So What Changes if Romney is Elected?

• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1204907 wrote:Dude. They're sitting on cash because of a lack of demand...not because they're afraid of Barack Obama hoping and praying for Mitt Romney to be in the white house. I wonder if the university is going to start a course called "fear of moderate democrats and the business cycle." ...

  It's not fear. It's the unknown portion of risk reward.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Con_Alma;1205922 wrote:It's not fear. It's the unknown portion of risk reward.

  This plus 1,000,000,000
  
  I can assure anyone Honeywell would love to expand, given that a large part of its business does better in a down cycle. When controls, power, etc. become more difficult cost burdens, they actually provide solutions to make the controls more cost-effective thus increasing their business and their headcount. Problem: increasing headcount is too expensive in an unknown business climate.
• fish82

  

  gut;1205776 wrote:Give the Repubs 51, or just replace Houdini Harry, and I bet you see much better results.

  +1
  
  75% of the reason for the stagnate Senate today is because Harry is the most inept, sackless majority leader in a generation.
• sleeper

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1205902 wrote: So why would they hire - instead, employ a private contractor or a headhunter providing talking heads that can deal with all of these issues. Employers often act reasonably.

  This. Our company barely hires anyone anymore, they just go grab a private contractor to provide insight and expertise when needed. It's just flat out too expensive to hire someone.
• Abe Vigoda

  

  sleeper;1205993 wrote:This. Our company barely hires anyone anymore, they just go grab a private contractor to provide insight and expertise when needed. It's just flat out too expensive to hire someone.

  You mean like these guys?
  
• BoatShoes

  gut;1204925 wrote:Boatshoes,
  
  Businesses don't sit on cash because of short-term demand declines. They're sitting on cash because they look out 2-5 years and don't see a healthy economy under Obama to justify the investments.
  Ii
  As I said, if what you claim is true there would be hoards of special dividends ahead of the tax hikes. And you can continue to deny it, it doesn't change the reality for the medium and large companies out there that drive the economy.
  
  And it's laughable you keep saying "my ideas" are failing miserably when Keynesian run amok is responsible for this mess in the first place. In case you haven't noticed, there is still a mountain of uncertainty in Europe because of Greece, Spain and Italy, France's recent elections....and that's a drag on those other European economies as well.

  Dude. An unhealthy economy years out because of ineffective demand.you just made my argument for me. Your argument about dividends prior to tax policy change is irrelevant. And europe is not where they are because of keynsianism run amok. I am sorry but you're in denial. Monetary union without political union and camerkozy and the ecb making the same exact arguments u make on here are.
• BoatShoes

  believer;1204961 wrote:As someone who IS in the private sector (IE: for-profit business) and who is directly involved in hiring, purchases, capital improvements, etc. I can wholeheartedly agree and concur that there are three major issues directly impacting businesses at the moment.
  
  First, there are corporate tax rates. The United States levies the second highest corporate tax rates among developed nations. With the economy tanking and the prospect of tax increases on the horizon, CEO's are reluctant to expand at the moment.
  
  Second, there is ObamaCare on the horizon. Execs and human resource guru's are still evaluating the full impact of ObamaCare to the bottom-line with this albatross looming for 2014.
  
  Third, there is Obama and a wacky Congress to try and second-guess. Every exec, manager, and supervisor I talk to want Obama to drop off the radar scope and are very reluctant to make any major long-term business decisions until they know for certain what the political landscape will look like after November.

  Im a tax attorney with private sector clients and you think the tax rate matters more than it does. No point in doing tax free acquisitions if there's no demand for the target companies products etc. Our economy lacks demand and if we had full employment and rising incomes nobody would give a fuck and that problem is a relatively easy fix if people would stop trumping secondary problems. Half a decade of catastrophic unemployment that could easily be remedied is the problem. And investors are willing to throw money at us to do it.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1206092 wrote:...Our economy lacks demand and if we had full employment and rising incomes nobody would give a **** and that problem is a relatively easy fix if people would stop trumping secondary problems. ...

  Sure it would matter. Even with great demand when their are higher costs due to taxes the ROI is lower. There's a great market of opportunity out there that's beyond the borders of the U.S.. There's also a much greater labor pool.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1206072 wrote:Dude. An unhealthy economy years out because of ineffective demand.you just made my argument for me. Your argument about dividends prior to tax policy change is irrelevant. And europe is not where they are because of keynsianism run amok. I am sorry but you're in denial. Monetary union without political union and camerkozy and the ecb making the same exact arguments u make on here are.

  No, my argument about dividends is spot on. If companies didn't see a reason to invest, they'd return that money ahead of tax hikes. They're holding back with the hopes/expectations that Obama will be gone. The POTUS does indeed have an impact on the economy with fiscal/economic/regulatory policy. It's generally thought to be about a 2-yr lag.
  
  And you are still missing the point. Businesses have uncertainty and disappointing forecasts out the next five years in part BECAUSE of Obama. You can pretend like it doesn't exist, but those of us out here in the real world are seeing the impact of Obama on investment decisions. Perception is reality or reality is perception, Obama is bad for the economy and businesses are sitting on their hands hoping they don't have to weather 4 more years of the dunce.
• believer

  

  BoatShoes;1206092 wrote:Im a tax attorney with private sector clients and you think the tax rate matters more than it does. No point in doing tax free acquisitions if there's no demand for the target companies products etc. Our economy lacks demand and if we had full employment and rising incomes nobody would give a fuck and that problem is a relatively easy fix if people would stop trumping secondary problems. Half a decade of catastrophic unemployment that could easily be remedied is the problem. And investors are willing to throw money at us to do it.

  A tax attorney with private sector clients and a Keyensianista? It's no wonder you're confused.
• QuakerOats

  Private sector liberal clients I am sure: they got theirs, they turn into liberals, sip pinot grigio at their summer cocktail parties, feel good about voting for a black president, and the hell with everyone else having the same opportunities to get theirs. Europe here we come.
  
  Brainless, sheltered feelgoodism.
• believer

  

  QuakerOats;1207232 wrote:Private sector liberal clients I am sure: they got theirs, they turn into liberals, sip pinot grigio at their summer cocktail parties, feel good about voting for a black president, and the hell with everyone else having the same opportunities to get theirs. Europe here we come.
  
  Brainless, sheltered feelgoodism.

  without a doubt
• HitsRus

  

  Yes^^^^and reps. Isn't amazing how the old money are liberal elitists? They keep the poor under control by making them dependent, then keep their club exclusive by keeping new money out.
• believer

  

  HitsRus;1207664 wrote:Yes^^^^and reps. Isn't amazing how the old money are liberal elitists? They keep the poor under control by making them dependent, then keep their club exclusive by keeping new money out.

  And most would never allow the likes of Obama to cross the clubhouse threshold....but they'll gladly write him a check to insure his re-election.
• gut

  believer;1207667 wrote:And most would never allow the likes of Obama to cross the clubhouse threshold....but they'll gladly write him a check to insure his re-election.

  It seems Obama has lost quite a bit of big money donors from 2008, especially in financial circles. IMO, these guys were willing to look past the warning signs on his economic views/experience in order to play the part of well-intentioned liberal. In their businesses and personal lives, they will typically nickel & dime and at best pay market value (grudgingly). But then they go to the voting booth and support liberal/progressive entitlements and reforms. It's certainly a bit hypocritical.
  
  Back to the point, many have seen the economic and fiscal carnage the past 3.5 years and are NOT supporting Obama.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;1207232 wrote:Private sector liberal clients I am sure: they got theirs, they turn into liberals, sip pinot grigio at their summer cocktail parties, feel good about voting for a black president, and the hell with everyone else having the same opportunities to get theirs. Europe here we come.
  
  Brainless, sheltered feelgoodism.

  HitsRus;1207664 wrote:Yes^^^^and reps. Isn't amazing how the old money are liberal elitists? They keep the poor under control by making them dependent, then keep their club exclusive by keeping new money out.

  Talk about over-generalization
• Sage

  

  few things here, chaps:
  
  #1 serious lmao if u think romney would be any better of a president than obama.
  
  #2 the biggest reason im voting for obama is because the next president will be able to set an ideological majority on the Supreme Court for the next twenty years. After abominations like the Citizens United ruling, I don't really want a bunch of dipshit John Robertses rewarding other rich white people.
  
  #3 rich white people have done had their time in this country. it's time for these bums to get tucked into their graves. if they need a lullaby, im not good at signing but i will sing whatever tune they require.
• believer

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1207763 wrote:Talk about over-generalization

  True but it hits the mark nonetheless.
• gut

  Sage;1207790 wrote:I'm voting for Obama because it's about reparations

  fixed it for ya
• Belly35

  

  Sage;1207790 wrote:few things here, chaps:
  
  #1 serious lmao if u think romney would be any better of a president than obama.
  
  #2 the biggest reason im voting for obama is because the next president will be able to set an ideological majority on the Supreme Court for the next twenty years. After abominations like the Citizens United ruling, I don't really want a bunch of dipshit John Robertses rewarding other rich white people.
  
  #3 rich white people have done had their time in this country. it's time for these bums to get tucked into their graves. if they need a lullaby, im not good at signing but i will sing whatever tune they require.

  
  I was raised with the understanding that hard work, education and ambition would make me rich. Rich, prosperity and comfort was the goal. I can remember any of my teachers mentioning that studying hard would provide welfare cheese. Please note: I was poor and welfare cheese is dam good. I didn’t do everything right but it worked out good. You however must have been raised with a set entitlement goals. White rich people are not the problem nor are all those rich black people that you forgot to mention. It people like you who want my share that haven’t earned your share yet. Spread the wealth work for your own fucking wealth stop asking for hand out, put your hands to work like the rich folk do.
  
  Listen to this speech Malcolm X got it right and you are falling for it Chump in 2008 and again in 2014.. mofo
  
  [video=youtube;7BYVv4LY_KQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BYVv4LY_KQ[/video]
• BGFalcons82

  

  Rasmussen has interesting polling updates today - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
  
  Specifically:

  The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting 48% of the vote, while President Obama earns 43%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and another three percent (3%) are undecided.

  Hhmmm...Romney up 5 now and he's led several days in a row. But wait...the polling giant, Bloomberg, has Barry up 13. Which one is to be believed? :laugh:
  

  The president picks up support from just 35% of white voters overall. That’s eight points below the 43% of the white vote he won in 2008. Among white Democrats, 17% currently plan to vote for Romney.

  How's that race card playing out, Barry? Maybe it only works once?
  

  Intensity of support or opposition can have an impact on campaigns. Currently, 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22 (see trends).

  It's not been this high in a long time. Maybe Fast and Furious is more than just a Republican witch-hunt.
• fish82

  

  I can't remember where it was, but I rmember reading what seemed like a legit analysis where the guy said that Bam has to pull at least 39% of the white vote to win.
• HitsRus

  

  Maybe Fast and Furious is more than just a Republican witch-hunt

  To be frank, I don't think the 'public' in general is all that knowledgeable about what has been going on. While there is a buzz in political circles and among political affectionados, the man on the street really doesn't know much of anything. When that changes...the shit will hit the fan.
• Sage

  

  so my haters are privileged white crackers, glad we cleared that up. *waits for the reaper to win this argument on my behest*
• Footwedge

  Belly35;1208159 wrote:I was raised with the understanding that hard work, education and ambition would make me rich. ]

  That was my understanding too. Today you need those things just to stay afloat. "The man keeping you down" has a completely different connotation. Since Bush's bailout of the banks, the hard workers, the educated, and the ambitious have seen on average 39% of their equity go up in smoke. "The man" kept his...in fact had "his" go up on value over those same 3.75 years.