Custom Search

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

White House Spokesman Misses Key Differences Between Obama's Gambling Problem And Bain Capital

By Susan Duclos

Yesterday we noted some key differences between Obama's gambling with taxpayer's money and what Bain Capital does with investors money.

Investors willingly put their money into Bain and Bain makes them money, while Obama gambles with taxpayer's money, investing much of it into his own donors' ventures, many of which have failed, gone bankrupt, laid off workers and in the case of Solyndra, is being investigated by Congress.

Both Mitt Romney and American Crossroads have produced web ads that address different aspects of Obama's gambling problem. (Both videos found HERE)

I said yesterday:

Obama talks about fairness to all, redistribution of wealth by taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, yet his actions have taken money from middle class families and put it into the pockets of his rich donors.

The Daily Caller today offers up a video of White House Spokeman, Jay Carney, attempting to "explain" the difference between what Obama did with Solyndra and what Bain does with the companies they invest in and attempt to turnaround and make them into successful investments.

The response from Carney is described as incoherent.


Reporter: Last thing. If that’s the argument, how is that different from Romney’s argument on Bain Capital, which is that many succeeded and a few failed?

Carney: Look, there, there, there is the… the difference in that… your overall view of what your responsibilities are as president, and what your view of the economic future is. And, and the president believes, as he’s made clear, that a president’s responsibility is not just to, uh… those who win, but those who, for an example, in a company where there have been layoffs or a company that has gone bankrupt, that, you know, we have to make sure that those folks have the means to find other employment, that they have the ability to train for other kinds of work, and that’s part of the overall responsibility the president has.

 Melissa Clouthier offers up another difference when she tweets "Difference between Bain and Solyndra: Romney's enterprises made investors money. Obama's lost taxpayer money."

Doug Powers over at Michelle Malkin's site, offers up a bonus video of  Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter explaining that Solyndra was a "strategic investment."

His assessment:

 Apparently Bain execs didn’t do their homework as diligently as Steven Chu. Cutter also claims that President Obama was making investments “for the country” — not all selfish and greedy like Romney did it:

Click over to see that video.

Heritage adds more:

For the duration of his Administration, President Obama has dished out billions of dollars to politically favored companies in pursuit of job creation and a new “green” economy. It’s taxpayer-funded crony capitalism that has neither created new jobs nor produced the green-energy payout that the president was looking for. In fact, it’s a policy that has failed miserably, leading to bankruptcy after bankruptcy. Yet despite all the failures — and zero successes — the president and his Administration are defending the indefensible and standing by a policy that has squandered taxpayer money.

In one instance, President Obama committed $465 million of taxpayer money to Tesla, which was founded by a campaign mega-donor and the 63rd richest man in the world, Elon Musk, to build a $130,000 battery-powered sports car that becomes permanently inoperable if left uncharged for 30 days.

It’s gotten so bad that Congress is launching probes of federal green energy programs, including the Energy Department loan program, over concerns that lawmakers fast-tracked approval for politically connected companies. Heritage’s Lachlan Markay reports that according to a Republican aide on the Senate Budget Committee, “Politically favored, and often connected, renewable energy plans [receive] less rigorous review than traditional energy projects.” In one program, of the $20.5 billion in loans granted, $16.4 billion went to companies linked to donors who contributed to Obama and the Democratic Party.

At the same time the president is defending his taxpayer-funded failures, he’s attacking free enterprise, including in private equity and venture capitalism — enterprises in which investors voluntarily put up their own money to invest in new ideas and rescue existing companies. Sometimes those ventures fail, sometimes their inevitable failure is delayed but temporarily saves jobs amid restructuring, but many times they succeed — generating profits and producing new jobs.

When Carney was asked to justify the president’s defense of one, but criticism of the other, he just couldn’t do it. That’s no surprise, in that the two positions are logically inconsistent.

The bottom line here is Obama picked this fight with his attacks against Romney over his tenure with Bain Capital which is a private equity company....... how could he not know that his own gambling losses of taxpayer money wouldn't be addressed and delved into once he did that?

 How could his campaign and Obama himself be so woefully unprepared for the obvious response from Romney and conservatives and even the media now?