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.

 

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

page: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 

He didn't kill corporations, they were already killing themselves.

Basically, they sucked at what they did; that's why their value was so low to begin with.

And that's how he made his money. He bought them when their value was low.

He bought them, made em spiffy, and then sold em for a profit.

That's not any different than a lot of jobs out there in the world.

Point out to me which law he broke?

I don't think you can. That's because he played by the rules.

So you want to blame somebody for making smart choices to make more money? He might be an opportunist, at worst, but there's worse people we could have as president.

Romney made some of his money from leveraged buyouts. I'm not exactly sure how it all works. But I've read that Warren Buffet also used this method to earn some of his money.
edit on 29-9-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by wildtimes
 

He didn't kill corporations, they were already killing themselves.

Basically, they sucked at what they did; that's why their value was so low to begin with.

And that's how he made his money. He bought them when their value was low.

He bought them, made em spiffy, and then sold em for a profit.

That's not any different than a lot of jobs out there in the world.

Point out to me which law he broke?

I don't think you can. That's because he played by the rules.

So you want to blame somebody for making smart choices to make more money? He might be an opportunist, at worst, but there's worse people we could have as president.
edit on 29-9-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)


It must be fun to sit around making stuff up.
What businesses did he sell for a profit?
Who did he sell them to?
Where are they and how are they doing now?

All those people that lost jobs because Bain shut their company down do not seem to think it was great business sense but you people that keep posting crap about what a great job he did do not have any details at all.

So either you are lying or just repeating crap you hear yourself without ever bothering to check into it?



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 



He didn't kill corporations, they were already killing themselves.

Basically, they sucked at what they did; that's why their value was so low to begin with.

And that's how he made his money. He bought them when their value was low.

He bought them, made em spiffy, and then sold em for a profit.


Not true. Many companies he bought were healthy, profitable companies. Look up what a "leveraged" buyout is. The money used to buy the company was added as debt onto the company itself, with Bain now acting as it's managing directors and extracting fat premiums and fees for their services. That debt from the leveraged buyout is often what then drove those companies into bankruptcy, but whether the company survived or died was immaterial, Bain and Romney still profited.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


The way I see it, he could have just as easily helped turn those companies around and then HELPED THE ORIGINAL OWNERS to do better.

Can you folks really not see the merit in recompensing employees for their efforts? I'll use the hotel analogy again. If your hotel has 700 rooms, you need a hefty staff of housekeepers to keep them clean and turned. When the hotel has a windfall convention, bringing in high-paying guests right on the heels of the last convention, and the housekeepers do a kickass, backbreaking job of getting those rooms stripped and turned in record time, do they not deserve a reward for that extra effort?

Why should some "shareholder" get the dividends from the windfall convention, and NOT THE EMPLOYEES!

And then, when there's a dearth of guests....you only give the housekeepers one day of work. Is that right? Suppose every housekeeper called in sick on the huge turn-over day, and no one but management was there to strip, clean, launder, fold and make up those rooms again.

If that hotel has a losing season (no conventions), do the managers get paycuts? No. Do the housekeepers have jobs and income anyway? No. They are slashed to zero hours (especially the ones who are most recent hires)....

when every ONE of them is earning minimum wage and living check to check.

Is that the "right" way to run business? It seems to me that the shareholders should ALWAYS BE THE EMPLOYEES, not some name and account on a computer screen who just clicked "100" on "number of shares purchased."

Sigh.
Does that not make sense to people? I dunno. I'm frustrated that so few people seem to see that the workers should be rewarded for their efforts AT ALL LEVELS. Sure, the GM makes more money, he has more responsibility. But putting up a banner saying "housekeeping appreciation week" once a year and upper management bringing donuts in the mornings for five days and saying "thanks" IS NOT COMPENSATION. It is lip service. Just barely enough to keep them from forming a union that would encourage them all to work as hard and as fast as corporate bean-counters want them to.

This country is no longer founded on "hard work". It's founded on "shrewd investing", which demotes the actual laborers, who have nothing to invest, to slaves on subsistence-level pay (if that).



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 

I don't know all there is to know, but I'm pretty sure if that you took all of the big paychecks the CEO's and Executives and Management workers get, it would barely put a dent in it. People that're near minimum wage would still be stuck in that range for the foreseeable future. Don't blame rich people for being smart and enterprising. There're just a lot more minimum wage workers than there're people like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and that's the central problem you're (unknowingly?) confronting. In fact, this might just be the way it's and will always be. Ever looked up the power law curve or the bell curve? These're graphs that express themselves in all sorts of real life measurements. Distribution of wealth, for example, follows a power law curve. What this means is that there're a few astronomically extremely rich people and countless (by comparison) poor people. You would try to sway me to believe that this is because rich people conspire to dominate everybody and that all we have to do is see their wrongdoing and correct it. But I don't think that'll work because I think it's nature. I think rich people are distinct and talented and just less common.

I think you're trying to change something that can't be changed.

In effect, you're advocating redistribution of wealth into the hands of people who do not deserve it. I definitely am not implying that hotel workers should only get donuts and thank yous for working extra hard, not at all. What I'm saying is that there's just not enough money out there to lift up the poor people above the poverty line. Poor(ish) people will always be that way, sadly. Until they can learn new skills or get a better job, they'll be stuck with those miserable wages. Remember that I 100% agree that people should get paid what they contribute. So should we someday determine that housekeepers at a hotel deserve an income on par with an executive then I'll accept that as what society deems to be deserved. Beyond this, though, I do not believe we can change anything.
edit on 29-9-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
WHAT THE F---!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So many people want to run around ATS claiming Romney is a successful businessman. I asked two simple questions about his business experience and no one can answer either of them.

Were I calling myself a Romney supporter, I would really be doing some searching as this keeps happening more and more.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


And you think that's okay? I think it needs to be changed. Yes, there are people who are capable and talented at making business decisions. My beef is when it is not their WORKERS who reap the benefits of having cooperated with the agenda, but the INVESTORS. Are working people not investing? Yes, they are. Investing their life energy, their time, their dedication to the business cause........

in my worldview, this investment of time and effort, which can NEVER be recouped, trumps the anonymous "investor" who holds a few shares and takes a fraction of the profit, while the workers receive the same pay year after year.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
If one measures "success" by how much money one makes for others, and no consideration is given to the means to get there, nor the secondary effects to others, then the list can be quite long of some of the most ruthless and evil people on this planet.

Like Saddam Hussein, he was quite successful as well, where he and his cronies through strong arm tactics, lived in opulence and luxury, while everyone else suffered.

A Bank Robber is also successful. They put in a lot of risk, moreso than a CEO even (Their life) and work (layout etc) to ensure their plans go well.

I would not consider these people "successful" though, but failures when it comes to the human / spirit equation.

I don't understand how anyone can even remotely suggest Romney as presidential material based on his actions and deeds. He will not be working for the best interest of the country based on his past history.

The traditional meaning of a conservative I always thought was about starting a company from the ground up, and with risk and through their blood, sweat and tears, they grow the company where employers and employees alike reap the benefits.

Has Romney ever started a business from a garage from the ground up? Or do most of his ventures consist of destroying what others have already built from their blood, sweat, and tears, so that he and his fat cat vultures can harvest the profits and and pass the risk and losses onto everyone else?



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Double Post..
edit on 29-9-2012 by jacobe001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jacobe001
 


I was glad to have the chance to star you twice.


Back on topic......carry on, folks. Can someone explain to me why it's all right for the laborers to get the shaft while the "shareholders" profit?



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 

Society at large will decide, ultimately, whether you're right or not. The overall society of people determines what people are deserved for the hours they work or the contribution they add.

If investors deserve less then that's what they'll get. Lets wait and see, shall we.
edit on 29-9-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


Well, jonny, I think the survival of the human species at large will determine the proper course of action, and probably too late. I simply can't wrap my head around the idea that if I give $100 to this guy over here and he hires a bunch of strong, willing people to do the work, that MY $100 investment is more important than the survival and well-being of the people doing the actual work.

The overall society of people determines what people are deserved for the hours they work or the contribution they add.

Well, no, not really. The rich and elite powerful determine what people are deserved, because it's theirs to distribute. And they don't like to do that.

But yeah, I guess we will see. Eventually.

edit on 29-9-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam


It drives me nuts that people find this offensive. Success has become so villified, I'm convinced we have become a nation of lazy-ass, envious, whiners.

'Harvest' means they bought companies, made them more valuable through investment, and later sold them for a profit.

The fact that people are offended by the term is simply stupid.


What should they have done? Bought businesses....invested heavily in them...and then lost money????



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


Stealing money isn't "success" - it's crime.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

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)

Wow that was very informative, thanks.

A rigged game, a secretive Mormon, and otherwise a stuffed suit who doesn't know why it is that planes at 30,000 feet don't have windows you can open to air out the cabin if needed...

I see, and that's all it takes to become the POTUS.. hmph.


edit on 29-9-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Romney supporters are sad. They think attacking Obama will somehow make Romney appear better to normal people.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 



In this clip, Romney mentioned that it would routinely take up to eight years to turn around a firm


Thank you for providing evidence that the whole goal WAS to turn companies around and make a huge profit doing it.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Romney supporters are sad. They think attacking Obama will somehow make Romney appear better to normal people.


Replace Obama and Romney and you just described yourself ....



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Reading about Bain Capital really opened my eyes.

They would work for Companies for FREE and do things for them to make their assets/company worth more. They didn't expect to get paid unless they successfully helped the company make mega bucks.

Some would call that a "mafia". Do things to the companies competitors to make them worth less.....

What Bain did wouldn't be considered "ethical" by anyone.


Romney is an evil man. We get to pick between 2 evils for a President, I'd pick the Kenyan.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



Thank you for providing evidence that the whole goal WAS to turn companies around and make a huge profit doing it.


If you had said "the whole goal WAS to turn companies around drive companies into bankruptcy and make a huge profit doing it." you would be correct.




posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 

Sometime, when you get the time, could you slip me a note to let me know what your primary sources of information are? There's a whole other world I must be missing, and I don't want my eduction to be one-sided. Anyway, back to work.

The Wall Street Journal article I referenced back on page 5, looked at 77 companies that Bain had invested in, and tracked their progress for 8 years after Bian's involvement began. online.wsj.com... Among other things, the article tells us:

Amid anecdotal evidence on both sides, the full record has largely escaped a close look, because so many transactions are involved. The Wall Street Journal, aiming for a comprehensive assessment, examined 77 businesses Bain invested in while Mr. Romney led the firm from its 1984 start until early 1999, to see how they fared during Bain's involvement and shortly afterward.

Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost.
So, 70% were up and running after 8 years. Bain wasn't trying to drive firms into bankruptcy. Can we discard that silliness?

We can also discard the idea that Bain made money whether the firm went bankrupt or not.

Really, you should read the article. It contains information that makes Bain look good, and information that makes them look bad. It seems thorough and objective, valuable reading for anyone who wishes to learn.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join