Mitt Romney vs The President

[milhouse24]

It will be President Mitt Romney

I think so too.

I don't - the skills to be a successful businessman and the skills to be a successful president are markedly different... the funny thing is, I think Romney probably has both. But I think there are too many internal GOP dynamics going on that don't work in his favour. He will have rough time in the South... the evangelicals won't hold their nose at primary time... they might in the general, but the enthusiasm will be low.

Plus Obama is in a pretty solid position, if Obama was in the position the Doom-sayers are trying to suggest he would not doing so well on a state-by-state basis.

I think Romney would make it close during the general, but I'm not sure he gets out of the primary... if he does, I think he's going to be damaged. Unlike the dems in 2008 - there were pretty much no significant policy differences between Obama and Clinton...

Umm, FYI, one person voted for the Iraq War and the other person did not vote for the Iraq War - one was pro-bush(Iraq) and the other was anti-bush (anti-Iraq).  That was a big difference IMO.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It will be President Mitt Romney

I think so too.

I don't - the skills to be a successful businessman and the skills to be a successful president are markedly different... the funny thing is, I think Romney probably has both. But I think there are too many internal GOP dynamics going on that don't work in his favour. He will have rough time in the South... the evangelicals won't hold their nose at primary time... they might in the general, but the enthusiasm will be low.

Plus Obama is in a pretty solid position, if Obama was in the position the Doom-sayers are trying to suggest he would not doing so well on a state-by-state basis.

I think Romney would make it close during the general, but I'm not sure he gets out of the primary... if he does, I think he's going to be damaged. Unlike the dems in 2008 - there were pretty much no significant policy differences between Obama and Clinton...

Umm, FYI, one person voted for the Iraq War and the other person did not vote for the Iraq War - one was pro-bush(Iraq) and the other was anti-bush (anti-Iraq).  That was a big difference IMO.

Well, only one was in the Senate at the time of the Iraq vote... but when it came down to core Democratic values - the differences are purely superficial.

[Lief 🗽]

Michigan is not voting for the guy that wrote an op-ed arguing that we should let "Detroit go bankrupt."

[dmmidmi]

Michigan is not voting for the guy that wrote an op-ed arguing that we should let "Detroit go bankrupt."

This. I can already see that NY Times headline all over Obama's TV ads, should Romney win the nomination.

[milhouse24]

It will be President Mitt Romney

I think so too.

I don't - the skills to be a successful businessman and the skills to be a successful president are markedly different... the funny thing is, I think Romney probably has both. But I think there are too many internal GOP dynamics going on that don't work in his favour. He will have rough time in the South... the evangelicals won't hold their nose at primary time... they might in the general, but the enthusiasm will be low.

Plus Obama is in a pretty solid position, if Obama was in the position the Doom-sayers are trying to suggest he would not doing so well on a state-by-state basis.

I think Romney would make it close during the general, but I'm not sure he gets out of the primary... if he does, I think he's going to be damaged. Unlike the dems in 2008 - there were pretty much no significant policy differences between Obama and Clinton...

Umm, FYI, one person voted for the Iraq War and the other person did not vote for the Iraq War - one was pro-bush(Iraq) and the other was anti-bush (anti-Iraq).  That was a big difference IMO.

Well, only one was in the Senate at the time of the Iraq vote... but when it came down to core Democratic values - the differences are purely superficial.

I don't know about you, but that one pro-Bush/pro-Iraq war vote left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, a little too salty.  Obama was one of the early anti-Iraq voices, along with Dean, and there was a reason both polled well with Democrats, even though they had comparatively little experience relative to their competitors.

If Iraq had been a "success" before 2008, Hillary would have strongly won everywhere.  But she was seen as too close to Bush's foreign policy agenda, after all her parents were Republicans!  So if Obama matched Hillary on Social/Domestic issues and only differed with her in supporting Bush's war, every sane Democrat would go with Obama.  And yes, Obama was lucky to not be in the senate for that Iraq vote.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I've missed jasengle. I hope he posts more!

[pbrower2a]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

Government isn't a business. Government has responsibility to voters; business has responsibilities above all else to shareholders. A tycoon as President is likely to see his responsibilities largely to fellow tycoons and not to those who have not yet Made It.

[milhouse24]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

Government isn't a business. Government has responsibility to voters; business has responsibilities above all else to shareholders. A tycoon as President is likely to see his responsibilities largely to fellow tycoons and not to those who have not yet Made It.

