He was extremely successful at the helm of Bain.

One could make the argument that using his obvious business acumen, he could make the US economy as wealthy as he made Bain investors.

Careful, that sounds like central planning.

One could make that argument, and after all, he did spread the wealth.

That would suggest he sees us as investors. He does not. He sees us as renewable resources.

I believe I typed "the US economy".

Ah. I see the problem now. You think that the president is there to assure the wellbeing of the economy, as opposed to the people.

What sort of well-being is there for "the people", if there is no well-being of the economy?

"It's REALLY the economy, stupid." ~ James Carville, Democrat

Taking care of the economy is an unintended side effect of taking care of the people in it.

You've reduced yourself to grasping at straws.
I'm almost feeling sorry for you.

No, it's a core difference between liberals and democrats. Like Romney, you think that corporations are people. Really important people.

You are embarrassing yourself with nonsensical posts.

The fact that you're unable to make sense of it doesn't make it nonsensical.

You say you're supporting Romney because the $300 million he made working for Bain capital suggests that he'll help the economy. I'm saying that the money he made for himself doesn't imply anything of the sort and that at any rate it's more important to help the people... and those are two distinctly different things.

The purpose of an economy is to allocate resources in a way which maximizes society's happiness. The wellbeing of the citizens is the job; the economy is a tool.

I suspect other readers are able to comprehend this.

You need a course in reading comprehension and application.




How much societal happiness and well-being do you imagine there will be to maximize in a failing economy? What happens to "resources" in a failing economy? What are you going to allocate? More misery? More unemployment? More foreclosures?

US gdp per capita is $47180. We're a long way from a failing economy. What we have is a failure of allocation. Growing the GDP another 5, 20, 30 or 50% won't fix that.

Maybe more tax cuts for billionaires and using the resulting revenue shortfall as an excuse to fire more public employees will fix the problem.

Count me in. Aside from the fact that you are correct, your arguments are always eloquently stated in a manner sensitive to ethical and moral considerations. How is it not possible to comprehend that corporate capitalism is a path we should not have embarked on?

I am amazed how you manage to not lose your cool when confronted with such obstinate obtuseness every single time you attempt to raise her consciousness.

It has got to be difficult for her, though, laboring under the strain of embarrassment knowing that she can't see Russia from this board. Always saving face hampers her receptiveness.

US DEBT per capita is $48,859.98


Care to guess the percentage of US debt to US gdp?

Btw, the US ranks 129th in real growth rate. 129th.

a) non sequitur. It has almost nothing to do with equitable income distribution
b) To the extent that it does... to whom do we owe it? 80% of it is owed to ourselves. That portion which isn't owed to Social Security is owed to rich people who would rather loan the country money rather than pay taxes.

What does GDP have to do with equitable income distribution?

Qatar's GDP = $179,000 (PPP) and yet rates only a 41 on the GINI.

So...according to you, this democratic republic can't get it right...an emirate can't get it right...what's next? How about a communist state...China...GINI 41.

Follow the bouncing ball. It really doesn't bounce all that high.

The US gdp is healthy; the country makes lots of money. Unfortunately, like Qatar , China and Mexico, our system does a bad job of allocating that wealth.

GDP has everything to do with your concept of "economic health", but it has much less to do with the wellbeing of the citizens.

How to increase the well-being of citizens?
Reduce obesity and increase education.

... by making it optional.

And that is the perfect example of why you didn't and why you'll never get my vote: your propensity toward disingenuousness and putting personal agenda over probity. Neither is desirable in a member of a School Board.

Don't worry. I don't think any less of you. Than I ever did.

Those desiring a position on a school board should set a good example for students by using grammatically correct sentence construction.

Those desiring a position in heaven should set a good example by avoiding bearing false witness.

I think it's safe to assume you're not catholic, because since you sinned on a Monday, you'd have known that you had to wait six days to be let off the hook.

I think it's safe to assume that you're not thinking.

As safe as every other assumption you've made.

What does Monday have to do with Catholics? I guess you are talking about Confession. Confessions can do done any day of the week.

http://www.catholic.org/prayers/confession.php