Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than you do.

[Vast LWC]

Um...how is that like the mafia? I absolutely love it when liberals try analogies. You're HORRIBLE at it. Basically, your analogies are always:

I don't like A

I don't like B

Therefore, A is like B...

Yes, obviously my analogy is simply comparing 2 entities because I don't like them. Obviously.

It couldn't be because venture capital companies have been known to swoop in, "re-structure", and then borrow huge amounts of capital against the asset. A loan which they end up never repaying because they then sell it to the next vulture capitalist, who does the same thing, until the corporation is bankrupt.

Because that's not like what the mafia does to small businesses at all.

No, I guess my analogy was just completely baseless.

 

[kaz]

Bain buys companies, breaks them up, borrows money against them, send their jobs overseas, and then sells them after they've sucked them dry.

They're like the mafia of corporations.

Um...how is that like the mafia? I absolutely love it when liberals try analogies. You're HORRIBLE at it. Basically, your analogies are always:

I don't like A

I don't like B

Therefore, A is like B...

Funny, coming from the guy who calls people "Comrade" because he doesn't like their liberal views.

Hypocrite much?

How is liberal mocking logic and calling a liberal "Comrade" hypocrisy? You might want to Google the term if you don't know what it means. Though this is another example of funny liberal logic, Comrade.

I don't like A

Therefore, A is hypocrisy...

 

[kaz]

Um...how is that like the mafia? I absolutely love it when liberals try analogies. You're HORRIBLE at it. Basically, your analogies are always:

I don't like A

I don't like B

Therefore, A is like B...

Yes, obviously my analogy is simply comparing 2 entities because I don't like them. Obviously.

It couldn't be because venture capital companies have been known to swoop in, "re-structure", and then borrow huge amounts of capital against the asset. A loan which they end up never repaying because they then sell it to the next vulture capitalist, who does the same thing, until the corporation is bankrupt.

Because that's not like what the mafia does to small businesses at all.

No, I guess my analogy was just completely baseless.

One thing you don't know is the difference between "corporate raiders" and venture capitalists. They aren't the same. They're actually the opposite end of the corporate lifecycle. It's like confusing the the grim reaper and the stork.

I do like how your argument is what they've "been known to" do according to liberal lawyers who are manipulating you for their own personal power. My background BTW is specifically business. Half my career in GE management and the other half in management consulting. I have no objection to liberals not knowing things that are out of your domain. What's disappointing though is that you just mindlessly repeat what some lawyer tells you without questioning them or asking questions of people who do know what they are talking about.

If you had any intellectual curiosity about what Romney did, this is your chance to ask questions and learn. But that's not going to happen, is it? Liberal lawyers have told you what to say, and you're going to say it.

 

[RDD_1210]

Um...how is that like the mafia? I absolutely love it when liberals try analogies. You're HORRIBLE at it. Basically, your analogies are always:

I don't like A

I don't like B

Therefore, A is like B...

Funny, coming from the guy who calls people "Comrade" because he doesn't like their liberal views.

Hypocrite much?

How is liberal mocking logic and calling a liberal "Comrade" hypocrisy? You might want to Google the term if you don't know what it means. Though this is another example of funny liberal logic, Comrade.

I don't like A

Therefore, A is hypocrisy...

Hmm, So you don't like liberals and you don't like Commies, So they must be the same thing. I got it now.

It's ok for you to do it, but no one else can make analogies you don't like. Waaaaaah cries the baby.

 

[Katzndogz]

Who pays more in taxes? Someone paying 35% and gets deductions or someone who pays 15% and isn't entitled to any deductions.

 

[Chris]

Who pays more in taxes? Someone paying 35% and gets deductions or someone who pays 15% and isn't entitled to any deductions.

The 15%.

 

[Chris]

 

[Chris]

 

[Vast LWC]

Wow, you make some serious assumptions about the people you are speaking with. That's a bad habit. You should learn to not do it.

Apparently you are the one who's confused.

Are you saying a venture capitalist cannot be a corporate raider?

 

[kaz]

Wow, you make some serious assumptions about the people you are speaking with. That's a bad habit. You should learn to not do it.

Going by the quality of the content you're providing's pretty clearly not an "assumption."

Apparently you are the one who's confused.

Are you saying a venture capitalist cannot be a corporate raider?

Before you called corporate raiders venture capitalists. Now you're saying am I saying they "can't" be. A completely different standard. Is it theoretically possible that a venture capitalist could as part of their investment eat the carcass of a dying company? Sure, every deal is different. Does it happen very often? No.

Venture capitalists are fundamentally different then corporate raiders in what they do. But every deal is different. So when you change the standard to "can't be," I refer you to that you just again to the lack of content that my points are based on are not "assumptions." And as I pointed out you're far more interested in spinning what liberal lawyers tell you then actually understanding what you're talking about.

 

[kaz]

Who pays more in taxes? Someone paying 35% and gets deductions or someone who pays 15% and isn't entitled to any deductions.

