If you owned a business, who would you hire to run it: Obama or Romney?

[candycorn]

Those who are interested can listen to persons who used to work for Romney here:

How Mitt Romney's Firm Tried

We all know you won't listen but you'll swear you've looked at all the facts.

Actually there is a lot to like about Bain if you're yoked like you say you are. But it would require effort and there is a possibility you're firmly held beliefs will be challenged so make sure you don't listen.

Besides, it's NPR so I'm sure you have no reason to listen.

 

[Rozman]

It would depend on what my Mission Statement was.

Obama mission statement.

Overpay everyone.
Healthcare,and pension paid for by the company.
Unlimited paid sick days.
4 weeks vacation (paid) to start.
If worker goes to school after work courses paid for by the company.
Even if the courses are not related to job.
Extensive paid maternity leave for both women and men both gay and straight.
If the worker is a Transgender employee coverage is doubled.

Romney mission statement.

Make the company profitable in the first year.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Those who are interested can listen to persons who used to work for Romney here:

How Mitt Romney's Firm Tried

We all know you won't listen but you'll swear you've looked at all the facts.

Actually there is a lot to like about Bain if you're yoked like you say you are. But it would require effort and there is a possibility you're firmly held beliefs will be challenged so make sure you don't listen.

Besides, it's NPR so I'm sure you have no reason to listen.

NPR is just as neutral as Rush Limbaugh, why would anyone give either of those sources a hard time?

 

[SayMyName]

Romney.

 

[initforme]

"Overpay everyone."

The first rule in business is to pay much more than your competition so workers from other businesses leave to work for you. You make less profit to begin with which is business saavy. The work quality is high because you keep your best workers. Then you make your bigger profits. My rule is any business with alot of turnover to keep labor cheap results in a poorly made product. I have had very low turnover as I pay more than most other construction companies around me. That has been the biggest boon to my profits as the work is high quality. People are after high quality products, not cheap ones.

 

[initforme]

Oh, and I see paid vacation is bad. So is maternity leave. You must own a shoddy business.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Oh, and I see paid vacation is bad. So is maternity leave. You must own a shoddy business.

Who are you responding to?

 

[initforme]

"Obama mission statement.

Overpay everyone.
Healthcare,and pension paid for by the company.
Unlimited paid sick days.
4 weeks vacation (paid) to start.
If worker goes to school after work courses paid for by the company.
Even if the courses are not related to job.
Extensive paid maternity leave for both women and men both gay and straight.
If the worker is a Transgender employee coverage is doubled.

Romney mission statement.

Make the company profitable in the first year. " By Rozman

While I wont even touch the transgender and gay statements, I surely have no problem with paid maternity leave and some paid vacation. If you treat your workers well they work hard for you. If you dont, they leave. And I would encourage them to leave. Where they are working is not into treating workers well. Bottom line is well paid workers do great work. Average paid workers do average work. You can make a company profitable in the first year, and the second, and the third, without chincing on your hires. Start above competition, attract the best workers, and away you go.

 

[Harry Dresden]

If you owned a business, say about 200 employees, with a lot of capital and stock and all that economic shit..........but you became ill, and needed someone to run the thing to keep it going so your kids and grandkids would benefit in the future from it, who would you hire to run that company: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney???

Simple question. Simple answer. Simple and obvious point.

Barack Obama. Without a question. It would be a company I could be proud of. The bottom line isn't the only thing to consider for most Americans. You're right, it was a simple question and it had an obvious answer.

"Corporations are people my friend"--Willard Romney.

yea like if Obama ran a Company he would not consider the "bottom line"....give me a break......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obama, obviously – he would treat workers appropriately, in accordance with the law, ensuring the retention of a skilled and valued workforce. Indeed, that would attract qualified employees from elsewhere to the business, further increasing its value.

What I'm saying is that the government isn't there to turn a profit, and I don't want it pushing for that. The government is there to protect our rights, not order us around like employees for the greater good of the 'company'. That's what I see a lot of people cheering for - as though maximizing GDP should be a goal of government.

Correct with one modification, the law protects our rights, with it incumbent upon government to abide the rule of law and act in a Constitutional manner.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If you owned a business, say about 200 employees, with a lot of capital and stock and all that economic shit..........but you became ill, and needed someone to run the thing to keep it going so your kids and grandkids would benefit in the future from it, who would you hire to run that company: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney???

Simple question. Simple answer. Simple and obvious point.

Barack Obama. Without a question. It would be a company I could be proud of. The bottom line isn't the only thing to consider for most Americans. You're right, it was a simple question and it had an obvious answer.

