Romney at Bain: Big gains, some busts

[peach174]

Making money is different than creating jobs. Did that have to be explained? You guys talk like Bain is going around looking for companies to save. You know, if you guys believed in education, it might help. If it "took" that is.

You are the one that needs education.
Companies that are in trouble call companies like Bain to help them.
Bain and Companies like them do not create jobs. The jobs are already there.
Bain invests money into the companies and restructures them.
They make money when that company is successful and they make a profit.

Do you even realize that you are vilifying Bain, which is a private Company, that does the same thing that President Obama does? Like Solyndra and others, that have gone bankrupt, lost peoples jobs and all the taxpayer's money,without a profit.
The difference is President Obama uses Taxpayer's money, who have no say so in that investment and Bain,who uses private money, who do so willingly, who knows that it is a risk.

 

[code1211]

Romney at Bain: Big gains, some busts
The Wall Street Journal

Even an article from WSJ that slants negatively shows a lot of bright spots for Romney and Bain...

Romney at Bain

Amid anecdotal evidence on both sides, the full record has largely escaped a close look, because so many transactions are involved. The Wall Street Journal, aiming for a comprehensive assessment, examined 77 businesses Bain invested in while Romney led the firm from its 1984 start until early 1999, to see how they fared during Bain's involvement and shortly afterward.

Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost.

So, 78% made it at least 8 years after Bain took over. Pretty good.


Look there... someone that says Bain tried to fix or build up, not rape or break up. How interesting.


I'd take this guys opinion of Shitting Bulls any day


How much you want to bet partisan douchenozzles like Shitting Bull don't take this into account.

The Journal chose to look at target companies' fates by the end of the eighth year after Bain's initial investment, which appears close to the maximum time that Bain remained in control of any of its targets. Academic research has shown that buyout firms during this era exited their deals on average after 5½ years, but in a large percentage of cases were still involved beyond seven years.

Interesting. Bain stayed as long or longer than average in firms it bought. Doesn't sound like the actions of a company just there to rape and sell.

A potentially mitigating factor, he added, is that these bankruptcy filings tended to be clustered during the post-2000 economic downturn.

Yeah, it was completely Romney's fault. Thee economy had nothing to do with it...

Romney wasn't there after 2000, was he?

 

[code1211]

I think that the whole Bain attack thing is stupid.

I agree, it's about as stupid as saying Bain exprience would make someone better at running an economy.

Running Bain was running a company that had diverse interests, examined risks and developed plans, followed the law, followed a budget and made a profit.

If you like Obama, you have no idea what any of these things are.

 

[code1211]

Making money is different than creating jobs. Did that have to be explained? You guys talk like Bain is going around looking for companies to save. You know, if you guys believed in education, it might help. If it "took" that is.

How do you recommend creating jobs in companies that no longer exist?

 

[code1211]

Making money is different than creating jobs. Did that have to be explained? You guys talk like Bain is going around looking for companies to save. You know, if you guys believed in education, it might help. If it "took" that is.

It's hard for the Conservative Brain.

Profit != Public good.

Please provide a list of those companies acquired by Bain that the owner did not want to sell.

The point is, there was something wrong with those companies and those most intimately involved with them were running away from the failure.

Bain did not acquire healthy, growing companies. They acquired failing, shrinking companies and tried to keep them alive.

What's missed in all of this, however, is that Romney was running Bain which was itself a company doing things that the average guy cannot grasp. Obama is running the USA which is an organization doing things that the average guy cannot grasp.

Romney was a success. Obama is a failure. That is the lesson to be learned here.

 

[code1211]

Making money is different than creating jobs. Did that have to be explained? You guys talk like Bain is going around looking for companies to save. You know, if you guys believed in education, it might help. If it "took" that is.

It's hard for the Conservative Brain.

Profit != Public good.

Profit is good for the super rich. For the middle class? Not so much.

Ah! That explains your positions. You are against the middle class profiting.

 

[code1211]

It's hard for the Conservative Brain.

Profit != Public good.

Profit is good for the super rich. For the middle class? Not so much.

Profit is good when there is fair equity among those responsible for it.

But conservatives do not believe in that. Pirates were better at splitting profits then most conservatives.

Were the pirates in your little story splitting profits with those who helped in the work and who risked along with them?

With whom are you demanding that the profits held by Conservatives be split?

 

[Seawytch]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reiq4lEvnEw"]Tony Soprano Explains Bain Capital[/ame]

 

[code1211]

Profit is good for the super rich. For the middle class? Not so much.

I dont care what Bain does, what's funny is tons of democrats like Bain, all those great socialists.
Profit != Public good? So I have a question, lets play are you a hypocrite? Now do you give all your money away? Do you buy wants or do you just keep it to needs?
Wow if you think profit is bad, I guess you hate employed people. You must think we should all live in the projects and use government assistance, or are you one of those liberals that's "allowed" to be rich?
And rdean you're right only the super rich get profits, small business that grow into medium and large buisnesses dont get profit, and if you belive that monkeys are flying out of your ass.
If they dont get profit, how do they stay in business? And again show me a company with no profit that creates jobs, I cant wait to see this.

This is gonna screw up your conservative brain.

But it was private companies that called in government to protect them from people that were organizing unions.

You're right. It seems to me that government should not have any part in either advancing or abridging unions.

Do you agree?

 

[JoeB131]

Like any business you have ups and downs. Now the govt on the other hand.......mostly downs.

and thank you for pointing out the disease that now infects the Republican Party.

Gummit is bad. Gummit is always bad. Even when it does exactly what it was set up to do, we'll compalin because it's the Gummit.

 

[code1211]

Tony Soprano Explains Bain Capital

Exactly how does this apply to Staples?

 

[code1211]

Like any business you have ups and downs. Now the govt on the other hand.......mostly downs.

and thank you for pointing out the disease that now infects the Republican Party.

Gummit is bad. Gummit is always bad. Even when it does exactly what it was set up to do, we'll compalin because it's the Gummit.

The "gummit" seems pretty good at conducting warfare and, well, they are good at conducting warfare.

What are you pointing to that the "gummit" does better than anyone else could at a lower cost while maintaining a budget and profitability?

 

[JoeB131]

Please provide a list of those companies acquired by Bain that the owner did not want to sell.

The point is, there was something wrong with those companies and those most intimately involved with them were running away from the failure.

Bain did not acquire healthy, growing companies. They acquired failing, shrinking companies and tried to keep them alive.

What's missed in all of this, however, is that Romney was running Bain which was itself a company doing things that the average guy cannot grasp. Obama is running the USA which is an organization doing things that the average guy cannot grasp.

Romney was a success. Obama is a failure. That is the lesson to be learned here.

I think it would define on how you define success and failure.

If I were an AmPad employee who was forced to knuckle under and take a lower wage with no benefits, and I ended up losing my job eventually, anyway, I would call Romney's management of my company a failure.

If I were a GM employee whose plant was about to be closed down, but it stayed open because President Obama bit the bullet and arranged the bailout package, I'd call that a success.

I think the question was motivation. Romney's goal at Bain was not to create jobs, unlike what he's claiming now. It was to maximize profit for Bain's investors, even if that meant that employees, stockholders and lenders were left holding the bag.

So Bain made a huge profit on AmPad, but the folks who were stuck holding the paper on AmPad's 400 million in debt they ran up under Bain's management, not so much.

And this is the problem with Romney. I'm sure if I were a millionaire, Romney would be an awesome president. He'd rig the game in my favor every time.

But for the vast majority of us who are working stiffs trying to balance a checkbook with an underwater mortgage, meh, not so much.

 

[zeke]

The difference is President Obama uses Taxpayer's money, who have no say so in that investment and Bain,who uses private money, who do so willingly, who knows that it is a risk.

I think that is an interesting dilema the Rethugs have. If you think Mittens will know how to create "jobs" based on his experience with Bain, I would have to think that you Rethugs expect him to do something similar as Pres.

Which means Mittens would be using tax payer money to bring about private company changes.

I thought you Repubs hated for the guvmint to do things like that?

 

[zeke]

Of course, you Rethugs will say; no, Mittens won't use guvmiont money like Obama did to try and prop up private companies.

In which case, what good does Rommneys time at Bain do for us if he can't perform in the same manner?

I guess Mittens could just direct the partners at Bain to do his bidding. Buy this, close that, hold this, sell that. Yes sir ree I think we should move the office of Pres. to Wall street if Mittens gets elected.

