The 99 percent: Gingrich, Perry rip Romney for Bain work

posted at 7:30 pm on January 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

Go look at the headline at National Journal. It has, it seems, come to this.

Card-carrying Romney critic Philip Klein, who’s spent years writing posts dumping on RomneyCare, can’t believe he’s being forced to defend you-know-who:

It’s nothing short of disgraceful behavior from Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman and Texas Gov. Rick Perry…

Romney’s rivals are engaging in the type of Marxist rhetoric that we’re used to hearing from Occupy Wall Street protesters, promoting an imaginary view of capitalism that’s exists only in Hollywood.

In reality, capitalism is the most moral economic system ever conceived of, because it’s the only one that’s consistent with personal freedom. Investors such as Romney pump money into businesses, and often have to cut jobs in an attempt to make them more efficient and profitable. And sometimes they fail despite their best efforts. But by cutting their losses, they have more money to invest in other businesses, and hopefully the gains outweigh the losses. In Romney’s case, he was tremendously successful overall, helping to grow businesses such as Domino’s and Staples that now employ tens of thousands of workers. In the process, he produced huge returns for his investors, who in turn had more money to invest elsewhere. However tragic the displacement of some workers was, on a net basis, companies like Bain help fuel economic growth. And there’s also no reason to believe that jobs that were lost – in steel investments, for instance – would have survived anyway. None of his rivals are accusing Romney of doing anything illegal or fraudulent in his business dealings, so it’s purely an attack on capitalism. It’s sad to see them go this route.

The money quote from Gingrich: “If somebody comes in, takes all the money out of your company and then leaves you bankrupt while they go off with millions, that’s not traditional capitalism.” Is that what Bain did — took all the money out of a company and then left it to die? According to the Journal, just 22 percent of the businesses acquired by Bain during Romney’s tenure ended up filing for bankruptcy afterwards. Another eight percent failed, but failed so badly that Bain lost its entire investment. And yet, if you believe Perry, the reason any of these businesses were shut down “was so that Bain Capital could profit and he could get richer.” Question for him and Gingrich: What rate of success in turning around acquisitions would exempt a private equity firm from charges of “looting,” as Newt puts it? 90 percent? 99? A full 100?

More from Avik Roy, another RomneyCare critic, who describes this as “Romney Derangement Syndrome”:

Frequently, these turnarounds initially involve layoffs — when they work, the layoffs act as a kind of pruning that allows a tree to grow again. When the turnarounds fail, however, the layoffs don’t work, and the company goes bankrupt. More often than not, these bankruptcies would have happened anyway: In the case of Bain’s investments in the steel industry, for example, cheap steel imports from abroad made it difficult for most American firms to survive…

#page#In some cases Bain may have made mistakes in its turnaround efforts, or misjudged an original business opportunity. That’s, again, what happens in the private sector. Success is not guaranteed. On the other hand, it’s fair to say that private-equity firms such as Bain Capital were responsible for many of the productivity gains, and the retreat of sclerotic labor unions, that the American economy generated in the 1990s. Rest assured that Bain would have not generated those spectacular returns for its investors, nor attracted those investors in the first place, if the majority of its investments failed…

It’s been discouraging to read that many conservatives see Romney’s record at Bain Capital as a liability. For the truth is the opposite: Romney is a candidate uniquely suited to defending the role of free enterprise in the American economy. When liberal politicians and journalists argue that layoffs are cruel, and that capitalism is unfair, Mitt Romney can speak to how dealing frontally with a business’s problems can lead to better and more numerous jobs over the long term. He can speak not merely in abstract philosophical terms, but using the real-world examples from his successes and his failures.

Go look at the table James Pethokoukis posted tracking “creative destruction” of jobs over the 20th century. The one fair point Gingrich and Perry supporters have in defending their guys is that Romney seemed to get off awfully easy back in September when he started tearing Perry down over his Social Security rhetoric. That attack is as offensive as this one, really: At a moment when conservatives are desperate for the country to think boldly about entitlement reform, there was good ol’ Mitt hammering Perry for being too bold. Could be that the Romney critics are right and that Mitt simply gets a pass for his brass-knuckles attacks because he’s — allegedly — the most electable candidate, but I think there’s more to it. Pandering to Republicans on entitlements is semi-accepted on the right because (a) like it or not, a lot of self-described conservative voters are fans of Social Security and Medicare and (b) the GOP itself used Mediscare arguments to great effect in the 2010 midterm elections in campaigning against ObamaCare. The attacks on Romney’s “creative destruction” in the private sector are unusual for a Republican campaign, though, and sit badly after months of screeching from OWSers about “the one percent.” (The boss emeritus, in fact, describes Gingrich and Perry as having “gone Occupier.”) If the right stands for anything, it’s capitalism — even more so than entitlement reform, strong defense, or “values.” Quoth the Club for Growth, “Newt Gingrich’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital are disgusting… Because of the efforts of Bain Capital, major companies like Staples, Domino’s Pizza, and the Sports Authority now employ thousands of people and have created billions in wealth in the private economy. Attacking Governor Romney for participating in free-market capitalism is just beyond the pale for any purported ‘Reagan Conservative.’”

Fairly or not, I think Gingrich and Perry are also paying a price today because their timing stinks of desperation. If Romney’s buyout record troubled them, they should have clubbed him with it from the beginning. Turning to it in the eleventh hour, after he’s won Iowa and is on the brink of putting them on ice in New Hampshire, makes it look like something they’ve resorted to not because they believe it but because it might work. And yeah, I know — politics ain’t beanbag, but if you’re going to hit a guy hard, can you at least not betray everything you supposedly believe about free markets in doing so? If Newt really does believe what he’s saying, why did he take it back after he attacked Romney on Bain the first time? Exit quotation from Rick Santorum, when asked to criticize Romney on Bain: “I’m not making it a liability. I believe in the private sector.”

Update: Here’s the best question of all: If you want to hit Romney for what happened at Bain, why not focus on this?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8 9

peachaeo on January 9, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Indeed! Sad how even after you explained it to them, they still don’t get it.

Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

They have actually siphoned off our profits and stopped paying our bills.

There’s something really weird about your whole story, but this is a little off. If they own the company, then they are THEIR profits, not yours.

The money is going into new aquistions,our suppliers and creditors will be left holding the bag when the music stops.

Are they paying the bills of the acquisitions? Are you talking about fraud here? What are you saying? That your part of the company is dying? I don’t get your heart-rending story.

The math isn’t that complicated, many firms extended us credit, primarily our suppliers. We use those materials to turn a reasonable modest profit which is then siphoned off to the holding company that owns us. It isn’t used to pay back the creditors, eventually we go belly up. Everyone that worked their butts off to make the place successful is out of work, the creditors are out the cash, and the holding company goes it’s merry way with a nice chunk of cash.

HoosierHawk on January 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

So … you’re just saying that they’re (you like to think of it as “you’re”, but it’s “they’re”) going out of business and stopped paying creditors. And? You weep for the workers of the world united to make the place successful, but what does that have to do with anything?

I’m going to report this story to fishy@lindaellerbee.gov. It reeks.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

HoosierHawk on January 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Unfortunate that people choose to run their businesses this way. Fortunately, we live (at least somewhat for now) in a free society where we can choose to take our talents and ability to be productive and sell it to any employer who is willing to pay for it. No one forces us to work for a company that operates unethically.

gotsig on January 9, 2012 at 11:29 PM

you need an intelligent attack on Romneycare. That is asking for a miracle with this crop of candidates.

peachaeo on January 9, 2012 at 11:19 PM

If RomneyCare was going to sink him, it would have already happened. In the general, Obama and co. aren’t going to attack Romney on Romneycare.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 9, 2012 at 11:29 PM

ray on January 9, 2012 at 11:24 PM

They are NOT attacking “capitalism”, they are questioning BAIN. It’s a VERY specific attack. Perry is all about the free market and capitalism what with wanting, “less regulation, less litigation, and lower taxes to create an enviroment for entrepreneurs to risk their capital“.

This isn’t about “capitalism”, this is about ROMNEY and BAIN.

Stop being a sheep.

Aslans Girl on January 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM

I’m going to report this story to fishy@lindaellerbee.gov. It reeks.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Thread winner!

Good night….

Buy Danish on January 9, 2012 at 11:31 PM

I will not support Gingrich EVER, for anything. He is filthy socialist scum who can run off with Pelosi for all I care.

Adjoran on January 9, 2012 at 11:31 PM

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Yep. And it seems that time only needed 5 months to change. Change we can believe in I guess…
Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Who could have expected back then that Perry & Newt, via this misadventure, would end up making Mitt look conservative? Now that’s some irony for ya, right there.

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:31 PM

HoosierHawk on January 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Whiner! You just HATE capitalism! And America! And apple pie!

Good Solid B-Plus on January 9, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Have you heard about the loathsome loser? Newt must think he’s running for the Dem nomination.

EddieC on January 9, 2012 at 11:31 PM

I dare you to name them ;-)

peachaeo on January 9, 2012 at 11:20 PM

Oops.

Sorry, that was a cheapshot…

gotsig on January 9, 2012 at 11:31 PM

WE’RE ALL RINOS NOW!!!!

MadisonianRombot on January 9, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Romneycare was not all Romney’s idea. Remember he was running a liberal state with 85% of the legislature being Democrats. Universal health care was coming whether he supported it or not, and cover the uninsured whether they paid for it or not. So he fashioned a plan to make the uninsured pay more a little more for it than just letting them be covered by the other taxpayers and work through a private insurer instead of the state as a single payer. Some of it got changed by the legislature and his vetoes were overridden.

That does not amount to an endorsement of Obamacare, and I think that he has learned an important lesson about the difference between such things at a state level vs. the wisdom of trying to do them on a national level. As he points out, the plan is still highly popular in Massachusetts. But Obamacare is not popular in the nation as whole and Mitt is not about to stand as a Republican President with a Republican Congress and spit into the wind. You may not like his pragmatism, but you can’t say he’s that stupid or crazy.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, . . . is for another post.

flataffect on January 9, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Aslans Girl on January 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Actually, you are attacking capitalism. You are attacking a business for it’s practices that you can’t show were illegal or unethical all the while screaming about how bad it was for Romney to make a profit for his service. On what planet would you call that other then attacking capitalism?

Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:33 PM

The undesirable classes do not voluntarily liquidate themselves.”- Joseph Stalin Newtie, Perry and Huntie. And Baracky.

(Or: “The Communists base themselves on rich historical experience which teaches that obsolete classes do not voluntarily abandon the stage of history.”)

profitsbeard on January 9, 2012 at 11:33 PM

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Lol. This is why I believe in miracles, because they both created one with these shenanigans.

Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Lots of pretzel logic going on on this thread. I think we all need to step back and stop compromising with ourselves on our principles because we are personally invested in a certain candidate. These candidates ALL need to stand or fall on their own merits. My biggest beef with this whole primary is that the establishment is trying to cut it short so their guy Romney doesn’t have to undergo much scrutiny. Since the media up to now has failed to put Romney under the microscope, the candidates themselves are doing it. This is a good thing.

KickandSwimMom on January 9, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Aslans Girl on January 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Actually, you are attacking capitalism. You are attacking a business for it’s practices that you can’t show were illegal or unethical all the while screaming about how bad it was for Romney to make a profit for his service. On what planet would you call that other then attacking capitalism?
Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Indeed. And aren’t such fantasy-based attacks the meat and potatoes of the fringe left?

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:38 PM

’m going to report this story to fishy@lindaellerbee.gov. It reeks.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 9, 2012 at 11:28 PM

You can attempt to be as funny and as skeptical as you like, but Hoosier Hawk’s story isn’t unfamiliar to me.

kakypat on January 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:38 PM

A fews names here have been perusing Democrat Underground it seems.

Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:41 PM

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Lol. This is why I believe in miracles, because they both created one with these shenanigans.
Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:35 PM

When this flops badly Newt has a backup plan – he’s going after Perry for committing gun crimes. Perry does own a gun, after all.

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:41 PM

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:38 PM

A fews names here have been perusing Democrat Underground it seems.
Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:41 PM

I posted a link to DU earlier – virtually interchangeable.

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:43 PM

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Did Perry skirt our gun laws by going to a gun show to buy his? Newt wants to know.

Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:44 PM

You can attempt to be as funny and as skeptical as you like, but Hoosier Hawk’s story isn’t unfamiliar to me.

kakypat on January 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Businesses die for many reasons. And creditors who are worried about getting their capital back have the responsibility of placing their money with due diligence.

Again, if people are talking about fraud, that is another discussion. If you are talking about creditors who make some assumption that they’ll be bailed out by another entity, that is also another story. But the natural death of a business comes in many forms and usually management wants to make the most of a place as it is being put down. You don’t sell a whole portfolio in an afternoon. You still have to manage it for a while.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 9, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Did Perry skirt our gun laws by going to a gun show to buy his? Newt wants to know.

Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Typical Mittbot. Attacking the 2nd amendment because Mitt looks bad.

tetriskid on January 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM

tetriskid on January 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Ohh thank you! I got the coveted Mittbot award. I would like to thank capitalism and Newt!

I have no problem with gun shows or the second amendment. It’s what we like to call around here a “joke”. No need to get your undies in a bunch over it.

Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Asians Girl, unless you got something illegal or unethical about Bain you are no better than, or maybe are, a full blown OWS.

I’ll be waiting for the proof of either or both. Thanks in advance.

UT Cowboy on January 9, 2012 at 11:54 PM

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Did Perry skirt our gun laws by going to a gun show to buy his? Newt wants to know.
Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:44 PM

I imagine there are more than a few unsolved gun related crimes in Texas. If Perry were not involved, he needs to “vetted” to clear his name.

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Typical Mittbot. Attacking the 2nd amendment because Mitt looks bad.

tetriskid on January 9, 2012 at 11:47 PM

*opens drawer*

*pulls out bottle of scotch*

*pours a glass*

*drinks*

*rereads comment*

Nope. It still says that. Oye….

alchemist19 on January 9, 2012 at 11:55 PM

I have no problem with gun shows or the second amendment. It’s what we like to call around here a “joke”. No need to get your undies in a bunch over it.

Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Nope, sorry, only certain types of jokes are allowed. They need to be certified by a panel of conservative experts to make sure they aren’t “out of bounds.”

Good Solid B-Plus on January 9, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Has anyone bothered to ask whether Bain Capital ever received or even asked for a government bailout? I’m assuming the answer is “no” since we would have heard about it by now. So it’s nobody’s damm business what Bain Capital did with private monies as long as it was legal.

Doug Piranha on January 9, 2012 at 11:58 PM

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:55 PM

I wonder if Newt might try to connect Perry with Gunwalker. Right about now I wouldn’t put anything past him.

Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Newt and Rick seriously need to occupy common sense. But then, these are the guys who couldn’t figure out how to get on the Virginia ballot, right? I’m sure that’s the kind of competency that keeps Obamalinsky up at nights.

Time to grow up, folks. Romney is the GOP front runner. Obama is the enemy. Big difference.

cicerone on January 9, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Case Study: Worldwide Grinding Systems (Steel production)

Facts
1888- Founded
1993- Bain Capital becomes majority shareholder
1994- WGS issues $125M in new bonds, Bain capital receives $36.1M in dividends
2001- Bankruptcy, 700 jobs lost
2002- U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp determines pension underfunded by $44M. Feds cover 80% of pension.

Anti-Romney spin

Bain issued the new bonds just to pay themselves the large dividend. The large debt left the company valuable and led to their bankruptcy.

Pro-Romney spin
The steel mill needed equipment upgrades, hence the new bond issuance. Top WGS executives were happy with Bain. Steel industry was hit by cheap imports during this period. This was the main reason for bankruptcy.

My spin
Why pay such a large dividend when you are borrowing so much money?

ZGMF_Freedom on January 9, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Romneycare was not all Romney’s idea. Remember he was running a liberal state with 85% of the legislature being Democrats. Universal health care was coming whether he supported it or not, and cover the uninsured whether they paid for it or not. So he fashioned a plan to make the uninsured pay more a little more for it than just letting them be covered by the other taxpayers and work through a private insurer instead of the state as a single payer. Some of it got changed by the legislature and his vetoes were overridden.

flataffect on January 9, 2012 at 11:33 PM

Actually your description is inaccurate……. This article is long, but quite comprehensive.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/06/06/110606fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

Rapunzel on January 10, 2012 at 12:01 AM

Also, how do you underfund a pension $44M without noticing that something is wrong?

ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 12:03 AM

When this flops badly Newt has a backup plan – he’s going after Perry for committing gun crimes. Perry does own a gun, after all.

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:41 PM

Newt will go after Santorum. Why go after dead man walking (Perry)? Perry is polling in single digits in SC and FL. One poll has Perry behind Roemer in NH. Perry’s support is very thin outside of Texas.

Sooner or later Anita will see the writing on the wall (that she isn’t going to be first lady) and tell Rick to throw in the towel.

bw222 on January 10, 2012 at 12:05 AM

To be honest, the stories I know about aren’t exactly like that. They mainly consist of three companies that were in bankruptcy with the people who were hired to restructure the companies raping them of their assets so hard there was nothing left to save. Those people were able to get the economics they wanted for their firms, all right.

I do, however, know of one company that was allowed to restructure and succeed. The investment banking firm that ended up holding the paper had a change of mind, fired two guys who had been in charge, and ended up hiring someone who was able to bring it out of bankruptcy and succeed. That company is still around and doing very well despite the economy. However, when the last guy took over, he had a very hard time convincing vendors to stock the shelves. The company was literally four months away from going away forever.

The 80s and early 90s were crazy times. ;)

kakypat on January 10, 2012 at 12:05 AM

whatcat on January 9, 2012 at 11:55 PM

I wonder if Newt might try to connect Perry with Gunwalker. Right about now I wouldn’t put anything past him.
Jesse on January 9, 2012 at 11:58 PM

He might as well, because the GOP candidates sure haven’t been much on using it against Obama (anybody remember him?), so it’s up for grabs as to whom to pin it on.

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Also, how do you underfund a pension $44M without noticing that something is wrong?

ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 12:03 AM

What is your proposal to solve these problems of ethical uncertainty? More government intervention? How would you propose, if Bain Capital’s business practices were any sort of problem at all, we solve that problem?

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:07 AM

and this is probably why Newt is not going after Romney on Romneycare

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/gingrich-in-2006-hey-romneycare-is-a-great-idea/

Rapunzel on January 10, 2012 at 12:09 AM

Newt will go after Santorum. Why go after dead man walking (Perry)? Perry is polling in single digits in SC and FL. One poll has Perry behind Roemer in NH. Perry’s support is very thin outside of Texas.

I was joking there. Perry’s even more irrelevant than is Newt.

Sooner or later Anita will see the writing on the wall (that she isn’t going to be first lady) and tell Rick to throw in the towel.
bw222 on January 10, 2012 at 12:05 AM

I think he’ll soon (after SC) be finishing that gloomy Iowa speech where he was all prepared to pack it in and go home.

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 12:09 AM

I personally don’t have a problem with what Bain Capital did, but if you honestly think that this issue doesn’t fall squarely into Obama’s wheelhouse – well good luck with that.

Regardless of their motivation, Newt et al hammering Romney on this issue, the practical effect is that of informing the primary electorate of what’s in store for Romney if he gets the Nomination.

If you think Newt and Perry attacks are bad, just wait until Obama’s Campaign has a crack at him:

“Romney One-percenter , in the General, will be called a hypocrite by the Dems- only opposing Obamacare out of partisanship. Oh and he laid off all those people to increase his proffits.”

This how the Dems operate. Context doesn’t matter. Romney is not immune.

Romney could be vunerable in the general because of his ‘baggage’

Everlasting_Knowitall on January 10, 2012 at 12:10 AM

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 12:05 AM

I know :(. Gunwalker, Solyndra, and here we are talking about how much Romney makes. It would be sad if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Jesse on January 10, 2012 at 12:10 AM

What is your proposal to solve these problems of ethical uncertainty? More government intervention? How would you propose, if Bain Capital’s business practices were any sort of problem at all, we solve that problem?

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:07 AM

I would like to see us go back to doing business much more like we did prior to these corporate raider days…… the days when the CEO’s received a salary the same as everyone else and did not necessarily get ahead by taking the blood out of their employees to do so, that was an America I suspect most here no nothing about, but it was a good America with a good strong middle class.

Rapunzel on January 10, 2012 at 12:11 AM

This how the Dems operate. Context doesn’t matter. Romney is not immune.

Romney could be vunerable in the general because of his ‘baggage’

Everlasting_Knowitall on January 10, 2012 at 12:10 AM

This is how the Dems operate. Republican voters have tried to convince me for months that they are any better. FAIL.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:11 AM

I would like to see us go back to doing business much more like we did prior to these corporate raider days…… the days when the CEO’s received a salary the same as everyone else and did not necessarily get ahead by taking the blood out of their employees to do so, that was an America I suspect most here no nothing about, but it was a good America with a good strong middle class.

Rapunzel on January 10, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Then you wouuld have to go back to the days before the stock traders set up shop along the Hudson River wall, Rapunzel. How do you think Standard Oil nearly became a monopoly? How do you think Rockfeller made his fortune in steel in the early 20th Century? You dream of a time that simply did not exist, and your “answer” is really a non-answer, unless you’re implying that there’s nothing we can do about it — in which case your complaint is symbolic and utterly moot to begin with. Care to try again?

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:13 AM

ray on January 9, 2012 at 11:24 PM

</blockquote>They are NOT attacking “capitalism”, they are questioning BAIN. It’s a VERY specific attack. Perry is all about the free market and capitalism what with wanting, “less regulation, less litigation, and lower taxes to create an enviroment for entrepreneurs to risk their capital“.

This isn’t about “capitalism”, this is about ROMNEY and BAIN.

Stop being a sheep.

Aslans Girl on January 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM

Only attacking the parts that are FREE ENTERPRISE? Okaaay then.

UT Cowboy on January 10, 2012 at 12:15 AM

What is your proposal to solve these problems of ethical uncertainty? More government intervention? How would you propose, if Bain Capital’s business practices were any sort of problem at all, we solve that problem?

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Stop attacking capitalism.

Just look at Romney’s hair.

tetriskid on January 10, 2012 at 12:16 AM

I. Have. Had. Enough.

I’m sick of all these schmucks. Ya’ll pick whichever loser you want, then wake me up in November to vote against the O-man. Every one of these candidates blow chunks, each for different reasons.

“Some people are like Slinkies…not good for much, but bring a smile to your face when thrown down the stairs.”

sage0925 on January 10, 2012 at 12:16 AM

What is your proposal to solve these problems of ethical uncertainty? More government intervention? How would you propose, if Bain Capital’s business practices were any sort of problem at all, we solve that problem?

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Government intervention is like nuclear bombs. Last resort.

Good question. How do you stop an investment company from buying a company for $10M, proceed to sell bonds for $100M, and pay themselves $20M? I don’t know enough about bonds and securities to answer your question. More information and transparency to bond buyers?

Anyway, there may be a completely valid reason for the underfunded pension and the large dividend. I just want to know the reason.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Just look at Romney’s hair.

tetriskid on January 10, 2012 at 12:16 AM

NO! And you can’t make me! :)

sage0925 on January 10, 2012 at 12:19 AM

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 12:05 AM

I know :(. Gunwalker, Solyndra, and here we are talking about how much Romney makes. It would be sad if it wasn’t so pathetic.
Jesse on January 10, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Yup. All the candidates should be focusing on making the case against Obama. The one who does that best will get the nod. Being Not-Romney isn’t enough – there are over 300 million Not-Romneys in the US. When you have no argument for yourself and aren’t concentrating on taking down Obama you’re just wasting your money and the voting public’s time.

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Government intervention is like nuclear bombs. Last resort unconstitutional.

Good question. How do you stop an investment company from buying a company for $10M, proceed to sell bonds for $100M, and pay themselves $20M? I don’t know enough about bonds and securities to answer your question. More information and transparency to bond buyers?

Anyway, there may be a completely valid reason for the underfunded pension and the large dividend. I just want to know the reason.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Quick answer: You don’t. It’s a raw deal, and I wouldn’t wish on anyone to have to go through the nightmare of losing their jobs to corporate raiding, but it is not on this basis that I mistrust Romney.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Stop attacking capitalism.

Just look at Romney’s hair.

tetriskid on January 10, 2012 at 12:16 AM

Whatever you’ve been smoking, I want some. I’m defending Bain Capital, you moron.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Then you wouuld have to go back to the days before the stock traders set up shop along the Hudson River wall, Rapunzel. How do you think Standard Oil nearly became a monopoly? How do you think Rockfeller made his fortune in steel in the early 20th Century? You dream of a time that simply did not exist, and your “answer” is really a non-answer, unless you’re implying that there’s nothing we can do about it — in which case your complaint is symbolic and utterly moot to begin with. Care to try again?

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:13 AM

I think you make a good point. We don’t idealize the Gilded Age and its practices just because it was “capitalism.” We acknowledge some of the sins of that era, don’t we? Does that make us “anti-capitalist”?

Good Solid B-Plus on January 10, 2012 at 12:25 AM

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Exaclty. You have to be for something, not just against someone. We are not getting that. All we are getting are self inflicted gun shot wounds.

Jesse on January 10, 2012 at 12:26 AM

I think you make a good point. We don’t idealize the Gilded Age and its practices just because it was “capitalism.” We acknowledge some of the sins of that era, don’t we? Does that make us “anti-capitalist”?

Good Solid B-Plus on January 10, 2012 at 12:25 AM

I think whether the Standard Oil and U.S. Steel trusts were “sins” is open to debate.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Quick answer: You don’t. It’s a raw deal, and I wouldn’t wish on anyone to have to go through the nightmare of losing their jobs to corporate raiding, but it is not on this basis that I mistrust Romney.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Do you feel the same way about the Madoff scandal? If there were no laws (government intervention) against pyramid schemes, would you just call the whole thing a “raw deal” and let Madoff walk free?

ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Good question. How do you stop an investment company from buying a company for $10M, proceed to sell bonds for $100M, and pay themselves $20M? I don’t know enough about bonds and securities to answer your question. More information and transparency to bond buyers?

ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Caveat Emptor. Bond buyers might think about not buying bonds in companies that highly leveraged. All they have to do is find the information or not buy.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Do you feel the same way about the Madoff scandal? If there were no laws (government intervention) against pyramid schemes, would you just call the whole thing a “raw deal” and let Madoff walk free?

ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Madoff was a fraud. He promised his marks something he had no intention of delivering in a manner proscribed by not only federal law, but numerous state laws (where I believe those issues should be properly handled, anyway). What Bain Capital did with its operations does not meet any definition of “fraud” that I am aware of. So I ask you again, do you think firms like Bain Capital should be outlawed? If so, how can you call yourself “conservative?” If not, what the hell is your beef?

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:34 AM

If there were no laws (government intervention) against pyramid schemes
ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 12:31 AM

I think one of the biggest problems in all of the back and forth here is the overwhelming dependence on “ifs”.

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 12:34 AM

I think whether the Standard Oil and U.S. Steel trusts were “sins” is open to debate.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:28 AM

I don’t think there’s much debate about the fact that some practices of the Gilded Age were hardly as pure as the driven snow, even though they were certainly “capitalist.”

Good Solid B-Plus on January 10, 2012 at 12:34 AM

I don’t think there’s much debate about the fact that some practices of the Gilded Age were hardly as pure as the driven snow, even though they were certainly “capitalist.”

Good Solid B-Plus on January 10, 2012 at 12:34 AM

Absolutely. They were known as “Robber Barons” for a reason. But on the other hand, history has shown time and time again that monopolies can not sustain themselves over any significant length of time. Someone always finds a way to do it better and/or cheaper, particularly where commodities like oil and steel are concerned. Sad to say, but I do think that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was the point at which we started losing our alread-tenuous hold on the real meaning of the commerce clause.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Romney still sucks!

Pragmatic on January 10, 2012 at 12:39 AM

Do you feel the same way about the Madoff scandal? If there were no laws (government intervention) against pyramid schemes, would you just call the whole thing a “raw deal” and let Madoff walk free?

ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Madoff’s “returns” were ridiculous and his consistency was even more ridiculous. You want big, big consistent returns like that? You must be taking on a lot of risk, somewhere. That’s the rule of thumb that always applies to investments. More return implies that there is probably an equivalent amount of added risk somewhere.

I felt the same way about the “poor” people who had been invested in Enron and never had the good sense to sell any of it. All they could complain about was how they had a million dollars in the account (when the stock was not worth anything close to where it was trading) and how they rode it all the way down to $1.27. I wept for them … They couldn’t sell half of it at $750,000 and pocketed almost 400 grand in cash?

Some frauds laws are definitely needed, so that these schemes can’t get started. But, once they’re started and so obviously anomalies, then people put themselves at risk. The fraud still applies, obviously, but I don’t feel bad for the victims or concerned with how much money ever gets back to them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 10, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Caveat Emptor. Bond buyers might think about not buying bonds in companies that highly leveraged. All they have to do is find the information or not buy.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 10, 2012 at 12:32 AM

True. But even then some people will ignore internal warning bells, being enticed by “the bigger the risk, the bigger the return”. They know they should fold ‘em but still choose to hold ‘em. That always has been and always will be the case; human nature leads to bad decisions sometimes.

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Madoff’s “returns” were ridiculous and his consistency was even more ridiculous. You want big, big consistent returns like that? You must be taking on a lot of risk, somewhere. That’s the rule of thumb that always applies to investments. More return implies that there is probably an equivalent amount of added risk somewhere.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 10, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Yup, indeed.

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 12:42 AM

Madoff was a fraud. He promised his marks something he had no intention of delivering in a manner proscribed by not only federal law, but numerous state laws (where I believe those issues should be properly handled, anyway). What Bain Capital did with its operations does not meet any definition of “fraud” that I am aware of. So I ask you again, do you think firms like Bain Capital should be outlawed? If so, how can you call yourself “conservative?” If not, what the hell is your beef?

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:34 AM

Why did Bain Capital advise WGS to issue $100M in debt while advising them to pay dividends that led to Bain collecting $30M? Why was the pension underfunded by $40M causing the taxpayers to pick up the difference?

A lot of people were hurt by WGS’s bankruptcy. I’m interested in finding out what happened.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 12:43 AM

This is the natural end of the lies and hysteria that has been manufactured against Romney.

Most everything I see from critics about Romney is false.

There have been so many flat out lies… by Hot Air, as well, that people will now believe anything.

And now they are leading your to communism.

All because Romney wanted to be President.

Was your soul worth it?

petunia on January 10, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Lets face it a lot of Romney supporters were supporters of George W. Bush’s Bailout plan that Obama adopted with glee, and in fact are supporters of crony capitalism.

This is not class warfare but a battle between free market capitalist and the crony capitalist wing of the GOP. I don’t if Romney is a crony capitalist yet, but a lot of supporters are which should make anyone nervous.

William Eaton on January 10, 2012 at 12:46 AM

How sad is this. Jump back on the couch with Pelosi.

rubberneck on January 10, 2012 at 12:46 AM

And all those attacks against Newt weren’t false and manufactured?

tkyang99 on January 10, 2012 at 12:47 AM

If RomneyCare was going to sink him, it would have already happened. In the general, Obama and co. aren’t going to attack Romney on Romneycare.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 9, 2012 at 11:29 PM

… and vice-versa – Romney won’t be attacking Obama on Obamacare for precisely the same reason. Except the Dems *can* still dink Romney on Romneycare from a ‘he is a hypocrite’ standpoint if Romney even utters something about it under his breath – and they’ll be right.

We’ve been screaming this at the top of our lungs for months – Romney as a candidate removes from our option the biggest general election cudgel to use against Obama. *The* primary issue that sparked the overwhelming rebuttal of Obama & Co in the 2008 elections – rendered useless and moot.

Brilliant.

Midas on January 10, 2012 at 12:48 AM

A lot of people were hurt by WGS’s bankruptcy. I’m interested in finding out what happened.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 12:43 AM

I’m sure you are in the same manner that Ron Paul is “just interested in finding out how 9/11 really happened.” Wake me up when you find out that Bain Capital did anything illegal. Until then, this is a non-story and Newt and Perry should both be ashamed of themselves — along with all the other so-called “conservatives” who think this is any kind of suitable anti-Mitt ammo.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:49 AM

petunia on January 10, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Egads, what drivel.

Midas on January 10, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Madoff’s “returns” were ridiculous and his consistency was even more ridiculous. You want big, big consistent returns like that? You must be taking on a lot of risk, somewhere. That’s the rule of thumb that always applies to investments. More return implies that there is probably an equivalent amount of added risk somewhere.

I felt the same way about the “poor” people who had been invested in Enron and never had the good sense to sell any of it. All they could complain about was how they had a million dollars in the account (when the stock was not worth anything close to where it was trading) and how they rode it all the way down to $1.27. I wept for them … They couldn’t sell half of it at $750,000 and pocketed almost 400 grand in cash?

Some frauds laws are definitely needed, so that these schemes can’t get started. But, once they’re started and so obviously anomalies, then people put themselves at risk. The fraud still applies, obviously, but I don’t feel bad for the victims or concerned with how much money ever gets back to them.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 10, 2012 at 12:40 AM

I see your point about the victims. But I still feel bad for them. Anyway, Madoff engaged in deceit. He was correctly punished. Was there any deceit in Bain Capital’s dealings with WGS? That is what I am after. I can’t chalk everything up to a “raw deal”.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Lets face it a lot of Romney supporters were supporters of George W. Bush’s Bailout plan that Obama adopted with glee, and in fact are supporters of crony capitalism.

This is not class warfare but a battle between free market capitalist and the crony capitalist wing of the GOP. I don’t if Romney is a crony capitalist yet, but a lot of supporters are which should make anyone nervous.

William Eaton on January 10, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Truth.

tetriskid on January 10, 2012 at 12:53 AM

I see your point about the victims. But I still feel bad for them. Anyway, Madoff engaged in deceit. He was correctly punished. Was there any deceit in Bain Capital’s dealings with WGS? That is what I am after. I can’t chalk everything up to a “raw deal”.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Apparently there wasn’t, or at least not of the illegal variety. Not all deceit is illegal. Do you think it should be, or are you going to continue skirting the question?

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:54 AM

“Attacking Mitt’s record at Bain” = “a knife in the heart of our system.”

And we’re the ones being over-emotional? Hilarious.

Good Solid B-Plus on January 9, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Exactly.

Problem is, many Republicans,nowadays, do not know what Conservatism really means, INCLUDING ALLAHPUNDIT.

Allahpundit doesn’t even know what conservatism really is, believing that all forms of capitalism are conservative.

Pundits like Allahpundit must undergo re-tooling, especially on the meaning of terms.

Conservative market viewpoint is FREE MARKET AND CAPITAL CREATION THROUGH ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES. Not just purely profit-making at the detriment of the free market.

Last word: FREE MARKET = MANY SELLERS/SERVICE PROVIDERS AND BUYERS WITH NO ONE CONTROLLING THE PRICE.

Allahpundit is a big fail on this respect!

TheAlamos on January 10, 2012 at 12:57 AM

A lot of people were hurt by WGS’s bankruptcy. I’m interested in finding out what happened.
ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 12:43 AM

I’m sure you are in the same manner that Ron Paul is “just interested in finding out how 9/11 really happened.”

Heh.

Wake me up when you find out that Bain Capital did anything illegal. Until then, this is a non-story and Newt and Perry should both be ashamed of themselves — along with all the other so-called “conservatives” who think this is any kind of suitable anti-Mitt ammo.
gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Newt tried this attack before about a month ago, as AP notes above. He confessed to being burned by it then:

“He got that round,” Gingrich said. “If you were scoring rounds in boxing, I’d give that round to Mitt.”

Newt took a mean uppercut and fell then. This time he opened up again only to get totally KOed.

whatcat on January 10, 2012 at 1:02 AM

Apparently there wasn’t, or at least not of the illegal variety. Not all deceit is illegal. Do you think it should be, or are you going to continue skirting the question?

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Ha. You would be so easy to mess around with. But I’ll be nice. No, I do not think all deceit should be illegal.

Good night, it’s been fun.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 1:02 AM

And now they are leading your to communism.

All because Romney wanted to be President.

Was your soul worth it?

petunia on January 10, 2012 at 12:43 AM

I didn’t understand you, petunia. “They” is who?

Axe on January 10, 2012 at 1:04 AM

Allahpundit doesn’t even know what conservatism really is, believing that all forms of capitalism are conservative.

Pundits like Allahpundit must undergo re-tooling, especially on the meaning of terms.

Conservative market viewpoint is FREE MARKET AND CAPITAL CREATION THROUGH ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES. Not just purely profit-making at the detriment of the free market.

Last word: FREE MARKET = MANY SELLERS/SERVICE PROVIDERS AND BUYERS WITH NO ONE CONTROLLING THE PRICE.

Sounds like our ‘free trade’ policy with China. And you wonder why job growth in this country has been marginal for the past decade, while the trade deficit has spiraled to new heights over the same timeframe.

bayam on January 10, 2012 at 1:08 AM

Ha. You would be so easy to mess around with. But I’ll be nice. No, I do not think all deceit should be illegal.

Good night, it’s been fun.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 10, 2012 at 1:02 AM

Right. Just like Herr Doktor wants to follow the constitution. Been fun indeed.

gryphon202 on January 10, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Obama used the term Robber Barons several times before to describe certain corporations that he deemed too greedy. He will use this same tactic against Romney.

All they will hear is that Romney/Bain Capital are like the Robber Barons, and Robber Barons are bad – simple as that.

Everlasting_Knowitall on January 10, 2012 at 1:11 AM

capitalism is the most moral economic system ever conceived

I disagree with this. Capitalism is the natural economic state of free people; it is not a planned structure. We frame the law around it to limit abuses, not bring it into being.

It’s like “I have a second amendment right to own a gun” — no you don’t; you have a God-granted right, or a natural right if you prefer, to a gun.

It’s a tiny shift in thinking with big results. It implies Capitalism is on par with other artificial systems.

Axe on January 10, 2012 at 1:13 AM

In the end, this stupidity makes Romney look better to the right, and bad to the center.

AshleyTKing on January 10, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Romney still sucks!

Pragmatic on January 10, 2012 at 12:39 AM

Yes, but now he is a black spider among black fleas.

AshleyTKing on January 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM

And all those attacks against Newt weren’t false and manufactured?

tkyang99 on January 10, 2012 at 12:47 AM

Newt sitting on the couch with Pelosi was photoshopped.

Newt taking $1.6 million from Fannie Mae was for charity.

Newt praising Government-Sponsored Enterprises was just a figment of our collective imagination.

/

haner on January 10, 2012 at 1:24 AM

In any complex ecosystem, predators, like vultures, are needed to prey on the weak and slowly dying, to thin out the herd, and allow the resources of the land to be used at maximum efficiency. As Romney practically admitted when he said that he liked being in the position to fire people he thought incompetent, Romney has stepped forward to perform the role of Vulture-in-Chief for or to America.

Unfortunately, if Romney gets the nomination, it’ll be a choice between the pro-Islamist, Marxist-in-Chief and the would be Vulture-in-Chief. Even though I’ll vote Vulture, many conservatives and independents would rather stay home to can food or buy more guns. Also, the pro-Islamist, Marxist-in-Chief has the support of the MSM and the very strong Michelle, who’ll together rip off the Vulture’s wings before Democratic party officials finish stealing the election ballots.

I expressed similar thoughts in a more polite way here.

Gladtobehere on January 10, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Oddly enough, there are many disappointed Obama supporters who will see this Republican attack on Romney as a reason to vote for him -as a safe alternative to the failed Obama. {“Geez, if clods like Gingrich and Perry don’t like him, maybe he’s not that bad.”]

Newt and company may be paradoxically securing more general election voters for Romney with this bizarre “anti-capitalist” tactic.

profitsbeard on January 10, 2012 at 1:28 AM

Hot Gas needs more articles whining for Romney.

IcedTea on January 10, 2012 at 1:35 AM

AshleyTKing on January 10, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Which is the strategy. After all, isn’t the whole point of nominating Romney is that he will attract centrists, the right wing be damned.

promachus on January 10, 2012 at 2:05 AM

So I guess if Newt’s PAC hadn’t brought it up Bain was going to get a pass this cycle.

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 2:21 AM

Here’s what bothers me about Romney, and others like him, which would be the beltway Republicans. Face it…I expect the dims to believe this. I’m disheartened that so many Republicans do, too.

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία, oligarkhía[1]) is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with an elite class distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, commercial, and/or military legitimacy. The word oligarchy is derived from the Greek words “ὀλίγος” (olígos), “a few”[2] and the verb “ἄρχω” (archo), “to rule, to govern, to command”.[3]

Plato pioneered the use of the term in Chapter Four, Book Eight of “The Republic” as a society in which wealth is the criterion of merit and the wealthy are in control. The actual literal translation from the Greek is “rule of the few”. However oligarchy is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group, and do not have to be connected by bloodlines as in a monarchy. Some city-states from ancient Greece were oligarchies.

The super wealthy aren’t necessarily the smartest, and the poor aren’t necessarily the dumbest.

kakypat on January 10, 2012 at 2:32 AM

So I guess if Newt’s PAC hadn’t brought it up Bain was going to get a pass this cycle.

Cindy Munford on January 10, 2012 at 2:21 AM

That was their hope. If we ignore it, it will go away. ;o)

kakypat on January 10, 2012 at 2:33 AM

Newt once again wins in the Hypocrite division:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/287660/gingrichs-ties-buyout-industry-brian-bolduc

Read it an weep…

He is now a Commnunist of course.

petunia on January 10, 2012 at 2:45 AM

OH… and I will also enjoy… along with Romney when he fires Obama!!!

This government needs to be run by someone who isn’t afraid to fire low performers!!!

People better step it up under Mitt, he will fire you if you don’t earn your place!!!

I like that guy!

petunia on January 10, 2012 at 2:47 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8 9