"You didn't build that" - Obama

[Kasz216]

theprof00 said:

Kasz216 said:

badgenome said:

Kasz216 said:

Or at the least you could argue for "Progressive Reuglations" that ramp up the bigger you get.

Yeah, at the very least. The only problem I see with it is that regulations are always sold as "sticking it to the fat cats" anyway when the fat cats can always afford to comply (especially when they help write the damn things), and since they're always going to be sold as being progressive even if they're extremely regressive, you'll never know unless you look into just what the regulations do. And even though people seem to know that politicians are always full of shit, they also seem to always buy into this idea that a given regulation is just there to stop Evil Guys, Inc. from dumping AIDS in the water supply and could in no way hurt the small business owner if a pol tells them so. But there is no real substitute for people being informed, I guess, and when they're not... well, we end up here.

Yep.  It's sad that there isn't some sort of miraculous database that gives people access to information in seconds in which it previously would of took hours and sometimes weeks of grueling research to look up itself.

Eh, then again if it did exist it'd probably have porn that would distract everyone anyway.

A miraculous database with as enough lies as truths so to render itself no more efficient nor easy than weeks of grueling research.

If only some based realist informed you of this before you decided to acquiesce to sarcasm. Such tradgedy.

 

This is the first time I see eye to eye with badge. But for example, when I see someone like Mitt doing all these things historically that seem, well, extremely harmful economically but good for personal fortune, what am I supposed to think? It's not a problem that's as easily understood in the way you paint it. He's the one who is right? His history was taking companies, shipping the jobs, and liquidating national companies that provided jobs. That didn't increase our economy, or our tax revenue, or our middle class. But, he's the one who is right?

As another example, you say national health is bad for economy. In MA, where I live, sure prices went up, but then costs plummeted and are now a fifth of what they were pre-mandate. Yet Mitt is right that it is bad...when he was the one who did it in the first place and it worked? I'm supposed to just accept when you say it's bad?

How am I supposed to think when you're against something that I've seen work, and then act as if these solutions of yours are so common and basic that THE INTERNET of all places, is a reliable source.

That rationale is completely backwards to me, counterintuitive and unforgiving.

II don't know.  Maybe it's just me, but I find it pretty easy to sort the lies from the truth, you just need to employ your critical thinking skills.

Which, you don't seem to be doing... because you probably haven't actually read his position on Healthcare.  As for what he says about Mass?

"When I was governor of Massachusetts, we instituted a plan that got our citizens insured without raising taxes and without a government takeover. Other states will choose to go in different directions. It is the genius of federalism that it encourages experimentation, with each state pursuing what works best for them. ObamaCare's disregard for this core aspect of U.S. tradition is one of its most egregious failings."

http://www.protectpatientsnow.org/content/romney-why-id-repeal-obamacare

 

 

Also... no Mitt Romney's buisness record DID help the US.  You should know that enough based on your own counter arguments to your arguements.   Mitt Romney at Bain capital was trying to make broken companies work.

What's worse for the US economy?   Shipping most of a companies manufacturing jobs overseas?   Or having all that companies jobs lost because it went bankrupt?  If the failing companies fail... then they get liquidated.

Your problem with Mitt Romney's way of doing buisness seems to be largely based on ignorance on what companies like Bain Capital do.

Companies like Bain Capital are essentially the Doctors of the Buisness world.

I mean, would you complain about a Doctor who took did lifesaving surgery that made a patients body not work as well?  Or that had patients die but still charged the relatives?

Keep in mind.  Doctors get paid too.

The difference between a company like Bain Capital and a Doctor is...  the Doctor gets the same amount of money no matter whether he succeeds or not.

Bain Capital makes more money if it saves it's patient and then resells the successful company.

 

I mean sure, you might see the occasional attack video, which oddly all were after Romney left Bain... where some average employee says "Things were fine before Bain came in."

They mean fine for them.  They aren't buisness experts.

 

It's why a LOT of demcorats have broken ranks from Obama on such attacks.  Hell, even Bill Clinton, whose wife is secretary of state spoke out against the Obama attacks!

Even he felt the need to come out and say what Bain Captial did was good work.