Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   While the media is busily covering the staged NAACP fauxtroversy, someone has actually bothered to look at Romney's financial disclosures, and he may be guilty of a felony   (politico.com) divider line 510
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

5960 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jul 2012 at 10:03 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



510 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-12 01:05:50 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: I believe this will be the outcome regardless of everything else. Right or wrong, legal or illegal, within the framework of American electoral politics these terms become completely meaningless. I asked the question "at what point do you investigate" because really, at this time, I don't think you arrive at that point ever. It's always a day away.


Maybe if there was a missing hot white chick. With a hot white chick mother, grieving on TV. Who did a Maxim spread to raise money to pay investigators.

Kidding aside, I'm not quite that pessimistic (though maybe close). If there was a clear victim to point to and say "that action hurt that person", I think there'd be more criminal investigation of this.

Philip Francis Queeg: Does reducing your tax burden somehow justify making false statements to the SEC?


Yes. All tax is theft, so Galt shall not recognize the authority of the SEC and therefore all things are permitted so long as you're doing it to the government or poor people.
 
2012-07-12 01:05:59 PM  

Giltric: Explain his day to day role in the company if he was still managing it.Please include citations.


How about the SEC filing stating that he was the sole shareholder, CEO and managing director? If he was not at the company, who was fulfilling those duties?
 
2012-07-12 01:07:52 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Then how on earth was Romney the sole shareholder? How were these investors paid back?


Not sure. I guess that means he lied to the SEC too.

Giltric: Explain his day to day role in the company if he was still managing it.Please include citations.


Nobody here is clairvoyant. That's why a full investigation needs to happen, so facts can be uncovered.
 
2012-07-12 01:09:28 PM  

js34603: amiable: js34603:
No, just no. This will be forgotten by the end of the month and I pity the Democrats if they try to ride this to the election because it is going to look pretty damn pathetic for them to be talking about "possible" "maybe" false SEC forms that result in absolutely no real investigaton or action. This will be just another talking point, Romney's supporters will ignore it and spin it away, Obama's supporters will probably still be acting indignant about it on Fark.

Meanwhile Romney's massive campaign chest will be running a non stop media blitz hammering the President about the economy, unemployment and (hypocritically and hilariously) about the ACA trying desperately to pull in undecided voters that will determine the election.


I disagree... I don't care how much money romney has, there is only so much media saturation you can achieve.

Think of the things this story gives Obama:

1. If Romney says that while he was in-name charge of Bain, he really didn't know what was going on, Obama can ask if this is how he's going to run the country.
2. If Romney says that some underling misfiled these, then Obama can talk about how Romney is willing to blame others to save his skin.
3. Anything else Romney says can be labeled as mismanagement.

It also fits nicely into the narrative that he is a super-rich dude who doesn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. You are grossly underestimating the legs this story has.
 
2012-07-12 01:09:33 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Because there are differences in how you get taxed whether its a paycheck, a capital gain or "profit".

That has nothing to do with whether or not Romney was in charge of Bain as the SEC filings show from 2001 and 2002.

Sure it does. Especially when you see that huge glaring tell that says "SOLE SHAREHOLDER"

Explain how that means he wasn't in charge of the company in 2001 and 2002, as Romney and his campaign have repeatedly claimed.

Explain his day to day role in the company if he was still managing it.Please include citations.


So then you don't think that Romney should get any positive credit for what happened during any part of his tenure at Bain then?
 
2012-07-12 01:13:22 PM  
None of this is shocking to anyone who understands how businesses operate.

In 1999 Romney is the sole shareholder of Bain Capital - he "owns" the whole company. He wants to go off and help with the Olympics. If he does that and sells his shares the entire ownership of the company changes, which has a huge impact on everything the company does (many corporate contracts have provisions that end the contract if there's a change in ownership in a company.) That would be a massive undertaking - and if Romney wants to come back, it's another mess to sell the entire company back to him.

So what do you do? You keep Romney in his technical title. He's not actively participating in the company at all - others are running it. But he's still on the books as owning the company because he still holds his shares. He's basically an absentee landlord - there may even have been a document formally delegating all his powers to someone else.

In 2002, he decides to formally leave Bain - then he formally transfers his titles and shares to someone else.

It's funny watching a bunch of people with no clue how business works instantly proclaim a fairly routine transaction a "felony" because a Republican happened to have done it.

And once again, the American people care more about what Obama has done to their bank accounts than what Mitt Romney has done with his. But hey, keep the Obama Distraction Express chugging right along there - maybe David Axelrod will feed you more shiat for the locomotive next week.
 
2012-07-12 01:13:48 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: Not sure. I guess that means he lied to the SEC too.


And you don't think the SEC would have caught this, oh, I don't know, back in 2001? Or in the 11 following years? The SEC does not take kindly to false 10-K filings.

Or any of the shareholders that reviewed these documents? Where were the lawsuits?

Occam's Razor would tell us that some people don't have the tiniest clue what they are talking about when they say Romney was the sole shareholder of Bain Capital.

It is literally almost impossible for a company to attract investors without being able to issue stock.
 
2012-07-12 01:14:02 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: sammyk: cameroncrazy1984: sammyk: Suppose its true. Suppose there is overwhelming evidence and it looks like a slam dunk case. Does the DOJ dare go after it? It would make Obama look like a power hungry freak that will do anything and everything to get re-elected. It's not just fuel to the fire for wingnuts. It's freaking rocket fuel.

Okay. So the wingnuts will vote for him twice? Because of that?

I'm not so sure you thought that scenario all the way through.

You don't think moderates and independents would see a sitting president prosecuting a challenger during an election year as scumbag political BS? Hell I support Obama but that would go a long way in making me consider voting 3rd party in protest. Sure it's throwing my vote away. But it would be very difficult for me to consider supporting him any further.

/does not subscribe to party before country

So you believe that all nominees should be immune from prosecution even if there is evidence of a criminal act?


No I do not think they should be immune from prosecution. But you simply cannot remove the politics from such a prosecution. On the flip side I never want to see a president use the DOJ to attack opponents for political gain. It's a tightrope any president would have to walk and I would hope they use good judgment on any such decision. President Ford granting a pardon to Nixon and Obama refusing to investigate GWB officials for war crimes and torture are examples of Presidents showing restraint in the power of prosecution. You may disagree but I think those decisions were the right thing for the country. At the time they made those choices it was better for the country to try and move forward as opposed to dwelling on the past and creating political circus's.
 
2012-07-12 01:16:36 PM  
SEC filings Bain

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/892058/000092701600002483/0000 9 27016-00-002483-0001.txt

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1054290/000092701601001009/000 0 927016-01-001009-0001.txt
 
2012-07-12 01:17:09 PM  

sammyk: Philip Francis Queeg: sammyk: cameroncrazy1984: sammyk: Suppose its true. Suppose there is overwhelming evidence and it looks like a slam dunk case. Does the DOJ dare go after it? It would make Obama look like a power hungry freak that will do anything and everything to get re-elected. It's not just fuel to the fire for wingnuts. It's freaking rocket fuel.

Okay. So the wingnuts will vote for him twice? Because of that?

I'm not so sure you thought that scenario all the way through.

You don't think moderates and independents would see a sitting president prosecuting a challenger during an election year as scumbag political BS? Hell I support Obama but that would go a long way in making me consider voting 3rd party in protest. Sure it's throwing my vote away. But it would be very difficult for me to consider supporting him any further.

/does not subscribe to party before country

So you believe that all nominees should be immune from prosecution even if there is evidence of a criminal act?

No I do not think they should be immune from prosecution. But you simply cannot remove the politics from such a prosecution. On the flip side I never want to see a president use the DOJ to attack opponents for political gain. It's a tightrope any president would have to walk and I would hope they use good judgment on any such decision. President Ford granting a pardon to Nixon and Obama refusing to investigate GWB officials for war crimes and torture are examples of Presidents showing restraint in the power of prosecution. You may disagree but I think those decisions were the right thing for the country. At the time they made those choices it was better for the country to try and move forward as opposed to dwelling on the past and creating political circus's.


So how do you feel about going after Eric Holder? Should the Republicans be showing restraint and try to move the country forward?
 
2012-07-12 01:17:46 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: sammyk: Hell I support Obama but that would go a long way in making me consider voting 3rd party in protest.

Even if Romney actually committed a crime? Where's the line on that one? At what point does a potential crime become heinous enough to warrant investigation?


That is a tough call and I am not the person to make it. I would simply hope any sitting president would put the good of the country before the good of his/her party and re-election chances.
 
2012-07-12 01:17:55 PM  

WombatControl: If he does that and sells his shares the entire ownership of the company changes, which has a huge impact on everything the company does (many corporate contracts have provisions that end the contract if there's a change in ownership in a company.) That would be a massive undertaking - and if Romney wants to come back, it's another mess to sell the entire company back to him.

So what do you do? You keep Romney in his technical title. He's not actively participating in the company at all - others are running it. But he's still on the books as owning the company because he still holds his shares. He's basically an absentee landlord - there may even have been a document formally delegating all his powers to someone else.


So in essence they lied to investors on the SEC filings?
 
2012-07-12 01:18:38 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Because there are differences in how you get taxed whether its a paycheck, a capital gain or "profit".

That has nothing to do with whether or not Romney was in charge of Bain as the SEC filings show from 2001 and 2002.

Sure it does. Especially when you see that huge glaring tell that says "SOLE SHAREHOLDER"

Explain how that means he wasn't in charge of the company in 2001 and 2002, as Romney and his campaign have repeatedly claimed.

Explain his day to day role in the company if he was still managing it.Please include citations.

So then you don't think that Romney should get any positive credit for what happened during any part of his tenure at Bain then?


No iI believe Bain has saved some companies (Dominoes, Burger King, Staples,etc) and Bain had failed to save some companies even after investing and losing some of its own money on those ventures....thats the game, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose....Bain didn;t have to try to rescue those failing companies though and people could have been laid off immeidately instead of 10 years later like with that steel company the left clings onto as some sort of evidence that Bain is evil

So some people kept their jobs at a failing company alot longer then they would have if Bain had not gotten involved.....that makes Bain evil....make sure you tell that to the people who collected a salary for an extra 10 years.
 
2012-07-12 01:19:00 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Occam's Razor would tell us that some people don't have the tiniest clue what they are talking about when they say Romney was the sole shareholder of Bain Capital.


c.o0bg.com

He's the one who said it.
 
2012-07-12 01:19:59 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: ignatius_crumbcake: Not sure. I guess that means he lied to the SEC too.

And you don't think the SEC would have caught this, oh, I don't know, back in 2001? Or in the 11 following years? The SEC does not take kindly to false 10-K filings.

Or any of the shareholders that reviewed these documents? Where were the lawsuits?

Occam's Razor would tell us that some people don't have the tiniest clue what they are talking about when they say Romney was the sole shareholder of Bain Capital.

It is literally almost impossible for a company to attract investors without being able to issue stock.


So what you are saying is that Romney while Sole Share holder, was also NOT sole shareholder, and while managing the company was also NOT managing the company, and that those statements are all equally, completely factual?
 
2012-07-12 01:21:08 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: Vodka Zombie: Crime is crime. Investigate it and STFU.

sammyk was the one that felt the SEC/DOJ shouldn't investigate. DPSB was expressing puzzlement at this sentiment, and asked sammyk what the threshold should be, in sammyk's opinion, for a crime to be considered worth investigating.


Sam answer.

That is a tough call and I am not the person to make it. I would simply hope any sitting president would put the good of the country before the good of his/her party and re-election chances.
 
2012-07-12 01:21:15 PM  

barneyfifesbullet: As usual, we are supposed to be more concerned about what Romney does with his money, than with what Obama does with ours.


WombatControl: And once again, the American people care more about what Obama has done to their bank accounts than what Mitt Romney has done with his.


FALL IN
 
2012-07-12 01:22:52 PM  

otherginger: SEC filings Bain

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/892058/000092701600002483/0000 9 27016-00-002483-0001.txt

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1054290/000092701601001009/000 0 927016-01-001009-0001.txt


The first one is from 2000 and the second from 2001. Both contain the following:

"Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital."

You Romney shills were saying?
 
2012-07-12 01:23:24 PM  

Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Because there are differences in how you get taxed whether its a paycheck, a capital gain or "profit".

That has nothing to do with whether or not Romney was in charge of Bain as the SEC filings show from 2001 and 2002.

Sure it does. Especially when you see that huge glaring tell that says "SOLE SHAREHOLDER"

Explain how that means he wasn't in charge of the company in 2001 and 2002, as Romney and his campaign have repeatedly claimed.

Explain his day to day role in the company if he was still managing it.Please include citations.

So then you don't think that Romney should get any positive credit for what happened during any part of his tenure at Bain then?

No iI believe Bain has saved some companies (Dominoes, Burger King, Staples,etc) and Bain had failed to save some companies even after investing and losing some of its own money on those ventures....thats the game, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose....Bain didn;t have to try to rescue those failing companies though and people could have been laid off immeidately instead of 10 years later like with that steel company the left clings onto as some sort of evidence that Bain is evil

So some people kept their jobs at a failing company alot longer then they would have if Bain had not gotten involved.....that makes Bain evil....make sure you tell that to the people who collected a salary for an extra 10 years.