 

[code1211]

Please provide a list of those companies acquired by Bain that the owner did not want to sell.

The point is, there was something wrong with those companies and those most intimately involved with them were running away from the failure.

Bain did not acquire healthy, growing companies. They acquired failing, shrinking companies and tried to keep them alive.

What's missed in all of this, however, is that Romney was running Bain which was itself a company doing things that the average guy cannot grasp. Obama is running the USA which is an organization doing things that the average guy cannot grasp.

Romney was a success. Obama is a failure. That is the lesson to be learned here.

I think it would define on how you define success and failure.

If I were an AmPad employee who was forced to knuckle under and take a lower wage with no benefits, and I ended up losing my job eventually, anyway, I would call Romney's management of my company a failure.

If I were a GM employee whose plant was about to be closed down, but it stayed open because President Obama bit the bullet and arranged the bailout package, I'd call that a success.

I think the question was motivation. Romney's goal at Bain was not to create jobs, unlike what he's claiming now. It was to maximize profit for Bain's investors, even if that meant that employees, stockholders and lenders were left holding the bag.

So Bain made a huge profit on AmPad, but the folks who were stuck holding the paper on AmPad's 400 million in debt they ran up under Bain's management, not so much.

And this is the problem with Romney. I'm sure if I were a millionaire, Romney would be an awesome president. He'd rig the game in my favor every time.

But for the vast majority of us who are working stiffs trying to balance a checkbook with an underwater mortgage, meh, not so much.

What underhanded, devious device did Bain use to force the Sale of AmPad by Meade?

AmPad filed bankruptcy in 2000. Bain divested AmPad in 1996.

AmPad was a paper based company. Paper based companies are in trouble right now world wide.

There's this thingy called the the whole world inter web or something like that... You can probably Gargle it.

Most companies are trying to go paperless. Any company that makes paper designed to go into envelopes, envelopes or devices to handle mail are in trouble. Check you portfolios, kids. Don't buy these stocks at home.

 

[code1211]

The difference is President Obama uses Taxpayer's money, who have no say so in that investment and Bain,who uses private money, who do so willingly, who knows that it is a risk.

I think that is an interesting dilema the Rethugs have. If you think Mittens will know how to create "jobs" based on his experience with Bain, I would have to think that you Rethugs expect him to do something similar as Pres.

Which means Mittens would be using tax payer money to bring about private company changes.

I thought you Repubs hated for the guvmint to do things like that?

Right now the government is actively campaigning against business and actively trying to terrorize anybody who is running a business or trying to turn a profit.

The result is that all businesses have individually decided to stop investing and so 3 trillion dollars are just sitting there not being invested. There was not some meeting in which all the business owners decided to be too afraid to spend their cash. It was Obama and his thugs who are continuously stepping in and stopping things.

All the government needs to do is stop the pain. They don't need to spend anything at all.

 

[zeke]

AmPad filed bankruptcy in 2000. Bain divested AmPad in 1996.

After they were loaded up with debt.

AmPad was a paper based company. Paper based companies are in trouble right now world wide.

And "right now" is 12 years after you said they went bankrupt. SO what was your point? That 12 years ago more companies were using paper? Agreed. And they still use paper today. Amazing isn't it?

 

[zeke]

Right now the government is actively campaigning against business and actively trying to terrorize anybody who is running a business or trying to turn a profit.

Where do you get opinions like this? Or do you have any actual evidence to support this claim?

Just curious because I don't see what ever it is you see.

 

[zeke]

The result is that all businesses have individually decided to stop investing and so 3 trillion dollars are just sitting there not being invested. There was not some meeting in which all the business owners decided to be too afraid to spend their cash.

And you don't seem to think that the lack of demand for goods and services has ANYTHING to do with the lack of business expansion.

You do know that we are in or have been in a recession?? And during recessions people don't spend as much of their income on things because that don't have as much income to spend.

And you contend that if the banks with their billions would just start lending that the economy would magically improve? You know that the banks did have an easy money period just a few years ago.
Look what that brought us. The housing collapse. I think the banks are sitting on cash because no one is asking to borrow money to expand their business because the business DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH CUSTOMER DEMAND.