Thoughts on bits from Romney's speech

[Travis]

Full text here

First off there is this bit:

"I am running for president to help create a better future. A future where everyone who wants a job can find one. Where no senior fears for the security of their retirement. An America where every parent knows that their child will get an education that leads them to a good job and a bright horizon."
​

That got zero applause.
I find that odd.

But this did:

"And fifth, we will champion SMALL businesses, America’s engine of job growth. That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business the most. And it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare."
​

And that is bizarre not only because what he just said made zero sense. Repealing Obamacare would not only consign people such as myself back to the purgatory of no health insurance it would not reduce costs to anyone.

Also what are these regulations he wants to eliminate? We need some specifics on that so we know if he's talking about wasteful duplicate regulations or regulations that keep businessmen from like abusing workers and doing things that cause the death or suffering of others.

The specifics on that are important.

"His policies have not helped create jobs, they have depressed them."
​

So a President that has seen positive job growth is suppressing jobs? Wow.

"First, by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables."
​

Well the bolded is good. I'd rather avoid the highlighted bit.

"That is why every president since the Great Depression who came before the American people asking for a second term could look back at the last four years and say with satisfaction: 'you are better off today than you were four years ago.'

Except Jimmy Carter. And except this president."
​

I seem to recall a Republican president right before Clinton who didn't reelected.

 

[angrysoba]

"That is why every president since the Great Depression who came before the American people asking for a second term could look back at the last four years and say with satisfaction: 'you are better off today than you were four years ago.'

Except Jimmy Carter. And except this president."
​

I seem to recall a Republican president right before Clinton who didn't reelected.

Maybe what he means is that George H.W Bush could say, "you are better off today than you were four years ago" even if the electorate disagreed or thought there were other reasons for not voting for Bush.

However, it does suggest that he thinks Clinton could make the case.

 

[Mike!]

Full text here

First off there is this bit:

"I am running for president to help create a better future. A future where everyone who wants a job can find one. Where no senior fears for the security of their retirement. An America where every parent knows that their child will get an education that leads them to a good job and a bright horizon."
​

That got zero applause.
I find that odd.

But this did:

"And fifth, we will champion SMALL businesses, America’s engine of job growth. That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business the most. And it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare."
​

And that is bizarre not only because what he just said made zero sense. Repealing Obamacare would not only consign people such as myself back to the purgatory of no health insurance it would not reduce costs to anyone.

Also what are these regulations he wants to eliminate? We need some specifics on that so we know if he's talking about wasteful duplicate regulations or regulations that keep businessmen from like abusing workers and doing things that cause the death or suffering of others.

The specifics on that are important.

"His policies have not helped create jobs, they have depressed them."
​

So a President that has seen positive job growth is suppressing jobs? Wow.

"First, by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables."
​

Well the bolded is good. I'd rather avoid the highlighted bit.

"That is why every president since the Great Depression who came before the American people asking for a second term could look back at the last four years and say with satisfaction: 'you are better off today than you were four years ago.'

Except Jimmy Carter. And except this president."
​

I seem to recall a Republican president right before Clinton who didn't reelected.

He dosn't count since he'd never been elected in the first place.

ETA: Oh crap, you were talking about Bush I... I was thinking Ford. I look a fool.

 

[theprestige]

So a President that has seen positive job growth is suppressing jobs? Wow.

Because it goes without saying that whenever the job growth number is positive--even when it's not even keeping up with population growth--that means that the President is doing everything he can to maximize that number, and is not doing anything at all that might prevent it from being maximized.

It's entirely impossible that there might be some meager job growth in spite of obstructionist policies: Any job growth at all must be credited to the tireless efforts of the job-growing president.

 

[Denver]

FYI here is a Wordle of his speech:

 

[R.Mackey]

How are we going to be "energy independent by 2020" without some fairly massive government intervention? What ever happened to the magic of the free market?

Rhetorical question, of course.

 

[mikedenk]

How are we going to be "energy independent by 2020" without some fairly massive government intervention? What ever happened to the magic of the free market?

Rhetorical question, of course.

Well, I'm skeptical of the feasibility of such a plan.

But I assume they're referring to doing things like granting permission to explore and drill on federal lands, opening up coastal waters for exploration and drilling, permitting the building of more pipelines, loosening EPA restrictions on coal, etc.

I'm not overly familiar with the numbers here, but I'm sure it sounds nice to plenty of voters.

 

[R.Mackey]

Sounds expensive.

There are reasons we're not "energy independent" that have nothing to do with tree-huggers standing in the way of American destiny.

Anyway, this reminds me of "drill baby drill" without the cheerleader. Four years older and no more intelligent nor better packaged. Feeble!

 

[Baylor]

Is this the first time you've changed your avatar?

 

[Ausmerican]

I have no problem with nuclear power and that is the only way I think energy independence by 2020 is feasible, with a lot of nuke plants.
But nuclear power plants bring out the NIMBY in many on both sides of the aisle.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I have no problem with nuclear power and that is the only way I think energy independence by 2020 is feasible, with a lot of nuke plants.
But nuclear power plants bring out the NIMBY in many on both sides of the aisle.

My only problem with nuke plants is that they take so long to build. If people in this country lost their ignorance about nuclear power, 2020 energy independence might just be possible.

 

[Travis]

My only problem with nuke plants is that they take so long to build. If people in this country lost their ignorance about nuclear power, 2020 energy independence might just be possible.

Indeed. I had hoped Obama would push nuclear power more than he has.

 

[Tricky]

Touching stories about his family. Gosh, Romney does have a human side. BFD. Mobsters have touching stories about their own families.

He told us nothing solid about what he would do to achieve the lofty outcomes he promised. What would he cut to make up for the reduced income? How would he make sure every child got an education when the GOP is wanting to make student loans more expensive? What would he replace the Affordable Health Care Act with?

Okay, I realize this is just a pep rally, but even for a pep rally, it was extraordinarily vacuous. Lets move on to the debates.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

"And fifth, we will champion SMALL businesses, America’s engine of job growth. That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business the most. And it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare."
​

And that is bizarre not only because what he just said made zero sense. Repealing Obamacare would not only consign people such as myself back to the purgatory of no health insurance it would not reduce costs to anyone.

Speaking as someone who is required by Massachusetts law to provide proof of health insurance when filing state income tax, I interpreted that bit of Mitt's speech as a charmingly self-effacing reference to his signature achievement as governor.

 

[Kaosium]

I have no problem with nuclear power and that is the only way I think energy independence by 2020 is feasible, with a lot of nuke plants.
But nuclear power plants bring out the NIMBY in many on both sides of the aisle.

They can build a nuke power plant in my backyard, but the radioactive waste better go in Texas.

 

[Bikewer]

I commented before on Romney's "Drill, baby, drill" energy policy. Dig it up, suck it out, burn it up.... As long as the economy benefits, the environment can go fish.
Those gas-mileage requirements? Too extreme.

Many pundits have pointed out that a wholesale effort to "go green" would result in huge increases in jobs and a net gain for the economy. The only ones who would suffer would be the fossil-fuel industries, but we all know that no one in government is beholden to those interests.....

 

[marksman]

I seem to recall a Republican president right before Clinton who didn't reelected.

You're not helping... unless your goal is to say, "Mitt was wrong. There were two presidents who didn't get re-elected because the economy did not significantly improve during his term, not just one."

How on Earth does this do anything except make his argument stronger? Aargh! Sometimes I think Republicans can be morons because they can rely on Democrats doing their job.

"Those stupid Republicans were tryign to sabotage Obama but they're too stupid. I'll show you how to sabotage Obama." [promptly sabotages Obama]

Yeah, let's go around reminding people that two post-Depression Presidents, not one, failed to get re-elected durign tough economic times. That'll help Obama!

 

[Giz]

Many pundits have pointed out that a wholesale effort to "go green" would result in huge increases in jobs and a net gain for the economy. The only ones who would suffer would be the fossil-fuel industries, but we all know that no one in government is beholden to those interests.....

Is there good data to back this up? It seems like most of the green endeavors so far have been expensive and not that productive (i.e. wind farms) or flops (i.e. Solyndra).

This isn't saying that we shouldn't be green - just that I have understood that there is an economic cost to doing so. Seems like a feel good mantra that we can be nice to the environment and richer at the same time (of course, it would be wonderful if it is true).

 

[pgwenthold]

Those gas-mileage requirements? Too extreme.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but when I hear about the "gas-mileage requirements" it always refers to the agreed-upon standards. IOW, these are goals that the auto manufacturers agreed to, not something that was imposed upon them. So the auto manufacturers agree with a goal for gas mileage, but somehow that is too extreme? That doesn't make sense.

I thought it was a GOOD thing how car manufacturers worked with the government to create better, more fuel efficient cars?

 

[ravdin]

I didn't watch the speech. Politicians' speeches are bad for you.