对于GS T Steel，奥巴马竞选团队这样写道：

    堪萨斯城的GST Steel曾是一家成功的公司，米特•罗姆尼和其合伙人在1993年取得这家公司控制权的时候，该公司已有103年的钢条制造史。他们压缩产品线，不断从GST Steel抽取利润，令公司负债累累。当公司最终宣布破产时，工人无法获得全额养老金和医疗保险，联邦政府只能介入为其养老基金提供救助。

    基本正确——虽然由于预算紧张，GS Steel事实上早就在压缩产品线了——除了省略不语的部分：GST Steel倒闭时米特•罗姆尼已经离开了贝恩。这似乎是一个相当显著的事实。

    另外一方面，罗姆尼的竞选团队日前也收回了候选人的一些不当表述：罗姆尼自称虽然他投资了GST，但没有真正管理这家公司。如果你拥有这家公司，贝恩的确拥有，你就是负责人（包括选择经理人）。在杠杆控股收购中绝不会有这样的事出现。

    最后是Stage Stores。内容摘自RomneyEconomy.com网站:

    上世纪80年代末，米特•罗姆尼及其合伙人买了数百家成功的小型服装店，合并组建了Stage Stores。罗姆尼和他的团队让这家公司负债，然后当这家公司股价处于高点时，他们几乎卖出了所有的股票，大赚了一笔。不到三年，该股暴跌，Stage被迫宣布破产。

    这些情况全都属实，但我不知道这里是要指责罗姆尼和贝恩什么。奥巴马竞选团队承认，Stage Stores破产时，贝恩已退出近三年了。贝恩或许让这家公司背了很多债，但机构投资者从贝恩购买这家公司股票的时候都知道——而且，显然都认为这是可以偿付的债务。除非有欺诈指控（即贝恩隐瞒这些债务），否则Stage破产责任很难扣在罗姆尼和贝恩的头上。

    而且，如果贝恩要为售股后发生的事情负责，那么如今Dade（隶属于西门子（Siemens））以及Stage Stores业务兴旺，是否也要归功于贝恩呢？或者罗姆尼是否可以宣称，他和贝恩参与投资了史泰博（Staples），这家公司之后很长时间内创造的所有工作岗位也应归功于他呢？

    从更广范围来看，史蒂芬妮•卡特特意声明没人“质疑私募股权整个行业”。这有些像竞选团队经理吉姆•麦西纳2月份讲话的翻版。但这不是真的，不是吗？

    在这里，贝恩被指责的一些行为事实上在私募股权行业中平常可见。因此，如果“有道理质疑这样的价值观是否是美国人希望在总统身上看到的”，就有道理质疑私募股权是否符合美国价值观。这完全是欲盖弥彰。

    我已试图联络奥巴马的发言人，如有回复，就会更新这篇博文。罗姆尼的团队已发表了几页观点，大部分都只是针对Solyndra贷款攻击奥巴马阵营（双方都在做可笑的争辩。）

    译者：早稻米

    As for GS T Steel, the campaign writes:

    Kansas City's GST Steel was a successful company that had been making steel rods for 103 years when Mitt Romney and his partners took control in 1993. They cut corners and extracted profit from the business at every turn, placing it deeply in debt. When the company eventually declared bankruptcy, workers were denied their full pensions and health insurance, and the federal government was forced to step in and bail out the pension fund.

    All mostly true -- although GS Steel had already cut down its product line due to budget constraints -- except for what is omitted: Mitt Romney was no longer at Bain when GST Steel bust. Would seem to be a fairly salient fact.

    On the other hand, Romney's campaign today recycled its candidate's absurd claim that while he made the GST investment, he didn't actually run the company. If you own the company, which Bain did, you're in charge (including of picking managers). There is no such thing as an arm's-length leveraged buyouts.

    Finally, there is Stage Stores. From RomneyEconomy.com:

    In the late 1980s, Mitt Romney and his partners bought up hundreds of successful small clothing stores and combined them to form Stage Stores. Romney and his team loaded up the company with debt, and then, when the company was at its height, sold nearly all their shares at an enormous profit. In less than three years, the stock had collapsed and Stage was forced to declare bankruptcy.

    All true, but I don't quite see what Romney and Bain are being accused of here. The Obama campaign acknowledges that Bain had been out of Stage Stores for nearly three years when it went bankrupt. Bain may have heaped debt on the company, but institutional investors knew that when they bought the company's shares from Bain -- and apparently thought it was a solvent bet. Unless there is some claim of fraud (i.e., Bain somehow hiding the debt), then Stage's bankruptcy is hard to pin on Romney and Bain.

    Moreover, if Bain is going to be blamed for what happened after selling its stake, should it also get credit for the current thriving businesses of both Dade (now owned by Siemens) and Stage Stores (SSI)? Or can Romney claim credit for all those Staples (SPLS) jobs created long after he and Bain were involved with the company?

    As a broader point, it's interesting that the Stephanie Cutter went out of her way to say that no one "is questioning private equity as a whole." Kind of mirroring a similar message from campaign boss Jim Messina said back in February. But it's not really true, is it?

    Bain is being accused here of taking actions that are commonplace in private equity. So if it's "legitimate to question whether those are the values America needs in a president," then it's apparently legitimate to question whether private equity is consistent with American values. Pretty sure that's a broad brush masquerading as a razor blade.

    I've reached out to Obama spokespeople, and will update this post if they reply. Romney's team already has issued a couple pages of talking points, but most of it is simply attacking Obama for the Solyndra loans (proving that both sides can make silly arguments).