Romney & Bain

[Gregg]

Fiscal responsibility trumps all for me.

Same here. I really don't want my government to have a hand in much else anyway.

[freein05]

Gregg you would take us back to the 50s. The government did away with separate but equal schools and allowed all eligible citizens to vote by the civil rights act in the 60s. The government does have a place in the US to insure the constitution is up held. We are a nation of over 300 million people. The needs of these people change as the nation matures government must meets these changes.

[Lainey]

Speaking of The Daily Show, here's a hilarious 5 minute clip on what would actually happen if "we ran government like a business." (spoiler alert - West Virginia doesn't make it...)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fr...audits-america

[freein05]

Speaking of The Daily Show, here's a hilarious 5 minute clip on what would actually happen if "we ran government like a business." (spoiler alert - West Virginia doesn't make it...)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fr...audits-america

That was funny! It is also very true.

[creaker]

That was funny! It is also very true.

Sounds good - maybe we can take a handful of the worst showing states, saddle them with a good portion of the country's debt, break them off into a separate entity and send them on their way. It would make good business sense - for the remaining states, anyway.

[Lainey]

Sounds good - maybe we can take a handful of the worst showing states, saddle them with a good portion of the country's debt, break them off into a separate entity and send them on their way. It would make good business sense - for the remaining states, anyway.

Agreed. First we take a big cut of their assets as our "management fee" though. And as they fail, we can say we were just putting those assets to their "highest and best use." Money will then pour into our successful states because we are such great money managers!

[Gregg]

Gregg you would take us back to the 50s.

Free...that is beyond absurd. What gives you any right to assume something so ludicrous about someone else? Just because someone else's priorities don't align exactly with yours you automatically jump to a conclusion in which they don't give a damn about anything beyond that one point in an immensely broad discussion? I didn't expect that from you.

It apparently goes 180* against the liberal code, but just once it might be enlightening to ask a fiscal conservative WHY that form of responsibility is so very important to them. But no, that would require way too much effort beyond just swallowing. Its oh so much easier to wallow in moral superiority if you just walk into the voting booth, check every name with a "D" beside it and assume you just saved every starving baby, rape victim, broke grandma, snail darter and tall tree while sticking it to the puppet masters who would rape and pillage this land until there is nothing left to take. Mmmmmm....cherry today.

[Gregg]

Now, as to the lack of a reality based environment, well, you bring that on yourself. Every Time we discuss the gritty realities of life in these here United States, without fail you step in with "Well, I don't see that in my community" You never seem to see racism, as when we discussed the confederate flag, and you don't see health care issues or anyone lacking health care, as when we discussed all the people without health care and lack of options for health care. You never see irresponsible gun ownership, as in virtually everyone in your community is well trained in fire arms and of course the height of responsibility (and each and every one of them could have SAVED all those people in that theatre) I only said that because, according your posts, you don't have any of the ills that plague the rest of the nation. so, I can only assume you live in Disney Land, where crime is unknown, as is poverty, illness, racism, sexism, discrimination, etc...Lucky you..

Luck has very little to do with it. We earned the ability to snuggle our family into whatever environment we choose and we chose here. It wasn't thanks to some gift or a huge advantage starting out or a winning lottery ticket or anything else beyond simple work. And although you will never admit it, anyone could do it. There are no pink elephants or giant mice here. It is simply a nice place with a strong sense of community and family values. We chose to live in a place with low crime, good schools, little discrimination, etc. because we earned it and wanted it and thought it would be best for our family. I've read what you've written about your place. I'm guessing you have options to live somewhere else. Why did you choose to live on a beautiful acreage with ponds and fens and trees and animals when you could have chosen a blighted inner city filled with crime and crippling poverty and all the other "gritty realities" that go with it? What's the crime rate on your farm?

I ask questions because I want to understand the answers. How would you propose that I comprehend the scope of issues I don't deal with every day if I don't talk to people who do? Unlike you, I am not comfortable simply accepting the party line. And I don't really accept stereotypes. Strangely enough I know Democrats that own guns. Our discussion here concluded that even the most highly trained gun owner would have had a difficult time stopping the CO shootings. I don't automatically see a Confederate flag as racist any more than I see a US flag as a symbol of oppression (alot do, you know). And on and on...

[ApatheticNoMore]

Is there much historical evidence of Republicans being any better on fiscal responsibility than Dems? Are the Bush years the ideal of fiscal responsibility, the Reagan years? What about the debt that was run up then? But Romney will be different. Hmm you are free to believe that I guess, maybe he will be. It seems to me we'd get faster to fiscal responsibility (ie dealing with the deficit) without any tax cuts.

[JaneV2.0]

Is there much historical evidence of Republicans being any better on fiscal responsibility than Dems? Are the Bush years the ideal of fiscal responsibility, the Reagan years? What about the debt that was run up then? But Romney will be different. Hmm you are free to believe that I guess, maybe he will be. It seems to me we'd get faster to fiscal responsibility (ie dealing with the deficit) without any tax cuts.

In fact, we'd be much better off with even Clinton-era tax rates. And no, there is no historical evidence that Republicans are more fiscally responsible. As I posted upthread (it bears repeating):

Thirty years of lowering taxes and off-shoring jobs haven't done the economy any good-nor has partisan obstructionism, but Democrats have historically been better for the economy than Republicans. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._05/006282.php

From the article (which includes a nifty graph):
The first thing Bartels did was break down economic performance by income class. The unsurprising result is shown in the chart on the right.

Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.

Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)

In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats.