backtop


Print 68 comment(s) - last by Belard.. on Aug 15 at 7:58 AM

Struggling phonemaker is in for some painful changes

Google Inc. (GOOG) announced the first step in its plans to overhaul struggling recent acquisition Motorola Mobility on Monday.  As part of the overhaul it will cut 1 out of every 5 jobs at the phonemaker unit, and will close roughly 31 of the 94 offices worldwide.

I. From the First Cell Phone to Near Last

In the wireless industry there is perhaps no company with as long and rich a history as Motorola.

Founded in 1928, Motorola was a pioneer in the world of wireless communications, inventing the world's first wireless walkie talkie in 1940 and the first commercial cell phone in 1973.  It would go on to play a crucial role as an early maker of mobile devices and infrastructure.

But Motorola's problems have stretched for around a decade and a half as the golden glory of its heyday faded.

Motorola first cell
Motorola literally invented the cell phone, but almost exited the market amid failing sales.
[Image Source: Know Your Cell]

Since the late 1990s Motorola has languished, first being overtaken by Finland's Nokia Oyj. (HEX:NOK1V) and Research in Motion, Ltd. (TSE:RIM) in various markets, then later by young guns like Apple, Inc. (AAPL) and even a revitalized Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930).  A minor hit in 2004 -- the RAZR -- quickly became another disappointment after Motorola failed to continue to push the design and feature envelope, preferring self-referential sequels.  

A friend of mine in the software industry close to the phonemaker recently told me a story of how a former Motorola executive was sent to check out a promising startup as a potential acquisition in 2009.  He returned to report that the company was of no real interest.  

Weeks later he had quit Motorola and joined the startup.  The name?  FourSquare.

Motorola had for decades attracted innovators, but sadly stories like that defection were commonplace for the phonemaker as it stumbled through a decade of disappointing earnings which eventually culminated in hard red losses.

Of all the wrong moves Motorola made, the company did make one wise bid, becoming an early adopter of the Android operating system, a move that temporarily halted its losses in the smartphone market and gave it a small breath of life.

II. Google's Restoration Begins With Fresh Blood at the Top

Now it's up to Google, makers of Android, to finish sorting out the mess.  The software giant bought a $12.5B USD "fix-me-up" in Motorola, and now it's tearing down the mildewed walls and uprooting the rotting floorboards.  And it's not afraid to start cutting close to home.

Globally Motorola employs around 20,000 folks -- about as much as RIM did at its peak in 2008.  Of those, 4,000 will now be cut.  That leaves Motorola with a workforce that will still be more than 50 percent bigger than struggling peer RIM.  The cuts will be painful, though, with around 1,300 -- roughly a third -- coming from the phonemaker's home country, the U.S.

Fixer upper
Motorola Mobility is a big fixer-upper for Google. [Image Source: HWTN.org]

Dennis Woodside, new CEO of Motorola tells The New York Times in an interview that the key to the phonemaker's revival will start with pulling out of markets where Motorola is actually losing money.  He comments, "We’re excited about the smartphone business.  The Google business is built on a wired model, and as the world moves to a pretty much completely wireless model over time, it’s really going to be important for Google to understand everything about the mobile consumer."

Google has also recruited Mark Randall, a star up-and-comer from Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) (and also a Nokia veteran), who is acting as Motorola's new supply chief.  He says that when he came onboard Motorola's parts chain was a mess, but that by using fewer suppliers and 50 percent less parts he will be able to substantially cut costs.

Other key additions include former DARPA chief Regina Dugan, who will lead Motorola's advanced technology group, and Vanessa Wittman -- former CFO of brokerage firm Marsh & McLennan Comp.s, Inc. (MMC) -- who now steps in as Motorola's CFO.

III. Motorola Has Some Advantages, Even Without Special Android Favors

As every analyst or foe states at every possible opportunity it should be interesting to see whether Google shows any signs of favoritism towards Motorola, over its third party Android partners.  So far Google's approach seems to mirror Microsoft's handling of partner Nokia -- to trade employees, but steadfastly avoid any sort of exclusive product or software offerings.

Motorola has some advantages going ahead.  Apple's case against it has been dismissed in the U.S., making it the first of the Android Big Three to be out of that legal nightmare.    In the features department, Motorola's phones like the RAZR MAXX hold the battery life crown, even beating Apple's perennial battery life performer, the iPhone [Source: AnandTech].

Droid RAZR MAXX
The RAZR Maxx remains king of battery life. [Image Source: Verizon Wireless]

But Motorola must not waiver from releasing high-profile flagship phones or it risks losing the publicity battle with polished market leaders Samsung and Apple -- both kings of public relations hype.

The fresh blood must deliver oxygen to Motorola's atrophying muscles.  That much is apparent after the latest quarter of losses followed by a new regiment of layoffs and cost cutting.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I look forward to the day...
By msheredy on 8/13/2012 11:59:51 AM , Rating: 5
...when the headlines start to read "Google to add 20% workforce" or hell any company to add 20% to its workforce




RE: I look forward to the day...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2012 12:10:01 PM , Rating: 4
That day will begin November 2012.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By msheredy on 8/13/2012 12:21:30 PM , Rating: 2
Here here!!


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Sazabi19 on 8/13/2012 12:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
Of 2022, it will take some time to heal what has been done to us, you don't just pay back xxtrillion dollars. It sucks but hopefully the US has woken up and realized what they have done. I don't have faith in the average person though.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By kattanna on 8/13/2012 12:50:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That day will begin November 2012


im not entirely sure how obama getting re-elected is going to magically make that happen


RE: I look forward to the day...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/13/2012 1:49:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
im not entirely sure how obama getting re-elected is going to magically make that happen
Yup.

Oh goodie... let's pick between...

A) A man who personally dodges most of American taxes and was fiscally tied to a policy of job outsourcing, who claims that the ability to balance a small affluent state's budget magically means he'll balance the bloated rotting carcass of entitlements and loopholes that is the federal budget.

...or...

B) A man who has been unable to pull us out of recession, who preached holding corporations accountable whilst handing them billions in handouts (be it "green power" grants, bailout funding, or tax loopholes a la GE), who claims that by "making the wealthy pay their fair share" he can balance the budget while neglecting to mention that a large percentage ultra-wealthy shelter the majority of their earnings overseas, effectively paying no taxes. Oh and did we mention he comes from one of the nation's most notoriously crooked political machines (Chicago)?

But wait, each man offers us some sort of vague agenda of moral issues, to help soothe our minds and help us forget their questionable economics.

Pick your winner America. Enjoy.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: I look forward to the day...
By Rukkian on 8/13/2012 2:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
So basically, say something bad about both sides, is bad because he said something bad against a right wing candidate.

Go back to Faux News if that is what you want.

Most people with more than 1/2 a brain know that both sides are wrong at this point, and neither is going to magically fix anything.

I personally really wish there was somebody besides Romney going against Obama, cause I would like to see him go, but Romney is not the answer and just comes across as a slimeball.


By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2012 2:18:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I personally really wish there was somebody besides Romney going against Obama, cause I would like to see him go, but Romney is not the answer and just comes across as a slimeball.


Successful businessman and a great record at being a Governor. No criminal record that I'm aware of. Not involved in any scandals etc etc. Faithful husband bla bla. Pillar of the community, an educated and articulate man.

Yup this is what makes someone a "slimeball" these days. Any wonder why this country is going in the wrong direction? There used to be a time when we looked up to successful people, but no more. They are now the enemy!!

The only reason you think these things about Romney is because of the massive media assault against him. Come back when you have thoughts of your own.

I would also like someone besides Romney. He's not terrible, just not a true Conservative. Another mainstream Republican. But hey, that's life. You don't always get what you want. But we already know the alternative, Obama, has been a qualified disaster for this country.

Before you can reverse direction and climb up a hill, you first have to make a stop. If Romney is that "stop", and not the climb up, that's good enough at this point. We just need to stop and stop now.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By NellyFromMA on 8/13/2012 2:20:57 PM , Rating: 5
What's disgusting about people DISCUSSING politics? You know what IS disgusting? When people can't agree to disagree and become venemous and self-implode at the mere suggestion of someone having a train of thought other than your own. The above is exactly why I can't take either side very seriously. -_-


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2012 2:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
No it's disgusting because he simply parroted the current stereotype on Romney as if it was fact. And used that to infer he somehow wasn't fit to be President.

It's basically like saying some teenager working at an Apple Store is "responsible" for Chinese labor exploitation, because hey, he's "fiscally" tied to it!

And tax dodger? He's paid all taxes legally owed. That doesn't make someone a "tax dodger". But Jason's view on taxation is basically the same as the Left's. That the Government owns everything you make, and it's your obligation to pay as much taxes as humanly possible.

Basically Jason Mick has made Romney a criminal. Just like Obama has tried to do. But I don't think that's going to work this time. I still have faith in America, and I don't believe we're going to double down on national suicide two elections in a row. Obama is going to have to win on his record, not what Romney may or may not be. And suffice to say, that record isn't nearly strong enough.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/13/2012 2:40:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
No it's disgusting because he simply parroted the current stereotype on Romney as if it was fact. And used that to infer he somehow wasn't fit to be President.
Stereotype?

I mentioned explicit facts.

As far as "fit to be President", why don't you ask me what my opinion is?

My opinion is that neither Obama or Romney is fit to be president in the sense of fixing all the mess of the U.S. federal gov't from welfare entitlements, to special interest handouts, to a wasteful defense policy.

Are either man fit by some other criteria (e.g. a track record of moderate successes, a measure of patriotism, etc.)? Sure, probably both are qualified.

But again, I'm not arguing Romney is less fit that Obama. I'm arguing neither are fit by the explicit criteria of capability to fix our nation's federal government.
quote:
Basically Jason Mick has made Romney a criminal. Just like Obama has tried to do. But I don't think that's going to work this time.
Pure BS.

There's nothing criminal about outsourcing or tax evasion.

The fact that you are suggesting I am somehow "buying" into BO's campaign or supporting him is ridiculous. In fact, I suggested in a headline (and was substantially criticized for it) that it might be an impeachable offense that BO accepted campaign funds to push an anti-piracy treaty not authorized by Congress.

You're delusional if you think I'm praising Obama.

I'm saying both Obama and Romney have serious baggage and are unlikely to fix the mess we're in.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: I look forward to the day...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/13/2012 3:11:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also you either don't care, or don't seem to be aware that Obama's claims of Romney being some kind of mass "outsourcer" of jobs has been debunked.

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-ove...

But see that's the danger of this stuff. The truth doesn't matter as long as it sounds good and juicy I guess.

I don't have to make up stuff about Obama. I know the truth because it's evident in his record.
Oh I'm not claiming that Romney was in charge of outsourcing, but what is true according to the link you sent me was that he maintained direct financial ties to firms that outsourced heavily.

Obama has some similar ties, interestingly:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-has-investment...

So did Obama or Romney "outsource" jobs? Directly, no. But they did profit off pay and large investments from firms, which in turn gained from outsourcing. So it's just passing the buck in my mind.
quote:
"Facts" from a certain biased point of view maybe. Surely you realize it's intellectually dishonest to call someone a "tax dodger" who, in fact, paid all taxes legally owed. When Romney gets charged with tax evasion, you can make me eat my hat. Until then, chill with that rhetoric.
I meant that in a legal sense.

Mitt Romney kept a large amount of money and capital in Swiss, Cayman Islands accounts. Exactly how much of it is very unclear given that he refuses to release his records, but even from last year's relatively tidy filing it's clear he had substantial holdings sheltered overseas.

Is this illegal? No, of course not.

However, you're quite naive if you believe lowering the corporate tax rate, income tax rate, capital gains tax rate, etc. will somehow lure those who use tax shelters (like Romney) out of regions where they pay virtually no taxes.

28 percent vs. 1-3 percent
or
15 vs. 1-3 percent

in corporate taxes is still not going to make a difference. Sheltering will continue.

The problem is that to pay for those cuts, you now have to cut a lot of federal programs.

I'm fine with this, in principal, but I am convinced that Romney will go about it in all the wrong way. For example, from my opinion the $25B USD + we give to Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan in aid should be first to go. But I've seen no mention of that in his platform amid all things he's said he'll cut, so I have to assume that it's staying.

I agree with some cuts he's proposed -- e.g. tough rollback of welfare, but his statements have led me to believe he's probably going to cut education spending, such as low-interest student loans, which would be very dangerous.

Even then, he'll still likely be deficit spending.

Read:
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-ta...


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2012 3:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, you're quite naive if you believe lowering the corporate tax rate, income tax rate, capital gains tax rate, etc. will somehow lure those who use tax shelters (like Romney) out of regions where they pay virtually no taxes.


Oh my god.../facepalm

Jason taxes and tax shelters are not our problem. The simplest way to shrink the economy in this country is to increase Government spending. If people would just understand this simple fact, we would be a lot better off. By vastly increasing the spending and size of the Government, Obama has depressed economic activity and hampered growth. The Government doesn't have money, it TAKES it's money from us.

This absurd notion created by the Left that the majority of this nations wealth is hidden in "tax shelters" is the biggest joke ever!

Obama understands this, which is why he renewed the "Bush tax cuts" in the first place. Tax increases ALWAYS depress economic activity, while tax decreases do the opposite.

If Romney cut those taxes, which lets be clear we have no idea he actually will, I'm hard pressed to see how that could be a bad thing. Provided spending levels are reduced from what they are now.

Do you wanna starve the bear or not?

quote:
Oh I'm not claiming that Romney was in charge of outsourcing, but what is true according to the link you sent me was that he maintained direct financial ties to firms that outsourced heavily.


So? I'm sure you're aware of how investment firms work. Obama comes along, and all of a sudden they are the devil incarnate.

Investing in companies who might be outsourcing jobs, is a far cry from saying someone personally "shipped jobs" oversees.

As an investment firm, their responsibly is to make the best investments for a return as possible. Discriminating between companies who may or may not be outsourcing would be, frankly, unethical and contradictory.

And I have a feeling you knew all this before hand, which made it really grating to see you repeat this kind of crap in an attack on Romney.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/13/2012 4:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jason taxes and tax shelters are not our problem.
It is part of the problem and there's one and only one solution -- a flat tax on all forms of income with zero exceptions.

Any other system can and will be manipulated.
quote:
. The simplest way to shrink the economy in this country is to increase Government spending.
I agree with you here.

The problem here is that neither party's platform I feel really fixes the underlying mechanical issues.

What forms of spending arguably help our country really need to prosper? In my mind:
1. Education -- funding for university research, college loans (or better yet, free tuition for technical professions) funding for K-12.
2. Homeland defense in the form of modern fighting equipment.
3. Basic supports for responsible folks who are temporarily out of work, but are seeking employment.
4. High speed transit, highway maintenance
5. A courts system
6. Basic foreign intelligence
7. Mild market regulation (e.g. SEC).
8. A unit of currency.
9. Public healthcare, implemented on a regional (as in several smaller states per jurisdiction).

What don't we need?

1. Tax refunds -- to anyone. You should pay a flat rate, no refunds.
2. Overseas foreign aid payments.
3. Out of control defense program budgets.
4. Welfare abuse (e.g. people with 7 children on years of welfare)
5. An alphabet soup of redundant intelligence agencies.
6. The majority of overseas military bases.
7. Venture capitalism (note this is different from funding university research, and much more expensive).
8. Occupations of foreign regions.
9. Medicare/social security -- put in place national healthcare requirements on a STATE level (not a federal level) and there's not need for medicare; people can save for their own retirements.

Institute a flat tax of corporate sales (not profits/revenue, which can be hidden more easily). Institute a second flat tax on all forms of personal income.

Hold a national caucus on wording an equal rights amendment, and pass it, eliminating the need for the equal rights act, and strengthening Constitutional protection of all Americans' freedom.

Outlaw PACs, corporate donations, union donations. Only allow capped direct individual campaign donations. Allow up to four candidates to run for president, regardless of party affiliation, based on a single national primary race.

Institute a 50 percent inheritance tax, and use that to pay for college tuition for all students capable of attending for technical majors (engineering, accounting, chemistry, medicine, etc.). Liberal arts would not be covered, as they are traditionally the realm of the wealthy, and can be studied by those with money to burn on idle pursuits.

If you notice neither party would endorse my spending platform I lay out here. But it's a common sense platform.


By JasonMick (blog) on 8/13/2012 4:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
9. Public healthcare, implemented on a regional (as in several smaller states per jurisdiction).
To be clear, I think that health care should only be implemented after a Constitutional amendment, clarifying its status.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By JediJeb on 8/13/2012 6:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Outlaw PACs, corporate donations, union donations. Only allow capped direct individual campaign donations. Allow up to four candidates to run for president, regardless of party affiliation, based on a single national primary race.


In a sense doing away with political parties where it comes to elections. That I can whole heartedly agree with. Needs to be implemented for Congress also.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Belard on 8/14/2012 12:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Outlaw PACs, corporate donations, union donations. Only allow capped direct individual campaign donations.

I'll give you one better.

Besides all PACS should be illegal. They allow foreigners to effect our laws. No matter what, corporations are NOT people.

There are NO direct donations to ANYONE, period. Anyone who is running for office has to file proper paperwork, get signatures, etc.

Once they qualify at various steps, they get campaign funded from a general budget. By all means, anyone CAN donate to the political process, but its given to all candidates. All would have the same budget to work with.

This will do many things that would make things wonderful.
A) Election process is shorter, faster - less time for BS.

B) Candidates are on equal campaign footing.

C) Once someone is in an office, they can spend almost 100% of their time DOING the job. Instead of 50~70% doing parties and asking for campaign donations. Sorry, when someone *GIVES* $100 million to a campaign - you KNOW they are asking for something back.

D) Nobody stays in Congress or the Senate forever! 3-terms max.

E) Any and ALL meetings with a lobbyist (most are bad, but some are good) are open to the public. ie: The meeting is recorded and available for anyone to review.

This won't happen. There is too much money tied into our government to prevent this from happening... anytime soon. :(


By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/2012 1:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
Jason not that I disagree with your points, but I'm confused. You felt the need to slam me for supporting Romney because you don't think he can magically "fix" the country and implement your suggestions? Do you honestly think ANY candidate at this point could do these things with the Congressional atmosphere we have now?

quote:
It is part of the problem and there's one and only one solution -- a flat tax on all forms of income with zero exceptions.


But taxes only make up about a third of the Governments funding. Which I might add, should be more than ample to fund a country twice this size if managed sensibly. By focusing on taxes, you're unknowingly buying into the Democrats position that the spending is fine, just things like the Bush Tax Cuts got us here. And that if we just raised taxes, we could sustain the path we're on. It's an outright lie.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By wempa on 8/14/2012 12:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The simplest way to shrink the economy in this country is to increase Government spending. If people would just understand this simple fact, we would be a lot better off. By vastly increasing the spending and size of the Government, Obama has depressed economic activity and hampered growth. The Government doesn't have money, it TAKES it's money from us.


I totally agree that the size of the government is out of control and needs to be reduced. However, both sides are still part of the problem. To sum it up: Democrats love entitlements and Republicans love war. It's absurd to refuse to budge on the defense budget when there is obviously fat to trim there too. Let's start by closing some of the bases we have in the 100+ countries and eliminating a lot of the foreign aid we pay. I'd much rather put that money to use here in our country.


By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/2012 1:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
Wempa we could eliminate the entire Department of Defense, that's EVERY CENT we spend on the military, and have a trillion dollar budget shortfall. Next year when Obamacare kicks in? Make that TWO TRILLION.

Now I'm not apposed to some military cuts, but let's just be realistic here. Okay?


RE: I look forward to the day...
By JediJeb on 8/13/2012 6:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My opinion is that neither Obama or Romney is fit to be president in the sense of fixing all the mess of the U.S. federal gov't from welfare entitlements, to special interest handouts, to a wasteful defense policy.

Are either man fit by some other criteria (e.g. a track record of moderate successes, a measure of patriotism, etc.)? Sure, probably both are qualified.


I have to agree with you Jason. What's more I would go on to say what is really needed that both lack completely. This country needs a president that will make very painful and deep cuts that everyone from top to bottom will hate and hurt from. He also has to not be worried in the least about whether or not he is re-elected for a second term and put all his efforts behind fixing what needs to be fixed and yanking hard on the reigns of Congress and the established bureaucracy to make them toe the line also. Someone who cares more for the country than his own popularity and prestige.

Sadly it has been about two hundred years since any people like this have existed in this country that are also willing to take the lead.

The public now days is driven by money. We need to make it the profitable choice for companies to make their products in this country instead of another, to keep their money in this country instead of sending it off-shore, and make it more profitable for people to work for their money than sit back and collect it from the government. As long as it is more profitable to send jobs over seas, off-shore your profits and sit on your butt and earn money for doing nothing this country will never come out of the mess it is in now.


By TakinYourPoints on 8/13/2012 9:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
parroted the current stereotype


Ah yes, turning hard facts into stereotypes or irrelevant exaggerations, standard from the Reclaimer playbook


RE: I look forward to the day...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/13/2012 2:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Romney/Ryan is so much more stronger than Obama/Biden it's a joke. The choice is obvious.
Are you debating the validity of some of those criticisms?

It's an intellectually vapid argument to argue that just because someone you didn't like (or someone who has done bad things) points out someone else's wrong doing that their point is invalid.

My opinion is that there's a fair amount of truth in both sides' attacks. That's why they're so stinging.

The fact is both sides have plenty of ammo to shoot at the other side, given that both have less than sterling track records.

