Mitt Romney really wants to talk about the economy. Or at least he wants to talk about talking about the economy. Quizzed during the June 13 Republican presidential debate by CNN's John King about gays serving in the military, Romney answered with chagrin. "We ought to be talking about the economy and jobs," he replied, only condescending to answer "given the fact you're insistent."
Yet when asked what would happen if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling, Romney dodged with a question of his own, this one rhetorical: "Well, what happens if we continue to spend time and time again, year and year again more money than we take in?" Presuming that the correct answer is that the country may eventually default, we have all witnessed a stroke of debating genius: an infinite feedback loop of obfuscation and evasion capable of sustaining itself for an eternity.
Any substantive discussion of economic concerns during the debate at Saint Anselm College was most conspicuous through its absence. Though the first question of the night focused on private sector job growth, few answers delved beyond the need for tax cuts. Asked for proof that lowering tax rates will boost employment, Tim Pawlenty shot back by labeling President Obama a "declinist." Newt Gingrich, when presented with the results of a recent Boston Globe survey showing that a majority of New Hampshire Republicans support tax increases on the wealthy, cited the "Reagan Recovery" as a counterpoint. As Slate's Dave Weigel points out, this recovery occurred "after a tax cut followed by years of tax increases, including FICA tax increases."
The most audacious financial policy duck of the night clearly belonged to Michele Bachmann. Asked about legislation she sponsored to repeal Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform, the congresswoman instead announced her filing of paperwork making her candidacy official. Distracted, King shifted the conversation to Ron Paul, a predictable prelude to bringing the discussion to a close. As for Bachmann, she never did get back to the topic of how she would regulate the financial industry.
With Pawlenty refusing to take the opportunity offered to raise his recent criticisms of Romney, the first major debate of the election cycle was more an exercise in wheel-spinning than anything else. King's "This or That" questions to candidates -- concerning whether they favored Jay Leno or Conan O'Brien, spicy or mild hot wings, Elvis or Johnny Cash, or American Idol or Dancing With the Stars -- did nothing to combat the perception that everyone on stage was seeking little more than to run down the clock.
There is no requirement, however, that presidential debates -- even the early contests -- conform to such a shallow model. It is possible to conduct forums that produce substantial discussions. Dedicating entire or extended segments of debates on particular topics, as occurred in 2008, has proven a useful tool for forcing more pointed discussions. Debates sponsored by single-issue interest groups -- in 2008, Democratic candidates sparred in forums provided by the AFL-CIO and LGBT advocates -- can yield similarly focused contests.
Unfortunately -- consequently? -- almost all scheduled GOP debates are fully sponsored by media organizations. Of those that have other sponsors, only one debate, a July 10 meeting in Las Vegas co-sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform, seems likely to focus on a particular topic, albeit one that would not seem to force any candidates out of their comfort zones. As circumstances stand now, the time and placed of the extended conversation on the economy and jobs all candidates claim to crave is still to be decided. No need to worry, though. Mitt Romney is sure to have loads to say about how much he wishes to eventually have that discussion.
Dylan Ratigan: America for Sale: Is Goldman Sachs Buying Your City?
Fine. But we have wars and an economy that is killing our citizens right here on our own soil. We are supporting how many illegals now? Illegals who not only drain our resources, but send whatever money they can back to their homeland.
I encourage you ALL to consider EVERY candidate seriously and LISTEN and try to UNDERSTAND what each is telling you. Not just the Republicans, but the Democrats, Libertarians and others.
As for ME, I will NOT vote for a candidate who WILL NOT SECURE OUR BORDERS!
Happy Dae
http://ShoeStringGenealogy.com
If it wanted to, could the government raise enough revenue to pay for all of our current and planned programs and obligations without continuing to expand the debt? What would it take? Would raising taxes on the rich cover it? Do we have enough rich people? Would they stay here if we decided to raise their taxes enough to pay off the debt?
Could we simply place a cap on net worth and repossess all wealth in excess of $1 million from all individuals? Does anyone really need more than $1 million? There's plenty of millionaires in this country. Would that pay for our social programs? I'm not a millionaire, but I'm quite comfortable.
Does the debt really matter, or is it simply a Republican bogeyman? Does the national debt even exist in any meaningful way?
Real money would allow our seniors to keep their lifelong, hard-earned savings intact without risking either that money's loss of value through inflation (have we not noticed that the value of the dollar is shrinking like wool in a hot dryer?) or the money's loss through insider trading shenanigans (these bullish bubbles are much easier to blow if the money is made of rubber, not gold).
You're right to say the question got ducked. But it didn't get ducked by everyone.
That said, I hope we all noticed that the G.O.P. crowd is flattering Rep. Paul most sincerely with imitation. We had quite a crowd of neodoves on that stage. And I also hope we all remember who the real dove is, lest we get fooled again. We still need the help of independent and crossover voters to get this honest and peaceable man the nomination, after all. And he still can't cut state services from a federal office like the presidency...
Thank you.
The Iraq war was designed to make BUSH, Cheney, and their co-horts richer beyond their wildest dreams...............
Controlled foreign corporations and tax havens are the result of decades of corporate lobbying in Washington, DC. It has benefited corporate America tremendously. The tax savings to Halliburton, and the corresponding tax loss to individual American taxpayers, are enormous. Halliburton paid only $15 million of their $80 million in total taxes (or 19 percent) to the U.S. government in 2002. The remaining 81 percent of the company's taxes went to foreign governments. Although Halliburton is an "American" corporation on paper, it is actually a foreign corporation that has no allegiance to the United States.
Ron Paul: "I wouldn't wait for my generals. I'm the Commander in Chief. I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do and I'd bring them home as quickly as possible. And I'd get them out of Iraq as well, and I wouldn't start a war with Libya. I'd quit bombing Yemen, and I'd quit bombing Pakistan. I'd start taking care of people here at home, because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars. Our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history. And the longer we are there the worse things are, and the more danger we're in as well. Our presence there is not making us friends, let me tell you."
How could anyone be any more direct than that? Did you watch the debate?
TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH really help America. BUSH/CHENEY the two most corrupt liars on the face of the earth.
At the end of the 90's we had balanced budgets (some surplus even) and we were on a long term track to pay off the national debt (we would've done so by about now). If we knew then that our population was aging (we knew our boomer generation was going to retire someday and we knew when) why didn't we continue those economic policies and perhaps even ask a little more sacrifice of everyone in order to be able to provide a secure retirement for them? The follow up question obviously then becomes: if the new policies of the 2000's (tax cuts mostly targeted for the rich, deregulation of markets, supply-side/trickle down economics) have led us to a free market free-fall/near depression, massive deficits and now a gutting of the safety net... why should we want to continue them?
Here's a suggestion:
Raise taxes on those who can afford it.
Bring the troops home.
End all subsidies and start them again from square one.