jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (54 posts)

Political Quiz

  1. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    I have a hypothetical situation. Would you say this was a good situation or a bad situation?

    Someone takes over a company with borrowed money. This company was heading for bankruptcy, and everyone would have lost their jobs if this person didn't step in. This person cut jobs and consolidate operations. This person cut wages to the remaining workers. The company starts turning a profit.

    Should the person that took over the company be praised or criticized?

    1. profile image61
      homdiggityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      i think its pretty good if they save the company

    2. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Someone takes over a company that has been running for 105 years and is till turning a small profit, the man then comes in loads the business with debts, cuts corners and sells of vital parts of the business, when the business goes bankrupt and thousands lose their jobs he walks away with a profit in the tens of millions, he then refuses to pay the workers their pensions and health insurance as covered forcing the federal government to step in at taxpayer expense to save the ex employees. Should that person be praised or criticized?

      Meet GST steel.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Are you talking about the GSI plant BAIN purchased in 1993? That plant was already set to close. Bain saved it from being closed in 1993.

        Again, I've gone over this company, but you haven't addressed the points I've made about it.

  2. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago

    Neither.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So you don't think Romney's work at Bain was good or bad?

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is what neither means doesn't it?

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Generally speaking, yes.

          Do you hold the same view of the auto bailout?

  3. profile image0
    devjeetposted 4 years ago

    Obviously such person should be praised because he/she turned that company in profit. Some times you have to be rude to achieve the best.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you devjeet. I agree, it's better to save part of a company than lose it all.

  4. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    I would really love to hear from LMC, MightyMom, and Ralph, among others big_smile

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sure you would considering I figure this post has something to do with Romney the idiot.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Cags,
        Ya think???
        I think Lady_Love has been reincarnated in the form of JaxsonRaine.
        There's something doggedly familiar about the relentness propaganda posting.

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Mighty Mom, always good to see you. smile big_smile

          And, you could be right about "Lady_Love". lol lol lol

          But, I rather not assume it to be true. However, it could be a possibility. lol

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Don't know who Lady_Love is, but it's definitely not me.

            It's funny, people say I'm spreading propaganda, but refuse to address the factual information that I present.

        2. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You can't answer my question without either

          1 - Criticizing Romney and Obama
          2 - Praising Romney and Obama

          So you resort to off-topic gossip.

          You then try to derail my thread? This has nothing to do with Koch.

    2. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Is there any topic you won't willfully turn to Romney propaganda?
      This thread is about the Koch Brothers.
      They don't need your defense.
      Unless, of course, you are on their payroll and not directly on the "presumed GOP candidate's."

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol lol

      2. profile image61
        homdiggityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        what does this thread have to do with koch brothers?

        1. Mighty Mom profile image91
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Everything.
          If it promotes altruistic capitalism it's funded by the Koch Brothers.

          1. profile image61
            homdiggityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            so you think the op is being paid for posting this?

            why dont you answer the question, is it good to save a company or not?

      3. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Did you get confused and think this was your Koch thread?

        It's not propaganda. If you criticize Romney for what he did at Bain, you have to criticize Obama for the auto bailout.

  5. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

    Obama didn't even cross my mind!

    I mean--how much did Obama make off with? What was his take?

    Bain came in to cut and skim.

    Obama came in to save.

    Apples and oranges, as your man says.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why does it matter if Romney made money? If he used borrowed money to take over a company, consolidated, and turned it into a profitable company, the net effect is the same. A company(read:jobs) was saved.

      And both GM and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        His reason for doing it was to make money...not altruistic or caring...Money Grubbing.

        It matters to me, I don't want that dude as my president.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So, you don't like capitalism?

          Is it bad for somebody to invent, say, an iPhone for profit?

          Is it bad for someone to charge you for mowing your lawn?

          1. lovemychris profile image80
            lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't like Romney...is that allowed?

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, that's allowed, but why don't you answer my questions?


              So, you don't like capitalism?

              Is it bad for somebody to invent, say, an iPhone for profit?

              Is it bad for someone to charge you for mowing your lawn?

              1. lovemychris profile image80
                lovemychrisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Because it has nothing to do with Romney.
                Capitalism/Shmapitalism, he's a no-good Robber Baron In My Opinion..

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes it does.

                  You say you don't like Romney because he saved companies for a profit, and that it is only ok to save companies out of the goodness of your heart.

                  So I wonder, is it ok for someone to charge to mow your lawn or to charge you for an iPhone?

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You are leaving out a very important detail. Too often, those companies that were "saved" by Romney ended up going under due to the massive debt put on them by Bain Capital.  Too often, that debt was used to pay off the investors while the workers lost their pensions and their jobs.

                    There is nothing wrong with capitalism; there is something wrong with people who think it's okay to line their already-rich pockets while letting the poor and middle class sink.  One can embrace capitalism without being a robber baron or condoning robber barons.

                    Get it?

                    http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/Mitt%20Romney%20bain%20capital.jpg

          2. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            At the last count the person who invented the i-player hasn't made a penny out of it.
            Good old capitalism.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What?

              1. innersmiff profile image80
                innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It's the BBC's on-demand service. The British government did not invent the on-demand service so I don't understand John's point. And if the guy who made the iplayer isn't getting paid for it there's a serious problem somewhere!

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No it isn't the BBCs on demand service!
                  It's that wretched little music player that everybody seems to have plugged into their brain these days.

                  And damn it, I meant i-pod, not i-player, sorry, age and sunshine have done for me!

              2. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, stunning isn't it!
                Though the Englishman who invented the i-player did make something when Apple paid him to testify in court that he invented it. 
                It was all about somebody else trying to shake down Apple claiming that Apple had stolen the invention from them and all the time Apple had got it else where.

  6. JSChams profile image59
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Let me see if I understand what I am hearing.....

    No one should step in and turn a company around so that it makes a profit because doing so is evil and immoral?

    Is that about it?

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If you make a profit from it... yes.

      And, especially if the company goes bankrupt(never mind whether or not anyone loses their jobs) half a decade after you no longer control the company.

      1. JSChams profile image59
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh so we would have been better off letting some central committee in the government oversee that?

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's what some people here would think... It's sad when someone would rather see a company go bankrupt than see someone make money by saving it.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You are missing the point entirely. 

            First, show me where anyone here has said they would rather see a company go bankrupt than see someone make money by saving it.  Show me.  At least be honest in your assessment of those who disagree with you.

            Second, the point is that Romney opened this can of worms by touting his Bain Capital experience as evidence that he would be good at creating jobs.  Neither Bain Capital nor Romney has released any evidence that this is true.  It is natural for his opponents to ask for evidence of such a statement and to scrutinize Romney's actions at Bain if that is what he is running on.

            And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, making money for investors is an entirely different goal than creating jobs.  Sometimes jobs are created in the process, but oftentimes they are lost while investors get rich.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              LMC has repeatedly denounced Romney, and finally admitted that it is solely because Romney made profit while saving companies.

              Yes, it's natural to look, but to call it vulture capitalism with no proof, or with using obviously distorted facts(like bringing out the former union leader who wouldn't agree to a 22% pay-cut in a shrinking industry), that's what we shouldn't be doing.

              When somebody does come along and provide facts, should people keep saying 'nu-uh, he slashed jobs and looted companies!'?

              The goal was to make money. How? By making companies more successful(or successful, period). Bain was not a raider. They wanted to make companies successful so they could draw more consulting fees. They had a vested interest in helping companies, and part of helping companies is creating jobs.

              Can you at least admit that in every instance where the facts of a company's financial situation are available, Bain had a positive effect?

              If not, can you provide proof of the opposite?

              My main point is that it's dishonest to discredit Romney without any proof, and it's more dishonest to discredit Romney in the face of proof to the contrary.

              My secondary point is that Obama did the same thing with the auto industry that Bain did, but nobody criticizes Obama for that.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I gave you proof in the article, which you seem to ignore.  Yes, sometimes Bain saved companies, but sometimes Bain loaded a company with debt, used the borrowed money to enrich themselves, and let pensions go unpaid.

                Why do you insist that I am not admitting that sometimes Bain did good?  Can you not also admit that sometimes Bain enriched themselves at the expense of a company and its workers?

                Show me where LMC said that, please.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If an entire industry completely changes due to the flood of new foreign imports, I don't blame Bain for that. Yes, Bain made money off of GSI, but before the market changed, GSI was doing well. That's my point, it's ridiculous to blame Romney or Bain.

                  Let's say Romney/Bain hadn't made any money off of GSI. Their debt load would have been $358 million instead of $378 million. That relatively small figure had no discernible impact.

                  Also, the GSI mill would have been closed down 8 years earlier if it weren't for Bain.

                  So yes, it's dishonest to blame Bain for that instance.

                  Ampad is worse, because it did very well under Bain, and didn't close until 5 years after Bain was no longer in control.

                  So where is the problem?

                  LMC said that in this thread, you can find it yourself. I believe his exact words were robber baron.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Apparently, you and I are interpreting the same set of facts differently.  No sense continuing the discussion.  I disagree with your interpretation that it is unfair to judge Romney negatively for his role in Bain Capital.  I guess it all comes down to what you value in a human being, especially one who wants to be President of the United States.

  7. innersmiff profile image80
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    I think that person should be praised, not elected President.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Do you think the knowledge of what barriers companies face to success isn't applicable in the presidency?

      Do you think the president should engage in the same practice as Obama did?

      1. innersmiff profile image80
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No I don't think it matters next to their understanding of the basic principles of the free market and economics. I consider that one of the most important things, and Romney does not understand that. He is a corporatist puppet existing to serve the interests of Wall Streets, and not much more, much like Obama.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Something we can agree on!

 
working