• About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives
Angry Bear
Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
« Back

Bombshell story in Vanity Fair’s August issue

Beverly Mann | July 3, 2012 3:12 pm

Law

Seems the devil really isin the details.  Or lack thereof.  Or (in this case) both.

Tags: Bain and Co. Mitt Romney, Bain Capital, Carried interest. Cayman Islands Comments (19) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
19 Comments
  • run75441 says:
    July 3, 2012 at 9:08 pm

    Bev:

    Lets face it, “Mittens” is not his father’s son. The rest of the nation is too afraid of a black man in the White House. Here is a neat article by Matt over at Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/small_business/2012/07/nfib_is_wrong_on_obamacare_the_aca_should_actually_help_small_business.html?wp_login_redirect=0

  • tt says:
    July 4, 2012 at 3:40 am

    Fake Oakley Polarized Sunglasses

  • nanute says:
    July 4, 2012 at 6:05 am

    Apparently the “future’s so bright,”…. we all gotta wear fake shades? Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

  • run75441 says:
    July 4, 2012 at 8:56 am

    troll, dan will get him soon

  • Rdan says:
    July 4, 2012 at 10:09 am

    ZZZZZZZtt!

  • Rdan says:
    July 4, 2012 at 10:27 am

    Nicholas Shaxson can wrrite for us too on some issues.

  • Beverly Mann says:
    July 4, 2012 at 11:11 am

    Now, THAT would be cool!

  • Beverly Mann says:
    July 4, 2012 at 11:16 am

    Now, THAT would be cool, Dan! 

    Hey … anyone else notice that the “Recent Comments” function hasn’t worked in DAYS?

  • Beverly Mann says:
    July 4, 2012 at 11:33 am

    Yeah, on both points.  Mitt is the UN-George Romney.  And Yglesias’s article is terrific.  I posted a comment there saying that, well, now, if only the Obama campaign would make these points in a series of ads ….

    I suggested that one ad should feature a real current small-business owner saying how excited he or she is that, soon, his/her small business will be able to offer healthcare insurance to its employees.  Another ad should feature someone who expresses excitement at the thought of soon being able to leave his or her current emplyment and start his or her own business and still have medical insurance for the family. (For the second one, the person might have to disguise himself, though, so as to not risk losing his current job.)  I said that the Obama folks say they want to switch the focus away from healthcare ans back to the economy and Romney’s credentials on it and plans for it–but that ads like these, making the points Yglesias made, ARE about the economy (jobs, jobs, jobs).

    Interestingly the NYT has an editorial today epxressing dismay and anger that the Obama people apparenty has decided, just as they did in 2010, that they should not bother to explain it–cuz, y;know, that strategy worked so well in 2009 and 2010.  

    Good work, btw, on ferriting through the ACA and figuring out what it actually provides, run.  I’m sure a lot of AB readers will appreciate that.

  • Beverly Mann says:
    July 4, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Yeah, on both points, run.  Mitt is the UN-George Romney.  And Yglesias’s article is terrific.  I posted a comment there saying that, well, now, if only the Obama campaign would make these points in a series of ads ….

     

    I suggested that one ad should feature a real current small-business owner saying how excited he or she is that, soon, his/her small business will be able to offer healthcare insurance to its employees.  Another ad should feature someone who expresses excitement at the thought of soon being able to leave his or her current emplyment and start his or her own business and still have medical insurance for the family. (For the second one, the person might have to disguise himself, though, so as to not risk losing his current job.)  I said that the Obama folks say they want to switch the focus away from healthcare ans back to the economy and Romney’s credentials on it and plans for it–but that ads like these, making the points Yglesias made, ARE about the economy (jobs, jobs, jobs).

     

    Interestingly the NYT has an editorial today epxressing dismay and anger that the Obama people apparenty has decided, just as they did in 2010, that they should not bother to explain it–cuz, y;know, that strategy worked so well in 2009 and 2010.  

     

    Good work, btw, on ferriting through the ACA and figuring out what it actually provides.  I’m sure a lot of AB readers will appreciate that.

  • Beverly Mann says:
    July 4, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Yeah, on both points, run.  Mitt is the UN-George Romney.  And Yglesias’s article is terrific.  I posted a comment there saying that, well, now, if only the Obama campaign would make these points in a series of ads ….

    I suggested that one ad should feature a real current small-business owner saying how excited he or she is that, soon, his/her small business will be able to offer healthcare insurance to its employees.  Another ad should feature someone who expresses excitement at the thought of soon being able to leave his or her current emplyment and start his or her own business and still have medical insurance for the family. (For the second one, the person might have to disguise himself, though, so as to not risk losing his current job.)  I said that the Obama folks say they want to switch the focus away from healthcare and back to the economy and Romney’s credentials on it and plans for it–but that ads like these, making the points Yglesias made, ARE about the economy (jobs, jobs, jobs).

    Interestingly the NYT had an editorial yesterday expressing dismay and anger that the Obama people apparenty has decided, just as they did in 2010, that they should not bother to explain it–cuz, y;know, that strategy worked so well in 2009 and 2010.  

    Good work, btw, on ferriting through the ACA and figuring out what it actually provides.  I’m sure a lot of AB readers will appreciate that.

  • Beverly Mann says:
    July 4, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Oops.  That NYT editorial is in today’s paper, not yesterday’s.  (I read it online last night.)  It’s at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/too-quiet-again-on-health-care.html?gwh=42803A5AEE1A37F59B566264374C3A1E.  It has a GREAT title: “Too Quiet, Again, on Health Care.”

    Yep.

  • rapier says:
    July 4, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    The combined $42 million in income for 10/11 is a spectacular return on $250million.  Perhaps he liquidated some assets but as pure income from investment for those years he hit it out of the park.  

    I stongly suspect that his worth is well north of that $250 million. 

    In his defese there is no telling what the Bush family fortune is. Three generations of combining government and business have certainly lead to a huge fortune but the layers and layers interlocking corporations, many shell ones, and other funds is impenetrable.

  • Jack says:
    July 4, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    Am I being too extreme in suggesting that there have been solutions to the problem of the phenomenon of those with way more than enough wanting still more at the expense of all others? 

  • save_the_rustbelt says:
    July 4, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    Romney must be confused, he thinks his last name is Kennedy. I hope he doesn’t drive an intern off of a bridge.

  • Jack says:
    July 4, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    Probably not, but he seems to have driven a lot of people out of their jobs. 

  • run75441 says:
    July 4, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    Dan:

    Suddenly, I feel inadequate.

  • run75441 says:
    July 4, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    Changing formats

  • amateur socialist says:
    July 5, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    The continuing adventures of Mitty Mitt, The Poor Little Rich Governor…  

Featured Stories

Macron Bypasses Parliament With ‘Nuclear Option’ on Retirement Age Hike

Angry Bear

All Electric comes to Heavy Equipment

Daniel Becker

Medicare Plan Commissions May Steer Beneficiaries to Wrong Coverage

run75441

Thoughts on Silicon Valley Bank: Why the FDIC plan isn’t (but also is) a Bailout

NewDealdemocrat

Contributors

Dan Crawford
Robert Waldmann
Barkley Rosser
Eric Kramer
ProGrowth Liberal
Daniel Becker
Ken Houghton
Linda Beale
Mike Kimel
Steve Roth
Michael Smith
Bill Haskell
NewDealdemocrat
Ken Melvin
Sandwichman
Peter Dorman
Kenneth Thomas
Bruce Webb
Rebecca Wilder
Spencer England
Beverly Mann
Joel Eissenberg

Subscribe

Blogs of note

    • Naked Capitalism
    • Atrios (Eschaton)
    • Crooks and Liars
    • Wash. Monthly
    • CEPR
    • Econospeak
    • EPI
    • Hullabaloo
    • Talking Points
    • Calculated Risk
    • Infidel753
    • ACA Signups
    • The one-handed economist
Angry Bear
Copyright © 2023 Angry Bear Blog

Topics

  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics

Pages

  • About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives