2012 Election

[aknowledgeableperson]

Are people completely forgetting what the alternatively proposed solutions were?

No. The point is the Kansas City plant was close to closing anyway. Those employees would have been out of jobs in a short time. The Bain company at least kept it open for 9 more years.

But still, GM had to cut jobs in order to survive. So, what is the difference?

[FangKC]

Obama ad attacking Romney’s involvement with KC company isn’t running in Missouri

http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/ob ... -missouri/

Obama campaign uses Kansas City steel plant to hammer Romney

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... 2012-05-14

[FangKC]

Missouri House inducts Limbaugh in secret ceremony

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/201 ... -ceremony/

[KCMax]

Americans Elect, the third party, fails to find a candidate.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... lure_.html

[aknowledgeableperson]

Given the beatings Mitt has taken so far it amazes me to find that in many recent polls he is in a dead heat with Barack. One poll had Obama gaining in Blue States since he announced his support for gay marriage but losing (of course) in Red States but also losing ground in those states considered toss-ups. Seems many of those toss-upstates have already passed Defense of Marriage laws or state constitutional amendments by wide margins. Of course different organizations have different lists of what states are considered "toss-ups".

[mean]

What I find interesting is that a majority of people in polls usually come out in favor of extending equal legal rights to all couples. But when you call it marriage, many shy away. To me, this is pedantic semantics, and is probably rooted in the widely-disseminated misinformation that if the government makes "gay marriage" legal, all churches will be required to marry gay couples regardless of their beliefs, which is head-shakingly stupid. Churches do not have to marry anyone they don't wish to marry right now, and are at liberty to set whatever requirements they wish. Some friends of mine got married in an evangelical church last year, and were required to pay for and attend a bunch of "marriage classes" which, according to them, basically amounted to telling them they should never use birth control. Had they not taken those classes, the church would not have married them.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Understand your take about the "misinformed" religious objection to gay marriage. But I also understand the fear the conservative religious have about being forced to "accept" gay marriage. Afterall we had the recent matter of the initial take that religious organizations would have to provide contraceptive services to women even if it was unacceptable on religious grounds by a religious organization before the admin changed to having the ins co provide the services.

Believe that it all boils down to a matter of trust and the conservative religious do not have must trust in the "liberal" government.

[mean]

Are you kidding? After the giant media explosion and outrage expressed from every quarter over the contraception issue, they still feel like little powerless persecuted lambs? Sigh.

[bobbyhawks]

Are people completely forgetting what the alternatively proposed solutions were?

No. The point is the Kansas City plant was close to closing anyway. Those employees would have been out of jobs in a short time. The Bain company at least kept it open for 9 more years.

But still, GM had to cut jobs in order to survive. So, what is the difference?

There is a difference in my opinion. Bain is in the business of making themselves and shareholders of the company in question money. The end result of a successful company is a company that makes money. This can be done in any number of ways, but one of the quickest ways to increase profitability is to fire people and make existing workers do more with less through fear of losing even more jobs. The jobs lost do not hurt the company, and the company only occasionally has a stake in the community to where laying off a ton of its own workers would have a negative impact on profitability. Bain is also brought in so that the brass at the company can explain away and lament layoffs by blaming them on Bain.

The government is in the business of making the most people happy and safe that it can. Recently, it seems like it has been run more like a company that pays attention only to its largest shareholders (if you consider paying taxes as holding shares), but the purpose is still to make the most people happy. When your product is to create a safe and happy environment, and when your consumers are also shareholders and critical to achieving success, then you have a completely different type of management that needs to occur. Swinging a machete through the forest will bring the forest down with you. If the government hadn't given those companies a loan, they would have done what they needed to do to make money without an influx of billions of dollars in loans. That would involve firing a lot more people, to the tune of the number of people it takes to support tens of billions of dollars in labor and product development.

The government acted to delay or prevent a temporary decision that would have further troubled an already fragile economy. This would have made a huge number of people in America unhappy and more reliant on handouts. So where I see the difference is that the government will sometimes make moves that are a collective sacrifice for the good of all its citizens. Bain has little to no responsibility to the product lines of its clients or to the employees of those companies. I have no problem with Bain, and I think it is unfair for people to slam Romney for working there, but I also think touting it as some magical experience that will directly relate to running the world's largest economy and social services machine is laughable. You can look at balance sheets in Bain's world and make all of the decisions you need. In government, that is a dangerous thing to do, and I have yet to gather through my limited exposure to Romney's past where he actually cared about the general welfare of the populace (other than through Romney-care).

[KCMax]

FWIW, former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt is getting some light buzz about being a possible VP nominee.

Does he even help Romney in Missouri? I know a lot of Republicans that don't exactly have a positive view of him.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Obama ad attacking Romney’s involvement with KC company isn’t running in Missouri
Obama campaign uses Kansas City steel plant to hammer Romney

Haven't confirmed at this time but one of the talking heads on the weekend political shows pointed out that at the time when the Kansas City plant was closed Romney was the head of the Salt Lake City Olympics and Bain was headed by a bigtime Obama mega-donor.

[bobbyhawks]

Obama ad attacking Romney’s involvement with KC company isn’t running in Missouri
Obama campaign uses Kansas City steel plant to hammer Romney

Haven't confirmed at this time but one of the talking heads on the weekend political shows pointed out that at the time when the Kansas City plant was closed Romney was the head of the Salt Lake City Olympics and Bain was headed by a bigtime Obama mega-donor.

As with infidelity, I don't think that the actual act of working for Bain is the problem. It is the the use of that in campaigning as a qualification for the Presidency that is troubling. I don't care if a guy messed around on his wife if he is a competent legislator, but if he runs on a platform of family values or claims to be holier than thou, I have a huge problem with it.

Bain and companies like Bain aren't all bad, but claiming that there is a one to one relationship between working for a successful company and running the country does not make sense to me unless you are able to trumpet a history if advocating for people, for helping the helpless, or for acting for the greater good. This is item number 5 or 6 on the list of priorities for most private companies.

[beautyfromashes]

Business accumen is the most important characteristic for me in choosing a President. I think all the social issues, inspirational messages, communication style, schtick, etc. gets in the way of the most important job of the President....absolutely murder every other country in creating jobs and providing for our citizens. I want an economics warrior. I'm tired of China taking all our jobs, so if Huntsman speaking Mandarin helps him screw them out of a couple million jobs...he gets my vote. If Obama singing Barry White can get some euros out of Merkels panties....he's the man for the job. And if being a nasty, cut throught Bain-leading used car salesman can solve our huge economics issues....Mitt Romney is who we need.

[phuqueue]

Romney doesn't want to create jobs or provide for citizens, he just wants jobs to be created (somehow) and citizens to provide for themselves (or not, he's made it clear he doesn't really care either way). This is pretty central to his platform. Business acumen is not necessarily applicable to running something that is not a business (like, say, the federal government).

[KCMax]

I'm not saying its a bad idea, but for whatever reason we don't elect many successful businessmen. W. Bush tried a bit, but by most accounts was a failure. Truman was a business failure.

FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Clinton, Obama were all lifelong academics/attorneys/politicians.

Reagan was an actor. Ike was a military man.

HW Bush was a fairly successful businessman (oil), although he was helped a lot by his father's finances. Carter arguably was a pretty successful businessman, although his experience was pretty limited to his farm. Herbert Hoover was a very successful businessman. And a poor economy doomed all three of them. I don't think that means anything, but its interesting.

[bobbyhawks]

And if being a nasty, cut throught Bain-leading used car salesman can solve our huge economics issues....Mitt Romney is who we need.

So how is that what we need, though? Nobody has convinced me that his experience is relevant to the presidency. It is a completely different gig.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/ ... r_too.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/2 ... residents-
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/ ... presidents

[beautyfromashes]

Business acumen is not necessarily applicable to running something that is not a business (like, say, the federal government).

Really?!? The President is the head of the largest spending entity in the world, the largest job creator, the largest owner of property and real assets, etc. What are your criteria for voting for a Presidental candidate?

[bobbyhawks]

Business acumen is not necessarily applicable to running something that is not a business (like, say, the federal government).

Really?!? The President is the head of the largest spending entity in the world, the largest job creator, the largest owner of property and real assets

...the largest charitable contributer in the world, an investor in education and public welfare (both social and service oriented), a protector of clean water, a protector of our nation's electric grid, the leader of the largest and most powerful protection force, the individual with the largest capacity for destruction of nations and people, the driving force of anti-terrorism efforts, an overseer of what it morally just, a contributer to public safety and fairness, a protector of the environment, a promoter of goodwill to the world, a negotiator, a compromiser, a bellwether, a source of inspiration, a source of direction, a figurehead, a fighter against poverty, a fighter against hunger, a figher against crime, a fighter against bigotry, an enabler of success, etc.

If this election were only about dollars and cents, then Romney would be a more realistic option to me, but the economy is only a portion of what concerns a president on a daily basis, and promoting a sound global economy involves an entirely different skillset than does management of a single entity. Many would have us believe that slashing and pulling in the reins will magically fix all of our ills, but most of the choices, and most of the legislative efforts, and most of the getting your hands dirty is on a completely different level than a "will this make us money or not" decision. His most relevant experience is clearly his time as governor, but he obviously wishes to shy away from his record there due to poor job creation and his connection to Romney-care. I don't get why people are so willing to forget what is far and away the most relevant component of his background and instead focus on something that is very different.

I do want to clarify that I don't think that being a successful businessman automatically makes you a bad choice, but I think it is dead wrong to assume that a good businessman automatically makes for a good president.

[KCMax]

Businessmen are also used to making executive decisions and being able to control every aspect of a business organization. A President's power is actually far more limited in relation to the size of the government. Obama (or Romney) can't just implement everything on their agenda. They have to deal with Boehner and Pelosi and Mitch McConnell and the 535 egos that sit on Capitol Hill, not to mention the courts, the media, special interest groups that fund their campaign, and of course, voters.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Politician or businessman it doesn't really matter. What does matter is the understanding of power and how to use it. Lately a book has been released about Lyndon Johnson. This is one book of a series of books on Johnson. It covers the early period of his presidency. What is studied is how he used his powers to push through the Civil Rights Act. I have only read excerpts but this is one book I just might read as a whole.

If I want to compare Johnson to Obama and the use of power I would probably give Obama at best a C grade with regards to his term of office so far. True, he got a health care act passed but it sure wasn't on his terms. Yes, he got an early economic stimulus passed but again it wasn't on his terms. Obama might be better using his powers with regards to foreign affairs compared to the domestic front.

Would Romney be any better? Only way to find out is to put him into the office. At first I thought I could not vote for Romney (always thought the GOP would come up with someone better). I thought I could see myself vote for Obama. I am still up-in-the-air and will probably decide when I get to the polling place. Obama has not been that bad of a president but that is not saying much and that is the problem.