Mitt Romney, liar.

[TellyKNeasuss]

According to two Obama supporters who worked at Bain at the time, Romney had left, but legal technicalities required that his name remain on the SEC filings even though he was gone.

So it's illegal to have an interim CEO? And it's illegal to not pay a 6-figure salary to someone who is not really the CEO but is only listed as such for technical legal reasons? I guess this is the reason why during the mid-2000's Warren Buffet was receiving a $100k salary: it's illegal to pay a CEO less than $100k.

 

[Ziggurat]

So it's illegal to have an interim CEO?

I didn't say that. Did you watch the video or not?

The fact that it might have been possible to do things differently in terms of executive appointments doesn't mean they needed to or even should have. But given what they did do, it appears that the legal filing requirements did exist despite Romney having no role in decision-making.

And it's illegal to not pay a 6-figure salary to someone who is not really the CEO but is only listed as such for technical legal reasons?

Plenty of companies pay what are essentially severance packages. The form that package takes varies quite a lot. There are obvious tax advantages to Romney for having payments spread out over several years, and probably no downside to Bain for spreading out payments. You seem to think that the payments indicate more than they actually do.

 

[remirol]

And if you look at the graphs and charts and maps on the sidebar, the trend for Obama is downward. Electoral college votes: Down 5.3 in the last week. Odds of winning: Down 2.7 percentage points. Popular vote: Down 0.2 percentage points.

No, the recent results are down. The trend for Obama is pointing upward -- if you use _all_ the data since May 31, not just the last week's fluctuations

(May 31: Obama chance victory 63.7%.
Now: Obama chance of victory 65.6%.)

Re-read what he wrote, Brainster. You appear to be responding to things he didn't claim.

He's desperately spinning. As I expect all Republicans to do for the next few months, as it becomes clearer and clearer that Romney is walking around with a fork in his back and a lightly toasted aroma emanating from him.

33% chances crop up one time in every three, and I still know which way I'd bet right now.

 

[BenBurch]

So it's illegal to have an interim CEO? And it's illegal to not pay a 6-figure salary to someone who is not really the CEO but is only listed as such for technical legal reasons? I guess this is the reason why during the mid-2000's Warren Buffet was receiving a $100k salary: it's illegal to pay a CEO less than $100k.

You know, we recently had a case in which the Yahoo CEO committed the horrific sin of padding his resume.

The reason this was a big deal is that his CV was part of an SEC filing, and lying on an SEC filing is a crime.

And he was forced to resign (he also had cancer, so it might have come soon anyway.)

Why is lying about your college degree as CEO bad, but lying about being the CEO isn't bad?

 

[Brainster]

Re-read what he wrote, Brainster. You appear to be responding to things he didn't claim.

He was trying to deny that a 1 in 3 probability was a 1 in 3 probability and he's wrong. He's free to bet on the 2 in 3, but I've played too many hands of poker to ignore even much smaller odds.

 

[BenBurch]

He was trying to deny that a 1 in 3 probability was a 1 in 3 probability and he's wrong. He's free to bet on the 2 in 3, but I've played too many hands of poker to ignore even much smaller odds.

No, he is saying that a coin flip is based on physics which is much more reliable than politics.

 

[remirol]

He was trying to deny that a 1 in 3 probability was a 1 in 3 probability and he's wrong. He's free to bet on the 2 in 3, but I've played too many hands of poker to ignore even much smaller odds.

How much you in for on Romney winning, then? (gets pencil)

ETA: Also, hey guys, I'm right here. I would have posted "Coins never change", but I really felt it was just being used as a red herring to the actual issue. We done now?

 

[Upchurch]

He was trying to deny that a 1 in 3 probability was a 1 in 3 probability and he's wrong. He's free to bet on the 2 in 3, but I've played too many hands of poker to ignore even much smaller odds.

He wasn't denying anything. You misread.

 

[pgwenthold]

According to two Obama supporters who worked at Bain at the time, Romney had left, but legal technicalities required that his name remain on the SEC filings even though he was gone.

So he was given $100 000 a year because they couldn't get his name off the SEC filings, even though he was gone?

And he has the nerve of accusing the crowd at the NAACP rally of wanting a handout? Oh wait, they want a GOVERNMENT handout, and he got his from a private company, so that makes it ok.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's been reported so often I'm curious why McCain or Steve Schmidt wouldn't correct the claim. Now, that isn't proof but why would folks like McCain having been asked to comment not correct the claim?

I agree: that isn't proof.

By that approach (as I've already said), should we consider every allegation to be true unless and until it is refuted? The burden of evidence should be the other way.

[ETA: Why is it not equally significant that McCain or Steve Schmidt haven't affirmed the claim?]

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

According to two Obama supporters who worked at Bain at the time, Romney had left, but legal technicalities required that his name remain on the SEC filings even though he was gone.

And according to several other statements of people involved and the SEC filings (again, these said much more than that he was CEO in name only) and the fact that he was drawing a 6-figure salary, Romney still had an active part-time role in running the company.

I don't think it's case closed, but I think there's ample evidence to require further investigation.

 

[RandFan]

He was trying to deny that a 1 in 3 probability was a 1 in 3 probability and he's wrong. He's free to bet on the 2 in 3, but I've played too many hands of poker to ignore even much smaller odds.

The house always bets on the odds in their favor. But, your example is misleading. In poker one should calculate pot odds. Rate of return has something to say about how one bets. If a 1 in 3 pays 3 to 1 then over the long run it's an even bet. If a 1 in 3 pays 4 to 1 then take the 1 in 3 (given multiple chances at betting). If the return is no greater either way then always bet as the house does (they would take 2 in 3 in a heart beat).

 

[RandFan]

I agree: that isn't proof.

By that approach (as I've already said), should we consider every allegation to be true unless and until it is refuted? The burden of evidence should be the other way.

[ETA: Why is it not equally significant that McCain or Steve Schmidt haven't affirmed the claim?]

I'm not sure why they would. I can't imagine a scenario where someone sees something correctly reported and they go out of their way to make certain everyone knows it is correct. Doesn't make much sense to me. On the other hand, if someone sees something reported that is not correct, well, that's a different thing altogether. JMO.

 

[Ziggurat]

So he was given $100 000 a year because they couldn't get his name off the SEC filings, even though he was gone?

Possibly. Having his name on those filings creates some legal liabilities for Romney even if he has no active role in any decision making. Getting some compensation for that liability isn't that strange an idea. Plus, I've got no reason to think that this isn't largely just deferred compensation. Pretty standard in the realm of CEO's to structure compensation rather differently than an hourly worker's.

And he has the nerve of accusing the crowd at the NAACP rally of wanting a handout? Oh wait, they want a GOVERNMENT handout, and he got his from a private company, so that makes it ok.

Actually, yes, it does. What someone chooses to do with their own money and what someone chooses to do with someone else's money are very different. When politicians spend money, it's not their money that they're spending, it's ours.

Plus, of course, you've constructed a false dichotomy: it isn't either a handout or a salary for active involvement.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And it's illegal to not pay a 6-figure salary to someone who is not really the CEO but is only listed as such for technical legal reasons?

Yeah, I'm sure there's no such requirement. Which again means the best case scenario for Romney is that it turns out that for Romney and his friends at Bain, a $100K salary is merely a token that is meaningless and can be consider just a pro forma thing. (And in fact, I find that to be in the realm of the credible!)

That oughta help his campaign!

But I guess lately "help" his campaign pretty much means "hurt it less than the alternative".

 

[Ziggurat]

And according to several other statements of people involved and the SEC filings (again, these said much more than that he was CEO in name only) and the fact that he was drawing a 6-figure salary, Romney still had an active part-time role in running the company.

I don't think it's case closed, but I think there's ample evidence to require further investigation.

I've got no problem with the desire for more information. And the possibility that something might be uncovered upon further investigation always exists for everyone. My point is that the information currently available does not indicate anything improper.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Possibly. Having his name on those filings creates some legal liabilities for Romney even if he has no active role in any decision making.

No way. I don't buy for a moment that there is a government requirement that CEOs--even pro forma ones-- have to get a minimum $100K salary.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My point is that the information currently available does not indicate anything improper.

Sure it does. There is plenty of evidence that points to a contradiction. Romney claimed to have no active role at all, and there is evidence that he indeed had an active role.

Nothing in the "it was only a legal technicality" argument makes this language go away:

SMTC

Feb. 13, 2001

Summary of Bain investments via Bain Capital Fund VI:
Bain Capital Partners VI, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Bain Partners
VI"), is the sole general partner of Fund VI. Bain Capital Investors VI, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Bain Investors VI"), is the sole general partner of Bain
Partners VI. Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief
Executive Officer and President of Bain Investors VI and thus is the
controlling person of Bain Investors VI. Bain Capital, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Bain Capital"), is the sole managing partner of the BCIP Entities.
Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive
Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of
Bain Capital.

In fact, this language makes that argument difficult to swallow.

 

[Upchurch]

In fact, this language makes that argument difficult to swallow.

Yeah, but I'm sure they didn't really mean it when they filed that. It's not like legal documents are meant to be taken as factual statements.

 

[Ziggurat]

In fact, this language makes that argument difficult to swallow.

The only thing that even looks contradictory there is "controlling person". But the legal implications of that statement are likely very different than a colloquial understanding of the term. Obviously it doesn't mean that Romney is the only one making decisions - even while there, much of the decision making would have been delegated. What it probably means is that he gets the final say in any decisions, if he wants to. But what he could have done legally, and what he actually did, can obviously be very different. Nothing in that statement actually indicates that he did make any decisions for the company.

So no, I still don't see any indication that there was any impropriety. Could there have been? Sure, but again, that's always true regardless of current evidence unless you know everything, and we almost never reach that level of knowledge.