Bain Capital

[Guest]

Mitt Romney is either lying or he committed a felony. This is going to get good.



President Obama’s campaign calls Mitt Romney a liar after report on extended Bain tenure, but Romney says story is inaccurate - Political Intelligence - A national political and campaign blog from The Boston Globe - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/07/12/president-obama-campaign-calls-mitt-romney-liar-after-report-extended-bain-tenure-but-romney-says-story-inaccurate/cDXqoyoMJu51kqKpAq0qWM/story.html?p1=News_links)


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/bain-capital-mitt-romney-outsourcing-china-global-tech



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78459.html

[Guest]

I believe these happenings might be the best thing that happened for Romney....first of all

"Why does it matter when Mitt Romney left Bain Capital?

Millions of dollars of attack ads by the Obama campaign are hanging in the balance. If Romney left Bain in February 1999, when he departed to run the Olympics, then a number of business deals that went sour (such as KB Toys) can’t be counted as part of Romney’s tenure. If he actually left in 2002, as the Obama campaign alleges, then those deals are fair game.

We have looked at this issue before, back in January, and thought we had settled it.

But now the Boston Globe has raised the issue again. The story seems to hinge on a quote from a former Securities and Exchange Commission member, which would have more credibility if the Globe had disclosed she was a regular contributor to Democrats. (Interestingly, “The Real Romney,” a book on the former Massachusetts governor, by Boston Globe reporters, states clearly that he left Bain when he went to run the Olympics and details the turmoil that ensued when he suddenly quit, nearly breaking up the partnership)

Mitt Romney and his departure from Bain - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-and-his-departure-from-bain/2012/07/12/gJQAASzUfW_blog.html)

"It’s the latest bit of nastiness in an increasingly nasty campaign over Romney’s business career — a career Obama’s campaign has tried to turn into an albatross.

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter, along with Obama campaign lawyer Bob Bauer, argued Thursday that Romney may have lied to the Securities and Exchange Commission about leaving Bain in early 1999 to run the Salt Lake City Olympics.

Their accusations were based on a Boston Globe story reporting that SEC filings show Romney remained chief executive, chairman, and sole stockholder at Bain through 2002. The documents also showed, according to the Globe, that Romney earned $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002. "

Boston Globe: Romney left Bain three years later than he says he did - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obama-campaign-on-bain-stay-tuned/2012/07/12/gJQA9f9ifW_blog.html)

If Romney lied he should pay the piper !!!!

HOWEVER, and I feel extremely confident that he did not lie.....it opens the doors to go after this man who is now showing how nasty a man he is...and that is the first time I have ever said anything about him personally...he said off the record he wanted to destroy the MAN...not just win....that is the President.

Once this settles, take off the gloves...no more rules....let the mysterious past of Obama be revealed...I am loving this actually.

Not a party guy at all so if he did lie, he should pay but he didnt and now the opening is there to let it all out !!!

[Guest]

By the time Willard gets fully vetted - the R's will be looking for another candidate. After the Palin debacle, the press is gonna dig up everything on this guy. Expose him for the liar he really is.

We are beginning to understand why Willard refuses to release all his tax returns.

[Guest]

Wow, even before the Republican convention in Tampa, they may have to choose another candidate!

Looks like the probable candidate now is (oh, yes) Ron Paul. :a20:

[Guest]

I believe these happenings might be the best thing that happened for Romney....first of all

"Why does it matter when Mitt Romney left Bain Capital?

Millions of dollars of attack ads by the Obama campaign are hanging in the balance. If Romney left Bain in February 1999, when he departed to run the Olympics, then a number of business deals that went sour (such as KB Toys) can’t be counted as part of Romney’s tenure. If he actually left in 2002, as the Obama campaign alleges, then those deals are fair game.

We have looked at this issue before, back in January, and thought we had settled it.

But now the Boston Globe has raised the issue again. The story seems to hinge on a quote from a former Securities and Exchange Commission member, which would have more credibility if the Globe had disclosed she was a regular contributor to Democrats. (Interestingly, “The Real Romney,” a book on the former Massachusetts governor, by Boston Globe reporters, states clearly that he left Bain when he went to run the Olympics and details the turmoil that ensued when he suddenly quit, nearly breaking up the partnership)

Mitt Romney and his departure from Bain - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-and-his-departure-from-bain/2012/07/12/gJQAASzUfW_blog.html)

"It’s the latest bit of nastiness in an increasingly nasty campaign over Romney’s business career — a career Obama’s campaign has tried to turn into an albatross.

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter, along with Obama campaign lawyer Bob Bauer, argued Thursday that Romney may have lied to the Securities and Exchange Commission about leaving Bain in early 1999 to run the Salt Lake City Olympics.

Their accusations were based on a Boston Globe story reporting that SEC filings show Romney remained chief executive, chairman, and sole stockholder at Bain through 2002. The documents also showed, according to the Globe, that Romney earned $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002. "

Boston Globe: Romney left Bain three years later than he says he did - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obama-campaign-on-bain-stay-tuned/2012/07/12/gJQA9f9ifW_blog.html)

If Romney lied he should pay the piper !!!!

HOWEVER, and I feel extremely confident that he did not lie.....it opens the doors to go after this man who is now showing how nasty a man he is...and that is the first time I have ever said anything about him personally...he said off the record he wanted to destroy the MAN...not just win....that is the President.

Once this settles, take off the gloves...no more rules....let the mysterious past of Obama be revealed...I am loving this actually.

Not a party guy at all so if he did lie, he should pay but he didnt and now the opening is there to let it all out !!!

Very colorful!!! :icon_wink:

[Guest]

Same liberal krap. Just a new day. Romney has been vetted twice over. All the administration can only run on mud. It has nothing else.

[Guest]

isn't it amazing how an article in the media becomes touted gospel......if it has the message the loyal supporters like....fact or truth is a secondary if any consideration.

Could that be how they were swayed in 2008?

btk

[Guest]

My preference is to wait it out and see what the Romney camp has to say. There is a truth and time has a way of sorting out whose truth it is.

[Guest]

Same liberal krap. Just a new day. Romney has been vetted twice over. All the administration can only run on mud. It has nothing else.

Can you tell us how you really feel? :icon_wink:

[Guest]

"Why does it really matter...?"

Whether or not Romney remained as the primary executive of the company that he owns for a couple years longer than has been reported...so what! Does that make him less competent or qualified as a candidate? (The allegation is very probably purposely misconstruing the facts--see my other response in this thread.)

As long as the Obama campaign handlers can keep the media and public focused on this "issue", that's days, weeks or months that the issues of unemployment, slow economic growth, the deficit, national debt, immigration, tax policy, etc. doesn't need to be debated.

Smart move. It's just like the old three walnut shells and a pea street game. Both candidates are playing it, and playing it very well. It's this kind of crap that the public and the press falls for every time. Wait'll the super PACs start producing their attack ads on this issue.

I hate to say it, but I'm beginning to have little hope for our system of government, maybe more important our national values and intelligence.

By the way, I'll post how a private equity firm really works and how Romney continued to be "paid" while not actively employed by again in a separate reply to this thread.

[Guest]

My preference is to wait it out and see what the Romney camp has to say. There is a truth and time has a way of sorting out whose truth it is.

I agree. Wait and see what the fact checkers pull out of their investigations. Bain Capital just might have been keeping Romney's name on their letterheads so to speak to capitalize on his connection with the Salt Lake City Olympics and Mitt Romney might not have had anything to do with the day-to-day operations at Bain.

I would think that the SEC could investigate this easily with all the forms Bain would need to submit in their daily operations.

[Guest]

My preference is to wait it out and see what the Romney camp has to say. There is a truth and time has a way of sorting out whose truth it is.


Hmmm ... perchance there is a new "Artful Dodger" on the scene? Bain Capital issue plus he will not release tax records? Hmmm ...

[Guest]

Private equity firms are organized as entities that solicit investment funds from investors like pension funds, college endowments, etc. The role they play is to invest those funds by buying companies which they actively manage to increase their value, then a few years later they sell the companies or take them public through an IPO, creating a superior return on investment for the participants in their investment fund. The private equity firm, in this case Bain, takes fees for all the work they do in finding companies to buy as well as fees for their ongoing service in managing the companies while they own them. When the companies they buy are sold, Bain takes a "preferred return" (typically 20% of the capital gain), then the rest of the gains are distributed pro rata among the firms who invested in their closed end investment fund.

Almost always the individual investments, the "deal" where Bain would buy a company, are organized as partnerships within Bain and the investment fund itself. The key Bain people involved in finding the investment and subsequently managing it, along with the key managers of the company being purchased, are given allocations of the stock of the company. These allocations of ownership to those involved in managing the company is done to incent their work and skill in doing the things to create increased value for the investment companies. So when the company is sold, both Bain as an entity as well as their individual partners and the company managers profit from the sale of the company owned by Bain. In a lot of cases, allocations of the stock of the companies owned by Bain as well of a share of Bain's preferred return are given to Bain's owner and top managers, including Mitt Romney.

Any profits from the sale of the stock fom the investments isn't paid to the owners of the stock until it actually occurs, when the company is sold or taken public. So when Mitt Romney stepped down as CEO of Bain, he still would have retained partial ownership of the companies owned at the time of his leaving the firm, and also his partial ownership in the preferred return of the investment fund he was involved in raising while active in the company. Then in succeeding years, as those companies were sold, the value of his ownership shares would be paid to him, even though he had long since stepped away from active management of either Bain or the companies they invested in and owned. Such payments to Romney could be expected to continue for years after he left active management of Bain.

So could Romney be "paid" even though not employed and actively managing Bain? Absolutely. Could a critic or political opponent construe those facts differently for their own purposes? That's pretty obvious, isn't it?

[Guest]

Private equity firms are organized as entities that solicit investment funds from investors like pension funds, college endowments, etc. The role they play is to invest those funds by buying companies which they actively manage to increase their value, then a few years later they sell the companies or take them public through an IPO, creating a superior return on investment for the participants in their investment fund. The private equity firm, in this case Bain, takes fees for all the work they do in finding companies to buy as well as fees for their ongoing service in managing the companies while they own them. When the companies they buy are sold, Bain takes a "preferred return" (typically 20% of the capital gain), then the rest of the gains are distributed pro rata among the firms who invested in their investment fund.

Almost always the individual investments, the "deal" where Bain would buy a company, are organized as partnerships. The key Bain people involved in finding the investment and subsequently managing it, along with the key managers of the company being purchased, are given allocations of the stock of the company. So when the company is sold, both Bain as an entity as well as their individual partners profit from the sale of the investment company. In a lot of cases, allocations of the stock of the companies owned by Bain are given to Bain's owner and top managers, including Mitt Romney.

Any profits from the sale of the stock fom the investments doesn't accrue to the owners of the stock until the company is sold or taken public. So if when Mitt Romney stepped down as CEO of Bain, he still would have retained partial ownership of the companies owned at the time of his leaving the firm. Then in succeeding years, as those companies were sold, he value of his ownership shares would be paid to him, even though he had long since stepped away from active management of either Bain or the companies they invested in and owned.

So could Romney be "paid" even though not employed and actively managing Bain? Absolutely. Could a critic or political opponent construe those facts differently? That's pretty obvious, isn't it?


Thanks VK for a legitimate explanation....I tried in post 2 to show some of the inaccuracies with some links but your post is over the top with accuracy

If you note, this story seems to be ONLY proffered by the progressive left wing media with ties to the WH. The Washington Post had already looked into this a few weeks ago, but the Obama team is reacting to the new Romney ad where they are calling him out on some things. As I understand it, the Obama campaign made a mass flooding of media yesterday.

Keep the heat on Obama, Mr Romney....there is so much to flush out.

[Guest]

the thing to keep in mind is that nothing bain did was illegal or unusual...the companies taken over by these entities are about to go belly up, and if companies like bain can salvage something from them, it benefits at least some of those who were dependent on the company. if they are unsuccessful, the end result is no worse than the looming bankruptcy. this is capitalism and the economic system that has produced the highest quality of life on the planet. it needs no apologies.

[Guest]

the thing to keep in mind is that nothing bain did was illegal or unusual...the companies taken over by these entities are about to go belly up, and if companies like bain can salvage something from them, it benefits at least some of those who were dependent on the company. if they are unsuccessful, the end result is no worse than the looming bankruptcy. this is capitalism and the economic system that has produced the highest quality of life on the planet. it needs no apologies.

An apology is not enough. :sad:

[Guest]

the thing to keep in mind is that nothing bain did was illegal or unusual...the companies taken over by these entities are about to go belly up, and if companies like bain can salvage something from them, it benefits at least some of those who were dependent on the company. if they are unsuccessful, the end result is no worse than the looming bankruptcy. this is capitalism and the economic system that has produced the highest quality of life on the planet. it needs no apologies.

Sounds to me as if you would like the USA to retreat back to the days of the Robber Barons like Gould, Frick, Mellon, and Morgan and days of no income tax, no unions, no worker protections, no government safety regulations, no government health regulations, child labor, and sweatshops.

[Guest]

isn't it amazing how an article in the media becomes touted gospel......if it has the message the loyal supporters like....fact or truth is a secondary if any consideration.

Could that be how they were swayed in 2008?

btk

That cuts both ways billie

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Villages Kahuna;520925]
I hate to say it, but I'm beginning to have little hope for our system of government, maybe more important our national values and intelligence.
QUOTE]

Ditto

[Guest]

Hmmm ... perchance there is a new "Artful Dodger" on the scene? Bain Capital issue plus he will not release tax records? Hmmm ...

buggyone: Appears as conservatives were labeled as being Birthers we now have liberals who can be labeled as "Bainers"

VK gave an accurate;albeit long be justifiable account of the workngs of a Bain.

The reduced version is that Romney's name will appear on documents for sometime for the same reason yours and mine would when we worked in Human Resources...its called lagged time. I'll wager my name remained on many job descriptions for years on end until they decided to scrap it all and start over again. Does it mean because my name was on a job description that I had any authority or even involvement? Its a rhertorical question

Ciao

[Guest]

If you all can find something illegal fine.But if you want to dig lets look at Tony Rezko Felon who was Obamas buddy.I'm from chicago and know a little more about the stuff swept under the rug.Explain the property deal.Why would someone sell obama a lot that made the remainder of lot useless and at a huge loss.And just bought at time he sold it to him.Pay back for obamas support on hud properties?It just funny how the far left seems to go thru life with blinders on just unaware of what goes on around you.They have a goal and nothing will stop them from it including the truth.When obama leaves Rezko will get his pardon and the left won't care.

[Guest]

If you all can find something illegal fine.But if you want to dig lets look at Tony Rezko Felon who was Obamas buddy.I'm from chicago and know a little more about the stuff swept under the rug.Explain the property deal.Why would someone sell obama a lot that made the remainder of lot useless and at a huge loss.And just bought at time he sold it to him.Pay back for obamas support on hud properties?It just funny how the far left seems to go thru life with blinders on just unaware of what goes on around you.They have a goal and nothing will stop them from it including the truth.When obama leaves Rezko will get his pardon and the left won't care.How does Bill Clinton feel about giving Marc Rich a complete pardon for his tax evasion conviction? Rich had already denounced his U.S. citizenship in favor of Spain and was living in Switzerland. Rich now holds Belgian, Israeli and Spanish passports.

Arguably, the pardon was the result of some major campaign contributions from Rich's wife, Denise, who is wealthy in her own right from inheritance of her father's shoe fortune and as a Grammy-winning song writer. Earlier in 2012, Denise Rich denounced her U.S. citizenship in favor of Austria in order to avoid U.S. taxes.

I wonder how Bill feels about having been so kind and generous to Denise?

[Guest]

Bain Capital another Obama directed disattraction. Will voters ever learn or will voters keep take the bait like a fish jumping high above the water?Hmmmmmmmmmm

[Guest]

""All this attack [is] maybe hurting the president's brand too. I think our supporters went a little bit too far with the felony business," fmr. Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) said on MSNBC this afternoon."

And the word is that Romney will be on all three networks today.

This WH has gone crazy !!!

[Guest]

Nothing is going come from whether or not Romney still had control of Bain in 200, 2001, or 2001.

Much more important things to be actually discussed and not attacking the opponent - on both sides.

[Guest]

Nothing is going come from whether or not Romney still had control of Bain in 200, 2001, or 2001.

Much more important things to be actually discussed and not attacking the opponent - on both sides.

Not sure to whom you are speaking but this board was alive with such hatefilled anticipation last evening !

