Mitt Romney vs The President

[milhouse24]

Unemployment is still extremely high, and no president has ever been re-elected at 9% unemployment.  I really think that Romney will win the Independent vote and the swing states of Ohio, Florida, Colorado, and NC.  He already beats Obama in polling of Independents.  He just has to win the nomination, and I'm sure the evangelicals realize he's the best shot at beating Obama. 

[milhouse24]

Nevada is Mormon country, so Romney would win.

I think NC would also go for Romney and Iowa.

[milhouse24]

Assuming unemployment stands within a point of what it is today

No way. Romney  gets caught in a flip-flop on rescuing the auto industry and loses Michigan and Ohio (more precisely, doesn't get them back). Romney has the albatross of the Ryan plan to privatize Medicare and Medicaid , which won't play in Florida or Arizona. Indiana and Missouri depend heavily on the auto industry, if not as much as Michigan and Ohio.

I don't know what connection Mitt has to New Hampshire, so I think he loses the state (more precisely, doesn't flip it). 

Neither Colorado nor Nevada is "Mormon Country". President Obama won't win Nevada by the overwhelming margin that he won it by in 2008 in the panic following the housing crash. Demographics of both states favor the President.

Republicans' monomaniacal calls for privatizing everything and tax cuts for the super-rich won't be well-received.       

FYI, Romney is from MA, which neighbors NH.  He has thousands of volunteers canvassing in NH for the GOTV.

[milhouse24]

It will be President Mitt Romney

I think so too.

I don't - the skills to be a successful businessman and the skills to be a successful president are markedly different... the funny thing is, I think Romney probably has both. But I think there are too many internal GOP dynamics going on that don't work in his favour. He will have rough time in the South... the evangelicals won't hold their nose at primary time... they might in the general, but the enthusiasm will be low.

Plus Obama is in a pretty solid position, if Obama was in the position the Doom-sayers are trying to suggest he would not doing so well on a state-by-state basis.

I think Romney would make it close during the general, but I'm not sure he gets out of the primary... if he does, I think he's going to be damaged. Unlike the dems in 2008 - there were pretty much no significant policy differences between Obama and Clinton...

Umm, FYI, one person voted for the Iraq War and the other person did not vote for the Iraq War - one was pro-bush(Iraq) and the other was anti-bush (anti-Iraq).  That was a big difference IMO.

[milhouse24]

It will be President Mitt Romney

I think so too.

I don't - the skills to be a successful businessman and the skills to be a successful president are markedly different... the funny thing is, I think Romney probably has both. But I think there are too many internal GOP dynamics going on that don't work in his favour. He will have rough time in the South... the evangelicals won't hold their nose at primary time... they might in the general, but the enthusiasm will be low.

Plus Obama is in a pretty solid position, if Obama was in the position the Doom-sayers are trying to suggest he would not doing so well on a state-by-state basis.

I think Romney would make it close during the general, but I'm not sure he gets out of the primary... if he does, I think he's going to be damaged. Unlike the dems in 2008 - there were pretty much no significant policy differences between Obama and Clinton...

Umm, FYI, one person voted for the Iraq War and the other person did not vote for the Iraq War - one was pro-bush(Iraq) and the other was anti-bush (anti-Iraq).  That was a big difference IMO.

Well, only one was in the Senate at the time of the Iraq vote... but when it came down to core Democratic values - the differences are purely superficial.

I don't know about you, but that one pro-Bush/pro-Iraq war vote left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, a little too salty.  Obama was one of the early anti-Iraq voices, along with Dean, and there was a reason both polled well with Democrats, even though they had comparatively little experience relative to their competitors.

If Iraq had been a "success" before 2008, Hillary would have strongly won everywhere.  But she was seen as too close to Bush's foreign policy agenda, after all her parents were Republicans!  So if Obama matched Hillary on Social/Domestic issues and only differed with her in supporting Bush's war, every sane Democrat would go with Obama.  And yes, Obama was lucky to not be in the senate for that Iraq vote.

[milhouse24]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

Government isn't a business. Government has responsibility to voters; business has responsibilities above all else to shareholders. A tycoon as President is likely to see his responsibilities largely to fellow tycoons and not to those who have not yet Made It.

Because Obama has been so competent in handling the economy?  Oh wait, its just Bush's fault and there's nothing Obama can do about it.  He's just going to sit back, play some basketball with his body man, and let the rest of us suffer, we'll be homeless, jobless, but we'll have free health care, maybe I'll just live at the hospital and bill it to the White House!

[milhouse24]

It will be President Mitt Romney

I wonder if Obama will drop Biden and get another VP, maybe a woman if he thinks he will lose the election?  He's a shrewd campaigner, I think it would happen if necessary.  Biden gets his beloved SOS position, which he wanted all along after Hillary resigns next month. 

[milhouse24]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

Government isn't a business. Government has responsibility to voters; business has responsibilities above all else to shareholders. A tycoon as President is likely to see his responsibilities largely to fellow tycoons and not to those who have not yet Made It.

Because Obama has been so competent in handling the economy?  Oh wait, its just Bush's fault and there's nothing Obama can do about it.  He's just going to sit back, play some basketball with his body man, and let the rest of us suffer, we'll be homeless, jobless, but we'll have free health care, maybe I'll just live at the hospital and bill it to the White House!

We don't have a planned economy (not that such is a good idea anyway -- as shown by the example of the Soviet Union). The President cannot dictate that public investments will be made. Even for public investments, the President needs the support of Congress. When we have a majority in the House who will thwart any legislation that the President offers, then either that majority or the President must go, lest there be continuing gridlock. 

But the point is that the markets have No confidence in Obama's tax policy.  No company will hire or take out loans if he/she thinks he has to spend more money on taxes.  Small businesses are holding their money because they think more rain is coming down in the form of taxes.  Small Businesses want a Business-friendly, anti-tax Republican who can give them confidence in their 5 year business plans of expansion and growth.  Granted a lot of sectors like housing and finance are over-leveraged, but there should be opportunities out there in other sectors.

[milhouse24]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

I like this common American misconception, that being a good businessman makes you a good political leader.

No one ever said that Romney's vast amount in the private sector will guarantee he'll make a good President. But it's certainly something good to have when running for President.

Actually, Romney has basically said that many times. Short of the absolute word "guarantee", it's a central premise to his candidacy.

@ Winfield: So I should be impressed by someone who was born a multi-millionaire and managed to become a multi-multi-millionaire? While I realize that model is central to Republican economic theory, his success is akin to being born on third base and scoring a run on an outfield fly, not actually hitting a homer himself.

Horatio Alger, Bill Gates, or Lee Iacocca he ain't.

Your acting like managing your investment portfolio and exponentially growing it is a bad thing.  Unlike others who squander their riches, Romney grew his investments.  Its similar to how the US economy needs to be nurtured and grow.  We are not some 3rd world country in need of a Horatio Alger.  We are a mature economy, with high wage workers as opposed to low-wage workers, and strong Unions who want a share in dwindling corporate profits. 

Do you want someone who's never been in the game and has no idea how to manage a fortune 500 company (like Obama) or do we want a proven leader who won't destroy a fortune 500 company (like Romney). 

[milhouse24]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

I like this common American misconception, that being a good businessman makes you a good political leader.

No one ever said that Romney's vast amount in the private sector will guarantee he'll make a good President. But it's certainly something good to have when running for President.

Actually, Romney has basically said that many times. Short of the absolute word "guarantee", it's a central premise to his candidacy.

@ Winfield: So I should be impressed by someone who was born a multi-millionaire and managed to become a multi-multi-millionaire? While I realize that model is central to Republican economic theory, his success is akin to being born on third base and scoring a run on an outfield fly, not actually hitting a homer himself.

Horatio Alger, Bill Gates, or Lee Iacocca he ain't.

Your acting like managing your investment portfolio and exponentially growing it is a bad thing.  Unlike others who squander their riches, Romney grew his investments.  Its similar to how the US economy needs to be nurtured and grow.  We are not some 3rd world country in need of a Horatio Alger.  We are a mature economy, with high wage workers as opposed to low-wage workers, and strong Unions who want a share in dwindling corporate profits.  

Do you want someone who's never been in the game and has no idea how to manage a fortune 500 company (like Obama) or do we want a proven leader who won't destroy a fortune 500 company (like Romney).  

Oh, Milhouse. You are absolutely adorable!

so which union do you belong to?

[milhouse24]

If unemployment continues at 9% and rising, if the economy continues to be facing a major stall, if jobs created continues to lag, then the electorate will turn to Romney's legendary economic and business expertise to get the economy back on track and Romney will defeat Obama.

What? The expertise at being born the scion of a multi-million dollar fortune and---surprise, surprise---not blowing it?

While it is true that Mitt Romney was raised in an affluent family, it is also true that as a venture capitalist and successful businessman and manager, he made a personal fortune on his own volition, estimated at between 200 and 250 million dollars.

Some have speculated his net worth is closer to 500 million dollars, but 250 million dollars seems more likely.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that Mitt Romney made his own personal fortune, not dependent on that of his famous father.

Mitt Romney also has the experience of turning around a sinking ship - See 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.

I like this common American misconception, that being a good businessman makes you a good political leader.

No one ever said that Romney's vast amount in the private sector will guarantee he'll make a good President. But it's certainly something good to have when running for President.

Actually, Romney has basically said that many times. Short of the absolute word "guarantee", it's a central premise to his candidacy.

@ Winfield: So I should be impressed by someone who was born a multi-millionaire and managed to become a multi-multi-millionaire? While I realize that model is central to Republican economic theory, his success is akin to being born on third base and scoring a run on an outfield fly, not actually hitting a homer himself.

Horatio Alger, Bill Gates, or Lee Iacocca he ain't.

Your acting like managing your investment portfolio and exponentially growing it is a bad thing.  Unlike others who squander their riches, Romney grew his investments.  Its similar to how the US economy needs to be nurtured and grow.  We are not some 3rd world country in need of a Horatio Alger.  We are a mature economy, with high wage workers as opposed to low-wage workers, and strong Unions who want a share in dwindling corporate profits.  

Do you want someone who's never been in the game and has no idea how to manage a fortune 500 company (like Obama) or do we want a proven leader who won't destroy a fortune 500 company (like Romney).  

Oh, Milhouse. You are absolutely adorable!

so which union do you belong to?

None, but you assume otherwise when I state a multi-millionaire scion of a family fortune may not be the best judge to balance the competing interests of the middle class and corporate boardrooms?

You, sir, are more entertaining than cable

You also seem to be forgetting about small businesses who do most of the hiring.  If the issue is jobs, then its up to businesses to decide if they have the revenue or potential revenue forecasting to pay for new workers.  If the issue is benefits, then companies aren't going to hire new workers if they have to increase benefits to pre-existing employees. 

Plus, I don't quite understand the bias against a Successful family.  John Kennedy was a rich son of an illegal bootlegger.  Al Gore was a rich son of his Senator Father.  Unlike other scions who become drug addicts like some Kennedy's, Romney has been successful and he knows what it takes to support and grow businesses and in turn, allow those businesses to hire more people. 

[milhouse24]

Companies are already sitting on a record level of accrued capital, but are reluctant to invest it when consumer confidence and spending is skittish and weak. The standard GOP nostrum of across the board tax cuts which inordinately favor the wealthy is a bass ackwards way of stimulating consumer spending when the wealthy actually spend a smaller portion of their income, but rather would invest further on the inactive pile of cash businesses are already sitting on.

Regardless, I'm not "prejudiced" against successful families, cupcake, just not all gaga about the "business acumen" of someone born rich who became richer. Besides, anyone who talks about "running government like a business" is horribly misguided. Talk of running government like a non-profit corporation that's designed to fulfill certain functions rather than make its owner's wealthy is closer to the mark.

Businesses are holding onto their rainy day funds because of the new Health Care law that has not yet been implemented, so they don't know how much more they will get taxed.  But don't you want businesses to spend more money on benefits for union members!  Screw the homeless and jobless, its more important to have health care and retirement funds.

You obviously think govt is a well run and well oiled machine, that no one in the federal govt literally sleeps at their job all day, then goes home at 5.  I think govt is supposed to let businesses succeed, not crush them with regulation and taxation, some citizens are actually trying to get wealthy with their businesses.  The wealthy will be fine, its the unemployed middle class that I would actually be worried about.

[milhouse24]

That maybe a matter of perception, I agree. The input I'm getting from two family members who are very highly placed in the health insurance or HCR consulting industry.

My point was less that the health insurance industry and banking industry aren't at all cautious about the implementation of HCR and Dodd-Frank---there is caution stemming from this to be sure, though not paralytic fear of investment from what I hear--and more as a decided to Milhouse's ideological screeds claiming that such reforms are the primary cause of weak business investment throughout the entire economy.

But my point is that fear of the future is restraining spending.  Fear of increased Regulation, oversight, and taxes is preventing businesses from forecasting revenues for the next year to 5 years necessary to plan growth, hiring, and strategy.  Both consumers and businesses are saving their money because they are scared of losing their jobs, losing profits/revenue.  Why would a business hire someone for the next 2 years, when they have to increase benefits as well, and with these taxes they are spending that money on Health care benefits that would otherwise be going to a new worker.  Why don't you just ask any small business owner what's wrong with the economy?

[milhouse24]

That maybe a matter of perception, I agree. The input I'm getting from two family members who are very highly placed in the health insurance or HCR consulting industry.

My point was less that the health insurance industry and banking industry aren't at all cautious about the implementation of HCR and Dodd-Frank---there is caution stemming from this to be sure, though not paralytic fear of investment from what I hear--and more as a decided to Milhouse's ideological screeds claiming that such reforms are the primary cause of weak business investment throughout the entire economy.

But my point is that fear of the future is restraining spending.  Fear of increased Regulation, oversight, and taxes is preventing businesses from forecasting revenues for the next year to 5 years necessary to plan growth, hiring, and strategy.  Both consumers and businesses are saving their money because they are scared of losing their jobs, losing profits/revenue.  Why would a business hire someone for the next 2 years, when they have to increase benefits as well, and with these taxes they are spending that money on Health care benefits that would otherwise be going to a new worker.  Why don't you just ask any small business owner what's wrong with the economy?

I have. The universal answer: No one's buying.

The only world where HCR and Dodd-Frank are inhibiting consumer spending is in the make believe right wing blogoshpere you apparantly inhabit. You have a right to your ideology, but if your argument is "Vote Republican: We'll repeal Obamacare and Big Government restraints on Wall Street, then people will have money and confidence to spend and jump-start the economy", well, you couldn't be more emperically wrong, and such blind ideological adherence in the face of reality is only an argument for supporting Democrats. At least there's a chance their policies might work.

My point is that Obama knew the economy was grasping for air, yet he still went ahead with Universal health care because he had the senate votes.  If the economy is good, sure you can add and tax for health care, but he was pre-occupied with making history for the history books, rather than helping people find jobs in the next 2 years.  So I don't know what is worse, being unemployed or being unemployed yet getting free health care.  Besides, I don't personally think Health care should be a for-profit business, it should all be non-profit and probably government run like the VA.  But I also question the legality of forcing citizens to buy health insurance.  I actually think health care should be up to the states, and some states actually passed their own health care reform.  I'm just saying for the past 2 years, Obama has been suffocating businesses, and that is why no one has consumer confidence in the Obama administration. 

[milhouse24]

He'd need an energizing, conservative VP. But it would have to be balanced that people wouldn't want the ticket to be flipped either...

So really but the time they make it to the final stretch Obama wins. Mitt just isn't charismatic and his "generic republican" status won't last a year and a half.

That worked out great for the GOP last time. And by GOP I mean Democratic Party.

Oh boy oh boy, vice president Bachmann here we come!

[milhouse24]

Your acting like managing your investment portfolio and exponentially growing it is a bad thing.  Unlike others who squander their riches, Romney grew his investments.  Its similar to how the US economy needs to be nurtured and grow.  We are not some 3rd world country in need of a Horatio Alger.  We are a mature economy, with high wage workers as opposed to low-wage workers, and strong Unions who want a share in dwindling corporate profits. 

Do you want someone who's never been in the game and has no idea how to manage a fortune 500 company (like Obama) or do we want a proven leader who won't destroy a fortune 500 company (like Romney). 

1. Business and government are very different things. If you are a conservative, then the last thing that you want the government to do is to grow, as (according to conservative dogma) growth in government means only that the private sector gets squeezed!

2. The conservative ideal for managing government would be a liquidator -- not someone who can induce growth. Such a person literally casts employees out on the street -- or, in the case of people on the dole for any reason, tells them to become productive members of society  or die and take any children with them to the grave if they die for lack of ability. Would that be consistent with the values of most Americans? Maybe not for long. I'm not sure that anyone wants the government selling off assets for pennies on the dollar -- unless one is one of those who would buy those assets at fire-sale prices and then exploit monopolistic conditions in the form of captive markets.

3. Much of what the government does  -- administering justice, conducting wars, protecting the environment, and doing diplomacy --  is not done on P/L criteria. Most of what business enterprises do is done strictly with an eye to profit or loss, or at least with protecting the assets of the company from lawsuits and taxation. Shareholders don't want their companies bleeding corporate assets as charity.   

Government, or at least the only sort of government worth having, acts in accordance with the choices of the people through the election of representatives who then conduct the People's business. It has to look beyond the questionable ideal of maximal tax revenues or minimal expenditures to concerns that might not be so immediate -- like whether life will be good for people who can't then hold a job and pay taxes (especially the children). Government can't serve only taxpayers or asset owners. The sort of government that serves only the biggest taxpayers and asset owners is no democracy; it might be an old-fashioned absolute monarchy in which the monarch is simply the biggest landowner, a fascist dictatorship that represents only the rich, or a Commie system in which real power goes to the administrators of State enterprises. 

   

Oh wow, so a state government can't give tax breaks to a new factory or office building supplying thousands of jobs for the area?  You don't believe there is any way a government can promote economic growth, business growth, job growth, innovation, re-training, or work-visas, or education?  I feel sorry that you think government is only here to provide benefits and ensure the quality life of middle class workers.  With billions of dollars budget, there is so much more the government can do to affect lives and destinies, its a decision of whether to suffocate economic growth with HCR taxes and regulation or to promote growth.  Remember, the housing bubble was partially created by a desire for low-income citizens to obtain home ownership and the american dream, even though there was no way they could afford such homes, that was a law signed by Bill Clinton and it was meant to increase the percentage of home ownership in America, but impossible to sustain.