Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 13, 2012, 09:09:15 AM

You should read the article it explains what Im talking about.  The Romney Campaign seems to be lying.

Okay. I read it all. And it's all there.

It's unclear the full extent to which Romney-owned companies have outsourced, but there's no question Bain invested in businesses that moved jobs overseas to cut costs — a trend that began in the 1990s and which many U.S. companies followed.

Still, that doesn't mean Romney personally directed those companies to move jobs overseas.

The Romney campaign has said the evidence the Obama team has used in its attacks is from after Romney left Bain in 1999. Romney insists job outsourcing was not a Bain policy when he was in charge.

Yet in one case, The company said it "significantly strengthened its relationship with those sources" in the late 1980s and early 1990s, according to Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed in March 1993, when Romney was at the company's helm.

I understand your confusion now. You don't understand what venture capitalists do. They invest in companies, either to help them grow, or to get them out of trouble. They do not own the companies. Bain never owned Staples. Bain never owned Dominos pizza. They loaned them money.

Obama is a liar. I hope you're clear on things now.

Your probably going to point to this next:
the Bain-controlled Holson Burnes Group Inc. specifically told federal regulators it outsourced manufacturing of 75 percent of its photo frames to "Far Eastern countries," including China, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia.

"Photo frames", is referring to companies that they were invested in. They did not own them.

If Bain recommended outsourcing to certain companies, in order to prevent them from going out of business, they did what they were contracted to do.

This is an idiotic argument.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 13, 2012, 09:01:39 AM

Im not stretching anything, it says the "Bain-controlled Holson Burnes Group Inc", and "Romney was at the Helm." No stretching is necessary here.

Obama has allowed much corruption, I agree, and, IMO, it looks like Rom will too.

Do you own any stock?
If you did, you would know that you only get a vote, you are not allowed to dictate what the company does to stay in business and bring you a profit.

Quote from: Solar on July 13, 2012, 10:19:19 AM
Do you own any stock?
If you did, you would know that you only get a vote, you are not allowed to dictate what the company does to stay in business and bring you a profit.

I'm not sure if that's totally true when taking money from venture capital firms. Due to the amount of money involved, I believe in certain cases, particularly if a company is in trouble, they cede, (temporarily), a certain degree of managerial decisions to the capital firm. There's more to it, (in some cases), than just borrowing money. The venture capital firm also takes the helm and teaches them how to make good management decisions, in order to stay out of trouble in the future. I'm sure that there were instances that outsourcing made sense, or was even a necessity to keep the company afloat.

Either way, Obama's claims are a paper tiger, and clearly show his desperation. Romney has done nothing wrong. I would prefer to talk about Obama offshoring our money to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Quote from: kramarat on July 13, 2012, 10:38:28 AM
I'm not sure if that's totally true when taking money from venture capital firms. Due to the amount of money involved, I believe in certain cases, particularly if a company is in trouble, they cede, (temporarily), a certain degree of managerial decisions to the capital firm. There's more to it, (in some cases), than just borrowing money. The venture capital firm also takes the helm and teaches them how to make good management decisions, in order to stay out of trouble in the future. I'm sure that there were instances that outsourcing made sense, or was even a necessity to keep the company afloat.

Either way, Obama's claims are a paper tiger, and clearly show his desperation. Romney has done nothing wrong. I would prefer to talk about Obama offshoring our money to the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is true in some cases and possibly this one, but if it is the case, then there should documented proof that was sent to share holders reporting the minutes of the meeting, and there would also be mention of Romney' input, had he attended.

The reason the story is so vague on facts, is because they know no such evidence exists.

Quote from: Solar on July 13, 2012, 10:44:28 AM
This is true in some cases and possibly this one, but if it is the case, then there should documented proof that was sent to share holders reporting the minutes of the meeting, and there would also be mention of Romney' input, had he attended.

The reason the story is so vague on facts, is because they know no such evidence exists.

The left doesn't bother to prove their claims...................they just throw them out there one after another and hope that something sticks in the minds of the voters.

Quote from: kramarat on July 13, 2012, 10:48:25 AM
The left doesn't bother to prove their claims...................they just throw them out there one after another and hope that something sticks in the minds of the voters.

Exactly!!!!
And WAPO threw a bucket full of shit, knowing it would stick on someone.
The left is sooo hard to wash off at times....

Quote"Yet in one case, the Bain-controlled Holson Burnes Group Inc. specifically told federal regulators it outsourced manufacturing of 75 percent of its photo frames to "Far Eastern countries," including China, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia. The company said it "significantly strengthened its relationship with those sources" in the late 1980s and early 1990s, according to Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed in March 1993, when Romney was at the company's HELM."

Point number one - and it's a major point - you obviously don't know jack shit about corporate governance. Simply put it is quite possible to own controlling shares in a company, and not be able to do a thing about the day to day running of the company - except wait for the next stockholders meeting and appoint new directors. Who will then - hopefully - appoint a management staff more to your liking. Either that or bring a stockholders suit against the management.

Another thing. Find out the difference between "outsourcing" and "offshoring". Like many leftoids, you seem not to know. And simply throw words around. Oh what they hell.

Outsourcing is when you have normally in house activities performed by an outside company. If you hire a cleaning company as opposed to hiring a cleaning staff you are outsourcing. If you have your payroll done by and outside company as opposed to running your own payroll department, you are outsourcing. If you have your data processing done by an outside company as opposed to hiring your own IT people, you are outsourcing.

If the outside company you transfer these operations to is overseas - WHICH ISN'T ALWAYS THE CASE - you are Offshoring. Sometimes the company you transfer these operations to is simply a subsidiary of the main company, in which case you aren't outsourcing, but you are offshoring. Sometimes this is done because the bulk of your business or manufacturing is overseas, and it makes sense to have your ancillary operations where you do the bulk of your business.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 13, 2012, 10:58:43 AM
Point number one - and it's a major point - you obviously don't know jack shit about corporate governance. Simply put it is quite possible to own controlling shares in a company, and not be able to do a thing about the day to day running of the company - except wait for the next stockholders meeting and appoint new directors. Who will then - hopefully - appoint a management staff more to your liking. Either that or bring a stockholders suit against the management.

Another thing. Find out the difference between "outsourcing" and "offshoring". Like many leftoids, you seem not to know. And simply throw words around. Oh what they hell.

Outsourcing is when you have normally in house activities performed by an outside company. If you hire a cleaning company as opposed to hiring a cleaning staff you are outsourcing. If you have your payroll done by and outside company as opposed to running your own payroll department, you are outsourcing. If you have your data processing done by an outside company as opposed to hiring your own IT people, you are outsourcing.

If the outside company you transfer these operations to is overseas - WHICH ISN'T ALWAYS THE CASE - you are Offshoring. Sometimes the company you transfer these operations to is simply a subsidiary of the main company, in which case you aren't outsourcing, but you are offshoring. Sometimes this is done because the bulk of your business or manufacturing is overseas, and it makes sense to have your ancillary operations where you do the bulk of your business.

Good point Giles.
Say for example I out source my IT to IBM, IBM may use several different companies world wide depending on the time of day, you may get India, and later New Zealand and later on in the day the US.

We no longer live in a world where business is solely in the US.
It's like Kramarat said, just the leftists throwing shit in the fan hoping it sticks.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 13, 2012, 10:58:43 AM
Point number one - and it's a major point - you obviously don't know jack shit about corporate governance. Simply put it is quite possible to own controlling shares in a company, and not be able to do a thing about the day to day running of the company - except wait for the next stockholders meeting and appoint new directors. Who will then - hopefully - appoint a management staff more to your liking. Either that or bring a stockholders suit against the management.

Another thing. Find out the difference between "outsourcing" and "offshoring". Like many leftoids, you seem not to know. And simply throw words around. Oh what they hell.

Outsourcing is when you have normally in house activities performed by an outside company. If you hire a cleaning company as opposed to hiring a cleaning staff you are outsourcing. If you have your payroll done by and outside company as opposed to running your own payroll department, you are outsourcing. If you have your data processing done by an outside company as opposed to hiring your own IT people, you are outsourcing.

If the outside company you transfer these operations to is overseas - WHICH ISN'T ALWAYS THE CASE - you are Offshoring. Sometimes the company you transfer these operations to is simply a subsidiary of the main company, in which case you aren't outsourcing, but you are offshoring. Sometimes this is done because the bulk of your business or manufacturing is overseas, and it makes sense to have your ancillary operations where you do the bulk of your business.

Great post giles!

Quote from: mdgiles on July 13, 2012, 10:58:43 AM
Point number one - and it's a major point - you obviously don't know jack shit about corporate governance. Simply put it is quite possible to own controlling shares in a company, and not be able to do a thing about the day to day running of the company - except wait for the next stockholders meeting and appoint new directors. Who will then - hopefully - appoint a management staff more to your liking. Either that or bring a stockholders suit against the management.

Another thing. Find out the difference between "outsourcing" and "offshoring". Like many leftoids, you seem not to know. And simply throw words around. Oh what they hell.