And when will this WH talk about issues....he does not even want to talk about his health care act, which is actually LOSING in approval polls

[Guest]

Not sure to whom you are speaking but this board was alive with such hatefilled anticipation last evening !

And when will this WH talk about issues....he does not even want to talk about his health care act, which is actually LOSING in approval polls

I was not speaking to anyone specific. I did post a couple of hot headed comments last night but have now reconsidered them.

Both sides need to talk issues instead of the rampant attacking that creates nothing good.

[Guest]

Nothing is going come from whether or not Romney still had control of Bain in 200, 2001, or 2001.

Much more important things to be actually discussed and not attacking the opponent - on both sides.

Got to agree.But some want avoid the issues

[Guest]

Not sure to whom you are speaking but this board was alive with such hatefilled anticipation last evening !

And when will this WH talk about issues....he does not even want to talk about his health care act, which is actually LOSING in approval polls





What's to discuss about the health care act?

That fight is over - Obama won - SCOTUS said it is constitutional. It is the law of the land.

Polling data on it means nothing - what's your point here?

[Guest]

What's to discuss about the health care act?

That fight is over - Obama won - SCOTUS said it is constitutional. It is the law of the land.

Polling data on it means nothing - what's your point here?

coralway: The majority of the Supreme Court said that the individual mandate, in relationship to the Commerce Clause was unconsitutional if a penalty because the power to police belonge to the states However on review again the majority stated the the individual mandate under the commerce Clause was a tax and hence constitutional.

However a closer look at the ruling left much room for Congress to repeal this law. Keep in mind that the chief Justice and his majority had a legal obligation not to render a decision once they ruled the indvidual mandate a tax because under the Taxing Laws the tax had to be imposed before the Supreme court continued its review and that would not have happened until 2014.

The practical affect of this decision leaves open the door for the federal government to impose further taxes. That being the case I am dumbfounded that liberals believe this was a good thing. what has just happened is that the Supreme Court has released the Sheriff of Nottingham on America and Americans

[Guest]

Mitt Romney is going to appear on seven TV networks tonight, something he has never done. This Bain Capital episode must really be getting to him. The only way he can get it behind him is to announce that he will release 23 years of tax returns, the same number that he gave to John McCain's campaign when he was being vetted for VP. It would also help him if he would explain all his foreign investments.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/13/barack-obama/were-romneys-companies-pioneers-outsourcing/

[Guest]

Pelosi, etc. can explain their foreign investments at the same time. Instead of worrying about what Romney is doing with his money let's worry about what Obama is doing with our money.

[Guest]

Pelosi, etc. can explain their foreign investments at the same time. Instead of worrying about what Romney is doing with his money let's worry about what Obama is doing with our money.

Best post of the Day, Thank You

[Guest]

Pelosi, etc. can explain their foreign investments at the same time. Instead of worrying about what Romney is doing with his money let's worry about what Obama is doing with our money.

If you've been paying any attention at all, you would know that taxes are at a 30 year low. Congresswoman Pelosi is not running for president. She has to file the same financial disclosure form as every other member of congress.

[Guest]

If you've been paying any attention at all, you would know that taxes are at a 30 year low. Congresswoman Pelosi is not running for president. She has to file the same financial disclosure form as every other member of congress.

If you were paying any ttention at all, you would know that Obama is running unprecedented deficits? I suspect that is why Sally Jo is interested in WHY Obama is wasting so much of OUR tax money.

[Guest]

If you were paying any ttention at all, you would know that Obama is running unprecedented deficits? I suspect that is why Sally Jo is interested in WHY Obama is wasting so much of OUR tax money.

Gosh, do you think maybe the two unpaid-for Bush wars have anything to do with those deficits? How about the unpaid-for Bush tax cuts? How about the unpaid-for medicare prescription drug coverage?

[Guest]

As expected, Mitt Romney had very little to say on his TV interviews tonight except "I don't recall" and he won't release any more tax returns.

David Corn of Mother Jones is reporting that Romney may have made false statements on a federal financial disclosure form, and doing so is a felony punishable by up to one year in prison and a $50,000 dine. Romney could be the first presidentail candidate to go to prison before he's elected. Corn also said on TV tonight that he's heard enough about Romney to keep 100 reporters busy from now until the election.


Did Romney Make a False Statement on His Financial Disclosure? | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mitt-romney-bain-financial-disclosure)

[Guest]

Gosh, do you think maybe the two unpaid-for Bush wars have anything to do with those deficits? How about the unpaid-for Bush tax cuts? How about the unpaid-for medicare prescription drug coverage?

No, I don't think the unpaid for expenses from 3+ years ago contribute to today's yearly deficits. You know he has been president for 3+ years and has done nothing but increase our deficits. Do you think his move today to reduce the work requirements for welfare instituted by Clinton will help our deficits? Do you think his failure to turn the economy around has anything to do with our deficits? Do you think the AHA has caused companies to be reluctant to hire and added to our deficit? Do you think cancelling the oil pipelinge has helped employment? Please tell me exactly what he has done to reduce the deficit in the last 3+ years.

[Guest]

If you were paying any ttention at all, you would know that Obama is running unprecedented deficits? I suspect that is why Sally Jo is interested in WHY Obama is wasting so much of OUR tax money.







Yeah, except this thread is about Bain Capital. Nothing to do with Pelosi, or Obama - Bain Capital.

[Guest]

If you were paying any ttention at all, you would know that Obama is running unprecedented deficits? I suspect that is why Sally Jo is interested in WHY Obama is wasting so much of OUR tax money.
For the umpteenth time, the president--this president or any president--isn't primarily responsible for deficit spending. Congress approves all spending bills, initiated in the House of Representatives and affirmed by the Senate. Since 2010 the House has been firmly in control of the "fiscally conservative" Republicans. They have proven to be every bit the spendthrifts that the Pelosi Democrats were before them. In fact, the current House has actually increased the annual rate of deficit spending to the highest in history--a $1.6 trillion deficit/addition to the national debt in one year! To my knowledge, I don't recall the Senate resisting the passage of any spending bills sent to them by the House. Obama's role? He signed them too.

But, as coralway says, this thread is about Bain Capital.

[Guest]

First, in my opinion I don't think it means used beans when Mitt Romney left the direct management of Bain Capital. He owns the firm and still does! They had companies they owned declare bankruptcy before and after he was CEO, and they will in the future. Some of their portfolio companies outsourced jobs overseas while he was CEO, after, and will in the future if it will improve profitability and increase the value of the companies Bain owns. That was his job! That's capitalism. When he left Bain doesn't make him more or less qualified to be POTUS.

HOWEVER...falsifying government filings, which was alleged and now appears to be proven...unfortunately, that IS a material issue as regards his candidacy. It doesn't make him less competent as a presidential candidate, but the criminal nature of the offense(s), whether intended or not, could be a disqualifying factor in the election.

In much the same way that an unintended drug can disqualify an athlete from a competition or not knowing the law doesn't excuse an offense, Romney could be in deep...used beans...on this one.

[Guest]

First, in my opinion I don't think it means used beans when Mitt Romney left the direct management of Bain Capital. He owns the firm and still does! They had companies they owned declare bankruptcy before and after he was CEO, and they will in the future. Some of their portfolio companies outsourced jobs overseas while he was CEO, after, and will in the future if it will improve profitability and increase the value of the companies Bain owns. That was his job! That's capitalism. When he left Bain doesn't make him more or less qualified to be POTUS.

HOWEVER...falsifying government filings, which was alleged and now appears to be proven...unfortunately, that IS a material issue as regards his candidacy. It doesn't make him less competent as a presidential candidate, but the criminal nature of the offense(s), whether intended or not, could be a disqualifying factor in the election.

In much the same way that an unintended drug can disqualify an athlete from a competition or not knowing the law doesn't excuse an offense, Romney could be in deep...used beans...on this one.

VK: I happen to agree with what you say here. Frankly I am tired of dishonest and untruthful politicians and I don't care about what party they belong to. Credibility and trust are of paramount importance whether you are president, a priest, a cop, a news reporter, etc. Because of the intentional nature of misinformation, hyberbole, mischaracterization, false accusation politicaly based etc solutions to this nation's problems are not getting addressed.

I don't know if Romney lied because of the political games people play. I do want to know and if true well then I do want it dealt with. Conversely if this is a another unmerited political ploy to intentionally damage a candidate then it takes us all away from the serious nature of electing a leader. Some may be amused by this game of one upmanship but I am not one of them and I am not going to take the bait any longer. And if enough voters would just blink and deflate with this over the top accusations crap we might get back to the serius business at hand

[Guest]

First, in my opinion I don't think it means used beans when Mitt Romney left the direct management of Bain Capital. He owns the firm and still does! They had companies they owned declare bankruptcy before and after he was CEO, and they will in the future. Some of their portfolio companies outsourced jobs overseas while he was CEO, after, and will in the future if it will improve profitability and increase the value of the companies Bain owns. That was his job! That's capitalism. When he left Bain doesn't make him more or less qualified to be POTUS.

HOWEVER...falsifying government filings, which was alleged and now appears to be proven...unfortunately, that IS a material issue as regards his candidacy. It doesn't make him less competent as a presidential candidate, but the criminal nature of the offense(s), whether intended or not, could be a disqualifying factor in the election.

In much the same way that an unintended drug can disqualify an athlete from a competition or not knowing the law doesn't excuse an offense, Romney could be in deep...used beans...on this one.

Please direct me to the link where the criminal things have been proven. THAT would be news ACTUALLY, most of what I read are debunking all of it.

[Guest]

I just followed the links provided in posts above...then further followed the links from within those web pages. There doesen't appear to be much doubt that Romney filed incorrect federally-required forms, which carry pretty stiff criminal penalties. The politicians are going back and forth about whether the clearly false statements made in the forms are material or boilerplate. But it's pretty clear they are incorrect.

Now the question becomes whether the Attorney General will proceed to file charges against Romney, letting the federal courts decide whether the filings were intentionally falsified, unintentionally falsified, material or not, and whether the flings violate the federal law as written.

What runs thru my mind is that the Republicans might be very sorry that they prosecuted and convicted the Attorney General for pretty clearly political purposes. I'm wondering whether there might be some political "tit for tat" coming.

What a helluva way to elect a President.

[Guest]

I just followed the links provided in posts above...then further followed the links from within those web pages. There doesen't appear to be much doubt that Romney filed incorrect federally-required forms, which carry pretty stiff criminal penalties. The politicians are going back and forth about whether the clearly false statements made in the forms are material or boilerplate. But it's pretty clear they are incorrect.

Now the question becomes whether the Attorney General will proceed to file charges against Romney, letting the federal courts decide whether the filings were intentionally falsified, unintentionally falsified, material or not, and whether the flings violate the federal law as written.

What runs thru my mind is that the Republicans might be very sorry that they prosecuted and convicted the Attorney General for pretty clearly political purposes. I'm wondering whether there might be some political "tit for tat" coming.

What a helluva way to elect a President.

I always respect your opinions but I'm not seeing any intentional false filings here. I see residual business after his departure from Bain.

[Guest]

FactCheck.org : Romney’s Bain Years: New Evidence, Same Conclusion (http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/)

This is an older FactCheck article though. So there might be something to come.

[Guest]

I always respect your opinions but I'm not seeing any intentional false filings here. I see residual business after his departure from Bain.

I am with you....why folks on here continue to make such false accusations is beyond me. I went back as VK said past links and had a tough time (I have a few posters on ignore) but I can absolutely find no..none..validation for the accusation made by VK. Pretty serious to say he committed a federal crime.....not defending him at all.....if he did, that is terrible, but I find the Washington Post who has investigated this on more than one occasson tossing the charge out, Factcheck tossing it, and I am not in a position in anyway to give VK advice, but if this turns out to be true..kudos, but if not, as I suspect based on everything I read, then my advice is that there are certain posters who are on the short side of veracity almost all the time and he should be selective on links and from whom.

If there are any other developments, let me know but I hope this is handled as the press handled 2008 developments :)

[Guest]

I am with you....why folks on here continue to make such false accusations is beyond me. I went back as VK said past links and had a tough time (I have a few posters on ignore) but I can absolutely find no..none..validation for the accusation made by VK. Pretty serious to say he committed a federal crime...First of all, Bucco, I never said he committed a federal crime. That's a question that can only be determined by a federal court.

What I did say is that it appears as though he may have violated federal securities laws and that could be a big problem for him. I went on to say that it remains to be seen whether federal attorneys will choose to prosecute him, but the conviction of the Attorney General by the House of Representatives on mostly a political basis might come back to haunt the Republican candidate.

It's clear that Romney either misrepresented his role with Bain to the public in order to defend against allegations that he was in charge when Bain-owned companies went bankrupt or moved jobs from the U.S. to foreign countries, or he misrepresented his role at Bain to the SEC. The former could be explained as an intentional falsehood uttered while campaigning for office and is not a violation of any law. The latter is a criminal federal offense. It'll be up to the SEC or federal attorneys to decide whether to prosecute and the courts to decide.

Other than the evidence that Romney may have lied, does any of this disqualify him from being President? Not in my opinion. If he lied, so what? Politicians lie, intentionally mislead or parse words all the time.

As far as the "evidence" of what Romney has done, it's not hard to find. The following took me about a minute to find...

Government documents indicate Mitt Romney continued at Bain after date when he says he left - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/12/government_documents_indicate_mitt_romney_continue d_at_bain_after_date_when_he_says_he_left/?p1=News_links)

Did Romney Break the Law? (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=16767817)

Romney's Bain Tenure Seized On Again by Obama Camp - NYTimes.com (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/romneys-bain-tenure-seized-on-again-by-obama-camp/)

[Guest]

First of all, Bucco, I never said he committed a federal crime. That's a question that can only be determined by a federal court.

What I did say is that it appears as though he may have violated federal securities laws and that could be a big problem for him. I went on to say that it remains to be seen whether federal attorneys will choose to prosecute him, but the conviction of the Attorney General by the House of Representatives on mostly a political basis might come back to haunt the Republican candidate.

It's clear that Romney either misrepresented his role with Bain to the public in order to defend against allegations that he was in charge when Bain-owned companies went bankrupt or moved jobs from the U.S. to foreign countries, or he misrepresented his role at Bain to the SEC. The former could be explained as an intentional falsehood uttered while campaigning for office and is not a violation of any law. The latter is a criminal federal offense. It'll be up to the SEC or federal attorneys to decide whether to prosecute and the courts to decide.

Other than the evidence that Romney may have lied, does any of this disqualify him from being President? Not in my opinion. If he lied, so what? Politicians lie, intentionally mislead or parse words all the time.

As far as the "evidence" of what Romney has done, it's not hard to find. The following took me about a minute to find...

Government documents indicate Mitt Romney continued at Bain after date when he says he left - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/12/government_documents_indicate_mitt_romney_continue d_at_bain_after_date_when_he_says_he_left/?p1=News_links)

Did Romney Break the Law? (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=16767817)

Romney's Bain Tenure Seized On Again by Obama Camp - NYTimes.com (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/romneys-bain-tenure-seized-on-again-by-obama-camp/)

No federal crime but you say "it appears as though he may have violated federal securities laws " I suppose that comes from the postings on here because the only folks I know who are saying this is ONE Boston Newspaper and the Obama campaign. All the others simply quote the initial attack and that is it.

Allow me to say a few thing please....first I wish that you and others had payed as much attention in 2008 to charges made and dismissed with comments such as "so what", etc. But not going to dwell on that as that is in the past but I think will become relative later.

Now, in one of your links is a link to Fortune magazine. I hope that everyone who reads this post will read the link as I dont want to cut and paste it all.....

"Mitt Romney did not manage Bain Capital's investments after leaving to run the Salt Lake City Olympic Games, according to confidential firm documents obtained by Fortune.

The timing of Romney's departure from Bain became a lightning rod earlier today, when The Boston Globe published an article suggesting that Romney remained actively involved with the firm longer than he and his campaign have claimed. The sourcing is largely SEC documents that list Romney as Bain Capital's CEO and sole shareholder through 2002 -- or three years after Romney officially left to run the Salt Lake City Olympic Games.

These claims are very similar to ones made last week by David Corn in Mother Jones, which we disputed at the time.

Now Fortune has obtained new evidence that supports Romney's version of events."

It goes on to list all the forms and the FACTS surrounding the situation.

There is a lot of info in the article but want to share two things with you...
First is a response from the Obama team when given the Fortune facts..

""Mitt Romney either misled the American people or misrepresented himself to the SEC. Romney has said he had no authority or responsibility for managing Bain since 1999, but that has been proven false. Regardless of whether he was on the management committee for this particular deal, he remained President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board and he was legally responsible for every investment and decision made by Bain."

You and I both know that, and I will borrow from one of the comments given to Fortune..

"It is all about a simple legal and practical distinction: Active management vs. passive control. Before 1999, Romney was involved in management and afterwards, he was in a passive, controlling position. Board memberships or even signature CEO activities are a far cry from active management."

Documents: Romney didn't manage Bain funds - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blog Term Sheet (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-exit/?iid=SF_F_River)

The other sentence I want to share is this..

"All of this could prove problematic for the Obama campaign, which has spent the day crowing over the Globe story (going so far as to hold a media call about it)."

I am not blindly supporting Romney here......if he did wrong let the chips fall where they may....what I am saying is that the Obama campaign has done a great job keeping any discussion from issues and are doing a great job with their aim to, as they have said, "destroy Romney the man". They have you and others just panting for the destruction...much as I suppose I did back in 2008 when you told me "no problem" and the media treated everything as such. Although then, my problem was NOT with the man but with the philosophy.

Again, your post left me very disappointed but if correct...kudos to you. But there is so many refutes to this story and I choose to go with them and if it is a lie as I think it is, then shame on Obama

[Guest]

Permit me to re-state my opinion from post #42. The accusations being made by either side more likely are made not to reveal "a truth" but rathr to damage their opponent. Again it takes us away from selection the issue at hand and that is electing the most qualified candiate to be our leader. But too many Americans keep taking the bait and unless and until e begin to blink and deflate when hearing this sorid allegations the hate mongers will continue

[Guest]

Permit me to re-state my opinion from post #42. The accusations being made by either side more likely are made not to reveal "a truth" but rathr to damage their opponent. Again it takes us away from selection the issue at hand and that is electing the most qualified candiate to be our leader. But too many Americans keep taking the bait and unless and until e begin to blink and deflate when hearing this sorid allegations the hate mongers will continue

I am extremely upset this evening over the hypocrisy of what is happening and all of my comments are based on Romney not lying and I do not believe he did.

This is what the Obama team did to Clinton in the primary..the innuendos, and character attacks, and I give them credit for doing it well. Destroy the man....wow...last time we talked about the issues facing this country was WHEN ?

And this based on ONE newspaper...a newspaper who has reporters who wrote a book on Romney which disputes all of this stuff.

I am upset that Romney is not really going hell bent for election after this guy.....I can only make myself feel better thinking that he will but later.

I am upset that someone would say it appears that he violated federal security laws based on this claim by this one newspaper.

I doubt whether Romney has the ......to attack Obama on his personal lies from way back in 2000 and on because I dont think he will go after Obama on a personal level like this but I sure wish he would.

And I am upset about this forum where you bring up credited information and are met with simple smart cracks...or do not worry about it...but this becomes a story about violating federal laws.

I apologize to all for venting like this and will probably come back and delete but right now.....

[Guest]

I am extremely upset this evening over the hypocrisy of what is happening and all of my comments are based on Romney not lying and I do not believe he did.

This is what the Obama team did to Clinton in the primary..the innuendos, and character attacks, and I give them credit for doing it well. Destroy the man....wow...last time we talked about the issues facing this country was WHEN ?

And this based on ONE newspaper...a newspaper who has reporters who wrote a book on Romney which disputes all of this stuff.

I am upset that Romney is not really going hell bent for election after this guy.....I can only make myself feel better thinking that he will but later.

I am upset that someone would say it appears that he violated federal security laws based on this claim by this one newspaper.

I doubt whether Romney has the ......to attack Obama on his personal lies from way back in 2000 and on because I dont think he will go after Obama on a personal level like this but I sure wish he would.

And I am upset about this forum where you bring up credited information and are met with simple smart cracks...or do not worry about it...but this becomes a story about violating federal laws.

I apologize to all for venting like this and will probably come back and delete but right now.....

Bucco we need more voters like you...don't apologize for being who you are and what you believe.

[Guest]

I am extremely upset this evening over the hypocrisy of what is happening and all of my comments are based on Romney not lying and I do not believe he did.

This is what the Obama team did to Clinton in the primary..the innuendos, and character attacks, and I give them credit for doing it well. Destroy the man....wow...last time we talked about the issues facing this country was WHEN ?

And this based on ONE newspaper...a newspaper who has reporters who wrote a book on Romney which disputes all of this stuff.

I am upset that Romney is not really going hell bent for election after this guy.....I can only make myself feel better thinking that he will but later.

I am upset that someone would say it appears that he violated federal security laws based on this claim by this one newspaper.

I doubt whether Romney has the ......to attack Obama on his personal lies from way back in 2000 and on because I dont think he will go after Obama on a personal level like this but I sure wish he would.

And I am upset about this forum where you bring up credited information and are met with simple smart cracks...or do not worry about it...but this becomes a story about violating federal laws.

I apologize to all for venting like this and will probably come back and delete but right now.....

100% behind you.Those on the far left will not respond to truth if it goes against what they want.I posted a thread called debt.it shows how bad a shape this country is in.Have not seen a 1 post from far left member.Maybe they will read it but will block it out of their thinking.When you mention we can't afford obama care they accuse you of wanting to just let people die.Or cleaning up are programs like food stamps,public aid and even voter roles you get called names.so now I believe either they are that dumb or that selfish in their thinking that we can all go down as long as they get what they want.Even though I lean to the right I know we must all accept the truth and will have to cut programs and maybe pay more in taxes and also maybe add a copay to are Dr visits under medicare.a
Any thing to set us on the road to recovery.But I'm sure the response will be Romney lies and Obama is the Perfect and lets tax the rich the same old bs.

[Guest]

The elusive truth about Mitt Romney's time at Bain Capital - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0714/The-elusive-truth-about-Mitt-Romney-s-time-at-Bain-Capital/(page)/1)

This from the Washington Post blog is also revealing especially the various comments-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/weighing-the-evidence-on-romneys-departure-from-bain-a-response-to-readers/2012/07/14/gJQAcIrXkW_blog.htm

[Guest]

Tell Willard to release ALL his tax returns - what is he afraid they will reveal?

Willard showed all his returns to McCain in 2008 and then McCain picked Palin.

[Guest]

Tell Willard to release ALL his tax returns - what is he afraid they will reveal?

Willard showed all his returns to McCain in 2008 and then McCain picked Palin.

That would clear some of this up. I do wonder why McCain picked Sarah Palin over Mitt Romney.

[Guest]

now where was or is the insistence of Obama releasing select information to clear up some of his mysteries.

Ooopps...I forgot the Obama supporters one way street approach to ANYTHING!!

btk

[Guest]

This is all a total hoax and a complete lie by a President who is in desperate straits and is losing ground swiftly in honest polling. It's a sad thing for the Obama campaign to be doing this. But, we are talking about this instead of the extremely weak economy that's only getting worse with every day.

This will blow up in Obama's face. I only wonder why they pulled the trigger on this "kill shot" so early.

The telling part in the video is at the 2:30 mark. Listen to this pretty fair CNN report to put this nonsense to rest.

CNN's King/Gergen: Obama's Lying, Romney/Bain Honest - YouTube (http://youtu.be/ugYXei2xVlk)

CNN: Obama Camp's Bain Push 'Doesn't Appear To Be True' (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/07/13/CNN-Obama-Winning-But-Not-Telling-Truth)

[Guest]

Perfect Example posts after my last.

[Guest]

Here's maybe a good reason for Obama's desperation in trying to desperately paint his opponent as a "felon". He's losing ground, and losing fast.

http://youtu.be/fePCg7E03N8

Romney extends lead among Independents to 14 percent - National Right Side Politics | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/romney-extends-lead-among-independents-to-14-percent)

[Guest]

This is all a total hoax and a complete lie by a President who is in desperate straits and is losing ground swiftly in honest polling. It's a sad thing for the Obama campaign to be doing this. But, we are talking about this instead of the extremely weak economy that's only getting worse with every day.

This will blow up in Obama's face. I only wonder why they pulled the trigger on this "kill shot" so early.

The telling part in the video is at the 2:30 mark. Listen to this pretty fair CNN report to put this nonsense to rest.

CNN's King/Gergen: Obama's Lying, Romney/Bain Honest - YouTube (http://youtu.be/ugYXei2xVlk)



CNN: Obama Camp's Bain Push 'Doesn't Appear To Be True' (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/07/13/CNN-Obama-Winning-But-Not-Telling-Truth)


This from the Fortune magazine I quoted when responding to VK (who feels "it appears" that Romney violated federal security law)

""All of this could prove problematic for the Obama campaign, which has spent the day crowing over the Globe story (going so far as to hold a media call about it)."

I hope that fairness rules and this man, Obama, is shown for what he is...a politician of the highest aptitude with the lowest aptitude for solving problems, leading or being and staying honest.

I can never remember being this angry, which means nothing I know, not even in 2007/8 when I saw this coming. PLEASE Romney build on this and allow them to attack the man Obama...as he has attacked you on a personal level. Being called a liar or a felon is pretty serious stuff, and again if proven to be true I will be on here announcing it, HOWEVER so many folks have looked at this issue from so many ways over the last month, not just the last few days.

Romney is right...President Obama you should be ashamed of yourself. And those who support this kind of crap instead of talking about the problems in this country should be ashamed of themself. This is not hardball politics...this is character ruination !

[Guest]

This is Obama's MO. Destroy your opponent. In every election from the time he ran for Illinois state senator he has run his campaigns this way. The Chiago Sun-times, a Democrat paper, released a transcript of his 2008 "closing argument" spech. He said, "If you can't beat your opponent's ideas, you distort those ideas and maybe make some up."

[Guest]

This is Obama's MO. Destroy your opponent. In every election from the time he ran for Illinois state senator he has run his campaigns this way. The Chiago Sun-times, a Democrat paper, released a transcript of his 2008 "closing argument" spech. He said, "If you can't beat your opponent's ideas, you distort those ideas and maybe make some up."

Since this has been President Obama's MO since way back then, Mitt Romney should have seen it coming and been better prepared. Romney could put this all behind him by just releasing all his tax returns, as several republican governors have recommended, including Haley Barbour and Gov Bentley (R-AL).


http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/14/517601/alabama-gop-governor-calls-on-romney-to-release-more-tax-returns/

[Guest]

This is Obama's MO. Destroy your opponent. In every election from the time he ran for Illinois state senator he has run his campaigns this way. The Chiago Sun-times, a Democrat paper, released a transcript of his 2008 "closing argument" spech. He said, "If you can't beat your opponent's ideas, you distort those ideas and maybe make some up."

He has been this way his entire life. He did it and learned it well in Chicago in his days as an organizer. He is good at it, for sure. In my opinion this charge on a decent man is going to be his downfall. He is doing the class warfare thing (see the rich man..he bad)...he is really gone to a new low here.

[Guest]

I believe all the news that has come out about Mitt Romney and Bain Capital this past month has been reported by different news outlets including: Boston Globe, Washington Post, Mother Jones, and others. Of course, the Obama campaign is going to run with it. It's up to Romney to dispute it and put it to rest.

This investigation of Bain's workings is just getting started. Expect it to continue right up until the election. As I said earlier, David Corn, of Mother Jones, said he's seen and heard enough to keep 100 reporters busy right up until election day.

As James Carville said today on TV, "When your opponent is drowning, throw him an anvil".
Or as Mitt Romney would say, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".

[Guest]

as opposed to the likes of Eric Holder, when drowning he gets a free pass...

biased optics and double standard once again.

btk

[Guest]

This is Obama's MO. Destroy your opponent. In every election from the time he ran for Illinois state senator he has run his campaigns this way. The Chiago Sun-times, a Democrat paper, released a transcript of his 2008 "closing argument" spech. He said, "If you can't beat your opponent's ideas, you distort those ideas and maybe make some up."

More specifically it has been David Axelrod's method for a number of years as a method utilized when handling the campaigns of the candidates he worked for. Wall Street journal did an article on this about a year or so ago but I simply can't remeber the candidates other than Obama. having said that Axelrod was Obama's choice

[Guest]

No federal crime but you say "it appears as though he may have violated federal securities laws " I suppose that comes from the postings on here because the only folks I know who are saying this is ONE Boston Newspaper and the Obama campaign. All the others simply quote the initial attack and that is it.

Allow me to say a few thing please....first I wish that you and others had payed as much attention in 2008 to charges made and dismissed with comments such as "so what", etc. But not going to dwell on that as that is in the past but I think will become relative later.

Now, in one of your links is a link to Fortune magazine. I hope that everyone who reads this post will read the link as I dont want to cut and paste it all.....

"Mitt Romney did not manage Bain Capital's investments after leaving to run the Salt Lake City Olympic Games, according to confidential firm documents obtained by Fortune.

The timing of Romney's departure from Bain became a lightning rod earlier today, when The Boston Globe published an article suggesting that Romney remained actively involved with the firm longer than he and his campaign have claimed. The sourcing is largely SEC documents that list Romney as Bain Capital's CEO and sole shareholder through 2002 -- or three years after Romney officially left to run the Salt Lake City Olympic Games.

These claims are very similar to ones made last week by David Corn in Mother Jones, which we disputed at the time.

Now Fortune has obtained new evidence that supports Romney's version of events."

It goes on to list all the forms and the FACTS surrounding the situation.

There is a lot of info in the article but want to share two things with you...
First is a response from the Obama team when given the Fortune facts..

""Mitt Romney either misled the American people or misrepresented himself to the SEC. Romney has said he had no authority or responsibility for managing Bain since 1999, but that has been proven false. Regardless of whether he was on the management committee for this particular deal, he remained President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board and he was legally responsible for every investment and decision made by Bain."

You and I both know that, and I will borrow from one of the comments given to Fortune..

"It is all about a simple legal and practical distinction: Active management vs. passive control. Before 1999, Romney was involved in management and afterwards, he was in a passive, controlling position. Board memberships or even signature CEO activities are a far cry from active management."

Documents: Romney didn't manage Bain funds - The Term Sheet: Fortune's deals blog Term Sheet (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-exit/?iid=SF_F_River)

The other sentence I want to share is this..

"All of this could prove problematic for the Obama campaign, which has spent the day crowing over the Globe story (going so far as to hold a media call about it)."

I am not blindly supporting Romney here......if he did wrong let the chips fall where they may....what I am saying is that the Obama campaign has done a great job keeping any discussion from issues and are doing a great job with their aim to, as they have said, "destroy Romney the man". They have you and others just panting for the destruction...much as I suppose I did back in 2008 when you told me "no problem" and the media treated everything as such. Although then, my problem was NOT with the man but with the philosophy.

Again, your post left me very disappointed but if correct...kudos to you. But there is so many refutes to this story and I choose to go with them and if it is a lie as I think it is, then shame on Obamaif Romney in fact had left Bain Capital as he has said and as Fortune has reported, by continuing to file SEC filings indicating that he continued to serve as "sole shareholder, chairman, president, etc.", a violation of the federal securities laws has occurred. Period!

The SEC rules are designed so that any stakeholder in a company--shareholder, employee, investor, lender, etc. can rely on the information in the filings, both the information as to who's running the company, as well as the required audited financial statements. The SEC documents are supposed to be unassailable sources of reliable information. Information on who's managing the company, makng business decisions, etc. is important information. That's why the penalties for violations are so harsh.

If you want my guess, when it's all over, either the SEC or the Justice Department will choose not to prosecute Romney. Or he will admit to having been involved with Bain well into 2002. Or they will find a fall guy, like a chef financial officer or general counsel, who were involved in preparing the filings, letting Romney off the hook with a simple mea culpa. Or all three.

That will be a tacit admission that he lied in describing his role with Bain after 1999. A simple politically-motivated lie will blow over a lot faster than a federal trial for securities law violations. That's unless there's someone out there who simply refuses to forget any lies told by political candidates. Sound familiar??

Remember, Martha Stewart spent almost a year in the federal slammer for less important and less well-proven violations than this one.

[Guest]

What does any of this have to do with the shape we are all in as a country ?Do one of you on the far left even care?

[Guest]

What does any of this have to do with the shape we are all in as a country ?Do one of you on the far left even care?As I said earlier in this thread--a couple times actually--whether Romney was or wasn't involved at Bain after 1999 doesn't impact on his qualifications to be POTUS one iota.

I just wish to heck he'd say, "...yeah I was boss when XYZ Company went bankrupt; we tried like heck to save it, but couldn't". Or, "yeah, I was boss when ABC Company relocated factories overseas. We found we could increase profits and the value of our investment far faster doing that than struggling to find enough skilled workers who would work as hard as those overseas here in the U.S."

I wsh he'd say, "...that's capitalism, folks, and if you elect me, I'll try like the dickens to make sure that conditions are such in the U.S. that we can compete with overseas companies."

[Guest]

Janmcn.. I guess what you are saying is that it is okay for Obama to lie and distort facts. It's Romney's fault because he wasn't prepared for them?

[Guest]

This is Obama's MO. Destroy your opponent. In every election from the time he ran for Illinois state senator he has run his campaigns this way. The Chiago Sun-times, a Democrat paper, released a transcript of his 2008 "closing argument" spech. He said, "If you can't beat your opponent's ideas, you distort those ideas and maybe make some up."He has been this way his entire life. He did it and learned it well in Chicago in his days as an organizer. He is good at it, for sure. In my opinion this charge on a decent man is going to be his downfall. He is doing the class warfare thing (see the rich man..he bad)...he is really gone to a new low here.
It's interesting to see how different people view the campaign tactics of the two candidates. Obama's "MO" is to destroy a good man, class warfare, etc. But Romney's campaign ads and stump speeches are different? His campaign is taking the "higher road", attempting to focus on the real issues? Really?

I'm certainly not defending the campaign tactics of the president, but are you really of the belief that Romney's negative campaigning and attack ads are any different? In my opinion, they're both the same. The campaign strategists, advertising people and speech writers are all the same. They're interchangeable between candidates and even between parties. They know what works and they manage their candidates very well. They are paid very well for what they do, what they get the candidates to say and do.

Actually, they manage he electorate very well. They keep the focus on the incidents and events which are meaningless to the real issues, but that they know will incense their targeted audience. Both the media and the electorate fall for it every time. Shame on us.

[Guest]

VK I asked and answered the same thing on post #8 and then expanded it on post #20, #42 #50 and #67.

In fact I e-mailed Marco Rubio explaining that these distractions are meaningless and interfering with the task at hand and that is electing the most qualified leader. The art of distraction is as old as mankind and began when Eve offered Adam an apple to keep him from going fishing again.

To put it another way as a golfer i don't want to beat my opponent because he is playing bad, but because I am playing good.

This negative campaigning that has no bearing on an election has the makeup of weak and unethical people.

[Guest]

It's interesting to see how different people view the campaign tactics of the two candidates. Obama's "MO" is to destroy a good man, class warfare, etc. But Romney's campaign ads and stump speeches are different? His campaign is taking the "higher road", attempting to focus on the real issues? Really?

I'm certainly not defending the campaign tactics of the president, but are you really of the belief that Romney's negative campaigning and attack ads are any different? In my opinion, they're both the same. The campaign strategists, advertising people and speech writers are all the same. They're interchangeable between candidates and even between parties. They know what works and they manage their candidates very well. They are paid very well for what they do, what they get the candidates to say and do.

Actually, they manage he electorate very well. They keep the focus on the incidents and events which are meaningless to the real issues, but that they know will incense their targeted audience. Both the media and the electorate fall for it every time. Shame on us.

Attack ads pertaining to the issues is one thing....calling a man either a felon or a liar is another.

Also the media pays attention ONLY to the attacks on Romney...dont you get out and read at all ?

The president is attacked on JOBS...he attacks the man and calls him a felon.....lets talk about JOBS ok......that has been the intent all along. You people on the left always want to make it someone else's fault.....make everyone feel guilty.

One newspaper in Boston makes a claim with no basis except what they might think and you and others instantly label Romney.

[Guest]

partisan pandering requires as much thought as sharks and fish reacting to chum thrown on the water......none required....just react!!!

btk

[Guest]

Attack ads pertaining to the issues is one thing....calling a man either a felon or a liar is another.

Also the media pays attention ONLY to the attacks on Romney...dont you get out and read at all ?

The president is attacked on JOBS...he attacks the man and calls him a felon.....lets talk about JOBS ok......that has been the intent all along. You people on the left always want to make it someone else's fault.....make everyone feel guilty.

One newspaper in Boston makes a claim with no basis except what they might think and you and others instantly label Romney.
Bucco, your hatred for Obama is so intense, it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

None of Romney's ads refer to Obama's failure to keep campaign promises? The media only covers attacks on Romney? I don't read at all? I guess you do read a lot, and maybe watch TV too. I'd guess that based on the number of articles and links you copy and paste in your posts here. The problem is that your hatred and distrust for Obama, or anyone who says anything positive about him, has blocked your ability to think or to consider interpretations, beliefs or priorities other than your own.

What's the point of this, Bucco? You label any person or media source who even remotely credits Obama with anything as blind to his obvious--to you anyway--character faults, lies, inexperience, incompetence, hidden agendas, and all sorts of other horrible faults. What's further amazing is that you so brilliantly observed all this years ago, even while half the people in the country completely missed what you so clearly and unequivocally observed and elected the man to the presidency of the U.S.!

You are an amazingly brilliant and insightful observer of people, the media, and the American human condition, Bucco. Keep up the good work. Just don't make yourself sick doing it.

[Guest]

Janmcn.. I guess what you are saying is that it is okay for Obama to lie and distort facts. It's Romney's fault because he wasn't prepared for them?

What I've been saying is the facts haven't all come out yet, but Mitt Romney could get ahead of this thing by releasing tax forms and explaining his investments being in foreign countries.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/bill-kristol-to-romney-release-tax-returns-tomorrow

[Guest]

Delete

[Guest]

Bucco, your hatred for Obama is so intense, it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

None of Romney's ads refer to Obama's failure to keep campaign promises? The media only covers attacks on Romney? I don't read at all? I guess you do read a lot, and maybe watch TV too. I'd guess that based on the number of articles and links you copy and paste in your posts here. The problem is that your hatred and distrust for Obama, or anyone who says anything positive about him, has blocked your ability to think or to consider interpretations, beliefs or priorities other than your own.

What's the point of this, Bucco? You label any person or media source who even remotely credits Obama with anything as blind to his obvious--to you anyway--character faults, lies, inexperience, incompetence, hidden agendas, and all sorts of other horrible faults. What's further amazing is that you so brilliantly observed all this years ago, even while half the people in the country completely missed what you so clearly and unequivocally observed and elected the man to the presidency of the U.S.!

You are an amazingly brilliant and insightful observer of people, the media, and the American human condition, Bucco. Keep up the good work. Just don't make yourself sick doing it.

I know that what you accuse me of you also know is not true. I DO admit to getting upset at LYING and HYPOCRISY which is been on the top of the list the last few days.

I do not like misleading...when I criticize Obama I give the reasons...not many folks come back and discuss the issue on which I critique him on...I KNOW that is not because I am always right and have great debates and conversations with people who are straight forward, honest and civil.

I never had a problem with the MAN Obama until now. THAT I know you can attest to. NOW I admit to changing.

You may find my distrust, not hate, of Obama funny and comical...I do not think it is funny in anyway. Someday, someone has to pay the bills...and untangle the web

[Guest]

maybe Romney can pay some of your bills with the$100,000 he got from Bain for doing NOTHING. Or maybe it's OK for Romney to get money for nothing and the heck with others.

[Guest]

Forbes asks 35 questions Mitt Romney must answer about Bain Capital before this issue can go away.

I have a question of my own that I haven't heard anyone ask Romney. How could you go before the MA Elections Board and swear on a stack of bibles that you had lived in MA for seven consecutive years, which is a requirement for running for governor, when you were working 17 hour days in Utah as stated by your spokesperson, Ed Gillespie?


35 Questions Mitt Romney Must Answer About Bain Capital Before The Issue Can Go Away - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjwalker/2012/07/14/35-questions-mitt-romney-must-answer-about-bain-capital-before-the-issue-can-go-away/)


While on the Forbes website, you can click on another article titled "Who is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower? Would you believe it's Barack Obama?"

[Guest]

maybe Romney can pay some of your bills with the$100,000 he got from Bain for doing NOTHING. Or maybe it's OK for Romney to get money for nothing and the heck with others.

Now you're jealous of Romney's contract that he had with Bain?

Are you also jealous about the millions of dollars sports figures and movie stars get for so little real work.

Do you get dividends from stock?

If you do, you've got some nerve getting money for no work.

[Guest]

Here's a very smart take on Mitt Romney's reaction to President Obama's Bain Capital offensive.



Rotting from the Top | TPM Editors Blog (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/07/rotting_from_the_top.php?m=1)

[Guest]

Did Romney's 2002 Bain Capital CEO Filing Violate The Exchange Act? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/14/did-romneys-2002-bain-capital-ceo-filing-violate-the-exchange-act/1/)

Interesting article on Mitt Romney and Bain Capital from Forbes.

[Guest]

OK let's say we give you all that perhaps Romney did something that is not 100% correct in business. Then in return I would expect you to agree he probably did no more than any other multi millionaire business exec or members of congress and the supreme court and Obama, with legal counsel of course. So what ever they did is not illegal. If you are not willing to grant the above you are obviously mired in partisan smearing and also know little about the goings on of business and politics.

How about a change of subject?????

Now that some of you have satisfied your need to pick fly specs out of the pepper by comparison, sure would like to see as much enthusiasm for subjects like the economy, energy independence, America's mediocre space program, Iran, jobs just to name a few???

We don't hear much if any from Obama's campaign, hence nothing gets discussed here as a result. Even the ever digging for fodder media is silent on the real issues that face this country. Now just why is that?


the feed back will be 100% predictable....wanna bet?

btk

[Guest]

Richie,Richie...Pretty good attempt at changing the subject,nice spin to it. But what the heck do dividends,movie stars and jealosy have to do with the FACT that Romney got $100,000 in FREE money for doing nothing and I repeat nothing. Why is it OK with you that for him it's OK to take free money but for others they are freeloaders.

[Guest]

...

How about a change of subject?????...

btk
Right on, BTK! The longer the public let's the candidates and the media talk about this inconsequential stuff, the longer they can avoid talking about important issues.

Like when will Congress begin discussing what to do about the expiring Bush tax cuts and deep cuts to spending, including the defense budget? Those things will happen on New Year's Day. Congress has already wasted two full weeks of Congressional sessions voting thirty-three different times to repeal ObamaCare. But not one minute spent so far in addressing the problems which will happen on January 1, 2013.

Let's see, after the election and Thanksgiving, Congress is scheduled to be in session for a grand total of 11 days before they take off for their 4+ week Christmas vacation. I guess a bunch of smart guys like them can get all that work done in just a few days, don't you think?

Or what do you think the chance might be that they realize they don't have enough time, and kick the can down the road once again? After all, they need to allow time after the election to debate and vote a 34th time to repeal ObamaCare!

[Guest]

President Obama is on his way to Ohio right now to talk about all the things you mention. He was in Virginia Friday and Saturday talking about those things. Before that he was on a two day bus trip through Ohio and PA addressing those issues?

Where has Mitt Romney been? Where is he today? In the first half of July, he has had one town meeting in Colorado, addressed the NAACP, and been to too many fund raisers to count, including the one with Dick Cheney last Thursday.

Next week, Romney heads to the olympics to watch his million dollar horse compete in dressage (dancing horses). Who is talking about the things voters care about? You tell me.

[Guest]

since you know he was talking about "those things" would you care to elaborate on which issue specifically and what he said he would do about it?

btk

[Guest]

OK let's say we give you all that perhaps Romney did something that is not 100% correct in business. Then in return I would expect you to agree he probably did no more than any other multi millionaire business exec or members of congress and the supreme court and Obama, with legal counsel of course. So what ever they did is not illegal. If you are not willing to grant the above you are obviously mired in partisan smearing and also know little about the goings on of business and politics.

How about a change of subject?????

Now that some of you have satisfied your need to pick fly specs out of the pepper by comparison, sure would like to see as much enthusiasm for subjects like the economy, energy independence, America's mediocre space program, Iran, jobs just to name a few???

We don't hear much if any from Obama's campaign, hence nothing gets discussed here as a result. Even the ever digging for fodder media is silent on the real issues that face this country. Now just why is that?


the feed back will be 100% predictable....wanna bet?

btk


Obama is very vague about what he will do if he is re-elected in November. This election seems to be more about beating the competition than about what they can or will do for the country. In other words, both Obama and Romney seem more beating one another than about informing the voter about decisions they would make if they win the election.

I am very worried though that if Mitt Romney gets elected he will put in anti-abortion Supreme Court Justices and Chief Justice Roberts will find some case to hinge an overruling of Roe v. Wade. It is bad decision as far as judicial activism is concerned. They did legislate in that case as to what is the law on abortion throughout the US. In some situations though the US Supreme Court should take a stand on an issue like the right of women to keep control over their bodies.

[Guest]

Right on, BTK! The longer the public let's the candidates and the media talk about this inconsequential stuff, the longer they can avoid talking about important issues.

Like when will Congress begin discussing what to do about the expiring Bush tax cuts and deep cuts to spending, including the defense budget? Those things will happen on New Year's Day. Congress has already wasted two full weeks of Congressional sessions voting thirty-three different times to repeal ObamaCare. But not one minute spent so far in addressing the problems which will happen on January 1, 2013.

Let's see, after the election and Thanksgiving, Congress is scheduled to be in session for a grand total of 11 days before they take off for their 4+ week Christmas vacation. I guess a bunch of smart guys like them can get all that work done in just a few days, don't you think?

Or what do you think the chance might be that they realize they don't have enough time, and kick the can down the road once again? After all, they need to allow time after the election to debate and vote a 34th time to repeal ObamaCare!

And you forgot to mention the 50 million dollars the republican-led house of representatives wasted voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act 33 times.

[Guest]

since you know he was talking about "those things" would you care to elaborate on which issue specifically and what he said he would do about it?

btk

You'll have to listen to President Obama's speeches today in Ohio to hear it for yourself? My question was where is Mitt Romney? Do you think his "dancing horse" is going to resonate with a lot of unemployed workers? BTW, Obama will be in Florida later in the week. I haven't heard Romney's schedule mentioned.

[Guest]

I hate the tit for tat game but sometimes when folks lead with their chin ya just gotta smack it.

The million dollar horse will resonate with the unemployed just like the multi million dollar Obama, multiple aircraft including one for the dog, multiple high voter paid price tag vacations resonates with them.

Yesterday's news of insignificance forgotten by most who know the rich and famous do things and have things the rest of us will never have.

Has not a :censored: thing to do with electability....just partisan grinding to avoid the real issues of America.

btk

[Guest]

No matter how "rich and famous" a person may be - or much of a big shot his followers think he may be - EVERYONE has to file tax returns.

All Willard has to do is release his - like Obama, and the two Bushes and Clinton, and Nixon did.

That's all - nothing more.

What's the issue with that?

[Guest]

I don't care how much he made or anybody else.The IRS looks at returns that enough for me.Just trying to deflect own record by harping on this.Most people do not care.We all have money out of this country.Unless you do not have a 401k pension plan or any other type of plan.We have big problems and getting worse.Maybe time for someone who has ran something to take over.Not a Dreamer who hasn't a clue all he can create are more give away's.Oh and this guy really gave away money unlike the 2 in the white house that didn't start until they knew it would become public record.

[Guest]

in the astute words of james carville - "[it's] the economy, stupid!" and axlerod/plouffe want to stay as far away from that record as possible - so they'll throw every snowball they can manufacture to deflect facing the issue. it's not tax returns, not corp titles, not sec filings, not birth certificates, not college records, not vacations, etc! it's the economy! but even axlerod and plouffe cannot make that look good - and neither can obama!

[Guest]

What's to discuss about the health care act?

That fight is over - Obama won - SCOTUS said it is constitutional. It is the law of the land.

Polling data on it means nothing - what's your point here?

boy howdy! when the polls start to go south, somebody wants ya to believe that polling data doesn't mean anything anymore! :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

No matter how "rich and famous" a person may be - or much of a big shot his followers think he may be - EVERYONE has to file tax returns.

All Willard has to do is release his - like Obama, and the two Bushes and Clinton, and Nixon did.

That's all - nothing more.

What's the issue with that?

It makes you wonder how many years tax returns Mitt Romney is requiring his potential VP picks to provide. Republicans were the ones that insisted all of President Obama's cabinet picks provide numerous years of tax returns.

The funniest thing Romney said today on Fox News was that Theresa Heinz Kerry never provided her tax returns. Apparently Romney thinks he's running for first lady.

[Guest]

Richie,Richie...Pretty good attempt at changing the subject,nice spin to it. But what the heck do dividends,movie stars and jealosy have to do with the FACT that Romney got $100,000 in FREE money for doing nothing and I repeat nothing. Why is it OK with you that for him it's OK to take free money but for others they are freeloaders.

How is a legal contract in a private business enterprise "free money"?

