Have you noticed how the Republican approach to this year’s presidential elections is the exact copy of the one four years ago?
A presidential candidate who is not much loved by his party and who barely manages to get the nomination chooses as his running mate somebody he has no reason to adore, somebody who is rabidly anti-abortion, has very extreme views and a very schematic understanding of the economy, and who will only appeal to a very small group of population because of how radical s/he is.
We’ve all seen this before. This strategy failed when opposing a young, inexperienced Barack Obama. Now that the “lack of experience”card is gone, replaying the strategy that has already proven to be a losing one makes very little sense. And the last time around, we at least saw a moderately charismatic candidate and a very charismatic running mate. This time, both candidates would be pressed to find an ounce of charisma between the two of them.
I think what we seeing is the classic case of a party being so spoiled by 8 years of being in power and doing whatever it wanted that it still can’t get out of the “why listen to what people want?” mentality. Four years haven’t been enough for the Republicans to recognize that the absolute majority of people in this country wants abortion (albeit with some restrictions), in vitro, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, Planned Parenthood, and Social Security. Most would prefer to see the Pentagon budget cut than their Medicare taken away (which is a policy that Obama pursued and his opponents denounce). People have been awakened by a major recession and promising them to take away all these entitlements they have been used to because politicians have messed up and the Treasury is empty will not satisfy the voters.
Of course, as long as the Republicans are stuck in this broken record mode, they will keep losing Presidential elections.
I don’t think we need to worry much about the upcoming election. If the President manages to avoid any “Polish death camps” statements, if the economy doesn’t implode for whatever reason, and if Israel avoids hitting Iran, Obama has this election in his pocket.
Everybody who can vote, should still go vote, though.
And what do you think of Paul Ryan and his contribution to the Republican ticket?
Clarissa's Blog 
Ryan is dynamic and charismatic enough that he scares me very much. I hope people can see through his charm to understand how dangerous he is. I guess I do not see why you think he lacks charisma.
LikeLike
A rich guy with a Stepford-looking wife who is not of the mainstream religion but whose own religious leaders have all but repudiated him, an Ayn Randian with no understanding of what really bothers the people of the country and no capacity to empathize – I don’t see many people relating to him.
Of course, by Romney’s side a refrigerator looks charming as hell. 🙂
LikeLike
—and if Israel avoids hitting Iran, Obama has this election in his pocket.
And what if Israel decides to kill two birds with the same stone? I mean delay Iranian nuclear program AND shift the balance in the US towards more Israely-friendly government?
LikeLike
I do hope that Romney’s statements about the superiority of Christianity make some impression.
But what you mention is very possible, of course.
LikeLike
I will leave a detailed discussion later on tonight on Ryan, but my quick take-aways are this:
1) This pick should be welcomed by all who want serious political discussion. Even though most news stations are saying this, it IS true that now we will be closer to having a true choice of priorities and ideology in this election (and get away from the idiotic ads that have been the focus so far)
2) Ryan’s tax plan is somewhat ridiculous (in general I think Republicans know there tax plan is over the top… but by going this far right they hope to get large spending cuts.. and modest tax increases… and it may actually be a good strategy), but his spending cuts are pretty reasonable. He doesn’t talk about whole-scale elimination of govt. departments like Ron Paul, Herman Cain, bachman.. etc. Most of his cuts are between 15-30% of programs and workers. I honestly think a majority of Americans believe that govt. has 15-30% or much more waste/inefficiency/redundancy.
Ultimately, the one good thing for Obama is the media is RABIDLY in his camp (besides FoxNews and the WSJ).. and it is somewhat funny to see how they are horrified about Romney/Ryan advocating something besides their liberal policies.
If Romney/Ryan win… it will be an OVERWHELMINGLY clear indication this country is much more conservative than the media makes it out to be.
I actually think the more specifics that the Repubs bring up.. and use the line of reasoning that I did about “govt. beign at least 20% inefficienct etc..”… the better chance they have. Hope they have the guts to do that.
On a somewhat related note, your argument about hippies this weekend not really understanding what it takes to help people in need… doesn’t it apply very much so to the mainstream liberals? I get that some of the Republicans don’t understand either.. but almost NO one who is successful becomes dependent on others. Certainly govt. program has enabled and created the conditions for some people to take individual and collective responsibility to change their own life/family/friends lives… but liberals truly view those on govt. programs as “less capable” and want them enabled on benefits for life to get their votes..
Just curious because I know how hard you have worked to rise from little to the great life you seem to have now.
