Mitt Romney was not only born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he had the most glittering of golden parachutes from Bain & Co, guaranteeing him a job whether he failed or succeeded and with Bain agreeing in advance to lie about any failure.
Credit Lawrence O'Donnell for exposing Romney's sweetheart deal with Bain Capital that had been described in "The Real Romney."
Bain & Company established a subsidiary called Bain Capital that was seeded with millions of dollars.
But, Romney was afraid, (yes, afraid!) he might fail, so he got Bain & Company to agree in advance to take him back if he failed, and with all the salary increases he might have received had he remained at the parent company.
That is, Romney took no risks, he could not lose, and he would not take the job unless Bain agreed to his terms.
When Romney says he knows how the system works, I guess he means TARP, bailing out his buddies just as he was guaranteed a bail out.
But, that is not all. Romney was concerned that, if he failed, it would damage his reputation. (One is tempted to ask, "what reputation?", but that is another story). So, Bain agreed that if Romney failed at Bain Capital, it would announce that Romney was returning to the parent because the parent company "needed him."
This is the man who wrote "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt."
But, when it comes to himself -- no risk, no consequences for failure, all reward, happy to have prearranged a lie to preserve his "reputation."
Is this Romney's model of capitalism?
Romney is now running for President. We are entitled to know: Does Romney think everyone should have guaranteed "no-cut" contracts with their employers?
Or just himself?
Follow Paul Abrams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pabrams2001
Mr. Abrams may want to take off his partisan goggles and look at the arrangement from a politically neutral standpoint. It was an agreement between two private parties. It did not involve taxpayer funds, and at any point Bain & Company could have said "no" to Romney's proposal. The agreement that they reached is entirely unlike the bailouts that we have witnessed.
Moreover, even at that young of an age, he was already into conjuring lies to protect himself.
It is a matter of honesty. It is a matter of character. It is a matter of being truthful with one's self as a pre-requisite for being truthful with others.
It is mindboggling to me that someone like this even exists, much less is presuming to be president.
The funny thing is that if Romney had indeed failed at Bain Capital and if Romney had indeed been forced to return to Bain & Company in shame, all of your focus would be on those shortcomings.
But you very well know that Romney succeeded in starting Bain Capital and grew it into a very profitable capital firm. And by no doubt you also know that Romney eventually did return to Bain & Company as interim CEO in order to save that company from massive losses and bring it back to profitability, which he was able to do in short order. But you are far too partisan to let those facts stand in the way, which is why you need to make some fake issue out of a private, mutual agreement between Romney and the owners of Bain & Company.
So to respond to your quote above, it is mindboggling that people would not want such an experienced business person to lead our nation out of our economic slump and would prefer to give an inexperienced community organizer 4 more years to turn things around.
Wrong. Please search the internet for Bain Capital. Romney started that with a few other individuals as a venture capital firm. Not only was this a business that Romney started, the purpose of this business was to invest in other new businesses, such as Staples. You may have been confused by my hat example and assumed that every entrepreneur has to make a consumer good like a hat.
"But, he had no moral hazard in his financing. If he failed--he would get a great job and a cover story that was a pre-arranged lie."
This is the same concept as insurance, which nobody thinks is a bad thing. It wasn't a moral hazard created by government intervention in the free market. If Romney failed, he had an agreement to return to Bain & Company. He earned this hedge against risk because of the value he created and represented - not because the government bailed him out. And if he failed, his future value would be diminished regardless of the agreement, which is entirely unlike the bailouts that we saw.
"I had no such bail-out if I failed. Nor did I have a cover story, pre-arranged or otherwise."
This is a reflection on how others see your potential for value. If you had more value, you'd be better able to hedge against your risk.
Obama 2012..PLEASE!!
Etch-a-Sketch 2012
Make him president and he'll sell the rest of this country to the highest bidders...as long as he gets his guarantees. Maybe he'd like to be called King?
.