It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 

Are you saying Romney can run on his record? During a good economic perdiod when he ranked 47th in job creation as a governor. If you really wanted a Republican who knows how to create jobs then John Huntsman would have been your nominee. Huntsman ranked at the top in job creation as a governnor and the job creation were private sector positions. Romney cannot run on job creation or Romneycare. Face it, Romney is the sacrificial lamb. Why is is Christie, Daniels and Rubio refuse to take the VP slot? They all know they are good presidential candidates for 2016. They are not going to take a chance and help him win and then wait until 2020 for their shot. They also are not going to risk their chances with a terrible candidates. 2016 the Republicans will have a very good chance. I suspect Jeb and Christie will be the ticket vs. Clinton and Cuomo/Villaraigosa/Warren




posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheTardis

Originally posted by SebastianQuinn
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 
Up until three months ago we were creating 200+ jobs a month for the last couple years. 4 Million jobs have been created under Obama even though all his jobs bills have been blocked by congress.


Thats funny because he had enough control of congress to push Obamacare through and he is signing executive orders left and right to give himself power. Stop using the congress is blocking him thing. And 200+ jobs per month? Thats not even scratching the surface of what we need.

But please show me what bills congress blocked that would have saved us all?
edit on 13-7-2012 by TheTardis because: (no reason given)


Oh haven't you heard? That Stimulus 1.0 thingy didn't work out at all. - $800 billion gone -

Now Obama wants to borrow $3 trillion from the Chinese and give us more

Solyndra Scandals. The big bad Republicans think that's a bad idea.

The big bad Republicans want the private sector to grow the economy. See?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by TheTardis

Originally posted by SebastianQuinn
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 
Up until three months ago we were creating 200+ jobs a month for the last couple years. 4 Million jobs have been created under Obama even though all his jobs bills have been blocked by congress.


Thats funny because he had enough control of congress to push Obamacare through and he is signing executive orders left and right to give himself power. Stop using the congress is blocking him thing. And 200+ jobs per month? Thats not even scratching the surface of what we need.

But please show me what bills congress blocked that would have saved us all?
edit on 13-7-2012 by TheTardis because: (no reason given)


Oh haven't you heard? That Stimulus 1.0 thingy didn't work out at all. - $800 billion gone -

Now Obama wants to borrow $3 trillion from the Chinese and give us more

Solyndra Scandals. The big bad Republicans think that's a bad idea.

The big bad Republicans want the private sector to grow the economy. See?


Ok.. So he was able to pass bills, just not the ones he wanted. The bad ones got passed but not the good ones. That makes total sense. NOT!!!



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SebastianQuinn
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 

Are you saying Romney can run on his record? During a good economic perdiod when he ranked 47th in job creation as a governor. If you really wanted a Republican who knows how to create jobs then John Huntsman would have been your nominee. Huntsman ranked at the top in job creation as a governnor and the job creation were private sector positions. Romney cannot run on job creation or Romneycare. Face it, Romney is the sacrificial lamb. Why is is Christie, Daniels and Rubio refuse to take the VP slot? They all know they are good presidential candidates for 2016. They are not going to take a chance and help him win and then wait until 2020 for their shot. They also are not going to risk their chances with a terrible candidates. 2016 the Republicans will have a very good chance. I suspect Jeb and Christie will be the ticket vs. Clinton and Cuomo/Villaraigosa/Warren


I don't what the unemployment rates were when Romney was Governor,

but it could a bit tough to "create" new jobs when employment in general is already "full".



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TheTardis
 


You don't understand.

The first 2 years Obama ignored the economy and played 100 rounds of golf.

He got what he wanted: ObamaCare & Dodd Frank.
--------
When Obama got blasted by the November 2010 election THEN he tried to pivot

to the economy and try even MORE government spending.

Obama - hates - the private sector.

Obama only wants more Green Energy Boondoggles like Solyndra that are doomed

to fail.


edit on 13-7-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by SebastianQuinn
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 

Are you saying Romney can run on his record? During a good economic perdiod when he ranked 47th in job creation as a governor. If you really wanted a Republican who knows how to create jobs then John Huntsman would have been your nominee. Huntsman ranked at the top in job creation as a governnor and the job creation were private sector positions. Romney cannot run on job creation or Romneycare. Face it, Romney is the sacrificial lamb. Why is is Christie, Daniels and Rubio refuse to take the VP slot? They all know they are good presidential candidates for 2016. They are not going to take a chance and help him win and then wait until 2020 for their shot. They also are not going to risk their chances with a terrible candidates. 2016 the Republicans will have a very good chance. I suspect Jeb and Christie will be the ticket vs. Clinton and Cuomo/Villaraigosa/Warren


I don't what the unemployment rates were when Romney was Governor,

but it could a bit tough to "create" new jobs when employment in general is already "full".



Bingo!

The unemployment rate was around 4%.

It's hard for Romney to get it down to 3%. Some people refuse to work.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by TheTardis
 


You don't understand.

The first 2 years Obama ignored the economy and played 100 rounds of golf.

He got what he wanted: ObamaCare & Dodd Frank.
--------
When Obama got blasted by the November 2010 election THEN he tried to pivot

to the economy and try even MORE government spending.

Obama - hates - the private sector.

Obama only wants more Green Energy Boondoggles like Solyndra that are doomed

to fail.


edit on 13-7-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)


Oh that was pure sarcasm. I just wanted to reiterate what you had said. That complaining about congress is a joke. Were on the same page.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
gee, typical how this thread has turned to Obama. i guess when there is no way to defend romney, blame Obama. can't wait for romney's tax records to come out...i'll bet he and his cohorts right now are trying to come up with some type of spin on why he didn't pay any taxes in some of those years...plus...explaining why a president of the united states would have multiple offshore tax-dodging bank accounts...oh yeah....Obama is to blame for that too.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Yes, Romneys tax returns. I'm sure those returns are Number 1 on Americans minds.

----------
What are we going to do about all these rotten Job Growth Reports???


Obamas economic policies have failed. - time for a distraction -


Whatever happened to that dog Romney had on the roof of his car?


That was ALSO number 1 on Americans minds.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
This is from Bain Capital's own Wikipedia Page:


Romney took two leaves of absence from Bain Capital during the first half of the decade. From January 1991 to December 1992,[Romney served as the CEO of Bain & Company where he led the successful turnaround of the consulting firm. In November 1993, he took a leave of absence for his unsuccessful 1994 run for the U.S. Senate seat from Massachusetts; he returned the day after the election in November 1994. Romney took a final leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 when he became the head of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics. Although he had left open the possibility of returning to Bain after the Olympics, Romney made his crossover to politics permanent with an announcement in August 2001. Romney negotiated a retirement agreement with Bain Capital that allowed him to receive a passive profit share and interest in Bain Capital investment funds in exchange for his ownership in the management company.

Wiki- Bain Capital

I can understand why the liberal media and Obama himself is confused about this...All that fancy business talk that they have never heard of before!!!
edit on 13-7-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Why do you people keep dragging the dead horse out to beat? Romney had no part of Bain after '99, and all the evidence agrees upon that.


Romney's 2002 testimony contradicts financial disclosure documents and Bain claims by campaign staff
www.dailykos.com...



His campaign's explanation?


This is nothing more than a quirk in the law. When Governor Romney took over the Olympics, he was not involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way. He was too busy working to make the Olympic Games among the most successful ever held.



It turns out that in June of 2002, Mitt Romney testified before the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission in order to prove that he met residency requirements to run for governor. During that testimony, Romney said that while he was working on the Olympics, he served on three corporate boards of directors. And yes, you guessed it, two of those companies were affiliated with Bain: Staples and LifeLike


www.dailykos.com...

Romney Testimony in 2002


Romney's sworn testimony was given as part of a hearing to determine whether he had sufficient residency status in Massachusetts to run for governor.

Romney testified that he "remained on the board of the Staples Corporation and Marriott International, the LifeLike Corporation" at the time.

His activities during that period also included Staples board meetings: "I returned for most of those meetings. Others I attended by telephone if I could not return."

Romney's lawyer at the Massachusetts hearing said that Romney's work in the private sector continued "unabated" while he ran the Olympics: "He succeeded in that three-year period in restoring confidence in the Olympic Games, closing that disastrous deficit and staging one of the most successful Olympic Games ever to occur on U.S. soil. Now while all that was going on, very much in the public eye, what happened to his private and public ties to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? And the answer is they continued unabated just as they had."


www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


This is an air ball distraction that will go - nowhere -.

This is how desperate team Obama has become.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
While it looks like the thread is pretty much agreed that the 1999-2002 thing is not an issue, I wanted to add a link to another Washington Post fact checker article. Because of the uproar, they decided to "recheck their figures" so to speak. Their conclusion the second time around? There is nothing to the charges. They gave it three Pinocchios out of four. Here's the article:Washington Post Fact Checker v.2



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


It is not an issue in as much as Romney likely had little input into Bain dealings during that time, but remained the Chairman of the Board, CEO and President of the company.

What he chooses to take credit for and what he chooses not to in that context, all the while refusing to discuss the matter beyond curt PR releases from his campaign manager, speaks a good deal about his character.

If he is proud of his tenure at Bain, then he should be willing to openly and honestly discuss his tenure at Bain.

What we have here is ..."OK, OK...yes...I was the sole stockholder, CEO, Chairman of the Board and President of Bain until 2002 and got paid a lot of money during that time for it...but I knew nothing and nothing they did was my fault."

How does that translate to POTUS?

If he had been honest from the get-go this might not have been an issue, but his modis-operendi is to hide everything until it is found out.
edit on 13-7-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 

Dear Indigo5,

I respect you and your work, so I can only conclude that the confusion is on my side of the screen. It happens to me, rarely, when my brain just shuts down and will not accept anyone else's ideas. Perhaps that's happened here.

If he had been honest from the get-go this might not have been an issue, but his modis-operendi is to hide everything until it is found out.
But ten years ago this very issue was brought up to a state agency pursuant to his campaign for Governor. There was no wrongdoing found at the time. I can see where he would think that the matter had been aired and he had been cleared. It seems he was "honest from the get-go." Is it really his style to leave potentially criminal matters hidden until they're exposed? I haven't been following his campaign closely, so I must have missed the many examples of that.

If he is proud of his tenure at Bain, then he should be willing to openly and honestly discuss his tenure at Bain.
I thought he was; taking credit for it in fact, showing he understood the economy, saved some jobs, etc.

What we have here is ..."OK, OK...yes...I was the sole stockholder, CEO, Chairman of the Board and President of Bain until 2002 and got paid a lot of money during that time for it...but I knew nothing and nothing they did was my fault."
It is not an issue in as much as Romney likely had little input into Bain dealings during that time, but remained the Chairman of the Board, CEO and President of the company.
You sound like a Romney supporter. You're right, he took three years off, ending in 2002, had little or no input into Bain during those years, and does not take credit or blame for the decisions made while he was just holding titles there.

But as I said, I may be misunderstanding you.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
What we're dealing with is a candidate accurately relaying the circumstances to a group of people including those too ignorant to comprehend what he's saying and another contingent out to spin and deliberately misinterpret everything to make it look like something it isn't.

The ones falling for it are the ones who'll readily lick up all the dirt about the guy they hate anyway. Not that the Republicans don't do the exact same thing. This is just another crudball thrown out there that serves to deflect the conversation away from anything relevant.

At least Romney has a history trail to be misinterpreted, unlike the empty suit currently occupying the Oval Office whose entire pre-POTUS background consists of: Acorn organizer and one impressive keynote speech.

There, see I can do that, too.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Indigo5
 

Dear Indigo5,

I respect you and your work, so I can only conclude that the confusion is on my side of the screen. It happens to me, rarely, when my brain just shuts down and will not accept anyone else's ideas. Perhaps that's happened here.


Not at all. I concede the likelyhood that he had little input into Bain's dealings during that period, but he listed himself as 100% stockholder, CEO, COB and President of Bain during that time and listed compensation as 100k++ on several different Bain Entitites. He signed over a dozen SEC filings in this capacity for Bain entitites during that time.

Was day-to-day management handed over while he managed the Olympic Games in Utah? Undoubtedly...but his claim of absolute ignorance of what companies they were investing in etc. lacks credibility in my strong opinion.

Originally posted by charles1952

If he had been honest from the get-go this might not have been an issue, but his modis-operendi is to hide everything until it is found out.


But ten years ago this very issue was brought up to a state agency pursuant to his campaign for Governor. There was no wrongdoing found at the time. I can see where he would think that the matter had been aired and he had been cleared. It seems he was "honest from the get-go."


The irony here is that despite that ruling, at the time both Romney and his attorney in making a strong case for his ties to Mass. told that hearing that he regularly returned to MA for business purposes and even cited his attendance of board meetings for one of Bains investments.

Mitt Romney's Own 2002 Testimony Undermines Bain Departure Claim
www.huffingtonpost.com...

The truth to Romney appears maleable for his agenda.


Originally posted by charles1952

If he is proud of his tenure at Bain, then he should be willing to openly and honestly discuss his tenure at Bain.
I thought he was; taking credit for it in fact, showing he understood the economy, saved some jobs, etc.


He is taking selective credit, and ommitting a great deal of his dealings which he refuses to discuss.


Originally posted by charles1952

What we have here is ..."OK, OK...yes...I was the sole stockholder, CEO, Chairman of the Board and President of Bain until 2002 and got paid a lot of money during that time for it...but I knew nothing and nothing they did was my fault."
It is not an issue in as much as Romney likely had little input into Bain dealings during that time, but remained the Chairman of the Board, CEO and President of the company.


You sound like a Romney supporter. You're right, he took three years off, ending in 2002, had little or no input into Bain during those years, and does not take credit or blame for the decisions made while he was just holding titles there.

But as I said, I may be misunderstanding you.

With respect,
Charles1952


I appreciate the respect...but you seemed to have omitted my relevant question?



What we have here is ..."OK, OK...yes...I was the sole stockholder, CEO, Chairman of the Board and President of Bain until 2002 and got paid a lot of money during that time for it...but I knew nothing and nothing they did was my fault."

How does that translate to POTUS?



And whilst you are eager to afford him the luxury of taking credit for decisions in those fixed years, despite him having 100% ownership and serving as CEO, President and Chairman of the Board and having signed dozens of ducuments relating to dealings during that time (as your WaPo fact checker acknowledged) for the years that followed...

...but you seem to have a less "temporaly fixed" view of the investments he does take credit for? See...the oft touted "Staples"...it became succesful when?



The five-year branding odyssey that began in 2001 has helped make $16.1 billion Staples the runaway leader in office retail.

money.cnn.com...

Yet that ends up in Romney's "look here!" collumn??? Was not Romney running the Olympics at the time?

Why did SEC docs have to be found to discover that Romney was still officially CEO, Chairman of the Board and President and Sole Stockholder of Bain ...years after he claimed to have left?

Doubtful this was an oversight...or rather I suspect it was calculated oversight...similair to not releasing his tax returns. I think transparecy would suit him best at this stage of the game.
edit on 13-7-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 

Dear Indigo5,

Thank you for your patience with me. I don't think I'm going to be able to answer your reply with the thoroughness it deserves. But I would like to answer for one of my specific failings which you pointed out, my failure to answer your question about this event displaying a weakness as a candidaate for POTUS.

To be very frank, it was a case of biting my tongue. The idea of anyone having a worse resume and character than our current President seems laughable. If we're considering only a Romney v. Obama contest, I'm surprised that anyone could ask who has the better character and resume.

As for the rest, I just don't know. It looks like a case of "What does that really mean?" What does "control" mean? What do the SEC statements mean? Etc. I guess I'm just too ignorant to have an opinion worth listening to on this subject.

I must say though, Indigo5, that you have been very helpful and kind in exposing me to valuable information and showing me that there is a question here. You go up in my estimation every time we meet.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Indigo5
 

Dear Indigo5,

Thank you for your patience with me.


No patience required. Your posts have been polite and articulate. We differ in opinions and that is acceptable and sometimes good.


Originally posted by charles1952
I don't think I'm going to be able to answer your reply with the thoroughness it deserves.


OK


Originally posted by charles1952
But I would like to answer for one of my specific failings which you pointed out, my failure to answer your question about this event displaying a weakness as a candidaate for POTUS.

It looks like a case of "What does that really mean?" What does "control" mean? What do the SEC statements mean? Etc. I guess I'm just too ignorant to have an opinion worth listening to on this subject.


He was PRESIDENT of BAIN...He signed dozens of official documetns stating exactly that...not just PRESIDENT, but CEO, Chairman of the Board, 100% Stockholder...and he was paid for that role...so far from what we know a minimum of 400K in comp...four declared Bain entitites at "a minimum of 100k+" each.

If he can vehemently disown THAT for the sake of political expediencey, then what does that tell us about his character and how he will operate as PRESIDENT of the USA?


Originally posted by charles1952
To be very frank, it was a case of biting my tongue. The idea of anyone having a worse resume and character than our current President seems laughable. If we're considering only a Romney v. Obama contest, I'm surprised that anyone could ask who has the better character and resume.


And here we find ourselves on polar opposite ends of our opinions. While I fault our current President in many areas, his character is not one of them.


Originally posted by charles1952
I must say though, Indigo5, that you have been very helpful and kind in exposing me to valuable information and showing me that there is a question here. You go up in my estimation every time we meet.

With respect,
Charles1952



There is indeed a "grey area" in this issue concerning Romney and large swaths of "unknown" territory from his tax returns to his off-shore holdings.

In this particular issue of Bain...the Dem Strategists made more of it than it was, but there is a nugget of truth there, and the the story was centered on plain, documented evidence.

I operate in the management ranks of the corporate world. I know CEOs who have taken "leaves of absense" etc.

What do I think occured?

I think he took a "leave of absense" but was privy to and offered his opinion on any important dealings.

The Managing Director at Bain does not make any big moves, spend any big money, whithout a "what do you think" call to the CEO, President and COB...regardless of what anyone claims.

Again...Romney takes credit for Staples turn-around...that occured in 2001.

As far as the evidence? The SEC docs alone don't show him being privy to insider dealings of the corporation he owned and theoretically still led. BUT I sure as hell believe he was...as is our priveledge...having strong opinions, even if they disagree with one another.
edit on 13-7-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
While it looks like the thread is pretty much agreed that the 1999-2002 thing is not an issue, I wanted to add a link to another Washington Post fact checker article. Because of the uproar, they decided to "recheck their figures" so to speak. Their conclusion the second time around? There is nothing to the charges. They gave it three Pinocchios out of four. Here's the article:Washington Post Fact Checker v.2


3 Pinocchios = Indigo5 is a shill for the libs.


He has been drinking too much cool-aid.

It's just another rabbit set loose to distract Americans away from the terrible

Jobs Growth Report.


80,000 ? That's terrible! We need 200,000 every month!
edit on 13-7-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-7-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join