Open Thread: Presidential Debate, Round 2 (Romney v. Obama)


Thought you all might want to discuss this here as it goes along.

http://www.youtube.com/politics?feature=inp-hp-ype-26

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 16th, 2012 at 8:13 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

75 Responses to Open Thread: Presidential Debate, Round 2 (Romney v. Obama)

  1. Xena says:
    October 16, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    Get him President Obama. Get’emget’emget’em. Get Romney. I don’t want to wear fig leaf underwear.

    Reply
    • ed nelson says:
      October 17, 2012 at 2:40 am

      Well, you would have been a great fan of… wrestling. I went to a wrestling event at the Cow Palace back in the 60′s, my friend had the tickets, and so I was amazed at the loudness of the folks, and that they really were rootin’ for their faves, but mostly the ladies, in the audience, and while I could clearly see the fake nature of the show, these folks were all in, and I mean, they were totally absorbed into it!

      Now just between you, me and the fence post”… I don’t believe that crap, and so on and so forth… But if you want to, fine!

      See the way things work is: Is that there needs to be, call em: “true believers”, and or, useful idiots… but it is what it is… (What it is!).

      Reply
      • Xena says:
        October 17, 2012 at 2:53 am

        Well, you would have been a great fan of… wrestling.

        I was once — back in the early 1970′s in Chicago. I knew it was all entertainment since a little girl — actually knew someone who “partnered” with Haystack Calhoun. All the Marbles is still one of my favorite movies. :-)

    • Lonnie Starr says:
      October 17, 2012 at 7:56 am

      They didn’t have to touch on ALEC, Grover Norquist or the CPAC [http://themindlesspraetorianblog.blogspot.com/]
      Believe me, all the big boys from the Bush adm., will be there for a Romney adm., Karl Rove, Cheney, Kissinger, Rumsfeld, and there will be an Iran war, more deregulation and tax breaks for the rich while gov’t services are cut. Again businesses will suffer as American debt rises, but with the world aware that America has no intention of acting responsibly on it’s debts, Romney will have to threaten war and unrest to keep other nations from selling off our debt.

      Obama’s Presidency has been forced to work through a two party system, where one party has been refusing to cooperate for the greater good, but instead holds on to visions that already failed policies can eventually succeed, if only we get more of the same in spades. In other words, “doing the same thing and expecting different results”. I think that all the Republicans need is for the election to be close, to win it by devious means, like they did in 2000. But that’s just me!

      Reply
      • bettykath says:
        October 17, 2012 at 7:18 pm

        Yes and Obama kept a number of the Bush appointees on board while he continued the Bush civil liberty encroachments.

      • Lonnie Starr says:
        October 18, 2012 at 7:20 am

        I found that vexing as well, but we have to remember that the election, did not turn gov’t entirely over to him, he still had a very potent and powerful opposition to deal with, one that had mega media ownership and support. Making them a dangerous weapon pointed directly at his political head.

        He came into office learning that there was much that could not be touched. 9-11, public trials for the perps, new investigations into 911 and such. He was surrounded by his predecessors appointee’s at every level in gov’t. In such a tricky situation, it’s a wonder he managed to get anything done, without disturbing the “hornets nests” that the government and the Congress had become.

  2. Xena says:
    October 16, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    In What New Ways Would You Rectify Income Inequality for Women?

    President Obama: “In every walk of life, we do not tolerate discrimination.”

    Romney: (paraphrase) Improve the economy and women will be hired.

    Reply
    • Fed-up taxpayer says:
      October 17, 2012 at 4:52 pm

      “They sent me binders full of, er, women…”

      Reply
      • Xena says:
        October 17, 2012 at 8:24 pm

        “They sent me binders full of, er, women…”

        Yeah. “We hired them and even let some have flexible schedules so they could see their children off to school. Did we pay them the same as men doing the same job? Well, men didn’t do the jobs we hired women for.”
        (Hehehe)

    • bettykath says:
      October 17, 2012 at 7:21 pm

      What neither of the said

      1. jobs,
      2. a 45% pay increase
      3. decent and affordable child care facilities.

      Reply
  3. MichelleO says:
    October 16, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    Willard brought to you by ALEC

    Reply
  4. Two sides to a story says:
    October 16, 2012 at 9:02 pm

    As usual, Romney seems to spend more time dissing Obama with no clear explanation of his proposed policies.

    Reply
  5. Xena says:
    October 16, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    Immigration.
    Romney: Let illegal aliens join the military to become U.S. citizens.

    Sure. If they’re not killed in action first.

    Reply
    • Two sides to a story says:
      October 16, 2012 at 9:19 pm

      Self-deportation, LOL!

