News Is Mitt Romney the Right Choice for the GOP in 2024?

[skeptic2]

Why single out Mormons? The same question can be asked of any religion.

 

[ThomasT]

Why single out Mormons? The same question can be asked of any religion.

I agree. So, I wonder if a reasonable, critically thinking person can be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Mormon, or ... whatever.

 

[Rob D]

I agree. So, I wonder if a reasonable, critically thinking person can be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Mormon, or ... whatever.

Your point hinges on our individual core beliefs or lack thereof, which is deeply private, but I must agree with you in that I tend to see very religious people as delusional or even worse dishonest. However, and despite the tithe thing (it is after all only money) I do not think that Romney is a deeply religious man.

At least I hope that he is not.RD

 

[ParticleGrl]

Evo that is the Point right now you are taxed on ALL inheritance

No, you aren't. The federal exemption is currently something like 5 million. Only estates worth more than $5 million are taxed at all. The exemption has been 2 million since at least the Bush presidency.

I know a fam ily who ran a Bakery they had roughly 2 Million in equipment and property involved in the bussiness. The Father passed suddenly and they litterally had to sell off a 30% interest in the family bussness to pay the inheritance tax on the company or fold.

This doesn't make much sense- their estate planner must have been horribly incompetent. On top of the fact that you value their estate as below the exemption (so there wouldn't have been tax anyway), there are lots of games that can be played with property (tax free gifts, property left to the spouse, etc).

 

[ThomasT]

Your point hinges on our individual core beliefs or lack thereof but I must agree in that I tend to see very religious people as delusional or even worse dishonest. However, and despite the tithe thing (it is after all only money) I do not think that Romney is a deeply religious man.

At least I hope that he is not.


RD

Well, afaik, we have no way of knowing for sure. Therefore, I can't vote for Romney, because he's either an adherent to what I consider to be a nonsensical religion, or he's lying.

 

[daveb]

Why single out Mormons? The same question can be asked of any religion.

I agree. So, I wonder if a reasonable, critically thinking person can be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Mormon, or ... whatever.

Your point hinges on our individual core beliefs or lack thereof, which is deeply private, but I must agree with you in that I tend to see very religious people as delusional or even worse dishonest. However, and despite the tithe thing (it is after all only money) I do not think that Romney is a deeply religious man.

At least I hope that he is not.


RD

Not to hijack the thread, but I would like to point out that the Dalai Lama would probably be considered "deeply religious" - so being religios doesn't necessitate non-critical thinking.

 

[ThomasT]

... being religious doesn't necessitate non-critical thinking.

I think that, wrt theistic religions, to a certain extent, it does.

 

[turbo]

This doesn't make much sense- their estate planner must have been horribly incompetent. On top of the fact that you value their estate as below the exemption (so there wouldn't have been tax anyway), there are lots of games that can be played with property (tax free gifts, property left to the spouse, etc).

Not only incompetent, but inept. A long-running business should have had depreciated its property, equipment, etc over the years, greatly simplifying the process of preparing it for purposes of inheritance.

 

[daveb]

I think that, wrt theistic religions, to a certain extent, it does.

To some yes, but I would apply it to persons rather than religions (well there are probably exceptions to that, which I can't mention due to pf rules). However, there are theistic religions that believe in rational thought and critical thinking.

 

[ThomasT]

To some yes, but I would apply it to persons rather than religions (well there are probably exceptions to that, which I can't mention due to pf rules). However, there are theistic religions that believe in rational thought and critical thinking.

Well, we don't want to get too far off topic here. But I'll just say that I don't know of any theistic religions that value rational thought and critical thinking over church dogma. You can PM me with a reply to this, so as not to sidetrack the thread.

 

[daveb]

Back to Romney and his taxes, if he (or anyone) running for President didn't take advantage of every tax break they legally could, I would say that negates their ability to be a president since I want them to be as efficient as legally possible in the execution of the duties of office (the assumption being they weren't as efficient as possible in paying taxes). This is why I find the argument by some of "If Buffet thinks he paid too little taxes then he should write a check to the government" to be completely irrelevant and even a littel ignorant of the underlying argument. I would say, "If Buffet thinks he paid too little in taxes, then he should change the tax code" which is kind of what he is trying to do (by supporting politicians who want to change the code in the way he thinks it should be). It also works in reverse (if you think you're paying too much, support politicians who will change it in your favor).

So I don't fault him for paying so little - it is a question of the tax code.

 

[ThomasT]

Back to Romney and his taxes, if he (or anyone) running for President didn't take advantage of every tax break they legally could, I would say that negates their ability to be a president since I want them to be as efficient as legally possible in the execution of the duties of office (the assumption being they weren't as efficient as possible in paying taxes). This is why I find the argument by some of "If Buffet thinks he paid too little taxes then he should write a check to the government" to be completely irrelevant and even a littel ignorant of the underlying argument. I would say, "If Buffet thinks he paid too little in taxes, then he should change the tax code" which is kind of what he is trying to do (by supporting politicians who want to change the code in the way he thinks it should be). It also works in reverse (if you think you're paying too much, support politicians who will change it in your favor).

So I don't fault him for paying so little - it is a question of the tax code.

I agree with this. Imo, any clearly thinking person is going to minimize his debt to the republic. But I maintain that the tax code favors the rich, and that no major party candidate is likely to oppose that status quo.

 

[Rob D]

Not to hijack the thread, but I would like to point out that the Dalia Lama would probably be considered "deeply religious" - so being religios doesn't necessitate non-critical thinking.

If I may beg to differ, being a Buddhist myself and based on what I had heard from his speeches and what I've read, although His Holiness is a "deeply spiritual" man I do not believe that he holds a belief in a god or higher power. One of the delightful aspects of Buddhism is that it requires of the practitioner no belief in a higher power. In this way it could be argued that it is more of a philosophy than a religion.

You Tube has several videos of His Holiness discussing quantum physics in an informed manner. I would reckon that that you could consider that to be an indicator of critical thinking.


RD

 

[Angry Citizen]

Back to Romney and his taxes, if he (or anyone) running for President didn't take advantage of every tax break they legally could, I would say that negates their ability to be a president since I want them to be as efficient as legally possible in the execution of the duties of office (the assumption being they weren't as efficient as possible in paying taxes). This is why I find the argument by some of "If Buffet thinks he paid too little taxes then he should write a check to the government" to be completely irrelevant and even a littel ignorant of the underlying argument. I would say, "If Buffet thinks he paid too little in taxes, then he should change the tax code" which is kind of what he is trying to do (by supporting politicians who want to change the code in the way he thinks it should be). It also works in reverse (if you think you're paying too much, support politicians who will change it in your favor).

So I don't fault him for paying so little - it is a question of the tax code.

In a way I agree with this, but in another way I don't. Romney is particularly disgusting not because he pays low taxes, but because of his job description which just so happens to entail paying low taxes. This guy is the best example possible of the excesses and inadequacies of capitalism. This guy came from rich parents, led companies in predatory capitalist ventures, and then pats himself and other rich people on the back for supposedly being better than the peons who can't game the system like him.

The candidates fielded this election by the Republican Party are without a doubt the sorriest group of people I've ever seen, and I can't help but pity anyone who would actually vote for one of them. At least Rockefeller Republicans were respectable, even if I disagreed with them...

 

[Jasongreat]

In a way I agree with this, but in another way I don't. Romney is particularly disgusting not because he pays low taxes, but because of his job description which just so happens to entail paying low taxes. This guy is the best example possible of the excesses and inadequacies of capitalism. This guy came from rich parents, led companies in predatory capitalist ventures, and then pats himself and other rich people on the back for supposedly being better than the peons who can't game the system like him.

The candidates fielded this election by the Republican Party are without a doubt the sorriest group of people I've ever seen, and I can't help but pity anyone who would actually vote for one of them. At least Rockefeller Republicans were respectable, even if I disagreed with them...

ROmney did come from rich parents, he also donated his whole inheritance to a university. He is a shining example of what can happen to each of us in the US with hard work and dedication. He lead his company in taking over failing companies, and trying to turn them around, in doing so he made his investors an average return of over one hundred percent while having a success rate of over eighty percent. He seems like a pretty competent manager to me. By the way, that Medicare fine did result from one of the companies Bain took over, however he nor the other board members were ever implicated. The investigator who saw the facts, never even thought Romney was implicated much less alleged to be involved.

 

[Angry Citizen]

ROmney did come from rich parents, he also donated his whole inheritance to a university.

Support requested.

He lead his company in taking over failing companies, and trying to turn them around

Do you have any idea how vulture capitalism works? It's the Herman Cain policy. Go in, fire a bunch of people, then destroy the standards of living for those that remain. Charge them for your 'services', then watch as their company burns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampad). Furthermore, under Romney's tenure, Bain had about a 50/50 success rate with turning companies around. I wonder what the business success rate would've been sans Bain Capital's immoral parasitism? And lastly, vulture capitalism in and of itself is essentially risk-free, like running a Las Vegas casino. You turn a profit regardless. Not exactly the hardest company to lead.

He is a shining example of what can happen to each of us in the US with hard work and dedication.

He is a shining example of why the 1% in this country need to be taken down a notch or twenty. He epitomizes the advantages given to the richest of the rich: highly respected education; networking with other richest of the rich; and convenient steps taken to ensure he was not eligible for the draft. He never had to work his way through life. Life was handed to him on a silver spoon. The people who really need to meet the 'real world', as you call it, are the ultra-rich Republicans who pat themselves on the back for snatching victory from the jaws of certain victory.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Vulture capitalism works the same way real vultures work. They don't kill, they eat dead carcasses. They play an essential role in the ecosystem. The idea that they take things of value and trash them is childish.

 

[ThomasT]

Vulture capitalism works the same way real vultures work. They don't kill, they eat dead carcasses. They play an essential role in the ecosystem. The idea that they take things of value and trash them is childish.

This seems to me to be true to a certain extent. But then I do agree with Angry Citizen that vulture capitalism, like what wild vultures do, is essentially risk free ... as long as one has the stomach for it.

But, while I don't want to disparage Romney because he was born into privilege and learned to effectively manipulate the system to his advantage, I don't want a person like Romney to be the chief administrator of the country. He represents, and will act in behalf of, the status quo. So, if the goal is to improve America for most Americans, then Romney isn't, imo, a good choice.

 

[Rob D]

This seems to me to be true to a certain extent. But then I do agree with Angry Citizen that vulture capitalism, like what wild vultures do, is essentially risk free ... as long as one has the stomach for it.

But, while I don't want to disparage Romney because he was born into privilege and learned to effectively manipulate the system to his advantage, I don't want a person like Romney to be the chief administrator of the country. He represents, and will act in behalf of, the status quo. So, if the goal is to improve America for most Americans, then Romney isn't, imo, a good choice.

I'm afraid that you are allowing a rather glaring misconception to sneak into your thesis and that is the apparent belief that a "man of the people" will continue to pursue altruism and not descend into avarice and self promotion. We are currently in the midst of just such an experiment. How's that working out for you?

 

[Angry Citizen]

I'm afraid that you are allowing a rather glaring misconception to sneak into your thesis and that is the apparent belief that a "man of the people" will continue to pursue altruism and not descend into avarice and self promotion. We are currently in the midst of just such an experiment. How's that working out for you?

Not too bad actually. Employment's up, economy is improving, foreign relations are great, military has been cut down to size, Iraq War is over, Afghanistan is drawing down, financial protections have been put in place to limit bank transgressions, climate change is at least being fought (even if it is like taking a rubber sword to an iron dragon given the level of commitment seen by this administration), and on the whole, things are better than they've been for a long, long time. The only significant problem I have with Obama, aside from his overwillingness to compromise with Republicans, is his human rights record. The NDAA alone is an evil I don't think I'll ever forgive him for, unless he takes some major steps to get it killed in the judicial branch (for instance, having a volunteer be 'indefinitely detained', letting him go, then letting the volunteer sue in federal court based on rights violations).

 

[mheslep]

US military spending has not been cut, at all. By cut I mean the dictionary definition: to make it less than it was before. It is not less, it is more. Defense spending increased about $130B in real terms since 2008, and will continue to increase in 2012.

There are some http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/23/us-usa-economy-jobs-poll-idUSTRE61M1OL20100223 - that don't want to be, or about 19% of the US labor force.

The US government still has some 15,000 people in Iraq, with no announced plans to pull them out.

 

[Angry Citizen]

US military spending has not been cut, at all. By cut I mean the dictionary definition: to make it less than it was before. It is not less, it is more. Defense spending increased about $130B in real terms since 2008, and will continue to increase in 2012.

I hate it when people try to pass one by me. Go back to the chart, then plug in "FY 2014". Defense spending starts to decrease. It is this to which I alluded.

 

[mheslep]

I hate it when people try to pass one by me. Go back to the chart, then plug in "FY 2014". Defense spending starts to decrease. It is this to which I alluded.

Yes I see, so "military has been cut down to size" does not refer to past and present affairs, but really means "two years from now estimates are that military spending will shrink".

 

[Angry Citizen]

The defense budget also doesn't factor in the dozens of billions saved from our annual spending in Iraq. I suspect further cuts will happen after Obama's second term starts (and let's all be realistic - none of the Republican candidates really stand much of a chance).

 

[ThomasT]

I'm afraid that you are allowing a rather glaring misconception to sneak into your thesis and that is the apparent belief that a "man of the people" will continue to pursue altruism and not descend into avarice and self promotion.

I don't know how you're reading that into what I wrote.

Anyway, wrt what you wrote, imo, a man of and for the people wouldn't, by definition, descend into avarice. The only presidential candidate who, imo, fits the description of "a man of and for the people" during my lifetime (I'm 64 by the way) is Ralph Nader.

We are currently in the midst of just such an experiment. How's that working out for you?

If you're referring to Obama, then I'd have to say that, so far, imo, he's been a bit of a disappointment for lots of people. But I never expected Obama to be anything but a tool of the status quo.

 

[Angry Citizen]

The only presidential candidate who, imo, fits the description of "a man of and for the people" during my lifetime (I'm 64 by the way) is Ralph Nader.

Nader's not bad, but I'd personally like to see Bernie Sanders run. Now THERES you a man of the people.

 

[ThomasT]

Nader's not bad, but I'd personally like to see Bernie Sanders run. Now THERES you a man of the people.

They're both too old now, imo, for an office like the presidency of the US. Anyway, I don't know much about Sanders, but I've been following Nader's career for about 45 years. He was just on C-Span this weekend talking about his latest book and effort to unite and organize Americans to do something about what he (and presumably most Americans) consider to be abuses by corporations and politicians. It's essentially, I think, an effort to evolve a third (or second, if one lumps the Democratic and Republican parties together as the big business, corporate, status quo party) major political party that would actually represent the interests of the people.

 

[Rob D]

I don't know how you're reading that into what I wrote.

Anyway, wrt what you wrote, imo, a man of and for the people wouldn't, by definition, descend into avarice. The only presidential candidate who, imo, fits the description of "a man of and for the people" during my lifetime (I'm 64 by the way) is Ralph Nader.

If you're referring to Obama, then I'd have to say that, so far, imo, he's been a bit of a disappointment for lots of people. But I never expected Obama to be anything but a tool of the status quo.

Thomas,

I'm also 64. And you are quite right imo ("h" omitted since my wife regularly points out that I've never had a humble opinion) Nader and possibly Ron Paul are the only truly proletariat office seekers in our very interesting lifetimes.

And yes, the "experiment" was Obama, who, when injected into the Presidency (what could we have been thinking?), was like asking a cat to do trig. Regardless of beauty, training or grace, the cat is only good at one thing, being a cat. [Note to Oversensitive Liberals: - this is not a racial slur, it is in enterspecies slur.]

RD

 

[eshore09]

Thomas,

And yes, the "experiment" was Obama, who, when injected into the Presidency (what could we have been thinking?), was like asking a cat to do trig. Regardless of beauty, training or grace, the cat is only good at one thing, being a cat. [Note to Oversensitive Liberals: - this is not a racial slur, it is in enterspecies slur.]

RD

So, if the "experiment" of injecting Obama into the presidency is like asking a cat to do trig, I guess that injecting any of the 4 buffoons still semi-pertinent in the Republican Circus would be akin to asking a cockroach to do brain surgery. Granted, Obama has made some mistakes (like capitulating to loons in Congress) and dissappointed a lot of people (yours truly for one), the economy is heading in the right direction. I guess this cat can do SOME trig.

 

[jduster]

I may actually end up supporting Mitt Romney.

I generally don't approve of the president's performance, and the other Republican candidates are either too extreme in their views, too ignorant on the issues, unelectable or have too many personal flaws.