MoneyMelon wrote:It's not a matter of my opinion. It's a fact. Bain Capital, when Mitt Romney was CEO, was directly responsible for layoffs in companies they took a stake in. And this was done solely so Bain Capital and their investors could make a profit. This is what Bain Capital and companies like them do.
This is what his Republican opponents like John Huntsman and Newt Gingrich were talking about during the debates when they called Romney a job killer. Not Democrats, mind you......other Republicans.
You haven't really given any specifics as to which layoffs you're talking about, so I'm not exactly sure how anybody is to know what you're referencing. I'm not even aware that people getting fired or layed off from Bain Capital itself was even an issue. Maybe you can clarify that for me.
But your claim that Mitt Romney hasn't personally profited by large scale layoffs is certainly incorrect.
Layoffs at Bain itself were never an issue, you evidently thought I said it was.
To clarify what I was talking about, specifically, I was referring to a Gingrich commercial making claims about specific companies Bain acquired, and a Romney hit-piece film called The King of Bain, from which the claims in the commercial are derived. All of which was later picked up as talking points for sundry Obama surrogates, (who probably don't want to answer the question of what happened at the auto firms after Obama bailed them out, (hint: Job losses, lots of them).
Interspersed with appropriately eerie music, the video focuses on four Bain-financed companies and features heart-wrenching interviews with people who portray Romney and Bain as ruthless, quick-buck corporate raiders who reaped huge financial rewards at the expense of faithful employees.
BLOG: Gingrich asks 'super PAC' to edit Romney attack film
But a closer look at the companies highlighted in the video reveals a murkier picture. The video often overstates, or outright distorts, Romney's culpability for job losses or bankruptcies.
•The film talks about layoffs at DDi Corp. and discusses questionable manipulation of stock prices after the circuit board company went public. But Romney had left Bain Capital a year before any layoffs and a public stock offering that ultimately netted Bain and Romney a big payday. The company's subsequent bankruptcy filing came two years after Bain had largely divested from the company, and was the result of the dot-com bust. Moreover, the company emerged from bankruptcy, and its current CEO credits those early Bain investments for setting the foundation for the company's current success.
•The film claims Romney was involved in the acquisition, management and demise of the now-defunct KB Toys. He wasn't. Bain bought the toy company nearly two years after Romney left Bain.
•Likewise, the closing of UniMac's plant in Marianna, Fla., occurred seven years after Romney left Bain and nearly two years after Bain sold UniMac's parent company to another private equity house.
---from Fact Check.org.
As for why Bain lays of people at companies, yeah, profit. But they don't fit the Gordon Gecko mold of stripping a company to sell it's assets, rather, under Romney, the tried to FIX the companies they acquired; to get them to a sound financial and operational basis. By and large, they succeeded more than they failed. Considerably more. Thus saving jobs at companies that were in danger of failing at some point.
So, to sum up, I was talking specifically about the claims made in that film, echoed in Gingrich's commercial, and in Democratic talking points. About specific companies at specific times, and Romney's involvement in them.