Outsourcing is when you have normally in house activities performed by an outside company. If you hire a cleaning company as opposed to hiring a cleaning staff you are outsourcing. If you have your payroll done by and outside company as opposed to running your own payroll department, you are outsourcing. If you have your data processing done by an outside company as opposed to hiring your own IT people, you are outsourcing.

If the outside company you transfer these operations to is overseas - WHICH ISN'T ALWAYS THE CASE - you are Offshoring. Sometimes the company you transfer these operations to is simply a subsidiary of the main company, in which case you aren't outsourcing, but you are offshoring. Sometimes this is done because the bulk of your business or manufacturing is overseas, and it makes sense to have your ancillary operations where you do the bulk of your business.

Hmm...  I was not aware of this.  Thank you for explaining this.

It would appear in looking at the history of the company, Bain made a wise investment.
The claim they outsourced for evil purposes seems to be over blown, in that the company was not struggling, but rather growing, so instead of laying off employees, they were actually expanding in a huge way.

In 1916, the Charles D. Burnes Co., a small picture frame company is established in Boston.  The company specializes in hand-carved wooden frames marketed under the Charles D. Burnes Co. brand. In 1936 the founder Charles D Burnes dies and his son-in-law, Samuel Gordon joins the company and goes out on the road carrying suitcases full of sample frames to sell.  It is a true family operation.  Sam's wife, Alice, does the bookkeeping. Years later, their son Charles helps assemble the frames as a high school student in the late 1950s.

In 1967, Charles Gordon, grandson of the company's founder, joins the Charles D. Burnes Co. after receiving degree in chemical engineering and becomes president.  Under his leadership, the company, which by then was known as Burnes of Boston, introduces new innovative products like the first clear acrylic photo cube, which holds six images. And later engineers production of the collage picture frame, which consists of a framed mat with multiple openings.  The company doubles in size in one year.

Then in 1979 Hallmark purchases the Charles D. Burnes Co.  Charles Gordon continues as president.  With Hallmark's financial support, the company – now based just outside of Boston in Norwood, Mass. – improves systems and grows into a medium-sized business.

In the late 1980's the company is acquired by Bain Capital and due to the market potential for sharing their core competencies they merge Charles D. Burnes Co. and The Holson Company. The new company is known as The Holson Burnes Group, and instantly becomes:

    the largest designer, manufacturer, and distributor of photo albums in the U.S.
    the second largest designer and distributor of photo frames
    the only major U.S. supplier of both photo frames and albums to all major retail distribution channels

The Holson Burnes Group moves to a new corporate headquarters – with both manufacturing and distribution – in North Smithfield, R.I.

Then in 1991, The Holson Burnes Group acquires Terragrafics, a San Francisco-based supplier of high-end picture frames.  Known for high quality, cutting-edge fashion frames, Terragrafics increases the strength of Holson Burnes in the middle and upper-middle segments of the industry. The addition of

Terragrafics president Steve Pargman becomes heavily involved in the design and product development of all Holson Burnes brands, and holds that position through 1997.

In 1995, The Holson Burnes Group buys three companies:

    Carr, a leading supplier of frames to specialty stores and the oldest brand of photo frames in the U.S.
    RareWoods, a line of authentic wood photo storage and displays products known for high-quality craftsmanship – including high‑end "spline" construction – and fine furniture finishes.
    Heritage Springfield, a Mass.-based manufacturer of photo albums to mass merchants.

Then in 1996 Newell Company acquires The Holson Burnes Group, becoming the world's largest manufacturer of picture frames, framed art, and photo albums.  Newell's division dedicated to photo frames and albums is known as Intercraft Burnes.

And in 2001, Newell Rubbermaid rechristens Intercraft Burnes as Burnes of Boston / Connoisseur Group to reflect its two leading brands, which serve department and specialty stores and mass merchants, respectively.

By 2002, Newell Rubbermaid consolidates its photo frame and album brands into a single company known as Burnes Group.  Burnes of Boston and Connoisseur relocate their headquarters from North Smithfield, R.I., and Taylor, Texas, respectively, to a new facility in Austin, Texas.

http://www.burnes.com/Company/History

Quote from: Solar on July 13, 2012, 11:44:10 AM
It would appear in looking at the history of the company, Bain made a wise investment.
The claim they outsourced for evil purposes seems to be over blown, in that the company was not struggling, but rather growing, so instead of laying off employees, they were actually expanding in a huge way.

In 1916, the Charles D. Burnes Co., a small picture frame company is established in Boston.  The company specializes in hand-carved wooden frames marketed under the Charles D. Burnes Co. brand. In 1936 the founder Charles D Burnes dies and his son-in-law, Samuel Gordon joins the company and goes out on the road carrying suitcases full of sample frames to sell.  It is a true family operation.  Sam's wife, Alice, does the bookkeeping. Years later, their son Charles helps assemble the frames as a high school student in the late 1950s.

In 1967, Charles Gordon, grandson of the company's founder, joins the Charles D. Burnes Co. after receiving degree in chemical engineering and becomes president.  Under his leadership, the company, which by then was known as Burnes of Boston, introduces new innovative products like the first clear acrylic photo cube, which holds six images. And later engineers production of the collage picture frame, which consists of a framed mat with multiple openings.  The company doubles in size in one year.

Then in 1979 Hallmark purchases the Charles D. Burnes Co.  Charles Gordon continues as president.  With Hallmark's financial support, the company – now based just outside of Boston in Norwood, Mass. – improves systems and grows into a medium-sized business.

In the late 1980's the company is acquired by Bain Capital and due to the market potential for sharing their core competencies they merge Charles D. Burnes Co. and The Holson Company. The new company is known as The Holson Burnes Group, and instantly becomes:

    the largest designer, manufacturer, and distributor of photo albums in the U.S.
    the second largest designer and distributor of photo frames
    the only major U.S. supplier of both photo frames and albums to all major retail distribution channels

The Holson Burnes Group moves to a new corporate headquarters – with both manufacturing and distribution – in North Smithfield, R.I.

Then in 1991, The Holson Burnes Group acquires Terragrafics, a San Francisco-based supplier of high-end picture frames.  Known for high quality, cutting-edge fashion frames, Terragrafics increases the strength of Holson Burnes in the middle and upper-middle segments of the industry. The addition of

Terragrafics president Steve Pargman becomes heavily involved in the design and product development of all Holson Burnes brands, and holds that position through 1997.

In 1995, The Holson Burnes Group buys three companies:

    Carr, a leading supplier of frames to specialty stores and the oldest brand of photo frames in the U.S.
    RareWoods, a line of authentic wood photo storage and displays products known for high-quality craftsmanship – including high‑end "spline" construction – and fine furniture finishes.
    Heritage Springfield, a Mass.-based manufacturer of photo albums to mass merchants.

Then in 1996 Newell Company acquires The Holson Burnes Group, becoming the world's largest manufacturer of picture frames, framed art, and photo albums.  Newell's division dedicated to photo frames and albums is known as Intercraft Burnes.

And in 2001, Newell Rubbermaid rechristens Intercraft Burnes as Burnes of Boston / Connoisseur Group to reflect its two leading brands, which serve department and specialty stores and mass merchants, respectively.

By 2002, Newell Rubbermaid consolidates its photo frame and album brands into a single company known as Burnes Group.  Burnes of Boston and Connoisseur relocate their headquarters from North Smithfield, R.I., and Taylor, Texas, respectively, to a new facility in Austin, Texas.

http://www.burnes.com/Company/History

Good work. I didn't do the research, so to a certain extent, I guess I was talking out my ass. I didn't realize that Bain actually took ownership of companies. However, now that you have done the research. Where are all the lost jobs that Obama is talking about?

Quote from: kramarat on July 13, 2012, 11:53:39 AM
Good work. I didn't do the research, so to a certain extent, I guess I was talking out my ass. I didn't realize that Bain actually took ownership of companies. However, now that you have done the research. Where are all the lost jobs that Obama is talking about?

Well clearly you have to wear Lib-glasses in order to see them.

Quote from: AnnoyingArmedConservative on July 13, 2012, 12:16:26 PM
Well clearly you have to wear Lib-glasses in order to see them.

I've got my conservative glasses on. And from what I can see, this is incredibly good news!

If this is the best that the Obama team can come up with.................................oh yeah, Romney cut some kid's hair 50 years ago. I think Romney's in great shape.

It's gonna be fun to watch them twist in the wind during the coming months.

To all who have replied,



Romney has said  "I had no role whatsoever in the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999"



However,


"Some Securities and Exchange Commission documents have surfaced suggesting Romney played an active role in the Boston-based company through 2002. The filings with the SEC place Romney in charge of Bain Capital from 1999 to 2001"



Romney said

"after he left Bain Capital He retained ownership "until we we able to negotiate a departure" from the company he had founded." 


Either way its not good. Cause Either He's a liar, OR He comes across as a bad businessman.



"I think most Americans figure if you're the chairman, CEO and president of a company that you are responsible for what the company does," Obama said"



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PRESIDENTIAL_CAMPAIGN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-12-12-49-18