There have been numerous instances this year of leaders of companies forcing their employees to show up at political rallies or making it clear which candidate they prefer – just recently the CEO of Westgate Resorts wrote an email informing his employees that their jobs were on the line if Obama got re-elected. Of course, David Siegel has no way of knowing which way his employees voted but made it clear in his email that Obama’s policies have damaged his company’s bottom line and that he’d rather retire than lead a company through four more years of Obama’s leadership.
I don’t think it’s wrong that corporate leaders make it known which way they are voting and why certain candidates would be better for their company than others, its covered under free speech. I think it’s important that employees know how the political climate will effect their jobs just as it is important that they know based on their own research how different candidates will affect them on all issues of importance. There are more and more instances of these emails popping up this election based on a clear cost employers will have to pay for the Affordable Care Act (sometimes dubbed Obamacare). In an email Lacks Enterprises CEO sent to employees, it was noted that employee salaries would not be as high under an Obama administration. After being questioned whether Obama’s bailing out of the auto industry helped his business, he responded that his company did not benefit from the auto bailout.
On the other hand, as a note to the employees of these companies whose leadership is sending out these emails, many CEOs would be classified under the group of people that would be taxed at a higher rate than if Romney is elected. Anyone making more than $250,000 would not be extended a continuation of the Bush-era tax cuts under Obama, and that would certainly affect small business owners and those Obama considers rich. Every day we are inundated with suggestions to vote one way or the other, be it commentary by the media or signs across the street. CEOs certainly can voice their opinions as well but if such is the case employees should have the same opportunities to have their voice heard, unfortunately this is not the case as it is rare that a entry level employee would email his/her entire company with a political view.
So, in short, yes – employers should be able to make political suggestions. On the other hand employees should have that same right.
The President of the United States, a position once known as the leader of the free world, is a title whose bearer must take seriously. While I do not believe Obama has the qualifications to make a great President I certainly have no doubt that Romney wouldn’t utterly ruin our country.
Romney has proven himself to be a servant of Wall Street and has no interest in peace – whether it be in the Middle East or in Asia. He is an adamant supporter of the notion that half of Americans are lazy good for nothing parasites, who have no use and should not be given a second thought.
I am a supporter of a free market economy yet instead of writing off these folks they can and will be the most important part of our economic recovery in the future. Instead on ignoring the 47% Romney should have presented his economic theories as to why his approach would help lower income earners instead of deciding to pander to billionaires in a $50,000 per plate dinner hosted by a lecher by the name of Marc Leder. Romney, who pretends to be only choice for those who believe in God, certainly does not exhibit any inhibitions from spending time with folks like Leder and casino magnate Sheldon Anderson.
Leder’s Sun Capital is a near copy of Bain Capital, both companies who have derived extensive profits by outsourcing jobs and manufacturing to China. While I see the macroeconomic sense in this, I also see the hypocrisy in every word uttered by Romney regarding our trade relations with China. As someone who made billions from the practice of outsourcing I find it disgusting that Romney attacks Obama over this macroeconomic trend which has more to deal with a shift towards wage equilibrium in a global trade economy rather than a personal decision by Obama.
In fact, the very act of saving the American auto industry (something Obama supported) saved millions of jobs while Romney would have let them flounder and be replaced by Japanese and Korean competitors.
I would find it incredibly difficult to vote for someone like Mitt Romney, it would go against logic and ethics to vote for a porcelain politician who happens to also be elitist.
Two phrases that epitomize each candidate, and we are burdened with having to vote for one of them. On one side we have someone who punishes small business owners in favor of government programs and on the other side you have a candidate who is so narrow minded that he says that corporations are people in front of perspective voters. Both are not true – yes people did build their small businesses and many of these businesses are the product of hard work and determination that were not helped, but hindered by government on their way to success. Corporations are not people, although they may be treated like people in court and are of course comprised of a variety of people.
On the other hand, the widespread use of these phrases to demonize each candidate is one of the results of a shallow-minded media both liberal and conservative – a serious campaign should forget about focusing on a few words spoken by the other candidate sometimes out of context and instead focus on what their candidates plan is for restoring our economy and reducing the federal deficit. Unfortunately neither candidate can commit to a solid plan that would do just that, the only candidate that for candidacy with a plan to reduce the deficit was Ron Paul through elimination of foreign government aid and reduction of large portions of national spending. Obama is planning on letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those making more than $250,000 per year, and Romney is planning on reducing taxes further on higher tax bracket Americans. Romney has not committed to reducing the size of government but has vowed to increase defense spending. From my estimation under a Romney presidency we will see further involvement in the Middle East which will also increase federal debt.
I support neither candidate for President, and yes I built this article.
Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, and probably every politician that runs for presidency in my lifetime – no I will not believe in you or what you promise during your presidential campaign. I’ve heard enough lies in my lifetime to know that both of you are lying through the roof to get votes and will do whatever you fancy once you reach office. Forget about the real change, and forget about fixing the economy – each of you has your own agenda that is diametrically opposed to mine. Both of you will continue to hasten the deterioration of our freedoms, rights, and privacy. Both of you will be involved in undeclared unconstitutional wars that kill thousands if not millions of civilians and American troops. Both of you are for the status quo. One of you will destroy the economy a bit more and drive us deeper into debt, but from a general standpoint both of you are the same.
Mitt Romney views the rest of the world as an enemy – today he used Memorial Day to attack Barack Obama for proposed spending cuts on the military. Our military is gigantic, and has been spread over the entire world like a small cup of butter over an entire pizza. To continue to exert force on countries around the world at the expense of American lives and our safety (people don’t like it when their civilian family members get killed by drones) we will need a gigantic army, perhaps even bigger than the one we currently have. However, our military has transformed into one that can deal with small issues around the world and third world opponents (such as ones who deploy IEDs, drive technicals, and use AK-47‘s. We have gained nothing from taking over Afghanistan and Iraq except for the enmity of their people – even our puppet President Karzai is fed up with the unnecessary deaths of civilians in Afghanistan.
In the 2008 election Romney claimed he wanted to “double Guantanamo“, even after the prisoner abuse photos were released. He is someone who cannot think beyond “enemy”, and as a bully in his college years he has retained the attitude which has been apparent in his incivility during the presidential debates of 2008 and 2012. I will give Obama credit for being a more civil person than Romney and would likely get along better with him if we happened to grow up together. While I disagree with Obama on his stance on gun control, healthcare, and other social issues, I can’t say that I disagree on his 2008 election promises to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Romney, on the other hand, is what people like to call a “hawk”. He would remain in all occupied countries and start a fight with Iran, who at this point is not a threat to the United States.
Sure, he would increase the size of the military, but unfortunately his leadership style would plunge us into war with more countries and further destroy America by driving it further into debt. I’m having a hard deciding whether I’m going to vote this season given that Romney was one of my least favorite candidates ever to run – not to mention his diametric opposition to Ron Paul and the cause of liberty.
The primaries are not officially over, and the election is certainly not going to be given to two candidates who are both puppets. My vote will be going towards Ron Paul this election year even if I have to scribble the name on the ballot. Things have got to change.
I’m astonished by the number of people I run into who are planning on voting for someone they don’t really like in order for someone else not to win. They might have a favorite candidate in mind, but they are not voting for him because they are afraid he isn’t going to be able to beat their most hated candidate be him from the Republican party or the incumbent Barack Obama. This kind of mentality should not plague the Republican primary, since it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone has this mentality then sure enough, they will get what they are predicting will be the case. This mentality has been constantly enforced by the entire spectrum of the mainstream news media, but has been challenged by smaller online news websites. Take a look at Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, both of these candidates were shunned by the media but it turns out Ron Paul (who is not mentioned as a ‘top-tier’ candidate) has been getting the second most number of votes throughout the primaries (as of today 22.4%, behind Romney’s 34.4%) comfortably beating Gingrich’s 10.7% standing. Santorum was able to take Iowa by surprise, and currently has 14.4% of the primary votes so far. Looking at the statistics the real top-tier candidates have been Romney, Paul and Santorum (not Gingrich). Take a looks at news articles covering the election, and you will find Romney and Gingrich disproportionally mentioned all over – this is probably because Obama is their favorite and in my opinion Obama will beat either of these candidates based on their overly hawkish attitude on foreign policy and their backgrounds which make them out of touch with most Americans. If one of the candidates above is your favorite then by all means vote for them, but don’t vote for someone because the media tells you they can’t win.
I find this hilarious, NBC news states that Romney is in first place and fails to mention the person in second place in a recent poll! This is something I haven’t seen in any poll result news article to date! Check out the article yourself (if it still exists).
It does mention Santorum’s bounce from the Iowa result, but leaves out any inkling of Ron Paul who is posed to grab second place in New Hampshire.
When Mitt Romney challenged Rick Perry with a $10,000 bet he might have been trying to portray Perry as weak for not accepting the bet, but in the process has alienated most of the country. The average American doesn’t have $10,000 in their pocket, or even in their bank account!
Rick Perry countered by saying he wasn’t in the betting business – really the whole affair was in my opinion negative for both candidates. Mitt Romney seems to have anger issues and Rick Perry was bringing up an old topic which has been mentioned in most of the other debates.
Both Mitt Romney and Rick Perry aired misleading and deceitful ads recently, continuing a long tradition of running campaigns on blaming the “other guy” while not working on good solutions. Mitt Romney aired an ad showing Obama saying “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”, which was actually Obama quoting the McCain campaign! Perry took Obama out of context and used a sound byte “We’ve been a little bit lazy I think over the last couple of decades” to counter in such a way to indicate the statement was referring to the American people. The truth is that statement was referring to the government, in reference to their ability to attract foreign investment.
I’m not saying Obama is a beacon of light in terms of political honesty, but am pointing out that it is quite clear that at least two Republican contenders are trying to win regardless of moral cost. I think this will continue when they are elected, and what they said was the truth about their plan before the election will be different or have secret caveats when they do in fact become president. That is why I will not vote for either of these candidates in the primary, and I would suggest you think a moment about what kind of candidates would stand behind this type of strategy.
Per an independent study, Mitt Romney seems to be taking bribe money from big banks.
While Ron Paul’s top contributes are from the People in the US Armed forces.
Who would you want running for president? Someone who has been bribed by the big banking industry that is spiraling this country’s economy out of control? Or someone that is supported by those that are protecting our country?
Here’s a few numbers found from the source link below:
Credit Suisse Group
US Air Force
Mason Capital Management
And to Contrast, Barack Obama:
University of California
Look how much the Banks really want Mitt Romney in there, It looks like O’l Mitt is willing to sell his soul to the devil at the cost of the American people.
There are a few other interesting numbers on other candidates:
Tonight’s Republican debate in Las Vegas, where the candidates included Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum, was really in all honesty a zoo display where the only sane observers seemed to be Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich…
Romney, who apparently won’t back down from a ignore the other person continue to speak strategy, was able to display that Rick Santorum and Rick Perry were both of the same mindset. This really hurt both Santorum and Perry in my opinion because in both cases he seemed to have the upper hand and remained the calmer, more disciplined individual. Santorum started acting like a whiny baby at one point, where the debate between him and Romney was a “na-ah-ah” scene. Perry hounded Romney for “employing illegal immigrants” and accused him of being a hypocrite, while Romney responded pointing out measures Perry enacted in Texas that would pay for illegal immigrant tuition as well as pointing out that many of the Texas jobs cited by Perry were created for illegal immigrants.
On the issue of a border fence, Mr. Cain was in support of a defensive line across the border comprised of a physical fence and troops on the ground in some areas. Michelle Bachmann proposed a double-fence across the border, Perry went militant and talked about using troops and drones to monitor the border, Ron Paul is of the position (I was not able to watch his response tonight based on a peculiar stoppage of the internet streaming) that a border fence may be used in the future to ‘keep us in’ and also said that a fence with machine guns is not what America is about.
Ron Paul unfortunately was again given the least speaking time, and asked about topics where his views were obvious. Herman Cain was challenged by each candidate on his 9-9-9 plan, where in the first debate he was ignored and not seen as a threat by the other candidates.
The problem with judging electability on these types of debates is the debates are formulated by media corporations that have their own interests in mind. There is a reason Ron Paul was given the least amount of speaking time, because he has a track record of keeping his promises and being incredibly popular with a large segment of freedom loving Americans. Ron Paul would have brought the troops home after becoming President, unlike Obama who had promised to do so immediately, then changed to a 16 month time period, and even failed in that. Ron Paul is a limited government politician who favors leaving many of the decisions up to the states.
I think Americans are waking up to the fact that the mainstream media can no longer completely distort reality, as shown by Ron Paul’s California Republican straw poll victory of 44.9% of the votes. I’m sure you haven’t heard of this because the media has not announced it with thunder as they did with Herman Cain’s Florida victory. It is unfortunate that Ron Paul has not forced himself into the debate as other contestants have done, but fortunately if anything else he has educated a vast number of people with his ideas on monetary and foreign policy. His $1B spending reduction is seen by economics as a good thing in the long term, but something that will sting the economy in the short term – unfortunately the average candidate is more likely to make short term decisions that get him/her re-elected rather then make a hard decision which will cause short term pain but liberate the futures of America’s young.
In a surprising show of common sense, Congress has decided not to dole out billions more to a failed and irresponsible industry. The importance of General Motors and the Big Three to the country at this stage is significantly smaller than what the auto makers are trying to make out, and in the worst case scenario they could file for chapter 11 bankruptcy. As the free market dictates, weak and inefficient companies go under, and the strong survive. Ford seems to be best suited for Congressional rejection of an auto-bailout, and has sufficient cash reserves to handle such a situation. GM, on the other hand, will run out of the cash it needs to operate late this year, or early next year. Chrysler LLC CEO Robert Nardelli told the Senate Banking Committee that his firm is also at risk of running out of cash .
Ron Paul believes that a bailout will only delay the economic consequences of the Big 3’s current predicaments, and that Congress should allow the market to work so that the fallout can be dealt with and overcome as quickly as possible. He also believes that this action would move us further away from the free market ideas that made America great. Mitt Romney also shares similar views, and is quoted saying the following:
“If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.”
“Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.” -Mitt Romney
Only time will tell if Congress remains strong against bailing out a failed industry and going against the principles of the free market. Although truth be said, the auto industry is one of the most regulated industries and a free market approach to alleviate their problems would be less regulation and taxes.
 Isidore, Chris. “Consumers to suffer if GM goes under” CNNMoney.com November 19, 2008