reply to post by CyberTruth
This is a great question, because politically, I've been slightly leaning towards Obama, although I don't plan to vote for either one. BUT, in the
context you lay out, I think I'd be more likely to hire Romney, so this was an eye-opener!
Of course, it depends on the role. I think I'd rather have Obama as an outside sales person, but I'd rather have Romney as a supervisor or manager
of some sort.
In all reality, if it were my business, I could find better candidates than both of them! If it were my business, my bread and butter, I wouldn't
settle for the lesser of two evils, I would advertise until I found the right person to fill the role. This is what the American Public needs to
remember! We don't have to pick one or the other, we can keep interviewing applicants until we get the one that best fills our needs.
If you were the boss in charge of your own company, who would you hire to work for you, Obama or Mit, page 4
reply posted on 2-11-2012 @ 08:29 AM by newcovenant
reply to post by CyberTruth
That is easy. Obama. At least i can trust him not to ruin the place and place the importance I demand on the environment and individual human rights such as women, immigrants and gays. If you are only pandering to or addressing a small minority of the Nation whether it be white men or rich people you are going to disenfranchise a lot of good people working hard to make it and get ahead too. In fact you are going to shut out most of the Nation if you do not address the poor and the middle class first. I don't trust Romney as far as I can throw him. Whatever his financial skill set is, I have to trust him first.
That is easy. Obama. At least i can trust him not to ruin the place and place the importance I demand on the environment and individual human rights such as women, immigrants and gays. If you are only pandering to or addressing a small minority of the Nation whether it be white men or rich people you are going to disenfranchise a lot of good people working hard to make it and get ahead too. In fact you are going to shut out most of the Nation if you do not address the poor and the middle class first. I don't trust Romney as far as I can throw him. Whatever his financial skill set is, I have to trust him first.
edit on 2-11-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 2-11-2012 @ 08:34 AM by newcovenant
Originally posted by darkhorserider
reply to post by CyberTruth
This is a great question, because politically, I've been slightly leaning towards Obama, although I don't plan to vote for either one. BUT, in the context you lay out, I think I'd be more likely to hire Romney, so this was an eye-opener!
Of course, it depends on the role. I think I'd rather have Obama as an outside sales person, but I'd rather have Romney as a supervisor or manager of some sort.
In all reality, if it were my business, I could find better candidates than both of them! If it were my business, my bread and butter, I wouldn't settle for the lesser of two evils, I would advertise until I found the right person to fill the role. This is what the American Public needs to remember! We don't have to pick one or the other, we can keep interviewing applicants until we get the one that best fills our needs.
I like your answer. I would still choose Obama because like I say it is a trust issue. You need to be able to walk away and know your representative is not going to sell your business out from underneath you. I particularly like your idea of "President recruiting" rather than grooming a nobody with no skill in government to be a media star.
reply posted on 2-11-2012 @ 08:48 AM by Summerian
reply to post by CyberTruth
"If you were the boss in charge of your own company, who would you hire to work for you?"
(What type of job?)
With Bamma you'll get an okay effort (real work like heavy lifting and what not).
With Rmoney you'll find someone else doing the job. Someone Rmoney hired himself. Call outsorsing, ladies and gentlemen.
"If you were the boss in charge of your own company, who would you hire to work for you?"
(What type of job?)
With Bamma you'll get an okay effort (real work like heavy lifting and what not).
With Rmoney you'll find someone else doing the job. Someone Rmoney hired himself. Call outsorsing, ladies and gentlemen.
reply posted on 2-11-2012 @ 09:55 AM by AfterInfinity
reply to post by CyberTruth
I would hire both. Romney to fire the ones I don't like, and Obama to convince the rest they should stay. Of course, the inherent problem is that ROmney will try to fire Obama while Obama tries to convince him to fire himself.
I would hire both. Romney to fire the ones I don't like, and Obama to convince the rest they should stay. Of course, the inherent problem is that ROmney will try to fire Obama while Obama tries to convince him to fire himself.
edit on 2-11-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason
given)
reply posted on 2-11-2012 @ 10:33 AM by XLR8R
reply to post by CyberTruth
I would hire neither. My employees need a good sense of ethics. But unfortunately they're both lacking in that department.
I would hire neither. My employees need a good sense of ethics. But unfortunately they're both lacking in that department.
reply posted on 2-11-2012 @ 10:52 AM by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by jtma508
So out of 77 deals they looked at... 17 were classed a total failure of the business they bought and 6 were a crap shoot..
That leaves 54 out of 77 in the sample group which succeeded with that smaller minority being a WILD success, as their financial papers state it. Well... I'd call that a pretty successful venture capital firm. Those odds would make it a decent investment from either end of the question by how I read it.
