Armstrong Vs. Obama

[cheri1122]

What are you talking about. He had no responsibility to make the us better at main. Sorry cherri but your post doesn't make sense. You try to stop someone from saying that was his job to create income for the investors well sorry it was. You can try to turn it into something else but it doesn't change that fact. His business career was an immense success and created thousands of jobs that cannot be argued. During his tenure something like 80% of bsins investments were successful.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums

If my post makes no sense to you, it's because you're judging Romney solely by his responsibility to create more profit for his employers, while I'm judging him on his responsibility as a citizen, because I think that's kind of an important factor for a potential POTUS.
He knew that outsourcing jobs would benefit the few [more profit and return on investment] while harming the many [increasing unemployment & the tax base] and he made the choice to place his responsibility to his employers above his responsibility as a citizen. I'm sure if he were the whiz he's portrayed as, he could [and would] have found a way to avoid causing undue harm to either. But just as he chose to place his money in offshore accounts to avoid US taxes, his self interest prevailed over his duty as a citizen, and I see that as immoral.
The issue isn't whether he has a right to make a profit, it's about what he did when that conflicted with his obligation to support the country that supports him. He didn't givea**** about the jobs of the middle class, and he still doesn't, IMO.
Very telling remark: addressing the issue of skyrocketing tuition, [and I think education is a critical part of prosperity], his solution? "Borrow it from your parents."
He has no clue about being middle class, struggling to pay the bills, much less save for retirement [invest? that would sure enrich his friends, but it's not such a sure bet for the rest of us] and he isn't interested in learning, obviously.

 

[layoutshooter]

When a person is in charge of a company his responsibility is not to the Nation, it is to the best job to improve the company or get rid of it if needed.

The responsibility to the employees is to have a safe work place, pay them as required, assuming they do their job, and IF they are laid off, follow legal process.

That's it.

The primary purpose of business is profit, for it's owner(s) and stockholders in the case of a publicly traded company, not providing jobs.

The responsibility of a president is FAR different. While I am no fan of Romney I do believe he would be more likely to uphold the responsibilities of that office FAR better than Obama has. Obama has not accepted responsibility for ANYTHING.

 

[Ragman]

The primary purpose of business is profit, for it's owner(s) and stockholders in the case of a publicly traded company, not providing jobs.

The responsibility of a president is FAR different.

Which is why A businessman should never be considered for elected office.
The government is NOT a business.

 

[layoutshooter]

Which is why A businessman should never be considered for elected office.
The government is NOT a business.

I don't want him as president, although, just because he was able to accept the responsibility of business does not mean that he could not or would not accept the responsibility of public office.

The government is also not a charity and the current putz seems to think it is. Only he raises the money to give to others by force.

Which is worse?

 

[davekc]

Which is why A businessman should never be considered for elected office.
The government is NOT a business.

Maybe it is time that it is ran by a businessman. Obama hasn't as much ran a garage sale let alone anything else and look what we have. A guy that is in way over his head.

As for Cheri's post, his function wasn't to make investments based on the Nation. But if we are going to rip him for jobs lossed, then one has to give him credit for jobs created. As to what is immoral is subjective. Make poor investments and hurt portfolios that affect investors many of whom are retired, or fund a unprofitable company. No right or wrong answer.

As for telling students to "borrow money from their parents" that was a stupid comment. Can't argue that. If we are to have government money for students, better start getting a handle on that 16T of debt. Taxing the rich will once again, do nothing. Just not enough of them to support the amount needed for student loans.

 

[layoutshooter]

Government is not a business and not meant to operate at a profit. It should also NEVER be in debt. It is so bad now that it will take decades of major profits to even try to clean up the mess we have. The debt may never be paid off but there is NO chance it will be as long as we continue to operate with deficit spending.

 

[davekc]

The debt is the biggest problem. That by itself controls everything else from entitlements to student loans. Like I said before, if the problem keeps getting worse, the poor will be the first to take a hit from it. Sadly, some don't realize that. "Just print some more". The bad news is as the dollar drops in value, that 3 dollar gallon of milk becomes 5. The folks at the bottom are guaranteed to take a hit.

 

[layoutshooter]

Which is exactly why I say that Marxists and socialists don't give a rats patute about the very people that they pretend to care about. The poor are kept in their place to insure the power of the government. IF, and when, the poor get reamed, the government won't care and then, and only then, will the hopefully realize how badly they have been used. When they do the will likely lash out.

