Exploring Opinions on Mitt Romney's Candidacy

[WhoWee]

Obama already implemented Romney's healthcare plan.

That's probably the best reason to elect Romney - he's the most qualified to fix Obamacare - isn't he?

 

[lisab]

That's probably the best reason to elect Romney - he's the most qualified to fix Obamacare - isn't he?

Nice double half gainer with a reverse twist !

 

[WhoWee]

Nice double half gainer with a reverse twist !

Thank you.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

IMO, that's a flawed way of looking at it. Your measure means that unless I give my kid an iPhone, he's poorer than I was growing up. That's illogical. If he gets an iPhone (or a Blackberry), he's richer than I was because he has more than I did. If he doesn't, he's the same as I was. If he gets a Blackberry instead of an iPhone, your standard calls him poorer even though he has more than I did.

Also, you've given two different standards. Just getting an iPhone (HDTV, computer, etc...) doesn't put you in the average. The increase in income inequality means that the "average" income for the country went up faster than the average for the bottom 60%. The Europeans tie their poverty rate to income inequality, but again that creates odd illogic where whether I'm in poverty depends as much if not more on what Bill Gates makes/how he lives than what I make/how I live.

Either way, you've gone beyond the scope of the question.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

When it comes to the cost of living, the bottom line is that more people can afford to live today than could 50 years ago.

 

[ThomasT]

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/

Thanks for the link. My impression might be wrong, but I don't think I'd characterize it as very wrong. According to the link:

average income of lowest 60% in 2010 $29,659
average income of lowest 60% in 1967 $ 4,370

The lowest 60% made, on average, about 6.79 times more in 2010 than in 1967.

If the buying power of the lowest 60% increased from 1967 to 2010,
then prices increased less than 6.79 times from 1967 to 2010.

For some things this is true. For others it isn't.

Since I don't have time to do an exhaustive survey of this in order to get
a meaningful average, I have to consider it an open question.

To connect this to Romney, it doesn't seem that he needs to be overly concerned with erosion of the buying power of most Americans. But, it seems that increasing aggregate demand is a big problem. If so, then how does Romney propose to deal with that? If not, then ... never mind.

 

[ThomasT]

When it comes to the cost of living, the bottom line is that more people can afford to live today than could 50 years ago.

I agree with you that it's a fact that more people can afford to live today than could 50 years ago. But why would you call that the bottom line? For example, unemployment is significantly higher today than 50 years ago.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks for the link. My impression might be wrong, but I don't think I'd characterize it as very wrong. According to the link:



The lowest 60% made, on average, about 6.79 times more in 2010 than in 1967.

If the buying power of the lowest 60% increased from 1967 to 2010,
then prices increased less than 6.79 times from 1967 to 2010.

For some things this is true. For others it isn't.

Since I don't have time to do an exhaustive survey of this in order to get
a meaningful average, I have to consider it an open question.

You don't have to do an exhaustive analysis. Each survey comes with two sets of data. Scroll down further for the one adjusted for inflation.

 

[Jasongreat]

Here is Romney's CPAC speech.

 

[WhoWee]

Here is Romney's CPAC speech.

Straight talk and spoke of "Obama's ineptitude".

 

[ThomasT]

You don't have to do an exhaustive analysis. Each survey comes with two sets of data. Scroll down further for the one adjusted for inflation.

Don't we want to compare an income increase coefficient a with price increase coefficient?

 

[ThomasT]

Straight talk and spoke of "Obama's ineptitude".

Just more of the same rhetoric, imo. I think Romney's run for the presidency is more ego-driven than anything else. Not that that's unusual, or necessarily a bad thing.

 

[phoenix:\\]

It was rather poor rhetoric. He wants to expand the government but also limit it as well? To me that isn't "straight talk" rather talk of someone who has no idea what he is doing currently and is just using common charged phrases to appease the base.

 

[jduster]

Mitt Romney is the most experienced candidate we've had since?

Kerry? No. Bush Jr? No. Clinton? No. Bush Sr.? Maybe. Reagan? No. Mondale? No. Carter? No. Ford? No. Nixon? No. Johnson? Maybe. Goldwater? No.

A law degree and MBA from Harvard.
Managing a multibillion dollar corporation successfully.
Managing the 2002 Olympics.
Being Governor of Massachusetts.

Do keep in mind that Romney is the only candidate who can work with both sides of the aisle, like he did in Massachusetts?

Let's be honest.

Gingrich/Santorum will alienate the left. Obama will alienate the right. Both will alienate moderate.

 

[turbo]

Romney had better pull out all the stops if he wants to win the Maine caucuses. Ron Paul has a very motivated following here, and they could easily swing the caucuses to him, since turnout tends to be low.

 

[WhoWee]

It was rather poor rhetoric. He wants to expand the government but also limit it as well? To me that isn't "straight talk" rather talk of someone who has no idea what he is doing currently and is just using common charged phrases to appease the base.

I didn't hear any mention of expanding the Government - can you be more specific?

 

[phoenix:\\]

He wants to start testing people who have applied, and are currently getting, government subsidies for drugs.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/226699/166/Romney-in-Atlanta

 

[WhoWee]

He wants to start testing people who have applied, and are currently getting, government subsidies for drugs.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/226699/166/Romney-in-Atlanta

He said he thought drug testing Welfare recipients was a good idea - to make sure they aren't buying illegal drugs with their Government assistance. I didn't hear any mention of an expansion of Government.

 

[phoenix:\\]

I do not know about you, but look at the bold:

"People who are receiving welfare benefits, government benefits, we should make sure they are not using the money for drugs. I think it's an excellent idea."

and that would require more expansion of the government to begin such measures of testing. You don't need to "hear" such information being directly said, it is quite naive (in terms of politics) to believe you need to hear, "these types of policies will expand the government" especially from a candidate like Romney as he doesn't want to cause a further divide with his base.

Also, he said people partaking in "government benefits" that would include small business owners who have decided to take up government loans?

 

[WhoWee]

I do not know about you, but look at the bold:



and that would require more expansion of the government to begin such measures of testing. You don't need to "hear" such information being directly said, it is quite naive (in terms of politics) to believe you need to hear, "these types of policies will expand the government" especially from a candidate like Romney as he doesn't want to cause a further divide with his base.

Also, he said people partaking in "government benefits" that would include small business owners who have decided to take up government loans?

In my state, the welfare program is administered on the county level. The county also operates the jail/sheriff's department, health department, and jobs/family services. It would be very inexpensive to spot check for drugs - especially if it began at the jail or probation office. As for small business owners - it could be part of their application process - let them pay for it.

 

[WhoWee]

@phoenix:\\

I'd love to hear President Obama argue against the drug testing of welfare recipients idea - IMO - it would catch the attention of a lot of disinterested folks.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Isn't that a bit irrelevant? You believe I am an Obama supporter? This is about Mitt Romney, not Obama. He doesn't believe or see it being necessary to begin testing people who are given government subsidies for drugs.

However, with that said, because drug tests aren't mandatory for the common, everyday, wrongdoing, welfare drug fiend recipient, we have to look for a state that does conduct drug tests and this state must be tested to be a state where illegal drug abuse is prevalent. I found one... Florida:

Edit: Link deleted.

as for the other post, just look at the implementation of the program, an expansion needed to occur for it to be implemented, now think of that on a national level. Would that save more U.S. dollars or take more money from the economy? It would take from the economy, and expand the government.

 

[WhoWee]

Isn't that a bit irrelevant? You believe I am an Obama supporter? This is about Mitt Romney, not Obama. He doesn't believe or see it being necessary to begin testing people who are given government subsidies for drugs.

However, with that said, because drug tests aren't mandatory for the common, everyday, wrongdoing, welfare drug fiend recipient, we have to look for a state that does conduct drug tests and this state must be tested to be a state where illegal drug abuse is prevalent. I found one... Florida:

unacceptable link deleted

as for the other post, just look at the implementation of the program, an expansion needed to occur for it to be implemented, now think of that on a national level. Would that save more U.S. dollars or take more money from the economy? It would take from the economy, and expand the government.

I didn't realize your link - FreakOutNation - was an approved source on PF? I'll hold comments until Evo makes a call.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Wow, lol. Here is another link to the source that is credible:

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

 

[turbo]

Romney polled 39% in Maine caucuses and Paul was second at 36%.

 

[russ_watters]

Don't we want to compare an income increase coefficient a with price increase coefficient?

No, that's what "inflation" is!

 

[ThomasT]

No, that's what "inflation" is!

Inflation refers to price increases over time. My question was about a possible erosion of buying power. If the rate of income increase has kept pace with or exceeded inflation, then buying power hasn't been eroded. If incomes haven't kept pace with inflation, then buying power has been eroded.

According to the calculator at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov) the buying power of the bottom 60% is about the same today as it was in 1967. But it depends on the numbers in the price index. So, I consider it an open question. Anyway, I already conceded that erosion of buying power wrt the bottom 60% isn't something that the administration needs to be overly concerned with.

 

[ThomasT]

Wow, lol. Here is another link to the source that is credible:

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

The incidence of drug usage seems to be less wrt recipients of temporary cash assistance than wrt the population at large.

Romney saying that he favors drug testing cash welfare recipients is just more pandering rhetoric, imo.

 

[phoenix:\\]

What do we judge him by then? That is if we cannot judge him on rhetoric that is meant to pander to his base, then what else is there to judge him by? His record, his wants, etc...? As far as it being "rhetoric pandering", that sort of policy is in direct conflict with his base of limiting the government. My dirty pants are clean...

 

[WhoWee]

What do we judge him by then? That is if we cannot judge him on rhetoric that is meant to pander to his base, then what else is there to judge him by? His record, his wants, etc...? As far as it being "rhetoric pandering", that sort of policy is in direct conflict with his base of limiting the government. My dirty pants are clean...

Unlike President Obama in the last election - Romney does have executive level leadership experience - 25 years in business, he saved the Olympics, and he served as Governor. Harry Reid and the Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 1,000 days and the last budget Predident Obama sent to Congress (I'll be gentle) didn't get many votes.

If possible, could you please provide your definition of "rhetoric pandering" - I want to apply it to the other threads?

 

[Jasongreat]

He said he thought drug testing Welfare recipients was a good idea - to make sure they aren't buying illegal drugs with their Government assistance. I didn't hear any mention of an expansion of Government.

Let me get this right, he wants to search people with no probable cause, only because they are receiving benefits from the government? Where will it end, suppossedly we all benefit from government, should we all expect a visit from a drug tester? I wonder what the point of an in/un before alienable is, if one can be alienated from it? If you don't want people to use government money to buy drugs, you don't take away their rights, you take away the money. There is no inalienable right to government handouts. One other thing, it is easy to pass a wiz quiz, a test would only cost us more and solve nothing. Government money already pays for drugs at a far higher scale for everything from boners, to smoking cessation.

The Republican belief, that we need to take away peoples freedom of choice in order to make them more free, is about as absurd as, we need to abandon the free market system inorder to save the free market system, imo.

 

[SixNein]

I'm not liberal and I'm not a Democrat. I've been called conservative and a Republican, and I guess I often do lean a bit conservative if it makes sense. I'm really middle of the road and will vote for the candidate I think is less of a danger. I have no party affiliation. Sorry.

Everyone is in the middle of the road in their own eyes. As for me, I suppose I'm a secular humanist. And I'm using humanism in the artistic sense of a focus on humanity. In general, there really is no label I can identify with because I'm essentially a loner in politics. Conservatives generally call me liberal, and liberals generally call me conservative.

I have to be very careful here, but I'm an atheist. And I think politics is a sort of religion. People root for republicans and democrats as if they are at a ball game. Overall, our system of government makes it very difficult to assign blame. And I believe very few people really watch government closely enough to make a stab at assigning blame. In general, people vote based upon some kind of ideology instead of evidenced based thinking and reasoning.

At any rate, on the topic of op, I believe Mitt Romney will govern very similar to Obama.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Unlike President Obama in the last election - Romney does have executive level leadership experience - 25 years in business, he saved the Olympics, and he served as Governor. Harry Reid and the Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 1,000 days and the last budget Predident Obama sent to Congress (I'll be gentle) didn't get many votes.

If possible, could you please provide your definition of "rhetoric pandering" - I want to apply it to the other threads?

The comparison between Obama 3.3 years ago and Mitt Romney is irrelevant. We have to compare the two in the present. I never viewed the Olympics as something worth saving and is really irrelevant and useless to progression, but that is just my opinion on the matter. 25 years in business? Doesn't matter as "business" is different from politics even if you believe they are alike, they aren't. His experience as governor is bad (not good) though, the 3 years he proclaimed himself to be a moderate, but now, in that CPAC video that was posted he says he wasn't a moderate? Lie much? Yes, just more of that rhetoric pandering the ol' Mitt does.

Definition, or at least why I use "rhetoric pandering": He over-exaggerates his positions, consistently flip-flops, and outright lies just to appease his base. That, to me, is a prime example of rhetoric pandering.

I have to be very careful here, but I'm an atheist. And I think politics is a sort of religion.

Politics is a new sport in today's world. Almost like chess in a way where everyone participates in the game to beat the current king and replace him with a new king. Nothing changes but it still keeps us in our boxes and seeing as I've reached the limit on conspiracy-based, vitriolic (as people think it but I don't believe they are grating) words, I won't go down that road here.

 

[WhoWee]

Definition, or at least why I use "rhetoric pandering": He over-exaggerates his positions, consistently flip-flops, and outright lies just to appease his base. That, to me, is a prime example of rhetoric pandering.

I think you might've posted in the wrong place - this thread is about Romney.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Lol, you sly fox, but just watch that CPAC video and compare it to his campaign for governor. I will be the first to tell you, you will be floored from laughter. It is like he regressed even though his governorship regressed as he went along and his approval rating plummeted close to Nixon even with the Watergate incident.