Romney's Ridiculous Double Standard Presents Gigantic Opening For Obama
Maybe this election will be remembered as the "It's the jobs, stupid" election, who knows? It certainly is the central issue the public cares about, and it certainly seems to be the subject that the campaigns are fighting most viciously on the airwaves. This is probably as it should be, a presidential campaign waged on the "Number One" issue in the political realm. But Mitt Romney, it seems, wants to use one yardstick for his own jobs record and another for Barack Obama's. Stunningly, he is attempting to use both at the same time, hoping nobody will notice.
Thankfully, the "Plum Line" blog over at Washingtonpost.com did notice, and labeled the Romney arguments "surreal."
The Romney campaign reportedly just sent out some spin on Obama's jobs record as president versus his own jobs record as governor of Massachusetts. The talking point Democrats have been using (which his Republican opponents had previously been using) is that Massachusetts was "47th out of 50 states in job creation" during Romney's term -- and it is quite obviously getting under Mitt's skin. So he's conveniently rewriting his own record, to make it look better. This is what spin is for, of course, but Mitt has just opened the door for a realistic comparison of the numbers, even if the Romney team (or the Obama team, for that matter) hasn't realized it yet.
After slamming Obama for a "net loss" in jobs, the Romney camp then offers up this gem:
Governor Romney Inherited An Economy That Was Losing Jobs Each Month And Left Office With An Economy That Was Adding Jobs Each Month. After taking office at a time when the state was losing thousands of jobs every month, Governor Romney's focus on fiscal responsibility helped create an environment where job growth returned to Massachusetts. Job growth increased throughout his term and the state added over 40,000 payroll jobs during his final year in office -- the best year of job growth in Massachusetts over the past decade. Household employment grew by nearly 50,000 under Governor Romney and the unemployment rate declined to well under 5%
In other words, don't blame Romney because things were bad when he took office, instead look at the fact that by the time he left things were on a much better track and once he turned things around, jobs were added. While he's trying to measure Obama's job performance with a "net loss" yardstick -- in other words, Obama hasn't created as many jobs during his term as were lost during his term. Which, of course, measures job losses and gains from Obama's first day in office -- precisely what Romney is telling reporters not to do for his own record. The sheer level of chutzpah is astounding. Romney is, in essence saying, "look at my collection of apples -- and then please compare it to Obama's oranges." The disconnect is starkly obvious.
The Obama team really should pounce on this. Send out a press release that copies the above paragraph under "this is what Mitt Romney is saying," and then offers up the following rebuttal:
President Obama Inherited An Economy That Was Losing Jobs Each Month But Now Presides Over An Economy That Is Adding Jobs Each Month. After taking office at a time when the country was losing three-quarters of a million jobs every month, President Obama's focus on fiscal responsibility helped create an environment where job growth returned to the United States of America. Job growth continues to steadily increase throughout his term and the country has added over 4.2 million private-sector jobs during the past few years -- two and a half years of unbroken private-sector job growth. Since President Obama stopped the disastrous job losses he inherited, the unemployment rate has come down a full two percentage points.
Instead of Romney's apples compared to Obama's oranges, this paints a very accurate picture instead -- and it is precisely what Obama has been saying all along: don't blame me for the first year's hole we all had to dig our way out of, look at my record since we turned things around.
Even if Obama only serves one term in office, and even with some disappointing job creation before the end of the year, he is still probably on track to leave office with a (very small) net gain in jobs -- which further undermines the yardstick Romney's trying to use (Romney's point will degrade over time, to put it another way). If Obama posts a few decent job growth numbers in the next few months, this will become pretty obvious to anyone who can do basic math.
The Obama team really should jump all over this, because it reinforces the negative image of Romney they're trying to present to the public: of a man who will talk out of both sides of his mouth and say anything to get elected. Put together a quick ad:
[Start ad with background image of Romney's head with two faces, as the Roman two-faced god Janus] "Governor Romney is trying to use one set of numbers for himself, and another for everyone else. It's typical how he wants to have things both ways, in fact. A recent press release [Show Romney's bullet point text here, in stark black-and-white] stated that Romney "inherited an economy that was losing jobs each month and left office with an economy that was adding jobs each month." Romney wants reporters to measure his record by one yardstick, but refuses to measure President Barack Obama's record using the same yardstick. Obama inherited a national economy much worse than Romney did in his state. [Show graph of job losses and gains since Obama took office] Since then, Obama has turned the economy from losing almost 800,000 jobs per month into an economy which has shown two and half years of private-sector job growth. Obama's job creation record is better than Romney's, when you use the same measure. [Pan slowly out, on an image of a table with a pile of apples next to a pile of oranges] But Romney doesn't want you to figure that out -- he wants one set of numbers for himself, and another for the president. He thinks you won't notice how he's juggling the numbers so he can talk out of both sides of his mouth on the issue. He thinks you're not smart enough to notice."
Romney's using such a ridiculous double standard plays into a lot of things all at once. It paints him as a one-percenter, since we all know one-percenters have their own creative accounting methods that the rest of us don't use. It plays into Romney as the man who will say anything to get elected. It plays in to the flip-floppiness of Romney. It plays into the "fairness" theme that Obama's been hitting recently. Most importantly, it gives an enormous green light to the Obama team to make the point that Obama should only be held accountable for job growth since we stopped falling off the fiscal cliff he faced on Day One. "We're just using Romney's standard," is all that needs be said, anymore, when these statements are challenged.
To achieve all of this, all the Obama team has to do is run an ad and point it out, to spur the political chattering classes to talk about it. Maybe my suggested ad is too wordy. Maybe the point could be better made. But it's definitely a point worth making. Romney himself just opened a very wide doorway -- "let's use this standard to measure job creation" -- and if Democrats push hard through this doorway, it is going to pay off throughout the entire campaign. From this point on, whenever any Republican (Romney or a surrogate) tries to slam Obama's job creation record, all a Democrat will have to say is: "Well, let's put it in perspective, shall we? Let's just use the standard that Mitt Romney uses to measure his job growth performance as governor, that's fair, isn't it?" If used repeatedly, and if followed up with a raft of stats to prove the point, the media will eventually even pick up on the trend and start asking Republicans themselves: "Well, how can you say that when Romney measures his own performance differently? Why is Romney allowed to use this double standard?"
So, to the Obama team and Democrats in general: when your opponent presents such a gigantic hole in his logic -- a moon-sized crater in fact -- it behooves you to take advantage of such a monstrous opening. Romney has just entirely changed the debate over jobs. He has now put his marker on the table for how job growth is to be measured. Hold him to his own standard! Tie this standard to him until election day! Drive the point home, every chance you get. The only recourse Romney will have in response is to disavow his own campaign's talking point. In other words, to flip-flop. Making this about as perfect a political opportunity the Obama election team could ever hope to get. The only question is whether they'll realize it, and start immediately using it.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
hmmmmm, what an odd bit of trivia. it sounds like when all the hype and spin is removed, romney's record as governor and obama's record as president are nearly identical. so, each will say that they turned the economy from losing ground to gaining ground, while the other oversaw a net loss. and both will be right?
I don't think this apples-and-oranges comparison is gonna help O any. Romney was a Republican governor, with a Dem legislature, in the bluest of all blue states. I don't think anyone expects miracles, under those circumstances.
And it's not like O can afford to be pointing to somebody else's record. What about his own? Isn't he just begging people to ask themselves that question?
Bad strategy, IMO. But, then again, Team-O doesn't appear to have a strategy. They just keep throwing things at the wall, hoping something will stick. Only I'm not noticing any stickage, poll-wise.
it sounds like when all the hype and spin is removed, romney's record as governor and obama's record as president are nearly identical.
Well, only if you completely disregard any semblance of historical context.
so, each will say that they turned the economy from losing ground to gaining ground, while the other oversaw a net loss. and both will be right?
Ah, no.
Chris,
Making this about as perfect a political opportunity the Obama election team could ever hope to get. The only question is whether they'll realize it, and start immediately using it.
If the Obama/Biden campaign team and Obama and Biden themselves don't already know all about this and don't start using it in an ad - which would be brilliant in its simplicity and candor - then the only question is what kind of two-bit re-election campaign are we talking about here, anyway!? I would have to wonder if they actually want to get re-elected!
CB makes a good point..
Pointing out Romney's record will invariably lead the voter to compare and contrast that record with Obama's record...
The first rule of campaigning is never press an attack against your opponent that hits too close to home..
Obama simply CANNOT run on his record.. Sure, he can cherry pick a few bright spots.. He can spike the Bin Laden football over and over again...
But when a candidate harps on a couple bright spots over and over and over and over, the stench of desperation begins to seep in.
Really, the only path to victory for Obama is that Romney does something REALLY stupid. A distinct possibility since, after all, Romney IS a politician..
Michale.....
Looks like Obama is reading CW.COM again.. :D
Obama Camp to Broaden Attacks on Romney
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/05/30/obama-camp-broaden-attacks-romney/
I guess the BAIN attacks kept coming back to bite the Obama campaign on the arse, so they are trying something new..
However, like CB said, attacks on Romney's role as Gov in MA will be taken in context by the voters. Context that includes the facts that Romney was a GOP Gov with a DEM state government in a state that is the Leftist of Lefts...
I think Team Obama is going to find out that this NEW "What This Campaign Is About" strategy is going to be as much of a failure as the Bain strategy was...
It's going to resonate with the Dem base, to be sure.. Just like the Bain strategy did.. But that base is already going to vote for Obama.
It's not going to change anyone's mind, in other words...
Michale.....
Just saw that GOP SuperPACs have pledged $1 billion to win this election.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76849.html
This is in addition to anything Romney spends. And all the free advertising Romney will get from conservative media. I don't think Obama can match or even come close to $1.7 billion.
In all likelihood, this means the election has already been bought (err won ...) unless Obama can come up with a novel strategy.
The good news ... is that what this should in sense do ... is free him to actually talk about the real problems America faces (without being beholden to corporate backers). In other words, if he reads the cards right, this is his advantage.
Here's a quote from yesterday:
The challenge we face right now - the challenge we've faced for over a decade - is that harder work hasn't led to higher incomes. Bigger profits haven't led to better jobs. And you can't solve that problem if you can't even see that it's a problem. And he doesn't see it's a problem.
This is quite good. They need to attack conservative economic ideas and create a distinction between what better economic policies would look like.
The problem is that the core of conservative economic thought is the idea that ALL profits should go to those who own.
What made our country great once was the idea that profits belong to both those who own and those who work and produce for the owners.
This is the theme and distinction I think he should hammer over and over and over and over.
If you lose, you go down fighting. But don't back down from this idea.
-David
The challenge we face right now - the challenge we've faced for over a decade - is that harder work hasn't led to higher incomes. Bigger profits haven't led to better jobs. And you can't solve that problem if you can't even see that it's a problem. And he doesn't see it's a problem.
This is quite good. They need to attack conservative economic ideas and create a distinction between what better economic policies would look like.
That IS a good quote..
But I must point out that Obama has not embodied that quote in any way, shape or form..
If the election is lost anyways (and I agree with you that it looks like it is) then maybe Obama can walk the walk instead of just talking the talk. This will likely redeem the Democratic Party in the eyes of the American people and set the stage for a Democrat return in 2016..
However, given Obama's past and his tendency to become desperate, I have a feeling that he will see that his only possible avenue to re-election is to employ a Scorched Earth campaign...
It's not going to be pretty.
Michale.....
In all likelihood, this means the election has already been bought (err won ...) unless Obama can come up with a novel strategy.
I hate to toot my own horn (beeeep beeeep :D) but it's like I said before..
Had Obama chosen not to dance with the Devil and taken the moral high road when it came to SUPER PACs, THAT might have endeared him to the Independents and NPAs and could have negated the orgasmic spending of the GOP Super PACs..
But Obama chose the low road and, spending wise, he is going to get creamed...
Which will likely lead to my OTHER prediction in this matter coming true..
Obama will revert to his "Super PACs are a threat to democracy" position in a cynical attempt to capture the moral high ground...
But I doubt it will work..
Michale.....
Michale,
Pointing out Romney's record will invariably lead the voter to compare and contrast that record with Obama's record...
Yes, well, that's the whole point of the article. Did you actually read it?
Michale,
However, like CB said, attacks on Romney's role as Gov in MA will be taken in context by the voters. Context that includes the facts that Romney was a GOP Gov with a DEM state government in a state that is the Leftist of Lefts...
Finally, you are comparing apples with apples ... if you know what I mean and I'm not sure that you do. Obama, by the way, wins in this comparison, too.
If the election is lost anyways (and I agree with you that it looks like it is) then maybe Obama can walk the walk instead of just talking the talk.
I believe he has walked the walk. But he did what he said he would do when he was campaigning and he tried to find a middle ground.
What I don't think he realized was the extent to which the establishment was opposed to any type of reform. And the amount of spending and marketing which would accompany these anti- efforts.
Had Obama chosen not to dance with the Devil and taken the moral high road when it came to SUPER PACs, THAT might have endeared him to the Independents and NPAs and could have negated the orgasmic spending of the GOP Super PACs.
Though I'd phrase it differently, Michale :), oddly enough I agree with you here. It's the challenge Democrats are going to face as long as unlimited spending exists for elections.
Democrats are going to have to find a way to win while almost always being at a money disadvantage. So why not acknowledge this and start looking for that way to win rather than trying to play the same money game Republicans are?
Unfortunately, most Democrats believe that in the short term, this would cause irreparable damage to the country. But in the long term, I think it's at least an approach worth considering.
-David
Michale: I think Team Obama is going to find out that this NEW "What This Campaign Is About" strategy is going to be as much of a failure as the Bain strategy was...
The "Republican war on women" hooey didn't work out too well, either.
"All Romney’s gains have come among women – up by 13 percentage points in personal popularity from last month, while Obama’s lost 7 points among women...."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/romney-rebounds-among-women-while-obamas-favorability-slips/
Hi Liz!! :D
Glad to see you are still with us. Had me worried. :D
Yes, well, that's the whole point of the article. Did you actually read it?
Yes I did..
But *MY* point is that, with regards to jobs and the economy, Obama's record is abysmal..
If Obama wants to compare HIS record with Romney's, Obama comes up WAY WAY short in the eyes of the Independents and NPAs..
Obama, by the way, wins in this comparison, too.
I respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it..
David,
I believe he has walked the walk. But he did what he said he would do when he was campaigning and he tried to find a middle ground.
He HASN'T walked the walk.. If he was walking the walk, he wouldn't have embraced Super PACs.. He wouldn't have spiked the Bin Laden football to the point that even the Navy SEALS were saying "knock it off!!"....
Unfortunately, most Democrats believe that in the short term, this would cause irreparable damage to the country. But in the long term, I think it's at least an approach worth considering.
"If we are to be damned, let us be damned for what we really are."
-Captain Jean Luc Picard, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, Encounter At Farpoint
Apparently, Democrats "really are" as bad as Republicans...
Taking the moral high road COULD have been a winning strategy for Obama in particular and Democrats in general..
But, alas, now we'll never know..
CB,
The "Republican war on women" hooey didn't work out too well, either.
Yea, that was a debacle from the word GO...
I mean, look at all the strategies that Obama has tried and have been disastrous..
War Against Women
Bain
Catholics & Contraception
Bin Laden
Gay Marriage
and so on and so on and so on..
Each strategy has come back to bite the Obama campaign on their collective asses...
It's as you say. They are throwing anything and everything at the wall, hoping something sticks...
To date, it has all been for naught...
Romney seems to be the Teflon Candidate....
Michale....
The first rule of campaigning is never press an attack against your opponent that hits too close to home..
forgetting for a moment the specifics of this campaign, that's really not true. one of karl rove's most successful techniques has been to do just the opposite of this, take your own biggest weakness and attach it to your opponent. the other is to attack your opponent on their strength.
David,
What Obama didn't realize was the extent to which the Republicans in Washington would go to ensure that the first African-American president would not be successful.
Fortunately, for the rest of us, they are on track to fail.
Michale,
I respect your opinion. I just don't agree with it..
That wasn't an opinion.
Michale,
Hi Liz!! :D
Glad to see you are still with us. Had me worried. :D
Oh, I'm always with you, rest assured ... :)
forgetting for a moment the specifics of this campaign, that's really not true. one of karl rove's most successful techniques has been to do just the opposite of this, take your own biggest weakness and attach it to your opponent. the other is to attack your opponent on their strength.
I stand corrected..
Sure sounded logical at the time.. :D
Michale.....
Condoleezza Rice Endorses Romney Citing His Leadership
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-30/condoleezza-rice-to-endorse-romney-at-west-coast-event.html
One step closer to VP Condie Rice :D
If Romney has the intelligence to select Rice as his running mate, Obama might as well just concede the race now.. :D
Michale.....
forgetting for a moment the specifics of this campaign, that's really not true. one of karl rove's most successful techniques has been to do just the opposite of this, take your own biggest weakness and attach it to your opponent. the other is to attack your opponent on their strength.
I stand corrected..
Sure sounded logical at the time.. :D
On the other hand, what worked for Karl Rove doesn't seem to be working too well for the Obama Campaign.... :D
Michale......
take your own biggest weakness and attach it to your opponent. the other is to attack your opponent on their strength.
This is exactly where I was headed nypoet. And their biggest strength is their money and corporate ties.
This is why I would stick to this line of attack. Because our biggest strength is that we're still in a Democracy and the 1% are vastly outnumbered. This is their biggest fear. This is why they fear Occupy so much. And this is why they scream "class warfare" to the bloody skies whenever anyone suggests that the 1% are indeed running our country.
