Debate #1

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

Romney's career was made by parting companies out for a profit, not structuring them for sustained growth...and there's a BIG difference.
-spence

Check out a company called Staples........

Not mention being a Governor
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Check out a company called Staples........

Staples was one of Bain's earliest and biggest success stories.

But the point is still sound, the objective of private equity is rarely to take long-term risk, it's to structure a short-term deal that they can derive profit from.

Romney has executive experience certainly, but to say his business background somehow gives him grand insight into what the US needs to be successful is a bit of a stretch.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Staples was one of Bain's earliest and biggest success stories. But the point is still sound, the objective of private equity is rarely to take long-term risk, it's to structure a short-term deal that they can derive profit from. Romney has executive experience certainly, but to say his business background somehow gives him grand insight into what the US needs to be successful is a bit of a stretch. -spence

"Romney has executive experience certainly, but to say his business background somehow gives him grand insight into what the US needs to be successful is a bit of a stretch"

WOW. OK, Spence. So in 2008, what was on Obama's resume that convinced you he had the grand insight into what the US needs? What had Obama done before 2008, that was more relevent to being POTUS than Romney's executive experience?

Spence, when you post here, you would do well to remember that we aren't all thoughtless lemmings.

P.S. If you don't htiunk that executive experience in the business world makes him qualified, how about his executive experience in the political world? The man was governor of Massachusetts.

[Piscator]

Stop all this BS spending, that is a great start. I'm in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Piscator

Stop all this BS spending, that is a great start. I'm in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, Romney's proposal to cut PBS has great merit. He's really focused on the problem.

-spence

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, Romney's proposal to cut PBS has great merit. He's really focused on the problem.

-spence

You make me giggle.......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Scuttlebutt]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, Romney's proposal to cut PBS has great merit. He's really focused on the problem.

-spence

Last time I checked there was no requirement in the Constitution for taxpayers to support a public tv station. Privatize it. Romney's comments were symbolic...anyone could see that.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, Romney's proposal to cut PBS has great merit. He's really focused on the problem.

-spence

0.00012% of the budget saved!
BIG MONEY! NO WHAMMIES!

[JohnR]

Big Bird will be fine. Jack up Elmo's licensing fees by 2-3% and you'll probably cover the meager funds federal government spends on Public Broadcasting.

The point was - for those that chose to ignore it - if we are going to continue to borrow money from our children and children's children we should at least see if it passes the smell test. We are spending far too much to be borrowing on anything and everything. Both Parties are responsible for this.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Big Bird will be fine. Jack up Elmo's licensing fees by 2-3% and you'll probably cover the meager funds federal government spends on Public Broadcasting.

The point was - for those that chose to ignore it - if we are going to continue to borrow money from our children and children's children we should at least see if it passes the smell test. We are spending far too much to be borrowing on anything and everything. Both Parties are responsible for this.

He used a super right hyped item that the mouth breathers salivate over.
Nothing more, nothing less.

The fact that the dog and pony show is being discussed any more than "wow, that was a waste of time, neither brought anything new to the table" is amazing.

Romney is a business man, of course he's going to win a debate, his job is to make you feel all warm and fuzzy while jamming it up your back end. Obama is a politician, his job is to make you feel all warm and fuzzy while jamming it up your back end.

[PaulS]

I'm confused, where did the "severely conservative" go? This is the guy I could vote for - but how can I be sure he won't change his stripes again?

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I'm confused, where did the "severely conservative" go? This is the guy I could vote for - but how can I be sure he won't change his stripes again?

I never saw r as severly conservative. he has changed his stripes on some issues, but so has obama (gay marriage?)

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I never saw r as severly conservative. he has changed his stripes on some issues, but so has obama (gay marriage?)

While Romney said it, I never believed him. Atleast Obama said his thoughts evolved.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by PaulS

While Romney said it, I never believed him. Atleast Obama said his thoughts evolved.

so if you dont believe what Romney says, do you judge him on his actions?
The guy was the governor of one of the most liberal states, had first state healthcare, supported education. Those were his actions?
Just curious.

[Scuttlebutt]

I saw this last night...is this the leader we want to bring this country together...you decide!

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/02/ob...S8XIOcpzf13thD

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

so if you dont believe what Romney says, do you judge him on his actions?
The guy was the governor of one of the most liberal states, had first state healthcare, supported education. Those were his actions?
Just curious.

Depends on a lot of things. Did he change his mind based on more facts. Did he try to do what he said he would do and couldn't get it done. Did he deny he did some of the things he did. Etc.

If he ran on his record in Mass, I'd vote for him. Not so sure now.

[sburnsey931]

If I had a leaky pipe I wouldn't call an electrician.
The country has an economic problem trying compete globally. We hired a community organizer to do the job. His expertize was in spending other peoples money. We got exactly what we paid for.
Might be a good idea to hire a successful businessman to help us out.Only with a strong economy and strong tax base will we ever be able to get out of debt.
Hell I'd Warren Buffett before I'd re-elect the President
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Scuttlebutt]

Come on. What's the beef with someone being successful...honestly. Aren't you tired of ripping successful people. This is the USA for cripes sake. We are flush with successful people. Land of opportunity remember. This BS about "he/she makes more money than me (or is more successful than me) and I want some of if" has to go. Wah, wah, wah...Boo frickity whoo! Try this... get a job, start at the bottom, work your ass off...voila! That's what my wife and I did. Married at 22. Moved into an apartment with my belongings in a shoebox and $500 from our wedding. I'm not rich by any means but we saved for a modest house...raised two great kids...and socked a little coin away for the golden years and maybe a new reel. No handouts from anyone...been working our butts off (and paying our share of income taxes) since we were 16. See it can be done! Success!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I think he was stunned by the level of BS Romney was spewing forth.

If Romney was spewing a ton of BS and Obama was stunned by it - in a debate - by a boring moderator - then maybe he should remove himself from consideration for not being up to task. That was a debate, it wasn't a meeting with skilled leaders from across the world in a Yalta like moment.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Scuttlebutt

Come on. What's the beef with someone being successful...honestly. Aren't you tired of ripping successful people. This is the USA for cripes sake. We are flush with successful people. Land of opportunity remember. This BS about "he/she makes more money than me (or is more successful than me) and I want some of if" has to go. Wah, wah, wah...Boo frickity whoo! Try this... get a job, start at the bottom, work your ass off...voila! That's what my wife and I did. Married at 22. Moved into an apartment with my belongings in a shoebox and $500 from our wedding. I'm not rich by any means but we saved for a modest house...raised two great kids...and socked a little coin away for the golden years and maybe a new reel. No handouts from anyone...been working our butts off (and paying our share of income taxes) since we were 16. See it can be done! Success!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"What's the beef with someone being successful"

The liberal beef with success/wealth is based on the liberal lie that wealth is finite, meaning that the more money the rich have, the less there is for the rest of us. The fact that that notion is demonstrably false does not matter to these people.

Liberalism depends upon making large enough numbers of people feel that the government, and only the government, is capable of fairly distributing the limited wealth that's out there.

Liberals don't want people to know this simnple truth...want to be self-sufficient for life? Get B's in high school, go to a state university and major in nursing or physical therapy. There. You are self sufficient for life, if you are willing to work hard. Guaranteed middle-class lifestyle that's within reach of 95% of Americans, IF YOU ARE WILLING to work a bit and be show some responsibility.

To the people who bash the successful/wealthy...rich people are not the problem. If you want to identify the problem, chances are you'll see it by looking in the mirror.

[Saltheart]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"What's the beef with someone being successful"


Liberalism depends upon making large enough numbers of people feel that the government, and only the government, is capable of fairly distributing the limited wealth that's out there.

.

My only disagreement here is that its called "socialism" , not "liberalism".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Saltheart

My only disagreement here is that its called "socialism" , not "liberalism".

Saltheart, whatever you want to call it, it's a pillar of Obama's core beliefs.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Scuttlebutt

Come on. What's the beef with someone being successful...honestly. Aren't you tired of ripping successful people. This is the USA for cripes sake. We are flush with successful people. Land of opportunity remember. This BS about "he/she makes more money than me (or is more successful than me) and I want some of if" has to go. Wah, wah, wah...Boo frickity whoo! Try this... get a job, start at the bottom, work your ass off...voila! That's what my wife and I did. Married at 22. Moved into an apartment with my belongings in a shoebox and $500 from our wedding. I'm not rich by any means but we saved for a modest house...raised two great kids...and socked a little coin away for the golden years and maybe a new reel. No handouts from anyone...been working our butts off (and paying our share of income taxes) since we were 16. See it can be done! Success!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

X2 with three kids including working as a janitor and 2 jobs many years.
Working leads to contacts and hard workers are noticed and get better
offers.

[spence]

You guys are funny...

The vast majority of Democrats and even most progressives are capitalists any way you cut it. Belief that slightly more regulation or limited constraints on a free market doesn't make you a socialist...not even close.

-spence

[Scuttlebutt]

Originally Posted by spence

You guys are funny...

The vast majority of Democrats and even most progressives are capitalists any way you cut it. Belief that slightly more regulation or limited constraints on a free market doesn't make you a socialist...not even close.

-spence

Slightly more regulations and limited constraints you say...how about close to 40 percent of what my wife and I make a year. That's not so funny!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Scuttlebutt

Slightly more 're
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Looking at economics globally...yes, slightly more.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You guys are funny...

The vast majority of Democrats and even most progressives are capitalists any way you cut it. Belief that slightly more regulation or limited constraints on a free market doesn't make you a socialist...not even close.

-spence

"Belief that slightly more regulation or limited constraints on a free market doesn't make you a socialist...not even close."

But believing that the feds are entitled to anywhere near half of what anyone earns in a year, does make one a socialist.

Believeing that the solution to our problems is taxation, makes one a socialist.

Believing these things, despite the fact that they have a failure ratre of 100%, makes one an idiot.

[Saltheart]

Limited restraints on the economy or free markets may not make you a socialist but an agenda that survives only because he promises the redistribution of wealth certainly does make you a socialist.


Now I can respect the ideals of a truly devoted socialist but a guy who promotes the redistribution of wealth only to pander to a segment of voters he must have above all other voting segments to get reelected is a phony politician.

I'd much prefer the guy who says we should all be able to make our own decisions about how we want to redistribute our wealth and not be forced to by government mandate (taxes). Romney says you should have a choice as to what you do with your money then gives millions and millions of his money to charity willingly. That's the kind of guy we want for President!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Saltheart

Limited restraints on the economy or free markets may not make you a socialist but an agenda that survives only because he promises the redistribution of wealth certainly does make you a socialist.

President Obama's remark about redistribution was in the context of ensuring everybody has a shot, but praised innovation and competition as being critical to the economy.

It's quite possible that without a redistributive system -- that all parties have implicitly endorsed for decades -- we wouldn't have a middle class.

Romney says you should have a choice as to what you do with your money then gives millions and millions of his money to charity willingly. That's the kind of guy we want for President!

I'd think if any of us had tens of millions of dollars we'd be just as charitable. It's easy to give away millions when you don't need any of it.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

President Obama's remark about redistribution was in the context of ensuring everybody has a shot, but praised innovation and competition as being critical to the economy.

A shot at what? The vast amount of "redistribution" does not give everybody a shot at innovation and competition. Those are qualities that depend on individual effort and responsibility. Redistribution waters down those efforts at innovation and competition. Redistribution may give some more buying power to purchase products of innovation and competition, but when redistribution is merely a handout from a rich third party, it artificially raises the pool of money available to market those products at a higher price so the net gain may be very little, or, worse, the economy may inflate making the value of currency less thus forcing prices even higher and making third world foreign production more attractive thus shrinking the job rate in the U.S., thus requiring more handouts and continuing the downward spiral of currency and shrinking jobs and "shots" for everybocy. Artificial government redistribution does not ensure everybody a "shot," neither in context nor in reality. Organic redistribution through market forces creates the best shot.

It's quite possible that without a redistributive system -- that all parties have implicitly endorsed for decades -- we wouldn't have a middle class.

If the so-called "middle class" depends on a government redistributive system, then that system has an internal problem that will not only lead to a collapse of the "middle class," but of the whole system. A system that depends on government redistribution to survive would most likely have as a goal an end to class structure so that there would be no "middle class." The "trajectory" or "vector" of government redistribution, beyond a very basic safety net, would be a leveling effect. Ironically, the goal of the Founders did not explicitly consider the creation or maintenance of a class structure. Various "classes" might be a natural result of freedom and free market, but the original goal was individual freedom with the only garanteed equality being before the law.

I'd think if any of us had tens of millions of dollars we'd be just as charitable. It's easy to give away millions when you don't need any of it.

-spence

Then why is it necessary to progressively tax the rich at higher and higher amounts? Let them spend or give away their money as they choose, and the results will be far more varied, productive, and sustaining than forced government redistribution.