Republican candidates for 2012
-
Tobias Fünke
I've never seen a candidate who was a tremendously successful venture capitalist in addition to being the governor of a state. He wasn't some Pizza CEO like Cain, his job was to literally build companies to compete in the global economy. He's also spent time in the public sector and has seen the problem from both sides.I Wear Pants;1049375 wrote:So any successful business person makes a good president? That's all it takes?
Rupert Murdoch is an obscenly successful business person and he would be probably the worst president ever because he's just a bad person and his views are ridiculous.
Business skills can certainly be used by someone in office but having good business skills doesn't make up for having bad opinions on policy, etc.
TL;DR: Even if Obama was a good businessman you guys would be QQing about his policies so thinking Romney is the answer is retarded because he's Obama with business skills.
Do you really trust another candidate with economic issues more than Romney? For me, it's not even close. -
Tobias Fünke
What type of law did Obama study?sleeper;1049421 wrote:I guess you're right, graduating from Harvard Law is not an accomplishment.
Romney earned an MBA and JD from Harvard simultaneously. You know, those fine details that make or break companies and economies...Romney mastered.
Obama went directly from leftist/borderline socialist political science classrooms to his JD program at Harvard simply so he could learn to implement said ideologies. There is a huge difference there; one man mastered capitalism and the other mastered implementing hardcore liberalism. Case in point:
....this.wkfan;1049446 wrote:OK...how about this. What has BHO accomplished with his Harvard degree?
You can try to spin it any way that you like...BHO has not 'accomplshed' much of anything.
Harvard Law grad
Community Organizer
Absent Senator
Great speech reader
'Terrible President' (your own words)
What has this 'impressive resume' done to move our Country ahead??
Nothing. -
queencitybuckeye
Reagan was very involved with the business aspects of show business prior to politics.sleeper;1049418 wrote:So Reagan was a bad president? -
sleeper
Right, because knowing how to cry on command is a prerequisite for being commander-in-chief.queencitybuckeye;1049516 wrote:Reagan was very involved with the business aspects of show business prior to politics. -
Con_AlmaI believe he was a board member for the Screen Actors Guild and eventually their President.
-
majorspark
Fixed it for you.Tobias Fünke;1049491 wrote:I've never seen a candidate who was a tremendously successful vulture capitalist in addition to being the governor of a state.
Signed
Rick Perry -
WebFirePresident Paul! President Paul!
That is all. -
sleeper
The government is not a business. I can't remember the exact statistics, but Massachusetts was like 48th in job growth during his term as Governor. Clearly, he doesn't know how to apply these business concepts that he's "mastered" into government. This is of course not even touching the fact that he won't address to pressing issues that face this country. He's chock full of cliches and rhetoric but very vague on his plans to actually getting anything accomplished.Tobias Fünke;1049506 wrote:Romney earned an MBA and JD from Harvard simultaneously. You know, those fine details that make or break companies and economies...Romney mastered.
Obama went directly from leftist/borderline socialist political science classrooms to his JD program at Harvard simply so he could learn to implement said ideologies. There is a huge difference there; one man mastered capitalism and the other mastered implementing hardcore liberalism. -
Cleveland Buck
Is that number going to be lower if Romney is president? He hasn't proposed cutting anything. He has, however, proposed increases in spending for our foreign adventures. If you want to make sure we don't have a $22 trillion debt then there is only one candidate to vote for.Manhattan Buckeye;1049324 wrote:At this point shouldn't we make sure that we don't have four more years of economic ineptitude, and a projected $20-22T debt? -
O-Trap
Not that a governor has no experience with managing a budget. The office is not completely dissimilar, except for the area of the position's vested interest.wkfan;1049424 wrote:He had business experience...the business of running the State of California.
Being able to show fiscal responsibility and being trusted to carry out fiscally responsible policy are different. This is precisely why I didn't like the idea of Trump in the race early on. Trump has shown IN PRACTICE that he has mastered the business industry (what we have isn't nearly true capitalism, so I won't necessarily say he's mastered capitalism). However, in doing so, Trump has always been responsible for doing what is best for himself. That's not a bad thing in business. It's a good thing in business.
I'm just not convinced it means he can be trusted to do what is in the best interest of the American people if that conflicts with what he sees as best for him.
Same applies with Romney. He's competent. I just don't think he's trustworthy, and I'd contend that the policies he has supported in the past reflect substantiation for that concern. His policy has been more "Obama-esque" than the rest of the current crop of candidates.
True, but that's neither here nor there. Today, Obama has 4 years of executive experience.wkfan;1049442 wrote:he does now...but had none prior to coming to the White House......unless you count his predominance of 'present' votes.
Based on policy, yes. I do. And you're right; it's not even close.Tobias Fünke;1049491 wrote:Do you really trust another candidate with economic issues more than Romney? For me, it's not even close.
Pardon my ignorance, but how much financial admiation would such a position have?Con_Alma;1049533 wrote:I believe he was a board member for the Screen Actors Guild and eventually their President. -
Cleveland Buck
The government isn't a business and shouldn't be run like one. Businesses try to make money. The government brings in enough money and shouldn't be trying to get more. Romney's business experience does nothing to impress me. What it does tell me is that he has a lot of friends that will be lobbying for benefits and bailouts with my money.
No Republican other than Ron Paul can get enough independents to support them to defeat Obama. A vote for Romney or Newt or Santorum is a vote for Obama. -
Cleveland Buck
Ron Paul could take 30% as a 3rd party candidate. He already gets over 20% in 3-way polls against Obamney. If the people could raise him some more money so get his real views out to the public instead of what the news media tell them, he might even win.sleeper;1049309 wrote:There's no chance I vote Romney, there's no chance I vote Obama. I'm hoping Ron Paul runs as a 3rd party candidate and garners a significant amount of the popular vote. Ron Paul could be the start of a viable third party in this country, one that believes in freedom, liberty, and the constitution. I've said it before, I don't agree with everything that Ron Paul stands for, but I do agree with his views more than any candidate in my lifetime. My view is that Republicans and Democrats both are unwilling to make the tough choices to save this country. Their only difference is which path they want to take to lead us to the same destination. -
Tobias Fünke
Massachusetts' economy was doing fine, job growth is a statistic best used for growing populations and recovering economies. That wasn't the case in Massachusetts. You should also consider he had a Democratic state legislature and a very liberal state (not exactly "anything goes"-Texas), and show me some unemployment statistics from his time in Massachusetts, I beliieve they were admirable.sleeper;1049609 wrote:The government is not a business. I can't remember the exact statistics, but Massachusetts was like 48th in job growth during his term as Governor. Clearly, he doesn't know how to apply these business concepts that he's "mastered" into government. This is of course not even touching the fact that he won't address to pressing issues that face this country. He's chock full of cliches and rhetoric but very vague on his plans to actually getting anything accomplished.
The government isn't a business, that is correct. But there are still many aspects that are similar, specifically form an executive/management perspective. While you're not offering a service/creating a product per se, you do have income and expenditures that need to be balanced as if it were a business. Taking a business-like mindset towards bureaucracies can do a lot of good, especially when you have spent time as an executive in the private and public sector as Romney has. -
sleeper
So doing a terrible job creating jobs in Massachusetts means he will do a great job creating jobs as President? I don't buy it.Tobias Fünke;1049642 wrote:Massachusetts' economy was doing fine, job growth is a statistic best used for growing populations and recovering economies. That wasn't the case in Massachusetts. You should also consider he had a Democratic state legislature and a very liberal state (not exactly "anything goes"-Texas), and show me some unemployment statistics from his time in Massachusetts, I beliieve they were admirable.
The government isn't a business, that is correct. But there are still many aspects that are similar, specifically form an executive/management perspective. While you're not offering a service/creating a product per se, you do have income and expenditures that need to be balanced as if it were a business. Taking a business-like mindset towards bureaucracies can do a lot of good, especially when you have spent time as an executive in the private and public sector as Romney has. -
O-Trap
No, they need balanced as if they were a non-profit organization.Tobias Fünke;1049642 wrote:... you do have income and expenditures that need to be balanced as if it were a business.
And just what has Romney proposed to do about balancing this budget? What plan has he offered? -
Tobias Fünke
No, I clearly meant that it's pretty stupid to judge a guy on job creation when the state's economy was doing well and he had a Democrat/liberal (i.e. not very pro-business) state legislature. Don't be ignorant, he did a great job creating jobs in the private sector.sleeper;1049648 wrote:So doing a terrible job creating jobs in Massachusetts means he will do a great job creating jobs as President? I don't buy it.
Besides, we'd both say that it's not the government's duty to create jobs, and my entire point is that as a guy who created a number of diverse businesses that have succeeded, he knows exactly where the federal government's regulations/inefficiencies/etc are in the way of job creation on a national scale/competing better in the global economy. What experiences do Ron Paul or Rick Santorum have in that regard? Rick Perry merely benfitted from picking jobs away from other states. I don't mind Gingrich, I think he'd do a fine job in that regard--but I think he's one of the bigger puppets in DC. I can't take Huntsman seriously, but his ambassadorship to China probably gave him a good view on why they're kicking our ass and his governing of Utah went well economically so I can't rip on him too much. -
I Wear Pants
Then why wasn't he able to make Massachusetts so much more efficient?Tobias Fünke;1049768 wrote:No, I clearly meant that it's pretty stupid to judge a guy on job creation when the state's economy was doing well and he had a Democrat/liberal (i.e. not very pro-business) state legislature. Don't be ignorant, he did a fine job creating jobs in the private sector.
Besides, we'd both say that it's not the government's duty to create jobs, and my entire point is that as a guy who created a number of diverse businesses that have succeeded, he knows exactly where the government regulations/inefficiencies/etc are in the way. -
Tobias Fünke
That's a fair criticism, but a huge part of the budget balancing equation is raising government revenue via growing the economy. Romney wins hands down in that regard. One of the first steps would be getting Americans back to work, so the government wins by not only income tax revenue but not having to pay unemployment.O-Trap;1049693 wrote:No, they need balanced as if they were a non-profit organization.
And just what has Romney proposed to do about balancing this budget? What plan has he offered?
From Romney's website:
Personally, I don't care if he has the greatest plan in the world, the assclowns in Congress need to change their ways. I trust that with the GOP controlling Congress and the Presidency, we can actually hold their feet to the fire and get some stuff done. I think I would wait for his VP nominee, which is fair in my opinion, to see if it's a budget expert or not. He needs his VP to be a foreign policy or federal budget expert, that much is obvious. Or, it'll be Marco Rubio.Cut Federal Spending
While getting the federal debt under control will be a long and arduous task, the first step toward recovery is admitting we have a problem and refusing to allow any more irresponsible borrowing. The good news is that many Americans have awoken to the problem. The rise of the Tea Party is a classic instance of the self-correcting forces of American democracy in action. One way or another, Washington will get the message that we must live within our means, spend only what we take in, and pay down our debt.
- Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
- Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
- Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates
- Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition
- Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services
Cap and Balance the Federal Budget
We also must put controls in place to ensure that we never see a repeat of the explosive spending and borrowing of the past few years. As president, Mitt Romney will immediately move to cut spending and cap it at 20 percent of GDP. As spending comes under control, he will pursue further cuts that would allow caps to be set even lower so as to guarantee future fiscal stability. A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is also necessary to ensure that our nation embarks on a path of long-term fiscal discipline, and as president, Romney will introduce one in Congress and fight for its passage.
- Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP
- Pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment
Americans shouldn't get complacent with Romney's being elected, we all need to continue to clamor for reforms. For the record, I think Ron Paul would have an even tougher time (or maybe as tough of a time, but certainly no easier) balancing the budget because Congress simply won't go for what he stands for. They really won't.
On his increase in defense spending...part of me wonders if that's just to win primary votes. Sure, he could be in the pocket of defense contractors, but I really think he's smarter than that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Romney has a history of being really pro-military in terms of spending. Hell, he looked rather silly talking about foreign policy in 2008's primaries.
But I would to see the Department of Defense seriously audited as much as anyone and I hope to see it happen. -
sleeper
Ok, so again, how in the hell is Romney going to get anything done when he has a Democratic senate? I don't care if he created 100 million jobs in the private sector, he hasn't accomplished anything in his time as governor. If he can't do it at a state level, he's not going to do anything at the next level.Tobias Fünke;1049768 wrote:No, I clearly meant that it's pretty stupid to judge a guy on job creation when the state's economy was doing well and he had a Democrat/liberal (i.e. not very pro-business) state legislature. Don't be ignorant, he did a great job creating jobs in the private sector. -
Tobias Fünke
Who's to say he didn't? Health care costs, according to an article I read the other day, have dropped more than any other state (they were the highest before and after Romneycare).I Wear Pants;1049775 wrote:Then why wasn't he able to make Massachusetts so much more efficient?
Unemployment when he entered office: 5.6%
Unemployment when he left office: 4.4%
Not too shabby.
Too be fair, the entire country's unemployment rate dropped too. But come on let's be fair...can you do much better than 4.4%? NO. Especially when you don't have the tax structure and huge natural resources that a state like Texas has. His answer with Rick Perry about this issue during the debates answered this well in my opinion.
"Why didn't get change that tax structure then?!"
It's fucking Massachusetts. That's why. -
Tobias Fünke
Well he lowered his state's unemployment rate from 5.6% to 4.4%, a 21% decrease.sleeper;1049794 wrote:Ok, so again, how in the hell is Romney going to get anything done when he has a Democratic senate? I don't care if he created 100 million jobs in the private sector, he hasn't accomplished anything in his time as governor. If he can't do it at a state level, he's not going to do anything at the next level.
I'm no expert on how the Senate elections will play out, does the GOP stand a chance to taking it back? Regardless, he worked with a state legislature that was 85% Democrat in MA, he can do it with Congress.
I would chalk your "hasn't accomplished anything" as the usual sleeper hyperbole. -
sleeper
http://politicalcorrection.org/mobile/factcheck/201106020002Tobias Fünke;1049807 wrote:Well he lowered his state's unemployment rate from 5.6% to 4.4%, a 21% decrease.
I'm no expert on how the Senate elections will play out, does the GOP stand a chance to taking it back? Regardless, he worked with a state legislature that was 85% Democrat in MA, he can do it with Congress.
I would chalk your "hasn't accomplished anything" as the usual sleeper hyperbole.
All you need to know about Mitt Romney's record on jobs. He's a failure and he'll be more of the same. -
Tobias Fünke
Clearly you cannot listen.sleeper;1049814 wrote:http://politicalcorrection.org/mobile/factcheck/201106020002
All you need to know about Mitt Romney's record on jobs. He's a failure and he'll be more of the same.
Show me where Massachusetts' unempoyment rate ranked in the US under Romney. That is for more indicative of his economic success.
If you have 100 people in a village, and 94 of them have jobs when you got there and 96 had jobs when you left....you should be punished for a lack of job creation because, well, nearly every motherfucker had a job! -
jhay78
You've hit on a great point that's often lost in the course of this thread. No matter who the next president is, the next Congress will either have to a) keep his spending in check, or b) nudge him in the right direction of real reforms. Congress is the one branch most directly accountable to the American people; we get to do something about them every 2 years. If they continue their reckless spending ways then it's our responsibility to throw them out.Tobias Fünke;1049791 wrote:Personally, I don't care if he has the greatest plan in the world, the assclowns in Congress need to change their ways. I trust that with the GOP controlling Congress and the Presidency, we can actually hold their feet to the fire and get some stuff done. I think I would wait for his VP nominee, which is fair in my opinion, to see if it's a budget expert or not. He needs his VP to be a foreign policy or federal budget expert, that much is obvious. Or, it'll be Marco Rubio.
Americans shouldn't get complacent with Romney's being elected, we all need to continue to clamor for reforms. For the record, I think Ron Paul would have an even tougher time (or maybe as tough of a time, but certainly no easier) balancing the budget because Congress simply won't go for what he stands for. They really won't.
The Senate is most crucial this time around. If Harry Reid is still majority leader it won't matter if Ron Paul clones himself and becomes president, VP, and all 435 members of the House at the same time. -
sleeper
Nor should you be given credit for inheriting a robust economy that was creating jobs on its own. Also, apparently he was 47th in the country in job growth rate during his term, so 46 state governors were doing a better job than him. I'll pass.Tobias Fünke;1049828 wrote:Clearly you cannot listen.
Show me where Massachusetts' unempoyment rate ranked in the US under Romney. That is for more indicative of his economic success.
If you have 100 people in a village, and 94 of them have jobs when you got there and 96 had jobs when you left....you should be punished for a lack of job creation because, well, nearly every motherfucker had a job!