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

[ThomasT]

@ WhoWee,
Ok, I'll give you points in our side discussion. There are lots of factors, many of which can't be controlled by business owners, that determine costs.

Regarding how Romney might lower medi costs, has he (Romney) stated how he would do that?

Also, if we can agree that the buying power of the mass of Americans is continually eroded (ie., that wages and salaries don't keep up with inflation), then how would Romney deal with that ... as it seems to me that that's an essential part of the macro-economic problem.

Or any other Romney points anybody wants to elaborate on, pro or con.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, if we can agree that the buying power of the mass of Americans is continually eroded (ie., that wages and salaries don't keep up with inflation), then how would Romney deal with that ... as it seems to me that that's an essential part of the macro-economic problem.

Are you stating that as a fact or posing a hypothetical/prediction for the future? Because over the long term, that's never been true.

 

[Jasongreat]

of which half actually went to the incredibly wealthy Mormon Church, not really a charity, IMO, but did lower his taxes.

To be fair, your response, that I quoted, was aimed at another member, who stated that romney gave 3 mil to charity, of which you stated that the church wasnt a charity.

I will agree, for the sake of argument, even though tax deductible donations are listed here, number 1 a) is religious groups, b) is charitable institutions. So even without the 'charity' clause, that you have a problem with, he made proper deductions.

Second, your disclaimer that the mormon church is a wealthy church and therefore not really a charity. Should we start using means testing for charities? If a charity takes in a certain amount would you consider them no longer a charity? Or is it just wealthy religions you have a problem with.

I remember responding to one of your posts, although I don't think it was in this thread, where you said that because most of their money goes to property and facilities, IIRC, that dissolves their being considered a charity. The mormon church does spend a lot on building temples and churches throughout the world, but those facilities and property is why they are so good at delivering supplies. They have a distribution network that can hardly be bettered, even by governmental organizations. All it takes is a wiki search for LDS humanitarian aid, to find this, which seems to me to be a pretty good indicator of a charity.

Then if we go a little further and refine our search for katrina relief we find this:

As of Sept. 13, 140 truckloads of commodities and supplies, about 5.6 million pounds or 2,800 tons had been shipped into affected areas; with thousands of LDS volunteers giving 9,204 manpower days helping 1,606 Church members and 3,226 people not of the LDS faith, according to Garry Flake, director of Church Emergency Response. In addition, some 3,500 volunteers served Sept. 10-11. , out of http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/47826/After-Katrinas-fury-relief-on-a-grand-scale.html article, which I conceed is an lds church article. but we can find other sources such as pbs, like this. And I would like to go a little further, as mormons are not the only christian charitable organization and we find http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/RNSKatrina.php article, describing relief efforts by other christian organizations during katrina.

I should add that I was born and raised in Utah, I was raised mormon until about the age of thirteen when my use of logic led me away from the church. In fact my logic has led me away from all religions. My favorite books are thomas paines age of reason, and marcus aurelious's meditations, both of which denegrate christians and one is a complete renuciation of the bible. However I do believe every one has the right to decide for themselves on matters of conscience. I respect Voltaires belief that even though I disagree with everything you say, I will fight to the death your right to say it. We can all sit around and argue religion, but to say that the mormon church is not charitable takes a bigger leap of faith than their religion requires.

 

[Jasongreat]

I'm wondering, can a reasonable, critically thinking person truly be a Mormon? The whole scenario just seems silly to me. But that's, of course, just my perspective and opinion.

But I have to wonder about an apparently intelligent person who gives millions of dollars to such a religious establishment. So, I wonder about Romney.

He seems like a good and smart person. But he's a self professed Mormon. So, I have to consider the possibility that he's somewhat willfully ignorant. And I don't want a willfully ignorant person to hold the highest administrative position in the US.

And then sceptic2 replied:

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

To which ThomasT replied:

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

To which RobD replied:

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.

I believe Romney is a deeply religious man, however I don't find him a extremely religious man. Extremists of any form are dangerous, even a extreme view of pacivism can be bad, as in everyone walks all over you.

Christians are described as uncritical, and unreasonable. All it took was a google search for christians in science, let's see what it pulls up. Here it is, there are some pretty big names in science in there, I was expecting to see thomas aquinas, however I didnt see him on the list, however there were a couple popes, is there any more religious?

I find the description of ingnorant fits those who express the view that only athiest can know science. While there are plenty of ignorant christians, there are just as many ignorant atheists. IMO, there are a few scientific beliefs lately that are just as dogmatic as christian religions, maybe even more so since i am free to choose my religion, I can not choose how my government spends my money.

 

[WhoWee]

Would you give money to a charity only for a tax credit? Personally, I choose based upon the work they do (things that are important to me) and a belief they won't waste my money.

 

[ThomasT]

Are you stating that as a fact or posing a hypothetical/prediction for the future? Because over the long term, that's never been true.

Presently I can only consider it as a hypothetical. My impression (from very limited personal experience) was that, wrt the majority of Americans, say the bottom 60%, that the increase in income hasn't kept pace with inflation over, say, the last 50 years from 1962 to 2012. But that could be wrong.

Also, it seems to me to be quite possible that during next decade that there could be a reduction in the rate of increase of average income accompanied by a commensurate reduction in the rate of inflation.

What does seem clear to me is that the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation during that 50-year period.

However, minimum wage workers represent a tiny percentage of the total workforce. And significantly reducing or abolishing the minimum wage should therefore have very little effect on the general economy. So, I've changed my mind on the minimum wage thing. Abolishing it would open up the possibility to compete with Chinese and Southeast Asia, labor intensive, relatively unskilled, manufacturing. The only problem would be the scale. Could less than 10M US workers earning wages comparable to Chinese and SE Asian workers produce enough to supply American consumers?

Greece has recently, among other things, lowered its mandated minimum wage by 22%. I'm not sure how that helps their situation, unless they have a much larger proportion of minimum wage workers than the US does. In which case, considering it further, I'm still not sure how that helps their situation.

Back to Romney. I'm not sure that he needs to be concerned with the erosion of buying power of the majority of Americans -- since I'm not sure that it has been, or will be, eroded. Also, I don't think he needs to be concerned with reducing healthcare costs, because it doesn't seem that there's any way to do that short of dictating prices.

I think we need to face the fact that a certain portion of the American population is never going to be able to afford preventative or comprehensive health care.

 

[WhoWee]

I think we need to face the fact that a certain portion of the American population is never going to be able to afford preventative or comprehensive health care.

It depends upon the coverage doesn't it? If everyone is forced to purchase the "Cadillac Plan" the unions favor - it will be unaffordable - won't it?

 

[ThomasT]

Let me preface this reply by saying that I apologize for what could have been taken as a somewhat arrogant tone in some previous replies. Anything I write here, unless accompanied by reputable statistics, is just my, very limited, opinion.

I believe Romney is a deeply religious man, however I don't find him a extremely religious man.

If I'm correctly interpreting what I take to be your meaning, I agree with you on this. That's why I'm not really worried that Romney's religious affinity would cause any problems. I just don't like the theistic religiosity of theistic religious people of any sort, so, for me, Romney's theistic religious pronouncements are one reason why I wouldn't vote for him.

And I basically agree with the rest of your post.

 

[ThomasT]

It depends upon the coverage doesn't it? If everyone is forced to purchase the "Cadillac Plan" the unions favor - it will be unaffordable - won't it?

Sure, but I'm currently of the opinion that, for some people, there won't be any affordable plan. So, a certain portion of the US population will be without preventative and comprehensive health care. And I think that's unavoidable.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Sure, but I'm currently of the opinion that, for some people, there won't be any affordable plan. So, a certain portion of the US population will be without preventative and comprehensive health care. And I think that's unavoidable.

Why? What if the government drafted some large percentage of the population into a civilian health corps that did nothing but provide care? Could we cover everyone then? Obviously, this would be a terribly bad idea, but its POSSIBLE.

Now, what if we gave everyone health-care only cash subsidies. Could that have the effect of providing lots of jobs in health care? Thus voluntarily creating the same sort of health corps I mentioned above? Remember- the growth the health care sector means more and more people are working in health care.

Always remember, unless scarcity makes it truly impossible, "we can't afford it" really means "we don't want to distribute resources in this way." We can't afford to give everyone a cube of gold 50m across. We can afford to give everyone health care, if we wanted.

Now, its quite possible we don't want to provide health care for everyone- more workers in health care means less workers elsewhere.

 

[ThomasT]

Why? What if the government drafted some large percentage of the population into a civilian health corps that did nothing but provide care? Could we cover everyone then? Obviously, this would be a terribly bad idea, but its POSSIBLE.

