Skip to comments.What Romney is failing to spell out to the voters.
Posted on 10/17/2012 1:08:56 PM PDT by generally
There is one important point you are failing to make, probably because it is so patently obvious to you. But it is not obvious to many, many low-information voters. And it may have not penetrated the consciousness of many left-leaning voters.
When you speak about reducing the deficit without raising taxes, you need to EXPLICITLY say that one of the reasons this can happen is because more people working will mean that there are more people paying taxes and fewer people receiving unemployment, welfare, food stamps, and other benefits that increase the deficit/debt.
0bama and the media continually attack your economic plan as not being viable. They have essentially mocked you and said that you think money will magically come out of nowhere. (I forget the exact words, but that seems to be the attitude and it seems to be effective with listeners, including some who plan to vote for you.)
The Democrat attitude is the zero-sum game. More for the rich means less for the poor. In my opinion, Republicans need to emphasize that our economy is not a zero-sum game. When the economy is good, the pie is bigger and everyone gets more. Yes, the rich, too. I know some on the left so resent the rich that they would rather give everyone an equal slice of a very, very, very tiny pie. But most of us would rather have a small slice of a big pie, when that small slice is more than the tiny pie and that slice keeps on growing because we have a thriving economy.
I am not an economist. I also am not a political junkie, but I am reasonably well-informed and I have never heard you explain this, especially not during the two debates with 0bama. If you've said it, I missed it. And if I missed it so did plenty of other people.
Some things need repeating. (But I'm tired of hearing 0bama say he's "asking the rich to pay a little more," "fair share," etc.)
I've heard you say that you have plans to reduce taxes and close loopholes, but frankly that sounds like a break even strategy. It sounds like you will be taking money out of my left pocket to put it in my right pocket and that there will be no net benefit to me (I'm mostly ok with that), nor will the national debt be lowered (I'm not ok with that). I've heard you say often that you will grow the economy, that you focus on job creation. But I have not heard you explain how that will reduce the deficit.
So please, when you talk about your 5 point plan, could you tack this on specifically? Or something like this? (I'm sure you and your advisors can spiff it up a little.)
1. Lower taxes means more jobs.
2. More jobs means more people working.
3. More people working means more people paying taxes and fewer people getting handouts.
4. More taxes and fewer handouts means debt/deficit reduction.
I'm sure you can say this more diplomatically, (handouts might not be the best word), but I'm sure you get the point.
On the plus side, I was glad to hear you say last night that you were a businessman and knew how to create jobs. That needed to be said explicitly and it was. This is no time to be humble. Let your light shine!
Also, in my opinion you've won all 4 debates so far. Two against 0bama, one against Raddatz and one against Crowley. Nice job!
Last night you remained polite, without being a doormat. You looked strong and in command, while 0bama looked like a weak man who was trying to cover it with bluster by acting like a bully.
p.s. Watch the debate tape. You can tell when 0bama's telling a particularly big whopper. Among other body language giveaways, he takes a big gulping swallow.
p.p.s. 0bama's grip on the microphone looks sissy. Just sayin'.
My husband hollers at the TV during every debate: “More workers! That’s what we need rather than higher taxes — more workers.”
There are only so many hours in a day, or minutes in a debate. Romney did fine. Also, he made this point about 10 times.
He has made these points several times in the debates.
R/R has mentioned the effect of lower taxes. Their main failing is not pointing out the difference between tax RATE cuts and tax REVENUE cuts.
We have had four periods of tax RATE cuts: Harding, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush II. In each case the RATE cuts led to REVENUE increases for the reason mentioned: the economy expands; hires more people; they pay more taxes.
Even Keynes spoke of the need for tax cuts during a recession. Republicans have yet to stress this critical difference.
Romney wants equal opportunities
Obama wants equal outcomes
He didn't go as far as talking about the threat to "entitlements".
He needs to make it known (in his own words) that even takers are better off with more people pulling the wagon than riding the wagon
The only way "all riders" ever works, is... ok, if I have to spell it out..........downhill.
He said that? I didn't hear it.
Romney may not be spelling that out for a reason and the reason may be 1) he’s not sure there will ever be any more jobs (peak employment having been passed due to automation and 2) he doesn’t want to scare off any potential voters who have no interest whatsoever in working; which is to say that if he even so much as mentions that there would be fewer people on welfare, the Media will paint him all over with the “Cutting Welfare to balance the budget” sign.
Romney’s mistake, if any, is the assumption he is speaking to intelligent adults. Many voters won’t digest more than simple sound bites. If it won’t fit on a bumper sticker, many voters won’t bother to think deeper.
Actually he’s promising to create 12 million new jobs.
Mitt Romney should dwell on Rush Limbaugh’s old axiom that compassion is not about how many people are getting government help, but about how many people don’t need it.
He actually did say this in the first debate, but I agree - he needs to say it over and over. It is fact backed up by Reagan and JFK.
I’ve thought other possibilities. I’ve also considered that he’s saving it up for the last debate (unlikely).
I respectfully disagree with your first option. I think that’s a short view. A bit like saying that if we have tractors and combines to automate farms, then we’ll put farmers out of work. I think automation just frees up more people to be more productive.
I think your second point is very valid. I’m hoping he can get around that. There are a number of factors here. One, the diehard welfare recipients aren’t going to vote for him no matter what he says. So he doesn’t have to worry about them.
Then there are the seniors on Social Security. He is not trying to take that away from them and I hope he is making that clear, though there are plenty of people who will try to scare them that he is. Most seniors I know are pro-Romney and they get it. There is a big difference between being retired after a productive career and/or being the homemaker/spouse of a productive person vs. being a lifelong deadbeat.
But I think a big factor here is (and this is just my opinion) that there are MANY people getting handouts who would love to be working and productive and feeling good about themselves. There are many who are discouraged or have given up. They will see new opportunities in a Romney administration and they will rebuild their lives and their bank accounts.
>>Romney wants equal opportunities
>>Obama wants equal outcomes
That is the heart of the socialist/non-socialist split.
0bama stokes the resentment of the poor and some of the middle class. Instead of saying “I’m going to grab hold of my opportunities and work hard and become rich” they are encouraged to think that the rich got that way by taking something from them. They would rather drag down the rich than work to lift themselves up.
That’s the dynamic scoring Cain talked about.
While he may have mentioned in the debates the fact that more workers means more tax revenue, he definitely hasn’t pointed out how less people on food stamps, unemployment and welfare means less expenditures by the government.
Romney is winning. He is beating the smartest man in the universe who also happens to be the best campaigner in the universe. He is also beating the fourth estate in their nefarious effort to drag Obama across the finish line. Romney is a smart guy, smarter than Obama by far and I expect that ROmneys ground game will reflect his business acumen and Obama will be beaten soundly.