Mitt Romney’s message [was] “I am going to take away Medicare from everybody under fifty-five and I am going to cut Medicaid for everybody by about a third, and I’m going to do that to finance a giant tax cut for me and my friends, and the reason I’m going to do that is that half the country contribute nothing to our national endeavor.”
David Frum on Morning Joe.
What I find most amazing is how utterly baffled so many Tea Party types are over the fact that a majority of Americans didn't want Mitt Romney to be their president.
Posts
That's funny. I don't remember Romney saying anything remotely like that. I do remember leftists accusing him of such things, and that is why so many wouldn't support him, because they bought into the rhetoric out of either stupidity or just a desperate wish that it was true.
ReplyDeleteSo what do you remember Romney saying about Medicare, Medicaid, and taxes? How about Ryan?
ReplyDeleteWhatever Frum is, he's not a leftist.
Quickly, in order to move on and not be accused of dodging questions (not that you would), Romney's basic idea was to preserve the present Medicare system for those 55 and older and provide a form of voucher system in order to give younger people more choices when their time comes, thus spurring competition for those voucher dollars.
ReplyDeleteRyan's plan was similar and possibly the basis for Romney's.
As to taxes, Romney intended to maintain the current tax rates and then to seek the closing of so-called loopholes and limit deductions to increase revenues. In general, his pro-private sector leanings would result in economic growth which would lead to increased revenues.
That's it in a nutshell.
Romney didn't intend to maintain the current tax rates. He intended to cut them by 20%. He claimed that he would make the cuts revenue neutral by cutting deductions and loopholes. Of course he never said which deductions and loopholes he would cut, but there was no way to make the math work without cutting the deductions that benefit middle income tax payers.
DeletePerhaps your lack of knowledge was the reason you thought this was such an no-brainer.
You're right. He did intend to cut the rates. I was more concerned with the fact that he had not intention of allowing them to rise by way of allowing the Bush cuts to expire. That should have made it a more obvious no-brainer.
DeleteFrankly, I personally support a flat tax with no deductions whatsoever. A hard sell to be sure as so many have become addicted to things like mortgage and charitable deductions. But the problem has always been on the spending side of the equation. No program should be enacted if it cannot be done within the confines of the current level of revenue collection. This is not how it is done by the left and even some on the right, as no one abides Kennedy's encouragement to ask not what the country can do for us.
So Frum was right about his Romney's position.
DeleteBut to your final point in your post, what is truly amazing is that the left is so baffled into believing the Tea Party can't understand the lack of support for Romney. Of course we understand it as many of us didn't vote for him in the primaries. What we can't understand is that not enough people saw the obvious improvement he would be over Obama regardless of Romney's shortcomings, real or imagined. THAT is what is baffling to the Tea Party types, and rational people everywhere.
ReplyDeleteMarshall Art: …the obvious improvement he [Romney] would be over Obama regardless of Romney's shortcomings…
DeleteThis was my biggest problem regarding Romney. I couldn’t see any improvement over Obama. Nor could I see any worsening. I had nothing to compare! As Vinny pointed out, Romney’s tax proposal would necessitate removing deductions—but where?
How could I compare Romney’s tax plan with Obama’s probable refusal to extend the Bush tax cuts? It makes no benefit to my tax status if my tax rate stays the same, but I lose deductions for mortgage insurance and charitable deductions as compared to my tax rate increasing.
I wanted Romney to be specific toward his differences in approach than Obama so I could comparison shop. Yet Romney kept making nebulous policy statements…”I will increase jobs”…O.K.—how? Make us energy independent (a pretty big difficulty considering OPEC is not stupid)…O.K.—How? What he said sounded good—much like any salesperson—but in the end I couldn’t find the specifics to see how these goals would be attained.
And his inability to relate to a different class of people was slightly terrifying. Take him to a football game, he only saw the owners in the boxes—not the crowds in the stands. Take him to a movie—he saw the owner, not the usher.
Dagoods,
DeleteI don't know if your comments mean you voted for Obama, but he hasn't provided any greater detail in whatever passes for a plan for him. Both spoke more philosophically and in that vein, Romney still should have had an edge. But Obama pandered much better.
I don't believe it is true that Romney can't relate to different classes, but only that Obama supporters insisted that he couldn't. Stories of Romney's generosity distinctly indicates his empathy for all people without regard to class.