Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus GOP Primary ThreadFollow

#352 Jan 12 2012 at 12:24 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,993 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Romney was a decent Governor back when he was a moderate. I don't really know what to say about Romney 2.0: Presidential edition.

Bain Capitol people are douchebags though. Theyn didn't even pay for their own rooms & still ******* about the negotiated rates at my last hotel. Smiley: mad


Negotiating rates for someone else's dime is what they do for fun.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#353 Jan 12 2012 at 2:04 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Complete King of Bain video.

See, it's gbaji's support of this kind of **** that makes me question his ownership of a soul.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#354 Jan 12 2012 at 9:56 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,919 posts
Well, when you're an unquestioning lemming ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#355 Jan 12 2012 at 12:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,434 posts
Bain Capital has started hitting back, saying the accusations are unfair.

I think they're mostly ****** off that it's other supposedly pro-business Republicans who are doing the attacks.

From Rick Perry: "There's a difference between venture capital and vulture capital."
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#356 Jan 12 2012 at 1:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
catwho wrote:
From Rick Perry: "There's a difference between venture capital and vulture capital."

Gingrich gave us "He's not a job creator, he's a job cremator."

This isn't really directly about Bain so much as it's about Romney's time at Bain. Romney is trying to hype up jobs from Staples and Sports Authority although much of their growth occurred without Romney and with capital from other firms besides Bain.

Maybe he'll get better at it but Romney's been going into it more tone-deaf than John "I don't know how many houses I own" McCain.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#357 Jan 12 2012 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,919 posts
You wouldn't have an election without good ol' fashioned Santorum mud slinging.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#358 Jan 12 2012 at 2:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Well, Joph? At least you've given up trying to insist that a 30% support number at this point in the primary season is somehow low. That's a start at least! Smiley: smile

Technogeek wrote:
You can see why Gbaji likes this guy. Capitalism is his religion, and this is one of his high priests.


Yup. And these attacks just upped Romney's cred with the fiscal conservative crowd more than anything else could have. Anyone who's reason for opposing Obama is because they believe that spending money to protect people from the symptoms of an economic downturn is hurtful to our economic recovery (and that's been the key issue for the last several years) now sees Romney as completely in tune with their own beliefs. They've been clamoring for someone who will take exactly the same sort of free market approach to government that Romney is being tied to with those attacks.


He couldn't have asked people to do him more of a favor.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#359 Jan 12 2012 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Well, Joph?

Well... what? Smiley: confused
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#360 Jan 12 2012 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Well, Joph? At least you've given up trying to insist that a 30% support number at this point in the primary season is somehow low. That's a start at least! Smiley: smile

Technogeek wrote:
You can see why Gbaji likes this guy. Capitalism is his religion, and this is one of his high priests.


Yup. And these attacks just upped Romney's cred with the fiscal conservative crowd more than anything else could have. Anyone who's reason for opposing Obama is because they believe that spending money to protect people from the symptoms of an economic downturn is hurtful to our economic recovery (and that's been the key issue for the last several years) now sees Romney as completely in tune with their own beliefs. They've been clamoring for someone who will take exactly the same sort of free market approach to government that Romney is being tied to with those attacks.


He couldn't have asked people to do him more of a favor.


I think perhaps you overestimate how many "fiscal conservatives" there are in this country.
If only they vote for this guy, Obama has nothing to worry about.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#361 Jan 12 2012 at 4:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
I'm sorry? What was the key issue that caused the Dems to lose the house in 2010? And a whole bunch of people to form those Tea Party thingies? I seem to recall it was a massive dissatisfaction with the way the Dems were handling fiscal policy. Whether those people identify themselves as "fiscal conservatives" or not, they support exactly the sort of policies which Romney is being connected to with those attacks.


If people were unsure whether Romney would be the right guy to turn the economy around before, they aren't now. These attacks help him, not hurt him.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#362 Jan 12 2012 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Well, Joph?

Well... what? Smiley: confused


You acknowledge that 30% at this point in the primary process is not only not weak, but is pretty strong for a front runner?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#363 Jan 12 2012 at 4:43 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry? What was the key issue that caused the Dems to lose the house in 2010? And a whole bunch of people to form those Tea Party thingies? I seem to recall it was a massive dissatisfaction with the way the Dems were handling fiscal policy. Whether those people identify themselves as "fiscal conservatives" or not, they support exactly the sort of policies which Romney is being connected to with those attacks.