Because Obama has been so competent in handling the economy?  Oh wait, its just Bush's fault and there's nothing Obama can do about it.  He's just going to sit back, play some basketball with his body man, and let the rest of us suffer, we'll be homeless, jobless, but we'll have free health care, maybe I'll just live at the hospital and bill it to the White House!

[milhouse24]

It will be President Mitt Romney

I wonder if Obama will drop Biden and get another VP, maybe a woman if he thinks he will lose the election?  He's a shrewd campaigner, I think it would happen if necessary.  Biden gets his beloved SOS position, which he wanted all along after Hillary resigns next month. 

[pbrower2a]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

Government isn't a business. Government has responsibility to voters; business has responsibilities above all else to shareholders. A tycoon as President is likely to see his responsibilities largely to fellow tycoons and not to those who have not yet Made It.

Because Obama has been so competent in handling the economy?  Oh wait, its just Bush's fault and there's nothing Obama can do about it.  He's just going to sit back, play some basketball with his body man, and let the rest of us suffer, we'll be homeless, jobless, but we'll have free health care, maybe I'll just live at the hospital and bill it to the White House!

We don't have a planned economy (not that such is a good idea anyway -- as shown by the example of the Soviet Union). The President cannot dictate that public investments will be made. Even for public investments, the President needs the support of Congress. When we have a majority in the House who will thwart any legislation that the President offers, then either that majority or the President must go, lest there be continuing gridlock. 

[Badger]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

I like this common American misconception, that being a good businessman makes you a good political leader.

No one ever said that Romney's vast amount in the private sector will guarantee he'll make a good President. But it's certainly something good to have when running for President.

Actually, Romney has basically said that many times. Short of the absolute word "guarantee", it's a central premise to his candidacy.

@ Winfield: So I should be impressed by someone who was born a multi-millionaire and managed to become a multi-multi-millionaire? While I realize that model is central to Republican economic theory, his success is akin to being born on third base and scoring a run on an outfield fly, not actually hitting a homer himself.

Horatio Alger, Bill Gates, or Lee Iacocca he ain't.

[Jasengle]

can you post maps too
thanks

[milhouse24]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

Government isn't a business. Government has responsibility to voters; business has responsibilities above all else to shareholders. A tycoon as President is likely to see his responsibilities largely to fellow tycoons and not to those who have not yet Made It.

Because Obama has been so competent in handling the economy?  Oh wait, its just Bush's fault and there's nothing Obama can do about it.  He's just going to sit back, play some basketball with his body man, and let the rest of us suffer, we'll be homeless, jobless, but we'll have free health care, maybe I'll just live at the hospital and bill it to the White House!

We don't have a planned economy (not that such is a good idea anyway -- as shown by the example of the Soviet Union). The President cannot dictate that public investments will be made. Even for public investments, the President needs the support of Congress. When we have a majority in the House who will thwart any legislation that the President offers, then either that majority or the President must go, lest there be continuing gridlock. 

But the point is that the markets have No confidence in Obama's tax policy.  No company will hire or take out loans if he/she thinks he has to spend more money on taxes.  Small businesses are holding their money because they think more rain is coming down in the form of taxes.  Small Businesses want a Business-friendly, anti-tax Republican who can give them confidence in their 5 year business plans of expansion and growth.  Granted a lot of sectors like housing and finance are over-leveraged, but there should be opportunities out there in other sectors.

[milhouse24]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

I like this common American misconception, that being a good businessman makes you a good political leader.

No one ever said that Romney's vast amount in the private sector will guarantee he'll make a good President. But it's certainly something good to have when running for President.

Actually, Romney has basically said that many times. Short of the absolute word "guarantee", it's a central premise to his candidacy.

@ Winfield: So I should be impressed by someone who was born a multi-millionaire and managed to become a multi-multi-millionaire? While I realize that model is central to Republican economic theory, his success is akin to being born on third base and scoring a run on an outfield fly, not actually hitting a homer himself.

Horatio Alger, Bill Gates, or Lee Iacocca he ain't.

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). 

[Badger]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

I like this common American misconception, that being a good businessman makes you a good political leader.

No one ever said that Romney's vast amount in the private sector will guarantee he'll make a good President. But it's certainly something good to have when running for President.

Actually, Romney has basically said that many times. Short of the absolute word "guarantee", it's a central premise to his candidacy.

@ Winfield: So I should be impressed by someone who was born a multi-millionaire and managed to become a multi-multi-millionaire? While I realize that model is central to Republican economic theory, his success is akin to being born on third base and scoring a run on an outfield fly, not actually hitting a homer himself.

Horatio Alger, Bill Gates, or Lee Iacocca he ain't.

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).  

Oh, Milhouse. You are absolutely adorable!

[milhouse24]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

I like this common American misconception, that being a good businessman makes you a good political leader.

No one ever said that Romney's vast amount in the private sector will guarantee he'll make a good President. But it's certainly something good to have when running for President.

Actually, Romney has basically said that many times. Short of the absolute word "guarantee", it's a central premise to his candidacy.

@ Winfield: So I should be impressed by someone who was born a multi-millionaire and managed to become a multi-multi-millionaire? While I realize that model is central to Republican economic theory, his success is akin to being born on third base and scoring a run on an outfield fly, not actually hitting a homer himself.

Horatio Alger, Bill Gates, or Lee Iacocca he ain't.

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).  

Oh, Milhouse. You are absolutely adorable!

so which union do you belong to?

[Badger]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

I like this common American misconception, that being a good businessman makes you a good political leader.

No one ever said that Romney's vast amount in the private sector will guarantee he'll make a good President. But it's certainly something good to have when running for President.

Actually, Romney has basically said that many times. Short of the absolute word "guarantee", it's a central premise to his candidacy.

@ Winfield: So I should be impressed by someone who was born a multi-millionaire and managed to become a multi-multi-millionaire? While I realize that model is central to Republican economic theory, his success is akin to being born on third base and scoring a run on an outfield fly, not actually hitting a homer himself.

Horatio Alger, Bill Gates, or Lee Iacocca he ain't.

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).  

Oh, Milhouse. You are absolutely adorable!

so which union do you belong to?

None, but you assume otherwise when I state a multi-millionaire scion of a family fortune may not be the best judge to balance the competing interests of the middle class and corporate boardrooms?

You, sir, are more entertaining than cable

[milhouse24]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

I like this common American misconception, that being a good businessman makes you a good political leader.

No one ever said that Romney's vast amount in the private sector will guarantee he'll make a good President. But it's certainly something good to have when running for President.

Actually, Romney has basically said that many times. Short of the absolute word "guarantee", it's a central premise to his candidacy.

@ Winfield: So I should be impressed by someone who was born a multi-millionaire and managed to become a multi-multi-millionaire? While I realize that model is central to Republican economic theory, his success is akin to being born on third base and scoring a run on an outfield fly, not actually hitting a homer himself.

Horatio Alger, Bill Gates, or Lee Iacocca he ain't.

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).  

Oh, Milhouse. You are absolutely adorable!

so which union do you belong to?

None, but you assume otherwise when I state a multi-millionaire scion of a family fortune may not be the best judge to balance the competing interests of the middle class and corporate boardrooms?

You, sir, are more entertaining than cable

You also seem to be forgetting about small businesses who do most of the hiring.  If the issue is jobs, then its up to businesses to decide if they have the revenue or potential revenue forecasting to pay for new workers.  If the issue is benefits, then companies aren't going to hire new workers if they have to increase benefits to pre-existing employees. 

Plus, I don't quite understand the bias against a Successful family.  John Kennedy was a rich son of an illegal bootlegger.  Al Gore was a rich son of his Senator Father.  Unlike other scions who become drug addicts like some Kennedy's, Romney has been successful and he knows what it takes to support and grow businesses and in turn, allow those businesses to hire more people. 

[Badger]

Companies are already sitting on a record level of accrued capital, but are reluctant to invest it when consumer confidence and spending is skittish and weak. The standard GOP nostrum of across the board tax cuts which inordinately favor the wealthy is a bass ackwards way of stimulating consumer spending when the wealthy actually spend a smaller portion of their income, but rather would invest further on the inactive pile of cash businesses are already sitting on.

Regardless, I'm not "prejudiced" against successful families, cupcake, just not all gaga about the "business acumen" of someone born rich who became richer. Besides, anyone who talks about "running government like a business" is horribly misguided. Talk of running government like a non-profit corporation that's designed to fulfill certain functions rather than make its owner's wealthy is closer to the mark.

[TheGlobalizer]

Companies are already sitting on a record level of accrued capital, but are reluctant to invest it when consumer confidence and spending is skittish and weak. The standard GOP nostrum of across the board tax cuts which inordinately favor the wealthy is a bass ackwards way of stimulating consumer spending when the wealthy actually spend a smaller portion of their income, but rather would invest further on the inactive pile of cash businesses are already sitting on.

I agree with this.  The problem is not taxation, it is economic uncertainty, and to a lesser degree, extreme disruption due to regulatory change (either through formal rulemaking or breaking unwritten rules).

Still sticks squarely to Obama, but I agree the issue isn't something solved by the classic GOP tax cut rhetoric.  Businesspeople simply aren't talking about taxes, it's more like: "OMFG the government is nuts, what's next?"

[Jasengle]

The President's Days are coming to a close or not
we will see next November

[Cincinnatus]

The President's Days are coming to a close or not
we will see next November

Yes well, given that you just acknowledged the two only options, that statement would be true

Right now, I think Mitt loses to the President.  The numbers aren't looking horribly bad, polling isn't significantly against Obama, and some recent successes give him a clear edge.  That, and the hard right would have a hard time supporting Mitt, which could be a problem if someone runs third party.

[Badger]

Companies are already sitting on a record level of accrued capital, but are reluctant to invest it when consumer confidence and spending is skittish and weak. The standard GOP nostrum of across the board tax cuts which inordinately favor the wealthy is a bass ackwards way of stimulating consumer spending when the wealthy actually spend a smaller portion of their income, but rather would invest further on the inactive pile of cash businesses are already sitting on.

I agree with this.  The problem is not taxation, it is economic uncertainty, and to a lesser degree, extreme disruption due to regulatory change (either through formal rulemaking or breaking unwritten rules).

Still sticks squarely to Obama, but I agree the issue isn't something solved by the classic GOP tax cut rhetoric.  Businesspeople simply aren't talking about taxes, it's more like: "OMFG the government is nuts, what's next?"

My nitpicking differential would be that from what I've read, few to no one is holding off investment over uncertainty re: implementation of health care reform or Dodd-Frank. Being business, they aren't jumping for joy over the regulations, but aren't especially bothered by it outside the few markets specifically affected (and even there the consensus is "we'll deal with the changes just fine").

If both the aformentioned laws were repeled tomorrow, little would change in the wanting level of investment. The problem, again, comes all back to lack of consumer confidence and purchasing.

[milhouse24]

Companies are already sitting on a record level of accrued capital, but are reluctant to invest it when consumer confidence and spending is skittish and weak. The standard GOP nostrum of across the board tax cuts which inordinately favor the wealthy is a bass ackwards way of stimulating consumer spending when the wealthy actually spend a smaller portion of their income, but rather would invest further on the inactive pile of cash businesses are already sitting on.

Regardless, I'm not "prejudiced" against successful families, cupcake, just not all gaga about the "business acumen" of someone born rich who became richer. Besides, anyone who talks about "running government like a business" is horribly misguided. Talk of running government like a non-profit corporation that's designed to fulfill certain functions rather than make its owner's wealthy is closer to the mark.

Businesses are holding onto their rainy day funds because of the new Health Care law that has not yet been implemented, so they don't know how much more they will get taxed.  But don't you want businesses to spend more money on benefits for union members!  Screw the homeless and jobless, its more important to have health care and retirement funds.

You obviously think govt is a well run and well oiled machine, that no one in the federal govt literally sleeps at their job all day, then goes home at 5.  I think govt is supposed to let businesses succeed, not crush them with regulation and taxation, some citizens are actually trying to get wealthy with their businesses.  The wealthy will be fine, its the unemployed middle class that I would actually be worried about.

[TheGlobalizer]

My nitpicking differential would be that from what I've read, few to no one is holding off investment over uncertainty re: implementation of health care reform or Dodd-Frank. Being business, they aren't jumping for joy over the regulations, but aren't especially bothered by it outside the few markets specifically affected (and even there the consensus is "we'll deal with the changes just fine").

I've worked in health insurance for over 10 years and that's simply not the case.  Regulatory uncertainty is the #1 fiscal concern in the health insurance industry, and nothing else is close.

The big problem is that regulations keep coming and coming and coming, and some are so cockamamie that they're laughable and have to be rewritten and/or implementation extended into perpetuity.  And that's just at the federal level, many states are completely adrift on healthcare reform.  The regulatory environment is completely batsh**t crazy right now and few companies have the wherewithal to pursue significant expansion.  (I work at one company that does, but it's against significant financial headwinds, on both the cost and revenue sides of the equation.)