Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43

Thread: You Guys Are Screwed....

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4406124]SeamusGate® will sink Romney.

    America loves its dogs.[/QUOTE]

    Incompetence will sink Obungler.

    As of now he is the worst President in US history... surpassing Jimmy(sissy)Carter....

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4406966]Here a typical Bain deal:

    Bain Capital bought AmPad in 1992 for $5.1 million. It borrowed heavily, boosting AmPad’s debt from $19.8 million in 1994 to $443.7 million in 1995, and Bain charged it tens of millions in fees. Bain took the firm public in 1996, making tens of millions more. AmPad, still saddled with debt, filed for bankruptcy in 2000.

    So that how he will run the WH? :confused:*[/QUOTE]

    Is this a joke or are you serious? I thought the typical Bain deal was to invest in Staples when it was just a single store and grow it into an empire. Businesses succeed and fail. It is the way of the world. Investors take risk and either reep the rewards or lose their shirts. Romney is a self made titan of business. He built Bain from nothing into powerhouse and amassed a fortune for himself. The thing you neglect to mention is that Bain often took over failing companies and turned them around.

    A more typical Bain deal would be where Company A is failing and could be shut down in a matter of months. Costs are soaring and profits are down. Bain buys in and immediately begins streamlining operations and reducing costs. Some employees may be laid off or shifted to more productive tasks. Company returns to profitability and begins to grow. Bain makes money and Company A stays alive and grows. Company A's employees keep their jobs.

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4407338]Is this a joke or are you serious? I thought the typical Bain deal was to invest in Staples when it was just a single store and grow it into an empire. Businesses succeed and fail. It is the way of the world. Investors take risk and either reep the rewards or lose their shirts. Romney is a self made titan of business. He built Bain from nothing into powerhouse and amassed a fortune for himself. The thing you neglect to mention is that Bain often took over failing companies and turned them around.

    A more typical Bain deal would be where Company A is failing and could be shut down in a matter of months. Costs are soaring and profits are down. Bain buys in and immediately begins streamlining operations and reducing costs. Some employees may be laid off or shifted to more productive tasks. Company returns to profitability and begins to grow. Bain makes money and Company A stays alive and grows. Company A's employees keep their jobs.[/QUOTE]

    Then how do you explain the real life Bain story I posted?

    Bains success rate was about 50%. If you like those odds for your country then by all means.

    And who will he "layoff" to fix unemployment? :confused:

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4405462]Listining to Romney's Illinois vicotry speech:

    Hi!

    I'm Mitt Romney!

    I know all about business!

    My dad was rich. And he paid for me to get the jobs that I had. I never had a real job. My job was to f*ck other people over and to make $$$. WTF is up with that POS Obama that studied "constitutional" law at a "college". I'm better. I screwed people out of jobs to make money for hedge fund managers. That's the real America. That's the America the founding fathers believed in.


    I also believe in magic underwear and a planet in outer space that my people will fly away to when the end of the world comes. The end of the world that I, Mitt Romney, will make sure that happens....




    [SIZE="7"][B]I[/B][/SIZE]

    also believe that the government is evil. I know that I have been the government for a decade. But I'm not the evil part. Listen here, you dumba**ses. I'm the good government.

    God bless stuff!!!!![/QUOTE]


    High, I'm Barrack Hussein Obama, If you don't vote for me you're a homophobe, bigot,

    [B][SIZE="4"]HATER AND A

    [/SIZE][/B]

    [B][SIZE="7"]RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/SIZE][/B]

  5. #25
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4406966]Here a typical Bain deal:

    Bain Capital bought AmPad in 1992 for $5.1 million. It borrowed heavily, boosting AmPad’s debt from $19.8 million in 1994 to $443.7 million in 1995, and Bain charged it tens of millions in fees. Bain took the firm public in 1996, making tens of millions more. AmPad, still saddled with debt, filed for bankruptcy in 2000.

    So that how he will run the WH? :confused:*[/QUOTE]
    How can you not be confused? That doesn't make sense.

    But it's nice to see you care so much about the bottom line, though.

    While you're at it, examine Obama's record.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=sackdance;4407836]How can you not be confused? That doesn't make sense.

    But it's nice to see you care so much about the bottom line, though.

    While you're at it, examine Obama's record.[/QUOTE]

    Raiding companies is fun but you don't run a country like that.

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4407721]Then how do you explain the real life Bain story I posted?

