Real Americans

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Real Americans

Post by Brooke » Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:42 pm

Parrotpaul wrote:Your generalizations and retorts, at least from where I sit have very little impact on much of anything other than to make you look a little more foolish. If that's the best you have, you might want to pull your dog from the fight...you'll just end up getting upset.
Are you talking to me?

From where you sit? Hey, you are the guy that cannot even defend your own political views. Why should I take anything you have to say seriously? You might as well be talking to the nearest wall for all the impact you have around here.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

FallStar
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Real Americans

Post by FallStar » Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:43 pm

Brooke wrote: How about Obama's tax returns? He has money invested offshore and so do many members of Congress. U.S. laws permit it.

Anyone who criticizes Romney for investing money offshore is a hypocrite if they do it themselves.
Ummm, nobody is against investing money elsewhere. What people are against are the super rich hiding (not investing) money offshore in order to skirt federal income taxes. Would you like to make a wager whether or not that will be evident if he ever does release his returns? I'd bet my wife on it.

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Real Americans

Post by Brooke » Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:44 pm

Wabash wrote: He submitted over ten years worth when he ran for president in 2008.
So what, I was not talking about Obama's tax returns. Who cares. Romney is rich - get over it.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

FallStar
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Real Americans

Post by FallStar » Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:45 pm

Brooke wrote: How can you possibly be critical of Romney co-founding Bain Capital? Why?

Bush showed only two years of his tax returns and no one squawked.
Because Bain Capital has done some seriously unethical and illegal stuff.

I'm pretty sure Bush released at least six years, but don't quote me.

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Real Americans

Post by Brooke » Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:46 pm

FallStar wrote:
Ummm, nobody is against investing money elsewhere. What people are against are the super rich hiding (not investing) money offshore in order to skirt federal income taxes. Would you like to make a wager whether or not that will be evident if he ever does release his returns? I'd bet my wife on it.
Hiding it? Explain how that works? Is it illegal?
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Real Americans

Post by Parrotpaul » Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:47 pm

Not at all. So, why all the mystery?
"I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education." John Locke

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Real Americans

Post by Brooke » Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:47 pm

FallStar wrote:
Because Bain Capital has done some seriously unethical and illegal stuff.
Where is the proof?
FallStar wrote:I'm pretty sure Bush released at least six years, but don't quote me.
I won't, Fox News reported two years.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Real Americans

Post by Parrotpaul » Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:53 pm

Bev, you might try to stay a bit more up-to-date. If you want to make the effort, you will find many postings with many news stories, OPED's, Media magnates, and most of the rest of the world wondering what there is to hide, but more importantly why is he hiding it. Until he reveals what the public asks him to reveal, there will always be lingering doubts about his business conduct and whether or not that kind of conduct befits a POTUS. That said...don't expect people to re-compose posts and threads that have in abundance answered the above question you asked.
"I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education." John Locke

FallStar
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Real Americans

Post by FallStar » Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:59 pm

It's impossible to prove if their actions were illegal because they can claim ignorance. If you're that naive, then there's no point in discussing the legal implications.

However, issuing hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds and then paying yourself tens of millions of dollars in dividends and "management fees" before bankrupting the company is highly immoral, unethical, and illegal.

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Real Americans

Post by Brooke » Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:07 pm

Parrotpaul wrote:Bev, you might try to stay a bit more up-to-date. If you want to make the effort, you will find many postings with many news stories, OPED's, Media magnates, and most of the rest of the world wondering what there is to hide, but more importantly why is he hiding it. Until he reveals what the public asks him to reveal, there will always be lingering doubts about his business conduct and whether or not that kind of conduct befits a POTUS. That said...don't expect people to re-compose posts and threads that have in abundance answered the above question you asked.
What business conduct? I have not hear one word about his business conduct.

If you are serious then give me a link or two. Or is that way too much effort?
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Real Americans

Post by Brooke » Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:09 pm

FallStar wrote:It's impossible to prove if their actions were illegal because they can claim ignorance. If you're that naive, then there's no point in discussing the legal implications.

