Speakeasy forum: Romney - Caymen Islands bad

......and found nothing connecting him with anything in the Cayman Islands.

So yes, Toni, when it came to Romney, "Cayman Islands bad."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/14/Jack-Lew-Holds-Cayman-Islands-Fund-Obama-Called-Largest-Tax-Scam-In-The-World?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

comparing dollars......the comparison comes when BO and the liberals decided to make Romney's account in the Cayman Islands a huge issue in the campaign, so why shouldn't it also be an issue for BO's nominee now? If it's bad for one, it should be bad for the other, shouldn't it?

the way it is worded........but if you are thinking that it's as bad as hiring a hacker to protect your computer system, isn't that pretty much what the CIA and FBI have been doing for years....who better to protect the system than someone who knows how to get around it? I don't particularly care that either Romney or Lew has accounts in the Caymans....I just oppose the hypocricy of it all. I don't like Lew because of his other decisions that blew apart the 'big deal' Romney and BO had a year ago and because of other decisions he's made that pose a conflict of interest regarding his personal life decisions and the appointment itself decisions. I thought Geithner was bad...this guy is much worse.

then the best person to run our financial economy, especially as President, is one who is really, really, really good at creating and building a successful business, right?

Yes, yes, and yes in case you were looking for answers.

There will be a purpose and there will be methods of achievement. One cannot be expected to start a business with the objective of making other people happy. Making them and keeping employees happy falls under a different category than one's personal objective.

The most important would probably be to make a profit.......which means having a goal, a BUDGET and sticking to it, and having a surplus. Can you do that with the MINIMUM number of employees and make them happy instead of having a MAXIMUM number and NOBODY happy......yes. Get along with neighboring countries won't matter IF you get along within the country your business is in and your product isn't something that has 'world appeal'....but IF your product does have world appeal, then, yes, you will find a way to get along with those countries that want and need your product as long as that way doesn't affect your company and employees in the bargain.

>>>You wanted a businessman to "run the country" because you figure a businessman will do a good job. Comparing a country to a business, a country doesn't have to make a profit, they just have to "break even".>>>

Tell that to all the people who bragged about Clinton's end had a SURPLUS. If you have a surplus at the end of paying your bills, you can use THAT money to INVEST in crap instead of hitting the people up for more tax increases to do that.

>>>So you think a good a business person would be best to run the country?>>>

YES

>>Would you consider Warren Buffet a good business man? He's super rich, lots of business people take his financial advice.>>>

NO, I don't think he would be good because he isn't a conservative....

>>>He thinks the rich should pay more taxes, why don't you agree with him?>>>

Sure...anybody but him, though. He takes no paycheck and instead takes stock so he doesn't have to be in the same tax bracket he wants others to be in. He's a manipulator of money. That doesn't make him a successful and HONEST businessman.

>>>I think the most important thing a country should do is keep the maximum number of people content without going in debt....Which should go without saying, because IF you're in debt...You ain't going to be happy. I wouldn't be anyway.>>>

A fishing rod and a link to SE is enough to make you happy.

I believe that the way to achieve the maximum number of people content is to make sure the economy is sound enough that they can find jobs in the fields they wish to work in. When people are out of work, they will use credit cards to pay bills with hoping they find a job in time to pay off the debt. That is exactly what this administration is doing right now....borrowing in order to keep their agendas going, then taxing the smaller and smaller pool of people employed in order to pay the interest, then borrow more, and hope for the best. Bad strategy, bad business, but what the hell, they won't be around to see the end results soon anyhow, right? AND all those who have been in favor of that strategy are RICH already so they'll be fine.........for a while at least....they'll be scrambling to park their money somewhere safe when it comes time for THEIR taxes to go up substantially. And then they'll donate to some more of their kind who will try to get tax reform to protect them down the road again.

that Dems love to brag about was the last annual BUDGET amount.......it wasn't used towards the NATIONAL DEBT CEILING. Big difference between the two.

advice of his Congress and the Republicans and made cuts, including to Welfare programs, and created a surplus at the end of his term. Doesn't matter that Bush spent it and added to the National Debt because of two wars (whether you agreed with those wars or not)....Clinton left a National Debt as well that Bush added onto.

The conversation was about whether a good businessman could run the country financially, and I said YES. You asked what would be the most important aspect of that, and I said PROFITS/SURPLUS. If a country is doing well financially, the people have jobs and paying into the tax system to create that surplus along with the government shrinking back to something efficiently run like a business, because no matter what you might think, a government IS a business and won't last long running in the red.

when you're already broke, the people don't have jobs to pay revenue to pay that debt, and you sure as hell don't keep 'investing' when you know you have to go into debt to do that. YOU CUT OUT THE SPENDING.

Not hardly, but then again BO is really good at giving a dire speech, isn't he?

HE's the ONLY ONE who can make decisions about what domestic cuts are made....and rather than talk about cutting programs that don't work, including Head Start (which is supposed to be a pre-school type of environment but has become nothing more than a paid for baby-sitter), he threatens to cut FBI, first responders, etc. If those are what ends up being cut, it's on HIM this time.

"even when it wasn't on him, you put it on him".........clarify.