I would like to hear from a Romney supporter why they think he is a great candidate for president. So far, all I have heard from the posters on this forum is why Obama must be beat. It is clear to me that they really don't care who the republican is, just that he ain't Obama or any other democrat.
There are a hundred million republicans in America and there must be some special reason why you think Mitt Romney is the most qualified. Prove me wrong by giving me compelling reasons why he is the right guy at this time to lead us.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 08, 2012, 08:28:17 PM
I would like to hear from a Romney supporter why they think he is a great candidate for president. So far, all I have heard from the posters on this forum is why Obama must be beat. It is clear to me that they really don't care who the republican is, just that he ain't Obama or any other democrat.
There are a hundred million republicans in America and there must be some special reason why you think Mitt Romney is the most qualified. Prove me wrong by giving me compelling reasons why he is the right guy at this time to lead us.
Because he is NOT Obama. Surely you understand. It's just that the parties are reversed for you.
I'm sure something good would come of a Romney Presidency. His record indicates he wouldn't be quite as nutty as he claims he would be. I have no doubt that he'd push to go back to the status quo ante regarding financial regulation and the like. I'm still not quite sure why the Republicans seem to think that a return to Bush-era policies is going to work better this time. Even Ryan's budget doesn't specify enough spending cuts to offset the tax cuts he wants. I'd put a lot more stock in it if he'd actually say what all he wants to cut, not just "Medicare, Social Security, and discretionary spending." Similarly, the Republicans are all about repealing Obamacare when they talk to reporters, but have no plan to pay for it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 08, 2012, 09:50:31 PM
Because he is NOT Obama. Surely you understand. It's just that the parties are reversed for you.
No, I don't understand. Try and tell me what you think about Romney without bringing up Obama.
I know you can do it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 08, 2012, 09:50:31 PM
Because he is NOT Obama. Surely you understand. It's just that the parties are reversed for you.
And that, in a nutshell, explains the thinking of the GOP members. Even if they don't like the candidate, they'll justify voting for him because it's not Obama.
Now Hoss, settle down. I am trying to be patient and give the republicans on this forum a chance to answer.
Surely one of them can make the case for Romney without just being against Obama.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 09, 2012, 08:29:00 AM
Now Hoss, settle down. I am trying to be patient and give the republicans on this forum a chance to answer.
Surely one of them can make the case for Romney without just being against Obama.
Oh, I'm settle. Just making an observation. It's one that doesn't surprise me, since that was their whole
modus operandi since 2009 (remember the remarks about making sure he was a one-term President, no matter what?).
Quote from: Hoss on June 09, 2012, 08:02:24 AM
And that, in a nutshell, explains the thinking of the GOP members. Even if they don't like the candidate, they'll justify voting for him because it's not Obama.
You don't think Obama wasn't a vote against a third Bush term for some?
RM- I've posted plenty on Romney's leadership skills, achievements, and accomplishments which are indicators of great leadership. Do you really care what any of us who might vote for Mitt have to say? I really don't care to re-post if you aren't going to pay attention. ;D
Make your case. Explain his accomplishments, skills, etc.
I readily await your response.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 09, 2012, 12:44:52 PM
Make your case. Explain his accomplishments, skills, etc.
I readily await your response.
RMoney will appoint Mike Leavitt http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/who-is-mike-leavitt-the-man-leading-mitt-romneys-transition-team/258058/ to run his executive branch....what powerful
group health care program do these two hold in common?
"and like Romney, a cultist" frankspeaking
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 09, 2012, 12:44:52 PM
Make your case. Explain his accomplishments, skills, etc.
I readily await your response.
Why? You need a reason to vote for him? Bwahahaha...
Well done, Rm.
Quote from: AquaMan on June 09, 2012, 03:15:35 PM
Well done, Rm.
I project this thread will be 100 pages long by August.
Quote from: Hoss on June 09, 2012, 03:26:10 PM
I project this thread will be 100 pages long by August.
The condensed version of that 100 pages is this first page.
Quote from: guido911 on June 09, 2012, 02:49:06 PM
Why? You need a reason to vote for him? Bwahahaha...
That's not going to happen no matter what gets posted here.
You know what I'd like to see from either candidate? Seriously call on Congress to outlaw all gifts to Congresspeople, like you go to prison for a $5 latte outlaw. Doesn't matter if it was completely innocent. If a Congressperson takes a gift, they go to jail. In exchange, we should pay for all of their expenses, no matter what they are, so long as they are published on the Interwebs so we have complete oversight and can vote out anyone who takes advantage of our generosity.
If Romney can convince Congress to put such a system into place before the election, I will vote for him, barring Obama doing something like pushing for, and getting, redistricting rules that require them be drawn with the shortest splitline method. It would show both a level of self-sacrifice, in that he is of the donor class, and it would show enough leadership to make me think he might be able to make Congress take useful steps toward fixing the fundamental brokenness in our political system.
Otherwise, I'm basically voting on the Supreme Court. The Roberts Court has been so political that even the Supreme Court is losing respect with the public. I don't have any reason to believe that Romney's choice of appointees would be much different than Bush's.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 09, 2012, 03:35:05 PM
That's not going to happen no matter what gets posted here.
And that's my point. Getting into discussion with entrenched partisans (such as many of us are) trying to lay out a case why we favor our own borders on going full r-tard. I liken it to another thread where I commented how persons on the other side should not be suggesting who their opposite should should run because the other side will never vote opposite their ultimate views anyway. Asking me about my take is a real waste of time, as I am staunchly pro-life and Romney is as close to my views on that issue and who I can vote for.
Overall, I'd rather discuss issues rather than break out the ruler for a pecker measuring contest.
Quote from: AquaMan on June 09, 2012, 03:15:35 PM
Well done, Rm.
Thanks. Guido and gaspar can post hundreds of reasons why they hate Obama and yet they can't write a single sentence on why they love Romney.
If it wasn't so funny it would be sad.
Quote from: guido911 on June 09, 2012, 03:59:51 PM
...I am staunchly pro-life and Romney is as close to my views on that issue and who I can vote for.
In the spring of 2002 Romney completed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Signed by Romney and dated April 9, 2002, it contained these responses:
Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES
Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES
In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES
Romney also completed the questionnaire of the National Abortion Rights Action League, or NARAL (now called NARAL Pro-Choice America), with this statement:
"I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights. So let's end an argument that does not exist and stop these cynical and divisive attacks that are made only for political gain.
As he had with Planned Parenthood, Romney answered "Yes" to questions asking whether he supported Roe v. Wade and opposed attempts to restrict abortion. After completing the questionnaire, Romney met with three NARAL executives. In this meeting, NARAL executives recount, Romney evidenced no hesitation about his pro-choice views. He also tried to pique the executives' interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, "You need someone like me in Washington." Moreover, those present recall that Romney argued that his election would make him credible in the Republican party nationally and thus help "sensible" Republicans like him overshadow more conservative elements in the GOP.
That spring, Romney also personally telephoned the group Republican Majority for Choice and asked for its endorsement. Completing a questionnaire similar to those of other pro-choice groups, Romney got what he wanted from the pro-choice Republicans. His campaign trumpeted the endorsement with a press release.
At the Massachusetts GOP convention in April 2002, Romney articulated views entirely consistent with the pledges he had been giving the pro-choice groups. "Believing in people is protecting their freedom to make their own life choices, even if their choice is different from yours," Romney said. "Accordingly, I respect and will fully protect a woman's right to choose. That right is a deeply personal one, and the women of our state should make it based on their beliefs, not mine and not the government's." In much the same manner as he had done in the 1994 Senate debates, Romney repeated his pro-choice views later that year in the October 2002 gubernatorial debates, even invoking his mother, Lenore Romney, who favored abortion rights when she ran for the U.S. Senate in Michigan in 1970.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 09, 2012, 05:24:15 PM
In the spring of 2002 Romney completed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Signed by Romney and dated April 9, 2002, it contained these responses:
Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES
Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES
In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES
Romney also completed the questionnaire of the National Abortion Rights Action League, or NARAL (now called NARAL Pro-Choice America), with this statement:
"I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights. So let's end an argument that does not exist and stop these cynical and divisive attacks that are made only for political gain.
As he had with Planned Parenthood, Romney answered "Yes" to questions asking whether he supported Roe v. Wade and opposed attempts to restrict abortion. After completing the questionnaire, Romney met with three NARAL executives. In this meeting, NARAL executives recount, Romney evidenced no hesitation about his pro-choice views. He also tried to pique the executives' interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, "You need someone like me in Washington." Moreover, those present recall that Romney argued that his election would make him credible in the Republican party nationally and thus help "sensible" Republicans like him overshadow more conservative elements in the GOP.
That spring, Romney also personally telephoned the group Republican Majority for Choice and asked for its endorsement. Completing a questionnaire similar to those of other pro-choice groups, Romney got what he wanted from the pro-choice Republicans. His campaign trumpeted the endorsement with a press release.
At the Massachusetts GOP convention in April 2002, Romney articulated views entirely consistent with the pledges he had been giving the pro-choice groups. "Believing in people is protecting their freedom to make their own life choices, even if their choice is different from yours," Romney said. "Accordingly, I respect and will fully protect a woman's right to choose. That right is a deeply personal one, and the women of our state should make it based on their beliefs, not mine and not the government's." In much the same manner as he had done in the 1994 Senate debates, Romney repeated his pro-choice views later that year in the October 2002 gubernatorial debates, even invoking his mother, Lenore Romney, who favored abortion rights when she ran for the U.S. Senate in Michigan in 1970.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp
OK, there's an issue.
Flip-flopping. To the extreme. And not just this point.
But I'll remove myself from the discussion until more can answer.
I wrote that Romney was close to my views, not perfect by any means. I'll take him over what we have, the pro-choice present, who thinks babies are punishment.
With that said, I'm out of this thread too. It's a waste of time for the right leaners to make their case for president to the left leaners, just like it is vice versa. We on the right think Obama sucks for reasons laid out over the past three plus years (and those RM laid out about 4 years ago :P), and you on the left think Romney sucks for the reasons you have stated.
Now, on to the issues.
Is that it guido? You can't write any other reason why Romney is your guy besides he currently is closer to a view with you on abortion?
Romney isn't pro-choice or anti-choice...he is multiple-choice.
I should also be offering thanks to Guido.
He can't discuss issues because the one deal breaking issue is the one that Romney has moved all over the board with and yet he supports him based on that one issue and one issue alone. Why bother with discussion of any other issues? Then you revert back to form to support the trap RM laid for you anti-Obama guys...."Obama thinks babies are punishment".
Well done G.
Guido, your argument that it is a waste of time to lay out the arguments for Romney to left leaners is also bunk. You think only left leaners are reading these posts? Independents, moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats are also asking this question. They are watching and many are wondering why Romney is being throttled. Make a case for the guy if you can. If you can't then, yes, bow out.
Conan challenged me to discuss Obamas' blunders, his failed presidency, lack of leadership, and general destruction of the economy. I refused to play that game. Had he asked me the same question RM asked of you guys I'd have at least offered a couple of my reasons for supporting him.
Quote from: guido911 on June 09, 2012, 06:30:26 PM
I wrote that Romney was close to my views, not perfect by any means. I'll take him over what we have, the pro-choice present, who thinks babies are punishment.
I think you are confusing the President for some of the loudest and most annoying folks on your side. The ones who have no problem doing what it takes to convince/cajole/coerce women to carry pregnancies to term while they also do everything they can to make it more difficult for the mother to raise the child by raising her taxes and cutting benefits if she's poor. Combine that with the non-Catholics who fly off the handle at the idea of contraception, the rampant slut shaming, and the rest of the negativity towards women that comes from (some of) the pro-life camp and you might see why some of us get the wrong impression about the actual goals of the pro-lifers.
It's pretty clear that the most effective methods for reducing the number of abortions are improving access to contraceptives, improving education (both sex ed and general education), and lifting people out of poverty. FSM forbid that we spend our energy solving those problems rather than yelling at each other about what bad people we are.
Quote from: guido911 on June 09, 2012, 03:59:51 PM
And that's my point. Getting into discussion with entrenched partisans (such as many of us are) trying to lay out a case why we favor our own borders on going full r-tard.
Guido has a point in that it's futile to discuss the merits of a hypothetical Romney administration or a second Obama administration, because Oklahoma's electoral votes are going to Romney regardless of anything we say here. If the Republicans ran a three-legged one-eyed goat, he'd carry Oklahoma.
Quote from: Ed W on June 09, 2012, 08:23:35 PM
Guido has a point in that it's futile to discuss the merits of a hypothetical Romney administration or a second Obama administration, because Oklahoma's electoral votes are going to Romney regardless of anything we say here. If the Republicans ran a three-legged one-eyed goat, he'd carry Oklahoma.
I guess we should just ban all presidential discussion on this forum. We should delete the hundreds of anti Obama youtube videos and cartoons that guido and gaspar have posted. It must be futile for them to have posted them as well.
I'll take the bait:
Mitt Romney has a history of turning things around. With the economy still struggling, joblessness plaguing millions of Americans, and American debt continuously increasing, this country needs a change in direction. Fixing entities that are in trouble happens to be exactly what Mitt Romney has spent much of his life specializing in. As CEO of Bain Capital, Romney oversaw the investment and renovation of several struggling companies. Furthermore, Romney successfully led the effort to save the 2002 Winter Olympics, which had previously been plagued by a bribery scandal and a huge budget deficit. This is exactly the type of turnaround management that America now requires.
Mitt Romney has executive experience. The presidency is a unique role that can only be compared to the executive position at the state level. As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney had to perform executive duties similar to those that will be required of a president. These duties include submitting a budget, appointing judges and selecting a competent cabinet. Considering how complex our government has become and the example Obama has set for what happens with an inexperienced president, executive experience is an important trait for the nominee.
Mitt Romney has met a payroll. A qualification any holder of office should have.
Mitt Romney is not a Tea Party nut job.
Mitt Romney knows the system for immigration is broken and he wants to streamline it and take away unnecessary regulations that makes it harder for immigrants to come here. He will secure the border and take away all entitlements which entice immigrants to come here illegally.
Supreme Court and Federal Court appointments.
Mormon Religion, everyone I know that is a Mormon is a decent and honest human being. I think the teaching principles of the Mormon Religion provide a good moral foundation for those following it's tenents.
Finally, he is my party's nominee who I have supported from the get-go and I voted for in the Oklahoma Primary.
Let the flaming begin.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 09, 2012, 09:36:16 PM
I guess we should just ban all presidential discussion on this forum. We should delete the hundreds of anti Obama youtube videos and cartoons that guido and gaspar have posted. It must be futile for them to have posted them as well.
I didn't suggest banning such discussion, Michael, only that it's futile to presume we're going to have much effect when discussing politics here. Sure, the more intellectual arguments may sway some independents, but regardless of that, Oklahoma will vote firmly in the red again later this year. That's reality.
But argument serves another, more personal, purpose and that is to force all of us to examine our own beliefs in an effort to persuade others. In this thread, you've challenged people to speak for those positive attributes that would make Mitt Romney a good president, yet the overall picture seems to that sentiment is largely anti-Obama rather than pro-Mitt. Again, I think that's more an indication of Oklahoma values, and that as we move into the fall those critical independent voters will see the presidential campaign without a truly compelling Republican candidate.
Quote from: GG on June 09, 2012, 10:06:40 PM
Mitt Romney has executive experience. The presidency is a unique role that can only be compared to the executive position at the state level. As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney had to perform executive duties similar to those that will be required of a president. These duties include submitting a budget, appointing judges and selecting a competent cabinet. Considering how complex our government has become and the example Obama has set for what happens with an inexperienced president, executive experience is an important trait for the nominee.
Ok, if executive experience is an important trait, we ought to consider Romney's record in Massachusetts, where he managed to grow his state more slowly than the national average and, like Obama, managed to invest state funds in failed green energy businesses.
Quote from: nathanm on June 09, 2012, 10:37:28 PM
Ok, if executive experience is an important trait, we ought to consider Romney's record in Massachusetts, where he managed to grow his state more slowly than the national average and, like Obama, managed to invest state funds in failed green energy businesses.
Any leader who is doing anything will make mistakes. The only people who don't make mistakes are those that are doing nothing. However, doing nothing in itself is most likely a mistake too. http://aboutmittromney.com/economic.htm
The year he left office (2007), the trend in Massachusetts' unemployment rate was 12th in the nation [15], a big improvement from the 50th place it was in the year he won office.
IMPROVED STATE'S CREDIT SCORE Massachusetts saw its S&P rating rise to double-A from double-A-minus under Romney. When Romney took office as Governor of Massachusetts, the S&P was threatening to downgrade the state's debt. Romney met with them in their offices in New York, invited them up to Boston and met with them in his office, and laid out a debt reduction plan that instilled so much confidence in the S&P folks that they not only relented on the downgrade, they upgraded Massachusetts debt.
Between January 2003 and December 2006, Massachusetts was one of seventeen states to accelerate its job growth every year (creating more jobs each year than were created the year before), and one of only two states — Illinois being the other — to accelerate its job growth by at least 20,000 jobs each year. Massachusetts was one of the top ten most-improved states (seventh overall) in terms of job creation, going from 49th in the nation in the first year of the Romney Administration to 36th in the nation in the last year.
STATE ECONOMICALLY RANKED #1:
With Increased Lead During Romney's term in office
Let me preface all this by saying. I am a firm believer that Mayors, Governors and Presidents get too much credit when times are good and too much blame when times are bad. However, this does not change my opinion that Mitt Romney is more aliened with my values and political opinions than President Obama. I will be voting for Mitt Romney in the fall. Just like what was pointed out earlier nothing I say or anyone else says on here is going to change any minds. Everyone at Tulsa Forum is pretty opinionated or else we would not be making comments. I took the bait earlier to fuel the discussions for the beer swilling audience to have some entertainment on a Saturday night. We can continue to have this big pissing contest back and forth (happens when you drink beer) but it is not going to change any opinions ;D
Ok. As you are probably aware, I think Obama's record as an executive speaks for itself. He's effectively switched the war on terror from a ground war to a drone war that seems to be rather successful. And managed to redirect resources which had been taken away from the hunt for bin Laden back where they belonged and now he's dead as a result. His leadership in the face of serious public opposition to the auto bailout has placed Michigan among the top in job growth in that region and probably saved a minimum of a hundred thousand jobs between GM, Chrysler, and suppliers.
What I would like to see out of him in regards to the above is bringing the drone war out into the open. Once a strike has been made, the details surrounding it and video thereof should be released within a few days to a week. The lack of transparency is turning many Pakistanis against us, understandably. (Would you like to have Chinese drones circling overhead?)
Oh, and it seems that his NASA initiatives are bearing fruit also. Funny how the Congressional Republicans and talking heads were largely against privatizing the mundane stuff NASA does. (probably because Obama was for it) So again, he's doing what needs to be done despite the opposition.
On the other hand, Romney basically wants the economic policies we've been laboring under for the past year combined with the cuts (except the defense cuts, of course!) already written into current law. Nothing really new there, so I'm again unsure why I should vote for the guy who denies that anything has gone right with the current administration. I'm not terribly interested in steps backwards, especially on the (what should be) uncontroversial issues listed in this post.
I'm probably not going to change any minds, but at least it's out there. ;)
Quote from: AquaMan on June 09, 2012, 07:10:43 PM
Guido, your argument that it is a waste of time to lay out the arguments for Romney to left leaners is also bunk. You think only left leaners are reading these posts? Independents, moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats are also asking this question. They are watching and many are wondering why Romney is being throttled. Make a case for the guy if you can. If you can't then, yes, bow out.
Conan challenged me to discuss Obamas' blunders, his failed presidency, lack of leadership, and general destruction of the economy. I refused to play that game. Had he asked me the same question RM asked of you guys I'd have at least offered a couple of my reasons for supporting him.
No I didn't. I challenged you to point to all the successes of Obama's presidency and all I got was a bunch of hemming and hawing. I've previously stated my case for why I think Romney would be a really great president at this juncture. I'm not going to waste my time repeating it to people who obviously didn't pay attention to what I wrote the first go 'round.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 10, 2012, 08:10:14 AM
No I didn't. I challenged you to point to all the successes of Obama's presidency and all I got was a bunch of hemming and hawing. I've previously stated my case for why I think Romney would be a really great president at this juncture. I'm not going to waste my time repeating it to people who obviously didn't pay attention to what I wrote the first go 'round.
Copy and paste really that difficult? I understand why RM is doing this; to centralize the talking points of everyone. While Republicans in here may not like it, if the party was reversed, wouldn't the Repubs be sniping about having to search for the Dems responses?
Oh wait, you're not a Republican anymore.
;D
Myself? There are still nearly five full months left until the elections, and the nominations aren't even completed yet. I'd rather see at least a few debates before I solidify my opinion of someone whom I suspect will not be able to stay on point with a given subject throughout the debates.
He's not called 'Etch-A-Sketch' for nothing!
Because the media said Romney is the guy everyone wants?
Quote from: GG on June 09, 2012, 10:06:40 PM
Furthermore, Romney successfully led the effort to save the 2002 Winter Olympics, which had previously been plagued by a bribery scandal and a huge budget deficit. This is exactly the type of turnaround management that America now requires.
Romney got the federal government to bail out the games. We taxpayers paid $1.5 billion for it. His first act as Chairman was to spend $3.5 million to hire lobbyists. The result is that we spent twice as much money for these Olympics as any other. Included in this money was millions of taxpayer dollars building a highway to a privately owned ski resort.
Turnaround management funded by the federal government must make Romney a socialist.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 10, 2012, 08:10:14 AM
No I didn't. I challenged you to point to all the successes of Obama's presidency and all I got was a bunch of hemming and hawing. I've previously stated my case for why I think Romney would be a really great president at this juncture. I'm not going to waste my time repeating it to people who obviously didn't pay attention to what I wrote the first go 'round.
BS. You don't see the difference in the two questions? One is a judgement on performance. The other is a question of why you support your candidate.
Its been a constant barrage of criticism on this forum of this administration and a steady defense of a mediocre republican candiate. It says reams that when narrowed down to a simple question of "why"......... you guys leave the room.
I like his firm jawline and handsome, if insincere, smile. The subtle greying at his temples gives him a certain gravitas. And of course, he's white...
:P
Debate the issues? What issues? All I need's a bumper sticker about freedom, guns and babies.
Thank you GG for not being afraid of answering the question. While I disagree with your comments on the Olympics and Romney's leadership of them, I still respect your views. The other republicans on this forum seem to unable or unwilling to defend Romney. They only care that he has an (R) in front of his name.
If I asked them why they married their wives, I suspect their answer would be that their spouses weren't men.
Quote from: nathanm on June 10, 2012, 12:11:35 AM
Ok. As you are probably aware, I think Obama's record as an executive speaks for itself.
I believe that most of us will agree with that much. We diverge on the analysis of that record.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 09, 2012, 09:36:16 PM
I guess we should just ban all presidential discussion on this forum. We should delete the hundreds of anti Obama youtube videos and cartoons that guido and gaspar have posted. It must be futile for them to have posted them as well.
Go for it, Big Daddy! You da man! :D
Tell us why Romney will be a great president? Because Clinton told us so.
QuoteI think he had a good business career. If you go in and you try to save a failing company, and you and I have friends here who invest in companies, you can invest in a company, run up the debt, loot it, sell all the assets, and force all the people to lose their retirement and fire them. Or you can go into a company, have cutbacks, try to make it more productive with the purpose of saving it. When you try, like anything else you try, you don't always succeed. I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say this is bad work. This is good work. There's no question that getting up and going to the office and basically performing the essential functions of the office, a man who's been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold.
Now that Romney has been qualified, and thus far is not a campaign cheat and race baiter (an important qualifier from the OP), he is at least positioned to do an adequate job if elected. Will he be "great", who knows and right now who cares. I don't vote for a person to replace a failure at the end of the day because they necessarily will be great. I vote for that replacement thinking he will do a better job than his predecessor.
With that said, I cannot recall ever being a Romney supporter, so I will not pretend to suddenly love the guy after my candidate didn't get the nomination. That would be embarrassingly hypocritical (ahem). He is closer to me on not supporting abortion rights, however, which for the most part is my primary voting issue.
Edited to add this pee protestor smackdown, which I support.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-to-occupy-heckler-go-back-to-russia/2012/01/19/gIQAmrqdBQ_blog.html
Quote from: guido911 on June 10, 2012, 11:58:18 AM
He is closer to me on not supporting abortion rights, however, which for the most part is my primary voting issue.
So, you agree with me that SCOTUS is the real issue. You pass the litmus test. Nate is right, this will only increase the odds of more righties on the court. This will not cause Roe v Wade to be over turned.
Got your calculators handy?
Volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial campaign 1 year. (no brainer)
Unpaid intern in Governor's office 8 years. (conflicting interests?)
Mormon missionary in Paris 2 years. (Draft dodging)...
Unpaid bishop and state president for his church 10 years. (cult activist)...
No salary as president of the Olympics 3 years. (socialist).....
No salary as MA governor 4 years. (RomneyCare)....
That's a grand total of 28 years of unpaid service to
his country,
his community and
his church flock. Why? Because that's the kind of man RMoney is!
Axelrod is correct: different planet...Plan It Privilege. Out of touch with the middle class.....
Quote from: guido911 on June 10, 2012, 11:58:18 AM
Now that Romney has been qualified, and thus far is not a campaign cheat and race baiter (an important qualifier from the OP), he is at least positioned to do an adequate job if elected.
Personally, I think that suckling on the teat of government far beyond what a thousand government employees make in a lifetime is a pretty strong DQ. I'm really tired of this socialism for the rich smile. How many millions of dollars did Romney take from the taxpayers by fobbing off pension obligations on the PBGC, for example?
Also, why does he think unearned income should be taxed at a lower rate than earned income? Adam Smith would not approve. Hell, even Milton Friedman doesn't approve.
This thread effectively ended after one and a half pages. Now they're just out ropin' goats.
Quote from: AquaMan on June 10, 2012, 04:07:03 PM
This thread effectively ended after one and a half pages. Now they're just out ropin' goats.
They can actually be quite dangerous when cornered. These guys should be wearing some protective gear.
(http://internationalagprograms.dasnr.okstate.edu/countryprograms/Mexico/Chihuahua/Chihuahuan%20Cattlemen%20of%20Excellence%20Program/Digital%20Camera%20Photos/K9.JPG)
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 10, 2012, 12:17:17 PM
So, you agree with me that SCOTUS is the real issue. You pass the litmus test. Nate is right, this will only increase the odds of more righties on the court. This will not cause Roe v Wade to be over turned.
Who said anything about overturning Roe? I don't think it's necessary. But nice swing and a miss.
Quote from: nathanm on June 10, 2012, 03:48:35 PM
Also, why does he think unearned income should be taxed at a lower rate than earned income?
If you can set aside the rich guy thing for just a moment.
Taxing income on savings at a lower rate than earned income will encourage savings. There are a lot of folks that have at least a modest savings account of some sort, maybe just a bit of excess in their checking account. Allowing middle class people to keep a bit more of their savings income will allow them to help take care of themselves rather than depend on the government. Oh, wait, what was I thinking? People take care of themselves. Blasphemy. 20 lashes with a wet noodle.
Quote from: guido911 on June 10, 2012, 05:35:25 PM
Who said anything about overturning Roe? I don't think it's necessary. But nice swing and a miss.
Not necessary because you advocate violence against those that support women's rights?
Quote from: Ed W on June 10, 2012, 05:09:01 PM
They can actually be quite dangerous when cornered. These guys should be wearing some protective gear.
(http://internationalagprograms.dasnr.okstate.edu/countryprograms/Mexico/Chihuahua/Chihuahuan%20Cattlemen%20of%20Excellence%20Program/Digital%20Camera%20Photos/K9.JPG)
I gotta' learn how to post pics here.
Saw a Coypou while biking past the PSO power plant Thursday. Cute little beggar with a bad reputation. Next time I see him I'll take a pic and use it on my profile.
The smell of pure, unadulterated, weapons-grade PANIC is overwhelming in this thread. I mean, we know the left had a horrible last 10 days with the @ss-kicking it took in Wisconsin, the May unemployment number rising, former pres. Clinton endorsing Romney, and that the private sector is laughably doing fine. So naturally, let's talk about Romney and how he does not have the skill set to be president.
Now, to the heart of this thread--can Romney be a great president. The same question was batted around repeatedly in 2008 when neophyte Obama was running for office against a seasoned/experienced John McCain. When Obama's bona fides were put to the test, who in this forum said this in response:
QuoteOnce again I notice that none of the critics of Obama (around here) seem interested in touting McCain's legislative prowess, executive skills and judgement preferring instead to concentrate on creating fantasy histories for Obama. Why? It distracts folks from the key questions you don't want to address:
Are you happy with the last eight years of Republican administration?
Are you happy with the way the war was started and prosecuted by the Republican administration?
Are you worried about the loss or curtailment of freedoms and the resulting imbalance of powers in the past Republican administration?
Are you confident that McCain is capable of improving our economy to benefit the middle classes as well as the rich?
Do you think McCain is any different in attitude and outlook than the previous Bush administration?
Isn't McCain MORE OF THE SAME?
Have you had enough!?!?
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=10965.msg93943#msg93943
But if the right says, "have we had enough" or "are we happy with the last [four] years" or "does [Romney] have a different attitude and outlook than the previous [Bush] administration" or "are you confident that [Obama] is capable of improving our economy to benefit the middle classes...", that just ain't good enough. Why? Because it distracts from the key questions the left doesn't want to address, eh waterboy?
As for the OP, well his own words bites his @ss once again. When talking about Obama's qualifications, here's what he wrote:
QuoteObama was not prepared enough for me. He is very untested and unproven. But the democrats in America think that is a strength right now.I understand. We felt the same way when we elected Jimmy Carter after the Nixon/Ford shamble. The passion for change can be powerful.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=10305.msg82432#msg82432
I guess the passion for change from Obama to Romney just isn't powerful enough for ol' RM either. I guess neither is "talk[ing] real purty"
www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=8926.msg65042#msg65042
Guido: Giving leftest enough rope to hang themselves since 2006.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 10, 2012, 06:13:50 PM
Not necessary because you advocate violence against those that support women's rights?
Another swing and a miss, this time coupled with a "change of subject" and a straw man for good measure.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 10, 2012, 06:10:18 PM
If you can set aside the rich guy thing for just a moment.
Taxing income on savings at a lower rate than earned income will encourage savings. There are a lot of folks that have at least a modest savings account of some sort, maybe just a bit of excess in their checking account. Allowing middle class people to keep a bit more of their savings income will allow them to help take care of themselves rather than depend on the government. Oh, wait, what was I thinking? People take care of themselves. Blasphemy. 20 lashes with a wet noodle.
Um, Red, you do realize that saving money is tantamount to hording cash. When you horde money, you are keeping it from reaching those persons who did not earn it. As for the lashing, must you always turn every thread into something perverted? Oh wait...
I thought you were leaving this thread two pages ago. That's why you like Romney so much. You both change positions at will. Etcha-Sketch Guido.
This is the simplest thread ever. Just read the question and (if you can understand it) make your case. One guy did it. It wasn't you.
Quote from: AquaMan on June 10, 2012, 06:46:31 PM
I thought you were leaving this thread two pages ago. That's why you like Romney so much. You both change positions at will. Etcha-Sketch Guido.
And I should have, but I just couldn't resist calling you and RM out for your double speak (okay, gloriously hoisting you on your own petard) on the need for arguing qualifications. Too juicy of an opportunity, which given your vapid response, was successful.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 10, 2012, 06:10:18 PM
If you can set aside the rich guy thing for just a moment.
Taxing income on savings at a lower rate than earned income will encourage savings. There are a lot of folks that have at least a modest savings account of some sort, maybe just a bit of excess in their checking account. Allowing middle class people to keep a bit more of their savings income will allow them to help take care of themselves rather than depend on the government. Oh, wait, what was I thinking? People take care of themselves. Blasphemy. 20 lashes with a wet noodle.
Uh, what? Unless you're making a new policy proposal, you're off base here. Interest income has long been taxable at the usual earned income rates. I'm not talking about taking something away from average middle class folks.
I am surprised by you guido. Your odd obsession with the 2008 RecycleMichael quotes on TulsaNow are quite flattering. Thanks for posting them.
What they show are a liberal who wasn't sold on his party's nomination. I wrote dozens of thoughts, each time reading what others were saying and discussing my evolving views with all those who read them.
It is funny that you selectively post random sentences out of long posts. The last one you posted had a line or two that summed up how I felt the first week of June (exactly four weeks ago). Here it is...
I won't vote for McCain. I think he is wrong on the war, wrong on nuclear energy, wrong on immigration, and wrong for America. He was my favorite republican because of his liberal past and willingness to work with democrats, but the last couple of months he has changed all that to appeal to the republican base.
I will support Obama. But I won't fall in love with him like so many others have. Democrats fall in love with their candidates and republicans fall in line with theirs.
Quote from: guido911 on June 10, 2012, 07:04:30 PM
And I should have, but I just couldn't resist calling you and RM out for your double speak (okay, gloriously hoisting you on your own petard) on the need for arguing qualifications. Too juicy of an opportunity, which given your vapid response, was successful.
You have a diseased thought process Guido. My juicy petards are no business of yours btw.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 10, 2012, 06:13:50 PM
Not necessary because you advocate violence against those that support women's rights?
And you advocate violence against humans who have ZERO say as to whether or not they get sucked out of the womb? Ever see what those womb vacs do to tiny bones?
Nice straw man.
Anyone would seem great after following the doofus we have in office....
Quote from: nathanm on June 10, 2012, 07:07:30 PM
Uh, what? Unless you're making a new policy proposal, you're off base here. Interest income has long been taxable at the usual earned income rates. I'm not talking about taking something away from average middle class folks.
Just trying to answer your question of "Also, why does he think unearned income should be taxed at a lower rate than earned income?"
Maybe it should be different. I do not consider myself rich by any measure other than not living from paycheck to paycheck. The money I put in savings in the credit union (several actually) makes it possible for others to get home improvement loans, car loans, loans for a Jet Ski....... I could put it under my mattress for the interest rates I am getting. I could put it in the stock market. I am NOT a Warren Buffet. The places I put a little extra cash help make it possible for others to get the things they want. I could move my money to tax free muni bonds. Maybe that would satisfy you.
Quote from: guido911 on June 10, 2012, 06:36:36 PM
As for the lashing, must you always turn every thread into something perverted? Oh wait...
Yep, it grabs attention that would otherwise let a good thread go to waste.
;D
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 10, 2012, 07:07:39 PM
I am surprised by you guido. Your odd obsession with the 2008 RecycleMichael quotes on TulsaNow are quite flattering. Thanks for posting them.
What they show are a liberal who wasn't sold on his party's nomination. I wrote dozens of thoughts, each time reading what others were saying and discussing my evolving views with all those who read them.
It is funny that you selectively post random sentences out of long posts. The last one you posted had a line or two that summed up how I felt the first week of June (exactly four weeks ago). Here it is...
I won't vote for McCain. I think he is wrong on the war, wrong on nuclear energy, wrong on immigration, and wrong for America. He was my favorite republican because of his liberal past and willingness to work with democrats, but the last couple of months he has changed all that to appeal to the republican base.
I will support Obama. But I won't fall in love with him like so many others have. Democrats fall in love with their candidates and republicans fall in line with theirs.
I post the links to the threads to give the reader a chance to see if what I am doing is contextual. Sorry if your words hurt.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 10, 2012, 07:07:39 PM
The last one you posted had a line or two that summed up how I felt the first week of June (exactly four weeks ago). Here it is...
Are you in a time warp? Today is 10 June 2012. The first week of June was not even quite two weeks ago.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 10, 2012, 08:09:46 PM
And you advocate violence against humans who have ZERO say as to whether or not they get sucked out of the womb? Ever see what those womb vacs do to tiny bones?
Nice straw man.
You really want to argue zygotes? Again? It gets old watching you in the mire of the 20th century.
Move on...you have no power over women:
Quote from: Breadburner on June 10, 2012, 08:20:49 PM
Anyone would seem great after following the doofus we have in office....
You are being too hard on Bush.
Quote from: nathanm on June 09, 2012, 10:37:28 PM
Ok, if executive experience is an important trait, we ought to consider Romney's record in Massachusetts, where he managed to grow his state more slowly than the national average and, like Obama, managed to invest state funds in failed green energy businesses.
You're not the first and you won't be the last to do this. But this is why you can't have a discussion like this with the opposition. Nathan criticizes Romney for doing thing that Obama does and liberals like it. The most common one being Romney/Obama care. The criticism being that Romney created the blueprint for Obama Care. It would be one thing from a more conservative leaning person, but to hear an Obama supporter spouting that is fairly comical. They criticize Romney for doing things they want Obama to do. That's why this discussion can never really yield anything worth while.
Quote from: erfalf on June 11, 2012, 09:29:21 AM
The criticism being that Romney created the blueprint for Obama Care.... That's why this discussion can never really yield anything worth while.
I'm listening. Please explain to me the customer the differences between Romney's health care program from 2002 and Obama's health care program in 2012. What would I personally do or pay differently?
Quote from: erfalf on June 11, 2012, 09:29:21 AM
But this is why you can't have a discussion like this with the opposition.
That's right, you don't get to have the conversation you want to have. The one where we ignore the hypocrisy of Romney and his position. I don't have a problem with "Romney's" failed investment any more than I have a problem with "Obama's" failed investment. Since many of the folks here do have a problem with Obama's failed investment, I thought they might like to know that Romney has had the same experience.
Criticism is not observation, nor is observation criticism. Sorry you can't see that. Or do I not get to point that out because I support such programs, up to a point? It's pretty rich of you to decide all on your own what I get to talk about.
Quote from: nathanm on June 11, 2012, 12:40:25 PM
That's right, you don't get to have the conversation you want to have. The one where we ignore the hypocrisy of Romney and his position. I don't have a problem with "Romney's" failed investment any more than I have a problem with "Obama's" failed investment. Since many of the folks here do have a problem with Obama's failed investment, I thought they might like to know that Romney has had the same experience.
Criticism is not observation, nor is observation criticism. Sorry you can't see that. Or do I not get to point that out because I support such programs, up to a point? It's pretty rich of you to decide all on your own what I get to talk about.
I'm not telling you what you can and can't talk about. I am just saying that apparently I am the only one that sees the comedic value in people criticizing (maybe you aren't but many are) a candidate that they would never vote for for doing exactly what their favored candidate did or does.
Am I the only one that sees this. Just like listening to NBC to have them tell the Republican's who they should nominate when they have no interest whatsoever in said candidate winning anything.
Quote from: erfalf on June 11, 2012, 12:52:43 PM
I'm not telling you what you can and can't talk about. I am just saying that apparently I am the only one that sees the comedic value in people criticizing (maybe you aren't but many are) a candidate that they would never vote for for doing exactly what their favored candidate did or does.
Am I the only one that sees this. Just like listening to NBC to have them tell the Republican's who they should nominate when they have no interest whatsoever in said candidate winning anything.
Just like Fox's 5 minute anti-Obama commercial...
RMoney will be a grate Prez as he would allow insurers to deny coverage to millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare later this month.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 12, 2012, 12:31:05 PM
RMoney will be a grate Prez as he would allow insurers to deny coverage to millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare later this month.
Hardly his prevue. That failure falls squarely on POTUS Obama's shoulders. He even tried to stack the deck with Kagen.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2012, 03:07:20 PM
Hardly his prevue. That failure falls squarely on POTUS Obama's shoulders. He even tried to stack the deck with Kagen.
More vacuousness from you. If RMoney were to be elected.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 12, 2012, 03:07:20 PM
Hardly his prevue. That failure falls squarely on POTUS Obama's shoulders. He even tried to stack the deck with Kagen.
Had he not appointed Voldemort's sister to cobble the thing together he might have gotten away with it. Her double-dipping and false estimates eroded any public confidence there might have been.(http://www.whale.to/c/pti56fowsebilis.jpg)
Additionally U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's argument before the court that caused them to laugh at him when he framed the mandate as both a penalty and a tax, and gave a performance that was so bad it made your skin crawl.
The failure of Obamacare is the fault of it's architects.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 12, 2012, 03:39:01 PM
Had he not appointed Voldemort's sister to cobble the thing together he might have gotten away with it. Her double-dipping and false estimates eroded any public confidence there might have been.(http://www.whale.to/c/pti56fowsebilis.jpg)
Additionally U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's argument before the court that caused them to laugh at him when he framed the mandate as both a penalty and a tax, and gave a performance that was so bad it made your skin crawl.
The failure of Obamacare is the fault of it's architects.
They are the great strategists. How else does one manipulate the system to get the outcome they desired originally in the Single Payer plan? Yes sir, they knew it would end up in SCOTUS and put up a weak argument to keep it OBAMAcare. You will see....
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 12, 2012, 03:46:38 PM
They are the great strategists. How else does one manipulate the system to get the outcome they desired originally in the Single Payer plan? Yes sir, they knew it would end up in SCOTUS and put up a weak argument to keep it OBAMAcare. You will see....
That's not a new hypothesis. Many of the right wing nut-jobs proposed that they are using those Alinskiesque tactics early on, and the goal was two-fold. To create a plan so burdensome that it couldn't' stand on it's own without a single payer foundation, and to create a financial burden so heavy that it would require the government absorption of other free market elements.
Unfortunately, the plan all hinges on retaining the current liberal power structure. Just as Keynesian Economics discounts individual thought, emotion and innovation, Alinski's tactics in social change discount the victim's awareness that he/she/they are being manipulated. As it stands, the american public is around 70% against Obamacare and any further push to empower it would be a disaster. We know we were played and want out. Another interesting result of the way Obamacare was enacted was the re-birth of fundamental conservative candidates. Unintentionally, Obamacare may be the best thing to happen to the conservative movement since boxer-briefs.
Oh, ....sorry...I thought this was a thread on why Romney will be a great president. Moving on.
He creates a job?
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/223839_308422895913846_1657472374_n.jpg)
Back on topic:
Tell us why Romney will be a great president.
This does seem to be a burning question, and RM deserves a response from those that intend to vote for Romney.
There is some evidence that he might have some valuable experience:
"While it is difficult, if not impossible, to get employment data on all of Bain Capital's investments, and not all of the data are perfect, it is possible to look at some of the successes and failures to get a sense of magnitudes.
Among Bain Capital's investments under Romney, the large job creators are clearly Staples and Sports Authority. Both of these were small, young companies when Bain Capital invested in them. Bain invested in Staples when it had only one store, so there were likely fewer than 200 employees at the time. Bain appears to have invested in the Sports Authority when it had fewer than ten stores. Unfortunately, there are no public data to say how many people were employed at that time. At the end of 1998, Staples had more than 42,000 employees, Sports Authority had almost 14,000, Gartner Group had almost 3,000, and Steel Dynamics had over 500. So at the beginning of 1999, when Romney left Bain Capital, these four companies alone employed almost 60,000 total employees. While some of the job growth at Sports Authority came from acquisitions, there is no doubt that these four companies created tens of thousands of jobs over the period.
Fast forward to today. By the end of 2011, Staples had about 89,000 employees. Sports Authority is now a private company. The last time it reported employee numbers, in 2006, it had 14,300 employees. In addition, Gartner Group had over 4,400 and Steel Dynamics had over 6,000 employees. Using the most recently available data, these four companies alone employed almost 125,000 total employees."
Bain Capital also successfully turned around several existing businesses during Romney's tenure. For example, Bain Capital bought Wesley Jessen Vision Care for $6 million in 1994. It had been a division of Schering Plough and was not profitable. Bain Capital and a new CEO turned it around and sold it to Ciba Geigy for over $300 million in 2001. When it was sold, it appears to have had 2,600 employees. Today, the company is part of Ciba Vision.
Overall, then, the companies Bain Capital funded under Romney have created tens of thousands of jobs using any measure.
http://www.american.com/archive/2012/january/how-many-jobs-did-romney-create-at-bain
After Bain, Romney was recruited to turn around the Olympics. The games were facing a $379 million deficit because sponsors were pulling out. Because they were short on money and many venues hadn't been built yet, politicians, business leaders and International Olympic Committee officials were suggesting the games be cancelled or moved to another location.
Because of his record for turning around businesses in the past, Romney was asked to take over the failing Olympics; he became the CEO for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in February of 1999. He refused his salary and donated $1 million of his own money to the cause. He then streamlined the games by cutting costs and eliminating waste like fancy perks. Romney also brought in $180 million in revenue from new sponsors and broke the record for raising private money for an Olympics.
In the end, the games actually turned a $100 million profit.
The people of his state then elected Romney in 2003 to hopefully do the same with their state. They were facing an immediate budget crisis. The state had an immediate $650 million shortfall and was facing a projected deficit of $3 billion the following fiscal year.
Romney eliminated waste in government by cutting out duplication and inefficiencies. In one case he consolidated 15 human service agencies. Romney also cut the number of state employees. He raised fees but did not raise taxes and balanced the budget every year.
The unemployment rate in Massachusetts also fell from 6.3% when he took office in January of 2003 to 4.6% by June of 2007, and the budget remained balanced during his tenure.
Now there are negatives too. Romney created Romneycare in his state, a program that provides minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level. The law also partially subsidizes health care insurance for those earning up to 300% of the FPL. . .but as with all social programs, the burden outweighed the advantage and after his tenure, the program evolved into a political power-grab. The original program only affected a few hundred thousand Massachusetts residents, but now with multiple amendments may affect as many as 6,000,000 residents, and represents more of a vote purchase than a health program.
The program today is far beyond it's original intent and wrought with graft and corruption. Someone as astute as Romney should have been able anticipate that outcome. I think that gives many conservative voters pause, and will certainly be a subject that requires analysis because it represents a tendency to seek government solutions over private solutions.
He has also evolved his stance on unimportant issues (at least to me as a Libertarian) such as SSM and Abortion. For me those are side-show issues that have nothing to do with government, but they may point to a larger flaw, reflecting an inconsistency in his own convictions, or worse, the tendency to adopt positions out of popularity. He must realize that he is no longer the Governor of Mass and the audience he is playing to is overwhelmingly conservative. He better be comfortable defending what he says because he is going to be called to the carpet to do so.
There is also the matter of the dog on his station-wagon. This is a hilarious story, but I think the most disturbing thing for the liberal elite is not that Billionaire Mitt Romney strapped a pet carrier to the top of his car, but that a man like Mitt would drive a vacation in a station-wagon full of kids. . .that's just icky.
So the comparison is between a man who has never signed a paycheck or read a small business balance sheet, and has demonstrated his business and economic ineptitude brilliantly, and a man who has more business and economic experience than 99% of the population, has built businesses from ashes, has turned deficits into surpluses and balanced budgets, and who views dogs as secondary citizens.
I'm not 100% sold, but I'm about 99% confident my vote will be for Romney.
He rides a horse....(but it's dressage...not western)
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/colbert-mitt-romney-dressage-horse-olympics.php
:D :o
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/O/U/4/romney-hillary-text.jpg)
Just thought I'd throw this in there.
RMoney will be a great President because not only Wall Street will be in his bed, so will the Mormon (church?) colony and the Ralph Reeds...YIKES!
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-breaks-small-town-tour-speech-faith-193331014.html
And you worried about Jeremiah. "Christ, you know it ain't easy" ....
Hahahahahaha!!! As if Wall St. isn't in Obama's bed?
Three words for you:
Gold Man Sacks.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 16, 2012, 11:21:32 PM
Hahahahahaha!!! As if Wall St. isn't in Obama's bed?
Three words for you:
Gold Man Sacks.
But what about the Ralph Reed's and the colony of proselytizers? Do you really want to ignore that alliance? I seem to recall your outrage with Rev. Wright! Wrong? :-*
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 17, 2012, 11:16:23 AM
But what about the Ralph Reed's and the colony of proselytizers? Do you really want to ignore that alliance? I seem to recall your outrage with Rev. Wright! Wrong? :-*
This was the same misinformation applied with Kennedy. Is there any evidence Romney tried to establish a theocracy in Massachusetts? That's a big fat NO. Nice meme though.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 18, 2012, 10:16:22 AM
This was the same misinformation applied with Kennedy. Is there any evidence Romney tried to establish a theocracy in Massachusetts? That's a big fat NO. Nice meme though.
You really are a dim bulb to believe the state of Mass runs the world.... The WH? runs the world...and the LDS crowd will be all powerful with an alliance in the Ralph Reeds of the world. Just watch....and you thought Rev. Wright was wrong. Wake up. >:( :'(
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 18, 2012, 12:07:29 PM
You really are a dim bulb to believe the state of Mass runs the world.... The WH? runs the world...and the LDS crowd will be all powerful with an alliance in the Ralph Reeds of the world. Just watch....and you thought Rev. Wright was wrong. Wake up. >:( :'(
You are starting to sound like the morons who said a vote for Obama was a vote for Jihad within our own government. Yeah, those Muslims sure showed us a thing or two and we are now all reading the Quran with a gun pointed to the back of the head. ::)
Oklahoma doesn't run the world either. Yet the
theocrats Oklahoma GOP keeps trying to turn our state in to a theocracy. Ever hear of laws which came from the book of Mormon being passed in Mass. while Romney was governor?
Point being, the Mormons aren't about power and world domination and Romney doesn't govern by his church teachings. Your blatant bigotry toward the Mormon faith is getting old.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 18, 2012, 12:20:13 PM
You are starting to sound like the morons who said a vote for Obama was a vote for Jihad within our own government. Yeah, those Muslims sure showed us a thing or two and we are now all reading the Quran with a gun pointed to the back of the head. ::)
Oklahoma doesn't run the world either. Yet the theocrats Oklahoma GOP keeps trying to turn our state in to a theocracy. Ever hear of laws which came from the book of Mormon being passed in Mass. while Romney was governor?
Point being, the Mormons aren't about power and world domination and Romney doesn't govern by his church teachings. Your blatant bigotry toward the Mormon faith is getting old.
Oh, I treat all religions just about the same....but the Mormons? I'm just using them to make a point about how two faced the Jeremiah Wright haters like you get by. It's not bigotry...it's true equivalency.
But I can understand why you want to make others out to be bigots...nice try but that stink don't stick to me like it does your household.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 18, 2012, 12:35:00 PM
Oh, I treat all religions just about the same....but the Mormons? I'm just using them to make a point about how two faced the Jeremiah Wright haters like you get by. It's not bigotry...it's true equivalency.
But I can understand why you want to make others out to be bigots...nice try but that stink don't stick to me like it does your household.
Oh boy... ::)
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 18, 2012, 12:35:00 PM
that stink don't stick to me like it does your household.
You need to see a physician about your sense of smell.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 18, 2012, 12:35:00 PM
Oh, I treat all religions just about the same....but the Mormons? I'm just using them to make a point about how two faced the Jeremiah Wright haters like you get by. It's not bigotry...it's true equivalency.
But I can understand why you want to make others out to be bigots...nice try but that stink don't stick to me like it does your household.
I have to give you your props. You are the master of the ad hominem.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 18, 2012, 01:58:45 PM
I have to give you your props. You are the master of the ad hominem.
We've got two on here, diametrically opposed in points of view. Maybe they can have a 'hom-off' sometime.
;D
Quote from: Hoss on June 18, 2012, 03:28:34 PM
We've got two on here, diametrically opposed in points of view. Maybe they can have a 'hom-off' sometime.
Do they stand in a circle?
This is entertaining. Mittens gives this little speech in PA where he was making a comparison of the government vs private sector. Nothing groundbreaking or amazing here. He makes mention of WaWa stores at about 25 seconds and then at the end he relates his story to that experience to illustrate how private sector ingenuity is amazing compared to public sector complexity and ineptitude.
Here's how MSNBC chose to report it.
Is there any wonder why MSNBC is hemorrhaging viewers?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 18, 2012, 04:17:47 PM
Is there any wonder why MSNBC is hemorrhaging viewers?
Lefties and moderates are too intelligent to fall for the banana in the tailpipe. Fox viewers however...
(http://highlatencylife.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/beverly-hills-cop-41.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on June 18, 2012, 01:58:45 PM
I have to give you your props. You are the master of the ad hominem.
He took lessons at Karl Rover University!
Quote from: Townsend on June 18, 2012, 04:43:31 PM
Lefties and moderates are too intelligent to fall for the banana in the tailpipe. Fox viewers however...
(http://highlatencylife.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/beverly-hills-cop-41.jpg)
Awesome..
Quote from: Gaspar on June 18, 2012, 04:17:47 PM
This is entertaining. Mittens gives this little speech in PA where he was making a comparison of the government vs private sector. Nothing groundbreaking or amazing here. He makes mention of WaWa stores at about 25 seconds and then at the end he relates his story to that experience to illustrate how private sector ingenuity is amazing compared to public sector complexity and ineptitude.
I remember Wawa more as a dairy farm. We had Wawa milk delivered to our door until the early 60s. One of the favorite elementary school field trips was to the Wawa dairy farm and bottling plant. They were entering the convenience store business when we moved to Oklahoma. I have read mixed reviews about their Hoagies. We used to get ours at the Deli down the street.
http://www.sleepyhollowdelly.com/
It was more of a Deli/local produce store when we were there. I don't remember any on site seating. Everything was take-out.
I just barely remember eating at a Horn & Hardart Automat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_%26_Hardart
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 18, 2012, 08:46:53 PM
I remember Wawa more as a dairy farm. We had Wawa milk delivered to our door until the early 60s. One of the favorite elementary school field trips was to the Wawa dairy farm and bottling plant. They were entering the convenience store business when we moved to Oklahoma. I have read mixed reviews about their Hoagies. We used to get ours at the Deli down the street.
I just barely remember eating at a Horn & Hardart Automat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_%26_Hardart
There was an automat somewhere here in town in the 50's - remember going to it once when very young.
Have a grandkid who worked at WaWa for a couple years. Said it was very good...on a par with Quik-Trip.
Romney is already creating jobs....
QuoteAt the candidate's afternoon stop outside a bakery in DeWitt, a group of about 15 protesters stood behind a police barricade, a few of them chanting in support of Obama. Asked why he was protesting, a man dressed in a grim reaper costume pointed a reporter to a pair of "designated representatives" standing in the shade.
"I can't talk, you gotta get one of those people over there to talk to y'all," he said. "They're the ones who can talk to reporters."
Neither of the representatives agreed to give their names, but two protesters said they were getting paid to stand outside of the rally, though their wage is unclear: one said she was getting $7.25 per hour, while another man said they were being paid $17 per hour.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/anti-romney-protesters-say-theyre-paid-to-heckle
We still need to get passed the unequal pay problems though.
Quote from: guido911 on June 19, 2012, 04:59:48 PM
Romney is already creating jobs....
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/anti-romney-protesters-say-theyre-paid-to-heckle
We still need to get passed the unequal pay problems though.
I wonder if they have healthcare?
My favorite headline today is actually from MSNBC.
Is Romney too focused on the economy? (http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/21/12342128-is-romney-too-focused-on-the-economy?lite)
That silly economy. Why do Republicans seem so focused on the economy? The private sector is doing just fine. The economy is old news, now lets talk about access to late-term abortions for single mothers of undocumented workers with pre-existing mesothelioma and no solar panels on their electric cars because of Bush!
Quote from: Gaspar on June 21, 2012, 03:30:55 PM
I wonder if they have healthcare?
My favorite headline today is actually from MSNBC.
Is Romney too focused on the economy? (http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/21/12342128-is-romney-too-focused-on-the-economy?lite)
That silly economy. Why do Republicans seem so focused on the economy? The private sector is doing just fine. The economy is old news, now lets talk about access to late-term abortions for single mothers of undocumented workers with pre-existing mesothelioma and no solar panels on their electric cars because of Bush!
That's some funny smile right there. I raise my Marshall's to your wit.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 21, 2012, 03:30:55 PM
That silly economy.
Romney's focused on immigration apparently. The whole immigration thing through everyone into a tizzy.
Even Boehner was thrown.
For one thing, if Romney is elected, this grand scheme will come to an end.
(http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Bumper-Sticker-Virginia-Put-One-Man-Out-Of-Work.jpg)
He'll be a great President because he will surround himself with
MORM MORON ADVISERS!!! He will further insure the demise of MSM and American Exceptionism....
Quote
Romney Advisers Reveal Strategy: Ignore Journalists, Pander To Right-Wing Conspriacy Websites
By Judd Legum on Jul 1, 2012 at 12:42 pmIn a stunning interview with Breitbart.com, two top advisers to Mitt Romney revealed the campaign's plan to largely ignore journalists in favor of right-wing conspiracy websites.
From the beginning of the campaign, Romney has pointedly avoided news outlets who might pose tough questions. The press dubbed it "the Mittness Protection Program." As the campaign wore on, Romney has refused to answer direct questions about major policy issues central to the campaign. For example, Romney has still not stated whether he would undo Obama's order ending deportations for many young undocumented immigrants.
Romney campaign spokesman Lenny Alcivar recently outlined how the campaign will avoid journalists and cooridnate and communicate their message through Brietbart.com and the Drudge Report:
When this election is over, one of the lessons that will be learned by the mainstream media is that they no longer have a toe-hold on how Americans receive their news. Never before – in a way that has taken Democrats off stride – have we seen the confluence of an aggressive online community, led by Breitbart, and an aggressive campaign team not willing to cede an inch of ground to Democrats. This combination has created a new political reality. We no longer allow the mainstream media to define the political realities in America. The rise of Breitbart, Drudge and others, combined with an aggressive Romney campaign is a powerful tool in the arsenal of the conservative movement.
...The governor will no longer allow the mainstream media to dictate the terms of this debate. This is just the beginning... We are witnessing the rise of the center right media.
The Drudge Report and Breitbart.com, founded by the late Andrew Breitbart, a Drudge protege, are actually far-right websites that reguarly traffic in paranoid and offensive conspiracy theories. A few examples:
1. The Drudge Report aggressively pushes the birther conspiracy theory. Drudge promoted Jerome Corsi's book alleging Obama was not born in the United States. After Obama released his long form birth certificate, Drudge pushed the theory that it was a forgery. He recently featured a discredited story (first published on Brietbart.com) suggesting Obama was born in Kenya. [ThinkProgress, 5/17/12; Drudge Report, 4/20/11; TPM, 4/29/11]
2. The Drudge Report pushed the theory that Chief Justice Robert upheld Obamacare because of "cognitive problems" due to epilepsy medication. [ThinkProgress, 6/29/12]
3. The Drudge Report reguarly links to and promotes 9/11 truther Alex Jones. Jones also promotes conspiracy theories regarding "global elites enacting one-world government; secret FEMA camps; weather control; mass sterilization; the Oklahoma City bombing; the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster; vaccines; and the government using products like juice boxes to 'encourage homosexuality with chemicals so that people don't have children.'" [Red State, 6/20/11; Media Matters, 10/11/10]
4. Breitbart.com pushed the conspiracy theory that the Navy Seal operation last spring was a hoax and Bin Laden might be alive. [ThinkProgress, 5/2/11]
5. Breitbart.com frequently accused "President Obama of failing to release a valid birth certificate." [Media Matters, 9/29/09]
6. Bretbart.com "routinely compares Obama to Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro." [Media Matters, 9/29/09]
It's not just Romney's advisors who are promoting sites like Drudge and Breitbart.com. In an interview with NewsMax, another far right site, Romney personally praised the Drudge Report.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/01/509328/romney-advisors-reveal-strategy-ignore-journalists-pander-to-right-wing-conspriacy-websites/
Because, he knows the importance of leveraged debt.
Quote
Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital
How the GOP presidential candidate and his private equity firm staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs – and stuck others with the bill
Matt Tiabbi
an excerpt:
And this is where we get to the hypocrisy at the heart of Mitt Romney. Everyone knows that he is fantastically rich, having scored great success, the legend goes, as a "turnaround specialist," a shrewd financial operator who revived moribund companies as a high-priced consultant for a storied Wall Street private equity firm. But what most voters don't know is the way Mitt Romney actually made his fortune: by borrowing vast sums of money that other people were forced to pay back. This is the plain, stark reality that has somehow eluded America's top political journalists for two consecutive presidential campaigns: Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time. In the past few decades, in fact, Romney has piled more debt onto more unsuspecting companies, written more gigantic checks that other people have to cover, than perhaps all but a handful of people on planet Earth.
By making debt the centerpiece of his campaign, Romney was making a calculated bluff of historic dimensions – placing a massive all-in bet on the rank incompetence of the American press corps. The result has been a brilliant comedy: A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place. That same man then runs for president riding an image of children roasting on flames of debt, choosing as his running mate perhaps the only politician in America more pompous and self-righteous on the subject of the evils of borrowed money than the candidate himself. If Romney pulls off this whopper, you'll have to tip your hat to him: No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big of a lie. It's almost enough to make you think he really is qualified for the White House.
The unlikeliness of Romney's gambit isn't simply a reflection of his own artlessly unapologetic mindset – it stands as an emblem for the resiliency of the entire sociopathic Wall Street set he represents. Four years ago, the Mitt Romneys of the world nearly destroyed the global economy with their greed, shortsightedness and – most notably – wildly irresponsible use of debt in pursuit of personal profit. The sight was so disgusting that people everywhere were ready to drop an H-bomb on Lower Manhattan and bayonet the survivors. But today that same insane greed ethos, that same belief in the lunatic pursuit of instant borrowed millions – it's dusted itself off, it's had a shave and a shoeshine, and it's back out there running for president.
Mitt Romney, it turns out, is the perfect frontman for Wall Street's greed revolution. He's not a two-bit, shifty-eyed huckster like Lloyd Blankfein. He's not a sighing, eye-rolling, arrogant jerkwad like Jamie Dimon. But Mitt believes the same things those guys believe: He's been right with them on the front lines of the financialization revolution, a decades-long campaign in which the old, simple, let's-make-stuff-and-sell-it manufacturing economy was replaced with a new, highly complex, let's-take-stuff-and-trash-it financial economy. Instead of cars and airplanes, we built swaps, CDOs and other toxic financial products. Instead of building new companies from the ground up, we took out massive bank loans and used them to acquire existing firms, liquidating every asset in sight and leaving the target companies holding the note. The new borrow-and-conquer economy was morally sanctified by an almost religious faith in the grossly euphemistic concept of "creative destruction," and amounted to a total abdication of collective responsibility by America's rich, whose new thing was making assloads of money in ever-shorter campaigns of economic conquest, sending the proceeds offshore, and shrugging as the great towns and factories their parents and grandparents built were shuttered and boarded up, crushed by a true prairie fire of debt.
Mitt Romney – a man whose own father built cars and nurtured communities, and was one of the old-school industrial anachronisms pushed aside by the new generation's wealth grab – has emerged now to sell this make-nothing, take-everything, screw-everyone ethos to the world. He's Gordon Gekko, but a new and improved version, with better PR – and a bigger goal. A takeover artist all his life, Romney is now trying to take over America itself. And if his own history is any guide, we'll all end up paying for the acquisition.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829
Home run rock-n-roll journalism! YIKES! Mitt's a sociopath...Obama? just an ego maniac.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 29, 2012, 01:08:52 PM
Because, he knows the importance of leveraged debt.
Home run rock-n-roll journalism! YIKES! Mitt's a sociopath...Obama? just an ego maniac.
I wouldn't bank my retirement on the knowledge of PE from a guy that works at Rolling Stone.
Anyways, I thought I would share this. Interesting, firms actually performed better after being taken over by PE firms, even in Europe.
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/steven.kaplan/research/ksjep.pdf
http://evca.zn.be/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/E-Y-Euro_PE_Study_2012.pdf
Quote from: erfalf on August 29, 2012, 01:29:20 PM
I wouldn't bank my retirement on the knowledge of PE from a guy that works at Rolling Stone.
Anyways, I thought I would share this. Interesting, firms actually performed better after being taken over by PE firms, even in Europe.
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/steven.kaplan/research/ksjep.pdf
http://evca.zn.be/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/E-Y-Euro_PE_Study_2012.pdf
Not mine. And in the end, it matters the most at the place you're affected the most. That's why I'm glad I don't work there anymore.
Quote from: Hoss on August 29, 2012, 01:49:08 PM
Not mine. And in the end, it matters the most at the place you're affected the most. That's why I'm glad I don't work there anymore.
And for all the demonizing, there's no doubt thousands to hundreds of thousands of Americans who might not have a job if it weren't for PE and VC firms.
Quote from: Hoss on August 29, 2012, 01:49:08 PM
Not mine. And in the end, it matters the most at the place you're affected the most. That's why I'm glad I don't work there anymore.
That's right, they wronged you so lets close PE down. And while we're at it I got some bad fruit at the grocer, let's shut them down too. Seriously?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 29, 2012, 02:17:41 PM
And for all the demonizing, there's no doubt thousands to hundreds of thousands of Americans foreigners who might not have a job if it weren't for PE and VC firms.
FIFY. ;)
While I don't doubt they
have provided some jobs, three (3) different PE firms ran roughshod through my old company sofar. The current incarnation has no problem RIFing even the most skilled and loyal of workers. And send those jobs offshore.
Why do you think they get a bad rap?
I'd rather work for who I'm working for now...
Quote from: erfalf on August 29, 2012, 02:20:10 PM
That's right, they wronged you so lets close PE down. And while we're at it I got some bad fruit at the grocer, let's shut them down too. Seriously?
Seeing how you say you worked for one, can I expect you to be impartial either? Can you look someone in the face and tell them that PE hasn't sent thousands of jobs offshore? Seriously?
Quote from: Hoss on August 29, 2012, 02:23:03 PM
Seeing how you say you worked for one, can I expect you to be impartial either? Can you look someone in the face and tell them that PE hasn't sent thousands of jobs offshore? Seriously?
I can say that PE has sent only a fraction of the jobs oversees that non-PE firms have. Fair enough?
Quote from: erfalf on August 29, 2012, 01:29:20 PM
Anyways, I thought I would share this. Interesting, firms actually performed better after being taken over by PE firms, even in Europe.
I would hope so. As we discussed before, the cost of capital is tax deductible when it takes the form of a bank loan. If a 30% improvement in your bottom line isn't enough to juice the numbers, you bought a real freakin' turd. What we don't talk about is how that is in fact an implicit subsidy from the rest of the taxpayers. You could, of course, argue that it's a better deal for society as a whole for us to do that, but let's not ignore that it is happening.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 29, 2012, 02:17:41 PM
And for all the demonizing, there's no doubt thousands to hundreds of thousands of Americans who might not have a job if it weren't for PE and VC firms.
That's a "might" not have a job....
While it if also definite fact that there are already thousands to hundreds of thousands who already don't have a job because of PE and VC firms. It a dilemma...
Quote from: nathanm on August 29, 2012, 04:17:31 PM
I would hope so. As we discussed before, the cost of capital is tax deductible when it takes the form of a bank loan. If a 30% improvement in your bottom line isn't enough to juice the numbers, you bought a real freakin' turd. What we don't talk about is how that is in fact an implicit subsidy from the rest of the taxpayers. You could, of course, argue that it's a better deal for society as a whole for us to do that, but let's not ignore that it is happening.
I really must not be understanding you. Please explain how debt gets preferential treatment over equity?
Now I am going on my PE rant for the day. You all know I may be somewhat biased having worked for a few of them (although I didn't particularly care for one of them), so take it for what its worth.
At one point working for a PE firm was an extremely noble profession. I really don't know when that changed. Think about it, a person is extremely successful at starting their own business so instead of going the route of consultant, they start an investment firm, so they can have far more impact, and in turn more share in the results of companies. These are not collections of evil people (although there may be a few as with any profession). They offer a service that is highly desired and they get payed pretty handsomely for it. It is not theft. And to top it off, the "greedy" investors are mostly public employee retirements, university endowments & foundations. In fact, the largest single investor in Private Equity I believe is still CalPERS (California Public Employee Retirement System). Not exactly the most evil of evil institutions. On the flip side, I do think the management fee (generally around 2% a year) is outlandish, but don't blame the PE firm, blame those institutions I just mentioned. They agree to it over and over. Probably because it is more than made up for over and over.
What most people don't see is the number of PE firms that start and fail. Just as with any other line of work some will fail. No one saves them. The only ones we hear about though are the high flyers, the TPG, Carlyle, KKR, and Blackstone's of the world. And even then, the amount of good they do for the society all over the planet more than outweighs the bad.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 30, 2012, 08:22:29 AM
That's a "might" not have a job....
While it if also definite fact that there are already thousands to hundreds of thousands who already don't have a job because of PE and VC firms. It a dilemma...
Generally speaking more people have a job because of PE than don't have one (many more). And on that point, it would be far more difficult to determine if those that did loose a job, would have not lost it had it been for PE. Would the company have gone under anyways? Make sense?
Quote from: erfalf on August 30, 2012, 08:44:43 AM
I really must not be understanding you. Please explain how debt gets preferential treatment over equity?
We've been over this before. The interest, which is the cost of capital when equity is replaced by debt in an LBO, is tax deductible. That's preferential treatment. I'm not sure how we'd eliminate that even if we wanted to, because it's certainly reasonable for interest expense on a loan to buy production equipment to be deductible as a business expense. However, just because we can't make a distinction in the tax code does not mean we have to shut down our brains and ignore it.
Quote from: erfalf on August 30, 2012, 08:46:07 AM
Generally speaking more people have a job because of PE than don't have one (many more). And on that point, it would be far more difficult to determine if those that did loose a job, would have not lost it had it been for PE. Would the company have gone under anyways? Make sense?
You may well be right about that one.
Big gripe with that is the preferential tax treatment awarded to the people running the operation. Capital gains treatment on regular income? Come on...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 30, 2012, 12:41:00 PM
You may well be right about that one.
Big gripe with that is the preferential tax treatment awarded to the people running the operation. Capital gains treatment on regular income? Come on...
Look, I'm not going to go back and forth with you over what is capital gains and what isn't, mostly because I would agree with you on many aspects. In particular, carried interest. PE firm owners have figured out how to get their "normal income" (what they do for a living) into capital gains.
In my opinion, this is how it should work:
Generally the GP (General Partner/PE Firm) has an interest in the Limited Partnership of a few percent. Let's say it cost them $1 Mil and they made $5 Mil. They should get $4 Mil at capital gains rates (whatever that is at the time since it will show up on the K1). The carried interest portion should be taxed at ordinary marginal tax rates. I think it is only fair since the carried intereast portion is really the only part that is part of the tax payers normal line of work. They should be treated like dividends more or less.
Some people (I know, I shouldn't use that word) have said what about day traders and what not, that invest in equities. But there is already a sort of safeguard for that. They only get the capital gains rate if they hold the assets for a specific amount of time (one year only, but still it's something).
Quote from: nathanm on August 30, 2012, 11:56:50 AM
We've been over this before. The interest, which is the cost of capital when equity is replaced by debt in an LBO, is tax deductible. That's preferential treatment. I'm not sure how we'd eliminate that even if we wanted to, because it's certainly reasonable for interest expense on a loan to buy production equipment to be deductible as a business expense. However, just because we can't make a distinction in the tax code does not mean we have to shut down our brains and ignore it.
Let's say you finance something for a business. You pay $100. You paid $5 in interest over the year, but you were able to deduct it to reduce you taxable income. It still cost $100. And the deduction didn't actually save you $5, it only saved you $1.75 in taxes. So that product actually still cost you $103.25 over the first year. Hardly a huge tax advantage if you ask me.
I've read some comentary on this and they all seem to be missing the same point. There is a cost of borrowing money. It is considered a cost of doing business. Heck it's considered a cost of living as well considering home mortgage interest is also tax deductible. There is no real benefit from my point of view tax wise. Now there is a huge benefit to borrowing in that businesses can expand when they otherwise couldn't with the resources they had at the time.
Quote from: erfalf on August 31, 2012, 08:32:34 AM
Let's say you finance something for a business. You pay $100. You paid $5 in interest over the year, but you were able to deduct it to reduce you taxable income. It still cost $100. And the deduction didn't actually save you $5, it only saved you $1.75 in taxes. So that product actually still cost you $103.25 over the first year. Hardly a huge tax advantage if you ask me.
Interestingly, tax experts disagree with your statement that it's not a huge advantage. That's not the only advantage, of course, but you know that.
Quote from: nathanm on August 31, 2012, 05:33:44 PM
Interestingly, tax experts disagree with your statement that it's not a huge advantage. That's not the only advantage, of course, but you know that.
Are you saying the cost of doing business should not be deductible? I always thought profit (income) was gross receipts minus cost.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 31, 2012, 06:42:35 PM
Are you saying the cost of doing business should not be deductible? I always thought profit (income) was gross receipts minus cost.
No. Read my earlier posts in this thread.
I have a problem with the tax deductibility of debt when when it is used to almost completely replace equity in the structure of the organization. It encourages weakness in our institutions. But, as I said before, I don't know how the heck you'd make a reasonable distinction between debt used in the way LBO shops use it and debt used in the way normal companies use it. (and there is a significant difference in the way companies owned by LBO shops use debt and the rest of the corporate world uses debt)
We're essentially putting these companies at an artificial advantage relative to their competitors whose capital is supplied by equity, and in doing so encouraging them to take on more risk. That advantage, combined with being the sole equity holders, is what enables LBO shops to make such great (cash) profits.
Quote from: nathanm on August 31, 2012, 07:01:16 PM
No. Read my earlier posts in this thread.
I have a problem with the tax deductibility of debt when when it is used to almost completely replace equity in the structure of the organization. It encourages weakness in our institutions. But, as I said before, I don't know how the heck you'd make a reasonable distinction between debt used in the way LBO shops use it and debt used in the way normal companies use it. (and there is a significant difference in the way companies owned by LBO shops use debt and the rest of the corporate world uses debt)
We're essentially putting these companies at an artificial advantage relative to their competitors whose capital is supplied by equity, and in doing so encouraging them to take on more risk. That advantage, combined with being the sole equity holders, is what enables LBO shops to make such great (cash) profits.
What the difference? If a PE firm acquires the firm, they are that firm. They use debt just like every other business entity: to make more money. You know what happens after that? They pay more taxes.
I'd like to put the insane leveraging of PE firms in perspective. The following are the debt to equity ratios of some major companies. Notice it is the debt to equity ratio and not the other way around. It's like that for a reason ;)
5.31 - Facebook (N/A)
12.55 - Google (N/A)
19.25 - Microsoft (0.80)
30.07 - Staples (0.44) Bain Portfolio Company
35.55 - General Motors (N/A)
42.08 - Philllips 66 (0.80)
58.05 - ConocoPhillips (2.64)
97.39 - Steel Dynamics (0.40) Bain Portfolio Company
160.60 - Williams Companies (1.25)
584.91 - Ford Motor Company (0.20)
American Airlines - apparently we don't need to know this one, but their current ratio is 0.59, ouch.
Please don't continue the line that PE firms borrowing is excessive compared to their competitors. As you can see what PE borrows is relatively tame in comparison to what their takeover targets are doing. Maybe that's the reason some of them are struggling. And generally LBO firms are not the sole equity holder. They often have a group of PE investors that invest simultaneously.
And if it makes a different, the government shafted TPG Capital out of a $1.35 Billion (with a B) investment in Washington Mutual.
Quote from: erfalf on August 31, 2012, 08:25:12 AM
Look, I'm not going to go back and forth with you over what is capital gains and what isn't, mostly because I would agree with you on many aspects. In particular, carried interest. PE firm owners have figured out how to get their "normal income" (what they do for a living) into capital gains.
In my opinion, this is how it should work:
Generally the GP (General Partner/PE Firm) has an interest in the Limited Partnership of a few percent. Let's say it cost them $1 Mil and they made $5 Mil. They should get $4 Mil at capital gains rates (whatever that is at the time since it will show up on the K1). The carried interest portion should be taxed at ordinary marginal tax rates. I think it is only fair since the carried intereast portion is really the only part that is part of the tax payers normal line of work. They should be treated like dividends more or less.
Some people (I know, I shouldn't use that word) have said what about day traders and what not, that invest in equities. But there is already a sort of safeguard for that. They only get the capital gains rate if they hold the assets for a specific amount of time (one year only, but still it's something).
The hedge fund guys were able to buy Congress so that they DON'T have to wait the year for long term gains - it is immediate.
Quote from: erfalf on August 31, 2012, 08:32:34 AM
Let's say you finance something for a business. You pay $100. You paid $5 in interest over the year, but you were able to deduct it to reduce you taxable income. It still cost $100. And the deduction didn't actually save you $5, it only saved you $1.75 in taxes. So that product actually still cost you $103.25 over the first year. Hardly a huge tax advantage if you ask me.
I've read some comentary on this and they all seem to be missing the same point. There is a cost of borrowing money. It is considered a cost of doing business. Heck it's considered a cost of living as well considering home mortgage interest is also tax deductible. There is no real benefit from my point of view tax wise. Now there is a huge benefit to borrowing in that businesses can expand when they otherwise couldn't with the resources they had at the time.
You forgot about depreciation if it was a capital expenditure, and expense deduction if not. And some capital spending benefits from accelerated depreciation, so get to deduct a portion of that spending every year until done. Can be from 1 year to 5 or 7 or 10 (or more) depending on what it is, it's life expectancy, etc. There is a list...
And if it is a building, you get to deduct the cost over a period of time (IIRC, 20 to 30 years...) then at the end, in addition to having the benefit of deducting the cost, if you decide that place is too small or too big, sell it and buy another - any amount made is not regular income, it is a long term capital gains, benefiting from 15% max rate, just like a stock purchase. Sweet deal. You get a tax deduction on the front end and a big tax break on the back end.
Unless of course, you can get $1 a year rent like out at the airport...then you never have to spend a penny. Just a buck.
Just curious - what did you study in college? Rhetorical question - you don't need to answer if you don't want to...but I can tell it wasn't engineering, and gawd I hope it was not business...!
Quote from: erfalf on August 31, 2012, 08:16:42 PM
What the difference? If a PE firm acquires the firm, they are that firm. They use debt just like every other business entity: to make more money. You know what happens after that? They pay more taxes.
I'd like to put the insane leveraging of PE firms in perspective. The following are the debt to equity ratios of some major companies. Notice it is the debt to equity ratio and not the other way around. It's like that for a reason ;)
5.31 - Facebook (N/A)
12.55 - Google (N/A)
After noting that the first two on your list have equity in excess of liabilities according to their most recently released balance sheets, I disregarded the rest.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 04, 2012, 09:07:53 PM
And if it is a building, you get to deduct the cost over a period of time (IIRC, 20 to 30 years...) then at the end, in addition to having the benefit of deducting the cost, if you decide that place is too small or too big, sell it and buy another - any amount made is not regular income, it is a long term capital gains, benefiting from 15% max rate, just like a stock purchase. Sweet deal. You get a tax deduction on the front end and a big tax break on the back end.
I believe taxes are paid on the amount of the selling price above the depreciated price so you are paying back some of that 20 to 30 year tax advantage. If you can only sell for the depreciated value, then that was truly a cost of doing business.
That was the quick version...there are more details. If you pay off the building over the 20 or 30, then the whole thing is fully depreciated - one of the details that changes as you mentioned on the balance due and depreciated amounts. You can do well buying new equipment on a regular interval.
And if the value goes down, there is an opportunity for a loss - depending....
Good friend drove nice cars for better than free - actually "made" money trading them in regularly and using a heavily front end loaded depreciation schedule...not really making money, but driving almost new car pretty much all the time, with very low relative cost. At least that is what he thought...and the books seem to back it up.
I just drive 'em until the wheels fall off, then get another one. Gives me the lowest cost that I have experienced.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 04, 2012, 09:03:56 PM
The hedge fund guys were able to buy Congress so that they DON'T have to wait the year for long term gains - it is immediate.
How's that?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 04, 2012, 09:07:53 PM
You forgot about depreciation if it was a capital expenditure, and expense deduction if not. And some capital spending benefits from accelerated depreciation, so get to deduct a portion of that spending every year until done. Can be from 1 year to 5 or 7 or 10 (or more) depending on what it is, it's life expectancy, etc. There is a list...
And if it is a building, you get to deduct the cost over a period of time (IIRC, 20 to 30 years...) then at the end, in addition to having the benefit of deducting the cost, if you decide that place is too small or too big, sell it and buy another - any amount made is not regular income, it is a long term capital gains, benefiting from 15% max rate, just like a stock purchase. Sweet deal. You get a tax deduction on the front end and a big tax break on the back end.
Unless of course, you can get $1 a year rent like out at the airport...then you never have to spend a penny. Just a buck.
Just curious - what did you study in college? Rhetorical question - you don't need to answer if you don't want to...but I can tell it wasn't engineering, and gawd I hope it was not business...!
While everything you said is well and good, we have been talking about the source of the funds, not the destination.
Ironically, I started out as an engineering student, and then switched to finance/accounting. Why are business degrees so scary? ;D
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 04, 2012, 11:15:30 PM
That was the quick version...there are more details. If you pay off the building over the 20 or 30, then the whole thing is fully depreciated - one of the details that changes as you mentioned on the balance due and depreciated amounts. You can do well buying new equipment on a regular interval.
And if the value goes down, there is an opportunity for a loss - depending....
Good friend drove nice cars for better than free - actually "made" money trading them in regularly and using a heavily front end loaded depreciation schedule...not really making money, but driving almost new car pretty much all the time, with very low relative cost. At least that is what he thought...and the books seem to back it up.
I just drive 'em until the wheels fall off, then get another one. Gives me the lowest cost that I have experienced.
If the guy was trading them in, he could push back any tax liability he may have incurred. But the day he sells one (does not trade it in) he will have to pay the piper. Course he may never sell one so...
Quote from: nathanm on September 04, 2012, 09:39:00 PM
After noting that the first two on your list have equity in excess of liabilities according to their most recently released balance sheets, I disregarded the rest.
In all fairness I was pulling the data from Yahoo finance. It is the D/E ratio for the most recent quarter. In other words it is the ratio of how assets have been financed for only the current quarter.
Quote from: erfalf on September 05, 2012, 05:20:08 PM
If the guy was trading them in, he could push back any tax liability he may have incurred. But the day he sells one (does not trade it in) he will have to pay the piper. Course he may never sell one so...
Few business owners actually make any money on used cars. They just minimize their loses with income offsets - deductions.
Quote from: erfalf on September 05, 2012, 05:16:49 PM
Ironically, I started out as an engineering student, and then switched to finance/accounting. Why are business degrees so scary? ;D
Mostly because they are received by students that started out in engineering. ;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 05, 2012, 09:08:22 PM
Mostly because they are received by students that started out in engineering. ;D
Alright, that may have been a tad below the belt. ;) jk
It was funny that when I went into the business office to do the paper work to transfer, they mentioned how many engineering students ended up there.
Quote from: erfalf on September 05, 2012, 05:16:49 PM
Ironically, I started out as an engineering student, and then switched to finance/accounting. Why are business degrees so scary?
Biggest problem with "MBA" types is that the schools teach the students that their carp doesn't stink... grave disservice to both the student AND society. My daughter just got her MBA a while back and I had to vigorously remind her of that little fact.
And then they carry that carp into the workplace with them. Case studies and present/future/past value of money evaluations are handy tools in business, but an extremely stupid way to determine policy, or derive product direction/development. Refer to the entire career of Steve Jobs.
As for all the business people dropping out of Engineering - well, I think many kids did pretty good in high school in math, were told that if they were good at math, engineering was the place to be. What was left out completely from that discussion - since so few teachers are engineers - is that fact that it takes a particular inclination to self-abuse to go through engineering. That's why there are so few of us. Combine all the engineers and technician types in the country, plus the half million or so who have been driven out due to economic considerations by the MBA's - the engineers got too old - you only have about 3 million people. Less than 1% of the population. So, Red, Ed, and I and probably a few others are 1%er's of a different type.
And are you left handed?? A disproportionate amount of technical types (as well as artistic types) are left handed. In the population of engineers I have worked with and known, it is about 35-40% rather than the 10% in the general population.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 06, 2012, 05:38:05 PM
As for all the business people dropping out of Engineering - well, I think many kids did pretty good in high school in math, were told that if they were good at math, engineering was the place to be. What was left out completely from that discussion - since so few teachers are engineers - is that fact that it takes a particular inclination to self-abuse to go through engineering.
I was fortunate to have reasonable expectations of what engineering school would be like. My dad was a EE and was only about 12 credits from also being a ME. (His school didn't offer double degrees, at least at that time.) One of dad's brothers was a EE and only about 10 years older than me so I saw some of his going through school. Another uncle (married my mom's sister) is a retired Chem E. He is pushing age 90 now.
Being good at math is a help but math is only a tool, like a wrench for a mechanic and (I believe) a brush for an artist. I can move a paint brush with paint but the only thing I can paint is a wall and maybe a paint by the numbers if I try really hard.
QuoteAnd are you left handed?? A disproportionate amount of technical types (as well as artistic types) are left handed. In the population of engineers I have worked with and known, it is about 35-40% rather than the 10% in the general population.
I'm left handed but my brother (also ME) and relatives above are/were all right handed.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 06, 2012, 08:36:17 PM
I was fortunate to have reasonable expectations of what engineering school would be like. My dad was a EE and was only about 12 credits from also being a ME. (His school didn't offer double degrees, at least at that time.) One of dad's brothers was a EE and only about 10 years older than me so I saw some of his going through school. Another uncle (married my mom's sister) is a retired Chem E. He is pushing age 90 now.
Being good at math is a help but math is only a tool, like a wrench for a mechanic and (I believe) a brush for an artist. I can move a paint brush with paint but the only thing I can paint is a wall and maybe a paint by the numbers if I try really hard.
I'm left handed but my brother (also ME) and relatives above are/were all right handed.
I got a count of 5. 1 out of 5 --- 20%. Just in your family, double the national average. We have two out of 4 siblings left handed in the family.
Pretty interesting little statistic, ain't it?
Feels pretty good knowing we are the only ones in our right minds....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 06, 2012, 05:38:05 PM
Biggest problem with "MBA" types is that the schools teach the students that their carp doesn't stink... grave disservice to both the student AND society. My daughter just got her MBA a while back and I had to vigorously remind her of that little fact.
And then they carry that carp into the workplace with them. Case studies and present/future/past value of money evaluations are handy tools in business, but an extremely stupid way to determine policy, or derive product direction/development. Refer to the entire career of Steve Jobs.
As for all the business people dropping out of Engineering - well, I think many kids did pretty good in high school in math, were told that if they were good at math, engineering was the place to be. What was left out completely from that discussion - since so few teachers are engineers - is that fact that it takes a particular inclination to self-abuse to go through engineering. That's why there are so few of us. Combine all the engineers and technician types in the country, plus the half million or so who have been driven out due to economic considerations by the MBA's - the engineers got too old - you only have about 3 million people. Less than 1% of the population. So, Red, Ed, and I and probably a few others are 1%er's of a different type.
And are you left handed?? A disproportionate amount of technical types (as well as artistic types) are left handed. In the population of engineers I have worked with and known, it is about 35-40% rather than the 10% in the general population.
Was good in math & physics in high school. Seemed logical. But it just wasn't me. I did struggle with the Chemistry type courses, did alright in the math/physics courses. Just couldn't see myself doing it for a living. Finance was "flashier".
Quote from: erfalf on September 07, 2012, 08:46:46 PM
Was good in math & physics in high school. Seemed logical. But it just wasn't me. I did struggle with the Chemistry type courses, did alright in the math/physics courses. Just couldn't see myself doing it for a living. Finance was "flashier".
Pays better too. Shared a facility with finance type who got laid off same time from local bank back in the 90's. He found a job in just a few months, but said all along he wouldn't consider anything less than 250k (1994 dollars). Got on at Arvest as some kind of VP. I was always suspicious that engineering was the wrong direction.....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 09, 2012, 08:50:18 PM
Pays better too. Shared a facility with finance type who got laid off same time from local bank back in the 90's. He found a job in just a few months, but said all along he wouldn't consider anything less than 250k (1994 dollars). Got on at Arvest as some kind of VP. I was always suspicious that engineering was the wrong direction.....
I never expected to get really rich as an engineer working for someone else. It has paid me a reasonable salary and I am not living from paycheck to paycheck. It is unfortunate that you have had such bad luck financially as an engineer as you seem to claim on this forum. I doubt I would have been happy as anything other than an engineer. I thought in high school that I wanted to be an airline pilot but at the time they required 20/20 uncorrected vision. I have always had a lazy right eye. I still managed to pass the eye test without glasses for a Class III physical until my late 40s though.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 09, 2012, 08:50:18 PM
Pays better too. Shared a facility with finance type who got laid off same time from local bank back in the 90's. He found a job in just a few months, but said all along he wouldn't consider anything less than 250k (1994 dollars). Got on at Arvest as some kind of VP. I was always suspicious that engineering was the wrong direction.....
Now I don't know this for a fact, and everyone's situation is different. But I would guess that initially (right out of college), engineers have the edge. But on average, I would guess that people in finance/accounting probably do better ON AVERAGE. That being said, I think engineers have a much larger potential. When I worked in Venture Capital, virtually all the MBA's working at these firms were formerly engineers. One of my bosses (Harvard MBA) was a chemist or chemical engineer. Most of the VC's are filled with engineers.
Quote from: erfalf on September 10, 2012, 01:57:30 PM
Now I don't know this for a fact, and everyone's situation is different. But I would guess that initially (right out of college), engineers have the edge. But on average, I would guess that people in finance/accounting probably do better ON AVERAGE. That being said, I think engineers have a much larger potential. When I worked in Venture Capital, virtually all the MBA's working at these firms were formerly engineers. One of my bosses (Harvard MBA) was a chemist or chemical engineer. Most of the VC's are filled with engineers.
Another engineer that got out - sold his soul to the dark side - and got rich in MBA stuff.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 09, 2012, 09:06:58 PM
I never expected to get really rich as an engineer working for someone else. It has paid me a reasonable salary and I am not living from paycheck to paycheck. It is unfortunate that you have had such bad luck financially as an engineer as you seem to claim on this forum. I doubt I would have been happy as anything other than an engineer. I thought in high school that I wanted to be an airline pilot but at the time they required 20/20 uncorrected vision. I have always had a lazy right eye. I still managed to pass the eye test without glasses for a Class III physical until my late 40s though.
I didn't expect rich, either. What I did expect was that if someone works hard for a company, makes a major contribution, rewards will follow. Well, the reality was that the rewards flow all right, but not necessarily to the contributors (and that is not just the engineer, but all the other people in the company.)
I am recovering. Have a good company now that appreciates a meaningful contribution. Amazing the difference that can make...and it is a big company, too...who woulda thought. But the MBA types still do better in it.
I have had several opportunities to 'go for the money' - only two of which I regret not taking - but I would not have been doing work that I enjoy as much. Part of that curse that Scott Adams calls "the knack".
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 10, 2012, 09:38:44 PM
I didn't expect rich, either. What I did expect was that if someone works hard for a company, makes a major contribution, rewards will follow. Well, the reality was that the rewards flow all right, but not necessarily to the contributors (and that is not just the engineer, but all the other people in the company.)
I am recovering. Have a good company now that appreciates a meaningful contribution. Amazing the difference that can make...and it is a big company, too...who woulda thought. But the MBA types still do better in it.
I have had several opportunities to 'go for the money' - only two of which I regret not taking - but I would not have been doing work that I enjoy as much. Part of that curse that Scott Adams calls "the knack".
My story:
I started at a company in 2003 as a CS representative for a local company that does background screenings. Back then it was mainly for trucking companies and insurance companies. Through hard work and perseverance I was able to move into a position that bettered myself in the company in May 2005.
Our group was a start-from-scratch group of Software Quality Assurance. There were just three of us to begin with, but then the acquisitions started happening, and our group grew to seven. None of us really knew about QA work for software nor did we know what the market average wage was for what we did.
Then, the last acquisition happened in 2008, which essentially flip-flopped us (IOW, we began asking ourselves, 'who bought who', because we were adopting policies and procedures of the acquired company). The VC/PE firm swooped in (initially it was the Carlyle Group, then Providence which is the current group owning the company now) and started making changes. Not changes based on performance or merit, but changes based on 'how much front end liablity can we ditch..i.e., workers with tenure and higher salaries'.
We went from a company who hadn't laid off anyone in 10 years, to one who now was RIFing people every quarter (and sometimes even more frequently) at an alarming rate. Company restructuring had our location wondering if we even had a future as part of the company. I personally witnessed employees with tenures of 15 to 20 years being let go due to (IMHO although the company would never admit it) their higher salariies. Never mind the knowledge of the business these people had.
My boss got caught up in one of these around the blizzard of 2011; then we started dropping like flies. Either by attrition or other means. We were realigned with a QA group based out of Nashville, but had no local leadership to represent us. So essentially, we were on our own as far as having a voice in the pecking order. That was around February of 2011.
That was also when I began quietly searching for other work.
I survived the next five (yes five) reductions in force. The final one was on my birthday of this year, when I saw a colleague who had worked there for nearly two decades get terminated because he was the highest paid in his department.
A long time member of our team took a position elsewhere after getting nowhere on a counterproposal after submitting his two-week notice that might have kept him there and given myself and the rest of my department a substantial increase in pay to what our positions merited in this market. We were currently making anywhere from 25 to 40 percent less than what the market norm was for our industry.
I took a two week vacation in July after getting a lead from my former boss on a position at his company (a very well-known local electronic and print-media publishing company) at a rate of about 55 percent more than my current salary (which was actually more in line with the market norm -- my previous company kept blowing smoke up our hind ends for months that they had done a market survey of our salaries and promised us increases for six months with nothing done). The day I got back from vacation I got my interview during my lunch hour. I got my offer sheet the next morning and later that afternoon tendered what was to be a better than two week notice.
That reduced the number in my team (locally) to two. There are two others in Nashville doing the same thing, but the type of work we do doesn't work well with distance involved. We got by at the time, but now the local office has two QA Analysts.
Come to find out that me leaving was evidently the straw that broke the camel's back. Upper management gave about a 45 percent raise to my former co-workers. Instead of giving it to them over quarters (as they had said initially they were going to do) and not starting them until October, they gave it to them immediately in full after I inferred during my exit interview that the likelihood of both of them leaving was about 90 percent if nothing was done.
I'm in a much better place now, in a company run by a sole proprietorship, and in a place where I feel comfortable and wanted. And not just some cog in the machine.
I sent my former director a letter the day I left. In it I told him, after he noted I was a 'valuable part of the company', to remember to tell his people that remained that from time to time. Sometimes it's not JUST about the money.
So...when you see me lament about PE and VC groups and how they treat people? This is why...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on September 10, 2012, 09:38:44 PM
I didn't expect rich, either. What I did expect was that if someone works hard for a company, makes a major contribution, rewards will follow. Well, the reality was that the rewards flow all right, but not necessarily to the contributors (and that is not just the engineer, but all the other people in the company.)
You may have been able to get more short term rewards by being a contract engineer rather than being a regular full time employee. Of course the down side to being a contract engineer is that you are the first to go when business gets slow or the project is finished.
QuoteHave a good company now that appreciates a meaningful contribution. Amazing the difference that can make...and it is a big company, too...who woulda thought. But the MBA types still do better in it.
Some companies have a technical track to good pay. One of my college friends (Mechanical Engineer) spent part of his career managing a bunch of scientists that he had to pay more than he got paid. Most places do not appear to have a technical track to high pay though.
I have had a few opportunities to move toward management but I have always been more valuable as a technical contributor.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 10, 2012, 11:02:56 PM
You may have been able to get more short term rewards by being a contract engineer rather than being a regular full time employee. Of course the down side to being a contract engineer is that you are the first to go when business gets slow or the project is finished.
Some companies have a technical track to good pay. One of my college friends (Mechanical Engineer) spent part of his career managing a bunch of scientists that he had to pay more than he got paid. Most places do not appear to have a technical track to high pay though.
I have had a few opportunities to move toward management but I have always been more valuable as a technical contributor.
Have done contract work off and on since 1990. Need any electronic/electrical work done? The big issue is one of my self-aware recognitions that I am not a great sales type. You have to be selling ALL the time. Probably 20% of time to be successful at it.
Have been engineering manager a couple of times. Takes me too far away from the fun part.