Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/13/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/13/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):
If I take over a failing company that is going out of business & employs 1000 people, and then proceed to "trim the fat", make better decisions and after a year have laid off half the employees, and now the company is turning the corner and making a profit again, have I :

A) cut 500 jobs

B) saved 500 jobs

I realize it is far more satisfying to post a comedic picture with a cute phrase on it, but can anyone answer the real question I posted above?

You do recognize that Obama is inflating his "jobs created" numbers by doing the same thing, right?

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/13/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/13/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/13/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):
If I take over a failing company that is going out of business & employs 1000 people, and then proceed to "trim the fat", make better decisions and after a year have laid off half the employees, and now the company is turning the corner and making a profit again, have I :

A) cut 500 jobs

B) saved 500 jobs

I realize it is far more satisfying to post a comedic picture with a cute phrase on it, but can anyone answer the real question I posted above?

You do recognize that Obama is inflating his "jobs created" numbers by doing the same thing, right?

There is a big difference between a company saving 500 jobs and the government saving 500 jobs.

Not so much.  The concept is the same.   If you're going to tout Romney for "saving jobs" when 500 people lost their jobs, you can't fault Obama for making the same claims.   In fact, I'd say Obama deserves more "credit" as he's doing it in the public eye.  I'd never heard of Bain until Romney became a Presidential player.

Posted by antoncresten on 7/13/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):

YOU CAN DO A JOHN EDWARDS, MITT!!!!!  FATHER A LOVECHILD!!!!!!   THE PUBLIC WON'T HOLD IT AGAINST YOU WHILE YOU RUN FOR PREZ!!!!!!!

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/13/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/13/2012 2:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 7/13/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):
If I take over a failing company that is going out of business & employs 1000 people, and then proceed to "trim the fat", make better decisions and after a year have laid off half the employees, and now the company is turning the corner and making a profit again, have I :

A) cut 500 jobs

B) saved 500 jobs

I realize it is far more satisfying to post a comedic picture with a cute phrase on it, but can anyone answer the real question I posted above?

You do recognize that Obama is inflating his "jobs created" numbers by doing the same thing, right?

I don't care who is doing what.

I would argue saving an existing job is not creating a job. Seems like that would be a deceptive claim, if that is the case.

Just pointing out a simple truth that gets conveniently left out of the media babbling about Bain.

Simple truth is If I hadn't have stepped in and trimmed the fat and so forth there would have been 1000 people losing their job. Now there is only 500. That is a net gain.


Funny thing about the libtards shouting "Mitt has swiss bank accts, he is surely out of touch":

One of the biggest loudmouths concerning Mitt's Swiss bank accounts is Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

She ALSO has Swiss bank accounts...

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/13/2012 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Not so much.  The concept is the same.   If you're going to tout Romney for "saving jobs" when 500 people lost their jobs, you can't fault Obama for making the same claims.   In fact, I'd say Obama deserves more "credit" as he's doing it in the public eye.  I'd never heard of Bain until Romney became a Presidential player.

The concept is not the same.

The jobs of a company are static. They exist or dont exist based on the CEO. You can examine what did or didnt happen in a vacuum.

The jobs of Americans in general are not static. Obama can find someone to claim that if it wasnt for him there would be more jobs lost, but it doesnt really stand up to analysis.

The left likes to create this issue. In reality it isnt an issue.

No matter what the taxs paid and what percentage are paid by the top are always similar.

If you are successful this is what you need to do or the government will seize too much of your assets. The government made the rules and the market forces created a response.

America wants a President who can restore the American economy, everything else is just a distrction.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 7/13/2012 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/13/2012 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Not so much.  The concept is the same.   If you're going to tout Romney for "saving jobs" when 500 people lost their jobs, you can't fault Obama for making the same claims.   In fact, I'd say Obama deserves more "credit" as he's doing it in the public eye.  I'd never heard of Bain until Romney became a Presidential player.

The concept is not the same.

The jobs of a company are static. They exist or dont exist based on the CEO. You can examine what did or didnt happen in a vacuum.

The jobs of Americans in general are not static. Obama can find someone to claim that if it wasnt for him there would be more jobs lost, but it doesnt really stand up to analysis.

You seem to struggle with "big picture".

So....is it correct to hold Obama somewhat responsible for the high unemployment rate?    If so, is it correct to give him some credit it the unemployment rate declines?

Posted by antoncresten on 7/13/2012 2:48:00 PM (view original):

So success is now a bad thing for a President?

I can find some people who have about 1% of 1% of the other 8 Presidents...would that make them a good candidate??

And BOY there are no shortages of "funny" pics that address all sorts of unimportant sh&t. to distract.