Bottom line is Romney cost THOUSANDS of people their jobs and benefits whether he outsourced jobs or not!  As far as the unemployment  rate goes his practices show he was good at RAISING it and making millions for Bain investors by gutting companies and ruining lives!

Obama isn't perfect but he's better than this guy! Plus you know deep down inside Obama is more like us! After all his mom was a secular humanist!

Nick Hanauer billionaire BILLIONAIRE! Says the dead and tired mantra of "Job creators" is false. He has said that no business owner will hire another person unless DEMAND dictates the need, so it is not the business owner who creates jobs, DEMAND DOES. You spend so much fucking time pissing on those below you and wont even listen to a BILLIONAIRE!

We, the middle class and working poor are the job creators. When we have more means we put more demand into the economy and when we demand more then, AND ONLY THEN does that dictate a new hire. That is not just a poor person like me saying that THAT IS A BILLIONAIRE I AGREE WITH.

And Romney made his living gutting companies which outweighed the minority of jobs he "created". He is a vulture and a con artist. And the one right thing he did in his state he is now pretending the very same thing Obama is doing is now magically wrong.

Seriously Beyond, this is not an economy where you can sit there and say "poor me". It isn't going to fucking work. As long as money has power people will abuse their position without oversight, the great depression and this current great recession are a result of money corrupting the open market and politics.

You cannot continue to explode the pay gap, explode the cost of living and make labor the first thing you cut to save money. It may make for short term gains for the business owner, but it comes at the  cost of gutting the middle class and making them and the poor even more poor. When you fucking realize this is a long term issue and if it continues will screw even you over.

WE don't want you to be poor Beyond, we are not against wealth. But I am really sick of your attitude that people like me hate the open market and I am sick of your total denial that you really act like only people with money should have any say about our government,

All I have been trying to tell you is that money runs all aspects of life, unfortunately, but it does, a political power of any label, needs funds to sell it's message. Religion needs money to sell itself, and business needs money to make and sell it's products.

Absolute power and abuse of power and monopolies are what create the mess we are in now and that mess was caused by the abuse of big money. Money and the sale of Oil by Iran is what keeps their theocracy in place. MONEY is what keeps Chinese communism in absolute power by sale of cheap crap to the rest of the world.

Our open market is NOT THE PROBLEM, the problem is the growing monopoly of a plutocracy in more control of our political system by big money. 

NICK HANAUER, look him up, since you love rich people, or is it you only love selfish rich people? It seems this billionaire knows that he isn't the only class that matters. If more uber rich were like him, we never would have gotten into this mess.

So? Who cares. He also destroyed more jobs than he created, which is a lot more than I would destroy if I lived a thousand years.

Actually I agree with the statement 100%. Demand creates job opportunities, what business owners do is organize production in a way that meets demand and often that means ceasing production in areas where there is no longer demand in favor of moving resources (both material and human) to areas with a demand that needs to be satisfied.

This is where you are wrong. You don't "put" demand into the economy, demand exists because people want things and naturally occurs wherever you have people who want to live a more comfortable life.

*sigh* I am going to make a whole post on this topic because you leftists are flat out ignorant. 

Obviously you do hate the open market because "vulture capitalists" (of which Romney was not) are an essential part of making an open market work. I am about to eat dinner but I will explain why vulture capitalists, just like vultures in nature, are an important and vital part of the economy. 

Was Bain a monopoly? Is there any "vulture capitalist" that is a monopoly? 

I only trust selfish people because I know exactly what they want, anyone who purports to not be selfish is generally looking to screw you. I am suspicious of anyone if their motives are not readily apparent because I do not believe that anyone cares about me more than I do, nor that anyone cares about themselves less than they care about me with a very very small exception for extremely close friends. The scam artist always begins their scam by pretending to be on your side.  

The theory that led to the Bush idea of stimulus checks being mailed out to everyone in the amount of a six hundred dollars. Did it lead to a big resurgence in demand? Nope. Did it fix our economy? Nope. Did it create new jobs? Nope. Shortly after the checks were issued the economy continued its slide and then the housing bubble burst and we know how that worked out. The US government has been trying to artificially stimulate demand under this theory for decades, lowering interest rates, redistributing wealth. At best it works extremely short term, at worst it leads to overproduction in areas where true demand does not exist resulting in a devastating crash. 

