Romney's Work at Bain Capital Helped Companies

I comend my opponent for such a solidly researched argument. 1- The work done by Bain Capital Ventures is not discounted, and the good effect of capital ventures was specifically mentioned in my argument. The damage done by leveraged buyouts and to contrast the two processes was the purpose, not to ignore venture capitalism. 2 - the specific results of leveraged buyouts were observed, and it was noted that many companies were strong enough to survive the techniques employed in order to later thrive. That the profitibility of these companies improved is not disputed. What is disputed is whether the bottom line on the balance sheet is all that counts.4 - My opponent is correct that the comapny was not doing that well in the 1990's. However, there was a safety net in place for more than the upper management on the eventuality that the company went bankrupt. The workers themselves had fought for and funded a reasonable pension plan that would take care of them if they lost the jobs at which many had worked for decades. The restructuring and payouts that took place under Bain's management resulted in the pension funds being repurposed. In addition, the previosly sited sources indicate that the company would have been able to survive had it not been saddled with such debt.Again, it is not disputed that some mpanies can survive such a load of debt. But for thse who cannot, it is completely devestating for the company, the workforce, and the community. Rather than a stable but perhaps not wildly profitable company the community is left with an empty factory. The risk is all shouldered by the company, and the reward is all reaped by Bain Capital.When a factory closes the local economic depression that occurs has wider consequences than just the bottom line of that company. Those paychecks no longer strengthen the local economy, those unemployment checks reduce the natonal coffers, and pension bailouts forcetaxpayers to pay for something for which the management was responsible.My opponents math is a bit confusing to me. The company had a net loss of 544 million dollars the year Bain took over, and another loss of 43 million in 1993. This 586 million dollars is not balanced by a 257 million dollar profit, and certainly does not show a net profit.Any jobs the company added in the years under Bain can not be considered as net jobs produced, because they merely added to the amount of jobs lost when the plants closed. If anything, they must be added to the heartache caused by increasing the number of pink slips the company issued by 1300.5 - Stage stores filed for bankruptcy in 2000, Mitt left in 1999. It is not likely that Mitt had steered the company on a course towards greatness and in less than one year the company found itself shipwrecked and destitute. More likely is that the company was headed for the rocks and Mitt tripped and fell into the lifeboat. The companies I listed show the sordid underbelly of leveraged buyouts. That this evidence is anecdotal is true, but nevertheless undercuts the contrntion that Mitt performed a net good in all the companies that Bain took over while he was with them. If it is going to be accepted that companies that thrived after being raided did so because of Bain, then the responsibility for those who withered the vine must also be accepted. One cannot take only the credit for things that occur under one's watch and then place all blame elsewhere for the same time period.