Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (122987)	10/8/2012 3:04:53 AM
From: Woody_Nickels	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 149317

Romney took companies that were going broke, and saved as many jobs as possible. If a doughnut company had a money losing division that made ball bearings, he would sell off the ball bearing division to save the doughnut company. Some jobs were lost/sent to the buyer, but other jobs were saved. Not everyone lost their job. Once the money losing division was off the balance sheet, the doughnut company made money once more, and its stock went up. Romney did his job and made $$. Sometimes the company couldn't be saved, and many jobs were lost, as they would be anyway. What's your problem with this? Jealousy? Perhaps if you tried to get rich, you would succeed, too. I never tried to become rich, but settled for a comfortable old age from Soc. Sec. and personal savings. No pension here, like the gov't weenies get... 50% to 80% of highest pay, after only 20 yrs. When the average mortality age was 56, a 20 yr. career was more normal. With mortality now around 78, 40 yrs. should be a career. jmho

To: tejek who wrote (122987)	10/8/2012 9:28:13 AM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 149317

And that's how you justify voting for Romney.......a guy who got rich by taking jobs from the less fortunate and outsourcing them. Romney would get rid of Bernanke. Your statement is simply one born of ignorance. You believe that the President, Romney or Obama, holds all the power to move the economy and change people's lives. This is a very common fallacy, that I'd say probably 99% of Americans believe. The reality is far different. The only real power the President has over the economy is to recommend the Fed Chairman appointment. But Congress has to ratify that and Congress ultimately could control the Fed, if they wanted to. But since they have no inclination to do so, then the Fed Chairman himself is the single most powerful man, who can and does impact the lives of most Americans on a daily basis. And right now, that man is Bernanke. Worse yet, Bernanke has made himself the most dangerous man alive. His endless currency debasement has already launched into its terminal phase. It will literally put millions more Americans into poverty, as it destroys savings and investment. In addition, it will export inflation around the world as the reserve currency loses value against most other currencies. In turn, that means he will put millions of foreigners into poverty as well. And he is the un-elected head of a 4th Branch of government never sanctioned nor intended by the Founders and Framers of the US Constitution. So you keep focusing on your quaint ideas that the GOP and Dems are different and that the heads of those parties can make a difference. I'm focusing on the root causes, though, and that means I'd like Bernanke fired. Romney has said he'll do that, so at least there's a chance he'll make good on his word. However, there is a 100% probability that Obama will keep Bernanke in place for another term. Therefore, my choice is clear.