My Romney "a ha" moment?

Jump to Last Post 1-13 of 13 discussions (96 posts)

75
Mighty Momposted 12 years ago
Apparently 63% of Americans view Romney's business background favorably and think he would be good for the economy.
Then I had this "a ha" moment (for me any moment where two thoughts actually connect in my brain is an "a ha" moment).
What if... people actually believe that because Romney is rich that he will make THEM rich? They project that he will somehow magically wave his money wand and poof -- forget a chicken in every pot, he will make everyone in America RICH because he is RICH.

Then I read this quote:
American writer John Steinbeck allegedly said: â��Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.â��

Do you believe people expect, on some unconscious level, they will become rich if they elect Mitt Romney to the presidency?

"Poll: Romney preferred over Obama to handle the economy," USA Today, July 23, 2012
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=277950&id … Cx&t=4
reply report
1. 69
  Teddletonmrposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do you believe people expect, on some unconscious level, they will become rich if they elect Mitt Romney to the presidency?
  I suppose it depends on what your definition of rich is, a chicken in every pot purchased using moneys earned from a hard day’s work, absolutely.
  The thing that escapes the I hate republican / Romney crowd, before Mr. Romney earned his millions his focus was on making businesses successful / profitable. Which means providing goods and or services customers are willing to shell out their hard-earned moneys to purchase and not forced by an overreaching government take part in because of some imposed fairness doctrine?
  Many hard-working Americans find the American dream in danger with the goings on in the current administration, home values plummeting, savings accounts stagnate, and the national debt rapidly approaching the U.S GDP. How can we blame the downtrodden conservative minded folks for believing there is a better way for the country and its peoples regain their dreams and freedom to succeed?
  Before you go and blame Mr. Bush for everything, please try to remember the promises of change from candidate Obama and where we the citizenry of our once great country are now.
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  Obama also caused the housing crisis and the banking debacle, right?
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I won't even bother checking those figures.
  
  Let's compare 2 years of Obama to 8 years of other presidents, yeah! At that rate, his bar will be 140% after 8 years(if he gets 8 years).
  
  And never mind that we have been constantly up against the debt ceiling... it's not like liberals want to spend even more than they already are!
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do you know what the debt ceiling is?
  Just wondering.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yup. Do you?
  
  Just wondering.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What about Congress? They are the ones who actually approve the budget and do the spending.
  
  Fighting on party lines, the greatest distraction of American politics.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's worth noting none of those except for Obama had to deal with an enormous global economic crisis (Reagan had a much smaller one) and two expensive wars started by their predecessors (through idiocy) so really the results are very reasonable.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's also worth noting that a 50% increase of debt, starting at 50% of GDP, is much more than a 50% increase of debt, starting at 1% of GDP.
  
  People try to pick these weird yardsticks to make Obama look good. Like the chart where he only grew spending by 1.3% or whatever. It looks good, until you realize how misleading it is.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually spending growth is the most crucial statistic in determining spending, after all spending is relevant to the spending you inherited.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's way too easy to misinterpret that though.
  
  Two scenarios:
  
  Scenario 1: The US had a debt of $1. President A increases the debt to $1 trillion. President B comes along and increases the debt to $10 trillion. All figures are adjusted for inflation, GDP has been static, in other words, there are no other factors than spending.
  
  President A increased the debt by some 100000000000000%. President B increased the debt by 1000%. So, President B did better than President A?
  
  No. % increase is only comparable if you adjust for the base.
  
  Scenario 2:
  
  President A authorizes a one-time expenditure of $10 trillion during his last year. President B expands on that last-year budget by 1%, and increases it again by 1% the next year, and so on, and so forth.
  
  Is President B doing a good job, by only growing spending by 1%?
  
  No. Growing baseline spending on top of an extraneous previous budget composed largely of a one-time expenditure, is not good. You would need to eliminate the one-time exposure, then compare budgets.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Absolutely the first is taken into account.
  
  The second is a matter of looking at policy, there ere big "one time" costs in say the Bush presidency (the wars and the tax cuts) but both went on after he left.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, the first ISN'T taken into account, when you look at growth of public debt. A much smaller increase can be a much higher percentage if the first baseline is smaller than the second baseline. Not accounted for. Not taken into account. It's built right into the figure, and not adjusted. Not controlled. I can't think of another way to say it.
  
  Your second point: Exactly. Stimulus spending, tax cuts, whatever. If something is meant to be temporary, but the next president makes it permanent and builds on it, you can't just say 'he increased the budget by 1%'. You have to look at what the baseline would have been without those expenses, and include them in his spending.
  
  Think of it this way. You have a business with a partner. Every year, you are allowed to spend 5% more than the previous year. Last year though, you purchased a new building and two new company vehicles, which were above and beyond the normal 5% increase.
  
  What should this year's baseline be? 5% more than last year's spending with the building and cars included, or 5% more than last year's spending with the building and cars excluded?
  
  I can make you a graph if that doesn't make sense.
  reply report
  70
  lmmartinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Mr. Mitt Romney did not make his millions. He was born into a very wealthy family and already had millions. It's easy to make millions from millions; difficult to make millions from nothing. Big, big difference. As to supposedly making businesses successful, he was more wont to dismantle them in the name of profitability than to turn them around, and those who bottom lines increased was more often than not than through outsourcing, etc. So please, let's be real about who Mitt Romney is and where he came from.
  
  And yes, the same can said of Obama, whose maternal family was also very wealthy.
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I disagree. Romney did inherit money, but he gave it all away. Of course, Romney had advantages that most people don't - a great education, the right connections, etc. He's also smart, savvy, and has a strong work ethic. His millions weren't just handed to him on a silver platter - there was actually some effort on his part.
  reply report
  61
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This a road that our country has been on since the '50's, so one term of Obama can not be blamed for that.
  
  If people buy the cool-aid the GOP is selling they will not only elect a president that is squarely for conservative economic doctrine, they also buy the policies and deregulations that created this last economic crisis in the first place.
  
  But if you make a people desperate enough, they will believe or do anything....
  reply report
2. 83
  gmwilliamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I remember hearing a similar lecture in a college sociology class. Many poor people in America do view themselves as potential millionaires while only an extremely minute percent actually view themselves as being oppressed. Many poor homes inculcate their children that they can achieve if they put their noses to the grindstone so to speak and stop being so lazy.
  
  Specifically the working and lower middle classes believe that any idea of them being oppressed is totally subversive and communistic. If someone in the same class dare to portend such an idea, they would be ostracized as communistic or worse, un-American. It is usually the upper middle classes or better who believe in such ideology. I know many people who were either socialist and/or communistic in leaning and they were either of the upper middle classes and/or upper classes. The people of the lower, working, and lower middle classes relayed that they intended to make that money and to live large!
  
  Now, many such people are going to vote for Romney because they believe that since Romney is rich, then anything is possible in America. Just like the working and lower middle classes who voted for Nixon, Reagan, and the two Bushes in the past. Beyond their yearning to live the ultimate American dream, they value the Republican ideology because of its innate conversativism and its emphasis on law and order. MM, you have posted an excellent thread!
  reply report
3. 0
  Sooner28posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There's probably a high correlation between those who vote Republican and are poor, and beliefs about future wealth.
  
  If I believe I am going to be a millionaire in 10 years, then I am making an investment in my future income by voting Republican NOW.
  
  TOO BAD the game is rigged and there is little chance most people will be millionaires .
  reply report
4. 60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think Steinbeck is right - as far as his witticism goes.
  
  I think your premise is flawed. People believe they can be successful - rich is not the same thing - because there is, until recently, a genuine American optimism. I think people used to believe that there was always a chance for them to succeed and prosper if they dedicated themselves to their passion, worked hard, were prudent and virtuous.
  
  I think people will vote for Mitt Romney because he does not represent the loss of those ideals and beliefs, while Barrack Obama does.
  
  I think people see Romney as a remover of barriers to prosperity and Obama as a placer of barriers.
  
  I think people hear Romney talk about business and hear optimism and Obama talk about business and hear disgust, repulsion, suspicion.
  
  I think Americans are still optimistic, that is why the under informed voted for "Hope and Change" instead of the grumpy old man.
  
  What optimistic vision of America's Future can Barrack Obama offer?
  
  1)You can't drive what you want, set your thermostat where you want
  2) Don't go to Las Vegas
  3)Bankrupt coal
  4)attack airplane manufacturers
  5)attack doctors
  6) tell granny she should take a pill instead of get a pace maker
  7) You didn't do that...
  
  I, I, I, me, me, me, mine, mine, mine....
  
  Self centered and negative, Barrack Obama diddles with donors while the economy founders, a record number of people languish on food stamps, disability and unemployment.
  
  Americans, it seems, are more optimistic than the Commander-in-Chief and that is why Romney will win. Some may not vote for him but they will not vote for the unceasing drum beat of negativism and narcissism coming from Obama, either.
  
  This is why the enthusiasm gap favors Romney by double digits.
  reply report
5. 83
  LauraGTposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Fox "news" recently reported that only half (or thereabouts) of Americans believe they could one day become wealthy. They reported this as if it were some terrible indicator of how downhill our country has gone. Well, I am pretty shocked that half of Americans believe they can become wealthy! Only a few percentage ever do (depending on your definition of wealth). This idea that EVERYONE should be able to become rich is uniquely American, and I don't know that it does us a lot of good, especially as it seems to mean leaving a lot of people in the dust....
  reply report
6. 61
  dmhendersonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, I don't believe people think they will get rich if Romney is elected, but I do believe they think they will be better off. I also believe (or at least hope) people are beginning to realize that social and economic mobility has practically disappeared. Perhaps the Great Recession has opened up some eyes. I think the poll results are a consequence of "cognitive capture." People have been duped into believing that policies that benefit the richest members of our society also benefit everyone else, that wealth will trickle down despite all the evidence that it trickles the other direction.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +++
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Cognitive capture.
  That's exactly what I was trying to say (but don't think I knew that term until you so helpfully included it in your post)!.
  Thank you!
  How many different times and ways does it have to be proved that trickle down does not happen. It just doesn't.
  Do the richest Americans really need policies? Don't they kinda operate above the law anyway?
  I think reverse is also true. People fear that policies aimed at the poorest among us will somehow make them poor, too.
  reply report
7. 61
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think there are too many layers to this economic onion to peal to give a straight answer.
  
  Sure, most will vote for him because he is not Obama, which bring in line other questions concerning what kind of president he would be.
  
  Then there are certain corporations or conservatives who back the policy of not hiring just so the economy can remain anemic enough for Obama to lose the next election- which is economic blackmail.
  
  I do not think Romney will be any good for the economy because he will back whatever corporate America/conservatives tell him to do.
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for naming the invisible (but not to all) ELEPHANT in the room.
  I agree there is a conspiracy of not hiring just to get Obama out.
  I guess the plus on that would be that if it succeeds in getting Romney elected then those corporations are going to hire -- just to bring the unemployment numbers down and make their "boy" look like a hero.
  But at least Americans will have jobs.
  It makes me want to puke thinking of this economic blackmail and the lives of real Americans it, along with some specific and insidious corp. plots perpetrated by certain industries, has devastated.
  We are the hostages here!
  reply report
8. 70
  jacharlessposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right now the 'rich disease' is deeply effecting America, from GRQ websites, mind control, self-help to mogul coaching {millionaire minds, the secret, biblical prosperity} and beyond, while the classes broaden and poverty exceeds that of the 60s. People spend trillions last decade on these rich concepts -real estate included. the rich sell the concept of rich, keeping them wealthy and everyone else wanting to be rich. T Robbins tickets go for $300-$1500 a pop. Every seat, every show, always sold out. One more nudge in the wrong direction and its Hooverville all over again.
  
  James.
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  T Robbins is a master.
  God help people who really believe they can create a "money machine."
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Friend of Bill C.
  http://billclintondailydiary.blogspot.c … -life.html
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Tony's a really good motivator, I'm not denying that.
  Maybe he helped BC become pals with Bush Sr. and start his foundation.
  
  I'm just questioning that average people can really create a "money machine" to fund their lives. Sure would be great if we all could. But I don't think attitude alone can make you rich. Maybe that is an unAmerican attitude.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Horatio Alger died a long time ago. A little luck is often helpful or unhelpful. We're all lucky we were'nt born an orphan In Bangladesh or a Detroit ghetto.
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ... or Kenya.
  Some certain presidents we could name.
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Shhhhhhhhhhh...don't say the "K-word." You'll get the birthers started.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Or Obama's book publisher -
  
  reply report
  61
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I was not born in a Detroit ghetto, but I lived most of my life in one.
  
  In fact, the East Side to be exact, and I'm thankful for being raised there.
  
  Since you have mentioned Detroit, I will run with it.
  A president Romney would not be a good thing for Detroit, because it is the workers and poor there that would suffer the most under his policies. I would not be surprised if efforts were made to break Detroit's unions.
  
  The one thing I could count on Detroit doing is not voting for Romney because they see he did not have their interests in mind.
  
  But if these citizens could see it, why would anyone else fall for Romney?
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Is Detroit shutting off street lights in neighborhoods where houses have been abandoned by fleeing residents? How are things in Detroit now? Seems that Detroit has been run by Democrats for a long time. Have Barrack Obama's policies actually helped Detroit?
  
  Detroit used to be a vibrant city - what happened/ Though ever city has some neighborhoods that are tougher than others, not everyone is in full fledged decline.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As I always tell you just look at the population and severity of poverty during Republican periods vs Democrat against economic growth and you will see why people in Detroit are smart enough not to vote for the guys who increase poverty even when the economy grows, a la Reagan. People in Detroit aren't idiots they know full well the consequences is all, the poor fare worse under Republican leadership, it's a matter of statistical fact. They have also figured out that trickle down is a laughable joke.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They have also figured out that they no longer wish to live in Detroit. The city is 40% the size it was just 50 years ago. The only cities that size that have experienced that much population reduction have been ones devastated by plague, famine, war or all three - way to go Democrats!!
  
  Here let me translate that into Obama-ese
  
  Detroit solves issues of urban sprawl, population growth and over taxed infrastructure.
  reply report
  61
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Detroit may be a worse case example due to its dependence on the auto industry, but it is not a city alone in its suffering. Other cities in the Mid-West are suffering some of the same problems. New Orleans has not fully recovered its population. Then there is the Rust Belt.
  
  What happens when industrial cities continues to lose population and its tax base?
  
  What happens when these problems appear to be racially motivated?
  
  What happens when these continue without resolution, and poverty increases and their are losses due to an educational system that loses its tax base?
  
  And if such problems spread to other cities?
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +++
  reply report
  61
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  First, no major city can stand alone in this country, and the fact that mention concerning Democratic control since the '70's point to that fact. Detroit has several problems: Racial conflicts with its outlining suburbs and conflicts with the state government, and lack of the right kind of economic development by
  succeeding federal governments. Has always been a problem in Detroit, but after 2008 has depopulation increased at an alarming rate.
  
  If Romney were elected his policies would insure my city's demise.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is sad but if Detroit doesn't make major changes it is likely to present a mystery to future archeologist. Those cahnges are unlikely with the same old Democrats in charge. The cities you can point to as foundering and failing are all Democrat run.
  reply report
  61
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is NOT an issue of politics.
  
  It is an issue of economic policies that do not integrate national, regional and municipal strategies.
  
  Can we blame our cities for the economic crisis(s) our nation and world experienced?
  
  It is sad, however, that our economic policies are governed and influenced by politics, and a Romney presidency would continue to focus on the well being of certain 'persons' called corporations, and not on the health of US cities.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Economic policies are indeed a matter of politics. detroit was in trouble for decades prior to the current down turn and through out those decades run by Democrats. Where is there a healthy sity without healthy corporations? Part of the problem witht the country is the absurd policies that insulted corporations from the natural consequences of their actions - policies supported by both Republicans and Democrats but opposed by conservatives(Republicans and Libertarians, all)
  
  I am sadden by Detroit's decline - after all the Motor City was Mo-town - a vibrant cultural power house not only for soul music but rock n roll. Let alone the harmful effects of decline on the people of Detroit and their psychology.
  reply report
  61
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So what you are saying is that politics governs economics?
  
  If this were an argument concerning which is the best political/economic system, (capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.) then your argument would be valid.
  
  This is an argument in which government systems are all the same whether Democratic or Republican. I lay blame at the feet of our economic policies, specifically those that favor corporations.
  
  Case in point: 1979 to 1983 a large section of a neighboring city of Hamtramck, MI was leveled to make way for a GM auto plant. Hamtramck never recovered, and the neighborhoods, small businesses and single family housing that were leveled had an economic effect on Detroit neighborhoods bordering Hamtramck. One of those was the closing of my old high school, Northeastern, a school that stood going back to '40's, closed down by 1983.
  
  Corporations and politics do not take into account the economic ramifications of destroying neighborhoods for the sake of corporations.
  
  This Northeastern and surrounding neighborhood today. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&c … CHIQ_BIwAw
  report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So neighborhoods benefit from having no corporate jobs? Many corporate heads are Democrat supporters - Jeffery Imelt, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, etc.... It is about an economics in that Democrats and Republicans do not fully understand how economies work. Democrats are even more hampered than Republicans because there are no free market, conservative Democrats.
  
  if you ask a conservative about "eminent doamin" laws they will tell you how they have been abused to take the private property of citizens to be transferred, in a clear violation of the Constitution, to another for no more reason than to increase the revenue received by the local government. That is a clear violation of the spirit, if not always the letter, of the law and the historical traditions about private property.
  
  If a neighborhood is knocked down because government and business colluded and took that property - that stinks. But if the property is fairly purchased than so be it. , that is very different.
  report
  61
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Which conservatives do I ask?
  
  The ones who are being manipulated or the ones that side with the corporations for a bigger slice of the pie?
  
  Neighborhoods are like forests: they take years to grow and are not easily replaced. They are also economic engines in their own right. You mentioned in an earlier post that people flea Detroit because of crime and poverty. I will postulate another reason - they are effectively made into refugees. They are a displaced population when their jobs are outsourced and neighborhoods are plowed under to make way for auto plants that will lay them off after a decade or two.
  
  "So neighborhoods benefit from having no corporate jobs?"
  I'd have to say no, if those jobs are eventually outsourced, sold to the lowest bidding population or wage.
  
  My posts concerning Detroit is not just personal history - it is economic observation, that just because a man can make millions of dollars does not mean he will benefit local economies or the workers foolish enough to vote for him.
  
  If Romney has economic policies, they are the kind that will tear down whole neighborhoods to make way for corporations.
  report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We will find out because he is very likely the next President.
  report
  61
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If Romney buys the office and enough people to ignore personal observations, ignore a Republican Party/Tea Party that harbor racism, and voters pay more attention to their wallets and media like Fox's News, then sure he could win.
  
  But I'm willing to bet that this country will be the poorer for it if Romney wins.
  
  Again, just because someone can make millions does not qualify that person for presidency.
  report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You and I were having a civil conversation. I was commiserating with you about the sad decline of a once vibrant city and then race is introduced. I didn't do it. I will have you know that I am very conservative. I am also a strong Catholic and I love all my brothers and sisters. I want what is best for everyone and it is my firm belief that it cannot be found among the Democrats.
  
  Barrack Obama is expected to raise and spend a $billion - is that buying the office? As for the racist stuff - we would all be better if that was used when actual racism is seen/heard not as some scurrilous charge based on nothing real. I will pray for your city tonight because it needs my prayers. I will vote for Romney because Detroit needs a new President.
  report
  61
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I only use words where it has been observed.
  
  I personally witness this racism during the last election and the first year of the Obama presidency.
  
  As for who you will vote for, it saddens me that you will vote for Romney, but I'm not surprised.
  
  You see, I too, like my father before me, was once a Republican. Until a new set of Republican values felt that religion was a more important ally than ethnic and cultural diversity. So it does not surprise me that you vote for Romney. That is your right, but I feel that he is not qualified to address the economic problems heading for this country.
  
  And I have been civil, I simple did not remove the edges of any of my arguments and observations, (to remove those edges would be to cloud my observations with unnecessary niceties).
  
  Undermyhat, you need not listen to such as me, and you can disregard our whole discourse - but I stand by my words.
  report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Vegas odds favor Obama.
  report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Detroit's decline had multiple causes: 1. Over dependence on the auto industry; 2. Mismanagement of the big three auto companies; 3. Failure of auto company managements and the UAW to recognize and respond to competition, from Asian and European car companies enabled by doctrinaire devotion by our economics and foreign policy establishment; 4. School integration and bussing which caused white flight to the suburbs; 5. Passage of a Detroit city income tax; 6. Poor relations between a lily white police force and the black community which resulted in the 1968 riot or as some called it "rebellion"; 7. The lack of a metropolitan government and transit system (as in Toronto). I don't believe it's accurat to attribute Detroit's decline to the Democrat mayors and politicians. The city has had some quite good Democrat mayors, both black and white.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  What?!?! There have been good and bad Democrat mayors but you can't blame Democrats????
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Apparently you missed my comment listing some of the factors which led to Detroit's decline nearly all of which were far beyond the control of local politicians Democrat or Republican.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Error correction: doctrinaire devotion to free trade by our economics and foreign policy establishments
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's a god question! Couldn't believe a report on TV last night that Romney's leading in Michigan.
  (I lived in the New Center area of Detroit in the sixties and now in a Detroit suburb.)
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Eventually, Detroit will be the name of the giant, vacant or reforested land surrounded by Clawson, Livonia, Troy, Westland, etc....
  
  Detroit finishes green urban reclamation complex with dedication of Kwame Kilpatrick green space and park. Another Democrat leap forward. Awesome.
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There is nothing more inspiring than that all American "can do" optimism.
  
  "Yes We Can't" that has got to work. The first step to anything is to believe it possible.
  reply report
  61
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The 'rich' disease.
  
  I like that one.
  
  I do not see how anyone can get rich, if they work jobs that do not pay a living wage, or do not teach new skills that allows them to be promoted into better positions within a company.
  
  Or, maybe they can win the lotto, and become wealthy that way....
  
  The 'rich' disease is the disease of the mind....
  reply report
0
JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago
The majority of people who vote for Romney are going to do so because he's the R nominee. Some are going to vote for him because he isn't Obama. Those who really care about his business experience are going to vote for him in hopes that he will get unemployment under control.

I don't really think the majority of conservative voters are going to expect to be given stuff free, they just want a job.
reply report
60
Xenonlitposted 12 years ago
I suspect the polls and the polling methods. Since Reagan, most Americans know better than to trust a Republican to trickle anything down to them. Maybe a lot of ignorant newcomers are buying it, but who says that they are even qualified to vote for Romney?

And Romney's business experience? Are we kidding?
reply report
61
JSChamsposted 12 years ago
Because we all know there are no wealthy Democrats in politics right?
reply report
75
Mighty Momposted 12 years ago
Yes, there are Democrats in politics who have money. That's assumed -- you have to have or be able to raise a ton of money to run for federal office.
But I've never met one yet who claimed to be a rainmaker or kingpin. That's simply not the D platform.

The whole Romney mystique and the whole focus on Bain Capital is SUBLIMINALLY sending the message that he has "insider" knowledge of how the 1% live and is committed to sharing that expertise to make Americans wealthy, too.

If he could create all those jobs at Bain, think of how many jobs he can create as POTUS.
If he has friends in the wealthy companies, he can convince them through tax breaks to create jobs for Americans.

I'm not saying the connection is logical. Just that this idea suddenly hit me. It would not be the first time Americans, desperate for a "fix" are willing to suspend disbelief and vote against their self-interests!

BTW, none of this "promise" is stated outright. But it's there like the word "sex" in the ice cubes in the old 1960s liquor ads.
A Republican spin of sorts on Camelot.
reply report
1. 61
  JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok......the way they deified Barack Obama four years ago????????????????????????//
  
  Puh-lease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  reply report
2. 61
  Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have to agree with you, and I hope we are not that desperate.
  reply report
75
Mighty Momposted 12 years ago
I don't think anyone expects free stuff.
And I think everyone who has suffered through the great recession, as well as recent grads, want a job.

But do they honestly believe that all these businesses who've laid off thousands, shipped jobs overseas, or seen their entire industries evaporate will snap to and fall in line and hire Americans simply because Romney is the president?

reply report
1. 60
  carol3sanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I just heard on the news (CNN) that there are thousands upon thousands of jobs available here in the USA but there is no one available to fill them. Not all of these jobs are high level jobs either. Many are jobs that require simple problem solving skills. Aparently the peolpe in this country are too stupid to to qualify. I suppose President Obama is the blame for that too?
  reply report
2. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  MM, Obama is claiming that a 10% tax break on businesses on new hiring expenses will create a million jobs. Imagine what would happen if we simply cut our corporate tax rates to, I don't know, maybe a competitive level? If 10% of new hiring expenses = 1 million jobs, then how many jobs do you get from an 8% cut overall?
  reply report
  75
  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Apples and oranges, Jaxson.
  If you give me a $100 Old Navy gift card I have to use it at Old Navy.
  If you give me a $100 American Express or Visa gift card, I may choose to use some or all of it at Old Navy. But I probably won't.
  
  See the difference here?
  The tax relief has got to be specifically related to HIRING or else businesses will not use it to create jobs.
  As to being competitive, not all businesses, especially smaller businesses, are competing internationally.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I see the difference MM, but you also have to understand the implications.
  
  Obama is saying that there are 1 million jobs that would be created, if the cost of creating them were reduced, for one year, by 10%. That means there are companies with 90% of the money needed to do the hiring. It means there is enough demand to do the hiring. It means the companies want to do the hiring.
  
  If companies want to do the hiring, and there is demand for it, then they have a business reason to do so: It will grow their operations/revenues/profits.
  
  So, if the market has the demand, and companies have 90% of the money, and they want to do the hiring, then it would be a good business decision to do so, no matter where the money comes from. A specific tax break, or a general tax break. They won't do the hiring unless it will make them money either way.
  
  To be frank, it's a stupid claim that it would create a million jobs. It's a one-time tax break of 10% of those expenses. If an employer can afford to pay an employee $45,000 this year, but not $50,000, why would they hire the employee if next year they are forced to pay $50,000?
  
  Employers don't want a constantly changing environment and short-term fixes, they want a competitive, stable environment.
  
  There are more problems than that as well, but I doubt you will respond if I bring them up.
  
  And by the way, your example is very bad.
  reply report
69
Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago
A lot of people believe that America is the land of opportunity unlimited for anyone willing to work hard, but the immense growth in wealth and income inequality and declining intergenerational mobility show that this a myth.
reply report
1. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No.
  
  The American Dream is very much alive and well. Income mobility is high, it's only low when you look at it from a relative perspective, and then compare relative %'s from country to country.
  reply report
86
Jean Bakulaposted 12 years ago
MM, you could be right. Many will vote for Romney just because he's not Obama. Some will believe he has business knowledge because he's rich. I still think Obama gets a bad rap, he didn't start these wars, and a lot of cash could be saved by chopping the military budget. They have enough weapons to destroy the world many times over. It seems Obama is having money difficulties too, so I'm not sure how it will play out.
reply report
69
Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago
One more of The Mittster's ah ha! moments: "I like to fire people!"
reply report
1. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  One more example of purposefully taking a person's comments out of context to misrepresent their statement.
  
  Mitt was talking about people and companies that he does business with. He likes to 'fire' them by taking his business elsewhere.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Prediction: Ralph won't respond, or he will say something like 'It might not be what he was actually saying, but it shows a lot about his character'.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Bain's vampire capitalism tactics was, in large part, based on firing America workers and sending their jobs to China, Mexico and other countries where workers are exploited by low wages and working in unsafe, unhygienic, polluting plants.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, come off it Ralph.
  
  ""I like being able to fire people who provide services to me"
  
  He wasn't talking about firing employees.
  
  "You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say, 'I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.'"
  
  You know that, but you want to 'say anything' to make Romney look bad.
  
  As far as Bain, which is a completely different topic... I've addressed this half a dozen times, and you haven't been able to put forward a single argument to the contrary.
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But it's okay with you that Obama's (OUR) stimulus $ created jobs overseas?
  reply report
  60
  undermyhatposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  or that Star City has benefitted from the collapse of the shuttle program? or that the bogus solar power company Solyndra, a transfer of taxypayer dollars to Obama bundlers, bought Chinese equipment, or,or,or....
  
  Obama is a disaster.
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not sure what you're referring to. There have long been plenty of incentives for US companies to outsource jobs overseas: slave wages, no effective unions, weak or non-existent industrial safety and environmental regulation, and the un-repatriated profits corporate tax loophole. Romney's Bane Capital is one of the most rapacious practitioners of off-shoring. If Mittens isn't elected rumor has it he has an offer of the lead role in a fourth Batman sequel tentatively titled "Bane Returns Born Again."
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  According to Democrats Chuck Schumer, Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, and Bob Casey:
  
  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33847.html
  reply report
75
Mighty Momposted 12 years ago
Stable environment?
You must be talking about public sector employers. Oh wait. That sector isn't stable anymore either.
Hmmmm.
reply report
1. 83
  gmwilliamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You know it! The last time I worked for the public sector, the administration that took over instituted more stringent rules which were not even listed in the civil service bylaws. Furthermore, more and more people were well............bidded adieu, if you know what I mean.
  reply report
2. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, stable is good. Every time the POTUS or Congress has a different party, things start changing. People don't like it.
  
  Nice deflection, by the way.
  
  It's sad how little discussion takes place on discussion forums. Just deflect the argument, ignore the argument, or change the subject.
  
  MM, do you think that multinational investors take tax rates into account when deciding where to invest?
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What really turns them on are slave wages, no unions, no safety or hygiene or environmental regulations.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's disturbing to see how incapable people are of actually having a discussion, making specific, substantiated arguments and counter-arguments...
  
  Oh well... The independent thinkers are the ones who actually are swayed by fact.
  reply report
3. 0
  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  My favorite thing about public jobs, are how stable they can be in pay.
  
  Heck, who cares if the USPS loses billions of dollars per year. Let's hire entry-level, part-time workers at $19/hr. That's stable!
  
  Oh yeah, btw... every taxpayer in the country(well, the ones who pay taxes, you know, the top 50% of Americans) are going to have to foot the bill for our overpayment of wages. Good plan.
  reply report
61
JSChamsposted 12 years ago
reply report
69
Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago
Romney totally crashed and burned in London where the press compared him unfavorably to Sarah Palin.
reply report
1. 62
  prettydarkhorseposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He is doing good in London!
  
  "There's guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know if we are ready. Are we ready? Yes we are!" — London Mayor Boris Johnson to a raucous crowd in London's Hyde Park after the arrival of the Olympic flame.
  
  — Rob Harris — Twitter
  reply report
2. 92
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And why was that, Ralph? Because Romney was critical of the security measures. Maybe it's not his place to criticize, but he's not alone:
  
  http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/17/sport … index.html
  
  http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/07/17 … rries.html
  
  http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Mor … 709087.php
  
  http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa … -security/
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sport … wanted=all
  reply report
  69
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And he could,t remember the name of the head of the Labor Pcarty; and,contrary to protocol, he publicly mentioned that he had been briefed by the head of Mi6. He was called out by Cameron and the mayor of London and the British media. At least he didn,t barf on any at a state dinner as Bush I did in Japan.
  
  He was correct about the Olympics issues, but everybody agrees it was a gaffe for him to bring them up in a public statement.
  reply report
  92
  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Everybody," agrees, Ralph? lol. I don't think he should have mentioned it there, either, but I do think he has some valid points.
  reply report
0
screamingposted 12 years ago
LMAO...amazing how the hunt for defense links come out of the woodwork!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

My Romney "a ha" moment?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

My Romney "a ha" moment?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies