The Real Mitt Romney

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

Here's an easy to understand idea, for students:

You work very hard, get a 3.8 point grade average. Your next door neighbor (also a student), hardly does much more than party, and gets a 1.8 grade point average.

You both graduate, but you aren't in the honor roll anymore. You wonder why the hell not, and then you see your GPA -- it's been lowered to a 2.8 GPA.

But that was only fair, because we needed to bring up your neighbor by a full 1.0, so he could have a 2.8 GPA, as well.

And that's socialism, in a nutshell. Isn't that fun?

Yes!!!!!!!!!

I love this example! I use it at bars when I'm trolling liberals (I troll to people's faces, not anonymously). Its a perfect example because it is an extremely flawed example, but its flaw isn't completely obvious, so its extremely amusing watching people try to figure it out when you are pressuring them to 'disprove' it.


Can anyone guess the flaw?!?

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Can anyone guess the flaw?!?

Would it be the curve math being off kilter? Or the concept of a graduating class of two students? Or the idea of a school that determines a student's final GPA by how well other students do?

Or is it something a bit less obvious?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Would it be the curve math being off kilter? Or the concept of a graduating class of two students? Or the idea of a school that determines a student's final GPA by how well other students do?

Or is it something a bit less obvious?

Not less obvious but similar.

Originally Posted by Ibby

It's that socialism would actually be adjusting the way the class is taught in such a way as to give the failing student a better chance at being able to learn the material and to pass.

True, but not what I'm going after.


Socialism, in the most fundamental sense, is basically a reaction to the inequalities associated with capitalism. Welfare, progressive tax systems, etc., is merely a way of limiting the negative consequences of those inequalities.

In our educational system (college is the best example), it is standardized so no matter what class you take, if you work hard enough, ideally you should be to get an A (4.0 GPA). That means a student in economics, chemical engineering, geology, art, etc. have the same potential to get a 4.0 GPA.

If we applied this to the working world, it would be if everyone who worked 60 hours a week, no matter the job, gets paid $40,000 a year, everyone who works 40 hours a week gets paid $30,000 a year, etc. Now, it seems that most Republicans have forgotten what the definition of socialism means but I'm sure this system fits the socialist definition. Therefore, it is not logical to apply welfare to an already existing socialist system.


A good response to anyone who mentions this is to agree with the GPA redistribution program under one condition. The grade you recieve be weighted by the salary in the field of the class you are taking. For example, if you are in a field where the average salary is $50 grand. Receiving a B (that is average nowadays) give you a 5.0. If you receive an A, then you get the 95% salary, lets say $80,000, or an 8.0. Also, in order to graduate, a 4.5 GPA has to be maintained so if you are taking classes in a field where the average salary is only $30,000 (3.0), you are fucked.

[Sundae]

No. I officially bow out of this thread. Too much for me to address.

[Trilby]

yes, yes; the poor people "party" and toke it up and get a 1.8.

Yes, the poor deserve to be poor. The rich, well, they've been ordained by God to be rich and thus deserve it by "working hard" (by which you mean running rum during prohibition, playing dirty politics and all those other nasty things our american dynasties did to get to where they are)

So. Somebody needs to watch HBO's documentary HARD TIMES: Lost on Long Island.

Plus, you're an idiot if you think Romney knows how to run a business. He knows how to MAKE MONEY FOR HIMSELF; those are two different things.

[infinite monkey]

.

[infinite monkey]

His giving out were of an infinite distance from his true-meant design.

[Cyber Wolf]

The Real Mitt Romney? A conservative's view of Romney's 47% line.

By tagging 47 percent of America as irresponsible, Obama-supporting government dependents, Romney showed again that his politics are grounded in false liberal premises.

Romney's statement at a closed-door fundraiser reflected the mistaken liberal view that the growth of government mostly redistributes wealth downward -- it doesn't. He also implicitly bought into the Left's narrow view that both tax cuts and welfare programs mostly benefit the immediate recipients. Finally, Romney conflated tax cuts with government aid, reflecting the perverse mindset that all wealth originally belongs to the state.

Romney was correct that a portion of America backs President Obama because they "are dependent upon government" and "believe that they are entitled." We even know these dependents' names: Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers, General Electric boss Jeff Immelt, Pfizer lobbying chief Sally Sussman, Solyndra investor George Kaiser and millionaire lobbyist Tony Podesta, to list a few.

In the last few years of bailouts, stimulus, Obamacare and government expansion in general, we have seen median income fall and corporate profits soar. Industries are consolidating as the big get bigger while the little guys shut down.

When government controls more money, those with the best lobbyists pocket most of it. The five largest banks hold a share of U.S. assets 30 percent larger today than in 2006. Also, as Obama has expanded export subsidies, 75 percent of the Export-Import Bank's loan-guarantee dollars in the past three years have subsidized Boeing sales.

Romney, however, wasn't talking about corporate welfare queens. He was talking about the 47 percent of the population that pays no federal income tax.

Think about Romney's perverse logic here: He disparaged people as "dependent" for not owing income taxes. Many of these people are retired and living off the life savings they earned. A family of four earning $40,000 could owe zero federal income tax even without tax credits.

Keeping your own money isn't being "dependent on government." Sure, Obama speaks as if it were, lambasting the GOP for "giving" tax cuts to the wrong people. But Republicans are supposed to distinguish between government giving you something and government leaving you alone.

But even if Romney were talking about recipients of actual government aid, he shouldn't assume, along with the Left, that they are willing wards of the state.

Many recipients of government aid don't like it. Even if they don't turn down free money, they don't like it being offered. The Tea Partier taking federal payments is like Warren Buffett calling for a tax hike -- call them hypocrites if you like, but also consider they that they might just hold a view of what's right that isn't directly tied to their short-term financial interests.

Also, the very government program "helping" Americans is often the one that creates their "need" in the first place. Farm subsidies can drive down crop prices, housing subsidies drive up home prices. Government makes it harder to get by on your own, and then offers to help you out -- and you're supposed to feel grateful?

If we "didn't build that," it might be because government wouldn't let us.

The safety net is supposed keep you from hitting rock bottom. As entitlements and handouts are expanded to the middle class and above, the net becomes more of a web, ensnaring those who would otherwise be self-sufficient.

Many conservatives understand this. As the editorial in Wednesday's Washington Examiner pointed out, vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan gets it. Through the growth of the welfare state, Ryan wrote in his 2010 Roadmap for America's Future, "government increasingly dictates how Americans live their lives; they are not only wards of the state, but also its subjects."

Rick Santorum also gets it. The January night he tied Romney in Iowa, Santorum spoke of the working class, warning that Obama "wants to make them dependent rather than valuing their work."

But Romney has never gotten it. That same night in Iowa, Romney inveighed against the "entitlement society." Just as many liberals think all people receiving government aid need it and can't make it on their own, Romney thinks they all have abdicated responsibility.

Finally, does Romney also believe tax cuts benefit only those whose taxes are being cut? Does he not really think lower tax rates help the whole economy? Does a rising tide no longer lift all boats? Or maybe Romney just thinks he can't convince people that it does.

The cause of economic liberty deserves a better apostle than Mitt Romney -- ideally one who actually believes it.

[Adak]

Both parties have participated in the over-spending by the gov't. No doubt about that. The Republicans have done it usually slower, but Bill Clinton did a fine job on this, when he was in office. Bush II did not limit spending, but he did have the extra problem of the 9/11 attack and the wars, to deal with.

We went to #2 in the world wide survey of "countries with free business practices", during the Clinton years. (Below only Hong Kong). Now we are ranked out of the top 15.

The truth is, socialism only works well, when you have a large source of income to "feed" it. Norway for instance, has a large oil field in the North Sea, that they have been drilling into, for years. Germany has a very smart set of export laws for their businesses, and a gov't that is required by the constitution, to be pro-business (they must provide jobs).

We have a President who refuses most efforts to increase our jobs:

* No keystone pipeline. Obama doesn't want Canadian oil. Let it go to China, instead. Good, high-paying jobs - who needs them?

* No frakking for oil, on federal lands. Thankfully, Obama can't stop it on private lands, but he's tried.

* Very limited drilling on federal lands, even after permits have been secured, environmental studies done and approved, etc.

* Coal (which we have a huge amount of), burning power plants are being run out of business - just as Obama promised he would before he was elected.

Clean burning coal is of no interest - here is where you run around your neighborhood flapping your arms like a kid - we'll use wind power, instead. Wind power. Solar power - because we know that the wind always blows more than 15 miles per hour, and the sun always shines. Yeah, right.

If you want to dream, go socialist. It's an unmotivating dream, but it can work, until the money runs out. Even a huge number of religious monasteries have found a way to bring some major aspect of capitalism into their lives: they sell cheeses, wine, fine brandy, even transcribe documents into computer records! Without that injection of capitalism, they would have to close.

When your governments power increases, your freedoms decrease, and your take-home pay, it decreases too. Because government lives off of the money it takes from it's citizens. EVERY penny they spend, comes from the tax payers - absolutely.

I always laugh when I hear people (usually young people), bad-mouthing capitalism.

Just what do they think has kept this country strong for the last 200+ years?

Capitalism == Opportunity == People willing to take risks == more jobs, more products, more inventions,

Who invented the iPhone, the Personal Computer, the Radio, even the car in your driveway, etc.? It was CAPITALISM, (private companies), not the government.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

Germany has a very smart set of export laws for their businesses, and a gov't that is required by the constitution, to be pro-business (they must provide jobs).

Are you touting Germany as socialist, or non-socialist here?

Because they are far more socialist than the US, and are heavily invested in solar and wind power - about 20% of their total generation.

Or are you saying that their capitalistic success lets them tax their "job creators" enough to fund their socialism?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Are you touting Germany as socialist, or non-socialist here?

Because they are far more socialist than the US, and are heavily invested in solar and wind power - about 20% of their total generation.

Or are you saying that their capitalistic success lets them tax their "job creators" enough to fund their socialism?

I'm saying that Germany is more socialist, but they have a fundamentally different government, and relationship of their people, to that government. For instance, they have little or no tax on their companies, who sell their products overseas, and bring that money back into Germany. In the US, we tax any funds like that, with the second highest corporate income tax, in the world.

That's why German products like BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and many other products, sell so well, around the world, BUT the jobs are kept in Germany to a large extent. American corporations can't do that, and it's a huge mistake. To even start to compete, we have to go offshore, and the money has to stay there, or be ridiculously taxed. (double taxed). Also, the gov't has a fundamental obligation to create jobs for it's citizens. I believe (but not sure), that it is in their constitution.

Their opinions of their gov't, are substantially different than ours. And I must say, we have had a HUGE number of absolute assholes in our legislature, over the years. Their cronyism and crass ability to exploit their position for huge monetary gain, just stinks to high heaven. If you or I did what they do, we'd be sent to prison (insider trading, just for one way they do it).

If the people want to go socialism, I have no problem with it. I don't believe it works well, but I KNOW you can't just grab some highly socialistic laws, and start shoving them down our throat, the way Obama has. You want to change to a national health care system, fine. I'm for it!

First, study what other countries have done, and let's get the best parts into our own, and leave out the parts that didn't work well. Second, do a pilot study in a state or region, and prove that it works. THEN, write up the federal laws, and enact it. Don't shove a 2,000+ page law at us, with no time to study it - or even READ it through, and say "we'll pass it now, and read it later".

That's bullshit!

We have lobbyists, unions, race baiters, bald face liars, and class haters, all well expressed in our gov't. What we don't have are statesmen, making wise decisions, in large numbers. The idea that the federal gov't would turn down something like the Keystone pipeline project, at a time when jobs are so badly needed, and fuel is up to $4++ a gallon (in CA), just drives me around the bend.

And is anybody talking about cutting our corporate tax rate so $$$ from overseas operations can come back to the US? Let us compete with other countries, more evenly, instead of having the $$$ taxed twice (once in the other country, and again when it returns to the US).

All you hear is:

Crickets.

And about how well Obama sounds when he's imitating Al Green, and all the other "your candidate is a jerk because...".
I want some good government out of our legislative branch, and we just haven't been getting it. And yeah, I believe socialism is demotivating for the people who have it, if it's overused, or set up in a stupid fashion.

I mean, every year we find out "Oops!, we have another 10,000 people who received some welfare benefit, who have been dead for at least a year", kind of stuff. And we will sue every state that wants to require a photo ID, when you vote. Because BY GOD!, we want those Zombies, to be represented by our fraudulent party!

And I want to get our medical drug costs down! No reason in hell why we should have to spend 2-10 times as much for drugs, than other countries, like Canada. And tax loopholes - oh don't get me started on tax loopholes. That's the most asinine example of lobby and political favoritism, that you'll ever live to see.

All these big corporations that all lined up to support Obama care -- and then immediately after it was passed, 98% of them lined up to get in their own exemption from it, which was built into the law, of course!



Actually, Canada is not a bad model to look at. They went progressive/liberal for many years, until it damn near bankrupted the country. Then they swung back and went largely conservative with a political party, and look at how well they're doing! Their dollar is worth more now, than ours are - and THAT is just for starters.

Unfortunately, our political party is also home to lots of less than desirable types, that give the whole conservative philosophy, a bad taste. That's a shame, because conservatism is not what you learned from Bush (one or two), or what the liberals try to frame it as.

As far as business went, Clinton ranks highest among recent Presidents, as a conservative (not counting Reagan, of course).

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Adak

If the people want to go socialism, I have no problem with it. I don't believe it works well, but I KNOW you can't just grab some highly socialistic laws, and start shoving them down our throat, the way Obama has. You want to change to a national health care system, fine. I'm for it!

First, study what other countries have done, and let's get the best parts into our own, and leave out the parts that didn't work well. Second, do a pilot study in a state or region, and prove that it works. THEN, write up the federal laws, and enact it. Don't shove a 2,000+ page law at us, with no time to study it - or even READ it through, and say "we'll pass it now, and read it later".

I think that's quite a fair point actually.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sure, it's logical and practical. It's also impossible in a society where the Drug, Insurance, and Medical Device industries, own so many politicians.
The ONLY way it can happen is the way it did, making huge concessions to those industries, then slowly chipping away at those concessions until the plan is the best it can be. In the mean time, although not the best, millions more have at least some coverage.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I think that's quite a fair point actually.

You don't have to sound SO surprised.

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

...I mean, every year we find out "Oops!, we have another 10,000 people who received some welfare benefit, who have been dead for at least a year", kind of stuff. And we will sue every state that wants to require a photo ID, when you vote. Because BY GOD!, we want those Zombies, to be represented by our fraudulent party!
....

Yup, that would be bad. Luckily, as EVERY investigation has shown, it hasn't.