Did it trickle down?

Reason #583 why he will lose this fall.

Hey subby he said "Job Creator" he just didn't see what country he created those jobs.

It's going to be funny to watch him trying to keep his tax returns hidden and run for president. He doesn't want to show that he paid less in taxes than most middle class people.

Those millions are in his overseas bank accounts, making more jobs for Americans. Somehow.

That makes him a "job creator" in Republican books.

Whereas the people who actually create jobs are beneath contempt because we're just working cogs and should shut up and do as we're told.

Not that I'll be voting for Romney or any other GOP candidate this year, but was he, as an investor, to keep employees on the payroll even though they weren't generating enough revenue to make it worth their salaries?

Should we only vote for candidates who will hire and retain workers without regard to the value that they're bringing to the organization? No wonder government is bloated and inefficient.

Coming to a press release near you - "Those companies would have failed anyways. Future President Romney did everything he could to save as many jobs as possible from those sinking ships. Plus with all that profit they were able to create even more jobs than were lost. Just look at what his company did with Sports Authority and Dominoes after he resigned his position"

Huntsman seems to be the only reasonable one of the bunch, Ron Paul is just a tad too radical. The rest come off as the most smug d!cks on the planet especially Mitt.

Debeo Summa Credo: Not that I'll be voting for Romney or any other GOP candidate this year, but was he, as an investor, to keep employees on the payroll even though they weren't generating enough revenue to make it worth their salaries?

the point is, he is claiming that as a long time business man he knows how to "create jobs." However, his business experience is all in how to "destroy jobs."

he isn't claiming he will destroy hundreds of thousands of american jobs but make the remaining workers jobs more profitable for the investors in their business's, which would be a more honest reflection of the strengths he brings from his back ground in business

Lost Thought 00: Coming to a press release near you - "Those companies would have failed anyways. Future President Romney did everything he could to save as many jobs as possible from those sinking ships. Plus with all that profit they were able to create even more jobs than were lost. Just look at what his company did with Sports Authority and Dominoes after he resigned his position"

So you're saying Mitt Romney is the Buck Showalter of private equity?

EbolaNYC: Huntsman seems to be the only reasonable one of the bunch, Ron Paul is just a tad too radical. The rest come off as the most smug d!cks on the planet especially Mitt.

Huntsman is "reasonable" like you'd rather be kicked in the nuts with a pair of Chuck Taylors over steel-toed boots.

And this weekend he had the wonderful quote "I like to fire people".

That won't be used.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: The DNC's label of Romney as a "job cremator" is fairly accurate.

That's pretty good actually

Paulie Walnuts +
Gordon Gekko +
Magical Underwear
------------------------------------------------------------------
=

So he failed his way into politics like GW Bush?

Debeo Summa Credo: Not that I'll be voting for Romney or any other GOP candidate this year, but was he, as an investor, to keep employees on the payroll even though they weren't generating enough revenue to make it worth their salaries?

Should we only vote for candidates who will hire and retain workers without regard to the value that they're bringing to the organization? No wonder government is bloated and inefficient.

No, he was for dismantling of companies to leech out their money. It's not like he ran companies and just was trying to turn them around to be profitable for Bain Capital not necessarily the company itself..

I don't know how this is surprising. This is exactly what the GOP considers being a job creator. It has nothing to do with actual job creation, and everything to do with having money.

MrEricSir: So he failed his way into politics like GW Bush?

pretty much. Like GWB, handed most everything in his life so he complains about others who don't find life as easy as he did.

Something seems to suggest, just a teeny bit, that Americans aren't going to elect a guy that reminds them of the smarmy, patronizing guy that laid them off in the first place.

/Bob/Bob 2012 - "Hey, America - we fixed the glitch!"

Emposter: I don't know how this is surprising. This is exactly what the GOP considers being a job creator. It has nothing to do with actual job creation, and everything to do with having money.

it's actually a strange mix of religion and economics. They feel that rich people must be that way because they are better people than poor people are. If you inherited all of you money, and never worked you are still a better and more a "chosen" person then someone who is poor because they have spent all their money paying for healthcare for their relative.

This in their minds allows them to "punish" the poor because they are the wicked while doing everything for the rich because they are the "good".

Thanks to Bain Capitol, I have to listen to retards at my company say how they're gaga for RON PAUL now.

//my company got farked by Bain in 99

ThisSideofSteinway:

/Bob/Bob 2012 - "Hey, America - we fixed the glitch!"

Lando Lincoln: Debeo Summa Credo: Should we only vote for candidates who will hire and retain workers without regard to the value that they're bringing to the organization?

We should hire candidates that see that corporations are resource-sucking vampires.

Reality-based candidates would be nice.

Debeo Summa Credo: Not that I'll be voting for Romney or any other GOP candidate this year, but was he, as an investor, to keep employees on the payroll even though they weren't generating enough revenue to make it worth their salaries?


That wasn't the problem, and I am pretty sure you are aware of that.

1) Buy firm using investor money
2) Slash payroll to boost earnings
3) Borrow aganist perceived value of company
4) Pay dividends from the borrowed money and collect fees on those dividends.
5) Have firm declare bankruptcy.

They were extracting wealth from some companies and then destroyed them to gain a few points in fees.

tlchwi02: Debeo Summa Credo: Not that I'll be voting for Romney or any other GOP candidate this year, but was he, as an investor, to keep employees on the payroll even though they weren't generating enough revenue to make it worth their salaries?

the point is, he is claiming that as a long time business man he knows how to "create jobs." However, his business experience is all in how to "destroy jobs."

he isn't claiming he will destroy hundreds of thousands of american jobs but make the remaining workers jobs more profitable for the investors in their business's, which would be a more honest reflection of the strengths he brings from his back ground in business

Businessmen don't necessarily create jobs, particularly those businesses run by people who are after profit at any cost. Mitt Romney is a perfect representative for the evil side of capitalism. He creates profits while actually demolishing those businesses that create jobs.

It's the same hatched capitalism that has brought every major financial crisis. Cut away the roots to take the whole fruit bearing tree home so they can eat all the fruit.

Our country is so sick right now, I don't know if we will ever recover.

Corvus: Debeo Summa Credo: Not that I'll be voting for Romney or any other GOP candidate this year, but was he, as an investor, to keep employees on the payroll even though they weren't generating enough revenue to make it worth their salaries?

Should we only vote for candidates who will hire and retain workers without regard to the value that they're bringing to the organization? No wonder government is bloated and inefficient.

No, he was for dismantling of companies to leech out their money. It's not like he ran companies and just was trying to turn them around to be profitable for Bain Capital not necessarily the company itself..

Bain capital acquired the companies - generally speaking that means whatever the profits of the company are feed up to Bain capital - two sides of the same coin.

I'll agree that there are some aggressive fee structures at PE firms, but any fees pulled out by Bain come out of their investors pockets, who are all sophistocated investors who know what the fees are going in.

In regard to employees or non-profitable facilities, no business owner should be expected to retain them when the overall value of the firm would be greater without them, whether that owner is a sole proprietor, a corporate board, or a PE firm.

I see tlchwi02's point however. If Romney going around claiming to be a job creator, then the experience of the investments listed in TFA disprove that claim (although in fairness you'd have to look at the other deals they were involved in and the use of capital extracted from Bain's investments).

Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: Not that I'll be voting for Romney or any other GOP candidate this year, but was he, as an investor, to keep employees on the payroll even though they weren't generating enough revenue to make it worth their salaries?


That wasn't the problem, and I am pretty sure you are aware of that.

1) Buy firm using investor money
2) Slash payroll to boost earnings
3) Borrow aganist perceived value of company
4) Pay dividends from the borrowed money and collect fees on those dividends.
5) Have firm declare bankruptcy.

They were extracting wealth from some companies and then destroyed them to gain a few points in fees.

Don't forget paying yourself exorbitant executive salaries with that borrowed money.

xxysyndrome: Reason #583 why he will lose this fall.

Don't get so cocky. This is the same country that elected George W. Bush.

Twice.

Bain capital is responsible for releasing the Burger King upon the world. That alone should be enough to prevent Romney from being president.

The Name: xxysyndrome: Reason #583 why he will lose this fall.

Don't get so cocky. This is the same country that elected George W. Bush.

Twice.

With more votes the second time, no less. You can't explain that.

This will be two times in a row that the GOP is going to throw up an individual who unsuccesfully attempted a run at the presidency previously; honestly, you don't get a successful second bite at the apple under normal circumstances. If they were smart they'd at the very least pick someone who hasn't been BEATEN by their own party before that person was BEATEN by the person they're about to go up against.

Bad strategy if they're playing to win like it seems is all they care about.

Gyrfalcon: A Dark Evil Omen: The Name: xxysyndrome: Reason #583 why he will lose this fall.

Don't get so cocky. This is the same country that elected George W. Bush.

Twice.

With more votes the second time, no less. You can't explain that.

You can if you have twelve fingers and toes.

What, like... total?

The Name: xxysyndrome: Reason #583 why he will lose this fall.

Don't get so cocky. This is the same country that elected George W. Bush.

Twice.

For all of George W. Bush's failings, there are two things that most people can recognize:
The man was a skillful politician (if an incurious and ineffective administrator).
The man could assemble highly effective campaign teams.

Debeo Summa Credo: I'll agree that there are some aggressive fee structures at PE firms, but any fees pulled out by Bain come out of their investors pockets, who are all sophistocated investors who know what the fees are going in.

Some of the companies couldn't pay the pension plans that were promised to the employees but money went to Bain from the company. How is that the "investors pockets" exactly?

qorkfiend: The man could assemble highly effective campaign teams.

I doubt he picked out the campaign team himself. (I also believe Obama didn't pick his campaign team either or most presidential candidates) I believe they pick the main guy to head the campaign and he picks out most everyone else.

I am laughing at all the ignorant... no, downright stupid people in this thread. There was one little thing missing from the article.

Dates.

Like the dates between Bain selling majority control of the company and the date the company filed bankruptcy. If Bain didn't have majority control of the company, then precisely how is it the 'fault' of Bain the company went under? I know it is a fool's errand to expect an intelligent answer to that, but my hope springs eternal that someone can stop drinking deep of the derp long enough to actually rub together two functioning brain cells and answer the question.

After you complete that task, you can apply to take over the role of Jesus because you have lived a perfect life and never, ever made a mistake. Not even once.

/ Don't disappoint me.
// I placed a sizable financial wager it won't be answered intelligently.
/// You people just don't have enough business smarts to do it, nor the ability to put aside emotion.

A Dark Evil Omen: The Name: xxysyndrome: Reason #583 why he will lose this fall.

Don't get so cocky. This is the same country that elected George W. Bush.

Twice.

With more votes the second time, no less. You can't explain that.

Yes I can explain that (ignoring the meme).

1. The power of incumbency is quite strong.
2. Kerry was a farking dumbass.

Cyberluddite: Debeo Summa Credo: Not that I'll be voting for Romney or any other GOP candidate this year, but was he, as an investor, to keep employees on the payroll even though they weren't generating enough revenue to make it worth their salaries?

Should we only vote for candidates who will hire and retain workers without regard to the value that they're bringing to the organization? No wonder government is bloated and inefficient.

You're right about that, obviously, but that misses the point. The point here is that Mittens has made a big deal (one of the centerpieces of his campaign, actually) out of the very questionable claim that he's been a big-time "job creator"--including his assertion at last Saturday's debate, which many view as a flat-out lie, that at Bain Capital his takeover of companies "created over 100,000 jobs." So the real issue here isn't whether or not he should've axed those employees; the bigger issue is, given the fact that he did, whether his claim of "creating 100,000 jobs" is credible.

Well... He saved 1 million jobs.