Free Markets, Free People

How is Romney different from Obama?

Well, frankly, I’m not particularly sure.  Of course we have RomneyCare and ObamaCare.  And we have this, said in Chandler, Arizona by MItt Romney concerning taxes:

"I am going to lower rates across the board for all Americans by 20%. And in order to limit any impact on the deficit, because I do not want to add to the deficit, and also in order to make sure we continue to have progressivity as we’ve had in the past in our code, I’m going to limit the deductions and exemptions particularly for high income folks. And by the way, I want to make sure you understand that, for middle income families, the deductibility of home mortgage interest and charitable contributions will continue. But for high income folks, we are going to cut back on that, so we make sure the top 1% keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more."

Really?  Because that’s right out of the Occupy Wall Street playbook.  His campaign staff released a press release which stated, “"The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy,"

Of course they don’t believe that at all or they wouldn’t be talking about “the top 1%” paying more.  It has nothing to do with “fairness” as most people would define it. 

This is what I talk about when I say that Republicans are as much a problem, if not more of a problem, than Democrats.  Republicans like Romney compromise their principles for votes.  This is a class warfare buy-in by him, even using the OWS/Democratic rhetoric.

 

 

If you wonder why Conservative Republican voters are less than enthusiastic about this field, Romney demonstrates it yet again.

Plastic, fantastic Mitt co-opt’s the left’s class warfare rhetoric and caves on taxes.

Nice.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

91 Responses to How is Romney different from Obama?

  • Because that’s where the American people are. Your ideology is at best a “winner” for 30 to 35% of the electorate. The same is true for the far left’s ideology. In the middle are people like Romney and Obama because the middle is where elections are won. OWS has changed the conversation and people realize that those who “win” in the system have benefited more from it, and thus deserve to pay more. What you call principle is just ideological whimsy. It’s arbitrary, subjective, and has no real foundation.

    • @scotterb Amazing, OWS has changed nothing other than to demonstrate what a collection of 60’s wannabe hippie free-love, free-stuff, jack-wagons ‘they’ are.

      • @looker Note that the counter culture of the 60s helped dramatically reshape American society. It’s called cultural change and progress. Get used to it.

        • @scotterb Yes, except….this counter culture isn’t even a drop of water in a thimble. The 60’s was considerably larger because the rich kids didn’t want to have to go ‘die in Vietnam’ and via media support it eventually reached us in the lower middle class.

          There is no such large movement at play this time, except, if you believe there is, in a fantasy.

        • @looker Watch and learn, looker, watch and learn!

        • @scotterb @looker Yeah, looker, watch. And learn. Because Erp will NOT, under any circumstance.

        • @scotterb It’s not the same Scott, it’s that simple. Pretty clear you weren’t paying a lot of attention while growing up if you grew up in that period.

        • @scotterb They do keep looking for their Kent State moment though in the belief that was the magic from the 60’s. It wasn’t, what they were after was already there, and that was what allowed a Kent State moment to occur.

          These guys are mis-reading history (and really don’t care about the loss) when they try engineering that sort of thing.

        • @scotterb And if you think the dramatic changes the counter culture produced were actually positive in the long run…..there are no words.

        • @looker @scotterb And if anybody was paying any attention at the time, even the poor rich kids in the 602 who didn’t want to go to war had no real political pull until the lottery cam in and the college deferments when out. Now, all of a sudden, middle and upper echelon American parents could no longer hide their kids behind the ivy halls of academia and at that point opposition to the war gained real traction. The real change had almost nothing to do with counter culture BS.

        • I think the daily body counts on the three networks helped. I hated the damn things then, I hate them now.

          Scott doesn’t see it takes more than a bunch of clowns showing up and capturing the media’s 15 minutes worth of attention on a couple Monday nights. There was a whole raft of shit going on, Johnson, Nixon, Vietnam, the protests, the economy the counter culture, Manson, Weatherunderground and SDS, civil rights.

          Sure there was good stuff, but I have an easier time recalling the crap than I do the good stuff. Took me a minute here to remember we landed on the moon during that same period.
          As screwed up as we are right now, my memory says we were mentally more screwed up then. Maybe not, maybe it was just me because I was young and impressionable.

    • @scotterb And I meant to ask – is that 30 to 35% part of the 50% paying the income taxes for the other half?

    • @scotterb Here Scott, here’s what’s important in the US today. As long as we’re doing stupid shit like this OWS will be nothing but another group of loons gathering.

      Shoe riots

      http://www.wtop.com/?nid=58&sid=2760285

    • @scotterb “What you call principle is just ideological whimsy.”

      So says the guy, who just above said: “OWS is multifaceted, and has support from a lot of people in the 1%. Most of them are tax payers doing fine. They’re driven by moral principles and the idea that the system we have is broken and unfair. They’re right.”

      This is pure “Ott Scerb” material. When it’s something with which he agrees, it’s “moral principles”. When it’s something he opposes, it’s “whimsy”.

  • Mittens poo the screwooch yesterday. Most conservatives are actively working against him.

    If OWS has “changed the conversation” it did so with more Collectivist lies. Those won’t last.

    There is no argument one may make for the civic soundness of half of us paying for our governance…with a heavy admix of redistribution…while half of us do not. That is a formula for civic and economic suicide.

    • @Ragspierre And of course OWS argues the same thing, only in slightly different words — there is no argument for the civic soundness of half the population earning so little that they are below the federal tax minimum, while the others earn so much more. You want to tax the poor more so the rich don’t have to pay. OWS wants to tax the rich more because they actually have the money. The real solution is economic growth and pragmatic efforts at deficit reduction that restructures social welfare programs to be more effective and less expensive, while recognizing that those who benefited the most from the debt induced bubble economy have to pay a bit more to get us out of this mess.

      • @scotterb Insane, even for Erp. Good grief, I simply do not have the time… Where is Ott…???

      • @scotterb
        Please, the OWS want to tax the rich because that is where the money is. They’re part of the problem of dependency on government.

      • @scotterb @Ragspierre OWS is in it for themselves Scott, once they get their government mandated slice of the pie, they don’t give a flip about ‘the poor’ because aside from those they hired to wear the OWS uniform of the day, the majority of the people at the OWS rallies were scions of at least middle class families who made lousy decisions, and now want us to pay for them.
        There weren’t many ‘poor’ people there because poor people can’t realistically take off that kind of time to sit in hooligan camps drumming all day.
        Remember on another line of thought that ‘poor’ people can’t even get valid ID because, uh, they’re poor, or something. But you ARE convinced they were manning the barricades in force at OWS?

        • @looker @Ragspierre OWS is multifaceted, and has support from a lot of people in the 1%. Most of them are tax payers doing fine. They’re driven by moral principles and the idea that the system we have is broken and unfair. They’re right.

        • @scotterb @Ragspierre Fine, argue against yourself – the 1%, yes, that’s a HUGE number, right? That’s practically all of America supporting them then, the 1%! Even if it was the WHOLE 1%, and it isn’t, it’s just the usual collection of rich two faced idiots, it’s still……1%.

        • @looker @Ragspierre You’re not making any sense. Calm down, take a deep breath…it’s OK. OWS is, as Colin Powell himself said (you know, Republican, former General and Secretary of State), the essence of what America is about. The public speaking out freely and openly. If you don’t like it, well, that says something about you. Your need to insult them (just as many on the left needed to insult the tea party) says more about you than them.

        • @looker @scotterb Looker, he’s referring to high-minded moralists like Buffet, Jabba the Moore, bling-bearing rappers, etc.

          That is how insane Erp is.

        • @Ragspierre @looker Funny how Warren Buffett is now demonized by the extreme right – just for having an opinion different than theirs. II think you guys realize your ideas are losing and instead of really engaging in ideas it’s easier to lash out at those who are winning and insult them. That way you don’t have to question the fact that maybe your view is wrong. You’re simply avoiding cognitive dissonance through insult.

