Will Bain be the Bane of Mitt?

[Minor Axis]

The Right Hates Spending- Unless They Pocket the Cash- 6/4/12 Newsweek.

Alternate Title: Will Bain be the bane of Mitt Romney?

In 1993 Bain & Co. owed the Bank of New England $38 million. The bank went under, and Romney negotiated a deal with the FDIC that allowed Bain to walk away from $10 million of that debt—sticking the taxpayers with the bill.

When Bain owned Steel Dynamics, Romney and his investors took $37 million in taxpayer subsidies—a sweet deal when they only invested about half that amount themselves. Tad DeHaven of the libertarian Cato Institute told the Los Angeles Times, “This is corporate welfare, an example of the government stepping into the marketplace, picking winners and losers, providing profits to business owners, and leaving taxpayers stuck with the bill.”

Classic crony capitalism: privatize the gain, socialize the risk. When Romney drove GST Steel into bankruptcy, he and his partners made $12 million in profit and another $4.5 million in consulting fees. But Romney stuck the taxpayers with a $44 million tab for the company’s underfunded pensions.

 

[Accountable]

There it is. Another corporation cashing in on its bribes to have the taxpayer pull them out of danger.

Will it change repub partisan votes? Of course not. They could find a body under the guy's air-conditioned garage and nobody would blink an eye. They're not voting for him; they're voting against President Obama.

Will it effect dem partisan votes? Of course not. They could find proof that he is FDR reincarnated and not one partisan would change their vote. Those minds are set.

Anybody who would change their mind because of this will change their mind again with the next news story.
Sorry. Feeling a bit cynical tonight.

 

[Alien Allen]

There it is. Another corporation cashing in on its bribes to have the taxpayer pull them out of danger.

Will it change repub partisan votes? Of course not. They could find a body under the guy's air-conditioned garage and nobody would blink an eye. They're not voting for him; they're voting against President Obama.

Will it effect dem partisan votes? Of course not. They could find proof that he is FDR reincarnated and not one partisan would change their vote. Those minds are set.

Anybody who would change their mind because of this will change their mind again with the next news story.
Sorry. Feeling a bit cynical tonight.

no need to feel sorry or cynical

it is the truth

enough voters are fickle with no core belief system and they will vote what ever way the wind blows at the time

 

[Minor Axis]

Bloomberg: Romney Critical of Govt Subsidies that Allowed Bain To Profit.

Hypocrite Warning...

Mitt Romney likes to say that “government does not create prosperity.”

His record in the private equity industry shows otherwise.

During Romney’s years as chief executive of Bain Capital LLC, companies owned by the firm received millions of dollars in benefits from a variety of state and local government economic development programs.

 

[Minor Axis]

Romeny Refuses to Answer Question on Immigration Repeal

When specifically asked by Bob Schrieffer multiple times if he would repeal the Dream Act, all Mr. Romney would say was that after being elected, he'd come up with a better solution. I find this very interesting because during the GOP primaries, he was very adamant about his position of repealing the Dream Act. Shouldn't politicians be willing to take a position?

Romney Campaign Pulls a Wawa Switcheroo

Run, Romney run!

 

[Accountable]

I'm tellin' ya. There's no real difference between Obama & Romney.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

The only difference is that one has a track record to vote against.Romney will not succeed by being a better politician than Obama. The only way he can win is to be a better salesman than Obama.

 

[Accountable]

Out of a population of 350 million, you'd think we could find ONE person worthy of voting for, rather than just throwing any empty suit up and banging the drum to vote against the other guy.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

There are plenty of Americans worthy of the job, but lacking the financial backing to apply. It's an enormous undertaking to get your sales pitch in front of ever voter in 50 states, and the media would rather record a thousand speeches in the hope that one candidate picks his nose for a second than take the trouble to define the candidates.

 

[Tim]

I'm tellin' ya. There's no real difference between Obama & Romney.

There is only one difference that scares the hell out of me...

And that's who they would pick for the supreme court. If Romney gets the chance to nominate supreme court justices to an already right leaning court, forget about citizens united, that would be the least of our worries.

 

[Minor Axis]

Out of a population of 350 million, you'd think we could find ONE person worthy of voting for, rather than just throwing any empty suit up and banging the drum to vote against the other guy.

There are some moderate Republican's I can stomach, but "moderate" disqualifies them as viable candidates. They'll never get their party's support.

 

[Accountable]

There is only one difference that scares the hell out of me...

And that's who they would pick for the supreme court. If Romney gets the chance to nominate supreme court justices to an already right leaning court, forget about citizens united, that would be the least of our worries.

Doesn't matter. All of the current justices are statists, and their replacements will be also.

There are some moderate Republican's I can stomach, but "moderate" disqualifies them as viable candidates. They'll never get their party's support.

That's one of the best reasons I can think of to eliminate political parties altogether. Ban them and every other corporate entity from our political & legislative processes.

 

[Tim]

Doesn't matter. All of the current justices are statists, and their replacements will be also.

You are absolutely right, that's why they voted right on party lines with citizens united.

 

[Alien Allen]

Doesn't matter. All of the current justices are statists, and their replacements will be also.


That's one of the best reasons I can think of to eliminate political parties altogether. Ban them and every other corporate entity from our political & legislative processes.

well stated:clap

 

[Accountable]

You are absolutely right, that's why they voted right on party lines with citizens united.

That wasn't about centralized v. decentralized power.

 

[Tim]

That wasn't about centralized v. decentralized power.

Of course it was. It handed the government into the hands of the corporations. It doesn't get any more centralized than that.

 

[Minor Axis]

That's one of the best reasons I can think of to eliminate political parties altogether. Ban them and every other corporate entity from our political & legislative processes.

We've been here before. I don't think having or not having parties make much difference. If you take away the names and just make people vote for someone they will still organize into the assholes, the liberals, or the moderates.

 

[Accountable]

Of course it was. It handed the government into the hands of the corporations. It doesn't get any more centralized than that.

Agreed. Now carry it through. What has the "liberal" side of the Supreme Court done to decentralize power, meaning take power from Washington? It's not a rhetorical question.

You pointed out a partisan tiff, nothing more.

 

[Accountable]

We've been here before. I don't think having or not having parties make much difference. If you take away the names and just make people vote for someone they will still organize into the assholes, the liberals, or the moderates.

But there wouldn't be the party paying the politician to do as he was told, even if it goes against his conscience. There wouldn't be an expectation for a politician to sit on one side of the aisle and only conference with those of his own party. It would be more likely for the representative to feel more loyalty to the state he's elected to represent, rather than the national party that pays for his reelection.

 

[Minor Axis]

But there wouldn't be the party paying the politician to do as he was told, even if it goes against his conscience. There wouldn't be an expectation for a politician to sit on one side of the aisle and only conference with those of his own party. It would be more likely for the representative to feel more loyalty to the state he's elected to represent, rather than the national party that pays for his reelection.

The hard part would be to implement this. I think they would still organize themselves into loose blocks as if they had secret parties. One of the big things is to keep huge amounts of money out of elections dumped there for example by billionaires with agendas. And I'll add, Corporations should have no ability to inject money. I'd be happy if they went to public financing. This is one example of were tax payer money would be well spent and limit political advertising to the year before the election. I thought I read that in the U.K. or somewhere like that you don't see political ads until just 6 months before an election.