PDA

View Full Version : Forget Bain. Obama's public-equity record... .



Sev
05-25-2012, 04:30 PM
Yah this could be a lot of fun to watch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/f...XCnU_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/forget-bain-obamas-public-equity-record-is-the-real-scandal/2012/05/24/gJQAXnXCnU_story.html)

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>Forget Bain - Obama's public-equity record is the real scandal</span>


By Marc A. Thiessen, Published: May 24

Despite a growing backlash from his fellow Democrats, President Obama has doubled down on his attacks on Mitt Romney™s tenure at Bain Capital. But the strategy could backfire in ways Obama did not anticipate. After all, if Romneys record in private equity is fair game, then so is Obamas record in public equity and that record is not pretty.

Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions. Consider just a few examples of Obama™s public equity failures:




Raser Technologies. In 2010, the Obama administration gave Raser a $33 million taxpayer-funded grant to build a power plant in Beaver Creek, Utah. According to the Wall Street Journal, after burning through our tax dollars, the company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012. The plant now has fewer than 10 employees, and Raser owes $1.5 million in back taxes.

ECOtality. The Obama administration gave ECOtality $126.2 million in taxpayer money in 2009 for, among other things, the installation of 14,000 electric car chargers in five states. Obama even hosted the companys president, Don Karner, in the first lady™s box during the 2010 State of the Union address as an example of a stimulus success story. According to ECOtalitys own SEC filings, the company has since incurred more than $45 million in losses and has told the federal government, œWe may not achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.

Worse, according to CBS News the company is œunder investigation for insider trading, and Karner has been subpoenaed for any and all documentation surrounding the public announcement of the first Department of Energy grant to the company.

Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP). The Obama administration gave NGP a $98.5 million taxpayer loan guarantee in 2010. The New York Times reported last October that the company is in œfinancial turmoil and that œ[a]fter a series of technical missteps that are draining Nevada Geothermals cash reserves, its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was ˜significant doubt about the companys ability to continue as a going concern.

First Solar. The Obama administration provided First Solar with more than $3 billion in loan guarantees for power plants in Arizona and California. According to a Bloomberg Businessweek report last week, the company œfell to a record low in Nasdaq Stock Market trading May 4 after reporting $401 million in restructuring costs tied to firing 30 percent of its workforce.

Abound Solar, Inc. The Obama administration gave Abound Solar a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories. According to Forbes, in February the company halted production and laid off 180 employees.

Beacon Power. The Obama administration gave Beacon a green-energy storage company a $43 million loan guarantee. According to CBS News, at the time of the loan, Standard and Poor™s had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of CCC-plus. In the fall of 2011, Beacon received a delisting notice from Nasdaq and filed for bankruptcy.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. A company called SunPower got a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, and as of January, the company owed more than it was worth. Brightsource got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee and posted a string of net losses totaling $177 million. And, of course, let™s not forget Solyndra the solar panel manufacturer that received $535 million in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees and went bankrupt, leaving taxpayers on the hook.

Amazingly, Obama has declared that all the projects received funding œbased solely on their merits. But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, Throw Them All Out, fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Departments grants and loans went to œindividuals who were bundlers, members of Obamas National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week it™s not the presidents job œto make a lot of money for investors. Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.

All that cronyism and corruption is catching up with the administration. According to Politico, œThe Energy Department™s inspector general has launched more than 100 criminal investigations related to the departments green-energy programs.

Now the man who made Solyndra a household name says Mitt Romneys record at Bain Capital is what this campaign is going to be about. Good luck with that, Mr. President. If Obama wants to attack Romneys alleged private equity failures as chief executive of Bain, he™d better be ready to defend his own massive public equity failures as chief executive of the United States.

Soflasnapper
05-25-2012, 05:10 PM
It's criminal for the WaPost to publish this man's screeds without revealing his extremely partisan* background.

He talks around many companies as issues but doesn't deliver the goods, as in, the money is now totally lost and the guaranteed loans have been asked to be paid by the government guarantor.

That is true in the case of Solyndra, as we know. But what of the other companies he mentions who received these loans, grants, or loan guarantees? Somehow he forgot to say, or more likely, they have not defaulted and the government is not yet required to pay, contrary to the false impression he strives mightily to concoct.

But more importantly, the guy's analysis is whacked on any political analysis. The reason the issue is potent against Rmoney is that it is his whole raison d'etre for his alleged superior competence at economic fixes. For he surely doesn't point to his time as governor to make that case, and for the excellent reason that his record there, esp. with regard to job creation, was nearly DFL in the country (3rd from worst).

If Obama had similarly touted his equity firm performances, even these once in office, maybe there might be a sound comparison that would stick. He has not done that, and so it is a nothing burger dressed up as filet mignon by this professional spinner.

Obama said this week it™s not the presidents job œto make a lot of money for investors. Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.

That would seem untrue if all the companies went broke, as the man implies but cannot seem to state forthrightly. If some of his donors made a lot of money, then their companies did not go broke in the scant year or two since these grants and loan guarantees, etc., were put forward. Which is it, former speechwriter for the Evil Empire*?

And please, further, describe the influence you claim that the president had on the granting of these governmental funds and guarantees? Is it claimed that he went deep into the weeds and hand-picked hundreds of companies personally?

-----------

*The WaPost does mention his background, but not on the page where his writing of the day appears. Here is how they describe it:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Marc Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Thiessen served as a chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and before that as a senior aide to Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms. He is the author of Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack (2010).</div></div>

Soflasnapper
05-26-2012, 02:22 PM
Here are some of the answers to the questions I raised off the top of my head about this guy's analysis.

Highlights include that only 2 of the 26 recipients of loan guarantees have actually gone bankrupt, and some of those had already sold the energy business part to new owners who are on the hook for all or most of the loan payback. Moreover, if ALL the 10 companies mentioned as having financial difficulties all go bad and all their loans are lost, there will still be $500 million dollars left in the part of the funding set aside FOR THOSE LOSSES.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Marc Thiessen Distorts Success Rate Of Clean Energy Investments

May 25, 2012 5:25 pm ET by Jill Fitzsimmons

In his latest Washington Post column, Marc Thiessen of the American Enterprise Institute suggested that President Obama is being hypocritical when he points out Mitt Romney's jobs record at Bain Capital because some clean energy companies have struggled after receiving government loans or grants from the Obama administration. In fact, the failure rate for federal green energy investments is far lower than that of private venture capital investments in clean energy, and the majority of the loan guarantees are low-risk.

As evidence of President Obama's "massive public equity failures," Thiessen cherry-picked clean energy companies that have faced any sort of financial difficulty after receiving Department of Energy loan guarantees or other federal support. But these companies represent a small fraction of loan guarantee recipients, many of which are paying back the loans ahead of schedule.

An independent review of the loan guarantee program by a former Bush administration official concluded that the risk to taxpayers is far lower than the Department of Energy had planned for. The report echoed a Bloomberg Government analysis which found that 87 percent of the loans are low-risk, and that even if all 10 of the higher risk projects defaulted, DOE would still have nearly half a billion dollars left in the fund set aside by Congress to cover losses.

By contrast, CleanTechnica noted in October that private venture capitalists take far greater risks when investing in clean energy:

With just 1.4% of its Recovery Act clean tech investments in "losers", it looks like the Obama administration is batting a much better average in "picking winners and losers" than the private Venture Capital (VC) market itself.

The US government guarantee of a private loan to Solyndra, at $535 million, represented a minuscule 1.4% of the Department of Energy investment in all renewable technologies. By contrast - VCs (who were out $1 billion to Solyndra, for example) expect much higher failure rates. Richard Stuebi, who advises VCs on expected green energy failure rates, says that just 3 in 10 successes represents a successful VC investment strategy. That is 70% losers - not 1.4%.

Since then, another loan recipient, Beacon Power, went bankrupt, but while Thiessen implied that Beacon's bankruptcy is costing taxpayers $43 million, it was actually sold to a private equity firm that will repay most of the loan. Even though only 2 out of 26 loan guarantee recipients have filed for bankruptcy, Rush Limbaugh seized on Thiessen's column to claim that "the vast majority" of clean energy companies that received federal support have "gone bankrupt."

In addition to misrepresenting the success rate of the loan guarantee program, Theissen also got his facts wrong on some of the loan recipients. He reported:

A company called SunPower got a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, and as of January, the company owed more than it was worth.

But as we have previously pointed out, NRG Energy bought the project -- the California Valley Solar Ranch -- shortly before the DOE loan guarantee was finalized and is responsible for paying back the loan. Furthermore, the loan is considered very low-risk because Pacific, Gas and Electric Co. has already signed a long-term contract to buy the power generated by the project.

Thiessen made a similar omission regarding First Solar:

The Obama administration provided First Solar with more than $3 billion in loan guarantees for power plants in Arizona and California. According to a Bloomberg Businessweek report last week, the company "fell to a record low in Nasdaq Stock Market trading May 4 after reporting $401 million in restructuring costs tied to firing 30 percent of its workforce."

Like SunPower, First Solar has sold its DOE-backed projects, which means that "the utilities are on the hook to repay the loans." And all of its projects have power purchase agreements with California utilities, which significantly decreases the risk to taxpayers.

Thiessen concludes by accusing the Obama administration of "cronyism and corruption," citing debunked claims by the Hoover Institution's Peter Schweizer that DOE awarded grants and loans guarantees almost solely to Obama campaign donors. In fact, several of the companies on Schweizer's list did not even receive federal funding, and many of those that did employed both Democratic and Republican donors.
</div></div>

Sev
05-26-2012, 04:04 PM
The president is being far more disingenuous than Romney.
Whats really funny is that Jonathan Lavine a long-time Bain Capital executive has raised over 200,000 for the Obama campaign.

The Fact of the matter is that Romney was not at Bain when the company went bankrupt. Its also a fact that Bain gave that company 8 more years of life support that it otherwise would not have had.
That means that the employees had jobs for 8 more years than they should have.
Bain also has a track record of an 80% success rate in bring companies back from the brink. Thats considered to be very high in capital investment firm.
Paining Romney as a corporate raider is about as disingenuous as you can get.
Nobody wants to talk about the all successes that Bain had an all the jobs that were saved.

Remember a business exists to make profit for its owners. Not for the purpose of creating jobs. Jobs are tangential to a businesses success and if a business can perform better with fewer employee's then expendable staff lose their positions. Nothing is assured or fair in life. Through out time people have had to deal with this reality.

Obama's problem is that he is using public equity and businesses are folding in all directions.
If I am not mistaken another green company backed by Obama and public equity filed for bankruptcy last week.
They seem not to want to talk about all the jobs that are being lost in conjunction with those failures.

Whether or not those loan guaranties get paid back the jobs have still been lost.

The Bain argument will not be a winning issue for the president.

Soflasnapper
05-27-2012, 04:55 PM
Bain also has a track record of an 80% success rate in bring companies back from the brink. Thats considered to be very high in capital investment firm.

Nope (or I should say, not that I've seen, and it is indeed a great number that would be highly touted, so I take the fact I haven't run across it to mean that isn't so, or else he has a criminally negligent campaign and backers).

He has or had an 80% annualized rate of return, which you probably morphed into this number. (That's stunning all in itself, but doing that well requires some ruthlessness, clearly.)

The Fact of the matter is that Romney was not at Bain when the company went bankrupt.

I think that is true, but he was there and in charge when they were warned they were underfunding the pension obligation (a matter of contract obligation, which cost the taxpayers $44 million to cover at the end of the day), and when they consistently hired people with no knowledge of the steel industry to head it up after cleaning house of anyone experienced or knowledgeable, and also when they grabbed a $900,000 per year consulting fee out of the company.

Pain[t]ing Romney as a corporate raider is about as disingenuous as you can get.

No, I think that was indeed part of what they did, even if they did other things as well, such as startups and venture capital infusions for pumping up growth of already sound companies.

Nobody wants to talk about the all successes that Bain had an all the jobs that were saved.

That is the case for Mitt (R-Money) to make, if anyone. If he refuses to discuss that record, you blame his opponents? Seriously? (Besides which, it would blunt the criticism of Obama for a similar 'jobs created OR SAVED' formulation. He can't really go there.)

Remember a business exists to make profit for its owners. Not for the purpose of creating jobs.

Yep, and thank you for agreeing with the point his critics raise about that exact thing.

Obama's problem is that he is using public equity and businesses are folding in all directions.
If I am not mistaken another green company backed by Obama and public equity filed for bankruptcy last week.

Yes, the second of only two, Solyndra the first one. And it's green business or energy business was sold to a third party who owes the money on the loan.

The Bain argument will not be a winning issue for the president.

If it won't work on R-Money, it surely won't work in reverse on Obama, as previously discussed above. But in my experience, when one's opponent warns against a line of argument, it is because it IS effective, not ineffective. Remember how Schwarzenegger conned Lou Ferrigno out of showing a back spread, with his far superior lats? (as shown in Staying Hungry). He told him it was wise to hide his 'small calves,' (iirc) but a) Arnold had poor calf development himself, and less of a lat spread. Poor Lou took the advice to be friendly, and lost the Mr. Olympia competition behind that posing strategy that favored Arnold's weaknesses. (Lesson: your opponents are not your friends, and they do not offer advice that is good for you.)

It will be especially effective when the tale is told with video of the following 'partisan' attackers:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"[They] loot companies, leave behind broken families, broken towns." -- Newt Gingrich

"It's the ultimate insult when Mitt Romney comes to South Carolina and tells you he feels your pain -- because he caused it. [...] There is something inherently wrong when getting rich off failure and sticking it to someone else is how you do your business. I happen to think that is indefensible." -- Rick Perry

"Governor Romney has claimed to have created over 100,000 jobs at Bain, and people are wanting to know: is there proof of that claim? And was it U.S. jobs created for United States citizens? [...] And that's fair, that's not negative campaigning." -- Sarah Palin

"Governor Romney enjoys firing people." -- Jon Huntsman

"While Mitt Romney was at Bain Capital, almost one out of every four companies they were involved with went bankrupt or went out of business." -- John Brabender, Rick Santorum campaign manager </div></div>

Soflasnapper
05-27-2012, 05:30 PM
Ok, I found the 80% claim. It occurred last Thursday, and I hadn't run across it. Here it is:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mitt Romney: Bain record pretty solid

By MJ LEE, Politico

Mitt Romney on Thursday defended Bain Capital from President Barack Obamas attacks, touting the companys record of growing businesses.

They made about 350 investments since the beginning of the firm, and of those investments, 80 percent of them grew their revenues, Romney said on Fox & Friends, citing a recent statement from Bains PR firm that tried to highlight the private equity firms positive business record. So Im pretty confident that the overall record of the enterprise I helped begin is one thats pretty solid. </div></div>

That isn't R-Money's record, as Bain continued years after he left it. It's the company's record from the beginning until now, which I think is 14 or 15 years longer than when R-Money was there.

Note also, a couple of things.

INCREASING REVENUES does not mean the companies succeeded. In fact, over-growing to seek increased revenues is one way companies fail. One way to grow larger revenues is to take on a lot of debt for expansion or acquisitions, and then the issue isn't gross revenues, but net, after debt service, and whether expenses increased more than revenues.

Moreover, this is not their record with failing companies exactly. It is the overall record with all companies, and they invested in going concerns that were already profitable as well as reclamation projects for failing companies.

Nobody said Bain's model was turnarounds, although they did some of those. They also did more traditional venture capital things, infusing a viable company with profits with extra capital to get bigger.

So what is R-Money's record with Bain for reclamation projects? He hasn't said a thing about that, and provides a carefully word-smithed apparent claim that is designed to confuse this issue.

Sev
05-27-2012, 06:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, I found the 80% claim. It occurred last Thursday, and I hadn't run across it. Here it is:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mitt Romney: Bain record ‘pretty solid’

By MJ LEE, Politico

Mitt Romney on Thursday defended Bain Capital from President Barack Obama’s attacks, touting the company’s record of growing businesses.

“They made about 350 investments since the beginning of the firm, and of those investments, 80 percent of them grew their revenues,” Romney said on “Fox & Friends,” citing a recent statement from Bain’s PR firm that tried to highlight the private equity firm’s positive business record. “So I’m pretty confident that the overall record of the enterprise I helped begin is one that’s pretty solid.” </div></div>

That isn't R-Money's record, as Bain continued years after he left it. It's the company's record from the beginning until now, which I think is 14 or 15 years longer than when R-Money was there.

Note also, a couple of things.

INCREASING REVENUES does not mean the companies succeeded. In fact, over-growing to seek increased revenues is one way companies fail. One way to grow larger revenues is to take on a lot of debt for expansion or acquisitions, and then the issue isn't gross revenues, but net, after debt service, and whether expenses increased more than revenues.

Moreover, this is not their record with failing companies exactly. It is the overall record with all companies, and they invested in going concerns that were already profitable as well as reclamation projects for failing companies.

Nobody said Bain's model was turnarounds, although they did some of those. They also did more traditional venture capital things, infusing a viable company with profits with extra capital to get bigger.

So what is R-Money's record with Bain for reclamation projects? He hasn't said a thing about that, and provides a carefully word-smithed apparent claim that is designed to confuse this issue. </div></div>

Always remember. Venture capitalists use their own money and are asked by host companies to come in. It gains them nothing in the long term to decimate companies. The word gets out and then the business dies.

Though they do. It is not the place of the government to engage with tax payers money in venture capitalism. Its a high risk endeavor better left to private industry which is far better equipped to assess the each situation as it arises.
Government involvement also involves politics. Politics often goes counter to common sense.

Romneys record at Bain has not been the focus. 1 failed company has been. The Obama campaign is attempting to play the Robber Baron Card. Which historically is inaccurate in itself.

Soflasnapper
05-29-2012, 06:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Much of the firm's profits was earned from a relatively small number of deals, with Bain Capital's overall success and failure rate being about even. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>One study of 68 deals that Bain Capital made up through the 1990s found that the firm lost money or broke even on 33 of them.</span>[41] Another study that looked at the eight-year period following 77 deals during the same time found that in 17 cases the company went bankrupt or out of business, and in 6 cases Bain Capital lost all its investment. But 10 deals were very successful and represented 70 percent of the total profits.[42] </div></div>

That may be a great record, or not, but 'revenues increasing' or not, half were not successful for even Bain. Why through the '90s? That was during Mitt's term there.

Yes, an 80% 'success' rate sounds great. Looking into the difference between the time Mitt was there, and after he left, shows a significantly worse result than that.

As for Bain dealing on the private side, they say directly on their own website, and it's repeated widely, that they also deal in PUBLIC EQUITY deals. A kind of deal you suggest shouldn't exist. Give Bain a call and let them know your opinion.

Sev
05-29-2012, 06:40 PM
Do they do work on public equity deals using private capital?

Soflasnapper
05-30-2012, 10:36 AM
I have no idea, but it sounds like a private/public PARTNERSHIP, and I would guess yes. But private capital augmented by public capital or equity.

Look up how the US industrial policy fostered the growth of national railroads in the 19th century for an idea how this might work.

Or revisit how Japan put ample public resources into their native industries like the auto makers and electronics manufacturers.

People who are dogmatic are typically mistaken, as it's rarely that simple a matter.

Sev
05-30-2012, 12:29 PM
However if Bain fails when in that partnership they loose there own money.
Obviously the public aspect was already in trouble and bleeding tax payers money or they would no seek private investment.

The railroad system is part of the national infrastructure which the federal government is mandated by the constitution to provide. That situation is a bit different.

LWW
05-30-2012, 01:44 PM
Do you honestly expect that any of our resident leftists even understand what private equity and venture capital even means?

Sev
05-30-2012, 02:27 PM
I always keep a candle lit for them.

Soflasnapper
05-30-2012, 02:54 PM
However if Bain fails when in that partnership they loose [sic] there [sic] own money.

Not at all. They manage other peoples' money by putting it out to work.

Their own money is not at risk. Just their performance with OPM.

Obviously the public aspect was already in trouble and bleeding tax payers money or they would no [sic] seek private investment.

Not at all. That's not how this works. Public/private partnerships are set up to maximally leverage the public side, is all.

The railroad system is part of the national infrastructure which the federal government is mandated by the constitution to provide.

No, there is no such mandate. I'm surprised at this claim. I would agree that it is allowed, but it's not explicit, and instead found in that horrible 'general welfare' and 'necessary and proper' clauses that the right's Originalist faction find so disturbing and abused. If you think it is mandated, where would you find such a thing? (If you say in the Federalist Papers, that isn't the COTUS.)

LWW
05-30-2012, 03:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Historically, Bain has primarily relied on private equity funds, pools of committed capital from pension funds, insurance companies, endowments, fund of funds, high net worth individuals, sovereign wealth funds and other institutional investors. Bain's own investment professionals are the largest single investor in each of its funds.</div></div>

So, are you simply WRONG ... AGAIN ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital) or are you ... AGAIN ... willfully disseminating false "TRUTH" in a never ending effort to slime all who stand in the way of dear leader?

Soflasnapper
05-30-2012, 03:30 PM
If the Bain guys have a 10% piece, it could easily be the 'largest single investor.' It's like being the single largest stockholder. That does not mean you own a majority of the stock, or in Bain's case, provide anything like the majority of the money.

And a fair amount of it is at no risk, apparently.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In his 2010 book The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy, Josh Kosman described Bain Capital as "notorious for its failure to plow profits back into its businesses," being the first large private-equity firm to derive a large fraction of its revenues from corporate dividends and other distributions. The revenue potential of this strategy, which may "starve" a company of capital,[94] was increased by a 1970s court ruling that allowed companies to consider the entire fair-market value of the company, instead of only their "hard assets", in determining how much money was available to pay dividends.[95] In at least some instances, companies acquired by Bain borrowed money in order to increase their dividend payments, ultimately leading to the collapse of what had been financially stable businesses.[46] </div></div>

To the degree that they do have money at risk in some cases, I agree my statement was wrong. But I'm guessing they may have a risk of loss of some 5% to 10% of the monies, as they raise many millions to hundreds of millions to billions from the other sources for their various funds, and have some $60+ billions under management.

Sev
06-01-2012, 05:29 AM
Looks like Clinton and another individual close to Obama just came out and said they dont have a problem with Bain and that it is a great company.

I guess Obama will have to start attacking Clinton as well.

Stick a fork in the Bain assault.

Time to move on to Romney's Time as governor and Romney Care.

Sev
06-01-2012, 06:47 AM
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/230405-clinton-says-romney-qualified-to-run-defends-bain-work

Gayle in MD
06-01-2012, 06:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looks like Clinton and another individual close to Obama just came out and said they dont have a problem with Bain and that it is a great company.

I guess Obama will have to start attacking Clinton as well.

Stick a fork in the Bain assault.

Time to move on to Romney's Time as governor and Romney Care. </div></div>



Ask, and you sahll receive:


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney's surprise visit Thursday to the closed headquarters of Solyndra, meant to highlight the failed energy company's ties to President Barack Obama's administration and its federal loan guarantees, was the latest stop on his crusade against crony capitalism.

It's a symbol not of success, but of failure. It's also a symbol of a serious conflict of interest, the GOP presidential candidate told reporters at the defunct Freemont, Calif., business.

Earlier this year, Romney hit on a similar theme. "Youve got to stop the spread of crony capitalism," he told voters, a message amplified by his campaign since primary rival, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), dropped out.

But Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance reports from Romney's first year as governor show that the candidate's promises do not include ending nepotism. A review by The Huffington Post shows Romney's eldest son, Taggart Romney, collected a salary from his father's campaign as well as the campaign of the newly elected lieutenant governor -- well after their victory.

Tagg Romney received a salary from the successful race for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, long after the majority of the non-family campaign staff was laid off. The campaign payments, which lasted for 10 months, netted him a total of $19,636.24. State records show that Tagg Romney also collected a paycheck from the campaign funds of the newly elected lieutenant governor, Kerry Healey, during the same post-election year. Healey did not respond to a request for comment.

The total combined funds paid to Romney into 2003 from both campaigns amounted to $27,422.67, making him the single most highly paid staffer of the combined Romney/Healey campaigns for the post-election year. The Romney campaign declined to comment.

However, there is nothing illegal about the payments, provided they were for legitimate work and reported accurately,
said Jason Tait, spokesman for the state's OCPF. "In general, existing political committees can continue to pay campaign or committee staff for work that is actually done."


There is also nothing unusual about campaigns continuing to operate in non-election years. Pam Wilmot, executive director of government watchdog group Common Cause Massachusetts, said the practice common. "Campaigns in Massachusetts are perpetual," she said. "They don't ever shut down ... The standard is very loose for what money is spent on."

Wilmot added that there is a high standard for campaigns paying family members, but without knowing exactly what Romney did for the campaigns post-election night, it's hard to say whether the payments were justified.

