The Real Mitt Romney

[DanaC]

*chuckles*

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies."[13]

Goes to show. In this area, we really are talking a very different language. I have to mentally adjust my political settings when I discuss politics with you guys

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Largely false. Money spent on the business is deductible, so it comes out of pretax dollars. Lowering the tax rate could lead to less investment in the business, since you would get to keep a larger share of any money taken out of the business.

Sorry, Happy Monkey, you're in the wrong tree!

The whole point is that you won't HAVE money to put into your business, because your customers didn't have the money to buy as much of your widgets.

Because the gov't took more of their money, and the gov't is also taking more of your personal income, also.

Didn't you ever run a small business before?

[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.

[BigV]

Perhaps I can help with a vernacular translation of Adak's view on Conservative-ish-ism-icity-etc. It really means "No." It is a label to attach to a nostalgic view of something that used to be better than it is (a subjective position). What is is *not* is conserving anything. No saving ....

I'm just gonna stop there. It really isn't a useful label or concept, and it's totally useless in the way Adak uses it. Stereotypes--UHHHN--What are the good for? Absolutely NOTHING! Say it again! /Edwin Starr

[BigV]

Conservatism means never having to apologize.

While he apologized for how some interpreted his comments, Mourdock was steadfast in his position.

"I believe God controls the universe. I don't think biology works simply in an uncontrolled fashion," Mourdock said. "For speaking from my heart … I cannot apologize. I would be less than faithful to my faith."

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

Turkey: That's a good example of what I'm talking about! He's addressing a country that slaughtered the Armenians in the first act of (really major) genocide, in modern times, and refuses to this day to recognize it. And he's talking about the darker period in OUR history??

That was his point. Turkey refuses to acknowledge a darker period in their history, and when encouraging them to do so Obama acknowledges a darker period in our history, showing that a mature country can do it.

And you and Romney complain that he's not following Turkey's lead instead?

[BigV]

He is a Conservative. He cannot apologize.

[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.".

[BigV]

Who is the real Mitt Romney?

We've heard lots of opinions, lots of generalizations, a few details, plenty of contradictions. There are many voices clamoring for our attention, claiming, usually by naked assertion that he's the best. I am trying to understand their reasoning, and one major tool I use to gain understanding is to consider who's doing the talking. And that has been difficult to discern when it comes to the Romney campaign.

It's not just Romney out there saying "Vote for me!", but lots of other people, but they're largely invisible, like Clint Eastwood's foil. Look at all the money being spent for each campaign. More importantly, look at who is spending it. The vast majority of the money being spent in favor of Romney's campaign was collected anonymously. I have serious doubts about why this is a good idea.

If Romney's your guy, enough that you'd spend millions of dollars to help him get elected, why wouldn't you want your name known in that effort? To me, the clearest reason is that you don't want people to associate your name with Romney's. Why not? Why not? Perhaps you're shy. Or maybe you think that voters who look at Romney and wonder who else is supporting him will be turned off by his association with you. For example, I don't think the Koch brothers, just to use an example, have the same priorities as I do for the President. And if they're supporting Romney, then I think Romney's less appealing.

Now let's look at who's spending what.

Ad Spending By Outside Groups, April 10-Oct. 10

Party Affiliation         Amount Spent       Donor Status        Percent
Democratic                $20,032,460        Disclosed           86.6%
Democratic                 $3,101,280        Undisclosed         13.4%
Total Democratic          $23,133,740 		

Republican                $69,112,620        Disclosed           44.4%
Republican                $86,600,860        Undisclosed         55.6%
Total Republican         $155,713,480 		

Source: Kantar Media CMAG

Those undisclosed donors are overwhelmingly Republican, almost thirty times more! Why? What are they hiding? Who are they hiding from? It seems absolutely clear to me that Romney knows who's giving him these many millions, so, his "debt" to them is known. But I don't know to whom he will be beholden. That troubles me. I think much of this money is corporate spending, and despite the fact that I need a job, I have no illusions that "the company" exists for my benefit. What is good for them is only sometimes good for me. This is based on my own personal experience as well as a lifetime of learning from the mistakes of others. Class warfare? You betcha. And this is a stealth attack.

There's so much that is unknown about Romney, so many details missing, and so many contradictory statements out there. It is not possible to know the real Mitt Romney, who is bankrolling him, and what they will want from him as President. You want my vote? You have to give me good information. All I hear from Romney is "Trust me." That's not a fact, it's a line used by people who want something from me. Their secrecy speaks more about them than they wish it did though.

We don't know the real Mitt Romney, and that's just the way he wants it. No thanks.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

That was his point. Turkey refuses to acknowledge a darker period in their history, and when encouraging them to do so Obama acknowledges a darker period in our history, showing that a mature country can do it.

And you and Romney complain that he's not following Turkey's lead instead?

Put on your foreign policy hat for a moment. Understand that to many politicians, around the world, the foreign policy they use is based on a zero sum game: your nation's loss, is my nation's gain (or at least, could be).

So, especially for the U.S., if you travel 'round the world making statements that are taken for introspective reflections of a weak moment, nations that are watching very carefully, react accordingly.

This is the problem that Carter got into with Iran. They saw him as weak (in his military attitude), and decided to overrun the embassy in Tehran, and take our personnel hostages for over a year.

Clinton had some of the same problem in Africa, and in dealing with Osama Bin Laden. Things were going well here, and he just didn't put much effort into finding those responsible for attacks on our embassies in Africa, etc. Clinton says "I would have killed Osama, if I could have found him".

Well Bill, you won't find him, because you're not looking very much. Bin Laden was 6ft. 4inches or so, and in the Middle East, that stands out. You could have found him. Also, he's pretty famous thereabouts.

