Mitt Romney's Bailout Bonanza: How He Made Millions From The Rescue of Detroit

[Cincinnati_Kid]

"No thanks to Obama. I doubt if that would be the scenario if Romney's plan went through. Pensioners would have had to deal with the PBGC then. Not a good proposition."

'Splain, Lucy......

Splain what, Ricky?

[Bad Brains]

This is a strange election year. It has to be one of the first years where both sides completely agree that each choice is horrible. Hence noting changes.

[michimoby]

I wouldnt waste a tear if Romney loses on an investmment but I sure do hurt about workers losing their livelihoods with very little backup when shit hits the fan. The Romneys of this world dont care much about the plight of ordinary workers. I am not impressed by his business acumen either.

As a fellow alumnus of the consulting firm where Romney cut his teeth, I can assure you that the organization is chock-full of some very, very, very intelligent people with nary a clue of how business works.

I, too, am not buying the agenda that Romney's business background somehow solidifies his expertise when it comes to tax policy. In fact, I'd posit that it further clouds his judgment on the issue.

[Pam]

This is a strange election year. It has to be one of the first years where both sides completely agree that each choice is horrible.

Do these look like people who think their choice is "horrible"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101769429

[Honky Tonk]

"Splain what, Ricky? "

Hey, 'Kid, I see you corrected your original post, it makes sense to me now. Thanx.

[Wesley Mouch]

As a fellow alumnus of the consulting firm where Romney cut his teeth, I can assure you that the organization is chock-full of some very, very, very intelligent people with nary a clue of how business works.

I, too, am not buying the agenda that Romney's business background somehow solidifies his expertise when it comes to tax policy. In fact, I'd posit that it further clouds his judgment on the issue.

Why?

If business background isn't helpful, then what is? Very, very, very intelligent people?

I try not to judge Obama based on his associations with people like Wright and Jackson... and therefore I also try not to judge Romney on his previous associations either.

[bailey]

Originally Posted by michimoby As a fellow alumnus of the consulting firm where Romney cut his teeth, I can assure you that the organization is chock-full of some very, very, very intelligent people with nary a clue of how business works.


I, too, am not buying the agenda that Romney's business background somehow solidifies his expertise when it comes to tax policy. In fact, I'd posit that it further clouds his judgment on the issue.

Why?

If business background isn't helpful, then what is? Very, very, very intelligent people?

I try not to judge Obama based on his associations with people like Wright and Jackson... and therefore I also try not to judge Romney on his previous associations either.

Another issue I've never heard really rebutted by anyone... is why is Romney's "business" experience relevant today? He hasn't worked in the private sector for almost 15 years [[depending on who's timeline or "retroactive" retirement you decide to believe). Since that time he's either been managing the federal bailout of the olymics or running for office.

So, I'm just confused what a guy who's only real experience in business was in the last century [[and well before anything remotely resembling the current economic crisis) supposed to tell me about how to fix TODAY's economy?

I think it's a little like Joe Namith claiming he should play QB for the Lions tonight.

[Scottathew]

Glad to know Romney knows how to make a profit. We could use that in the oval office.

He'll get resistance when he tries to outsource the US Government and tries to kill PBS so he can keep his tax rate at 14%.

I took my wife and kids to the Bloofield Hills Bowers Farm on Square Lake Road over the weekend. We saw someone grooming a cute little pony. I said to my wife, "We're in Romney country."

For me though, the biggest reason I will vote for Obama, even though I consider myself a "fiscal conservative", is that Romney is anti-diplomacy, pro-fist-pounding, pro-war, and has the overall view that America is awesome and all dissenting opinions can eat bombs if they get in our way.

[Wesley Mouch]

Another issue I've never heard really rebutted by anyone... is why is Romney's "business" experience relevant today? He hasn't worked in the private sector for almost 15 years [[depending on who's timeline or "retroactive" retirement you decide to believe). Since that time he's either been managing the federal bailout of the olymics or running for office.

So, I'm just confused what a guy who's only real experience in business was in the last century [[and well before anything remotely resembling the current economic crisis) supposed to tell me about how to fix TODAY's economy?

I think it's a little like Joe Namith claiming he should play QB for the Lions tonight.

I thought the thread here was about how Romney made 'millions from the rescue of Detroit'. That experience wasn't last century. We can't both complain about his lack of business experience and about current successful business experience.

[bailey]

I thought the thread here was about how Romney made 'millions from the rescue of Detroit'. That experience wasn't last century. We can't both complain about his lack of business experience and about current successful business experience.

If you take Romney at his word, he has had no involvement with the "blind trusts" that hold his wealth ...and that profited from the "bailout".

Are you saying the Romneys are lying about their involvement in the management of the blind trusts?

[TKshreve]

Bottom line: Private sector business success falls far below many other priorities and skill sets a potential POTUS should have. I prefer communication, leadership, foreign relations among other things.

Romney's private sector past is without a question a successful one for him and Bain both. Too often though people do not look below the surface. And therein lies the true effect of Bain's vulture capitalism. It epitomizes the idea a few people doing incredibly well at the misfortune of so many. KayBee Toys was mentioned above. Take a moment to Google Dade Bearhing and..... actually, why don't you let me do that for you: http://bit.ly/Rh4Y6A

~50% of people think Mitt will only provide for the uber-rich and uber-powerful in this country. The other ~50% believe that Mitt's private sector successes will unequivocally transpose into economical success. Personally, I think the latter leave out the fact that Mitt's successes were founded on a lot of pain, sacrifice and job loss. We do not even know the extent of the externalities that resulted from such huge monetary injections into these companies. Was the environment ever on the receiving end of Bain's takeovers?

This is what a lot of people conveniently neglect. If Mitt's private sector successes are a true indicator of how he would perform in the White House...... what does the job losses, debt overload and eventual failure of so many businesses under the Bain umbrella indicate?

[michimoby]

Bottom line: Private sector business success falls far below many other priorities and skill sets a potential POTUS should have. I prefer communication, leadership, foreign relations among other things.

Romney's private sector past is without a question a successful one for him and Bain both. Too often though people do not look below the surface. And therein lies the true effect of Bain's vulture capitalism. It epitomizes the idea a few people doing incredibly well at the misfortune of so many. KayBee Toys was mentioned above. Take a moment to Google Dade Bearhing and..... actually, why don't you let me do that for you: http://bit.ly/Rh4Y6A

~50% of people think Mitt will only provide for the uber-rich and uber-powerful in this country. The other ~50% believe that Mitt's private sector successes will unequivocally transpose into economical success. Personally, I think the latter leave out the fact that Mitt's successes were founded on a lot of pain, sacrifice and job loss. We do not even know the extent of the externalities that resulted from such huge monetary injections into these companies. Was the environment ever on the receiving end of Bain's takeovers?

This is what a lot of people conveniently neglect. If Mitt's private sector successes are a true indicator of how he would perform in the White House...... what does the job losses, debt overload and eventual failure of so many businesses under the Bain umbrella indicate?

Look, PE transactions are decidedly hit or miss. That's the name of the game, really: your risk quotient is what draws in the private capital in the first place. It's a playground for wealthy investors looking to return gobs of cash to their trust funds, and these firms are essentially really savvy when it comes to managing that capital. We performed numerous due diligence efforts for these types of firms at BCG, and the only truth that emerges out of the rat race of assessing a potential acquisition is that no profit is guaranteed.

Bain Capital just happens to be under a significant amount of scrutiny because of Romney's involvement, as well as its presence in several high-profile transactions with his name attached to the SEC filing. But examining other high-profile firms like KKR would reveal the exact same ratio of transaction failures, but nobody is running around and assuming that Kohlberg, Kravis or Roberts are ineffective businessmen.

Now, are job cuts part of the equation? Yup -- that's usually the first step of a cookie cutter M&A: delayer the crap out of the acquisition, find inefficiencies, and cut 'em. Remember, the goal of a PE firm is to provide return to its investors OR prepare acquisitions for IPO [[which, in turn, still provides return to its investors).

But does it ALWAYS equate to "vulture capitalism"? Well, it depends. If cutting the fat from an acquisition allows it to operate more lean and thereby provide an eventual return to its investors, then you have to examine who those investors are. Unfortunately, a majority of the public isn't being given an invitation to join a PE fund.


.....but getting back to Wesley's "why" question: it's not an either/or, really. I think a good businessperson can provide some solid and effective perspective on tax policy, for sure -- especially if he/she truly has built small businesses from the ground up and can empathize with the challenges therein. Romney, despite his claims, doesn't really understand that element -- in fact, he was working with PE funds typically designed for wealthy investors to lower their capital gains taxes.

[Wesley Mouch]

If you take Romney at his word, he has had no involvement with the "blind trusts" that hold his wealth ...and that profited from the "bailout".

Are you saying the Romneys are lying about their involvement in the management of the blind trusts?

I was running with the assumption d'thread. How would I know whether Romney was lying. Running with a rumor and making it the truth isn't a requirement here -- or I just don't fit in.

[canuck]

As a fellow alumnus of the consulting firm where Romney cut his teeth, I can assure you that the organization is chock-full of some very, very, very intelligent people with nary a clue of how business works.

I, too, am not buying the agenda that Romney's business background somehow solidifies his expertise when it comes to tax policy. In fact, I'd posit that it further clouds his judgment on the issue.

Pretty interesting viewpoint Michimoby. In fact, it seems a lot of these consulting firms have a veneer of think tankism to them. I think that a lot of the clumsiness in business comes from this disadvantage of creating a bunch of office types with little or no interest in the companies they gobble up. I am not advocating a feel tank as opposed to a think tank kind of leadership, but I still think the statesman in Obama is no less talented at being executive or thoughtful on all issues than a guy like Romney whose business successes are obviously tied to a whole bunch of variables.

I happen to admire the statesmanship that comes with Obama. He has a stature that few western leaders have and an ambition that is not of the same type than most. He evidently care about his country more than his wallet and I hope he gets another term and that the economy picks up during his tenure so he can be remembered in a better light. I am betting on the variables...

[firstandten]

Another issue I've never heard really rebutted by anyone... is why is Romney's "business" experience relevant today?

It really isn't relevant, but Romney used that experience to make the case that he would create 12 million jobs. Whats more relevant in my mind is his time as governor of Mass, in which I made a case in another thread on the Non-Detroit side that it wasn't that good. Currently in Mass Mitt is down 20 points to Obama

[michimoby]

Pretty interesting viewpoint Michimoby. In fact, it seems a lot of these consulting firms have a veneer of think tankism to them. I think that a lot of the clumsiness in business comes from this disadvantage of creating a bunch of office types with little or no interest in the companies they gobble up.

This.

The degree of flexibility on how little empathy can be shown for a client within a consulting firm is stunning. At my clients, I found myself at odds with my managers at times...simply because I wanted to spend more of my day interacting with the guys that had to make the tough decisions rather than mine for data that would improve their share price by $.03.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Romney is a "snake-oil" salesman. Tread at your own risk.

[Danny]

Mitt Romney is a just a venture capitalist before he a fast politician. He's in it for the corporations rather than American People. He will not win for liberals and evangelicals. Twenty-five percent of Republicans don't like him for 'Romneycare' for the People of Massachusetts. Romney will not win Detroit and most Detroiters don't want him as president.

By the way Romney didn't serve in any U.S. Armed Forces, too. I want a president that serves in any U.S. military.

[Danny]

Romney did say "LET DETROIT GO BANKRUPT!" That really hurt Detroiters.

[noggin]

Romney did say "LET DETROIT GO BANKRUPT!" That really hurt Detroiters.

Unfortunately Danny when you get your news feed from the UAW and the corrupt media you are not going to have the correct understanding of the facts. "LET DETROIT GO BANKRUPT!" was a headline that was added by the New York Times [[all the news fit to print if it has a liberal bias) to Romney's op-ed. What he said was that he wanted to see a structured bankruptcy with government loan guarantees on the exit. Instead the collateralized bondholders got screwed and the UAW was given a free gift of GM stock with a loss carry forward of $45 billion. This has never been done before in a bankruptcy. btw Mr. Obama put GM through bankruptcy anyways.