Mitt Romney

For anything else...

Moderators: sunny, spzretent, BzaInSpace, MODLAB, NightWash

Post Reply
TheWarmth
Known user
Posts: 3898
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Mitt Romney

Post by TheWarmth »

I did a bit of research on him yesterday. I don't know if I can get on board with the theory that reducing taxation on corporations and the wealthy is going to stimulate the economy. From what I've read, he's not doing any favors for the middle class. His flip-flopping on certain social issues makes me wonder how geniune he is. Surely, he felt the need to appeal to the everyday Republication voter, so getting behind gay rights, for example, simply cannot be on his agenda. I find this incredibly depressing, but I'm getting off track. He does have a fairly impressive resume. Please post your thoughts. As I said in the Santorum thread, I'm trying to educate myself about him.

nghst
Known user
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:05 pm

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by nghst »

I can't say I'm an expert on Romney, but I know he's said that he is not concerned about the really poor and that he is part of the Republican party, which means he's likely to cut programs of social uplift as well as cut taxes for the super rich. He'll probably be closer to austerity than stimulus, which likely won't help an anemic economy. I side with Obama on basically all social issues and am glad he came out in support of gay marriage. On the abortion issue I wish Republicans and Democrats would work together to support women through their pregnancy. I want as few abortions as possible, but I think it should be safe and legal. Romney seems like a decent guy, but on the issues he is going to side with the Republicans and that I think would be a bad thing for the country.

I think it's going to be a super close race and if the economy keeps stalling that is bad news for Obama.

jadams501
Known user
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:51 am

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by jadams501 »

I have a generally favorable opinion of Romney. He's not exactly a courageous or provocative candidate, but the truth is that America is too big and diverse a country for a president of strongly left or right views to represent a critical mass of the population. He's not a culture warrior, he's middle of the road. I suspect Romney is closer to the political center of people who are likely to vote than Obama, so I think he's got better than even odds at the moment.
nghst wrote: I know he's said that he is not concerned about the really poor
If you look at the context of Romney's comment about the "very poor" (http://wapo.st/Adnjg9), he was basically saying that his focus if elected would be the 90 - 95% that he sees as middle class but that he would fix the safety net for the very poor if need be. It was clumsily expressed but pretty much the mainstream for national American politicians -- he didn't say that he doesn't care about the poor.
nghst wrote:he is part of the Republican party, which means he's likely to cut programs of social uplift as well as cut taxes for the super rich. He'll probably be closer to austerity than stimulus, which likely won't help an anemic economy.
In theory, the idea of using government to provide "social uplift" and "stimulus" makes sense, but it doesn't work in Washington. The problem is that corrupt politicians and bureaucrats with little accountability control those programs. They use the rhetoric of compassion as a bludgeon to smear critics who point out that the programs aren't working and are about political patronage rather than problem solving. As an example, the enormous "stimulus package" that Obama and democrats passed was a free-for-all of corrupt waste rather than an intelligent and carefully targeted approach to jump-starting the economy. Same with the health care bill, which was written largely by lobbyists and passed before most lawmakers had even read it.

I think a lot of people like Obama and the democrats because they idealistically assume that the people in Washington talking the most about compassion can be taken at face value and are actually working in ordinary people's interest, but the depressing reality is that they are funneling taxpayers' money to their campaign donors and political base.

redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by redcloud »

jadams501 wrote:I have a generally favorable opinion of Romney. He's not exactly a courageous or provocative candidate, but the truth is that America is too big and diverse a country for a president of strongly left or right views to represent a critical mass of the population. He's not a culture warrior, he's middle of the road. I suspect Romney is closer to the political center of people who are likely to vote than Obama, so I think he's got better than even odds at the moment.
But how do you know who the REAL Romney is? He has flipped flopped on several issues. He may have once been center of the road but as the Republican Presidential candidate he is now trying to appease the far right and the tea party portion of his party. His concern about the far right means that they clearly have greater influence on their party than the far left do on the Democrats.

The race will be won or lost with the middle class. If the average middle class income earner doesn't feel the economy is getting any better I agree that Obama will have a fight on his hands. The latino and female vote may also have a huge influence on the end result. State wise it will be Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana & Pennsylvania that will decide the race.

jadams501
Known user
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:51 am

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by jadams501 »

Romney's actual record in office is overall pretty moderate, a big reason why there was such a lack of enthusiasm for him in the primaries. I think all his instincts as a politician run against alienating popular opinion on big social issues.

Plus, the beauty of the first term is that presidents always have an eye on the next election, so stay on a tighter leash than in second terms where there is no such electoral accountability. I suspect Obama would head away from the center more than Romney would.

Concerns about the "far right" are overblown in my opinion. The heart of the difference between the candidates is whether D.C. politicians can spend their way out of the recession the way we spent our way into it.

Another big thing will be turnout from the respective bases. I think Obama's lost most independents and the conservatives are motivated to turn out, whereas in 2008 he did very well with independents and conservatives were discouraged and disdainful of McCain. And it seems to me like a lot of the young and otherwise infrequent voters will probably fail to wait in line at the voting booth since Obama hasn't lived up to his hip and transformational image from the last campaign.

semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by semisynthetic »

Almost 3 months after this thread was started, and FINALLY replies; could it be that the "Eurozone Crackup Continues as Expected" simply "moved" to this thread? Was the Reality of the Eurozone just not worth discussion and thought any longer?

I am curious why no one has YET produced an "Obama" thread, extolling the many Virtues of THAT candidate; discussing his many promises and lack of keeping them. His suave understanding of Iran as a candidate, and his use of info gathered under the horrid BUSH administration, to bravely sit in an air-conditioned war room, while REAL heroes eliminated bin Laden, without giving away secret data that would hurt some Dr. in Pakistan for helping us.

I suppose it IS easier to beat up on the "new" guy than to start listing what is wrong with the one already there, especially when the "new" guy is in the "wrong" party and when the one there already is so easy to pull the Curtain Back upon; Watchout Toto!

A Community Organizer, Part-time State Senator, Part-time 1st Term US Senator, and amateurish US President looks rather weak compared to someone who has had many REAL jobs, and created same. My first choice? I didn't have one; but I do believe that we have little choice but to get rid of what we have and replace same with a person of experience and success. IF, (I did say IF) Romney IS elected, do you believe HE will blame HIS predecessor for 3 and one half years?

I doubt it. I cannot recall it ever needing to be relied upon so heavily by any President before.


Fire Nanny.
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus

redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by redcloud »

jadams501 wrote: The heart of the difference between the candidates is whether D.C. politicians can spend their way out of the recession the way we spent our way into it.
One must not forget the illegal, inane war in Iraq that started the outrageous Government spending and our soaring deficit.

semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by semisynthetic »

TheWarmth wrote:I did a bit of research on him yesterday. I don't know if I can get on board with the theory that reducing taxation on corporations and the wealthy is going to stimulate the economy. From what I've read, he's not doing any favors for the middle class. His flip-flopping on certain social issues makes me wonder how geniune he is. Surely, he felt the need to appeal to the everyday Republication voter, so getting behind gay rights, for example, simply cannot be on his agenda. I find this incredibly depressing, but I'm getting off track. He does have a fairly impressive resume. Please post your thoughts. As I said in the Santorum thread, I'm trying to educate myself about him.
Perhaps having core beliefs that correlate with most Americans counts for something; President Obama was NOT in favor, or I should say he said he was NOT in favor of gay marriage until the polls tightened; I am troubled by ANY candidate that chucks what were supposed to be "Core Values" for the votes of any constituency. In this same vein, I DID NOT like the whisper, wink and a nod done recently for the Russian Dictator Putin. That was embarassing.

I do believe that letting the Free Market become just that, and eliminate the insanely duplicative WASTE of 200 offices and programs all doing, in theory, the same thing, will do Great Things for the Economy, for EVERYONE, without this "spreading the wealth" crap.

