Oh Bain...

[guido911]

If it is appropriate to attack Romney over a company he has investment capital in (Bain) which has a business that is outsourcing jobs, it is likewise appropriate for companies to tell its employees that if you vote for Obama the company might close or the employees might lose their jobs?

Here is one of those business leaders recent letters on this issue:

I am already heavily involved in considering options that make our independence go away, and with that all of our lives would change forever. I believe that a new President and administration would give US citizens and the world the renewed confidence and optimism we all need to get the global economies started again, and give ASG a chance to stay independent. If we fail as a nation to make the right choice on November 6th, and we lose our independence as a company, I don't want to hear any complaints regarding the fallout that will most likely come.

[Emphasis added].

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/14/arthur-allen-romney-email_n_1963965.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

[nathanm]

"2 green"? What does that mean? Solyndra was 1100 jobs and millions of dollars lost by itself. Also, not really concerned about 170 jobs in Freeport, IL, a town I dare say many in this forum never heard of until they got their DailyKos memo.

Did Obama or a company he holds a significant part of the equity in close Solyndra and ship the jobs overseas? If not, that's got love all to do with the topic of this thread. Try and focus.

In fact, no one would give a crap about these workers if it had zero connection to Romney.

Speak for yourself, bucko.

[guido911]

I don't disagree that most Americans wouldn't know about Bain and their history of outsourcing jobs and closing companies for management fees. But we should care.

Your disdain for anyone who posts negatives about Romney belittles your status. I think you are a strong poster who backs up your opinions with well thought out reasons. But then you cancel that with your contempt for anyone who disagrees with you. Just because Romney's business history is boring to you doesn't make it any less important to me.

Bain Capital helps define Romney. He has made his business experience a backbone of his campaign. It is logical that it would also be a backbone of those who don't like him. You critized me for bringing up his abuse of his dog and his bully tactics as a young man. You argued against the discussion of his securing bailouts of the Olympics. Now you say we bore you when we talk about his business career.

Get over it. You are supporting a deeply flawed candidate. Your boredom expresses your attitude toward others who don't agree with you, not the topic they are discussing.

Are you kidding me RM? I am not a huge Romney fan, but I am more nOBAMA. Obama had ZERO experience in any business enterprise prior to election, and his record since election sucks. So out comes the stones in glass houses barrage arguments against Romney.

And of ALL people to complain about candidate bias, you complaining about it is surprising. How many anti-Romney threads have you started? Better yet, how many anti-Obama threads have you started (this election cycle)?  After you contemplate that, then talk about disdain for candidates.

[nathanm]

Obama had ZERO experience in any business enterprise prior to election, and his record since election sucks.

That's a lie.

[nathanm]

I can't find the "holy smile Romney says such stupid things" thread, so I'll leave this nugget here:

Regulation. We must reduce the power of unaccountable regulators by
requiring that all major regulations receive congressional approval

Um, does he not realize that all regulation requires implicit Congressional approval? That Congress approves by passing a law delegating some power or another to the executive branch and not specifying all the details? That Congress is free to override any regulations put in place by the executive at the time of their choosing?

Trade. We must open new markets for American businesses and workers. I
will create a Reagan Economic Zone encompassing nations committed to
the principles of free enterprise.

"Reagan" Economic Zone? 

In other words, he wants to ship more jobs overseas. Good to know.

[guido911]

Did Obama or a company he holds a significant part of the equity in close Solyndra and ship the jobs overseas? If not, that's got love all to do with the topic of this thread. Try and focus.

Speak for yourself, bucko.

Nope. Only a little know Tulsan that was a major Obama donor had the connection Solyndra--but that's okay I guess.  . I wonder where are all the former Solyndra employees begging Kaiser or Obama for help. And I always speak for myself, but good to know Nate cares about a small Illinois town up near Wisconsin.

[nathanm]

Nope. Only a little know Tulsan that was a major Obama donor had the connection Solyndra--but that's okay I guess.  . I wonder where are all the former Solyndra employees begging Kaiser or Obama for help.

Do you have any proof that Kaiser ever lobbied for the money? Oh, right, you don't, you actually have emails from him stating that no, he would not do that. Not that it has anything to do with the topic at hand.

And I always speak for myself, but good to know Nate cares about a small Illinois town up near Wisconsin.

I care less about the small town itself and more about the continued shipping of jobs overseas even when the business is profitable with production in the US.

[heironymouspasparagus]

"2 green"? What does that mean? Solyndra was 1100 jobs and millions of dollars lost by itself. Also, not really concerned about 170 jobs in Freeport, IL, a town I dare say many in this forum never heard of until they got their DailyKos memo. In fact, no one would give a crap about these workers if it had zero connection to Romney. So please folks, don't give me this BS outrage about people you normally would not give two liquid bummers about if this were any other day. 

2 to 100.  Green jobs to Bush Fail jobs.  And past Romney loss.  The ratio may be way off, since Solyndra loss 1100, while the Bain job losses were about what, 175,000 or so?

It's a lot like looking at the money lost $500 million versus how many tens of billions?  How may 'green' jobs lost - many thousands ? - versus hundreds of thousands.  Ya gotta have a sense of proportion....

I'm concerned about any American job lost (except for the golden parachute people) - and if you talked to my friends and family, you would hear about the decades of talking at them about buying their foreign cars and costing American jobs.  And every other product that used to be made in this country.

[heironymouspasparagus]

If it is appropriate to attack Romney over a company he has investment capital in (Bain) which has a business that is outsourcing jobs, it is likewise appropriate for companies to tell its employees that if you vote for Obama the company might close or the employees might lose their jobs?

Trying to deflect again.  Poorly.

There IS a huge difference between "having investment capital in" and owning and being CEO with the proven, demonstrated program to eliminate jobs here by shipping them overseas.  I bet we could get India to provide all the legal services we could possibly need - at dramatically lower rates.

[RecycleMichael]

Obama had ZERO experience in any business enterprise prior to election

Once again you are wrong.

He was a lawyer in private practice for eleven years. He was a published and successful author. He founded and served as president of the board of a public education non-profit.

You act as if he went from community organizer to President of the United States.

[Conan71]

Want to talk about job loss? 500,000 government workers have lost their jobs since Obama took office.  Might as well call him "Chainsaw Barry"

Little known or distributed fact: President Obama is a government job slayer.  That's right.   When compared to both GW Bush and Bill Clinton, President Obama is absolutely crushing the size of the government workforce.  While Presidents Bush and Clinton added well over 500,000 government jobs during their first terms, President Obama has cut more than 500,000. 

For anyone who remembers the early Clinton and Bush years there was  a great deal of decent employment data and the government workforce played a big role in those economic expansions.  But as this morning's employment data showed, that positive effect is absent from this "recovery". 


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-the-government-jobs-slayer-2012-7#ixzz29Nbmfl2K

Kind of funny that only now overseas investment seems to be demonized.  We have a federal agency which encourages it and actually lends money to companies seeking to do business outside the U.S.

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is a self-sustaining Federal agency whose purpose is to promote economic growth in developing countries and emerging markets by encouraging U.S. private investment in those nations.

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) was established in 1971 as an independent agency by the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (112 Stat. 2681-790). OPIC helps U.S. businesses invest overseas, fosters economic development in new and emerging markets, complements the private sector in managing risks associated with foreign direct investment, and supports U.S. foreign policy. OPIC charges market-based fees for its products, and it operates on a self-sustaining basis at no net cost to taxpayers.

OPIC helps U.S. businesses compete in emerging markets when private sector support is not available. OPIC offers up to $250 million in long-term financing and/or political risk insurance to U.S. companies investing in over 150 emerging markets and developing countries. Backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, OPIC advocates for U.S. investment, offers experience in risk management, and draws on an outstanding record of success.

OPIC mobilizes America's private sector to advance U.S. foreign policy and development initiatives. Projects supported by OPIC expand economic development, which encourages political stability and free market reforms. Over the agency's 35 year history, OPIC has supported $177 billion worth of investments that have helped developing countries to generate over $13 billion in host government revenues and create over 800,000 host country jobs. OPIC projects have also generated $71 billion in U.S. exports and supported more than 271,000 American jobs. OPIC promotes U.S. best practices by requiring projects to adhere to international standards on the environment, worker rights, and human rights.

https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/overseas-private-investment-corporation

The Obama campaign got four Pinnochios from the Wa-Po for mischaracterizing Romney as a corporate raider and outsourcer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-obamas-newest-anti-romney-ad/2012/06/20/gJQAGux6qV_blog.html

And since he's been president, 30% of the Obama's income has been from foreign sources, according to his own tax returns.  Sounds pretty hypocritical to go after Romney for foreign investment, doesn't it?

Over 30% of President Obama's 2009-2011 Gross Income Came From Foreign Sources
Jim Lindgren • July 13, 2012 4:02 am


I find it strange that the Obama campaign would be making so much of Romney's income from foreign sources when Obama's foreign source income appears to be a much bigger percentage of his income over the last few years. Of course, one can't tell for sure because Mitt Romney has not released his 2009 tax return.

