Romney is entitled to claim that he started a business that created jobs. The assertion that Bain created or destroyed jobs is irrelevant in large part, because the company engages in completely legal activities under US law, as to all it’s peers in the private equity business. The companies they buy are NOT “too big to fail”, and are sometimes bloated, mismanaged, and underperforming. Fixing broken companies and operating and/or reselling them for a profit is a totally capitalistic enterprise and nothing any conservative should be whining about. That’s what liberals do.
—because the company engages in completely legal activities under US law—
So do most pr0n companies and abortion mills.
Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they’d been promised, and their pension benefits were cut..
What’s more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/bain-drip-drip-drip/
So why should American taxpayers have to be forced to pay for Willard’s business incompetence and greed?
So, all of a sudden we (conservatives) are expecting our next president to create jobs for us, wow for a minute I thought I was on DU instead of FR. The mantra of the Republicans party has been that ‘government doesn’t create jobs’, and the government should get out of the way. I still believe this, but reading some of the posts on this thread leads me to believe that somehow unless Romney can create jobs, his presidency will be a failure.
Far as I can tell, Romney fired thousands of people in under-performing companies that were likely to go bankrupt anyway, and managed to make a profit in the process.
If Romney gets elected, I certainly HOPE that he will fire 100’s of thousands of inefficient people from that biggest of all inefficient employers - the Federal government.
Just because abortion is legal does not make it right. Here is something I posted on this topic the other day.
The Founders warned about a free society that lacks moral clarity.
Unions were the answer in the era where capitalism wasn’t being moral and taking care of the employees. That ended up biting us in the butt.
The important thing is to use the bully pulpit to project righteousness and responsibility. Judeo-Christian principles need to be back in vogue!
“Fixing broken companies and operating and/or reselling them for a profit is a totally capitalistic enterprise and nothing any conservative should be whining about.”
Agreed. And heartily so.
But taking over ailing companies with no more noble intent than to eat out their hearts and suck the last drop of lifeblood out of them...that ain’t “fixing”; that’s piracy.
Legal? Yeah, but who gives a damn when it’s as unjust, immoral, and unethical as all Hell?
You’ve NO idea how many decent establishments I’ve seen taken over, fiscally eviscerated, and destroyed by companies like Bain. No, they don’t ALWAYS ride them down into the dust; every once in awhile they’ll turn something around and make it prosperous; just not often.
[Fixing broken companies and operating and/or reselling them for a profit is a totally capitalistic enterprise]
You obviously haven’t been around any such deals because there really is a difference between vultures and venture capitalists. When you go in and strip the equity out with no intention of either helping shareholders much less employees it is legal, but it certainly isn’t ethical.
But here you are crying over Romney’s actions at Bain being taken out of context when you could just view Gingrich as a hostile takeover of the Romney campaign. Why are Romney’s hostile business tactics good while Gingrichs’ hostile political tactics bad?