(According to some here.)
Posted on 01/10/2012 1:36:20 PM PST by Utmost Certainty
We don’t know all of the details of how Bain conducted its business under Mitt Romney, but we do know that in at least several instances the conduct was to squeeze out cash while leaving behind a failed company. In many other instances Bain helped companies to grow.
In a capitalist system, that process of weeding out weaker companies and reallocating resources may serve a greater good, much as natural selection helps to make the population stronger. In a political candidate running for the presidency in the general election, however, it is potentially fatal.
In response to this entirely legitimate point being raised that a predatory history of investing may not be what we want in the nominee for the presidency, we have a chorus of voices asserting that Newt is attacking capitalism. Some of those voices long have hated and vented venom at Newt, others are less ideological and have reacted as if the entire capitalist system were under attack.
It’s sad to see so many in the Republican Party so incapable of distinguishing between economic and political arguments.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
The context in which he was saying that was a market based decision.
Example:
for years I had Farmers Insurance for my auto insurance. I thought I had to have a name brand to get excellent coverage.
Then a friend told me about Mercury Insurance. WTH? They were 2/3rds less!
I switched and have had several claims since. Guess my cars are magnets for people side swipping me, rear ending and a head on collision with some dork who crossed over into my lane.
Each time, Mercury had a car for me that day and a place to have my cars towed. Two of which were totaled and one I actually received a check for more than I paid for the car a year earlier.(I knew I had got a good deal on that car but didn’t know it was that good).
So Farmers got fired, I reduced my costs and received just terrific service.
Same with our telephone and Internet services. Hated them and their quality of service. Fired.
Same with employees who just can’t, for whatever reason, meet expectations. Fired(hate doing it but ultimately it becomes about everyone else still employed)
Investors who can’t seem to get the business or understand their responsibility. Later.
That is what MuttHole was talking about. Choices.
Instead, they are using the language of the left to criticize Romney on the substance of what he actually did. "You took greedy profits and left those workers without a job. That is wrong."
Sadly, there are no winners in this. The Republicans who are attacking them diminish themselves by adopting the language of the left, and Romney looks bad because it will be an albatross in the general election.
You must mean this quote:
Romney said the remark was deliberately taken out of context.
“I was talking about insurance companies. We like to be able to get rid of insurance companies that don’t give us the service that we need,” Romney said late Monday. “I do not want to live in a world where we have Obamacare telling us which insurance we have to have, which doctor we can have, which hospital we go to. I believe in a setting, as I described this morning, where people are able to choose their own doctor, choose their own insurance company. If they do not like their insurance company or their provider, they can get rid of them. That is the way America works.
Actually no.
Romney said: “We’d all like to get rid of our insurance companies.”
Romney attacked the whole insurance industry. You are guilty of injecting your own context.
Please stop?
That’s the issue isn’t it?
It does diminish their position. Make Mutt out to be a liar on stuff families discuss around the kitchen table.
This stuff is pushing the argument off the field and into...???? Who knows but I don’t discuss brand “x” unless I want help them.
Did Romney at Bain Capital raid “pension funds?” If Romney would raid people’s pension funds, he will have no problem raiding the Treasury.
(According to some here.)
Stop what? Free Speech?
Or talking to you?
He singled out the insurance industry for his example because Government care and fascist edict are concerns for Americans.
With the way ObamaCare is setup, you have no ability to fire an insurance company. You obligated to do business with one for merely being alive.
If you are arguing everyone should have insurance it is reasonable for the government to compel you to do business with an insurance provider and purchase a certain coverage, which they have defined then I understand your view.
“Asked about the previous day’s statement by a reporter just after Romney emerged from his campaign bus, he said: “I was talking about, as you know, insurance companies>”
“...previous day’s statement by a reporter...” is the context... can you you post a reference for that conversation for me?
Direct link to relevant video: http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/gingrich-romney-set-himself-up-for-dems-to-exploit-him/6qimd14
And what exactly is the problem with that statement?
I’d like to get rid of damn near everyone who sends me a bill. Either totally and completely or replace them with an alternative that I deem suitable.
Kind of like dental insurance. Total waste of money. I don’t have it.
$50 or more a month for dental insurance? LOL I see my dentist once or twice a year and he charges all of $100 to see me. I am at least $400 per year ahead and he has less paperwork to fill out.
So I fired my insurance for dental.
Sadly, even Obamacare doesn’t have dental coverage so I will stay have to pay out of pocket.
Stop exactly what I asked you to stop, what you ought not to be doing in the first place - injecting your own context to twist what Romney actually said.
BTW it is a bit LoL that you bring up Free Speech considering your first response to me was what I should be posting and what i should not be posting.
Got no more time for a Romneybot.
For all those freepers whining that Newt is attacking "capitalism", please listen and enjoy.
Hey, now.
I wouldn’t be bothered if Romney broke his ulna or something and put an end to his campaign.
Then again that kind of cheap shot is what one would expect from someone who cannot factually maintain his argument.
Funny, never had this kind of interaction with you before and always liked your posts.
Let’s back away from each other????
2012 GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney, who has a large lead in the polls heading into the New Hampshire primary tomorrow, has been taking heat from both Democrats and his Republican challengers for his time at Bain Capital, the private equity firm that he headed. Bain’s modus operandi was to invest in companies, leverage them up with debt, and then sell them off for scrap, allowing Bain’s investors to walk away with huge profits while the companies in which Bain invested wound up in bankruptcy, laying off workers and reneging on benefits.
Last week, Reuters profiled one company, Worldwide Grinding Systems, that went belly up after Bain invested in it. The company not only lost 750 jobs, but the federal government had to come in to bail out its pension fund, while Bain walked away with millions in profits.
And according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal, this was far from an isolated incident. In fact, 22 percent of the companies in which Bain invested wound up either in bankruptcy or shutting their doors entirely, while Bain itself has made billions of dollars for its investors:
The Wall Street Journal, aiming for a comprehensive assessment, examined 77 businesses Bain invested in while Mr. Romney led the firm from its 1984 start until early 1999, to see how they fared during Bain’s involvement and shortly afterward.
Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost. [...]
The Journal analysis shows that in total, Bain produced about $2.5 billion in gains for its investors in the 77 deals, on about $1.1 billion invested. Overall, Bain recorded roughly 50% to 80% annual gains in this period, which experts said was among the best track records for buyout firms in that era.
Adding insult to injury, Bain would hide its profits in tax havens, not even paying the rate it was supposed to on the profits it made laying off workers.
Let's see how the taxpayers feel about bailing out these companies' pension funds and receiving no tax money back from Bain. Let's let the people decide qhat they think of Romney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.