Giuliani To Gingrich: "What The Hell Are You Doing, Newt?"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/12/giuliani_to_gingrich_what_the_hell_are_you_doing_newt.html ^

[joe212]

"What the hell are you doing, Newt? I expect this from Saul Alinsky! This is what Saul Alinsky taught Barack Obama, and what you’re saying is part of the reason we’re in so much trouble right now," Rudy Giuliani said about Newt Gingrich attacking Romney over Bain on "FOX & Friends."

[Mister Da]

Reading the comments, It is clear that hatred of Romney is so powerful here that supposedly intelligent people will agree with Newt Gingrich & Barrack Obama on the subject of FAIRNESS, as if such nonsense existed.

I cannot support Mitt Romney. He has changed positions on very important issues too many times. I do not trust that he will do what he says. He is surely a crony capitalist & lying RINO. His goal is to enrich & empower himself, his family, friends, & cronies, at the expense of this country & its people.

But, what Bain Capital does is a normal, if unhappy, process that occurs all the time in the business world. The truth is, businesses fail, & management has no idea how to deal with it. That failure can be complete bankruptcy, where workers, suppliers, debtors, & investors all lose nearly everything. Companies like Bain can mitigate such a disaster, saving what is salvageable & discarding what is not. It is a risky business that often loses in the attempted salvage.

The loss of jobs in these situations is inevitable. Bankruptcy will surely end all jobs. Mergers & acquisitions often mean the loss of jobs. Are mergers & acquisitions more demonic aspects of free enterprise? Should we restrict a business's ability to relocate, as in the NRLB?Boeing dispute, because of the impact on workers? The very nature of capitalism is the fluidity of businesses to open or close, grow or fail, merge or split. The more you regulate a business, the weaker it becomes.

Gingrich & Obama would have us accept their notion that the jobs are more important than the business. That we should support failing businesses - GM & Chrysler are examples - for the worker's sake. Pure socialism! That, barring gov’t support, it is better to let a business completely collapse, than to bring in someone who can salvage something, including some of the jobs.

Folks, this is pure pandering to all the workers out there who fear they might lose their jobs. What in Hades do you think Newt & Obama can do to help you keep your job, as if they really even cared?

Conservative Pubs will regret this line of attack on Romney, as it will be used by Rats to continue to vilify business & free enterprise, no matter who wins the Pub nomination.

[annieokie]

WORTH REPEATING:

""""Reagan said this didn’t bother him at all. “Let him have the Fortune 500,” he said. “I want our campaign to stand for Main Street, not Wall Street. I want us to stand for the worker, the shopkeeper, the entrepreneur, and the small businessman.” Reagan’s instincts were right on the mark."""""

Newt needs to borrow that.

[joe212]

I am not disagreeing with you. All I am saying that I was not aware of this (that Perry and Rudy are friends).

[DJ MacWoW]

Conservative Pubs will regret this line of attack on Romney, as it will be used by Rats to continue to vilify business & free enterprise, no matter who wins the Pub nomination.

This is NOT about capitalism. ROMNEY uses his "job" in the private sector and invited the scrutiny. When you run for office using a life experience, people WILL look at it. He REFUSES to address anything about it. It's off limits. But he USES it.

Are you really saying that everyone gets vetted but Romney?!

Oh and, there's this.

Dems Prepare To Hammer Romney With The REAL Bain Onslaught (Newt's ad just the appetizer)

Do you really think the Dems don't have ALL the dirt on Romney?

[joe212]

Do you really think the Dems don't have ALL the dirt on Romney?

There is a big difference between a communist Michael More making an argument against free market and Gingrich / Perry making that argument. Liberals in media are masters in using fools from our side to make their arguments....

[swampfox101]

Today Giuliani appeared with John McCain and they were bashing Newt for his stance on Bain Captial, jus as Rush Limbaugh and others have been doing.

These guys (Rush, McCain, Guiliani and others) can’t defend Bain Captial and Mitt Romney unless they move to the left and that’s what they have done. They have sold thier soul and the conservatives out to the CRONY CAPTIALIST.

Rush Limbaugh is talking out boths sides of his mouth on this issue, he has moved to the left...! Why? Is it bacause Bain Captial owns many of the stations Rush is on...? Just asking....!

[DJ MacWoW]

So you think that Romney shouldn't be thoroughly vetted NOW? Is that what you're saying? He touts his job but no one should actually look?!

This is NOT about capitalism. It is about Romney being dishonest and slimy. Are you stating that he's a dishonest politician but squeeky clean businessman?!

[WVNan]

There is one question that I have about this whole dustup. Why was there no condemnation of Romney when he was spending millions in Iowa lying about Newt?

[DJ MacWoW]

The Republican elites protect Romney. He’s been chosen as McCain was. The Dems and the media want him as the nominee. They’ll eat him alive.

[greyfoxx39]

Ping to post #4

[Mister Da]

I think I made my distaste for Romney very clear.

There is a difference in vetting a candidate for his political positions, & criticizing a standard business practice because someone you happen to hate worked in that area.

I suppose if Romney had been an undertaker, we would be vetting his creepy job, & speculating if he had spent more time with female cadavers vs. male.

This kind of “vetting” indirectly vilifies an entire industry, which plays right into the hands of ignorant socialists. Obama must be gleeful to see so-called conservatives attacking free enterprise practices.

What Romney & Bain Capital did with failing companies was not illegal, nor ethically wrong, & has been a standard business practice for longer than I know. Only socialists consider these practices as wrong. I'm not siding with socialists against ANYBODY.

In Romney's case, attacking him on guns, abortion, taxes, gay marriage, big gov’t, & Obamacare makes it easy to avoid attacking him on free enterprise. Only a guy like Gingrich, who is just as squishy as Romney on the above list, needs to raise the issue of mean ol’ Romney & his capitalist company.

What a crock of BS.

[DJ MacWoW]

He is using his "business" experience as a point to run on. It damn well SHOULD be explored.

You talk a lot but don't listen.

Bye.

[sand lake bar]

I’m totally with Rudy on this.

[Mister Da]

I just don't know why some people here are so anti-Romney that they are willing to shoot themselves in the foot to kill the fly on their toe.

There are so many really good political reasons to reject Romney, I just don't know why folks choose a complicated subject that so many people misunderstand.

To me, it is like scrutinizing a surgeon that had to do some amputations to save the patients. I suppose the surgeon takes some grim satisfaction in an amputation done well, even though he knows he has left the patient a cripple. And he is paid well for his services, & often thanked afterward.

But who goes back to the doctor & says, "I've talked to some friends & your competition, & though they weren't there & didn't know the circumstances, they think maybe the amputation was wrong".

Sarah P was my only hope for a candidate who had not yet sold her soul to Satan in exchange for power & wealth. I liked Cain until he couldn't/wouldn't explain the money given to the women. The rest are already bought & sold. So, I am w/o a candidate to support.

[Mister Da]

Feel free to side with socialists & nannies as often as you like.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Where was Rudy when Willard was smearing Newt in Iowa?

[Mister Da]

Yes, I thought he made an excellent argument against this line of attack.

The less clever among us are just happy to be attacking Romney, & care nothing about collateral damage. It's almost a mob mentality, & it distracts us from the real issues.

Nobody is pinning Romney down on abortion, gay marriage, gun control, jobs, the debt, ..... Nobody is stepping up with good solutions to our many bad problems. Nobody is attacking Obama. It is becoming another Donner Pass Pub Primary, & the Left is loving it.

[ez]

Romney’s Bain Capital Made Billions While Bankrupting Nearly One-Quarter Of The Companies It Invested In

By Pat Garofalo on Jan 9, 2012 at 9:25 am

2012 GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney, who has a large lead in the polls heading into the New Hampshire primary tomorrow, has been taking heat from both Democrats and his Republican challengers for his time at Bain Capital, the private equity firm that he headed. Bain’s modus operandi was to invest in companies, leverage them up with debt, and then sell them off for scrap, allowing Bain’s investors to walk away with huge profits while the companies in which Bain invested wound up in bankruptcy, laying off workers and reneging on benefits.

Last week, Reuters profiled one company, Worldwide Grinding Systems, that went belly up after Bain invested in it. The company not only lost 750 jobs, but the federal government had to come in to bail out its pension fund, while Bain walked away with millions in profits.

And according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, this was far from an isolated incident. In fact, 22 percent of the companies in which Bain invested wound up either in bankruptcy or shutting their doors entirely, while Bain itself has made billions of dollars for its investors:

The Wall Street Journal, aiming for a comprehensive assessment, examined 77 businesses Bain invested in while Mr. Romney led the firm from its 1984 start until early 1999, to see how they fared during Bain’s involvement and shortly afterward.

Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost. [...]

The Journal analysis shows that in total, Bain produced about $2.5 billion in gains for its investors in the 77 deals, on about $1.1 billion invested. Overall, Bain recorded roughly 50% to 80% annual gains in this period, which experts said was among the best track records for buyout firms in that era.

Adding insult to injury, Bain would hide its profits in tax havens, not even paying the rate it was supposed to on the profits it made laying off workers.

Federal aid

The US Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp, which insures company retirement plans, determined in 2002 that GS (Steel) had underfunded its pension by $US44 million. The federal agency, funded by corporate levies, stepped in to cover the basic pension payments, but not the supplement the union had negotiated as a hedge against the plant's closure.

For Joe Soptic, who worked at the plant for 28 years, that meant a loss of $US283 per month, about 22 per cent of his pension. Others lost up to $US400 per month, according to documents supplied by the union.

Comparatively, the GS bailout was one of the pension guarantor's smaller hits. The federal fund swung from a $US7.7 billion surplus to a $US3.6 billion deficit that year as it struggled to cover bankruptcies in the steel and transportation industries. The failure of LTV Steel, for example, cost the agency $US1.9 billion.

The agency's woes prompted Congress in 2006 to require companies to contribute more toward their pensions. Press accounts said this change accelerated the shift away from pension plans toward 401(k)s and other defined-contribution retirement plans that offer less security for workers.

[DJ MacWoW]

The U.S. Cannot Have A Private Equity President, Mitt Romney - Forbes

First, is just one tale of a Bain deal under Romney. Bain invested just $30 million to take over a company. It then arranged for this company to pay Bain and its investors a special dividend of $180 million– or six times the amount of equity capital Bain invested to take control. This technique of forcing your prey to pay back your original investment or more, as in this case, is to ensure that the Private Equity Firm is assured of a profit. It is an exploitative way to strip the company of its spare cash and is indefensible corporate rape. It is one selfish and destructive way to play the Private Equity game. For the average holding period by a PE firm is somewhere between 3 and 5 years– in and out with little thought as to the long term performance of the company or the protection of its employees.

[ez]

The nature of Private Equity is to be ruthless, and only care about using as much borrowed money as possible in order to gin up the potential return on equity. That’s the only way Blackstone and Apollo and Carlyle and KKR and TPG and the rest can go around claiming investment returns of 30% to 45% a year. It’s game to make a handful of executives named Schwarzman, Rubenstein, Kravis, James, Bonderman and their ilk very rich using other people’s money, namely state and local pension funds.

Nice find.