Welcome your thoughts! Also, more on abortion, Medicaid, Pell grants… I DON”T think the majority of middle class voters are in favor.. or certainly not in rabid favor (social security and medicare may be slightly different).
Lastly (this topic really has me fired up! lol), Ryan has won in a very blue collar and democrat dominated state and district I beliver.. so he certainly appeals to more than radical right-wingers…
Also, Ryan has some charism.. and I really think Romney seemed more confident this weekend and may come out of his shell. Game on….Repubs.. time to step up and make a full-throated explanation of conservatism 🙂
LikeLike
“but almost NO one who is successful becomes dependent on others”
– Yeah, like all those billionaires who got handouts from the taxpayers’ pockets in 2008. Come on, let’s be serious.
“Ultimately, the one good thing for Obama is the media is RABIDLY in his camp (besides FoxNews and the WSJ).. and it is somewhat funny to see how they are horrified about Romney/Ryan advocating something besides their liberal policies.”
– I’ve been reading massively on the subject of Ryan’s selection and all I see is celebration of this choice by the Liberal commentators as something that will tank the Romney campaign.
” but liberals truly view those on govt. programs as “less capable” and want them enabled on benefits for life to get their votes..”
– Are any quotes from any Liberals who make even remotely similar statements and use the words “less capable” and “for life”?
“Also, more on abortion, Medicaid, Pell grants… I DON”T think the majority of middle class voters are in favor”
– I suggest a Google search. People who share Ryan’s position on abortion are a very tiny minority.
” I honestly think a majority of Americans believe that govt. has 15-30% or much more waste/inefficiency/redundancy.”
– The people who would choose these cuts to be made in education and healthcare as opposed to in military spending are a small minority.
LikeLike
Ultimately, the one good thing for Obama is the media is RABIDLY in his camp
Right. The GOP just named a nameda radical right wing candidate to the vicepresidency which is treated with cotton swabs by the press, while the all-too-compromising Obama is consistenly called a “radical” by the same media. If the press is in Obama’s camp, some friends he got!
LikeLike
1) What I am curious is how the middle class Catholic vote on the Midwest will swing. I am talking the moderate, anti-abortion Catholics Despite Ryan being an anti-abortion Catholic, I think this choice will give Obama more votes among this demographic that one could imagine.
LikeLike
All I have to say about Paul Ryan is that if he thinks Randian policies are compatible with his rabidly anti-choice ideology, he needs to get new reading glasses, because he’s missing out on some core ideas regarding personal freedom and bodily autonomy in her work.
I should be getting my absentee ballot in the mail any day now. 🙂
LikeLike
I know! Does he even ask himself what Rand – who only became a writer because she had a chance to abort – would say to his “personhood” beliefs.
LikeLike
Here’s some bedtime reading for him, if he ever pulls his head out of his ass long enough to think that over:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abortion.html
LikeLike
Thank you for the link!
“A proper, philosophically valid definition of man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.”
I could only add that the obsession with fertilized eggs on the part of human beings who are physiologically incapable of producing a single one is very irrational.
LikeLike
“I could only add that the obsession with fertilized eggs on the part of human beings who are physiologically incapable of producing a single one is very irrational.”
So true!
LikeLike
“A presidential candidate who is not much loved by his party”
In fact, McCain was more loved by his party, but you’re right.
LikeLike
McCain was definitely more loved than Romney but, still, they agreed to accept him as the nominee with very little enthusiasm. He had to go against his every instinct and choose Palin to placate his base.
LikeLike
If you read what Ryan proposes instead of reacting in a knee-jerk fashion, you will find that he has put forward a defensible policy to alleviate the debt problem that confronts this nation. One may not agree with every detail, but I can tell you that medicare, medicaid and social security programs will have to be cut if the debt problem is to be resolved. What is unsustainable cannot survive.
Obama will not confront this issue. You may be right that Americans no longer care about their children and grandchildren and will continue to live beyond their means until the medicine is forced down their throats by market forces. Think Greece. That may win Obama another election. Then, for the next four years, as US bonds are downgraded again and again, and massive spending cuts and tax hikes have to be imposed, Obama will twist lowly in the wind. His reputation will be destroyed and he will be remembered for winning an election by lying in his teeth.
That may be the best solution of all. Americans will then realize that by not thinking they allowed themselves to be had , that it is time to wake up and study economics and not sociology in the schools, so they understand what the options truly are.
