The Real Mitt Romney

[DanaC]

Whenever people suggest that the rich should pay more taxes than they do, someone throws out the 'you could take all their money and it still wouldn't be enough' line.

It isn't one or the other. It isn't a choice between virtually tax free wealth on the one hand and bankrupting the rich on the other.

And, having established that the rich cannot solve the financial crisis on their own, the onus is always shifted almost entirely onto the backs of the working and middle classes.

The wealthy should pay more than they currently pay. The fact that their combined wealth would not be enough even if we took it all, is not a good reason to let them get away with paying so little. It's also not a good reason to expect those who aren't wealthy to carry the can.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Whenever people suggest that the rich should pay more taxes than they do, someone throws out the 'you could take all their money and it still wouldn't be enough' line.

Showing that SOMEBODY has seen the math on it.

It isn't one or the other. It isn't a choice between virtually tax free wealth on the one hand and bankrupting the rich on the other.

I agree.

And, having established that the rich cannot solve the financial crisis on their own, the onus is always shifted almost entirely onto the backs of the working and middle classes.

Which is EXACTLY wrong-headed! Stop right there! Where does the onus lie for this? Right on gov't spending!! But the liberals do NOT NOT NOT want to allow one dollar to be cut from anything, no matter WHAT!

The wealthy should pay more than they currently pay. The fact that their combined wealth would not be enough even if we took it all, is not a good reason to let them get away with paying so little. It's also not a good reason to expect those who aren't wealthy to carry the can.

I agree. But you can't get the Democrats to cut spending -- they will SAY that they will -- did it to Reagan, did it to George Bush I, etc. They refuse to honor their promises on this.

The one time they were forced to, was when the Republicans were in control of Congress, and Clinton was in the White House. The "Contract with America" was in force, and popular, and cuts were made. It's hard for them to admit that it helped our economy a great deal, during the Clinton Administration.

[Adak]

Any recovery of ours is tied directly to the recovery in Europe -- we support their banks, if you don't know.

This is bad news for Europe, AND for us, and our recovery:

Business activity in the eurozone contracted at its fastest pace in almost three-and-a-half years in October, a survey suggests.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20067506

Do you STILL believe we need to re-elect a President who can't find his way around a lemonade stand?

[DanaC]

All across the world, in the wake of a global financial crisis, bordering on catastrophe, the truisms of economic theory which have held sway for almost half a century have been shown to be anything but reliable.

You cannot, nor could you ever, cut your way out of a demand led recession. It is utter folly to reduce government spending at precisely the time when it is most needed. People who are unemployed, like their employed counterparts, need food, shelter and consumable goods. Providing state benefits for those people does not remove that money from the economy. It goes back into the market in the form of goods and services purchased.

Removing those state benefits, removes those people from the mainstream market and pushes them into the black market.

At the same time, as those people are pushed into social crisis, basic maintenance costs give way to emergency rescue costs (leaving healthcare until expensive emergency treatment is required - homeless families requiring relatively expensive housing solutions through local and national initiatives, usually underpinned by legal requirements to ensure safety of children - and family breakdown bringing in the need for social service solutions because of the same legal requirements - increased levels of mental stress triggering crisis, etc)

People in work, meanwhile, become far more cautious with their money. Like the investors who become far more cautious with their investments and businesses who become far more cautious in their ventures, working people become more aware of potential risks to their family economy. An increasing fear factor around unemployement, exacerbated by swingeing cuts to local services, does not help increase the confidence and therefore spending activity of working people.

It was not socialism, or social capitalism that sent the global economy into near total meltdown. It was not high taxes on businesses and corporations that caused the American economy to tank, nor was it an overreliance on social safety nets. And the way out of the mire is not to blindly follow an economic paradigm which has so often and so recently been shown for a fallacy.

[Adak]

What do you like about another four years for Obama?

Seriously, I don't see anything attractive about it. He's got no agenda for the economy, since we're already over our heads in massive debt - we CAN'T do that stimulus money plan again. The Democrats know that Obama's budget is miserable, and won't even bother voting on it.

Nothing to look forward to on the economy.

Foreign policy? A disaster, pretty much. Obama has apologized for us, all around the world, and made us look weak - that really helps a lot in dealing with Al Qaeda and Iran.

Except for the instances where he's followed Bush's example, he's done nothing good for us. Sat on his ass while they dragged our Ambassador 's body through the streets of Benghazi - all watched by our reconnaissance drone, as it happened.

Ho Hum. The leader of one of the groups that killed our Ambassador, was found right in the Benghazi hotel, having tea, by a New York Times reporter. Ho hum. Yeah! Obama will hunt them bad guys down, all right!!

I don't see a single thing that Obama has done that's been positive, except allowing gays to serve openly in the military -- that is it.

Close Gitmo? Nope. Get us out of Afghanistan? Nope. Start up a decent nationalized heath care? Nope - it's a disaster. Protect social security or medicare? Nope. He's robbed them of 700 Million dollars and given them an IOU. Hastening the day they go bankrupt. Strengthen our military? Nope, weakened it. Redo the nuclear arms limit treaty? Nope.

He's spent a lot of money on his financial backers - over 800 million (Solendra and A123 alone are over that amount).

He wants to close our coal industry, and limit our oil supply. Fuel is already much higher than it was when he took office.

He won't defend our borders, even though we have SCADS of trafficers crossing it illegally and regularly, with illegals and drugs.

Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security), comes down here and tells us we're safer than ever before on the border - right after two murders from the trafficers! What a *ucking tool she is.
(But it's OK, since she doesn't use email yet).
reason.com/blog/.../its-cute-that-janet-napolitano-avoids-em

She even makes Janet Reno look smart!

I'm in favor of kicking them out if they can't do something a lot more positive for the country, than Obama has. I don't CARE what party they belong to.

[DanaC]

Wow. So much bullshit, so little time.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Wow. So much bullshit, so little time.

Wow! That's one hell of an intelligent argument, you have there!

Very befitting a liberal. I know how you struggle with the obvious.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Wow. So much bullshit, so little time.

Yes Adak keeps repeating the same distortions, half truths, and outright lies, over and over hoping they'll be believed by someone that hasn't fact checked his bullshit.

I'm sure he's read this entire thread and knows they've been proven wrong, but keeps repeating them anyway, which proves he's a shill for the party.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yes Adak keeps repeating the same distortions, half truths, and outright lies, over and over hoping they'll be believed by someone that hasn't fact checked his bullshit.

I'm sure he's read this entire thread and knows they've been proven wrong, but keeps repeating them anyway, which proves he's a shill for the party.

As opposed to the wonderful economic theory that you have proposed!

I have seen why you guys keep repeating the "same bullshit" however. I believe you have not seen the beauty of a free market capitalist economy, at work. It's undeniable beauty is a real surprise. Just an example to whet your appetite:

a small family is struggling to pay a 402 Euro energy bill each month. They got together with others, found a competing energy company with a better price, and switched to it.

Results? Their energy is now MUCH less. Less than 1/4th of what it had been:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20074216

Notice the elements:

Competing (energy) companies
enlightened consumers acting in their own best interests

And no government agency telling them what they can or can not do, in shopping around for the best price. It's a beautiful thing.

I contrast that with the state I live in - California, and what it has done and still doing, under a heavily liberal state government.

Our energy prices have gone through the roof (there is no competition in the energy market), the "compliant" liberal politicians have all agreed to overly generous pay and retirement benefits for our public sector workers, bankrupting our cities (Stockton for instance, has declared bankruptcy). And our state is billions of dollars in the red.

The response to this problem from our liberal Democrat Governor?
Of course - RAISE TAXES! When you live with liberals you get to know what they like:

Raising Taxes "dances"
High Taxes "sing alongs"
"Walkathons for Higher Taxes"

etc. ANY pretext, ANY lie, is good, if it helps a liberal to raise your taxes. Because cutting spending is against their religion, and raising taxes is the only way to keep their socialist dreams alive.

Socialism only works until the money runs out, and they run through our money, like it was water. Why? Because the unions pay them back in re-election money. The only loser is - US.

I thought you guys were mostly being stubborn and slanted in your views, but I'm beginning to see that you just don't know what Conservatism is all about, in the economy. How beautiful it is. Maybe you've heard about this or that being conservative, and it was ugly, but that's NOT Conservatism.

I'll start a new thread for that.

I'll try and show you, with the help of some links, just what Conservatism is all about. Not just the insane junk that is called Conservatism, by those who are not.

If I'm a "true believer" in Conservatism, it's only because I've seen true Liberalism, and know that it's a true lie. Indeed, in California, we live the lie of true liberalism, every damn day. After about 60 years, you get to know it rather well, and it can't hide it's ugly warts, any more. The money has run out, even before the current recession began.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

As opposed to the wonderful economic theory that you have proposed!

I have seen why you guys keep repeating the "same bullshit" however. I believe you have not seen the beauty of a free market capitalist economy, at work. It's undeniable beauty is a real surprise. Just an example to whet your appetite:

a small family is struggling to pay a 402 Euro energy bill each month. They got together with others, found a competing energy company with a better price, and switched to it.

Results? Their energy is now MUCH less. Less than 1/4th of what it had been:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20074216

Notice the elements:

Competing (energy) companies
enlightened consumers acting in their own best interests

And no government agency telling them what they can or can not do, in shopping around for the best price. It's a beautiful thing.