If the 1% are going to primarily put their chips on the Republican side, then this actually frees Dems/liberals to make clear what their agenda really is: to line the pockets of the 1%.
-David
David,
This is why I would stick to this line of attack. Because our biggest strength is that we're still in a Democracy and the 1% are vastly outnumbered. This is their biggest fear. This is why they fear Occupy so much. And this is why they scream "class warfare" to the bloody skies whenever anyone suggests that the 1% are indeed running our country.
If the 1% are going to primarily put their chips on the Republican side, then this actually frees Dems/liberals to make clear what their agenda really is: to line the pockets of the 1%.
But what you don't realize is that our Democrat leaders are ALSO of that 1%...
Do you think Pelosi is of the 99%?? Reid?? Obama!???
The people you are pleading with to protect you from the 1% ***ARE*** the 1%..
That's what makes your position so perplexing to me...
Michale....
Michale: I mean, look at all the strategies that Obama has tried and have been disastrous..
Team-O appears to have another Bain/surrogate problem on their hands:
Deval Patrick aims for Mitt Romney, hits Obama
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76905.html
This is why I would stick to this line of attack.
I am also constrained to point out that, when Obama embraced CitizensUnited/SuperPACs, he threw his lot in with "their money and corporate ties".
"You stood up to be counted with the enemies of everything the Grail stands for! Who gives a *damn* what you believe!!?"
-Indiana, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
Michale.....
In fact, the RNC was quick to highlight the similarities between Booker and Patrick, as RNC Deputy Communications Director Timothy Miller on Thursday morning tweeted after Patrick’s TV appearances, “Hostage tape imminent” - a reference to Booker’s walk-back of his Bain Capital comments through a YouTube video.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76905.html#ixzz1wTCs5k1P
"I don't care WHO you are, that right thar was funny as hell, I tell yooo waaat.."
-Larry The Cable Guy
The governor also was asked by an MSNBC panelist about the unemployment rate in Massachusetts when Romney left office - and the answer left “Morning Joe” panelists musing about how low it was.
“I think when he left office, it was in the fours. I want to say 4.3 percent, about what the national average was,” Patrick said.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76905_Page2.html#ixzz1wTEDzstc
Maybe Romney should just hire all the Obama surrogates.. :D
Michale.....
Democrats give special interests a role at convention
Organizers have found ways to skirt their own rules and give corporations and lobbyists a presence at the national event in September. The situation reflects President Obama's difficulties in delivering on a vow to limit the influence of money in politics....http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-convention-money-20120406,0,4886623.story
Is the Obama Campaign Fooling Itself?
It is dangerous to assume your opponent will screw up. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/301323/obama-campaign-fooling-itself-michael-barone
Democrats give special interests a role at convention
David, I think I might be coming around to your way of thinking..
The "Liberal" media is savaging Obama!!!
I almost feel sorry for the guy...
Michale....
. For anyone still starry-eyed about Obama, the months ahead will provide a bracing revelation about what he truly is: not a savior, not a saint, not a man above the fray, but a brass-knuckled, pipe-hitting, red-in-tooth-and-claw brawler determined to do what is necessary to stay in power—in other words, a politician.
http://nymag.com/news/features/barack-obama-2012-6/
That about sums it up for me...
Michale....
The Obama campaign wants to talk a LOT about Bain-acquired companies that failed when Romney wasn't even PART of Bain and had no responsibility for..
Why doesn't Obama want to talk about a company that Bain helped when Romney WAS at Bain, when Romney DID have responsibility for??
Oh let's look at.. Oh, I dunno.... STAPLES..
Do you think the Obama campaign wants to talk about STAPLES???
No?? Didn't think so... :D
Michale......
And the hits just keep on coming...
For the first time in five-and-a-half years, half of all likely voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on the economy, the number one issue in the upcoming fall election, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll.
What’s more, Rasmussen said Thursday, the GOP is trusted more than Democrats on six of 10 major issues: economy, national security, the war in Afghanistan, immigration, taxes and health care.
The Democrats are trusted more only on the issues of Social Security and education. The parties tie on government ethics and energy policy.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/05/first-bush-half-all-voters-trust-gop-economy/675836
For anyone who listens to polls..... :D
Michale.....
Looks like even the Professional Left is picking up on the winds of change...
More Women Inexplicably Liking Romney?!
http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2012/05/more-women-inexplicably-liking-romney.html
Michale.....
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/31/in-2012-will-obama-run-on-politics-fear-or-hope/
Sometimes Lanny Davis hits a bulls-eye...
Michale.....
David, I think I might be coming around to your way of thinking.. The "Liberal" media is savaging Obama!
Except ... that's not what I said at all. There just isn't any "liberal media" :)
But what you don't realize is that our Democrat leaders are ALSO of that 1%.
1% is a symbol, my friend. It doesn't refer to everyone making over X number of dollars. It's a symbol for those at the top who are advocating certain policies which help them and them alone at the expense of the rest of the country.
Do we really need to give wealthy people more tax breaks, for example? Is drowning our government in a bathtub the best thing for our country? Do we need another war to distract us from the pyramid schemes in our own country?
That's what makes your position so perplexing to me.
I think what makes my position so perplexing to you is that I don't think you know what my position is. I think you only know what you hear it is as repeated by conservatives.
I'm not a socialist. I don't hate capitalism (in fact, it's actually treating me quite well). I don't want any handouts.
All kidding aside, I'm curious, what do you think my position actually is?
-David
Except ... that's not what I said at all. There just isn't any "liberal media" :)
I know.. That's why I put "Liberal" in quotes..
1% is a symbol, my friend. It doesn't refer to everyone making over X number of dollars. It's a symbol for those at the top who are advocating certain policies which help them and them alone at the expense of the rest of the country.
I am not talking about x number of dollars either.. My definition of the 1% is the same as yours....
Do you HONESTLY believe that Pelosi, Reid, Obama at al are not part of the 1% as we define it??
Do we really need to give wealthy people more tax breaks, for example?
Define "wealthy"....
Do we need another war to distract us from the pyramid schemes in our own country?
Do we need another war to prevent a psychotic leadership from obtaining nuclear weapons??
Apparently, the answer to that question is a resounding YES...
All kidding aside, I'm curious, what do you think my position actually is?
This one's going to take a little more thought, so I'll pass on it for a couple hours..
I WILL, however, point out that it looks like Obama realizes that CrapCare is toast...
Obama Tells Donors Health-Care Fight May Loom After Court Rules
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-01/obama-tells-donors-health-care-fight-may-loom-after-court-rules.html
Looks like even Obama realizes that CrapCare is going down..
I love the quote from Nancy Pelosi yesterday..
"Health Care will be upheld by the SCOTUS, 6-3. How do I know? Because I know the Constitution!!"
-Nancy Pelosi
Does that woman EVER tire of being wrong??
Apparently not...
How she held onto her job after the 2010 shellacking, I'll never understand..
Michale.....
Do you HONESTLY believe that Pelosi, Reid, Obama at al are not part of the 1% as we define it?
Yes.
Define "wealthy".
I was just listing some examples to back up my argument that our laws and government, by and large, favor a very select few. And that trickle you feel ... it ain't rain.
Why don't you throw out a number though? I just might agree. :)
This one's going to take a little more thought, so I'll pass on it for a couple hours.
Fair enough.
-David
"There's another old saying, Senator: Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." - The Outlaw Jose Wales
Do you HONESTLY believe that Pelosi, Reid, Obama at al are not part of the 1% as we define it?
Yes.
Based on what?
Have Democrats done anything that, on the whole, has made the Middle Class's lives easier??
No, wait. A better question would be, if you ask the Middle Class, as a whole, if their lives are easier, would they say yes?? I don't think they would...
Reid, Obama, Pelosi et al are like Michael Moore addressing the Oowzers.. Oh sure, he pays lip service and says, "I feel your pain" and other smoozing crap like that. But then he is whisked away in his limo to one of his 10 7 million dollar homes...
There is absolutely NO evidence that supports the idea that Reid, Pelosi or Obama are part of the 99% either in spirit or in deed.....
Why don't you throw out a number though? I just might agree. :)
I probably wouldn't have a problem with taxing individuals who make over a mil a year..
But, as with most things, the devil is in the details..
How did that individual make his/her mil a year?? Did they do it by helping businesses get started, hiring employees, etc etc?? If so, they deserve credit for that... They sure don't deserve scorn or ridicule or stalking or attacks or all the other things that the Left like to do to the "rich"...
Now I'll address your question above next..
Michale....
Now, about this..
I'm not a socialist. I don't hate capitalism (in fact, it's actually treating me quite well). I don't want any handouts.
All kidding aside, I'm curious, what do you think my position actually is?
I believe your position is one that the government should force individuals who have more to give to those who have less..
I believe you want a tax code that is fair, but your definition of "fair" seems to be that if someone has more money to give than they should give it..
I believe that you believe that the government should take care of those who are less fortunate or who have had bad breaks for as long as those individuals want it..
I believe that you believe that the condition of the middle and welfare class is THE paramount concern of government to the exclusion of all else.
That is what I believe you believe and here is why I believe you are wrong...
First, this "fair share" argument. As I have asked before, how can the rich not be paying their "fair share" if they are paying almost 80% of the taxes in this country?? It seems to me that the "fair share" argument falls flat, on that basis alone.. Can we agree that the "rich" already pay "their fair share" as "fair is commonly defined??
Further, let's face it. The largest incentive for the largest percentage of people to innovate and invent is money.. The desire to better one's position in life... If the government starts PENALIZING people for their success, then that takes away the incentive... The bright inventor will say to himself, "Why should I invent the perfect widget if the Government is just going to make me spread the wealth around to those who are stupider than I am??" While that is a selfish and arrogant attitude, it DOES have a certain logic about it..
As far as the government taking care of those less fortunate, I would agree with you on that.
I am betting that we only differ on the duration.. If you take away a person's incentive to find work, then guess what?? They ain't going to find work.. If a person can make a decent living off the government dole and be free to pursue hobbies and play with the family and all, where is the incentive for them to find work??
It's like parents who have a 30yr old kid at home.. He has no incentive to go out and make a life for himself because he knows his parents are there to take care of him...
If a person can't find a job in 6 months then they are A}not looking or B}are being too picky..
Ever hear the saying, "Beggars can't be choosers"...
If a person is on the government dole, they are a beggar.. They don't have the (well, they SHOULDN'T have) the luxury of being picky about which job they would accept... If they have to sling burgers to make it work, then they damn well better sling burgers...
The gods help those who help themselves..
The government should follow the same mantra...
Michale.....
What's the ONE thing, the VERY FIRST THING we find out, the day we venture out into life??
That life ain't fair...
Having the government trying to IMPOSE "fair" is about the most UNFAIR thing that could be done.
It's like having sex to IMPOSE abstinence...
It's ridiculous...
Michale.....
Once again, an Obama surrogate has trouble staying on message...
"I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say 'This is bad work. This is good work'. The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."
-President Clinton, talking about Mitt Romney
Obama must be in the White House, going, "Why can't these people just shut up!!!"
Michale.....
Bad unemployment numbers..
White House continues to blame... Bush...
3 1/2 years in office and the Obama Administration STILL blames Bush...
The base may eat it up...
But the Independents and NPAs are getting really sick and tired of listening to Obama blame everyone and everything BUT his own policies...
And we will vent that frustration on 6 Nov 2012..
Michale.....
Michale.....
Oh, Clinton said more than that, Michale:
“This is good work… There’s no question that a man who has been a governor and has a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold,” he said on CNN.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/01/clinton-romney-is-qualified-for-the-presidency-video/#ixzz1wZ47uevX
With surrogates like this, who needs Karl Rove? ;D
I probably wouldn't have a problem with taxing individuals who make over a mil a year.
I'd buy that.
They sure don't deserve scorn or ridicule or stalking or attacks or all the other things that the Left like to do to the "rich".
Does anyone really "attack the rich" or do conservative pundits just say this a lot?
Really ...
As for everything else ... I don't think I've said it. In fact, I can't think of any liberals who've said it or advocated for it or even somehow secretly believe it. Not sure where you're getting it from.
What if I told you that I believe all of your points about hard work but also believe there's some larger macroeconomic issues going on?
Here's a couple things to consider:
1. What happens when 1 person (or company) ends up owning everything (or even most of an industry)? This person could then dictate how much everyone got paid, what opportunities existed, and there would be no need for silly things like "innovation". You might say, well this would never happen ... but there are some industries which are practically monopolies right now (ahem ... talking 'bout you too big to fail financial industry).
Think of it like this. What would happen if you joined a monopoly game after the game had already been playing for a couple hours?
2. What happens when there's more people then jobs? What if people want to work, but there simply isn't any?
3. What happens when you (or anyone for that matter) are competing with people in another country who, because of the authoritarian nature of said country or other impoverished conditions, work for less than $1000 a year without benefits?
Now the argument of the 1% is to pretend these problems don't exist and change the subject to how lazy people are or how "big government" is out to get you or look at how socialist Obama is ... just about anything else other than the fact that what they're really fighting for ... is for you to work more, earn less, and receive fewer benefits .
I suppose this is great if you're an owner. But it's not so great for everyone else. And it's definitely not so good for our country ... look at how we're becoming more 3rd world every day.
And why should our government be siding with those working to achieve this? Why should government work to make us more like a China or India? Why not work to help make the conditions in China and India more like in the U.S.?
Now I don't claim to have all the answers to these problems. I don't think anyone does. But I at least acknowledge them and believe if we had better incentives, stopped subsidizing those who don't need it, took money out of politics, and had a better regulated system, all of the benefits wouldn't "trickle up" to the top. We wouldn't have massive redistribution of wealth upwards. Everyone who worked to make something could benefit. Not just those at the top. This is how our system used to function.
I don't want the Russia of 1950, Michale, I just want the America of 1950. (With the Civil Rights of the '60s/'70s :) of course.)
-David
Does anyone really "attack the rich" or do conservative pundits just say this a lot?
Really ...
Depends on how you define "attack"..
If you mean, physically attack, then no.. Probably not. But then, in THAT case, Republicans don't "attack" Obama.. :D
But if you define "attack" to mean scorn, ridicule and the like all up and down the MSM, then Yes.. The Left "attacks" the rich...
1. What happens when 1 person (or company) ends up owning everything (or even most of an industry)?
That's why you open up competition so that OTHER people will compete with that "1 person"...
2. What happens when there's more people then jobs? What if people want to work, but there simply isn't any?
That usually won't happen, because there is ALWAYS people out there with money looking to invest it in new and exciting companies..
UNLESS.....
Unless the private sector is so fraught with landmines and uncertainty that these people WON'T put their money out there.. They will hold onto it until there is more certainty in the private sector..
3. What happens when you (or anyone for that matter) are competing with people in another country who, because of the authoritarian nature of said country or other impoverished conditions, work for less than $1000 a year without benefits?
That's when the US should ease up on the regulations and taxes so that American companies can actually COMPETE on that level...
And why should our government be siding with those working to achieve this? Why should government work to make us more like a China or India? Why not work to help make the conditions in China and India more like in the U.S.?
Regime change?? :D I thought you were against that?? :D
I don't want the Russia of 1950, Michale, I just want the America of 1950. (With the Civil Rights of the '60s/'70s :) of course.)
Then get your Democrat leaders to ease up off the private sector, to incentivize them to invest in America again...
Michale.....
As should be readily apparent to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together this non-recovery "recovery" simply proves that Obama's and the Democrat's way of doing things is NOT working...
We need to give someone else a try at it..
Michale.....
On another note...
Black pastors group demands meeting with Obama over gay marriage
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/jun/1/black-pastors-group-demands-meeting-obama-over-gay/
Looks like things aren't as copacetic as we were lead to believe regarding the black community and gay marriage...
Michale.....
That's why you open up competition so that OTHER people will compete with that "1 person".
How would this work in a monopoly situation?
What exactly would you do to "open up competition" in the financial sector?
And "who" exactly would do this "opening up"? The government you hate?
Your platitude sounds wonderful but you could just as easily say "sprinkle some magic on it" and provide the same level of detail.
That usually won't happen, because there is ALWAYS people out there with money looking to invest it in new and exciting companies.
Only it has happened. And continues to get worse as productivity increases and less and less people make more product.
Then get your Democrat leaders to ease up off the private sector, to incentivize them to invest in America again.
Any tax cuts and incentives will likely be invested overseas. Or stuffed in pockets.
Until we reduce the pay and benefits in this country to those of China or India.
Your plan has some unfortunate holes in it.
-David
Only it has happened. And continues to get worse as productivity increases and less and less people make more product.
THAT's because of the the landmines and uncertainty in the private sector, brought about by the mismanagement of the economy..
Any tax cuts and incentives will likely be invested overseas. Or stuffed in pockets.
Well, the current way isn't working, is it??
Give tax breaks for companies to invest here at home. Create huge penalties for taking things overseas...
I don't KNOW all the answers..
But I DO know that Obama's way is simply not working...
So, it's time to try something different...
Michale.....
Throwing money, taxes and regulation at the problem is NOT working...
It's really THAT simple...
Michale.....
THAT's because of the the landmines and uncertainty in the private sector, brought about by the mismanagement of the economy..
That's the part that O and the libs absolutely do not get.
THAT's because of the the landmines and uncertainty in the private sector, brought about by the mismanagement of the economy.
But I thought the economy shouldn't be managed?
Have you gone socialist on me ... :)
I joke, but quite frankly, I think there's more uncertainty in an unmanaged deregulated laissez-faire economy. In this type of market you'll see greater risks like the several billion dollar lost bet JP Morgan recently took.
What happens w/o proper regulations is that no one knows who they can trust anymore. And when you lose trust, then trade becomes a problem because people don't want to get ripped off or lose their shirt.
Give tax breaks for companies to invest here at home. Create huge penalties for taking things overseas.
And if Romney was talking about this, or anyone for that matter, it might be worth a listen.
Unfortunately, what the 1% wants has nothing to do with a better economy for everyone.
They want lower wages, reduced benefits, and less pay for American workers. Basically, they want to put them on the same footing as workers in other countries.
-David
They want lower wages, reduced benefits, and less pay for American workers. Basically, they want to put them on the same footing as workers in other countries.
Interesting dilemma, isn't it.. :D
American companies take their jobs overseas because labor is cheaper..
So, there is only one of two was to combat this..
Make labor cheaper HERE in the US..
Or force other countries to make their labor more expensive..
The only way to do the former is to reduce benefits and pay for American workers.
The only way to do the latter is thru regime change or impose OUR values on other countries...
BOTH options are anathema to the entire Democrat psyche..
Quite the untenable position for a Democrat, eh. :D
Michale.....
That's pretty much indicative of the whole problem with Democratic Party platforms..
They sound great in theory.
But, when it's time to put the platforms into use, when the rubber hits the road, those platforms don't work..
Those platforms fail because they don't take into account human nature.
Michale.....
American companies take their jobs overseas because labor is cheaper.
Yup. Pretty much.
So, there is only one of two was to combat this. Make labor cheaper HERE in the US. The only way to do the latter is thru regime change or impose OUR values on other countries.
There's actually plenty of other ways.
1. There's 2 ways to be successful in business. One, is to be the low cost provider. Two, is to have businesses which offer unique services at higher prices. We should be supporting the latter (Apple is an example). The former are those who are going to be reducing costs.
2. Stop giving tax breaks for outsourcing.
3. Fight for global standards of living.
4. Grow worldwide unions.
5. Change the incentives so that outsourcing doesn't make as much sense.
These are just a few possibilities. I'm not advocating for one approach or another. Just suggesting there's other ways which would be better for our country.
-David
3 and 4 have one thing in common..
Global rule..
How else can you create worldwide Unions and global standards of living??
5 would involve tax breaks, which are also anathema to the Left..
1 would work, but it's very business-specific and would be difficult if not impossible to create a template that would work in all instances..
ALL of the ways would have to be on a voluntary basis if they are to be successful...
You cannot IMPOSE fairness.. That's at the crux of the problem..
Michale.....
The point is that there's plenty of other options.
You cannot IMPOSE fairness.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but the idea of fairness is actually what has made American capitalism so successful throughout it's history.
There's standards for everything from beef to banking to computers to electricity. This way everyone knows what they're buying and that they're not getting ripped off.
In fact, fairness is exactly what you want to have a functioning market.
When one side can "voluntarily" participate, what you're really saying is that they can voluntarily not participate.
Imagine for example, a beef producer who could voluntarily ignore USDA regulations. This producer could then sell substandard beef at cheaper prices. This would give the producer a competitive edge which could drive the quality producers out of business.
This is, quite frankly, the very definition of a poorly functioning market. It's a system that rewards crooked behavior and punishes companies that do the right thing.
We want a system that rewards the honest and fair, and punishes the crooked. Unfortunately, we're headed in exactly the opposite direction.
Here's a quick example. In my travels, I've been to countries where the locals would talk about purchasing American goods vs. purchasing similar items made in their own country. In many instances, they would opt for the American goods because they had to be up to standards whereas products made in their country had no such standards. In other words, they couldn't trust some of the goods made in their country.
The other great example here is the banking industry. Remember when we were told that this industry would regulate itself?
-David
The point is that there's plenty of other options.
IF...... If you discount human nature...
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but the idea of fairness is actually what has made American capitalism so successful throughout it's history.
There's standards for everything from beef to banking to computers to electricity. This way everyone knows what they're buying and that they're not getting ripped off.
Exactly...
But you cannot IMPOSE that fairness.. Fairness only works when it's voluntarily...
"Those who fight must stop it themselves. Or it is never really stopped."
-Spock, STAR TREK, Day Of The Dove
In fact, fairness is exactly what you want to have a functioning market.
Yes it is.. But unless all parties participate, by definition, it cannot be fair.
Fairness simply cannot be imposed..
If Affirmative Action has taught us anything, it has taught us that...
Michale.....
There's standards for everything from beef to banking to computers to electricity. This way everyone knows what they're buying and that they're not getting ripped off.
But you cannot IMPOSE that fairness.. Fairness only works when it's voluntarily.
Actually, the only way to ensure standards is to impose them.
And then enforce them (as you very accurately pointed out in another post). And it can't be weak. There has to be some type of penalty for violating standards (like SEC rules, or product standards). I fully believe in incentives here- both positive and punitive.
If history has shown anything, it's that when standards aren't enforced, they're ignored.
If Affirmative Action has taught us anything, it has taught us that.
Ah, you're talking about affirmative action or, let me throw in another one for you, equality of wages.
1) Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for equality of wages. No one I know is either and I would actually argue against them if they were. I recognize that a certain inequality of wages provides incentives to the marketplace. Put another way: I think we largely agree on inequality of wages. I say largely because there may be some fine point differences, but by and large nothing major.
2) As for affirmative action, I think this is another argument entirely. The fairness I'm talking about is about making sure conditions are right for capitalism to work best for everyone. So for example, transparency of information and standards are 2 examples. I'm not trying to agree or disagree here about affirmative action. It's just an entirely different argument.
-David
Actually, the only way to ensure standards is to impose them.
No. The only way that things are TRULY fair is if all parties involved agree...
For example, the Left would have the government impose taxes to tax the rich pay at 99.9% of their income as taxes and would call that "fair"...
Fairness simply CANNOT be imposed..
Because, if it has to be imposed, it would be unfair to at least ONE of the parties involved..
As far as the affirmative action argument, it's a perfect example..
The government imposed "FAIR" so that things would favor black people.. They called that "fair"...
But as has been proven beyond ANY doubt, it's patently UNFAIR...
Fairness, like so many metaphysical concepts (peace, etc etc), simply cannot be imposed.
It's one of those things that must be mutually agreed on by all parties involved..
If it's not, it don't exist...
Michale.....
Fairness simply CANNOT be imposed.
Because, if it has to be imposed, it would be unfair to at least ONE of the parties involved.
Laws are "imposed" all the time.
And sometimes they're not fair. For example, sometimes people want to go faster than the speed limit.
Do we have to meet all of their needs?
What about criminals who want there to be no laws?
Do we have to meet all of their needs?
Or, there's a growing movement of tax evaders in our country. People who use our public roads and public utilities and public parks and public services but don't want to pay for them.
Do we have to meet all of their needs?
I thought you were the one who said life isn't always fair.
Democracy, by definition, isn't always fair. If you have laws, life isn't always going to be fair.
I think what you're actually saying is, any laws that you don't like, you should be able to ignore.
-David
p.s.
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/chill-the-fuck-out-i-got-this-baby.jpg
If I understand your argument correctly with regards to the economy, you are saying that the government should impose "fair" practices worldwide.
I simply responded with the fact that "fair" cannot be imposed. It must be agreed upon by all partys involved. If it's not agreed upon, it's simply not fair..
I further maintain that, even if the US Government could somehow, by some miracle, actually IMPOSE "fair" in this country, how could you believe that the US Government could IMPOSE that same "fair" worldwide??
It's simply not possible...
Which brings us back to the notion that many of the concepts that Democrats hold dear sound really REALLY good in theory..
It's only when those concepts are put into actual practice do they fall short.
And THAT'S because they all have one fatal flaw. They assume that everyone not only WILL work together for the common good (as that "good" is defined by Democrats, they assume that everyone *WANTS* to work together for the common good (as that "good" is defined by Democrats.).
In short, many of the ideas that float from the Left side of the political spectrum fail to take into account human nature and the tendency to have agendas that are apart from the common good (as that "good" blaa blaa blaa blaaa)
Democracy, by definition, isn't always fair. If you have laws, life isn't always going to be fair.
EXACTLY...
So, since "fair" is not achievable, why does the Left insist on it???
Why is the Left so up in arms about the Rich paying their... wait for it.... wait for it..... "FAIR" share..
Why is the Left so up in arms that the workers are treated "Fair" (there's that word again).... Shouldn't the goal be the common good??
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."
-Captain Spock, STAR TREK:II, The Wrath Of Kahn
Now, let's apply this mindset to the issue of American companies taking their business overseas..
There are only two MAIN ways (your ideas are sub-headings of the two main ways) of stopping this..
1. Reduce pay and benefits of American workers so that they are more in line with the rest of the world.
2. Force the world's governments to INCREASE the pay and benefits of THEIR workers to be more in line with American workers..
Sure, tax credits and tax penalties might help a little.. But not on the scale of the whole of the world economy...
Further, your other suggestions are simply part and parcel to #2...
What this all boils down to is that Democratic Party ideas are NOT working...
Americans are NOT better off today than they were 4 years ago...
Now, Republicans might not be the better choice in general, but it's obvious that, specifically, Romney is the better choice than Obama.
Romney has RUN successful businesses... Romney's employers and employees have profited and have had their lives made better by Romney's actions.
Obama simply cannot make the same claim..
That is why the vast majority of Americans, for the economy, see Romney as the better choice than Obama...
And the logic of that choice simply cannot be denied..
Michale.....
p.s.
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/chill-the-fuck-out-i-got-this-baby.jpg
Now THAT was funny!!! :D
Michale....
Speaking of "Chill The Fuck Out"...
Bill Clinton is out of control
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77037.html
There's only one thing more funny and satisfying than seeing Republicans eat their own.
And that's seeing Democrats eating their own...
It's more satisfying because Democrats put on aires that they are above that sort of thing..
Apparently.... not... :D
Michale.....
That is why the vast majority of Americans, for the economy, see Romney as the better choice than Obama.
Now you're just a Romney commercial ... a Rom-bot
If you're interested in talking about ideas, come back but if you're going to turn everything into Rah-rah-Romney, I've got better things to do.
-David
Now you're just a Romney commercial ... a Rom-bot
No... I am just speaking to the facts..
What POSSIBLE training, experience or expertise does Obama have that even comes within an A.U. of the training, expertise or experience that Romney has vis a vis economics and business sense??
I mean, come on! Ignore all politics for a moment and just face reality..
Say you are a private investor looking to invest money in a business..
One business is run by a Romney with all of the past experience and expertise...
The other business is run by an Obama with ALL of the past blunders and boneheaded mistakes..
Who are you going to invest your money with???
THAT is what it all boils down to..
From all that we know about both men, who is better at turning around failed businesses and making them profitable and who is better at taking an ailing "business" and making it tons worse...
If you take ALL politics out of the question, the answer is clear...
Michale....
Hi, I am a Rom-bot. You will vote for Rom-ney. He is great. Obama is bad.
Business is good. Having a business is good. Obama has never had a business. You must have a business to be President.
Even though Obama has had 4 years of experience. He hasn't had a business. Business. Romney good. He likes business.
This is your Rom-bot signing off ... Meh
Even though Obama has had 4 years of experience.
Yea, the Captain of the Titanic had 4 years of experience too...
Apparently, the only experience either of them had was proving what *NOT* to do...
Why do you think Obama is not running on his "experience"??
Because, to date, his "experience" has royally sucked...
About the only areas that Obama has been successful in are areas that Democrats *SHOULD* be appalled by....
Michale...
US Already in 'Recession,' Extend Tax Cuts: Bill Clinton
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47693595
Once again, ya got to wonder.
Whose side is Bill Clinton on?? :D
Michale.....