Anyone who's voting for Mittens, refute this. Please.

[Tossica]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... l-20120829

If this dude isn't the enemy of "the people", I don't know who is. Fuck him and fuck anyone that votes for him.

[brinstar]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

If this dude isn't the enemy of "the people", I don't know who is. Fuck him and fuck anyone that votes for him.

i read that earlier today. not only will i speak out against him and refuse to vote for him, but i decided that if i'm ever lucky enough to meet him in person i'm gonna break my hand on his face.

why?

KayBee Toys.






PS i'd drop everything and volunteer 100 hrs a week for a Bernie Sanders/Matt Taibbi presidential ticket

[Lyion]

What exactly am I refuting? A hit piece authored by Matt Taibbi who is a huge DNC supporter from a rag that pretty much thrives by attacking Republicans? That article is garbage, but heck it's red meat to that magazine's core audience. Good on them for trying to sell to their core.

The Bain characterizations are wrong, but heck its not like anyone cares about discussing real issues. Just attacking the 'enemy'. For an encore, go tell me where all the stimulus money went to, how many DNC supporters received billions in taxpayer funds from it, why we still don't have a budget from the Senate, or where is that one billion Corzine lost.

[Tossica]

Thought so.

[Lyion]

Dude, really?

Most of the bigwigs on both side get money from firms like Bain. I'm less worried about Bain capital which is investing it's own money and working for it's shareholders than I am about Solyndra which was given half a billion dollars which it blew through from executive fiat and power all for being buddy buddy with the DNC. I'm amazed others aren't but again people generally root for their side and read stuff that reinforces their opinion, be they you two or... Mindia.

[Tossica]

Read the article. Refute it.

[brinstar]

ahem

lyion, i believe if you'll review the record i am often harshly critical of corporate corruption on both sides of the aisle, and you'll also recall that i did not vote obama in 08 and will not vote for him in 12

so please abandon the false equivalency and come up with something better than "NUH UH!!!"


EDIT: and don't act like you're above it either. tell me, where does the reason foundation's money come from?

[Lyion]

Read the article. Refute it.

I did read the article. It's a polemicist, anti-capitalism caricature that pretty much covers one side of Bain and Romney and is sourced by Media Matters. It's a hit piece, so there's nothing to refute. I'm sure now that I've read this you'll rush out and go watch 2016, an equally idiotic venture into partisan shrill politics.



Now, if you'd like to discuss Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, The Affordable Care Act, gun control, or any of the myriad other real issues, that'd be cool. If you want to just link hit pieces, then that isn't my cup of tea and I'll let you get back to firing volleys with Mindia.

Brin, why I disagree with you, I do respect the fact you are firm in your convictions. You do however join the chorus of people here who hate anything conservative, even those like myself who are solely fiscal conservatives and pretty much just hate government spending. I'm actually concerned with the entitlement bloat we have, but even more about the current mindset of many who seem to think business is the enemy, and the answer is to throw money and support behind what is essentially 'lawyers'.

As much as I loathe Ron Pauls foreign policy, I really wish he would've won the nomination for the GOP. I'm very happy the RNC is adopting more libertarian views, especially on Internet freedom. I still wish they'd distance themselves more from the social issues, but both sides need their nutjobs, I guess.

On the flip side, I don't dislike Obama and feel the guy has done a decent job given the circumstances. All Obama needs to do to secure my vote is to actually put some teeth into the executive branch regarding outsourcing of IT and other jobs. Unfortunately, I doubt he will as Silicon Valley and Seattle large are all huge DNC contributors who are against it, just as the RNC supporting companies likewise are.

[Harrison]

I think most of the problem is we keep trying to lump people into groups.

Politically, or whatever...

I am a registered Republican, but I can guarantee you that Romney does not represent me one fucking bit. There is something wrong with that.

I side most with Ron Paul, and even I can tell you he's batshit insane. I just think we need something new, something else, something not what we've always had.

[Tossica]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think its probably a fairly accurate representation of how things went down at Bain. If its not, educate me. Vote for this fuck at your own peril.

[leah]

the kaybee thing makes me sick to my stomach. i don't often understand a lot about business and how this guy makes his money, but i grew up longing for trips to the kaybee toy store in the next big town over, so this story kind of put a face on these business practices for me. and that face makes me very upset.

romney and paul are not murderers or terrorists or whatever. but the thought of them in office makes me so freaked out that i get actual anxiety about it sometimes.

anyway. i guess that's all i have to say about that.

[Menelvir]

I think that Romney is archetypal of the modern entreprenuerial businessman, where profit is not realized directly on the basis of a manufactured good, but rather on the sale of an idea, and often the very idea of the profitability of a thing, rather than the thing in itself.

Whether or not this dominant business model (whose value-creation capability is dubious, arguable at the very least) is a question that needs to be addressed.

As the article pointed out,

there's a key difference between private equity firms and the businesses that were America's original industrial cornerstones, like the elder Romney's AMC. Everyone had a stake in the success of those old businesses, which spread prosperity by putting people to work. But even private equity's most enthusiastic adherents have difficulty explaining its benefit to society.

I didn't really see anything in the meat of the article that wasn't the order of the day in regard to how business is conducted in such firms. The responsibility is to shareholders, not workers and their families. This isn't something new. I think it might be interesting to contrast the manner in which Bain made money with say the manner in which Berkshire-Hathaway made money, over a given time period, and show the profits. It's easier (in a sense) to make money via equity strategies, than it is to do it the old-fashioned way, and though it requires risk, the risk is mitigated in ways that aren't self-revealing in actuarial tables.

In any case, money may not buy political office, but money and the movement of money through the political system is far more influential than any single vote. Hence, I largely see the entire process (from a voter's perspective) as broken and nothing more than an exercise in complete and abject futility for anything remotely resembling egalitarian democratic efficacy.

But, if it makes you feel good, then why not? "Go team! Yay us!"

[Tossica]

The idea that he is somehow a "job creator" is laughable. He knows how to extract wealth from the system. Job creators find ways to make a profit while creating new positions, not finding ways to maximize CEO bonuses by laying off staff, cutting benefits, fucking over your employees.

[Tossica]

Romney is the poster boy for exactly what's wrong with the "system" that's been in place since the mid 80's. A handful of people making themselves ridiculously wealthy with not a single fuck being given for what is best for society as a whole.

[Lyion]

Bain is how private equity works. You can just as easily point to Staples or The Sports Authority and the thousands of jobs that were saved. Anyways, Bain is a private company. It operates within the law. I'm amused that all the people outraged about 'Bain' have no issues with Solyndra and their half a billion dollars for fake markets which were leveraged for massive political contributions, or Corzine and his big money ripoff, or heck Madoff who was a huge DNC bundler. Our system has a lot of issues, and I'm not a big fan of Bain, but this really is a huge oversimplification of things for partisan rhetoric. My problem with the system isn't private equity, it's offshoring, outsourcing, hedge funds, insider trading, and crony capitalism.

[Tossica]

Bain is how private equity works. You can just as easily point to Staples or The Sports Authority and the thousands of jobs that were saved. Anyways, Bain is a private company. It operates within the law. I'm amused that all the people outraged about 'Bain' have no issues with Solyndra and their half a billion dollars for fake markets which were leveraged for massive political contributions, or Corzine and his big money ripoff, or heck Madoff who was a huge DNC bundler. Our system has a lot of issues, and I'm not a big fan of Bain, but this really is a huge oversimplification of things for partisan rhetoric. My problem with the system isn't private equity, it's offshoring, outsourcing, hedge funds, insider trading, and crony capitalism.

I think we have the same problems with the "system". I just think voting for the poster boy for those problems is against everyone's best interests. I do have a problem with Solyndra and most all other examples of wasting tax dollars on crooks or failures. I DO however fully support spending tax dollars on green energy projects that will create new REAL jobs in this country over tax cuts for big oil. I think it's tough to get real green alternatives without government support at this point.

[Lyion]

The problem with spending money on 'green' energy or other 'new' technology is it becomes a kickback slush fund, like Solyndra was. Who picks who gets the money? If the GOP is in power, it goes to their buddies. Ditto for the Dems. My preference is government give incentives but completely get out of the way of private investment, period. The government, especially at the Federal level has no business getting involved in anything that should be private.

[Tossica]

The problem with spending money on 'green' energy or other 'new' technology is it becomes a kickback slush fund, like Solyndra was. Who picks who gets the money? If the GOP is in power, it goes to their buddies. Ditto for the Dems. My preference is government give incentives but completely get out of the way of private investment, period. The government, especially at the Federal level has no business getting involved in anything that should be private.

So whoever has the money should be able to do whatever they please? Can you not see that that's exactly what's gotten us in the situation we're in now. Unchecked Capitalism. In one breath you cry for government help in curbing the outsourcing issue and in the next you say the feds have no business getting involved with private investment or how someone wants to run their business. You can't have it both ways, buddy. Either you leverage the ONLY thing that "we the people" still have any say in against corporate greed or the rich will continue to plunder the middle class, jobs will continue to be outsourced and the little guy will continue to get fucked. If the "job creators" are only interested in accumulating personal wealth, who exactly is going to create the jobs? Successful small businesses get swallowed up by larger businesses who then get bought by a large corporation which is traded on the stock market and eventually all the money ends up in the same hands.

[brinstar]

Successful small businesses get swallowed up by larger businesses who then get bought by a large corporation which is traded on the stock market and eventually all the money ends up in the same hands.

america.txt

[Lyion]

Corporations are beholden to shareholders and strictly regulated on exchanges, so it's not really as simple as 'there's always a bigger fish'. They invest and do business to make a profit. This is as it should be. The government should be smartly regulating industry and competition. I'm all for better anti trust laws and ensuring workers are protected. There's a huge difference between companies selling competing products against each other and being smartly regulated, and American workers competing for IT jobs against workers in third world countries whose cost of living are a fraction of ours. What is currently killing jobs is Dodd-Frank, the most business unfriendly terrible legislation ever crafted. In addition our infrastructure is burdened by outrageous legal fees and an overtly complex tax law.

I am for free markets and competition which drives innovation, lower cost, and higher standard of living. As you know small business generally trounces large companies due to being more nimble and hungrier. What I do not support is government 'investing' in private business as again this is nothing more than crony capitalism and people choosing winners and losers with taxpayer dollars. Equity should be private in nature. There are still people starting businesses all the time and succeeding at them.

This whole conversation really reminds me of Animal Farm. Just like in that novel, the enemy and answer is not socialism and 'power to the people'. That leads to a slippery slope of communism which ends up with a few privileged in the Kremlin and a lot of serfs.

[Arlos]

Um, exactly HOW does Dodd-Frank kill such vast numbers of jobs?

Honestly, what we really need to do is reinstate Glass-Steagal. Notice how there were NO major financial meltdowns between when all the new regulations were enacted post crash of 29, and when the GOP started getting rules and regulations relaxed in the 80s? First there was the S&L crisis, then later the Junk Bond/Milken crash, and in 2008, the crash resulting from letting banks also do investment banking, with no regulation or oversight on any of the derivatives they were swapping around like sugar-addled 5 year olds trading baseball cards. Real regulation was absolutely necessary, and in a lot of people's view, Dodd-Frank didn't go anywhere near far ENOUGH. Job-killer my foot. The only jobs it MIGHT be "killing" are at the giant financial firms, who might add a few less quants per quarter.

I actually don't have a problem with the federal government funding R&D or seed money for new important industries. After all, without massive government R&D spending, we wouldn't be talking on the internet right now. Here's a Fortune Magazine blurb on Solyndra, noting that investigators haven't found any evidence of the cronyism you discuss, and that Ryan was completely off base when he claimed there was no market for their product. http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/ ... a-fantasy/

Also, you seem to have missed the fact that the very thing that allows predatory companies like Bain to succeed is a federal tax exemption, which was clearly mentioned in the article. So, they are hardly succeeding due to the success of raw capitalism, they're succeeding because they have a massive tax advantage which lets them avoid a huge chunk of the costs involved in raping the funds out of otherwise solid companies.

Now, I won't disagree that there needs to be a major overhaul of the tax code. Absolutely, no question there needs to be. Lets start by eliminating the different tax rates for normal income vs "carried interest" or "capital gains" just to start. Then lets lower the overall rates, but get rid of most of the special-interest write-offs. Keep the mortgage write-off for individuals, or even for corporations who are using it to actually buy property used to expand the business, but not to write off debt they incurred buying other companies. Lets get rid of all of the oil company subsidies, and lets actually put IN some incentives to keeping jobs/capital/etc INSIDE the US, rather than outsourced or offshored.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Um, exactly HOW does Dodd-Frank kill such vast numbers of jobs?

By costing companies billions without a tangible benefit. There's a great write up recently on the WSJ about this, but it's just the tip of the iceberg.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 38704.html

The SEC initially estimated the rule would cost $71 million but now says companies will spend $3 billion to $4 billion to implement the new rule and then an additional $206 million to $609 million in annual compliance. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce puts the implementation figure closer to $16 billion.

Sarbanes Oxley likewise is terrible legislation. Neither do what they promise and both ignore the actual issues and layer bureaucracy and lawyer work en masse into business. That is pure job killing waste.

I actually don't have a problem with the federal government funding R&D or seed money for new important industries. After all, without massive government R&D spending, we wouldn't be talking on the internet right now. Here's a Fortune Magazine blurb on Solyndra, noting that investigators haven't found any evidence of the cronyism you discuss, and that Ryan was completely off base when he claimed there was no market for their product. http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/ ... a-fantasy/

The investigator was a huge Obama donor, so forgive me if I doubt his report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08 ... ama-donor/

There is no question Solyndra people kicked a lot of money back to the DNC, which is outrageous after they blew over 500 million in taxpayer funds in a very short time and the government guaranteed their friends personal investments over taxpayer funds. To me it's pure crony capitalism and rewarding ones friends with big bucks. I'm sure the Obama administration covered their tracks, but there is no doubt this 'investment' was nothing more than giving a huge chunk of cash to supporters who funneled a bunch back, costing the taxpayer.

It's the government picking winners and losers in the market in a manner that is unethical. There should be no 'investments'. That's why we have private equity. That's far different from funding NASA or Arpanet, both of which I support.

Now, I won't disagree that there needs to be a major overhaul of the tax code. Absolutely, no question there needs to be. Lets start by eliminating the different tax rates for normal income vs "carried interest" or "capital gains" just to start. Then lets lower the overall rates, but get rid of most of the special-interest write-offs. Keep the mortgage write-off for individuals, or even for corporations who are using it to actually buy property used to expand the business, but not to write off debt they incurred buying other companies. Lets get rid of all of the oil company subsidies, and lets actually put IN some incentives to keeping jobs/capital/etc INSIDE the US, rather than outsourced or offshored.

Agreed, with a caveat of capital gains which are for retirees or middle income should not be taxed at all.

[Narrock]

I'll gladly refute that poorly constructed piece of dung under the guise of an op ed article. First of all, RSM should stick with interviewing musicians and posting concert pics. RSM clearly deminstrates that they know nothing about finance, business, economics, and free market enterprise. The whole point to lending money is to get back more money than you lended out. This basic principal fuels economic growth and helps create jobs. There is nothing evil or bad or wrong with it. I'm pretty sure that Bain Capital didn't hold a gun to a business owner's head and forced them to take a high interest loan or bailout. Business is a gamble and comes with risks. Plain and simple. If you think that's bad and you prefer more government intervention and handouts rather than risk and reward, then take your lazy low-IQ self to the voting booth and vote for the obamanator. Oh, and it's gonna be comedy gold listening to the couple of disgruntled former Bain Capital flunkies speak at the democrap convention this week.

[Tossica]

You clearly didn't read the fucking article you dope. It's not about risk and reward, bank loans or bailouts. It's about hostile take overs. A handful of people throwing money around, gutting companies, causing massive layoffs and pocketing huge profits in the process.

Is that the American way now? No longer finding ways to actually produce a product and building an empire around it but instead, finding companies that offer the biggest bang for the buck when they are gutted and forced in to bankruptcy?

[Tossica]

You clearly didn't read the fucking article you dope. It's not about risk and reward, bank loans or bailouts. It's about hostile take overs. A handful of people throwing money around, gutting companies, causing massive layoffs and pocketing huge profits in the process.

Is that the American way now? No longer finding ways to actually produce a product and building an empire around it but instead, finding companies that offer the biggest bang for the buck when they are gutted and forced in to bankruptcy?

The people who signed the papers make their millions in guaranteed bonuses, etc while the WORKERS get fucked by corporate greed yet again.