Private equity fund operator Steven Rattner provides a fair assessment of Romney's record at Bain here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/opini … ef=opinion
I've posted about his record, but people don't like to reply to the facts for some reason.
Yes, they looked to make profits, for both Bain(that was their job) and for the companies they invested in(that was their job). Yes, sometimes they cut jobs(if a company is losing money, changes have to be made or ALL jobs will be lost).
Bain was responsible for saving many companies from going under.
Ampad was owned by Mead, who had announced plans to fire 1,000 workers. Bain bought Ampad and grew revenues 50% every year. Ampad then went public and Bain no longer controlled it.
It's amusing to read the "vulture capital" claims especially given that the entity seeking funding is free to either accept the terms of venture capital deal or not. In reality venture capitalists are investors seeking investments and attempting to obtain the best possible deal for them and their shareholders, whom they are ultimately responsible to.
If you wish to see a true "vulture capital" deal then simply examine the terms and conditions of the GM deal FORCED upon all parties. In fact, had any private equity or venture capital firm attempted to engage in such actions as forcing bondholders out so as to benefit the Union, the venture capital manager would be in prison and facing numerous civil suits.
In the end, poorly managed companies that seek capital from a negotiating standpoint of weakness have only themselves to blame. Nobody at any VC or PE group can force a business to take the deal! Hence there is no such thing as vulture capital, because all companies have free will to accept or decline terms and conditions.
Well, what do you expect from a slick private equity guy who came close to going to jail for improper payments made to a politician in order to get NY State pension money for his firm to manage? He apparently took Obama's comments about Bane personally.
Small minds - perpetuating what smaller oligarchy minds intend them too mind.
Here's a link to an article about NY State's fraud changes against Rattner:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/busin … ttner.html
"Steven L. Rattner, the financier who oversaw the federal rescue of the auto industry, was formally accused by New York’s attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, on Thursday of engaging in a kickback scheme involving the state’s pension system.
Steven L. Rattner has agreed to pay $6.2 million in disgorgement and penalties in settling with the S.E.C.
On the same day that Mr. Rattner was being celebrated on Wall Street for his role in turning around General Motors, he found himself embroiled in a bitter public battle with Mr. Cuomo, he settled similar charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission and he escalated a separate legal fight against his former investment firm.
Even as a resurgent G.M. went public again in a huge stock sale on Thursday, Mr. Cuomo sought to banish Mr. Rattner for life from the securities business in New York.
Vulture capitalist in Casino Capitalism.
Well no, technically he is a fascist. Romney wouldn't know the first thing about a free market.
This guy Romney lies like he breathes. I'm so sick of his crap already...
"I create jobs, Obama destroys them!"
lying sack of
Oh, but let's play nice. No talking bad about Romney....nonono
Let's understand that Romney's position at Bain was not as a venture capitalist but as an equity manager only interested in profit. He had no interest in employees or a company's success but in turning over a profit for his investors. He was good at his job. But his job was to make rich people richer, and his entire platform is geared in that direction. For all his posturing he has no experience or interest in fixing peoples problems, or helping the average citizen. He is supporting his base which consists of rich conservatives interested continuing to be rich conservatives. And he will spin whatever he does to hide that fact.
He also worked to increase profits in the companies they took over. That was how they got paid the most.
"Romney's position at Bain was not as a venture capitalist but as an equity manager only interested in profit."
True, but ventur capitalist or vulture capitalist has a nice ring to it.
Well he is closer to a vulture than a venture, that is for sure.
And yet, not one person here has actually demonstrated in what way he acted as a vulture?
While one person here has actually demonstrated in what way he helped businesses.
You don't get it because you are business and profit centric not worker consumer centric. Romney's only interest was in handing a profit to Bain and investors with total disregard for the workers (voters) affected. As a presidential candidate his claim is his his experience qualifies him as President, and in my opinion it does not because he acted in the interest of a few at the expense of many and as President you don't do that.
When you cater to the few you are a vulture.
Who was he acting at the expense of?
Yes, his main goal was to make money.
But, you haven't shown any instances of him firing people or cutting pay for sake of a profit. The only times that happened was to keep a company running, and more often it was because a union wouldn't agree to a pay cut.
It qualifies him because he knows how to make businesses profitable. Our job situation is the biggest obstacle we face, with over 20 million unemployed Americans. He knows what businesses need to thrive.
You say he acted like a vulture, but you can't back up that claim except by saying he wasn't concerned for the working man. The truth is, he helped save companies and create jobs.
You ignore the broken companies and the lost jobs, we will have to agree to disagree.
The broken companies, like the ones that were doing fine under Bain, but when Bain no longer controlled them went under 4 years later? Why in the world would you say Bain broke a company if it saved it from closing down, increased revenues, increased jobs, took the company public, and the company continued for 4 years without Bain?
Where is the logic in that?
And answer me honestly. If you worked at a plant, and the management said you needed to take a 20% pay cut or they couldn't keep the plant open, would you take the pay cut or walk away from the job?
Seriously, I'm tired of people calling Romney a vulture, and pointing to 'broken companies and lost jobs', but not being able to provide or discuss ANY actual facts.
Guilty until proven innocent, but I won't listen to proof that proves innocent, so guilty no matter what?
Vulture capitalist: A venture capitalist who invests in floundering firms in the hopes that they will turn around or to sell them off piecemeal.
With Dade Behring, Mitt Romney and his investors took over a healthy company and loaded it with debt. Rather than sell the company, they then had Dade take out even more loans to buy out their shares, driving the company into bankruptcy. Nearly 3,000 workers lost their jobs, while Romney and his partners made more than $250 million in profit.
Kansas City’s GST Steel was a successful company that had been making steel rods for 105 years when Mitt Romney and his partners took control in 1993. They cut corners and extracted profit from the business at every turn, placing it deeply in debt. When the company eventually declared bankruptcy, workers were denied their full pensions and health insurance, and the federal government was forced to step in and bail out the pension fund.
In the late 1980s, Mitt Romney and his partners bought up hundreds of successful small clothing stores and combined them to form Stage Stores. Romney and his team loaded up the company with debt, and then, when the company was at its height, sold nearly all their shares at an enormous profit. In less than three years, the stock had collapsed and Stage was forced to declare bankruptcy.
I forgot to add that not only did they take peoples lively hood away and destroy almost 20 companies but often their actions cost the taxpayer money such as having to bail out the pension fund of several of their companies so that the people whose jobs they destroyed would be able to get by while they walked away with hundreds of millions in profit from debt loading.
If Romeny gets elected say good bye to what's left of the middle class. This country will be run by the kings and queens. And of course the rest of us, peasants to serve them! lol
"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters."
Steel claws gripping our throats. No money--no life. Worship of mammon.
Come on LMC, you still say that it's Bush's fault and the evil corporations' fault that the lower and middle classes have such little wealth. Personal responsibility is responsible for a much larger portion of the mess we are in than most people want to admit.
"The bank foreclosed on me! Can you believe it! Those evil bankers!"
- When in fact, one couple might have a mortgage that they know for a fact they wouldn't be able to pay if either person lost their income for more than a month.
Ah, the old "You should have seen the recession coming" argument.
How about telling that to the mortgage companies who wrote loans like drunken sailors?
As a matter of fact, my mortgage company is filing bankruptcy.
I don't approve of anyone being financially irresponsible. It happens on all sides, too much.
I'm not saying people should have seen the recession coming, but I get fed up with people sometimes. I watch HGTV(househunters, property virgins), and you see these people who keep pushing their budget higher and higher, and they say 'we'll be able to handle it because we're both working'. They don't leave themselves any room in case something goes wrong.
Where did I mention Bush here? You use him to minimize that statement. "Oh, just more Bush-bashing."
I agree totally with that sentiment. Nothing to do with Bush, except that he's a Republican: and this seems to be all of their views.
Personal responsibility lies with the lenders who sold sub-primes, knowing it was not called for. And why did they do it? To make more money.
I'll agree that people who used sub-primes to flip homes and then want to be bailed out don't get my sympathy. But a family who was buying their 1st home and were ripped off by crooked bankers.....Not Their Fault.
As per usual with R's: blame the victim, excuse the Robber Barons.
I'm not excusing anyone. But, if you get foreclosed on because you couldn't afford to miss a couple of paychecks, then you were to blame as well.
You've just been on a crazy R-bashing fit recently.
You excuse anything Republicans do...you are not fooling anyone.
Sealy Corp was sold to Bain Capital in 1997. Sealy Corp reported in 1997 the following:
$721 million in assets
$11.7 million in net income
In 2003, Sealy's last year with Bain Capital, they reported the following:
$959 million in assets
$18.3 million in net income
Under Bain Capital, Sealy Corp managed to add 1106 new full-time jobs(a 20% increase in its workforce), $238 million in assets, and still report a 56% increase in net income.
Bain Capital acquired Dominos Pizza in 1998. First fully-public information is available for the year 2000. In 2000, Dominos reported $1,166 million in total revenue, $25.3 million in net income, and 6,977 stores.
In 2004, Dominos reported $1,446 million in total revenue, $62.3 million in net income, and 7,757 stores. That's a 24% increase in sales, 146% increase in net profit, and approximately 14,000 new jobs, 3,500 of which were in the US.
Bain Capital acquired Alliance Laundry Systems in 1998, and Teacher's Private Capital acquired the majority interest in 2005. ALS reported in 1998 $331 million in total revenue, $5.3 million in net income, and 900 employees(approximate).
ALS reported in 2004 $242 million in total revenue, $11.7 million in net income, and 1312 employees.
Even with less total revenue, Bain increased net income by 120% and added 412 jobs(45% increase).
How much profit did ole Mitt squeeze out of that? And where did he put that money?
What type of pay do these jobs provide?
How many jobs did he kill?
How many jobs went overseas?
I would venture there are many more job losses than gains.
Does it matter? If someone buys your failing company and you agree to pay them, do you really care what you pay them if they save(and improve) your company? Are you going to say that the companies I listed were failures on Bain's part?
They range from minimum wage to executive salaries. More importantly, they are jobs. The biggest unemployment rates are among young workers, by the way.
Jobs are lost in America. Get over it. That's why we progress, we find ways to replace jobs with better jobs. That's why people work in finance and technology now, compared to when almost everyone was a farmer.
Does it matter? If someone creates jobs in the US and overseas, are they doing a bad thing?
I have provided facts for you, with reliable, primary sources.
You would venture that more jobs were lost, with no basis in fact, and no sources. In fact, your 'venture' is contrary to the actual facts I have provided.
It's amazing that I can post 3 companies that show 5,000 new US jobs, and you complain about it.
1997 is not new.
And I told you: I can't google. Why don't you google this question: How many jobs were lost due to Bain capital?
How may jobs did Bain send overseas?
then let me know the answer....I will bet it's much more than 5,000.
and yes--Mitt's cut does matter, as does matter where he put that money. If he stashed it to avoid US taxes...he's a slime!
What about 1997?
You can't just google those questions. You have to do research.
You have to look at individual companies. I have provided PROOF of Bain creating jobs. You have provided none. The burden of proof is on you.
In those three companies, there was a NET GAIN of 5,000 US jobs, and some 10,000 foreign jobs as well.
So answer this question. Did Romney hurt Sealy, Dominos, and Alliance Laundry? Or, did Romney help them?
Just as with Bain, you automatically declare Romney guilty with no proof. Romney has done more to create jobs for Americans, and paid more in taxes than you could ever hope to do. You can't even give him credit for creating jobs when I give you proof of it, you just try to make up something about him doing something wrong.
That is your opinion. I find him doing more harm than good. And i find it particularly disgusting that he wants to cut his taxes more.
And just where am I supposed to research if I can't access google, or other search engines....the library?
Mitt erased his records from Mass....where would I find records from Bain?
And you never answered that...why did he erase his records, do you think?
You can't address the fact that those three companies created 5,000 jobs! Just ignore it and move on?
It's not my opinion. I linked to SEC FILINGS showing earnings and employee statistics. Yet, you think it's just imaginary?
You should get your browser fixed. Or you could use the library.
I got almost all of my data from SEC filings, you can look them up yourself. Do you hear yourself? You don't know where to find the real data, you can't look it up, you ignore it when it is presented, and you KNOW for a FACT(without having access to any of the data) that you're still right and I'm still wrong.
I don't know why Romney erased his records, or what records those were. I don't know the laws regarding such, or standard practices. Why don't you provide me some real information about it?
This came from a link about the article on Mitt's lies:
"There's a good reason why private equity firms don't track jobs created or destroyed."
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/ … SF_F_River
All I can do is link from twitter.....just fixit...so easy for you to say. I live week to week. Same job since 2000. Promoted this year, but still quite poor. Do you assume everyone has it easy like R Money?
and if you don't care why Mitt had his records erased....what can I say?
We are on different wave-lengths...never to meet.
Yeah, that's a nice opinion.
But if you look at a company, see that it is heading toward bankruptcy, but Bain steps in and turns things around, you can clearly see the effect they had.
If a company is barely making any profit, or losing money, then Bain steps in, and three years later they have 1000 more employees and much more profit, would you say Bain helped create jobs or destroy them?
Again, you still haven't acknowledged the FACTS I posted about those three companies.
It's not expensive, it's probably free. Just find a good tech-help forum and they'll walk you through it.
When did I say I don't care?
Do you? You seemd quite nonchalant about it.
I don't get riled up about something if I can't look at the facts. I don't believe news reports if I can't see the facts.
For instance, do you believe that GE paid no taxes?
Yes, I did believe that...and I read that they got a refund.
but a story on Romney erasing his records...that is true. He did it. google Boston Globe or Boston Herald and ask.
They don't make that up. why would they? Herald loves Mittens.
Do you still believe it? It's wrong, they got no refund, and anyone can look it up on the SEC website. They paid taxes. That's my point, 99.9% of information online is crap.
Again, I can research it, but I have to find primary sources. News agencies aren't very good at telling the truth.
I'll look into it.
Yes, Ralph. That story is fair and presents both sides.
Which is exactly the point.
If Romney (or Obama) wants to take credit for the good things that happened "on his watch" then he also has to accept blame for the bad things that happened on his watch.
If he is going to take credit for things Bain accomplished after he left, then he also needs to accept blame for negative things that occurred after he left.
In other words, you can't have it both ways.
Which is exactly what he is doing.
The problem with what Obama is doing is that it is presented in a manner that is blatantly false.
Johnson blames Romney for not stepping in on negotiations when he was running for office, but Romney was told by his lawyers not to get involved. He may have opened himself up to serious charges by doing so.
Johnson and his union workers wouldn't agree to take a 22% pay cut to keep the plant operating. Less pay is better than no pay, and there was a reason why the previous owners sold that plant.
Better pay is better than less pay, that's me motto.
American ceo's make 400 times that of the ones who do the hard work for them.....shameful.
That has nothing to do with the question.
Is it better to have less pay or no job?
For the big picture, and the future of this country....once we accept third-world conditions, it is all over for us. And it is completely un-neccessary.
I say don't work unless you are paid your worth. If we all held out: they would have to.
Refuse to go to war too....what are they gonna do? Go themselves? ahahahaha
Your lack of understanding of how businesses work is just...
First, the market sets 99% of the prices, not the government. Only about 1% of workers earn minimum wage. Why does anyone get more money than that if businesses can pay less than they are?
Because of competition. Employers have to compete for employees, and employees compete for employers. The free market balances itself out.
You can't just say 'we're not going to work unless you pay us more' to a company that is LOSING MONEY. Something has to change. Three times I've asked, how do you expect a company to pay workers if it is losing money every year?
We're talking about Romney and Bain. Is it better for the workers to accept a pay cut or everyone to lose their jobs? (Also, keep in mind that Bain showed a great record in INCREASING PROFITS of companies after they took over, which gives a company money to increase wages).
Why are they taking a cut? To maximize profit? Then I say quit!
No, they are taking a cut because the company is losing money and will go bankrupt if they don't cut expenses.
If you are going to quit, then don't gripe about it.
I'm no griper. I worked 6 years without a raise during the lost decade when prices were going sky-high.
But now....if and when the biz gets successful---do I not deserve a part of that? Or does it all go to the business and shareholders?
It depends. Some businesses pay more attention to their employees than others.
That's where competition comes in. If a business doesn't treat people well enough, it has to lower wages to get people it wants. People with more skills/training/experience can get better wages and benefits somewhere else.
My point is, and that you still haven't addressed, is what is better?
For the workers to take a cut in pay, or for everyone to lose their jobs?
I would say take the cut, but with the caviat that when things get better---it get better for you too.
Otherwise, less is the new normal.
If you give them an inch..they will take a mile.
Even if you can't get any other guarantees, would you take unemployment over reduced wages?
At least you finally seem to be realizing that sometimes jobs and wages have to be cut to keep the jobs there.
And sometimes they don't.
Just saw on Sharpton.....GTS (GPS)?...company Bain took over in 93...Romney was there, yes?
Man who worked there said as soon as Bain came in, they hired people who knew nothing about steel,and workplace safety went down..to cut costs.
In 2001, they declared bankruptcy, and 750 people lost their jobs.
Their pensions were cut $400 dollars a month, and they did not get their 2 week severance pay.
But, the top 30 execs were given $300,000 each.
Bain walked off with 12 million. Federal gvt made up for pension fund losses to the tune of $440 mil......
Now-This is NOT what I want for prez. Anyone associated with this type of activity is no man for that job. Period.
GST, the plant was owned by Armco Inc before it was sold to Bain. Armco Inc lost $240 million dollars in 1991, and $35 million in the first quarter of 1992. They were heading for bankruptcy, and that particular mill was part of the problem.
In 1993, owner Armco was looking to sell it, and selected Bain because the firm "had earned a sterling reputation for turning companies around,"" - source Politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … ake-gst-s/)
That plant was already set to be closed when Bain stepped in. Everyone would have lost their jobs in 1993.
According to PolitiFact, the management teams did in fact have experience with steel companies.
There was a 10-week labor strike in 1997(unions can hurt themselves so much). Energy prices skyrocketed after that. Foreign steel imports hurt steel companies all over the US.
Read that article, there's more. Romney wasn't involved with the company anymore, but people still blame him if things go bad after he left. Nearly half of all steel companies in America had filed bankruptcy by the time GSI did, as did some of the plant's biggest customers.
Closing down that plant allowed GSI to save their company. Again, sometimes companies have to fire some so that all jobs aren't lost.
This is what the CEO of GSI said about Romney.
"No matter how you look at it or what side of the fence you're on, a plant closing is a tragedy for people. I think when you try to tie it to a person and say, Mitt was responsible for this — a lot of steel companies went out of business at that time, and Mitt had nothing to do with it," he said. "That was a macro-industry tidal wave that hit that plant. I bet if the Bain folks had to do it over again, they wouldn't have gotten involved with it. It can't be treated lightly, but to lay it at the doorstep of Mitt, I think, is not accurate."
What frequently happens is that the workers take a cut and the executives take a big increase. Romney took $250 million or thereabouts.
Bain cut executive salaries as part of the Bain Way when they came into a struggling business.
Yes, it would be good if every rich person in America could employ people and give away all their money, but it's not going to happen and I don't want to live in a country where people are forced to do so.
Romney's lifetime earnings don't make him a vulture. To say so is ridiculous, especially since I've shown many times how he helped create jobs, and how the stories paraded around actually didn't have anything to do with him.
I just love how suddenly Romney has s supporter.
I and others waited and watched through the entire GOP pre-race as candidate after candidate sparked interest, only to fizzle or blaze out.
Not a single hubber declared early for Romney.
Good to see he sparks passion in exactly one person.
Keep citing those Bain jobs created, JaxonRaine.
Keep shouting at us what a stellar character your hollowman is.
Vox clamantis in deserto.
So, let's take it one company at a time.
Bain took over Sealy. Under Bain Capital, Sealy Corp managed to add 1106 new full-time jobs(a 20% increase in its workforce), $238 million in assets, and still report a 56% increase in net income.
Good thing or bad thing?
Why can nobody address this?
Let's take it for what it is. A red herring.
Romney is touting his record of turning around companies by taking them over.
Bully for him.
But,he did that in the private sector.
He worked for a narrowly focused company whose specialty was/is turning ailing companies around for profit.
But the office of POTUS is not Bain.
Turning one company around is a far different task than turning an entire industry or the entire economy around.
I don't see his Bain experience as all that directly relevant -- unless he plans to continue taking over failing companies one by one as POTUS.
Here's an example.
Let's say we have a health clinic that serves a county's 25,000 citizens.
Young, old, babies, students, families, sick people, well people.
What kind of doctor should head that clinic?
Do we want a heart surgeon, who has an awesome record of transplants?
No. We don't.
Try, we have a nation where businesses are struggling and leaving for other countries. We have massive unemployment because businesses are struggling and leaving.
Do we want somebody with experience in helping companies to go from losing money to making money? Do we want somebody who knows what businesses need to thrive? It translates directly. Romney knows what businesses need to fix the economy themselves. Give them the right environment and it will happen.
How old are you?
Did you somehow miss the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II years?
Trickle-down economics is a lie.
Unless incented to do so, businesses will not voluntarily bring back the jobs they shipped overseas to reduce costs.
Unless incented not to do so, businesses will continue stockpiling cash and not reinivesting it to hire more American workers.
Corporate tax rates haven't changed as much as you think.
They have actually been very static for a long time, when you look at effective rates.
The rest of the world has been lowering and lowering to be competitive, we haven't.
Now, it's to the point where corporations would have to pay an extra 20-30% of their profits to come back. Some of them simply can't afford to do that.
The correct way to incentivize corporations is to provide a competitive environment. We haven't done that in a long time.
We need what people need to thrive as well as what business needs to thrive. Romney has shown little or no comprehension or interest in what people need to thrive.
I've been a Romney supporter ever since I looked into his record at Bain. Economy and jobs are the most important thing right now.
I declared for Romney as soon as Huntsman was out. Huntsman was my first choice.
I don't remember when I did, but it was before his victory was clear that I decided I wanted Romney.
I just haven't been active online for a few months.
That is true, Habee. You did!
You are the only one and I mentioned you in another thread recently that you had gone to meet Romney and how cool it was that you shared that with us.
Huntsman just "poof" up and vanished. Almost like he cut a deal with someone to drop out. I liked him the best of the GOP field, also.
Makes sense to me, go meet a candidate and vote for him. lol Romney as governor couldn't create jobs,his state was 47th in the nation in job creation. And at Bain he was a vulture capitalist. He and his clones made a lot of money, while many lost their jobs. And we the tax payers picked up the tab, whilte they walked away with millions. 9 out of 10 people I speak with, who are voting for Romney, don't like him, but dislike President Obama more. Then 6 out of 10, before I can say anything,make the following comment: "And it's not because he's African American." Yeah right!
But that would require logic and honesty. Skewing the facts is what they do.
True. And even not all Bain's successes like Staples resulted in more jobs. Jobs at Staples grew as the company expanded by putting hundreds of small stationery and office supply stores out of business. The number of jobs destroyed as a result of Staples' success exceeded the number of jobs created by Staples. That's not necessarily bad, but I'm sure Romney's claims of jobs created don't deduct the jobs destroyed at other employers.
You may all argue about how Bain conducted business, or how many business were saved or not. The issue is whether or not Romney's business experience at Bain is applicable to the Presidency, and it isn't. The President of the United States is not suppose to be a businessman oriented towards making a profit for a company, but a chief executive who is responsible to the people of this country for whom he works. It may not be a good business decision to rescue the auto industry, but it was a good decision for the country. And it worked.
When FDR spent us out of the depression, it might not have been a good business decision, but it was the right decision for the country. And it worked.
When Eisenhower put through the interstate transportation system for defense and business it might not have been a good business decision at the time, but it was right for the country. And it worked.
The US budget is not a business budget, it is not personal budget, it is the budget of a sovereign nation that can print its own money and sometimes you make business decisions for the prosperity of the nation and its people and businessmen don't get that. Ross Perot didn't get it and Mitt Romney doesn't get it.
Knowing what companies need to turn a profit is absolutely relevant to the presidency.
Romney has shown that he is good at helping companies make more money. More money means companies can expand and hire.
NO company can provide jobs without making money. It's impossible.
And when a company can make more money by shipping jobs off shore how does that help the American worker or the American economy and that is only one flaw in your position. Companies had the benefit of huge tax benefits and were having good profits under the Bush administration and they were cutting back on the American work force significantly, another flaw. It is not just a matter of business being profitable, it is a matter of the American worker being profitable and that is what has been lacking in Romney's experience and current position.
But my real issue with Romney is more on his social agenda.
Lacks in Romney's experience? I showed examples of him creating US jobs. Where did you come up with shipping jobs off-shore?
By the way, US corporations pay among the highest effective tax rates in the world. We simply aren't competitive internationally.
If you had two stores to buy a TV at, and they both had the same TV, but one cost half as much as the other, which would you buy?
No you showed businesses that created jobs, you did not show any specific action or plan by Romney that contributed to the creation of jobs.
I made no reference to Romney specifically with regards to jobs shipped off shore, I responded to your claim that businesses that make more money hire more people and that is not true.
Japan has the highest tax rate in the world, although the US is high at 35%, very few corporations pay that tax rate because of shelters and tax loopholes, and the larger US firms actually pay less than their international competitors, so we are competitive.
Your example about TV stores is irrelevant.
So, it's not enough to show that a company under the control of Bain created jobs, but it's enough for Bain's critics?
What do you want me to do, track down every agenda from every meeting, and outline every business change?
You can just go look, almost every company Bain touched increased revenues and jobs.
I claim that businesses have to have money to hire people. Most businesses care about making money. If you make money, you can make more money by expanding. It's natural for a business that is making money to expand.
Japan doesn't have the highest rate any more.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/03/3 … -s-action/
As for effective rates, US still has one of the highest. You have to compare industry to industry because of difficulties in comparing things such as depreciation country to country, but the US carries effective rates from 23% to 39%.
My point about TVs is relevant. If you have two choices to buy the same thing, you will buy the cheaper one. Corporations think the same way. If one country will take 40% of all your profits and another will take 10%, which would you prefer?
Published tax rates are bogus and you know it, it always depends on loopholes and shelters as to how much a company pays.
I don't need you to provide me info about Romney's specific actions, I need him too, and he hasn't.
As for the TV example, you are wrong, if you are a consumer for a single product it is irrelevant to this discussion, as you adjusted the comment it still doesn't work because I'll take 60% of a Billion dollars over 90% of 500 million any day. Additionally if what you say is true, then why aren't all companies working out of the lowest taxing country, there is more to it than just taxes.
The world wants to sell in the US because we are still the largest consumer nation in product volume, that may change one day when China leaves the third world.
Which is why I provided the MARGINAL and EFFECTIVE rates. Both of them. Looking at effective rates, we still aren't competitive.
He probably won't, due to the complexity of the material, and possible legal restrictions.
There is more to it, but all other things being equal, corporations go for lower tax rates.
There are also regulations, costs of healthcare, and like you said many other factors. But you have to admit that tax rates are a factor.
That's why we do have many corporations going overseas, because the rates here are just ridiculous.
It's not about where products are sold, it's about where total operations are located. GE puts much of its operations overseas because it's cheaper, and they have to maximize profits or they wouldn't be so big, wouldn't pay as much in taxes, and wouldn't have as many workers.
That is exactly the point Obama is making.
And that is being called character assasination.
but saying Obama is the one who lost 25 million jobs....eh---what's a little shmear?
Great Post!!!!!.....if you're interested in perpetuating the obscenity and mass delusion of 2 party paradigm mass media idiocy.
So--why the cuts in pensions, no severance pay, but Bain walks off with 12 mil, and top execs get $300,000?
This sound fair to you?
Federal gvt takes up the slack for pensions....Socialism! For Bain!
The same kinds of things happened in other steel companies.
Romney wasn't working there anymore either, when he left things were going well.
But, you'll blame him anyway. Never mind that this plant would have been gone over 7 years earlier without Bain. Never mind that 50% of steel plants were closed by then. Never mind anything, never mind that Romney was gone. Just blame Romney!
You're the one doing it. You are blaming Romney for anything and everything. When I present the facts you say they don't matter. When I show UNEQUIVOCALLY that he created jobs at a company, you deny it.
Do you do this because you feel it's being done/been done to Democrats?
It gets confusing when romney ad during his earlier runs for presidential hopeful said he created 10,000 jobs while at bain, now 4 years later in a campaign ad saying he created 100,000 jobs during that time. Which is it? As governor he ranked 47th in the country in reference to job creation.
Webster G Tarpley
"MittRomney campaign blather re FreeEnterprise-but US reality is cartels monopolies oligopolies trusts duopolies-antitrust laws mocked"
They are mocking us all.
Do you know, a 1% transaction fee on business could pay for all college tuitions in America? 1%.......think of that.
And these money-bags fight it every step of the way.....1 penny!
Funny how right-libertarians profess their hate of government coercion whilst laying praise upon the most coercive force in our society. The irony is almost funny — or it would be if it wasn’t so sad.
Perhaps you would engage in an analysis based on relevant comparisons. However, since that is most unlikely I'll address the issues as stated. I do not accept the premise in that "corporations" are coercive in general. The reality of the matter is corporations lack legal authority to be coercive unless expressly granted the power by government. For instance, tech companies can be sued for privacy issues, however, the government has laws forcing tech companies to provide information on users.
Hence, your conclusions are based on a false premise.
Really, LDM—a false premise?
You can't imagine a lobbyist telling a public servant that the corporation they represent will not make any contributions to his or her campaign chest? Have you been following the Murdoch Scandals in the UK? And you don't think multinational corporations are stealthily contributing to Anti-Obama PACs to coerce the voting public into believing Obama's responsible for the economic decline in America?
And here I thought hard-nosed uber-Capitalists could never be, politically speaking, Pollyannaish!
Yes WoW -- a false premise. Obama certainly has not been a model of fiscal restraint or by any measure successful at anything other than spending other people's money.
I could care less about Murdoch in the UK -- I don't recall the American Constitution extending to the Brits. Besides I object on grounds of relevance!
And as I've stated repeatedly capitalism and lobbyists for multinationals are antithetical to the ideals of capitalism, free markets, and competition. Yet you insist on dismissing the obvious difference between capitalism and crony capitalism. Hence, the only logical conclusion is that you disavow capitalism and the principles of a representative republic in favor of Marxist socialism. Especially given your enthusiastic proclivities to endorse what any objective observer would conclude is failure on the part of Obama's economic policies.
I don't know how much clearer I can be in agreeing with your stance on crony capitalism. However, you incessantly pursue an area of apparent agreement. But as you and I both know -- your disdain for multinationals is predicated on the multinational's political tendencies and what is politically correct at the time. You simply use lobbyists, of which you are one should you choose to voice your opinion directly to your representatives, as scapegoats.
It is self evident that unprincipled individuals view GM, GE, Apple, Google, Facebook and individuals like Buffett or Soros as good socialists because they support Obama's political and economic agenda. These entities in your biased opinion are the good multinationals.
Regrettably, prior to destroying anything with the "truth" one must know the truth. And the truth is Obama is raising money via multinational funded PACs to "coerce the voting public into believing Obama's responsible for the economic [gowth] in America". So pull your panties out of your vagina and man up -- politics is for big boys that don't cry.
Insults again? Well I'll admit to our mutual bias about crony capitalism, but I'll not relinquish my validated mistrust of the Oligarchs you suck up to. And if Obama is such a bad administrator, then how do you explain this?
Tony Soprano does Bain Capital . . .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/2 … 42249.html
Are those responsible for the auto-bailout "vulture capitalists"?
Let's look at what happened with GM. GM was losing money hand over foot. So, they get a bunch of money from the government(from the taxpayers), they file bankruptcy so they don't have to pay off their debts, they close plants and consolidate operations, and their workers take pay cuts.
So is Obama a vulture capitalist?
In what, your need for greed? [/irony]
Irony fail. If you knew me, you would know I'm not a very greedy person. All I want is enough money to support my family, which isn't as much as most people seem to think is required.
Was that image supposed to prove something about Mitt, because I didn't see any facts in it.
Maybe not having enough money isn't your problem; maybe you should ask yourself if you have enough imagination to see what motivates people to believe that unbridled, Darwinian greed will solve America's problems.
A starving person will often do whatever is necessary to eat.
A rapacious person will often do anything to feel financially secure.
The difference is that the starving person can be satisfied by work that provides food—however the rapacious person can't be satisfied because there is never enough for them to feel satiated—their want for power and security is endless.
And if you can't recognize the difference, I don't want to know you.
So you think Romney is rapacious?
I don't usually consider people who are extremely charitable to be greedy.
Sure, ignore everything I said and dwell on a word.
Big deal, so he tithes to his own church/cult. And you don't favor either party—right! [/facetious]
Images usually have the last word.
You didn't really say anything substantial.
So giving tithing to a church isn't charitable? You have to demean the LDS church by calling it a cult, even though its humanitarian efforts are extraordinary?
I don't favor either party. I do favor Romney over Obama, but that is based on comparing each of their policies.
Well you and I obviously differ on the definition of “substantial!”
1 a religious cult: sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction.
2 the cult of eternal youth in Hollywood: obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of, devotion to, worship of, veneration of.
Brigham Young introduced the doctrine known as "blood atonement", regarding unpardonable sin, or sin for which Jesus Christ's atonement does not apply. He taught that a person could only atone for such sins by giving up his or her life Various church leaders since Young have taught likewise. This doctrine can only operate in a day when there is no separation of church and state and when the power to take life is vested in the ruling theocracy as was the case in the day of Moses.
(You must be a HBO/Big Love fan?)
Baptism for the dead
The church teaches that a living person, acting as proxy, can be baptized by immersion on behalf of a deceased person, citing 1 Corinthians 15:29 Malachi 4:5–6; John 5:25; and 1 Peter 4:6 for doctrinal support.
The church has often been secretive about its finances, especially in the United States. The church has not disclosed its assets in the U.S. since 1959 (The church does disclose financials in the United Kingdom, where it is required to by law.)
LDS is greedy and materialistic, with a large amount of its wealth accumulated by their strong emphasis on tithing; it suggests that LDS is more of a business than a spiritual endeavor.
But seeing how Romney is such a “substantial” investor in LDS, I can understand how you might see him as a “charitable” man.
Except for the negative connotation that goes with the word cult, when the word church fully describes the LDS faith.
No, I'm a fan of LDS though. Some of the greatest people I know.
First, the doctrine of Blood Atonement teaching isn't verifiable. Secondly, it was never taught as official doctrine of the church. Thirdly, it was never carried out. Fourthly, the church doesn't teach blood doctrine(do you crucify any church for something it may or may not have taught in the past?)
What are the laws regarding disclosing finances in the US?
What makes LDS greedy and materialistic? What are they spending their money on?
"From 1985 - 2009, $327.6 million in cash and $884.6 million in commodities of aid was given throughout 178 countries" - about the LDS humanitarian efforts.
You claim Romney is an investor in the LDS church... so what is he getting out of his investment?
Isn't it obvious—more converts to his cult and more tithes for its coffers.
It's just another form of tribalism plaguing America. If Romney had any ethics—let alone morality—he'd denounce at least some of the hateful things spewing out of the right-wing fanatics. I can't think of him doing it even once during this campaign—can you?
His cult? Its' coffers? How does that benefit Romney? Are you suggesting he gets paid to 'donate' to the church? What's in it for him?
I wish you knew a little more about the LDS church, it's a great organization.
I take note of how you selectively evade my primary points and just focus on a technical issue.
Try addressing my whole post, Jaxson.
Haha, you ignored the substantial bit. You talk like they are a money-hoarding cult, and insinuate that somehow Romney profits from the church.
I brought out an example of the good that they do and what they do with their money.
So tell me, how does Romney benefit from helping the church 'load its coffers'?
No, I was pointing out that Romney has not acted like a moral or ethical man and you evaded it.
Romney is a member of a tribe and the more in the tribe the better chance to survive.
What are you talking about? He has a better chance to survive what for donating to the church?
You evade, Jaxson—every tribe's purpose is to survive.
Now provide some examples where Romney has challenged the hateful things said by many in his party? And if you can't, how is he a moral or ethical leader?
Romney denounced the proposed ads about Rev. Wright and Obama.
What kind of survival are you talking about, and how does Romney benefit? You haven't answered. I've answered you, your turn.
Romney denounced those ads purely out of self-interest because he fears people dwelling on his own religion.
If you can find ANY example of him standing up to ANY of the calumny heaped on Obama by his campaign rivals or by Congressional Republicans, or Fox News personalities or Rush Limbaugh's swill, I'd be very grateful and surprised.
His behaviors seem anything but moral to me.
Seriously though, 'calumny' happens on both sides, and very few people ever speak out against it.
Well it's a matter of degree, isn't it; but note how you evade and don't admit to the facts. Obama has been slandered relentlessly, but you won't even acknowledge it; nor can you find an example where Romney ever admonished a Republican for an untruth or a lie.
Just yesterday, he was on stage accepting Donald Trump's endorsement—who is still saying Obama is a Socialist born in Kenya. If this is a typical example of a moral Mormon, I'm glad I don't know more of them.
I'm not trying to evade, I'm trying to understand your standard.
You seem to be saying that if Romney doesn't decry any perceived personal attack then he isn't moral?
Also that he is immoral for accepting Trump's nomination?
What about Obama accepting donations from Bill Maher?
Like I said, it happens on all sides. I was glad to see Romney say that the Rev. Wright factor shouldn't be addressed. You can say what his motivation was for that move, but you don't actually know, it's just conjecture.
Jaxson you argue like a typical Conservative. [See link below]
First I never said Romney was immoral—YOU said he was a good man and I took issue because I said an ethical or a moral
man would decry all of the slander his party has heaped upon Obama. I called some of his behaviors immoral. But you distorted it into saying I called him immoral.
My lampoon of Romney pretty much sums up my opinion of him. Greed is an intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth and power. His history and his dogged pursuit of money, power and the presidency, I think, bares this out. You may see him as a good moral man, but I certainly don't, and btw, giving a lot of money to a church that demands it, isn't my idea of goodness—let alone holiness.
This is my last response to you because . . . well this link will give a better description of what it's like trying to reason with you . . .
It's entitled: "How Conservatives Argue" . . .
In US politics, if a politician spent all their time defending other politicians, nothing would get done. Whether or not it is a requirement to be moral to 'decry' all 'slander'(open to interpretation) is a matter of debate.
It's fine. Have a nice day. I was getting tired of this thread being derailed anyway.
Romney's comments and actions reveal a great sense of personal entitlement.
Many need to look in the mirror. THe person they see, hating the President since he first came into office, aren't Christians. They're racists. And unfortunately racism is still running rampant in this country. Problem is, many try to mask it by saying, I have a black friend. Yeah right.
I don't like Obama, does that make me a racist?
I didn't particularly like Bush, what does that make me?
It's hard to find anyone who says they liked Bush, yet the man was elected POTUS twice! Something doesn't compute. lol
It's pretty simple, we don't get very good choices most of the time for politicians.
Hah, the best democracy that $$$$ can buy!
"Paul Ryan voted for the Bush tax cuts, Iraq war, Medicare Part D & TARP and now wants "aggressive reforms"
Here’s how the Los Angeles Times described Romney’s tenure as CEO of Bain Capital:
"Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy.
Romney himself became wealthy at Bain. He is now worth between $190 million and $250 million, much of it derived from his time running the investment firm, his campaign staffers have said.
Bain managers said their mission was clear. “I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation,” said Marc B. Walpow, a former managing partner at Bain who worked closely with Romney for nine years before forming his own firm. “The primary goal of private equity is to create wealth for your investors.”
http://thinkprogress.org/progress-repor … ob-killer/
This just prove's what a LOW LIFE, BLOODSUCKING, SCUM SLEAZE BAG this Romney is. Who in their right mind's would vote for a GREADY, SLEAZY SCUM like him. If this SCUM does win then GOD HELP AMERICA because he will prey on the POOR and the MIDDLE CLASS to make the RICHER RICH as he had done before when working for BAIN venture capitilist's or more rightly VULTURE CAPITILIST'S. I just hope he DIE'S and get's lost for ever, we do not need LOWLIFE GREADY SCUM'S like him running AMERICA. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS SCUM, IF YOU DO THEN TRUST ME YOU WILL REGRET IT FOREVER.
"This debt Republicans created is a perfect excuse to start cutting everything that doesn't specifically help rich people."
by JaxsonRaine5 years ago
Let's talk about Bain Capital and Mitt Romney. I've seen so many topics and news articles attacking/defending Mitt, but there is very little real data being put forward. Romney left Bain Capital in 1999, so I've...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
Bain is still sending jobs to China and stuffing money in Mitt Romney's pockets. The latest victim of Bain's vampire capitalism are the workers in Sensata Technologies in Freeport, Illinois. Sensata was profitable in...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
they saw President Barack Obama as the president of promise and reformation? During President Obama's administration, unemployment and national debt is the HIGHEST it has been. More and more civil...
by Dr Billy Kidd4 years ago
Romney's Bain Capital owns Clear Channel, the largest radio station programmer in the country. There are 866 radio stations, along with Premiere Radio Networks. It produces and distrubutes 90 syndicated radio programs,...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
WHat do you think?I think the Dems are finally learning to play in the mud. Yay!Democrats to Romnney: 'Stop whining' over felony remarkPosted byCNN's Kevin Liptak(CNN) – The suggestion this week from a top Obama...
by steveamy5 years ago
The N.H. primary featured a debate about the nature of Capitalism--odd for a Republican event. Is it possible for a Capitalist to be to Capitalist; is unbridled profit seeking at the expense of some in society by others...
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.