The Boston Globe on Thursday blew a giant hole in Romney's claim that he left the private equity firm in 1999. The Globe reported that Bain's own filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission suggest that Romney remained deeply tied to the company until sometime in 2002.
Bain described Romney in 2001 SEC filings as the 'sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.'
Another form stated that he owned 100 percent of the company in 2002 and received a six-figure salary from Bain in 2001 and 2002. His listed title: 'Executive.'
Earlier reporting on the topic by Talking Points Memo and Mother Jones had already begun to chip away at the Romney narrative." --The Huffington Post
From the SEC Form 13D filing dated February 11, 2001:
"Bain Capital Partners VI, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Bain
----
Partners VI") is the sole general partner of Fund VI and Coinvestment Fund. Bain
-----------
Capital Investors VI, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Bain Investors VI"), is the
-----------------
sole general partner of Bain Partners VI. Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole
shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and
President of Bain Investors VI and thus is the controlling person of Bain
Investors VI. The executive officers of Bain Investors VI are set forth on
Schedule A hereto.
Bain Capital, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Bain Capital"), is the sole
------------
managing partner of the BCIP entities. Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole
shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain
Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital."
"Talking Points Memo's piece noted that in documents from July 2000 and February 2001 Romney listed his 'principal occupation' as 'Managing Director' of Bain, for example. And the Globe story reported that Bain repeatedly listed him on government filings as the man in charge."
Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s 'sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.'
Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain 'executive'in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.
The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.
[skip]
Bain Capital and the campaign for the presumptive GOP nominee have suggested the SEC filings that show Romney as the man in charge during those additional three years have little meaning, and are the result of legal technicalities. The campaign declined to comment on the record. It pointed to a footnote in Romney’s most recent financial disclosure form, filed June 1 as a presidential candidate.
'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,' according to the footnote. Romney made the same assertion on a financial disclosure form in 2007, during his first run for president.
[But Romney continued to accept a six figure income from Bain; he was listed as the CEO and managing director; and it was his principal occupation according to filings with the SEC.]
Evidence emerged last week in reports by Mother Jones that Romney had maintained an ongoing leadership role at Bain beyond February 1999. Citing SEC documents, the magazine said Romney had played a role in Bain investments 'until at least the end of 1999' and that a 2001 document listed him as a member of the 'management committee' of Bain funds. Talking Points Memo reported this week on additional SEC filings listing Romney’s position with Bain in July 2000 and February 2001.
A former SEC commissioner told the Globe that the SEC documents listing Romney as Bain’s chief executive between 1999 and 2002 cannot be dismissed so easily.
'You can’t say statements filed with the SEC are meaningless. This is a fact in an SEC filing,' said Roberta S. Karmel, now a professor at Brooklyn Law School."
It all depends on what the meaning of the word "retired" is.
Visual source: Newseum
"Either Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was 'sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president' of Bain Capital from 1999-2002, when all sorts of ugly outsourcing and vulture fund activities were taking place, or he was just listed as 'sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president' on the company's documents, which means he was simply a figurehead collecting cash generated by said ugly outsourcing and vulture fund activities.
There really isn't a viable way for Romney to spin the facts...even if we knew definitively what the facts were."
39 comments:
This article from Digby's blog:
Henry Blodget writes:
"[T]he reason this issue is important is that Romney wants to disavow responsibility for anything Bain or Bain companies did after early 1999.
And one of the things that Bain did after early 1999, as Dan Primack of Fortune points out, is invest in a company called Stericycle whose services included the disposal of aborted fetuses.
For obvious reasons, an investment in a company that performed this service might hurt Romney's standing with the right-to-life voters in the Republican party, even though Romney was pro-choice at the time the investment was made...
As "Chairman, CEO, and President" of Bain, he damn well would have remained responsible for these decisions. In which case, saying he had "left" and implying that he had no involvement or responsibility whatsoever is highly misleading.
The CEO of a car company may not have input into the decision of what specific cars the company makes or where it makes them (though he or she obviously could if s/he wanted), but this CEO is unequivocally responsible for these decisions.
Similarly, if Romney was CEO of Bain at the time it made the Stericycle decision, as well as the company layoffs and other unpleasant facts that Candidate Romney would like to disown, he certainly was responsible for these decisions.
You have to wonder how the true believers would feel about that little deal. Once being pro-choice is one thing. Profiting from abortion may just be a bridge too far for people who have compared that company to Nazis."
I know this is a complex issue, but stick with me.
He left the company physically, not participating in any of the activities or decision-making, but he was sole-owner of the stock until ownership could be transferred.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/bain-capital-romney-left-in-feb-128772.html
It's difficult to understand, we may need a special investigator...
The troof is out there. Keep digging!
No illegality, not even anything shady.
Politico nails it:
The problem for the Romney campaign, when it comes to the Bain issue, is that things are reaching the point where the facts don’t really matter. The bigger problem is that the Bain cloud now hanging over the former Massachusetts governor is growing daily, and the Romney campaign still hasn’t found a compelling way to respond to what’s becoming the driving narrative, fairly or unfairly, of the 2012 campaign.
This is what desperate liberals do, create a noxious cloud and repel everyone, facts be damned.
Romney was engaging in capitalism, something foreign to our current president.
Some jobs got shipped overseas, which is not criminal. The fact remains that Romney created and saved jobs here at home, something the president knows nothing about.
In reality, Obama is the Outsourcer in Chief.
Yes, WaPo gives that charge three Pinoccios, not for inaccuracy, but because they say Romney is engaging in "Silly Season" politicking, while they also give Obama Pinoccio's for his charges against Romney. But go read the WaPo article and see the economic destruction Obama has wrought, and the billions he sent overseas to create jobs there instead of creating them here at home.
Now, can we get back to talking about the economic destruction Obamanomics has caused?
Here is the WaPo link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obama-and-outsourcing-a-guide-to-the-gops-charges/2012/07/11/gJQA1LBIeW_blog.html
I recommend it especially to the Left Blogistanis.
If you agree that the GOP gets three Pinoccios for it's outsourcing attacks, you must also accept the other conclusions contained in the article:
1) Obama's campaign also gets Pinoccios for it's specious attacks against Romney's supposed outsourcing.
2) That this entire line of attack, by both sides, is tendentious and only makes us dumber and obfuscates the reality that we live in a globalized world.
Even the leftist research groups said this is not true. If you ever were in a top position with a company or even a partner in a law firm and left, you know it can take years before you are totally off the records even though you have no participation in the management of the company or group.
This is a diversion tactic that the administration is playing to take the attention away from the terrible job they have done..
As Hillary said " Shame on you Barack Obama"
I knew you'd come here and spin for Romney, but none of it changes the fact that Romney took money from Bain, was listed as Bain's "sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain
Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital" on the SEC filings.
That's being involved in a company, and no amount of spinning can change that fact.
Changing the subject to Obama doesn't change the very uncomfortable facts surrounding Mr. Romney and his leadership in Bain.
Nice try. But we see "desperation" somewhere else--here for instance:
"Some jobs got shipped overseas, which is not criminal."
No, not criminal, just two-faced for a guy who brags about creating jobs and "believes in America" by sending jobs and his money to foreign countries.
"The fact remains that Romney created and saved jobs here at home, something the president knows nothing about."
Really? Tell us about how great Romney was at job creating while governor in Massachusetts [yes I know, Mr. Romney inherited a recession then the job growth improved--sort of like what happened under Obama, but what the conservatives don't acknowledge].
Then tell us about Mr. Obama's lack of knowledge on job creation after you speak with auto workers.
And THIS.
So skudrunner, if Romney was "doing nothing" for Bain, explain the 6 figure salary they were giving him.
You and SF are spinning faster than a neutron star here.
And spare us your Hillary quote, skud.
Mr. Santorum called Mr. Romney "the worst possible candidate" for president, and the darling of the conservatives, Ann Coulter, said that if Romney won the nomination, the GOP would lose the election.
Mitt Romney testified to Massachusetts officials in 2002 that he maintained business ties during his Olympics work, undermining his argument that he had no connection to Bain Capital or related companies after 1999. Notably, his campaign has refused to deny whether he ever held meetings with Bain during his time in Salt Lake City.
This guy from TPM comments gets it right:
Brent Wilson · Top Commenter · Florida Atlantic University
Romney trying to reduce this to a question of his day to day role is beyond ridiculous. Its irrelevant. It was his company. He is responsible for it. Whether he was personally in the room for every deal signed is a completely beside the point. It is beside the point in exactly the same way it would be if we were talking about and actual absentee landlord. If you own it, you are, by definition, responsible for it either directly, through your own actions or indirectly through negligence and one is absolutely no better than the other.
I mean, think about that. Romney's BEST case here is that he exerted no control over a company in which he repeatedly claimed, in official filings, to have absolute control. Sole owner, Chairman of the Board, President, CEO and Managing Director.
Fascinating discussion.
Somewhere in the middle lies the real truth.
So many are circling the fringe and spinning they fail to analyze both data sets in a sincere effort to find the truth. They are really looking for that which supports their biases and initial "investment" in their already chosen candidate.
At some point everyone will get a reality check. It is inevitable.
Spinning? Just bringing the facts, Shaw.
This is a crap cloud created by liberals to take the focus off of Obama's horrible record.
"Then tell us about Mr. Obama's lack of knowledge on job creation after you speak with auto workers."
Yeah, it's a wonder what handing a company $40 billion in taxpayer money can do.
Mitt Romney did it without picking my pockets.
@ Silverfiddle - Only playing the devils advocate here but didn't the federal government bailout Chrysler in the '80's? And then Lee Iaccoca's Chrysler pay every dine back, early?
The point being I suppose an argument can be made that depending on circumstances and on a limited basis the government doing as it did for Chrysler back then can make sense.
SF, Mitt Romney didn't pick your pocket?
Really.
Last year he got a $77,000 tax credit for his wife's dancing horse. How much did you deduct for your wife's poodle?
RN, there no "somewhere in between" on this. SEC filings are either accurate or falsified. Mitt Romeny had to sign off on those forms as the "Sole owner, Chairman of the Board, President, CEO, and Managing Director."
He claims he left Bain in February of 1999; the SEC filings show that is not true.
RN: Mitt wasn't involved in the Chrysler bailout.
Shaw: Got a problem with their tax deductions? Then blame the federal government for authorizing them. Anyway, you are dealing with irrelevancies. Obama "Saved jobs" by giving carmakers and the unions (rotten peas in a pod) over $40 billion dollars.
Bain had to work with private capital.
So, what did you think of the WaPo article?
Here's more food for thought:
Study finds offshoring creates as many US jobs as it kills.
Here's another, Annanberg's Fact Check, hardly a conservative hot house, slaps down the Obama campaign's wildly irresponsible charges:
FactCheck to Obama Camp: Your Complaint is All Wet
Please go read it. They lay the facts out very well, with the documentation to back it up. Romney's signed statements and the SEC filings all jibe with one another.
The only way this could become an issue if someone uncovers that he was clandestinely running the company during the time in question, in contradiction of his signed legal documents.
The Beantown Glob is engaging in sensationalism and is not telling you the whole story.
Do yourself a favor and go read the factcheck article.
For those who don't want to read the fact check article, here is the actual document Romney signed
Here is the Bain part:
Mr. Romney 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. The investments reported on pages 5-7 of Schedule A of
this Report were made pursuant to an agreement with Bain Capital regarding Mr.
Romney's retirement from Bain Capital. That agreement has expired, but the Reporting
Entities retain certain investments identified on this Report pursuant to investments made
prior to expiration of such agreement. All of such investments are passive in nature. The
total asset value and total income amount for these funds are reported as of December 31,
2010, which is the most recent date for which such information is available to the
Reporting Entities. The Reporting Entities have requested information about underlying holdings of these investments and value and income amounts for these underlying
holdings.
So there is no lying or contradiction. The only way Mr Romney could be found guilty is if he were found to be clandestinely running Bain in contradiction to the document he signed.
I suggest you cast your net a little wider for information. Relying only on loony lefty sights will leave you looking foolish.
The whole idea is to pick someone's pocket, without them knowing it.
It worked on SF and millions of others who can't tell the difference between the truth and a lie. In fact they have these fools defending him. I wonder if that's similar to "Stockholm" effect?
Then there are the blind like RN who can't read a document filed with the SEC that shows Romney listed as the sole owner and paid executive in 2001, yet he claims he quit and sold the company in 1999.
As P.T. Barnum said, "there's a sucker born every minute."
Of course any corporate tax deduction is "not taking money out of my pocket." Right.
Just like cutting corporate taxes will create jobs.
Business decisions are supreme, even if you outfit an American team with Chinese made uniforms, although, there are hundreds of American companies begging for that business. "We just wanted to save some money." Because of course, money is the ONLY consideration.
Duly noted, SF, RN, two more suckers.
Obama has nothing to run on so he is in the attack mode, same as with the 2008 primaries and election. Divert attention away from the Obama disaster at all cost. No wonder people support BHO. They have no idea how a business works so they think he is doing a good job.
Obama bought the continued support of the unions by appearing to bailout the auto companies. They still filed bankruptcy it is just now the unions have a large stake that Obama gave them. Chrysler is now foreign owned and GM is investing millions in offshore plants. Chrysler and GM were not going out of business without the taxpayer gift that BHO gave them.
Well...just because Mitt is a lying piece of shit does not mean he is dishonest.
And, he believes in America soooooo much...why gosh he keeps a ton of money in foreign banks.
Then there are the blind like RN who can't read a document filed with the SEC that shows Romney listed as the sole owner and paid executive in 2001, yet he claims he quit and sold the company in 1999.
You are the sucker, anon, gobbling the propaganda.
Produce the SEC document so we can all read it for ourselves.
Romney never claimed "he quit and sold the company in 1999," and the documentation I linked to prove it.
He quit all operational control of Bain, but retained stock, as is reflected in the official filing.
Now, you want to talk about pick pockets and robbery? Go look at the value of a dollar in 1970 versus right now.
Your government at work to keep the ponzi schemes going.
You're the sucker.
Now produce the documentation to back up your unsubstantiated claim.
SF, there is nothing, not ONE thing that you've written here that disputes that the SEC filings describe Mitt Romney thusly: "Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital."
I HAVE linked to the public document, the SEC filing, that states in the clearest of terms that Mr. Romney was running Bain.
When a person is named in an SEC document as the controlling person of an entity, that means he/she not only controls it, but that he/she is responsible for everything that happens in it, and he/she signs off on all the documents that are filed with the SEC under pain of perjury.
There is nothing you've posted here that changes the fact that Romney was in charge of Bain for longer than he has claimed.
And the SEC documents prove this.
Nothing else has any bearing on this post.
The Boston Globe will not apologize nor retract what it has reported because what it has reported is correct.
It is your job to find SEC filings for the year 2001 that disputes what I have linked to. You and others are throwing muck around to muddy the very clear and damning evidence that Romney has misrepresented his own signed SEC filings.
"If Romney had “retired” from Bain Capital, why did the firm continue to describe him as its chairman and chief executive? And if he was still the firm’s “sole stockholder,” can he really have been as detached from its activities as he claims? “It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to say he was technically in charge on paper but he had nothing to do with Bain’s operations,” Roberta S. Karmel, a former S.E.C. commissioner who teaches at Brooklyn Law School, told the Globe. “Was he getting paid? He’s the sole stockholder. Are you telling me he owned the company but had no say in its investments?”
The above comment from me was from The New Yorker online.
Here's a very good comment from a reader:
"This is an important area to understand further. There are three scenarios, all bad: 1) Mitt Romney was lying to the SEC on forms when he represented that he was actively managing the business but somebody else was effectively in control; this is a crime; 2) Romney was lying to Bain Capital investors by not being active in the business while his name, as founding general partner, was still on the door. That could be seen as a breach of fiduciary duty, if investors didn't know that legendary investor Mitt Romney wasn't really managing their money; they were getting the "B Team" instead; or 3) Mitt Romney is now engaging in deliberate lies to the American people about his central qualification to be president, and in particular, attempting to avoid having the results of his investment decisions tied to him. That he would misstate material facts about his involvement with Bain Capital when a relatively easily discovered document trail exists calls calls into fatally serious question his basic judgment and his capacity to be President of the United States. In the light of these disclosures, Romney looks like a slightly more articulate version of Sarah Palin, whose clumsy lies about her own background and qualifications ("I can see Russia from my house") helped doom the GOP campaign last time out."
This is from the February 11, 1999 SEC filing, which IS LINKED TO IN THIS BLOG POST:
"Mr. W. Mitt Romney, in his capacity as sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Investors VI, Bain Capital, Brookside Investors Inc. and Sankaty Investors II and in his capacity as sole shareholder, a director and President of Sankaty Ltd may be deemed to share voting and dispositive power with respect to the shares held by CLEC members. The filing of this statement by Mr. W. Mitt Romney shall not beconstrued as an admission that he is, for the purpose of Section 13(d) of the
Exchange Act, the beneficial owner of such shares based on their pro-rata share of membership interests in CLEC."
This means that Romney is IN CHARGE of the limited partnership and the others named, who have beneficial ownership in these partnerships, of which he is the sole managing partner.
Other people may have beneficial ownership in the partnership, but HE is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Investors VI, Bain Capital, Brookside Investors Inc. and Sankaty Investors II and in his capacity as sole shareholder, a director and President of Sankaty Ltd.
It is certainly an issue that will be in the news for a few days. One thing the left will not do is run on the accomplishments of Barack Obama.
Maybe Mitt's views were "evolving" in 1999 and he really can't be held to that position.
Obama will win so all the leftists can relax. He won't win because he is qualified but he will win because we have an uninformed voter. Far to large a percentage rely on the government for their existence and they will always vote for the government handout instead of taking personal responsibility.
skudrunner: "It is certainly an issue that will be in the news for a few days. One thing the left will not do is run on the accomplishments of Barack Obama."
You must have your head in the GOP sandbox, again, since Mr. Obama has done nothing but talk about his record. I just heard him 2 minutes ago tell an audience that he has lowered taxes since he's been president.
To keep denying that he's accomplished nothing while in office and to keep asserting he won't talk about those accomplishments is the usual partisan hackery.
"Maybe Mitt's views were "evolving" in 1999 and he really can't be held to that position."
Well you're definitely correct in your assessment of Mitt as an "evolver." He's changed his views on all his core beliefs again and again.
"Obama will win so all the leftists can relax. He won't win because he is qualified..."
Oh, of course, because being a state senator and a US senator, then the POTUS for almost 4 years of the most powerful country on the planet is NO qualification, but a one-term governor of a small liberal state where Mitt passed a universal health care law IS!
"...but he will win because we have an uninformed voter."
This is classic CYA. Tell me, were the voters uninformed in 2010 when the GOP took back the house?
"Far to large a percentage rely on the government for their existence and they will always vote for the government handout instead of taking personal responsibility."
Boiler plate talking points that explain nothing but are a good insight into what the GOP and TPers will whine about if Mr. Obama wins re-election.
A reader on Andrew Sullivan's blog writes:
"I am a lawyer who does some securities litigation. Some of the commentary from people who say this is "no big deal" sounds like corporate lawyers arguing technicalities to regulatory boards and policy wonks. Romney is running for President. If he wants to win (I hope he loses) he needs to know his audience. The average voter is more like a member of a jury than an SEC board member or securities lawyer. Here is the case that I would make against Romney on this issue, in a nutshell:
He was listed as President, CEO, and sole stockholder of Bain until 2002 on SEC filings that carry criminal penalties if they are false.
He doesn’t dispute that he owned the company, lock, stock and barrel.
During that time we know that he was paid at least $100,000 - an enormous sum to most jurors. You don’t get paid that kind of money for doing nothing.
We don’t know how much more he was paid because he won’t release his taxes.
Before he ran for Governor of Mass in 2002, he talked about how he attended board meetings for Staples and Marriott – two Bain Companies during that time period.
He is responsible, like all CEOs, for what Bain did through 2002.
He says it took three years to "change the name of the CEO"? Bain would target a company, swoop in, divert all the cash, pick the bones, fire the employees and be gone in less time than that.
His story is (insert synonym for bullshit)
Then, when opposing counsel wanted to argue Romney wasn’t paying attention to particular deals, that SEC document was for Bain LP, not Bain Capital, LLC, or whatever, I would just let him talk. All it does is make him look like more of a BS artist."
Shaw: I suggest you go look up the SEC definition of Controlling Person.
It has to do with stock ownership, not whether you operationally called the shots.
That he left in 1999 but still owned stock has already been explained, including in legal documents.
Keep digging. The troof is out there!
And rather than believe random posters on leftwing sites, I choose to trust FactCheck.org.
Again, go find the SEC definition of controlling person. It will explain much.
I'm not the only one digging. Others are digging as well.
Here's some from BuzzFeed:
Is This SEC Document The Hardest One For Romney To Explain?
"With the Romney campaign aggressively pushing back against reports that the candidate's tenure at Bain Capital lasted longer than he once claimed, one 2000 document filed by Romney could prove particularly difficult to explain away.
Among other things, the Jan. 3 2000 SEC filing says, “W. Mitt Romney is principally engaged in the business of serving as sole stockholder of BCI VI, Inc. (Bain Capital Investors VI)” — and it contains his signature. That stands in contrast with various financial disclosure forms filed by Romney in recent years claiming that he left the company entirely to run the Salt Lake City Olympics in 1999. H/T James Carter, who sent the document to BuzzFeed.
We have to wait to see what other papers surface that show Mr. Romney was very much involved with Bain.
What function does a "stockholder" serve... other than receive dividends?
I read all of FactCheck.org. The site dealt with dismissing the charge that Mr. Romney did anything illegal.
That's not what this post is about.
It's about Romney's honesty in describing his dealings with Bain and his involvement with the company when he said he had no involvement.
His whole candidacy has been about his expertise in creating jobs--Bain actually created more wealth for its partners than jobs for Americans.
He has continuously claimed he had no more dealings with Bain after Feb. 1999 because of its reputation for shutting down companies, putting people out of work, and shipping jobs overseas. But his claim stretches credulity, especially when we learn he was receiving $100,000+ remuneration and his name continued to be included on the SEC documents as sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain
Capital.
Oh, OK. Earlier you were saying he was in legal trouble, now he's just a liar, liar pants on fire? Even though his signed FEC documents disclosed that he was the sole stockholder of Bain? And it makes no difference to you that it was treated as a blind trust?
Well, if he's just a liar, then that puts him in pretty good company with certain "autobiography" writers...
Oh, OK. Earlier you were saying he was in legal trouble, now he's just a liar, liar pants on fire? Even though his signed FEC documents disclosed that he was the sole stockholder of Bain? And it makes no difference to you that it was treated as a blind trust?
Well, if he's just a liar, then that puts him in pretty good company with certain "autobiography" writers...
I re-read my post, and nowhere do I say that Romney is in legal trouble.
I'm reporting what news outlets have reported about what Romney has said about his relationship with Bain after Feb. 1999 and what the SEC filings indicate about his dealings with Bain.
Bloggingdino, over at The Swash Zone explains it this way:
"...the real point has to do with what a strange notion of responsibility such remarks entail. The man owned the company lock, stock, and barrel, right? That's what I've heard, anyway. So if one OWNS a company and has one's name plastered all over it as president, chairman of the board, grand poobah, and head honcho, how the brother-truck is he not responsible for what said company does? Or at the very least, how does it not reflect on the abovementioned poobah-honcho if and when they close some factory down and fire everybody, or help ship jobs overseas, if indeed that's what they did?
In general, so much of what one hears amounts to what I'll just call "impoverished thinking" -- either accepting some other cynical opponent's "talking points" as one's own framework or taking up and running with a simplistic strain of thought in total disregard of any number of other strains that really should be easily identified and considered before opening one's big trap. It's the bane -- pun intended -- of modern American political discourse.
A fine example of accepting a cynical opponent's framework: using the phrase "job creators" unironically. I've heard some delightful non-official takedowns of that sham logic: after all, we can say, it's consumer desire that generates jobs; businesses are essential and should be treated with respect so long as they're not dumping antifreeze into some pristine trout stream, etc., but what they do is HIRE people, which isn't quite the same thing as creating jobs -- fail to see this matter of the real engine of growth, the real source of advancement and a better life, and you end up sounding sickeningly grateful for every dog-gammed crumb your corporate lords and masters deign to toss your miserable way; i.e. you end up a working-class or lower-middle-class Republican who identifies with and votes for the small cadre of ruthless Captains of Industry who actually run the country. I'd just love to see Messrs. Obama and Biden themselves pick up this insight and maximize its impact: tell ordinary working people that THEY are the ones who drive the great engine of capitalism and make the social forms that correlate with it worthwhile. Not aloof "nothing they do reflects on me even though I own the company" business tycoons, but the PEOPLE."
Believe it or not, nobody seems to have come by this simple insight -- not even all the "Democratic strategerists" and professional talkers I've seen. I should think that ordinary people (I mean by that anybody who has slightly less than 250 million dollars -- say, 249 million) would have a hard time understanding why the owner and board chairman of a firm finds it unfair to be tagged with the alleged doings of the company he owns and chairs. What world is the former governor of MA living in? THAT is the issue, not his SEC statements.
Well I certainly don't approach 249K, not even close and I understand the point bloggingdino made. In fact I would imagine everyone thinking would. Hell, when I was just a plant manager I understood I was ultimately responsible for my plant as well as for the decisions and actions of my people.
As an afterthought O believe the same should apply to sitting presidents as well.
I, not O. I am beginning to hate these damn smart phones!
Romney said something about a leave of absence from 1999 but he is rich so who can believe him.
What taxes for 95% of Americans did Obama cut? I see a few increases, tobacco, tanning and Obamacare but don't see a tax cut unless you are referring to the deferred SS Tax which further compromises the SS system.
Obama's continues his attack on the "Rich" and making them the target. The top 5% pay 70% of FIT and earn 13% of the income. 47% pay no FIT and the "Rich" do not pay their fair share. Obama needs to raise taxes for all taxpayers just to show he is fair and to collect a lot more revenue. Raise Everyone's taxes 2% including the 47% who pay nothing now.
Post a Comment