How many people were harmed in order that George Soros could make a few billion in Europe?

“To be clear, the government has no right to intercede in such affairs. No law should be made to interject society into a private industry’s internal employment concerns.
Organizational leaders would do best to abide by the motto just because you can do something doesnt mean you should.”

Exactly right. We can recognize the problems without advocating the liberal solution of government intervention.

Though I think that it is fair to question the character of a presidential candidate who practices a predatory business model. Lets not be fooled here. This is not a question of free markets or capitalism. This is a question of a man who was born rich and CHOSE to make more money for both himself and his accomplice’s by bankrupting companies. As I understand it Romney and crue targeted weakened companies, seized control through leverage buy outs. Borrowed money against the company to pay huge “management fees” to Bain, looted the pension funds, sold of the equipment and dumped the work force on the backs of tax payers left to pick up the tab for unemployment, food stamp and medicaid beneifits. While we have alot of premadonna’s whining about capitalism and free markets, the real question should be. Why did a man born wealthy choose to enrich himself further with this model?

Romney made his fortune working for Bain capital, but only raised $34,000 in donations from 18 Bain employees. Obama, however, has already raised $76,600 from just three employees.

concerns intersect.

Sure, what Romney & Bain did is legal. But so is what Newt and Perry are doing. Further, they can use the same justification that Romney and Bain use; they are using legal means to justify their own self-interested ends. But many who think that a utilitarian (by which I mean ‘ends justify the means’) approach to economics is acceptable while the same in politics is not .

The founders knew that only a moral and just society was capable of freedom. Self-governance is the key ingredient. The moral system of the day was Judaeo-Christian. In that system, there is an obligation to help those in need and to not encourage sloth. So many Christian businessmen, such as my dad and brother, see part of their role in business as to provide jobs to the community they work in.

But see, they’re not being forced to do so. They’re doing this of their own free will, as they can. Among other things, they’re smart enough to recognize that if every business offshores its jobs in the name of profit, no one here has work and that makes for an unstable, dangerous society.

It is often argued by people (perhaps rightfully so) that morals are not part of government. HOWEVER, the consequences of moral and immoral actions in public life do involve government. If you have an environment where (a) many people don’t believe in envy being a bad thing and (b) this amoral attitude is fostered and promoted by members of the business/venture capital community, coupled with massive joblessness, you have an environment ripe for class warfare. And without the moral bulwark of accountability to God (for envy, sloth, greed, etc.), history bears out that class warfare will win.

The most loathsome thing about Bain Capital’s MO is the use of the dividend recapitalization scheme. Leverage the company, then use the assets of the company to leverage more debt to pay yourselves “Dividends”, and weaken the parent company in the process. I always thought that dividends were paid out of profits, not debt.
Newt is right when he says that ” this is not traditional capitalisim as we know it in America. Our so called conservative commentators need to be careful about their Knee jerk Defense of Bain. Rush, Sean and the like are making Bain Capital the face of the free market. Be very careful!!!