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.

(NYPost)   What they say: Bain's a horrible evil corporate scumweasel blight on all that is noble and good, who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. What they do: Sheeeeit, would you look at those returns. We're parking our money at Bain   (nypost.com) divider line 103
    More: Obvious, Sheeeeit, Ford Foundation, pension system, evils, walls  
•       •       •

1921 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Sep 2012 at 9:36 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



103 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-02 09:40:49 AM
Subby: "We're parking our money at Bain"
Article: "Many would be startled to learn that their nest eggs are incubated by the company that Romney launched and the financiers he hired." (emphasis is mine)
 
2012-09-02 09:41:01 AM
Was that wrong? Should they not have done that?

/didn't read tfa
 
2012-09-02 09:43:53 AM
This just in: global vice index is best index.
 
2012-09-02 09:44:03 AM
Oh, come on. Romney and his ilk claim to be entitled to outlandish compensation because they are taking the big risks and therefore deserve the big rewards. But the whole point to the Bain controversy is that, under their business plan, there are no risks. Not to them anyway, or their investors. The whole thing is set up as a huge Ponzi scheme where a privileged class of investors is guaranteed a high return whatever the outcome for the companies at risk and their employees. It may be legal (it undoubtedly is), but it is also highly unethical, no ifs ands or buts. You may be entitled in this country to make your living as a vulture capitalist, but that far from qualifies you to be President of the United States; in fact, precisely the opposite.
 
2012-09-02 09:46:16 AM
that's common knowledge. Big Business and Government sleep together every night --boffing away when the other 95% go without. where have you been? Big Business and the wealthy in this Nation get far more goodies/freebies/favors from the Government than the bottom 95% do. course, its not Socialism because The Owners are getting it.

its only Socialism when the bottom 95% get goverment 'benefits'.

without Governemnt, a sh*tload of companies in the U.S.A. would go out of business, so many are on the government tit.

aint' Freedom great!!
 
2012-09-02 09:49:00 AM
I still want to see Romney's tax returns.
 
2012-09-02 09:49:30 AM
And so? The selling point of Romney with Bain was that they "saved companies and created jobs". It doesn't change the fact that this narrative is a lie and that was never the intention of Bain's business model.
 
2012-09-02 09:50:06 AM
Publically, Big Business/Wealthy speak derisively about the Government.

Privately, they're licking their lips with all those bennies they get from the Government. but its not socialism because its them, not the little people, who are getting it.
 
2012-09-02 09:51:25 AM

A Terrible Human: I still want to see Romney's tax returns.


you won't be seeing them, ever. Annie Rmoney has already said that "you people" have seen all the tax returns you're going to see.

ain't Freedom great!
 
2012-09-02 09:52:23 AM

A Terrible Human: I still want to see Romney's tax returns.


I predict no one will care about that or TFA because they've got firmly entrenched notions of what each candidate stands for and don't what to ruin them by reviewing anyone's record.
 
2012-09-02 09:52:36 AM
So... what does this have to do with Obama?
 
2012-09-02 09:53:45 AM

clambam: Oh, come on. Romney and his ilk claim to be entitled to outlandish compensation because they are taking the big risks and therefore deserve the big rewards. But the whole point to the Bain controversy is that, under their business plan, there are no risks. Not to them anyway, or their investors. The whole thing is set up as a huge Ponzi scheme where a privileged class of investors is guaranteed a high return whatever the outcome for the companies at risk and their employees. It may be legal (it undoubtedly is), but it is also highly unethical, no ifs ands or buts. You may be entitled in this country to make your living as a vulture capitalist, but that far from qualifies you to be President of the United States; in fact, precisely the opposite.


While the rest of your post is spot on, can we please stop using "Ponzi scheme" as a catchall term for every financial scam? Ponzi schemes are a very specific kind of scam, designed to screw over exactly those big investors who benefit from Bain-style vulture capitalism.
 
2012-09-02 09:53:48 AM
yes, you can make money robbing banks, too. it doesn't make it right.
 
2012-09-02 09:55:49 AM

A Terrible Human: I still want to see Romney's tax returns.


Would you understand them?
 
2012-09-02 09:55:53 AM
So how does the second part at all negate the first part again?
 
2012-09-02 10:00:12 AM

Cataholic: A Terrible Human: I still want to see Romney's tax returns.

Would you understand them?


Pffft the unwashed masses wouldn't get it anyway. I like that defense. You should run with it.
 
2012-09-02 10:00:52 AM

clambam: But the whole point to the Bain controversy is that, under their business plan, there are no risks. Not to them anyway, or their investors.


Are you high? Here's how this sort of business-y thing works since you obviously havent a clue

-Pension fund gives Bain $40M to invest since Bain has a good record of return
- Bain finds a struggling company that needs money/leadership
- Bain invests the pension fund money in the company in an effort to turn it around.
- Company gets turned around - Pension fund profits, Bain makes money.

Or, If Bain loses or bets on the wrong company, they have to find success in other companies elsewhere. There is absolutely risk to them since nobody is parking their pension funds in a venture capital company that keeps buying businesses that have no shot at profitability/sustainability.

If you have any idea how this stuff works, you'll learn quickly it is of no advantage to bain to buy a company, shut the doors, give cancer to the steelworkers wives and laugh at them. It is better off for everyone if the doors of the company stay open and in 80% or so of instances that is exactly what happens.

Everyone whiffs in their personal/professional life. Success is determined by how infrequent the failures and how it is mitigated by the successes.
 
2012-09-02 10:00:58 AM

Linux_Yes: Publically, Big Business/Wealthy speak derisively about the Government.

Privately, they're licking their lips with all those bennies they get from the Government. but its not socialism because its them, not the little people, who are getting it.


And that's the type of Republican Romney is: He just sees a big pile of money sitting there, and he wants to get his hands on it.
 
2012-09-02 10:03:14 AM

o5iiawah: - Bain finds a struggling company that needs money/leadership


A lot of the companies Bain has bought haven't been struggling. Also putting pension money into a company like Bain is just idiotic. And in any case, Bain uses borrowed money for most of what it does. Borrowed money it makes the companies it buys responsible for paying back. If the company can't pay it back, Bain suffers not at all for it.
 
2012-09-02 10:05:41 AM

o5iiawah: clambam: But the whole point to the Bain controversy is that, under their business plan, there are no risks. Not to them anyway, or their investors.

Are you high? Here's how this sort of business-y thing works since you obviously havent a clue

-Pension fund gives Bain $40M to invest since Bain has a good record of return
- Bain finds a struggling company that needs money/leadership
- Bain invests the pension fund money in the company in an effort to turn it around.
- Company gets turned around - Pension fund profits, Bain makes money.

Or, If Bain loses or bets on the wrong company, they have to find success in other companies elsewhere. There is absolutely risk to them since nobody is parking their pension funds in a venture capital company that keeps buying businesses that have no shot at profitability/sustainability.

If you have any idea how this stuff works, you'll learn quickly it is of no advantage to bain to buy a company, shut the doors, give cancer to the steelworkers wives and laugh at them. It is better off for everyone if the doors of the company stay open and in 80% or so of instances that is exactly what happens.

Everyone whiffs in their personal/professional life. Success is determined by how infrequent the failures and how it is mitigated by the successes.


Nowhere in your post did you mention the phrases "cash cow," "leveraged buyout," or "dividend recapitalization." Until you can do that, you don't know jack.
 
2012-09-02 10:05:58 AM
Companies like Bain (with regulation) definitely have a place in our economy. So do strip clubs.

That doesn't mean I'd want a strip club owner running our country. Or, even if there were a guy who happened to be a strip club owner and also happened to be fit to be president, I'd laugh him off my ballot if he tried to claim that his record of training girls to get guys to buy more $20 glasses of champale somehow made him qualified to run the country.
 
2012-09-02 10:10:32 AM
* State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio ($767.3 million)

OMG Pull that money out now and let the place collapse. Bain is an evil capitalistic organization.
 
2012-09-02 10:13:03 AM

o5iiawah: There is absolutely risk to them since nobody is parking their pension funds in a venture capital company that keeps buying businesses that have no shot at profitability/sustainability.


What a crock. Bain doesn't give a shiat about profitability, and even less about sustainability. They only care about making a profit for themselves. If they can do that by making the company profitable, fine. But if they can make a faster profit by looting the company and dumping the remains, that's fine with them too.
 
2012-09-02 10:13:13 AM

Fart_Machine: Cataholic: A Terrible Human: I still want to see Romney's tax returns.

Would you understand them?

Pffft the unwashed masses wouldn't get it anyway. I like that defense. You should run with it.


Hey, it works for Ann Romney. I'd explain further, but you people wouldn't understand.
 
2012-09-02 10:15:33 AM

gsiofa: Subby: "We're parking our money at Bain"
Article: "Many would be startled to learn that their nest eggs are incubated by the company that Romney launched and the financiers he hired." (emphasis is mine)


Don't try to confuse the issue with facts and reason, they have no place in this Republican party.
 
2012-09-02 10:15:48 AM

Serious Black:
Nowhere in your post did you mention the phrases "cash cow," "leveraged buyout," or "dividend recapitalization." Until you can do that, you don't know jack.


Thank you. Bain's buyouts rarely use more than 15% of Bain money, the rest is borrowed and the newly bought company is saddled with the debt and "management fees"
 
2012-09-02 10:16:53 AM
Just because I put my money in a fund doesn't mean that I endorse everything the businesses in those funds do.

The expression 'cut off your nose to spite your face' comes to mind.
 
2012-09-02 10:17:45 AM
There is no inconsistency here, subby.

Q1: Where do I park my money for the best return?

Q2: Is this ruthless vulture capitalist who calls himself a "businessman" really the better candidate for President of the United States?

A1: Good guys finish last.

A2: Not unless you are a card-carrying member of the 1%.
 
2012-09-02 10:19:36 AM

o5iiawah: clambam: But the whole point to the Bain controversy is that, under their business plan, there are no risks. Not to them anyway, or their investors.

Are you high? Here's how this sort of business-y thing works since you obviously havent a clue

-Pension fund gives Bain $40M to invest since Bain has a good record of return
- Bain finds a struggling company that needs money/leadership
- Bain invests the pension fund money in the company in an effort to turn it around.
- Company gets turned around - Pension fund profits, Bain makes money.

Or, If Bain loses or bets on the wrong company, they have to find success in other companies elsewhere. There is absolutely risk to them since nobody is parking their pension funds in a venture capital company that keeps buying businesses that have no shot at profitability/sustainability.

If you have any idea how this stuff works, you'll learn quickly it is of no advantage to bain to buy a company, shut the doors, give cancer to the steelworkers wives and laugh at them. It is better off for everyone if the doors of the company stay open and in 80% or so of instances that is exactly what happens.

Everyone whiffs in their personal/professional life. Success is determined by how infrequent the failures and how it is mitigated by the successes.


That's the problem....Dem/Libs do not understand how businesses work, probably because most of them are on the Governments tit.
 
2012-09-02 10:21:22 AM
Obama's investment.
ww3.hdnux.com
 
2012-09-02 10:23:21 AM

clambam: But the whole point to the Bain controversy is that, under their business plan, there are no risks.


Oh look, another person who learned about the rich from Scrooge McDuck cartoons.
Didn't you even watch trading places? Don't you know that people can and do lose lots of money. If they didn't, everyone would do it.

The reason they did not lose money is because of Romney and the team that he hired and trained.

fta: "Since 1988, Duran says, private-equity companies like Bain have outperformed every other asset class to which CalSTRS has allocated the cash of its 856,360 largely unionized members"

outperformed EVERY OTHER ASSET CLASS.

As Clinton said, Romney has a STERLING record. Get over it.
 
2012-09-02 10:24:07 AM

smitty04: Obama's investment.
[ww3.hdnux.com image 628x408]


Ah yes...Bush's pet project.
 
2012-09-02 10:24:58 AM

smitty04: Obama's investment.
[ww3.hdnux.com image 628x408]


The difference is that 0bama's investment was
(a) TAXPAYER money.
(b) structured so the taxpayers are practically last in line in a default (usually last money in is FIRST in line).
 
2012-09-02 10:25:20 AM
I see the FARK Independents are desperately flailing away again this morning. I really should see about making a RON PAUL 'Its Happening' pic using an empty chair.
 
2012-09-02 10:26:01 AM

o5iiawah: Or, If Bain loses or bets on the wrong company, they have to find success in other companies elsewhere.


This is untrue. Here's the process:

1) Bain gets seed money from its investors.
2) Using that money as collateral, they take out a loan two orders of magnitude larger.
3) They buy a company, and as part of the purchase, make the company liable for the loan.

At this point, all Bain needs to do is extract more money from the company than the seed money in step (1). And that is what they've done, repeatedly. Certainly, they've also helped companies by providing a big influx of capital. But we'd be fools to believe that Bain did anything more than the bare minimum to maximize its profits. If those companies hadn't already had strong fundamentals, Bain would have gutted them, tied a ton of debt around their ankles, and tossed them in a river.
 
2012-09-02 10:27:20 AM
maryschmidt.com

Here the invisible President only Republicans can see addresses the invisible libs and welfare leeches only Republicans can see.
 
2012-09-02 10:32:18 AM
There were a lot of respectable and financially sophisticated investors who gave their money to Bernie Madoff. Doesn't mean he wasn't a crook.
 
2012-09-02 10:32:20 AM

Mrtraveler01: smitty04: Obama's investment.
[ww3.hdnux.com image 628x408]

Ah yes...Bush's pet project that he was smart enough not to invest in.


ftfy.
too bad 0bama wasn't as smart as Bush about this.
 
2012-09-02 10:32:40 AM

A Terrible Human: I still want to see Romney's tax returns.


I had almost forgotten about those!*

*
not really
 
2012-09-02 10:32:42 AM

ferretman: o5iiawah: clambam: But the whole point to the Bain controversy is that, under their business plan, there are no risks. Not to them anyway, or their investors.

Are you high? Here's how this sort of business-y thing works since you obviously havent a clue

-Pension fund gives Bain $40M to invest since Bain has a good record of return
- Bain finds a struggling company that needs money/leadership
- Bain invests the pension fund money in the company in an effort to turn it around.
- Company gets turned around - Pension fund profits, Bain makes money.

Or, If Bain loses or bets on the wrong company, they have to find success in other companies elsewhere. There is absolutely risk to them since nobody is parking their pension funds in a venture capital company that keeps buying businesses that have no shot at profitability/sustainability.

If you have any idea how this stuff works, you'll learn quickly it is of no advantage to bain to buy a company, shut the doors, give cancer to the steelworkers wives and laugh at them. It is better off for everyone if the doors of the company stay open and in 80% or so of instances that is exactly what happens.

Everyone whiffs in their personal/professional life. Success is determined by how infrequent the failures and how it is mitigated by the successes.

That's the problem....Dem/Libs do not understand how businesses work, probably because most of them are on the Governments tit.


If you please sir, a list of companies Bain lost money on; or rather, a list of companies Romney and his co-owners personally lost money on. I suspect they will be damn few.

(I'm responding to hiawatha's post, by the way. Ferret's merely identifies him as a Limbaugh-dittoing mushbrain.)
 
2012-09-02 10:34:31 AM

Mrtraveler01: smitty04: Obama's investment.
[ww3.hdnux.com image 628x408]

Ah yes...Bush's pet project.


President Obama visited Solyndra in May 2010, heralding the company as "leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future." He also cited it as a success story from the government's $787 billion economic stimulus package.
"Less than a year ago, we were standing on what was an empty lot. But through the Recovery Act, this company received a loan to expand its operations," Obama said at the time. "This new factory is the result of those loans."
 
2012-09-02 10:37:01 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: smitty04: Obama's investment.
[ww3.hdnux.com image 628x408]

Ah yes...Bush's pet project that he was smart enough not to invest in.

ftfy.
too bad 0bama wasn't as smart as Bush about this.


Ahem

House Republicans investigating Solyndra have claimed that the Bush administration ultimately rejected the Solyndra loan, but that's not quite the case. Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and news media point out that Bush energy officials wanted to get the loan closed on their way out the door - it was listed as the first of their "three highest priorities through January 15." (Obama took office Jan. 20, 2009.) But the Energy Department's credit committee held things up for more analysis.

"The number of issues unresolved makes a recommendation for approval premature at this time. Therefore, the committee, without prejudice, remands the project to the LGPO [Loan Guarantee Program Office] for further development of information," the committee said.

It noted Solyndra's project "appears to have merit." But the clock had run out.

That didn't keep Bush from touting the loan guarantee program on his way out of office. On Jan. 6, 2009, in remarks on conservation and the environment from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, he said, "We dedicated more than $18 billion to developing clean and efficient technologies like biofuels, advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells, solar and wind power, and clean, safe nuclear power. We're providing more than $40 billion in loan guarantees to put these technologies to use."
 
2012-09-02 10:37:58 AM

smitty04: Mrtraveler01: smitty04: Obama's investment.
[ww3.hdnux.com image 628x408]

Ah yes...Bush's pet project.

President Obama visited Solyndra in May 2010, heralding the company as "leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future." He also cited it as a success story from the government's $787 billion economic stimulus package.
"Less than a year ago, we were standing on what was an empty lot. But through the Recovery Act, this company received a loan to expand its operations," Obama said at the time. "This new factory is the result of those loans."


and he did that with taxpayer money and structured the deal in a way that the taxpayers got screwed.
don't forget about his Fiske and the classic cash for clunkers or the summers of recovery or the shovel ready jobs. he does not know how to create jobs or stimulate the economy.
 
2012-09-02 10:40:49 AM
What they say: Bain's a horrible evil corporate scumweasel blight on all that is noble and good

So how is this suppose to distinguish Bain from all the other businesses run by amerikas business criminal class.
 
2012-09-02 10:42:31 AM

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: smitty04: Obama's investment.
[ww3.hdnux.com image 628x408]

Ah yes...Bush's pet project that he was smart enough not to invest in.

ftfy.
too bad 0bama wasn't as smart as Bush about this.

Ahem

"The number of issues unresolved makes a recommendation for approval premature at this time. Therefore, the committee, without prejudice, remands the project to the LGPO [Loan Guarantee Program Office] for further development of information," the committee said.

It noted Solyndra's project "appears to have merit." But the clock had run out.

"


ahem. Did Bush invest or not?
(hint: they did NOT. They said it "appears" to have merit, and wanted more information)

No different from any other investment when the company puts their best foot forward, but when due diligence gets serious, deals fall apart.


Bush isn't like 0bama who invested based on "appears" or some unicorn fantasy land.

0bama did the deeper analysis and made the decision to invest.

ahem.
 
2012-09-02 10:45:42 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Bush isn't like 0bama who invested based on "appears" or some unicorn fantasy land.


It's cute that this is the way you're spinning this fact. The only reason it didn't get funded under Bush was because they ran out of time before he could approve it.

Time to move on to the next outdated talking point I suppose.
 
2012-09-02 10:47:20 AM
I'm sure those teachers knew exactly where their money was invested, Home Ec and PE instructors being experts in the stock market and all. Not, y'know, handed to some financial wizard who makes the actual decisions. As far as the teachers go, since they don't marinate in politics 24/7, unlike idiot NY Post columnists, as long as the money wasn't invested in Iran or NAMBLA, they're fine with whatever works.

Of course, this entire article stems out of the GOP's almost unlimited persecution complex: "Evil lib schoolteachers hate our guts for some reason we can't possibly comprehend. Something about "proud ignorance" or "hostility to history, science, and basic facts", or some such garbage. Anyway, since those evil lib teachers hate us for some unknown reason, we'll hate them back even harder! Yeah! Wharrrgarbl! Suck it, libs!"
 
2012-09-02 10:50:13 AM
Here's the thing Republicans can't seem to wrap their heads around:

Microeconomic success isn't the same thing as macronomic experience.

Yes, Bain Capital is a successful (yet sleazy) business. Yes, Mitt Romney knows how to turn a huge profit in the corporate world. He should be proud of that. And as long as he's paying proper taxes, he should be able to keep every bit of profit he's earned.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the skills needed to run an administration. The role of the administration isn't to turn a profit - it's to spend taxpayer money as efficiently as possible without disrupting or cutting services. In the corporate world - you cut an underperforming program. In the government sector - you audit them, find inefficiencies, and figure out how they can accomplish the same task with fewer resources. You can combine or downsize things behind the scenes as long as the American public isn't affected by the reductions

HP and Dell can outsource call and data centers to India. The National Weather Service can't.
Best Buy can close shops in dying communities. USPS can't.
US Bank can move their initial job training to the internet. The US Army can't.

Corporate-minded vultures like Romney, Ryan, and many other Republicans just want to arbitrarily cut programs they deem wasteful. They're taking a corporate ownership approach to public service. And it's slowly turning us into something like the United Arab Emirates, when our goal should be more in line with Australia or the Scandinavian countries. President Obama's administration isn't perfect, but it at least understands the actual role of the federal government.
 
2012-09-02 10:52:39 AM

devek: So... what does this have to do with Obama?


I'm guessing "Socialism!"
 
2012-09-02 10:53:15 AM

ferretman: Dem/Libs do not understand how businesses work,


What good or service does Bain produce?
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report