What's new
By:

this is long, but if you have strong opinions about Mitt (either way), you SHOULD READ IT.

The article states that Romney and Bain Capital somewhat forcefully (I disagree with that part) took over companies, then saddled them with debt, and then took huge mgmt fees and profits ..

Like this;

A struggling company agrees to sell a large portion of the company to Bain Capital. Bain negotiates that they'll buy the company, but 80% (or thereabouts) of the money will come from a bank loan and must be repaid by the company. Bain only has about 20% of their own cash in the deal (call it $10MM) and also had negotiated huge mgmt/consulting fees as part of the buy-in. Then they slash jobs/expenses and either sell off the company for fantastic profits, take it through an IPO (for great profits), or simply bankrupt it .. only in rare cases does the result mean less than impressive returns.

Basically, it's just saying watch out for Romney, because he is a debt creater and company killer .. for personal gain.

As I have said earlier in this thread, RS mischaracterized/overly dramatized how some of this works .. but Romney also isn't as 'pure' as some think, either.
 
PKM said:
The article states that Romney and Bain Capital somewhat forcefully (I disagree with that part) took over companies, then saddled them with debt, and then took huge mgmt fees and profits ..

Like this;

A struggling company agrees to sell a large portion of the company to Bain Capital. Bain negotiates that they'll buy the company, but 80% (or thereabouts) of the money will come from a bank loan and must be repaid by the company. Bain only has about 20% of their own cash in the deal (call it $10MM) and also had negotiated huge mgmt/consulting fees as part of the buy-in. Then they slash jobs/expenses and either sell off the company for fantastic profits, take it through an IPO (for great profits), or simply bankrupt it .. only in rare cases does the result mean less than impressive returns.

Basically, it's just saying watch out for Romney, because he is a debt creater and company killer .. for personal gain.

As I have said earlier in this thread, RS mischaracterized/overly dramatized how some of this works .. but Romney also isn't as 'pure' as some think, either.
Click to expand...

The article states pretty clearly that Bain wasn't forcefully taking over companies (i.e. without permission). It doesn't even go so far as to say the companies weren't already on their way to serious need of restructuring (perhaps even bankruptcy?). Many were. It does say that the takeovers were greased by promises to the managing boards that they'd essentially receive their retirement because Bain could get their cronies on Wall Street to finance a huge flow of cash from which they'd receive a big cut. Then, the looting begins.

EDIT: @PKM, I'm not disagreeing with you here. Just adding. I realize you are synopsizing the article into very few words.
 
One of the take-home messages is Romney's professional career with respect to DEBT and how that stands at serious odds with what his mouth is saying on the campaign trail.

But why should we expect consistency from Mitt Romney?
 
NAOS said:
The article states pretty clearly that Bain wasn't forcefully taking over companies (i.e. without permission).
Click to expand...

& this is supposed to be a bad thing? Mega-millionaires don't get the advantage of diversifying their risk while maintaining full control of their companies, thus putting the entire risk on pension funds & other investors. Hostile takeovers protect the integrity of the market so you should praise Romney for all the times he cleaned out dirty management (as has been discussed re Bain already) & saved middle class jobs from these incompetents.
 
You people really ought to just read the article, instead of relying on our resident elitists' slanted interpretations.

It is very interesting.
 
franklin said:
& this is supposed to be a bad thing? Mega-millionaires don't get the advantage of diversifying their risk while maintaining full control of their companies, thus putting the entire risk on pension funds & other investors. Hostile takeovers protect the integrity of the market so you should praise Romney for all the times he cleaned out dirty management (as has been discussed re Bain already) & saved middle class jobs from these incompetents.
Click to expand...

Now you're just suckling on Romney's teet.
 
An anti-GOP article in the Rolling Stone???!!!!!

That's like having a pro gay article in The Advocate!!!!!


People, consider the source and understand that magazine has a bias and an agenda.

This would be like me posting a pro-Mitt Romney article written by Ann Romney that's been edited by her 5 sons.
 
Yea, we can't let facts or logic or new ideas influence us.
Just look at the source. If it's not mainstream, don't look at the content, it might say something different then what you want to hear.
 
Last edited:
franklin said:
& this is supposed to be a bad thing? Mega-millionaires don't get the advantage of diversifying their risk while maintaining full control of their companies, thus putting the entire risk on pension funds & other investors. Hostile takeovers protect the integrity of the market so you should praise Romney for all the times he cleaned out dirty management (as has been discussed re Bain already) & saved middle class jobs from these incompetents.
Click to expand...

So, you've addressed the mega-rich and the Romney-rich......... how about the rest of the content? how about the other people implicated in these transactions? How about the gulf between Romney's professional practices and his political stump speeches? C'mon dude.

EDIT: the text you quoted was me clarifying/adding to PKM's synopsis, FYI
 
Didn't mean to imply you were saying otherwise. Just adressing the corporate raider pejorative that's thrown around by the hateful left. It's circular logic at the worst.


I might read the actual article next week. I liked a lot of Matt Taibbi's Goldman Sachs classic, but the mag is so damn one sided that I don't get much from reading anything they produce.
 
gotcha. I'm interested to hear from you when you've read the article.

And, I don't want there to be any vague sense that I'm allying myself with the older vanguard of capitalists and capitalist production. That is, in fact, a major danger here: the debate SHOULDN'T be solely about one versus the other. The real benefit from a Romney candidacy is that it is HOPEFULLY a public education about the the current morphology and machinations of capital. We all need that education.
 
I was thinking about having Burks on my 3 on 3 team, but I don't think he's a good enough passer, and passing is essential with 3 on 3. Yes he could do the 1 on 1 things and break some people down, but if he couldn't do that against someone he would be at the disadvantage and a detriment to the team for that game. You would still need a good passer. This is why I went with Hayward over him on my team.
 
northeast said:
Yea, we can't let facts or logic or new ideas influence us.
Just look at the source. If it's not mainstream, don't look at the content, it might say something different then what you want to hear.
Click to expand...

Im all for different opinions and debating. But Rolling Stone is not known for the hardcore factual journalism.

Everyone on hear would rip me apart if i posted a 'factual' article on Obama that had been written by Glenn Beck and posted on Foxnews.

This isn't any different.
 
yes it is, the article is logical , insightful, and factual...FOX news just frigggin nuts.
This article is a gem in this wasteland of mainstream media that totally fails to even attempt to talk about anything substantial about Romney's business background and how it relates to the country and our economy.
 
bean's neg rep comment: So I should study for my math test using an English book?

No, that's a terrible analogy. Your news sources don't address the topics in the article.
If anything , it is just the opposite. Our election is about the economy and Romney's economic background and philosophy.
The mainstream media is more interested in abortion and guns and meaningless soundbites.
You are the one who needs to adjust your sources to get on topic.
 
northeast said:
yes it is, the article is logical , insightful, and factual...FOX news just frigggin nuts.
This article is a gem in this wasteland of mainstream media that totally fails to even attempt to talk about anything substantial about Romney's business background and how it relates to the country and our economy.
Click to expand...

You are an idiot if you think this article is coming from an unbiased and factual material.

Any type of "business" has one purpose and thats to make money. You are living in the wrong country if you believe making money or success should be seen as evil.
 
Beantown said:
You are an idiot if you think this article is coming from an unbiased and factual material.

Any type of "business" has one purpose and thats to make money. You are living in the wrong country if you believe making money or success should be seen as evil.
Click to expand...

Even if their practices are evil?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top