Romney held in disdain in his home state

[hossman2011]

I'd be more concerned if Massachusetts was giving Romney a ticker-tape parade. They're one of the most liberal states in the union, only California is even remotely comparable.

Romney flip-flops. He's a politician, what else is new? There might be a handful of politicians that say what they mean and mean what they say, regardless of anything else. There's not a whole
passel of them, though.

Look that flip flop thing is getting really old... all you fools bring up beliefs he had 10 or more years ago... education and maturity is occasionally mind opening... and thank goodness it is or you would still be to scared to take that retirement cruise for fear of falling off the edge..

 

[xiggi]

I don't think that state & federal officials are worse [less responsive to constituents], I know they are. Because they're more remote, less able to effect changes - too big to deal with, sigh. [I've got some horror stories too!]
My point was that Romney isn't promising to reform regulation, he says he'll eliminate much of it wholesale, and that just scares me. Because I suspect the regs he'd eliminate are the ones business doesn't want to pay for, not the ones that are duplicative or unnecessary - just the ones that the CEOs don't like. He won't look too hard at them either, because he needs those campaign donations [which is a whole nother issue that needs reformed] more than he needs the support of the citizens who don't know what he's doing anyhow.

Cheri you often seem to leave out.important facts in your arguments. What romney says is many of those things can be handled better at the state level and that is right. To even begin to believe obama does.not regulate by lobby is of course. Look at to big to fail. That gives big banks confidence to take even more risks because of guaranteed.bailout.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

 

[paullud]

I'd be more concerned if Massachusetts was giving Romney a ticker-tape parade. They're one of the most liberal states in the union, only California is even remotely comparable.

Romney flip-flops. He's a politician, what else is new? There might be a handful of politicians that say what they mean and mean what they say, regardless of anything else. There's not a whole passel of them, though.

It's amazing how people seem to forgot how many things Obama has flip flopped on including calling an insurance mandate ridiculous when Hillary proposed it and gay marriage.

Sent from my ADR6400L using EO Forums

 

[Suds43]

cheri122 has it EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!

 

[xiggi]

cheri122 has it EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!

Now that is funny stuff right there.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

 

[cheri1122]

I think dollars control both parties so I wouldn't exempt Romney or Obama from that.
Either way, either party will have to create a climate that promotes business. Right now, I don't see the democrats having the will to do that. Their answer the last four years is basically to borrow our way out of debt.
We see how well that is working.

Call me hopelessly old fashioned, but I always thought business makes a profit by providing a product or service that customers will pay for, and the way to reap greater profit is to make the quality of the product or service higher than the competition.
Now it seems [among many, esp the largest] that profit is realized mostly by deception [complex layering and accounting], extorting local/state governments for 'incentives', squeezing workers [laying off some & expecting the remaining workers to make up for the loss], avoiding taxes by 'locating' overseas [love the bldg in the Caymans that is "home" to several hundred THOUSAND companies]and lobbying for rules that place the competition at a disadvantage [EOBRs, for example].
Interesting tidbit a few weeks ago: Staples is once again in financial trouble, and while that isn't a negative reflection on Romney, the current CEO's statement sure seems to be: "We're doing everything we can to avoid the involvement of private capital."
The man knows whereof he speaks.

 

[cheri1122]

Now that is funny stuff right there.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

I thought so too - but probly for a different reason, lol.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Call me hopelessly old fashioned, but I always thought business makes a profit by providing a product or service that customers will pay for, and the way to reap greater profit is to make the quality of the product or service higher than the competition.
Now it seems [among many, esp the largest] that profit is realized mostly by deception [complex layering and accounting], extorting local/state governments for 'incentives', squeezing workers [laying off some & expecting the remaining workers to make up for the loss], avoiding taxes by 'locating' overseas [love the bldg in the Caymans that is "home" to several hundred THOUSAND companies]and lobbying for rules that place the competition at a disadvantage [EOBRs, for example].
Interesting tidbit a few weeks ago: Staples is once again in financial trouble, and while that isn't a negative reflection on Romney, the current CEO's statement sure seems to be: "We're doing everything we can to avoid the involvement of private capital."
The man knows whereof he speaks.

What you're explaining there is corporatism, not the free market. I would love nothing more than to get rid of all lobbyists, since corporations are not people, and do not have the ability to vote. Therefore, they should not have a say with OUR representatives, or be able to donate to their campaigns.

OTOH, our corporate tax is the highest in the world; and especially high on small businesses. What I don't like about EITHER candidate, or their respective parties, is that they could truly care less about the small business person. You constantly hear about tax breaks for the megacorps, but not for the mom-n-pops. They don't give two shiites about the little guy, and haven't for a long, long time. I believe it's called a corporatocracy, or something like that.

 

[cheri1122]

Innit funny how some of the 'free market' boosters work so hard to subvert it?
Nother tidbit: read a letter [to the editor] today by a guy who says his local Chamber of Commerce [the voice of business] asked their members at a meeting to refrain from hiring "for the cause" because they don't want to give Obama any ammunition....
Nother funny thing: people foam at the mouth over unions, but create and join all kinds of associations to do precisely what the unions do: further their own interests. [Yeah, I know: unions are compulsory - except they're not, people can work elsewhere if they prefer.]

 

[Ragman]

Nother funny thing: people foam at the mouth over unions, but create and join all kinds of associations to do precisely what the unions do: further their own interests. [Yeah, I know: unions are compulsory - except they're not, people can work elsewhere if they prefer.]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[xiggi]

Innit funny how some of the 'free market' boosters work so hard to subvert it?
Nother tidbit: read a letter [to the editor] today by a guy who says his local Chamber of Commerce [the voice of business] asked their members at a meeting to refrain from hiring "for the cause" because they don't want to give Obama any ammunition....
Nother funny thing: people foam at the mouth over unions, but create and join all kinds of associations to do precisely what the unions do: further their own interests. [Yeah, I know: unions are compulsory - except they're not, people can work elsewhere if they prefer.]

So are you suggesting the conservative side keep doing things the old way? I call that smart thinking to hold off on short term to better your outlook for the long term. No rational argument can be made that o has been good for business so why would a business person do something.g against their own best interest. There is a reason the head of walmart donated so much to the deems this election.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

 

[xiggi]

What you're explaining there is corporatism, not the free market. I would love nothing more than to get rid of all lobbyists, since corporations are not people, and do not have the ability to vote. Therefore, they should not have a say with OUR representatives, or be able to donate to their campaigns.

OTOH, our corporate tax is the highest in the world; and especially high on small businesses. What I don't like about EITHER candidate, or their respective parties, is that they could truly care less about the small business person. You constantly hear about tax breaks for the megacorps, but not for the mom-n-pops. They don't give two shiites about the little guy, and haven't for a long, long time. I believe it's called a corporatocracy, or something like that.

Corporations are made up of people just like unions are. How many truck owners are incorporated? I have to disagree corps have every right to donate to campaigns.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

 

[layoutshooter]

Innit funny how some of the 'free market' boosters work so hard to subvert it?
Nother tidbit: read a letter [to the editor] today by a guy who says his local Chamber of Commerce [the voice of business] asked their members at a meeting to refrain from hiring "for the cause" because they don't want to give Obama any ammunition....
Nother funny thing: people foam at the mouth over unions, but create and join all kinds of associations to do precisely what the unions do: further their own interests. [Yeah, I know: unions are compulsory - except they're not, people can work elsewhere if they prefer.]

Almost as bad as the Marxists like Obama who try to destroy it. Unions should NEVER be compulsory, anywhere. That is as anti-freedom as one can get. Might as well require membership in the "Party". Public employees, teachers, firefighters, police, etc, should NEVER have a union. The very idea of public employees telling the tax payer how much they should be paid is obnoxious. I don't want to hear about how they NEED a "living wage". They have NO problem causing senior citizens taxes to go up, just to cover THEIR wages and benefits, that many lose their homes. How sick is that?

 

[cheri1122]

So are you suggesting the conservative side keep doing things the old way?

I'm suggesting they've started [giving them the benefit of the doubt in not saying 'continued', lol] deliberately doing [or refraining from] things specifically to make Obama look bad - or prevent him from benefiting from what they would have done otherwise, if they were honest.

I call that smart thinking to hold off on short term to better your outlook for the long term.

Well, the CoC called it "for the cause" which meant defeating Obama. Campaigning is one thing, but distorting your business plans is dishonest, IMO.

No rational argument can be made that o has been good for business

There's a lot of business owners who feel otherwise - remember the pizza shop owner who hugged Obama? [And he's a Republican, lol] And that wasn't a phoney staged photo op, like Ryan washing clean pots to 'honor volunteers' [and jeopardize St Vincent De Paul's funding, which requires them to remain apolitical] or Romney's latest 'can drive for Sandy' [which the disaster response pros said was exactly the wrong thing to do], it was a real person who says Obama works for him and his business.

so why would a business person do something.g against their own best interest. There is a reason the head of walmart donated so much to the deems this election.

There is far too much money being wasted on political campaigns, on both sides and at all levels - agreed.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

 

[Ragman]

The very idea of public employees telling the tax payer how much they should be paid is obnoxious. I don't want to hear about how they NEED a "living wage". They have NO problem causing senior citizens taxes to go up, just to cover THEIR wages and benefits, that many lose their homes. How sick is that?

I don't see the word public anywhere in cheri's post.

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't see the word public anywhere in cheri's post.

Just commenting on public unions. If a PRIVATE company is stupid enough to bow to the Marxists unions of today, that is THEIR business. NO private citizen should be forced to fold to a union. It SHOULD be illegal.

How sick is this? My father's TAX BILL is now HIGHER than his house payment, taxes and insurance COMBINED. His wages NEVER go up. GOOD UNION! They are disgusting.

