Thread: Reaganomics
View Single Post
Old August 8th, 2012, 11:24 AM   #18 (permalink)
RazorSharp
Senior Member
 
RazorSharp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,195
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Nexus 7
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,345
Thanked 1,959 Times in 807 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Can't have the serfs attempting to counter crony capitalism.

Paul Abrams: Romney to Bain: Bail Me Out and Lie About It

Bain & Company established a subsidiary called Bain Capital that was seeded with millions of dollars

But, Romney was afraid, (yes, afraid!) he might fail, so he got Bain & Company to agree in advance to take him back if he failed, and with all the salary increases he might have received had he remained at the parent company.

That is, Romney took no risks, he could not lose, and he would not take the job unless Bain agreed to his terms

When Romney says he knows how the system works, I guess he means TARP, bailing out his buddies just as he was guaranteed a bail out.

But, that is not all. Romney was concerned that, if he failed, it would damage his reputation. (One is tempted to ask, "what reputation?", but that is another story). So, Bain agreed that if Romney failed at Bain Capital, it would announce that Romney was returning to the parent because the parent company "needed him."

This is the man who wrote "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt."

But, when it comes to himself -- no risk, no consequences for failure, all reward, happy to have prearranged a lie to preserve his "reputation."

Is this Romney's model of capitalism?

Romney is now running for President. We are entitled to know: Does Romney think everyone should have guaranteed "no-cut" contracts with their employers?

Or just himself?
You guys should post this stuff in the Romney v Obama thread, I feel like a lot of discussion about the same central topic has spilled into a lot of different places.
__________________
These teeth are razor sharp...
RazorSharp is offline  
Reply With Quote