Romney held in disdain in his home state
- Thread starter OntarioVanMan
- Start date
It all come full circle of voting the devil you don't know...vs the devil we do know....
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Yes, Cheri... Romney is a flipflopper. And Obama is an unapologetic socialist. I would rather they both go rot in hell. But talking about being all about which way the political wind was blowing, we can go back to the master... Clinton. He was very popular giving the people what they wanted. He also gave the People what they wanted, if you understand what I'm saying.
I don't fault Romney for his business dealings. Business is all about profit. It's not about creating jobs. If it's more profitable to take a weak business and part it out, than to keep it going... in the end, that's supposedly good business sense. It's also good business sense to send all our jobs to China, so they can buy all the stuff they send to us. Thank you, Nixon.
Well... at least Romney has some business sense, I suppose. He wasn't a career politician, for the most part. And he wasn't a professional pot stirrer, like our current president. BTW... Obama's former career is really serving him well at his current position, isn't it? WTF is a community organizer anyway, if not a pot stirrer?
One other thing... conservatives wish for something greater than Romney. Neo-cons... not so much. RINOs... Romney is their god. I think the people who are voting for Romney, for the most part, are hoping his fiscal expertise can do something to alleviate the pressure the depression is putting on the citizenry. That is, the 53%.
I can see what Romney was trying to say, but sometimes the truth hurts the teller more than the listener. Besides... there are a helluva lot of conservatives who pay $0 income tax as well. Romney did a stereotype gaff there.
I don't fault Romney for his business dealings. Business is all about profit. It's not about creating jobs. If it's more profitable to take a weak business and part it out, than to keep it going... in the end, that's supposedly good business sense. It's also good business sense to send all our jobs to China, so they can buy all the stuff they send to us. Thank you, Nixon.
Well... at least Romney has some business sense, I suppose. He wasn't a career politician, for the most part. And he wasn't a professional pot stirrer, like our current president. BTW... Obama's former career is really serving him well at his current position, isn't it? WTF is a community organizer anyway, if not a pot stirrer?
One other thing... conservatives wish for something greater than Romney. Neo-cons... not so much. RINOs... Romney is their god. I think the people who are voting for Romney, for the most part, are hoping his fiscal expertise can do something to alleviate the pressure the depression is putting on the citizenry. That is, the 53%.
I can see what Romney was trying to say, but sometimes the truth hurts the teller more than the listener. Besides... there are a helluva lot of conservatives who pay $0 income tax as well. Romney did a stereotype gaff there.
Last edited:
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
Would you like to compare the candidates flip flops? Obama has absolutely no idea how business runs, and doesn't seem to care. On the other hand Romney knows how it works, and can help provide a clear pathway for business to once again start to grow.
Dave: slowing down the hemorrhagic spending is a high priority, no question. But I don't agree that it needs to be the first one, because the tax cuts will leave the government in even worse shape [the hiring that Romney assumes hasn't happened with prior tax cuts, has it?]with less money flowing in, and [unless business steps up and hires a lot of people] more people needing help to eat every day.
Romney's history of creating profit at the expense of everything else is not what the POTUS should have - government is not a 'for profit' enterprise, for cryin out loud!
The way to get back to fiscal sanity is to use the government's 'muscle' [leverage] to encourage business to invest in people and technology and innovative thinking, not the usual shareholder returns that they have had a laser focus on for a long time.
Stop rewarding them for evading taxes & outsourcing jobs & concentrating their wealth on the top [non] producers - the ones who manage them into bankruptcy and STILL get paid a billion bucks and then move on to the next high paid 'consulting' gig - the insanity has to end already.
Investing in our infrastructure and education and the resources we can't replace [creative people!] would be a smart move, IMO, but if there's no immediate 'return to shareholders' it won't meet Romney's approval.
And the 'trainwreck' of the last 4 years? Considering what he inherited [thanks, Bush] and dealt with [thanks, Republican obstruction] it's a miracle the man got anything done at all. It could have been a lot worse - but it could have been better, if the Republicans had placed their duty to the citizens above their goal of defeating Obama.
The R side of the aisle put their party's goal [one term for Obama] ahead of everything else, and IMO, if it wasn't treason, it was certainly malfeasance. They weren't elected to do what they did, and they didn't do what they were elected to do.
If we're not better off than 4 years ago, it's not Obama's fault - it's the politicians who were more concerned with opposing him than representing us.
Romney's history of creating profit at the expense of everything else is not what the POTUS should have - government is not a 'for profit' enterprise, for cryin out loud!
The way to get back to fiscal sanity is to use the government's 'muscle' [leverage] to encourage business to invest in people and technology and innovative thinking, not the usual shareholder returns that they have had a laser focus on for a long time.
Stop rewarding them for evading taxes & outsourcing jobs & concentrating their wealth on the top [non] producers - the ones who manage them into bankruptcy and STILL get paid a billion bucks and then move on to the next high paid 'consulting' gig - the insanity has to end already.
Investing in our infrastructure and education and the resources we can't replace [creative people!] would be a smart move, IMO, but if there's no immediate 'return to shareholders' it won't meet Romney's approval.
And the 'trainwreck' of the last 4 years? Considering what he inherited [thanks, Bush] and dealt with [thanks, Republican obstruction] it's a miracle the man got anything done at all. It could have been a lot worse - but it could have been better, if the Republicans had placed their duty to the citizens above their goal of defeating Obama.
The R side of the aisle put their party's goal [one term for Obama] ahead of everything else, and IMO, if it wasn't treason, it was certainly malfeasance. They weren't elected to do what they did, and they didn't do what they were elected to do.
If we're not better off than 4 years ago, it's not Obama's fault - it's the politicians who were more concerned with opposing him than representing us.
Said it before, but it doesn't sink in, I guess: govt is not about making a profit, which is what Romney knows. [Maybe. Given his fortunate birth into wealth and powerful political connections, thanks to his well respected father, it may be more who he knew than what he knew, IMO.]
What exactly does 'a clear pathway' mean? Lower taxes? Tried it, didn't work. Less regulation? Which regulations? Cause we the people are pretty set on having clean air and water, and safe work places and assurances that 'professionals' actually are accredited [and held responsible] and truth in advertising & lending and on & on & on, so which regs do we no longer need?
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
You cover so many topics in one post its hard to know where to start.
You do remember that Obama had a super majority for the first two years that he was the president right?
Most (53%) would say we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Is it possible that the republicans thought that Obama was going to far in his mandates, and decided that their only path was to obstruct his agenda?
Do I think Romney is the best and only answer, no. But I think he has this country's best interest at heart. The 1% that you so hate can't continue to be on top of the country , if there is no country left.
You do remember that Obama had a super majority for the first two years that he was the president right?
Most (53%) would say we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Is it possible that the republicans thought that Obama was going to far in his mandates, and decided that their only path was to obstruct his agenda?
Do I think Romney is the best and only answer, no. But I think he has this country's best interest at heart. The 1% that you so hate can't continue to be on top of the country , if there is no country left.
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
I guess that works two ways, it's not about the government making money, nor taking away the peoples money. If you think Romney knew what makes a business successful, wouldn't it stand to reason that he would know what problems can cause it to flounder? If you continue to insist that someone is only able to be super successful if they were born into it, then, well no sense trying to have a conversation.
Do you have any idea what it takes to own a business? 30 years ago you could open a small manufacturing business with one visit to your attorney, and maybe two stops at the government. Today you would need two truck loads of paper work and three months of filling out countless reams of documents just to get the process started.
Clean air, clean water, safe working conditions, no, pro business wants everyone to die. get real.
You cover so many topics in one post its hard to know where to start.
Start at the beginning, Grasshopper. [sorry, couldn't resist]
You do remember that Obama had a super majority for the first two years that he was the president right?
Yep. But he didn't have a crystal ball - he thought he'd have two more years to get things done. Besides, the first year is a lot of 'getting to know you' kind of time, for any president - no one walks in on day 1 getting their needs met.
Most (53%) would say we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
even if you accept that [I do, but in a limited way: create more revenue, we'll have more to pay the debt. But create that revenue by spending the money to encourage JOBS that benefit everyone, so the revenue comes from increased payroll taxes and decreased aid to the working poor] why does the debate exclude so many areas of big spending, like defense, foreign aid, and oh yes: how about reducing the spending on the politicians who allowed it to happen, and the corporate welfare that made it worse? They never mention THAT spending, I notice.
Is it possible that the republicans thought that Obama was going to far in his mandates, and decided that their only path was to obstruct his agenda?
The Republicans [particularly the Tea Party reps who took office midway through the presidency] announced their intentions well in advance of any mandates: if Obama was for it, they were against it.
