Obama and Romney Outline Their Policies for Tech Startups

[Martell77]

[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]The problem is, Romney has a history of increasing unemployment as I previously outlined. He has no history of actually creating jobs...only destroying companies. Personally, I'd be more inclined to trust someone like Steve Wozniak....who's actually created jobs in the past. I, personally, find it hard to trust someone who hides their money in overseas bank accounts, hides their tax filings, tell his rich buddies that "it's not my job to worry about that 47%" while telling the rest of the country the complete opposite, or says he wouldn't have bailed out the industry that supported his family (Romney's father worked for Chrysler)...or that will allow their religious beliefs to take precedence over people's right to make their own choices.Vote however you want....to each their own. Just keep in mind that his "economic plan" is only part of his platform. There are other "issues" his "plan" addresses that people need to take a serious look at....but this isn't the place for that discussion.[/citation]

The 47% Romney was talking about are people that are on government assistance and are not only happy to be, but also have no intention to ever getting off of it. He doesn't care to try to sway those voters as they are pretty much locked in Obama voters. People like that will always vote for the guy that will give them more. He didn't say he didn't care about them, he said he didn't care about trying for their votes. It disturbs me how many people are proudly on welfare.

As for job creation, what has Obama created other than massive debt? I know its easy to get focused on Romney here, but Obama's 4 years have not exactly been productive. Don't just pick apart Romney's record, take a good objective look at Obama's. As govenor of MA, Romney reduced unemploymet from 5.6% to 4.6% and balanced the budget without raising taxes. Under Obama the only way they can get unemployment numbers down is to stop counting certain groups of people, like those that didn't find work but ran out of unemployment benefits.

As for the rest of the platform, agree, this is not the place. The article is about IT/economics and thats were it needs to stay.

 

[thecolorblue]

You really don't understand capitalism at all.

A) Of course resources are not unlimited, thats why they are given certain values. (Gold is worth more than Silver because gold is less common)
B) Everyone knows we are affecting the enviroment, but when you have leeches like Al Gore out there pushing stupidity, it really does not help your case for conservation.
C) The economy has its ebbs and flows. With trends and technology constantly changing, this is inevitable. But the government getting involved with over regulation and bailouts does not help. Government should only stop abuse of the system and employees and stay out of the system itself. (GM bailout comes to mind, they went bankrupt anyway and they went through the same bankruptcy proceeding whether the government stepped in or not. Only thing that happened is that the government and union pretty much own GM now, which is not a good thing)

a) Show me a world economy wherein corporations are content with zero growth and a stock market that is content with that and I will concede that the world-at-large understands that resources are not unlimited.

b) There is no mass conservation effort of size and consequence sufficient to slow (let alone reverse) the ballistic course of environmental destruction that our capitalism is currently taking us down. that you would attempt to use an individual ex-politician as an excuse for this is an act of utter abject stupidity. Furthermore I'll be happy to inform you that any human alive today who denies that we are on a trajectory straight to the land of the %ucked either does not believe in the scientific process or is tragically and woefully ignorant of what science is, how science is done, and what science tells us about the life support system that produces the air you breathe, maintains the water you drink and provides a climate of suitable temperature for people to grow the monocultures that you rely on for food.

c) One job of governments is to regulate and constrain corporations from behaviors that will benefit them on the short term and destroy this little planet on the long term. everything else with regards to economies is of little long-term consequence. If you want your children's children to have a place to live then accept the scientific method or accept that the future for humanity isn't golden. If however you happen to have a wormhole in your garage leading to another habitable planet rich in metals that has a multi-billion year evolutionary history with life built upon Levo Amino Acids of the sort we depend on for sustenance... and lots of buried organic oil and coal produced from the corpses of life-forms extinguished 30-500 million years ago.... then by all means... burn away at full speed and grow into that new home-away-from-home as this Earth is transformed into something wholly unrecognizable and wholly inadequate for sustaining this population and life as we know it.

 

[jasonpwns]

[citation][nom]epiclection[/nom]Don't forget that you can thank Romney for all of the GMO franken-food that is now being foisted upon your dinner table. Monsanto was Romney's first job, they credit him with getting them out of the "making agent orange for the military" business and into the "screwing with food DNA against all logic and reason, ignoring evidence that it's dangerous, and then dousing it in toxic pesticides" business. You can thank his colleagues in the senate for preventing GMOs from having to be labeled. 49 out of 50 voting republicans said "no, you shouldn't have to label GMOs". By contrast, only half of the dems voted for it.Then there's the voter intimidation that Romney is not denouncing:http://inthesetimes.com/article/14 [...] ey_mailing[/citation]

Funny, because the UPS teamster union is using employees money to do the same thing essentially. My Union is also doing the same thing for Obama. Unions are bad business.

 

[Guest]

On a WEB site on the Internet, people are actually arguing that the military aka Defense Department has not contributed to technology in the world?

So you really do not get that DARPA has been the foundation of the ENTIRE information and technology world we know today.

The internet itself is the glaring ARE YOU THAT STUPID response, but there is also the entire computing industry that was created by the US Government, not only by the military and Defense Department, but to the CIA, NASA and other agencies that have created virtually the basis of every technology used today.

As for the two letters... Romney is either lying or doesn't get math. Obama at least address technology specific issues, and apparently knows what they are.

 

[Jackalope73]

Disclaimer: I didn't read either statement. I just read the comments to see the polarization of society. Politics suck, the world is obsessed with how things are done rather than actually getting anything done! That being said I would like to waste a moment of your time with run on sentences about how awesome science and technology is and the role it has on what we consider precious resources. I hope the intended audience of techno-enthusiasts focus on what is important and not what isn't.
As far as resources are concerned making a blanket statement that resources are limited to a culture that has made the leap into space is ignorant. The goal of all biological life is growth. In fact grow or die is a quite accurate view of the primary role of spreading and multiplying you genetic material to prove fitness and to ensure your traits are preserved. It is how evolution kind of works. If we can de-orbit 25 tons with technology that is largely 35 to 40 years old and that was based on technologies from the 1930s and'40s. Another 30 to 40 years prior. It is in our ability although not our current will to reap the bounty of the solar system and even beyond. One has only to imagine what this world and what other worlds awaits humanity if we had the will the budget and the leadership and true vision. Fear aside Kennedy hell even Nixon and later Reagan had a much better picture of the opportunity the stars provide than now. Everyone needs to watch some science fiction and read some too. Sci Fi has been right about pretty much every device in your life today. So come debate screw it,your going to pick your team regardless of the quarterback, hunker down with some snacks and stream some classic Sci Fi and remind yourself how awesome your smartphone actually is.
Look at it this way the only way to escape is to go were no man has gone before, because when he gets there.

 

[falchard]

@people voting for neither candidate... have fun throwing your vote away.

Not really since both the major party candidates diverge less then 1% on the issues. So voting for a major party has no impact on what you are voting for. Voting 3rd party is atleast trying to not vote for that guy.

Heck Romney wants to get rid of ObamaCare for RomneyCare. You know that thing in Massachussets thats exactly like ObamaCare. On spending once again identical on the issues. Foriegn policy, no diff. Freedom verse Security, same stance. Giving money to businesses, same idea. Keynesian verse Austrian, same stance. Immigration, neither will deal with. Social Policy, same effective ability.

On Romney's budget plan, his revenue plan actually does increase revenue. When you decrease the rate and decrease exemptions you keep more money on US Shores and increase the overrall paid. Depending on how far the rate is lowered and how many exemptions discontinued it could be a sizable increase in federal revenue. However, his spending plans reek of a failed CEO, ohh wait he was.

 

[john_4]

Impeach the Marxist Kenyan LIAR, closet Muslim occupying the White House.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]facistbook[/nom]Of course, anything Romney says should be taken with a grain of salt. He was for socialized healthcare before he was against it.I think because I hate Romney so much I'll start a rumor that he's a fascist and a Mormon... Oh, wait...[/citation]

Obama was literally a card-carrying member of the socialist party before he became a US Congressman, so your argument is hardly accurate.

 

[DRosencraft]

Too many different things to comment on so I'll just bundle it all in one post;

First, anyone who complains but doesn't vote is of little worth to our social system. We live in a Democracy. If you can't be bothered to at least pick who you think is the lesser of two evils then you're not in the least bit committed to seeing this country exist into the future. If you can't tell the difference between these two very different candidates, then you have been paying absolutely no attention to what's going on around you. News flash - a Democracy only works if the public is informed and voting. Talking about not liking anyone and that politics suck and saying you're not going to vote gets us nowhere. You think it's so bad, do something about it. Talk to your public constructively, start your own organization, run for office - do something other than sitting in a forum online thinking its cool to throw insults around and not actually participate in the political system.

Second, I've seen some comments on the capitalist model and tax policy. Yes, the goal of tax policy is to grow the pie. But if you take a look at current tax policy, dropping tax rates on higher income individuals and raising it on lower income individuals (the Conservative plan calls on people earning below $50,000 to pay a slightly higher rate) is counterproductive. Lower income individuals will have less money, being more likely to seek welfare, and thus increase gov't spending. There are complaints about hurting "job creators" but it is a false argument, as past experience has shown that nominal increases in our tax rate for higher income individuals has actually not hurt job creation at all. I would also note that Romney's tax plan is of little benefit to the middle class since it's impact will be a zero-sum game. He's stated he wants to lower rates but reduce deductions, so at the end of the year they have the same amount of money. In other words, when your paycheck comes you'll feel like you have more money, go spending willy-nilly, likely overspend and take on more personal debt, and when tax time comes around actually get back less to no money, maybe even have to pay back more, when you file your taxes come the April 15 deadline. It's an old business world smoke and mirrors trick for hiding negative budget info - like including a bond as part of your revenue package when it should really be part of the debt.

Third, I think a lot of the vapid people here need to stop throwing personal insults around at others and the men running for office. At best you are misinformed, and at worst you're showing yourself to be hateful and completely ignorant of any facts.

 

[happyballz]

Both are crooks with agendas.

 

[mage182]

[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]

He won't be able to grow the pie enough in 4 years to cover the changes he's suggesting.

Let's worry about a safe stable route to get back in the black before we start suggesting the explosive (read: reckless and unregulated) growth Mitt is a proponent of. No doubt more truckloads of money in his wealthy friend's pockets while the rest of us fight over a hand full of coins.

 

[catswold]

[citation][nom]j2j663[/nom]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.[/citation]

You Malthusian leftists have been preaching the same doom and gloom predictions for a very, very long time . . . and you have been proven wrong over and over again. I guess reality impinges very little on your universe.

Romney's path leads to an explosive growth in jobs, markets, and individual wealth; Obama's to more government, continued retarded economic growth and continued expansion of citizens who are dependent on government for their livelihood.

I choose growth, liberty, and prosperity over enslavement.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]DRosencraft[/nom]Too many different things to comment on so I'll just bundle it all in one post;First, anyone who complains but doesn't vote is of little worth to our social system. We live in a Democracy. If you can't be bothered to at least pick who you think is the lesser of two evils then you're not in the least bit committed to seeing this country exist into the future. If you can't tell the difference between these two very different candidates, then you have been paying absolutely no attention to what's going on around you. News flash - a Democracy only works if the public is informed and voting. Talking about not liking anyone and that politics suck and saying you're not going to vote gets us nowhere. You think it's so bad, do something about it. Talk to your public constructively, start your own organization, run for office - do something other than sitting in a forum online thinking its cool to throw insults around and not actually participate in the political system. Second, I've seen some comments on the capitalist model and tax policy. Yes, the goal of tax policy is to grow the pie. But if you take a look at current tax policy, dropping tax rates on higher income individuals and raising it on lower income individuals (the Conservative plan calls on people earning below $50,000 to pay a slightly higher rate) is counterproductive. Lower income individuals will have less money, being more likely to seek welfare, and thus increase gov't spending. There are complaints about hurting "job creators" but it is a false argument, as past experience has shown that nominal increases in our tax rate for higher income individuals has actually not hurt job creation at all. I would also note that Romney's tax plan is of little benefit to the middle class since it's impact will be a zero-sum game. He's stated he wants to lower rates but reduce deductions, so at the end of the year they have the same amount of money. In other words, when your paycheck comes you'll feel like you have more money, go spending willy-nilly, likely overspend and take on more personal debt, and when tax time comes around actually get back less to no money, maybe even have to pay back more, when you file your taxes come the April 15 deadline. It's an old business world smoke and mirrors trick for hiding negative budget info - like including a bond as part of your revenue package when it should really be part of the debt.Third, I think a lot of the vapid people here need to stop throwing personal insults around at others and the men running for office. At best you are misinformed, and at worst you're showing yourself to be hateful and completely ignorant of any facts.[/citation]

First, yes, that's at least partially what is wrong with our democracy in the USA, few to none of us actually have the whole picture and the politicians do a lot to try to keep it that way (although many slip up occasionally).

Second, that's only assuming both that the tax cut and the deduction cuts are equal (not unlikely, but still) and that we're all people who can't reign in their spending when they need to (which although many people may be, I sure don't spend like that).

Third, yes, I can agree that a lot of people here should calm down and act more civilized.
Mocking everyone definitely isn't the way to discuss solutions to these trouble times.

 

[catswold]

Romney's Bain Capital invested PRIVATE MONEY in:

AMC Entertainment - 1500 Theaters, 18,550 Employees.
Burger King - 8432 stores in the United States with 10's of thousands of Employees.
Burlington Coat Factory - 475 stores, 28,729 Employees.
Clear Channel Communications - 20,000 Employees.
Domino's Pizza - 10,000 Employees.
Dunkin' Donuts 10,000 stores, thousands of Employees.
Guitar Center - 225 stores, hundreds of Employees.
The Sports Authority - 14,300 Employees.
Staples - 1575 stores and thousands of employees.
Toys "R" Us - Toys 'R' Us has 836 stores with thousands of employees.
Warner Music Group - 3,700 Employees.

Obama invested TAXPAYER MONEY in:

Solyndra - BANKRUPT
Ener 1 - BANKRUPT
Beacon Power - BANKRUPT
Abound Solar - BANKRUPT
Amonix Solar - BANKRUPT
Spectra Watt - BANKRUPT
Eastern Energy - BANKRUPT
GM Volt - Solyndra on wheels - $49,000 cost in subsidies to taxpayers for each one sold.
GM Bailout - $24 Billion in unrecoverable losses for the tax-payer

$900 Billion Dollars with NO Jobs.
NOTE: All of these companies were Obama campaign contributors.

One man has a long history of accomplishment and achievement not only in creating jobs, but in creating individual wealth, the other has a long record of failure and increasing dependence on government (decreasing individual wealth and opportunity).

 

[catswold]

[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]

Suggest you retake Econ 101 with a special focus on the historical relationship between tax cuts and federal revenue increases. It worked for Harding/Coolidge when tax cuts created the boom of the twenties, it worked for Jack Kennedy, it worked for Ronald Reagan, it worked for Clinton in '94 and it made the 2000-2001 Clinton recession one of the shortest and shallowest in history . . . in spite of 9/11 and the resultant $1 Trillion negative impact it had on our economy.

In contrast I give you FDR who presided over the longest recession (double-dip) in our history and President Obama who has now presided over the second longest recession in our history.

The economy would have recovered faster than it has under Obama if Congress and the President had done absolutely nothing at all.

To propose government as the solution to problems that lie exclusively or primarily in the private sector is as absurd as his claim of "You didn't build that" (and NO, it was NEVER taken out of context).

 

[WyomingKnott]

[citation][nom]Martell77[/nom]...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]
Look at the history, which presidents have been successful businessmen and which have not. (aside from the fact that almost all of them were in the 1%). The businessmen did not make good presidents.

 

[tburns1]

In 2000, the US congress paved the way for less financial regulation and credit default swaps. The economy started soaring at that point. Hurray for the republicans, they were right! What they didn't count on (or care about) is that greed begets greed. The banking industry makes money by making money. Greed is the industry's very nature. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely, and (as we all know) people are flawed. Did the republicans really think people would not abuse the system, or did they not care? We all know that politicians can be at times corrupt (or corruptible, and tempted to be so). Perhaps they saw personal gain through less regulation? Historically speaking, the republicans do cozy up to the rich and businesses quite a bit. They like the deep pockets to fill their coffers. Because they feel the "haves" should have, and the "have-nots" should, well, whatever, is precisely why we *do* need more regulation. Not all people have the public's best interest at heart, and will try the abuse the system. True, we would not have seen the explosive growth had we not removed the regulation in 2000. But, we also may have very well not felt the bite of the massive, world-wide depression. Thanks president Bush!

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]tburns1[/nom]In 2000, the US congress paved the way for less financial regulation and credit default swaps. The economy started soaring at that point. Hurray for the republicans, they were right! What they didn't count on (or care about) is that greed begets greed. The banking industry makes money by making money. Greed is the industry's very nature. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely, and (as we all know) people are flawed. Did the republicans really think people would not abuse the system, or did they not care? We all know that politicians can be at times corrupt (or corruptible, and tempted to be so). Perhaps they saw personal gain through less regulation? Historically speaking, the republicans do cozy up to the rich and businesses quite a bit. They like the deep pockets to fill their coffers. Because they feel the "haves" should have, and the "have-nots" should, well, whatever, is precisely why we *do* need more regulation. Not all people have the public's best interest at heart, and will try the abuse the system. True, we would not have seen the explosive growth had we not removed the regulation in 2000. But, we also may have very well not felt the bite of the massive, world-wide depression. Thanks president Bush![/citation]

Obama wasted more money than bush ever could have by several times over, over a trillion of which (or is it multiple trillions now?) went strait down the drains of many bail-outs for businesses that have already failed or are going to fail anyway. If that's not "cozying up" to businesses, then maybe I don't know what is.

 

[Guest]

here is how Romney's plan comes into effect, cut taxes on business then businesses hire more people more people paying taxes, more money for government and people

simple

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]WyomingKnott[/nom]Look at the history, which presidents have been successful businessmen and which have not. (aside from the fact that almost all of them were in the 1%). The businessmen did not make good presidents.[/citation]

What we need isn't just a good president, we need someone who knows economy and business well enough to get us out of this hole. That's a businessman's job, not some congressman/senator-who's-already-failed miserably-in-this's job. As I recall, Truman was a businessman and I'd argue that even he was a better president than those that we've had over the last several presidents.

 

[bildo123]

[citation][nom]deadlockedworld[/nom]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.[/citation]

Unfortunately we've had the "improving school" speech/mentality for over 40 years (DoE) and the US keeps dropping the ball in both scores and money spent on such a euphemism. I think it's time to breakup the socialized schooling system that has literally barely changed in the past century and open many private schools to meet the dynamic needs of people today. With many schools competing prices won't be ridiculous as most private schools are infamously known for being today and the desire to perform better than other schools will be stronger.

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]LightningStryk17[/nom]@people voting for neither candidate... have fun throwing your vote away.[/citation]

You can blame our voting system for this problem. The fact that our voting system does not allow for a viable 3rd party is a HUGE problem. Nobody votes for the candidate they believe in anymore; they vote against the candidate they don't believe in. If we had an optional preferential voting system instead of the current system, it would be possible for a new party to rise and overcome the two terrible parties we currently have. On another note, we should only use the popular vote and abolish the electoral college entirely. We living in an age where information travels in milliseconds. We don't have to transport the votes by horseback anymore, so the electoral college doesn't make sense today.

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]Catswold[/nom]Romney's Bain Capital invested PRIVATE MONEY in:AMC Entertainment - 1500 Theaters, 18,550 Employees.Burger King - 8432 stores in the United States with 10's of thousands of Employees.Burlington Coat Factory - 475 stores, 28,729 Employees.Clear Channel Communications - 20,000 Employees.Domino's Pizza - 10,000 Employees.Dunkin' Donuts 10,000 stores, thousands of Employees.Guitar Center - 225 stores, hundreds of Employees.The Sports Authority - 14,300 Employees.Staples - 1575 stores and thousands of employees.Toys "R" Us - Toys 'R' Us has 836 stores with thousands of employees.Warner Music Group - 3,700 Employees. Obama invested TAXPAYER MONEY in:Solyndra - BANKRUPTEner 1 - BANKRUPTBeacon Power - BANKRUPTAbound Solar - BANKRUPTAmonix Solar - BANKRUPTSpectra Watt - BANKRUPTEastern Energy - BANKRUPTGM Volt - Solyndra on wheels - $49,000 cost in subsidies to taxpayers for each one sold.GM Bailout - $24 Billion in unrecoverable losses for the tax-payer$900 Billion Dollars with NO Jobs.NOTE: All of these companies were Obama campaign contributors.One man has a long history of accomplishment and achievement not only in creating jobs, but in creating individual wealth, the other has a long record of failure and increasing dependence on government (decreasing individual wealth and opportunity).[/citation]

Right, so Obama invested money in renewable energy / energy independence while Romney invested in junk food, toys, clothes, and misc bullshit.

Sorry, but I have more respect for Obama's attempt to create a viable source of energy that does not create massive quantities of waste and pollution despite the fact that the companies failed to stay afloat. I would have happily traded Toys-R-Us and Dunkin' Donuts for a few more Solar power plants.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]pocketdrummer[/nom]Right, so Obama invested money in renewable energy / energy independence while Romney invested in junk food, toys, clothes, and misc bullshit.Sorry, but I have more respect for Obama's attempt to create a viable source of energy that does not create massive quantities of waste and pollution despite the fact that the companies failed to stay afloat. I would have happily traded Toys-R-Us and Dunkin' Donuts for a few more Solar power plants.[/citation]

Respect is irrelevant in this. Romney's investments worked and Obama's didn't. We don't need a president who can't even do his job.

 

[pocketdrummer]

[citation][nom]buzzrattie[/nom]here is how Romney's plan comes into effect, cut taxes on business then businesses hire more people more people paying taxes, more money for government and people simple[/citation]

Or you can stop giving massive tax breaks to companies that make money hand over fist regardless of the state of the economy (big oil). Same goes for the top 1% of wealthy Americans. They would not hire more people if they received more tax breaks. They would simply rake in more money and spend it on themselves.