The Lazy Jealous Liberal Beggar Learns A Lesson

These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people -- Abraham Lincoln (2/12/1809 to 4/15/1865) 16th President of the United States (3/4/1861 to 4/15/1865).

William and Suri ran flat out for several blocks until reaching the bazaar in the heart of town. There they blended in with the large throng of citizens haggling over various sundries. "If anyone was following us, I think we lost them", an out of breath William wheezed. Suri turned to William and angrily shoved him in the chest. "Your unpredictable temper has really done it this time" she growled. "What are you talking about?" William asked, looking confused. "We got away". "You killed a priest at a temple of ORACLES William! You think they don't have extraordinary methods of finding out what happened?".

"I don't follow" William replied. "Divine methods", Suri clarified. "Yea, no. I think those oracles are frauds" William concluded. "I doubt we have anything to worry about from those hucksters. I'd like to go back and demand a refund". Suri shook her head in disbelief. "Look, William, we've got to get out of town posthaste. It's only a matter of time until they come after us. The temple priests are extremely influential in this city. We should head back to the inn, grab our gear, and clear out tonight".

"You're overreacting Suri. Although, perhaps we should amscray just to be safe. I have no desire to go back to prison", William reasoned. "Good, I'm glad we're in agreement" Suri said sarcastically. "By the gods, what an imbecile" she added under her breath. But William didn't hear. He had turned away and was making his way through the crowd. Suri sighed and trotted after her companion. Suri saw William stop at the entrance to an alleyway. Suddenly he shouted, "get your stinking hand off me you damn dirty beggar!".

Catching up to William, Suri looked down to see a elderly man squatting in the alleyway. He withdrew his extended hand in response to William's screams. He then noticed Suri, smiled, and pointed to his beggar's bowl. "Please miss, can you spare a few coppers for a poor, disabled old man?". "Certainly" Suri replied, digging in her pockets. She tossed a few coins in the man's bowl. "Bless you, miss" the grateful beggar responded.

"What the hell are you doing!" William demanded. Quickly he stooped and retrieved the coins Suri had just tossed in the decrepit panhandler's pot. "We have no money to spare. Especially none for you to waste on rotgut", William lectured the beggar. "Wait a minute" the old man cried, "you took more coins than the lady threw in". "So I did", William agreed, looking at the coins in his hand.

"William, that is my money to do with as I please" protested Suri. William disagreed, "It was your dumb idea to consult the oracles, Suri. I think you should be paying me back the gold pieces I wasted on their worthless advice before throwing away your coins on worthless beggars who'll only use it to get drunk".

"Sir, I am not worthless", the beggar protested. "I used to live a modest middle class life thanks to the pension I earned working for a company that manufactured arms and armaments for the King's army. But my pension was stolen from me by the evil Romney of Bain. He took over the company where I once worked, promising greater returns for the shareholders. The first thing he did was eliminate the pensions of former workers. That is why I am in the street sir".

"Oh boohoo", said William, mocking the old man. "I didn't ask for your sob story. I've heard of Romney of Bain. He is a great man, not a thief. I also heard that under his leadership the Royal Armaments Company made great profits for it's investors. Only jealous lazy Liberals dare criticize the genius of Romney. He's made this entire city quite wealthy. I happen to admire him".

"Only certain segments of the population have become wealthier William", Suri interjected. "Others became much poorer. I remember a time when there were barely any indigent beggars, now they are virtually everywhere you turn. But we have no time for this. Please return the money you stole to Cecil". "Who the hell is Cecil?" William asked. "I'm Cecil" said the old beggar. "He told me his name while you were spouting off about that arsehole Romney" Suri explained.

"Yea, well screw you Cecil" William exclaimed, kicking the panhandler's pot, scattering his coins in the street. "That was uncalled for!" exclaimed a shocked Suri. She was about to bend down and help the old man pick up the coins, but they were suddenly beset by a gaggle of prepubescent street urchins. The half-dozen youngsters quickly gathered up the coins and dispersed in multiple directions, disappearing into the crowd. After they had gone Suri discovered the old beggar was sobbing.

