Posted on 01/12/2012 8:39:31 PM PST by TitansAFC
Mitt Romney told CNBC Wednesday that he’s happy to have a debate about private equity alleged role in killing American jobs — because President Obama also forced companies to shed jobs at car dealerships during the auto bailout.
So it is somewhat ironic that Romney’s former firm, Bain & Company, was among the private consulting firms that advised the Obama auto bailout team.
And what did Bain recommend? Cutting dealerships.
Romney’s ties to Bain Capital and its predecessor firm Bain & Company have come under scrutiny in recent days as his GOP rivals accuse him of “vulture capitalism” that made profits for him and his partners but resulted in the loss of jobs for average workers.
The car dealership episode was one of the most controversial of the auto bailout — as many dealers across the country complained they were being put out of business by government fiat. A special inspector general looking into the matter concluded that the decision to slash dealerships resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs. But the Obama administration argued at the time that there were too many dealerships chasing too few customers and streamlining them was an important piece to getting GM [GM 24.67 0.20 (+0.82%) ] and Chrysler back on their feet.
In an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box Wednesday, Romney, the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, said: “I'm looking forward to having the debate with president Obama. Because as you know, he became a private equity owner. He took over General Motors and Chrysler. And he cut, shut down factories, shut down dealerships, laid off thousands of people as a result of that. And the reason he did that was to try to save the business.”.....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Two wrongs don’t make a right mitt!
Bain Capitalism
Is anyone surprised by this?
Didn’t Bain express interest in buying Chrysler at one point?
1998...that’s the year Romney left Bain Capital.
I wonder where Obama was and what he was doing then...?
The more we learn about The Willard, the more we see why the regnant quislings want him to be their opponent. His machinations at Bain were shot through with cronyism - how about a loan into Bain which was mysteriously forgiven by a failing bank??? No wonder the odious snake won’t produce his tax returns - when they hit the street he is a dead snake. Just remember what he did to Sarah during the 2008 campaign - all you Willard koolaid trippers. He pulled it on the Newtster and as a result he’s looking like Wile E. Coyote, passing the anvil in free fall. See you later, Willard, after you auger in, you fricking backshooter.
The forgiven loan was in the amount of several million dollars.
A CONSULTING FIRM, OH NO, and how much were they paid to LOBBY????/sarc. errr' advise, lol.
Didn’t the “Bath-House Barry” administration TARGET Republican leaning dealerships to close?
Mitt Romney left Bain ten years before Obama came to office. Any consultations between Obama and Bain are irrelevant.
Barry O'Bozo would have been *busy* in the IL Gen. Assembly voting, PRESENT 52 times. And when it wasn't in session he would have been up in Chi cruising Gay Bars on the 'Near North Side' (aka: Boys Town).
And Voting PRESENT is something he does by not addressing any problems and passing them of to 'super commissions'. And hitting the links 80+ times.
(Barry is the most incompetent POTUS since Pierce and/or Grant!)
back in 'my day' Millard Filmore used to get the rap as 'the overall worst' POTUS in our history. Thank god he's been forgotten and replaced by Carter, O'Dummy and even Billy-Jeff. Filmore was always one of my faves - FOR be slammed ;-) (I thought he got a bad rap)
Why, what a coincidence! It also happens that John Holdren, Obama’s “Science Czar” who advocates depopulation and forced sterilization, also advised Romney on environmental policy.
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/280238/romneys-john-holdren-problem-greg-pollowitz
But I’m sure the party-line Republicans wouldn’t lie to us. Why, Willard Romney the open socialist has to be better than Obama! He has perfect hair and a different letter in front of his name!
Private equity has a lot of DEBT coming DUE in the next few years.
This debt was issued to buy companies that are failing.
Private equity would want ANYONE from a private equity BACKGROUND in the White House.
To find a sympathetic ear there when they ask for a bailout in one form or another, i.e., loans, guarantees, etc.
Romney is the guy who would bail out anyone and everyone that needs a bailout.
He won’t say that directly now. He says hardly anything substantive now.
There is a coming crash starting in Europe and spreading to the U.S. and worldwide.
The question for the U.S. voter is, do they want someone in the White House who will see the wisdom in switching to a local economy, running government surpluses and eliminating vast amounts of regulation and simply allowing free enterprise to work. Or do they want a statist in the White House who will implement price controls and government takeovers to manage the chaos.
I know which I prefer, and it ain’t Romney or Obama.
FWIW, CNBC just retracted this entire report:
“Correction: Romney’s Former Firm Bain Didn’t Advise Obama”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45979278
How could reducting the number of independent car dealerships POSSIBLY help the auto manufacturers? It may help the remaining dealers, yes, but NOT the car makers! The pool of legal buyers from the factories was REDUCED. Was there ever ANY intellectual economic justification for this? If so, WHAT??
How could reducting the number of independent car dealerships POSSIBLY help the auto manufacturers? It may help the remaining dealers, yes, but NOT the car makers! The pool of legal buyers from the factories was REDUCED. Was there ever ANY intellectual economic justification for this? If so, WHAT??
How could reducting the number of independent car dealerships POSSIBLY help the auto manufacturers? It may help the remaining dealers, yes, but NOT the car makers! The pool of legal buyers from the factories was REDUCED. Was there ever ANY intellectual economic justification for this? If so, WHAT??
Obama was NOT ‘trying to save the busniess’!!!!
Obama was appeasing the UNIONS!!@!
IF Mitt is this stupid that he cannot ‘CONNECT THE DOTS’ he surely does NOT belong in the Oval office!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.