Romney: Occupy Wall Street 'wrong way to go'

[Politico]

Much of the "Occupy Wall Street" gang are the usual suspects: malcontents who think the world owes them a living, young adults of privilege who want to "be cool," and the economically illiterate (And, yes, I am sympathetic to the latter's concerns and struggles, but the second group needs to grow up and most people who fall into the first category are write-offs). Believe me, everybody on Wall Street and everybody who works for a corporation in America would like the same thing as everybody else in America: A return to normalcy. Unfortunately, we are not likely to see that with the continued inept leadership of the Obama Administration. They had their chance, their change, and their hope, but the results do not lie: the experiment failed miserably.

If you want four more years of malaise, if you want to be worse off four years from now than you are today, you know who to vote for. If you want a return to normalcy, vote for Mitt Romney. When it comes down to the choice between Romney and Obama, only Romney actually knows how to deal with tough situations, fix things and inspire confidence.

Romney: The Right Results

[Politico]

malcontents who think the world owes them a living, young adults of privilege who want to "be cool," and the economically illiterate

What an accurate description of the Tea Party!

An accurate description of the Tea Party: A group of individuals who argue the government has grown far beyond its desired scope, and they believe liberty has suffered as a result (i.e., taxation without representation, a sclerotic regulatory environment, etc.). I am not a member of the Tea Party, just like I have no affiliation with the "Occupy Wall Street" types, but that seems to sum it up from my viewpoint. I mean, they got their name from the Boston Tea Party. It is pretty easy to see they are just the fervently anti-tax/pro-liberty types...

[Politico]

malcontents who think the world owes them a living, young adults of privilege who want to "be cool," and the economically illiterate

What an accurate description of the Tea Party!

An accurate description of the Tea Party: A group of individuals who argue the government has grown far beyond its desired scope, and they believe liberty has suffered as a result (i.e., taxation without representation, a sclerotic regulatory environment, etc.). I am not a member, just like I have no affiliation with the "Occupy Wall Street" types, but that seems to sum it up from my viewpoint. I mean, they got their name from the Boston Tea Party, so it is pretty easy to see they are the fervently anti-tax/pro-liberty types...

No, the Tea Party loves their handouts.  Their handouts.  No one else's.

I have never heard of a Tea Party member who is in favor of handouts. Here I thought they were all about free enterprise, open competition, and getting government out of the way. When did they become proponents of a welfare state?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The poorest American has it better than the vast majority of the rest of the world, including the wealthiest in a majority of other nations. This would not be the case if not for our adherence to free enterprise. Obviously there is income inequality, but that does not mean a poor man cannot become a wealthy man nor can a wealthy man become a poor man. Both possibilities exist in America, and this will always be the case so long as we adhere to free enterprise and the Constitution. The list of self-made individuals in American history is endless: John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Ross Perot, Henry Ford, Ray Kroc, Larry Ellison, Sam Walton, Walt Disney, Ralph Lauren, Dick Cheney, Harry Reid, and on and on and on the list goes. No other nation can even come close to this sort of record. Indeed, in most other nations you stay poor or rich based solely upon what you were born as.

Bill Clinton used to say in the 1990s that "the era of big government is over" and "if you work hard and play by the rules, you should get ahead." That's really not much different than what you hear from Tea Party folks these days. If somebody does not like their income, they should try to find a way to increase it. Nobody is going to give it to them obviously, and government is certainly not some sort of panacea that can do something as modest as increasing employment by 1% (e.g., current fiscal policy's failure), let alone erase income inequality. People have to earn their way one way or another. With that said, I am sympathetic to the plights of the unlucky and those who were not raised properly by their parent(s) for whatever reason(s). I am not necessarily defending income inequality, or at least the current level (an intense subject beyond the scope of this message board), but I think it does nobody a favor to resort to emotionally-driven rhetoric that amounts to class warfare. If you ask me, class warfare does not belong in America. The Europeans can have it, which is funny considering that many parts of Europe still resemble feudalistic arrangements, with no chance of the poor ever getting ahead like you see in America all of the time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are the one who is being a bit emotional here...

[Politico]

I still fail to see how those two links, which show opposition to Social Security and Medicare cuts among the Tea Party faithful, make the Tea Party any different than Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. What does the Tea Party want that is any different than what Bill Clinton aimed for in the late 1990s? Like Clinton, they want a balanced budget, elimination of government waste, ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Social Security rather than expanding government to such a large size that nothing is affordable anymore, etc.

That cartoon is ridiculous. Nobody is saying that people who are suffering should just be silent. Everybody knows what is happening, and the type of suffering that is going on. But when it gets to the point where people are pitting Americans against Americans, talking about how we must raise taxes to steal from one group of people to give those funds to another group, that is just what it is: class warfare. It's Eurotrash that does not belong in America (And time and time again, it is shown that when such policies are conducted they have the exact opposite effect that is desired: They create barriers to upward social mobility and essentially lock almost everybody permanently into the situation they were born into regardless of merit or lack thereof). By the way, Mr. Monopoly is fiction. The real-life wealthiest American in history was John D. Rockefeller, a man who made his way without being born into privilege. His philanthropic legacy continues to help people more than countless bureaucratic agencies at home and abroad.

The Welfare State is not coming back, so get over it. Things will eventually get better, and in the meantime it is prudent to scale government back to a manageable and efficient size...

[Politico]

I still fail to see how those two links, which show opposition to Social Security and Medicare cuts among the Tea Party faithful, make the Tea Party any different than Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. What does the Tea Party want that is any different than what Bill Clinton aimed for in the late 1990s? Like Clinton, they want a balanced budget, elimination of government waste, ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Social Security rather than expanding government to such a large size that nothing is affordable anymore, etc.

That cartoon is ridiculous. Nobody is saying that people who are suffering should just be silent. Everybody knows what is happening, and the type of suffering that is going on. But when it gets to the point where people are pitting Americans against Americans, talking about how we must raise taxes to steal from one group of people to give those funds to another group, that is just what it is: class warfare. It's Eurotrash that does not belong in America (And time and time again, it is shown that when such policies are conducted they have the exact opposite intended effect: They create barriers to upward social mobility and essentially lock almost everybody permanently into the situation they are born into regardless of merit or lack thereof). By the way, Mr. Monopoly is fiction. The real-life wealthiest American in history was John D. Rockefeller, a man who made his way without being born into privilege. His philanthropic legacy continues to help people more than countless bureaucratic agencies abroad.

The Welfare State is not coming back, so get over it. Things will eventually get better, and in the meantime it is prudent to scale government back to a manageable and efficient size...

Well, Bill Clinton sure as hell didn't spit on old men suffering with Parkinson's, like one teabagger did.  He wanted balance, not extremism.  And he pushed for universal health care, which the Tea Party is strongly opposed to.

Obviously I am talking about post-1995 Clinton, not pre-1995 Clinton. When you get down to it, The Tea Party is pretty much espousing exactly what Clinton espoused in the late 1990s: End the Era of Big Government. That means getting rid of waste and getting spending back in line with reality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is because they oppose the expansion and increase in government spending that started before Obama and has accelerated to an uncomfortable level with Obama. Regardless of whether or not Obama is a political loser, he is an economic loser. The results do not lie. Furthermore, it is impossible to run trillion dollar deficits on annual basis forever. The man thinks there is no consequence to such reckless behavior...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, some people have a word for taking something from one group of people and giving those proceeds to another group: Theft.

Yes, there is income inequality, but America is still the best nation on earth to get ahead, and one of the few nations where somebody who is born into extreme poverty can eventually rise to become a Ross Perot, for example, or even just a successful, small businessperson, which there are millions of examples of in American history. The best thing a privileged person can do if they want to help is donate to charities. But it is un-American to force anybody to do anything they do not want to do so long as they are not harming anybody (other than potentially them self)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Tea Party is not in favor of stealing from one group of Americans to give to another group. There are legitimate political differences, and then there's a line in the dirt that can be crossed. A lot of the "Occupy Wall Street" types cross that line. I am not sure I see that with Tea Party members who essentially want a limited federal government, unlike the OWS types. They may not know it, but what the OWS types really want is to destroy our entire economic system, and all of the great goods/services and advancements that come with it, so that most everybody enters the ghetto and never gets back out. I mean, look at these people. Would you even trust them to manage your personal financial budget? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am talking about the whole Welfare State mentality, such as the old welfare system to give a specific example of a byproduct of this mentality. The Welfare State was prevalent as recently as the 1970s, and even had quite a bit of support up until Clinton and the GOP basically buried it in the past around 1995/1996. Those days are never coming back.

[Politico]

We already live in a world where those who work pay taxes, and the more you earn, the higher your individual tax contribution. Advocating we take more and more from successful people to give to others is advocacy of theft through coercion. Or, perhaps a less harsh way of putting it is by calling it class warfare. Take your pick.

The vast, vast majority of those successful people busted their ass to get to where they are, and continue to bust their ass. Many of them are like everybody else, too: a few unlucky bounces away from bankruptcy. They do not owe anybody else a living. And the day we take away incentives for striving to be successful, is the day we will lose our competitive edge and end up with a lot of unsuccessful, unmotivated, entitlement-mentality losers. That is NOT how to return America to greatness.

Lastly, by and large, the vast majority of well-to-do Americans donate considerable amounts of resources to charities that actually help people who need help.

We do not live in a perfect world, but adopting Eurosclerosis will make things worse, not better.

[Politico]

Do you think the person who changes a bedpan in a hospital should make just as much as the doctor who treats the patient, or the executive who ensures the hospital continues to survive, or the individuals who actually own the hospital and have taken on all of the headaches from the risk involved in owning the entity?

A sane economic order does not have a government that essentially steals over half the income of one group to consistently give those funds to another group. That descends into the type of crap one witnesses over in Europe, where most of the group receiving funds develops this loser entitlement-mentality where they think the world owes them a living. You eventually end up with 20% unemployment like in Spain if you are lucky, or worse.

The top order is having the largest degree of economic efficiency possible by having a legal infrastructure that ensures the largest possible degree of competition among all sectors of the economy while also ensuring property rights (including intellectual property) are protected and contracts are enforced. In other words, free enterprise driven by competition with no political favoritism for anybody. If we couple this with a government that provides adequate basic infrastructure (i.e., defense, law and order, highways that facilitate commerce, GOOD education choices for those under 18 regardless of who the hell delivers the education, etc.), and do our best to help kids that have lousy parents (complemented by charitable activities, of course), we should achieve the highest level of meritocracy in society that is realistically feasible (not to mention the best economy possible).

What I have outlined above, save for a few minor details, will get us to where we would all like to be (Mitt Romney is the only candidate who understands this, too; Obama does not get it, and never will, although I do concede that I think Hillary Clinton would be getting it by now and I really wish I had supported her in 2008 rather than Obama). Class warfare rhetoric and the crap spewed by the "Occupy Wall Street" types is not going to get us anything but further decline.

[Politico]

Do you think the person who changes a bedpan in a hospital should make just as much as the doctor who treats the patient, or the executive who ensures the hospital continues to survive, or the individuals who actually own the hospital and have taken on all of the headaches from the risk involved in owning the entity?

A sane economic order does not have a government that essentially steals over half the income of one group to consistently give those funds to another group. That descends into the type of crap one witnesses over in Europe, where most of the group receiving funds develops this loser entitlement-mentality where they think the world owes them a living. You eventually end up with 20% unemployment like in Spain if you are lucky, or worse.

The top order is having the largest degree of economic efficiency possible by having a legal infrastructure that ensures the largest possible degree of competition among all sectors of the economy while also ensuring property rights (including intellectual property) are protected and contracts are enforced. In other words, free enterprise driven by competition with no political favoritism for anybody. If we couple this with a government that provides adequate basic infrastructure (i.e., defense, law and order, highways that facilitate commerce, GOOD education choices for those under 18 regardless of who the hell delivers the education, etc.), and do our best to help kids that have lousy parents (complemented by charitable activities, of course), we should achieve the highest level of meritocracy in society that is realistically feasible (not to mention the best economy possible).

What I have outlined above, save for a few minor details, will get us to where we would all like to be (Mitt Romney is the only candidate who understands this, too; Obama does not get it, and never will, although I do concede that I think Hillary Clinton would be getting it by now and I really wish I had supported her in 2008 rather than Obama). Class warfare rhetoric and the crap spewed by the "Occupy Wall Street" types is not going to get us anything but further decline.

Ah! Rich people are "winners" and poor people are "losers!" Gotcha!

Yes, let's have a "meritocracy-it's a marathon race, where a few Olympic runners get an hour head start over the rest of the competition, none of whom are Olympic runners and all of whom have broken legs! And the people on the sidelines cheering the Olympic runners are scolding the people with broken legs for not keeping up!

You don't realize that "Free enterprise driven by competition with no political favoritism for anybody" is a hopelessly impossible thing to enforce, because that inevitably favors the already rich.

Do you not realize that the economic pie is not fixed in size? It is not stagnant nor is it set in stone as to who gets what percentage of the pie every year (since people retire, die, emigrate, etc. all of the time).

I never said anybody is a "winner," and I only claimed that entitlement-mentality people who think the world owes them are a living are "losers," NOT that all poor people are "losers" (there are plenty of poor people who do not think the world owes them a living, and these people rightfully want an opportunity to better themselves and their family). It is YOU who is engaging is such shameless class warfare rhetoric, and you are doing NOTHING to help America with such rhetoric.

Free enterprise driven by competition with no political favoritism for anybody is easily enforced as outlined in the steps I have already given. Yes, LIKE EVERY OTHER SYSTEM, it favors the already-rich TODAY. However, the big differences between what I propose and what others propose is that my proposal provides the poor with the greatest possibility of advancement based upon merit, and my proposal does not guarantee anybody who is wealthy today will stay wealthy forever (i.e., their descendants).

What you fail to realize is that your tax-and-spend policies lead to the opposite of the intended effect: They keep the poor, poor and largely dependent upon government while limiting their ability to move up through effort, talent, etc. Tax-and-spend policies inevitably end up acting as a barrier-to-entry into markets, including the labor market, and essentially keep things in place the way they are rather than providing opportunities, and the pursuit of happiness for all regardless of the situation they are born into.