Who's more "out of touch"?

[J. J.]

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

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.

[J. J.]

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

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.

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?

[J. J.]

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. 

[J. J.]

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

#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.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

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.

[J. J.]

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


Ad Hominem is a no-no my friends.

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).

Even if Obama was upper-middle class when he was growing up, he never had the sheer wealth and prestige of Romney.

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.

[J. J.]

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.

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.

[J. J.]

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."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[J. J.]

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).

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

[J. J.]

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

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.

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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).

[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.)

[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?

[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. 

[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.

[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.  

[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.

[J. J.]

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

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[J. J.]

[

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)

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[J. J.]

[

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)

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[J. J.]

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!

[J. J.]

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!

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.

[J. J.]

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.

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.