Obama campaign office staff lacks diversity

No offense taken. Companies are competitive and investors will always want more profits. The only way to expand and stay competitive is to hire more people and invest into your business. That's why the free market works.

Paul Krugman's weighted tax rate is fine for larger companies. When people think of corporations, they think of HP and Apple. But what most people forget is that every small "mom and pop" business has to get an LLC or Corporation setup for their business. So they suffer the consequences of these tax rates. Many can't afford to keep their doors open or be competitive with the bigger companies. The big companies will be fine because they can claim income in foreign countries.

 

That is a great point! The Fed has very minimal checks and balances. I mentioned in a previous post that I believe Alan Greenspan's policies helped create the reckless environment in the housing market. I like Greenspan, but as an economist you have to take into account the human condition for any economic policy. The environment lead to people unqualified to over borrow money.

Obama certainly came into a tough economic situation. But so did Bush in the early 2000's with the stock market crash and the recession. And so did Clinton when he took office in 1992. But by the end of their first terms they had their economy under control. I don't think Obama is "carefree and clueless", I think he is a capable president. But I think the way he views government and the economy is different than mine.

Between NASA and this child tax credit for illegals, that would be a savings of $25 billion per year. I think those are two areas both parties could agree that that money could be better used elsewhere.

 

I have yet to hear any fresh new ideas from Romney or his camp. All I seem to hear is the same rhetoric and attack ads similar to what John McCain did back in 2008. Do you even know what Romney's policies are? Or are you just blindly following another politician?

 

First, I think my posts have shown that I'm not just some guy blindly following a politician. Whether you agree with my points or not, I always back up my position. Second, I agree that attack ads do nothing for an election, but unfortunately we have to live with them. And BOTH parties are guilty of running smear campaigns. Plus, you have to remember that Obama and Romney are both supported by Super PAC's which can run ads that the candidate himself does not support. Like last week, Romney publicly called out a Super PAC ad drawing ties between Obama and Jeremiah Wright. He said it was wrong and does not support it. Now lets see if Obama does the same for him.

As far as fresh new ideas...there are none. As the old saying goes "there is nothing new under the sun". Each candidate has a plan for the economy. Romney's economic plan has been out for several months and is very moderate if you look at it. It's not as aggressive as Paul Ryan's plan.

 

Don't you find it odd though that Romney's not even a real candidate? I mean he's not even holding office anywhere but he's somehow the GOP front-runner.

And there's ALWAYS new ideas, you just gotta put your thinkng cap on. But what's there to expect when you have a party that's deathly afraid of the word "progress".

 

:smt115

 

Oh I get it. So Romney's no different than "Joe The Plumber" huh? Just a regular ordinary man of the people???

Don't you have a tea party rally to attend or something?

 

i was actually agreeing with u

if a politician has too much exp/time in office, people say he's a career employee only interested in money

if he has no experience, people bang em with that

either way politics is explosive

*goes back to doing 7 dragon style*

 

I don't find it odd. He's held jobs both in the private sector and government. I think it gives him a more well rounded view of things.

And there really aren't NEW ideas. If a candidate thinks he has some new idea nobody has ever thought of...he's sadly mistaken. Ideas are recycled and candidates put a new spin on them. Plus, there's not too many ways to look at things- increase taxes vs. decrease taxes, increase spending vs. decrease spending, for gay marriage vs. against gay marriage, etc. The question is what policies are right for the country in its current state. Again in my opinion, I don't think Obama's policies makes sense right now. If we had a booming economy like in the mid-to-late 90's and 2000's, then you could raise taxes and end up with a surplus. But right now, the economy needs a jumpstart and you can't do that without either making drastic tax cuts or drastic spending cuts. So the Democrats need to pick their poison because you can't have both.

 

What's funny is I think if this were 1812 as opposed to 2012, you would more than likely rat me out to "massa" because I was teaching the other slaves how to read and write behind his back.

You would also be the one who would snitch on any and every slave who tried to escape from the plantation.

 

Yikes, stockholm syndrome is a damning accusation. You're implying dude would tell other negroids they should be happy and thankful that "massa" took 'em out their shithole and gave them a better life.