• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does Mitt Romney buissness background make uniquely qualified?[W:26]

OMG, a birther!!! :D

I though birther was only a term used to describe people that question president obama's citizenship. I don't think we have a name yet.
 
Last edited:
So to me it is more like do we want to become richer but more unequal, or do we want to become slightly less rich and slightly more equal....


I believe that is exactly the choice. My entire life, we have focused on supply side thinking. Increase the top earners opportunities, increase GDP, and show growth on the books. It's well known we can show growth by deregulating and reducing taxes. I don't really think that can be argued. The argument at hand is a little different: is the growth we've experienced healthy in the long run?

How much farther as a country do we wish to grow the divide?

Ignoring the fact that at the two highest points of wealth division we've seen the great depression followed by the great recession, it is completely illogical to continue a growth pattern that has done nothing for the majority of the population. Shouldn't we be focused on a growth pattern that is inclusive? Despite what you guys want to believe, the majority of the working poor work more hours per week than those in the middle class, and it's typically much more physically demanding.

The promise was increase the top end and the rest will follow up giving us an overall increase in GDP and individual wealth. What we've got over the last 30 or 40 years is quite a different story. The top earners have sky rocketed while the rest of us are lucky to keep pace with inflation.

The conservatives are on about a proven method of increasing GDP and decreasing debt. It works... no doubt about it.

The rest of us are looking at the numbers and saying wait a minute... we're growing and getting weaker at the same time. What good is a high GDP if most of the country's standard of living is unchanged or decreasing? Why do we wish to consolidate wealth and power? Where is the opportunity to come up from rags to riches, and how many of those opportunities will be left after all tax consuming programs are gutted? Are we willing to let the old, handicapped, sick, and destitute fend for themselves, and if so, how do we plan to keep them out of the public view so we don't have to explain to our children? Why aren't we willing to look at any ideas besides supply side economics which has proven to consolidate wealth and power thereby decreasing individual wealth and freedom.

Obama's got some serious problems, but at least he's saying the right things. And many of Obama's problems are arguably a disagreeable house. He probably spent too much capital on health care. Nobel and ambitious goal that fell short thanks to lack of a public option. By the time he was through that mess, Tea party took over the house and handcuffed him with the stated goal of ousting Obama. How can you respect a bunch that argued to let our nation default or declares war on the POTUS? Would you entertain an argument for you to default on your own loans or that your family should ignore your financial policies?

Romney is spewing the same babble I've heard my entire life, and it's these policies responsible for the top end increase in wealth along with the bottom end stagnation.

At this point, we can look at the numbers and plainly see that catering to the upper income earners is good for them, good for the books, and bad for the country as a whole. The problem is, most don't bother looking. It's much easier to go with a gut instinct of what's right than to start digging into trends and stats.

Of course, its wrong to take from one and give to another. It's also wrong to keep making it easier for the top earners while making harder on the rest. You'll show growth.... on your way to the cliff. Sometimes it's necessary to look deeper than right and wrong to make wise policy decisions. There might need to be decisions that go against your basic instinct of "MINE" to keep the wheels from falling off. That's a tough sell that most people won't buy unless their party leaders start leading them to such conclusions. The problem is the party leaders don't care for the country, but rather what they can get out of the deal. We've got a generation or three of screwing over the middle class still, right? Maybe!

Right now, all of our economic control mechanisms are maxed out. We basically have not control left over growth or depict without legislation. That's fine, but when the house has made the president public enemy #1, wtf are we supposed to do? Obviously we are not going to move forward while Obama sits and the white house and Tea Party controls the House. One has got to give. Supply side or something, anything new?

So our vote in this election is essentially what you said above. We can vote for supply side economics to help close the deficit, or we can vote to try and add some balance to our taxation to try and close up the deficit. Either method will help the biggest problem with America's economy, but which one promotes a healthier economy in the long run?

So in response to your question, I say his business experience has no effect at all. This decision is about how to correct our deficit.

The question we should be asking right now is which set of policies promotes a healthy growth - not growth by any means necessary. Top earners do not need to continue to sky rocket while the rest of the economy remains stagnant. That's why we are in this borrow spend mess in the first place. We need to be asking ourselves how do we allow lower and middle income earners to feel the effect of this vastly increased GDP. If we can figure out how to do that, we can grow healthier and faster than supply side by sheer numbers.
 
right

As usual, you haven't he slightet idea what you're talking about. I've given you my interpretation of Romney and his unethical business practices and you can't refute it. So rather than show us that you actually have some sort of idea about a subject you just name call anybody who shows that you are actually quite uninfomred.

