jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (32 posts)

Voting for Romney on the economy makes no sense.

  1. Josak profile image60
    Josakposted 3 years ago

    The favorite conservative line of the year is to decry the economy and it's slow growth but that is not the reality, since Obama's election we have tripled our GDP growth and corporate profits are at a historic never before seen high, the economy is doing fine, what isn't doing well are the American people, Romney is running on a campaign of aiding big business to create wealth but big business is the ONE group doing very well economically.

    The people who are struggling are the average people and they need the government to encourage the speeding up of the trickle down from massive profits to more jobs and better wages, out of our two effective choices, Obama and Romney, it is obvious who is going to do more to ensure the poor receive a portion of that wealth.

    1. 0
      Peelander Gallyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You'd think people would have noticed that the trickle-down concept doesn't work by now, but I guess that'd be expecting too much. I've said it a few times and I'll keep saying it: I have no idea where the "No one can find a job!" argument is coming from. Back in '09, yes. Now, no. It's deeply disturbing how successful corporate-funded media outlets have been at scaring people silly, and I can only hope that some years from now teenagers look back on it as they're reading about propaganda campaigns in their American history texts and shake their heads in disbelief.

    2. 60
      lordwayposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Fact Check: You said our GDP growth has tripled since Obama has become President.  Look at the GDP curve for yourself and you will see the slope is more or less where it has been since 1978.  The only exception to having growth since 1960 was when we had a significant drop (~$400 Billion) in 2009 on Obama's watch.

      What you don't seem to get is that we need to foster a competitive environment for business to stay here and not keep sending jobs overseas.  We need to do that regardless of who benefits and loses in your eyes. The rich already pay higher tax rates on their personal tax returns than the average tax payer so thank God for having lots of wealthy Americans.  Lets not make them the enemy and give them any more reason to leave with their wealth.  If we do the US economy will start to look more and more like Mexico.  Unfortunately with a democracy like ours with "representation without taxation" and human greed being what it is, this seems to be where we are headed.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh man that was funny.

        The last quarter of 2008 had a negative growth of -8.9% we were going backwards fast.

        http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center … Growth.pdf

        Today our economic growth is around +2.3% so actually economic growth has more than quadrupled since Obama took power.

        Also the Mexican economy is doing pretty well despite the drug wars, Mexico might still be quite poor because it started out that way and was devastated by fascism and revolution but their GDP growth rate is above 5.5% and their unemployment is lower, Mexico is an improving country so using their economy as a scare tactic is pretty hilariously weak. Try again.

  2. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    The reality is, most people don't pay enough attention to know what really works and doesn't work. They don't know the impacts of a liberal president's policies compared to his conservative congress, or vice versa.

    Clinton gets credit for the jobs created during the dot-com bubble, Bush had to deal with the crash of the dot-com bubble.

    Various laws and regulation changes for the course of more than a decade went into creating and crashing the housing bubble.

    Very few people actually understand how large businesses function, or the true cost of hiring people.

    It's the economy, and it's complicated.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's the economy and it is getting better is something the right wingnuts don't want to get heard. The only argument that they can make is the speed at which it is rebounding. This is just comical as we spent 8 to 10 years driving the economy into a collapsing corner but they expect or should I say demand that it recover in just four. Just as Romneys' plan doesn't make sense neither does the impatience of those that wrecked it in the first place.

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        rhamson, well said, and he really only had two years before Congress froze up the system, gummed up the works, etc. However, Obama being the good man and leader that he is made progress anyway smile And as I have shown graphs and statisitcs to prove this is true, some will still buy the delusional propaganda....It's really a scary day if the lies and money win this election...

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, Obama is a great leader who understands how to help the economy.

          Did you know that he plans to create a million jobs with tax cuts? Yeah, those tax cuts that don't work?

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Tax cuts when the cuts are directly related to hiring are A) a liberal idea using the hand of government to steer commerce B) Not what Romney wants to do.

            As for simple non targeted tax break American economic history research by the CRS show they have zero correlation with economic growth (they in fact have a slight negative correlation.)

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Only makes sense if you don't understand how business works, and don't understand supply and demand.

              If a company has

              1 - The funds to hire
              2 - The desire to hire
              3 - The demand to hire

              They will do so. If they are lacking only in funds, then why will a 10% reduction in first-year hiring costs stimulate more hiring than a 10% permanent reduction in all costs? The ONLY way that kind of tax break can stimulate hiring, is if the ONLY thing missing from the company is money. If the company wants to hire and the market has the demand to justify it, it doesn't matter where the money comes from.

          2. tammybarnette profile image60
            tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Tax cuts work used in the right place, You knew what I meant there smile

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this


              Specifically, why would a tax cut only for hiring expenses cause a company that wasn't going to hire, to hire? What obstacle that was keeping the company from hiring would that overcome?

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Actually as I understand it and I could be wrong here it's been some time since I studied it the plan would simply cut general taxes on a company who hires people thus simply providing a financial incentive to employ.

                I see where you are going with this "if the taxes weren't there then they could hire in the first place" but given the facts it doesn't really work tax breaks simply put more money in the pockets of the company with which they can do a variety of things on the other hand focused tax breaks put more money in a companies pockets only if they hire thus providing an incentive to hire rather than simply collect more profit.

                P.S. the legislation also covers tax cuts for major business purchases.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It would give a tax break only on the costs of the increased hiring. So if a company pays a 20% effective tax rate, and employs a new person at total cost of $50,000/year, they will get a one-year tax break of $10,000.

                  It's a very short-term, very small stimulus. Short-term stimulus' create almost 0 demand.

                  The thing is, companies don't need an incentive to hire. If the demand is there, it's in their best interests to hire. The more hiring a company can justify with demand, the more money they will make. The free market provides the incentive, giving a company money can only overcome capital problems.

                  A one-year 20% reduction in costs isn't going to do much.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I believe the program is being extended and lengthened (or at least the Senate Dems are attempting to do so and being blocked).

                    With both employment and major purchases you are correct that only demand can create that need but an incentive can encourage businesses to take that leap sooner thus acting as an economic incentive/stimulus and if the venture is successful (be it the hire or the purchase) it will encourage the economy to grow sooner than it otherwise would have due to businesses taking that step earlier.

  3. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 3 years ago

    The economy is really a simple concept, money has to flow. The difference between the liberal concept and that of a conservative is the direction of the flow.

    Liberals want money to flow in a straight line from the top levels downward with multiple governmental dams along the way to redirect the flow on its way to the bottom, siphoning off volume at each dam for even more downward distribution to lower levels. Conservatives understand money must flow in a circle constantly replenishing volume at every point along the path.

    The dissimilarity between the paths is Liberals believe and assume the top level is an infinite well that cannot be emptied. Of course the debt and the stagnation of our current economy demonstrate the fallacy in this belief. Conservatives understand that when the flow is constant the source point is constantly refilled, further when the flow is uninterrupted it speeds up causing the confines of the channel to widen.

    The difference in governmental types is the liberal agenda is a dam, and the conservative method is the banks. One method creates flow the other stops it. Only one process is ever successful, where it gets complicated is the engineering required to steer the flow so all points are replenished.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Seems you rather missed the point of my post, the fact is that the upper echelon you are referring to has never been better, best profit margins in history.

      You are absolutely correct that money flows but it flows at different rates, the error in your description is the adjective of the dams in your plan it seems that money goes into a "dam" and then it stops and never moves again, that is not the case at all to continue your metaphor that money is given to people generally poor people and poor people spend that money much faster than rich people, a guy who can barely pay rent puts all his money "flowing" immediately a man who has plenty will leave it in a bank and the faster money flows the more it digs out the channel (we are starting to overextend this metaphor) the poor guy spends his money immediately and that flows back through the system faster that in itself grows the economy.

      That is precisely why if you have a good look around the world you will see that the systems that do this most are the ones growing fastest and/or with the best quality of life.

      1. readytoescape profile image60
        readytoescapeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        We can argue semantics all day but I do need to waste the day on a simple point. Take notice of the word “redirect.” You are applying nothing more than the liberal tactic of class warfare to complicate and confuse a basic concept. A successful and vibrant economy must be cyclical.
        The simple point you are trying to obscure is Obama wants to redirect the money in the economy to where he and liberals want to spend it and Romney wants money to flow so that all can participate and grow.
        The voting choice really is quite simple.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Money never stops flowing but it flows faster and slower it is a mathematical fact that the poor spend money fastest and thus the money goes round more times faster thus growing the economy those are economic facts, nothing to do with class warfare which is just the baseless rubbish conservatives throw out when the facts don't match their argument.

        2. tammybarnette profile image60
          tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, you have that backwards, Obama wants the participation and satisfaction of all, Romney wants to redirect the money to his special interest groups, Like all conservatives for the past many decades...I was studying an article in Forbes mag last night. They were making some economic points about Clinton, W, and Obama, something very interesting is how much the reaction of the people drives any policy into better or worse circumstances....At this point in history, The ugliest, most corrupt, presidential election in history...We have billions being spent by the right on propaganda to scare people into socking back money instead of spending, since the economy has improved and would be the natural reaction, inorder too cause the economy to contract which will be a behavioral self- fulfilling prophecy...My wish would be for the people to learn NOT to vote and react against their own best interest

  4. Wayne Brown profile image83
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    Your tripling of the GDP is a very sad number and created primarily by government spending not market expansion.  As for corporate profits, maybe you did not notice the steady drop of the stock market over the past two weeks based primarily on the report profit short falls of various corporations.  ~WB

    1. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Banks were among the biggest decliners, with Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase dragging on the Dow.Citigroup shares fell sharply after MA regulators fined one of the bank's unit $2 mill for failing to prevent analyst from illegally leaking financial information about facebooks IPO," CNN Money

      1. tammybarnette profile image60
        tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this
  5. American View profile image58
    American Viewposted 3 years ago

    Well I have to admit, I am now very curious. If companies are at record profits, what is keeping them from expanding? Why is there no growth. Since when is 2% or less growth outstanding? I guess when it happens under Obama because under any other President everyone would be calling for his scalp.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Saying 'record profits' is misleading. OF course, with a growing economy, we expect record profits every year we reach new levels of GDP.

      The real obstacles are:

      Lack of demand from having 23 million un/underemployed.
      Regulatory/Tax uncertainty for the future. Nobody wants to hire a bunch of people, and have their taxes go up next year. Obamacare is going to increase the cost of employing people, so companies are saving up for that, or even cutting back in preparation.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I did not say the GDP growth was outstanding though it's steady and healthy what I said was it's several times what it was when Obama took power (when it was in fact negative) that's an impressive achievement.

      Corporate profits are at their highest rate in American history which #1 is historically a sign of a growing economy #2 means the corporate sector is doing just fine as for why aren't they hiring it's a three part answer.

      #1 They are but not terribly much, the employment situation is slowly improving.
      #2 Confidence is still recovering, we had a big crash and investors are understandably wary, time will heal that.
      #3 Corporations may be awaiting the results of the election before doing anything so they know how to invest.

  6. grand old lady profile image87
    grand old ladyposted 3 years ago

    Rich people like making money and they can get huge profits by outsourcing or hiring people overseas at a fraction of what they can pay Americans. Why would they want to spoil their own fun? And car sales are gonna go up all over the world, why spend money on trying to invent an eco friendly car when things are going so well now with a potential market for their existing stock? Ga stations make millionaires. I know someone who owns 17 of them. What happens when the new cars don't need gas anymore? The truth is, the status quo is very convenient for folks like Romney and other billionaires. He's their man.

  7. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Romney hasn't said anything beyond "Trust me! I know how to get the economy growing and making jobs." As Obama said he's a bull sxxt artist in public and a ruthless character in private. He says he'll cut taxes for everyone, eliminate the deficit and create 4? million jobs. What a crock! He wrapped himself around Paul Ryan for a while but now, in his etch a sketch mode, has turned him into a "closet case" confined to small fund raising events.