Wait until Newt totally exposes this liberal jackass Romney. The was is just starting.
Since when have liberals ever based decisions on what they should do?
Personally I find nothing wrong in what Bain did or any other company like Bain does..
As posted in another thread:
A lot of those defending Romney’s time at Bain Capital seem to be missing what should be the real point of this. That point being—if Romney’s going to run on his vaunted “private sector experience”, then it’s worth scrutinizing exactly what kind of “private sector experience” it really was, and whether that kind of experience is really conducive to the sort of entrepreneurial, free-market knowhow which it’ll really take to get the economy rolling again.
I’d argue that Romney knows more about vulture corporatism, than he does about real, free-market entrepreneurialism. And that it is absolutely not mere Leftist, Michael Moore-style rhetoric to attack Romney on this.
And just because what Romney was doing looks like capitalism on the surface, doesn’t mean it was. His whole firm could very well been based around the kind of crony capitalism any defender of real, free-market capitalism should rightfully despise.
Bingo!
As posted in another thread:
A lot of those defending Romney’s time at Bain Capital seem to be missing what should be the real point of this. That point being—if Romney’s going to run on his vaunted “private sector experience”, then it’s worth scrutinizing exactly what kind of “private sector experience” it really was, and whether that kind of experience is really conducive to the sort of entrepreneurial, free-market knowhow which it’ll really take to get the economy rolling again.
I’d argue that Romney knows more about vulture corporatism, than he does about real, free-market entrepreneurialism. And that it is absolutely not mere Leftist, Michael Moore-style rhetoric to attack Romney on this.
Also, just because what Romney was doing looks like capitalism on the surface, doesn’t mean it was. His whole firm could’ve very well been based around the kind of crony capitalism that any defender of real, free-market capitalism should rightfully despise.
If you don’t like what Bain does, outbid them next time.
By the way Bain worked with Staples, Dominos Pizza and the Sports Authority... I guess that is bad...
Need to take a legitamate route to taking down Romney. Companies go to places like Bain because they are poorly managed and need cash. Theynegotiate the terms and most of the time, the company is in no position to survive. I hate Mitt’s politics, but the attacks coming out tofay on his work at Bain are indeed anti-capitalist.
NationalJournal.com - Meet the Billionaire Who Wants to Help Newt Gingrich Destroy Mitt Romney - http://bit.ly/zfF2KO
5 minutes ago
What Newt is doing reminds me of the Bill Clinton anecdote when confronted about untrue negative attack ads. "You gotta do what you gotta do." I suppose most politicians think that way when an election is on the line.
Can I be the first to proclaim:
Romney is toast!
In the end, just because you CAN take on more debt to procure investors an earlier dividend, for example, doesn’t mean that you SHOULD.
So it was a ponzi scheme?
Comeon. I’m all for hammering this jackass but Bain did everyone a favor.
Without their advice many companies wouldn’t be in business today
Without their foresight many investors would have lost their azz or continued to pour money down a drain hoping they will recoup their investment.
Bain shut down companies that, in their opinion, could not reach profitability objectives and Bain created a package to mitigate losses or create a product that at least made some money in the transaction of shutting down a broken business.
Hell, I’ve done it. “This thing ain’t making me money. I’m shutting it down and getting rid of the assets”.
That’s life and most businesses have a life cycle.
Sorry for the unemployed people but again, that’s life.
In the years 1999-2007 I worked for no less than 11 companies who went bankrupt. Two of them should have been put the stake and burned in effigy years before they ultimately died. Their business model sucked and their management was worse.
Another, “suddenly” found their American operations unprofitable. This one I couldn’t figure out. I mean we were the highest priced guys in any selling situation and I could their viewpoint, sort of.
But, I ultimately decided they had to answer to their investors at Adam Smith and they were being pressured to come up with some dough and distribute it. American operations took the hit.
I got laid off from each of these jobs and that’s just life.
Move on. Bitterness will keep you right were you are.
Perhaps it is time to change your handle?
The purpose of exposing this video, from Gingrich’s perspective is to show the difference between corporate-level consolidation as one aspect of healing over-bloated dying companies, and a comprehensive business model that enables ground-level, small business creation. That is a critical question that gets to the point of what we need in our president.
Romney is a corporate guy. There is nothing wrong with that - I have worked for a couple of the biggest corporations in the world and endured restructurings and staff reductions for 30 years. Newt’s angle is that Romney may know how to make money via corporate restructuring, but he does not have the real experience as a national leader, driving public policy to trigger wide-spread economic expansion by policy reform. It is child’s play for the Obama gang to credibly paint Romney as a corporate raider 1%’er. The story tells itself!
Listen to what Prof. Art Laffer says: “You know, economics is my profession, and I’ve specialized in it all my life, especially public policy economics. I feel sort of like a doctor in a hospital, choosing which surgeon is going to operate on my child. And, you’ve got a bunch of good candidates out there but Newt Gingrich has done it before. His plan is pure and simple supply-side Reaganomics all the way,” he said.
The point is that Romney is a corporate rebuilding expert. He is in the business of doing the dirty work of painful corporate restructing that creates profits and survivability for corporate investors. That is an important service, but does nothing for the working guy who loses his job after many years of service and is out on the street.
The Reagan model is supply-side driven, driving tax-rate reductions, deregulation, small business incentives and consumer-based, ground-up growth that benefits everybody. This is where Newt has credibility and experience. The American people voted Reagan in the 80’s and Reagan needed a real, results driven visionary in the House to sponsor his change. Newt was a key driver - Laffer knows this because he was there! In ‘94 the American people voted for revolution in the congress after 40 years of democrat strangulation. Newt was the leader! Look how investment grew after Newt’s reforms. Deficits were reversed, taxes reduced, investment incentives enacted, stock market blasted off, unemployment shrank to near full-employment level. We know what happened in Clinton’s 1st 2 years when he had both houses of Congress. He was killing us. What changed things - Newt!
There is a big difference between creating corporate profits and saving those investors and core employees vs. growing a widely incentivized, ground-up economy. This is where Newt has an advantage because as Prof. Laffer states, Newt has credible experience doing this. Newt can lay claim to helping create 11 million jobs in the 80’s. Romney did create corporate profits but in no way does his model comprehensively trigger consumer confidence and wide-spread growth. This is why Newt Gingrich is immeasurably most qualified to stand as the GOP nominee for President and I pray the SC voters will get this message. I live in Florida and can’t wait to vote for Newt.