Obama or Romney ?

[legolouman]

I'm in for Romney, I'm normally anti big-business, and often lean a little towards the left, however I think the only way to fix the economy is with business. Someone who made a fortune running businesses (even the ones he closed) can fix the economy, and work on the debt. You can run a business with money you don't have, just like you can't run a country with money you don't have. I stand by Romney, even though I can't vote, and the people's vote doesn't matter in an election.

[bb113]

I'm in for Romney, I'm normally anti big-business, and often lean a little towards the left, however I think the only way to fix the economy is with business. Someone who made a fortune running businesses (even the ones he closed) can fix the economy, and work on the debt. You can run a business with money you don't have, just like you can't run a country with money you don't have. I stand by Romney, even though I can't vote, and the people's vote doesn't matter in an election.

What exactly do you expect him to do?

[evolve]

We now have a permanent US military base here with thousands of US troops

Really? Ive heard about the AFB in Alice springs, but that's supposed to be a tiny base in the middle of the outback (and hardly thousands large).....what other bases do we have there?

[ShireSilver]

I'm in for Romney, I'm normally anti big-business, and often lean a little towards the left, however I think the only way to fix the economy is with business. Someone who made a fortune running businesses (even the ones he closed) can fix the economy, and work on the debt. You can run a business with money you don't have, just like you can't run a country with money you don't have. I stand by Romney, even though I can't vote, and the people's vote doesn't matter in an election.

The problem with this is that Romney's business experience is all in government-connected big-businesses. He has very little understanding of how small businesses, the engine of job growth, work. He'll do a great job ensuring profits for large companies with lobbyists, but won't be able to solve the real problems.

[mdude77]

I'm in for Romney, I'm normally anti big-business, and often lean a little towards the left, however I think the only way to fix the economy is with business. Someone who made a fortune running businesses (even the ones he closed) can fix the economy, and work on the debt. You can run a business with money you don't have, just like you can't run a country with money you don't have. I stand by Romney, even though I can't vote, and the people's vote doesn't matter in an election.

Like most others in government, he's a politician.  He's there for his own pocketbook and ego, and he'll be more than happy to do the bidding of his corporate sponsors.

Only once we take the money/career aspect out of government will the power hungry greedy psychos leave.

M

[AndrewBUD]

Government should be set up like in Canada..... Nothing ever get's accomplished because no one ever agrees on anything...

[fornit]

The most important issues to me are not addressed by either mainstream candidate:


1) Balancing the budget (especially through cutting defense spending). (Romney/Ryan does not even pretend to plan to balance the budget for many decades)
2) End the drug war.
3) Stop using the tax system to micromanage everyone's lives, trying to pressure them into taking out student debt, getting married, having kids, buying a house, etc. Replace the current tax system with one that can be explained with no more than 100 pages.
4) Stop invading other countries.
5) Respect civil liberties, the need for warrants for all searches, the prohibition on torture, and due process.
6) Ending legal tender laws

i think you are right on all points.
but you are missing some every important issues, mostly that the us economy is extremely energy-inefficient and highly dependent on oil. as long as no us government is willing to admit to its people that the country is on its way into economic collapse and has to implement some rather drastic measures, you are fucked no matter how you handle all the other issues.

[legolouman]

I'm in for Romney, I'm normally anti big-business, and often lean a little towards the left, however I think the only way to fix the economy is with business. Someone who made a fortune running businesses (even the ones he closed) can fix the economy, and work on the debt. You can run a business with money you don't have, just like you can't run a country with money you don't have. I stand by Romney, even though I can't vote, and the people's vote doesn't matter in an election.

What exactly do you expect him to do?

I'm hoping here's there with a patriotic agenda. I know he will make a lot of moves that protect big business, but at the same time, having tax cuts for the rich and businesses will bring more businesses back to America. In turn creating jobs and boosting economy. I hope that his history with Bane Capital will help him balance the budget like a business (being in the green). My only worry is if he is there to cause damage to our rights, by protecting businesses too much. That couples with the thought he could be there only for his own gains.[quote

Like most others in government, he's a politician.  He's there for his own pocketbook and ego, and he'll be more than happy to do the bidding of his corporate sponsors.

Only once we take the money/career aspect out of government with the power hungry greedy psychos leave.

M

That is one of my big concerns, see the rest of my post. Bidding in the name of business could help the economy. Obama taxed business higher, with the theory that we get more money from them. By lowering the taxes of business, I think many will come back to America from countries they outsourced to/countries with little tax rate. Instead of taking a business for a ride with taxes, it would be better to get a smaller amount from MANY more businesses.

[bb113]

So you hope for Romney to cut taxes on businesses and the rich in an effort to balance the budget via increased economic activity and therefore increased tax revenue?

1) He is not directly in control of this. Levying taxes is up to congress.
2) If they tax less they will just borrow more.
3) What taxes will be cut by how much, and which businesses do you expect this to bring back to america? How long will it take to get these tax cuts through, and how long until the businesses return?

[bitcoinbear]

I'm in for Romney, I'm normally anti big-business, and often lean a little towards the left, however I think the only way to fix the economy is with business. Someone who made a fortune running businesses (even the ones he closed) can fix the economy, and work on the debt. You can run a business with money you don't have, just like you can't run a country with money you don't have. I stand by Romney, even though I can't vote, and the people's vote doesn't matter in an election.

The problem with this is that Romney's business experience is all in government-connected big-businesses. He has very little understanding of how small businesses, the engine of job growth, work. He'll do a great job ensuring profits for large companies with lobbyists, but won't be able to solve the real problems.

Here is another way Johnson is better than Romney. Johnson has plenty of business experience at the other end of the scale, he built up his own company from the ground floor.

[barbarousrelic]

2) If they tax less they will just borrow more.

I come from the future. This man speaks the truth.

[myrkul]

2) If they tax less they will just borrow print more.

I come from the future. This man speaks the truth.

fixed.

[Coincomm]

The Fed prints the money then lends it to the government at interest. It's both.

[myrkul]

The Fed prints the money then lends it to the government at interest. It's both.

True 'nuff.

[fornit]

none of which matters.
 in the end, money is just an organisational tool. the important thing is what you tax and how you spent the money on.
 the usa spends way too much money on military and neglects social investments and infrastructure. and when the shit really hits the fan, you will be living in a country with unreliable electricity and internet, no public transport infrastructure, cities planned for high mobility with no fuel, houses with bad isolation, too many uneducated people, powerplants for very expensive fossil fuels and a reliability on imported goods which cant be transported cheaply anymore.

[barbarousrelic]

The Fed prints the money then lends it to the government at interest. It's both.

To be extremely accurate, the government borrows money by issuing bonds which are purchased by both the market and the Fed. In 2011 the Fed purchased 61% of federal debt.

[nedbert9]

bingo

[mdude77]

none of which matters.
 in the end, money is just an organisational tool. the important thing is what you tax and how you spent the money on.
 the usa spends way too much money on military and neglects social investments and infrastructure. and when the shit really hits the fan, you will be living in a country with unreliable electricity and internet, no public transport infrastructure, cities planned for high mobility with no fuel, houses with bad isolation, too many uneducated people, powerplants for very expensive fossil fuels and a reliability on imported goods which cant be transported cheaply anymore.

Hence the inherent danger of fiat money.  Government can not be trusted to leave the printing presses alone.  It's far too tempting to buy votes by promising things that can't be paid for aside from borrowing from the future.

The piper will be here soon to collect his due.

M

[fornit]

Hence the inherent danger of fiat money.  Government can not be trusted to leave the printing presses alone.  It's far too tempting to buy votes by promising things that can't be paid for aside from borrowing from the future.

The piper will be here soon to collect his due.

M

i think thats a very widespread misconception.
how exactly do you borrow from the future by spending money?

you borrow from people, not the future. they could just give it back, future saved. the problem with countries being indebted is that its a debt evenly spread among the population. you share it with everyone else. so when countries become indebted more and more it just means that the poor are actually even poorer than they appear. its just another thing increasing the gap between rich and poor. and thats the actual problem. i dont envy the rich, but a world with finite ressources just doesnt allow for infinite wealth. for every rich guy wasting ressources on multiples houses, boats or a trip into space, something else doesnt get build. like essential infrastructure.
 

[bb113]

Hence the inherent danger of fiat money.  Government can not be trusted to leave the printing presses alone.  It's far too tempting to buy votes by promising things that can't be paid for aside from borrowing from the future.

The piper will be here soon to collect his due.

M

i think thats a very widespread misconception.
how exactly do you borrow from the future by spending money?

you borrow from people, not the future. they could just give it back, future saved. the problem with countries being indebted is that its a debt evenly spread among the population. you share it with everyone else. so when countries become indebted more and more it just means that the poor are actually even poorer than they appear. its just another thing increasing the gap between rich and poor. and thats the actual problem. i dont envy the rich, but a world with finite ressources just doesnt allow for infinite wealth. for every rich guy wasting ressources on multiples houses, boats or a trip into space, something else doesnt get build. like essential infrastructure.
 

You borrow from the future by creating the illusion of extra wealth. People act on this illusion to consume additional resources, etc. The future people then need to work harder to extract and use those resources than they would have needed to otherwise.