Running America Like A Business

[Arkady]

"The Daily Show" had a brilliant segment where the correspondents played with the idea of running America like a business (based on Republican rhetoric treating Romney as qualified to be president based on his work at Bain Capital). The idea was that if you really treated America the way a business behaves, you'd be letting a lot of the states go, the same way a business fires under-performing employees or closes down under-performing franchises. The "Daily Show" correspondents met with Republican convention delegates from states they were letting go (like Mississippi), while sitting around chuckling with delegates from states that were performing well enough to retain (e.g., Connecticut and California).

It was particularly clever because, if the United States really were run like a business, the states most likely to get the axe are largely those where you're most likely to hear rhetoric about us needing to run America like a business. Mississippi, for example, is the lowest-performing state. It has the lowest GDP per capita and god-awful social stats (high teen pregnancy, low life expectancy, a sickening epidemic of obesity, wretched educational scores, and so on). It is also a huge drain on the national resources -- taking in billions of dollars more in federal services than it contributes to the federal coffers. Mississippi is just the start of the list of states that would be let go if America were run like a business. The majority of states are net drains on the federal coffers, including nearly all the red states. And the red states also, as a group, push down our national GDP per capita, while worsening the vast majority of our social and economic stats. If America were a business, a turn-around artist would come in and dismantle most of "Red America," selling it for scrap to any nation that had some need for those parts, and thereby instantly create a leaner, much more prosperous company.

Now, in Mitt Romney's defense, he's from Massachusetts, which is one of the all-stars of America -- the kind of "employee" you give a big bonus to, so he won't leave, even as you're engaging in mass layoffs. If Massachusetts were one of America, Inc.'s franchises, it would be the one you'd hire a consultant to study closely, in hopes of finding the secrets of its success, so you could emulate what it is doing across the rest of the business. So, if we started treating America as a business, Romney would still find himself a citizen when all was said and done, as we said a not-so-fond farewell to the likes of Mississippi, North Dakota, Alaska, Alabama.... and, frankly, just about all the states with any likelihood of actually voting for Romney. But, of course, the leaner, more profitable America we'd have after getting rid of the deadwood would never hire a guy like Mitt Romney to be its CEO. Just look at the top ten states, in terms of making the biggest net tax contribution per capita to the federal government:

1. New Jersey
2. Connecticut
3. New Hampshire
4. Nevada
5. Illinois
6. Minnesota
7. Colorado
8. Massachusetts
9. California
10. New York

Most of those are also states that pull up our national average in terms of GDP per capita, and various other social and economic indicators. Those are all Obama states. If America were being run like a business, then once the poor performers were unceremoniously shown the door, someone like Obama would be made CEO.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Running America Like a Hedge Fund

Since Bain Capital is, in essence a hedge fund, it would be equally interesting to contemplate running America like a hedge fund. In those cases, not only would they fire poor performing states like Mississippi, they might sell Mississippi to a Saudi oil sheik and a wannabe Osama bin-Laden could easily set up training camps in the American heartland.

Wikipedia: Hedge Fund

"The Daily Show" had a brilliant segment where the correspondents played with the idea of running America like a business (based on Republican rhetoric treating Romney as qualified to be president based on his work at Bain Capital). The idea was that if you really treated America the way a business behaves, you'd be letting a lot of the states go, the same way a business fires under-performing employees or closes down under-performing franchises. The "Daily Show" correspondents met with Republican convention delegates from states they were letting go (like Mississippi), while sitting around chuckling with delegates from states that were performing well enough to retain (e.g., Connecticut and California).

It was particularly clever because, if the United States really were run like a business, the states most likely to get the axe are largely those where you're most likely to hear rhetoric about us needing to run America like a business. Mississippi, for example, is the lowest-performing state. It has the lowest GDP per capita and god-awful social stats (high teen pregnancy, low life expectancy, a sickening epidemic of obesity, wretched educational scores, and so on). It is also a huge drain on the national resources -- taking in billions of dollars more in federal services than it contributes to the federal coffers. Mississippi is just the start of the list of states that would be let go if America were run like a business. The majority of states are net drains on the federal coffers, including nearly all the red states. And the red states also, as a group, push down our national GDP per capita, while worsening the vast majority of our social and economic stats. If America were a business, a turn-around artist would come in and dismantle most of "Red America," selling it for scrap to any nation that had some need for those parts, and thereby instantly create a leaner, much more prosperous company.

