PDA

View Full Version : Graham (genglandoh), I have a question for you.



botebum
10-22-2012, 07:17 PM
I would like you to inform me (and all of us) of the positives you see in Mitt Romney.
It's quite obvious that you don't intend to vote for Obama and I'm assuming you won't be tossing your vote to a third party candidate so ... would you please share with us what you see in Romney that tickles your fancy?
("He's not Obama" is not an acceptable answer.)

Doug

botebum
10-22-2012, 07:24 PM
BTW- This is not an attack thread.
Let's not turn it into one.

It's an honest question and I'd like to see an honest answer because I'm truly curious.

Doug

botebum
10-22-2012, 10:21 PM
Bump- just in case Graham is still able to type.

Doug

Paul Girouard
10-22-2012, 10:38 PM
("He's not Obama" is not an acceptable answer.)



Good enough for me LOL.

botebum
10-22-2012, 10:59 PM
I did some research, Paul.
As it turns out, your real family name is Jones.
Because you and all your kin suck so bad at spelling, it's been bastardized into that unintelligible mass of letters that you have come to use as a surname.
I also found out that they were going to name a short bus after you but had to give up the idea because after they stenciled out the name there wasn't enough room left for the cleft palate and the drool.

Damn, it was fun thinking that up!:d

Doug

mikefrommontana
10-22-2012, 11:07 PM
That's kinda mean y'know, especially to those who do have such genuine impediments.

Love yours posts, just stay on the high road!|;)

Glen Longino
10-22-2012, 11:10 PM
I did some research, Paul.
As it turns out, your real family name is Jones.
Because you and all your kin suck so bad at spelling, it's been bastardized into that unintelligible mass of letters that you have come to use as a surname.
I also found out that they were going to name a short bus after you but had to give up the idea because after they stenciled out the name there wasn't enough room left for the cleft palate and the drool.

Damn, it was fun thinking that up!:d

Doug

Ha!:DLMAO
Dangit, Doug, I miss you when you're gone!
Welcome back!
Pssst....you need to talk to Bobby when you get a chance.
He thinks we ain't impressed with him!

botebum
10-22-2012, 11:17 PM
That's kinda mean y'know, especially to those who do have such genuine impediments.

Love yours posts, just stay on the high road!|;)Paul is a friend. Anyone that is offended by me is entirely too thin skinned.
I take it and I give it out.

Doug

Paul Girouard
10-22-2012, 11:34 PM
Paul is a friend. Anyone that is offended by me is entirely too thin skinned.
I take it and I give it out.



Hoy, with friends like yous who needs enemies?? :d

David G
10-22-2012, 11:37 PM
Hoy, with friends like yous who needs enemies?? :d

You're just lucky I didn't chime in with all the 'interesting' stuff I found out about your time in the Navy <G>

Waddie
10-22-2012, 11:49 PM
Graham, don't answer !!!! It's a trap !!!! They're trying to sucker you in - don't fall for it !!!

regards,
Waddie

David G
10-23-2012, 12:54 AM
Graham, don't answer !!!! It's a trap !!!! They're trying to sucker you in - don't fall for it !!!

regards,
Waddie

Hush now... you're gonna spook him.

genglandoh
10-23-2012, 07:33 AM
I would like you to inform me (and all of us) of the positives you see in Mitt Romney.
It's quite obvious that you don't intend to vote for Obama and I'm assuming you won't be tossing your vote to a third party candidate so ... would you please share with us what you see in Romney that tickles your fancy?
("He's not Obama" is not an acceptable answer.)

Doug

Thanks for asking.
Background


I am a smaller Government guy so in general I like Presidents who will try to reduce the size of Government.
I think having Business and Government Executive (Governor) experience makes a good President.
I do not think being a Senator give you good experience to be President.
In 2008 I did not like either McCain or Obama but at least McCain has years of experience.

Why I like Romney


He was a business man.
He understands how to work with business.
He was a Governor.
He understands how to run the Government.
He worked with Democrats as Governor.
He will get things done with support from both Dems and Reps.
He understands healthcare.
His experience with healthcare in Mass will help him fix the healthcare system.

Chris Coose
10-23-2012, 07:41 AM
Increase war spending
reduce taxes
balance the budget

OMG!! Not again!!
This is what these smart guys will be voting for.

Mrleft8
10-23-2012, 07:46 AM
Interesting dichotomy you lay out there, Graham..... A govenor has experience in government, but a senator does not, but McCain did, and Obama who's been president for as long as Romney was govenor doesn't..... OK.... I can live with that.....
Having a person with business experience makes a good president...... When was the last time that worked out well?......

botebum
10-23-2012, 08:19 AM
Thanks Graham.
I'll just ask about one of your points because typing on this phone is a PITA.

What do you think Romney will do about health care? His program in Mass was/is much like Obamacare. Why was it good when he did it and bad when Obama did it?

Doug

Mrleft8
10-23-2012, 08:51 AM
Who was the last businessman to occupy the White House?

And how did he do, as President?

I guess, before W we had Clinton, who was theoretically a lawyer before he became a govenor, so if you don't count W... (Which most republicans seem to be doing these days).... The last businessman prez did pretty well, all things considered.....

Mrleft8
10-23-2012, 09:25 AM
Jimmy Carter was a businessman...... He did pretty well..... Except for the losing the re-election part......