Yet in the three tax years in which Barack Obama has been President (2009, 2010, and 2011), fully 30.1% of the Obamas' gross income has come from foreign sources: ($2,711,340 out of a 3-year total gross income of $8,993,449).  In 2009, 26.5% of the Obamas' gross income came from foreign sources. In 2010 it was a whopping 41.4%, and in 2010 it was 30.2%.

The salary that we taxpayers pay him as President (just under $1.2 million over the 3 years) accounted for less than 13% of the Obamas' income, a share dwarfed by their 30% from foreign sources over the same period.

From 2009 through 2011, the Obamas paid $87,429 in foreign taxes, which they applied toward a credit to reduce their U.S. tax bill.  The amounts I examined are reported on Form 1116, of which there are two filed along with their 1040 when they had both general and passive foreign income.

Their returns do not disclose which foreign countries are responsible for paying the Obamas the $2.7 million in foreign source income, but the overwhelming bulk of it must come from payments resulting directly or indirectly from book sales.  Nonetheless, the Obamas did report a total of $3,611 in foreign passive income in 2009 and 2010, a type of income that most often results from investments in foreign countries.  Like some of the foreign investments for which Romney has been pilloried, this Obama passive foreign income might result from the foreign investments of U.S. financial entities in which the Obamas invested. [See update below; the passive income indeed came from the foreign investments of a U.S. entity in which the Obama's had an interest (Michelle Obama in a beneficiary), but it is not one over which they had any control over the investments.]
http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/13/over-30-of-president-obamas-2009-2011-gross-income-came-from-foreign-sources/

[erfalf]

Going after Bain is a lost cause. First off, Romney is twenty years removed from it. From that perspective you could pound on Obama for any hazy things his previous law firm has been doing recently. It's irrelevant. Second, is there a single shred of evidence that proves that Bain was the instigator in shipping jobs or firing people? Third, Bain is no more threatening that the small business bank loaning money to businesses. They are partners, not adversaries, just on a generally larger scale.

Are there practices that PE has that are a little unsavory, sure. Are there policies that bankers use that are unfair, you bet. But it is not the bankers/PE guys fault that politicians made it perfectly legal for them to do them. Besides, it's business. I think it's insane that pay day loan and furniture rental places charge confiscatory rates to people that really can't afford it, but you know what, they offer a service that those idiots are willing to pay for. There's something to be said about that.

Edit: On my first point, that actually does occur, with ACORN. See how stupid it looks to try to tie Obama to the current manifestation of ACORN.

[nathanm]

Want to talk about job loss? 500,000 government workers have lost their jobs since Obama took office.  Might as well call him "Chainsaw Barry"

Completely true. Not really Obama's fault. (The stimulus temporarily preserved those jobs and he keeps asking Congress to do more, but they refuse)

And since he's been president, 30% of the Obama's income has been from foreign sources, according to his own tax returns.  Sounds pretty hypocritical to go after Romney for foreign investment, doesn't it?

Seems to be a difference to me between book sales and offshoring factory jobs.

erfalf, Romney isn't terribly removed from all this. Most of his income comes from Bain to this day.

[nathanm]

David Stockman has an interesting article in Newsweek:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/14/david-stockman-mitt-romney-and-the-bain-drain.html

During a period of rising markets, expanding valuation multiples, and abundant credit, the opportunity to "average up" the home runs with the 1X losses is considerable; it can generate a spectacular portfolio outcome.

In a nutshell, that's the story of Bain Capital during Mitt Romney's tenure. The Wall Street Journal examined 77 significant deals completed during that period based on fundraising documents from Bain, and the results are a perfect illustration of bull-market asymmetry. Overall, Bain generated an impressive $2.5 billion in investor gains on $1.1 billion in investments. But 10 of Bain's deals accounted for 75 percent of the investor profits.

Accordingly, Bain's returns on the overwhelming bulk of the deals—67 out of 77—were actually lower than what a passive S&P 500 indexer would have earned even without the risk of leverage or paying all the private-equity fees. Investor profits amounted to a prosaic 0.7X the original investment on these deals and, based on its average five-year holding period, the annual return would have computed to about 12 percent—well below the 17 percent average return on the S&P in this period.

Yes erfalf, you know how it works, but a lot of people don't. They assume that his excellent financial performance means he rarely had a deal go south on him.

[erfalf]

Completely true. Not really Obama's fault. (The stimulus temporarily preserved those jobs and he keeps asking Congress to do more, but they refuse)

Seems to be a difference to me between book sales and offshoring factory jobs.

erfalf, Romney isn't terribly removed from all this. Most of his income comes from Bain to this day.

Then do we get to criticize Obama for any more that GE makes? I'm sure he get's some income from them. Just for kicks, why don't you become an investor in a PE firm and try to tell them what to do at the board meeting. Please make a video for me. I know how it will go.