I give Ryan some credit for his fiscal conservatism, but Romney is hardly going to save the nation any more than Obama was going to bring "Hope" of ending the recession.


By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2012 2:40:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Are you debating the validity of some of those criticisms?


Oh please! It's nothing but a political smear attack and YOU KNOW IT. Next you'll be saying Romney "killed" that mans wife too!

quote:
My opinion is that there's a fair amount of truth in both sides' attacks. That's why they're so stinging.


How about cutting through the "attacks" and looking at it somewhat more objectively?

quote:
I give Ryan some credit for his fiscal conservatism, but Romney is hardly going to save the nation any more than Obama was going to bring "Hope" of ending the recession.


Fine, whatever. You can be as esoteric as you like. But lets make one thing clear: The only reason we're now having to discuss "saving" the country is one Barrack Obama. You want to put that back in office? No.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By TSS on 8/13/2012 2:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well...

I know it's going to sound strange, me taking reclaimers side, but once you consider it really doesn't matter which one of the candidates wins because both will suck, romney is the better choice. But not because of romney or ryan.

Consider this: From what i know of the american political structure, it's now going to be 2 years untill the next house elections, while the senate gets elected at the same time as the president. Proposals have to pass all 3 to get signed into law.

Currently, the house has a republican majority. Since the house and the senate have been controlled by different parties NOTHING has been done. NOTHING.

Shortly after the elections on januari 1st the fiscal cliff arrives. It's a perfect storm that will drive the economy into depression the second it arrives. I'm all for fiscal conservatism and running a balanced budget, but going cold turkey isn't the way to do it.

Thus the only logical conclusion is to vote for romney. When the senate and house are republican controlled the proposals will fly through and they will litteraly, save the nation from the januari 1st doom. If Obama gets re-elected, the republicans *will* stall in the house, which is time you simply do not have after the inaugeration (which was januari 20th in 2009, 19 days longer then you have now). I'll add it in here that yes, while it is a hostage situation, the democrats would do exactly the same if the situation was reversed.

Do note: I haven't said it fixes anything. By the time romney's first term is through the national debt WILL BE $20+ trillion, and $22 trillion is looking very likely if not more. It might very well be the economy collapses before his term is over because the hits you don't take in 2013 you will take in 2014. And the world's economy is no longer waiting for america to make decisions, the chinese have already made their move.

You're screwed either way, severely screwed. BUT. Reclaimer is right that with romney, you'll be screwed later, rather then sooner.

Of course i'll add the usual disclaimer that i think both party candidates are idiots and neither will solve anything, but will make things worse even if you cannot concieve right now how it possibly could get worse. But if that's the will of the people....


RE: I look forward to the day...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/13/2012 2:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thus the only logical conclusion is to vote for romney. When the senate and house are republican controlled the proposals will fly through and they will litteraly, save the nation from the januari 1st doom. If Obama gets re-elected, the republicans *will* stall in the house, which is time you simply do not have after the inaugeration (which was januari 20th in 2009, 19 days longer then you have now). I'll add it in here that yes, while it is a hostage situation, the democrats would do exactly the same if the situation was reversed.

Do note: I haven't said it fixes anything. By the time romney's first term is through the national debt WILL BE $20+ trillion, and $22 trillion is looking very likely if not more. It might very well be the economy collapses before his term is over because the hits you don't take in 2013 you will take in 2014. And the world's economy is no longer waiting for america to make decisions, the chinese have already made their move.
Decent analysis.

I can buy that.

I guess I tend to agree with you. Still not going to change my mind about voting third party/write-in, but if I was voting for one of the two parties, sure I would probably pick Romney for similar logic as yours.

In fact, Romney might be good in another way too, in that if the deficit continues to grow and the recession drags on, then people may finally wake up to the fact that both parties are corrupt.

But I do think your depression scenario is where we will eventually headed. And this time around the U.S. federal government will be lucky to survive in its current form.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2012 3:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
Also something he left out, there's possibly two Supreme Court seats coming open in the next 4 years. Do we really want Obama putting another TWO unqualified radically activists judges who will uphold obviously illegal and Unconstitutional things like Obamacare for years to come?

This upcoming election is HUGE for so many reasons. I refuse to surrender in apathy and say all hope is lost.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Ish718 on 8/13/2012 11:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
If Romney is elected, prepare to be disappointed...


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Belard on 8/15/2012 6:45:59 AM , Rating: 2
yes, because Clarence Thomas has been such a good judge. What is his record for asking questions?

How much has Koch paid for his rulings? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars has is wife made working for the Tea~ Er,I mean Koch Party?


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Belard on 8/15/2012 6:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I give Ryan some credit for his fiscal conservatism
Can you prove that? His record isn't fiscal at all. Please show examples, not by title.

Saying he's fiscal is like saying FOX"news" is "Fair and Balanced".


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Belard on 8/14/2012 11:49:32 AM , Rating: 3
Er... huh? Romney (Mitt the Twit) is his own worst enemy.

Fact: He was pro-Draft / Pro-War during Vietnam, yet he made sure to not actually get drafted or enlists.

Fact: "To show 1 year of taxes is just for show" - Mitt's own father. Where is the rest of his taxes? "Trust me" doesn't cut it.

Fact: He's a big time two-faced flip-flopper. Plenty of video of him being pro-right, now anti-rights. So under GOP - Rape an incest victims are forced to have the child? That should be a choice. Not by some idiot men to choose for them.

Fact: "Obamacare" *IS* Romneycare. Plenty of video of him saying how good it is, even in 2009 recommending it for the whole USA. But because of how the GOP is, anything that Dem / Obama says "okay, that maybe a good idea" - the GOP/FAUXnews would turn-face and attack. Plenty of proof of this.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Belard on 8/14/2012 11:52:50 AM , Rating: 3
(Part 2 - too long a posts wont posts)
Fact: "Foxnews" is a foreigner owned "news" network. A pissed off Australian and a Saudi Arabian are the two biggest owners. In the UK, Fox's parent company is in trouble for computer and phone hacking and investigations are also ongoing in the USA. Perhaps you should get info from better sources, no?

Fact: There is NO grass roots "Tea Party". Its the Koch Party, nothing more. Created / funded / operated by the Koch brothers. If you think two multi-billionaires ($50b) have concerns about the rights and well-being of working Americans... you are delusional. Their actions have shown this. Their companies have constantly been fined for pollution and safety problems. The kind of things that gets people killed.

And yes, Reclaimer77 - Romney *IS* hiding his money off-shore, he and many other "American" companies share their corporate offices in a mailbox or an office-room on some island... to avoid paying taxes.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Belard on 8/14/2012 11:27:19 AM , Rating: 3
Do keep in mind the GOP has done nothing but harm the USA for political points. They admit this themselves in public. "Our #1 job is to keep Obama from getting another term"?

What about #1 job is to the people of the USA!?

By all means, there is nobody here that can provide a jobs bill that the GOP has submitted that is NOT an oil/energy de-regulation / Pollution lack bill with "Jobs" in the name.

And in case SOMEONE here posts an HR Bill and say "here is a jobs bill", I'll gladly link to said bill's official IS GOVT page which states exactly what it does or does not do.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Belard on 8/14/2012 11:47:03 AM , Rating: 2
Do keep in mind the GOP has done nothing but harm the USA for political points. They admit this themselves in public. "Our #1 job is to keep Obama from getting another term"?

What about #1 job is to the people of the USA!?

By all means, there is nobody here that can provide a jobs bill that the GOP has submitted that is NOT an oil/energy de-regulation / Pollution lack bill with "Jobs" in the name.

And in case SOMEONE here posts an HR Bill and say "here is a jobs bill", I'll gladly link to said bill's official IS GOVT page which states exactly what it does or does not do.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/2012 1:51:16 PM , Rating: 1
"Job bills" don't work because they precede from a false premise that job creation begins with some sort of Government action. The only thing that's needed to create jobs, is for the Government to get out of the way of the private sector. It's that simple. Stop spending all of our money, stop nationalizing businesses, stop mucking with the markets! And for the love of everything, STOP printing out money!!!

quote:
"Our #1 job is to keep Obama from getting another term"? What about #1 job is to the people of the USA!?


Those goals are synonymous with each other. We cannot put the people of the USA first with someone like Obama running the country. He's ruling directly AGAINST the people, in case you haven't noticed.

You keep focusing on the Republicans, well where Obama's successful jobs bill? Where's the millions of jobs added because of his "stimulus" bill (hint: Government jobs don't count)? Where's the explosive growth?

You mindless shill.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Belard on 8/15/2012 7:00:31 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, the GOP house voted down all jobs bills! Duh,
But wait the GOP in 20120 campaigned for more jobs, as does Romney. Tax breaks do NOT create jobs. Getting in the way of business? What happens when companies/wall street get to do what every they want? We saw that in 2008, remember?

Both Dem/GOP de-regulated a law that was made from the ashes of the depression - to separate banks from investment companies. They gambled with OUR money and had OUR govt. bail them out. Don't pretend you Crying Orange man begging for fellow republicans to vote for TARP and stimulus.

Do we have a problem with roads and bridges in this country? YES we do. How do we fix them? Through our taxes, the govt. HIRES people (contractors) to build the roads and bridges.

How else does a road get built or fixed?

What, you want us to work at Chinese wages? Again, do you actually have any idea of what you are talking about?

And yes, GOVT. Jobs do count. During past recessions from Reagan and Bush #1, hiring people is a way to get things done and keep the economy going. They work, they still pay taxes.

When people work, they spend money... which means more people are working. When I and most working people have to PAY Romney's taxes because of his off-shore accounts - it hurts US - including YOU. A mufti-millionaire who has 200+ Million in the bank, only pockets the money and continues to grow it. He doesn't create jobs.

Remember the Bush Tax Holiday? When corporations didn't have to pay taxes. YOU go find those number and let me know how many of them hired people vs let them go. You know who got the money? The share holders. The companies didn't create more jobs... which was supposed to be the whole point of the tax-break.

You know WHAT creates job? Give tax credits when a COMPANY hires people in the USA rather than off-shore. Want to GUESS who filibustered that bill? Hint: Use mean Grand Old Party.

Mindless Shill? LOL... Your brain is as empty as the factories Mitt the Twit emptied out to fatten his wallet.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/13/2012 1:40:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That day will begin November 2012.
You're drinking the kool aid if you think either candidate will grow jobs.

The bottom line is that both candidates will continue to appease special interests with the help of Congress.

There may be some shift in terms of who the corporate winners are, depending on who's elected, but at the end of the day neither candidate is willing to enact simple no-nonsense provisions, like cutting grants to companies that outsource jobs, charging a no-exception flat tax on U.S. sales, charging a flat tax on all forms of personal income, and opening cutting billions in payouts to nations like Pakistan in exchange for some ambiguous notion of security.

I can not wait until either Obama or Romney is elected, because I guarantee you it will be the same old story of big promises and failing results. The economy will continue to struggle with many of the same fundamental issues because neither side wishes to fix them.

This will likely continue as long as America's two party system persists, and with it pandering to voters while playing lapdog to special interests (corporations, overseas wealth, and the perverted modern manifestation of the trade union). The choice is simply an illusion, like picking which locust in your wheat field is less destructive, when in reality they're both more or less the same, and both destroying the field.

Both parties work in unison to suck away the nation's prosperity and consolidate it amongst a small plutocracy. In exchange they get power. The special interests give the candidates the PAC funding they need to elevate their name to an otherwise ignorant and apathetic public, in effect buying the vote.

Money doesn't buy votes in America.

But money buys coverage, allowing the best panderer to win out in the end.

Money buys image, image defeats apathy, and hence the American people vote in candidates with little interest in preserving a fair, free market, national education, and the prosperity of the majority.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2012 2:08:49 PM , Rating: 1
Jason don't preach to me. You can keep banging that drum all you want, but those things are NOT what has put us in this hole. They're important to you, but how about we start with little steps like, oh I don't know, actually having a budget at the Federal level?

quote:
You're drinking the kool aid if you think either candidate will grow jobs.


Well we already know one CAN'T! I say give the other guy a shot. It's not like it's possible to do any worst.

I know what you're doing and I don't like it. It's what your other mainstream media pals have been doing on the news. Convince America that both suck, so Obama can win again. Use apathy and cynicism to defeat the hearts and minds of Americans before the election even starts. Well you can sell it somewhere else, I'm not buying it.

quote:
You're drinking the kool aid if you think either candidate will grow jobs.


I'm going to make you choke on these words. Under Romney the economy will turn around, and jobs will be created. If for no other reason than a massive decrease in Federal spending levels from Obama's simply unsustainable rates.

By the way I'm not some goddamn kid, I don't drink Kool Aid anymore.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By retrospooty on 8/13/2012 2:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
You have to admit, truer words have never been spoken.

" The bottom line is that both candidates will continue to appease special interests with the help of Congress."

I am voting for Romney, simply because Obama has proven he can't do anything right regarding the economy and cant stop the federal govt's addiction to spending other peoples money, and makes zero effort to even try... With that said, I dont have high hopes. Both parties have sold us out, and to act like they havent doesnt help fix it.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Belard on 8/15/2012 7:40:06 AM , Rating: 1
And I will ask you an honest question...

Have you seen the republicans actually try? Remember, the GOP was fighting to keep TWO different engines for the F35 when the Pentagon and DEMS only wanted to buy one... saves money.

So you said Obama hasn't done anything, why do the neo-con talk shows scream about how Obama is doing to much? Which is it? Ever thought perhaps you may want to refer to actual numbers and information to reach a conclusion?

I cannot just POST XYZ and say there. YOU need to do this yourself.

Example: Person A says : This B guy did nothing, he spent money and picked his nose. Thats my store and I'm sticking with it.

Person C says: GAO and other valid sources (non partisan) state that XYZ$ amount of money was spent in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. The graph here shows XZ levels based on information from the IRS and other sources.

There is a difference is saying a lie to make your point using facts.

An example is when some neo-con screams about the 22 job bills the Republicans have tried to pushed through the house. I looked up the actual HR Bills. You can see WHO proposed the bill, the title, dates, what it actually does. its status, etc. Its all available FROM our government.

Those 22 job bills... not jobs bills. Mostly removes pollution laws for oil companies.

