« Jobs and the 1930s vs. the 2010s | Main | The coming revolution »

September 29, 2011

Comments

Siggie, the real question is which of the current Presidential candidates is best to help achieve your goals of expanding government employment and putting more bureaus and services under federal (rather than state) control.

Obama is certainly the best guy to handle these two objectives, by far.

Anti-immigration people also need to hammer the point that illegal immigrants are poor, pay little in taxes, and use lots of public services. Therefore they are a net economic burden.

There are studies on this.

What do you think of the whole 'lump of labor fallacy' that economists keep trying to sell us?

You should dedicate a blog post to Herman Cain. What would you estimate his IQ as ?

I'm in favor of cutting down on immigration, but I'm concerned about the economics of it. Most poor Americans are not willing to work as seasonal laborers or in really terrible jobs, etc. They'd rather get a check from the government (which is something unavailable to illegals, comments suggesting otherwise notwithstanding). Because of this, officially sanctioned illegal immigration amounts to a very effective subsidy to industries that employ low-skill workers. If this goes away, prices will rise, and probably very considerably. You cannot run a farm if you have to pay your employees a "social justice wage" to pick peas.

Also, in states like Texas, where there is no state income tax, illegals are definitely net contributors to rather than net users of services since they pay sales tax and property taxes (via rents).

I'm not saying this justifies things, but these are issues we need to worry about, since if we see huge food price inflation that will affect a much larger number of people badly than unemployment does.

[HS: Labor intensive food can be grown in Mexico. Staple food like wheat requires very little labor in these modern times. No one will starve. Poor people will still be fat. Rich people will have to pay a little for luxury vegetable.]

What helps is that Run Suskind book reveals that when Obama stepped into the Whitehouse he had no idea how to manage anything.

He literally became captive of his advisers with powerful personalities because he didnt know how to run any kind of organization.

Even Tina Brown now confesses Obama wasnt prepared.

I was hesitating about Mitt Romney - what if he says one thing but does something different when in office (like, e.g. George Bush who criticized foreign military interventions during his campaign) but Tom Tancredo's comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uernT1vrGG0

convinced me.

Romney vetoed or threatened to veto driver's licenses and in-state tuition for illegals which is remarkable because in Massachusetts there was little political advantage, maybe even disadvantage in doing so.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/30/most_gop_voters_want_anybody_but_romney_111534.html

"The Republican primaries have been taking a weird, wrenching turn. The pattern could be described as chaotic, except that it has one consistent theme.

That theme is that Republican voters are searching for someone, anyone, other than Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney ran a large national campaign for the nomination four years ago, so he is well-known to Republican primary voters. Too well known. They know all about his infamous flip-flops on abortion. They know all about RomneyCare, the government-directed health care plan he created as governor of Massachusetts, which he touted as a model for the rest of the nation to follow, and which Barack Obama and congressional Democrats actually did use for their model.

Hence the fact that Romney has never drawn the support of more than 25% of Republicans in the polls, and not the strong support of that group, either. The Rick Perry boom, for example, took away about a third of Romney's supporters.

...

Mitt Romney might have seemed like a minimally acceptable candidate in a different year, if we were comfortable having a prudent, competent, consensus-seeking manager of the status quo. And I will still vote for him in the general election, if it comes to that, because "anybody but Obama" trumps "anybody but Romney." But a lot of people on the right sense that Barack Obama has caused so much damage, piled up so much debt, and moved the country so far in the direction of socialism that the next president will need to be bold enough to lead the country in a radical change of direction. And they know that Mitt Romney is not that man."

It's true a lot of people don't trust Romney. The best thing about Romney is that he's both the most electable candidate and the smartest. So what if he was pro-choice to get elected? So was Ronald Reagan. And Romney is legitimately tough on immigration, which may be the most important issue. Even Tancredo is on board. What else do you need to know?

The health care plan was a state issue. He'd overturn Obamacare on his first day in office.

Romney is the "Republican" most likely to "conserve" Obama's bold advances. Therefore, he will win. Also he's much smarter than Obama.

"Fidel Castro mocked President Barack Obama on Thursday for saying he's open to changing U.S. policy toward Cuba if there is change on the island first, calling the U.S. leader 'stupid.'"

Castro, the New Soviet Man, is much wiser than all us benighted Capitalists, and so must be correct. Also, Castro has known Chavez, who is also much smarter than Obama.

"So what if he was pro-choice to get elected?"

Also, are not electing a Supreme Court Justice! Supreme court is where laws regarding abortion are decided - maybe it shouldn't be but it is. It made even less sense to make an issue out of it at the state level.

"Also, are not electing (...)"

I meant to say "we are not" - sorry for the typo.

Romney will apoint conservative judges. Count on it.

JP, you took the words right out of my mouth. Obama's approval rating is 42% This the best chance we have had since 1980 to elect a real conservative to the presidency. Why waste our chance on the flip-flopping squish Romney?

"This the best chance we have had since 1980 to elect a real conservative to the presidency. Why waste our chance on the flip-flopping squish Romney?"

And who would be the real conservative? Rick "in-state tuition for illegals" Perry? Sarah "path to citizenship" Palin?

I suspect Perry will regain the lead, and his pro-Third World influx statements will have helped, not hurt his chances.

The country has simply swung too far in the left-bureaucratic-authoritarian direction.

Do you follow intrade? If you think Fox News polls are better, why don't you bet on intrade?

The most obvious sign of an idiot is someone who disparagingly refers to any type of health insurance reform as "ObamaCare" or "RomneyCare". I'm aware that some are lazy and these can be useful abbreviations however the assumptions behind them give away a lot about a person's mindset.

Romney is the best bet to beat Obama. He's got a stellar background, looks good (very important to win the female vote), and his position on immigration appears to be sincere. That said I believe Obama will likely be reelected. Obama as a campaigner = A+, Obama as a president = D+/C-.

The reason Romney is called a RINO by internet conservatives is because he flip flopped on social issues like abortion and gay marriage when he ran for president.

However, aside from the social issues (which the president can't really do anything to alter anymore than the Pope's lectures can get Italians, Spaniards and French to give up contraception and premarital sex) I don't see why Romney is a liberal.

On economic policies he seems to be in favor of freemarket economics just like the other Republicans.

On foreign policy, he doesn't seem inclined to go on anymore third world baby sitting "Wars".

And on illegal immigration, Romney is the best of the major candidates.

If Romney is good on illegal immigration, then there's no reason why Republicans should not vote for him unless they think Romney would be very liberal on economic and foreign policy, which I don't think is likely. Romney is smart enough not to destroy his presidency trying to turn Muslim countries into Switzerland and he's too hooked up with big business to pursue a liberal economic policy. There's no way corporatist Romney is raising taxes like Obama.

The only reason a conservative would object to Mitt is because of abortion (which is a good thing because abortion has reduced NAM and black crime levels) and gay marriage.

Personally, I oppose gay marriage and gay civil unions because I think promoting traditional marraige is a useful way to organize society (not because I have religious beliefs) but I want illegal immigrants deported much more than I want gay marriage banned.

I don't see an HBD argument against Romney's candidacy.

This is your wake up call. If Chris Christie runs, Herman Cain might be the Republican nominee. Cain is currently in second place in Florida now that Perry has deflated. Christie now appears less likely to beat Obama than Romney in the general election, and he is relatively moderate and liked by the “establishment.” If he runs, he will probably draw from Romney’s supporters and open the door to the lower tier. Cain currently appears the most likely to become the frontrunner, and no one but Palin is left to shake up the race. In other words, Christie can hand re-election to Obama.

The comments to this entry are closed.