[jeffkrol]

I thought this was HILARIOUS...

Mitt Romney's epic incompetence | New York Daily News

When asked by Gregory about the budget sequestration agreement, mandatory spending cuts, including to the Defense Department budget, that are part of the debt limit deal signed by President Obama and passed by Republican House last summer, Romney said this: "That was a big mistake. I thought it was a mistake on the – on the part of the White House to propose it. I think it was a mistake for Republicans to go along with it."

This is a fascinating statement, not only because Romney attacks the White House (this is basically pro forma) but he is also attacking the 201 members of his own party in the House of Representatives who voted for the sequestration bill, including his own running mate.

In fact, here’s what Paul Ryan said (hat-tip to the folks at Think Progress) about the bill when it passed: It "represents a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy" and that "the agreement – while far from perfect – underscores the extent to which the new House majority has successfully changed Washington’s culture of spending."

The vultures will soon swoop in to pick at the carcass.................

[Parallax]

I think sometimes he gets his tongue wrapped around his eye teeth and can't see what he's saying. Either that or he's an idiot.

[GeneV]

After reading Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone article about how Bain did business, I tend to believe he is just so used to saying and doing anything he wants to get what he wants that he has lost touch with the truth.

[jeffkrol]

he's an idiot.

Mitt Romney’s Monetary Policy Mystery Continues | Swampland | TIME.com

Finally, there’s this sentence to unpack: ”And of course the stock market does well in part because the indication by the Fed that they’re going to print more money, pour more money into the system, says we’re likely to have down the road high inflation.” I can’t tell whether he’s stating his opinion that high inflation is on its way if the Fed engages in further easing or whether he thinks that the Fed has already signaled to the markets to expect high inflation. If it’s the latter, Romney is wrong. As the Federal Open Market Committee put it in its Aug. 1 statement, “Inflation has declined since earlier this year… and longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.” But either way, Romney’s flashing the kind of monetary hawkishness that’s in vogue these days on the right. The question remains whether that’s lip service or whether it would inform his pick to head the Federal Reserve should he be elected President.

Read more: Mitt Romney’s Monetary Policy Mystery Continues | Swampland | TIME.com

[jeffkrol]

After reading Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone article about how Bain did business, I tend to believe he is just so used to saying and doing anything he wants to get what he wants that he has lost touch with the truth.

He is even losing touch w/ truthyness... One thing is, he sure doesn't like to lose...........

His statement that easing is not “going to make a significant difference in the job market right now” is not particularly telling. Depending on how you define “significant,” I think you’d be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks that another bond-buying program from the Fed can turn the economy on a dime. Beside, he’s said before that he does think easing can work. (He called it “effective to a certain degree” in 2009.) More notable is what Romney isn’t saying: that the Fed has no business trying to affect employment, a view that his running mate holds. But he also hasn’t ruled it out.

Second, Romney’s point that fiscal policy is more useful right now is something that Ben Bernanke and Barack Obama totally agree with. Romney won’t call it “stimulus” or finger congressional Republicans as the primary obstacle to its passage, but some form of federal spending and/or tax cuts a la the Recovery Act and the December 2010 Bush tax cut deal are basically the sort of policy he’s talking about. It’s safe to assume Romney leans more toward the tax cut side of things, but if you doubt his belief in stimulus, you need only go back to 2008, when he proposed a $250 billion package, more than any other presidential candidate, and criticized John McCain for proposing austerity. (He also warned about the dangers of cutting too quickly this year.) The U.S. has been operating without deliberate fiscal policy since the end of 2010, and Bernanke does not enjoy the fact that he’s basically steering the economy alone. “I’d be much more comfortable in fact if Congress would take some of this burden from us and address those issues,” he said this year. Romney apparently agrees.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/09/10/mitt-romneys-monetary-policy-mystery-co...#ixzz266gguGHL

[wildman]

he has lost touch with the truth.

I think he is very much in touch with the truth - his truth...

... whatever I perceive serves my self interests and keeps me out of jail.

He and Ryan were made for each other.

[arnold]

Self interest is not synonymous with exploitation. The only people without self interest, are dead.

[wildman]

Self interest is not synonymous with exploitation.

It is, often, relative to society

[arnold]

It is, often, relative to society

I work from the view that exploitation of others can never be in one's self interest. It doesn't lead to a peaceful existence, Clearly there is a difference between rational self interest and exploitation.

[les3547]

Self interest is not synonymous with exploitation. The only people without self interest, are dead.

Quite true. However, if a person is hired or elected to represent the interests of others, or is in a position of responsibility for any reason whatsoever, then he is bound by duty and ethics to find a way to make the interests of those people his own. And if a person is working only for himself . . . it is my opinion that the finest men and women nonetheless find ways to achieve self interest in ways that at the very least do no harm, and often will do so by benefitting others.

[wildman]

exploitation of others can never be in one's self interest. It doesn't lead to a peaceful existence,

Exploitation: "An act that exploits or victimizes someone (treats them unfairly)"
New World Dictionary.

Presumably then "exploitation" that does not lead to social unrest is permissible?

[GeneV]

It is also interesting that when Gov. Romney went off script, it was to say something more moderate that was then disavowed by his campaign.

How believable is it that any candidate who worked as hard as he did for a state bill very similar to Obamacare would now find nothing to worth keeping in that law? One wonders whether if 1) the candidate had a strong moral compass and cared about his own principles and 2) the party hadn't veered so far right, if Romney wouldn't be the kind of GOP candidate which could unify the country.

[boriscleto]

2) the party hadn't veered so far right, if Romney wouldn't be the kind of GOP candidate which could unify the country.

A fair question to ask of Barack Obama as well.


President Barack Obama with Scott Van Duzer, a Republican business owner.

[les3547]

A fair question to ask of Barack Obama as well..

Exactly. I've repeatedly quizzed a few Obama haters I know about what it is he's done that justifies their anger, and I never get a rational answer. It seems to me at least, that anyone truly interested in unity should have appreciated President Obama's efforts no matter which party they subscribed to. The typical argument they come up with is "he's not really American" meaning his ways seeing things are not American. Of course, hate is just covering up fear, and I've decided unity is precisely what the far right is afraid of because if you study their suggestions for how to deal with our problems, everyone of them involves excluding people. And President Obama's big sin is his goal, clear from the first day he presented himself as a candidate, to be inclusive . . . very unAmerican.

[jeffkrol]

Speaking of vultures:

GOP to Mitt Romney: You?re so vague - Jim VandeHei and Alexander Burns - POLITICO.com

GOP to Mitt Romney: You’re so vague

funny, they pick a man to run who is apparently even "invisible" to them...........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/09/11/romneys-five...campaign-bets/
1. Clinton is a GOP asset.
2. Black voters don’t matter that much
3. Bush doesn’t matter that much.
4. Details don’t matter that much.
5. Debates change minds.