At an early age, Mitt understood that corporations are people, too.
Young Mitt: Mr. General Motors is very very mad at Mr. Acme plastics... and Mr. hedge fund, too!
Teasing Mitt, while easy, dosen’t seem to accomplish anything. Do you really think the Rs will nominate him? I can’t see them doing that no matter how well he polls or performs. He’s the R’s version of Kerry.
His dad was “Mr. American Motors” before he got into “government”, so he does have a familial if not psychotic interpretation. Unions DO represent their members who are PEOPLE, so even though by definition they’re obviously “communist” groups to the right, they are in fact, NOT people either. Interesting that while the SCOTUS decision sucks, it’s the Teapublicans who insist corporations ARE “people” but unions are not.
Now, we know the “truth” about ex-Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts: in reality, he is "Richie Rich " , the son of the comic-book stock-market tycoon and a movie was made of him,starring Mark Wahlburg. Mitt Romney with $ 250 million earned at Bain Capital, inc. has got his feet firmly embedded in Wall Street and absolutely represents the top 1 percent of “millionaires and billionaires” described by President Obama that do not want the Bush tax-cuts removed, either temporarily or permanently, nor the ‘estate tax" either. He thinks “corporations are people, too !” because that is all he has ever studied and known and rubbed shoulders and elbows with. He doesn’t have a clue about the other 99 percent of working Americans.
Ah, and as usual you cons cannot differentiate between loaning a corporation money and saying that corporations are people. No wonder Perry is doing so well in the polls.
^Oldsmobile was the “new product, creative” end of GM. Pontiac was the high performance end. Now both gone, mediocre all that’s left, like American productivity after “Reaganomics” ditched “creativity”.(Well, except for bookkeeping!)
Fortune magazine laid out GM’s problems pretty damningly, especially the point that they have had essentially the same problems for forty years or more. They showed a cover of Fortune from the 1970s that had one of each of GM’s cars from its many lines. They were indistinguishable. Nothing made you say “oh, that’s a Pontiac.” Everyone working in this industry knows that GM had (1) too many brands without market distinction — about a dozen, depending on what you count; (2) too many platforms to maintain, with the inevitable inefficiencies that go with that; (3) a massive lack of innovation and extremely slow time-to-market; (4) over-reliance on a few key gas-guzzling categories which were the first to go in a downturn; (5) poor reliability; (6) poor customer focus.Personally, even though GM is getting back on track, they weren’t drastic enough. They should have restaffed the top three levels across the board. Instead, they brought back an old CEO who helped them get into this mess as an advisor. Sheesh.
Kylop over 12 years ago
Teasing Mitt, while easy, dosen’t seem to accomplish anything. Do you really think the Rs will nominate him? I can’t see them doing that no matter how well he polls or performs. He’s the R’s version of Kerry.
charliekane over 12 years ago
Now that you mention it, just how did that auto industry bailout turn out for America?
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
His dad was “Mr. American Motors” before he got into “government”, so he does have a familial if not psychotic interpretation. Unions DO represent their members who are PEOPLE, so even though by definition they’re obviously “communist” groups to the right, they are in fact, NOT people either. Interesting that while the SCOTUS decision sucks, it’s the Teapublicans who insist corporations ARE “people” but unions are not.
Ronald Johnson over 12 years ago
pirate227 over 12 years ago
Ah, and as usual you cons cannot differentiate between loaning a corporation money and saying that corporations are people. No wonder Perry is doing so well in the polls.
d_legendary1 over 12 years ago
So that’s where Mittens learned about Leveraged Buyouts.
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
^Oldsmobile was the “new product, creative” end of GM. Pontiac was the high performance end. Now both gone, mediocre all that’s left, like American productivity after “Reaganomics” ditched “creativity”.(Well, except for bookkeeping!)
Motivemagus over 12 years ago
Fortune magazine laid out GM’s problems pretty damningly, especially the point that they have had essentially the same problems for forty years or more. They showed a cover of Fortune from the 1970s that had one of each of GM’s cars from its many lines. They were indistinguishable. Nothing made you say “oh, that’s a Pontiac.” Everyone working in this industry knows that GM had (1) too many brands without market distinction — about a dozen, depending on what you count; (2) too many platforms to maintain, with the inevitable inefficiencies that go with that; (3) a massive lack of innovation and extremely slow time-to-market; (4) over-reliance on a few key gas-guzzling categories which were the first to go in a downturn; (5) poor reliability; (6) poor customer focus.Personally, even though GM is getting back on track, they weren’t drastic enough. They should have restaffed the top three levels across the board. Instead, they brought back an old CEO who helped them get into this mess as an advisor. Sheesh.