    Bains success rate was about 50%. If you like those odds for your country then by all means.

    And who will he "layoff" to fix unemployment? :confused:[/QUOTE]

    I run a small business and invest in others. You are simply looking at these issues from the wrong angle. If America is "Bain" then even your example would have been a success. According to your unverified post Bain made money on the deal. Furthermore that company could have been bankrupt in 1992 had Bain not stepped in and saved it. No details in an example makes the example worthless.

    The goal of businesses is not to "create jobs". Their goal is to make money for investors. When running a country the goals are different. Romney ran the Olympics and took what was a complete mess and turned it into a success. As far as who he will lay off to fix America lets start with redundant agencies. Senator Tom Coburn came out with a list of hundreds of governmental agencies whose tasks are redundant. They overlap and create inefficiencies. A competent manager would merge those agencies and reduce expenses. Workers can be shifted to more productive tasks or reduced through attrition.

    Your naive points make it seem like you are not a person involved in the business world. What do you do for a living?

  8. #28
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4408122]I run a small business and invest in others. You are simply looking at these issues from the wrong angle. If America is "Bain" then even your example would have been a success. According to your unverified post Bain made money on the deal. Furthermore that company could have been bankrupt in 1992 had Bain not stepped in and saved it. No details in an example makes the example worthless.

    The goal of businesses is not to "create jobs". Their goal is to make money for investors. When running a country the goals are different. Romney ran the Olympics and took what was a complete mess and turned it into a success. As far as who he will lay off to fix America lets start with redundant agencies. Senator Tom Coburn came out with a list of hundreds of governmental agencies whose tasks are redundant. They overlap and create inefficiencies. A competent manager would merge those agencies and reduce expenses. Workers can be shifted to more productive tasks or reduced through attrition.

    Your naive points make it seem like you are not a person involved in the business world. What do you do for a living?[/QUOTE]

    I was responding to post that said:

    [B][I]I've said it many times, but his success at Bain Capital was both hands on and indicative of the way he'd run a White House. [/I][/B]

    I don't believe the 2 jobs are similar in any way.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4407721]
    Bains success rate was about 50%. If you like those odds for your country then by all means.[/QUOTE]

    If 50% of this country's decisions came out "winners" we'd be in a MUCH better place (and that goes for both sides of the aisle).

    And before you ask, no -- I don't think Romney would have that kind of success either . . .

  10. #30
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    cape coral fl.
    Posts
    2,693
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4405796]So this country will choose between 2 candidates.

    1) NEVER had a real job in the private sector.

    2) Never had a job daddy didnt get for him.

    Sounds like a great selection.[/QUOTE]

    +1
    i cant believe there was a time when the king would be there on the frontlines fighting litterally for his people.

  11. #31
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,083
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4405796]So this country will choose between 2 candidates.

    1) NEVER had a real job in the private sector.

    2) Never had a job daddy didnt get for him.

    Sounds like a great selection.[/QUOTE]

    Gotta agree with Senor SouthPark here.

    The Great Misdirection and Unfortunatism?

    A self-made successful business entrepreneur with a keen sense of economics would NEVER run for elected office. For one, there's not much money in it...and two, said self-made business entrepreneur has better things to do than run a circus. :yes:

  12. #32
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4408604]... entrepreneur has better things to do than run a circus. :yes:[/QUOTE]

    Woody Johnson says hi :steamin::steamin::steamin::steamin::steamin:

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,083
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4408781]Woody Johnson says hi :steamin::steamin::steamin::steamin::steamin:[/QUOTE]

    lolz!

    10 points for Potato!

  14. #34
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4405800]Elections stop being fun when the general voting public lost the ability to discern state laws from federal ones.

    Bunch of morons.[/QUOTE]

    Was Romney not pro-choice before he became a national candidate?

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4[/url]

    Was Romneycare not the basis for Obamacare?

    [QUOTE][B]Romneycare and Obamacare Differ Only in Inconsequential Ways[/B]

    by Josh Dzieza Mar 6, 2012 1:16 PM EST

    Romney is struggling to distance himself from the health-care law he passed while governor of Massachusetts, and no wonder—the state and federal plans are virtually identical.
    Print
    Email
    Comments (37)


    No other issue--not his wealth, his 15 percent tax rate, or “corporations are people, my friends”--has given Mitt Romney as much trouble as the health care law he passed while governor of Massachusetts. Each of Romney’s opponents has taken a shot at the law Tim Pawlenty dubbed Obamneycare, pointing out again and again that it was the inspiration for President Obama’s reform so loathed by the Republican base. At a town hall rally in Ohio Monday, a Romney supporter pleaded for the candidate to give her something to say to critics. "I understand that Romneycare was good for Massachusetts at the state level, whereas Obamacare is federally mandated," she said. But "I don't know what the fundamental differences between the two [are] and I really would like your assistance with being able to tell others."


    Mitt Romney signed the Massachusetts health care reform bill on April 12, 2006 in Boston., David L. Ryan, The Boston Globe / Getty Images

    The problem for Romney is that there are no fundamental differences between the two laws. Both programs create exchanges where private insurers compete. Both require individuals to purchase insurance. And both subsidize those who can’t afford it. It’s a relatively new way of extending coverage. Massachusetts was the first place it was adopted, and the Affordable Care Act was the second. The two laws are, in the words of Jonathan Gruber, who helped design both the Romney and Obama plans, “the same ****ing bill.”

    To find any differences between the two, you must look to the margins.

    The Individual Mandate

    This is the part of the Affordable Care Act that really enrages Republicans, whose challenge to it is awaiting judgment by the Supreme Court. It’s an essential part of both plans. The only difference between Romney’s mandate and Obama’s is that Romney’s plan levies a harsher penalty on people who don’t buy insurance: $1,200 versus Obama’s $695.


    It’s not something Romney can easily distance himself from. Last week Buzzfeed uncovered a 2009 op-ed by Romney in which he urges Obama to follow Massachusett’s lead and adopt the mandate. “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others,” he wrote.

    Subsidies

    Both plans subsidize people who can’t afford to buy insurance on an exchange. The only difference is that Massachusetts gives more money to fewer people (anyone earning up to 300 percent of the poverty level), while Obama’s plan gives less money to more people (anyone earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level).

    Employer Mandate

    Again, both plans require employers to provide insurance, and again the differences are marginal. In Massachusetts companies with 11 or more employees must provide insurance or pay a $295 penalty per employee. Under the Affordable Care Act, companies with 50 or more employees must offer insurance or pay a $2,000 penalty per employee. Romney’s plan affects smaller businesses; Obama’s levies harsher penalties.

    The two laws are, in the words of Jonathan Gruber, who helped design both the Romney and Obama plans, ‘the same f------ bill.’
    Young Adults

    Both plans let children stay on their parents’ plan until they’re 26 years old. The only difference is that in Massachusetts children can stay on their parents’ plan for two years after they’re no longer claimed as a dependent or until they turn 26, whichever comes sooner.

    Limits to Benefits

    The Affordable Care Act forbids insurers from placing limits on the benefits someone can receive over their lifetime or in a given year. Romney's plan doesn’t, but most Massachusetts plans don’t place limits anyway because it could run afoul of the state’s Minimum Creditable Coverage regulations.
    Pre-existing Conditions, Rescission

    Both plans require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions and prohibit insurers from rescinding coverage retroactively. However, in Massachusetts an insurer can limit coverage of certain pre-existing conditions to six months, whereas there’s no limit under the Affordable Care Act.

    Preventative Care

    Insurers in Massachusetts are allowed to charge co-pays for preventative care, whereas preventative care is free under the Affordable Care Act. However, the Massachusetts program requires insurers to cover preventative care without a deductible.

    Contraception

    The latest aspect of the Affordable Care Act to come under fire is the inclusion of contraception under the forms of “preventative care” insurers must provide for free--including some businesses and colleges with religious affiliations. Romney tried to capitalize on the issue when he told the woman at the Ohio town hall that one key difference between his insurance plan and Obama’s is that his doesn’t require religious institutions to cover practices that are against their belief. That’s true, but tenuously. Romney’s plan doesn’t mention contraception, but only because Massachusetts already had a similar mandate. Under the 2002 law, insurers must cover contraception in the same way they cover other prescription drugs. Unlike Obama’s law, the Massachusetts law didn’t require insurers to provide contraception for free, but it did require them to cover it.

    The substance of Romney’s health care reform is so similar to Obama’s that he’s been forced to invoke states rights to defend himself, saying that federal government is wrong to force other states to adopt a Massachusetts-like plan. But as his 2009 op-ed makes clear, his resistance to a federal mandate is fairly recent. And there’s plenty more where that came from. For example, there’s the 2008 ABC News debate, where Charlie Gibson pointed out that Romney “backed away from mandates on a national basis,” and Romney replied, “No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.”[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/06/romneycare-and-obamacare-differ-only-in-inconsequential-ways.html[/url]

    If Romney gets the nomination, which I expect he will, I'm not too worried about this election. I'll vote Obama because I want to let the Bush cuts expire and Romney doesn't, but that's probably the only substantive difference I think I'll see in governance.

  15. #35
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4409557]
    Was Romneycare not the basis for Obamacare?


    If Romney gets the nomination, which I expect he will, I'm not too worried about this election. I'll vote Obama because I want to let the Bush cuts expire and Romney doesn't, but that's probably the only substantive difference I think I'll see in governance.[/QUOTE]

    Thanks for proving my point. Thanks to the author in your link, too.

  16. #36
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4410150]Thanks for proving my point. Thanks to the author in your link, too.[/QUOTE]

    Anytime.

    [QUOTE]The substance of Romney’s health care reform is so similar to Obama’s that he’s been forced to invoke states rights to defend himself, saying that federal government is wrong to force other states to adopt a Massachusetts-like plan. But as his 2009 op-ed makes clear, his resistance to a federal mandate is fairly recent. And there’s plenty more where that came from. For example, there’s the 2008 ABC News debate, where Charlie Gibson pointed out that Romney “backed away from mandates on a national basis,” and Romney replied, “No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.”[/QUOTE]

  17. #37
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4406110]Just curious:

    Did you hold George W. to the same standard as the "KennedyS" back in 00 and 04? Because almost eveything you listed for the kennedys could and does apply to the Bushs. The list of dirty deeds could fill a book (and there are many out there) yet somehow I bet you had no problem dutifully casting the ballot for the (R). Fascinating, much like the conservative politicians that rubber stamped W's endless spending during his administration and now that a (D) is in office has found their fiscal soul.[/QUOTE]

    1. Not aware of any of the Bushes cheating on a spouse - all Kennedys did.
    2. Not aware of any Bush having a chief of state assassinated - JFK did.
    3. Not aware of any Bush killing a young girl - Ted, maybe JFK & RFK.
    4. GWB DID drink when younger. True. Got cited. Ted= a roaring drunk
    5. Joe Kennedy was an anti semite and a pro Nazi

    GWB overspent in office. But the deficit in 3 years under Obama has increseed way more than in 8 under Bush.

  18. #38
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4406911]No it was Laura who killed someone drunk driving. W, despite being arrested for DUI was lucky enough to never kill anyone.[/QUOTE]


    As usual, along with your anti Catholic rhetoric, you are wrong. Zero evidence on your side about Laura drinking. Accident, yes.
    Drinking, no. And a coverup. Right. They just knew she would be First Lady.

  19. #39
    The one thing is if you don't live in Ma. you aren't covered by the law in Obamacare you are covered(screwed) no matter where you go. Just look at Ma. situation and you will see the country in a few years if it takes that long!

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4405462]Listining to Romney's Illinois vicotry speech:

    Hi!

    I'm Mitt Romney!

    I know all about business!

    My dad was rich. And he paid for me to get the jobs that I had. I never had a real job. My job was to f*ck other people over and to make $$$. WTF is up with that POS Obama that studied "constitutional" law at a "college". I'm better. I screwed people out of jobs to make money for hedge fund managers. That's the real America. That's the America the founding fathers believed in.


    I also believe in magic underwear and a planet in outer space that my people will fly away to when the end of the world comes. The end of the world that I, Mitt Romney, will make sure that happens....




    [SIZE="7"][B]I[/B][/SIZE]

    also believe that the government is evil. I know that I have been the government for a decade. But I'm not the evil part. Listen here, you dumba**ses. I'm the good government.

    God bless stuff!!!!![/QUOTE]

    I don't know what speech you were watching but the speech by Mitt Romney gave me the impression that Romney has the private sector and public sector background, common sense, and most of all competence to be President of the United States.

    Today Barack Obama was in Oklahoma giving a speech about I don't know what but the guy is just so freaking useless he didn't have his teleprompter so he read his speech from index cards. Nearly word-for-word he read the speech from the cards.

    The guy is just totally mailing-in his Presidency.

    Detached, distant, disinterested, unfocused, dithering, undisciplined, in-over-his-head Barack Obama has to go!

    :jets17

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us