If you owned a business, who would you hire to run it: Obama or Romney?

[OldUSAFSniper]

Business is very much like medicine. If a business has good vitals and you get someone who understands how to use those vitals to grow, then the business will thrive. If the business is sick, then you do what you have to do to make it well. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes, the business needs to have surgery. You have to cut out the unprofitable to get back to the basics. And yes, that means that sometimes you have to remove people to make a business survive. This isn't the federal government folks, where waste and fraud is like another day in springtime (refer to the GSA for example).

Take for example the company Research in Motion. Five years ago, there wasn't anyone around that could touch them. Now, they are scrambling to survive. The Blackberry, once the standard of smart phones, has been lost in a see of iPhones, Androids and other competition. RIM did not evolve soon enough or fast enough and now they're playing catch up. The first step is to cut the deadwood. Then try to get back to being 'lean and mean'. Will it work? Maybe, like I said, a business is like the human body. And then sometimes, businesses just die. When I was young and you thought pictures there was only one company: Eastman Kodak. They hold thousands of patents and they just filed for bankruptcy. Can they be saved? I don't know. Technology and society evolve. Every phone is a camera now.

So the answer to the question is ROMNEY. He understands and has put into practice what I just spoke about. Barry is a product of and for the government. His idea of fiscal soundness is making the 1% the "boogeymen" and proposing deficit spending as far as the eye can see. Perhaps Romney can bring some sanity back to the federal government. Wouldn't it be GREAT if the government was run JUST LIKE a business?

 

[naturegirl]

Obama has 3 years experience running things and has run up massive debt.

......'Cause taking-over babysitting-dutie$ (for George Sr. & Babs) isn't exactly the economically-fea$ible thing for a Country to do....

Now as a spokesman, he's my pick. He's still got liberals thinking he's done great things.

Pisses-you-off.....doesn't it??!!

OBAMACCOMPLISHMENTS!!!!

. . . . . ​

Seriously, your posts are almost like a cartoon. I usually just glance at them and pay no attention to what you have to say.

. .

 

[rightwinger]

Why would you assume that running a business is more experience than running a country?

 

[naturegirl]

On the job training is just not appropriate for the President. We tried it, it didn't work. We need to move past this One Big Ass Mistake America

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If your business is a "non-profit" then Barry would be your man.

I'm sorry but Mitt Romney IS a successful businessman...Barack Obama not "isn't" a successful businessman...I'm quite certain he will never BE a successful businessman.

Bush and Romney aren't self made men. Born into it.

Clinton and Obama however.

I hate to break this to you, Bobo...but Barry's been getting a free ride since he left Occidental. He got into both Columbia and Harvard Law School on Affirmative Action. He was named President of the Law Review because Harvard was having problems over their treatment of black professors and electing a black President of the Law Review was good PR. He got a six figure book deal because he was the first black President of the Law Review...as well as a position at a high dollar law firm...and a teaching position at the University of Chicago. He became a US Senator because Emile Jones, the black political godfather of Chicago politics fed him legislation to put his name on after two years of trying to pass his own bills...not one of which passed. He was given more bills to affix his name to in the US Senate because he was an "up and coming" star of the Democratic Party after his convention speech. He got help to buy his Chicago home from Tony Rezko. He got a Nobel Peace Prize just for showing up at the Oval Office.

.......While Lil' Dumbya only.....​

".....struck me as a guy who really had an idea of himself as very much a child of privilege, that he wasn't operating by the same rules."

Daddy's Lil' Fratboy​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Seriously, your posts are almost like a cartoon. I usually just glance at them and pay no attention to what you have to say.

Yeah.....I'm sure that's what bothers people, the most.....that they never read my posts.

.

.

 

[rightwinger]

On the job training is just not appropriate for the President. We tried it, it didn't work. We need to move past this One Big Ass Mistake America

I totally agree

Romney has nowhere near the experience to be President. He served one term as Massachusetts governor and found he was in over his head. Romney has no other relevant experience to warrant trusting our country to him

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why would you assume that running a business is more experience than running a country?

Because running a business means being accountable. If you run out of money you go out of business.

If you run out of money while running the government you can just print more or force people to pay more taxes. No accountability

 

[Mr. Shaman]

On the job training is just not appropriate for the President. We tried it.....

Yeah......for every President we've HAD!!

Teabagger-cluelessness is truley a wonderment!!!

 

[rightwinger]

Why would you assume that running a business is more experience than running a country?

Because running a business means being accountable. If you run out of money you go out of business.

If you run out of money while running the government you can just print more or force people to pay more taxes. No accountability

Running a business gives Romney no experience similar to running a country. When you are CEO, you make the decisions. A president must deal with Congress, international forces, public and political pressure and a global US presence. Romney has no experience in these areas.
Running a business gives you no experience in politics

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why would you assume that running a business is more experience than running a country?

Because running a business means being accountable. If you run out of money you go out of business.

.....Or, have one o' Daddy's buds......

.....bail-you-out!!

 

[naturegirl]

On the job training is just not appropriate for the President. We tried it, it didn't work. We need to move past this One Big Ass Mistake America

I totally agree

Romney has nowhere near the experience to be President. He served one term as Massachusetts governor and found he was in over his head. Romney has no other relevant experience to warrant trusting our country to him

Yea, well running a state is by no means as good as being a senator.

Romney's experience far outweighs the current occupant of the White House.

 

[naturegirl]

Why would you assume that running a business is more experience than running a country?

Because running a business means being accountable. If you run out of money you go out of business.

If you run out of money while running the government you can just print more or force people to pay more taxes. No accountability

Running a business gives Romney no experience similar to running a country. When you are CEO, you make the decisions. A president must deal with Congress, international forces, public and political pressure and a global US presence. Romney has no experience in these areas.
Running a business gives you no experience in politics

Oh sure a Board of Directors is a piece of cake. Investors are easy to convince, profits are an ugly word. Yea, it's no where near the same.

 

[rightwinger]

On the job training is just not appropriate for the President. We tried it, it didn't work. We need to move past this One Big Ass Mistake America

I totally agree

Romney has nowhere near the experience to be President. He served one term as Massachusetts governor and found he was in over his head. Romney has no other relevant experience to warrant trusting our country to him

Yea, well running a state is by no means as good as being a senator.

Romney's experience far outweighs the current occupant of the White House.

Well...let's see about that

President Obama

3 Years President of the United States
4 Years US Senator
8 Years Illinois State Senate

Mitt Romney

4 Years Governor

The level of experience is not even close. Romney has little political experience and that experience was four years ago. He has no foreign policy experience, no experience working with Congress.

 

[rightwinger]

Because running a business means being accountable. If you run out of money you go out of business.

If you run out of money while running the government you can just print more or force people to pay more taxes. No accountability

Running a business gives Romney no experience similar to running a country. When you are CEO, you make the decisions. A president must deal with Congress, international forces, public and political pressure and a global US presence. Romney has no experience in these areas.
Running a business gives you no experience in politics

Oh sure a Board of Directors is a piece of cake. Investors are easy to convince, profits are an ugly word. Yea, it's no where near the same.

It is nowhere near the same. Romney ran a relatively small company with nowhere near the responsibility of a Senator or Congressman

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Fired" is what you call employees in a venture that sets record losses, won't pass a budget and then decide to go to Vegas on company money.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm......

That's gotta be the first-time I've ever heard the GOP described as.....

......a venture.

Are you sure you don't mean an adventure???

.

Hey Jackass, I keep telling you I'm the only person at USMB that doesn't have you on ignore. If you want to make a point just say it on your own words

 

[jillian]

If your business is a "non-profit" then Barry would be your man.

I'm sorry but Mitt Romney IS a successful businessman...Barack Obama not "isn't" a successful businessman...I'm quite certain he will never BE a successful businessman.

the US government IS non-profit. you do know that, right?

 

[Londoner]

If Romney would do like Bush...

which is lower taxes to the point where the country had to function on massive deficits/debt, than I would not hire him.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to lead to massive domestic job growth, but Bush had the worst job growth of any president. It's on the record. (Bush ended all government support for the middle class in order to pay off the wealthy. Problem is, the middle class needed that support to keep consuming. When the middle class stops buying things, the economy dies. Right now, the problem isn't a lack of money on top for investment, rather, the problem is a lack of demand. Republicans have undermined the engine of middle class demand which came from government for the last 50 years. Morons. THe point of things like Social Security is this: if your elderly parents can support themselves, than you have more money to spend in the market place. This drives up demand, and when demand goes up, capital is forced to invest and add more jobs to capture that demand. This is how the entitlement system works. Government puts money in middle class wallets, and then capitalism innovates and invests and adds jobs so that it can get that money. The Republican model ignores this. Through tax cuts, they put extra money directly in the hands of the wealthy. The theory is that they will invest wisely and grow the real economy. But, the Bush tax cuts prove this theory wrong. The Bush tax cuts didn't go into growing the economy. Why? Because there was no demand to capture. The middle class had been bled dry to make room for the tax cuts. So where did the Bush tax cuts go? Wall Street derivatives. Meaning: they created a fake market BECAUSE there were no real investment markets available - no demand to capture, no reason to invest. (You need consumers who will buy your stuff) The wealthy had too much capital on top, while the middle class had too little cash for consumption because their wages had been driven down. It was the perfect storm. One class needed fake Wall Street ponzi schemes because there were insufficient investment opportunities, while the other needed credit. This toxic structure destroyed the country long term.)

Prior to Reagan, the government stimulated middle class consumption through progressive taxation and a number of programs/regulations/entitlements designed to put more money in middle class wallets. Because of the extra money sitting in middle class wallets, the capitalist was forced to innovate and add jobs (in order to capture that money). This model lead to 35 years of robust postwar economic growth.

Then Reagan replaced the support from government to the middle class with tax breaks and cheaper labor for the wealthy. Meaning: Reagan freed capital to go in search of 3rd world labor so business could pay $1 a day to sweat shop workers in places like China. (Capitalism loves brutal, dictator run countries because these terrible places oppress citizens and keep labor costs down). When Reagan did this - when business started to bypass expensive first world American Labor - he dramatically expanded credit markets so that the middle class could keep the domestic consumption economy afloat through increased borrowing. This is why household debt exploded starting in 1980. Problem is, you can only borrow for so long. [It got so bad that we had to turn our homes into ATMs. Indeed, without solid jobs, American families must go into debt to keep pace - and . . . business has been shipping jobs to ultra-cheap labor markets since Reagan helped them cut the cord with expensive middle class labor]

So no . . . I wouldn't hire Romney. He would keep the Bush Tax Cuts, which thrust the nation into a deficit crisis from which it has not emerged. (And yes this was the point of the Bush tax cuts. Starve the beast. Put America in a debt crisis so it is forced to cannibalize Medicare and Social Security, which would bring back poverty amongst the elderly and turn America in a 3rd country where old people die in the streets. But that is what capital wants. It wants massive pockets of luxury surrounded by disenfranchised, ultra cheap labor. People don't get. Capitalism hated the postwar middle class - the one where American workers made enough money to send their kids to college - because labor costs were too high. They would much rather use 3rd world labor which costs pennies. This is why Reagan is the most unpatriotic president in history. He accelerated the move from American workers to ultra cheap 3rd world workers. Yes, business loved Reagan because their costs went down, but this move destroyed the middle class, which required more and more debt to keep pace. you gotta hand it to Reagan. As wages went down for the middle class, who lost unprecedented manufacturing jobs on his watch, he merely increased the credit system, allowing Americans to borrow like never before).

God Help Us. The next president is going to take us back to the Bush model. And he will use a national security crisis to take our minds off his economic failures. The real questions is this: which enemy will Romney use? Iran? How will he distract the American people. Reagan used the Soviets, when he should have been focused on oil dependence. Bush used Iraq, when should have been focused on the housing bubble. In each case, these Republican presidents ignored problems which have, taken together, ended the great American Project in world history.

(God Help Us. The Republicans are coming back)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you know that non-profit is just a tax status and not an operating philosophy?

Non-profits that fail to run at breakeven are called "Former non-profits", they go out of business

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If Romney would do like Bush...

which is lower taxes to the point where the country had to function on massive deficits/debt, than I would not hire him.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to lead to massive domestic job growth, but Bush had the worst job growth of any president. It's on the record.

Prior to Reagan, the government stimulated middle class consumption through progressive taxation and a number of programs/regulations/entitlements designed to put more money in middle class wallets. Because of the extra money sitting in middle class wallets, the capitalist was forced to innovate and add jobs (in order to capture that money). This model lead to 35 years of robust postwar economic growth.

Then Reagan replaced the support from government to the middle class with tax breaks and cheaper labor for the wealthy. Meaning: Reagan freed capital to go in search of 3rd world labor so business could pay $1 a day to sweat shop workers in places like China. (Capitalism loves brutal, dictator run countries because these terrible places oppress citizens and keep labor costs down). When Reagan did this - when business started to bypass expensive first world American Labor - he dramatically expanded credit markets so that the middle class could keep the domestic consumption economy afloat through increased borrowing. This is why household debt exploded starting in 1980. Problem is, you can only borrow for so long. [It got so bad that we had to turn our homes into ATMs. Indeed, without solid jobs, American families must go into debt to keep pace - and . . . business has been shipping jobs to ultra-cheap labor markets since Reagan helped them cut the cord with expensive middle class labor]

So no . . . I wouldn't hire Romney. He would keep the Bush Tax Cuts, which thrust the nation into a deficit crisis from which it has not emerged. (And yes this was the point of the Bush tax cuts. Starve the beast. Put America in a debt crisis so it was forced to cannibalize Medicare and Social Security, which would bring back poverty amongst the elderly and turn America in a 3rd country where old people die in the streets).

God Help Us. The next president is going to take us back to the Bush model. And he will use a national security crisis to take our minds off his economic failures. The real questions is this: which enemy will Romney use? Iran? How will he distract the American people. Reagan used the Soviets, when he should have been focused on oil dependence. Bush used Iraq, when should have been focused on the housing bubble. In each case, these Republican presidents ignored problems which have, taken together, ended the great American Project in world history.

(God Help Us. The Republicans are coming back)

I'm fairly confident you don't know anything about the guy Reagan you keep mentioning.