The Bane of Bain

[billw55]

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]

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]

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

 

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]

 

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]

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

 

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]

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:

 

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]

 

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

[onoway]

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?

Someone sent me a video yesterday with some (self identified) economist suggesting a very complicated scenario where Romney doesn't win on the first ballot and then everyone switches their second ballot vote to Ron Paul. He said Ron Paul had not officially withdrawn from the race, just said he is no longer campaigning.(?!?) As someone mentioned above, American politics are quite fascinating. Is Ron Paul ending up as Republican candidate actually possible?

[PassedOut]

It'll be interesting to find out how much this stuff about the Bain years, the off-shore bank accounts, and the undisclosed tax returns hurts Romney. For sure, once some folks latch onto a notion it's damned near impossible to get them to give it up: Arpaio: Obama birth record definitely forged

 

Members of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's posse said in March that there was probable cause that Obama's long-form birth certificate released by the White House in April 2011 was a computer-generated forgery.

 

Now, Arpaio says investigators are positive it's fraudulent.

Seems hilarious, but this guy is an actual sheriff in Arizona.

[Phil]

sidenote it comes across very rude to call him Obama...he is the President of USA and please at least respect the office.

 

Actually, "king" seems more fitting.

[luke warm]

It'll be interesting to find out how much this stuff about the Bain years, the off-shore bank accounts, and the undisclosed tax returns hurts Romney.

he's been a hugely successful businessman, nobody disputes that, nor should they... what "stuff" from the bain years in which he actually ran the company are you interested in? what business practices did bain participate in with which you disagree?

[mike777]

he's been a hugely successful businessman, nobody disputes that, nor should they... what "stuff" from the bain years in which he actually ran the company are you interested in? what business practices did bain participate in with which you disagree?

 

 

I think the point is he has not been moral in his practice and may be a felon if you listen to the what the advocates for the President say. They concede he made hundreds of millions of bucks.

 

This raises the question can Republicans argue that capitalism can be moral, ethical and good for society or should we move more towards say Social Democracy, however you may prefer to define that.

 

Given 2008 and the issues raised here, people wonder...

[Winstonm]

I think this article explains the problem Romney has with Bain. From the Washington Post (emphasis mine):

 

In 1999, Romney took a leave from Bain Capital to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. But from 1999 to 2002, he was listed on Securities and Exchange Commission documents as Bain Capital’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president.” He says he was an absentee executive who had neither knowledge of nor control over the decisions Bain made during this period. Then, when he subsequently decided to run for governor of Massachusetts, he signed papers dating his retirement from Bain to February 1999 — the actual date on which he ceased to be involved in, and responsible for, the company’s actions.

 

In other words, while Romney was running the Olympics and thinking about launching his campaign for governor, he kept his position at Bain in case he wanted or needed to return to it. He managed to complete one job and explore running for another all without losing his first job.

There’s nothing illegal about this. There’s nothing even wrong with it. Romney is clearly an effective negotiator and a prudent individual — both admirable qualities. But he is also a presidential candidate who is arguing that the tax code needs to do more to reward risk taking and the safety net needs to make it more difficult for those who don’t take risks. To that end, he has proposed large tax cuts for the rich and deep cuts to the social safety net.

 

Yet, his actions with Bain show he is not willing to takes risks himself.

[mike777]

I think this article explains the problem Romney has with Bain. From the Washington Post (emphasis mine):

 

 

 

Yet, his actions with Bain show he is not willing to takes risks himself.

 

 

To that end, he has proposed large tax cuts for the rich and deep cuts to the social safety net.

 

deep cuts to the social net?

 

I would expect overall spending on the net to increase under Romney, but I suppose that depends on how you define cuts.

 

Deep cuts in taxes on the rich, I again think these words are pretty loaded but ok...

 

It seems he has taken on some risk to himself but ok....maybe he should take on more risk.

[PassedOut]

what business practices did bain participate in with which you disagree?

Why should I disagree? In politics, candidates often get hurt whether or not the attacks against them hold water, don't you know?

[kenberg]

I think this article explains the problem Romney has with Bain. From the Washington Post (emphasis mine):

 

 

 

Yet, his actions with Bain show he is not willing to takes risks himself.

 

Avoiding risk when possible is not the same as not taking risk. And anyway, a little softening of the macho cowboy impulse is always welcome in a president.

 

University faculty often take a leave of absence to tackle some other job for a set period of time. Rarely do they surrender their tenure. Why would they? Of course there are limits, at some point a guy has to take up his faculty duties or resign his position. But many colleagues have, for example, served a term with the National Science Foundation overseeing grants and then returned to the university.

 

With this issue, I think (to borrow from Dorothy Parker?) there is no there there.

[Zelandakh]

Yet, his actions with Bain show he is not willing to takes risks himself.

You could argue that being able to manage 2 jobs at once is not a bad trait in a President. You could also argue that reducing financial risk would be a pretty good thing for the USA right now. He has made a lot of money using the loopholes in the American financial system to his advantage; perhaps someone who understands how the financial systems work would be a good person to have in charge at a time of financial crisis. Finally, I seem to recall hearing a few years ago that Obama had the most effective money-making campaign in political history, anywhere. That may or not be true but I doubt that he is going to be on the streets any time soon. When was the last time a (genuinely) poor person did become President?