jpete wrote:Flyer5 wrote:jpete wrote:
Where is the documentation for this? I have heard this over and over. I have looked and never found.
I found this one fairly quickly. Don't know if there were others. I'm not that interested.
The problem is you didn't read the whole article. Ampad was going to fail anyway because of outside factors. That looks like poor timing on investments.
I found this quote interesting
''Frugal with his own money, Romney insisted that Bain Capital be especially careful with other people's money.''
But Smitty said "EVERY ONE" of the companies Bain took over came out a winner. Well clearly that isn't true.
I don't expect them all to be winners. It's illogical to think they will be. But the way Bain did it ensured THEY always won.
Through Ampad, Bain bought several other office supply makers, borrowing heavily each time. By 1999, Ampad's debt reached nearly $400 million, up from $11 million in 1993, according to government filings.
Sales grew, too - for a while. But by the late 1990s, foreign competition and increased buying power by superstores like Bain-funded Staples sliced Ampad's revenues.
The result: Ampad couldn't pay its debts and plunged into bankruptcy. Workers lost jobs and stockholders were left with worthless shares.
So unlike some people assert, Mitt didn't use HIS money. Ampad borrowed the money until they couldn't afford to pay it back anymore and then went belly up.
Not a nickel of Mitt's money was ever on the line.
I think he's a genius for mastering the game of "Heads I win, tails you lose" and apparently he's also a master of convincing people he took his own money out of his own pocket and did all this stuff. Nothign could be further from the truth but the "Anybody but Obama" crowd is too willfully ignorant to see it.[/quote]
I never stated he was 100% successful. I also didn't state he only used his money. Again you didn't read the whole thing that was quoted
''Frugal with his own money, Romney insisted that Bain Capital be especially careful with other people's money."
Even us ignorant people can understand the meaning of the quote and if you actually read the article in its entirety you can also see the context that it is used.
Hell if I was undecided that article that was attached to make Romney look bad would make me vote for Romney over Obama.
Like I said I have not found any proof that Romney is the Corp bustin villain that Obumma supporters are trying to make him.
If I look at just the parts of articles that make me see just what I want I may even convince myself that Obama has our best interests in mind.( Bad example ) Instead I like to see the big picture and the actual facts. By reading the entire article something is in so I can understand the context.
Face it the Debate was a battle of wits and Obama will always be unarmed.