Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Obama’s war on private equity

  1. #11
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Every President is by defintion a politician. Some have helped to create many jobs. Some have created none.
    President Bush sold himself as a businessman. Look at his record.

    TUE MAY 29, 2012 AT 08:15 AM PDT
    Mitt Romney campaign: President Obama 'has never managed anything'
    byJed Lewison

    Mitt Romney casts a spell on his audience, attempting to convince them that the President of the United States of America has never managed anything (Larry Downing/Reuters)
    Mike Allen previews the Republican muck coming up in the week ahead:
    The Romney aide says the campaign will argue that Obama has been “job-unfriendly” through regulations and “the negative influence when you do these stimulus grants. It sounds great when you go and promote a business by giving them a grant, but the unintended consequence is it hurt other companies that compete with them.”
    A “Message for the Week” preview from the Romney campaign adds: “You can’t be hostile to business and friendly to job creation. President Obama has never managed anything other than his own personal narrative. He has never created a job and never run a business.”

    Sure, he's never managed anything ... except for, you know, the United States government. And as far as that being anti-business, riddle me this, Romneyland: why is private sector job creation actually up under President Obama, while it was down under George W. Bush?
    Private sector job growth (source):
    Full presidency:
    Barack Obama: +35,000
    George W. Bush: -646,000

    Excluding first year:
    Barack Obama: +4,220,000
    George W. Bush: +1,771,000

    And why is public sector employment down under Obama, while it was up under Bush?
    Public sector job growth (source):
    Full presidency:
    Barack Obama: -607,000
    George W. Bush: +1,741,000

    Excluding first year:
    Barack Obama: -510,000
    George W. Bush: +1,199,000

    If President Obama is a communist, he sure is a bad one.
    PERMALINK
    77 COMMENTS

  2. #12
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Eugene Robinson at The Washington Post bluntly speaks the truth:
    There are those who tell the truth. There are those who distort the truth. And then there’s Mitt Romney.
    Every political campaign exaggerates and dissembles. This practice may not be admirable — it’s surely one reason so many Americans are disenchanted with politics — but it’s something we’ve all come to expect. Candidates claim the right to make any boast or accusation as long as there’s a kernel of veracity in there somewhere.

    Even by this lax standard, Romney too often fails. Not to put too fine a point on it, he lies. Quite a bit.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...TxU_story.html

  3. #13
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...TxU_story.html

    By Eugene Robinson, Published: May 28

    There are those who tell the truth. There are those who distort the truth. And then there’s Mitt Romney.

    Every political campaign exaggerates and dissembles. This practice may not be admirable — it’s surely one reason so many Americans are disenchanted with politics — but it’s something we’ve all come to expect. Candidates claim the right to make any boast or accusation as long as there’s a kernel of veracity in there somewhere.


    Even by this lax standard, Romney too often fails. Not to put too fine a point on it, he lies. Quite a bit.

    “Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history,” Romney claims on his campaign Web site. This is utterly false. The truth is that spending has slowed markedly under Obama.

    An analysis published last week by MarketWatch, a financial news Web site owned by Dow Jones & Co., compared the yearly growth of federal spending under presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. Citing figures from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, MarketWatch concluded that “there has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.”

    Quite the contrary: Spending has increased at a yearly rate of only 1.4 percent during Obama’s tenure, even if you include some stimulus spending (in the 2009 fiscal year) that technically should be attributed to President George W. Bush. This is by far the smallest — I repeat, smallest — increase in spending of any recent president. (The Washington Post’s Fact Checker concluded the spending increase figure should have been 3.3 percent.)

    In Bush’s first term, by contrast, federal spending increased at an annual rate of 7.3 percent; in his second term, the annual rise averaged 8.1 percent. Reagan comes next, in terms of profligacy, followed by George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and finally Obama, the thriftiest of them all.

    The MarketWatch analysis was re-analyzed by the nonpartisan watchdogs at Politifact who found it “Mostly True” — adding the qualifier because some of the restraint in spending under Obama “was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans.” Duly noted, and if Romney wants to claim credit for the GOP, he’s free to do so. But he’s not free to say that “federal spending has accelerated” under Obama, because any way you look at it, that’s a lie.

  4. #14
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Please always keep in mind that mr. SiriuslyWrong chooses to follow Mr. Schiff's investing strategies. He has in so doing bet on DGL (not to mention other penny stocks) over many less risky stocks A gamblers mindset preaching to other people about fiscal responsibility. Truly priceless.

  5. #15
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Stockman Says Romney Didnt Create any Jobs

    May 22, 2012

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/20...s.html#048070a
    Stockman Says Romney Didn't Create Jobs
    Former Reagan budget director David Stockman went off message on Fox News while commenting about Mitt Romney's business experience.

    Said Stockman: "I don't think that Mitt Romney can legitimately say that he learned anything about how to create jobs in the LBO business. The LBO business is about how to strip cash out of old, long-in-the-tooth companies and how to make short-term profits...All the jobs that he talks about came from Staples. That was a very early venture stage deal. That, you know they got out of long before it got to its current size."

  6. #16
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    http://thehill.com/opinion/columnist...game-for-obama



    a
    By Mark Mellman - 05/30/12 11:25 AM ET

    The Obama campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain are not attacks on free enterprise, capitalism or even private equity.

    Capitalism did not require Bain to issue debt that GS Steel could not afford to repay, mainly to put money in the pockets of Bain partners. Capitalism did not require Bain to take tens of millions in profits while workers lost their livelihoods. Private equity is not to blame for the company underfunding its pensions system and sticking the government with the bill.



    Capitalism does lead to “creative destruction,” in Schumpeter’s famous phrase. Free enterprise does entail risk and the freedom to fail. Private equity exists to make profits. None of that is inherently evil.
    The critiques are not focused on the system or the process, or even the failures themselves. Everyone is entitled to some. Rather, the doubts revolve around the decisions Romney made and the values those decisions reflect. And if candidates’ decisions and values are not appropriate considerations in an election, nothing is.

    Bain bought GS Steel for $75 million after putting only $8 million of its own into the deal. Smart business. Less than a year after gaining control of the company, Romney and his Bain partners made a decision — to put the company into debt to the tune of $125 million. Some of that money was put to good capitalist use, modernizing the factory. However, a significant chunk of the borrowed cash, $36 million, was handed back to Bain in the form of a dividend. That’s right, less than a year after buying the company, Bain decided to reward itself for its wisdom by putting GS Steel into debt so Romney and his partners could take home more than four times what they put into the deal.

    It was a profitable decision for Bain, but was it wise? GS Steel’s income was less than one-tenth its debt — hardly reassuring to those concerned about our national finances. In short, Bain risked the company only to put unearned cash in its own pockets.

    Although Bain’s partners were pulling down millions from the investment, they asked Kansas City for a $3 million tax break. If the company could afford to pay Bain partners $36 million, what justification could they have for asking the city for a $3 million subsidy — money that the citizens of Kansas City could not use for schools or law enforcement because it ended up in Romney’s pocket, 1,300 miles away?

    When GS Steel went under, Bain decided to keep every penny it had taken out of the company but renege on its commitment to pay healthcare and severance for employees. Greed? Yes. Capitalism? Not really.

    Neither is underfunding pensions a natural consequence of capitalism. It reflects a conscious decision to evade obligations. And that’s what Bain did. It simply decided not to meet its legal responsibilities. The end result: The federal government was stuck with a $44 million bill. Do we want a president who cannot be trusted to keep his signed contracts, let alone his word? Do we want a president who is willing to leave the government holding the bag for his failures to meet his obligations?

    To constitute an attack on business, on capitalism or even on private equity, the Obama campaign would have to be asserting that most businesses operate this way. That is exactly the opposite of what they are claiming. They are asserting that a particular company, run by candidate Romney, acted irresponsibly, leaving employees with nothing while it took millions and shifted responsibilities to government that the company refused to meet. Most businesses don’t operate that way.

    Instead of taking umbrage, private-equity firms would be wise to join the chorus of condemnation and explain that most of them are not like Bain.

  7. #17
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Bill Clinton criticizes Obama’s Bain attacks, praises Romney’s ‘sterling business career’

    Former President Bill Clinton suggested in a television interview Thursday that he believes President Obama's re-election campaign should stop trashing Mitt Romney's work in the private equity industry.

    In an interview with CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight," Clinton, a top Obama surrogate who is set to raise cash with the president next week, directly contradicted Democrats who have attacked Romney's business record, suggesting it does qualify him for president.

    "I think he had a good business career," Clinton told guest host Harvey Weinstein, a movie mogul who is one of Obama's top fundraisers. "There's no question that in terms of getting up and going to the office and, you know, basically performing the essential functions of the office, the man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

    Adding that he has "friends" in the private equity business," Clinton suggested it was dangerous for Democrats to go after Romney's record at Bain Capital—adding that in private equity, "like everything else you try, you don't always succeed" in saving companies or making them more productive.

    "I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work," Clinton said. "This is good work."

    Instead, the former president argued that the Obama campaign should turn its focus to the "real issue" of what Romney will do as president and how it stacks up against Obama's record. He told CNN that he believes Obama will win re-election when that comparison is made.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/b...141022725.html

    "like everything else you try, you don't always succeed" - thankfully, ALL taxpayers don't have to share in their loss like we would have with the governments loss.
    Last edited by SiriuslyLong; 06-01-2012 at 12:33 PM.

  8. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •