Exploring Opinions on Mitt Romney's Candidacy

[ParticleGrl]

CAC1001- would it be fair to characterize your position as "we should fear deficits always, regardless of what the markets say"?/"there is no evidence that can convince me that the deficit isn't a drag on the economy"?

How do you suggest the deficit is being a drag? What economic indicators can I look at to explore your view? What positive evidence can you show me?

 

[ThomasT]

Yes. So? Defense spending should be tightly correlated to threats against the US, not the size of its economy. With that in mind, one could argue that defense spending should be half what it was at the height of the cold war (though I don't go that far), not double.

This makes sense to me. But considering America's role in the world, I think (apparently along with you) that something between cold war levels and current levels (but closer to current levels) should be adequate. The current situation includes, imo, a significant amount of waste (which I don't think Romney has adequately addressed yet), the trimming of which wouldn't impair necessary US capability, imo.

 

[CAC1001]

CAC1001- would it be fair to characterize your position as "we should fear deficits always, regardless of what the markets say"?/"there is no evidence that can convince me that the deficit isn't a drag on the economy"?

My position is that we should be concerned over the fact that we have never run a structural deficit like this before, with no real solution to it in sight at the moment. It's uncharted territory as far as economics goes, but generally, it doesn't end well when countries run large deficits and build up large amounts of debt.

Also, just because the market may not fear a deficit at the moment doesn't mean the deficit will not be problematic at some point. Remember, markets are finnicky and can be wrong (that's how bubbles develop!). I am definitely open to the idea that the deficit is not a drag on the economy in the short-term, but the fact is that the deficit is adding over $1 trillion in debt to the economy every year and the current federal debt is greater than the U.S. GDP. According to two economists who have studied it in-depth, Reinhart and Rogoff, generally, when the debt reaches 90% of GDP or higher, a country suffers more lackluster economic growth: LINK

In addition, the current federal debt is just the "official" amount of debt the federal government is burdened with. If the states start to default, or a crisis happens in Europe where the U.S., via the IMF, has to bail out the Europeans in some way, the U.S. government actually could have a much higher possible debt load than thought right now.

How do you suggest the deficit is being a drag? What economic indicators can I look at to explore your view? What positive evidence can you show me?

The current debt-to-GDP ratio and the size of the deficit, meaning the government is adding a massive amount of money to the debt each year at the moment.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The current debt-to-GDP ratio and the size of the deficit, meaning the government is adding a massive amount of money to the debt each year at the moment.

This isn't positive evidence the deficit is a drag on the economy. Its just evidence the deficit exists.

What economic indicators have changed in the last two years because of the large deficits/large debt? What changed when we went from 85% to 90% of GDP? What changed when we from 90% to 100%? If I look at sector-by-sector drag where can I see the drag?

 

[ThomasT]

The interchange between CAC1001 and ParticleGrl is interesting, but could one or both of you explicate precisely how this relates to Romney's position(s)?

 

[russ_watters]

This isn't positive evidence the deficit is a drag on the economy. Its just evidence the deficit exists.

What economic indicators have changed in the last two years because of the large deficits/large debt? What changed when we went from 85% to 90% of GDP? What changed when we from 90% to 100%? If I look at sector-by-sector drag where can I see the drag?

I believe where you're going with this is the argument you have used before that since interest rates are so low, our cost of borrowing is pretty low right now. While I'm sure that's true, I wouldn't bet on it being true 5 years from now. This is exactly the issue that caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis that led us to where we are now, just on a national scale: The debt is an adjustable rate mortgage on our economy and the interest on it will not stay low forever.

You may also be referring to the fact that money is flowing into US currency despite the debt increasing. This to me is a sign of the relative health of the dollar, not the absolute health: Just because we're doing better than Europe doesn't mean we are doing well.

 

[MarcoD]

In addition, the current federal debt is just the "official" amount of debt the federal government is burdened with. If the states start to default, or a crisis happens in Europe where the U.S., via the IMF, has to bail out the Europeans in some way, the U.S. government actually could have a much higher possible debt load than thought right now.

The US has a 15% share in the IMF. According to Bernanke, the exposure is some tens of billions. Which means that:

a) You got your facts reversed. If the IMF moves into an economy, it cleans it, invests money, and leaves with a profit.

b) Tens of billions are one or two orders less than my small country invests in the US. It's peanuts.

I am pretty sure the EU doesn't want the US but want the Chinese to invest in the ESFS.

(Actually, it's a bit odd. Under normal circumstances, one would expect that their foreign currency holdings to go into treasuries no matter what. Somehow, there shouldn't be a real reason to beg for the money. Worst case, they are manipulating the market, but I don't think so.)

 

[WhoWee]

Mitt Romney touts his experience at Bain Capital as a strength, but not the experience with leveraged buyouts.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-31-2012/indecision-2012---bain-man

Funny stuff Astro.

 

[Rob D]

Yes funny, except for the outrageous use of out of context sound and vid bites and the fuzzy logic of Mr. Stewart. My guess is a rebuttal - not allowed in this situation - would rip it asunder and...woops, not so funny then. To gleefully chuckle at Stewart's twisted half truths and outright falsehoods is analogous to the medieval crowds who cheered those burned at the stake. Lots of fun so long as you're not on the stake.

Face it, the guy (Romney) is squeaky clean and honorable in the true American way. Let's also realize that he would not bt the richest president. That would be George Washington and he did it with slaves.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Yes funny, except for the outrageous use of out of context sound and vid bites and the fuzzy logic of Mr. Stewart. My guess is a rebuttal - not allowed in this situation - would rip it asunder and...woops, not so funny then. To gleefully chuckle at Stewart's twisted half truths and outright falsehoods is analogous to the medieval crowds who cheered those burned at the stake. Lots of fun so long as you're not on the stake.

Face it, the guy (Romney) is squeaky clean and honorable in the true American way. Let's also realize that he would not bt the richest president. That would be George Washington and he did it with slaves.

Would you care to offer this 'rebuttal'? Romney isn't the least bit 'squeaky clean' or 'honorable', neglecting your use of 'true American way' as an obvious appeal to faux-populism.

 

[Char. Limit]

Yes funny, except for the outrageous use of out of context sound and vid bites and the fuzzy logic of Mr. Stewart. My guess is a rebuttal - not allowed in this situation - would rip it asunder and...woops, not so funny then. To gleefully chuckle at Stewart's twisted half truths and outright falsehoods is analogous to the medieval crowds who cheered those burned at the stake. Lots of fun so long as you're not on the stake.

Jeez, you do realize that Stewart is a humorist, right? You seem to have lost your sense of humor at some point this election.

Face it, the guy (Romney) is squeaky clean and honorable in the true American way. Let's also realize that he would not bt the richest president. That would be George Washington and he did it with slaves.

HA! Romney, honorable, it's laughable. His years at Bain Capital and his experience with vulture capitalism aren't exactly a shining ray of honor!

 

[CAC1001]

This isn't positive evidence the deficit is a drag on the economy. Its just evidence the deficit exists.

There is evidence that the deficit is a drag on the economy when one looks at how it is adding to the debt year-after-year and the fact that countries with large levels of debt tend not to perform well economically.

What economic indicators have changed in the last two years because of the large deficits/large debt? What changed when we went from 85% to 90% of GDP? What changed when we from 90% to 100%? If I look at sector-by-sector drag where can I see the drag?

It doesn't work that mechanically. It isn't that a debt below 90% of GDP is a-okay and anything above 90% GDP is very bad, but, in general 90% tends to be the benchmark. And of course there's the threat of the debt itself. The larger the debt gets, the more money it takes to service the debt. With a large debt, if inflation ever kicks in, and interest rates have to go up, it will massively increase the amount of money it takes to service the debt, which would further impact the nation's credit rating. In the article by John Cochrane I posted, he points out that many believe the Fed could control such inflation, but there's a chance the Fed might not be able to control such inflation if it occurred, and excessive inflation would equate to essentially defaulting on the debt to a degree.

 

[CAC1001]

The US has a 15% share in the IMF. According to Bernanke, the exposure is some tens of billions. Which means that:

a) You got your facts reversed. If the IMF moves into an economy, it cleans it, invests money, and leaves with a profit.

b) Tens of billions are one or two orders less than my small country invests in the US. It's peanuts.

I am pretty sure the EU doesn't want the US but want the Chinese to invest in the ESFS.

(Actually, it's a bit odd. Under normal circumstances, one would expect that their foreign currency holdings to go into treasuries no matter what. Somehow, there shouldn't be a real reason to beg for the money. Worst case, they are manipulating the market, but I don't think so.)

Coolbeans.

 

[CAC1001]

Jeez, you do realize that Stewart is a humorist, right? You seem to have lost your sense of humor at some point this election.

He's a humorist, but he's a humorist that a lot of people get their political information from and base their opinions on.

HA! Romney, honorable, it's laughable. His years at Bain Capital and his experience with vulture capitalism aren't exactly a shining ray of honor!

Was he really a "vulture" capitalist? I mean I haven't really looked into it, but I haven't seen any major story break out over him driving companies into the ground there. Part of private equity turnarounds is having to fire people at companies, but that is to prevent the whole company from going under. It's like what President Obama did with GM and Chrysler, where people had to be laid off and dealerships closed in order to save the companies.

Of course the opposition is going to go out and find some old lady and old man who are the epitomy of blue-collar, working-class America and make a commercial whereby they talk about how they worked at a company that Bain Capital took over and lost their jobs and then lost their homes and lives and Romney's an evil man, blah blah blah...

If Romney really was a vulture capitalist, one would think he'd be prepared for the attacks. Romney's time at Bain I see kind of like Obama's Reverend Wright issue; aside from that, both are pretty sqeuaky clean. Romney's problem seems to be he doesn't come out and defend his time at Bain, strongly, and point out what nonsense it is that he was any "vulture capitalist" and also, he doesn't seem to be fluent in conservative principles to really articulate a decent conservative vision for America. His whole message more seems to be, "I'm a successful businessperson, I know how to create jobs, therefore vote for me." He doesn't argue the conservative positions well, or with any passion.

 

[russ_watters]

HA! Romney, honorable, it's laughable. His years at Bain Capital and his experience with vulture capitalism aren't exactly a shining ray of honor!

Those on the left and those on the right have very different ideas of what constitutes "honor" in business and politics.

IMO, being a self-made millionaire is a badge of honor, not a badge of dishonor.

 

[russ_watters]

Romney's problem seems to be he doesn't come out and defend his time at Bain, strongly, and point out what nonsense it is that he was any "vulture capitalist" and also, he doesn't seem to be fluent in conservative principles to really articulate a decent conservative vision for America.

Agreed. He needs to go more on the offensive about his time at Bain. There is little in that record that needs defending.

His whole message more seems to be, "I'm a successful businessperson, I know how to create jobs, therefore vote for me." He doesn't argue the conservative positions well, or with any passion.

I don't think his argument is even that strong. He seems to me to be too defensive of what is supposed to be a positive American virtue.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Those on the left and those on the right have very different ideas of what constitutes "honor" in business and politics.

IMO, being a self-made millionaire is a badge of honor, not a badge of dishonor.

Had absolutely nothing to do with his wealthy and connected father sending him to all the right schools. Nothing whatsoever. Move along, people.

 

[CAC1001]

Had absolutely nothing to do with his wealthy and connected father sending him to all the right schools. Nothing whatsoever. Move along, people.

Being born into wealth and having some connections does not guarantee that when one goes out to do something like turn around companies, that one will be successful at it. Romney can't help that he was born into wealth. He went and worked, as opposed to so many wealthy children who feel entitled and want an inheritance and just drink and party.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Being born into wealth and having some connections does not guarantee that when one goes out to do something like turn around companies, that one will be successful at it. Romney can't help that he was born into wealth. He went and worked, as opposed to so many wealthy children who feel entitled and want an inheritance and just drink and party.

No, it does not guarantee that, but it helps a great deal. Mitt Romney couldn't possibly fathom what I've been through just to accomplish what I've accomplished. He was a privately educated, ivy-league-educated businessman with a well-connected father who could afford it. The man hasn't felt what it's like to be in any real danger of falling through the cracks of society. I have. I bet even you have.

Mitt Romney can tell me he 'went and worked' when he crawls out of a 6th grade public education (in one of the worst states for public education, no less) into one of the best engineering schools in the country.

 

[CAC1001]

No, it does not guarantee that, but it helps a great deal. Mitt Romney couldn't possibly fathom what I've been through just to accomplish what I've accomplished. He was a privately educated, ivy-league-educated businessman with a well-connected father who could afford it. The man hasn't felt what it's like to be in any real danger of falling through the cracks of society. I have. I bet even you have.

Mitt Romney can tell me he 'went and worked' when he crawls out of a 6th grade public education (in one of the worst states for public education, no less) into one of the best engineering schools in the country.

Being private-school educated and I've League-educated doesn't mean he hasn't worked hard. Romney is not a conservative born with a silver spoon who believes in no social safety nets or anything, he is one of those more big-government conservatives. But also, let me ask this, would you refuse care from a doctor for cancer if that doctor had never had cancer themself? One doesn't need to have experienced hardship to be a good policy person. Just the same, you could have someone who rose up from poverty who would be an absolutely awful person policy-wise.

 

[Angry Citizen]

But also, let me ask this, would you refuse care from a doctor for cancer if that doctor had never had cancer themself?

Jesus, that's a huge strawman, not to mention a false analogy. Romney does not identify with the poor precisely because he was never at risk of it. He's the epitome of all that is wrong with capitalism, from cradle to (presumably) grave. He was born with daddy's money and daddy's connections. He was educated at daddy's schools and avoided the draft because of daddy's beliefs. After he left daddy prepared to take the world on by himself, what did he do? He took over a company whose sole claim to existence is risk-free profit. I look at this man and see nothing but a failure.

And it's not because I hate the rich. Andrew Carnegie, of questionable morality though his business practices were, was still a brilliant and skilled man and a titan of industry who created thousands upon thousands of jobs. He also at least attempted to draw a gray area for himself through his massive philanthropy. But Romney's business practices go away beyond 'questionable' and well into 'morally vile'.

 

[CAC1001]

Jesus, that's a huge strawman, not to mention a false analogy. Romney does not identify with the poor precisely because he was never at risk of it.

No it isn't. You're implying that one should not vote for Romney because he is unable to relate to the plight of the average person, as if that somehow disqualifies him. I pointed out that's like rejecting help from a cancer doctor because if said doctor has never themself experienced cancer, and thus cannot relate to the stress, fear, suffering, pain, worry, etc...of the person with it. That doesn't mean they aren't a good cancer doctor!

He's the epitome of all that is wrong with capitalism, from cradle to (presumably) grave. He was born with daddy's money and daddy's connections. He was educated at daddy's schools and avoided the draft because of daddy's beliefs.

By this standard, no one should have any business running for office unless they're born poor. You could have a person who comes from a well-to-do middle class family, who, while not born into wealth, definitely did not come from poverty and struggle. And how does htis make capitalism "wrong?" If someone works hard to gain wealth, the idea is often so that their children can have a nice upbringing. You seem offended by this.

As for the draft, a lot of people avoided it. It was legal to do so if you got a waiver.

After he left daddy prepared to take the world on by himself, what did he do? He took over a company whose sole claim to existence is risk-free profit. I look at this man and see nothing but a failure.

You mean Bain Capital? Because private equity is most definitely not risk-free profit. You are using investor's money to try and turn around companies, build up companies, invest in companies, etc...oftentimes which doesn't work out and loses the investors' money.

And it's not because I hate the rich. Andrew Carnegie, of questionable morality though his business practices were, was still a brilliant and skilled man and a titan of industry who created thousands upon thousands of jobs. He also at least attempted to draw a gray area for himself through his massive philanthropy. But Romney's business practices go away beyond 'questionable' and well into 'morally vile'.

How were they morally vile?

 

[WhoWee]

Jesus, that's a huge strawman, not to mention a false analogy. Romney does not identify with the poor precisely because he was never at risk of it. He's the epitome of all that is wrong with capitalism, from cradle to (presumably) grave. He was born with daddy's money and daddy's connections. He was educated at daddy's schools and avoided the draft because of daddy's beliefs. After he left daddy prepared to take the world on by himself, what did he do? He took over a company whose sole claim to existence is risk-free profit. I look at this man and see nothing but a failure.

And it's not because I hate the rich. Andrew Carnegie, of questionable morality though his business practices were, was still a brilliant and skilled man and a titan of industry who created thousands upon thousands of jobs. He also at least attempted to draw a gray area for himself through his massive philanthropy. But Romney's business practices go away beyond 'questionable' and well into 'morally vile'.

my bold

Do you ever support your posts - or did you forget to label as opinion?

 

[russ_watters]

Had absolutely nothing to do with his wealthy and connected father sending him to all the right schools. Nothing whatsoever. Move along, people.

"All the right schools" are Stanford, BYU and Harvard. Stanford and BYU are great schools, but they are public and have large attendances. He got into Harvard by being a stellar student. No, nothing to see here.

 

[mheslep]

CAC1001- would it be fair to characterize your position as "we should fear deficits always, regardless of what the markets say"?/"there is no evidence that can convince me that the deficit isn't a drag on the economy"?

How do you suggest the deficit is being a drag? What economic indicators can I look at to explore your view? What positive evidence can you show me?

Here's your evidence: i) there are large and persistent deficits and ii) default is considered unlikely.

Explanation: absent rampant inflation, very large and persistent deficits lead to one of two outcomes: a future default or future large tax increases. I agree with you that the market does not think US default likely*, so everyone assumes rationally tax increases are coming. That is large tax increases, much more than cancelling the Bush tax cuts on those earning over $250K, are required. No reasonable expectation of growth will even meet the spending growth as is, much less retire the debt. Those future expectations of tax increases depress present consumption.

* though recall that the US is downgraded to AA+ now

 

[Jasongreat]

Had absolutely nothing to do with his wealthy and connected father sending him to all the right schools. Nothing whatsoever. Move along, people.

I am glad someone had the balls to admit what it was the people hate about mitt. How can those that are upset about the priveledges of wealth reconcile the fact that as long as those same rich people pay for everybody elses education its alright, if spent on their own family it is wrong? This is out and out jealousy.

 

[ParticleGrl]

No reasonable expectation of growth will even meet the spending growth much less retire the debt.

This is simply not true- assume we ran 5 or 6% inflation and got to full employment in a year or two. The combination of people moving off unemployment/medicaid/the nominal GDP growth would dramatically shrink the deficit- more than keeping up with spending growth.

Now, the long-term problem of health care costs is anyone's guess.

Those tax increase future expectations depress present consumption.

The permanent empirically doesn't work- there is plenty of evidence that temporary increases in income lead to temporary increases in consumption. See David Romer's macro book.

 

[russ_watters]

You think full employment in a year or two is a reasonable expectation? Really?

 

[Jasongreat]

The interest on the debt is a drag on the economy, even as low as interest is today. According to this, think how much could be accomplished with that money if it wasnt wasted paying just the interest.

 

[Angry Citizen]

I am glad someone had the balls to admit what it was the people hate about mitt. How can those that are upset about the priveledges of wealth reconcile the fact that as long as those same rich people pay for everybody elses education its alright, if spent on their own family it is wrong? This is out and out jealousy.

Why in god's name would I want more than an engineer's salary? I pay for my own education, thanks.

It is not 'wrong' to spend money on your own family. It is wrong, however, to assert that this Romney character can relate to the commonfolk, or has ever had to deal with the stresses of middle and lower class economics. Good for him. I'm glad he didn't have to dig himself out of messes that his father caused, like I did. I'm glad he didn't have to be raised on welfare, because god forbid his father left his mother and she had to raise him as a single parent like some other kids. I'm glad he had access to the best schools (including private K-12 schools and the wealthier public schools) in the country. I'm glad he wasn't born with some disease that placed an immense financial burden on his economically disenfranchised family.

But if this man wants to cut welfare for others, eliminate the PPACA, and pretend the poor really can change their social class, then he needs to realize that his perspective is from someone who had money, had health care, and was already firmly situated in the moneyed class all his life - not from someone who has lived the struggle and extricated themselves despite the disadvantage. That is why so many people dislike Mitt Romney - that this man would presume to know what life is like for us peons.

 

[Rob D]

Has anyone else seen what is happening here? I mean have you seen that this thread has become a metaphor for 21st century political America. I've been on a few forums over the years, founded and monitored a couple, and they always settle into a microcosm of society at the moment, a snap shot in time of the social zeitgeist if you will.

This thread is, like the American politic, starkly divided by ideology and political identification. The thread has it all: quietly moderate clear thinkers, angry liberals looking for a spark to throw gas on and self sure conservatives certain that they will save the world. All embodied within this little thread.

One would think that among this group on this forum you'd encounter the best minds that the country has to offer. And you do, there is more high energy intellect on this forum than anywhere else that I've been on the web. Ask for help factoring some polynomial monster and you are instantly awash in genius. But, mention politics and we are just as quickly transformed into a bunch of alpha chimps screeching and hurling feces at each other although it's slightly more articulate poop I must admit.

Still, the metaphor is interesting.

 

[mheslep]

This makes sense to me. But considering America's role in the world, I think (apparently along with you) that something between cold war levels and current levels (but closer to current levels) should be adequate. The current situation includes, imo, a significant amount of waste (which I don't think Romney has adequately addressed yet), the trimming of which wouldn't impair necessary US capability, imo.

Yes, waste is what I'm after, or more accurately the reform of the economics of defense acquisition. That is, yes the spending is out of control, but the capability has also been shrinking. When Reagan's spending peaked back in the late 80s' and cold war the US Navy had 792 ships. In the next couple years defense spending will double Reagan's, but the number of ships is only 283! Romney recently attacked the low ship numbers in a debate/speech and he has a point, but neither he nor anyone else is addressing the explosion in spending per ship (or aircraft, or Army units, ...). As Sec Def Gates said, the US should be able to amply defend itself on $500B a year.

 

[Jasongreat]

Why in god's name would I want more than an engineer's salary? I pay for my own education, thanks.

It is not 'wrong' to spend money on your own family. It is wrong, however, to assert that this Romney character can relate to the commonfolk, or has ever had to deal with the stresses of middle and lower class economics. Good for him. I'm glad he didn't have to dig himself out of messes that his father caused, like I did. I'm glad he didn't have to be raised on welfare, because god forbid his father left his mother and she had to raise him as a single parent like some other kids. I'm glad he had access to the best schools (including private K-12 schools and the wealthier public schools) in the country. I'm glad he wasn't born with some disease that placed an immense financial burden on his economically disenfranchised family.

But if this man wants to cut welfare for others, eliminate the PPACA, and pretend the poor really can change their social class, then he needs to realize that his perspective is from someone who had money, had health care, and was already firmly situated in the moneyed class all his life - not from someone who has lived the struggle and extricated themselves despite the disadvantage. That is why so many people dislike Mitt Romney - that this man would presume to know what life is like for us peons.

Thanks, so it is being jealous? Could mitt control the favors he received growing up? The US is the best place for upward mobility. Nowhere else in the world can someone in poverty make a jump between classes, so easily.

 

[Angry Citizen]

No it isn't. You're implying that one should not vote for Romney because he is unable to relate to the plight of the average person

That's actually not high on my list of reasons. The main reason not to vote for Romney is because he is a Republican who holds all the ideologies of a modern Republican. Moderate Mitt Romney does not seem to exist anymore, which shows that he'll do or say anything to get elected - even in excess of what a normal politician would do or say. He would keep taxes on the rich low, further exacerbating our debt problem and increasing income inequality. There are loads of reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney.

You mean Bain Capital? Because private equity is most definitely not risk-free profit.

Then please explain how they managed to extract enormous profit even if their companies failed.

How were they morally vile?

How were they not? They prey on businesses who are running in the red. They walk in, fire a bunch of people, destroy pensions for those who have retired, and extract a fat profit from it all. I'd rather allow my company to go belly-up before letting these vultures in.

 

[Angry Citizen]

"All the right schools" are Stanford, BYU and Harvard. Stanford and BYU are great schools, but they are public and have large attendances. He got into Harvard by being a stellar student. No, nothing to see here.

"All the right schools" is more than just college, russ. Mitt was partially educated in a private school (for how many years I can't be bothered to check). Furthermore, public schools in wealthy districts routinely outperform schools in poor districts. I wonder why.