Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Uh...that's the business model. Be the sponser, buy these companies using leveraged loans that banks are fighting over to give. Create 6 months of improved numbers from layoffs, consolidation and the movement of jobs to cheaper locations, and then come back to your bank syndicate to show off these numbers and start taking out more loans for dividends until you've gotten back your investment times 2 or 3 and then treat the company you just crippled with debt like garbage until it fails. That's the business model.

TM

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

The GOP's problem, and our problem.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Godwin's law, violated.

Explained.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Stop it. This is hard.

Wonder what the total cost of crippled companies left behind by Bain has been? Unfunded pensions? Unemployment costs?

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Fantastic all-around effort, guys.

TM

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

whoa whoa whoa, you make this a bad thing, then you are talking shit about Denny McClain, and then the truce is off.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Everyone with an advanced degree is in the business of wealth transfer of this sort in one way or another. America. Fuck yeah!

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Hank, the rule here is bonuses when you win. This ain't the Romney campaign.

They must now be trying to lose
 

The Romney camp can't really think that releasing a PwC analysis of 20 years of his tax returns showing that he paid an average effective rate of 20.2%, lowest effective rates in the 13% range and 14.1% effective rate last year only because they didn't deduct all their charitable contributions could help, could they?

Why attract attention back to an issue that looks bad for them? Why give renewed reason for calls for more disclosure of tax returns? Why highlight that he pays the low effective rates everyone expected? Why highlight that he had to voluntarily give up deductions to be consistent with his prior assertion that he never paid less then 13% (it would have been 9% last year otherwise)? Why undermine your claim that marginal rates are too high by voluntarily paying higher rates? Why undermine your claim that marginal rates are too high by demonstrating that you personally never paid anything close to the highest rates?

Are they dumb or something? Do they think all of that is actually preferable to continuing to talk about the 47%? Or are they even dumber to think everyone would view this as evidence of him "paying his fair share?"

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Hello, Mr. Beohner, welcome to the PB.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Yep. All that remains is to monetize the usable portion of the NOL and see if you can grease your way into a municipality creating a TIF zone your investment grade debt can go muni.

Re: They must now be trying to lose
 

are you serious? given what he said about the 47% he had to show he paid taxes. all the speculation that he didn't, taken with him hating on people that don't, couldn't be left alone. now he can say he paid big tax bills, and he can talk shit about the 47%.

Stop it!
 

This is an elaborate head fake. They want Obama to talk about tax returns in the debate, and take attention away from some of the other issues.

Re: Pepper sprayed for public safety.
 

Atrios, on this Daily Show segment:

I really don't get the way these people think, but it really does seem to boil down to the idea that they deserve whatever they have, but that other people don't. It's just a politics of resentment.

Re: They must now be trying to lose
 

He's already asserted that he never paid less than 13%. It would have been far smarter to fall back on that assertion if need be instead of bringing back up what had been a fading issue.

ETA: And on top of that, the PwC report demonstrates that he's got all that tax information together and is just refusing to release it, once again making it look like he's got something to hide. If history has taught us one thing, it's the selective disclosure if always a very dangerous name.