Yes, it's possible. But not likely, imo. My conclusion regarding the unavoidability of a certain portion of Americans being without preventative and comprehensive health care is based on my assessment regarding the likelihood of certain political actions that would enable universal preventative and comprehensive health care.

Now, what if we gave everyone health-care only cash subsidies. Could that have the effect of providing lots of jobs in health care? Thus voluntarily creating the same sort of health corps I mentioned above? Remember- the growth the health care sector means more and more people are working in health care.

Yeah, the voucher idea is interesting, even compelling. But, imo, it's not going to happen. And even if it does, I doubt that it could effect universal preventative and comprehensive health care.

Always remember, unless scarcity makes it truly impossible, "we can't afford it" really means "we don't want to distribute resources in this way." We can't afford to give everyone a cube of gold 50m across. We can afford to give everyone health care, if we wanted.

Then, apparently, there's no political will to provide preventative and comprehensive health care to everyone.

Now, its quite possible we don't want to provide health care for everyone- more workers in health care means less workers elsewhere.

My current opinion is that, given current healthcare prices and projected rates of increase, that the government simply can't afford to provide it. So, the alternative is insurance. And it will, I think, always be a fact that a significant portion of Americans will not be able to afford even the cheapest plans.

The other alternative is a long term comprehensive plan to systematically and significantly deflate healthcare prices. And that seems very unlikely to happen.

 

[ParticleGrl]

My current opinion is that, given current healthcare prices and projected rates of increase, that the government simply can't afford to provide it.

The government can afford whatever it wants- it has a printing press. They could simply print the healthcare vouchers, if we as a country decided that's what we wanted. It would, however, massively reorient our economy, and depending on details increase inflation.

I do agree that we probably lack the political will to actually provide coverage. But that's not a question of 'can't', its a question of 'won't.'

 

[ThomasT]

... not a question of 'can't', its a question of 'won't.'

I agree. It's complicated. And I don't understand it.

 

[Jasongreat]

Would you give money to a charity only for a tax credit? Personally, I choose based upon the work they do (things that are important to me) and a belief they won't waste my money.

Great point WhoWee, IMO, isn't that the true test of a charity, if one feels they do good they should get your money, and it isn't up to anyone second guessing your choice, freedom of conscience is a good thing.

 

[Jasongreat]

Why? What if the government drafted some large percentage of the population into a civilian health corps that did nothing but provide care? Could we cover everyone then? Obviously, this would be a terribly bad idea, but its POSSIBLE.

Now, what if we gave everyone health-care only cash subsidies. Could that have the effect of providing lots of jobs in health care? Thus voluntarily creating the same sort of health corps I mentioned above? Remember- the growth the health care sector means more and more people are working in health care.

Always remember, unless scarcity makes it truly impossible, "we can't afford it" really means "we don't want to distribute resources in this way." We can't afford to give everyone a cube of gold 50m across. We can afford to give everyone health care, if we wanted.

Now, its quite possible we don't want to provide health care for everyone- more workers in health care means less workers elsewhere.

I agree it would be a terrible idea, I can imagine just how well impressment of the american populous, inorder to provide healthcare, would go over. But I won't discount the idea that it is possible, an idea which is very un-american, imo, but that hasnt stopped a single thing from being passed that is un constitutional, or atleast quasi-constituitonal.

I would be far more for health subsidies to individuals, in an account that they have complete control over, even better to have them fund themselves tax free, than to provide insurance for every american. I don't think it is a coincidence that since insurance has become popular in america, rates have risen and risen and risen. An insurance company has an interest in increasing rates, it isn't their money it is other peoples premiums, and aslong as they can get the rates to increase it is in their best interest. Since if everything is ridiculously expensive the only way one can afford to pay is to have insurance. On the other hand if people have a savings account that they have complete control over and if there are surpluss's they get to keep them, they have a natural inclenation to spend the lowest amount they can. I much prefer individual control over individual things.

Cant afford, can also mean can't afford. ;) If we have a government spending other peoples money, paying insurance companies who have no stake in the game but higher rates, we will inevitably end at a higher rate than we now pay. If we allow people to control their own costs, and they get the benefit( maybe even a tax break) to spend as little as they can, rates will go down. I don't believe a governmental solution exists, however I do feel an individual solution would be easy and very efficient.

 

[russ_watters]

Presently I can only consider it as a hypothetical. My impression (from very limited personal experience) was that, wrt the majority of Americans, say the bottom 60%, that the increase in income hasn't kept pace with inflation over, say, the last 50 years from 1962 to 2012. But that could be wrong.

It is commonly believed due to constant hammering of the issue from liberal politicians, but it is very wrong. The data can be found here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

The most relevant table is the mean household income of each fifth of the population. Even without adjusting for cyclic trends, the average income of the people in the bottom 20% is 21% higher (inflation adjusted) today than in 1967 when the data started to be collected. For the next two fifths the increases are 13% and 22%.

 

[WhoWee]

The government can afford whatever it wants- it has a printing press. They could simply print the healthcare vouchers, if we as a country decided that's what we wanted. It would, however, massively reorient our economy, and depending on details increase inflation.

I do agree that we probably lack the political will to actually provide coverage. But that's not a question of 'can't', its a question of 'won't.'

Just print money to give everyone what they want - doesn't sound like a good long term plan or sound management? Romney is a turnaround specialist - he looks like our best choice under the circumstances - IMO.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The most relevant table is the mean household income of each fifth of the population. Even without adjusting for cyclic trends, the average income of the people in the bottom 20% is 21% higher (inflation adjusted) today than in 1967 when the data started to be collected. For the next two fifths the increases are 13% and 22%.

But most of the growth seems to have been concentrated at the beginning of the period. Since 1973, the poorest fifth has seen its income increase by just 5%, despite a large increase in two earner households. The middle fifth has seen an increase of just 9%, despite a similar large increase in two earner households,etc. For both, the real growth seems to have come largely in the mid 90s with the peak just before the dot-com crash.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Just print money to give everyone what they want - doesn't sound like a good long term plan or sound management? Romney is a turnaround specialist - he looks like our best choice under the circumstances - IMO.

Obama already implemented Romney's healthcare plan.

 

[AlephZero]

The most relevant table is the mean household income of each fifth of the population. Even without adjusting for cyclic trends, the average income of the people in the bottom 20% is 21% higher (inflation adjusted) today than in 1967 when the data started to be collected. For the next two fifths the increases are 13% and 22%.

That may be a "fact", but it doesn't tell the whole story, because the range of goods and services that made up an "average" standard of living has changed. In 1967, nobody was paying for cellphones, personal computers, flatscreen TVs etc, because those things didn't exist.

Keeping pace with inflation is the wrong measure IMO. You should be looking at keeping pace with GDP, as a (crude) measure of the average amount of "stuff" that is available for people to to spend their money on.

 

[WhoWee]

Obama already implemented Romney's healthcare plan.

That's probably the best reason to elect Romney - he's the most qualified to fix Obamacare - isn't he?

 

[lisab]

That's probably the best reason to elect Romney - he's the most qualified to fix Obamacare - isn't he?

Nice double half gainer with a reverse twist !

 

[WhoWee]

Nice double half gainer with a reverse twist !

Thank you.

 

[russ_watters]

That may be a "fact", but it doesn't tell the whole story, because the range of goods and services that made up an "average" standard of living has changed. In 1967, nobody was paying for cellphones, personal computers, flatscreen TVs etc, because those things didn't exist.

Keeping pace with inflation is the wrong measure IMO. You should be looking at keeping pace with GDP, as a (crude) measure of the average amount of "stuff" that is available for people to to spend their money on.

IMO, that's a flawed way of looking at it. Your measure means that unless I give my kid an iPhone, he's poorer than I was growing up. That's illogical. If he gets an iPhone (or a Blackberry), he's richer than I was because he has more than I did. If he doesn't, he's the same as I was. If he gets a Blackberry instead of an iPhone, your standard calls him poorer even though he has more than I did.

Also, you've given two different standards. Just getting an iPhone (HDTV, computer, etc...) doesn't put you in the average. The increase in income inequality means that the "average" income for the country went up faster than the average for the bottom 60%. The Europeans tie their poverty rate to income inequality, but again that creates odd illogic where whether I'm in poverty depends as much if not more on what Bill Gates makes/how he lives than what I make/how I live.

Either way, you've gone beyond the scope of the question.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

When it comes to the cost of living, the bottom line is that more people can afford to live today than could 50 years ago.

 

[ThomasT]

It is commonly believed due to constant hammering of the issue from liberal politicians, but it is very wrong. The data can be found here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

Thanks for the link. My impression might be wrong, but I don't think I'd characterize it as very wrong. According to the link:

average income of lowest 60% in 2010 $29,659
average income of lowest 60% in 1967 $ 4,370

The lowest 60% made, on average, about 6.79 times more in 2010 than in 1967.

If the buying power of the lowest 60% increased from 1967 to 2010,
then prices increased less than 6.79 times from 1967 to 2010.

For some things this is true. For others it isn't.

Since I don't have time to do an exhaustive survey of this in order to get
a meaningful average, I have to consider it an open question.

To connect this to Romney, it doesn't seem that he needs to be overly concerned with erosion of the buying power of most Americans. But, it seems that increasing aggregate demand is a big problem. If so, then how does Romney propose to deal with that? If not, then ... never mind.

 

[ThomasT]

When it comes to the cost of living, the bottom line is that more people can afford to live today than could 50 years ago.

I agree with you that it's a fact that more people can afford to live today than could 50 years ago. But why would you call that the bottom line? For example, unemployment is significantly higher today than 50 years ago.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks for the link. My impression might be wrong, but I don't think I'd characterize it as very wrong. According to the link:



The lowest 60% made, on average, about 6.79 times more in 2010 than in 1967.

If the buying power of the lowest 60% increased from 1967 to 2010,
then prices increased less than 6.79 times from 1967 to 2010.

For some things this is true. For others it isn't.

Since I don't have time to do an exhaustive survey of this in order to get
a meaningful average, I have to consider it an open question.

You don't have to do an exhaustive analysis. Each survey comes with two sets of data. Scroll down further for the one adjusted for inflation.

 

[Jasongreat]

Here is Romney's CPAC speech.

 

[WhoWee]

Here is Romney's CPAC speech.

Straight talk and spoke of "Obama's ineptitude".

 

[ThomasT]

You don't have to do an exhaustive analysis. Each survey comes with two sets of data. Scroll down further for the one adjusted for inflation.

Don't we want to compare an income increase coefficient a with price increase coefficient?

 

[ThomasT]

Straight talk and spoke of "Obama's ineptitude".

Just more of the same rhetoric, imo. I think Romney's run for the presidency is more ego-driven than anything else. Not that that's unusual, or necessarily a bad thing.

 

[phoenix:\\]

It was rather poor rhetoric. He wants to expand the government but also limit it as well? To me that isn't "straight talk" rather talk of someone who has no idea what he is doing currently and is just using common charged phrases to appease the base.

 

[jduster]

Mitt Romney is the most experienced candidate we've had since?

Kerry? No. Bush Jr? No. Clinton? No. Bush Sr.? Maybe. Reagan? No. Mondale? No. Carter? No. Ford? No. Nixon? No. Johnson? Maybe. Goldwater? No.

A law degree and MBA from Harvard.
Managing a multibillion dollar corporation successfully.
Managing the 2002 Olympics.
Being Governor of Massachusetts.

Do keep in mind that Romney is the only candidate who can work with both sides of the aisle, like he did in Massachusetts?

Let's be honest.

Gingrich/Santorum will alienate the left. Obama will alienate the right. Both will alienate moderate.

 

[turbo]

Romney had better pull out all the stops if he wants to win the Maine caucuses. Ron Paul has a very motivated following here, and they could easily swing the caucuses to him, since turnout tends to be low.

 

[WhoWee]

It was rather poor rhetoric. He wants to expand the government but also limit it as well? To me that isn't "straight talk" rather talk of someone who has no idea what he is doing currently and is just using common charged phrases to appease the base.

I didn't hear any mention of expanding the Government - can you be more specific?

 

[phoenix:\\]

He wants to start testing people who have applied, and are currently getting, government subsidies for drugs.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/226699/166/Romney-in-Atlanta

 

[WhoWee]

He wants to start testing people who have applied, and are currently getting, government subsidies for drugs.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article/226699/166/Romney-in-Atlanta

He said he thought drug testing Welfare recipients was a good idea - to make sure they aren't buying illegal drugs with their Government assistance. I didn't hear any mention of an expansion of Government.

 

[phoenix:\\]

I do not know about you, but look at the bold:

"People who are receiving welfare benefits, government benefits, we should make sure they are not using the money for drugs. I think it's an excellent idea."

and that would require more expansion of the government to begin such measures of testing. You don't need to "hear" such information being directly said, it is quite naive (in terms of politics) to believe you need to hear, "these types of policies will expand the government" especially from a candidate like Romney as he doesn't want to cause a further divide with his base.

Also, he said people partaking in "government benefits" that would include small business owners who have decided to take up government loans?

 

[WhoWee]

I do not know about you, but look at the bold:



and that would require more expansion of the government to begin such measures of testing. You don't need to "hear" such information being directly said, it is quite naive (in terms of politics) to believe you need to hear, "these types of policies will expand the government" especially from a candidate like Romney as he doesn't want to cause a further divide with his base.

Also, he said people partaking in "government benefits" that would include small business owners who have decided to take up government loans?

In my state, the welfare program is administered on the county level. The county also operates the jail/sheriff's department, health department, and jobs/family services. It would be very inexpensive to spot check for drugs - especially if it began at the jail or probation office. As for small business owners - it could be part of their application process - let them pay for it.

 

[WhoWee]

@phoenix:\\

I'd love to hear President Obama argue against the drug testing of welfare recipients idea - IMO - it would catch the attention of a lot of disinterested folks.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Isn't that a bit irrelevant? You believe I am an Obama supporter? This is about Mitt Romney, not Obama. He doesn't believe or see it being necessary to begin testing people who are given government subsidies for drugs.

However, with that said, because drug tests aren't mandatory for the common, everyday, wrongdoing, welfare drug fiend recipient, we have to look for a state that does conduct drug tests and this state must be tested to be a state where illegal drug abuse is prevalent. I found one... Florida:

Edit: Link deleted.

as for the other post, just look at the implementation of the program, an expansion needed to occur for it to be implemented, now think of that on a national level. Would that save more U.S. dollars or take more money from the economy? It would take from the economy, and expand the government.

 

[WhoWee]

Isn't that a bit irrelevant? You believe I am an Obama supporter? This is about Mitt Romney, not Obama. He doesn't believe or see it being necessary to begin testing people who are given government subsidies for drugs.

However, with that said, because drug tests aren't mandatory for the common, everyday, wrongdoing, welfare drug fiend recipient, we have to look for a state that does conduct drug tests and this state must be tested to be a state where illegal drug abuse is prevalent. I found one... Florida:

unacceptable link deleted

as for the other post, just look at the implementation of the program, an expansion needed to occur for it to be implemented, now think of that on a national level. Would that save more U.S. dollars or take more money from the economy? It would take from the economy, and expand the government.

I didn't realize your link - FreakOutNation - was an approved source on PF? I'll hold comments until Evo makes a call.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Wow, lol. Here is another link to the source that is credible:

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

 

[turbo]

Romney polled 39% in Maine caucuses and Paul was second at 36%.

 

[russ_watters]

Don't we want to compare an income increase coefficient a with price increase coefficient?

No, that's what "inflation" is!

 

[ThomasT]

No, that's what "inflation" is!

Inflation refers to price increases over time. My question was about a possible erosion of buying power. If the rate of income increase has kept pace with or exceeded inflation, then buying power hasn't been eroded. If incomes haven't kept pace with inflation, then buying power has been eroded.

According to the calculator at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov) the buying power of the bottom 60% is about the same today as it was in 1967. But it depends on the numbers in the price index. So, I consider it an open question. Anyway, I already conceded that erosion of buying power wrt the bottom 60% isn't something that the administration needs to be overly concerned with.

 

[ThomasT]

Wow, lol. Here is another link to the source that is credible:

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/

The incidence of drug usage seems to be less wrt recipients of temporary cash assistance than wrt the population at large.

Romney saying that he favors drug testing cash welfare recipients is just more pandering rhetoric, imo.

 

[phoenix:\\]

What do we judge him by then? That is if we cannot judge him on rhetoric that is meant to pander to his base, then what else is there to judge him by? His record, his wants, etc...? As far as it being "rhetoric pandering", that sort of policy is in direct conflict with his base of limiting the government. My dirty pants are clean...

 

[WhoWee]

What do we judge him by then? That is if we cannot judge him on rhetoric that is meant to pander to his base, then what else is there to judge him by? His record, his wants, etc...? As far as it being "rhetoric pandering", that sort of policy is in direct conflict with his base of limiting the government. My dirty pants are clean...

Unlike President Obama in the last election - Romney does have executive level leadership experience - 25 years in business, he saved the Olympics, and he served as Governor. Harry Reid and the Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 1,000 days and the last budget Predident Obama sent to Congress (I'll be gentle) didn't get many votes.

If possible, could you please provide your definition of "rhetoric pandering" - I want to apply it to the other threads?