Obama out?

clivex said:
Simmo. You can bait away but getting within 1.4 per cent of obama after the 47 speech, the religion and the shmbles of the GOP is not exactly a bad result and hardly a triumph for lightweight. When you think of some past troucings. Mondale etc
Click to expand...

You think losing is not a bad result? When US voters had sussed out Obama and Romney was unstoppable?

I believe there is a vacancy for Scotland manager - up for it? Your ability to take something good from defeat will stand you in good stead.
 
Euronymous said:
The Republicans are fucked unless they can start appealing to non-whites. For an incumbent Democrat to be re-elected with the economy in such a mess is unheard of. Within my lifetime the non-white population in that country will go over 50%.
Click to expand...

Agree with your general point but the economy has been growing qtr on qtr for a long time now from a very bad situation. I don't understand why this would have been construed as a negative against Obama.
 
simmo said:
You think losing is not a bad result? When US voters had sussed out Obama and Romney was unstoppable?

I believe there is a vacancy for Scotland manager - up for it? Your ability to take something good from defeat will stand you in good stead.
Click to expand...

Give it a rest and stop ruining a very decent thread.
 
The econmy has been growing very slowly and jobless rate barely moving for a very long time. The belief is it should have been more sooner. Focusing on the healthcare which was imposing extra costs on hiring was noyt exactly right time right place many feel

Economies are about confidence too. Does obama inspire the busiiness community ?

And how europe would vote with their "values" ? Who gives a ****. But the attiude towards romney has been patronising and dim. Regardless of his foot in mouth his cv is streets ahead

And for all the shreiking about the tea partty and desire for less government, old europe should have a look with its legions of worthless public sector bollards and dying competetivenss
 
clivex said:
And for all the shreiking about the tea partty and desire for less government, old europe should have a look with its legions of worthless public sector bollards and dying competetivenss
Click to expand...

Big Government won't work in America but taxing the **** out of the rich can't hurt surely. After all, with Americans being so insular the brain drain argument doesn't apply there.
 
But the attiude towards romney has been patronising and dim
Click to expand...

The epitome of dim and patronising was Romney on his visit to London and his remarks about the Olympics
 
taxing the rich for the sake of it is a useless policy, especially when applied to genuine risk takers who always drive any economy. suppressing enterprise so that 80% or whatever, of the result is snatched away is counterproductive, as we will see in france
 
This has been a good read. Scores on the doors?? Did everyone collect on their bets? Great debating Clivex... seems it was you against the world there. America needed Romney but wanted Obama...
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
taxing the rich for the sake of it is a useless policy, especially when applied to genuine risk takers who always drive any economy. suppressing enterprise so that 80% or whatever, of the result is snatched away is counterproductive, as we will see in france
Click to expand...

It isn't for the sake of it. It's so the better off pay a fairer share.
 
On The Bridle said:
This has been a good read. Scores on the doors?? Did everyone collect on their bets? Great debating Clivex... seems it was you against the world there. America needed Romney but wanted Obama...
Click to expand...

People like me collect on their bets, I'm not interested in debate, politics or polices. I just care about hard cash.
 
clivex said:
The econmy has been growing very slowly and jobless rate barely moving for a very long time. The belief is it should have been more sooner. Focusing on the healthcare which was imposing extra costs on hiring was noyt exactly right time right place many feel
Click to expand...

The exit polls last night indicated that voters in virtually all of the swing states - albeit by varying margins - think George Bush is more to blame for the state of the economy than Obama.

More broadly, I think this election was a pretty sharp reminder of the importance of the campaign operations in deciding the outcome. The Obama campaigns voter turnout model was proved to be absolutely spot on and his campaign's ability to increase and turn out their base was seriously impressive.

Whatever else anyone thinks about Obama, I cannot have it that he is a lightweight after this campaign. He engaged Romney aggressively from very early on, turning his own apparent business experience against him in Ohio (which worked).* They ground Romney down early on with just enough voters to make it count; if there was a lightweight running for president it was Romney.

The economic data and, equally as importantly, Obama's favourability ratings, pointed to a close election and that is what we got. My overall impression is that Obama has put together a coalition that is broad but by no means deep, which is a tribute to his campaign and an indication that this election was very much in play for the challenger. In large part though I tend to think campaigns are representative of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates heading them; in many respects managing and surviving the campaign is about as indicative a measure as to how the candidate will handle the pressures of the Presidency that we can get.

*For what its worth, I thought the portrayal of Romney as a 'corporate raider' was politically shrewd but grossly unfair. I also think that anybody who thinks that working at a place like Bain represents solid credentials for the Presidency needs to see a doctor.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
taxing the rich for the sake of it is a useless policy, especially when applied to genuine risk takers who always drive any economy. suppressing enterprise so that 80% or whatever, of the result is snatched away is counterproductive, as we will see in france
Click to expand...

Allowing the rich to skip paying tax hasn't done much for Greece.
 
