oldsquid

squid Bain risks everything, let me explain it this way. If you were to invest a chunk of your savings and there were several different ways to bond the savings at different interest rates. One was extremely risky because you could take your neighbor's child's funding for college and invest it at a half a point higher rate with the idea that it spent another six months locked away and that your neighbor never found out you were eating his wife's pussy for lunch and fucking his dog after the softball games. At which point all bets would be off.

LOLOLOL gritznomics 101

Squid...What is your point about Bain? The NY Times reporters were going to do a hit piece on Romney/Bain but failed to find much to complain about. You wouldn't expect Bain folks to work or invest for free...so of course they were paid. Just as the reporters were paid for their work. None of this comes as a surprise to those involved since it was all covered by signed contracts...you do know what a contract is dont' you? Even when they reviewed the 7 companies that went bankrupt while Romney was at Bain they realized it wasn't Romney's fault...."The companies that fell into bankruptcy were clearly the exception, and the causes were also often multilayered. Some companies proved too troubled to rescue, and others were hit by broader economic or industrywide downturns." That steel company the Dems keep mentioning falls into this category.

Not sure what to say about your Supreme Court story. We know lawyers and their clients are always out for money and the insurance company doesn't want to pay it. I hate these 5-4 decision. Would be nice to see 9-0 decisions but we are so split nowadays all we see are these close decisions.

Why should anyone recieve workers comp. for a non-work related injury?

Originally Posted by Antonious

Squid...What is your point about Bain? The NY Times reporters were going to do a hit piece on Romney/Bain but failed to find much to complain about. You wouldn't expect Bain folks to work or invest for free...so of course they were paid. Just as the reporters were paid for their work. None of this comes as a surprise to those involved since it was all covered by signed contracts...you do know what a contract is dont' you? Even when they reviewed the 7 companies that went bankrupt while Romney was at Bain they realized it wasn't Romney's fault...."The companies that fell into bankruptcy were clearly the exception, and the causes were also often multilayered. Some companies proved too troubled to rescue, and others were hit by broader economic or industrywide downturns." That steel company the Dems keep mentioning falls into this category.

Not sure what to say about your Supreme Court story. We know lawyers and their clients are always out for money and the insurance company doesn't want to pay it. I hate these 5-4 decision. Would be nice to see 9-0 decisions but we are so split nowadays all we see are these close decisions.

Ant, nice dance. But the question wasn't whether they should work for free. The question was and is where was the risk? This whole thing looks pretty risk free to me, they get their money up front. It's okay Ant. I never expected a coherent answer to the actual question.

Originally Posted by Uncle Larry

Why should anyone recieve workers comp. for a non-work related injury?

You shouldn't. But what if you were hurt at work but the insurance company says you weren't, but can't back that up? Under this decision, you're screwed. They originally settled, which tells me that he was hurt on the job.

Risk? Obviously if you put in your time(often years) and money then there is risk. Bain rarely gets any money 'upfront'. The company Bain is working with is nearly bankrupt so they have no money which is why they called Bain...you really don't know how this works do you? Bain puts their money 'upfront' and then get paid as they go along....and with the contract they are probably paid first to ensure they get some payback on their investment in a company that is already on the edge of bankruptcy. A company is willing to sign because they have nothing to lose. If Bain succeeds they succeed, if they fail they were going to fail anyway without Bain. Both had reason to succeed....and as the article points out most did succeed.

Wish we could compare Romney's vs Obama's business record but of course Obama has no such record. Point goes to Romney.

Did you even read the article? In every case they took their fee. There was never any risk. This is just your dishonesty on display again.

As I said you don't even understand the basics of this issue.

In other words, there never was any risk, just your fucking to the bone dishonesty. You refuse to answer because you can't.

I have explained it to you a couple times now. I like how you ignor facts for your fantasy...again. You obviously don't understand risk even when it's explained to you. So if you don't understand the basics how can this discussion proceed. You are attempting to putdown Romney but have no idea what you are talking about. Like all Dems you are a little weak in the economic/risk field...you just don't understand it. Probably because you never started or ran a business...never paid a staff with your own money. Never risked....

baikal, you work with this stuff. Old "money is always more important than people, couldn't give a straight answer if his life depended on it" Ant refuses to answer the question. Where the hell was there "risk" in any of this?

Originally Posted by Antonious

I have explained it to you a couple times now. I like how you ignor facts for your fantasy...again. You obviously don't understand risk even when it's explained to you. So if you don't understand the basics how can this discussion proceed. You are attempting to putdown Romney but have no idea what you are talking about. Like all Dems you are a little weak in the economic/risk field...you just don't understand it. Probably because you never started or ran a business...never paid a staff with your own money. Never risked....

You haven't explained shit, just a binch of "what if's" and "suppose that." These folks laid out specifically what Bain was doing and even Romney's old partner as much as admitted that there was no risk.

And this particular passage from the article you are real careful to avoid.

"Bain structured deals so that it was difficult for the firm and its executives to ever really lose, even if practically everyone else involved with the company that Bain owned did, including its employees, creditors and even, at times, investors in Bain’s funds."

So either answer the question or STFU.

Yep, silence.

Where the hell was there "risk" in any of this?

Romney's risks are over with Bush's WMD's....

It's what I thought. Ant is running the same con game as his new hero. What they are billing as "risk" was actually just a racket. Kind of hard to keep up that charade when your business partner spills the beans.

If Ant responds at all it will be with more dancing and dishonesty.

As for the workers comp article, the Texas supremes, Republicans all, sides with insurance companies to butt fuck Texas workers. Not surprising that neither Ant nor Larry can see the "point" of the posting.

squid obviously you do not understand how late capitalism works. For instance the companies paid Bain for the instance of Bain taking them over. For instance in the near future when Wal Mart takes over your house by eminent domain you will pay Wal Mart for the luxury.

I thought WalMart was already exercising eminent domain. Bet someone got a better cubicle for that idea.

I have attempted to explain it to you a couple times now squid. So it is you who is engaging in dancing and dishonesty. Of course Bain structured their deals where they lessened Bain's chances of loss....if you put up your own money and time you would want payment too. Bain received much more money if they were successful than if they failed...but as we know they rarely failed. Sounds like you wanted them to lose money on these deals. Who would invest (to save these companies) if they knew they would always lose money? As I said you just don't understand the issue. Obama's folks are appealing to voters like you squid.

What is the difference between Republican Coach Jerry Sandusky and Mittens Romney's Bain Capital?