So True!
January 26, 2008
My boss and I had this exact same conversation while on a road trip to Las Cruces last week. The more I read Milton Friedman the more I see the urgent need to promote free market activities and reduce government involvement. As a result, I am a HUGE (repeat HUGE) fan of Romney’s economic stimulus package. As a good friend of mine from the east coast told me two days ago: “You want to stimulate the economy?! Stop taking 38% of my money in tax! If tax had only been 20% the last two years I could have bought a townhouse on the beach!”
Obviously, the end goal is not a townhouse on the beach, but rather to let consumers decide where they want to spend their money instead of the government telling them where to spend it. I fear that if we don’t reverse course very soon, America is closer than we think to slipping into socialism. A bit over-the-top maybe, but valid enough to warrant legitimate concern.
FYI - I like Ron Paul’s fiscal policy even more than Romney’s (which I guess would make me a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE fan of Paul’s plan) but considering that Paul is struggling in his bid for the nomination it’s more pragmatic for me to back Romney’s plan.
murf
January 28th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate from either party who actually knows what he’s talking about in terms of economics. Romney is a YAHOO! Study his (multiple) positions on every issue. He’ll stand for free market economics only so long as it is popular and convenient, then he’ll switch to whatever else “works.” Witness his “conversion” to social conservatism the moment he decided to run for president. I cannot stand the man.
Brandon
January 28th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I do not prefer Romney and his malleability on other issues either. I’m not endorsing the man, but his economic plan.
I’m not sure that because he changed stances on other issues we can conclude he’ll change his stance on his economic plan. In fact, of all his issue stances, economics is probably the most solidified considering it is no doubt shaped by his business acumen and understanding of what drives business growth.
Now that doesn’t entirely eliminate the possibility that he’ll change his position. But unless the economy does an about face and vastly improves in the next 6 months and assuming he continues to hold to his “so long as it is popular and convenient” approach to issues, I don’t think he’ll even have to consider changing as economic revitalization will remain central (popular and convenient) to this election.
murf
January 29th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Hmm…I would agree with you, IF he were to keep his economic principles. I read somewhere yesterday (can’t find the length) where he was repudiating Reaganomics while he was the governor of Massachusetts.
I would also question the whole mirage of his so-called business acumen. He was in essence a corporate buyout artist. His “business” would buy out companies and then sell them off in small pieces for a quick profit while laying off unnecessary people. Whatever one thinks of the morality of that type of business approach, Romney has never run a conventional business.
I would also question the assumption that his economic revitalization plan will be so popular and convenient around election time. Inevitably, when we enter economic difficulty the long knives come out criticizing capitalism. As you have stated elsewhere, capitalism (without greed) is probably the soundest approach to economic theory. The problem that will arise is the coming revelations that the Wall Street Banks were practicing capitalism with greed which will turn the mass of the people against the banks and cause “capitalism” guilt by association. My prediction is that Romney will be nowhere to be found defending classic capitalism.
His plan? Good. His actual carrying out the plan? Count me a skeptic.
Brandon
January 30th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
I’ve been hearing more and more about his corporate raids and subsequent fire sales which would probably fall more on the “opportunistic” side than the “business acumen” side.
I think what is sad is that all of the candidates are so unoriginal and lacking in moxie. We need a viable third party in this country. If one of us becomes independently wealthy we can use it to finance , say, a 2016 campaign run? We could call it the Non-BS party. Or the Don’t Suck party. Of course the media would most likely marginalize us as fringe psychos and we’d lose before the race even began. But hey, we probably couldn’t do any worse than Kucinich or Nader and it might be fun.
Murf
January 31st, 2008 at 6:18 am
True enough. Too bad the two major parties have so constructed the election format that a third party candidate could never possibly win.