Now, in Mitt Romney's defense, he's from Massachusetts, which is one of the all-stars of America -- the kind of "employee" you give a big bonus to, so he won't leave, even as you're engaging in mass layoffs. If Massachusetts were one of America, Inc.'s franchises, it would be the one you'd hire a consultant to study closely, in hopes of finding the secrets of its success, so you could emulate what it is doing across the rest of the business. So, if we started treating America as a business, Romney would still find himself a citizen when all was said and done, as we said a not-so-fond farewell to the likes of Mississippi, North Dakota, Alaska, Alabama.... and, frankly, just about all the states with any likelihood of actually voting for Romney. But, of course, the leaner, more profitable America we'd have after getting rid of the deadwood would never hire a guy like Mitt Romney to be its CEO. Just look at the top ten states, in terms of making the biggest net tax contribution per capita to the federal government:

1. New Jersey
2. Connecticut
3. New Hampshire
4. Nevada
5. Illinois
6. Minnesota
7. Colorado
8. Massachusetts
9. California
10. New York

Most of those are also states that pull up our national average in terms of GDP per capita, and various other social and economic indicators. Those are all Obama states. If America were being run like a business, then once the poor performers were unceremoniously shown the door, someone like Obama would be made CEO.

 

[Zoar]

Indeed if the US was BainLike, 40 of the states would be sold off for under performing and only those TOP TEN would remain.... and those 40 would get NO Social Security or pensions or Medicaid Medicare.... Hey They'd get exactly what those red states are asking for!

I say let's give it to 'em!

 

[Arkady]

Yep. If the US government acted like Bain, it would also find clever ways to shift the national debt to those low-performing states, before cutting them loose. Then, once what was left of America (probably just the Northeast) was performing really well and debt-free, it would be auctioned off to the highest bidder, to enhance Romney's personal fortune.

 

[Judy1]

"The Daily Show" had a brilliant segment where the correspondents played with the idea of running America like a business (based on Republican rhetoric treating Romney as qualified to be president based on his work at Bain Capital). The idea was that if you really treated America the way a business behaves, you'd be letting a lot of the states go, the same way a business fires under-performing employees or closes down under-performing franchises. The "Daily Show" correspondents met with Republican convention delegates from states they were letting go (like Mississippi), while sitting around chuckling with delegates from states that were performing well enough to retain (e.g., Connecticut and California).

It was particularly clever because, if the United States really were run like a business, the states most likely to get the axe are largely those where you're most likely to hear rhetoric about us needing to run America like a business. Mississippi, for example, is the lowest-performing state. It has the lowest GDP per capita and god-awful social stats (high teen pregnancy, low life expectancy, a sickening epidemic of obesity, wretched educational scores, and so on). It is also a huge drain on the national resources -- taking in billions of dollars more in federal services than it contributes to the federal coffers. Mississippi is just the start of the list of states that would be let go if America were run like a business. The majority of states are net drains on the federal coffers, including nearly all the red states. And the red states also, as a group, push down our national GDP per capita, while worsening the vast majority of our social and economic stats. If America were a business, a turn-around artist would come in and dismantle most of "Red America," selling it for scrap to any nation that had some need for those parts, and thereby instantly create a leaner, much more prosperous company.

Now, in Mitt Romney's defense, he's from Massachusetts, which is one of the all-stars of America -- the kind of "employee" you give a big bonus to, so he won't leave, even as you're engaging in mass layoffs. If Massachusetts were one of America, Inc.'s franchises, it would be the one you'd hire a consultant to study closely, in hopes of finding the secrets of its success, so you could emulate what it is doing across the rest of the business. So, if we started treating America as a business, Romney would still find himself a citizen when all was said and done, as we said a not-so-fond farewell to the likes of Mississippi, North Dakota, Alaska, Alabama.... and, frankly, just about all the states with any likelihood of actually voting for Romney. But, of course, the leaner, more profitable America we'd have after getting rid of the deadwood would never hire a guy like Mitt Romney to be its CEO. Just look at the top ten states, in terms of making the biggest net tax contribution per capita to the federal government:

1. New Jersey
2. Connecticut
3. New Hampshire
4. Nevada
5. Illinois
6. Minnesota
7. Colorado
8. Massachusetts
9. California
10. New York

Most of those are also states that pull up our national average in terms of GDP per capita, and various other social and economic indicators. Those are all Obama states. If America were being run like a business, then once the poor performers were unceremoniously shown the door, someone like Obama would be made CEO.

I'm perfectly fine letting the south have their long wished for secession. To hell with 'em!

 

[Arkady]

It would be.... interesting. Those bottom 40 states would find themselves much poorer, overnight. And, long-term, the discrepancy would tend to get bigger, once the top ten states were no longer there to clean up the mess for the bottom 40. For example, think back to the S&L Bailout -- which was mostly a matter of the net-tax-contributor states cleaning up a disaster that was mostly a local Texas matter. Or think about the real estate catastrophe, which disproportionately hit the Sun Belt states -- a disproportionate share of that federal money's been flowing south, to prevent the South of the US from finding itself in a position similar to the South of Europe (Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece, which had similar housing-related issues). Or even think about the really big natural disasters in our modern history, like Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina, which were followed up by a massive flow of federal resources coming to the aid of under-performing states. If you un-linked the top ten states from the rest, you'd no longer have that kind of help, and the tendency would be for the rich to get richer while the poor got even poorer with each new crisis that overwhelmed their resources.

Just to riff a bit on the theme of running America as a business, picture what a CEO would really do if he took over a company that looked like the US. Picture that the company is highly decentralized for no good reason, with 50 largely autonomous regional directors calling the shots in their regions. And picture if these regions had absurdly huge differences in size -- one director responsible for a market area of a few hundred thousand customers, while another was responsible for a market area of tens of millions of customers. One of the first things the new CEO would do would be to restructure the company. He'd centralize a lot of functions, to do away with the redundancy of all those local bureaucracies for things that can more efficiently be handled at the home office. And he'd rework the regions, so that each region had roughly an equal size. He'd break California into maybe six units, while sticking much of the big empty center of the country under a single regional manager (the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc.)

In other words, he'd engage in a kind of centralization that would be horrifying to the exact kinds of people who are most likely to pretend they'd like to see America run like a business. And he'd radically de-power the small states.

 

[Arkady]

I'm perfectly fine letting the south have their long wished for secession. To hell with 'em!

It sure would suck, though, for the millions of southerners who aren't neo-confederate imbeciles. Think, for example, of your typical resident of Austin, Texas, or Arlington, Virginia, or the tech corridor of North Carolina. Think of the millions of black southerners who'd suddenly find themselves a despised minority without the assistance of the rest of the country in preventing the racists from doing their worst. Remember, it was the US federal government that ended slavery, forcibly desegregated the schools, ended the lynchings and the Jim Crow system, etc. It's not hard picturing the South back-sliding at least part way into such behavior without federal laws, the fourteenth amendment, hate crimes legislation, etc., to keep them in line.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

To continue in this vein, the "red states" would genuinely be transformed into "red" (i.e. Soviet) states.

Scientific Management, Socialist Discipline, and Soviet Power

All power to the job creators and corporate directors!

It would be.... interesting. Those bottom 40 states would find themselves much poorer, overnight. And, long-term, the discrepancy would tend to get bigger, once the top ten states were no longer there to clean up the mess for the bottom 40. For example, think back to the S&L Bailout -- which was mostly a matter of the net-tax-contributor states cleaning up a disaster that was mostly a local Texas matter. Or think about the real estate catastrophe, which disproportionately hit the Sun Belt states -- a disproportionate share of that federal money's been flowing south, to prevent the South of the US from finding itself in a position similar to the South of Europe (Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece, which had similar housing-related issues). Or even think about the really big natural disasters in our modern history, like Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina, which were followed up by a massive flow of federal resources coming to the aid of under-performing states. If you un-linked the top ten states from the rest, you'd no longer have that kind of help, and the tendency would be for the rich to get richer while the poor got even poorer with each new crisis that overwhelmed their resources.

Just to riff a bit on the theme of running America as a business, picture what a CEO would really do if he took over a company that looked like the US. Picture that the company is highly decentralized for no good reason, with 50 largely autonomous regional directors calling the shots in their regions. And picture if these regions had absurdly huge differences in size -- one director responsible for a market area of a few hundred thousand customers, while another was responsible for a market area of tens of millions of customers. One of the first things the new CEO would do would be to restructure the company. He'd centralize a lot of functions, to do away with the redundancy of all those local bureaucracies for things that can more efficiently be handled at the home office. And he'd rework the regions, so that each region had roughly an equal size. He'd break California into maybe six units, while sticking much of the big empty center of the country under a single regional manager (the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc.)

In other words, he'd engage in a kind of centralization that would be horrifying to the exact kinds of people who are most likely to pretend they'd like to see America run like a business. And he'd radically de-power the small states.

 

[JV-12]

So in other words, we have President Obama to thank for preventing conservatives from detaching states from the union, for preventing the nation from sliding back into slavery, segregating the schools, creating a lawless environment for lynchings, etc.

All because Romney thinks the government needs to be run more like a business.

I’m for Obama!

 

[imreallyperplexed]

JV,

At least no one suggested that a President run the United States like the Catholic Church. :wink:

Sorry if this yanks your chain. But given the horrible things that many conservatives say about the intentions of liberals/progressives, turnabout seems like fair play. Haven't you heard about the Democratic plantation? Haven't you heard that Obama is a communist? Etc. etc, Liberals don't have a monopoly on outrageous hyperbole. (I don't think that this is hyperbole BTW. I think that it is biting satire.)

The other thing to keep in mind is that businesses can be VERY authoritarian and bureaucratic. So can religious organizations. In all these cases (government included), checks on the power of those with power and having some say in the decisions that leaders make on behalf of the "people" are important.

So it is reasonable to ask whether Mitt Romney could distinguish between being the President and a CEO. I am sorry to say but Dick Cheney (who was a CEO before he was VEEP) set a very poor example in that regard. It is not surprising that a lot of Democrats and numerous independents are skeptical of Romney's suitability and qualificiations.

So in other words, we have President Obama to thank for preventing conservatives from detaching states from the union, for preventing the nation from sliding back into slavery, segregating the schools, creating a lawless environment for lynchings, etc.

All because Romney thinks the government needs to be run more like a business.

I’m for Obama!

 

[JV-12]

JV,

At least no one suggested that a President run the United States like the Catholic Church. :wink:

Sorry if this yanks your chain. But given the horrible things that many conservatives say about the intentions of liberals/progressives, turnabout seems like fair play. Haven't you heard about the Democratic plantation? Haven't you heard that Obama is a communist? Etc. etc, Liberals don't have a monopoly on outrageous hyperbole. (I don't think that this is hyperbole BTW. I think that it is biting satire.)

The other thing to keep in mind is that businesses can be VERY authoritarian and bureaucratic. So can religious organizations. In all these cases (government included), checks on the power of those with power and having some say in the decisions that leaders make on behalf of the "people" are important.

So it is reasonable to ask whether Mitt Romney could distinguish between being the President and a CEO. I am sorry to say but Dick Cheney (who was a CEO before he was VEEP) set a very poor example in that regard. It is not surprising that a lot of Democrats and numerous independents are skeptical of Romney's suitability and qualificiations.

Personally, I consider 16 trillion in the hole to be of grave and alarming concern. I have no doubt big wheels from both parties are equally guilty. I also think our economy is in very serious peril, I am not interested in favorable barometers telling me something different, there is enough evidence to argue the opposite.

You are correct, my opinion of Barack Obama is I find him to be a deplorable president. I will allow you to intellectually disagree with me and I do not doubt your reasons make perfect sense to you. I am want to elaborate my reasons once again. It is Barack the man and his past, not any democrat president, that is my main contention.

Do I think any party or any president can save this nation from its ongoing downward spiral? No, not at all. They cannot control a culture from its own selfish desires. But some presidents can create an environment for an even faster decline. Especially morally, and it is the status of a nation’s moral behavior that determines its fate, far more than economics or other factors. That’s my belief. Hence, legalized abortion and to a lesser degree, gay marriage and the promotion of free sex for all, is what causes our nation to degenerate.

Addendum: To worry that Romney is too business-like as a main factor of concern for president makes no sense to me.

 

[KnotaFrayed]

Running a business:

1913: "Henry Ford’s offer to pay $5 a day attracts thousands of immigrants and African Americans drawn to the prospect of earning twice the typical daily wage. The $5 day is credited with helping to create the black middle class."
http://corporate.ford.com/careers/d...244754317559?releaseId=1244754317559&ccode=US

http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/677-5-dollar-a-day

 

[middleview]

You post is pretty silly, in that none of those things was mentioned in the top post, but let's look at Willards business experience. Did he evaluate the cost of non-profit operations? How would his background fit into figuring out the profitability of the defense department? How would he have looked at the invasion of Afghanistan...cost vs revenue? How would he see money spent in the department of education? Would he consider a hostile takeover of the Coast Guard by the Navy? Maybe have the Marines pull a green mail on the Army?