Dan McCosh
10-23-2012, 09:46 AM
Hmmm.. I stand corrected... my apologies. You're right, Carter was a peanut farmer... although I don't get the impression that he was necessarily all that much of a businessman, per se... more like a business owner, which isn't necessarily the same thing. Harry Truman; GW Bush.

elf
10-23-2012, 09:48 AM
Thanks for asking.
Background


I am a smaller Government guy so in general I like Presidents who will try to reduce the size of Government.
I think having Business and Government Executive (Governor) experience makes a good President.
I do not think being a Senator give you good experience to be President.
In 2008 I did not like either McCain or Obama but at least McCain has years of experience.

Why I like Romney


He was a business man.
He understands how to work with business.
He was a Governor.
He understands how to run the Government.
He worked with Democrats as Governor.
He will get things done with support from both Dems and Reps.
He understands healthcare.
His experience with healthcare in Mass will help him fix the healthcare system.


So, basically, WHAT he does isn't important to you, it's only that you think he CAN DO.

What do you think should be being done, aside from preferring to make the Federal Government "smaller"?

Paul Pless
10-23-2012, 09:50 AM
Hmmm.. I stand corrected... my apologies.I'm not sure virtual apologies are good enough this close to the election. Don't you think you should prostrate yourself before us and beg forgiveness???

ron ll
10-23-2012, 09:59 AM
Wasn't Cheney a business man? (What? He wasn't president?)

Paul Pless
10-23-2012, 10:31 AM
i guess you have a point. . .

peb
10-23-2012, 10:37 AM
Hmmm.. I stand corrected... my apologies. You're right, Carter was a peanut farmer... although I don't get the impression that he was necessarily all that much of a businessman, per se... more like a business owner, which isn't necessarily the same thing.

I am no fan of Jimmy Carter, especially as a ex-president. But he was a VERY successful businessman. He took over his failing family peanut farm aftger the navy (his father was not a good businessman apparently), and knew little of farming, but really worked hard at it. He turned around the farm and expanded it, both horizontally and vertically in the peanut business. He liked to portray himself as a simple family farmer, but he was in many ways a generation ahead of family farms todays. Today's family farmer is the "corporate farm" people often complain about. Besides poultry (and to a lesser extent pork), large farms today are family operations and are not large corporate conglomerates. That is what Carter did in the sixties with his peanut farm and processing business.

Give the man the little credit he is due (and read a little more of history, this is twice today you have shown your weakness in the history area).

Paul Pless
10-23-2012, 10:42 AM
I am no fan of Jimmy Carter, especially as a ex-president.Curious. . .

What don't you like about him as an ex-president?

peb
10-23-2012, 10:43 AM
Why I like Romney


He was a business man.
He understands how to work with business.
He was a Governor.
He understands how to run the Government.
He worked with Democrats as Governor.
He will get things done with support from both Dems and Reps.
He understands healthcare.
His experience with healthcare in Mass will help him fix the healthcare system.



I agree with all of this, but I would add the following: he is a very good and decent man. He can be trusted to do what he believes is right, not what the politics of the moment tell him to do. And he has demonstrated throughout his live sound judgement.

He is very likable,on a personal level (ie one-on-one and in meetings). We had this with Clinton and with both Bushes and with Reagan. This is imperative when working with congress. And he is not afraid of getting his hands dirty, ie he will pick up the phone and call members from congress, and get people together to discuss and work out compromises. We had this "abiility to work with the other side and the other branches" in every president since 1980 until Obama. We desperately need it again.

Mrleft8
10-23-2012, 10:54 AM
I agree with all of this, but I would add the following: he is a very good and decent man. He can be trusted to do what he believes is right, not what the politics of the moment tell him to do. And he has demonstrated throughout his live sound judgement.

He is very likable,on a personal level (ie one-on-one and in meetings). We had this with Clinton and with both Bushes and with Reagan. This is imperative when working with congress. And he is not afraid of getting his hands dirty, ie he will pick up the phone and call members from congress, and get people together to discuss and work out compromises. We had this "abiility to work with the other side and the other branches" in every president since 1980 until Obama. We desperately need it again.
I don't exactly call ignoring congress and doing whatever you want to under an executive order, as George W. Bush did more than any other president, "work[ing] with the other side"...

elf
10-23-2012, 11:06 AM
I agree with all of this, but I would add the following: he is a very good and decent man.
A man who became wealthy the way he did is not a good or decent man, not even a good or decent person.
A man who thinks proselytising for his religion in Paris is the same sort of service as being shot at in Vietnam is not a good or decent man.
A man who selects Paul Ryan for his running mate is not a good or decent man.
A man who sees no problem with paying women less for doing the same work as men is not a good and decent man.
A man who puts his money in blind trusts so as to pay only 11% income tax is not a good and decent man.
A man who gives away only 3 million of his 22-million-dollar taxable income this year is not a good and decent man.
A man who puts 1.5 of that 3 million into a trust which pays out only $600K of it as donations is a stingy and ugly person. Especially when $25K of that went to an organization which is promoting gay retraining programs and a mere ONE thousand of it went to Mass General Hospital Cancer program.
A man who brings 5 children into the world at a time when population is burgeoning around the earth and his cohort is restricting itself to 2 is not a good and decent man.

And none of this has to do with this man's inability to exhibit any sort of consistency of belief except possibly in his church. His stingyness to his church, even, is perhaps the biggest indicator of just how ungood and un-decent this man is. His donation to his church this year was the absolute minimum and a quarter of it came from his tax-exempt trust fund.

This man appears to have no ethics which he will not compromise to get rich.

This man's only skillset for life is as a con man and he reveals not even the slightest understanding of that to boot.

The man is a scammer, he should be in Nigeria sending out malware. The fact that he has so many rich friends who see nothing wrong with his life is a tragedy for the US and will be a tragedy for the earth whether he is elected or not.

Paul Pless
10-23-2012, 11:10 AM
A man who became wealthy the way he did is not a good or decent man, not even a good or decent person..Inheritance is an ugly thing, just ask any Kennedy. . .

peb
10-23-2012, 11:13 AM
I don't exactly call ignoring congress and doing whatever you want to under an executive order, as George W. Bush did more than any other president, "work[ing] with the other side"...

Bush was able to pass his first tax change with a hostile congress and the same with his education. He was able to get his Patriot act passed (twice) with a divided government). He was able to pass his medicare prescription drug plans with a divided government. He was able, on a repetitive basis, to get Congress to approve funding of the Irag and Afghan war (this in my opinion was the most open and honest thing he did as president, in effect getting congress to repetitvely endorse a war that was the result of a divisive policy). He was able to get TARP passed in the waning days of his presidency when he was at an all-time popular low, being blamed for everything in a presidential election, and a true lame-duck.

You can disagree with Bush's policies, you can dislike the man politically, but it is impossible to say he was not effective at governing and working with congress. He had a inate sense in knowing how to do this, adjusting his strategy to the politics at the time. For example, with education, he relied heavily on a personal relationship he had with Teddy Kennedy (the two truly liked each other). Contrasted with TARP . I have read two or three books on the financial crisis, and all of them say the same thing: he was sure it needed to be done, he knew that Paulson could work it through with Congress, and so he let Paulson take the lead on the interaction with congress (when have we had one of Obama's cabinet members working days (and nights) at a time in the Capital building).

Note: Clinton was also very good at this, as was Bush 41, and Reagan. The contrast with Obama could not be stronger. He rarely even picks up the phone and calls the democrats in congress; much less the opposition. He has not put people in the White House who know or have experience in working with congress. To be honest, it appears to me that Obama doesn't like the nitty-gritty details of being president.

Kaa
10-23-2012, 11:23 AM
A man who brings 5 children into the world at a time when population is burgeoning around the earth and his cohort is restricting itself to 2 is not a good and decent man.

Preserved for posterity...

Kaa

Paul Pless
10-23-2012, 11:25 AM
I don't have any problem with inheritance, conceptually. I endorse the idea of a generous tax exemption for inheritances.... at the moment, it's $5M for the entire inheritance, although I think it taxes inheritances the wrong way.

What I would prefer to see is a generous exemption, per heir, rather than applied to the entire estate... and then I'd like to see the remainder of the inheritance over $5M per heir taxed as ordinary income, rather than at a higher level, as has been the case in the past.

The argument in favor of this is fairly simple. The bulk of most inheritances has not already been taxed; whether it consists of a business, or an investment portfolio; the reason is that it has been growing, tax free, for a long time. We could quibble about this not always being the case, but I think it is generally true... and regardless, calculating the basis price of most long-held estates would be an impossible task.

So, each heir can get $5M, tax free, making them most certainly rich, in anyone's definition... and on the rest, a 35% or 39% tax is not unfair....

The purpose of such a system would be pretty much the same as the purpose of any inheritance tax: to prevent economic dynasties from growing out of control, and out of bounds, to the detriment of the country. For the vast majority of people, a $5M inheritance, tax free, would be an instantaneous elevation to a position of financial security for the heirs, which very FEW people in this country can expect to ever enjoy. Any amounts over that, even taxed at ordinary income rates, would just be more gravy on the roast beef.

For the truly and genuinely ultra-rich, it really wouldn't make a great deal of difference. Consider the Koch brothers, co-owners (84%, together) of the second largest 'small business' (by Mitt Romney's definition) in the country. At annual sales of nearly $100B, the heirs of these two guys will be billionaires, even with a tax on the excess over $5M.


I was being sarcastic.:D

elf
10-23-2012, 11:31 AM
Again I come down to the question, PEB and Graham. Is getting something done more important than what gets done? Is it more important to have 47 million Americans without health insurance than to pass a program that whittles that number down to only a couple million? Is it more admirable to bully and lie a population into approving a war than to think thru the implications of the proposed war and decide not to do it? Is it more admirable to enrich the pharmaceutical companies with a prescription drug benefit than to not borrow the money at all?

Why is "getting something done" so important to you when what is being done is not worthy of respect?

You admire the guy who drove the economy over the cliff because he "got something done"?

Have you got any values?

Paul Pless
10-23-2012, 11:34 AM
Again I come down to the question, PEB and Graham. Is getting something done more important than what gets done? Is it more important to have 47 million Americans without health insurance than to pass a program that whittles that number down to only a couple million? Is it more admirable to bully and lie a population into approving a war than to think thru the implications of the proposed war and decide not to do it? Is it more admirable to enrich the pharmaceutical companies with a prescription drug benefit than to not borrow the money at all?

Why is "getting something done" so important to you when what is being done is not worthy of respect?

You admire the guy who drove the economy over the cliff because he "got something done"?

Have you got any values?

Sometimes how something gets done is important. You fully embrace the Obama sellout to the insurance industry? Have you got any values?

Kaa
10-23-2012, 11:41 AM
Have you got any values?

LOL. Sisters and brothers, let us raise our voices in a hymn to ward off the malevolent evil of everyone who does share our views! Repeat after me:

Democrats are the Children of Light, Republicans are the Spawn of Darkness
Democrats are the Children of Light, Republicans are the Spawn of Darkness
Democrats are the Children of Light, Republicans are the Spawn of Darkness

Kaa

P.S. I submit for general use the new abbreviation: DATCOL,RATSOD :-)

elf
10-23-2012, 11:45 AM
Sometimes how something gets done is important. You fully embrace the Obama sellout to the insurance industry? Have you got any values?
You're assuming I embrace the ACA. Surely you can figure out that that is not likely to be the case.

However, restricting insurance company profit to 2% is admirable. Starting the long and complex process of devising a system to make health care promote health instead of only look to cure sickness is admirable. Permitting people to include their adult children on their policies at a time when there are no jobs for many of those children is acceptable. Enabling those who cannot ever afford, and will probably will not ever be able to afford, health insurance is acceptable.

I'd be the first to admit that, possibly, if Mr. Obama had not been half white and half black the Republicans in congress might have been more amenable to cooperation. Personally, I don't believe their primary problem with him is that he's a Democrat. But we will never have an opportunity to find that out. What's happened has happened and the reflection on the Republicans is an embarrassment while the reflection on Mr. Obama is not exactly shining.

Kaa
10-23-2012, 11:46 AM
Uhhh, here's a tip: you can't condemn and criticize juvenile characterizations by using the exact same tactic.

Sure I can. Just watch me :-P

Kaa

P.S. Did you just call ELF juvenile..? :-)

Paul Pless
10-23-2012, 11:48 AM
. . .and the reflection on the Republicans is an embarrassment while the reflection on Mr. Obama is not exactly shining.we have some common ground. . .

elf
10-23-2012, 11:52 AM
we have some common ground. . .
Of course we do. Did you doubt that?

Kaa
10-23-2012, 11:56 AM
When I say, "Darth Vader," what American politician comes to mind?

No one in particular. Hint: what's inside your mind and what's outside are different things :-)

Counterquestion: what should one do with the Spawn of Darkness?

Kaa

Paul Pless
10-23-2012, 11:57 AM
Did you doubt that?I have doubts sometimes. There have been quite a few times that you have made some pretty inflammatory 'suggestions' about my upbringing in the South and my learned family, cultural, and political values.

Kaa
10-23-2012, 12:03 PM
I'll bet you'd give a different answer if you were a contestant on JEOPARDY!

No, I don't think so.

In any case, is there a point you're trying to make? Is it, maybe, that life is just like the Star Wars (tm) universe?

Kaa

peb
10-23-2012, 12:15 PM
Again I come down to the question, PEB and Graham. ...

Have you got any values?

Elf, with all due respect, there is likely no one on this forum whose values differ from mine more than yours. Our values are so different, it really will do neither of us any good to have an argument/debate with each other. So it if it seems like I am ignoring your posts, that is a fair way for you to look at it. I apologize for that, it is the best approach for both of us, IMO.

Paul Pless
10-23-2012, 12:21 PM
I'll bet you'd give a different answer if you were a contestant on JEOPARDY!Duh. . ."Who is no one in particular?"

John of Phoenix
10-23-2012, 12:22 PM
Oh come ON!!

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKNfP6CrDgN3nDf0UCRF6V4lsEiUv73 l9KCvlvpGESG1qOS2yh

elf
10-23-2012, 12:23 PM
I have doubts sometimes. There have been quite a few times that you have made some pretty inflammatory 'suggestions' about my upbringing in the South and my learned family, cultural, and political values.
I dunno about your upbringing. It doesn't seem to have been conventional bible-belting south, so I doubt my comments have been about you directly.

However, you can rest assured that I don't think much of the cultural and political values of the states which most tenaciously cling to the mentality of the slavery-based culture.

elf
10-23-2012, 12:24 PM
Elf, with all due respect, there is likely no one on this forum whose values differ from mine more than yours. Our values are so different, it really will do neither of us any good to have an argument/debate with each other. So it if it seems like I am ignoring your posts, that is a fair way for you to look at it. I apologize for that, it is the best approach for both of us, IMO.
You're passing up a good opportunity to work thru the logic of your values here.

What a shame you're not willing to explore that.

Kaa
10-23-2012, 12:28 PM
Oh yeah. I'm a numbskull just like all liberals. :rolleyes:

Well, if you insist... :-P

Kaa

Kaa
10-23-2012, 12:31 PM
Kaa is just playing dumb. ;)

Nope, it's just that my cultural blender is different from your cultural blender and so my associations are different from your associations. Try watching a bit less of propaganda, maybe? :-)

Kaa

Kaa
10-23-2012, 12:37 PM
We have The Bilge in common.

True, but I try to limit my intake of bilgewater :-) It seems to be a psychoactive substance :-D

Kaa

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-23-2012, 01:42 PM
Thanks for asking.
Background
I am a smaller Government guy so in general I like Presidents who will try to reduce the size of Government.


How small?
Smaller than Russia?
Smaller than Romania?
Smaller than Rwanda?
If none of the above ,as small as( your choice).


I think having Business and Government Executive (Governor) experience makes a good President.

This comparison puzzles me. Can you name any other presidents who were successful business men?


I do not think being a Senator give you good experience to be President.

Harry Truman, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were no good because of their senatorial experience,eh? You, certainly don't have afuture in the history book business.


In 2008 I did not like either McCain or Obama but at least McCain has years of experience.

You just said you don't like presidential candidates that were senators but now you like McCain anyway? But McCain was a senator far longer than Obama. Using your yardstick wouldn't that make you like Obama more?

Mrleft8
10-23-2012, 01:50 PM
Kaa is just playing dumb. ;)

What makes you think that he's playing dumb?

John Smith
10-23-2012, 01:51 PM
Thanks for asking.
Background


I am a smaller Government guy so in general I like Presidents who will try to reduce the size of Government.
I think having Business and Government Executive (Governor) experience makes a good President.
I do not think being a Senator give you good experience to be President.
In 2008 I did not like either McCain or Obama but at least McCain has years of experience.

Why I like Romney


He was a business man.
He understands how to work with business.
He was a Governor.
He understands how to run the Government.
He worked with Democrats as Governor.
He will get things done with support from both Dems and Reps.
He understands healthcare.
His experience with healthcare in Mass will help him fix the healthcare system.



I think there's a lot of assumptons in there that can be debated. My question is a bit less complex. Given all his changes of positions, which Mitt Romney do you believe you're voting for?

The one who supports a woman's right to choose or the one that supports Personhood Amendmnets?
The one who doesn't believe we should have a time table for getting out of Afghanistan or the one who supports having a time table?
The one who would not have looked for Bin Laden or the one who says he'd have made the same decision Obama made?
The one who opposes Obamacare or the one who invented it and said it should be the model for the country?
The one who wants to get tough on China or the one who has been a signicant part of sending our jobs there?
The one who told us the government writing GM a check would put GM out of business or the one that now says we followed his plan?

This list could be longer.

Whichever Mitt is elected, I ask you the same question I used to ask when Obama was campaigning in '08: How is he going to get bi-partisan support?

John Smith
10-23-2012, 01:53 PM
Interesting dichotomy you lay out there, Graham..... A govenor has experience in government, but a senator does not, but McCain did, and Obama who's been president for as long as Romney was govenor doesn't..... OK.... I can live with that.....
Having a person with business experience makes a good president...... When was the last time that worked out well?......

One question only I have asked: Romney says private sector experience is an absolute necessity for a president, so why did he chose Ryan for VP, when Ryan has none.

Kaa
10-23-2012, 02:09 PM
What makes you think that he's playing dumb?

Let's just say it's my natural state of being :-D

Kaa

Paul Pless
10-23-2012, 02:10 PM
One question only I have asked: Romney says private sector experience is an absolute necessity for a president, so why did he chose Ryan for VP, when Ryan has none.

He drove the Wienermobile for a while, that's got to be worth something, right???

TomF
10-23-2012, 02:57 PM
Peb,

You feel Romney's a good and decent person? First and foremost? I agree that these are important qualities, in any candidate.

How has Romney won your good opinion? The fact-checkers have consistently found him to be spreading untruths - not just verbal gaffes, but actual lies. His policy positions have changed significantly not only since he was Governor (Obamacare is Romneycare 2.0, after all), but over the course of the Primary and Presidential campaigns. His own staff described this as etch-a-sketch behaviour.

This is not evidence of decency, but of opportunism. Of such a strong desire to be President that it outweighs convictions, in pretty much every policy domain.

I don't really care how Romney's treated his dog, or how much his horses cost. I wouldn't care much that he's terribly wealthy, except that in his case we don't seem to see this accompanied by a good grasp of how ordinary citizens live and make decisions. I care that his business career, while personally lucrative and rewarding to his shareholders, focused on types of business which weaken America rather than build it up. For instance, I'd rather see a businessman who'd strengthened American high-tech, or resurrected shipbuilding, or found new markets for forest products - and built lives for ordinary citizens in ordinary communities. That's not what Romney did - however well he did it. That he chose his particular business specialization demonstrates something about his character - which is different from what success in other lines of business would demonstrate.

Putting it together, I'm not comfortable that Romney's a decent man. He's not a monster ... but he's not someone I'd choose as an in-law. In contrast, if one of my sons ultimately found himself courting one of the Obama girls I'd be tickled, and would look forward to joint family events.

S/V Laura Ellen
10-23-2012, 03:02 PM
What TomF said!


Peb,

You feel Romney's a good and decent person? First and foremost? I agree that these are important qualities, in any candidate.

How has Romney won your good opinion? The fact-checkers have consistently found him to be spreading untruths - not just verbal gaffes, but actual lies. His policy positions have changed significantly not only since he was Governor (Obamacare is Romneycare 2.0, after all), but over the course of the Primary and Presidential campaigns. His own staff described this as etch-a-sketch behaviour.

This is not evidence of decency, but of opportunism. Of such a strong desire to be President that it outweighs convictions, in pretty much every policy domain.

I don't really care how Romney's treated his dog, or how much his horses cost. I wouldn't care much that he's terribly wealthy, except that in his case we don't seem to see this accompanied by a good grasp of how ordinary citizens live and make decisions. I care that his business career, while personally lucrative and rewarding to his shareholders, focused on types of business which weaken America rather than build it up. For instance, I'd rather see a businessman who'd strengthened American high-tech, or resurrected shipbuilding, or found new markets for forest products - and built lives for ordinary citizens in ordinary communities. That's not what Romney did - however well he did it. That he chose his particular business specialization demonstrates something about his character - which is different from what success in other lines of business would demonstrate.

Putting it together, I'm not comfortable that Romney's a decent man. He's not a monster ... but he's not someone I'd choose as an in-law. In contrast, if one of my sons ultimately found himself courting one of the Obama girls I'd be tickled, and would look forward to joint family events.

skuthorp
10-23-2012, 03:08 PM
Nahh... lawyers aren't businessmen, except peripherally..... and Bush was a failed businessman. The last real businessman in the White House was actually Herbert Hoover, in 1928.....

....how did that work out for us? :):)
Don't know how he worked out, but the campaign from his side was full of racism, sectarianism, and other extremes. Even the KKK campaigned for him. The reason? Smith was a Catholic. Of course he was a product of the Tamany Hall and an anti-prohibitionist so it seems a low point for both sides.

peb
10-23-2012, 03:10 PM
TomF, the "fact-checkers" always seem to be rather one-sided IMO. For example, the issue of if Obama called the Libyan attack an act of terror on Sept 12. Did Obama refer to acts of terror? yes, in a paragraph that listed several different events, and only by association referred to the Libyan attack.

As for his change of stances over the years. Health care, yes the Massachusetts law had the mandate as ObamaCare; but Romney has made it clear (and I agree) that it is a whole different matter for a state to implement that type of law, as opposed for the federal government. And many of Romney's complaints against ObamaCare have nothing to do with the Massachusetts law.
Look at his change (in my direction) on abortion. I know lots of folks who are not anti-abortion, and very sincere, but it took them a while to come to that conclusion. I can certainly live with Romney being late to the party on that one.


I care that his business career, while personally lucrative and rewarding to his shareholders, focused on types of business which weaken America rather than build it up.
That is political propaganda. Bain Capital invested in all types of businesses and industries. There was no central focus, they were very diverse.

You might now care how he treats his dog or horse (I don't either); I do care about stories when he stopped all work at Bain and sent all employees out immediately distributing flyers to help find a loss child. I do care about stories how he has personally come to other family's aid in times of distress. But you conviently mention only treatment of dogs and horses. You have bought into the Obama campaign strategy of winning election by making Romney unaccetable. It is not surprising.

The left has reached the point where many of themm are only able to hate and demonize those who disagree with them politically. Those who do go to that extreme fall into the argument traps of those who do.

I repeat, Romney is a good and decent man.

Paul Pless
10-23-2012, 03:12 PM
As for his change of stances over the years. Health care, yes the Massachusetts law had the mandate as ObamaCare; but Romney has made it clear (and I agree) that it is a whole different matter for a state to implement that type of law, as opposed for the federal government.What is the difference to you?

peb
10-23-2012, 03:14 PM
What is the difference to you?

It is a matter of subsidiarity. An fundamental principle of immense importance to me in today's political environment and one that is almost always completely ignored (all over the world, unfortunately).

Kaa
10-23-2012, 03:14 PM
What is the difference to you?

It's much easier to change state residence than change citizenship.

Kaa

Paul Pless
10-23-2012, 03:17 PM
It is a matter of subsidiarity. An fundamental principle of immense importance to me in today's political environment and one that is almost always completely ignored (all over the world, unfortunately).

But you surely recognize that the broader healthcare industry is more national than state centric in scope? Especially with regards to institutions like insurance and big pharma and regulation and oversight. . .

TomF
10-23-2012, 03:32 PM
TomF, the "fact-checkers" always seem to be rather one-sided IMO. ......

....You might now care how he treats his dog or horse (I don't either); I do care about stories when he stopped all work at Bain and sent all employees out immediately distributing flyers to help find a loss child. I do care about stories how he has personally come to other family's aid in times of distress. But you conviently mention only treatment of dogs and horses. You have bought into the Obama campaign strategy of winning election by making Romney unacceptable.

I repeat, Romney is a good and decent man.The "fact checkers" check facts, Peb. I agree that it's useful to distinguish between "fact checkers" and "spin doctors," but those who've had troubles with Romney's statements haven't only been the latter - far from it. He has made untrue statements, and repeated them. That's part of the modern practice of politics, one might argue, but it does little to enhance a man's decency.

I didn't know that anecdote about distributing flyers - yes, that's a counter-weight to some other stories - good to hear it.

As to Bain Capital being diverse rather than in the break-up-and-strip-value business - show us. We've seen links to interviews with Romney's former associates at Bain talking about the stripping-value nature of the business ... where are the other Bain associates stepping up to show where they'd saved a town's employment anchors, rather than shipping them elsewhere? Or even crediting that Bain was diverse ... on balance, how does that diversity really show up on balance sheets? I'd love to see some counter-propaganda that showed that Romney'd been responsible not only for shareholder enrichment, but for the creation of stable, long-term, decent-wage jobs for Americans. That one of the criteria he used to make business decisions with Bain was to not only have wealth flow up to the owners, but to build something long-lasting for his businesses' employees at the lower ends of the pay scale.

It's very hard to believe that Romney's communications team is incompetent enough that they can't get that message out, if indeed that message exists for them to tell.

peb
10-23-2012, 03:45 PM
Subsidiarity is an organizing principle stating that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized authority capable of addressing that matter effectively.

What makes you think that universal health care can be most effectively handled by state governments? Do you really believe such a scheme would result in relatively equal care for U.S. citizens of Mississippi and Connecticut?

I would rather the citizens of Mississippi and Connecticut decide for themselves than continue the march towards the all encompassing central state .
Your argument can only be taken to its logical conclusion and advocate a world-wide healthcare system

Kaa
10-23-2012, 03:49 PM
Your argument can only be taken to its logical conclusion and advocate a world-wide healthcare system

The rather more direct conclusion would be that the Federal Government must immediately step in and start running all the schools across the nation, among a great deal of other things.

If you want to guarantee equality of outcomes between Mississippi and Connecticut, there is nothing that should be done at state level.

Kaa

TomF
10-23-2012, 03:54 PM
Garbage. The conclusion is that America might benefit from policies all of its allies have taken respecting health care, in one form or another. Because unlike Education (where international studies show population-scale excellence in national and state models alike), population-scale excellence in health systems seems to occur only in national systems.

Kaa
10-23-2012, 04:18 PM
At what level is a particular social policy most effectively implemented?

That rather depends on your goals, or, to be more precise, on the list of criteria that you will use to decide whether a social policy has been "effectively implemented".

For example, if we consider schools, you might decide that you care about the average level of achievement, or maybe about the median level of achievement, or maybe about the bottom 5% level of achievement (which is kinda "no one left behind"), or maybe about the spread between the bottom 5% and the top 5% (if you really care about equality of outcomes), etc. And that's just level of achievement and there are multiple other criteria at play, too.

So it's complicated and the answer is, to a considerable degree, determined by what exactly question do you ask.

Kaa

peb
10-23-2012, 04:31 PM
What nonsense. :rolleyes:

That conclusion is neither logical nor rational. It is merely an attempt at ideological distraction.

Do you really believe that leaving healthcare in the hands of each nation would result in relatively equal care for citizens of Canada and Burma?

Kaa
10-23-2012, 04:33 PM
Precisely. Which is why I thought peb's Post #75 was simplistic.

Well, I'm not peb (as I am sure you have noticed) but given your definition (emphasis mine): "Subsidiarity is an organizing principle stating that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized authority capable of addressing that matter effectively." I don't see what do you object to.

One other advantage of handling things at state level (and it's a huge one) is that the actual effect of policies is rather uncertain. If you implement one policy at the national level -- the one that you think is the best -- you might turn out to be wrong about it being the best one, but you'll never find out. On the other hand, if the states implement a dozen different solutions you'll have the great advantage of seeing which one actually works before starting to propagate it through the nation.

Kaa

Paul Pless
10-23-2012, 04:33 PM
Do you really believe that leaving healthcare in the hands of each nation would result in relatively equal care for citizens of Canada and Burma?

By implication, you then support different health outcomes between say Mississippi and Massachusetts?

peb
10-23-2012, 04:39 PM
A march toward an all-encompassing central state?

No. Simply subsidiarity in action. It is about the most effective way to implement policy the citizenry desires.

Would the Roman Catholic Church be opposed in principle to a single-payer U.S. universal health system? If not, then what is the basis of your objection?

The Roman Catholic Church would not take a stance on such a politcal issue, leaving it up to the domain of the temporal political system. The Roman Catholic Church will instruct me on the correct definition of subsidiarity (which you have mis-represented multiple times in the last few posts).

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1883 "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

Paragraph 1885 "The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order"

Paragraph 1894 "In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies"

Paragraph 2209 (although not applicable in this instance, I desire to be complete in presenting Church teaching): "The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family's prerogatives or interfere in its life."

I am having a hard time finding the term "effectively" which you keep touting. With respect to healthcare, it has been proven in smaller nations and with insurance in small corporations, that a universal system can be effective at a much lower level than the federal government.

Is there any role for the federal government? Sure,I can see that. But I do not see the need for an all encompassing federal solution.

peb
10-23-2012, 04:42 PM
Do you really believe that I would ever take such a question seriously?

So how about it, peb? Is the Roman Catholic Church opposed in principle to Federally implemented single-payer universal health systems?

Of course not. But it is the exact same argument you presented, word for word with only the scale and names changed, for advocating a complete national health care system. So my statement that your argument logically leads to a world-wide healthcare system is perfectly valid. So how about it Tom, Why do you think citizens of Burma are not entitled to the same care as citizens of Canada? Why should the UN not ensure this happens?

Kaa
10-23-2012, 04:45 PM
But, of course, that is not how the U.S. works. "Subsidiarity" is a nice principle in and of itself... but this is a representative democracy. Rightly or wrongly, the citizenry determines at what level various social policies and benefits are administered.

But, of course, that is not how the U.S. works. :-) The limits of the powers of Federal Government are decided by the Supreme Court, not the citizenry. Since the New Deal it has been rather accommodating of the expansion of Federal powers, but the citizenry can't just decide that, for example, all local police forces now will become Federal employees under DHS.

Kaa

peb
10-23-2012, 05:03 PM
subsidiarity (səbˌsɪdɪˈśrɪtɪ)






— n



1.

(in the Roman Catholic Church) a principle of social doctrine that all social bodies exist for the sake of the individual so that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over



2.

(in political systems) the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level.







Again... you are obligated to argue cogently what level of of government should best handle universal health care coverage. It is not nearly enough to insist that the principle of "Subsidiarity" means that it should only be handled at the state level in the U.S.A.

Tom, using the second, simple defition, I am not obligate to argue what level can best handle universal health care coverage, I am obligate to argue what is the lowest, practical level. And I think I have made a case it can certainly be done at a level beneath the federal level. There are nations who implement it effectively who have populations smaller than almost any of our states.

peb
10-23-2012, 05:06 PM
Of course you do not. But I suspect your belief is due more to political ideology than logic.

By "smaller nations," are you suggesting the U.S.A. is too large to justify a national single-payer health system?

As for corporations, are you suggesting GM can more efficiently administer a universal healthcare insurance system than can the Federal government? Or is this a neat trick that can only accomplished by smaller corporations? Like Chrysler?

Aren't we in agreement that healthcare ought not be a burden of private businesses and corporations?

I do not like employer managed healthcare, but yes I would argue based on history that corporations can certainly effeciently admister healthcare (universal for their employees) better than the federal government. Yes, we are in agreement that healthcare should not be a burden of private businesses and corporations. But that is a better solution, IMO, than it to be implemented as a national single-payer system (at least until ObamaCare came along, which threatens to destroy it completely).

peb
10-23-2012, 05:07 PM
peb: Does the Roman Catholic Church object in principle to the National Health Service of Great Britain?

Please see the first sentence of post #94. Lets not cover ground I have already answered.

Kaa
10-23-2012, 05:26 PM
Is that right? Who wrote the U.S. Constitution? Citizens or justices?

Neither -- politicians, a bunch of recently British subjects :-)


If you believe your own post then you obviously do not believe such a thing as "2nd Amendment remedies" exist.

Notice -- "how the U.S. works", not "how it might work in some theoretically possible future".

Kaa

Kaa
10-23-2012, 05:27 PM
Your church is fine with national universal health care.

I don't see how that's relevant to anything. RCC is quite fine with dictatorships as well.

Kaa

TomF
10-23-2012, 05:31 PM
That is correct. The Roman Catholic Church DOES NOT OBJECT IN PRINCIPLE.

Your objection is on the basis of political ideology. Your church is fine with national universal health care.The Catholic Church supports universal health care here in Canada actually. A letter from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops to the then federal Minister of Health is still on the Bishops' website, advocating not only for increased Federal funding for our existing universal program, but specifically opposing any "further expansion" of for-profit health care here. As they put it,
The key values of solidarity, community, equity, compassion and efficiency (which undergird Medicare today) are the values that should take priority over a market-driven approach to healthcare...

John Smith
10-23-2012, 05:47 PM
He drove the Wienermobile for a while, that's got to be worth something, right???


I don't think that qualifies as the subtantial private sector experience Romney was referring to. Of course Romney didn't mean it, like most of what he's said.

John Smith
10-23-2012, 05:50 PM
Peb,

You feel Romney's a good and decent person? First and foremost? I agree that these are important qualities, in any candidate.

How has Romney won your good opinion? The fact-checkers have consistently found him to be spreading untruths - not just verbal gaffes, but actual lies. His policy positions have changed significantly not only since he was Governor (Obamacare is Romneycare 2.0, after all), but over the course of the Primary and Presidential campaigns. His own staff described this as etch-a-sketch behaviour.

This is not evidence of decency, but of opportunism. Of such a strong desire to be President that it outweighs convictions, in pretty much every policy domain.

I don't really care how Romney's treated his dog, or how much his horses cost. I wouldn't care much that he's terribly wealthy, except that in his case we don't seem to see this accompanied by a good grasp of how ordinary citizens live and make decisions. I care that his business career, while personally lucrative and rewarding to his shareholders, focused on types of business which weaken America rather than build it up. For instance, I'd rather see a businessman who'd strengthened American high-tech, or resurrected shipbuilding, or found new markets for forest products - and built lives for ordinary citizens in ordinary communities. That's not what Romney did - however well he did it. That he chose his particular business specialization demonstrates something about his character - which is different from what success in other lines of business would demonstrate.

Putting it together, I'm not comfortable that Romney's a decent man. He's not a monster ... but he's not someone I'd choose as an in-law. In contrast, if one of my sons ultimately found himself courting one of the Obama girls I'd be tickled, and would look forward to joint family events.

I'd take this a step further. How can anyone who ever complains about politicians saying different things to different audiences to get elected vote for this man and not feel himself a hypocrite?

This many not only holds opinions at odds to those he had been holding, but denied ever having held what had been his own opinions.

John Smith
10-23-2012, 05:53 PM
I would rather the citizens of Mississippi and Connecticut decide for themselves than continue the march towards the all encompassing central state .
Your argument can only be taken to its logical conclusion and advocate a world-wide healthcare system

That's a bit extreme. I'm also curious as to how we create jobs here without going to a single payer system. Our employer based system makes it far more costly to employ people before we pay a dollar of wages.

peb
10-23-2012, 06:04 PM
That is correct. The Roman Catholic Church DOES NOT OBJECT IN PRINCIPLE.

Your objection is on the basis of political ideology. Your church is fine with national universal health care.

Of course it is based on ideology, I made Taft clear in my first reply to Paul that started this whole explanation of subsidiarily. I said clearly, I could see the reasoning of a state implementing a mandate, yet oppose the Feds doing it based on the principle of subsidiarily. That sounds politically ideological to me, guilty as charged. Sorry it took me so long to see that was your point, I would have admitted it freely. I was under the impression you wanted to understand my ideology, silly me.

peb
10-23-2012, 06:15 PM
Are you OK with that remark, peb? How is the RCC with Castro's Cuba?

Tom, this is tiresome. I have tried to answer everyone of your questions and respond politely to all of your comments. All the while waiting patiently for you to answer my questions. which have never been given. I give up, expecting a two-way dignified conversation with you is too much, I had been gone quite a while from this place, so my misplaced expectations can perhaps be blamed on early dementia onset.

Anyway, I choose to answer no more, and will go take care of the brood I indecently brought into this world.