Politics are always a heated matter,
As far as Obama.. I say Big Fat No
Don't tell me he's done anything in the last four year because he hasn't. And to go onstage and share what he'd like to do for the next four years is just a load of you know what. Again it can get heated. I originally from Ma, and Romney is really no different. He's a born politician, they know what's best for you no matter what side of the isle there on, go ahead ask them they'll tell you what exactly you need. Lololol
Its simple there a bunch of cooks with our money, and if they had full explicit power they would remain in office through out there lives. Its imperative if you can vote-do so. As each year that goes by government seeks opportunity without the public consent, our four father whom created the stage urged the people to keep government in check. It dispeases me when someone who chose not to vote but then later feels the negative results only to later complain that it wouldn't have mattered anyways. Let it be known - it doesn't matter. what ever side your parties or beliefs are, you should vote it matters very much.
Although I'm not truley sold on Romney, I will vote for him. And only hopes that he will find a way to stop the oboma care. No ones share the true cost, most people believe there gonna get free care, its ridiculous, I have health care for me and family, I pay 4,000 a year, for a family of 4. And it could be raised to 6000. For a family of four who doesn't not have but will under the new law will pay, they don't think that now but will later find out. Its not free, its 1850, per individual under the oboma act. The treasury will increase there man power to collect the funds from all Americans. You'll just simply won't receive a tax return, and think about it, you will owe money to the IRS, hope you don't owner a home, you could just be giving it up to the government to pay your dept.

I will say now more on this. But vote, its vital that you do so,

Calvin wants obama, everyone else, romney. Manfred u wrote a book, too bad i am not gonna read the whole thing.

My wife and I actually voted tonight in the early voting option at our court house tonight. She was more anxious to get it done than me, I could have waited til election day but I am glad we got it over with. We voted for Romney, we are small business owners and have seen our business struggle more over the last four years with this current administration.

My wife and I feel that we have never voted for the perfect candidate, and probably never will, but we like the fact that Romney has a lot of successful business experience where as Obama does not.

I really think there should be a new set of rules for running this country. A country runs a lot like a business and I think the criteria should be that someone that runs, should have a track record of running a successful business. I have my doubts that Obama could go to very few, if any Fortune 500 companies and become a CEO of one those companies (and run it successfully), but we give him the keys to run the country with no experience? How whacked out is that? I don't know, that is just my two cents, I don't mean to offend any Obama supporters out there, but there is a vast difference in beliefs and policy's between the two candidates.

I am an optimist that sees better days ahead, especially under new leadership.

I am from Ontario, Canada and have been watching the debates. May I say thatwhile Mr. Obama is a better orator than Mr. Romney, he doesn't have a good track record of making it happen... Each of our provinces has its own health care plan, as well as our employers, and a mix of private care. Health care is mostly the burden of businesses that get taxed so that us who get sick don't have to pay so much out of pocket. Although we are getting dinged and nickeled and dimmed to death for sundry medical stuff now, which is a drag. Be also pay into an employee benefits plan that helps to reduce the Provinces health care costs.

Yes, it's not that I don't want health care for everyone (that's what Romney is accused of). It's that I don't want government to be the one pulling together the additional tax funds and doling out a health care system.

While private insurance has mucked things up pretty well here, it's more because the government has restricted/regulated coverage by state. You can't buy insurance across state lines, and the result is a bunch of monopolies and oligopolies within each state. Without liquid competition (hmm, a theme) these companies have very little motivation to be lean and mean, and thus my insurance premiums have gone up and up, about 30% per year in the past 8 years! Part of it is illegal immigrant costs, and part of it is hospital and insurance company inefficiencies that won't improve because of this lack of competition.

I would like to see everyone covered using private sector insurance companies. Totally possible if we (a) bag the national healthcare Obamacare, (b) allow interstate competition between insurers, (c) and then the ONLY government regulation insurance companies should be to force pre-existing allowance and fixed gross margins against standard risk tables (allow them to make money, but not hand-over-fist money). If they compete, they will lean out the bloated bureaucracies, and our premiums will decrease.

Romney hasn't articulated that much about this, but this is SURELY closer to what he will do, vs what Obama has done.

Manfred

I hate election time but because every vote counts GO ROMNEY

I hate the way the political machine works. Ask yourself how many people are running for president in 2012?..... 2. That's not actually correct there are many more but because the media which is owned by a small group of ultra wealthy people controls what they show on tv as news, have made the majority of people believe its only 2 and you can only pick either or. The media also decides that only 2 candidates take part in the debates that they televise on prime time. It really is a joke that out of a country of 300 million plus people every 4 years we are told its down to these two candidates and the media can influence us all on who they say is winning and where. there has to be more of a choice!

Also as a sign of how corrupt politics really is. The candidates will spend over a billion dollars campaigning for a job that pays $400,000. Take the money out of politics because in truth all of our elections are bought by who spends the most on brainwashing us to "their side"..

It's all a smokescreen and a bunch of you know what....

I'm rather suprised by the conservative community here, it seems like most of the Internet is more liberal.

Whoever it was who said that Romney's not in it for the money because he would make less money as President than as a buisnessman, but Obama makes more as a President than he did before. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I din't believe that there's any law that prevents outside income when you're serving a presidential term. If I'm correct, then he's making $400,000 more than he would.

Obama, actually, was an author, a politition, and other things before he was elected into office. He is also making an extra four hundred grand.

Now, I believe that whether I'm right or wrong, I win that argument.

Manfred, my iPad's low on power, and I'm a slow typer, so this post is gonna be cut short. I'll edit it and finish later.

As you know, I'm only fourteen, so a lot of my information does come from my parents, and from liberal media.

I'm sure you're not a right-wing freak, you seem to mentally stable for that. Extremists annoy me, whether they're Religious fanatics, taking the Bible too literally, right-wing freaks who think that borders should be gaurded with land mines instead of fences (I disagree with denying access to our country to anyone who doesn't pose a threat to safety. If they ruin our economy, some will leave out of necessity, go add to our economy and another country's. It's similar to the process of dynamic equilibrium, in which everything will eventually balance out. I realize that that can't happen perfectly, due to geography, governement, etc, but a more equal world would be benificial to everyone. Americans and most Europeans are over privilged snobs while many people are dying of hunger and thirst. We don't need everything we have, but I'm sure that a child in India would appreciate a glass of clean water.), or overly liberal hippies (plenty of those where I live).

The country can't take lower taxes, or at least my part of it. My school is growing in size, and has about half the teachers it had 20 years ago. Guess why? There's not enough money to pay the teachers. Now, like you said, immediately, schools (government organizations) are very inefficient. They cost money to maintain, and don't make a cent. If you (Out of curiosity, what is your buisness? What do you sell/do?) had a buisness plan like that, you'd be out of buisness next week, when you hand out paychecks. A school's purpose is to train my generation to do what your generation did, and to do it better, right? It's an investment. Right now, I am a burden. I burden the entire country by making them pay for me to go to school, I burden my parents. I'm like a bank bond. Pay money now, and it's gone. Wait a few years, and what happened? Your money grew. For now though, I am a new bond, I am a burden. In 40 years, I'll return the favor. I'll take care of my parents. I'll pay taxes to let my kids go to school, so that 40 years later, they can take care of me, a little better than I took care of my parents. My grandkids will take care of my kids, a bit better than my kids took care of me. Each generation does a bit better. Without our taxes, I won't get the education I need to keep that cycle going. Your money is my future.

Manfred, do you offer any benefits to your employees, aside from their saleries? Health care? Dental insurance? Maybe. My mom gets coverage for our entire family, as would my dad, if my mom didn't. Now, is it inefficient for an employer to do that? Sure. They'd make more money if they just payed my mom a few bucks extra, but it's necessary for them to attract employees for a job that's boring as hell. Inefficiencies are necessary, sometimes. You are 100% right that the governement is inefficient, it makes little money for what it spends. You're wrong, however, that that is completely awful. It's not ideal, of course; but it's inescapable. For you to make money, someone else must lose money. Simple math. The government loses money, the people make money.

Competition is good for any organization that wants to improve. My football team wouldn't get any better if we didn't want to win. Your buisness wouldn't continue to evolve if you weren't trying to avoid being put out of buisness. Now, you say that the government doesn't have any competition, but that's not true. The governement, as it is run, is either Democratic or Republican. Both parties want to continue to hold office. That's their competion. Your employees work hard to keep their jobs. No difference. Now, it's true that plenty of in

TO BE CONTINUED

Jacob10000 wrote: Consider FlyMagic as a write in vote!

Thank you! I agree!
Except I'm too honest, care about others, know how to balance a budget, and would make everyone play Dog Fight (or at least read the forum to get smart) think...SERVER FULL!

Wonderfully thought-out thoughts here (mostly).

MANFRED: As someone who has to make decisions that affect many, I agree 100%. Those decisions happen 20 times a day. Always difficult. I make them rather, than an assistant, because these people and their families are my responsibility. I take those decisions personally.

RADAR: Please continue.....

Jeez o peets. Manfred, u should write a book. Im here to just say that, im not into politics(yet) cause im only 13. Anyway, bye

CalvinIsAwesome wrote: ... Whoever it was who said that Romney's not in it for the money because he would make less money as President than as a buisnessman, but Obama makes more as a President than he did before. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I din't believe that there's any law that prevents outside income when you're serving a presidential term. If I'm correct, then he's making $400,000 more than he would.

Obama, actually, was an author, a politition, and other things before he was elected into office. He is also making an extra four hundred grand.

Now, I believe that whether I'm right or wrong, I win that argument.

...

As you know, I'm only fourteen, so a lot of my information does come from my parents, and from liberal media.

I'm sure you're not a right-wing freak, you seem to mentally stable for that. Extremists annoy me, whether they're Religious fanatics, taking the Bible too literally, right-wing freaks who think that borders should be gaurded with land mines instead of fences (I disagree with denying access to our country to anyone who doesn't pose a threat to safety. If they ruin our economy, some will leave out of necessity, go add to our economy and another country's. It's similar to the process of dynamic equilibrium, in which everything will eventually balance out. I realize that that can't happen perfectly, due to geography, governement, etc, but a more equal world would be benificial to everyone. Americans and most Europeans are over privilged snobs while many people are dying of hunger and thirst. We don't need everything we have, but I'm sure that a child in India would appreciate a glass of clean water.), or overly liberal hippies (plenty of those where I live).

The country can't take lower taxes, or at least my part of it. My school is growing in size, and has about half the teachers it had 20 years ago. Guess why? There's not enough money to pay the teachers. Now, like you said, immediately, schools (government organizations) are very inefficient. They cost money to maintain, and don't make a cent. If you (Out of curiosity, what is your buisness? What do you sell/do?) had a buisness plan like that, you'd be out of buisness next week, when you hand out paychecks. A school's purpose is to train my generation to do what your generation did, and to do it better, right? It's an investment. Right now, I am a burden. I burden the entire country by making them pay for me to go to school, I burden my parents. I'm like a bank bond. Pay money now, and it's gone. Wait a few years, and what happened? Your money grew. For now though, I am a new bond, I am a burden. In 40 years, I'll return the favor. I'll take care of my parents. I'll pay taxes to let my kids go to school, so that 40 years later, they can take care of me, a little better than I took care of my parents. My grandkids will take care of my kids, a bit better than my kids took care of me. Each generation does a bit better. Without our taxes, I won't get the education I need to keep that cycle going. Your money is my future.

Manfred, do you offer any benefits to your employees, aside from their saleries? Health care? Dental insurance? Maybe. My mom gets coverage for our entire family, as would my dad, if my mom didn't. Now, is it inefficient for an employer to do that? Sure. They'd make more money if they just payed my mom a few bucks extra, but it's necessary for them to attract employees for a job that's boring as hell. Inefficiencies are necessary, sometimes. You are 100% right that the governement is inefficient, it makes little money for what it spends. You're wrong, however, that that is completely awful. It's not ideal, of course; but it's inescapable. For you to make money, someone else must lose money. Simple math. The government loses money, the people make money.

Competition is good for any organization that wants to improve. My football team wouldn't get any better if we didn't want to win. Your buisness wouldn't continue to evolve if you weren't trying to avoid being put out of buisness. Now, you say that the government doesn't have any competition, but that's not true. The governement, as it is run, is either Democratic or Republican. Both parties want to continue to hold office. That's their competion. Your employees work hard to keep their jobs. No difference. Now, it's true that plenty of in

TO BE CONTINUED

Calvin,

I'll address some items that I think you misunderstood what I was trying to convey. From there, we can always disagree, as people naturally draw their lines differently.

Inefficiency:

When I say that government and non-competing institutions are inefficient, I do not mean that they cost more than they generate in revenue. Lots of organizations do that. Depending what you consider an organization, even within profit-driven companies there are unprofitable centers. For example, a computer company may organize in business units like Home Offices and Corporate Computing, and feed both of those with a Research & Development Center. That R&D Center doesn't generate revenue, and is controlled using budget allocations and goal-setting. Here's what you have to spend for the year, and here's what we want from you.

When it is competitive (in this example, looking at other companies' R&D centers' productivity for new technologies and products), this organization can operate very effectively, cranking out new model laptops and tablets with better innovation, speed, and throughput. It also can work efficiently, leaning out the dollars spent and person-hours per innovation.

The inefficiency that I referenced is the productivity for each dollar spent, regardless of its source.

This inefficiency can be illustrated by a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office. If that DMV is measured by throughput, customer satisfaction, and net cost per processed license, and then benchmarked against other DMV's with the numbers posted for all to see, the resulting competition causes workers and managers to want to do better. However, if that DMV's performance is not closely monitored and compared, and if the people are not held accountable to the performance and judged (hired/fired, salaries adjusted), then the competitive drive is lacking and the motivations are low. Anyone here who works for a DMV office might be able to tell us if such measures and accountability are in place and watched stringently. But my experience with government administration is that (a) the measures are only sometimes reported and are more often not published, (b) the people are not held accountable to the performance numbers, and (c) the managers work harder to justify next year's budget and headcount increases than to make the place a lean, mean, productivity machine. It rarely gets smaller!

In performance, public schools sit somewhere between these public offices (low competitive drive) and public police/fire/military (cultural competitive drive, Ooh-Rah!). There is certainly a super wide spread of educational performance, from incredibly awesome to zzzzz. The awesome schools have a culture of competition, and the teaching is excellent. The zzzzz schools are just surviving, trying to push students through and hopefully graduate. However, regardless of where a publicly funded school is along the spectrum of educational excellence, virtually all of the public schools are huge spenders. I was just reading yet another study that shows that public schools' $ spend per student (total teaching and administration) blows away private schools in the same geography. Never mind academic performance -- why do public schools take up so much money per student in cost? The teachers are paid slightly less than private, but I'll argue that the total career cost nets out the same because of much larger public teacher pensions. The primary cost driver is Administration, all those offices of bureaucrats designing and redesigning curriculum, rewriting books, and creating new rules. The top offices vote themselves new bonuses without any accountability. The costs are massive. And these offices never get smaller.

Yes, many schools have tighter budgets because the tax revenue is down, because the tax base (people's salaries and companies' bet profit) are down, because the economy is down. How can this POSSIBLY be the right time to raise tax rates?? Let's try that again:
1) The economy starts slowing down, fewer people buy stuff
2) Companies respond by slowing growth, then stopping growth, and in many cases, laying off people they can no longer afford. They also respond by tightening their belts, and trying to get more out of the available funds. Leaner, meaner.
3) Then the tax base is reduced, because total company taxable incomes are reduced, and total individual salaries are reduced by layoffs and resulting unemployment.
4) So then the collected taxes are reduced, and government has less money to work with.

At this point, you might expect the government to respond the same way that companies did in #2, tightening belts, looking for and eliminating waste, and prioritizing what needs to be done. To me, the waste would be in those enormous bureaucracies and pork projects. And cut out low performers.

But the government just doesn't do that. In an organization that suffers from rampant un-accountability, everyone goes into protection mode. Priorities are NOT set. If it were me, I'd rank teachers, fire, police, and military at the top of the priorities to keep, and go searching for unnecessary bureaucracy, wasteful spend program offices, and projects that can wait (yeah I'm a space fan, but some science would need to be pushed off for a while). These are HUGE bucks. Instead, our government, in this case California State, starts pushing Propositions that raise taxes, holding schools and fire and police as hostage. I'll bet many states have commercials like: "Vote for Prop XX, or our SCHOOLS [or fire or police] will suffer." Hmm, increase taxes collected for a government institution that is highly inefficient in its use of money, and hold the top priorities hostage? My Prop would be "Vote for Prop MM, which seeks to eliminate the Highway Project to Nowhere, 25% of administration, and delay Microbe Research on Pluto, so that teachers, fire, and police can maintain their staffing from last year." But the bureaucrats have a strong lobby, and I would be quieted.

Competition:

You've got it right. My one disagreement would be that Republican/Democrat is not fluid competition, because when they get together and actually pass legislation, it's not because it's the best idea generated by the power of many; instead it's because the side that wants the legislation has added pork projects to the bill to appease the other side, who wouldn't have voted for it without the promise of the Road to Nowhere Project in their district. Plus, as others have mentioned, there are only two parties actually competing, and independent candidates have NO chance in a presidential race because the setup is biased to the continuation of those two parties (hmm, who legislated this setup...). This is basically an oligopoly, almost as bad as a monopoly (for consumers). Anyway, without direct and fluid competition, government offices COULD choose to measure and benchmark themselves so they are accountable to performance... but why bother? If you didn't HAVE TO have a report card, many people (not all, but most) would choose to SKIP IT, and the results would be a little ugly.

Business and benefits:

My company is primarily a service company, and I won't get into specifics because I like to remain internet-anonymous on recreational forums. When we were really small, it cost just as much to have a private health/dental plan as it would to go through the company (not enough people to get a group rate), so we let employees get their own health plans and we paid them more (they really liked this!). When we grew to a size where we could get a good group rate, we signed with an insurance company, gave the employees choices of plans, and added the new benefit. It was necessary to play in the big leagues. Employees could get premium plans by contributing some premium payments, while others could get the baseline plan for "free". Of course, it wasn't free, it was part of their overall compensation package.

This is where Obamacare steps in too far. If we were in the previous mode, small company and still allowing private health plans and paying big salaries to compensate but not large enough to qualify for a group discount, Obamacare wouldn't let us continue in that mode. It would force us to take a government health plan, similar to an insurance company plan, but not at a group rate because we still weren't big enough. Oh, well actually, Obamacare wouldn't force that - there IS an option to violate the terms and just pay a "fee." Interestingly, I read a study that showed that 50% of companies in our range would have kept their original setup and paid the fee. The federal government surely knows this, as it designed the plan. Basically, it is a way to get a temporary tax.

Obamacare certainly didn't target our company to suffer. But that's what happens when a government interferes in a place where natural supply/demand and free choice was doing just fine. The insurance industry has its crooks, and much of the setup needs Law Enforcement help to keep the system working, but there is no need for government to step in, set price points, set complex rules, and create bureaucracy. As I mentioned before, just enforce the law, allow interstate insurance competition so everyone will want to do it better, and allow pre-existing conditions and pricing to reflect that added risk. Now everyone is on equal footing, consumers have appropriate power, and insurance companies will line up to do the right thing instead of deny, deny, deny.

Presidential Big Bucks:

As far as I know, U.S. Presidents and high level administration figures are allowed to maintain their investments but not trade them (buy new, sell old) because their position of power can influence markets. Oh boy, this one is a can of worms, I was about to state some "of course XXX couldn't invest in YYY during their Presidency / Vice Presidency..." but as you may know, there are so many examples of that. If government were Wall Street, many many politicians would be in jail. Fortunately for these politicians, they are in position to legislate and influence, so they are not pursued. Geeez.

Illegal Immigration Access:

We'll agree to disagree on this one. I do concede that it's not realistic or humane to boot out people who've gotten into the country and lived here a while, especially kids, and we need to figure out something positive. But I'd urge you to live in a southern border state sometime, where you can see the human and financial costs of an open border. Your position is highly compassionate, and I admire you for it. On your end, could you consider that a total lack of borders is unrealistic when economies follow government borders? I suppose that if we were all under one government, the World Government, then borders wouldn't be needed. But one government succeeds in solid economics where others fail, and when they are right next to each other, having open borders creates chaos. I can see an argument that says some chaos is worth the resulting humanitarianism, ok.

One more thing for you to consider. Your family's property has borders. Why? Shouldn't we open them to, say, the homeless of Oregon? And if you do host a homeless person for dinner once in a while, that's super, but that's a selective border (just like the one I want around our country, where numbers and timing are managed). Open border means anyone, any time, can step onto your property, and take tomatoes from your garden. Take the iPad that you left out on the porch. They are needy, and you have more than you need. Yes, I think there are compromise positions that are both realistic and compassionate, but I don't think that our current open border (and I live near it - it's open baby!) is the right answer.

Looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts.

Manfred

MINDREADER! If someone doesn't do it, they can't understand what it's like.

I do not keep a computer at home because that FEELS like one of my employee's weekly salary or a deserved raise. My phone keeps me connected.

all I know is we are in deep hot steamy water if our choice is betwen romney and obama

the flaw isnt the candidates, its the two party system

KS...did you see your MOM's arm in DF Faces?

