Exploring Opinions on Mitt Romney's Candidacy

[Jasongreat]

This makes no sense to me. The government doesn't spend more than it has. It's just that revenues from taxes, etc. don't cover the budget, so it has to borrow. The money that it borrows is money that it has.

Really? So if I go borrow a million dollars, I have a million dollars? Doesnt liability enter in the calculations at some point?

When the government borrows money, it steals from future taxpayers, or it prints money and inflates the dollar, which steals from current tax payers. A dollar doesn't have to be inflated, but the argument that because government inflates the dollar, government also has to inflate the cost of labor is ridiculous.

 

[ThomasT]

Really? So if I go borrow a million dollars, I have a million dollars?

Well ... yeah.

Doesnt liability enter in the calculations at some point?

Yes, but you'd still have the million dollars. Wouldn't you?

When the government borrows money, it steals from future taxpayers, or it prints money and inflates the dollar, which steals from current tax payers. A dollar doesn't have to be inflated, but the argument that because government inflates the dollar, government also has to inflate the cost of labor is ridiculous.

Inflation refers to increases in the cost of goods and services. The government doesn't control this (for the most part). It's a function of players in any market charging prices that they think the market will sustain.

 

[Jasongreat]

A law that prevents prices from rising? Are you high? What kind of iron-fisted dictatorship do you think we're living in.

I haven't payed attention to this little side conversation you guys have been having, but a law to "prohibit inflation" sounds batcrap crazy to me.

It would not neccessarily keep prices from rising, it would keep prices from rising without added value though. Do we get more, from a house that costs 5000 dollars, like they cost in the twenties, or the same house which now costs 500,000 dollars? sure it makes us feel better having big values in the bank, although once we start spending it disappears just as quick. I don't understand our love affair with inflation, does it help having a million dollars that will only buy 10,000 dollars worth of goods? Or could we accomplish the same thing by keeping the 10000 dollars buying 10,000 dollars worth of goods?

 

[Jasongreat]

Yes, but you'd still have the million dollars. Wouldn't you?

Not once I paid off the loan, and interest, I would have a loss of the interest, which would cause me to end up worse off than when I started. If I could invest the money into the market and get a high enough return to pay the interest and to make up for the amount government inflated my dollars during the same time, I could make a profit. The problem comes when it is government borrowing the money, since there is no hope of a return on our investment, governments are liabilities, not assets. In fact arent those things we place under the umbrella of government, there because in the free market a return on investment is warranted, therefore if we have things which cannot profit, they become governments duty to provide those services?

 

[ThomasT]

I don't understand our love affair with inflation ...

Apparently you've never owned a business. Suppose you're charging, say, $5 for a certain thing and you think that you can raise the price to, say, $5.49 and maintain the same sales volume. So, you try it and find that you can maintain the same sales volume at the increased price. That's inflation. Now, if you've cornered the market on some essential commodity, then you can pretty much charge whatever you want for it. That's where a certain sort of government regulation comes in -- to prevent the charging of exorbitant prices for things. Unfortunately, the government is sometimes part of the mechanism that maintains artificially (ie., not market driven) high prices on things.

 

[WhoWee]

Apparently you've never owned a business. Suppose you're charging, say, $5 for a certain thing and you think that you can raise the price to, say, $5.49 and maintain the same sales volume. So, you try it and find that you can maintain the same sales volume at the increased price. That's inflation. Now, if you've cornered the market on some essential commodity, then you can pretty much charge whatever you want for it. That's where a certain sort of government regulation comes in -- to prevent the charging of exorbitant prices for things. Unfortunately, the government is sometimes part of the mechanism that maintains artificially (ie., not market driven) high prices on things.

I have owned businesses - most of the time I raise prices because my operating expenses increase - usually labor, utilities, and cost of goods sold.

 

[WhoWee]

So, back to Romney. I just finished watching a video on Ralph Nader entitled "An Unreasonable Man". It makes me somewhat angry that the American public votes for people like Romney, Obama, Bush, etc., and marginalizes truly great Americans like Nader.

Clearly, Romney is no Nader. But then who is? But Romney isn't even, imho, a marginally interesting candidate for president. His proposals are predictably predominantly pro big business, pro finance, and anti the average working American. He's a rich guy, who, as he's won't to tell everybody, has spent his life in business, as an executive, getting rich.

Which proposal of Romney's is "anti the average working American"?

 

[ThomasT]

I have owned businesses - most of the time I raise prices because my operating expenses increase - usually labor, utilities, and cost of goods sold.

Your labor cost only increases if you pay your workers more. Why would you pay your workers more? Why did your utility costs increase? Why did the cost of the goods you sell increase? My point is that it starts somewhere ... and it's an entirely arbitrary decision designed to milk more profits from the existing market. Ie., greed. Inflation doesn't have to happen, it's simply a function of greed at some point in the chain. And greed is what screws up the stability of the whole system. Free market capitalism is doomed to produce boom and bust cycles and an inordinate inequality of wealth, thus sewing the seeds of revolution.

 

[ThomasT]

Which proposal of Romney's is "anti the average working American"?

All the stuff that is pro business and finance, and anti labor and regulation.

 

[ThomasT]

I have owned businesses - most of the time I raise prices because my operating expenses increase - usually labor, utilities, and cost of goods sold.

To return to this, I've owned businesses also. I charged whatever I thought I could get away with.

 

[WhoWee]

Your labor cost only increases if you pay your workers more. Why would you pay your workers more? Why did your utility costs increase? Why did the cost of the goods you sell increase? My point is that it starts somewhere ... and it's an entirely arbitrary decision designed to milk more profits from the existing market. Ie., greed. Inflation doesn't have to happen, it's simply a function of greed at some point in the chain. And greed is what screws up the stability of the whole system. Free market capitalism is doomed to produce boom and bust cycles and an inordinate inequality of wealth, thus sewing the seeds of revolution.

I've owned retail businesses that employed predominately minimum wage workers - Government mandated pay increases don't just raise the lowest wage - it also forces the owner to pay more to established workers that have earned increases.

Cost of goods sold typically increase when commodity, production and delivery costs increase - a small business can't control these costs.

As for why did utilities cost increase - are you joking? A small business has very few options beyond strict reduction of use.

 

[Dotini]

Last night's sweep of caucuses and beauty contest by Santorum really sets the cat amongst the pigeons. Paul even pushed Romney down to 3rd in Minnesota.

This is going to set in a state of extreme jitters, blood-spitting and deep agonizing amongst the party pros, financiers, pundits and media elites. They literally have no idea what to do, so I expect anything, possibly including would-be savior figures like Mitch Daniels to suddenly appear on the screens.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[WhoWee]

To return to this, I've owned businesses also. I charged whatever I thought I could get away with.

Did you share the windfalls with your employees?

 

[ThomasT]

Cost of goods sold typically increase when commodity, production and delivery costs increase - a small business can't control these costs.

As for why did utilities cost increase - are you joking? A small business has very few options beyond strict reduction of use.

Ok, commodity, production, delivery and utility costs increase. My point is that these increases were instigated, arbitrarily, at some point in the chain. Do you doubt that?

 

[WhoWee]

Ok, commodity, production, delivery and utility costs increase. My point is that these increases were instigated, arbitrarily, at some point in the chain. Do you doubt that?

I believe fuel costs drive prices up. I believe labor contracts, minimum wage, and employee benefits drive costs up. I believe weather effects crop production. I believe the EPA has forced utility prices up. Shall I continue?

 

[ThomasT]

@ WhoWee,
Ok, I'll give you points in our side discussion. There are lots of factors, many of which can't be controlled by business owners, that determine costs.

Regarding how Romney might lower medi costs, has he (Romney) stated how he would do that?

Also, if we can agree that the buying power of the mass of Americans is continually eroded (ie., that wages and salaries don't keep up with inflation), then how would Romney deal with that ... as it seems to me that that's an essential part of the macro-economic problem.

Or any other Romney points anybody wants to elaborate on, pro or con.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, if we can agree that the buying power of the mass of Americans is continually eroded (ie., that wages and salaries don't keep up with inflation), then how would Romney deal with that ... as it seems to me that that's an essential part of the macro-economic problem.

Are you stating that as a fact or posing a hypothetical/prediction for the future? Because over the long term, that's never been true.

 

[Jasongreat]

of which half actually went to the incredibly wealthy Mormon Church, not really a charity, IMO, but did lower his taxes.

To be fair, your response, that I quoted, was aimed at another member, who stated that romney gave 3 mil to charity, of which you stated that the church wasnt a charity.

I will agree, for the sake of argument, even though tax deductible donations are listed here, number 1 a) is religious groups, b) is charitable institutions. So even without the 'charity' clause, that you have a problem with, he made proper deductions.

Second, your disclaimer that the mormon church is a wealthy church and therefore not really a charity. Should we start using means testing for charities? If a charity takes in a certain amount would you consider them no longer a charity? Or is it just wealthy religions you have a problem with.

I remember responding to one of your posts, although I don't think it was in this thread, where you said that because most of their money goes to property and facilities, IIRC, that dissolves their being considered a charity. The mormon church does spend a lot on building temples and churches throughout the world, but those facilities and property is why they are so good at delivering supplies. They have a distribution network that can hardly be bettered, even by governmental organizations. All it takes is a wiki search for LDS humanitarian aid, to find this, which seems to me to be a pretty good indicator of a charity.

Then if we go a little further and refine our search for katrina relief we find this:

As of Sept. 13, 140 truckloads of commodities and supplies, about 5.6 million pounds or 2,800 tons had been shipped into affected areas; with thousands of LDS volunteers giving 9,204 manpower days helping 1,606 Church members and 3,226 people not of the LDS faith, according to Garry Flake, director of Church Emergency Response. In addition, some 3,500 volunteers served Sept. 10-11. , out of http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/47826/After-Katrinas-fury-relief-on-a-grand-scale.html article, which I conceed is an lds church article. but we can find other sources such as pbs, like this. And I would like to go a little further, as mormons are not the only christian charitable organization and we find http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/RNSKatrina.php article, describing relief efforts by other christian organizations during katrina.

I should add that I was born and raised in Utah, I was raised mormon until about the age of thirteen when my use of logic led me away from the church. In fact my logic has led me away from all religions. My favorite books are thomas paines age of reason, and marcus aurelious's meditations, both of which denegrate christians and one is a complete renuciation of the bible. However I do believe every one has the right to decide for themselves on matters of conscience. I respect Voltaires belief that even though I disagree with everything you say, I will fight to the death your right to say it. We can all sit around and argue religion, but to say that the mormon church is not charitable takes a bigger leap of faith than their religion requires.

 

[Jasongreat]

I'm wondering, can a reasonable, critically thinking person truly be a Mormon? The whole scenario just seems silly to me. But that's, of course, just my perspective and opinion.

But I have to wonder about an apparently intelligent person who gives millions of dollars to such a religious establishment. So, I wonder about Romney.

He seems like a good and smart person. But he's a self professed Mormon. So, I have to consider the possibility that he's somewhat willfully ignorant. And I don't want a willfully ignorant person to hold the highest administrative position in the US.

And then sceptic2 replied:

Why single out Mormons? The same question can be asked of any religion.

To which ThomasT replied:

I agree. So, I wonder if a reasonable, critically thinking person can be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Mormon, or ... whatever.

To which RobD replied:

Your point hinges on our individual core beliefs or lack thereof, which is deeply private, but I must agree with you in that I tend to see very religious people as delusional or even worse dishonest. However, and despite the tithe thing (it is after all only money) I do not think that Romney is a deeply religious man.

I believe Romney is a deeply religious man, however I don't find him a extremely religious man. Extremists of any form are dangerous, even a extreme view of pacivism can be bad, as in everyone walks all over you.

Christians are described as uncritical, and unreasonable. All it took was a google search for christians in science, let's see what it pulls up. Here it is, there are some pretty big names in science in there, I was expecting to see thomas aquinas, however I didnt see him on the list, however there were a couple popes, is there any more religious?

I find the description of ingnorant fits those who express the view that only athiest can know science. While there are plenty of ignorant christians, there are just as many ignorant atheists. IMO, there are a few scientific beliefs lately that are just as dogmatic as christian religions, maybe even more so since i am free to choose my religion, I can not choose how my government spends my money.

 

[WhoWee]

Would you give money to a charity only for a tax credit? Personally, I choose based upon the work they do (things that are important to me) and a belief they won't waste my money.

 

[ThomasT]

Are you stating that as a fact or posing a hypothetical/prediction for the future? Because over the long term, that's never been true.

Presently I can only consider it as a hypothetical. My impression (from very limited personal experience) was that, wrt the majority of Americans, say the bottom 60%, that the increase in income hasn't kept pace with inflation over, say, the last 50 years from 1962 to 2012. But that could be wrong.

Also, it seems to me to be quite possible that during next decade that there could be a reduction in the rate of increase of average income accompanied by a commensurate reduction in the rate of inflation.

What does seem clear to me is that the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation during that 50-year period.

However, minimum wage workers represent a tiny percentage of the total workforce. And significantly reducing or abolishing the minimum wage should therefore have very little effect on the general economy. So, I've changed my mind on the minimum wage thing. Abolishing it would open up the possibility to compete with Chinese and Southeast Asia, labor intensive, relatively unskilled, manufacturing. The only problem would be the scale. Could less than 10M US workers earning wages comparable to Chinese and SE Asian workers produce enough to supply American consumers?

Greece has recently, among other things, lowered its mandated minimum wage by 22%. I'm not sure how that helps their situation, unless they have a much larger proportion of minimum wage workers than the US does. In which case, considering it further, I'm still not sure how that helps their situation.

Back to Romney. I'm not sure that he needs to be concerned with the erosion of buying power of the majority of Americans -- since I'm not sure that it has been, or will be, eroded. Also, I don't think he needs to be concerned with reducing healthcare costs, because it doesn't seem that there's any way to do that short of dictating prices.

I think we need to face the fact that a certain portion of the American population is never going to be able to afford preventative or comprehensive health care.

 

[WhoWee]

I think we need to face the fact that a certain portion of the American population is never going to be able to afford preventative or comprehensive health care.

It depends upon the coverage doesn't it? If everyone is forced to purchase the "Cadillac Plan" the unions favor - it will be unaffordable - won't it?

 

[ThomasT]

Let me preface this reply by saying that I apologize for what could have been taken as a somewhat arrogant tone in some previous replies. Anything I write here, unless accompanied by reputable statistics, is just my, very limited, opinion.

I believe Romney is a deeply religious man, however I don't find him a extremely religious man.

If I'm correctly interpreting what I take to be your meaning, I agree with you on this. That's why I'm not really worried that Romney's religious affinity would cause any problems. I just don't like the theistic religiosity of theistic religious people of any sort, so, for me, Romney's theistic religious pronouncements are one reason why I wouldn't vote for him.

And I basically agree with the rest of your post.

 

[ThomasT]

It depends upon the coverage doesn't it? If everyone is forced to purchase the "Cadillac Plan" the unions favor - it will be unaffordable - won't it?

Sure, but I'm currently of the opinion that, for some people, there won't be any affordable plan. So, a certain portion of the US population will be without preventative and comprehensive health care. And I think that's unavoidable.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Sure, but I'm currently of the opinion that, for some people, there won't be any affordable plan. So, a certain portion of the US population will be without preventative and comprehensive health care. And I think that's unavoidable.

Why? What if the government drafted some large percentage of the population into a civilian health corps that did nothing but provide care? Could we cover everyone then? Obviously, this would be a terribly bad idea, but its POSSIBLE.

Now, what if we gave everyone health-care only cash subsidies. Could that have the effect of providing lots of jobs in health care? Thus voluntarily creating the same sort of health corps I mentioned above? Remember- the growth the health care sector means more and more people are working in health care.

Always remember, unless scarcity makes it truly impossible, "we can't afford it" really means "we don't want to distribute resources in this way." We can't afford to give everyone a cube of gold 50m across. We can afford to give everyone health care, if we wanted.

Now, its quite possible we don't want to provide health care for everyone- more workers in health care means less workers elsewhere.

 

[ThomasT]

Why? What if the government drafted some large percentage of the population into a civilian health corps that did nothing but provide care? Could we cover everyone then? Obviously, this would be a terribly bad idea, but its POSSIBLE.

Yes, it's possible. But not likely, imo. My conclusion regarding the unavoidability of a certain portion of Americans being without preventative and comprehensive health care is based on my assessment regarding the likelihood of certain political actions that would enable universal preventative and comprehensive health care.

Now, what if we gave everyone health-care only cash subsidies. Could that have the effect of providing lots of jobs in health care? Thus voluntarily creating the same sort of health corps I mentioned above? Remember- the growth the health care sector means more and more people are working in health care.

Yeah, the voucher idea is interesting, even compelling. But, imo, it's not going to happen. And even if it does, I doubt that it could effect universal preventative and comprehensive health care.

Always remember, unless scarcity makes it truly impossible, "we can't afford it" really means "we don't want to distribute resources in this way." We can't afford to give everyone a cube of gold 50m across. We can afford to give everyone health care, if we wanted.

Then, apparently, there's no political will to provide preventative and comprehensive health care to everyone.

Now, its quite possible we don't want to provide health care for everyone- more workers in health care means less workers elsewhere.

My current opinion is that, given current healthcare prices and projected rates of increase, that the government simply can't afford to provide it. So, the alternative is insurance. And it will, I think, always be a fact that a significant portion of Americans will not be able to afford even the cheapest plans.

The other alternative is a long term comprehensive plan to systematically and significantly deflate healthcare prices. And that seems very unlikely to happen.

 

[ParticleGrl]

My current opinion is that, given current healthcare prices and projected rates of increase, that the government simply can't afford to provide it.

The government can afford whatever it wants- it has a printing press. They could simply print the healthcare vouchers, if we as a country decided that's what we wanted. It would, however, massively reorient our economy, and depending on details increase inflation.

I do agree that we probably lack the political will to actually provide coverage. But that's not a question of 'can't', its a question of 'won't.'

 

[ThomasT]

... not a question of 'can't', its a question of 'won't.'

I agree. It's complicated. And I don't understand it.

 

[Jasongreat]

Would you give money to a charity only for a tax credit? Personally, I choose based upon the work they do (things that are important to me) and a belief they won't waste my money.

Great point WhoWee, IMO, isn't that the true test of a charity, if one feels they do good they should get your money, and it isn't up to anyone second guessing your choice, freedom of conscience is a good thing.

 

[Jasongreat]

Why? What if the government drafted some large percentage of the population into a civilian health corps that did nothing but provide care? Could we cover everyone then? Obviously, this would be a terribly bad idea, but its POSSIBLE.

Now, what if we gave everyone health-care only cash subsidies. Could that have the effect of providing lots of jobs in health care? Thus voluntarily creating the same sort of health corps I mentioned above? Remember- the growth the health care sector means more and more people are working in health care.

Always remember, unless scarcity makes it truly impossible, "we can't afford it" really means "we don't want to distribute resources in this way." We can't afford to give everyone a cube of gold 50m across. We can afford to give everyone health care, if we wanted.

