Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by noah way, Aug 12, 2011.
This is one government handout that needs to end.
FOCUS | Matt Taibbi: Romney's Secret? Greed, Debt and Forcing Others to Foot the Bill
"MATT TAIBBI: Yes, there's a tax deduction for all that borrowed money. So, when Mitt Romney or Bain Capital, when they want to go take over a company like KB Toys and they borrow $300 million to do it, and that new debt becomes the debt of KB Toys, when KB pays the debt service, the monthly service on that debt, that service is deductible. And if that were not true, if they did not have that deduction, these deals would not be economically feasible. They wouldn't be possible. I spoke to one former regulator from the SEC, who worked both in the SEC and as an accountant at a Big Four accounting firm, and he reviewed a number of these deals in both a public and private capacity. And he said, without that deduction, he's never seen a deal that would have been economically-a private equity deal that would have been economically feasible. So, this entire business model depends upon a tax break."
Again with the topping of year old posts?
Still not able debate the subject ?
I see no reason to debate something that was debated a year ago. What's the point?
Fine, then why post ? I added more concerning the issue, which still continues. Believe it or not, you can learn from the past.
Why does it have to be a poor black guy with a prior record thicker than your computer tower? Others in this country don't have a prior record thicker than your computer tower?
Indian Land Grab
Right from the very start the European settlers were begging their British king to destroy the
Being a team player can be highly profitable, of course those that whine about it are just jealous of not being fit to be members of the team. Not Romney's fault that these whiners didn't choose their parents wisely.
Bain Capital Complaint Should Be Made Public, Court Rules
U.S. District Judge Edward Harrington said in a decision on Friday that the public has the right to see a new complaint filed as part of a class-action antitrust lawsuit that claims Bain Capital and 10 other private equity firms colluded with one another to keep the costs of leveraged buyouts low. The plaintiffs recently filed another complaint with new information, but that complaint has not yet been made public because of opposition from Bain Capital lawyers, who say doing so could hurt the company's business because of increased scrutiny during the election news cycle.
Adam Smith - Wikiquote
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Romney wasn't involved with Bain at the time this alleged incident occurred. Let's blame him anyway though. We should all be held responsible for things our companies do after we leave them.
"Romney's and Bain's lawyers say he was not involved in the company at the time of the deals covered by the lawsuit." Yep that is what is claimed. Complaint has not been made public, but the lawyers don't want it made public because of the "election news cycle."
The article doesn't say exactly when the incident in question took place now that I look at it more in depth. You'd think that would be in there since when Romney left Bain is what makes a difference in whether this is a news story or not.
Well since complaint isn't public, hard to know. It's interesting Bain lawyers are attempting to suppress complaint because of "election news cycle".
Lawsuits are public records, so why cite "election news cycle" as a reason to suppress if Romney wasn't involved. Bain lawyers can't win on public disclosure, so an attempt to delay disclosure till after the election ?
Bain lawyers know that even if it came out that it happened during a time that Romney wasn't involved with Bain he would still get blamed for it by the Obama campaign.
Supposedly Romney is no longer involved in Bain management, so why should Bain lawyers object ? This is a court of law, Obama can blame away to his hearts content.
Or . . .
Perhaps if you do not feel like playing, you can simply avoid the thread? Seems reasonable to this cowboy.
But you and other's like you will defend Obama's accusations.
Which has nothing to do with making the class action anti-trust complaint public. Obama is not a party to the class action lawsuit.
Here's the thing.
Complaint is made public.
Let's say it's from a time after Romney left Bain in 1999. Obama backers will still blame Romney for it.
Romney will deny it claiming he wasn't with the firm with the time and Obama backers will label him a liar.
Complaint is public record. Doesn't matter if Romney is involved or not.
You realize Romney will get blamed for it whether he's involved or not right?
Just like he was accused of killing a woman.
Well, Ted Kennedy proved you can kill a woman and still have a successful political career.
He did though. Directly at fault.
Romney was the CEO till at least 2002. He still derives a great deal of income from the company. Again, this is a court case, so if he gets blamed or not is not relevant.