Obama Superpac Runs "Romney Killed My Wife" Ad

[beagle9]

Don't like facts?

Romney and pals made millions and closed a steel plant. Brilliant.

According to Planet Money, that is what they do; buy into the company then leverage anything not already leveraged with the bank to take out a loan. With the money, they pay themselves back first then take whatever is left and legitimately try to save the company.

It's a Heads-I-Win, Tails-you-lose scenario for Bain.

Now I do know of a person/group who has done this very thing, and it's titled under a group name as in (*name*group), so the practice is real in this nation by what people are talking about, just encase anyone wants to know, but the reasons are real also in why these people began doing these sorts of things. The company that I know of that was taken over by this group, was sinking big time, and was caught up in a multitude of problems that forced the owner to choose this route to go whe bringing in this group or selling out to them. Now the practice that came afterwards by the group has been critisized greatly by the employee's, who have since seen their company even sink way lower under the situation even more, once taken over by the group, but no one knows for sure why it is sinking lower or that maybe it's just that the group in trying to save this company, has taken on a drowning giant in which it knew it couldnot save anyway, but instead is trying to make a profit off of it's liquidation by the practice, in which it uses until the very end.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Companies like Bain should run ads stating they won't invest in this company or that company because it is too risky to fail and then they will get negative PR from bottom feeder workers years later complaining they lost their job, their dog got hit by a car and their wife got cancer all because Bain bought the company 10 years earlier....

 

[mudwhistle]

Companies like Bain should run ads stating they won't invest in this company or that company because it is too risky to fail and then they will get negative PR from bottom feeder workers years later complaining they lost their job, their dog got hit by a car and their wife got cancer all because Bain bought the company 10 years earlier....

Guess it doesn't pay enough to try to help people out anymore.

Not with the Obama crowd around.


I see every one of their spokesmen trying to sell this bullshit line and everyone looking at them incredulously when they first claim it came from somebody else, but it just shows how little Romney cares about Middle-class voters.

They won't take credit for the ad but they will take advantage of the opportunity.

Who cares that Obama has been tied directly to the ad. They still lie that he hasn't.

 

[PixieStix]

Companies like Bain should run ads stating they won't invest in this company or that company because it is too risky to fail and then they will get negative PR from bottom feeder workers years later complaining they lost their job, their dog got hit by a car and their wife got cancer all because Bain bought the company 10 years earlier....

Guess it doesn't pay enough to try to help people out anymore.

Not with the Obama crowd around.


I see every one of their spokesmen trying to sell this bullshit line and everyone looking at them incredulously when they first claim it came from somebody else, but it just shows how little Romney cares about Middle-class voters.

They won't take credit for the ad but they will take advantage of the opportunity.

Who cares that Obama has been tied directly to the ad. They still lie that he hasn't.

Alinsky would be so proud of them.

 

[candycorn]

Don't like facts?

Romney and pals made millions and closed a steel plant. Brilliant.

According to Planet Money, that is what they do; buy into the company then leverage anything not already leveraged with the bank to take out a loan. With the money, they pay themselves back first then take whatever is left and legitimately try to save the company.

It's a Heads-I-Win, Tails-you-lose scenario for Bain.

Now I do know of a person/group who has done this very thing, and it's titled under a group name as in (*name*group), so the practice is real in this nation by what people are talking about, just encase anyone wants to know, but the reasons are real also in why these people began doing these sorts of things. The company that I know of that was taken over by this group, was sinking big time, and was caught up in a multitude of problems that forced the owner to choose this route to go whe bringing in this group or selling out to them. Now the practice that came afterwards by the group has been critisized greatly by the employee's, who have since seen their company even sink way lower under the situation even more, once taken over by the group, but no one knows for sure why it is sinking lower or that maybe it's just that the group in trying to save this company, has taken on a drowning giant in which it knew it couldnot save anyway, but instead is trying to make a profit off of it's liquidation by the practice, in which it uses until the very end.

Not to dismiss it but you sort of lost me.

Nothing is illegal in what Bain does. Not at all. But it doesn't wash down well with voters.

They come in when they can and invest money to take over.
Leverage the company down to the concrete on the floor
Take out a loan from a bank to pay themselves back
Then legitimately try to save the company. If not; they sell it off. If so, they hold on and reap the rewards of their hard work.

Planet Money detailed the practice. It is Heads I win, Tails you lose scenario. Not illegal. Arguably not immoral. Just not very attractive.

Romney doesn't want to see this powerful ad on TV. It could be any one of us in that chair.

 

[mudwhistle]

According to Planet Money, that is what they do; buy into the company then leverage anything not already leveraged with the bank to take out a loan. With the money, they pay themselves back first then take whatever is left and legitimately try to save the company.

It's a Heads-I-Win, Tails-you-lose scenario for Bain.

Now I do know of a person/group who has done this very thing, and it's titled under a group name as in (*name*group), so the practice is real in this nation by what people are talking about, just encase anyone wants to know, but the reasons are real also in why these people began doing these sorts of things. The company that I know of that was taken over by this group, was sinking big time, and was caught up in a multitude of problems that forced the owner to choose this route to go whe bringing in this group or selling out to them. Now the practice that came afterwards by the group has been critisized greatly by the employee's, who have since seen their company even sink way lower under the situation even more, once taken over by the group, but no one knows for sure why it is sinking lower or that maybe it's just that the group in trying to save this company, has taken on a drowning giant in which it knew it couldnot save anyway, but instead is trying to make a profit off of it's liquidation by the practice, in which it uses until the very end.

Not to dismiss it but you sort of lost me.

Nothing is illegal in what Bain does. Not at all. But it doesn't wash down well with voters.

They come in when they can and invest money to take over.
Leverage the company down to the concrete on the floor
Take out a loan from a bank to pay themselves back
Then legitimately try to save the company. If not; they sell it off. If so, they hold on and reap the rewards of their hard work.

Planet Money detailed the practice. It is Heads I win, Tails you lose scenario. Not illegal. Arguably not immoral. Just not very attractive.

Romney doesn't want to see this powerful ad on TV. It could be any one of us in that chair.

It doesn't wash down well with voters because they've only heard a warped version of what they do.

If it weren't for investors like Bain you wouldn't have many of the services that are available today. Facebook wouldn't exist, along with Staples and hundreds of other companies.

 

[candycorn]

Now I do know of a person/group who has done this very thing, and it's titled under a group name as in (*name*group), so the practice is real in this nation by what people are talking about, just encase anyone wants to know, but the reasons are real also in why these people began doing these sorts of things. The company that I know of that was taken over by this group, was sinking big time, and was caught up in a multitude of problems that forced the owner to choose this route to go whe bringing in this group or selling out to them. Now the practice that came afterwards by the group has been critisized greatly by the employee's, who have since seen their company even sink way lower under the situation even more, once taken over by the group, but no one knows for sure why it is sinking lower or that maybe it's just that the group in trying to save this company, has taken on a drowning giant in which it knew it couldnot save anyway, but instead is trying to make a profit off of it's liquidation by the practice, in which it uses until the very end.

Not to dismiss it but you sort of lost me.

Nothing is illegal in what Bain does. Not at all. But it doesn't wash down well with voters.

They come in when they can and invest money to take over.
Leverage the company down to the concrete on the floor
Take out a loan from a bank to pay themselves back
Then legitimately try to save the company. If not; they sell it off. If so, they hold on and reap the rewards of their hard work.

Planet Money detailed the practice. It is Heads I win, Tails you lose scenario. Not illegal. Arguably not immoral. Just not very attractive.

Romney doesn't want to see this powerful ad on TV. It could be any one of us in that chair.

It doesn't wash down well with voters because they've only heard a warped version of what they do.

If it weren't for investors like Bain you wouldn't have many of the services that are available today. Facebook wouldn't exist, along with Staples and hundreds of other companies.

Which is why you don't want this powerful ad on TV if you're Governor Romney.

Planet Money had it right, I take it. Because that is what others have said too; the first move is to pay themselves back. Doesn't make them wrong; doesn't make them dumb. Just not very appealing to most people.

 

[JoeB131]

Companies like Bain should run ads stating they won't invest in this company or that company because it is too risky to fail and then they will get negative PR from bottom feeder workers years later complaining they lost their job, their dog got hit by a car and their wife got cancer all because Bain bought the company 10 years earlier....

Guess it doesn't pay enough to try to help people out anymore.

Not with the Obama crowd around.


I see every one of their spokesmen trying to sell this bullshit line and everyone looking at them incredulously when they first claim it came from somebody else, but it just shows how little Romney cares about Middle-class voters.

They won't take credit for the ad but they will take advantage of the opportunity.

Who cares that Obama has been tied directly to the ad. They still lie that he hasn't.

Funny, if Romney and company were "helping these people out", where are the guys who have happy memories of the time Bain ran GS Steel?

I would say that in any given workplace, you have some people who hate management, some people who like management and lot more are indifferent...

But oddly, everyone they've found from GS Steel talk about Bain like it was the worst thing that ever happened to them.

 

[JoeB131]

It doesn't wash down well with voters because they've only heard a warped version of what they do.

If it weren't for investors like Bain you wouldn't have many of the services that are available today. Facebook wouldn't exist, along with Staples and hundreds of other companies.

But that isn't what Bain did..

Bain did not start up companies. They looted them.

 

[beagle9]

According to Planet Money, that is what they do; buy into the company then leverage anything not already leveraged with the bank to take out a loan. With the money, they pay themselves back first then take whatever is left and legitimately try to save the company.

It's a Heads-I-Win, Tails-you-lose scenario for Bain.

Now I do know of a person/group who has done this very thing, and it's titled under a group name as in (*name*group), so the practice is real in this nation by what people are talking about, just encase anyone wants to know, but the reasons are real also in why these people began doing these sorts of things. The company that I know of that was taken over by this group, was sinking big time, and was caught up in a multitude of problems that forced the owner to choose this route to go whe bringing in this group or selling out to them. Now the practice that came afterwards by the group has been critisized greatly by the employee's, who have since seen their company even sink way lower under the situation even more, once taken over by the group, but no one knows for sure why it is sinking lower or that maybe it's just that the group in trying to save this company, has taken on a drowning giant in which it knew it couldnot save anyway, but instead is trying to make a profit off of it's liquidation by the practice, in which it uses until the very end.

Not to dismiss it but you sort of lost me.

Nothing is illegal in what Bain does. Not at all. But it doesn't wash down well with voters.

They come in when they can and invest money to take over.
Leverage the company down to the concrete on the floor
Take out a loan from a bank to pay themselves back
Then legitimately try to save the company. If not; they sell it off. If so, they hold on and reap the rewards of their hard work.

Planet Money detailed the practice. It is Heads I win, Tails you lose scenario. Not illegal. Arguably not immoral. Just not very attractive.

Romney doesn't want to see this powerful ad on TV. It could be any one of us in that chair.

What the practice (I think) caused in the situation I know of, is it created to many mouths that became fed at the top levels (requiring big paychecks) to keep rolling on to the investment group, and this was the situation out of the entire deal, even though it was thought that the practice was infused or looked to by the former owner to save the company, but then again maybe it wasn't or never was intended in that way for it to work.

Many could see that the situation became way to top heavy in the deal, but before they could balance it out or even if they wanted to balance it out, it began sinking all due to the practice of streamlining everything in the company below the management levels, otherwise trying to hold on to all top management that was involved in the situation, while selling off and downsizing everything over time, but still keeping management and the groups profits rolling on strong while in the process.

 

[Murf76]

According to Planet Money, that is what they do; buy into the company then leverage anything not already leveraged with the bank to take out a loan. With the money, they pay themselves back first then take whatever is left and legitimately try to save the company.

It's a Heads-I-Win, Tails-you-lose scenario for Bain.

Now I do know of a person/group who has done this very thing, and it's titled under a group name as in (*name*group), so the practice is real in this nation by what people are talking about, just encase anyone wants to know, but the reasons are real also in why these people began doing these sorts of things. The company that I know of that was taken over by this group, was sinking big time, and was caught up in a multitude of problems that forced the owner to choose this route to go whe bringing in this group or selling out to them. Now the practice that came afterwards by the group has been critisized greatly by the employee's, who have since seen their company even sink way lower under the situation even more, once taken over by the group, but no one knows for sure why it is sinking lower or that maybe it's just that the group in trying to save this company, has taken on a drowning giant in which it knew it couldnot save anyway, but instead is trying to make a profit off of it's liquidation by the practice, in which it uses until the very end.

Not to dismiss it but you sort of lost me.

Nothing is illegal in what Bain does. Not at all. But it doesn't wash down well with voters.

They come in when they can and invest money to take over.
Leverage the company down to the concrete on the floor
Take out a loan from a bank to pay themselves back
Then legitimately try to save the company. If not; they sell it off. If so, they hold on and reap the rewards of their hard work.

Planet Money detailed the practice. It is Heads I win, Tails you lose scenario. Not illegal. Arguably not immoral. Just not very attractive.

Romney doesn't want to see this powerful ad on TV. It could be any one of us in that chair.

It's not "heads I win/tails you lose". It's a last ditch opportunity to save a company from certain extinction. Bain represents investors. Those investors are regular people; pension plans, hospitals, charitable organizations, retirees, etc. Bain's primary responsibility is to those investors who have entrusted their money to them. The priority is NOT providing a social service to businesses who, through mismanagement and blood-sucking unions, have no ability to secure enough capital to modernize or otherwise stay competitive.

Not every one of these companies can be saved. But Bain has a record of saving about 80% of them. That's fantastic. But not good enough for the disgruntled 20%, who more often than not, did NOTHING to help save their failing enterprise.

 

[candycorn]

Now I do know of a person/group who has done this very thing, and it's titled under a group name as in (*name*group), so the practice is real in this nation by what people are talking about, just encase anyone wants to know, but the reasons are real also in why these people began doing these sorts of things. The company that I know of that was taken over by this group, was sinking big time, and was caught up in a multitude of problems that forced the owner to choose this route to go whe bringing in this group or selling out to them. Now the practice that came afterwards by the group has been critisized greatly by the employee's, who have since seen their company even sink way lower under the situation even more, once taken over by the group, but no one knows for sure why it is sinking lower or that maybe it's just that the group in trying to save this company, has taken on a drowning giant in which it knew it couldnot save anyway, but instead is trying to make a profit off of it's liquidation by the practice, in which it uses until the very end.

Not to dismiss it but you sort of lost me.

Nothing is illegal in what Bain does. Not at all. But it doesn't wash down well with voters.

They come in when they can and invest money to take over.
Leverage the company down to the concrete on the floor
Take out a loan from a bank to pay themselves back
Then legitimately try to save the company. If not; they sell it off. If so, they hold on and reap the rewards of their hard work.

Planet Money detailed the practice. It is Heads I win, Tails you lose scenario. Not illegal. Arguably not immoral. Just not very attractive.

Romney doesn't want to see this powerful ad on TV. It could be any one of us in that chair.

It's not "heads I win/tails you lose". It's a last ditch opportunity to save a company from certain extinction. Bain represents investors. Those investors are regular people; pension plans, hospitals, charitable organizations, retirees, etc. Bain's primary responsibility is to those investors who have entrusted their money to them. The priority is NOT providing a social service to businesses who, through mismanagement and blood-sucking unions, have no ability to secure enough capital to modernize or otherwise stay competitive.

Not every one of these companies can be saved. But Bain has a record of saving about 80% of them. That's fantastic. But not good enough for the disgruntled 20%, who more often than not, did NOTHING to help save their failing enterprise.

Actually it's exactly the "heads I win/tails you lose" scenario; I realize you have to prop up Romney at every turn and I understand it. You should think more about your integrity though.

Dunkin Donuts will likely go by the boards soon; not a single union member in the company as far as I know--another Bain "success" story.
It's not illegal; just not very attractive to the most Americans. Which is why Romney doesnt' want that ad on TV. Can't blame him.

 

[candycorn]

It doesn't wash down well with voters because they've only heard a warped version of what they do.

If it weren't for investors like Bain you wouldn't have many of the services that are available today. Facebook wouldn't exist, along with Staples and hundreds of other companies.

But that isn't what Bain did..

Bain did not start up companies. They looted them.

I like how he threw Facebook in there...oh brother.

 

[Murf76]

Not to dismiss it but you sort of lost me.

Nothing is illegal in what Bain does. Not at all. But it doesn't wash down well with voters.

They come in when they can and invest money to take over.
Leverage the company down to the concrete on the floor
Take out a loan from a bank to pay themselves back
Then legitimately try to save the company. If not; they sell it off. If so, they hold on and reap the rewards of their hard work.

Planet Money detailed the practice. It is Heads I win, Tails you lose scenario. Not illegal. Arguably not immoral. Just not very attractive.

Romney doesn't want to see this powerful ad on TV. It could be any one of us in that chair.

It's not "heads I win/tails you lose". It's a last ditch opportunity to save a company from certain extinction. Bain represents investors. Those investors are regular people; pension plans, hospitals, charitable organizations, retirees, etc. Bain's primary responsibility is to those investors who have entrusted their money to them. The priority is NOT providing a social service to businesses who, through mismanagement and blood-sucking unions, have no ability to secure enough capital to modernize or otherwise stay competitive.

Not every one of these companies can be saved. But Bain has a record of saving about 80% of them. That's fantastic. But not good enough for the disgruntled 20%, who more often than not, did NOTHING to help save their failing enterprise.

Actually it's exactly the "heads I win/tails you lose" scenario; I realize you have to prop up Romney at every turn and I understand it. You should think more about your integrity though.

Dunkin Donuts will likely go by the boards soon; not a single union member in the company as far as I know--another Bain "success" story.
It's not illegal; just not very attractive to the most Americans. Which is why Romney doesnt' want that ad on TV. Can't blame him.

80% of the time BOTH Bain and whatever company they purchase "wins". So, no... it's not "heads I win/tails you lose".

(And frankly, you're an unlikely suspect to be wringing your hands over somebody else's integrity, as much shilling as you do for Obama and his cronies.)

 

[JoeB131]

It's not "heads I win/tails you lose". It's a last ditch opportunity to save a company from certain extinction. Bain represents investors. Those investors are regular people; pension plans, hospitals, charitable organizations, retirees, etc. Bain's primary responsibility is to those investors who have entrusted their money to them. The priority is NOT providing a social service to businesses who, through mismanagement and blood-sucking unions, have no ability to secure enough capital to modernize or otherwise stay competitive.

Not every one of these companies can be saved. But Bain has a record of saving about 80% of them. That's fantastic. But not good enough for the disgruntled 20%, who more often than not, did NOTHING to help save their failing enterprise.

GS Steel was around for 105 years before Romney and his vultures got their hooks into them. So was AmPad. The notion that these were weak companies is ridiculous. Quite the contrary, they had name recognition and assets that allowed Romney and his boys to borrow ridiculous amounts of money against them, pay themselves huge salaries, and then either fob them off on unsuspecting investors.

Take GS Steel. The way to save GS Steel would have been to invest that 125 million they borrowed into new and improved equipment. Instead, they paid themselves a 36 million dollar bonus, then used the rest of the money to buy up other plants in attempt to corner the market. Then after those plants were mortgaged to the eyeballs (GS Industries had 500 million in debt when it went tits up) because the Kansas City plant hadn't been moderinized, when they sold off the assets, they just couldn't find a buyer. (Other plants did.)

And this is the problem with the investor economy. It's about short term gratification, not long term building. Romney isn't the solution, he's the problem.

 

[JoeB131]

80% of the time BOTH Bain and whatever company they purchase "wins". So, no... it's not "heads I win/tails you lose".

(And frankly, you're an unlikely suspect to be wringing your hands over somebody else's integrity, as much shilling as you do for Obama and his cronies.)

So, um, where's the commercial with the Bain-owned company employees dancing and singing about the virtues of Mitt Romney?

"I'm so happy to be working here at Staples for minimum wage, no benefits and screwball hours. I honestly hope that my section 8 check comes through so I can pay the rent!"

That'd be a great commercial for Romney. I think he totally needs to go with that.

 

[copsnrobbers]

I haven't met a idiot working in a staples store yet.. Mostly young kids with college degrees that can't find a job they schooled for. Walmart is a different story..

GO DEM's... yeah, Right out the front door and for good.

 

[mudwhistle]

Not to dismiss it but you sort of lost me.

Nothing is illegal in what Bain does. Not at all. But it doesn't wash down well with voters.

They come in when they can and invest money to take over.
Leverage the company down to the concrete on the floor
Take out a loan from a bank to pay themselves back
Then legitimately try to save the company. If not; they sell it off. If so, they hold on and reap the rewards of their hard work.

Planet Money detailed the practice. It is Heads I win, Tails you lose scenario. Not illegal. Arguably not immoral. Just not very attractive.

Romney doesn't want to see this powerful ad on TV. It could be any one of us in that chair.

It doesn't wash down well with voters because they've only heard a warped version of what they do.

If it weren't for investors like Bain you wouldn't have many of the services that are available today. Facebook wouldn't exist, along with Staples and hundreds of other companies.

Which is why you don't want this powerful ad on TV if you're Governor Romney.

Planet Money had it right, I take it. Because that is what others have said too; the first move is to pay themselves back. Doesn't make them wrong; doesn't make them dumb. Just not very appealing to most people.

It isn't a powerful ad. It's a disgrace. Everyone that watches it can see it. And once we start asking questions about it the President starts backtracking on it's origins.

First they claimed they had nothing to do with it. Then the people that produced it tried to distance themselves from it. Then we find out on a very public youtube video that Obama's campaign manager knew all about it and was told the whole story in May. Then we discover that the guy who produced it was a former Obama aid. Then we hear Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz tell us she doesn't even know the political leanings of the producers of the ad.

I mean these people are knee deep in this ad and won't claim it's their's and deny it but then immediately try to take advantage of the lies, rationalizations, and misrepresentations it contains.

"You didn't build that" was bad enough, but this is gonna bring Obama down.

 

[JoeB131]

I haven't met a idiot working in a staples store yet.. Mostly young kids with college degrees that can't find a job they schooled for. Walmart is a different story..

GO DEM's... yeah, Right out the front door and for good.

Where did anyone call staple's employees "idiots"?

The point is, Staples is what you guys call a Bain Success- a place that provides no benefits or wages, and hires college grads still living with their parents.

Parents who perhaps came from a generation were they got good paying union jobs you could get with a High School education... but wanted something better for their kids.

 

[JoeB131]

It isn't a powerful ad. It's a disgrace. Everyone that watches it can see it. And once we start asking questions about it the President starts backtracking on it's origins.

First they claimed they had nothing to do with it. Then the people that produced it tried to distance themselves from it. Then we find out on a very public youtube video that Obama's campaign manager knew all about it and was told the whole story in May. Then we discover that the guy who produced it was a former Obama aid. Then we hear Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz tell us she doesn't even know the political leanings of the producers of the ad.

I mean these people are knee deep in this ad and won't claim it's their's and deny it but then immediately try to take advantage of the lies, rationalizations, and misrepresentations it contains.

"You didn't build that" was bad enough, but this is gonna bring Obama down.

Guy, I find it hilarious that after you morons on the right talked about what a wonderful thing Citizens United was, you are squealing like a stuck pig when someone uses it to impale your guy.

This is the way Romney did business. yeah, it might make you cringe when people point out that when you go in and loot a company, real people suffer, but guess what, they do.