Bain Capital closing Illinois Plant

[thereisnospoon]

'I'm sick to my stomach': anger builds in Illinois at Bain's latest outsourcing plan | Business | guardian.co.uk

Shipping jobs to China....The Dollar Rules Again!

Why is Obama letting this happen? HE is the one who is bitching about jobs going overseas.
Why has OBAMA NOT STEPPED IN to help?
You are dealing with intelligent people here who do their homework.
Did you really think you could post this drive by hit piece( of shit) and not get your face slapped?...
Silly you.
Go find another fucking hobby you boil on the country's ass.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Dated: Friday 10 August 2012 11.15 EDT

Romney hasn't been at Bain for how long now?

Nothing to see here.

still his company with his attitude towards working people.

Shut the fuck up.

 

[thereisnospoon]

'I'm sick to my stomach': anger builds in Illinois at Bain's latest outsourcing plan | Business | guardian.co.uk

Shipping jobs to China....The Dollar Rules Again!

Setting Romney aside from Bain, being he hasn't been there in several years. Has anyone looked to see how successful this company was operating?

Or the fact that taxes have increased in Illinois?

Illinois Increases Tax Rates for 2011 through 2025

Illinois is another Rust Belt state with zero outside the box thinking government.
It is a typical liberal tax and spend government. Anti business, anti jobs, anti consumer.
The suburban and urban areas are becoming a middle class wasteland.
The middle class cannot afford the excessive, confiscatory taxes. The public sector continues to get fat off the backs of 80% of the working people in the State. Illinois is losing population
According to the US Census Bureau, the estimated population of the State was 12.910 million..In 2009 12.419 million. Illinois has lost one half million people in the 9 years of the population survey.
One thing. If not for Illinois massive college student population the state's population figures would look worse.

 

[uscitizen]

'I'm sick to my stomach': anger builds in Illinois at Bain's latest outsourcing plan | Business | guardian.co.uk

Shipping jobs to China....The Dollar Rules Again!

Why is Obama letting this happen? HE is the one who is bitching about jobs going overseas.
Why has OBAMA NOT STEPPED IN to help?
You are dealing with intelligent people here who do their homework.
Did you really think you could post this drive by hit piece( of shit) and not get your face slapped?...
Silly you.
Go find another fucking hobby you boil on the country's ass.

so now you want more regulations?

 

[eflatminor]

Interesting how Romneys past business deals are of no importance however Obama's past preacher is or extreme importance.

His past business deals are of a importance. That he was extremely successful is impressive. That Obama listened to a racist asshole preacher for 20 years is somewhat less impressive.

 

[thereisnospoon]

'I'm sick to my stomach': anger builds in Illinois at Bain's latest outsourcing plan | Business | guardian.co.uk

Shipping jobs to China....The Dollar Rules Again!

Why is Obama letting this happen? HE is the one who is bitching about jobs going overseas.
Why has OBAMA NOT STEPPED IN to help?
You are dealing with intelligent people here who do their homework.
Did you really think you could post this drive by hit piece( of shit) and not get your face slapped?...
Silly you.
Go find another fucking hobby you boil on the country's ass.

so now you want more regulations?

Just a minute there pal...Your guy .Obama says if given another term HE will stop "outsourcing" He says HE will end the ( one that does not exist) tax break for business that transfers jobs out of the country.
So.....Obama has been in office for nearly 4 years. In that time HE HASN'T found a way to prevent or stop companies from "outsourcing"?
He says he WILL have the power to do this. Why not RIGHT NOW?
Or for that matter, if it were God damned important, why did Obama not taker care of this when he had a democrat majority in the House and A filibuster proof majority in the Senate?
It's not what I want. It's what Obama claims he can do.
You fell into your own trap.
Out of one side of your moputh you want Obama to stop "outsourcing" . As you claim would create more regulation. When challenged on Obama's claims to have the authority to stop "outsourcing" you try to hit me with "you want more regulation"...
Classic case of a liberal wanting things both ways in order to further a political agenda.
Sorry poor sighted kitty, it doesn't work that way.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Interesting how Romneys past business deals are of no importance however Obama's past preacher is or extreme importance.