 

[Pilgrim]

As for telling students to "borrow money from their parents" that was a stupid comment. Can't argue that. If we are to have government money for students, better start getting a handle on that 16T of debt. Taxing the rich will once again, do nothing. Just not enough of them to support the amount needed for student loans.

When taken in the full context of his speech, it's not that stupid. It's not uncommon for parents to pay for their kids' college education even in this day of grossly inflated tuitions and fees. Should that be considered a loan or a gift? It's also not uncommon any more for parents to into hock to pay for their kids' tuition so they can go to the "right" school and spend five or six years majoring in Urban Studies or some other usless curriculum. At any rate, it's a fool's choice whether the parents or the kids take on debt to take on a financial obligation beyond their means. Romney encouraged these college kids to borrow money from their parents (which would probably have inherent limitations and conditions), while Barack Hussein Obama encourages these same young people to borrow money from the American taxpayers with virtually no limits and the certainty of starting a career after college (if they're lucky) with a mountain of debt hanging over them. Which makes more sense? In most cases it's a lot easier to deal with your parents than the faceless bureaucrats of the US Govt, and the parents always have the option to say "no". A college education is not an entitlement.

 

[xiggi]

Which is why A businessman should never be considered for elected office.
The government is NOT a business.

The government is absolutely a business and a business person understands you must balance a budget.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums

 

[xiggi]

If my post makes no sense to you, it's because you're judging Romney solely by his responsibility to create more profit for his employers, while I'm judging him on his responsibility as a citizen, because I think that's kind of an important factor for a potential POTUS.
He knew that outsourcing jobs would benefit the few [more profit and return on investment] while harming the many [increasing unemployment & the tax base] and he made the choice to place his responsibility to his employers above his responsibility as a citizen. I'm sure if he were the whiz he's portrayed as, he could [and would] have found a way to avoid causing undue harm to either. But just as he chose to place his money in offshore accounts to avoid US taxes, his self interest prevailed over his duty as a citizen, and I see that as immoral.
The issue isn't whether he has a right to make a profit, it's about what he did when that conflicted with his obligation to support the country that supports him. He didn't givea**** about the jobs of the middle class, and he still doesn't, IMO.
Very telling remark: addressing the issue of skyrocketing tuition, [and I think education is a critical part of prosperity], his solution? "Borrow it from your parents."
He has no clue about being middle class, struggling to pay the bills, much less save for retirement [invest? that would sure enrich his friends, but it's not such a sure bet for the rest of us] and he isn't interested in learning, obviously.

He did not outsource any large number of jobs for starters. His duties as a citizen was performed very well. He provided job and made money for investors including those on pensions. I am not sure where your infinitely is coming from but most of it seems to be factually flawed.

Not sure but i have to ask are you trying to make a case for bo because there is only two people in this race.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums

 

[Humble2drive]

The government is absolutely a business and a business person understands you must balance a budget.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums

Unfortunately, the Government is far from a business and cannot be run like a business.
I am not just referring to the obvious which is a lack of a profit motive which drives private business toward efficiency and profit but also how they are able to manage.
Sure, a business person understands that you must balance a budget and a business person has the tools to do just that. Those tools and options are not available to the leader of our country making it a much more difficult and sometimes impossible task.
A business can increase revenues to cover their expenses by selling more goods and/or services which is often a win win for both the company and for consumers. A Government is severely limited in it's ability to increase revenue by raising taxes. This is both a loss for it's citizens and a loss for the leader who needs to remain re-electable.
The CEO of a business can implement changes swiftly and immediately from the top down. The leader of our Government must send most plans for change through a large group of people who can change or stop those plans based on their own self interest or the interests of special interest groups.
I could think of many other differences, blah blah, etc. etc. , but the similarities between business and Government do not seem absolute. If they were we probably wouldn't be in this mess.

 

[xiggi]

Unfortunately, the Government is far from a business and cannot be run like a business.
I am not just referring to the obvious which is a lack of a profit motive which drives private business toward efficiency and profit but also how they are able to manage.
Sure, a business person understands that you must balance a budget and a business person has the tools to do just that. Those tools and options are not available to the leader of our country making it a much more difficult and sometimes impossible task.
A business can increase revenues to cover their expenses by selling more goods and/or services which is often a win win for both the company and for consumers. A Government is severely limited in it's ability to increase revenue by raising taxes. This is both a loss for it's citizens and a loss for the leader who needs to remain re-electable.
The CEO of a business can implement changes swiftly and immediately from the top down. The leader of our Government must send most plans for change through a large group of people who can change or stop those plans based on their own self interest or the interests of special interest groups.
I could think of many other differences, blah blah, etc. etc. , but the similarities between business and Government do not seem absolute. If they were we probably wouldn't be in this mess.

