I don't know Red...lets see investors profited from their risk, employees profited from work (salary & bonus) and yes Mitt profited from taking risk and having success. As he the sole stock holder he would have been the one to take loss as well. From a tax return stand point you are correct Mitt took all the leftover at Bain's EOY but all benefited from what Bain did and that is the bottom line.
Well, not since were were talking about the companies that were downsized, eliminated, or outsourced. That was no benefit for the workers at all and no good for the country with loss of jobs and industrial capacity.
You only mention the companies downsized, closed, jobs lost etc. What about the companies that were saved, new american jobs created and increased capacity? That happened as well. Also how many of those companies he closed were so far down the road to failure. they couldn't be saved? Should he be blamed for trying to save them? I am going to see if I can find some data comparing the 2. We know both things happened. Rather than just throwing stuff back and forth lets see what the facts are. Give me some time and BTW why don't you do the same and compare.
And you misunderstand with much sincerity. I seriously doubt he took a 100% draw. I would like to see you proove that statement. What do suppose would have become of the Bain takeover targets had Bain stayed uninvolved? Do you think very many of the people laid off would still be employed? If you can't beat em... insult em.
Instead of all of that typing, you could have just typed "I don't have anything" and went about your way instead of appearing paranoid and gullible. So you're suspicious because he's whispering? A President is talking quietly and in a way that few others can hear what he is telling another nation's leader and you feel that's a sign of being "anti-American"? It's called diplomacy. Dozens of US Presidents used it and successfully so without the accusation of being Anti-American. It's like adding 1 and 1 and submitting an answer of "burnt toast". Missile Defense of Russia is a dead issue anyway and has been for well over a decade. Russia doesn't dare pull any kind of stunt that would trigger that kind of response. They're practically a 3rd world country. They're like Mexico, but colder. Giving healthcare coverage for Americans is the most American thing a President has done for his country in my lifetime. You're ****ing insane. It might have flaws and no one really knows what the end result is going to be, but anti-American is more of a stretch than calling [INSERT POLITIAN HERE] a Nazi. "Suspicions" + "I think" = unfounded paranoia
Come on. In Post 60 I said, "I do not criticize any success in turning around American companies. I criticize the foreign outsourcing and job losses that accompanied many of his efforts to increase his bottom line." As was mentioned earlier Bain Capital's job was to make a profit for its investors and for itself. THAT was the prime motivation, not saving the companies. Not saving American jobs. There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Neither is anything wrong with pointing out that this financial deal contributed to the loss of US companies and US jobs. Excellent idea. More people should try to back up their position with some evidence.
It's your statement, you prove it. What I said was Romney was the sole stockholder, thus owning 100% of the stock. If the profits did not go to the stockholder where did they go? I suppose they might have continued to operate, post profits, and contribute to the economy as they always did. What do you suppose became of the flying monkeys in Oz and why is it relevenat to what Romney actually did. Yes, not being able to beat 'em does make you cranky.
I don't know. I've never audited Bain's financials, but it is highly unusual for a sole stakeholder to take 100% of the profits of a company. Generally the bulk of profits are rolled into expansions or saved as retained earnings, an asset of the corp. So again where is your proof that Romney took all the profits? Where is your proof that he took a single draw? Show me the examples of the financially viable businesses and or segments that Bain bought and closed that were solvent and had a going concern. And you getting called on your hack party line bullshit makes you defensive. There was a time when you were objective.
Fine. Romney owned the company lock, stock and barrel. ALL company profits were his no matter his draw, his offshore accounts, or held corporate assets. I don't care how Bain handled the money for taxes, Romney profited by it. His capital gains must have been huge when he sold the company. I repeat, if the sole stockholder didn't get the profits, who did? But you already answered that--you don't know. Irrelevant. Who else receives corporate profits but the corporate owners? A sole stockholder in this case. He either got the money on draws or he got the money when he sold the company. Give it up. Straw man. You asked me to imagine what those companies might have done had not Romney bought them. And I told you. Your imagination has no more validity than mine. Anyway Winston has offered to investigate the Bain closed companies versus the Bain saved companies. let us see what he discovers. There was a time you didn't whine so much, junior.
