NEW ROMNEY VIDEO: In 1985, He Said Bain Would "Harvest" Companies for Profits

reply to post by RealSpoke


I haven't said anything about Romney.

I'm addressing all of the business success haters in this thread.

reply to post by loam


I could see if it were a business worth defending. You might as well stick up for Goldman Sachs too.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Who cares??? He's a business man, this is what companies do... It's a dog eat dog world out there, and being a proponent of capitalism it's his job to turn a profit, not to look out for every company out there...

reply to post by loam


I'm with you man... All these Obama supporters want to live in a Socialist America... They want everything equal... Such a damn shame if you ask me...

Originally posted by RealSpoke

Originally posted by Domo1
So Romney was highly successful at his job. What a bastard! Obviously we can't have someone that can turn a profit in charge! Was job creation his goal at the time? No. Return on investment was, and he did a great job. He's always done a good job. While in politics he listened to his constituents and did what they asked, even if he didn't agree. Don't let reverse racists warp your mind (even the ones that pretend they don't lick Obama boot), Romney is the only choice.

Romney made money regardless if the company failed or succeeded. There was no way for him to not make returns on an investment so your argument sucks.

edit on 28-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

Damn that sounds like free market Mafia …no that is an insult to the mob the Mafia wish they could get away with this kind of stuff.

reply to post by loam


On an absolutely real level. How do the forces of nature and the Universe work? I don't want any "but but but"

I just want you to answer. The answer, if you can't, is IN TANDEM. It's all absolutely 100% collectivist. Our computing technology gets better when it mimics nature, our way of life gets better when it mimics nature, and I'm sure as all hell that our economics would get better if we _______________

Collectivism is not, in any shape, form, or fashion a negative term. It's the natural flow of the Universal mind. Get with it our learn the hard way through millions of years of grinding against the damn grain.

It's not 1980 anymore. We don't have time to be selfish or to dick around with this selfishness crap anymore. Humanity is moving to a place where it will be very easy for ONE ONE ONE individual to wipe out large numbers of the human population...Don't believe me, just wait until you see or have an idea of what humans will be able to do in 100 years.

Think: Would you allow a 2 year old to play with an armed hand grenade? Why the hell would we allow humans in their current state to even have access to any of the coming technologies if they can not see past this whole veil of individualistic selfishness? Believe it or not, this is not hyperbole. Selfishness and individualism can and may very well be the thing that absolutely devastates humanity within the next 50 years. We are "older" than that. Our social consciousness can not stay 2 years old forever. We're going to have to learn that some things are just too juvenile to be allowed to continue.

We need to see what we are, as mirrors, and stop pretending otherwise. It will be our end. It will be our end. I'll say it again, it will be our end. We do this together, or not at all. That's the way of the Universe, that's the way of Life. That's the way this was all constructed. Don't blame me, blame the all inclusive for it if you don't like it. Every single system in existence depends on another, and they all work in tandem. We, as humans, need to grow up and accept this fact. We are part of nature as well, and we need to start contributing to a progressive system, not a destructive one.

It's not success that's being vilified, it's the anti-life thesis that is being vilified. Selfishness is not the life equation. Selfishness is the antithesis of unity. We fight against that, no matter how poorly, so that we are in unity with all.

If you don't like any of what I said, tough cookies. It's a conspiracy site, and there is a huge conspiracy in the fact that Spirituality is being removed from everything...INCLUDING ECONOMICS.

Deal with it.

Originally posted by Hawking
reply to post by Alxandro

 

You know that Interesting Man in your avatar is a very vocal Obama supporter, right?

You know your President is not really a President, right?
At least he doesnt act like one.



Yes, of course I know he supports Obama, he's a freaking actor, a Jewish actor at that. Probably from NewYork.

Btw, don't worry, he'll be getting a makeover soon, my friend.

reply to post by jhn7537


No kidding.

To the rest of the responses I received: *yawn*

I swear this thread is like watching my dog chase his tail.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Don't all executives typically make money whether the company does well or not? A simple example is Ex-HP CEO Leo Apotheker, he was fired from HP because he didn't do the job but he still earned LOADS of money. His firing settlement netted him $7.2 million in severance and $18 million in stock options, he was essentially given $25 million for failing at his job...And he was with HP for less than 2 years...

The point I'm making is that when you get to a certain level, you will earn money regardless of your performance... To fault Romney alone isn't right in that regard...

reply to post by TheOneElectric


No, I'm not mad, I'm on fire. There is a burning in my solar plexus chakra that just won't stop. There is a rage for the failures that I am able to perceive in myself and humanity. I can not tell you how often I have to check myself in order to ensure that I don't fall into the "My autonomy > others" trap. My new career path pushes me there in such force that it scares me. This is me, who can see the truth. I wonder what happens to those who don't see the truth of the matter. I don't have to look far for the answer: Predatory lending, stratification of prosperity, AN ENTIRE MISREADING OF THE CONCEPT OF LIBERTY, the worship of the false idol of personal gain, war, violence, intolerance, and a segregation of spirit.

I'm on fire and it hurts to burn, it hurts to see people so damned callous and self involved. It hurts to burn with such intensity that I am almost sick of those who spout any ideology promoting such "lofty" ideals of wealth. When the opportunity for prosperity for all (and I mean beyond middle class American levels) is so close in reach...what is the excuse to do otherwise....oh...the prospect of having more than your neighbor.

I'm not a bible man, or a christian guy...but I know truth when I see it:
bible.cc...

Yet we place so much emphasis on work and toil. Bull#. Our technology can replace us, and do it better. That's why we have these minds. We create, on a physical manifest level of being. We improve our condition permanently so that we are not focusing on trying to survive with daily work.

But no, people focus on "the fall of man" to justify such concepts of work and hardships. I call foul. If man has fallen, does that mean the mud is permanent? Wipe it off, stand up, and free yourself from the cycle of self degradation, greed, manipulation, and slavery.

Don't allow yourself to be bound by the material. Allow yourself to be freed by it's use.

I'm on fire and I won't stop burning. There is a future so clean and pure that stands in front of us, but there are those who are doing everything possible to not allow it to come to fruition. Why? Why give yourselves over to greed when shared prosperity will boost us higher? Is it the insecurities of self versus self? Must one see another lower to feel higher? If so, the point of this exercise is sorely missed. I'm on fire and I'm hoping others will catch flames as well.

I don't even know if what I wrote is readable. If so, hooray, if not, whatever. It's on topic as hell. There is a conspiracy of separation. There is no positive soul in this type of economic plan. It gives nothing to the flow, and seeks destructive by means of self promotion. It is, against the grain.

reply to post by wascurious


Wow, I am sincerely flattered that you went out your way to create an image just for me.

Looks like you are realizing a picture can say a thousand words.

I can give you opinions but I'd rather give you facts.

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by loam

 

Solyndra employees and Taxpayers agree!

Agree on what exactly?
Romney drives hundreds of companies into the ground and he is a success story.
All you got on Obama is Solyndra and all he did was give them a loan.
This is such a piss poor argument.

It's funny when people on the right complain about Obama and Solyndra it shows they really know nothing about it. Solyndra was founded in 2005 and all the paperwork for it went through under Bush. And Obama didn't give them anything the Dept of Energy did.

Solyndra

Solyndra also received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.
The majority of Solyndra funding was provided under Title XVII section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (as amended by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.) Title 1705 has provided $36 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy projects. [20] As of May 16, 2012, "The 1705 loan guarantee program has provided loan guarantees to projects worth $16.1 billion," about 2% of total federal loan guarantees.
In Feb 2012, five months after Solyndra declared bankruptcy, President Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod responded to questions about the Department of Energy loan to Solyndra. He said that the Obama administration "won't back off" over its clean energy policy. "It’s good for the planet, it’s good for the economy, it’ll create great jobs…high end manufacturing jobs. This is going to continue being a thrust for us.". He added that President Obama's first 2012 campaign ad, defending his clean energy policy, was a response to an ad sponsored by a SuperPAC mentioning Solyndra.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney visited the empty Solyndra factory in mid-2012 as his campaign shifted from the primaries toward the convention and the general election. He criticized the bankruptcy and President Obama's previous support. Soon after Romney's visit to Solyndra another solar energy company, Konarka, declared bankruptcy. Like Solyndra, Konarka had received federal financial support. But Konarka also had received 2002 financial support from then-Massachusetts Governor Romney's administration. As such Konarka became something of a counterpoint to Solyndra in the political exchange with the Democratic president. But this seeming hypocrisy could also be undercut by the fact that the Konarka loan in the amount of $1.5M was repaid whereas the $535M loan to Solyndra was a loss to federal taxpayers

So if they want to blame anyone about Solyndra place the blame where it really belongs on Bush.

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

Don't all executives typically make money whether the company does well or not? A simple example is Ex-HP CEO Leo Apotheker, he was fired from HP because he didn't do the job but he still earned LOADS of money. His firing settlement netted him $7.2 million in severance and $18 million in stock options, he was essentially given $25 million for failing at his job...And he was with HP for less than 2 years...

The point I'm making is that when you get to a certain level, you will earn money regardless of your performance... To fault Romney alone isn't right in that regard...

That's just it Romney went into these companies with the intention to bankrupt them not to make the companies succeed. They did nothing but load them up with debt raid the employees retirement funds and outsource the jobs.

reply to post by buster2010


What's funny is you don't bother to read your own sources.

See the footnote to your quote:

Obama’s Solyndra Problem

Obama referred to Solyndra’s loan at an Oct. 6 press conference as “a loan guarantee program that predates me.” That’s not accurate. It’s true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a loan guarantee program for clean-energy companies developing “innovative technologies.” But Solyndra’s loan guarantee came under another program created by the president’s 2009 stimulus for companies developing “commercially available technologies.”

The president also overstated past Republican support for the program, saying “all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program.” Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and some of them even voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2005 at a time when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

reply to post by Alxandro

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by buster2010

 

What's funny is you don't bother to read your own sources.

See the footnote to your quote:

Obama’s Solyndra Problem

Obama referred to Solyndra’s loan at an Oct. 6 press conference as “a loan guarantee program that predates me.” That’s not accurate. It’s true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a loan guarantee program for clean-energy companies developing “innovative technologies.” But Solyndra’s loan guarantee came under another program created by the president’s 2009 stimulus for companies developing “commercially available technologies.”

The president also overstated past Republican support for the program, saying “all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program.” Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and some of them even voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2005 at a time when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

Lol until Dec of 09 everything was still Bush. Nothing the New president passes goes into affect until then. Nice try.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
reply to post by TheOneElectric

 

No, I'm not mad, I'm on fire. There is a burning in my solar plexus chakra that just won't stop. There is a rage for the failures that I am able to perceive in myself and humanity. I can not tell you how often I have to check myself in order to ensure that I don't fall into the "My autonomy > others" trap. My new career path pushes me there in such force that it scares me. This is me, who can see the truth. I wonder what happens to those who don't see the truth of the matter. I don't have to look far for the answer: Predatory lending, stratification of prosperity, AN ENTIRE MISREADING OF THE CONCEPT OF LIBERTY, the worship of the false idol of personal gain, war, violence, intolerance, and a segregation of spirit.

I'm on fire and it hurts to burn, it hurts to see people so damned callous and self involved. It hurts to burn with such intensity that I am almost sick of those who spout any ideology promoting such "lofty" ideals of wealth. When the opportunity for prosperity for all (and I mean beyond middle class American levels) is so close in reach...what is the excuse to do otherwise....oh...the prospect of having more than your neighbor.

I'm not a bible man, or a christian guy...but I know truth when I see it:
bible.cc...

Yet we place so much emphasis on work and toil. Bull#. Our technology can replace us, and do it better. That's why we have these minds. We create, on a physical manifest level of being. We improve our condition permanently so that we are not focusing on trying to survive with daily work.

But no, people focus on "the fall of man" to justify such concepts of work and hardships. I call foul. If man has fallen, does that mean the mud is permanent? Wipe it off, stand up, and free yourself from the cycle of self degradation, greed, manipulation, and slavery.

Don't allow yourself to be bound by the material. Allow yourself to be freed by it's use.

I'm on fire and I won't stop burning. There is a future so clean and pure that stands in front of us, but there are those who are doing everything possible to not allow it to come to fruition. Why? Why give yourselves over to greed when shared prosperity will boost us higher? Is it the insecurities of self versus self? Must one see another lower to feel higher? If so, the point of this exercise is sorely missed. I'm on fire and I'm hoping others will catch flames as well.

I don't even know if what I wrote is readable. If so, hooray, if not, whatever. It's on topic as hell. There is a conspiracy of separation. There is no positive soul in this type of economic plan. It gives nothing to the flow, and seeks destructive by means of self promotion. It is, against the grain.

That post was so powerful that I had to log in ( something I never do now because of the reasons you pointed out), and say I agree 10000000x. I don't care about Obama, I don't care about Romney, and I surely don't care about extreme wealth nor being greedy to the point that other humans suffer. You are right about being on fire because I am too. I know what's right and what's wrong, its something born into every soul yet we get crucified for adhering to that soul and not putting a "right wing" or a "left wing" slant on it. What's right is that every single human deserves the same opportunity as the next human. Period. Please don't let the ones pledging allegiance to the red and blue mafia distort your wonderful view on life because you got it right my friend. Just know that you are not alone and is also the type of person I would die for.

Romney is the biggest 'collectivist' leech out there. He even used federal bailouts to save his company after it's founders drove up it's debt recklessly and Bain hovered on bankruptcy.

The Federal Bailout That Saved Mitt Romney
(rollingstone.com)

By Tim Dickinson
August 29, 2012

The trouble began in 1984, when Bain & Company spun off Bain Capital to engage in leveraged buyouts and put Romney in charge of the new operation. To free up money to invest in the new business, founder Bill Bain and his partners cashed out much of their stock in the consulting firm – leaving it saddled with about $200 million in debt. (Romney, though not a founder, reportedly profited from the deal.) "People will tell you that Bill raped the place clean, was greedy, didn't know when to stop," a former Bain consultant later conceded. "Did they take too much out of the firm? You bet."

The FDIC documents make clear what happened next: "Soon after the founders sold their equity," analysts reported, "business began to drop off." First came scandal: In the late 1980s, a Bain consultant became a key figure in an illegal stock manipulation scheme in London. The firm's reputation took a hit, and it fired 10 percent of its consulting force. By the time the 1989 recession began, Bain & Company found itself going broke fast. Cash flows weren't enough to service the debt imposed by the founders, and the firm could barely make payroll. In a panic, Bill Bain tapped Romney, his longtime protégé, to take the reins.

...

Under normal circumstances, such ample reserves would have made liquidating Bain an attractive option: Creditors could simply divvy up the stockpiled cash and be done with the troubled firm. But Bain had inserted a poison pill in its loan agreement with the banks: Instead of being required to use its cash to pay back the firm's creditors, the money could be pocketed by Bain executives in the form of fat bonuses – starting with VPs making $200,000 and up. "The company can deplete its cash balances by making officer-bonus payments," the FDIC lamented, "and still be in compliance with the loan documents."

What's more, the bonus loophole gave Romney a perverse form of leverage: If the banks and the FDIC didn't give in to his demands and forgive much of Bain's debts, Romney would raid the firm's coffers, pushing it into the very bankruptcy that the loan agreement had been intended to avert. The losers in this game would not only be Bain's creditors – including the federal government – but the firm's nearly 1,000 employees worldwide.

THIS is Mitt Romney's "business experience. THIS is how Mitt Romney will run America.

Mitt Romney is Gordon Gecko, a Wall Street suit that only knows how to extract wealth by driving companies into bankruptcy. He is a vulture capitalist that put people out of work.

reply to post by buster2010

Originally posted by buster2010
Lol until Dec of 09 everything was still Bush. Nothing the New president passes goes into affect until then. Nice try.

You do realize Obama's inauguration was on 20 January 2009?

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by sonnny1

 

But i swear the way I read some of the comments in this thread, it's filled with collectivist ideology.

Obsessing about a term used in a business context....one that frankly is a term of art...just seems stupid to me.

edit on 28-9-2012 by loam because: (no reason given)

Thats why I stopped commenting or responding to many of the political threads. It is beyond stupid and not to mention waste of time.