election 2012

[nerd1]

in any election, i wouldn't vote for party, but the representative instead.......capable of  working for the people.....voting for party would let you down...as always

In my country..I would vote for the party...because said party is entirely corrupted and even if the rep. is good...he wouldn't able to voice out and go against the entire rotten party...so no point voting for him...

Wait, you live  in america?

knowing politicians, this probably works everywhere, also, I've heard that mitt in the only one left in the race for the republicans. Is that true? because if he is, and gets elected, America will be even more screwed over, obama is far from the best president, but he's much better than the alternative. As far as Iowa goes, I live here, I don't get why there is so much consternation over the primaries, even though there was barely any hubbub (at least from the view of an in-stater) over the fact that we chose not to retain three of the supreme court judges that said gay marriage was constitutional, which is pretty bad if you're a democrat, like me, here.

[OldTrees]

in any election, i wouldn't vote for party, but the representative instead.......capable of  working for the people.....voting for party would let you down...as always

In my country..I would vote for the party...because said party is entirely corrupted and even if the rep. is good...he wouldn't able to voice out and go against the entire rotten party...so no point voting for him...

Wait, you live  in america?

knowing politicians, this probably works everywhere, also, I've heard that mitt in the only one left in the race for the republicans. Is that true? because if he is, and gets elected, America will be even more screwed over, obama is far from the best president, but he's much better than the alternative. As far as Iowa goes, I live here, I don't get why there is so much consternation over the primaries, even though there was barely any hubbub (at least from the view of an in-stater) over the fact that we chose not to retain three of the supreme court judges that said gay marriage was constitutional, which is pretty bad if you're a democrat, like me, here.

Ron Paul is in till the convention

[neuroleptics]

well, i don't trust politics, even the good ones turn evil in the political arena.....that's the way they survive....sighed

[BluePriest]

I just dont get why people say that running a country isnt like running a buisness.

Common sense says that Being trillions of dollars in debt is a bad thing, considering several countries have already gone into so much debt that they had to be bailed out, and many cities have had to declare bankruptcy.  Meanwhile, if having debt is a good thing, then wouldnt that mean bill clonton was one of the worst presidents in history since he had a surplus.

The way I see it, either bill clinton was a bad president, or barack obama was a bad president (economically speaking alone) considering from what Ive heard, they are essentially polar opposites.

Returning to my op, why isnt it like running a buisness? Ive hear this thrown around, but never explained.

[russianspy1234]

I just dont get why people say that running a country isnt like running a buisness.

Common sense says that Being trillions of dollars in debt is a bad thing, considering several countries have already gone into so much debt that they had to be bailed out, and many cities have had to declare bankruptcy.  Meanwhile, if having debt is a good thing, then wouldnt that mean bill clonton was one of the worst presidents in history since he had a surplus.

The way I see it, either bill clinton was a bad president, or barack obama was a bad president (economically speaking alone) considering from what Ive heard, they are essentially polar opposites.

Returning to my op, why isnt it like running a buisness? Ive hear this thrown around, but never explained.

a business explicit stated goal is to turn a profit.  a governments goal is to help people.  mitt romney incidentally, made most of his money by saddling the companies he bought with so much debt, they went bankrupt, but he was still able to pay himself money from their assets.  bain capitals buyout of KB Toys is the best example i got off the top of my head.  i guess it depends on what kind of business?  i suppose you can make an argument that it should be run like a hotel... but not quite.  the question is, do you really want it run like a business?  how do businesses make more money? by raising prices (taxes?)  or expanding the customer base (taking over other countries).  governments exist to protect us and the country.  if the government were a business, and it became unprofitable to do so (like it is now, since the country is taking in less money than it is spending) it would simply cut its loses and either go bankrupt (with hefty windfalls for those at the top) or move to another area that is easier to defend.  "run the government like a business" is nice and concise, and fits on a bumper sticker, but despite surface similarities, they are completely different things and have completely different functions in society.

what CEO or other higher ups in a business want to be fire and replaced?  if the government was being run like a business, the first thing all those in power would do would be remove term limits and make them serve until retirement, being allowed to appoint their replacement.

with businesses, you have choices of what to buy.  the government has a monopoly the area, and the ability to pass laws to get rid of competition.

if an owner of a business gets tired of running it, they are allowed to sell it.

most businesses try to grow bigger and bigger, isnt the stated goal of republicans to shrink government?

if you dont buy something from a business, you simply dont get it.  can the government let people not "buy" protection from the military?  how would that work?

are taxpayers the customers, the shareholders, or the product?

tl;dr:  Running the government like a business does not make it a business.

[BluePriest]

You, my good sir, are the reason the president is still able to spout blatant lies about romney.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/bains-businesses-romneys-company-job-creator-corporate-raider/story?id=16398730#3

Romney had already left Bain Capital for a year before the deal with kb toys happened. He had nothing to do with it.

Now, the next article, that paper company, you could actually say something about. However, bain has supposedly no longer had control of it 4 whole years before it encountered financial problems, aka, even that is a stretch.
______________________

Lets even say for a moment though, that company x hired 5,000,000 (heck even 500) people. They worked for 5 years, then the company went bankrupt, but the CEOs left rich. Is that really bad?
They provided 5,000,000 people with a job for 5 years. Would you have rather the company have never existed so those 5,000,000 people never had a job to begin with?

[Belthus]

Romney was not a uniquely evil presence at Bain. It was a vampire squid before and after Romney. Romney is pro-vampire-squid (as is Obama to a lesser extent), and his Presidency would be likely to help vampire squids suck more out of the US economy.

[neuroleptics]

well, i'm in Malaysia. I think most people know our country's political issue. I'll stick to my opinion of voting for representative instead of looking at the party. You see, in any party, there are corrupted politicians. To have a party completely free of corruption or any lies, you don't say. So, as for my country, i think the political issue is already known to the world. That's normal, considering no country is ever free of political issues. Human hearts are sinful in the first place, how can any1 say that he's completely righteous, so, by assuming power, the bad qualities manifest.
Though i suggest a better idea....the opposition must be strong enough. How can they win hearts of many? By being careful in their selection of representatives in the elections ahead. My country's government will no doubt select the same old faces again. Through the internet, everything is clear enough,citizens of Malaysia want a government that can work for the people. The best thing, we wouldn't hesitate to vote for a entirely new guy if the old face shown is corrupted

[BluePriest]

Romney was not a uniquely evil presence at Bain. It was a vampire squid before and after Romney. Romney is pro-vampire-squid (as is Obama to a lesser extent), and his Presidency would be likely to help vampire squids suck more out of the US economy.

You mean the vampire squids that pay 50% of the US debt? Really, Im tired of argmuments in politics that do nothing but call names and are completely emotion driven.

[russianspy1234]

You, my good sir, are the reason the president is still able to spout blatant lies about romney.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/bains-businesses-romneys-company-job-creator-corporate-raider/story?id=16398730#3

Romney had already left Bain Capital for a year before the deal with kb toys happened. He had nothing to do with it.

Now, the next article, that paper company, you could actually say something about. However, bain has supposedly no longer had control of it 4 whole years before it encountered financial problems, aka, even that is a stretch.
______________________

Lets even say for a moment though, that company x hired 5,000,000 (heck even 500) people. They worked for 5 years, then the company went bankrupt, but the CEOs left rich. Is that really bad?
They provided 5,000,000 people with a job for 5 years. Would you have rather the company have never existed so those 5,000,000 people never had a job to begin with?

so the example i had off the top of my head wasn't accurate.  incidentally though, while he was retired, he was still an investor, and made a major profit from the buy out.  why is that possible?  how can someone buy a company, have it go bankrupt (in fact largely contributing to the bankruptcy) and make a huge profit?  i mean, if you or i invest in a company, and it goes bankrupt, we lose our money.  the rest of the points in my post still stand though.

[BluePriest]

so the example i had off the top of my head wasn't accurate.  incidentally though, while he was retired, he was still an investor, and made a major profit from the buy out.  why is that possible?  how can someone buy a company, have it go bankrupt (in fact largely contributing to the bankruptcy) and make a huge profit?  i mean, if you or i invest in a company, and it goes bankrupt, we lose our money.  the rest of the points in my post still stand though.

You see, the struck out part has nothing to do with romney. He was still an investor, and maybe he did make a profit, but here is what confuses me. So you dont like that he made a profit? Im not quite sure what you would have preferred. Would you have rather he lost money as well, or that he just never invested in it in the first place? Those are really the only other 2 options.

Meanwhile, I dont see any other points in what you said before. All I see are things that are already happening by the current administration who wants to have a monopoly in health care (by your definition of what government does, not mine), which will put hundreds of thousands of private sector health insurance workers out of work due to the monopoly.

[russianspy1234]

so the example i had off the top of my head wasn't accurate.  incidentally though, while he was retired, he was still an investor, and made a major profit from the buy out.  why is that possible?  how can someone buy a company, have it go bankrupt (in fact largely contributing to the bankruptcy) and make a huge profit?  i mean, if you or i invest in a company, and it goes bankrupt, we lose our money.  the rest of the points in my post still stand though.

You see, the struck out part has nothing to do with romney. He was still an investor, and maybe he did make a profit, but here is what confuses me. So you dont like that he made a profit? Im not quite sure what you would have preferred. Would you have rather he lost money as well, or that he just never invested in it in the first place? Those are really the only other 2 options.

Meanwhile, I dont see any other points in what you said before. All I see are things that are already happening by the current administration who wants to have a monopoly in health care (by your definition of what government does, not mine), which will put hundreds of thousands of private sector health insurance workers out of work due to the monopoly.

yes, if someone invests in a company and it goes bankrupt, they should lose money. that doesn't make sense?  the current administration wants a monopoly of healthcare?  that's rather odd seeing as how the healthcare reform that was passed forces people to buy healthcare from private sector health insurances.  curing all diseases would also put hundreds of thousands of doctors and medicine manufacturers out of work, would it be a bad thing to do?