Conservatives always expound that the lifeblood of capitalism is innovation. What innovations did Bain Capital (and other vulture capitalist groups) produce?

They're glorified paper pushers. They are, by definition, middle men and our laws reward them handsomely. Modern conservatives worship Mammon so abjectly that altering the status quo - to cease exorbitantly rewarding paper pushers - is akin to extolling the benefits of child rape.

What did the unions do that is the same as what Bain Capital does?

I'm confused... did the union buy Hostess while it was healthy and nearly debt free, borrow a whole bunch of money as Hostess, pay itself crazy consulting fees and then shut down Hostess? I'm totally not seeing that in the article.

I'm tired of these Twinkies telling me how to take care of my Ho Ho's. Those Suzy Q's can suck my Ding Dong.

wingnut396: I'm confused... did the union buy Hostess while it was healthy and nearly debt free, borrow a whole bunch of money as Hostess, pay itself crazy consulting fees and then shut down Hostess? I'm totally not seeing that in the article.

Now I'm confused. How is "paying yourself crazy consulting fees" and "getting paid crazy amounts of salary and benefits to drive around in a truck and deliver bread and unhealthy snacks" any different in principle?

The author's a moron. In 2004, when these assholes went into bankruptcy the first time, the longest bankruptcy in U.S. history, those very same unions gave up huge concessions to ensure that the company would stay afloat and emerge from bankruptcy as a viable entity. The unions worked with the new owners for half a decade under some rather onerous circumstances, such as firing a third of their entire workforce, to make that happen.

Two years later, now that the assholes have once again run it into the ground, they once again want the unions to bend over & take it. Why? Their biggest creditor, to the tune of nearly a billion dollars, is the pension fund for the very union that helped them emerge from bankruptcy.

I say, let 'em crash. I think that's the point the unions have arrived at, as well.

Rapmaster2000: I'm tired of these Twinkies telling me how to take care of my Ho Ho's. Those Suzy Q's can suck my Ding Dong.

If Hostess would bring back the Suzy Q, just my own purchases would render them viable once more. But, nooooo...

Fark 'em. The Biatch Slap of Capitalism needs to finish its swing.

TruckeeTrees: wingnut396: I'm confused... did the union buy Hostess while it was healthy and nearly debt free, borrow a whole bunch of money as Hostess, pay itself crazy consulting fees and then shut down Hostess? I'm totally not seeing that in the article.

Now I'm confused. How is "paying yourself crazy consulting fees" and "getting paid crazy amounts of salary and benefits to drive around in a truck and deliver bread and unhealthy snacks" any different in principle?

Only was committing barely legal fraud which was later outlawed due to the damaging impact it had on the economy. The other just makes you wish you had taken that negotiations class more seriously.

mitEj: dear farking retarded subby.

Q: Who owns Hostess Brands?
A: Our largest owner is Ripplewood Holdings, LLC., a private equity firm out of New York, NY.

from hostes's site

Pwned.

TruckeeTrees: wingnut396: I'm confused... did the union buy Hostess while it was healthy and nearly debt free, borrow a whole bunch of money as Hostess, pay itself crazy consulting fees and then shut down Hostess? I'm totally not seeing that in the article.

Now I'm confused. How is "paying yourself crazy consulting fees" and "getting paid crazy amounts of salary and benefits to drive around in a truck and deliver bread and unhealthy snacks" any different in principle?

Yes, setting a up shell company for the sole purpose of siphoning borrowed money from another company is EXACTLY the same as a guy getting paid $15/hr and wanting to make sure his kids have an affordable dentists.

Exactly
The
Same.

Whoa!

farking over the American worker is fine so long as you tithe a little

FormlessOne: I say, let 'em crash. I think that's the point the unions have arrived at, as well.

Yeah, but that means the company goes under, so the union still loses. It's lose-lose.

Lsherm: FormlessOne: I say, let 'em crash. I think that's the point the unions have arrived at, as well.

Yeah, but that means the company goes under, so the union still loses. It's lose-lose.

No, actually it means the union gets to protect their pension fund - if the company goes under, the company's assets are sold off to pay off their creditors, and the union's pension fund is their largest unsecured creditor. The company's screwed the union's pension fund to the tune of nearly a billion dollars.

Think about it - if, only two years after helping the company come out of the longest bankruptcy in U.S. history (at the time), the company's threatening to go under again if the union doesn't cough up even more pain & suffering, there's little chance that the company's going to stay afloat no matter what you do.

it's good business to stop these idiots from squandering any more of your time & money, cut your losses, recoup what you can, and move on. If they owe you a billion dollars, and they're now threatening you with the loss of your job unless you give them more money & concessions, sometimes the best answer is "fark you, I'll see you in court." Yeah, it means you'll have to find another job in a recession, but the reward is knowing full well that you, and your coworkers, will still be able to friggin' retire.

AdolfOliverPanties: When anybody does it, it's bad, subby.

Are we supposed to elect the business killing, job-ending lying Mitt Romney because Hostess can't manage their business?

Companies go bankrupt. Companies collapse. Companies stop being profitable. What is it about this fact that liberals fail to understand? NOT EVERY BUSINESS CAN LAST FOREVER. You are the reason the idea "too big to fail" exists.

TofuTheAlmighty: Conservatives always expound that the lifeblood of capitalism is innovation. What innovations did Bain Capital (and other vulture capitalist groups) produce?

They're glorified paper pushers. They are, by definition, middle men and our laws reward them handsomely. Modern conservatives worship Mammon so abjectly that altering the status quo - to cease exorbitantly rewarding paper pushers - is akin to extolling the benefits of child rape.

That evil Bain, taking companies on the verge of collapse and attempting to turn them around. If there is no chance, oh no they liquidate. Seriously, what is wrong with this. Businesses go boom and bust all the farking time. Grow up. Life isn't some grand pony show where nothing bad ever happens. I can see you already didn't actually check into Bain's success ratio on turning businesses profitable again.

FormlessOne: Lsherm: FormlessOne: I say, let 'em crash. I think that's the point the unions have arrived at, as well.

Yeah, but that means the company goes under, so the union still loses. It's lose-lose.

No, actually it means the union gets to protect their pension fund - if the company goes under, the company's assets are sold off to pay off their creditors, and the union's pension fund is their largest unsecured creditor. The company's screwed the union's pension fund to the tune of nearly a billion dollars.

Think about it - if, only two years after helping the company come out of the longest bankruptcy in U.S. history (at the time), the company's threatening to go under again if the union doesn't cough up even more pain & suffering, there's little chance that the company's going to stay afloat no matter what you do.

it's good business to stop these idiots from squandering any more of your time & money, cut your losses, recoup what you can, and move on. If they owe you a billion dollars, and they're now threatening you with the loss of your job unless you give them more money & concessions, sometimes the best answer is "fark you, I'll see you in court." Yeah, it means you'll have to find another job in a recession, but the reward is knowing full well that you, and your coworkers, will still be able to friggin' retire.

I get all that, but they're still going to get screwed. Even if they liquidate the company other creditors are going to get paid first. The union just gets what's left.

Lsherm: FormlessOne: Lsherm: FormlessOne: I say, let 'em crash. I think that's the point the unions have arrived at, as well.

Yeah, but that means the company goes under, so the union still loses. It's lose-lose.

No, actually it means the union gets to protect their pension fund - if the company goes under, the company's assets are sold off to pay off their creditors, and the union's pension fund is their largest unsecured creditor. The company's screwed the union's pension fund to the tune of nearly a billion dollars.

Think about it - if, only two years after helping the company come out of the longest bankruptcy in U.S. history (at the time), the company's threatening to go under again if the union doesn't cough up even more pain & suffering, there's little chance that the company's going to stay afloat no matter what you do.

it's good business to stop these idiots from squandering any more of your time & money, cut your losses, recoup what you can, and move on. If they owe you a billion dollars, and they're now threatening you with the loss of your job unless you give them more money & concessions, sometimes the best answer is "fark you, I'll see you in court." Yeah, it means you'll have to find another job in a recession, but the reward is knowing full well that you, and your coworkers, will still be able to friggin' retire.

I get all that, but they're still going to get screwed. Even if they liquidate the company other creditors are going to get paid first. The union just gets what's left.

Exactly. The union can take their ball and go home and get a piece of whatever's left in bankruptcy (oh by the way losing their job) or they can take more concessions and hope that the business turns itself around with a better cost structure.

mitEj: MyRandomName: AdolfOliverPanties: When anybody does it, it's bad, subby.

Are we supposed to elect the business killing, job-ending lying Mitt Romney because Hostess can't manage their business?

Companies go bankrupt. Companies collapse. Companies stop being profitable. What is it about this fact that liberals fail to understand? NOT EVERY BUSINESS CAN LAST FOREVER. You are the reason the idea "too big to fail" exists.

Dear random name.

Hostess is being killed by a Venture Capital Firm. Exactly like Bain capital would do.

Please do just a touch of research before making judgments. Ripplewood Holdings, LLC., a private equity firm out of New York, NY. is the primary owner of the company. They have taken a profitable company and TWICE now run it into bankruptcy specifically so they can raid the billion dollar pension that is the jucy filling that they want. However until they get that they have run up a few hundred million dollars in "fees" that had to be paid by accruing new debt.

before it was leveraged by them hostess was a profitable company. Think logically about it, they are a company that makes some of the most popular addictive junk food in America, it is a recipe for profit.

No, they were a public company until their bankruptcy in 2009, when Ripplewood (among others) bought them. Ripplewood took a shot at turning the company around after their bankruptcy, but has apparently failed.

What's with the random use of bold font in the article?

mitEj: Debeo Summa Credo: mitEj:

No, they were a public company until their bankruptcy in 2009, when Ripplewood (among others) bought them. Ripplewood took a shot at turning the company around after their bankruptcy, but has apparently failed.

I looked into it a bit more and it is a twisted odd story.
The have been both public and private about 5 times since forming.

and currently they have outstanding debt to private capital companies to the tune of 700 million.


they are boned. Looks like a combination of extended bad management combined with some venture capital harvesting.

Unfortunately I couldn't find more financial information online.

Pretty clear that they were a public company until they filed bankruptcy in 2005. Ripplewood and other PE firms and investors provided capital to exit bankruptcy in 2009, but haven't been able to turn it around. You should have done more research before accusing the other guy of not doing research.

Link (new window)

For whatever reason ("bad management", unsustainable business model, uncompetitive price structure), the company couldn't make a go of it either when public or when taken private. That's the way it goes. PE firms take chances on riskier firms - sometimes it works out and makes a profit, other times the firms fail.

Regardless, it seems that in this instance the lesson regarding PE firms is the exact opposite of the one you are drawing. If it weren't for outside financing in 2009 provided by Ripplewood and others, the company would have liquidated then. Instead, those workers who are still employed have kept their jobs for another 3 years.

Sorry, should have clarified - they were a public company from the mid-90s until they went bankrupt.

In any case, your statement "before it was leveraged by them hostess was a profitable company" is clearly and obviously untrue. They declared bankruptcy before Ripplewood was in the picture.

So how much money did Bain lose with the failed business' exactly? I mean its a risk right? If the company fails they lose money right? Right?

Subby, your blog sucks like a chicken mcnugget crack whore.