      Reply
      • Xena says:
        October 16, 2012 at 10:22 pm

        Romney actually addressed the question by starting off saying that he’s from a family of immigrants — he father was born in Mexico of parents who were U.S. citizens. (SMH)

      • bettykath says:
        October 17, 2012 at 7:22 pm

        He’s actually from a family of emigrants who decided to come back when it became better here than there.

      • Xena says:
        October 17, 2012 at 8:26 pm

        He’s actually from a family of emigrants who decided to come back when it became better here than there.

        His grandfather moved to Mexico to practice pologamy. That is, having more than one wife.

  6. bettykath says:
    October 16, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    I had trouble listening. Obama’s voice is high-pitched and annoying. Romney’s is elitist, condescending, and bullying. I’m voting Green Party.

    Reply
    • MichelleO says:
      October 17, 2012 at 10:39 am

      ” I’m voting Green Party.”

      Based on voices. You learn something new everyday.

      Reply
      • bettykath says:
        October 18, 2012 at 2:57 am

        lol. The voices is what kept me from listening to the debate. I’ve been paying attention for quite some time and don’t need a debate to make up my mind.

        My choice of the Green Party candidate, Dr. Jill Stein, is based on the GP platform and on the unacceptability of the other candidates. If I couldn’t vote for Stein there is a candidate from another party that might be acceptable but Stein is the better choice so she gets my vote.

        Obama’s foreign policy has a great record of continuing the war in Afghanistan, expanding it into Pakistan, exponentially escalating the use of drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya. Troops are still in Iraq, but the number of deaths has gone down at the same time that Afghanistan deaths have escalated.

        Obama’s domestic policy didn’t even consider the possibility of single payer health care and he readily caved on the public option, giving the insurance industry millions of new customers. (Although parts of Obamacare are worthwhile). He continued the Bush tax cuts for the super rich. On the plus side he pushed for the Lilly Ledbetter equal pay for women.

        Obama’s civil rights record is one of continuing the destruction of civil liberties that Bush started by extending the PATRIOT Act and adding the NDAA. Guantanamo is still in operation. He avidly supports indefinite detention without charge of whomever he chooses. He has a “kill” list.

        Obama’s record on justice started with a pass on the war crimes of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. It continued by giving a pass to the banksters.

        Romney hasn’t a clue about foreign policy or domestic policy or much of anything. He’s also a bully and a snob. He’s in the front row in the war on women, social security, and medicare. Oh, yes, and Big Bird : ). (Since I’m decades older than 5 I don’t watch Sesame Street, but it’s still a worthwhile program, as are most of the PBS programs.)

      • Lonnie Starr says:
        October 18, 2012 at 7:45 am

        Vote for whomever you wish, but the real question you should ask yourself is; “What if the candidate I do not like should win?”

        Do you think it’s more important to vote for your green party candidate? Do you really think that candidate can win?
        If you don’t think the candidate you are going to vote for has a reasonable chance of wining, then shouldn’t you be voting against a candidate who you do not like, but could very well win, without your vote for a candidate who can most likely beat him?

        Just something to consider.

      • bettykath says:
        October 18, 2012 at 10:04 am

        Lonnie,

        I’d rather vote for what I want and lose than to vote for what I don’t want and win. — Eugene Debs.

      • Lonnie Starr says:
        October 18, 2012 at 11:40 am

        That’s a nice sounding slogan, but in reality things work different. In 2000, for example, some people didn’t want Gore or Bush, so they voted for Nader who stood no chance of winning. Unfortunately, in reality, Nader wasn’t really in the race, since he could not beat either candidate. Meaning that a vote for him was not a vote to ensure his win, but a vote that would deprive the two lead candidates of a vote for either.

        It turns out that most people who would have voted for Nader, would have preferred Gore over Bush. Their vote did not help their preferred candidate win. Thus, they had to live with the candidate they preferred the least of all.

      • bettykath says:
        October 18, 2012 at 10:21 pm

        Lonnie,

        “It turns out that most people who would have voted for Nader, would have preferred Gore over Bush. Their vote did not help their preferred candidate win. Thus, they had to live with the candidate they preferred the least of al”

        Not true. Nader did research on this. His votes came from Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Large numbers of them were people who wouldn’t have voted at all if he weren’t on the ballot. Stop blaming Nader for Gore’s lackluster campaign (he didn’t even win his own state!), for the butterfly ballot, for the compromised computer voting machines and for the five black robed judges who made the appointment while knowing it was bad law.

  7. bettykath says:
    October 16, 2012 at 10:33 pm

    I should have checked my email first:

    Jill Stein, Cheri Honkala arrested,

    Jill-Stein-Cheri-Honkala-CPD-Debate-arrest.png(HEMPSTEAD, NY) – Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala, the Green presidential and vice-presidential nominees, were just now forcibly prevented from entering the grounds of tonight’s presidential debate organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). See a video here.

    Dr. Stein and Ms. Honkala will appear on 85% of ballots on Election Day, and recently polled 2-3% in four consecutive national polls. The Federal government recognizes Jill Stein as a qualified presidential candidate, having approved her campaign for federal matching funds. Yet the two women were arrested by local police when they tried to enter the grounds of Hofstra University, in Hempstead, New York, where the debate is scheduled to take place. They are currently still in police custody.

    Reply
    • Xena says:
      October 16, 2012 at 11:50 pm

      Independent presidential candidates are not included in debates. I am not sure why, except that it’s been said that a vote for an independent is a vote for whatever candidate is leading.

      Reply
      • grahase says:
        October 17, 2012 at 12:33 am

        I was just going to leave a comment about your statement but thought better of it. I am a Canadian with a government of three main parties, with a smattering of Members from Independent or growing parties. So, I should keep myself out of your discussion about US politics. I can’t help it — rooting for Obama.

      • Xena says:
        October 17, 2012 at 12:53 am

        @grahase.

        I was just going to leave a comment about your statement but thought better of it. I am a Canadian with a government of three main parties, with a smattering of Members from Independent or growing parties. So, I should keep myself out of your discussion about US politics. I can’t help it — rooting for Obama.

        First, thank you for your good thoughts of support for President Obama. Second, independents running for president have a difficult time raising campaign funds and getting media coverage. Personally, I admire their will and stamina, but since they cannot win anyway, voting for them is like a vote for the leading candidate because it deprives the other candidate of a vote.

        I would love to see a three party system in America where all had the same media access. I don’t think that’s going to happen, however. There are still voters who vote along party lines without any knowledge of the candidate.

      • bettykath says:
        October 17, 2012 at 10:53 am

        You seem to know the dangers of a Romney presidency. A continued Obama presidency will continue and expand the Bush initiated civil liberties take-down (PATRIOT and NDAA), more trade debacles like NAFTA and GATT (from Clinton administration) the new TTF (I think that’s the right acronym – it’s new “free trade” treaty for the south Pacific). The tar sands pipeline will go thru after the election regardless of winner and they don’t know how to clean up the spills that will occur.

        The biggest free publicity shot is the presidential debates. They are run by a private corporation of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The debates are scripted. Candidates from other parties wouldn’t follow the script and they might get a big enough bump in the polls to really make it a race b/c they aren’t corporate or billionaire stooges.

        “They can’t win anyway” is a true statement when those who support their platform don’t vote for them.

        “I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it than to vote for what I don’t want and get it” – Eugene Debs.

      • Xena says:
        October 17, 2012 at 1:12 pm

        @bettykath.

        You seem to know the dangers of a Romney presidency.,/blockquote>

        Not necessarily. This time around, I’m not an “all issues” voter. It’s personal for me. I’ve studied religion and personally believe that Mormonism is cultic. Mormons are not allowed to disagree with the doctrines of that church. It’s a doctrine of classes. They have a semblance of respect for other religious beliefs but that too is based on their doctrine of universal salvation where non-Mormons serve Mormons on the new planet they inherit to populate and rule. Somewhere in Romney’s politics is his religion. I hear and see it in how he communicates with women and those he believes are poor. .

        There are only 2 issues that are the most important for me now. Social Security and healthcare. There are category two and three issues, but I won’t list them here.

      • bettykath says:
        October 17, 2012 at 7:29 pm

        Xena, So you don’t know the dangers of a Romney presidency? But then you go on to cite a specific danger of a Romney presidency – the cultishness of the Mormons. Or maybe you don’t consider this a problem? According to Romney, he has a plan for social security and health care. Is it his plan that you like or not?

        Sorry, I’m just trying to understand. You disagree with me and then cite reasons why you agree. What am I missing?

      • Xena says:
        October 17, 2012 at 8:29 pm

        Xena, So you don’t know the dangers of a Romney presidency? But then you go on to cite a specific danger of a Romney presidency – the cultishness of the Mormons. Or maybe you don’t consider this a problem? According to Romney, he has a plan for social security and health care. Is it his plan that you like or not? Sorry, I’m just trying to understand. You disagree with me and then cite reasons why you agree. What am I missing?

        Bettykath. I was not disagreeing with you. Rather, I was acknowledging that you wrote issues that I am not actually concerned with. Maybe I wasn’t clear about Romney. He could promise wonderful things about social security and healthcare. I still would not vote for him because of my personal belief concerning Mormonism.

      • bettykath says:
        October 18, 2012 at 3:02 am

        Xena, Thanks for the clarification. Actually, Romney’s promise about social security is that he wants to privatize it, that is, everyone should speculate/gamble on Wall Street. His only promise on health care is the repeal of Obamacare.

    • Pat deadder says:
      October 22, 2012 at 2:46 pm

      I’m Canadian so should not comment on your politics.I’m so hoping for President Obama.I think single payer health care will come .There is no way it could have passed at this time but there is a clause in this bill that says 80% of the money companies take in must go toward health care.I believe this opens the door to sp.We have universal health care and we love it.Of course there are flaws.Keifer Sutherland’s Grandfather Tommy Douglas started it in the 50′s.You hear about Canadians who go to U.S.for surgery.This is true occasionally if the doctor refers a patient for one reason or another,but fox news neglects to tell you it is paid for through our by our health care system.

      Reply
  8. Xena says:
    October 16, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    Romney said he has a 5 point plan. Kinda reminded me of Herman Cain’s 999 plan.

    Reply
  9. thejbmission says:
    October 17, 2012 at 4:27 am

    This was the 1st debate I watched and I just think O’Bama makes a much better leader than Romney.
    Most of what I heard coming from Romney addressed small business and how to make them profitable but he doesn’t mention much how he’d help blue collar labor which is the backbone of this country, without blue collar, there is no economy.
    Neither one of them had much to say about out sourcing jobs which IMO is the biggest problem.
    I also didn’t like Romney’s tone when speaking of China — forcing them to play by the rules. That came across as war talk to me which I don’t agree with.
    OMG, We certainly don’t want to go to war with China. I was getting Bush flashbacks.
    Romney balked at O’Bama claiming he wanted to use government created jobs.
    O’Bama reminds me of Bobby Kennedy in a way. In the early 60′s when JFK was President, during school Integration and equal opportunity for minorities. Bobby Kennedy was vehemently against welfare. He thought that welfare would take away people’s dignity.
    Instead of the welfare system, Bobby Kennedy wanted to give tax breaks to industries who would hire minorities and even build plants near plighted neighborhoods so that everyone could go to work.
    I like that concept, even now. It’s better than being idle and feeling hopeless.
    If that’s the type of thing O’Bama supports than I think its a good idea. But I don’t know much about government, for all I know I’m supporting some form of communism? lol
    Whatever.. I think O’Bama did a good job tonight and Romney just seems inept.
    Anyways..All of the above is JMO

    Reply
    • bettykath says:
      October 17, 2012 at 11:03 am

      The best way to stimulate for more jobs:

      Short term – more government funds available to fix the infrastructure. Those getting the jobs will have more money to spend thus creating more demand that will stimulate more businesses.

      Long term – raise taxes on business. The US corporate rate is one of the lowest in the world. Businesses pay taxes on their net after all business related expenses have been deducted. Reducing that rate provides more incentive for businesses to cut expenses (and jobs!) even more. With a higher tax rate they have more incentive to spend more on expanding or upgrading their business with money that would otherwise be taxed. There is less profit to be taxed so their tax bill might not change all that much. In the meantime, the business has hired more people, or made capital improvements or expanded into new areas.

      Isn’t that what stimulus is all about? But we don’t hear that from either of the major parties.

      Reply
      • Frederick Leatherman says:
        October 17, 2012 at 12:14 pm

        I believe businesses are not going to hire employees unless there is a strong and persistent upsurge in demand for their products and services. That will never happen unless people have money to spend and they will not have money to spend unless the government creates jobs and puts people to work.

        Neither Romney nor Obama believe this core principle, so I do not have any hope that the economy will improve during the next four years.

      • grahase says:
        October 17, 2012 at 12:59 pm

        Bring manufacturing back to the US and Canada. Big business does not care where things are manufactured as long as it improves the bottom-line and increases profits for the 1%. The jobs left the USA and Canada for one reason — greed. I will vote for any world leader representing the 99% citizens and not the 1% Corporate sharks.

      • Xena says:
        October 17, 2012 at 1:23 pm

        In 1981, the late Gil Scot Heron wrote a song titled “B Movie.” Part are the lyrics are:

        “What has happened is that in the last 20 years, America has changed from a producer to a consumer. And all consumers know that when the producer names the tune…the consumer has got to dance. That’s the way it is. We used to be a producer – very inflexible at that, and now we are consumers and, finding it difficult to understand. Natural resources and minerals will change your world. The Arabs used to be in the 3rd World. They have bought the 2nd World and put a firm down payment on the 1st one. Controlling your resources will control your world. This country has been surprised by the way the world looks now.”

        IMO, he was prophetic.

      • Xena says:
        October 17, 2012 at 1:36 pm

        Rockford, IL It was once a manufacturing city that hired the best talented and qualified, but that changed. It is now a city of small, family owned businesses.

        No matter what the government does or does not do, it is actually up to governors, mayors, and county boards to decide how to help residents of their state, city, and county.

      • bettykath says:
        October 17, 2012 at 7:46 pm

        “I believe businesses are not going to hire employees unless there is a strong and persistent upsurge in demand for their products and services. That will never happen unless people have money to spend and they will not have money to spend unless the government creates jobs and puts people to work.”

        You’re absolute correct. That’s why step 1 is for the government to provide for infrastructure repair. I would also add stimulus for solar power development. This would provide jobs to a lot of people, who would spend this money, creating demand for goods and services. Think what it would mean to the production of electric cars if the government directed that at least 10% of the vehicles it buys or leases are electric. What would it mean if at least 10% of all government buildings were to add solar panels to their roof. The price of solar cells would go down making them more affordable for more people and at the same time would require more factories which would require more construction jobs and more factory workers and more sales people in more sales environments. And here I’ve combined sustainable energy and infrastructure upgrade resulting in more jobs.

        Another point would be to raise the minimum wage to $10/hr. This is not a living wage, but it would remove a large number of people from food stamps and other forms of welfare. Folks at this end of the economic line would be spending the extra money on food and clothing and other things that boost demand for goods and services. From the business’ pov, the additional amount of the wages would be deductible from the business taxes. There are a number of states that tie their minimum wage for all workers to the federal minimum, but not all. BION there are even a few states that have no minimum wage at all! This means that workers in any job that does not in some way get federal funds work for the least possible amount – retail, restaurant staff, the entire service industry.

      • Frederick Leatherman says:
        October 17, 2012 at 8:09 pm

        I also believe the government should pay a guaranteed living wage with benefits to every person willing to work. As people began spending money for goods and services increasing demand, employment and production of goods and services to meet rising demand in a self-perpetuating circle, businesses would have to pay a wage greater than the minimum basement wage that the government pays to lure people to find work in the private sector.

        The guaranteed minimum living wage with benefits is a fundamental principle of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

        Check out this article by Randy Wray, a Professor of Economics at the Univ of Missouri at Kansas City. Their graduate School of Economics is a center of MMT.

      • Frederick Leatherman says:
        October 17, 2012 at 8:14 pm

        We’re under a tornado watch here in western Kentucky right now. There’s a huge storm just west of us and moving this way.

        If y’all don’t hear from me later, I’ll be in OZ.

      • Xena says:
        October 17, 2012 at 8:32 pm

        We’re under a tornado watch here in western Kentucky right now. There’s a huge storm just east of us and moving this way. If y’all don’t hear from me later, I’ll be in OZ.

        Oh my. I hope the best for you guys and that region.

      • Frederick Leatherman says:
        October 17, 2012 at 8:57 pm

        Still not in OZ :)

      • Xena says:
        October 17, 2012 at 9:27 pm

        Still not in OZ :)

        WHEW! (Wiping brow) That’s good to hear. Here’s hoping you continue being safe.

      • Frederick Leatherman says:
        October 17, 2012 at 9:28 pm

        I’m tired, so I’m headed to bed. Can’t get too worked up.

        Night all.

      • bettykath says:
        October 17, 2012 at 11:40 pm

        Hope you’re out of the path of any bad storms. Stay safe.

        Leatherman, “I also believe the government should pay a guaranteed living wage with benefits to every person willing to work.”

        You must be one of those d…. socialists : )

        I like this.

        From the Wray article, “In a sense, the jobs guarantee/ employer of the last resort program really is targeted “to the bottom” since it “hires off the bottom”, offering a job to those left behind. Its wage and benefit package is the lowest, setting the minimum standard that private employers can offer. It does not try to outbid the private sector for workers, but rather takes those who cannot find a job. Further, by decentralizing the program, it allows the local communities to create the projects and organize the program. The local community probably has a better idea of the community’s needs, both in terms of jobs and in terms of projects. However, actual project formulation must be done on a case-by-case basis.”

        Argentina’s approach was part-time work at a minimum wage so it wouldn’t compete with private employers. You’re suggesting a similar program but with a living wage and no restrictions on who can or cannot take part as long as they are willing to work?

        So this would be similar to Roosevelt’s CCP and WPA during the depression. It didn’t cover everyone, but it sure did help a lot of people. Is that what you mean?

        The Argentina plan tended to hire people who weren’t necessarily qualified for other jobs and put them into community jobs such as child and elder care, soup kitchens, etc. We could certainly use an attitude that fostered at least a living wage for ALL workers.

        How do you see the guaranteed living wage working apart from the government cutting checks for all participants? One way would be that people working in the private sector for less than the living wage would get tax credits similar to the earned income credit such that they got a refund equal to the difference.

        The taxes for businesses should be such that there would be an incentive for paying the living wage, maybe in the form of a tax penalty for businesses that didn’t pay the living/minimum wage. This would take some of the pressure off the government provided jobs and encourage businesses to provide the living wage or more.

        Cost of benefits would go down if we had a universal coverage single payer system, e.g. expand the VA system such that it would include everyone. Reverse the law that prevents the government from negotiating drug prices.

        The other key benefit is a retirement income. Social Security is basic and needs to be protected with a minimum payment to everyone of retirement age. Right now, a woman stays home and raises her children, gets dumped by her husband, and cannot get SS or medicare until her former husband dies. (and there’s a big difference between the provisions of medicare and medicaid)

      • Lonnie Starr says:
        October 18, 2012 at 5:51 am

        A very long time ago I wondered why, when personal income taxes were highest for the top brackets, businesses did very well.

        It boils down to this: There are two ways for corporate leaders to get money from the companies they control. 1. Is to simply, manipulate the board into paying them extravagant compensation. Or 2. Take compensation in stock and/or options.

        Now 1. doesn’t work very well with a high top bracket rate. During Ike’s years, at 99 percent, a CEO would need to take a 100 Million out of the company, simply to take home 1 million.

        That meant that 2 was the only reasonable option. But, if you take the bulk of your compensation in stock and/or options, the problem then is, the company has to perform well, or your compensation is worthless. So this, then, is why high top tax rates work to ensure that management works to ensure that the company is profitable, and does not cripple the company by simply looting it.

        Obviously with lower top personal tax rates, it becomes more practical to simply manipulate the board for increased compensation. That compensation has only to do with how effective the CEO is at manipulating the board, and nothing at all to do with company performance.

        I hope this explains, some of why, under Republican leaders we experience business declines. Deregulation brings other nasty anti business effects to the table, by reducing the consumers confidence in the products they buy, and/or their rights to get a fair shake when they need redress of grievance. Ayn Rand has written the very antithesis of what good governance looks like, hardly a wonder it was submitted as a fiction, so as to avoid peer review.

        But like, “creationism” which has humans cavorting with dinosaurs, or “Intelligent design” which attempts to negate what we’ve learned about evolution, or the “Terra centric” theories of earlier centuries, these concepts still have their aficionado’s who will not go away. Why should they? They have no responsibilities in any of these fields, thus it matters not, what theories they hold. Appoint one as a paleontologist, another as a genologist, and the other as an astronomer and then see how their ideas function in their career.

        Yes, dear readers, it is to laugh!

      • Lonnie Starr says:
        October 18, 2012 at 6:03 am

        It’s too bad that Obama did not have to expose Romney for his “fellow travelers”: ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange) which writes legislation on behalf of it’s interest groups, for Republican Congresspeople to sponsor (like SYG laws). Or Grover Norquist and his pledge, about which you can google and read. The Koch brothers anyone? Ayn Randians? CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Committee [http://tinyurl.com/92vtsqo]). All of whose ideas, if implemented, would utterly destroy America.

  10. Tee says:
    October 17, 2012 at 8:29 am

    I am a property owner that live in an upper middle case neighborhood in Fl i pay $2,000. Less in proerty taxes on my home thati live in than at the duplexes I have as rental property in a low income neighborhood. This is something I don’t understand I’ve even went to the taxe commissioner office to ask this question why is it I pay more when the home I live in with my family cost more than the duplexes I rent out? Do you know what I was told, I was told I’m paying more because the low income area in which my properties are located need more policemen Than the area in which my home is. Hog wash, I say because I’ve called the police to assist me with some men selling drugs in front of my property, I was told they could ride by but it was nothing more they could do unless they saw them committing a crime I was told to put up a no trespass sign. My properties were built where working families live in homes I think it’s a shame that the people that live out there pay more taxes than I do when they have to deal with some thug deciding they would come into the neighborhood to and set up a drug operation and the police that they are so called paying for will not even help, just offer advice like put up a sign, we’ll drive by more or call the police when you see them committing a crime. People who own homes in these neighborhoods should not be paying more taxes than I am that’s not fair.

    Reply
    • bettykath says:
      October 17, 2012 at 7:48 pm

      Tee, The more you have the less you have to pay, the less you have the more you have to pay. This is b/c those with the most write the rules and they don’t care a bit about fairness.

      Reply
      • Tee says:
        October 17, 2012 at 8:56 pm

        Sad but true.i guess some people think that this Method is ok, why else would Romney say something so awful as 47% of American think they should be entitled to food, housing and health care. I don’t care what color you are that’s an awful way to look at Americans that’s an heart breaking and alarming thing to hear someone wanting my vote for president to say. Food really, he would say that when American feed other nations but you want to turn your back on your own. A study was done once a couple of years ago that says that American give more to charities and people after disasters than any othe nation. That proves to me what and who we are we are a nation that cares about It’s fellow man. I for one am proud to be an American and I am proud to say I care and try to do my part by paying my taxes and offering help when ever I could

      • bettykath says:
        October 17, 2012 at 11:53 pm

        Tee, The only people who think this ok are those who make the unfair rules or those have enough resources that it doesn’t affect them too much and they are willing to go along.

        The women’s movement came about when middle class white women began to feel the squeeze. The birth control pill freed many of them to want something other than making babies or typing letters and making coffee for their males bosses.

        The poor tend to be too busy just trying to keep food on the table and roof over their heads. They also don’t have the resources to take the risks associated with challenging the powers that be. The middle class really feeling the unfairness might result in some changes. Unfortunately, the middle class tends to see the poor and think they, the middle class, are doing ok because they are doing better. It’s hard for them to believe that their own economic status is moving in the direction of the poor.

        I don’t know what it’s going to take to stop the move to a feudal society where the super-rich own everything and the rest of us are serfs and own nothing.

      • Jun says:
        October 18, 2012 at 7:19 am

        Everyone should be entitled to health care, food, and shelter… There is absolutely nothing wrong with helping your own community…a community that turns on each other is a weak community…

        Plus

        Who made Romney god where he gets to decide who is worth what?

  11. LJ says:
    October 17, 2012 at 8:37 am

    Zimmerman is probably seething because the POTUS didn’t mention him, when speaking on gun laws. 

    Reply
  12. rachael says:
    October 17, 2012 at 9:11 am

    GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL DATE SET FOR JUNE 10, 2013

    Reply
    • SearchingMind says:
      October 17, 2012 at 10:36 am

      Hey Rach, that’s good news. George, surely, will be freaking out now and may need his meds now more than ever – as the torturous anxiety builds up. O’Mara is also on notice. He (O’Mara) can now either concentrate on the substance of the case or on writing blogs and chasing any mouse Crump & Co. let out.

      Reply
    • SearchingMind says:
      October 17, 2012 at 11:12 am

      According to Cbslocal.com Attorney Mark O’Mara estimated he expects the trial to last three weeks. Does this mean that there will be no SYG-court-fight from O’Mara’s point of view?! I hope not, because that’s a fight I will flying down to Florida to watch live.

      Reply
      • Lonnie Starr says:
        October 18, 2012 at 6:28 am

        If I understand correctly a SYG hearing would merely be a trial within a trial, that could not help GZ’s case, because doors would have to be opened which could not then be closed during a trial.

        MOM’s best bet is to have everything happen in front of a jury, where he at least gets a chance to respond to things as they happen. Otherwise he would be required to open doors in front of the judge, who is likely to take GZ’s credibility (or lack thereof) into account and send them on to face a jury anyway.

        MOM’s job now is to prevent the jury from finding out as much as he can possibly conceal. Of course, it cannot help but become obvious to the jurors, that the one person who attended to it all, is being kept off the stand. The prosecutions evidence will explain why GZ is being kept off the stand, so if GZ does not take the stand, he will confirm the prosecutions case as if he is pleading “no contest” to the SP’s claims and offers.

        To that effect, it would probably be best for the SP to open with skeletal timeline of the events known to have taken place, so the jury will have that to hang meat on. Because it is within that context, when the jury hears the word “skipping” GZ is toast!

      • bettykath says:
        October 18, 2012 at 10:12 am

        A reason a SYG hearing might be desirable is that he only has to convince the judge based on a preponderance of the evidence, a lower hurdle than the reasonable doubt for a jury. Besides, winning a SYG hearing absolves the defendant of all civil liability. Remember that OJ won the jury trial but lost the civil trial which had a preponderance of the evidence threshold.

  13. Frederick Leatherman says:
    October 17, 2012 at 10:48 am

    I have a new post up:

    Zimmerman: Trial Date Set For June 10, 2013

    Reply
  14. aussie says:
    October 17, 2012 at 11:25 am

    I love how they’re blaming China. Most of the bad/dangerous/substandard/poisonous goods from China are being made there FOR and BY American companies who’ve moved there to get low/no wage labour in conditions unregulated for pollution, safety, human rights etc.
    Romney himself sent jobs there by the hundreds of thousands while at Bain.

    Welfare? there will always be some who cheat the system. Same as there are always some on the millionaire side who cheat the system. This is no reason to take it from those who NEED it, which includes many too ill or old to work. It would be better to have a minimum wage people can actually survive on without needing food stamps as well.

    Reply
  15. Malisha says:
    October 17, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    I worked in a law firm once. They had a budget crunch so they fired the guy who was the photocopy clerk and messenger for four floors of lawyers, paralegals and secretaries. Thus, when anybody needed something copied or delivered, they took off their own time at higher rates and ran around delivering and copying. You’d see associates in the photocopy room and secretaries all over the stairwells constantly and then you’d see people doing more overtime at inflated prices, just to finish up their work. It was the dumbest move imaginable. This is the Romneyesque plan. Cut all the cheapest parts of the government spending to “save money” while you increase all kinds of unnecessary spending and cause problems that cost lots to solve.

    Reply
    • bettykath says:
      October 17, 2012 at 11:58 pm

      I expect that most of those higher paid people were on salary and didn’t overtime. Paying overtime to a few people is cheaper than paying wages and benefits to additional employees.

      This illustrates one of the reasons why corporate taxes need to be higher so that companies see that keeping more people on the payroll makes sense. Productivity is better when you have the right number of people doing the right jobs. So many cutbacks have been of the sort you describe with those still in their jobs doing their own work and that of the person/s who is/are let go. With higher corporate taxes the breakeven point is such that it allows for more people to stay on the job.

      Reply
      • Lonnie Starr says:
        October 18, 2012 at 7:39 am

        There’s also a flip side to this wearing many hats:

        If one person makes one critical mistake doing one project, will that same person make only 2 critical mistakes when given two projects to handle? Or will it be 3 or four?

        Some people are wearing as many as 10 hats, the danger is that when business picks up, there won’t be time to off load that work, before many critical mistakes are made, which could take the entire company down. The point being that we are in a critical situation that is ongoing, unless and until it is remedied by employment expansion, investors can place little faith and trust, needed for them to supply the money businesses need to expand.

  16. Jun says:
    October 17, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    IMO Obama is the lesser of the two evils although he is not perfect either but is a better choice of the two

    However, I take offense to the “CHINA IS STEALING OUR JOBS” campaign that is being pushed

    Reply
    • Xena says:
      October 17, 2012 at 8:41 pm

      @Jun.

      MO Obama is the lesser of the two evils although he is not perfect either but is a better choice of the two However, I take offense to the “CHINA IS STEALING OUR JOBS” campaign that is being pushed

      Back in 2003 when Dubya was president, I wrote Senator Durbin of Illinois about Knowles Electronics whose manufacturing plant was located in Elgin, IL. Some of the women had worked there since high school, were then in their 40′s, and essentially had no other skills other than those they learned on the job.

      Knowles makes hearing devices. They had (and might still have) a federal government contract to manufacture hearing devices used by U.S. Air Force pilots. Knowles shipped work for that contract to China. I was fuming!!!

      What I received in reply from Senator Durbin was the standard “Thank you for bringing this to my attention ….” type of letter. Later through an employee at Knowles, I was informed that the government was cutting back on expenditures and essentially did not care if their contractors sent work oversees. It was under the guise that they really were saving taxpayers money.

      Reply
      • Jun says:
        October 17, 2012 at 9:03 pm

        Exactly

        I do not like how they are scapegoating AZN people when it is the boss who decides who gets the job, as well, I dont agree with the super low wages they are paying AZNs to do the work.

  17. jm says:
    October 18, 2012 at 7:19 am

    I’m not a person to take a side in politics because I think both sides are corrupt. Politicians are like used car salesmen.

    What I see as far as debates, it comes down to which side does the best presentation, “looking” presidential, while making vague promises and attacking/blaming the other side for the current problems. As previous poster said, it is like a wrestling match.

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but just because the conservative treehouse backs Romney, I hope Obama wins. Also, If I had to watch a future president making speeches/statements, I would prefer to watch Obama as he is less annoying.

    Whoever wins, things will pretty much stay the same or may get gradually worse. The economy is a runaway train with more jobs shipped offshore, meaning more people without jobs and losing their homes and less money to support American businesses.

    Reply
    • Malisha says:
      October 18, 2012 at 9:00 am

      I did read one hysterically funny analysis of Romney’s tax plan. It compared it to a diet plan. The diet plan was:

      “I plan to lose 25 pounds because the health of the American people depends upon maintaining a healthy weight. I plan to eat donuts, pizza, cake and ice cream and to have whatever looks good and tastes good to me because freedom means you don’t have to give up good things just because somebody says doing well and showing it is not politically correct. I do not intend to start working out and exercising because as a taxpayer, I get to choose what to do and where to put my energy; no big government can dictate to me and the President’s wife can’t tell me how to live my life! Government needs to stay OUT of my choices!”

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 260 other followers

%d bloggers like this: