he’s gonna have to explain why would Bain have taken $180 million out of a company and then have it go bankrupt, and to what extent did they have some obligation to the workers?
____________________________________________________________
The company was failing, that is why Bain was able to buy it cheap. The hope was they could turn it around, this was one of the 22% they were not able to turn around. Bain did the best they could to make sure that it wasn’t one of the 8% they lost their money on.
You win some and you lose some.
As far as an obligation to the employees, there is none. You hire people to make you money, if they can’t make you money you let them go. Newt would have us believe that Bain should have spent their investment on continuing salaries to the employees until Bain went under. This is what the left and Socialist preach, it is wrong.
In the end Bain did more good than bad. They make money when they do it right not when they don’t.
As far as I’m concerned this has nothing to do with Romney it is all about a Republican running for office, POTUS at that, that doesn’t even understand at the most basic level the way business works.
This premise is not necessarily the case, "cheap" does not always equal "failing". Lots of these companies are targeted because they have been around for a long time, have lots of equipment, and are profitable in a fiscally conservative sense. Think the way banks made money in the OLD days, vs how they did in 2006/07.