Skip to main content

Priorities USA releases a new video mocking Mitt Romney for coming up with new number every time that he claims to have created jobs as CEO of Bain Capital:

Yeah, yeah, I know you're just so shocked to learn that Mitt Romney is so full of it on his claim to be a jobs creator that he can't even keep his numbers straight ... but you actually might be surprised to learn that in Mitt Romney's own words, he's blowing smoke:
When you ask, the question 'How many jobs did you create at Bain Capital?' the truth, is we invested in businesses that created the jobs. We didn't create them ourselves. They did. [3/13/12, KMOV, St. Louis, Mo.]
That's a rare moment of candor for Mr. Bain—and it's a tremendously important point. Romney's job creation number relies on giving him credit for every single job created at every single company in which Bain invested money, no matter how much or how little. That's like buying Apple stock and claiming to have created the iPad.

Take the case of Staples, at which Romney claims he created 90,000 jobs. Bain invested $2.5 million in the company in the late 1980s—and cashed out for $13 million in 1989. By all means, give Romney credit for having seen an opportunity early on and having made a profitable investment. But give him credit for creating 90,000 jobs? Are you kidding me?

To be fair, Bain wasn't always a passive investor. As the Priorities USA and the Obama campaign have been pointing out, there are numerous examples of Bain bustouts—cases in which Bain bought a company and took over its management, loading it up with debt, extracting millions, and letting it crash. And maybe there's some examples of Bain taking an active role and helping managing companies into a stronger position. But if so, Romney isn't talking about them.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:42 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem is with the verb (12+ / 0-)

    Instead of "created" jobs, he needs to say that he "harvested" jobs, or "shredded" jobs, or "consumed" jobs, or "tossed" other people's jobs into the Dumpster, or "converted" jobs into bulging bank accounts in Switzerland.

  •  did Bain invest in successful or failing companies (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark, JeffW, rb608, TKO333

    Seems it would cost more and be more risky to invest in failing companies especially with Rmoney taking his cut off the top.

    "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

    by MartyM on Fri May 25, 2012 at 09:59:50 AM PDT

    •  Marty - mostly successful ones (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mithra, Krush, rb608, MartyM

      Bain Capital started as a venture firm, but once it transitioned to private equity investing it's primary focus was on buying successful companies which is the most common strategy for the large private equity funds. The key to their model is using heavy leverage and no lender will provide debt if the company has no predictable method of paying the debt service. Like nearly all private equity investors the big winners in Bain Capital's portfolio were successful companies that were purchased, leveraged, and sold years later as larger, more successful companies.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:52:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The steady drip drip drip of reality....Rush and (12+ / 0-)

    Da Boyz are freaking.....Taking more and more Spice to fold space.

  •  Do I detect a pattern here (8+ / 0-)

    "We didn't create the jobs ourselves, we invested in companies and they created the jobs". What about the companies they invested in and those companies laid people off, were those jobs Bain lost?

    It sounds to me like again Romney is taking credit for shit he didn't do. Creating jobs when others did the creating, the very same way he tried to take the credit for G.M.s success now, remember, "I'll take credit for that".

    How in the hell is he allowed to get away with shit like this??

    The freaking spin has to stop, President Obama is not against free enterprise, he is against Mitt Romney and his lying, over and over and over again.

    PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS CREATE PROFITS, NOT JOBS.

    When Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachuttes, and had the opportunity to actually create jobs, he failed, the state of Massachuttes was 47th in job creation. Hell Republicans, if you wanted a Governor who created jobs, why the hell didn't you nominate Rick Perry.

    •  You have to make a distinction. There were (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JeffW, Lying eyes, rb608, sethtriggs, TKO333

      times when Bain invested in companies.  There were other times when they actually purchased the company and ran it.  Whenever they did they, they acted as corporate raiders.  Purchasing good companies, loading them up with debt which they use to pay themselves huge "dividends and fees, " so much so that they ultimately bankrupt those companies.  The collateral damage in this practice was the middle class jobs that were lost as well as healthcare and pensions.  At times, the American taxpayer had to pay millions for those guaranteed pensions.  Romney didn't care.  As long as Bain had their millions, they considered it a success.  Also, when filing bankrupty, they stiffed their creditors out of millions.  I'm sure that also resulted in workers losing their jobs.  In my opinion, this form of capitalism should be illegal.  

      •  MQTA - in all private equity investments (0+ / 0-)

        a firm, or a group of private equity firms, always purchases the entire company and takes control. While some of the companies end up in bankruptcy that is a small minority of how the investments turn out. Private equity firms make nearly all their profits when companies are acquired, leveraged, grown, and sold years later as bigger, more successful companies.  

        As the owners of these corporations private equity firms have all the same rights and responsibilities as the owners of any other private company in the US. Private equity firms are rarely involved in "hostile" takeovers, or raids, but rather purchase all of the stock from the former owners at a negotiated price, which is always at a premium to then current market value.

        There is no doubt that private equity ownership can be harmful to workers and other stakeholders as the primary goal of private equity funds is to increase revenues and decrease costs, thereby increasing cash flows and the ultimate exit value.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:01:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can you point to a company Bain took over (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sethtriggs, ahumbleopinion

          That ended up stronger from their good management?
          Why isn't Mitt pointing at those?

          •  askyron - the ads on the good ones (0+ / 0-)

            will show up later in the election cycle. Currently they are counter punching, particularly on the steel company Obama ad.

            Like most PE firms the majority of Bain Capital's success is in a small number of big winners. In BC's case I think it is ten companies. All of those firms had higher revenues and profits when they were sold, as compared to when they were purchased. That's really how the model works. There are some PE firms that work on turnarounds, or buy, break up and sell, but that is a small minority of the industry and was never the core of BC's business.

            There are a lot of things about private equity to be critical of, but few people out in the blogosphere, including DKOS, actually have an accurate understanding of how private equity funds work. People are being told about the exceptions and think it's the norm.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:28:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Hey If you are taking the credit.. (4+ / 0-)

    Give us the real numbers.  Or, be truthful and say "we didn't create them" - Oh wow - there it is on 'tape'!! Good job KMOV!

    Well it's true - I'm intolerant of intolerance

    by redstella on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:08:25 AM PDT

  •  This one is going to leave a mark (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark, JeffW, skillet, rb608

    And Priorities USA is probably going to have the opportunity to update it weekly as a never-ending number "revisions and corrections" get released by Team rMONEY.

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:09:11 AM PDT

  •  Before they were buds what did Ron Paul's campaign (6+ / 0-)

    reveal about Mitt?  Answer:  Mitt is just a liar.

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:11:10 AM PDT

  •  And Krugman has a better take (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, rb608, vcmvo2, TKO333

    Want the big picture?

    Was Greed Good?

    Shows that even as private equity firms grew in influence, American wages and trade did not - but income inequality did.

    So maybe Bain was the exception to the rule - but it appears that in general, the Bains didn't unlock much hidden value or encourage much efficiency or competitiveness.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra En théorie, il n'y a aucune différence entre théorie et pratique, mais en pratique, il y a toujours une différence. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:24:48 AM PDT

  •  Mitt Romney is another moron with a daddy complex (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, JeffW, Icicle68, RichM, vcmvo2, TKO333

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:33:27 AM PDT

  •  From over 100,000 jobs... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JML9999, JeffW, FiredUpInCA, rb608, TKO333

    ...to 100,000 jobs....to "tens of thousands" of jobs...to ZERO jobs. What's next for Romney? minus-jobs????? HOLY MENDACITY!!!!!!

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." --Gandhi

    by alaprst on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:33:32 AM PDT

    •  alaprst - it was a dumb path to take (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RichM, alaprst

      Romney should have never entered the "created jobs" number sweepstakes. His pitch should have been a hands on understanding of the economy, and being an exceptional  manager. He did a very good job as the CEO of Bain & Co. one of the largest consulting companies in the US, as CEO of Bain Capital, and as the CEO of the Utah Winter Olympics. Getting into a "jobs" count was really dumb.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:06:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So we review his resume (6+ / 0-)

    Mormon Church Elder
    Governor of Massachusetts
    Venture Capitalist
    Not Barack Obama

    Doctor Mitt Romney Brain Sturgeon-The Operation was a success but the patient died, where's my fee?

    by JML9999 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:49:35 AM PDT

  •  Mitt Romney will take a lot of credit for the ipad (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rb608, vcmvo2

    Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

    by journeyman on Fri May 25, 2012 at 10:53:23 AM PDT

  •  It's absolutely ridiculous. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rb608, sethtriggs, vcmvo2, Russycle

    So what if Romney/Bain did create 90,000 jobs at Staples?

    Does that mean an additional 90,000 jobs were created at OfficeMax???

    Of course not!

    A business executive usually wants to have a lot of jobs created at his own company but not so much across his entire industry. A president should want to create as many jobs across all businesses and industries as possible. There's no evidence that Romney can or wants to do that while there is ample evidence on both for Obama.

    •  How many of the jobs created at Staples, (0+ / 0-)

      no matter who "created" them were offset by jobs lost as small office supply businesses closed all aver the country?  Isn't it likely that there are now fewer jobs in the office supply industry than their were before the advent of Staples and its competitors?

      “when Democrats don’t vote, Democrats don’t win.” Alan Grayson

      by ahumbleopinion on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:25:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He sees the Presidency.. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rb608, RichM, sethtriggs, vcmvo2, TKO333

    ..not only as fulfillment of his "daddy issues" but also as an opportunity to open up the biggest chop shop yet!
    Load the country down with debt, extract private profit, sell assets, and leave a smoking hole in the ground!

    Everybody got to elevate from the norm....

    by Icicle68 on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:01:50 AM PDT

  •  He sees running for president as a game (8+ / 0-)

    http://www.rawstory.com/...

    This must be publicized - the non-rich really are just pawns as far as Mitt is concerned.  I've disliked him for a long time - now I think I can hate him.

  •  Romney knows that most people don't care (4+ / 0-)

    whether he created jobs at Bain or not.  They don't care that he lies, or that he's probably against womens' rights.   They only care that he doesn't raise their taxes.  And that he's going to take entitlements away from those lazy folks that don't want to work.  You can never go wrong counting on the stupidity of the American sheeple.  Remember, George Bush was elected...twice.

  •  we will soon hear a meme: "human capital" created (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rb608, this just in, a2nite

    by  Bain rather than actual jobs

    slutty voter for a "dangerous president"; Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above"Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) "Sciant terra viam monstrare." 政治委员, 政委!

    by annieli on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:11:51 AM PDT

  •  palin and romney , twins ? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rb608

    Look at that photo above and tell me they don't look like the same person ?

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:12:12 AM PDT

  •  Yes, Romney is too literal (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rb608, sethtriggs

    in saying he created jobs. He would (or did) say he strengthened companies, which meant that jobs were saved, or new ones created that would not have otherwise been...

    But, zeroing in on this too literally may make it more difficult to discuss the substance, and context, of what Bain did. Forget the generalities of ideology and concentrate on specific cases...and let Romney defend what his company did...And speaking of context,  there was a case in which the state of Indiana subsidized the company that helped save (Steel Dynamics, Inc.) http://www.usnews.com/...

    Obama can say something like this: "OK, Mitt, you really wanna go there? The truth is that both state government and private equity helped General Dynamics, Inc. Isn't that proof that a balanced approach to creating/saving jobs is the way to go?"

    What does Mitt say to that?

    http://karltrautman.com/

  •  Not an admission. A pivot. (0+ / 0-)

    Romney is trying to reframe the question by saying "I didn't do it, the businesses did it - just like all businesses can when someone comes in and frees them from the scourge of red tape, unions, regulations and taxes."

    This is transparent to us - but it muddies the issue considerably for the conservatively dog-whistle-abled.

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton | http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com

    by jbeach on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:30:08 AM PDT

    •  The idea that our (0+ / 0-)

      economy is at all about creating, or maintaining good jobs is core rightwing dogma.

      Our economy is about wealth extraction, up.  Period.

      Fuck jobs.  (This is not an opinion, it's SOP.  Fortunes are made.)

      Why pretend otherwise?

      This isn't a matter of framing.  It's a matter of consensus, in which powerful Dems have been, and remain, water carriers for the likes of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.  The best and ablest at that.

      All the pragmatism, incrementalism and politicking of the 'third way' amounts to so much stoogery.

      Frame that.

      Please don't feed the security state.

      •  Of course it's dogma. That's why Romneys pivoting (0+ / 0-)

        That's what I'm saying. He can't even begin the argument on its merits, because it's a loser. So instead he's trying to reframe the argument into some abstract ideology he can win.

        I'm just pointing out that what the article writer thinks was a stumbling admission, was probably more like actually a calculated attempt to shift the direction of the convo.

        So if you're reading me as suggesting some sort of third way, then you're reading me wrong. In which case, you might want to reframe yourself.

        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton | http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com

        by jbeach on Fri May 25, 2012 at 01:07:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  That's an awful ad (0+ / 0-)

    Not a good campaign ad.  They need to try again.

  •  Mitt's Shrinking Jobs Claim (0+ / 0-)

    If this continues, by mid-summer Romney's Jobs claim will be reduced to having once almost met Steve Jobs.

  •  No wonder he wants credit for the auto industry... (0+ / 0-)

    Bailout.  If he can shamelessly take credit for creating 90,000 jobs at Staples, he can take credit for saving the auto industry in the US.  It's not a very long leap for rMoney.  And it just shows how delusional he is and how he doesn't really think like everyone else who doesn't need car elevators or trees that are the right height outside their mansions.  :)

    The most dangerous... programs, from a movement conservative's point of view, are the ones that work the best and thereby legitimize the welfare state. Krugman

    by BasharH on Fri May 25, 2012 at 11:54:34 AM PDT

  •  Isn't it kind of silly, (0+ / 0-)

    (not to mention dumbassedly apolitical and ahistorical)  to reduce the wholesale destruction of jobs which has largely driven the Reagan Revolution economy, to a single, immediate instance of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital?

    Isn't the point a little too fine here?  Too precious?

    I guess we're not dealing with politics here, but with a Romney character flaw in the competition with Obama for the top management slot.

    Yeah.  It's just that mean Romney, ruining everything!

    What a cruel aberration we face here in Happy Center Place!

    Vote Dem!

    Obama: More Dem, Better Dem, or just a Billion dollars worth of corporate stooge?

  •  Whenever a con wants to pimp Romney... (0+ / 0-)

    Staples is the example they come up with.  If that's the best he's got (a measley $2.5 million investment!?), the man is toast.  Sure plenty of people will vote for "not Obama", but not enough.

  •  What Staples Really Represents (0+ / 0-)

    Americans intuitively know that it is more than possible for connection and charging devices for computers, printers, smart phones, and other devices to be standardized like the light fixtures and electrical outlets in our homes.  But it hasn‘t happened.  We know that our emergency lifeline, the cell phone could have good reception virtually anywhere in the country, but it doesn’t.  

    We instinctively know that we should be able to pick and choose from the services offered by cable or phone systems, but we are conned into buying hundreds of minutes we may use one month in twelve for fear of “going over” and being financially penalized; or paying for fifty channels we don’t want to get the one science or sports channel we do.

    And we know we are being gouged when the airlines hide the true cost of their tickets behind separate fees for luggage, ticket changes, snacks, aisle seats, even more foot room.  We are wearily manipulated into wasting most of the day changing planes in Atlanta or Minneapolis hundreds of miles out of the way just to get to our real destination.

    As a matter of fact, most of America‘s large industries today are oligopolies or functional monopolies. We were introduced to this new business model several decades ago when we began to realize that it no longer mattered whether we filled up the gas tank at Exxon or Conoco or at a station of one of  the other Oil Giants.  They weren‘t really competing for our business.  They all had a significant share of the market.  The “price wars“ of an earlier time were over.  Service no longer mattered to them.  Despite higher prices at the pump and ever rising profits, the friendly service station attendant disappeared.  Today, even if you are elderly or frail or handicapped, you pump your own gas.  

    The Oil Industry of the Seventies and Eighties was a harbinger of our world today.  Some still call it “Capitalism“, but it‘s not.  There is no real competition between the Oligarchs who dominate most large sectors of our economy.  They are indifferent to the consumers of their products.  Their political contributions have insulated them from our discontent.  Regulatory structures are easily manipulated by phalanxes of corporate lobbyists.  

    You want ‘Capitalism‘?  Become a Small Businessman or woman.  You‘ll have to work to please every customer.  You‘ll soon discover that the burdensome regulations you hear so much about are aimed directly at you, not at the corporate giants who operate virtually unchecked.  And say a little prayer every day that the Oligarchs won‘t discover a way to profit from taking your little market niche.

    Case in point: the office supplies industry.

    Mitt Romney talks breezily about creating 100,000 jobs at Bain Capital with tactics like he used to form Staples.  In fact the opposite is true.  Corporate Raiders like Bain Capital operate with a tremendous competitive advantage over the little moms and pops they seek to consume.  The formula is cruel, heartless, and incredibly unfair.  A new Big Box Corporations like Staples is able to leverage  the economies of scale to get enormous price advantages over competitors from industry suppliers and manufacturers.  

    What is legal but more insidious is that by operating the big box company in the early stages of industry consolidation as a venture capital investment their earnings are taxed at 15% while the little mom and pop fighting for survival has double the tax burden.

    Walk into a Staples (or one of their only two remaining “competitors“ Office Max and Office Depot) today and you will see only five or six employees, with perhaps a couple more in the back, nearly all of them hourly employees with no opportunity to build wealth.  Ask yourself how many of the little office supply stores and stationery shops with three four or five employees, each with some family trying to get ahead, build a little wealth, and live their version of the American Dream were consumed in the process by this one Big Box store?  Forty, fifty, or a hundred?  Jobs created?  No!  Jobs destroyed.

    Are prices for the consumer any cheaper now?  No!  Now that only three competitors are left for all practical purposes, what is left is an oligopoly, a cartel, full in the knowledge that the consumer has nowhere else to go, gradually raising prices, squeezing the consumers and the small businesses.  Meanwhile the CEOs at the top are making millions each year for their trouble, and Mitt Romney, who left Bain two decades ago still pulls in $20 million a year from deals like these.

    We should never shrink from regulating the giant monopolistic corporations that run roughshod over the consumer, but instead we should commit to unleashing small business to achieve its great potential to create jobs and sustain the American Dream.  Today we live in an upside-down world where excess regulation hamstrings the  “little people “ in the small business sector of the economy who are America‘s real job creators while even minimal common sense restraints on the excesses of the giant corporations are angrily attacked as anti-American.

    It's long past time to call them on their bullshit.

  •  On the other hand (0+ / 0-)

    he didn't lay anyone off, either.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site