Romney, The Inevitable Nominee

[bush_cheney2004]

It doesn't scare me one bit, but even the other Republicans know that it's not going to work. Also, it's not original ... we had flat tax proposals in past elections too.

...plus, you live in Canada!

[blueblood]

It doesn't scare me one bit, but even the other Republicans know that it's not going to work. Also, it's not original ... we had flat tax proposals in past elections too.

Ah, but we have the crisis that provides the opportunity for tax code change and economic fixes. I think this will be a very tight election that comes down to the debates. We have essentially two starkly different ideas for fixing the economy - Friedman vs. Krugman. The American people will choose what way they will want to go, all we can hope is that they will choose wisely...

[Michael Hardner]

Ah, but we have the crisis that provides the opportunity for tax code change and economic fixes. I think this will be a very tight election that comes down to the debates. We have essentially two starkly different ideas for fixing the economy - Friedman vs. Krugman. The American people will choose what way they will want to go, all we can hope is that they will choose wisely...

Which debate - there are at least 12 left. If they choose to cut revenue drastically, then they will have to make major expenditure cuts. There doesn't seem to be enough political will to do that.

[blueblood]

Which debate - there are at least 12 left. If they choose to cut revenue drastically, then they will have to make major expenditure cuts. There doesn't seem to be enough political will to do that.

I'm talking about the big debate between the nominee and Obama. As for political will Canada pulled it off in the nineties and Ireland pulled it off iover the last year. As bc2004 says the economy trumps all.

[August1991]

If you read the NYT article, it's not about poll numbers (Cain is ahead) but about money and whether they are electable. The logic seems sound to me.

MH, I read the article. And trust me, polls aside, they were saying the same of Hillary in 2007. (The poll numbers were ignored because Clinton presumably had name recognition.)

Moreover, the same article could have been written in 2007 about Romney! What's different this time round? McCain is not in the race?

----

I tend to agree that Romney will be the Republican choice but this is still early going.

Incidentally, where is Chris Christie in all this? Or Jeb Bush?

[Michael Hardner]

I'm talking about the big debate between the nominee and Obama. As for political will Canada pulled it off in the nineties and Ireland pulled it off iover the last year. As bc2004 says the economy trumps all.

Canada made minor cuts, and downloaded costs to the provinces - rather more of a (late) imitation of Reganism than what the nuttier Republican candidates are proposing.

If you have a Herman Cain or Rick Perry in the big contest, then we'll be at the dawn of a new age for sure, even if they lose as would be expected.

[Michael Hardner]

What's different this time round?

I don't think you did read the article or you wouldn't be asking. The other candidates don't have the resources or are likely electable. It doesn't apply to Clinton/Obama in 2004 because they were both highly backed and electable.

[August1991]

Smoking is...and will always...be cool. Not very healthy, but always KOOL.

The western democratic world is waiting (and I say this without irony) for the cool, anti-politically correct candidate.

OTOH, I don't think Herman Cain is that candidate. Obama, the smoker, has come perilously close though.

Edited October 29, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

I don't think you did read the article or you wouldn't be asking. The other candidates don't have the resources or are likely electable. It doesn't apply to Clinton/Obama in 2004 because they were both highly backed and electable.

MH, I read the article. It reminds me of the same "analysis" articles typical in 2007 (or 2003, or 1975 for that matter). In 1975, if memory serves, Ronald Reagan was going to defeat a sitting president in the primaries, and Ted Kennedy was electable and had the resources. Or maybe it was George Romney who had the resources, name and electability. (Was Romney still running for president in 1975 - or had Nixon finally killed his ambitions? Like his son, he seemed to run every four years.)

The great thing about America is that no one knows who will be president in 2013. But everyone knows that it will have one.

In many countries of the world, from Greece to Libya, from Japan to Poland, people cannot speak with the same sense of stability.

Edited October 29, 2011 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

The great thing about America is that no one knows who will be president in 2013. But everyone knows that it will have one.

Yes...in June of 2008, John McCain was written off as dead by the very same pundits. He was dead, but not until after the November general election. You have a keener and longer view on these matters....kids!

Edited October 29, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[blueblood]

Canada made minor cuts, and downloaded costs to the provinces - rather more of a (late) imitation of Reganism than what the nuttier Republican candidates are proposing.

If you have a Herman Cain or Rick Perry in the big contest, then we'll be at the dawn of a new age for sure, even if they lose as would be expected.

20% spending cuts is minor? Spending cuts and tax code reform are nutty? Do you know the financial situation of the USA? More of the same doesn't cut it anymore.

I agree, if Romney gets in it will be same old same old down there, the can will be kicked down the road.

However, we are not Americans and what may not be electable up here might work down there.

Edited October 29, 2011 by blueblood

[bush_cheney2004]

...However, we are not Americans and what may not be electable up here might work down there.

Well, it's not like Canada blazed any new path by giving PM Harper a majority along with an Orange Crush just for fun. Talk about more of the same...in spades!

[blueblood]

Well, it's not like Canada blazed any new path by giving PM Harper a majority along with an Orange Crush just for fun. Talk about more of the same...in spades!

We already had our "financial crisis" back in the nineties, PMPM slashed spending with a green light from the opposition. It was a dramatic change from tax and spend, but it's been more of the same for the past 20 yrs.

[Michael Hardner]

20% spending cuts is minor?

Did the Federal government really cut by that much ?

Spending cuts and tax code reform are nutty? Do you know the financial situation of the USA? More of the same doesn't cut it anymore.

Not per se, but some of the ideas are.

I agree, if Romney gets in it will be same old same old down there, the can will be kicked down the road.

However, we are not Americans and what may not be electable up here might work down there.

I have read a good analysis on the subject, written by an American. I'm convinced.

[Michael Hardner]

Globe and Mail Article on Martin's Cuts

Indeed the cuts were bigger than I remembered.

In his 1995 budget, Mr. Martin slashed transfers to the provinces by one-third, began cutting 50,000 jobs from the public service, and chopped program spending by 10 per cent.

Not indicated was how the provinces dealt with downloading, although at least one - Ontario - cut back services.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Not indicated was how the provinces dealt with downloading, although at least one - Ontario - cut back services.

They all did...except maybe for Alberta. Hence rationing and wait times for health care.

[dre]

Ah, but we have the crisis that provides the opportunity for tax code change and economic fixes. I think this will be a very tight election that comes down to the debates. We have essentially two starkly different ideas for fixing the economy - Friedman vs. Krugman. The American people will choose what way they will want to go, all we can hope is that they will choose wisely...

Actually its more like Krugman VS Krugman. Regardless of who Americans vote for, the status quo regarding taxation and the way the economy works will not change. Im thinking you have a lot of used bridges.

[blueblood]

Actually its more like Krugman VS Krugman. Regardless of who Americans vote for, the status quo regarding taxation and the way the economy works will not change. Im thinking you have a lot of used bridges.

That will remain to be seen, nothing like a credit downgrade to smarten up with spending, ask Paul Martin

[dre]

That will remain to be seen, nothing like a credit downgrade to smarten up with spending, ask Paul Martin

Spending isnt going to go down its going to go up, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON in both parties knows it. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Not only does the US have an aging population, but it needs to do trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure upgrades over the next few decades.

Both taxes and spending will go up.

As for the credit rating downgrade... the agency that downgraded US credit is the same one that was rating securities full of loans to the homeless as triple AAA It should be shut down, its assets siezed and its executives frog marched into court.

Edited October 30, 2011 by dre

[Argus]

Yeah...it was laughable when I read that too. And that doesn't include the Middle Ages!

Oh honestly, what kind moron would go back to the middle ages to defend behavior which is exhibited TODAY?

[Argus]

Never? You might wanna reexamine history before you state such a premise.

I'm not interested in what the Catholic Church did long ago. I'm interested in behavior patterns exhibited by Mormons today.

And your ardent defense is ludicrous in that you'd be heartily attacking the man were he a democrat.

[Argus]

----

BTW, the bigger question in my mind is whether Obama will get re-elected. Despite the bad economic numbers, I think that he will.

Only because all the Republican candidates are goofballs.

[Argus]

That's just black talk-radio schtick. If Cain ever won the nomination, I don't think it would matter since other factors would matter more.

You don't think the Democrats would play that up again and again in commercials across the nation, particularly in areas of high unemployment and poverty? You don't think that would be particularly effective in ensuring Cain doesn't draw away any of the minority support that Obama now has? It shows him as unsympathetic and uncaring about those who are in economic difficulties or who have worries about their jobs and futures.

[Argus]

Why does a flat tax scare you? He's the only one with an original easy to digest plan for the voters. What do the other guys have?

Easy to digest? An economic plan for a nation of that size which is 'easy to digest' would be nothing but baby mush designed for fools. And his idea is neither original nor workable. It would aggravate the growing problem of economic inequality.

[blueblood]

Easy to digest? An economic plan for a nation of that size which is 'easy to digest' would be nothing but baby mush designed for fools. And his idea is neither original nor workable. It would aggravate the growing problem of economic inequality.

Economic inequality is a problem? To who Lenin?

If Someone grosses a million bucks and the average household grosses about 50k, how is that a problem?

Edited October 30, 2011 by blueblood