The Profoundly Screwed-Up Beliefs That Compose Mitt Romney's Economic Ideology

[SMR 368]

There is ALOT of Capital out there. But not many investors willing to take a risk in the current economy.

True. But the reasons people don't want to take risks has nothing to do with demand. There are huge amounts of uncertainty in the present economy including:

--A ballooning government deficit likely to cause inflation that makes investments measured in US dollars dangerous.

--An uncertain tax market where taxes are likely to increase.

--Increasing burdens on business particularly related to new hires (see health care reform).

--Pushes to make layoffs harder and more costly for employers (see the OP). As a small business owner, hiring someone is a risk, particularly if you have room for expansion now but don't know about the long term. If it's financially difficult to let people go, hiring becomes a much greater risk. To understand this, you merely have to look at Europe where getting hired permanently is practically impossible.

--Looming cap and trade legislation which is likely to become a huge additional tax burden for anyone that uses energy. Most businesses use a lot of energy. This is a huge unknown in business today.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No I didn't, I answered it precisely.

Lower taxes on small business gives them the ability to expand. Anyone that gives it any thought can see that.

Only about 2-3% of the tax filers with incomes above the treshold that would not see their Bush tax-cuts extended post 31 December 2010 are small business owners. It's a small slice of a small slice of the taxpayer population. The vast majority of small business owners is to have their Bush tax cuts extended - unless the GOP blocks that.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Businesses require capital orders.

First and foremost, existing businesses require demand for the products they want to sell. No business will produce where there's no demand. My friend runs a business and employs 4 people. If he was to receive a tax cut, he'd sure like that but wouldn't hire a single additional staffer because of it. If, on the other hand, he would have more orders coming in for the goods he produces, then he'd hire the help needed to fill those orders.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

First and foremost, existing businesses require demand for the products they want to sell. No business will produce where there's no demand. My friend runs a business and employs 4 people. If he was to receive a tax cut, he'd sure like that but wouldn't hire a single additional staffer because of it. If, on the other hand, he would have more orders coming in for the goods he produces, then he'd hire the help needed to fill those orders.

So it is all the consumers' fault! Way to generalize from a single observation!

If you sit on your hands waiting on "orders", then you are fail.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So it is all the consumers' fault! Way to generalize from a single observation!

If you sit on your hands waiting on "orders", then you are fail.

No, it isn't the consumer's fault. But you need consumers (demand) for the product you're offering. Otherwise, what's the point of producing it? Where's the profit?

And nobody was talking about sitting on their hands waiting for orders. Of course you need to market your product to potential customers in order to be successful but if those customers are in no spending mode because they do not have money to spend then all the marketing in the world won't land you a sale.

[BobandXiaomei 14]

The conundrum as I see it is that in efforts to maximize profits American corporations have been sending jobs overseas. Now they are desperate for someone to buy those goods. But who? The American workers are in fear of losing their jobs and they don't want to buy anything beyond the basics.

So the corporations won't hire because there is not enough purchasing by consumers. But the consumers won't purchase because they're wanting a job or at least a better feeling of job security.

Your Opinion May Vary

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The conundrum as I see it is that in efforts to maximize profits American corporations have been sending jobs overseas. Now they are desperate for someone to buy those goods. But who? The American workers are in fear of losing their jobs and they don't want to buy anything beyond the basics.

So the corporations won't hire because there is not enough purchasing by consumers. But the consumers won't purchase because they're wanting a job or at least a better feeling of job security.

Your Opinion May Vary

That's exactly the trap we're in.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So instead of boosting corporate profits, let Americans reorganize their mortgage debt in personal bankruptcy, protect them from credit card companies that charge gargantuan interest on credit card debt, and give their kids more direct aid for college.

Really? So help people that are idiots?

No. Flat out no.

[Dan J 277]

Really? So help people that are idiots?

No. Flat out no.

I guess your value of fairness, is more important than an economic recovery.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I guess your value of fairness, is more important than an economic recovery.

I'd rather everyone learn a harsh lesson to keep something like this from happening again in the near future.

Of course, I wouldn't have bailed out any part of the auto industry or banking industry either..

[BobandXiaomei 14]

I'd rather everyone learn a harsh lesson to keep something like this from happening again in the near future.

Of course, I wouldn't have bailed out any part of the auto industry or banking industry either..

Bad things happen to good people too. We hear about folks that were purpusefully playing 'the system' with mortgates. But we have more (I believe) people that were simply moving up and then lost their jobs, had major life impacting experiences that cripple them financially.

My point is that not everyone in financial hardships got that way by their own doings.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Bad things happen to good people too. We hear about folks that were purpusefully playing 'the system' with mortgates. But we have more (I believe) people that were simply moving up and then lost their jobs, had major life impacting experiences that cripple them financially.

My point is that not everyone in financial hardships got that way by their own doings.

Everyone got thier by their own doings. That's the misconception.

You have a choice to go into debt or not go into debt.

If you buy a home with a loan, you're ultimately taking a gamble that you'll be able to repay that loan and the mortgage company is taking that gamble just the same as well.

It's not like someone is holding a gun to your head telling you to take out a loan. It's all of your own doing.

[HAL 9000 96]

Amazing there are so many idiots out there... and there are also so many angry voters out there too. Coincidence?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Amazing there are so many idiots out there... and there are also so many angry voters out there too. Coincidence?

Hey everyone is alays looking to blame everyone else for their own mistakes. Makes them feel better.

I love people who are all like, "I didn't ask for this, I didn't ask to lose my job and owe this money."

Ummm, yeah you kind of did. You never know when you might lose your job and it's always a risk taking out a large loan. People seem to forget this.

[BobandXiaomei 14]

Amazing there are so many idiots out there... and there are also so many angry voters out there too. Coincidence?

What I don't understand is that so many of them claim to be devote Christian. I guess they only give to those that don't have problems in their lives. But the rhetoric is one of a 'eat or be eaten' sub-culture. If something Bad happened to you it's because YOU'RE Bad (or being punished by God for you sins).