Now, its quite possible we don't want to provide health care for everyone- more workers in health care means less workers elsewhere.

I agree it would be a terrible idea, I can imagine just how well impressment of the american populous, inorder to provide healthcare, would go over. But I won't discount the idea that it is possible, an idea which is very un-american, imo, but that hasnt stopped a single thing from being passed that is un constitutional, or atleast quasi-constituitonal.

I would be far more for health subsidies to individuals, in an account that they have complete control over, even better to have them fund themselves tax free, than to provide insurance for every american. I don't think it is a coincidence that since insurance has become popular in america, rates have risen and risen and risen. An insurance company has an interest in increasing rates, it isn't their money it is other peoples premiums, and aslong as they can get the rates to increase it is in their best interest. Since if everything is ridiculously expensive the only way one can afford to pay is to have insurance. On the other hand if people have a savings account that they have complete control over and if there are surpluss's they get to keep them, they have a natural inclenation to spend the lowest amount they can. I much prefer individual control over individual things.

Cant afford, can also mean can't afford. ;) If we have a government spending other peoples money, paying insurance companies who have no stake in the game but higher rates, we will inevitably end at a higher rate than we now pay. If we allow people to control their own costs, and they get the benefit( maybe even a tax break) to spend as little as they can, rates will go down. I don't believe a governmental solution exists, however I do feel an individual solution would be easy and very efficient.

 

[russ_watters]

Presently I can only consider it as a hypothetical. My impression (from very limited personal experience) was that, wrt the majority of Americans, say the bottom 60%, that the increase in income hasn't kept pace with inflation over, say, the last 50 years from 1962 to 2012. But that could be wrong.

It is commonly believed due to constant hammering of the issue from liberal politicians, but it is very wrong. The data can be found here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

The most relevant table is the mean household income of each fifth of the population. Even without adjusting for cyclic trends, the average income of the people in the bottom 20% is 21% higher (inflation adjusted) today than in 1967 when the data started to be collected. For the next two fifths the increases are 13% and 22%.

 

[WhoWee]

The government can afford whatever it wants- it has a printing press. They could simply print the healthcare vouchers, if we as a country decided that's what we wanted. It would, however, massively reorient our economy, and depending on details increase inflation.

I do agree that we probably lack the political will to actually provide coverage. But that's not a question of 'can't', its a question of 'won't.'

Just print money to give everyone what they want - doesn't sound like a good long term plan or sound management? Romney is a turnaround specialist - he looks like our best choice under the circumstances - IMO.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The most relevant table is the mean household income of each fifth of the population. Even without adjusting for cyclic trends, the average income of the people in the bottom 20% is 21% higher (inflation adjusted) today than in 1967 when the data started to be collected. For the next two fifths the increases are 13% and 22%.

But most of the growth seems to have been concentrated at the beginning of the period. Since 1973, the poorest fifth has seen its income increase by just 5%, despite a large increase in two earner households. The middle fifth has seen an increase of just 9%, despite a similar large increase in two earner households,etc. For both, the real growth seems to have come largely in the mid 90s with the peak just before the dot-com crash.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Just print money to give everyone what they want - doesn't sound like a good long term plan or sound management? Romney is a turnaround specialist - he looks like our best choice under the circumstances - IMO.

Obama already implemented Romney's healthcare plan.

 

[AlephZero]

The most relevant table is the mean household income of each fifth of the population. Even without adjusting for cyclic trends, the average income of the people in the bottom 20% is 21% higher (inflation adjusted) today than in 1967 when the data started to be collected. For the next two fifths the increases are 13% and 22%.

That may be a "fact", but it doesn't tell the whole story, because the range of goods and services that made up an "average" standard of living has changed. In 1967, nobody was paying for cellphones, personal computers, flatscreen TVs etc, because those things didn't exist.

Keeping pace with inflation is the wrong measure IMO. You should be looking at keeping pace with GDP, as a (crude) measure of the average amount of "stuff" that is available for people to to spend their money on.