I want to be clear : Just because I'm writing volumes doesn't mean I'm *right*. And just because NBC or ABC or CNN says something is true, don't conclude your position until you slice it sideways a bunch of times, apply a test of why why why someone might say that, and research the opposing viewpoint, as well review the original speeches, writings, and legislation. Conservatives do not have a monopoly on the truth, nor do liberals, and then when you talk Republicans and Democrats, well, why wouldn't they be motivated to lie if it advances their position and the voters believe them.

So note, they can only do that if we fall for it. Test everything you hear against the facts, and if enough people do that and catching lies has impact, the lies will diminish. (Hey, one can dream.)

Then got vote. And for those of you who aren't old enough to vote yet, make the Investigative Process part of your psyche now, and you'll be the most informed voter when the time comes. Wherever you land politically, you will be doing it from your own core beliefs rather than someone else's.

The 2-party system sucks. Early in the cycle, I was hoping that dissatisfaction with both parties might result in an independent rising from the muck. Too bad, if any election cycle was primed for that, it was this one.

Manfred

If I took a picture of this thread it would be worth way more than a thousand words I think ...

Manfred wrote: The 2-party system sucks. Early in the cycle, I was hoping that dissatisfaction with both parties might result in an independent rising from the muck. Too bad, if any election cycle was primed for that, it was this one.

This. So much this.

We don't vote anyway. It's all planned by the government. Our "votes" are just to persuade their choice. We could do better with anarchy.

Dlcoates1 wrote: We don't vote anyway. It's all planned by the government. Our "votes" are just to persuade their choice. We could do better with anarchy.

So edgy. So cool.

Manfred wrote:

CalvinIsAwesome wrote: If Romney isn't in it for the money, then why is he giving the 1% (Read: Mitt Romney) tax breaks?

I am compelled to reply to Calvin’s question.

First, so you all know a little more about the man behind the Manfred mask, I think George Bush was one of the worst U.S. Presidents in my 40’ish years of semi-intelligent thought. Does that make me a liberal? No. In my opinion, Barack Obama is equally as awful in policies as Bush, and perhaps takes the prize. Am I conservative? Certainly more so than liberal, but I sure don’t look like what the media portrays as a right wing freak.

Mitt Romney wants to lower taxes *for everyone* because he believes that the U.S.A. taxes all of its citizens at too high a rate. No m¬atter what your opinion, a break-over point exists for each of us, at which lower taxes are too little and higher taxes are too much. Romney thinks we are past the “too much” point and should back off. I happen to agree. Why?

I’m a co-owner in a small business. Did we create the business to lose money? No, we founded it to do the following: to provide great products and services to customers who will pay money for their value, and to give good jobs to valuable people who can make those products and services for a wage that is worth their skill, all while making a good living for ourselves (the owners). All of those things need to occur simultaneously for this to be successful.

We have competitors. This is a wonderful thing. It makes us (the owners and the employees) want to do better. And the beneficiaries are the customers (better products at better prices), the employees (more employees, more secure jobs, and pay that will scale up with their growing value to the company), and the owners (growing company stability and a good living).

Our employees have competitors. This is a good thing too. Each one of them wants to be as valuable to the company as possible, through education, smart work, and strong work ethic. It’s called Merit. They don’t swing bats at each other; in fact, they help each other because they know the power of the group is greater than the sum of the individuals. They welcome new employees because those employees will provide value that is marginally greater than the pay afforded to them, and their company will gain stability through growing market share.

That last point is key. Companies are not in the business of hiring and paying employees who bring less financial value to the company than their salary; this would cause the company to tank. Employees who understand this (ours do) will welcome new employees because it means more stability for everyone.

So that’s why companies grow: Hiring more employees, who add marginal value above and beyond their pay, puts the company in better position to serve more customers and gain an edge on competitors, all while remaining profitable (instead of losing money and going out of business). We don’t hire new employees because “it’s the right social thing to do” or “because we owe people jobs” or “because the government tells us to.” We do it because the market is ready to pay for our products, and we need more people at the right salaries to develop/produce products and service those customers. We do it because a bigger company (that is operating with positive margins) makes more money.

I keep harping on the point about “the right salary.” If the wrong skill set shows up at my door, I can’t hire him or her because it would be an undue burden on the other employees, adding someone who isn’t creating more value than their salary. It be unfair to the existing employees, a dumb decision for the owners, and ultimately a disservice to customers because the company would suffer and perhaps cease to exist.

Anyway, back to competitors. Note that the company’s competitors also hire similar kinds of people. So if our company wants to make gobs of unreasonable margin above a person’s salary (by paying them too little for their commensurate skill), our employees will accept jobs elsewhere and we will have no one left in our company. This competition is good. It naturally keeps our salaries at a fair market rate. Actually we stay above market rate, because we hire really good people. And salaries are only one dimension; we are loyal to our employees, treat them very well, and hope they stay for the long-term.

The economy sucks. Worldwide. People aren’t buying a whole lot of products and services. Why? Well, a combination of things. Lots of people are unemployed. And even for those with jobs, life is expensive.

So how do we dig out of this hole? Obama and Romney believe in two very different ways of getting us back into a positive cycle. Again, this is my opinion, an interpretation, but I’ve studied this hard. You can all interpret in your own way. IMO, Obama believes that the government must intervene. (Bush did too.) Cash infusions into certain companies. More government jobs. Plus, he fears that there is not a sufficient safety net for medical insurance, so he wants a universal government-sponsored healthcare system. And the money to do these things must come from taxes, and in his opinion, the “rich” are not paying enough. So increase taxes on the rich, those who in his opinion can afford it. Ok, I can comprehend the theory. But here’s my disagreement:

As a business owner, I *know* (not a theory, a fact) that when universal healthcare got passed, we *stopped* hiring. When you take the revenue that our customers pay for products and services, minus the salary that we pay to valuable employees, minus costs of health benefits, minus taxes, that number is our net profit. It must be greater than zero; actually, it must be high enough above zero to make our living or it’s not worth continuing the business; actually, it must be high enough above zero to be a sufficient reward for the risk we took in starting the business. (That risk thing is analogous to a professional golfer who skips college to join the tour, and who knows that his/her career might be long but it also might be short; when that golfer is winning tournaments, no one would resent them for the enormous purses of the big tournaments. They might only play for 10 years, and must earn enough to retire on. Same here. Except that I don’t expect anywhere near those bucks for myself!)

Anyway, Obamacare gave us pause and uncertainty about heathcare costs and fees. Added to the increase in corporate and family income taxes, now the net profit is pressured very hard. Hiring additional employees at market rate salaries might not get us the additional company value commensurate with the total cost, so we didn’t hire. In fact, we should have let some people go; but instead we took the hit ourselves and simply froze hiring.

Companies like ours make up about half (depending how you slice it) of the employment in the U.S. Other small and medium-sized businesses stopped hiring too, and of course many laid people off.

Mitt Romney believes in a different path out of the hole. Sure, he’ll turn out to be a normal politician, with all of the objectionable baggage that they all have. But he’s at least closer to the solution that I believe in.

I believe that government is a very inefficient organization, because by its nature it has no competition and therefore lacks the competitive drive to do things better. I speak only about administrative government, and not military or civil duty organizations, which are aided by a unique motivation to kick ass. Administrative government returns pennies on the dollar because it is generally slow, un-energized, and the goal for many is just to get through the day, pick up the paycheck, and grow their department budget but not the workload. Sure, I know some good people who work there, but they are surrounded by masses of bureaucrats and mini-bureaucrats. So we want to increase government’s role in taking in tax dollars and redistributing them? Highly inefficient.

Back to Romney. He believes that breaking the logjam starts with jobs (private sector, not public sector; for those who don’t understand those terms, private sector is companies operating in capitalistic markets, and public is tax-sponsored government). He wants my company and others like it to start hiring again, and many of us have healthy markets to address, but the cost to expand/hire is currently too high. He wants to lower taxes and remove the cost burden of universal healthcare so that we will make the decision to hire.

Many people argue that lowering taxes on businesses and business owners will only result in their pocketing the cash. At face value, this is a compelling argument. But if you dive deeper, it doesn’t hold up in reality. Go back to the earlier paragraphs, and note that I haven’t eliminated the greed factor from businesses; in fact, my position *relies* on it. If taxes were relieved somewhat and universal healthcare was repealed, I would make far more money by *hiring more people* (and having them add even more value to the company) than I would by simply pocketing the tax savings and healthcare fee savings. My greed, if you will, will make me hire. Sure, I’m a naturally good guy too and love having more families benefiting from our little company – a big source of pride for me; but the hiring decision is all about the profit that it will generate.

The argument that people will just pocket the cash is based on a belief that companies hire people out of goodness and that there is no goodness left in corporations. As I’ve stated, companies do not hire out of goodness, so in fact goodness is not required for this sequence of events to happen; they hire out of profit motive, and as long as there is a market for the company’s goods, hiring and expanding is GOOD FOR PROFIT. Go back to the competition discussion; if taxes and cost burdens are reduced and a company does not expand hiring, competitors will eat its lunch.

That’s why I believe that Romney has it right. Be careful not to believe everything that you hear from network TV news and the Obama campaign. They make Romney out to be the Evil Corporate Raider who farms out jobs overseas, causes unemployment, hates the poor, and loves the rich. Dig a little, and find out the facts. On the other hand, don’t believe everything the Romney campaign says about Obama. I don’t think Obama is out to destroy capitalism and freedom. Dig a little, and we see that he truly believes what he is doing is right.

With all the facts uncovered and the spin cast aside, Romney’s policies line up much more with my own beliefs. No one’s a saint in politics and he’s no exception, and I don’t expect him to make the Office of the President anything more respectful than the last guy. But I sure want him to break the logjam, using the policies that I believe in. Wealth will be gathered and redistributed to those who need it, not by the government, but by merit and hard work.

Manfred

. Wow Manfred u had alit to say on the subject

Pretty close race, but we gotta pick one. The People have spoken.

As for jobs, here's what has occurred just this morning:

- My company has pulled its plans for the 3 jobs we were going to post in December (we are a small company). We had one fellow primed for one of those jobs, so he will continue his search.

- Our plans for an additional 4 jobs in March will also be trimmed back, probably to 1 or 0. Our company's healthcare costs will rise next year. Federal tax will rise, and California tax will be higher too, with Proposition 30 having passed. The incremental margin of new staff given those costs is just too small, and possibly negative. Our price increases won't cover those new costs, as we wish to stay competitive and only raise prices by cost of living (~2-3%).

- These hiring plans can certainly change, but we are forecasting that our client base will freeze, since those client companies will be faced with the same cost increases. Government departments will grow, but we don't do business there.

- My wife and I canceled our plans to build a pool and finish the yard. With personal income tax rising, and potentially tuition costs rising (the owners of our kids' schools will be hit hard with higher taxes), this project would be frivolous at a risky time. Shame, this would have employed our landscaper's crew for about 4 months, and the pool company as well, plus the construction company for the cabana (big cabana, game room etc., would have been sweet). A lot of the hardware for the cabana would have been taxed at the new CA sale tax rate, which in the end would still be small $, but you can see the trend. Just isn't worth adding to our mortgage to fund this project.

We'll back the President, since he is our President (again). But this is our reality. What's yours?

Manfred

Same things here. Good luck.

(No pool & cabana? Where are the MOMs going to hang out? Nope! Not my place! I've got DENT!)

I must read more of this thread as I came in at the bottom. Manfred hit's on some pretty good point's. Soooo to the top I go....
First I must work and pay my taxes....then to the top I'll go....

Yes he won the election and he is our president but no I will not support or back to him
and I will continue to use my vote whenever possible to oppose him at every corner that's the only way
That is the only way to minimize the damage he can do

dentinhead wrote: I must read more of this thread as I came in at the bottom. Manfred hit's on some pretty good point's. Soooo to the top I go....
First I must work and pay my taxes....then to the top I'll go....

You are always on the TOP with us!
Give your family a BIG hug & let's go on!

(Move inside? Too cold for the tree! Your family is loving it!)

Mrs. DENT makes the BEST breakfast...come inside?

Paul Mantz, Jr. wrote:

dentinhead wrote: I must read more of this thread as I came in at the bottom. Manfred hit's on some pretty good point's. Soooo to the top I go....
First I must work and pay my taxes....then to the top I'll go....

You are always on the TOP with us!
Give your family a BIG hug & let's go on!

(Move inside? Too cold for the tree! Your family is loving it!)

Mrs. DENT makes the BEST breakfast...come inside?

Can I come?

Hey I play this game to get away from all the bull crap for those 30 minutes or less nopthi g else matters I feel free so shut up about politics

Musay69 wrote: Hey I play this game to get away from all the bull crap for those 30 minutes or less nopthi g else matters I feel free so shut up about politics

Did you notice that this thread was discontinued over five months ago?

[e]Sputnik wrote:

Musay69 wrote: Hey I play this game to get away from all the bull crap for those 30 minutes or less nopthi g else matters I feel free so shut up about politics

Did you notice that this thread was discontinued over five months ago?

No I did not

Election has been over for how many months now? Shouldn't that have been a clue?