Hehe, so Romney is a Democrat and Obama is a Conservative.

The things I learn on Fark.

I don't understand why Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bain anyway.

GAT_00: Whoopty shiat. Doesn't change Romney bragging about firing people.

what is wrong with firing people?
there are a lot of people in government that need to be fired.

RolandGunner: GAT_00: Whoopty shiat. Doesn't change Romney bragging about firing people.

So if you bring in a plumber to fix a leak and he doesn't know what the fark he's doing, doesn't it make you happy that you can fire him and call a different plumber? Because that is what Romney ACTUALLY said.

Actual quote:

"It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I'm going to go get somebody else to provide that service to me."

He apparently also really likes hiring skilled people who do a good job. He's the worlds greatest monster....

And another conservatroll pulls the Jesus treatment by resurrecting from the dead. Say, does anybody know what happened to our Resident Internet Dentist?

skullkrusher: I don't understand why Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bain anyway.

MugzyBrown: I can't stand Romney, but this Bain Capital issue is idiotic.

If you cut 20% of a 1,000 person workforce to make a business profitable, in the end you're saving 800 jobs as much as you're cutting 200 250 jobs.

Sorry, pet peeve.

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: I don't understand why Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bain anyway.

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 510x310]

hehe hadn't seen that.... that's pretty douchey

MugzyBrown: I can't stand Romney, but this Bain Capital issue is idiotic.

If you cut 20% of a 1,000 person workforce to make a business profitable, in the end you're saving 800 jobs as much as you're cutting 200 jobs.

The whole idea that the economy is nothing more than an aggregate of the number of jobs is moronic.

As Ron Paul tried to explain last night. Moving 100,000 jobs from China to the US is not always a good thing, if it raises the price of electronics by 20%. What's better for the economy having 100,000 manufacturing jobs, or saving 200,000,000 consumers 20% on their electronics?

Uhh buy USA!!!

It wouldn't be an issue if he hadn't boasted about all the jobs he created there.

MugzyBrown: I can't stand Romney, but this Bain Capital issue is idiotic.

If you cut 20% of a 1,000 person workforce to make a business profitable, in the end you're saving 800 jobs as much as you're cutting 200 jobs.

The whole idea that the economy is nothing more than an aggregate of the number of jobs is moronic.

As Ron Paul tried to explain last night. Moving 100,000 jobs from China to the US is not always a good thing, if it raises the price of electronics by 20%. What's better for the economy having 100,000 manufacturing jobs, or saving 200,000,000 consumers 20% on their electronics?

Uhh buy USA!!!

Unemployment is good.

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Philip Francis Queeg :

Because people with money are evil?? Or White men are evil?? Or Fraternities are evil?? I dont understand the relevance?

RolandGunner: GAT_00: Whoopty shiat. Doesn't change Romney bragging about firing people.


So if you bring in a plumber to fix a leak and he doesn't know what the fark he's doing, doesn't it make you happy that you can fire him and call a different plumber? Because that is what Romney ACTUALLY said.

Actual quote:

"It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I'm going to go get somebody else to provide that service to me."

He apparently also really likes hiring skilled people who do a good job. He's the worlds greatest monster....

Whatever dude. Don't quit your day job to write negative ads for political campaigns. You throw away all context to make a quote seem as sinister/stupid as you want it to be.

Romney said he takes joy in firing hard working american workers. He admits to exhibiting child-like glee in taking away the livelihood of his social inferiors in order to increase his own income by a tenth of a percent. Just like Al Gore said that he personally came up with the concept of the internet while taking a dump in 1982 and built it all from scratch in his spare time.

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: I don't understand why Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bain anyway.

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 510x310]

hehe hadn't seen that.... that's pretty douchey

It manages to be less impressive than the Icy Hot Stuntaz. There's 7 guys there and they're flashing a total of what, $300? Romney and the dickbag with a bill in his ear even have to share one of the twenties.

MugzyBrown: I can't stand Romney, but this Bain Capital issue is idiotic.

If you cut 20% of a 1,000 person workforce to make a business profitable, in the end you're saving 800 jobs as much as you're cutting 200 jobs.

The whole idea that the economy is nothing more than an aggregate of the number of jobs is moronic.

As Ron Paul tried to explain last night. Moving 100,000 jobs from China to the US is not always a good thing, if it raises the price of electronics by 20%. What's better for the economy having 100,000 manufacturing jobs, or saving 200,000,000 consumers 20% on their electronics?

Uhh buy USA!!!

What if you only need to cut 100 jobs to make the company viable but you cut 300 so you get a couple extra million dollars as a bonus. Is that still ok?

Serious Black:

And another conservatroll pulls the Jesus treatment by resurrecting from the dead. Say, does anybody know what happened to our Resident Internet Dentist?

1/10

Carth: MugzyBrown: I can't stand Romney, but this Bain Capital issue is idiotic.

If you cut 20% of a 1,000 person workforce to make a business profitable, in the end you're saving 800 jobs as much as you're cutting 200 jobs.

The whole idea that the economy is nothing more than an aggregate of the number of jobs is moronic.

As Ron Paul tried to explain last night. Moving 100,000 jobs from China to the US is not always a good thing, if it raises the price of electronics by 20%. What's better for the economy having 100,000 manufacturing jobs, or saving 200,000,000 consumers 20% on their electronics?

Uhh buy USA!!!

What if you only need to cut 100 jobs to make the company viable but you cut 300 so you get a couple extra million dollars as a bonus. Is that still ok?

If the company is more profitable with fewer workers, then those workers aren't adding incremental value to the company and should be let go.

You say ACCEPTED as though either party picks and chooses whose money they will take. Better said that Bain GAVE more to Democrats, which proves that they better support Bain's view of capitalism (and in no way is just a cheap attempt to BUY the opposition)

An ancient story about a harmless dog incident and a derpgasm over not knowing what venture capitalism is. Can you speds just go after some real Romney issues so you aren't being everything you've always reviled?

MugzyBrown: What if you only need to cut 100 jobs to make the company viable but you cut 300 so you get a couple extra million dollars as a bonus. Is that still ok?

Well that doesn't make any sense, but yes it's their money at stake.

If you cut 3x's more jobs you need to, the company would probably make even less money due to the inability to service the clients, but it's your dream world, so whatever.

Maybe thats why a fifth of the companies Bain buys go bankrupt after 8 years

Debeo Summa Credo: Carth: MugzyBrown: I can't stand Romney, but this Bain Capital issue is idiotic.

If you cut 20% of a 1,000 person workforce to make a business profitable, in the end you're saving 800 jobs as much as you're cutting 200 jobs.

The whole idea that the economy is nothing more than an aggregate of the number of jobs is moronic.

As Ron Paul tried to explain last night. Moving 100,000 jobs from China to the US is not always a good thing, if it raises the price of electronics by 20%. What's better for the economy having 100,000 manufacturing jobs, or saving 200,000,000 consumers 20% on their electronics?

Uhh buy USA!!!

What if you only need to cut 100 jobs to make the company viable but you cut 300 so you get a couple extra million dollars as a bonus. Is that still ok?

If the company is more profitable with fewer workers, then those workers aren't adding incremental value to the company and should be let go.

And what if the company is more profitable paying the CEO only 100 times the average worker pay rather than 200 times?

CPennypacker: MugzyBrown: What if you only need to cut 100 jobs to make the company viable but you cut 300 so you get a couple extra million dollars as a bonus. Is that still ok?

Well that doesn't make any sense, but yes it's their money at stake.

If you cut 3x's more jobs you need to, the company would probably make even less money due to the inability to service the clients, but it's your dream world, so whatever.

Maybe thats why a fifth of the companies Bain buys go bankrupt after 8 years

Couldn't be that the whole effing idea is to take over companies THAT ARE ABOUT TO BUCKLE ANYWAY. You're literate. You a mostly rational human being from what I've seen. Why the hell do you buy into this idiocy?

CPennypacker: MugzyBrown: What if you only need to cut 100 jobs to make the company viable but you cut 300 so you get a couple extra million dollars as a bonus. Is that still ok?

Well that doesn't make any sense, but yes it's their money at stake.

If you cut 3x's more jobs you need to, the company would probably make even less money due to the inability to service the clients, but it's your dream world, so whatever.

Maybe thats why a fifth of the companies Bain buys go bankrupt after 8 years

That was my followup. Bain was in the business of short term profits and bonuses not creating long term stable companies.

I agree that the whole Bain Capital kerfuffle is kind of stupid (although it's been fun watching Republicans beat up their own frontrunner for being too Republican). However, I think it's important to mention that the contributions discussed here aren't from Bain Capital per se, but rather consist mostly of individuals donations from people who just happen to be employed there. Any time you see a story claiming that "candidate X received Y dollars from Z Corporation," remember that it really means that employees of Z Corporation contributed their own money.

BloodySaxon: CPennypacker: MugzyBrown: What if you only need to cut 100 jobs to make the company viable but you cut 300 so you get a couple extra million dollars as a bonus. Is that still ok?

Well that doesn't make any sense, but yes it's their money at stake.

If you cut 3x's more jobs you need to, the company would probably make even less money due to the inability to service the clients, but it's your dream world, so whatever.

Maybe thats why a fifth of the companies Bain buys go bankrupt after 8 years

Couldn't be that the whole effing idea is to take over companies THAT ARE ABOUT TO BUCKLE ANYWAY. You're literate. You a mostly rational human being from what I've seen. Why the hell do you buy into this idiocy?

Let's clear the air. The purpose of private equity is not to create jobs. It is not to create value. It is not to fix companies.

The only purpose of private equity is to make a profit. Sometimes, the situation a company is in leads the private equity firm buying them to share their goals and implement initiatives that will return them to long term profitability. Sometimes it will not. That is of absolutely no concern to a private equity firm. Do I think it should be illegal? Not necessarily. But if you are bragging about job creation, then your record on jobs will be examined. If you don't want it examined then you need to keep your rmouth shut and just talk about how good you were at running the business at Bain and keep job numbers out of it.

Debeo Summa Credo: Carth: MugzyBrown: I can't stand Romney, but this Bain Capital issue is idiotic.

If you cut 20% of a 1,000 person workforce to make a business profitable, in the end you're saving 800 jobs as much as you're cutting 200 jobs.

The whole idea that the economy is nothing more than an aggregate of the number of jobs is moronic.

As Ron Paul tried to explain last night. Moving 100,000 jobs from China to the US is not always a good thing, if it raises the price of electronics by 20%. What's better for the economy having 100,000 manufacturing jobs, or saving 200,000,000 consumers 20% on their electronics?

Uhh buy USA!!!

What if you only need to cut 100 jobs to make the company viable but you cut 300 so you get a couple extra million dollars as a bonus. Is that still ok?

If the company is more profitable with fewer workers, then those workers aren't adding incremental value to the company and should be let go.

Do you really think paying a CEO $50 million attracts better talent than paying them $49 million? Why is it more acceptable to fire 200 workers than reduce the CEO's pay 2% like they do in other countries.

MugzyBrown: Maybe thats why a fifth of the companies Bain buys go bankrupt after 8 years

So based on your years of managing VC firms, you believe Bain makes their money by slashing employees to the point that companies go bankrupt and thus lose their whole investment?


YES!!! We succesfully ran another company into the ground and lost $30mm for our investors! Bain wins again!

Who said Bain still owns them when they go bankrupt?

BMulligan: I agree that the whole Bain Capital kerfuffle is kind of stupid (although it's been fun watching Republicans beat up their own frontrunner for being too Republican).

Yup, the only way it makes any sense to criticize Romney over it is for pointing out that he made money sending jobs overseas while he advocates all kinds of Buy American nonsense as a candidate...a minor point of hypocrisy at best. I doubly can't care about it since I don't see globalization as a problem; I'd rather we not rely on nationalistic pride to drive our economic decisions.

MugzyBrown: CPennypacker: Let's clear the air. The purpose of private equity is not to create jobs. It is not to create value. It is not to fix companies. The only purpose of private equity is to make a profit

Do you get paid to go to work?
Would you go to work every day if you left with less money than when you started?
Do the stakeholders of your employer want to make money?

What are you talking about. People go into business to make money.

I don't get your point

sprawl15: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: I don't understand why Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bain anyway.

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 510x310]

hehe hadn't seen that.... that's pretty douchey

It manages to be less impressive than the Icy Hot Stuntaz. There's 7 guys there and they're flashing a total of what, $300? Romney and the dickbag with a bill in his ear even have to share one of the twenties.

making it drizzle up in here!

MugzyBrown: CPennypacker: Who said Bain still owns them when they go bankrupt?

So you believe Bain is so awesome that they can:

Purchase a failing company
Slash the employees to the point they can no longer operate on any level to the brink of bankrupcy
Then sell the company
And profit


In what world is this possible? If the company is worse off after Bain, how do they make money selling it?

No, I'm saying that they bring it to short term profitability and then sell it. It's not sinister, they just have no regard for viability or profitability past their investment horizon. Why should they?

MugzyBrown: CPennypacker: don't get your point

Obviously

Would you go to work if when you left for the day, you had less money than when you started?
No of course not

Why would Bain want to purchase a company so that they can lose money?
They wouldn't

Your whole anti-Bain stance was boiled down to: The purpose of private equity is not to create jobs. It is not to create value. It is not to fix companies. The only purpose of private equity is to make a profit


Your whole point of going to work is to earn money. Bain's point of buying business is to earn money. Every employers point is to earn money.

No, you misunderstand me, because I am not making an anti-Bain point. I am making a "Romney has no business talking about jobs he created, and if he does his critics have every right to bring up Bain" point.

GAT_00: Whoopty shiat. Doesn't change Romney bragging about firing people.


There's plenty to criticize Romney for without resorting to dishonest crap like what you did right there.

And subby has a valid point that you're dismissing like a good partisan. The influence of wealthy interests has thoroughly infiltrated and corrupted our entire political landscape, not just Republicans or Democrats. Allowing them to feed you talking points to keep you demonizing one side over the other misses entirely the true extent of the problem. Both parties need big changes - big changes as in... they need to be replaced.

skullkrusher: sprawl15: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: I don't understand why Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Bain anyway.

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 510x310]

hehe hadn't seen that.... that's pretty douchey

It manages to be less impressive than the Icy Hot Stuntaz. There's 7 guys there and they're flashing a total of what, $300? Romney and the dickbag with a bill in his ear even have to share one of the twenties.

making it drizzle up in here!

They seem like the kind of assholes who go to Cold Stone and put 17 cents in the tip jar, then glare at the people until they sing.

MugzyBrown: CPennypacker: Who said Bain still owns them when they go bankrupt?

So you believe Bain is so awesome that they can:

Purchase a failing company
Slash the employees to the point they can no longer operate on any level to the brink of bankrupcy
Then sell the company
And profit


In what world is this possible? If the company is worse off after Bain, how do they make money selling it?

Actually, that's exactly how they work, dude. The first thing they do is take out huge loans with the purchased company as collateral. Then they do stuff to the company to change it, then they pay themselves, then they see if the company goes bankrupt. Sometimes the company doesn't go bankrupt, sometimes it does. The point is that they get paid huge amounts of money whether or not their purchased companies survive. That's anti-competitive, because the risk:reward ratio is out of wack.

MugzyBrown: Unfortunately, 100% of their investments don't work out, so they have to close it down. But on the balance, they have to be creating or saving (Obama) more jobs than they get rid of, or else Bain would have been out of business a long time ago.

sometimes that road to profitability does involve outsourcing of jobs and/or cutting payroll as well. However, if that outsourcing saves a failing company by slashing costs and making them more competitive, then it saves that jobs that would otherwise be lost to failure not to mention the jobs that can be created in the future as the stronger company expands again.

Yeah, but that's all PR Robin Hood -n- shiat.

MugzyBrown: CPennypacker: No, I'm saying that they bring it to short term profitability and then sell it. It's not sinister, they just have no regard for viability or profitability past their investment horizon. Why should they?

You don't have any conception on how it works.

When VC enters, they don't get the keys for free. They have to buy the company. They have to buy the equipment. They have to assume the debt.

They can't make that back off of a couple of years of trimming margins.

They need to increase the value of the company so they can sell it for a profit.

Increasing the value of the company is GOOD. That means it's more profitable. It means jobs are more secure.

Unfortunately, 100% of their investments don't work out, so they have to close it down. But on the balance, they have to be creating or saving (Obama) more jobs than they get rid of, or else Bain would have been out of business a long time ago.

I do understand how VC works, I really do. Like I said, its not sinister, but what brings a company to profitability isn't always what makes Bain a profit. Why do you keep harping on how VC works but you refuse to address the simple point that Romney taking credit for the jobs created under Bain but not the jobs lost under Bain is hypocrisy?

GAT_00: Whoopty shiat. Doesn't change Romney bragging about firing people.

But if we're being honest, he said he liked being able to fire people who don't provide the level of service he's paying for.

So do you.

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Carth: MugzyBrown: I can't stand Romney, but this Bain Capital issue is idiotic.

If you cut 20% of a 1,000 person workforce to make a business profitable, in the end you're saving 800 jobs as much as you're cutting 200 jobs.

The whole idea that the economy is nothing more than an aggregate of the number of jobs is moronic.

As Ron Paul tried to explain last night. Moving 100,000 jobs from China to the US is not always a good thing, if it raises the price of electronics by 20%. What's better for the economy having 100,000 manufacturing jobs, or saving 200,000,000 consumers 20% on their electronics?

Uhh buy USA!!!

What if you only need to cut 100 jobs to make the company viable but you cut 300 so you get a couple extra million dollars as a bonus. Is that still ok?

If the company is more profitable with fewer workers, then those workers aren't adding incremental value to the company and should be let go.

And what if the company is more profitable paying the CEO only 100 times the average worker pay rather than 200 times?

Then clearly the company should only pay 100x the average worker pay. Conversely, if the hiring the 200x guy rather than the 100x guy would yield a better result for owners even after that incremental pay, then they should hire the 200x guy.

MugzyBrown: CapnBlues: Actually, that's exactly how they work, dude. The first thing they do is take out huge loans with the purchased company as collateral. Then they do stuff to the company to change it, then they pay themselves, then they see if the company goes bankrupt. Sometimes the company doesn't go bankrupt, sometimes it does. The point is that they get paid huge amounts of money whether or not their purchased companies survive. That's anti-competitive, because the risk:reward ratio is out of wack

That doesn't make any sense.

Take out $50mm loan
Pay myself $30mm
Company goes bankrupt
Default on my loan
Never get another loan

Loans need to be repaid ya know

They don't take out the loan themselves, they have the company take out the loan.