Because there is more than a smidgeon of truth in good satire...
"Vote Republican" by Roy Zimmerman - YouTube
"Vote Republican" by Roy Zimmerman - YouTube
The song really does drive home the point of 'how is Romney going to be any different than Bush'?
Romney is Bush with more money-CTLS - and 'self made man' - come on - his rich daddy paid for education and his rich daddy connections are what made Romney.
And he will do exactly what Bush did - wow - and the hill will be republican, just like it was during Bush - the country can't handle another 'bush' in the white house -
Well, Romney got a new debate coach after SC - I guess he is good at hiring coaches.
Obama is far more 'everyday' than Romney is- have you seen Romney on the campaign trail - I have, up close- he is east coast old money - through and through.
Ongoing wealth
Bain Capital's approach of applying consulting expertise to the companies it invested in became widely copied within the private equity industry. Economist Steven Kaplan would later say, "[Romney] came up with a model that was very successful and very innovative and that now everybody uses."
His experience at Bain & Company and Bain Capital gave Romney a business-oriented world view – centering on a hate of waste and inefficiency, a love for data and charts and analysis and presentation, and a belief in keeping an open mind and seeking opposing points of view – that he would take with him to the public sector.
Nope - we had the guy you could have a beer with - Bush.We're not looking for some regular guy to have a beer with.
I'd much prefer someone of Romney's stature and record of accomplishment for POTUS than some everyday Joe or a former community organizer with lots of intellectualism but minimal management experience.
Romney's success and personal life speak for themselves.
You make Romney sound like Reagan - he is no Reagan. His disconnect with the young, the poor, the minorities, can hurt him. I don't know if Obama can rally those groups again - I agree I have been disappointed with Obama - but having Romney in the House will be a return to Bush policies - have you looked at Romney's ideas - the way they mirror Bush is scary.The open minded majority of American voters took a chance last time but hope and change have turned into gloom and cynicism and the public wants to go back to a traditional candidate, a bill that Romney fills more than well.
After the disappointment of Obama many people will vote for Mittens because to them he's one of us, not a minority and is a man's man, the type of person Mormonism notwithstanding, traditionally thought of as desirable (by Tea Party types and others) and in charge in the role of a US leader.
You know what I mean.
We send in a man to do a man's job.
Romney looks and sounds Presidential, like he's up to the task.
Look what Bush policies did to this country - we are just barely creeping out of the hole he dug, and now you want to elect someone who will re-enact the same policies - do you like living in a hole?
Nope - we had the guy you could have a beer with - Bush.
But, with Romney you are getting an elitist, with no ties to the middle class.
Oh, Daddy's connections got Romney his job at Bain to begin with - true, Romney parleyed Bain into Bain Capital, but without Daddy - that road would have not likely have been open to mittens.
You make Romney sound like Reagan - he is no Reagan. His disconnect with the young, the poor, the minorities, can hurt him. I don't know if Obama can rally those groups again - I agree I have been disappointed with Obama - but having Romney in the House will be a return to Bush policies - have you looked at Romney's ideas - the way they mirror Bush is scary.
Look what Bush policies did to this country - we are just barely creeping out of the hole he dug, and now you want to elect someone who will re-enact the same policies - do you like living in a hole?
Creating government jobs does not count in creating wealth.
Government does not actually create jobs.
They simply transfer jobs and resources from the productive, wealth producing sector of the economy (private) to the wealth destroying and job killing sector of the economy (government).
This is also a big part of the reason government does not "invest" in any honest sense of the word.
You created jobs when you started your business. You created them out of nothing but your hard work. That's what 'create' means in this context.That is not quite correct.
Government creates jobs that the government does like police, firemen, military, coast guard, highway and roads,air safety,clean water, food and drug inspectors, tax collectors etc that only the government can do.
These things do add to the quality of life for the rest of us.
The investment in the interstate highway system which only the government could do is a prime example on an investment that brings many returns.
The Manhatten Project is another example of government created wealth that only the government could have accomplished.
You created jobs when you started your business. You created them out of nothing but your hard work. That's what 'create' means in this context.
Government doesn't 'create' jobs. It only confiscates money from the private sector and channels it into the public sector, at a huge cost of fraud, waste, and abuse. All of those things you mentioned (police, fire, etc.) are referred to as 'costs.' Not 'created jobs.' They don't add to the economy, and the government BY DEFINITION cannot grow the economy. Every single dollar the government spends is a dollar that was TAKEN from the private sector ECONOMY.
And the highway system argument is so old and tired.
Seventy PERCENT of the federal budget is wealth transfers - entitlements.
Give me thirty percent of the fed budget and eliminate the entitlements and I'll show you how much better our roads can be.
If you want to play anecdotal games, try googling the 'Bridge to Nowhere' and the 'Massachusetts Big Dig.'
Assuming that private individuals couldn't have done the Manhattan Project is so silly as to border on lunacy. The only thing the government did with the MP is provide SECRECY.
The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $24.4 billion as of 2012). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and producing the fissionable materials, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons. Research and production took place at more than 30 sites, some secret, across the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.
The moon landing and NASA in general have advanced science and technology, but at what cost? If we hadn't had such a choice imposed by politicians, what advances would the free market have made that we have had to forgo?
but there is really no objective way to make comparisons when it comes to all those various considerations of "value".
The logical flaw that undercuts your entire argument is that you blindly assume that the private sector could not have accomplished these things on its own.Hey Long time no hear foss
We miss you here at LVC
My view on entitlements is similar to yours.
They are overpromised and underfunded, a Moral Hazard.
The only solution that would not result in a drastic cut in payments would be euthenasia.
When the rest of the world finds better uses for it's money and stops lending it to us ( as will happen since 500 million people have been lifted out of real poverty in China and India (to the level of our poor) since 2006) that's when things will start to come apart.
I say as soon as 10 but probably 15-20 years.
I'm all for eliminating Military Entitlement and Military Welfare that p!sses away money without creating anything by your definition
No one in the media uses the term Military Welfare even on the left but I contend that half the military budget is exactly that, welfare for the "worthy" enlisted and makework projects for contractors.
Why is it silly using the Manhattan project as an example.
There is no way private industry could have accomplished something like that mostly in the last 2 years of the effort along with no profit motive.
How about the Moon landing and the technological progress that resulted from that effort.
I suppose you would want to eliminate the police and border guards as they don't create anything you would call wealth.
We could have a total breakdown of law and order like portrayed by killer with charisma Alex in Clockwork Orange.
Perhaps you would prefer to be extorted to pay tribute to the local gangster or mob every week instead.
Maybe we should just fund the government with import tarrifs like before the Income Tax.
Then the consumer can fund the government.
Cars are more efficient now and the 18 cent federal gas tax there to pay for the highways does not bring in as much money as it used to.
Some of our infrastructure is decaying and fixing it creates american jobs here.
Maybe you want private industry to build more toll roads.
In Ontario Canada there is an expensive 20 cents a mile toll road highway 407 that is owned by the CPP or Canada Pension Plan.
Lets get the highways to fund the benefits
Government though inefficient is not useless.
That's just petulant of you.