 Ok vultures. Vultures are ugly ass birds most well known for their propensity to eat dead animals. I would hope that it doesn't take a particularly long time to figure out what vital role to bird plays in nature, along with all the other carrion eaters. If nothing ate bodies they would sit around for an extremely long time while they rotted which leaves nasty odors as well as greatly increases the risks of spreading a variety of disease. Vultures evolved to take advantage of a food source that most other large animals can't or won't consume and work diligently along America's roadways as our janitors. There is nothing pretty about the bird or what they eat, but the role they play in the ecosystem is vital.  

While meant as a derogatory term, I believe that "vulture capitalism" is actually a very descriptive and accurate way to describe some companies. I don't believe Bain Capital falls under the definition in any way but I don't care to argue that. For the purposes of this discussion lets assume that the worst said about Bain is 100% true. Namely, that Bain purchased companies with the intent of laying off all the workers and profiting by selling all the assets of the company. There are companies that their express purpose is to do exactly that, they purchase failing companies, disassemble them and sell the pieces for a healthy profit.  

The first thing to note is that the companies being purchased are failing, or at the very least are struggling. Companies die, they die for a multitude of reasons ranging from poor leadership to superior competition to a loss of demand for their product. As Brian pointed out, demand creates jobs, demand determines where jobs are needed and where jobs are no longer needed. Not every job is needed forever, in fact it might be more accurate to say that no job will be needed forever. As technology changes, as fads change entire industries come and go. 

Why do they purchase companies that are failing/struggling? Because they are cheaper. You are generally not going to be able to purchase a company for less than its value in assets if it is turning a good profit. Every once in a great while you might have a chance to purchase a company well below value because the person who owns it is clueless, for example suppose the person who owns it is a heir who knows nothing of the business and no desire to run it. That person might sell it for several million less than its worth out of ignorance. Rare, but it does happen because valuing a business is a very complex and inexact task. But finding those businesses is the equivalent of finding a widower with a '66 Corvette sitting in the garage in good condition and is willing to sell it for $1000 just to get rid of the junk. It could happen, but planning your livelihood around finding such deals simply isn't realistic.

For the most part, people who run businesses have a general idea of what they are worth just like most people have a rough idea of how much their house is worth. The knowledgeable financier might be able to gain a small advantage when negotiating through their more intricate knowledge of business valuation but isn't going to be able to completely screw the business owner. Business owners who are making a good profit are unlikely to sell their business for significantly less than it is worth (and IME when asked tend to offer numbers a bit higher than their business is actually worth, just like people with houses) So they generally focus on businesses that are legitimately underpriced because they are risky and are currently losing money or making very little profit.

Now, I would hope that it is obvious to you that a business that is not making a profit will "die", it will go out of business as soon as its lines of credit dry up and/or the business owner is no longer able/willing to reach into their personal funds to prolong it. Now I'm not going to bother to discuss companies that can be turned into profitable enterprises I am simply going to focus on those where no such attempt is made. Cases where the purchaser has determined there is no way to make the business profitable. In these cases it isn't so much a question of IF the employees of the company are going to lose their jobs, it is a question of WHEN. If the vulture capitalist never purchases the company, the owner goes bankrupt and has to go out of business, 100% of the employees lose their jobs and the owner attempts to salvage whatever value they can assuming anything is left after their assets are forced to be sold by courts and their creditors are paid off. 

What the vulture capitalist does is purchase the company and begin to disassemble it in an orderly fashion. They consolidate the areas where the company still has cash flow and reduce the costs of operations as much as possible. Then they begin to sell the company piecemeal selling off the least profitable parts first. The vulture capitalist sells everything that can be sold for profit. Depending on the size of the company this process could happen within a year, or it could take several years before the final pink slips are issued and the company closes for good. Generally the remaining assets are those that are being used to secure debt such as land or buildings, at this point the company goes into bankruptcy where a settlement will be arrived at with the creditors to remove the liens or the property is sold by court order to pay towards the creditor. The company is gone, and all those workers are out of jobs, the vulture capitalist walks away with a six to eight figure profit and buys another failing company. Sad right?

But where did all those assets go? The buildings? The equipment? Vehicles? Provisions? They were not wiped from existence. They were sold to people who apparently had plans to use them (otherwise why would the buy it?). Everything that vulture capitalist sold is being used by someone else, perhaps in a different industry, perhaps in the same, to produce goods to sell to consumers. If it is being used to produce goods with more demand the company using those items will be profitable and will be putting it to better use than the previous owner.  I thought leftists were big fans of recycling, what else is it? It is taking something that is no longer needed, stripping it down to its basic parts and selling them to be used for something it is needed for. 

Ok, but obviously the business owner is being screwed right? I mean, if the vulture capitalist can make such a profit by stripping everything down the business owner could have done it themselves right? Well maybe, but maybe not. Do you believe that you could do a better job selling your house than an experienced real estate agent? It is possible and sometimes owners do so quite effectively themselves. However, it can be time consuming and if the company is losing money every month the owner might not have that option from a practical standpoint. Getting the lump sum from the vulture capitalist might make more sense for their personal finances. Also, companies that do this specialize. They have the contacts to know where to sell stuff quickly that must be sold quickly and where to sell stuff at the highest price when time isn't an issue. As such the vulture capitalist can squeeze far more value out of the companies assets than most owner/operators could do on their own. 

Now I'm not saying that the business owner never gets ripped off. Anytime you are selling something there is a risk that someone is going to lowball you on the price. While some might say it is unethical to lowball a price like that, I am willing to bet that most people jump on the chance when they are the beneficiaries. For example, suppose you drive past a garage sale and see something that you know is worth $200 and there is a sign saying $40 on it. Now you KNOW it is worth around $200, and you know you could easily sell it for that, what would you do? Jump out and buy it or go tell the person at the garage sale it is worth $200 and they should change the price? I'm willing to bet that if most of you answer honestly you are going to buy it and brag to all your friends about the wonder deal you found. Just goes to show that when you sell anything, (or for that matter buy anything) you really need to do your research if you want to avoid being ripped off. The other party has no incentive beyond simply being nice to inform you of the true value of the product. While many people are pretty decent, when dealing with anything of importance it is prudent to not count on them being decent and to pay your lawyer the cash to read the contract, even if you think the wording is straightforward. Anyone offended by you saying you need your lawyer to read the contract first is trying to screw you. I'm not condoning companies that intentionally set out to screw people, but just like murderers they do exist, like murderers they do not represent most companies. However, legal recourse is difficult, expensive, time consuming and sometimes impossible- so you are your first line of defense because like murderers, most of these scam artists can be avoided with a little knowledge and some common sense. 

BUT THE EMPLOYEES  they are obviously being screwed by both the owner and the vulture capitalist right? They are producing something that does not have enough demand in the market. In other words, they are producing something that is not needed. Firing people is not usually a pleasurable task (I say usually because the two times I was fired in my life I made it very easy and very pleasurable for my boss because I took the opportunity to say everything I ever wanted to say and was generally a complete smart ass. Much easier than firing someone who starts crying and asking "what am I going to do now?" Have some empathy for your boss, if you get fired tell him/her off and point out every annoying character flaw they have. Turn on your inner asshole so that by the time you leave they think "Finally, glad that jerk is gone&quot It is especially difficult if you actually know the people and work with them on a daily basis. Another reason why vulture capitalists can be more efficient as they are in a better position to make financial decisions that benefit the company without the emotional entanglements. Sometimes firing the sweet nice person before the jerk no one likes is the correct practical decision. 

As I noted before, the company is failing- the very fact that the owner was willing to sell it for less than the cumilative total of its assets demonstrates that it is not likely to stay in business for long. Rather than simply showing up to work one day to find the door locked because rent wasn't paid, or having their paychecks bounce (that has actually happened to me when I was an employee) and out of a job suddenly, vulture capitalists usually shut a company down in an orderly manner. Sometimes, some employees might be fired right away but usually it takes at least a couple weeks for the new company to decide who goes first. This gives time for the employees to prepare for the worst, start looking for new jobs, reduce expenses etc. Which is better for the employee? To pretend that everything is just fine until everything collapses? Or to provide warning?

Also, in practice, most vulture capitalist funds are not solely vulture capitalist (indeed, most such funds will make an honest attempt to turn the company around. Not because they give a shit about the employees, but because selling a profitable company makes a much larger return than selling the pieces of a dead company) Often they are related to a variety of other corporations in the same industry. If is not uncommon for choice employees (as well as choice equipment) to be offered positions with other companies within the corporation or at least the opportunity to apply for them with the preference of being an internal employee. 

The alternative to vulture capitalism is that owners often don't sell much of the company as it goes out of business. The employees are still without jobs, and often there is a significant amount of goods and equipment that lays abandoned and will eventually find its way to a garbage dump. Perhaps some of it will be given away, but generally it is wasted as the owner has nothing to do with it. It just lays there on the side of the road as a dead carcass rotting away. 

What else are we going to do? Use government money to subsidize failed companies and keep them running for the sake of the employees? It makes no sense to keep failures open, the failed for a reason and resources are much better put to use in a company that is not failing, a company that is providing items the market demands. That includes labor. Should the government have subsidized gramophone factories simply to prevent the people who worked in them from losing their jobs? What would we do with all those gramophones? That is simply absurd. Sad as it may be, sometimes people have to lose their jobs. Vulture capitalists, like vultures do not decide which companies die, they are not predators that kill companies, the are carrion eaters who disassemble and remove dead companies allowing new ones to thrive in their stead. It isn't always pretty and death is always sad (I have cried over failed companies, when you put so much of yourself into something and watch it whither away it is very emotional especially when you know it is your fault), but it would be a bad thing for companies to live forever, for the very same reason it would be a bad thing if people lived forever. 

 And as it turns out the whole Globe story was inaccurate and SEC documents confirm the Romney was not on the list of key managers of the fund. http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-exit/ so turns out no lie there. Although I am still mystified as to why it matters whether he quit in '99 or 2002. 

If that were true, you wouldn't have some of the highest unemployment and homeless rates in the world.

Your middle class has been nearly extinguished, and your lower class is constantly desperate for basic needs items. 500 million cell phones and big screen tvs won't feed one person. The excess consumerism of the US has little to do with basic necessities, and everything to do with luxury. Luxury of the upper class, who makes way too much money and doesn't do anything with it. While even a fraction of the money the wealthy hoard would send waves of growth through the entire world if only your poor had access to it.

Most recent figure I could find for homelessness - 656,129 in 2009 - http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/3668

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm

"20.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty. This means their family’s cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or about $10,000 a year for a family of four (DeNavas-Walt 2011, p. 19)."

I'm currently living on not much more than 10,000 a year - I don't know how much longer I can stay off the streets myself.

A measly - by Romney's standards anyway - $300,000 would pay off all my bills and allow me to put off pulling Social Security until I am 65, allow me to stay in my house and off the streets, and keep me off of food stamps.  Yeah, I know, it is all my fault my husband is disabled, all my fault I was laid off, all my fault I am over qualified, under qualified or just not quite right qualified in some fashion.  I accept the blame for being a lazy, no good, liberal sucking at the public teat.  <sigh>

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/romney-tax-returns-to-give-view-of-family-wealth/

Let's slice it, if you take $45,000,000 (+ / - a few cents), divide by 2 for one year's income = $22,500,000.  Divide that by my measly $300,000 and you get 75 - Romney gets a share, so that is 74 not quite retired people who could be off the streets, off of food stamps and able to retire at a decent age.

Yeah, I'm assuming those people would all need as much as I do - some would need more, some less.  But that is one man who could positively impact 74 other families for years. 

If I were able to, I would improve my house, buy a newer car, and do a little shopping.  How is that not a boost for the economy when multiplied by 74?

edit: why do I always find more errors even if I preview my post, after I post it?

Simple common sense. And 100k+ years of history.

As opposed to the unproven and ridiculous garbage you are spouting.

CJ provided some additional evidence, far more than you've done.

Actually, you ARE still amongst the highest. Whether or not your rates are higher or lower than Canada is irrelevant, Canada takes after its own. The US does not. So lower employment rates don't hurt us nearly as much as they hurt you.

Which is all irrelevant to the fact that the few hoarding the wealth from the many is the cause of economic troubles today, and it won't get better until idiots like you accept reality.

There is a difference between being CEO and owner and being the person deciding which companies to invest money in. The filings at the SEC confirm that he was the former and not the latter. Of course, he can be criticized for the people he chose to take that role. But I'm back to my original question- who cares? And why would you care? And how does the Obama campaign think they are going to profit politically from this?

And no, if there was anything illegal done with any of the investment decisions (which I am not aware of anyone making accusations of that), Romney would not be legally responsible anymore than the CEO of Mcdonalds is legally responsible when someone sells pot through the drivethru- hence the purpose of the SEC filings.

So why doesn't the US share it's wealth with the rest of the world? Why are you all such greedy hoarders that can't even look out for yourselves? Why not have open borders and let the 3rd world in on all the welfare benefits?

I even fixed your spelling and grammar errors for you.

WRONG dude! Romney's name appears on 142 forms at Bain till 2001!

Yet because he retained technical control of Bain Capital’s management and because his wealth remained heavily tied up with the firm, Mr. Romney’s name or signature appears on dozens of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission between February 1999 and August 2001, when he finalized a retirement deal with the active Bain partners and transferred to them his shares of Bain’s management entity.

“Mitt’s name were on the documents as the chief executive and sole owner of the company,” Edward W. Conard, a Bain partner at the time, said during an appearance on MSNBC on Sunday. “And it took several years for us to sort out how to put the management team in place.”

All told, Mr. Romney’s name appears on at least 142 such forms, some of which have been the subject of news coverage in recent days, fueling questions about whether Mr. Romney ever really left. One such form, posted last week by Talking Points Memo, lists Mr. Romney’s “principal occupation” as “managing director” of Bain Capital Investors VI Inc., a private equity fund.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/us/politics/when-did-romney-step-back-from-bain-its-complicated.html?pagewanted=all

All through the housing boom, we were told that it was unfair and racist that homes were too expensive for the working poor to afford. So the solution from the Fed and Dubya was government intervention in the market. Easy credit from the fed, government buying up mortgages, suing banks that did not loan enough to minorities, etc...

Not quite. Dodging is when someone makes a point and someone else ignores it. Since all you did was imply I'm somehow the king of Canada and insinuate that Canada should take over the world, there was nothing to dodge. I just threw your nonsense back in your face, with less errors.

The master of the strawman: EXC

I have reservations about the fluidity of Romney's claims.  And having worked for private corporations and sole proprietors, I don't think we really want a government run like that.

Edit: had to fuss with video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpytiEKpxNk

Are you really this braindead? lol. How does this problem relate to my non-existent dictatorship of the world?

You just bounce around saying so much stupid shit, you must actually think you can confuse your opposition into silence.

Now CJ, you should know better than to use numbers with Beyond, he cherry picks as well as any theist quoting the bible. And yes, it is all your fault, get a second job you old bitty!

The numbers prove my point. 656,129 homeless people is nowhere near a high percentage compared to the world. It is 0.2% of our population was homeless for even a single day. Most of that 0.2% was homeless for only one or two days. Obviously that small portion of the population has little to no effect on our economy at large.

Then CJ suggests that we split Romney's two year income and divvy it up among 74 people ignoring the number of people that are no doubt being employed by that money now. Bain Capital started in 1984 with an initial investment of $37 million. Today Bain manages over $66 billion in investments, that $66 billion is keeping far more than 74 people employed. Even just the private equity branch that Romney managed supports far more people than that. http://www.baincapitalprivateequity.com/Investments/Default.aspx

Bain Capital directly hires over 400 people and the companies that they invest in hire tens of thousands more. Would things be better if instead of investing that $37 million the original partners of Bain just handed it out to people who produce nothing? That is insane. You do not improve an economy by giving money to people for doing nothing. Now, it might be the nice/ethical/necessary thing to help out those in extreme need, but it is a cost. Imagine you have a friend who is homeless, so you let them come live in your house for free. You pay for food, energy etc in exchange for nothing. Did your economy improve? Obviously not, you have a new cost to your micro economy that is contributing nothing in return. Expanding it out to the macro economy makes the burden smaller because it is distributed among more people, but as long as the people receiving money are not working they are a net cost to the economy. 

Now if the person who moves in with you cleans your house, cooks and does most of the chores providing you with more time they are now being productive. You have essentially given them a job and now your economy might be improved. You have more time that you can devote as you choose, perhaps to go produce more yourself or just to enjoy life. Investing in people to become productive improves the economy, handing out money in exchange for nothing does not. 

WTF, talk about strawmen. That is all you've ever have when anyone attacks your highly irrational and delusion view of how reality actually works.

Bullshit from a master bullshitter.

Hint - I am incapable of having children.  And I am not interested in having more at my age.  And I am very unwillingly on welfare because I like to eat.  I would like to be able to support myself.

You have not applied for a technical job lately, have you?  I will speak about IT jobs since I am most familiar with them, and then I will talk about health care a little.

When you apply for a technical job, the hiring manager has a list of what they want you to be proficient in.  Not a "nodding acquaintance."  The fact that it would take a professional person who has worked with similar systems for many years about a week to be good at whatever and about 2 weeks to be an expert, is unimportant.  So if you are not willing to lie, you will not get the job.  Example: I have supported Microsoft SQL, have done extensive programming in Access, but I have not supported Oracle.  It is a relational database which is essentially the unchanged since relational databases were first conceived of in the late 1970s.  They are all the same on the back end.  What is different is the user interface.  Not important.  If you don't have 5+ years supporting Oracle databases for this position, your resume hits the round file.

I have no quibble with the hiring manager.  They need a person with that experience and they want someone who can "hit the ground running."  But it won't be me they want and I don't bother applying for jobs like that because I refuse to lie.  It has nothing to do with my education and all to do with my experience.

There is a reason I am not in health care and have no intention of getting into health care.  I might be able to do IT support in a health care environment.  I have applied at local hospitals and insurance agencies for such positions, but don't have one yet.  I am not going to be a nurse or doctor or orderly because I faint at the sight of blood.  I have no control over this reaction.

As for qualifications, health care is a bad as IT when it comes to job descriptions.  You need to have experience in a particular department - emergency, geriatrics, surgery, whatever - and you need to have experience with the particular brand of equipment and with the particular software the institution/business/clinic uses to track patients, lab results, treatments, and expenditures.  Seriously, if you don't have experience with the particular software, they will look for someone else.  No school teaches health care students on every brand of health care management software available.  Why would expect them to do so?

And if you think living on welfare is a reward, get real.  Try it sometime.  Limit your expenditures to what I have to live on - $122 ($103 after taxes) a week unemployment and $55 a month in food stamps.  Reward??????

Always amusing to watch EXC get everything wrong.

Beyond Saving, YOU are the one who doesn't know what he's talking about!

As CEO and Chairman of the board Romney is LEGALLY responsible for all actions of his company including all the outsourcing they did to foreign nations!  It doesn't matter if he wasn't a day to day manager anymore since he was the head man who was still the legal head of the entire company so HE is responsible for all the outsourcing that occured when he was CEO!

Well I suppose familiarity of ignorant statements breeds contempt, allowing for amusement to replace anger. EXC used to annoy me, but that was before I accepted the fact that he has too many screws loose to take seriously on any political or economic discussion. He doesn't even understand the basic terms or definitions of said discussions, and has proven so with every 2nd or 3rd post he's posted since he joined here. So when I respond to him, it's not to actually talk to him. Such is pointless. Instead I speak to the audience, like when talking with any other evangelist.