Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Oh right. Weren't you governor of Massachusetts once? How'd that work out for you fella?
And that argument will work, as voters go into the booth and think realistically about their and their children's future.All the internal polls - including the Democrats - are in Romney's favor. He is starting to pull away.If you think the Obama campaign is filthy so far, wait till you see what's coming. A cornered wolf will do terrible things to survive.
Better experience than community organizing or teaching law school. No offense intended to anyone.
Serious question: At what has Obama shown himself to excel? What superior skills has he demonstrated during his presidency?
It seems a pretty good argument to me. And when the left starts their scare stories about destroying the middle class and homeless children in the streets remember they made the same predictions about Governor Walker.
The easiest and possibly only current solution to our economic problems is massive energy development. Millions of jobs and trillions of dollars spread around the country. R and D for real viable alternate fuels for the future. Ethanol gone and corn once more used for food to allow us to afford cheerios and beef. It is absurd that a box of cheerios costs $5 in some supermarkets. The United States cannot succeed without plentiful and inexpensive energy. Partnered with Canada and Mexico, we could be the Persian Gulf to the world for year after year. States could use lease payments to replenish their coffers and improve their infrastructure. Our trucking industry could run on inexpensive coal to liquid or natural gas. All other things aside, Romney could definitely manage this. Windmills and solar panels just don't cut it.
Obama is currently President and that's not working out well for any of us.
Mitt has demonstrated himself to be a strong leader, a decision maker, and a problems solver. He is less strong on certain political ideologies.Obama came into office as supposedly an excellent pragmatist. He has perhaps demonstrated that in his practical decisions to declare anyone killed by a drone to be a combatant and to ignore the Constitution so he could use the military in Libya.Perhaps Obama also demonstrated his pragmatism when he realized it was more practical to blame intransigent Republicans than try to actually accomplish anything after Obamacare passed.But I'm not sure that kind of pragmatism is a real presidential skill. Anybody else have any answers?
Since government departments don't operate on a profit-and-loss basis, one can't literally take a Bain Capital approach to them.BUT one can surely take a benefit-vs-cost assessment to them. How much (for example) benefit does Headstart produce relative to its cost, and if the answer is "not much," isn't there something far more cost-effective that might replace it?Bain Capital is not an internship for the executive branch of government, but it's not certainly not bad training for a good deal of what it does.That is, mostly what government does is spend money. And voters reasonably want to see government's version of return-on-investment for that money.
MayBee: Be reasonable ...Obama is still learning on the job. I am sure he will figure it out if we give him another four years. If he doesn't, it will only cost us another $4 Trillion or so. Heh.
Romney is indeed a turnaround artist. Whether that translates into turning the country around is uncertain, but his claim is valid.Obama is selling himself as the full-steam-ahead artist, the expert in more-of-the-same.Nearly half the nation still prefers that path, or so the polls suggest.Froward!
"Oh right. Weren't you governor of Massachusetts once? How'd that work out for you fella?"Yes, and the same problem here: Democrats. They screwed up MA, they screwed up the U.S. we need a straight flush in 2012. Vote for people who will reform this mess, and I don't care if they are an abortionist, gay, hate women, hand out condoms to toddlers, or washed Bin Laden's feet.
Works for me and it should be easier than fundamentally transforming our country to a socialist welfare state per our current un-American, anti-American socialist president. Plus, I'm looking forward to seeing the new anti-Obama documentary. Recommended to all of you who remain clueless. You know who you are.
"How'd that work out for you fella?"Per Politifact, "We checked Bureau of Labor Statistics data and found that the statistic was correct," that Romney lowered unemployment while he was Governor. They still find a way to credit it only as half true, but you know, it is partisan and or incompetent Politifact.So, yeah. How DID that work out for Mass? Lower unemployment!What's a huge problem facing America? Unemployment!Gee, I wonder if we should hire the guy who has experience LOWERING unemployment?
I know a lot of really great business people and most would be terrible elected officials.Romney has a decent background, but Bain does not make him better than average presidential material.Methinks we are in for four more lousy years whoever wins the election.Rich people will get richer, of that I am certain.
Again, I find myself siding with te liberal...that's twice now! ;-)Probably not for the reasons she thinks though. The presidency is NOT like a job in the private sector. It requires a totally different skill set. Mitt's Bain experience does give Mitt a better grasp of economic realities, especialy compared to Zero.Just as Zero's experience only gave him the ability to pander to minority groups.Thank God, Mitt has more experience in other things as well. The governorship, the olympics...etc.I would ask Lyndsey to consider the analogy I have propagated on here several times about the bear. Mitt doesn't have to be the "best man" to win the job of the presidency, he just has to be better than Zero. Without a doubt, he is.Ps.If you missed my analogy: you and another person are walking in the woods and come across a bear. How fast do you have to run to not be eaten by the bear? Ans: Faster than the other person.
Since government departments don't operate on a profit-and-loss basis, one can't literally take a Bain Capital approach to them.Why not? Why not MAKE them run on a profit/loss or fiscal sanity basis. Of course there is no actual 'profit' but we can certainly make them not run at a loss. If I were Queen of more than just the Dust Bunnies, I would cut the budget of every single department of the government by at least 5% this year and 5% annually for the next 3 years after. Live within your budget....PERIOD. If you can't find 5% of cost savings, then we get a new head of the department. We could probably eliminate at least 10 to 15% of the workforce as well, since most of them are not doing much of anything anyway.I would also, as Queen remove or eliminate duplicitous departments, merge agencies that overlap, send some other agencies back to the States (Dept of Education) since they are not a function of the Federal Government. And I would absolutely eliminate any activities, parties and junkets that are not directly related to the work at hand.Vote for me for Queen!!!
Well, he had a real job. That is a plus in this matchup.Trey
It's more than just Bain. Turning around a foundering Olympics impressed me greatly. In many ways that was far more a political than business accomplishment.I tend to vote like a hiring manager so resumes are important to me. Romney's would get him at least an interview. Obama's would have only got an eye roll as it headed for the trash.
I vote for Queen DBQ!
Well since Mittens is (according to the Democrats) an expert in outsourcing and offshoring, maybe he could find a home for Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Transylvania.
Small governmant translates to turning around the nation.Running a company is different. You don't use a million points of light strategy, but rather reform or cut off the obvious losers.
Gee, I wonder if we should hire the guy who has experience LOWERING unemployment?If you belong to the political party whose raisin d'etre is maintaing an electorate that is dependent on government sustenance rather than self reliance than the answer is no.
@DBQWhile I agree with the sentiment there is one problem with firing them all...unemployment. At least now they are doing something. Not a lot, but something.Instead, time to decreae salaries. Way to many government employees make WAY too much money.As an example: Here it is not uncommon for someone to work for the state for 25 years, retire, and then get rehired back on. The idea being that the state is getting someone "with experience"! Well, Duh...This person then works several years, retires again, etc. Thus accumulating not 1, but 2, and sometimes more, retirement pensions. These people I would give a choice to...give back the money from the double pensioning, or go to jail with no pension.Also, in regards to budgeting. When my Dad worked for the city, every 2 years they would go on a spending spree. Replace everything. Because if they didn't, they would have a surplus. If you have a surplus, then your department must not need as much money, so your next budget would be smaller.That sort of thing should land you in the shitter too. But it doesn't because 1 thing you can always count on is that politicians will always protect the government.
Rich people will get richer, of that I am certain. Is that a problem, when the poor also get richer?Why should someone not get rich or richer if they are providing a good or service that everyone wants to purchase at a price that returns a profit to the seller?
I 2nd DBQ's nomination and add I would love to see the govt use and publish some metrics for all these spending programs.. like how many program recipients and the spending per recipient etc. In Philly, the Fed Housing Agency spends like $300-$400 Million per year to prop up 16,000 housing units. My back of the envelope says that is an annual cost of $20-$30K per unit per year. That seems like a lot of money- it is more than my mortgage!
"Rich will get richer".Jeez, why are there so many jealous, resentful people? I hear this complaint more and more from people who have net worths exceeding or aprooaching $1 Million.When I was a kid we vacationed for a week or so in Ocean City, NJ and we would drive around the island looking at the different houses that people owned. We knew Grace Kelly's family had a home down there so the drive usually went by that property [I am not even sure of we had the right house]. But my point is- we did not resent the Kelly's prosperity or wealth- we said "wow wouldn't it be neat if we had a home some day?!" I am still dreaming of that but obviously many others are jealous of other's fortune. That is too bad.
> If I were Queen of more than just the Dust Bunnies, I would cut the budget of every single department of the government by at least 5% this year and 5% annually for the next 3 years after. Live within your budget....PERIOD. If you can't find 5% of cost savings, then we get a new head of the department.You have to also look at what they cut. If they cut the wrong things, you fire from the top and cut more. The "wronger" the cuts, the deeper down you fire and the more that you cut until you're left with folks who are willing to produce what you're paying for.
would also, as Queen remove or eliminate duplicitous departments, merge agencies that overlap, send some other agencies back to the States (Dept of Education) since they are not a function of the Federal GovernmentCould you also implement a citizen's bill of rights against PITA laws?I'm thinking Homeland Security leads the way on these. From groping people at airports to issuing advice against allowing purses at college football games, they seem to exist just to irritate us during our leisure.
I just don't believe the poor are getting poorer, and think how much better they would be doing if the Democrats stopped the massive import of low wage labor from Mexico...
If you want to get richer yourself, then find a way to make the rich richer. It's almost impossible to get rich yourself without doing that. If the rich are not getting richer, nobody is. In all recessions, including this one, the rich lose the most. They don't struggle to survive, but that's the whole reason to get rich. That, and so you have the resources to help people other than yourself.
If memory serves, the Romster did fairly well in MA, with a pretty good record as a jobs governor.He was also able to bend the most Leftist state legislature in the country to his will to a certain degree.
There is no ideal background for the job ahead for the next President, but I can't think of a better background than business, or a worse one than being either already a politician or - Jesus on a Segue - a community organizer and college lecturer. WTF?
The Democrats ruined Romneycare. It could have been an excellent model for other state reforms, but instead they created a Frankenstein and Pelosi forced it to mate with her. The rest is history.
If you want to get richer yourself, then find a way to make the rich richer. It's almost impossible to get rich yourself without doing that.This can't be emphasized enough. The problem liberals have with rich people is they truly think getting there is at the expense of someone else. To them making a buck is a zero sum game, which in a feudal society it was. The problem is that liberals and to a large extent the Democrat party still has a medieval economic mindset and simply cannot grasp how a capitalist society operates.There might he a few Democrats that don't think this way but looking at the Reid, Pelosi DWS face of the party, they are clearly an endangered species.
@ CarnifexThe pension and benefit issue of government employees is the giant problem. Double dipping. Retirement at age 55 at 90% of salary. Expensive medical plans. Until THIS issue is solved the country, states and cities will never EVER be able to be fiscally solvent.As Queen, I would eliminate the ability to double dip. Instead of defined benefit plans, we would have 401K plans like the rest of the business world. Medical insurance plans would be more flexible and allow the employees, that we do retain, to have more choices....and they will have to contribute to their insurance premium costs. This way, they will likely choose less expensive plans.However, just the mere action of laying off some employees would save a great deal of money. First of all....As Queen, unemployment benefits would be limited to a short period of time to allow the employee some time to find another job. Unemployment benefits, which are paid not by the employer but through an insurance fund, would NOT be a years long free ride. If the States want to fund unending unemployment, I as Queen would let them go ahead and cut their own throats.Second: in addition to not having a useless lazy employees gumming up the works, the employer (US the taxpayers) would no longer be on the hook for paying their health insurance premiums, social security, medicare, pension contributions etc. Those items add at least 35 to 40% to every dollar that is paid in payroll.The spend the budget surplus so you can keep getting a bloated budget philosophy, would come to a halt. Instead of being rewarded for wasting money, my department heads would be rewarded in some way for being thrifty and efficient.I like Andy Freeman's philosophy. Keep cutting until you have a lean mean machine that functions at utmost effectiveness.
Mitt did just fine as governor. In MA power of government lies with the legislature. Speaker of the House is more powerful than a governor. It's that way because of a culture of patronage corruption and fealty to 'Mistah Speakah'. It's a disgusting way to run things- the last three speakers are convicted felons...anyways, given that environment Mitt did just fine. Getting elected as an Republican in a sea of Democrats was no small feat on it's own. Given there was a drop in unemployment during his tenure, good budgets, and a major healthcare initiative that's popular with many citizens, I'd say Mitt did just fine...Mitt and those like him in Venture and Private Equity are expert at organizing people and capital into functioning entities, at evaluating and managing risk, at assessing the strengths and weaknesses of people, at applying all those resources in creating thriving high level organizations. That all sounds like what makes a great president to me. I'm not sure I could find a background that would make someone better qualified to be a president. Being great a organizing people to get to the polls might help you get to become president, but the last few years demonstrate it isn't exactly the best experience to actually BE president.
I would limit the maximum pension of govt empoyees to no more than 1.5X the average American's ammual earnings which right now is about $44K. That would mean no one could get pension credits higher than $66K. This would save a bundle of money and why does any govt work [I exclude military from this cap] deserve a pension of $75K or 100K or more? Let them save like the rest of us and pay into and get screwed by social security.P.S. I assume this provision would affect future college profs as it is difficult to be done retroactively.
AJ Lynch said... P.S. I assume this provision would affect future college profs as it is difficult to be done retroactively. The biggest pension abusers are local education bureaucrats, not necessarily college and certainly not professors. My solution would simply be: there are no more guaranteed pensions. End of story. You get a 401k just like the rest of us. The current circumstance is an agreement by parties A and B to screw party C 25 years from now when party B is no longer around to hold accountable for his breach of trust to party C. It's a farce.
Didn't Romney also reduce MA's debt level?Lower unemployment AND lower debt? That's what I'd vote for.
edutcher said...If memory serves, the Romster did fairly well in MA, with a pretty good record as a jobs governor."then your memory doesn't serve you well. 47th in job growth. romneycare? mitt has mentioned his olympics MORE than Massachusetts - so why is he so quiet?
Vanity Fair just ran an article pooh-poohing the idea that business experience can translate well into political executive expertise. There is a point there, but amazingly, they did not even mention Romney's tenure as governor of Massachusetts.
I don't think any single job can specifically prepare a person to be president because the job is just that damn hard.However, a trend of success in positions of complex and high-stakes leadership seems to be a much better path of presidential preparation than that of college instructor, author, back bench legislator and community rabble rouser.
47th in job growth.When your unemployment rate is 4.7%, 'job growth' is a misleading statistic. It is difficult to 'grow jobs' when everyone is already employed...
Retry:It isn't that the job of running Bain (and the Olympics) gave Romney the experience he needs to be a good president.It's that while at Bain he demonstrated he has the skill set to be a good president.
Rich people will get richer, of that I am certain.Do you have any clue why they might get richer?What do you care about rich people? What do they have to do with you? Can you not become rich because others are?Have people whose incomes or wealth are greater that yours threaten you?I cannot ABIDE all of this surface-level class warfare shit.
As Queen, unemployment benefits would be limited to a short period of time to allow the employee some time to find another job.Piker. When I'm King, unemployment benefits won't be benefits; they'll be loans.
tim wrote "I just don't believe the poor are getting poorer,"Well, that is because you are paying attention. People to our south want to come to America where "the poor people are fat."Just because those people to our south are poor does not mean they are stupid!Trey
"mitt has mentioned his olympics MORE than Massachusetts - so why is he so quiet?"Lindsey, Romney has promoted his work in Mass. You seemed to have missed it above, but even Politifact, hacks that they sometimes are, admitted Romney's oversight was during a drop in unemployment (the same thing that, were it to happen under Obama, they would directly credit to Obama's policies, yet seem unwilling to credit to Romney.) So, to answer your question: How DID that work out for Mass? Lower unemployment!
This argument has the distinction of being both clearly wrong (name one corporate turn-around specialist turned successful politician) and politically stupid (really? voters want Gordon Gekko for president?)
All business people are not Gordon Gekko. But, please, keep saying things like that to show how unconnected the reasoning is to the point.
Geoff Matthews said...Didn't Romney also reduce MA's debt level?Lower unemployment AND lower debt? That's what I'd vote for."Ohhh if it were true...that's the catch isn't it?http://factcheck.org/2012/06/spinning-romneys-debt/He wasn't shabby but he was no super star.....and someone please tell my how Romneycare is different than Obamacare? Pretty please?
One is at the state level, the next is at the federal level.And that's at the most basic level.
And, honestly? When our choices are between mediocre Governor who started moving things in the right direction, and guy who pretty much has to admit his own policies made everything worse... I'm going with mediocre, but steady, improvement.Call me crazy!
Lindsey Meadows said...Oh right. Weren't you governor of Massachusetts once? How'd that work out for you fella?Proves he works well with others even politicians. Which is more than I can say for you, pinhead.
To focus on one issue - the economy - and ignore the total of this man is one of the stupidest approaches to picking a president I have seen in a long, long time. Any man dumb enough to fall for Joseph Smith is dumb enough to be Neville Chamberlain,....
Mitt Romney: The sky is bluePolitifact: The sky is not blue when it is cloudy or when it is night. Since the sky is in these conditions most of the time, therefore we rate Mr. Romney's claim as Mostly False.
AF said... This argument has the distinction of being both clearly wrong (name one corporate turn-around specialist turned successful politician) and politically stupid (really? voters want Gordon Gekko for president?)Ah, ignorance has many flavors. First, Gekko wasn't a turnaround specialist, he was a raider. One immediately re-sells the pieces while the other improves the business to the point it can be sold. Second and most importantly, we don't want a politician. We want a manger to review the government and excise the chaff.
I think Tosa at 10:30 pretty well summarizes the difference between Obama and Romney.And this whole "fact checking" stuff is absolute bullshit--anyone relying on that for "truth" is probably sending money to a nigerian banker to secure the winnings in the lottery.If you rely on a "fact checker" all that tells me is you arent smart enough to do your own work.
Lindsey Meadows said...Oh right. Weren't you governor of Massachusetts once? How'd that work out for you fella?Given that he had an overwhelmingly D state senate and house (last 3 state house speakers have been indicted by the way), he did very well as did the state under his governorship.As far as Romneycare, that was a legislative initiative and the overwhelming D majority in the state senate made it very plain that if Romney vetoed the plan as he threatened, they would overide the veto. The best Romney could do on the tax payers behalf was deal and try to mitigate some of the worst facets of the bill.I live in Mass, and was very attentive to the debate, the players, the positions, and the dynamics at the time Romneycare was passed.As far as the difference between Romneycare and Obamacare, there are two major ones that if you were at all informed you would already be aware of. First: Obama was a proponent of Obamacare. He pushed for it and he has co-ownership along with the US Senate and House in office at the time. Romney was not a proponent of Romneycare. He pushed against it and it is wholly owned by the Mass State Senate and House.Second: Romneycare was a state initiative. In Mass, there is no way Romney could exempt by executive order anyone from having to participate. At the federal level, it is different. If Romney wins, whether the Senate changes hands or not, he can and has promised to exempt by executive order every state from being individually REQUIRED to participate in Obamacare. The states can participate, but they will not be required to.I wonder how many state legislatures will then vote to participate in Obamacare once each legislator has to hang his career on his yay or nay vote.
B said..."Romney was not a proponent of Romneycare. He pushed against it and it is wholly owned by the Mass State Senate and House."That is just utter bullshit and you know it. Is the state of Massachusetts you live on part of the planet Mars? You can't be from around here.
@crackWe know you don't like Romney because of his mormonism. I don't like him for his policies. But I don't like Zero policies more. So I vote for Mittens. What else would you have us do? Not vote? Vote for Johnson? Nader? That's exactly what Zero wants. You can be sure his cult is going to be out voting for him!As an aside, since all the guys who run for office are either devout church goers or hypocrits that wrap themselves in religious robes, do you even vote at all?
"Romney was not a proponent of Romneycare. He pushed against it and it is wholly owned by the Mass State Senate and House."That is just utter bullshit and you know it. Is the state of Massachusetts you live on part of the planet Mars? You can't be from around here.I really am sorry that I puntured your worldview and outed you as a know nothing, pumpkin, but being a state citizen, I paid a great deal of attention to the process as it was unfolding. Romneycare is wholly owned by the legislature in Mass. Mitt Romney did sign it into law. It took a warning by the senate president, and there are quotes in the Mass papers of that time on this, that if he vetoed it, the senate would overide him.Now, if you wanted to appear less a jackass, you could do a little research chasing articles in the Mass papers from that time frame. That would take some effort, since google would be directing you to the much more recent spin.Naw. On second thought,I think wearing your ass as a hat suits you. Stick with the party line.
You can't lay off people without increasing the unemployment roles.You can't force someone to work.You can't expect some to get a job whem there are no jobs to be had.You can't expect someone with bills to pay to work at a job that doesn't pay the bills.It "sounds" easy but it's not. Much like a train, an economy has inertia. If people aren't buying because they're scared of losing their job, or have lost it, the economy slows down. The economy slows down manufacturers make less. Manufacturers make less they need fewer people. People laid off or seeing their neighbor fired...etc. That's not even getting into increasing demands for government services while loosing the tax base.Much like a train you cannot simple stomp on the brakes...that causes as much damage as stomping on the accelerator. We need to slow the government down true, but it has to be gradually. If it was easy dummies like Krugman would get it.
ps.Don't give me Krugman won the Noble prize in Economics. Zero won the Peae prize...they ain't exactly covering themselves with glory here.
Post a Comment