USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

  • News
  • Thread starter collinsmark
  • Start date
  • #126
42
0
I think it's pretty obvious to vote for Romney, especially if you are a realist.

Suppose Obama was reelected and his agenda was passed, the rich paid more in taxes. Well the top 1% will react by raising prices for the middle class to make up the difference, or they could fire people, or make smaller adjustments to lower the quality. For example, Apple can raise the price of their macs by a little and claim it's "expensive new technology," they could lower wages, or they could make the macs cheaper and look high quality...

You have to understand that the rich don't run their business to expand, create jobs, and make the world a better place, they run the business to get richer so they have more power and influence in politics. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool, why would the oil companies be getting annual subsidies when they are making large profits? If we take off the subsidy though, it's going to justify a gas price hike so you really can't win. Rich people do not care at all about the middle class, and if you mess with them, you are going to lose.
 
  • #127
335
14
Well the top 1% will react by raising prices for the middle class to make up the difference, or they could fire people, or make smaller adjustments to lower the quality. For example, Apple can raise the price of their macs by a little and claim it's "expensive new technology," they could lower wages, or they could make the macs cheaper and look high quality...
You haven't thought this through which is leading to you making absurd statements- businesses ALREADY try and maximize profits. That means Apple already believes that if it charged more for its product, fewer people would buy it and they would lose money. Similarly, if they charge less, Apple believes that in the long term the extra sales would not make up for the decline in marginal revenue.

Apple pays its employees what it believes maximizes profits- if it cuts labor costs, Apple believes lower productivity (lower quality employees, or fewer employees) will lead to more money lost in sales.

SO- what you are saying is that if you raised Tim Cook's personal income tax, he would respond BY MAKING APPLE LESS PROFITABLE. This clearly makes no sense.
 
  • #128
Mentalist
Realist? Even if what you said were true, I don't think that would be considered "realistic" in the sense you are using it.

The mac user base is not as large as the windows user base, and seeing as Microsoft is actually creating better user experiences, and seeing one can get a cheaper, but high quality system (better than any mac), people will more than likely go that route.

If prices are raised that fosters more diversity in a market, especially if people do not want to pay high prices in this current climate. They will more than likely go to a more suitable product in terms of their interests (we have seen this before in terms of clothing and technology).

People will become more realistic and stop spending money on products that are low-end and get products that are more efficient, i.e. whether it is building your own linux-based PC or just simply going with Microsoft. If companies are so drunk on their own greed, that opens the door for new companies to begin marketing their own products. I am no business major but I believe that is what happens most of the time when a customer base wants to save more than it spends.

Oil companies get more subsidies and pay less taxes in the U.S. primarily. In other countries, they don't (U.S. oil companies).
..............................................................................................................................

Either way, even if Obama is reelected or Mitt Romney is elected, it doesn't matter, we will see another down-turn. Obama isn't going to do any thing about the risky derivatives trading practices that are still occurring that got us into the last recession, and Romney sure as hell won't, in fact, he'd make it easier, but at this point in time, it still would not matter either way.

I thought someone would bring it up at the town-hall, and I get caught up in the glitz and glamour myself, but Obama doesn't give a damn even though his social policies are good in my opinion, he is another corporate drone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_JPMorgan_Chase_trading_loss

Obama on the view talking about a mistake:

"
This is one of the best managed banks. You could have a bank that isn't as strong, isn't as profitable managing those same bets and we might have had to step in. That's why Wall Street reform is so important.
"


Those are the words of a corporate lackey.

Wall-Street reform?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/b...-to-face-pressure-to-back-bank-deal.html?_r=0

here is a specific statement within the article:

Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, has come under increasing pressure from the Obama administration to drop his opposition to a wide-ranging state settlement with banks over dubious foreclosure practices, according to people briefed on discussions about the deal.
That is the first paragraph of the article. Obama isn't fooling me with his spiel either.

I'd still rather have Obama in office than Mitt Romney.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #129
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
The first question was from the college student asking about job prospects.

Transcript here

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82484.html?hp=t1_b1

QUESTION: Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?

ROMNEY: 2014. When you come out in 2014, I presume I'm going to be president. I'm going to make sure you get a job. Thanks Jeremy. Yeah, you bet.
How come neither Obama nor Romney asked him what his major was? Maybe the best answer would have been, "You shouldn't have majored in Philosophy!"
 
  • #130
378
2
Either way, even if Obama is reelected or Mitt Romney is elected, it doesn't matter,
Neither Romney nor Obama can do anything because of lack of bipartisan. If both candidates don't find a common ground, no matter who wins, it will be a waster of another four years.
 
  • #131
Mentalist
Bipartisanship won't help our current plight. Both parties agree on less regulations for wall street (where most economic troubles stem from). If you have people doing risky trading like the last recession, another economic collapse is inevitable. We have seen that recently with J.P. Morgan, but nothing happened to them, Jamie Dimon is still on the NYFED and CEO.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/org_nydirectors.html

So the crux is that we are bound to see nothing but misery ahead no matter who wins. In addition, even if bipartisanship comes about, we'll still see an economic collapse in the future.
 
  • #132
42
0
Realist? Even if what you said were true, I don't think that would be considered "realistic" in the sense you are using it.

You dont think that ending oil subsidies will raise gas prices? Give me a break.
 
  • #133
Evo
Mentor
23,153
2,771
How come neither Obama nor Romney asked him what his major was? Maybe the best answer would have been, "You shouldn't have majored in Philosophy!"
:rofl:
 
  • #134
Evo
Mentor
23,153
2,771
Thread closed. New thread will be opened for next debate.
 

Related Threads on USA Presidential Debate #2 Observations

Replies
76
Views
9K
Replies
54
Views
7K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
100
Views
7K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
75
Views
7K
Replies
51
Views
3K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
129
Views
10K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
7
Replies
164
Views
12K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Top