Redjr01

I heard on CNBC today that a group of CEO's got together and created a pact to present to congress that they need to reduce the deficit in a responsible way for corporate hiring to happen. They cite that the problem is really the deficit and the effects it is having on investment and that congress needs to drop the partisan politics and come up with a deficit reduction plan that will work before CEO's have confidence to hire. In this pact the CEO's state that they don't mind paying higher taxes as long as responsible spending cuts are part of the package. This sounds a lot like the Obama plan. Is it too late for Romney to change his stance on no tax hikes. Even CEO's know that the Republican platform on deficits won't work and are now speaking up. Do you think this will affect the election and the Republican platform on deficits?

We have two deeply opposing views in this election. We have Obama who promised change and did change some things other than the economy. Then we have Romney who has proven to be an elitist with his untimely remarks and spewing the same policies that got this country in trouble. These are not great choices but here we are. In my view the only hope we have is another Obama administration. What Romney is proposing is pretty much the same deal that leads to trillion dollar bail outs and a crippled economy. We're barely out of the ditch that Bush drove us in and now we have another election facing us. I fear Romney will drive us over that cliff and that a win for Romney will prove this country is short minded and blind to the realities. What is your opinion?

I am in the corner that demand creates jobs regardless of the tax rate. We live in an economy where consumer spending is 2/3 of our GDP. So, we have to get our spenders spending again. Cutting income tax rates alone doesn't work. The wealthy take advantage by investing overseas which kills the trickle down theory by leaving no crumbs for the working class. Tax cuts should be aimed at the working class because they are the spenders in this economy. So, keep tax rates low for middle income workers, keep taxes low on savings and investment which benefit the wealthy since most of their income is from capital gains and this will free up money to create more demand. Once demand grows businesses will start to hire and expand to meet the demand and now we have a self sufficient economy again. It worked for Clinton without any bailouts why not try it again. What is your opinion?

In reference to this upcoming elections I keep hearing from investment bankers that there is really no difference between Democrats and Republicans in terms of fiscal policy. In the last election Obama promised tremendous change in how business is done in Washington yet he changed nothing of substance. In fact, he extended the Bush policies in terms of tax and other economic incentives. Then you have both parties belonging to the same PAC's and controlled by the same special interests. So, according to money professionals the only thing that matters to them is to achieve certainty in policy making so companies can provide a forecast and plan accordingly. Otherwise, they see no difference in terms of Democratic policy and Republican Policy because they both pander to the same crowds. I happen to agree. What do you think?

or a new congress? Personally, I think regardless of who wins the White House that it will be the congress that determines the fate of this country. The congress, these past four years were embarrassing. They got nothing done other than point out how incompetent the other side was. Anyway, I think a new congress that is respectful of their opponents and willing to work with opponents to solve problems would be a better outcome regardless of who wins the White House. I myself am voting for all new names for congress. This has to stop. Do you agree?

are due to the electorate or the politicians? I say the electorate. I can't help but notice that too many people vote against their best interest. For instance, I know elderly people that depend on medicare and social security that vote Republican. The very party that wants to privatize the system and they vote for them. Public school teachers voting Republican even though their jobs will be on the chopping block as a way to keep taxes low. I know poor people living on government assistance voting Republican because they offer hope with cuts to the very programs that help them out. With this kind of stupid voting you can't help but think we get the government we deserve. What do you think?

should be ripping? Romney is a sitting duck if the Obama campaign can figure out the real opening to his demise. This story about Romney hiding something in his taxes is nothing but a distraction. The real story about Romney's taxes is that it proves he has been filthy rich from birth. Romney promotes himself as a self made wealthy guy which is far from the truth. He has a trust fund confirmed by Romney so he was always wealthy. Doesn't this raise a red flag? I am not sure I want a guy similar to Bush in that I don't have to pay for a thing, the money tree pays for stuff approach. He kicked the can down the road in Massachusetts nearly pushing the state over a cliff. This entire tax opens an entire can of worms in that it proves that Romney is more fit to be a CEO rather than a leader of the people. What do you think?

you would like to see running for President? I feel we need a better option and the two people I can think of that would be great for the job is Mayor Bloomberg and Bill Weld. If either of those two put their hats in the ring I would vote for them. I may even volunteer to work on their campaign. Who would you like to see as a third option in the Presidential race?

information from Romney? Every little detail has to be in conflict. A lot of this stuff is standard information and part of the vetting process of candidates. Why is Romney willing to give ten years of tax returns to the McCain campaign and only one for his own Presidential campaign? I find that hard to swallow. Why is there conflict as to when he left Bain? To me that's a none issue but he is making it into an issue. To shut everyone up just tell them why you were still listed as involved with Bain up until 2002. Then he comes out and tells everyone that he doesn't know how much he is worth because a lot of his money is in a blind trust handled by a trustee. This is bothersome in two ways: It proves he is a silver spooner by having a trust handled by a trustee. Then it proves he never had to worry about money. Now I am starting to question his role in saving the Olympics. Judging from the fact that he rarely spent time in Massachusetts as governor, was he still using the Olympics as a stepping stone to a political career and left the work up to underlings? I can't trust this guy? I don't think he worked a day in his life. His administration in Massachusetts were all wealthy people that didn't accept a salary. His colleagues at Bain were all wealthy. When did he ever have to deal with a working person? What does he know about the issues working people face? Even those people that work and make over 250k. What does he know about what they had to go through to get those positions? Everything was handed to this guy and I don't trust his judgement as a politician. What's you opinion?

regarding the economy can Obama run on? When Obama got elected he promised hope and change. As I sit here today not much changed and there is very little hope that things will ever change. In terms of the economy I don't like the fact that he has changed nothing in terms of tax policy and even extended the failed policies of the Bush administration. In fact, he damaged the future of Social Security and Medicare by constantly cutting the payroll tax which didn't improve much of anything. When he had the majority in the Senate and the House all he managed was the Affordable Healthcare Act, the Auto Industry bailout, and stimulus. I would of thought he would of pushed through tax reform and financial regulations. Instead, even with the majority, he was bullied into extending the Bush tax cuts for the rest of his term and the debt ceiling debate was an embarrassment. In each case he could of gotten his way just by doing nothing. The tax code would of reverted to the Clinton code of the 90's and the debt ceiling would of had to be raised. That stuff was automatic. All these failures led to uncertainty that kept consumers and corporations from spending and hiring. In terms of the economy, do I we need this type of leadership? What change did he enact? To me, it seems like he accomplished nothing but uncertainty. What am I missing?

run on any accomplishments in Massachusetts? In all his appearances he only tells people what Obama is doing wrong but never articulates any accomplishments he made in his short political career. I can tell you first hand that his only accomplishment was Romney care in Massachusetts and he refuses to mention that as an accomplishment. So, since he can't win on accomplishments, what attracts you to Romney? What am I missing? Is it because he will be the Republican nominee and you only vote Republican? Is it because he's the only option other than Obama? Simply put I won't vote for Romney because he never worked a day in his life and doesn't understand what it means to get a job and to hold a job. He was a senior partner at Bain Capital and partnerships are bought into not earned. You need to contribute money and be able to handle your share of the expenses for a partnership to work. Those jobs go to the wealthy. Outsourcing jobs to him has no personal meaning and what it does to working families. He just sees an opportunity to grow profits by cutting costs and expanding overseas. I can't vote for that. But what am I missing that you see in him?

Affordable Healthcare Act doesn't go into effect until 2014? The ignorance on this board about the healthcare act is unbelievable considering that everyone will be touched by it one way or another. I love the comments that my insurance premiums have already gone up because of Obamacare. How is that possible? The mandate doesn't go into effect until 2014. I lived under Romney care for six years now in Massachusetts and my premiums are $235/mo lower than I would have to pay outside the program. So, if your premiums are still rising tremendously it's because Obamacare hasn't kicked in yet. Those premiums will stop growing when it does. Trust me. The one thing I thank Romney for when he was Governor of my state was Romney care. My premiums only grew at a trickle compared to others in the country in the same age group. So, if Obama care is the problem of higher premiums, please explain this to me. I would like to know how a bill not even in effect can cause premiums to go sky high.

Government spending is part of GDP so it isn't so bad if the government spends to provide services for American citizens. I keep hearing the terms tax and spend in this forum. Yeah, so. Why is that so bad? Look at what we got from tax and spend over the years: A depression breaking industry build up, highway infrastructure that used to be world class, a space program that created and expanded computer technology, entitlement programs that gave the elderly and disabled security and dignity, the internet, dna mapping, better health care, and extended life. What did we ever get from borrow and spend? Higher deficits, endless financial scandals, financial crisis, basically a repeat of past disasters such as the depression. So, tell me what's so bad about tax and spend as long as the spending yields a return to the american electorate? Also, tell me how we are going to upgrade our infrastructure to at least catch up to a third world country, how are we going to be leaders in education again, and how will we get away from the brink of becoming part of an economic union similar to the european union?

I didn't realize that the Honda Accord and the Toyota Camry are the largest American made vehicles in this country. I am not sure of this because I heard this from a friend this morning so I thought I throw it to this board. My friend, who loves cars, told me that these Japanese cars are more American made than any Ford(Canada), GM(Mexico, Canada), and Chrysler(Canada). He told me that the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry has more American made parts than any other car including those made from American manufacturers. I am not sure how GM, Ford, and Chrysler stand now, nor does my friend, but my friend read that Honda and Toyota still lead in american made parts. So, if you're about buying American, wouldn't you be buying a Toyota or Honda today? What do you think?

doesn't affect those that already have health insurance? If you already have coverage nothing is going to change for you except lower premium increases. Nothing will be taken away from your coverage. Perhaps medicare and medicaid will change in terms of some services but reform is going to happen in those entitlements anyway. It's only those that are chronically ill and those without insurance that this bill will affect and in a positive way. With that said, does this bill affect you in any way?

If you had a chronic illness such as cancer or heart disease would you like this bill? A major illness, without this bill would drive most people into bankruptcy. By eliminating lifetime limits that kick patients off of coverage because their care went over a pre-determined limit, you would have to feel a little bit secure even if you are healthy and never suffered a major illness. Also, wouldn't you like the fact that if you were not covered and suddenly became gravely ill that you can get coverage? That has to give you some relief if you're family has a history of illness that may be in your future. Basically, walk a mile in a sick person's shoes. Would you think differently about this bill? Personally, I don't like the individual mandate either but I will accept because of the total good that comes with this bill. I know major illness in later years is part of my family history so now I feel relieved that I will never be without insurance. Put ideology aside and walk a mile a chronically ill person who was kicked off of coverage. How do you feel about the bill now? Has anything changed?

the affordable healthcare act? It's clear by now that not all states are in favor of this bill. Coming from Massachusetts it's going to take a few years to build the infrastructure to properly execute this bill. That's why the bill, enacted into law in 2010, is not scheduled to be enforced by 2014: To give states time to build out the infrastructure. So, if states haven't been preparing for this new healthcare system, will they be ready for 2014? Constituents won't be happy when they are taxed for not having healthcare because the system is not in place to properly administer this program. Republicans can talk about repealing this bill but I wouldn't be hanging my hat on that hope if I was Governor of any state. Of course, this bill only affects those that don't currently have health insurance. So, if you're in that category, are you confident your Governor has your best interests at heart? The tax for not having health insurance can be steep. What do you think?

seriously when he refuses to own up to the one political accomplishment he ever made? Romney care in Massachusetts is the only political accomplishment in his very short political life. Before that he was a job killer in Massachusetts working in private equity. I live in Massachusetts and he was a buzzard. Manufacturing, under Reagan, was going overseas and Romney and his crew would take these manufacturing companies, load them up with debt, and sell the businesses off piece by piece. A couple of times he took these well paying manufacturing jobs and replaced them with low paying retail jobs with Sports Authority and Staples. Good solid retail stores but nothing you can support a family with if you work for them. Anyway, here's Romney refusing to own up to his one political victory and is a known job killer. Do we really need this guy right now running our economy? How can anyone believe a word he says and take him seriously?

Obama care or Romney care?

Since the Supreme Court held up the individual mandate and remains law of the land both sides are calling this bill Obama care or Romney care. Living in Massachusetts under Romney's health care reform I would call it Romney care since the reform works and the national plan is much like the plan Romney signed into law. The mandate does work and provides insurance companies with more volume of premiums. The cost is lowered to individuals buying private insurance and those that can't afford it get subsidized. So, there are no deadbeats living off of tax payers for free care. I am not sure why Romney refuses to own up to this accomplishment and keeps blasting it every chance he gets. The notion that this bill was only good for Massachusetts is crazy. In fact, it's now common knowledge that responsible states are contacting Massachusetts insurers on how to set this program up and get it running before 2014. In my opinion people will come around on this program when premiums stop growing 200% each year and instead will only have to pay an additional $10 each year. No one is crying up here in Massachusetts. Especially the gravely ill that can't get kicked off their coverage because of life time limits. That is all gone. Anyway, what's your opinion of the bill and do you look forward to paying lower premiums as individuals or corporations?

I think it is the single most important issue faces the electorate in the next Presidential election. The economy is in a strangle hold due to our debt. The debt level is so high that we can't run essential services without adding to the deficit because we have to borrow nearly every dime. Then we have to service the debt and is why the Fed is keeping rates at 0%. With rate that low banks can't raise capital on their own through deposits because people are finding better returns in bonds and stocks with high dividend yields. So, the fed still needs to provide capital to banks that aren't into investment banking. Plus, the GDP is showing signs of retracting again and jobs are slowing down. So, as long as the deficits continue to grow while an incompetent congress continues to do nothing we'll always have a stagnant economy in and out of recession as we get closer to a regional economy similar to Europe. I don't want this. What do you think?