Mitt Romney for President.

We don't need just a good story teller, we need a deliverer, a creator, some one who knows how to get things done.

Any fool for President would be better than that Obama.

Why don't you run then?

Base, are you a good story teller too?

Well, when I need to be.

Barack Obama for President ...

... again in 2012.

Unfortunately you don't have those things in Romney. Romney did create wealth but mostly for himself. That at the expense of regular American workers and common stock shareholders. He bought companies, drew out cash for himself while turning them into debt laden companies which eventually went bankrupt leaving American workers without jobs and common stock shareholders holding the bill. He also sacrificed many other American jobs through outsourcing which put even more cash into his personal bank accounts. He is boring and self centered. And his double talk screams his deceit. The average working class American need not vote him in to find out if he cares about them. He has already shown through his private enterprising that he doesn't.

On the other hand, Obama has been given a exploded economy to fix. While things have not gotten a hell of a lot better, they have not gotten worse. He had to dig us out of a deep hole and has made great progress and could have done more if the congressional republicans were not so bent on undermining his efforts even if it means punishing working class Americans since they don't really care about working class Americans.

You are an accountant just like I am and knows fully well that the amount of profit tax has no basis on job creation. Nothing substantial at least. But the Republicans use it by counting on regular people not understanding taxation.

Ksazma, as a finance guy, you know that companies usually go to private equity when they are in deep trouble.  Private Equity invests to turn them around and make money for their investors.  The fact the Romney made money is nothing wrong, so did all the investors who took the gamble.  You also know that Staples and Domino Pizza were two of his investment that were going under.

Private Equity does well because they break-up and reconfigure businesses to make them profitable and sustainable.  And yes, sometimes you have to let something go as it makes no sense or will never be viable. As A finance guy, you also know it makes sense to fold up some shops to save others, break up and sell off others to other businesses where they are a better fit, etc.  This is basic capitalism.  I'm sure you, and anyone else would not invest with a guy who holds onto "dead wood" for social reasons.  You certainly don't want your pension fund manager doing that.

Profits are not always a surrogate for job creation, but you know very well, unprofitable companies don't last, not for their owners, not for their workers.

The US does have a tax issue which needs redressing, but this guy Obama cannot seem to get anything done.  We can blame everyone but him, but he is the leader and accountability stops with him.  He had a Democratic Congress his first two terms, and what was accomplished.

For a "finance guy" to discourse on the doings of private equity in the 21st Century without once mentioning "DEBT" or "LEVERAGE" tells me all I need to know about the purpose of this 'analysis.'

And . . . sir, you need a refresher course on what "basic" capitalism is.

I don't have a problem with investors expecting the maximum returns on their investments. I don't even have a problem with Romney having to get rid with dead wood. The problem is that they (like KB Toys) were only made dead wood because he over compensated himself it their expense. I would love for wekeleaks to get their hands on his tax returns from a decade ago.

Regarding profit taxes, companies don't pay them unless there are profits and most times the effective tax rate is lower tham the 35% due to deferred taxes. Therefore profit taxes don't affect profitability. In Romney's companies' case, he made them unprofitable by his excessive compensation, not profit taking.

Regarding Obams's first two years in office, he was busy putting out the fire and when the fire was contained, the racist teabaggers stook in the way of further progress. So to say that he has accomplished noting is inaccurate.

Well educate us nah!  And tell me about "capitalism" and social welfare nah?  Not that I oppose it, but what's your point? 

For a "finance guy" to discourse on the doings of private equity in the 21st Century without once mentioning "DEBT" or "LEVERAGE" tells me all I need to know about the purpose of this 'analysis.'

That's my point!

Also remember that nols are carried forward to offset future profits. Incidentally the people who complain about tax and the size of the tax code fail to realize/acknowledge that its size is as such because of the many provisions that can be utilized to reduce taxes. They seem to not understand their contradiction.

Social welfare has been around from the beginning of time. It is only a problem now because the richer we get, the poorer we feel. Our economy has tripled over the past two decades yet we feel poor. Even I used to make minimum wage two decades ago but am making a lil bit more now.

R U fuh real???????

Having read opposing statements next to each other that's all you have to say?

This is the equivalent of blogging mal-practice. So shut up little man and let the big boys comment on politics.

ROMNEY for PRESIDENT little boy, now go to the potty.

The tax codes does have loop holes.  Tax shelters were put for good reason however, there is no way it could be water-tight as such people will take advantage.  If someone misuses it trough fraud, then they ought to be punished but simplifying the codes will create other problems.  The origins of the various codes were for good reason.

Exactly my point. So people who complain about it are generally people who just like to complain.

Another thing that is being passed around is that Reagan created all those millions of jobs in his first three years when Obama has not. This is ridiculous since the generation of wealth today does not require the same labor utilization. We have almost regained all the stock losses of September 2008 yet that did not translate to the recovery of the jobs lost during October 2008 and January of 2009.

God try, the stock market is not an indicator.  You know part of the rise is due to very low interest rates, a depressed housing market which have pushed liquidity into the stock market.

The economic growth is low and confidence is just not there.  Now entire cities are going broke.  Its growth which will bring jobs, not ythe stock market.

Jobs can't come back if they are being produced overseas and then shupped here for sale. My position is that people should be allowed to use any labor source they chooses but if they want to use our US market, they should pay a tariff equilavent to the differential of the cost her and overseas. That alone will bring the jobs back here. Growth is there.

Hey, this is what I said a while back, and what Donald Trump was advocating.  But it's easier said than done.  You have to find a criteria which does no create a WTO and OECD issue or there could be massive retaliation.  You have to find a profitability-related tax vs a tax based on origin.  It's a very complex issue as you dig into details.

Who cares about retaliation. The US consumes about 25% of everything produced in the world. And since the customer is always right we get to call the shots.

Yea, ask any big businessman if they care or not.  ksazma, you sounding drunk bai.  Does not work that way.  Then elect the Donald.