But Mitt Romney gets no credit or blame for any of those actions since no one can prove , with citations,what his role in day to day operations at Bain were, right?
 
2012-07-12 01:24:11 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Occam's Razor would tell us that some people don't have the tiniest clue what they are talking about when they say Romney was the sole shareholder of Bain Capital.

[c.o0bg.com image 640x250]

He's the one who said it.


Context is key right?

You would have to understand why he filled out the forms that way.......and sometimes the context is what makes it legit....ie legal.
 
2012-07-12 01:24:22 PM  

WombatControl: It's funny watching a bunch of people with no clue how business works instantly proclaim a fairly routine transaction a "felony" because a Republican happened to have done it.


Romney claims in paperwork filed with the federal goverment that he left Bain Capital in 1999 and was not involved in operations in any way after that.

Bain Capital's SEC filings from 2000 and 2001 - after Mitt Romney has left - say that Romney was "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, CEO, and president" despite not being involved in operations in any way.

The sole stockerholder is not involved in operations in any way? The chairman of the board? The CEO? The President? All not involved in operations in any way? Sure.
 
2012-07-12 01:26:12 PM  

Giltric: ignatius_crumbcake: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Occam's Razor would tell us that some people don't have the tiniest clue what they are talking about when they say Romney was the sole shareholder of Bain Capital.

[c.o0bg.com image 640x250]

He's the one who said it.

Context is key right?

You would have to understand why he filled out the forms that way.......and sometimes the context is what makes it legit....ie legal.


Provide some context, then.
 
2012-07-12 01:26:30 PM  
Greg Sargent at WP just mentioned that "Obama campaign counsel Bob Bauer strongly hinted that evidence of more direct involvement would soon emerge. 'I would stay very much tuned on that.'"

So if you don't think the Obama campaign isn't sitting on a pile of documents waiting to shoot down the folks defending Romney on this and keep it in the news cycle, you are a fool.
 
2012-07-12 01:28:01 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Because there are differences in how you get taxed whether its a paycheck, a capital gain or "profit".

That has nothing to do with whether or not Romney was in charge of Bain as the SEC filings show from 2001 and 2002.

Sure it does. Especially when you see that huge glaring tell that says "SOLE SHAREHOLDER"

Explain how that means he wasn't in charge of the company in 2001 and 2002, as Romney and his campaign have repeatedly claimed.

Explain his day to day role in the company if he was still managing it.Please include citations.

So then you don't think that Romney should get any positive credit for what happened during any part of his tenure at Bain then?

No iI believe Bain has saved some companies (Dominoes, Burger King, Staples,etc) and Bain had failed to save some companies even after investing and losing some of its own money on those ventures....thats the game, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose....Bain didn;t have to try to rescue those failing companies though and people could have been laid off immeidately instead of 10 years later like with that steel company the left clings onto as some sort of evidence that Bain is evil

So some people kept their jobs at a failing company alot longer then they would have if Bain had not gotten involved.....that makes Bain evil....make sure you tell that to the people who collected a salary for an extra 10 years.

But Mitt Romney gets no credit or blame for any of those actions since no one can prove , with citations,what his role in day to day operations at Bain were, right?


And people don;t understand that giving away 10 million dollars for a 3 million dollar tax credit means you have 7 million less dollars to spend.....but they understand the organization of corporations and sole shareholder SEC filings....yeah dude pass the bong.
 
2012-07-12 01:29:15 PM  

qorkfiend: The sole stockerholder is not involved in operations in any way? The chairman of the board? The CEO? The President? All not involved in operations in any way? Sure.


I'm just quoting you so I can post this again, since the last part of the sentence was left out of the Globe article:

"Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital."

He was the controlling person but was not involved in any way. Right.
 
2012-07-12 01:30:14 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: "The Obama complaint claims we erred in saying Mitt Romney gave up active management of Bain Capital in early 1999 to run the 2002 Winter Olympics, insisting we were then wrong in saying Romney was not responsible for shipping U.S. jobs overseas," FactCheck's Brooks Jackson and Robert Farley wrote in a response to the Obama campaign, which had complained about an earlier article by the authors.

"In fact, if the Obama campaign were correct, Romney would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999."

Wow. They didn't leave themselves any wiggle room with that statement. Can't really unwind that.


Which is why they went with simple denial:

"We see little new in the Globe piece. So far nobody has shown that Romney was actually managing Bain (even part-time) during his time at the Olympics, or that he was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time"

Apparently, to them it is possible to be the sole stockholder, president of the company, CEO, and chairman of the board and still be a "passive, absentee owner"
 
2012-07-12 01:31:00 PM  

qorkfiend: Giltric: ignatius_crumbcake: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Occam's Razor would tell us that some people don't have the tiniest clue what they are talking about when they say Romney was the sole shareholder of Bain Capital.

[c.o0bg.com image 640x250]

He's the one who said it.

Context is key right?

You would have to understand why he filled out the forms that way.......and sometimes the context is what makes it legit....ie legal.

Provide some context, then.



I provided more context then you already. You just choose to ignore it. All you want to do is play games and run in circles. put up or shut up since you think this scenario is illegal...you have the context for the illegalities right?
 
2012-07-12 01:31:19 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: otherginger: SEC filings Bain

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/892058/000092701600002483/0000 9 27016-00-002483-0001.txt

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1054290/000092701601001009/000 0 927016-01-001009-0001.txt

The first one is from 2000 and the second from 2001. Both contain the following:

"Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital."

You Romney shills were saying?


And yet the filings also show upwards of 10-15 additional managing directors. Yet Romney is the sole director?

Again, Occam's Razor would tell us that something is not completely understood here.
 
2012-07-12 01:31:29 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: sammyk: Philip Francis Queeg: sammyk: cameroncrazy1984: sammyk: Suppose its true. Suppose there is overwhelming evidence and it looks like a slam dunk case. Does the DOJ dare go after it? It would make Obama look like a power hungry freak that will do anything and everything to get re-elected. It's not just fuel to the fire for wingnuts. It's freaking rocket fuel.

Okay. So the wingnuts will vote for him twice? Because of that?

I'm not so sure you thought that scenario all the way through.

You don't think moderates and independents would see a sitting president prosecuting a challenger during an election year as scumbag political BS? Hell I support Obama but that would go a long way in making me consider voting 3rd party in protest. Sure it's throwing my vote away. But it would be very difficult for me to consider supporting him any further.

/does not subscribe to party before country

So you believe that all nominees should be immune from prosecution even if there is evidence of a criminal act?

No I do not think they should be immune from prosecution. But you simply cannot remove the politics from such a prosecution. On the flip side I never want to see a president use the DOJ to attack opponents for political gain. It's a tightrope any president would have to walk and I would hope they use good judgment on any such decision. President Ford granting a pardon to Nixon and Obama refusing to investigate GWB officials for war crimes and torture are examples of Presidents showing restraint in the power of prosecution. You may disagree but I think those decisions were the right thing for the country. At the time they made those choices it was better for the country to try and move forward as opposed to dwelling on the past and creating political circus's.

So how do you feel about going after Eric Holder? Should the Republicans be showing restraint and try to move the country forward?


I think that investigation is a pile of horse apples. Stinky rotten horse apples. It obvious the House investigation is not interested in the truth. They are only interested in the politics. Two years ago Daryl Issa said he was going to use his chair to investigate the Obama administration on any and everything. He was not lying.

It's a shame too. I would like to know the truth. If the ATF was in fact letting guns walk by the thousands then someone needs to held accountable. But as we have also discussed here on fark I have heard that is not the case. The ATF was merely monitoring straw purchasers and they were severely hampered by pro 2nd amendment prosecutors. So much BS has gone back and forth on the issue and almost all of it is for political gain. I can't tell what the facts are and have no idea on how we make sure it does not happen again.
 
2012-07-12 01:31:58 PM  

Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Do we know how this version of Bain is structured? Is it an S-corp or a C-corp, or is it structured in a different way that maximizes profits for its sole shareholder while minimizing liability and taxes for its shareholder at the same time?

What does that have to do with whether Romney was the sole shareholder and in control of the company in 2001 and 2002 as the filings show?

Because there are differences in how you get taxed whether its a paycheck, a capital gain or "profit".

One could have you paying very low taxes, one could have you paying very high taxes, espeically if the company consists of nothing but funds generating interest or revenue for you.

Does reducing your tax burden somehow justify making false statements to the SEC?

Has the SEC claimed they were false statements?


If his SEC statements are factual, then he lied on his campaign finance statements, which is also really bad. He's either a felon-in-waiting or a liar-liar-pants-on-fire or both.
 
2012-07-12 01:32:40 PM  
Romney's actions at the company he ran is just the left wing attacking success. Just because Romney consistently campaigns on his private sector experience doesn't mean we can actually look at what he did in the private sector. Come on!



More importantly, Obama hugged Derrick Bell in 1991. That's important. We're just vetting him. Totally relevant.
 
2012-07-12 01:33:57 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: qorkfiend: The sole stockerholder is not involved in operations in any way? The chairman of the board? The CEO? The President? All not involved in operations in any way? Sure.

I'm just quoting you so I can post this again, since the last part of the sentence was left out of the Globe article:

"Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital."

He was the controlling person but was not involved in any way. Right.


Not an untenable position. My firm's CEO is the controlling person of the firm, yet he has divested his interest in the day to day operations of the Firm to the remaining partners, one in particular. Sure, he could come back and retake control, but for now, he is not involved in the operations of the firm, yet still retains control. By the way, the last time we heard from him was in January. So we have been riding along for the past 6 months without any direction from him on our operations.

That people can't see or understand this displays a certain lack of knowledge of how large companies operate.
 
2012-07-12 01:34:55 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Again, Occam's Razor would tell us that something is not completely understood here.


Occams razor?

Please...now you will get the birthers in here claiming that with all the "mistakes" people made by listing Obama as from Kenya on all those different bios means hes actually Kenyan.
 
2012-07-12 01:35:18 PM  

amiable: Greg Sargent at WP just mentioned that "Obama campaign counsel Bob Bauer strongly hinted that evidence of more direct involvement would soon emerge. 'I would stay very much tuned on that.'"

So if you don't think the Obama campaign isn't sitting on a pile of documents waiting to shoot down the folks defending Romney on this and keep it in the news cycle, you are a fool.


I'm guessing they are giving him a little time to loudly and angrily and unambiguously go on record saying "I wasn't involved with any actual decisions during that time" after which they will produce documents showing his involvement in actual decisions. They were probably hoping that no journalists would start this ball rolling before the convention, but they are probably close enough that it will be chaos at the convention at this point if Romney has to drop out prior.
 
2012-07-12 01:35:26 PM  

Giltric: you have the context for the illegalities right?


Really? You've been this active in this thread and missed this?

c.o0bg.com

What we have here are two statements made to the government under penalty of law that appear to be directly contradictory. What other context could you possibly want?
 
2012-07-12 01:37:21 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me:
FALL IN


Hysterical. Any sighting of the original talking point yet? Rush or Freep?
 
2012-07-12 01:38:06 PM  

qorkfiend: Giltric: you have the context for the illegalities right?

Really? You've been this active in this thread and missed this?

[c.o0bg.com image 640x250]

What we have here are two statements made to the government under penalty of law that appear to be directly contradictory. What other context could you possibly want?


can you prove he had an active role after 1999?

For all we know the way he filled out the forms is legit, and legal for liability, tax and legal purposes as others and myself have mentioned.
 
2012-07-12 01:39:03 PM  

DirkValentine: I keep getting a very strange suspicion about a dark horse candidate coming out at the convention.

Anyone else?


That ain't gonna happen. The race is Obama/Biden vs. Romney/Some Boring White Guy vs. Nobody. The two party's nominees for President are set.

In related stories, Biden is will continue to be the VP nom on the Dem side, and there will be no significant third party candidate. Johnson will overperform previous Libertarian Presidential candidates somewhat, but considering how poorly LP candidates for President have done in the past (high of about 1% in 1980 with a typical LP candidate getting about .33%), that isn't hard. He might get 2% or so nationwide (max) and swing no states from Romney to Obama (he might get 5-10% in New Mexico, his home state, but Obama was going to win that anyways).
 
2012-07-12 01:40:43 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: RolandGunner: ignatius_crumbcake: skullkrusher: why would it be sarcasm? He retains his title as CEO but takes a leave of absence for the Olympics. He decides he'll never return to active management, relinquishes his title and and has effectively "retired" from Bain in 1999.

So he defrauded all of Bain's investors from 1999-2002 who thought he was running the company?

[i3.kym-cdn.com image 300x300]

Ok. Lets do this slowly.

Romney said he left Bain in 1999 and filed federal finance forms that reflected that date.

SEC filings show that he was still listed as CEO of Bain until 2002 and owned 100% of the company until 2003.

So, he either lied to the SEC or he lied on the federal finance forms.

As for the fraud...

Bain controls $66 Billion in investor funds as of 2012. At the end of 1999 that number was $4 Billion. It stands to reason that some of that growth happened during Mitt's 'questionable' years. If Mitt was holding himself out as running the company, using his name to lure in investors, then theoretically that could be considered fraud.

I really don't see how anyone can pass this off as 'no big deal,' especially since Mitt's party went apeshiat because Clinton got a beej in the Oval Office and then lied about it. How is this different?




No, no matter how many leftists that don't understand how things work say this it doesn't make it so. And the kicker is, this is all covered in the very article that the Farklibs claim as evidence to the contrary.

If you need further evidence that is written by people that understand finance instead of a blogger at one of the left-wing lice farms then try Forbes.
 
2012-07-12 01:41:16 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: Any sighting of the original talking point yet?


I heard it on NPR. A guy in the audience at one of Romney's events said it during Q&A. Day or two ago.
 
2012-07-12 01:41:23 PM  

Giltric: For all we know the way he filled out the forms is legit, and legal for liability, tax and legal purposes as others and myself have mentioned.


Then the authorities should do a full investigation and find out.
 
2012-07-12 01:41:32 PM  

Giltric: can you prove he had an active role after 1999?

For all we know the way he filled out the forms is legit, and legal for liability, tax and legal purposes as others and myself have mentioned.


For that to be the case, Romney would have to be lying about his involvement at Bain. So once again we are at the point where Romney is either a liar or a felon.
 
2012-07-12 01:42:13 PM  

Giltric: qorkfiend: Giltric: you have the context for the illegalities right?

Really? You've been this active in this thread and missed this?

[c.o0bg.com image 640x250]

What we have here are two statements made to the government under penalty of law that appear to be directly contradictory. What other context could you possibly want?

can you prove he had an active role after 1999?

For all we know the way he filled out the forms is legit, and legal for liability, tax and legal purposes as others and myself have mentioned.


Yes. SEC filings for 2000 and 2001 say that Mitt Romney "is the controlling person of Bain Capital." You could try and make the argument that a "controlling person" is "not involved in operations in any way", but you've been spectacularly unsuccessful thus far.

"For all we know"? That's why we do investigations.
 
2012-07-12 01:43:50 PM  

Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: qorkfiend: Giltric: qorkfiend: Romney has forms filed with the SEC that contradict each other,

I'm not so sure the forms contradict eachother as opposed to people have no farking clue what the info on the forms mean.

Oh. Well, if you're not sure, then I guess that's that.

I think you pulled out too many of your own eyelashes making wishes.

You seem to be insinuating that since you have no idea what you're talking about, then nobody else does either.

Ok then explain what being a sole shareholder means.....also explain how a person can be a sole shareholder and have no say in the day to day operations of their company.....

Educate me please. Especially the part about structuring as a sole shareholder for tax and liability purposes.....I think the expresion is "pass through entity"


So you agree with the Obama administration that Romney is lying to the American people saying he had no say in the offshore of all those jobs?

It's one or the other, you can't have it both ways.
 
2012-07-12 01:43:53 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Not an untenable position. My firm's CEO is the controlling person of the firm, yet he has divested his interest in the day to day operations of the Firm to the remaining partners, one in particular. Sure, he could come back and retake control, but for now, he is not involved in the operations of the firm, yet still retains control. By the way, the last time we heard from him was in January. So we have been riding along for the past 6 months without any direction from him on our operations.

That people can't see or understand this displays a certain lack of knowledge of how large companies operate.


Then why in the hell do CEO's deserve high pay if they'er not, in fact, actually doing or controlling anything?
 
2012-07-12 01:45:14 PM  

RolandGunner: ignatius_crumbcake: RolandGunner: ignatius_crumbcake: skullkrusher: why would it be sarcasm? He retains his title as CEO but takes a leave of absence for the Olympics. He decides he'll never return to active management, relinquishes his title and and has effectively "retired" from Bain in 1999.

So he defrauded all of Bain's investors from 1999-2002 who thought he was running the company?

[i3.kym-cdn.com image 300x300]

Ok. Lets do this slowly.

Romney said he left Bain in 1999 and filed federal finance forms that reflected that date.

SEC filings show that he was still listed as CEO of Bain until 2002 and owned 100% of the company until 2003.

So, he either lied to the SEC or he lied on the federal finance forms.

As for the fraud...

Bain controls $66 Billion in investor funds as of 2012. At the end of 1999 that number was $4 Billion. It stands to reason that some of that growth happened during Mitt's 'questionable' years. If Mitt was holding himself out as running the company, using his name to lure in investors, then theoretically that could be considered fraud.

I really don't see how anyone can pass this off as 'no big deal,' especially since Mitt's party went apeshiat because Clinton got a beej in the Oval Office and then lied about it. How is this different?



No, no matter how many leftists that don't understand how things work say this it doesn't make it so. And the kicker is, this is all covered in the very article that the Farklibs claim as evidence to the contrary.

If you need further evidence that is written by people that understand finance instead of a blogger at one of the left-wing lice farms then try Forbes.


Romney's departure from Bain was so sudden, he was listed as "controlling person" on SEC forms two years later? Alrighty then.
 
2012-07-12 01:45:44 PM  

Felgraf: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Not an untenable position. My firm's CEO is the controlling person of the firm, yet he has divested his interest in the day to day operations of the Firm to the remaining partners, one in particular. Sure, he could come back and retake control, but for now, he is not involved in the operations of the firm, yet still retains control. By the way, the last time we heard from him was in January. So we have been riding along for the past 6 months without any direction from him on our operations.

That people can't see or understand this displays a certain lack of knowledge of how large companies operate.

Then why in the hell do CEO's deserve high pay if they'er not, in fact, actually doing or controlling anything?


Well, in my firm's case, because that CEO took the company from his living room to San Francisco's Financial District and has increased the company's revenue more than ten fold before he stepped back.

Of course, this is not indicative of all companies, just mine. I was simply providing an example of how someone can be "controlling person" yet not have any say in the day to day operations.
 
2012-07-12 01:46:53 PM  

Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: Philip Francis Queeg: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: Because there are differences in how you get taxed whether its a paycheck, a capital gain or "profit".

That has nothing to do with whether or not Romney was in charge of Bain as the SEC filings show from 2001 and 2002.

Sure it does. Especially when you see that huge glaring tell that says "SOLE SHAREHOLDER"

Explain how that means he wasn't in charge of the company in 2001 and 2002, as Romney and his campaign have repeatedly claimed.

Explain his day to day role in the company if he was still managing it.Please include citations.

So then you don't think that Romney should get any positive credit for what happened during any part of his tenure at Bain then?

No iI believe Bain has saved some companies (Dominoes, Burger King, Staples,etc) and Bain had failed to save some companies even after investing and losing some of its own money on those ventures....thats the game, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose....Bain didn;t have to try to rescue those failing companies though and people could have been laid off immeidately instead of 10 years later like with that steel company the left clings onto as some sort of evidence that Bain is evil

So some people kept their jobs at a failing company alot longer then they would have if Bain had not gotten involved.....that makes Bain evil....make sure you tell that to the people who collected a salary for an extra 10 years.

But Mitt Romney gets no credit or blame for any of those actions since no one can prove , with citations,what his role in day to day operations at Bain were, right?

And people don;t understand that giving away 10 million dollars for a 3 million dollar tax credit means you have 7 million less dollars to spend.....but they understand the organization of corporations and sole shareholder SEC filings....yeah dude pass the bong.


Amazing that a genius like you wants to dodge the question. I',mm sure there is some way you can spin it that Mitt Romney's record at Bain proves his qualifications and that he should get all the credit for all the great works the company did, while still maintaining that there is no record of his work at Bain and that there is no basis for criticizing his actions there.
 
2012-07-12 01:47:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Giltric: can you prove he had an active role after 1999?

For all we know the way he filled out the forms is legit, and legal for liability, tax and legal purposes as others and myself have mentioned.

For that to be the case, Romney would have to be lying about his involvement at Bain. So once again we are at the point where Romney is either a liar or a felon.


The SEC does not require an owner to be an operational decison maker.
 
2012-07-12 01:49:39 PM  

Giltric: qorkfiend: Giltric: you have the context for the illegalities right?

Really? You've been this active in this thread and missed this?

[c.o0bg.com image 640x250]

What we have here are two statements made to the government under penalty of law that appear to be directly contradictory. What other context could you possibly want?

can you prove he had an active role after 1999?

For all we know the way he filled out the forms is legit, and legal for liability, tax and legal purposes as others and myself have mentioned.


Giltric: qorkfiend: Giltric: you have the context for the illegalities right?

Really? You've been this active in this thread and missed this?

[c.o0bg.com image 640x250]

What we have here are two statements made to the government under penalty of law that appear to be directly contradictory. What other context could you possibly want?

can you prove he had an active role after 1999?

For all we know the way he filled out the forms is legit, and legal for liability, tax and legal purposes as others and myself have mentioned.


So you are saying he only did it use a loophole and evade paying taxes.

Wow he sounds awesome!!!
 
Displayed 50 of 510 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report