"I'm pretty sure that Tagg was in charge of the close-down operation of the campaign," said one former staffer, adding that the work seems kosher. "Maybe it's a couple months longer than necessary."

At the time that Romney was employed by the campaigns full time, his start-up sports ticket company, Season Ticket Solutions, was in the process of shutting down. The company's failure was followed by a 2005 lawsuit, which was settled out of court against its main competitor, Ticketmaster.

"If you were to look through the campaign finance reports of incumbents, you will see many expenditures in off-election years," said Tait.

But the more than 7,500 donors who gave Mitt Romney $500 or less in 2003 might be surprised to learn that part of it paid his son's salary.

"I wouldn't [put my child on the payroll]," said one longtime Boston politico. "I meet too many hardworking people, who gave $5, and they think it's an important part to help win a campaign.

"[Donations] are not done to support a political junket or a candidate's relative. That's not why they do it. I think you have to have some respect for the donors," they said.

</div></div>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/tagg-romney-mitt-romney_n_1560830.html?ref=topbar

In the video, Romney unabshedly talks about the government aid that helped his grandfather's family, when they fled Mexico to come back to America.

He refuses to tell the truth about his polygamist family history, however....biggest liar to ever run for the presidency.

Soince his campaign refuses to release the numbers of jobs he threw out, for his own personal financial gain, this subject is still open, IMO, given he is running on his experience as a business person, and given he has been running away from his pathetic performance as an elected official for literally YEARS!

So far, he's been a Liberal, a moderate, and now a radical RWer, who supports everything that will destroy the middle class Americans.

I wonder which corrupt Repiglican thrown under the bus, will write the next, "How To Throw An Election" IF another one of them gets caught, and sent to prison.

G.

Hmmmm.

Sev
06-01-2012, 07:09 AM
Keep in mind I dont profess to be a Romney supporter.

However if the trend of economic numbers that came out today continue I dont believe the American people are going to be to concerned with Romneys Tenure in Mass.

You can beat the anti Romney drum all you want. However. If the economy is still contracting or stagnant come Nov Obama is going to be in serious trouble.

Gayle in MD
06-01-2012, 08:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keep in mind I dont profess to be a Romney supporter.

However if the trend of economic numbers that came out today continue I dont believe the American people are going to be to concerned with Romneys Tenure in Mass.

You can beat the anti Romney drum all you want. However. If the economy is still contracting or stagnant come Nov Obama is going to be in serious trouble. </div></div>

Romney was forty-seventh in job creation in a state that was doing pretty well, until he took over.

President Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Economists at the time said that the economic collapse under George W. Bush, after eight years of Repiglican FAILED Trickle Down, tax cutting, borrowing and spending, and unregulated financial industry policies, would cause a very slow job recovery.

After the election, predictions were nearly immediately far worse, on job recovery, because much of the Bush Spending, was not on the books, at all, and because predatory lending was even worse than previously known, AND because GREEDY CEO'S on Wall St., had been even MORE greedy, irresponsible, dishonest, and negligent than we knew.

Repiglican policies are to blame for this slow recovery, by and large, both due to what they caused, and due to their non stop obstruction of policies that would have created more jobs, which they consistantloy filibustered.

Those are THE FACTS.

Romney, would be Bush on CRACK.

ANOTHER FACT.

The very same Bush, American Enterprise war contractor, War Monger,s are all leading Romney arouund by the nose already.

ANOTHER FACT.

Repiglican policies enrich the wealthy, and bill the rest of us for their giveaways to the top one percent.

ANOTHER FACT.

If Romney wins, we will see a reinstatement of the draft, and eight years more of pointless, archaic wars, and this country will never be the same.

G.

Sev
06-01-2012, 08:13 AM
People without jobs, losing their homes, retirement, healthcare and not able to feed their families will not be interested in the above.

They will however be disappointed and very angry at an individual who set the bar so high and failed to make good on his promises.

Soflasnapper
06-02-2012, 02:41 PM
Did Reagan make good progress on his promise to balance the budget in two years/next year after/next year after that?

Was he then thrown out of office for utterly failing to anything close to that after all of his 4 year term?