Do I think Romney is the best and only answer, no. But I think he has this country's best interest at heart. The 1% that you so hate can't continue to be on top of the country , if there is no country left.
What I hate is abuse of power for one's own benefit, whomever is committing it. IMO, it's not how much $ one has, but how one got [and keeps] it that matters. Patriotism matters too - it should be as high a priority as profit, shouldn't it? [Ok, maybe a close second, lol] Or is is just us citizens that must sacrifice and do our duty [like jury duty] for the good of the people, while corporations are excused? Outsourcing jobs and evading taxes is hurting the US, and so will eliminating the regulations that businesses don't like because it reduces their profits.
I believe patriotism is wanting what's best for the country, and business doesn't giveadam about that, do they?
Of course the 1% can continue - until the people can't take any more [and haven't any more to give] and revolt, just keep dripping enough crumbs to keep them from acual starvation, they'll be ok, they always have so far, right?
Yeah, it's a bit of exaggeration - but not much.
Of course they don't - and just like the guy who just drove 2100 miles in 36 hrs, they think it's ok if they don't see a direct cause & effect between their behavior [cutting corners on safety standards] and death, because no one died.. This time.
But every regulation has a reason, and if there were no risk, it wouldn't have been created. [Like logging and HOS!] We wouldn't need to police the waterways if business hadn't thought it harmless to dump their [toxic] trash in them - even if they didn't know it was toxic when they did it. If you trust them to place safety ahead of profits, you're in the minority, methinks.
Some of it is repetitive but government can't survive without business. When government tries to create business, it is a disaster. Green jobs, amtrak, postal service, and the list goes on.
In a global economy you have to cater to some degree business or they just move the jobs overseas. You also need their money to support education and infastructure.
Right now, you have no money for either so you have to get business in place to support those things. Something democrats can't get their head around. Foreign and domestic investors have to have a reason to invest. A hostile environment through goofy regulations, taxes, and plain foolishness is NOT how you attract business.
Good grief, you need a stack of permits and licenses just to open a kool-aid stand. Not all regulations are good or make a bit of sense.
Remember.....WE HAVE NO MONEY!
In a global economy you have to cater to some degree business or they just move the jobs overseas. You also need their money to support education and infastructure.
Right now, you have no money for either so you have to get business in place to support those things. Something democrats can't get their head around. Foreign and domestic investors have to have a reason to invest. A hostile environment through goofy regulations, taxes, and plain foolishness is NOT how you attract business.
Good grief, you need a stack of permits and licenses just to open a kool-aid stand. Not all regulations are good or make a bit of sense.
Remember.....WE HAVE NO MONEY!
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
Awhile back I was watching the local Government channel, Yep I was that bored. They had a Waffle House wanting to build a store in our fair city.
When the meeting started talking about permits and stuff I was mildly interested (not really). They started talking about the sign requirements. How many square feet of sign, how tall, exact location, how much light it would give off, and what color the sign could be. The waffle house sign took 40 or so minutes to discuss. What color? how much light? you had to have watched it. But wait there is more, they rescheduled that part so they could bring an architect in to answer questions about the sign, a sign! Then they talked about the parking lot and landscape, for twenty minutes, again rescheduled that for the next meeting to get the local engineer to talk about the runoff from the lot. I tuned in for the next meeting, and the next, and finally the last one. all told the store owner was required to bring his architect four times and an engineer of one type or another three times, not to mention the meetings they had scheduled in between the public meetings to do what ever. Just remember sign, parking lot, landscape.
You ask what regulations read above for a good start.
When the meeting started talking about permits and stuff I was mildly interested (not really). They started talking about the sign requirements. How many square feet of sign, how tall, exact location, how much light it would give off, and what color the sign could be. The waffle house sign took 40 or so minutes to discuss. What color? how much light? you had to have watched it. But wait there is more, they rescheduled that part so they could bring an architect in to answer questions about the sign, a sign! Then they talked about the parking lot and landscape, for twenty minutes, again rescheduled that for the next meeting to get the local engineer to talk about the runoff from the lot. I tuned in for the next meeting, and the next, and finally the last one. all told the store owner was required to bring his architect four times and an engineer of one type or another three times, not to mention the meetings they had scheduled in between the public meetings to do what ever. Just remember sign, parking lot, landscape.
You ask what regulations read above for a good start.
You know what I can't get my head around? The fact that business can't be persuaded to do anything unless there's an incentive [meaning profit] for them. They object to cybersecurity regulation, even though they haven't done enough [or anything] to protect against cyberterrorists [or hackers who steal identities] because it costs money they don't want to spend.
