Wednesday, September 26, 2012

This Is Going to Really Help Romney Catch Up Lost Ground Against Obama

WSJ reports:
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, seeking to emphasize his deficit-cutting ambitions, is warning Americans that his tax-cut plan might not decrease their tax bills as much as they expect. 
Amid a push by the campaign to remind voters of high deficits, Mr. Romney on Wednesday told an Ohio crowd that while he would work for lower tax rates on businesses and individuals, they shouldn't "be expecting a huge cut in taxes because I'm also going to lower deductions and exemptions." 
Does Romney have any clue why people are rioting in Spain and Greece? The Greeks and the Spaniards might not get it fully but they certainly are really sick and tired of paying higher taxes to bailout banksters and, here in the U.S., Romney is making a no-cut tax plan part of his campaign?

Does Romney really want to when this thing? What kind of circus act did Rand Paul hook up with?


11 comments:

  1. No mr Wenzel, I think that you are terribly misguided about the Greeks and Spaniards. They are rioting because those evil neolioberals want to take their 13th salaries, their two month vacations, the retirement at 55 and similar goodies they presently enjoy at the cost of taxpayer. And that's all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's likey to be both.
      Back to Willard, from an amoral perspective, why the hell would he start to be honest now about possible tax cuts being axed. he tosses that under the bus and really why would anybody consider voting for him?

      Delete
    2. Exactly. They're not rioting because of "banksters", that's a sop to pretend that there's some common ground between us and the rioters. There isn't. It's a copout by Wenzel.

      They're really rioting over the potential withdrawal of their welfare benefits. Bank bailouts are a fraction of the cost of the modern welfare state.

      We are their enemies, not the banks. If the banks were allowed to collapse but the population's unaffordable welfare benefits were withdrawn, would they be protesting? Of course they would be, implying that the rioters' problem is not bank bailouts but the withdrawal of their ridiculous welfare benefits.

      Delete
  2. Romney is the 2012 equivalent of John Kerry. Running against a very prone incumbent but, he is too inept to actually win.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What Mitt and the GOP don't grasp is that while the average American may complain vehemently about the growing debt and deficit, they only care up to the point that they are asked to be part of the solution by paying more in taxes or taking less in benefits. Sure, some have no problem sticking it to the other guy, especially if the other guy is rich, but they want no part of any solution that may fall upon them. Obama knows this and he also knows that the average voter is ill informed and thus can easily be sold on the idea of a faux solution that involves no pain but for a small group of voters.

    If the GOP were forward thinkers, they would realize that the economy isn't going to make it to 2016 without a major economic event and that what ever party is in office, will get most of blame. Just think where the Dems would be today if Kerry had won in 2004. He would have owned the real-estate bubble crash and Obama would never have been elected. Of course, what is coming is far worse than 2008, so its only fitting that a guy that believes more in Marx than Smith should be in power when it goes down.

    ReplyDelete
  4. From my informal polling of most liberals, they think that the bankster bailouts were necessary evils to keep the system afloat. They want the bailouts but they want the government to seize or limit bankster bonuses. Authoritariansim tendencies run deep.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Romney does not want to win and never wanted to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an interesting theory. If correct, can you blame him?

      It doesn't matter which clown is driving the clown car at this point...and the next term will mostly like be the "old maid" card for the sucker winning it.

      Delete
  6. The great political essayist Walter Karp in his "Indispensible Enemies" argued that the US two party system was really a one party system and that the "party oligarchs" had more in common with each other than even the grassroots of their own parties. The party oligarchies were the real center piece of a ruling class system and developed and traded a range of rackets to reinforce different corporate interests who were simultaneously their clients and the servants of the party oligarchs. Karp reckoned keeping this larger spoils system going for their own benefit was the real driver of much of US politics including war, which was often used as a means of heading off internal dissent that threatened either the left or right wing of the duo-party system. Under these circumstances Karp believed the party oligarchs had variously "thrown" elections to head off grass root threats. They'd rather lose than see grass roots insurgents take power within their party machine and threaten the whole gravy train. The best source for Karp's thought is Karp's books themselves, he was an excellent writer. One writer has reviewed Karp's thinking from a libertarian perspective, his essay is here. Karp himself was a kind of "left wing Jeffersonian" rather than a traditional liberal or socialist. He was generally Progressive in outlook but saw the mechanism he detailed being used against both left leaning and right leaning grass roots insurgents. He also rejected the marxist derived socialist view of the corporate economy. He didn't see corporate oligopoly as endogenously derived from the market or technology, he believed it was a bi-product of state intervention, patents, intellectual property laws, discriminatory tax laws, regulatory bias in favor of large corporations etc. Although not a free marketeer his economic analysis was plainly more realistic than most Left Progressives.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The riots in Greece and Spain and future riots in California remind me of Rome. Grandiose cities were propped up through inflation and redistribution by the Roman government. Then, when the 3rd century crisis came about, those cities were lost when the government could no longer afford to prop them up.

    All empires are lost, trusting men to fix it all is folly.

    ReplyDelete