 

[xiggi]

So are you suggesting the conservative side keep doing things the old way?

I'm suggesting they've started [giving them the benefit of the doubt in not saying 'continued', lol] deliberately doing [or refraining from] things specifically to make Obama look bad - or prevent him from benefiting from what they would have done otherwise, if they were honest.

I call that smart thinking to hold off on short term to better your outlook for the long term.

Well, the CoC called it "for the cause" which meant defeating Obama. Campaigning is one thing, but distorting your business plans is dishonest, IMO.

No rational argument can be made that o has been good for business

There's a lot of business owners who feel otherwise - remember the pizza shop owner who hugged Obama? [And he's a Republican, lol] And that wasn't a phoney staged photo op, like Ryan washing clean pots to 'honor volunteers' [and jeopardize St Vincent De Paul's funding, which requires them to remain apolitical] or Romney's latest 'can drive for Sandy' [which the disaster response pros said was exactly the wrong thing to do], it was a real person who says Obama works for him and his business.

so why would a business person do something.g against their own best interest. There is a reason the head of walmart donated so much to the deems this election.

There is far too much money being wasted on political campaigns, on both sides and at all levels - agreed.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

So some guy gives a talk at a meeting according to an op ed. That is supposed to mean many in the room were planning on hiring? actually it doesn't prove anyone was or that it changed anyone's business plan or that one person was giving o a chance.

Many people vote against the best interest of our country in every election. Some vote with their heart but that is no way to run a country. For very business owner happy with the direction in Washington i am guessing there are five unhappy with it including pizza shop owners.


I wasn't referring to money in politics. His donations show smart business on his part because huge amounts of government handouts are spent at walmart. He invested in his company by supporting the democratic party with donations.



Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

 

[cheri1122]

So some guy gives a talk at a meeting according to an op ed.

Um, it wasn't an op-ed - they'd never print such a blatant request for dishonest behavior - it was a letter to the editor from someone who'd attended a CoC meeting and maybe didn't realize the implications of his statement. Granted, it's anecdotal, but it's like Romney's notorious 47% comments: when people believe they're among friends, they speak truths they'd not say in public.

That is supposed to mean many in the room were planning on hiring? actually it doesn't prove anyone was or that it changed anyone's business plan or that one person was giving o a chance.

It doesn't prove anything - but the CoC is composed of people who hire for their businesses, and the message was "Don't" and that is contrary to the public statements that they're not hiring because of uncertainty, or whatever they're insisting their reasons are. That's deceptive, and I dislike deception. If they have complaints about Obama, why not be honest about them?

Many people vote against the best interest of our country in every election. Some vote with their heart but that is no way to run a country. For very business owner happy with the direction in Washington i am guessing there are five unhappy with it including pizza shop owners.

You may be right, but even so, is it Obama? Or Congress? I'm pretty angry at the latter, myself.


I wasn't referring to money in politics. His donations show smart business on his part because huge amounts of government handouts are spent at walmart. He invested in his company by supporting the democratic party with donations.

That's his right - but there's still too much money in political campaigns today - it beggars belief to think it isn't buying legislation.



Sent from my Fisher Price ABC123 via EO Forums

 

[davekc]

Call me hopelessly old fashioned, but I always thought business makes a profit by providing a product or service that customers will pay for, and the way to reap greater profit is to make the quality of the product or service higher than the competition.
Now it seems [among many, esp the largest] that profit is realized mostly by deception [complex layering and accounting], extorting local/state governments for 'incentives', squeezing workers [laying off some & expecting the remaining workers to make up for the loss], avoiding taxes by 'locating' overseas [love the bldg in the Caymans that is "home" to several hundred THOUSAND companies]and lobbying for rules that place the competition at a disadvantage [EOBRs, for example].
Interesting tidbit a few weeks ago: Staples is once again in financial trouble, and while that isn't a negative reflection on Romney, the current CEO's statement sure seems to be: "We're doing everything we can to avoid the involvement of private capital."
The man knows whereof he speaks.

You make some valid arguements in that the tax structure at some levels need to be addressed. This is a issue with both parties. Obama's job czar Jeffery Emmelt, head of GE sends jobs to China. GE also pays no tax. You don't mention that yet it is common knowledge.
The problem is you are focusing on five percent of business. That doesn't represent ALL business. That is why the tax structure, regulations, healthcare taxes, is a problem for most business and why they are moving money to other foreign markets, cutting jobs, cutting benefits, or outright closing. Very little expansion and business growth is the lowest it has been in decades.
But it does beg the question to democrats. Really a simple one. How would you promote and attract business to invest and expand? It is amazing that one simple question can't seem to get answered. If you want all or many things from government, someone has to pay for it. If you drive business away, who exactly is going to pay for government?

 

[layoutshooter]

"It is amazing that one simple question can't seem to get answered. If you want all or many things from government, someone has to pay for it."

WHAT? You mean that there is NO FREE LUNCH? How can that be?