The 15%.

Clearly you don't have the information to answer that from the information presented, so you're giving the political answer. The rates aren't even defined. Are we talking about marginal rates or effective rates?

 

[kaz]

The top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of all income taxes and the top 0.1% pay 22% of all income taxes. How much is enough for you, Chris?

 

[g5000]

All these topics about Mitt's 15 percent capital gains taxes are cracking me up.

We wouldn't even be talking about this if Barack Gingrich hadn't brought it up. And now look at all of the White Obama's friends attacking the low capital gains rate!

Well done, Newt! Well done.

Can someone PLEASE tell me why the GOP has not run this man out of town?

 

[Vast LWC]

Before you called corporate raiders venture capitalists. Now you're saying am I saying they "can't" be. A completely different standard. Is it theoretically possible that a venture capitalist could as part of their investment eat the carcass of a dying company? Sure, every deal is different. Does it happen very often? No.

Venture capitalists are fundamentally different then corporate raiders in what they do. But every deal is different. So when you change the standard to "can't be," I refer you to that you just again to the lack of content that my points are based on are not "assumptions." And as I pointed out you're far more interested in spinning what liberal lawyers tell you then actually understanding what you're talking about.

Bain Capital is made up of both "Bain Capital Ventures" and "Bain Capital Private Equity", as well as several other subsidiaries.

http://www.baincapital.com/

Since we're defining terms, this is from the definition of "Private Equity" from investopedia:

Many private equity firms conduct what are known as leveraged buyouts (LBOs), where large amounts of debt are issued to fund a large purchase. Private equity firms will then try to improve the financial results and prospects of the company in the hope of reselling the company to another firm or cashing out via an IPO.

Read more: Private Equity Definition | Investopedia

Now, tell me, does this basically fit the description that I posted previously?

And is Bain Capital not considered a primarily "Venture Capital" firm?

 

[Vast LWC]

And to get more specific, the Wall Street Journal reported:

that Bain in the Romney era differed from many equity firms in buying more young and thus riskier companies. This contributed to a higher rate of bankruptcy or closure—22%—for companies held by Bain after eight years.

Admittedly, Bain did have many successes, Like Staples, but here's another interesting tidbit from the WSJ:

The tougher questions for Mr. Romney involve the cases in which Bain took early payouts in dividends and management fees after purchasing existing businesses that ultimately went bankrupt. There are several in this category, including another steel company called GSI, though its hundreds of job losses were far fewer than the jobs created at Steel Dynamics.

Notice I intentionally chose an extremely pro-business, right-wing media source to make sure there were no accusations of "Liberal Bias".

Review & Outlook: The Bain Capital Bonfire - WSJ.com

 

[g5000]

Notice I intentionally chose an extremely pro-business, right-wing media source to make sure there were no accusations of "Liberal Bias".

Review & Outlook: The Bain Capital Bonfire - WSJ.com

From the article:

Certainly Bain Capital made sure that its investment partners were paid first, but the larger truth is that the invisible hand worked pretty well.

 

[Vast LWC]

From the article:

Certainly Bain Capital made sure that its investment partners were paid first, but the larger truth is that the invisible hand worked pretty well.

Yes, but the WSJ would say that, wouldn't they?

And so what if it's investment partners were paid first? The company itself still went belly-up, with Bain and their partners taking a big chunk of the cash before bankruptcy, in all probability with funds that were leveraged against the company.

My point is that even the WSJ knows that Bain has an image problem in the exact way I was referring to.

 

[Vast LWC]

And though I have full respect for the Wiki blackout today, let me tell you how difficult writing those posts were without using Wiki. LOL.

 

[kaz]

Many private equity firms conduct what are known as leveraged buyouts (LBOs), where large amounts of debt are issued to fund a large purchase

Again, you're interested in spinning what you said, not understanding it. Here's a quote you said before.

It couldn't be because venture capital companies have been known to swoop in, "re-structure", and then borrow huge amounts of capital against the asset.

You were mixing private equity, aka corporate raiders and venture capital firms. That's what I pointed out. Now you're saying Bain did both. I wasn't arguing Bain, I was pointing out you mixing the terms, you still aren't showing that you're clear the difference. Again, analogy (not a liberal one, a real one). Corporate Raider is like the Grim Reaper, Venture Capital is like the stork. They both use extreme finance. I'm not saying they are unrelated. But you're using the terms interchangeably and no, they aren't the same.

 

[kaz]

And so what if it's investment partners were paid first? The company itself still went belly-up, with Bain and their partners taking a big chunk of the cash before bankruptcy, in all probability with funds that were leveraged against the company.

That's what debt covenants are for. This is a wild accusation. Are you saying they didn't follow the debt covenants? Are you saying the debt holders were incompetent and hadn't protected themselves? Debt holders are pretty sophisticated, you can't just come in and take the cash. Be more specific what you're accusing them of rather then just saying things that sound bad but don't have any specific meaning.