WaPo: Romney cheating people out of jobs

[caradoc]

Really, you can't make this up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-romneys-money-problem/2012/10/05/0a59b42e-0bf7-11e2-97a7-45c05ef136b2_story.html

Mr. Romney’s money problem

Regarding the Sept. 30 front-page article “Romney’s money trap”:

Mitt Romney asked a contractor (perhaps a small business) for an estimate to construct a walkway. When he learned what it would cost, he decided to build it himself with his sons’ help. In this one action, Mr. Romney unwittingly displayed who he really is.

When my husband and I faced a similar construction project for our home, we did the calculations. We looked at the cost of the raw goods, the amount of time it would take us and our lack of professionalism in this arena. The economy was very bad then (2009), and we decided that we were fortunate enough to be able to pay someone to do the work. We did what every reasonable homeowner does: We got three estimates, then hired the firm we thought would do the work best and at the fairest price. (Note that I didn’t say cheapest. Fair includes a measure of quality.) We watched as three young men worked hard over several days, earning their paychecks and giving us something we wanted in return. But by taking the little step of moving money from our bank account to that of the small business, we helped at least three people stay in their jobs (at least for the duration of our project), we received something in return, and we are all better off as a result.

Is my bank account fatter as a result? No, of course not. That’s what’s wrong with Mr. Romney.  He thinks that having all the money in his account — and cheating people out of jobs — is a winning proposition.

[Bookert1905]

Not sure if serious....

[Uncle Stan]

Those that have money in the bank most likely kept it there by not spending it on something they could do for themselves.

Makes no difference what the cost. A penny saved is a penny earned. A long forgotten statement in today's society.

As an owner of a handyman company, it would surprise you to see how many jobs we do that the occupier of the house could physically do for themselves.

[Uncle Stan]

Really, you can't make this up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-romneys-money-problem/2012/10/05/0a59b42e-0bf7-11e2-97a7-45c05ef136b2_story.html

Mr. Romney’s money problem

Regarding the Sept. 30 front-page article “Romney’s money trap”:

Mitt Romney asked a contractor (perhaps a small business) for an estimate to construct a walkway. When he learned what it would cost, he decided to build it himself with his sons’ help. In this one action, Mr. Romney unwittingly displayed who he really is.

When my husband and I faced a similar construction project for our home, we did the calculations. We looked at the cost of the raw goods, the amount of time it would take us and our lack of professionalism in this arena. The economy was very bad then (2009), and we decided that we were fortunate enough to be able to pay someone to do the work. We did what every reasonable homeowner does: We got three estimates, then hired the firm we thought would do the work best and at the fairest price. (Note that I didn’t say cheapest. Fair includes a measure of quality.) We watched as three young men worked hard over several days, earning their paychecks and giving us something we wanted in return. But by taking the little step of moving money from our bank account to that of the small business, we helped at least three people stay in their jobs (at least for the duration of our project), we received something in return, and we are all better off as a result.

Is my bank account fatter as a result? No, of course not. That’s what’s wrong with Mr. Romney.  He thinks that having all the money in his account — and cheating people out of jobs — is a winning proposition.

How is that cheating anyone out of a job? Just because he or anyone else has money, does that mean they should just spend it for no good reason?

[John Galt?]

How Obama would have handled that.


Mr. Obama would have commissioned a panel of experts from Chase, Goldman Sachs, et al to review the feasibility of a Universal walkway construction system.
He would then declare that all Americans are entitled to walkways and would create the Department of Walkway construction. This department would then take bids for the walkway construction with precedence given to minority owned firms using "Green" construction techniques. He would then fund several startup research companies working on "Zero Carbon footprint Walkway construction machines" and after 2 years he would duck any questions about their bankruptcy. He would then propose the "Obama-walk" initiative to build 650,000 new walkways for middle and lower class citizens people (whether he legally or not) at a cost of $1,135,000 per walkway.

After 5 years and a total cost of $11.2 billion Mr. Obama would proudly say "Look, I created 72,000 jobs where Mr. Romney cut 3" He would then call in the contractors Romney didn't use and tell them "(pointing at new walkway) you didn't build this!"

[dbucfan]

agree with much of what you offered JG? - but shovel ready in 5 years - I suspect some issue with a spider, worm, or other creature from a new endangered species list

[JavaRay]

Those that have money in the bank most likely kept it there by not spending it on something they could do for themselves.

Makes no difference what the cost. A penny saved is a penny earned. A long forgotten statement in today's society.

As an owner of a handyman company, it would surprise you to see how many jobs we do that the occupier of the house could physically do for themselves.

Saving money isnt' the American way.   That's why people can come from other countries and beat out Americans in their own country.   The locals piss their money away rather than save.

[BucNY]

I don't get the cheating part?

Java,

Agreed, the American way is spending every last penny we have on crap we don't need and has very little real value to us, then complaining about how hard we work and how we "deserve" more than we have. People bought houses they could not afford and did not need then wanted to blame big banks for their problems. I bought a house during that same stretch and I was "pre-qualified" for a loan that I knew I could not afford. So I bought a more reasonable house.

It's really not that hard, we just make it much more difficult than it needs to be.

[Chief Joseph]

Our government is usually willing to let predators loose on the consumer, provided the consumer is dumb enough to be willing and the politicians get their cut.

[BucNY]

Our government is usually willing to let predators loose on the consumer, provided the consumer is dumb enough to be willing and the politicians get their cut.

Again, it's not that difficult. My interest rate wasn't a surprise, it wasn't hidden and I wasn't lied to about it. I said no to a variable interest rate because I knew at some point would go up. I locked in and have since re-financed for a better rate.

We do need the government to be looking out for people who are scamming us. The government will never be able to force stupid people to make good decisions. That is just not going to happen. At the end of the day you and I make all of our own choices as to what we spend our money on and how much we spend on it. Personal responsibility is the key. It's also being slowly phased out, IMO.

This thread is just dumb, there was not cheating people out of jobs in the OP's story.

[Chief Joseph]

True on the original article, it's an exceptionally stupid interpretation of events. As to the mortgage, how long did you get locked in for? Thirty years? Could you have gone fifteen or twenty instead, even if it meant a less desirable house? This was the tactic Fannie Mae and the other parasites were using, locking people into paying them interest for as long as possible. You then have to pay on the house for years and years - and still owe more than the house is worth. For the final insult, they'll loan you closing costs, which you'll pay interest on for the length of the loan before you start paying that money off.

[Chief Joseph]

By way of example, a $100,000 loan at 6.25%

Yrs-Mnths-Pymt-Total
 15 - 180 - 857.42 - 154,335.60
 20 - 240 - 730.93 - 175,423.20
 30 - 360 - 615.72 - 221,659.20

[NovaBuc]

 Really? Are we seriously going to take a freakin' letter to the editor and post it as if it's some sort of news article?