Romney's Bain Lie

[Toro]

Of course YOU won't believe. You'll believe anything negative, true or not. Bigots and haters are very unobjective and extremely biased.

You know nothing about how that world works. It's common for founding partners to keep titles and a share of the economics of the firm. Jack Welch retires from GE, he still keeps his office and his stock but he's no longer running GE. It's no different.

And you better stock up on tinfoil, birfer wannabe! If you think Wall Street would deliberately crash the economy is even stupider than the birfer shit. But haters are gonna hate.

I'll be an American soon, Joe Ampad.

And yes, I care about jobs and this country. I've done well under Obama, thankyouverymuch, so if he wins, my life won't change much, unlike you, whom we might read about going postal in downtown Chicago if Romney wins.

Romney left Bain in 99. I know that haters such as yourself will do and say anything, but if you don't have your head up your ass, you know Romney stopped working there. Being an owner does not mean being actively involved.
]

Yes, your willingness to fuck people over and not care about fellow people is well noted.

By the way, I've done okay under Obama as in my situation hasn't gotten worse, unlike it did repeatedly under Bush.

My worry is the assholes will crash the economy in order to try to engineer a Romney win. Otherwise, he's kind of useless and people don't really like him.

To the point, though. Romney still got paid 100,000 a year as a executive and profited from Bain's activities. I think it's a real stretch to claim he didn't have a finger in the pie or that someone was going to do something that was contrary to his intent.

Ken Lay tried that defense and it didnt' work.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

If not, why are they investing in private companies?? You realize the government owns stock in GM, right??

I love this statement. It proves EXACTLY why Conservatives don't get it. It proves why your innate and brainwashed fear and hatred of the government makes you completely ignorant.

Why do they invest in private companies? To spur innovation and industry. Since there's not enough of that going on, and it always spurs economic growth, it's a no-brainer. That's why I love all the brouhaha over Solyndra. I still think that is the exact kind of thing we need to be INVESTING in as a country. It's a new, green technology (which anyone in the industry who saw their product said is REVOLUTIONARY and AWEOMSE), and it could spark a whole new industry. Do you like having China beat us on economic industrial lines? Of course you don't. So let's get smart, and invest in companies that will drive our economy in the future.

We own GM because it was a necessary part of bailing out the auto industry AND IT WORKED. All the spin that Fox puts on about plants in Canada, blah blah blah is just distraction from the fact that GM has been turned around, and if you don't believe me, go to Ohio, go to the other red states in the rust belt that have benefited from saving the auto industry.

I don't need to respond to the rest of your quote, since I addressed the green tech investments already. Essentially, Conservatives are very, very, very shortsighted economically. Oh, they claim to be all about the bottom line and the grandchildren's debt and taxes, and yet every Republican president has left with a higher national debt than they came in with (of course Democrats have done it too, in the interest of fairness).

You don't see investing in infrastructure as a good thing. You don't see investing in companies that can drive innovation and therefore the economy of the future as a good thing. This is why you guys always end up fucking us over economically because you want to keep taxes stupid low and then let the rich people horde everything they can for as long as they can.

 

[PixieStix]

A government is NOT a business

The hell it's not.

No, it's not. And I'm sort of blown away that a Conservative would say that, assuming you are a Conservative. Why in the fuck would we want our government run like a profit center? That's absolutely ludicrous, and if you think about it for two fucking seconds you'll retract that right away.

If you want your government run like a business, they need to make profit. And to make profit they need revenue. So to get revenue, what do they need to do? Tax. And if they aren't generating enough revenue to be profitable, guess what they can do? TAX MORE.

Oh, and then they'll also cut spending on things like Medicare (which I'm sure about 75% of the people posting her are on). Yeah so why the fuck do you want your government run like a business again?

You can't have it both ways. The left expects government to create jobs and feed the hungry and bail out banks and the car industry and yet claim they are not a business. Right

If the government would stick to it's actual job, we would all be free to actually create jobs without all the barriers they place in our way.

Gawd, the left is full of hypocrites

 

[theHawk]

CNN now agrees that Obama and his lemmings are full of shit:

But first, is there anything other than the SEC filings to suggest a hands-on Romney role at Bain post-February 1999?
No is the word from four sources who communicated with CNN on Thursday -- all of whom have firsthand knowledge of Bain's operations at the time in question. Three of the four are Democrats, and two of the four are active Obama supporters in Campaign 2012.

All four told me Romney is telling the truth.

John King: Why is 1999 so important in 2012? - CNN.com

 

[Sallow]

A government is NOT a business

If not, why are they investing in private companies?? You realize the government owns stock in GM, right??

Don't forget all those investments in the failed green energy companies. Government is behaving just like Bain. Expect that Bain made much better investment decisions than Obama.

Because government has some functions that are business like..doesn't it make it a business any more then a tank having some functions that are like a car..make it a car.

 

[PixieStix]

A government is NOT a business

If not, why are they investing in private companies?? You realize the government owns stock in GM, right??

Don't forget all those investments in the failed green energy companies. Government is behaving just like Bain. Expect that Bain made much better investment decisions than Obama.

Because government has some functions that are business like..doesn't it make it a business any more then a tank having some functions that are like a car..make it a car.

ZOMG, some of you really crack me up. Please don't go into sales. You are not very good at it

 

[mudwhistle]

A government is NOT a business

Governments can ether work with businesses or against them.

Obama likes to work against them, thus he hinders job growth and damages the economy.


Course this is academic to anyone that understands the relationship between government and the economy.

 

[Toro]

The business community knows more about what business needs to create jobs than anyone. Your argument is tantamount to saying that baseball professionals don't know everything about baseball so we should rely on, say, hair dressers, on what's best for baseball.

One might not like Romney for what he stands, but to say that he doesn't know as much as Obama has got to be one more the most ludicrous arguments around, believed only by the most blinkered partisans.

That's like saying a baseball manager knows nothing about how to hit home runs, even if he had a .098 batting average as a player. When you've spent your entire career around business and growing businesses - Bain made their name funding fast growing businesses - then you know a helluva lot more how an economy ticks than a legal academic and community organizer. Even if Romney made a ton of money shipping jobs overseas, he still knows more than Obama.

But then again, perhaps Obama's supporters believe he's good enough to manage the NY Yankees.

No, he absolutely, doesn't. What he knows is who to generate a maximum return on investment.

Which is why he should have never included Bain Capital in his reasons to be President, or at least never said he "created" jobs.

That wasn't ever his function in the private sector.

You seemed to be mired in some dogmatic ideal that it's only the "business community" that knows how to grow business. That's generally not the case. Businesses are generally not in the "business" of creating an environment that fosters the growth of other businesses, especially competition. And even Bain's business model was not about that. What they were about was maximizing investments. If some company they took over, flourished, all the better. But it wasn't about creating jobs. And that's where Romney is trying to site as his acumen. It isn't.

In general, Capitalism needs to foster competition. If there is no competition..then capitalism becomes something else. Which was why for many years government was in the "business" of breaking up Monopolies, while the private sector was in the "business" of creating them. And that's the same with government regulating some extremely questionable business practices. Because..overall..in the long term..those business practices lead to collapse of the general economy. That was spectacularly demonstrated in 2008.

So putting a President like Romney is place would be good for some very wealthy people. And if that's what the voters want..they should vote for him. But as history has shown..what is good for a few very wealthy people, by in large, doesn't necessarily translate in good for everyone else.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

You can't have it both ways. The left expects government to create jobs and feed the hungry and bail out banks and the car industry and yet claim they are not a business. Right

Not surprisingly, you missed the point, entirely. You do not want your Government operating like a for-profit business. That's the absolutely worst idea in the history of ideas. Though I'm not surprised, since your side also likes to spit in the face of Separation of Church and state everywhere you can. Once government starts acting like a business and gunning for profit over common good of its citizens, you've lost and your system is now just a hybrid of Oligarchy and Monarchy, with the rich politicians taking the place of Dukes and Kings etc.

Government doesn't create jobs by creating companies. It creates jobs by fostering an environment that embraces job creation. They can do this by investing in companies that spur innovation. They can do this by helping small business with tax cuts and incentives to hire. Bailing out banks was a necessary step to keep the entire economy from collapsing underneath us. Same with the auto-industry.

If the government would stick to it's actual job, we would all be free to actually create jobs without all the barriers they place in our way.

Bullshit. This economy was a trainwreck mixed with a clusterfuck and only government would be in the position to help remedy these situations. Even fucktard Bush II knew that, hence tarp. You Baggers have to come to grips with the fact that at some point only government really can help when things have gotten so bad.

Gawd, the left is full of hypocrites

Says the person who identifies with the ideologues who created the individual mandate and now are against it. Fuck your shit in the shit with a fuckshit.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's like no one knows that any shareholder, even of a single share, can attend a board meeting.

 

[Si modo]

You can't have it both ways. The left expects government to create jobs and feed the hungry and bail out banks and the car industry and yet claim they are not a business. Right

Not surprisingly, you missed the point, entirely. You do not want your Government operating like a for-profit business. That's the absolutely worst idea in the history of ideas. Though I'm not surprised, since your side also likes to spit in the face of Separation of Church and state everywhere you can. Once government starts acting like a business and gunning for profit over common good of its citizens, you've lost and your system is now just a hybrid of Oligarchy and Monarchy, with the rich politicians taking the place of Dukes and Kings etc.

Government doesn't create jobs by creating companies. It creates jobs by fostering an environment that embraces job creation. They can do this by investing in companies that spur innovation. They can do this by helping small business with tax cuts and incentives to hire. Bailing out banks was a necessary step to keep the entire economy from collapsing underneath us. Same with the auto-industry.

If the government would stick to it's actual job, we would all be free to actually create jobs without all the barriers they place in our way.

Bullshit. This economy was a trainwreck mixed with a clusterfuck and only government would be in the position to help remedy these situations. Even fucktard Bush II knew that, hence tarp. You Baggers have to come to grips with the fact that at some point only government really can help when things have gotten so bad.

Gawd, the left is full of hypocrites

Says the person who identifies with the ideologues who created the individual mandate and now are against it. Fuck your shit in the shit with a fuckshit.

Hmmm. I find it very interesting that you projected, yet again, your personal trauma about religion onto a poster who has a solid record of recognizing and vehemently defending separation of church and state.

Once again, your emotions are getting the best of you.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

A government is NOT a business

Governments can ether work with businesses or against them.

Obama likes to work against them, thus he hinders job growth and damages the economy.


Course this is academic to anyone that understands the relationship between government and the economy.

Where's your links to facts that back up your bullshit about Obama being bad for business? What are you basing this on? More rhetoric and "Feeling" or actual data?

Small Business tax myths: Most firms are not affected by Obama tax proposals. - Slate Magazine

Mitt Romney Wrongly Claims Obama Raised Corporate Tax Rates

For such an anti-business president, Obama’s got a pretty pro-business record - The Washington Post

Corporate income taxes are at all time lows. Man you Right Wingers are full of fucking shit.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

You can't have it both ways. The left expects government to create jobs and feed the hungry and bail out banks and the car industry and yet claim they are not a business. Right

Not surprisingly, you missed the point, entirely. You do not want your Government operating like a for-profit business. That's the absolutely worst idea in the history of ideas. Though I'm not surprised, since your side also likes to spit in the face of Separation of Church and state everywhere you can. Once government starts acting like a business and gunning for profit over common good of its citizens, you've lost and your system is now just a hybrid of Oligarchy and Monarchy, with the rich politicians taking the place of Dukes and Kings etc.

Government doesn't create jobs by creating companies. It creates jobs by fostering an environment that embraces job creation. They can do this by investing in companies that spur innovation. They can do this by helping small business with tax cuts and incentives to hire. Bailing out banks was a necessary step to keep the entire economy from collapsing underneath us. Same with the auto-industry.



Bullshit. This economy was a trainwreck mixed with a clusterfuck and only government would be in the position to help remedy these situations. Even fucktard Bush II knew that, hence tarp. You Baggers have to come to grips with the fact that at some point only government really can help when things have gotten so bad.

Gawd, the left is full of hypocrites

Says the person who identifies with the ideologues who created the individual mandate and now are against it. Fuck your shit in the shit with a fuckshit.

Hmmm. I find it very interesting that you projected, yet again, your personal trauma about religion onto a poster who has a solid record of recognizing and vehemently defending separation of church and state.

Once again, your emotions are getting the best of you.

Uh, I didn't say anything about the poster, dipshit. I said the people they align themselves with ideologically. Here's a clue: read better or shut the fuck up.

 

[CandySlice]

Romney is a liar and a thief.

Well then he'll fit right in up there on Capitol Hill.

 

[Si modo]

Not surprisingly, you missed the point, entirely. You do not want your Government operating like a for-profit business. That's the absolutely worst idea in the history of ideas. Though I'm not surprised, since your side also likes to spit in the face of Separation of Church and state everywhere you can. Once government starts acting like a business and gunning for profit over common good of its citizens, you've lost and your system is now just a hybrid of Oligarchy and Monarchy, with the rich politicians taking the place of Dukes and Kings etc.

Government doesn't create jobs by creating companies. It creates jobs by fostering an environment that embraces job creation. They can do this by investing in companies that spur innovation. They can do this by helping small business with tax cuts and incentives to hire. Bailing out banks was a necessary step to keep the entire economy from collapsing underneath us. Same with the auto-industry.



Bullshit. This economy was a trainwreck mixed with a clusterfuck and only government would be in the position to help remedy these situations. Even fucktard Bush II knew that, hence tarp. You Baggers have to come to grips with the fact that at some point only government really can help when things have gotten so bad.



Says the person who identifies with the ideologues who created the individual mandate and now are against it. Fuck your shit in the shit with a fuckshit.

Hmmm. I find it very interesting that you projected, yet again, your personal trauma about religion onto a poster who has a solid record of recognizing and vehemently defending separation of church and state.

Once again, your emotions are getting the best of you.

Uh, I didn't say anything about the poster, dipshit. I said the people they align themselves with ideologically. Here's a clue: read better or shut the fuck up.

Ah, but you brought it up and it has nothing to do with much of anything here - Bain, GM, etc. It's on the forefront of your mind and you project it often. It's an emotional thing.

And, it's an observation of what you do. You let your emotions get a grip on you and it clouds your thought as reflected in your posts.

See, I think you have a lot to offer, if you can get a grip on those emotions.

Anyway, it's advice. And that's worth what you paid for it...nothing. Only you are able to add value to advice.

 

[Sallow]

The business community knows more about what business needs to create jobs than anyone. Your argument is tantamount to saying that baseball professionals don't know everything about baseball so we should rely on, say, hair dressers, on what's best for baseball.

One might not like Romney for what he stands, but to say that he doesn't know as much as Obama has got to be one more the most ludicrous arguments around, believed only by the most blinkered partisans.

That's like saying a baseball manager knows nothing about how to hit home runs, even if he had a .098 batting average as a player. When you've spent your entire career around business and growing businesses - Bain made their name funding fast growing businesses - then you know a helluva lot more how an economy ticks than a legal academic and community organizer. Even if Romney made a ton of money shipping jobs overseas, he still knows more than Obama.

But then again, perhaps Obama's supporters believe he's good enough to manage the NY Yankees.

You seemed to be mired in some dogmatic ideal that it's only the "business community" that knows how to grow business. That's generally not the case. Businesses are generally not in the "business" of creating an environment that fosters the growth of other businesses, especially competition. And even Bain's business model was not about that. What they were about was maximizing investments. If some company they took over, flourished, all the better. But it wasn't about creating jobs. And that's where Romney is trying to site as his acumen. It isn't.

In general, Capitalism needs to foster competition. If there is no competition..then capitalism becomes something else. Which was why for many years government was in the "business" of breaking up Monopolies, while the private sector was in the "business" of creating them. And that's the same with government regulating some extremely questionable business practices. Because..overall..in the long term..those business practices lead to collapse of the general economy. That was spectacularly demonstrated in 2008.

So putting a President like Romney is place would be good for some very wealthy people. And if that's what the voters want..they should vote for him. But as history has shown..what is good for a few very wealthy people, by in large, doesn't necessarily translate in good for everyone else.

Well no it's not..and I'm not very into sports analogies when it comes to government. In any case..sports analogies are not very good..since a good amount of their funding comes directly from tax payers. It's an industry that really doesn't stand on it's own.

As to your second point..it's sort of convoluted. In my post, I pointed out..that Romney knows how to maximize profit..and is very good at it. It's his governance that is questionable. He doesn't have a very good record as governor. And the one thing that he might point out as an accomplishment, Romneycare, is something he's not running on. Thus in terms of overall governance, I, personally think Obama is a better man for the job. Being President isn't only about maximizing profit. There are other elements involved.

 

[theHawk]

Let's hope Obama keeps trying to beat this dead horse.

Two highly reputable arbiters of political debate -- The Washington Post's fact-checking arm and FactCheck.org -- also on Thursday stood by their earlier findings that Romney stepped away from any active role at Bain when he accepted the Olympics post. And Fortune reported that it obtained private Bain documents that support the Romney account.

But the Obama campaign and its liberal allies continue to hang their claim on the SEC filings.

John King: Why is 1999 so important in 2012? - CNN.com

 

[Si modo]

The business community knows more about what business needs to create jobs than anyone. Your argument is tantamount to saying that baseball professionals don't know everything about baseball so we should rely on, say, hair dressers, on what's best for baseball.

One might not like Romney for what he stands, but to say that he doesn't know as much as Obama has got to be one more the most ludicrous arguments around, believed only by the most blinkered partisans.

You seemed to be mired in some dogmatic ideal that it's only the "business community" that knows how to grow business. That's generally not the case. Businesses are generally not in the "business" of creating an environment that fosters the growth of other businesses, especially competition. And even Bain's business model was not about that. What they were about was maximizing investments. If some company they took over, flourished, all the better. But it wasn't about creating jobs. And that's where Romney is trying to site as his acumen. It isn't.

In general, Capitalism needs to foster competition. If there is no competition..then capitalism becomes something else. Which was why for many years government was in the "business" of breaking up Monopolies, while the private sector was in the "business" of creating them. And that's the same with government regulating some extremely questionable business practices. Because..overall..in the long term..those business practices lead to collapse of the general economy. That was spectacularly demonstrated in 2008.

So putting a President like Romney is place would be good for some very wealthy people. And if that's what the voters want..they should vote for him. But as history has shown..what is good for a few very wealthy people, by in large, doesn't necessarily translate in good for everyone else.

Well no it's not..and I'm not very into sports analogies when it comes to government. In any case..sports analogies are not very good..since a good amount of their funding comes directly from tax payers. It's an industry that really doesn't stand on it's own.

As to your second point..it's sort of convoluted. In my post, I pointed out..that Romney knows how to maximize profit..and is very good at it. It's his governance that is questionable. He doesn't have a very good record as governor. And the one thing that he might point out as an accomplishment, Romneycare, is something he's not running on. Thus in terms of overall governance, I, personally think Obama is a better man for the job. Being President isn't only about maximizing profit. There are other elements involved.

Oh, NOW experience governing is important.

At least Romney has a hell of a lot more experience being an Executor for an Executive Office. And, I bet when he was governor, he didn't just vote 'present'. I bet he actually did stuff.

 

[Freedomlover]

Wow! You believe anything the Boston Globe prints? Try going to Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze and read the article printed by Fortune magazine. It totally debunks the Globe's account of when Romney actually left "managing" Bain. The person who provided most of the info for the Globe's article is a regular contributor to the Democrats. Need I say more? This is nothing more than a hit piece ala the hit piece Dan Rather pulled on George W. Bush. Where is Rather now? Oh yeah, he is gone.

 

[Dot Com]

A government is NOT a business

Governments can ether work with businesses or against them.

Obama likes to work against them, thus he hinders job growth and damages the economy.


Course this is academic to anyone that understands the relationship between government and the economy.

Where's your links to facts that back up your bullshit about Obama being bad for business? What are you basing this on? More rhetoric and "Feeling" or actual data?

Small Business tax myths: Most firms are not affected by Obama tax proposals. - Slate Magazine

Mitt Romney Wrongly Claims Obama Raised Corporate Tax Rates

For such an anti-business president, Obama’s got a pretty pro-business record - The Washington Post

Corporate income taxes are at all time lows. Man you Right Wingers are full of fucking shit.

yeah muddy. what say you?