Romney's Missed Debate Opportunities [vanity] (Fellow FReepers, please share what you saw...)

Last night's debate transcript - Politico.com ^ | 04 OCTOBER 2012 | TXnMA / Debaters

[TXnMA]

In his wrap-up, Øbama said,

"But I also promised that I'd fight every single day on behalf of the American people, the middle class, and all those who were striving to get into the middle class. I've kept that promise and if you'll vote for me, then I promise I'll fight just as hard in a second term."

At that point, Romney should have silently stepped out from behind his podium and -- executed a clumsy golf swing...

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81994_Page10.html#ixzz28MqfgWlx

[TXnMA]

"As for this being "what's left of FR", I guess that must include you, as well. "

After ~12 years, I'm still here -- and not giving up on FR. But that doesn't mean that I haven't noticed serious degradation in the discourse here -- and in the enthusiasm for conservative activism...

There are lots of once-vital conservative "voices" that I now miss...

No blame -- just sadness...

[TXnMA]

Good one!

[CatherineofAragon]

Well, I’ve lurked here for three years and posted for only one, so I’m definitely a noob. I respect FR and longtime Freepers; I wish I’d found this site sooner, because I missed a heck of a lot of good stuff. I’m no huge intellect, so my contributions will never amount to those of others, but who know what great voices are yet to be attracted to FR?

[driftless2]

I didn’t hear Romney get to the root of the financial crisis of 2008 and correctly put the blame on the housing bubble and the cause going back to the Clinton admin. He sort of let Obama get away with blaming bankers and lending institutions for the whole disaster. We know the fed gov. was responsible for about 90% of it.

[stilloftyhenight]

Romney did well to concentrate on certain key areas and he hammered those messages home. Obama was hoping Romney would get off message so he would have something to jump on. No, Mitt stayed on message and that message resounded all across this nation. Good job, Mitt.

[wolfman23601]

I think Obama expected him to stick to his stump speech and talking points and didn’t know what to do with the new material.

[i_robot73]

There was one who did this time and time again, but was/is called a kook...Ron Paul. But, based on his own record, I accord these words to Mitt as no more than banter. IF he does win the election, I’ll gladly eat crow when actions take place.

Making economic slaves of proceeding generations, just because they bought into the ‘you can have it for free’/Ponzi scheme, is both immoral and unethical.
A) They are not Constitutional (see ‘C’)
b) The programs are bust already (I’ve read to the tune of 100+TRILLION)
C) They were always TAXES 1st and ‘promises’ 2nd
D) There is/was never any guarantee
Cut the losses and free the younger generations; they may actually forgive the old-timers enough to take care of ‘em (as they should)

[sam_paine]

Making economic slaves of proceeding generations, just because they bought into the ‘you can have it for free’/Ponzi scheme, is both immoral and unethical.

So then what do you propose?

The kids are economic slaves for the $16T outstanding debt as it is, without even discussing SS (Socialponzi Scheme).

What to do about that? Is it a legitimate debt, or not? Pay it all off? Or renege on the immoral and unethical commitment?

Same with SS? Pay out those who've paid in, and cut off everyone born today? 20 years ago? 55 years ago?

Conservatism suggests that you introduce change gradually, but that you respect past debts, gambling or otherwise.

[i_robot73]

That’s easy; cut it all off; I’d rather the ability to pay a bill off than know me and my children+ will be slaves if it continues.

And, no, I don’t believe it’s an outstanding debt, left pocket owing the right. Everyone was swindled, you get nothing.

But, you want to pay it off, give the States back their land, sell off the Fed property still outstanding (won’t need much when those alphabet agencies are gone) and allow the free market pay off the rest (taxes in that boom would surely take a few years to pay off the debt).

Conservatism cedes to Constitutionalism. You don’t wind down what never should have begun, you chop the bastard’s head off instead. How many more generations of ‘the poor’ should we ween off the gov’t teat? None, you stop throwing good $ after bad ASAP.

[sam_paine]

You don’t wind down what never should have begun, you chop the bastard’s head off instead.

Ok. So you're in the Bernanke camp: inflate the debt away into oblivion. No thanks.

[i_robot73]

No, I said KILL it and say “Sorry, the gov’t blew it all”. There was/is/ever will be any guarantee.

And your choice of poison? I’m always open to hear ideas

[sam_paine]

No, I said KILL it and say “Sorry, the gov’t blew it all”.

And you can just flap your arms and go to the moon if you wanted to also?

Ok. So now you've said it. And you're President for life. How do you propose to actually DO that?

The checks and balances of Congress make it impossible for even Wizard Ron Paul to do that were he president.

Even Milton Friedman admitted that for any solution to entitlements or any regulation there'd have to be a well defined transition period (he usually answered "5 years" for social security privatization.) and the outstanding obligations could not just be cut cold turkey.

I have no illusions about the political feasibility of moving to a strictly voluntary system. The tyranny of the status quo and the vested interests that have been created are too strong. I believe, however, that the ongoing discussion about privatizing Social Security would benefit from paying more attention to fundamentals rather than dwelling simply on the nuts and bolts of privatization.