FLASHBACK:
FRee Republic Member Opinion
WINNER - Thompson 66.8% 1,658
LOSER --- Romney 12.7% 315
Post Election Rasmussen poll - GOP voters:
WINNER - Palin -- 64%
LOSER --- Huckabee -- 12%
LOSER --- Romney -- 11%
Posted on 12/20/2008 3:09:04 PM PST by SeekAndFind
What is Washington waiting for? The inauguration is less than five weeks away: At the rate we’ve been going, another 500,000 jobs will be lost by then. The downward spiral is deepening and accelerating: Congress and the president must act now.
American families have lost about $11 trillion in net worth as securities and home values have plummeted. This translates into about $400 billion less annual consumer spending, net of government safety-net funding. Exports won’t grow to make this up, as the dollar has strengthened with investors worldwide clamoring for its relative security. Investments won’t make up the gap either, as bank loans and secondary-market financing have shrunk and as fresh equity is virtually non-existent.
So this is surely the time for economic stimulus. But — and this is the crucial point — the government can’t just make itself bigger and more oppressive in the guise of stimulating the economy. That would make matters worse. Nor should we forget that fiscal stimulus is but one part of the solution. As Christina Romer, Barack Obama’s designee as chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisors concluded from her study of the Great Depression, bad monetary policy was its greatest cause and good monetary policy was its most effective cure. The Fed should continue to expand the money supply. And, it should confirm that it will not tolerate deflation — the pain of inflation pales in comparison.
That being said, a stimulus plan is needed without further delay, and there are some things that Republicans should insist on.
The first is that tax cuts are part of the solution. Harvard professor and economist Greg Mankiw points out that recent research confirms that tax cuts have a greater multiplier effect than new spending — more economic bang for the federal buck. We should lower tax rates for middle-income families and eliminate their tax on savings altogether — no tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. Let’s also align our corporate tax rate with those of competing nations. These actions will rapidly expand consumption and investment, and right now, time is of the essence.
On the spending front, infrastructure projects should be a high priority. But because infrastructure projects involve engineering, environmental studies, permitting and contracting, they can take a long time to actually boost the economy. Spending to refurbish and modernize our military equipment is urgently needed, and it has a more immediate impact on the economy. A great deal of our armament was damaged or lost in the Middle East, and the rest is long overdue for maintenance.
We should also invest to free us from our dependence on foreign oil, not by playing venture capitalist, but by funding basic research in renewables, material science, combustion, nuclear reprocessing, and the like. During the 2008 campaign, virtually every candidate agreed on the need for an “Apollo-like mission” to achieve energy independence. Now is the time to start.
Cities and states will clamor for government dollars. Like the Big Three automakers, states should first take advantage of the downturn to do some needed cost cutting and restructuring. State employee numbers, pensions, and health-insurance premium sharing — as well as duplicate and ineffective agencies and programs — should be high on the hit list. State budgets should be brought in line with those of the most efficient of their comparables. And the federal government should look to ease the burden of mandates on states, like Medicaid.
Republicans should also lay down a gauntlet: All new spending projects should be selected by the responsible federal agency according to published criteria, not by congresspersons and senators based upon favors and politics. Republicans should commit to vote no on any stimulus bill with earmarks that have not been voted upon by their entire body.
There is a danger that new spending and deficits will lead to runaway inflation, flight from the dollar, and another economic crisis. It is essential, therefore, that Congress and the president commit to reform entitlement spending as soon as the economy recovers. With the footing of our long term economy at risk, with entitlements already reaching 60 percent of federal spending and with baby boomers nearing retirement, this can be delayed no longer.
We must also be careful to avoid burdening the economy with excessive regulation in response to the need to reform regulatory oversight of the financial sector. Going too far could cripple the entire industry, further tightening the credit markets. And we should make it clear that Washington will not act to virtually impose unions on small business by eliminating the right of workers to vote by secret ballot in the workplace. This “card check” payback for the AFL-CIO’s support of the Democrats would devastate business formation and employment.
The Democrats may want to wait for Obama, but the country needs action now. Republicans can — and must — play an important role in shaping a stimulus bill that makes sense for America and lays a foundation for future prosperity and growth.
--— Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts.
BIP
Unlike you, I think Romney is very far away from fitting our goals in any way, shape, or form. Indeed, I am convinced that he would operate counter to them. I have investigated enough about his record to conclude that exaggeration and distortion are not needed to reject him ...
... unlike the exaggeration and distortion of Edit35 and Rameumptom when they falsely claim, repeatedly, that Romney was "supported" and/or "endorsed" by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Reagan. They exaggerate and distort lukewarm praise from these guys, praise no stronger or weaker than that offered by them for other of the primary candidates, and deliberately mislead fellow FReepers into thinking the intent of such as Limbaugh, Reagan, and even Levin (Levin actually did legitimately and plainly without enthusiasm endorse Romney at the last minute as the least of the three Primary evils of McCain, Huck, and Romney) was to "endorse" Romney as the Future Face, the Hope of the party. In fact, Levin, Limbaugh, and Reagan make it pretty clear, once you actually see what they've said about Romney in the full context, that they regarded Romney as the least lousy in a piss-poor lot -- hardly the future for 2012.
Again, if you're looking for exaggeration and distortion, you'll find it more than plentiful among Romney's strongest supporters here.
I don't think Romney is gonna get us out of anything, but neither is a bunch of ad hominem attacks on him.
The facts are these: Either the GOP comes up with a popular alternate plan for fiscal stimulus and sells it direct to the public, or we will have the Dem plan rammed down our throats. If Romney can float a few ideas that work, great. If he floats some dogs, then shoot them down. Don't just dismiss them with a kneejerk, though.
Same goes for Fred Thompson, McCain, Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, or any other GOP that wants to get some ideas out there.
There are a lot of GOP politicians I think are jerks, but that doesn't mean I can't like some of their ideas. There are others I admire, but whom have come up with some dreadful ideas. But, at least they are trying to get something out as an alternative to the Dem BOHICA we will be getting on Jan 20th.
So true.
In retrospect, the thing that made me a Romney supporter was the virulent "exaggeration and distortion" of his record, his faith, and personna by a wing of the FR conservatives who offered little else but attack-filled invectives.
I have no special affinity to Romney, but during the primaries he was ... and still is... the one viable Republican who defends and promotes those conservative positions necessary to keep America strong and prosperous.
Oh, the bashers will dwell on a mis-placed statement here and there... or even on a not-perfect health car plan Romney signed into law in Massachusetts.
But for Heavens sake, bashing bashing gets the GOP no where... not unless accompanied by proposals or solutions.... which many here on FR fail to offer.
Right. Your posting record on Free Republic supports that ... NOT. You are SUCH a liar, Edit!
... but during the primaries he was ... and still is... the one viable Republican who defends and promotes those conservative positions necessary to keep America strong and prosperous.
Right ... government-mandated, government medling between free individuals, their employers, and health insurance ... supporting the bail-out ... backing the homosexual rights agenda ... buying into Gore's global warming hoax, promoting the useless and expensive myth that we "need" to "invest" (i.e., use taxpayer dollars) in "alternative energy," and giving legitimacy to its rationale that government needs to employ heavy regulation to "protect" the environment ....
.... is an exaggeration of his record (it's not) ... dwelling on a "mis-placed statement here and there ... " (it's not) ... and "attack-filled invectives."
Edit, you exhibit zero honor, zero credibilty, and YOU LIE to and insult fellow FReepers frequently. You demand "proposals or solutions" accompany any criticism of your Hero Romney (remember? the guy for you you claim to have "no specil affinity for"). Here's my proposed solution: Reject Republican candidates who themselves reject limited government conservatism, and that means, among other things, rejecting Romney. That is a proposal and a solution. You know that's what it is, and you know that's what the group you insultingly call "a wing of the FR conservatives who offered little else but attack-filled invectives" offer -- a proposed solution to REJECT guys like Romney in order to avoid anotehr McCain-like scenario in 2012.
There is plenty of "exaggeration and distortion" going on -- AND YOU'RE THE ONE DOING IT.
Good posts, rodeo-mamma and TAdams. What you have here in the Romney bashers are a group of anti-Mormons and/or disgruntled Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee supporters.
Their tactics, as during the primaries, are to divert from any intelligent discussion via personalization, smears and outright lies. They’re also given to drama queen hysteria, as in accusing TAdams of going ballistic, when she is one of the few on this thread who has NOT gone ballistic, and in fact it is their ranks doing so.
One must wonder why so much energy is put forth opposing Mitt Romney rather than opposing the incoming socialist Politburo of Ack-Ack Barack, which is the most present and clearest danger to our country from the conservative point of view.
Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee ran in the primaries solely to keep Romney from the nomination. Therefore, we got McCain. Sweet, huh?
FLASHBACK:
FRee Republic Member Opinion
WINNER - Thompson 66.8% 1,658
LOSER --- Romney 12.7% 315
Post Election Rasmussen poll - GOP voters:
WINNER - Palin -- 64%
LOSER --- Huckabee -- 12%
LOSER --- Romney -- 11%
You never get tired of lying, do you?
Therefore, we got McCain instead of Romney and thus Barack....And the same people not recognizing, let alone admitting their mistake, are dumping on Romney again!
"Their tactics, as during the primaries, are to divert from any intelligent discussion via personalization, smears and outright lies. They’re also given to drama queen hysteria, as in accusing TAdams of going ballistic, when she is one of the few on this thread who has NOT gone ballistic, and in fact it is their ranks doing so.
One must wonder why so much energy is put forth opposing Mitt Romney rather than opposing the incoming socialist Politburo of Ack-Ack Barack, which is the most present and clearest danger to our country from the conservative point of view."
Exactly. So well said! : ) Thank you and thanks for the reality check. : )
I don't see ANYONE here trying to resurrect the candidacies of losers Thompson (whom I passionately supported with money and voice) or Huckabee, and I don't see Thompson supporters accusing those who objected to Thompson of being "haters" or religious bigots, or of blaming those who didn't vote for him of throwing the election to McCain or Obama.
I do see a select group of posters here who constantly try to resurrect the candidacy of loser Romney and who continuously accuse those who want to leave Romney as far behind as they've left Thompson and Huckabee, of doing so out of hate and anti-Mormon sentiment.
Romney supporters are very, very, very poor losers. It's universally known that poor losers are also poor winners, as deluded, mean, and childish in victory as they are in defeat -- and it makes me all the more glad that Romney lost. Enchiladita, you strengthen my conviction that Romney would have been even worse than McCain.
The behavior of Romney supporters speaks volumes about their deeply flawed candidate.
Check out my post 232, and wake up and smell the coffee. You delude yourselves badly and give Republicans a bad name. You make me all the more grateful that Romney LOST.
I give credit to Mitt for his economic sense, and that alone.
You couldn’t be more wrong. At least THIS anti-Romney person has been anti Romney from the get go, and is not anti-Mormon. Why is it that when people question or bash Romney, the ‘Mormon Hater’ card gets played. Good grief, why is it so hard to believe that conservatives dislike Romney because he’s a charlatan? He’s not a conservative and not a republican. Oh he talks the talk, but he never walks the walk. His record speaks for itself. Plain and simple.
-—”Please make this loser, socialist, phony, “I’m not sure if I own a gun or not” Romney joker go away for all of 2009. I promise to be really good next year, I really, really do.”
Why don’t you comment on the content of Romney’s editorial? Everything he said makes sense.
If you continue to childishly lambaste someone who walks the walk of a fiscal conservative, we’re not going to get anywhere in the fight against the Marxists. Grow up.
Romney is NOT a conservative.
Conservatives don’t lie, cry when they lose(like Romney),
attack women and children behind their backs(like Romney),
abuse pet dogs, institute socialized medicine(like Romney),
impose gay marriage by fiat without a vote(like Romney),
pick mainly liberal judges to help murderers (like Romney),
decimate the GOP when seeking higher office (like Romney),
and help the DNC when they are rejected (like Romney).
Bump for the truth.
Romney puts forth a plan for helping the economy and FReepers chose to replay the primary election instead of discussing this proposal over what the Obama camp will most certainly come up with. THIS is why we will lose again in four years........sniping about the last primary season is accomplishing NOTHING.
By all means, yes, let's discuss the proposal. Romney recommends:
1. "This is time for economic stimulus," in a paragraph that praises Obama's designee chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors for studying the Great Depressing and concluding that "bad monetary policy was its greatest cause and good monetary policy was its most effective cure." Have you, tioga and AlanGreenSpam, ever looked up the word "gratuitous"? Because Romney's praise here is a fully dimensional example of it. Romney recommends "economic stimulus" by which means he doesn't specify, but I expect it's stimulus directed by coercive government instead of free markets, free wills, and self-interest.
2. Romney recommends that "The Fed should continue to expand the money supply. And, it should confirm that it will not tolerate deflation — the pain of inflation pales in comparison." When in doubt, print more money.
3. "We should lower tax rates for middle-income families and eliminate their tax on savings altogether — no tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. Let’s also align our corporate tax rate with those of competing nations. " Music to the ears, right? But who define "middle class" and how, and how much does that "middle class" really contribute? What's so wrong with lowering tax rates and eliminating taxes on savings for all taxpayers? You Romney worshipers hear music; I hear the sour tones of more Class Warfare appealing to envy and covetousness.
4. He talks about the need to "spend" on infrastructure and modernizing military equipment, observes that environmental and other regulations make infrastructure spending a slow returner ... and that's about it on that front. Again, have you looked up the word "gratuitous" recently?
5. Romney says, "We should also invest to free us from our dependence on foreign oil, not by playing venture capitalist, but by funding basic research in renewables, material science, combustion, nuclear reprocessing, and the like..." Inquiring minds want to know, "invest" with whose money??? And THIS inquiring mind believes with excellent reason that the "need" to pursue "renewable" energy (codeword for "non-oil and non-coal") is a myth based on the very conceited idea that we might otherwise "kill" the planet. If/when temperatures worldwide drop 20 degrees again (as they have God only knows how many times in the planet's past, just not in man's very brief written history), you just sit back and watch how urgent and genuine is this pressing "need" for alternative energy. It is a myth, and Romney embraces the myth.
6. " ... states should first take advantage of the downturn to do some needed cost cutting and restructuring," etc. etc. Another example of combining the obvious with gratuitousness, and of watching gullible people actually think he's saying something of substance. He's not -- it's empty prattle with suggestions any one could make. This is an example of Mitt's supposed economic brilliance? Romney supporters live in denial.
7. "Republicans should also lay down a gauntlet: All new spending projects should be selected by the responsible federal agency according to published criteria, not by congresspersons and senators based upon favors and politics." In other words, putting the government fox in charge of the henhouse is smarter than putting elected representatives in charge of it.
8. Romney says: "It is essential ... that Congress and the president commit to reform entitlement spending as soon as the economy recovers. With ... entitlements already reaching 60 percent of federal spending ... this can be delayed no longer." The words "Captain Obvious" and "gratuitous" come to mind. This is very much like point number nine --
9. Romney says, We must also be careful to avoid burdening the economy with excessive regulation in response to the need to reform regulatory oversight of the financial sector. Going too far could cripple the entire industry .... And we should make it clear that Washington will not act to virtually impose unions on small business by eliminating the right of workers to vote by secret ballot in the workplace ...."
Again, the words "Captain Obvious" and "gratuitous" come to mind.
Points 8 and 9 especially -- Romney supporters, your Hero has given you the correct answers to the math test, but hasn't shown you how he arrived at them. It's because he doesn't know how to arrive at them, only that you'll be impressed hearing them.
NOWHERE do I see Romney expressing, or even perceiving, that entitlements, "excessive" regulation (I have a hunch that Romney's idea of what's "excessive" would be a lot different than mine), and government attempts to control and guide free markets, is flawed on its face. NOWHERE do I see Romney indicating any understanding that governnment isn't the solution, it's the problem.
Then the prettiest words of all, the ones that make Romney fans hearts' swell with pride the way a first-grader makes his parents' proud at the Christmas pageant, Mitt says: "The Democrats may want to wait for Obama, but the country needs action now. Republicans can — and must — play an important role in shaping a stimulus bill that makes sense for America and lays a foundation for future prosperity and growth. " People who are easily duped are impressed by this grand-sounding conclusion. To me, it sounds like "Daddy's home! Everything's all right now!" Except Daddy works for the government instead of for himself, and when the government goes tits-up, his family starves.
Again, by ALL MEANS, Romney supporters, let's talk about what Romney actually said here in his proposal. But somehow, I think you'll prefer to stick to your MO of insulting those who want to REJECT Romney along with all the other disastrous primary candidates of 2008 (excepting Palin) as engaging in "ad hominem" attacks, religious bigotry, and "hatred." You can't discuss his ideas because they contradict conservative limited government principle.
Romney needs to stay on the ash-heap with McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, and Giuliani. Romney supporters need to let him go and move on if they want to save this nation, conservatism, and the Republican party. Romney says a very few pretty-sounding things, but he utterly, completely, wholly fails to grasp and fails to express the real, authentic conservative limited government model: To wit: You want to help the economy, get government out of the way. CLEARLY, as crystal-clear as Lake Tahoe, as clear as just-cleaned glass, as plain as the nose on your face -- limited government conservatism is way, way, way over Romney's head.
Romney supporters demand that those of us who reject Romney must have an alternative idea or proposal to offer in Romney's stead. Here is mine, and it's the first step toward reviving America, the economy, freedom, conservatism, and the Republican party: Eliminate big government moderate Republicans like Romney from the running.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.