Why I support Romney

[HuskerShark]

Ron Paul? Really? I would rather elect some of the posters on this board ahead that idiot and his borderline anarcho-capitalist agenda.

 

Yeah, those asshat founding fathers and their liberty-driven principles, am I right? They were completely anarcho-capitalist...

I can't stand Ron Paul! He's always going on and on about reducing the size of government and sound monetary policies. And he's always bitching about our military policing the world, nation buidling, and the never ending wars. Blah blah blah.

 

What a crackpot!

 

[BigRedBuster]

I have said over and over again that I am voting for Romney because he is a successful business man who has experience running large organizations and understands how the business world works.

 

I looked for this clip but can't find it.

 

One point in the debate last night a question was asked about bringing jobs back to the US.

 

Paraphrasing: Romney's response was that he wants to do what it takes to make the US the best possible environment for business in the world so those companies WANT to bring those jobs back to the US. He spoke about holding China to playing by the rules. I got the feeling that he was going down the path that I spelled out in another thread where we need to force foreign companies who want to import products to the US to manufacture them on a level playing field to what US companies are forced to play on.

 

Again Paraphrasing: Obama's response was to make companies who outsource jobs over seas pay. He talked about closing loop holes...etc. He didn't say anything about doing things to make them want to bring jobs back. Obama also talked about only interested in doing what it takes to bring high tech jobs back to the US. The fact is, some people simply are not capable of doing high tech jobs. I guess we aren't supposed to worry about those people?

 

I found this discussion very telling as to their business acumen. This tells me that Romney understands that the way to get businesses to bring jobs back is to make them want to be here. Obama's response left me with the impression that is plan is to punish businesses.

 

Bottom line, make it easy and make them want to do business in the US and they will come back.

[carlfense]

I have said over and over again that I am voting for Romney because he is a successful business man who has experience running large organizations and understands how the business world works.

Is being a successful businessman (corporate raider actually . . . Romney didn't actually "build that") your main criteria for a presidential candidate?

 

I looked for this clip but can't find it.

Here's the transcript if that helps.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/16/full-transcript-of-the-second-presidential-debate/

[knapplc]

Let's see. Obama said (correctly) that certain jobs are never coming back to America - the drudge jobs of mindless assembly, the rubber dog crap manufacturing jobs that you can pay someone 10 cents a day to complete. They're not returning and we don't want them. He also yacked a bit about education, making our labor force smarter so we have those better jobs. This ill-fitting connection that "I guess we don't have to worry about" the people incapable of doing those kinds of jobs is funny in light of your refusal to condemn Romney's direct quote of the 47% that he doesn't concern himself with.

 

Romney blathered about holding China accountable. Yet:

 

Nine years ago, the company bought two camshaft factories that employed about 500 people in Michigan. By 2007 both were shut down. Now Asimco manufactures the same components in China on government-donated land in a coastal region that China has designated an export base, where companies are eligible for the sort of subsidies Mr. Romney says create an unfair trade imbalance.

 

But there is a twist to the Asimco story that would not fit neatly into a Romney stump speech: Since 2010, it has been owned by Bain Capital, the private equity firm founded by Mr. Romney, who has as much as $2.25 million invested in three Bain funds with large stakes in Asimco and at least seven other Chinese businesses, according to his 2012 candidate financial disclosure and other documents.

 

That and other China-related holdings by Bain funds in which Mr. Romney has invested are a reminder of how he inhabits two worlds that at times have come into conflict during his campaign for the White House.

 

As a candidate, Mr. Romney uses China as a punching bag. He accuses Beijing of unfairly subsidizing Chinese exports, artificially holding down the value of its currency to keep exports cheap, stealing American technology and hacking into corporate and government computers.

 

 

Asked if Mr. Romney sees any conflict between his Bain investments in China and his policy positions, the campaign said: “Only the president has the power to level the playing field with China. No private citizen can do that alone.”

 

LINK

 

It's not difficult to understand Romney's China stance. You just have to figure out which side of his mouth he's speaking from at any given moment.

[JJ Husker]

You're probably right, we don't want those crappy manufacturing jobs. I'm sure none of the unemployed people in this country would appreciate having a crappy, mindless assembly job. It is probably better to keep the playing field unlevel, let China continue to do all those crappy jobs while paying their people ten cents a day to do it, and then let them continue to export that crap to the US of A where our unemployed citizens can buy that rubber dog crap with their unemployment check.

 

Did you even read that before you hit post? Or, were you just to anxious to point out that the wealthy Romney has currently legal investments in chinese companies? Seems he is not alone with having chinese investments. I have some money invested in China, Obama has money invested in China, and most anyone who has any mutual funds probably has some type of world fund or Chinese exposure. The fact that I or Romney or Obama or anyone likes to profit on investments really has very little to do with China's money manipulation, our trade practices with them, or their treatment of workers. Personally I would rather see the playing field leveled and then decide my investments in places like China were no longer worth it.

[sd'sker]

Every issue that comes up, the Democrats think the federal government is the answer to fixing it. Are you saying that the Democrats are for more power going to states and local governments? If so, that is a laughable view. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you even the one that claimed having a big strong federal government was the only entity that can save us from big corporations?

it is your sweeping generalizations that make it impossible to have a serious conversation with you. yes, i am for a strong, competent, efficient federal government. who could be opposed to that? where do you see the federal gov't usurping on states' rights? other than whiny kids' school lunches. all of your arguments are in the abstract. gov't exploded under bush. we do not live in a time where republican automatically means smaller gov't and democrat automatically means larger gov't.

[knapplc]

You're probably right, we don't want those crappy manufacturing jobs. I'm sure none of the unemployed people in this country would appreciate having a crappy, mindless assembly job. It is probably better to keep the playing field unlevel, let China continue to do all those crappy jobs while paying their people ten cents a day to do it, and then let them continue to export that crap to the US of A where our unemployed citizens can buy that rubber dog crap with their unemployment check.

 

Did you even read that before you hit post? Or, were you just to anxious to point out that the wealthy Romney has currently legal investments in chinese companies? Seems he is not alone with having chinese investments. I have some money invested in China, Obama has money invested in China, and most anyone who has any mutual funds probably has some type of world fund or Chinese exposure. The fact that I or Romney or Obama or anyone likes to profit on investments really has very little to do with China's money manipulation, our trade practices with them, or their treatment of workers. Personally I would rather see the playing field leveled and then decide my investments in places like China were no longer worth it.

 

I did read it. It's based on fact:

 

 

The Law Of Unintended Consequences: Georgia's Immigration Law Backfires

 

Despite high unemployment in the state, most Georgians don’t want such back-breaking jobs, nor do they have the necessary skills. According to Dick Minor, president of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Grower’s Association, immigrants “are pretty much professional harvesters” with many specializing in particular crops.

 

 

 

Workers are paid by volume, with skilled workers typically earning $15 to $20 an hour. Unskilled workers earn much less, which is why most locals don’t want the jobs.

 

Georgia’s experience is consistent with economic research on immigration. Although many Americans believe immigrants “steal” our jobs and push down our wages, economists find little evidence of that.

 

Americans don't want those jobs. Further, American companies don't want to pay American workers the wages they'd have to pay in order to have those jobs here. It's not only the workers not doing the jobs, the "job creators" are taking the jobs overseas. Bain Capital has done this:

 

 

 

Romney’s Bain Capital invested in companies that moved jobs overseas

 

Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.

 

 

During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

While economists debate whether the massive outsourcing of American jobs over the last generation was inevitable, Romney in recent months has lamented the toll it’s taken on the U.S. economy. He has repeatedly pledged he would protect American employment by getting tough on China.

 

But a Washington Post examination of securities filings shows the extent of Bain’s investment in firms that specialized in helping other companies move or expand operations overseas. While Bain was not the largest player in the outsourcing field, the private equity firm was involved early on, at a time when the departure of jobs from the United States was beginning to accelerate and new companies were emerging as handmaidens to this outflow of employment.

 

 

 

So which side of this issue do you have problems with? The fact that Americans aren't willing to do that kind of work or the fact that our "job creators" are busy outsourcing those very jobs overseas?

[sd'sker]

I have said over and over again that I am voting for Romney because he is a successful business man who has experience running large organizations and understands how the business world works.

why do you think his business experience makes him suited for presidency? his business 'experience' explains his most popular idea of turning medicare into a voucher system. a business perspective is what gets you ideas like privatizing social security or letting gm go bankrupt even though the economy was on the brink of collapse and it would have been impossible to get the private capital necessary to rebuild.

[JJ Husker]

Knapp- I have a problem with both those sides and maybe a few more sides.

 

Problem number one- we have a whole bunch of unemployed people. I know many of them don't want menial type work. I can kind of understand preferring to collect an unemployment check, courtesy of the US taxpayer rather than actually earning a paycheck doing something you would prefer not to do. That is a ridiculus situation that has to be remedied. When we have only a nominal number of unemployed, then I will accept allowing some of these more undesirable jobs to matriculate overseas or to allow in foreigners with work visas.

 

Problem two- we need to remove any insentive for US companies to ship our jobs overseas. We need to tax them up the wazoo if they are making money that way. We also need to create a climate where businesses want to locate and hire positions here. The crux of the problem is that people in other countries are willing to work their ass off for a fraction of the pay and benefits that are standard here. Well guess what, in a global economy you can't expect the US to have such a huge advantage in quality of life. It has to begin balancing out. We have to keep and generate all the highly desirable jobs we can but we cannot totally abandon all of the grunt work because we will have to pay for it in other ways anyway. We have shed manufacturing jobs like they were plague ridden. We can't continue down that road. We can't keep paying more and more people to do nothing and still bring in cheaper goods from countries that do not have our regulations, wages, benefits, etc. There simply will never be enough high end jobs to make up for it.

 

I might get villified for this but I think we need to take a much more protectionist stand on trade. Tax the hell out of the cheap crap being imported. Put these havens of human rights travesties on the same playing field as the US and then let our consumers decide which item they want to purchase. The only thing cheap about the imported item will be the quality.

[JJ Husker]

And on another note, we need to remove any incentive for US companies to off shore jobs. Make so ugly they can't even consider it. Of course that requires not letting anyone import cheaper goods from overaeas or we would simply lose all our jobs.

 

And I don't want to hear how Romney off shored any jobs or how he wouldn't be tough on China. He has done the things he has because he could, and the fact that hanyone could do it made it practically mandatory to do it to survive. We can't hold him responsible for a situation our own economic and trade policies encouraged. It is not fair and has nothing to do with how he would behave in a Presidential position.

[EZ-E]

I am voting for Rmney and here is why:

 

Being that my family's roots are in very, very, very rural small town Nebraska(Tobias if anyone knows where that is), you would assume that I am ver conservative. Yes and no. I believe In many of the premises of the Republican party but also get highly annoyed with them. For instance, if you are a fan of small government, be a fan of small government in all aspects. As soon as morality is brought up, they want it legislated. Not me. I am a huge fan of small government and believe social issues that deal with morality should be left to the states and local governments.

 

As for the left, if you are a fan of big government, it also can't be only at your convenience either. All or nothing much as stated above. Where I differ from the left is that I don't believe that I should have to pick up anyone else's slack and I don't take a dime unless I have earned it. This idea that I owe anything to anyone else who hasn't made the right choices in life is a crock a sh#t. Where I get highly annoyed with this party is that they claim they don't force their beliefs on anybody, but then they begin to throw my Christian upbringing in my face. "Oh, you Christians believe in helping your fellow men but don't believe in welfare programs." for example. Well, the deal I truly do believe in helping people, but there is a fine line between taxes and charity. When you force people to pay taxes to the federal government, that isn't you giving something out of the goodness of your heart you are being forced and chances are it will never see the people in your surrounding area.

 

With this his word against mine game that it appears these candidates are playing, I am voting on resume. I'm sure BO was an astonishing community organizer, but Romney has a history of pulling businesses out of debt and making them profitable again. As much as some may not like him, he is 100% qualified to be president, whereas BO was not at this time in 08.

[Moiraine]

This idea that I owe anything to anyone else who hasn't made the right choices in life is a crock a sh#t.

 

I think this is the root of where a lot of people differ. For whatever reason, a disproportionate number of Americans believe in meritocracy, even though in America it's statistically extremely difficult to move up to a higher income bracket. Few people die at a higher income bracket than they were born into. So few people that, in my opinion, there's no way in hell that "working hard" and "making the right choices" is the most important factor. If it were, way more people would inprove their lots in life than actually do. You can't tell me that poor people who never get out of that plight didn't get out of it because they didn't work hard. They started off with shittier living conditions and less educated parents which have been proven to be a big factor in how well they do in school. And then there's the fact that the schools themselves are shittier.

 

It's bullsh#t that people who need help need help because they made the wrong choices. Obviously that is a factor for some but it's a factor for way less than people think. The situation people are born into is very telling in how they will end up and unfortunately it's worse in the U.S. than in a lot of other democratic countries.

[EZ-E]

This idea that I owe anything to anyone else who hasn't made the right choices in life is a crock a sh#t.

 

I think this is the root of where a lot of people differ. For whatever reason, a disproportionate number of Americans believe in meritocracy, even though in America it's statistically extremely difficult to move up to a higher income bracket. Few people die at a higher income bracket than they were born into. So few people that, in my opinion, there's no way in hell that "working hard" and "making the right choices" is the most important factor. If it were, way more people would inprove their lots in life than actually do. You can't tell me that poor people who never get out of that plight didn't get out of it because they didn't work hard. They started off with shittier living conditions and less educated parents which have been proven to be a big factor in how well they do in school. And then there's the fact that the schools themselves are shittier.

 

It's bullsh#t that people who need help need help because they made the wrong choices. Obviously that is a factor for some but it's a factor for way less than people think. The situation people are born into is very telling in how they will end up and unfortunately it's worse in the U.S. than in a lot of other democratic countries.

 

I agree with a portion of what you said. But the thing that gets me is that you can only blame your environment for so long. I understand that people are born less fortunate and need help, but to force me to pay taxes to the federal government that go from Nebraska to Washington will more than likely never see the people around me. Also, I don't believe I should personally be forced to help either. I am a very charitable person, so let me be charitable. That is my take and I hope you can respect that.

[Comish]

This idea that I owe anything to anyone else who hasn't made the right choices in life is a crock a sh#t.

 

I think this is the root of where a lot of people differ. For whatever reason, a disproportionate number of Americans believe in meritocracy, even though in America it's statistically extremely difficult to move up to a higher income bracket. Few people die at a higher income bracket than they were born into. So few people that, in my opinion, there's no way in hell that "working hard" and "making the right choices" is the most important factor. If it were, way more people would inprove their lots in life than actually do. You can't tell me that poor people who never get out of that plight didn't get out of it because they didn't work hard. They started off with shittier living conditions and less educated parents which have been proven to be a big factor in how well they do in school. And then there's the fact that the schools themselves are shittier.

 

It's bullsh#t that people who need help need help because they made the wrong choices. Obviously that is a factor for some but it's a factor for way less than people think. The situation people are born into is very telling in how they will end up and unfortunately it's worse in the U.S. than in a lot of other democratic countries.

Your assertion that people remain in the same relative place on the economic ladder is demonstrably false. People move up (and down) constantly. (I am not saying some are not in much more difficult circumstances to begin with). People move up from bottom to middle or even the top, and conversely others are moving down throughout the spectrum, based on individual circumstances.........some of which involve opportunity and/or individual initiative and/or luck.

This narrative that we are all "stuck" where we are born is false. Movement throughout social and economic status is always fluid and in flux.

[Moiraine]

This idea that I owe anything to anyone else who hasn't made the right choices in life is a crock a sh#t.

 

I think this is the root of where a lot of people differ. For whatever reason, a disproportionate number of Americans believe in meritocracy, even though in America it's statistically extremely difficult to move up to a higher income bracket. Few people die at a higher income bracket than they were born into. So few people that, in my opinion, there's no way in hell that "working hard" and "making the right choices" is the most important factor. If it were, way more people would inprove their lots in life than actually do. You can't tell me that poor people who never get out of that plight didn't get out of it because they didn't work hard. They started off with shittier living conditions and less educated parents which have been proven to be a big factor in how well they do in school. And then there's the fact that the schools themselves are shittier.

 

It's bullsh#t that people who need help need help because they made the wrong choices. Obviously that is a factor for some but it's a factor for way less than people think. The situation people are born into is very telling in how they will end up and unfortunately it's worse in the U.S. than in a lot of other democratic countries.

Your assertion that people remain in the same relative place on the economic ladder is demonstrably false. People move up (and down) constantly. (I am not saying some are not in much more difficult circumstances to begin with). People move up from bottom to middle or even the top, and conversely others are moving down throughout the spectrum, based on individual circumstances.........some of which involve opportunity and/or individual initiative and/or luck.

This narrative that we are all "stuck" where we are born is false. Movement throughout social and economic status is always fluid and in flux.

 

No, it isn't false. Unless you're assuming I think everyone stays in the same bracket. The majority of people stay in the same they're born in. That's a fact. Lately (as in the last ten or so years) it's been more likely for people in the middle class to go down than go up. I'm far too lazy to look up the stats again (my computer crashed a couple months ago and I lost everything I researched on this topic). I realize that looks convenient for me to say, but I'm too lazy to care about that too. I just won't post on it after this.