why i support obama

[ObamaRocks91]

3 of 26 is about 11%, and that is as of right now, how many of those energy companies are profitable? How many are in production? How many are going to repay those investments ever, too early to tell right. But at this point 11% have failed completely. I never even said anything about Romney being better, or Romney at all. I was referring to the poster who said

 

"And I have no idea how you can even argue that green energy is our future. Obama is the only one who has the vision to see that and it's a joke to think anyone could actually argue that!"

 

You can bring out all of this wizard math, but Obama's investment in green energy companies has been flawless in the eyes of a sane person. Do a little research and stop listening to the biased Fox News. If you watch real, credible new networks such as CNN or MSNBC you would know the truth!

 

I never quoted or said fox news. But to put out MSNBC you just revealed yourself, if your name wasn't enough. Flawless means no flaws, 11% failure is not flawless.

 

Technically you're right about being flawless. But if I were to give you $500 billion and 89% of the investments were successful, I'm guessing you would take that! Obama is saving this country and it is truly sad to think people like you can not see it at this point. The man has to deal with brainless conservatives who won't work with him in Congress. He promotes an atmosphere of agreement and compromise and Republicans just can't see past their own special interests and agenda to get anything done.

[funhusker]

My opinion on what? That Romney fudged his facts, whoopdee do. They all do it.

And you edited your response after I started to respond. So I didn't see your question. But no I do not think Obama is going to be better at picking companies to invest government money in. On this issue Romney is the clear choice, because of his previous business background. He knows how to read financial documents and knows when someone is blowing smoke about the companies ability to have a healthy ROI. And really how much do I really think either is going to be doing the dirty work on discussions on this scale? I doubt they even know most of those companies by name, so I doubt they really approved the individual loans.

 

Please read what you typed.

 

Let me paraphrase: 'Romney is the clear choice because of his business acumen. But he won't use it.'

 

Not saying your wrong, because your not in this case. Where you do run into problems is assuming Romney will continue to fund "green" companies. The only way Romney/Ryan can continue this process is if they are LYING about their tax ideas...

 

Plus, you think they are loans....

[Ziggy]

My opinion on what? That Romney fudged his facts, whoopdee do. They all do it.

And you edited your response after I started to respond. So I didn't see your question. But no I do not think Obama is going to be better at picking companies to invest government money in. On this issue Romney is the clear choice, because of his previous business background. He knows how to read financial documents and knows when someone is blowing smoke about the companies ability to have a healthy ROI. And really how much do I really think either is going to be doing the dirty work on discussions on this scale? I doubt they even know most of those companies by name, so I doubt they really approved the individual loans.

ok, this is where we differ. you really think romney is going to spend money to invest in green energy and jobs? that is my concern. also, romney being a good businessman is a myth. he ran a corporate chop-shop. that takes no acumen.

 

I think he is going to spend the government money on some green energy, but also do not see the necessity of government backed energy companies. My opinion is to give money to companies to create better products that the government can use. I just do not like giving money without getting something. Romney ran a business that was profitable and successful. Regardless of the type of business, he still had to lead a team of people and make decisions that were in the best interest of the company. That argument would be like me saying Obama shouldn't be president because he never had a real job.

[sd'sker]

My opinion on what? That Romney fudged his facts, whoopdee do. They all do it.

And you edited your response after I started to respond. So I didn't see your question. But no I do not think Obama is going to be better at picking companies to invest government money in. On this issue Romney is the clear choice, because of his previous business background. He knows how to read financial documents and knows when someone is blowing smoke about the companies ability to have a healthy ROI. And really how much do I really think either is going to be doing the dirty work on discussions on this scale? I doubt they even know most of those companies by name, so I doubt they really approved the individual loans.

ok, this is where we differ. you really think romney is going to spend money to invest in green energy and jobs? that is my concern. also, romney being a good businessman is a myth. he ran a corporate chop-shop. that takes no acumen.

 

I think he is going to spend the government money on some green energy, but also do not see the necessity of government backed energy companies. My opinion is to give money to companies to create better products that the government can use. I just do not like giving money without getting something. Romney ran a business that was profitable and successful. Regardless of the type of business, he still had to lead a team of people and make decisions that were in the best interest of the company. That argument would be like me saying Obama shouldn't be president because he never had a real job.

no it would not and it was your argument.

 

you understand the advantages of investing in jobs for the gov't do you not? also, the gov't subsidizes most industries before they can become profitable and self-sustaining, then it is privatized.

[funhusker]

My opinion on what? That Romney fudged his facts, whoopdee do. They all do it.

And you edited your response after I started to respond. So I didn't see your question. But no I do not think Obama is going to be better at picking companies to invest government money in. On this issue Romney is the clear choice, because of his previous business background. He knows how to read financial documents and knows when someone is blowing smoke about the companies ability to have a healthy ROI. And really how much do I really think either is going to be doing the dirty work on discussions on this scale? I doubt they even know most of those companies by name, so I doubt they really approved the individual loans.

ok, this is where we differ. you really think romney is going to spend money to invest in green energy and jobs? that is my concern. also, romney being a good businessman is a myth. he ran a corporate chop-shop. that takes no acumen.

 

I think he is going to spend the government money on some green energy, but also do not see the necessity of government backed energy companies. My opinion is to give money to companies to create better products that the government can use. I just do not like giving money without getting something. Romney ran a business that was profitable and successful. Regardless of the type of business, he still had to lead a team of people and make decisions that were in the best interest of the company. That argument would be like me saying Obama shouldn't be president because he never had a real job.

The government isn't looking "for products they can use". They are looking for products that the American People can use. The point of government subsidies is to offset expenses that might be irrecoupable. This is the "boost" that most industries need in an economy where current cheap and easy alternatives exist. The point of these investments is to get a "head start" when the 'status quo' in energy is no longer 'status quo'. For example, the drastic price increase in gasoline over the past 10 years, or the price of utility bills...

[Ziggy]

My opinion on what? That Romney fudged his facts, whoopdee do. They all do it.

And you edited your response after I started to respond. So I didn't see your question. But no I do not think Obama is going to be better at picking companies to invest government money in. On this issue Romney is the clear choice, because of his previous business background. He knows how to read financial documents and knows when someone is blowing smoke about the companies ability to have a healthy ROI. And really how much do I really think either is going to be doing the dirty work on discussions on this scale? I doubt they even know most of those companies by name, so I doubt they really approved the individual loans.

 

Please read what you typed.

 

Let me paraphrase: 'Romney is the clear choice because of his business acumen. But he won't use it.'

 

Not saying your wrong, because your not in this case. Where you do run into problems is assuming Romney will continue to fund "green" companies. The only way Romney/Ryan can continue this process is if they are LYING about their tax ideas...

 

I was oversimplifying the situation for the debate. But still Romney/ Ryan can still spend money on green jobs. If we cut out spending in the defense that is wasteful or outdated, M1A1 tanks for example, and move it towards making the military more efficient by using turbo diesel engines, hybrid engines, solar panels on tents, etc. We end up spending money on green energy, and saving money on daily costs. I have said it before that I think Green energy is awesome, I want to build my own wind turbine, and put solar on my house, possibly have geothermal unit if I ever build a house.

[sd'sker]

My opinion on what? That Romney fudged his facts, whoopdee do. They all do it.

And you edited your response after I started to respond. So I didn't see your question. But no I do not think Obama is going to be better at picking companies to invest government money in. On this issue Romney is the clear choice, because of his previous business background. He knows how to read financial documents and knows when someone is blowing smoke about the companies ability to have a healthy ROI. And really how much do I really think either is going to be doing the dirty work on discussions on this scale? I doubt they even know most of those companies by name, so I doubt they really approved the individual loans.

 

Please read what you typed.

 

Let me paraphrase: 'Romney is the clear choice because of his business acumen. But he won't use it.'

 

Not saying your wrong, because your not in this case. Where you do run into problems is assuming Romney will continue to fund "green" companies. The only way Romney/Ryan can continue this process is if they are LYING about their tax ideas...

 

I was oversimplifying the situation for the debate. But still Romney/ Ryan can still spend money on green jobs. If we cut out spending in the defense that is wasteful or outdated, M1A1 tanks for example, and move it towards making the military more efficient by using turbo diesel engines, hybrid engines, solar panels on tents, etc. We end up spending money on green energy, and saving money on daily costs. I have said it before that I think Green energy is awesome, I want to build my own wind turbine, and put solar on my house, possibly have geothermal unit if I ever build a house.

i agree with what you said, but why do you think romney/ryan would continue these investments? they openly mock them in debates and talk about cuts saving the economy.

 

also, green jobs help in so many ways. obviously the environment, but jobs create spending power and tax revenue. and if we become a leader, we have a product to export. something to replace those manufacturing jobs that will never come back.

[Ziggy]

My opinion on what? That Romney fudged his facts, whoopdee do. They all do it.

And you edited your response after I started to respond. So I didn't see your question. But no I do not think Obama is going to be better at picking companies to invest government money in. On this issue Romney is the clear choice, because of his previous business background. He knows how to read financial documents and knows when someone is blowing smoke about the companies ability to have a healthy ROI. And really how much do I really think either is going to be doing the dirty work on discussions on this scale? I doubt they even know most of those companies by name, so I doubt they really approved the individual loans.

ok, this is where we differ. you really think romney is going to spend money to invest in green energy and jobs? that is my concern. also, romney being a good businessman is a myth. he ran a corporate chop-shop. that takes no acumen.

 

I think he is going to spend the government money on some green energy, but also do not see the necessity of government backed energy companies. My opinion is to give money to companies to create better products that the government can use. I just do not like giving money without getting something. Romney ran a business that was profitable and successful. Regardless of the type of business, he still had to lead a team of people and make decisions that were in the best interest of the company. That argument would be like me saying Obama shouldn't be president because he never had a real job.

no it would not and it was your argument.

 

you understand the advantages of investing in jobs for the gov't do you not? also, the gov't subsidizes most industries before they can become profitable and self-sustaining, then it is privatized.

 

I understand it yes, I do not like just giving money to companies. Tell me how most industries need subsidizes to get going? They might get government contracts like Jeep, IBM, and other various companies to create products for the military or the civilian government use, but just getting hundreds of millions of government dollars to start a company?

[sd'sker]

My opinion on what? That Romney fudged his facts, whoopdee do. They all do it.

And you edited your response after I started to respond. So I didn't see your question. But no I do not think Obama is going to be better at picking companies to invest government money in. On this issue Romney is the clear choice, because of his previous business background. He knows how to read financial documents and knows when someone is blowing smoke about the companies ability to have a healthy ROI. And really how much do I really think either is going to be doing the dirty work on discussions on this scale? I doubt they even know most of those companies by name, so I doubt they really approved the individual loans.

ok, this is where we differ. you really think romney is going to spend money to invest in green energy and jobs? that is my concern. also, romney being a good businessman is a myth. he ran a corporate chop-shop. that takes no acumen.

 

I think he is going to spend the government money on some green energy, but also do not see the necessity of government backed energy companies. My opinion is to give money to companies to create better products that the government can use. I just do not like giving money without getting something. Romney ran a business that was profitable and successful. Regardless of the type of business, he still had to lead a team of people and make decisions that were in the best interest of the company. That argument would be like me saying Obama shouldn't be president because he never had a real job.

no it would not and it was your argument.

 

you understand the advantages of investing in jobs for the gov't do you not? also, the gov't subsidizes most industries before they can become profitable and self-sustaining, then it is privatized.

 

I understand it yes, I do not like just giving money to companies. Tell me how most industries need subsidizes to get going? They might get government contracts like Jeep, IBM, and other various companies to create products for the military or the civilian government use, but just getting hundreds of millions of government dollars to start a company?

if it creates jobs, then what is the problem? the gov't also does a lot of r&d then privatize the projects when they are successful. a lot from the military. i have talked about this a lot, but the money has to come somewhere to get the economy moving. i think that is a fundamental difference between the two parties (or at least ideologies) right now.

 

to be completely honest, i just do not want to look for examples of industries using subsidies to get started. feel free to disregard that point if you wish.

[HSKR]

What regulations should the government impose?

Limiting how much money big companies can pay politicians to pass laws that benefit only big companies. But you can see the quandary there.

 

They could not let this happen:

 

 

Wal-Mart:

Pre-tax earnings: $24.4 Billion

 

Tax Provision: $7.9 Billion (33%)

 

Actual Taxes Paid to U.S. federal government: $4.6 Billion (19%)

 

Wal-Mart paid $4.6 billion to the U.S. federal government in 2011 and deferred paying an additional $1.4 billion. It paid $743 million to state and local government, $1.4 billion to foreign governments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you shop at Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, Target, Safeway, Lowes, home depot, a mall?

No.

 

Just as long as you don't use Apple products, I'd say good for you because Apple makes all those other evil corporations look like Mr Rodgers Neighborhood.

[Ziggy]

The problem is R&D is planned for what they want to accomplish, also contracts that are bid on have certain requirements and cost saving benefits. Just giving out loans allows companies to spend money like it isn't theirs, which it isn't.