(Corporate raiders...who DO buy to liquidate..wouldn't be categorizing busted business as failures. That IS the point for those companies. There wouldn't have been 54 businesses that succeeded..there would have been *ONLY* the super-success stories with EVERY other one being liquidated and destroyed for profit. That's the difference.
)
So out of 77 deals they looked at... 17 were classed a total failure of the business they bought and 6 were a crap shoot..
That leaves 54 out of 77 in the sample group which succeeded with that smaller minority being a WILD success, as their financial papers state it. Well... I'd call that a pretty successful venture capital firm. Those odds would make it a decent investment from either end of the question by how I read it.
(Corporate raiders...who DO buy to liquidate..wouldn't be categorizing busted business as failures. That IS the point for those companies. There wouldn't have been 54 businesses that succeeded..there would have been *ONLY* the super-success stories with EVERY other one being liquidated and destroyed for profit. That's the difference.
)
reply posted on 2-11-2012 @ 12:23 PM by Indigo5
reply to post by CyberTruth
I would look at thier experience and success ratios.
According to the Wall Street Journal
Bain's record during Romneys tenure
77 Companies invested in
22% Closed or filed for Bankruptcey within 8 years
And then you have Pres. Obama...Well Mitt and Ryan have said repeatedly that HALF the DOE investments in new energy have failed?
NOPE...Only 8% failure rate for the DOEs investments in New Energy.
92% success rate for the President in picking good investments, 78% Romney
So it looks like either Mitt Romney can't do math? 8% = 50%? Or he is a liar?
Either way, when I hire someone...and I do regularly...I require honesty and a basic understanding of mathematics as a prequisite to be considered.
Honesty and Math aside...The President, by the numbers, is a better investor than Mitt Romney...82% success rate to 78%.
It would be very hard to consider hiring Mitt, his core skill-set seems to be GREED...and that doesn't do anything for me, he'd likely exploit and abuse customers and embezel from me.
THAT is if I was hiring an employee...President??? WTF? If government was run for profit then you INCREASE REVENUES (TAXES) while REDUCING COSTS ( returning tax dollars to the people in the form of services...roads, bridges, disaster relief etc.) so you can PROFIT your investors (KOCH, ADELSON, etc.)
As an employee or POTUS..no way...he creeps me out.
I would look at thier experience and success ratios.
According to the Wall Street Journal
Bain's record during Romneys tenure
77 Companies invested in
22% Closed or filed for Bankruptcey within 8 years
And then you have Pres. Obama...Well Mitt and Ryan have said repeatedly that HALF the DOE investments in new energy have failed?
NOPE...Only 8% failure rate for the DOEs investments in New Energy.
92% success rate for the President in picking good investments, 78% Romney
So it looks like either Mitt Romney can't do math? 8% = 50%? Or he is a liar?
Either way, when I hire someone...and I do regularly...I require honesty and a basic understanding of mathematics as a prequisite to be considered.
Honesty and Math aside...The President, by the numbers, is a better investor than Mitt Romney...82% success rate to 78%.
It would be very hard to consider hiring Mitt, his core skill-set seems to be GREED...and that doesn't do anything for me, he'd likely exploit and abuse customers and embezel from me.
THAT is if I was hiring an employee...President??? WTF? If government was run for profit then you INCREASE REVENUES (TAXES) while REDUCING COSTS ( returning tax dollars to the people in the form of services...roads, bridges, disaster relief etc.) so you can PROFIT your investors (KOCH, ADELSON, etc.)
As an employee or POTUS..no way...he creeps me out.
reply posted on 2-11-2012 @ 02:54 PM by jtma508
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
As I mentioned, Bain ceased being a venture capital firm a long time ago. What I cited was from the Wall Street Journal not an internal Bain assessment. 10 deals out of 77 (or 13%) were successful and accounted for 70% of their profits.
My point is that Bain is a business vampire. Financially successful for themselves to be sure but so isn't strip-mining and bottom-trawling.
As I mentioned, Bain ceased being a venture capital firm a long time ago. What I cited was from the Wall Street Journal not an internal Bain assessment. 10 deals out of 77 (or 13%) were successful and accounted for 70% of their profits.
My point is that Bain is a business vampire. Financially successful for themselves to be sure but so isn't strip-mining and bottom-trawling.
In his 2009 book The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy, Josh Kosman described Bain Capital as "notorious for its failure to plow profits back into its businesses," being the first large private-equity firm to derive a large fraction of its revenues from corporate dividends and other distributions. The revenue potential of this strategy, which may "starve" a company of capital was increased by a 1970s court ruling that allowed companies to consider the entire fair-market value of the company, instead of only their "hard assets", in determining how much money was available to pay dividends. In at least some instances, companies acquired by Bain borrowed money in order to increase their dividend payments, ultimately leading to the collapse of what had been financially stable businesses.
reply posted on 2-11-2012 @ 03:17 PM by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by jtma508
Fair points on that, and I was looking at something a bit different in my point for time frames. I looked up what you're talking about and true enough, it's how others have categorized it.
Having agreed here, I am left wondering why it really matters? Are we suggesting Mitt Romney is going to drain the U.S. of value? For whom? In the direct comparison, we're hiring Mitt to run our Bain Capital and it's the outside world he's drawing from to increase our own 'profit' (economy) at the expense of the rest of the world.
Sounds bad...except that every other nation is doing the very same thing in their OWN best interests....so the competition generally keeps it from getting too one sided. The most obvious example though is China buying Rare Earth's in every known location on the planet. They've done this with a vengeance. It's good for them too....and bad that we let it happen without our own efforts to buy them first.
Romney will likely restore that competition we've lost while watching the Government first spent 8 years attacking everyone.....then 4 more years apologizing for the previous 8 while still doing the same thing for more quietly.
If he doesn't? He can be a 1 termer too. Eventually we'll get one
that figures out the requirements for a SECOND term. It isn't destroying the economy.
Fair points on that, and I was looking at something a bit different in my point for time frames. I looked up what you're talking about and true enough, it's how others have categorized it.
Having agreed here, I am left wondering why it really matters? Are we suggesting Mitt Romney is going to drain the U.S. of value? For whom? In the direct comparison, we're hiring Mitt to run our Bain Capital and it's the outside world he's drawing from to increase our own 'profit' (economy) at the expense of the rest of the world.
Sounds bad...except that every other nation is doing the very same thing in their OWN best interests....so the competition generally keeps it from getting too one sided. The most obvious example though is China buying Rare Earth's in every known location on the planet. They've done this with a vengeance. It's good for them too....and bad that we let it happen without our own efforts to buy them first.
Romney will likely restore that competition we've lost while watching the Government first spent 8 years attacking everyone.....then 4 more years apologizing for the previous 8 while still doing the same thing for more quietly.
If he doesn't? He can be a 1 termer too. Eventually we'll get one
that figures out the requirements for a SECOND term. It isn't destroying the economy. edit on 2-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: minor correction.
reply posted on 2-11-2012 @ 03:51 PM by jtma508
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I'm not an Obama or Romney supporter. But Romney and his crew are pushing his business credentials hard as the reason we should elect him. I've pointed out before that there has been no correlation with private sector business experience of a President and positive economic outcomes for the country. I see the 'deal' we would make with Romney differently than you do. In my perception, WE are the distressed company that he and his 'crew' are coming in to 'fix'. His loyalty is clearly to his benefactors and major donors (as evidenced by his dizzying position changes, his '47 percent comments', his top-ten donor list, etc,). Think of them as his shareholders. His directive, and the vast majority of his business experience, will be to financially benefit his shareholders --- not us. So with a 13% success rate (or 50% if you go back to the 1990's) I'm not so sure I find those attractive odds.
I'm not an Obama or Romney supporter. But Romney and his crew are pushing his business credentials hard as the reason we should elect him. I've pointed out before that there has been no correlation with private sector business experience of a President and positive economic outcomes for the country. I see the 'deal' we would make with Romney differently than you do. In my perception, WE are the distressed company that he and his 'crew' are coming in to 'fix'. His loyalty is clearly to his benefactors and major donors (as evidenced by his dizzying position changes, his '47 percent comments', his top-ten donor list, etc,). Think of them as his shareholders. His directive, and the vast majority of his business experience, will be to financially benefit his shareholders --- not us. So with a 13% success rate (or 50% if you go back to the 1990's) I'm not so sure I find those attractive odds.
reply posted on 2-11-2012 @ 04:21 PM by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by jtma508
It's a fair difference of core philosophy and life outlook I believe. There is another analogy we can use when I look at Obama and then I look at Romney. As fair as it is to say they are both Millionaires and have been several times over for awhile, it's also fair to say they ARE different in a major respect for being rich. Romney is *VERY* rich. Romney is rich enough so money simply isn't a factor in his life in any meaningful way we'd know to think about it and hasn't been for so long, I doubt he does recall what that is like. He's been rich long enough to have no fear or desparation of losing it. I.E.......Trying to buy the man, bribe him or curry favor with gifts and promises of retirement homes wouldn't tempt him. It would piss him off and insult him. ....as most Presidents have been.
If you look at my President's thread, I included the estimated Net value of Presidents on Inauguration day going back to Eisenhower. Kennedy takes the cake and the whole damn bakery for net worth....but none have been common men.
Now I tried to stay unbiased and neutral as much as possible...but Libya has changed all that, I took my hard look again and I'm voting for Romney as much by choice now as lack of one. America *IS* a Capitalist nation. This isn't a debate point. It's a simple fact. Many want to change that and that's another matter....it IS what we are right now. That means America IS, in many ways, a big corporation with a budget and shareholders (Each of US). We are, in very real terms, electing a CEO when our economy sucks.
In fact.... We happen to be a very distressed corporation right this moment....and Romney became expert at rehabilitating distressed corporations. It was his job and HOW he made his wealth. His record shows he even had WILD success stories. Where was Obama's wild success on ANYTHING? Any ONE thing? He wrote a couple books. Literally, his best claim to fame for success.
We don't need a writer, dreamer, idealist or philosopher. We need a cut throat American CEO. We need Romney....and Benghazi served to put an exclamation point on the need to pick a side to stick with.
It's a fair difference of core philosophy and life outlook I believe. There is another analogy we can use when I look at Obama and then I look at Romney. As fair as it is to say they are both Millionaires and have been several times over for awhile, it's also fair to say they ARE different in a major respect for being rich. Romney is *VERY* rich. Romney is rich enough so money simply isn't a factor in his life in any meaningful way we'd know to think about it and hasn't been for so long, I doubt he does recall what that is like. He's been rich long enough to have no fear or desparation of losing it. I.E.......Trying to buy the man, bribe him or curry favor with gifts and promises of retirement homes wouldn't tempt him. It would piss him off and insult him. ....as most Presidents have been.
If you look at my President's thread, I included the estimated Net value of Presidents on Inauguration day going back to Eisenhower. Kennedy takes the cake and the whole damn bakery for net worth....but none have been common men.
Now I tried to stay unbiased and neutral as much as possible...but Libya has changed all that, I took my hard look again and I'm voting for Romney as much by choice now as lack of one. America *IS* a Capitalist nation. This isn't a debate point. It's a simple fact. Many want to change that and that's another matter....it IS what we are right now. That means America IS, in many ways, a big corporation with a budget and shareholders (Each of US). We are, in very real terms, electing a CEO when our economy sucks.
In fact.... We happen to be a very distressed corporation right this moment....and Romney became expert at rehabilitating distressed corporations. It was his job and HOW he made his wealth. His record shows he even had WILD success stories. Where was Obama's wild success on ANYTHING? Any ONE thing? He wrote a couple books. Literally, his best claim to fame for success.
We don't need a writer, dreamer, idealist or philosopher. We need a cut throat American CEO. We need Romney....and Benghazi served to put an exclamation point on the need to pick a side to stick with.
*VID* Proof Romney and RNC is a sham causing potential Republican civil war.
Posted 11 days ago with 77 member flags
Posted 11 days ago with 77 member flags
FOX News and Others Take Ryan to the Woodshed for "Blatant Lies." ...Seriously, FOX News.
Posted 12 days ago with 65 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 65 member flags
Why the GOP Is Scared of Ron Paul and 4 Reasons He Might Still Get the 2012 Republican Nomination
Posted 19 days ago with 45 member flags
Posted 19 days ago with 45 member flags
Former RNC Chairman, Michael Steele criticizes Romney/RNC for the treatment of Ron Paul.
Posted 11 days ago with 43 member flags
Posted 11 days ago with 43 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Sleep disorders and disturbances. I start with the science, you bring in the alternatives
ATS Skunk Works: 16 hours ago, 25 flags
ATS Skunk Works: 16 hours ago, 25 flags
Obama: There's no longer time for excuses for black men
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 8 hours ago, 11 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 8 hours ago, 11 flags
Rossi’s E-Cat Cold Fusion Reactor Validated by Third-Party Tests
Science & Technology: 6 hours ago, 7 flags
Science & Technology: 6 hours ago, 7 flags
This could be the MOST IMPORTANT thread you have ever read on Ats
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 11 hours ago, 7 flags
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 11 hours ago, 7 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
May 20, 2013 | Full List of 171 Documented Israeli Cease Fire Violations – Updated
Middle East Issues: 9 hours ago, 105 replies
Middle East Issues: 9 hours ago, 105 replies
This could be the MOST IMPORTANT thread you have ever read on Ats
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 11 hours ago, 56 replies
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 11 hours ago, 56 replies
Obama: There's no longer time for excuses for black men
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 8 hours ago, 53 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 8 hours ago, 53 replies
Preschools (in Australia) may get right to bar unvaccinated children
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 9 hours ago, 37 replies
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 9 hours ago, 37 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.243 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.243 seconds
