....in eight easy steps!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rodifJlis2c

1. Get other people's money.
2. Buy a company that they think they can squeeze for higher profits.
3. Squeeze higher profits by cutting the company's cost. Cut benefits, lower wages, fire workers!
4. Use the company as collateral to borrow money from banks. (Interest on the debt is deductible and used to show higher profits)
5. Get company to issue special dividend to pay back original investors.
6. Sell company since it is more profitable based on the job cuts and the inflated profits by deducting the interest on their debt.
7. Pocket 20% of the gains from the sale.
8. Tax law treats these as capital gains, so it is taxed at only 15%. Per Reich's point, this is a sham since the lower capital gains tax is supposed to reward investors who risk their own money, but private equity managers have not risked a dime.

And this guy is somehow going to save the economy? Sure he is not!

The point you seem to miss is that every business owner...every CEO...every senior manager...they all do something that you wouldnt like. There are many people who belong to this website who made money from flipping houses, for example, and were part of the problem that became the financial crisis. However, you are not authoring threads about those Clubhombre members.

Lets go through your list one by one

1. Get other people's money - Isnt this the point of working or having a business...to get other people's money.

2. Buy a company that they think they can squeeze for higher profits - Do you think they were going to buy a company they couldnt squeeze for any profit?

3. Squeeze higher profits by cutting costs - I do that everyday in my own business and in my personal life. Everyone around me does it.

4. Use the company as collateral to borrow money from banks - Everyone here has used their house to loan money from banks so using the company as collateral isnt something new to us.

5. Get company to issue special dividend to pay back investors - I have an S Corporation where I issue dividends to pay me back. Everyone who has a corporation does this all the time.

6. Sell company since its profitable - Do you think they were just going to hold onto the company?

7. Pocket 20% of gains from sale - I find this funny that you chastise a man for making 20% on the sale. If the man lost 20%, would you be chastising him just the same? I am happy to see someone make a profit.

8. Taw law taxes at 15% - Bingo! Thats why a lot of us here have registered corporations. If you could do it too then you would.


And this guy is somehow going to save the economy...YEP! It seems like he knows the system very well unlike Obama who doesnt know the system. Mitt Romney is the modern day hacker of the economic system. Would you hire a hacker to improve the system or someone who doesnt know anything about the system? If you could hack the economy like Mitt Romney then you would and if the truth be known...most of us here are hackers too!

What is really to be said is that both candidates are a really bad choice.

So what Portege is saying is the he and Mitt are a lot alike. So, a vote for Mitt is a vote for Portege.

Portege, you just cost your boy Mitt some votes.

I dont get it. Most of you here are businessmen or maybe I'm wrong. In any event you have to make money somehow and I know you do not all work for the government or sit around collecting Social Security. All is fair in business and you get it anyway you can. You do not operate a business for charity or non-profit. Walk into any business in your town and I can bet you the owner is cutting corners and doing whatever they can to turn a dime.

Why is Mitt Romney a "bad choice"? The man is wildly successful in the business world, shows he can run the Olympics, previous Governor, Ivy League education, responsible parent/husband of 40 years....I mean, what more do you want? Oh yeah, I get it, you want the man to be Mr. Charisma and tell you what you want to hear in a way that makes you smile.

Look, I dont care if Mitt says something off or fired a few steel workers back in the 90s to turn a buck. I dont care if he cut off Catocony's hair at age 17. All I care about is if he can do the job...if he is up for the job. The man ran a business for 20 years at the highest level and was wildly successful in doing so. He ran a state and the Olympics. He has an MBA and Law Degree from Harvard. He worked at Boston Consulting in the 70s, a prestigious firm. So what more do you want? Do you want the man to turn lead into gold? I know, you want him to blow more smoke up your ass like Obama did in 2008. Well, thats not going to happen.

Might I suggest you try running a business and then come back to me so we can have an informed discussion. You will find in running that business that you have to make controversial decisions all the time. You might even have to do something which others consider not right to make the business survive. Mitt Romneys job at Bain was not to cure disease or the plight of the homeless. It was to make money and he did his job and you would do the same.

So the guy made a few hundred million. He didnt break any laws and I bet you would do the same. In fact, I think you are even jealous of his success.

Again from the video:

Taxpayers get to subsidize Romney getting rich.

When they fire workers, who has to pay more for unemployment benefits? We do.

When they pump up company profits by deducting interest, who makes up for the lost revenue? Taxpayers. We do.

When they treat their earnings as capital gains and pay only 15% in taxes, who has to pay more taxes to make up the difference? We do.

When some of them go bust under the weight of all the debt and their pensions have to be taken over? Who pays? We do.

Here is a great success story of Bain Capital:

KB Toys was purchased and taken private in 2000 by the leveraged buyout firm of Bain Capital for $305 million, Bain announced the purchase on Dec. 8th, 2000. Only $18 million of the purchase money was cash, the rest was borrowed against the assets of the company.

Sixteen months after the buyout, Bain Capital paid itself $85 million in dividends in early 2002. Two years later, due to increasing competition from national discount chains such as Wal-Mart and Target and its enormous debt, on January 14, 2004, K·B Toys filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and closed 365 stores.

K·B closed 156 stores on November 8, 2007. The Gordon Brothers Group[3] handled the liquidation of these stores. On February 9, 2009, K·B closed the remaining stores following the second bankruptcy filing in four years. In addition, K·B Toys' website was closed down.

So let me see if I understand this? 18 million gets Bain a return of 85 million? The result? 521 stores closed. Countless jobs lost. A company in two bankruptcies! Mission Accomplished?

------------------
Next Gingrich actually has some rather cogent points on what Romney and his buddies at Bain Capital did to companies.

Gingrich likened Bain to so-called "vulture capital" groups that pick weak companies clean.

“The question is whether or not these companies were being manipulated by the guys who invest to drain them of their money, leaving behind people who were unemployed,” Gingrich said on Bloomberg. “Show me somebody who has consistently made money while losing money for workers and I’ll show you someone who has undermined capitalism. … That’s an indefensible model.

“There are some cases that look very suspicious where he and Bain Capital made a lot of money while other people went broke,” Gingrich added.

The former House Speaker said the difference between what Romney did and what more noble financiers do in the free markets is that the latter “shares in the hardships.”

“I’m for capitalism, I’m for free enterprise, I’m for entrepreneurs,” Gingrich told Fox. “There’s a big difference between people who go out and create a company — even if they fail — if they try to go in the right direction, if they share in the hardships, if they’re out there with the workers doing it together. That’s one thing. But if someone who is very wealthy comes in and takes over your company and takes out all the cash and leaves behind the unemployment? I think that’s not a model we want to advocate, and I don’t think any conservative wants to get caught defending that kind of model.”

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/203265-gingrich-romney-firm-bain-capital-undermined-capitalism

All aboard the leveraged buyout train! Romney and a small few gets rich. Most workers get fired!

(Message edited by xenono on May 13, 2012)

My question to you is did Mitt Romney violate the law? Did he use tactics that you wouldnt use yourself? Did other politicians in either party use those same tactics as well? Im sure your accountant has showed you ways to avoid taxes and you probably followed them. Im sure everyone here come tax time tries to get the most they can out of the IRS.

In regards to Bain, all companies use these tactics and Im certain if you are a business owner you use them as well. As a company, Bain is going to use any method they can to make money just as the auto body shop down the street will use every method. That is expected. Bain is not a charity or non-profit.

If you feel these tactics should not be legal, then you should write your Congressmen. These tactics are perfectly legal, everyone uses them and Im sure you use them currently yourself.

If an action is not illegal and everyone has been doing it for years, meaning its an accepted practice, then why all of a sudden is it so wrong? I guess because its an election year...thats why.

