CF73.......President Obama got smoked, plain & simple. I don't know what he did to prepare for this debate, but it sure did look like to me that he just did not want to be there.
On the other hand, Govenor Romney acted, talked, sounded, and appeared very Presidential.
Neither candidate has specifics, Obama sure didn't in 08, and in fairness to them it's probably a waste to get too specific b/c once it gets hammered out with Congress it'll look different. That's just how the system works and how it was designed to work.Originally Posted by Catfan73
IMO it's about direction and ideology. When a problem comes up will the President myopically think it calls for direct government action or will he say "is there some way we can spur private businesses or individuals to address this problem"? That's the key right there on domestic policy. Do we find ways to incentivize health care companies to move in the direction we want or do we just take them over with masses of bureaucrats?
Obama's plans are all 100% government. He has nothing but contempt for entrepreneurs and "the rich", which is his euphemism for anyone "successful" whether rich or not b/c a lot of those who will be impacted by his fat cat taxes are not rich. Not one of his policies in 4 years tried to work with basic market incentives or lower barriers to entry to make things better for consumers by increasing competition.
Just the opposite, the few business policies he's implemented only raised barriers to entry and protected the big companies, making it all the harder for small guys to compete and in the end only hurting consumers. He (and yes Bush II as well, but two wrongs don't absolve him of his blame) has helped protect the companies he campaigned against by not letting them fail and go through an existing legal process we have for bankruptcy.
At every turn he's been against letting the free market work or even leveling the playing field. It's a kind of corporatist policy where big government and big business get together and run the show.
Do I think Romney will sweep in and fix all that in 4 years? Of course not, but I do think as a person with vast experience in a) the free market, and b) going in and splitting off the big businesses into successful smaller businesses and growing smaller businesses, he'll see the benefit of opening markets and letting competition reign versus the collusion of Washington between politicians and lobbyists.
The only way to fix this is to get less control in Washington b/c as he centralizes power and decision making he's only helping big business. They have the money to hire the lobbyists and lawyers. Mom and pop can't compete with that. Romney at least has worked with the mid-level companies and has experience.
Obama has ZERO experience with business, ever. He's never even been a regular employee of a regular company. he went from school to a government job (community organizer) to workign for a politician to running for office. He has no perspective, no ability to think outside just passing another law.
so no neither will have detailed plans, frankly they'd be fairly pointless, but they do offer fundamentally different directions for the nation and approaches to problem solving. Romney's is consistent with free markets and encouraging businesses and individuals to to the right things, and Obama's is consistent with decrees from Washington that will only entrench big business and lower opportunity for people. Small businesses create the jobs in this country and I believe Romney knows that and believes it and Obama doesn't know it and doesn't understand how it works for them.
My recommendation is to vote on direction, b/c in the end that's about all the President can really control. He sets a tone, has the power of the bully pulpit, and that will tell you more about what will happen with them than their particular plans.
If it means Obama's anti-business for wanting huge corporations like Koch Industries to pay their fair corporate share instead of mom and pop S corp rates, then I must be anti-business also.
changing my signature to change our luck.
And how has Obama done with GE and his buddy the president of GE? Have they paid their fair share? And how did he reward the top guy at GE? And did GE shove jobs overseas right after Obama rewarded his buddy?
You have been given specifics over and over on why to vote out Obama and you just will not accept any of them. You keep saying you are open to Romney but imo you really are not as you will not listen to one thing Citizen, Doc, cattails, badrose, Issell or myself have said.
I've listened to all of it. . . well, almost all of it. Most of it I've already seen before in one form or another. I am still open to Romney, and this time I think the GOP has selected a viable Veep in case the head man strokes out or something. To me though, he still has too many question marks and too many things he appears to want to be kept secret.
changing my signature to change our luck.
CatFan if the Veep issue is of an concern to you at all, and the sitting President is not getting any younger (he is a smoker too) then can you honestly imagine this nation with Biden at the controls? I can see him sitting at a state dinner dining with an Arab nation leader and chowing down on some good southern barbecue chicken. He turns to the guest and asks him how he likes the pulled pork.
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
Just the opposite. Obama is the friend of those big companies, not out to get them.
First, those companies want government centralized in DC more than anyone. It gives the big ones a huge competitive advantage. They use DC as a massive barrier to entry against competition. Obama is playing right into their hands.
Look at GM. You think Mom and Pop corner store could have gotten a Congressional bailout? Think the 100s of small auto parts makers in the US could have gotten one? No, GM is big enough to get that audience, and they WANT the regulations b/c all it does is keep anyone else from starting a car company. the startup costs are so massive, and so much government can be brought against them they don't do it.
Obama was fine with the GM bailout b/c the unions wanted it. Big unions, big business, big government. They all need each other.
Obama has embraced the very misguided plan to bail out Wall Street as well. He's supported the increasing politicalization of Fannie Mae, which caused the mortgage disaster in the first place.
There's a HUGE difference between "anti-business" and "anti-big business". I'm anti-big business. I see most of these companies as so in bed with government as to be almost indistinguishable. The last thing businesses want is free markets and open competition. We want laws preventing anyone from taking our profits. Big government guys like Obama are the best friends big businesses have got.
No, Obama is anti-business as in against free markets and open competition. He believes they are fundamentally flawed in some way and consistently proposes solutions that are solely government based.
How do you think those big companies got those tax breaks? They have armies of lobbyists in DC, they write the checks to BOTH parties to insure favorable tax laws. I"m fine if Obama wants to address some of those things, but unfortunately he really hasn't addressed them.
You know one that kills small businesses and helps big companies? Having to depreciate capital investments. There is an exempt amount then you have to depreciate over years, which means you have just paid $50,000 for a new piece of equipment but you can only deduct $15,000 of it the first year, so the $35,000 remaining you have to pay tax on even though you don't have the $35,000, it's in the equipment.
Big companies absorb that stuff. They have lines of credit, big enough profits, enough ongoing depreciation that it all balances out in the end. Small businesses get butchered with that stuff.
Has Obama proposed fixing that stuff? No he just wants to raise the rates. All it will do is impact people he supposedly doesn't want to hurt. The big companies will still skate, as will the big individuals.
it's great rhetoric, but in the end those who earn $250,000 or more will get beat to death, and those folks are NOT rich by any means, and the millionaires will find ways around most of it. Like capital gains tax, the real rich will be able to engage in tax avoidance strategies b/c of their ability to forgo gains or taking out cash but those who have mortgages to pay will get hit.
It's just the truth. that's how it's worked with every proposal he's made, and NOTHING he's proposed is new. He just wants to move the rates around. This has happened several times and it's only ever hurt the upward mobility of the middle class and never really impacted the rich.
There's nothing empirical to support anything Obama is doing regarding tax or economic policy in general. Nothing. Keynesian economics has long been debunked so his massive spending didn't save us from depression, it only lenghtened the recession. There have been many studies on the Great Depression showing the same thing. His tax policies won't do anything to help the middle class or anything to show our runaway deficit spending.
The spending is the worst of it. We have GOT to stop. We're taking out new credit cards to pay the interest on the current cards. We're in deep financial trouble and no tax policy, no jobs policy, nothing is going to fix it short of sobering up, doing everything we can to open up the economy and let capitalism restore us economically and stop the spending that is crushing us. We have to grow the business tax base, which has nothing to do with taxing it more but letting it grow, and stop the "throw money at it" solution to everything used by Washington.
Obama is very much anti-business, and very much pro-big business. The rhetoric is nice, but when you look at his policies he's done just the opposite. Bailed out GM, Wall Street investment firms, done everything to protect big businesses and nothing to encourage small business or make them better able to compete. He's only helped Koch, not hurt them.
My first reaction was to change the channel. Obamney and Rombama got nothing but oppression and tyranny to offer America.
How can I not agree with that
If you have the need to use the boogeymen , David and Charles Koch, as a basis for any argument, it tells me you rely too much on lefty sites who demonize them. If you think the tax laws are wrong, that's one thing, but to play the "Koch Brothers are demons" card is, IMO, a little silly. The Koch brothers are guilty of being conservatives. I find it outrageous that the man in the WH finds it necessary to attack them. Why is it that you felt the need to call them out? Are you aware of their many philanthropic endeavors? Why do you think that Koch Industries, specifically, doesn't pay its "fair share"? Koch Industries should be held up as a sterling example of good American capitalism, and not used as an Alinsky tactic of targeting political enemies.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks