Mitt Romney vs The President

[Badger]

That maybe a matter of perception, I agree. The input I'm getting from two family members who are very highly placed in the health insurance or HCR consulting industry.

My point was less that the health insurance industry and banking industry aren't at all cautious about the implementation of HCR and Dodd-Frank---there is caution stemming from this to be sure, though not paralytic fear of investment from what I hear--and more as a decided to Milhouse's ideological screeds claiming that such reforms are the primary cause of weak business investment throughout the entire economy.

[milhouse24]

That maybe a matter of perception, I agree. The input I'm getting from two family members who are very highly placed in the health insurance or HCR consulting industry.

My point was less that the health insurance industry and banking industry aren't at all cautious about the implementation of HCR and Dodd-Frank---there is caution stemming from this to be sure, though not paralytic fear of investment from what I hear--and more as a decided to Milhouse's ideological screeds claiming that such reforms are the primary cause of weak business investment throughout the entire economy.

But my point is that fear of the future is restraining spending.  Fear of increased Regulation, oversight, and taxes is preventing businesses from forecasting revenues for the next year to 5 years necessary to plan growth, hiring, and strategy.  Both consumers and businesses are saving their money because they are scared of losing their jobs, losing profits/revenue.  Why would a business hire someone for the next 2 years, when they have to increase benefits as well, and with these taxes they are spending that money on Health care benefits that would otherwise be going to a new worker.  Why don't you just ask any small business owner what's wrong with the economy?

[Badger]

That maybe a matter of perception, I agree. The input I'm getting from two family members who are very highly placed in the health insurance or HCR consulting industry.

My point was less that the health insurance industry and banking industry aren't at all cautious about the implementation of HCR and Dodd-Frank---there is caution stemming from this to be sure, though not paralytic fear of investment from what I hear--and more as a decided to Milhouse's ideological screeds claiming that such reforms are the primary cause of weak business investment throughout the entire economy.

But my point is that fear of the future is restraining spending.  Fear of increased Regulation, oversight, and taxes is preventing businesses from forecasting revenues for the next year to 5 years necessary to plan growth, hiring, and strategy.  Both consumers and businesses are saving their money because they are scared of losing their jobs, losing profits/revenue.  Why would a business hire someone for the next 2 years, when they have to increase benefits as well, and with these taxes they are spending that money on Health care benefits that would otherwise be going to a new worker.  Why don't you just ask any small business owner what's wrong with the economy?

I have. The universal answer: No one's buying.

The only world where HCR and Dodd-Frank are inhibiting consumer spending is in the make believe right wing blogoshpere you apparantly inhabit. You have a right to your ideology, but if your argument is "Vote Republican: We'll repeal Obamacare and Big Government restraints on Wall Street, then people will have money and confidence to spend and jump-start the economy", well, you couldn't be more emperically wrong, and such blind ideological adherence in the face of reality is only an argument for supporting Democrats. At least there's a chance their policies might work.

[TheGlobalizer]

It's a vicious cycle of both.  Consumer spending is driven by consumer confidence is driven by employment optimism is driven by company hiring activities is driven by profitability is driven by consumer spending...

The problem, at its core, is that the current leadership is letting this continue virtually unabated, and the only solution is to sit in a room with extremely wealthy CEOs planning how to jump-start the economy (translation: pad the bottom line for shareholders).

That's why this sticks to Obama.  He's big government, which doesn't understand a damned thing about business, and when he tries to, he ends up in bed with big labor and/or big business.  That's not economic recovery, that's the oligarchization of America.

[Badger]

It's a vicious cycle of both.  Consumer spending is driven by consumer confidence is driven by employment optimism is driven by company hiring activities is driven by profitability is driven by consumer spending...

The problem, at its core, is that the current leadership is letting this continue virtually unabated, and the only solution is to sit in a room with extremely wealthy CEOs planning how to jump-start the economy (translation: pad the bottom line for shareholders).

That's why this sticks to Obama.  He's big government, which doesn't understand a damned thing about business, and when he tries to, he ends up in bed with big labor and/or big business.  That's not economic recovery, that's the oligarchization of America.

Dodd-Frank was fought tooth and nail by Wall Street and the banking industry. The amount spent on lobbying against the bill was unparaelled even by Washington standards. The health care industry did not exactly roll over and play dead for HCR either.

I agree that Obama's efforts in these areas have been less than fully satisfactory, but how often is that due to the wholly oligarchy-friendly GOP fillabustering everything to death? The choice seems to be between a party that will occassionally make baby steps towards breaking down the oligarchic forces you complain of, and another party that wholeheartedly embraces their unchecked expansion. An easy choice in my book.

