Seriously Mitt, you got paid 100k SALARY to do NOTHING?

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
May 11, 2011
15,347
985
175
N'Awlins Mid-City
Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.
http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-...bain-capital-mitt-romney-financial-disclosure

If it is indeed true that Mitt had nothing to do with Bain capital in 2001 and 2002 - that means he was paid 100k salary to do nothing.


100k to do NOTHING?
Sorry but that beats even the most inefficient government employee! Looks like private business can indeed be less efficient than government!
 
Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.
Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated - Boston.com

If it is indeed true that Mitt had nothing to do with Bain capital in 2001 and 2002 - that means he was paid 100k salary to do nothing.


100k to do NOTHING?
Sorry but that beats even the most inefficient government employee! Looks like private business can indeed be less efficient than government!

So what we have over 500 congressmen who do nothing. That is not fair, they do things but nothing that is improving the situations.
 
.

Well, yes, of course.

If I'm on the Board of Directors of a firm, and I've got a high-profile former CEO who can be counted on to say positive things about my firm after he leaves, he's worth at LEAST a hundred grand. Holy crap.

Is this a trick question?

.
 
Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.
Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated - Boston.com

If it is indeed true that Mitt had nothing to do with Bain capital in 2001 and 2002 - that means he was paid 100k salary to do nothing.


100k to do NOTHING?
Sorry but that beats even the most inefficient government employee! Looks like private business can indeed be less efficient than government!

So what we have over 500 congressmen who do nothing. That is not fair, they do things but nothing that is improving the situations.

They've shown up to session and debated and passed or failed to pass legislation. That's their job, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.
Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated - Boston.com

If it is indeed true that Mitt had nothing to do with Bain capital in 2001 and 2002 - that means he was paid 100k salary to do nothing.


100k to do NOTHING?
Sorry but that beats even the most inefficient government employee! Looks like private business can indeed be less efficient than government!


Michelle Obama had TWO $100k jobs for doing nothing given to her as soon as her husband was elected Senator....no paybacks there I am sure - right?
 
.

Well, yes, of course.

If I'm on the Board of Directors of a firm, and I've got a high-profile former CEO who can be counted on to say positive things about my firm after he leaves, he's worth at LEAST a hundred grand. Holy crap.

Is this a trick question?

.
Except Romney wasn't a "former" CEO, he was the actual CEO according to documents he signed


Explain that one.

Explain it in a way that doesn't sound like total bullshit to the common man Mittens needs to reach out to in order to win.
 
Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.
Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated - Boston.com

If it is indeed true that Mitt had nothing to do with Bain capital in 2001 and 2002 - that means he was paid 100k salary to do nothing.


100k to do NOTHING?
Sorry but that beats even the most inefficient government employee! Looks like private business can indeed be less efficient than government!


Michelle Obama had TWO $100k jobs for doing nothing given to her as soon as her husband was elected Senator....no paybacks there I am sure - right?



So is this the new slogan of the Republican party:

"The Republican Party, not any worse than the Democratic Party!"

Yeah, good luck winning on that one! But of course, since you guys opposed teaching critical thinking skills to children, maybe it will actually work. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html Kinda sad.
 
.

Well, yes, of course.

If I'm on the Board of Directors of a firm, and I've got a high-profile former CEO who can be counted on to say positive things about my firm after he leaves, he's worth at LEAST a hundred grand. Holy crap.

Is this a trick question?

.
Except Romney wasn't a "former" CEO, he was the actual CEO according to documents he signed


Explain that one.

Explain it in a way that doesn't sound like total bullshit to the common man Mittens needs to reach out to in order to win.


Sure, that's easy. Your own words: "If it is indeed true that Mitt had nothing to do with Bain capital in 2001 and 2002 - that means he was paid 100k salary to do nothing."

Your own words.

If it is indeed true, as you said, then it makes sense.

.
 
.

Well, yes, of course.

If I'm on the Board of Directors of a firm, and I've got a high-profile former CEO who can be counted on to say positive things about my firm after he leaves, he's worth at LEAST a hundred grand. Holy crap.

Is this a trick question?

.
Except Romney wasn't a "former" CEO, he was the actual CEO according to documents he signed


Explain that one.

Explain it in a way that doesn't sound like total bullshit to the common man Mittens needs to reach out to in order to win.


Sure, that's easy. Your own words: "If it is indeed true that Mitt had nothing to do with Bain capital in 2001 and 2002 - that means he was paid 100k salary to do nothing."

Your own words.

If it is indeed true, as you said, then it makes sense.

.



So what you're telling me is, while technically and legally the companies CEO - he was actually only a paid spokesman - to the tune of 100k? Well do we have any evidence he actually executed the duties of his job as spokesman?


And tell me this - if Obama had been a paid spokesman for a company that was shipping American jobs overseas - would it look bad?


EDIT - and just out of curiosity, if your company retained such an ex-CEO to talk up the company - and I have no doubt that's done by many other companies, don't get me wrong - would he be paid as a sub-contractor, or would he be an actual payroll employee? I'm just curious - will be good to know when Mittens finally releases his taxes.
 
Last edited:
How much has obama been paid to go on vacation?

So Romney can get paid 100k to do absolutely nothing.

But Obama shouldn't even get paid vacations.


Is that the standard you're using?

Well OBama and Ried are getting paid to do nothing. I dont think attending fundraisers are in the President's job description and that's all he does.

Since you apparently aren't aware of this, the President is the leader of his respective party. That's true of both Republican and Democratic Presidents. The Constitution does not prohibit the President from holding outside employment or from volunteering work, so long as it is not in any other government position.
 
Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated - Boston.com

If it is indeed true that Mitt had nothing to do with Bain capital in 2001 and 2002 - that means he was paid 100k salary to do nothing.


100k to do NOTHING?
Sorry but that beats even the most inefficient government employee! Looks like private business can indeed be less efficient than government!


Michelle Obama had TWO $100k jobs for doing nothing given to her as soon as her husband was elected Senator....no paybacks there I am sure - right?



So is this the new slogan of the Republican party:

"The Republican Party, not any worse than the Democratic Party!"

Yeah, good luck winning on that one! ...

Oh...so the slogan of the Democrat party is "we are a little worse than the Republican Party"?
Good luck with that also.
Point is - at least with Mitt the company was one he still owned.
Michele Obama accepted TWO $100k golden appointment jobs within months of her husband getting elected Senator.
It is called "remove the fucking redwood forest out of your own eye before worrying about the splinter in someone else's"
 
Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.
Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated - Boston.com

If it is indeed true that Mitt had nothing to do with Bain capital in 2001 and 2002 - that means he was paid 100k salary to do nothing.


100k to do NOTHING?
Sorry but that beats even the most inefficient government employee! Looks like private business can indeed be less efficient than government!
Obamaturd got paid how much? He has done nothing but screw this country, so your point is worthless as usual.
 

Forum List

Back
Top