2nd Debate Thoughts?

FezzesAreCool

Because the Romney five point plan is extremely short sighted.  It will not help this country except for in the right now to placate people and give them a false sense of financial and economic security.

Obama has done the best the can with the shiit economy he was given.  The worst thing he did was allow the bank bailouts to go through.  I never agreed with that. 

I don't blame Obama for fuel prices, for insurance rates or for high unemployment.  The world economy plays a bigger hand in that than Obama does. 

catsareniice1

cincychick35:

FezzesAreCool:

If Romney does what he (vaguely) claims he will and wins the election, I will bet $10 that we will be worse-off financially in 4 years than we are now. 

Well I happen to believe that if we allow Obama to continue to do NOTHING in the next 4 years, we will not only be worse off than we are now.  But the America we know and love will look a lot more like England a democratic socialist country.  Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves.

No doubt about this. If anything he will golf more and attend more parties with actors/actresses, go on The View more. IMO I don't think he will work as hard in a second term since he is not in this term. Just my opinion...

FezzesAreCool

Bush took more vacations than Obama did. 

 

catsareniice1

FezzesAreCool:

Because the Romney five point plan is extremely short sighted.  It will not help this country except for in the right now to placate people and give them a false sense of financial and economic security.

Obama has done the best the can with the shiit economy he was given.  The worst thing he did was allow the bank bailouts to go through.  I never agreed with that. 

I don't blame Obama for fuel prices, for insurance rates or for high unemployment.  The world economy plays a bigger hand in that than Obama does. 

Well, I believe Romney is the better candidate since he was a successful businessman. He understand economics. To me, he is the one to vote for.

FezzesAreCool

This country is not a business. 

catsareniice1

FezzesAreCool:

This country is not a business. 

I disagree. Where there's money and transactions involved it's business!

FezzesAreCool

 

Please show me in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution where it says that. 

cincychick35

FezzesAreCool:

This country is not a business. 

How in the world is it NOT a business?  You have income, expenses, payroll, assets, etc.  I don't see why running it as such is a bad idea?

Mitt Romney lowered taxes when he was Governor of MA 19 times and at the same time balanced the state's $23 million budget.  That is what he has done time and time again.  I have every faith in the world he will do that when he is elected president. 

FezzesAreCool

You guys honestly don't see the fallacy of considering this country a business? 

Pfft

If the country's a business, who are the employees, who's the CEO?  Where's the employee handbook?

FezzesAreCool

Do we all have to take scheduled lunch breaks? 

CoffeeBeen

If America is a business, does that mean President Romney would fire 47% of us?

cincychick35

FezzesAreCool:

 

Please show me in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution where it says that. 

I would say an argument could be made this would fall under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. If Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes doesn't that mean they also have the responsibility to maintain a balanced budget and ensure this country is solvent?

I don't believe there is any reason to believe I have an error in reasoning to feel it would be a good thing to run the country as a business.  

How would you suggest the country be run? 

cincychick35

Pfft:

If the country's a business, who are the employees, who's the CEO?  Where's the employee handbook?

The CEO would obviously be the President, the employees are Congress, Members of the House and the countless Government Employees throughout the USA.  Employee handbook is the Constitution.  Although, I do understand the current President hasn't followed the Constitution closely during his tenure, it is still there and does exist. 

FezzesAreCool

I would suggest this country be run for the people, not for the bottom line. 

I realize that people need jobs and this country's economy is in the toilet, but to focus your entire presidential vote on this one issue doesn't make sense. 

Like I said before, Romney's plan a quick fix, not a long term solution.  

FezzesAreCool

So what about the private sector employees? How do they fit in? 

catsareniice1

FezzesAreCool:

I would suggest this country be run for the people, not for the bottom line. 

I realize that people need jobs and this country's economy is in the toilet, but to focus your entire presidential vote on this one issue doesn't make sense. 

Like I said before, Romney's plan a quick fix, not a long term solution.  

Having accountability and a balanced budget is running it like a business for the people. Printing money and passing out food stamps is not for the people.  

FezzesAreCool

So we shouldn't have money? 

Should we live in Star Trek: TNG universe where there is no monetary currency? 

Or are you suggesting that the states print their own money? 

CoffeeBeen

cincychick35:

Pfft:

If the country's a business, who are the employees, who's the CEO?  Where's the employee handbook?

The CEO would obviously be the President, the employees are Congress, Members of the House and the countless Government Employees throughout the USA.  Employee handbook is the Constitution.  Although, I do understand the current President hasn't followed the Constitution closely during his tenure, it is still there and does exist. 

Your analogy does not work.  The CEO would have control over his employees.  The president does not have control over congress.

In fact, if we go back to civics the whole point is that we are NOT structured like a business.  We have 3 separate branches because we're NOT hierarchical.  

FezzesAreCool

The CEO model would, indeed, be a dictatorship.

If we're going to run the country like a business, it should be run like a Co-op. 

of course, that smacks of socialism. 

vlagrl29

jebrmbbeb:

I bet there are many women, single moms or not, who have children or not, who would be very grateful for consideration in the work place. I think the fact that people are upset by this is absurd. Because you know what, a lot of women do make dinner for their families. 

From the feminist point of view, you don't want the pity? You want to be treated the same as every male in the workplace? Then fine. But I'll bet there's a lot of women who would appreciate this. Finding fault with compassion; now that's sad. 

exactly! me and DH must be of the few that still hold traditional values.  He works a LOT,  and i'm taking care of the kid and making sure the house is taken care of and somehow in between all that , I also run my own business.  I never liked working in an office, I never felt they were flexible at all.  I wished they had been, I can't imagine working in one with a kid now.  You would use all your time up on doctor appts and the kid being sick.   and I take offense to the "you didn't build that" explanation.  ok sure, i get my mail from the post office, I cash my checks at the bank, and I travel on roads that have been constructed for us.  but EFFF that, I'm the one working my @ss off and so is DH to make our living....no one is helping us.

CoffeeBeen

FezzesAreCool:

The CEO model would, indeed, be a dictatorship.

If we're going to run the country like a business, it should be run like a Co-op. 

of course, that smacks of socialism. 

This is an excellent point.

vlagrl29

catsareniice1:

cincychick35:

FezzesAreCool:

If Romney does what he (vaguely) claims he will and wins the election, I will bet $10 that we will be worse-off financially in 4 years than we are now. 

Well I happen to believe that if we allow Obama to continue to do NOTHING in the next 4 years, we will not only be worse off than we are now.  But the America we know and love will look a lot more like England a democratic socialist country.  Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves.

No doubt about this. If anything he will golf more and attend more parties with actors/actresses, go on The View more. IMO I don't think he will work as hard in a second term since he is not in this term. Just my opinion...

I'll bet that if he gets re-elected we will be $20 trillion or more in debt.  I don't think he really wants to work, I think he doesn't want to give up all the perks like listed above. 

FezzesAreCool

So you don't take any tax deductions at all, v? 

Pfft

cincychick35:

Pfft:

If the country's a business, who are the employees, who's the CEO?  Where's the employee handbook?

The CEO would obviously be the President, the employees are Congress, Members of the House and the countless Government Employees throughout the USA.  Employee handbook is the Constitution.  Although, I do understand the current President hasn't followed the Constitution closely during his tenure, it is still there and does exist. 

Wait, what?!

cincychick35

CoffeeBeen:

cincychick35:

Pfft:

If the country's a business, who are the employees, who's the CEO?  Where's the employee handbook?

The CEO would obviously be the President, the employees are Congress, Members of the House and the countless Government Employees throughout the USA.  Employee handbook is the Constitution.  Although, I do understand the current President hasn't followed the Constitution closely during his tenure, it is still there and does exist. 

Your analogy does not work.  The CEO would have control over his employees.  The president does not have control over congress.

In fact, if we go back to civics the whole point is that we are NOT structured like a business.  We have 3 separate branches because we're NOT hierarchical.  

I am not suggesting government be structured like a business, but it should be run as such. As mentioned above, it should be run as a business for the people. When you have a certain amount of income and certain expenses, isn't it just common sense to make sure you are living within your means?  If a privately held company incurred $16 trillion in debt they would be bankrupt.  I don't want to see my country, which I love, to end up in bankruptcy.  And I don't believe we have to end up that way. 

CoffeeBeen

vlagrl29:

jebrmbbeb:

I bet there are many women, single moms or not, who have children or not, who would be very grateful for consideration in the work place. I think the fact that people are upset by this is absurd. Because you know what, a lot of women do make dinner for their families. 

From the feminist point of view, you don't want the pity? You want to be treated the same as every male in the workplace? Then fine. But I'll bet there's a lot of women who would appreciate this. Finding fault with compassion; now that's sad. 

exactly! me and DH must be of the few that still hold traditional values.  He works a LOT,  and i'm taking care of the kid and making sure the house is taken care of and somehow in between all that , I also run my own business.  I never liked working in an office, I never felt they were flexible at all.  I wished they had been, I can't imagine working in one with a kid now.  You would use all your time up on doctor appts and the kid being sick.   and I take offense to the "you didn't build that" explanation.  ok sure, i get my mail from the post office, I cash my checks at the bank, and I travel on roads that have been constructed for us.  but EFFF that, I'm the one working my @ss off and so is DH to make our living....no one is helping us.

Saying that a woman should have flexibility to cook is pretty sexist.  Saying that all employees should have flexibility for work-life balance is appropriate.  Making proper working conditions a "female" issue is dumb - it's a human being issue.

FezzesAreCool

The last time we had a completely balanced budget was in 1832. 

Just putting that out there. 

FezzesAreCool

I love this country, too.

I would much rather see this country go back to being "by the people and for the people" instead of "by the lobbyists and for the corporations." 

vlagrl29

CoffeeBeen:

vlagrl29:

jebrmbbeb:

I bet there are many women, single moms or not, who have children or not, who would be very grateful for consideration in the work place. I think the fact that people are upset by this is absurd. Because you know what, a lot of women do make dinner for their families. 

From the feminist point of view, you don't want the pity? You want to be treated the same as every male in the workplace? Then fine. But I'll bet there's a lot of women who would appreciate this. Finding fault with compassion; now that's sad. 

exactly! me and DH must be of the few that still hold traditional values.  He works a LOT,  and i'm taking care of the kid and making sure the house is taken care of and somehow in between all that , I also run my own business.  I never liked working in an office, I never felt they were flexible at all.  I wished they had been, I can't imagine working in one with a kid now.  You would use all your time up on doctor appts and the kid being sick.   and I take offense to the "you didn't build that" explanation.  ok sure, i get my mail from the post office, I cash my checks at the bank, and I travel on roads that have been constructed for us.  but EFFF that, I'm the one working my @ss off and so is DH to make our living....no one is helping us.

Saying that a woman should have flexibility to cook is pretty sexist.  Saying that all employees should have flexibility for work-life balance is appropriate.  Making proper working conditions a "female" issue is dumb - it's a human being issue.

I don't think it was just about cooking.  I thought it was something to do with all the kids needing to go to a football game or something like that