|
|
On July 17 2012 04:32 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 04:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Layoffs? If so then you need to show exactly what Bain capital's involvement in said layoffs were (which could take months to figure out assuming you could get your hands on any information) and then make an argument as to why the layoffs should be considered a bad thing.
BTW, are you fucking shitting me? I'm not the one running for president. I don't have to prove shit. Romney is the one that has to defend his record. Romney touts his record as a 'job creator.' Critics point out the Bain Capital made a great of money closing down plants, outsourcing and laying people off. Romney's response hasn't been, "Well, sometimes to improve a business you have to make sure they're more efficient .. etc." His answer has been to play dumb and say he wasn't there, when he obviously was still liable for it's actions. That's good enough for you? Really?
What is your complaint? That he's not a 'job creator' or that he didn't appoint a replacement CEO before 2002?
If it's job creator or not you then dive into an area where proving 'net job creation' is an impossible task and an irrelevant task at that. As long as Bain was turning a profit then ultimately he was helping to create jobs over the long run - regardless of the number of jobs that were lost in the short run.
If your complaint is that he didn't appoint a new CEO I don't get why you care. Bain is a private business and what a CEO does or doesn't do and what a CEO is responsible for is entirely up to the company. Bain is not a publicly traded company and so there aren't many 'requirements' for what a CEO is 'supposed to do.'
|
On July 17 2012 04:45 coverpunch wrote:
That's not what Romney is proposing at all but that's the way Obama wants it to look.
The GOP and Rove-ian politics have ruined Romney, and have trapped him into indefensible positions.
The reality (based on his stint as governor) is that Romney is a hyper-practical, moderate conservation a step or two to the right of Obama. His stance on social issues like gay marriage, immigration, mandatory healthcare, abortion or contraception were essentially non-issues until Romney was forced to come out against them in the Republican nomination process.
And now the Republican's over-emphasis of his own record as a business man, and the importance of protecting the upper-class from the government, due to their role as 'job-creators' is up for grabs.
Here's an example of some of the business Romney conducted. Someone explain to me how Romney's shrewd ability to game the system is going to help the economy.
Bain Capital’s acquisition in 1994 of Dade International, a supplier of in-vitro diagnostic products, was 81 percent financed by debt. Of the $85 million in equity, about $27 million came from Bain with the rest coming from a group of investors that included Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
From 1995 to 1999, Bain Capital tripled Dade’s debt from about $300 million to $902 million.
Some of the debt was used to pay for acquisitions of DuPont Co.’s in-vitro diagnostics division in May 1996 and Behring Diagnostics, a German medical- testing company, in 1997. But some was used to finance a repurchase of half of Bain Capital’s equity for $242 million -- more than eight times its investment -- and to pay its investors almost $100 million in fees.
Dade was left in a weakened financial condition and couldn’t withstand the shocks of increased debt payments when interest rates rose and revenue from Europe fell because of a decline in the value of the euro. The company filed for bankruptcy in August 2002, because of its inability to service a $1.5 billion debt load. About 1,700 people lost their jobs while Bain Capital claimed capital gains (net of its losses in the bankruptcy) of roughly $216 million, an eightfold return.
|
On July 17 2012 03:48 Defacer wrote:All the independent fact-checkers have proved is that no, Romney did not make every decision or was involved with day to day operations at Bain from 1999 to 2003. HOWEVER, whether or not Romney should be held responsible for their activity is a different, subjective matter. A stock holder doesn't have the role of CEO or Managing Director added to his portfolio. Frankly, it's amazing that there are people like you that are willing to give Romney a free pass on this. Romney built that company, hired the team, and set it's strategy and agenda. Even if Romney was essentially a silent partner/owner for the last three years, he benefited directly from its activity. He was legally responsible. He went as far as to emphasize his part-time involvement -- IN COURT -- when running for the governor of Massachusetts. SO YEAH, He's responsible, even in his absence. What kind of leader accepts a salary and then throws his team under the bus when he takes a leave of absence? Seriously.
Fact of the matter is no one related to the company has said anything to the contrary of Romney and the only one saying otherwise is the Obama camp who's just hurling accusations with ZERO backing in reality. I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist in politics then, right? You also didn't read the 3rd article which addresses the fact that Romney might have considered returning, but didn't. Hence the retroactive retirement and complete removal of the CEO position.
Your argument is absurd anyway, holding a stake in a company is holding a stake in a company if you're not act in day-to-day operations. By your logic, everyone invested in Ford was responsible for the Pinto; everyone who was invested in BP was responsible for the oil spill a few years ago; and every member of is Chase Bank responsible for their terrible investments that lead to a lost of ~$4.4 billion. You can't claim that when you're not in an acting role in a company you are still somehow legally responsible for all of their actions, that's just silly.
This is just a massive distraction from the >8% unemployment rate, crippling deficits, and anemic growth in GDP.
On July 17 2012 04:33 aksfjh wrote:Not sure why you're quoting Obama. It's not like he's picking on Romney's family values or his haircut. He's painting the larger narrative that Romney is part of the crowd that is cut off from the rest of us, and will make it his goal to benefit people like that if elected. That's exactly the stuff he's proposing, but it's easier to convey with his history at Bain.
I guess if accusing your opponent of being a felon with zero evidence doesn't count then I would be surprised too! Also, did you know that according to the President Republicans are for dirtier water, dirtier air, and less people insured? What you don't realize is you just described EXACTLY what then-nominee Obama was deriding in his acceptance speech!
|
Romney can make this all go away by releasing his tax returns. What is in there that he's so scared of? If he's proud of his work at Bain, then show it.
He obviously has them on hand since he supposedly gave McCain 24 years worth during his VP vetting.
|
On July 17 2012 05:32 Budmandude wrote:
Fact of the matter is no one related to the company has said anything to the contrary of Romney and the only one saying otherwise is the Obama camp who's just hurling accusations with ZERO backing in reality. I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist in politics then, right? You also didn't read the 3rd article which addresses the fact that Romney might have considered returning, but didn't. Hence the retroactive retirement and complete removal of the CEO position.
Your argument is absurd anyway, holding a stake in a company is holding a stake in a company if you're not act in day-to-day operations. By your logic, everyone invested in Ford was responsible for the Pinto; everyone who was invested in BP was responsible for the oil spill a few years ago; and every member of is Chase Bank responsible for their terrible investments that lead to a lost of ~$4.4 billion. You can't claim that when you're not in an acting role in a company you are still somehow legally responsible for all of their actions, that's just silly.
So, you're agreeing with Romney.
Best case scenario: He's first and only CEO and sole stakeholder of a company that had no idea what his company was doing for three fucking years.
Oh yeah, this guy is presidential material.
|
On July 17 2012 05:20 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 04:45 coverpunch wrote:
That's not what Romney is proposing at all but that's the way Obama wants it to look. The GOP and Rove-ian politics have ruined Romney, and have trapped him into indefensible positions. The reality (based on his stint as governor) is that Romney is a hyper-practical, moderate conservation a step or two to the right of Obama. His stance on social issues like gay marriage, immigration, mandatory healthcare, abortion or contraception were essentially non-issues until Romney was forced to come out against them in the Republican nomination process. And now the Republican's over-emphasis of his own record as a business man, and the importance of protecting the upper-class from the government, due to their role as 'job-creators' is up for grabs. Here's an example of some of the business Romney conducted. Someone explain to me how Romney's shrewd ability to game the system is going to help the economy.
Romney, unlike Obama, knows how the system works and can use it to profit whoever he's working for.
Bain's investors benefited from Romney, as did the Olympics, as did Massachusetts.
As for any individual deal Bain made - simply put not all investments work out. And no, loading a company with debt is not some inherently evil scheme to rob the poor and give to the rich. And hey, maybe if Romney's in charge he'll change the tax code so that it no longer favors debt financing over equity financing. I wonder if Obama even realizes that situation exists...
|
What's he scared of revealing in his tax returns? In 2009, the IRS had an amnesty program for disclosing offshore accounts and probably Romney took advantage of that. The IRS does this sort of thing every decade or so to kind of shake up the tax game and let everyone come clean.