He was a mediocre governor of Massachusetts. I don't know what he actually did running the olympics in Utah, so it is hard for me to evaluate that. I do know that he has said that people who want to see his tax returns are "small minded". That, all by itself, says he isn't going to get my vote.

 

[Zoar]

Omg: it is NOT that he is too businesslike.

It is his business RECORD. He killed companies, killed US jobs, raided pension funds, etc... all to line his pockets. He IS a VULTURE Capitalist!

Jv what is so tiring reading your posts is that no matter how many times you ask for explanation AND GET IT, you revert to where you were before as if you have corks in your intakes.

 

[KnotaFrayed]

Personally, I consider 16 trillion in the hole to be of grave and alarming concern. I have no doubt big wheels from both parties are equally guilty. I also think our economy is in very serious peril, I am not interested in favorable barometers telling me something different, there is enough evidence to argue the opposite.

You are correct, my opinion of Barack Obama is I find him to be a deplorable president. I will allow you to intellectually disagree with me and I do not doubt your reasons make perfect sense to you. I am want to elaborate my reasons once again. It is Barack the man and his past, not any democrat president, that is my main contention.

Do I think any party or any president can save this nation from its ongoing downward spiral? No, not at all. They cannot control a culture from its own selfish desires. But some presidents can create an environment for an even faster decline. Especially morally, and it is the status of a nation’s moral behavior that determines its fate, far more than economics or other factors. That’s my belief. Hence, legalized abortion and to a lesser degree, gay marriage and the promotion of free sex for all, is what causes our nation to degenerate.

Addendum: To worry that Romney is too business-like as a main factor of concern for president makes no sense to me.

If you consider it so grave, why not ask Americans, especially the wealthiest, to put their money where their mouths are??? The combination of cuts and increased revenue directed toward reducing deficits and paying down debt would reduce the debt faster. What's the problem?

Why are some wealthy not willing to pay more in taxes to pay down the debt they keep running up, then whine about, then refuse to pitch in to pay down? Why??? Because they are disingenuous and the debt is NOT a concern of theirs, staying wealthy and using their wealth to influence governnent is.

 

[KnotaFrayed]

Yes, the years between January 2001 and January 2009 DID happen and the relative damage to the nation's economy in that period dwarfs any damage anyone can fantasize that Mr. Obama has caused.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/Documents/20120229_EssentialEcon.PDF

Why are the people of my former party so reluctant, even refusing to face up to that? We know why. Because it's hard as hell to face up to a massive failure, plus in a political environment, denial, delusion or simply trying to ignore one's past is a strategy for those who don't have good records.

No, one cannot point to Obama's record and say it is stellar, but compared to and relative to the record of the administration before him, Mr. Obama's looks far closer to stellar than the image the party's whose person was in the White House prior to Mr. Obama will admit.

If there is moral decay, I would suggest one look for who is telling parital truths if not basic lies and avoiding any discussion talk, acknowledgement of their being predecessor to Mr. Obama, what occurs, the depth of what occurred and how they suddenly became economic experts and genius' enough to know where a recovery from a crash that occurred on their watch should be.

I left the Republican Party when they started standing up and saying deceptive things. That does not mean no one else does it, but if one proclaims to have the higher moral ground, their walk should match their talk. It's like parents being less concerned with what some other parents let their children do than concerned with what their own children do. My parents used to say, I don't care what Johnny's parents let him do, you're not Johnny and we're not Johnny's parents. When I started point out the BS, I was ignored and called disoyal to the party.

My thought? I didn't become a member of a political party to kow tow to a bunch of manipulated truths (half truths) and even blatant lies. I didn't join a political party to NOT check out the validity of what I was being told. I did not join a political party to live a lie "for the party".

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Do I think any party or any president can save this nation from its ongoing downward spiral? No, not at all. They cannot control a culture from its own selfish desires. But some presidents can create an environment for an even faster decline. Especially morally, and it is the status of a nation’s moral behavior that determines its fate, far more than economics or other factors. That’s my belief. Hence, legalized abortion and to a lesser degree, gay marriage and the promotion of free sex for all, is what causes our nation to degenerate.

