Talk Elections

As an business consultant, Romney attempted to make businesses more efficient, productive, and profitable.  Often times this meant laying off workers and finding cheaper labor overseas.  These acts may have been essential for the survival of bankrupt or struggling companies.

However, the US government, can borrow forever and run up deficits.  Would it be more prudent for the President to borrow and spend on keeping Americans employed, even if that increases inefficiency and the deficit? 

Is it even possible to make a leaner federal government, but also upset fired workers and losing votes?  Do you think American workers are just happy at getting paychecks, living off loans, and voting for whoever gives them the most benefits?  Is it better to get votes by deficit spending and building bubbles? 

As an efficiency expert, would Romney be forced to decide whether to cut jobs and spending or create jobs through inefficient means? 

I would like to outsource the defense of Europe.  And most of the rest of our overseas empire.

The US government cannot borrow forever. Eventually, the cost of borrowing will rise and the budget will collapse.

Therefore, Romney will cut jobs in the public sector (I like firing people). Jobs in the public sector aren't real jobs as those people don't produce anything.

Yes, because firefighters, policemen, and teachers don't contribute a thing to society and therefore can afford to be cut beyond their current levels.

Cast off a few million workers and the relief ranks swell, so such is a false economy. Mitt Romney would bring the 'double dip' and turn a recovery from the worst economic meltdown in 80 years into something as bad as the meltdown that began the Great Depression.

Typical Democrat-speak..  "The government"=police, fire, teachers

I certainly hope Romney cuts government jobs and makes the government more efficient, saving taxpayers money and making the government more productive.

Almost none of whom work for the federal government to boot, and almost all of whom are over-pensioned, and at least as to fire fighters in CA, grossly overpaid as well.

A bold statement from a lawyer in a part of the country constantly plagued by wildfires.

The dangerous and exhausting work of fighting wildfires in the hills are fought by underpaid kids. "Firefighters" work the pavement (mostly as paramedics these days rather than putting out actual structural fires, along with as an escort for a paramedic vehicle, a full sized fire engine truck, just in case, someone who called 911 might need a rescue from a second floor window or something, aka featherbedding) - they never go up in the hills.

But why would the cost rise? The US has an outstanding record on repaying it's debt so lending money to the US government is a very good place to put your money for people who don't need all their money to be easily accessable. Unless a Ron Paul type gets the presidency the lending could go on for some time.

President Romney will be creating jobs in the private sector, eliminating waste in the public sector, and ensuring that all essential service jobs, i.e. medical, policing, firefighting, etc.,  are adequately staffed, ensuring the public safety is not at risk.

I get the impression that once Europe stabilizes it's crisis, or the euro collapses, the world's gonna take a hard look at America and it's lack of long terms solutions to it's debt.

Well, Romney won't, directly.

The heavily bloated state/local governments that have a bunch of donuts on the payroll will be cutting off the excess weight. The good people of Wisconsin recently stated, twice, that the mischief by the public sector unions in Dane County is out of order and will not be tolerated.

Not necessarily...the government will end up with more money that can be spent on infrastructure projects that would create far more jobs -- and even military spending contributes to job growth. The recovery under Mitt Romney, the way I see it, would pretty much continue the same way as under President Obama.

Romney may end up helping corporations more than workers.
He may create tax shelters for corporations and other 1% but doesn't help people find jobs. 

He has to find a way to keep jobs in America instead of outsourcing. 

Obama doesn't seem to have a solution for outsourcing.