RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Holland reports: "On the day before an election that's supposed to hinge on jobs, taxes and the middle class, Bain Capital, the company Mitt Romney founded, will...ship 170 good, high-tech jobs to China."

Mitt Romney at Bain Capital in the early 1990's. (photo: David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe/Getty Images)
Mitt Romney at Bain Capital in the early 1990's. (photo: David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe/Getty Images)


Romney's Bain Capital to Send High-Tech Jobs to China Right Before the Election

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet

17 October 12

 

The story of Sensata Technologies is about the hollowing out of America's economy by a rapacious 1 percent.

n the day before an election that's supposed to hinge on jobs, taxes and the middle class, Bain Capital, the company Mitt Romney founded, will close the doors of a factory in Freeport, Illinois, and ship 170 good, high-tech jobs to China.

The employees of Sensata Technologies were forced to train their Chinese replacements, and the American flag that long flew over the factory was reportedly removed while the Chinese engineers were visiting the site. A group of workers have set up camp across from the factory - calling it "Bainport" - and some supporters have tried to block the trucks hauling equipment out of the plant. According to Dave Johnson, there have been several arrests.

Sensata workers have asked to meet with Mitt Romney and hoped to enlist his help keeping their jobs in the United States, but he has refused, instead remaining on the campaign trail where he speaks often about "getting tough" with China.

The most important part of the story is that Sensata Technologies is profitable operating in Illinois. Net income last year was $355 million, up 16 percent from 2010. The company reported total revenues of $1.8 billion in 2011, up almost 19 percent from the year before. According to a company financial statement, "both 2011 net revenue and adjusted net income represent record levels for the company."

So this has nothing to do with "making hard choices" in the process of turning around a failing business, which is how the Romney campaign describes Bain's corporate raiding. Bain's partners are looking for a modest boost in profits by locating the plant closer to the booming Asian automotive market (Sensata makes high-tech automotive parts). They'll get a small tax break for relocating the plant - the one Mitt Romney insisted did not exist during the first debate - and possibly defer taxes on some of the income the company generates.

It takes both capital and labor to make a successful business like Sensata Technologies. In order to make a few more bucks, 170 of the people who helped make the company thrive will be cast aside like so much trash. The layoffs will surely have a ripple-effect in Freeport - a town of 25,000 with a declining population and a poverty rate well above the national average. The move is the epitome of corporate America's lack of patriotism - it's capital unmoored from any sense of responsibility for the people that make the profits or the communities where they live. The city passed a resolution Monday asking Romney to intervene.

But the Sensata story has, so far, had little impact on the presidential race, mostly because Mitt Romney has no direct involvement in the operations of the company he established (despite continuing to make millions as a "passive retired partner"). But this is reading the story of Bain Capital too narrowly. Mitt Romney is directly responsible for its business model.

As Tom Gaulrapp - a lifelong resident of Freeport and 33-year employee of Sensata - told the Huffington Post's Amanda Terkel, "They're still using his business model. He's the one who taught them how to do this. These guys were put there by him. So you can say he doesn't run the day-to-day operations, but he's still at blame for the way they do business."

Mitt Romney started the firm, and built it up on a strategy of buying firms with little money down, loading them with debt, raiding their pension funds and breaking their unions and then "harvesting them" - in his words - for a profit. Romney is the only person to ever serve as Bain's CEO - since his departure, the firm has been run by a managing committee.

The story is bigger than Sensata, and bigger than Bain. The issue is the turn America's corporate culture has taken, and what the consequences of its model are for our economy and, indeed, our society. And it is Mitt Romney's embrace of that model - ravage capitalism that is loyal to no nation-state and blind to every human virtue but profit - that should be disqualifying.

In the New York Times, Chrystia Freeland, author of "Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else," wrote about the historical tendency of elites to self-destruct by extracting wealth from the broader community to such a degree that the society becomes dysfunctional and mired by social problems. She recalls how the Venetians became the most prosperous society in the world during the 14th century by opening their economy to a broad swath of the population. Then, at the height of its golden age, "the upper class acted to lock in its privileges, putting a formal stop to social mobility with the publication of the Libro d’Oro, or Book of Gold, an official register of the nobility. If you weren’t on it, you couldn’t join the ruling oligarchy."

She then notes parallels to the United States, which featured one of the most egalitarian economies through much of the last century, but is now plagued by rising inequality and decreasing economic mobility. She writes:

The 1 percent cannot evade its share of responsibility for the growing gulf in American society. Economic forces may be behind the rising inequality, but as Peter R. Orszag, President Obama’s former budget chief, told me, public policy has exacerbated rather than mitigated these trends.

Even as the winner-take-all economy has enriched those at the very top, their tax burden has lightened. Tolerance for high executive compensation has increased, even as the legal powers of unions have been weakened and an intellectual case against them has been relentlessly advanced by plutocrat-financed think tanks. In the 1950s, the marginal income tax rate for those at the top of the distribution soared above 90 percent, a figure that today makes even Democrats flinch. Meanwhile, of the 400 richest taxpayers in 2009, 6 paid no federal income tax at all, and 27 paid 10 percent or less. None paid more than 35 percent...

Educational attainment, which created the American middle class, is no longer rising. The super-elite lavishes unlimited resources on its children, while public schools are starved of funding. This is the new [Venice]. An elite education is increasingly available only to those already at the top. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama enrolled their daughters in an exclusive private school; I’ve done the same with mine.

Much of this is the result of the 30-year assault on organized labor. It's worth noting that Sensata Technologies is a non-union shop, which is a big reason the firm can move profitable operations abroad without much resistance.

Employment, in raw jobs numbers, should not be the defining issue of this election viewed in isolation. We also need to consider what kinds of jobs are being created. A recent study conducted by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) found that while only 21 percent of the jobs lost during the recession were low-paying (with median hourly wages from $7.69 to $13.83), a majority of those created during the recovery - 58 percent - have come with such low wages.

These trends are not Mitt Romney's doing, but he is the walking, talking personification of what's been happening in the American economy. Mitt Romney was an innovator in offshoring. He and his family will make a few more dollars as a result of shipping those jobs to China, at the expense of the workers who "built that" in the first place. That's why the story of Sensata Technologies should have an impact in this race.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+128 # portiz 2012-10-17 12:05
Capitalism is not "patriotic"; it's silly to expect any business to act as if "making jobs", rather than "making money".

'Ro-money' and Bain are in the business of making money, they are not in the business of making jobs.

Romoney is a capitalist, not a patriot... and that's just one more reason why he should never be president.
 
 
+75 # robniel 2012-10-17 21:12
Be sure to watch Ed Schultz on MSNBC on Friday evening to get the scoop on this one.
 
 
-96 # phantomww 2012-10-17 21:29
Well if you both watch him then that will double the normal audience.
 
 
+52 # robniel 2012-10-18 05:40
At least no one will be bogged down by the usual GOP knuckle-dragger BS.
 
 
+49 # pernsey 2012-10-18 05:52
Quoting phantomww:
Well if you both watch him then that will double the normal audience.


Ed Schultz is pulling in more of an audience then Bill Orally, from Fox. Hmm does that mean only 1 person is watching Bill-O?

Atleast its not made up BS like what appears on Fox to keep the nut jobs appeased and in a nonsensical bubble of misinformation and lies.
 
 
-39 # phantomww 2012-10-18 08:01
pernsey, Please provide proof of your statement. Here are the real numbers from Neilsen ratings.

From Mon Oct 15. (numbers in 000's)
O'reilly 3662
Schultz 1151

For the 11pm replay
O'reilly 1368
Ed show 698

For Prime time, NOT ONE MSNBC show beats ANY Fox News show.

BTW,
Hannity 2778
Maddow 1351

So O'reilly beats Ed 3-1 (not even close) and Hannity beats Madcow 2-1

So Please tell me again that Ed has a bigger audience than O'reilly and how is the orange flavored kool-aid?
 
 
+22 # Billy Bob 2012-10-18 09:22
So, please tell me again what this has to do with the article. Is your purpose to make sure no one reads the truth about Twit?
 
 
-23 # phantomww 2012-10-18 14:20
My purpose is to ridicule the ED show. I used to listen to him when he was on the radio but then he went off the deep end and has become a flaming idiot. I used to think of him as a reasonable liberal but he really changed. I don't care what is shown on MSNBC because very few people (kool-aid drinkers) actually watch it. As the numbers prove.
 
 
+4 # bingers 2012-10-20 10:09
He was originally a conservative talker until he saw what conservatism was doing to the country. Once he woke up, he became liberal. That's probably when you listened and thought he was a reasonable "liberal."
 
 
+6 # rockieball 2012-10-19 06:17
I agree Billy. What does watching Fox or MSNBC have to do with this article? It is the classic bait and switch tactic to take people off the facts of subject and have them be concerned with ill-relevant useless subjects.
 
 
+7 # pernsey 2012-10-18 12:16
Well you just proved more then 2 people are watching Ed Schultz LOL!! Enough said.
 
 
-15 # phantomww 2012-10-18 14:22
Nice one lol. Like you actually believed there were only 2 people watching.
 
 
+7 # Regina 2012-10-18 13:56
Multiply each of those by the average IQ of their respective audiences, and you'll see the REAL comparison. Unfortunately, votes are filed and counted individually. That's why we're in danger of being swamped by the swamp critters.
 
 
+6 # David Starr 2012-10-18 14:13
@phantomww: Your ratings show a case of following the herd, without following common sense and reality. There is a dumbed down "epidemic" in the U.S., especially in politics. You've proven that with your "stats." Or is this another twist of reality where the numbers may not add up?

How's that glue sniffing going? Or do I need to ask?
 
 
+9 # Joe Bob 2012-10-18 22:49
This isn't about ED or BillO.
It's about uninformed Americans who are fooled by your fox friends.
Wake Up America, before Mitt runs the Show.
 
 
-11 # phantomww 2012-10-19 08:21
Regina, David, Joe Bob,

I agree that many in the populace are not smart enough to cast an intelligent vote, like the Obama-phone lady. Are anyone you suggesting that we have some sort of test to qualify people to vote? Since you state that there has been a dumbing down (especially in politics) of the people, may I suggest that since libs have been running the schools for the last 40 or so years that they are to blame. Maybe less "conflict resolution" and "self-esteem" classes and back to basics.
I also find it interesting that you 3 seeem to think that you are informed while the masses are not. Kind of elitist if you ask me but then I find that alot when talking with progressives. Many/most progressives believe that the masses are stupid and can't survive without the help of government run by the elites. Thus such programs as social security, medicare, affirmative action, welfare, job training (govt run) etc.
So maybe you will all have dachas in the forest and drive in the "official" lanes while the masses just take public transportation.
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2012-10-19 09:29
are you suggesting that becuase SS, medicare, affirmative action etc are "elitist" gov't programs that we should abolish them?

I agree that much of "the left" is just as elitist (the "vanguard party" model) as "liberals" or even those on the right but this is not true for all leftists e.g., the autonomia or "autonomist" marxists or say the Zappatistas in Mexico or genuinely democratic socialists/comm unists/anarchis ts/syndalissts etc around the world.

Also, to say that "liberals" are to blame for the state of public education in this country when it has been hollowed out for decades by both parties is a little one-sided don't you think?

And, one can say that "the masses" have been so confused by the mainstream corporate-owned and controlled media (not to mention both parties) that they more often than not vote against their own interests. This is not an "elitist" statement i.e., saying "the masses" are too stupid or not intelligent enough to know the truth but it is to recognize that capital has been very effective at hiding the true sources/causes of most of our really serious problems such that it is not easy for people to see beneath/past them. As Antonio Gramsci wrote about nearly 100 years ago, or those more recently and like Foucault understood that the system does not and cannot function via repression alone but also needs people's acceptance (a big part of what Gramsci meant by hegemony) of the system as a whole.
 
 
+6 # David Starr 2012-10-19 11:57
@phantomww: "Nice" try sympathizing with the masses, although you sound like you're for Romney, which totally contradicts your "sympathy," given his prioritization of profits over peoples.


Nobody said anything about a "voting" test. But are you for having a special ID to vote?

The Liberal label again. This has gotten really old.

You kinda twist what poeple are posting here regarding being dumb downed. It's not elitist to have an education, politcally. But there sure are people who merely show the potential of thinking politically (Legimate rape?)
 
 
+4 # bingers 2012-10-20 10:07
You must be suffering from an attack of ignorance, FOX is on basic cable and MSNBC is on pay cable with about 1/5th the penetration of Fox, so your figures actually show MSNBC doing far better percentage wise. Also, the Faux viewership trends far older, with O'Lielly having an average of over 60 year old viewers, something like 67 if I remember the last report I sw.
 
 
+22 # reiverpacific 2012-10-18 07:10
Quoting phantomww:
Well if you both watch him then that will double the normal audience.

Now there's another prime example of reactionary mean-spirited pointlesness.
No motive but underhanded insult and it just makes you look like what you must be (I'll stop there).
This is a discussion forum, not a children's tattle-tale exchange.
I should just ignore it like I have come to abandon exchange most other reactionaries who post here but at least they occasionally make their own point which they are quite free to do so pleas explain y'r motive really, what is the point of this piece of spoiled-baby-ta lk?
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-10-18 09:22
Is that your reply to the subject of the article?
 
 
+55 # Barbara K 2012-10-18 03:51
robniel: Agree, A MUST SEE! I saw this last night too on MSNBC and Ed Schultz is going to be at the business with the employees and broadcasting from there on Friday night. DON'T MISS IT.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
The alternative is a snake in the grass.
 
 
-37 # RLF 2012-10-18 05:16
You're as blind about Obama as the morons supporting Romney.
 
 
+18 # Billy Bob 2012-10-18 09:24
How much good has calling us "morons" done for your objective of splitting the left so Mitt can win?
 
 
+5 # Joe Bob 2012-10-18 22:51
Both are Bad, it's just that the Repugs are much worse and Big Liars to boot.
 
 
+10 # jky1291 2012-10-18 05:46
Barbara K, snakes world wide will be out to bite you for such an insult.
 
 
+16 # LeeBlack 2012-10-18 07:51
And the business of America is not business (Governor Perry has said the "business of Texas is business").

One can imagine what would happen if Romney as President acted as if the country is a business.
 
 
+44 # dkonstruction 2012-10-17 12:51
capital is global which means that labor must be too. it is foolish to think that in this day and age, in this globalized economy where trillions can be moved internationally via a computer stroke in the blink of an eye that we are going to stop capital from moving internationally . Our only chance is to organize internationally and stop seeing foreing workers as the enemy instead of as exploited workers (just as we are) who we need to make common cause with. there are thousands of strikes in china by super expoloited chinese workers. The union movement (such that it is) here needs to rethink and reorganize how they organize and start looking at organizing workers by industry/trade across borders (though the IWW's One Big Union is still the best idea but this one will a lot harder to get to).
 
 
+10 # terrasegura 2012-10-17 23:19
Capital does not truly move in the blink of an eye - that is a myth. Indeed it moves very slowly. What moves at the stroke of a keyboard is a legal contract that, withing an agreed-upon set of legal rules, assures the recipient at the other end of the computer connection that their request to withdraw the funds represented in the contract will be honored if requested.

This may seem highly esoteric - what's the difference, after all? But it's important, for the simple reason that we recover our power when we recover our discernment of where it is possible to act.

Just as governments control the movements of people and goods, based on laws that emerge from a process in which flesh and blood people contest and eventually agree as to the terms of the permitted movement, governments also control the movement of funds under the legal rules that define when these contracts can be honored. For instance, if you're a money launderer, your attempt to transmit can now be stopped, indeed must be stopped if the transfer raises red flags.

The countries of the world, in the thrall of finance capital, have created laws that allow this magical instant transfer of capital. But we the people did not have an informed say in this. If the people of the world were to begin demanding capital movement controls commensurate with those imposed on goods and people, for reasons equally good, we would not see capital fleeing so easily - it would become more responsible.
 
 
+8 # dkonstruction 2012-10-18 05:56
I agree with you that "fixed" capital cannot move so quickly which i was specifically referring to the movement of money (financial capital). And, the movement of "legal" money/financial capital can move in a flash as we saw e.g., in the Asian Economic crisis or in the flight of capital from Russia or from Mexico.

While, i agree with you in theory that we need controls on the movement of money capital i don't think it is realistic to expect that we can really regulate this as it is particularly in the nature of financial capital to find ways around these. A better strategy at this point i think is to begin to talk about the need to in some ways create two economies designed to deal with the provision of basic needs and services (which is thus not based on maximizing profit or "shareholder value" and another in which the capitalists can "play" with their own monies and move them around as they want but which we will never "insure" and which are sufficiently separated from the "real economy" that they are much less likely to take the rest of us down with them when their next boom inevitably busts.
 
 
+20 # RMDC 2012-10-18 02:30
good point. The problem of unrestrained and unrestrainable capital is one we have no solution for. Workers cannot move. Capital can.

And I agree about organizing labor. We need a real IWW -- Industrial Workers of the World. All the so-called Free Trade Agreements which guarantee the rights of capital should also guarantee the rights of workers. If the same labor standards and wages were required in every place on earth, there would be no reason for Romney or Bain to move Sensata to China. The cost of labor would be the same everywhere.
 
 
+8 # RLF 2012-10-18 05:18
The strike of the future will be like the strikes of the 20's. There will be no obeying courts. The unions have to get their funds safe from the courts so they can ignore them. The unions will have enforcement branches...no more scabs except one with broken legs.
 
 
+6 # Interested Observer 2012-10-18 06:18
The workers will need offshore accounts like their would-be masters.
 
 
+7 # dkonstruction 2012-10-18 07:37
RLF, while i agree that we need the strikes i also think that we need to be talking about new and different tactics particularly for public sector workers (the most heavily unionized sector) so that they are able to strike while still getting the support of the majority of other non-union workers. the best (if not perhaps the only) way for them to do this is to "strike" by continuing to work and provide the services (which go mainly to the working class) but refusing to charge/bill for it i.e., make the services free. Industrial workers needed to shut down production to hit the bosses in their pocket book publice sector "service" workers do not they just need to ensure the state cannot get paid for the services being provided. when the milan (italy) bus drivers went out on strike in the early 1970s they continued to drive but refused to collect fairs and the city gov't gave in to their demands in 24 hours. I agree we need to revive the "wildcat" and independent/dem ocratic labor movement (where much of the current labor leadership sees themselves as "partners" with management instead of being opposed to them and the owners) and also that the unions need to take back control of their pension funds from the wall street money managers (in NYC where i am the public pension funds are more than $100 billion...imagi ne what could be done with these).
 
 
-30 # phantomww 2012-10-18 08:04
Proletariat of the world UNITE!!!! Throw off the chains of the evil capitalist!!!!

Yada-yada-yada.

Man, this reminds me of when I was in college and my liberal profs kept preaching Marx/Lenin/Che BS.

Oh the poor poor workers. ROFLMAO!!!
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2012-10-18 09:25
Let me guess. You didn't listen to teachers back then either, huh?

Closed-minded conservatives UNITE!!!

ROFLMAO!!!
 
 
-1 # bingers 2012-10-20 10:19
Closed-minded conservatives UNTIE!!!
 
 
0 # dkonstruction 2012-10-18 11:56
Quoting phantomww:
Proletariat of the world UNITE!!!! Throw off the chains of the evil capitalist!!!!

Yada-yada-yada.

Man, this reminds me of when I was in college and my liberal profs kept preaching Marx/Lenin/Che BS.

Oh the poor poor workers. ROFLMAO!!!


The quote is actually "workers of the world unite" so either, as BB notes you weren't paying attention in class/school or you have never read the people you criticize.

I actually fancied this one even more...

"The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope"

...though it still seems to be an open historical question as to who, if anyone, actually said it.

The fact that you can "laugh" at the plight of billions of workers and the poor around the world says it all though.
 
 
-7 # phantomww 2012-10-18 14:33
Actually, I listened quite well which is why I am not a liberal or a socialist. As several of my profs stated, socialism is the stepping stone to communism and thus it is inevitable that capitalist nations will proceed to communism and then the disappearance of the state completely. The fact that Marx was wrong on how the workers (proletariat) would throw off the yoke of their masters is not important to "true believers".
Marxism/Leninis m/Che/etc are wrong and will always be wrong.

I guess I must have listened enough to get my degree in Poli Sci (even with all those lib profs). I admit it was fun debating them in class. Just like here.
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2012-10-19 06:17
Unfortunately, most who read or even teach Marx don't understand him.

Marx never said that it is "inevitable" that capitalism would lead to socialism and then communism. that was/is the point of his line that "class struggle is the motor force of history". In Marx's view, capitalism will only be overcome by people's struggle to do so and the outcome of this is never "inevitable". The only thing that was "inevitable" for Marx was that capitalism would develop what he called the "forces of production" to the point where it made socialism (and communism) possible but that is far from saying it is inevitable.

And, though I am not now nor have I ever been a "Leninist", Lenin, likewise, said very much the same thing which is why he (and the rest of the socialist movement) believed that revolution would happen first in Germany where the forces of production were far more developed and did not expect it to take place in Russia. Lenin was also clear (see his What Is To Be Done) that socialism needed to emerge out of "bourgeois democracy" which is why he supported fighting for political democracy (i.e, multiple parties, elections) in Germany unlike virtually all of the rest of the German Social Democrats that considered this not only unnecessary but anti-socialist.
 
 
-1 # phantomww 2012-10-19 08:11
nice statement about Marx. So he is so confusing that "most who read or even teach Marx don't understand him." Yet he is the basis for communism. Regardless of whether he stated it was inevitable is a moot point because his writings (whether interrupted correctly or not) have been the basis for the first communist revolution in 1917 and those that happened afterwards. Yes, they were modified to fit the country (Lenin, Mao, Castro etc) but still they started with Marxist theology. Almost every "Marxist" that I have read or talked with talks about how it is inevitable that the capitalist state with become socialist and then communist and then the state will disappear. They use the "evolution" from a hunter-gatherer society to farming to industrial as "proof" of the continued (inevitable) "progress" through socialism.
Yet as history has shown, countries that are Marxist/Leninis t/Maoist etc hve been some of the most repressive and do not in fact lead to less government but one that controls every facet of the life of an individual.
As one Russian said, "they pretend to pay us so we pretend to work." Communal living failed under the Jamestown Charter and has failed every other time.
People's own self-interest will ALWAYS win out because people are motivated to improve themselves first and if that improves the rest of society then great.
 
 
+2 # dkonstruction 2012-10-19 09:38
I have never supported Soviet or Maoist style "socialism" and in fact don't believe that either system was ever socialist since they are both based on wage labor which is Marx's basic definition (or at least a big part of it) for what makes capitalism capitalism.
And, anyone using "evolution" to say that things "must" have turned out as they did understands nothing about evolution since that is not what it says...it tries to explain why things developed as they did (as does marx) but that does not mean that this was the only way things could have turned out. To say otherwise is simply deeply flawed logic.

And, yes, anyone who says that Marx talked about capitalism necessarily collapsing or necessarily leading to either socialism or communism is simply wrong. Show me one passage in Marx where he says this. As for Marxism being a "theology", well some may consider it so but surely Marx did not. For Marx (as for myself) his is a method of analysis, a way to understand how the capitalist economic system works. much of modern "bourgeois" economics is based on him whether they acknowledge it or not and I believe is still the best method for understanding how the system works.
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2012-10-19 09:42
There is also nothing in Marx that would lead one to support a Soviet style system since Marx was clear on the need for political democracy as a basis for socialism.

Lenin, prior to the Russian revolution was also clear on the need for political democracy as the basis for socialism. unfortunately, he abandons this when the soviet union is invaded by numerous countries (including the US) and is plunged into civil war. However, if you read the last 3 pieces Lenin wrote (surpressed by Stalin) he critiques the bureacratizatio n of the early soviet state, warns against turning power over to any one person (Trotsky or Stalin) and renews his earlier call for "all power to the soviets" i.e., participatory democracy from the bottom up. so, it is also simply wrong to draw a straight line from lenin to stalin (though i have never been a "leninist" or accepted the "vanguard party" model and rather have always embraced the participatory democratic strands of left-wing thought of which there is also a long tradition (inlcuding in this country whether it bee the IWW, Debs, Emma Goldman etc).

So, just as "democracy" was used to justify slavery (but this does not make the democratic ideal "wrong") the fact that others used Marx to justify their own repressive regimes does not mean that this is to be found anywhere in marx or that marx's analysis of how the system works is "wrong".
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2012-10-19 10:07
Finally, no I don't think Marx is "so confusing" though some of his texts are not an "easy read" (e.g., Das Kapital, the Grundrisse, Theories of Surplus Value) but neither are other "classic" economic texts but they do require careful reading...part of the problem are the inherent problems of translating a work from one language to another. This was particularly true for Marx since virtually all of the post Russian Revolution translations came out of or needed to be "approved" by the Soviet Communist Party and there is much in Marx (as there is in Lenin) that Stalin did not like or want the Russian people to read (which is why he surpressed the last 3 pieces Lenin wrote for example). The same was true for example with the writings of the Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci whose writings were also filtered through the Italian Communist Party that also put their slant on what he had to say.

So, no i don't think any of these writers (unlike alot of the contemporary dreck written by so-called "post modernists" which is if not deliberately, then needlessly turgid, dense and unclear).
 
 
+1 # dkonstruction 2012-10-19 10:13
Finally, I would not consider Castro or Che "theorists" (except perhaps if we are including in this category "theories" on waging guerilla warfare) though some of their writings are very interesting. Mao was more of a political theorist and his piece "On Contradiction" is still an imporant theoretical piece (whether one agrees with it or not) in which, amongst other things, he directly challenges the notion of "human nature" that you refer to. And, in fact, i would argue that for most of human history "the masses" as you put it have always struggled for people's collective good and not for the good of the individual. this is a relatively new idea which is why people fought so hard to maintain "the commons" for example and fought against the whole notion of private property and the privatization of land and fought to maintain people's (collective) ability to be self-sufficient (which is why they fought so hard against "the enclosures" in England....this is what Robin Hood is ultimtely about...in movements such as the Levelers, The Diggers and The Ranters). People in the developing world continue to wage these battles whether it be the Zappatistas in Mexico or those in Africa fighting against the privatization of what was once "common" land and the imposition of capitalist agricultural techniques (including forcing them to use "patented" seeds from companies like Monsanto instead of what they have always doen which is to collect and share/trade seeds with others.
 
 
+1 # David Starr 2012-10-20 12:01
@dkonstruction:

"Democracy is indispensible to Socialism."
-- Vladimir Lenin

"Socialsm needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen."
--Leon Trotsky

"A prpoer measure of democracy should be put into effect in the army, chiefly by abolishing the feudal pracitce of bullying and beating and by officers and men share weal and woe."
--Mao Zedong

Of course, theory didn't always turn into practice.
 
 
-1 # phantomww 2012-10-20 21:08
dkon,

I would love to continue this discussion but I had to put my dog to sleep this morning and to be perfectly honest, I just don't give a flying F right now about Marx, politics, the economy etc. It was fun though. Maybe later.
 
 
-1 # David Starr 2012-10-22 07:41
@phantomww: Frankly, I don't a flying frig about anti-communism, seeing it not only as part of the dumbing down among U.S. citizens, but also, ideologicaly-sp eaking, anti-people.

"I'm an anti-anti-communist."
--Gore Vidal

Ya'll come back now. You may have gotten fun out of the discussion, but not a furthering of your intelligence. If it has gone further in the first place. But it'll be "playtime" once again. You must say that.
 
 
-1 # bingers 2012-10-20 10:17
Socialism has nothing to do with Communism, so while you may have listened, you either were too dense to understand or you went to a really bad school with unqualified professors. I suspect, judging by your post, the former.
 
 
+1 # David Starr 2012-10-20 11:52
@bingers: Marx and Engels at times would use the words socialism and communism inchangebly. But Marx would say that socialism is the first stage of communism. But the socialist stage would be necessary because changing epochs can't be done overnight. Socialism isn't communism, or at the least fully. It's a sort of mutation between capitalism and communism, an example of a gradual change from one to the other. I think under socialist rule, capitalism would still exists, if anything because an epoch just doesn't go away "magically." But socialism, in my hypothetical scenario, would monitor, regulate and domesticate capitalism. The former,as Einstein put it, has social-ethical ends in its nature. The latter's nature is only for the sake of money, e.g., greed is good. This could require a socialist government to make sure there's a change into another epoch, and to perpetually keep capitalism on a short leash. Communism? It hasn't really existed, and especially not in a full stage. It would be too soon if we're talking about epochs; and unfortunately, Stalinism has been more an enemy to these ideas than otherwise, given his tsarist/feudal mentality. Stalinism in the name of "communism."
 
 
-1 # bingers 2012-10-20 10:14
"Labor is superior to capital" A. Lincoln

I guess the closest the Republicans have come to a great president was a Marxist? Only in the fevered brains of the ignorant.
 
 
+3 # Cassandra2012 2012-10-18 14:01
Romney (alias 666, or Gordon Gekko) apparently considers corporations 'people', but working people just commodities' ( or is it serfs?)
 
 
+46 # Kayjay 2012-10-17 13:08
It sounds like the dogma of Mittens and his successors have been more than accommodating to Chinese workers. I mean, the Chinese visitors took over the plant in Freeport without even firing a shot. This is a story that really needs to get out there, with an emphasis that Mittens refused to help the Freeport workers keep their jobs, in lieu of campaigning for his own interests. Who needs to hire a team to "Swiftboat," Mittens....he provides all the material himself. Let's grab our pitchforks and get this message out!
 
 
-26 # MidwestTom 2012-10-17 19:39
General Motors now makes more cars in China, than in the USA. China is now graduating ten times as many engineers as the US. Maybe they just wanted to go to a booming market.
 
 
-17 # phantomww 2012-10-17 21:31
How can Government Motors make more cars in China than in the US? Doesn't Obama care about the workers? Since he still owns a lot of GM stock maybe he should give them an executive order. Or maybe the buck stops short of his desk after all.
 
 
+11 # dkonstruction 2012-10-18 06:44
Quoting phantomww:
How can Government Motors make more cars in China than in the US? Doesn't Obama care about the workers? Since he still owns a lot of GM stock maybe he should give them an executive order. Or maybe the buck stops short of his desk after all.


Only workers have ever cared about workers which is why the UAW should be talking with chinese auto workers (as well as other auto workers around the world) and call for organizing workers internationally to provide a "living wage" to all no matter what country they are from...this will do more to make the US "competitive" without this meaning that we engage in a race to the bottom regarding wages.
 
 
+9 # dkonstruction 2012-10-18 08:42
Quoting phantomww:
How can Government Motors make more cars in China than in the US? Doesn't Obama care about the workers? Since he still owns a lot of GM stock maybe he should give them an executive order. Or maybe the buck stops short of his desk after all.


You mean the guy who saved the US auto industry as opposed to the guy that wanted them to go into bankruptcy with no way for them to come out again as viable, solvant companies?

And, China, has more than a billion people. Why would anyone not expect them to produce more cars than we do since their market is in the early high growth stage and ours is in the "mature" slow growth stage?

I wish Obama had made it Gov't Motors or even better had fired all of the old mangagement and board and turned the companies over to the workers as worker-owned cooperatives... .sadly, Obama is far from the "socialist" you fantasize he is.
 
 
+2 # bmiluski 2012-10-18 10:17
PHANTOM.....wha t a shill you are for the neo-cons.
GM has enjoyed expanding sales and operations. For example, it announced in January that it is building a new, $200 million stamping plant in Arlington, Texas. And it states: “Since June 2009, the company has announced more than $6.9 billion of investment to upgrade or expand operations in 12 states, creating or retaining more than 17,600 jobs.”
 
 
-3 # phantomww 2012-10-18 14:27
IF GM is doing so well then why has the stock gone down from 35 to around 20 but I do admit it has come back up recently to 25. Still a loser of a stock and still pays no dividend. It will probably go bankrupt again.
 
 
0 # dkonstruction 2012-10-19 10:19
Quoting phantomww:
IF GM is doing so well then why has the stock gone down from 35 to around 20 but I do admit it has come back up recently to 25. Still a loser of a stock and still pays no dividend. It will probably go bankrupt again.



In May of 2009 it was $1....and, most publicly traded companies no longer pay any dividends so that too proves nothing.
 
 
-1 # bingers 2012-10-20 10:26
Then why don't you support Obama? The Dow has more than doubled during his administration.

Oh yeah, spending 6.9 billion means a temporary lowering of dividends and in an electronic system of millions of trades a minute, that results in lower prices. But the investment means greater profits in the future when those electronic trades will go the other way.
 
 
-1 # bingers 2012-10-20 10:22
They are also selling the cars there with their population nearly 5 times ours, but the profits are coming here. That's a good thing and will allow them to buy back the "government motors" holdings faster.

God, are conservatives even able to think things out or do they just parrot hateful wingnut garbage?
 
 
+10 # RLF 2012-10-18 05:22
Half of those Chinese engineers are being graduated by US universities and given support from the chinese government. We can't be bothered to educate the people here that want to be educated...we'r e too busy trying to turn them into indentured servants. Time for students to have a loan payment strike and boot the foreign students out of our universities.
 
 
+3 # Regina 2012-10-18 14:04
Their students don't squander time for entertainment. They STUDY. Our students don't want to be "nerds." They hang out and hang up.
 
 
+15 # dkonstruction 2012-10-18 06:42
China bashing, like Japan bashing before it is a distraction meant to convince american workers that the "real enemy" are the chinese just as the right wing has successfully convinced far too much of the white US working class that it is either "blacks" or "illegals" or "welfare queens" who are responsible for their loss of jobs, falling wages and standard of living...this is dangerous nonsense that distracts american workers and sets up straw boogie men so they don't look at how virtually all of the gains from productivity in the last 3-4 decades have gone almost exclusively to those at the top as well as the huge increases in military spending which is ultimately not productive in that it does nothing to modernize our crumbling infrastructure or rebuild our public education system or put people back to work (though the sector does employ people it is far more capital than labor intensive).

And, the fact that GM now makes more cars in China than here just proves my point that the unions (in this case the UAW) needs to be organizing internationally and making alliances with chinese auto workers...if the wages of china's workers goes up their products will be less "competitive" in the US and increase the cost to US manufacturers for doing business in china.
 
 
+10 # Billy Bob 2012-10-18 09:27
Maybe China is graduating more engineers because conservatives in our country refuse to fund public education and refuse to help college students pay for college.
 
 
+3 # cnaran36 2012-10-18 10:19
You mean GM SOLD in 2010 more cars in China than USA not PRODUCED,BIG DIFFERENCE.

usatoday.com/money/autos/2011-01-24-gm-china-sales_N.htm
 
 
+53 # X Dane 2012-10-17 21:02
Sensata was making a profit, they were obviously a growing company, since their profit was increasing, so it is NOT a question of HAVING to move them to China in order to do better.

Bain and the other blood sucking vulture companies are killing OUR country off. Romney and the likes of him have NO INTENTION of working to crate more GOOD jobs in THIS COUNTRY.

They intend to totally make OUR country into a third world country, which is also why they ARE NOT GOING to IMPROVE EDUCATION. Working drones do not need to be educated, They can be taught to fight the wars, these people want to have with other countries, to get THEIR resources.

We HAVE to get this out, as many as possible need to know about Sensata BEFORE THE ELECTION. Romney, Rove, the RIGHT WING and the neocons have been planning and working for years to take over. Remember Rove had the plan to make the republican part invincible while he was with Bush. THIS IS SERIOUS
 
 
+26 # Barbara K 2012-10-18 03:56
X Dane: We are shown on a daily basis why Romneyhood should never be president of this country. He invests his money in other countries, hides it to avoid paying taxes to America, and thinks he should be President? President of America? What a shameless sham he is. He is as unamerican as one can be. Let him go run for president of China.
 
 
-1 # bingers 2012-10-20 10:27
Or the Caymans....
 
 
-15 # RLF 2012-10-18 05:25
Sensata is moving to China to make more money. As long as it is profitable to move companies to china, it will continue. We have to make it not profitable...bu t todays kids are too busy stealing music on the internet to pay attention to where they might work in the future. Until that changes...compa nies will continue to move overseas.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-10-18 09:28
Until our government steps in and makes it a priority the way other governments have, we're at the mercy of whatever the market dictates.
 
 
+6 # riverhouse 2012-10-18 09:45
Sensata did not choose to move to China. Bain bought them and moved the plant to China, forcing the American workers at this company to be unemployed. Sensata was a profit making, nonunion company with productive American workers. The Chinese workers will make ninety cents an hour and Romney will add to his millions.
 
 
+28 # Left Coast 2012-10-17 21:11
I am somewhat hopeful with CNN now covering this story that it will end Mittins campaign for anything. But now the rumor or story I read a few days ago is Obama may also be invested in China. That is why he reacted the way he did when Mittins made the accusation and attacked him for it. I thought he handeled it okay, but clearly wanted to go to the next question. Why oh why would anyone even think of investing in China when the need is here? As for Mittins, lets see if his numbers go down based on CNN's report.
 
 
+23 # X Dane 2012-10-17 22:17
More than likely Obama's money is invested in Mutual Funds. They are invested all over the world, so it is possible some of the investments are in China. Besides does the President's money not have to be in a secret trust while he is in office??


I don't think he is a bad guy because of that.
 
 
-6 # RLF 2012-10-18 05:26
I think he is not going to do anything that hurts the rich because he IS rich.
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-10-18 09:29
Apparently the rich don't agree with you.
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-10-20 10:32
Quoting RLF:
I think he is not going to do anything that hurts the rich because he IS rich.


$3 million is hardly rich these days, just comfortable. I have friends who were working men their whole lives with more money than that.
 
 
+2 # X Dane 2012-10-17 22:38
Left Coasst

Why do you think CNN is covering the story? I have not seen that anywhere. It would be helpful if they did. I looked through the article. But I did not see any mention of CNN??
 
 
+18 # Ralph Averill 2012-10-18 03:43
"Why oh why would anyone even think of investing in China when the need is here?"
Simple greed, and because China owns us. China can shut down the US government in a week by just not buying any more US bonds. That is why Romney's threat to "get tough" on China is so ludicrous.
 
 
+7 # dkonstruction 2012-10-18 06:31
Quoting Ralph Averill:
"Why oh why would anyone even think of investing in China when the need is here?"
Simple greed, and because China owns us. China can shut down the US government in a week by just not buying any more US bonds. That is why Romney's threat to "get tough" on China is so ludicrous.


At a certain point, when you own so much of another's debt (in their currency) they become "too big to fail" for you and so it is not in china's interest to see a huge drop in the value of the dollar since so much of their reserves are held in dollars (the same reason they were so concerned with the collapse of fannie and freddie since they also owned so many shares).
 
 
+2 # Ralph Averill 2012-10-18 12:46
You're absolutely right; China is stuck supporting our economy. I was just making a point about how much the day-to-day functioning our government relys on a foriegn power. It would seem that the super-rich, who also claim to be super-patriots, would want to keep more of their money at home, and pay more taxes to end this dependency, but, we know about their so-called patriotism.
 
 
+8 # Trueblue Democrat 2012-10-18 03:44
Tell me where CNN is "covering this story." I just came from the CNN web page, where I searched for Sensata Technologies. I got this response: "Your search Sensata Technologies did not match any documents. Did you mean sensate technologies."

Furthermore, I googled and duckducked it and found only one CNN report: On September 16, "Why Romney Can't Help Sendata Workers" concluded: "Not saying such a strategy [pressuring a state investment fund] would have necessarily worked, but it would have been time better spent than hounding Romney."

Hounding Romney. That's CNN for you -- and all the other US mega-buck media prostitutes.
 
 
+4 # Regina 2012-10-18 14:08
CNN is desperate for ratings, being passed by Fox. They're crawling rightward. Switch to MSNBC.
 
 
+5 # riverhouse 2012-10-18 09:47
All of the Obamas' investments are in US Treasuries. Shows so on their tax returns. They will have pension funds of some sort from previous employers which may have foreign investments in their managed portfolios. The Obamas, of course, like the rest of us, have no say in where a pension manager invests the funds.
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-10-20 10:30
Unlike the Sleeping Dog, who knows where his investments are, Obama's miniscule investments compared to the Sleeping Dog's are actually in a real blind trust, so it's possible some of it's in China. It's also possible that some of the most committed China haters have money there because they don't get a real say where their money is invested.
 
 
+14 # DrEvel1 2012-10-17 21:57
This could have been such an amazing opportunity for Romney to step in with a creative solution, save the jobs, and show how it's possible. The fact that neither he nor his team apparently see this as an opportunity indicates both that he doesn't have any ideas for another solution other than offshoring/firi ng, and that he can't see this as such an opportunity for him to demonstrate something concrete rather than just bloviate about jobs. Sad, for everyone - for him, for the workers, and for us all that we may be saddled with this man of no ideas or imagination for Lord knows how many years...
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-10-20 10:36
Yeah, he could have locked up lots of votes by doing the right thing. Thankfully as in everything else he showed how genuinely stupid he really is. if he does it now it would be an obvious ploy and would enrage conservatards without fooling liberals and would point out just how stupid he really is when he doesn't have a talking point to fall back on.
 
 
+11 # terrasegura 2012-10-17 23:05
Portiz is correct that many capitalists are not patriotic: "Capitalism is not "patriotic"; it's silly to expect any business to act as if "making jobs", rather than "making money"." But I think it is incorrect to say that this is necessarily so. It is certainly the case that the bottom line is almost all executives' and shareholders' top concern, but most executives are enlightened enough - even if it's enlightened self-interest - to weigh in the balance other concerns. Indeed, most are always working to strike a balance, sort of finding the center of gravity, among a wide variety of costs that rise and fall depending on other considerations. Squeeze labor harder and start getting more defects; offshore your production and increase the time you have to spend in airplanes and hotels looking over your operations abroad; treat your local community callously and lose valuable goodwill or, if perceived to be unpatriotic, having to endure social disapproval by your peers.

The problem for Sensata is that most of these concerns don't exist for its overlords. Bain executives do not live in the community and their own peers are utterly amoral so there are no social sanctions that can be brought to bear; they are unconcerned about goodwill because their market is elsewhere; and there is no link between them and their workers nor any expectation that a betrayal would endanger any future relationship.

[Continued next post]
 
 
+7 # Art947 2012-10-18 06:36
As terrasegura effective notes, capitalism is not patriotic. As this is the case, then why should American treasure -- minds, bodies and souls, as well as money -- ever be spent to protect these traitors to the American ideal? Too many wars have been fought to protect the property rights of the elite -- oil, gold, rubber -- rather than to defend the principles of democracy!
 
 
+1 # terrasegura 2012-10-17 23:06
[continued from prior post]

In other words, all the things that go into the creation of a moral economy within the context of a capitalist political economy are absent in the modern class of un-rooted international corporate capitalists. That is the problem. Yes it is endemic to modern capitalism, but it is not necessary for the functioning of capitalism.

Alternatives within capitalism are possible. I personally think that the pendulum will start swinging back the other way as environmental costs start coming home to roost and the rapacity of this type of capitalism loses its cost advantages. The rate of return to this style of capital deployment is already falling, and more sustainable businesses, that more profitably manage the on-balance-shee t costs that global degradation is causing, I believe - or at least hope - will earn greater returns than jurassic capitalist practices. When this happens then everyone will have to imitate success or lose the game.
 
 
+20 # Lasereye 2012-10-17 23:37
OBSERVATION: I said this from the beginning - Romney is the epitome of what's wrong with this country - and if this story is true - it makes my point. We as citizens of our republic have been sold out by our elected representatives who have sold out to the highest bidder. At this moment in time our future as a constitutional republic of - by - and for the people seems to be declining rapidly as our country and its life blood is being robbed blind.
 
 
+8 # jky1291 2012-10-18 06:58
THIS is OUR LAST ELECTION before the 1% consolidate total control of all means to effect any solutions that help the 99% at the expense of the 1%, which translates as a defeat of any improvements for the 99% with a Romney victory. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In 1976, our country was impatient to lower the inflation rate below 8% to which President Ford had been able to lower it. So, we elected President Carter and experienced inflation rise above 13%. That the polls indicate that this election is even in question concerns me that this country is poised to make the existential mistake of impatience for improvement resulting in total collapse, instead of steady fundamental improvement by continuing to address the inequities of our "society".

A previous post in response to another article is also pertinent to this issue. (Continued)
 
 
+6 # jky1291 2012-10-18 06:59
The "Republican Party" was the victim of a hostile leveraged takeover by the multinational corporations, as represented by the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. They hold no allegiance to this country, as corporate law fails to require considerations beyond profits and occasionally shareholders. In order to fulfill those legal obligations they have relentlessly invested where they could gain the most benefit, political campaign contributions. In order to accelerate the slow progress of this method they chose to purchase a political party. Since the Democrats are too independent, tending to vote their conscience by representing the people too often, and the Fascists negative publicity from their previous rise to power met with some opposition, World War II, the Republican Party was the obvious choice to co-opt, as they were historically very honorable and fought for "government of the people, by the people, for the people", making them the perfect cover for the 1%'s imposition of the Fourth Reich on the 99% of the world. I was a lifelong Republican until I personally talked with my congressman. I briefly lived on President Lincoln's street in Springfield, Illinois, and recently toured his sacred tomb. Reading the plaques of the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation, I can definitively state that no true Republican would bear allegiance to the current fraud posing as their party after absorbing the ideals Lincoln stated to guide his once respected and honorable party.
 
 
+4 # X Dane 2012-10-18 10:39
jky.
Please tell us what your congressman said...It must have been powerfully bad, to make you want to turn your back on the party you believed in your whole life??
 
 
+5 # Regina 2012-10-18 14:13
Maybe that party turned its back on him. It isn't the party of Ike any more. it isn't even the party of Reagan, although the present inhabitants of the party's symbols invoke Reagan's name often enough.
 
 
+12 # Trueblue Democrat 2012-10-18 02:39
Tell me where CNN is "covering this story." I just came from CNN web page, where I searched for Sensata Technologies. I got this response: "Your search Sensata Technologies did not match any documents. Did you mean sensate technologies."

I very much doubt that CNN or any of our mega-buck media will be showing much interest in this story. They are all whore -- for sale to whomever has the up-front whip-out cash.
 
 
+3 # Regina 2012-10-18 14:14
Try MSNBC on Friday, 8 pm eastern.
 
 
+22 # cordleycoit 2012-10-18 03:46
What do you expect from Romney? The truth is he would sell his mother in front of the Temple in Salt Lake for money. These guys are nothing but rich thugs feeding on the weakness in the tax laws and they call it democracy.
 
 
+18 # in deo veritas 2012-10-18 05:21
Another example of his hypocrisy. Of course he will deny having anything to do with Bain any longer. Just like Cheney and Halliburton. Wake up America!
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-10-20 10:40
Since he's the 51% owner of Bain, he could say it, but like every single thing he's said the last 6 years it would be a reeking lie.
 
 
+11 # pernsey 2012-10-18 06:00
Greed pure and simple...when does enough become enough? With Mitt and his plutocrat friends the answer is...NEVER.

Its more then about money, its power over everyone. Its the bully mentality, get what you want at all cost, regardless who you have to step on, ruin, or destroy to get it. Dont let this narcissistic bully become president, he will strip us all down and sell us to China to make the most profit. He will say or do anything...hasn t that become apparent by now?

Romneyhood, he steals from the poor and gives to the rich...what a bitch.
 
 
+11 # fredboy 2012-10-18 06:12
But his pitch works well with suckers, the glassy-eyed teabanging evangelical nut cases who will do anything--inclu ding sell out American workers--to defeat the black guy. What's hilarious is once the Church of the Latter Day Saints gets in they will likely purge the GOP of the evangelical fanatics.
 
 
+16 # wrknight 2012-10-18 06:13
Don't you all realize that Bain's (rather Romney's) business model hasn't changed? Think about it. Think of the U.S. as Romney's biggest business venture.

1. Buy the business with little money down (cost of election which is someone else's money)

2. Load the business with debt, (cut taxes for the rich and increase defense spending)

3. Raid their pension funds (destroy, reduce or privatize social security - not to mention medicare and medicaid)

4. Break the unions (like Scott Walker did in Wisconsin) and then

5. Harvest the business (after 8 years walk away from what's left, get a big payoff through his Bain investments, lucrative lecture tours and book rights, and finally go home and bathe in luxury.

In the mean time, we, the 99%, get to pay for it all and are left with the dregs.


PS Romney will need to increase spending for national security because as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the rich are going to need more protection for their wealth.
 
 
+5 # jky1291 2012-10-18 07:36
Well presented, wrknight!
Below is one of my previous posts.
As you devoted posters on RSN know, I have been and still am a firm believer that we need a viable 3rd Party presidential candidate to salvage our nation from the challenges we face. But, with 6 - 9 billion dollars being projected to be spent on this election, no non corporate independent 3rd party candidate superior to President Obama was willing to expose themselves to the reprehensible abuse being heaped on the opponents of the multinational corporations' funded U. S. Chamber of Commerce and all the other undisclosed billionaires' phony "educational" Super PAC's. Despite that fact I would have been willing to deny President Obama my vote for his complicity in his corporate acquiescences, and let the chips fall where they may, until Romney's threat to position Paul Ryan a heartbeat away from imposition of the Fourth Reich. I still have reservations about President Obama's ability to substantially overcome corporate control of our total government, but I have no such reservations concerning the total demise of this country descending into apocalyptic civil war resulting from the 1%'s total enslavement of the 99% under a Ryan influenced administration. The destruction of the great state of Wisconsin was just a trial run for the dictatorship of the 1% over the entire world. VOTE FOR OBAMA! or be responsible for the self-fulfilling religious prophesies of Armageddon. A vote for Obama is a vote AGAINST RYAN!
 
 
+6 # wrknight 2012-10-18 08:21
jky1291 - I agree with you entirely, but Obama cannot overcome corporate control of our government because constitutionall y he cannot override decisions of the Supreme Court. In the absence of any reference to corporations in the U.S. Constitution, SCOTUS has taken it upon itself to grant corporations powers that were feared by our founding fathers. The only means of overriding SCOTUS is to amend the U.S. Constitution.
 
 
+2 # jky1291 2012-10-19 13:38
Our hope lies in the potential appointment of a couple new Supreme Court justices, who are able to look at a person, then look at a corporation, and discern that there is indeed a difference in their goals, their purpose, their needs, their limitations, and the laws that apply to each. A Romney victory bars that and spells the ultimate conclusion of our once great and proud nation.
 
 
+1 # bingers 2012-10-20 10:42
Also, it might be mentioned that Bain has received $180 million in tax breaks for the companies they made a profit on and then sent into bankruptcy.
 
 
+9 # ThinkRodan 2012-10-18 06:20
What else would one expect from a PLUTOCRAT? ROMNEY like others of his ilk are MOTIVATED BY GREED! A vote for MITT is a VOTE FOR GREED!
 
 
+6 # kalpal 2012-10-18 06:59
The most prevalent trait in humanity is what I call "error repetition syndrome." Any gross error made will be repeated for ever and ever.

We cycle and recycle as though it never happened before. We know it happens, yet we deny that it will happen again to us because we are exempt from the insidious repetition and its reprecussions.

Bain is both a vampire and a cannibal in fiscal terms and has never been a force for progress other than inadvertantly. It is destructive for the many and beneficial for the few in accordance with the current right wing philosophy that if you destroy enough lives a few will reap massive benefits and the damaged people can be ignored since they lack the resources necessary to fight back unless they collectivize which will not happen if all unions are eradicated and purged from our society.
 
 
+2 # jky1291 2012-10-18 07:47
My responses to Lasereye and wrknight above pertain to this subject.
 
 
+9 # AmyTN 2012-10-18 07:25
The whole situation disgusts me and proves that if Romney created this company and these are their tactics then he is UNFIT to be President of the United States. Maybe he should run for office in China he seems to like them better! This statement alone proves the lack of Patriotism! "The employees of Sensata Technologies were forced to train their Chinese replacements, and the American flag that long flew over the factory was reportedly removed while the Chinese engineers were visiting the site."
Forcing workers to train their Chinese replacements and putting up the Chinese flag in place of the U.S. flag WHILE ON U.S. SOIL is borders on treason!
 
 
+5 # BicParker 2012-10-18 08:09
Read this!

Mitt Romney's Bailout Bonanza

http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza
 
 
+8 # Kootenay Coyote 2012-10-18 08:16
Gore Vidal: ‘A merchant has no country.’
 
 
+6 # David Starr 2012-10-18 11:44
Quoting: "...Bain Capital, the company Mitt Romney founded, will close the doors of a factory in Freeport, Illinois, and ship 170 good, high-tech jobs to China."

There still must be an "umbilical cord" between Romney and Bain. Romney has shown once again his fondness for the old saying, "Do what I say, don't do what I do." Mr. Anti-China really has no justification to verbally sabre-rattle. He definately has a real money addiction, comparable to a meth user.
 
 
+8 # Regina 2012-10-18 14:18
And when those Chinese workers take over the Sensata operations, Mitt will yowl that under Obama, unemployment is increasing. And the Fox chorus will ham it up in their usual style.
 
 
+3 # Big Jake 2012-10-19 03:35
George Baer, one of the most prominent mine owners in Pennsylvania, and one of In 1902, at end of a coal strike, J.P. Morgan’s top lawyers, published a letter declaring, “The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected and cared for—not by labor agitators, but by the Christian men to whom God in his infinite wisdom has given control of the property interests of the country.”

Nothing has changed since then except that the plutarchs have taken more of our nation's wealth. If we don't fix this, history tells us that state socialism or in the end communism becomes the cure. And the cure is as bad as the disease. Romney represents this class and they need him as bad as they needed Ronnie although Reagan would never be let into the club and worse, he may not have even known that the club was running the show.
Obama and all of his shortcomings is the only alternative available until we decide that enough is enough.
 
 
+1 # The Voice of Reason 2012-10-19 17:43
So ... this is how he 'stands up' to China.
 
 
-1 # eadg 2012-10-20 06:19
Choose either one of two lying scum bag puppets on voting day. There is no 'win' here for the people whichever way it goes. Fighting amongst ourselves about which liar is better makes no sense.
 
 
0 # brenda 2012-10-20 19:04
Romney is the perfect stooge to do the 1% filthy rich’s bidding. His conscience has long been seared against feeling any compassion for those who are affected by his corporate looting of the many companies that Bain Capital has bought and raped. He's no better than the Mafia Dons who sell dope to low income adults and children. He is ideal candidate for the Revelation Anti-christ position. What’s even funnier, is hearing that his Mormon religion, long listed as a cult in Billy Graham’s Baptist shit list of cults and false religions, has been removed from that list. I guess Billy doesn’t mind who you are, or what you believe in, just as long as you espouse the Right Wing-nut positions being held by “Neo-Nazi, racial hating, gun toting, confederate extremists”, and the rich bustards who would sell the American dream down the river to the third world for fun and profit. I remember the words that the Communist Governments said about the rich bourgeois, that they would “sell the Communists the rope with which they [the communists] would hang the free world with”. But when the world is embroiled in the threat of World War III, it’s going to be the lower and middle class’ sons and daughters whose lives will be put on the line to die and get maimed for the greedy rich’s protection of their damn foreign investments, while the rich hide their money, sons, and daughters in the Caiman Islands. Any poor/middle class person voting for Romney is either a bigot, fool or American turncoat.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN