Don't Just Be Pointing A Finger At The Democrats
I say it often -- that the Republicans are just the party of slightly less ginormous government. Nicholas Gelinas makes a related point at City Journal, in "The Problem with 'Four Sore Years': Mitt Romney should acknowledge that our economic problems span presidential administrations":
Voters know that things weren't hunky-dory before, only to fall apart without warning when President Obama came along. Americans remember 2008. They remember people lining up around the block at an IndyMac bank branch in California until a white-as-a-ghost President Bush assured them that the government would protect their hard-earned savings. They remember a panicked Congress's first voting not to bail out the banks and then veering in the other direction as the stock market plummeted. They remember watching as the economy shed hundreds of thousands of jobs each month, while the White House and Congress, as well as the GOP's standard-bearer, John McCain, remained utterly helpless. And then voters elected Obama.Romney may look as though he is playing too fast and loose with the facts when he repeatedly dates our woes back to early 2009. Voters know full well that home prices peaked in 2006. They experienced it. They knew full well that they had been living on borrowed money--money many of them took every few years out of the ever-rising equity in their homes. They knew that they had to stop, that stopping would be hard, and that recovery would take a while--and they knew all of this before Wall Street and Washington did. So when Obama concedes that "we've gone through a tough four years," Americans may appreciate this unvarnished empathy.
...Romney should have acknowledged that Bush messed up badly on the economy. He could have credibly added, then, that Obama took these grievous problems and made them worse. The 2009 stimulus was a chance to make massive investments to overhaul our Depression-era infrastructure. Obama didn't do it. The crisis was a chance for state and local governments to fix their impossible pension and health-benefit promises to public-sector workers. Obama instead sent them cash to pretend that the problem didn't exist for a few more years. The crisis was a chance to put in place real financial-industry reforms to make sure that what happened in 2008 never happened again. Obama didn't do that, either.
Whatever Romney's strategy is, it seems to be working, as he went from way behind to slightly ahead.
NicoleK at October 25, 2012 12:02 AM
Why are we talking about presidents, when 100% of spending is the sole responsibility of Congress?
Radwaste at October 25, 2012 2:20 AM
That's a good question, Radwaste.
Ken R at October 25, 2012 2:55 AM
Still living on borrowed money...several trillion more than 4 years ago.
cpabroker at October 25, 2012 4:08 AM
Very true, Radwaste.
NicoleK at October 25, 2012 6:49 AM
Radwaste is correct. And, let's not just blame congress critters - we taxpayers are somewhat at fault too!
See, when money is spent in another state - that is waste! But, when our congressman does something similar he (or she) is simply bringing home the bacon so that we get "our fair share" (even if it is more wasteful)
I do agree with what Romney said - is the money being spent worth borrowing money from China?
A simply yes or no is all that is required. I'm not saying that I agree that Romney or any other politician will be able to answer this question truthfully or even follow through - they are, afterall, politicians. But, it is a good question - one that citizens should ask ourselves. I mean, I pay off my credit card bill in full each month. Does everybody else? How can we expect folks to be responsible with other people's money when they aren't responsible with their own?
Charles at October 25, 2012 7:02 AM
The dilemma here is that if Romney really does what needs to be done, he will almost certainly be a one-term President. And the next set of candidates will look at him and say, "See what happens? I'm not going there."
Cousin Dave at October 25, 2012 7:53 AM
We're going from democracy to something else, because the public has discovered it can vote itself money, security and health care, all provided by Big Brother.
Orwell was just early.
Radwaste at October 25, 2012 10:34 AM
The dilemma here is that if Romney really does what needs to be done, he will almost certainly be a one-term President.
He's also going to have a hard time "reaching across the aisle" to find other politicians willing to set their careers on fire for it.
MonicaP at October 25, 2012 12:31 PM
There are no easy choices left. Romney may or may not be a one term president by doing the right thing, (provided he has the cooperation of congress) where as Radwaste correctly pointed out, the spending occurs.
I think the next big fight will be, is the fed going to bail out the states with severely underfunded penisons or allow them to go bankrupt?
If you print money to fund these pensions, inflation will render them almost worthless, but if the states go bankrupt, pensions will, as I understand it, be turned over to the RTC which limits their payout to 50k a year.
This will shaft the right people (the public employees and retired university administrators who were retiring at 55 and collecting 100% of a grossly inflated paycheck) Of course, these people are the core democratic voting block.
Isab at October 25, 2012 4:46 PM
My view is that now is the time to buy dried or canned meats; dry beans; bullets and toilet paper and store them in metal containers. Also throw in spices to throw in sealed metal containers.
As much as this disagrees with Taubes, flour, sugar, baking soda etc. are good things to have as well.
Then there is the option of also storing heritage seeds.
But these are all suggestions that you may take or discard as so desired.
Jim P. at October 25, 2012 8:08 PM
Leave a comment