall.

Gingrich signaled he would focus in South Carolina on what he described as the persecution of Christians, whether by U.S. judges whose rulings constrain church liberties or by repressive regimes abroad.

"If you will help me win this election, we will not tolerate a speech dictatorship in this country against Christianity," he said, drawing a standing ovation from dozens of the spectators.

Displaying his combative streak, Gingrich took his own party to task as he cast himself as a champion of mainstream Americans cheated by a Wall Street establishment embodied by Romney. His main target was the 2008 government bailout of big banks.

"This is bipartisan," he said. "The initial wave of money came out under the Bush administration when you had a Goldman Sachs secretary of the Treasury, and a Goldman Sachs chief of staff, and a Goldman Sachs deputy in charge of the bailout – and oh, by the way, when AIG got lots of money, $13 billion of it happened to go to Goldman Sachs."

"They didn’t bail out a small bank in South Carolina," he continued. "They didn't bail out all the folks whose homes were in trouble. ... But boy, if you were big enough, they couldn't add enough zeros to the check."

Speaking to reporters afterward, Gingrich said Romney should be called to account for job losses that resulted from deals that spawned big fees for Bain Capital, just as the Federal Reserve should be audited.

"If we’re going to run a presidential campaign based on a record, the record has to be open to review," he said. "Now, this is not 'anti-capitalism.' That is the smoke screen of those who are afraid to be accountable.[/left][left]"I am for a free-enterprise system. I am for capitalism. I am for entrepreneurship. But I'm also for the American people’s right to understand: What are the games that are being played? How are they being played? Are they fair to the American people? Or in fact, as I think is the case clearly in the money coming out of the Federal Reserve, are there deals being cut by huge institutions and very rich people at the expense of the American middle class?"[/left][left][i]michael.finnegan@latimes.com[/i][/left]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Mobutu Sese' timestamp='1326313886' post='2944878']
Chemo..como hacen dinero las corporaciones? Como hace dinero Ford? Pfizer? IBM?
Acaso no crean empleos ???? El mundo no es perfecto, para una corporacion sobrevivir
y competir de una manera que haga dinero, estos dias, tiene que exportar la produccion a
China.....sino se va a la quiebra. Ademas imagina cuantos fondos de retiros ( maestros, policias,
bomberos, etc.) dependen de los ingresos de esas coroporaciones..... Cual corporacion existe
para hacer servicio publico y no tener ingresos? Y sin buenos ingresos, que corporacion
puede hacer servicio publico, pagar impuestos, crear empleos,etc.?
Una cosa es ser CEO de una corporacion con fines de lucro y otra ser Presidente..diferentes
problemas y prioridades....no crees????
Mandale los $250 a Romney y celebra!
[/quote]


Veo que vienes de bombero... Nolo se retiro y te llaman del equipo finca...

Leete esto y piensa....

[url="http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10506-does-the-establishment-media-fear-ron-paul"]Does the Establishment Media Fear Ron Paul?[/url] [url="http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10506-does-the-establishment-media-fear-ron-paul?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page="]| Print |[/url] [url="http://www.thenewamerican.com/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&link=aHR0cDovL3d3dy50aGVuZXdhbWVyaWNhbi5jb20vdXNuZXdzL3BvbGl0aWNzLzEwNTA2LWRvZXMtdGhlLWVzdGFibGlzaG1lbnQtbWVkaWEtZmVhci1yb24tcGF1bA%3D%3D"] [/url] [size="1"][color="#666666"]Written by Joe Wolverton, II [/color][/size] Wednesday, 11 January 2012 09:50


Want proof that the establishment (the so-called “conservative” establishment, that is) fears Ron Paul and needs Mitt Romney to win the Republican campaign for President? Read this [url="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577150801795795444.html"]headline from the [i]Wall Street Journal[/i][/url]: "No one has done more to help Mitt Romney than has the libertarian candidate Ron Paul, who has no chance to win the GOP presidential nomination himself."

The author continues:
[indent=1]If Mitt Romney wins the GOP presidential nomination, he's going to owe Ron Paul a fee for services rendered. No one has done more to help Mr. Romney than has the libertarian candidate, who has no chance to win the nomination himself but has savaged the rest of the field while giving the former Massachusetts governor a pass.[/indent]

The intended message is as subtle as a two-by-four upside the head: Ron Paul can’t win, so he’s going to handle Mitt Romney’s light work and run interference for him, clearing the former Massachusetts Governor’s way to the White House.

What could compel Ron Paul, a “libertarian,” to carry water for Mitt Romney, the very model of the status quo, big-government, country club Republican?

Two reasons are posited in the [i]Wall Street Journal[/i] article:

First, “Perhaps Mr. Paul figures that by attacking the others, he might emerge as the last challenger standing.”

How is it possible that a man could survive the primary gauntlet, bring an end to the campaigns of all other competitors, and yet still have “no chance to win the nomination?”

How does that proposition make sense? Wouldn’t such a formidable opponent — one with such proven appeal to a broad-based, national electorate — have a legitimate chance at giving Romney a run for his money? Is that what neo-con mouthpieces such as the [i]Wall Street Journal[/i] fear most, and is that why they and other similar outlets are constantly pouring poison down the Ron Paul well?

The next possible explanation for the assist by Ron Paul that will lead to the Romney slam dunk is that “Mr. Paul figures his best chance to run as a third-party candidate is if Mr. Romney, as the establishment favorite, is the GOP nominee and doesn't give Mr. Paul enough prominence at the convention or in the party platform.”

So, Ron Paul knows that despite finishing within a few points of Romney in Iowa, despite coming in [url="http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10504-new-hampshire-romney-wins-paul-second"]second place in New Hampshire[/url], and despite surveys that indicate he would be at least as serious a challenger to Barack Obama as would Romney himself, Dr. Paul doesn’t have much faith in himself so he is setting the stage for a third-party run. The author points out that Ron Paul “hasn’t ruled out a third-party run” although he has, in fact, [url="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/1107/Ron-Paul-denies-third-party-run.-So-why-are-pundits-still-talking-about-it"]repeatedly done just that[/url].

Furthermore, how are Ron Paul’s chances of becoming President better as a third-party candidate, especially in light of the author’s insistence that he has “no chance” to even become the choice of one of the country’s two major parties? Think about that.

As if Ron Paul’s complicity in this conspiratorial “non-aggression pact” isn’t incredible enough, the author points out that Romney is playing his part effectively, as well. So grateful is Mitt Romney for Ron Paul’s laying down of cover fire, that “he never criticizes Mr. Paul.”

Could there be an alternate reason behind Romney’s reluctance to engage Ron Paul directly? Could it be that Romney realizes that in order to make a successful run through the primaries he needs to keep himself cloaked in the conservative mantle and that should he rattle sabers with a genuine constitutionalist such as Ron Paul it might be revealed that the emperor has no clothes — giving reasonable Republicans a reason to reconsider Ron Paul?

Consider for a minute another possible explanation for Ron Paul’s eschewing of attacks against Mitt Romney. Ron Paul knows who he is and he appreciates the identity of the audience to whom his constitutionalist message appeals. Those voters satisfied with the status quo, those voters for whom the individual mandate of ObamaCare is no concern, voters for whom bailouts are no big deal, and those voters who see the growth of government as an antidote to the economic and social ills that are plaguing our Republic will never vote for Ron Paul, and no one knows that better than the Texas Congressman.

The salient question would be what percentage of Republicans participating in the primaries are truly conservative. Assuming that a third of that universe of potential supporters are solidly behind Mitt Romney, that leaves two-thirds of likely voters up for grabs. Mindful of the math, perhaps Ron Paul believes (and rightly so) that this wide band of the Republican spectrum can be persuaded to pull the lever for a candidate who is pro-life, pro-liberty, and puts the interests of America first.

Despite the ravings of pundits painting the picture of a Paul presidency as nothing more than the addled fantasy of marginal extremists, such a proposition is not at all far-fetched. Witness [url="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/09/cbs-poll-independents-prefer-ron-paul-vs-obama/"]this poll conducted by CBS News and published by[i] Forbes[/i][/url]:
[indent=1]A total of 47% of independent voters said they would choose Ron Paul compared to 45% of independent voters choosing Mitt Romney against Obama, and 41% of independents saying they would choose Rick Santorum. If a Paul-Obama showdown were ever to take place, 47% of independent voters would vote for Paul, 81% Republicans and 10% Democrats for a total of 45% of the vote. Obama would get just 40% of the independent vote in that contest, with 85% of the Democrats choosing Obama and 9% of Republicans choosing the President on election day in November. Obama would win the general election by a narrow one point margin if the election was held today between the two.[/indent]

The answer to the question, then, perhaps lies behind the numbers. The data reveal that Ron Paul can displace Barack Obama. The polls show that Ron Paul is considered a viable candidate by a significant percentage of Republican voters.

Furthermore, consider the question of whither the independent voter. Nearly half of those surveyed responded that they would support Ron Paul over Mitt Romney. Combine the independents with over a quarter of Republicans and Ron Paul has the numbers in his favor.

Perhaps what is ultimately more important is the fact that Mitt Romney’s record is irrefutable: He [url="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/186929-romney-defends-tarp-questions-auto-bailouts"]supported the bank bailout[/url], he supported the related TARP legislation, he [url="http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-03/bostonglobe/29685092_1_mitt-romney-individual-mandate-romneycare"]signed an individual mandate into law[/url], and he unapologetically a[url="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2012/0104/Bomb-Iran-Where-Mitt-Romney-and-Rick-Santorum-stand"]dvocates military action against Iran[/url] and [url="http://www.cbsnews.com/2102-505103_162-57323734.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody"]Syria[/url].

Examine those positions and ask yourself, what is the difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney? Policy-wise — nothing. Mitt Romney will assume powers not granted to the executive branch in order to solve the crises facing this nation.

Are there any voters who believe that Mitt Romney will be bound by the enumerated powers of the Constitution? Is there a more reliable metric by which Americans should measure the conservatism of a candidate?

When it comes time to enter the voting booth and register their choice for who would most faithfully adhere to the presidential oath of office, perhaps voters should follow Mitt Romney’s advice and [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOq3O8g1xw4"]defer to the [/url][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOq3O8g1xw4"]“constitutionalist[/url].”



[b] Ron Paul’s staying power threatens to alter debate[/b]


[size="2"][color="#777777"][b]By Daniel Indiviglio[/b][/color][/size]
[size="2"][color="#777777"][b]January 11, 2012[/b][/color][/size]
[b]By Daniel Indiviglio and Martin Hutchinson[/b]

[i]The authors are Reuters Breakingviews columnists. The opinions expressed are their own.[/i]
Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary but Ron Paul’s showing could have as big an effect on the race. After finishing third in Iowa, the Texas Republican placed second in the Granite State, securing nearly one in four votes. That keeps him in the hunt to challenge Romney for now and could inspire him to make a third-party run later. Either way, the longer Paul sticks around, the more the national debate is likely to shift on important economic issues.
Paul’s crusade against the Federal Reserve will keep the spotlight on the central bank and Chairman Ben Bernanke. Paul’s desire to strengthen the dollar and sharply raise interest rates could resonate with voters, especially if inflation noticeably picks up by summer. And Romney and Barack Obama would be put in the unenviable position of supporting a weaker dollar, or explaining a more nuanced view on a complex subject.
The matter of domestic spending will stay front and center with Paul around, too. He would cut to the bone, while Romney and Obama are more inclined to slice surgically, if at all. The libertarian-leaning candidate would axe at least five agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, and push harder for expanding domestic oil exploration than Romney, potentially leaving him on the defensive.
[u]On tax reform, Paul is also more aggressive than Romney. While the frontrunner would extend the Bush-era tax cuts and make other small tweaks to the code, Paul wants a bigger overhaul. His push for simplification, ending many deductions and a flat tax will keep the hot-button issues on the agenda[/u].
[b]The biggest distinction would be on foreign policy. Paul wants to hack military spending and engagement deeper than either Romney or Obama, perhaps even pulling U.S. troops out of Europe. He also wants less U.S. funding for the United Nations, World Bank and International Monetary Fund. That’ll leave the other two candidates trying to tell voters why their tax dollars should help defend far-flung nations or stabilize their economies.[/b]
A third-party run by Paul probably would ensure an Obama win. It would also, however, make the president answer uncomfortable questions and even catalyze some subtle but important shifts in policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='charlie319' timestamp='1326314385' post='2944880']


No tengo que ir muy lejos:

Bain Capital tied to bankruptcy, closing of KC steel plant
By DAVE HELLING
The Kansas City Star
Bain Capital, a company once operated by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, was involved in the 2001 bankruptcy and closing of one of Kansas City’s oldest manufacturing plants.

[u]Bain, founded in part by Romney, owned a controlling interest in GST Industries Inc., a steel manufacturer that declared bankruptcy in February 2001. As part of the bankruptcy, the company closed the GST Steel plant in northeast Kansas City, laying off 750 workers[/u].

Romney was not a part of the bankruptcy. He founded Bain in 1984 but left in 1999, two years before the filing and closure, although he is believed to have received income from the company after leaving. It isn’t known how much money, if any, Romney earned from Bain’s stake in the steel plant.

Bain’s involvement with GST Steel was detailed Friday by the Reuters news agency. In the story, former workers said Bain had mismanaged the acquisition, loading up the company with debt while earning profits for itself and in the end abandoning some of its pension commitments.

Bain’s business practices have been an issue in the GOP presidential primary, with critics claiming the former Massachusetts governor has been responsible for layoffs and job elimination.
In campaign appearances and debates, Romney has admitted Bain bought some businesses that did not succeed. But he says overall Bain has bought and developed companies that have added employees.

Bain, with Romney at the helm, bought the former Armco Worldwide Grinding System business in 1993, including part of the massive steel plant near the Blue River in northeast Kansas City. A steelworks had operated on the site since the 1880s. At its peak, when it was known as Armco Steel, the plant employed 4,500 people.

That workforce had dwindled dramatically by the time GST Steel took over operations, making steel rods and grinding apparatus.
By 2001, facing increased competition from cheaper imported steel — and [u]several years after a bitter labor dispute at the plant — GST Industries filed for bankruptcy and closed the subsidiary Kansas City operation, dismissing the remaining employees. A spokesman for the company said GST Steel lost $25 million in 2000[/u].

The company also said it could not meet full pension and health care commitments to retirees, the [u]Reuters story said. In August 2002 the federal government, through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., said the company had underfunded its pension obligations by $44 million.[/u]

The pension agency stepped in to pay basic benefits to the plant’s retirees. The benefit paid to GST Steel workers was less than the benefit promised in contract negotiations.

Pension agency benefits were paid for by premiums provided by pension plans and not directly from taxpayers.
In a statement to Reuters, Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams said: “Bain Capital invested in many businesses. While not every business was successful, the firm had an excellent overall track record and created jobs.”

But Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement: “This is a template of what Mitt Romney did as a corporate buyout specialist.”

[left]Newt Gingrich: 'Crony capitalism ... is not free enterprise'[/left][left]By Michael Finnegan[/left][left]8:46 AM PST, January 11, 2012[/left][left]Reporting from Rock Hill, S.C. Opening what could be a make-or-break campaign to win South Carolina's Republican presidential primary, Newt Gingrich defended his criticism of Mitt Romney's role as an investment banker in corporate buyouts that led to job losses.[/left]

"Criticizing specific actions in specific places is not being anti-free enterprise," the former House Speaker told a crowd that packed a banquet hall here in upstate South Carolina on Wednesday, rejecting Romney's suggestion that questioning his record as chief executive of Bain Capital was tantamount to attacking free enterprise.

[b]"And crony capitalism, where people pay each other off at the expense of the rest of the country, is not free enterprise," Gingrich said. "And raising questions about that is not wrong."[/b]

On Tuesday night in New Hampshire, Romney accused "desperate Republicans" of joining forces with President Obama in dividing America "with the bitter politics of envy."

Another Romney rival for the Republican nomination, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, has been highlighting Bain Capital takeover deals that caused layoffs at two South Carolina manufacturing plants. And a super-PAC that supports Gingrich plans to air a scathing anti-Romney TV commercial on the topic in the days leading up to South Carolina's pivotal Jan. 21 primary.

Gingrich, who finished in fourth place in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday and the Iowa caucuses last week, hopes to fare better in South Carolina.

But with Perry, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum still in the race, South Carolina’s key conservative evangelicals could fracture their support, to Romney’s benefit. The former Massachusetts governor’s strength is in more moderate coastal areas of the state, where former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. also hopes to pick up support.

It is a dynamic that Gingrich likely must change quickly if his candidacy is to be viable beyond South Carolina.

"I believe that South Carolinians are either going to center in, and pick one conservative, or by default you’re going to send a moderate on to the nomination," Gingrich, his wife Callista at his side, told the crowd Wednesday at the Laurel Hill banquet hall.

Gingrich signaled he would focus in South Carolina on what he described as the persecution of Christians, whether by U.S. judges whose rulings constrain church liberties or by repressive regimes abroad.

"If you will help me win this election, we will not tolerate a speech dictatorship in this country against Christianity," he said, drawing a standing ovation from dozens of the spectators.

Displaying his combative streak, Gingrich took his own party to task as he cast himself as a champion of mainstream Americans cheated by a Wall Street establishment embodied by Romney. His main target was the 2008 government bailout of big banks.

"This is bipartisan," he said. "The initial wave of money came out under the Bush administration when you had a Goldman Sachs secretary of the Treasury, and a Goldman Sachs chief of staff, and a Goldman Sachs deputy in charge of the bailout – and oh, by the way, when AIG got lots of money, $13 billion of it happened to go to Goldman Sachs."

"They didn’t bail out a small bank in South Carolina," he continued. "They didn't bail out all the folks whose homes were in trouble. ... But boy, if you were big enough, they couldn't add enough zeros to the check."

Speaking to reporters afterward, Gingrich said Romney should be called to account for job losses that resulted from deals that spawned big fees for Bain Capital, just as the Federal Reserve should be audited.

"If we’re going to run a presidential campaign based on a record, the record has to be open to review," he said. "Now, this is not 'anti-capitalism.' That is the smoke screen of those who are afraid to be accountable.[left]"I am for a free-enterprise system. I am for capitalism. I am for entrepreneurship. But I'm also for the American people’s right to understand: What are the games that are being played? How are they being played? Are they fair to the American people? Or in fact, as I think is the case clearly in the money coming out of the Federal Reserve, are there deals being cut by huge institutions and very rich people at the expense of the American middle class?"[/left][left][i]michael.finnegan@latimes.com[/i][/left]

[/quote]

Bueno conociendo que eres honesto en tus creencias, porque no publicas tambien el editorial del WSJ de hoy 1/11/12?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Por que no Lo traes tu?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Mobutu Sese' timestamp='1326313886' post='2944878']
Chemo..como hacen dinero las corporaciones? Como hace dinero Ford? Pfizer? IBM?
Acaso no crean empleos ???? El mundo no es perfecto, para una corporacion sobrevivir
y competir de una manera que haga dinero, estos dias, tiene que exportar la produccion a
China.....sino se va a la quiebra. Ademas imagina cuantos fondos de retiros ( maestros, policias,
bomberos, etc.) dependen de los ingresos de esas coroporaciones..... Cual corporacion existe
para hacer servicio publico y no tener ingresos? Y sin buenos ingresos, que corporacion
puede hacer servicio publico, pagar impuestos, crear empleos,etc.?
Una cosa es ser CEO de una corporacion con fines de lucro y otra ser Presidente..diferentes
problemas y prioridades....no crees????
Mandale los $250 a Romney y celebra!
[/quote]


Interesante!!!!....No pensaba que fueses tan sumiso cuando el sistema deja sin empleos a los trabajadores de la nacion donde vives!!!....Si estas feliz con el hecho de que cada dia en EEUU haya menos empresas que produzcan sus productos en EEUU por que un corillo de politicos de el congreso bajo el mando de las corporaciones hayan creado una serie de tratados de libre comercio para solo ellos beneficiarse pues vota entonces por Romney o cualquier otro politico republicano o democrata, a fin de cuentas todos ellos son los mismos buitres , todos ellos apoyan que las corporaciones se lleven los empleos nacionales a otros paises para hacerlos a ellos mas ricos y luego traer aqui sus productos y venderlos triplicando las ganancias de ellos .....y el trabajador americano??

Casi todos los politicos de ambos partidos reciben dinero para sus campañas politicas de estas corporaciones....y lo demas ya es historia! Edited by Chemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Chemo' timestamp='1326310731' post='2944876']


Romney es un CORPORATIVISTA promotor de exportar los empleos de los americanos a los chinos ,asiaticos o cualquier pais tercermundista donde la mano de obra sea mas barata....el como la gran mayoria de los politicos de EEUU estan a favor de que ls corporaciones envien los trabajos de nuestros ciudadanos al extranjero creando el desempleo que hoy en dia hay en EEUU...asi de facil!!!...yo no le doy mi voto a ningun politico que fomente el desempleo en EEUU en favor de las corporaciones!!
[/quote]


Y por eso es que yo digo que o tu estabas destinado a fracasar en tus negocios, o es mentira que esos negocios existan (o tu seas duen~o, tal ves eres simplemente un empleado).

Es una obligacion fiduciaria de la gerencia de esa corporacion hacia los accionistas de esta buscar los mejores precios de produccion. Si estos precios son mas baratos y es legal hacerlo, es deseable que se haga alla. Tal ves como tu y los 'Defecators' no saben mucho como el mercado funciona eso te suene grotesco y obceno, pero es como funcionan las cosas en los mercados libres.

Si hubiesen maquiladoras en este lado del borde que pagaran $1 por hora de trabajo, tal vez podrias producir aqui los mahones que compras a los precios que pagas, pero con las leyes y reglas en este pais esas industrias se tienen que ir afuera a manufacturar.

O tienes una fabrica que pague una miseria o pagas por el extra costo, pero es muy dificil que tengas las dos. La solucion es dejarle esas industrias de baja destreza al exterior y concentrarse en desarrollar industrias de alta destreza.



[b]Y Charlie, yo no tengo tiempo de leer articulos kilometricos llenos de basofia, por favor redacta y lleva al grano; es como si estuviera leyendo los posts que ponia Fearless![/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0