However, issuing hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds and then paying yourself tens of millions of dollars in dividends and "management fees" before bankrupting the company is highly immoral, unethical, and illegal.
What companies did he bankrupt? I am not aware of that. Bain Capital acquired businesses and helped them to expand with sometimes spectacular results.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
Parrotpaul
Posts: 33550
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:14 pm

Re: Real Americans

Post by Parrotpaul » Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:15 pm

Again, Bev,,,there are plethoras of discussions and threads that deal specifically with the answers you seek...please, seek them, don't wear people out asking them to re-do what they have already done.
"I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education." John Locke

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Real Americans

Post by Brooke » Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:23 pm

Parrotpaul wrote:Again, Bev,,,there are plethoras of discussions and threads that deal specifically with the answers you seek...please, seek them, don't wear people out asking them to re-do what they have already done.
I asked for a link or two. Surely, someone as wise as you are can easily come up with at least one.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Real Americans

Post by Brooke » Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:27 pm

Parrotpaul wrote:Again, Bev,,,there are plethoras of discussions and threads that deal specifically with the answers you seek...please, seek them, don't wear people out asking them to re-do what they have already done.
Found one. This is sbh's reply to Wabash.
sbh wrote:
I do have a personal problem and you are the fault. You are a misleading liar, and you readily admit it.

Bain Capital does not buy healthy companies and loot them. That is a lie.

Bain Capital buys distressed companies, and fixes the problems to sell at a profit. You know, one of the basic models of capitalism, buy low, sell high. But that appears to bother you that someone might actually works to earn a profit.
http://occonnect.com/community/viewtopi ... al#p368621
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Real Americans

Post by GOODave » Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:43 pm

pattywannamack wrote:
No, I am not making that in response to Bristol Palin, I am just making the point that businesses in this country intrinsically rely on the stability that the government provides (along with a whole slew of other things that can be argued as well). So yes, you are right, that stability was inherent in just about every other presidency we have had in the past 100 years or so.

Given that logic, it's not like Obama's statement was completely off base (just like it would not be off base for ANY president to make that statement), especially when you watch the speech and hear the quote in full context.



All he is saying is that "yes you did need some individual initiative to make your business happen, but you also needed to rely on a ton of other things beyond your control and if it weren't for those things your business wouldn't exist."

His speech was trying to unify Americans and to have all of us pitch in, work together, and make something great happen. He wants us to realize that we sometimes do need to rely on other people and when those other people are in trouble you have to give back.

But again, I listen to that speech through unbiased ears, I can see how it can get twisted and easily manipulated in the ears of either rhetoric.

As for the economy, I would argue the real problem has been the immense de-regulation which ultimately resulted in the collapse of our credit market. Now that our credit market has collapsed, the government is beginning to regulate it more harshly, and with these regulations, the creditors no longer know how to create a profit and thus they are super conservative with how they lend. You can ask my mom all about it. Her business has been looking for a loan for 5 years now and has never received one despite the fact that she has hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash on hand, and shows consistent profits and growth each year.
No, Patty, that is NOT what he said. He opened with one thought (that businesses typically have help along the way), as you note. But he ends with a different, and quite erroneous and arrogant point (the now famous "...you didn't do that" part).

Had he stopped with the first statement, few would have disagreed. But he did not: he went on to more strongly repudiate the business owner's efforts in favor of the allness of governments support.

Had he stopped with his first point, no way you will ever hear it for Romney or any of the conservativese... Because he was right. And, further, if he misspoke, he could have clarified it in the days that followed... But he did not.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24242
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 1 time

Re: Real Americans

Post by Wabash » Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:56 pm

Brooke wrote:
Found one. This is sbh's reply to Wabash.
sbh wrote:
I do have a personal problem and you are the fault. You are a misleading liar, and you readily admit it.

Bain Capital does not buy healthy companies and loot them. That is a lie.

Bain Capital buys distressed companies, and fixes the problems to sell at a profit. You know, one of the basic models of capitalism, buy low, sell high. But that appears to bother you that someone might actually works to earn a profit.
http://occonnect.com/community/viewtopi ... al#p368621
I agree that SBH's claim was a lie.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

FallStar
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Real Americans

Post by FallStar » Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:25 pm

Brooke wrote: What companies did he bankrupt? I am not aware of that. Bain Capital acquired businesses and helped them to expand with sometimes spectacular results.
Armco, GST, Dade.... I'm sure there are more.

They charge 2% management fees, pay themselves dividends, borrow money by using assets as collateral, and if they improve the overall earnings by a certain percentage (not tough to do for a lot of companies), they earn 20% on top of that, to which they pay 15% taxes (or in Romney's case just filter it through the Cayman Islands and pay 0%). If the company goes bankrupt, they keep their 2% management fee, all the dividends they paid themselves, and all the money they "borrowed" against the companies assets. They brush their hands off and walk away scot-free. They basically cannot lose.

I'm not saying they are aiming to bankrupt companies to earn money. Obviously it's in their best interest to turn large companies around, earn profits, and take on more projects with lots of investors. However, when a company is in a downward spiral and you milk it dry, that is illegal and unethical. In the case of Dade, the company went bankrupt under Bain yet they walked away with $242 million dollars on a $30 million dollar investment.

Jerry Sandusky contributed to charities, worked with the poor, and took in young boys and gave them hope for the future.

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Real Americans

Post by Brooke » Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:58 pm

Wabash wrote: I agree that SBH's claim was a lie.
Who said it was a lie besides yourself?
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

User avatar
tLIB
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:35 pm

Re: Real Americans

Post by tLIB » Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:35 pm

Brooke wrote: * He gave a certain group of illegals amnesty and with that the promise of a total amnesty for all the millions here illegally will follow if he is re-elected.
Do you support Romney on this issue?
SCHIEFFER: “[W]ould you repeal [Obama’s immigration] order if you became president?” …

ROMNEY: “This is something Congress has been working on, and I thought we were about to see some proposals brought forward by Senator Marco Rubio and by Democrat senators, but the President jumped in and said I’m going to take this action … [H]e was president for the last three and a half years and did nothing on immigration. Two years he had a Democrat House and Senate, did nothing of a permanent or long-term basis. What I would do, is I’d make sure that by coming into office, I would work with Congress to put in place a long-term solution for the children of those that have come here illegally.” …

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/06/18/re ... z21cKuBTkm
“For those that are here as the children of those who came here illegally, I want to make sure they have a permanent answer to what their status will be,” Romney said in the interview, “and I’ve indicated in my view that those who serve in the military and have advanced degrees would certainly qualify for that kind of permanent status.”

User avatar
Brooke
Posts: 21580
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:51 am

Re: Real Americans

Post by Brooke » Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:25 pm

FallStar wrote:
Armco, GST, Dade.... I'm sure there are more.

They charge 2% management fees, pay themselves dividends, borrow money by using assets as collateral, and if they improve the overall earnings by a certain percentage (not tough to do for a lot of companies), they earn 20% on top of that, to which they pay 15% taxes (or in Romney's case just filter it through the Cayman Islands and pay 0%). If the company goes bankrupt, they keep their 2% management fee, all the dividends they paid themselves, and all the money they "borrowed" against the companies assets. They brush their hands off and walk away scot-free. They basically cannot lose.

I'm not saying they are aiming to bankrupt companies to earn money. Obviously it's in their best interest to turn large companies around, earn profits, and take on more projects with lots of investors. However, when a company is in a downward spiral and you milk it dry, that is illegal and unethical. In the case of Dade, the company went bankrupt under Bain yet they walked away with $242 million dollars on a $30 million dollar investment.
This is what I found on Armco. It doesn't look like Romney was personally involved. "BUT: To be clear, it appears Romney still gets an income from Bain," doesn't exactly prove your point does it?
Reuters appears to have spent some significant time exploring ties between Romney’s firm, Bain Capital, and the chain of owners of the plant, which shut down for good in 2001, costing 750 workers their jobs, after declaring bankruptcy.

The company was called GST Steel when it closed in 2001.

(UPDATE: The Reuters story mentions this, but doesn’t make it a big part of the story: Romney left Bain in 1999, before the steel company’s 2001 bankruptcy.)

(BUT: To be clear, it appears Romney still gets an income from Bain.)

Read more here: http://midwestdemocracy.com/blogs/entri ... rylink=cpy
If you are claiming that Romney and his co-founders engaged in illegal activities I don't believe you. They would have had top lawyers and accountants giving them advice on what to do with the money they earned from Bain.
Who in their right mind uses a welcome sign to mean people who would come into their home uninvited, paid by their neighbors who are using their illegal labor, overrun the neighborhood, and refuse to leave?

Post Reply