The Real Mitt Romney

[Adak]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Only because so far the only reason it balances is due to promises of closure in unspecified loopholes and promised growth to close a 4.8 trillion dollar gap.

What if this promised surge in growth revenue, like the 'trickle down' money that failed to materialize with the last set of tax cuts, fails to show? What loopholes? The 'loopholes' like the mortgage tax deduction that is used by millions of working and middle class Americans? Or the loopholes that allowed Mr. Romney to pay a %14 effective tax rate? Guess which ones I think will be targeted.....

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.......

Oh Please! Poly-ticks will fool us every day of the week, if we don't watch 'em!

Which do you, sight unseen, believe is more trustworthy?

A missionary for two years from the Mormon Church, and WAY successful businessman?

Or

A Chicago Community activist and professional poly-tick?

Where "poly-ticks" (poly = many, and tick = blood sucking organism).

Maybe you've been fooled so many times, you've joined with the Fools?

Have you any idea of the kind of loopholes that our tax code has? We're still giving handouts to farmers for growing wool for soldiers socks, from WWI, for crying out loud!

Romney has a blind trust for his personal funds, to avoid any hint of a conflict of interest. He has no control over what is bought or sold, and doesn't know what's been done, until the end of the quarter.

I LOVE the hypocrisy of those berating Romney for following the legal tax code. Nevermind, that the guy gives millions to charities -- to you, that means nothing. NO! Let's castigate him for following the law!!

Is there no limit to your hypocrisy?

If you believe you can PRY a cut in spending from the Obama administrations MASSIVE federal budget increases, you're completely in the dark about what they have done, and insist on continuing.

Will we get everything we want in a Republican administration? No. But at least we'll get SOME of what we want, and a LOT of what we need, and get headed back in the right direction.

We are spending $58,000 dollars per second, more than we make in income, currently - over a TRILLION dollars a year more than we can afford.

We will RUE the day that we have a true monetary crisis, believe me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

Oh Please! Poly-ticks will fool us every day of the week, if we don't watch 'em!

Which do you, sight unseen, believe is more trustworthy?

A high priest and missionary for two years from the Mormon Church, and WAY successful businessman?

Or

A Chicago Community activist and professional poly-tick?

High priest and missionary are immediately suspect, but discounting that;
I have a choice of a guy who made millions by fucking the working man and the country, or a guy that spent his career helping the little guy.
Damn, that is a tough choice ain't it.

Have you any idea of the kind of loopholes that our tax code has?

No, I can't give you a number, I doubt anyone can without considerable research. But I do remember reading dozens of times over the years, of bills that were passed to give huge breaks to a very small number of specific companies. Of course the companies weren't named in the bill, but it was written in a way that no one else could qualify. There were a few that it was only one company getting to fuck me.

I certainly wouldn't bet on either party doing a meaningful job of cleaning up the tax code mess, because every one of those special loopholes is for someone with pull in Washington. Nobody is more beholden than Thurston... er, Mitt.

We will RUE the day that we have a true monetary crisis, believe me.

Rue? Rue? That's French, that's socialist talk.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Give me a link to where ...

Everything you posted is without links. Everything you posted is recited from Rush Limbaugh, et al. You want others to do what you never do? Sources were provided. You ignored it because extremist talk show hosts downplayed reality? Santorum said ... (then you stopped listening).

Kennedy's religious beliefs are directly traceable to your ideology. As a result one even said he almost had to vomit. Because religion *should* be imposed on all Americas - according to that ideology. These are the extremists you promote. Why do you ignore what they say when convenient?

Do you also ignore that America has zero growth when Republicans are president? That Reagan raised taxes. That jobs did not recover until well into Reagan's second term. That the US Navy is larger than the next 13 countries combined (exposing a Ryan lie). That economic power is not created by Nimitz class carriers and B-1 bombers. That socialism and communism are different. That jobs are not created by money. That $0.55 trillion back then is over $1.3 trillion today. When Clinton left office, we were on the verge of a surplus. Then people you promote tried to get into a war with China, surrendered to the Taliban, and then wasted 5000 Americans and $3 trillion on a complete lie - Mission Accomplished. Therefore created record debts that will take at least a decade to pay off. Sticking Obama with the bills when Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".

This was a doozy:The July 2010 Dodd-Frank law created George Jr's 2007 recession and stock market crash. Only you posted that. How disconnected are you? Please, find that citation. Oh. You will provide facts and numbers? Instead, reality was invented as necessary. Dodd-Frank created George Jr's recession? How fast did you run away from that fiction?

What happens when the rich pay taxes (when America was then prosperous)? BigV posted the numbers. Tax cuts to the rich - debt increases 172%. Taxes restored; the rich pay their fair share (ie when Clinton was president) - debt decreases 27%. So what did you do? Ignore replies and numbers that exposed the Limbaugh lies you posted. BigV demonstrated how wrong you (and Limbaugh) are. As usual, when facts expose your lies, you run off to invent more lies - as any Tea Party extremist would do. No wonder they nominated a witch for the Senate.

You change topics when facts expose your myths. You paint with a broad brush. Invent fiction that only an extremist could believe. Even deny the Pope has called for Church doctrine to be imposed on all Americans. Lie to protect an ideology: a conclusion followed by searching for or inventing facts to justify it.

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is why extremist conservatives in George Jr's administration massively increased debt, spending, wars, and recession. Same people you want back in power. Let's face it. You support those who said "We want America to fail." Or did you also forget that fact?

Perspective: Informed Americans see the world in terms of moderates vs wacko extremists. Wacko extremists see the world in terms of 'liberal vs conservative'. Then invent facts to justify brainwashing. And run away from any citation that shows how misguided they really are.

How funny. You, of all people, want a citation. Please stop with the comedy. Old jokes only get older.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

High priest and missionary are immediately suspect, but discounting that;
I have a choice of a guy who made millions by fucking the working man and the country, or a guy that spent his career helping the little guy.
Damn, that is a tough choice ain't it.

"Fucking the working man"? Are you out of your mind? Romney's company turned around companies, and in the process, saved or created a lot of jobs. Yes, not every company was able to be turned around, because of market conditions that developed - but in business, nothing is guaranteed except change.

No, I can't give you a number, I doubt anyone can without considerable research. But I do remember reading dozens of times over the years, of bills that were passed to give huge breaks to a very small number of specific companies. Of course the companies weren't named in the bill, but it was written in a way that no one else could qualify. There were a few that it was only one company getting to fuck me.

I certainly wouldn't bet on either party doing a meaningful job of cleaning up the tax code mess, because every one of those special loopholes is for someone with pull in Washington. Nobody is more beholden than Thurston... er, Mitt.

Why do you say that? Mitt hasn't served a day in Washington, yet. His time as Governor of Mass., is long over. Obama is the one with supporters than need to be paid back - lots of bundlers and special interest blocks of voters, that put together a LOT of money for him and workers for his campaign.

Romney has some of those same problems, but his platform is a lot more focused, (on economic policy and business), which fits perfectly with what we need, so the effect will be more positive, and less detrimental.

I agree with you that reforming the tax code will be like pulling teeth.

Rue? Rue? That's French, that's socialist talk.

Rue: Define Rue at Dictionary.com

dictionary.reference.com/browse/rue
to feel sorrow over; repent of; regret bitterly: to rue the loss of opportunities. 2. to wish that (something) had never been done, taken place, etc.: I rue the day he ...

Specifically, I don't like the gov't owning a large part of GM, along with the Unions. The shareholders and bondholders were screwed royal, as were the non-union employees, who lost both their jobs and their benefits. In the case of the shareholders and bondholders (especially the latter), that is contrary to law.

Better to have GM go through bankruptcy, and come out the other side, as a new, and stronger company. Having the feds on the board of directors, of a major corp. makes me nervous.

Also, I doubt if the gov't knows how to design and/or build, better cars and trucks.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

Everything you posted is without links. Everything you posted is recited from Rush Limbaugh, et al. You want others to do what you never do? Sources were provided. You ignored it because extremist talk show hosts downplayed reality? Santorum said ... (then you stopped listening).

Santorum isn't in the running anymore. I didn't care for him when he was, and I don't care what you think of him, or what he thinks of anything, now.

Kennedy's religious beliefs are directly traceable to your ideology. As a result one even said he almost had to vomit. Because religion *should* be imposed on all Americas - according to that ideology. These are the extremists you promote. Why do you ignore what they say when convenient?

Nobody has said that religion SHOULD be imposed on Americans, that I know of. First, it would be against the Constitution (blatantly). Second, you'd have riots in the streets if that were begun.

Do you also ignore that America has zero growth when Republicans are president? That Reagan raised taxes. That jobs did not recover until well into Reagan's second term. That the US Navy is larger than the next 13 countries combined (exposing a Ryan lie). That economic power is not created by Nimitz class carriers and B-1 bombers. That socialism and communism are different. That jobs are not created by money. That $0.55 trillion back then is over $1.3 trillion today. When Clinton left office, we were on the verge of a surplus. Then people you promote tried to get into a war with China, surrendered to the Taliban, and then wasted 5000 Americans and $3 trillion on a complete lie - Mission Accomplished. Therefore created record debts that will take at least a decade to pay off. Sticking Obama with the bills when Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".

This was a doozy:The July 2010 Dodd-Frank law created George Jr's 2007 recession and stock market crash. Only you posted that. How disconnected are you? Please, find that citation. Oh. You will provide facts and numbers? Instead, reality was invented as necessary. Dodd-Frank created George Jr's recession? How fast did you run away from that fiction?

I don't CARE what Cheney said. Cheney isn't running for office, and won't be part of Romney's administration.

No, that was my error in naming the Dodd-Franks law. I had that law on my mind, at that time, but it's not the one.

What happens when the rich pay taxes (when America was then prosperous)? BigV posted the numbers. Tax cuts to the rich - debt increases 172%. Taxes restored; the rich pay their fair share (ie when Clinton was president) - debt decreases 27%. So what did you do? Ignore replies and numbers that exposed the Limbaugh lies you posted. BigV demonstrated how wrong you (and Limbaugh) are. As usual, when facts expose your lies, you run off to invent more lies - as any Tea Party extremist would do. No wonder they nominated a witch for the Senate.

I'm hardly a Tea party extremist! They are Conservatives, however, AND they pick up their trash after a rally -- try and get the liberals to do THAT.

You know you're lying about Reagan and taxes, and I've posted the facts from the gov't to point it out to you. You can't support your lies about that.

You change topics when facts expose your myths. You paint with a broad brush. Invent fiction that only an extremist could believe. Even deny the Pope has called for Church doctrine to be imposed on all Americans. Lie to protect an ideology: a conclusion followed by searching for or inventing facts to justify it.

I'm still waiting for the Pope's encyclical on that - but it isn't there. Another fib, eh?

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is why extremist conservatives in George Jr's administration massively increased debt, spending, wars, and recession. Same people you want back in power. Let's face it. You support those who said "We want America to fail." Or did you also forget that fact?

Obsessed by Cheney are you? Here's a tip for you - he's been out of office for a few years now, and he won't be back.
I live in America! Why would I want it to fail? Have you lost your mind?

Perspective: Informed Americans see the world in terms of moderates vs wacko extremists. Wacko extremists see the world in terms of 'liberal vs conservative'. Then invent facts to justify brainwashing. And run away from any citation that shows how misguided they really are.

Now you're the expert on how other people see the world? < ROFL! >

How funny. You, of all people, want a citation. Please stop with the comedy. Old jokes only get older.

You can't make an assertion about a major proclamation from the Pope, repeatedly, and then not offer a link to it.

Not the Pope. Everything he proclaims is widely reported around the world. If it existed, I would have found it, easily.

Liberal jokes, make us all weep, when they become laws -- unless of course, it's a case of crony capitalism! But that's a problem for both parties, much to their shame. Bush Jr and Obama are both failures in this regard, and I would have to say Bush Jr. was the bigger failure in using crony capitalism, except for the Salendra scandal with Obama.

Actually, I don't listen to Limbaugh. He has good info and some insights, I know, but he constantly uses ad hominem attacks and smears, and thinks they're "entertaining". Or at least, OK. I won't put up with that.

You can't solve a problem with the country, by calling half of it all kinds of unsavory names, in public media.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

A Chicago Community activist and professional poly-tick?

Where "poly-ticks" (poly = many, and tick = blood sucking organism).

When will you guys learn that being 'cutesy' loses you the argument?

'poly-tick', 'Demoncrat'...all just mindless noise. It's like wearing a 'honk if you like stupid' T-shirt to a debate.

I'm also going to shave a few points off of TW for the 'Thurston Howell' comment, but your little verbal tantrums go way beyond. At least TW cites. You're just stuffed with unattributed talking points.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

"Fucking the working man"? Are you out of your mind? Romney's company turned around companies, and in the process, saved or created a lot of jobs. Yes, not every company was able to be turned around, because of market conditions that developed - but in business, nothing is guaranteed except change.

And small change at that, after Romney & Company raped them for millions, saddling them with monstrous debt. The companies that survived obviously would have anyway.

What the rapist did was combine companies, so that instead of a few companies competing (you know, capitalism), each employing lots of people and making a modest profit, there was only one or two companies left, employing very few people, and paying enormous debt service on the rapists profits.

The big picture is, Romney put a shitload of people out of work and redirected what they would have been paid and funneled back into the economy, into his pocket and his offshore accounts.

Thurston...er, Mitt, was a missionary all right, a disciple of Michael Milken, honing Milken's sleezeball tactics to a keen edge with which to castrate not only the working man, but small businessmen as well.

Why do you say that? Mitt hasn't served a day in Washington, yet. His time as Governor of Mass., is long over.

C'mon, if you're really that naive you shouldn't be allowed on the street, no less vote.

Specifically, I don't like the gov't owning a large part of GM, along with the Unions. The shareholders and bondholders were screwed royal, as were the non-union employees, who lost both their jobs and their benefits. In the case of the shareholders and bondholders (especially the latter), that is contrary to law.

Better to have GM go through bankruptcy, and come out the other side, as a new, and stronger company. Having the feds on the board of directors, of a major corp. makes me nervous.

You obviously are parroting shit you hear without understanding what went down, how, why, or what would have happened as a result of Romney's hands off stance. I'll give it to you in a nutshell, a few people would have pocketed a fortune, and millions of people, along with the country, would have gotten fucked.

Also, I doubt if the gov't knows how to design and/or build, better cars and trucks.

If you really think the board and the bigwigs of the car companies know how to, "design and/or build, better cars", you don't know jackshit about business either.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by Adak

"Fucking the working man"? Are you out of your mind? Romney's company turned around companies, and in the process, saved or created a lot of jobs. Yes, not every company was able to be turned around, because of market conditions that developed - but in business, nothing is guaranteed except change.

Do you even know what Romney's company did (does)? Even a hint of a clue about what a LBO is?

He may have started out the way you describe, keeping companies like Staples alive and helping them flourish, but he veered away from that when he figured out the real money was in taking over companies, loading them up with debt, squeezing exorbitant fees from them and then dumping the broken husk in the end. Greed and Debt

For those that don't want to dig through that long article, here is a description of how it works:

A private equity firm like Bain typically seeks out floundering businesses with good cash flows. It then puts down a relatively small amount of its own money and runs to a big bank like Goldman Sachs or Citigroup for the rest of the financing. (Most leveraged buyouts are financed with 60 to 90 percent borrowed cash.) The takeover firm then uses that borrowed money to buy a controlling stake in the target company, either with or without its consent. When an LBO is done without the consent of the target, it's called a hostile takeover; such thrilling acts of corporate piracy were made legend in the Eighties, most notably the 1988 attack by notorious corporate raiders Kohlberg Kravis Roberts against RJR Nabisco, a deal memorialized in the book Barbarians at the Gate.

Romney and Bain avoided the hostile approach, preferring to secure the cooperation of their takeover targets by buying off a company's management with lucrative bonuses. Once management is on board, the rest is just math. So if the target company is worth $500 million, Bain might put down $20 million of its own cash, then borrow $350 million from an investment bank to take over a controlling stake.

But here's the catch. When Bain borrows all of that money from the bank, it's the target company that ends up on the hook for all of the debt.

Now your troubled firm – let's say you make tricycles in Alabama – has been taken over by a bunch of slick Wall Street dudes who kicked in as little as five percent as a down payment. So in addition to whatever problems you had before, Tricycle Inc. now owes Goldman or Citigroup $350 million. With all that new debt service to pay, the company's bottom line is suddenly untenable: You almost have to start firing people immediately just to get your costs down to a manageable level.

"That interest," says Lynn Turner, former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission, "just sucks the profit out of the company."

Fortunately, the geniuses at Bain who now run the place are there to help tell you whom to fire. And for the service it performs cutting your company's costs to help you pay off the massive debt that it, Bain, saddled your company with in the first place, Bain naturally charges a management fee, typically millions of dollars a year. So Tricycle Inc. now has two gigantic new burdens it never had before Bain Capital stepped into the picture: tens of millions in annual debt service, and millions more in "management fees." Since the initial acquisition of Tricycle Inc. was probably greased by promising the company's upper management lucrative bonuses, all that pain inevitably comes out of just one place: the benefits and payroll of the hourly workforce.

Once all that debt is added, one of two things can happen. The company can fire workers and slash benefits to pay off all its new obligations to Goldman Sachs and Bain, leaving it ripe to be resold by Bain at a huge profit. Or it can go bankrupt – this happens after about seven percent of all private equity buyouts – leaving behind one or more shuttered factory towns. Either way, Bain wins. By power-sucking cash value from even the most rapidly dying firms, private equity raiders like Bain almost always get their cash out before a target goes belly up.

"That was not his or Bain's or the industry's primary objective. The objective of the LBO business is maximizing returns for investors." When it comes to private equity, American workers – not to mention their families and communities – simply don't enter into the equation.

So don't try to sell him to ME as a shining white knight, come along to help poor KB's Toys - KB Toys . Many companies were metaphorically burned to the ground and many individuals lost their jobs so Bain and their investors could get richer.

This is a man whose knowledge lies in making the rich richer, not in helping to create jobs. I have no doubt that, if he should be elected President, he and his wealthy friends will benefit enormously. And it will be on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens.

Why do I think this? Oh maybe because of Global Tech.

Global-Tech:Betting Against American Workers

Profits > everything. A President who believes this will not protect our citizens...the very idea is frightening and chilling.

Oh and Hannity and Limbaugh? They work for Clear Channel, which is owned by Bain Capital. Just FYI...

[Trilby]

"He may have started out the way you describe, keeping companies like Staples alive and helping them flourish, but he veered away from that when he figured out the real money was in taking over companies, loading them up with debt, squeezing exorbitant fees from them and then dumping the broken husk in the end. Greed and Debt" -quote Stormieweather

ya know, that's exactly what Tony Soprano did to a store a buddy of his owned who owed him a gambling debt. Not that I'm comparing Mitt to Tony Soprano.


Tony was a good Catholic.

[Stormieweather]

Adak, you know about Sensata, right?

Sensata

[Adak]

Originally Posted by richlevy

When will you guys learn that being 'cutesy' loses you the argument?

'poly-tick', 'Demoncrat'...all just mindless noise. It's like wearing a 'honk if you like stupid' T-shirt to a debate.

I'm also going to shave a few points off of TW for the 'Thurston Howell' comment, but your little verbal tantrums go way beyond. At least TW cites. You're just stuffed with unattributed talking points.

I've posted several url's for you - especially on the fiscal matters. I can't post about Tw's assertion about the Pope, because such an announcement by the Pope, has not been made.

Are you at all aware of how many politicians have gone to Washington with only moderate means, and because of the insider knowledge they are now privy to, they use that knowledge to become rich? If you or I did that, we would be jailed/fined for "insider trading". Poly-ticks however, have made it legal FOR THEM.

You see this kind of hypocrisy all the time. We will have Obama care by decree, but the Poly-ticks will have none of it - they have their own luxury health care policy, which they are NOT ABOUT to give up.

I don't know of a reference for all our poly-ticks misdeeds, but they have been mentioned, on rare occasions. Rare, because our field of investigative reporters would rather report on Timbuktu's problems, than dig into the political mess we have at home.

That doesn't mean it's not true, and if you are willing to dig a bit, you'll find that out.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Adak, you know about Sensata, right?

Sensata

Yes. And I know Romney left Bain Capital 12 (TWELVE) years before Sensata was moved to China.

But what is the truth?

If Bain Capital's activities are to be scrutinized and linked to Mitt Romney 12 years after he left the company, President Obama's activities within the past four years should surely receive the same attention.

Consider Obama's Job Czar, Jeffrey Immelt. According to a 60 minutes program, the CEO of GE was "unapologetic" about the fact that "half his workforce is overseas". How many jobs have been outsourced by GE? 25,000, according to the Huffington Post. The 170 positions reportedly being outsourced by the Bain-controlled organization pale in comparison.

Consider President Obama's failed "Green Stimulus" investments. When the "green" companies were not laying off thousands of employees and/or going bankrupt, a huge chunk of taxpayer money used to support the ill-advised program went overseas.

As a matter of fact, four Democratic senators actually called on the Obama administration "to halt spending on a renewable energy program in the economic stimulus package until rules are in place to assure that the projects use predominantly American labor and materials." They noted that "more than three-fourths Of $2 billion spent on wind-energy projects supported by the stimulus package had gone to foreign companies."

If Americans are looking to hold anyone accountable for wasteful spending overseas (and in general), they should look to the current president. This story may be significant if the same rules of outrage applied to both parties; and since they clearly do not, this news is just another example of faux outrage and dirty politics.

When will you learn that what you hear from the media, can't be trusted at face value?

CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF.

[Stormieweather]

Romney founded and ran Bain for FIFTEEN years. It does the same thing now that it did then, under his leadership. He was fully aware and approved of outsourcing to Chinese sweatshops. In fact, at a recent fundraiser here in Florida he mentioned his personal tour of one...


Chinese Sweatshop


So I should trust what YOU say at face value? No thanks. I do my own research and decide what to believe.

[Stormieweather]

double post

[Adak]

I never said don't do you own research and decide for yourself. I encourage that, but in this case, you've reached the wrong conclusion.

Did Romney make the stupid laws, tax codes, and treaties, that made it profitable for our companies to move to China?

NO!

You have to work (and live) within the laws that you are given, by those in government. You know that, everybody knows that.

Saying that Romney moved Sensata 12 years after he left Bain, is a terrible argument to make because:

1) Romney didn't make the laws that made it possible and in some cases profitable, to move a company to China.

and

2) Romney had nothing to do with the movement of Sensata, anywhere, since he'd left Bain over a decade before this happened.

So your whole argument is just an attempt to smear Romney with anything you can. You'll have to do better, because this case certainly doesn't work.