President Romney

[Eskimo]

I'm pretty much thinkin' by now that this whole thing is over as soon as the first debate.

I mean, really dude. This is about as "easy" a Republican election as you can get, and Romney's fuckin' seppukued about 6.395 times already, if that's even possible.

Really not pleased with the O-man, but he's so winning in November. Mormon dude's a goddamn mouthbreather lately.

[Llamas]

Yep, I'm less and less unsure about which way this election will go. Romney and the Reps keep shooting themselves in the foot and are losing support. The Gallup polls, which are almost always right, predict an Obama win. I really don't think Romney has a shot.

[Little_Miss_1565]

Clinton put it pretty well last night on the Daily Show (or was it the night before? DVR makes me feel like a time traveller): Romney was playing whack-a-mole all through the primaries, and had to make a ton of promises to a lot of people, which pushed him further to the right. Now he has emerged victorious from the primary season, and it's like the campaign is surprised to find out that they have to juke back to the center, but how do you do that without breaking the commitments already made (and breaking commitments and flip-flopping is already a weak spot for Romney).

The lesson I took from the GW Bush Administration is that you can't run America like a business, because the role people expect a government to have in their lives involves way more social, touchy-feely, quality of life stuff than it has in the past. Businesses give zero fucks about the lives of the people who work for them - they only care about the output of work. You privilege business (really Wall Street) too much, they get crazy and nearly wipe out the world economy. People want to run America like a business because that's what they know, and if they see success in their own lives in business, it's natural to think those lessons could apply on a larger scale. But this is a big-ass country.

[MOTO13]

Clinton put it pretty well last night on the Daily Show (or was it the night before? DVR makes me feel like a time traveller): Romney was playing whack-a-mole all through the primaries, and had to make a ton of promises to a lot of people, which pushed him further to the right. Now he has emerged victorious from the primary season, and it's like the campaign is surprised to find out that they have to juke back to the center, but how do you do that without breaking the commitments already made (and breaking commitments and flip-flopping is already a weak spot for Romney).

The lesson I took from the GW Bush Administration is that you can't run America like a business, because the role people expect a government to have in their lives involves way more social, touchy-feely, quality of life stuff than it has in the past. Businesses give zero fucks about the lives of the people who work for them - they only care about the output of work. You privilege business (really Wall Street) too much, they get crazy and nearly wipe out the world economy. People want to run America like a business because that's what they know, and if they see success in their own lives in business, it's natural to think those lessons could apply on a larger scale. But this is a big-ass country.

This proves you really have not one god damn clue about what you are talking about. Businesses do not care about employees? What an incredibly stupid fucking statement. Have you ever run a business with employees? One of the most expensive costs is retraining employees. Employees are some of your best assets. Employee turnover can ruin a business. Quality employees can make you rich. Poor employees can bankrupt you. So getting the right mix is crucial. Businesses generally operate based on efficiency, limited budgets, time constraints, and must answer to the customer. If you are a corp, you also answer to the stockholders. The people who invest in your company and expect a fair return on their investment. The problem you see is people getting let go or fired etc... Many times this is due to downsizing or simply staying competetive in a business environment or shedding yourself of idiots. Unions handcuff the corp world with crazy contracts and when the unions get busted, there is generally a downsizing in employees. Don't need them to operate effectively. This is why the best and brightest in the business world generally are at the top. Fact is, if you treat employees like shit, your output and product will generally suffer.

[Godxilla]

Moto, you said it beautifully.

[Little_Miss_1565]

Places like Google and Apple get that, sure. But every other corporation I've worked for, especially in this economy, seems to be operating under the assumption that I should just feel lucky to have a job, period. Then again, the company I used to work for is in the news in a big way today as they're about to get pieced off and sold *again*, and I work in a field that's relatively new and that many people don't seem to fully understand or really know how to manage. I'm glad I work for the people I do now, as I work much better in small businesses than corporations, and this is also a big reason why I started the solopreneur work I've been doing. When you're at the director level and run shit, people care about keeping you. When you're a coordinator or manager, no one gives a fuck. And there are increasingly fewer directors and VPs out there.