"Now look what you did!" cried Suri. "Wow, those little f**kers were fast!" William swore. "Well, we really should be going" William said, grabbing Suri by the arm and attempting to lead her away. "Not so fast" Suri growled, wrenching her arm out of William's grasp. "Here take this" she said, pressing an object into Cecil's palm. "Now what the f**k did you give him?" William demanded, taking several menacing steps toward Cecil.

Cecil, clutching the item Suri had given him tightly in his fist, grabbed his cane, pulled himself up, and quickly hobbled down the alley. William was about to pursue, but at that moment he noticed his belt pouch was a little light. "Son of a beyotch, I've been pick pocketed!" William howled. "Gods damn it!" William screamed, turning his empty belt pouch inside out in disbelief.

"What the Hades is your problem buddy?" a nearby marketplace shopper queried. "None your business a-hole!" William bellowed at the stranger. William noticed that quite a few people were starring at him, which made him very uncomfortable. "Nothing to see here folks. Move along", William said, addressing the crowd. William, looking for Suri and not seeing her, turned and almost ran into the stranger who he had just shouted at. "Out of my way dumbass!", William hollered, shouldering the stranger violently which sent him tumbling to the ground.

"Stop accosting my husband" a rotund woman screeched, shoving William as he attempted to leave. "Shut up you fat bitch" William said, punching the woman in her ample belly. The woman fell to the ground like a sack of potatoes. Now even more people had gathered. Some were yelling and pointing at William. Several uniformed men that William recognized as members the of Lord Mayor's police force emerged from the crowd and approached William. "Slowly undo your belt and let your weapon fall" the lead officer sternly cautioned, eyeing the sheathed sword at William's side.

William, realizing he was about to be taken into custody, scanned the area looking for an escape route. None of the crowd was blocking the alleyway Cecil the beggar had exited via, so William quickly dashed toward it. "Halt!" commanded the officer. But William, not wanting to be arrested, sped away as expeditiously as he was able.

Image: Suri Cruise drops some coins in Cecil's begging bowl, an action that angers William The Moderate.

 swtd-107. wtm-3.  Previous. Next.

w-dervish's Liberal Buddies Told Willis Hart on Facebook that w-dervish Is A Frigging Nut

If Alien was my friend, I'd like to be with him when he went to the dentist. When they started drilling, he'd probably go nuts and start eating everybody. That Alien! ~ Jack Handy (dob 1/25/1949) an American humorist. He is best known for his Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey, a large body of surrealistic one-liner jokes, as well as his "Fuzzy Memories" and "My Big Thick Novel" shorts. Although many people assume otherwise, Handey is a real person, not a pen name or character.

I'm a "frigging Nut" and my "Liberal Buddies" have told Willis Hart (of Contra O'Reilly) so...

Willis Hart: Nobody like you, wd. Nobody. Even your liberal buddies think that you're a frigging nut and have told me so on Facebook. I didn't want to say this but you push me to answer you. (2/15/2012 AT 4:51pm).

So Willis didn't want to tell me, but I pushed him? Isn't it sweet that he's concerned about my feelings? He was so concerned about possibly crushing my fragile ego that he keep this damaging information from me.

And notice that Willis described these people as my "buddies" instead of "fellow Liberals". If there are other Liberal bloggers out that who consider themselves my "buddies", why are they bad-mouthing me behind my back (I'm not on Facebook)? What I want to know is who my "Liberal buddies" are, and what they've said. If you're one of these individuals (this is taking for granted that the Hartster isn't bullshitting me), I presume you'll know he's talking about YOU. Please let me know exactly why I'm a "frigging nut". I can take it. Who knows, maybe I'll agree and modify my position (re: whatever issue I'm nuts on).

Step up and stand behind what you've said. If you're really a "buddy" then you'll read this post, know Willis is referring to YOU, and have the balls to admit you're the kind of individual who'd knife a "buddy" in the back by making derogatory comments about him in a forum he doesn't visit. Ha, ha... I kid! You probably meant "frigging nuts" in the nicest way possible.

I look forward to your constructive criticism. Hopefully I can learn from your comments, grow, and become a better more mature, reasonable Liberal.

Update, 9/24/2014: The one and only "liberal buddy" turned out to be Joe "Truth 101" Kelly (AKA Truth 101, AKA Joe Kelly, AKA Joe Hagstrom) who, in addition to badmouthing me behind my back to Willis, also stabbed me in the back with a post on his blog titled What Defines a Shithead (in which Joe calls me a shithead - because he called me nuts and I disagreed). Turns out Willis lied (big surprise) about there being "buddies" (multiple people telling him on Facebook they think I'm nuts). It was Joe Kelly-Hagstrom who said this - and ONLY Joe Kelly-Hagstrom (see his comment below).

Also, I joined up with Facebook in October of 2013 and sent Willis a friend request, which he rudely declined.

SWTD #106, wDel #12.

w-dervish's Top Four Democratic Legislators (And Dishonorable Mentions)

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators ~ Unknown.

What follows is a listing of my favorite 4 Democratic Legislators; written in response to a post on the Contra O'Reilly blog. This "Moderate" blogger selects his legislators for (primarily) their support of the Bowles-Simpson Conservative Deficit Reduction plan, which has rightly (in my opinion) been criticized as being "stacked with people who want to target entitlement spending rather than any balanced proposal".

Re Bowles-Simpson being Conservative, Willis sez "only in the warped, psychotic, brain-diseased, and idiotic mind of a lunatic leftist douchebag would anything even remotely along these lines even be considered". Wrong.

In any case, my four picks are legislators I feel have exceptional character and integrity, and are among the cream of the crop. Politicians who have not been bought or sold, but in fact have been working hard for the average American (in alphabetical order)...

w-dervish's Top Four Democratic Legislators

[1] Senator Sherrod Brown (Ohio) due to his opposition to free trade, and authorship of the book, Myths of Free Trade (which details why "an unregulated global economy is a threat to all of us"). I also respect him for being a strong advocate of equal rights for LGBT individuals and being ranked as one of the most Liberal members of Congress. Unfortunately he gets a demerit for his co-sponsorship of PIPA (The Protect IP Act).

[2] Rep. John Conyers (Michigan's 14th) for introducing (every session) HR 676 The U.S. National Health Care Act (Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act. The act calls for the creation of a universal single-payer health care system in the United States), voting AGAINST HR 1540 (The National Defense Authorization Act)... the horrible legislation that allows indefinite detention without trial of American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil (signed by President Obama!), releasing (5/2005) "What Went Wrong In Ohio: The Conyers Report On The 2004 Presidential Election", voting not to count the electoral votes from Ohio in the 2004 US presidential election, suing the bush Administration in an effort to stop the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (a bill that cut Medicare and Medicaid) from becoming law, being one of the most liberal members of Congress.

[3] Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Arizona's 7th) for being the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, being rated as one of the most Liberal members of Congress, calling for a withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, opposing Arizona's SB 1070, being strongly pro-choice, support of the public option, voting against HR 1540, receiving an "F" from the NRA, requesting that the UN certify elections in the United States, opposition to a border fence due to it's potential damage to sensitive wildlife habitats, and calls for stronger oversight of the oil industry - offshore drilling in particular (In 2010, he introduced H.R. 5355 to eliminate the cap on oil company liability for the cost of environmental cleanups of spills).

[4] Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Illinois's 9th) because she voted NAY on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform's blueprint (Simpson-Bowles) and offered a superior alternative, voted not to accept Ohio's electoral votes in 2004 in response to concerns about electoral irregularities (it was in Ohio that bush stole the 2004 election), supported the public option and single-payer, voted AGAINST HR 1540, and because she gave a speech at the 2004 Chicago Democratic Socialists of America's 46th Annual Debs-Thomas-Harrington Dinner. Unfortunately I have to give her a minor demerit for her condemnation of the Progressive Democrats of America's support for the second Freedom Flotilla.

Dishonorable Mention & Runner-Ups

Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon) an individual who On The Issues (an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates) described as being a "hardcore Liberal", but upon closer examination THIS Liberal has to ask, "hard core? I think not", a decent Democrat perhaps, but a Democrat who acted as a useful idiot when he teamed up with GOP House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan to develop a Medicare reform plan that would result in the semi-privatization of the system. The Ryan-Wyden plan provoked a negative response from Wyden's Democratic allies, including President Obama.

