Who's more "out of touch"?

[J. J.]

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.

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.

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

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).

[wan]

this is easy

willard

[TheGlobalizer]

This thread is deeply embarrassing on so many levels.

Embarassing+1

[Gustaf]

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.

[Purch]

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.

[Democratic Hawk]

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

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."

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

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.

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

[Old Europe]

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

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

We're getting there.

[Old Europe]

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

So obviously Obama.

Given the identity of this post's poster:

[ingemann]

Obama understands that the key to a strong economy is a prosperous middle class (though Republicans are always going to obstruct on that objective); Romney, on the other hand, is totally and utterly in thrall to the failed supply-side fantasies of the past 30 years that will only further 'burden' the US with debt, more debt and even more debt, just as it did during the 'Eighties' and 'Noughties'

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. 

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.

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.

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.

[Democratic Hawk]

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

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."'

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

[J. J.]

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.)

[Gravis Marketing]

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.

[J. J.]

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?

[Senator Napoleon]

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

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.

[J. J.]

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.)

Aye, and McCain would have guaranteed more of it.

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. 

[Democratic Hawk]

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.)

Aye, and McCain would have guaranteed more of it.

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)

[pbrower2a]

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

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

[J. J.]

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

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.

[J. J.]

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

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.

As I've just get back to owning your party's elite-enriching, middle class emaciating policies because that is why the US economy hit the crappers to the extent that it did under the abysmally failed presidency of George 'Dumbya' Bush

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.

[State Comptroller Atkins]

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

[Sibboleth]

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

[J. J.]

I'm not a class warrior. I'm working class to my core but that said it doesn't alter my conviction that the rich thrive most when the middle and working classes are thriving economically. I don't think the interests of capital and labour need not be necessarily irreconciliable

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.  

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not a class warrior. I'm working class to my core but that said it doesn't alter my conviction that the rich thrive most when the middle and working classes are thriving economically. I don't think the interests of capital and labour need not be necessarily irreconciliable

Well, you sure sound like it.

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

[J. J.]

I'm not a class warrior. I'm working class to my core but that said it doesn't alter my conviction that the rich thrive most when the middle and working classes are thriving economically. I don't think the interests of capital and labour need not be necessarily irreconciliable

Well, you sure sound like it.

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.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not a class warrior. I'm working class to my core but that said it doesn't alter my conviction that the rich thrive most when the middle and working classes are thriving economically. I don't think the interests of capital and labour need not be necessarily irreconciliable

Well, you sure sound like it.

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. 

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

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.

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