If people were unsure whether Romney would be the right guy to turn the economy around before, they aren't now. These attacks help him, not hurt him.


Yep, they ran on the "Jobs, jobs, jobs" message. How they doing with that?
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#364 Jan 12 2012 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,919 posts
Considering the nominee hopefuls this cycle seem to be a normal guy (Romney) and group of Special Olympic runners that wet themselves when the signal is given (Gingrich, Santorum, everyone else), you'd think Romney could garner better than 30%.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#365 Jan 12 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,979 posts
It looks more like a "dismantle popular franchises for personal gain" message.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#366 Jan 12 2012 at 6:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,325 posts
Quote:
Maybe he'll get better at it but Romney's been going into it more tone-deaf than John "I don't know how many houses I own" McCain.


I did like that quote about dividing the 1 per cent from the 99 per cent... funny, they don't mind being divided when they're on their private jets or in exclusive clubs...

and regardless... does he really think it is strong messaging to cry about the one per cent being alienated? Like really? Maybe he should do some more focus group testing before he keeps that up.

Aaaaaand defending wall street brokers... but I guess that is real "tea-party" language amirite?

Edited, Jan 12th 2012 4:06pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#367 Jan 12 2012 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You acknowledge that 30% at this point in the primary process is not only not weak, but is pretty strong for a front runner?

No, was I supposed to?

For reference, at the point in the 2008 Democratic primaries, Clinton was running in the mid-40s.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#368 Jan 12 2012 at 7:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Yep, they ran on the "Jobs, jobs, jobs" message. How they doing with that?



Uh... Yeah, no they didn't. They ran on "end runaway spending", with a promise to reverse/repeal much of the Obama spending programs once he could be defeated. I guess you could say that this is part of the whole "jobs" issue in that if we end the spending and get the deficit under control, businesses will start investing in jobs and unemployment will come down. But it's pretty absurdly simplistic to just say "jobs jobs jobs" was the entirety of the issue.


Both parties claim to know how to create jobs. The difference is how. The Dems argue that big government programs can create/save jobs. The GOP says that those things actually hurt job creation and what we need to do is limit spending and let the private market lead the recovery. The 2010 election was an overwhelming rejection of the Democrats method. So yeah, anything that paints Romney as the guy who's associated with the free market is going to resonate with the very same voters who tossed the Dems out 2 years ago.


You kinda need to look past the surface layer if you want to understand what's going on.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#369 Jan 12 2012 at 8:24 PM Rating: Good
Yeah, as you always tell us, you're the only one here that really thinks about anything...

Yawn.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#370 Jan 12 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Excellent
I'm guessing the amount of fiscal conservatives impressed with how Romney lead Bain to destroy multiple, profitable, companies by saddling them with debt & selling them off for massive profit is somewhat less than the amount of people whom lost their jobs because of it.

So this does not get Romney more votes.

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#371 Jan 12 2012 at 9:22 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
I'm guessing the amount of fiscal conservatives impressed with how Romney lead Bain to destroy multiple, profitable, companies by saddling them with debt & selling them off for massive profit is somewhat less than the amount of people whom lost their jobs because of it.


Fiscal conservatives realize that that's not even remotely close to an accurate description of what the company did. As do most people. Heck. As does anyone who actually reads what you just wrote (which is a parrot of rhetoric being tossed around). How do you think someone saddles a company with debt and then sells it for "massive profit"? Did you even think about this, or just write it down because you heard someone say this on your TV set?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#372 Jan 12 2012 at 9:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Yeah, as you always tell us, you're the only one here that really thinks about anything...


And it's amazing how frequently posters on this forum follow suit.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#373 Jan 12 2012 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Yeah, as you always tell us, you're the only one here that really thinks about anything...


And it's amazing how frequently posters on this forum follow suit.

Smiley: laugh
#374 Jan 12 2012 at 9:33 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Quote:
How do you think someone saddles a company with debt and then sells it for "massive profit"?


Have you never heard of Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? They made tons of money packaging debt ridden business and selling it off. That was how they got rich, of course its also how they all went tits up and needed the government to bail them out.

Yippie Capitalism.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#375 Jan 12 2012 at 10:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
As does anyone who actually reads what you just wrote (which is a parrot of rhetoric being tossed around). How do you think someone saddles a company with debt and then sells it for "massive profit"?


