Documents: Romney didn't manage Bain funds - ANOTHER LIB LIE DEBUNKED

[MCWAY]

the more you post the more i have to say pat was right,   when are you going to start the post ,rush says 

spin on

The ultimate kneepadder, mindlessly parroting stories long debunked years ago, all to avoid defending his beloved Messiah's pitiful job record.

8% unemployment or higher for forty-two straight months under Obama.

You spin on, Blacken. I can certainly use the laughs.

[tonymctones]

I am with you on trying to fix out sourcing although I do not believe its possible anymore.  Why would a company want to not out source when they can get cheaper overhead costs elsewhere and provide products at lower cost vs. higher overhead costs and higher end product costs to the consumer?  In some capacity, no matter what companies will have to outsource in seems.  Like for example, how many things are made 100% in the USA anymore?  Not simple things, things like air compressors, irons, blenders etc.?

We can encourage it, but can we really make it a non factor anymore?

As for Romney's role in Bain, are those the details you listed or are those just a basic explanation of the relationship Bain had to the accused outsourcing?  I want to know exact details of the charge and the explanation.

Also, what do you personally think of beirbart headline that suggests OB took money from Bain?  Do you think it's spin based or do you see no distinction in execs donating their own money versus a coporation doing it?

BTW this whole thing is obviously political deflection on OB' campaign and it seems weak and they should be held accountable for their accusations.

I partially agree with you, there are ways to make outsourcing less appealing but it will still happen hopefully just less often.

Basic definition, again equity companies dont run the businesses they own. yes they do own them but in general the owner that owned the business prior to being bought out is kept on to run the business as the CEO/manager

Equity companies own a broad array of businesses from different industries(this is part of the way they diversify risk) this means they dont know the ins and outs of every business and are not present in the decision making of the day to day operations.

I agree though I would like to see the papers he signed and to what involvement he had if any.

I personally dont think it matters if it was bain or the bain owners and obviously it doesnt matter to obama either seeing as I havent heard of him giving the money back either way.

Either way it shouldnt be an issue unless obama goes out and condemns private equity bain in particular like has been doing and it turns out that bain donated to him.

agreed on the political deflection, like I have said before I think all this political distraction will backfire especially if obama keeps it up until the election.

the public wants plans even if they arent great plans and telling lies even if they are partial lies this early that will get brought to light could backfire.

[blacken700]

The ultimate kneepadder, mindlessly parroting stories long debunked years ago, all to avoid defending his beloved Messiah's pitiful job record.

8% unemployment or higher for forty-two straight months under Obama.

You spin on, Blacken. I can certainly use the laughs.

you have to read the title of the post before you can post, your looking a little foolish here,this is not about unemployment.maybe you should stick to listening to rush,i think that's more your speed  

[MCWAY]

you have to read the title of the post before you can post your looking a little foolish here,this is not about unemployment.maybe you should stick to listening to rush,i think that's more your speed 

One, before calling someone foolish, take up some grammar lessons. The word is "YOU'RE", Einstein.

Two, I'm fully aware of the title of this thread. 333386 posted to make the EXACT SAME POINT that I'm making.

Kneepadderlike you keep spewing this tripe for one reason: To attempt to deflect attention from Obama's pathetic record, namely the 8% or higher unemployment for 42 straight months.

It's not surprising, because your ilk did the same thing with Dog-Gate, Bully-Gate, and Ann-Gate.

When this goes down in flames, you will (in sheepish fashion) jump on the next let's-talk-about-anything-but-Obama's-record-bandwagon tipic.

[blacken700]

One, before calling someone foolish, take up some grammar lessons. The word is "YOU'RE", Einstein.

Two, I'm fully aware of the title of this thread. 333386 posted to make the EXACT SAME POINT that I'm making.

Kneepadderlike you keep spewing this tripe for one reason: To attempt to deflect attention from Obama's pathetic record, namely the 8% or higher unemployment for 42 straight months.

It's not surprising, because your ilk did the same thing with Dog-Gate, Bully-Gate, and Ann-Gate.

When this goes down in flames, you will (in sheepish fashion) jump on the next let's-talk-about-anything-but-Obama's-record-bandwagon tipic.

your man is lying just like your other canidate cain ,my guess  is you know how to pick the losers.but you do listen to beck,and admit it now that's good for a laugh    mcway- i let talk radio do my thinking for me 

[MCWAY]

your man is lying just like your other canidate cain ,my guess  is you know how to pick the losers.but you do listen to beck,and admit it now that's good for a laugh    mcway- i let talk radio do my thinking for me  

Coming from you, Mr. I-parrot-MSNBC (the red-headed stepchild of cable news)-and-also-get-thrills-up-my-leg-about-Obama, this is quite comical. You'd think you would at least get your slobbering points from the best in the business in their genre.

Four Bain execs stated Romney wasn't running the show after 1999 (all libs, BTW). Others with the company have echoed those sentiments and their words are documented.

But, why let that stand in the way of your latest attempt to kneepad for Obama and deflect from his record?

Morning Examiner: Why is Obama granting amnesty to a Wall Street felon?

Yesterday, The Boston Globe attacked Mitt Romney with a front-page story purporting to show that Romney lied about leaving Bain Capital in 1999. The Globe story claims to have uncovered new Securities and Exchange Commission documents showing that Romney had managerial control over Bain through 2002. The story would be devastating to the Romney campaign if it was true. But it’s not.

First, there is nothing new in the Globe story. Liberal bloggers at Mother Jones and Talking Points Memo have been circulating the same documents for weeks. Both Fortune Magazine and The Washington Post already debunked the claim that these documents show Romney had any control over the firm.

So why is Romney listed as CEO of Bain Capital if he wasn’t running the company. George Mason University law school corporate law professor J.W. Verret explains:

    The Boston Globe seems to be confused about the SEC filings. They refer to Bain Capital VI, an investment distinct from what we commonly know as “Bain Capital.” Saying that Governor Romney was the CEO of Bain Capital VI is like saying that I am the CEO of my retirement account… its a silly bit of legalese but it doesn’t mean I am CEO of all the companies in which I invest.

    As a securities lawyer, if the former CEO of a private equity fund had asked me for advice about what to say in an SEC filing of this type, who had retired from a company and who maintained an ownership stake but otherwise had no involvement in its management or investment strategies, I would have advised inserting the language referenced by
    the Boston Globe in the filing out of an abundance of caution.

In other words, contra Obama, Romney did not have any managerial control of Bain after 1999, and nothing in the SEC documents produced by the Globe shows otherwise.

But Obama can’t just admit that his Bain attacks against Romney are all based on lies. So instead, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter doubled down. On a conference call with reporters she accused Romney of “misrepresenting his position” at Bain to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which she claimed “is a felony.”

But if it is a felony, then why isn’t the nation’s top law enforcement officer, Obama, prosecuting Romney?

Either Obama’s Bain attacks are all lies or he has granted amnesty to a Wall Street felon. Which is it?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/morning-examiner-why-is-obama-granting-amnesty-to-a-wall-street-felon/article/2502057

Besides, I've had my share of winning picks. I picked Scott Walker to win that recall by 6 points; he won by seven. And, unless I'm mistaken, I do recall making some picks about the 2010 midterms.

[240 is Back]

I'm not debating the merits of outsourcing toney - i know you'd like to change it to that, but htat's not the issue.

Romney was a part-timer at bain during those years.  Attended board meetings and was paid for it.

"no association" is false.  Period. 

Now, you can ask me 7 questions about what's wrong with outsourcing, but I never said it was bad.  I just said that romney lied, which he did.  Changing the topic to something else won't change that.

[orion]

Another dumb non-issue.  Romney is right that Obama owes him an apology.  Doubt he gets it. 

You know, this is where some critical thinking should come into play.  If the guy was the sole shareholder, CEO,and president while on leave do you really think he was not getting daily phone calls and emails asking for approval over policy decisions?  You would have to be pretty naieve to believe not.  I would shake Romneys hand if I met him, I would just check all my fingers were still there afterwards, the guy is beyond slick.

[blacken700]

You know, this is where some critical thinking should come into play.  If the guy was the sole shareholder, CEO,and president while on leave do you really think he was not getting daily phone calls and emails asking for approval over policy decisions?  You would have to be pretty naieve to believe not.  I would shake Romneys hand if I met him, I would just check all my fingers were still there afterwards, the guy is beyond slick.

don't you bring common sense into this argument 

[Shockwave]

You know, this is where some critical thinking should come into play.  If the guy was the sole shareholder, CEO,and president while on leave do you really think he was not getting daily phone calls and emails asking for approval over policy decisions?  You would have to be pretty naieve to believe not.  I would shake Romneys hand if I met him, I would just check all my fingers were still there afterwards, the guy is beyond slick.

I thought most CEO's have very little to do with actual day-to-day operations?

I think this would become an actual issue if they could prove that he was still there every day, making policy decisions and influencing the company. Otherwise its just another worthless non-issue meant to distract from Obama's terrible record.

[MCWAY]

I thought most CEO's have very little to do with actual day-to-day operations?

I think this would become an actual issue if they could prove that he was still there every day, making policy decisions and influencing the company. Otherwise its just another worthless non-issue meant to distract from Obama's terrible record.

That's precisely what it is. Link after link and source after source have been posted, that have taken this tripe apart. But, our resident Obama cheerleaders continue to spew this silliness, because they want to talk about ANYTHING but their hero's pathetic record.

[Soul Crusher]

That's precisely what it is. Link after link and source after source have been posted, that have taken this tripe apart. But, our resident Obama cheerleaders continue to spew this silliness, because they want to talk about ANYTHING but their hero's pathetic record.

I don't even see what the issue is here? 

Its not like the company was engaged in mass fraud or criminal behavior from 1999 - 2002. 

[MCWAY]

I don't even see what the issue is here? 

Its not like the company was engaged in mass fraud or criminal behavior from 1999 - 2002. 

The issue is that Obama is trying to paint Romney as an "evil" outsourcer of U.S. jobs (as if he has room to talk); so, he shouldn't be president.

Why don't you refresh the kneepadders' memories, regarding all the outsourcing Obama has done WITH OUR TAXPAYER MONEY, no less.

[240 is Back]

The issue is that Obama is trying to paint Romney as an "evil" outsourcer of U.S. jobs (as if he has room to talk); so, he shouldn't be president.
Why don't you refresh the kneepadders' memories, regarding all the outsourcing Obama has done WITH OUR TAXPAYER MONEY, no less.

TO me - that is NOT the issue.

My issue is that romney is so afraid of this perception that he's willing to tell obvious lies to avoid it.

That lack of spine, lack of balls is pretty obvious in the fact he won't take a position on DREAM exec order, won't criticize the SCOTUS obamacare decision, won't do anything BOLD or take any stands - for fear of upsetting someone.

If you're president, you're pissing off a lot of people/countries.  Part of the job.  You can't please everyone.  ROmney needs to stop telling obvious lies so a few msnbc voters don't get mad at him about outsourcing.  He needs to just embrace what he did and how profitable he was able to make Bain - based upon his ability to ascertain opportunities and find solutions, or cut the dogs.


lack of decisiveness is hurtin romney.

[Shockwave]

TO me - that is NOT the issue.

My issue is that romney is so afraid of this perception that he's willing to tell obvious lies to avoid it.

That lack of spine, lack of balls is pretty obvious in the fact he won't take a position on DREAM exec order, won't criticize the SCOTUS obamacare decision, won't do anything BOLD or take any stands - for fear of upsetting someone.

If you're president, you're pissing off a lot of people/countries.  Part of the job.  You can't please everyone.  ROmney needs to stop telling obvious lies so a few msnbc voters don't get mad at him about outsourcing.  He needs to just embrace what he did and how profitable he was able to make Bain - based upon his ability to ascertain opportunities and find solutions, or cut the dogs.


lack of decisiveness is hurtin romney.

I agree, but he's a modern day politician, what do you expect?
Both candidates do the exact same thing, they tell everyone what they want to here regardless of what their actual stance on the issues are.
Its what politicians do now days. Its shitty, but its politics today.

[orion]

I thought most CEO's have very little to do with actual day-to-day operations?

I think this would become an actual issue if they could prove that he was still there every day, making policy decisions and influencing the company. Otherwise its just another worthless non-issue meant to distract from Obama's terrible record.

Well, maybe not day to day but certainly any decision that would affect the bottom line would be run by him first and I'm betting it was.  As 33 said the company was not engaged in anything illegal, it is just a matter of perception.  The fact that he won't release his tax records says something.

[240 is Back]

I agree, but he's a modern day politician, what do you expect?
Both candidates do the exact same thing, they tell everyone what they want to here regardless of what their actual stance on the issues are.
Its what politicians do now days. Its shitty, but its politics today.

I don't think every modern day politician is spinless and scared to make waves.

Chris Christie was probably the #1 favorite of repubs in 2012 to run for president, the guy makes NONSTOP waves.  Total spine, giant brass balls.

Jeb was the other one - and he's gone out of his way to say "I know this position will upset far-right conservatives, but..." on a number of issues.

Bachmann had batshit crazy balls.  Ron paul was completely defiant.  Santorum was irrevrant at best, a little nuts at worst.  Newt was a loose cannon.


If anything, I'd say Mitt has the LEAST balls in that 2012 nomination process.  And it's hurting him now.

[Shockwave]

I don't think every modern day politician is spinless and scared to make waves.

Chris Christie was probably the #1 favorite of repubs in 2012 to run for president, the guy makes NONSTOP waves.  Total spine, giant brass balls.

Jeb was the other one - and he's gone out of his way to say "I know this position will upset far-right conservatives, but..." on a number of issues.

Bachmann had batshit crazy balls.  Ron paul was completely defiant.  Santorum was irrevrant at best, a little nuts at worst.  Newt was a loose cannon.


If anything, I'd say Mitt has the LEAST balls in that 2012 nomination process.  And it's hurting him now.

The point, is that the Conservative establishment is going to try and run the guy they think has the best chance of winning, and theyre following the classic political move of "Run the guy that tells everyone what they want to hear"

[240 is Back]

The point, is that the Conservative establishment is going to try and run the guy they think has the best chance of winning, and theyre following the classic political move of "Run the guy that tells everyone what they want to hear"

No, they had a system in place where ANYONE - even someone actively disliked by 75% of GOP voters - can win, if he/she can spend enough money.

Romney barely beat a mess like Santorum by outspending him 6-to-1.   If the money was equal, ROmney would have lost.  Repubs can lose in 2012 and maybe ask themselves why they had a guy hated by 3/4 of their party somehow representing their party.

[Shockwave]

No, they had a system in place where ANYONE - even someone actively disliked by 75% of GOP voters - can win, if he/she can spend enough money.

Romney barely beat a mess like Santorum by outspending him 6-to-1.   If the money was equal, ROmney would have lost.  Repubs can lose in 2012 and maybe ask themselves why they had a guy hated by 3/4 of their party somehow representing their party.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the Conservative establishment didnt have a massive role in pushing Romney to victory?

[240 is Back]

Are you seriously trying to argue that the Conservative establishment didnt have a massive role in pushing Romney to victory?

not at first.  rush and levin trashed him nonstop.

then, once he suddenly started winning primaries by outspending 6 to 1, they realized it was inevitable and they fell into line.

Now they kneepad him.

[tonymctones]

I'm not debating the merits of outsourcing toney - i know you'd like to change it to that, but htat's not the issue.

Romney was a part-timer at bain during those years.  Attended board meetings and was paid for it.

"no association" is false.  Period. 

Now, you can ask me 7 questions about what's wrong with outsourcing, but I never said it was bad.  I just said that romney lied, which he did.  Changing the topic to something else won't change that.

thats fine but thats not the issue the left/you are pushing

the reason this is significant is b/c it would place romney with bain while companies they owned outsourced work.

I hope your honest enough to admit that but I wont hold my breath.

[240 is Back]

DRIP, DRIP: ROMNEY A BAIN 'MANAGING MEMBER' IN LATE '02

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/15/mitt-romney-bain-capital_n_1674209.html
 
WASHINGTON -- Add another document to the pile of evidence contradicting Mitt Romney's continued insistence that he ended his active role with Bain Capital in early 1999, part of his long-running effort to avoid responsibility for the company's activity, related to outsourcing and bankruptcies, during the years that followed.
 
A corporate document filed with the state of Massachusetts in December 2002 -- a month after Romney was elected governor -- lists him as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors, LLC "authorized to execute, acknowledge, deliver and record any recordable instrument purporting to affect an interest in real property, whether to be recorded with a Registry of Deeds or with a District Office of the Land Court."
 
In August 2011, Romney told federal authorities, as part of the financial disclosure process, that he "retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee . Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way."

Previously reported evidence shows that Romney was listed as the CEO, chairman and president of the company after 1999 in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; took a six-figure salary; signed corporate documents related to major and minor deals and attended board meetings for at least two Bain-affiliated companies. The state document was filed two and a half years after Romney now says he retired from the company, demonstrating his deep and ongoing connection to the firm.

[Soul Crusher]

NY Times: 'No Evidence' Romney Did Bain Business after 1999
NewsMax ^ | 07/16/2012 | Patrick Hobin
Posted on July 16, 2012 9:13:53 PM EDT by SeekAndFind

There is no evidence that Mitt Romney exercised his powers at private equity firm Bain Capital after 1999 or directed funds’ investments after leaving, The New York Times reported.

Although some documents place the Republican presidential hopeful in charge of Bain from 1999 to 2001, a period in which the company outsourced jobs and ran companies that fell into bankruptcy, it is not related to who was running Bain at the time, the Times reported.

Romney has tried to distance himself from this period in Bain's history, saying on financial disclosure forms he had no active role in Bain as of February 1999.

“It’s a disconnect between the ownership interest and managerial functions,” Harvey Pitt, who served as S.E.C. chairman under President George W. Bush, told the Times. “When Bain takes positions in public companies, they’re required to show anyone who has an ownership interest that could be the effective equivalent of control. So Romney has to be shown on those filings.

"If they didn’t show them on those filings, they would have broken the law. But it has nothing to do with who’s actually running Bain Capital,” Pitt added.

Financial disclosures filed in Massachusetts back up Romney’s case and show that he drew at least $100,000 in 2001 from Bain as a “former executive” and from other Bain entities as a passive general partner, according to the Times.

The newspaper also pointed to an offering memorandum to investors in a Bain equity fund that was circulated in June 2000 and suggests Romney was not involved in the management of investments. The memorandum lists backgrounds on 18 managers, or “senior private equity investment professionals of Bain Capital,” and Romney is not among them.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...

[orion]

NY Times: 'No Evidence' Romney Did Bain Business after 1999
NewsMax ^ | 07/16/2012 | Patrick Hobin
Posted on July 16, 2012 9:13:53 PM EDT by SeekAndFind

There is no evidence that Mitt Romney exercised his powers at private equity firm Bain Capital after 1999 or directed funds’ investments after leaving, The New York Times reported.

Although some documents place the Republican presidential hopeful in charge of Bain from 1999 to 2001, a period in which the company outsourced jobs and ran companies that fell into bankruptcy, it is not related to who was running Bain at the time, the Times reported.

Romney has tried to distance himself from this period in Bain's history, saying on financial disclosure forms he had no active role in Bain as of February 1999.

“It’s a disconnect between the ownership interest and managerial functions,” Harvey Pitt, who served as S.E.C. chairman under President George W. Bush, told the Times. “When Bain takes positions in public companies, they’re required to show anyone who has an ownership interest that could be the effective equivalent of control. So Romney has to be shown on those filings.

"If they didn’t show them on those filings, they would have broken the law. But it has nothing to do with who’s actually running Bain Capital,” Pitt added.

Financial disclosures filed in Massachusetts back up Romney’s case and show that he drew at least $100,000 in ]2001 from Bain as a “former executive” and from other Bain entities as a passive general partner, according to the Times.

The newspaper also pointed to an offering memorandum to investors in a Bain equity fund that was circulated in June 2000 and suggests Romney was not involved in the management of investments. The memorandum lists backgrounds on 18 managers, or “senior private equity investment professionals of Bain Capital,” and Romney is not among them.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...

No evidence yet, but the funny thing about deleting emails, they are never really deleted.  Somebody somewhere has something on file and sooner or later it will surface.  You can bet the farm on that.