Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama campaign hits Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital with ad, website (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't begrudge Willard for his record at Bain (9+ / 0-)

    in and of itself.  He did what he was supposed to do to make money.  It may not have been perfect, but it was legal and generally reasonable.  Those decisions can be tough and murky.  He generally did a good job.  Seriously, Willard, I'm not mad at you personally for any of it.

    I do begrudge him for (1) acting like he was doing some grand public service while he was there, (2) pretending as if heavily subsidized liquidations of floudering companies is a totally honest, free-market way of making money, (3) saying that corporations are people in light of his record.  If that's true, he's been the leader of a holocaust.  

    Willard is a guy with freeish market, small government talk (these days, anyway), but walks in the path of everything that both the free market and OWS is against.

    •  'Where'd ya get those cookies from...7 Eleven?'... (9+ / 0-)

      Fuck you Mitt.

      •  I keep wondering---does his Mittness think that (0+ / 0-)

        "ordinary folk" think of 7/11 as sorta upscale?

        If he thought of the cookies as good, he might have been being complimentary.   Does this rich goon have any idea what is or is not real to anyone who doesn't own a sports team or at least a corporation?

        Willard M(alfoy) for real.

        Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Martin Luther King, Jr.

        by maybeeso in michigan on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:49:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Um not all of those companies were foundering. (22+ / 0-)

      In fact, the companies folks like Bain really liked to liquidate were companies which were making modest but steady profits, owned expensive manufacturing equipment or real estate outright, and were in good financial shape. Because there was something there to liquidate.

      Santorum: Man on Dog; Romney: Dog on Car. Ren and Stimpy: Dog on Cat equalitymaine.org

      by commonmass on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:47:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  same with the Olympics (11+ / 0-)

      Mitt's defenders are all so proud about how he 'saved' the Olympics, but he did so largely by talking the government into a sweet set of subsidies.

    •  no it was not "generally reasonable" (5+ / 0-)

      It was 100% predatory behavior that should be illegal.

      •  But it wasn't. (3+ / 0-)

        There are many unsavory occupations in this country that are legal, if not quite what we would do, or want our kids to do for a living.

        I get what the commenter is saying. The problem here, much like Romney's bullying episode, isn't as much the original episode as two basic facts: he continues to lie about what actually happened and we don't want and we certainly don't need an unfeeling ringleader willing to exploit and harm anyone unlucky to cross his path like this running our country.

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Mon May 14, 2012 at 02:46:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I heartily begrudge Romney for his record (14+ / 0-)

      at Bain.

      Countries generally create wealth by adding value to products they make or digging it out of the ground and selling more of it to other countries than they buy.

      This behavior rapidly chopped that out of America's economy and gave it to other countries while these businessmen filled their Swiss bank accounts to avoid the taxes for making out like bandits on the backs of the people they employed. To me, it was  more anti-American and immoral than Bernie Madoff because it hurt millions of Americans who unlike most of the Madoff victims, couldn't afford it.

      Now, there's an obvious difference with Madoff. It was legal. But people touting this and defending it as being all about American capitalism, waving the flag as they do crap like this, makes me sick.

      I've been in manufacturing consulting much of my career for decades. I've seen this happen countless times for short term gain by a few and long term pain for the many.

      In my opinion, more than the lack of bank regulations or the flimsy mortgages, this has had a tremendous negative impact on today's American economy. Basically, these businessmen had a fire sale of American businesses and jobs - that had added value and jobs to America for decades. The businessmen doing this made out like bandits and the people who worked in these jobs got ripped off for their pensions, their healthcare  and their way of life.

      Meanwhile, these businessmen tout this as "the great american way" and how patriotic they are. The American way of creating wealth wasn't giving those jobs and businesses away to other countries. Romney et al got stinking rich at the expense of many Americans.

      And some of these businesses were raped of their core - things like R&D, customer service, etc, which bumped their bottom line short term so they could be flipped. The sale price of companies are often a multiple of it's bottom line. So Bain and others chopped the ore and flipped them for a quick buck only to see them go under for the poor suckers who bought them because the core skeleton of the company had been quietly removed. It was a friggin' scam and deceitful - like a used car dealer knowingly selling it with unsafe defects but not telling the buyer.

      I can agree that competitive economic forces for cheaper labor played a significant role and that some of this was inevitable. But some of these guys raped businesses and their employees without any conscience - ruining lives without putting up a fight. I can never applaud them for that. And Bain was right in there do just that.

      •  You said it. (9+ / 0-)

        In the second to last paragraph:

        And some of these businesses were raped of their core - things like R&D, customer service, etc, which bumped their bottom line short term so they could be flipped. The sale price of companies are often a multiple of it's bottom line. So Bain and others chopped the ore and flipped them for a quick buck only to see them go under for the poor suckers who bought them because the core skeleton of the company had been quietly removed. It was a friggin' scam and deceitful - like a used car dealer knowingly selling it with unsafe defects but not telling the buyer.
        The whole thing was a con. It has nothing to do with free markets or enterprise, and everything to do with taking advantage of other people's hard work while you risked literally nothing in the bargain.

        Mitt's team will try and  muddy the factual waters as much as they can and hope its too complicated for voters to get, and then use the strawman that the President has declared war on success to rally voters to his side.

        Their mistake in doing so is that the President and Vice President are much more skilled communicators than Newt and Rick, and that they are now on a way less friendly playing field in the general election.

         

        •  How can Romney refute this when (9+ / 0-)

          a) there are factual cases of where this happened with employees testifying
          b) there are media reports on this
          and maybe most troubling:
          c) look at what others GOP leaders said:

          Very good link on this:
          http://thinkprogress.org/...

          ON HUNTSMAN: “What’s clear is he likes firing people, I like creating jobs.” [1/9/12]

          NEWT GINGRICH: “Those of us who believe in free markets and those of us who believe that, in fact, the whole goals of investment is entrepreneurship and job creation, would find it pretty hard to justify rich people figuring out clever, legal ways to loot out a company.” [1/8/12]

          RICK PERRY: “Now, I have no doubt Mitt Romney was worried about pink slips — whether he was going to have enough of them to hand out because his company, Bain Capital, of all the jobs that they killed. I’m sure he was worried that he would run out of pink slips.” [1/9/12]

          GINGRICH: Bain Capital was a “small group of rich people manipulating the lives of thousands of people, and taking all the money.” [1/9/12]

          PRO-GINGRICH SUPER PAC: “A story of greed, playing the system for a quick buck. A group of corporate raiders led by Mitt Romney, more ruthless than Wall Street. For tens of thousands of Americans, the suffering began when Mitt Romney came to town.” [1/9/12]

          GINGRICH: “I would just say that if Gov. Romney would like to give back all of the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain, that I would be glad to listen to him.” [12/12/11]

          Can't wait for the Obama ad playing those quotes
      •  Um (0+ / 0-)

        This is simply not true, Pat Buchanan:

        Countries generally create wealth by adding value to products they make or digging it out of the ground and selling more of it to other countries than they buy.
        (1) Farming, mining, and manufacturing are not the only sources of value.  (2) There is no macroeconomic difference between exporting a good that is called money and a good that isn't called money.

        Other than that, the problem wasn't Mitt, it was a system developed by the Republicans and Blue Dogs.

    •  is making money an end in itself (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BusyinCA

      or a means?

      If it's a means, then it must lead to, not undermine, production and economic growth and development.

      If it's a means, it must lead to employment and worker and community well-being.

      If it's a means, it must lead to health, education and the wherewithall for families to raise and educate their children.

      It's not just about stuffing the bottomless pockets of a few at the expense of the many. Making money is not an end in itself.

      IMHO, of course.

      "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." - President Obama

      by fhcec on Mon May 14, 2012 at 04:21:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  When we have a debt based currency (0+ / 0-)

        there is a need to create more debt to create more currency and get richer (for those for whom it is a end in itself). And that cycle cannot go on forever, eventually the society at large can carry no more, and the big dogs pull their money out before it all (sometimes causing) crashes and burns every generation or three. And the rest of us, those that use money as a means to an end, as a way to survive,  have to pick up the pieces, and rebuild.

        What we have now as an economic system is far from ideal. If we can't regulate it into shape there are alternative ideas, some loony (gold standard) some less so (cost of energy for one) that make some sense, but will never be adopted unless the current system totally melts down.

        One of the only ways I see real change happening is to get the money out of politics. A shorter election cycle with Federal funding (for Federal elections at least) and equal air time for all candidates.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site