The whole ethos of the right is that the people who have the good jobs and the big paychecks are the ones that deserve it the most, the winners in the game. But these people in most cases are the ones who have had all the advantages from birth. Romney it could be argued is a self made man who co founded some sort of equity firm and became a multi-millionaire. The American dream. But his father was well off and he had a fantastic education. A fairer tax system would take a larger slice of the pie from the rich and plow it into education and health care so the disadvantaged from birth had a better shot at making a comfortable life for themselves.

In an ideal world people's philosophy re tax should be look at what you're left with, not what you pay.
 
That is about as stupid example as i could imagine grey. Especially that greece is brouight to its knees by a bloated public sector

Euro. No one is sayinmg thta the rich shouldnt pay more but your attitude of tax the **** out of them is not based on anything other than spite. If you want to kill enterprise then go ahead but think about what does to overall tax revenues.

Otb. Yes but its a doddle really.
 
The Scandanavian countries are the examples we should be looking towards not France or Greece. Sensible tax policies, no unrest that I've ever heard of and gorgeous blondes up the ying yang.
 
Romney could have sat on his Inheritance and blown it up his nose and hes done a lot more than bain capital. Stuff that certainly put him ahead of certain candidates

But for all this stuff about priviledge and chances in life in the usa perhaps we ought to consider a list of recent presidents?

Reagan
Clinton
Nixon
Johnston
Obama

And lets look at where they started? (nixon and johnson from very poor backgrounds i recall). And lest go back a little further to lincoln too

In fact the only rich kids were he bushs (and senior had a fine war record) and the kennedys

And as for tax...

Quite simple. You make good money and have acumen and you want to try something new. You are sure it will work but it will take cpaital and time. Will employ a few people and lets say for example, will export a little too (i am dealing with two scenarios very close to this right now)

So you reckon in a quarter mill turnover first year and clear 20k

Right, do i need to explain more?

Going to do it if state leaves you with 4k out of that? Are you ****

And whos he ultimate loser?

In truth its not even the cash here (entrepeneurs are not as bittom line driven as many assume) but its the principle. Frankly you going to throw capital l and time at something so that virtually the whole lot is grabbed . Not a chance
 
Last edited:
Fair enough, Greece is a bad example of lots of things, clive.

The point I was trying to make is that giving money to the already rich is an unlikely way to achieve economic success. They save more than others, spend more on luxury imports and will move a big chunk of it to tax havens. The figures are there, as the rich have got richer, investment levels in western economies have declined. I'm talking about the last 30-40 years, not just the last five years. Unless you can ensure they spend it on useful stuff, such as the type of investment you mention above, tax breaks for the rich are a complete waste of money.

So, concentrate on providing the right kinds of incentive to invest in projects of benefit to the economy rather than putting money directly into already full pockets. And then, when the projects are a success, there has to be a fair return, not only to the investor, but to the rest of us as well.
 
Clive, serious question (to steal this from TS) - what makes you think Romney is qualified to lead the US economically? (don't refer to Obama in your answer, just Romney).
 
You seem to be talking about state sponsored projects rather than genuine entrepeneurship. No thanks... No more british leylands thank you

The fact is that in what is now very much a service economy you need to retain talent and whilst the brain drain argument can be overplayed, if you start spitefully taxing you will lose talent, as we are starting to see with e influx from france to london, which even in my limited circle is very noticable. And talent drives competitiveness

And im not at all sure about the spending of the rich, or more accurately, top rate tax payersWould it be true that the poor might spend a greater proportion on imports? Basic food, electrical goods and smack? Whereas the moderately wealthy spend a lot more on domestically provided services
 
Because hes run a large business which regardless of their ethics, was very very successful. Hes pulled around a economic disaster into the black on a micro scale and he has run the budget of quite a significant state. Not only that, he was a successful gop leader in a liberal state and must clearly have been able to do deals and work through compromises

No president is an out and out economist (thank god maybe) but a strong businessman, let alone leader, would have been skilled at taking the right advice from the right circles and not (as has been sugessted about obama) a limited clique. There is the practical element too rather than the idealogical

And such a person would be a natural deal maker who could handle any legislative obstacles (again unlike obama)

I will always take a business leader to understand economics on the ground far more than some poxy "professional"

Thats a whole lot more than most candidates bring to table
 
Last edited:
You seem to be talking about state sponsored projects rather than genuine entrepeneurship. No thanks... No more british leylands thank you
Click to expand...

That's just silly. I said that spare cash should be channeled towards investment projects of the type you mentioned. This would be done by providing advice, networking support, training, fiscal incentives, etc.


The fact is that in what is now very much a service economy you need to retain talent and whilst the brain drain argument can be overplayed, if you start spitefully taxing you will lose talent, as we are starting to see with e influx from france to london, which even in my limited circle is very noticable. And talent drives competitiveness
Click to expand...

Isn't yours exactly the sort of circle where you might expect to see some impact? But yes, tax rates should be reasonable.

And im not at all sure about the spending of the rich, or more accurately, top rate tax payersWould it be true that the poor might spend a greater proportion on imports? Basic food, electrical goods and smack? Whereas the moderately wealthy spend a lot more on domestically provided services
Click to expand...

The poor spend more of their income than the rich, and they spend more of it at home rather than having holidays abroad and putting their money offshore.
 
Back
Top