After a decade of record profits, they don't want to spend money on security - that's business today in a nutshell.
They don't giveadam about security [except their own - they live in gated communities and keep their money overseas] or workers [they pay the absolute minimum to the bottom workers, while over rewarding the incompetents at the top] or the country in which they enjoy the many benefits [infrastructure and the courts] for which they do their ****dest to avoid paying.
Tell me again: why do we think they should run the country?
After a decade of record profits, they don't want to spend money on security - that's business today in a nutshell.
They don't giveadam about security [except their own - they live in gated communities and keep their money overseas] or workers [they pay the absolute minimum to the bottom workers, while over rewarding the incompetents at the top] or the country in which they enjoy the many benefits [infrastructure and the courts] for which they do their ****dest to avoid paying.
Tell me again: why do we think they should run the country?
You know what I can't get my head around? The fact that business can't be persuaded to do anything unless there's an incentive [meaning profit] for them. They object to cybersecurity regulation, even though they haven't done enough [or anything] to protect against cyberterrorists [or hackers who steal identities] because it costs money they don't want to spend.
After a decade of record profits, they don't want to spend money on security - that's business today in a nutshell.
They don't giveadam about security [except their own - they live in gated communities and keep their money overseas] or workers [they pay the absolute minimum to the bottom workers, while over rewarding the incompetents at the top] or the country in which they enjoy the many benefits [infrastructure and the courts] for which they do their ****dest to avoid paying.
Tell me again: why do we think they should run the country?
All valid points, but business is made of investors at all levels. Their function to remain viable is to turn a profit. Sorry, but that is how it is.
Since government needs business for revenue, you better have a way of attracting them. Even more so if as a government you are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar just to stay afloat.
That amount of borrowing and printing money will do more damage to the "under paid" than anything at the corporate business level.
Last edited:
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
Well no not really. When you have bureaucrats trying to guess what a politician wrote into law, well they get paid to write, and they write and write until the next regulation comes up.
I remember getting three violations on a 1 gallon container of lacquer thinner. Each violation was $252.00 for a total of $756.00 for a thirty dollar can.
I also got hit with a $252.00 fine three times for fans on a bench. Problem with the brand new fans you ask? The fan shroud had openings larger than 1 inch. so an adult male might stick his finger in it and get it cut off. The flipping fans were the employees and had just recently been bought at the local Walmart because of a heat wave. Oh I forgot to mention that they proudly displayed a UL sticker, and were just fine to have at home around your toddlers. Oh I almost forgot, the fine young lady had just recently started with OSHEA after being laid off from a stamping machine operator job at GM.
jaminjim
Veteran Expediter
Don't think for a minute that the State, and Fed are any better. I remind you of the fact that at last count the Obama care has 13,000 pages of regulations. You would be shocked at the number of regulators want a piece of you when you start anything more than a tree counting service.
I don't think that state & federal officials are worse [less responsive to constituents], I know they are. Because they're more remote, less able to effect changes - too big to deal with, sigh. [I've got some horror stories too!]
My point was that Romney isn't promising to reform regulation, he says he'll eliminate much of it wholesale, and that just scares me. Because I suspect the regs he'd eliminate are the ones business doesn't want to pay for, not the ones that are duplicative or unnecessary - just the ones that the CEOs don't like. He won't look too hard at them either, because he needs those campaign donations [which is a whole nother issue that needs reformed] more than he needs the support of the citizens who don't know what he's doing anyhow.
My point was that Romney isn't promising to reform regulation, he says he'll eliminate much of it wholesale, and that just scares me. Because I suspect the regs he'd eliminate are the ones business doesn't want to pay for, not the ones that are duplicative or unnecessary - just the ones that the CEOs don't like. He won't look too hard at them either, because he needs those campaign donations [which is a whole nother issue that needs reformed] more than he needs the support of the citizens who don't know what he's doing anyhow.
I think dollars control both parties so I wouldn't exempt Romney or Obama from that.
Either way, either party will have to create a climate that promotes business. Right now, I don't see the democrats having the will to do that. Their answer the last four years is basically to borrow our way out of debt.
We see how well that is working.
Either way, either party will have to create a climate that promotes business. Right now, I don't see the democrats having the will to do that. Their answer the last four years is basically to borrow our way out of debt.
We see how well that is working.