Not running the financial side like a business is why we have so much debt today.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums

 

[Humble2drive]

Not running the financial side like a business is why we have so much debt today.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums

How do you run the financial side like a business?

One of the keys to business success is increasing revenues while cutting expenses. Increased revenues is key to business survival.
If you attempt to raise our Government revenue through taxes the people will turn on you.
Mitt Romney's plan for our country is to severely decrease revenue through Bush style tax cuts. The opposite of a business model.
Have you ever heard of a failing business being saved by purposely decreasing their revenues??
Just saying Government is such a different animal from business that hoping for a business expert to come in and turn it around like a company may be a bit naive.*
Now for a pure business solution:
If we could export everyone over 65 to China, we could make Medicare and Social Security solvent overnight. Plus the roads would be safer and the grocery lines shorter.
That would be a smart business solution.*

 

[cubansammich]

GWB was a business man. Bill Clinton was not. Under which administration did more people prosper?

 

[cubansammich]

What would make you say that I don't know what it is?

I am opposed to ANY socialized government program. I am opposed to the federal government MANDATE the I buy ANYTHING. I am opposed to 14 persons, appointed by the president, to run Medicare, without congressional over sight.

I have ALREADY cancelled my insurance, written Obama, my former congressman and both senators, informing them of that and making it QUITE clear that I REFUSE to pay the fine.

Marxism and socialism are very bad, don't work. You cannot show me ONE U.S. socialist program that works, that is not in debt, that is not near going bankrupt and not overwhelmed by fraud and corruption.

Sorry, I never did welcome you to the forums! What kind of expediter are you? Strait truck? Van? T/T? Just starting? Again, welcome to the club.

Are you mandated to purchase auto insurance in your state? The Affordable Care Act isn't much different than that. It isn't socialized medicine, that's for sure.

Thanks for the welcome. I'm in a van. been at it a long time.

 

[Turtle]

Are you mandated to purchase auto insurance in your state? The Affordable Care Act isn't much different than that.

No, I'm not mandated to buy auto insurance. There isn't a single state in these United States, not one, which requires its citizens to purchase auto insurance as a requirement for citizenship. The Affordable Care Act is dramatically different than that. If you want to drive a car, you have to have auto insurance, but if you choose not to drive a car, the purchase of auto insurance is absolutely not mandated in any way, shape for form. The Affordable Care Act mandates health insurance for citizens as a condition of being a legal citizen, of living here, of breathing.

It isn't socialized medicine, that's for sure.

That's precisely what it is. It establishes and regulates medical health insurance in direct compliance with the theories of socialism. That's the actual definition of socialized medicine.

 

[Humble2drive]

GWB was a business man. Bill Clinton was not. Under which administration did more people prosper?

Good question:

Clinton presided over the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history.

That all fell apart when GWB decided that he would be the first to cut taxes while financing a war. Then when the Clinton "pay as you go" requirement expired it was off to the races.

 

[Humble2drive]

If you want to drive a car, you have to have auto insurance, but if you choose not to drive a car, the purchase of auto insurance is absolutely not mandated in any way, shape for form. The Affordable Care Act mandates health insurance for citizens as a condition of being a legal citizen, of living here, of breathing.

Is it fair that everyone who utilizes an automobile must pay for insurance in able to participate?

If so, would it be fair to extend that argument to healthcare by recognizing that the reality is that everyone who lives here and breathes here does or will use our healthcare system at some point. Shouldn't they pay something in order to participate?

I think that there can be no argument that we all pay for those free loaders through higher premiums and higher healthcare costs.
Which will end up costing us more??

 

[Turtle]

Is it fair that everyone who utilizes an automobile must pay for insurance in able to participate?

They aren't participating, they are making a choice to operate the vehicle, and therefor must show they are able to financially handle their obligations that can arise from accident or injury. You still have a choice to not operate a vehicle, and therefor aren't mandated to buy insurance.

If so, would it be fair to extend that argument to healthcare by recognizing that the reality is that everyone who lives here and breathes here does or will use our healthcare system at some point. Shouldn't they pay something in order to participate?

Yes, they should. I went to the doctor two days ago, and at the end of my visit I handed them my debit card and paid the bill. It was pretty simple.

I think that there can be no argument that we all pay for those free loaders through higher premiums and higher healthcare costs.
Which will end up costing us more??

Why assume that we must pay for the freeloaders? We don't have to.