The lists are interesting. Just goes to show that if you're going to throw good money after bad it certainly pays to know what you're doing, and which of them does.
In the interests of fairness I have to say that most of Mr. Romney's successes have been in lightweight areas of business and some -- like Burger King and Dunkin' Donuts are in truth harmful to American Health overall.
Mr. Obama's failures have been attempts to address deadly serious problems, and should come under the heading of Research and Development than actual "Business."
The Democrats will tell us, of course, that Obama's failures are minuscule compared to his successes, which "we" (they will tell yo) are too "partisan" and "bigoted" to acknowledge.
In all seriousness I ask you, ARE there in TRUTH any GENUINE successes in Obama's career, or is it all just blue smoke, mirrors and HOT AIR -- as most of us would like to believe?
Don't you think "we" ought to do our "due diligence" and look for the HOLES in our OWN arguments?
At the very least it would put "us" on the moral high ground.
The Romney column is interesting. If you look at the purchase of Dunkin' Brands (the lead buyer was Daddy Bush's Carlyle Group) you will find that the result of the sale has been burdening the company with additional debt and burdening them with debt service costs.
Nothing created. You'd do well to research the others.
On Mitt's record: To be honest, Bain's object was not to "create jobs." It was to make foundering companies profitable, and if that were not possible, to dismantle them and return the proceeds to the owners, while making money for Bain (What business does anything for free?)
One thing to remember: Had these companies not made bad decisions, they never would have had to gone to the "Vampire Capitalists."
Too bad the Republicans didn't play that video at their convention. The only problem was that the video was wrong about how well people can live Obama Bucks. It will take a pick-up truck load to buy a loaf of bread one of these days.
On Mitt's record: To be honest, Bain's object was not to "create jobs." It was to make foundering companies profitable
------------
Utter bullshit.
Was Dunkin' Brands foundering when Bain stuck it with huge debt? No. Its balance sheet is less solid now than when Bain took over.
Guitar Center (Full disclosure: I owned Guitar Center stock when it was bought out and made a bundle)? No, they were doing fine. It made me money but it sure as hell didn't create any jobs or improve the company's balance sheet.
Which of the companies on that list were struggling and needed Bain's cash? Maybe Burger King but they've been passed around as a basket case for decades.
That's the trouble with fringe right true believers. They refuse to do even minimal due diligence.
Was Dunkin' Brands foundering when Bain stuck it with huge debt? No. Its balance sheet is less solid now than when Bain took over.
More false narrative. When Dunkin was purchased by Bain Capital, it was a failing company. Now it isn't. Where's the bullshit? Can you provide information from within Bain Capital to refute the argument?
Every time I hear that B.O. "saved the auto industry" I have to think of the sheer idiocy of such. For one thing two mismanaged auto makers did not comprise the entire "auto industry". GM (Government Motors)stock is so low that it would have to more than double in order that we (the investors-not by choice) be repaid. Many dealerships had to close due to un-profitability. Although this is often a necessary business decision, if Romney had made it you would still be hearing about it from the hypocritical Left! Speaking of hypocrisy the Left continues to carp at Romney for off-shore business. Well how then does the Left explain that 70% of GM's cars are made off-shore?
Okay, Ducky … you’re arguing that since Dunkin’ Donuts debt may increase in 2012, Bain Capital didn’t help the company to expand in 2005/2006? Seriously?
CANTON, Mass. (March 1, 2006) - A consortium of global private equity firms consisting of Bain Capital Partners LLC, The Carlyle Group and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP today completed the acquisition of Dunkin' Brands Inc. from Pernod Ricard SA for $2.425 billion in cash. Dunkin' Brands announced on December 12, 2005 that it had reached a definitive agreement to be acquired by the consortium. Jon L. Luther, Chief Executive Officer of Dunkin' Brands, has been appointed Chairman of the newly formed Board of Directors, and Will Kussell, Chief Operating Officer of the company, will also serve on the Board. Bain Capital, The Carlyle Group and Thomas H. Lee Partners will each have three board seats. "This is an exciting time for Dunkin' Brands, and we are pleased to have such experienced partners to help us execute our strategy of aggressive expansion for our three proven brands," said Luther. "With strong consumer loyalty, excellent franchisee relationships and an outstanding management team already in place, Dunkin' Brands is well-positioned for tremendous growth. We are driven by a passion to raise the bar on the quality and variety of food and beverages available in the quick service industry and change expectations about what is possible in a quick meal on the go." [Source] Moreover, you argue that because Dunkin Donuts has tax issues, that Bain Capital is somehow responsible for that? That’s a bit of a stretch since Luther Chaired the new formed consortium. But here’s a story from our Dow Jones Newsletters colleagues over at the LBO Wire looking at life after the deal. Specifically, it’s the story of Dunkin Donuts, bought in December 2005 by Bain Capital Partners, the Carlyle Group and Thomas H. Lee Partners (the deal closed in March 2006). The $2.43 billion deal was seen in a Wall Street Journal article then as underscoring the rising clout of financial buyers as the hotly contested bid, which included the Baskin Robbins ice-cream chain and Togo’s sandwich shops, was higher than many had expected. A year after the deal closed, LBO Wire finds that having paid such a high premium (13.5 times earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization), the private equity owners were in need of significant growth. They’re helping that along by bringing their financial expertise and industry know-how to bear on Dunkin Brands, helping it execute and maintain a steady expansion pace. The first year has been promising, with the company adding 700 Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robins stores, a nearly 8% increase.[ Source]
I'm saying that if you read the second article you understand what Bain was about, extracting capital and leaving debt.
Now cite some figures about growth under Bain and you may have something.
Of course this all started because the fringe right true believers need to believe that Bain is a turn around operation and that Dunkin' Brands was near bankruptcy. As usual, they will continue to believe that even when given a more complete picture of Bain's operation.
Can you point to ANY of those companies that are not in deeper debt as a result of Bain or any that have created jobs? One is Staples, yes but Staples was in a position to go public and Bain was lucky to be selected as an underwriter. BAIN did NOTHING to grow Staples to the point of being ready to IPO.
Now, if I was smart enough to jump in and see Bain coming at Guitar Center and profit, maybe I have a better grasp of this than you.
I would also add that the companies you list as failures are all solar energy who have been hit hard by the decline in panel prices.
You did not list the publicly funded company in Mississippi which has developed a method to halve the thickness of the sheeting required in a panel, thus drastically reducing costs. This all takes time.
Private companies in the alternatives business have had a rough time of late. A123, a well regarded maker of lithium car batteries has seen a drastic cut in business.
So you might want to put your list against the general business climate in order to make it something more than the usual fringe right manure.
Remember, the left is here to help you live the life of the mind.
Lets look at the two lists in a different perspective.
There is a somewhat simple scam that has many different variations. The simplest variation involves getting a government grant to create a business. Create a shell corporation. Pay the corporate officers lavish salaries to bankrupt the corporation. Bankrupt the corporation and walk away.
Another variation involves getting "investors" (politically connected thieves) to create a "corporation" large enough to get a massive federal "loan guarantee" (maybe 1/2 billion dollars or so). Pay lavish salaries to your "corporate officers" (who might also be your investors.) give a massive return to your "investors" (also the DNC and Democrat candidates)for their short term "investments". Bankrupt the corporation and walk away leaving the taxpayer to pay the loan guarantee.
In Romney's column we see a legitimate corporation involved in legitimate business activity under legal with mutual agreed terms. If the businesses succeeded, Bain Capital was repaid its investment under the agreed terms. If the businesses failed, they were bankrupted and their assets sold to pay creditors and investors out of whatever was recovered under the laws of the FTC and bankruptcy courts.
In Obama's column we see a bunch of thieves and pirates steeling taxpayer money. When the businesses failed (and they all did) the corporations were bankrupted (under questionable circumstances) The bankruptcy courts and FTC seem to ignore the law and order the liquidation of assets and the proceeds to pay the "investors" giving the creditors a sorry second place and giving the law, presidence and the creditors the middle finger.
It seems to me that people need fired, so-called "investors and corporate officers" jailed, and judges impeached. I have no idea what to do with the Democrats, they are the party of institutional corruption and racism.
Hi Brooke, I'm off work for another week or so then I'll be scarce again.
