At least the Globe is there to tell us all we need to know, right?
"Romney swings hard at Gingrich in debate; Attacks GOP foe on ethics in Fla. debate" by Michael Levenson and Matt Viser | Globe Staff, January 24, 2012
TAMPA - A combative Mitt Romney last night painted Newt Gingrich as a disgraced former House speaker who had peddled influence in Washington, charges that Gingrich testily dismissed as the two rivals met for their first debate since Gingrich won the South Carolina primary....
Ron Paul and Rick Santorum were largely sidelined in the debate, and did not even speak for the first 10 minutes.
I'm glad I didn't watch because it would have been a waste of time.
Both of them insisted, however, that they remain viable challengers for the nomination.
Not in the AmeriKan corporate media's eyes.
Santorum pointed out that the race has been highly volatile, with front-runners soaring and crashing for months. “If you’ve learned anything about this election, it’s that any type of prediction is going to be wrong,’’ he said.
Paul, as he has in the past, said he had no intention of launching an independent bid for the presidency, but would not rule it out. “I don’t want to,’’ he said. “But I haven’t been an absolutist.’’
Gee, the web version added a quote by him. Hoo-ray!
Just hours before the debate began, Gingrich got some good news: Miriam Adelson, the wife of the casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, gave Gingrich’s allies $5 million, extending the former speaker a crucial lifeline as he battles Romney’s latest assault.
Related: Gingrich is Good To Go
So am I.
The contribution came with a caveat: Miriam Adelson asked for her money to be used only on ads that support Gingrich and do not tear down other candidates.
What was cut from my printed paper version:
The donation to Winning Our Future, and independent group that is supporting Gingrich's campaign, used the $5 million contribution from Sheldon Adelson to air a controversial documentary that skewered Romney's tenure at Bain Capital. The ad was deemed inaccurate, but only after its devastating portrait of Romney as a corporate raider had entered the political mainstream.
And Newt was complaining about his second wife being the story?
And no matter what happens, don't let the truth spoil the narrative.
--more--"
Related: Romney unleashes attacks against Gingrich
"Romney’s old investments stir up new financial questions, January 24, 2012
WASHINGTON - A day before Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney planned to release his income tax returns, his old investments in two controversial government-backed housing lenders stirred up new questions at the same time his campaign targeted rival Newt Gingrich for earning more than $1.6 million in consulting fees from one of the lenders.
Uh-oh.
Related: The Bain of Mitt Romney
Gingrich Got Rich From Freddie Mac
Maybe the question out to be who didn't, huh?
Romney’s latest financial disclosure report listed several investments, worth as much as $500,000, in lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Romney, Gingrich, and other GOP critics repeatedly have singled out the two quasigovernment entities as prime villains in the housing crisis that played a central role in the nation’s long and deep recession.
While continuing to denounce Gingrich for his consulting work for Freddie Mac, the Romney campaign sought to deflect questions about the former Massachusetts governor’s investments. They include a mutual fund worth up to $500,000 that includes assets from both lenders among other government income, and separate investments in each of the lenders in Romney’s individual retirement account, each worth between $100,000 and $250,000.
Related: Fed Funnels Made Millions Off Mutual Fund Bailout
Related: Fed Funnels Made Millions Off Mutual Fund Bailout
Romney campaign officials said yesterday that a trustee handles the investments and that Romney had no role in choosing or managing them.
That makes all the difference, don't it?
The dimensions and the sources of Romney’s wealth, which he has estimated to be as much as $250 million, have become a central issue in the roiling GOP primary campaign.
That makes all the difference, don't it?
The dimensions and the sources of Romney’s wealth, which he has estimated to be as much as $250 million, have become a central issue in the roiling GOP primary campaign.
--more--"
Update:
"Mitt Romney, whose prior refusal to release his tax returns provided a line of attack for Newt Gingrich and other rivals, earned more than $42 million over the last two years....
--more--"
Also see: Romney earned $20.9m last year, paid 15.4% in taxes
FLASHBACK:
"Bain often couldn’t lose with buyouts" by Beth Healy | Globe Staff, January 14, 2012
Mitt Romney spent much more of his career in leveraged buyouts than in the investments in start-up companies known as venture capital....
With leveraged buyouts, the investment firm purchases a mature company, partially with its money and with debt it transfers to the company. The new owners then usually streamline the business and seek to resell it.
For example, in the same year that Romney invested in Staples, he led the firm in its $200 million acquisition of Accuride, a wheel rim maker that was part of Firestone. Bain put down only $5 million and borrowed the rest, using junk bonds from Drexel Burnham Lambert. Eighteen months later, Bain resold the company and reaped $121 million in its first taste of the big time in the go-go 1980s.
Soon after, Romney steered Bain Capital more toward debt-driven buyouts. There was more money at stake and less risk for Bain than betting on untested technology.
Venture capital is “absolutely more risky’’ than buyouts, said Howard Anderson, a venture investor and former entrepreneur who teaches at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
You know where venture capital comes from?
Related: VenCap Vroom-Vroom
No wonder tuition costs are rising and your pension statements have stagnated, America.
For one, he said, buyouts often involve companies that have been in business for a long time. Second, buyout firms tend to take profits out of deals quickly, even having the target companies take on enormous loans to pay the investors back.
“These guys have figured out a way to make money even if the company loses money,’’ Anderson said. “It’s heads we win, tails we win. Not always - but they can do that.’’
We call it a RIGGED GAME here!
Romney and his former partners at Bain Capital have said they make the most money by growing companies, not shrinking them. But they often make money no matter what.
Take a giant deal like Domino’s Pizza Inc. Bain led the $1.1 billion deal in 1998, putting down about $385 million in cash. The rest of the money was borrowed. Then, as Bain wanted to get its money out over the years, it had Domino’s borrow more to pay it back. Bain reaped a 500 percent return. Domino’s has $1.5 billion in debt on its books.
You know, this does NOT SEEM like a GOOD BUSINESS MODEL to ME!
Romney has been criticized for doing deals at Bain Capital where the firm made money but employees were laid off and the company was left with large debt loads, and sometimes bankruptcy.
And Mitt says that created jobs?
In a 1994 deal to acquire Dade International, an Illinois medical equipment company, Bain invested $27 million and made roughly eight times its money. But it also loaded up the company with $1.6 billion in debt; 1,700 people would lose their jobs, and the company briefly filed for bankruptcy protection in 2002.
Bain counters that Dade emerged from bankruptcy stronger and growing; it was acquired by Siemens for $7 billion in 2007.
Did that REPAIR all the SHATTERED LIVES caused by the deal?
--more--"
But Mitt paid his fair share!
