Ralph, you are being disingeuous. You have seen the whole quote and know quite well that the firing people part is being taken out of context.
I've 'fired' a doctor, a dentist, a mechanic, an insurance agent, among others.
His point was, if someone providing you a service is not meeting your standards or expectations, then you should fire them, not continue to have them take advantage of you. We all have 'fired' someone at one point or another, and to twist one's words like many of you have, is dishonest at best.
I must fire 5% of my clients and a few employees each year. Am I dishonest for not enjoying in firing them, no? That is the worst part of Business, what kind of person would really enjoy firing a lot of people?
True, I took Romney's quote out of context, but it was a dumb thing for him to say as was his remark about being afraid of getting a pink slip at Bain Capital many years ago. I doubt that many unemployed people to day will relate to that.
Ralph, I'm surprised at you. You know, if you saw the actual clip, Romney was talking about "firing" your insurance company if you didn't get good service.
It was dumb remark. And my comment was no more innacurate than many of the things Romney has been saying about President Obama. Moreover, Bain's leveraged buyouts resulted in plenty of people getting fired in "strategic bankruptcies" filed in order to raid pension funds and plunder the companies.
I heard the remark, yeah he was talking about ins co but, he is correct.
The politicians work for us, or at least they are suppose to. Election time, could be pink slip day for some you think?
Yes, with the free market, sometimes people lose their jobs. At least the taxpayers aren't left with the loss in PE. Solyndra lost jobs and taxpayers' money. You do realize that Bain specialized in companies that were already failing? Is it better to streamline and downsize the work force, so that some workers lose their jobs, or just let the entire company go under, so that all the employees are left jobless?
And as for Mitt's "firing" remark, I think consumers should have the option of firing a service provider that gives crappy service. In fact, I once "fired" an insurance company and "hired" a better one.
There's a big difference in downsize and streamline, then bankrupting the company for his, bains, and shareholders enormous profits. He obviously didn't care about the employees, only his own personal gain. Big difference between creating jobs, and closing factories for big profits.
Many of the companies were already headed for bankruptcy. From what I've found, Bain under Romney had a 70% success rate, and of the 30% of companies that failed, some did so after Bain was no longer involved.
I agree that Bain's main objective wasn't to keep jobs - it was to make money for investors. Romney is a pragmatist. In many cases, however, Bain's efforts allowed employees of failing companies to remain employed.
So by your definition, pragmatist, was his motivation personal monetary gain or job creation motivated? We need jobs, not a personal path to making an elite few richer and himself richer, by a potential Presidential candidate.
Right, so how many jobs did Obama create before becoming POTUS? Bottom line - successful businesses hire people and improve the overall economy. Romney has turned around numerous companies to make them successful. No, he didn't do so out of the goodness of his heart, and yes, he was financially rewarded for his efforts. Can he "turn around" our economy? That remains to be seen, but I think he has a better chance of doing so than our current POTUS.
I believe the economy is slowly coming back. And being an Independent who voted for President Bush, I'm leary of a candidate who puts personal financial gain over the employees who make the business money. President Bush promised two things. Lower taxes to the wealthy to create new jobs.(Which didn't work) And allow businesses to form coops of like businesses to purchase affordable health insurance. (Which he never signed).
Oh old&wise—you voted for Bush? Say it ain't so . . . and how can I now think of you as "wise?"
My impression is that Romney ran more companies into the ground after helping himself to their cash and pension funds than those which succeeded. He likes to talk about Home Depot and a couple of others, but you'll never hear him mention the ones Bain raped and abandoned.
I'm not sure "Bain specialized in companies that were already failing." I'm no expert on it, but my impression is that Bain specialized more in medium sized companies successful companies whose owners wanted to sell. In a leveraged buyout the technique is to buy a successful company and borrow up to the limit of its credit rating, stuff most of the money in your pocket; take draconian cost cutting measures; and hope the company survives. If not, declare bankruptcy and raid the pension fund and run the company into the ground.
Ralph, you are correct. Bain used leveraged buyouts of successful companies, borrowed the credit lime and filed bankruptcy. Then the American public was stuck using tax payer dollars to cover pension funds.
Not true. Many of the businesses were poorly run and already in trouble. Read this - the good and the bad about Romney and Bain:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/article … 99452.html
The problem is, it's so easy for any blogger, politician, or journalist to skew the facts or make something up. It is much more difficult in situations like this to actually find the truth. Most of these companies didn't have much, if any, public financial information available until after Bain stepped in.
I don't find real clear markets to be fair and balanced. And Yes he did take solvent companies, extract funds, bankrupt the companies, and left tax payers with the pension insurance fund to help the displaced employees.
But did he also take failing companies and turn them around? Under Romney's governorship of MA, 45,800 jobs were created in the state. Under Obama, there are 1.7 million fewer jobs than when he took office. Go to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and nose around some: http://www.bls.gov/home.htm
Of course, Romney was governor during better economic times, so it might not be a fair comparison.
That's not true!
He enjoys firing insurance companies!
Oh wait. Corporations are people, so firing your insurance company is the same as firing its people.
You are correct, Ralph.
I don't enjoy putting people out of work as much as Romney.
I agree, Romney puts shareholders first then employees. And it seems in several cases he chose profits and shareholders over employees. I can understand closing but he didn't appear to place these folks with any other companies.
I believe the American politician who said he "enjoyed firing people" was misquoted.
He said he enjoyed firing suppliers who did a bad job.
So do I. I hate having to fire an employee, but if I've hired a company to do a job, and they do a dreadful job in spite of repeated warnings, I take great pleasure in writing them a sarcastic letter telling them they've lost the contract.
I once wrote a letter sacking Chubb (the security company) after various spectacular failures on their part. I didn't just say "you're sacked", I detailed several of the incidents that had led to my decision. My letter was featured at their sales conferences that year as a lesson on how not to treat a customer!
In a way, I agree with Ralph...it was a dumb thing to say in the context of making the point that you are for smaller government. No doubt the size of the federal government needs to shrink and become more efficient through eliminating redundancy but the way to convey that message is not to express you enjoyment of firing people. I have been a manager of people for many years and a "firing" is the worst duty that I face even when I feel the person deserves it. Romney was obviously trying to make the point that he has the courage to shrink the federal government and relishes the idea. Unfortunately, the message shines the light on the people who will be in the focus of that aim...they will lose their jobs, not fired, but their jobs will disappear. That is a dilema in that sometimes jobs need to go for the over health of the organization...we can either eliminate some of the payroll or the whole company can go down. That is the reality of the world of business. It is also the reality of the world of government if proper fiscal principles are ever applied by those we elect to office. Anybody...anybody can grow the size of a government or for that matter, a business, but that does not mean the decisions they make are good ones. In the private sector, the businessman who misses on that call faces failure...bankruptcy because the expansion of the revenue stream did not keep up with the expansion of the overhead...I seriously doubt that is ever a consideration in the never-ending growth of government and it so should be. WB
I truly revel in the fact that if I have a service provider... and they screw me around, I can fire them.
I would imagine this is based of the Romney comment. So yes I agree with Romney on this point.
That's a great technique. I'll bet firing somebody once in a while puts the fear of God in the rest of your employees.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter to some what Romney was talking about. They can admit that he was talking about how great it is to be able to fire your service providers, but that obviously shows that he doesn't care about people... somehow.
True. It was a dumb thing for him to say. And it's another indication of how out of touch he is with the proletariat.
It has nothing to do with firing an individual from their job, and anyone who looks at what he said will understand that. Everybody wants a country where you have a choice. How do you honestly relate what he said to firing an individual?
I'm not a mind reader. It was a dumb remark as was "corporations are people."
And niether are you one who seeks out the video to know the truth.
Nothing to do with mind reading... simple as watching the video.
Never enjoy firing people, because it's a lot more work on us. However, it's important to get rid of the lazy people or the ones that think "they deserve" this or that without applying themself! What has happened to our society when people believe they can "just get by" without giving 100% to their job. They are getting paid! Sorry, this subject makes me crazy because you more "problem" employees then GREAT employees. So when you find a great employee, cherish them (they are few and far between nowadays).
Plenty of people have enjoyed firing me
Some deserved some not. during my drinking days I burnt a lot of bridges work wise.
Depended on the person getting fired and for what reason. Some I didn't want to let go (bosses orders) others I couldn't wait to fire.
I've always helped the individual find another job before letting them go. They may not have worked out for me, but everyone is of value to some type of business.
No. I never enjoyed it. Not even the employee who had been stealing from me for months.
It was awful, even when the employee in question rarely showed up for work. I have to say, however, that laying people off due to company downsizing was harder than firing for cause.
That's not what he said.
But whatever. Talking to people with an axe to grind is pointless.
lighten up a tad .... it was meant to amuse
It is what he said.
It was a careless way to say it and yes, I think it does indicate his character. He's self centered and thinks only of his own needs.
A sensitive person would say that they never enjoy it but that sometimes we have to do unpleasant things. He is a "me-me-me" person, plainly.
Go figure, Pcunix didn't bother researching the exact quote:
“I want individuals to have their own [health] insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.... You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service, then I want to say, ‘I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.’”
He's clearly saying that he likes capitalism.
I LISTENED to him say it. I didnt need to research it.
I stand by what I said.
You listened to him say it? That sounds just like an eyewitness misidentifying a criminal who was a different race!
They make mistakes frequently, and they should be double checked by recorded fact.
Anyway, Romney is clearly saying that he enjoys being ABLE to fire people.
I fire my students every week and they keep coming back in the classroom!!!
Firing people used to be the norm for my management team. I would get lousy end of the year reports that workers couldn't get a keen handle of. I will admit that I enjoy the after effects of firing people. Better and well suited workers replacing them to increase efficiency. I'm a business oriented ego.
It's most important in hiring the right person in the first place. My business is both personal mix with business in healthy relationships . If profit $ is always first, the suffering factor can be the worry of being fire along with mistrust.
I rarely need to fire anyone anyways because most jobs are by contract by contract then just don't call back to the ones who don't work out that well.
When I was a supervisor, there were two people under my supervision that I wanted to seriously terminate. They were inept employees....However, it is extremely difficult to terminate people in $%^$#@! civil service with the "omnipresent" unions always interferring. I remember that I was about to discipline and terminate a specific employee; however, my idiotic superior and the union stepped in, telling me to give the idiot another chance. WTF, I thought. Advice: if you want to be a supervisor and/or manager, steer clear of civil service because it is VERY DIFFICULT to terminate people under civil service rule unless it is for time and attendance issues!!!!
There will be flippant and incompetent employers sometime, and if the circumstances are too serious then I would have to fire the employer. For the boss, that is easy. But for the employer himself, they don't even want to think about this.
The three I've had to fire, no, I didn't enjoy it. Did they deserve it? Yes, but that didn't make it any easier.
"As Mark Maremont reported in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, Romney invested $2.1 million in 1996 for a stake in the company; the idea was brought to him by a Lifelike partner who was a friend from Brigham Young University and Harvard Business School.
Romney, who accuses President Obama of “crony capitalism” on the Solyndra deal, introduced his brother-in-law to Lifelike officials, who dutifully hired the relative and promoted him to vice president with an annual salary of $100,000.
Romney’s Bain colleagues, according to The Journal, were dubious from the start and, indeed, the brother-in-law was fired and the company failed, despite a personal loan from Romney."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opini … c_ev=click
So what you're saying is only Republicans do this?
LA TIMES, 2005 - At least 17 senators and 11 members of the House have children, spouses or other close relatives who lobby or work as consultants, most in Washington, according to lobbyist reports, financial-disclosure forms and other state and federal records. Many are paid by clients who count on the related lawmaker for support.
But Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and his son-in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups and municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate. A second son has lobbied in Nevada for some of those same interests, and a third has represented a couple of them as a litigator.
In the last four years alone, their firms have collected more than $2 million in lobbying fees from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington. So pervasive are the ties among Reid, members of his family and Nevada's leading industries and institutions that it's difficult to find a significant field in which such a relationship does not exist.
So, can we stipulate that corruption in the only non-partisan in American politics in the year 2012?
Corruption and the fact they've all forgotten we're their boss, not the other way around.
We need to send them all home, get a whole new group, and make damn sure they understand they work for us and corruption will get them a one way ticket to Leavenworth.
No! I do not enjoy firing people. I do not enjoy managing people.
I have a hard enough time with a staff of one (moi).
My boss is horrible manager. I'm sure she would say I am an ungrateful, defiant employee.
I would not be able to take a job, which involved firing people. I would be thinking of the fact that they may have a family to support, and that being fired would not look good on their CV, and might make it harder to find another job. I would end up resigning rather than have than having this worry on my mind.
After reading this entire thread, this made me so happy.
Being able to fire people is a good thing.
Nobody doubts that.
Are you still trying to pretend otherwise?
No, but you were:
Pcunix: "It is what he said." (in reference to the OP: "Do you enjoy firing people?", which suggested that Romney said "I enjoy firing people")
You really aren't getting this: we all understand that he was saying it in a specific context and didn't really mean that he enjoys causing misery for another human. We get that. What you don't get is that his carelessness at a time when so many people have been fired, let go, downsized, or whatever rubs salt in a wound.
Many of us believe that this comes directly from his callousness. He may not WANT to inflict misery, but he is callous about it and sees the corporation and money as where his loyalty and concerns should lie. The human side is not his concern.
That is an attitude shared by many, unfortunately. "I've got mine" is the unstated battle cry of far too many and he's definitely one of them. His careless slip-up just reminds us of that.
By the way, you might want to contrast the "business acumen" of Romney with the true heroism of the very few company owners who, in times of trouble, have worked tirelessly to make sure that not one person lost their job while they tried to rebuild the company. Those stories are rare and often involve shared sacrifice, but they do exist.
There have even been people who have kept every single employee on the payroll while rebuilding factories destroyed by fire. We had one of those in my State some years back. Those people really deserve our respect - Romney doesn't.
If a company can continue to succeed without firing anyone, and they outperform their competition, then they have good management.
If not, then they have bad.
Nature does not have emotions.
My wife was getting a hard time at her local pharmacy. It was over a co-pay.
I enjoyed firing them!
His handlers may have been talking to him..
I just saw a new clip where he says something like "I think it's a tragedy when any job is lost". That was in a slightly different context, but it's the tone that he SHOULD have used in the "firing" bit.
Actually, Mitt said pretty much the same thing in April 2010:
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0 … ?category=
Romney isn't exactly tuned in to the average man on the street. He was born on third base but thinks he hit a triple, attended private schools and never rubbed shoulders with ordinary folks. And I'm not sure he's the brightest bulb on the tree. Like George W. Bush, daddy's connections probably had something to do with his getting into Harvard Business and Law Schools. Like Bush, he wasn't much of an athlete and in prep school he was a member of the "pep squad."
Erratum: Romney isn't in touch with the man on the street, but he's apparently not short on grey matter. According to Wikipedia he graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School and in the top 5% of his Harvard Business School class, a
record far superior to W's.
Paul Krugman says "We don't need a Gordon Gekko president.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/opini … on.html?hp
Krugman says a lot of things. Usually when he says something, it contradicts the other things he says:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/27 … an-h-adler
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/18/ … lip-flops/
and often times, it's just wrong:
Oh well. I know I won't convince you, Deeds. You're already deep into the elephant.
Keep putting band-aids over the hemorrhaging wounds.
Here's an article discussing why "being able to fire people" is very important and GOOD for the economy:
Romney is no stranger to government handouts according to this article from the LA Times:
As Mitt Romney defends his record running a private equity firm, he frequently points to a fast-growing Indiana steel company, financed in part by Bain Capital, that now employs 6,000 workers.
What Romney doesn't mention is that Steel Dynamics also received generous tax breaks and other subsidies provided by the state of Indiana and the residents of DeKalb County, where the company's first mill was built.
The story of Bain and Steel Dynamics illustrates how Romney, during his business career, made avid use of public-private partnerships, something that many conservatives consider to be "corporate welfare." It is a commitment that carried over into his term as governor of Massachusetts, when he offered similar incentives to lure businesses to his state.
Yet as he seeks the GOP presidential nomination, he emphasizes government's adverse effects on economic growth.
"Fundamentally, what happens in America that creates jobs is not government. It has its role. But by and large, it gets in the way of creating jobs," he said during a debate Saturday sponsored by ABC News and Yahoo. [More here.]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld … rint.story
I just don't get the facination with Romney. Rich kid who has no idea what the average American is about. Silver spooned and money oriented for himself and the wealthy. Levered buyouts with no concern to the plant workers or the other businesses supporting those he had a hand in bankrupting for his personal gain.
Have you actually looked at the buyouts? Have you looked at any specific companies?
So you think Obama is "the guy next door"? He didn't even grow up in the US, for the most part. Didn't he describe himself as a "global citizen"? And really, I don't want someone just like me to be POTUS. I'd make a lousy prez. I want someone smarter and more capable. Newt didn't grow up wealthy, and he represented my state, but that sure doesn't mean I want him to be our leader.
Did you read today's NY Times? Or is that paper not "fair and balanced" enough for you? They reported that the Gingrich PAC's film about Romney and Bain is so full of lies and misrepresentations that if they were all taken out, there wouldn't be anything left:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 … st-romney/
Oh, and how did Solyndra work out for Obama? CBS has discovered 11 more Solyndras:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … ogram.html
Glen Kess is an opinionist and considered such by both parties. His one to four Pinocchios has been questioned since it's beginings. So, I do read the NY Times, and it like any other publication is entitled to it's own opinions. I see a lot of condemning for Gingrich's pac, and nill to none when Romney's pac attacked Newt. So is one pac better then another when it favors your candidate?
So then you agree that Newt's no more responsible for his pacs attacks then Romney was. So Newt lost Iowa, and some might think then that Romney losing his lead in South Carolina is fair then?
And just to make it clear, I also live in Georgia and don't care for Newt. But then again, I wish the GOP had a better selection of candidates.
So do I, OW. On that, we can agree. (about better candidates) I'm so tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils." I'd love to be able to really get behind a cadidate I'm excited about.
I don't think Mitt will win SC. And if Newt gets the nomination, I won't vote for him.
I couldn't vote for Newt either. But given the current selection, I'm back to leaning for President Obama.
The contextual framework of Romney's remark doesn't make his comment any righter.
The truth is, Americans do NOT have real freedom of choice in their healthcare providers.
If you are employed, your employer may give you 2-3 options based on what they are able to negotiate. You may not like one and next open enrollment period choose the other. But if you don't like them, you're back to the first one.
If you are self-employed or otherwise lose your employer-provided benefits, the idea that you can "fire" your health insurance company is a total joke.
It's their ball, their field and their astronomical rates. If you don't like it... too bad.
Any way you look at it, Romney's comment belies his ignorance of mainstream American life.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.