Despite the delivery, Clint was speaking for a big crowd

acotrel says:

08:57am | 02/09/12

I watched the news report on Romney and Eastwood, and felt sick.  You would not want to be living in a cardboard box in the US during the next few years ! What a bloody horror - all created by the greed of the right through the GFC ?  I wouldn’t have thought they’d have the bloody cheek to front up again promising belt tightening.

simonfromLakemba says:

11:08am | 02/09/12

Huckabee?

“I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.”

“Watching ducks land on a lake in Arkansas in the winter is about the closest to Heaven as you can find on this earth… and as someone who believes, according to my faith, I will go to Heaven when I die, I am pretty sure that there is duck hunting in Heaven”

“Whoever in our government leaked that information is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too kind a penalty”

“A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ”

And his son tortured a dog and killed it and then hampered the investigation into it.

He’s an evangelical baptist, the last thing you would want in power.

Richard says:

11:14am | 02/09/12

The GFC is a complex situation, in fact it’s a group of interconnected situations, and it really annoys me when simpleton try to characterise is as being solely and exclusively caused by “greed” and “the right”. That’s nonsense, it caused just as much by excessive spending and unsustainable sovereign debt levels persuaded by spend thrift social Democrats as it was by hawkish Republican rightists.

The essential lesson from the GFC (which is still ongoing btw) is that governments NEED to run balanced budgets and stay out of debt, but it’s the left who oppose such a policy prescription rather than your maligned “right”, acotrel. Just look at how much the left is trying to demonise Campbell Newman in Qld for trying to patch up the budget and introduce fiscal prudence into the management of Qld’s government operations…

Queensland Observer says:

11:56am | 02/09/12

The last thing you would want in power?

Oh I can imagine far, far worse, simonfromLakemba…

Bear says:

03:34pm | 02/09/12

Like you said in your first sentence, you know almost nothing. So why continue with a rant based on nothing?

Damocles says:

03:41pm | 02/09/12

Richard says, “Just look at how much the left is trying to demonise Campbell Newman in Qld for trying to patch up the budget and introduce fiscal prudence into the management of Qld’s government operations…” Spot on Richard! If it had been the LNP attacking the Bligh government for overspending and abysmal performance, the ALP would be labelling them “wingnuts” and “looneys”, but this well funded (thanks union members) GetUp/ union organised “loudmouthed” demonstration and opposition against the Campbell Newman government is all fine and dandy….that’s exercising your Freedom of Speech…...just don’t try exercising it against the Gillard and ALP!

Mike says:

06:40pm | 02/09/12

Re: The Nobel Prize, definitely because of the race thing, even though he is as white as he is black which makes the whole thing just so pathetic.

dola says:

07:49pm | 02/09/12

racist and ignorant look at your backyard-aborigines

cityboy @ Sydney says:

10:39am | 02/09/12

Oh dear, dweezy; how unfortunate whipping yourself up into a frenzy on Fathers Day! Or do the kids avoid crazy ol’ dad these days?
The ‘Juliar’ thing is a bit old now, not to mention tasteless no matter what your politics. (so Alan ‘Gloria’ Jones, don’t you think?)

acotrel says:

08:52am | 02/09/12

Clint Eastwood reminds me of Charlton Heston spruiking for the NRA gun lobby.  At least Tony Abbott was a Rhodes Scholar, I wonder where these other idiots got their political/economic/social obligation knowledge - acting school ?
I like what Clint does in producing movies much better than his acting.  It is social commentary but his solutions are usually a bit warped, but at least he offers some.  Much better than that moron BIll Cosby grizzling that he hates paying taxes to support deadbeats and druggies but oiffering nothing constructive to change anything for the better.  None of them are even Oprah Winfreys.  If their brains were dynamite they wouldn’t even lift their hats !
With Mitt Romney leading, the US will probably disappear up it’s own arse , and stuff the rest of us big time !

acotrel says:

09:26am | 02/09/12

That’s like saying Julia Gillard has been a poor PM compared to John Howard and those previous, without considering the GFC, Tony Abbott and the hung parliament. What did the Yanks expect from Obama - was he supposed to pull a rabbit out of his bum after the Republicans decimated the economy, and rebuild it in the face of their idiocy ?  I suggest the ‘Nobama’ slur is a very snide comment, full of hypocrisy.  Those right wing bastards should be held to account for their blatant cynicism.

ProfGold says:

09:26am | 02/09/12

@gravelly, I watched your man Clint and all I saw was a rambling old man talking to an empty chair. Bizarre!. His fumbling rant on Afghanistan exposed his ignorance about who was responsible for the US intervention.  His rant against lawyers showed he didn’t understand that his vacuous pal Mitt is a lawyer.  In the end I felt sad to see the film maker so much in need of a script and a strong director. As I saw it, half the audience would have clapped whatever he said, and the other half would have been simply bewildered by an old man and his wooden chair.

Gratuitous Adviser says:

09:44am | 02/09/12

Clint is a silly confused old man that has become an embarrassment to the Republicans and the American people. 

I continuously find it amazing that Americans look for political guidance from actors and nepotistic selections (except Hillary, the first female US President) when they have so much strength in their intelligentsia (including Hillary, the first female US President).

Michael says:

10:10am | 02/09/12

He was a laughingstock. Among other things, he seemed to be blaming Obama for starting the war in Afghanistan. Hello?

A clear sign that his speech was an embarrassment was the reaction of Romney staffers backstage, who were putting their heads into their hands in despair. They tried to yank him off the stage, but Clint just kept going and going.

About the only true thing he said was that it was a national disgrace that so many people were unemployed. Then came the Freudian slip: “We haven’t done enough, obviously…” Correct. And that includes the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, who are only interested in bringing Obama down instead of offering meaningful solutions of their own.

Obama’s stimulus saved the economy from falling of a cliff (and interestingly, Romney, as a candidate in 2008, had proposed an even bigger stimulus - funny how politics gets in the way of good policies). In fact, unemployment has gone down since Obama’s policies started to take effect in mid-2009.

Obama also has a balanced approach to reducing the national debt - a mix of tax increases and spending cuts.

If the Republicans had been prepared to work with Obama (as Democrats did with Bush when he was elected), then things may well have been different. The economy would now be improving a lot faster than it already is. Instead, they became the party of NO. Anything Obama proposed, they were against.

Well, the voters ought to say NO to them in November, which I have no doubt they will.

Damocles says:

11:56am | 02/09/12

Hey leftwing Aco, love your socialist rants, so very looney. Here’s a bumper sticker idea I know you’d love: “I think, therefore I’m a Laborist.” This would cite evidence of your unyielding loyalty to a political machine…..but what it would really translate to is: “I’m a Laborist, therefore, I have no need to think!” The Obama experiment has failed. Romney for President.

Pete says:

05:38pm | 02/09/12

Clint Eastwood’s speech was slightly bizarre, but not as ridiculous as the pundits claim. What was far more disturbing was Romney’s complete lack of detail - just a whole pile of banal motherhood statements. Highly representative of American government these days. The place is simply, from a federal perspective, ungovernable because states elect politicians who are then beholden to their local electorates and can’t be seen to pay attention to federal/world issues lest they diss the donors who put them there in the first place. With politicians and a system like this, the US is doomed - and that’s bad, very bad for Australia despite the childlike naivety of people like The Greens who think American comeuppance is something to look forward to. A power vacuum without the US is not a nice thing to look forward to, whatever you might think of America. Europe can’t fit the bill as it’s mired in a financial crisis, and China, Russia and maybe India are hardly paragons of virtue who can be expected to do the world any favours once they run the show. I think the best hope for the US is a drastically reduced federal structure handling military and foreign affairs only, leaving the states to do the actual work of governing and delivering services to people. Take health care: federal intervention is hopeless or impossible, probably both whereas the states themselves would do a much better job. Reducing federal power and control might be a good thing for Australia too. Our own constitution writers sought to limit federal control, and they had good reason. Pink batts, set top boxes for geriatrics, NBNs - federal intervention is just one money wasting scheme after another. They sound good on paper, but cannot be competently delivered by the ballooning Canberra public service.

Eric #2 says:

08:07am | 02/09/12

I suggest you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about!

Eric #2 says:

08:29am | 02/09/12

Bertrand - I’d suggest you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about!

acotrel says:

09:06am | 02/09/12

How could the citizens of a smart nation like America elect such a complete idiot as President Bush?  He’s toppled the economies of the whole world with his gross negligence.  It proves that blatant greedy subversion of the democratic process by fanatical ideologues has consequences which can drag everyone on the planet down. I wonder why the Americans don’t recognise the risk?  Good risk management has always been their recipe for business success, yet it doesn’t seem to extend to politics. Their capitalist mind games have brought us undone.

acotrel says:

09:31am | 02/09/12

@Bernard
You are so bloody correct with your comment - these fools are a danger to themselves !  The conservatives stuffed the system with their greed, - they should simply ‘fess up and make it right ! If America doesn’t become bipartisan now, we could all really suffer - top to bottom !.

