DiscussMormonism.com

The new Romney

1) Not giving tax breaks to the those elite job creators after all. Screw the Koch brothers. Power to the middle class (including Mr. Trump).

2) Believes in regulations on wall street--maybe more in some cases.

3) Fed. government gotta help the poor. (He has got to be talking about the goverment since he isn't running for pope or prophet)

4) Entitlements? Love'm. Always have. A chicken in every old person's pot.

5) Healthcare: Don't worry. His plans don't do anything that sounds bad. It insures preexisting conditions and all. (Socialism is OK if on the state level)

6) Federal government can help with all sorts of things; education, regulation, you name it.

7) Everything is "revenue neutral". He can do it all without raising tax revenue or borrowing from China (he's got a secret money tree maybe). The economy will instantly rebound and revenue will be astronomical (it would need to be). It's econ 101.

Romney the moderate/centrist and giddy defier of basic arithmetic

How do ya like me now?


If he had talked like this in the primaries he wouldn't be the nominee. Well, at least Droopy and BCSpace will have enough integrity to stop supporting this moderate excuse for a conservative.

Tarski wrote:The new Romney

1) Not giving tax breaks to the those elite job creators after all. Screw the Koch brothers. Power to the middle class (including Mr. Trump).

He did not say that. He say that he would not reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthy at the same time saying he would cut rates. There's nothing incompatible with those statements.

2) Believes in regulations on wall street--maybe more in some cases.

Most conservatives believe in regulations on Wall Street. I happen to agree with Romney that Dodd-Frank is essentially a smokescreen that gives the illusion of reining in Wall Street but does little to address the structural problems in the banking and investment systems.

3) Fed. government gotta help the poor. (He has got to be talking about the goverment since he isn't running for pope or prophet)

Most conservatives believe in government assistance to the poor. It drives me crazy that people think we conservatives would just cut the poor loose and let them fend for themselves. It fits the stereotype that we Republicans and conservatives are heartless, greedy bastards, but it's not true. And it's offensive.

4) Entitlements? Love'm. Always have. A chicken in every old person's pot.

We are also not opposed to entitlements. No one is talking about repealing entitlements, but we are concerned with a trajectory in entitlement expenditures that is not sustainable. Even Democrats recognize that we can't continue to have entitlements take up an increasing percentage of the economy without some serious consequences.

5) Healthcare: Don't worry. His plans don't do anything that sounds bad. It insures preexisting conditions and all. (Socialism is OK if on the state level)

On this point, you're closer to reality. In principle, we conservatives believe in devolving entitlements to the states. If Massachusetts wants socialism, more power to them.

6) Federal government can help with all sorts of things; education, regulation, you name it.

Since when have we said otherwise? You say that like we support a return to the age of the robber barons. It makes for a catchy political slogan, but it's BS.

7) Everything is "revenue neutral". He can do it all without raising tax revenue or borrowing from China (he's got a secret money tree maybe). The economy will instantly rebound and revenue will be astronomical (it would need to be). It's econ 101.

He hasn't said he wouldn't raise tax revenue. Where are you getting that? He said he wouldn't raise income rates or decrease the share of taxes paid by the wealthy. Eliminating deductions for high-income earners (a Romney proposal) would more than offset the rate decreases in income taxes.

Romney the moderate/centrist and giddy defier of basic arithmetic

How do ya like me now?

Well, I'm none too impressed by your caricature.

If he had talked like this in the primaries he wouldn't be the nominee. Well, at least Droopy and BCSpace will have enough integrity to stop supporting this moderate excuse for a conservative.

Again, you believe that we conservatives are opposed to what Romney advocated. We are not, at least I am not, and most conservatives I know are not.

Bob, he was describing Romney, not you. Romney has been pandering to the extreme Right for many months now, attacking regulations in any form, etc. He felt like he could essentially lie about what his positions were last night and the rest of us would just think Obama didn't have his facts right. But the opposite is true. Obama properly characterized Romney's plans and positions and ROmney is going to regret lying the way he did.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 39852.html

Bob Loblaw wrote:
Well, I'm none too impressed by your caricature.

My post was obviously just off the cuff comedy, not a serious analysis so don't get too worked up. But like good caricatures, it somehow captures some truth.

He did manage to leave those impressions which is what matters with the average voter who doesn't understand the often subtle distinctions and conservative parsing.

But, speaking of caricatures........how about the one where Obama is a radical socialist, Muslim who hates America?

Well I guess that is not really a caricature since it doesn't comically capture truth---it is simply a lie.


Balance my little bit of comedy with the content of the movie "Obama's America; 2016"
which was done in earnest.

He did not say that. He say that he would not reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthy at the same time saying he would cut rates. There's nothing incompatible with those statements.

Not directly incompatible....and yet, a nonexpert like myself has to wonder. If the wealthy aren't going to be paying a lower share of taxes than they have been under the socialist anti-capitalist Obama, how will those heroic John Galts be able to suddenly create more (crappy) jobs?
I know your answer will be all about eventual increased revenue effects of a supposed stronger economy but is that going to be immediate? What, if not an up front lower share payed by the job creators, will jump start the process? Further, will those John Galts appreciate the closing of their favorite loopholes? (I am sure they have the legal creativity open new ones as need of course).
I admit that there may be an economically sound answer to this but it surely isn't obvious.

Kevin Graham wrote:Bob, he was describing Romney, not you. Romney has been pandering to the extreme Right for many months now, attacking regulations in any form, etc. He felt like he could essentially lie about what his positions were last night and the rest of us would just think Obama didn't have his facts right. But the opposite is true. Obama properly characterized Romney's plans and positions and ROmney is going to regret lying the way he did.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 39852.html

I trust the Huffington Post as much as you trust Fox. Both are very bias.

So all Obama and team are saying now is nanu nanu liar, liar, pants on fire. Why didn't Obama call him out last night to his face where Romney could response? Instead Obama is calling Romney a liar behind his teleprompter where he is safe. And be specific President Obama. What specific things did Romney lie about. I have some ideas. I want Obama to outline them.

Kevin Graham wrote:Bob, he was describing Romney, not you. Romney has been pandering to the extreme Right for many months now, attacking regulations in any form, etc. He felt like he could essentially lie about what his positions were last night and the rest of us would just think Obama didn't have his facts right. But the opposite is true. Obama properly characterized Romney's plans and positions and ROmney is going to regret lying the way he did.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 39852.html

I know that, but he was offering a caricature of conservative positions that seemed to me to ignore quite a bit of what Romney has said in the last year. I expect the Huffington Post to stick with the Democratic meme, but I don't find it either interesting or informative.

Tarski wrote:My post was obviously just off the cuff comedy, not a serious analysis so don't get too worked up. But like good caricatures, it somehow captures some truth.

I'm not worked up at all. Just about to watch USC destroy Utah.

He did manage to leave those impressions which is what matters with the average voter who doesn't understand the often subtle distinctions and conservative parsing.

That I can agree with. It's interesting to see the panic from the left now that Romney's debate performance has diluted the message that's he's an uncaring, greedy plutocrat. I guess they can go back to flip-flopper. Oh, wait. they did.

But, speaking of caricatures........how about the one where Obama is a radical socialist, Muslim who hates America?

Well I guess that is not really a caricature since it doesn't comically capture truth---it is simply a lie.

Fortunately, most conservatives are not like Michelle Bachmann or Droopy or bscpace. Those statements about Obama are ridiculous and shameful.

Balance my little bit of comedy with the content of the movie "Obama's America; 2016"
which was done in earnest.

I guess I'm just numb because ever since I can remember each side has been demonizing the other. Reagan was a warmongering crypto-fascist. GHW Bush was an uncaring extremist. Bill Clinton was a socialist, who raped and murdered in his spare time. GW Bush was a fascist war criminal trying to dominate the world. And now we have Obama the Nigerian socialist Muslim who hates America.

Not directly incompatible....and yet, a nonexpert like myself has to wonder. If the wealthy aren't going to be paying a lower share of taxes than they have been under the socialist anti-capitalist Obama, how will those heroic John Galts be able to suddenly create more (crappy) jobs?

Here's my issue. Obama has already said he'll allow the Bush tax cuts to expire (I know, only on the wealthy, right?), but he's also asking for some significant sur-taxes and other "revenue enhancements" that, in this miserable economy, are likely to kill jobs.

I know your answer will be all about eventual increased revenue effects of a supposed stronger economy but is that going to be immediate?

That's actually not my position. Again, my position is that taking money out of the economy (Biden says $1 trillion) will be damaging to the economy in the short and long terms. Obama said that you'd have to be crazy to raise taxes during a recession, but he wants to do it anyway.

What, if not an up front lower share payed by the job creators, will jump start the process? Further, will those John Galts appreciate the closing of their favorite loopholes? (I am sure they have the legal creativity open new ones as need of course).

Not much, really, but it's a hell of a lot better than Obama's plan to take money out of the economy. Every tax plan has loopholes, but I prefer a tax plan that doesn't involve reducing demand, which is essentially what Obama is proposing.

I admit that there may be an economically sound answer to this but it surely isn't obvious.

I read a piece by Milton Friedman this morning that suggests that, if it's done right, Romney can reduce rates across the board and not hurt revenue. And putting more income into the middle class's hands would inherently stimulate the retail economy.

Fortunately, most conservatives are not like Michelle Bachmann or Droopy or bscpace.

Actually, according to the polling, they are. On the plus side, such sentiments are more wide than they are deep.

Bob could you provide us with say, three examples of Romney saying anything positive or flattering about federal regulations?

How about just one?

Romney showed his uncanney ability to play whatever role he thinks his audience wants to see. He has sold his soul and has no shame about lying about what he has been campaigning on.

Kevin Graham wrote:Bob could you provide us with say, three examples of Romney saying anything positive or flattering about federal regulations?

How about just one?

Romney showed his uncanney ability to play whatever role he thinks his audience wants to see. He has sold his soul and has no shame about lying about what he has been campaigning on.

Here's one:

Look, we have to have regulation on Wall Street. That's why I'd have regulation. But I wouldn't designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That's one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank. It wasn't thought through properly. We need to get rid of that provision because it's killing regional and small banks. They're getting hurt.
Let me mention another regulation in Dodd-Frank. You say we were giving mortgages to people who weren't qualified. That's exactly right. It's one of the reasons for the great financial calamity we had. And so Dodd-Frank correctly says we need to have qualified mortgages, and if you give a mortgage that's not qualified, there are big penalties, except they didn't ever go on and define what a qualified mortgage was.
It's been two years. We don't know what a qualified mortgage is yet. So banks are reluctant to make loans, mortgages. Try and get a mortgage these days. It's hurt the housing market because Dodd-Frank didn't anticipate putting in place the kinds of regulations you have to have. It's not that Dodd-Frank always was wrong with too much regulation. Sometimes they didn't come out with a clear regulation.

You seem to believe that we conservatives oppose all regulation as a matter of principle, which would be completely crazy (I know, it makes you feel better at night thinking we're crazy). Conservatives believe in regulation, as long as the regulation makes sense. Take the Dodd-Frank example: Giving penalties for unqualified mortgages is a good idea; not defining an unqualified mortgage is a stupid idea. And Romney is right that the unintended consequence is that banks are not lending, even though interest rates are low and there is demand for new housing and durable goods.