Live Q&As

That is a very difficult question. Here are some various examples culled from different reports--3,400 jobs  at KB Toys, 2,500  at Clear Channel Communications, 2,100 workers at DDI Corp, 1,900 positions  at Dade International, 385 jobs at American Pad & Paper--which adds up to more than 10,000. Of course, just because you help create Staples, with its 90,000 jobs, doesn't mean that other jobs are lost (such as people at small mom-and-pop statiionary stores that can no longer compete.)

At the same time, there are cases where clearly Bain made a difference and saved a company in distress. And other cases where they took a gamble and did not work out.  That's the way the business world works. Romney was very successful for his investors but he may have opened up a can of worms with these job claims. 

That's a good question. I am no expert but I think under the free speech doctrine you can pretty much say what you want in political ads. Of course, TV and radio stations are free to refuse to air it. I just saw a report that TV stations are continuing to air Democratic Medicare attack ads even though PolitiFact labeled that "Lie of the Year."

That's an interesting question. I am sure there is data available. This was a point that Ted Kennedy successfully made when Romney ran for the Senate in 1994. Those ads were brutal--and probably unfair!

Here's a link to one of them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyvy3Ze_fqw

As I said, really nasty....

This is a very astute analysis that is lost in the political debate. Some of these companies that Bain took over clearly had to restructure. Ironically, Ampad (which you often here about) was hurt by another Bain success--Staples. 

I agree that Romney's claims are not much different than Obama's. The White House has its own strange metric about "saving and creating" jobs. 

Yes, there is a certain irony. But his remarks have been taken out of context, by both Republicand and Democrats. Two wrongs don't make a right....but they can be ironic....

I think Romney made a mistake with this specific job claim. He clearly was very successful at business and by all accounts was a very good analyst and business consultant. He certainly helped some troubled companies and start-ups. So I would agree he has a good ground-level knowledge was job creation, industry trends and so forth.

Voters will have to decide whether these skills translate well to the world of politics. To some extent, Romney's record as governor in Massachusetts might be a better guide to her potential performance as apresident than anything he did in the business world. But a president--or a governor--does not "create" jobs. A president advocates certain policies, but to a large extent their success or failure is determined by economic forces beyond their control. 

I tend to rate more harshly comments made in a prepared speech--or repeatedly--than a single off the cuff remark, because clearly there was a decision to use that particular fact or figure. "100,000 jobs" is a good example. For months, Romney has said "tens of thousands" of jobs, which was vague enough that we originally said we could not come to a definitive conclusion. But in recent weeks, he has switched to "100,000 jobs," and been more open about how that figure was calculated, so we could reach a more definitive conclusion. 

I would totally ignore ALL of these claims. Everyone plays games with the numbers. Obama is on track to have the worst job-creation record in the modern presidency but he did after all take office in the middle of a terrible recession. So he counts the jobs created after the freefall ended. And Romney touts his job creation record in Massachusetts, though it wasn't great either--largely because he also governed during a recession.

Seriously, pay no attention to those numbers. It's all noise and fairly meaningless. 

He has since said it was when he was a newbie employee at Bain, just out of MBA school. Who knows, maybe he had a terrifying boss? Or Bain had a bad year and there were signs it might cut back? I cut him some slack on this--everyone is nervous in their first job, even if their Dad or Mom is a millionnaire. 

publishing this comment

Yes, that is certainly a fair point to make. I have noted that. You can't look at these numbers in isolation. There are always winners and losers. 

Yes, it is a bit "rich"....

Yep, I agree. Romney raised the flag of "100,000 jobs." He should have done what he did in the 2008 campaign--made no such claim at all. 

sad but true. 

Good question, worthy of a PhD dissertation!

Assigning the number of Pinocchios is the hardest part of the job. I did not think it rose to the level of Four because, on balance, I would say probably more jobs were created than lost. But we do not have a good handle on the numbers and Romney's way of calculating is certainly suspect. 

Yes, I dealt with that since it was part of his announcement speech. The Romney campaign bases this claim on the fact that Obama did not have enough tax relief in his $800 billion stimulus bill. (It was about one-quarter tax cuts.) I found their logic dubious. 

yes

This does seem to be a still-to-be-formed policy proposal. Not sure quite how it would work.