How about his promise not to reappoint the Carter-appointed Fed chairman, Volcker, and his oath in the debate that he would 'never use higher unemployment to bring down inflation' as he accused Carter of doing? (When then he did do that exact thing, as he ended up re-appointing Volcker himself, and that tactic was used?)

How about how GHW Bush's membership in the hated Trilateral Commission that became so much an issue that he resigned as a director prior to the election, and then the Reagan administration saw more TC members put into high office than during the Carter administration?

I'd say he set the bar very high and failed to make good on his promises, and somehow he won 49 states.

Sev
06-02-2012, 03:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did Reagan make good progress on his promise to balance the budget in two years/next year after/next year after that?

Was he then thrown out of office for utterly failing to anything close to that after all of his 4 year term?

How about his promise not to reappoint the Carter-appointed Fed chairman, Volcker, and his oath in the debate that he would 'never use higher unemployment to bring down inflation' as he accused Carter of doing? (When then he did do that exact thing, as he ended up re-appointing Volcker himself, and that tactic was used?)

How about how GHW Bush's membership in the hated Trilateral Commission that became so much an issue that he resigned as a director prior to the election, and then the Reagan administration saw more TC members put into high office than during the Carter administration?

I'd say he set the bar very high and failed to make good on his promises, and somehow he won 49 states. </div></div>

The news cycle was different then. There was no 24/7 cycle or the internet.

Reagan was also handed an economy just as bad if not worse than this one. Under his watch revenues tripled to the treasury. Unfortunately congress could not contain itself and spent like drunken sailors.

Another difference being that Reagan was and is still considered to be "The Great Communicator".
Through his communicating skills he captured the JFK democrats and made them the Reagan Democrats.
Like him or not. He was the eternal optimist in public.
Even when he was shot his words to Nancy were, "I forgot to duck".
Even when things were grim, his speeches were always about the greatness of America and the American people. He always put us on a pedestal. He spoke of America as the "Shining City on the Hill".
He made us believe in ourselves not him.


In this. Obama is nothing like Reagan. And that may prove to be a crucial difference in this coming election.

Soflasnapper
06-02-2012, 07:33 PM
The news cycle was different then. There was no 24/7 cycle or the internet.

True.

Reagan was also handed an economy just as bad if not worse than this one.

Not true. The recession in the year before him had been as short as possible under the definition, and it was also mild. Besides which it had ended well before the end of 1980, and his didn't begin for a couple of months into '81 (under his preferred policy mix).

Under his watch revenues tripled to the treasury.

Now you've just forgotten your talking points. You are SUPPOSED to say, revenues DOUBLED. That's the claim. As corrected and reduced, that claim is also false. Revenues went up about 80%, short of the 100% up that would be required to just double them. And that was in non-inflation-adjusted dollars, while inflation averaged about 5% a year. In inflation-adjusted terms, it was up maybe 40%, and that also included two of the largest tax hikes ever in history to that day, and through to our own time.

Unfortunately congress could not contain itself and spent like drunken sailors.

A Congress where he had majority control in the Senate for 6 years, and a veto power he failed to use on a single spending bill. (Presidents with that very strong power are supposed to control Congress's spending, and they can, as they almost always automatically win a veto override attempt, needing only 1/3rd of one body to sustain the veto. Reagan wasn't much interested, didn't try, and neither did his party in charge of the Senate, where THEY had great power).



And in fact, Congress passed nearly exactly the LEVEL of spending Reagan himself proposed in his budgets, just rejiggering the mix of spending a bit. (It's within a percentage or two.)

Ah, good times rehashing the Reagan years. Things seemed so bad, but were so much simpler then.

In this. Obama is nothing like Reagan. And that may prove to be a crucial difference in this coming election.

On your suggested measure-- inspirational speaking-- that's probably so.

It's also true in other ways, such as Reagan was able to double nominal defense spending levels for a military Keynesian stimulus, and able to triple the previous level of deficit and keep it there forever ($70 billions or so to $250 billions, for more Keynesian stimulus effect), and add millions of government workers to ease the unemployment (changing the definition of 'civilian workforce' to include the uniformed military, which were at 100% employment for 3-1/2 million people or so). He also had a high interest rate that could come down sharply, which did come down sharply as soon as he passed the largest tax increase in human history, which remains that even today in real terms.