Obama Superpac Runs "Romney Killed My Wife" Ad

[Murf76]

It's not "heads I win/tails you lose". It's a last ditch opportunity to save a company from certain extinction. Bain represents investors. Those investors are regular people; pension plans, hospitals, charitable organizations, retirees, etc. Bain's primary responsibility is to those investors who have entrusted their money to them. The priority is NOT providing a social service to businesses who, through mismanagement and blood-sucking unions, have no ability to secure enough capital to modernize or otherwise stay competitive.

Not every one of these companies can be saved. But Bain has a record of saving about 80% of them. That's fantastic. But not good enough for the disgruntled 20%, who more often than not, did NOTHING to help save their failing enterprise.

GS Steel was around for 105 years before Romney and his vultures got their hooks into them. So was AmPad. The notion that these were weak companies is ridiculous. Quite the contrary, they had name recognition and assets that allowed Romney and his boys to borrow ridiculous amounts of money against them, pay themselves huge salaries, and then either fob them off on unsuspecting investors.

Take GS Steel. The way to save GS Steel would have been to invest that 125 million they borrowed into new and improved equipment. Instead, they paid themselves a 36 million dollar bonus, then used the rest of the money to buy up other plants in attempt to corner the market. Then after those plants were mortgaged to the eyeballs (GS Industries had 500 million in debt when it went tits up) because the Kansas City plant hadn't been moderinized, when they sold off the assets, they just couldn't find a buyer. (Other plants did.)

And this is the problem with the investor economy. It's about short term gratification, not long term building. Romney isn't the solution, he's the problem.

Romney's only a problem if you're a union parasite whose unwilling to notice the host is nearly dead. These plants were partnered together in an effort to make a couple of small, antiquated operations in danger of closing into a larger, more dynamic and compelling force. Problem is, while 80% is a great record of success, there's still the 20% that can't be salvaged. When you've got an existential, industry-wide threat to your company, you can't be in a pissing contest with management all the time and striking every 15 minutes.

“We liked the management team,’’ said Paul Edgerley, a Bain managing director who analyzed GS Industries before the investment. “We felt like it was a good chance to take an antiquated facility and update it.’’

That calculus was badly shaken by the Asian financial crisis in 1997, which opened the floodgates for cheap imports to the United States and accelerated GS Industries’ slide into bankruptcy in 2001.

Cont... How 1 mill thrived, 1 failed after Bain invested - The Boston Globe

So... what did the unions at GST do when the market was flooded with cheap imports? Did they put their shoulders to the grindstone and fight for the continued survival of the plant? Nope. They went on strike that same year.

Meanwhile, at Steel Dynamics in Butler, Indiana, a non-union operation... they're employing 6500, utilizing the latest techniques, and paying out 80k salaries with performance-linked bonuses. If Joe Soptic was walking a picket-line in 1997, HE was the one who was "part of the problem".

As we already know, Bain is there to make money for it's investors. Its first responsibility and priority is to them. Its not a social service with the sole purpose of providing jobs. But 80% of the time, that's the happy by-product of Bain's involvement.

 

[Conservative]

Wasserman Schultz: 'No idea' about political affiliation of Priorities USA

Democratic Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Sunday she has “no idea” about the political affiliation of Priorities USA, the Super PAC behind a recent ad suggesting Mitt Romney is responsible for a woman’s death -- though the group was co-founded by two former Obama staffers.

dumb bitch.

 

[Conservative]

It doesn't wash down well with voters because they've only heard a warped version of what they do.

If it weren't for investors like Bain you wouldn't have many of the services that are available today. Facebook wouldn't exist, along with Staples and hundreds of other companies.

Which is why you don't want this powerful ad on TV if you're Governor Romney.

Planet Money had it right, I take it. Because that is what others have said too; the first move is to pay themselves back. Doesn't make them wrong; doesn't make them dumb. Just not very appealing to most people.

It isn't a powerful ad. It's a disgrace. Everyone that watches it can see it. And once we start asking questions about it the President starts backtracking on it's origins.

First they claimed they had nothing to do with it. Then the people that produced it tried to distance themselves from it. Then we find out on a very public youtube video that Obama's campaign manager knew all about it and was told the whole story in May. Then we discover that the guy who produced it was a former Obama aid. Then we hear Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz tell us she doesn't even know the political leanings of the producers of the ad.

I mean these people are knee deep in this ad and won't claim it's their's and deny it but then immediately try to take advantage of the lies, rationalizations, and misrepresentations it contains.

"You didn't build that" was bad enough, but this is gonna bring Obama down.

bunch of dumb fucks.

 

[thanatos144]

It's not "heads I win/tails you lose". It's a last ditch opportunity to save a company from certain extinction. Bain represents investors. Those investors are regular people; pension plans, hospitals, charitable organizations, retirees, etc. Bain's primary responsibility is to those investors who have entrusted their money to them. The priority is NOT providing a social service to businesses who, through mismanagement and blood-sucking unions, have no ability to secure enough capital to modernize or otherwise stay competitive.

Not every one of these companies can be saved. But Bain has a record of saving about 80% of them. That's fantastic. But not good enough for the disgruntled 20%, who more often than not, did NOTHING to help save their failing enterprise.

GS Steel was around for 105 years before Romney and his vultures got their hooks into them. So was AmPad. The notion that these were weak companies is ridiculous. Quite the contrary, they had name recognition and assets that allowed Romney and his boys to borrow ridiculous amounts of money against them, pay themselves huge salaries, and then either fob them off on unsuspecting investors.

Take GS Steel. The way to save GS Steel would have been to invest that 125 million they borrowed into new and improved equipment. Instead, they paid themselves a 36 million dollar bonus, then used the rest of the money to buy up other plants in attempt to corner the market. Then after those plants were mortgaged to the eyeballs (GS Industries had 500 million in debt when it went tits up) because the Kansas City plant hadn't been moderinized, when they sold off the assets, they just couldn't find a buyer. (Other plants did.)

And this is the problem with the investor economy. It's about short term gratification, not long term building. Romney isn't the solution, he's the problem.

Just cause it was around a long time before numb nuts ran it into the ground does not make Bain evil. Yet your post does make you stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

Romney's only a problem if you're a union parasite whose unwilling to notice the host is nearly dead. These plants were partnered together in an effort to make a couple of small, antiquated operations in danger of closing into a larger, more dynamic and compelling force. Problem is, while 80% is a great record of success, there's still the 20% that can't be salvaged. When you've got an existential, industry-wide threat to your company, you can't be in a pissing contest with management all the time and striking every 15 minutes.

....

So... what did the unions at GST do when the market was flooded with cheap imports? Did they put their shoulders to the grindstone and fight for the continued survival of the plant? Nope. They went on strike that same year.

Meanwhile, at Steel Dynamics in Butler, Indiana, a non-union operation... they're employing 6500, utilizing the latest techniques, and paying out 80k salaries with performance-linked bonuses. If Joe Soptic was walking a picket-line in 1997, HE was the one who was "part of the problem".

As we already know, Bain is there to make money for it's investors. Its first responsibility and priority is to them. Its not a social service with the sole purpose of providing jobs. But 80% of the time, that's the happy by-product of Bain's involvement.

Except striking "every fifteen minutes". They struck once, the first strike that plant had in 40 years over a very legit greivence that Bain wasn't capitalizing the Pension fund as they were required to. IN the end, the Federal Government had to pony up 44 million dollars and a lot of those guys STILL didn't get what they were promised.

And frankly, I get sick of this 80% success rate. WOuld you fly on an airline which had a 80% chance of not crashing? Would you go to a doctor who had 80% of his patients surived?

Yeah, Bain was successful in the 1990's when things were good in the economy all around, thanks to Bill Clinton. In the Oughts, not so much.

Oh, wait. Romney left to go set up the downhill ski course in Utah. He had nothing to do with that. Really.

 

[Politico]

Romney killed my grrandmother. She got mesothelioma from working in a plant where the guy who owned it was retroactive friends with Romney.

 

[Murf76]

Romney's only a problem if you're a union parasite whose unwilling to notice the host is nearly dead. These plants were partnered together in an effort to make a couple of small, antiquated operations in danger of closing into a larger, more dynamic and compelling force. Problem is, while 80% is a great record of success, there's still the 20% that can't be salvaged. When you've got an existential, industry-wide threat to your company, you can't be in a pissing contest with management all the time and striking every 15 minutes.

....

So... what did the unions at GST do when the market was flooded with cheap imports? Did they put their shoulders to the grindstone and fight for the continued survival of the plant? Nope. They went on strike that same year.

Meanwhile, at Steel Dynamics in Butler, Indiana, a non-union operation... they're employing 6500, utilizing the latest techniques, and paying out 80k salaries with performance-linked bonuses. If Joe Soptic was walking a picket-line in 1997, HE was the one who was "part of the problem".

As we already know, Bain is there to make money for it's investors. Its first responsibility and priority is to them. Its not a social service with the sole purpose of providing jobs. But 80% of the time, that's the happy by-product of Bain's involvement.

Except striking "every fifteen minutes". They struck once, the first strike that plant had in 40 years over a very legit greivence that Bain wasn't capitalizing the Pension fund as they were required to. IN the end, the Federal Government had to pony up 44 million dollars and a lot of those guys STILL didn't get what they were promised.

And frankly, I get sick of this 80% success rate. WOuld you fly on an airline which had a 80% chance of not crashing? Would you go to a doctor who had 80% of his patients surived?

Yeah, Bain was successful in the 1990's when things were good in the economy all around, thanks to Bill Clinton. In the Oughts, not so much.

Oh, wait. Romney left to go set up the downhill ski course in Utah. He had nothing to do with that. Really.

What part of "Bain's responsibility is to INVESTORS" are you having trouble understanding? They didn't OWE anything to the workers of that plant. They could've walked in there, fired the lot of them, torn the place apart brick by brick, and sold it for scrap. And they would have too, if they didn't think there was a possibility of turning it around.

80% is pretty damn good when providing jobs is not the main point of the exercise. It's more like getting a pretty day 80% of the time with no turbulence when you fly, but still arriving safely 100% of the time. The investors are the point. The jobs are a by-product.

 

[beagle9]

It's not "heads I win/tails you lose". It's a last ditch opportunity to save a company from certain extinction. Bain represents investors. Those investors are regular people; pension plans, hospitals, charitable organizations, retirees, etc. Bain's primary responsibility is to those investors who have entrusted their money to them. The priority is NOT providing a social service to businesses who, through mismanagement and blood-sucking unions, have no ability to secure enough capital to modernize or otherwise stay competitive.

Not every one of these companies can be saved. But Bain has a record of saving about 80% of them. That's fantastic. But not good enough for the disgruntled 20%, who more often than not, did NOTHING to help save their failing enterprise.

GS Steel was around for 105 years before Romney and his vultures got their hooks into them. So was AmPad. The notion that these were weak companies is ridiculous. Quite the contrary, they had name recognition and assets that allowed Romney and his boys to borrow ridiculous amounts of money against them, pay themselves huge salaries, and then either fob them off on unsuspecting investors.

Take GS Steel. The way to save GS Steel would have been to invest that 125 million they borrowed into new and improved equipment. Instead, they paid themselves a 36 million dollar bonus, then used the rest of the money to buy up other plants in attempt to corner the market. Then after those plants were mortgaged to the eyeballs (GS Industries had 500 million in debt when it went tits up) because the Kansas City plant hadn't been moderinized, when they sold off the assets, they just couldn't find a buyer. (Other plants did.)

And this is the problem with the investor economy. It's about short term gratification, not long term building. Romney isn't the solution, he's the problem.

Very interesting, because I think this is what happened to a long term company that has been in business for around 40 years or better now that I know of. The downsizing & selling off of it's assets that it had aquirred over the years began quickly, and it has something to do with these new investors it seems and their plans when this was happening, and then next the final big sell off begins, then the company went down down down in size, and as well the bank situation was involved as you say also next, wow I am learning as you speak about this sort of thing, and the parrallels are simular in situation of, and so much so that it is scary to think that it is some sort of a pattern when this stuff is now going on in this nation, and what for greed purposes it is all happening now?

I remember the new investor having a meeting at the company when first took it over along with some others as well, and he said that no longer will a company be owned by one person or a single family style ownership anymore, and that this was the wave of the future these venture capitalist investment firms that are buying these single ownership companies said, but why? What are their plans when doing this or thinking in these ways when they do this ? Is it for the betterment of the company or companies really, uhhh nope it may not be, because this company has went down down down ever since this group took them over, and even though the company is still alive and barely breathing, it is in no way the company that it once was under the single person or family ownership, where as that ownership had built that company into a mega company, only for the loyal employee's to see it all but disapear in or around 5 years since the investment group took it over.

 

[beagle9]

Romney's only a problem if you're a union parasite whose unwilling to notice the host is nearly dead. These plants were partnered together in an effort to make a couple of small, antiquated operations in danger of closing into a larger, more dynamic and compelling force. Problem is, while 80% is a great record of success, there's still the 20% that can't be salvaged. When you've got an existential, industry-wide threat to your company, you can't be in a pissing contest with management all the time and striking every 15 minutes.

....

So... what did the unions at GST do when the market was flooded with cheap imports? Did they put their shoulders to the grindstone and fight for the continued survival of the plant? Nope. They went on strike that same year.

Meanwhile, at Steel Dynamics in Butler, Indiana, a non-union operation... they're employing 6500, utilizing the latest techniques, and paying out 80k salaries with performance-linked bonuses. If Joe Soptic was walking a picket-line in 1997, HE was the one who was "part of the problem".

As we already know, Bain is there to make money for it's investors. Its first responsibility and priority is to them. Its not a social service with the sole purpose of providing jobs. But 80% of the time, that's the happy by-product of Bain's involvement.

Except striking "every fifteen minutes". They struck once, the first strike that plant had in 40 years over a very legit greivence that Bain wasn't capitalizing the Pension fund as they were required to. IN the end, the Federal Government had to pony up 44 million dollars and a lot of those guys STILL didn't get what they were promised.

And frankly, I get sick of this 80% success rate. WOuld you fly on an airline which had a 80% chance of not crashing? Would you go to a doctor who had 80% of his patients surived?

Yeah, Bain was successful in the 1990's when things were good in the economy all around, thanks to Bill Clinton. In the Oughts, not so much.

Oh, wait. Romney left to go set up the downhill ski course in Utah. He had nothing to do with that. Really.

What part of "Bain's responsibility is to INVESTORS" are you having trouble understanding? They didn't OWE anything to the workers of that plant. They could've walked in there, fired the lot of them, torn the place apart brick by brick, and sold it for scrap. And they would have too, if they didn't think there was a possibility of turning it around.

80% is pretty damn good when providing jobs is not the main point of the exercise. It's more like getting a pretty day 80% of the time with no turbulence when you fly, but still arriving safely 100% of the time. The investors are the point. The jobs are a by-product.

I think companies would better serve this nation, if they were owned by compassionate locally owned ownerships again, just as they were in the past, and hopefully they are owned by someone who has worked in his life, and not just played the numbers as these venture capitalist firms or groups are doing in this nation and to this nation, in which is falling in line with other shady deals and goings on in this nation that has got this nation in the bind that it is in today for the most part.

Can't anybody put faces or names to this game, and then embarass them within the nation as they should be if in the wrong, and all in hopes to embarass them also into obivian somehow (make them change their ways from being a predator to more of a real good honest and decent businessman, that to be making and conducting themselves in the proper ways again) ??

 

[Murf76]

Except striking "every fifteen minutes". They struck once, the first strike that plant had in 40 years over a very legit greivence that Bain wasn't capitalizing the Pension fund as they were required to. IN the end, the Federal Government had to pony up 44 million dollars and a lot of those guys STILL didn't get what they were promised.

And frankly, I get sick of this 80% success rate. WOuld you fly on an airline which had a 80% chance of not crashing? Would you go to a doctor who had 80% of his patients surived?

Yeah, Bain was successful in the 1990's when things were good in the economy all around, thanks to Bill Clinton. In the Oughts, not so much.

Oh, wait. Romney left to go set up the downhill ski course in Utah. He had nothing to do with that. Really.

What part of "Bain's responsibility is to INVESTORS" are you having trouble understanding? They didn't OWE anything to the workers of that plant. They could've walked in there, fired the lot of them, torn the place apart brick by brick, and sold it for scrap. And they would have too, if they didn't think there was a possibility of turning it around.

80% is pretty damn good when providing jobs is not the main point of the exercise. It's more like getting a pretty day 80% of the time with no turbulence when you fly, but still arriving safely 100% of the time. The investors are the point. The jobs are a by-product.

I think companies would better serve this nation, if they were owned by compassionate locally owned ownerships again, just as they were in the past, and hopefully they are owned by someone who has worked in his life, and not just played the numbers as these venture capitalist firms or groups are doing in this nation and to this nation, in which is falling in line with other shady deals and goings on in this nation that has got this nation in the bind that it is in today for the most part.

Can't anybody put faces or names to this game, and then embarass them within the nation as they should be if in the wrong, and all in hopes to embarass them also into obivian somehow (make them change their ways from being a predator to more of a real good honest and decent businessman, that to be making and conducting themselves in the proper ways again) ??

These outfits serve their purpose. Because without them, failing companies like GST simply go ahead and fail through their inability to recapitalize on their own. With them, they get one more shot at making good. Bain is not a "predator". The word "predator" assumes that they're just mindlessly hunting for things to kill. They're just investors, looking to make investments for the REAL PEOPLE they represent. Hell, if you've got retirement investments, you don't expect the guys who are managing your money to act like a public social service. You expect them to grow your investments.

Those workers got several more years of paychecks and benefits that they wouldn't have had if the plant had simply closed. They had one more chance at a comeback they wouldn't have had if Bain hadn't come along and seen a little potential in them. How is that a bad thing?

 

[candycorn]

It doesn't wash down well with voters because they've only heard a warped version of what they do.

If it weren't for investors like Bain you wouldn't have many of the services that are available today. Facebook wouldn't exist, along with Staples and hundreds of other companies.

Which is why you don't want this powerful ad on TV if you're Governor Romney.

Planet Money had it right, I take it. Because that is what others have said too; the first move is to pay themselves back. Doesn't make them wrong; doesn't make them dumb. Just not very appealing to most people.

It isn't a powerful ad. It's a disgrace. Everyone that watches it can see it. And once we start asking questions about it the President starts backtracking on it's origins.

First they claimed they had nothing to do with it. Then the people that produced it tried to distance themselves from it. Then we find out on a very public youtube video that Obama's campaign manager knew all about it and was told the whole story in May. Then we discover that the guy who produced it was a former Obama aid. Then we hear Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz tell us she doesn't even know the political leanings of the producers of the ad.

I mean these people are knee deep in this ad and won't claim it's their's and deny it but then immediately try to take advantage of the lies, rationalizations, and misrepresentations it contains.

"You didn't build that" was bad enough, but this is gonna bring Obama down.

Gee, if you have proof of involvement; you should bring that to court. What is it you guys say about Romney's tax records..."as long as it's legal, shut the fuck up". If it's illegal, the authorities will take care of persecution.

It is a powerful ad. The Governor doesn't want that to be on TV.

 

[JoeB131]

What part of "Bain's responsibility is to INVESTORS" are you having trouble understanding? They didn't OWE anything to the workers of that plant. They could've walked in there, fired the lot of them, torn the place apart brick by brick, and sold it for scrap. And they would have too, if they didn't think there was a possibility of turning it around.

