Replies

From your Boston Globe article:

STOCK PRICE

July 2, 1996: $15.13 - IPO Price

Jan. 27, 1997: $26.00 - Peak

Sep 16, 1997: $13.13 - Stock loses 42% of its value

1996: Ampad completes an initial public offering. Bain sells about 3 million shares, reaping about $45 million to $50 million for investors and itself. It also takes $2 million in fees for arranging the IPO, plus other fees.

· 1998: With Ampad struggling, Bain agrees to cut the annual fee $1.5 million a year. It also agrees to start forgoing payment until the company turns around.

· 1999: Revenues continue to slide. Ampad closes a plant near Buffalo, with up to 185 losing jobs.

Notice something a pro-capitalist (as opposed to a pro-Newt) person would notice?

Hint:Look at the note dated 1996: “reaping about $45 million to $50 million for investors and itself. It also takes $2 million in fees for arranging the IPO, plus other fees.”

What, please explain if you can, is wrong with any of that? All of this was done when the stock was heading towards its peak.

Yet the article is trying to claim that somehow paying ‘investors and itself’ is WRONG—whether it’s done when a company is on the way up or down.

This is exactly what I was talking about—people who know nothing of business are now talking like Obama and Occupy to attack Romney.

Man, this place is turning into Ron Paul/Occupy territory.

Oh, and P.S.—this is what I posted: “Post the evidence that Romney fired people who didn`t have to be fired. Articles, testimony—FACTS not just hyperbole.”

Where is all this evidence of people who DIDN’T HAVE TO BE FIRED? According to the article from the Boston Globe you simply cut and pasted from another site (instead of, you know, answering my very specific question), these folks were let go because the plants where they worked at was shut down-—in which cases were people fired who “didn’t have to be fired”?

I asked a very specific question because of a very specific accusation. Now prove it.