jmog;1203699 wrote:You do realize that not only does having legislative experience translate to zero experience as an executive branch leader (you know, two different branches of government that has completely different roles?), but he was only in the Senate for what, 1.5 years and voted "present" on most of the issues?

On top of that, this so called expert on the laws of our country has done nothing but botch the Constitution recently, completely bypassing the legislative branch he was a part of. You and I both know you, and most definitely President Obama, would have RAISED HELL if Bush had done this exact same thing.

There is a reason American's typically elect successful state governors as Presidents and not legislators. It is much more RELEVANT experience.

On top of running a successful business as a chief EXECUTIVE officer, I'm prone to believe that is valid experience as our countries chief EXECUTIVE.

Safe to say jmog got pwned here eh since this is in reference to Lincoln who was a failure in almost everything (aside from killing vampires) prior to becoming potus.

BoatShoes;1204286 wrote:Safe to say jmog got pwned here eh since this is in reference to Lincoln who was a failure in almost everything (aside from killing vampires) prior to becoming potus.

Lincoln didn't have every door opened for him every step of his academic/professional career, if Lincoln failed its because he had to try to accomplish something that could certainly lead to failure. He wasn't pre-ordained to be the messiah that has failed to live up to unreasonable expectations, which would make him a sympathetic figure had he not stirred the emotions that made him to be better than what he is.

And to preempt another IWP-esque "MB hates Obama argument". I don't hate him. I just want him to go away. If he wants to be awesome let Yale Law School hire him, or go back to Chicago and be a community organizer. The sycophants can worship him - facts dictate otherwise. He doesn't deserve re-election.

Manhattan Buckeye;1204208 wrote:Perhaps not. But I don't see how it could possibly be worse.......

. it can't be worse. Four more years of this can make it much worse. The guy is unqualified.[/QUOTE

THIS is where you're wrong. We could be following your advise like Romney's ideological clones in the camerkozy land of fail across the pond. Natural experiments are proving conservative policy responses to a depressed economy wrong but you're to busy being mad that the president's chosen career path lead him to become the leader of the free world when he could've chosen to work his life away at a white shoe firm and wind up bitching about the guy who went onto become president on a message board

superman;1204237 wrote:Back to the question posed in the OP, Romney will bring in a new AG. Not having a street thug running our DOJ is enough to get my vote.

Applause. Someone finally made a good rebuttle. Holder is as bad as it gets. How this guy has avoided the pokey is a complete mystery to me. It started with tax evasion and escalated from there. What in the world is wrong with our Justice Department anyway?

BoatShoes;1204286 wrote:Safe to say jmog got pwned here eh since this is in reference to Lincoln who was a failure in almost everything (aside from killing vampires) prior to becoming potus.

Safe to say that isadore comparing Obama to Lincoln is a self "pwn".

Of all the things Bush did wrong (paying for wars on a CC, etc) Obama just made them worst in the last 3 years. He took Bush's bad ideas and made them worse. He keep's railing on Bush but in the end he is doing all of the same stupid stuff Bush did PLUS MORE stupid stuff.

jmog;1204331 wrote:Safe to say that isadore comparing Obama to Lincoln is a self "pwn".

Of all the things Bush did wrong (paying for wars on a CC, etc) Obama just made them worst in the last 3 years. He took Bush's bad ideas and made them worse. He keep's railing on Bush but in the end he is doing all of the same stupid stuff Bush did PLUS MORE stupid stuff.

no, you went for it completely. The analogy works pretty well if you continue it. Both were presented with crisises that were caused in large part by the philosophies and incomptence of their predecessors. As they went into the 4th year of the first term, their programs had seemingly not yet borne fruit. They were criticized, many considered them to be failures, Lincoln expected to be defeated in his bid for re election. It was not until Fall of that year that his policies came to fruition.

I Wear Pants;1204198 wrote: Also I'm not convinced a GOP president is the magical economy fixer pill that many on here seem to think it is.

Out here in the real world you'd see a large negative effect from Obama. Businesses are hunkering down in fear of 4 more years. That's a fact rather you want to admit it or not, and there's plenty of evidence of it. For that reason alone the economy has a significantly better chance with Romney.

gut;1204413 wrote:Out here in the real world you'd see a large negative effect from Obama. Businesses are hunkering down in fear of 4 more years. That's a fact rather you want to admit it or not, and there's plenty of evidence of it. For that reason alone the economy has a significantly better chance with Romney.

Some lies never die. There's no evidence for this beyond conservative blowhards making it up and ignoring real evidence in the wall st. Journal op-ed pages. Its all demand. Keep making things up though. Investors are willing to lend Obama money at historic low rates for a long time. The fear of Obama does not exist in the minds of investors.

O-Trap;1204132 wrote:Purely out of curiosity, do you know how different his choice will be from a fiscal responsibility or civil liberties standpoint? I'm genuinely curious on your opinion.

PS - I multi-post instead of multi-quote. What was I thinking?

I have no idea where his potential choice would stand on specific issues. I have a fairly good guess that he won't appoint a radical leftist who hates our Constitution and will instead appoint a true originalist.

Footwedge;1204163 wrote:One last time on defense and defense related spending...referencing footnoted Wiki for all to source.

Budget breakdown for 2012

Defense-related expenditure	2012 Budget request & Mandatory spending[SUP][21][/SUP][SUP][22][/SUP]	Calculation[SUP][23][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP]
DOD spending	$707.5 billion	Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"
FBI counter-terrorism	$2.7 billion	At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs	$5.6–$63.0 billion	At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related	$21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs	$70.0 billion
Homeland Security	$46.9 billion
NASA, satellites	$3.5–$8.7 billion	Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget
Veterans pensions	$54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending	$8.2 billion
Interest on debt incurred in past wars	$109.1–$431.5 billion	Between 23% and 91% of total interest
Total Spending	$1.030–$1.415 trillion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

jhay78;1204553 wrote:I have no idea where his potential choice would stand on specific issues. I have a fairly good guess that he won't appoint a radical leftist who hates our Constitution and will instead appoint a true originalist.

Eh, Romney isn't even a true originalist himself, so I'm not sure why he would appoint one.

BoatShoes;1204532 wrote:Some lies never die. There's no evidence for this beyond conservative blowhards making it up and ignoring real evidence in the wall st. Journal op-ed pages. Its all demand. Keep making things up though. Investors are willing to lend Obama money at historic low rates for a long time. The fear of Obama does not exist in the minds of investors.

Bullshit it isn't real. Steve Wynn and Steve Jobs had quotes, I believe. And, directly, I hear it in my board meetings. I hear it from investors from their other board meetings. I hear it from customers. It's very real. The people who deny it are either ignoring this reality or have no real insight into the business world.

gut;1204629 wrote:Bull**** it isn't real. Steve Wynn and Steve Jobs had quotes, I believe. And, directly, I hear it in my board meetings. I hear it from investors from their other board meetings. I hear it from customers. It's very real. The people who deny it are either ignoring this reality or have no real insight into the business world.

Just look at the amount of cash large corporations are sitting on.

Con_Alma;1204631 wrote:Just look at the amount of cash large corporations are sitting on.

LOL, yeah, that's an even easier and more direct answer. You'll note, also, that despite the looming tax hikes on the horizon companies are not declaring large special dividends to return cash to investors before the gubmit takes a much larger cut.

Dude. They're sitting on cash because of a lack of demand...not because they're afraid of Barack Obama hoping and praying for Mitt Romney to be in the white house. I wonder if the university is going to start a course called "fear of moderate democrats and the business cycle." The U.K. has romneys doppleganger who propped a Romney type path to a balanced budget and it failed to engender "confidence." You say you oppose failure but it is your ideas that are failing miserably. Sounds to me like your fellow board members don't understand the world either. That's ok...neither did jean claude richet. Like Clarke kent...I guess Romney is the confidence fairy in disguise!

Boatshoes,

Businesses don't sit on cash because of short-term demand declines. They're sitting on cash because they look out 2-5 years and don't see a healthy economy under Obama to justify the investments.

As I said, if what you claim is true there would be hoards of special dividends ahead of the tax hikes. And you can continue to deny it, it doesn't change the reality for the medium and large companies out there that drive the economy.

And it's laughable you keep saying "my ideas" are failing miserably when Keynesian run amok is responsible for this mess in the first place. In case you haven't noticed, there is still a mountain of uncertainty in Europe because of Greece, Spain and Italy, France's recent elections....and that's a drag on those other European economies as well.

gut;1204925 wrote:Boatshoes,

Businesses don't sit on cash because of short-term demand declines. They're sitting on cash because they look out 2-5 years and don't see a healthy economy under Obama to justify the investments.

As I said, if what you claim is true there would be hoards of special dividends ahead of the tax hikes. And you can continue to deny it, it doesn't change the reality for the medium and large companies out there that drive the economy.

And it's laughable you keep saying "my ideas" are failing miserably when Keynesian run amok is responsible for this mess in the first place. In case you haven't noticed, there is still a mountain of uncertainty in Europe because of Greece, Spain and Italy, France's recent elections....and that's a drag on those other European economies as well.

As someone who IS in the private sector (IE: for-profit business) and who is directly involved in hiring, purchases, capital improvements, etc. I can wholeheartedly agree and concur that there are three major issues directly impacting businesses at the moment.

First, there are corporate tax rates. The United States levies the second highest corporate tax rates among developed nations. With the economy tanking and the prospect of tax increases on the horizon, CEO's are reluctant to expand at the moment.

Second, there is ObamaCare on the horizon. Execs and human resource guru's are still evaluating the full impact of ObamaCare to the bottom-line with this albatross looming for 2014.

Third, there is Obama and a wacky Congress to try and second-guess. Every exec, manager, and supervisor I talk to want Obama to drop off the radar scope and are very reluctant to make any major long-term business decisions until they know for certain what the political landscape will look like after November.

believer;1204961 wrote:As someone who IS in the private sector (IE: for-profit business) and who is directly involved in hiring, purchases, capital improvements, etc. I can wholeheartedly agree and concur that there are three major issues directly impacting businesses at the moment.

Bahhhh....You're just parroting the WSJ. It's all BS - it's not possible that your perspective is developed from what you are actually seeing and hearing in your job.

gut;1204975 wrote:Bahhhh....You're just parroting the WSJ. It's all BS - it's not possible that your perspective is developed from what you are actually seeing and hearing in your job.

Oh yeah....Sorry. I lost my head there for a moment.

gut;1204925 wrote:And it's laughable you keep saying "my ideas" are failing miserably when Keynesian run amok is responsible for this mess in the first place.

We don't always agree, but damn if I didn't almost fist pump when reading this from you.

believer;1204961 wrote:As someone who IS in the private sector (IE: for-profit business) and who is directly involved in hiring, purchases, capital improvements, etc. I can wholeheartedly agree and concur that there are three major issues directly impacting businesses at the moment.

First, there are corporate tax rates. The United States levies the second highest corporate tax rates among developed nations. With the economy tanking and the prospect of tax increases on the horizon, CEO's are reluctant to expand at the moment.

That is going to take Congress moving to lower tax rates and keep them low. Something that won't happen any time soon.

Second, there is ObamaCare on the horizon. Execs and human resource guru's are still evaluating the full impact of ObamaCare to the bottom-line with this albatross looming for 2014.

Unless Congress can reject a lot of it, it will go into effect. Plus, health care costs will continue to sky rocket anyways as the nation gets fatter.

Third, there is Obama and a wacky Congress to try and second-guess. Every exec, manager, and supervisor I talk to want Obama to drop off the radar scope and are very reluctant to make any major long-term business decisions until they know for certain what the political landscape will look like after November.

But, the wacky Congress will still be in control, leaving us in the same state.

Again, doesn't matter who is in charge, the Congress is the biggest problem, and doing nothing only allows taxes to go up, health care costs to increase, and us to be a lot worse.

Oh, and if Congress does nothing, the defense budget will be cut by $500 billion......

QuakerOats;1203529 wrote:The republicans are going to gain a sizable majority in the Senate; retain control of the House, and probably win the White House. Things will change, mightily.

Well, I highly doubt they can go over 60 in the Senate. I can see it flipping red, but not over 60. That means nothing will happen.

ptown_trojans_1;1205060 wrote:That is going to take Congress moving to lower tax rates and keep them low. Something that won't happen any time soon.

Can't disagree. Simply stating a fact about why businesses are reluctant to invest the cash in this economic and political climate.

ptown_trojans_1;1205060 wrote:Unless Congress can reject a lot of it, it will go into effect. Plus, health care costs will continue to sky rocket anyways as the nation gets fatter.

Let's hope SCOTUS puts a damper on the effectiveness thing. Oh, and ObamaCare won't fix skyrocketing health care costs.

ptown_trojans_1;1205060 wrote:But, the wacky Congress will still be in control, leaving us in the same state.

Let's hope both houses of Congress are controlled by those wacky Repubs. We may be in the same state if that happens, but I doubt we'll see $800 billion Porkulus Packages or ObamaCare-like legislation this time around.

ptown_trojans_1;1205060 wrote:Again, doesn't matter who is in charge, the Congress is the biggest problem, and doing nothing only allows taxes to go up, health care costs to increase, and us to be a lot worse.

Perhaps but that makes the assumption that the Feds should fix our problems. When Congress attempts to fix our problems, things generally get worse....usually much worse.

ptown_trojans_1;1205060 wrote:Oh, and if Congress does nothing, the defense budget will be cut by $500 billion......

Fine by me. It's time to get the hell out of Europe, Japan, the Middle East, South Korea, etc. anyway.

ptown_trojans_1;1205063 wrote:Well, I highly doubt they can go over 60 in the Senate. I can see it flipping red, but not over 60. That means nothing will happen.

Give the Repubs 51, or just replace Houdini Harry, and I bet you see much better results.

"First, there are corporate tax rates. The United States levies the second highest corporate tax rates among developed nations. With the economy tanking and the prospect of tax increases on the horizon, CEO's are reluctant to expand at the moment.

Second, there is ObamaCare on the horizon. Execs and human resource guru's are still evaluating the full impact of ObamaCare to the bottom-line with this albatross looming for 2014.

Third, there is Obama and a wacky Congress to try and second-guess. Every exec, manager, and supervisor I talk to want Obama to drop off the radar scope and are very reluctant to make any major long-term business decisions until they know for certain what the political landscape will look like after November."

Here is a 4th: It costs too much to hire someone.

The U.S. has a toxic environment for hiring, not as bad as Australia or parts of Western Europe but certainly worse than developed Asia and other new markets.

You hire someone - you have pay their salary (duh), you're on the hook for the employer's share of FICA, you need an accountant/law firm to deal with the previous issue, you likely need a third party servicing center for these payments, you have to be in accordance with the myriad of labor laws that take up an entire wall of most businesses. You have a significant risk of lawsuits in the event that the employee is not working out and termination of employment would be the right move.

So why would they hire - instead, employ a private contractor or a headhunter providing talking heads that can deal with all of these issues. Employers often act reasonably.

ptown_trojans_1;1205060 wrote:....

Oh, and if Congress does nothing, the defense budget will be cut by $500 billion......

...which is better than what the White House has recently hinted at! It sounds as if it could be a lot more than $500B.