Rolling Stone Exposes Bain and Romney...

[Barb]

The critics couldn't be more wrong. Mitt Romney is no tissue-paper man. He's closer to being a revolutionary, a backward-world version of Che or Trotsky, with tweezed nostrils instead of a beard, a half-Windsor instead of a leather jerkin. His legendary flip-flops aren't the lies of a bumbling opportunist – they're the confident prevarications of a man untroubled by misleading the nonbeliever in pursuit of a single, all-consuming goal. Romney has a vision, and he's trying for something big: We've just been too slow to sort out what it is, just as we've been slow to grasp the roots of the radical economic changes that have swept the country in the last generation.

Read more: Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital | Politics News | Rolling Stone

And THAT'S the truth.

We've already proven that the article is one big pile of horse squeeze.

You've "proved" nothing of the sort.

 

[mudwhistle]

Seriously?????
Rolling Stone lost it's credibility 20 years ago."
Today they are as credible as the "Weekly World News"

Rolling Stone had credibility in the 70s and the 80s, then it became obvious they went way too political, kind of like SNL.

Then pffffffffffffft.

 

[Barb]

other peoples money.

Yeah, so? So now borrowing money is a crime?

Borrowing OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY after telling them he'll fix and improve their company and strip mining it instead, then sticking them with the BILL for it all SHOULD be a crime, wouldn't (even) you think?

 

[Barb]

Seriously?????
Rolling Stone lost it's credibility 20 years ago."
Today they are as credible as the "Weekly World News"

Rolling Stone had credibility in the 70s and the 80s, then it became obvious they went way too political, kind of like SNL.

Then pffffffffffffft.

Rolling Stone was political since its inception. You probably knew that. What manner of asshole are you anyway?

 

[freedombecki]

Guy, enough. I'm sure you think what you do is really important and really right, but the rest of us have had enough of working ourselves to death to finance your greed.

What does Toro's occupation have to do with any of this?

Especially when he doesn't know what I do. He just sees "finance" and thinks "bad."

You know what the best CPA I ever met knows and then some. I know, because I worked for him years ago. He had zero tolerance for people who cheat on one line or a million. That's why good people visited him. I saw him yell a criminally insane tax cheater who wanted him to change a date on a legal document all the way to the front door from his back office. I never forgot that. Liars and cheaters do not want to account reality to the authorities, and their world is enmeshed in the fuzzy math that it really doesn't matter if they cheat, somebody else will fix it and let them off the hook for whatever they did.

I am horrified when I see the situation of Obama calling the Treasury of the United States and demanding that they hustle that $535 million dollars to Solyndra, Inc. in 2009. Oh, my God, and he hasn't done his budget in a manner that is in accordance with honesty either. Such a thing can be done. It simply requires the understanding that you have to stay within the budgetary and proprietary means of working with what you have, not what you want to have but cannot pay for.

God bless you for your courage, Mr. Toro. I bless my former boss for his cajones that day for not letting a person with criminal propensities tarnish his good name and that of the business he spent 45 years establishing and running.

 

[JoeB131]

Seriously?????
Rolling Stone lost it's credibility 20 years ago."
Today they are as credible as the "Weekly World News"

Rolling Stone had credibility in the 70s and the 80s, then it became obvious they went way too political, kind of like SNL.

Then pffffffffffffft.

Rolling Stone was political since its inception. You probably knew that. What manner of asshole are you anyway?

The kind that keeps Protologists up at night!

 

[paulitician]

So the Socialist/Progressive Democrat wingnuts at Rolling Stone hate Republicans? Really? Who knew? This is hardly news. And only a fellow Socialist/Progressive Democrat wingnut would think it is.

 

[kaz]

other peoples money.

Yeah, so? So now borrowing money is a crime?

Borrowing OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY after telling them he'll fix and improve their company and strip mining it instead, then sticking them with the BILL for it all SHOULD be a crime, wouldn't (even) you think?

Borrowing OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY after telling them he'll fix and improve their country and strip mining it instead, then sticking them with the BILL for it all SHOULD be a crime, wouldn't (even) you think?

Wow, replace one word ... and you just described Obama perfectly!

 

[Barb]

Yeah, so? So now borrowing money is a crime?

Borrowing OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY after telling them he'll fix and improve their company and strip mining it instead, then sticking them with the BILL for it all SHOULD be a crime, wouldn't (even) you think?

Borrowing OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY after telling them he'll fix and improve their country and strip mining it instead, then sticking them with the BILL for it all SHOULD be a crime, wouldn't (even) you think?

Wow, replace one word ... and you just described Obama perfectly!

NOPE and EPIC fail. I can't even say "nice try." because it wasn't. Our President, although as an actual leftist, I cant agree with every move Obama made over the last four years, HE DID WHAT HE COULD under the restrictions an obstructionist republican party didn't completely block.

Oh, I'm sorry, that was almost every fucking thing, except where they FAILED in doing so.

 

[freedombecki]

And THAT'S the truth.

We've already proven that the article is one big pile of horse squeeze.

You've "proved" nothing of the sort.

Bob Woodward said it was a pile and so did the NYTimes.

IOW, the man who exposed the Watergate scandal may know the difference between what did happen in fact and what did not happen at all.

The DNC is breeding lies, and if you don't know it, Barb, you're not paying attention to the Stop signs and will have a collision someday. When that happens, just remember this little item: you were told, you were shown, there were links for you to read and see we are telling the truth.

But for some reason, your party can't smear feces on good people any more. The people realize the smell is coming from leftist lying liberals who are desperate and losing their minds.

Stop before the meltdown comes, Barb. You're family here at USMB, and I don't like to see people blind to the facts. It's not helping that the Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Obama Spin Room is on a bender again. I'm sorry for you folks who want to believe in something good, only to have that something use lies and omissions as armor.

 

[mudwhistle]

Seriously?????
Rolling Stone lost it's credibility 20 years ago."
Today they are as credible as the "Weekly World News"

Rolling Stone had credibility in the 70s and the 80s, then it became obvious they went way too political, kind of like SNL.

Then pffffffffffffft.

Rolling Stone was political since its inception. You probably knew that. What manner of asshole are you anyway?

One that finds it extremely easy to piss off faggots like yourself.

Back then it wasn't noticeable. Now it's extremely noticeable. Maybe because RollingStone used to comment mostly on drugs, sex, and Rock & Roll instead of politics.

 

[Jroc]

You know what, I've heard the whole "it's the consumer's fault" argument, as though that excuses the politicians and business people.

But let's be honest. The consumer did exactly what he was programmed to do- consume. He performed his expected function.

I put more blame on the businesses selling people things they knew damned well they couldn't afford, and government for not reigning in the insanity. That was THEIR role, and they didn't perform it.

Was the guy who bought the McMansion with four more rooms than he really needed part of the problem? Um. Yeah. But when the shit hit the fan, the guy who bought the reasonably priced one bedroom condo that he carefully worked into his budget found his money getting sucked down the same sinkhole.

Government promoted and incentivized the "insanity”…. That’s the problem Joey

So this is yoru argument, the government didn't do enough to stop them, so it was okay that they ripped off the American consumer and wrecked the economy?

Besides repeating the lying, stupid idiocy that the CRA caused the housing bubble (LIE), the fact is, it was really incumbant on the banks and the investment houses to protect their interests. They should have pushed back on rising housing prices at every oppurtunity, but they figured, meh, the suckers will pay them off and if they don't, we'll foreclose and sell to antoher sucker.

No idiot the federal government promoted and pushed banks to lend to people who couldn't afford it then backed up those loans with tax payer money this is the idiocy of it all. Under normal circumstances banks wouldn't have given all those bad loans but what did they have to lose? The government bailed them out...Big government is the problem, too much cronyism the government as too much power. The hand of the federal government in everything and Banks don't want foreclosed homes idiot

 

[JoeB131]

No idiot the federal government promoted and pushed banks to lend to people who couldn't afford it then backed up those loans with tax payer money this is the idiocy of it all. Under normal circumstances banks wouldn't have given all those bad loans but what did they have to lose? The government bailed them out...Big government is the problem, too much cronyism the government as too much power. The hand of the federal government in everything and Banks don't want foreclosed homes idiot

All you are doing here is exposing your ignorance of the CRA.

The fact is, after the reforms of the 1930's, banking was stable for 50 years....

Until some geniuses decided to start deregulating them.

The banks didn't collapse because they were letting poor people buy bungalos...

They collapsed because the middle class were buying McMansions, and walking away from them when their value bottomed out.

 

[JoeB131]

Not that this really would have much of effect on "Welfare for Zionists and Not Americans" Jroc, but here's the truth...

Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA are Not Responsible for the Financial Crisis - CBS News

However, the evidence does not support the second explanation. First, with respect to the CRA, the main culprits in the crisis were private sector financial institutions that were not subject to the requirements of the CRA. In the story being pushed by free market advocates, the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low-income households. When those loans blew up, it caused the financial crisis. But the largest players in the subprime market were private sector firms that were not subject to the CRA's rules and regulations. For example, "Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics." The largest losses had nothing to do with banks covered by the CRA.

Second, even if the banks themselves were subject to the CRA, not all loans that they made were covered by these rules. Even in banks where the CRA applied, most of the problems were in loans that did not fall under the CRA's jurisdiction.
Third, the CRA has been in existence since 1977. If the CRA was responsible, why didn't the crisis occur sooner? The timing simply doesn't match up.

Fourth, the CRA only applies to domestic firms, but the crisis occurred in many countries. If the CRA is the problem, why did countries that had nothing like the CRA experience similar problems?

Fifth, even if this story had any validity, both parties promoted an "ownership society," so blaming Democrats alone is about politics, not reality.

 

[Jroc]

No idiot the federal government promoted and pushed banks to lend to people who couldn't afford it then backed up those loans with tax payer money this is the idiocy of it all. Under normal circumstances banks wouldn't have given all those bad loans but what did they have to lose? The government bailed them out...Big government is the problem, too much cronyism the government as too much power. The hand of the federal government in everything and Banks don't want foreclosed homes idiot

All you are doing here is exposing your ignorance of the CRA.

The fact is, after the reforms of the 1930's, banking was stable for 50 years....

Until some geniuses decided to start deregulating them.

The banks didn't collapse because they were letting poor people buy bungalos...

They collapsed because the middle class were buying McMansions, and walking away from them when their value bottomed out.

Bull....Government manipulated the market and now you want to give that same government more power to "fix” things they “fix " things and they screws it up more Fannie and Freddie should not even exist

 

[Toro]

Not that this really would have much of effect on "Welfare for Zionists and Not Americans" Jroc, but here's the truth...

Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA are Not Responsible for the Financial Crisis - CBS News

However, the evidence does not support the second explanation. First, with respect to the CRA, the main culprits in the crisis were private sector financial institutions that were not subject to the requirements of the CRA. In the story being pushed by free market advocates, the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low-income households. When those loans blew up, it caused the financial crisis. But the largest players in the subprime market were private sector firms that were not subject to the CRA's rules and regulations. For example, "Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics." The largest losses had nothing to do with banks covered by the CRA.

Second, even if the banks themselves were subject to the CRA, not all loans that they made were covered by these rules. Even in banks where the CRA applied, most of the problems were in loans that did not fall under the CRA's jurisdiction.
Third, the CRA has been in existence since 1977. If the CRA was responsible, why didn't the crisis occur sooner? The timing simply doesn't match up.

Fourth, the CRA only applies to domestic firms, but the crisis occurred in many countries. If the CRA is the problem, why did countries that had nothing like the CRA experience similar problems?

Fifth, even if this story had any validity, both parties promoted an "ownership society," so blaming Democrats alone is about politics, not reality.

I agree. The CRA did not cause this debacle.

 

[Jroc]

Not that this really would have much of effect on "Welfare for Zionists and Not Americans" Jroc, but here's the truth...

Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA are Not Responsible for the Financial Crisis - CBS News

However, the evidence does not support the second explanation. First, with respect to the CRA, the main culprits in the crisis were private sector financial institutions that were not subject to the requirements of the CRA. In the story being pushed by free market advocates, the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low-income households. When those loans blew up, it caused the financial crisis. But the largest players in the subprime market were private sector firms that were not subject to the CRA's rules and regulations. For example, "Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics." The largest losses had nothing to do with banks covered by the CRA.

Second, even if the banks themselves were subject to the CRA, not all loans that they made were covered by these rules. Even in banks where the CRA applied, most of the problems were in loans that did not fall under the CRA's jurisdiction.
Third, the CRA has been in existence since 1977. If the CRA was responsible, why didn't the crisis occur sooner? The timing simply doesn't match up.

Fourth, the CRA only applies to domestic firms, but the crisis occurred in many countries. If the CRA is the problem, why did countries that had nothing like the CRA experience similar problems?

Fifth, even if this story had any validity, both parties promoted an "ownership society," so blaming Democrats alone is about politics, not reality.

More bigotry from Joey the bigot

 

[Charles_Main]

A great article on how Mitt Romney really made his money. Screwing working folks and leaving others with the bill.

And this is where we get to the hypocrisy at the heart of Mitt Romney. Everyone knows that he is fantastically rich, having scored great success, the legend goes, as a "turnaround specialist," a shrewd financial operator who revived moribund companies as a high-priced consultant for a storied Wall Street private equity firm. But what most voters don't know is the way Mitt Romney actually made his fortune: by borrowing vast sums of money that other people were forced to pay back. This is the plain, stark reality that has somehow eluded America's top political journalists for two consecutive presidential campaigns: Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time. In the past few decades, in fact, Romney has piled more debt onto more unsuspecting companies, written more gigantic checks that other people have to cover, than perhaps all but a handful of people on planet Earth.



Read more: Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Ah yes the totally unbiased, and Serious Journalism of Rolling Stone is Well known....err wait nm lol.

A left wing entertainment magazine says it, must be true.

lol

 

[Charles_Main]

Not that this really would have much of effect on "Welfare for Zionists and Not Americans" Jroc, but here's the truth...

Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA are Not Responsible for the Financial Crisis - CBS News

However, the evidence does not support the second explanation. First, with respect to the CRA, the main culprits in the crisis were private sector financial institutions that were not subject to the requirements of the CRA. In the story being pushed by free market advocates, the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low-income households. When those loans blew up, it caused the financial crisis. But the largest players in the subprime market were private sector firms that were not subject to the CRA's rules and regulations. For example, "Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics." The largest losses had nothing to do with banks covered by the CRA.

Second, even if the banks themselves were subject to the CRA, not all loans that they made were covered by these rules. Even in banks where the CRA applied, most of the problems were in loans that did not fall under the CRA's jurisdiction.
Third, the CRA has been in existence since 1977. If the CRA was responsible, why didn't the crisis occur sooner? The timing simply doesn't match up.

Fourth, the CRA only applies to domestic firms, but the crisis occurred in many countries. If the CRA is the problem, why did countries that had nothing like the CRA experience similar problems?

Fifth, even if this story had any validity, both parties promoted an "ownership society," so blaming Democrats alone is about politics, not reality.

I agree. The CRA did not cause this debacle.

It clearly contributed to it.

 

[Jroc]

Not that this really would have much of effect on "Welfare for Zionists and Not Americans" Jroc, but here's the truth...

Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA are Not Responsible for the Financial Crisis - CBS News

However, the evidence does not support the second explanation. First, with respect to the CRA, the main culprits in the crisis were private sector financial institutions that were not subject to the requirements of the CRA. In the story being pushed by free market advocates, the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low-income households. When those loans blew up, it caused the financial crisis. But the largest players in the subprime market were private sector firms that were not subject to the CRA's rules and regulations. For example, "Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics." The largest losses had nothing to do with banks covered by the CRA.

Second, even if the banks themselves were subject to the CRA, not all loans that they made were covered by these rules. Even in banks where the CRA applied, most of the problems were in loans that did not fall under the CRA's jurisdiction.
Third, the CRA has been in existence since 1977. If the CRA was responsible, why didn't the crisis occur sooner? The timing simply doesn't match up.

Fourth, the CRA only applies to domestic firms, but the crisis occurred in many countries. If the CRA is the problem, why did countries that had nothing like the CRA experience similar problems?

Fifth, even if this story had any validity, both parties promoted an "ownership society," so blaming Democrats alone is about politics, not reality.

I agree. The CRA did not cause this debacle.

I blamed the federal government in general both parties take part in cronyism and the CRA was part of the problem