        • @scotterb @Ragspierre Calm down…heh, that’s cute.
          OWS may indeed be a great demonstration of our freedom. Actually, I agree, it IS.
          That does not make it a large movement Scott. But you keep telling yourself it’s a viable political force.

        • @scotterb @looker Calm down, Erp. Nobody is “demonizing” Buffet. We leave that kind of thing to you Collectivists. See Koch, Death Threats.

        • @scotterb @Ragspierre Buffett is a capitalist trying to keep his bread buttered, and if you’re takin in by his current public stand, fine. He’ll come out of this a richer man courtesy of people like you.

        • @looker @scotterb Erp is living verification of that P.T. Barnum saying about suckers…

        • @Ragspierre @scotterb As Chris Christie has noted, Buffett should shut up and write that check.

          But that hasn’t happened. Curiouser and Curiouser.

        • @looker @scotterb Well, and there’s that odd BILLION Birkshire is reputed to owe in back taxes…

          That COULD…POSSIBLY…I dunno…have SOMETHING to do with the whole “Buffet Rule” bullshit…

        • @Ragspierre @scotterb No no, that would never influence a kind and generous man like Buffett, Don’t be silly!

        • @scotterb Plunder is not a moral principle whether the fat cats on Wall Street do, or the power whores in Washington, or the unwashed masses do it. True, the system is broken but I find OWS only wants it broken in their favor. This buys them nothing.

        • @scotterb @looker @Ragspierre “…Colin Powell himself said (you know, Republican…”

          Colin Powell endorsed Obama. Thus, invoking his name as a Republican to comment on anything is laughable.

          He destroyed all credibility in 2008 and no one should care what he says about politics, except, of course, Democrats like you who want to exploit him as your token Republican “maverick”.

      • @scotterb @Ragspierre Hey, but since it IS such a broadly supported movement in your world, what is it you and friends like most?

        The special rape proof quarters established for the women?
        The destruction of private property?
        The violation of various ordinances and restrictions of various metropolitan areas?
        The drumming?
        The meetings of the ‘leadership’ in the really swell hotels?
        The inconvenience to normal people day after day trying to make their living?
        The significant accomplishments?

        Feel free to pick one or more as your favorites. There are no wrong answers.

      • @scotterb @Ragspierre “And of course OWS argues the same thing, only in slightly different words…”

        At which point, it is entirely appropriate to compare you to Goebels. Anyone who saw unsanitized coverage of the OWS protests knows that the vast majority are amazingly ignorant of economics and are protesting because they want more stuff for free, paid for by “the 1%”.

  • I’m going to paraphrase something I read over at Cato. It is not who is paying the taxes. It is what it is getting spent on.

    Tinkering with the revenue side is not going to help a problem of way too much spending. On this subject almost all the politicians are talking the same talk.

    • @tkc882 I’ve said this before – both sides can make arguments about why we should just cut spending or just increase taxes. Ultimately our system requires compromise, and the only politically feasible way to actually deal with the issues is to reach a kind of grand bargain Boehner and Obama were attempting last year. Tax increases on the wealthiest, entitlement reform, welfare system restructuring…if the “wings” on both sides are upset about “compromising principle” but the center is happy, then we have a politically feasible solution. Refusing to compromise political principle on issues like this is un-American, we have a system designed to force compromise.

      • @scotterb The problem with this is I’m asking to compromise between being strangled to death or beaten to death. The idea of living free under the liberal (classical variety) idea of limited government is not an option here.

  • “It also plays games in terms of picking winners and losers instead of trying to have a neutral tax code,” Forbes insisted. “You see it in terms of taxing overseas earnings which would be devastating to this global economy, reducing deductibility of interest, trying to put taxes on S-Corps and limited liability corporations which would devastate small businesses, playing games with the oil industry and the aircraft industry, going after life insurance, trying to make deductibility of terms of investments less by giving a premium to inflation. I mean you go down the list and it’s a house of horrors.”

    Under the Obama administration’s plan, corporations would have to give up dozens of loopholes and subsidies that they now enjoy. Corporations with overseas operations would also face a minimum tax on their foreign earnings.

    The proposed tax rate on dividends would soar to almost 45 percent, and strike yet another blow to America’s economic recovery.

    “It’s going to hurt the value of their equities, whether it’s direct ownership through mutual funds or through their pension funds,” says Forbes. “It’s going to reduce the payout. Studies have shown that when the dividend tax was reduced back in 2003 the payouts within a few years tripled. Those are going to be restricted again because it’s cheaper to either hold on to the cash or buy back stock rather than paying it out directly in cash to shareholders. It also means a poorer economy because it puts the capital — freezes capital into companies — instead of freeing it up for reinvestment into start-ups.”
    –Steve Forbes

    Happily, Obama was just offering a head-fake. There will be no “Obama taxes” passed…beyond the several we now have working. Imposed as direct evidence of another of his numerous lies.

    So, PERHAPS that would be a difference between Romney and Obama. We might also expect Romney to respect the law, where we now expect Obama to piss on it.

  • From Ed Morrissey–
    Speaking of reality, the UK did exactly what Obama and the Democrats propose to do here — pass a surtax on high-income earners. The new tax rate of 50%, which took effect at the beginning of the year, was expected to raise a billion pounds in extra revenue each month. So how did that work out? Tax revenues dropped by more than £500 million:

    The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

    Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

    The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1billion.

    Like I said of Erp’s post(s)…insane.

    • @Ragspierre Obama not only is not raising rates to 50%, his proposals are less than taxes under Reagan. To claim that what happens in the UK – which has a myriad of other factors — means Obama’s plan can’t work is insane. Moreover, your simplistic illogic seems to suggest any time taxes are increased revenue will decrease — an obviously irrational claim (it would mean zero taxes would maximize revenue). Sorry, Rags, this Morrisey guy is creating easy to destroy propaganda.

      • @scotterb I guess you can show your ignorance AND your blinkered Collectivist ideology here if you want, Erp.

        But even you COULD know that our tax system is about the MOST progressive anywhere, and under the Obamic plan, it would be WORSE than the Brits failed fleecing attempt.

        Where is all that “shared sacrifice” your Child-God keeps carping about?

        • @Ragspierre No, our tax system is the least progressive in the industrialized world. Your lies – like when you claimed that general election polls were not favorable to Obama – stand out to show what kind of man you are: one devoid of integrity and honor. You’re the ultimate post-modern political pundit – truth doesn’t matter, anything to try to promote your ideology – your faith. For more on taxes in the US:http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2010/12/16/the-tax-debate/

          Note how pre-tax and transfer US income distribution is about the same as the rest of the OECD, better than say Germany’s. After taxes and transfers we are the most unequal – taxes and transfers improve equality far more everywhere else than here, the ultimate sign of progressivity. Of course US tax rates are also the lowest on the wealthy than anywhere. To say the US taxes are very progressive is what Goebbels would call “the big lie.” It’s easy to debunk though.

        • @scotterb Gee, Scotty, you really need to take a breath.

          I work very hard at never lying. I also make it a point of honor never to make myself an idiot in print, quite apart from your common practice.

          http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/23856.html
          News To Obama: The OECD Says the United States Has the Most Progressive Tax System

        • @Ragspierre @scotterb Ah, there’s the ‘lie’ word. Always useful. It’s not an opinion you hold, it’s a LIE.

          That’s always conducive to conversation.

        • @looker @scotterb According to…what’s that blog law about the first to evoke Nazis…I guess I win.

          Heh.

        • Godwin’s Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin’s Law has effectively forfieted the argument.

        • @Ragspierre Godwin’s Law is stupid because it fails to distinguish between valid mentions of Nazis and impertinent ones.

          While it may be humorous to cite Godwin’s Law in an comment threat about some pop culture fluff, in which some idiot calls someone a Nazi purely out of anger, when discussing politics and a valid comparison is made to historical policies, the one citing Godwin’s Law is usually the idiot.

        • @myweeklycrime Amen…as to recent events…

        • @Ragspierre Nope, the methodology is flawed. As you and others point out, the poor in the US pay no taxes. In most countries they pay taxes and then get more back in transfers, goods and services. That means it appears that the poor are paying relatively more in, say, Germany than here, even though they actually benefit more from the German system. Since only the middle class and wealthy pay taxes in the US, the true rate of progressivity has to look at their taxes.

          That chart also ignores actual tax rates, which show the US wealthy have the lowest rates, and the most wealth (while our middle class and poor are not at the top).

          The GINI index tells what’s really happening. Pre-tax and transfer the US is at .46, post tax and transfer it’s at .38 – a slight improvement. In Germany it is at .51 pre-tax and transfer (more unequal than the US) but at .30 post tax and transfer. Scandinavian states start about the same as the US (.40’s range) but end up around .22 – .24 post tax and transfer. The poor elsewhere pay more in, but get much more back. Our poor don’t pay, but don’t get much back relative to the rest of the OECD.

  • Uh, Romney looks more like the guys on American Currency?

    Wait, is this REALLY a quiz?

  • A Romney vs Obama race could easily be summed up as a battle of the two parties or just a racial thing … you pretty much get the same thing either way (expect Obama has a busload of radical Left friends who will take the US further into a Socialist hole).
    Obama is, and Romney strikes me as, one of those guys who thinks government is for exploiting (i.e. crony capitalism and a few other isms). It could be argued that it is a choice between being progressive and being radically progressive.

    • @Neo_ Saw a great graph that’s making the rounds on facebook — ownership of US business is over 99% in private hands. When people say Obama’s a socialist, the correct response is to laugh in their face for such an obviously absurd claim. Of course the people who tend to be motivated by that kind of ideology tend to be lost in old Cold War thinking – that doesn’t sell anymore.

      • @scotterb @Neo_ that’s gobbledeeguk – his being a socialist has nothing to do with the foundations of current American business. 99% of American businesses did not come into being during his Administration.

        Do you walk to school or carry your lunch every day?

        • @looker @Neo_ You have no clue what socialism is, do you? You consider conservative policies in the EU “socialist.” You need to educate yourself on what these words mean – you’re using it as a label to use indiscriminately, as the left often does with “fascist.” Cute, but meaningless — and increasingly completely ineffective as its also an out of date label.

        • @scotterb @looker @Neo_ Of course, this is why I use the much more proper term “facsist economics”, which IS what Obama loves and practices.

          Very seductive, since it APPEARS to leave private property in the control of its owners, while subverting it to control of BIG GOVERNMENT.

        • @scotterb @Neo_ No, I have a clue – but you’re statement is a non-sequiter – it’s like saying the sky is blue, therefore the water is wet.

          The possibility that Obama is a socialist and American Business being privately held are two non-related items. Even if I were to presume that he’s implementing longer range policies that would force us into socialism, that is unlikely to be a pervasive condition after only 3 years.

        • @scotterb @Neo_ No, I have a clue – but your statement is a non-sequiter – it’s like saying the sky is blue, therefore the water is wet. The possibility that Obama is a socialist and American Business being privately held are two non-related items. Even if I were to presume that he’s implementing longer range policies that would force us into socialism, that is unlikely to be a pervasive condition after only 3 years.

          Perhaps you should calm down yourself there chuck.

        • @Ragspierre It makes me wonder if scotterb is aware that fascism was a branch of socialism? In their version you didn’t have to own the means of production you had only had to control the means of production to make sure they were not contrary to the goals of the state. This sort of economic policy is called corporatism, or, sometimes, social capitalism.

        • @tkc882 @Ragspierre Perhaps it’s his election not to appreciate the ability of the German language to produce such great acronyms as NAZI or Gestapo.

          NAZI – Nationalist….what was that damn second word? Ah!!!!! right Socialists.

        • @tkc882 Structured around a corporatist collective, in fact. Classically, BIG BUSINESS, BIG LABOR, and BIG GOVERNMENT calling the shots.

          We see variations now, with BIG WITCH-DOCTOR (environmentalism) sometimes playing the BIG LABOR role.

        • @scotterb All right, who pushed Scott’s reset button?

        • @martinmcphillips @scotterb I think maybe his mommy called him in for lunch…

      • @scotterb Now, did I call Obama a socialist ? Take a moment and read it again.

  • A Romney vs Obama race could easily be summed up as a battle of the two parties or just a racial thing … you pretty much get the same thing either way (expect Obama has a busload of radical Left friends who will take the US further into a Socialist hole). Obama is, and Romney strikes me as, one of those guys who thinks government is for exploiting (i.e. crony capitalism and a few other isms). It could be argued that it is a choice between being progressive and being radically progressive, but ether way you get no progress.

    • @Neo_ “Saw a great graph that’s making the rounds on facebook…”

      You should be aware of a rather more authoritive source…Peter Drucker…who observed that capitalism had achieved what Marx and Lenin only aspired to do. The working people of America own capital.

  • Superficially, one can answer the question how is Republican janitorial socialist Mitt Romney different from orthodox Marxist Barack Hussein by pointing out that Romney doesn’t appear to actually hate the country he’s trying to become president of. That would ordinarily be at least somewhat reassuring.

    But then one takes a walk through the Mormon “archives” (that’s allowed, right?) and finds two strands of Mormon “Americanism,” one that looks rather idolatrous in its America worship and another that indicates a rather dedicated hostility to America. It helps to remember that Mitt Romney is the member of a *cult*. By the standards of that cult, which is obsessed, apparently, with the genealogy, Mitt Romney is very high echelon Mormon material: At the level where the mystery religion style ceremonies, the occult symbology, along with the made-up from whole cloth scriptures are very very important indeed.

    So, a hearty caveat emptor to Romney enthusiasts. The conservative publications and pundits aren’t “going there.” You’ll have to look for yourself.

  • Superficially, one can answer the question how is Republican janitorial socialist Mitt Romney different from orthodox Marxist Barack Hussein by pointing out that Romney doesn’t appear to actually hate the country he’s trying to become the president of. That would ordinarily be at least somewhat reassuring.

    But then one takes a walk through the Mormon “archives” (that’s allowed, right?) and finds two strands of Mormon “Americanism,” one that looks rather idolatrous in its America worship and another that indicates a rather dedicated hostility toward America. It helps to remember that Mitt Romney is the member of a *cult*. By the standards of that cult, which is obsessed, apparently, with genealogy, Mitt Romney is very high echelon Mormon material: At the level where the mystery religion style ceremonies, the occult symbology, along with the made-up from whole cloth scriptures are very very important indeed. That second strain of Americanism, long imbedded in Mormon diktat, calls for what is essentially a Mormon takeover of the United States. What that could mean to Mitt Romney, Joseph Smith only knows.

    So, a hearty caveat emptor to Romney enthusiasts. The conservative publications and pundits aren’t “going there.” You’ll have to look for yourself.

    • @martinmcphillips “That second strain of Americanism, long imbedded in Mormon diktat, calls for what is essentially a Mormon takeover of the United States. ”

      Heh – see Dean Ing’s techno-thriller “Systemic Shock”.

    • And I know that “social issues” are not a big favorite of this blog, but the conservative publications and pundits, most of them, are clearly uninterested in Romney’s two fantastically huge deceptions on abortion and “gay marriage.”

      Deroy Murdock, a proponent of “gay marriage” and a writer for National Review Online, actually exposed the latter at NRO and was met with resounding silence from the rest of the crew there, although purported marriage defender Maggie Gallagher (an NRO semi-regular) rushed to Romney’s defense without answering Murdock’s very specific charges. Essentially, what it boiled down to was that while Romney repeatedly announced that he was against “gay marriage” and for tranditional marriage, it was he, not the Massachusetts judiciary or legislature, who established “gay marriage” as a fact on the ground in Massachusetts.

      As for the abortion deception, it goes like this: Romney, before he got into politics, was a considerable muck-a-muck in Boston area Mormonism and was known for his strong admonitions to *Mormon* women to not have abortions. He was abundantly pro-life in that regard. When he ran for the Senate, however, he claimed that he was absolutely pro-choice, ditto when he ran for governor. But then, with his eye on the Republican nomination for president, he had, he claimed, a revelation, and became pro-life. But, my friends, that is obviously a rotten lie because he was already a committed pro-lifer as a Mormon leader.

      Two things. First, on the “gay marriage” question, if that is established it is a virtual certainty that polygamy in any or all of its different forms will be along shortly. I won’t draw you the diagram of how that happens, but it’s virtually hardwired into current American jurisprudence to produce that result. Whose old wound is healed by that? Answer that question.

      Second, on the abortion question, there is more than a suggestion in Romney’s deception that he was pro-life as a *Mormom* muck-a-muck because *Mormon* life is what is sacred to him (there’s a Mormon theological reason for that), and that the “revelation” that came later, obviously a twisted ruse, was for the benefit of the conservative base. So, at the very least, he’s hiding that he was already pro-life before proclaiming himself pro-choice before proclaiming himself pro-life. But there’s also more than a suggestion that it is distinctly *Mormon* life that is sacred to him.

    • @martinmcphillips martin, I’m really sorry to see you out yourself as a religious bigot. But you have.

  • Well I will tell you one difference. During this current administration regulations on business, especially the energy industry, and barriers to hiring have increased at a huge rate.

    I believe, being a former businessman, that Romney would at least try to reverse that, as indeed he has promised.

    • @kyle8 It would be nice to think so. But his record is that he led the bureaucratic takeover of the medical industry in Massachusetts in the same manner that Obama has done it nationally. It could be that Romney is only interested in deregulating or, conversely, offering regulatory advantages, to those industries that he favors. It’s possible that he won’t follow that path. He says he won’t follow it. But he has already followed it in his one government gig. And, as far as his word goes, he’s extraordinarily deceitful. I wouldn’t class him with the masterful Barack in the deceit department, but maybe he’ll surprise us.

    • @kyle8 It would be nice to think so. But his record is that he led the bureaucratic takeover of the medical industry in Massachusetts in the same manner that Obama has done it nationally. It could be that Romney is only interested in deregulating or, conversely, offering regulatory advantages, to those industries that he favors. It’s possible that he won’t follow that path. He says he won’t follow it. But he has already followed it in his one government gig. And, as far as his word goes, he’s extraordinarily deceitful. I wouldn’t class him with the masterful Barack in the deceit department, but maybe he’ll surprise us.

      • @martinmcphillips @kyle8

        In his defense, we like to embody everything we dislike into a single person. We begin to believe they are the only ones responsible for something.

        Romney was mandated by the Mass. legislature into coming up with something. The governor is not king. He’s an executive. The legislature is suppose to set the course. The executive is only suppose to be the leader from a logistical perspective.

        The same goes for Obamacare. It really should be called Pelosi-Reid-Care. They are responsible for it. Obama simply needed to not veto it. True, Obama has many of the little foot soldier that were responsible for figuring out how to implement it. But the responsibility for what is called Obamacare really lies in the Pelosi & Reid Congress.

        The worst thing about this Presidential race is that it may have successfully dulled a turn over of the Senate. I’d say that and getting more true conservatives in Congress is more important that the Presidential race.

        • @jpm100 I’m not sure I understand you’re point. I’m happy to have it explained to me how the separation of powers in Massachusetts leaves the legislature free to give “mandates” about coming up with legislation to the governor. But the residual fact of whatever process was use is that Romney signed the legislation and continues to defend it, and it is a grotesque mess. His waffling misdirection and countermeasures notwithstanding.

          On the question of the presidency and the Senate, if Romney is the nominee Republicans won’t have either. The reason that Romney’s campaign pounded on the “electability” issue so hard (God only knows why Coulter is so heavily bought into it, but I can’t believe that it’s because she believes it) is because Romney is essentially unelectable, or at least the least electable of the three remaining viable candidates. His appeal to the base is weak. In that range where he is especailly weak there is, I believe, a sense of extortion that he has been pushed as the frontrunner with that “you don’t want Obama re-elected, do you” smarminess.

        • @jpm100 I’m not sure I understand you’re point. I’m happy to have it explained to me how the separation of powers in Massachusetts leaves the legislature free to give “mandates” about coming up with legislation to the governor. But the residual fact of whatever process was used is that Romney signed the legislation and continues to defend it, and it is a grotesque mess. His waffling misdirection and campaign countermeasures notwithstanding. On the question of the presidency and the Senate, if Romney is the nominee Republicans won’t have either. The reason that Romney’s campaign pounded on the “electability” issue so hard (God only knows why Coulter is so heavily bought into it, but I can’t believe that it’s because she believes it) is because Romney is essentially unelectable, or at least the least electable of the three remaining viable candidates. His appeal to the base is weak and will get weaker, not stronger, as the Democrats attack him *from* the right in key markets, and his appeal to swing voters will be hammered way down by broader efforts. In that range of the base where he is especailly weak there is, I believe, a sense of extortion that he has been pushed as the frontrunner with that “you don’t want Obama re-elected, do you” smarminess.

  • “But for high income folks, we are going to cut back on that, so we make sure the top 1% keeps paying the current share they’re paying or more.”

    That sounds like an excellent simple definition of the term revenue-neutral.

    I also think Romney will be the guy who will be able to cut government programs through rationalization, i.e. merge similar programs, and eliminate similar programs that are not performing as well as others. Now, that doesn’t sound like a chainsaw, but it does let people who worry about cuts to this or that program to rationalize some cuts. Baby steps. Baby steps.

    • @Harun In other words, Republican janitorial socialism.

    • @Harun When the crabgrass takes over, clipping it with a pair of hand trimmers isn’t the solution.

      Bureaucracy has a logic of it’s own once it reaches a certain size. It grows naturally and pervasively. Trimming it may slow it down, but it doesn’t stop it or reverse it.

      At this point, the only thing that will halt and reverse the growth of government cost and regulation is the ending of entire segments. I am of the opinion that Romney is about as likely to do that as the New Orleans Saints are to win the World Series.

      The real problem for “janitorial socialists” as Martin colorfully called them, is that they’ll get slammed by the bureaucrats and their media accomplices as badly for trimming as for ripping them apart. So they get the cost without any long term benefit. As I feel I’ve pointed out a hundred times, getting the office but then not making a difference just sets the GOP up to be the scapegoat when the debt bomb explodes.

      • Yet again, Livefyre throws away my formatting. Guess I’ll have to log in as admin to fix it. I really don’t get it, because sometimes it works on refresh, and other times, it just does not.

        • I give up. My edits refuse to show up on refresh, even in a different browser on a different computer. Some weird caching, I guess. Maybe it’ll show up correct some day.

  • So thanks to all of this the GOP political class is expecting to lose in November: http://nymag.com/news/features/gop-primary-heilemann-2012-3/

    • @scotterb Great! I think it would be SUPERB if the ENTIRE political class got their asses handed to them.

      Include here political “scientists” (HA!)…!!!