The surprising part about Clubhombre is that, in theory, its supposed to be a site filled with well off guys who can afford to take these big trips. Im a little surprised there are so many folks here who appear so anti-business.

Who's anti-business? Some of us own businesses. We are just anti-stupidity. There's good business (creating things) and bad business (destroying companies and jobs to make a profit). Romney followed the second approach. No one is against profit; it just comes down to HOW you make it. You're still a dumb putz, Portege.

I don't have a business and the only way to Fund my trip is to do loads of overtime.

Portege thinks that anyone with a nickel is a Republican and that Democrats are all poor. Another piece of evidence towards the hypothesis that he is a dipshit.

(Message edited by mitchc on May 14, 2012)

Oh come on, you dont really know that much about Bain and Company to sit there and say that it was "destroying companies". Honestly, how much do you know about Bain beyond the Youtube videos authored by the Democratic party? Let me tell you a little bit about Bain.

Just a few companies Bain has invested in over the years:

- Sports Authority since 1987
- Guitar Center since June 2006
- Gymboree since October 2010
- Clear Channel since 2008
- Staples since 1986
- Domino's Pizza since 1998
- The Weather Channel since 2008
- Burger King since 2002
- Sealy since 1997
- Brookstone since 1991
- Burlington Coat Factory since 2006
- Dunkin Donuts since 2005

Just like that steel mill they acquired in 1997, I do not expect all of the above companies to survive. Thats just common sense.

What about the notable former employees? Gary Crittenden CFO of Monsanto

Kevin Rollins former CEO of DELL

John Donahoe - CEO of Ebay

Meg Whitman - CEO of HP

Mark Pincus - founder of Zynga

Jeffrey Zients - Obama's Chief Performance Officer


I see Bain as a prestigious company which has created businesses and helped people get into top level positions. If you really and truly own a business, then you would be savvy enough to do your homework to figure out the truth. Honestly, are you that naive to believe some Youtube video about an unprofitable steel mill which was shut down in the 90s. The mill was losing tens of millions of dollars and had to be shuttered. Now there are these sour grape employees wondering why Romney didnt provide for them. Just what was Romney supposed to do? Keep paying the former employees of an unprofitable company? As the owner of a business, would you keep paying employees of a business you had to shutter?

No Branguinho, I do not believe you own or have ever operated a business. If you did, then you would know how business works. Let me guess, you probably believe Apple Computer is one of those "creating things" companies. The truth is Apple uses overseas tax loopholes to get down to a low tax rate and employs millions of Chinese workers. Apple doesnt have any factories in the USA...all "made in China". Is Apple one of those companies you feel proud of? I dont blame Apple for anything though. I feel Apple is doing what it feels best for its business model. Although I would prefer for them to employ workers in the USA, I understand their approach and what they are doing is not illegal. If this is how they make a profit then thats how they make a profit. Every corporation and business does it and its called capitalism. If you dont like it, then move to Greece.

So be honest with me? Just how well read are you about Bain where you can talk so professionally and confidently? As an alleged business owner, you should be able to do research like I did on the company to include reading its website, reading news and encyclopedia articles, etc. To sit there and say they "destroyed companies" during their entire existence is to display your true ignorance. Even Ed Koch and Arianna Huffington would not stoop so low or display such ignorance.


(Message edited by Portege on May 14, 2012)

BTW, here are some real facts...the facts you refuse to look up:

- Bain & Company and Bain Capital are two seperate companies with no sharing of governance or ownership.

- Mitt worked at Bain & Company from 1977 to 1985, leaving the firm in 1985 as a vice president to help found Bain Capital.

- He rejoined Bain & Company in the early 1990’s to play a key role in our turnaround, leading the successful effort to restructure our debt and reorganize Bain into a full partnership that has fueled 20 years of phenomenal growth.

- Mitt returned to Bain Capital in 1992 and worked there until 1999 when he went to work with the Salt Lake City Olympics.

A couple of months old, but pertinent:

Mitt Romney has taken quite a beating regarding his claim that he was a job creator extraordinaire while at Bain Capital. In numerous debates (15 and counting?) he’s claimed to have created 100,000 jobs while at Bain. Much of the damage was done by fellow Republicans, especially by a rather pissed-off Newt Gingrich (target of the negative ads flowing out of Romney’s Super PAC).

So it comes as no surprise that a host of “market über alles” Republicans have jumped to Mitt’s defense. The defenses have taken three forms.

One group jumped in and defended Romney’s record at Bain by noting that his job was never about creating jobs. Bain’s (and Romney’s) sole obligation was to make money for the firm’s investors, and it was successful in doing so. Jobs were lost along the way, but that’s life in the cold cruel world of the market. One conservative analyst compared Romney to Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Michael Dell, all of whom, he noted, were devoted to building profits for their investors (obviously, this guy has not read the recent Steve Jobs biography). He misses a rather stark difference. Apple, Microsoft and Dell all produce profits by making products consumers want. They make things, and the men behind these companies were committed 110% to their companies. And they created a lot of jobs in the process, even as they, in some cases, shifted production jobs out of the country. Bain, on the other hand, bought companies which they sought to make profitable. Sometimes that involved investing resources in the companies, but quite often it meant cutting the workforce, selling off pieces of the company, and collecting what profits could be made until the company went under. A Wall Street Journal analysis found that Bain’s businesses had a particularly high failure rate, even while some turned in impressive short-term profits. Bain’s investors and employees, including Romney, did quite well (it’s estimated that Romney earned between $190 million and $250 million while at Bain). The employees at the businesses Bain acquired? Not so much. There’s nothing wrong with earning a good profit, but Bain didn’t do it the old-fashioned way. Unlike Apple, Microsoft and Dell, there’s little that Bain’s businesses produced that made our economy a stronger one. Profits, per se, are not the be-all, end- all of an economy or a business, despite what the Republican Free Marketeers might say.

The second camp of defenders are fighting off the claim, leveled most forcefully by Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, that Bain and Romney represent the type of “vulture capitalism” popularized in the movie “Wall Street.” Romney as “Gordon Gekko.” Romney as the pre-salvation Richard Gere character in “Pretty Woman.” The defense? That unlike Gekko, Romney hasn’t been accused of doing anything illegal as he pulled apart companies and sold off the pieces. As one defender says, Romney “created value.” He did, if by “value” one means profits for Bain’s investors. But when economists and business professionals note that the Bain-purchased businesses had an unusually high failure rate over an 8-10 year period, it gets a little hard to argue that this “value” extended to workers, or to the economy at large. Bain appears to have had a short-run profit focus as opposed to a long-run value focus. The Free Marketeers live under the illusion that what’s good for Wall Street (the investor class) is good for Main Street. Sorry. That illusion was crushed in 2008, although as Thomas Frank notes in his latest book, the Free Marketeers have been incredibly successful over the past few years in convincing far too many that that economic collapse thingie was just a fluke, or something to be blamed on the liberal economic policies of George Bush, and had nothing to due with the rapacious practices of investment bankers, deregulation, specific market failures, or the dominant laissez faire economic philosophy/religion.

A third camp tries to deflect attention from the issue by suggesting that this whole blow-up is just the work of a bunch of blogospehere lefties (Gingrich? Perry?) who are offended by anyone, anywhere, making a profit. The Washington Post’s ultra-right and often ultra-silly Jennifer Rubin, without citing a single concrete example, uses this straw man argument in a recent column. She seems to imply that the lefties are either put off by profits or jealous that they failed to cash in. Give me a break!

So far, none of the defenses have tackled the fundamental issue raised regarding Romney’s claims that while at Bain he created 100,000 new jobs. The evidence thus far compiled strongly suggests this is a total fiction. Neither Romney nor his supporters seem able to come up with even anecdotal evidence, let alone something a bit more solid. They all seem to be hiding from that claim, and now are trying to shift the debate to focus on whether free market capitalism is good or evil. That was never the issue, but you’d never know it from the coverage on Fox.

Finally, the entire debate has utterly ignored the fact that Romney has never once offered a suggestion regarding how his “job creating” credentials–real or fictional–would translate to Washington. As president, how would he rev up the job creation machine? And what does that machine look like? On this, Romney is entirely silent.

Here is how I see it.

Lets say you and I decide to start a business where we buy businesses around the area, try to make them successful and then sell them to someone else.

We buy an auto parts store which isnt doing well. After we buy it then we do some advertising, hire a new manager and all of a sudden business increases by 50%. We then sell the business off to an interested party for a gain.

Then we buy a restaurant, but no matter what we try to do the business is not successful. It wasnt successful before and it wasnt successful after we tried to reform it. We try hiring a new manager and advertise but it just doesnt work. In order to cut our losses we then sell the business off and in the process fire all the workers.

My question to you all is that do we, as investors, have a responsibility and obligation to the workers of the restaurant? Did we do anything wrong by cutting our losses? Anything illegal or untoward? Did I, as an investor, do anything wrong?

Our system is one where we do not owe anyone anything. I dont owe you anything and you do not owe me anything. When you come to work each day, you come knowing that this is "at will" employment. While this system may seem cold and unfeeling, think of the dire consequences if the system were not like this. We would then see double digit unemployment and wild debt...California is a shining example.

I do not blame Bain, Mitt Romney or anyone else for cutting their losses on an investment. I do not blame them for buying a business and trying to re-sell it later on. Business owners are not charity workers and we all come to work each day knowing this is "at will" employment. Anything can happen from day to day and thats how we operate.

There wasn't much fuss about John Kerry's great wealth in 2004 when he ran for President.

Kerry didn't earn his fortune but secured it through two advantageous marriages. Teresa Heinz Kerry is rumored to be in the billionaires' club. Good for her. Though, she didn't earn it either, but rather married the heir of the ketchup fortune. John Kerry was an advocate of raising taxes on the rich, but he, like Warren Buffett, declined to contribute more than required to Uncle Sam. In fact, he was caught mooring his yacht in Rhode Island so as to avoid Massachusetts' taxes. Oh, and before he married Teresa Heinz, there were a number of years when Sen. Kerry donated nothing at all to charity.

And before that, he was married to his first wife, Julia Thorne, who, according to press reports, had a similarly huge fortune of over $100 million.

If you look at the years Bain & Co. Made their investments, they were all in downturns. Chances are those companies were going to lay-off staff anyway. I think it is important to realize that the market should decide, not the government. When the market decides, the market adjusts and recovers. When the government opposes market forces, it only prolongs the inevitable from happening-Greece, France & Spain and to some extent our economy are all excellent examples of this. Our economic recovery has slowed because of the government not letting market forces happen. This is not a vote for one or the other-Romney's stance on gay rights and abortion are pretty bad...but If you need a job, a new higher paying job, or a bigger bonus...probably gonna see that faster if the candidate allows the market to decide instead of the government.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/private-equity-s-public-subsidy-is-a-tragedy-william-d-cohan.html

Our economic recovery has slowed because of the government not letting market forces happen.

But I bet you loved the Wall Street bailout after the "market forces" nuked them in 2008, didn't you?

There are 573,000 same sex couples according to the United States or about 1.1 million people who could possibly be effected by same sex marriage. So .3% of the United States population. Abortions per year, about 1.2 million so thats another 0.3%. Put them both together and those issues dont even effect 1% of the population.

On the other hand, the economy effects all of us...every single one of us. The stock market looks to be crashing, Europe going up in flames and unemployment very high. Obama goes on the view to talk about abortion. Huh?

Abortion and gay rights are important issues, but nothing is more important then the economy. The number of unemployed alone outnumbers those who have abortions and are same sex couples 34 times. The number of unemployed is 24 times larger then the active duty US Army.

So why are we no longer talking about it? Why are we so focused on some money losing steel mill Romney shut down in the 90s where his firm was cutting his losses?

If Romney is such a good "job creator" than why was his state ranked 47th in job creation when he was the governor?

affected
than

When Romney started as the governor of Mass unemployment was at 6% and when he finished his term it was below 5%. The above graph has two lines. Red is the Mass unemployment rate and blue is the national unemployment rate. At any given time, Mass has always been below the national average in ways of unemployment. So during the time Romney was governor unemployment was below the national average and downtrending. Even today, Mass seems to be in a good situation when compared nationally.

Sorry Mitch, I was never an English teacher.

(Message edited by Portege on May 16, 2012)

And Romney has NEVER mentioned a single, solitary idea for how, as President, he would "create" jobs. All he says is "I'll lower taxes and reduce regulations." Newsflash! As Bush the First said, this is just "voodoo economics." There's no evidence that lowering corporate taxes or personal income taxes increases productivity and/or demand to the point that new jobs are created. And Bush 2 already lowered the regulatory burden on most businesses. American business has never been less regulated in the last 90 years.

It's much easier for a president to fuck up the economy (ala Bush 2) than to fix it. Romney has not offered a single credible idea, and as governor he was NOT a "job creator."

Romney was governor from 2003 to 2007n that graph does not look too good for his last year in office.

Also unlike some of the "sunshine states" Massachusetts does not have the weather that encourages the long term unemployable to live for very long in that state. I have lived in both Massachusetts and California, and if I were in the long term unemployable category, I would not live in the northeast.

Roadglide,

"Romney was governor from 2003 to 2007n that graph does not look too good for his last year in office."

Look at the graph again! The red line is Mass. and in 2007 the unemployment is straight across at about 4.5%. How does that not look good for Romney's last year in office?

How can you mention ideas without having direct access to advisers and data like Obama has now? Thats like asking a Doctor to advise on your condition without them doing a thorough in-person examination. Obama has all the resources in the world one can have and the position to fix the economy, but he has not done so simply because he cant. Millions remain unemployed...the highest number of Americans recorded out of work in history.

I bet with Romney's problem solving and negotiation skills obtained from when he was at Bain he would be able to form an action plan once in office. I would actually look down on Romney if he put forward ideas because that would be false hope and change. No one can say how they would fix the economy unless they have all the data, resources and position to do so.

Obama doesnt have any skill in getting through this economy. Obama just wants to bet it will get better on its own hoping the Ben Bernank will come up with something.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/05/welcome-to-fl-mitt-now-why-did-bain-capital-lay-off-so-many-people-in-miami.html

I just mistyped my statement, but damn, this guy moved the company to puerto rico, taking on tax credits in puerto rico, then shut the company down for good in pr. The funny thing portege, is you probably don't have a dime in bain stock, but you probably pay taxes.

Jack; Look at the graph...if you boy is such a good "job creator" than why was unemployment in Mass higher during Mitt's last year in office than the rest of the US?

You might want to take a look at his approval ratings, I think they were happy to see him leave Massachusetts, I don't think he will be bragging about an approval ratting of 34%

So Jack did you join ClubHombre, to talk shit about politics or did you join so you could share your experiences in traveling the world?

If you knew anything about Bain, then you would know Bain is not a publicly traded company. There is no "Bain stock" which trades from day to day on the Nasdaq or NYSE.

What you simply don't get is Bain is a private business and they are not doing anything illegal. They are doing what every businessman has done since the start of time which is to make money.

I dont see whats wrong in taking advantage of the tax code to make money. Everyone here in this forum does it all the time. You cant tell me come tax time you are not looking for every tax break you can.

Why should it matter if they closed a business or not? Bain is not a charity or a non-profit. They are not the government. They can open or close businesses as they see fit. If they own it, then its theirs. Again, there are quite a few guys in this forum who have done things quite similar. Nothing wrong with it. Now are you going to tell us that a private company or private individual cant do what they want with their business? Look, its Bain's business not our business. Employment is at will in any event. You cant expect for your job to last forever.

BlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlahBlah

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Come on guys there's new mongers paying 55$ a year for this board, I'm sure their not paying the money to hear about politics so let's talk about the night scene in South America Asia etc.

Redbus, that's the best post this year. I totally agree!

This section of the site isnt really displayed to newbies. If you hit the 1day search, then a list comes up and at the very end is this off-topic politics section. However, most people probably dont ever hit 1daysearch. Instead they access the reports through hitting the Tripreports section directly and never see this part.

So, you've polled everyone on this site, and determined exactly how they access different areas? You are, in effect, the subject matter expert on the user experience at clubhombre.com? We don't hit 1-day or 3-day search, we don't hit treeview, we don't go straight to the chat pages? We all just log in, hit TripReports, and that's all we do?

Damn, you really are smart. You know everything.

I always hit the 1-day or 3-day search feature.

Portege 2012 = Beachman 2008 =

Since this site has existed, there have been many posts in this section and some of which seem a bit radical. I was browsing through and found a few in 2004 which claimed that Chavez did more for America then Bush ever did. There are so many posts that are simply out there claiming many radical things. Only now are you suggesting to Hombre to shut down this section of the board because its not related to mongering. Were you making those suggestions 5 or 10 years ago as well? You are also making suggestions that people are logging on with multiple aliases just to post to the political section. I do not have the money nor the motivation to log-on with different people's credit cards creating new aliases. So why are you making all these suggestions today and seemingly against this section? Its because you want to see Obama re-elected because he is the first Black President. If he is defeated then it would become clear this little social experiment did not work. I, for one, do not see the Presidency as a social experiment where we have to carry out affirmative action. The person in that office should be deserving of it. He should be able to make the American people's situation better not worse.

At this point, I do not feel Obama is deserving of the office. He has not shown he can adequately manage it and America has more problems now then in 2009 in ways of unemployment and the vast majority believe we are on the "wrong track". When I say these things, I always get back a reply pointing out the stock market. The stock market is meaningless to voters who cant find a job. I measure the economy by the number of people who can pay the mortgage and put bread on the table. Certainly that number is less today then it was in 2009.

So I acknowledge and respect your strong opinions on this matter but please do not encourage Hombre to censor or eliminate this section of the site which has a long-standing history in discussing different political issues all because you dont want to see the first Black President fail. Thats not what Democracy looks like. This isnt about Obama, but its about all of us. If a man isnt deserving of the office and hasnt made America better after 4 years then we should try someone else out. Its that simple.

In June, the Supreme Court will speak and in November the people will speak. No matter what you think or believe or want to state on a message board, they will have the last word. When that time comes, I will respect the decision made by the Court and by the people in these matters. I put my faith in them to make the right decision. You can fool them once, but not twice.

(Message edited by Portege on May 18, 2012)

You don't seem to respect the decision the people made in 2008.

The economy of 2009 is primarily the result of decisions made prior to 2009...the failure to adequately regulate the big banks, the failure to detect the housing bubble and "pop" it before it got too large, the gift of huge tax cuts to the wealthy by Bush that resulted in huge deficits (yes, Bush ran deficits even with an expanding economy, while Clinton ran a surplus), etc.

You view the world through a narrow lens, Portege.

How am I disrespecting the decision made in 2008? Am I erecting tents in public parks refusing to leave or trashing out the local Bank of America branch? Nope, Im not doing any of that. All I am doing is practicing my right to free speech. If you want to censor or squelch my right to free speech then that would be dis-respect. If I were to openly violate the law or try to aggravate the local police, then that would be disrespect. Openly and aggressively discussing and debating our current government is not disrespect and is what our founding fathers intended.

Unlike yourself, I do not place fault or blame on anyone for a recession. I have lived long enough to know there are recessions every 4-7 years. Financial panics happen regularly. Remember the savings and loan crisis? How about the tech crash? The 1997 Asian financial crisis? How about the double dip recession of the 80s or the constant quagmire economy of the 70s?

You cannot blame anyone because they just happen and the people to blame is a whole host of individuals. However, the recovery from these crisis is key. There were hundreds of people arrested, convicted, tried and placed into prison for the savings and loan crisis. There were people sent to prison over Enron and the tech bust. However, there has never been one person sent to prison over the 2008 financial crisis.

In the past after recessions have ended, tax rates were rolled back and regulation relaxed which resulted in more robust recoveries. This recovery has been horrible. Actually, I wouldnt even call it a recovery. Debt has sky-rocketed during the last 4 years and even more then when Bush was President. Healthcare premiums have skyrocketed with less benefits. Gas prices have gone through the roof and the food at the store has nearly doubled. Inflation is simply out of control, but I guess not according to the Ben Bernank CPI report. I guess when you live in that bubble called Washington DC and have everything provided for you then there is no inflation. As for us folks out here in the real world, there has been a lot of inflation in so many ways.

So you be the judge. You obviously believe that Obama has done a great job and you are entitled to your own opinion. However, the majority of Americans disapprove of the job Obama is doing and believe the country is on the wrong track. When over 50% of the people in a room think you are doing a bad job then you are probably doing a bad job. Its that simple

It wasn't a recession, nitwit. If you think what happened in 2008 was a typical cyclical recession you are actually dumber than I thought, which is really hard to believe.

" When over 50% of the people in a room think you are doing a bad job then you are probably doing a bad job. Its that simple"

Mitt Romney had an approval ratting of 34% when he left the governors office in November 2006, and you want this guy to be our president? WTF???

I think it was typical. The recessions of 2001 and the early 90s were pretty light and only effected a few industries. Those were not typical. The early 80s recession were typical. The ones during the 70s were typical. I can tell you a lot of stories about those times like New York City was on the verge of bankruptcy, crime was out of control and homeless people were everywhere. You couldnt even get on the subway without getting mugged. Then there were the gaslines and I remember Carter coming out to plea to the American public about "sharing in scarcity". Nevermind having a smartphone, people were lucky to have just a wired telephone.

Your typical recession is going to be very bad and you have been spoiled by the 91 and 01. Those recessions have given you a false sense of security. This next recession we will have is going to be worse then the last. If this next recession is bad, who you going to blame? Let me guess, Bush.

It was "typical?" Portege, you are dumber than a stump. Every economist who's addressed the issue has noted that this was the most severe recession since the Great Depression, with some economists, both conservative (Posner) and liberal (Krugman) calling it a depression or "the Great Recession." Typical? Far from it.

So are you really this stupid or are you just a provocative troll? Or both?

In terms of the financial institutions and whatever data they track, it might be bad for them, but I go by my own experiences in the real world. Believe me, the 70s and 80s were much worse in terms of the real world experience.

Ahhhh, the world revolves around you and your personal experience. So if you have a bad year, we are in a recession, regardless of what everyone else in the economy is experiencing.

Thanks for providing ironclad proof that you are a total nitwit.

You are right, the world does not revolve around me. Therefore, I look at opinion polls to see how everyone feels.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track

65% say we are on the "wrong track"

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/may_2012/88_say_they_re_paying_more_for_groceries_than_a_year_ago

88% say they are now paying more for groceries.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/jobs_employment/may_2012/48_think_it_s_possible_for_anyone_seeking_work_to_find_a_job

48% of Americans believe that anyone looking for work can find a job.

I could go on, but the plain fact is the majority of Americans are clearly not happy campers right now.

Rasmussen, the debunked Republican polling firm?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200907070015

Nitwit,

Those polls have nothing to do with the question of whether the current recession is more or less severe than earlier ones, which was the issue you raised. More proof of your utter stupidity.