80% is pretty damn good when providing jobs is not the main point of the exercise. It's more like getting a pretty day 80% of the time with no turbulence when you fly, but still arriving safely 100% of the time. The investors are the point. The jobs are a by-product.

If you want to say, "Bain was great for the people who invested in it", (whom I shall call "douchebags" for short), that's one thing.

Is it good for the rest of the country?

The Douchebags got a lot of money. Goody for them. The workers got screwed. The taxpayers got screwed in that they ended up not only bailing out the pension fund, but to add insult to injury, had to pay their unemployment, their medicaid, etc... until they found new jobs, if they could. The people who held the 500 million dollars in paper got screwed in the bankruptcy.

I think I want a president who cares about the non-douchebags, don't you?

 

[Murf76]

What part of "Bain's responsibility is to INVESTORS" are you having trouble understanding? They didn't OWE anything to the workers of that plant. They could've walked in there, fired the lot of them, torn the place apart brick by brick, and sold it for scrap. And they would have too, if they didn't think there was a possibility of turning it around.

80% is pretty damn good when providing jobs is not the main point of the exercise. It's more like getting a pretty day 80% of the time with no turbulence when you fly, but still arriving safely 100% of the time. The investors are the point. The jobs are a by-product.

If you want to say, "Bain was great for the people who invested in it", (whom I shall call "douchebags" for short), that's one thing.

Is it good for the rest of the country?

The Douchebags got a lot of money. Goody for them. The workers got screwed. The taxpayers got screwed in that they ended up not only bailing out the pension fund, but to add insult to injury, had to pay their unemployment, their medicaid, etc... until they found new jobs, if they could. The people who held the 500 million dollars in paper got screwed in the bankruptcy.

I think I want a president who cares about the non-douchebags, don't you?

It would be only natural for people to feel a sense of loss and anger when they lose their job. But nothing Bain did CAUSED that unhappy circumstance. In fact, Bain gave them a last-ditch opportunity to turn it around. People like Joe Soptic should've been grateful for the chance, that is, if they were thinking straight. The fact that he's not, makes it alot easier to understand why GST was ultimately a failed effort.

 

[candycorn]

What part of "Bain's responsibility is to INVESTORS" are you having trouble understanding? They didn't OWE anything to the workers of that plant. They could've walked in there, fired the lot of them, torn the place apart brick by brick, and sold it for scrap. And they would have too, if they didn't think there was a possibility of turning it around.

80% is pretty damn good when providing jobs is not the main point of the exercise. It's more like getting a pretty day 80% of the time with no turbulence when you fly, but still arriving safely 100% of the time. The investors are the point. The jobs are a by-product.

If you want to say, "Bain was great for the people who invested in it", (whom I shall call "douchebags" for short), that's one thing.

Is it good for the rest of the country?

The Douchebags got a lot of money. Goody for them. The workers got screwed. The taxpayers got screwed in that they ended up not only bailing out the pension fund, but to add insult to injury, had to pay their unemployment, their medicaid, etc... until they found new jobs, if they could. The people who held the 500 million dollars in paper got screwed in the bankruptcy.

I think I want a president who cares about the non-douchebags, don't you?

Without the douchebaggery references; thats exactly right. What a good CEO would do is not always what a good President would do; and vice versa. As owner of Bain, the Governor had influence to stop the off-shoring and make other decisions about what HIS company did. Saying that he wasn't involved is a lot like saying the owner of a soccer team isn't responsible for the conduct of his players because he hired a GM and a Manager. If the Owner says that we want to instill a culture of X, Y, and Z, the GM and Manager will get players and coach them to present that culture.

 

[Full-Auto]

Romney's only a problem if you're a union parasite whose unwilling to notice the host is nearly dead. These plants were partnered together in an effort to make a couple of small, antiquated operations in danger of closing into a larger, more dynamic and compelling force. Problem is, while 80% is a great record of success, there's still the 20% that can't be salvaged. When you've got an existential, industry-wide threat to your company, you can't be in a pissing contest with management all the time and striking every 15 minutes.

....

So... what did the unions at GST do when the market was flooded with cheap imports? Did they put their shoulders to the grindstone and fight for the continued survival of the plant? Nope. They went on strike that same year.

Meanwhile, at Steel Dynamics in Butler, Indiana, a non-union operation... they're employing 6500, utilizing the latest techniques, and paying out 80k salaries with performance-linked bonuses. If Joe Soptic was walking a picket-line in 1997, HE was the one who was "part of the problem".

As we already know, Bain is there to make money for it's investors. Its first responsibility and priority is to them. Its not a social service with the sole purpose of providing jobs. But 80% of the time, that's the happy by-product of Bain's involvement.

Except striking "every fifteen minutes". They struck once, the first strike that plant had in 40 years over a very legit greivence that Bain wasn't capitalizing the Pension fund as they were required to. IN the end, the Federal Government had to pony up 44 million dollars and a lot of those guys STILL didn't get what they were promised.

And frankly, I get sick of this 80% success rate. WOuld you fly on an airline which had a 80% chance of not crashing? Would you go to a doctor who had 80% of his patients surived?

Yeah, Bain was successful in the 1990's when things were good in the economy all around, thanks to Bill Clinton. In the Oughts, not so much.

Oh, wait. Romney left to go set up the downhill ski course in Utah. He had nothing to do with that. Really.

What part of "Bain's responsibility is to INVESTORS" are you having trouble understanding? They didn't OWE anything to the workers of that plant. They could've walked in there, fired the lot of them, torn the place apart brick by brick, and sold it for scrap. And they would have too, if they didn't think there was a possibility of turning it around.

80% is pretty damn good when providing jobs is not the main point of the exercise. It's more like getting a pretty day 80% of the time with no turbulence when you fly, but still arriving safely 100% of the time. The investors are the point. The jobs are a by-product.

Murf you just F-ed him up using the word responsible. He doesnt understand that concept.

 

[Murf76]

What part of "Bain's responsibility is to INVESTORS" are you having trouble understanding? They didn't OWE anything to the workers of that plant. They could've walked in there, fired the lot of them, torn the place apart brick by brick, and sold it for scrap. And they would have too, if they didn't think there was a possibility of turning it around.

80% is pretty damn good when providing jobs is not the main point of the exercise. It's more like getting a pretty day 80% of the time with no turbulence when you fly, but still arriving safely 100% of the time. The investors are the point. The jobs are a by-product.

If you want to say, "Bain was great for the people who invested in it", (whom I shall call "douchebags" for short), that's one thing.

Is it good for the rest of the country?

The Douchebags got a lot of money. Goody for them. The workers got screwed. The taxpayers got screwed in that they ended up not only bailing out the pension fund, but to add insult to injury, had to pay their unemployment, their medicaid, etc... until they found new jobs, if they could. The people who held the 500 million dollars in paper got screwed in the bankruptcy.

I think I want a president who cares about the non-douchebags, don't you?

Without the douchebaggery references; thats exactly right. What a good CEO would do is not always what a good President would do; and vice versa. As owner of Bain, the Governor had influence to stop the off-shoring and make other decisions about what HIS company did. Saying that he wasn't involved is a lot like saying the owner of a soccer team isn't responsible for the conduct of his players because he hired a GM and a Manager. If the Owner says that we want to instill a culture of X, Y, and Z, the GM and Manager will get players and coach them to present that culture.

The president IS the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch. So... there's no real perceptible difference in terms of semantics. Not only was Romney NOT working at Bain anymore at the time of the plant closing, having left for the Olympics two years previous, he would have been in no position to do anything about the glut of cheap, imported steel that GST was having to compete with in 1997 and onward.

Hmmm... who was president then? Yeah, Bill Clinton. Weirdly, we don't see Joe Soptic doing ads about how Bill Clinton screwed him, do we?

 

[candycorn]

If you want to say, "Bain was great for the people who invested in it", (whom I shall call "douchebags" for short), that's one thing.

Is it good for the rest of the country?

The Douchebags got a lot of money. Goody for them. The workers got screwed. The taxpayers got screwed in that they ended up not only bailing out the pension fund, but to add insult to injury, had to pay their unemployment, their medicaid, etc... until they found new jobs, if they could. The people who held the 500 million dollars in paper got screwed in the bankruptcy.

I think I want a president who cares about the non-douchebags, don't you?

Without the douchebaggery references; thats exactly right. What a good CEO would do is not always what a good President would do; and vice versa. As owner of Bain, the Governor had influence to stop the off-shoring and make other decisions about what HIS company did. Saying that he wasn't involved is a lot like saying the owner of a soccer team isn't responsible for the conduct of his players because he hired a GM and a Manager. If the Owner says that we want to instill a culture of X, Y, and Z, the GM and Manager will get players and coach them to present that culture.

The president IS the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch. So... there's no real perceptible difference in terms of semantics. Not only was Romney NOT working at Bain anymore at the time of the plant closing, having left for the Olympics two years previous, he would have been in no position to do anything about the glut of cheap, imported steel that GST was having to compete with in 1997 and onward.

Hmmm... who was president then? Yeah, Bill Clinton. Weirdly, we don't see Joe Soptic doing ads about how Bill Clinton screwed him, do we?

Did he not own the company?

 

[The Infidel]

Which is why you don't want this powerful ad on TV if you're Governor Romney.

Planet Money had it right, I take it. Because that is what others have said too; the first move is to pay themselves back. Doesn't make them wrong; doesn't make them dumb. Just not very appealing to most people.

It isn't a powerful ad. It's a disgrace. Everyone that watches it can see it. And once we start asking questions about it the President starts backtracking on it's origins.

First they claimed they had nothing to do with it. Then the people that produced it tried to distance themselves from it. Then we find out on a very public youtube video that Obama's campaign manager knew all about it and was told the whole story in May. Then we discover that the guy who produced it was a former Obama aid. Then we hear Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz tell us she doesn't even know the political leanings of the producers of the ad.

I mean these people are knee deep in this ad and won't claim it's their's and deny it but then immediately try to take advantage of the lies, rationalizations, and misrepresentations it contains.

"You didn't build that" was bad enough, but this is gonna bring Obama down.

Gee, if you have proof of involvement; you should bring that to court. What is it you guys say about Romney's tax records..."as long as it's legal, shut the fuck up". If it's illegal, the authorities will take care of persecution.

It is a powerful ad. The Governor doesn't want that to be on TV.

Yeah right.... with this Dept of Justice in charge....


Why is it that in Obama's ad, last March I think, does Joe Septic have the same clothes, same room, same everything as the super PAC ad protraying Romney as a monster?

Why is it that Joe Septic was on a conference call with Jen Psaki...

"No one is denying he was in one of our campaign ads. He was on a conference call telling his story," Psaki told reporters this past Thursday....

Like I said.... this DOJ is as crooked as their Commander in Chief.

 

[The Infidel]

Without the douchebaggery references; thats exactly right. What a good CEO would do is not always what a good President would do; and vice versa. As owner of Bain, the Governor had influence to stop the off-shoring and make other decisions about what HIS company did. Saying that he wasn't involved is a lot like saying the owner of a soccer team isn't responsible for the conduct of his players because he hired a GM and a Manager. If the Owner says that we want to instill a culture of X, Y, and Z, the GM and Manager will get players and coach them to present that culture.

The president IS the Chief Executive Officer of the Executive Branch. So... there's no real perceptible difference in terms of semantics. Not only was Romney NOT working at Bain anymore at the time of the plant closing, having left for the Olympics two years previous, he would have been in no position to do anything about the glut of cheap, imported steel that GST was having to compete with in 1997 and onward.

Hmmm... who was president then? Yeah, Bill Clinton. Weirdly, we don't see Joe Soptic doing ads about how Bill Clinton screwed him, do we?

Did he not own the company?

Did Romney "own" GST?

 

[The Infidel]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19uYDDndvsM]Tumbleweeds blowing: Great Plains, South Dakota - YouTube[/ame]