Why we should have elected Romney as President

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
He has operated in the real world and he gets what it is all about.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/romney.stimulus/index.html

updated 6:52 a.m. EST, Fri February 6, 2009

Commentary: Stimulate the economy, not government

Editor's note: Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts and was a candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. This commentary was adapted from remarks he made last week to the House Republican Conference.

(CNN) -- These are extraordinary times, and like a lot of Republicans I believe that a well-crafted stimulus plan is needed to put people back to work. But the Obama spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy.

We're on an economic tightrope. The package that passed the House is a huge increase in the amount of government borrowing. And we've borrowed so much already that if we add too much more debt, or spend foolishly, we could invite an even bigger crisis.

We could precipitate a worldwide crisis of confidence in America, leading to a run on the dollar or hyperinflation that wipes out family savings and devastates the middle class.

It's still early in the administration of President Obama. Like everyone who loves this country, I want him to adopt the correct course and then to succeed. He still has a chance to step in and insist on spending discipline among the members of his own party.

It's his job to set priorities. I hope for America's sake that he knows that a chief executive can't vote "present." He has to say yes to some things and no to a lot of others.

As someone who spent a career in the private sector, I'd like to see a stimulus package that respects the productivity and genius of the American people. And experience shows us what it should look like.

First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.

Video Watch Romney make argument for tax cuts »

Second, any new spending must be strictly limited to projects that are essential. How do we define essential? Well, a good rule is that the projects we fund in a stimulus should be legitimate government priorities that would have been carried out in the future anyway, and are simply being moved up to create those jobs now.

As we take out nonessential projects, we should focus on funding the real needs of government that will have immediate impact. And what better place to begin than repairing and replacing military equipment that was damaged or destroyed in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Third, sending out rebate checks to citizens and businesses is not a tax cut. The media bought this line so far, but they've got it wrong. Checks in the mail are refunds, not tax cuts. We tried rebate checks in 2008 and they did virtually nothing to jump-start the economy. Disposable income went up, but consumption hardly moved.

Businesses aren't stupid. They're not going to invest in equipment and new hires for a one-time, short-term blip. What's needed are permanent rate cuts on individuals and businesses.

Fourth, if we're going to tax less and spend more to get the economy moving, then we have to make another commitment as well. As soon as this economy recovers, we have to regain control over the federal budget, and above all, over entitlement spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This is more important than most people are willing to admit.

There is a real danger that with trillions of additional borrowing -- from the budget deficit and from the stimulus -- world investors will begin to fear that our dollars won't be worth much in the future. It is essential that we demonstrate our commitment to maintaining the value of the dollar. That means showing the world that we will put a stop to runaway spending and borrowing.

Fifth, we must begin to recover from the enormous losses in the capital investment pool. And the surest, most obvious way to get that done is to send a clear signal that there will be no tax increases on investment and capital gains. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be extended permanently, or at least temporarily.

And finally, let's exercise restraint in the size of the stimulus package. Last year, with the economy already faltering, I proposed a stimulus of $233 billion. The Washington Post said: "Romney's plan is way too big." So what critique will the media have for the size of the Obama package?

In the final analysis, we know that only the private sector -- entrepreneurs and businesses large and small -- can create the millions of jobs our country needs. The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...
 
I dunno, I liked that Romney was in charge of a big company and had some idea of spending what you make instead of just printing more money. His being a Mormon didn't scare me.

Why do you think he's a tool?
 
There are better places to spend quick cash than upgrading the military. Roads and infrastructure (water cleaning, aquaducts, electricity, power generation, bridges, etc.) should be higher on the list than military spending.
 
You know that's just plain ridiculous! If we should have elected him then we would have, simple as that. The fact is he couldn't even be competitive for the party's nomination, let alone the whole nation!

You see, what the party needs is someone with a lot of charisma, who does not reek of religious nut job, who can work with the opposition, yet is his own man and not just what the party thinks might be electable. In short it needs another Reagan. Many folks though GW was that man, but as we've seen that turned out rather poorly. Unfortunately for those of you on the right I see three options in the field right now and I doubt you will like any of them.

  • Ron Paul: He is probably the most original thinker and more his own man than anybody in the party. He garnered a lot of support this last time even sometimes from corners you would not expect. If the party got serious about him he could go far. He is the one guy I can think of that would not let the party dictate to him and go with his own stances. This is why I don't see it happening. McCain was about 1% "maverick", Ron Paul on the other hand is the real deal.

  • Rudy Giuliani: He didn't do too well this last time, but again I think if more of the party supported him and worked for it, he could go far. Probably he is the most likely guy in the party to steal a lot of votes from Democrats. His response to 9/11, his career as mayor of NYC both show his ability to lead when the going is tough and he was well liked by both sides compared to many of his counterparts.

  • Arnold Schwarzenegger: I know some of you, if not most of you will think this ridiculous, but it isn't. This guy is well loved and charismatic because of his Hollywood career. Remember, America loves celebrity. That alone could push him into the office. I'm not so sure you'd call his Governorship in California entirely successful, but remember how easily they gave him the office? Among the three I mention, I personally feel he is the most pliable and more likely to let more obscure but powerful parts of the party dictate to him.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, I think qualifications and actual ability to lead are insignificant reasons someone is elected. Back in the days when you had to read the newspaper to understand a candidate maybe, but in this day of mass media, it's a proven fact that just the way the guy looks matters and it matters a lot. Many of the furthest left of the Democratic party identify closest with a guy like Kucinich, but anyone who thinks that has a snowball's chance in hell needs to put down the pipe!

I don't think playing bass qualifies one for the presidency.
 
You DO know that the Governator was born in Austria and immigrated here, right? He cannot be president because of that. There was some minor talk of changing the Constitution a few years back to allow someone like Arnold into the White House, but it never gained much steam.
 
Yeah I did know that but had a brain fart, but what I said about the other two goes. Thing is a lot of folks like Palin, and I think she would garner a lot of support in the base, but ultimately could not win because of being a religious kook. I think if the party put's it's eggs in that basket it will just end up with broken eggs.
 
randomJACKASS said:
You know that's just plain ridiculous! If we should have elected him then we would have, simple as that. The fact is he couldn't even be competitive for the party's nomination, let alone the whole nation!
Click to expand...

Mostly due to the number of states (I live in one) that have open primaries.
Mrs Bill Clinton was the assumed candidate so teh Dems wanted to interfere with the Republicans choice. Much as I interfered with the democrats choice here.

Romney would have been a fine VP. Thompson was the only viable choice but he didn't really want it.

spike said:
The tax cuts have not worked. It's a losing strategy.
Click to expand...

Not yet it isn't. Works every time it's tried.
 
Yeah Thomson would be one who might pull it off, but judging from this last election he doesn't want it too badly. He's also more conservative than the average Republican. I think if the party has any real chance they need to start grooming their next new superstar now. He or she had also better be bulletproof, because anything less won't fly.
 
I do seem to remember asking an actual, relevant question, which would be why you think Romney is a tool. That offered you a chance to make a valid, reasoned argument as to why you think he is a tool, to show that you have valid reasons for thinking so other than his party and possibly religious affiliation. Instead, you ignored that question, and simply posted another 5-year-old retort to something else.
 
There's only one way out of an economic nightmare .... GTFO of the way of people with the actual ability to fix it .... the money makers. Not the money printers ... not the money lenders ... the money makers. How do you make money? Take something that's worthless and make it worth something. Miners take a plot of land and make a mine out of it. Smelters take raw ore and make metal out of it. Auto manufacturers take steel and make cars out of it. See how that works? Banks take digits in a computer, inflate them, lie about them, fictitiously loan them out to buy stuff with actual value ... and eventually finish off with a negative value balance ... because they didn't actually create any wealth ... just the fiction of it. Expecting the solution to come from the very people who created the problem is lunacy.


As for who needed to be elected .... ROFL. If you people ever saw someone worth voting for, you'd hang him for telling you the truth.
 
Problem is that mines are closing or well into shut-down mode, smelters are closing up shop (Alcan closed a doozie not that long ago), and the car-people are too blind to see that same-ol same-ol isn't selling. *I hear this every day at work - smelters, mines and oil companies are our biggest bustomers*

Yes..it's the manufacturers and small to med businesses that are going to pull the recession out of it's hole...but without banks they can trust to stick around, they won't be able to get the loans so THEY can get into business, buy equipment, buy product, etc... There's a very small minority of people that can buy a home, or a car without a bank loan and an even smaller minority that can buy daily goods and supplies without credit given to them by banks. Living on cash alone works for small purchases, for everything else, there's Mastercard™, eh.

The banks fail and the whole house of cards goes with it.

Stabalize the banks, hit them with stronger restrictions and counter-balances so that they don't stray down the same path that got them into this mess, put money into infrastructure (the fastest way to infuse cash into a market), guarantee small-business loans (as a bonus, this employs people) -

So far the money-dump is getting out of the way of money-makers and concentrating on the structures that help the money-makers stay in business.

They still need to trim and smoke the pork that's oozing out of the existing plan, but otherwise, it's not that bad.
 
Inkara1 said:
I do seem to remember asking an actual, relevant question, which would be why you think Romney is a tool. That offered you a chance to make a valid, reasoned argument as to why you think he is a tool, to show that you have valid reasons for thinking so other than his party and possibly religious affiliation. Instead, you ignored that question, and simply posted another 5-year-old retort to something else.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you think correcting someone else's mistake is 5yr-oldish but someone had made an incorrect statement.

I'm also sorry you feel so ignored as you seem very concerned about the toolish nature of Romney. There's quite a list of reasons for thinking Romney is a tool. I don't care about his party or religious affiliation so I'm not sure why you would make that assumption.

He's not too concerned about civil liberties. "And I hear from time to time people say, hey, wait a second. We have civil liberties we have to worry about. But don't forget, the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive, and that's what we're going to have to do."

He's a douche.

In his his reasons for his withdrawal he claims quite toolishly "In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror." If Romney kept running the terrorists win! :laugh:

"Europe -- Europe is facing a demographic disaster.

That's the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life, and eroded morality." Ummnn, fuck off Romney you douchebag.

"And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror: They would retreat, declare defeat.

And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that would make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt. " Hey Romney, you lying tool, Iraq was never a threat to us and isn't now. :laugh:

Now, I could go on but hopefully this gives you some insight into the toolish nature of Mitt Romney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top