Romney and Bain?

[krischan]

YAY!

A big YAY from me as well!

The evil comes when the socialism gets too big, the gov't applying it becomes too powerful, or it detracts from individuals' rights.

So we have FINALLY put an end to the debates?

*passes out*

We will never agree on how much it is, however.

[Technomancer]

Interesting. I wonder how his camp will react when/if challenged here?

It remains his Achilles' heel - even though "Romneycare" was legal (since it was a state-level venture, similar to other states) and Obama's was not, "Romneycare" still smacks of socialized medicine because Obamacare is loudly touted as being drawn from the same well.

I'm curious too. It sounds like they're not making big hay of it yet. I know he can't, but I think he would fare better with independents if he didn't run away from Romneycare so hard, and actually used his experience to tout "Hey, I've done this. I know what's wrong with Obamacare and how to fix it." But then he would be drawn, quartered, and devoured by wolves.

YAY! You're finally getting it. Socializing "things" is not inherently evil, any more than being self-reliant is inherently good. The military is a perfect example; mercenaries or guerrillas are far more effective than mass-conscript armies, but both extremes have inherent dangers.

The evil comes when the socialism gets too big, the gov't applying it becomes too powerful, or it detracts from individuals' rights. That's why Communists, which you apparently consider "true" Socialists, believe it is beneficial - it steamrolls the individual right in favor of collectivism.

WE are finally getting it?!!! DOOD!! That's what we've been trying to say for... years!! I totally agree that extremes (and I would say anywhere within 25% of the ends points) are evil and wrong. If we can agree that little bits of things aren't inherently evil, we can then talk about where is the appropriate point of balance. No one wants total government control, and if they do they can go **** a nuclear fuel rod!! Of course, there is still plenty of room for disagreement on where the line should be, but that's a debate that can actually go somewhere other than heck.

I also, and I'll probably take it for this, think we should have those "death panels" (I do not like that name), to curb how much we spend on people who are dying while on medicare--we're going to do it anyway, why not now before my parents (boomers) get old and there's no money?

That was one of the low points of the debate. People can really use some free info on something that nobody likes to think about: their end-of-life arrangements. Asking people the question does wonders because most people DO NOT want to be hooked up to some machine in a mockery of life for months or years. I sure as **** don't. No one in my family does. We've discussed this matter. Most people haven't. It wasn't about trying to *get* people to say "I don't want that", it was about giving someone the *opportunity* to say it. And, since that is coincidentally where a huge chunk of elderly care money is spent, it is fiscally relevant as well. Even if it wasn't, funding for the "death panels" (aka living wills) was a good idea. I'm sure stillman would like to pounce all over this issue, but what I remember of his opinion is a bit much for me.

[jmervyn]

But then he would be drawn, quartered, and devoured by wolves.

Which would also be entertaining. See, I think Romney is cutting his own throat by <not> cozying up to the TEA Party/Libertarian/free market voters, and somehow pretending that acting the McCain role he's playing it safe. Yes, TEA types hate the socialism displayed by this Marxist president, but that doesn't mean they'll show up to vote for the lesser of two weevils (per the Ron Paul thread).

WE are finally getting it?!!! DOOD!! That's what we've been trying to say for... years!!

Hardly. Y'all shout me down when I label as "socialist" a belief that bigger/more centralized is better. It ISN'T better, by default, yet it is most certainly socialist. Progressives are the people who believe that continually increasing the socialism of gov't will eventually yield a beneficial result; it's not a Democrat/Republican issue.

Of course, there is still plenty of room for disagreement on where the line should be, but that's a debate that can actually go somewhere other than heck.

The discrepancy which you fail to realize is that just because I rail against socialism hardly means I don't recognize it in my own nation, and in my own life. I've spent only a small percentage of my nearly 40 working years actually in non-state employment, and that was largely summer jobs and about three years as a code monkey in software chop-shops.

And, since that is coincidentally where a huge chunk of elderly care money is spent, it is fiscally relevant as well. Even if it wasn't, funding for the "death panels" (aka living wills) was a good idea. I'm sure stillman would like to pounce all over this issue, but what I remember of his opinion is a bit much for me.

The reality of the disagreement is that Obamacare has removed the decision from the hands of the patient and place it in the hands of an unaccountable bureaucratic panel. This <IS> socialism, and while the current decision under private care also is placed in the hands of a 'death panel' of insurance company staff, the customer is able to use their own money-power to affect the decision more explicitly (by paying more for longer sustenance).

[jmervyn]

It's Grauniad, dear boy. Nobody refers to it as "The Guardian", not even The Grauniad.

Loz, could that have been a typo? Are you sure you didn't mean The Guderian?

Video: Pat Condell rips anti-Semitic UK Guardian as ‘The ugliest newspaper in Britain’

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

Grauniad. It is a pun from a time when typo's were a major feature of the newspaper, back in the 80's (and probably before then). When [mechanical] type-setting was used, but the reference has carried on to today.

The public perception was that The Grauniad suffered far more typos than any other national newspaper, very noticeably more than the other dailies. English humour. You either get it or ... you can't.

It has been alleged that it was Private Eye that coined the phrase, but I don't think that claim could be proved one way or the other.

[Turnip]

So why is Socialism in itself bad, is it just the inefficiency? You'd think with such a ridiculously high gini index America would be jumping on any chance they had to lower the income inequality despite the small loss in efficiency, its sort of putting a damper on your demand for products with people having such a small disposable income and it seems to be kind of drying up your jobs. It sounds a lot better back in the day when wealth was more distributed and you only one person working, and the rich didnt hold all the wealth.

Also whats with small government people wanting a large military, you dont think spending more than every other country is a bad idea? Especially when they are all allies anyways. You could save a lot of people with that wasted money.

[BobCox2]

During his losing Senate run against Ted Kennedy Romney demanded that Ted Kennedy provide his tax returns on the basis of the public's right to know:
"It's time the biggest-taxing senator in Washington shows the people of Massachusetts how much he pays in taxes," Romney said in April of 1994, according to a report in the Boston Globe.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...
In 2002 Mr. Romney also demanded that his opponent (who had released her tax returns whilst Mr. Romney declined to provide his returns) provide her spouse's return.
...and this morning, in defense of his refusal to be forthcoming with the American voter, Romney used as a defense that John Kerry's SPOUSE had not provided her tax returns, totally ignoring that Senator Kerry had provided numerous returns.
At this point I'm not so sure that it is the failure to provide tax returns that will do the most damage to Mr. Romney, but it will be the exposure of his lack of character and consistency which will inflict the most damage.
This man's principles and ethics are simply a mess.
*As for taking Mr. Romney's word that there's nothing to be concerned about, to just trust him to tell the truth the linked Boston Globe article has a nifty little example of how Mr. Romney misrepresented his residency filing and then went back and amended his filing when the situation became uncomfortable.
Boston Globe
Anyone else noticing a pattern here?

[SaroDarksbane]

So why is Socialism in itself bad, is it just the inefficiency?

Some people might say so, but for me it's a moral issue. I believe theft is wrong.

You'd think with such a ridiculously high gini index America would be jumping on any chance they had to lower the income inequality despite the small loss in efficiency

1. Disparity in wealth is not necessarily a problem, if everyone's wealth is made through voluntary association and trade.
2. The large income disparities we see now are not the result of voluntary association and trade, but the very interventions in the market that socialists lobby for.

Also whats with small government people wanting a large military

It is strange, isn't it? I like to meet the two parties in the middle: we should get rid of both social welfare and the military-industrial complex.

[BobCox2]

OK we got a VP for Romney,
with Ryan At least if Romney's elected the hard line Republicans can bump him off with out having to Palin for it.

[jimmyboy]

IMO, socialism = unstable economics, the mirror opposite of trickled-down economics. Albeit both appeal to the general minions, both are laughing stocks in any respectable school of economics.

Re Paul Ryan. I prefer a more moderate Republican. One more mature particularly with foreign policy to balance out Romney's limited foreign policy experience. IMHO, Ryan reminds me of a young domestic-oriented Dick Chenny.

It's unfortunate that Romney failed to pick Jeb Bush as his running mate. That would have been a lock for my vote.