Yes, its the Alinski thing. Pick your target. Isolate it. Demonize it.
And so on, only they are demonizing legitimate business and attacking the people that formerly ran them.
Funny how they never attack GE or Solyndra. They don't attack Microsoft anymore since Bill Gates and the present board of the company started making payoffs to the Dems.
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion: 1. Any use of profanity or abusive language 2. Off topic comments and spam 3. Use of personal invective
The lists are interesting. Just goes to show that if you're going to throw good money after bad it certainly pays to know what you're doing, and which of them does.
ReplyDeleteMaybe supporting Obama is the kiss of death.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIn the interests of fairness I have to say that most of Mr. Romney's successes have been in lightweight areas of business and some -- like Burger King and Dunkin' Donuts are in truth harmful to American Health overall.
ReplyDeleteMr. Obama's failures have been attempts to address deadly serious problems, and should come under the heading of Research and Development than actual "Business."
The Democrats will tell us, of course, that Obama's failures are minuscule compared to his successes, which "we" (they will tell yo) are too "partisan" and "bigoted" to acknowledge.
In all seriousness I ask you, ARE there in TRUTH any GENUINE successes in Obama's career, or is it all just blue smoke, mirrors and HOT AIR -- as most of us would like to believe?
Don't you think "we" ought to do our "due diligence" and look for the HOLES in our OWN arguments?
At the very least it would put "us" on the moral high ground.
~ FreeThinke
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe Romney column is interesting. If you look at the purchase of Dunkin' Brands (the lead buyer was Daddy Bush's Carlyle Group) you will find that the result of the sale has been burdening the company with additional debt and burdening them with debt service costs.
ReplyDeleteNothing created. You'd do well to research the others.
Why isn't Kay Bee Toys on the list?
ReplyDeleteThey were bankrupted by Bain.
Did you look into the high layoffs and problems at Clear Channel after the Bin purchase.
ReplyDeleteI believe they are still trying to sell portions of the business to cover the Bain debt.
This is a lie:
ReplyDeleteObama create more jobs than Bush did in 8 years
On Mitt's record: To be honest, Bain's object was not to "create jobs." It was to make foundering companies profitable, and if that were not possible, to dismantle them and return the proceeds to the owners, while making money for Bain (What business does anything for free?)
One thing to remember: Had these companies not made bad decisions, they never would have had to gone to the "Vampire Capitalists."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePoor Ray. He forgot the part where he holds up everyone he can find at gunpoint, just like the IRS and taxation does to us.
ReplyDeleteToo bad the Republicans didn't play that video at their convention. The only problem was that the video was wrong about how well people can live Obama Bucks. It will take a pick-up truck load to buy a loaf of bread one of these days.
ReplyDeleteOn Mitt's record: To be honest, Bain's object was not to "create jobs." It was to make foundering companies profitable
ReplyDelete------------
Utter bullshit.
Was Dunkin' Brands foundering when Bain stuck it with huge debt? No.
Its balance sheet is less solid now than when Bain took over.
Guitar Center (Full disclosure: I owned Guitar Center stock when it was bought out and made a bundle)?
No, they were doing fine. It made me money but it sure as hell didn't create any jobs or improve the company's balance sheet.
Which of the companies on that list were struggling and needed Bain's cash? Maybe Burger King but they've been passed around as a basket case for decades.
That's the trouble with fringe right true believers. They refuse to do even minimal due diligence.
Capitalism versus Communism.
ReplyDeleteWas Dunkin' Brands foundering when Bain stuck it with huge debt? No.
ReplyDeleteIts balance sheet is less solid now than when Bain took over.
More false narrative. When Dunkin was purchased by Bain Capital, it was a failing company. Now it isn't. Where's the bullshit? Can you provide information from within Bain Capital to refute the argument?
No?
Just more quacking?
Yawn.
Read up mustang
ReplyDeleteOr is the WSJ a communist propaganda sheet?
Fish in a barrel.
If you still haven't figured it out, mustang
ReplyDeleteNow does that sound like a company that is trying to expand?
By the way the shares have dropped about 15% in a market that has seen good growth in the restaurant industry since this was written.
Come back, mustang.
Every time I hear that B.O. "saved the auto industry" I have to think of the sheer idiocy of such. For one thing two mismanaged auto makers did not comprise the entire "auto industry". GM (Government Motors)stock is so low that it would have to more than double in order that we (the investors-not by choice) be repaid. Many dealerships had to close due to un-profitability. Although this is often a necessary business decision, if Romney had made it you would still be hearing about it from the hypocritical Left! Speaking of hypocrisy the Left continues to carp at Romney for off-shore business. Well how then does the Left explain that 70% of GM's cars are made off-shore?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tradereform.org/2012/06/gm-producing-70-of-autos-outside-us/
Call me naive to the ways of business, but I'd rather be working for one of the companies on the Mitt Romney list than those on BO's.
ReplyDeleteI've never heard of The Sports Activity. Could it be The Sports Authority?
Okay, Ducky … you’re arguing that since Dunkin’ Donuts debt may increase in 2012, Bain Capital didn’t help the company to expand in 2005/2006? Seriously?
ReplyDeleteCANTON, Mass. (March 1, 2006) - A consortium of global private equity firms consisting of Bain Capital Partners LLC, The Carlyle Group and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP today completed the acquisition of Dunkin' Brands Inc. from Pernod Ricard SA for $2.425 billion in cash. Dunkin' Brands announced on December 12, 2005 that it had reached a definitive agreement to be acquired by the consortium.
Jon L. Luther, Chief Executive Officer of Dunkin' Brands, has been appointed Chairman of the newly formed Board of Directors, and Will Kussell, Chief Operating Officer of the company, will also serve on the Board. Bain Capital, The Carlyle Group and Thomas H. Lee Partners will each have three board seats.
"This is an exciting time for Dunkin' Brands, and we are pleased to have such experienced partners to help us execute our strategy of aggressive expansion for our three proven brands," said Luther. "With strong consumer loyalty, excellent franchisee relationships and an outstanding management team already in place, Dunkin' Brands is well-positioned for tremendous growth. We are driven by a passion to raise the bar on the quality and variety of food and beverages available in the quick service industry and change expectations about what is possible in a quick meal on the go." [Source]
Moreover, you argue that because Dunkin Donuts has tax issues, that Bain Capital is somehow responsible for that? That’s a bit of a stretch since Luther Chaired the new formed consortium.
But here’s a story from our Dow Jones Newsletters colleagues over at the LBO Wire looking at life after the deal. Specifically, it’s the story of Dunkin Donuts, bought in December 2005 by Bain Capital Partners, the Carlyle Group and Thomas H. Lee Partners (the deal closed in March 2006). The $2.43 billion deal was seen in a Wall Street Journal article then as underscoring the rising clout of financial buyers as the hotly contested bid, which included the Baskin Robbins ice-cream chain and Togo’s sandwich shops, was higher than many had expected.
A year after the deal closed, LBO Wire finds that having paid such a high premium (13.5 times earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization), the private equity owners were in need of significant growth. They’re helping that along by bringing their financial expertise and industry know-how to bear on Dunkin Brands, helping it execute and maintain a steady expansion pace. The first year has been promising, with the company adding 700 Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robins stores, a nearly 8% increase.[ Source]
I'm saying that if you read the second article you understand what Bain was about, extracting capital and leaving debt.
ReplyDeleteNow cite some figures about growth under Bain and you may have something.
Of course this all started because the fringe right true believers need to believe that Bain is a turn around operation and that Dunkin' Brands was near bankruptcy. As usual, they will continue to believe that even when given a more complete picture of Bain's operation.
Can you point to ANY of those companies that are not in deeper debt as a result of Bain or any that have created jobs?
One is Staples, yes but Staples was in a position to go public and Bain was lucky to be selected as an underwriter. BAIN did NOTHING to grow Staples to the point of being ready to IPO.
Now, if I was smart enough to jump in and see Bain coming at Guitar Center and profit, maybe I have a better grasp of this than you.
I would also add that the companies you list as failures are all solar energy who have been hit hard by the decline in panel prices.
ReplyDeleteYou did not list the publicly funded company in Mississippi which has developed a method to halve the thickness of the sheeting required in a panel, thus drastically reducing costs. This all takes time.
Private companies in the alternatives business have had a rough time of late. A123, a well regarded maker of lithium car batteries has seen a drastic cut in business.
So you might want to put your list against the general business climate in order to make it something more than the usual fringe right manure.
Remember, the left is here to help you live the life of the mind.
Stick to losing wars, that's what you know best.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIn the first place, I think Ducky and Mustang were having a conversation that does not include a 12-year old child.
ReplyDeleteTaibbi is a verifiable lunatic with NO expertise in this area whatsoever. He may have even invented the term Looney Left.
Here’s some advice, moron: if that is your total contribution, leave your trash somewhere else and stop interrupting adults while they're conversing.
Lets look at the two lists in a different perspective.
ReplyDeleteThere is a somewhat simple scam that has many different variations. The simplest variation involves getting a government grant to create a business. Create a shell corporation. Pay the corporate officers lavish salaries to bankrupt the corporation. Bankrupt the corporation and walk away.
Another variation involves getting "investors" (politically connected thieves) to create a "corporation" large enough to get a massive federal "loan guarantee" (maybe 1/2 billion dollars or so). Pay lavish salaries to your "corporate officers" (who might also be your investors.) give a massive return to your "investors" (also the DNC and Democrat candidates)for their short term "investments". Bankrupt the corporation and walk away leaving the taxpayer to pay the loan guarantee.
In Romney's column we see a legitimate corporation involved in legitimate business activity under legal with mutual agreed terms. If the businesses succeeded, Bain Capital was repaid its investment under the agreed terms.
If the businesses failed, they were bankrupted and their assets sold to pay creditors and investors out of whatever was recovered under the laws of the FTC and bankruptcy courts.
In Obama's column we see a bunch of thieves and pirates steeling taxpayer money. When the businesses failed (and they all did) the corporations were bankrupted (under questionable circumstances) The bankruptcy courts and FTC seem to ignore the law and order the liquidation of assets and the proceeds to pay the "investors" giving the creditors a sorry second place and giving the law, presidence and the creditors the middle finger.
It seems to me that people need fired, so-called "investors and corporate officers" jailed, and judges impeached. I have no idea what to do with the Democrats, they are the party of institutional corruption and racism.
Lib-Mann:"The Deficit Has Grown Mostly Because Of The Recession"
ReplyDeleteI don't suppose that the thought has ever occurred to you that the reverse of that statement could be much nearer the truth?
That government borrowing money to pay it's bills has a deleterious effect on the money supply, impeding the recovery?
@Lib-Mann
ReplyDeleteFor the edification of both you and Mr. Tabbi, the function of every company is to make money for it's investors/owners.
8-l
Great video. It portrays Obama's reckless and unnecessary spending.
ReplyDeleteObama believes it is his money, but it is not and the only thing that man should get credit for is the $16 million debt.
Mustang,
ReplyDeleteI am deleting Liberaltwit(s) comments, as soon as I'm aware of them, for the foreseeable future. I'm not even reading them.
So good to see you, Warren!
ReplyDeleteRemember how lefties used to screech, "Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton"?
I have come to the conclusion that they have replaced it with Bain.
No real argument, no logic, nothing. Just demonize it in front of the sound bite voters and attach it to a candidate.
It's probably good for the left. Less syllables for their base to remember.
Warren,
ReplyDeleteI doubt that Liberalmann has even noticed the deletions.
He is a drive by spammer.
I've added the following to the comment form policy:
Drive-by spammers will be deleted forthwith.
So glad that you are keeping an eye on my blog, Warren! The first week of the school term is always rough.
Hi Brooke,
ReplyDeleteI'm off work for another week or so then I'll be scarce again.
Yes, its the Alinski thing.
Pick your target.
Isolate it.
Demonize it.
And so on, only they are demonizing legitimate business and attacking the people that formerly ran them.
Funny how they never attack GE or Solyndra. They don't attack Microsoft anymore since Bill Gates and the present board of the company started making payoffs to the Dems.
Warren,
ReplyDeleteMaking payoffs will only save them temporarily.
They don't realize that the Left has no loyalty to anything but their own power grab.