LikeLike
I don’t think that the debt crisis was caused by medicare, medicaid and social security. The bailouts, the handouts to the billionaires, the government bureaucracy and the unsustainable wars are a lot more responsible for the massive debt. I don’t think most people would want to give up their entitlements to pay for these expenditures. The number of people who believe that the bailouts, the bureaucrats and the wars benefit them personally more than Medicare and Social security is not that high.
I cannot bring myself to believe that this big and hard-working country cannot afford the Pell Grants and the Social Security. In this day and age, these are not luxuries. All developed countries – including those who are culturally a lot less hard-working and work-oriented – can afford them. Why can’t we? I’ve lived in and visited different countries and I can honestly say that I have not seen a single culture that is more dedicated to hard work and has a more striking work ethic than the US. Why can’t we afford such minimal social guarantees, then? This is not a rhetorical question. I really fail to understand why there is suddenly this huge debt crisis when we have over 300 million of extremely productive, motivated and brilliant people.
LikeLike
I think you bring up a very important point Clarissa. I often argue that if you are below maybe the 65%-75% wealth level in this country then a European system MIGHT be better for you. “Universal healthcare”, free (or near free) college, retire at 60… etc… There are 2 issues with this.
1. The European Societies that have this structure tax the middle class MASSIVELY higher (details take 100 page papers.. but the general rule is the rich are slightly undertaxed by world standards, but the middle class (middle 50% or so of income earners) are MASSIVELY undertaxed in the US). If you asked the average person who makes $50k if they would pay $5-10k more in taxes for those benefits, I don’t think they’d want the European system.
2. Even with those higher taxes, (and lower medical expenses in Europe), the system is fundamentally broken and unsustainable.
I hope this a new perspective which might shed some light on why there is this debt crisis. Economics is certainly one area of strength for me so I would be happy to explore these points further if you would like.
P.S. Your comments about bailing out the banks and about military points are fair in their own rights, but they still don’t change the underlying calculus on the two points raised above. Frankly we need Ryan’s reforms AND to deal with hand-outs to the wealth AND cutting military spending. So basically if you elect me I would piss everyone off… but that is what is needed 🙂
LikeLike
” If you asked the average person who makes $50k if they would pay $5-10k more in taxes for those benefits, I don’t think they’d want the European system.”
– I totally would. Every single person I know would absolutely agree to 10K more taxes in exchange for European benefits.
” Frankly we need Ryan’s reforms AND to deal with hand-outs to the wealth AND cutting military spending.”
– Yet Ryan advocates MORE military spending and MORE tax relief for the ultra-rich. I have to ask: how interested is he really in addressing the debt crisis?
LikeLike
I really don’t think most would pay that extra 10-20% in taxes. But I believe you that you would and I know some would. I guess what frustrates me is you very correctly point out that the incoherency Ryan and many republicans have about higher military spending and tax cuts.. but most of the media NEVER mentions my point about substantially higher taxes on EVERYBODY for the liberal vision to be a reality. If Obama had the stones to even start off by saying that ALL the bush tax cuts should be repealed.. then that would be credible. But the wealthy only get about 25%-30% of the “evil” bush tax cuts. Granted that is a lot.. but in line with the income the top few percent get (and the real secret sauce to our economy is better distributing pre-tax income.. ironically more capitalism and better competition is the answer here). I guess it is frustrating because the media won’t honestly discuss the higher tax point. I wish they would, just like I hope they will discuss the details that Ryan plans to cut. Open and honest debate is what is needed for a democracy to flourish.
Lastly, I think Repubs half-belief their tax position.. and half-realize that if they move the conversation to the right.. the compromise will be smaller tax increases with large spending cuts. I know someone like Romney and Ryan understand that you can’t cut taxes to nothing…. So they are grandstanding some too.
LikeLike
Neither Obama or the Dems at large have shown an iota of interest in the “liberal vision” you refer to. Obama’s health plan is proof that we are not even looking, let alone moving in the direction taken by all other developed countries. Everybody knows that the Europeans and the Canadians pay higher taxes. Yet what’s the point of even discussing that if we don’t have a political force in the country even remotely interested in imitating those countries?
For now, we have the Ryan plan which will remove Child Credit, and a host of other tax exemptions for the middle classes and remove estate tax and a host of other taxes on billionaires. He plans to finance MORE troops, more fighter jets, etc. So who is raising the taxes on all of us? Obviously, not Obama. If Romney is elected, I will immediately start paying more taxes because of all the credits for my tax bracket will be removed. And what will I get in exchange for those taxes? A swollen army and the knowledge that the children of Lloyd Blankfein will inherit his wealth without paying a tax on it? Yip de doo!
Nobody has shown me a shred of evidence, though, that under Obama I will pay more taxes. It didn’t happen in the last four years, either.
LikeLike
Sociology explains economics, not vice versa. What is more basic than the reproduction of power?
LikeLike
@Matt, here’s Stiglitz on the economy, from AP: http://www.telegram.article/20120812/NEWS/108129941/1002#.UCg9gVU491E.facebook
My recommendations –
1/ Take the cries that “the system is ‘broken'” with a grain of salt. They’re just saying that to get you to accept the shock doctrine.
2/ Be conservative – sit tight on the economy and look to the ecosystem which is in graver danger and much closer to the point of no return.
It’s not crazy liberal social programs that have caused the financial crisis, it is runaway military spending, high level speculation, and so on.
LikeLike
I think it would be great if the Obama campaign came up with an ad saying something like, “if you make $50K per year, under Ryan’s proposal, you will pay X more taxes so that the Kochs pay X less. This could happen as early as 2013.”
People need to have things explained to them in very simple terms. I talked to a guy yesterday who is excited about Ryan’s selection as veep because “his budget will do a lot for the little guy.” My blood pressure went through the roof when I heard that.
LikeLike
“It’s not crazy liberal social programs that have caused the financial crisis, it is runaway military spending, high level speculation, and so on.”
Agree on the speculation, but otherwise, I’d say it’s neither of the others by themselves. Defense spending is not “runaway,” as it’s actually at a historical low-point as a percentage of the GDP and the budget. And the other contributors, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, are of course not “crazy liberal social programs” either. The combination of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and defense spending take up most of the budget.
I think the problem is really just that there are simply not enough taxes in place to pay for all of these things combined. We need some more taxes, but we also need spending discipline as well.
Regarding the Ryan tax proposal, his goal is to make the wealthy pay more in tax, not less. He needs to give specifics though, but the general idea is to lower certain tax rates while closing up loopholes. Now this was done in the past successfully, under Ronald Reagan, when the top marginal income tax rate was lowered from 70% down to 28%, but thousands of loopholes were closed at the same time (so where before some people who were taxed at the 70% rate might be paying virtually nothing due to the loopholes, now they were paying more with the 28% rate).
The problem with Ryan’s proposal is that the top marginal rate is not 70% right now, it’s 35%. And I don’t know how many loopholes are in the system right now that could be closed. He needs to give some specifics. One argument is that lowering the rates will spur investment and hence job creation, but again, that only really works if the investment and business taxes are restrictively high. Right now, they’re not high at all, so I don’t really see how that policy could be made to work.
While I wouldn’t do it during this recession, I would think that much of the middle class actually should pay more in tax once the economy recovers, as about 50% of the country pays nothing in federal income tax. IMO, everyone should pay at least something.
I do wish Obama and the Democrats would get serious about the debt issue though. I hope that the only reason he hasn’t addressed the debt is just politics right now, and that if/when he wins re-election, he will then address the issue of the debt actively, or otherwise this country is financially going to hit a wall at some point. The level of debt it has right now also tends to hamstring economic growth when it gets to this level (about 100% of the GDP).
LikeLike
“Regarding the Ryan tax proposal, his goal is to make the wealthy pay more in tax, not less. He needs to give specifics though, but the general idea is to lower certain tax rates while closing up loopholes.”
– “Romney pretends that significant savings will come from closing tax “loopholes,” but this is nonsense. Those loopholes were placed there specifically to reward the donors who pay the costs of our lawmakers’ political campaigns (just like the more straightforward across-the-board tax cuts for the superrich). Tea Party champions, including Senators Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky, are trying to prevent the Treasury Department from cracking down even on wealthy expatriate tax cheats. The notion that these loopholes will somehow be eliminated—especially when they continue to be expanded every time the tax code is adjusted—is too childish for adults to take seriously, save perhaps for a few gullible reporters and right-wing pundits. All of the above would put unbearable pressure on an already stretched entitlements budget, as well as on those federal programs for the poor and middle class that have so far escaped the scalpel, while simultaneously raising the tax burden on these households. Regarding the latter, for instance, a tax plan released by Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Utah Senator Orrin Hatch ends the Child Tax Credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit (for college tuition) and a more generous Earned Income Tax Credit—which, when added together, would raise taxes on more than 20 million families, according to Seth Hanlon, the director of fiscal reform at the Center for American Progress.”
“As president, Romney promises to focus on economic policy, and it is here where his impact may be greatest. The primary purpose of the modern Republican presidency has been to make the extremely rich far richer at the expense of the rest of us, and Mitt Romney promises to outdo all of his predecessors in this regard. George W. Bush’s $2.5 trillion in tax cuts, while ruinous to the nation’s balance of payments, succeeded in distributing only 12.5 percent of those trillions to his friends and cronies in the wealthiest 0.1 percent. Romney does Bush quite a bit better by proposing—on top of already unsustainable budget deficits—an additional $10.7 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years, with fully 33 percent directed toward the top one-tenth of 1 percent. The fine print calls for a reduction in both individual and corporate tax rates, as well as the complete elimination of both the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The net result would be that the superwealthy—those who enjoy an income in the vicinity of $3 million annually—keep an additional $250,000. According to the Urban Institute–Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, the cost will likely exceed $9 trillion in lost revenue in the coming decade.”
http://www.thenation.com/article/169287/president-romney
LikeLike
“The notion that these loopholes will somehow be eliminated—especially when they continue to be expanded every time the tax code is adjusted—is too childish for adults to take seriously, save perhaps for a few gullible reporters and right-wing pundits.”
And that’s why I said he needs to give specifics. Vague language about closing loopholes doesn’t cut it. However, I do believe such loopholes could be closed with the right political will, as we’ve closed loopholes before.
““As president, Romney promises to focus on economic policy, and it is here where his impact may be greatest. The primary purpose of the modern Republican presidency has been to make the extremely rich far richer at the expense of the rest of us,”
No it isn’t. That’s the left-wing boilerplate. It’s like the Republican claims that the purpose of the modern Democratic party is to make everyone dependent on government handouts so as to win their votes and control the population easier.
“and Mitt Romney promises to outdo all of his predecessors in this regard. George W. Bush’s $2.5 trillion in tax cuts, while ruinous to the nation’s balance of payments, succeeded in distributing only 12.5 percent of those trillions to his friends and cronies in the wealthiest 0.1 percent.”
They’re playing with numbers here, and facts. For one, Bush cut taxes across-the-board, for everyone. All the income tax brackets were lowered, with the lowest tax brackets receiving the biggest percentage in cuts. He also doubled the Child Tax Credit from $500 per child to $1000 per child. They also seem to think that if there is X amount of tax cuts, that it is supposed to be split evenly, that all the income brackets are supposed to save the same amount of money. That is sheer nonsense. If you cut taxes by 10% for a guy making $20 million a year and then you cut taxes 20% for a guy making $30,000 a year, the guy making $20 million will still, in terms of raw dollars, save more money, even though as a percentage, he has received a smaller tax cut.
Note how they also rely on one of the classics of Progressive inflammatory language, the use of the word “distributed” with regards to tax cuts (they also use it for income and wealth). They always make it sound as if these things exist in a pre-existing supply and then must be divided up equally among society (which is again nonsense). In this case, they’re saying President Bush enacted $2.5 trillion in tax cuts, but only managed to “distribute” 12.5% of it to the wealthiest. Newsflash to them, but no central authority “distributes” anything, not income, wealth, or tax cuts. Tax cuts just mean you get to keep more of your money. It’s not like the government decides to cut taxes by X amount, and then mail the money back to the populace, and they selectively mail more of it to their rich friends.
I also wonder what their opinion was on Obama’s near trillion-dollar stimulus (when stimulus is a very questionable policy) and his not addressing the debt. I mean okay, so the Republicans gave him a lot of debt and a sizeable deficit. So do something about it. Instead, he just blames Bush continually and they do not criticize him.
“Romney does Bush quite a bit better by proposing—on top of already unsustainable budget deficits—an additional $10.7 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years, with fully 33 percent directed toward the top one-tenth of 1 percent. The fine print calls for a reduction in both individual and corporate tax rates, as well as the complete elimination of both the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The net result would be that the superwealthy—those who enjoy an income in the vicinity of $3 million annually—keep an additional $250,000. According to the Urban Institute–Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, the cost will likely exceed $9 trillion in lost revenue in the coming decade.”
How much money out of X amount of money in tax cuts goes to what bracket means really very little. What counts is what are the individual tax cuts to the ordinary people. I mean if every person gets a 25% tax rate reduction and the rich get a 5% tax rate reduction, but in terms of the total amount in tax cuts money-wise, 60% of it was for the wealthy, well that is just a consequence of the wealthy earning so much money, not the poor and middle-class being shafted tax cut-wise.
I can understand concerns if the individual taxes for ordinary people will increase though.
LikeLike