Quote:
Originally Posted by
bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/180#post_3498322
Someone's drinking the Romney Kool-Aide. Romney got most of the funding for Bain Capital from his "ese's" in Central America, which most of them were linked to death squads in that region:
So now instead of using Daddy's money you change your story based on a disreputable website?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/mitt-romney-death-squads-bain_n_1710133.html
It was still averaged out to 47th, and statistically it never improved much. Kinda like what will happen if he gets elected.
I'd say going from dead last to 28th his last year in office was a stunning improvement. When after 4 years they were 28th and the average only moved up to 47th is shows how far back they were when he started. Absolutely amazing he could move them that much in just 4 years. First year in office they lost 54,000 jobs. His last year they gained 34,000. It would have been wonderful if 0bama could have posted anything near those kind of gains.
Based on when Obamacare first came out, the majority of Americans wanted something to replace the antequated and overpriced healthcare system most people were on. A poll in June showed that most Americans opposed Obamacrea as a whole, but wannt the majority of provisions it provides:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/25/505526/poll-most-americans-support-obamacare-provisions/
Based on this Rasmussen Poll, you have an average of a 55% to 45% split as far as who favor a repeal, and who oppose it.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
So what? Romney created an instate program that had the support of the people. 0bama created a national boondoggle that is still opposed by a majority even before some of the worst parts of it take effect.
That isn't called leadership. That's called pandering to the majority.
You need to read your Bain article a little more closely: Why? As I correctly pointed out a large majority of the businesses they invested in remained in business and out of bankruptcy 8 years beyond Bain's involvement. And of the one's that did go Bankrupt Bain only controlled 5 at the time they filed. 5 out of 77. 0bama would sell his kids for that level of success.
Another finding was that Bain produced stellar returns for its investors—yet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains
Bain was investing in "riskier deals," said Steven N. Kaplan, a finance professor at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business. "For every one that went bankrupt, they had one that was a screaming success. The overall effect was terrific performance" for the firm's investors.
For its analysis, the Journal used a list of 77 Bain investments inked from 1984 through 1998 that were included in a document that a unit of
Deutsche Bank AG
DB +0.39%circulated in 2000, while soliciting participants in a fund to invest with Bain. The document—which cites Bain as a source—appears to be the most authoritative available for Bain's activities, and says that the deals accounted for about 90% of the money Bain invested during that period. The Journal obtained updated information from a similar 2004 prospectus.
The list focused on larger "private equity" investments—typically deals in which Bain took control of a business, or in some cases worked with another buyout firm to do so, aiming to improve the target business's performance. Deutsche Bank lumped into a single line all of Bain's investments of less than $2 million and those that were more of a venture-capital nature, which generally involved buying minority stakes in promising small companies such as Staples.
Seventeen of the 77 private-equity targets filed bankruptcy petitions, usually Chapter 11 reorganization, or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain's investment.
Of these, at least five clearly were still controlled and run by Bain at the time. In three other cases, Bain was a minority investor in a deal run by another buyout firm. In some of the remaining cases, Bain still held a small stake or had just sold out when the bankruptcy filing or shutdown occurred, while in other cases the trouble struck several years after Bain's exit.
Bain, after its initial focus on small firms needing capital, later shifted toward the potentially more lucrative business of leveraged buyouts—acquiring control of businesses by using investors' money amplified by debt.
In such deals, a buyout firm tries to improve profitability by refocusing operations and cutting costs, a step that can include cutting the work force. Buyout firms seek to make money not only by eventually selling a business for more than they put into it, but also by extracting fees and sometimes dividends while they own it.
A few investments produced spectacular profits, the documents show. A 1995 Bain investment of $6.4 million in eye-care concern Wesley Jessen VisionCare Inc. yielded a gain of more than $300 million, roughly a 46-fold return.
But the fact that some of Bain's biggest winners later landed in bankruptcy court "is potentially damning evidence" that the firm left the companies in vulnerable shape, said Mr. Strömberg, the Swedish academic. He said research shows that buyout companies, on average, add value to their targets, but it is worrisome if that reverses within a few years.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829
