Romney v. Obama - Ramblings

[Spence]

Seems to me, small "l" libertarian that I am, that the Republicans are not a whole lot different than Democrats, they both want to maintain the status quo. Having said that, I think, Romney is the solution, as much as anyone person can be. Seems to be a moral person, which I think personally Obama is also, has led a life that reflects his values and has been able to accomplish goals in the midst of adversity. We need a President that operates on principal more than expediency. The American people will follow leaders that lead, but we are tired of the moral superiority of those in Washington, tired of solving problems with money and tired of fighting wars that could be won overnight, forever.

I think Romney will be guided economically by Paul Ryan's belief in Austrian economics. Ryan has the potential of being the most active Vice President we have seen in a long time, even if behind the scenes.

There are issues on which I do not agree with Romney, but there has been in the last four years, a leader that believes in Communism, the abandonment of the sovereignty of the United States and a willingness to sell the principles of liberty and freedom to those that abhor those founding doctrines. I will vote for Romney Ryan with an unapologetic and willing heart.

I really like Ryan. I will vote for them too. I never apologize for my vote. I try to vote for people who think the most like I do. I'm an independent also. I'm also a conservative, which probably doesn't surprise anyone. I believe that our social politcs since the 1940's have put us in a huge fiscal crisis. We tend to think government should tell us how to live our lives and I believe that is backward. We need to fundamentally change our thinking about society. There is nothing wrong with you living your life as you see fit as long as you live with the consequences of your choices. We, as a people, don't want to live with the mistakes we make.

[Eric]

I don't think Paul Ryan really has an economic outlook. I think he can talk a big game and name drop, but I don't expect anything to really be done. Romney also has no guiding principles in my opinion. So, honestly, I don't care who wins. I think this thing is going to stall even further whoever takes office. As of right now, I would slightly prefer Obama only so that the Republicans can hit the reset button on their field of candidates and continue to have discussions about their political philosophy which I think is, with the younger crowd, growing in the right direction. If Romney gets into office, all of these complaints about fiscal responsibility and limited government are going to be thrown out of the window in favor of Republican apologetics. You can take that to the bank.

Like these conservative talk show hosts and various intelligentsia in the media hammering Obama over Lybia. The complete irony is that the same reasoning behind Lybian intervention was the exact same rationale as the intervention behind Iraq, minus the shoddy WMD intelligence. After the WMDs were never found and it came to light that Iraq was being led by a tinpot dictator who posed virtually no threat to America, the excuses came out with Bush liberating a bunch of people even if they did create a civil war and kill a ton of civilians and damage our reputation across the globe. No conservative gave Obama the same credit on that score when Gaddafi was toppled. It's like a team sport; "it's okay when my team does it." Bush bails out large banks with corporate welfare, yet he doesn't get labeled as a "socialist." Bush expands federal roles in education yet he isn't criticized for not respecting the 10th Amendment and being a "federal government can fix problems" liberal. I don't see why Romney would be any different. If you know that 98% of politicians are solely interested in expanding their power over you, the citizen, then nothing about my previous statement should be that shocking.

My test is that Democrats say they are for civil liberties and blame the state of the economy on too much freedom. Republicans say they have a right to invade your civil liberties and respect economic freedom. Democrats hardly ever give you your civil liberties back and Republicans hardly ever free up the economy, but Democrats do like to blame too much freedom for the state of our economy and Republicans do like to invade your civil liberties. The trend being that you never get your freedom and they get their control over your life. That's just the way the system is going to work unless there is a massive change in ideology.

[Spence]

The pendulum has swung to far left. It needs to swing back to the right some.

The problem with both parties is no one wants to make the tough decisions. The fact is that we have let the politicians spend us to the brink of bankruptcy. It is also impossible to get this debt under control without cutting into my income and everybody else's income. No one is being honest about that. A hot economy can help, but the debt is too large to get under control without us paying it down. I don't want them to take my money to pay it down, but I get that is the only way to get it under control. Before I will ever agree, though, I want Congress to do make the first move. I want them to show some backbone and concentrate on building a solid foundation - meaning manufacturing jobs, tech jobs, maybe even getting back into the textile industry. Congress needs to make conditions right for all kinds of jobs to come back. Then they need to move people from being supported by the government to being able to support themselves. Not just the 8% unemployed, but the 40% of people who we don't count anymore. We became the richest nation in the world because we made things. We need to start making things again.

[Derek]

Seems to me, small "l" libertarian that I am, that the Republicans are not a whole lot different than Democrats, they both want to maintain the status quo. Having said that, I think, Romney is the solution, as much as anyone person can be. Seems to be a moral person, which I think personally Obama is also, has led a life that reflects his values and has been able to accomplish goals in the midst of adversity. We need a President that operates on principal more than expediency. The American people will follow leaders that lead, but we are tired of the moral superiority of those in Washington, tired of solving problems with money and tired of fighting wars that could be won overnight, forever.

I think Romney will be guided economically by Paul Ryan's belief in Austrian economics. Ryan has the potential of being the most active Vice President we have seen in a long time, even if behind the scenes.

There are issues on which I do not agree with Romney, but there has been in the last four years, a leader that believes in Communism, the abandonment of the sovereignty of the United States and a willingness to sell the principles of liberty and freedom to those that abhor those founding doctrines. I will vote for Romney Ryan with an unapologetic and willing heart.

Well said!!

And I really appreciate someone who knows the difference between a Libertarian, and a libertarian.

I feel the exact same way about Romney. There are things I will disagree with him on, but he's got my vote.....Especially after that beat-down he gave Obama the other night.

[Eric]

I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson, if I bother voting this year. Certainly closest to my ideals. Would have liked to see him get a better shake in the Republican primaries, but it is what it is. That machine is going to shut down any potential dissent.

[Spence]

I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson, if I bother voting this year. Certainly closest to my ideals. Would have liked to see him get a better shake in the Republican primaries, but it is what it is. That machine is going to shut down any potential dissent.

I think you should vote and vote for whoever you believe should be president. I am not one of those people who think that a vote for someone you believe in, who has no chance of winning, is a wasted vote. If enough people agree with you then maybe it energizes your guy for down the road. Gives him a reason to keep fighting the fight. But don't blow off voting. It is the one right we have that makes all others possible. If we give up our vote we are one step closer to giving up our freedom.

[Derek]

I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson, if I bother voting this year. Certainly closest to my ideals. Would have liked to see him get a better shake in the Republican primaries, but it is what it is. That machine is going to shut down any potential dissent.

I think you should vote and vote for whoever you believe should be president. I am not one of those people who think that a vote for someone you believe in, who has no chance of winning, is a wasted vote. If enough people agree with you then maybe it energizes your guy for down the road. Gives him a reason to keep fighting the fight. But don't blow off voting. It is the one right we have that makes all others possible. If we give up our vote we are one step closer to giving up our freedom.

Word.

[WoVeU]

I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson, if I bother voting this year. Certainly closest to my ideals. Would have liked to see him get a better shake in the Republican primaries, but it is what it is. That machine is going to shut down any potential dissent.

I think you should vote and vote for whoever you believe should be president. I am not one of those people who think that a vote for someone you believe in, who has no chance of winning, is a wasted vote. If enough people agree with you then maybe it energizes your guy for down the road. Gives him a reason to keep fighting the fight. But don't blow off voting. It is the one right we have that makes all others possible. If we give up our vote we are one step closer to giving up our freedom.

Agreed. And I used to think it was nothing but a wasted vote...but I realize now this is the thought and mechanism that keeps the 2 Party system alive and errant. Real and meaningful change is often slow and very slow!

[WoVeU]

This country is on the absolute tipping point! Pork barrel legislating and swinging to and fro on governance platforms along with too slow and inaction has killed the US. We have for some time been at a point where the first thing that should be set aside is social conscience issues. We have stalled GDP, an increasingly reduced portion of capital and market investment on the global scale, underemployment at a plague level, a shaky and humble currency, and education and job skill levels that are tumbling! On top of this we have a tax base that is approaching 50% of the population with about 1/3 living in part or wholly on government redistribution. If this doesn't stop right now, immediately, it will be over. What you water and feed and nourish...that is what grows, we are running a poverty nursery. *And I am not accounting for the weeds (criminals and drugged out zombies) we are taking care of while we water plants that produce no fruit and have no harvest.

At even a modestly slowed rate in the current accrual of poverty and government care-taking we will be past the point of no return in 15 months. If Obama is re-elected the rate of Americans leaving the country and taking their capital with them will triple, the stock market will drop 1000 points in a matter of days or weeks, and more companies will pick up and move off shore as well. The bottom side of under and unemployment will pick up speed while the top side shrinks. It will be over! We will be at the point where Poverty votes in Poverty's Promise, and no voting block will be able to over power it.

So I can only vote for Romney. The overwhelming problem with Liberal ideology is the program based approach, and thinking that Euro-styled socialism will work in a country with a different social fabric and can be IPO'd at a point of these ridiculously crippled economics. Many things can work, but we can't survive the capitulation and investment period to rework the monetary mechanisms the ideology requires.

I have only ever met 4 or 5 very liberal minded people who have true economic sense. I have one such friend who totally agrees spending must be cut and taxes raised to get to where we need to go, and even thinks the rich can't bear the tax part and retain viable economics. But he will vote for Obama, siting that he thinks BO will get to program cut agreements and wider tax revenue and economic growth policy. He "thinks" thin, because he is a card carrying member of the Democratic Party and is active and rather evangelical for it. (But I see the woe on his face when we discuss the economics of liberalism and current direction.) With this, economically rational and professional working liberals in addition to those on the dime, I am afraid we are at the point we might be too late.

[Spence]

That is the problem with both major parties. People vote the party line even if they don't like their candidate. The reason we are in the mess we are in is because people won't demand more from the two parties in power. We keep excepting the crap they throw at us and hope it somehow turns out different. We need to do lots of firing.

[Eric]

Don't you see how that becomes a vicious cycle though? "Throw the bums out!" All that does is put a bunch of new bums in office that plunder the public. They aren't fundamentally interested in staying in power (although they would certainly like to). They're primarily interested in the perks and the power grabs, so after getting into office and receiving perks and power grabs and prestige, another term is icing on the cake and worth the risk of getting booted out in the future. If Romney and the Republicans get into office, the situation they'll put the country through will predictably suck. Then the Democrats take over. The country's policies will suck again. Throw them out, Republicans get in, the situation sucks again. They write the rules to the elections and the public follows it. It's like a giant game theory experiment with no way out.

I guess what I'm saying is that, due to the temporary nature of them being in power, a politician doesn't even care about the "stock" of the national well-being. He's primarily interested in taking what he can get in as little time as he can get it. The Congress and the President don't own and thus manage the capital stock, they are just temporary placeholders or renters. Hence, all the entitlements and the accumulating debt. If you have a rental car with no restrictions on mileage (and ignoring some logistics ), you have no qualms with driving it around the country for miles on end with no regard to really taking care of it. The incentive structure is messed up when you get a government so large that gets to handle all of this money.

[WoVeU]

Oh I agree Spence, lots of firing! But I agree with Eric too, and you get another greedy power monger behind each. They might be less so, but the ebb and flow seems to hold the general line and I think the line is trending upwards due to news media being largely about politics, and when the DC mugs aren't on camera you have some star or some rich business person. That cohabitation of fame is not good for the imagery of what public office should be.

If I could wave a wand and change the landscape.

1) Reduce the federal government footprint. (DOD, HLS, FBI, NSA, CIA all merged and simplified into 1 Agency), (EPA, FDA, Dept of Energy, Public Safety reduced and merged into 1 Agency), ( FCC,FAA, Transportation..similar union).
Reduce the Supreme Court to 5 members only adjudicating challenges to the US Constitution forwarded by State Attorneys. State Attorney's Review Board created to review laws enacted by Congress, majority vote for Supreme Court ruling submits the case to Supreme Court.
Reduce the Senate by 1/2 and cut the House to 1/3 of the current size (reflected in district expansion.)
2) Reduce Congressional pay to $110K-1st term, $130K-2nd, $160K-3rd, $175K + pension-4th. 4 term limit for House of Rep. 7 year pension of $22K per yr (no tax, no SS impact).
Senators serving 6 yr terms. President serves 6 years, mandatory recall referendum at 27months in office. Less than 54% approval initiates a Presidential Recall Election with House elections.
3) Shutdown the Fed! Add a National Sales Tax, instituted at 0.5% 1st year, then 0.75%, 1.0%, 1.25% up to 2% or 2.5%. Then modulate the % to accel and decel the economy.
Start a Fuel Tax and Surplus program. Increase the Federal and State Tax rates on fuel by an immediate 5 cents, then add 2 cents per month. Climb to level where gas is about 55 cents more than today's price before you trigger the long term program. That money is turned into reserves and futures. (Encourage the G-7 nations to do the same!) You can then modulate the tax rate on gas, sale reserves to oil companies, and call for futures pricing of fuel already purchased from them. This will wipe out OPEC's power over fuel prices and remove the extremely harmful volatility of fuel prices on the economy.
Tariffs, every country pays 3.5% (starting at 1.5% going to 3.5 over 2.5 years). Floating the rate up further for trade deficit nations as high as 7%.

I would do many other things, but these kind of things would stream line add efficiency and accountability while helping in part to stop fat catting in congress. More over it reduces the Federal Gov to oversight over only the most necessary integrations of state concerns (things you really don't want citizens state shopping for.)

[WoVeU]

Note on the FED (and subsequently my thoughts on tax vehicles for economic control).

The FED is as broke as the country. They have long been out of any legitimate ammo! The FED is empowered for the greater part to control growth and investment and by these...inflation. Well, the US is not in the growth business, not for a while, not in any sound way. Global investment has shifted to other economies....thus the FED has no real power and their hands aren't on the accelerator, brake, or steering wheel.

We are seeing some companies reinvest in America, bringing jobs and production here...but this is not due to US success, quite the contrary. The US has suppressed labor prices and growth due to such bad economic conditions...this along with fuel prices (including volatility worries) and the simple matter of Delta T are allowing for what we see. The problem with that is that vehicle chokes itself as soon as it has the ability to produce increased wealth (over profit taking) it pushes labor prices which reduces the inclination for "on-shoring."

[Spence]

Don't you see how that becomes a vicious cycle though? "Throw the bums out!" All that does is put a bunch of new bums in office that plunder the public. They aren't fundamentally interested in staying in power (although they would certainly like to). They're primarily interested in the perks and the power grabs, so after getting into office and receiving perks and power grabs and prestige, another term is icing on the cake and worth the risk of getting booted out in the future. If Romney and the Republicans get into office, the situation they'll put the country through will predictably suck. Then the Democrats take over. The country's policies will suck again. Throw them out, Republicans get in, the situation sucks again. They write the rules to the elections and the public follows it. It's like a giant game theory experiment with no way out.

I guess what I'm saying is that, due to the temporary nature of them being in power, a politician doesn't even care about the "stock" of the national well-being. He's primarily interested in taking what he can get in as little time as he can get it. The Congress and the President don't own and thus manage the capital stock, they are just temporary placeholders or renters. Hence, all the entitlements and the accumulating debt. If you have a rental car with no restrictions on mileage (and ignoring some logistics ), you have no qualms with driving it around the country for miles on end with no regard to really taking care of it. The incentive structure is messed up when you get a government so large that gets to handle all of this money.

So you think the answer is to allow the country to go bancrupt? I do believe people should vote for who they believe is the best candidate - not the candidate with the best chance to win - But we need to keep getting that pendulum back to where it needs to be and that requires a changing of the guard.

[Spence]

Don't you see how that becomes a vicious cycle though? "Throw the bums out!" All that does is put a bunch of new bums in office that plunder the public. They aren't fundamentally interested in staying in power (although they would certainly like to). They're primarily interested in the perks and the power grabs, so after getting into office and receiving perks and power grabs and prestige, another term is icing on the cake and worth the risk of getting booted out in the future. If Romney and the Republicans get into office, the situation they'll put the country through will predictably suck. Then the Democrats take over. The country's policies will suck again. Throw them out, Republicans get in, the situation sucks again. They write the rules to the elections and the public follows it. It's like a giant game theory experiment with no way out.

I guess what I'm saying is that, due to the temporary nature of them being in power, a politician doesn't even care about the "stock" of the national well-being. He's primarily interested in taking what he can get in as little time as he can get it. The Congress and the President don't own and thus manage the capital stock, they are just temporary placeholders or renters. Hence, all the entitlements and the accumulating debt. If you have a rental car with no restrictions on mileage (and ignoring some logistics ), you have no qualms with driving it around the country for miles on end with no regard to really taking care of it. The incentive structure is messed up when you get a government so large that gets to handle all of this money.

So you think the answer is to allow the country to go bancrupt? I do believe people should vote for who they believe is the best candidate - not the candidate with the best chance to win - But we need to keep getting that pendulum back to where it needs to be and that requires a changing of the guard.