They sell their stock in the company before it implodes, duh.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#376 Jan 13 2012 at 12:35 AM Rating: Excellent
**
585 posts
Its the good old pump and dump with a twist.
____________________________
.
#377 Jan 13 2012 at 3:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wow, Gbaji's love for Romney has given him some pretty Pollyanna ideas on how capitalism works and what's possible Smiley: laugh

Also, "Well, Gbaji?"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#378 Jan 13 2012 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,919 posts
The South Carolina Primary should be fun to watch, not so much to see who wins (duh), but how many votes Colbert takes away from Romney. Which reminded me that Trump was threatening to run Independent, and that'd essentially do the same thing. Is Trump still doing that, or did someone loosen that squirrel on his head's grip enough for him to think straight?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#379 Jan 13 2012 at 12:54 PM Rating: Good
Trump's not going to run, it would take him away from his fake reality TV show. He's just an attention *****.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#380 Jan 13 2012 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,434 posts
Huh, Obama just announced a plan to merge like six federal agencies and create a single point of contact for trade. (No time to link, look at Google News.)

Is he trying to one-up the Republicans?
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#381 Jan 13 2012 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nah, he was discussing something similar back with his jobs bill and last State of the Union. Remember (probably not) his example of how many agencies were involved in getting a salmon from Alaska to a can in the supermarket? Hey, in fact,
The Hill, talking about this six-agency thingie, wrote:
He repeated what he called his "favorite example" of absurdity in government, first mentioned in last year’s State of the Union address. "As it turns out, the Interior Department is in charge of salmon in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in saltwater," he said to laughter from the audience of small-business owners.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#382 Jan 13 2012 at 2:57 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,979 posts
You sure he's not going to create a new department and name a Salmon Czar?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#383 Jan 13 2012 at 3:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,969 posts
Debalic wrote:
You sure he's not going to create a new department and name a Salmon Czar?

Sounds fishy to me.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#384 Jan 13 2012 at 3:21 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,919 posts
Don't be a cod, puns are Kao's shtick.

Fish shtick.

Edited, Jan 13th 2012 4:22pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#385 Jan 13 2012 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,141 posts
#386 Jan 13 2012 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You acknowledge that 30% at this point in the primary process is not only not weak, but is pretty strong for a front runner?

No, was I supposed to?

For reference, at the point in the 2008 Democratic primaries, Clinton was running in the mid-40s.


Um... Source? A quick wiki link seems to indicate otherwise. There's a whole list of different polls taken in early January, but the pretty common trend for all three candidates is sub 30% polling leading up to Iowa. New Hampshire kinda runs all over the map with some showing Obama above 30%, and some giving that ground to Clinton. Clinton doesn't really takes a strong lead until Michigan though, which was Jan 15 (and still only in some polling).

So if you meant to say "after the third primary", you'd have a point. However, given that my "let's see in 2 weeks" happens to time well to the third primary this year, it's a pretty weak one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#387 Jan 13 2012 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
As does anyone who actually reads what you just wrote (which is a parrot of rhetoric being tossed around). How do you think someone saddles a company with debt and then sells it for "massive profit"?


They sell their stock in the company before it implodes, duh.


Except that's not the case with Bain Capital. They invested in companies which were failing. Meaning that absent their interaction (or that of another similar company), all those people would have lost their jobs anyway, their pensions would have disappeared, whatever other negatives which occurred would have happened anyway, etc. Bain then attempted to streamline those companies to make them profitable. This certainly could (and likely did) involve some trimming of benefits and laying off of employees. However, when it worked the remaining employees still had jobs and benefits and the companies recovered (and Bain made money). When it didn't, the same effects which would have happened anyway happened and Bain lost money.

What's happening is a bit of misdirection (and in some cases, outright falsehood). They say that Bain caused those companies to fail. They didn't. They claim that Bain "made money from companies failing". They didn't. They made money because most of the companies didn't fail (over 3/4ths didn't). So on total, they made more money than they lost because on total they saved more companies than they didn't. But the suggestion is that somehow the process of failing to prevent those companies from failing allowed Bain to make profits and that is absolutely false.



It's like some people don't bother to do their own thinking. If you honestly believe that there's some magic that allows an investment company to actually make tons of money by deliberately causing the companies they invested in to go bankrupt, don't you think that they'd have done this to 100% of them? Why bother saving any of them? A tiny bit of common sense and logic should allow you to conclude that they made money by saving companies, but they weren't always able to do this. Sure they "made money" while some single specific companies failed, but they didn't make money because of those failures but rather because at the same time they were invested in other companies which didn't fail.


But hey! Don't let logic get in the way of absurd rhetoric. Wouldn't want to actually think for yourselves after all. It's so much easier to just parrot what some talking head on TV said.

Edited, Jan 13th 2012 6:30pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#388 Jan 13 2012 at 8:47 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
They made money because most of the companies didn't fail (over 3/4ths didn't). So on total, they made more money than they lost because on total they saved more companies than they didn't.]


You seem pretty confident in this.

Please list every company Bain invested in and their +/- for each.

You do have that info, right? To back your statement up?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#389 Jan 13 2012 at 9:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
For reference, at the point in the 2008 Democratic primaries, Clinton was running in the mid-40s.
Um... Source?

Source
CBS News Poll wrote:
Among Democratic primary voters nationwide (from a total sample of 1,038 adults).
"Who would you like to see the Democratic Party nominate as its presidential candidate in 2008: [see below]?"
Responses for 1/9-1/12 2008:
Barack Obama: 27%
Hillary Clinton: 42%
Other: 0%
Unsure: 14%
John Edwards: 11%
Dennis Kucinich: 4%
USA Today/Gallup wrote:
"Next, I'm going to read a list of people who are running in the Democratic primary for president. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, or if you would support someone else...."
Responses for 1/10-1/13/2008
Hillary Clinton: 45%
Barack Obama: 33%
Mike Gravel: 1%
Someone Else: 1%
None: 5%
John Edwards: 13%
Dennis Kucinich: 1%


And so on... Pew Research had her at 46% for this period.

Well, Gbaji? WELL?!?!?!?!?!

Edit: Maybe you should have been looking at national polling instead of statewide polling Smiley: laugh

Edited, Jan 13th 2012 9:10pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#390 Jan 13 2012 at 9:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's so much easier to just parrot what some talking head on TV said.

By "talking head", you meant the rest of the GOP candidate field, right? Because that's who has been bringing this stuff up.

Is it so hard for you to admit that and you needed to run crying under the "Evil scary media!!" covers again? Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#391 Jan 13 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They made money because most of the companies didn't fail (over 3/4ths didn't). So on total, they made more money than they lost because on total they saved more companies than they didn't.]


You seem pretty confident in this.

Please list every company Bain invested in and their +/- for each.

You do have that info, right? To back your statement up?


Huh? No. I don't. But neither do those who are repeating claims that Bain somehow deliberately caused companies to fail in order to somehow make a profit in some undefined manner. Um... But it's not like the broad strokes aren't readily available to anyone who bothers to do the tiniest bit of research instead of just repeating what they heard.

22% of the companies they invested in failed at some point after Bain got involved. 8% failed completely, causing Bain to lost its entire investment.

Most of the companies Bain made money off were turned around and became successful. And among those which accounted for the greatest amount of dollar profits most of those remained successful even after Bain stopped managing them. Less than half failed later anyway, but *after* Bain was no longer involved with them. We can speculate that Bain somehow sabotaged them and got out before the collapse happened, but we could equally speculate that those companies were successful while Bain was managing them, and then after selling the investment off (at a profit) to someone else, that other person made changes which were stupid and caused them to fail.


The point being that they were in the business of investing in risky ventures which appeared to be failing. This meant that some of the companies failed anyway. But some of those they turned around made big money for them. Enough to more than offset the losses.


Basically, I see nothing wrong with what this company did. And frankly, it's a great analogy for exactly the sort of fiscal action which voters have been clamoring for. They want a government that will make those hard choices. One that will cut programs, even if they are popular (or strongly protected by those who want them to continue), because they are not cost effective. Everyone who argues that extending unemployment is a bad idea is making a case for exactly the sort of methods Bain Capital used. Everyone who argues that it's wrong to raise taxes on the productive parts of the economy to make up the gap in costs needed to provide benefits for the unproductive parts is also making that same case. What do you think Bain did? They made the hard choice to cut things which weren't necessary to economic success. And in most cases, it worked.


Isn't that *exactly* what many people (especially those on the right) have been demanding? Again, anyone who opposes big government spending as a solution to an economic downturn is effectively arguing for the same methods that Bain used in the private sector. It's the same philosophy at work. And while it's easy to use rhetoric to make it sound "mean" or "hurtful", the reality is that it's what is needed for us to turn this economy around, just as those methods were needed to turn those companies around.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#392 Jan 13 2012 at 9:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But it's not like the broad strokes aren't readily available to anyone who bothers to do the tiniest bit of research instead of just repeating what they heard.

WSJ wrote:
Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost.

Another finding was that Bain produced stellar returns for its investors—yet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains.

Some of those companies, too, later ran into trouble. Of the 10 businesses on which Bain investors scored their biggest gains, four later landed in bankruptcy court.
[...]
The Journal's findings could provide fodder for both critics and supporters of Mr. Romney's presidential ambitions and of his role at Bain. Some experts, while conceding that available studies don't provide a direct comparison, said the rate at which the firms Bain invested in ran into trouble appears to be higher than experienced by some rival buyout firms during the era.

That notion could undermine a central thrust of Mr. Romney's campaign message: that his private-sector experience building companies makes him the best candidate to turn around the ailing U.S. economy.

Works for me Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#393 Jan 13 2012 at 9:25 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They made money because most of the companies didn't fail (over 3/4ths didn't). So on total, they made more money than they lost because on total they saved more companies than they didn't.]


You seem pretty confident in this.

Please list every company Bain invested in and their +/- for each.

You do have that info, right? To back your statement up?


Huh? No. I don't.


Here's a crazy thought: If you can't back up a flat, declarative statement DON'T MAKE IT.

In case you're missing the point, I could give two ***** about Bain's profit/loss.

I do care when people make statements they claim to be true and can't back them up. Where I'm from, that's called "making things up"...or - y'know - lying.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#394 Jan 13 2012 at 10:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,434 posts
Your Daily Lulz: Perry mistook a mannequin's hand for someone asking a question.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#395 Jan 15 2012 at 9:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Romney is set to pick up another 75 voters.

Political Wire wrote:
Jon Huntsman told his advisers that he intends to drop out of the Republican presidential race, the New York Times reports.

He will endorse Mitt Romney's bid for the Republican nomination this week.


Guess leaving that Ambassador to China gig wasn't such a great idea after all, huh?

Edited, Jan 15th 2012 9:40pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#396 Jan 16 2012 at 12:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,434 posts
Poor Huntsman. Too sane for the modern GOP.

Obama just breathed a sigh of relief, actually. Huntsman was really the only candidate he was afraid of. He's been expecting and prepared for Romney, but on the off chance Huntsman managed to gain momentum, 2012 would have been a lot tighter.

As it is, I suspect David Axelrod just popped a champagne cork.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#397 Jan 16 2012 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Ya Obama is pretty safe I think. It doesn't seem like the country is ready for a rich white man to be President.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#398 Jan 16 2012 at 8:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,919 posts
catwho wrote:
Huntsman was really the only candidate he was afraid of.
Maybe in the generic sense. Most everyone was already giving the nod to Romney since like ... June? Something like that. Which kind of works for Obama's handlers. Gives them more time to research and strategize and such.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#399 Jan 16 2012 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That Gingrich PAC that did the Bain video had some pro-Gingrich commercial on the radio during my morning commute. Struck me as a bit odd since Illinois isn't going to vote for him, the nomination will be sewn up before Illinois and the Chicago media market isn't exactly a cheap place to throw around your cash for the **** of it. I suppose they just want to drum up some contributors?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#400 Jan 16 2012 at 10:38 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,919 posts
Considering all the scheduling fiascos involving Gingrich, I can't say I'm all that surprised that even his PACs lack any foresight.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#401 Jan 16 2012 at 10:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,254 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
catwho wrote:
Huntsman was really the only candidate he was afraid of.
Maybe in the generic sense. Most everyone was already giving the nod to Romney since like ... June? Something like that. Which kind of works for Obama's handlers. Gives them more time to research and strategize and such.



And save a metric assload of money, letting his own side tear him down.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 79 All times are in CDT
Elinda, Jophiel, lolgaxe, Poldaran, Samira, someproteinguy, Anonymous Guests (73)