http://news.yahoo.com/romney-s-record-at-bain-capital--does-it-matter-.html
The issue will be the bane of our existence until November. Here it is only May – and the back-and-forth over Mitt Romney's career in private equity at Bain Capital is already as confused as Facebook's initial stock offering. Buffeted by TV ads, web videos, feigned outraged and zigzagging Democrats, voters undoubtedly are stunned by the sudden outbreak of high-decibel arguments over Romney's business career.
But do these even matter? Amongst the background noise emerges the real question: What parts of Romney's business experience would influence his actions in the Oval office? That is a central question that voters should evaluate, although finding the answers will not be easy given the frenzied spin from both sides.
The brickbats began last week with Barack Obama's first major ad buy of the campaign featuring a displaced steelworker calling Bain a vampire "that sucked the life out of us." A Romney response video asked, "Have you had enough of President Obama's attacks on free enterprise?" Newark's Democratic Mayor Cory Booker was featured in the Romney ad because he described the blame-Bain game as "nauseating" on "Meet the Press." Then Booker released his own video saying, in effect, that he was for the Obama attacks after he was against them. The Republicans came back with a video suggesting that the Obama campaign pressured Booker into recanting.
Next we had the pro-Obama SuperPAC ad ... nah, there is too much to summarize. But a few obvious questions spring to mind: Why in the midst of a presidential campaign do we care so much about what Booker, or any New Jersey mayor, thinks about private equity firms? How many campaign-issued web videos will it take to drive the political press corps bonkers? In the old days (around 2004), campaign admakers had to pull an all-nighter to put rapid-response TV spots on the air. Now it takes a junior press staffer maybe seven minutes to patch together a video. Is this really progress towards a more perfect democracy? And most importantly, how relevant is the Romney record at Bain Capital (and the $200-million-plus he made swapping companies) to his actually serving as president in 2013? Do the Bain years reveal that much about how a President Romney might react to a sputtering economy or a euro crisis?
Romney's passionate responses to attacks on his business record during the Republican primaries seemed genuine rather than gimmicky. (For the most part, Romney lacks that essential political gift of faking sincerity). "I will not apologize for being successful," Romney declared during a late January debate in Florida. He quickly added, with awkward syntax, "The nature of America is individuals pursuing their dreams don`t make everyone else poorer -- they help make us all better off. And so I'm not going to apologize for success or apologize for free enterprise."
Beyond the three-cheers-for-capitalism rhetoric, three things unquestionably shaped Romney's life: his Harvard MBA, his early years as a business consultant for Bain and his tenure at the helm of Bain Capital, the private equity spin-off from the firm. For all of Romney's lionizing of the risk-taking visionaries of the business world, he was initially nervous about leaving the security of business consulting to start up Bain Capital. As Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman reveal in their biography The Real Romney, "He didn't want to risk his position, earnings and reputation on an experiment...Romney worried about the impact on his reputation if he proved unable to do the job."
But Romney's late-night brooding proved unnecessary. In financial terms, Bain Capital under Romney's reign was wildly successful, averaging an 88-percent annual return over 15 years. Campaign spokesmen and hired-gun economists on both sides will wrangle eternally over Bain's job-creation record from its investments in successful start-ups like Staples to closed-factory—gate failures like the Missouri steel mill featured in the initial Obama ad. But either way, this is retroactive score-keeping like ranking baseball teams based on hot-dog sales rather than games won. What mattered at Bain Capital was the bottom line. Everything else was an extraneous detail and, in the case of job loss, collateral damage.
This is who Romney is -- a portrait in business success rather than selfless altruism. Coming out of that experience, Romney's underlying problem with voters appears to be his inability to make the imaginative leap to grasp how other people live. In late April, Romney urged Ohio college students to follow their dreams: "Take a shot, go for it, take a risk. Get the education. Borrow money, if you have to, from your parents. Start a business." These are laudable sentiments, except for one tin-ear detail: Most American families do not have a bankroll of, say, $50,000 or $100,000 sitting on the sidelines waiting to be loaned to the first child ready to launch a new business.
Bain is as substantive a part of Romney's resume as Hollywood was for Ronald Reagan. Maybe more so, because in Romney's case so much else is off-limits and air-brushed from his political history. Never mentioned by Republicans, for example, is Romney's failed 1994 Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy in which he backed gun control, proposed tying the minimum wage to inflation and appeared at a fund-raiser for Planned Parenthood. That was another Mitt Romney in another century.
Despite Romney's truth-stretching boast that he was a "severely conservative" governor of Massachusetts, his record in office suggests otherwise, inspiring a touch of forgetfulness. Never deliberately mentioned on the campaign trail is Romney's non-partisan approach to appointing judges in Massachusetts. Or his long-standing support for abortion rights until he wrote in a 2005 Op-Ed (using an eerily Obama-esque choice of words) that his "convictions have evolved and deepened on the issue." And then there is that amnesiac detail about Massachusetts' first-in-the-nation law imposing a health-care mandate on state residents.
So what's left? Romney does deserve credit for the success of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. Of course, the Olympics had a budget of about $1.3 billion for the three years that Romney oversaw it. That three-year total is less than the federal government currently spends every three hours.
About the only thing else on Romney's adult record is the six years that he has spent in the single-minded pursuit of the highest office. But to say that a major Romney qualification for the presidency is the years that he has spent running for the presidency is akin to Kim Kardashian (like Zsa Zsa Gabor before her) being famous for being famous.
This process of elimination inevitably leads back to Bain Capital. What matters is not Bain's job-creation record but the values that Romney absorbed on the job. Romney's belief in the creative destruction of capitalism, his conviction that a dynamic economy produces winners and, yes, losers would undoubtedly shape his presidency. That is his economic vision – and it is directly linked to his years at Bain.
The problem, of course, is that this is not the kind of argument apt to pop in TV commercials in the heat of a presidential quest. Instead, the exaggerated Democratic attacks on Romney's record in private equity are designed to make him seem like the 19th century landlord who throws widows and orphans into the cold on Christmas day. Small wonder that Obama said at Monday's press conference that Romney's Bain record is "not a distraction" before adding, with a hint of malice, "this is what this campaign is going to be about."
So it is easy to conclude that, from now until November, the Bain refrain will play mainly in the Plains – and everywhere else there are swing voters.
If attacking one person's record at one company is "attacking free enterprise" you can put me down as a crusader against it. Romney's response is vapid and ridiculous. I think that makes him look worse than anything he might have done at Bain. It's not as if there's not plenty of footage of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, neither of whose conservative bona fides are in question, slamming Romney for his time at Bain. The other thing that concerns me is that he seems to have changed his tune regarding the number of jobs he claimed to have created during his time there. It grew by a factor of ten somehow between the time he was running for governor and the beginning of his Presidential campaign.
Personally, I'd like to see a real and substantive discussion about how appropriate it is for PE firms to do deals the way they do. There's plenty of idiocy in Romney's statements like the one about private companies never borrowing too much to not really need to look to his time at Bain to see what kind of a leader he would be. He's telling us every single day.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on May 23, 2012, 03:00:55 PM
But to say that a major Romney qualification for the presidency is the years that he has spent running for the presidency is akin to Kim Kardashian (like Zsa Zsa Gabor before her) being famous for being famous.
My gosh, who in the hell does that sound like?
The Bain thing will play well in communities of voters ignorant to the role of private equity and venture capital in our economy. Swing voters and moderates tend to be the more intelligent voters who spend less time killing their brains (like we do) with the venom of politics. While you may be able to criticize them because their convictions are light, you have to applaud them because they alone hold the key to the temple.
Unfortunately, this writer showed his bias in this paragraph:
QuoteIn late April, Romney urged Ohio college students to follow their dreams: "Take a shot, go for it, take a risk. Get the education. Borrow money, if you have to, from your parents. Start a business." These are laudable sentiments, except for one tin-ear detail: Most American families do not have a bankroll of, say, $50,000 or $100,000 sitting on the sidelines waiting to be loaned to the first child ready to launch a new business.
Most new businesses are not launched with a "bankroll." Most are launched through innovation, and fearless perseverance. Most are launched through venture capital obtained from banks and private investors. The existence of obsticles (financial or otherwise) and failure are no reason to stop, give-up, or submit yourself as a ward of someone else.
I disagree on his classification of Romney's words of encouragement as "tin-ear." On the contrary, we have a growing population of young people who have been taught to fear Capitalism because it requires risk, and risk is evil. They've been taught that the only way to build wealth is to start with wealth. They've been programed that failure is permanent and poverty is more than just a state of mind.
Sure, sometimes you are successful your first time at bat, and sometimes you fail. A smart man knows that in most cases, failure is the road to success.
Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. Bankruptcies and losses concentrate the mind on prudent behavior. – Allan H. Meltzer
Quote from: Gaspar on May 23, 2012, 03:26:20 PM
The Bain thing will play well in communities of voters ignorant to the role of private equity and venture capital in our economy. Swing voters and moderates tend to be the more intelligent voters who spend less time killing their brains (like we do) with the venom of politics. While you may be able to criticize them because their convictions are light, you have to applaud them because they alone hold the key to the temple.
...
Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin. Bankruptcies and losses concentrate the mind on prudent behavior. – Allan H. Meltzer
Conflating PE and VC is like conflating investment banks and regular banks. They do completely different things that happen to both involve investment.
I'm sure Meltzer would be rather unhappy at the way corporate america has its hand stuck out as if they're waiting on a tip. You need to face the world as it is, not as you wish it were.
This is related to Romney's business ventures and his run at the presidency, and it may have changed in the last year. Didn't he have offshore accounts that were not subject to US taxes, and if so, has any other presidential candidate used similar accounts to avoid paying taxes? It seems to me that a candidate would pay his fair share of taxes and do so proudly, not hide money in numbered accounts.
Quote from: nathanm on May 23, 2012, 03:34:58 PM
Conflating PE and VC is like conflating investment banks and regular banks. They do completely different things that happen to both involve investment.
They both invest to sustain business during a period of insolvency. One at the beginning and the other at the end...or new beginning. I have a good friend who engages in both, and the consulting that goes along with it. PE is far more difficult because it requires longer investment and a period of evaluation, and significant expertise in consulting and remodeling businesses. Most PE firms are also engaged in VC. It's like the french fries on the burger menu.