[Guest]

No matter how "rich and famous" a person may be - or much of a big shot his followers think he may be - EVERYONE has to file tax returns.

All Willard has to do is release his - like Obama, and the two Bushes and Clinton, and Nixon did.

That's all - nothing more.

What's the issue with that?

You guys only want the tax returns because you know a man in Romney's position has very complicated returns that 1,000 liberal lawyers will fine-tooth-comb, to come up with a 1,000 questions which should take us all the way to November with speculation, while the crash and burning Obama economy is ignored by the lamestream media.

It a good and cynical plan.

[Guest]

Obama's claim of impropriety by Mitt Romney makes one do a double take when you consider this is from a guy who has been immersed in the notorious climate of Chicago style politics and personally associated with Tony Rezko, Blogdaovich, Ayers, and so many other convicted felons

The audacity of some. A demand for tranparceny from a guy whose background looks like swiss cheese because there are so mny holes in it.

A Obama following that critics now referred to as "Bainers" because they view the claim of these followers as legitimate as those Birther followers.

the economy is in free fall and Obama contnues his war on the rich.

[Guest]

it doesn't matter why we want the tax returns the bigger question is still why won't he give them up? And for those of you worried about this taking up the news instead of important subjects then make the returns available, case closed. Lets get on with the other stuff.

[Guest]

it doesn't matter why we want the tax returns the bigger question is still why won't he give them up? And for those of you worried about this taking up the news instead of important subjects then make the returns available, case closed. Lets get on with the other stuff.

I suggest to you that Romney is VERY RICH...not just a little bit and the release of his tax information would become the campaign. There would be a team of auditors from far and wide going over the very complex returns and each and every day there would be another assault as we see going on now...and then NOTHING gets talked about relative to the country !

[Guest]

Obama's claim of impropriety by Mitt Romney makes one do a double take when you consider this is from a guy who has been immersed in the notorious climate of Chicago style politics and personally associated with Tony Rezko, Blogdaovich, Ayers, and so many other convicted felons

The audacity of some. A demand for tranparceny from a guy whose background looks like swiss cheese because there are so mny holes in it.

A Obama following that critics now referred to as "Bainers" because they view the claim of these followers as legitimate as those Birther followers.

the economy is in free fall and Obama contnues his war on the rich.

Typical Republican fallback is Diverting The Question. It is very much like a child saying, "Yes, I did that but Johnnie broke 2 windows and he did not get a spanking, why should I get one?"

Yes, I heard the exact thing last night while I was flipping through the channels and landed on Fox Noise. The Fox Noise talking head was saying all those names just as Rubicon just did. Well, the parrots are out today. Rubicon, I am actually very disappointed in you for this posting. You are much better than this.

[Guest]

bucco,shouldn't Romneys accountants already have done all their work? What do they get paid for? Isn't their job to get all the legal tax breaks for him? He's rich,so what. What is he afraid of?

[Guest]

Obama's claim of impropriety by Mitt Romney makes one do a double take when you consider this is from a guy who has been immersed in the notorious climate of Chicago style politics and personally associated with Tony Rezko, Blogdaovich, Ayers, and so many other convicted felons

The audacity of some. A demand for tranparceny from a guy whose background looks like swiss cheese because there are so mny holes in it.

A Obama following that critics now referred to as "Bainers" because they view the claim of these followers as legitimate as those Birther followers.

the economy is in free fall and Obama contnues his war on the rich.







The President has released 12 years of tax returns. Why won't Willard?

Got nothing to do with Rezko, or Blogdaovich, or Ayers - or anybody else.

[Guest]

We knew all along that Team Obama's vile attack on Mitt romney and his association with Bain Capital was an intended distraction.

But what was the genesis? An article in Human Events 7/16/12 explains that James Carville's organization Democrats Corp conducted a focus group on June 11, 2012. When asked who would do a better job of dealing with the economy a majority of swing/independent voters choose Mitt Romney. In order to counter that fact the attack ads began on Mitt Romney and continue to this very day. Again Saul Alinsky tactics comes to Obama's assistance. Will voters see through Obama's veiled attempt to discredit this man? Do voters care? Is being rich and working to preserve your worth evil?
Do people normally leave their worth intentionally exposed to taxation by the government?

[Guest]

We knew all along that Team Obama's vile attack on Mitt romney and his association with Bain Capital was an intended distraction.

But what was the genesis? An article in Human Events 7/16/12 explains that James Carville's organization Democrats Corp conducted a focus group on June 11, 2012. When asked who would do a better job of dealing with the economy a majority of swing/independent voters choose Mitt Romney. In order to counter that fact the attack ads began on Mitt Romney and continue to this very day. Again Saul Alinsky tactics comes to Obama's assistance. Will voters see through Obama's veiled attempt to discredit this man? Do voters care? Is being rich and working to preserve your worth evil?
Do people normally leave their worth intentionally exposed to taxation by the government?

Is not Bain Capital a leveraged buyout firm? From the little I have read about LBOs they come to a company usually uninvited, gut the company by firing many people and selling assets, and then resell the targeted company to some buyer at a profit for the leveraged buyout firm's stockholders. The result is perhaps a better company, but many times not really. It is about getting out of the targeted company and making big bucks doing it. It is not about saving the targeted company. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-07/buffett-avoids-buyout-firm-purchases-says-they-don-t-know-the-business-.html?dbk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout http://wickershamsconscience.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-real-problems-with-romney-bain-capital/

[Guest]

Is not Bain Capital a leveraged buyout firm? From the little I have read about LBOs they come to a company usually uninvited, gut the company by firing many people and selling assets, and then resell the targeted company to some buyer at a profit for the leveraged buyout firm's stockholders. The result is perhaps a better company, but many times not really. It is about getting out of the targeted company and making big bucks doing it. It is not about saving the targeted company. Buffett Shuns Buyout Funds, Says `They Don't Know the Business' - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-07/buffett-avoids-buyout-firm-purchases-says-they-don-t-know-the-business-.html?dbk) Leveraged buyout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout) The Real Problems with Romney: Bain Capital « Wickersham's Conscience (http://wickershamsconscience.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-real-problems-with-romney-bain-capital/)

You have presented some of what they do and with about 30% accuracy and a very distinct negative tone/inflection.

It is not the case that they are "not usually invited". They are "usually" brought in by the board and this can be with or without company operating officers approval. They usually will not buy the company and it's assets but will be put in full power as though they were the owners.
They will be contracted with a percentage of the gains achieved as well as a percentage of the new stock if/when issued.

They can be the facilitator for a company that needs to go through chapter 11 bankruptcy.

It is not their intent to "gut" the company and sell off the assets. It is their intent to make the going concern a profitable business......and do what management over the years has not done to keep or make the entity profitable.

One of the first things they will do is to go in and asses each operating entities operating management, doing a very quick analysis of where the talent or the problem managers/officers are. And of course they will have them removed from the job with what ever perks/benefits they were entitled to by their arrangement/contract with the company.

Then they will very quickly assign people to the finance area to analyze how the cash is managed or not. They will usually cut off all payments until they reach a conclusion as to where the money is being sent and why. They will then advise all who supply the company what the new payables rules will be. In many more cases than one would think, a company in trouble does not manage their cash even as well as some of you do your personal situations at home....they just don't!!!

Then they set about analyzing each of the business entities to discover where the operating losses are being generated.

It is a very basic income statement analysis of seeing where and why expenses exceed revenues and the set about correcting the negative situations (very unlike how the federal government operates).

What is usually the largest expense item in an income statement? Wages and salaries and the associated benefits. Usually without exception there are too many people on the payroll than needed to do the job...at the salary as well as the hourly level.

So then begins the reshaping of the operation more commonly referred to negatively as downsizing to the level of employment justified by the current revenues and expenses. Yes this does result in letting go people from their jobs...that should have never been put on in the first place or never removed when the business could not support them being on the payroll.....better known as weak and incompetent management. What folks like you and others who have no idea how the process works and why call "gutting".

They will also analyze the business the company is in and determine where the sit in the market and what needs to be done to strengthen their position or the alternative of exiting a particular business segment or the company if need be. Hence the "selling off the assets" as seen by the outsiders/public. And in keeping with the negative painting of these folks one never hears about where it makes sense to resurrect a worthy business they inject and infuse cash into the business.

Eventually, 6 months to a year the results can be seen. A smaller more profitable company. Or the selling off and or liquidating businesses that are no longer viable.

The above is a very quick simplified version of what they do. The other aspect of their activity that also not mentioned is the businesses that fare better after being reorganized and actually hire more people.

They do no more or less than you or any other responsible party would. If one person is all it takes to mow your lawn and they were using and charging you for two what would you do? If one garage or storage area was all you needed for what ever how long would you keep and pay for two or three?

These companies do what most companies management are no longer capable of doing and are "brought" in to do what they do well. What they do is exactly what this country needs to have done to the federal government spending. In the business world a company does not have the luxury of continuing business as usual and just keep borrowing irresponsibly.

So we the people as the so called board of directors of America do in fact have the opportunity to remove the current management that is not addressing the fiscal responsibility of this country. Yes begin by removing all the incompetent managers like Obama and congress. We already know America is a viable entity. It is just not being run as such.

I think it is ironic that a person from one of these fix it companies is running for POTUS. That alone, to those who know what these people do/did for a living is an asset.....and there in is exactly why Obama has made Bain a center piece for his negative campaigning.

I used to tell people that bringing in one of these fix it type companies is like needing surgery. If you don't do it you will die. If you do it, then you will not fell very good during the process/surgery but 6 months to a year down the road you will be much better off.

The Bain type companies earn their money justifiably!!!!!!

btk

[Guest]

All this talk on Bain, and I am wondering why in 2008, Obama's ONLY AND TOTAL experience was community organizing, which is defined as the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved population, say unemployed steelworkers, or itinerant fruit-pickers, or residents of a particularly bad neighborhood, and agitating them until they become so upset about their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem.

Other definitions abound but all with the same theme.

In 2008 when this was brought up, it was considered taboo...not worthy of discussion but it was Obama's background and training. I just cannot see the difference at all between Romney's background being an issue and Obama's NOT an issue.

Of course we see that his background has come through as President so as voters we just need to make a decision.

[Guest]

I suggest to you that Romney is VERY RICH...not just a little bit and the release of his tax information would become the campaign. There would be a team of auditors from far and wide going over the very complex returns and each and every day there would be another assault as we see going on now...and then NOTHING gets talked about relative to the country !
I agree with you, Bucco. I don't think very many people realize how wealthy Mitt Romney really is. I have no idea, of course, but knowing what I know about Bain Capital's stellar record over a long time, I have a rough idea how much money the firm made. Mitt Romney was the sole proprietor of Bain, it's one and only shareholder. Ergo...

The other thing that would overwhelm the campaign rhetoric is how Romney avoided paying taxes. He would have done nothing illegal, I'm sure. But he would have had an army of tax lawyers figuring out ways to put the money in places to avoid paying taxes.

As an example, I heard on one of the news channels today that Bain's 401(k) program permitted huge employee contributions and had a "matching" contribution that pressed the edge of the IRS Code on 401(k)s. The result is that SEC filings show that Romney has a balance in his 401(k) account somewhere in excess of $100 million--all tax free!

While I think Romney should release his tax returns and eventually will be forced to, I understand while he is trying to avoid doing so. As you have opined, his wealth and tax returns would become the entire campaign dialog. And such dialog will not necessarily favor Romney in a country with high unemployment and a working class which has seen no real income growh in a decade.

[Guest]

All this talk on Bain, and I am wondering why in 2008, Obama's ONLY AND TOTAL experience was community organizing, which is defined as the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved population, say unemployed steelworkers, or itinerant fruit-pickers, or residents of a particularly bad neighborhood, and agitating them until they become so upset about their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem.

Other definitions abound but all with the same theme.

In 2008 when this was brought up, it was considered taboo...not worthy of discussion but it was Obama's background and training. I just cannot see the difference at all between Romney's background being an issue and Obama's NOT an issue.

Of course we see that his background has come through as President so as voters we just need to make a decision.

This is why I am reticent to get into this "defending Romney" nonsense. Obama is/was a know nothing about Americanism guy with Marxist dreams who speaks well, and so his sycophant disciples liken him to some sort of godlike entity that can and will do no wrong, and will savage anyone who speaks ill against their redeemer.

Obama, who has spent our nation into near, if not actual, bankruptcy. Obama, who's war on free market capitalism has stifled business growth to a snails pace, but he gives crusts of bread to his disciples and they think him divine.

Meanwhile you have Romney with tons of experience in government and business and service to the public sector; with a proven record of success in both genres. Romney, who's words encourage a bit of optimism, with a call for service to country, in a way not too unlike the way the great Ronald Reagan galvanized this country.

We're supposed to defend this man against our monumental failure of a President. Unfathomable.

[Guest]

You have presented some of what they do and with about 30% accuracy and a very distinct negative tone/inflection.

It is not the case that they are "not usually invited". They are "usually" brought in by the board and this can be with or without company operating officers approval. They usually will not buy the company and it's assets but will be put in full power as though they were the owners.
They will be contracted with a percentage of the gains achieved as well as a percentage of the new stock if/when issued.

They can be the facilitator for a company that needs to go through chapter 11 bankruptcy.

It is not their intent to "gut" the company and sell off the assets. It is their intent to make the going concern a profitable business......and do what management over the years has not done to keep or make the entity profitable.

One of the first things they will do is to go in and asses each operating entities operating management, doing a very quick analysis of where the talent or the problem managers/officers are. And of course they will have them removed from the job with what ever perks/benefits they were entitled to by their arrangement/contract with the company.

Then they will very quickly assign people to the finance area to analyze how the cash is managed or not. They will usually cut off all payments until they reach a conclusion as to where the money is being sent and why. They will then advise all who supply the company what the new payables rules will be. In many more cases than one would think, a company in trouble does not manage their cash even as well as some of you do your personal situations at home....they just don't!!!

Then they set about analyzing each of the business entities to discover where the operating losses are being generated.

It is a very basic income statement analysis of seeing where and why expenses exceed revenues and the set about correcting the negative situations (very unlike how the federal government operates).

What is usually the largest expense item in an income statement? Wages and salaries and the associated benefits. Usually without exception there are too many people on the payroll than needed to do the job...at the salary as well as the hourly level.

So then begins the reshaping of the operation more commonly referred to negatively as downsizing to the level of employment justified by the current revenues and expenses. Yes this does result in letting go people from their jobs...that should have never been put on in the first place or never removed when the business could not support them being on the payroll.....better known as weak and incompetent management. What folks like you and others who have no idea how the process works and why call "gutting".

They will also analyze the business the company is in and determine where the sit in the market and what needs to be done to strengthen their position or the alternative of exiting a particular business segment or the company if need be. Hence the "selling off the assets" as seen by the outsiders/public. And in keeping with the negative painting of these folks one never hears about where it makes sense to resurrect a worthy business they inject and infuse cash into the business.

Eventually, 6 months to a year the results can be seen. A smaller more profitable company. Or the selling off and or liquidating businesses that are no longer viable.

The above is a very quick simplified version of what they do. The other aspect of their activity that also not mentioned is the businesses that fare better after being reorganized and actually hire more people.

They do no more or less than you or any other responsible party would. If one person is all it takes to mow your lawn and they were using and charging you for two what would you do? If one garage or storage area was all you needed for what ever how long would you keep and pay for two or three?

These companies do what most companies management are no longer capable of doing and are "brought" in to do what they do well. What they do is exactly what this country needs to have done to the federal government spending. In the business world a company does not have the luxury of continuing business as usual and just keep borrowing irresponsibly.

So we the people as the so called board of directors of America do in fact have the opportunity to remove the current management that is not addressing the fiscal responsibility of this country. Yes begin by removing all the incompetent managers like Obama and congress. We already know America is a viable entity. It is just not being run as such.

I think it is ironic that a person from one of these fix it companies is running for POTUS. That alone, to those who know what these people do/did for a living is an asset.....and there in is exactly why Obama has made Bain a center piece for his negative campaigning.

I used to tell people that bringing in one of these fix it type companies is like needing surgery. If you don't do it you will die. If you do it, then you will not fell very good during the process/surgery but 6 months to a year down the road you will be much better off.

The Bain type companies earn their money justifiably!!!!!!

btk

btk: Your explanation is spot on. If I may, in my past life I worked on mergers (i.e) subsidiaries the parent companies purchased) all of what you describe poor management, irresponsible expenditures, etc were clearly evident. Of course those responsible would atempt to deflect blame on this big bad comapny for buying them out .........Much like Obama is capitalizing on to try and damage Romney. succintly stated the Bain Capitlas make the tough choices irresponsible and weak management failed to do

[Guest]

I agree with you, Bucco. I don't think very many people realize how wealthy Mitt Romney really is. I have no idea, of course, but knowing what I know about Bain Capital's stellar record over a long time, I have a rough idea how much money the firm made. Mitt Romney was the sole proprietor of Bain, it's one and only shareholder. Ergo...

The other thing that would overwhelm the campaign rhetoric is how Romney avoided paying taxes. He would have done nothing illegal, I'm sure. But he would have had an army of tax lawyers figuring out ways to put the money in places to avoid paying taxes.

As an example, I heard on one of the news channels today that Bain's 401(k) program permitted huge employee contributions and had a "matching" contribution that pressed the edge of the IRS Code on 401(k)s. The result is that SEC filings show that Romney has a balance in his 401(k) account somewhere in excess of $100 million--all tax free!

While I think Romney should release his tax returns and eventually will be forced to, I understand while he is trying to avoid doing so. As you have opined, his wealth and tax returns would become the entire campaign dialog. And such dialog will not necessarily favor Romney in a country with high unemployment and a working class which has seen no real income growh in a decade.

How about billions of our tax dollars given to GE by our illustrious President, that GE with more than half it's business and over half it's employees overseas used to fatten it's coffers and then keep all this money out of the U.S. to avoid paying U.S. corporate taxes?

Let's level this "playing field"...............

[Guest]

You have presented some of what they do and with about 30% accuracy and a very distinct negative tone/inflection.

It is not the case that they are "not usually invited". They are "usually" brought in by the board and this can be with or without company operating officers approval. They usually will not buy the company and it's assets but will be put in full power as though they were the owners.
They will be contracted with a percentage of the gains achieved as well as a percentage of the new stock if/when issued.

They can be the facilitator for a company that needs to go through chapter 11 bankruptcy.

It is not their intent to "gut" the company and sell off the assets. It is their intent to make the going concern a profitable business......and do what management over the years has not done to keep or make the entity profitable.

One of the first things they will do is to go in and asses each operating entities operating management, doing a very quick analysis of where the talent or the problem managers/officers are. And of course they will have them removed from the job with what ever perks/benefits they were entitled to by their arrangement/contract with the company.

Then they will very quickly assign people to the finance area to analyze how the cash is managed or not. They will usually cut off all payments until they reach a conclusion as to where the money is being sent and why. They will then advise all who supply the company what the new payables rules will be. In many more cases than one would think, a company in trouble does not manage their cash even as well as some of you do your personal situations at home....they just don't!!!

Then they set about analyzing each of the business entities to discover where the operating losses are being generated.

It is a very basic income statement analysis of seeing where and why expenses exceed revenues and the set about correcting the negative situations (very unlike how the federal government operates).

What is usually the largest expense item in an income statement? Wages and salaries and the associated benefits. Usually without exception there are too many people on the payroll than needed to do the job...at the salary as well as the hourly level.

So then begins the reshaping of the operation more commonly referred to negatively as downsizing to the level of employment justified by the current revenues and expenses. Yes this does result in letting go people from their jobs...that should have never been put on in the first place or never removed when the business could not support them being on the payroll.....better known as weak and incompetent management. What folks like you and others who have no idea how the process works and why call "gutting".

They will also analyze the business the company is in and determine where the sit in the market and what needs to be done to strengthen their position or the alternative of exiting a particular business segment or the company if need be. Hence the "selling off the assets" as seen by the outsiders/public. And in keeping with the negative painting of these folks one never hears about where it makes sense to resurrect a worthy business they inject and infuse cash into the business.

Eventually, 6 months to a year the results can be seen. A smaller more profitable company. Or the selling off and or liquidating businesses that are no longer viable.

The above is a very quick simplified version of what they do. The other aspect of their activity that also not mentioned is the businesses that fare better after being reorganized and actually hire more people.

They do no more or less than you or any other responsible party would. If one person is all it takes to mow your lawn and they were using and charging you for two what would you do? If one garage or storage area was all you needed for what ever how long would you keep and pay for two or three?

These companies do what most companies management are no longer capable of doing and are "brought" in to do what they do well. What they do is exactly what this country needs to have done to the federal government spending. In the business world a company does not have the luxury of continuing business as usual and just keep borrowing irresponsibly.

So we the people as the so called board of directors of America do in fact have the opportunity to remove the current management that is not addressing the fiscal responsibility of this country. Yes begin by removing all the incompetent managers like Obama and congress. We already know America is a viable entity. It is just not being run as such.

I think it is ironic that a person from one of these fix it companies is running for POTUS. That alone, to those who know what these people do/did for a living is an asset.....and there in is exactly why Obama has made Bain a center piece for his negative campaigning.

I used to tell people that bringing in one of these fix it type companies is like needing surgery. If you don't do it you will die. If you do it, then you will not fell very good during the process/surgery but 6 months to a year down the road you will be much better off.

The Bain type companies earn their money justifiably!!!!!!

btk
I could not have said it better myself.

[Guest]

This is why I am reticent to get into this "defending Romney" nonsense. Obama is/was a know nothing about Americanism guy with Marxist dreams who speaks well, and so his sycophant disciples liken him to some sort of godlike entity that can and will do no wrong, and will savage anyone who speaks ill against their redeemer.

Obama, who has spent our nation into near, if not actual, bankruptcy. Obama, who's war on free market capitalism has stifled business growth to a snails pace, but he gives crusts of bread to his disciples and they think him divine.

Meanwhile you have Romney with tons of experience in government and business and service to the public sector; with a proven record of success in both genres. Romney, who's words encourage a bit of optimism, with a call for service to country, in a way not too unlike the way the great Ronald Reagan galvanized this country.

We're supposed to defend this man against our monumental failure of a President. Unfathomable.

I agree and am and was reluctant to even bring this item up, but what is going on is nothing but what community organizers have been taught to do.
They, Obama campaign, are going to and I am afraid succesfully veer this campaign away from what the American problems are and onto how rich Romney is. This seems to be an acceptable target and the background of Obama is off limits and I cant understand that at all. I have tried to say away from this stuff from 2008, but if you look up anywhere you want and read about community organizer tactics, you will understand what is going on and I might add quite successfully as he draws us closer and closer to the total class warfare.

This man is not a unifer as we so need now...he has shown in his first term how easy he makes dividing us. I frankly do not care how rich Romney is as long as he did it legally. I want to have our President talk to both parties and try to find common ground....the current president does not even speak to his own party and has for 3 years attempted to demonize the other party.

I am not defending any party here because that is the next attack that follows any criticism of this president but we need someone to bring us together. This man has shown that he cannot do that.

This forum will reflect in a small way that fact. Those who support Obama do not even post on any thread where they cannot condemn. If you being a thread on the deficit, etc they ignore it.....it is all about marginalizing the opponent and stay away from the issues.

[Guest]

How about billions of our tax dollars given to GE by our illustrious President, that GE with more than half it's business and over half it's employees overseas used to fatten it's coffers and then keep all this money out of the U.S. to avoid paying U.S. corporate taxes?

Let's level this "playing field"...............
How the heck did we get from Romney's tax returns to Obama giving money to GE?

But I gotta call you to task on this one, Richie. How about a link to an article on how Obama "gave" billions of tax dollars to GE? Actually, just an article or news report on how the "government" gave GE billions would be fine.

Your allegation is a new one to me.

[Guest]

...Obama, who has spent our nation into near, if not actual, bankruptcy....
One more time, Richie. It's the House of Representatives which passes spending bils, which are then passed by the Senate, often with joint committe negotiations, then finally signed by the President. Neither Barack Obama or George Bush or Bill Clinton or any of the presidents before them had the constitutional authority to spend even one dime of he taxpayer's money.

That's from Civics 101, not often quoted by Fox News, Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

[Guest]

You have presented some of what they do and with about 30% accuracy and a very distinct negative tone/inflection.

It is not the case that they are "not usually invited". They are "usually" brought in by the board and this can be with or without company operating officers approval. They usually will not buy the company and it's assets but will be put in full power as though they were the owners.
<<Original post snipped to shorten post size>>
I used to tell people that bringing in one of these fix it type companies is like needing surgery. If you don't do it you will die. If you do it, then you will not fell very good during the process/surgery but 6 months to a year down the road you will be much better off.

The Bain type companies earn their money justifiably!!!!!!

btk

As a lurker, I must say :thumbup:

IMO this message is exactly how Mr Romney should talk about his time at Bain. It should never be a topic he runs away from.

[Guest]

How the heck did we get from Romney's tax returns to Obama giving money to GE?

But I gotta call you to task on this one, Richie. How about a link to an article on how Obama "gave" billions of tax dollars to GE? Actually, just an article or news report on how the "government" gave GE billions would be fine.

Your allegation is a new one to me.

I do not know about "GIVING" them money but I do know that as our President lambasts Bain for outsourcing Jeffrery Immelt, the guy who runs GE who is a good buddy of our President, and in fact the head of his Jobs Council can say with pride that his company employs less than half of their mulititude of employees in the USA, keeps their profit overseas and paid no income tax in 2010....NONE on 26 BILLION in profits just in this country.

This, along with the myriad of lobbyists for GE inside working for more tax breaks.

Seems a bit hypocritical to embrace this man and rail only on selected other folks doesnt it ? GE, the buddy guy, working in the administration would be at the top of the list of oursourcing folks in the US !!! Again, this is a criticism of the Hypocrisy of the WH...I am sure that GE did it legally, perhaps with help from their lobbyists in the WH but legally none the less, the President has praised this company and the leader a few times in public

[Guest]

Leveraged Buyout (LBO) Definition | Investopedia (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/leveragedbuyout.asp#axzz20tQcsnwJ)

Would not a better result be done through Bankruptcy handled by government agents who are not working for the biggest payback they can get and a quick exit from the company??

I do not buy the surgery analogy. And, I do not get the argument that these leveraged buyout firms are doing this for the motivation of saving the companies targeted and making them more profitable.

I am trying to get a better grip on leveraged buyouts though.

Takeovers and Leveraged Buyouts, by Gregg A. Jarrell: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/TakeoversandLeveragedBuyouts.html)

Candidate Romney probably does not want to harp on his experience at Bain Capital because most of the voting public would have the same kind of very negative opinion of leveraged buyout firms that I have.

[Guest]

This is why I am reticent to get into this "defending Romney" nonsense. Obama is/was a know nothing about Americanism guy with Marxist dreams who speaks well, and so his sycophant disciples liken him to some sort of godlike entity that can and will do no wrong, and will savage anyone who speaks ill against their redeemer.

Obama, who has spent our nation into near, if not actual, bankruptcy. Obama, who's war on free market capitalism has stifled business growth to a snails pace, but he gives crusts of bread to his disciples and they think him divine.

Meanwhile you have Romney with tons of experience in government and business and service to the public sector; with a proven record of success in both genres. Romney, who's words encourage a bit of optimism, with a call for service to country, in a way not too unlike the way the great Ronald Reagan galvanized this country.

We're supposed to defend this man against our monumental failure of a President. Unfathomable.

"Obama, who has spent out nation into near, if not actual, bankruptcy" is disputed by this article in Forbes titled 'Who is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower? Would you believe it's Barack Obama?'

Forbes is not a left-wing spin machine.


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/2/)

[Guest]

U.S. Debt? Bain Might Leverage It - NYTimes.com (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/the-united-states-economy-through-a-private-equity-lens/)

"Many people on Wall Street are befuddled. After all, a private equity firm creating jobs is like Adam Sandler winning an Academy Award — it would be nice if it happened, but it sure wasn’t the goal.

The goal, of course, is high returns." From the above linked NYT article.

[Guest]

you see it from where you sit and believe...I see it and saw if from actually doing what I said!!!

While you are checking them out make sure you do a good cross section and be sure to target the top companies in the country as there are a lot of wannabes.

If you don't like the surgery analogy how about an enema? Gotta get the bad stuff out one way or the other. After the unpleasant experience one feels better.

btk

[Guest]

you see it from where you sit and believe...I see it and saw if from actually doing what I said!!!

While you are checking them out make sure you do a good cross section and be sure to target the top companies in the country as there are a lot of wannabes.

If you don't like the surgery analogy how about an enema? Gotta get the bad stuff out one way or the other. After the unpleasant experience one feels better.

btk

I take it you mean some leveraged buyout firms are better than the other ones?? I still see this as being more about the bottom line. What is going to be more important to the investor in these private equity firms is how much money they can make and how quickly. The good of the company being leveraged and its employees is going to be of very little concern.

[Guest]

About the author of Forbes magazine article that I understand is quoted on Obama spending...


"He additionally appears weekly as the liberal voice of the "Forbes on Fox" television show and as a political pundit on other television and radio programs."

Rick Ungar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Ungar)

This is a link to another Forbes article on the same subject with another viewpoint totally

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/06/14/president-obama-the-biggest-government-spender-in-world-history/)

And this from CNN/MONEY which is by far the best analysis tells us how it is measured is the most important thing...as a percentage of GDP or what ?

The article ends...

"So is Obama a big spender or not?

The political answer will always be yes for Republicans and no for Democrats. For independent budget experts, the political debate is not productive at a time when policymakers face truly pressing fiscal decisions.

Indeed, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted: "[T]he blame game is much less important than trying to find a bipartisan solution to our budget problems."

Obama's spending: Runaway or reasonable? - Jun. 22, 2012 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/22/news/economy/obama-spending/index.htm)

I only am responding to this because it came to my attention, and people tend to link to articles because they like the headline and that headline serves their purpose. To me, that is self destructing at best....if we are really americans first, why would we not want to actually READ and investigate both sides. I can find on this internet justification for or against any topic you can throw out there.

I oppose Obama, but want my oppostion to be based on Facts, not conjecture...on research and not on throwing anything I can online to serve some purpose.

It would be better to discuss the actual spending, and the actual issues involved but that does not satisfy some folks need for this kind of misleading rhetoric.

PS...I might add that the largest law he passed...on that Healthcare law, the bill does not come due until after the next term, if he is elected, so that becomes another issue then....will be interesting to watch the assumptions for payment in the bill and how close they get to reality over the years.

[Guest]

How Private Equity Firms Like Bain Capital Earn Profits : The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/01/30/120130ta_talk_surowiecki)

Probably why the Republican candidates running against Mitt Romney six months ago attacked leveraged buyout firms.

I know some of President Barack Obama's financial backers are also leveraged buyout firms.

[Guest]

How the heck did we get from Romney's tax returns to Obama giving money to GE?

But I gotta call you to task on this one, Richie. How about a link to an article on how Obama "gave" billions of tax dollars to GE? Actually, just an article or news report on how the "government" gave GE billions would be fine.

Your allegation is a new one to me.

One more time, Richie. It's the House of Representatives which passes spending bils, which are then passed by the Senate, often with joint committe negotiations, then finally signed by the President. Neither Barack Obama or George Bush or Bill Clinton or any of the presidents before them had the constitutional authority to spend even one dime of he taxpayer's money.

That's from Civics 101, not often quoted by Fox News, Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

You know nothing about GE and it's stimulus money? You know nothing about the outright grants for "green" projects? I thought you were the supposed learned one.

You just keep defending Obama at every turn, and switching the conversation back to me instead of the issues.

Who do you think you're impressing?

[Guest]

]....Would not a better result be done through Bankruptcy handled by government agents who are not working for the biggest payback they can get and a quick exit from the company??....
I would argue not.

But I guess I don't know what you mean by "government agents". There are only two parties to a bankruptcy filing, the company management and the bankruptcy court. The management decides when it is "bankrupt" and no longer able to pay its bills. The court's role is to her the arguments of the creditors who want to be paid, deciding whether the company can survive and if so, provide "stand in place" protection of the company from claims or actions by the creditors.

The process of bankruptcy provides court protection to the company from actions by the company's creditors while a plan is derived defining how each stakeholder in the company (creditors, employees and shareholders) will be treated. That plan is negotiated among the stakeholders by a committee, called a "creditor's committee", which is appointed by the bankruptcy court. The "plan of reorganization" they arrive at often results in the senior, secured lenders getting more of their claims paid than the unsecured lenders or holders of subordinated debt. The value of the shareholder's equity in the company is often completely eradicated.

The management, representing the shareholders and knowing what is likely in a bankruptcy, often turn to a firm like Bain to take control, inject new funds, and preserve at least some value of the shareholder's stake.

While the creditor's committee is negotiating, the court will often approve new loans from lenders known as "debtor in possession" (DIP) financing. Lenders will make loans, even to bankrupt companies, because the court specifies that the cash flow from the company or proceeds from its liquidation be used to repay the DIP loans first, before any claim by any other stakeholder.

So if you mean the bankruptcy court by the term "government agents", you can see that the court really only provides supervision to a process conducted by the management and the creditors. The court plays no role whatsoever in managing the ongoing operations of a company which has run out of money.

Firms like Bain will never invest in a company for the sole purpose of liquidating it and selling its assets. There are companies called "liquidators" (or "vulture capitalists") which do that.

What Bain will often do after they buy a company, which was well-described above, is identify which parts or divisions of a company are money losers or have little commercial future compared to the rest of the concern. Depending on the legal organization of the company, Bain might very well file for bankruptcy court protection of a division, possibly leading to its liquidation and sale of it's assets. Bain makes money--lots of it--by creating a more profitable company, then selling it for more than they paid for it. Sometimes losing divisions must be closed to protect the parent company. Much like amputating a diseased limb to sustain life of the body.

Does it always work out that way? No. But in Bain's case they did a historically good job of choosing companies to buy where they could, thru superb management, make the companies more profitable and far more valueable.

[Guest]

You know nothing about GE and it's stimulus money? You know nothing about the outright grants for "green" projects? I thought you were the supposed learned one.

You just keep defending Obama at every turn, and switching the conversation back to me instead of the issues.

Who do you think you're impressing?
Richie, did I "defend Obama"? What I asked was for examples of how Obama gave "billions of taxpayer dollars to GE".

If there are real examples of that, I'd be every bit as incensed as you are. But again, you're unable to back up your sometimes outrageous allegations.

If you find some examples let me know, so I might join you in outrage against the administration.

[Guest]

One more time, Richie. It's the House of Representatives which passes spending bils, which are then passed by the Senate, often with joint committe negotiations, then finally signed by the President. Neither Barack Obama or George Bush or Bill Clinton or any of the presidents before them had the constitutional authority to spend even one dime of he taxpayer's money.

That's from Civics 101, not often quoted by Fox News, Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

This part of this post I take offense to.

"That's from Civics 101, not often quoted by Fox News, Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh."

You will need to take my word for the fact I do not listen to any of them, but why did you single JUST THEM OUT ? Talk to the major networks, major publications, etc. Why single out those people is my question ? All this time I was blaming Bush for all the money we spent in Iraq !!!

VK...I think everyone knows how it works..why the sarcasm ?

That is more egregious that your defense of Obama and GE !!!!

[Guest]

This part of this post I take offense to.

"That's from Civics 101, not often quoted by Fox News, Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh."

You will need to take my word for the fact I do not listen to any of them, but why did you single JUST THEM OUT ? Talk to the major networks, major publications, etc. Why single out those people is my question ? All this time I was blaming Bush for all the money we spent in Iraq !!!

VK...I think everyone knows how it works..why the sarcasm ?

That is more egregious that your defense of Obama and GE !!!!What's egregious are people completely ignoring the constitutional process of our government in favor of vitriolic criticism of individuals, as Richie did in his post.

Richie never answered my question and you're not confirming that, while Obama has not done a good job of political leadership, that Congress are the ones spending the money and running up the debt, not the president!

You know I'm not going to vote for Obama for re-election. But I will try to make my decision on factual information, not outrageous unsupported allegations or criticisms which are not valid under the law of the land.

By the way, are you defending Richie now? My post was addressed to him. I'd be disappointed. You at least do some legitimate reserarch. Richie just makes unsupported allegations and then just blusters when someone like me calls him on them and suggests he provide a little backup.

[Guest]

What's egregious are people completely ignoring the constitutional process of our government in favor of vitriolic criticism of individuals, as Richie did in his post.

Richie never answered my question and you're not confirming that, while Obama has not done a good job of political leadership, that Congress are the ones spending the money and running up the debt, not the president!

You know I'm not going to vote for Obama for re-election. But I will try to make my decision on factual information, not outrageous unsupported allegations or criticisms which are not valid under the law of the land.

I am not here to defend or critique Richie. I happen to agree with him that it is totally hypocritical of this President to take off on Bain, while nobody talks about, in facts, defends GE.

Secondly, everyone know how the process works....but I ask you how this is presented by our media....press, tv, books, etc. The President did it. That is just the way it is and I again get upset when folks isolate Fox or anyone else as you did. I can tell you for a fact that MSNBC says that BUSH spent billions on Iraq.....and so on simply to foster a party political solution and all I am doing is saying that you are doing the same thing. (I am not speaking of your motivation, but the reality)

Actually, I would have welcomed you saying something along these lines in the past

[Guest]

This part of this post I take offense to.

"That's from Civics 101, not often quoted by Fox News, Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh."

You will need to take my word for the fact I do not listen to any of them, but why did you single JUST THEM OUT ? Talk to the major networks, major publications, etc. Why single out those people is my question ? All this time I was blaming Bush for all the money we spent in Iraq !!!

VK...I think everyone knows how it works..why the sarcasm ?

That is more egregious that your defense of Obama and GE !!!!

It is in the normal litany of criticism of Obama by those whose current reputations and popularity, as per above, to perpetuate the false belief that the President is responsible for initiating the expenditure of far too many our our precious tax dollars. Phrased differently, those folks, and a group of posters here have continued to harp on the "promises" made by Obama to affect this or that economic change. It does warrant a little sarcasm when the professional right-wingers and their amateur disciples here keep brushing Civics 101 aside.

But may i remind you of your breakthrough. In a recent post, you have finally stated that you recognize the constitutional position of the President in our government and hinted you might refrain from more hand-wringng over "broken promises". In my view, that is a new expression of open-mindedness and a sign that you are separating yourself from those who still say "damn reality, full criticism (and hatred) ahead!".

[Guest]

I do not know about "GIVING" them money but I do know that as our President lambasts Bain for outsourcing Jeffrery Immelt, the guy who runs GE who is a good buddy of our President, and in fact the head of his Jobs Council can say with pride that his company employs less than half of their mulititude of employees in the USA, keeps their profit overseas and paid no income tax in 2010....NONE on 26 BILLION in profits just in this country.

This, along with the myriad of lobbyists for GE inside working for more tax breaks.

Seems a bit hypocritical to embrace this man and rail only on selected other folks doesnt it ? GE, the buddy guy, working in the administration would be at the top of the list of oursourcing folks in the US !!! Again, this is a criticism of the Hypocrisy of the WH...I am sure that GE did it legally, perhaps with help from their lobbyists in the WH but legally none the less, the President has praised this company and the leader a few times in publicBucco, it's really hard to debate situations as you describe with GE. Like Mitt Romney, GE has done nothing illegal in running their businesses. Their job is to make money for their shareholders. They practice capitalism as best they know how. They follow the laws as consistently as their lawyers and accountants tell them to. They make fine products and are admired around the world.

But how can anyone debate all those "good" things, the successful practice of capitalism, when someone comes back and criticizes the company because they do too much business outside the U.S., employ too many people in other countries? The difficulty in participating in such a debate is even harder when the person taking the other side will later embrace and endorse the capitalistic, free market system.

Did you ever consider that if GE could produce the goods and services they sell cheaper and with comparable quality here in the U.S., that they would? Did you ever think that GE is putting their manufacturing plants or service providers closer to the customers they serve, a whole lot of which are outside the U.S. these days? Did you realize that 60% of GE's sales comes from outside the U.S.? That they make more profit outside the U.S. than they do here in our country?

So explain to me again why the CEO of GE should be castigated for doing the outstanding free market capitalistic job he is apparently doing? And tell me again why the hated president of the U.S. should be criticized for his friendship with that executive, or even seeking his wise business counsel in his administration?

The problem isn't with GE or the president. The problem is that the U.S. is losing it's competitiveness and the political will and intelligence to make legislative decisions that would enhance the return of our ability to compete in world markets. That last part of it can be laid on the doorstep of President Obama--and several other presidents who preceeded him. The erosion of our ability to compete didn't happen overnight. The development and emergence of world markets isn't anything new. GE is a worldwide company which happens to be headquartered in the U.S. Their management's alliance is to their shareholders, not to politicians or voters who have unreasonable and irresponsible expectations.

You are correct in criticizing Obama for campaigning against Mitt Romney using the "outsourcing" argument. That demonstrates that he too doesn't understand how free market capitalism works. Or if he does, he believes that the electorate really doesn't understand and that such an argument will gain him votes, or cost Romney votes. It's really hard, I think, to campaign using facts to an electorate is too lazy, stupid or unwilling to understand.

But you kinda can't have it both ways. Either you're a free market capitalist or you're not. GE practices free market capitalism...and they do it very well! I'm sure the GE shareholders, myself included, are very happy with him.

[Guest]

It is in the normal litany of criticism of Obama by those whose current reputations and popularity, as per above, to perpetuate the false belief that the President is responsible for initiating the expenditure of far too many our our precious tax dollars. Phrased differently, a group of posters here have continued to harp on the "promises" made by Obama to affect this are that economic change. It does warrant a little sarcasm when the professional right-wingers and their amateur disciples here keep brushing Civics 101 aside.

But may i remind you of your breakthrough. In a recent post, you have finally stated that you recognize the constitutional position of the President in our government and hinted you might refrain from more hand-wringng over "broken promises". In my view, that is a new expression of open-mindedness and a sign that you are separating yourself from those who still say "damn reality, full criticism (and hatred) ahead!".

A few comments if I may....

First of all , I always recognized the limitations of the President and if you really think I am just plain stupid, then so be it. I have never come on here and listed the promises made and those broken...NOT ONCE...NEVER EVER an I challenge you to find anything much more than my problem with the LYING, and it was not forgotten promises, with the health care bill and his HYPOCRISY in the PERSONAL attacks on previous administration and then his embracing but still attacking. If you want I can probably find a list of broken promises somewhere as they abound on the internet but that is not my problem with this president and your ability to simply box me all up and KNOW is amazing because I have since before he was nominated made it clear what I oppose and in discussing his past three years I have talked about HIS LYING and his HYPOCRISY. I suppose I should be offended that you would think it was a breakthrough on my part as to his limitations, but I just expect this kind of stuff now.

Lets just understand something...I really resent being labeled as you seem to want to do with me. I said on here in 2007 or maybe early 2008 that he was a hypocrite and a liar and a manipulater. I stand by that.

And if you do not think he has promulgated financial change, then just hang on. We are in the throes of our country simply forgetting about and dismantling states rights and rulings by proclamation. I never said he spent this or that...I still say and nobody...NOT ONE PERSON..has challenged me that we cannot pay for the new health care law.....the bill on that of course is not due until in the future and in the meantime we simply HOPE AND PRAY that all the assumption in there actually take place. This at a time as we near financial ruin in this country.

You criticize the "right wingers" as you call them.....I enjoy actually coming on here and reading what the "left wingers" (I will use labels as you seem comfortable with them) and just laughing. They do not read anything...they simply attack. Today, a Fortune mag article posted but nobody noticed that it was a left wing writer by his admission, not my label. If I post something on here about any budget issues it is meant with nothing but Obama campaign material. No,you are certainly either eliminating certain posters on here from your "survey" or you are just flat out wrong. Are there those who do that....ABSOLUTELY....but your comment is just out of line.

I do just fine with Civic101....I also do well and notice and research before I post and if I am wrong, I WILL APOLOGIZE AND SAY IT. I have done it many...well more than I would like.....so please give me a bit of credit for knowing how the government works......I read all about our President in his younger years was he was 'training" like Romney was "training".....I read his autobiography and called him a liar on this board before the press did. I told VK as a matter of fact that there were descrepencies in 2008. I read about his time in Chicago..his quotes...etc...does not matter.

Just allow me to talk about ISSUES an stop labeling me...I have agreed and said so on here with a lot he has done, but nobody ever sees that I suppose.

Now, you tell me where I ever "perpetuate the false belief that the President is responsible for initiating the expenditure of far too many our our precious tax dollars."

[Guest]

Bucco, it's really hard to debate situations as you describe with GE. Like Mitt Romney, GE has done nothing illegal in running their businesses. Their job is to make money for their shareholders. They practice capitalism as best they know how. They follow the laws as consistently as their lawyers and accountants tell them to. They make fine products and are admired around the world.

But how can anyone debate all those "good" things, the successful practice of capitalism, when someone comes back and criticizes the company because they do too much business outside the U.S., employ too many people in other countries? The difficulty in participating in such a debate is even harder when the person taking the other side will later embrace and endorse the capitalistic, free market system.

Did you ever consider that if GE could produce the goods and services they sell cheaper and with comparable quality here in the U.S., that they would? Did you ever think that GE is putting their manufacturing plants or service providers closer to the customers they serve, a whole lot of which are outside the U.S. these days? Did you realize that 60% of GE's sales comes from outside the U.S.? That they make more profit outside the U.S. than they do here in our country?

So explain to me again why the CEO of GE should be castigated for doing the outstanding free market capitalistic job he is apparently doing? And tell me again why the hated president of the U.S. should be criticized for his friendship with that executive, or even seeking his wise business counsel in his administration?

The problem isn't with GE or the president. The problem is that the U.S. is losing it's competitiveness and the political will and intelligence to make legislative decisions that would enhance the return of our ability to compete in world markets. That last part of it can be laid on the doorstep of President Obama--and several other presidents who preceeded him. The erosion of our ability to compete didn't happen overnight.

You are correct in criticizing Obama for campaigning against Mitt Romney using the "outsourcing" argument. That demonstrates that he too doesn't understand how free market capitalism works. Or if he does, he believes that the electorate really doesn't understand and that such an argument will gain him votes, or cost Romney votes. It's really hard, I think, to campaign using facts to an electorate is too lazy, stupid or unwilling to understand.

But you kinda can't have it both ways. Either you're a free market capitalist or you're not. GE practices free market capitalism...and they do it very well! I'm sure the GE shareholders, myself included, are very happy with him.

I never criticized GE...I simply mentioned the continuing hypocrisy...and that was it. I simply agreed with Richie on that fact and asked why you singled out Fox, etc in your post.

Thats it...I am a free market guy

[Guest]

Bucco, it's really hard to debate situations as you describe with GE. Like Mitt Romney, GE has done nothing illegal in running their businesses. Their job is to make money for their shareholders. They practice capitalism as best they know how. They follow the laws as consistently as their lawyers and accountants tell them to. They make fine products and are admired around the world.

But how can anyone debate all those "good" things, the successful practice of capitalism, when someone comes back and criticizes the company because they do too much business outside the U.S., employ too many people in other countries? The difficulty in participating in such a debate is even harder when the person taking the other side will later embrace and endorse the capitalistic, free market system.

Did you ever consider that if GE could produce the goods and services they sell cheaper and with comparable quality here in the U.S., that they would? Did you ever think that GE is putting their manufacturing plants or service providers closer to the customers they serve, a whole lot of which are outside the U.S. these days? Did you realize that 60% of GE's sales comes from outside the U.S.? That they make more profit outside the U.S. than they do here in our country?

So explain to me again why the CEO of GE should be castigated for doing the outstanding free market capitalistic job he is apparently doing? And tell me again why the hated president of the U.S. should be criticized for his friendship with that executive, or even seeking his wise business counsel in his administration?

The problem isn't with GE or the president. The problem is that the U.S. is losing it's competitiveness and the political will and intelligence to make legislative decisions that would enhance the return of our ability to compete in world markets. That last part of it can be laid on the doorstep of President Obama--and several other presidents who preceeded him. The erosion of our ability to compete didn't happen overnight.

You are correct in criticizing Obama for campaigning against Mitt Romney using the "outsourcing" argument. That demonstrates that he too doesn't understand how free market capitalism works. Or if he does, he believes that the electorate really doesn't understand and that such an argument will gain him votes, or cost Romney votes. It's really hard, I think, to campaign using facts to an electorate is too lazy, stupid or unwilling to understand.

But you kinda can't have it both ways. Either you're a free market capitalist or you're not. GE practices free market capitalism...and they do it very well! I'm sure the GE shareholders, myself included, are very happy with him.

VK, I am not nearly as engaged in these issues as you or Bucco. I read, watch, and listen a fair amount and peruse the forum from time to time, but I have no inclination to butt and rebut at length like you are willing to do. What I do want to say is thank you for your intelligent posting. It is amazing what someone who looks at things without a right or left wing perspective is able to see and articulate that those with those biases simply cannot. Thanks for fighting the good fight, though you probably waste your time with most.

[Guest]

Verbose.

[Guest]

Richie, did I "defend Obama"? What I asked was for examples of how Obama gave "billions of taxpayer dollars to GE".

If there are real examples of that, I'd be every bit as incensed as you are. But again, you're unable to back up your sometimes outrageous allegations.

If you find some examples let me know, so I might join you in outrage against the administration.

When and wherever someone criticizes Obama, you’re sure to jump right in and quibble with what is written. Someone criticizes Romney and you very understanding of that person. I’m not the only one noticing this.

OK……….I did some “googling” for you and here’s some links for you to read on Obama’s love affair with GE and Jeffery Immelt, and the money it costs us to facilitate this relationship. I can help show you how to utilize the power of search engines if you’d like.

If you need assistance in gleaning the pertinent info from them, let me know.

G.E.'s Corporate Strategy; don't pay any tax - Fargo American Government | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/g-e-s-corporate-strategy-don-t-pay-any-tax)

The Unholy Marriage Of GE And President Obama At The Altar Of Industrial Policy - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/04/08/the-unholy-marriage-of-ge-and-president-obama-at-the-altar-of-industrial-policy/)

DOE Gives Taxpayer Money to GE - By Greg Pollowitz - Planet Gore - National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/271115/doe-gives-taxpayer-money-ge-greg-pollowitz)

“Venture Socialism:” Obama Administration Giving GE Taxpayer-backed Subsidies on Foreign Exports « Scotty Starnes's Blog (http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/venture-socialism-obama-administration-giving-ge-taxpayer-backed-subsidies-on-foreign-exports/)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all

Cash Hoard Grows by $187 Billion in Untaxed Overseas Profits - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-02/cash-horde-expands-by-187-billion-in-untaxed-offshore-accounts.html)

[Guest]

The number is now up to 15 prominent republicans who are calling for Mitt Romney to release his tax returns, including Congressman Ron Paul, George Will, and Bill Christol.


15 Prominent Republicans Who Want Romney To Release More Tax Returns Right Now | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/17/530121/15-prominent-republicans-who-want-romney-to-release-more-tax-returns-right-now/)


As if that isn't bad enough, today Senator John McCain said that he picked Sarah Palin over Mitt Romney for VP, not because of Romney's taxes, but because Palin was a better candidate. Is McCain working for President Obama? Could things get any worse for Romney?

Add two more to that list. The National Review and Governor Rick Perry say Mitt Romney should release his tax returns.


http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/national-review-romney-tax-returns.php


http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/john-mccain-sarah-palin-romney-vp.php

[Guest]

The number is now up to 15 prominent republicans who are calling for Mitt Romney to release his tax returns, including Congressman Ron Paul, George Will, and Bill Christol.


15 Prominent Republicans Who Want Romney To Release More Tax Returns Right Now | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/17/530121/15-prominent-republicans-who-want-romney-to-release-more-tax-returns-right-now/)


As if that isn't bad enough, today Senator John McCain said that he picked Sarah Palin over Mitt Romney for VP, not because of Romney's taxes, but because Palin was a better candidate. Is McCain working for President Obama? Could things get any worse for Romney?

Sarah Palin was a better choice when John McCain made it back in 2008. She was a lot more popular with much of the Republican grass roots than I would expect Mitt Romney will ever be. I almost went to see her when she was in the Villages speaking around 2008 about her campaign. I stood in the line to get a ticket to see her but changed my mind not being all that fond of crowds.

It will be interesting to see whom Mitt Romney picks for VP and whether or not Romney releases his tax records.

If you know what leveraged buyout companies do I am not all that surprised that Mitt Romney wants to distance himself from some of the deals that Bain made after Romney left to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. I would think that outsourcing of jobs would be a tactic used heavily with respect to trying to make a company more profitable. Lower wages, benefits and the like overseas.

[Guest]

Top Romney spokesperson urged Senator John Kerry to release more tax returns in 2004, even though Kerry had already released 20 years worth of tax returns.


Top Romney Spokesperson Urged Kerry's Presidential Campaign To Release More Tax Returns In 2004 | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/17/530951/top-romney-spokesperson-urged-kerrys-presidential-campaign-to-release-more-tax-returns-in-2004/)

[Guest]

Who gives a rats a-- about Bain capital

[Guest]

I just find it hard to believe that a poster writes about his constant belief that President Obama has lied about things in his background - all unproven - when GEORGE W. BUSH lied to the American people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They never were there. He just wanted a war in Iraq to show his daddy he could win. His lies cost trillions of US dollars as well as over 4,400 American lives and tens of thousands of Americans wounded and scarred physically and mentality.

Get real with your posts and think about the American lives and futures lost by GEORGE W. BUSH.

[Guest]

Who gives a rats a-- about Bain capital



Maybe people who want an HONEST man in the White House. An HONEST man like President Obama and NOT one of dubious qualities like Mitt Romney?

[Guest]

Well then I guess they are all liars including the beloved obama

[Guest]

Some of these posts make me wonder if some posters realize that vodka martinis do not mix well with Prozac - or just if their medications need a major adjustment.

[Guest]

I just find it hard to believe that a poster writes about his constant belief that President Obama has lied about things in his background - all unproven - when GEORGE W. BUSH lied to the American people about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They never were there. He just wanted a war in Iraq to show his daddy he could win. His lies cost trillions of US dollars as well as over 4,400 American lives and tens of thousands of Americans wounded and scarred physically and mentality.

Get real with your posts and think about the American lives and futures lost by GEORGE W. BUSH.

I do not know to whom this post is aimed,but will assume it is me for purpose of responding.

First, your very arrogant assumption is noted. You have no idea of my opinion on your message on Bush, and that is history and it is somewhat stunning that someone would bring something like that up in 2012 except in some kind of rage or something,

If you wish I will be glad to start a thread about all the lies that this President has told. Many of them have been chronicled as to his lying in his own autobiography....there were many of them regarding health care. I do not count as lies promises made that could not be kept, but if you wish tomorrow perhaps as I will be out of town most of the day, I will be glad to do that for you.

Perhaps in the meantime you could explain this rather bizarre post of yours talking about Bush. Earlier you called Romney dishonest with absolutely no back up at all. I asked for it but I know I will not get it. While we all believe in our own political stances, it seems that yours is hell bent on ruining everyone they can at every step in the name of WHAT ?

I do not blindly defend Romney until the President of the United States through a campaign spokesman says he is either a liar or a felon....see that just makes no sense and now you continue the assault.

[Guest]

Some of these posts make me wonder if some posters realize that vodka martinis do not mix well with Prozac - or just if their medications need a major adjustment.

Again, if you intend to throw darts at everyone, please be specific as to whom your barbs and sarcasm are aimed. Or is it that noone on here is at your level ?

[Guest]

Tell you what Buggyone....will make your day and of course the day of many others I am sure.

Tell all those people with whom you discuss me that I left !! Enjoy

[Guest]

They always come back.

[Guest]

Bucco, you go ahead and post whatever you want to post. I did not quote you or anyone else. If you want to keep yourself immersed in a peeing contest (either for distance or accurancy) you go right ahead. I was talking to RichieLion over dinner last night and he was pretty much agreeing with me over the quality of posts by certain posters. Some take this entirely way too serious and should get a life outside this forum.

When did I ever say this. I did postulate that Bucco is an obviously serious guy, although I admit I don't really know him, but the rest of your post is all out of your own head.

I was supporting Bucco when I said your humor is lost on him, and obviously not appreciated, so why do it unless it's purpose is to offend.

You make it sound as if I was betraying a confidence, and that's just false and wrong.

This is disturbing to me, and I'm responding publicly because you chose to misrepresent me in public, and I'm a bit miffed.

__________________________________________________ _______________

P.S. for Bucco: You do know that we're not all anonymous here? I'm acquainted with more that a few posters and readers of this forum. Things will be discussed over golf, a meal or an adult beverage in normal conversation. It doesn't mean confidences are revealed, but conversation will abound among friends.

[Guest]

Maybe people who want an HONEST man in the White House. An HONEST man like President Obama and NOT one of dubious qualities like Mitt Romney?

LOL.w
I guess P. T. Barium was right.:spoken:

[Guest]

Mr Romney digging in his heels over his tax returns is foolish. Why not cough them up and move on to real issues. He is making himself an issue.

[Guest]

I do offer a public apology to RichieLion for implying he betrayed a confidence to Bucco. Also to Bucco, you do know that people will talk to other posters either in IM or among friends about others on TOTV. I am not going to apologize for that. I do not want to hurt your feelings or anyone's feeling because I am not that kind of person and I do apologize for that if I did.

I'm hearing that Kumbuya refrain playing. Nice.

[Guest]

Tell you what Buggyone....will make your day and of course the day of many others I am sure.

Tell all those people with whom you discuss me that I left !! Enjoy

Bucco, I don't know if you will get back on and read this or not. My completely personal observation is that a sabbatical from the forum may be very beneficial for you. You take this forum far too seriously in my opinion, and are far too thin-skinned and sensitive to disagreement, criticism, and sarcasm. You are obviously well-read and well intentioned, but you have a bias that is simply bound to draw strong rebuttal and disagreement. Good wishes, I am sure you are a good person.

[Guest]

Sounds like folks have run out of stuff to talk about Bain.....finally I hope.

btk

[Guest]

Sounds like folks have run out of stuff to talk about Bain.....finally I hope.

btk

On this forum -- possibly.......in the real world of politics -- not likely.

[Guest]

I agree. But the American people will not re-elect Obama on a Bain based campaign.

Some of us are still waiting for the major issues to be addressed. Some have said Obama would do that in his speeches in Ohio. Well the real issues were conspicuous by their absence.

Hence as reality takes over and time grows short, there has to be more important topics that affect the American people instead of those Obama likes that affect only him.

I would add to the comments for Bucco to hang in there and not let the predictable, lack of credence mis representing posts of a very small number get to you. That is how they succeed at there task of representing the party....perseverance of pursuit NO MATTER WHAT. Don't let 'em win this one.
btk

[Guest]

Sounds like folks have run out of stuff to talk about Bain.....finally I hope.

btk

Nope...Rush says the villain in Batman named Bane is not a coincidence but another one of those vile liberal conspiracies.
What do all the right wingers here think about that?

[Guest]

Nope...Rush says the villain in Batman named Bane is not a coincidence but another one of those vile liberal conspiracies.
What do all the right wingers here think about that?

Probably only if liberals get to control the definition of the word-- bane. You'd probably find this word all over Juluis Caesar by William Shakespeare. Maybe Shakespeare was a closet birther??

[Guest]

Nope...Rush says the villain in Batman named Bane is not a coincidence but another one of those vile liberal conspiracies.
What do all the right wingers here think about that?

Well, I'd say that Rush never reads Batman. The character Bane has been around for only about 20 years.

But then again, maybe Rush just wants everybody talking about this for some other reason. It could be a prank thing.

[Guest]

Well, I'd say that Rush never reads Batman. The character Bane has been around for only about 20 years.

But then again, maybe Rush just wants everybody talking about this for some other reason. It could be a prank thing.

I seem to remember limbaugh trashing Romney in 2007/8 and basically saying he couldn't support him if he was nominated.

[Guest]

anybody attempting to make any connection with the batman movie and any part of reality is either trying (desperately) to be funny or is really out in left field (pun intended!).

btk

[Guest]

I seem to remember limbaugh trashing Romney in 2007/8 and basically saying he couldn't support him if he was nominated.

Romney has seldom been a favorite of many Republicans. Probably because he is a thinking man's candidate who changes his mind often. He is a moderate Republican in other words. Not far enough to the right to get the support of much of the Republican fan base.

He also seems rather aristocratic. FDR also seemed to have this as did some other US Presidents.

[Guest]

anybody attempting to make any connection with the batman movie and any part of reality is either trying (desperately) to be funny or is really out in left field (pun intended!).

btk

Don't think el rushmo was TRYING to be funny, so that leaves...............

[Guest]

Actually Rush did support Romney in 2008. Hannity, Levin and others did also.

[Guest]

anybody attempting to make any connection with the batman movie and any part of reality is either trying (desperately) to be funny or is really out in left field (pun intended!).

btk

Well, that is what the leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh is saying. Better be careful what you say about the Drugster. ;)

[Guest]

Now it's being reported that Mitt Romney's 2010 tax return doesn't match up with his financial disclosure form. It seems he failed to fill out an IRS form on his Swiss bank account. The other big question is how did Romny accumulate 100 million dollars in his IRA when you're only allowed to contribute $6000 per year. That means he would have worked 17,000 years. There is so much more to come out. Will research this and post a link soon.

[Guest]

Now it's being reported that Mitt Romney's 2010 tax return doesn't match up with his financial disclosure form. It seems he failed to fill out an IRS form on his Swiss bank account. The other big question is how did Romny accumulate 100 million dollars in his IRA when you're only allowed to contribute $6000 per year. That means he would have worked 1700 years. There is so much more to come out. Will research this and post a link soon.

janmcn you and coralway certainly are obsessed about this tax isuue. Hmmmmm As i recall village Kauhana made some reference concerning an IRS ruling on Bain' Capital's 401k that explained Romney's accumulation. I cannot do this explanation justice. so i hope VK responds

[Guest]

I was listening to one of the Obama apologists the other night. He started his show with his belief that Romney is a liar..."his first name isn't even Mitt" he said. He went on to use the fact that even though he has been called Mitt for several decades, his real name is Willard. I couldn't see his point, after all, Theodore Roosevelt was called Teddy, Dwight David was known as Ike, John Kennedy was call Jack, Abraham Lincoln was called Honest Abe, William Jefferson was called Bill and Barry Sortero is called Barack Hussein Obama. So please don't start name calling. I know for sure where Mitt Romney went to school, I know he made a great deal of money, that he actually ran a legitimate business, hiring & firing, making decisions on sound business facts. Some turned out well, some not so well. I don't know for sure if Obama registered for college as a "Foreign Student" as his college I.D. claims...and he does not dispute. Personally, I wish the Democratic party had someone eligible to go up against him...give the party a choice...but they don't.

[Guest]

I was listening to one of the Obama apologists the other night. He started his show with his belief that Romney is a liar..."his first name isn't even Mitt" he said. He went on to use the fact that even though he has been called Mitt for several decades, his real name is Willard. I couldn't see his point, after all, Theodore Roosevelt was called Teddy, Dwight David was known as Ike, John Kennedy was call Jack, Abraham Lincoln was called Honest Abe, William Jefferson was called Bill and Barry Sortero is called Barack Hussein Obama. So please don't start name calling. I know for sure where Mitt Romney went to school, I know he made a great deal of money, that he actually ran a legitimate business, hiring & firing, making decisions on sound business facts. Some turned out well, some not so well. I don't know for sure if Obama registered for college as a "Foreign Student" as his college I.D. claims...and he does not dispute. Personally, I wish the Democratic party had someone eligible to go up against him...give the party a choice...but they don't.

And your pointless point is?

[Guest]

Now it's being reported that Mitt Romney's 2010 tax return doesn't match up with his financial disclosure form. It seems he failed to fill out an IRS form on his Swiss bank account. The other big question is how did Romny accumulate 100 million dollars in his IRA when you're only allowed to contribute $6000 per year. That means he would have worked 1700 years. There is so much more to come out. Will research this and post a link soon.

OH WOW! If Romney has accumulated 100 million dollars in his IRA at a rate of $6000 a year, that would take almost 17,000 years not 1700 years! That, coincidentally is almost the exact amount of time it will take for the economy to recover to normal if Obama remains in office.

[Guest]

Great news Obama slipping in polls ,Let them harp all they want

[Guest]

DaleMN...I'm sorry if you don't get the point, If people started being "cutesy" calling The president Barry Sotero, that would be wrong also. So don't call Mitt, Willard. It's pretty simple actually. Call a person by the name he wants to be known as.

[Guest]

OBAMA DOWN 3 IN FLA>as of now

[Guest]

DaleMN...I'm sorry if you don't get the point, If people started being "cutesy" calling The president Barry Sotero, that would be wrong also. So don't call Mitt, Willard. It's pretty simple actually. Call a person by the name he wants to be known as.

Very strange post. President Obama's given name - on his birth certificate (yeah, the fake one in Hawaii according to you birthers) is Barack Obama. The nickname was Barry. His father's last name was Obama. He was never legally adopted by "Sotero" so the last name still stands as Obama.

If Mitt Romney wants to be known as Mitt, that is fine with me. There are too many on this forum who consistently refer to the President by all of his legal name - just to make it sound un-American. Mitt is kind of out of the mainstream names except at Yale, Harvard, or Cornell where Mitt is probably as common as Thad, Skip, Muffie, and Mandy. Don't forget that we had a VP's wife named "Tipper".