Romney's 2011 tax return released

#78
#78
PKT_VOL said:
By not being forthright, you are by definition "hiding" something. The only question is what and for what purpose.

I like my presidential candidates or any politician for that matter to be as transparent as possible.
Click to expand...


Then there's no way in Hades you can be considering Obama.
 
#81
#81
Vol Main said:
That is exactly the point, but it wouldn't be whining, and there would be far more than just something.
Click to expand...

The government taking over 30%, and over $4M, of the money that a person has rightfully and justly earned is just not enough for you, is it?
 
#83
#83
wonder if Reid will release his to explain how he became a multi-millionaire just by being a Senator
 
#85
#85
DC_Vol said:
Yes, I believe you called it "stealing", right?

What else might be hidden in there?
Click to expand...

There is a pattern of his enriching himself and his investors by purchasing financially healthy companies, replacing their management with well paid yes men who took orders to trash the employees while taking out huge loans and transferring the money out of the companies into his pockets, leaving the companies without enough operating capital to pay their legitimate bills. It's called vulture capitalism, but vampire capitalism would be a better analogy. Romney did not get rich buying failing companies and returning them to profitability. He got rich by purchasing healthy companies and deliberately mismanaging them into bankruptcy. His tax returns would show how much money he made by destroying companies and their employees. Being a successful thief is not a very good recommendation to be elected President of the United States.
 
Last edited:
#86
#86
Vol Main said:
There is a pattern of his enriching himself and his investors by purchasing financially healthy companies, replacing their management with well paid yes men who took orders to trash the employees while taking out huge loans and transferring the money out of the companies into his pockets, leaving the companies without enough operating capital to pay their legitimate bills. It's called vulture capitalism. Romney did not get rich buying failing companies and returning them to profitability. He got rich by purchasing healthy companies and deliberately mismanaging them into bankruptcy. His tax returns would show how much money he made by destroying companies and their employees. Being a successful thief is not a very good recommendation to be elected President of the United States.
Click to expand...

do you have proof of this or is this some more of your meticulous, yet unverifiable, research?
 
#87
#87
Vol Main said:
There is a pattern of his enriching himself and his investors by purchasing financially healthy companies, replacing their management with well paid yes men who took orders to trash the employees while taking out huge loans and transferring the money out of the companies into his pockets, leaving the companies without enough operating capital to pay their legitimate bills. It's called vulture capitalism. Romney did not get rich buying failing companies and returning them to profitability. He got rich by purchasing healthy companies and deliberately mismanaging them into bankruptcy. His tax returns would show how much money he made by destroying companies and their employees. Being a successful thief is not a very good recommendation to be elected President of the United States.
Click to expand...

Can you point me to one of these healthy companies?

Private equity doesn't normally come into play unless a company is on the verge of bankruptcy. If Bain Capital had such a bad reputation, why would the company sell itself to them?

Usually when you buy a company in bad financial health, you have to do things like cut costs in order to keep it viable.

Bain had a success record north of 75% when Romney ran the firm. That's more that can be said for Obama and his "investments".

You should think about applying your own standards to Obama. You're talking about something that you obviously know very little about.
 
Last edited:
#89
#89
MG1968 said:
do you have proof of this or is this some more of your meticulous, yet unverifiable, research?
Click to expand...

Surely one with a prestigious history degree from the University of Tennessee would do research before he accuses one of the nominees for POTUS of being a thief.

After reading several of his post, it appears he does a majority of his research by watching Matthews, Rev Al, Maddow and Schultz.
 
#90
#90
Vol Main said:
There is a pattern of his enriching himself and his investors by purchasing financially healthy companies, replacing their management with well paid yes men who took orders to trash the employees while taking out huge loans and transferring the money out of the companies into his pockets, leaving the companies without enough operating capital to pay their legitimate bills. It's called vulture capitalism. Romney did not get rich buying failing companies and returning them to profitability. He got rich by purchasing healthy companies and deliberately mismanaging them into bankruptcy. His tax returns would show how much money he made by destroying companies and their employees. Being a successful thief is not a very good recommendation to be elected President of the United States.
Click to expand...

This is a flat out lie. Show me that history. Name the companies. Then, show me the lenders that let him borrow money that wouldn't be repaid.
 
#91
#91
Vol Main said:
There is a pattern of his enriching himself and his investors by purchasing financially healthy companies, replacing their management with well paid yes men who took orders to trash the employees while taking out huge loans and transferring the money out of the companies into his pockets, leaving the companies without enough operating capital to pay their legitimate bills. It's called vulture capitalism. Romney did not get rich buying failing companies and returning them to profitability. He got rich by purchasing healthy companies and deliberately mismanaging them into bankruptcy. His tax returns would show how much money he made by destroying companies and their employees. Being a successful thief is not a very good recommendation to be elected President of the United States.
Click to expand...

Guilty until proven innocent. I am noticing a trend, here.
 
#92
#92
lawgator1 said:
Seriously, that someone proved he was wrong. I missed it. Can you link ?
Click to expand...

Letter on the record from PWC - one the major certified accounting agencies that has nothing to gain and everything to lose by falsifying information.

The letter released on Friday from Price Waterhouse Coopers, Mr. Romney’s tax preparers, said that Mr. Romney paid taxes every year from 1990 to 2009.

“In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes,” the company wrote. “Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.”
Click to expand...

Not good enough for you?

You believe PWC would willfully lie about this?
 
#93
#93
volinbham said:
Letter on the record from PWC - one the major certified accounting agencies that has nothing to gain and everything to lose by falsifying information.



Not good enough for you?

You believe PWC would willfully lie about this?
Click to expand...


No, no. That's pretty good proof.

I still don't understand why he won't release them and in fact this makes it seem even more like he should. Just doesn't make sense to me.
 
#94
#94
lawgator1 said:
No, no. That's pretty good proof.

I still don't understand why he won't release them and in fact this makes it seem even more like he should. Just doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Do you release your financial records to everyone you meet?
 
#95
#95
Wait are we going after Romney for Bain again when it's easily the most successful resume item of either candidate? Go after him for the flip flopping, or neocon foreign policy, or the many other reasons, but Bain is solid.
 
#96
#96
DC_Vol said:
Can you point me to one of these healthy companies?
I'll point you to three: Dade Intrnational, Ampad, and Stage.

Private equity doesn't normally come into play unless a company is on the verge of bankruptcy. If Bain Capital had such a bad reputation, why would the company sell itself to them?
Some private equity firms specialize in acquiring financially troubled companies and returning them to profitability, but they are probably a small percentage. Different private equity firms have different business models. Bain did different things, but there is no doubt that it was a hit and run firm.

Usually when you buy a company in bad financial health, you have to do things like cut costs in order to keep it viable. But Bain bought financially healthy companies and sucked money out of them in every conceivable way, until they went bankrupt. There is no doubt about it.

Bain had a success record north of 75% when Romney ran the firm. That's more that can be said for Obama and his "investments".
Most of Romney's so-called business success consisted of transferring money out of other companies into his own.

You should think about applying your own standards to Obama. You're talking about something that you obviously know very little about.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you persist in telling me how little I now about equity firms. My views are based on many years of my own personal experience as a licensed financial professional. I was involved in a lot of deals, so kindly consider the possibility that that I might know something about them.

Here is an article giving a brief overview of this topic. Romney

From the Bloomberg article: "In 1992, Bain Capital bought American Pad & Paper by financing 87 percent of the purchase price. In the next three years, Ampad borrowed to make acquisitions, repay existing debt and pay Bain Capital and its investors $60 million in dividends.

As a result, the company’s debt swelled from $11 million in 1993 to $444 million by 1995. The $14 million in annual interest expense on this debt dwarfed the company’s $4.7 million operating cash flow. The proceeds of an initial public offering in July 1996 were used to pay Bain Capital $48 million for part of its stake and to reduce the company’s debt to $270 million.

From 1993 to 1999, Bain Capital charged Ampad about $18 million in various fees. By 1999, the company’s debt was back up to $400 million. Unable to pay the interest costs and drained of cash paid to Bain Capital in fees and dividends, Ampad filed for bankruptcy the following year. Senior secured lenders got less than 50 cents on the dollar, unsecured lenders received two- tenths of a cent on the dollar, and several hundred jobs were lost. Bain Capital had reaped capital gains of $107 million on its $5.1 million investment."
 
Last edited:
#97
#97
Vol Main said:
I don't know why you persist in telling me how little I now about equity firms. My views are based on many years of my own personal experience as a licensed financial professional. I was involved in a lot of deals, so kindly consider the possibility that that I might know something about them.
Click to expand...

I hope you can forgive me for having my doubts. It was like pulling teeth getting you to admit that businesses pass along their costs to customers.

Furthermore, I suspect that you get your information from link diving. Furiously find some internet links that support your claim and pass them off as fact.

Since I work on the retail side of business and for a company that sells directly through Stage, I am familiar with the company and will point to them as an example. They were not financially healthy when Bain purchased them (it wasn't called Stage stores at the time of the purchase). Their bankruptcy can be attributed to aggressive expansion and poor merchandising choices. The retail landscape is full of companies that have gone defunct or reorganized for similar reasons. Finally, they went bankrupt after a successful IPO and after Bain had exited all management roles within the company.

I have not - and will not - claim to know everything about Bain Capital and the businesses that they invest in. But I do know that, outside of venture capital, private equity/LBO of the Bain variety rarely purchase companies that aren't in financial trouble. They take on considerable financial risk in return for the opportunity of a lucrative return. Their business model is not a secret.

To point to Bain's failures and ignore their successes (as I've stated before, north of 75%) is distorting what it is that Bain actually does.
 
#98
#98
Vol Main said:
There is a pattern of his enriching himself and his investors by purchasing financially healthy companies, replacing their management with well paid yes men who took orders to trash the employees while taking out huge loans and transferring the money out of the companies into his pockets, leaving the companies without enough operating capital to pay their legitimate bills. It's called vulture capitalism, but vampire capitalism would be a better analogy. Romney did not get rich buying failing companies and returning them to profitability. He got rich by purchasing healthy companies and deliberately mismanaging them into bankruptcy. His tax returns would show how much money he made by destroying companies and their employees. Being a successful thief is not a very good recommendation to be elected President of the United States.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the Obama campaign has a large staff which works around the clock to vet Romney (finding any dirt they can). Romney has the same for Obama. You don't think they would have found out that he was a thief before now?

Are they incompetent and you're a genius?

If they do have the same information as you, why would they sit on it?
 
#99
#99
DC_Vol said:
I hope you can forgive me for having my doubts. It was like pulling teeth getting you to admit that businesses pass along their costs to customers.

Furthermore, I suspect that you get your information from link diving. Furiously find some internet links that support your claim and pass them off as fact.

Since I work on the retail side of business and for a company that sells directly through Stage, I am familiar with the company and will point to them as an example. They were not financially healthy when Bain purchased them (it wasn't called Stage stores at the time of the purchase). Their bankruptcy can be attributed to aggressive expansion and poor merchandising choices. The retail landscape is full of companies that have gone defunct or reorganized for similar reasons. Finally, they went bankrupt after a successful IPO and after Bain had exited all management roles within the company.

I have not - and will not - claim to know everything about Bain Capital and the businesses that they invest in. But I do know that, outside of venture capital, private equity/LBO of the Bain variety rarely purchase companies that aren't in financial trouble. They take on considerable financial risk in return for the opportunity of a lucrative return. Their business model is not a secret.

To point to Bain's failures and ignore their successes (as I've stated before, north of 75%) is distorting what it is that Bain actually does.
Click to expand...

The little I mentioned about myself on this board brought such a stream of personal ridicule that I now incline to reticence on the subject of myself. There is nothing to forgive on your part and no grudge on mine, so please don't think otherwise. I did not intend to deny that businesses pass on costs. I merely stated that competition sometimes causes managers to seek other remedies for increased costs, but I admit your position is more the rule and mine the exception. Increased efficiencies generally go toward profits.

People clamor for sources, and when I provide sources they fault me for providing sources. Private equity firms have different business models. Those which buy troubled companies for the purpose of returning them to profitability have the hardest work and the lowest rewards. So they are a small minority. Perhaps if you read the material and think more about it, you might not find yourself so opposed to my conclusions.
 
#100
#100
Vol Main said:
From the Bloomberg article: "In 1992, Bain Capital bought American Pad & Paper by financing 87 percent of the purchase price. In the next three years, Ampad borrowed to make acquisitions, repay existing debt and pay Bain Capital and its investors $60 million in dividends.

As a result, the company’s debt swelled from $11 million in 1993 to $444 million by 1995. The $14 million in annual interest expense on this debt dwarfed the company’s $4.7 million operating cash flow. The proceeds of an initial public offering in July 1996 were used to pay Bain Capital $48 million for part of its stake and to reduce the company’s debt to $270 million.

From 1993 to 1999, Bain Capital charged Ampad about $18 million in various fees. By 1999, the company’s debt was back up to $400 million. Unable to pay the interest costs and drained of cash paid to Bain Capital in fees and dividends, Ampad filed for bankruptcy the following year. Senior secured lenders got less than 50 cents on the dollar, unsecured lenders received two- tenths of a cent on the dollar, and several hundred jobs were lost. Bain Capital had reaped capital gains of $107 million on its $5.1 million investment."
Click to expand...

What's missing from the story and your version?

1) the claim that this company (and the others in the story) were financially healthy prior to the Bain acquisition.

2) the use of the debt that was run up - for this example and another in the article - most of the debt the companies added was for acquisitions not just money Bain sucked out of the company.

Even Clinton calls the Romney Bain reputation as sterling. Within the PE industry they were not known as the characterization you present.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top