JV, though I do not agree with you that the moral environment is degenerating, I appreciate where you are coming from. I respect your concerns. Personally, I think that the moral environment is evolving. I am sure that you are very troubled about how it is evolving. I suspect that you believe God is also upset about how it is evolving. I am less troubled by it than you are (especially in sexual matters). And I do not think that God is as upset about the evolution as you (and presumably Pope Benedict XVI) think he is. I think that that is a place where the two of us will just never really agree. And I can live with that.

But I do think that it is fair to say that, for you, the issue that concerns you the most is the moral climate of the country. The technical aspects of economic policy are of secondary concern for you. If I am wrong about this, feel free to let me know.

Addendum: To worry that Romney is too business-like as a main factor of concern for president makes no sense to me.

Well, the Republicans have been claiming that Romney's business background makes him uniquely qualified to be President and hold the fact that Barack Obama did not run a corporation against him. So I assume that you think that the Republican claim is equal hogwash. Do you think the fact that Republicans and Tea Party advocates think that Obama is insufficiently business-like immaterial?

 

[KnotaFrayed]

How leveraged buyouts work.

"As financial sponsors increase their returns by employing a very high leverage (i.e., a high ratio of debt to equity), they have an incentive to employ as much debt as possible to finance an acquisition. This has in many cases led to situations, in which companies were "overlevered", meaning that they did not generate sufficient cash flows to service their debt, which in turn led to insolvency or to debt-to-equity swaps in which the equity owners lose control over the business and the debt providers assume the equity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout

Bain Capital's changed focus:

"Beginning in 1989, the firm, which began as a venture capital source investing in start-up companies, adjusted its strategy to focus on leveraged buyouts and growth capital investments in more mature companies.[34] Their model was to buy existing firms with money mostly borrowed against their assets"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital#Bain_and_the_2000s_buy-out_boom
34) "Venture-Capital Funds Grow Larger and Larger - But Start-Up Companies Find They're Still Left Out in the Cold". The Wall Street Journal, September 7, 1989

 

[JV-12]

JV, though I do not agree with you that the moral environment is degenerating, I appreciate where you are coming from. I respect your concerns. Personally, I think that the moral environment is evolving. I am sure that you are very troubled about how it is evolving. I suspect that you believe God is also upset about how it is evolving. I am less troubled by it than you are (especially in sexual matters). And I do not think that God is as upset about the evolution as you (and presumably Pope Benedict XVI) think he is. I think that that is a place where the two of us will just never really agree. And I can live with that.

But I do think that it is fair to say that, for you, the issue that concerns you the most is the moral climate of the country. The technical aspects of economic policy are of secondary concern for you. If I am wrong about this, feel free to let me know.

Yes, correct. I do not know enough about the national economy to be sure of what's right, and perhaps because it is so secondary in importance to me I don't delve in to the specifics. We all have to prioritize what concerns us most.

Well, the Republicans have been claiming that Romney's business background makes him uniquely qualified to be President and hold the fact that Barack Obama did not run a corporation against him. So I assume that you think that the Republican claim is equal hogwash. Do you think the fact that Republicans and Tea Party advocates think that Obama is insufficiently business-like immaterial?

For the most part, yes, I think it is immaterial. I am sure any president should possess enough savvy and brains to surround himself with the right experts and advisors to simplify the data and choices for them. But if there is an ulterior agenda at work which dictates decisions, then so much for the best path. I have no idea for sure if Obama has ulterior agendas, but his reticence to speak directly and clearly about the main issues plaguing our nation makes me think he is hiding something, or he is simply over his head in this job. He seems to be very cowardly.

 

[JV-12]

If you consider it so grave, why not ask Americans, especially the wealthiest, to put their money where their mouths are??? The combination of cuts and increased revenue directed toward reducing deficits and paying down debt would reduce the debt faster. What's the problem?

Why are some wealthy not willing to pay more in taxes to pay down the debt they keep running up, then whine about, then refuse to pitch in to pay down? Why??? Because they are disingenuous and the debt is NOT a concern of theirs, staying wealthy and using their wealth to influence governnent is.

No argument from me. I think given the magnitude of our current deficit, the wealthiest should pay more taxes. If that means they will cut jobs because they have to pay more taxes, I am willing to take that risk. It's only a start, but the wealthiest suffer the least when given extra burdens. I think lowering gas prices would be the best thing for our economy because the savings would help the lower classes directly. I don't believe the oil companies and other corporations are playing fair and the politicians beholden to them are allowing the game to continue.