Apparently Sensata was profitable, but not profitable enough for Bain:
Yeah, Romney left. He still makes money off of this stuff due to his existing investment in Bain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjoMQJf5vKI
I think it is fairly relevant.
If Romney says "China is a cheater in the global economy", then how come he personally invests in Chinese companies?
The answer is that Mitt's brain separates actions and words into things he says and business things.
This is one of them bidness things.
Quote from: guido911 on October 13, 2012, 08:48:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjoMQJf5vKI
That horse ain't dead yet, friend. It's being killed right before our eyes. God forbid someone step in and stop it, that would be the soshulism.
Still, as it has been for over 100 years...to Democrats, low wages are the problem. To Republicans, low wages are the answer.
(http://www.trekbbs.com/image.php?u=638&dateline=1349101376)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 13, 2012, 08:56:09 PM
I think it is fairly relevant.
If Romney says "China is a cheater in the global economy", then how come he personally invests in Chinese companies?
The answer is that Mitt's brain separates actions and words into things he says and business things.
This is one of them bidness things.
Yes, but it fools most the people most the time and that's scary.
Quote from: guido911 on October 13, 2012, 11:42:14 PM
(http://www.trekbbs.com/image.php?u=638&dateline=1349101376)
Go to Kolob, Guido!
Quote from: guido911 on October 13, 2012, 11:42:14 PM
(http://www.trekbbs.com/image.php?u=638&dateline=1349101376)
Oh noes, the Romneybot is going to get me!
Wow, so pointing out the 'shortfalls' of Bain's business model is now beating a dead horse? This video puts a real face on what Bain is doing, and the Rs are going batshit crazy over it.
Not a surprising comeback however, from the Gweed. When he has none, he resorts to graphics and videos.
Quote from: Hoss on October 14, 2012, 07:30:12 AM
Wow, so pointing out the 'shortfalls' of Bain's business model is now beating a dead horse? This video puts a real face on what Bain is doing, and the Rs are going batshit crazy over it.
Not a surprising comeback however, from the Gweed. When he has none, he resorts to graphics and videos.
What is kind of surprising, is how those "non-comeback" comebacks are from someone who would supposedly be very good at 'debate', being a lawyer and all - going to court should actually hone those skills shouldn't it?
Bain is just boring to me and just screams desperation. This "story" began at least three months ago, while I also read that the sale that resulted in this outsource took place in 2010. Where was the outrage back then? Nowhere because it wasn't close enough to the election for people to try to blow it up. So get over yourselves. Second, if the concern is layoffs and lost jobs, please direct me to your outrage over the green job losses caused by this president--who actually was in charge when those jobs went Dodo (as opposed to Romney).
Quote from: guido911 on October 14, 2012, 03:33:55 PM
Bain is just boring to me and just screams desperation. This "story" began at least three months ago, while I also read that the sale that resulted in this outsource took place in 2010. Where was the outrage back then? Nowhere because it wasn't close enough to the election for people to try to blow it up. So get over yourselves. Second, if the concern is layoffs and lost jobs, please direct me to your outrage over the green job losses caused by this president--who actually was in charge when those jobs went Dodo (as opposed to Romney).
I am definitely as outraged by that as I am those caused by Romney, Bush, and the others. We are talking outrage over 2 (green) versus outrage over 100.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 14, 2012, 04:19:54 PM
I am definitely as outraged by that as I am those caused by Romney, Bush, and the others. We are talking outrage over 2 (green) versus outrage over 100.
"2 green"? What does that mean? Solyndra was 1100 jobs and millions of dollars lost by itself. Also, not really concerned about 170 jobs in Freeport, IL, a town I dare say many in this forum never heard of until they got their DailyKos memo. In fact, no one would give a crap about these workers if it had zero connection to Romney. So please folks, don't give me this BS outrage about people you normally would not give two liquid bummers about if this were any other day.
I don't disagree that most Americans wouldn't know about Bain and their history of outsourcing jobs and closing companies for management fees. But we should care.
Your disdain for anyone who posts negatives about Romney belittles your status. I think you are a strong poster who backs up your opinions with well thought out reasons. But then you cancel that with your contempt for anyone who disagrees with you. Just because Romney's business history is boring to you doesn't make it any less important to me.
Bain Capital helps define Romney. He has made his business experience a backbone of his campaign. It is logical that it would also be a backbone of those who don't like him. You critized me for bringing up his abuse of his dog and his bully tactics as a young man. You argued against the discussion of his securing bailouts of the Olympics. Now you say we bore you when we talk about his business career.
Get over it. You are supporting a deeply flawed candidate. Your boredom expresses your attitude toward others who don't agree with you, not the topic they are discussing.
If it is appropriate to attack Romney over a company he has investment capital in (Bain) which has a business that is outsourcing jobs, it is likewise appropriate for companies to tell its employees that if you vote for Obama the company might close or the employees might lose their jobs?
Here is one of those business leaders recent letters on this issue:
QuoteI am already heavily involved in considering options that make our independence go away, and with that all of our lives would change forever. I believe that a new President and administration would give US citizens and the world the renewed confidence and optimism we all need to get the global economies started again, and give ASG a chance to stay independent. If we fail as a nation to make the right choice on November 6th, and we lose our independence as a company, I don't want to hear any complaints regarding the fallout that will most likely come.
[
Emphasis added].
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/14/arthur-allen-romney-email_n_1963965.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
Quote from: guido911 on October 14, 2012, 05:16:58 PM
"2 green"? What does that mean? Solyndra was 1100 jobs and millions of dollars lost by itself. Also, not really concerned about 170 jobs in Freeport, IL, a town I dare say many in this forum never heard of until they got their DailyKos memo.
Did Obama or a company he holds a significant part of the equity in close Solyndra and ship the jobs overseas? If not, that's got love all to do with the topic of this thread. Try and focus.
Quote
In fact, no one would give a crap about these workers if it had zero connection to Romney.
Speak for yourself, bucko.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 14, 2012, 05:42:27 PM
I don't disagree that most Americans wouldn't know about Bain and their history of outsourcing jobs and closing companies for management fees. But we should care.
Your disdain for anyone who posts negatives about Romney belittles your status. I think you are a strong poster who backs up your opinions with well thought out reasons. But then you cancel that with your contempt for anyone who disagrees with you. Just because Romney's business history is boring to you doesn't make it any less important to me.
Bain Capital helps define Romney. He has made his business experience a backbone of his campaign. It is logical that it would also be a backbone of those who don't like him. You critized me for bringing up his abuse of his dog and his bully tactics as a young man. You argued against the discussion of his securing bailouts of the Olympics. Now you say we bore you when we talk about his business career.
Get over it. You are supporting a deeply flawed candidate. Your boredom expresses your attitude toward others who don't agree with you, not the topic they are discussing.
Are you kidding me RM? I am not a huge Romney fan, but I am more nOBAMA. Obama had ZERO experience in any business enterprise prior to election, and his record since election sucks. So out comes the stones in glass houses barrage arguments against Romney.
And of ALL people to complain about candidate bias, you complaining about it is surprising. How many anti-Romney threads have you started? Better yet, how many anti-Obama threads have you started (this election cycle)? After you contemplate that, then talk about disdain for candidates.
Quote from: guido911 on October 14, 2012, 05:58:16 PM
Obama had ZERO experience in any business enterprise prior to election, and his record since election sucks.
That's a lie.
I can't find the "holy smile Romney says such stupid things" thread, so I'll leave this nugget here:
Quote
Regulation. We must reduce the power of unaccountable regulators by
requiring that all major regulations receive congressional approval
Um, does he not realize that all regulation requires implicit Congressional approval? That Congress approves by passing a law delegating some power or another to the executive branch and not specifying all the details? That Congress is free to override any regulations put in place by the executive at the time of their choosing?
Quote
Trade. We must open new markets for American businesses and workers. I
will create a Reagan Economic Zone encompassing nations committed to
the principles of free enterprise.
"Reagan" Economic Zone? ::)
In other words, he wants to ship more jobs overseas. Good to know.
Quote from: nathanm on October 14, 2012, 05:50:39 PM
Did Obama or a company he holds a significant part of the equity in close Solyndra and ship the jobs overseas? If not, that's got love all to do with the topic of this thread. Try and focus.
Speak for yourself, bucko.
Nope. Only a little know Tulsan that was a major Obama donor had the connection Solyndra--but that's okay I guess. ::). I wonder where are all the former Solyndra employees begging Kaiser or Obama for help. And I always speak for myself, but good to know Nate cares about a small Illinois town up near Wisconsin.