Romney, has a Record of turning around or creating Money-making Job-making companies of something like 78%. Add up all of the "Solyndra's" and their kind, and you end up with TOO MANY $200,000 (or MORE) a year part-time jobs that failed.

The President isn't doing any favors for ANYONE; enslaving a dependent class is NO FAVOR AT ALL; Stealing OTHER people's money to do it is not much of a favor to anyone; if you have children who should somehow "excel" in the future, THEY will be paying for all of this as long as they live, regardless of which "line" they are in.
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus

nghst
Known user
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:05 pm

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by nghst »

semisynthetic wrote:
Perhaps having core beliefs that correlate with most Americans counts for something; President Obama was NOT in favor, or I should say he said he was NOT in favor of gay marriage until the polls tightened; I am troubled by ANY candidate that chucks what were supposed to be "Core Values" for the votes of any constituency. In this same vein, I DID NOT like the whisper, wink and a nod done recently for the Russian Dictator Putin. That was embarassing.

I do believe that letting the Free Market become just that, and eliminate the insanely duplicative WASTE of 200 offices and programs all doing, in theory, the same thing, will do Great Things for the Economy, for EVERYONE, without this "spreading the wealth" crap.

Romney, has a Record of turning around or creating Money-making Job-making companies of something like 78%. Add up all of the "Solyndra's" and their kind, and you end up with TOO MANY $200,000 (or MORE) a year part-time jobs that failed.

The President isn't doing any favors for ANYONE; enslaving a dependent class is NO FAVOR AT ALL; Stealing OTHER people's money to do it is not much of a favor to anyone; if you have children who should somehow "excel" in the future, THEY will be paying for all of this as long as they live, regardless of which "line" they are in.
I agree with you that Obama plays politics. It is almost impossible for any politician not to. There are some things that I dislike about Obama including his boasting about killing Bin Laden and his heavy use of drones, which I think could create more terrorists than they kill. I still think Obama will get us out of Afghanistan faster than Romney would. Of course I don't think we should just forget Afghanistan. We should support their ability to justly defend themselves and lean on them to cut out the corruption in their government. There are so many cheaper and more effective ways I think we could help them other than our war with the Taliban.

On the market I think a free market runs the risk of destroying itself through greed. What we want is wise investments with our citizens' money, not high risk, high reward gambling. I think we need smart regulations that cut down on the greedy, risky maneuvers that banks take and try to encourage a more stable and secure marketplace. I think Obama is closer to this vision, but he also has close ties with Wall Street that could influence his thinking. I am of the opinion that a totally free market will run itself off a cliff somewhat like what happened in 2008. It's a really complicated system I know, but I think there is a definite need for smart regulations.

Romney may be a good businessman with good leadership expertise as shown in the Salt Lake City Olympics and his governor stint in Massachusetts, but what will his policies mean for U.S. citizens? It may be that his policies will be good for the middle class and upper class and yet I still think that Obama's policies will lower the unemployment rate faster than Romney's would. That coupled with the fact that Obama will be a better president for the poor and disabled tips the scales in favor of him for me when it comes to the economy. I also don't want an entire group of people to be dependent on the government and wish for hand ups rather than hand outs. I want a government that realizes that there will be winners and losers in society and that asks the winners to help create a safety net for the losers. I think we need to promote the values of hard work and self-determination, but we also need to offer a hand up when things haven't worked out for whatever reason. I want to live in a land that cares for its poor and disabled. I want our economic leaders to more closely follow the outlooks of Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz over the views of Paul Ryan and Alan Greenspan.

While I think that Obama is far from perfect and that Romney is a decent man I have to side with Obama for the above reasons.

On a side note I think Jason would vote for Obama if he could. :) My reasons for thinking this is that the Spacemen 3 had a song praising Che and in 2007 Jason did a tour to raise funds for Palestinian children. He still has a link to the Palestinian organization The Hoping Foundation on his website:http://www.hopingfoundation.org/ These two reasons make me think he is a least a little left of center. Even if he is a liberal I'm glad he has fans from all different political persuasions. His music has that transcendent quality that seems to rise above the issues. :D

semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by semisynthetic »

I am pleased that everyone (still) has a right to their opinion; and whether this artist or that artist votes for or against the candidate I prefer is completely irrelevant to me.

I am a GREAT Spiritualized Fan; I enjoy the music on a number of levels; I have long been a fan of Roger Waters, (but not his politics); nevertheless, I remain a GREAT fan of his and many other Artists with whom I may disagree politically.

I never combine or confuse the two; I want inspiration and entertainment, not another celebrity endorsement to agree or disagree with; Politics puts a sour taste in MOST things, why let it taint Beautiful Music?
That is my humble opinion.

[I would not let Paul Krugman balance my checkbook!
Some of the things he has babbled this week alone shows me that he is quite MAD.]


Actually, I DO agree with a great many of your points, simply NOT your conclusion; I wonder if you had specific data, do you think you might change your mind, or is your choice set in stone?
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus

semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by semisynthetic »

[quote="nghst"]



On the market I think a free market runs the risk of destroying itself through greed. What we want is wise investments with our citizens' money, not high risk, high reward gambling. I think we need smart regulations that cut down on the greedy, risky maneuvers that banks take and try to encourage a more stable and secure marketplace. I think Obama is closer to this vision, but he also has close ties with Wall Street that could influence his thinking. I am of the opinion that a totally free market will run itself off a cliff somewhat like what happened in 2008. It's a really complicated system I know, but I think there is a definite need for smart regulations.



Solyndra and the OTHER $39,000,000,000.00 spent on a series of slush funds for "green" jobs was NOT a WISE investment for the people of this country. Interestingly, company after failed company had $ bundlers for Mr. Obama.
Very Poor business skills indeed, (unless one is simply a thief).

I AGREE that we need some regulation, but just how familiar are you with Dodd/Frank? It is a disastrous mess of hyper-regulation; more to do with INCREASING Governmental Power than "better market regulation"; MAYBE the SEC lawyers should have been fired for Watching PORN while they were MISSING the economic storm on the Horizon; which reminds me of how Mr. Frank "promised" the American people, as he spoke on the floor of the House, that "Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac, the "loans for free houses" cesspools, were both a "SOLID INVESTMENT"; Sure. Good 'ol Barney. That was not very long at all before the whole mess exploded, leaving the country weakened; I cannot put my faith in Technocrats, Bureaucrats or sewer rats; I can take better care of what I make myself, otherwise, I would not have what I have today; something the government needs to feed off of, and wants very badly, my money; and oddly, I gave away more each WEEK than the VP did all year. I DID NOT take that off my taxes, perhaps why I paid a higher rate than the President did! Fair? No, I don't believe so.

If Liberals, Socialists, Communists or Druids want to "give MORE to the government" there is a special LINE JUST FOR THAT on the form, you Should do that; give 50% to the Government, apparently that is "Fair", that is, as long as you are unelected.
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus

jadams501
Known user
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:51 am

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by jadams501 »

Let me first say that I appreciate the civil tone of this discussion. It's nice to air ideas without vilification or insult!
nghst wrote:On a side note I think Jason would vote for Obama if he could. :) My reasons for thinking this is that the Spacemen 3 had a song praising Che and in 2007 Jason did a tour to raise funds for Palestinian children. He still has a link to the Palestinian organization The Hoping Foundation on his website:http://www.hopingfoundation.org/ These two reasons make me think he is a least a little left of center. Even if he is a liberal I'm glad he has fans from all different political persuasions. His music has that transcendent quality that seems to rise above the issues. :D
I suspect you're probably right on this. One of the things I most respect J for is that he doesn't bring politics into his music. They're beside the point, they're not his area of expertise, and I think his discretion has been very classy.
nghst wrote:What we want is wise investments with our citizens' money, not high risk, high reward gambling. I think we need smart regulations that cut down on the greedy, risky maneuvers that banks take and try to encourage a more stable and secure marketplace... It's a really complicated system I know, but I think there is a definite need for smart regulations...

I want a government that realizes that there will be winners and losers in society and that asks the winners to help create a safety net for the losers. I think we need to promote the values of hard work and self-determination, but we also need to offer a hand up when things haven't worked out for whatever reason.
This is well-said and the world I'd like to live in. Unfortunately, it's easier said than done. The basic problem is that most of these issues are incredibly complicated and require much effort to understand, but the vast majority of people are interested in politics primarily to cheer on their tribe and congratulate themselves rather than ponder a complex and boring universe of emotionally unsatisfying details and statutes. There is not a critical mass of people paying attention to the substance of legislation, rather than the rhetoric and personalities, for there to be true accountability and standards for the federal government. (state and local I am more optimistic about.) Democrats tend to think that setting up new federal bureaucracies is the way to tackle problems, but it's really concentrating additional power with the lobbyists who actually tend to write the laws. And too many people are too busy cheering for "social justice" to pay any attention.

I grew up far away from New York and Washington D.C., so even though I rarely met people who were informed about the issues I always assumed that "the experts" were on top of things and had a plan to make the world better that would work if only those mean Republicans got out of the way. When I got to college I studied public policy and was appalled by how little my professors and peers were concerned about analytically attacking real problems, generally preferring blind idealism and stirring rhetoric to actual thinking. I was really eager to get out of school and go work in journalism to be serious about problem-solving, but sadly I found that the journalistic world is even less focused on the complexities and ambiguities of governance, since the goal is ultimately to attract readers and viewers, not to tell them things they probably don't want to hear.

I was raised very liberal and it was a profoundly painful and alienating experience to realize over the course of a few years that my cherished beliefs were a beautiful dream that makes people feel good, but not a practical blueprint for actually running a nation-state. Everything I've learned from studying public policy suggests that Obama's promises and government philosophy are utterly unrealistic. Either he has no idea of this (in which case he is not competent for his office) or he doesn't care (meaning that he's so cynical he should be voted out). I don't know which interpretation is more accurate but they're both unappealing.

nghst
Known user
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:05 pm

Re: Mitt Romney

Post by nghst »

Here's some food for thought from Paul Krugman and the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/1 ... 09089.html:
"Ireland is Romney economics in practice," the Nobel-Prize winning economist and New York Times columnist said on the Colbert Report on Monday. "I think Ireland is America's future if Romney is president." (h/t Politico.)

"They've laid off a large fraction of their public workforce, they've slashed spending, they've had extreme austerity programs, they haven't really raised taxes on corporations or the rich at all, they have 14 percent unemployment, 30 percent youth unemployment, zero economic growth," Krugman said.

Romney, the likely Republican nominee for president, recently suggested that the government should lay off more firemen, policemen, and teachers, according to CNN. Romney's campaign website says that if elected president, Romney would aim to slash federal spending at least 18 percent by the end of his first term.

semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: Mitt Romney; or, "Hoping for Change"

Post by semisynthetic »

Mr. Krugman is not surprisingly AGAINST a Romney Presidency.

I like Ireland; but the USA is NOT Ireland. "Apples and Oranges". IF the USA does NOT quit spending what it does not have, we shall be more like GREECE; w/ our debt to GDP ratio out of control; Mr. Krugman is from the Keynsian school of 'make believe'; and the Huffington Post is much more like a comic strip than a news source; it would serve you well to at least CONSIDER other points of view. Although I have my opinions and beliefs, core beliefs, I DO listen to what an opposing figure or news site has to offer; but at this time in our History, Polarization seems complete; and most people will tend to listen or read what they already believe. An old quote can summarize: "I have learned from my mistakes, and I can repeat them EXACTLY!"
"Apples and Oranges Syd Barrett/ the Pink Floyd, 1967 Swedish PS
"Apples and Oranges Syd Barrett/ the Pink Floyd, 1967 Swedish PS
ApplesandOr 001crop2OB75.jpg (20.57 KiB) Viewed 2035 times
Attachments
ApplesandOrrev 001recCrop15.jpg
ApplesandOrrev 001recCrop15.jpg (20.8 KiB) Viewed 2035 times
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus

Post Reply