Talk Elections

Having just watched Romney's victory speech from last night where he attack the president as out of touch, i'm just wondering who people here think is more out of touch. Mr "I like firing people" or the President?

It depends on which Americans we are discussing...with many Americans they may bbe equally out of touch- I won't pretend Romney can relate to Legionnaires for example more then Obama can

Romney is trying to sell it as Obama has been hanging with stoners, blacks, cokeheads; then socialists, academics, liberal elitists.  more or less the general tool used to get the white working- and parts of the middle-class to vote for their own extermination, and it has worked very well for decades in its various forms, probably because it at least has a shred of legitimacy.

Obama is more out of touch.

It only seems the reverse because Obama has strong interpersonal skills.

I think the best one word way to describe Obama is: Aloof.

Obama.

President Obama.

Obama

Obama grew up in a lower middle class household, had to pay student loans, worked as a community organizer in impoverished neighborhoods and didn't live a lavish lifestyle until fairly recently. He has a personal understanding of the dilemmas faced by the average American.

Romney? lol

This is far closer than I expected.

Pretty sure Romney has never taken a $50,000/day vacation, and certainly not at the taxpayer's expense.

Right now, because he's been stuck in a big house for just over 3 years without getting out to the real world much it's Obama. But in general Mitt Romney.

Using that logic, any incumbent is "out of touch". This country would be run pretty poorly if we always had to change guys every four years....and I am sure Romney has taken more than a $50,000 a day vacation. Much of it earned on public subsidies and tax credits.

Obama.  By all accounts, it should be Romney.  But it isn't.

Obama is more out of touch.

As for growing up, his grandmother was a bank vice president, his stepfather was an oil company executive, his mother had an earned Ph D., his father was a Harvard graduate, and he went to a prestigious private school.  Until I went to college, I knew no one that upper class, in my age group.

to be honest, I think that both are more than they should be, but given a choice between the two? Romney.

Yet he still spent time on food stamps and going through many of the same stages of youth discontent as most people. Your point?

His mother, when a student, did.  Very upper class people have their "discontent" period.  Your point?

Obama has failed the middle class.  He doesn't understand that the engine for prosperity is business.  He sees only government as the provider of prosperity. 

I agree with this - I think Obama's backstory is considerably less mainstream than even Romney's high-flying wealth.  The community organizer / law professor thing isn't nearly as meat and potatoes as being Joe Lunchbox's boss.

I think of my father (high school educated machinist) and I can much more easily seem him having an adult beverage with Romney than with Obama.

Obama is just as much of a supply-sider as the worst Republicans.  He just believes in permanent government charity for the "lessers".

I generally vote Republican but I'm quite sick of their apologism for tax cutting for the rich.  I much prefer the people who are focused on reducing spending and structural cost.

Can I say both?

That much is pretty obvious - so yes, you can, Captain Obvious.  :-)

All the 'Crash of 2008' tells me is that there is a need for more proactive government to 1) regulate the excesses of the market and 2) create a more fair society and if President Obama has a vision for government its that of it facilitating 'gradle-to-grave' opportunity :)

You'd be hard pushed selling me supply-side given that 1) the US economy, during the presidency of George W Bush, yielded the fewest number of jobs this side of Herbert Hoover and 2) US median incomes declined. Hardly surprising the US economy hit the crappers to the extent that it did given the extent to which a nation's wealth became increasingly concentrated in the 1%

#2 sounds more like the failed Callahan government of the late 1970's.  That is a typically Labour approach, which is out of touch with America, obviously.

Can we vote for JJ or is it considered undue competition?

Just look at the country of your avatar to see what the "governmental approach" has given us.

Just look at Somalia to see what "limited government" has given us.

There is a difference between "limited government intervention in the economy" and "not government."  The old ways of big government, the Callahan style intervention are as bankrupted as, well, Greece.  Don't worry too much, however, Obama is leading the county to that level.

Obama, in touch with Europe of the 1970's, out of touch with America in the 2010's.

Guys, both examples are massively irrelevant. In Greece some parts of government are far too big in my opinion, however if the government would actually collect taxes and put 2 and 2 together (I've heard lots of stories about this, one of them being a registered taxi driver who's claiming the social welfare of a blind person). In Somalia, the government is powerless. I bet they wish they controlled their people but they can't.

This isn't the first time I've seen Lyndon attacked for his avatar.

I like how this turned into a "my candidate has a worse educational background than your candidate" thread.

I think the correct answer to this is "the Atlas virgins"

And I mean that as a double entendre.

lol actually I think that Utah republican attacked Lyndon's avatar too XD.


Ad Hominem is a no-no my friends.

Romney. Even if Obama was upper-middle class when he was growing up, he never had the sheer wealth and prestige of Romney. That immense wealth insulates him from regular people, and so makes him out-of-touch.

Wealth doesn't insulate one from regular people. Or even prevent one from being a "regular person".

Unemployment when Jim Callaghan left office was 1.1 million having declined from the 1.5 million peak it reached as a consequence of the recession, which followed the 'Oil Crisis'. Then came the 'Monetarist Recession' >:( and double-digit :( unemployment for most of the 1980s


The only thing driving your country to that level is the ruinous supply-side fantasies of the GOP. Obama, on the other hand, favours a more balanced approach, just as Clinton - by far the most economically successful of the 'neoliberal' presidents - did towards reducing the deficit

Obama had an early life characterized by extreme lack of certainty about things even when he was living with the richer parts of his family, is my point. He isn't a son of a governor and Cabinet minister who makes twenty-two million dollars a year for not working. He has an unusual background but it was the exact opposite of one that isolated him from the hardships of life, even if he spent much of it in relative material comfort.

Romney, at the age of nineteen, protested in favor of the draft.

I'm not attacking the avatar, but I think the analogy is quite valid.  We're seeing Obama advocating very high level of governmental involvement in the economy, beyond regulation.  We have seen that in other countries in the past (UK in the 1970's) and present (Greece in the 2010's).  Those policies simply have not produced the result.

I do find it interesting that both posters who brought this up can look at their own countries and see examples of where it hasn't worked or isn't working.  That doesn't say anything about the merits of their avatars, or their counties.  It says more about the failures of this policy (and perhaps the posters skills at observation).


Well, it was the silly claim that Obama was lower middle class.  Not being lower middle class does not mean that you are out of touch or unfit to be president.  Likewise, having "wealth or prestige," and Romney was not super rich growing up, is not a dis-qualifier.  He certainly did not inherit great wealth.

Certainly, both were upper middle class, and I would argue that Romney was lower upper class after his father was elected governor, if not before.

In his adult life, Obama was exceptionally insular, he certainly had not had the breadth of exposure to other people that Romney has.  And in all fairness, Romney about 14 more years to gain this exposure.

Why not? They typically move in completely different circles and have different lifestyles. Please elaborate on that one.

But extreme wealth does help to insulate a person from poorer people, even if a few wealthy people understand full well the lives of those poorer than themselves. Especially the rich who are born into wealth, like Romney. That can't really be denied.

Neither one could really be called "in touch" now, but Romney is more out of touch, and worse, he fails to understand that he is out of touch.  I think Obama at least understands he is out of touch.

No real "hardships," for Obama, unless it you call a desire to go to school in the US a "hardship."  Frankly, I think that aspect is commendable.

 I would also note that being the son of the former governor may help Romney had he stayed in MI.  He didn't.  He didn't inherit that money.  He earned it over 25-30 years.  That is merit, and I'm fine with it.

Romney, had he wanted to, could have stayed in MI, nice and safe, and probably used his name recognition to be elected to something (the names Scranton and Casey come to mind in PA, and bluntly Bush, nationally).  He didn't.  He struck out on his own, and worked for what he earned, even completely outside of his father's fields.

Maybe not necessarily economic hardships (not that Romney has either), but he understands various aspects of cultural hardship that a whitebread rich like Romney can't viscerally even if he does intellectually (which he also doesn't seem to).


....are...are you at all familiar with the concept of 'connections'?

And that "terrible" economy produced Thatcher (1979), Thatcher (1983), Thatcher (1987), and Major (1992).  Even when Labour won, it was "New Labour," that had finally moved away from "Sunny Jim," and his "cloudy future."


Clinton's famous quote was, "The era of big government is over."  He understood that the old ways simply no longer worked.  Obama has yet to learn that lesson.

This.

By no measure could anyone seriously state Obama is more out of touch than Mitt Romney.

You don't think he could understand what can happen if he could not perform?  He couldn't rely on a trust fund.


Sure, and are you familiar with how few there are for the son of a former public officeholder, in a different field, in another state?

This thread is deeply embarrassing on so many levels.

Obama is surrounded by yes men, lackeys, flunkys, toadys, and sycophants, who tell him what he wants to hear.

So obviously Obama.

I think you have to look at what they did in their lives after college, and it is a matter of degree.  ;)

Neither one of these guys grew up in public housing (at let's leave college out of it for both).  By the same token, neither one of these guys had a father that got to appoint or confirm a Supreme Court Justice, nor are we determining which member of Skull and Bones should be elected.

In his early professional like, Romney started out in an entry level position and was not hired away by Bain until 1977.  He actually went back to school first.  His wealth from Bain didn't really come until the late 1990's.

No, actually, I really don't think Mitt Romney understands the concept of being a poor person. I think it's somewhat ridiculous to suggest otherwise, to be quite honest.


...he was a multiple-term governor, Cabinet minister, presidential candidate, and former boss of one of the biggest companies in the country.

And I wouldn't say Obama does. You said he was a community organizer.  Okay, Romney worked with, and got high marks, for working with the poor in his church, especially immigrants; he was doing it 30 hours a week, on top of working, for eight years.


Former, by the time Mittens got his law degree.  His father ran for president, briefly, withdrawing prior to the NH Primary; that was seven years before.  That isn't exactly Al Gore territory.  He was was governor of another state and out of office for six years and his Cabinet position was HUD Secretary.  That isn't going to bring Romney in contact with people with money, especially in the 1970's (when NYC defaulted).

this is easy

willard

Embarassing+1

What does out of touch mean here? We're all formed by our specific backgrounds and may have trouble relating to those from other walks of life.

So do we mean in touch with the poorest people or with the average American? Or, gasp, with the people of the world?

Anyway, it seems to me that Romney clearly has a richer background. However, first of all I'm not sure how much your fortune matters for being out of touch, once above a certain threshold. Secondly, being rich does not automatically determine being out of touch.

To use examples from my own life - I grew up in the suburbs and my parents are reasonably well-off. But my dad grew up in a poor family and was rather poor until he turned 30 or so, which means that I'm a bit more aware of what that entails. My mother comes from a rich family and she sometimes is a bit out of touch due to that. Then again, a couple of her cousins are HILARIOUSLY out of touch. Like, on a whole other level.

I guess, at the end of the day, class background should matter less here than simply observing them here and now. And then Romney certainly seems to be so out of touch that it's hard to believe.

Romney is out of touch with the American people and it's not because of his education and his wealth it's because his speeches just don't genuinely relate to the middle class if he tries to relate it just comes off as fake.

On a side note I think people on the left have gone way to far when it comes to demonizing anyone who was born into wealth in this country.

Just get back to owning the Reactionary Party's elite-enriching, middle class emaciating economic policies, J.J. because that's the root cause as to why the US economy hit the crappers to the extent that it did. The 'Noughties' impressed me not. Given the decline in US median incomes, I'm not surprised there was a loss of confidence in the US sub-prime market, which as events unfolded proved near catastrophic not only for the US economy but the wider global economy as a consequence

Furthermore, job creation under the Obama presidency, unlike that of the Bush 43 presidency (2001-2005), is being driven by the private sector as opposed to the public sector, so this "old ways" guff you're spouting doesn't quite hold water. That said, I can't condone spending cuts just yet and won't until U1 is below 5%. Unemployment is a fate worse than death in the UK, so I'd be surprised if it was any better in the US

Unemployment is certain to be lower in November 2012 than it was in January 2009, which is more than can be said for November 2004 compared with January 2001. And if conservative talking heads can credit Bush 43 with getting the US out of the "Clinton-Gore Recession", yet get re-elected at a time of higher unemployment than when he took office, then I can sure as hell credit Obama with overcoming an even greater challenge. There is a world of difference between an economic contraction of 0.3% and one of 5.1% - and austerity was not the road out of that one

When the Republicans join the real world and accept the necessity to raise taxes, especially on the wealthiest, as Bill Clinton did and Obama does, in addition to cutting spending, they'll be somewhat fit to exist but not until. I, for one, haven't forgotton the fiscally ruinous presidency of George W Bush (proud of it, J.J?), who's policies to this day primarily drives the deficit and fuel the debt. He deserves credit for TARP but that's about it but had tax rates been held at fiscally responsible Clinton levels, I'd wager that America would have been better prepared to weather the storm that came

... If only Obama had been dealt the Clinton legacy of prosperity, solvent government and low unemployment. I suspect like every post-war Democratic president before him the gross federal debt as a % of GDP would have declined :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

We're getting there.

Given the identity of this post's poster:

()

Really you find a real tax rate of 9% as to much government. Greece has a lot of problems, but that they raise to high taxes and the government was to strong aren't any of them.

But that's just it though. If the late 1970s marked a crisis of Keynesian 'social democracy', the 'Crash of 2008' was a crisis of neoliberalism's very own making

You are, however, arguing that Romney is "out of touch" because he doesn't support programs similar to the "Keynesian 'social democracy'" of the 1970's, which failed in the 1970's and which, so far, have not produced a favorable result today in the US.

2008 had to deal with debt and a huge number of people leveraged (at all levels).

(And just to be clear, Labour no longer favors those 1970's policies, and starting winning when they left those policies behind.)

You have to be a real hack to accuse the millionaire son of a governor and presidential candidate of not being in touch with the lives and concerns of everyday Americans.

Why, I recall how much Al Gore's privileged background wasn't cited for this very reason in 2000.

Let's be clear about the "presidential candidate" thing.  George Romney was a weaker candidate that Tim Pawlenty.  To draw the analogy, how well will Pawlenty's children be known in ME in 7-8 years?  (Al Gore's daughter, I think, ended up as a writer on Futurama.)

Money, sure, his father had some, eventually, but Mittens didn't get his money by inheriting it and the Romney's may have been lower upper class in the 1960's, but they were not super-rich.

Further, why would someone having a rich parent make them necessarily out of touch. 

And, why did Obama think Obamacare would be such a great plus?

I've been wondering that myself for this entire thread.
The answer is obviously Romney, but for reasons unrelated to Romney's gargantuan wealth.

Edit: accidentally answered with Obama (I meant to say Obama is more in touch, wealth aside).... Romney is the more out of touch candidate. I feel stoops Haha. Voted for Mitt in the poll though.

As would Hilary.  The idea is who they are guaranteeing.  In that case, it would have been the home owner.  It would have lead to a consumer recovery, broader based and reliant on continuous governmental expenditures.  Home prices have been falling again and, after four years, this crisis continues.

I don't disagree with the premise that there was too much spending, but the way to solve was not more spending without building equity. 

J.J.

The past few years, in the wake of the 'Crash of 2008' have been deeply troubling and moving forward Anglo-American capitalism is going to have emerge fundamentally different coming out than it was going in but it doesn't alter the fact that it is a crisis of neoliberalism. Logically, therefore, I don't think the solutions are on the right, which is why I'm of the deeply held conviction that capitalism needs to work for the majority more effectively like it did during the Golden Age - aka the post-war economic expansion. Of developed nations, both the US and UK rank among the most unequal in terms of wealth distribution. It needs someway, somehow redressing

I consider the Democratic Party, economically, way closer to my own Christian Democratic convictions, while it was the mass unemployment of the 1980s, which effectively turned me against the Conservative Party. Not one member of my extended family of my parents' generation ever experienced unemployment until then, so I dare say you can appreciate where I'm coming from. We have a safety net, but its poor, IMO, compared to that of Northern Europe whether the nature of welfare capitalism is social democratic (e.g. Scandinavia, the Netherlands) or Christian Democratic/conservative (e.g. Germany, Austria)

Air Force One and Secret Service protection don't come cheap.

Yes, you are making the argument that because someone is successful, personally, they are "out of touch."  I am making the argument that this is 1970's UK Labour thinking and truly is out of touch, even in the modern UK Labour Party.  

I, frankly, am sorry that Obama chose such regressive thinking.  He had his chance, and it is sure looking like he has failed.  It certainly was not the only option he could have chosen, and he did not have to move to a strictly supply side approach as an alternative.

You are perfectly entitled to your own ideology, but you are not entitled to pretend it is effective.

So, you are basically saying, "Romney disagrees with me, so he's out of touch."  Thanks for clearing that up.  Mine is, "Obama's economic policies* have failed, so replace him."

This is the class warfare wing of Old Labour, or perhaps loser Labour, of outdated ideas that were rejected by Labour in the 1990's.  It was tossed into the dustbin of history by Thatcher, then tossed into the incinerator of history by Blair.  Remember Blair, the guy who actually won?  I guess a few fragments were missed.

*I wouldn't say the same thing about military policy.

Interestingly, many of the economic policies of the Blair Government were quite significantly to the Left of those of the Callaghan Government.

Just as a point of pedantry, it was actually the Callaghan government that abandoned Keynesian economic policies.

Well, you sure sound like it.

The key to economic development is to come come up with a policy that encourages capital investment.  You don't let the government create jobs; you use the government to encourage people (yes, people with money) to create jobs.  You encourage consumer spending with minimal output.

One thing that had a lot of potential in Obama's policy was the renewable energy initiative.*  The problems were that he had that skewed to short term growth and it was mishandled in at least some cases from an administrative standpoint.

The first problem might be due to being "out of touch" with how businesses develop.  He might have benefited from advice from Mittens on that point.

*I've now said two nice things about Obama's policies in two posts, if you're keeping track.  

I'm angry that your party given all the damage done is not extinct. Pretty much impossible for a pragmatic moderate Democrat like Obama reaching across the aisle to work with a party that if the Earth was flat they'd have fallen off the right face of it. You've never in my life been more extreme

Progressive populism can ultimately save capitalism from neoliberalism. The middle class will rise again :)

I think what you call "progressive populism" is generally called class warfare.  Obama, as just noted is neither pragmatic nor moderate, the first less so than the second.  That is part of the problem, especially with Obamacare.

But how can it be class warfare when the wealthiest will thrive as a consequence of the middle class prosperity progressive populism will more, effectively, deliver? The Golden Age of Capitalism was a great period for ordinary people and, as a logical consequence, the wealthiest thrived


Yes, he is. Democrats, generally, have to steer close to the centre, indeed, Bruce Bartlett has made the case that Obama is a moderate conservative. Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, understands that in addition to cuts in spending, taxes are going to have to be raised, especially on those with the means to be able to pay more

And I'm sorry J.J. but given the fact that the Bush 43 economy generated the fewest number of jobs this side of Herbert Hoover, together with a decline in US median incomes when it comes to supply-side, I'm sceptical. Now if the answer to any economic downturn is to cut taxes and keep them permanently at those levels, where does it end when the next downturn comes along, and the next ...

Government should be raising sufficient revenues to pay for what it spends. Its called fiscal responsibility, yet, neither the UK nor the US seem to be particularly very good at it

As soon as you talk about wealth, and there has been a lot of that on this thread, you are talking about class warfare.

Romney is rich.  He became rich by making good business decisions over a 20 year period.  There is nothing wrong with that.  That actually shows that he was "in touch" with consumers, who ultimately made him rich.



The great problem is that Obama has increased spending (unlike Clinton, on a net basis).  

Today, unemployment is 8.2%.  That is the lowest that it has been since February 2009.  The problems are:

1.  It is 0.1% lower than when he took office, not a big improvement.

2.  It took huge expenditures to get it there.

3.  After those huge expenditures, unemployment went rather dramatically.

4.  It looks like, with the recent numbers, unemployment will be increasing.  

This is about Obama 44 and possibly Romney 45, so Bush 43 really isn't that important, but let's look at it just for fun.  From 2/01 until 2/04, unemployment was low, but increased to 6.3, up 2.2 points at its high point. Obama, despite spending a lot more money, had the same 2.2 points.  The difference is that Bush 43 numbers continued to decline, and did so until 2008.  What drove up unemployment was the housing crisis of 2008.

Job creation was half of what was expected last month.

And what pray was the road out of the 'Great Recession'? Austerity ::). The ARRA hasn't added anything near to the gross federal debt that the Bush tax cuts ($3 trillion)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt

Obama has seen the US through a much steeper economic downturn than the recession of 2001. I don't doubt it would have been worse without TARP [GWB's one saving grace]

But, for now, at least, unemployment :( concerns me more than deficits

Stabilization, especially in the housing loan market, not job creation. 

By its nature, once the government program is finished, the jobs it created are finished.  It have potential as a short term method for dealing with employment, but sucks completely long term.  So the government either has to start more projects or watch unemployment rise.

Put the money into securing these loans.  It is a long term investment, but it will ultimately revalue the housing market, and create jobs.  It will also cost less long term, easing the crowding out of the private sector.




Most of TARP funds were paid off, some at a profit:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP

It was hugely unpopular, but it worked and it had limited fiscal impact on the national debt.

Do you know J.J? I'm beginning to wonder if our cultural fetish with home ownership hasn't been more trouble :( than its worth

Well, not liking it harkens back to a Socialist economy, perhaps even beyond Foote and Benn.  Obama not addressing this directly for nearly four years is a very good indication of how "out of touch" he is.  It will be driven home over the summer.

I'm not even going there ::), J.J. :)

You are to the point of complaining about home ownership.  I'm not sure if even the former Viscount Stansgate would agree with that!

JJ needs to learn how to use commas.

I complain about home ownership, too.  As a libertarian, I feel the government has done far too much to ensure that people who do not have assets and have limited income are indebted on a major purchase like a house.

They all do have a major asset, a home.  There are a number of economic and, yes social, good in helping people maintain a capital asset.

You make a very fair point given that growth in the financial and real estate sectors wasn't healthy growth (or certainly a big chunk of it wasn't). This growth was due to a reliance on debt and products built on debt, which was assisted by an easy availability of credit

And I'm no libertarian (except on guns). I just think someway, somehow Anglo-American capitalism needs to be better than it is. Though you and I are certain to disagree on that

My conscience right now is just not comfortable with public spending cuts given the UK's 8.4% rate of unemployment and I'm critical of the liberal welfare model, at least, compared with the Nordic (social democratic welfarist) and the social market (Christian Democratic/conservative welfarist) models

Seriously, wishing death on my enemy would be kinder than wishing them unemployment

Anyway, a left-leaning Christian Democrat is what I am. Take it or leave it!

Which is great :). I doubt I'll need to buy one myself since I'll inherit the one in which I live but I know people who are mortgaged to the hilt, and believe me they've not much left to spend on wider private sector goods and services. There is more to an economy than housing

In fact, when the time comes, I'm selling up and going travelling. See the world a bit. Nothing to keep me in Durham

Housing, however, is the key.  It generates assets, and money for greater investment.  It basically helps expand the pool of assets that can fund other things.  You might own a house outright, but because you don't have to meet payments, you can:

1.  Use the money to buy products, and airline tickets count.  :)

2.  Save it, and create capital for others to buy houses, or start businesses.  That, in turn, will employ others.

This isn't a rich people thing; it is a very middle class approach.

JJ, the number one problem with housing as the preferred asset class is that the six decade period we had from roughly 1945-2005 where real estate generally appreciated in the long term without having to develop or redevelop it was a historical anomaly brought about by Federal intervention in the housing market.  Even with continued intervention, it is hard to see that resuming any time soon, nor would it be.  I'll grant that for some people a 30-year mortgage acted like a long-term Xmas Club account that forced financially inept people to save despite themselves, but then home equity loans came to give the inept a chance to spend their savings anyway.

I think the appreciation was much longer term, possibly dating from the late 19th century.  It tended to be a long term asset, but one that was used daily.

The question is the type of intervention.  What I'm looking at is basically a securing of that asset.