This isn’t the path to take for Conservatives. Companies like Bain have their place in the market. When companies are about to go under, the salvage what they can. People would be out of work either way.
I haven’t worked with Bain but I’ve worked with Blackstone and I’ll defend what they do.
This of them like auto-salvage. If you have a car that has or is about to die, you can sell it to a salvage yard who will use it for parts to keep other cars running. Parts of that car live on and help many other cars.
There are too many issues Romney is bad on to attack a legal and proper business in the free market.
You sound like a liberal. There are plenty of things to not like about Romney; this isn’t one of them.
(If you insist on using that line-of-attack).
Hammer in just two themes. Bain Capital’s strategy was to buy struggling firms, create hype to push up stock prices, dump the stock and quit the scene destroying livelihoods.
The second point is that Bain Capital took over a firm that committed Medicare billing fraud. According to court documents, the fraud coincided with Romney’s stint as CEO.
I am sure that the fraud must have occurred as a result of Bain’s management telling them to commit it.
You calling me heartless? You sound like when Rick Perry went lefty. Why don’t you stop trying to move conservatism to the left?
Romney is/was a great capitalist and your whole line of reasoning is disgusting.
Start up lending which is nice.
Leveraged Buy Outs which are not.
Google leveraged buyouts and educate yourself.
One can criticize business practice and not be a marxist.
the GOP establishment and Rush and Hannity (not Levin to his credit) used this card to thwart negativity about Romney's sometimes slash and burn business as it's ok anyhow...no it isn't
pure capitalism is not an ideal...it has to have some brakes here and there in practice or you end up with quite a few unintended consequence
where to brake and where to hit the gas is always the question
by and large we prefer unbridled but...that is sort of a platitude in practice
LBOs..what Mitt mostly did involves leveraging existing assets or receivables to finance a buyout or privatization even and which usually enriches the current management and the ones doing the buying more than the stockholders, debt holders or employees and frequently involves breaking up a business in the process and no it is not a remedy for weak companies but more a technique to strip the white meat off the bone of fat companies
I do not like it and I am not alone amongst business saavy folks...I have been a party to an LBO..it's unethical to me...largely...folks get very greedy
on the other hand...pure venture capital which Bain did is the only way most start ups get initial big funding before an IPO..and serves a useful purpose
Mitt also utilized govt subsidies and insurance opening too when raiding financial institutions...this will come up too...trust me
Newt was on to something but was shouted down by Rush and FOX and the establishment. The Dems won't be so muted.
If you know all you need to, then why are you asking for more?
If Romney wins the nomination I will sit this election out. I can’t vote for him. Of all the things Romney can be attacked on (guns, abortion, Romneycare, gay rights, taxes, government intrusion...) his work at Bain is the LEAST objectionable.
He was at the top of the capitalist food chain. He was a capitalist leopard preying on weak antelope retailers and engorging himself on old, arthritic water buffalo steel companies. He thinned the herds of failing companies and made the survivors stronger — yes, while engorging himself in profits. That is how capitalism works. It’s a jungle out there.
I don’t fault Romney for being a capitalist. It’s his one and only redeeming quality. I fault him for being another big government liberal. There is more than enough in his record as governor to go after.
Don’t play the liberals’ game and go after him for making money — legally — in the business world. Republicans should like free markets, no matter how messy they sometimes get. In the end, they work.
Apparently, as part of the pump and dump scheme, the first step was to fire employees, the second step was to get Lehman to rate the stock a buy and the third step was getting huge loans pushing up the stock prices (but getting the company deep into debt). Once they exited the stock, the price collapsed.
I suggest you pose the question on DU. Although there are some populists here, you’ll find a much more welcoming environment amongst the occupy crowd. You could of course mention Romneycare and his liberal voting record, but if you want to attack his business I am sure there is a “certain” audience for that.
It’s pretty short and sweet really.
There’s basically a clear corollary between the amount of influence Bain was allowed to have, and failure rate. The more influence, the more certain the failure. Of the so called successes, 70% of BAIN profits are based on a handful of companies, half of which still ended up in bankruptcy.
“Success” stories like Sports Authority and Staples, Bain held extremely insignificant positions. Staples was very small seed cash. With SA, Bain was just one of many partners yet SA was basically flat line until KMART bought them.
Bottom line is, any success was in SPITE of, not a RESULT of Bain involvement. If you want to seek out reasons for success of any of these companies I’d look at other partners/influences.
Bain also helped companies get started — Staples and Sport Authority were two. I’m not a Mitt supporter... but Bain helps alot of companies.
What I find interesting is the Mormon influence of Bain Capital. I do not KNOW that all the partners are Mormons but I know that at least one other of Mitt’s original partner is a Mormon high up (Gay) and that Bain sometimes gives money and stock to the LDS church:
http://www.newser.com/story/137777/romneys-bain-gave-19m-in-burger-king-to-mormons.html
To me this may mean that Mitt finds the business of the LDS church of more importance than the business of the American people.
Just my opinion of course.