[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2012-July-16, 22:13, said:

I think most of the younger generation chose to wait until 2016 when, assuming Prez O is reelected, there will be two wide-open primaries with no incumbents running, like in 2008. No one wants to go into that race as "the 2012 loser".

Perhaps Romney was willing to be the sacrificial lamb, hoping to clear the way for a Mormon candidate (with a realistic chance of being elected) in the future.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on 2012-July-16, 16:28, said:

The issue is responsibility and truthfulness.

i agree... so does the washington post, which said

Quote

One of their outsourcing ads before the article ran, in fact, earned Four Pinocchios. These new ads would not fare much better; there is little in the Post article that backs up the Obama campaign’s spin.

and so does fact check, which said

Quote

we found no evidence to support the claim that Romney — while he was still running Bain Capital — shipped American jobs overseas.

[hrothgar]

Romney's run at the presidency is predicated on the claim that he is in a better position to add jobs and improve the economy than Obama.
His only real supporting evidence is his experience at Bain. (Romney certainly can't run on his jobs record as governor of Massachusetts)
It's not at all surprising that the Obama campaign is attacking Romney on this claim.

Romney had a great track record at Bain. He was highly successful at creating shareholder value which is the primary concern of an investment manager. However, this is in no way equivalent to "creating jobs". Indeed, the strategies that made Bain successful are better characterized as "looting the pension fund" than "job creation".

I am attaching a link from well know liberal bastion "Bloomberg" which describes Bain method's of generating shareholder value along with a key quote:
http://www.bloomberg...zed-losses.html

Quote

Bain Capital’s acquisition in 1994 of Dade International, a supplier of in-vitro diagnostic products, was 81 percent financed by debt. Of the $85 million in equity, about $27 million came from Bain with the rest coming from a group of investors that included Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

From 1995 to 1999, Bain Capital tripled Dade’s debt from about $300 million to $902 million.

Some of the debt was used to pay for acquisitions of DuPont Co.’s in-vitro diagnostics division in May 1996 and Behring Diagnostics, a German medical- testing company, in 1997. But some was used to finance a repurchase of half of Bain Capital’s equity for $242 million -- more than eight times its investment -- and to pay its investors almost $100 million in fees.

Dade was left in a weakened financial condition and couldn’t withstand the shocks of increased debt payments when interest rates rose and revenue from Europe fell because of a decline in the value of the euro. The company filed for bankruptcy in August 2002, because of its inability to service a $1.5 billion debt load. About 1,700 people lost their jobs while Bain Capital claimed capital gains (net of its losses in the bankruptcy) of roughly $216 million, an eightfold return.

Personally, I don't think that the Obama campaign should be pushing outsourcing as hard as they are. (I think tax scam / raiding the pension fund is much more damning). With this said and done, for the purposes of a general election focusing on stewardship of the economy at large I do think that it is right and proper to hang Bain Capital like a millstone around Romney's neck. By the time November rolls around, I'm hoping that Bain Capital is radioactive.

[PassedOut]

Krugman: Romney’s personal finances matter

Quote

So how can the Obama campaign cut through this political and media fog? By talking about Romney’s personal history, and the way that history resonates with the realities of his pro-rich, anti-middle-class policy proposals.

Thus the entirely true charge that Romney wants to slash historically low tax rates on the rich even further dovetails perfectly with his own record of extraordinary tax avoidance — so extraordinary that he’s evidently afraid to let voters see his tax returns from before 2010. The equally true charge that he’s pushing policies that would benefit the rich at the expense of ordinary working Americans meshes with Bain’s record of earning big profits even when workers suffered — a record so stark that Romney is attempting to distance himself from part of it by insisting that he had nothing to do with Bain’s operations after 1999, even though the company continued to list him as CEO and sole owner until 2002. And so on.

The point is that talking about Romney’s personal history isn’t a diversion from substantive policy discussion. On the contrary, in a political and media environment strongly biased against substance, talking about Bain and offshore accounts is the only way to bring the real policy issues into focus. And we should applaud, not condemn, the Obama campaign for standing up to the tut-tutters.

It would be better if the news media discussed the issues in a meaningful way. But when we've got barbers who think that rockets punching holes in the ozone layer creates global warming, this is practical politics 101.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-July-17, 05:32, said:

Krugman: Romney’s personal finances matter

why do they matter? he's rich, what's the big deal?

hrothgar, on 2012-July-17, 04:51, said:

Personally, I don't think that the Obama campaign should be pushing outsourcing as hard as they are.

you're right, especially given his own less than sterling stance on outsourcing, from his jobs czar to some stimulus spending... even so, i agree that if one is to run on certain facts, those facts become fair game... but that goes both ways... obama's record as prez is only marginally better than carter's was, which explains why he'd rather run against romney than for himself

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2012-July-16, 17:37, said:

Have the Republicans really screwed this one up, or do they think Obama is unassailable so they might as well not bother finding someone who has a chance?

This IMO

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-July-17, 06:01, said:

obama's record as prez is only marginally better than carter's was, which explains why he'd rather run against romney than for himself

I'd argue that Obama has been extremely successful as President, especially given the constraints that he is laboring under.

I know that we all wish that the President could wave a magic wand and make everything better, but it takes a long time for economies to recover from major financial crashes.
It takes even longer when the opposition party is so successful at blocking traditional policy remedies and is playing at Brinksmanship with the debt ceiling.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-July-17, 06:01, said:

you're right, especially given his own less than sterling stance on outsourcing, from his jobs czar to some stimulus spending...

Earth to idiot, earth to idiot...

Its almost impossible to spend money in modern integrated economy without some of it going to trading partners.
I'd go so far as to say that its a bad idea...

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-July-17, 06:01, said:

why do they matter? he's rich, what's the big deal?

I believe that prostitution should be legal.
I wouldn't be happy if my daughter decided to become a whore.

In Romney's case, I suspect that the techniques that he used to accumulate money were legal.
At the same time, the amount of money that he was able to sock away in a tax free IRA feels abusive.
The man has upwards of a hundred million dollars in a tax free account which, in theory has contribution limited to a couple thousand dollars a year.

It feels kind of skeevy to be doing so at the same time he is arguing about the need to extend tax cuts for the poor, abused wealth creators...

Romeny is running on his business acumen. He is lauding his ability to create jobs and wealth.
I think that its perfectly reasonable for for the public to want to understand the details of how he makes his money.

[Winstonm]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-July-17, 01:39, said:

Romney is, amusingly, a white Obama from a policy perspective (assuming that his background prior to running for president is what he actually thinks rather than whatever he is saying to get elected).

However, the reason Obama is hitting Romney hard about the Bain capital thing is that there is something bad in there. I reckon it's one of these four:

1. Extremely high income.
2. More overseas bank accounts and tax shields than previously indicated. Offshore shell companies?
3. Controversial investments. That Bain invested in aborted foetus disposal systems is already public knowledge. What else is there?
4. A very low tax rate.

Your pick as to what. I don't think any of them will end particularly well.

I recently read something about this and I think you have hit upon something - Romney, like all very wealthy individuals, earns a lot of money from overseas investments, which means he has created shell companies in the Caymans to delay paying U.S. taxes - all totally legal, mind you, but so out-of-touch with the working class as to make him look like an alien in comparison.

It is obvious he has been a good businessman, which means what he has been thinking about has been profits, not how to better his fellow man.

However, the Cayman bankers association might throw him a thank you party.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on 2012-July-17, 03:58, said:

i agree... so does the washington post, which said


and so does fact check, which said

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up with me - in the original post there was nothing about outsourcing, and I have certainly not said anything about outsourcing.

The issue is whether or not Romney was disingenuous when he tried to distance himself from Bain Capital when he was clearly still responsible for its operations.

As to your rich comment, the manner of obtaining wealth says much more about the man than the fact his bank account overrunneth.

Al Capone was also rich. So was John Kennedy. Which one would you vote for?

[hrothgar]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-July-17, 01:39, said:

However, the reason Obama is hitting Romney hard about the Bain capital thing is that there is something bad in there. I reckon it's one of these four:

1. Extremely high income.
2. More overseas bank accounts and tax shields than previously indicated. Offshore shell companies?
3. Controversial investments. That Bain invested in aborted foetus disposal systems is already public knowledge. What else is there?
4. A very low tax rate.

I heard an interesting supposition regarding a fifth possible reason:

Romney's tax dodges may have also been applied towards his tithes to the Morman church...

[kenrexford]

One thing that continues to bother me is why neither side is really talking much about what companies we are talking about in the first place. I tried to look into this but had a difficult time doing so. But, it seems like the entire controversy concerns two companies.

One was "Modus Media," who does work for companies like IBM and Dell. It looks like 200 jobs were sent to Mexico.

The other is apparently SMTC. From what I can see, 429 jobs were lost in Denver, with the claim being that these jobs went to Mexico. However, it also seems that at the same time about 915 jobs were lost in a different plant in Mexico. So, if my math is correct, it seems like more jobs were lost in Mexico. Assume, for the sake of argument, then, that the company had a total of 2000 jobs, 1000 of which were in Mexico and 1000 in the US. This is a random number, but the math principle seems to follow correctly. Assuming these numbers, then the percentage of the SMTC workforce would be 50% US jobs. After the closings, you would have 571 US jobs but 85 Mexican jobs, meaning that the US workforce would be 87% of SMTC's workforce. These numbers are random, but the principle seems that the ratio of US jobs to Mexican jobs might well have increased if SMTC actually ended with a higher perentage of US jobs. If the US workforce was substantially smaller than the Mexican workforce before the closings, then the opposite result might exist. In other words, if the starting point was 80% Mexican jobs, then the end result might be now 83%, or something like that. But, it does not seem clear that the closing of the Denver plant necessarily resulted in jobs actually going to Mexico.

No matter what the numbers, though, it seems like rather small numbers.

Does anyone know anything about this?

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on 2012-July-17, 08:34, said:

No matter what the numbers, though, it seems like rather small numbers.
Does anyone know anything about this?

I haven't bothered to look into the outsourcing issue in detail

1. I'm pro free trade and don't have any real issue with outsourcing
2. I view outsourcing as a distraction from the real issues regarding how Bain made money (tax scams, pension raiding, etc)
3. Live by the sword, die by the sword

Wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were pretty small

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-July-17, 07:18, said:

Earth to idiot, earth to idiot...

Its almost impossible to spend money in modern integrated economy without some of it going to trading partners.
I'd go so far as to say that its a bad idea...

you remind me of howard on BBT... it's the obama administration who keeps saying it's a bad thing, hell, obama himself is romney's biggest critic on this issue

Winstonm, on 2012-July-17, 07:55, said:

The issue is whether or not Romney was disingenuous when he tried to distance himself from Bain Capital when he was clearly still responsible for its operations.

and this is why i keep bringing it up... fact checkers almost universally agree that this is a lie

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on 2012-July-17, 11:29, said:

you remind me of howard on BBT... it's the obama administration who keeps saying it's a bad thing, hell, obama himself is romney's biggest critic on this issue


and this is why i keep bringing it up... fact checkers almost universally agree that this is a lie

Dan Primack, at CNNMoney wrote this:

Quote

To me, it was further confirmation that Romney was telling the truth about when he stopped making decisions at Bain, and that the Obama campaign was making mountains out of a fictional molehill.

Four follow-up items:

1. In my original post, I steered clear of using the word "responsibility." My aim was only to show that neither Bain Capital nor its investors believed that Mitt Romney was still making investment decisions by the summer of 2000, not whether or not he would have been legally liable had the firm been sued either during that period, or subsequently for acts that occurred during that period

And that is what I stated initially - that Romney may well be technically accurate that he had no input into decisions, but he has failed to admit that as long as he held the position as CEO he was responsible for the actions taken.

[luke warm]

geez

[blackshoe]

Given the shape this country is in, and the quality of the current candidates for President, I don't think this crap about Bain is worth worrying about. Neither Obama nor Romney is what this country needs right now.

I heard three suggestions for write in votes today: Cthulhu, Mickey Mouse, and "none of the above". Two of the three of them would be a better President than either of the current main party candidates. As for the third, as his campaign slogan says, "why settle for the lesser evil?"

[Vampyr]

I definitely think that "none of the above", forcing a repeat election with none of the previous candidates if it wins, should be available in all elections.

However, I think that people will be afraid of wasting their vote and will still usually vote for the lesser evil. It's a shame how frequently one is forced to vote not for a candidate, but against the other one.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-July-17, 11:29, said:

you remind me of howard on BBT...

Don't understand the analogy

FWIW, I agree that Obama is pushing Romney hard with respect to outsourcing.
I have also stated that the outsourcing line doesn't personally resonate with me.
(Though based on polling data, it does seem to be resonating with voters)

Not sure what this has to do with the Big Bang Theory