Obama claimed Wright was a spiritual adviser.
Now you are just making excuses in a desperate attempt to find some way to make this thread into something.
You should surrender now. It's a lost cause.
This thread is a piece of shit.

 

[Shelzin]

However... I believe that if a business fails... Then whoever owns it should not be rewarded in any way, shape, or form outside of lesson learned.

Think about what you've written here. Now imagine I start a business mowing lawns in the neighborhood. I compete against other landscapers but for whatever reason, my business fails. After I close the business, there are still lawnmowers and other assets.

Yes... Absolutely... However if a company is a person, then when it borrows money then it should have to use it's "assets" as collateral.

What's happening at Bain is the company borrows money, pays the people at Bain, and then closes if it fails. Only... Bain is still paid. The "owner" of the business is rewarded for failing. Failing means nothing if you are rewarded for doing it.

Given that I own the failed business, should I not be able sell those assets and keep the money? Must I donate them in order to 'learn my lesson'?

If you didn't borrow any money, or accept government money, then sure... I have no problem with that. But if money is borrowed to pay it's employees/Bain, then no... You don't own whatever assets that you had to put up as collateral. I mean shit... If all you need is a shit load of money, to make a shit load of money even if you fail... That puts a shit load of credit in "Rich getting richer and poor getting poorer" doesn't it?

Buying a failed or failing business, and then sinking BURROWED or GOVERNMENT money into it, and then coming out ahead when it STILL FAILS, does not in any way, shape, or form make any logical sense. Unless of course you are using someone else's 401k money.

 

[rdean]

Adding to the 47%.

 

[MeBelle]

Setting Romney aside from Bain, being he hasn't been there in several years. Has anyone looked to see how successful this company was operating?

Or the fact that taxes have increased in Illinois?

Illinois Increases Tax Rates for 2011 through 2025

Taxes increased because revenue went down because Bush let Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

Bush was President of Illinois?
Aren't states responsible for their own fiscal health?

 

[eflatminor]

However... I believe that if a business fails... Then whoever owns it should not be rewarded in any way, shape, or form outside of lesson learned.

Think about what you've written here. Now imagine I start a business mowing lawns in the neighborhood. I compete against other landscapers but for whatever reason, my business fails. After I close the business, there are still lawnmowers and other assets.

However if a company is a person, then when it borrows money then it should have to use it's "assets" as collateral.

The lender and borrower will set the terms of a loan. Liens on assets are common. An exchange for stock is common. Sometimes both.

Why are you trying to dictate the terms of a loan between a lender and a company you do not own?

What's happening at Bain is the company borrows money, pays the people at Bain, and then closes if it fails. Only... Bain is still paid.

Well of course! If the company entered into a contract with Bain, they have to pay them. Whether the company borrowed money to pay Bain, paid them with cash on hand, or gave Bain stock in exchange for their services matters not. The owners of the company willingly entered into a contract. Of course they're obligated to honor their end of the deal. Are you concern for the bank that loaned the money? I don't get it.

The "owner" of the business is rewarded for failing. Failing means nothing if you are rewarded for doing it.

If the company has contracted to pay Bain in cash, the owners of that company are hardly rewarded if they fail...especially if they still owe Bain money (or any other companies with whom they've entered into contract). It would suck for the owners.

If the company exchanged stock for Bain's services and ended up failing, Bain is therefore one of the owner's of the failed company and can share in the value of any remaining assets, just like my lawnmowers in the landscaper example.

If the value of those remaining assets should exceed the total investment made by a shareholder, they came out ahead despite proving incapable of competing in the marketplace. Why do you find this offensive?

For example, let's say a guy buys a little piece of land and builds a small hardware store on it. Years later, competition forces him out of business. He has failed. But lo and behold, when he goes to sell the business, it turns out the land's value has risen dramatically and he gets rich.

Should his profits be restricted because his business failed but he still profited?

Given that I own the failed business, should I not be able sell those assets and keep the money? Must I donate them in order to 'learn my lesson'?

If you didn't borrow any money, or accept government money, then sure... I have no problem with that. But if money is borrowed to pay it's employees/Bain, then no... You don't own whatever assets that you had to put up as collateral. I mean shit... If all you need is a shit load of money, to make a shit load of money even if you fail... That puts a shit load of credit in "Rich getting richer and poor getting poorer" doesn't it?

Let's set any taxpayer issues here aside. Rest assured this libertarian does not support cronyism.

Regarding the statement in bold. You seem to be arguing about which liens come first in the line of creditors following the failure of a business. We all know the IRS gets first dibs. Who comes second is a contractual matter, which can be adjudicated if necessary. I don't get why this bothers you or why you'd criticize Bain for getting paid.

Buying a failed or failing business, and then sinking BURROWED or GOVERNMENT money into it, and then coming out ahead when it STILL FAILS, does not in any way, shape, or form make any logical sense. Unless of course you are using someone else's 401k money.

Again, no cronyism.

Certainly you're not suggesting that if a company is "failing", they should be prohibited from borrowing money? Isn't that a matter for potential lenders to worry about?

Honestly, I don't understand your criticisms of Bain here.

 

[Chris]

"Bain Capital was nothing more than a bunch of rich guys who figured out clever ways to drain companies dry and walk away leaving the employees with nothing." - Newt Gingrich 2012

 

[Shelzin]

Honestly, I don't understand your criticisms of Bain here.

Oh... See... You are under the assumption that the company isn't basically controlled by Bain. Why?

This isn't the company paying Bain for it's services. This is Bain taking over the company and then paying itself as if it's a separate entity. It has the control, but no responsibility for debt. I'm not a fan of that.

Let's set any taxpayer issues here aside. Rest assured this libertarian does not support cronyism.

You're a libertarian? I guess that does kind of make sense. I'm not a libertarian. I'm an independent who happens to be in agreement with libertarians for the most part.

But Bain does do 401k's... And they do invest them. As far as I am aware 401k isn't a tax payer issue. Do you disagree with that or do you think it should be a tax payer issue? You kind of lost me there.

 

[Shelzin]

Or the fact that taxes have increased in Illinois?

Illinois Increases Tax Rates for 2011 through 2025

Taxes increased because revenue went down because Bush let Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

Bush was President of Illinois?
Aren't states responsible for their own fiscal health?

No... they aren't. Obviously. But they should be.

 

[eflatminor]

Honestly, I don't understand your criticisms of Bain here.

Oh... See... You are under the assumption that the company isn't basically controlled by Bain. Why?

No, I do not make that assumption. But let's assume that Bain acquires a company and controls it. Why do you care?

This isn't the company paying Bain for it's services. This is Bain taking over the company and then paying itself as if it's a separate entity. It has the control, but no responsibility for debt. I'm not a fan of that.

Bain either owns stock or they don't. If they own the company, they own the debt. They only have control if they have a controlling number of shares. Of course Bain is a separate entity from the company even if they have a controlling share of the stock, but that's true of any stockholder, they're all separate entities.

If Bain performs services for the company, they are entitled to seek compensation, which is purely a contractual matter with the company that took their capital and/or sought their services. Again, I don't see why anyone who didn't own stock in the company would care.

Let's set any taxpayer issues here aside. Rest assured this libertarian does not support cronyism.

You're a libertarian? I guess that does kind of make sense. I'm not a libertarian. I'm an independent who happens to be in agreement with libertarians for the most part.

Okay, but tell me why you're concerned about Bain taking ownership of the assets of a company they own and what that has to do with any loans that Bain or the company they've acquired may have taken. I'm still not clear why this an issue for you.

But Bain does do 401k's...And they do invest them.

What do you mean by this?

As far as I am aware 401k isn't a tax payer issue. Do you disagree with that or do you think it should be a tax payer issue? You kind of lost me there.

Not a taxpayer issue.

Again, what I don't understand is the problem you and others seem to have with Bain. You seem to be concerned about Bain taking ownership of the assets of a company they own when they may have borrowed money to acquire that company. Do I have this right? If yes, why is that a concern of anyone that isn't a shareholder of that company, which I assume includes you?

 

[FA_Q2]

Interesting how Romneys past business deals are of no importance however Obama's past preacher is or extreme importance.

His past business deals are VERY relevant. They are actually a cornerstone in his election campaign. The over 70% success rate is part of that. What is not relevant is the purposeful lies that try and pin the fact that Bain did not save 100% of the jobs of companies they invested in. What is not relevant is the sob story of one employee that did not plan accordingly. What is not relevant is the LEGAL methods that Bain used to attempt to turn a profit.

 

[Shelzin]

Honestly, I don't understand your criticisms of Bain here.

Oh... See... You are under the assumption that the company isn't basically controlled by Bain. Why?

No, I do not make that assumption. But let's assume that Bain acquires a company and controls it. Why do you care?

Because they are making money from a failed company by investing money that is not their own. They risk nothing of themselves, and get paid. Or more to the point they risk other peoples money, and they get paid either way.

This is the same thing as a woman marrying a rich man... Indirectly killing him with food or alcohol, and taking his money. Hell... Maybe she just marries and divorces them and takes half... And then doing it again. And again... And Again... Well it wasn't MY money... So why should I care? Is it legal? Sure it is. Is it right? Fuck no. Not unless everyone knows what they are getting into about her.

Bain either owns stock or they don't. If they own the company, they own the debt.

No. The company does the bankrupts. Not Bain. Bain still got paid as if it was a separate company. And it inflated it's services to the child company to make damn sure it got it's money.

They only have control if they have a controlling number of shares. Of course Bain is a separate entity from the company even if they have a controlling share of the stock, but that's true of any stockholder, they're all separate entities.

And there is the loophole that allows the Rich to get Richer even if they are fuck nuggets.

If Bain performs services for the company, they are entitled to seek compensation, which is purely a contractual matter with the company that took their capital and/or sought their services. Again, I don't see why anyone who didn't own stock in the company would care.

This is the same thing as a woman marrying a rich man... Indirectly killing him with food or alcohol, and taking his money. Hell... Maybe she just marries and divorces them and takes half... And then doing it again. And again... And Again... Well it wasn't MY money... So why should I care? Is it legal? Sure it is. Is it right? Fuck no. Not unless everyone knows what they are getting into about her.

Make no mistake... I'm one of those people who won't beat around the bush. "Go way you stupid fuck'n gold digger, I know what you're up to" rather than whispers in back rooms. I want to say it... And I want anyone and everyone to call me an asshole, or a saint for doing it... Just as long as they look. Make up your own damn mind... But LOOK for the truth.

But Bain does do 401k's...And they do invest them.

What do you mean by this?[/quote]
I mean Bain invests 401k for the government employees that aren't connected with any Bain company at all. Might for a lot of other companies too... I don't know. Although I will be honest and say that I got that information from an news article that I can't remember where I got it from. It may very well be suspect. I'll look for it again tomorrow.

Tired now. Shelzin sleep.

 

[Claudette]

Epic thread fail.

Epic?? Medal of Honor winner for the fail in my book. Jeeze.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Hello, you don't remember The bottom falling out of the steel industry?

so, you are only 16

Yes, I do remember that.

And what I remember is steel companies that didn't have 500 Million in debt to that Bain could pay themselves huge bonuses actually came out of that okay.

Bain were a bunch of evil douchebags who didn't care who they hurt.

And on Nov 7, working folks are going to hurt Romney back, by taking from him the one thing he really wants.

 

[naturegirl]

Not one company ever, was forced to bring in Bain, it was of their own choosing and the contracts were signed.

Joe Ampad had the opportunity to read the fine print as did his lawyers. This shows the lack of understanding about business and contracts from the left, this is why most of them are broke and living on the government dole. As long as they hate business, they will never move beyond a certain point. Barack Obama is one of those guys, he doesn't get it either so Joey, Shelzin and Chris are not alone.