That and probably his income in 2009 is a big number but he finagled a way to pay little or no taxes.
If he's smart, he'll let the hype get to a point where the Obama campaign acts like Romney has been funding Al Qaeda but there's nothing really crazy in there and everyone is disappointed.
Personally, I think a lot of this is sort of revenge for the birthers. That was kind of the same thing of idiots wondering if Obama's lack of disclosure meant he had something to hide but in the end, no, Obama just didn't want to feed the trolls.
|
On July 17 2012 05:48 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 05:32 Budmandude wrote:
Fact of the matter is no one related to the company has said anything to the contrary of Romney and the only one saying otherwise is the Obama camp who's just hurling accusations with ZERO backing in reality. I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist in politics then, right? You also didn't read the 3rd article which addresses the fact that Romney might have considered returning, but didn't. Hence the retroactive retirement and complete removal of the CEO position.
Your argument is absurd anyway, holding a stake in a company is holding a stake in a company if you're not act in day-to-day operations. By your logic, everyone invested in Ford was responsible for the Pinto; everyone who was invested in BP was responsible for the oil spill a few years ago; and every member of is Chase Bank responsible for their terrible investments that lead to a lost of ~$4.4 billion. You can't claim that when you're not in an acting role in a company you are still somehow legally responsible for all of their actions, that's just silly.
So, you're agreeing with Romney. Best case scenario: He's first and only CEO and sole stakeholder of a company that had no idea what his company was doing for three fucking years.
Oh yeah, this guy is presidential material.
Who says he had "no idea what his company was doing for three fucking years"?
There's a difference between having a general idea what's going on and knowing every detail that's going on not only at Bain but at every company Bain is invested in.
|
On July 17 2012 05:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 05:48 Defacer wrote:On July 17 2012 05:32 Budmandude wrote:
Fact of the matter is no one related to the company has said anything to the contrary of Romney and the only one saying otherwise is the Obama camp who's just hurling accusations with ZERO backing in reality. I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist in politics then, right? You also didn't read the 3rd article which addresses the fact that Romney might have considered returning, but didn't. Hence the retroactive retirement and complete removal of the CEO position.
Your argument is absurd anyway, holding a stake in a company is holding a stake in a company if you're not act in day-to-day operations. By your logic, everyone invested in Ford was responsible for the Pinto; everyone who was invested in BP was responsible for the oil spill a few years ago; and every member of is Chase Bank responsible for their terrible investments that lead to a lost of ~$4.4 billion. You can't claim that when you're not in an acting role in a company you are still somehow legally responsible for all of their actions, that's just silly.
So, you're agreeing with Romney. Best case scenario: He's first and only CEO and sole stakeholder of a company that had no idea what his company was doing for three fucking years.
Oh yeah, this guy is presidential material. Who says he had "no idea what his company was doing for three fucking years"? There's a difference between having a general idea what's going on and knowing every detail that's going on not only at Bain but at every company Bain is invested in.
...so do you care about what Romney's job was, and what his business practices are? I mean I don't get this kind of argument. This is his record. This was his official job.
He's the CEO and sole stakeholder. He is responsible or he is the face of responsibility. If he was just a face then why the fuck am I voting for a 'face'?? CEOs are supposed to be responsible for the company. Hell, the CEO of the company I'm working for basically got laid off by the shareholders because our stock wasn't doing well.
|
On July 17 2012 05:39 Adila wrote:
Romney can make this all go away by releasing his tax returns. What is in there that he's so scared of? If he's proud of his work at Bain, then show it.
He obviously has them on hand since he supposedly gave McCain 24 years worth during his VP vetting.
I don't think this is true anymore. This outrage will pass on its own but the narrative has been changed. Average people are sick of the all too common excuse of the rich that they are technically correct. The right thing to do is release more tax records as has been the standard for both parties for the last 36 years (as established by his father). The right thing to do is take ownership of the failings of a company you are CEO of, even if your involvement is part time.
Every successful person of Romney's caliber has had to slit a few throats and jump off a few cliffs to get there. All of the crazy speculation is just how people's minds work when they are denied information they feel entitled to. Almost certainly Romney has just been using all of the ridiculous abusive loopholes that every rich person uses. And while it is technically allowed and most of us would be doing it in his shoes, we also know it is wrong.
So this all begs the question, can a man who is in the top 0.01% of earners and pays less than half the taxes of an average worker (as a percentage of his income) campaign on reducing taxes for himself and win? I am picturing a crazy 180 in my mind.
"I promise that by the end of my first term every person in the top 1% will be paying 35% of their total income in taxes, no exceptions." - Fictional Romney
It would never happen but the idea made me lol.
|
On July 17 2012 05:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 05:48 Defacer wrote:On July 17 2012 05:32 Budmandude wrote:
Fact of the matter is no one related to the company has said anything to the contrary of Romney and the only one saying otherwise is the Obama camp who's just hurling accusations with ZERO backing in reality. I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist in politics then, right? You also didn't read the 3rd article which addresses the fact that Romney might have considered returning, but didn't. Hence the retroactive retirement and complete removal of the CEO position.
Your argument is absurd anyway, holding a stake in a company is holding a stake in a company if you're not act in day-to-day operations. By your logic, everyone invested in Ford was responsible for the Pinto; everyone who was invested in BP was responsible for the oil spill a few years ago; and every member of is Chase Bank responsible for their terrible investments that lead to a lost of ~$4.4 billion. You can't claim that when you're not in an acting role in a company you are still somehow legally responsible for all of their actions, that's just silly.
So, you're agreeing with Romney. Best case scenario: He's first and only CEO and sole stakeholder of a company that had no idea what his company was doing for three fucking years.
Oh yeah, this guy is presidential material. Who says he had "no idea what his company was doing for three fucking years"? There's a difference between having a general idea what's going on and knowing every detail that's going on not only at Bain but at every company Bain is invested in.
So ... he is responsible for Bain activity in those years. I'm glad that you're on board. 
In other news, apparently Romney's dad was awesome.
Why George Romney released his tax returns
Apparently, George was giving 23% of gross income to charity, on top of paying 50% on income taxes. Jesus.
|
What do you guys not get? Romney left in 1999 as a temporary measure to work for the Olympics.
Being listed as CEO is a technicality.
If he was in a coma between 1999 and 2002 would you still be arguing that he was 'responsible'?
|
On July 17 2012 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
What do you guys not get? Romney left in 1999 as a temporary measure to work for the Olympics.
Being listed as CEO is a technicality.
If he was in a coma between 1999 and 2002 would you still be arguing that he was 'responsible'?
No one believes that someone in his position would be completely disconnected in something that was such a big part of his life. There's no way he didn't even keep up on what was going on.
|
On July 17 2012 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
What do you guys not get? Romney left in 1999 as a temporary measure to work for the Olympics.
Being listed as CEO is a technicality.
If he was in a coma between 1999 and 2002 would you still be arguing that he was 'responsible'?
In January of 2009, the US suffered a job loss of 818,000 that month, and a total of 2.6 million jobs in 2008 overall.
At the end of the month, Obama was inaugurated.
Believe or not, the Romney campaign has had the audacity to pin the 2008 losses on the Obama administration, repeatedly, in ads and in speeches.
You can see why the Obama campaign is pushing this. You may feel it's unfair, but they're simply holding Romney to the same standards that Romney's campaign is applying to Obama.
Edit: sorry, numbers were way off. Job losses began declining in 2008, Obama inaugurated in 2009.
|
On July 17 2012 06:35 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
What do you guys not get? Romney left in 1999 as a temporary measure to work for the Olympics.
Being listed as CEO is a technicality.
If he was in a coma between 1999 and 2002 would you still be arguing that he was 'responsible'? In February of 2008, the US suffered its largest job loss in history -- 2.6 million jobs. Halfway through the month, Obama was inaugurated. Believe or not, the Romney campaign has had the audacity to pin these losses on the Obama administration, repeatedly, in ads and in speeches. You can see why the Obama campaign is pushing this. You may feel it's unfair, but they're simply holding Romney to the same standards that Romney's campaign is applying to Obama.
I'm pretty sure you mean February of 2009. And the "they're unfair to us so we can be unfair to them" is a stupid attitude.
I think it's right to dislike Republicans for making lots of ridiculous demands and criticisms of Obama. But you can't do that if you're giving Obama a free pass to do the same thing to Romney.
It's hilarious you can point out something in 2009 and yet have total amnesia that a pillar of Obama's candidacy was changing this ugly tone in modern politics. If anything you should be criticizing Obama for stooping to this. This is exactly the kind of ugly, irrelevant, and personal attack that makes most people really hate politics.
|
On July 17 2012 06:41 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 06:35 Defacer wrote:On July 17 2012 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
What do you guys not get? Romney left in 1999 as a temporary measure to work for the Olympics.
Being listed as CEO is a technicality.
If he was in a coma between 1999 and 2002 would you still be arguing that he was 'responsible'? In February of 2008, the US suffered its largest job loss in history -- 2.6 million jobs. Halfway through the month, Obama was inaugurated. Believe or not, the Romney campaign has had the audacity to pin these losses on the Obama administration, repeatedly, in ads and in speeches. You can see why the Obama campaign is pushing this. You may feel it's unfair, but they're simply holding Romney to the same standards that Romney's campaign is applying to Obama. I'm pretty sure you mean February of 2009. And the "they're unfair to us so we can be unfair to them" is a stupid attitude. I think it's right to dislike Republicans for making lots of ridiculous demands and criticisms of Obama. But you can't do that if you're giving Obama a free pass to do the same thing to Romney. It's hilarious you can point out something in 2009 and yet have total amnesia that a pillar of Obama's candidacy was changing this ugly tone in modern politics. If anything you should be criticizing Obama for stooping to this. This is exactly the kind of ugly, irrelevant, and personal attack that makes most people really hate politics.
Its a necessity in democracy. Democracy means anyone can vote, which is tragic, but had its merits. Unfortunately, the importance of slander is massive in democratic elections. Its too effective to pass.
|
On July 17 2012 06:41 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 06:35 Defacer wrote:On July 17 2012 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
What do you guys not get? Romney left in 1999 as a temporary measure to work for the Olympics.
Being listed as CEO is a technicality.
If he was in a coma between 1999 and 2002 would you still be arguing that he was 'responsible'? In February of 2008, the US suffered its largest job loss in history -- 2.6 million jobs. Halfway through the month, Obama was inaugurated. Believe or not, the Romney campaign has had the audacity to pin these losses on the Obama administration, repeatedly, in ads and in speeches. You can see why the Obama campaign is pushing this. You may feel it's unfair, but they're simply holding Romney to the same standards that Romney's campaign is applying to Obama. I'm pretty sure you mean February of 2009. And the "they're unfair to us so we can be unfair to them" is a stupid attitude. I think it's right to dislike Republicans for making lots of ridiculous demands and criticisms of Obama. But you can't do that if you're giving Obama a free pass to do the same thing to Romney. It's hilarious you can point out something in 2009 and yet have total amnesia that a pillar of Obama's candidacy was changing this ugly tone in modern politics. If anything you should be criticizing Obama for stooping to this. This is exactly the kind of ugly, irrelevant, and personal attack that makes most people really hate politics.
Sorry, edited post.
Edit: You're preaching to the choir.
|
On July 17 2012 06:35 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
What do you guys not get? Romney left in 1999 as a temporary measure to work for the Olympics.
Being listed as CEO is a technicality.
If he was in a coma between 1999 and 2002 would you still be arguing that he was 'responsible'? In February of 2008, the US suffered its largest job loss in history -- 2.6 million jobs. Halfway through the month, Obama was inaugurated. Believe or not, the Romney campaign has had the audacity to pin these losses on the Obama administration, repeatedly, in ads and in speeches. You can see why the Obama campaign is pushing this. You may feel it's unfair, but they're simply holding Romney to the same standards that Romney's campaign is applying to Obama.
If Romney is showing an unfair ad feel free to show it to me (I don't watch many myself) and I'd be happy to point out that it is unfair
I'll try to be preemptively fair though: Obama inherited the recession. Holding Obama accountable for the recession is unfair while holding him accountable for the recovery is fair game.
|
On July 17 2012 05:48 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 05:32 Budmandude wrote:
Fact of the matter is no one related to the company has said anything to the contrary of Romney and the only one saying otherwise is the Obama camp who's just hurling accusations with ZERO backing in reality. I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist in politics then, right? You also didn't read the 3rd article which addresses the fact that Romney might have considered returning, but didn't. Hence the retroactive retirement and complete removal of the CEO position.
Your argument is absurd anyway, holding a stake in a company is holding a stake in a company if you're not act in day-to-day operations. By your logic, everyone invested in Ford was responsible for the Pinto; everyone who was invested in BP was responsible for the oil spill a few years ago; and every member of is Chase Bank responsible for their terrible investments that lead to a lost of ~$4.4 billion. You can't claim that when you're not in an acting role in a company you are still somehow legally responsible for all of their actions, that's just silly.
So, you're agreeing with Romney. Best case scenario: He's first and only CEO and sole stakeholder of a company that had no idea what his company was doing for three fucking years.
Oh yeah, this guy is presidential material.
So after we've already determined that he wasn't an acting CEO, just one in name, your arguement boils down to "Even though he was heavily invested in a company he let the people working there do their jobs." I still don't understand this line of argument. How is it so out of the realm of reason to assume that he let them do their job when he was not involved in it? How is that any different from anyone letting someone else do their work? Do you think he was reading up on all of the actions the company was doing in all of their acquisitions and investments at night while trying to run the Olympics or something?
Romney says he had nothing to do with Bain in that time period other than owning a stake. Everyone who worked there in that time period said he had nothing to do with operations. The commonwealth of Massachusetts said after a week-long investigation on whether Romeny was able to run for governor that he was not doing work for Bain. The only people saying otherwise are the ones running against him for political office. I wonder who I'm going to believe in this situation.
|
I want to put this out there because I haven't seen this perspective in this thread yet. This past weekend, on MSNBC's weekend morning show "Up with Chris Hayes," Ed Conard, a former Bain partner, explained the discrepency between Romney's stated departure date and the now famous SEC filings.
He states that Romney was only the CEO legally (Romney's account agrees), and that Bain was being run by a management comittee during the time in question. Romney was officially the CEO, but only because he and Bain were negotiating the terms of his departure. This took such a long time because a) Romney was legitimately swamped with work for the Olympics and therefore unable to participate in negotiations and b) Romney was the first high ranking member of Bain to leave, and the deal he negotiated would set precident for future departures from other Bain executives.
Source
I'm not sure this story is completely satisfying, but it's certainly the most convincing account to come from anyone on Romney's side. If this is true, it's still politically damaging for Romney. Most voters won't understand how someone can draw a 6 figure+ salary with benefits and other compensation while not being an active member of a company. That said, it looks a lot better than either owning any questionable or politically toxic activities of Bain during that time or trying to dodge the issue altogether.
As a complete side note:
+ Show Spoiler +I can't reccommend "Up with Chris Hayes" enough. It's easily the smartest show on any of the 24 hour news networks in any time slot, and is miles ahead of the other Sunday shows. The discussions are really open and engaging, and they rarely have active politicians or strategists on the show (meaning most guests don't have an incentive to lie, dodge, or spin).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
