Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Where is the link to back up these phony numbers?
The 70% number comes from Romney advisors in response to Newts attack. They have been repeated multiple times in many interviews.
The 50% figure comes from my time in college. It's the number that was taught to us during business mgmt and ethics.
I have no reason to doubt either stat. If you choose to that's your choice.
The reality is that it is incredibly difficult to provide any solid, accurate information on how many new businesses fail... because new businesses are not required to provide data in order to establish the factual picture. Having said that, the National Federation of Business has, for over a decade, been trying to track it. From their stats, it appears that the failure rate is around 80%.
They take on firms that are already collapsing. Their success rate was about 70% when the new business failure rate is about 50%
Youre letting your hatred for Romney cloud your judgment.
Where is the link to back up these phony numbers?
The 70% number comes from Romney advisors in response to Newts attack. They have been repeated multiple times in many interviews.
The 50% figure comes from my time in college. It's the number that was taught to us during business mgmt and ethics.
I have no reason to doubt either stat. If you choose to that's your choice.
The 70% number comes from Romney advisors in response to Newts attack. They have been repeated multiple times in many interviews.
The 50% figure comes from my time in college. It's the number that was taught to us during business mgmt and ethics.
I have no reason to doubt either stat. If you choose to that's your choice.
The reality is that it is incredibly difficult to provide any solid, accurate information on how many new businesses fail... because new businesses are not required to provide data in order to establish the factual picture. Having said that, the National Federation of Business has, for over a decade, been trying to track it. From their stats, it appears that the failure rate is around 80%.
It may very well be that high now. It's been about 25 years since I was in college. If memory serves me correct the stats we were given were based off of bank loan defaults and declared bankruptcies. Part of our curriculum was to submit business proposals to the banks we got our student loans from or those we delt with for approval or denial. We also heavily studied unions and union representation.
One of the few classes I enjoyed.
Where is the link to back up these phony numbers?
The 70% number comes from Romney advisors in response to Newts attack. They have been repeated multiple times in many interviews.
The 50% figure comes from my time in college. It's the number that was taught to us during business mgmt and ethics.
I have no reason to doubt either stat. If you choose to that's your choice.
Oh, so because they said so you believe it? Cool, just shows your willingness to believe anything as long as someone told you it was true and then repeat that information as being "true". Just because its in the echo chamber doesnt mean its true.
Also, what do you expect Romney advisors to say?
Newt is just hurting Romney's chances in the general election and doing this entirely for revenge. It's bad for his party, and according to his belief that Obama is destroying America, bad for our country.
The 70% number comes from Romney advisors in response to Newts attack. They have been repeated multiple times in many interviews.
The 50% figure comes from my time in college. It's the number that was taught to us during business mgmt and ethics.
I have no reason to doubt either stat. If you choose to that's your choice.
Oh, so because they said so you believe it? Cool, just shows your willingness to believe anything as long as someone told you it was true and then repeat that information as being "true". Just because its in the echo chamber doesnt mean its true.
Also, what do you expect Romney advisors to say?
Of course I keep it in a skeptical view. But unless and until proof to the contrary is brought forth its all I have to go by. IF its false it will be exposed. You guys act like were going to vote tomorrow and we have to nail down every fact yesterday. Our primary process is doing its job just fine, calm down.
You totally avoided the point that Jillian made.If I needed surgery, would I want someone who has hands on experience or someone who has no practical experience or any really understanding of what is required in the operation?
Bain & Co - the consulting company which hired Romney in the first place - is a consulting company. They were a consultant to businesses on both how to grow and how to become more profitable. Their business is business. Businesses pay them a lot of money to tell them how to get better.
Romney took those skills he learned at the consulting business and applied them to the investing business. Romney and Bain Capital - the investment business - made their name originally in what is known as "growth capital" investors. Growth capital investors are investors who give large chunks of money to growing businesses and advise them on how to get better and grow faster.
Bain Capital branched out into what is known as "buyouts." This is where the criticism comes in because in some cases, they do let a lot employees go. Occasionally, it amounts to asset stripping, but most times, target companies are those which lag their competitors. IOW, the company makes a 3% profit margin whereas their competitors make a 6% profit margin so the buyout firm attempts to get the company up to 6%. Since labour is the biggest cost of most companies, this inevitably leads to layoffs. I would agree that there are egregious examples in the buyout world, but most of the activities are an attempt to make the company better.
Why is that bad? Companies don't exist to employ people. Companies exist to make a profit. If we start thinking that companies exist to employ people and profit is a dirty word, then what you have is called "France."
As to my opening question, a guy who spent his formative working years immersed in a culture where the singular goal was trying to improve businesses knows better than anyone what businesses need to create jobs. The economy and jobs are the number one issue in this election. So who knows better, an academic, a guy who spent his entire career in Washington, or a guy who made his fortune trying to make businesses better?
She made two points, first when he was governor then at Bain. If you take her point about governor, then you can extol Rick Perry, jobs machine, because of the strength of the Texas economy. Or you can point to the failure of MA Democrats given that they've controlled the state for a decade. The point about Sorkin is debatable but not relevant. As a successful businessman, Romney knows what is necessary to create conditions for businesses to operate and expand. Business is the backbone of this country. You won't get high job growth until business is confident again. And I believe Romney knows how to do that better than Obama or any other Republican candidate.
Oh, so because they said so you believe it? Cool, just shows your willingness to believe anything as long as someone told you it was true and then repeat that information as being "true". Just because its in the echo chamber doesnt mean its true.
Also, what do you expect Romney advisors to say?
Of course I keep it in a skeptical view. But unless and until proof to the contrary is brought forth its all I have to go by. IF its false it will be exposed. You guys act like were going to vote tomorrow and we have to nail down every fact yesterday. Our primary process is doing its job just fine, calm down.
Thats not being a sceptic at all..Thats believing what you want to believe because you want to believe it. You've posted that figure over and over and always presented as fact. So cut it out
Oh, so because they said so you believe it? Cool, just shows your willingness to believe anything as long as someone told you it was true and then repeat that information as being "true". Just because its in the echo chamber doesnt mean its true.
Also, what do you expect Romney advisors to say?
Of course I keep it in a skeptical view. But unless and until proof to the contrary is brought forth its all I have to go by. IF its false it will be exposed. You guys act like were going to vote tomorrow and we have to nail down every fact yesterday. Our primary process is doing its job just fine, calm down.
Thats not being a sceptic at all..Thats believing what you want to believe because you want to believe it. You've posted that figure over and over and always presented as fact. So cut it out
Of course I keep it in a skeptical view. But unless and until proof to the contrary is brought forth its all I have to go by. IF its false it will be exposed. You guys act like were going to vote tomorrow and we have to nail down every fact yesterday. Our primary process is doing its job just fine, calm down.
Thats not being a sceptic at all..Thats believing what you want to believe because you want to believe it. You've posted that figure over and over and always presented as fact. So cut it out
I posted that figure twice, TODAY, within minutes of each other.
Find your whale elsewhere Ahab.
Thats not being a sceptic at all..Thats believing what you want to believe because you want to believe it. You've posted that figure TWICE and always presented as fact. So cut it out
Thats not being a sceptic at all..Thats believing what you want to believe because you want to believe it. You've posted that figure over and over and always presented as fact. So cut it out
I posted that figure twice, TODAY, within minutes of each other.
Find your whale elsewhere Ahab.
Uh ok...I'll revise it:
Thats not being a sceptic at all..Thats believing what you want to believe because you want to believe it. You've posted that figure TWICE and always presented as fact. So cut it out
Seems you couldnt get pass that point. Posting word of mouth figures as fact is not being skeptic. Happy?
You should ask one of the Moderators for a name change, as a gracious act of kindness.Newt is just hurting Romney's chances in the general election and doing this entirely for revenge. It's bad for his party, and according to his belief that Obama is destroying America, bad for our country.
Of course I keep it in a skeptical view. But unless and until proof to the contrary is brought forth its all I have to go by. IF its false it will be exposed. You guys act like were going to vote tomorrow and we have to nail down every fact yesterday. Our primary process is doing its job just fine, calm down.
Thats not being a sceptic at all..Thats believing what you want to believe because you want to believe it. You've posted that figure over and over and always presented as fact. So cut it out
Can you disprove the statistic? That would appear to be the rational thing to do. Prove that it is wrong. It's a stat. It should be easy to disprove a stat.
Seems to me that you are pissed at someone doing exactly what most of us do.... believing what best suits our political view. You are as guilty as anyone else of that. So I don't see you are in any position to tell anyone to 'cut it out'.
You totally avoided the point that Jillian made.If I needed surgery, would I want someone who has hands on experience or someone who has no practical experience or any really understanding of what is required in the operation?
Bain & Co - the consulting company which hired Romney in the first place - is a consulting company. They were a consultant to businesses on both how to grow and how to become more profitable. Their business is business. Businesses pay them a lot of money to tell them how to get better.
Romney took those skills he learned at the consulting business and applied them to the investing business. Romney and Bain Capital - the investment business - made their name originally in what is known as "growth capital" investors. Growth capital investors are investors who give large chunks of money to growing businesses and advise them on how to get better and grow faster.
Bain Capital branched out into what is known as "buyouts." This is where the criticism comes in because in some cases, they do let a lot employees go. Occasionally, it amounts to asset stripping, but most times, target companies are those which lag their competitors. IOW, the company makes a 3% profit margin whereas their competitors make a 6% profit margin so the buyout firm attempts to get the company up to 6%. Since labour is the biggest cost of most companies, this inevitably leads to layoffs. I would agree that there are egregious examples in the buyout world, but most of the activities are an attempt to make the company better.
Why is that bad? Companies don't exist to employ people. Companies exist to make a profit. If we start thinking that companies exist to employ people and profit is a dirty word, then what you have is called "France."
As to my opening question, a guy who spent his formative working years immersed in a culture where the singular goal was trying to improve businesses knows better than anyone what businesses need to create jobs. The economy and jobs are the number one issue in this election. So who knows better, an academic, a guy who spent his entire career in Washington, or a guy who made his fortune trying to make businesses better?
She made two points, first when he was governor then at Bain. If you take her point about governor, then you can extol Rick Perry, jobs machine, because of the strength of the Texas economy.
Or you can point to the failure of MA Democrats given that they've controlled the state for a decade.
The point about Sorkin is debatable but not relevant. As a successful businessman, Romney knows what is necessary to create conditions for businesses to operate and expand. Business is the backbone of this country. You won't get high job growth until business is confident again. And I believe Romney knows how to do that better than Obama or any other Republican candidate.
Bain Capital represents everything that is wrong with vulture capitalism.
ultimately, government is not a business... it has a fiduciary responsibility to human beings.
Thats not being a sceptic at all..Thats believing what you want to believe because you want to believe it. You've posted that figure over and over and always presented as fact. So cut it out
Can you disprove the statistic? That would appear to be the rational thing to do. Prove that it is wrong. It's a stat. It should be easy to disprove a stat.
Seems to me that you are pissed at someone doing exactly what most of us do.... believing what best suits our political view. You are as guilty as anyone else of that. So I don't see you are in any position to tell anyone to 'cut it out'.
Burden of proof doesnt lie with me because I didnt make the statement. For example: I can fly! Can you disprove that?
I asked where he got those figures and he admitted it was from the Romney camp. Will you tell everyone I can fly because I said so?
Also, I didnt say I believed or didnt believe the figure I only asked if he was able to prove it. So claiming I'm guilty of something is a little stupid. Attack all you want, doesnt help back up his claims tho
You totally avoided the point that Jillian made.
She made two points, first when he was governor then at Bain. If you take her point about governor, then you can extol Rick Perry, jobs machine, because of the strength of the Texas economy.
They are not equal. We can examine each, though. Fer instance, Perry's job growth mainly comes from fast-food type minimum wage jobs, and . . . wait for it . . . gummint jobs!
Or you can point to the failure of MA Democrats given that they've controlled the state for a decade.
You know, I don't get too worked up about the Iowa Cubs. It's the minor leagues, way out halfway across the country. Their under-performance does not reflect on all minor leaguers, or even all teams in the Cubs farm system.
The point about Sorkin is debatable but not relevant. As a successful businessman, Romney knows what is necessary to create conditions for businesses to operate and expand. Business is the backbone of this country. You won't get high job growth until business is confident again. And I believe Romney knows how to do that better than Obama or any other Republican candidate.
You say "successful businessman", but how do you define it in his case?
He has never ran a company or had to balance books. The first deal he made was for $36 million, back in the late 1980s. This is not a typical business, or a typical Republican success story. And other Republican small business owners - of which there are a LOT - do not relate to someone who has never put it on the line to achieve. There is the aura of "This guy is privileged, therefore not legit."
I think that the Republican rank and file can be turned off by that without being accused of 'class warfare', don't you?
Plus, he's a damn RINO!
