Obama raises money from private equity, hours after bashing the industry

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2012 8:32 PM GMT
    Extortion racket?

    http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05/15/at-obama-fundraiser-no-one-mentions-private-equity/

    President Obama last night spent time at the Park Avenue apartment of Blackstone Group (BX) president Tony James, to press the Wall Street flesh and collect $35,800 per plate. It came just hours after his campaign launched its first formal attack on Mitt Romney's record running Bain Capital -- a private equity firm not terribly dissimilar from Blackstone. Talk about awkward!

    While an Obama spokeswoman had been careful to say "no one is... questioning private equity as a whole," she also added that "it's legitimate to question whether those are the values America needs in a president." That's right private equiteers: Obama isn't questioning your right to make money. He's questioning your adherence to American values.

    To his credit, at least Obama's Bain bomb came before the dinner. That way, he wouldn't be able to avoid questions from supporters who happen to make their living by using massive amounts of debt to acquire companies (some of which fail, causing layoffs, etc.).

    But here's the thing: A source tells me that not only did Obama not specifically mention private equity during his prepared remarks, but none of the attendees asked about it during a question-and-answer session.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2012 8:43 PM GMT
    Obama has never bashed private equity as an industry. He has highlighted bad actors at the company and individual level. The industry should heed what the president is saying and police themselves. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2012 8:48 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidObama has never bashed private equity as an industry. He has highlighted bad actors at the company and individual level. The industry should heed what the president is saying and police themselves. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Obviously you didn't bother to read his spokesman's statements on the matter nor do you particularly understand private equity especially if you think you can legislate against failure or leverage as was done with respect to GST. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2012 8:54 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidObama has never bashed private equity as an industry. He has highlighted bad actors at the company and individual level. The industry should heed what the president is saying and police themselves. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Obviously you didn't bother to read his spokesman's statements on the matter nor do you particularly understand private equity especially if you think you can legislate against failure or leverage as was done with respect to GST. icon_rolleyes.gif


    The statement you quoted where spokesperson specifically says he's not attacking the industry...

    In terms of legislation, I'd be happy with enforcement of current laws under which much of Wall Street should be in prison.

    In terms of GST, analysis of the ad by the Star Tribune concludes:

    "The ad is on generally solid factual ground."

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/151437665.html

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2012 8:58 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidObama has never bashed private equity as an industry. He has highlighted bad actors at the company and individual level. The industry should heed what the president is saying and police themselves. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Obviously you didn't bother to read his spokesman's statements on the matter nor do you particularly understand private equity especially if you think you can legislate against failure or leverage as was done with respect to GST. icon_rolleyes.gif


    The statement you quoted where spokesperson specifically says he's not attacking the industry...

    In terms of legislation, I'd be happy with enforcement of current laws under which much of Wall Street should be in prison.

    In terms of GST, analysis of the ad by the Star Tribune concludes:

    "The ad is on generally solid factual ground."

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/151437665.html



    As the reporter above points out - "no one is... questioning private equity as a whole," she also added that "it's legitimate to question whether those are the values America needs in a president." That's right private equiteers: Obama isn't questioning your right to make money. He's questioning your adherence to American values."

    Too bad Romney wasn't even at Bain for a few years when GST went bankrupt. Just another one of those inconvenient facts for your supposedly objective source at the StarTrib. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2012 9:03 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidObama has never bashed private equity as an industry. He has highlighted bad actors at the company and individual level. The industry should heed what the president is saying and police themselves. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Obviously you didn't bother to read his spokesman's statements on the matter nor do you particularly understand private equity especially if you think you can legislate against failure or leverage as was done with respect to GST. icon_rolleyes.gif


    The statement you quoted where spokesperson specifically says he's not attacking the industry...

    In terms of legislation, I'd be happy with enforcement of current laws under which much of Wall Street should be in prison.

    In terms of GST, analysis of the ad by the Star Tribune concludes:

    "The ad is on generally solid factual ground."

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/151437665.html



    As the reporter above points out - "no one is... questioning private equity as a whole," she also added that "it's legitimate to question whether those are the values America needs in a president." That's right private equiteers: Obama isn't questioning your right to make money. He's questioning your adherence to American values."

    Too bad Romney wasn't even at Bain for a few years when GST went bankrupt. Just another one of those inconvenient facts for your supposedly objective source at the StarTrib. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Ummm. First of all, a reporter doesn't insert their perspective into an article, so perhaps you need a refresher on journalism as a practice.

    Second, the spokesperson is completely right in questioning whether or not someone who has been motivated solely by profit and increasing his own wealth - as Romney is - at great expense to others has the values that America needs. But that is not questioning the "adherence to American values" of private equity folks in general. In fact, there are many excellent PE firms run by exceedingly moral and compassionate people.

    Bain just wasn't one of them. And the collapse of GTS was laid while Romney was in charge even though it played out after he stepped down. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2012 9:05 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidObama has never bashed private equity as an industry. He has highlighted bad actors at the company and individual level. The industry should heed what the president is saying and police themselves. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Obviously you didn't bother to read his spokesman's statements on the matter nor do you particularly understand private equity especially if you think you can legislate against failure or leverage as was done with respect to GST. icon_rolleyes.gif


    The statement you quoted where spokesperson specifically says he's not attacking the industry...

    In terms of legislation, I'd be happy with enforcement of current laws under which much of Wall Street should be in prison.

    In terms of GST, analysis of the ad by the Star Tribune concludes:

    "The ad is on generally solid factual ground."

    http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/151437665.html



    As the reporter above points out - "no one is... questioning private equity as a whole," she also added that "it's legitimate to question whether those are the values America needs in a president." That's right private equiteers: Obama isn't questioning your right to make money. He's questioning your adherence to American values."

    Too bad Romney wasn't even at Bain for a few years when GST went bankrupt. Just another one of those inconvenient facts for your supposedly objective source at the StarTrib. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Ummm. First of all, a reporter doesn't insert their perspective into an article, so perhaps you need a refresher on journalism as a practice.

    Second, the spokesperson is completely right in questioning whether or not someone who has been motivated solely by profit and increasing his own wealth - as Romney is - at great expense to others has the values that America needs. But that is not questioning the "adherence to American values" of private equity folks in general. In fact, there are many excellent PE firms run by exceedingly moral and compassionate people.

    Bain just wasn't one of them. And the collapse of GTS was laid while Romney was in charge even though it played out after he stepped down. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Lol - seriously - your defense is "a reporter doesn't insert their perspective into an article"?

    You have absolutely no understanding of private equity or how it works. Please educate yourself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2012 9:18 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidLol - seriously - your defense is "a reporter doesn't insert their perspective into an article"?

    You have absolutely no understanding of private equity or how it works. Please educate yourself.


    I know a great deal about it. In fact, some of our greatest philanthropists come from PE and knowing their industry is key to my work.

    But as government is not a business, having a background in PE doesn't make one qualified for that office, and when one uses their PE firm to destroy companies for a short term profit rather than build them up for long term success, they should be judged by that as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2012 9:21 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidLol - seriously - your defense is "a reporter doesn't insert their perspective into an article"?

    You have absolutely no understanding of private equity or how it works. Please educate yourself.


    I know a great deal about it. In fact, some of our greatest philanthropists come from PE and knowing their industry is key to my work.

    But as government is not a business, having a background in PE doesn't make one qualified for that office, and when one uses their PE firm to destroy companies for a short term profit rather than build them up for long term success, they should be judged by that as well.


    Lol apparently you have very little understanding of PE despite your claims to the contrary. Any knowledge you supposedly have has yet to be evidenced. I don't believe that Romney's PE experience absolutely qualifies him for public office nor have I ever said so at any time. It is however significantly more experience and he does have considerably more experience in value creation than Obama who has no experience in the private sector.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2012 10:31 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidLol - seriously - your defense is "a reporter doesn't insert their perspective into an article"?

    You have absolutely no understanding of private equity or how it works. Please educate yourself.


    I know a great deal about it. In fact, some of our greatest philanthropists come from PE and knowing their industry is key to my work.

    But as government is not a business, having a background in PE doesn't make one qualified for that office, and when one uses their PE firm to destroy companies for a short term profit rather than build them up for long term success, they should be judged by that as well.


    Lol apparently you have very little understanding of PE despite your claims to the contrary. Any knowledge you supposedly have has yet to be evidenced. I don't believe that Romney's PE experience absolutely qualifies him for public office nor have I ever said so at any time. It is however significantly more experience and he does have considerably more experience in value creation than Obama who has no experience in the private sector.


    Another vapid claim of what I "don't understand" that ultimately belies your own ignorance since you are - as always - arguing against things I've never said, positions I have taken and facts that don't exist.

    Romney's entire campaign is based on his business experience, which we're learning was solely about enriching himself and his partners, regardless of who suffered or how much "value" was destroyed.

    I'll give you a free hint. The government is not a corporation but it is a constitutional republican which on its face makes Obama far more qualified for the presidency than Romney. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2012 11:13 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidLol - seriously - your defense is "a reporter doesn't insert their perspective into an article"?

    You have absolutely no understanding of private equity or how it works. Please educate yourself.


    I know a great deal about it. In fact, some of our greatest philanthropists come from PE and knowing their industry is key to my work.

    But as government is not a business, having a background in PE doesn't make one qualified for that office, and when one uses their PE firm to destroy companies for a short term profit rather than build them up for long term success, they should be judged by that as well.


    Lol apparently you have very little understanding of PE despite your claims to the contrary. Any knowledge you supposedly have has yet to be evidenced. I don't believe that Romney's PE experience absolutely qualifies him for public office nor have I ever said so at any time. It is however significantly more experience and he does have considerably more experience in value creation than Obama who has no experience in the private sector.


    Another vapid claim of what I "don't understand" that ultimately belies your own ignorance since you are - as always - arguing against things I've never said, positions I have taken and facts that don't exist.

    Romney's entire campaign is based on his business experience, which we're learning was solely about enriching himself and his partners, regardless of who suffered or how much "value" was destroyed.

    I'll give you a free hint. The government is not a corporation but it is a constitutional republican which on its face makes Obama far more qualified for the presidency than Romney. icon_rolleyes.gif

    More qualified if you're a Socialist. Oh I mean Democratic Socialist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 15, 2012 11:15 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidLol - seriously - your defense is "a reporter doesn't insert their perspective into an article"?

    You have absolutely no understanding of private equity or how it works. Please educate yourself.


    I know a great deal about it. In fact, some of our greatest philanthropists come from PE and knowing their industry is key to my work.

    But as government is not a business, having a background in PE doesn't make one qualified for that office, and when one uses their PE firm to destroy companies for a short term profit rather than build them up for long term success, they should be judged by that as well.


    Lol apparently you have very little understanding of PE despite your claims to the contrary. Any knowledge you supposedly have has yet to be evidenced. I don't believe that Romney's PE experience absolutely qualifies him for public office nor have I ever said so at any time. It is however significantly more experience and he does have considerably more experience in value creation than Obama who has no experience in the private sector.


    Another vapid claim of what I "don't understand" that ultimately belies your own ignorance since you are - as always - arguing against things I've never said, positions I have taken and facts that don't exist.

    Romney's entire campaign is based on his business experience, which we're learning was solely about enriching himself and his partners, regardless of who suffered or how much "value" was destroyed.

    I'll give you a free hint. The government is not a corporation but it is a constitutional republican which on its face makes Obama far more qualified for the presidency than Romney. icon_rolleyes.gif

    More qualified if you're a Socialist. Oh I mean Democratic Socialist.


    No. More qualified. Full stop. I would argue the opposite in that Obama's background in government and constitutional law make him a bad candidate to run a PE firm.

    Corporations are not governments and vice versa. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2012 1:07 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidObama's background in ... constitutional law ...


    Yeah, it's really extraordinary how Mr. Obama's supposed expertise in the Constitution produced the unconstitutional Obamacare. Truly stunning. icon_eek.gif

    did the US Supreme Court rule already? must have missed it....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2012 1:26 AM GMT
    since it is the courts who decide constitutionality, i'll wait on their decision.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2012 1:29 AM GMT
    notadumbjock said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidObama's background in ... constitutional law ...


    Yeah, it's really extraordinary how Mr. Obama's supposed expertise in the Constitution produced the unconstitutional Obamacare. Truly stunning. icon_eek.gif

    did the US Supreme Court rule already? must have missed it....
    Its southbitch.. what did you expect?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2012 1:33 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    notadumbjock said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidObama's background in ... constitutional law ...


    Yeah, it's really extraordinary how Mr. Obama's supposed expertise in the Constitution produced the unconstitutional Obamacare. Truly stunning. icon_eek.gif

    did the US Supreme Court rule already? must have missed it....


    Nope, you didn't miss anything, except for the fact that I didn't claim that the Supreme Court issued a ruling yet. However, the insurance mandate is unconstitutional.


    According to the airline pilot, who knows more than the Constitutional scholar, the political theory major, the countless attorneys, judges and Dean of Law Schools etc. icon_lol.gif