Skip to comments.Stephen Colbert skewers Romney with the truth about Bain.
Posted on 06/10/2011 7:12:18 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
I don't watch Colbert but in surfing around last night, I caught this report on Romney and how his sleazey business practices ripped off shareholders and put people out of work while he made a half-billion dollars.
The report jibes with what I have seen reported at other sources during the '08 campaign.
Sheesh. Consider the leftist agenda and source.
Better for it to come out now, before he’s the nominee.
I too have heard this reported about Romney. As I sift thru the list of candidates it gets more and more difficult as to whom I would back. Right now of those running I prefer Herman Cain first.
I am not concerned about who to back right now...my list is who I will not back under any circumstances....it is just about all who have announced up til now...much easier that way
Obviously, I’m not a fan of Mitt Romney but I take these reports with a grain of salt. Critics can take legitimate business activities and distort them to look unethical. Something tells me that Mr. Colbert will be pretty selective in his moral outrage and not be so harsh on the business practices of George Soros.
I had forgotten about the Romney-Bain Capital connection. Thanks for the hilarious reminder!
Capitalists are the enemy!! Defeat Capitalism!
Even a blind squirrel sometimes finds an acorn.
Did you watch the video? I have seen reports of this from other sources.
Romney’s business at Bain is a problem.
He was in the levereged buyout business (in fact he helped originate it).
Do you remember how people started complaining in the 1980s that businesses had suddenly become too focused on the short term rather than the long term? That was a direct result of the emergence of the levereged buyout model.
The Bain model was essentially “house flipping” only with businesses. Find a business that is “a little run down”, get a no-money-down loan from a bank to purchase it, fix it up a little, resell it for more than you paid, pay off the loan, and keep the extra you made on the sale.
The problem is that businesses that focus on the long term can seem “a little run down” in the short term (at least on paper), and thus became targets for levereged buyouts. The only way for businesses to protect themselves from the levereged buyout frenzy was to abandon their long term focus and instead focus on the short term bottom line.
Romney’s work at Bain is a problem. It’s the same attitude as the IBGYBG (I’ll be gone, you’ll be gone) attitude that fueled the economy crash. A total focus on the short term, without any thought given to the damage that might be done in the long term.
I like the sound of a Palin/Cain ticket.
But I caught Cain on the O'Reilly show yesterday. While Cain is an imposing candidate, I thought his some of his answers were weak and evasive. O'Reilly let him off the hook. Others will not be so kind, so Cain needs to work on being more specific.
I saw the Colbert thing on Romney also. It was devastating. If it's true, let's hope this side of Romney gets wide publicity, and soon.
BOR interrupted so many times the guy couldn't get out one complete sentence.
Obviously, Cain is not BOR's man.
Perhaps Colbert should consider what would have happened if there was no Bain to save those companies. How many jobs would that have cost?
...and NO, I am not a Romneybot.
You got that right. BOR's constant interruptions would confuse anybody.
But what I was referring to specifically was BOR's question to Cain on what he would do to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Cain replied that he would allow for more domestic drilling to reduce Iran's oil cash flow.
BOR asked how that would stop Iran from getting the bomb. Cain really had no good answer. So as I said previously, Cain will have to work on questions like these.
In case you didn't see the interview, Cain did one thing very well. He explained how important it is to have someone in the White House who understands how businesses work.
And if Romney’s the nominee, get ready for 4 more years of Ozero
But the GOP had better see if there is any truth in this statement: Romney took over many companies then made money as hundreds of jobs were lost.
Because if it is true, it will be used to great effect by the Dem's in a general election.
Now, the irony is that the taking over those companies might have been good for the economy in the long run. I can't say. But the average voter won't care. He'll only see the job loss figures in the Dem political ads.