PE just gets a bad wrap because they do the things that the companies should have done. In particular in turnaround cases. They do the things that the company should have been doing on their own to keep the company solvent. I understand it is fun to think that all PE firms are like the dude in Pretty Woman (my wife like's this one so...) that just break up companies and sell them off, not all PE is this way. Although sometimes it is, but only when there is a market for said "parts". Maybe it is better, more efficient, to do it this way. They do shut down some parts of companies, but only because they are costing the company, possibly even the livelihood of the company. I can guarantee you that a PE firm would not shut down profitable business for the fun of it. After all, they are in it to make money. Which apparently, according to Obama is not the way a Pres should think. They need to be figuring out how to loose money. :)
Quote from: erfalf on May 23, 2012, 04:28:35 PM
PE just gets a bad wrap because they do the things that the companies should have done. In particular in turnaround cases. They do the things that the company should have been doing on their own to keep the company solvent. I understand it is fun to think that all PE firms are like the dude in Pretty Woman (my wife like's this one so...) that just break up companies and sell them off, not all PE is this way. Although sometimes it is, but only when there is a market for said "parts". Maybe it is better, more efficient, to do it this way. They do shut down some parts of companies, but only because they are costing the company, possibly even the livelihood of the company. I can guarantee you that a PE firm would not shut down profitable business for the fun of it. After all, they are in it to make money. Which apparently, according to Obama is not the way a Pres should think. They need to be figuring out how to loose money. :)
Beyond that, they typically package their product into publicly available investment, and liberals hate any investment where people can make money.
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/k/O/4/Looking-Bad.jpg)
Your friend's PE firm is probably nothing like a big PE firm, much the same way as Arkansas Valley Bank is not the same as BOk which is not the same as Bank of America or Wells Fargo. The "business" is the same, but differently sized banks approach the market in very different ways. They all depend on a government guarantee, but only the large ones really abuse it.
erfalf, my complaint has nothing to do with breaking up companies. Sometimes different divisions are better off as separate companies. Sometimes they aren't. The problem is that the big ones buy going concerns and turn them into not going concerns and somehow manage to turn a profit anyway. They are making money at the direct expense of others, not through the normal method of building value and thus growing the economy as a whole.
Stop listening to Hannity's description of the complaints and listen to the actual complaints.
Quote from: nathanm on May 23, 2012, 04:36:34 PM
Your friend's PE firm is probably nothing like a big PE firm, much the same way as Arkansas Valley Bank is not the same as BOk which is not the same as Bank of America or Wells Fargo. The "business" is the same, but differently sized banks approach the market in very different ways. They all depend on a government guarantee, but only the large ones really abuse it.
erfalf, my complaint has nothing to do with breaking up companies. Sometimes different divisions are better off as separate companies. Sometimes they aren't. The problem is that the big ones buy going concerns and turn them into not going concerns and somehow manage to turn a profit anyway. They are making money at the direct expense of others, not through the normal method of building value and thus growing the economy as a whole.
Stop listening to Hannity's description of the complaints and listen to the actual complaints.
QuotePersonally, I'd like to see a real and substantive discussion about how appropriate it is for PE firms to do deals the way they do.
Sorry, I guess us "free marketers" don't understand where you are going?
Quote from: nathanm on May 23, 2012, 04:36:34 PM
Your friend's PE firm is probably nothing like a big PE firm, much the same way as Arkansas Valley Bank is not the same as BOk which is not the same as Bank of America or Wells Fargo. The "business" is the same, but differently sized banks approach the market in very different ways. They all depend on a government guarantee, but only the large ones really abuse it.
erfalf, my complaint has nothing to do with breaking up companies. Sometimes different divisions are better off as separate companies. Sometimes they aren't. The problem is that the big ones buy going concerns and turn them into not going concerns and somehow manage to turn a profit anyway. They are making money at the direct expense of others, not through the normal method of building value and thus growing the economy as a whole.
Stop listening to Hannity's description of the complaints and listen to the actual complaints.
Does anyone have proof that PE firms that have deals where the company goes under actually make money?
I can promise you that for all the deals they make money on, they loose money on just about as many.
Quote from: erfalf on May 23, 2012, 04:48:17 PM
Does anyone have proof that PE firms that have deals where the company goes under actually make money?
Yes. Try Google. Or even the news.
QuoteOP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Tall Tales About Private Equity
By STEVEN RATTNER
Published: May 22, 2012
PRESIDENT OBAMA started his general election campaign by taking aim at Mitt Romney's job creation record at Bain, setting off a lively debate over the fairness of the attacks.
I am among those who have been drawn into the argument — there was even a snippet of me defending private equity in a Romney campaign ad.
As a former Obama administration official, I was uncomfortable about being used in a Romney ad in support of his position.
However, I was also concerned that the Obama ads, while narrowly accurate, might be seen to portray Bain Capital (and implicitly, private equity) in an ugly light because a few of the companies the firm invested in went bankrupt while Bain Capital still made money
On Monday, Mr. Obama struck the right balance, emphasizing that he wasn't attacking private equity but was questioning Mitt Romney's Bain Capital credentials to be the job creator in chief.
That's fair, particularly because Mr. Romney himself has been foolishly reweaving history to claim, as recently as last week, that he helped create 100,000 jobs during his time at Bain.
In fact, Bain Capital — like other private equity firms — was founded and managed for profit: ideally, huge amounts of gain earned legally and legitimately. Any job creation was a welcome but secondary byproduct.
The language in one prospectus seeking Bain Capital investors was clear: "The objective of the Fund is to achieve an annual rate of return on invested capital in excess of the returns generated" by other investments. Any job creation was accidental.
In Mr. Romney's case, his jobs assertion rests heavily on just a few early investments.
Originally hatched to provide venture capital to young enterprises, Bain Capital notched a few such successes, notably Staples and Sports Authority. These were small stakes in companies — about $2.5 million in Staples — over which Bain had little influence.
While I defend the role financiers play in making our economy work, I also concede that Mark Zuckerberg was far more central to the success of Facebook and its 3,200 jobs than the venture capitalists who invested early.
Although Bain Capital sold off those early investments years ago, Mr. Romney takes credit for every job ever created at every company Bain Capital invested in during his tenure — while ignoring jobs eliminated after his departure.
"The steel factory closed down two years after I left Bain Capital," he said last week about GST Steel, the Kansas City, Mo., company that went bankrupt in 2001. "I was no longer there, so that's hardly something which is on my watch."
Meanwhile, when Staples went public in 1989, it had 1,100 employees; at the end of 1998, right before Mr. Romney exited Bain, it had 42,000 workers. Yet Mr. Romney takes credit for the 89,000 employed at the close of 2010.
As the years clicked by, Bain Capital and Mr. Romney smelled the chance to make more money by raising larger amounts. That, in turn, led them toward classic leveraged buyouts — the purchase, often heavily financed by debt, of more established companies.
These enterprises were often what Wall Street describes as "undermanaged," which means the Bain Capital team could take "aggressive action" that often included cutting costs — read: jobs — to increase profitability.
That's not wrong; it's part of capitalism. Whatever its flaws, private equity has made a material contribution to sharpening management. But don't confuse a leveraged buyout with job creation.
Under Mr. Romney's leadership, Bain Capital engaged in the less attractive practice of putting more debt on seemingly successful investments in order to take dividends out. In at least four instances of Bain Capital investments during Romney's tenure, these "recapped" companies, of which two were featured in the Obama ads, subsequently went bankrupt, costing thousands their jobs.
To be sure, some of Bain's large leveraged buyouts — notably, Domino's Pizza — added jobs. But Mr. Romney left Bain Capital two months after the Domino's investment (7,900 new jobs claimed) was finalized.
Aware of private equity's reputation, Mr. Romney still trots around the country erroneously calling himself a "venture capitalist."
And in a further effort to deflect attention from the Bain Capital debate, Mr. Romney last week argued that President Obama was responsible for the loss of 100,000 jobs in the auto industry over the past three years.
That's both ridiculously false (auto industry and dealership jobs have increased by about 50,000 since January 2009) and a remarkable comment from a man who said that the companies should have been allowed to go bankrupt and that the industry would have been better off without President Obama's involvement.
Adding jobs was never Mitt Romney's private sector agenda, and it's appropriate to question his ability to do so.
Steven Rattner, a contributing opinion writer, was a Treasury Department official in the Obama administration.
(http://www.philzone.org/discus/messages/36579/772325.jpg)
If Obama had worked at a PE firm or Romney were the Democrat candidate, I'm sure we'd be hearing only the good about PE firms from those who are in the tank for Obama this time around.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 23, 2012, 08:25:54 PM
If Obama had worked at a PE firm or Romney were the Democrat candidate, I'm sure we'd be hearing only the good about PE firms from those who are in the tank for Obama this time around.
Yes, looking at Romney and seeing someone who will only accelerate the deterioration of the issues I find most important means I'm in the tank for Obama. It doesn't help when I look at those he's surrounded himself with and see a bunch of Bush-era holdovers. Nor does it help when he waxes poetic about how great it is to have Cheney advising him. It's also not helpful to my disposition when he claims Obama is attacking "free enterprise" when he's actually just talking about LBO shops.
Bain is just a distraction beyond Romney being caught out in a blatant exaggeration of his job creation record. The only good it does is provide a starting point for a national discussion about how capitalism and free enterprise should be harnessed to work best for all of us and not just a subset of us.
He's qualified to run the country because he can read a balance sheet?
that's like saying Gaspar's qualified to be governor because he makes BBQ sauce.
http://thepage.time.com/2012/05/23/the-complete-romney-interview-transcript/
And sometime recently, he said unless Obama had unemployment down to 4 percent, his Presidency would be a failure. Yet he says his target is six percent.
Could someone please extract the foot out of this guys' mouth?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 23, 2012, 08:25:54 PM
If Obama had worked at a PE firm or Romney were the Democrat candidate, I'm sure we'd be hearing only the good about PE firms from those who are in the tank for Obama this time around.
Let's not forget though that it's Romney who has brought his experience as a PE into the race. It may be his undoing in the end.
Quote from: Hoss on May 24, 2012, 12:12:40 AM
Let's not forget though that it's Romney who has brought his experience as a PE into the race. It may be his undoing in the end.
I don't think so. . .I'll say it again. . .21 million employees, $15 trillion in debt, and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Sounds like the U.S. could use Bain!
Quote from: Gaspar on May 24, 2012, 08:24:17 AM
I don't think so. . .I'll say it again. . .21 million employees, $15 trillion in debt, and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Sounds like the U.S. could use Bain!
But when a state underperforms, you can't just spin it off....I fail to see why being a good businessman = good president. Bush was a good businessman by all accounts.
Enough said.
Quote from: Hoss on May 24, 2012, 08:28:47 AM
But when a state underperforms, you can't just spin it off....I fail to see why being a good businessman = good president. Bush was a good businessman by all accounts.
Enough said.
I fail to see where community organizer, state representative, and Jr. Senator = good president.
It's about leadership Hoss, and discerning who has a better track record of innovation and leadership. Who has worked in the real world and actually created or helped create jobs. What we have now is a bunch of academians applying theory to the economy, health care, etc. Personally, I
don't think McCain would have done any better of a job the last four years. He's taken leadership on issues in the Senate but he's never run anything I'm aware of. I also think we may have wound up with a much deeper role in Afghanistan and Iraq under McCain.
I will give President Obama an "A-" on foreign policy so far. I'd give him an A+ if it weren't for his tenuous position on Israel. His economic record is a complete disaster and that's the main issue in the country right now. They want us to believe it's about a war on women, a culture war, or poor race relations but those are just distractions from the real issue and the real failure of the Obama administration for millions of Americans.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2012, 10:29:15 AM
I fail to see where community organizer, state representative, and Jr. Senator = good president.
It's about leadership Hoss, and discerning who has a better track record of innovation and leadership. Who has worked in the real world and actually created or helped create jobs. What we have now is a bunch of academians applying theory to the economy, health care, etc. Personally, I don't think McCain would have done any better of a job the last four years. He's taken leadership on issues in the Senate but he's never run anything I'm aware of. I also think we may have wound up with a much deeper role in Afghanistan and Iraq under McCain.
I will give President Obama an "A-" on foreign policy so far. I'd give him an A+ if it weren't for his tenuous position on Israel. His economic record is a complete disaster and that's the main issue in the country right now. They want us to believe it's about a war on women, a culture war, or poor race relations but those are just distractions from the real issue and the real failure of the Obama administration for millions of Americans.
I never said he was or wasn't. I'm just trying to keep the response to the subject of the thread.
Marshalls.
Quote from: Hoss on May 24, 2012, 08:28:47 AM
But when a state underperforms, you can't just spin it off...
Maybe we can get rid of a few under-performers. Let's start with California.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2012, 10:29:15 AM
His economic record is a complete disaster and that's the main issue in the country right now.
A complete disaster, really? The guy had employment rising again within months. Corporate profitability has been near records since he took office. Would you like him to also round up all the CEOs and kick them in the teeth repeatedly until they agree to hire more people?
Red Arrow, California has a revenue problem, not a spending problem. That's what happens when you fix property taxes at 1978 levels. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2012, 12:46:20 PM
A complete disaster, really? The guy had employment rising again within months. Corporate profitability has been near records since he took office. Would you like him to also round up all the CEOs and kick them in the teeth repeatedly until they agree to hire more people?
Red Arrow, California has a revenue problem, not a spending problem. That's what happens when you fix property taxes at 1978 levels. ;)
Corporate profit is at near record levels as businesses are making do with fewer employees. Job creation has been anemic by any standard.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2012, 12:55:20 PM
Job creation has been anemic by any standard.
Well, other than his predecessor and Hoover, yeah. That's what happens when government spending is significantly reduced in the middle of the worst economic period since the great depression. Demographic shifts are making the numbers look even worse.
And really, since we bottomed out prior to the Census, employment has grown about as fast as it did under Bush (between the trough and peak) despite the decrease in government-sector employment. Bush presided over increasing government sector employment and posted the same numbers. Clearly, his economic plan was better. Also interesting is that from the first day to his last day in office, Bush had a fairly significant net loss of jobs. Thus far, Obama is in the positive.
So the answer to Reagan's question "are you better off today than you were four years ago," is "yes" for a lot of folks. Republicans have done a pretty good job of rewriting history and shifting much of the blame for the crash itself (and even TARP) to Obama, though. I think it's fairly clear the public doesn't really trust either the Democrats or the Republicans right now. Those who aren't part of the Republican faithful seem even less sympathetic to the Republican narrative than the Democratic one, though. Not that they really like either one. They recognize that both parties are largely corrupt and hate them for it.
I think folks are ripe for a real change, but the only alternatives presented so far have just been nuttier versions of the existing parties rather than something new.
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2012, 01:22:26 PM
Well, other than his predecessor and Hoover, yeah. That's what happens when government spending is significantly reduced in the middle of the worst economic period since the great depression. Demographic shifts are making the numbers look even worse.
And really, since we bottomed out prior to the Census, employment has grown about as fast as it did under Bush (between the trough and peak) despite the decrease in government-sector employment. Bush presided over increasing government sector employment and posted the same numbers. Clearly, his economic plan was better. Also interesting is that from the first day to his last day in office, Bush had a fairly significant net loss of jobs. Thus far, Obama is in the positive.
So the answer to Reagan's question "are you better off today than you were four years ago," is "yes" for a lot of folks. Republicans have done a pretty good job of rewriting history and shifting much of the blame for the crash itself (and even TARP) to Obama, though. I think it's fairly clear the public doesn't really trust either the Democrats or the Republicans right now. Those who aren't part of the Republican faithful seem even less sympathetic to the Republican narrative than the Democratic one, though. Not that they really like either one. They recognize that both parties are largely corrupt and hate them for it.
I think folks are ripe for a real change, but the only alternatives presented so far have just been nuttier versions of the existing parties rather than something new.
His job creation numbers suck even compared to that economic whiz Jiminy Carter.
Those who still are out of work aren't better off than they were four years ago. That's what could and should kick Obama's donkey in the fall. People who are still impacted by the sluggish economy and job picture could care less what job creation was like under Bush, Clinton, Bush, & Reagan. All they care about is why they aren't working now and who is presiding over the economy. After four years, previous presidents are pretty irrelevant to an election.
Did I miss the memo where government spending was reduced? I thought we just reduced the increase. You know, baseline budgeting.
And while I believe Bush deserves plenty of blame (he does for sure), I have noticed that much of the hub ub on spending lately has tried to use 2009 as a baseline. Granted Bush was President, but who controlled Congress?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2012, 01:58:05 PM
His job creation numbers suck even compared to that economic whiz Jiminy Carter.
Those who still are out of work aren't better off than they were four years ago. That's what could and should kick Obama's donkey in the fall. People who are still impacted by the sluggish economy and job picture could care less what job creation was like under Bush, Clinton, Bush, & Reagan. All they care about is why they aren't working now and who is presiding over the economy. After four years, previous presidents are pretty irrelevant to an election.
From Droopy's Malase Speech:
"I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation's problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice."
As President Carter learned, voters will be looking for the candidate who can deliver them the perception of
CERTANTY.
Jimmy Carter called it "A Crisis of Confidence" and he hit the nail on the head, though he did not possess the leadership or personality to correct it. Lack of confidence and uncertainty are emotional factors, and more powerful in an economy than almost any other critical factor. It requires leadership to change perception.
As I've said before, the primary problem with mechanisms like Keynesian modeling is that they treat people in a mechanical factor to predict outcomes. Doesn't work that way, never has, never will. Because the future is always unknown, individuals rely a great deal on emotion, to make decisions. Though we are technically out of recession and have been for years, the emotional position that many individuals take is that the recession lingers. This keeps employers from hiring and businesses from expanding.
Why does it linger? Blow after blow of promises to raise taxes. Direct indictment after indictment of the investment market that drives business in this country. A paralysis of congress caused by pushing legislation through crisis rather than debate. No clear budget capable of garnering a single vote from either party. A program that rewards tight financial markets. A clear focus on the production of entitlement programs to buy votes instead of economic growth to earn votes.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 24, 2012, 03:00:37 PM
Jimmy Carter called it "A Crisis of Confidence" and he hit the nail on the head, though he did not possess the leadership or personality to correct it. Lack of confidence and uncertainty are emotional factors, and more powerful in an economy than almost any other critical factor. It requires leadership to change perception.
Great analysis. Romney is effed. He keeps talking doom and gloom and has even used the word "malaise," while Obama is running around the country talking about hopes and dreams and the continued recovery.
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2012, 07:02:39 PM
Great analysis. Romney is effed. He keeps talking doom and gloom and has even used the word "malaise," while Obama is running around the country talking about hopes and dreams and the continued recovery.
You suffer from a short memory. Obama continued to beat on the economy his first 1 1/2 years in office. He continues to beat on those most capable of creating private sector jobs and wonders why the recovery has been so slow. He's clueless.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2012, 10:53:30 PM
He continues to beat on those most capable of creating private sector jobs and wonders why the recovery has been so slow.
So you're now left with claiming that businesspeople aren't hiring because their feelings are hurt? How ridiculous can you get? Especially when we've had how many months of job growth despite the continued losses in government jobs dragging down the numbers?
We're not going to see a robust recovery until demand increases. As long as the middle class is worse off financially than it was 30 years ago and continues to be wary of expanding its debt burden, there will be no robust recovery. Germany is presently sliding into recession because of their own refusal to recognize that same dynamic in play in Europe between the various countries.
The shrinking middle class is not the product of some natural force, it is the product of deliberate policy decisions and lobbyist written laws.
(http://danzigercartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/danzcolor5147.jpg)
Quote from: erfalf on May 23, 2012, 04:28:35 PM
PE just gets a bad wrap because they do the things that the companies should have done. In particular in turnaround cases. They do the things that the company should have been doing on their own to keep the company solvent. I understand it is fun to think that all PE firms are like the dude in Pretty Woman (my wife like's this one so...) that just break up companies and sell them off, not all PE is this way. Although sometimes it is, but only when there is a market for said "parts". Maybe it is better, more efficient, to do it this way. They do shut down some parts of companies, but only because they are costing the company, possibly even the livelihood of the company. I can guarantee you that a PE firm would not shut down profitable business for the fun of it. After all, they are in it to make money. Which apparently, according to Obama is not the way a Pres should think. They need to be figuring out how to loose money. :)
SWMBO is also a huge fan of Pretty Woman. Watches it every chance available.
A few years ago, there was a guy called "Chainsaw Al" (Dunlap) who I think must have been the inspiration for the guy in the movie. The difference being, Richard Gere's character actually had a heart, and Al was just a plain old criminal. In addition to raping and pillaging companies, he also instigated massive criminal activity at Sunbeam-Oster.
This is the type view most people get of PE and to lesser degree VC. But to get the needed makeover, there must be a makeover.
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2012, 11:41:57 PM
So you're now left with claiming that businesspeople aren't hiring because their feelings are hurt? How ridiculous can you get? Especially when we've had how many months of job growth despite the continued losses in government jobs dragging down the numbers?
We're not going to see a robust recovery until demand increases. As long as the middle class is worse off financially than it was 30 years ago and continues to be wary of expanding its debt burden, there will be no robust recovery. Germany is presently sliding into recession because of their own refusal to recognize that same dynamic in play in Europe between the various countries.
The shrinking middle class is not the product of some natural force, it is the product of deliberate policy decisions and lobbyist written laws.
Have you missed CEO's explaining that threats of tax increases and Obamacare are weighing heavily on decisions to hire or not to hire? Business doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 24, 2012, 08:24:17 AM
I don't think so. . .I'll say it again. . .21 million employees, $15 trillion in debt, and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Sounds like the U.S. could use Bain!
21 million? Wow, where do you come up with that stuff?
The actual Federal government publishes their personnel data.
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2012, 08:49:58 AM
Have you missed CEO's explaining that threats of tax increases and Obamacare are weighing heavily on decisions to hire or not to hire? Business doesn't exist in a vacuum.
How can anyone have been operating in the vacuum of wondering about tax increases? Even the dimmest bulb in the box cannot have missed that taxes will rise. Must rise. The deficits must go down for any kind of good economic health and that will not happen with spending cuts alone.
If that has not be already factored in, then the decision makers are incompetent.
The real reason companies are putting off hiring is that they know that they can push people to work 10, 12, 14 hours a day for extended periods of time. What has started to happen this year, is that there have become enough alternatives so that people can - and are - leaving those places to go to where they feel they won't be pushed like that. Of course, after the "honeymoon" period, they too will be pushed to longer hours, but eventually there will be enough alternatives so that it will subside to a more normal 50 hour work week....
Quote from: Hoss on May 25, 2012, 07:21:20 AM
(http://danzigercartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/danzcolor5147.jpg)
That is hilarious and points out what I wrote month's ago. His business experience isn't really transferable in a public arena or an international arena.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2012, 08:49:58 AM
Have you missed CEO's explaining that threats of tax increases and Obamacare are weighing heavily on decisions to hire or not to hire? Business doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Yes, actually, I have. There have been a few guys trotted out by the Republicans to make the same stupid claims they've been making for 30 years, but surveys do not show the same concerns.
The top four reasons small businesses are not hiring in the latest Gallup survey:
Don't need any additional employees at this time. (76%)
Worried revenues or sales will not justify new employees (71%)
Worried about the current status of the US economy (66%)
Worried about cash flow or the ability to make payroll (53%)
Health care and regulations (not taxes) are the next two, both below 40%.
If they knew, I suspect "government subsidies for my competitors" would be on the list somewhere also.
FINALLY. Carney explains the Obama distinction between Bain and Solyndra.
Sorry, I meant to add that you needed to hit this first before listening:
(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvTaQohw_AsTAogHbwfNG1-2GiM3m2xB48h9SHoMwjOm9zLKjc)
Obama must have taken a hit off that bong. He seems to forget that Johathan Lavine, one of the directors of Bain helped him raise close to $125K this election. The president is taking money from vulture capitalists he's demonizing in his ads? I can't wait to hear the reach-arounds on this one. Wev? Nathan? TTC?
I predict it goes back to obscure hits on Mormonism on the internet after the Bain angle completely implodes.
QuoteBain employees may have paid for TV ads bashing the company
Posted by
CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash and CNN Congressional Producer Rebecca Stewart
Washington (CNN) – The Obama ads about Bain Capital, the private equity firm Mitt Romney used to run, are harsh.
"They closed it down. They filed for bankruptcy," said a somber former employee of GST steel in a recent Obama campaign ad.
– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
"They're like a vampire. They came in and sucked the life out of us," said another worker testimonial.
The irony is that some of the money to pay for these Obama television ads may have come from inside the very company team Obama is demonizing: Bain Capital.
It turns out employees of Bain Capital have given $124,900 in donations to the Obama campaign this election cycle.
Three of those Bain Capital donors – Mark Nunnelly, Stephen Pagluica and Jonathan Lavine – have given $35,800, the maximum amount allowed by law, to President Barack Obama's re-election efforts.
In the case of Lavine – he didn't just write his own check to the president – he's a bundler, someone who also helps the Obama campaign raise money from others.
$124,900 is a good chunk of change from people who work at a company the Obama campaign and its allies, like pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA, vilify.
"Bain Capital always made money. If we lost, they made money. If we survived they made money. It's as simple as that," said a man standing outside a closed plant, in a Priorities USA television ad.
All of the nearly $125,000 in donations to the Obama campaign from Bain Capital employees were made in 2011 – well before the president's team started accusing Romney of killing jobs while at the venture capital firm.
Still, the Obama campaign told CNN they do not intend to return any campaign cash from Bain Capital employees.
"No one aside from Mitt Romney is running for president highlighting their tenure as a corporate buyout specialist as one of job creation, when in fact, his goal was profit maximization," Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told CNN.
But it begs the question: isn't it hypocritical for the president to keep campaign cash from employees of a company his campaign goes after as job killers?
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz answered that question this way: "Accepting a contribution from a particular person involved in venture capital and criticizing Mitt Romney who has made his record as a venture capitalist at Bain the essential focus of his credibility and qualification for being president are completely different things."
CNN put calls into the Bain Capital employees who donated to the president to ask if they will demand their money back. The calls were not returned.
However, a spokesman for Bain Capital said, "We are not a political organization and take no position on any candidate."
"We celebrate the fact that our employees are active in civic affairs and philanthropy across a range of organizations with various policy and political views," said Bain Capital spokesman Alex Stanton.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/25/bain-employees-may-have-paid-for-tv-ads-bashing-the-company/
Quote from: Conan71 on May 29, 2012, 10:55:34 PM
I predict it goes back to obscure hits on Mormonism on the internet after the Bain angle completely implodes.
Hope so. Nothing would make me happier than dragging religion into the debate with this guy in Obama's past:
Quote from: guido911 on May 29, 2012, 11:02:37 PM
Hope so. Nothing would make me happier than dragging religion into the debate with this guy in Obama's past:
I'll take a Muslim over a Mormon any day. ;D
Figured I put this link to best companies to work for in here...
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-25-best-companies-to-work-for-2012-6#
Quote from: guido911 on June 30, 2012, 06:50:52 PM
Figured I put this link to best companies to work for in here...
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-25-best-companies-to-work-for-2012-6#
Long hours, low pay, politics....... I'm glad I'm near retirement age.
If that's the best America has to offer, we are in DEEP trouble.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 29, 2012, 10:55:34 PM
Obama must have taken a hit off that bong. He seems to forget that Johathan Lavine, one of the directors of Bain helped him raise close to $125K this election. The president is taking money from vulture capitalists he's demonizing in his ads? I can't wait to hear the reach-arounds on this one. Wev? Nathan? TTC?
I don't see the problem? Clearly the folks giving are OK with his campaign pressing the issue or they'd not donate.
(yes, I apparently missed this earlier, I blame the not-yet-consumed rum)
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 30, 2012, 11:24:03 PM
I'm glad I'm near retirement age.
38 is nowhere near retirement age Red.
Quote from: guido911 on July 01, 2012, 03:03:32 PM
38 is nowhere near retirement age Red.
I wish it were. Unfortunately(?), 38 was a long time ago.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 30, 2012, 11:24:03 PM
Long hours, low pay, politics....... I'm glad I'm near retirement age.
If that's the best America has to offer, we are in DEEP trouble.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was in your position/condition?
Been trying to tell you.....very deep trouble.
Had an intern that went to National Instruments after graduation. Everything in that profile is exactly what I heard back from her. Left at about one year.
"What sort of person thinks there is nothing wrong with asking the people tasked with teaching our children to take a 20% cut on a $50,000 salary, but thinks it's a terrible idea to ask millionaires to pay an additional 3% in taxes?"
That is what it all boils down to - the real difference in the Bain Capital philosophy versus the other.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 01, 2012, 09:11:49 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was in your position/condition?
My position is not that great. I won't starve but I will have a difficult time enjoying life if my investments don't pick up a bit. I don't want to retire to just sit in my rocking chair waiting to die. I'd rather keep working.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 01, 2012, 09:27:44 PM
My position is not that great. I won't starve but I will have a difficult time enjoying life if my investments don't pick up a bit. I don't want to retire to just sit in my rocking chair waiting to die. I'd rather keep working.
Then don't stop. If your present company doesn't want you - well, you know what to say to them - find somewhere else. Even the big oil where the VP said anyone over 40 was too old and must go, kept a couple old guys around as tokens to prove they were not discriminating against old people.
M.E....hmm... maybe Conan's company could use some consulting services?
There ought to be enough oil related stuff around here to design something for someone. Maybe even fabricate skids, heat exchangers, etc for someone? I see billboards for John Zink now - but have heard they are kind of 'sweat shop'.
Or maybe we could go into the custom "hippy bus" design/fabrication business together..... loosen you up a little?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 01, 2012, 11:21:37 PM
Then don't stop. If your present company doesn't want you
Whoa, slow down a bit. You may have mis-read what I intended. I am still gainfully employed. My "position not being that great" was referring to not having enough money to retire in a manner to which I would like to become accustomed.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 02, 2012, 07:53:02 AM
Whoa, slow down a bit. You may have mis-read what I intended. I am still gainfully employed. My "position not being that great" was referring to not having enough money to retire in a manner to which I would like to become accustomed.
That's good. You are good to go, then. Still...think about the bus...!
I see where Rupert Murdoch has declared Scientology evil. Talk about the pot calling the kettle....