Romney: Occupy Wall Street 'wrong way to go'

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He could have done better with this obviously. His primary objective was to condemn the ridiculous antics of these protestors. If he didn't he would be called out on it and have it used to make the case that he is a closet librul. At the same time he wanted to avoid what Cain fell right into. That is the trap of making one sound out of touch with economic hardships by saying something like what Cain did regarding "blaming yourself for being unemployed".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

He could have done better with this obviously. His primary objective was to condemn the ridiculous antics of these protestors. If he didn't he would be called out on it and have it used to make the case that he is a closet librul. At the same time he wanted to avoid what Cain fell right into. That is the trap of making one sound out of touch with economic hardships by saying something like what Cain did regarding "blaming yourself for being unemployed".

Precisely. The GOP has become radicalized. If the Dems become radicalized, then this country is doomed.

The Democrats don't need to become radicalized to doom the country. They have already proven themselves adept at doing so.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The thing about radicalization is that it is the wrong way to go regardless of which side it is from.


The economy, for instance does best in the short term when things are stable and things can be reliably predicted, and in the long term when troubling problems that weigh the economy are resolved such as the long term deficit, rising health care/energy/education costs, etc. You sacrifice one for the other, and you get no stability either now or in the future. Realizing this would have shortened the Depression in the 1930's, and would have prevented the recession that has likely begun or is beginning soon. Politics is often the enemy of this balance. Mobs of unemployed terrorizing country side demanding bankers hang and tarriffs, or Middle Class tax revolts all have the same impact, which is to place demands on the political system that are contrary to what the situation dictates.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It certainly is the case that the protestors are expressing sheer outrage without pursuing a coherent agenda.  I looked at the national website for the Occupy movement this morning in search of a set of goals they desire to achieve, and found only a bunch of discussion threads with a lot of nasty back and forth between posters and everyone who had something to bitch about joining the party, as generally happens with these things.  But, despite how tricky it is to do good "messaging" in the buildup to a primary battle, I think the best way to deal with movements like this is to get a sense of what the core frustration is, find out the reality behind it, and try to address it.  Obama can no more be the leader of "one nation" by blaming all his political travails on the TEA Party, without grasping what is at the core of their anger and addressing it, than Mitt Romney can be the leader of "one nation" by talking to mad Iowans about "corporation-persons" and mildly scolding mad New Yorkers for feeling disenfranchised by corporations.  The middle class don't have cash reserves up to their ears and time to wait for investment opportunities to sweeten; they need to be offered a vision of what's in it for them.  

But the paradox is, they can't get what they want by screaming at a concrete building full of people mostly just like them, except they are trying to earn a living as cashiers and clerks. When they start throwing molotov cocktails into them like they did in Greece, it won't be the CEO that gets burned. He is up on the top floor.

Pershaps we should view corporations as collections of people. Then we might be able to control them better.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The thing about radicalization is that it is the wrong way to go regardless of which side it is from.


The economy, for instance does best in the short term when things are stable and things can be reliably predicted, and in the long term when troubling problems that weigh the economy are resolved such as the long term deficit, rising health care/energy/education costs, etc. You sacrifice one for the other, and you get no stability either now or in the future. Realizing this would have shortened the Depression in the 1930's, and would have prevented the recession that has likely begun or is beginning soon. Politics is often the enemy of this balance. Mobs of unemployed terrorizing country side demanding bankers hang and tarriffs, or Middle Class tax revolts all have the same impact, which is to place demands on the political system that are contrary to what the situation dictates.

Not necessarily.  Radicalization is only bad if one party's doing it.  It all balances out if both sides become "radical", in some way.  If no one can come to an agreement, then both sides are forced to compromise.  But if one side goes to the far-left or the far-right while the other just lets it happen, then you have one-party control.  I would like both sides to be moderate and work together, but unfortunately, this is not the same political atmosphere we may have once had in our nation's history.  Of course people will put demands on the political system.  They should.  That's what democracy is all about.

Yes, the political system is not the the same as it was 30 years ago. It is horrible not up to par.

Ignorance and populism make democracy the enemy of economic prosperity.  The problem with making both sides polarized is that it makes the long term reforms I mentioned impossible. Every four years the policies change because both are so far apart. It worked great in the late 1800's politically, but the economy was always dreadfull because we spent decades deciding whether or not we should even actually manage the money supply effectively, not even what level it should be at. The legacy of a very famous populist movement, that of Andrew Jackson.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Democrats don't need to become radicalized to doom the country. They have already proven themselves adept at doing so.

I have to call you out on this one. There is no denial that the current economic crisis was preceded by 6 years of complete Republican Party control. If you are going to make a statement like that, be fair about it.

So? The deregulation occured on a bipartisan basis in the 1990's with a Democratic President at the helm. Most of it passed 90-10 or so. The biggest change to regulation under Bush was Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002/2003ish to respond to Enron and Worldcom. Bush also wanted higher standards on Fanny and Freddie in 2003, 2005 and again in 2008. He was blocked by a bipartisan group of Senators led by Chris Dodd and I beleive John Kerry until it was too late, 2008. Obama may even have helped block it in 2005, but I would need to look at that.  In what world is the DNC talking points about Bush being an ideologically driven deregulator, accurate? He was very pragmatic on it. 

And just to call you on your facts, the Democrats had the Senate from 2001-2003 because of Jim Jeffords. The Republicans only had complete control for four years from 2003-2007.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Coincidental politics is also an annoyance and detriment to democracy, because it contributes ignorance of events and results of policies.

Lets take ole Bill for example. Clinton gets credit for creating more jobs then he otherwise would because he didn't have a recession in any of the 8 years he was in office thanks to the tech bubble pushing the next one till the year after he left. He didn't really engaged in any policies that impacted the economy, except to create an environment of stability politically speaking by compromising with Republicans. His tax increases at the beginning helped balance the budget later on, once he had a GOP congress fighting for lower spending. But it is really a stretch to say that creating a surplus in 1997, had an impact on starting a boom in 1993/1994. The effect of removing such a deficit would have put miniscule downward pressure on inflation in the later years of the expansion but the net detriment of the tax hike in 1993 probably was greated then any benefit from reduced inflation in 1998 or 1999. He was just a lucky SOB timing wise, in terms of his legacy. There is no 1990's policies that one can adopt or return to, that will bring you a 1990's economy. The policies coming out of the Clinton years that had the most impact are the ones you tried to shoove off on the Republicans just now. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 1999 and the repeal of Glass Steagall in 1997. They certainly made a big splash in 2007. 

Now as far as Governing model, the 1990's are a perfect example of how to govern a country, save for the missed long term opportunities on energy, education and the like. The Bush strategy regarding regulation is actually probably the model that should be looked to. Deal with problems as they come up like he did by signing Sarbox and try to get ahead of future problems like he tried to do with Fannie and Freddie.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So? The deregulation occurred on a bipartisan basis in the 1990's with a Democratic President at the helm. Most of it passed 90-10 or so. The biggest change to regulation under Bush was Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002/2003ish to respond to Enron and Worldcom. Bush also wanted higher standards on Fanny and Freddie in 2003, 2005 and again in 2008. He was blocked by a bipartisan group of Senators led by Chris Dodd and I believe John Kerry until it was too late, 2008. Obama may even have helped block it in 2005, but I would need to look at that.  In what world is the DNC talking points about Bush being an ideologically driven deregulator, accurate? He was very pragmatic on it.  

And just to call you on your facts, the Democrats had the Senate from 2001-2003 because of Jim Jeffords. The Republicans only had complete control for four years from 2003-2007.

And there's the point, you can't unilaterally blame Democrats for problems. Republicans have had a seat at the table for most of the past couple of decades, they have to take some responsibility. It's not one sided.

lol. Nice fail with "But you are too..." routine. See the bolded word. Uni means one, bi means two. I would love to be enlightened how you extracted the word "unilateral" from "bipartisan".

Next time look for words like "bipartisan" in posts before you come back with a response in ignorance of what the post you are responding to said.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

lol. Nice fail with "But you are too..." routine. See the bolded word. Uni means one, bi means two. I would love to be enlightened how you extracted the word "unilateral" from "bipartisan".

Next time look for words like "bipartisan" in posts before you come back with a response in ignorance of what the post you are responding to said.

Wow, let me explain it a bit easier. What I was saying was that you proved the point I was trying to make that you can't blame Democrats alone for economic issues. It wasn't an attempt to twist your post, but whatever.

The problem is you never had such a point to prove, as my statement had nothing to do with "Democrats alone causing the economic problems" which is ridiculous. It was about destroying the country. Which by picking someone as not ready for the job, and as unfit for the times as Obama, they have done a pretty damn good job of.