Obama and Romney Outline Their Policies for Tech Startups

Status
Not open for further replies.

Martell77

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2007
115
0
18,680
0
Interesting contrast in the responses. Romney responds with a plan to streamline operation and to get the government out of the way as much and as responsibly as possible, while Obama responds with a campaign speech and details more governmant intrusion. Government does not innovate, the best example is the military. When they want a new aircraft or anything, they look to private sector companies to design and meet their goals.

The fact that Romney is/was a businessman and Obama has never worked in the in private sector has never been clearer. The question Nov 6th really is whether people want more government or less.
 

deadlockedworld

Distinguished
Aug 13, 2009
2,357
1
20,160
124
Just for the sake of debate: improving schools to train American workers for the tech sector vs. opening up visas to allow more foreign workers.

Obviously we need to do both, but both ideas here are valid and worthwhile.
 

shafe88

Distinguished
Jul 6, 2010
854
1
19,015
11
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]obama is an idiot[/citation]Don't forget etch-a sketch Mitten's he's an idiot too. I support Jill Stein so neither idiot's will get my vote.
 

giovanni86

Distinguished
May 10, 2007
466
0
18,790
4



Well its nice to know who your voting for. Because there both idiots, but the idiot Obama has a better plan then romney, and he's going to win :cry:
 

v90k

Distinguished
Jan 17, 2012
96
1
18,665
7
Open more visas that way we can provide even more jobs to foreigners and our future kids can care less about education! That way we can save billions on educational funding and have everything made overseas. Hell, I might as well go to college in another country for way cheaper just as long as I can come back and get a job here! hell yeah
 

dkcomputer

Honorable
Apr 5, 2012
145
0
10,690
1
Yes, Obama has a better plan because the government is always GREAT at every private sector industry it touches - they all flourish with job growth................ Or at least, obamas worshipers are brainwashed to think that, even though we have this thing called "History" which they triumph as a liberal art, but apparently don't study it for Ship
 

nebun

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
2,841
0
20,810
19
[citation][nom]giovanni86[/nom]Well its nice to know who your voting for. Because there both idiots, but the idiot Obama has a better plan then romney, and he's going to win[/citation]
i am not voting for neither of these idiots
 

falchard

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
2,360
0
19,790
4
yea I am not voting for either too. They are pretty much the same. However, purely on this issue Romney has the right idea. Increase visas concentrating tech in the US, and create a 21st century K-12 cirruculum focused on current tech then tech of the 19th century.
 

blurr91

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2004
339
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]v90k[/nom]Open more visas that way we can provide even more jobs to foreigners and our future kids can care less about education! That way we can save billions on educational funding and have everything made overseas. Hell, I might as well go to college in another country for way cheaper just as long as I can come back and get a job here! hell yeah[/citation]

Taken this argument to its logical conclusion would be to close off the US economy. Have you thought about that scenario?
 

sykozis

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2008
1,759
5
19,865
37
You guys seem to miss 1 major issue here. Romney talks about cutting taxes, yet at the same time talks about increasing spending. Can someone explain to me exactly how you can reduce tax revenue (which means the government will have LESS MONEY TO SPEND), increase spending and still reduce the national debt. I'm no math major, but the last I checked the less money you have coming in, the less you have to spend without INCREASING DEBT.... And where exactly has Romney outlined his plan to fix the economy? All I've heard from him is "20% tax cut across the board".... Mathematically, it's impossible to reduce revenue, increase spending and reduce debt at the same time.

Some people need to lean a bit about economics.... This is simple economics 101.... less revenue + more spending = more debt

Yes, Romney is a businessman.... If you consider someone that buys profitable companies, immediately fires employees (hiring back a small percent of former employees at reduced wages), borrows money against the companies, then bankrupts them....a businessman.... Sounds to me like he's a typical rich, greedy bastard that only cares about his own pocket and nothing else....
 

junger

Honorable
Feb 26, 2012
7
0
10,510
0
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]You guys seem to miss 1 major issue here. Romney talks about cutting taxes, yet at the same time talks about increasing spending. Can someone explain to me exactly how you can reduce tax revenue (which means the government will have LESS MONEY TO SPEND), increase spending and still reduce the national debt. I'm no math major, but the last I checked the less money you have coming in, the less you have to spend without INCREASING DEBT.... And where exactly has Romney outlined his plan to fix the economy? All I've heard from him is "20% tax cut across the board".... Mathematically, it's impossible to reduce revenue, increase spending and reduce debt at the same time.Some people need to lean a bit about economics.... This is simple economics 101.... less revenue + more spending = more debtYes, Romney is a businessman.... If you consider someone that buys profitable companies, immediately fires employees (hiring back a small percent of former employees at reduced wages), borrows money against the companies, then bankrupts them....a businessman.... Sounds to me like he's a typical rich, greedy bastard that only cares about his own pocket and nothing else....[/citation]

Finally, someone not brainwashed.
 

blurr91

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2004
339
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]You guys seem to miss 1 major issue here. Romney talks about cutting taxes, yet at the same time talks about increasing spending. Can someone explain to me exactly how you can reduce tax revenue (which means the government will have LESS MONEY TO SPEND), increase spending and still reduce the national debt. I'm no math major, but the last I checked the less money you have coming in, the less you have to spend without INCREASING DEBT.... And where exactly has Romney outlined his plan to fix the economy? All I've heard from him is "20% tax cut across the board".... Mathematically, it's impossible to reduce revenue, increase spending and reduce debt at the same time.Some people need to lean a bit about economics.... This is simple economics 101.... less revenue + more spending = more debtYes, Romney is a businessman.... If you consider someone that buys profitable companies, immediately fires employees (hiring back a small percent of former employees at reduced wages), borrows money against the companies, then bankrupts them....a businessman.... Sounds to me like he's a typical rich, greedy bastard that only cares about his own pocket and nothing else....[/citation]

Socialist view of the economy is that the pie is fixed in size.

Capitalist view is to grow the pie.
 

thecolorblue

Honorable
Jun 5, 2012
548
0
10,980
0
[citation][nom]blurr91[/nom]Socialist view of the economy is that the pie is fixed in size.Capitalist view is to grow the pie.[/citation]
Planet Earth to unrestrained Capitalism...

resources are limited, life support is limited, infinite growth concepts are for pea-brained uneducated idiots.

...p.s. you're killing me (and by extension yourself)
 

j2j663

Distinguished
Apr 29, 2011
414
0
18,860
27
[citation][nom]Martell77[/nom]Interesting contrast in the responses. Romney responds with a plan to streamline operation and to get the government out of the way as much and as responsibly as possible, while Obama responds with a campaign speech and details more governmant intrusion. Government does not innovate, the best example is the military. When they want a new aircraft or anything, they look to private sector companies to design and meet their goals.The fact that Romney is/was a businessman and Obama has never worked in the in private sector has never been clearer. The question Nov 6th really is whether people want more government or less.[/citation]


I completely agree with you that the government corps aren't nearly as innovative as the private sector, but the military is probably the worst example that you could have used, especially on a tech site.
You are about as naive as they get if you think that the military doesn't contribute to the tech world, and you must have missed the fact that war has been the reason for technological advancements since basically the beginning of time. We are only now coming into an era where there are many other things pushing technology forward.
 

thecolorblue

Honorable
Jun 5, 2012
548
0
10,980
0
[citation][nom]LightningStryk17[/nom]@people voting for neither candidate... have fun throwing your vote away.[/citation]
participation in a corrupt and bastardized system only serves to validate that corruption

have fun being an automaton
 

Martell77

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2007
115
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]You guys seem to miss 1 major issue here. Romney talks about cutting taxes, yet at the same time talks about increasing spending. Can someone explain to me exactly how you can reduce tax revenue (which means the government will have LESS MONEY TO SPEND), increase spending and still reduce the national debt. I'm no math major, but the last I checked the less money you have coming in, the less you have to spend without INCREASING DEBT.... And where exactly has Romney outlined his plan to fix the economy? All I've heard from him is "20% tax cut across the board".... Mathematically, it's impossible to reduce revenue, increase spending and reduce debt at the same time.Some people need to lean a bit about economics.... This is simple economics 101.... less revenue + more spending = more debtYes, Romney is a businessman.... If you consider someone that buys profitable companies, immediately fires employees (hiring back a small percent of former employees at reduced wages), borrows money against the companies, then bankrupts them....a businessman.... Sounds to me like he's a typical rich, greedy bastard that only cares about his own pocket and nothing else....[/citation]

Simple explination is that by lowering taxes across the board (among the other changes he wants), will allow business to open or expand. Meaning more people at work and able to spend non-government money.

Lower taxes + more taxpayers = MORE revenue

Lowering taxes means people will have more money to spend and as they spend it, companies will need to increase production to meet the demand. Meaning more jobs and the economic circle goes round and round.

Raising taxes has the opposite effect, people have less to spend, which drops product demand, which means lower production needed = less workers needed. Less workers = less revenue from the higher taxes.

Also, corproations do NOT pay taxes. Regardless of the tax rate imposed on them, they just pass that onto customers as part of the price of their products. Raise corporate taxes = HIGHER prices for us. Same goes for the CEO's and other corporate officers, they will just give themselves a raise to cover the increased taxes and the company will raise prices to cover the increased operating costs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY