The Real Mitt Romney

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

Oh Please! Poly-ticks will fool us every day of the week, if we don't watch 'em!

Which do you, sight unseen, believe is more trustworthy?

A high priest and missionary for two years from the Mormon Church, and WAY successful businessman?

Or

A Chicago Community activist and professional poly-tick?

High priest and missionary are immediately suspect, but discounting that;
I have a choice of a guy who made millions by fucking the working man and the country, or a guy that spent his career helping the little guy.
Damn, that is a tough choice ain't it.

Have you any idea of the kind of loopholes that our tax code has?

No, I can't give you a number, I doubt anyone can without considerable research. But I do remember reading dozens of times over the years, of bills that were passed to give huge breaks to a very small number of specific companies. Of course the companies weren't named in the bill, but it was written in a way that no one else could qualify. There were a few that it was only one company getting to fuck me.

I certainly wouldn't bet on either party doing a meaningful job of cleaning up the tax code mess, because every one of those special loopholes is for someone with pull in Washington. Nobody is more beholden than Thurston... er, Mitt.

We will RUE the day that we have a true monetary crisis, believe me.

Rue? Rue? That's French, that's socialist talk.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

High priest and missionary are immediately suspect, but discounting that;
I have a choice of a guy who made millions by fucking the working man and the country, or a guy that spent his career helping the little guy.
Damn, that is a tough choice ain't it.

"Fucking the working man"? Are you out of your mind? Romney's company turned around companies, and in the process, saved or created a lot of jobs. Yes, not every company was able to be turned around, because of market conditions that developed - but in business, nothing is guaranteed except change.

No, I can't give you a number, I doubt anyone can without considerable research. But I do remember reading dozens of times over the years, of bills that were passed to give huge breaks to a very small number of specific companies. Of course the companies weren't named in the bill, but it was written in a way that no one else could qualify. There were a few that it was only one company getting to fuck me.

I certainly wouldn't bet on either party doing a meaningful job of cleaning up the tax code mess, because every one of those special loopholes is for someone with pull in Washington. Nobody is more beholden than Thurston... er, Mitt.

Why do you say that? Mitt hasn't served a day in Washington, yet. His time as Governor of Mass., is long over. Obama is the one with supporters than need to be paid back - lots of bundlers and special interest blocks of voters, that put together a LOT of money for him and workers for his campaign.

Romney has some of those same problems, but his platform is a lot more focused, (on economic policy and business), which fits perfectly with what we need, so the effect will be more positive, and less detrimental.

I agree with you that reforming the tax code will be like pulling teeth.

Rue? Rue? That's French, that's socialist talk.

Rue: Define Rue at Dictionary.com

dictionary.reference.com/browse/rue
to feel sorrow over; repent of; regret bitterly: to rue the loss of opportunities. 2. to wish that (something) had never been done, taken place, etc.: I rue the day he ...

Specifically, I don't like the gov't owning a large part of GM, along with the Unions. The shareholders and bondholders were screwed royal, as were the non-union employees, who lost both their jobs and their benefits. In the case of the shareholders and bondholders (especially the latter), that is contrary to law.

Better to have GM go through bankruptcy, and come out the other side, as a new, and stronger company. Having the feds on the board of directors, of a major corp. makes me nervous.

Also, I doubt if the gov't knows how to design and/or build, better cars and trucks.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

"Fucking the working man"? Are you out of your mind? Romney's company turned around companies, and in the process, saved or created a lot of jobs. Yes, not every company was able to be turned around, because of market conditions that developed - but in business, nothing is guaranteed except change.

And small change at that, after Romney & Company raped them for millions, saddling them with monstrous debt. The companies that survived obviously would have anyway.

What the rapist did was combine companies, so that instead of a few companies competing (you know, capitalism), each employing lots of people and making a modest profit, there was only one or two companies left, employing very few people, and paying enormous debt service on the rapists profits.

The big picture is, Romney put a shitload of people out of work and redirected what they would have been paid and funneled back into the economy, into his pocket and his offshore accounts.

Thurston...er, Mitt, was a missionary all right, a disciple of Michael Milken, honing Milken's sleezeball tactics to a keen edge with which to castrate not only the working man, but small businessmen as well.

Why do you say that? Mitt hasn't served a day in Washington, yet. His time as Governor of Mass., is long over.

C'mon, if you're really that naive you shouldn't be allowed on the street, no less vote.

Specifically, I don't like the gov't owning a large part of GM, along with the Unions. The shareholders and bondholders were screwed royal, as were the non-union employees, who lost both their jobs and their benefits. In the case of the shareholders and bondholders (especially the latter), that is contrary to law.

Better to have GM go through bankruptcy, and come out the other side, as a new, and stronger company. Having the feds on the board of directors, of a major corp. makes me nervous.

You obviously are parroting shit you hear without understanding what went down, how, why, or what would have happened as a result of Romney's hands off stance. I'll give it to you in a nutshell, a few people would have pocketed a fortune, and millions of people, along with the country, would have gotten fucked.

Also, I doubt if the gov't knows how to design and/or build, better cars and trucks.

If you really think the board and the bigwigs of the car companies know how to, "design and/or build, better cars", you don't know jackshit about business either.

[Adak]

The board and bigwigs hire people to conduct consumer studies so they KNOW what customers want, in their car or truck. They learned that pretty well from the Ford Mustang and Lee Iacocca, back in 1961. Iacocca knew what the people wanted.

But that's the company, it's not the gov't. You want a gov't designed car, fine - you buy one.

Since Mitt Romney has never been a Congressman or Senator, no - I don't know what you're talking about when you try to blame him, for the shortcomings of the previous leadership in Washington.

I worked for a corp that went through a capital group like Bain, and yes, it was tough. But before that, it was also tough, as idiots running the company, ran it right into the ground. Every year that was another two or three rounds of lay-offs, and this went on and on. Without the help of the capital group, the corporation I worked for, would have been bankrupt, simply.

The thing is, business markets are always changing. You can't say "we make a good product, so we'll always have a job here". No, you can't be sure of that. Things change, new products are introduced, new technologies are discovered. In my case, SONY came into the field, and just blew us away - HUGE market clout. Plus we had poor managers and management running the company.

When your leaders sign a treaty to permit cheap 3rd world labor, to manufacture our goods and sell it to us, do you really believe it will have NO impact on our jobs, and on companies?

Can you see competing with a labor force working for $2-$5 dollars a day? Of course not, but that is what OUR federal gov't, signed us up to do.

There have been thousands of companies who have moved overseas or down to South America, in whole, or in part. It's beyond ridiculous to point to ONE company moving overseas 12 years after Romney left from Blain Capital, and say "See! He shouldn't be President, he caused this company to move to China!"

That's not being reasonable, and you know it. Yes, it's tough being RIFF'd - been there, got the T shirt.

A capitalist society is not a fair society (no society is, so nothing new), but those RIFF'd employees should move on and see what they can do NOW, not stand around, waving signs, feeling sorry for themselves.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by Adak

"Fucking the working man"? Are you out of your mind? Romney's company turned around companies, and in the process, saved or created a lot of jobs. Yes, not every company was able to be turned around, because of market conditions that developed - but in business, nothing is guaranteed except change.

Do you even know what Romney's company did (does)? Even a hint of a clue about what a LBO is?

He may have started out the way you describe, keeping companies like Staples alive and helping them flourish, but he veered away from that when he figured out the real money was in taking over companies, loading them up with debt, squeezing exorbitant fees from them and then dumping the broken husk in the end. Greed and Debt

For those that don't want to dig through that long article, here is a description of how it works:

A private equity firm like Bain typically seeks out floundering businesses with good cash flows. It then puts down a relatively small amount of its own money and runs to a big bank like Goldman Sachs or Citigroup for the rest of the financing. (Most leveraged buyouts are financed with 60 to 90 percent borrowed cash.) The takeover firm then uses that borrowed money to buy a controlling stake in the target company, either with or without its consent. When an LBO is done without the consent of the target, it's called a hostile takeover; such thrilling acts of corporate piracy were made legend in the Eighties, most notably the 1988 attack by notorious corporate raiders Kohlberg Kravis Roberts against RJR Nabisco, a deal memorialized in the book Barbarians at the Gate.

Romney and Bain avoided the hostile approach, preferring to secure the cooperation of their takeover targets by buying off a company's management with lucrative bonuses. Once management is on board, the rest is just math. So if the target company is worth $500 million, Bain might put down $20 million of its own cash, then borrow $350 million from an investment bank to take over a controlling stake.

But here's the catch. When Bain borrows all of that money from the bank, it's the target company that ends up on the hook for all of the debt.

Now your troubled firm – let's say you make tricycles in Alabama – has been taken over by a bunch of slick Wall Street dudes who kicked in as little as five percent as a down payment. So in addition to whatever problems you had before, Tricycle Inc. now owes Goldman or Citigroup $350 million. With all that new debt service to pay, the company's bottom line is suddenly untenable: You almost have to start firing people immediately just to get your costs down to a manageable level.

"That interest," says Lynn Turner, former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission, "just sucks the profit out of the company."

Fortunately, the geniuses at Bain who now run the place are there to help tell you whom to fire. And for the service it performs cutting your company's costs to help you pay off the massive debt that it, Bain, saddled your company with in the first place, Bain naturally charges a management fee, typically millions of dollars a year. So Tricycle Inc. now has two gigantic new burdens it never had before Bain Capital stepped into the picture: tens of millions in annual debt service, and millions more in "management fees." Since the initial acquisition of Tricycle Inc. was probably greased by promising the company's upper management lucrative bonuses, all that pain inevitably comes out of just one place: the benefits and payroll of the hourly workforce.

Once all that debt is added, one of two things can happen. The company can fire workers and slash benefits to pay off all its new obligations to Goldman Sachs and Bain, leaving it ripe to be resold by Bain at a huge profit. Or it can go bankrupt – this happens after about seven percent of all private equity buyouts – leaving behind one or more shuttered factory towns. Either way, Bain wins. By power-sucking cash value from even the most rapidly dying firms, private equity raiders like Bain almost always get their cash out before a target goes belly up.

"That was not his or Bain's or the industry's primary objective. The objective of the LBO business is maximizing returns for investors." When it comes to private equity, American workers – not to mention their families and communities – simply don't enter into the equation.

So don't try to sell him to ME as a shining white knight, come along to help poor KB's Toys - KB Toys . Many companies were metaphorically burned to the ground and many individuals lost their jobs so Bain and their investors could get richer.

This is a man whose knowledge lies in making the rich richer, not in helping to create jobs. I have no doubt that, if he should be elected President, he and his wealthy friends will benefit enormously. And it will be on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens.

Why do I think this? Oh maybe because of Global Tech.

Global-Tech:Betting Against American Workers

Profits > everything. A President who believes this will not protect our citizens...the very idea is frightening and chilling.

Oh and Hannity and Limbaugh? They work for Clear Channel, which is owned by Bain Capital. Just FYI...