At 9/18/12 08:53 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 9/18/12 08:38 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote:

As much as I despise the crimes committed by Bain, I think KB pretty much dug themselves into a hole.

That was the case with every company they got involved with. That's was WHY they got involved.

I find it hard to believe every one of the companies they shut down had no shot at redemption.

At 9/18/12 06:36 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote: Welp, I thought Obama would win, but I didn't think he'd win by Romney committing political suicide. Well done, Mitt.

This is what I've been saying for months. From the first page of this thread:

At 6/26/12 10:45 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Like I've said earlier: Obama doesn't win this election. Romney loses the election for the Republicans.

It's been almost 3 months from that post and Romney's still more or less in the in the same position. He really hasn't gotten any momentum in much of the polling so whatever he's doing is clearly not working, And here we are, what, 5 weeks to the election? Unless there's a major ace in the hole Romney's got going into the home stretch what he is going to do?

Oh yeah, when David Brooks has nothing nice to say about Romney, that's a bad sign generally. Again, unless the Romney campaign's following some better formula for a presidential election that we're not aware about, why are you pissing off David Brooks?

The reason why Romney is in the same position because Obama is running one of the best campaigns in recent history, imo. Obama has been leading the narrative in the news cycle since the convention because Romney is such an incompetent idiot when it comes to his campaign. Obama is leading in the polls without having to hammer his policy positions or anything. It's effortless for him. I'm starting to think Romney's campaign is run by Democrats.

At 9/18/12 03:21 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/18/12 01:47 PM, TheMason wrote: Dude! Read the story! The loan that was paid back with interest was paid NOT from GM profits or revenue but rather a DIFFERENT TARP fund that Treasury has been holding in escrow in case GM needed additional or emergency operating funds! Treasury (ie: the Govt) approved GM tapping into this TARP account...to pay back the loans since GM cannot operate on its owns

So yeah GM is robbing Paul (ie: TARP) to repay Paul (ie: TARP). GM paid the government back the loan...with interest...with government money. Sorry...but while you are right that the loan is paid off...it's not because GM stabilizied itself to the point of being able to pay back the money itself.

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the escrow account. This wasn't some elaborate debt-for-equity swap.

Nope...not misunderstanding it at all. I never said the escrow account was part of the debt-for-equity swap. What I said was the escrow account was a second account funded in large part, if not wholly, by the US and Canadian governments. It was not the company was making enough profit to pay off the debt...in fact they struggled with the first payments. They just simply did not need this pool of government money. So they paid back the loan that got a lot of press.

Now where the debt-for-equity swap comes in on the original loan that was well over $50 billion that the government said they'd take stock for in exchange for lowering the loan to $6.7 billion. It was this $6.7 billion that GM paid off with the escrow account.

Most of the government's GM investment was converted to an ownership stake in GM; $2.1 billion in preferred stock; and 60.8% of the company's common equity. You're right, we're probably going to lose some money on this, but not nearly as much as we originally thought. There was no profit motive for this deal: the loss we'd take for bailing out GM is going to be far far less than the loss of the American auto industry. Realistically, the IPO isn't going to bring in 52 billion dollars.

Best case is we're looking at loosing $25 billion. Worst case; $44 billion.

The US taxpayer would've been better served making each auto worker who lost a job a millionare. Instead, we just transfered wealth to GM, Chrysler and the UAW.

There will be a massive surge in stock price when there are rumors of the government starting to sell the stock as people are going to start buying dirt cheap stock in massive quantities before anyone else. People will short it and the price will normalize to actual market value despite the efforts of underwriters trying to keep the price as high as possible, as it is with any major IPO. It's doubtful if it will hit 53 dollars a share, my guess is no, not right away, but I think the loss will be minimized as times goes on if GM continues to be profitable.

The IPO has already happened. My point is people are going to try and wait the government out to get a bargain. In the meantime, the taxpayer is stuck with stock they way over paid for.

B) Even after share prices reach $53/share...they can't sell because someone selling that much stock usually triggers a panic and could destabilize the stock.

Except the market will know the government is the one selling the shares? It wouldn't be a panic, it would be a feeding frenzy.

Not necessarily. They wouldn't be getting a deal anymore, just paying what the stock is worth. And while theoriticly the market would know...who's to say that they wouldn't panic anyway? Especially if people who bought at today's close at $24.43 decided to take a profit?

C) The government can get stock prices to $53/share through inflation so on paper the taxpayer makes the money back...but with grossly devalued dollars so they take a loss in terms of purchasing power.

