[worry]

Thin Mints are God's holy gift to man, the others can go to hell.

[Terez]

Thin Mints are definitely my fav. Second-fav would be Tagalongs or Do-si-dos. I hate Samoas, mainly because I hate coconut. If they didn't have coconut, I'd probably dig them. (I actually sold them when I was a kid. Also, I hate the shortbread ones; they're like sand cookies.)

Oh, right, topic. I have been disappointed in the coverage of the Bain scandal. Too many people trying to report without all the facts, and I keep finding myself thinking, 'ooh, you should have mentioned there his defense of his residency requirements in MA, but you didn't...' and it's annoying. Hopefully the reporters will get it together soon.

This post has been edited by Terez: 17 July 2012 - 08:38 PM

[worry]

Doesn't help that that Obama surrogate jumped the gun and called Romney a felon, and then had to walk back her language a bit. I mean, he probably is, but you don't say it before the case is made. But it does help that Romney's own surrogates are incompetent boors and that Romney himself resembles (and behaves like) evil incarnate, so when he says outright that 2010 and 2011 tax returns are all he's gonna do and people should be happy with that, it comes off as genuinely nasty and sleazy as it should.

[Abyss]

i wanna see his birth certificate!!!

[Terez]

Good point. I mean, how can we know he is a human without that?

[Vengeance]

worrywort, on 17 July 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Thin Mints are God's holy gift to man, the others can go to hell.

Terez, on 17 July 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

Thin Mints are definitely my fav. Second-fav would be Tagalongs or Do-si-dos. I hate Samoas, mainly because I hate coconut. If they didn't have coconut, I'd probably dig them. (I actually sold them when I was a kid. Also, I hate the shortbread ones; they're like sand cookies.)

Sacrilege I shall sacrifice your still beating hearts to the wonder that is Samoas.


I watched a hardball clip where Once of Newts senior advisors said that they tried to bring Bane up in jan but that Romney changed it around so that attacking Bane was attacking capitalism.

The pincher for Romney is that either he was responsible because his name was at the top and he was the CEO. Or as CEO the buck did not stop with him because he passed it off. If that is the case then is that the kind of president he will be.

[D'rek]

I've read a couple news stories/articles - they all talk about whether Romney was CEO of Bain from 1999-2002, but none of them say why this would be a bad thing / make him a felon?

Can someone please explain it to me?

[Ceda Cicero]

D, on 18 July 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

I've read a couple news stories/articles - they all talk about whether Romney was CEO of Bain from 1999-2002, but none of them say why this would be a bad thing / make him a felon?

Can someone please explain it to me?

Well for one thing, he said he wasn't, so that's a bad thing.

Another reason it's a bad thing is that Bain is a private equity company, and while you can do plenty of rhetorical lip service about how such an entity exists to help stimulate and bolster the American economy, it's frankly just not true. I'm sure plenty of private equity companies do just that tangentially, but the fact is they exist to create wealth for their investors. Again, you could make the argument that that in turn is good for the American economy, but let's be clear about what the stated purpose is.

That said, the 1999-2002 tenure that's in question here comes very dangerously close to overlapping with Romney's turn to the public sector. It's not really okay for a public servant whose chief concern should be the public to also be the Chief Executive Officer of a private institution with a whole other agenda. Maybe an honorary board member. A shareholder. Something. (Though even those would make my eyebrows go up.) But not CEO. It's a bad thing.

In terms of the nuances of whether or not this makes him a felon, I'm clueless, someone else will have to speak to that. Though I was under the impression the (severely misguided) accusations of felony were more to do with suspect tax returns than the Bain issue.

[Terez]

D, on 18 July 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

I've read a couple news stories/articles - they all talk about whether Romney was CEO of Bain from 1999-2002, but none of them say why this would be a bad thing / make him a felon?

Can someone please explain it to me?

He either lied to us about his tenure with the company (saying he retired in 1999) or he lied to the SEC, which is a felony. It's his SEC filings that indicate he was President, CEO, sole shareholder and Chairman of the Board until 2002. He also said under oath when he was running for governor in 2002 that he met the residency requirements for MA because he often had to return for both social and business reasons, which conflicts with his story that he had 'nothing whatsoever' to do with the company after 1999. In other words, when he needed to establish residency in his gubernatorial campaign, it was convenient for him to say he was still involved with Bain (as opposed to running the SLC Olympics full time), but now that he's trying to disassociate himself from Bain's post-1999 activities, it's inconvenient. So he's lying about it. Now one of his campaign people is saying he was busier in SLC than he thought he would be, so in 2002 he 'retroactively retired' back to 1999.

[amphibian]

D, on 18 July 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

I've read a couple news stories/articles - they all talk about whether Romney was CEO of Bain from 1999-2002, but none of them say why this would be a bad thing / make him a felon?

Can someone please explain it to me?

If Romney misrepresent0ed his position to the SEC, that is a felony. However, there is a fair amount of debate over whether or not he actually did do so and it's obscuring the facts.

Romney said he'd stepped down as the CEO of Bain in 1999 to run the 2002 Winter Olympics stuff. However, he stayed on some paperwork and may have pulled a salary from that position until 2002. But, there's not much evidence (if any) that he took an active role in conducting the business of Bain during that time.

So the activeness of his CEO job is crucial to determining this and thus far, the evidence presented to us isn't actually good enough to get to the "Mitch Romney committed a felony and we can prove it" stage. That may not matter all that much in the court of public opinion - or it could blow over. Depends on how sticky this is - if you remember the Swift Boat thing, which was a vicious and idiotic lie that somehow mattered.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 18 July 2012 - 06:50 PM

[Terez]

amphibian, on 18 July 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

D, on 18 July 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

I've read a couple news stories/articles - they all talk about whether Romney was CEO of Bain from 1999-2002, but none of them say why this would be a bad thing / make him a felon?

Can someone please explain it to me?

If Romney misrepresent0ed his position to the SEC, that is a felony. However, there is a fair amount of debate over whether or not he actually did do so and it's obscuring the facts.

Romney said he'd stepped down as the CEO of Bain in 1999 to run the 2002 Winter Olympics stuff. However, he stayed on some paperwork and may have pulled a salary from that position until 2002.

The salary is not under debate; that was also on the SEC filings. He made 'at least' $100,000 a year for his CEO job.

Quote

But, there's not much evidence (if any) that he took an active role in conducting the business of Bain during that time.

Only his testimony regarding residency for his gubernatorial campaign, in which he says he regularly returned to MA for both social and business reasons.

[Terez]

By the way, people are starting to say Romney might name a VP as early as this week to distract from the unwanted Bain attention. It's very unusual to do so before the convention, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[Ceda Cicero]

Also to this point, as Terez indicated, the 1999 cut off point has been crucial for Romney throughout his campaign so far because that's when some of Bain's business practices really (some, including me, would argue) start coming under serious critique.

So the problem for Romney, felony and lying issues aside, is in the narrative now, as worrywort pointed out. Either he continues to distance himself from the company between the years of 1999-2002, in which case we have some serious red flags about what kind of president he would be if he was CEO for 3 years but not actually guiding the firm's policy (and as a kicker, it also suggests the only reason he stayed on was to leverage more money—http://www.salon.com/2012/07/16/romneys_bad_bain_allabi/)

Or he has to assume responsibility for some Bain practices during those years that would and should have a lot of people concerned about his economic philosophy.

If I were him I'd go with the latter, honestly. I don't know why anyone anywhere is even trying to keep it a secret anymore that Romney is principally an advocate for the very wealthy and elite.

Other good source: http://prospect.org/...lations-company

[Vengeance]

D, on 18 July 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

I've read a couple news stories/articles - they all talk about whether Romney was CEO of Bain from 1999-2002, but none of them say why this would be a bad thing / make him a felon?

Can someone please explain it to me?

After 1999 Bain started to buy companies and then close down the plants and export the jobs over seas. They also bought several companies who had a decent (not in the red) balance sheet, and in several years time added hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to those companies balance sheets (using the debt to pay themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in fees and dividends) causing the companies to have to file for bankruptcy while laying off there work force. Romney was the CEO of the company during this time he was also the sole share holder and sat of several of the purchased companies boards. Thus casts a little bit of doubt on his claims to have been a job creator when he was a business man. Romney says that he was not in charge of Bain during that time period.

The reason that he could not leave Bain completely to run the Olympics in Utah is because he wanted to run for governor of Massachusetts in 2002 and so had to retain his residency in Massachusetts. He stated before the residency board that he remained part time at Bain during that period and had merely taken a leave of absence, but that he came back to attend board meetings. He also collected a salary from Bain during the 3 year period.

The felon bit comes into play because Bain filed paper work with the SEC stating that Romney was CEO and the sole share holder for the period from 1999 to 2002. But in a federal disclosure form that he filed when he ran for President he states that he retired from Bain in feb of 1999 in order to run the Olympics. Thus one sworn federal document is contradicting another federal document. Lying on a federal document is a federal felony.

[worry]

It's less likely that he's a felon than that he's a persistent and shameless liar, and really what's sticking is his total incompetence at handling the issue (which itself was raised as journalistic vetting, not a political attack, but which has become an effective one in tandem with his refusal to provide substantive tax returns before 2010). He's still fighting on the "attacking Bain is attacking capitalism" front while the country -- much different from the fickle cross-eyed crowds at the Republican debates -- are on the whole "it's not that you're rich, it's how you got rich" thing, which he cannot combat coherently. He is apparently unable to both distance himself from Bain post-1999 AND defend vulture capitalism (which was the company's function before and after 1999 regardless), and he's floundering.

[Vengeance]

amphibian, on 18 July 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

D, on 18 July 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

I've read a couple news stories/articles - they all talk about whether Romney was CEO of Bain from 1999-2002, but none of them say why this would be a bad thing / make him a felon?

Can someone please explain it to me?

If Romney misrepresent0ed his position to the SEC, that is a felony. However, there is a fair amount of debate over whether or not he actually did do so and it's obscuring the facts.

Romney said he'd stepped down as the CEO of Bain in 1999 to run the 2002 Winter Olympics stuff. However, he stayed on some paperwork and may have pulled a salary from that position until 2002. But, there's not much evidence (if any) that he took an active role in conducting the business of Bain during that time.

In 1999



Sec filing from 2001

Wesley Jessen Visioncare Inc.

Sec filing from 2001

Integrated Circuit Systems

There are a total of 6 filings with the SEC during the 3 year time period that Romney signed.

If Feb of 1999 The Boston Globe reported "Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investments and key personnel decisions. But he will leave running day-to-day operations to Bain's executive committee."

Now not having input on day to day operations is quite different from not being involved at all which is what he is trying to say was the case.

[Vengeance]

Ceda Cicero, on 18 July 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

D, on 18 July 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

I've read a couple news stories/articles - they all talk about whether Romney was CEO of Bain from 1999-2002, but none of them say why this would be a bad thing / make him a felon?

Can someone please explain it to me?

Well for one thing, he said he wasn't, so that's a bad thing.

Another reason it's a bad thing is that Bain is a private equity company, and while you can do plenty of rhetorical lip service about how such an entity exists to help stimulate and bolster the American economy, it's frankly just not true. I'm sure plenty of private equity companies do just that tangentially, but the fact is they exist to create wealth for their investors. Again, you could make the argument that that in turn is good for the American economy, but let's be clear about what the stated purpose is.

That said, the 1999-2002 tenure that's in question here comes very dangerously close to overlapping with Romney's turn to the public sector. It's not really okay for a public servant whose chief concern should be the public to also be the Chief Executive Officer of a private institution with a whole other agenda. Maybe an honorary board member. A shareholder. Something. (Though even those would make my eyebrows go up.) But not CEO. It's a bad thing.

In terms of the nuances of whether or not this makes him a felon, I'm clueless, someone else will have to speak to that. Though I was under the impression the (severely misguided) accusations of felony were more to do with suspect tax returns than the Bain issue.

His tax returns are a completely separate issue. His reluctance to produce them seems to indicate that he has something to hide about all of the different tax loop holes that he used not to have to pay government taxes. Something that all wealthy individuals do, but is frowned upon if you are going to try to say that the middle class needs to pay its fair share in taxes.

[Vengeance]

worrywort, on 18 July 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

It's less likely that he's a felon than that he's a persistent and shameless liar, and really what's sticking is his total incompetence at handling the issue (which itself was raised as journalistic vetting, not a political attack, but which has become an effective one in tandem with his refusal to provide substantive tax returns before 2010). He's still fighting on the "attacking Bain is attacking capitalism" front while the country -- much different from the fickle cross-eyed crowds at the Republican debates -- are on the whole "it's not that you're rich, it's how you got rich" thing, which he cannot combat coherently. He is apparently unable to both distance himself from Bain post-1999 AND defend vulture capitalism (which was the company's function before and after 1999 regardless), and he's floundering.

This is true the felon bit is a long shot but this should have came out during the primary. By showing that Bain was a anti - american job capitalist company who made money at the expense of the american worker the Democrats are able to negate the way that Romney deflected the issue in the primary. I think that if the Tea parties hadn't been driving retards as presidential contenders this would have been a much bigger issue during the primary. But instead of good contenders they had rick santorum... and Ron Paul.

[Ceda Cicero]

Vengeance, on 18 July 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

worrywort, on 18 July 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

It's less likely that he's a felon than that he's a persistent and shameless liar, and really what's sticking is his total incompetence at handling the issue (which itself was raised as journalistic vetting, not a political attack, but which has become an effective one in tandem with his refusal to provide substantive tax returns before 2010). He's still fighting on the "attacking Bain is attacking capitalism" front while the country -- much different from the fickle cross-eyed crowds at the Republican debates -- are on the whole "it's not that you're rich, it's how you got rich" thing, which he cannot combat coherently. He is apparently unable to both distance himself from Bain post-1999 AND defend vulture capitalism (which was the company's function before and after 1999 regardless), and he's floundering.

This is true the felon bit is a long shot but this should have came out during the primary. By showing that Bain was a anti - american job capitalist company who made money at the expense of the american worker the Democrats are able to negate the way that Romney deflected the issue in the primary. I think that if the Tea parties hadn't been driving retards as presidential contenders this would have been a much bigger issue during the primary. But instead of good contenders they had rick santorum... and Ron Paul.

The day that the Tea Party has a good contender may well be the day I go expat.

[Vengeance]

Ceda Cicero, on 18 July 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Vengeance, on 18 July 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

worrywort, on 18 July 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

It's less likely that he's a felon than that he's a persistent and shameless liar, and really what's sticking is his total incompetence at handling the issue (which itself was raised as journalistic vetting, not a political attack, but which has become an effective one in tandem with his refusal to provide substantive tax returns before 2010). He's still fighting on the "attacking Bain is attacking capitalism" front while the country -- much different from the fickle cross-eyed crowds at the Republican debates -- are on the whole "it's not that you're rich, it's how you got rich" thing, which he cannot combat coherently. He is apparently unable to both distance himself from Bain post-1999 AND defend vulture capitalism (which was the company's function before and after 1999 regardless), and he's floundering.

This is true the felon bit is a long shot but this should have came out during the primary. By showing that Bain was a anti - american job capitalist company who made money at the expense of the american worker the Democrats are able to negate the way that Romney deflected the issue in the primary. I think that if the Tea parties hadn't been driving retards as presidential contenders this would have been a much bigger issue during the primary. But instead of good contenders they had rick santorum... and Ron Paul.

The day that the Tea Party has a good contender may well be the day I go expat.

It wasn't so much that they can't have a good contender (not possible) it is that for a republican to win the primary he has to pander to them. Thus preventing decent republican politicians from even bothering to run. If their are any remaining decent republican politicians left I mean. Most of them have retired or have had to start pandering to the retards to retain there position. The republican party is not the party who fought for womens rights and civil rights any more. When the 19th amendment was passed (1920) republicans controlled 36 of the state legislatures. Peggy Goldwater’s, Barry Goldwaters wife founded the phoenix Planned Parenthood once of the nations largest.

It was the republican party that helped Kennedy and then Johnson push through the civil rights act.

Now the republican party looks and acts the exact opposite. Instead of fighting for rights they are trying to take away peoples right to vote and close Planned Parenthood. One of the main driving force of this is the Tea Party. Thus the failure of the republican party to actually be able to field worthy candidates for the office of the President and have a real vetting primary is there fault.