The Bane of Bain

[mike777]

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?

 

 

agree with most of what you said except main point....

 

 

Romney did not make hundreds of millions based on tax/fin loopholes....but I understand many think so......

No poster says wow Romney is brilliant job/money/maker....

 

--

 

 

this is kind of the main point....they think Romney is rich as a result of lack of moral fiber or cheat.

[Zelandakh]

Romney did not make hundreds of millions based on tax/fin loopholes....but I understand many think so......

<snip> (sorry mike but I do not like quoting 10 lines when 1 is sufficient; it was bad netiquete when I was young)

Say I allowed you to set up mike777 as a business group and to divide it into mike corp and 777 ltd. Now you to buy up millions of dollars worth of assets for mike corp using debt, which you transfer to 777 ltd. Shortly thereafter you declare 777 ltd bankrupt but keep all of the assets under mike corp. You are now extremely wealthy and have no debt. Would you consider this a generally sustainable model (assuming everyone tried it) or a loophole in the system?

 

Please note that I am not saying there is anything wrong with the business practise of working in this way. It is completely normal. I know of at least one individual who did do the equivalent of this, by borrowing obscenely, transferring all of the major assets into his partner's name, and then going back to the creditors and threatening to declare bankruptcy if they did not take a serious reduction in the debt (something like 3p per pound). It is not something I would personally want to be involved with and therefore it is understandable that it might be considered immoral.

[mike777]

Say I allowed you to set up mike777 as a business group and to divide it into mike corp and 777 ltd. Now you to buy up millions of dollars worth of assets for mike corp using debt, which you transfer to 777 ltd. Shortly thereafter you declare 777 ltd bankrupt but keep all of the assets under mike corp. You are now extremely wealthy and have no debt. Would you consider this a generally sustainable model (assuming everyone tried it) or a loophole in the system?

 

Please note that I am not saying there is anything wrong with the business practise of working in this way. It is completely normal. I know of at least one individual who did do the equivalent of this, by borrowing obscenely, transferring all of the major assets into his partner's name, and then going back to the creditors and threatening to declare bankruptcy if they did not take a serious reduction in the debt (something like 3p per pound). It is not something I would personally want to be involved with and therefore it is understandable that it might be considered immoral.

 

 

so again this is a moral point.......is he a moral man. Is Romney a moral man...which comes back to the main point.

 

 

"Now you to buy up millions of dollars worth of assets for mike corp using debt"

 

btw I would ask why do you loan me money to buy up assets for an immoral purpose but ok...you do in your example. Does that make lenders immoral?

 

in any event please lend me 100 billion today...Ipromise I will repay you......geez........If I dont you can take my house and car...just lend me 100 billion today....If I spend the billion I will just decl

 

"It is not something I would personally want to be involved with"

 

 

This poster says he would consider Romney immoral.

 

The entire point is silly.

[Zelandakh]

so again this is a moral point.......is he a moral man. Is Romney a moral man...which comes back to the main point.

There are very few people who are not moral in one way or another. The question should be whether his morals match yours, or, better yet, whether his morals would be good for the country. As a Mormon I have no doubts that Romney has very strict morals.

 

 

btw I would ask why do you loan me money to buy up assets for an immoral purpose but ok...you do in your example. Does that make lenders immoral?

Since when has investing been an immoral purpose. Obviously the money was lent on the expectation of getting a return on the investment. Most such investments do not result in a bankruptcy. Incidentally, your final question is one of the major roots for anti-semitism in Europe. For my answer: no, I do not consider lending to be immoral but I respect those who think it is.

 

 

This poster says he would consider Romney immoral.

Did I? I would prefer my words to come from myself and not for you to decide for me what I meant, thank you very much.

[mike777]

or

There are very few people who are not moral in one way or another. The question should be whether his morals match yours, or, better yet, whether his morals would be good for the country. As a Mormon I have no doubts that Romney has very strict morals.

 

 

 

Since when has investing been an immoral purpose. Obviously the money was lent on the expectation of getting a return on the investment. Most such investments do not result in a bankruptcy. Incidentally, your final question is one of the major roots for anti-semitism in Europe. For my answer: no, I do not consider lending to be immoral but I respect those who think it is.

 

 

 

Did I? I would prefer my words to come from myself and not for you to decide for me what I meant, thank you very much.

 

 

as I said if you quote me in full...your point is silly......or nonexistant

 

If you think he is a moral. honest man.......lets move on......

 

if not then vote for the other guy..

[Zelandakh]

as I said if you quote me in full...your point is silly......or nonexistant

If you think he is a moral. honest man.......lets move on......

if not then vote for the other guy..

Let's go back a moment. I wrote:-

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?

 

Nothing there about morality. You then brought the subject of morality into the thread and finally accused me of considering Romney immoral. Please re-read my post quoted above and point out to me where there is even a hint of anti-Romney morality. Your arguments have been completely cyclic. First you created the issue, then when someone responds and shows you are talking complete bo!!ocks you want to move on. Well, as it turns out I cannot just move on and vote for the other guy because I live in Europe. The point I was making, although it seems such an awfully long time ago now, is that Romney's record at Bain can be spun positively as well as negatively and that if Obama's team are going to attack Romney for being rich then they are in danger of being seen to be living in a Washington glass house. I also asked the question as to the last President to be poor. It seems practically impossible for such a person to reach office of any sort under the current system.

 

Finally, I note that this is precisely the kind of crap that has driven mikeh away from these forums in the past and, sadly, seems to have driven him away again. Mike, if you are still reading, let me say that you are missed - please do not let the a§§holes get you down. The vast majority here value your input immensely.

[luke warm]

Finally, I note that this is precisely the kind of crap that has driven mikeh away from these forums in the past and, sadly, seems to have driven him away again. Mike, if you are still reading, let me say that you are missed - please do not let the a§§holes get you down. The vast majority here value your input immensely.

is that you, mike?

[Winstonm]

this is kind of the main point....they think Romney is rich as a result of lack of moral fiber or cheat.

 

I don't think this is so. I think there is a distinction between creating personal wealth and job creation, though. Romney has more in common IMO with T. Boone Pickens than Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.

[billw55]

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

Of course. All intelligent people make decisions to reduce their risk, both financially and otherwise. Risk reduction is smart business and smart politics, and a positive characteristic in a candidate.

[Winstonm]

Of course. All intelligent people make decisions to reduce their risk, both financially and otherwise. Risk reduction is smart business and smart politics, and a positive characteristic in a candidate.

 

That's way too broad of brush - risk reduction may be smart business - or it may not be. In Romney's case, it was not business risk but personal risk he reduced.

 

This does not make him a bad guy - but it does not lend itself to promoting terrific job-creating business acumen, either.

 

His actions show his character, not his business sense.

[helene_t]

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.

Just my uninformed opinion (I don't know anything about Romney other than what is in that article):

 

THB I can't see anything remotely wrong. He got an opportunity to earn some money in a safe and completely legal (and, AFAICS, morally acceptable) way. He took the offer after first having used his good negotiation skills to squeeze the lemon as far as he could.

 

Most people would have done the same in his shoes. Being a succesful businessman may create envy but I don't think it should disqualify him as a presidential candidate. You have to be rich to run a campaign so his money has to come from somewhere. Would it have been better if he had inherited them or won the in the lottery? I don't think so.

[billw55]

I don't think this is so. I think there is a distinction between creating personal wealth and job creation, though. Romney has more in common IMO with T. Boone Pickens than Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.

This much I can agree with. Bain was not a business that built things, mined things, or in general created anything at all. Essentially, Romney made his fortune reorganizing assets without actually producing much of anything, as far as I can tell.

[blackshoe]

this is kind of the main point....they think Romney is rich as a result of lack of moral fiber or cheat.

A lot of people seem to think anyone who's rich (but especially politicians) are so as a result of lack of moral fiber. Personally, I put that down to envy. B-)

[Winstonm]

Just my uninformed opinion (I don't know anything about Romney other than what is in that article):

 

THB I can't see anything remotely wrong. He got an opportunity to earn some money in a safe and completely legal (and, AFAICS, morally acceptable) way. He took the offer after first having used his good negotiation skills to squeeze the lemon as far as he could.

 

Most people would have done the same in his shoes. Being a succesful businessman may create envy but I don't think it should disqualify him as a presidential candidate. You have to be rich to run a campaign so his money has to come from somewhere. Would it have been better if he had inherited them or won the in the lottery? I don't think so.

 

Agreed. I have no problem with how Romeny made his money or his choice to reduce his personal risk. But to hold that time out as making him a better candidate to create jobs and run a country is silly. Presidents are not CEOs - they have checks and balances to a degree.

 

And if Bain Capital did make the determination to liquidate jobs in order to boost shareholder earnings, that is not illegal. But try selling that to the masses in the voting booth.

[luke warm]

But to hold that time out as making him a better candidate to create jobs and run a country is silly.

just out of curiosity, how many jobs did he need to create before he'd earn your vote?

[Winstonm]

just out of curiosity, how many jobs did he need to create before he'd earn your vote?

 

It wouldn't take many, actually, but it cannot happen because Romney would have to change his basic positions to accomplish that task. It won't happen.

[kenberg]

For me, the number of jobs created by Bain, destroyed by Bain, or off-shored by Bain, is not likely to affect my vote at all. A somewhat related, and perhaps more useful, question might ask if success in business is a good predictor of a successful presidency.. Jimmy Carter was a successful peanut farmer. GWB had an MBA from Harvard. Both left office with the economy in a pretty serious mess. Carter seemed not at all up to handling the Iran hostage situation, Bush totally misjudged the course of events in Iraq. I do not regard myself as anti-business or anti-capitalist or any such thing, but this idea that "Hey, I have been in business, I know how to really do things right" does not resonate with me.

 

Success at any endeavor is somewhat predictive of success in future endeavors, but I think that's about all I would grant on this issue.

[hrothgar]

just out of curiosity, how many jobs did he need to create before he'd earn your vote?

 

Comment 1: The chance that I would ever vote for Romney range between slim and none...

Comment 2: The number of jobs that Romney created at Bain isn't salient to my decision making process.

 

Romney's "job" at Bain was to generate shareholder value which has little or nothing to do with creating jobs. Romney has a fiduciary duty to increase share prices. Increasing or decreasing employment in the US was coincident to that goal.

[luke warm]

i'm not saying there's any causation here, but certainly everyone can agree there's a strong correlation, between the timing of the bain attack ads and obama's fall in the favorability poll numbers (according to the cbs/nyt - bastions of conservative thought that they are - poll the week of july 11th)... in april, obama was 42 favorable, 45 unfavorable (a negative 3)... the july poll showed 36 and 48 (a negative 12)... it's even worse with independents... coincidence? who knows

[hrothgar]

i'm not saying there's any causation here, but certainly everyone can agree there's a strong correlation, between the timing of the bain attack ads and obama's fall in the favorability poll numbers (according to the cbs/nyt - bastions of conservative thought that they are - poll the week of july 11th)... in april, obama was 42 favorable, 45 unfavorable (a negative 3)... the july poll showed 36 and 48 (a negative 12)... it's even worse with independents... coincidence? who knows

 

General consensus on NPR is that the Bain attack ads were timed to around the most recent job reports.

It seems reasonable to assume that the job numbers might be correlated with a decrease in Obama's numbers.

[PassedOut]

General consensus on NPR is that the Bain attack ads were timed to around the most recent job reports.

It seems reasonable to assume that the job numbers might be correlated with a decrease in Obama's numbers.

Sure. The purpose of attack ads is to undermine a candidate's perceived areas of strength. Romney puts forward his business experience, so that's the first thing to attack. The accuracy of the attacks is secondary. Republicans have long been masters of this (Nixon vs. Douglas, Lee Atwater vs. everyone, swift-boating vs. Kerry, etc.), and the democrats are following suit. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

Ah, politics! <_<

[luke warm]

General consensus on NPR is that the Bain attack ads were timed to around the most recent job reports.

do you think obama's negative spread may have even been higher w/out the bain ads? if so, he may be in more trouble than anyone presently believes

[Winstonm]

What should be disheartening for Republicans is how close this race seemingly is with the economy in the state it is. Most of the time a sitting President in this situation would be easy pickings.

 

Unfortunately, Romney must appeal to the Republican base, and by doing so he looks so out-of-touch with reality that independents seem to be wary of his leadership.

 

The Republicans need to moderate their act and get the whackos like Santorum and Bachman out of the limelight. No one wants to see Barry Goldwater start a world war with the Soviets, and no sane person wants to see Bachman, et al anywhere in positions of power and authority.

[mike777]

What should be disheartening for Republicans is how close this race seemingly is with the economy in the state it is. Most of the time a sitting President in this situation would be easy pickings.

 

Unfortunately, Romney must appeal to the Republican base, and by doing so he looks so out-of-touch with reality that independents seem to be wary of his leadership.

 

The Republicans need to moderate their act and get the whackos like Santorum and Bachman out of the limelight. No one wants to see Barry Goldwater start a world war with the Soviets, and no sane person wants to see Bachman, et al anywhere in positions of power and authority.

 

 

well said. esp the Bachman...

[Vampyr]

cbs/nyt - bastions of conservative thought that they are

 

Luke, not everyone here will be familiar with the organizations above and will not know that your comment is facetious, so I just want to point out for those who might not know that the New York Times does not have a conservative bone in its body, and I suspect that the same is true for CBS TV.