Are you saying Obama hasn't been helpful to your small business, or some Obama policy has been negative for it? If the latter, can you give any specifics? What exactly are you looking for from government in general in terms of helping your small business? That will help determine whether Obama or Romney might be more helpful.
On a side note, while this is true, it's probably so in the opposite way you're thinking. Obama has been much more small business friendly than your typical Democrat, both in terms of taxes and labor.
If you are in a small business in which you are an LLC, partnership, or sole proprietorship, question you have to ask yourself is how much money do you pull in in taxable income. If you are pulling in a lot, say $250k or more, after all your business costs - then you should vote Romney because he will cut your taxes - you are doing alright in the current environment so who cares if the economy continues to stink right? If you are not, and or losing money - Obama will be better since he is trying to pass legislation that will encourage consumer spending and activity that will basically be a boost in your sales and a higher tax rate on the rich won't affect you since you aren't that profitable anyway. So if you are already successful - Romney (lower taxes). If you are struggling to be successful - Obama (more revenue).
And people wonder why Romney can't connect to voters... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/01/mitt-romney-211_n_1848432.html Romney and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) spent close to an hour meeting with first responders and local officials. Romney shook hands with National Guardsmen outside the U.S. Post Office and talked with a local resident, Jodie Chiarello, 42, who lost her home in Isaac's flooding. "He just told me to, um, there's assistance out there," Chiarello said of her conversation with Romney. "He said, go home and call 211." That's a public service number offered in many states. Chiarello said she will likely seek some other shelter because her home was submerged in the flooding. She expressed frustration about the town's lack of flood protection.
If you are looking for distortions and lies, look no further than Obama's 2008 campaign messages: HOPE AND CHANGE bwaaaaaahahahahahaha funny b/c it's dead on distortion and lies
Guess you didn't read the other thread about the things he changed(you just spilled garbage about the unemployment rate and Trayvon there) or are not familar to it at all. I see you are ignorant on Democrats, but at least check the facts before posting trash here. Obama's changes for the better are night/day compared to the Bush era and everything Romney would do.
Are you suggesting there has been no change, and things are similar to the Bush years that you very strongly approved of?
I am curious what your reaction will be when Obama wins. Silence? No...not your style Humility? bwaaaaaaaahahahahahaha Rationale? History doesn't portend that Trollish? Of course, here is what you are going to say, "Libs manipulated the American people and the media stole the election" Predictable & Pathetic? Yes, Sadly
If you call 8.3% unemployment "hope and change", then we have different visions for America. That's the top issue for many voters. The "long list" of accomplishments are simply that -- a long list of mostly inconsequential things. They're not big hope and change. Sorry, but Obama has not delivered on his 2008 campaign promise of hope and change. Not even close.
Mr. Obama this week, for the first time, entered the fray. Campaigning on Tuesday on college campuses in Iowa and Colorado, he told thousands of supporters not to believe the opposition’s attacks because, “how do I put this nicely? They will just fib.” On Wednesday in Charlottesville, Va., he ramped up his complaint, winning applause from the estimated 6,500 people. “Sometimes they just make things up. But they’ve got a bunch of folks who can write $10 million checks, and they’ll just keep on running them,” he said. “I mean, somebody was challenging one of their ads — they made it up — about work and welfare. And every outlet said this is just not true. And they were asked about it and they said — one of their campaign people said, ‘We won’t have the fact-checkers dictate our campaign. We will not let the truth get in the way.’” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/politics/obama-moves-to-speak-on-romneys-character.html?_r=2
That's the problem with some of you stubborn guys. Bush left this country in the dirt, expecting Obama to pull a 180 and lift it to the top again with rainbows and unicorns was enver expected. He does everything he can to help the economy and majority of people. You can't bring a country that was utterly destroyed by Bush back to full glory in four years, get real.
The difference between you and I is that I have grander visions for America than you do. I'm not satisfied with 8.3% unemployment. That may fly in some parts of Europe, but not in the US. and another protip for you -- Bush isn't running in this election, so your points are irrelevant.
If we are basing our votes on just what has happened to our own businesses let me relate to you my experience as a small business owner. We too also went through some very rough years literally starting at the end of 2008 with one of our major projects shutting down in the middle of construction. Unlike Paul Ryan I am not going to blame this on Obama because he wasn't in office yet and even if he was I don't think he could've played a direct role in that type of project. From 2009 to through the third quarter of 2011 things were very bad but they have picked up quite a bit since then and in 2012 things are on pace to better for us than 2008. So while things were very bad for most of Obama's presidency for my company at the moment things are actually better than January 2009 when Obama took office. Another thing though is that while things were bad during a three year stretch what kept us from completely going under was that almost all of the projects we got during that time had some element of Federal funding behind them, national parks and transit related projects. I'm willing to take both on their word that they actually are interested in helping small businesses. They have different ways of how they think they should be helped. In anything Obama is more conservative than most run of the mill Democrats. From my standpoint Obama's strategy of stimulus spending has been a net positive since the only work we got during the downturn either directly or indirectly benefited from government spending. Low taxes hasn't been much of a factor since we really haven't had enough revenue for taxes to be a factor and anyway Obama hasn't raised taxes. The ACA isn't much of a factor at the moment but if it does succeed in lowering insurance rates it will be a positive. Increased regulation regarding things like the environment is a mixed bag as it has proven very problematic in some projects but also been a benefit to us in some cases as a lot of our work is in code compliance and we are brought into help with that. Looking at Romney's stances I am not sure how much benefit, or detriment, they would be directly to my business. As I said above lowering taxes isn't much of a factor. It is possible that if taxes are raised on the wealthiest it might discourage investment in things like building but from my standpoint I don't think that will directly affect my own company much. A very large cut in government spending though will directly affect my company since we have projects that have government money in them. Repealing the ACA I don't think will have a huge affect but the status quo prior to ACA wasn't good due to the rise in health insurance and health care costs. Romney hasn't spelled out what will replace so its hard to judge what affect a Romney admin. will have on that. This also goes to a general problem with Romney is that on particulars his campaign is very vague and also many of his current stances contradict positions he took while governor of Mass. So from my own experience as a small business I am not seeing much about Romney's positions that would make it worthwhile to vote for him over Obama. Anyway I am not basing my vote on who is going to benefit the most directly and don't think that is a good idea in general. The truth is that the President doesn't have that much control over the economy and while it is an important issue there are many other issues out there that the President can affect more directly. Also I don't believe that decisions like this should just be based on personal and short term gain but we should consider the wider implications for our country as a whole.
True Bush isn't but considering that Romney has advocated Bush policies and returning to the situation of health care and other things under Bush Bush's record is relevant.
The difference is I can think without putting pink glasses on and the reality is no president could've done severely better than Obama in taking the right steps to help this country and it's economy in the future. Did you really expect the Unemployment rate to severely drop in 4 years? You are dreaming and fail to see how big the issues left by Bush are if you thought this country would be back to the top in just a few years with a different leader, Obama was never expected to be a wizard that swings his wand and everything becomes okay. The past is important in this whole thing, the points about Bush are relevant here because they will affect the USA for years to come.
So, a friend of mine posted her excitement on Thursday after Mitten's speech for the republican ticket. She's been very vocal about her feelings and is one of those that is in the camp of "If it's on Fox News, it must be true." So, her and I don't get along when it comes to political matters. But she said something the other day that I just had to bash her on. She said just after Romney's speech, "If Obama wins, it's only because of voter fraud." She's since deleted the post on facebook because I think she was roundly bashed for such a stupid statement. I have to ask, though...Is that what you guys on the right believe? That President Obama can only win via illegal means? Is that the crux of all of these voter ID laws? You say it's not because of racism or trying to prevent certain groups from voting. Is it because you truly believe that voter fraud is so rampant, that President Obama won in 2008 or that the only way he'd win this year is because of something that simply isn't a real issue?
Obama's investments in the private sector has single handed sank my profits. I deal with a lot of public sector contracts. Work with local officials, doctors, lawyers, judges,public unions, along with NASA(lost the contract when Obama was elected for obvious reasons). Obama's love affair of the corporate private sector has hurt business in a major way. Not to the effect where I would have to close doors, but profits have decreased by 7-12%(pretty significant when compared to Bush when I had 2 years where my profits decreased by 2% when he came into office then figures corrected it's self and I stayed even until Obama was elected.) I run a courier business catering to the local and state government here in Texas. I'm pretty much the fed-ex of the public sector here in Texas and don't deal with normal every day citizens. Now I understand some of the figures that have decreased have been due to local and state government cutting cost, but majority of lost profit have to do with Obama's policies and agenda's. It has almost gotten to a point where when Obama signs a new law, bill, whatever... I can fully guarantee I will be either losing profit, or another client.