It's all fine to be a historian, and reflect on these things, in private, or even in a book. It's not fine to go around the world, and do it, as the representative of your country, in public speeches.

No American voted for Obama, to be our apologist. He is our President, damnit! He can apologize until he's blue in the face, when he becomes a private citizen again.

"A time for every purpose under heaven". This was a poor time to reflect on the shortcomings of America's past.

P.S. Almost every nation has had slavery at some time or other. It's not like we were the only one's using it. Same with the Native Americans. They drove weaker tribes off the lands they wanted, whenever they deemed it wise to do so. Some tribes were completely destroyed.

The Sioux for example, were weaker, at one time, and were driven out of their homelands by the stronger Sac and Fox tribe (Mesquakie-Sauk), onto the plains. Many died from starvation (they were eating grass to survive, at times), before they learned the new skills they needed to survive.

The Indians understood completely. That was their practice, as well, (to drive out their enemies from land they wanted), for thousands of years. And no, they were not gentle about it.

We learned better torture techniques, from the Indians (without any equipment). We learned the practice of taking scalps, and drying them on little hoops, from the Indians.

[Adak]

The vast majority of the money being spent in favor of Romney's campaign was collected anonymously. I have serious doubts about why this is a good idea.

If Obama wins the election, and you're listed as a Romney donor, you could face a big problem: IRS, FTC, SEC, ATF, Homeland Security, etc.

And please, don't say it couldn't happen - it's already happening to those who have disagreed with Obama.

Romney's donors are largely businesses. Lots of businesses do business with some gov't agency.

You get the connection clearly, of course. They would be cut off from work with the federal gov't, if Obama wins re-election, if their names were known.

Hard to believe, after reading that Joe the Plumber was audited by the IRS, shortly after asking Obama an embarrassing question in public, that you can't figure this stuff out.

[BigV]

Put on your foreign policy hat for a moment. Understand that to many politicians, around the world, the foreign policy they use is based on a zero sum game: your nation's loss, is my nation's gain (or at least, could be).

Like Romney (and Obama) regarding China?

Better question, no, observation. I think this is how you see the world. If I or my team/color/Liberalism has a valid point, it is a direct loss for you. This is not how the real world operates. It's a dumb way to move through the world, but I can see that view is complimentary with much of your other statements.

Viewing foreign policy in this zero-sum way is stupid. How much do you think you'd accomplish by dominating your host? Is this the kind of dumbass headspace Romney was coming from when he insulted the Olympic organizers in London? He wanted to make sure the sum was in AMERICA'S favor? You look ridiculous in that hat Adak. Please take it off, you're scaring the United Nations.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

If Obama wins the election, and you're listed as a Romney donor, you could face a big problem: IRS, FTC, SEC, ATF, Homeland Security, etc.

And please, don't say it couldn't happen - it's already happening to those who disagree with Obama.

Do you live in a bunker?

---

The mind boggles at the comic, no, FARCICAL insanity of this statement.

Let's see. Romney's Obama's "public enemy number one", right? Is he being investigated to death? IRS, FTC, SEC, ATF, Homeland Security? What about Ryan? Clint Eastwood? Sean Hannity? My cousin?

You're a joke, man.

[Adak]

Viewing foreign policy in this zero-sum way is stupid. How much do you think you'd accomplish by dominating your host? Is this the kind of dumbass headspace Romney was coming from when he insulted the Olympic organizers in London? He wanted to make sure the sum was in AMERICA'S favor? You look ridiculous in that had Adak. Please take it off, you're scaring the United Nations.

You never heard of "Gunboat Diplomacy"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy

Foreign policy is not the peaches and creme and intellectual exercise that you seem to believe it is.

I didn't say foreign policy was brilliant - just what is IS.

Friendly nations do better, of course. US and UK -- but still, we have spies in the UK, and the UK has spies in the US. Even during WWII, both the US and the UK did not share everything they learned, with each other. (a lot, but not everything).

US and Israel -- same thing, only much worse. They've damaged us a lot with their spying, and eroded a lot of good will in the US, with it.

Yes. Romney has been investigated by several lawyers, working for Obama. Unfortunately for Obama, Romney's clean. Chicago politics (where you find something in the opponents past and bring it out), hasn't worked against Romney.

This is how Obama got elected to his Illinois seat, you may recall. His opponent was ruined.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

If Obama wins the election, and you're listed as a Romney donor, you could face a big problem: IRS, FTC, SEC, ATF, Homeland Security, etc.

And please, don't say it couldn't happen - it's already happening to those who have disagreed with Obama.

Romney's donors are largely businesses. Lots of businesses do business with some gov't agency.

You get the connection clearly, of course. They would be cut off from work with the federal gov't, if Obama wins re-election, if their names were known.

Hard to believe, after reading that Joe the Plumber was audited by the IRS, shortly after asking Obama an embarrassing question in public, that you can't figure this stuff out.

I see you edited your post to add more nonsense.

btw, is this you? jdang307? He sounds just as kooky as you do.

one at a time, ok?

Businesses are romney's donors, largely. you're implying they would be cut off from work from the federal government because they backed obama's opponent.

...

well, I thought I had the strength to refute this, but I don't.

******

joe the plumber is audited.

y'know, it's dark outside where I live. this is OBVIOUSLY the nefarious work of Mitt Romney, personally, to extinguish the sun, in an underhanded attempt to make solar energy fail. Why does he hate America?!

Same thing, right? You should look up causation and correlation and coincidence. I leave the finding the definitions and examples as an exercise for the student.

good night.