Wyden also earns his dishonorable mention for sponsoring the Healthy Americans Act (which would institute a national system of market-based private insurance) and joining with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Trent Lott (R-MS) to help pass the bush Administration's Medicare Modernization Act (The bush Administration is alleged to have forced officials to hide its true cost, which later was tripled). The act has been also criticized as favoring pharmaceutical companies, as it prohibits the federal government from negotiating prescription drug rates), and for "mostly" supporting free trade.

And, while the Fact Checking Organization Politifact called the Democrat's claim that the Ryan-Wyden plan would "end Medicare as we know it" their "lie of the year", it is actually TRUE and not a lie at all, as a 12/25/2011 Mediate article points out...

Tommy Christopher, writing for Mediaite: The blowback from Politifact's "Lie Of The Year" award has been fast, furious, and despite Politifact's smug insistence to the contrary, bipartisan. One overlooked effect of the site's naming "Republicans Voted To End Medicare" their "Lie Of The Year" is that it gives the false impression that Paul Ryan's original plan to end Medicare as we know it was nothing to worry about, and paves the way for acceptance of the newer Ryan-Wyden Medicare "reform" plan. In an interview with Fox Business's David Asman, liberal radio and TV host Thom Hartmann slammed Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Politifact for their assault on Medicare (Thom Hartmann Calls Sen. Ron Wyden "Useful Idiot" For Promoting Ryan-Wyden Medicare Plan, 12/25/2011).

Dishonorable runner-ups include Dick Durbin, Kent Conrad and Chris Van Hollen for their support of the Bowles-Simpson recommendations. Bowles-Simpson was NOT a "good starting point" as it looked FIRST to entitlements for savings. According to economist James K. Galbraith "the current deficits were caused by the financial crisis [and] cuts in Social Security and Medicare would be harmful and would not reduce the deficit".

Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research criticized the commission for omitting a tax on the financial industry, as was recommended by the International Monetary Fund. He also denounced co-chairs Alan K. Simpson and Erskine Bowles for claiming to have looked everywhere on ways to increase revenue, but not including the financial industry (excerpted from Wikipedia).

I'm in complete agreement with the two economists quoted above. Instituting the Bowles-Simpson recommendations would hurt our economy. This is the primary reason I placed Jan Schakowsky on my top Democratic Legislators list. She voted NO, and for the right reasons (others voted NO, but for the wrong reasons; i.e. the commission didn't cut entitlements ENOUGH).

Video: Thom Hartmann and Igor Volsky discuss Politifact wrongly naming the Democrats saying that "Republicans Voted To End Medicare" their 2011 Lie Of The Year (7:42).

See also: Straight from The Warped, Psychotic, Brain-diseased, & Idiotic Mind of A Lunatic Libertarian Douchebag (SWTD #266). I thoroughly refute Willis Hart's assertion that Bowles-Simpson isn't Conservative.

SWTD #105, wDel #11.

Conservatives Destroying American Jobs With Falsehoods About Unions & Free Trade

No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1/30/1882 to 4/12/1945) the 32nd president of the United States (3/4/1933 to 4/12/1945). Excerpted from his statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act, 6/16/1933.

What follows is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 1/5/2012, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Have paying higher wages for manufacturing jobs been as disastrous for the "job creators" in Germany as here in the United States? According to the Right-wingers the greed of labor unions and the outrageous salaries and benefits they extracted from their employers bankrupted the auto industry. Is this true? Thom Hartmann reality-checks the assertion...

Thom Hartmann: This is incredible when you think about this. Germany just announced this week, that their unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in 20 years. And 20 years ago they were doing pretty good. The also... and this is going to make your head explode... they also announced that not only do they make a lot of things there... they, for instance, make twice as many cars. Germany is ... smaller then us [81 verses 312 million people], and they made, last year, 5.5 million cars while we made 2.7 million. They also make precision equipment, medical machinery, precision tools, etc. But guess what the average auto worker in Germany makes.

In the United States the average auto worker makes $33.77 an hour. That includes the benefits. At GM and Chrysler the new hires are coming in at $14.00 an hour. That's in the United States. So we've seen, since Reagan came into office, the average wage of the average US autoworker dropping, from what would be in today's dollars around 45 to 50 dollars an hour, down to 14 dollars an hour at entry level. That's 30 years of Reaganomics... and insane free trade policies.