"Corporations are people my friend"--Willard Romney.

yea like if Obama ran a Company he would not consider the "bottom line"....give me a break......

He would actually. It doesn't mean he would still be qualified to make the right decisions; but I'm somewhat confident that he would consider the bottom line. Then again, I wouldn't put it past him to bleed the company dry and say he got his and move on.

But the problem is with the country he doesn't have to consider the bottom line. He has a blank check and he can print all the money he wants. And there's no doubt that his own personal future is secure, so he doesn't have any real vested interest in the success of the country. In fact, since his platform is blame, it's probably better for him if the country hits rocky times. He'll have more success on the speaking circuit and political circuit, divvying up blame. That's bigger future pay days for him in such an event.

 

[rdean]

If you owned a business, say about 200 employees, with a lot of capital and stock and all that economic shit..........but you became ill, and needed someone to run the thing to keep it going so your kids and grandkids would benefit in the future from it, who would you hire to run that company: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney???

Simple question. Simple answer. Simple and obvious point.

Romney would pile on the debt, put it into bankruptcy, sell off the assets, and send whatever jobs leftover to China.

At least that's what he did when he worked at Bain. I tend to believe he would go with what he knows.

According to that theory, Obama would lose millions, bankrupt the company and blame the guy before him, yeah, I'll pass.

That's not what he did to the economy after Republicans ruined it. It's much too soon to rewrite history. Republicans are going to be stuck with "reality" until it fades from the minds of Americans, THEN they can rewrite what actually happened. It's like the "Reagan" Legacy project. They would never support the old Reagan. So they reinvented him in 1999.

 

[Oldstyle]

Those who are interested can listen to persons who used to work for Romney here:

How Mitt Romney's Firm Tried

We all know you won't listen but you'll swear you've looked at all the facts.

Actually there is a lot to like about Bain if you're yoked like you say you are. But it would require effort and there is a possibility you're firmly held beliefs will be challenged so make sure you don't listen.

Besides, it's NPR so I'm sure you have no reason to listen.

You amuse me, Candy. Did you actually read the NPR article? If you HAD you'd note that Romney wasn't even running Bain at the time discussed. So you want to hold up as an example of what a "bad businessman" Romney is...something that was done when he had taken a leave of absence to run for office? This is the kind of nonsense I expect from Deanie or TM. Seriously...you need to step back and think before you post drivel like this.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Those who are interested can listen to persons who used to work for Romney here:

How Mitt Romney's Firm Tried

We all know you won't listen but you'll swear you've looked at all the facts.

Actually there is a lot to like about Bain if you're yoked like you say you are. But it would require effort and there is a possibility you're firmly held beliefs will be challenged so make sure you don't listen.

Besides, it's NPR so I'm sure you have no reason to listen.

You amuse me, Candy. Did you actually read the NPR article? If you HAD you'd note that Romney wasn't even running Bain at the time discussed. So you want to hold up as an example of what a "bad businessman" Romney is...something that was done when he had taken a leave of absence to run for office? This is the kind of nonsense I expect from Deanie or TM. Seriously...you need to step back and think before you post drivel like this.

I expect that kind of nonsense from candycorn too

 

[ThinkCritically]

If Romney would do like Bush...

which is lower taxes to the point where the country had to function on massive deficits/debt, than I would not hire him.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to lead to massive domestic job growth, but Bush had the worst job growth of any president. It's on the record. (Bush ended all government support for the middle class in order to pay off the wealthy. Problem is, the middle class needed that support to keep consuming. When the middle class stops buying things, the economy dies. Right now, the problem isn't a lack of money on top for investment, rather, the problem is a lack of demand. Republicans have undermined the engine of middle class demand which came from government for the last 50 years. Morons. THe point of things like Social Security is this: if your elderly parents can support themselves, than you have more money to spend in the market place. This drives up demand, and when demand goes up, capital is forced to invest and add more jobs to capture that demand. This is how the entitlement system works. Government puts money in middle class wallets, and then capitalism innovates and invests and adds jobs so that it can get that money. The Republican model ignores this. Through tax cuts, they put extra money directly in the hands of the wealthy. The theory is that they will invest wisely and grow the real economy. But, the Bush tax cuts prove this theory wrong. The Bush tax cuts didn't go into growing the economy. Why? Because there was no demand to capture. The middle class had been bled dry to make room for the tax cuts. So where did the Bush tax cuts go? Wall Street derivatives. Meaning: they created a fake market BECAUSE there were no real investment markets available - no demand to capture, no reason to invest. (You need consumers who will buy your stuff) The wealthy had too much capital on top, while the middle class had too little cash for consumption because their wages had been driven down. It was the perfect storm. One class needed fake Wall Street ponzi schemes because there were insufficient investment opportunities, while the other needed credit. This toxic structure destroyed the country long term.)

Prior to Reagan, the government stimulated middle class consumption through progressive taxation and a number of programs/regulations/entitlements designed to put more money in middle class wallets. Because of the extra money sitting in middle class wallets, the capitalist was forced to innovate and add jobs (in order to capture that money). This model lead to 35 years of robust postwar economic growth.

Then Reagan replaced the support from government to the middle class with tax breaks and cheaper labor for the wealthy. Meaning: Reagan freed capital to go in search of 3rd world labor so business could pay $1 a day to sweat shop workers in places like China. (Capitalism loves brutal, dictator run countries because these terrible places oppress citizens and keep labor costs down). When Reagan did this - when business started to bypass expensive first world American Labor - he dramatically expanded credit markets so that the middle class could keep the domestic consumption economy afloat through increased borrowing. This is why household debt exploded starting in 1980. Problem is, you can only borrow for so long. [It got so bad that we had to turn our homes into ATMs. Indeed, without solid jobs, American families must go into debt to keep pace - and . . . business has been shipping jobs to ultra-cheap labor markets since Reagan helped them cut the cord with expensive middle class labor]

So no . . . I wouldn't hire Romney. He would keep the Bush Tax Cuts, which thrust the nation into a deficit crisis from which it has not emerged. (And yes this was the point of the Bush tax cuts. Starve the beast. Put America in a debt crisis so it is forced to cannibalize Medicare and Social Security, which would bring back poverty amongst the elderly and turn America in a 3rd country where old people die in the streets. But that is what capital wants. It wants massive pockets of luxury surrounded by disenfranchised, ultra cheap labor. People don't get. Capitalism hated the postwar middle class - the one where American workers made enough money to send their kids to college - because labor costs were too high. They would much rather use 3rd world labor which costs pennies. This is why Reagan is the most unpatriotic president in history. He accelerated the move from American workers to ultra cheap 3rd world workers. Yes, business loved Reagan because their costs went down, but this move destroyed the middle class, which required more and more debt to keep pace. you gotta hand it to Reagan. As wages went down for the middle class, who lost unprecedented manufacturing jobs on his watch, he merely increased the credit system, allowing Americans to borrow like never before).

God Help Us. The next president is going to take us back to the Bush model. And he will use a national security crisis to take our minds off his economic failures. The real questions is this: which enemy will Romney use? Iran? How will he distract the American people. Reagan used the Soviets, when he should have been focused on oil dependence. Bush used Iraq, when should have been focused on the housing bubble. In each case, these Republican presidents ignored problems which have, taken together, ended the great American Project in world history.

(God Help Us. The Republicans are coming back)

I'm not sure i follow the highlighted part...how did tax breaks lead to outsourcing labor?

 

[sparky]

If you owned a business, say about 200 employees, with a lot of capital and stock and all that economic shit..........but you became ill, and needed someone to run the thing to keep it going so your kids and grandkids would benefit in the future from it, who would you hire to run that company: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney???

Simple question. Simple answer. Simple and obvious point.

Framed question for simple minds to be pointed in a simple direction Bucs

First off , have either of these gentlemen run a business, i.e.- capitalism?

or have they both simply been on the taxpayer payroll, i.e.-socialism ?

~S~

 

[ecinicola]

Romney of course. He has alot of business experise and Obama has none. Thats a easy question to answer.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I have to laugh at the people that dick ride Obama so hard that they think he'd be the better business leader.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If you owned a business, say about 200 employees, with a lot of capital and stock and all that economic shit..........but you became ill, and needed someone to run the thing to keep it going so your kids and grandkids would benefit in the future from it, who would you hire to run that company: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney???

Simple question. Simple answer. Simple and obvious point.

Romney. At least he's is not afraid of firing someone for not doing their job, or replacing them when it's time to find an individual who is more effective in that position and produces results. Obama would treat them like a union employee, no matter how bad they are they would still have their job at someone else's expense (case in point Tim Geithner).

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Ummmm, Obama would break the bank in less than a week.

There is always hope for him holding out for a government bailout, or at least invest in a business that isn't financially sound and watch it go belly-up. Obama doesn't have a good business track record for making sound choices of where to invest taxpayer dollars. Does anyone know of the total dollar amount taxpayers has lost, and will never see a single dime of a return investment, as a result of Obama's russian roulette choices for Green Energy corporations?