2012 Presidential Race

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanicaFan

Here you go DonCapps...


http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/e...Rules/jobs.jpg

---

I assume your list omitted KB Toys, Jumbo Stores, Stage Stores, FAO Schwartz, eToys, GS Industries and Contec Holdings for a reason? Maybe because those are some of the companies that Bain Capital led into bankruptcy... Contec roughly a month ago? ;) Also, do you know who Jack Bush, Barry Gold, Paul Traub and Michael Glazer are? No? Perhaps you should find out and learn the ins & outs of how private equity really works... the good and the bad side of it, before trying to create a (false) impression that it's all peaches & cream. This simplistic on/off, black/white, good/bad, bifurcated approach annoys me.

I have no issue with private equity in principle. It's what our economic system is based on. And I'm not in favor of the government attempting to pick winners & losers. But when big PE is allowed to run rampant or has advantages unavailable to smaller investors, an economic and social gap is created. And when big PE bankrupts a firm which has a defined benefits plan, do you know who picks up the tab for those pensions? The U.S. taxpayer.

Unfortunately, I don't believe, at this point, that you have any interest in learning how the system actually works. You can prove me wrong by demonstrating some knowledge of business or economics (not gleaned from some obscure website, right wing chain email or Wiki entry), but I'm not holding my breath at this point. Your only interest is to present rather irrational, partisan arguments and talking points, many of which are not fully accurate. But if cherry-picking, only that data and information which supports your preconceived notions, makes you feel better, then post on, brother... post on.

There is a good and bad side to private equity. It's unfortunate that while you want to participate in the discussion (evidenced by your little attachment above), I just don't see it as a good use of time to argue with a graphic, if the poster who placed it cannot at least partially comprehend what he has posted. Oh well... it is the internet after all. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Exactly.

---

A very wise---if sometimes a little satirical----guy once said right on this forum back in 2007:

Quote:

---

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" Freddy Engels
"Revolution is the opiate of the intellectuals" Dorthy Parker
"Outrage is the opiate of the middle class white males" Me

---

Oh wait. That was me. :idea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

I assume your list omitted KB Toys, Jumbo Stores, Stage Stores, FAO Schwartz, eToys, GS Industries and Contec Holdings for a reason? Maybe because those are some of the companies that Bain Capital led into bankruptcy... Contec roughly a month ago? ;) Also, do you know who Jack Bush, Barry Gold, Paul Traub and Michael Glazer are? No? Perhaps you should find out and learn the ins & outs of how private equity really works... the good and the bad side of it, before trying to create a (false) impression that it's all peaches & cream. This simplistic on/off, black/white, good/bad, bifurcated approach annoys me.

I have no issue with private equity in principle. It's what our economic system is based on. And I'm not in favor of the government attempting to pick winners & losers. But when big PE is allowed to run rampant or has advantages unavailable to smaller investors, an economic and social gap is created. And when big PE bankrupts a firm which has a defined benefits plan, do you know who picks up the tab for those pensions? The U.S. taxpayer.

---

Looking the obviously mindless dribble graphics for a moment and focusing on what I presume is the "BIG POINT" ie Bain Capital invested private money----and I believe the intent is to imply that they invested their OWN money---I think it is pertinent to look at how Bain operated. From what I read Bain would find companies "in trouble", that is with low stock values, put in a tiny % of their capital--2-3 million and put in the major amout with "leveraged'---that is somebody else's borrowed money, enough to have a controlling interest. Then regardless of if the company "turned around" it was---already in trouble, remember---that's why they were targeted----saddled with millions, often hundreds of millions of new debt AND multi millions of dollars of fees paid to Bain to "managae" the company. And again, regardless of how the companys balance sheets look, big fat 5-10-20million out in "divedends" to the "new controlling stockholders" which was, quelle surprise! Bain.

Thus it's not surprising that so many failed but with only 4-5 million invested of their own funds in it and many many more times that paid back to Bain, there was no risk..

Further thinking, suggesting that this kind of shifting money and dodging risk is some kind of admirable trait, and that that shows what a Great shrewd "businessman" Bain leader Willard is, and thus is materiel to lead a whole country seems well, flat stupid.

The vision, the drive, the risk to establish a company to do, or make a tangible thing, like for example what his dear Daddy did, starting as he did as an undocumented alien from Mexico and ending up head of American Motors and even a Governor of a heavily idustrialised state, is one thing, and is pretty damn impressive.....

But swooping in on and wresting control (via buying up stocks with, in short, by amassing other people's capital, a company other people conceived of, built, ran, risked their futures on, not making anything except a "deal' is another thing entirely.


There is good reason these kind of people are called "Vulture Capitalists"

Is a man whose only real claim for fitness is "I crushed companies in trouble" who the country needs for a president?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

To be undecided close to an election with two less than perfect candidates is not idiocy.

---

Oh it is idiocy.
The fact that you only have two is really dumb.

In Australia, because of preferential and compulsory voting, in the House of Representatives, we didn't even have a government until 24 days after the election because there was a hung parliament. There are now two coalitions in the Australian federal lower house, one as the government; the other in opposition.
In the upper house there actually is no majority on the floor at the moment because apart from the two majors, there are seven other parties with seats.

The point is that there isn't really a plurality of voices in American politics even though if enough people got off their butts and voted for a third or fourth party, there'd be real campaigning about actual policy on the hustings instead of this ridiculous PR charade.

I'd be undecided in the lead up to practically election in America for the simple reason that to allow someone to wield power for four years is a highly responsible action and if you're only limited to a choice of "two less than perfect candidates" you'd better make sure that the decision is right.

"Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."
- Jerry Garcia

Just out of interest, does Australia use proportional representation of first past the post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-Type

Just out of interest, does Australia use proportional representation of first past the post?

---

In the House of Representatives (the equivalent of the Commons) it uses preferential voting, specifically the Alternative Vote. That is, the system which was voted against in the referendum in May.

In the Senate (the equivalent of the Commons) it uses proportional voting. The number of seats in the Senate is allocated 12 each for the states with two each for the territories of the ACT and NT.

Duverger's Law suggests that in any one-seat constituency system, voting will tend towards a duality of parties and this is generally the case, but unlike the UK where first past the post is used, it actually does force a change in policy because suddently the majors find themselves fighting over third and fourth preferences in some cases such as in 2010, a few seats ran down to sixth and seventh preferences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Oh it is idiocy.

---

not to pick nits, but if there are only two, then not having made up one's mind till late is not necessarily dumb.

Quote:

---

The fact that you only have two is really dumb.

---

Personally I'd prefer at least a third major party. And there are in fact several more parties, though none commands the membership and influence of the dems & reps. Teddy Roosevelt & Ross Perot were the only third party candidates of consequence in the last hundred years or so. But I still don't see why two HAS to be dumb. Everything is relative and two parties have pretty much been the deal through most of the last century and longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Personally I'd prefer at least a third major party. And there are in fact several more parties, though none commands the membership and influence of the dems & reps. Teddy Roosevelt & Ross Perot were the only third party candidates of consequence in the last hundred years or so. But I still don't see why two HAS to be dumb. Everything is relative and two parties have pretty much been the deal through most of the last century and longer.

---

A senior BBC journalist has written about a colleague in one of the US TV networks being told during the Balkan wars not to report on the fact of there being more than two factions fighting each other, on the grounds that viewers would find it too hard to understand. Might this be another reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

A senior BBC journalist has written about a colleague in one of the US TV networks being told during the Balkan wars not to report on the fact of there being more than two factions fighting each other, on the grounds that viewers would find it too hard to understand. Might this be another reason?

---

No.

But that shows you what the (American) media thinks of the average citizen. All of them are wrong on that - including Fox (because I knew someone would bring that up). Another reason NOT to get accurate information from the TV people over here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

No.

But that shows you what the (American) media thinks of the average citizen. All of them are wrong on that - including Fox (because I knew someone would bring that up). Another reason NOT to get accurate information from the TV people over here.

---

Well, I'm sure it's wrong to tar all American media with the same brush. I wouldn't say that NPR treats its audience with such contempt, for instance. And there is an extent to which a certain section of any population gets the media it deserves. This is certainly true in the UK, and, judging by some of what we see on here, for instance, it must be in the US too. How else can one explain avid consumers of Fox?