08 August 2012

“He’s Still Better Than Obama”


To help Romney, the center did so under the most favorable conditions, which also happen to be wildly unrealistic. The analysts assumed that any cuts to deductions or loopholes would begin with top earners, and that no one earning less than $200,000 would have their deductions reduced until all those earning more than $200,000 had lost all of their deductions and tax preferences first. They assumed, as Romney has promised, that the reforms would spare the portions of the tax code that privilege saving and investment. They even ran a simulation in which they used a model developed, in part, by Greg Mankiw, one of Romney’s economic advisers, that posits “implausibly large growth effects” from tax cuts.

The numbers never worked out. No matter how hard the Tax Policy Center labored to make Romney’s promises add up, every simulation ended the same way: with a tax increase on the middle class. The tax cuts Romney is offering to the rich are simply larger than the size of the (non-investment) deductions and loopholes that exist for the rich. That’s why it’s “mathematically impossible” for Romney’s plan to produce anything but a tax increase on the middle class.
Romney is a liar, just like Obama.  He cannot keep his budget promises; they are mathematically impossible.  Anyone who thinks that Romney offers a serious alternative to Obama is either an idiot or an ignoramus.  And those who endorse Romney as a better alternative to Obama are nothing more than charlatans.  Conservatives, particularly those who claim to love the constitution, can still support the one candidate who still offers a serious alternative to Obama. However, if they choose to get caught up in the matter of electability, and consequently choose to sacrifice their stated principles for pragmatic political achievements, they will truly deserve the disappointment that inevitably awaits them.

6 comments:

  1. "they will truly deserve the disappointment that inevitably awaits them."

    Very true. A guest attempted to make this very point on Hannity's radio show yesterday, and all Mr. Hannity could say was that a vote for a third party was "half a vote for Obama". It's all party politics, no principle. It's also why alternative candidates never have a chance, because keeping the worse of two alternatives from winning is given priority over, you know, actually voting one's conscience or first principles.

    Doesn't seem to matter to the Establishment Republican machine that, on the fundamental issues, both Obama and Romney get us to the same place, just not as quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So... Let me see if I understand... Yes, Obama lied. Yes, he has failed at everything he's said and done over the last 4 years - except to make things worse across the board for everyone. More people are uninsured than at any point in history. More people are out of work than at any other point in history. More jobs are disappearing than at any point, including the Great Depression...

    And we should vote against Romney because he wants to try something which hasn't been proven to fail, over and over again?

    I just want to be sure that I understand your logic - if there is any there...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Conservatives, particularly those who claim to love the constitution, can still support the one candidate who still offers a serious alternative to Obama.

    Johnson?
    Miller?
    Paul?
    Goode?

    I can't guess!

    I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly a few weeks ago. Recently Obama signed an executive order essentially bringing the race war to schools:

    "African Americans ... disproportionately experience school discipline and referrals to special education. [This] Initiative shall, consistent with applicable law, promote, encourage, and undertake efforts designed to meet the following objectives [including] reducing the dropout rate of African American students and helping African American students graduate from high school prepared for college and a career, in part by promoting a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools."

    "Applicable law" of course includes Federal efforts to stop "disparate impact", which is Race-marxist lingo for "race-blind application of consistent standards". It is not a Federal crime for a Black student to sexually harass or assault a White student, of course, so basically this order gives carte blanche to the executive branch to prevent school officials from protecting White and Asian students.

    I'm not saying I support Romney, I'm just saying fiscal policy isn't everything.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's just the distinction between politics as a matter of purity and politics as a matter of pragmatism.

    It's very true, and should be obvious to everyone paying attention, that the Republicans represent "liberalism lite". The liberal agenda drives the bus in this polity. The difference between the self-styled "conservatives" and the open liberals is that the former want to move more slowly -- slow things down, in other words. To advocate seriously for anything else would call into question the entire polity itself, because the polity is based fundamentally on liberal principles from the English enlightenment period. The "logic" of individualism is tied up in the endgame of autonomy - it was always moving in that direction from the beginning. While it's true that the environment in the 18th Century was more intrinsically communitarian than ours is, the philosophy/ideology was leading away from that and towards the place we find ourselves in -- as extremely self-determining individuals.

    Both political parties embrace this, because they both embrace the same liberal message. They just emphasize different aspects of it. The liberal side emphasizes the need for the state to do everything it can to ensure maximal personal autonomy in personal life areas, which effectively means redistribution of wealth to some degree, because wealth disparities lead to disparities in autonomy. The "conservative" side emphasizes the need for the state to stand aside to permit personal manifest destiny in the economic sphere, while paying lip-service to older traditional social mores that very few on the conservative side personally embrace any longer themselves. The result is a slight difference in emphasis, with one party being more open and honest (slightly) in its goals than the other is -- yet there is hypocrisy on both sides.

    The question, however, is what to do about this. And that's where people will differ. Some people, realizing that the issue is the polity itself, will want to refrain from participating in supporting either side of the partisan divide *within* the polity. Others take the view that the polity is here for the forseeable future and therefore embrace some partisan position within the polity as the "lesser of two evils" or, in some cases, as a "protest vote" (i.e., a vote for a candidate with zero chance of actually winning given the rules of the contest). These are personal choices of pragmatic politics, fundamentally, rather than world view differences of necessity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To me there is a big difference between the 2. The next President will appoint 1 to 2, if not more, Justices to the Supreme Court. I've seen who Obama prefers - Sotomayor & Kagan. I can;t imagine that a Romney appointee would be that far to the left.

    Is Romney the perfect candidate or my 1st choice, No. But I can tell Obama would be my last.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @EW- very true. The choice of whether to hit a wall at 90 MPH or 89 MPH isn,t much of a choice at all.

    @Anonymous- you apparently don't understand at all. Do you suffer from poor reading comprehension? My assertion was not to vote for Obama or against Romney. My assertion was that both candidates are interchangeable with one another as evidenced by the fact that both are liars and unconcerned with principle. Voting for one is the same as voting for the other.

    @Olave- Fiscal and social policy are intertwined. I focus on the former rather than the latter because I find it more personally interesting, as well as easier to quantify, but the fact is that the two are intertwined. Regarding Obama's EO, what good is it to put it in writing if he never provides the funds to enforce it? Likewise, does it matter if, say, leftist legislators voice support for Planned Parenthood if they never vote to fund it? Thus, fiscal policy is simply one side of the coin, and should not be ignored.

    @Brendan- one question worth asking is what would happen to our democracy if no one voted? Another question: why then vote for the lesser of two evils?

    @PMain- I remember hearing this very same argument about W. How did Chief Justice Roberts work out, I wonder...

    ReplyDelete