Something that occurred to me - the people who get full refunds on their paycheck withholdings, part of the mythical 47%...they don't pay more than they owe, and they end up owing nothing. So why is it that Romney rightfully doesn't feel bad about paying an effective 13-14% income tax because that's what he owes and why should he pay more than he owes, but the people who end up owing nothing should pay more? Why does it become a personal attack on these "shiftless" workers, and not a "hey how about we tune up the tax code"?

[MOTO13]

Places like Google and Apple get that, sure. But every other corporation I've worked for, especially in this economy, seems to be operating under the assumption that I should just feel lucky to have a job, period. Then again, the company I used to work for is in the news in a big way today as they're about to get pieced off and sold *again*, and I work in a field that's relatively new and that many people don't seem to fully understand or really know how to manage. I'm glad I work for the people I do now, as I work much better in small businesses than corporations, and this is also a big reason why I started the solopreneur work I've been doing. When you're at the director level and run shit, people care about keeping you. When you're a coordinator or manager, no one gives a fuck. And there are increasingly fewer directors and VPs out there.

Something that occurred to me - the people who get full refunds on their paycheck withholdings, part of the mythical 47%...they don't pay more than they owe, and they end up owing nothing. So why is it that Romney rightfully doesn't feel bad about paying an effective 13-14% income tax because that's what he owes and why should he pay more than he owes, but the people who end up owing nothing should pay more? Why does it become a personal attack on these "shiftless" workers, and not a "hey how about we tune up the tax code"?

Right now, in this economy and point in time, people are lucky to be employed and make a decent living. I fully agree now that I have read what I shot my mouth of about that you are correct on one thing...business does not necessarily always care about the individual. It cares about function the individual does to some degree. Faster, better, cheaper. This is the montra in THIS economy. I do know many businesses that once you are employed there, you have unreal security. They take care of their own. But it must operate effectively and profitably to give this security to their employees. Government to some extent takes the business model and turns it upside down. Profit, efficiency, effectiveness are not required to a large extent. Government is simply in the business of spending...your money. The concept of a going concern is not regarded.

[Harleyquiiinn]

Places like Google and Apple get that, sure. But every other corporation I've worked for, especially in this economy, seems to be operating under the assumption that I should just feel lucky to have a job, period. Then again, the company I used to work for is in the news in a big way today as they're about to get pieced off and sold *again*, and I work in a field that's relatively new and that many people don't seem to fully understand or really know how to manage. I'm glad I work for the people I do now, as I work much better in small businesses than corporations, and this is also a big reason why I started the solopreneur work I've been doing. When you're at the director level and run shit, people care about keeping you. When you're a coordinator or manager, no one gives a fuck. And there are increasingly fewer directors and VPs out there.

Something that occurred to me - the people who get full refunds on their paycheck withholdings, part of the mythical 47%...they don't pay more than they owe, and they end up owing nothing. So why is it that Romney rightfully doesn't feel bad about paying an effective 13-14% income tax because that's what he owes and why should he pay more than he owes, but the people who end up owing nothing should pay more? Why does it become a personal attack on these "shiftless" workers, and not a "hey how about we tune up the tax code"?

You used to work for EMI ?

[Little_Miss_1565]

Right now, in this economy and point in time, people are lucky to be employed and make a decent living. I fully agree now that I have read what I shot my mouth of about that you are correct on one thing...business does not necessarily always care about the individual. It cares about function the individual does to some degree. Faster, better, cheaper. This is the montra in THIS economy. I do know many businesses that once you are employed there, you have unreal security. They take care of their own. But it must operate effectively and profitably to give this security to their employees. Government to some extent takes the business model and turns it upside down. Profit, efficiency, effectiveness are not required to a large extent. Government is simply in the business of spending...your money. The concept of a going concern is not regarded.

I appreciate this. My concern is that once we get out of this economic slump, I don't think that salaries and benefits chipped away to get through this period are going to go back up. I'm all for profit, efficiency and effectiveness, but not at the sacrifice of taking care of our own in society. A lot of government operations care a bit too much about doing things a certain way than providing good service in the most cost-effective means possible.

You used to work for EMI ?

Yep. EMI is dead, long live EMI.

[Godxilla]

So, one debate down. Romney wins. Obama's on the defensive. And Jim Lehrer can't control two lil' political farts. That 5 trillion dollars in cuts thing was funny. Romney thought that Ron Paul's plan of $1 trillion in cuts was too much, so how can he possibly do what Obama said? And screw Big Bird.