President Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod, recently was on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. In typical fashion, he attacked Governor Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital record of creating profits.
Apparently this schoolboy does not understand that profitability in the private sector is the factual measure of a business and businessman’s success. Even in the so-called “non-profit” sector, enterprises must produce a surplus (in other words, a de facto profit) in order to independently survive and succeed. Without a surplus, they must depend on charity and/or government subsidies (which come from taxing the profits of the private sector and/or taxing the wages of working Americans.)
Axelrod would seem to be saying that Romney would be a more attractive candidate if he were less successful – if he had run businesses which produced no profits; which, of course, means they would have gone bankrupt.
I recognize that Obama and Axelrod and most of his Chicago cabal are de facto Marxist/Socialist/Radical-Leftist ideologues, who have no business experience and will say anything to deceive voters. They would like you to believe that profits are bad – private companies are bad – businessmen are bad – and only government is good. Frankly that’s one of the problems with the Obama regime. They do not support basic, fundamental, free-enterprise, constitutional-capitalistic principles.
For almost four years, Obama’s administration has been dealing with the business community with unprecedented belligerence, increasing regulations, and irrational criticism. Urging voters to reject Romney because he was a successful businessman, governor and manager of the Salt Lake City Olympics is ludicrous and epitomizes why the administration under the leadership of Barack Obama, David Axelrod and other Chicago radicals – has failed.
Why would anyone think four more years under this failed president and guys like David Axelrod would produce better results? They won’t! Obama and his staff are over their heads.
O must go!
It seems grossly disingenuous for Democrat politicians and commentators to attribute the good economic results of the 1990s’ Clinton era to higher taxation. And yet they do it over and over in support of higher taxes and more government spending. The facts are: the booming economy tolerated the higher tax rates, not the opposite.
However, as we entered the new millennium, the higher tax rates had a negative affect (as they always do) and contributed to the recession, which opened the G.W.Bush Presidency.
The so call “Clinton boom” was primarily the result of major technology-market introductions with associated market demand: The Internet boom . . . cell phone boom . . . digital communications boom . . . digital graphics and camera boom . . . personal computers and computation boom . . . the Y2K boom . . . international trade boom . . . the outsourcing boom . . . the real estate boom . . . the stock market boom . . . etc. This era was perhaps unprecedented in its introduction of new and viable technology ― to enhance business and personal operating efficiency.
Unfortunately, booms lead to recessions, which was the case during the early years of the Bush administration. GWB overcame the economic decline via tax cuts and modest government spending (until the Dems took over congress in 2007 and stepped up spending and entitlements).
So for Democrats and their minions to argue that reinstituting higher, Clinton-level tax rates would not adversely affect the current recession ― is ignorant and deceptive and contrary to past experience. Don’t buy it!
Governor Romney has pledged to cut taxes and unnecessary government spending, which is the proven approach to stimulating the economy and creating good paying jobs. President O and the Dems have had their chance and have failed miserably. It is time for change and a competent leader.