jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (96 posts)

My Romney "a ha" moment?

  1. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Apparently 63% of Americans view Romney's business background favorably and think he would be good for the economy.
    Then I had this "a ha" moment (for me any moment where two thoughts actually connect in my brain is an "a ha" moment).
    What if... people actually believe that because Romney is rich that he will make THEM rich? They project that he will somehow magically wave his money wand and poof -- forget a chicken in every pot, he will make everyone in America RICH because he is RICH.

    Then I read this quote:
    American writer John Steinbeck allegedly said: �Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.�

    Do you believe people expect, on some unconscious level, they will become rich if they elect Mitt Romney to the presidency?

    "Poll: Romney preferred over Obama to handle the economy," USA Today, July 23, 2012
    http://www.moveon.org/r?r=277950&id … Cx&t=4

    1. Teddletonmr profile image82
      Teddletonmrposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Do you believe people expect, on some unconscious level, they will become rich if they elect Mitt Romney to the presidency?
      I suppose it depends on what your definition of rich is, a chicken in every pot purchased using moneys earned from a hard day’s work, absolutely.
      The thing that escapes the I hate republican / Romney crowd, before Mr. Romney earned his millions his focus was on making businesses successful / profitable. Which means providing goods and or services customers are willing to shell out their hard-earned moneys to purchase and not forced by an overreaching government take part in because of some imposed fairness doctrine?
      Many hard-working Americans find the American dream in danger with the goings on in the current administration, home values plummeting, savings accounts stagnate, and the national debt rapidly approaching the U.S GDP. How can we blame the downtrodden conservative minded folks for believing there is a better way for the country and its peoples regain their dreams and freedom to succeed?
      Before you go and blame Mr. Bush for everything, please try to remember the promises of change from candidate Obama and where we the citizenry of our once great country are now.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        http://bobcesca.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/debt_chart_presidents.jpg

        Obama also caused the housing crisis and the banking debacle, right?

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I won't even bother checking those figures.

          Let's compare 2 years of Obama to 8 years of other presidents, yeah! At that rate, his bar will be 140% after 8 years(if he gets 8 years).

          And never mind that we have been constantly up against the debt ceiling... it's not like liberals want to spend even more than they already are!

          1. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Do you know what the debt ceiling is?
            Just wondering.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yup. Do you?

              Just wondering.

        2. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What about Congress? They are the ones who actually approve the budget and do the spending.

          http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_Color_Coded_Congress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.png/800px-US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_Color_Coded_Congress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.png

          Fighting on party lines, the greatest distraction of American politics.

        3. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It's worth noting none of those except for Obama had to deal with an enormous global economic crisis (Reagan had a much smaller one) and two expensive wars started by their predecessors (through idiocy) so really the results are very reasonable.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It's also worth noting that a 50% increase of debt, starting at 50% of GDP, is much more than a 50% increase of debt, starting at 1% of GDP.

            People try to pick these weird yardsticks to make Obama look good. Like the chart where he only grew spending by 1.3% or whatever. It looks good, until you realize how misleading it is.

            1. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Actually spending growth is the most crucial statistic in determining spending, after all spending is relevant to the spending you inherited.

              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It's way too easy to misinterpret that though.

                Two scenarios:

                Scenario 1: The US had a debt of $1. President A increases the debt to $1 trillion. President B comes along and increases the debt to $10 trillion. All figures are adjusted for inflation, GDP has been static, in other words, there are no other factors than spending.

                President A increased the debt by some 100000000000000%. President B increased the debt by 1000%. So, President B did better than President A?

                No. % increase is only comparable if you adjust for the base.


                Scenario 2:

                President A authorizes a one-time expenditure of $10 trillion during his last year. President B expands on that last-year budget by 1%, and increases it again by 1% the next year, and so on, and so forth.

                Is President B doing a good job, by only growing spending by 1%?

                No. Growing baseline spending on top of an extraneous previous budget composed largely of a one-time expenditure, is not good. You would need to eliminate the one-time exposure, then compare budgets.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Absolutely the first is taken into account.

                  The second is a matter of looking at policy, there ere big "one time" costs in say the Bush presidency (the wars and the tax cuts) but both went on after he left.

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, the first ISN'T taken into account, when you look at growth of public debt. A much smaller increase can be a much higher percentage if the first baseline is smaller than the second baseline. Not accounted for. Not taken into account. It's built right into the figure, and not adjusted. Not controlled. I can't think of another way to say it.

                    Your second point: Exactly. Stimulus spending, tax cuts, whatever. If something is meant to be temporary, but the next president makes it permanent and builds on it, you can't just say 'he increased the budget by 1%'. You have to look at what the baseline would have been without those expenses, and include them in his spending.

                    Think of it this way. You have a business with a partner. Every year, you are allowed to spend 5% more than the previous year. Last year though, you purchased a new building and two new company vehicles, which were above and beyond the normal 5% increase.

                    What should this year's baseline be? 5% more than last year's spending with the building and cars included, or 5% more than last year's spending with the building and cars excluded?

                    I can make you a graph if that doesn't make sense.

      2. lmmartin profile image95
        lmmartinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Mr. Mitt Romney did not make his millions. He was born into a very wealthy family and already had millions. It's easy to make millions from millions; difficult to make millions from nothing. Big, big difference. As to supposedly making businesses successful, he was more wont to dismantle them in the name of profitability than to turn them around, and those who bottom lines increased was more often than not than through outsourcing, etc. So please, let's be real about who Mitt Romney is and where he came from.

        And yes, the same can said of Obama, whose maternal family was also very wealthy.

        1. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I disagree. Romney did inherit money, but he gave it all away. Of course, Romney had advantages that most people don't - a great education, the right connections, etc. He's also smart, savvy, and has a strong work ethic. His millions weren't just handed to him on a silver platter - there was actually some effort on his part.

      3. Eugene Hardy profile image60
        Eugene Hardyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This a road that our country has been on since the '50's, so one term of Obama can not be blamed for that. 

        If people buy the cool-aid the GOP is selling they will not only elect a president that is squarely for conservative economic doctrine, they also buy the policies and deregulations that created this last economic crisis in the first place.

        But if you make a people desperate enough, they will believe or do anything....

    2. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I  remember hearing a similar lecture in a college sociology class.   Many poor people in America do view themselves as potential millionaires while only an extremely minute percent actually view themselves as being oppressed.    Many poor homes inculcate their children that they can achieve if they put their noses to the grindstone so to speak and stop being so lazy.

      Specifically the working and lower middle classes believe that any idea of them being oppressed is totally subversive and communistic.   If someone in the same class dare to portend such an idea, they would be ostracized as communistic or worse, un-American.     It is usually the upper middle classes or better who believe in such ideology.     I know many people who were either socialist and/or communistic in leaning and they were either of the upper middle classes and/or upper classes.    The people of the lower, working, and lower middle classes relayed that they intended to make that money and to live large! 

      Now, many such people are going to vote for Romney because they believe that since Romney is rich, then anything is possible in America.    Just like the working and lower middle classes who voted for Nixon, Reagan, and the two Bushes in the past.     Beyond their yearning to live the ultimate American dream, they value the Republican ideology because of its innate conversativism and its emphasis on law and order.    MM, you have posted an excellent thread!

    3. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There's probably a high correlation between those who vote Republican and are poor, and beliefs about future wealth. 

      If I believe I am going to be a millionaire in 10 years, then I am making an investment in my future income by voting Republican NOW.

      TOO BAD the game is rigged and there is little chance most people will be millionaires sad.

    4. undermyhat profile image59
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think Steinbeck is right - as far as his witticism goes.

      I think your premise is flawed.  People believe they can be successful - rich is not the same thing - because there is, until recently, a genuine American optimism.  I think people used to believe that there was always a chance for them to succeed and prosper if they dedicated themselves to their passion, worked hard, were prudent and virtuous.

      I think people will vote for Mitt Romney because he does not represent the loss of those ideals and beliefs, while Barrack Obama does.

      I think people see Romney as a remover of barriers to prosperity and Obama as a placer of barriers.

      I think people hear Romney talk about business and hear optimism and Obama talk about business and hear disgust, repulsion, suspicion.

      I think Americans are still optimistic, that is why the under informed voted for "Hope and Change" instead of the grumpy old man.

      What optimistic vision of America's Future can Barrack Obama offer? 

      1)You can't drive what you want, set your thermostat where you want
      2) Don't go to Las Vegas
      3)Bankrupt coal
      4)attack airplane manufacturers
      5)attack doctors
      6) tell granny she should take a pill instead of get a pace maker
      7) You didn't do that...

      I, I, I, me, me, me, mine, mine, mine....

      Self centered and negative, Barrack Obama diddles with donors while the economy founders, a record number of people languish on food stamps, disability and unemployment.

      Americans, it  seems, are more optimistic than the Commander-in-Chief and that is why Romney will win.  Some may not vote for him but they will not vote for the unceasing drum beat of negativism and narcissism coming from Obama, either.

      This is why the enthusiasm gap favors Romney by double digits.

    5. LauraGT profile image87
      LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Fox "news" recently reported that only half (or thereabouts) of Americans believe they could one day become wealthy.  They reported this as if it were some terrible indicator of how downhill our country has gone.  Well, I am pretty shocked that half of Americans believe they can become wealthy!  Only a few percentage ever do (depending on your definition of wealth).  This idea that EVERYONE should be able to become rich is uniquely American, and I don't know that it does us a lot of good, especially as it seems to mean leaving a lot of people in the dust....

    6. dmhenderson profile image60
      dmhendersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No, I don't believe people think they will get rich if Romney is elected, but I do believe they think they will be better off. I also believe (or at least hope) people are beginning to realize that social and economic mobility has practically disappeared. Perhaps the Great Recession has opened up some eyes. I think the poll results are a consequence of "cognitive capture." People have been duped into believing that policies that benefit the richest members of our society also benefit everyone else, that wealth will trickle down despite all the evidence that it trickles the other direction.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        +++

      2. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Cognitive capture.
        That's exactly what I was trying to say (but don't think I knew that term until you so helpfully included it in your post)!.
        Thank you!
        How many different times and ways does it have to be proved that trickle down does not happen. It just doesn't.
        Do the richest Americans really need policies? Don't they kinda operate above the law anyway?
        I think reverse is also true. People fear that policies aimed at the poorest among us will somehow make them poor, too.

    7. Eugene Hardy profile image60
      Eugene Hardyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think there are too many layers to this economic onion to peal to give a straight answer.

      Sure, most will vote for him because he is not Obama, which bring in line other questions concerning what kind of president he would be.

      Then there are certain corporations or conservatives who back the policy of not hiring just so the economy can remain anemic enough for Obama to lose the next election- which is economic blackmail.

      I do not think Romney will be any good for the economy because he will back whatever corporate America/conservatives tell him to do.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for naming the invisible (but not to all) ELEPHANT in the room.
        I agree there is a conspiracy of not hiring just to get Obama out.
        I guess the plus on that would be that if it succeeds in getting Romney elected then those corporations are going to hire -- just to bring the unemployment numbers down and make their "boy" look like a hero.
        But at least Americans will have jobs.
        It makes me want to puke thinking of this economic blackmail and the lives of real Americans it, along with some specific and insidious corp. plots perpetrated by certain industries, has devastated.
        We are the hostages here!

    8. jacharless profile image82
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Right now the 'rich disease' is deeply effecting America, from GRQ websites, mind control, self-help to mogul coaching {millionaire minds, the secret, biblical prosperity} and beyond, while the classes broaden and poverty exceeds that of the 60s. People spend trillions last decade on these rich concepts -real estate included. the rich sell the concept of rich, keeping them wealthy and everyone else wanting to be rich. T Robbins tickets go for $300-$1500 a pop. Every seat, every show, always sold out. One more nudge in the wrong direction and its Hooverville all over again.

      James.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        T Robbins is a master.
        God help people who really believe they can create a "money machine."

        1. undermyhat profile image59
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this
          1. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Tony's a really good motivator, I'm not denying that.
            Maybe he helped BC become pals with Bush Sr. and start his foundation.

            I'm just questioning that average people can really create a "money machine" to fund their lives. Sure would be great if we all could. But I don't think attitude alone can make you rich. Maybe that is an unAmerican attitude.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Horatio Alger died a long time ago. A little luck is often helpful or unhelpful. We're all lucky we were'nt born an orphan In Bangladesh or a Detroit ghetto.

              1. Mighty Mom profile image91
                Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ... or Kenya.
                Some certain presidents we could name.

                1. habee profile image90
                  habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Shhhhhhhhhhh...don't say the "K-word." You'll get the birthers started.

                  1. undermyhat profile image59
                    undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Or Obama's book publisher -


                    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6945232_f248.jpg

              2. Eugene Hardy profile image60
                Eugene Hardyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I was not born in a Detroit ghetto, but I lived most of my life in one.

                In fact, the East Side to be exact, and I'm thankful for being raised there.

                Since you have mentioned Detroit, I will run with it.
                A president Romney would not be a good thing for Detroit, because it is the workers and poor there that would suffer the most under his policies.  I would not be surprised if efforts were made to break Detroit's unions.

                The one thing I could count on Detroit doing is not voting for Romney because they see he did not have their interests in mind.

                But if these citizens could see it, why would anyone else fall for Romney?

                1. undermyhat profile image59
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Is Detroit shutting off street lights in neighborhoods where houses have been abandoned by fleeing residents?  How are things in Detroit now?  Seems that Detroit has been run by Democrats for a long time.  Have Barrack Obama's policies actually helped Detroit?

                  Detroit used to be a vibrant city - what happened/  Though ever city has some neighborhoods that are tougher than others, not everyone is in full fledged decline.

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    As I always tell you just look at the population and severity of poverty during Republican periods vs Democrat against economic growth and you will see why people in Detroit are smart enough not to vote for the guys who increase poverty even when the economy grows, a la Reagan. People in Detroit aren't idiots they know full well the consequences is all, the poor fare worse under Republican leadership, it's a matter of statistical fact. They have also figured out that trickle down is a laughable joke.

                  2. Eugene Hardy profile image60
                    Eugene Hardyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    First, no major city can stand alone in this country, and the fact that mention concerning Democratic control since the '70's point to that fact.  Detroit has several problems: Racial conflicts with its outlining suburbs and conflicts with the state government, and lack of the right kind of economic development by
                    succeeding federal governments.  Has always been a problem in Detroit, but after 2008 has depopulation increased at an alarming rate.

                    If Romney were elected his policies would insure my city's demise.

                  3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Detroit's decline had multiple causes:  1. Over dependence on the auto industry;  2. Mismanagement of the big three auto companies; 3. Failure of auto company managements and the UAW to recognize and respond to competition, from Asian and European car companies enabled by doctrinaire devotion by our economics and foreign policy establishment; 4. School integration and bussing which caused white flight to the suburbs; 5. Passage of a Detroit city income tax;  6. Poor relations between a lily white police force and the black community which resulted in the 1968 riot or as  some called it "rebellion"; 7. The lack of a metropolitan government and transit system (as in Toronto). I don't believe it's accurat to attribute Detroit's decline to the Democrat mayors and politicians. The city has had some quite good Democrat mayors, both black and white.

                2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That's a god question!  Couldn't believe a report on TV last night that Romney's leading in Michigan.
                  (I lived in the New Center area of Detroit in the sixties and now in a Detroit suburb.)

                  1. undermyhat profile image59
                    undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Eventually,  Detroit will be  the name of the giant, vacant or reforested land surrounded by Clawson, Livonia, Troy, Westland, etc....

                    Detroit finishes green urban reclamation complex with dedication of Kwame Kilpatrick green space and park.  Another Democrat leap forward.  Awesome.

            2. undermyhat profile image59
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There is nothing more inspiring than that all American "can do" optimism. 

              "Yes We Can't"  that has got to work.  The first step to anything is to believe it possible.

      2. Eugene Hardy profile image60
        Eugene Hardyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The 'rich' disease.

        I like that one.

        I do not see how anyone can get rich, if they work jobs that do not pay a living wage, or do not teach new skills that allows them to be promoted into better positions within a company.

        Or, maybe they can win the lotto, and become wealthy that way....

        The 'rich' disease is the disease of the mind....

  2. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    The majority of people who vote for Romney are going to do so because he's the R nominee. Some are going to vote for him because he isn't Obama. Those who really care about his business experience are going to vote for him in hopes that he will get unemployment under control.

    I don't really think the majority of conservative voters are going to expect to be given stuff free, they just want a job.

  3. Xenonlit profile image61
    Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

    I suspect the polls and the polling methods. Since Reagan, most Americans know better than to trust a Republican to trickle anything down to them. Maybe a lot of ignorant newcomers are buying it, but who says that they are even qualified to vote for Romney?

    And Romney's business experience? Are we kidding?

  4. JSChams profile image59
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    Because we all know there are no wealthy Democrats in politics right?

  5. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Yes, there are Democrats in politics who have money. That's assumed -- you have to have or be able to raise a ton of money to run for federal office.
    But I've never met one yet who claimed to be a rainmaker or kingpin. That's simply not the D platform.

    The whole Romney mystique and the whole focus on Bain Capital is SUBLIMINALLY sending the message that he has "insider" knowledge of how the 1% live and is committed to sharing that expertise to make Americans wealthy, too.

    If he could create all those jobs at Bain, think of how many jobs he can create as POTUS.
    If he has friends in the wealthy companies, he can convince them through tax breaks to create jobs for Americans.

    I'm not saying the connection is logical. Just that this idea suddenly hit me. It would not be the first time Americans, desperate for a "fix" are willing to suspend disbelief and vote against their self-interests!

    BTW, none of this "promise" is stated outright. But it's there like the word "sex" in the ice cubes in the old 1960s liquor ads.
    A Republican spin of sorts on Camelot.

    1. JSChams profile image59
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ok......the way they deified Barack Obama four years ago????????????????????????//

      Puh-lease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. Eugene Hardy profile image60
      Eugene Hardyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I have to agree with you, and I hope we are not that desperate.

  6. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    I don't think anyone expects free stuff.
    And I think everyone who has suffered through the great recession, as well as recent grads, want a job.

    But do they honestly believe that all these businesses who've laid off thousands, shipped jobs overseas, or seen their entire industries evaporate will snap to and fall in line and hire Americans simply because Romney is the president?

    lol lol lol

    1. carol3san profile image61
      carol3sanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I just heard on the news (CNN)  that there are thousands upon thousands of jobs available here in the USA but there is no one available to fill them.  Not all of these jobs are high level jobs either.  Many are jobs that require simple problem solving skills.  Aparently the peolpe in this country are too stupid to to qualify.  I suppose President Obama is the blame for that too?

    2. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      MM, Obama is claiming that a 10% tax break on businesses on new hiring expenses will create a million jobs. Imagine what would happen if we simply cut our corporate tax rates to, I don't know, maybe a competitive level? If 10% of new hiring expenses = 1 million jobs, then how many jobs do you get from an 8% cut overall?

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Apples and oranges, Jaxson.
        If you give me a $100 Old Navy gift card I have to use it at Old Navy.
        If you give me a $100 American Express or Visa gift card, I may choose to use some or all of it at Old Navy. But I probably won't.

        See the difference here?
        The tax relief has got to be specifically related to HIRING or else businesses will not use it to create jobs.
        As to being competitive, not all businesses, especially smaller businesses, are competing internationally.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          +1

        2. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I see the difference MM, but you also have to understand the implications.

          Obama is saying that there are 1 million jobs that would be created, if the cost of creating them were reduced, for one year, by 10%. That means there are companies with 90% of the money needed to do the hiring. It means there is enough demand to do the hiring. It means the companies want to do the hiring.

          If companies want to do the hiring, and there is demand for it, then they have a business reason to do so: It will grow their operations/revenues/profits.

          So, if the market has the demand, and companies have 90% of the money, and they want to do the hiring, then it would be a good business decision to do so, no matter where the money comes from. A specific tax break, or a general tax break. They won't do the hiring unless it will make them money either way.

          To be frank, it's a stupid claim that it would create a million jobs. It's a one-time tax break of 10% of those expenses. If an employer can afford to pay an employee $45,000 this year, but not $50,000, why would they hire the employee if next year they are forced to pay $50,000?

          Employers don't want a constantly changing environment and short-term fixes, they want a competitive, stable environment.

          There are more problems than that as well, but I doubt you will respond if I bring them up.

          And by the way, your example is very bad.

  7. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    A lot of people believe that America is the land of opportunity unlimited for anyone willing to work hard, but the immense growth in wealth and income inequality and declining intergenerational mobility show that this a myth.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No.

      The American Dream is very much alive and well. Income mobility is high, it's only low when you look at it from a relative perspective, and then compare relative %'s from country to country.

  8. Jean Bakula profile image94
    Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago

    MM, you could be right. Many will vote for Romney just because he's not Obama. Some will believe he has business knowledge because he's rich. I still think Obama gets a bad rap, he didn't start these wars, and a lot of cash could be saved by chopping the military budget. They have enough weapons to destroy the world many times over. It seems Obama is having money difficulties too, so I'm not sure how it will play out.

  9. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    One more of The Mittster's ah ha! moments: "I like to fire people!"

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      One more example of purposefully taking a person's comments out of context to misrepresent their statement.

      Mitt was talking about people and companies that he does business with. He likes to 'fire' them by taking his business elsewhere.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Prediction: Ralph won't respond, or he will say something like 'It might not be what he was actually saying, but it shows a lot about his character'.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Bain's vampire capitalism tactics was, in large part, based on firing America workers and sending their jobs to China, Mexico and other countries where workers are exploited by low wages and working in unsafe, unhygienic, polluting plants.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, come off it Ralph.

          ""I like being able to fire people who provide services to me"

          He wasn't talking about firing employees.

          "You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say, 'I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.'"

          You know that, but you want to 'say anything' to make Romney look bad.

          As far as Bain, which is a completely different topic... I've addressed this half a dozen times, and you haven't been able to put forward a single argument to the contrary.

        2. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But it's okay with you that Obama's (OUR) stimulus $ created jobs overseas?

          1. undermyhat profile image59
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            or that Star City has benefitted from the collapse of the shuttle program? or that the bogus solar power company Solyndra, a transfer of taxypayer dollars to Obama bundlers, bought Chinese equipment, or,or,or....

            Obama is a disaster.

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not sure what you're referring to. There have long been plenty of incentives for US companies to outsource jobs overseas:  slave wages, no effective unions, weak or non-existent industrial safety and environmental regulation, and the un-repatriated profits corporate tax loophole. Romney's Bane Capital is one of the most rapacious practitioners of off-shoring. If Mittens isn't elected rumor has it he has an offer of the lead role in a fourth Batman sequel tentatively titled "Bane Returns Born Again."

            1. habee profile image90
              habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              According to Democrats Chuck Schumer, Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, and Bob Casey:

              http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33847.html

  10. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Stable environment?
    You must be talking about public sector employers. Oh wait. That sector isn't stable anymore either.
    Hmmmm.

    1. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You know it!   The last time I worked for the public sector, the administration that took over instituted more stringent rules which were not even listed in the civil service bylaws.   Furthermore, more and more people were well............bidded adieu, if you know what I mean.

    2. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, stable is good. Every time the POTUS or Congress has a different party, things start changing. People don't like it.

      Nice deflection, by the way.

      It's sad how little discussion takes place on discussion forums. Just deflect the argument, ignore the argument, or change the subject.

      MM, do you think that multinational investors take tax rates into account when deciding where to invest?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What really turns them on are slave wages, no unions, no safety or hygiene or environmental regulations.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It's disturbing to see how incapable people are of actually having a discussion, making specific, substantiated arguments and counter-arguments...

          Oh well... The independent thinkers are the ones who actually are swayed by fact.

    3. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My favorite thing about public jobs, are how stable they can be in pay.

      Heck, who cares if the USPS loses billions of dollars per year. Let's hire entry-level, part-time workers at $19/hr. That's stable!

      Oh yeah, btw... every taxpayer in the country(well, the ones who pay taxes, you know, the top 50% of Americans) are going to have to foot the bill for our overpayment of wages. Good plan.

  11. JSChams profile image59
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6939924_f248.jpg

  12. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Romney totally crashed and burned in London where the press compared him unfavorably to Sarah Palin.

    1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
      prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      He is doing good in London! smile smile

      "There's guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know if we are ready. Are we ready? Yes we are!" — London Mayor Boris Johnson to a raucous crowd in London's Hyde Park after the arrival of the Olympic flame.

      — Rob Harris — Twitter

    2. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this
      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And he could,t remember the name of the head of the Labor Pcarty; and,contrary to protocol, he publicly mentioned that he had been briefed by the head of Mi6. He was called out by Cameron and the mayor of London and the British media. At least he didn,t barf on any at a state dinner as Bush I did in Japan.

        He was correct about the Olympics issues, but everybody agrees it was a gaffe for him to bring them up in a public statement.

        1. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Everybody," agrees, Ralph? lol. I don't think he should have mentioned it there, either, but I do think he has some valid points.

  13. profile image0
    screamingposted 4 years ago

    LMAO...amazing how the hunt for defense links come out of the woodwork!

 
working