Romney's "business experience"
Hey Tiny, hope you're doing well. There's no ban on posting here, post away.
The Obama campaign is now presenting to America Romney's "business experience". As they should. Romney thought all he had to do was refer to his business experience, and that people would believe he knows how to create jobs and is looking out for them. In fact the record shows he both created jobs and destroyed jobs, and in some cases cut pensions, whatever it took to maximize profit for Romney's equity firm. The GST Steel story is getting the most attention, it is worth a look to get some insight into this guy.
Romney Economics: Bankruptcy and Bailouts at GST Steel
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMndjLIQUFw[/url]
Stupid is what stupid does!
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;422529]I have been in 71 countries trying to understand what other countries to really think about North American People.[/QUOTE]You have said this OVER and OVER Dude. Why would you assume that JUST BECAUSE you own a passport that makes you somehow in the know? At the end of the day, you are sadly just a UNION GUY that barely made it through high school. It shows in your political posts! As your union pension sadly isn't getting it done you now RAIL at the GOP. Isn't it Nancy and your crowd that should have provided you with a bettter LOT in life. Suggest YOU start railing at them. YOU don't KNOW WHAT YOU don't KNOW DUDE in spite of how many stamps ya have in your passport. Stupid is what stupid does. Toymann
Of Course Liberals Love the Lie, It's All They Have
Esten I have seen the ad and get real tired of the whining in it. The workers seem to think they are blameless in the demise of the firm.
Esten, GST issued the bonds and people bought them, so the people purchasing the bonds must have thought the company still had a chance to survive in the market place since no one forced them to by the bonds. Bain did not issue those bonds and as far as the pension plan, how many times do I have to say it, the company has to survive in the market place before there are jobs and pay checks much less pensions. Given the choice I am sure the workers would rather still have a job than a bankrupt pension plan due to the company folding. Why do liberals believe 'pensions' are a God given 'right'?
GST was not in good shape prior to Bain stepping in, so where is your ire for the prior owners who helped run the company into the ground in the first place? The lie serves Team Obama and your purposes to smear Romney who was long gone when GST went under, but never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
At least Bain used capital from willing participants who contributed their own money and not unwilling participates whose tax money was used to bail out GM, Chrysler to benefit Obama's allies in the UAW, or phony capitalism such as Solyndra and several others.
Industries in the US are constantly pricing themselves out of the market due to labor costs. This is not some socialist utopia where companies can produce products which cost more than they are sold for and remain in business.
Narrow conservative thinking
[QUOTE=El Alamo;422686]This mentality is what creates jobs and keeps us competitive in the world economy. Something that Obama and his night of the living dead zombie supporters are oblivious to.[/QUOTE]Statements like this exemplify how little some conservatives understand the economy.
You don't need to [i]maximize[/i] profits for owners or Wall Street firms to create jobs. You just need profits. There is no guarantee that more profit motive/profit will create more jobs, or that less profit motive/profit will reduce jobs. If this were true, jobs would not have grown so much under the higher tax rates of the Clinton years, and jobs would not have stagnated under the lower tax rates of the Bush years. There's all the proof you need.
Profits before people = greed
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 422708]The only dodging going on here is from my old friend Esten, you just can not stay on topic.
Esten, I was very clear, Profits before People or there is no company!
The only dodging going on now is from you with your nebulous B / S about different 'ethical' ways to run a business.[/QUOTE]You're not fooling anyone with your dodging."Profits before people" is an expression for business greed. Typically when ownership does something to reward / enrich itself at the expense of workers or customers. For example, if a business had a good year and increased its profits from $100 million to $120 million, and the owners give themselves large bonuses, but tell the workers there will be no bonuses or merit increases because the company needs to grow faster. There are a bazillion examples. It's about fairness and ethics.
So once again you are wrong Doppel. Or rather, exposed for trying to dodge from the real issue of greed. If a company is profitable, it doesn't need to stiff workers or customers for the sake of even more profits. In fact if done too overtly that can harm a company. Though that's a moot point when a company is going out of business, which explains Bain's "profits before people" conduct when GST Steel went bankrupt.
Esten Still Dodging and Dodging and Dodging
Esten, your squirming around more than a $20 working girl in church with a trick waiting outside.
Let's start with dodging – none here just on your side.
I've always been very clear, I am an unrepentant capitalist.
Those who can, do. They are called EMPLOYERS.
Those who can't, don't. They are called EMPLOYEES.
Of course those who can't and don't, I. E. Employees, have Liberals to whine, *****, moan and groan about how 'unfair' it is that those who build enterprises to profit from building those enterprises. For some strange reason Liberals believe by virtue of being given a job that employee is now 'entitled' to share in the profits of those who started the business which gave them the job in the first place.
Your arguments about short changing employees and shoddy products or services to boost profits are equally without merit. Any firm who practices such will soon find it's best and most productive employees gone and the clients leaving as well. Such a business can not long exist unless of course it does so in your liberal utopian dream world.
Back to Bain Capital and GST Steel, still not a word about the folks who ran the company in the ditch in the first place. Regarding the funds you allege Bain 'stole', what about the funds Bain invested in the company in the first place? Bain picked up FAILING companies and tried to turn them around. Check their record. 22% of their acquisitions still went into bankruptcy but 78% become profitable. I would say that's a hell of a lot better record than Obama's crony capitalism by funding those who contribute to his campaign.
In my shop, the floggings will cease when moral improves.
Romney's Private Equity vs Obama's Public Equity
[quote=zerohedge][b]Comparing Track Records: Mitt Romney's Private Equity vs Barack Obama's Public Equity[/b]
By now everyone is well aware what the main tension involving this year's presidential campaign as far as Mitt Romney is concerned, will be his professional past, namely his experience at, and exposure to, Bain Capital. By now most have also gotten a sense of the angle of attack that the incumbent will rely on in order to discredit his GOP challenger, and if they haven't, they will soon enough: after all in Obama's own words "Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital is what this campaign is going to be about." In other words, Romney's history with managing private (emphasis added) equity. Yet at Marc Thiessen at the WaPo points out, the logical retort from the Romney camp would be to shift attention to something potentially more embarrassing: Obama's record with public equity. Because, frankly, it is deplorable. And while one may debate the number of job losses at the companies that Bain took private, the driving prerogative for Romney was to generate value for his investors and shareholders. This in itself will hardly be debated by Obama. In other words, for any and all of his other failings, Romney succeeded at his primary task. The question then is: did Obama do the same? Did he succeed in investing public equity, I. E, the taxpayer capital that the US financial mechanism has afforded him. Sadly, the answer appears to be a resounding no.
As Thiessen notes:
Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions.
One could just utter the world Solyndra here, and all would be made clear. However, that is just the beginning. Here are some other notable public equity failings of the administration:
[b][i]Raser Technologies. [/b] In 2010, the Obama administration gave Raser a $33 million taxpayer-funded grant to build a power plant in Beaver Creek, Utah. According to the Wall Street Journal, after burning through our tax dollars, the company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012. The plant now has fewer than 10 employees, and Raser owes $1. 5 million in back taxes.
[b]ECOtality. [/b] The Obama administration gave ECOtality $126. 2 million in taxpayer money in 2009 for, among other things, the installation of 14, 000 electric car chargers in five states. Obama even hosted the company's president, Don Karner, in the first lady's box during the 2010 State of the Union address as an example of a stimulus success story. According to ECOtality's own SEC filings, the company has since incurred more than $45 million in losses and has told the federal government, 'We may not achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future. ' Worse, according to CBS News the company is 'under investigation for insider trading, ' and Karner has been subpoenaed 'for any and all documentation surrounding the public announcement of the first Department of Energy grant to the company. '
[b]Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP). [/b] The Obama administration gave NGP a $98. 5 million taxpayer loan guarantee in 2010. The New York Times reported last October that the company is in 'financial turmoil' and that '[a]fter a series of technical missteps that are draining Nevada Geothermal's cash reserves, its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was 'significant doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern. '&8201; '
[b]First Solar. [/b] The Obama administration provided First Solar with more than $3 billion in loan guarantees for power plants in Arizona and California. According to a Bloomberg Businessweek report last week, the company 'fell to a record low in Nasdaq Stock Market trading May 4 after reporting $401 million in restructuring costs tied to firing 30 percent of its workforce. '
[b]Abound Solar, Inc. [/b] The Obama administration gave Abound Solar a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories. According to Forbes, in February the company halted production and laid off 180 employees.
[b]Beacon Power. [/b] The Obama administration gave Beacon — a green-energy storage company — a $43 million loan guarantee. According to CBS News, at the time of the loan, 'Standard and Poor's had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of 'CCC-plus. ' ' In the fall of 2011, Beacon received a delisting notice from Nasdaq and filed for bankruptcy. [/i]
It gets worse:
A company called SunPower got a $1. 2 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, and as of January, the company owed more than it was worth. Brightsource got a $1. 6 billion loan guarantee and posted a string of net losses totaling $177 million. And, of course, let's not forget Solyndra — the solar panel manufacturer that received $535 million in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees and went bankrupt, leaving taxpayers on the hook.
Yet if it was merely pure incompetence from a president without any real business background, that would at least explain it, if not justify it. However, it appears that [u][b]inexcusable crony capitalism[/u][/b] Plays a far greater role in Obama's public equity failings:
Obama has declared that all the projects received funding 'based solely on their merits. ' But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, 'Throw Them All Out, ' [u][i][b]fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department's grants and loans went to 'individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama's National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. '[/u][/i][/b] Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457, 834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11. 35 billion. Obama said this week it's not the president's job 'to make a lot of money for investors. [b][u]' Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.[/b][/u]
All that cronyism and corruption is catching up with the administration. According to Politico, [b][u]'The Energy Department's inspector general has launched more than 100 criminal investigations'[/b][/u] related to the department's green-energy programs.
So while attacking Romney for his beliefs, views, and outlook on life may be one thing, Obama may be wise to redirect his current strategy of attacking Romney's professional background, unless the tables are turned, and his own track record of gross public capital missalocation ends up under the prime time microscope.
[url]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/comparing-track-records-mitt-romneys-private-equity-vs-barack-obamas-public-equity[/url][/quote]I'm not convinced Romney will make a good president, but I am convince Obama is a bad one, possibly the worst ever.
Right, not the same thing
On Governor Romney's bill the Republicans and the Democrats worked together on it.
But, on the Health Care bill President Obama purposed, the Republicans sat on their collected thumbs.
Maybe if they got off their thumbs, and worked together on it the Country would have gotten the Health Care bill that is needed for All.
Also, Job bills have been proposed and the Republicans still sit on their thumbs. This has to be the worse congress that the Country has had.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 422743]No, not the same thing.
Obamacare was rammed up America's ass by an incredibly narrow vote of 50. 3% of Congress, and without a single vote from any congressional representatives outside the Democratic party. The voting was so narrow that Democratic Party leaders couldn't even risk sending their own bill back to the Senate where it would have been voted down, and instead they passed the old version passed by the Senate just prior to Scott Brown's election.
On the other hand.
The health care law passed in Massachusetts was supported overwhelmingly in the MA legislature with 198 house reps supporting the bill and only 2 voting against it – 99% voting in favor of the plan! The bill also passed through the state senate without a single dissenting vote.
The difference is that Gov. Romney and the Massachusetts legislature worked together and crafted a health bill that had the support of an overwhelming majority of the people of Massachusetts.
I believe that Obama and the Democrats should have done the same thing for the American people by working to create a bill that more Americans could have supported, but that would have required real leadership, something that Obama is completely lacking.
Once again, I apologize for letting the facts destroy a common liberal rant.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]
