Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JediJones
Their business model was split between two things, turning troubled companies around to sell them later, which is good, but secondarily to borrow big money on all of these companies and then transfer it to themselves free and clear, knowing that the creditors could no longer make any legal claim to that borrowed money since it was essentially accounted for as a “fee” paid to Bain and therefore no longer an asset of the acquired bankrupt company.

Thank you for making this point so strongly. Most of the discussion on this Bain issue puts the focus on the loss of jobs and, unfortunately, in many conservative circles there is a hostility to workers, especially if they are unionized or well compensated. Romney was thus the sympathetic character. There likely would have been a different public reaction if the focus had been placed, as you did, on the bond holders, creditors, and other investors who lost while Bain and Romney profited greatly on their loss.

32 posted on 01/16/2012 10:35:21 PM PST by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: etcb

I agree, etcb. I do understand why they focused on job losses though, because you have to imagine that’s a lot easier for the average voter to grasp while their eyes might glaze over once people start talking about financial and accounting details. I know Newt did specifically talk about Bain taking a lot of money out of a company before it went bankrupt, with of course the emphasis being on the jobs subsequently lost.

My feeling is the best way to argue the case is to compare how Bain fared financially after its borrowing and subsequent bankruptcies vs. how the average voter would fare if the borrowed money and had to go bankrupt. The way the conservative media just piled on Newt though seems to have rattled him to some degree. I’m also not sure he’s had time to fully absorb all the details and implications of Bain’s business practices enough to feel comfortable talking extemporaneously about them without making factual errors.

Some of the smart Romney-backers like Brit Hume and Krauthammer do seem to be realizing the Bain issue is a big liability for him. Krauthammer has been calling on him to provide a good answer and I think even echoed Newt’s call for Romney to do a press conference fully defending his record at Bain. Hume said on O’Reilly tonight that if Romney didn’t come up with a good answer that explained that his activities at Bain had a “net benefit” on the economy, it would be a serious liability that could cause him to lose the election in the fall. Dick Morris said Romney’s answer about Bain tonight was “just okay.”

These are some links on the site of a guy who wrote a heavily critical book on private equity with many examples specific to Bain in it. He says the Huffington Post reported that “Axelrod is using [his book] the Buyout of America as the basis for his Romney attacks.”

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/an-interview-with-josh-kosman-on-the-embeddedness-of-private-equity-in-the-tax-code/

http://www.buyoutofamerica.com/


36 posted on 01/16/2012 10:48:39 PM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Romney in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson