EPTI will agree with you that if the Creditors really wanted to stop Mitt from doling out the companies cash to executives they should have forced Bain into receivership. However they probably thought that receivership would not be as benificial to their holding as Bain recovering would be. Little did they know Romney would would play them for as many pennies as he could. I cannot deny Romneys skill in business, he is one slippery fish.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 394
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
TotalBalanceSC2
Canada475 Posts
I will agree with you that if the Creditors really wanted to stop Mitt from doling out the companies cash to executives they should have forced Bain into receivership. However they probably thought that receivership would not be as benificial to their holding as Bain recovering would be. Little did they know Romney would would play them for as many pennies as he could. I cannot deny Romneys skill in business, he is one slippery fish. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On September 03 2012 04:23 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: How is forgiving debt not a bailout? the FDIC saw that if it didn't forgive much of what they were owed they would lose even more of their principal. Where the FDIC loans came from does not matter. What matters is the fact the Government had to forgive much of the debt Bain owed lest it go bankrupt. The intent is what matters. The FDIC didn't forgive the debt to help Bain survive, it took a discount on the loan to save its own funds. Bain did the classic finance trick that a company on the brink of bankruptcy is when it is most powerful because it can negotiate partial payments with a straight face and make creditors take it, against the risk of getting nothing. TARP was a bailout because it had more to do with creating a perception that the banks were healthy and supported by the government. It is someone saving their credibility by saying "we won't allow them to fail". Companies getting bailed out are at their very weakest because they'll do anything to maintain the facade. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 03 2012 04:23 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: How is forgiving debt not a bailout? the FDIC saw that if it didn't forgive much of what they were owed they would lose even more of their principal. Where the FDIC loans came from does not matter. What matters is the fact the Government had to forgive much of the debt Bain owed lest it go bankrupt. Because who just so happens to own the debt that got restructured shouldn't matter. Bain had zero control over the FDIC owning its debt and the FDIC could have sold the debt to a third party once it received it. The FDIC's bad decision to keep the debt is not the fault of Bain. | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
Leporello in bold. Learn to use quotes I know how. I choose to use my method instead. You don't like insurance mandates, that's fine, but they're hardly extremist as you make them out to be. That was the point. I'm not crazy about the insurance-mandate policy either. But I do think it's a small, small improvement to what we had before. For the first time in the history of our government, people are forced to buy something because the government says so but that's not extreme because you approve. And democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Gas prices and the keystone pipeline have nothing to do with the fact that the oil industry has never been more profitable. There is talk of windfall taxes because the profits they're making are so grotesque. It's easy to post big numbers that look amazing to the rubes who don't think about the advantage of selling a product everyone uses. http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncategorized/margins1a.gif the suggestion that if BP were allowed to drill closer to the coast, that we'd be safer for it... I don't buy it. Unfortunately for you, the world doesn't work based on what you believe. Bush came into office with budget surpluses, and every year, despite having Republican control of both House and Senate when he got into office, he turned those surpluses into deficits The surpluses were an anomaly from among other things the internet stock bubble, the housing market bubble, the Social Security surplus, and the Republican Congress limiting spending. Giving Clinton credit for that and blaming Bush for the deficits borne by the 2001 recession that was a combination of among other things the natural business cycle, the tech bubble popping, the accounting scandals, and 9/11 is simply foolish political blather. Everyone needs health insurance. No, they don't. Somewhere close to 99% of people under 65 could get by with paying out of pocket for their health care if prices weren't so infalted by government interferance in the health market. No, I am most specifically NOT saying what Obama did or did not WANT to do. You're making those assumptions. I am simply observing that Obama's policies aren't as left-wing as his opponents make them out to be. You sourced a nine-year old speech he gave, and I'm sorry, but that proves absolutely nothing -- well, actually, it proves you were desperate to make a point for which you had absolutely nothing to base off of, and resorted to digging up whatever you could find in a Google search. Maybe Obama secretly does want Universal Healthcare. It doesn't matter "Maybe Obama secretly does want Universal Healthcare?" Did you actually LISTEN to what he said? It's not much of a secret when time after time he tells whole rooms full of people while on camera what he wants to do. How obtuse can a person be? Neville Chamberlain is laughing at you saying "Okay I beleived Hitler when he said he just wanted the Sudetenland but get a load of this guy!" (btw, there's a difference between "universal care" claims, "universal care" realities, and single-payer. Please educate yourself if you are going to continue your impersonation of a political expert.) In my opinion, everyone deserves a trial. Even the terrorists. Goes to show how little you understand what was occurring at Gitmo. "No matter how much they take, they come back for more"? Over the past decades, the government has taken less and less. Income taxes have dropped, dropped, and then dropped some more. You are detached from reality and surrounded by right-wing rhetoric if you can't see this basic fact. Income taxes have never been lower, and yet you complain that the President is a left-wing extremist... Do you see the disconnect from reality there? First, here's the answer you deserve for the claim income taxes have never been lower. You probably think that's me being a smartass but that's just a bonus. And to save us the next exchange when you claim I am dodging your facts to avoid admitting I am wrong and I don't know what I am talking about... No matter how much they take, they come back for more. Income taxes, state and local taxes, payroll taxes, inflation, rising food costs, rising energy costs, rising health care costs, loss of opportunity, lost economic growth, higher and higher debt that will be paid sooner or later, one way or another. So yes, I see the the disconnect from reality. I'm starting right at it. | ||
|
TotalBalanceSC2
Canada475 Posts
On September 03 2012 04:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Because who just so happens to own the debt that got restructured shouldn't matter. Bain had zero control over the FDIC owning its debt and the FDIC could have sold the debt to a third party once it received it. The FDIC's bad decision to keep the debt is not the fault of Bain. Except in this case it does matter. Romney is saying that he is responsible for how well Bain has done. The simple fact is if the FDIC did not agree Bain would have gone bankrupt and Romney would not have his shining business career to run on. No one would vote for a guy responsible for running a business into bankruptcy, but luckily for Romney the FDIC rolled over and he made his fortune. But that does not change the fact that if the FDIC did not agree Bain would not be around today. Business wise I 100% agree with you that the FDIC should have done something differently. But when running on this "we built it" thing, the fact the government was the ones responsible for forgiving the debt will hurt him. Business wise it was probably close to the best move Bain could have done but Politics-wise it is not looking so good. | ||
|
TotalBalanceSC2
Canada475 Posts
On September 03 2012 04:37 coverpunch wrote: The intent is what matters. The FDIC didn't forgive the debt to help Bain survive, it took a discount on the loan to save its own funds. Bain did the classic finance trick that a company on the brink of bankruptcy is when it is most powerful because it can negotiate partial payments with a straight face and make creditors take it, against the risk of getting nothing. TARP was a bailout because it had more to do with creating a perception that the banks were healthy and supported by the government. It is someone saving their credibility by saying "we won't allow them to fail". Companies getting bailed out are at their very weakest because they'll do anything to maintain the facade. I would argue that the crisis bailouts was more to stop us entering the second great depression, keeping the banks looking healthy by buying toxic assets was more of a bonus on top of the main objective of stoping them going the way of Lehman Brothers and watching the economy self-destruct. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 03 2012 05:01 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: Except in this case it does matter. Romney is saying that he is responsible for how well Bain has done. The simple fact is if the FDIC did not agree Bain would have gone bankrupt and Romney would not have his shining business career to run on. No one would vote for a guy responsible for running a business into bankruptcy, but luckily for Romney the FDIC rolled over and he made his fortune. But that does not change the fact that if the FDIC did not agree Bain would not be around today. Business wise I 100% agree with you that the FDIC should have done something differently. But when running on this "we built it" thing, the fact the government was the ones responsible for forgiving the debt will hurt him. Business wise it was probably close to the best move Bain could have done but Politics-wise it is not looking so good. It doesn't matter because the FDIC did nothing special beyond what anyone else that owned the debt would have done. Bain as a whole would not have gone bankrupt so speculating that Romney's career would have been trashed is extremely speculative. Edit: If debt or stock owned by CALPERS falls in value we do not consider it a 'government bailout.' | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On September 03 2012 04:42 dvorakftw wrote: So now this response is to something from like 30 pages ago but I had some free time. (btw, for the ban-happy mod - I didn't call that guy a Nazi. He asked about policies of the American government he didn't understand and in my response I referenced policies of a former government of his country that thought it could run everything better than the people themselves could while showing no respect for life and the right to self-protection.) Leporello in bold. Learn to use quotes I know how. I choose to use my method instead. Probably because it makes responding to you more of a headache, and makes following the conversation over several posts downright impossible. Not to mention giving delayed responses to posts several days old. Whatever. Stay classy. | ||
|
TotalBalanceSC2
Canada475 Posts
Sure, Bain Capital wouldn't have gone bankrupt but Bain and Company which Romney was head of at the time would likely have and that would not look very good. After all if he failed to turn around Bain and Company how could he turn around America? I will concede that you are right in saying his career as a whole would still look quite good though. I will also concede you are right that the FDIC did what most creditors would and in reality this should not be a huge problem. But since politics is about digging up skeletons saying that Romney was "bailed out" by the government is not all wrong. They did have alot of their debt erased by a federal institution so if Romney is allowed to use a tiny "you didn't build that" soundbite to call Obama an anti-business socialist then Obama is perfectly allowed to say that Romney was bailed out by the government. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 03 2012 05:49 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: One of the documents on The Rolling Stone says "Lastly, absent relief all members of the bank group beleive this company will dissolve during 1993..." Sure, Bain Capital wouldn't have gone bankrupt but Bain and Company which Romney was head of at the time would likely have and that would not look very good. After all if he failed to turn around Bain and Company how could he turn around America? I will concede that you are right in saying his career as a whole would still look quite good though. I will also concede you are right that the FDIC did what most creditors would and in reality this should not be a huge problem. But since politics is about digging up skeletons saying that Romney was "bailed out" by the government is not all wrong. They did have alot of their debt erased by a federal institution so if Romney is allowed to use a tiny "you didn't build that" soundbite to call Obama an anti-business socialist then Obama is perfectly allowed to say that Romney was bailed out by the government. I could be wrong on this point but I think Romney was trying to turn around all of Bain. Part of that was moving resources from a bad part of the business (consulting) to a good part of the business (capital). This is fine as far as the analogy to turning around America goes - you do not have to fix every individual sector of the economy, you can replace failing sectors with thriving ones as well. The "you didn't build that" quote is indeed an unfair quote but it should not mean that Obama gets a free pass to return the favor. IMO the "bailout" claim is a bit worse - it's pretty easy for the general public to read Obama's speech and make up their own mind. It is much more difficult for the public to understand the inner working's of Bain's finances. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On September 03 2012 04:42 dvorakftw wrote: For the first time in the history of our government, people are forced to buy something because the government says so but that's not extreme because you approve. Just want to repost this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29099806/Act-for-the-Relief-of-Sick-DisabledSeamen-July-1798 Because I think it's hilarious. Not to mention you're forgetting that Romney himself did the same thing (mandate health insurance), or does he not count as part of our government? | ||
|
TotalBalanceSC2
Canada475 Posts
On September 03 2012 06:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I could be wrong on this point but I think Romney was trying to turn around all of Bain. Part of that was moving resources from a bad part of the business (consulting) to a good part of the business (capital). This is fine as far as the analogy to turning around America goes - you do not have to fix every individual sector of the economy, you can replace failing sectors with thriving ones as well. The "you didn't build that" quote is indeed an unfair quote but it should not mean that Obama gets a free pass to return the favor. IMO the "bailout" claim is a bit worse - it's pretty easy for the general public to read Obama's speech and make up their own mind. It is much more difficult for the public to understand the inner working's of Bain's finances. The only thing you are wrong on is the fact that he was not turning around all of Bain. Bain Capital was doing well, it was Bain and Company that was not doing that well. Other then name and the fact Mitt and a few other employees once worked there, Bain and Company is a seperate entity from Bain Capital. He was trying to turn around Bain and Company not moving resources between two divisions of one company. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On September 03 2012 04:42 dvorakftw wrote: "Maybe Obama secretly does want Universal Healthcare?" Did you actually LISTEN to what he said? It's not much of a secret when time after time he tells whole rooms full of people while on camera what he wants to do. How obtuse can a person be? Neville Chamberlain is laughing at you saying "Okay I beleived Hitler when he said he just wanted the Sudetenland but get a load of this guy!" (btw, there's a difference between "universal care" claims, "universal care" realities, and single-payer. Please educate yourself if you are going to continue your impersonation of a political expert.) . Damn dude, you get banned for calling someone a Nazi and then you go and make another not-so-subtle comparison... I don't normally comment in this thread (I lurk it hard though), but I really feel like something needs to be said. Please stop telling people they need to "educate themselves" when they disagree with you. And stop insulting people when they disagree with you. There's pages and pages of civil discourse in this thread, where people are trying to debate very complex issues that are hard for non-experts to understand (and even "experts" disagree on). People disagree, but even when they decide to end the debate without resolution, they usually refrain from insulting each other. You, on the other hand, consistently drag down the overall quality of this thread, which I have been enjoying reading, and I really, really wish you would stop. You consistently oversimplify things, subsequently make statements that where you claim it's "obvious" that you know what you're talking about and the other guy doesn't (basically whipping out your e-peen and bragging on the internet), claim to win the "debate", and then proceed to just throw out blanket insults at the other guy. Please stop. Edit: Really man? This is your next post? Does it qualify as "ironic" that this is what you post pretty much as I am posting this? "Oh you cherry pick the only thing you could hope to answer because I burned you on the rest blah blah blah too lazy to quote you back." | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On September 03 2012 06:07 Leporello wrote: Just want to repost this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29099806/Act-for-the-Relief-of-Sick-DisabledSeamen-July-1798 Because I think it's hilarious. Not to mention you're forgetting that Romney himself did the same thing (mandate health insurance), or does he not count as part of our government? Oh you cherry pick the only thing you could hope to answer because I burned you on the rest blah blah blah too lazy to quote you back. Anyway the Seaman talking point is apples to oranges and debunked in probably nine of the first ten results of searching why it doesn't apply. And you got me leaving out the word "federal". Have a cookie. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 03 2012 06:11 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: The only thing you are wrong on is the fact that he was not turning around all of Bain. Bain capital was doing well, it was Bain and Company that was not doing that well. Other then name and the fact Mitt and a few other employees once worked there, Bain and Company is a seperate entity from Bain Capital. He was trying to turn around Bain and Company not moving resources between two divisions of one company. Ahh, OK. He worked at Bain capital before and after his time at Bain and Company. I really wish the companies had different names  it would make looking into these things A LOT easier! | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On September 03 2012 06:41 BallinWitStalin wrote: Damn dude, you get banned for calling someone a Nazi and then you go and make another not-so-subtle comparison... I don't know what more I can do for you. Maybe draw a picture? You can ask me something about single payer health care or 90% marginal tax rates and I can talk about them. It doesn't make me a liberal. Please stop telling people they need to "educate themselves" when they disagree with you. But it would do him (and others) good to know that saying things like "Maybe Obama secretly supports universal healthcare" exposes a profound lack of knowledge. Here: Universal healthcare claim = everyone has health insurance somehow Universal healthcare reality = millions are still uncovered and you don't necessarily get good care or get it soon (I think my favorite anecdote is that the UK's NHS made a law that everyone must see a doctor within an hour of arriving at the hospital so then whenever possible ambulances would just park for hours outside the hospital until they knew a doctor would be ready.) Single payer = Hospitals get run like the DMV and USPS, inefficient, billions wasted, but hey the alternatives are banned so everyone is happy with what you get. Free market = People find ways to make things better and cheaper at the same time. Look at eye-laser and plastic surgery which were lucky enough to avoid most of the regulations and tax code flaws the legacy health care system now suffers from. And stop insulting people when they disagree with you. lol. Doesn't feel good? The phrase you're looking for is "Can dish it out but can't take it." Try being a conservative for a while. A white male conservative. "Greedy, heartless, stupid racist" has been the backbone of the liberal argument for as long as I've lived and probably a few decades more. You, on the other hand, consistently drag down the overall quality of this thread, which I have been enjoying reading, and I really, really wish you would stop. You consistently oversimplify things, subsequently make statements that where you claim it's "obvious" that you know what you're talking about and the other guy doesn't (basically whipping out your e-peen and bragging on the internet), and then proceed to just throw out blanket insults at the other guy. I'm sure it is more fun when the other side is content to smile and laugh along. Over-simplify? There's no point in discussing complex things if you don't start from the same fundamentals and know what you are talking about. It's like that Stewart-Rubio "debate" where Jon forgets everything of Dubya's presidency to feign shock and indignation that the Republicans won't go along on Obama's fantasy joy ride of economic solutions. "But, but, $10 spending cuts for $1 of tax increases!" Yeah, they ran that gimmick play on the first Bush, tax cuts happened, spending cuts never did, and they then ran against him for breaking the Read MY Lips No New Taxes pledge. Then Clinton raised them even more. Yeah, sorry I'm not playing the game by your rules. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On September 03 2012 04:42 dvorakftw wrote: So now this response is to something from like 30 pages ago but I had some free time. (btw, for the ban-happy mod - I didn't call that guy a Nazi. He asked about policies of the American government he didn't understand and in my response I referenced policies of a former government of his country that thought it could run everything better than the people themselves could while showing no respect for life and the right to self-protection.) Yes, you only responded to him with a perfect ad hominem. Good job. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On September 03 2012 07:09 dvorakftw wrote: I don't know what more I can do for you. Maybe draw a picture? You can ask me something about single payer health care or 90% marginal tax rates and I can talk about them. It doesn't make me a liberal. But it would do him (and others) good to know that saying things like "Maybe Obama secretly supports universal healthcare" exposes a profound lack of knowledge. Here: Universal healthcare claim = everyone has health insurance somehow Universal healthcare reality = millions are still uncovered and you don't necessarily get good care or get it soon (I think my favorite anecdote is that the UK's NHS made a law that everyone must see a doctor within an hour of arriving at the hospital so then whenever possible ambulances would just park for hours outside the hospital until they knew a doctor would be ready.) Single payer = Hospitals get run like the DMV and USPS, inefficient, billions wasted, but hey the alternatives are banned so everyone is happy with what you get. Free market = People find ways to make things better and cheaper at the same time. Look at eye-laser and plastic surgery which were lucky enough to avoid most of the regulations and tax code flaws the legacy health care system now suffers from. lol. Doesn't feel good? The phrase you're looking for is "Can dish it out but can't take it." Try being a conservative for a while. A white male conservative. "Greedy, heartless, stupid racist" has been the backbone of the liberal argument for as long as I've lived and probably a few decades more. I'm sure it is more fun when the other side is content to smile and laugh along. Over-simplify? There's no point in discussing complex things if you don't start from the same fundamentals and know what you are talking about. It's like that Stewart-Rubio "debate" where Jon forgets everything of Dubya's presidency to feign shock and indignation that the Republicans won't go along on Obama's fantasy joy ride of economic solutions. "But, but, $10 spending cuts for $1 of tax increases!" Yeah, they ran that gimmick play on the first Bush, tax cuts happened, spending cuts never did, and they then ran against him for breaking the Read MY Lips No New Taxes pledge. Then Clinton raised them even more. Yeah, sorry I'm not playing the game by your rules. Honestly, man, I don't even know what you're talking about. I'm not coming from any perspective on this, I have no agenda as a "liberal", I don't care that you're a white male conservative (there's a lot of those that probably post in this thread and i have no problem with them, see Johnny for an example and xdaunt, despite his occasional sillyness), and I certainly don't care about what you consider "the fundamentals". What I'm telling you is that you're bringing down the quality of the debate. (for the record, when someone resorts to "fundamentals" in an economics debate, it usually means they don't know what they're talking about, because government budgeting, regulation, tax policy, market structure, and economics are all incredibly complicated things that don't behave according to simplistic assumptions most of the time). | ||
|
TotalBalanceSC2
Canada475 Posts
On September 03 2012 06:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Ahh, OK. He worked at Bain capital before and after his time at Bain and Company. I really wish the companies had different names it would make looking into these things A LOT easier! Indeed different names would help. Even though it was not a true "bailout" it can still be labeled in politics that way unfortunately. But to be honest I wish people would not dismiss anything bad about Mitts business career as being false or left wing propaganda. He may have been a good businessman but no one is perfect. For example I am sure Bain and Company's credit rating probably did not look so swell for awhile after the debt had to be restructered. If Mitt Romney was this "perfect businessman" the GOP is trying to push him as he should have been able to turn the company profitable and meet its debt obligations and maintain a good credit rating moving forward. I just sometimes wish politics would be a little more truthful, but the realist in me knows that will never happen. Also, do you know what dvorakftw is talking about? | ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
On September 03 2012 07:10 nam nam wrote: Yes, you only responded to him with a perfect ad hominem. Good job. Do you know what ad hominem actually means? What part of "Defending innocent life, supporting the free market's ability to provide better service for lower cost, recognizing the right to defend yourself, and acknowledging the basic foundation of society" is an attack on him and not an answer to his question? What answers did he expect to find here that aren't already available on a billion other web pages? | ||
| ||