It sounds like you're strongly in favor of unions, since that's *precisely* what that group of enlightened consumers have formed. They're engaging in collective action in opposition to a given company. That kind of stance seems unusual for you. Please note in your story that this story is only possible thanks to the "free market". It is the very lack of regulation, the stuff of government action, which costs money, that permitted the energy companies to make confusing and expensive tariff schedules that take advantage of customers. The follow on article from the one you linked to talks about how to expand the success of that unified action by those enlightened customers by increased regulation to make it easier for customers to do this. More regulation? More interference by the government in the "free market"? Is this really what you're crowing about?

The energy regulator, Ofgem, has proposed some big changes to the way gas and electricity companies sell to customers.

Specifically, it wants to make sure that customers receive personalised information about whether they are on the cheapest deal.

It is all part of Ofgem's wider plan - announced in March 2011 - to inject some real competition into the domestic energy market, which it says is run on the basis of "complex tariffs, poor supplier behaviour and a lack of transparency".

Originally Posted by Adak

I contrast that with the state I live in - California, and what it has done and still doing, under a heavily liberal state government.

Our energy prices have gone through the roof (there is no competition in the energy market), the "compliant" liberal politicians have all agreed to overly generous pay and retirement benefits for our public sector workers, bankrupting our cities (Stockton for instance, has declared bankruptcy). And our state is billions of dollars in the red.

The response to this problem from our liberal Democrat Governor?
Of course - RAISE TAXES! When you live with liberals you get to know what they like:

Raising Taxes "dances"
High Taxes "sing alongs"
"Walkathons for Higher Taxes"

etc. ANY pretext, ANY lie, is good, if it helps a liberal to raise your taxes. Because cutting spending is against their religion, and raising taxes is the only way to keep their socialist dreams alive.

--snip

So, to sum up, free market bad, unions good, government regulation good.

There may be hope for you yet Adak.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by Adak

A

a small family is struggling to pay a 402 Euro energy bill each month. They got together with others, found a competing energy company with a better price, and switched to it.

This right here....this is called "collective bargaining". The conservatives round these parts are doing their best to eliminate such things. You can't tell me that collective bargaining is fine when it's the consumer and oh...totally unfair when it's employees. It's the same idea. It's a matter of, "if you want us (as your employers or customers), you give us _____ at what we collectively feel is a fair price.".

[Adak]

It was not socialism, or social capitalism that sent the global economy into near total meltdown. It was not high taxes on businesses and corporations that caused the American economy to tank, nor was it an overreliance on social safety nets. And the way out of the mire is not to blindly follow an economic paradigm which has so often and so recently been shown for a fallacy.

You know sub prime mortgages all came about because of a change in gov't policy to buy them from the banks, without requiring a check of the income of the buyers. You could put down any figure you wanted, no questions asked.

Then the damn derivatives with their tremendous leverages, and next to nothing for collateral. But no, we're not going to stop them!

That didn't come from the Conservatives! Wasteful spending, and excessive spending, are big problems in out gov't.

Yes, our corporate taxes are first or second highest in the world right now, and it DOES hurt our international business, considerably.

When a huge company like GE can pay $0 in taxes, despite making a large profit, you know our tax loopholes have run amuck - and our politicians are the ones who have made it all possible. THEY will pick the "winners" and the "losers", through the power of their taxation, and if you'd like to be a "winner" you better pony up $$$, and get that lobbyist working for you.

When John Kennedy was facing a recession, he cut taxes big time, across the board (taxes had been quite high in the 50's), and his metaphor was it was like a rising tide, which raises all boats, regardless.

He was right, and it got us into a recovery, MUCH faster than whatever Obama's nonsense is doing. Reagan did it, to stop Carter's recession/stagflation crisis. Clinton cut some spending and taxes as well, when forced by Congress, and it also worked wonders for us, at that time.

So, I could believe your completely unsupported argument, or I could believe my own "lying eyes", of a lot of experience.

Hmmm. Which would you choose to believe? Hot air and hand waving on one hand, or your own eyes, on the other hand?

[piercehawkeye45]

Or a troll.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't think so, a troll would just be argumentative/disruptive, Adak is trying to sell Romney. I wouldn't rule out a zealous Mormon, however.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't think so, a troll would just be argumentative/disruptive, Adak is trying to sell Romney. I wouldn't rule out a zealous Mormon, however.

To me, its the persistence. If he is actually trying to sell Romney, I think it is clear that this board is a waste of time for him unless he really believes he is convincing people who are not posting.

But I will say he really spiced up the Politics board for the past few weeks.