Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mitt Romney Video Shows Him Touting Bain As A Way To 'Harvest' Companies At A 'Significant Profit

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Mitt Romney Video Shows Him Touting Bain As A Way To 'Harvest' Companies At A 'Significant Profit'


While CEO of Bain Capital, Mitt Romney said the firm "harvested" the companies in which it invested to produce a "significant profit," according to a new video obtained by Mother Jones.
...
Romney says, "Bain Capital is an investment partnership which was formed to invest in startup companies and ongoing companies, then to take an active hand in managing them and hopefully, five to eight years later, to harvest them at a significant profit."



If you didn't think things could get bad enough, Romney is once again caught on tape saying something that isn't exactly popular.

In this latest video, Romney proudly declares that Bain "harvested" companies to produce a "significant profit". Now, we all already know that this is exactly what Bain did. They went out and found companies, chopped them down, and reaped the benefits from hacking them up and..well...harvesting them. Just like a farmer, Romney claims to use companies to build them up just to chop them down years later. No care for the employees or the community that business exist in, just a means to a profit.

Just for some context, here are some relevent definitions of "harvested"

www.merriam-webster.com...


Definition of HARVEST

transitive verb

b: to gather, catch, hunt, or kill (as salmon, oysters, or deer) for human use, sport, or population control

c: to remove or extract (as living cells, tissues, or organs) from culture or from a living or recently deceased body especially for transplanting


Some will say that this was just a poor choice of words from Romney, but how many times can Romney be defended by saying that he "mispoke"?


Here is the video for everyone to enjoy.

edit on 27-9-2012 by HostileApostle because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I can't understand how Romney of all people wound up being the GOP pick.

The guy has put his foot in his mouth so many times that there should be a bloopers reel.

McCain passed him over for VP for a reason yet somehow the GOP feels he is the best candidate for president.

I liked a couple of the candidates in the primaries but he wasn’t one of them.
edit on 27-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: add



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Romney personifies what the GOP stands for. Big business and profits. He really was the perfect pick. It's sad to see people on ATS cheering on a corporate leech to be president.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I can't understand how Romney of all people wound up being the GOP pick
They figured if they threw a business savvy guy in there with the way the economy is it would be an open and shut case. You can tell the GOP never took personality or business ethics into consideration when pushing their candidate. They looked at Romney as the guy who would benefit big business the most, and they ran with it without giving it a second thought.In no way do I support Obama, and in no way do I condone the government initiatives that have continued under his watch. In my opinion they are two extremely poor candidates. The decidedly winning factor for Obama is that virtually all the dirty laundry that could be brought up against him has already been vetted, unlike this unfolding tragedy that is the Romney/Ryan campaign.As an American I find it insulting that this is the best the establishment could give as far as leadership. It's insulting to my intelligence for them to think I'm this naive. When I look at the circus that is American politics I have absolutely zero confidence that the establishment has American interests in mind.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


There wasn't much choice in the Republican primary.

You had Romney, the vulture capitalist. Bachman, the muslim witch hunter. Cain, the pizza guy. Santorum, the extreme religous extremist. Perry, Bush 2.0 (but dumber). And Ron Paul, the Libertarian trying to be a Republican.

It is really sad to say, but Romney actually was the best choice out of the clown car that was the Republican Primary.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by HostileApostle
 


I liked Cain but he had too much going on with all the accusations. He had a hard time in interviews but he dropped out so early that I can’t say if he would have improved or not.

I was kind of hopeful about Jon Huntsman but he was out spent by Romney. I really think he was the best pick.
edit on 27-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
In Romney's defense, this really all stems from what context he meant when he said harvest.

Did they shut down businesses and sell off its assets, causing people to lose jobs? Now I know he did that as well, so don't get me wrong.

Or did he mean harvest the company by building it up to a certain value, sell the company outright...leaving it intact and operational, and profit from the value of the business?
edit on 27-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
This video to me shows how disgusting Bain Capital is. They were not in it to grow companies to where they would stay sustained as he said in the video they will grow them to realize there value then harvest them and everyone knows what that means.

People losing their companies and jobs so the corporate chicken hawks can cash out. More outsourcing. This kind of practice is the same thing the mafia does. You have to be a soulless SOB to run a company like that.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
The problem here is that people think government is supposed to create jobs. It is not, nor was government ever meant to create jobs. It is supposed to PROTECT the economy. It has not done so.

The problem is that government has allowed and even encouraged the exporting of jobs and the enrichment of stockholders by cutting jobs.

Presidents don't create jobs. President's don't run the economy. All they can do is protect it or screw it up.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 



The problem here is that people think government is supposed to create jobs. It is not, nor was government ever meant to create jobs


Really? Because last time I checked the constitution mandated the creation of a military and state controlled post office/postal roads. It also called for a president, judges, legislators etc... All of which are jobs.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 
They know Romney is a joke, and they are shooting for 2016. I believe they are going to prop up Jeb Bush and make a run then. Ron Paul was the only decent republican this time around, but he is not on the big bank's payroll. The GOP need people who can be bought and paid for, same as the democrats. Gary Johnson it is for me.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by VikingWarlord
 


Believe me I know where you are coming from I have voted for the third party in many elections there never seems to be a candidate that I am satisfied with in either of the two major parties however I remember one of those times I was so dissatisfied with the system and I knew I would be throwing away my vote by going third party but I didn’t care. I wanted to make a statement to the establishment by going third party but it should be said I lived to regret it.

That election went to Bush JR and I am sure you know how that turned out. In retrospect it was my demographic (age group) that decided that election. I live in Florida and I do not know if you remember but it was my state that made the difference. I didn’t think it mattered but it wouldn’t have taken but maybe a few hundred people probably less from my county to have changed the election.

I hope what I said at least gives you something to think about but just to let you know I believe Garry Johnson is by far the best candidate. I just do not believe he is a choice I can make again and have a clear conscience especially if the guy I think is the lessor of two evils loses.

I really thought it didn’t matter.


This election feels like I am seeing Deja vu.
edit on 28-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: pic



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
In Romney's defense, this really all stems from what context he meant when he said harvest.

Did they shut down businesses and sell off its assets, causing people to lose jobs? Now I know he did that as well, so don't get me wrong.

Or did he mean harvest the company by building it up to a certain value, sell the company outright...leaving it intact and operational, and profit from the value of the business?
edit on 27-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)


To me, the term harvest has a negative connotation to it. When you harvest something, the thing you are harvesting is usually never a willing participant nor does it usually come out on the positive side.

Now if he would have said that they cultivate companies so they can profit from their success, that has a different meaning.

But Romney specifically said that they "harvest" companies, as if they were nothing more than crops, nothing more than vehicles for profit. Not caring at all about the human element.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
This video to me shows how disgusting Bain Capital is. They were not in it to grow companies to where they would stay sustained as he said in the video they will grow them to realize there value then harvest them and everyone knows what that means.

People losing their companies and jobs so the corporate chicken hawks can cash out. More outsourcing. This kind of practice is the same thing the mafia does. You have to be a soulless SOB to run a company like that.


I know there are a lot of people defending Romney's comment saying that "harvest" doesn't mean anything negative, that it just means that they made profit.

That would only be correct in a world where words have no meanings, but we don't live in that world. Harvest suggests that they built these companies up like crops, just so they could chop them down and reap the benefits.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I know what harvest means to a farmer. It means to gather the crop and leave the stubble behind. I am not sure I like that analogy when it comes to jobs.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I see nothing wrong with any of that. Investors take a chance starting a company to gain profit. Farmers take a chance when they plant a crop to make profits. Our Government is doing the same exact thing with Solar Energy companies. The word harvest is just old school speak. They could just as easily lose money just like a farmer can lose money if there is a drought or early frost.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
I see nothing wrong with any of that. Investors take a chance starting a company to gain profit. Farmers take a chance when they plant a crop to make profits. Our Government is doing the same exact thing with Solar Energy companies. The word harvest is just old school speak. They could just as easily lose money just like a farmer can lose money if there is a drought or early frost.


You seem to be leaving out the fact that when the farmer "harvest" his crop, he chops it down and kills it. And this is exactly what Bain did to companies. It is a perfect analogy for Romney's business model, you would think it was an attack from Obama, but it came right out of Romney's mouth.

And no, this isn't just like Solar Energy companies. The Government gives them loans, and they hope they succeed forever. They don't pump in temporary money to drive up the stock, then pull it out, sell off the stock and assests and leave the company dead.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by HostileApostle
 

You assume they crop it off and kill it. I assume they take profits and hope for more profits next quarter. Nowhere do i see that they say they will kill the company after they collect profits. The Solar investments do end up dead because we can't compete with China. They are for the most part payback for campaign contributions and some of that loan money ends up back into the campaign.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by HostileApostle
 

You assume they crop it off and kill it. I assume they take profits and hope for more profits next quarter. Nowhere do i see that they say they will kill the company after they collect profits. The Solar investments do end up dead because we can't compete with China. They are for the most part payback for campaign contributions and some of that loan money ends up back into the campaign.


But that is exactly what Bain did. They built up companies (with debt), then sold off their assets and sold off their investments in the company, made huge profits, and left the company with debt and nothing else. Left them to die.

The Government gives many industries help, some even hugely profitable industries like Oil. And they just hand the Oil companies money. With the Solar companies they are giving them loans. It's amazing that you have a problem with trying to boost an industry in our country, but you are ok with handing out money to oil companies that are making record profits.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Bain is an investment company. The feel good policy of a home you can't afford forced on lenders is what your basicly talking about. Lots and lots of investment companies lost money on that. The Government has absolutely no business in speculating with taxpayer money, period. The market speculates. Not the government. If we want technology to fast forward give it to Japan. They can fast track it better than we can.






top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join