Richard says:

10:25am | 02/09/12

The debt problems started a long time before Bush’s time, and and Clinton time for that matter. In fact the United States Government hasn’t reduced it’s debt one cent since WWII. The problems really got serious in the 60’s, with spending on Vietnam, and the Space Race, and massive social programs, etc., so severe that Nixon was forced to abandoned the gold standard in ‘71. That was the huge mistake, because after that, governments had no external link forcing them to be disciplined.

Sovereign debt is the biggest handbrake on economic growth conceivable. And it’s now gotten to the stage where the problem is basically unsolvable in world power countries like USA/UK/EU/Japan et al. The only viable option, responsible policy approach from now on is complete fiscal prudence and balanced budgets, but look how much vitriol the left wing of is hurling at Campbell Newman for trying to do exactly that in Queensland!

Bertrand says:

11:24am | 02/09/12

@Eric #2 - perhaps not, but John Maynard Keynes did. Paul Krugman does.
Both would agree that neo-liberal economic policies are a disaster.

Bertrand says:

11:42am | 02/09/12

@Eric #2 -  can you explain where the factual inaccuracies in my post are?

Are you arguing that Clinton didn’t run a budget surplus?

Or are you arguing that Bush didn’t react to this surplus by providing massive tax cuts to the wealthy?

Or are you denying that these tax cuts didn’t work in the way it was said they would - lower tax rates would lead to substantial growth and higher tax receipts?

Or are you denying that deregulation of the finance indsutry, such as the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, had anything to do with the GFC.

Or are you denying that Obama wasn’t forced into stimulus spending in order to avoid a financial catastrophe much worse that what was experienced?

Perhaps you could explain why tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy act apparently as a stimulus, but spending cuts aimed at the poorest members of society won’t also hurt growth?

Instead of just saying I don’t know what I’m talking about, how about you provide some arguments and evidence?

jg says:

12:09pm | 02/09/12

How could the citizens of a smart nation like America elect such a complete idiot as President Bush?

The same way that Australia elected a narcissic, self obsessed, micro managing bully with god delusions to PM.

Mr. Jordon says:

12:11pm | 02/09/12

@ Richard says: 10:25am | 02/09/12

In 1980, US debt was under 1 trillion dollars. Reagan and Bush Sr, increased it to over 4 Trillion. Clinton added 1.5trillion, Bush Jr added about 5 trillion.

It was the Republicans that blow out US debt. Reagan in 8 years increased the US debt ceiling 16 times.

Richard says:

01:00pm | 02/09/12

Bertrand, I see your Keynes and Krugman, and raise you Hayek and Friedman.

DocBud says:

01:02pm | 02/09/12

Bertrand, who said the following, a clear statement of support for the principles behind the Laffer Curve and supply-side economics?

“When, on the contrary, I show, a little elaborately, as in the ensuing chapter, that to create wealth will increase the national income and that a large proportion of any increase in the national income will accrue to an Exchequer, amongst whose largest outgoings is the payment of incomes to those who are unemployed and whose receipts are a proportion of the incomes of those who are occupied…

Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget. For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more—and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss.”

Economist says:

02:15pm | 02/09/12

Eric # 2, please elaborate on why Bertrand doesn’t have a clue. You provide a graphic on the US federal budget, your son works on Wall St and he’s more concerned by a $3.8 trillion dollar federal spend, compared with this .
http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/derivatives/bank_exposure.html  on the very same pages he links to.

This is precisely what Bertrand is referring to unfettered poorly regulated greed. 9 banks holding $270 trillion in derivatives, just 9 of them, almost 75 times the federal US budget, 3 times the world economy. 

While Richard highlights a variety of courses, it’s not socialism such as healthcare, welfare that’s the most significant factor , it’s social welfare for the banks. It’s repealing the Glass Steagal Act, it’s massive tax cuts combined with low interest rates during a boom overheating their economy. At least when Howard was providing 5 consecutive tax cuts the RBA was increasing rates to take the heat out of the economy, which the Fed Reserve didn’t.

Bertrand’s more on the money with his claims than claims of social welfare spending being the problem.  The estimated direct cost of the GFC was $5 trillion (Aus). Let alone the indirect cost, Explain to me why f***ck ups by the market are acceptable and business continues as normal, unregulated, while governments having net debt is a huge catastrophe despite in paling into insignificance compared with private debt?’

AS for the republicans God help us. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/ryans-speech-contained-a-litany-of-falsehoods.html

Bertrand says:

03:12pm | 02/09/12

The problem with Hayek and Friedman is that their theories have been demonstrably disproven every time they have been implemented. A completely deregulated market eventually eats itself.

Hayke’s arguments in The Road to Serfdom about the dangers of concentrating economic power in the governnment were completely true, but apply equally to economic power concentrated entirely in the hands of the wealthy. Any sector of society that has unrestrained economic power will eventually turn the rest of society into serfs. Accordingly,  completely deregulated market is, at its core, undemocratic. A corporation that has absolute power to exernalise its costs (and good regulations are about limiting companies’ rights to create externalities) will do so; it will dump its waste in rivers, put carcinogens in its products, cover-up science that threatens its product, or in the case of the GFC, sell debt to people who they know can’t afford it, bundle up the toxic debt and get it rated as AAA by a complicit ratings agency, and sell the debt on to others.

Additionally, some actions of corporations supposedly acting rationally have massive negative impacts in the long term. The absence of labour laws sees America’s middle class shrink and its poverty levels rise. This takes away the purchasing power of the markets the industries rely upon - it is one of the reasons why the American recovery from the GFC isn’t working.

Keynesian economics provides a balance between government regulation and free market capitalism. This balance is far more beneficial than anything that exists on either extreme.

@Docbud - your decontextualised quote from Keynes does not disprove my argument against extreme neo-liberalism. Keynes was not anti-market and understood the value of things like lowering taxes to stimulate growth. So do I. However, at the higher ends of the wealth spectrum these cuts become less effective, as they are no longer used to drive further growth. A lot of the capital wealth in America at the moment is simply being sat on and not used to grow industry. Further, it is decreases in tax at the bottom that drives growth the most, as, out of pure necessity, the poor will spend any extra money they receive, thereby increasing consumption. Tax cuts aimed primarily at the wealthiest sector of society have been proven not to work. All you need to do is look at America’s economy under Bush Jr. Tax receipts fell and national debt skyrocketed.

Richard says:

03:40pm | 02/09/12

The clearest proof that neo-liberal economics is the best system for organising economies is to compare countries that have been neo-liberal against those that have not, then and to see which ones have fared the GFC better.

Certainly, Australia since 1983 has been the most neo-liberal country in the world. Keating’s deregulations and free market reforms were textbook neo-liberalism, and we were lucky that after he left, Peter Costello as Treasurer continued the neo-liberal reforms and managed the federal budget prudently. No other country in the world was able to clear all their sovereign debt in the good years, but we did, thanks to the outstanding legacy of neo-liberal reform left by Keating and Costello.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that we survived the GFC better than all other countries… It’s because we were more neo-liberal than all other countries! Some will try to say that it was the government’s stimulus that saved our bacon, but that’s nonsense: every other country had stimulus as well, but only Australia escaped recession ... Why? Because only Australia had the outstanding legacy of 25 years of neo-liberal economic reform. Other countries abandoned neo-liberalism in the 90’s, like USA and Britain, or never even tried it, like Europe. Yet in places where neo-liberalism remained strong, like Australia, NZ, Chile, Hong Kong, and Singapore, economies remained strong too, the correlation is to strong to ignore.

Bertrand says:

05:34pm | 02/09/12

@Richard - Australia instituted some but not all neo-liberal economic policies. It’s financial system remained one of the most tightly regulated, and weathered the GFC better than pretty much every other one. Australia’s fiscal and monetary policy is clearly interventionist, and the actions of interventionist bodies such as the RBA also helped. Australia certainly didn’t follow America down the neo-liberal path when it came to taxation, banking regulation or social welfare. I doubt we would enjoy the prosperity we do if it did.

Mickey T says:

07:35pm | 02/09/12

Eric #2 - Where are you?

Typical conservative response, vitriol, attack the man, and no facts to back up their statements, and when caught out, they run and hide.

mick jagger says:

11:39am | 02/09/12

quoting rolling stone = FAIL

Bertrand says:

03:17pm | 02/09/12

Rolling Stone actually mixes its music and cultural news with quality investigative journalism. I was a little surprised at first when i discovered this, but many of the investigative political and economic stories it runs are excellent.

Andrew says:

06:55pm | 02/09/12

Gary and bertrand of course you think they are excellent before there articles are so far left wing its ridiculous.

marley says:

07:20pm | 02/09/12

@gary - so, is that article fact, or is it opinion? 

And if it’s the latter (which it clearly is) why aren’t you complaining about opinion being presented on a news page as though it were fact? 

I suspect your only problem with the media presenting opinion is when it diverges from your own view. So for NewsLtd to present opinion is anathema, but for Rolling Stone to do it is fine and dandy.

gary says:

07:29pm | 02/09/12

I notice nobody disputes what the Rolling Stone article actually says.
This must be a tragic time for the right who prefer a fact free press.

Bertrand says:

07:37pm | 02/09/12

Do you dispute the facts outlined in the article?
Are you claiming that Bain doesn’t load some of the companies it acquires with huge levels of debt and that this debt contributes to the need to cut jobs? Do you deny that in some instances the debt Bain loaded on these companies was merely used to increase shareholder dividends? Or do you just disagree with it because the facts challenge your preconceived biases?

Mr. Jordon says:

12:16pm | 02/09/12

Bush handed out unfounded tax cut about 2002.

How any jobs did this create?

Why didn’t these tax cuts prevent the GFC?

PeterMax says:

04:29pm | 02/09/12

Hi Mr. Jordan,

I comment that the GFC you mention was started by some of the actions of American Democrat President Jimmy Carter about 30 years ago. Jimmy Carter wanted to ensure that people with limited means got housing loans.  This lack of financial awareness was made much worse by the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lending institutions who later ensured that people who did not have the deposit or necessary income got a housing loan even though they could not afford it.  There were huge numbers of these housing loan disasters so they were very hard to deal with.  Particularly as I understand it in America a person with a home loan mortgage is not personally responsible for the home loan debt as we are here in Australia.  If Australians default the lending institution can sell the house and chase us for any home loan balance outstanding. So the American borrowers in large numbers, could and did just fail to repay the loan instalments and loans, return or mail the keys to the lending institutions and walk away leaving the lending institutions to try to deal with their huge home loan lending losses.

To answer your other questions:-

I do not know if George Bush handed out unfunded tax cuts about 2002, how much they were and what the Government debt and/or the other American financial and other positions were then.  I need to know more, particularly as the mainly Labor/Left media in America hammered Bush and any Republican for every little thing.

I do not know how many jobs these tax cuts created

I have explained above why the George Bush tax cuts, if any, could not prevent the GFC. Tax cuts would have been a drop in the ocean of debt in this case.

I will also say that Clint Eastwood’s speech was brilliant and focussed on some of America’s very serious problems, including huge unemployment, huge Government debt and Barack Obama’s smooth talking, unachievable promises, lack of and faulty leadership,

PeterMax says:

07:05pm | 02/09/12

Hi again Mr. Jordon,  i should add to my comments about Freddie Mac and Fannie May in my previous response to you. If I remember correctly is was Democrat President Bill Clinton who legislated to ensure that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae gave out the very irresponsible housing loans which played a very significant role in bringing on the GFC

larry says:

12:41pm | 02/09/12

Yes, debt in the US is outrageous.
The conservative money changers like Romney created this nightmare.

read this and tell us how you feel about Romney.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

Mickey T says:

07:48pm | 02/09/12

“My son who works for a leading investment bank in New York”

Are you proud of that Eric #2…personally, I’d be too embarrassed to even mention it. They are part of the reason for the GFC and why the world is in such an economic mess today.

Shane From Melbourne says:

11:46am | 02/09/12

Actually Spain’s economic problems were caused by an over inflated real estate market that caused problems for Spain’s banks not by the “Green Economy” but don’t let that stop your delusions…...

Bertrand says:

12:26pm | 02/09/12

The economy is entirely reliant on the health of the environment that supports it. Paying more now to avoid environmental and economic collapse in the future makes complete sense. Is it really that hard to understand that the earth has a finite capacity to produce and renew its resources and absorb pollutants. At the moment we are vastly exceeding these limits and face the serious risk of harming the environment that supports the economy so significantly that the entire lot will collapse. Your deregulate the environment argument is incredibly myopic.

DocBud says:

03:20pm | 02/09/12

“Is it really that hard to understand that the earth has a finite capacity to produce and renew its resources and absorb pollutants?”

It should be hard to understand because, though some things evidently are finite, it is no more true than the facile:

“At the moment we are vastly exceeding these limits and face the serious risk of harming the environment that supports the economy so significantly that the entire lot will collapse.”

Bertrand says:

05:31pm | 02/09/12

@DocBud - “it should be hard to understand because, though some things evidently are finite, it is no more true than the facile:”

Are you seriously arguing that the Earth has an infinite ability to absorb our waste products and is able to provide an infinite amount of resources, no matter what rate we use them at?

If so, I would suggest that you are probably not the most qualified person to be calling my comments facile.  I’m going to assume you have a limited to non-existent understanding of Earth system’s theory, or the unassailable nexus between our economy and the environment. I would further assume that you have little to understanding of the nature and functioning of complex systems (both environmental and economic) and the influence of such things as feedback loops and chaotic responses to changes. I’m going to assume you are conveniently ignoring the myriad examples of these things occurring both throughout history and the world today.

For example, in your world, the local collapse of certain fish stocks and the subsequent industries that relied upon them must never have happened. Likewise, the rapid expansion of agricultural land (and the necessary deforestation that fuels it) in South America to produce beef, soy, sugar and cereal crops will be able to expand infinitely. Further, in your world, the removal of vast tracts of rainforest won’t impact on things like soil quality or rainfall levels, and these changes won’t affect South America’s agricultural industry. In your world the rapid acidification of the ocean by increasing carbon emissions will have no influence of marine ecosystems, or the industries that rely upon them.

Seriously, if you are going to call people’s opinions facile, it would probably help if you knew what you were talking about. Even the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith, recognised that infinite economic growth in a finite world is impossible. I have science, mathematics and economics on my side, what do you have?

Ty educating yourself before commenting again.

http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/methodology/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate20111214.html

Unreal says:

07:53pm | 02/09/12

Realist?

LOL

Megstar says:

01:17pm | 02/09/12

I was over in the US recently visiting family and friends and the mood is definitely quite different to what it was a couple of years ago and Obamas star is slowly sinking as the people who listened and trusted in him realise that his rhetoric does not match the reality of the situation. While we in Australia are concerned about the ‘nanny state’ that is happening here, it is in full swing in the States and there is a general feeling of hopelessness as rights are being eroded. Just as mainly favourable media of Gillard and the Labor government are seen overseas, so it is as far as what Australia gets fed from the US so unless a person is interested enough to access US media/facts many of the comments on here lack credibility and are just being seen through the coloured lenses of which side of politics you support. So much hot air!!

Andrew says:

07:04pm | 02/09/12

Bear, his job was to make businesses profitable, the more profitable they become the more money he made, so do you really believe he just sacked people for the sake of it. Sometimes people lost there jobs but many more jobs were saved, if it wasnt for bain these businesses would have went under completely and every job would have been lost. By the way bear exactly which policies are nuts, the ones that want to create 12 million jobs in the next few years, the ones that wants to cut debt, the ones that want to make the US energy efficient and relying on there own resources, not resources of other countries. The fact is you dont really have a clue what his policies are do you bear, you just hate him because he isnt from the left.

DocBud says:

03:23pm | 02/09/12

Why would anyone be scared of a man who is the epitome of the modern politician? All spin and soundbite with no substance or beliefs.

John says:

07:11pm | 02/09/12

Tell that to Osama bin Laden, Doc.

Andrew says:

07:07pm | 02/09/12

What a load of crap, romney job was to save companies from folding which he managed to do in the majority of cases, sometimes tough decisions had to be made to save those companies but the fact that the company survived shows the right decisions were made.

PeterMax says:

06:13pm | 02/09/12

Those who want Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Coalition are mostely those who actually want Labor to win. .  Malcolm Turnbull may be a good businessman but he has previously shown he is not a successful Leader for the Coalition. he was too close to Labor. It may be Mitt Romney realises that his State health scheme would not work over all of heavily indebted America

Andrew says:

07:11pm | 02/09/12

Robert, you do realise there is a big difference between implementing that health policy at state level and implementing at a national level. Obamacare would be a disaster for the US.