This makes zero sense to me and I'll need you to clarify that. How do you adjust stock prices via inflation? Stocks are a reflection of the price of ownership in a company.

Okay in 1987 I bough Batman comics for $0.75. By 1990 I was paying $1.00. Now it's $3.99. Guess what changed; the value of the comic book or the value of the dollar? The value of the dollar changed and it is now worth less than it was in 1987.

So because of inflation, the stock price adjusts not only to the intrinsic value of a company...but the intrinsic value of the dollar as well. So if the fed starts pumping out greenbacks (like it announced this week)...the value of GM will hit $53 about the time DC starts selling Batman for $8.

Again, we never intended to make a profit. In fact the popular opinion at the time was that GM was never going to be able to repay the loans.

I don't care about making a profit...just don't take a loss. And using government money to pay off a government loan...is not paying off the loans. So popular opinion is right.

2) GM's stock is underperforming because GM makes a crappy product and poor business decisions such as the Chevy Volt.

Funny, last I heard they made a record profit last year.

And yet...they use government money to pay off government loans. Talk about corporate welfare. OWS should serious consider whether or not voting for Obama is the same as voting for Romney.

Any you're naive to think electoral calculus is ever far from Obama's (or an president's) decision making process.

Huh? What does that have to do with the effects of letting GM go bankrupt?

Dude...really? Pathetic attempt:

At 9/18/12 01:05 PM, Feoric wrote:

"GM would have lost every worker, ever. Every job. Every plant. Every dealership. .Nice to see that you see this as a political issue (oh no! democratic union workers!) instead of an economic one. It's also nice to see that you let your car tribalism get in the way of rational thinking."

It has nothing to do with GM going bankrupt. You attacked me for looking at the situation from a political/electoral vantage point. I'm pointing out that Obama, FDR, Hoover, Clinton, W...they all look at the political situation when making public policy.

Furthermore, I am the one being rational and not emotional. Those jobs would be transferred to other segments of the economy.

Yeah, shipped overseas.

*sigh* Too bad that's simply not true. Afterall, KIA, Toyota and BMW are all moving plants to the US because of the economic sense it makes having the means of production located in the market where you are trying to sell. That's why New Balance brought shoe manufacturing back to the US and Dell is shipping customer support back from India. Outsourcing just doesn't make all that much sense.

At 9/18/12 11:10 PM, Feoric wrote: The reason why Romney is in the same position because Obama is running one of the best campaigns in recent history, imo. Obama has been leading the narrative in the news cycle since the convention because Romney is such an incompetent idiot when it comes to his campaign. Obama is leading in the polls without having to hammer his policy positions or anything. It's effortless for him. I'm starting to think Romney's campaign is run by Democrats.

The joke is that it's not really a strategy but rather common sense. SNL 's opening political skit this past weekend was spot on in this weird way: all Obama really has to do is to have Romney speak for 5 minutes before you realize how disconnected Romney is and how he can talk himself into a hole bigger than Texas. One thing's for sure, it's working.

At 9/18/12 08:51 PM, LemonCrush wrote: And Obama likes to tax employers into firing people.

Tax money from business entities is independent of payroll money. The only intermingling is done as an active move on the part of the employer, not because of taxes. So either, you have no idea what you're talking about, or you're blaming the government for the selfish and bad acts of the employers.

Guess why Bain fired people at KB Toys? Because the company was already going under when Bain came in the picture.

So Romney is a vulture?

At 9/19/12 12:03 AM, TheMason wrote: Nope...not misunderstanding it at all. I never said the escrow account was part of the debt-for-equity swap. What I said was the escrow account was a second account funded in large part, if not wholly, by the US and Canadian governments. It was not the company was making enough profit to pay off the debt...in fact they struggled with the first payments. They just simply did not need this pool of government money. So they paid back the loan that got a lot of press.

Yes, you in effect said that with the whole "robbing Paul to pay Paul" bit. The language is different, but they're both describing the same phenomenon. What does it matter that they struggled to pay the loans at first (which was more than what was expected in terms of GM's ability to pay back anything at the time) when they went to pay off the rest of the 4.7 billion in loans? Even you admitted just now that they didn't need it, so what exactly is the big deal here? They would have needed it if the company was struggling to make ends meet. The fact that they were able to pay back the loan in full means the company was turning around, which is reflected in their profits. I don't see why it's so difficult for you to get this. Do you have the Chevy Volt that much?

The US taxpayer would've been better served making each auto worker who lost a job a millionare. Instead, we just transfered wealth to GM, Chrysler and the UAW.

The taxpayer would have been completely fucked. What kind of effects of the collapse of GM do you think would have on the markets, retirement funds and invstments? What would unemployment be like today? You really think foreign car companies would swallow that many jobs and have them all domestic? Even so, only a limited portion of that total amount of unemployed would have been absorbed by other car companies, mainly assembly line workers. Service shop workers, auto dealers, manufacturing and technical jobs would be completely gone. You think Ford and BMW would cusion that blow? Yeah right.

Oh, and I have no problem with the UAW getting a nice deal, because the last time I checked, unions weren't responsible for white flight, they sure as hell weren't responsible for outsourcing and those are the two biggest reasons for Detroit's decline. Unions weren't responsible for the insipid design and engineering of 20+ years of domestic cars, they weren't responsible for asinine business decisions that ruined 70+ years of domestic loyalty to Detroit automakers, and they weren't responsible for putting all the automaker's eggs in the basket of cheap to make, high margin body on frame SUVs that got shit gas mileage. The unions weren't responsible for having redundant brands that lead to a hugely inefficient company. Most of their brands had models that directed competed with and cannibalized sales from other brands in GM. Compare that to a company like Toyota that has 3 brands with at least a nominally focused reason for existence. Detroit automakers basically had a 50 year head start on European and Japanese automakers due to World War II. They squandered it with lazy management and poor reactions to externalities like the Oil Crisis. These things together are the reason why higher labor costs from the unions exercising their leverage would not have saved Detroit from its current fate and would not have saved Detroit automakers from their woes either. I mean, there are plenty of reasons to throw shit at GM and I have no problem pointing them out here, but even I recognize letting them go bankrupt would have horrible repercussions for the entire country and would have decimated an already crumbling Detroit.

Best case is we're looking at loosing $25 billion. Worst case; $44 billion.

This figure varies wildly depending on where you're looking. Based on the CBO data, the projected total losses from the assistance to the auto industry (which includes both GM and Chrysler) is between $14 and $20 billion (the former being the CBO's number, the latter the OMB's.) It is not broken down any further in said report, so you'll need to show me your sources if you want to discuss this further (the 44/45 billion figure comes from the WSJ, which is over a span of 20 years, btw). Which is a drop in the bucket when compared to the rest of TARP.

The IPO has already happened. My point is people are going to try and wait the government out to get a bargain. In the meantime, the taxpayer is stuck with stock they way over paid for.

Right, yeah, I was making an analogy to Facbook but deleted it because it was stupid and I didn't modify the rest of my post. The IPO raised $18.1 billion, which is the second highest IPO ever.

Not necessarily. They wouldn't be getting a deal anymore, just paying what the stock is worth. And while theoriticly the market would know...who's to say that they wouldn't panic anyway? Especially if people who bought at today's close at $24.43 decided to take a profit?

The market is always looking to make a profit. GM's stock right now is in the shitter because there's really no incentive to buy right now. Opening the floodgates drives in more investors, bumping up the stock price.

Okay in 1987 I bough Batman comics for $0.75. By 1990 I was paying $1.00. Now it's $3.99. Guess what changed; the value of the comic book or the value of the dollar? The value of the dollar changed and it is now worth less than it was in 1987.

So because of inflation, the stock price adjusts not only to the intrinsic value of a company...but the intrinsic value of the dollar as well. So if the fed starts pumping out greenbacks (like it announced this week)...the value of GM will hit $53 about the time DC starts selling Batman for $8.

No, you're entirely wrong. Inflation does not effect stock prices the way it effects comic books, lol. Share prices do not rise in accordance to the rate of inflation. Stock prices actually go down due to inflation. Here's why: as inflation increases, central banks such as the Federal Reserve increase interest rates to reduce the money supply to slow down the rate of inflation. When interest rates are high, people tend to find it expensive to borrow, and therefore there is less money floating around. When interest rates are high, people require higher returns on stocks. You can't just increase the earnings for a stock, so its price has to adjust downward. Inflation compresses P/E values. So, no, what you're describing is not going to happen in this universe.

The rest of your post I don't really know how to respond to. We're through the looking glass.

At 9/18/12 08:55 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote:

I find it hard to believe every one of the companies they shut down had no shot at redemption.

They hired Bain for a reason.

At 9/19/12 02:01 AM, LemonCrush wrote: They hired Bain for a reason.

What Bain specializes in is in buying a mature company, (sometimes/rarely) adding value to that company, and then selling it at a profit. Like every other firm that makes it's money on leveraged buyouts they're ruthless as shit about cutting costs and increasing profitability/productivity. Here's how private equity firms like Bain work:

1) PE Firm acquires Company ABC.

2) PE firm implements a business strategy for Company ABC that maximizes short-term profit while racking up huge long-term debt.

3) Company ABC does well for a couple of years, and the PE managers give themselves large bonuses.

4) Eventually, the debt catches up with Company ABC, and the PE firm starts shutting down company branches, laying off thousands of workers in the process.

Management Fees can be massive and another way of extracting profits directly back to the PE firm. Also Dividend Recapitalization, which is just the PE firm raiding the balance sheet of as much cash as they want before anyone else gets any profit or dividend. A lot of times this will happen at a portfolio company with huge debt and a weak balance sheet, but after all these fees are taken, the PE still makes a massive profit and pays back their loans but the company still ends up going bankrupt.

At 9/19/12 07:36 PM, Feoric wrote: Also Dividend Recapitalization, which is just the PE firm raiding the balance sheet of as much cash as they want before anyone else gets any profit or dividend.

While this is often the case and it nothing other than a drain on the economy. Private equity can serve to help and completely reinvigorate companies, when done properly.

Venture capital is always good. Sure there exists the inevitable 'leeching' aspect of the equity firm off of the startup, where the equity firm gets money in the long run even though it has been a long time since that equity firm gave any value. What sets venture capital apart from large scale equity, is that the venture operation would likely not exist at all if it were not for the infusion of capital. Far too often in large scale equity capital the target entity is not only surviving prior to buyout, but thriving.

For large scale equity to actually work one thing is vital and one of two other things is needed. The thing vital for large scale equity to actually be an economic success is that the target be struggling. If the target is thriving the leeching is added to the target's burden without any benefit being provided. There are some exceptions, such as a target that is on the cusp of something and is unwilling or unable to cross without the help or expertise of the equity firm.

The other thing that is needed is either for the equity firm to have the needed consulting/business expertise needed to fix the struggling entity, or for the equity firm to be (or have in waiting) another player in the industry through which the resources and knowledge of the target can either be absorbed, or whose expertise can push the target forward. (see Renault's buyout of Nissan and Nissan's major resurgence.)

I'm voting Obama, now that im a registered voter I can say that. Yay.

If what I've been reading in the papers lately is true, I think the best strategy for the Republicans at the moment is to seal Romney up in a barrel until after the election so he can stop ruining their campaign.

At 9/19/12 09:28 PM, Elfer wrote: If what I've been reading in the papers lately is true, I think the best strategy for the Republicans at the moment is to seal Romney up in a barrel until after the election so he can stop ruining their campaign.

The SNL skit where Obama said that Romney was his secret weapon was priceless.

At 9/19/12 01:24 AM, Feoric wrote:

I'm not sure where you're not getting it so I'll just start at the begining.

Point 1 How GM paid off its loan.

GM used an escrow account to pay off its loan to the government/taxpayer.
This escrow account was funded by the government/taxpayer.
Therefore GM repaid their loan to the government/taxpayer using money given to them by the government/taxpayer.

So yes...the loan is paid back. However, the taxpayer was paid with money taken from the taxpayer.

Not with GM profits. Now that GM had a very profitable year last year just adds insult to injury. The corporation and the UAW got theirs...but the taxpayer foots the bill.

It also means that you are incorrect when you say: "They would have needed it if the company was struggling to make ends meet. The fact that they were able to pay back the loan in full means the company was turning around, which is reflected in their profits."

They did not and could not pay off their debt to the government on their own with their own profits and revenue...instead they used government money to pay a government loan. GM owes a debt to the American and Canadian taxpayer to pay back what was put into that escrow account...the debt is still owed.

So while technically the loan was "paid", it was paid in a way that is fraudulent and with full government/administration culpibility.

Point 2 Debt-for-equity.

We hold about in GM stock valued at about $12.3 billion.
We paid, when we swapped debt for shares of stock with GM, $25.6 billion for it.
Since it's 2010 IPO...GM stock just hasn't performed as analysts predicted.

Oh, and I have no problem with the UAW getting a nice deal, because the last time I checked, unions weren't responsible ...

1) Who cares about white flight...good strawman attempt.
2) Yes, unrealistic contracts did raise the cost of vehicles leading to a decline in US auto sales.
3) Also, UAW contracts constricted the options businesses had to expand or contract their business such as getting rid of production plants which could have led to the shedding of redundant brands.
4) The headstart GM had due to WWII is a double edged sword and gave way in the 1970s and 1980s. See Japan, Germany and Korea had to totally rebuild factories with modern tech. Where as US plants didn't have an incentive to modernize. And besides, its not like we could completely bomb industrial experience out of existence in WWII.
5) Now we have money tied up supporting ppl who continue to make bad business decisions (and that is what the Volt is...a sign GM is still making bad decisions). We needed a Bain Capital to break it up and recycle its means of production to other venues such as Aptera.

But in the end...the UAW is partially repsonsible for creating the business environment in Detroit that let the American auto industry decline. I think the future for the US auto industry is to look at BMW, KIA, Toyota moving into areas that have people who need jobs...but are not self-absorbed union members.

...so you'll need to show me your sources if you want to discuss this further (the 44/45 billion figure comes from the WSJ, which is over a span of 20 years, btw). Which is a drop in the bucket when compared to the rest of TARP.

Already did so. If you re-read the sources I linked to the $44 billion originally came from Obama...not WSJ.

Right, yeah, I was making an analogy to Facbook but deleted it because it was stupid and I didn't modify the rest of my post. The IPO raised $18.1 billion, which is the second highest IPO ever.

Who cares? It didn't make enough.

No, you're entirely wrong. ... to reduce the money supply to slow down the rate of inflation. ... So, no, what you're describing is not going to happen in this universe.

Hate to break it to you...but we're not in the universe you describe. See...the Fed has found a way to both lower interest rates and increase the money supply. It's called QE3, and last week the Fed announced that it would buy $40billion/month in bond buy backs until 2015 which according to NASDAQ:
"Firstly, as the price of bonds is forced up, so interest rates on them are driven lower. Lower rates are meant to encourage lending and borrowing, which helps to stimulate the economy. Secondly, QE is effectively printing money."
source

My point is there are different kinds of inflation;
* inflation due to the intrinsic value of a commodity or product increasing (ie: as gas becomes more scarce and/or more demand...its value goes up).
* inflation due to the intrinsic value of a dollar decreasing.

For example in the 1990s Batman comics increased in price because of better paper and ink made the product worth more. However, recent price changes are more likely reflective of the drop in the value of the US dollar.

To think that stocks are going to be immune from the second type of inflation (a devalued dollar) is naive and laughable. The stock market will adjust to reflect the devalued dollar.

I accidently deleted what exactly I responding to so I reposted to avoid confusion.

At 9/19/12 01:24 AM, Feoric wrote: No, you're entirely wrong. ... Stock prices actually go down due to inflation. Here's why: as inflation increases, central banks such as the Federal Reserve increase interest rates to reduce the money supply to slow down the rate of inflation. ... So, no, what you're describing is not going to happen in this universe.

No, you're entirely wrong. ... to reduce the money supply to slow down the rate of inflation. ... So, no, what you're describing is not going to happen in this universe.

Hate to break it to you...but we're not in the universe you describe. See...the Fed has found a way to both lower interest rates and increase the money supply. It's called QE3, and last week the Fed announced that it would buy $40billion/month in bond buy backs until 2015 which according to NASDAQ:

"Firstly, as the price of bonds is forced up, so interest rates on them are driven lower. Lower rates are meant to encourage lending and borrowing, which helps to stimulate the economy. Secondly, QE is effectively printing money."

My point is there are different kinds of inflation;
* inflation due to the intrinsic value of a commodity or product increasing (ie: as gas becomes more scarce and/or more demand...its value goes up).
* inflation due to the intrinsic value of a dollar decreasing.

For example in the 1990s Batman comics increased in price because of better paper and ink made the product worth more. However, recent price changes are more likely reflective of the drop in the value of the US dollar.

To think that stocks are going to be immune from the second type of inflation (a devalued dollar) is naive and laughable. The stock market will adjust to reflect the devalued dollar.

The rest of your post I don't really know how to respond to. We're through the looking glass.

Hey...the thought experiment regarding shipping jobs overseas for cheap labor just doesn't jive with reality. So if you want to come out of the looking glass I'm here to help buddy. :)

At 9/19/12 07:36 PM, Feoric wrote:

What Bain specializes in is in buying a mature company, (sometimes/rarely) adding value to that company, and then selling it at a profit. Like every other firm that makes it's money on leveraged buyouts they're ruthless as shit about cutting costs and increasing profitability/productivity....

Don't wanna get bought out by Bain...don't suck. It's really that simple.

At 9/20/12 03:24 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Don't wanna get bought out by Bain...don't suck. It's really that simple.

If only it were.

But it's not. The rules for public corporations make it quite easy for an outsider to come in and buy a company. Heck, the company (i.e. the directors and officers) can be severely punished for taking certain precautions against buyouts.

Well...I've thought that Romney's 47% gaffe is equivalent to Obama's '08 'guns & religion' quote. But it has been gaining some traction.

But in the continuing cycle of amatuer campaigns competing to see who can be most incompetent, Obama's campaign has responded and raised the ante with two campaign missteps.

The lessor one involves actresses pledging allegiance to Obama.

The second misstep, and the one I think has a shot of having legs, is the campaign introducing an American flag redesign with the Obama 'O' in the blue field. The criticism has come fast and hard. And the campaign responds with this gem of absurdity on twitter: "a poster to say there are no red states or blue states, only the United States."
Cafe Mom

What the fuck?

A rendering of the American flag replacing part of it with a partisan symbol for an individual is a unifying symbol?

What the fuck? Did they even think about what they were tweeting and just how stupid they sounded?

On one hand I cannot wait to see the twists and incestuous mutations of logic that Obama supporters are going to come-up with to explain how it is unifying. But on the other hand, I don't want to because it also means a significant portion of our population is now totally devoid of reason, logic, critical thinking and intellectual integrity.

In the end, I get it. People wear bikinis with American flag prints. I had an American flag tie. We have as a society bastardized the flag. But we're talking about the president (even if it is through his campaign proxies) doing this...to serve his personal interests.

This is not a symbol of unity, but instead a symbol of a cult of personality. This is shit tin-pot dictators do...not the president of a free society. We don't pledge allegience to any one person or branch of government, nor do we salute that person's flag. This is highly inappropriate behavior on the part of the Obama campaign.

Oh...now AP is reporting that Jay Carney today announced that the 9/11/12 attacks in Lybia were terrorist attacks, changing their position. This could be an unraveling of the image they tried to sell that this administration was at least competent when it comes to international relations.

At 9/20/12 06:41 PM, TheMason wrote: The second misstep,

Hope you brought some beers, cause you're clearly fishing.

You fail to see why exactly Romney's misstep is so much more harmful to his campaign, and thus has gained more traction.

Obama doesn't have a widespread problem of independent or even that many conservative voters thinking he;s actively anti-American. Also, Obama never really had much traction with the small town folk in 08 and isn;t expected to carry them again this year. What sets Romney's gaffe apart is that it hits right smack dab in what is considered his biggest weakness. His comment falls right into his 'out of touch' feel that many Americans, Left, Right, and Independent alike feel. By commenting and saying the poorest are moochers who are guaranteed of going Obama (whilst somehow failing to realize a HUGE chunk of those same folk are die hard conservatives) and they merely want to be given shit for nothing just goes to further show how little Romney knows, understands, or even empathizes on a basic level the plight of the bottom half of Americans.

It would be the equivalent of Obama openly saying "I didn't care about the economy. I'd rather have healthcare for all and let the economy burn in hell."

Romney's statement, on its face, is equivalent to what oabam said in 08 (but still worse than the boots your fishing pole caught) but the context of the race makes Romney's statement shine like a neon sign.

At 9/20/12 06:41 PM, TheMason wrote: The lessor one involves actresses pledging allegiance to Obama.

How the fuck is this a gaffe? A celebrity endorsement? This is a big enough deal to you for you to post about it?

THIS, however, is a gaffe.

The second misstep, and the one I think has a shot of having legs, is the campaign introducing an American flag redesign with the Obama 'O' in the blue field....This is highly inappropriate behavior on the part of the Obama campaign.

This is some really desperate petty patriotic jingoism. Faux outrage. Denial has set in. Denial that reeks of desperation and a deep, inner knowledge of the truth. Face it, nothing Obama has done or said can be used against him at this point to have the same impact as Romney's 47% statement. It's not over for sure, you never know what the next month will bring, but if the election was today it would sure as hell be over.

86% of voters say they're familiar with what Romney said [The 47% comment] and 53% consider his comments to have been inappropriate, compared to only 40% who feel they were appropriate. There are lots of Republicans that are either a) not voting for Romney over this, or b) actually voting for Obama for this.

At 9/20/12 06:41 PM, TheMason wrote: Well...I've thought that Romney's 47% gaffe is equivalent to Obama's '08 'guns & religion' quote. But it has been gaining some traction.

It's certainly worse than the stupid flag graphic, and I'm pretty sure it's a lot more harmful than Obama's quote from '08, by a long shot. Obama came off as an out-of-touch rich guy who had misplaced sympathy for people whose problems he didn't really understand. Romney came across as a rich guy who's so out of touch that he's willing to completely write off half the country as not worth soliciting votes from because they don't have enough money to understand how great his policies are, because his big picture on policy is to help the people who do have money.

It's kind of like the difference between peeing in the pool and peeing into the pool. It's the same in theory, but presentation makes a big difference.

At 9/20/12 07:50 PM, Elfer wrote:

Romney came across as a rich guy who's so out of touch that he's willing to completely write off half the country as not worth soliciting votes from because they don't have enough money to understand how great his policies are, because his big picture on policy is to help the people who do have money.

The people who view it that way weren't gonna vote for him anyway.

At 9/20/12 05:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote: But it's not. The rules for public corporations make it quite easy for an outsider to come in and buy a company. Heck, the company (i.e. the directors and officers) can be severely punished for taking certain precautions against buyouts.

And Bain has no interest in companies they can't profit on. Don't suck, Bain wouldn't want anything to do with you.

At 9/20/12 08:20 PM, LemonCrush wrote: And Bain has no interest in companies they can't profit on. Don't suck, Bain wouldn't want anything to do with you.

A very successful company actually presents Bain with more profit than a shitty one.

Company A sucks. Company B is an all star.

Bain buys company A on the hope that they can turn it around or sell it for scraps and get back their investment.
Bain buys company B for a hefty load, lets company B grow, gets almost guaranteed profit, takes all of the profit (and usually more) via dividends, and then leaves.

Leveraged buyouts buy purely equity firms almost always target successful companies, not weak ones.

At 9/20/12 08:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Leveraged buyouts by purely equity firms almost always target successful companies, not weak ones.

Fixed

At 9/20/12 08:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

A very successful company actually presents Bain with more profit than a shitty one.

They don't seem to see it that way, as they seem to handle businesses that are failing.

At 9/20/12 07:50 PM, Elfer wrote: It's kind of like the difference between peeing in the pool and peeing into the pool. It's the same in theory, but presentation makes a big difference.

Hah! If I sigged quotes, that would get sigged.

I think you nail the difference in the comparison to Obama's "cling" quote, as well. At the end of the day, Obama was at least trying to get people he thought would never vote for him to see that he was working in good faith... he just did it in an insulting fashion. Romney's quote is basically giving an unapologetic finger to a large portion of the electorate. Those independent voters who may or may not reside in that 47% will see only that finger, not the misguided sympathy that they saw with Obama, so that's a huge blow to Romney in the swing vote.

Secondly, and likely more important, but less measurable, is the effect on the 47% themselves. Of those, 47%, more than half DO pay taxes, if not federal income taxes, and they often do not depend on federal assistance (I would fall into that category, as would most of my friends) to live, and find the implication that paying no federal income tax is the same as paying no tax at all, and that they are getting some big-ticket free ride on the gravy train. Another large portion of that 47% are seniors and veterans living on untaxed pensions, disability and retirement. WHo do you think is going to be the demographic that decides how Florida (arguably the most important State electorally right now)? Another large portion are students and young workers/professionals/families.... what one might paint under the broad demographic of the "unlikely voter". A study was done recently on the preferences of Unlikely Voters. Obama led in that category 43% to less than 20%. A broad-swath painted-as-moocher tin-ear comment like this will only help the Dems mobilize larger portions of this unlikely demographic, which can only help him in the election.

Add to that the solidifying of the female demographic against him, (in hishome state, no less... and I'll be dipped the last time I saw a presidential candidate lead by 14 points in this very purple state) Romney better do something stu-goddamn-pendous during the debates to turn his Titanic around.

@ Camaro, Elfer 7 and Feoric

Here's the thing, the early data doesn't really indicate that Romney's 47% remark is going to get any real traction for the Obama campaign or loose Romney many votes. The reason is if you break down the numbers of the amount of Americans who do not pay taxes...they don't lean towards Romney whatsoever. Furthermore, for the most part the people who are honestly offended (or at least upset) by his comments are not in the 3% that is going to decide this election. The 3% are the honest-to-god independents who have yet to make-up their minds. (More on them later.)

Furthermore, early polling by Gallup doesn't really spell doom for Romney.

Of independent voters:
53%: Does not change how they plan on voting.
29%: Less likely to vote for Romney.
15%: More likely to vote for Romney.

Now it is always difficult divining how independents are leaning especially in this gallup poll b/c I did not see poll data showing where the independents are leaning to know how the 53% who this does not change their votes are leaning. That's important to tell us how big of a difference the 14% gap between the 'Less likelies' and the 'More likelies' really is.

Most likely the majority of the 29% 'less likelies' were already going to vote Obama and the 15% 'more likelies' were going to vote for Romney.

Furthermore, as the campaign progresses this will get coverage and messages will get out there and things clarified. Afterall, Aiken in Mo has already recoverd 4-5% points (in the Democratic run PPP poll he closed a 10% gap to 1%) after a far, far, far more stupid comment. So with this...it didn't really hurt Romney all that much to begin with so this won't be what sinks him (if Obama wins).

====

The 3%.

In every race there are only about 3% of voters who truly do not know who they are going to vote for this close to the election. Most have really made up their minds around the conventions. Most years, the 3% don't really matter all that much since one party or the other has things locked up around this time. But not this year. This year it is going to be a photo-finish. Neither candidate has sealed the deal...neither candidate is winning. Most likely the state of the race is both are tied around 47.5-48% of the vote.

This year the 3% are going to be the deciders.

From the demographical breakdown I've seen, the 3% are not in the '47%' Romney allegedly attacked. Socio-economically speaking they tend to be middle and upper-middle class. And if you look at the Gallup poll about this subject...this is the socio-economic strata where the 'less likelies' start decreasing and the 'more likelies' start increasing.

====

Romney w/'Brown Face'. Seriously, you're going to post something filtered through a Manhattan arts & intelligentsia gossip rag like Gawker? They of all ppl should know that is make-up for TV and not an idiotic ploy to wear Latino 'black face'. That was just someone with a regular camera being an ass.

====

As for the flag and pledge of allegience misstep. A few things:

* It's not a gaffe, but a poor and incompetent decision by the campaign.
* I'm not fishing. This is called polioptics, how visuals and the use of symbols can effect a campaign. To plaster something so obviously partisan onto the American flag is just stupid. It's only really going to appeal to Obama's base, it also energizes his opposition and turns-off potential swing voters in the 3%.
* I've heard the term 'faux outrage', and that makes me sad. It's a made-up concept used by political shills to convince one's side that the other side is heartless, manipulative machines that are hell-bent on winning through whatever loathsome means necessary. Basically anyone who then goes on to repeat it, is most likely veiwing everything through heavily partisan lenses.
* The thing with my WTF moment about the tweet is this: how can a supposedly brilliant campaign (the best one in recent history according to Feoric) be so incredibly...

I've got to pause here, there is no word to describe the tweet. It is like stupidity & absurdity fucked and had a cognitively handicapped baby. So yeah...whatever word that would be...

...be so incredibly cognitively-handicapped-lovechild-of-stupidity-&-absurdity to think that putting the Obama 'O' on the American flag is a symbol of unity that erases the red state/blue state divide.

With a race that is so close...why imprint yourself on national symbols that will illicit emotional responses? The 2008 'Hope' poster: iconic and a brilliant work of political art (also not made by the Obama campaign but a supporter). This flag? An unnecessary kicking of a sleeping animal in such a close race.

And since they are plastering these all over social media, bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc...if they don't pull them they are going to be everywhere as a constant reminder and generating emotional responses from supporters, opponents and undecideds all the way to the election.

Long after Romney's 47% gaffe has faded.

At 9/20/12 08:18 PM, LemonCrush wrote: The people who view it that way weren't gonna vote for him anyway.

Campaign image isn't always about convincing people one way or the other (although there are probably a few people here and there for whom this would be the last straw), it's more about controlling the news cycle and getting contributions to run a stronger campaign. The businesses who donate that money do it as an investment, and they don't want to throw good money after bad. If Romney keeps handing out quotes that let the Obama campaign run away with the news cycle, then Romney is going to start losing monetary support, which is the real nail in the coffin.

I'm not saying that it's not stupid for this to be as huge of a deal as it is, but any kind of politics on a national level is nonsense anyway. Elections are basically a game, but Romney has recently been showing how crappy he is at that game.

At 9/20/12 09:07 PM, TheMason wrote: Long after Romney's 47% gaffe has faded.

Hope the water's nice, cause you're still fishing.

The O flag is hardly going to effect anything. To even make it a gaffe or a bad move you have to jump through hops forward backward and with a college degree. Gaffes aren't about intelligent things. They're about stupidity, and as such they have to be equally frank and easy to understand. I seriously doubt the Average American or undecided voter is going to take the time needed to do the mental gymnastics needed to think this is an insult to anyone.