:D

Not quite...

"privatization" is just a re-phrasing Willie Sutton's attitude towards banks.

Does anyone really think that privatizing Medicare and Social Security
by having "savings accounts" held in Wall Street banks is because
the Wall Street is so dedicated to helping the sick and older members of society ?

... or privatizing the prison system is only because the new owners just
want to do a better job of rehabilitating prisoners and reducing recidivism ?

... or privatizing government land is because the oil companies or timber companies
or cattle companies or tourist services are more interested in the
quality of the environment and protecting endangered species ?

No, privatization of the government property and services "is where the money is"

And the current crop of "conservatives" are way too lazy to start a
their own new business and compete for customers and make a profit out of it.
They want to take an easier road and take a permanent hand-out
from government property and services.

I haven't heard a word about her, for years. Thought she had Alzheimer's or something, years ago.

As Bain has proven over and over.

I had a long through process in the shower this morning, let me try to reiterate it here:

What is leadership? I've been studying leadership (business leadership) in depth, especially 'Servant Leadership' and related schools of thought. The main point here is that leadership is not management. Leadership is influence. Leaders don't mico-manage what is happening at the departmental level; rather they influence the culture of the organization, creating an atmosphere where decisions lead in a general direction. This is what is happening with the 'mission and vison statements' widely recognized as a part of corporate culture. These things aren't a joke--when Google tells itself "Don't be evil," this is the guiding principle that allows an entity with so much control over our personal data to continue to expand without being mistrusted and repudiated.

This is what business leaders do, and it is something that I'm not sure is very well understood (I myself didn't understand, until I engaged in extensive studies)--essentially, people ask, "What exactly does that high-paid executive who walks around the building in the expensive suit, what exactly does he do?" Leadership isn't building widgets, or being the boss of widget builders, it is something much more esoteric--getting people to want to do what you think they should do, without having to ask them to perform specific actions. Prescriptive mandates are what middle-management worries about. Leaders have that vague concept called a "vision" which is defined by their moral compass and informs the culture of the organization.

So why should we want the government to be run like a busuiness? Not because we want it to specifically adpot the values of finance capitalism, but because the concept of business leadership is what creates the only thing which can make or break a machine with millions of moving parts--the culture defined by the shared vision of that organization.

So what is our shared vision of America? I honestly don't think that we disagree on anything of consequence here, although great efforts are taken by both sides to villify the opposition. The state of politics in America is that of defining the opposition as a "bad" person, who actually wants bad things to happen. That is ridiculous, and both sides do it. Don't let yourself fall into that trap. Please don't sink to that level. We all love children and puppies and sunshine, for goodness sake.

We do disagree on some of the specific methods of obtaining the goals that we all desire. Nobody hates babies, we simply sometimes disagree on the best way to do things.

Here's the problem, we agree on more things than we disagree on.

Why do political parties get so polarized?

Because the numbers of people represented are far too great to form a true consensus, on everything, so the political system we have in place forms these coalitions of positions, and as a politician travels upward into greater scope of command, his obligations necessitate adoption of an accepted portfolio of positions--a fragile alliance of diverse interests, consolidated just enough to hold just about 50% of the people's allegiance. This is politics, this is how it works. It isn't one man or one party that acts this way, it's the system.

So you have a governor with a successful track record employing incredibly similar policies to a sitting president, with who he has to feign disagreement, but after all what do they really disagree on, when so much of their body of work looks basically parallel? Essentially this goes back to that 'leadership' thing. Again, leadership isn't management. Leaders are there to define a vision which informs the culture, and this is where the differentiation between candidates has to be clear. And basically we have had defined for us two opposed school of thought: 1) the "greedy businessman who only cares about himself and his rich buddies, who is oblivious to the experience of poor people, and doesn't recognize the social responsibilities of the government (also he is a patriarchal religious zealot and firearms enthusiast)," and 2) the "big government, tax and spend socialist who thrives on getting greater and greater numbers of people addicted to government handouts--he doesn't have any sense with money because he is spending your money while also planning to take your guns and bibles away, and force you to get a mandatory abortion."

These are cartoon villians. But, in reality, they do have to represent some kind of fundamental difference of that 'vision' thing.

And this is what frustrates me about how we get so bogged down in the specifics of policies--which after all, are just trying to accomplish the same things that we all want, only in different ways. There are different schools of thought on economics and everything else--there isn't one 'correct' answer. And the person who disagrees with you about the means to achieve a goal doesn't have to be a bad person. And the politician who is basically beholden to a coalition of disparate interests which define the 'vision' he must communicate in order to guide millions of people in a general direction, he isn't a boots-on-the-ground manager who tells people exactly how to do their job. In that respect it is almost absurdist to regard a presidential campaign as a battle of specifics.

The reality is, we have two very general groups, who even within themselves do not agree on most things. The amount of things that everybody agrees with is greater than the unity of either of these contived classifications of people.

I think that maybe the areas where we disagree are in the basic gut feeling we have about the best way to get things done. This is probably more informed by our personal experiences than anything else. I know it is for me. I think that it should be this way, rather than getting wrapped up in cliques. Rather than making amateurish errors in reasoning as we cobble together a makeshift argument for a pre-conceived notion.

None of the people involved in these dicussions are 'bad' people; and at the same time, none of the politicians discussed here are without the same set of characteristics that allows any man to rise to that level of national politics. It is what it is--can we not just accept that and move on?

We don't have to get so wrapped up in it that we forget our common sense and common decency.

But we obviously don't always agree on some pretty major items. Can we not at least pretend momentarilly that the other person might be aware of something that we are not, and try to imagine what the set of variables that would support that scenario would look like, and then try to reconcile that with our observations of reality in order to determine the basic feasbility of what they are proposing?

I mean, that's how you learn things.

I've learned, and grown, so much while participating in discussions on the internet, because it allows you the opportunity to observe that people who disagree with you are also intelligent and have well-founded ideas. But you have to be open to that. It isn't a passive thing that happens--you have to force yourself into this mindset, until over time it becomes habit.

It is good to question and examine things.

Belittling someone who disagrees with you is something which damages your own personal growth.



Okay, I'm just rambling now.

But I think I'll actually post this.

Do you have ANYTHING to back this up - anything remotely FACTUAL?

I disagree. Leadership involves different things, for different situations, and also varies with the aptitude and expertise, of the leader. Some lead quite effectively, with a "hire good people, sell them on the goals, and let 'em go!" management style. Others, (most), use a combination of management, and personal involvement, style. Steven Jobs was VERY personally involved at Apple, for instance - most would say somewhat obsessively. He made it work very well, nonetheless.

Quite right - you nailed it. Good discussion, glad you posted it.

We know that unless you're aggressive, your voice will generally be given less attention, in some venues. You don't want your candidate to be too passive in a debate, for example. While positive political ads are generally best, negative ads, can be effective, especially near the end of a campaign. Try and leave an undecided voter with a bad impression of the opponent, just before they go to the polls.

We've been lazy with our election laws, our tax loopholes, and the influence we allow all manner of special interest groups. It brings in a lot of $$$ into the political process, that gov't then doesn't have to provide to the candidates, but it forces the candidates to "court" their $$$ contributors, when they reach office.

As Representative Charlie Wilson's character said in the movie "Charlie Wilson's War":
"I'm Israel's guy on the hill"
"Charlie, how many Jews do you have in your Texas district anyway?"
"Six, I believe. But you don't win elections with just voters, you win elections with campaign donors, and mine are the Jews in New York City."

And that, (almost word for word), is exactly why our political process is far from what it should be. It's $money$, buying influence, making sure that the gov't, in choosing it's winners and losers in business, chooses THEM/THEIR cause, as one of the winners.

Amen

sigh...So you haven't been paying attention.

At first I thought "wow, what world does Flint inhabit where there is no evil and everyone really is, ultimately, only wanting good things for everyone."

It seemed so Pollyanna, and strange that such a glowing recommendation on the inherent goodness of mankind would be in a thread topic initially devoted to the love of Romney, to seeing what a good man he really is, deep down.

Then I thought of a sign I have in my office, to remind me when Dragon Lady gets so far beneath my skin she's gnawing on my bones:

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.--Napoleon Bonaparte

;)

But I don't believe in the inherent universal goodness of mankind. Sure, goodness exists in abundance, but hardly because there is no evil to counter it.

Correct, and as you state, still not done by the President. No direct action taken by the President. Next...

Very good, and again, as you state, still not done by the President. No direct action taken by the President. Next...

Full marks, and once again, as you state, still not done by the President. No direct action taken by the President. Next...

That's a webpage full of glossary terms. I'm seeing a whole lot about what the House does and what the Senate does, and a whole lot about term definition, such as what 'adjournment sine die' means. (Thanks by the way, that was a new term for me.) Fascinating. Do let me know if I missed it, but I'm still not seeing a term that defines how the office of the President has the ability to change the actual process laid out in Article 1, Sections 1 and 2 and further defined in the 17th, 20th and 25th Amendments because he's Conservative or Liberal or Insert-Label-Here. Considering the official guidelines for the creation of laws in this country, my statement is correct.

QED, the Office of President and what color his sign has on it has no direct effect on the process until the bill comes to him to sign, because that is his prescribed role. He can indirectly affect it as a champion and cheerleader; he talk to people and flex Executive Muscle, such as it is. He can go to Senator X's office, or House Leader Y's office and have a nice chat. And that might change some minds and a bill might sail through or get voted down because of it. He can sign it or send it back and say 'Do it again!' But he's not the one actually doing it. Therefore, anything he wants to do or have done must get past the 535 first. If most of the 535 like his plan, it'll be fairly easy; if most don't, it can be tough going; if most don't give a whatsit, then who knows. His political leanings do not supersede the 535 in the process. When it comes to passed laws, he can say "I had this done." He can not say "I did this."


And it is possible to talk about political process without being partisan. Jus' sayin'.

I harbor a morbid curiosity as to how you've decided I (or anyone who does not agree with you) am liberal.




Probably better that I don't ask but this could be entertaining.

That's over in Aisle 5 under "Discuss the Political Process."

This is Aisle 7 "Reasons You Are Wrong If You Don't Love Mitt."

:p:

Aw man... there's no maps in this place!

Who's shared vision? The people in this thread? The people on the board? Americans?
The people I've talked to who are fairly successful businessmen (including family), complain they could have made much more money, not because of taxes but because of government regulations. They want no regulations in the way of doing things cheap, easy and profitable. Some of the regulations I understand are unintended consequences of one-size-fits-all laws.

But in every example they cited to me, the law was to protect people and the environment. No, you can't run the floor drains from the body shop into the creek. No, you can't fill in the swamp for more parking. No, you can't sell counterfeit drugs from China.

In the age of multinational corporations even the states can't protect the public, only the feds have the clout. The recent case of people dying from tainted steroids was apparently a loophole in the regulations, which is a case for more, not less.

Maybe nobody(at least very few), hates babies, but some care little about them or their future if they don't live in the right neighborhood or come from the right stock.

~Snip what I agree with~
Yes they do, and it's a pre vs post FDR vision. Pre FDR the "middle class" was composed of the managers of the robber barons businesses, bankers, and very successful business men. Post FDR and WWII, the "middle class" expanded exponentially because of a consumer driven manufacturing economy and labor unions. Post Reagan we've sen the decline of both and the pre FDR vision wants to continue that slide.
While I agree we get bogged down on specifics that nobody wants to reveal, the specifics tell the truth about the vision.

~snip reasoning based on a false premise of agreed goal~
Again, who are "the people involved in these dicussions"? Confined to the Cellar, I'd agree. But on the national scene there are some bad people, people who will lie cheat and steal to subjugate the masses.
No, that's not how you learn things, you learn things by questioning, not pretending/imagining. Questioning the whys/hows, and when the response is based on verifiable lies they've swallowed, rather than experience or reasoning, there's nothing to learn except they are gullible

Absolutely, there's a lot to be learned in the internet discussions if you can pick your way through the static. But this personal growth you speak of is mostly personal understanding of other peoples trials, how you perceive, and possibly treat, them. This may make the world a tiny bit better and surely makes you a lot better person.
That said, politics is a different animal in that the outcome affects how you are treated by the government, and how the government allows other people to treat you. That makes it personal, sometimes imperative to your life, liberty, and pursuit of whatever blows your skirt up.

Excellent post, bruce!

Still waiting anxiously for that fact on the number of jobs lost versus the number of jobs gained, from the actions of Bain Capital.

All that "I lost my job due to Bain", stuff is real, no doubt, but it's VERY hyped by the Obama re-election campaign. The flip side "I have a job at Staples, etc., due to Bain Capital", is strangely never mentioned by the Obama campaign.

Of course, you believe only one side of the argument - naturally. You couldn't find any facts on it, and you couldn't believe that like everything else in life, there is a yin and there is a yang, an ebb and a flow, or as the wise man states: "a time for every purpose, under heaven". (Ecclesiastes, iirc).

Jobs are created, and jobs are lost in business. Any business. That is the nature of business, which follows the nature of life.

Our disagreement was not in the actions of the President, in enacting a bill, into law. I have no idea why you've fixated on that. Possibly because your two other statements about our gov't, were incorrect.

I don't know what your politics are. If you were a Conservative, you would be excited by the Romney campaign, even though he's a middle of the road, type. Compared to Obama, he's definitely more Conservative (thank Heavens).

I thought you would enjoy that Glossary, the descriptions it gives are quite authoritative, imo.

Debate is on. Is that a tiny uterus desecrating Mitt's lapel flag?

Yes. Obama and Romney both had to desecrate corpses before the debate tonight. That was one of the requirements they both agreed to, prior to the debate. :eek:

Try focusing on the <CONTENT>, Griff.

:)

Looks like Mitt wants to double down on the good ole days. A new cold war with Russia plus some new madness in Iran and Syria where we heavily arm the nice radicals but not the bad guys. <eye roll here>

I hear romney saying it's really really scary out there. Mali Egypt Syria Lebanon etc. We need to bring the rule of law to the Muslim world. F. F. S.

Who here thinks that our economy will be stronger with an additional TRILLION DOLLARS in the defense budget

Continuous growth last four years


But romney doesn't want to see that for the next four years

Greece??!

We are not Greece. Puhlease.

Where will the money come from to grow the military


Medicare is good we keep it but Obama care which has good thing we can't afford

Romney says he's afraid AREN'T YOU ALL AFRAID TOO?!?!

Sumarines????

What the Fuck?!?!

We are getting EXTREMELY low on horses and bayonets.

NOW I understand why Romney's so afraid. It's aaaaalll coming together now.

I hope romney can get connected to some of this job retraining money. He could spend it on a grammar tutor to explain what an adjective is.

"DemocratIC Senators"

I know "they" say it that way because "they" think it irks "us". Speaking for myself, it only reveals ignorance, deliberate or accidental. I think accidents are rare at this stage of the campaign.

Romney says China is our friend. Isn't that cute?

I think my point was clear: it is not only insurmountably illogical, but a tragic statement on the state of politics, both at the 'career' level, and here, among friends, that a full 50% of American citizens are labeled as "bad" people.

I don't believe that 50% of us are "bad" people, and I am saddened that you thought this observation deserved a snarky slapdown.

I believe the figure is 47%.


:bolt:

Soldiers are still issued bayonets. The US Army still has horses. Seems like the Commander in Chief would know that

I'm 'fixated' because that's what my post was about originally and you keep pivoting away from that.

And which other two statements? I've only said one thing, the correct thing, confirmed by your own statements even, in several different ways.

This right here is why I don't subscribe to a label. I also have no party/political stickers on my car or signs in my yard. Once you do subscribe, then you are more or less told what to think by your fellows, must submit to the collective beliefs associated with that label, and you will (publicly), if you want to remain in Good Standing with your party/affiliation. And if you happen to be more independent than that but still wish to wear the label, you're still tagged as a supporter of things you may actually abhor. The parties want loyalty, people like to feel they 'belong' to something. And if you don't lock-step, your label is revoked and you automatically become one of the labels your chosen label is supposed to hate. And then you're supposed to feel bad and either live a life of shame or pander to be reinstated. Bugger all that. Life's too short for that nonsense.

Frankly, no candidate for any position, local, Congress or President, gets me excited anymore because I know how the game of politics is played. I show my political support by voting. So, as a voter, I am highly critical of all sides and keep emotions out of it because I know as soon as I let myself have a favorite, it'll be easier for them to pull wool over my eyes.

Because the favorite can do no wrong.

US Marine & mule at the Mountain Warrior Training Center

According to the polls from immediately pre-debate, yes, it actually 47% vs. 47%

Anthony Crane
Cambridge Industries
GS Industries
Ampad
DDi
Dade International
Mothercare
GT Bicycle
SMTC Corp
Chippac
Asimco Technologies

Oh, and the unconscionable rape of Burger King.

All I need, and the ONLY thing I'll accept, are the number of jobs lost from Bain Capital, during the the time Romney was the CEO, and the number of jobs gained from Bain Capital's work, during the time Romney was CEO. And the link to the authoritative origin of those numbers.

A simple list of company names is not what's needed, here. Here's a hint. You don't have what you need, and you never will, and I doubt anyone has those figures, because they're so widely disbursed across several companies.

That's WHY the Obama campaign seized on it - because they can't be called liars easily, and certainly not before the election day.

This is Romney's strong point in the campaign - jobs. If they can make you doubt him on that point, they're well on their way to a win on election day. It's the same way Kerry was hit with the "riverboat vets for truth" project. Nobody could really say what Kerry's actions were in Vietnam, but nobody could really dispute what the "vets" were saying, either.

Just plant as big a doubt as you can, about the opponent.

I heard a smear about Obama today. While at Harvard as editor of the law review paper, two male workers quit and filed sexual harassment charges against the school, claiming Obama was the perpetrator.

Harvard paid out to both the students in both cases, under the condition the students kept silent.

Do I believe it? It doesn't matter. Whether Obama was secretly a sexual harasser or not, doesn't interest me. His policies and their success or failure, determine my opinion of Obama, as President.

Period.

That wasn't a snarky slapdown, it was my view on your view...presented in my typical way (i.e. humor rather than 15 pages of the aforementioned 'smart guy' speak.) God forbid anyone inject any levity into all this nonsense.

I certainly don't think 50% of us are bad people. That's ludicrous. (Some of my best friends and relatives are conservatives.) I just don't believe that everyone loves children and puppies, and I don't believe Romney, in particular, has any real desire to grow the middle class (without which our country cannot survive, imo.)

What happened to you Flint? You used to have a sense of humor.

Wow that's a high bar! You clearly have high standards for what you will consider valid information, and what you reject for lack of support. Your rigorous fact checking shows you only accept the truth on important issues and are never satisfied with mere assertion.

Yet....

You have never offered any support or "facts" for the smears spread by the Romney campaign that he will balance the budget by cutting taxes.

Nothing at all like the standard of proof you demand from others. This makes you a hypocrite as well as an ideologue. You can shed these twin millstones by producing some details about how Romney will manage his tax cuts and budget balancing. PLEASE NOTE I will only accept actual tax code sections, the dollar value of those sections and (since you such a precocious student of American Civics, the vote count in Congress for each of these changes to our tax laws).

I would challenge you to put up or shut up, but I realize that would be pointless, since you're incapable of either. Just so you know, until you produce some facts like you demand from others your voice, like any other well trained parrot, provides only entertainment, not information.

He said, "Well governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets."

Oh, I see. You're too lazy to look up the companies Romney destroyed with his evil Bain leveraged buyout scheme.
That's the only thing you'll accept?
Fuck you, you aren't calling the shots, boy.

The National Defense Act approved on 3 June 1916 set the peace strength of the Regular Army at 220,000 officers and men and of the National Guard at 450,000. In 2012, US Army (Active) was 547,400 with an Army Reserve of 205,000 and Army National Guard of 358,200.

If we average to just one bayonet per soldier, that would give us:

1916 - 670,000 bayonets
2012 - 1,110,600 bayonets

Soldiers and Marines have really taken to heart the comment about the bayonets. The saying goes, "Every soldier is a rifleman first."

I haven't counted the number of horses, but I will concede there are fewer horses. Oh Lord, don't even mention the crack about ships diving underwater. The USS Holland (SS-1) was the United States Navy's first commissioned submarine and was launched on 17 May 1897.

Yes, I realize President Obama was just trying to make an illustration of a point. It has just struck a nerve on the military boards

Sarge, would you rather have more bayonets, or more tanks and automatic weapons?

Are we talking linear or non-linear warfare? Or we could say COIN OPS (Counterinsurgency) vs Force on Force? It really doesn't matter. I totally understand the point President Obama made. The crack about bayonets ticked me and alot of others. The bayonet is a symbol that no matter what you do in the military, you have to be prepared to be on the frontline & "fix bayonets".

I'm just being an ass. I really do understand the point. Plus, I admit that Romney isn't my favorite.

If you make an argument this big, you have to back it up - and of course, you can't. I can't refute it, or back it up, either. Nobody has that data.

Would you just accept a smear against Obama, that couldn't be backed up? Of course not.

Don't be such a hypocrite, and try harder to stay civil. Of course I call the shots on what I will accept as a fact. You do the same for yourself.

That was covered a few pages back, by another poster, as well as on the website that he posted the link to.

Romney's tax cut is not a "smear". It is a plan, and you may disagree with it, but it is, by definition, not a "smear".

If there is some specific part about it that you don't understand, ask away, and I'll try to help. On a forum, I can't go whole hog on big topics however. The forum has a size limit on posts, and I have bumped up against it, a few times.

The point of the "high bar", is that the data you'd need to prove or to disprove the smear against Romney while at Bain, is NOT available. Which is why it's such a great target for a smear by the Obama campaign. THAT is the point of the "high bar", to bring this point into focus.

IF the data was readily available, don't you think that Obama's campaign would be shouting the numbers in every ad, all across the country? That's why you can be sure that the data is not there. :cool:

Still pushing lies you were told to post. What happened to the many examples from history and other facts? Oh. You ignored them. Tax cuts typically result in recessions. Tax cuts to increase productivity has always been a lie that enriches the rich. And then results in a recession. No reason to list the so many examples from history. That also included economic boom after a tax increase. You routinely ignore what contradicts the party's rhetoric.

At the risk of sounding like a kindergartener, Romney started it. It was Romney who chose 1917 as the date to compare a single fact about our military then and now. Romney had been playing Chicken Little all night, fearmongering, and he piled on by comparing the number of ships in our navy then and now, a factually useless comparison. Great for stoking the fires of fear, but nothing else. Obama gave him back what he was giving everyone else--context free facts.

Why do you think Romney used that particular figure? I think it was to be melodramatic. And he got the melodrama he was searching for.

During the debate last night, Romney said (for some unknown reason):
"I like women... "

My G-son finished his sentence...
... because they are the right height."

Tax cut for everyone,
same proprtion of taxes paid by those who earn in the top 5%
eliminating taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest
adding a trillion dollars to the defense budget
"absolutely" not adding any taxes to the middle class of earners who make under $200k/yr
and
...drumroll please.....
balance the budget.

You're saying this was covered a few pages back... right. I looked. Maybe you mean this one:

Or this one:

I did read those posts and the articles at the links, but none of them do what you say they do. I'd like to see your cite, or better yet, just explain to me how he can do all those things he said he's gonna do. Because,

It doesn't exist.

Are these statements true or false, in your judgement?

1) gov't takes more money in taxes. I have less $$$ , my small or large business has less, so I spend less $$$, and my business spends less also.

2) gov't takes less money in taxes. I have more $$$, my small or large business has more $$$, so I spend more $$$ , and my business spends more also.

If they're both true, then I can have reasonable discourse with you. If not, then I can not. I have no connection with your reality.

Your Answer?

@BigV:

Don't get angry with me about economic projections. Gov't and business has been using them since - roughly -- forever. The Egyptians used it when Israel was hit by famine, and had to relocate to Egypt to survive, if you remember.

Anyway, ALL budgets are based on projections. Are those projections reasonable?

Define "reasonable". Because they may prove to be too optimistic (typically), but sometimes they prove to be too pessimistic.

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in these projections. I would say for sure, that with Romney and Ryan and the Republicans in charge in the House and Senate, that our economy will begin to REALLY move forward after a period of re-adjustment in the gov't and in industry. If you haven't seen a recovery take off, I can tell you it's a wonderfully giddy thing, imo. :cool:

Would you mind if I linked you to a notable gov't economist for an oversight on how and why this works?

It won't make you like Romney, because Romney isn't mentioned. It's all about economic policy in a capitalist system.

Not a smear when the fact that it happened is well documented.
A fifth grader can figure out if you grab a business and suck the life out of it until it goes belly up, people are out of work. The people suffer, the families suffer, the community suffers, because some predatory millionaires/billionaires need more money? No, they don't need money, it's just a blood sport.

Oh, and stop telling me what the fuck to do, I'm not one of you Morman sheep.

I'm not angry Adak. Not with you anyhow. I'm angry that Romney's successfully lying about what he can promise. It is this deception that angers me. I am calling him on it. I'm not asking for a "reasonable" projection, I'd settle for a possible projection, within the parameters he himself set. It doesn't add up.

Furthermore, your "high standard" is a good one, and one that could fairly be applied to Romney's tax plan, since he's touting his economic savoir-faire. I'm a reasonably smart guy, I can understand stuff, explain it to me, I have asked. You're his only surrogate here, so the question falls to you. There are lots of naysayers, ones whose arguments appear sound to me. I have not heard any argument from you in support of his plans. His desires, sure. His platitudes, sure. But that's not a plan. "I'm going to create 12 million new jobs" is not a plan. Tell me the PLAN. What is your PLAN?

This has not happened, absolutely not from Romney regarding his tax plan. What deductions? How does it add up? These kinds of questions. You and I both know why he won't say so. He won't say so because it doesn't add up. And by specifically identifying x or y or z, he opens himself to resistance from those people who *like* x or y or z. He won't expose himself to that. But it's still not a plan.

"We need to get jobs back from China."

"On day one I'll label China a currency manipulator."

When pronounced in close proximity to each other, the second one sounds like a step toward achieving the second one. But for anyone who knows what the second one entails, there's no support for the first one. These kind of pastel platitudes are useless as policies, though they can be effective to activate people's emotions. That's why he does this. He's campaigning, promising. I get that, and more power to him. But what he's promising can not be delivered.

I will not abide his lies.

Romney's 2011 tax return, on a matchbook cover. cite.

Tell me how he can eliminate taxes on capital gains, interest, and dividends and still pay the same proportion of taxes?

According to his own words out of his own mouth, his taxable income will fall from 13.9 million to 0.45 million. Now, that almost half million will be taxed at 35% minus 20% of 35%, so 28% of half a million, about $126,000. That is a big tax bill. But it is far far lower than the $1.94 million dollars he did pay.

How is this possible? How is this consistent with what he says he'll do? It isn't! By HIS plan, to the extent that he's revealed the specifics, his tax rate goes from 14% to less than 1%.

You're a smart guy. Reconcile this arithmetically. Justify this morally. I'm listening.

It's not his fault, it's the blind trust... except that's also a lie.
That's because Romney placed his quarter-billion dollar family fortune in the hands of his personal lawyer and longtime associate Bradford Malt.

link

Projections are used all the time for budgeting purposes. It has nothing to do with Bruce's snarky attitude, above. Gotta hate them rich guys, eh Bruce? Some are optimistic, some are pessimistic, with the former being much more common.

Nation-wide economic projections are seldom spot on, because the economy is so complex and variable in the controlling factors, at any given period.

You can be sure of one thing - if the Republicans win the House, Senate, and Presidency, you will see, after a period of re-adjustment by the gov't and the economy, a tremendous recovery. The speed will be slowed down by the recession in Europe and by the recent slow down in the Chinese economy. But unlike today, when we know we have 11.9 million manufacturing jobs, versus 12.4 million in '2009, and the dow dropped 240 points and is expecting a "down" 4th quarter*, things will begin to REALLY look up.

Remember what that felt like?

*From KNX 1070 News Radio, Los Angeles, a CBS affiliate.

I think I know what somebody wants for Christmas!








A cracker.

Oh, proving Romney, and you, lied about the blind trust is being snarky?
Cool, be prepared for a lot more snark.