Want free stuff, vote for the other guy is the theme of Campaign 2012

On a campaign swing last week, Mitt Romney offered to voters a clear comparison between him and President Barack Obama. “If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for, vote for the other guy,” Romney told a young woman who told him that free contraception would make her happy.

Want free stuff, vote for the other guy, that’s the theme of this year’s presidential campaign. The president and his campaign are stoking envy politics. There is no serious effort to restrain deficits and huge spending. The president’s own budget calls for trillion dollar-plus annual deficits through his administration. If the president can convince enough voters that they are entitled to “free stuff,” he’ll win re-election. If the administration is successful with its explode-the-deficits-for-votes strategy, it may be impossible to implement future spending reforms without having to deal with protests of the type that are occurring in Greece.

Romney is going to be the Republican challenger to President Barack Obama. The campaign will go on, Rick Santorum will win a primary or two, Newt Gingrich will growl, and Ron Paul will pop up in the news, but Romney is the GOP guy. The task for Romney is persuading millions of independents who voted for Obama in 2008 to switch to him. How these independents respond to the huge deficits, and Obama’s embrace of the spending, will be interesting. If they like the “free stuff,” Democrats know what to continue to give voters. If these independents’ sense of self respect and self reliance is offended by the budget shortfall  and its future consequences, Romney will be elected with a mandate to stop the insane spending.

Share
This entry was posted in The Political Surf and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Want free stuff, vote for the other guy is the theme of Campaign 2012

  1. Owain says:

    To be accurate, Mitt should have said, “If you want stuff you don’t have to pay for, that some other competant person has to pay for instead, vote for the other guy.”

    That would have been even better.

    • J. Hartwell says:

      What the Etch A Sketch Man should have said is:
      If you’re a millionaire and don’t want to pay any taxes and believe as I do, that OUR son’s are too important to serve their country.
      THEN VOTE FOR ME!!

  2. rls says:

    …. maybe mitt should have said, “if you want free stuff, like a 15 percent tax rate, stash all your money in offshore banks.” …

  3. Nicole says:

    Liberals think they are entitled to other people’s money and free stuff, instead of allowing people who EARNED the money to keep more of what they EARNED. Maybe we could all afford whatever we wanted if state, local and federal taxes didn’t take away upwards of 50 percent of everything we make.

  4. Bob Becker says:

    Hmmmmm….. Interesting that neither Romney nor Doug mentioned that the GOP has opposed all attempts to raise at least part of the revenues necessary by returning income tax rates to those Reagan supported and in fact are demanding that tax rates on the wealthiest of us be cut even more. If my only choices are “tax and spend Democrats” on one hand or “spend and don’t tax” Republicans on the other (Romney’s tax proposals estimated to result in billions more in annual deficts ten years out than the President’s), I will, being a fiscally conservatve kinda guy, take the former. Every time.

    • Owain says:

      Nice false dilemmalogical fallacy, Bob.

      “This fallacy typically involves asking a question and providing only two possible answers when there are actually far more. It seems to be a favourite of politicians, especially when trying to win support for a none-too-plausible policy.” None too plausible, indeed.

      Those aren’t your only two choices, Bob. Currently, Republicans in the House are developing a budget that does not match your description, and neither does Paul Ryan’s latest budget proposal.

      • Bob Becker says:

        As I understand it, the House budget and Ryan budget both call for more large income tax cuts [hence reductions in revenue] while also calling for a restoration of planned cuts in the defense budget. True, they propose to pay for the tax cuts and defense budget increases by huge cuts in Medicaid and Medicare. But overall, presuming such huge cuts in Medicare are politically possible [never mind prudent], it looks overall very much like the usual GOP “don’t tax but continue to spend” plan. Been there. Done that. [Reagan and Bush II.]

        Now, if the GOP wants to, for a change, follow the plan of the typical family they keep saying should be a model for how government manages its money, and endorse both significant tax increase to raise revenues and significant spending cuts [just as families facing debt try to both cut their spending and increase their incomes], we can talk.

        • Owain says:

          I believe your understanding is incorrect. First, Ryan’s plan doesn’t call for mere tax cuts, but rather for a complete restructuring the entire tax structure. Under the proposed changes, Ryan projects that tax revenues following the restructuring will exceed government expenditures. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen, but your characterization is false.

          Further, your guess that Ryan’s plans restores defense spending cuts at the expense of entitlements is entirely without merit. From my reading of the plan, Ryan doesn’t mention defense spending at all.

          Instead of guessing, I suggest that you actually read the plan. At 99 pages, it’s not exactly light reading, but if you want to opine on a topic, you do have a responsibility to be informed on the topic.

          Once you know what you are talking about, perhaps then we can talk.

          • Owain says:

            Heavy sigh – speaking of knowing what one is talking about, I have been reading a document dated January 2010. Mea Maxima Culpa. Allow me to find the current proposed plan, and then once we are both better informed, I look forward to debating the issue.

        • Owain says:

          Here is a copy of Ryan’s Budget Plan for FY 2013. He appears to perfer his plans to be 99 pages in length. Once I have digested the NEW plan, I look forward to discussing it.

  5. Doug Gibson says:

    Ryan’s budget plan isn’t going anywhere, at least for now, although I’d like to see it get a better hearing. What really concerns me now is the growth of food stamps, long-term unemployment, disability claims, and the resulting drop in workers in our economy. This will affect the ability to fund Social Security and Medicare, which are regarded as earned benefits. I don’t like an America where more welfare-like programs are going to the middle class not do I like an American where much of the middle class is consumed with anger at people who have earned more money.

    • Owain says:

      From my reading or Ryans plan so far (page 19 of 99), your concerns are addressed. I agree that given the current makeup of both the Senate and the Executive, Ryan’s plan stands no chance, but that is not because the plan is invalid, in my opinion so far. Since Senate Democrats have not proposed a budget in 3 years, it does provide a nice contrast for the upcoming elections. If the composition of the Senate and the office of the President changes hands following the election, we’ll see how things go then.

  6. PolishandProud says:

    Well let’s have a reality check here. No government program exists without first being created by congress. No program continues to exist without continued authorization and funding by congress. How would a president “cut spending” for “free stuff” when congress continues to reauthorize these programs? Are you telling me Reagen and Bush 1 and 2 never paid out unemployment benefits, social security, medicare, etc? Are you telling me that’s what Romney will do? Of course not. The president doesn’t have that kind of authority. Another reality check, these entitlement programs are funded by the people who use them. Money is withheld from payroll for them. Reagen and bush raided these accounts to pay for tax cuts and never replenished them. Now we wonder why they aren’t solvent. Lastly, when Obama talks to “them” about “free programs” he’s addressing the 99% who pay into them and have depended on them for 70 years. Romney is talking to the 1% who will enjoy tax cuts that continue to cripple our economy. Several months ago we had a group of millionaires approach congress telling them “raise my taxes!” Need I quote Warren Buffet again? So lets stop playing politics while keeping our heads in the sand. Wake up to reality!

  7. Mark Shenefelt says:

    What your beefs with “disability claims,” Doug? I’m honestly curious about the specifics of your concern.

  8. willbike says:

    I know lots of liberals and none of them think that. No one pays upwards of 50 percent of what they make in taxes. Taxes are currently the lowest they’ve been in 70 years.

  9. Bob Becker says:

    Well, let’s throw this one into the mix: the rate of growth of federal spending is lower under President Obama than it was under Reagan or Bush I or Bush II. In fact, Clinton and Obama rate of increased federal spending is less than half the rate of increase in federal spending under Bush I, Bush II or Reagan.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/03/23/fed-spending-lower-under-obama-than-reagan/

    Fiscal conservative GOP? Yeah. Right.

    • Owain says:

      I’m unable to follow your link because it’s blocked where I work, but how can that possibly be true, Bob? Obama has added more to the deficit three years into his first term of office than Bush added in 8 years.

      By the way, I’ve gone through the 2013 Ryan budget proposal, at least for a preliminary read, so if you care to discuss that, fire away.

  10. Myth Buster says:

    Mitt should know, he and Ann have millions stashed in the Cayman Is.

  11. Jimmy says:

    To the guy who said about Wareen Buffet and the other millionaires who went to congress saying “raise my taxes”.

    First if Warren Buffet is so concerned, why is he only paying his secretary $33,000 a year? Give her a raise you old cheapskate!

    Second if Warren Buffet and all these rich liberal millionaires care so much, why don’t they just send all their extra money to the Federal treasury and help reduce the decifit? That was just all a big show!

    I’m tired of people thinking they’re entitled to this and that. If all the ones who want more entitlement programs, they should be taxed also whatever they make. Not just the ones who are not lazy and go out and work hard,invest wisely and don’t spend wrecklessly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>