Some examples:

HR872 = Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 (de-regulating poisons)
HR910 = Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011
HR 1230 = Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act (We are drilling more than ever in the USA)

How about this one: HR 2021 = Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 Wow, that is a jobs bill, it had to pass! Wait, what does it do? HR2021 really does this: EPA shall have no authority to consider any matter regarding the consideration, issuance, or denial of such permit. ie: The EPA has little or no power to deny permits to oil companies that pollute air.

It doesn't create a job. It saves Koch, Haliburton, BP and other companies money for their screw ups. I don't recall the oil companies struggling to make a profit. And they are doing so good with profits, we *WE* give them handouts?

www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2021 you can read it yourself.

Its passed the house, but it would be killed in the Senate, so it sits... waiting for GOP control to come in and make this law.

By all means, explain how drinking oil is good for you? Its not, oil is toxic. I so some work in the oil industry. Actually, we even drink a bit of oil depending on what you eat. FD&C Red Dye #40 is made from petroleum or coal tar. WTF?!

This is in most food that is RED. This include cherries, candy, soda pop... look at the ingredients. Aren't you glad we have a social system that requires us to LIST some of these things that are in our food. (Not all) Did you know that when you buy most red apples, they are actually green or kind of red, so they spray apples with Red #40 to they look so yummy.

Look up Pink Slime. Even my stupid gov. Rich retard Perry went to a processing plant for that crap. Its the parts of the cow people don't want. yeah, I understand about hot-dogs. But when you get ground beef you WANT 100% ground beef right?

Here is how you can spot Pink Slime burger meat. Next time you go to Walmart, Sams, Safeway. On the package which has change recently, now says things like "100% Natural Pure Ground Beef*" See the "*" It'll say "minimally processed" Well, that sounds innocent. That part of the technically word for Pink Slime. Up to 25% of that "beef" is not meat. Its been poisoned and color-dyed, compressed, then shipped then mixed with real beef. Some Grocery stores sell 100% beef.

I pay a bit more for the meat. How much? About 25 cents a pound! And you know what, it tastes better, cooks better.

But by all means, its a free country - eat as much pink slime as your want. For my family, I'd like for them to not eat shit.

What the point of this? There is a lot of behind the scenes crap going on for people like THEM to make money off the tears, blood and sweat off the people like YOU.

You have a choice.

PS: yes, both parties are sell outs... I'll go with the least dangerous one, the one that is not out to give billionaires taxes breaks (we did very well in the 90s mind you) and attack women rights - because sticking government in women vagina's creates jobs.

This country DOES not belong to YOU, the GOP, Koch, Grover Norquist, Limbaugh and especially foreigners like Murdoch and Alwaleed bin Talal. It belongs to *ALL bloody Americans* and our stupid govt. has to make laws FOR the PEOPLE, not corporations. They represent us. In the past - compromise means working together, both sides get something what we want. Not JUST you, but not me.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/13/2012 2:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's what your other mainstream media pals have been doing on the news
What? They tend to fixate to one side and admonish the other.

What channel are you watching?

Mainstream media has done everything it can to SILENCE true alternative voices like Ron Paul.
quote:
They're important to you, but how about we start with little steps like, oh I don't know, actually having a budget at the Federal level?
If by "have a budget" you mean BALANCE the budget, only one candidate did that in recent history -- Bill Clinton. A Democrat.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-71c7GYQTdr8/ThKrIqGKZGI/...
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads...

Not that Clinton was great in general policy, but give him a bit of credit for that. And give everyone else (Obama included) a big stick for their reckless spending.

Obama clearly isn't balancing the budget. But take away his one huge line item -- the bank bailout -- which was approved by most Republicans, and initialized by GWB, and he's your average Bush/Reagan/Carteresque deficit spender.

Maybe Romney will buck the trend and become the first Republican President in recent history not to deficit spend, but I find that highly unlikely.
quote:
Convince America that both suck, so Obama can win again. Use apathy and cynicism to defeat the hearts and minds of Americans before the election even starts. Well you can sell it somewhere else, I'm not buying it.
What's worse, acknowledging that both suck to some extent, or denying reality because you fear it?
quote:
I'm going to make you choke on these words. Under Romney the economy will turn around, and jobs will be created.
We shall see.

I think IF Romney is elected, he will certainly try to spin it as if jobs are being created and the economy is improving. Remember Barack Obama "saved us from depression, created jobs, and sent the economy on a path to recovery"* .... never mind more jobs were lost than gained, we're still mired in recession, and the recovery is stalled, more or less.

I'd imagine under Romney you would see similar self-engrandizement, yet when you actually look @ the figures (as with Obama) they'll be very weak.

The problem is policy. Romney's platform fails to fix most of the fundamental problems of America's federal government.

We shall see, if Romney wins and somehow manages to balance the budget, I will offer him due credit in my coverage. But I find that likelihood extremely slim (though the addition of Ryan does breed some small hope, I guess).


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2012 3:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd imagine under Romney you would see similar self-engrandizement, yet when you actually look @ the figures (as with Obama) they'll be very weak.


No because the media would never do this. Even if Romney had the best economy on the planet, the media would tirelessly work 24/7 to portray it as the worst economy on record.

Just like they tirelessly work now to cover up the fact that Obama has truly bankrupted the nation and set us up for a very real financial crisis. And the jobs situation looks like something from the Depression.

quote:
Mainstream media has done everything it can to SILENCE true alternative voices like Ron Paul.


Well of course! Ron Paul is like the anti-Liberal. He's Kryptonite for Collectivists.

I mean look at the polling data! How is it even possible that so many American's supposedly believe Obama is doing a "good job"? It shouldn't even be possible! We're witnessing mass-media brainwashing on an epic scale here. The number of truly misinformed Americans is astounding.

quote:
The problem is policy. Romney's platform fails to fix most of the fundamental problems of America's federal government.


How can you put that on Romney? How is that fair? Even if he tried to fix the federal Government, the goddamn Democrats would fight him tooth and nail! We're spending nearly a trillion on entitlements and programs. You know full well Democrats would rather DIE than see that get reduced. Even Ron Paul wouldn't be able to fix the Government at this point.

Our biggest immediate problem is the budget. If that doesn't get chainsawed down, the other problems won't matter because we'll be doomed.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/13/2012 3:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How can you put that on Romney? How is that fair? Even if he tried to fix the federal Government, the goddamn Democrats would fight him tooth and nail! We're spending nearly a trillion on entitlements and programs. You know full well Democrats would rather DIE than see that get reduced. Even Ron Paul wouldn't be able to fix the Government at this point.
Again, you're buying the rhetoric. Both sides are supporting big gov't. George W. Bush signed the $700B USD bank bailout. Obama pushed through its successor, a smaller (but still record) $475B bailout. Remove those two factors and both sides have been equally naughty when it comes to out-of-control spending:
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-infer...

Romney's claims that he's going to balance the budget and cut taxes, are impossible, according to independent analysts:
http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-ta...

The take home msg.?

Whoever wins, we'll be stuck with more deficits unless something shocking occurs.

Perhaps you're right -- Obama had his shot, now Romney deserves his.

But forgive me if I don't go peeing myself with excitement that he's going to pull a Jesus and turn the tepid water of the federal budget into fiscally responsible wine. Extremely unlikely to happen, even if he wins.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2012 3:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
Jason, George Bush was not your average Republican. He does NOT define our parties beliefs. And you know this.

Everyone says moderates are so great, and we should vote them in. Well guess what? Bush was a moderate. Fact, deal with it. How well did that work out for us?

quote:
Romney's claims that he's going to balance the budget and cut taxes, are impossible, according to independent analysts:


That's purely irrelevant at this point. The only thing that matters is that Obama LOSES!

We don't know what Romney will do. We don't know what will happen. But we KNOW this: That based on Obama's record and his record alone, he should not be reelected.


By retrospooty on 8/13/2012 3:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
"We don't know what Romney will do. We don't know what will happen. But we KNOW this: That based on Obama's record and his record alone, he should not be reelected."

I almost hate to agree with you on Politics, becasue you are so... several LOL. But I do agree with you on this.

Everything we have seen with Obama in hist 1st term is what he has done while still trying to secure a 2nd term. I am scared as hell to think of what he might do in a 2nd term with no "next election" hanging over his head. It would be an Obama, no holds barred spending spree.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Shadowself on 8/13/2012 3:06:24 PM , Rating: 3
While I rarely agree with Jason, in one sense he's right. Neither candidate is going to grow jobs as long as the system does not change.

No matter what you want to say, Reclaimer, the reality is that the persons aligned with the Republican party have, for the last 3+ years had as their sole agenda keeping anything from happening that might have the possibility of making Obama or the democrats look good. It does not matter that the economy, immigration, taxes, etc., etc., etc. do not get better. Just don't let those democrats have one tiny chance at looking good.

And the Democrats have been no better! If Romney gets elected, you can be 100% guaranteed that the Democrats will do their damnedest to do the exact same thing -- Do that will make the Republicans look bad.

There really is no bipartisan capability in Washington anymore. Take for example the case of the two Utah Senators just a couple years ago. Utah is one of the most conservative states out there. Their two Senators fit that mold. But they had the supreme audacity to be willing to work with non Republicans! The ultra conservatives across the country got enough clout to oust one a couple years ago and the other has struggled this past year to stay in the game.

The current sentiment (and it's been growing for about 20 years) is, "Hurt the other party no matter what. The country and the public be damned!"

Could Obama have signed into law changes if Congress had passed bills truly for the general good and one one party's or the other? Absolutely. Could Romney do it if Congress actually got their act together? Absolutely.

However, to believe that Romney has a magic wand to do this while Obama didn't is truly naive.

Oh, and I"m probably old enough to be your parent if not your grand parent, and I still drink Kool-Aid occasionally. Hell, I'm almost old enough to remember a time before Kool-Aid.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2012 3:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No matter what you want to say, Reclaimer, the reality is that the persons aligned with the Republican party have, for the last 3+ years had as their sole agenda keeping anything from happening that might have the possibility of making Obama or the democrats look good. It does not matter that the economy, immigration, taxes, etc., etc., etc. do not get better. Just don't let those democrats have one tiny chance at looking good.


Obama and the Democrats had a monopoly on political power his first two whole years of office! The Republicans were in no position to stop anything, and didn't stop anything. I reject this premise that "Republican obstructionism" is the reason everything is so crappy.

quote:
There really is no bipartisan capability in Washington anymore.


That's because "bipartisan" has been redefined as Republicans giving in. Every time. Democrats don't compromise. Democrats don't give in. They just cry foul until we do. And the country suffers!


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Shadowself on 8/13/2012 4:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama and the Democrats had a monopoly on political power his first two whole years of office!
Interesting. There is no such thing as "monopoly power" in Washinton unless you have a 76% majority in both houses and the Presidency. You seem to forget about certain types of procedural votes that require a 60% or 2/3s or 3/4s majority to actually get things done. It's interesting that you are forgetting about the filibusters and threatened filibusters and the tricks and tactics used to keep things from coming to the floor for full votes those first two years.

Even a minority can cause havoc in each house if they are united and want to stop anything from progressing. You are naive if you don't know that. You are foolish (or worse) if you know this and are just ignoring that it has happened regularly over the last 3+ years.

AND I never said it was Republican obstructionism that caused this problem or even kept it this way. BOTH parties are at fault. BOTH sides won't compromise.

This kind of political gridlock has been growing over the past three decades. It is not new, but I truly believe it is the worst it has been in my long lifetime.

And yes, I DO know whereof I speak. I've personally written drafts of bills that got put into law. I've personally sat down with both congressmen and senators to discuss getting certain things through. I've personally worked with congressional staffers so they understood my position. No, I'm not, and never have been, a lobbyist. I have hired them (and the the last time I hired one well over a decade ago his fee was over $400 an hour), but I've rarely had the stomach to use them.

I am not saying I've always been altruistic. I have not. However, I never pushed a concept that was solely in my own best interest -- and I've occasionally deferred all self interest for the greater good.

It is that last part that seems to have all but evaporated from Washington -- which is part of the reason I got out of the game almost a decade ago.

You claim
quote:
That's because "bipartisan" has been redefined as Republicans giving in. Every time. Democrats don't compromise. Democrats don't give in. They just cry foul until we do. And the country suffers!
Well, the Democrats claim the exact same thing.

I'm not going to search for the link (but I'm sure it's out there for anyone wanting to spend the time to search for it), but the current Speaker of the House stated in an interview within the past year that he'd rather see the economy not improve than see Obama re-elected. I'm sure there are similar statements that have been made by prominent Democrats too -- they'd rather not have certain Republican initiative that might work to improve the country go forth if it meant that Obama might lose.

That really is the problem. "It's either my way or no way at all." It would seem as though in the District of Columbia they have forbidden the use of the word "compromise" and burned every book with that word in it.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By tayb on 8/13/2012 6:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
Even if Romney were elected President, he isn't inaugurated until January of 2013. So... are you saying the final two months of Obama Presidency will fix all of our problems?


RE: I look forward to the day...
By Belard on 8/15/2012 7:43:18 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you TROLL, for bring politics into a article that HAS NOTHING to do with politics. Go have our sex fantasies about Obama in private since that is all that you think about while FOXNews kills off what few remaining brain cells you have left.


RE: I look forward to the day...
By jimbojimbo on 8/13/2012 12:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
China is having no problems adding jobs.


many models
By zephyrprime on 8/13/2012 11:37:00 AM , Rating: 3
I'm surprised they released 27 models last year. Why is there any need to make so many models? I think only about ~5 models need to be released per year. Having fewer models reduces R&D and provides more marketing budget for fewer models. Feature phones and fixed function phones can be cut from the product line. I would also target a release schedule of more than one generation per year. Maybe 1 generation every 9 months. The industry is too fast moving right now to move as slowly as apple.




RE: many models
By retrospooty on 8/13/2012 11:47:19 AM , Rating: 3
"they released 27 models last year. Why is there any need to make so many models? I think only about ~5 models need to be released per year"

I am sure that is the goal, at least to greatly reduce it. Not surprising, it was losing money. I could easily see 5 base models.

Halo phone - big and fast (htc one X, Samsung GX3)
Battery king - Thicker with larger battery.
Qwerty model - for those that still want it
smaller model - thin, and light.
low end model - Cheap for the T-mobile in all of us.


RE: many models
By jimbojimbo on 8/13/2012 12:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
They released a Droid 4 almost 6 months after they released the Droid 3. It's pretty ridiculous actually. Then because of that they said that less than a year after the Droid 3 came out that it will not be getting ICS. Less than a year! Motorola, how can you not be shocked you're losing money?


RE: many models
By Roffles on 8/13/2012 12:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
And they released the Razr a couple months after the half-baked Bionic. A lot of OG Droid owners got burned with the Bionic -- thinking it was a no-brainer upgrade because the OG was such a solid device -- only to realize Bionic had many (too many) software and hardware inefficiencies. It was more like a Razr Beta phone. That high-pitched whining noise coming from the headphone jack...it killed me every day I owned that POS. I'm glad it's only my backup phone now.


RE: many models
By retrospooty on 8/13/2012 1:02:48 PM , Rating: 2
"less than a year after the Droid 3 came out that it will not be getting ICS. Less than a year! Motorola, how can you not be shocked you're losing money?"

agreed, there are too many models, but ICS update has nothing to do with it. The average US consumer upgrades their phone every 13 months. People buy phones based on what they do today, not an upgrade that may or may not come in a year. An upgrade is nice, but they had been losing money long before ICS upgrades and the lack of them for older models came into play.


RE: many models
By zephyrprime on 8/13/2012 2:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
The average american upgrades their phones every 2 years.

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Americans-replace-t...

I think you are overestimating the techie level of the average american. Think of your grandma and you will be closer to the mark than thinking of your average dailytech reader.


RE: many models
By retrospooty on 8/13/2012 2:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
That's one study. I have seen others. I believe what I saw was a Verizon study, which is the US's biggest carrier.

13 or 21 months... It still doesnt change the point. Most people buy a phone based on its features and price today. Not on an OS upgrade that may or may not come in a year.


RE: many models
By JediJeb on 8/13/2012 7:03:48 PM , Rating: 2
I must be far from average, my last upgrade was to the V3 RAZR back in 2005. I just wish they had made a nice upgraded version of that for when mine finally gives out one day.


RE: many models
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2012 1:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Motorola, how can you not be shocked you're losing money?


Most people think Ice Cream Sandwich is a desert, not an OS upgrade. To claim this is causing Motorola to lose money is laughable.

I bet if you polled iPhone users something like 15% might be able to tell you what iOS version they were on. And that's being generous.


RE: many models
By Tony Swash on 8/13/2012 2:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I bet if you polled iPhone users something like 15% might be able to tell you what iOS version they were on. And that's being generous.


You may right but on the other hand Apple iOS upgrades are actually installed by a very high percentage of users, much higher than on Android.

Making money in the new and still rapidly evolving, smartphone market is very hard. Only Apple and Samsung have pulled it off so far. I would be very surprised if Motorola starts turning out handsets that are both popular and profitable. Presumably to do that Motorola would have to capture sales from other Android OEMs (let's not consider the fantasy of them capturing sales from Apple) and if that happened what would the OEMs make of that given Google's ownership of Motorola? To me Motorola looks like being a very big and costly mistake for Google.


RE: many models
By retrospooty on 8/13/2012 2:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
"To me Motorola looks like being a very big and costly mistake for Google."

Google: Makes billions of dollars per year and has some really great products and services.

You: Make irrational one-sided posts about Apple on the internet

Who's opinion would you trust on matters like this? I'd go with Google.


The RAZR
By Theoz on 8/13/2012 1:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A minor hit in 2004 -- the RAZR -- quickly became another disappointment after Motorola failed to continue to push the design and feature envelope, preferring self-referential sequels.


I disagree with your characterization that the RAZR was only a minor hit. At least in the US, this was a major industrial design innovation with sales to match. The keypad was quite the innovation at the time.

You're dead on with you second point however. From the Feb 1, 2008 Chicago Tribune:
quote:
Zander, then CEO of the Schaumburg-based technology giant, was riding a stupendous crest in July 2006 when he was asked what was next for Motorola after the hit Razr mobile phone. "More Razrs," he said. "It is something we are going to continue for quite some time." Competitors followed suit, turning the thin, must-have phone into a commodity now found for free.




RE: The RAZR
By JediJeb on 8/13/2012 7:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
I still use my RAZR V3 and only wish they might be really innovative again and make some sort of flip smart phone along the same size as the V3. Just remove the hump at the bottom, extend the flip all the way to the bottom and make it one big screen on the inside. Open it up and you have touch screen on one half, keypad on the other half, or even better two touch screens. Would be similar to having dual monitors on your home PC.


I will vote with my wallet... against Motorola
By tayb on 8/13/2012 6:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
I will vote against Motorola with my wallet. I bought a Droid X in October 2010 and it has been one of the biggest POS devices I've ever owned.

1. No software updates
2. GPS turn by turn flakes out half the time I try to use it. The voice will change to a smooth talking woman and then it will just turn to chimes when I'm supposed to turn. I have to reboot my phone to get turn by turn back and repeat the whole process.
3. Having an SD card in my phone greatly reduces the performance of my phone
4. I can't take pictures without my SD card in the phone. Despite having 8GB of internal memory that is largely unused.
5. When I make a phone call I have to put my phone on airplane mode and then take my phone off of airplane mode to get 3G working again. Every. single. time.
6. The battery will not last through the day with light use.
7. It came loaded with tons of bloatware that I couldn't remove without rooting. (How is this different from iPhone?)
8. I do not have any voicemails yet I have a voicemail notification in my notification bar that I am unable to remove. Yes, I've done tons of research and the answer is always "drop the OS and reload it." No thanks.
9. If I leave my phone on for more than 2-4 days without restarting it the camera app will not load. It will just crash. Before I go someplace I might want to take pictures I always reboot my phone. How stupid.
10. If I want a GPS signal, I have to reboot my phone. Trying to get a GPS signal otherwise is a complete waste of time. I can stand in the middle of a field with the phone in the air on a 20 foot pole and it will search and search and search.

And I could go on. I know these problems are not unique to my phone because my father purchased a Droid X a few months before me and has these exact same issues. I'm sure not everyone does but I also not it isn't a completely isolated case.

As such I'll wait a good long while before I even considering another Motorola phone, if ever.




By Belard on 8/15/2012 7:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
You're talking about 2010 technology... you describe typical problems of many Android phones... HTC and Samsung and many of those problems are not related to the manufacture.

So, here is my 2010 Samsung to counter yours.
1 - Barely any from Samsung, but you know you could root it (I don't either - so whatever) Well after a year late.
2 - Half ass GPS
3 - didn't notice, but had to buy in order to xfer files to and from phone since Windwos7 wouldn't talk to the damn thing.
4 - no problems. Defect on your particular phone?
5 - no problems. Defect on your particular phone?
6 - That is all Smart Phones. They are better now than then.
7 - That is ALL USA Smart Phones. Carrier Specific crap apps. But an international version for $500~800. My SONY from 2008 was international, no bloat. Friend had at&t version, had crap but less ring tones and games... otherwise same phone.
8 - no problems. Defect on your particular phone?
9 - Your phone is bad? If defective, most carriers have a 30 day return deal. Also, at&t has a $3 monthly insurance deal to take care of damaged/defective phones.
10 - All Samsung Galaxy S1 (like mine) have crap GPS. A software upate did help... so its only mostly crap GPS.

Why did you get the same phone as your dad?

I'm looking to get the MC Atrix 4G... it feels so much better than Samsung GS3, I know its camera is sub-par - but its $100. If it sucks before the 30 days are up... I may get the SGS3 or Nexus phone.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki