Romney at Bain: Big gains, some busts

[The T]

Creating Jobs Wasn't Romney's Job

So, why is he touting his success at Bain to give him "cred" as a Presidential candidate?

Was Bain a profitable company while he was there?

It probably was.

The purpose of the government is not to turn a profit, though.

It's to provide needed services to the people they can't provide for themselves.

Today on Chris Matthews show, Major Garrett was talking about the interviews the Obama folks did with people who worked for Bain Companies that were raided and looted. He said there's stuff there about suicides and ruined lives that were so incendiary even the Obama folks couldn't put them on TV.

Bain is Willie Horton Riding in on a Swiftboat.

Someone in dire NEED of an education of the Founders.

Try The Federalist Papers for starters Joey.

 

[code1211]

I think it would define on how you define success and failure.

If I were an AmPad employee who was forced to knuckle under and take a lower wage with no benefits, and I ended up losing my job eventually, anyway, I would call Romney's management of my company a failure.

If I were a GM employee whose plant was about to be closed down, but it stayed open because President Obama bit the bullet and arranged the bailout package, I'd call that a success.

I think the question was motivation. Romney's goal at Bain was not to create jobs, unlike what he's claiming now. It was to maximize profit for Bain's investors, even if that meant that employees, stockholders and lenders were left holding the bag.

So Bain made a huge profit on AmPad, but the folks who were stuck holding the paper on AmPad's 400 million in debt they ran up under Bain's management, not so much.

And this is the problem with Romney. I'm sure if I were a millionaire, Romney would be an awesome president. He'd rig the game in my favor every time.

But for the vast majority of us who are working stiffs trying to balance a checkbook with an underwater mortgage, meh, not so much.

What underhanded, devious device did Bain use to force the Sale of AmPad by Meade?

AmPad filed bankruptcy in 2000. Bain divested AmPad in 1996.

AmPad was a paper based company. Paper based companies are in trouble right now world wide.

There's this thingy called the the whole world inter web or something like that... You can probably Gargle it.

Most companies are trying to go paperless. Any company that makes paper designed to go into envelopes, envelopes or devices to handle mail are in trouble. Check you portfolios, kids. Don't buy these stocks at home.

One of the things that can be perceived as underhanded and devious comes from the Planet Money podcast itself on the topic:

Ampad moved its hanging-folder manufacturing operation out of Marion, Indiana, to a plant in another state.

By now, Ampad had pads and folders to put them in. Next on the list: an envelope company.

Bain went back to the bank and borrowed a couple hundred million dollars. Most of the money went to buy the envelope company, but about $70 million went to pay Bain and its investors.

Not long after that, Ampad went public. Bain used the money from the IPO to pay off a chunk of debt. In 1996, American Pad and Paper had its best year.

In 1997, Ampad made another purchase: A printer-paper company called Shade Allied.

The company made continuous-form printer paper, for dot-matrix printers — that old kind of computer paper, with the little holes running down the side.

That purchase didn't turn out so well. And Ampad started having other troubles.

Asian companies came on the scene with cheaper products. The price of pulp jumped. Ampad's revenues started to fall. And they have to keep paying interest on all that debt.

In 2000 — four years after the IPO— Ampad declared bankruptcy. Stockholders were wiped out (including Bain, which still owned about a third of the company). Lenders got back a fraction of what they were owed.

"You can't continue to leverage companies up," says Russell Gard. "At some point, there's going to be a breaking point."

Clearly, the story doesn't always end this way. If it did, the banks wouldn't keep lending private equity companies like Bain massive amounts of money.

And Ampad itself? The pad company?

You can still get an Ampad pad today. The company is now being run by another private equity firm. A firm that saw an undervalued company, and bought it at a good price.

How Mitt Romney's Firm Tried

Not saying it is; not saying it isn't. However, when you load a company up with more debt and use that loading-up process to pay yourself back; that probably won't play in Peoria.

Dunkin Donuts went through the same thing and is now heavy in debt.

Bain did not hold a controlling interest in AmPad after 1996 which your article says was the best year for AmPad.

What point are you trying to make? Bain did not control AmPad after the IPO.

 

[code1211]

I'd put Romney's record at Bain up against Obama's record on anything, any day, all day.

So should we use Tax money to invest in borderline businesses that may or may not make a ROI?

That is the model you're endorsing.

I hear the comeback already and the typical "Yeah But" response. Just answer the question; should we adopt the Bain capital model on the Federal level?

By any measure, Romney has been a successful executive producing profit and growth for every company he has headed. He is a noted expert at turning failed ventures into successful ventures. He has done it often and regularly.

Obama, on the other hand, is a noted blamer of others and shirker of responsibiltiy. As a community organizer, he led nothing and accomplished nothing, but did work hard to blame others and rev up others to avoid responsibility and assign blame. That was his experience before he took office and, what a surprise, that is exactly what he's been doing since he started running for office. Sadly, it's also what he's done since getting elected.

The Big 0 has not accepted the blame for anything while he sprints into the spotlight anytime something happens to go right.

The Big 0 does now what he did before he was elected. Every president does. By this, we may assume that Romney will also do after he is elected what he did before he was elected.

Lord knows there a whole lot of turn around needed after the mess the Big 0 has made.

 

[The T]

I'd put Romney's record at Bain up against Obama's record on anything, any day, all day.

So should we use Tax money to invest in borderline businesses that may or may not make a ROI?

That is the model you're endorsing.

I hear the comeback already and the typical "Yeah But" response. Just answer the question; should we adopt the Bain capital model on the Federal level?

By any measure, Romney has been a successful executive producing profit and growth for every company he has headed. He is a noted expert at turning fail dentures into successful ventures. He has done it often and regularly.

Obama, on the other hand, is a noted blamer of others and shirker of responsibiltiy. As a community organizer, he led nothing and accomplished nothing, but did work hard to blame others and rev up others to avoid responsibility and assign blame. That was his experience before he took office and, what a surprise, that is exactly what he's been doing since he started running for office. Sadly, it's also what he's done since getting elected.

The Big 0 has not accepted the blame for anything while he sprints into the spotlight anytime something happens to right.

The Big 0 does now what he did before he was elected. By this, we may assume that Romney will also do after he is elected what he did before he was elected.

Lord knows there a whole lot of turn around needed after the mess the Big 0 has made.

The O has described in his own words as working in the private sector is like being behind enemy lines.

 

[Conservative]

Making money is different than creating jobs. Did that have to be explained? You guys talk like Bain is going around looking for companies to save. You know, if you guys believed in education, it might help. If it "took" that is.

they managed to save a large majority of them for almost a decade. Pretty good track record for taking over failing companies and keeping them running, and even making them profitable.

 

[The T]

Making money is different than creating jobs. Did that have to be explained? You guys talk like Bain is going around looking for companies to save. You know, if you guys believed in education, it might help. If it "took" that is.

they managed to save a large majority of them for almost a decade. Pretty good track record for taking over failing companies and keeping them running, and even making them profitable.

And even giving those that see it MIGHT fail time to look elsewhere.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Making money is different than creating jobs. Did that have to be explained? You guys talk like Bain is going around looking for companies to save. You know, if you guys believed in education, it might help. If it "took" that is.

they managed to save a large majority of them for almost a decade. Pretty good track record for taking over failing companies and keeping them running, and even making them profitable.

It's Deanie Weanie.... he's about as dumb as a sack of broken doorknobs... just see the bolded line above, that says it all.

 

[The T]

Making money is different than creating jobs. Did that have to be explained? You guys talk like Bain is going around looking for companies to save. You know, if you guys believed in education, it might help. If it "took" that is.

they managed to save a large majority of them for almost a decade. Pretty good track record for taking over failing companies and keeping them running, and even making them profitable.

It's Deanie Weanie.... he's about as dumb as a sack of broken doorknobs... just see the bolded line above, that says it all.

Doorknobs even the 'American Pickers' wouldn't touch.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

they managed to save a large majority of them for almost a decade. Pretty good track record for taking over failing companies and keeping them running, and even making them profitable.

It's Deanie Weanie.... he's about as dumb as a sack of broken doorknobs... just see the bolded line above, that says it all.

Doorknobs even the 'American Pickers' wouldn't touch.

Indeed...

 

[J.E.D]

Romney at Bain: Big gains, some busts

I don't really care what his record at Bain is; the office of the POTUS is not a business. I'm more concerned with his record as gov of MA -- which isn't that great. 47th in the nation in jobs by the time he left (which was worse than when he took office). No wonder he isn't out there talking about it.

 

[The T]

Romney at Bain: Big gains, some busts

I don't really care what his record at Bain is; the office of the POTUS is not a business. I'm more concerned with his record as gov of MA -- which isn't that great. 47th in the nation in jobs by the time he left (which was worse than when he took office). No wonder he isn't out there talking about it.

Obama sure as HELL thinks it is.

 

[JoeB131]

Was Bain a profitable company while he was there?

It probably was.

The purpose of the government is not to turn a profit, though.

It's to provide needed services to the people they can't provide for themselves.

Today on Chris Matthews show, Major Garrett was talking about the interviews the Obama folks did with people who worked for Bain Companies that were raided and looted. He said there's stuff there about suicides and ruined lives that were so incendiary even the Obama folks couldn't put them on TV.

Bain is Willie Horton Riding in on a Swiftboat.

Again, which of the companies acquired by Bain were successful at the time of acquisition?

If they were successful, why were they sold by the ownership?

Again, completely besides the point and irrelevent to this discussion. I'm really sorry you can't see this.

Even if you accept that there were completely valid reasons for Bain to screw over those companies, the fact is, they did screw them over. So the line worker at AmPad or GST who went to work every day was certainly not responsible for the machinations happening way over his head. He just bore the brunt.

And frankly, that's going to resonate with people.

 

[JoeB131]

No.

Warren Buffett has lost lots of money on investments also. It happens with investing.

Warren's not running for President...

Since when did being a genius become a qualification for becoming President?

When your boy says, "Hey, I'm a business genius, please ignore my crazy religion, my tendency to flip-flop on every issue, my pathetic tenure in the only elected office I ever held, and only concentrate on the businesses I invested in, where other people actually made most of the decisions and did most of the real work... Oh, but not the ones where I bankrupted the companies and a lot of people lost their jobs..."

Romney's the one who set the rules, he can't complain now that he's getting his ass beat.

 

[rdean]

Making money is different than creating jobs. Did that have to be explained? You guys talk like Bain is going around looking for companies to save. You know, if you guys believed in education, it might help. If it "took" that is.

It's hard for the Conservative Brain.

Profit != Public good.

Profit is good for the super rich. For the middle class? Not so much.

If it's limited to the super rich that is.

There was a play written about 60 years ago called the "Matchmaker". In it, the lead woman said, "Money is like manure. It's no good unless it's spread around".

 

[rdean]

Warren's not running for President...

Since when did being a genius become a qualification for becoming President?

When your boy says, "Hey, I'm a business genius, please ignore my crazy religion, my tendency to flip-flop on every issue, my pathetic tenure in the only elected office I ever held, and only concentrate on the businesses I invested in, where other people actually made most of the decisions and did most of the real work... Oh, but not the ones where I bankrupted the companies and a lot of people lost their jobs..."

Romney's the one who set the rules, he can't complain now that he's getting his ass beat.

I agree he can't complain. Republicans with their voter suppression have a very, very good chance of winning. This proves how dangerous this party is. That they would undermine the very foundation of America. Maybe that's what it takes before the country wakes up.

 

[J.E.D]

Romney at Bain: Big gains, some busts

I don't really care what his record at Bain is; the office of the POTUS is not a business. I'm more concerned with his record as gov of MA -- which isn't that great. 47th in the nation in jobs by the time he left (which was worse than when he took office). No wonder he isn't out there talking about it.

Obama sure as HELL thinks it is.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Nice deflection, though

 

[Toro]

Warren's not running for President...

Since when did being a genius become a qualification for becoming President?

When your boy says, "Hey, I'm a business genius, please ignore my crazy religion, my tendency to flip-flop on every issue, my pathetic tenure in the only elected office I ever held, and only concentrate on the businesses I invested in, where other people actually made most of the decisions and did most of the real work... Oh, but not the ones where I bankrupted the companies and a lot of people lost their jobs..."

Romney's the one who set the rules, he can't complain now that he's getting his ass beat.

He's running even in the polls.

But if your standard is a business "genius," then you've erected a straw man asking if he were a genius, why did he lose money on an investment? When you ask a question like that, it displays either your ignorance or your dishonesty. Even the very, very best investors - including other "geniuses" such as Warren Buffett and George Soros - have lost a lot of money on individual investments.

Fail.

 

[The T]

I don't really care what his record at Bain is; the office of the POTUS is not a business. I'm more concerned with his record as gov of MA -- which isn't that great. 47th in the nation in jobs by the time he left (which was worse than when he took office). No wonder he isn't out there talking about it.

Obama sure as HELL thinks it is.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Nice deflection, though

As a matter of course for someone who refuses to think out of the box?

YOU are dead correct.

YOU may stay in your world.

 

[Lovebears65]

The left will only point out the losses.. They dont care that Romney created how many jobs with Staples, Sports Authority and other Steel companies. They will dwell on the 750 job losses . Of course Obama did the same thing with the bail outs and people lost jobs but that is ok since it is their Dear leader and he does no wrong in their eyes.. I bet RDean has wet dreams about him nightly

 

[Toro]

Again, completely besides the point and irrelevent to this discussion. I'm really sorry you can't see this.

Even if you accept that there were completely valid reasons for Bain to screw over those companies, the fact is, they did screw them over. So the line worker at AmPad or GST who went to work every day was certainly not responsible for the machinations happening way over his head. He just bore the brunt.

And frankly, that's going to resonate with people.

Again, another dishonest statement. Bain had no intention to "screw" those companies nor those workers. Their intention was to make money by improving and growing those businesses. But the companies went bankrupt. It happens.