Germany, which protects it's domestic industries, requires large corporations have half of their board of directors made up of representatives of labor, has a system called "worker's counsels" where the workers make all the major decisions about the workplace... how things happen on the factory floor... In Germany the average hourly salary with benefits is $67.14. On top of that those German workers have free health care. Their children have free education through college (more or less free). It's amazing.

Conservatives would look at this and say, "Germany must be having horrible problems. They pay $67 an hour and the workers run the factories? Their CEOs must be hysterical". No. The CEOs and stockholders are doing just fine. In fact their companies are making billions. Last year Volkswagen, BMW and Audi... all three of the major German car manufacturers, all reported profits in the billions. That's the leftover money after everyone has been paid. After the CEOs have been compensated, and they're well compensated. Not hundreds or thousands of times more then the average worker, but dozens of times. They're making good money.

Horst Mund is an executive with IG Metall [the country's equivalent of the United Automobile Workers] said that because of the work's counsels "you don’t always wear your management pin or your union pin". In other words, we're working together here. What an amazing idea, an economy where people collaborate?

And then, on top of that he said, "this goes against all the mainstream wisdom of the neo-liberals". Now, in Europe they refer to what we here call Republicans or Conservatives... they call them "neo-liberals". Liberalism in Europe means being in favor of business being able to do whatever it wants. Unrestrained business. As opposed to here in the United States where Liberalism means having a social saftey net, and providing people with bootstraps so they can pull themselves up.

So [Mund] says that the fact that the German companies are making billions in profits and the average auto worker is making $67.14 an hour. He says "this goes against all the mainstream wisdom of the neo-liberals. We have strong unions, we have strong social security systems, we have high wages. So, if I believed what the neo-liberals are arguing, we would have to be bankrupt, but apparently this is not the case. Despite high wages... despite our [the union's] possibility to influence companies, the economy is working well in Germany".

(The facts presented in Thom's rant are from a 12/21/2011 Forbes article by Frederick E. Allen, titled "How Germany Builds Twice as Many Cars as the U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice as Much".)

My Commentary: What this proves, as stated in an article by Daily Kos author Laura Clawson writes (12/28/2011) is that "German auto manufacturers' high profits and high pay show why U.S. labor laws need to be stronger". Because if the government doesn't force companies to pay decent wages they will take advantage of their employees and pay them as little as possible. The Daily Kos article concludes, "that's why we need laws that level the playing field for American workers - and how we know, despite what Republicans tell us, that those laws won't tank our economy".

Such laws will actually be very beneficial to our economy, as it will put more money in the hands of workers, who will then spend it and stimulate further economic growth. This is the same reason why minimum wage laws don't cost jobs (as conservatives claim). Paying higher wages to workers (and a little less to CEOs) causes those workers to buy things; creating more demand; and thus causing employers to have to higher more workers to meet that demand.

Greedy unions forcing employers out of business and the minimum wage costing jobs are lies conservatives use in order to justify underpaying workers (and keep that money for themselves in the form of outrageous CEO compensation). Economies THAT WORK... like Germany's prove Conservatives are wrong. So-called "Right to Work" laws lead to lower wages and are bad for our economy. Protecting good paying American jobs via unions and tariffs are good for our economy. We need both higher unionization rates and higher tariffs.

This is why Congress needs to pass Card Check, tie increases in the minimum wage to inflation, and back away from the free trade agreements. Until (or unless) those objectives are accomplished the American middle class will continue it's decline.

Note: If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of this segment of audio can be found at 0:16 to 6:30 of Hour 3, Thursday January 5 2012.

SWTD #104

Mitt Romney: A Destroyer of Companies & Jobs, A Vulture Capitalist, An Unethical Thief

Bain made billions by, as the Los Angeles Times writes, "firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits". In all, Bain bankrupted nearly one-quarter of the companies it invested in, often causing "substantial job losses", according to a new Wall Street Journal report ~ Scott Keyes, writing for ThinkProgres, in a 1/9/2012 article titled, "GOP Speaks Out On Romney’s Greed: He Likes Firing People, Bankrupting Them, And Taking All The Money".

Bane, definition: a person or thing that ruins or spoils; that which causes death or destroys life.

Bain Capital, definition: an investment firm founded by Mitt Romney that ruins or spoils people's lives; an investment firm that causes the death of jobs and destroys companies.

The following video is an excerpt from the 1/10/2012 edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe". In the clip Newt Gingrich explains the issue he sees with Bain Capital. Below the video I've excerpted some of the dialogue from the interview that I'd like to address.

Gingrich (1:39 to 2:45): The question is, if you look at the Wall Street Journal report in the last day or two, if you have a company that cost 30 million dollars and they took out 180 million... and then it went bankrupt, they have some obligation, I think, to explain. Why did they take that much money out if it was bankrupting the company? I think that's just a fair question about process and judgment. I think people draw a very sharp distinction between investors who really want a company to succeed, and investors who basically take over the company for the purpose of draining out it's cash, and then walk out without any concern for the consequence.

I think Governor Romney is going to have to have a press conference at some point and explain what happened with these particular companies. Because they weren't just failures, they were just "oh, we went in, we invested, we lost money too". These were cases where they were making a LOT of money while the company was going bankrupt. I think you have to ask real questions about whether that's responsible management and the kind of management you want to see as president of the United States.

Gingrich (6:47 to 9:16): [responding to question: What are the specific concerns you have regarding his record at Bain Capital?] There was a company that they put 30 million dollars into that they, according to the Wall Street Journal, they got 180 million dollars. That's a 6 to 1 return. And the company went bankrupt. It doesn't seem to me like the owners were taking much of a risk. It doesn't seem to me like they were sharing in the problems of the workers. How could they, in good conscience, take 180 million dollars out of company that they invested 30 million in, and leave all the workers behind? What if they'd taken 60 million out, which would still have been a nice profit... would the company still be alive? Would the workers still have jobs? Would families still have paychecks?

I think there are at least three or four cases where it wasn't traditional capitalism. It's not, "I made an investment, the investment went bad, I feel sorry about it, but we all suffered". These are cases of, "I made an investment, I did really, really well. Sorry about the company going broke". I think people have the right to ask the question - is that the kind of management responsibility you want in a president. And is that the kind of attitude you want in a president. ... This is, "I invested in something, I got richer, they got broke". I think he's going to have to explain that model.

My Commentary: The "model" I think is, as Rick Perry first said, Vulture Capitalism. Granted, this may not quite be the modus operandi of Bain Capital. Many of the companies they took over went on to become successful. But I'd have a problem if they did this just once. In my mind it is basically thievery. A vulture picks from the carcass of an animal that is dead or dying. And this appears to be what Bain did.

If, in their judgment, the company could be turned around, they made the effort to do that. If, on the other hand, they determined that it could not, then they took advantage of the bankruptcy process to load the company up with debt, pay themselves with that borrowed money, and then laugh all the way to the bank with no concern at all as to whom they were shafting. I think this behavior is utterly deplorable and should be illegal. There should be provisions in the law that allow those who lost money to come after Bain to recoup it.

According to a 12/3/2011 LA Times article, "Bain expanded many of the companies it acquired. But like other leveraged-buyout firms, Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy".

The Wall Street Journal, in the 1/9/2012 article referenced by Newt Gingrich, says one of their findings was, "that Bain produced stellar returns for its investors - yet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains". However, "of the 10 businesses on which Bain investors scored their biggest gains, four later landed in bankruptcy court".

Was it because the company, so burdened by the debt Bain forced them to take on (in order to pay them for their "services"), eventually went under? I think the facts say "yes". My question is, would an ethical person seek a profit so out of proportion with their initial investment that it put the company in danger of failing later (the unbelievable 600% return cited by Gingrich)? I say "no". In my opinion (at least some of) what Romney did at Bain Capital was very unethical... it may have been legal, but it was quite unethical.

Further Reading: Romney's Bain Capital Made Billions While Bankrupting Nearly One-Quarter Of The Companies It Invested In by Pat Garofalo, ThinkProgress 1/9/2012.

SWTD #103