Big Bain Backfire

[SniperFire]

Who foots the bill that was supposed to be covered by their pensions?

You and I.

Still lying about Bain touching pension money, I see.

 

[The Infidel]

So lefties, what about Bain Capital is different than the Government propping up failing companies???

Oh that's right Bain is PRIVATE money and the Government uses TAXPAYER money, more better that way.

They also forget to mention all the dealerships and associated folks who lost their jobs when the gov't took over GM and Chrysler.
Cuts had to be made right??


All with tax payer dollars too.

 

[Toro]

So lefties, what about Bain Capital is different than the Government propping up failing companies???

Oh that's right Bain is PRIVATE money and the Government uses TAXPAYER money, more better that way.

The ISSUE is that Bain used taxpayer money too.

Who foots the bill that was supposed to be covered by their pensions?

You and I.

Bain used taxpayer money? How? Once pensions are in the PBGC, they are out of the hands of the former owners through the bankruptcy process. Am I wrong? If I am not wrong, then I don't think Bain took any taxpayer money. You can say they didn't fully fund the pension liabilities, which is fair, but name me a single company that fully funded a defined pension benefit plan that was less than 50% funded after the company was bought. I don't think you could name a single company that has done that in eight years no matter who owned it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised.

 

[bripat9643]

The perception of Romney on this is simple. He's one of the guys in the expensive suits who come to your town and close down your factory, or mill, or plant, AND,

he's the guy who opposed saving the auto industry.

Those are the perceptions. Romney is not likely to change them.

Obama didn't save the auto-companies. He saved the UAW extortion contracts with auto companies. He screwed the bond holders and the tax payers in the process.

Only a stupid turd like you would imagine that is something to boast about.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe you pulled that 78% number out of your ass.

As for buying up failing companies, I also call bull shit. Bain bought up any company who they believe to be undervalued. They figured they could make huge profits on failing companies as well, and leave us taxpayers on the hook to pay off their pension funds.

Your speculations on what BAIN thought are about as valuable as Solyndra stock.

 

[Toro]

The point about the auto industry is a good one. The car companies were driven through bankruptcy, workers were let go, plants were shut, pay was slashed, dealerships were closed, assets were either shut down or sold, and the administration even overrode bankruptcy law to pay off a political backer. The only difference is that the companies survive today and GST does not. Apart from that, how is that any different from what Bain did?

 

[Vidi]

So lefties, what about Bain Capital is different than the Government propping up failing companies???

Oh that's right Bain is PRIVATE money and the Government uses TAXPAYER money, more better that way.

The ISSUE is that Bain used taxpayer money too.

Who foots the bill that was supposed to be covered by their pensions?

You and I.

Bain used taxpayer money? How? Once pensions are in the PBGC, they are out of the hands of the former owners through the bankruptcy process. Am I wrong? If I am not wrong, then I don't think Bain took any taxpayer money. You can say they didn't fully fund the pension liabilities, which is fair, but name me a single company that fully funded a defined pension benefit plan that was less than 50% funded after the company was bought. I don't think you could name a single company that has done that in eight years no matter who owned it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised.

44 million dollars to bailout the UNDERfunded pension plan that Bain didnt pat into when they were required to.



and as long as we are on the subject of Bain not living up to its obligations...is everyone forgetting that it went bankrupt with HALF A BILLION dollar on its books?

How many other companies did it owe? Wont hear about that in either the right or the left commentary, will we? How many other companies lost money just by doing business with a Bain owned company?

That debt just goes away? No its paid off in percentages. And what do those companies have to do in order to recoup their losses?

I mean as long as we're all talking about how GM effected other companies...lets be fair and talk about how GST bankruptcy effected those that they did business with. Or Dade International. Or AmPad.

THIS is what he is running on. His business experience at Bain.

from his OWN website:

I learned how to balance budgets in business. In the private sector, you have no choice—you either balance your budget or you go broke. And you spend every dollar like it’s your own, because it is.

Mitt Romney Delivers Remarks on Fiscal Policy

well, did he balance the GST budget? Or did he run up half a billion dollars of debt and then go bankrupt? Did he really "save" the Olympics? Or did he just ask for government hand outs?

These are the things ROMNEY claims as successes. Are they? Or are they just more examples of corporate welfare?

 

[Toro]

44 million dollars to bailout the UNDERfunded pension plan that Bain didnt pat into when they were required to.

Do you know the details of the plan? What was their contribution rate? How many years did they have to fund the plan? Why was it underfunded in the first place? Were they allowed to amortize contributions over time? How is it different from other steel companies that also fobbed their pension obligations onto the PBGC and why would GST be any different? Did the union resist any changes or were they willing to adjust their benefits? What are the accounting rules for a dramatically underfunded pension?

I don't know the answers to these questions. Do you? If you do, please let me know.

and as long as we are on the subject of Bain not living up to its obligations...is everyone forgetting that it went bankrupt with HALF A BILLION dollar on its books?

How many other companies did it owe? Wont hear about that in either the right or the left commentary, will we? How many other companies lost money just by doing business with a Bain owned company?

That debt just goes away? No its paid off in percentages. And what do those companies have to do in order to recoup their losses?

I mean as long as we're all talking about how GM effected other companies...lets be fair and talk about how GST bankruptcy effected those that they did business with. Or Dade International. Or AmPad.

THIS is what he is running on. His business experience at Bain.

from his OWN website:

I learned how to balance budgets in business. In the private sector, you have no choice—you either balance your budget or you go broke. And you spend every dollar like it’s your own, because it is.

Mitt Romney Delivers Remarks on Fiscal Policy

well, did he balance the GST budget? Or did he run up half a billion dollars of debt and then go bankrupt? Did he really "save" the Olympics? Or did he just ask for government hand outs?

These are the things ROMNEY claims as successes. Are they? Or are they just more examples of corporate welfare?

Bain is one of the most successful investment firms in the world. They did that mainly by turning around businesses, funding new businesses, or providing growth capital to young businesses. Almost all private equity firms like Bain have companies that go into bankruptcy because bankruptcy is part of the capitalist system. There are legitimate criticisms of the private equity business model, but to single out one example both without understanding the totality of that one situation - can you answer all those questions about the pension fund above? - and excluding all the other situations in which the firm was involved is either myopic or disingenuous.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Of course, the pension fund was underfunded and the company was headed for bankruptcy before Bain bought it, but that won't stop the drones from making Bain into the villain.

If Bain took on that responsibility without a plan to meet the obligations, um... yeah, that makes Bain the bad guys here.

Of course, the company wasn't headed to bankruptcy until Bain got there and borrowed 500 million to pay themselves huge salaries... and then left someone else to clean up the mess.

 

[Toro]

[

Of course, the pension fund was underfunded and the company was headed for bankruptcy before Bain bought it, but that won't stop the drones from making Bain into the villain.

If Bain took on that responsibility without a plan to meet the obligations, um... yeah, that makes Bain the bad guys here.

Of course, the company wasn't headed to bankruptcy until Bain got there and borrowed 500 million to pay themselves huge salaries... and then left someone else to clean up the mess.

$45,000 a year is "huge."



sux 2bu!

 

[Vidi]

44 million dollars to bailout the UNDERfunded pension plan that Bain didnt pat into when they were required to.

Do you know the details of the plan? What was their contribution rate? How many years did they have to fund the plan? Why was it underfunded in the first place? Were they allowed to amortize contributions over time? How is it different from other steel companies that also fobbed their pension obligations onto the PBGC and why would GST be any different? Did the union resist any changes or were they willing to adjust their benefits? What are the accounting rules for a dramatically underfunded pension?

I don't know the answers to these questions. Do you? If you do, please let me know.

and as long as we are on the subject of Bain not living up to its obligations...is everyone forgetting that it went bankrupt with HALF A BILLION dollar on its books?

How many other companies did it owe? Wont hear about that in either the right or the left commentary, will we? How many other companies lost money just by doing business with a Bain owned company?

That debt just goes away? No its paid off in percentages. And what do those companies have to do in order to recoup their losses?

I mean as long as we're all talking about how GM effected other companies...lets be fair and talk about how GST bankruptcy effected those that they did business with. Or Dade International. Or AmPad.

THIS is what he is running on. His business experience at Bain.

from his OWN website:

I learned how to balance budgets in business. In the private sector, you have no choice—you either balance your budget or you go broke. And you spend every dollar like it’s your own, because it is.

Mitt Romney Delivers Remarks on Fiscal Policy

well, did he balance the GST budget? Or did he run up half a billion dollars of debt and then go bankrupt? Did he really "save" the Olympics? Or did he just ask for government hand outs?

These are the things ROMNEY claims as successes. Are they? Or are they just more examples of corporate welfare?

Bain is one of the most successful investment firms in the world. They did that mainly by turning around businesses, funding new businesses, or providing growth capital to young businesses. Almost all private equity firms like Bain have companies that go into bankruptcy because bankruptcy is part of the capitalist system. There are legitimate criticisms of the private equity business model, but to single out one example both without understanding the totality of that one situation - can you answer all those questions about the pension fund above? - and excluding all the other situations in which the firm was involved is either myopic or disingenuous.

yes. I actually posted the details last night earlier in this thread post 371. With a link and everything!

As far as discluding all other instacnes that Bain under Romany went into a business. Well, I dont think theres enough space on this forum to detail each and every deal they ever made. But we can look at some of the failures and successes side by side and draw our own conclusions.

Im of the opinion that GST, Dade, AmPad and others are perfect examples of what NOT to do. As Romney himself is claiming his success at bain is what qualifies him to run the entire economy, then I say we look at the failures of bain and ask what happened there.

Romneys answer of "you win some, you lose some" just doesnt fly when he wants us to hand him the keys and let him drive the economy. I want him to answer specifically what happened in these instances so I KNOW for sure that he knows what went wrong so he doesnt duplicate the same mistakes as President, IF he is elected that is. And I think as taxpayers we have the right to demand that kind of answer.

 

[Toro]

yes. I actually posted the details last night earlier in this thread post 371. With a link and everything!

Fair enough. Thanks.

As far as discluding all other instacnes that Bain under Romany went into a business. Well, I dont think theres enough space on this forum to detail each and every deal they ever made. But we can look at some of the failures and successes side by side and draw our own conclusions.

Im of the opinion that GST, Dade, AmPad and others are perfect examples of what NOT to do. As Romney himself is claiming his success at bain is what qualifies him to run the entire economy, then I say we look at the failures of bain and ask what happened there.

Romneys answer of "you win some, you lose some" just doesnt fly when he wants us to hand him the keys and let him drive the economy. I want him to answer specifically what happened in these instances so I KNOW for sure that he knows what went wrong so he doesnt duplicate the same mistakes as President, IF he is elected that is. And I think as taxpayers we have the right to demand that kind of answer.

I look at it and see that he has funded some outstanding businesses, and he knows what works and what does not work. When you've spent 20 years in the business of funding businesses, you learn what to do and what not to do. Romney's entire career was making bad businesses good, and small businesses big. That is why he is worth $250 million today. He was very good at it. Not perfect, but very, very good.

I also look at the alternative, and frankly, the alternative is a disaster. Obama has zero practical experience and knowledge on how to create jobs. I don't blame Obama for the mess that we are in, and the economy would be growing slowly no matter who was President - that is the nature of this balance sheet recession. But he is definitely providing a headwind to business and job creation. Given I have a choice between a guy who has a demonstrable record on what it takes to create jobs, and another who has had 3.5 years putting all sorts of speed bumps in front of businesses, I'll take the former.

 

[Vidi]

yes. I actually posted the details last night earlier in this thread post 371. With a link and everything!

Fair enough. Thanks.

As far as discluding all other instacnes that Bain under Romany went into a business. Well, I dont think theres enough space on this forum to detail each and every deal they ever made. But we can look at some of the failures and successes side by side and draw our own conclusions.

Im of the opinion that GST, Dade, AmPad and others are perfect examples of what NOT to do. As Romney himself is claiming his success at bain is what qualifies him to run the entire economy, then I say we look at the failures of bain and ask what happened there.

Romneys answer of "you win some, you lose some" just doesnt fly when he wants us to hand him the keys and let him drive the economy. I want him to answer specifically what happened in these instances so I KNOW for sure that he knows what went wrong so he doesnt duplicate the same mistakes as President, IF he is elected that is. And I think as taxpayers we have the right to demand that kind of answer.

I look at it and see that he has funded some outstanding businesses, and he knows what works and what does not work. When you've spent 20 years in the business of funding businesses, you learn what to do and what not to do. Romney's entire career was making bad businesses good, and small businesses big. That is why he is worth $250 million today. He was very good at it. Not perfect, but very, very good.

I also look at the alternative, and frankly, the alternative is a disaster. Obama has zero practical experience and knowledge on how to create jobs. I don't blame Obama for the mess that we are in, and the economy would be growing slowly no matter who was President - that is the nature of this balance sheet recession. But he is definitely providing a headwind to business and job creation. Given I have a choice between a guy who has a demonstrable record on what it takes to create jobs, and another who has had 3.5 years putting all sorts of speed bumps in front of businesses, I'll take the former.

see now I dont see it that way. I see tax cuts for small business. I see more regulation to protect workers.

But Im of the opinion that a strong Middle class with a disposable income is the biggest job creator. Some may disagree and as long as theyre civil about it, I can respect that. But with Romney I see someone who is going to sell out the middle class to corporate America through tax loopholes and subsidies. In my opinion, thats socialism.

As far as the "successes" of Bain, one success everyone likes to point out is Steel Dynamics. What they utterly fail to mention is Bain's equity contribution was less than 5% of the total $370 million initial financing.

OpEdNews - Article: In Romney's "Dream," He Takes Undeserved Credit For Steel Dynamics

Additonally, the "success" of SDI was built on the backs of the taxpayers as well.

As Bain made its investment, the state and county pledged $37 million in subsidies and grants for the $385-million plant project. The county also levied a new income tax to finance infrastructure improvements to benefit the steel mill over the heated objections of some county residents."I'm very pro-business, but I'm not pro-business-welfare," said DeKalb County resident Suzanne Beaman, 58, who fought the incentives. Steel Dynamics "would have done fine without our tax dollars, I have no doubt."

Mitt Romney no stranger to tax breaks, subsidies - Los Angeles Times

So once again, even his success stories show us that he is all about big government spending for the cause of big business.

( btw thats why its right to ask these businesses to pay more in taxes. They get the most money back. Its simply a return on investment. )

 

[Toro]

yes. I actually posted the details last night earlier in this thread post 371. With a link and everything!

Fair enough. Thanks.



I look at it and see that he has funded some outstanding businesses, and he knows what works and what does not work. When you've spent 20 years in the business of funding businesses, you learn what to do and what not to do. Romney's entire career was making bad businesses good, and small businesses big. That is why he is worth $250 million today. He was very good at it. Not perfect, but very, very good.

I also look at the alternative, and frankly, the alternative is a disaster. Obama has zero practical experience and knowledge on how to create jobs. I don't blame Obama for the mess that we are in, and the economy would be growing slowly no matter who was President - that is the nature of this balance sheet recession. But he is definitely providing a headwind to business and job creation. Given I have a choice between a guy who has a demonstrable record on what it takes to create jobs, and another who has had 3.5 years putting all sorts of speed bumps in front of businesses, I'll take the former.

see now I dont see it that way. I see tax cuts for small business. I see more regulation to protect workers.

But Im of the opinion that a strong Middle class with a disposable income is the biggest job creator. Some may disagree and as long as theyre civil about it, I can respect that. But with Romney I see someone who is going to sell out the middle class to corporate America through tax loopholes and subsidies. In my opinion, thats socialism.

There is a lot of empirical evidence that cutting corporate taxes increases economic wealth and job creation so I don't have a problem with corporations having their income taxes cut. I don't see it as an adversarial relationship between corporate America and the middle class. I see corporations as the drivers of wealth creation and thus jobs.

I do not like special subsidies and tax loopholes for some businesses and not others, but unfortunately, jurisdictions do this all the time. Obama wants to cut taxes for manufacturers. Why? Why just manufacturing? Why not software companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc.? Why is subsidizing one type of business and not others OK and subsidizing other types of businesses, i.e. your example below, not OK? What is the difference? Why would you hold Romney and the Republicans to one standard and Obama and the Democrats to another?

I supported Obama in 08 and Democrats in general through most of the last decade, and after watching this President and the Democrats the past 3.5 years, I have been deeply disappointed in their incompetence in handling the economy. I don't think Obama understands how the economy works. And if you don't know how the economy works, how can you know how jobs are created?

Finally, disposable income doesn't come from nowhere. I often here that "demand drives the economy." That's true, but demand for what? The products that people demand come virtually entirely through innovation, whether that is the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the car you drive or the handheld you surf the Internet on. The innovations that become products are created primarily through corporations, which can mobilize capital and organization to develop, create and bring a product to market. Government certainly plays a role in that, but it is corporations that are the primary drivers of both innovation and product commercialization in the economy. Without corporations, people would have much less to demand.

As far as the "successes" of Bain, one success everyone likes to point out is Steel Dynamics. What they utterly fail to mention is Bain's equity contribution was less than 5% of the total $370 million initial financing.
OpEdNews - Article: In Romney's "Dream," He Takes Undeserved Credit For Steel Dynamics

Additonally, the "success" of SDI was built on the backs of the taxpayers as well.

As Bain made its investment, the state and county pledged $37 million in subsidies and grants for the $385-million plant project. The county also levied a new income tax to finance infrastructure improvements to benefit the steel mill over the heated objections of some county residents."I'm very pro-business, but I'm not pro-business-welfare," said DeKalb County resident Suzanne Beaman, 58, who fought the incentives. Steel Dynamics "would have done fine without our tax dollars, I have no doubt."

Mitt Romney no stranger to tax breaks, subsidies - Los Angeles Times

So once again, even his success stories show us that he is all about big government spending for the cause of big business.

( btw thats why its right to ask these businesses to pay more in taxes. They get the most money back. Its simply a return on investment. )

Steel Dynamics is used as an example to juxtapose the so-called "Vampire Capitalism" of GST. You also have to understand the context. Steel is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in the United States. It has received special tax breaks, the government has broken international trade agreements to slap quotas on steel imports to benefit the US steel industry, it has benefited from government-imposed Buy American policies, etc. Steel is a highly politicized industry. Bain was no different than every other steel company owner around. You judge Bain's performance relative to other steel companies.

But again, you are isolating one single instance. Bain has invested in hundreds of companies that were successful across all different industries. This is a highly successful company that has grown many, many different companies. These guys understand what corporations need to do to innovate and create jobs. The current President does not. I'd rather go with the guy who has done it rather than the guy who was given the chance and shown himself to be clueless.

 

[SniperFire]

44 million dollars to bailout the UNDERfunded pension plan that Bain didnt pat into when they were required to.

That is a lie, which you continue to repeat.

You are talking about the 'supplemental' pension money which was 'negotiated' after the strike of 1997 which actually did the company in. That is the only pension-related matter you can pin on Bain, and the Federal guarantee did not apply because it wasn't 'pension - it was just benies which the company could not pay. The $44 million pension underfunding pre-dated Bain.

You are a piece of shit, dude.

 

[Vidi]

44 million dollars to bailout the UNDERfunded pension plan that Bain didnt pat into when they were required to.

That is a lie, which you continue to repeat.

You are talking about the 'supplemental' pension money which was 'negotiated' after the strike of 1997 which actually did the company in. That is the only pension-related matter you can pin on Bain, and the Federal guarantee did not apply because it wasn't 'pension - it was just benies which the company could not pay. The $44 million pension underfunding pre-dated Bain.

You are a piece of shit, dude.

Its the truth that has been reported over and over and over and over again.

The 44 million was NOT from PRE bain as the company from PreBain had funded their end of the pension fund for 5 years after the sale to Bain as per their agreement.

If you had bothered to get off your lying high horse long enough to actually read the links I provieded, you would know this instead of spewing the same stupid ignorant lies post after post.

 

[Vidi]

Fair enough. Thanks.



I look at it and see that he has funded some outstanding businesses, and he knows what works and what does not work. When you've spent 20 years in the business of funding businesses, you learn what to do and what not to do. Romney's entire career was making bad businesses good, and small businesses big. That is why he is worth $250 million today. He was very good at it. Not perfect, but very, very good.

I also look at the alternative, and frankly, the alternative is a disaster. Obama has zero practical experience and knowledge on how to create jobs. I don't blame Obama for the mess that we are in, and the economy would be growing slowly no matter who was President - that is the nature of this balance sheet recession. But he is definitely providing a headwind to business and job creation. Given I have a choice between a guy who has a demonstrable record on what it takes to create jobs, and another who has had 3.5 years putting all sorts of speed bumps in front of businesses, I'll take the former.

see now I dont see it that way. I see tax cuts for small business. I see more regulation to protect workers.

But Im of the opinion that a strong Middle class with a disposable income is the biggest job creator. Some may disagree and as long as theyre civil about it, I can respect that. But with Romney I see someone who is going to sell out the middle class to corporate America through tax loopholes and subsidies. In my opinion, thats socialism.

There is a lot of empirical evidence that cutting corporate taxes increases economic wealth and job creation so I don't have a problem with corporations having their income taxes cut. I don't see it as an adversarial relationship between corporate America and the middle class. I see corporations as the drivers of wealth creation and thus jobs.

I do not like special subsidies and tax loopholes for some businesses and not others, but unfortunately, jurisdictions do this all the time. Obama wants to cut taxes for manufacturers. Why? Why just manufacturing? Why not software companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc.? Why is subsidizing one type of business and not others OK and subsidizing other types of businesses, i.e. your example below, not OK? What is the difference? Why would you hold Romney and the Republicans to one standard and Obama and the Democrats to another?

I supported Obama in 08 and Democrats in general through most of the last decade, and after watching this President and the Democrats the past 3.5 years, I have been deeply disappointed in their incompetence in handling the economy. I don't think Obama understands how the economy works. And if you don't know how the economy works, how can you know how jobs are created?

Finally, disposable income doesn't come from nowhere. I often here that "demand drives the economy." That's true, but demand for what? The products that people demand come virtually entirely through innovation, whether that is the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the car you drive or the handheld you surf the Internet on. The innovations that become products are created primarily through corporations, which can mobilize capital and organization to develop, create and bring a product to market. Government certainly plays a role in that, but it is corporations that are the primary drivers of both innovation and product commercialization in the economy. Without corporations, people would have much less to demand.

As far as the "successes" of Bain, one success everyone likes to point out is Steel Dynamics. What they utterly fail to mention is Bain's equity contribution was less than 5% of the total $370 million initial financing.
OpEdNews - Article: In Romney's "Dream," He Takes Undeserved Credit For Steel Dynamics

Additonally, the "success" of SDI was built on the backs of the taxpayers as well.

As Bain made its investment, the state and county pledged $37 million in subsidies and grants for the $385-million plant project. The county also levied a new income tax to finance infrastructure improvements to benefit the steel mill over the heated objections of some county residents."I'm very pro-business, but I'm not pro-business-welfare," said DeKalb County resident Suzanne Beaman, 58, who fought the incentives. Steel Dynamics "would have done fine without our tax dollars, I have no doubt."

Mitt Romney no stranger to tax breaks, subsidies - Los Angeles Times

So once again, even his success stories show us that he is all about big government spending for the cause of big business.

( btw thats why its right to ask these businesses to pay more in taxes. They get the most money back. Its simply a return on investment. )

Steel Dynamics is used as an example to juxtapose the so-called "Vampire Capitalism" of GST. You also have to understand the context. Steel is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in the United States. It has received special tax breaks, the government has broken international trade agreements to slap quotas on steel imports to benefit the US steel industry, it has benefited from government-imposed Buy American policies, etc. Steel is a highly politicized industry. Bain was no different than every other steel company owner around. You judge Bain's performance relative to other steel companies.

But again, you are isolating one single instance. Bain has invested in hundreds of companies that were successful across all different industries. This is a highly successful company that has grown many, many different companies. These guys understand what corporations need to do to innovate and create jobs. The current President does not. I'd rather go with the guy who has done it rather than the guy who was given the chance and shown himself to be clueless.

Youre forgetting I brought up Dade and Ampad as well. I am talking about GST solely because thats what the subject is in this thread. Also the specifics of that deal, being a controversy have been more widely publicized. The specifics of other Bain deals are not widely known so it would be impossible for me to comment on them with any acceptable accuracy.

Unlike some on this board ( and I dont mean you ) I dont just pull stuff out of my ass and then harp on a fabrication for 30 pages. I only offer comments and opinions on things I can research. otherise, I just ask questions.

 

[The Infidel]

32 pages and 477 posts, yet Mitt does not have enough experience to be POTUS....



Seems to me if that were the case we wouldn't be discussing any of this bullshit would we?

 

[SniperFire]

After the sale, everything that says GS is Bain...as they owned the company at that point.

More bullshit. Armco was responsible for pension guarantees well after Bain 'owned the company.'

 

[Vidi]

After the sale, everything that says GS is Bain...as they owned the company at that point.

More bullshit. Armco was responsible for pension guarantees well after Bain 'owned the company.'

Five years.

Read the quote. What I said was accurate. Get over it.


but I have to thank you. Ive had to repeat myself so much thanks to you Ive got all the facts and figures commited to memory now.