You don't seem to get it. If you want to prove Romney and Bain is unethical, you have to put forth actual data, you know, factual information, to support your claim. You have not done so. You simply repeated your left wing talking heads.

It is understandable you do not want to depart from that line, perhaps you already realize that Bain did far more good than bad, and their record shows it.
 
You don't seem to get it. If you want to prove Romney and Bain is unethical, you have to put forth actual data, you know, factual information, to support your claim. You have not done so. You simply repeated your left wing talking heads.

It is understandable you do not want to depart from that line, perhaps you already realize that Bain did far more good than bad, and their record shows it.

Uh, wrong again le boobe': you said I was wrong. I asked you for your version; credibly researched, about Mitt Romney - that would of course refute what I said, and you have nothing to offer up: which means that - until you do, I'm right.

This of course translates into you not having any idea what you're talking about - again.
 
Uh, wrong again le boobe': you said I was wrong. I asked you for your version; credibly researched, about Mitt Romney - that would of course refute what I said, and you have nothing to offer up: which means that - until you do, I'm right.

This of course translates into you not having any idea what you're talking about - again.

Spin away grand master. Doesn't change the fact that your original 'assessment' was incorrect, and you have not put forth any data to show otherwise. But please don't bother at this point, wouldn't want you to cause a hemorrhage or something.
 
Mitt romney also ran a ponzi scheme so he has the same experience as bernie madoff. So is bernie madoff qualified to be president?
 
Man, are all you guys listening to the same left wing talking head or what?

No more than the right listens to Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.

Like I told another person, do a bit of research and learn the reality about Bain, it helps to let you not make such ignorant statements such as the above ones.

So, you expect us to believe you actually did research? :lamo

Judging by you postings concerning Obama and Romney, if you are for it, I find the other side to be the less ignorant.
 
As governor, Romney, set up a health care system similar to Obama's Affordable Health Care.

Exactly. Romney created RomneyCare.

There might be some conservatives who can hold their nose and vote for him, but I can't.
 
I though birther was only a term used to describe people that question president obama's citizenship. I don't think we have a name yet.

There are those questioning the eligibility of Romney (Mexico) as well as Rubio (Cuba) and Jindal (India) to be president or vice-president.
 
There are those questioning the eligibility of Romney (Mexico) as well as Rubio (Cuba) and Jindal (India) to be president or vice-president.

Well jindal we can cancel out because the republican party will never nominate a brown dude. Rubio is interesting. I want to say the the republicans will never nominate a hispanic either but than i remember that mittens is hispanic. So only people we need to concern ourselves with is rubio and romney because they are the only ones that can get close to the presidency.
 
Last edited:
Yep, what I heard on the radio was wrong. I admit it. I looked it up. Romney isn't a Billionnaire. According to Forbes he is estimated to be worth around $230 million.
 
Yep, what I heard on the radio was wrong. I admit it. I looked it up. Romney isn't a Billionnaire. According to Forbes he is estimated to be worth around $230 million.

I don't think that figure is accurate. We also need to calculate the money he has lying on some island.
 
Apparently, the researchers had a difficult time figuring out the estimated amount. url=http://news.yahoo.com/best-estimate-romneys-net-worth-far-230-million-154904254.html]The Best Estimate of Romney's Net Worth So Far: $230 Million - Yahoo! News[/url]
 
Spin away grand master. Doesn't change the fact that your original 'assessment' was incorrect, and you have not put forth any data to show otherwise. But please don't bother at this point, wouldn't want you to cause a hemorrhage or something.

Yeah, as usual you can't defend your own position on a Republican. It's a shame the right-wing is just so ignorant.

But . . .
 
Yeah, as usual you can't defend your own position on a Republican. It's a shame the right-wing is just so ignorant.

But . . .


why do you people who claim to be so informed and so smart tend to be the ones who need more government to take care of them and tend to be the ones resentful of the successful?
 
In my opinion, having business credentials shouldn't make you qualified to be President of the United States. To me, government shouldn't be run like a business. The sole purpose of a business is to maximize profit, and I don't think that translates well into a government. A candidate should also know how to compromise, which someone with a purely business background would not have much experience with. Mitt Romney does alleviate some of my concerns by being a former Governor of Massachusetts but I still can't use his time at Bain Capital as a pro for me.
 
Back
Top Bottom