[Jobs] Republicans: Which is it?

come on now

 

They use the deregulation card. Obama's meddling is stifling innovation and successful businesses. Romney will supposedly get out of the way of the so-called job creators who will make our middle class strong again.

 

This dichotomy is simplistic and Presidents can enact all kinds of policies that hamper trade and credit in ways that impede the private sector's ability to produce and create jobs.

 

government doesn't create jobs. IT creates an environment conducive to job growth (others growing jobs). Government can also create an environment not conducive to job growth (which it has right now). The job numbers are bad because Obama has created an environment not appealing to companies (bailouts, high taxes, regulations, etc...). not complicated.

We have the highest corporate income tax of any country in the western world.

 

dude...the economy is not your main issue....and Obama is not too bright on this. He isn't....give it up.

Not saying Mitts is either, but I don't get,,, like,,, your big point is about jobs

stick to your main points.

 

I think there are more participants in the economy than the President and the super-rich.

The jobs are coming, just wait for capital to get reallocated to more productive and better marketed goods, and people to either move, improve their skills or take lower pay. Or for more creative consumer credit, fund transfer and investment products: like credit cards, ATMs and mutual funds in the '70s and '80s.

 

when you have bailouts and unprofitable govt subsidized industries capital doesn't get relocated. It gets put in the wrong place and stays in the wrong place. Hence our economy.

 

Stating that the government doesn't create jobs is not at all inconsistent with the idea that the government can destroy jobs by creating an overly oppressive environment for the companies that do create jobs. The question makes no sense.

 

the liberals are starting to meltdown

 

seriously, do you like mittens? do you? guy is a dork, with no individual guts, will or strength to run anything unless someone gives him a template to follow.

he's a puppet and you know it.

btw: before you respond, note how I blasted Obama in my previous post.

I don't always enter D&D threads

but when I do
I like to be smart

Be smart my friends.

 

Yes I like Mitt. He is competent and has a successful track record to stand behind. Obama has had 4 years and his results speak for themselves -- they are bad.

 

someone stop me with my meme generator addiction

 

"Government doesn't create jobs" is a Republican mantra that they don't even give the slightest amount of thought to.

If the government hires someone to do something useful for decent pay, and that person goes on to use his government pay to buy things and support all sorts of business, how have jobs not been created?

Despite the Republicans' name calling, Democrats aren't "socialists" who want to destroy all private business. Both private business and government can do things that are helpful to society. The answer is not no government, but appropriate government involvement.

But "Government is never the answer," according to another simplistic, black-and-white belief that many conservatives subscribe to. I've heard that from someone I know, a total Rush Limbaugh fanboy who also works for the government. But you won't get him to admit that if that's true, he's calling himself a useless leech on society.

 

The foundation of Mitt's platform is massive across the board cuts in tax rates. At the same time, he wants a huge increase in military spending. Neither of these things are up to him BTW, since Congress votes on taxation and spending, and all the President can really do is choose to sign the legislation or veto it.

But ignoring that that's all a lot of big talk, Mitt asserts that his plan would not reduce government revenues (needed to pay down the deficit) at all, since he'll also close loopholes that people are using to avoid paying taxes.

So, which one is it? Is he spurring the American economy by reducing taxes, even though he himself says he's not changing the amount of taxes being paid? I don't know, that sounds internally inconsistent, even if we just take Mitt at his word. Who is paying more taxes because of the closed loopholes? Will it the middle class, as many of his detractors say? Or are the super rich the ones who will be losing these loopholes? If so, then why is Romney hurting the wealthy job creators by taking away their precious loopholes? We know that it's the rich who create jobs and hold up the rest of the population, according to everything the Republicans keep telling us.

But just what ARE these loopholes? Mitt has been directly asked that question, and time and again he has refused give a direct answer. His answers at the televised debates have stooped so low as to rely on circular reasoning: Mitt's tax plans will be revenue-neutral because he says they'll be. And he says we can trust him because he's "worked in business," which is another cop out. If this were a business and Mitt was asking people to invest in him, they'd require that he open up about his plans and show some details. Can you imagine making a business presentation and refusing to give simple answers to simple questions?

Romney is all talk. He can't even name the supposed loopholes that he'd close to balance out his massive tax reductions and spending increases. Even taken at his word, his plan doesn't make much internal sense. Even if his plan made sense, he's not the one to determine tax and spending levels. He'd inherit most of the same partisan do-nothing Congressmen who are in office today.

 

Heypartner -- let me add to my last response to you. You're a smart guy, but you're susceptible to biased thinking. Specifically, you appear to have let the media bias you as they have attempted to define Romney, as per the Democrats' script. When you watched Romney in the first debate, Romney's true colors shown through in an unbiased forum. Obama was no match for Romney. The second debate the moderator was one of the Democrats plants, and even amped up her bias due to the hole Obama was trying to dig out of.

My advice to you is look at 1) the facts and 2) performance in unbiased settings. Romney's experience and complete clowning of Obama in the debate tell you all you need to know.

 

was he your #1 candidate throughout? forget about obama and forget about arguing...i know i'm in a D&D thread, but I'd listen to your take. Who's your favorite congressman or Governor? It's OK; you can tell me. I don't bite.

also, could you state your favored economic policy for the here and now in summary, or provide links to your favorite articles, if easier. I'm not very interested in historical policy, as I know that pretty well. I just don't know what's up now, very well.

I have some congressional (state and federal) choices to make in Colorado.

 

Obama has had four years and hasn't produced the results the nation deserves. ....and you call Romney all talk? You have it backwards.

The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expect different results...

 

I love how you mention the facts in one sentence, then turn to the stupid televised debate in the next. The political debates are a clown show where the candidates, both of them, dance around questions and attempt to convince the stupid masses with superficial catchphrases and rehearsed displays of patriotism. The idea that someone can "win" a televised debate by "being assertive" and talking over the other guy is a sad statement on our society.