[TheGlobalizer]

It's a vicious cycle of both.  Consumer spending is driven by consumer confidence is driven by employment optimism is driven by company hiring activities is driven by profitability is driven by consumer spending...

The problem, at its core, is that the current leadership is letting this continue virtually unabated, and the only solution is to sit in a room with extremely wealthy CEOs planning how to jump-start the economy (translation: pad the bottom line for shareholders).

That's why this sticks to Obama.  He's big government, which doesn't understand a damned thing about business, and when he tries to, he ends up in bed with big labor and/or big business.  That's not economic recovery, that's the oligarchization of America.

Dodd-Frank was fought tooth and nail by Wall Street and the banking industry. The amount spent on lobbying against the bill was unparaelled even by Washington standards. The health care industry did not exactly roll over and play dead for HCR either.

I agree that Obama's efforts in these areas have been less than fully satisfactory, but how often is that due to the wholly oligarchy-friendly GOP fillabustering everything to death? The choice seems to be between a party that will occassionally make baby steps towards breaking down the oligarchic forces you complain of, and another party that wholeheartedly embraces their unchecked expansion. An easy choice in my book.

Disagree with your premises.  Mainstream Dems and mainstream GOP both are in love with and in bed with big business.  Neither are an adequate solution for the use of government power to enrich corporations at the expense of the American people.

[milhouse24]

That maybe a matter of perception, I agree. The input I'm getting from two family members who are very highly placed in the health insurance or HCR consulting industry.

My point was less that the health insurance industry and banking industry aren't at all cautious about the implementation of HCR and Dodd-Frank---there is caution stemming from this to be sure, though not paralytic fear of investment from what I hear--and more as a decided to Milhouse's ideological screeds claiming that such reforms are the primary cause of weak business investment throughout the entire economy.

But my point is that fear of the future is restraining spending.  Fear of increased Regulation, oversight, and taxes is preventing businesses from forecasting revenues for the next year to 5 years necessary to plan growth, hiring, and strategy.  Both consumers and businesses are saving their money because they are scared of losing their jobs, losing profits/revenue.  Why would a business hire someone for the next 2 years, when they have to increase benefits as well, and with these taxes they are spending that money on Health care benefits that would otherwise be going to a new worker.  Why don't you just ask any small business owner what's wrong with the economy?

I have. The universal answer: No one's buying.

The only world where HCR and Dodd-Frank are inhibiting consumer spending is in the make believe right wing blogoshpere you apparantly inhabit. You have a right to your ideology, but if your argument is "Vote Republican: We'll repeal Obamacare and Big Government restraints on Wall Street, then people will have money and confidence to spend and jump-start the economy", well, you couldn't be more emperically wrong, and such blind ideological adherence in the face of reality is only an argument for supporting Democrats. At least there's a chance their policies might work.

My point is that Obama knew the economy was grasping for air, yet he still went ahead with Universal health care because he had the senate votes.  If the economy is good, sure you can add and tax for health care, but he was pre-occupied with making history for the history books, rather than helping people find jobs in the next 2 years.  So I don't know what is worse, being unemployed or being unemployed yet getting free health care.  Besides, I don't personally think Health care should be a for-profit business, it should all be non-profit and probably government run like the VA.  But I also question the legality of forcing citizens to buy health insurance.  I actually think health care should be up to the states, and some states actually passed their own health care reform.  I'm just saying for the past 2 years, Obama has been suffocating businesses, and that is why no one has consumer confidence in the Obama administration. 

[Penelope]

He'd need an energizing, conservative VP. But it would have to be balanced that people wouldn't want the ticket to be flipped either...

So really but the time they make it to the final stretch Obama wins. Mitt just isn't charismatic and his "generic republican" status won't last a year and a half.

That worked out great for the GOP last time. And by GOP I mean Democratic Party.

[milhouse24]

He'd need an energizing, conservative VP. But it would have to be balanced that people wouldn't want the ticket to be flipped either...

So really but the time they make it to the final stretch Obama wins. Mitt just isn't charismatic and his "generic republican" status won't last a year and a half.

That worked out great for the GOP last time. And by GOP I mean Democratic Party.

Oh boy oh boy, vice president Bachmann here we come!

[CharlieLima]

I personally see no way at all how the GOP could win this in 2012. However, Romney seems to be the most realistic candidate who could give Barack a game about the White House.

[pbrower2a]

Your acting like managing your investment portfolio and exponentially growing it is a bad thing.  Unlike others who squander their riches, Romney grew his investments.  Its similar to how the US economy needs to be nurtured and grow.  We are not some 3rd world country in need of a Horatio Alger.  We are a mature economy, with high wage workers as opposed to low-wage workers, and strong Unions who want a share in dwindling corporate profits. 

Do you want someone who's never been in the game and has no idea how to manage a fortune 500 company (like Obama) or do we want a proven leader who won't destroy a fortune 500 company (like Romney). 

1. Business and government are very different things. If you are a conservative, then the last thing that you want the government to do is to grow, as (according to conservative dogma) growth in government means only that the private sector gets squeezed!

2. The conservative ideal for managing government would be a liquidator -- not someone who can induce growth. Such a person literally casts employees out on the street -- or, in the case of people on the dole for any reason, tells them to become productive members of society  or die and take any children with them to the grave if they die for lack of ability. Would that be consistent with the values of most Americans? Maybe not for long. I'm not sure that anyone wants the government selling off assets for pennies on the dollar -- unless one is one of those who would buy those assets at fire-sale prices and then exploit monopolistic conditions in the form of captive markets.

3. Much of what the government does  -- administering justice, conducting wars, protecting the environment, and doing diplomacy --  is not done on P/L criteria. Most of what business enterprises do is done strictly with an eye to profit or loss, or at least with protecting the assets of the company from lawsuits and taxation. Shareholders don't want their companies bleeding corporate assets as charity.   

Government, or at least the only sort of government worth having, acts in accordance with the choices of the people through the election of representatives who then conduct the People's business. It has to look beyond the questionable ideal of maximal tax revenues or minimal expenditures to concerns that might not be so immediate -- like whether life will be good for people who can't then hold a job and pay taxes (especially the children). Government can't serve only taxpayers or asset owners. The sort of government that serves only the biggest taxpayers and asset owners is no democracy; it might be an old-fashioned absolute monarchy in which the monarch is simply the biggest landowner, a fascist dictatorship that represents only the rich, or a Commie system in which real power goes to the administrators of State enterprises. 

   



 

[milhouse24]

Your acting like managing your investment portfolio and exponentially growing it is a bad thing.  Unlike others who squander their riches, Romney grew his investments.  Its similar to how the US economy needs to be nurtured and grow.  We are not some 3rd world country in need of a Horatio Alger.  We are a mature economy, with high wage workers as opposed to low-wage workers, and strong Unions who want a share in dwindling corporate profits. 

Do you want someone who's never been in the game and has no idea how to manage a fortune 500 company (like Obama) or do we want a proven leader who won't destroy a fortune 500 company (like Romney). 

1. Business and government are very different things. If you are a conservative, then the last thing that you want the government to do is to grow, as (according to conservative dogma) growth in government means only that the private sector gets squeezed!

2. The conservative ideal for managing government would be a liquidator -- not someone who can induce growth. Such a person literally casts employees out on the street -- or, in the case of people on the dole for any reason, tells them to become productive members of society  or die and take any children with them to the grave if they die for lack of ability. Would that be consistent with the values of most Americans? Maybe not for long. I'm not sure that anyone wants the government selling off assets for pennies on the dollar -- unless one is one of those who would buy those assets at fire-sale prices and then exploit monopolistic conditions in the form of captive markets.

3. Much of what the government does  -- administering justice, conducting wars, protecting the environment, and doing diplomacy --  is not done on P/L criteria. Most of what business enterprises do is done strictly with an eye to profit or loss, or at least with protecting the assets of the company from lawsuits and taxation. Shareholders don't want their companies bleeding corporate assets as charity.   

Government, or at least the only sort of government worth having, acts in accordance with the choices of the people through the election of representatives who then conduct the People's business. It has to look beyond the questionable ideal of maximal tax revenues or minimal expenditures to concerns that might not be so immediate -- like whether life will be good for people who can't then hold a job and pay taxes (especially the children). Government can't serve only taxpayers or asset owners. The sort of government that serves only the biggest taxpayers and asset owners is no democracy; it might be an old-fashioned absolute monarchy in which the monarch is simply the biggest landowner, a fascist dictatorship that represents only the rich, or a Commie system in which real power goes to the administrators of State enterprises. 

   

Oh wow, so a state government can't give tax breaks to a new factory or office building supplying thousands of jobs for the area?  You don't believe there is any way a government can promote economic growth, business growth, job growth, innovation, re-training, or work-visas, or education?  I feel sorry that you think government is only here to provide benefits and ensure the quality life of middle class workers.  With billions of dollars budget, there is so much more the government can do to affect lives and destinies, its a decision of whether to suffocate economic growth with HCR taxes and regulation or to promote growth.  Remember, the housing bubble was partially created by a desire for low-income citizens to obtain home ownership and the american dream, even though there was no way they could afford such homes, that was a law signed by Bill Clinton and it was meant to increase the percentage of home ownership in America, but impossible to sustain.

[NVGonzalez]

[Niemeyerite]

why's ND blue?

[5280]

Unemployment above 9%

[NVGonzalez]

why's ND blue?

My mistake