Rolling Stone Exposes Bain and Romney...

[JoeB131]

If I hate someone, they probably did something fairly fucked up...

Destroying my country, the country I served for 11 years with honor and distinction, yeah, that's pretty fucked up.

Now, hey, I'm fair guy, and frankly, I totally get people make mistakes. But then they should atone for them.

What has Wall Street done to atone?

THey fucked it up, they got their bailouts on the backs of the rest of us, they took their bonuses, and now they are sitting on fat piles of cash until after the election on the hope they can help Obama lose.

 

[BillyV]

i guess i'm having a hard time why you are upset when some welfare queen gets hundreds and romney takes millions from the taxpayer.

So if the larceny is over a certain level, you're good with it?

there isnt any truth to your words..........

So you think Welfare for the Rich is good, then?

I'm just trying to clarify this..

But the way Romney most directly owes his success to the government is through the structure of the tax code. The entire business of leveraged buyouts wouldn't be possible without a provision in the federal code that allows companies like Bain to deduct the interest on the debt they use to acquire and loot their targets. This is the same universally beloved tax deduction you can use to write off your mortgage interest payments, so tampering with it is considered political suicide – it's been called the "third rail of tax reform." So the Romney who routinely rails against the national debt as some kind of child-killing "mortgage" is the same man who spent decades exploiting a tax deduction specifically designed for mortgage holders in order to bilk every dollar he could out of U.S. businesses before burning them to the ground.

minus that tax break, Romney's debt-based takeovers would have been unsustainably expensive. Before Lynn Turner became chief accountant of the SEC, where he reviewed filings on takeover deals, he crunched the numbers on leveraged buyouts as an accountant at a Big Four auditing firm. "In the majority of these deals," Turner says, "the tax deduction has a big enough impact on the bottom line that the takeover wouldn't work without it."

Thanks to the tax deduction, in other words, the government actually incentivizes the kind of leverage-based takeovers that Romney built his fortune on. Romney the businessman built his career on two things that Romney the candidate decries: massive debt and dumb federal giveaways. "I don't know what Romney would be doing but for debt and its tax-advantaged position in the tax code," says a prominent Wall Street lawyer, "but he wouldn't be fabulously wealthy."



Read more: Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital | Politics News | Rolling Stone

So the deduction of interest expense is "corporate welfare"? Never mind that NOT taking money from someone is not how I would define "welfare"; interest expense is a legitimate business expense, and is far from welfare (notwithstanding the "unbiased" way the article refers to its use for "looting" its targets). Let's not forget that the deduction for interest expense costs the government not one cent in lost revenue. Why? Because the entity on the other side of the transaction (bondholders or banks) have taxable interest income, and they then pay the tax. This is the way most business deductions work; one side considers it expense and gets a deduction, the other side considers it income and it is taxed. This avoids both sides being taxed for the same transaction. This effectively taxes (on an aggregate basis) only the actual wealth created by the parties. You might as well just characterize it as the private equity firm getting the banks to pay the taxes for them; why consider it as a loophole to be closed?

The mortgage deduction has no relation to the deduction of interest as a business expense; in that case you are giving a deduction for someone to make a purchase for personal use, and those are rarely deductible. Personal interest deductions for everything but mortgage debt were eliminated in the 80's. So the quote from the article "exploiting a tax deduction specifically designed for mortgage holders" is not only wrong, it shows how little the author understands about (or perhaps how dishonest he is willing to be about) the tax system.

 

[Toro]

If I hate someone, they probably did something fairly fucked up...

Destroying my country, the country I served for 11 years with honor and distinction, yeah, that's pretty fucked up.

Now, hey, I'm fair guy, and frankly, I totally get people make mistakes. But then they should atone for them.

What has Wall Street done to atone?

THey fucked it up, they got their bailouts on the backs of the rest of us, they took their bonuses, and now they are sitting on fat piles of cash until after the election on the hope they can help Obama lose.

You aren't a fair guy.

 

[JoeB131]

If I hate someone, they probably did something fairly fucked up...

Destroying my country, the country I served for 11 years with honor and distinction, yeah, that's pretty fucked up.

Now, hey, I'm fair guy, and frankly, I totally get people make mistakes. But then they should atone for them.

What has Wall Street done to atone?

THey fucked it up, they got their bailouts on the backs of the rest of us, they took their bonuses, and now they are sitting on fat piles of cash until after the election on the hope they can help Obama lose.

You aren't a fair guy.

I'm an exceptionally fair guy. I tell you up front what I think. You know exactly where you stand with me, and I give you a fair chance to plead your case.

It's just when you are standing in the middle of a burned down economy with a can of gasoline and a book of matches, your "not my fault, not my fault" excuse making just doesn't fly.

When Wall Street starts making it up to the rest of us, then I'll be in a more forgiving mood. Right now, I'm not.

 

[Jroc]

.

Ugh.

The meltdown was the inevitable result of decades of irresponsible behavior by politicians, unethical business people and consumers.

Are we really going to play this one out again?

.

You know what, I've heard the whole "it's the consumer's fault" argument, as though that excuses the politicians and business people.

But let's be honest. The consumer did exactly what he was programmed to do- consume. He performed his expected function.

I put more blame on the businesses selling people things they knew damned well they couldn't afford, and government for not reigning in the insanity. That was THEIR role, and they didn't perform it.

Was the guy who bought the McMansion with four more rooms than he really needed part of the problem? Um. Yeah. But when the shit hit the fan, the guy who bought the reasonably priced one bedroom condo that he carefully worked into his budget found his money getting sucked down the same sinkhole.

Government promoted and incentivized the "insanity”…. That’s the problem Joey

 

[Sallow]

.

Ugh.

The meltdown was the inevitable result of decades of irresponsible behavior by politicians, unethical business people and consumers.

Are we really going to play this one out again?

.

You know what, I've heard the whole "it's the consumer's fault" argument, as though that excuses the politicians and business people.

But let's be honest. The consumer did exactly what he was programmed to do- consume. He performed his expected function.

I put more blame on the businesses selling people things they knew damned well they couldn't afford, and government for not reigning in the insanity. That was THEIR role, and they didn't perform it.

Was the guy who bought the McMansion with four more rooms than he really needed part of the problem? Um. Yeah. But when the shit hit the fan, the guy who bought the reasonably priced one bedroom condo that he carefully worked into his budget found his money getting sucked down the same sinkhole.

Government promoted and incentivized the "insanity”…. That’s the problem Joey

Sure did.

Under Reagan and George W. Bush.

Top down economics..

 

[bripat9643]

So the deduction of interest expense is "corporate welfare"? Never mind that NOT taking money from someone is not how I would define "welfare"; interest expense is a legitimate business expense, and is far from welfare (notwithstanding the "unbiased" way the article refers to its use for "looting" its targets). Let's not forget that the deduction for interest expense costs the government not one cent in lost revenue. Why? Because the entity on the other side of the transaction (bondholders or banks) have taxable interest income, and they then pay the tax. This is the way most business deductions work; one side considers it expense and gets a deduction, the other side considers it income and it is taxed. This avoids both sides being taxed for the same transaction. This effectively taxes (on an aggregate basis) only the actual wealth created by the parties. You might as well just characterize it as the private equity firm getting the banks to pay the taxes for them; why consider it as a loophole to be closed?

The mortgage deduction has no relation to the deduction of interest as a business expense; in that case you are giving a deduction for someone to make a purchase for personal use, and those are rarely deductible. Personal interest deductions for everything but mortgage debt were eliminated in the 80's. So the quote from the article "exploiting a tax deduction specifically designed for mortgage holders" is not only wrong, it shows how little the author understands about (or perhaps how dishonest he is willing to be about) the tax system.

Joe will not respond to this because you just proved that he and his source are both a couple of numskulls.

 

[JoeB131]

.

Ugh.

The meltdown was the inevitable result of decades of irresponsible behavior by politicians, unethical business people and consumers.

Are we really going to play this one out again?

.

You know what, I've heard the whole "it's the consumer's fault" argument, as though that excuses the politicians and business people.

But let's be honest. The consumer did exactly what he was programmed to do- consume. He performed his expected function.

I put more blame on the businesses selling people things they knew damned well they couldn't afford, and government for not reigning in the insanity. That was THEIR role, and they didn't perform it.

Was the guy who bought the McMansion with four more rooms than he really needed part of the problem? Um. Yeah. But when the shit hit the fan, the guy who bought the reasonably priced one bedroom condo that he carefully worked into his budget found his money getting sucked down the same sinkhole.

Government promoted and incentivized the "insanity”…. That’s the problem Joey

So this is yoru argument, the government didn't do enough to stop them, so it was okay that they ripped off the American consumer and wrecked the economy?

Besides repeating the lying, stupid idiocy that the CRA caused the housing bubble (LIE), the fact is, it was really incumbant on the banks and the investment houses to protect their interests. They should have pushed back on rising housing prices at every oppurtunity, but they figured, meh, the suckers will pay them off and if they don't, we'll foreclose and sell to antoher sucker.

 

[JoeB131]

So the deduction of interest expense is "corporate welfare"? Never mind that NOT taking money from someone is not how I would define "welfare"; interest expense is a legitimate business expense, and is far from welfare (notwithstanding the "unbiased" way the article refers to its use for "looting" its targets). Let's not forget that the deduction for interest expense costs the government not one cent in lost revenue. Why? Because the entity on the other side of the transaction (bondholders or banks) have taxable interest income, and they then pay the tax. This is the way most business deductions work; one side considers it expense and gets a deduction, the other side considers it income and it is taxed. This avoids both sides being taxed for the same transaction. This effectively taxes (on an aggregate basis) only the actual wealth created by the parties. You might as well just characterize it as the private equity firm getting the banks to pay the taxes for them; why consider it as a loophole to be closed?

The mortgage deduction has no relation to the deduction of interest as a business expense; in that case you are giving a deduction for someone to make a purchase for personal use, and those are rarely deductible. Personal interest deductions for everything but mortgage debt were eliminated in the 80's. So the quote from the article "exploiting a tax deduction specifically designed for mortgage holders" is not only wrong, it shows how little the author understands about (or perhaps how dishonest he is willing to be about) the tax system.

Joe will not respond to this because you just proved that he and his source are both a couple of numskulls.

Actually the Author was pretty clear on how Bain exploited this loophole... and destroyed companies...

But like I said, let's have Romney release his tax returns, I'm sure he can show us all that the author is totally wrong... I mean, it's not like he's hiding anything, right?

 

[BillyV]

So the deduction of interest expense is "corporate welfare"? Never mind that NOT taking money from someone is not how I would define "welfare"; interest expense is a legitimate business expense, and is far from welfare (notwithstanding the "unbiased" way the article refers to its use for "looting" its targets). Let's not forget that the deduction for interest expense costs the government not one cent in lost revenue. Why? Because the entity on the other side of the transaction (bondholders or banks) have taxable interest income, and they then pay the tax. This is the way most business deductions work; one side considers it expense and gets a deduction, the other side considers it income and it is taxed. This avoids both sides being taxed for the same transaction. This effectively taxes (on an aggregate basis) only the actual wealth created by the parties. You might as well just characterize it as the private equity firm getting the banks to pay the taxes for them; why consider it as a loophole to be closed?

The mortgage deduction has no relation to the deduction of interest as a business expense; in that case you are giving a deduction for someone to make a purchase for personal use, and those are rarely deductible. Personal interest deductions for everything but mortgage debt were eliminated in the 80's. So the quote from the article "exploiting a tax deduction specifically designed for mortgage holders" is not only wrong, it shows how little the author understands about (or perhaps how dishonest he is willing to be about) the tax system.

Joe will not respond to this because you just proved that he and his source are both a couple of numskulls.

Actually the Author was pretty clear on how Bain exploited this loophole... and destroyed companies...

But like I said, let's have Romney release his tax returns, I'm sure he can show us all that the author is totally wrong... I mean, it's not like he's hiding anything, right?

Nice deflection. Actually, the Author pretty clearly identified the extent of his bias and dishonesty. And nothing on Romney's tax returns would prove or disprove how Bain operated; in fact, no one is debating whether they used debt to finance the acquisition or expansion of companies, just the propriety of doing so. I think it's pretty clear that deductibility of interest expense is not a "loophole" as I stated above.

 

[emptystep]

If I hate someone, they probably did something fairly fucked up...

Destroying my country, the country I served for 11 years with honor and distinction, yeah, that's pretty fucked up.

Now, hey, I'm fair guy, and frankly, I totally get people make mistakes. But then they should atone for them.

What has Wall Street done to atone?

THey fucked it up, they got their bailouts on the backs of the rest of us, they took their bonuses, and now they are sitting on fat piles of cash until after the election on the hope they can help Obama lose.

You aren't a fair guy.

I'm an exceptionally fair guy. I tell you up front what I think. You know exactly where you stand with me, and I give you a fair chance to plead your case.

It's just when you are standing in the middle of a burned down economy with a can of gasoline and a book of matches, your "not my fault, not my fault" excuse making just doesn't fly.

When Wall Street starts making it up to the rest of us, then I'll be in a more forgiving mood. Right now, I'm not.

Watched a movie called "Margin Call" on Netflix yesterday that portrayed the 2008 crash pretty well. Very well made movie.

 

[JoeB131]

Nice deflection. Actually, the Author pretty clearly identified the extent of his bias and dishonesty. And nothing on Romney's tax returns would prove or disprove how Bain operated; in fact, no one is debating whether they used debt to finance the acquisition or expansion of companies, just the propriety of doing so. I think it's pretty clear that deductibility of interest expense is not a "loophole" as I stated above.

Well, it's clear to you. If it's not being used in the manner intended, it's a loophole.

The people who wrote that law had no idea people like Romney would use it that way.

 

[bripat9643]

Government promoted and incentivized the "insanity”…. That’s the problem Joey

So this is yoru argument, the government didn't do enough to stop them, so it was okay that they ripped off the American consumer and wrecked the economy?

No, that isn't his argument, moron. Any kid in the 2nd grade could see that.

Besides repeating the lying, stupid idiocy that the CRA caused the housing bubble (LIE), the fact is, it was really incumbant on the banks and the investment houses to protect their interests. They should have pushed back on rising housing prices at every oppurtunity, but they figured, meh, the suckers will pay them off and if they don't, we'll foreclose and sell to antoher sucker.

"pushing back on housing prices," is not the reason banks exist. Nor is it their responsibility.

You spout almost as much pure idiocy as TM.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, it's clear to you. If it's not being used in the manner intended, it's a loophole.

The people who wrote that law had no idea people like Romney would use it that way.

You're obviously too stupid to understand why legitimate business expenses are not "loopholes."

You're the perfect Democrat.

 

[JoeB131]

Government promoted and incentivized the "insanity”…. That’s the problem Joey

So this is yoru argument, the government didn't do enough to stop them, so it was okay that they ripped off the American consumer and wrecked the economy?

No, that isn't his argument, moron. Any kid in the 2nd grade could see that.

Besides repeating the lying, stupid idiocy that the CRA caused the housing bubble (LIE), the fact is, it was really incumbant on the banks and the investment houses to protect their interests. They should have pushed back on rising housing prices at every oppurtunity, but they figured, meh, the suckers will pay them off and if they don't, we'll foreclose and sell to antoher sucker.

"pushing back on housing prices," is not the reason banks exist. Nor is it their responsibility.

You spout almost as much pure idiocy as TM.

Actually, that should be their job. The out of control spiral of housing was largely because the banks didn't say, "Hey, housing prices have increased 100% in the last five years, what is that based on?" INstead they said, "Meh, we'll just write the mortgages, collect the interests, and sell to another sucker if they default."

Except too many suckers defaulted and the prices bottomed out.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, it's clear to you. If it's not being used in the manner intended, it's a loophole.

The people who wrote that law had no idea people like Romney would use it that way.

You're obviously too stupid to understand why legitimate business expenses are not "loopholes."

You're the perfect Democrat.

Romney taking out a huge loan to pay himself big "consulting fees" and "management fees" and "dividends" was not a legitimate business expense.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually the Author was pretty clear on how Bain exploited this loophole... and destroyed companies...

But like I said, let's have Romney release his tax returns, I'm sure he can show us all that the author is totally wrong... I mean, it's not like he's hiding anything, right?

I have a hard time believing that anyone is as stupid as you appear to be. The fact that some witless git doesn't like the fact that Bain can deduct its interest expenses doesn't make its ability to do so a "loophole."

Romney's tax returns aren't even at issue here. They have nothing to do with how Bain Capital does its taxes.

The forum stupid meter goes up to 10.0, but you just registered an 11.0.

 

[emptystep]

"pushing back on housing prices," is not the reason banks exist. Nor is it their responsibility.

It exactly is. If I ask for a loan of $150k for a house that should not be worth more that $75K the bank should not give the loan. They gave the loan? Why because they were going to pass the loan to another firm. And back and forth, everyone playing hot potato with the title to someone's house. In the end someone had to pay the price for the banks greed. Gee, I can't remember who that was. Help me out here. Who ended up clean up the mess?

 

[bripat9643]

Well, it's clear to you. If it's not being used in the manner intended, it's a loophole.

The people who wrote that law had no idea people like Romney would use it that way.

You're obviously too stupid to understand why legitimate business expenses are not "loopholes."

You're the perfect Democrat.

Romney taking out a huge loan to pay himself big "consulting fees" and "management fees" and "dividends" was not a legitimate business expense.

Sure it is.

 

[bripat9643]

"pushing back on housing prices," is not the reason banks exist. Nor is it their responsibility.

It exactly is. If I ask for a loan of $150k for a house that should not be worth more that $75K the bank should not give the loan.

They gave the loan? Why because they were going to pass the loan to another firm. And back and forth, everyone playing hot potato with the title to someone's house. In the end someone had to pay the price for the banks greed. Gee, I can't remember who that was. Help me out here. Who ended up clean up the mess?

Anyone who ever got a mortgage knows that banks have to get an appraisal of a property before they can grant a mortgage for it, so your claim is obviously false.

Why would any bank purchase a mortgage from another bank if they knew there wasn't enough equity in the property to cover the mortgage? Do you think bankers are as stupid as Democrats?