jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (15 posts)

Romney Campaign's Inconsistent Message

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 5 years ago

    After Romney claimed he has his own plan to reduce the deficit, which was not Paul Ryan's, a Romney adviser named Ed Gillespie claimed Romney WOULD HAVE SIGNED Ryan's budget when it was first introduced if he would've had the chance.  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/12/t … ns-budget/

    We now know what the Republican party is going to be focusing on if they make any significant electoral gains in November.  They are going to go against all the historical evidence that shows government working with the private sector can be positive, and begin the process to privatize EVERYTHING (this couldn't be done in four years, or even eight, but damage can be inflicted).

    I have parents who will be effected by turning Medicare into a voucher program and privatizing SS.  Ryan claims his plan will not effect people over 55, and both my parents are under 55, but just slightly.  This means that they will be screwed so Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, both who have called for higher taxes on themselves, will pay less.  This man's budget also INCREASES defense spending, and doesn't balance the actual budget until 2040.  I feel more and more as though I am living in a world where the lunatics are running the asylum.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Except for the fact that neither Romney nor Ryan would privatize SS...

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Uh.  Based on what evidence?  Ryan has called for both.

        http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politic … g_election  Medicare

        http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/0 … ?mobile=nc  SS.  Partial privatization is simply a step to full privatization.

        If you have something that says otherwise, please provide your sources.  I could also cite the Congressional Budget Office if you don't like these sources.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Allowing people to opt into a personal account, which is controlled by the SSA, is not privatization. At all.

          It's not even partial privatization.

          By definition, privatization is when something transfers from being done by the government to being done by private entities. Neither Ryan nor Romney are proposing that in any form.

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            According to that definition, defense contractors are not private either.  When the government pays them, is that not part of the private system?  It's absurd to say it's not "partial privatization" or not "privatization at all," especially considering how much they clean up.  Although, the contractors are often chosen based on who make the most campaign donations, so you could have a point if you were to disagree on this.

            However, giving Medicare beneficiaries money, and then forcing them to participate in the private market using the money in the voucher to purchase an insurance plan is privatization with subsidies (compared to now, where the government picks up the tab - around 85%-, regardless of the cost, and the person in question will NOT be denied care) just like the GOP plan to give out vouchers for private education; oil companies also receive subsidies, and very few people would claim that means they weren't participating in a "private system.". 

            The elderly will not be given the guarantee Medicare retirees are given now.  Once the money runs out they are given, they will no longer get care, or if their insurance plan does not cover something they need, they are out of luck.  Unless you want to take the position that ALL regulation is somehow anti-free market, which even the most right-wing economists wouldn't say, you aren't really able to escape the fact that many GOP lawmakers want both programs privatized.

            Here's a full summary of Ryan's positions- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr … -one-post/

            Like I said, even if it's not full privatization yet, it's a step toward that direction, and the ultimate goal of the Republicans like Paul Ryan.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I'm not talking about Medicare, only SS.

              It's nothing like using defense contractors. They aren't contracting with anybody. The SSA is still managing the funds just like always.

              1. profile image0
                Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                My apologies.  I mistakenly thought you were referring to both.

                You're right that the funds would be managed by the SSA.  However, they would be invested in private accounts, which means a stock market crash would wipe out anyone who was poor in a heartbeat, and there is no way to get that money back if that occurs, compared to now, where "theoretically" at least, the money is safe from such a loss.

                I still stand by my claim that it's a step on the road to full privatization, just like I think conservatives are right to be worried about the ACA being a stepping stone to eventually having a socialized system.  I HOPE that happens to our health care system.  Dramatic changes usually don't come overnight.  It would be a slow crawl.  So for SS, first allow the government to manage the private investments, then slowly back out over time.  With regards to health care, the public option could be a step closer to a socialized system, which would then just end up encompassing everyone.

                The parties fight each other though, so long-term, consistent policy adjustments are difficult to enact.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  They would be invested in government-approved funds, not stocks, and they would be guaranteed against losses.

                  Over the long run, the market will always out-perform government bonds/bills. The government would end up providing more SS funds, for less investment. So if in the future there were another 2008 kind of market, the extra money the government would pay to guarantee any funds lost in that time would be much less than the money necessary to pay out SS the way we have it now.

                  So no, nobody would lose their money. The only difference is, if we had been using a plan like this all along, people would be retiring with twice, or triple the amount of money.

                  It's not a step toward privatization at all. If/when someone proposes a law that would allow a private company to manage the funds, then it would be a step.

                  As it stands now, opposing these plans is only opposing more retirement money for future generations.

  2. chefsref profile image81
    chefsrefposted 5 years ago

    For Republicans to win they have to rely on an ignorant populace. Denying science, teaching Creationism, denying global climate change all depend on keeping people mis-educated. Once people are mis-educated, they are ripe to believe other misguided policies that benefit the rich and cost the middle class.
    Romney doesn't need a consistent message, he only needs to oppose Obama, like the healthcare policy that Romney wrote or recently, the welfare waiver that Romney asked for as governor and on and on.
    The Republican party has gotten Goofy and we will have to pay to attend their Magic Kingdom.

    1. HowardBThiname profile image81
      HowardBThinameposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Only a tiny faction of the GOP denies science, et.al, but, yes, they are annoying. The tough thing for Obama is that he can't run on his record, because outside of killing bin Laden, his record stinks. That's why he's in full-out, claws-bared attack mode. He can come down on Romney's message all he wants, but in the long run, if Americans compare Obama's first campaign promises to what he accomplished - they'll find him sorely lacking.

      1. chefsref profile image81
        chefsrefposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        You're right, if the election is about Obama's record he is probably toast, But, by adding Ryan to his ticket, people now have something concrete to consider. However, Romney immediately started to back away from the Ryan budget which he had already endorsed.
        The Republican should be a shoo-in in this election but they chose the wrong guy. We need new ideas but we get "elect me cuz I'm not as bad as that guy" from both sides

    2. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, "ignorant electorate, to whom they feed the feeble minded ideas of unwarrented resentment toward those that are not responsible for the dismal situation they currently find themselves in, today.
      One this is certain, this was a bold choice by Romney that will make alternative choices crystal clear. Ryan will pick up the new name "Soylent Green" if his plans against the seniors are allowed to be realized.
      This is radical rightwing stuff, that will certainly scare off those that have been on the fence.

  3. Mighty Mom profile image88
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Does this signify the end of the flip-flopping?
    After trying on images and positions like Goldilocks tried chairs, porridge and beds,
    has Romney finally found his zone?
    The Twilight Zone.
    Produced by those visionary directors Koch and Koch.

  4. LauraD093 profile image83
    LauraD093posted 5 years ago

    I really liked the fact that you inserted the websites Sooner28, it put the meat on the bone of your hub.  What is being proposed by the "Romney Camp," may very well be the definitive factor for those Independent voters such as myself who are by this point fed up with the jargon and propositions of both parties. I've missed reading yours hubs. I've been busy working to pay into a system which may not exist by the time I qualify for it .

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I like to provide sources to something that concrete, and easily verifiable.  Just like the fact that the Ryan budget won't balance the federal one until 2040, due to his massive tax cuts and increases in defense spending.  http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3737

      I also haven't been nearly as productive in publishing as I was when I first joined.  I'm only up to 52 so far, so you probably haven't missed too much.  One way to solve the SS "crisis" is to eliminate the cap on payroll taxes, where it stops at something like 100,000.  The more you make, the less you pay I guess!  If that were eliminated, some analysts estimate the program would be solvent until 2075!