Does anyone else find it odd that republicans are attacking Romney for being a good capitalist?

To be fair he did phrase things incredibly poorly and open the door for this.

Yes, and it hasn't gone unnoticed....I think these two are done because of it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with investing money in a company that is on the rocks and doing what you can to save it....these companies would have gone under without the help and all would have been lost.

But he didn't try to save them, and tricked people into buying there stock, which enriched him, then he bankrupted the companies, but got to keep the money.

That is ridiculous.....bain had a good track record and saved far more than went under....it is a risk that the companies knew they were taking as well as the investors.

Romney's private equity firm, Bain Capital, bought companies and often increased short-term earnings so those businesses could then borrow enormous amounts of money. That borrowed money was used to pay Bain dividends. Then those businesses needed to maintain that high level of earnings to pay their debts...

• Bain in 1988 put $5 million down to buy Stage Stores, and in the mid-'90s took it public, collecting $100 million from stock offerings. Stage filed for bankruptcy in 2000.

• Bain in 1992 bought American Pad & Paper (AMPAD), investing $5 million, and collected $100 million from dividends. The business filed for bankruptcy in 2000.

• Bain in 1993 invested $60 million when buying GS Industries, and received $65 million from dividends. GS filed for bankruptcy in 2001.

• Bain in 1997 invested $46 million when buying Details, and made $93 million from stock offerings. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003.

Romney's Bain invested 22 percent of the money it raised from 1987-95 in these five businesses, making a $578 million profit.

There wasn't one company that you listed that wasnt in business for less than 8 years after Bain......Do you think that that kind of help comes with a lifetime guarantee?

Sometimes companies fall back into the same old bad habits that got them into trouble in the 1st place.

why are they taking unstable companies public which has high expectations? Simple, they can cash out and get rich, regardless of how the company does.

Not to worry. If the Republicans offer Romney, we will get four more years of Obama.
If so, I pity your children ... and mine.

We all know it's Romney at this point. That's why d6fer is so strongly defending him. So much for the tea party.

Did they take any unstable companies public that succeeded? I think they did....ever heard of Staples or Sports Authority?

You're making shit up, which sadly is fairly normal.

Staples was not the same situation at all. They invested in Staples in it's infancy, and it grew to be successful. It was not a large failing company like the ones I listed.

the fact that Romney made good investments in Staples isn't an excuse for other bad deads. I learned this sort of thing in kindergarten.

Let's also be clear here, you're saying that Perry is resorting to socialist rhetoric, am I right?

I am saying that, and I think it is sad.....these guys are politicians and they play the same political games that everyone else in Washington plays....Perry and Gingrich made a bad move in taking the route they did with Romney, and I think it is going to cost them....we will see.

For me personally, it changes who I currently back, but it's not a deal breaker....anyone who opposes Barrack Obama is going to get my vote....and fortunately I believe enough Americans feel the same way to get the job done, but we shall see.

I find it funny that that is the best they can come up with to attack Romney with....I don't even know where you got that info, but if an 6 to 12 year bankruptcy after the fact is the best you can come up with, then it is a pretty weak argument.

"The carry allows general partners in investment deals to receive compensation in the form of tax-advantaged capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent, rather than as salary, which would be taxed as ordinary income with a top rate of 35 percent. This happens because the managers are paid with a fee (up to 2 percent) plus 20 percent or more of their investor’s profits. Those profits are taxed as capital gains even though the general partners may have little or no money of their own at risk in the deal."

source

So not only was Romney bankrupting and laying off people, while getting filthy rich, but he was getting taxed at 15%, less than you and me, on that money, even though he wasn't investing his own money.

Don't you think this is a problem d6fer? That someone who isn't really investing their money, is getting a loophole that allows them to pay capital gains rates!

Sorry guys. I cannot even pay any attention to all this because I know Joe the
plumbers types are not paying any attention to this sort of bull crap. Voters
will not elect Romney, but, if they did, it would be because of his skills not
because of his past. Face it. Clinton was getting blow jobs in the oval office
(or somewhere in the White House) and he had a past of molesting women,
but the voters elected him for his skills. Being president is nothing like being
a corporate raider, but the skills are probably not that much different. Do
you want an inexperienced wimp like Obama running the country or a
corporate raider with balls and mad skills? Never mind. I know the answer
to that one already.