• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

For those of you who endorse Mitt Romney, explain why

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
-snip-
As All the assets of the assets of Romney tried to turn around, mysteriously ended up in only Mitt Romney pockets. As he screwed the stock holders, the workers of the company, and benefited only himself.

You're clueless.

You don't even know the difference between Bain & Co. (consulting firm) and Bain Capital (basically a leverage buy-out firm).

And the profits from Bain Capital didn't all end up in Romney's pockets only. They were shared with the other partners.

Fern
 
Actually your the one with the silly comebacks. Paint me as sensitive because I bring up your homophobia? lol.

Where is Freud when you need him.

LOL, if you knew me you'd know what a joke calling me "homophobic" is, hahaha, what a sad, sad, little man.
 
You're clueless.

You don't even know the difference between Bain & Co. (consulting firm) and Bain Capital (basically a leverage buy-out firm).

And the profits from Bain Capital didn't all end up in Romney's pockets only. They were shared with the other partners.

Fern
Exactly. I have no problem with Bain Capital either. Liberals whine because Bain laid off so many people, but that's what we do to turn around a failing company. You buy it cheap ('cause it's failing, duh!), cut costs, and divest it of the reasons why it is failing until you then have a smaller, more efficient company that can survive and even prosper. (Unless of course the company has no core competency, in which case you merely liquidate the assets and hope you get more than you paid.) Sucks for the people who lost jobs, but that's better than the company simply continuing to fail until all its employees lose their jobs.

Nobody owes you a job, and nobody has a moral obligation to subsidize your current job.
 
What is Romney's economic plan? According to his website he wants to...

Give the wealthy another tax cut subsidized by increasing taxes on the poorest Americans.

Obama is going to cruise to reelection because deep down social Conservatives cannot vote for a Mormon. This is fact, and will be the deciding factor in every swing state should Romney get elected.
 
Exactly. I have no problem with Bain Capital either. Liberals whine because Bain laid off so many people, but that's what we do to turn around a failing company. You buy it cheap ('cause it's failing, duh!), cut costs, and divest it of the reasons why it is failing until you then have a smaller, more efficient company that can survive and even prosper. (Unless of course the company has no core competency, in which case you merely liquidate the assets and hope you get more than you paid.) Sucks for the people who lost jobs, but that's better than the company simply continuing to fail until all its employees lose their jobs.

Nobody owes you a job, and nobody has a moral obligation to subsidize your current job.

What a pollyanna-ish view of private equity buyouts. The whole industry reeks of the Lootocracy-

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&th&emc=th
 
What a pollyanna-ish view of private equity buyouts. The whole industry reeks of the Lootocracy-

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&th&emc=th

Bull.

Leveraged buy-outs (LBO's) are a legitimate way of capitalizing acquisitions.

They've been around for a very long time. I worked on some back in the early to mid 80's. My French (ex) Father-in-Law in Paris used the technique to acquire a company at the end of the 80's.

The big question is what do you do with it after the acquisition. Run it, or flip it?

Many run it (management LBO's). Others fix and flip. And if you really fixed, and did not lie in any way about it's financial condition, what happens after the sale is all on the buyer.

An LBO is nothing more than a financing mechanism. With an LBO, like ALL forms of purchase, someone (shareholder ultimately) is on the hook for the money. An LBO is at simplest just using a business's assets to secure the purchase money.

At the end of the day, there is little difference whether the shareholders put up their personal assets as collateral, or put up their assets held within the corporate shell: They are still at risk. (The latter structure may, however, offer shareholder some personal relief to the extent the assets are insufficient to cover the debt.)

Fern
 
Bull.

Leveraged buy-outs (LBO's) are a legitimate way of capitalizing acquisitions.

They've been around for a very long time. I worked on some back in the early to mid 80's. My French (ex) Father-in-Law in Paris used the technique to acquire a company at the end of the 80's.

The big question is what do you do with it after the acquisition. Run it, or flip it?

Many run it (management LBO's). Others fix and flip. And if you really fixed, and did not lie in any way about it's financial condition, what happens after the sale is all on the buyer.

An LBO is nothing more than a financing mechanism. With an LBO, like ALL forms of purchase, someone (shareholder ultimately) is on the hook for the money. An LBO is at simplest just using a business's assets to secure the purchase money.

At the end of the day, there is little difference whether the shareholders put up their personal assets as collateral, or put up their assets held within the corporate shell: They are still at risk. (The latter structure may, however, offer shareholder some personal relief to the extent the assets are insufficient to cover the debt.)

Fern

Didn't even read the article, did you?
 
LOL, if you knew me you'd know what a joke calling me "homophobic" is, hahaha, what a sad, sad, little man.

But I dont know you. I only have what you post to make my assumptions and I assume you are a homophobic person.
 
Romney is the great job destroyer. Under Obama, job creation has been slow but steady. That shows an economy is a lot easier to destroy than repair. Just like with a car. Takes seconds to smash up a car, and days/weeks to repair the car.

But ANyway...

With Romney, it would be nice to see republicans get over this religion crap, and give Romney the green light to head their party this election cycle.
Once it was anti-Catholic. This time anti-Mormon.
Isn’t it time to do as the creators of the US constitution intended, and separate Church and state?
Religion is no reason to elect, or not elect anyone.

So it would be nice to see Romney win this religion battle against the fundies.
Then lose badly to Obama. 😀
 
Romney is the great job destroyer. Under Obama, job creation has been slow but steady. That shows an economy is a lot easier to destroy than repair. Just like with a car. Takes seconds to smash up a car, and days/weeks to repair the car.

But ANyway...

With Romney, it would be nice to see republicans get over this religion crap, and give Romney the green light to head their party this election cycle.
Once it was anti-Catholic. This time anti-Mormon.
Isn’t it time to do as the creators of the US constitution intended, and separate Church and state?
Religion is no reason to elect, or not elect anyone.

So it would be nice to see Romney win this religion battle against the fundies.
Then lose badly to Obama. 😀

You forget that he's an aristocrat & a yankee. Yeh, I know that didn't stop Dubya, but he was good at faking it. He was governor of Texas! Mitt was governor of teh ebil bastion of libruhlism that is Massachussetts, where they have teh ebil soshulized med-sin, Romney care! He raised taxes! They got the Gay marriage, too!

Not to mention that he's too pragmatic, not sufficiently steeped in the inane ideological snit fit material so much favored among the Base. He probably thinks Obama was born in this country!

That boy mighta been a Republican 30 years ago, but Ronnie changed all that! He purified the Party, cast out all but the True Believers, same as Jesus cast out the money changers!

In short, Romney doesn't really understand his audience, his base, and he never will. They don't understand him, either, & they don't want to. They're incapable of it.
 
He does undoubtably have an impressive background. However, that still doesn't answer the question of what his plan is and how it could possibly help get us out of this financial crisis.

Also, how do you feel about Romney being in bed with Wall St?
romney.jpg
 
The only thing I've heard is "he has the best chance to beat Obama." I'd rather have Obama go down in flames 2013-2016 than have a RINO be at the helm when the shit hits the fan.

Why does it even matter if he can beat Obama? He's just going to be more of Obama... who was more of Bush.
 
He has a lot of appeal because he'll get things done with far greater ease then Obama. Not because he would be a better leader or push smarter policies, if anything he's Repub Lite much like the man he's trying to replace, similar right down to their healthcare plans. But because Congress Republicans would work with him to get things done. These days it is more or less a cardinal sin for a Republican to work with Obama on anything to help the country, even if they agree with the policy. Senate Democrats are not as slow to compromise as House Repubs are, going so far as to take unfavorable terms in a deal to keep America going. So it would still be an over all net gain as far as making progress is concerned.
 
He has a lot of appeal because he'll get things done with far greater ease then Obama. Not because he would be a better leader or push smarter policies, if anything he's Repub Lite much like the man he's trying to replace, similar right down to their healthcare plans. But because Congress Republicans would work with him to get things done. These days it is more or less a cardinal sin for a Republican to work with Obama on anything to help the country, even if they agree with the policy. Senate Democrats are not as slow to compromise as House Repubs are, going so far as to take unfavorable terms in a deal to keep America going. So it would still be an over all net gain as far as making progress is concerned.

Shit is fucked up and bullshit. :'(

I'm not even surprised anymore. I mean, just by looking at this election, everyone is mostly interested in putting each other down and desperately finding any way to discredit each other to give themselves a better chance at gaining power. Forget about working together to constructively come up with a solution. Things are as Machiavellian as can be.
 
In general, our resident Righties support Paulism, or Rick Parry, the idealized Repub candidate who exists only in their imaginations... Ron Paul is mostly a figment of their imaginations, too.

They got nothin', other than foam around their lips...

How can you really say that about Paul? If anything he appears to one to put his money where his mouth is and I can at least respect him for that even if I don't agree with a lot of what he says.

His voting record from what I can tell is very consistent as well.
 
I'm an Obama guy, but I like Romney because I view him as sort of capping the Tea Party movement and suffocating them, bringing the Republicans back to being normal.
 
I like his shifting views. Democrats will only need to block him when he proposes something conservative, wait 5 minutes for him to change his mind, and not just get what they want, but get Republicans to take the blame if it doesn't work out.

Sounds like a win win for your team. :thumbsup:
 
I'm embarrassed for you at this point. I'll stop now. You aren't teh gay.

Interesting that thru all that you are still thinking about ass :hmm:

You should stick to being embarrassed about yourself, and your really sad attempt at wit.
 
Back
Top