The King of Bain - When Mitt Romney Came to Town

[uselesslegs]

When you're ultimate goal is profit, whether a company fails or is successful, you're in it for the wrong reasons.  You're employees are counting on you to have their best interests as part of the overall reasoning for success.  If they're viewed as just a necessary evil that can be expunged if it's more profitable to just gut and collapse their workplace for resale, insurance money, bankruptcy...you're in it for the wrong reasons.

We've decided success is the size of your bank account (or off shore holdings) and that gives preferential treatment to the bottom line, even when by any measure, the bottom line in many cases, is already astronomical...BUT...there's more to be had.  If you're not helping the worker, then you're helping yourself and...you're in it for the wrong reasons.  People should not be stepping stones with expiration dates as they help you accumulate mass wealth.

It really is such a fuckin sad travesty that we've let wealth define every other aspect of humanity now...fuckin sad.

[lil mike]

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.

No.  And it's a dumb question, and you know it.

But that's nothing compared to you saying that, "it matters not whether Obama was right and Romney was wrong."  You keep dodging the issue.  Purposefully.  That's why you would rather talk about selling a joint then whether it was better to cut those jobs and save the the company than not.  I get it.

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..

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..

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.

What is the mechanism for saving those 750 jobs?  Your excerpt seemed to make clear that the company wasn't salvageable.  So what should have been done?  Just like there wasn't a path that would allow those 21,000 jobs to be saved at GM, there wasn't a path to to save those 750.  There have been a lot of job losses in the steel industry since the 70's.  In fact, the US steel industry is in good shape now, in spite of government help.  I'll link this for you, not that it will matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/worldbusiness/23iht-steel.1.18064775.html?pagewanted=all

[ekg]

No.  And it's a dumb question, and you know it.

Yes! and so is your comparison.. and you know it as well, why won't you simply admit it and move on.

Obama (or me), is not the same as Mitt (or Escobar).. duh! So why are you trying to put a shiney-gloss on Mitt by making Obama's actions equal to his own?  Just own it already..

But that's nothing compared to you saying that, "it matters not whether Obama was right and Romney was wrong."  You keep dodging the issue.  Purposefully.  That's why you would rather talk about selling a joint then whether it was better to cut those jobs and save the the company than not.  I get it.

staying on topic and not letting you change the conversation because you're uncomfortable is not dodging..  In some cases it is better to cut some to save the whole, I will never say differently.. but not in all cases... and you can't say that that was Mitt's goal each and every time, that would be bullshit.. his goal, his only goal was to make money. to get the investment back in triplicate, if cutting a few jobs to save the whole would do that, that's what he did.. if killing them all and selling the pieces was more profitable, well he did that as well... do you deny any of that?

none of which is comparable to what Obama did. Had he done it to 100's of corporations then you could make your comparison.. But he didn't, he did it once and to a single company that asked for the Gov't help... and for that help, they had to do what the legal minds of the gov't said to do.. and that was lose 21,000 jobs.. which in the end created thousands more and put GM back in the number one spot... and speaking of dodging, you were the one who was anti- this bailout, you would have let the auto industry die taking millions of jobs with it... do you care to admit your brilliant assessment was wrong?

What is the mechanism for saving those 750 jobs?  Your excerpt seemed to make clear that the company wasn't salvageable.  So what should have been done?  Just like there wasn't a path that would allow those 21,000 jobs to be saved at GM, there wasn't a path to to save those 750.  There have been a lot of job losses in the steel industry since the 70's.  In fact, the US steel industry is in good shape now, in spite of government help.  I'll link this for you, not that it will matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/worldbusiness/23iht-steel.1.18064775.html?pagewanted=all

and? I'm not doubting you or going after Romney for what he did.. Not right now, not in this thread.. and my issue would be the bail out and broken promises, not necessarily the lost jobs.. steel work is rough, and many mills closed...  I'm not micro-focused on those jobs the way you are.. It was just a point that answered your incredibly naive statement of "and I'd like to know if Romney got anywhere near firing 21,000 workers".. it was an example out of his 10,000... if you would like to talk about the steel industry throughout the 70' until the present, have at it in a new thread... my only reason for bring it up to counter that ridiculous statement of yours

re:that article.. it turned out wrong didn't it... all that doom and gloom didn't pan out the way it said.. the bailout worked out the way the 'partisans' said it did..

[ekg]

This is what saving the auto-industry did..

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-18/auto-plants-at-capacity-buoying-all-parts-of-u-s-economy-cars.html

and that is why I was for it. Just this one industry alone helps create more jobs throughout the system.. and letting it fail, at the time, would have crippled this country in ways we'd never seen before..

This is the difference it what Obama did and what Mitt does at Bain. Obama's goal wasn't to make millions, it was to save jobs, thus helping to save the US and world's economy. Mitt's goal is to make millions, if a job or two gets saved in the process, ok..the same way if 100 are lost in the process is OK...  his intended goal is to repay the investment in millions.. and no one, not even he, can say differently..

This doesn't make Obama some 'god' of the working man... this had to be done in order to keep the country from real devastation. But to compare what Mitt did to Obama is patently retarded.. and for Mitt(or anyone else) to pretend his goal at Bain was altruistic is utter bullshit.

[Howey]

This is what saving the auto-industry did..

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-18/auto-plants-at-capacity-buoying-all-parts-of-u-s-economy-cars.html

and that is why I was for it. Just this one industry alone helps create more jobs throughout the system.. and letting it fail, at the time, would have crippled this country in ways we'd never seen before..

This is the difference it what Obama did and what Mitt does at Bain. Obama's goal wasn't to make millions, it was to save jobs, thus helping to save the US and world's economy. Mitt's goal is to make millions, if a job or two gets saved in the process, ok..the same way if 100 are lost in the process is OK...  his intended goal is to repay the investment in millions.. and no one, not even he, can say differently..

This doesn't make Obama some 'god' of the working man... this had to be done in order to keep the country from real devastation. But to compare what Mitt did to Obama is patently retarded.. and for Mitt(or anyone else) to pretend his goal at Bain was altruistic is utter bullshit.

Wow...from your linky

Ohio added 79,300 jobs through November 2011 from December 2010, an improvement from a decade when only Michigan among U.S. states lost a larger percentage of jobs, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Ohio was second in the nation to Michigan in vehicle production in 2010, according to the state Department of Development.

Michigan gained 63,500 jobs in 2011, according to the Research Seminar in Quantitative Economics at the University of Michigan. It was the first job gain in the state since the turn of the century.

HOW DARE OBAMA DO THIS! HOW DARE THE SOCIALIST KENYAN TRY TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY BY CREATING *SHUDDER* JOBS!


See, ekg....It's like this. We can trot out link after link proving lilMittens wrongo, yet in his obstinate refusal to accept he's wrongo, he'll sputter and sputter and sputter and pull more links from 2005, or 2008, or whenever to "prove" Obama has failed us.

We won't convince him of anything, as manly as that would be for him to swallow his pride, pull up his britches, and say; "Yeah, you guys are right. Obama saved the automobile industry."

It'll never happen. Not as long as there's a BLACK MAN leading our country, cuz that's what it's all about!

He's the right's boogeyman and he's scared them into insanity. 

[lil mike]

Yes! and so is your comparison.. and you know it as well, why won't you simply admit it and move on.

Obama (or me), is not the same as Mitt (or Escobar).. duh! So why are you trying to put a shiney-gloss on Mitt by making Obama's actions equal to his own?  Just own it already..



staying on topic and not letting you change the conversation because you're uncomfortable is not dodging..  In some cases it is better to cut some to save the whole, I will never say differently.. but not in all cases... and you can't say that that was Mitt's goal each and every time, that would be bullshit.. his goal, his only goal was to make money. to get the investment back in triplicate, if cutting a few jobs to save the whole would do that, that's what he did.. if killing them all and selling the pieces was more profitable, well he did that as well... do you deny any of that?

none of which is comparable to what Obama did. Had he done it to 100's of corporations then you could make your comparison.. But he didn't, he did it once and to a single company that asked for the Gov't help... and for that help, they had to do what the legal minds of the gov't said to do.. and that was lose 21,000 jobs.. which in the end created thousands more and put GM back in the number one spot... and speaking of dodging, you were the one who was anti- this bailout, you would have let the auto industry die taking millions of jobs with it... do you care to admit your brilliant assessment was wrong?


and? I'm not doubting you or going after Romney for what he did.. Not right now, not in this thread.. and my issue would be the bail out and broken promises, not necessarily the lost jobs.. steel work is rough, and many mills closed...  I'm not micro-focused on those jobs the way you are.. It was just a point that answered your incredibly naive statement of "and I'd like to know if Romney got anywhere near firing 21,000 workers".. it was an example out of his 10,000... if you would like to talk about the steel industry throughout the 70' until the present, have at it in a new thread... my only reason for bring it up to counter that ridiculous statement of yours

re:that article.. it turned out wrong didn't it... all that doom and gloom didn't pan out the way it said.. the bailout worked out the way the 'partisans' said it did..

OK I guess the Socratic method doesn't work.  I totally misunderestimated the ideological blinders you choose to wear.

Basically you seem to think that the primary and most important difference is motive.  Mitt was trying to make money, Obama was trying to insure a continued flow of union money.  Mitt was trying to gain personally, Obama was trying to gain for his party.

OK got it.

As to your comment about my opposition to the bailout, you're damn right I was opposed to it and I am still opposed to it.  For reasons that I've already enumerated multiple times (although all of those reasons have mind have most likely vanished into the ether now).  The bail out/ Obama reorganization plan didn't work any better than allowing Chapter 11 to continue.  Based on your previous comments, you thought that Chapter 11 would lead to a liquidation of GM; it would just vanish as a company, and I've never been able, despite all evidence, to convince you otherwise.  My "brilliant assessment" was correct, and I doubt I'll have reason to change my mind, at least until the stock price gets to the break even point (about 52; it was at 25 on Friday).  So far, it's still a loser for the tax payer and I still doubt it was reorganized enough to be on a firm footing.  That was the purpose of the Chapter 11.

[ekg]

OK I guess the Socratic method doesn't work.  I totally misunderestimated the ideological blinders you choose to wear.

Basically you seem to think that the primary and most important difference is motive.  Mitt was trying to make money, Obama was trying to insure a continued flow of union money.  Mitt was trying to gain personally, Obama was trying to gain for his party.

OK got it.

you're simply unable or unwilling to see how retarded you're being.. I am not Escobar, Obama is not Romney.. you can try all you want to put that square peg into the circular hole but it won't fit. That's not me wearing blinders, that's just reality..