Quote from: guido911 on October 14, 2012, 06:42:53 PM
Nope. Only a little know Tulsan that was a major Obama donor had the connection Solyndra--but that's okay I guess. ::). I wonder where are all the former Solyndra employees begging Kaiser or Obama for help.
Do you have any proof that Kaiser ever lobbied for the money? Oh, right, you don't, you actually have emails from him stating that no, he would not do that. Not that it has anything to do with the topic at hand.
Quote
And I always speak for myself, but good to know Nate cares about a small Illinois town up near Wisconsin.
I care less about the small town itself and more about the continued shipping of jobs overseas even when the business is profitable with production in the US.
Quote from: guido911 on October 14, 2012, 05:16:58 PM
"2 green"? What does that mean? Solyndra was 1100 jobs and millions of dollars lost by itself. Also, not really concerned about 170 jobs in Freeport, IL, a town I dare say many in this forum never heard of until they got their DailyKos memo. In fact, no one would give a crap about these workers if it had zero connection to Romney. So please folks, don't give me this BS outrage about people you normally would not give two liquid bummers about if this were any other day.
2 to 100. Green jobs to Bush Fail jobs. And past Romney loss. The ratio may be way off, since Solyndra loss 1100, while the Bain job losses were about what, 175,000 or so?
It's a lot like looking at the money lost $500 million versus how many tens of billions? How may 'green' jobs lost - many thousands ? - versus hundreds of thousands. Ya gotta have a sense of proportion....
I'm concerned about any American job lost (except for the golden parachute people) - and if you talked to my friends and family, you would hear about the decades of talking at them about buying their foreign cars and costing American jobs. And every other product that used to be made in this country.
Quote from: guido911 on October 14, 2012, 05:49:35 PM
If it is appropriate to attack Romney over a company he has investment capital in (Bain) which has a business that is outsourcing jobs, it is likewise appropriate for companies to tell its employees that if you vote for Obama the company might close or the employees might lose their jobs?
Trying to deflect again. Poorly.
There IS a huge difference between "having investment capital in" and owning and being CEO with the proven, demonstrated program to eliminate jobs here by shipping them overseas. I bet we could get India to provide all the legal services we could possibly need - at dramatically lower rates.
Quote from: guido911 on October 14, 2012, 05:58:16 PM
Obama had ZERO experience in any business enterprise prior to election
Once again you are wrong.
He was a lawyer in private practice for eleven years. He was a published and successful author. He founded and served as president of the board of a public education non-profit.
You act as if he went from community organizer to President of the United States.
Want to talk about job loss? 500,000 government workers have lost their jobs since Obama took office. Might as well call him "Chainsaw Barry"
QuoteLittle known or distributed fact: President Obama is a government job slayer. That's right. When compared to both GW Bush and Bill Clinton, President Obama is absolutely crushing the size of the government workforce. While Presidents Bush and Clinton added well over 500,000 government jobs during their first terms, President Obama has cut more than 500,000.
For anyone who remembers the early Clinton and Bush years there was a great deal of decent employment data and the government workforce played a big role in those economic expansions. But as this morning's employment data showed, that positive effect is absent from this "recovery".
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-the-government-jobs-slayer-2012-7#ixzz29Nbmfl2K
Kind of funny that only now overseas investment seems to be demonized. We have a federal agency which encourages it and actually lends money to companies seeking to do business outside the U.S.
QuoteThe Overseas Private Investment Corporation is a self-sustaining Federal agency whose purpose is to promote economic growth in developing countries and emerging markets by encouraging U.S. private investment in those nations.
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) was established in 1971 as an independent agency by the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (112 Stat. 2681-790). OPIC helps U.S. businesses invest overseas, fosters economic development in new and emerging markets, complements the private sector in managing risks associated with foreign direct investment, and supports U.S. foreign policy. OPIC charges market-based fees for its products, and it operates on a self-sustaining basis at no net cost to taxpayers.
OPIC helps U.S. businesses compete in emerging markets when private sector support is not available. OPIC offers up to $250 million in long-term financing and/or political risk insurance to U.S. companies investing in over 150 emerging markets and developing countries. Backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, OPIC advocates for U.S. investment, offers experience in risk management, and draws on an outstanding record of success.
OPIC mobilizes America's private sector to advance U.S. foreign policy and development initiatives. Projects supported by OPIC expand economic development, which encourages political stability and free market reforms. Over the agency's 35 year history, OPIC has supported $177 billion worth of investments that have helped developing countries to generate over $13 billion in host government revenues and create over 800,000 host country jobs. OPIC projects have also generated $71 billion in U.S. exports and supported more than 271,000 American jobs. OPIC promotes U.S. best practices by requiring projects to adhere to international standards on the environment, worker rights, and human rights.
https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/overseas-private-investment-corporation
The Obama campaign got four Pinnochios from the Wa-Po for mischaracterizing Romney as a corporate raider and outsourcer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-obamas-newest-anti-romney-ad/2012/06/20/gJQAGux6qV_blog.html
And since he's been president, 30% of the Obama's income has been from foreign sources, according to his own tax returns. Sounds pretty hypocritical to go after Romney for foreign investment, doesn't it?
QuoteOver 30% of President Obama's 2009-2011 Gross Income Came From Foreign Sources
Jim Lindgren • July 13, 2012 4:02 am
I find it strange that the Obama campaign would be making so much of Romney's income from foreign sources when Obama's foreign source income appears to be a much bigger percentage of his income over the last few years. Of course, one can't tell for sure because Mitt Romney has not released his 2009 tax return.
Yet in the three tax years in which Barack Obama has been President (2009, 2010, and 2011), fully 30.1% of the Obamas' gross income has come from foreign sources: ($2,711,340 out of a 3-year total gross income of $8,993,449). In 2009, 26.5% of the Obamas' gross income came from foreign sources. In 2010 it was a whopping 41.4%, and in 2010 it was 30.2%.
The salary that we taxpayers pay him as President (just under $1.2 million over the 3 years) accounted for less than 13% of the Obamas' income, a share dwarfed by their 30% from foreign sources over the same period.
From 2009 through 2011, the Obamas paid $87,429 in foreign taxes, which they applied toward a credit to reduce their U.S. tax bill. The amounts I examined are reported on Form 1116, of which there are two filed along with their 1040 when they had both general and passive foreign income.
Their returns do not disclose which foreign countries are responsible for paying the Obamas the $2.7 million in foreign source income, but the overwhelming bulk of it must come from payments resulting directly or indirectly from book sales. Nonetheless, the Obamas did report a total of $3,611 in foreign passive income in 2009 and 2010, a type of income that most often results from investments in foreign countries. Like some of the foreign investments for which Romney has been pilloried, this Obama passive foreign income might result from the foreign investments of U.S. financial entities in which the Obamas invested. [See update below; the passive income indeed came from the foreign investments of a U.S. entity in which the Obama's had an interest (Michelle Obama in a beneficiary), but it is not one over which they had any control over the investments.]
http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/13/over-30-of-president-obamas-2009-2011-gross-income-came-from-foreign-sources/
Going after Bain is a lost cause. First off, Romney is twenty years removed from it. From that perspective you could pound on Obama for any hazy things his previous law firm has been doing recently. It's irrelevant. Second, is there a single shred of evidence that proves that Bain was the instigator in shipping jobs or firing people? Third, Bain is no more threatening that the small business bank loaning money to businesses. They are partners, not adversaries, just on a generally larger scale.
Are there practices that PE has that are a little unsavory, sure. Are there policies that bankers use that are unfair, you bet. But it is not the bankers/PE guys fault that politicians made it perfectly legal for them to do them. Besides, it's business. I think it's insane that pay day loan and furniture rental places charge confiscatory rates to people that really can't afford it, but you know what, they offer a service that those idiots are willing to pay for. There's something to be said about that.
Edit: On my first point, that actually does occur, with ACORN. See how stupid it looks to try to tie Obama to the current manifestation of ACORN.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2012, 10:31:32 AM
Want to talk about job loss? 500,000 government workers have lost their jobs since Obama took office. Might as well call him "Chainsaw Barry"
Completely true. Not really Obama's fault. (The stimulus temporarily preserved those jobs and he keeps asking Congress to do more, but they refuse)
Quote
And since he's been president, 30% of the Obama's income has been from foreign sources, according to his own tax returns. Sounds pretty hypocritical to go after Romney for foreign investment, doesn't it?
Seems to be a difference to me between book sales and offshoring factory jobs.
erfalf, Romney isn't terribly removed from all this. Most of his income comes from Bain to this day.
David Stockman has an interesting article in Newsweek:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html
Quote
During a period of rising markets, expanding valuation multiples, and abundant credit, the opportunity to "average up" the home runs with the 1X losses is considerable; it can generate a spectacular portfolio outcome.
In a nutshell, that's the story of Bain Capital during Mitt Romney's tenure. The Wall Street Journal examined 77 significant deals completed during that period based on fundraising documents from Bain, and the results are a perfect illustration of bull-market asymmetry. Overall, Bain generated an impressive $2.5 billion in investor gains on $1.1 billion in investments. But 10 of Bain's deals accounted for 75 percent of the investor profits.
Accordingly, Bain's returns on the overwhelming bulk of the deals—67 out of 77—were actually lower than what a passive S&P 500 indexer would have earned even without the risk of leverage or paying all the private-equity fees. Investor profits amounted to a prosaic 0.7X the original investment on these deals and, based on its average five-year holding period, the annual return would have computed to about 12 percent—well below the 17 percent average return on the S&P in this period.
Yes erfalf, you know how it works, but a lot of people don't. They assume that his excellent financial performance means he rarely had a deal go south on him.
Quote from: nathanm on October 15, 2012, 02:02:34 PM
Completely true. Not really Obama's fault. (The stimulus temporarily preserved those jobs and he keeps asking Congress to do more, but they refuse)
Seems to be a difference to me between book sales and offshoring factory jobs.
erfalf, Romney isn't terribly removed from all this. Most of his income comes from Bain to this day.
Then do we get to criticize Obama for any more that GE makes? I'm sure he get's some income from them. Just for kicks, why don't you become an investor in a PE firm and try to tell them what to do at the board meeting. Please make a video for me. I know how it will go. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on October 15, 2012, 02:21:29 PM
David Stockman has an interesting article in Newsweek:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html
Yes erfalf, you know how it works, but a lot of people don't. They assume that his excellent financial performance means he rarely had a deal go south on him.
Yes, in a normal portfolio of investments about 20% you loose your shirt, 50% you get your money back. 25% you may double your money, and 5% is the home run. That formula has somehow outperformed the S&P for decades now.
PE is what it is. It is financing. Stockman wants to go after Romney for not being a job creator, but I would say, if Romney isn't, who is. The proprietor/business owner is in it to make money too, therefore he/she isn't a job creator if said business hires people? Where does it end?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 14, 2012, 09:37:45 PM
Once again you are wrong.
He was a lawyer in private practice for eleven years. He was a published and successful author. He founded and served as president of the board of a public education non-profit.
You act as if he went from community organizer to President of the United States.
Are you freakin kidding me? I am a lawyer and I do not run around claiming to have business experience. Writing a book? Being a member of a non-profit board? Are you seriously making the case that those are qualifications akin to business experience? Wow. Of course, that would explain why you will vote for the guy..
Below is the start of a fairly long article. I have been unable to finish it yet.
Mitt Romney: The Great Deformer
Is Romney really a job creator? Ronald Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, takes a scalpel to the claims.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html)
QuoteBain Capital is a product of the Great Deformation. It has garnered fabulous winnings through leveraged speculation in financial markets that have been perverted and deformed by decades of money printing and Wall Street coddling by the Fed. So Bain's billions of profits were not rewards for capitalist creation; they were mainly windfalls collected from gambling in markets that were rigged to rise.
Nevertheless, Mitt Romney claims that his essential qualification to be president is grounded in his 15 years as head of Bain Capital, from 1984 through early 1999. According to the campaign's narrative, it was then that he became immersed in the toils of business enterprise, learning along the way the true secrets of how to grow the economy and create jobs. The fact that Bain's returns reputedly averaged more than 50 percent annually during this period is purportedly proof of the case—real-world validation that Romney not only was a striking business success but also has been uniquely trained and seasoned for the task of restarting the nation's sputtering engines of capitalism.
Except Mitt Romney was not a businessman; he was a master financial speculator who bought, sold, flipped, and stripped businesses. He did not build enterprises the old-fashioned way—out of inspiration, perspiration, and a long slog in the free market fostering a new product, service, or process of production. Instead, he spent his 15 years raising debt in prodigious amounts on Wall Street so that Bain could purchase the pots and pans and castoffs of corporate America, leverage them to the hilt, gussy them up as reborn "roll-ups," and then deliver them back to Wall Street for resale—the faster the better.
That is the modus operandi of the leveraged-buyout business, and in an honest free-market economy, there wouldn't be much scope for it because it creates little of economic value. But we have a rigged system—a regime of crony capitalism—where the tax code heavily favors debt and capital gains, and the central bank purposefully enables rampant speculation by propping up the price of financial assets and battering down the cost of leveraged finance.
So the vast outpouring of LBOs in recent decades has been the consequence of bad policy, not the product of capitalist enterprise. I know this from 17 years of experience doing leveraged buyouts at one of the pioneering private-equity houses, Blackstone, and then my own firm. I know the pitfalls of private equity. The whole business was about maximizing debt, extracting cash, cutting head counts, skimping on capital spending, outsourcing production, and dressing up the deal for the earliest, highest-profit exit possible. Occasionally, we did invest in genuine growth companies, but without cheap debt and deep tax subsidies, most deals would not make economic sense.
In truth, LBOs are capitalism's natural undertakers—vulture investors who feed on failing businesses. Due to bad policy, however, they have now become monsters of the financial midway that strip-mine cash from healthy businesses and recycle it mostly to the top 1 percent.
The waxing and waning of the artificially swollen LBO business has been perfectly correlated with the bubbles and busts emanating from the Fed—so timing is the heart of the business. In that respect, Romney's tenure says it all: it was almost exactly coterminous with the first great Greenspan bubble, which crested at the turn of the century and ended in the thundering stock-market crash of 2000-02. The credentials that Romney proffers as evidence of his business acumen, in fact, mainly show that he hung around the basket during the greatest bull market in recorded history.
Needless to say, having a trader's facility for knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em has virtually nothing to do with rectifying the massive fiscal hemorrhage and debt-burdened private economy that are the real issues before the American electorate. Indeed, the next president's overriding task is restoring national solvency—an undertaking that will involve immense societywide pain, sacrifice, and denial and that will therefore require "fairness" as a defining principle. And that's why heralding Romney's record at Bain is so completely perverse. The record is actually all about the utter unfairness of windfall riches obtained under our anti-free market regime of bubble finance.
This is what you wrote...
"Obama had ZERO experience in any business enterprise prior to election"
Lawyering ain't a business enterprise? Writing a book ain't a business? Even the non-profit is call a "non-profit" business.
Maybe the word ZERO is where you got confused. Maybe numbers are not your strength.
There are tons of lawyers who make millions knowing the business law and paying little mind to the actual making of widgets.
Some lawyers are well disciplined....
The United Way realized that it had never received
a donation from the city's most successful lawyer. So a
United Way volunteer paid the lawyer a visit in his lavish
office.
The volunteer opened the meeting by saying,
'Our research shows that even though your annual income
is over two million dollars, you don't give a penny to
charity. Wouldn't you like to give something back to
your community through the United Way?'
The lawyer thinks for a minute and says,
'First, did your research also show you that my mother
is dying after a long, painful illness and she has huge
medical bills that are far beyond her ability to pay?'
Embarrassed, the United Way rep mumbles, 'Uh...
no, I didn't know that.'
'Secondly,' says the lawyer, ' did it
show that my brother, a disabled veteran, is blind and
confined to a wheelchair and is unable to support his wife
and six children?
The stricken United Way rep begins to stammer an
apology, but is cut off again.
'Thirdly, did your research also show you that
my sister's husband died in dreadful car accident,
leaving her penniless with a mortgage and three children,
one of whom is disabled and another that has learning
disabilities requiring an array of private tutors?'
The humiliated United Way rep, completely beaten,
says, 'I'm so sorry, I had no idea.'
And the lawyer says, 'So... if I didn't
give any money to them, what makes you think I'd give
any to you?
Quote from: Townsend on October 15, 2012, 03:03:05 PM
Below is the start of a fairly long article. I have been unable to finish it yet.
Mitt Romney: The Great Deformer
Is Romney really a job creator? Ronald Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, takes a scalpel to the claims.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html)
JMO, someone who invests in businesses and risks millions upon millions of dollars on a business you think would have a darn good grasp on how business works as well as getting to know the business model of those he invests in or purchases. I'd think it would also require a pretty good understanding of how government regs and issues in the economy would impact said businesses.
I find it seriously hilarious that there is so little to tout as a success in Obama's record as president that they need to keep picking away at Bain.
It's even a stretch to claim Obama's shining moment as a success: Obamacare. The mid-term election in 2010 and the rise of the Tea Party was every bit a referendum on Americans being PO'd at the way Obamacare was shoved down their throats.
Not blasting back at you so much as this seemed like a logical place to interject.
Obama is a successful author though. Hopefully, he will have plenty of time to start working on his memoirs and presidential library starting in late January.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2012, 04:02:02 PM
JMO, someone who invests in businesses and risks millions upon millions of dollars on a business you think would have a darn good grasp on how business works as well as getting to know the business model of those he invests in or purchases. I'd think it would also require a pretty good understanding of how government regs and issues in the economy would impact said businesses.
I find it seriously hilarious that there is so little to tout as a success in Obama's record as president that they need to keep picking away at Bain.
It's even a stretch to claim Obama's shining moment as a success: Obamacare. The mid-term election in 2010 and the rise of the Tea Party was every bit a referendum on Americans being PO'd at the way Obamacare was shoved down their throats.
Not blasting back at you so much as this seemed like a logical place to interject.
Obama is a successful author though. Hopefully, he will have plenty of time to start working on his memoirs and presidential library starting in late January 2017.
FIFY.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2012, 04:02:02 PM
JMO, someone who invests in businesses and risks millions upon millions of dollars on a business you think would have a darn good grasp on how business works as well as getting to know the business model of those he invests in or purchases. I'd think it would also require a pretty good understanding of how government regs and issues in the economy would impact said businesses.
That may be true, but he clearly has no grasp on how government works. One only need to look at his approval ratings in Massachusetts to see that.
Quote from: nathanm on October 15, 2012, 04:53:55 PM
That may be true, but he clearly has no grasp on how government works. One only need to look at his approval ratings in Massachusetts to see that.
The guy had a 56% approval rating the day he took office. Something tells me he wasn't going to get a fair shake from the get go.
However if we are going to use approval ratings as a borometer, here goes:
Obama Romney
Approval/Disapprove Day 1: 65%/15% 56%/23%
Approval/Disapprove Year 1: 49%/44% 58%/40%
Approval/Disapprove End: 48%/47% 39%/59%
% Change
Approval/Disapprove Year 1: (25%)/193% 4%/74%
Approval/Disapprove End: (26%)/213% (30%)/157%
Looks like it's neck and neck, it that is your gauge. Obama just seemed to piss them off faster.
Quote from: erfalf on October 15, 2012, 05:25:30 PM
The guy had a 56% approval rating the day he took office. Something tells me he wasn't going to get a fair shake from the get go.
Perhaps not, but his ending approval ratings are dismal compared to Obama's basically 50-50 at this point. To some degree, Obama's approval ratings are irrelevant on a personal level when making a decision as to who to vote for. Obama has been President for the last four years, so you have your own sense of him and your own approval/disapproval to use to make the decision. Romney, on the other hand, has not been President, so it is instructive to take that into account. How much weight you give it is a matter of personal preference, of course.
I like these:
(http://farm9.static.flickr.com/8457/8073534547_8b6e09cf0b.jpg)
(http://www.economicnoise.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/bainbaneimage.gif)
Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2012, 10:31:32 AM
Want to talk about job loss? 500,000 government workers have lost their jobs since Obama took office. Might as well call him "Chainsaw Barry"
State and local governments - many of them teachers!
Actual Federal government jobs that actually has some small relevance to Obama's administration - increase of 149,000. Which is probably gonna be your next complaint....
70% success rate? That's significantly overstated.
The article posted on Bain is a terrific piece on leveraged buyouts. Romney made money in business, that is for damn sure. But arguing it created jobs is a losing argument. He was essentially the guy from pretty woman.
Not blaming Romney, he just exploited the system and used his connections to cash in. But most of the "big winners" Bain handled saw job losses or went bankrupt after Bain used them for whatever purpose. The model that makes this behavior the norm is the problem (artificial cheap capital, preference for cap gains over work, privatizing gains wile socializing losses).
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 16, 2012, 01:29:01 PM
The article posted on Bain is a terrific piece on leveraged buyouts. Romney made money in business, that is for damn sure. But arguing it created jobs is a losing argument. He was essentially the guy from pretty woman.
Are you saying he's Jason Alexander's character or that he married a hooker?