39 votes

"When Mitt Romney Came To Town" Full Version

Here is the embeddable link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE

From: http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/

Improper use of debt. This is Vulture Capitalism: Using excessive debt to finance the take over of a company that is targeted for intrinsic value, break it up to sell off it's assets and extract the equity goodwill of what was a going concern, and then selling if off, for it to eventually go bankrupt with that new excessive debt. This is not genuine capitalism, this is vulture capitalism with the intention of making a quick buck, workers and going concerns BE DAMNED! THIS IS A LEGITIMATE CAMPAIGN CONCERN.

It is a story about the improper use of debt, easy debt ultimately from the Fed. Paul needs to reevaluate what he says about this. I think he should say nothing more and step back and see what Newt and Perry can do with this. Romney is not worthy of our defense.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Mitt Romney is a...

Mitt Romney is a No Good S.O.B! http://bit.ly/yt1s7S

Mit just became unelectable

I don't know all the details of the financial transactions going on with Bain, but it looks like the old pump and dump, AKA suck em and flee. Mitt just became unelectable.

I thought this was a "Devil came to Georgia" spoof

close enough

I Just Watched It Again

When the woman says that some nights she just can't watch the news and shuts it off, it reminds me how the media blackout/smear attack on Dr. Paul is so undermining. Not everyone has alternative sources for news.

The media just don't want Dr. Paul in office, and they have a lot of power. On an equal footing, Dr. Paul would be running 70% in the polls.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Pump and dump SCAM

For those who defend Romeny...this is NOT free market capitalism. It's FRAUD.

And Romney needs to be called on it.

Artificially pumping up the value of a company then dumping it - defrauding the investors and employees is flat out fraudulent wall street bankster misdeeds that will come to an end with a President Paul.


That's gotta hurt!
Gonna spread this one far and wide; the masses are being told that Mitt's their man!! He's the front-runner...he's your answer. I'm glad that this film doesn't say to vote for so-an-so...that it isn't pushing THAT type of agenda, rather to make people think. Anyone who watches this will also come to the realization that the media is lying to them.
Thanks for this!!

Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

In A Free Market

In a free market, these companies would not have been take-over targets, or else they would have had several buyers bidding, allowing the sellers to choose someone better than Bain.

Ron Paul has been exactly correct on this: corporations that provide a good product and are rewarded by consumers should not be punished for what those corporations who are in bed with government do, and the same should be true of these rip-off artists.

Obviously, anyone doing due dilligence would not buy a company from Bain. It is one thing for a company to close because they could not compete (I've been laid off 7 or 8 times because of this), and another for it to have its books artificially pumped up for a sale to some unsuspecting buyer.

A free market would prevent much of this, and provide more jobs when people have to go looking for a new one.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

The weird thing is...

When Bain bought out these companies, it went under different names. So when these businesses went out it didn't hurt Bain, it only hurt the front company.


Why do you say this?

"Obviously, anyone doing due dilligence would not buy a company from Bain."

Just curious.

Half of 'em


Doubt it's anywhere near half

WOWWWW OMG lol ... that was

WOWWWW OMG lol ... that was insane ... watching videos like that makes me feel so good that we support a man who we don't have to defend

ron paul is as clean as a whistle ...

newt really hates mitt huh ... openly attacking both capitalism and the frontrunner LMFAOOO ... this is bad news for the GOP in 2012 ... obama is laughing

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

Are Bain's takeovers a reflection of how the free market works

or are they an example of crony capitalism, since they are motivated mostly by profits gained through the stock market, where arguably criminal behavior has been legalized?

In other words, when the government is overly permissive towards corporations, and when the Fed makes capital available for giant corporate takeovers... is this "crony capitalism" or free markets?


Clearly the FED's manipulations send false signals to the market compared to a banking system in which capital is composed of actual savings. With more scarce capital I'm sure many of these deals would be less attractive since interest rates would be too high.

That said this is the system we have at the moment and investors work within it.

Companies like Bain provide a necessary service in the market place. The alternative many times is for companies to simply go under.

I have yet to see any smoking gun regarding Bain receiving special treatment because of Mitt Romney connections so I am not sure what makes it cronie capitalism.

Provides a "necessary service" to whom?

I'll bet some of the companies that Bain took over were doing just fine, serving as pillars in their community and turning out good products, before Bain came along and revised or destroyed the company. And who benefits from that except Bain and its investors?

I think an analogy can be made between local governments having the most power and a huge centralized government having the most power. A small business can customize itself to serve its community better than a huge corporation.

I agree that both free market forces and crony capitalism seem to be at play here. I'd like to get more insight on that, though.

It is on youtube, too

It's on youtube, also:


If you're a tar baby when feathers are flying...

Ralph Nader

Is big on the pump and dump, golden parachute kind of thing. I'd love to see him pick up the mantle and do some interviews on this film. O'Reilly and Fox Business News seem to put him on. OF course, Ralph Nader may not hold any sway with Republican voters.

Do we send the film to Nader's people and ask for some help?

They may disagree on a lot, but when it comes to corporate welfare--and the Fed--Nader and Paul are on the same page.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

ENRON- enough said. RP

ENRON- enough said. RP needs to let Mitt and Newt fight it out and reap the benefit. RP should not get dragged into this and act as referee. It is a no win situation - look how divided we are on the subject. Let Newt spend some money swinging at Mitt.

Let this damage Romney . . .

without arguing that what he did was right.

I am disappointed that Dr. Paul and Peter Schiff have defended this; I think, perhaps, that Dr. Paul doesn't know enough about Bain; I think he's trying to be polite with Romney at this point; I don't know why, but I think he is.

These people matter, too.

Bottom line: There are people in the world who can work hard but aren't 'brilliant' enough (though I don't see brilliance in Romney; I am not sure what it is he has) to engender this sort of economic destruction.

There are people who have the 'ability' to destroy others economically; does that ability require that they follow through with being destroyers?

There are countries that can oppress other countries; should they, because they can?

John Adams said that the constitution would only work if the people were virtuous? How can it be virtuous to destroy 'little' people like this?

I ask you. How is that proving virtue.

There has to be a better way.

Those with the 'brains' to do this had better be aware of the heartache they have caused.

In time their souls will consist of how they have treated others.

I have "seen" a shallowness (for lack of a better word) in Romney; his soul isn't bright; well, it's obvious why now.

Those who don't have the 'brains'? Their souls will consist of what kind of dignity they showed and how they treat those who are poorer than they.

There IS more to freedom than gain.

Much more.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I don't see what we have to gain by defending Romney

because he was obviously just ruthless. Also I don't understand how the Austrian economists view the stock market and how it affects the free market. I assume it shifts force from the consumers who purchase a company's goods (and have a vested interest in seeing the company succeed), to the investors, for whom profit is all that matters.

In a stock market-driven economy, there's no assurance that the best products, as defined by "the ones most people want to buy," will succeed. Is that accurate to say, can someone tell me?

I'm not pretending to know much about economics. I just know enough to have these questions.

unfortunately, I, too, am not strong on . . .

I'm not the one to ask.

I am beginning to suspect that MANY who love liberty don't understand economics, because college level (and lower) economics classes are 'dumbed down' and aren't Austrian-based!

Reading what was said by at least one federal reserve economist who woke up and said that the federal reserve won't allow its economists to seek out truthful or alternative economical theories . . .--

THAT was an eye opener; it was linked here on DP.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--


I watched it and then tried to find as much information as I could about the companies that were discussed. I am sure many of you did further research as well, to get the other side of the story. I still don't have a complete understanding of what position these business where in prior to Bain's acquisition. Other then KB Toys, it's not clear what happened to the assets of all of these businesses. Were they acquired by other companies that were able to use them to create new jobs? Was capital freed for better pursuits? The one thing that does seem clear, a lot of people lost their jobs.

You can quote free market economists all you like. You can say companies like Bain are a valuable part of the market, but people who lost their jobs just aren't going to buy it. These people aren't going to read Mises and go “wow”, Mitt Romney did the economy a favor. To the general public, Bain is just a bunch of scumbags that got rich by crapping on the little guy and gal. Sympathy will run deep for these people, and their votes may reflect it.

I would stay clear of giving any type of support for Romney on this, it could leave a very bad taste in the mouths of potential voters...but what do I know?

I'm sure the Canadian

I'm sure the Canadian Teacher's Union did a great job at running that washing machine manufacturing plant...NOT!

What Romney did at Bain is not capitalism, don't believe the apologists here. Capitalism is supposed to be about investing in promising companies so that the company can hire more people, or invest in more equipment to grow.

What Bain did is the complete opposite of that. They invested in promising companies to treat them like commodities to be chopped up and sold for their own profit.

you know what matters--

there is more to 'free' market than seeing how much wealth can be accumulated. Human beings, even people who don't betray signs of great intelligence, are more important than wealth.

Would Austrian economists argue that Haliburton has a right to make its wealth by selling weapons? Well--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

as economists

they wouldn't argue anything. Economy is a value free science (doesn't say what's good or bad) and points out causalities - if A then B.

As political economists they would argue the same way RP argues for the Constitution except for the Austrians argue for property rights instead. Do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe other people's property rights (that includes their bodies).

I do understand what you are saying--

free market principles provide a better chance for true liberty than government control.

Some of *us* who have no respect for rapacious greed have to remember that with government control there is still rapacious greed. With government control (and even unions) there are still people without employment, people who are willing to work hard.

Chances are better for liberty and protection of the 'weak' with the government out of the way, *I* believe.

How much destruction have governments caused?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

This is for a long discussion

and this thread is probably not doing to do the job but it helps to realize 1 thing: the market is not a zero sum game.

Every time people exchange goods and services both parties are better off. When you go to the store and buy something you do it because you value it more then the cash you give up. On the other hand the store owner values the cash more than what he is giving to you.

This is the principle of free markets - every voluntary transaction makes both parties better off. The only way you can make a profit without government coercion is to provide something people want to buy. There is no evil greed and evil profits, greed is great when you have a free market. Greedy people want to have more and the only way to have more is to produce more, become a guy like Steve Jobs and shower the market with some cool stuff people really want to buy.

With government in the equation everything changes, greedy people seek to control the power to get more not by producing but by using force, threats, regulation, bailouts...

I'm following you--


The only concern I have is . . . what was portrayed in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. That sort of corruption of state and national representatives--

and . . . the sorts of monopolies held by the huge trusts in the late part of the nineteenth and early part of the 20th centuries.

However, anti-trust laws obviously didn't work, or America wouldn't be saddled with 'cheap goods from China' WalMart--


So, yes--

I am eager for real free enterprise, even if those of us who are older have to start over again!

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

$44 Million Bailout


This is all too much. The campaign must be getting ready to skewer him.

"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

This example flies in the face of the Documentary

In the documentary we are led to believe that employees have a right to a job. While I agree a good employer values good employees, no one has a right to a job.

The steel company that ultimately went under(as did many steel companies in this era) was given new life by Bain and continued for several years. Ultimately they did not survive. Union demands contributed greatly to this company's ultimate demise.

It is true that the company's pension commitments were ultimately covered by the Federal Pension Insurance but this particular example flies in the face of the Gingrich documentary. The employees were demanding unsustainable compensation in an increasingly competitive industry and when the company tried to hold the line they resorted to thug tactics, violence and destruction of property.

Should the federal government insure these pensions? No. Is it Mitt Romney's fault they did? I don't know. If it is demonstrable that Romney received special consideration due to political connections I certainly would endorse an attack on him but not otherwise.

Just my opinion.