The King of Bain - When Mitt Romney Came to Town

[lil mike]

wow.. you really do think that highly of yourself don't you?

Eh, not really.  It only seems that way in comparison.

but this..

So Romney and Obama cut jobs for exactly the same reason.

hilarious... But coming from a Romney man? Predictable..

btw, how many jobs did Romney cut anyway? We know Obama's is 21,000.. would you like to match Mitt's up with that number? and are you saying every one was done for the same reason GM's were done?

I don't know how many Mitt cut.  If you're interested that might be a good project for you, but the exact number wouldn't really change the point.  Unless you are arguing that those 21,000 workers lost their jobs for some other reason than the reorganization of GM.  I thought the article made that point.

[lil mike]

Gee. They're teaching you the big words in the asylum, aren't they?


Talk about missing a point!

Again. A n d  I ' l l  s a y  t h i s  r e a l  s l o w.......................................

Obama did not bail out the automakers. That was Bush.


Of course, the Obama administration had to administer the loans. Unlike many of Mitt's companies, they didn't go belly up and as I've show you 45k, more than the number you cited, have returned to work. Not to mention (again) the success of 2011 and projected success of 2012.

Mitt's companies enjoyed a bankruptcy rate over twice of other companies and never rehired all those thousands of workers fired.

Most of all, and most importantly, I don't recall Obama making 190 million out of firing people, did he?

Howey, I swear, ya kill me!  "Talk about missing a point!"  HAAA!

Ahem, sorry, but that was just too funny!  No, I didn't miss the point, you apparently did once again.  I was referring to the reorganization of GM, not the bailouts, although bailouts were part of the reorganization, that had nothing to do with Bush.  The reorganization plan was all Obama.

Thanks for the laugh though!

[Howey]

Howey, I swear, ya kill me!  "Talk about missing a point!"  HAAA!

Ahem, sorry, but that was just too funny!  No, I didn't miss the point, you apparently did once again.  I was referring to the reorganization of GM, not the bailouts, although bailouts were part of the reorganization, that had nothing to do with Bush.  The reorganization plan was all Obama.

Thanks for the laugh though!

Enjoy the veal!

And rejoice in King Obama's great job in turning around the auto industry!

[lil mike]

Enjoy the veal!

And rejoice in King Obama's great job in turning around the auto industry!

The lesson?  Throw enough cash at something and you can keep it afloat!

You didn't have to go to Harvard to figure that one out though.

[Howey]

The lesson?  Throw enough cash at something and you can keep it afloat!

You didn't have to go to Harvard to figure that one out though.

Again...Bush threw the cash. Obama saved the industry. All hail King Obama!

[ekg]

Eh, not really.  It only seems that way in comparison.

I don't know how many Mitt cut.  If you're interested that might be a good project for you, but the exact number wouldn't really change the point.  Unless you are arguing that those 21,000 workers lost their jobs for some other reason than the reorganization of GM.  I thought the article made that point.

if you really can't see the difference, then you have to take off the (R) glasses..

here, I smoked pot.. even sold a joint once.. Does that me Pablo Escobar?   

You're saying it does and I'm telling you, you're uber-partisan..

This is why I tell you, you can't see grey.. because you can't see how selling a single joint is not the same as being the most prolific drug  lord ever.. or how restructuring one company and 21,000 jobs is different than doing it day in and day out for 15 years..

it's the reason I tire of any discussion with you.. I simply can't talk to someone who is as religious as you in their (R) belief.. sorry, not trying to insulting, just informative..

[ekg]

The lesson?  Throw enough cash at something and you can keep it afloat!

You didn't have to go to Harvard to figure that one out though.

BUsh went to Yale.

[Howey]

The lesson?  Throw enough cash at something and you can keep it afloat!

You didn't have to go to Harvard to figure that one out though.

BUsh went to Yale.

Seems like those Harvard graduates are a lot smarter than Yalies!

It’s official.


General Motors surpassed Toyota and Volkswagen to reclaim the crown of world’s largest automaker with global sales of 9.03 million vehicles in 2011.


That was 11% higher than Volkswagen, which last week reported 2011 global sales of 8.16 million. Toyota has not yet reported its final 2011 sales, but last month the Japanese automaker estimated it sold 7.9 million vehicles globally last year.


Toyota’s sales were constrained by production cuts caused my the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami in northeast Japan, and later in the year by flooding in Thailand.


GM’s 2011 sales rose 7.6% from 2011. Sales in the U.S. led the way for Chevrolet with total vehicle sales of 1,775,812, up more than 13%. China posted record sales of 595,068, up 9.5% from the previous year. Other markets that posted significant year-over-year increases include Vietnam (79%), Russia (49%), Turkey (30%) and Germany (21%).

Let's give King Obama credit for the drop in Michigan's unemployment rate while we're at it!

But recovery clearly seems to be underway, most likely because the auto industry is growing again. Government statistics show that the big job gains were in manufacturing and business services. Anecdotally, all three of Detroit's carmakers seem to be doing well now, adding shifts, reopening plants, and adding jobs. (They're also making pretty good cars, although, as you may have heard, the Chevy Volt has some battery problems.) According to a new economic growth index that the Brookings Institution put together, Detroit last year ranked ninth among the nation's  57 largest metropolitan areas.
 
President Obama and his allies will claim credit for this resurgence. They should -- and not just for the obvious reasons.
 
The decision to rescue the Chrysler and General Motors in early 2009 was not particularly popular. The only way to save the industry was to put up federal dollars, something presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney now says he opposed. It was certainly not what the public, already tired of bailouts and (in some cases) unions, wanted to hear.
 
But even in Michigan, the plan provoked ambivalence. The Obama administration was serious about using the structured bankruptcy to reorganize the companies into leaner, more competitive firms. That meant layoffs and, over the long-term, significantly lower pay for unionized auto workers. Only recently has the upside started to become clear.

*Cue lilMike posting a link from the Bush years about how shitty GM is and blaming everything on Obama.

[lil mike]

if you really can't see the difference, then you have to take off the (R) glasses..

here, I smoked pot.. even sold a joint once.. Does that me Pablo Escobar?   

You're saying it does and I'm telling you, you're uber-partisan..

This is why I tell you, you can't see grey.. because you can't see how selling a single joint is not the same as being the most prolific drug  lord ever.. or how restructuring one company and 21,000 jobs is different than doing it day in and day out for 15 years..

it's the reason I tire of any discussion with you.. I simply can't talk to someone who is as religious as you in their (R) belief.. sorry, not trying to insulting, just informative..

Your example only makes sense if you think Obama made a mistake in having the reorganization plan for GM.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were in favor of it?  If you think it was a good idea for Obama to restructure a company, why is it wrong when Romney does it?

Oh, maybe it's just the cash.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/205025-dems-receive-more-bain-dollars-than-gop

Bain gives more campaign money to Democrats than it does to Republican

Democrats have accepted more political donations than Republicans from executives at Bain Capital, complicating the left’s plan to attack Mitt Romney for his record at the private-equity firm.

During the last three election cycles, Bain employees have given Democratic candidates and party committees more than $1.2 million. The vast majority of that sum came from senior executives.

Republican candidates and party committees raised over $480,000 from senior Bain executives during that time period.

Recipients include Democratic senators facing tough reelection races this year, such as Jon Tester (Mont.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Bill Nelson (Fla.).
The Hill reviewed contributions made from the 2008, 2010 and 2012 cycles.

Romney has collected more money from Bain Capital employees than any federal candidate since the beginning of 2007, amassing more than $166,000 in contributions. He took more than $84,000 from Bain employees in the first three quarters of 2011.

But President Obama received a sizable share as well. He has accepted more than $80,000 from Bain employees since the beginning of 2007. Bain Capital employees gave $27,500 to Obama during the first three quarters of 2011.

[Howey]

I guess the Bain EMPLOYEES felt a little guilt. They probablyy also thought Mittens was paying for his campaign with his hidden offshore accounts.

[ekg]

Seems like those Harvard graduates are a lot smarter than Yalies!

Let's give King Obama credit for the drop in Michigan's unemployment rate while we're at it!

*Cue lilMike posting a link from the Bush years about how shitty GM is and blaming everything on Obama.

if he's as honest and 'non partisan' as he pretends he'll have nothing but good things to say.. my guess is he'll throw 1/2 a compliment and the a big ole 'But...'

[ekg]

Your example only makes sense if you think Obama made a mistake in having the reorganization plan for GM.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were in favor of it?  If you think it was a good idea for Obama to restructure a company, why is it wrong when Romney does it?

how in the hell does my example make sense only if Obama made a mistake.. You're claiming what Obama once did and what Romney did for 10 years are the same thing.. My example is highlight how they are not the same in any way, you think there is no difference between me selling one joint and Pablo Escobar who sold billions.. you're blinders can only see black and white, again! You cannot see there is a difference in my single joint sale and Escobar's extreme drug sale..

and this is where you've changed since it's Obama in office and why any discussion with you is about as fun and informative as watching paint dry. This hard-line radical stance you have shuts down any kind of forward moving conversation..

[lil mike]

how in the hell does my example make sense only if Obama made a mistake.. You're claiming what Obama once did and what Romney did for 10 years are the same thing.. My example is highlight how they are not the same in any way, you think there is no difference between me selling one joint and Pablo Escobar who sold billions.. you're blinders can only see black and white, again! You cannot see there is a difference in my single joint sale and Escobar's extreme drug sale..

and this is where you've changed since it's Obama in office and why any discussion with you is about as fun and informative as watching paint dry. This hard-line radical stance you have shuts down any kind of forward moving conversation..

No, your example between Escobar and you selling a joint doesn't even apply.  That has nothing to do with this issue, because implicit in that example is that Obama made a mistake, just a smaller one than Romney.  If I recall (and you'll correct me if I'm wrong!) you supported the GM bailout and the Obama reorganization plan for GM, which led to 21,000 workers losing their jobs.  Now, do you think that was a mistake, just not as big as Romney's firing of workers when reorganizing their companies (and I'd like to know if Romney got anywhere near firing 21,000 workers)?  Or... do you think Obama's reorganization of GM, including the firing of those workers, were vital to saving the company?

[Howey]

Obama reorganization plan for GM, which led to 21,000 workers losing their jobs. 

For someone who professes to be smart, you ain't.

Fulton credits the faster pace to Michigan's auto industry, which created 25,000 jobs this year and 19,000 in 2010.

See? That's the 21k back plus some more. Why won't you give Obama credit?

Now, do you think that was a mistake, just not as big as Romney's firing of workers when reorganizing their companies (and I'd like to know if Romney got anywhere near firing 21,000 workers)?  Or... do you think Obama's reorganization of GM, including the firing of those workers, were vital to saving the company?

a. Romney's actions were not to create jobs, they were to destroy jobs by restructuring companies. And, mostly, weren't effective.

b. Romney, in his own words, has stated he was in the business to make money. Not jobs.

Romney’s mission was to deliver high returns to his investors. He wasn’t running a charity ward. He wasn’t some do-gooder who spent every waking hour thinking of the jobs he’d create, of the lives he’d transform. His job was to make money, not create jobs. By all accounts, he was very successful.

But the fact remains that businesses aren’t job creators; they are profit maximizers. The two goals are very different.

Romney is a product of Harvard Business School. There are no classes at Harvard in “job creation.” Harvard MBAs are taught to rigorously analyze all aspects of business success, putting in place a good plan and good management. They learn that modern business is primarily about two things: finding a market and controlling costs.

For businesses, jobs effectively are a necessary evil. Jobs represent a cost, which must be minimized. Of course, the business must hire some people to produce its goods and services, but the focus is always on profit. If it’s profitable to hire more workers, then the business will hire more workers. If it’s profitable to fire workers, then most businesses will fire workers.

Soo....ya see lilSweetcheeks: Romney didn't care about the jobs or the little guy, he cared about the money. Obama, by restructuring GM, managed to restore the jobs lost plus thousands more and GM made a shitload of money on top of that.

Winning!

[ekg]

No, your example between Escobar and you selling a joint doesn't even apply.  That has nothing to do with this issue, because implicit in that example is that Obama made a mistake, just a smaller one than Romney. 

It has nothing to do with a 'mistake'.. my example is dead on, you're just caught being foolish and you're incapable of moving your radical position forward. This whole nonsense started out because you thought you were being obtuse and cute by bringing 'the King of GM". You were comparing Obama's single restructure with Romney's 10 years of of gobbling up companies and selling the bits and pieces. My example highlights the ridiculousness  of that position.. it matters not whether Obama was right and Romney was wrong.. those black and white, hard-line positions are in you, not me. You think neither is wrong,you think both are equal.

answer this question. just the question as it's asked.. not as seen through 'lil mike's radical filter'.. I smoked pot.. even sold a joint once.. Does that me Pablo Escobar?  

yes or no, it's a simple question.

If I recall (and you'll correct me if I'm wrong!) you supported the GM bailout and the Obama reorganization plan for GM, which led to 21,000 workers losing their jobs.  Now, do you think that was a mistake, just not as big as Romney's firing of workers when reorganizing their companies (and I'd like to know if Romney got anywhere near firing 21,000 workers)?  Or... do you think Obama's reorganization of GM, including the firing of those workers, were vital to saving the company?

you know full-well that I supported the bailout.. that is not the issue at hand right now so stop trying to change the subject on this line of discussion.

and btw, your rose-colored glasses are foggy if you really feel that in all Romney's time not even 21,000 people lost their jobs.. here's just one example of what Bain did..

Apparently they liked what they saw. Soon after, in October 1993, Bain Capital, co-founded by Mitt Romney, became majority shareholder in a steel mill that had been operating since 1888.

It was a gamble. The old mill, renamed GS Technologies, needed expensive updating, and demand for its products was susceptible to cycles in the mining industry and commodities markets.

Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they'd been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 a month.

What's more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company's underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.
http://blog.american.com/2012/01/why-is-romney-doing-such-a-lousy-job-defending-his-record-at-bain-capital/

He fucked up the lives of 750 people in one fell swoop and then had the gov't bail him out while his company still pocketed millions of tax payer's money when he was bailed out. That's just a single transaction in his 10,000 transactions and 750 investments..  Bain Capital wasn't a 'job-creating' venture, it was a capital venture, they were out to make massive profits, not job creation..

face it, your pick is a shyster plain and simple... but like the Weekly Standard says..

Third, the conversation about Bain must be shut down for the same reason the primary process has continually been declared “over”—because the Republican establishment has decided that Mitt Romney must be the nominee and any attempt to derail that outcome must be quashed. That’s fine. The Republican establishment is certainly entitled to pursue its own interests.

But conservatives do not have a duty to aid them. We will have a series of elections and the voters will decide who the nominee will be. In the course of that process, the voters are entitled to take a long and detailed look at Mitt Romney’s chief stated qualification for the presidency.

too bad you're in lock-step with the 1st paragraph instead of the 2nd.. but you're not really a conservative and you always follow the establishment don't you.