The Real Mitt Romney

[Adak]

Originally Posted by glatt

That ultra liberal newspaper (sarcasm), the Wall Street Journal, says you are full of shit. Why do you lie so much?

It tells me you don't know what I'm saying. The dollar amount that we spend, is not important. What IS important, is the balance of income vs. expense. When your family income goes down you need to sharply curtail expenses, right?

Same with our government - if they were smart - but they aren't smart. And that is a problem IF WE KEEP IT UP.

Obama intends to keep it up! Do you know what an "Oh Holy Hell!!" is? That's what a monetary crisis is, in a nutshell. And that is what all this overspending is pushing us toward. We will ALL rue the day that we have a monetary crisis, in our country!

More immediately, his idea of pushing us all to depend on the gov't, is very unsettling. I don't want more gov't - I want my freedom, and my wallet left with something in it, thank you.

What's that you say? Oh, I see, you said "overspend" not "spend". You don't care that Obama has increased the budget less than any president since Ike in the 1950s? You still think that when the economy is weak and tax revenue is lower, the government should spend within its means? Don't you realize that when times get tough, that's when you get more people who are unemployed and you need the government to come in and pay for services that weren't needed so much during the boom years.

It like a family, saving up for a rainy day during the good times, and then spending some of that rainy day fund to get through the bad times.

And if Obama's stimulus policy had worked, I'd say OK, let's re-elect him. But it has failed, and he has no new plan, no new WAY to fix it.

Obama is on Comedy Central tonight. He's been on: The Tonight Show, The David Letterman Show, "Pimp with a Limp", and just about every TV talk show you could imagine. He's bright, does some funny jokes, and can do an excellent imitation of Al Green (the singer).

But I don't CARE about any of that. I want to see our economy growing again, at by more than a crippling 1 or 2 percent!
If Obama could deliver that, and open up some federal lands to oil drilling (and lower the fuel costs), I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. But he can't, and with his ideology, he believes he SHOULDN'T.

Basically, Obama wants to piss down my backside, and tell me it's raining.

No thanks.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Trilby

I think Adak is maybe a college frosh.

Oh! I wish!

Retired.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

EVERY business is run to make profit. That benefits everyone, or the employees find better jobs.

Exactly why our government should not be run like a business. What about the "employees" that don't benefit? Self deportation? Renunciation of citizenship?

Business experience has extremely limited usefulness as an indicator of ability to govern effectively.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

Let me try another tack.

What do you think should have happened starting 21 Jan 2009? What do you think the Obama administration should have done that they did not do?

Another similar question.

What do you think a McCain-Palin administration would have done starting in Jan 2009? How would things have been different?

I would have kept up our energy requirements. Obama jumped into "green jobs", before considering that Spain did a huge "green jobs" program, and had it backfire horribly on them.

Also, financial instruments that are either a) very highly leveraged, or b) are not dealing with principals (that is, with those who have no "skin in the game"), should be made illegal. These derivatives and etc., are nothing but gambling, without putting your bet on the table, and they WILL come back around and bite you on the bum, from time to time. And take a big bite when they do it.

I would not have given the 500 Million dollars to Salendra, because their business plan was already judged by the Bush administration, to be "too risky". But Obama did it because the owner was a big Obama money "bundler" for his campaign.

I would have started eVerify, to make our jobs start going to citizens and legal residents, only, and decrease our illegal border crossings.

I would NOT have allowed ATF and FBI to run the "Fast and Furious" gun smuggling program - stupid and deadly.

I would not have an "enemies list" where anyone who speaks out against the President (like Joe the Plumber), gets immediately audited by the IRS, etc. Now, Obama is prosecuting whistleblowers with a WWI espionage law!

I would not have put the 249 million dollars into A123 battery company, or allowed the stupid Volt car to be produced - GM loses some $40,000 dollars on each one it sells, and VERY few people want one, because they won't run on anything else but battery power. Their range is about 50 miles - and THAT's IT, until you recharge them for a few hours, at least.

I would have allowed GM to go through regular bankruptcy, and get re-organized, as business law decrees. Not rip off the bond holders and shareholders, and give it to the Unions and the gov't.

I would change the Ted Kennedy citizenship law, where if one member of a family is a citizen, then every member of the family can become one. That is entirely laughable.

I would reform our immigration service, so immigrants (legal), don't have to wait years to be approved.

I would stop the billions of foreign aid we give out every year, on a case by case basis. We need to pay Egypt 400 Million in foreign aid every year, like we need a new hole in our heads.

I would work to have a nation of Palestine be created, in the middle east, but not in Israel. Perhaps in the Sinai next to Israel, and then extending up a bit, toward Jerusalem. The Jews keep Jerusalem, but the Muslims keep access to it, as well as the Jews. The Jews get more of the West Bank area, because it's critical to their strategic safety - from those heights, you can shoot rocks or mortars, onto a great deal of Israel, and the Palestinians have shown an unholy willingness to do launch both, by the thousands.

Despite their behavior, the Palestinians deserve a country of their own, and need to get out of Gaza. We should REALLY help them make their new country. It was passed by the UN, in 1948 - it's well overdue.

These economic sanctions we're taking now against Iran, I would have initiated sooner. The earlier one's were nothing but cotton candy, with no bite to them.

Our Embassies and consulates clearly needed to be either strongly reinforced, or closed. They remind me of the strategy we used against the Japanese in WWII, except we have taken on the role of the Japanese - and Al Qaeda has taken on MacArthur: ridiculous!

The "nation building" efforts we've made in Iraq and Afghanistan, were a huge drain on us. We don't owe these people billions of dollars to reshape their country.

It was a military necessity to take on Al Qaeda. (and the Taliban if they wanted to fight us, as well.) That is all we needed to do. We don't need to be there for 10 years, trying to make a backward tribal country, into a modern one. That is something they must do for themselves.

I would have given more support to the drive to remove polio from the planet. They need more support to finish it off, just like they did with Smallpox.

I would have started a much more aggressive program to help research into stem cells and regeneration of organs - especially Islet of Langerhorn's, (diabetes), kidneys, and hearts.

In fiscal policy, I'd have used the old tried and true approach - cut gov't spending, and cut taxes. Stop the gov't from buying sub prime mortgages. Stop anyone from passing off fraudulent loan applications, without being prosecuted. A fraud is a fraud, period.

Make banks, back into banks, not gambling casinos.

Some stimulus money was needed, but not NEARLY all that Obama gave.

So many things, I can't begin to list them all.

McCain is not a Conservative. He's a middle of the road guy. Palin is a conservative, but had limited experience. John would have gone with a strong stimulus, I'm sure. Not as big as Obama's, but big.

It would have been interesting, but probably not the success we all want.

Great questions!

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

Exactly why our government should not be run like a business. What about the "employees" that don't benefit? Self deportation? Renunciation of citizenship?

Business experience has extremely limited usefulness as an indicator of ability to govern effectively.

Gov'ts can't be run like a business. Entirely different model. But many of the characteristics of a successful businessman, can help a government, when it's economy is not doing well.

Romney is a great choice, because he's done both business and gov't, and quasi gov't/business (the Olympics).

Employees that don't benefit, in gov't, or in business? (commerce)

[Trilby]

It's classicman, isn't it?

I'll betcha.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Trilby

It's classicman, isn't it?

I'll betcha.

My vote too...

[Stormieweather]

I don't. But anywho...


Our country is not a business. That's the problem with promoting a businessman to run it. Running our country isn't about making money for the stockholders/elite and squeezing the most out of the employees/working folk in order to do it. Unless you are an elite, then maybe that IS what it's all about?

Our country is supposed to be about ensuring the future of our children and their children. Are we educating our children? Are we creating an economic model that will keep the working people happy and working for generations to come? Because when they become disillusioned, you will have revolt against the powers-that-be. Are we treating 50.8% of our population like second-class citizens or recognizing their right to be in charge of their own bodies/destiny? Are we teaching future generations to be tolerant of cultural/religious differences or are we teaching them hate and bigotry and intolerance? Because that won't end well.... Are we cultivating positive relationships with other countries or are we playing my military/penis is bigger than yours with everyone? Because our children have to deal with the consequences of this. We will be dead and gone while they send THEIR children off to die. Are we raping the limited natural resources of the only planet we have to live on? Or are we protecting them so future generations will have clean air and water and a healthy ecological cycle? It's not just about spending, although that matters too. History has shown that the economy is healthiest when taxes on the top earners is highest. Why is that such a sticking point? Taxing the Rich Clearly, because the richest and most powerful don't care about the economy/the rest of us in the long run, they care about their dollars, right now.
It isn't just about profits and sadly, that's what too many "businessmen" type politicians are focused on. How can I maximize the profit for me and my buddies? Use natural resources? Increase military spending? Remove financial regulations? Force working class to do more for less so my net income goes up? (ie: no minimum wage, no safety regulations, no unions, no benefits).

What I look for in a politician/leader is a vision for the future. How are their decisions going to impact future generations? What sort of world will my grandchildren be forced to live in?

If Mitt Romney and the religious right have their way, the future I foresee is incredibly grim.

[DanaC]

Well said, Stormie. That was brilliant.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

I don't. But anywho...
...

In the Hall of Fame

[Spexxvet]

I don't think Adak=Classicman. Classic doesn't put together so much undefensible bullshit.

[DanaC]

He also tends not to do mega long posts either.

[infinite monkey]

Totally different...I don't think it's c-man either. Plus, c-man is way busy these days.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Adak

WHAT?? The legislative branch of the federal government is NOT RELEVANT to the actual process of legislation??

Thanks for the laughs.

Nice pivot, son.

Re-read my statement:

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about needing a "Conservative House of Rep. and Senate" to "help" anybody, nor is that relevant to the actual process of legislation.

Allow me to rephrase it since you completely missed the point. Twice.

The political leanings of the members of the House and Senate have nothing to do with the actual process of legislation.




$5 says my words get spun again.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

I don't. But anywho...
Our country is not a business. That's the problem with promoting a businessman to run it. Running our country isn't about making money for the stockholders/elite and squeezing the most out of the employees/working folk in order to do it. Unless you are an elite, then maybe that IS what it's all about?

No, but our economy is sick, and it depends to a large extent on the health of our businesses, to keep everything together in our fiscal world.

Think about our children's future, if we have to close our businesses. Our entire economy would go belly up. That means our gov't won't be able to help us, either - because it will have no means to do so.

Our country is supposed to be about ensuring the future of our children and their children. Are we educating our children? Are we creating an economic model that will keep the working people happy and working for generations to come? Because when they become disillusioned, you will have revolt against the powers-that-be. Are we treating 50.8% of our population like second-class citizens or recognizing their right to be in charge of their own bodies/destiny? Are we teaching future generations to be tolerant of cultural/religious differences or are we teaching them hate and bigotry and intolerance? Because that won't end well.... Are we cultivating positive relationships with other countries or are we playing my military/penis is bigger than yours with everyone? Because our children have to deal with the consequences of this. We will be dead and gone while they send THEIR children off to die. Are we raping the limited natural resources of the only planet we have to live on? Or are we protecting them so future generations will have clean air and water and a healthy ecological cycle? <snipped for brevity>

What I look for in a politician/leader is a vision for the future. How are their decisions going to impact future generations? What sort of world will my grandchildren be forced to live in?

If Mitt Romney and the religious right have their way, the future I foresee is incredibly grim.

It's always smart to look as far ahead as you can to see whether you're headed in the right direction or not. Individually, or as a city, county, state, or country.

But let's put your concerns into context, with some facts:

1) We can never know all the implications of how what we do now, will impact our descendents. Hubris galore to believe that we could do that. Trying? Sure, but never knowing them fully.

2) Romney is not a religious nutter. He has a religion - isn't he supposed to have the FREEDOM to practice it, just as you or I have the FREEDOM to practice one or not, as we choose?

I don't see any threat from the right, to our Bill of Rights. If you do, what are they?

3) All the surveys indicate that religions in both the UK and the US, have lost a huge amount of members, in the last 50 years. That trend is showing every indication of continuing. That is causing the religious right to lose power, not gain it.

4) We need to re-think the idea of nation building when we go to war with groups like Al Qaeda. They are not a nation, and we don't owe Afghanistan billions of dollars in nation building and 10 years of fighting their "jihadi's". If they attack us, we attack them, but we don't stay for 10 years, traveling around the countryside with bulls-eyes on our backs. Six months should be plenty of time to defeat them, and go home.

5) If you're talking about Crony Capitalism for buddies, Obama is famous for it, as was Bush. It's a bad deal, because sometimes their "buddies", really are very well qualified for a federal position, but usually they're woeful. How can we make a law that permits the former, and stops the latter?

Probably best to simply have the press shame them. Will the press do that to Obama? Absolutely not. Barely did it to Bush, and the press didn't like Bush jr.

I reject the idea that we want to have one part of society, pitted in class warfare mode, against another part. That's been part of Obama's playbook, which is also a central theme in many radical playbooks. Typically, it's used to invoke changes that otherwise would be too unpopular to the public. If you work up some hatred for some class of people, then nobody will speak up when you take something from them - because they're hated now.

I'll promise you one thing, Obama will NOT be looked upon kindly by historians, for his use of class warfare. Frankly, it's contemptible.

Did you hear V.P. Joe Biden giving his first speech since his debate with Paul Ryan? The guy is wired stupid - referring twice to how Obama got our soldiers out of "Iran and Iraq".

Huh?

We've never been in Iran since Regan got our embassy hostages back, in 1980.