Romney stayed longer at Bain

[CaptainGoodnight]

Hopefully Obama will ask Holder to investigate....two clowns looking for a circus.

I wish they would actually. It would prove this whole thing to be a shame.

 

[fskimospy]

No, are not reading Occam's razor right. Has nothing to do with simplicity. It is often incorrectly stated as "other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one." It says that one should go with more simple theories until simplicity can be discarded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate.

I'm happy to see that you are now agreeing with me that Occam's razor is an argument for simplicity. That is exactly what you wrote you realize, right? If you go back and read the wiki article that you got that from you will come to see that I am correct.

Also about him still being CEO on SEC after he left:

From FactCheck.org

I agree that it does not make him liable for decisions like layoffs or outsourcing. Still, the SEC has specific definitions for what people are. While it does not set about what level of involvement, it certainly appears to presuppose a nonzero level of involvement by definition. Romney claims zero involvement. Furthermore, it's interesting that even that professor appears to believe that Romney has potentially opened himself up to civil liability through false statements in these filings.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oh?

Back during his gubernatorial campaign:

"There were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth."

"I remained on the board of the Staples Corporation and Marriott International, the LifeLike Corporation."

Now he's saying he had zero participation in Bain.

Well which one is it?

ROFL. Did you read any of the previous posts on this issue?

 

[cybrsage]

It would be interesting to see if any Microsoft people are listed as people on Apples board or as any of it's officers. Kind of doubt it.

They are not. AFAIK, it was part of the deal so the fed would not sue them for being a monopoly. Interestingly, many other companies have members on Apple's board:

Who are the members of Apple's board of directors?

Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Genentech, Inc.

William V. Campbell
Chairman and former CEO
Intuit, Inc.

Tim Cook
CEO
Apple

Millard S. Drexler
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
J. Crew

Albert Gore, Jr.
Former Vice President of the United States

Robert A. Iger
President and Chief Executive Officer
The Walt Disney Company

Andrea Jung
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Avon Products, Inc.

Ronald D. Sugar, Ph.D.
Former Chairman and CEO
Northrop Grumman Corporation
What are the board committees and their members?

Apple's board of directors has three committees: Audit and Finance, Nominating and Compensation.

The Audit and Finance committee members are Ronald D. Sugar, Ph.D. (Chairperson), Robert A. Iger, and Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D.

The Compensation committee members are Andrea Jung (Chairperson), William V. Campbell, Millard S. Drexler, and Albert Gore, Jr.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance committee members are William V. Campbell (Chairperson), Millard S. Drexler, and Albert Gore, Jr.

Interestingly enough, Al Gore Jr's daddy gave him a job with the board at Apple. It now makes sense why the global warming alarmists give Apple a free pass on their evils.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

I'm happy to see that you are now agreeing with me that Occam's razor is an argument for simplicity. That is exactly what you wrote you realize, right? If you go back and read the wiki article that you got that from you will come to see that I am correct.



I agree that it does not make him liable for decisions like layoffs or outsourcing. Still, the SEC has specific definitions for what people are. While it does not set about what level of involvement, it certainly appears to presuppose a nonzero level of involvement by definition. Romney claims zero involvement. Furthermore, it's interesting that even that professor appears to believe that Romney has potentially opened himself up to civil liability through false statements in these filings.

Haha. I lifted that off wikipedia on purpose cause I know you would check wikipedia first because you have no clue what Occam's razor is.

Anyway,

Really, the more you dig into the more the whole thing falls apart.

Where I wholly agree there are "discrepancies" with Romney, there is really nothing that points to any wrong doing.

I've compared it to the Obama birther thing. On the surface there are some discrepancies, but in reality the whole thing falls apart.

 

[blankslate]

Interestingly enough, Al Gore Jr's daddy gave him a job with the board at Apple.

Nepotism isn't new. Not that it's a good practice... bbbbuuuutt, Al Gore invented the internet after all...

no wait this guy did...

Vint Cerf... but he says something nice about Al Gore

Al Gore had seen what happened with the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, which his father introduced as a military bill. It was very powerful. Housing went up, suburban boom happened, everybody became mobile. Al was attuned to the power of networking much more than any of his elective colleagues. His initiatives led directly to the commercialization of the Internet. So he really does deserve credit.

too bad Al Gore just didn't have the personality of Clinton... even if he lied about bj's in the oval office.

 

[dank69]

Haha. I lifted that off wikipedia on purpose cause I know you would check wikipedia first because you have no clue what Occam's razor is.

Anyway,

Really, the more you dig into the more the whole thing falls apart.

Where I wholly agree there are "discrepancies" with Romney, there is really nothing that points to any wrong doing.

I've compared it to the Obama birther thing. On the surface there are some discrepancies, but in reality the whole thing falls apart.

You are on a tech forum. Every person here knows what occam's razor is.

 

[fskimospy]

Haha. I lifted that off wikipedia on purpose cause I know you would check wikipedia first because you have no clue what Occam's razor is.

Wait, you lifted part of wikipedia's explanation of Occam's razor that supported by statement as part of a master plan to prove me wrong? This is some pretty amazing forum judo, lol. My description of Occam's razor remains correct. You did not use it correctly earlier. End of story.

Anyway,

Really, the more you dig into the more the whole thing falls apart.

Where I wholly agree there are "discrepancies" with Romney, there is really nothing that points to any wrong doing.

I've compared it to the Obama birther thing. On the surface there are some discrepancies, but in reality the whole thing falls apart.

I don't believe that Romney engaged in any wrongdoing, I just believe he is being duplicitous in his description of his relationship to Bain. This has been an enormously foolish campaign flub for him where he has elevated a fairly innocuous attack on him into a big deal because he was trying to be too cute with his definitions. What's sad is that by his own argument he was given enormous sums of money for doing nothing while his firm was laying workers off. That's hugely shitty all on its own.

This is also not in any way comparable to the birther thing. There are no discrepancies in Obama's birth records.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Wait, you lifted part of wikipedia's explanation of Occam's razor that supported by statement as part of a master plan to prove me wrong? This is some pretty amazing forum judo, lol. My description of Occam's razor remains correct. You did not use it correctly earlier. End of story.



I don't believe that Romney engaged in any wrongdoing, I just believe he is being duplicitous in his description of his relationship to Bain. This has been an enormously foolish campaign flub for him where he has elevated a fairly innocuous attack on him into a big deal because he was trying to be too cute with his definitions. What's sad is that by his own argument he was given enormous sums of money for doing nothing while his firm was laying workers off. That's hugely shitty all on its own.

This is also not in any way comparable to the birther thing. There are no discrepancies in Obama's birth records.

I can provide you with some excellent books on the Philosophy of science if you want if you are interested. Good place to start is "Philosophy of science : a beginner's guide", by Geoffrey Gorham and work your way up to Popper's Science: Conjectures and Refutations

 

[Lemon law]

Well, I kinda fail to see the difference, does in really matter if Romney directed all kinds of of vicious and immoral behavior at Bain capital or if Romney hired some vicious and inhumane moral midgets to do it for him?

Either way, Romney is rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.

 

[mshan]

Just saw this link on Google News: http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ey-tv-interviews-bain-capital-/1#.UACHs_X-mSo

(no MSNBC, but presumably that's because they have been hammering Romney relentlessly for days)

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Genx87 View Post
I really cant believe I am going to bother addressing such a non-story. But according to people who work at Bain. He didnt have much to do with Bain after leaving in Feb of 1999. Are they also liars?

That is directly countered by Romney's own sworn statements. He has testified under oath that he participated in board meetings for Staples and another Bain held company during that time.

So was he lying under oath then?

EDIT: Quotes from Romney's sworn statement include a statement for determining his eligibility to run for governor:



How is that anything but involvement with Bain portfolio companies?

What are you trying to say here?

When he's attending a Staples meeting he's involved in Staple's business, not Bain's.

None of this is relevant.

Fern

 

[Fern]

One of those non-linked out of the ass numbers.

That number has been all over the news.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
If you take Romney's word at face value he was basically some guy getting paid a six figure salary for explicitly doing nothing. For someone who complains about freeloaders that's pretty shitty regardless.

So what?

He owned the company.

If he didn't take it as salary he still would have received it. It would have been paid out as a dividend.

Since he supposedly owned the company it's all his money anyway.

This is stupid.

Fern

 

[techs]

As stated in the other thread.
Romney has stated under oath back in early 2000's that he had nothing to do with Bain or any company Bain owned since 1999. He was doing this to prove residency in Mass. to run for Governor.
Now there seems to be proof that he was involved with companies that Bain owned, and in fact signed SEC documents after that date.
Thats a felony.

 

[mshan]

Wonder if Romney's interviews this night will be his Jeremiah Wright moment, or McLame's fiasco (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-power-wall-street/#b episode 2 starting at 44 minute mark) of suspending his campaign to call meeting at White House about collapse of stock markets around time of TARP (Front Line said his fumbling around with cue cards his staff had produced, not knowing what to say, then having Obama have to step in and talk with competence had Republicans in meeting saying they were voting for Obama, too).

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I agree that it does not make him liable for decisions like layoffs or outsourcing. Still, the SEC has specific definitions for what people are. While it does not set about what level of involvement, it certainly appears to presuppose a nonzero level of involvement by definition. Romney claims zero involvement. Furthermore, it's interesting that even that professor appears to believe that Romney has potentially opened himself up to civil liability through false statements in these filings.

Potential liability to whom?

Bain had exactly one investor: Mitt Romney.

So you're saying he's going to sue himself?

Jeebus, progressives are damned nutty when it comes to business etc.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Our friends on the left either don't understand or are willfully ignoring the purpose of attending board meetings. The board doesn't manage the company; the board manages the direction of the company. I attend both BOD meetings and planning meetings. The board meeting is where one learns the state of one's investment and the company's broad direction until the next board meeting. Directors don't establish that direction; directors are largely limited to removing the officers if they don't like the direction pursued. A board meeting elects officers, reviews the financial statement for the past year compared to its projection, and reviews the projected financial statements. Heck, in many large corporations most of the directors aren't even employees as their primary function is to ensure that the best management team is in place and behaving in a smart and ethical manner. In the case of Romney and Bain, Bain could hardly have held a board of directors meeting without him since at the time he was the only stockholder, and legally the corporation is required to hold a BOD meeting at least once a year. (Might be higher legal requirements for some corporations, as ours wouldn't cause a ripple if it folded.)

Planning and management meetings on the other are where the company management happens. Whereas the board of directors meets yearly to perhaps quarterly and does not interfere with another full time job, planning and management meetings occur weekly to monthly and take much, much more time. I suspect (though I don't know) that if Romney attended any actual planning and management meetings for Staples, they were related to expansion, either geographically or in market. As sole owner of Staples' holding company, Romney's approval for large capital expenditures would have been highly desirable for any CXO wishing to remain employed - and if Bain was being asked to provide the capital for the expansion, Romney's attendance might well be required for approval. It's not unusual to require BOD approval above certain limits and/or to significantly change the year's financial statement. If for instance Bain's balance sheet projected a $10 million net positive cash flow from Staples and instead Staples was asking for an additional $100 million investment to enter a new region or introduce a new product line or marketing technique, bet your ass a BOD meeting would be required.

The two statements are simply not in conflict.

 

[fskimospy]

Potential liability to whom?

Bain had exactly one investor: Mitt Romney.

So you're saying he's going to sue himself?

Jeebus, progressives are damned nutty when it comes to business etc.

Fern

Fern, it's sort of nice to watch you having not read the thread and slowly evolve your position and all, but jeez man conservatives have some damned nutty ideas when it comes to business.

You realize that businesses like Staples and such that Bain owned had other investors, right? You really thought that Mitt Romney owned 100% of everything that Bain Capital exerted management and ownership stakes over? That's the only way this argument of yours would make any sense, because otherwise you would of course realize that people could invest based on Mitt's false SEC filings. I'm going to assume instead that you just didn't think this all through very well.

 

[fskimospy]

So what?

He owned the company.

If he didn't take it as salary he still would have received it. It would have been paid out as a dividend.

Since he supposedly owned the company it's all his money anyway.

This is stupid.

Fern

This is stupid.

No one is saying he stole the money, only that it is shitty for him to do so. Bain Capital charges management fees to the businesses that it controls. These management fees would have to be larger in order to pay Mitt Romney his money for doing nothing. Having your group increase fees to your owned businesses for this purpose while laying off workers there is shitty. Similarly if you own a business and you lay off extra workers so that you can give their salary to some layabout nephew of yours to do nothing it is not illegal, but it is still shitty.

This isn't really that complicated.

 

[fskimospy]

What are you trying to say here?

When he's attending a Staples meeting he's involved in Staple's business, not Bain's.

None of this is relevant.

Fern

Finally I hope you have now read the rest of the thread and realized your mistake on this one. It pays to read the whole thread before commenting, just as an FYI.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Finally I hope you have now read the rest of the thread and realized your mistake on this one. It pays to read the whole thread before commenting, just as an FYI.

Reposted again since you aren't reading this thread. Pay attention to paragraph 3 there.

Editing this post. Factcheck.org says it better:

From: http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/ Emphasis added.

During this time Romney remained on the boards of Staples and another company in which Bain had invested, LifeLike Co., a company that made dolls. As evidence of his continued ties to Massachusetts, the report states that Romney “returned to Massachusetts from Utah to attend meetings at Staples.” But there’s no mention of Romney attending any business meetings at Bain itself or any of Bain’s investment funds.

We note for the record our disagreement with a July 12 Huffington Post report, which cites Romney’s membership on the LifeLike board as evidence that his claim to have had no active involvement with Bain or any Bain entity is “false.” No so, in our judgment.

We think the term “Bain Capital entity” on Romney’s disclosure forms could only refer to Bain’s various investment funds, not to companies in which it invested. And in the three days that Romney sought to document his continued ties to Massachusetts, so he could run for governor, he made no mention of attending any meetings at Bain itself or any of the various Bain partnerships.

LifeLike was one of Bain’s smaller investments, and a failure. A Jan. 9 Wall Street Journal report says that in 1996 Bain had invested $2.1 million in the privately held Colorado firm for a stake of “unknown size,” but sold those shares in late 2001 for $15,000. The company was later liquidated, the Journal reported.

On the broader question of Romney’s involvement with Bain during this time, we concur with Kessler’s conclusion. “The Obama campaign is blowing smoke here,” he says, adding “the weight of evidence suggests that Romney did in fact end active management of Bain in 1999.”

 

[fskimospy]

Reposted again since you aren't reading this thread. Pay attention to paragraph 3 there.

Editing this post. Factcheck.org says it better:

From: http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bain-years-new-evidence-same-conclusion/ Emphasis added.

Repeating myself since you aren't reading this thread. Pay attention to my many previous posts on the matter.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

ROFL. Did you read any of the previous posts on this issue?

Are you claiming he didnt say these things?

Google away.

 

[Lemon law]

As Fern, in all due respects and INMO some how says, "So you're saying he's going to sue himself" For being a lying sack of shit is my additional comment.

As I think Fern totally misses the point here, its not a matter of Romney suing himself, its a matter of the SEC putting Mitt Romney in jail for false and fraudulent financial statements.

And earth to Fern, those false and fraudulent statements are felonies under the laws of this nation. Just because the SEC did not know they were fraudulent Statements in the time period 1999-2002, does not disguise the fact, the SEC sure knows it now.