There's a fine line between employment status and beneficiary status.
Mitt Romney claims that he ended his tenure at Bain in 1999, but admits that he had taken a three year leave of absence in order to salvage the 2002 Olympics while simultaneously insisting that his tenure at Bain ended in 1999 when his own admission indicates that he remained the general partner until 2002, when his leave of absence expired and he decided not to return to the firm.
However, when he surrendered his ownership interest in Bain Capital in 2002, he remained a "retired" partner, receiving a share of the profits generated by Bain Capital at least through 2007, which means that Romney was benefitting financially from Bain's business during that period, whether or not he played an active role in the decision-making process of the firm.
(There is no such thing as a "retired" partner in an LLC; you are either a partner, or you're not. Romney's status as a "retired" partner was in fact an invention out of whole cloth. The correct term would have been a "passive" partner, one who has a financial stake in the firm but doesn't have management responsibility. This is also questionable because management is determined by the partners, collectively and, as long as one owns an interest in the LLC, even not voting is a vote because strengthens the majority position.)
Consequently, much of Romney's personal fortune is based upon his monetary interest in Bain Capital, which made huge profits from outsourcing American jobs from 2003 onward.
The reason that Romney doesn't want to disclose his tax returns during those years is that those returns would make it clear that he was a passive partner in Bain Capital for years longer than he presently admits.
Romney moved his assets into a series of "blind trusts" in 2003, when he became governor of Massachusetts and, because his assets are held in these blind trusts, he could honestly state that he had no knowledge of whether or how much of his earnings came from disbursements from Bain Capital....nor is it clear whether o r not he actually received any such disbursements after 2003.
One might question whether assets in Bain Capital, or proceeds from those interests, would have been acknowledged by the blind trust and, if so, we might question exactly how blind the blind trust was.
However, it is precisely this lack of transparency that has made Romney vulnerable to charges that he benefitted from Bain's outsourcing activities....if there were no fire to go along with the smoke. The fact that he has refused to disclose lends credence to speculations that where there's smoke, there's gotta be some fire.
In the final analysis, this election is coming down to a question of credibility, with each side questioning the other's.
Romney's people keep pointing to an 8% unemployment rate despite the widespread consensus among economists that an 8% unemployment rate is an amazing success in the current global economic situation as if, somehow, presidents control hiring.
The truth is that there's nothing Obama can do to stimulate the economy as long as the Republicans have the House of Representatives in a stranglehold....and they know it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Steven Bridenbaugh
Tom Degan
Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
Grey Treed
Chicago Guy
Vivian Henoch
Salon.com
Comments
Lezlie
I like a comment that Stellaa retweeted, I guess retroactive retirement makes sense to people who baptize the dead.
Romney is becoming a punching bag. Couldn't happen to a better leather-skinned bladder filled with air. (Or is that a football?)
i have seen no mention of other partners before, so i was under the impression this was a romney company. if so, talk of not managing, or passivity, is a nonsense.
a good gig. bain,
which i hear via the grapevine was, uh,
"the first large private-equity firm to derive a large fraction of its revenues from corporate dividends and other distributions. The revenue potential of this strategy, which may "starve" a company of capital"
is criticized for not plowing profits back in.
i say, yay!
whatever america wants is cool with me.
i got no assets, no children, nothing...so who gives a f.
i should go out and campaign for the O man
among my fellow nothings.
i am too disenfranchised, and my marginalization
makes my tummy cramp, so not tonite.[
Based on what, precisely. Bain Capital doesn't make anything. Bain Capital invests in buying and selling businesses. This doesn't constitute business experience as we usual construe the term.
The fact is that no one - NO ONE - has the requisite experience managing a national economy because the only place to get that experience is in the office of the President of United States.
Everyone else - without exception - only sees a shred of the fabric. Only the president sees the whole picture.
Point taken?
"Bain doesn't make anything?...."
What does the Unite States make? That is almost an endorsement
The problem with Obama is defined by his vocabulary: Republicans he said recently "believe that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we *SPEND * trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth.".....,.......But- ironically actual spending for political allies like the Teachers Union is an "*INVESTMENT* in education.
Income tax is not wealth. Taxing a 40 year old with 300,000 in student loans,three kids and a home -up the arse is not America.
The rich hide their money, older people with true wealth make no income anymore so they are not taxed. The working class gets jacked, not the rich.
Let's quote a former President on investors motives-"efforts to avoid tax liabilities" made them put their money in tax shelters, because existing tax laws made "certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings" for the country. ohn F. Kennedy
Do we see the irony now in the attacks on Romney's Cayman accounts? We need to create climates where this money comes back,not hidden -legally.
Obama knows this , we are talking class warfare pure and simple. He is looking for votes -not the truth.
You and I wrote in similar veins today. :)
Rated.
The comment about the Teacher's Union is simply nonsensical. The federal government doesn't fund the Teacher's Union....the union members do. If we increase the number of teachers, that will increase revenue to the teacher's union....but the alternative is to dismantle public education.
Your reaction is part of the hysterical knee jerk reaction to any fact that interferes with the rhetoric of the right. This article was very specifically about Romney's misstatements about his employment at Bain and by implication his income from that relationship.
I don't think Obama walks on water. I don't think that Obama thinks he can walk on water....but he is right about the insanity of the trickle down theory of economics because the evidence is that it doesn't happen.
Tax cuts will not generate jobs for the simple reason that the only thing that generates jobs is increased demand. The theory that cutting taxes on the rich will generate increased spending is ludicrous. The rich buy what they want to buy whenever they want to buy it.
A tax cut for the poor, however, will trigger increased spending because when you give the poor more money they go out and spend it right away...and that will stimulate the economy.
So, where is the line between wealth and poverty?
It sure as hell isn't a million dollars a year....as the republicans want us to think.
No one who makes a million a year is going to go out and spend enough money to stimulate the economy because we gave them back another $30,000 because when you live on $1 million a year, you might buy another car or you might buy another Rolex, but you're not going to buy $30,000 worth of additional staples....and its the staples on which economies thrive.....those consumables we have to purchase over and over again. The rich already have all the staples they can consume.
The idea that cutting taxes on the rich would encourage them to make high risk investments that will generate growth in a stagnant world economy that has reached the limits to growth flies in the face of both reason and history. Reason tells us that people only invest money when they think they will profit from their investments and there's no reason to think that about the present economy. History shows us that economies improve when taxes go up because tax increases enable government to invest in things that private wealth won't invest in....high risk, low yield investments or long term investments like the Hoover Dam, the TVA and the space program.
Today, private industry is taking over space because NASA proved that there were profits to be made out there.....but we have yet to see private industry create lifting bodies capable of long =range space flights....nor will we because there's no return on those investments.
"When Bain Capital was originally created, Mr. Romney was given full control of the private equity firm’s new management company, Bain Capital Inc. When Mr. Romney went on leave in 1999, he retained ownership of that entity — and with it, in theory at least, the power to control Bain Capital’s funds."
Knee Jerk-I quoted Obama-how is that knee jerk?
I will show you Knee Jerk
"Nice try....but let's get real about this. The fact is that the right is trying to strangle the government because their objective is to privatize everything....including essential services. The attack on the Postal Service is a case in point. The USPS delivers a letter to California in two to three days for 44 cents. Fedex will charge around $5 for the same service....a service that most Americans rely upon."
The USPS Lost 10 billion last year and even more this year is projected.It is in the hole and we are not even talking about the crushing pensions looming
Even Sweden privatized it
.................................................................................................
"The comment about the Teacher's Union is simply nonsensical. The federal government doesn't fund the Teacher's Union....the union members do. If we increase the number of teachers, that will increase revenue to the teacher's union....but the alternative is to dismantle public education. "
Department of Education has a budget close to 100 billion. Grants and emergency funding doubles that number. So yes the union is funded indirectly by Washington.
...............................................................................................
"History shows us that economies improve when taxes go up because tax increases enable government to invest in things that private wealth won't invest in....high risk, low yield investments or long term investments like the Hoover Dam, the TVA and the space program. "
History contradicts your statement partly,In other words, raising tax rates does not automatically raise tax revenues for the government. Higher tax rates have often led to lower tax revenues for states, the federal government and other countries. Conversely, lower tax rates have often led to higher tax revenues. It all depends on the circumstances.
But none of this matters to Barack Obama. If class warfare rhetoric about taxes leads to more votes for him, that is his bottom line.
Your a smart guy-the 50 billion he will raise will pay for about 7 days of Government spending based on our insane burn rate
Insofar as the Postal Service is concerned, Congress sets the rates for the Postal Service so Congress can - and has been -starving the Postal Service for years by refusing to allow stamp prices to increase to match the rate of inflation.
Show me a line item in the Dept. of Education budget earmarked for "The Teacher's Union." There aren't any. You may think it naive not to construe monies paid to school teachers as support for the teachers union, but it is most definitely support for education.
The annual budget for the Dept of Ed was $71 Billion in 2011. The Recovery Act funneled an additional $19.4 billion to education recovery programs in 2011 for a total of $90.4 Billion, less than half of the $200 billion you claimed, according to a variety of websites.
You're correct that simply raising taxes doesn't necessarily boost the economy....unless the economy is in recession and then it always does. There are basically two conditions under which government increases taxes significantly over a short period of time, to fight wars and to fight recessions. In those cases, historically, tax increases have always generated economic benefits going back to 1911. When taxes are increased during boom times, it is specifically to put the brakes on the economy to prevent runaway inflation, so that when you increase taxes during periods of economic strength it also achieves its prescribed function of regulating the economy.
My wife's job is on a grant initiated 1 years ago. Last year it was for 4.7 million dollars in a small city in MA. If we do the math we can easily get to some incredibly high numbers in just this State alone. As the person who wrote another grant for Early Intervention Programs (HeadStart)" there is millions to be made in poverty" I am surrounded by wonderful 'rich people' in this area that play the game. Some of the education money comes through Health and Human Services.
It is great my wife has a job but, it is a boondoggle for some pretty shade people who wield jobs and expect favors in return.
They take her Union dues and support the Democratic Candidates every time.
My dad was a Teacher's Union Steward and he lost his position when he asked "I been coming to these meeting for twenty years, can we talk about the kids at least once?" The actually went after his teaching position as well gettng a pink slip at age 55 with 22 years in. Did I mention he won teacher of the year twice?
He got saved by his good friend who was a Principal and no longer in the Union.
2 things - 1, Romney's personal fortunes are tied to Bain (other than his inheritance). Can one really believe that if your entire financial strength were tied to one particular asset you wouldnt be involved with its activities? Would that be an indication of how well you may "manage" the american economy?
2) Lets say Romney had no responsibility for outsourcing (wrong word but this is what is being used in this context) jobs from companys that were pillaged by Bain. How about his very clear and undeniable OFFSHORING jobs while Governor? Can you imagine a President Romney avoiding the temptation to say offshore or outsource the FDA, EPA, FAA, TSA or any other number of critical infrasturcture jobs? I can't and I think this is a point that needs to be hammered as the current argument about Bain loses traction.
It is an attack in many cases on the recently and immediately successful. These are the people who do not know how to protect their money as they do not have the shelter mentality. Some take huge risk,bust there butts work long hours and for that sacrifice they get hammered. The next year they lose money or break even. The government doesn't care, they were part of the 1% for 12 months.
It is an attack in many cases on the recently and immediately successful. These are the people who do not know how to protect their money as they do not have the shelter mentality. Some take huge risk,bust there butts work long hours and for that sacrifice they get hammered. The next year they lose money or break even. The government doesn't care, they were part of the 1% for 12 months.
Your Camel analogy is just as relevant to your post at 1:36 today. 50 billion here -50 billion there and you could put new tiolets seats in the Pentagon and the Department of Education.