A turning point and the direction we take?

[swizzlee]

A viewpoint from across the pond that only confirms for me that we are at a crossroads in our political life, having drifted along for a number of decades until we've reached "today." IMHO this will be the most critical election within my awareness, the final result determining whether we remain that exceptional country and a continued world leader or whether we slowly deteriorate into just another third world country.

May we all be wise enough..........

Whatever the outcome of the American presidential election, one thing is certain: the fighting of it will be the most significant political event of the decade. Last week’s Republican national convention sharpened what had been until then only a vague, inchoate theme: this campaign is going to consist of the debate that all Western democratic countries should be engaging in, but which only the United States has the nerve to undertake. The question that will demand an answer lies at the heart of the economic crisis from which the West seems unable to recover. It is so profoundly threatening to the governing consensus of Britain and Europe as to be virtually unutterable here, so we shall have to rely on the robustness of the US political class to make the running.

What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust. The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programmes which the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect. The fantasy may be sustained for a while by the relentless production of phoney money to fund benefits and job-creation projects, until the economy is turned into a meaningless internal recycling mechanism in the style of the old Soviet Union.

Or else democratically elected governments can be replaced by puppet austerity regimes which are free to ignore the protests of the populace when they are deprived of their promised entitlements. You can, in other words, decide to debauch the currency which underwrites the market economy, or you can dispense with democracy. Both of these possible solutions are currently being tried in the European Union, whose leaders are reduced to talking sinister gibberish in order to evade the obvious conclusion: the myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished. This is the defining political problem of the early 21st century.

Mitt Romney had been hinting, in an oblique, undeveloped way, at this line of argument as he moved tentatively toward finding a real message. Then he took the startling step of appointing Congressman Paul Ryan as his running mate, and the earth moved. If Romney was the embodiment of the spirit of a free market, Ryan was its prophet. His speech at the convention was so dangerous to the Obama Democrats, with their aspirations toward European-style democratic socialism, that they unleashed their “fact checkers” to find mistakes (“lies”) in it. (Remember the old Yes Minister joke: “You can always accuse them of errors of detail, sir. There are always some errors of detail”.) When Romney and Ryan offer their arguments to the American people, they are, of course, at an advantage over almost any British or European politician. Contrary to what many know-nothing British observers seem to think, the message coming out of Tampa was not Tea Party extremism. It was just a reassertion of the basic values of American political culture: self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community, as opposed to belief in the state as the fount of all social virtue. Romney caught this rather nicely in his acceptance speech, with the comment that the US was built on the idea of “a system that is dedicated to creating tomorrow’s prosperity rather than trying to redistribute today’s.” Or as Marco Rubio put it in his speech, Obama is “trying ideas that people came to America to get away from”.

We should tune in to the Romney and Ryan show - Telegraph

 

[Old Rocks]

President Obama 332 Governor Romney 206

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map No Toss Ups

Doesn't seem to have impressed many other voters.

 

[swizzlee]

You're right, OR.

Electoral no toss up maps don't impress many voters who reside in the land of reality.

And I see you've finally abandoned Obama's RCP "lead". Guess that rapidly dropping "average" showing a ONE-TENTH of a point lead ain't all that impressive.

Have a great day!!

 

[emptystep]

Even if Romney has some brilliant economic plan do you think he could implement it? Look at the RNC convention. It was an organizational nightmare. Romney has no leadership qualities. Even if he want to grow business in a way which would benefit all Americans in the long run, which I absolutely don't believe, he could not do it. If Romney was president about the only thing that would be running full steam is the neocon machine.

 

[Twofox]

Even if Romney has some brilliant economic plan do you think he could implement it? Look at the RNC convention. It was an organizational nightmare. Romney has no leadership qualities. Even if he want to grow business in a way which would benefit all Americans in the long run, which I absolutely don't believe, he could not do it. If Romney was president about the only thing that would be running full steam is the neocon machine.

Romney has run businesses, sucessful ones for years, and you say he has no leadership qualtities? You mean he has no hollywood qualities. It's time to look at the substance of the man, instead of his looks. Try that on Obama for once and you'll see where his ideals come from. On the other hand, I've found that alot of Obama supports are sold on the idea that we need a socialist government, which is a complete change to the constituion.

All Romney has to do is return to the ideals that our country was founded on, pretty simple huh?

 

[emptystep]

Even if Romney has some brilliant economic plan do you think he could implement it? Look at the RNC convention. It was an organizational nightmare. Romney has no leadership qualities. Even if he want to grow business in a way which would benefit all Americans in the long run, which I absolutely don't believe, he could not do it. If Romney was president about the only thing that would be running full steam is the neocon machine.

Romney has run businesses, sucessful ones for years, and you say he has no leadership qualtities? You mean he has no hollywood qualities. It's time to look at the substance of the man, instead of his looks. Try that on Obama for once and you'll see where his ideals come from. On the other hand, I've found that alot of Obama supports are sold on the idea that we need a socialist government, which is a complete change to the constituion.

All Romney has to do is return to the ideals that our country was founded on, pretty simple huh?

Which companies and which years? And there are a few more people than just me asking that question right about now.

 

[Twofox]

Even if Romney has some brilliant economic plan do you think he could implement it? Look at the RNC convention. It was an organizational nightmare. Romney has no leadership qualities. Even if he want to grow business in a way which would benefit all Americans in the long run, which I absolutely don't believe, he could not do it. If Romney was president about the only thing that would be running full steam is the neocon machine.

Romney has run businesses, sucessful ones for years, and you say he has no leadership qualtities? You mean he has no hollywood qualities. It's time to look at the substance of the man, instead of his looks. Try that on Obama for once and you'll see where his ideals come from. On the other hand, I've found that alot of Obama supports are sold on the idea that we need a socialist government, which is a complete change to the constituion.

All Romney has to do is return to the ideals that our country was founded on, pretty simple huh?

Which companies and which years? And there are a few more people than just me asking that question right about now.

Take a look here: Mitt Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was in management consulting, helping failing businesses regroup and become profitable again. If you don't understand that, then you should look into what that is. BUt there is your management experience. Staples, Domino's pizza, sports authority, and the olympics. He has the leadership qualities. Now you can point to the failures, but no one is ever not going to have some failures.

His record can be show, as can Obama's.

 

[M14 Shooter]

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Electoral Map No Toss Ups

Funny that you choose that map. Convenient, too.
But, noit unpredictable.

 

[Wiseacre]

I am not entirely sure that America will enter an irreversable decline should Obama be re-elected. Even if the dems also retain control of the Senate, it will be by the slimmest of margins, and I do not believe thy can retake the House. If all this is true, then we're in for another 4 years of gridlock and economic stagnation, teetering on the brink of recession/depression and just muddling through at 2 or 3% growth. And that's assuming they avoid the taxmageddon that hits Jan 1, 2013.

And what if Romney wins? He still has to deal with an evenly divided Senate that may not be any more inclined to help him than they have Obama since 2010. Romney can make some adminstrative changes, I think different policies that are friendlier to businesses could make perhaps a one point difference in economic growth, but without the support of Congress his success would be muted.

So, we still got trouble no matter who wins, because their economic philosophies are so radically different. Neither side looks to be willing to bend, and so the meaningful change we need ain't going to happen any time soon. I thnk we need a very strong leader to emerge pretty soon or we need to suffer through some bad times; maybe then we'll finally work together on solutions.

 

[swizzlee]

Guess I don't understand your logic.....

In your first post, you claim Romney is disorganized and has no leadership qualities, basically eliminating him from being a successfull business man. In your opinion, of course

But in your second post, you ask about the businesses he's run.

You seem to be revealing your general ignorance about Mitt's background or your ignorance of what Wikipedia is or perhaps something else entirely.

But what IS evident is that you've not provided a single detail that would even come close to proving what the rest of the world seems to know.

 

[swizzlee]

I am not entirely sure that America will enter an irreversable decline should Obama be re-elected. Even if the dems also retain control of the Senate, it will be by the slimmest of margins, and I do not believe thy can retake the House. If all this is true, then we're in for another 4 years of gridlock and economic stagnation, teetering on the brink of recession/depression and just muddling through at 2 or 3% growth. And that's assuming they avoid the taxmageddon that hits Jan 1, 2013.

And what if Romney wins? He still has to deal with an evenly divided Senate that may not be any more inclined to help him than they have Obama since 2010. Romney can make some adminstrative changes, I think different policies that are friendlier to businesses could make perhaps a one point difference in economic growth, but without the support of Congress his success would be muted.

So, we still got trouble no matter who wins, because their economic philosophies are so radically different. Neither side looks to be willing to bend, and so the meaningful change we need ain't going to happen any time soon. I thnk we need a very strong leader to emerge pretty soon or we need to suffer through some bad times; maybe then we'll finally work together on solutions.

I don't know that any of us are in a position to know when that irreversible moment will occur. But I do know that I'd rather not reach that point if I have any opportunity to help stop it.

What I do see is that the path to that point will not be slowed under Obama and quite possibly accelerated.

What I also see is a fortuitous opportunity to elect a president and a
VP who does not fit the mold labeled "professional politicians."

I agree the house remains Pub. But there are strong signs the Senate will go Pub, too. But let's say it stays Dem by 1 seat. I envision an entirely different attitude should R&R be elected. I've witnessed some of the signs of growing unhappiness within the Dem Senate. Harry Reid on at least 3 occasions pleading with the O to provide input into the problem du jour. Only to be met with silence. And ending
early this year with the appearance of a complete shutdown by the Senate.

And I don't believe the Pubs will remain as obstinate as they have for the past 4 years. My feeling is that they simply would not allow the O, with his unwillingness to bend, to roll over them like he did with Obamacare. There's always a reason for obstructionism and in this case it's name was Obama.

Sure, we'll be hearing the usual political buffoonery coming from both sides but I also see the Dem party being in a state of shambles and needing badly to regroup, refocus and reorganize. I believe the saner members will be most relieved that a major source of pain has been excised leaving them to deal with each other in a more reasonable way and with a more responsive president leading the way. Yes, actually leading.

I believe Congress will be more supportive than perhaps seems possible at the moment and I believe that the Dem Senate is much more aware of the realities of our financial situation than they had been able to express in the past 4 years. And the Pubs will be more willing to work with them with the tensions gone.

 

[Freemason9]

I am not entirely sure that America will enter an irreversable decline should Obama be re-elected. Even if the dems also retain control of the Senate, it will be by the slimmest of margins, and I do not believe thy can retake the House. If all this is true, then we're in for another 4 years of gridlock and economic stagnation, teetering on the brink of recession/depression and just muddling through at 2 or 3% growth. And that's assuming they avoid the taxmageddon that hits Jan 1, 2013.

And what if Romney wins? He still has to deal with an evenly divided Senate that may not be any more inclined to help him than they have Obama since 2010. Romney can make some adminstrative changes, I think different policies that are friendlier to businesses could make perhaps a one point difference in economic growth, but without the support of Congress his success would be muted.

So, we still got trouble no matter who wins, because their economic philosophies are so radically different. Neither side looks to be willing to bend, and so the meaningful change we need ain't going to happen any time soon. I thnk we need a very strong leader to emerge pretty soon or we need to suffer through some bad times; maybe then we'll finally work together on solutions.

I don't know that any of us are in a position to know when that irreversible moment will occur. But I do know that I'd rather not reach that point if I have any opportunity to help stop it.

What I do see is that the path to that point will not be slowed under Obama and quite possibly accelerated.

What I also see is a fortuitous opportunity to elect a president and a
VP who does not fit the mold labeled "professional politicians."

I agree the house remains Pub. But there are strong signs the Senate will go Pub, too. But let's say it stays Dem by 1 seat. I envision an entirely different attitude should R&R be elected. I've witnessed some of the signs of growing unhappiness within the Dem Senate. Harry Reid on at least 3 occasions pleading with the O to provide input into the problem du jour. Only to be met with silence. And ending
early this year with the appearance of a complete shutdown by the Senate.

And I don't believe the Pubs will remain as obstinate as they have for the past 4 years. My feeling is that they simply would not allow the O, with his unwillingness to bend, to roll over them like he did with Obamacare. There's always a reason for obstructionism and in this case it's name was Obama.

Sure, we'll be hearing the usual political buffoonery coming from both sides but I also see the Dem party being in a state of shambles and needing badly to regroup, refocus and reorganize. I believe the saner members will be most relieved that a major source of pain has been excised leaving them to deal with each other in a more reasonable way and with a more responsive president leading the way. Yes, actually leading.

I believe Congress will be more supportive than perhaps seems possible at the moment and I believe that the Dem Senate is much more aware of the realities of our financial situation than they had been able to express in the past 4 years. And the Pubs will be more willing to work with them with the tensions gone.

Romney's economic "plan" will roughly double the annual federal deficit. The only way this won't happen is if he actually increases the taxes paid by the bottom 95%--and if that happens, we will certainly face a long and endless recessions.

Romney's policies will badly harm the American middle class, and the GOP is anti-labor.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust. "

Obama: Hey! We should be more like Greece and Spain!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I am not entirely sure that America will enter an irreversable decline should Obama be re-elected. Even if the dems also retain control of the Senate, it will be by the slimmest of margins, and I do not believe thy can retake the House. If all this is true, then we're in for another 4 years of gridlock and economic stagnation, teetering on the brink of recession/depression and just muddling through at 2 or 3% growth. And that's assuming they avoid the taxmageddon that hits Jan 1, 2013.

And what if Romney wins? He still has to deal with an evenly divided Senate that may not be any more inclined to help him than they have Obama since 2010. Romney can make some adminstrative changes, I think different policies that are friendlier to businesses could make perhaps a one point difference in economic growth, but without the support of Congress his success would be muted.

So, we still got trouble no matter who wins, because their economic philosophies are so radically different. Neither side looks to be willing to bend, and so the meaningful change we need ain't going to happen any time soon. I thnk we need a very strong leader to emerge pretty soon or we need to suffer through some bad times; maybe then we'll finally work together on solutions.

I don't know that any of us are in a position to know when that irreversible moment will occur. But I do know that I'd rather not reach that point if I have any opportunity to help stop it.

What I do see is that the path to that point will not be slowed under Obama and quite possibly accelerated.

What I also see is a fortuitous opportunity to elect a president and a
VP who does not fit the mold labeled "professional politicians."

I agree the house remains Pub. But there are strong signs the Senate will go Pub, too. But let's say it stays Dem by 1 seat. I envision an entirely different attitude should R&R be elected. I've witnessed some of the signs of growing unhappiness within the Dem Senate. Harry Reid on at least 3 occasions pleading with the O to provide input into the problem du jour. Only to be met with silence. And ending
early this year with the appearance of a complete shutdown by the Senate.

And I don't believe the Pubs will remain as obstinate as they have for the past 4 years. My feeling is that they simply would not allow the O, with his unwillingness to bend, to roll over them like he did with Obamacare. There's always a reason for obstructionism and in this case it's name was Obama.

Sure, we'll be hearing the usual political buffoonery coming from both sides but I also see the Dem party being in a state of shambles and needing badly to regroup, refocus and reorganize. I believe the saner members will be most relieved that a major source of pain has been excised leaving them to deal with each other in a more reasonable way and with a more responsive president leading the way. Yes, actually leading.

I believe Congress will be more supportive than perhaps seems possible at the moment and I believe that the Dem Senate is much more aware of the realities of our financial situation than they had been able to express in the past 4 years. And the Pubs will be more willing to work with them with the tensions gone.

Romney's economic "plan" will roughly double the annual federal deficit. The only way this won't happen is if he actually increases the taxes paid by the bottom 95%--and if that happens, we will certainly face a long and endless recessions.

Romney's policies will badly harm the American middle class, and the GOP is anti-labor.

Anti union labor, which itself is anti America

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If reelected Obama will "bypass Congress" (one of his favorite expressions) to implement his Neo-Marxist agenda

 

[swizzlee]

If reelected Obama will "bypass Congress" (one of his favorite expressions) to implement his Neo-Marxist agenda

And that scares the bejesus out of me.

 

[swizzlee]

From the plan I've seen.........

yes, the deficit will increase in the early years before it starts to go down. Considering the massive problems we're faced with, that doesn't surprise me. At the same time, none of these plans can be set in stone since they too often try to project too far without the advantage of being able to foresee the future.

At this point I have no faith at all in the O to know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to understanding numbers or even caring. This man is very good at running a con on gullible people.

I'll trust an experienced businessman and an economist before I'll trust a community organizer who seems to need a mommy figure to tell him what to do.