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

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow.

Liberals don't know dick about business.

This is fucking scray

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What "businesses" should the government even be in?

Raising taxes =/= raising revenue

 

[pvsi.]

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

Any gentleman who has been accepted by the establishment media as a legitimate candidate and presents himself as a not part of the establishment type, I can trust to run my business.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Wow.

Liberals don't know dick about business.

This is fucking scray

It's true. I mean, can you imagine what a train wreck it would be have someone like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates running your business?

 

[dblack]

If you believe that government should be run as a business then you can't possibly subscribe to the notion of smaller government. Grow or die.

Exactly. This is what bothers me about the assumption that success in business predicts good political leadership. There may be some general leadership skills that crossover, but running a business is a very different activity that governing a nation. I wouldn't want them approached in the same way.

 

[ThinkCritically]

As a business person, I want to keep my expenses down, but I want to grow and continue to add new services. I must make a profit on my expenses, but I cannot cut expenses to the point that I can't provide the services that create my revenue. As an example, if I own a bank and a percentage of my potential customers believe I should only offer deposit services and car loans and this is the only purpose of banking, should I restrict the services I offer or should I offer additional services to capture a greater share of the banking services market thus increasing my revenue? Or should I reduce the fees for the wealthiest clients that use the majority of my expensive services while raising fees for the clients that use the least costly services?

If you believe that government should be run as a business then you can't possibly subscribe to the notion of smaller government. Grow or die.

I see your reasoning here. Now what happens to the bank when it over extend its services it start to over reach its natural market share and become inefficient or starts to lose profit. Small government advocates believe similarly. The government is bloated and inefficient, its like a company that needs downsizing. Sometimes you need to amputate a limp to save the body.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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......

I'm sure he would. But the point is that there are other things to consider if the question is who would you hire to run a company. Someone that will run a company you could be proud of as an owner or one that simply operates as a profit center. I tend to want to be proud of my investments. Opinions vary.

i think if Obama was running a business you might find him a little bit different than what you see now....making money for a company is somewhat different than trying to please 300 million people....

 

[ThinkCritically]

making money for a company is somewhat different than trying to please 300 million people....

the president should always act in accordance to their best judgment, because you can't please 300 million people. Thats why people hate flip flopper, they just go with the masses. I want a president that makes the best choice for the balance sheet at this point, not based upon the masses but based upon their discretion. Obviously, it ain't going to happen though....

 

[LilOlLady]

OBAMA has created more jobs. He created more jobs than Bush in this economy than Bush did in 8 years.

Where are the jobs that Romney’s wealth and tax breaks have created?
WE had one Business man in the WHITE HOUSE and we see how that help create jobs. He failed over and over at every business venture he started and daddy had to bail him out..
Succeeding at a busines are running a state is nothing compared to running the federal government.

 

[The T]

making money for a company is somewhat different than trying to please 300 million people....

the president should always act in accordance to their best judgment, because you can't please 300 million people. Thats why people hate flip flopper, they just go with the masses. I want a president that makes the best choice for the balance sheet at this point, not based upon the masses but based upon their discretion. Obviously, it ain't going to happen though....

Obama is certainly trying to be all to everyone. It isn't possible. His main focus should be his oath that he took to defend this Republic. He is doing everything BUT that and needs to be held responsible for it at the ballot box.

 

[dblack]

OBAMA has created more jobs. He created more jobs than Bush in this economy than Bush did in 8 years.

Where are the jobs that Romney’s wealth and tax breaks have created?
WE had one Business man in the WHITE HOUSE and we see how that help create jobs. He failed over and over at every business venture he started and daddy had to bail him out..
Succeeding at a busines are running a state is nothing compared to running the federal government.

The idea that politicians 'create jobs' is a joke.

How To Create a Job | This American Life

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Rewrite history, you seem to be doing a good job. The recession and the causes go back 80 plus years, it is mired with mistakes made by both parties, and many bubbles to not be a part of the next huge recession. I have repeated the failures over the decades and back in the 90's many were saying that we could not sustain the economy. We were mortgaging homes are 125% of value, did you not see it coming? It had to correct, after 9/11 I was expecting it to take a long time to recover.

We have out of control spending, record deficits and neither party has the solution other to spend more money and put ourselves deeper in debt. Now, we have people dividing the country in to divisions, rich, poor, black, white, men, women.

 

[Papageorgio]

OBAMA has created more jobs. He created more jobs than Bush in this economy than Bush did in 8 years.

Where are the jobs that Romney’s wealth and tax breaks have created?
WE had one Business man in the WHITE HOUSE and we see how that help create jobs. He failed over and over at every business venture he started and daddy had to bail him out..
Succeeding at a busines are running a state is nothing compared to running the federal government.

The idea that politicians 'create jobs' is a joke.

How To Create a Job | This American Life

Yep, but don't destroy the liberal myth.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I'd hire Obama. Mr. Etch-a-Sketch doesn't come off as the type who could mentor or motivate staff. He reminds me of Ken LAY.

 

[dblack]

OBAMA has created more jobs. He created more jobs than Bush in this economy than Bush did in 8 years.

Where are the jobs that Romney’s wealth and tax breaks have created?
WE had one Business man in the WHITE HOUSE and we see how that help create jobs. He failed over and over at every business venture he started and daddy had to bail him out..
Succeeding at a busines are running a state is nothing compared to running the federal government.

The idea that politicians 'create jobs' is a joke.

How To Create a Job | This American Life

Yep, but don't destroy the liberal myth.

That one's not a left/right thing. Most Democrats and Republicns rely on such promises or claims in their sale pitches.

 

[Papageorgio]

The idea that politicians 'create jobs' is a joke.

How To Create a Job | This American Life

Yep, but don't destroy the liberal myth.

That one's not a left/right thing. Most Democrats and Republicns rely on such promises or claims in their sale pitches.

Very true.

 

[gallantwarrior]

As a business person, while I may like the sound of the guy that wants to cut expenses, I'd have to go with the guy that wants to increase revenues.

Who would that be?

Quote: Originally Posted by snjmom
As a business person, while I may like the sound of the guy that wants to cut expenses, I'd have to go with the guy that wants to increase revenues.

If you were a business person, you'd consider that profit is the bottom line. Nice try but I know a Democrat plant when I see one.

As a business person, I want to keep my expenses down, but I want to grow and continue to add new services. I must make a profit on my expenses, but I cannot cut expenses to the point that I can't provide the services that create my revenue. As an example, if I own a bank and a percentage of my potential customers believe I should only offer deposit services and car loans and this is the only purpose of banking, should I restrict the services I offer or should I offer additional services to capture a greater share of the banking services market thus increasing my revenue? Or should I reduce the fees for the wealthiest clients that use the majority of my expensive services while raising fees for the clients that use the least costly services?

If you believe that government should be run as a business then you can't possibly subscribe to the notion of smaller government. Grow or die.

You analogy works, but only if you are the only bank available. Otherwise, the customers you decide to charge more would shop around and find a bank that offers better services, better fees, or both.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Who would that be?

If you were a business person, you'd consider that profit is the bottom line. Nice try but I know a Democrat plant when I see one.

As a business person, I want to keep my expenses down, but I want to grow and continue to add new services. I must make a profit on my expenses, but I cannot cut expenses to the point that I can't provide the services that create my revenue. As an example, if I own a bank and a percentage of my potential customers believe I should only offer deposit services and car loans and this is the only purpose of banking, should I restrict the services I offer or should I offer additional services to capture a greater share of the banking services market thus increasing my revenue? Or should I reduce the fees for the wealthiest clients that use the majority of my expensive services while raising fees for the clients that use the least costly services?

If you believe that government should be run as a business then you can't possibly subscribe to the notion of smaller government. Grow or die.

Government should use the same business efficiencies that business uses whenever applicable. That doesn't mean they have the same profit mission as a typical business. But government should keep costs down and not spend beyond their means. Obama has shown time and time again that he does not get business.

Given what seems to be a generally acceptable model for a non-profit, i.e. raise enough profit to cover expenses, then add more programs/infrastructure/services by using any additional funds over and above those needed to cover operating expenses, I would suggest that government would be best operated as a non-profit organization. Of course, the debate always arises when the discussion about what are the basic expenses that the government should cover, and what items constitute the over-and-above offerings.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If you believe that government should be run as a business then you can't possibly subscribe to the notion of smaller government. Grow or die.

Exactly. This is what bothers me about the assumption that success in business predicts good political leadership. There may be some general leadership skills that crossover, but running a business is a very different activity that governing a nation. I wouldn't want them approached in the same way.

Considering the competency of the current political so-called leadership, I'd be happy if those so-called leaders could find their asses with both hands in broad daylight. Alas!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow.

Liberals don't know dick about business.

This is fucking scray

It's true. I mean, can you imagine what a train wreck it would be have someone like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates running your business?

Bill Gates writes the worst OS on the planet and Charlie Munger should hire a food taster to see who is drugging his partner

Berkshire Hathaway is NOT run with Liberal ideas