Part of the Bay Area News Group

MoveOn issuing ‘Romney-Ryan pink slips’ today

By Josh Richman
Thursday, August 16th, 2012 at 12:15 pm in 2012 presidential election, economy, Mitt Romney.

MoveOn activists are fanning out today in Bay Area cities including Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, San Rafael, Daly City, San Carlos, Livermore and Castro Valley to hand out “Romney-Ryan pink slips” symbolizing jobs they say would be lost if the GOP presidential ticket prevails.

It’s part of a nationwide effort in several hundred cities.

“Romney’s and Ryan’s policies will destroy more than one million jobs in 2013 alone and will seriously undermine workers’ and women’s rights across the nation,” MoveOn organizer and council member Mary Swain of Castro Valley said in a news release.

“We want leaders who will create new jobs here in the U.S., reform our tax laws, and limit military spending in order to rebuild our struggling economy,” she said. “We have to do all in our power to save our social safety-net programs, like Social Security and Medicare, and bring the democratic process back to America.”

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • RR senile columnist

    I am so grateful to MoveOn for simplifying the issues for me. I am thinking about sending in a substantial contribution. I ‘ll match any gift up to five cents sent in by the regulars here.

  • Elwood

    Put me down for $.02.

  • Elwood

    “Economic Recovery is Weakest Since WWII”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/AP1cb26ac50ff4411abf700d0c8f25bcf4.html

    “the one that began in June 2009 is the weakest.”

    Thank you, Obama, you economic genius, you!

    Anyone still wondering why the Ayrab can’t run on his record?

  • Elwood

    Obama supporters showing their desperation:

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-toure-to-panel-romney-engaging-in-the-niggerization-of-obama/

    ” Co-host Touré saw what he believes to be explicit racial connotations beneath what Romney was saying, calling it the “niggerization” of the campaign.”

    The wheels are coming off the Obama campaign.

  • Elwood

    “Auto Bailout Legacy: GM’s European Nightmare”

    http://nlpc.org/stories/2012/08/16/auto-bailout-legacy-gms-european-nightmare

    Kiss your tax dollars goodbye!

    Another coup for the Obamanator!

  • JohnW

    I assume this is the same industry rescue started by Bush, finished by Obama, voted for by Ryan and opposed by but “I’ll take a lot of credit for the auto recovery” Romney.

    Assuming the government ends up losing $24 billion due to the stock price, are there any positive offsets to that? Let’s see.

    Estimated 1 million good paying jobs saved in assembly plants, parts manufacturers and distributors and in 10 thousand local dealerships. The 10 thousand dealerships alone employ about 500 thousand people.

    One time savings of about $10 thousand each in unemployment insurance, or about $10 billion in cost savings.

    Federal income taxes from saved jobs — roughly $3-4,000 each for a total of $3 billion per year — or let’s say $10 billion so far since the bailout.

    About 10 thousand local dealerships still in business instead of blighted/boarded up buildings, each selling an average 800 cars per year equals about $20-25 million in new car sales each, generating about $1.5 million in sales taxes x 10 thousand dealers equals roughly $15 billion in annual sales tax to state and local coffers — or at least $40 billion so far since the bailout. That’s not counting sales taxes paid on service work and used car sales.

    In the Bay Area alone, car dealerships easily spend more than $100 million in local advertising dollars, including with the newspaper group that hosts this board. I’m guessing 25% or more of this newspaper’s ad revenue is from automotive.

    Then there’s the intangible that not every car in America has a Japanese, Korean, or German brand name.

    We know the U.S auto companies had legacy issues of their own making in terms of labor agreements, products, debt and too many dealerships. But the credit freeze in 2009 that brought the auto industry to it’s knees was not the fault of the auto industry. That’s why government needed to step in.

  • For Liberty

    Those that are dreaming of a major change in direction if Romney is elected are going to be bitterly, bitterly disappointed.

    The following are 40 ways that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially the same candidate:
    1. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported TARP.
    2. Mitt Romney supported Barack Obama’s “economic stimulus” packages.
    3. Mitt Romney says that Barack Obama’s bailout of the auto industry was actually his idea.
    4. Neither candidate supports immediately balancing the federal budget.
    5. They both believe in big government and they both have a track record of being big spenders while in office.
    6. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both fully support the Federal Reserve.
    7. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both on record as saying that the president should not question the “independence” of the Federal Reserve.
    8. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did a good job during the last financial crisis.
    9. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both felt that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke deserved to be renominated to a second term.
    10. Both candidates oppose a full audit of the Federal Reserve.
    11. Both candidates are on record as saying that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has done a good job.
    12. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both been big promoters of universal health care.
    13. Mitt Romney was the one who developed the plan that Obamacare was later based upon.
    14. Wall Street absolutely showers both candidates with campaign contributions.
    15. Neither candidate wants to eliminate the income tax or the IRS.
    16. Both candidates want to keep personal income tax rates at the exact same levels for the vast majority of Americans.
    17. Both candidates are “open” to the idea of imposing a Value Added Tax on the American people.
    18. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the TSA is doing a great job.
    19. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the NDAA.
    20. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act.
    21. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the federal government should be able to indefinitely detain American citizens that are considered to be terrorists.
    22. Both candidates believe that American citizens suspected of being terrorists can be killed by the president without a trial.
    23. Barack Obama has not closed Guantanamo Bay like he promised to do, and Mitt Romney actually wants to double the number of prisoners held there.
    24. Both candidates support the practice of “extraordinary rendition”.
    25. They both support the job-killing “free trade” agenda of the global elite.
    26. They both accuse each other of shipping jobs out of the country and both of them are right.
    27. Both candidates are extremely soft on illegal immigration.
    28. Neither candidate has any military experience. This is the first time that this has happened in a U.S. election since 1944.
    29. Both candidates earned a degree from Harvard University.
    30. They both believe in the theory of man-made global warming.
    31. Mitt Romney has said that he will support a “cap and trade” carbon tax scheme (like the one Barack Obama wants) as longas the entire globe goes along with it.
    32. Both candidates have a very long record of supporting strict gun control measures.
    33. Both candidates have been pro-abortion most of their careers. Mitt Romney’s “conversion” to the pro-life cause has been questioned by many. In fact, Mitt Romney has made millions on Bain Capital’s investment in a company called “Stericycle” that incinerates aborted babies collected from family planning clinics.
    34. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the Boy Scout ban on openly gay troop leaders is wrong.
    35. They both believe that a “two state solution” will bring lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israel.
    36. Both candidates have a history of nominating extremely liberal judges.
    37. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney also plans to add “signing statements” to bills when he signs them into law.
    38. They both have a horrible record when it comes to job creation.
    39. Both candidates believe that the president has the power to take the country to war without getting the approval of the U.S. Congress.
    40. Both candidates plan to continue running up more government debt even though the U.S. government is already 16 trillion dollars in debt.

  • Truthclubber

    41. O’bammy over Mittens by a landslide, 332 to 206.

    Hafrican II, here we come — taking OUR country back from the “mighty whiteys”!

  • JohnW

    Wow, for Liberty, that’s quite a list.

    As for point 4, how would you propose going about “immediately balancing the federal budget?

    Point 29. Both went to Harvard. You mean like John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and JFK?

    Would love to agree or disagree with all 40 of your points. But as the first President Bush used to say, “Wouldn’t be prudent.”

    So, come November, who you gonna vote for?

  • Publius

    Re:#6

    Mr W,

    Your entire argument for the auto bailout is based on a false pretense.
    -If the Federal Government did not bail out GM then GM would fail to exist.
    I don’t think you need a lecture on bankruptcy, but I think that your fundamental view of economics is misguided. Short sighted; one plus one equals two economics is a fools game. Many intellectual folks often disregard or fail to take into consideration the unintended consequences of government intrusion into the private sector. Capital invested by a politician is usually done with political motifs.
    The government does not produce wealth. What it gives to one it must take or borrower from another. Your rosy math only counts the easy to see benefits while ignoring the unintended consequences. What about the non-union workers at Delphi? What about the national debt? What about the bond holders? What about the fact that the government went above and beyond its power and chose an American industry to save while letting millions of others collapse? If it was such a great idea then why stop at GM? Bail out all businesses. Using your rose colored calculator the benefit would be huge!!!!!!
    Just because a Republican voted for it or started it, does not make it right. Stop buying into the party crap and use your head.

  • Elwood

    @John W. #6

    Oh, come on, John! If the government had not bailed out Government Motors, do you think the American auto industry would have ceased to exist?

    There would have been dislocation and restructuring to be sure, but when the dust settled, there would still be about the same number of people doing the same things but not necessarily protected by the fat cat UAW. The current board of Government Motors is controlled by the UAW thanks to the O’bummer administration.

  • Elwood

    @ #7 For Liberty

    You forgot:

    Both men put on their pants one leg at a time.

  • RR senile columnist

    Dems’ theme: Wealth is a crime, the greater the riches the greater the criminal.

  • JohnW

    Re: 10 & 11

    First, the auto rescue was not just about GM. It was about GM, Chrysler and Ford. The latter didn’t need the rescue, because they had previously borrowed huge amounts to provide a cushion. However, the CEO of Ford strongly supported the bailout of his competitors and stated that if GM and Chrysler went down, so would Ford, due to the impact on suppliers.

    In a strong economy, we might have been able to absorb the “creative destruction” of these companies going down the tubes. However, under the circumstances, many people believe that, without both TARP and the auto rescue, we were headed for another Great Depression. I strongly share that view.

    What about the bondholders? Rightly or wrongly, they got rescued too. Had the companies liquidated, the value of those bonds would have been zip. Those bondholders knew for years that the bonds were very high risk. The bought and held them anyway to get the high yields and on the “moral hazard” assumption that bondholders would get paid before anybody else. Everybody took a haircut, including labor. In the airline bankruptcies, bondholders were first in line and labor got screwed in terms of pensions (both employees and people already retired). And the taxpayers got screwed, because of reduced pensions paid by the PBGC. This time, there was more of a balance among stakeholders — including taxpayers not getting stuck with the bill for the pensions.

    Elwood correctly notes that there would still be an auto industry in the U.S. had these companies gone out of business — Toyota, Honda, etc. Those companies would have picked up market share, and there would still be 14 million cars sold. However, the local dealerships and the supplier networks that served GM/Chrysler/Ford would not have survived. These are not small, mom and pop businesses. The average dealership employs 50 high wage people, sells 800+ new cars a year, generates about $31 million revenue per year from new and used car sales and leasing, parts and service.

    By the way, Elwood, UAW does not own GM or control the board. As part of the bailout and restructuring, responsibility for retiree health benefits was transferred from the company to a special trust, VEBA. VEBA got cash and stock and has to manage those assets to fund the retiree health benefits without further assistance from GM. As a significant shareholder, it got a representative on the board. But it’s fiduciary responsibility is to the trust fund, not to give away the store in labor contracts (which would contradict its fiduciary responsibility by hurting the value of GM stock and the trust fund’s ability to pay retiree health benefits).

    I stand by my bailout “costs and benefits” numbers and analysis.

  • Elwood

    Government Motors is a disaster from which taxpayers will never recover. The O’bummer administration made a sweetheart deal for the UAW to the detriment of other creditors. The UAW appointee to the Government Motors board throws his weight around as if he knows the O’bummer administration is in his pocket.

    Chrysler is owned by Fiat.

    And what would you expect the CEO of Ford to say? The O’bummer administration probably made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.

  • JohnW

    Re: 15

    So, in your opinion, the junk bond holders should have been made whole, while every other stakeholder, including retirees, should have been hosed? Even though the bondholders knew full well the risks they were taking in owning the bonds and were repeatedly warned by the financial community. Workers took a huge haircut on wages. The bondholders did not come up empty, but they took a haircut along with everybody else. They got a lot more than they would have had the rescue not occurred. They got bailed.

    UAW is a collective bargaining organization. VEBA is a health benefits trust fund, with its own board and fiduciary accountability to the fund, not to the bargaining organization.

    Chrysler is owned by Fiat. So?

  • Elwood

    “Chrysler is owned by Fiat. So?”

    So our tax dollars are going to bail out a foreign company.

  • JohnW

    Tax dollars going to bail out a foreign company…

    Nooo! The guvmint spent $12.5 billion to save Chrysler and recouped $11.2 billion of it. Sold government interest to Fiat to get it off the governmnent’s books. That took Fiat from minority investor to majority owner. U.S. sucked up a $1.3 billion loss. Saved a lot of U.S.-based jobs at both the manufacturer and local retail levels, with employment now above pre-2009 levels. More jobs added in 2012 to build the Dodge Dart. And Fiat now planning to expand manufacture and sales of Fiat models in the U.S. In terms of economic impact, sounds like a pretty good deal to me. Love the Clint Eastwood commercials! The Chryslers and Jeeps are great products. So’s the Dodge Durango.

  • Elwood

    “General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy — Again” –Forbes

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/15/general-motors-is-headed-for-bankruptcy-again/

  • Elwood

    Jerry Brown’s Pathetic Lies (Prop 30)

    “The dirty little secret is that the new revenues are needed to backfill the insolvent teachers pension fund.”

    http://tinyurl.com/9aetquj

  • JohnW

    Re: #19

    Against my better judgement, I actually went to the link and read the entire Forbes piece. I don’t know what GM’s future holds, but this story doesn’t say much.

    First, it tells us that the government is underwater on the stock price, which obviously means that, like Facebook, it was over-hyped in the IPO. That has nothing to do with whether the company faces future financial distress.

    Second, the story tells us that GM’s U.S. market share is way down from the 1960′s. Well, duh! That’s when there were the Big 3 and not much else.

    Third, the rest of the story dwells on the Malibu and its weaknesses (real or not) compared with VW. I came away with the impression the author must either have a VW fetish or own stock in that company. The article says nothing about other GM products — you know, Buick, Cadillac, GMC, trucks etc.

  • JohnW

    The legislature has 8 days left to pass a credible pension reform bill. Absent that, it’s hard to imagine Prop. 30 passing. But, even if they passed the mother of all pension reform, Brown’s tax proposal is terrible economics. California has to grow the economy, and everything we do seems designed to do just the opposite.