Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I, for one, do not think that Mr. Romney would have made much difference.
At the beginning of the recession I was struck by the articles being written by economists predicting that employers would take advantage of the recession to lay-off those employees whose jobs had become superfluous due to advancing technology.
The tenor of many of these articles: many middle-class jobs are simply going to go away, with few new jobs to replace them. In the future we may look back at this period and realize that '7 percent' unemployment (should we achieve that) constituted 'full employment' (I recall when 2 percent unemployment was considered full employment, then 4 percent, and I believe now 6 percent is considered such).
As the article above states, technology can be wonderful but it does have a dark side.
Willard likely would've been a disaster ... possibly even an epic disaster like our latest businessman prez, GWB...
...Romney's business experience is largely irrelevant and may even be a liability. Historically, business success correlates more with presidential failure than success. So, there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Romney's past business success means he will be a good president.
It would be better for his fellow 1%ers and worse for the rest of us.
The 1% has done super the last few years. It would indeed be impressive if Romney could have done even more for them. That would be setting the bar pretty high.
The working poor and wealthy are historical natural states. Middle class is generally created by government policy. Government and unions have historically done more to lift people out of poverty and into the middle class than anything else. And I say this as someone who is not an advocate for unions, especially public unions, in these times.
True. but not in a democracy or lets say "not for long" in a democracy. Whether it be a union representing the worker or a government representing the people, or a very large angry mob. You could also say humans by natural state need to be enslaved, that fits nicely in some eras. History backs that up nicely up to recent times. Where does it not exist? Nomadic tribes by and large.
It would be better for his fellow 1%ers and worse for the rest of us.
Oh and that is not what has occurred in the last 5 years?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think the U.S. economy would be in better shape right now if Mitt Romney were president?
