Instead of digging myself into a hole, I tried to do some quick research on Bain Capital along with positive and negative commentary.

I concede that my "reactionary" comment would only apply to a small amount of businesses that Bain worked with, notably manufacturing businesses. My point with those are recognizing the outsourcing and automation that has happened, and will continue to happen to the US manufacturing sector. Basically, foreign labor and machines are much cheaper than US labor, therefore manufacturing jobs will outsource or automate. Regardless of anyone's view on capitalism, which I will get to later, this will happen and there is nothing we can do stop it. That explains my reactionary comment.


Overall, what I have gotten out of this, is that the agreements and disagreements with Bain Capital depend on how we view "modern capitalism".

Do we value overall wealth over anything else (I see this as trickle-down theory)? In that case, Bain Capital was successful since they, overall, increased capital and jobs for the companies they took over.

Or, do we not value overall wealth over anything else (union jobs, benefits, etc.)? In that case, Bain Capital was very harmful to local communities and businesses.


I disagree with Bain because I see this new modern capitalism as a system that promotes wealth inequality and justifies it by claiming that everyone is better off when overall wealth is higher. On the other hand, the tactics used by Bain have become mainstream, therefore, they were simply just ahead of the curve.

Also, I am aware of how they would sometimes basically make money off a dying company but how often would that be? I'm guessing it couldn't happen all the time or else why would anyone allow them to buy them?

How about 'scavenger'? Scavengers lurk around for something dead or dying to eat (failing companies) and take in what's left of it. Then they crap it back out in the form of something potentially good and exactly how and where they crap will determine whether it is successful (nutrients for the soil/plants) or just a stanky pile (on your head).

Companies aren't usually owned by the rank and file employees. If the owners were offered a tidy sum, they might take it, and console themselves over the destruction of their company with piles of money.

Or there are hostile takeovers.

I have no idea either, but companies usually stick close to a business model and we've seen some of Bain's work.

The concept of mergers and acquisitions (leveraged buyouts) can go either way. If the purpose of an M&A company is only to make a profit, then companies are disassembled because its pieces are worth more than the company's stock value. That occurs when a company's management is bad (ie General Motors, Chrysler, Kodak).

If the purpose of an M&A company is to make better products and companies, then companies are either disassembled or reorganized to make the economy productive. In this case, profits are a reward; not the objective.

The movie Working Girl (Harrison Ford, Melanie Griffith, Sigourney Weaver) demonstrated leveraged buyouts rechanneled into a productive concluson. What would be a destructive M&A redirected into creating a healthier organization.

KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) used high yield capital markets to merge RJR and Nabisco into one company. Then sell off parts to repay the debt. IOW KKR did nothing to make the economy or either company prosper. Simply earned massive profits by moving capital around. Incurring massive debt meant liquidity used to enrich the new management while mortaging future profits. Playing money games on a popular myth - a big company is more productive when made even bigger. In reality, a bigger company only ends up with more layers of management. And a massive debt where none existed. IOW how to print money.

Some examples of the resulting destruction include Regal movie theaters, Denny's, Toys-R-Us, and Harmon stereo. Most were profitable for the M&A investment firm. Were either destructive or did nothing for the targetted companies.

Kohlberg eventually had a fallout with Kravis and Roberts because KKR was making money at the expense of large companies (ie RJR Nabisco). And was not earning profits by merging small firms that could profit from being merged with a compatible firm. Mergers and aquisitions can do good for small, existing firms by doing what venture capital does for startups. M&A gets a bad reputation when it mortgages companies (incurs long term debt) for the short term benefit of investors.

Ryan, Rand and the Bible
 

Just some funny video of Paul Ryan being asked about his love of Ayn Rand by a Catholic activist.


http://dangerousminds.net/comments/p...about_ayn_rand

Ayn Rand has a saving grace: she was anticollectivist, and she could tell people why. Good strong individualism there.

The Real Romney

After all that, the devil has his say.

Poor David.

His mythological analogies in politics are rejected by his readers,
so he turns to what ? a biography of the GOP :D

So we've been seeing a fake Romney this whole time?! Lies and calumny!

Saw this on Facebook. It resonates with me.
Attachment 40364

Amen !

Wow. That's a brilliant quote.

Also, re: The Real Romney - very funny. This line in particular made me laugh out loud:

So apparently Paul Ryan's speech has gotten a lot of criticism for flat out lying. I'm going to watch it next eating break, but wow.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...speech/261775/


Honestly, I bet everything Paul Ryan is technically correct, just like Niall Furguson's Newsweek article, but just extremely deceptive in how it was delivered.

Maybe Paul Ryan should have Mike Huckabee as his spritual advisor instead of being a cathunist. It's all good, I have in laws that are conservative catholics, they do exist.

Rick Santorum is their king.

Church leaders prefer only conservative Catholics exist. Liberal Catholicism is being systematically swept from the Church.

"Voices of the Faithful" having been banned from church properties for advocating progressive reforms.

I'm really curious.

We've seen plenty of the Republican campaign so far and all of the Republican National Convention. The Democratic campaign is well publicized too and their convention is happening now. I've noticed a conspicuous absence. Here's a picture, check it out.

Attachment 40468

Jimmy Carter gave a speech tonight and he sounded very intelligent, as always. Tomorrow night Bill Clinton is scheduled to give a speech at the convention. But we've heard and seen ZERO from the living presidents from the Republican party. Why is this? What are they hiding?

I did notice repeated invocations of Saint Reagan, but he's dead. If there's so much emphasis on the performance of the different parties, why aren't the Republicans talking about any of "their" presidents?

Their surnames?

ooooooooooowwwwch.

I wish i were joking!

The emphasis on debt doesn't mesh well with Bush II's unfunded wars and Mitt is playing a very close game railing both against Iran and the entanglement in Afghanistan. He needs to hold both the newly engaged isolationist wing and the neo-cons two ideologically incompatible groups. That Obama is continuing Bush II's failed policies and is itching to play the neo-con game in Syria probably doesn't help.

:jig: Michelle Obama :jig:

Hell yeah!

This was new to me... :rolleyes:

Who is the only politician that believes Roe vs Wade are two ways to cross the Potomac River ?









Dan Quail

In the lead-up to an election, a candidate's reactions under stress
may show what sort of President he/she would make.
Here is Mitt Romney's foreign relations moment...

Romney ratchets up criticism of Obama on initial response to embassy attacks
NBC News
Tom Curry
9/12/12

Each election, the talking heads revive conspiratorial tactics about the Republicans
reaching bargains with foreign powers on what they will do for them when/if they are elected.

This year it has started with Romney and Netanyahu creating a crisis for Obama over a "nuclear Iran"
Without explanation, seemingly it's a lose-lose situation for Obama
....either a war with Iran or a nuclear bomb in Iran.

But that's not necessarily the case.
It may just be a case of "wag the dog" to bolster Romney's political campaign.

FoxNews.com
9/11/12
Romney win could spur longtime pal Netanyahu to face Iran threat
But the world diplomatic community feels differently...

The Telegraph
9/13/12

MI6 boss 'visited Israeli Prime Minister to urge against attacking Iran'
The US position is that an war with Iran could only postpone the current situation,
and could lead to even more problems in the middle east,

Business Week
Tony Capaccio
September 12, 2012

Iran Attack Would Halt Nuclear Bid for Four Years, Report Says

Are you in the "middle class" ?
It all depends on how you define your words...

Associated Press
STEVE PEOPLES
9/14/12

BOSTON (AP) — Mitt Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.

I'm all for pointing and laughing at Romney, but I suspect that he meant that the maximum income for "middle class" was about $200000 or $250000, not that the range went from $200000 to $250000.

eta:
Though I don't know how to parse this:

$100000 is less, but he still said "No".

Pointing and laughing has been reapproved.

..

...

Well to be fair, and not an endorsement for Mitt, but just because he did it doesn't mean he liked it. People do stuff out of necessity, perceived or real, even though they may not like it. I can't remember the last time I enjoyed a visit to my ophthalmologist but glaucoma runs in the family so I go regularly. But I hates it. So much.

NYT/CBS poll has good news for Obama. It looks like any bump from the RNC has already been absorbed.

The Bain "bailout" story is interesting. It wasn't tax dollars but rather FDIC money. I'm more interested in this fitting the Romney pattern of getting fat on misappropriated borrowed money.

ABC NewsIn 1990, Romney led the restructuring of Bain & Company, from which Bain Capital spun off in the 1980s. Bain & Company developed problems after the partners drained $200 million of borrowed money from the firm.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was involved in the loan restructuring since it assumed the Bank of New England, to which Bain & Company owed $38 million. The Boston Globe reported in 1994 that the FDIC agreed to lower the amount owed by $10 million, but the FDIC, a government agency, notably does not utilize taxpayer funding and instead is financed through deposit insurance payments, which negates Biden’s claim that the restructuring cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

Yes, it's always done "legally"...

True, Biden was wrong, but Federal money or FDIC, the cost eventually gets passed on to we the people. Same as a corporation's largess to a politician or a worthy charity, the cost eventually comes back to us.

word.

Buzzfeed
9/15/12
Rick Santorum Says "Smart People Will Never Be On Our Side"

:facepalm:

Ironically demonstrating a high-water mark of his own intelligence.

This video is credited for a time after Mitt was the GOP nominee.

The Washington Post
Philip Rucker,
9/17/12


Leaked videos show Romney dismissing Obama supporters as entitled ‘victims’


The reporter for Mother Jones says (on TV) there will be more video footage coming...

More footage?

Here ya go.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ate-fundraiser

Yes, but he was speaking sarcastically. There are smart conservatives. I don't consider Santorum one of them, but taking his words out of context is just as bad as anyone else doing it "I like to fire people" (actually true in Romney's case) or "you didn't build that" from Obama, not actually what he said.

but....
Romney does like getting money from Washington too!

He's a hypocrite.

Ummmm....

This Huffinton Post link has the video of Santorum's talk.

The link I posted above was not a word-for-word transcription, but
IMO it certainly did not take his remarks out of context.
And IMO, he was not speaking sarcastically.

I feel he was being very serious, and knew exactly the point he was making.

Is he saying that his job in the campaign is not to worry about half the country, or his job as president is not to worry about half the country?

If it's the former, that's too bad, but it's just basic strategy of figuring out which votes you can win and focusing on those. If it's the later, and he's writing off half the country that he'll bother with as president, that's very serious. If he got elected, I'd call for his immediate impeachment. You can't have a president writing off half the country, regardless of politics.

I'm voting for Obama. So, I believe I am entitled to all these things I work for? No, Mr Romney. Take your 47% and shove it. I am among this 47% and I believe in working hard and making your way the best you can, and I believe I live in a society that doesn't dismiss the people who are disabled, disenfranchised, displaced or whatever words you want to use to describe those you turn your nose up at.

Yes, Biff, your 'group' is the set of hugely wealthy people at this party who are up your ass while they eat their caviar and pat themselves on the back for being better than that other group (and get just as drunk and stupid as us normal folk.) They lapped that shit up as you said it, and you know it. Those ARE 'your people' and you can have them.

I used to work Boehner parties. Even in my town of pathetic rich wannabes (who really aren't rich enough to be anybody, really) it's sickening.


It would be helpful to be Latino? Helpful to whom? Helpful in what way?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ney/?hpt=hp_t1




Jebus Gob don't let this man win.

"...don't let this man win..."
 

Agreed.

'Course, I say the same about Obama.

Two used car salesmen...mediocre of intellect and idea.


*WORK FOR BINDING NONE OF THE ABOVE FOR 2016*

#

Since he's the 'flavor of the day'...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...-november.html

;)

Don't be stupid. He is saying that his job in the campaign is not to worry about half the country. We all know his job as president is to not worry about 98% of the country.

:p:

Bleh...Romney is a giant dickhead and Obama is not. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it, and I've got my fingers in my ears (while saying lalalallalaaa) when you tell me how they're all the same. Because, that isn't helpful. You may choose to live on the fringe of everything, but I do not...and I believe in certain ideologies.

Bleh.

I'd be all for wiring Biff's mouth shut. Also, tie him to a chair and prop his eyes open with toothpicks.

Then I shall dance naked in front of him (scandalous heathen! gasp!) with hundreds of blacks, latinos, displaced workers, and maybe a few Chinese (just 'cause he thinks they're so much better than us and deserve jobs more [see: displaced workers]) and generally shock him and his constituents with my reckless godless abandon and my care for other humans living on this earth who weren't born with a silver spoon up our ass.

My ex in-laws (think American Gothic and you've got 'em nailed) have an interesting dilemma in front of them:

The black guy (although they wouldn't hesitate to call him the other word)

OR:


The white guy who is part of a cult and not really Christian

Sometimes I wish I could just listen in on their political convos...it would be such fun.

But in what 'context' is Obama black? Because, you know, that means everything. :rolleyes:

The context of his having dark skin?

Quadroon? no, he'd be a mulatto, right?

Which president was supposedly 'black' b/c they thought he was an octoroon?

Yeah, I've been reading about the New Orleans Red District. Sorry. :blush:

I'm still sitting here wondering how, as part of the 47% who will vote for Obama, I am also part of some 47% who don't pay taxes. Uh, no dependents here, no tax breaks (they took away the workin' folk break, which wasn't huge but helped) and my total tax liability is plenty. Everyone who votes for Obama takes no responsiblity for their lives?

47% of us.

Can I have a cite for this figure? All people who pay no taxes will vote for Obama, and all who will vote for Obama pay no taxes?

There's your context: it's a stupid ass statement and illustrates how he will say and do anything to keep the uber-rich happy, and it very CLEARLY was meant to paint Obama voters as...I don't know, you choose a word.

"I believe in certain ideologies"
 

As you like... ;)

Well, for one thing we could have deported the bastard.

Funny that he thinks that as a Latino Republican he would even be considered as a presidential candidate by his party.