The sad thing is, there are middle class people who will support these people and their policies that, if enacted, will completely eradicate the middle class.

No, he's not honest, because corporations are people too my friends.

Romney is less honest than the average weather vane.

To be fair, he's looking to put your cash into a lot of OTHER peoples' pockets. And your kids' cash. And their kids' cash.

A Romney Presidency will deliver taxpayer cash like GW's only wishes it could have.

Which is why I really can't vote for this asshat.

hubiestubert: To be fair, he's looking to put your cash into a lot of OTHER peoples' pockets. And your kids' cash. And their kids' cash.

A Romney Presidency will deliver taxpayer cash like GW's only wishes it could have.

Which is why I really can't vote for this asshat.

Wasn't that the main problem with W's presidency? That he spent like a drunken sailor on two wars, followed by TARP funds which went straight into overseas banks, after lowering taxes across the board, but especially on the upper class? Is Romney saying he's not going to lower taxes any more, or give more billions to corporations? What kind of Conservative platform is that?

ox45tallboy: hubiestubert: To be fair, he's looking to put your cash into a lot of OTHER peoples' pockets. And your kids' cash. And their kids' cash.

A Romney Presidency will deliver taxpayer cash like GW's only wishes it could have.

Which is why I really can't vote for this asshat.

Wasn't that the main problem with W's presidency? That he spent like a drunken sailor on two wars, followed by TARP funds which went straight into overseas banks, after lowering taxes across the board, but especially on the upper class? Is Romney saying he's not going to lower taxes any more, or give more billions to corporations? What kind of Conservative platform is that?

Pretty damn much. The problem is that we need someone who understands that fiscal Conservatism doesn't mean "tax breaks" but efficient taxation and efficient spending.

Not propping up middle men. Not propping up structures that are listing from management bloat. Not handing out contracts without oversight. Not allowing corrupt asshats to cherrypick the laws that they'll enforce so that they can get contracts when they leave office.

I would like to see a fiscal Conservative get into office, but they are getting rare as hen's teeth nowadays...

hubiestubert: Pretty damn much. The problem is that we need someone who understands that fiscal Conservatism doesn't mean "tax breaks" but efficient taxation and efficient spending.

Not propping up middle men. Not propping up structures that are listing from management bloat. Not handing out contracts without oversight. Not allowing corrupt asshats to cherrypick the laws that they'll enforce so that they can get contracts when they leave office.

I would like to see a fiscal Conservative get into office, but they are getting rare as hen's teeth nowadays...

How can you get elected without playing that game? When you refuse the corporate money because you don't want to reciprocate with no-bid contracts and easement of regulation, the money is going to go to someone else who will play.

The thing is, most of the time the money comes first, in the form of bribes campaign donations, rather than promises of cushy jobs afterwards. It's usually those who aren't elected that get the cushy job in return for a job well done, such as former FCC commisioner Merideth Baxter.

Thing is, both the campaign donations, AND the cushy jobs, are completely, 100%, above-board, and legal as church on Sunday.

Snarfangel: Djkb: This statement conflicts with the position he previously held which, if I remember correctly was: "I'm trying to put money into people's pockets."

Romney is the only candidate who can observe Schrodinger's cat without collapsing the wave function.

I am sooo stealing that one. Unfortunatel, most of my friends have no idea who Shrodinger is or why his cat is surfing.

Karac: hubiestubert: Pretty damn much. The problem is that we need someone who understands that fiscal Conservatism doesn't mean "tax breaks" but efficient taxation and efficient spending.

Meh. I'd be happy to simply find a republican who understands that you can only cut taxes so far before the government ends up without any revenue at all - not even enough to do the things they want it to do.

Bu-bu-but we can borrow, right?

Or tax the crap out of the working class, who get their money from the wealth creators, so it's trickling down, or some other nonsense.

The problem lies in that folks have turned up the justification machine up, and are believing the tripe that their pet economists have been churning out to explain why they've gamed the system to protect their own interests, at the cost of the rest of the economy, and forgetting that they're all linked.

Folks are pushing through the Looking Glass, and betting that others will clean up their mess, while they quietly slip away.

Karac: Meh. I'd be happy to simply find a republican who understands that you can only cut taxes so far before the government ends up without any revenue at all - not even enough to do the things they want it to do.

But at that point, we'll have 0% unemployment since the job creators will be spending all the extra money on employees, and we won't need things like regulatory agencies and social security since the free market will take care of this, and we won't need public education since everyone is working and can pay for their own, and we won't need social security since employers will provide for retitrement...

In other words, why have taxes at all, since we don't need government if we have a truly free market?

/sadly, so many Conservatives actually believe this...

Tyrone Slothrop: Just for curiosity's sake, is there anyone out there you think fits the bill?

Absolutely none of the Republicans who have spoken at the debates, since they seem to be batshiat crazy (Bachmann), grossly misrepresentative of what their political experience has accomplished (Perry), flip-flopping on nearly every issue (Romney), have no idea what they are saying (Cain) or unrepentantly hypocritical of corruption in others (Gingrich). The only Republican currently actively running that I would even consider is Huntsman, but only because he hasn't had much of an opportunity to say anything I disagree with, at least on a national stage.

clambam: Democrats give their friends jobs when they're in power; republicans give their friends money. So you may rest assured that. while someone's pockets will be lined in a Romney administration, he does not consider the middle class to be his friend.

I'm not going to disagree with this statement, merely point out that at least under the Democrats, their friends are (at least in theory) being paid to work, instead of just receiving money.

Tyrone Slothrop: Right now, you've got Buddy Roemer. He's an unlikely candidate though. He is a cantankerous sort that makes my curmudgeonly heart sort of happy though. His handling of the budget crisis in Louisiana was mired in a confrontational style that was refreshing, but of limited effectiveness. That he pissed off the oil and gas interests there does earn him some points though, just for the "f*ckall" mentality to get stuff done. His opposition to a really crappy abortion rights bill likewise earned him some points for me--the legislature overrode his veto, and then saw it struck down.

Jon Huntsman is still mired in the tax cut crowd, but he does have a commitment for spending reform that isn't rooted in "slash EVERYTHING!" which give me some hope. His look at our tax code problems though, likewise give me some hope.

Gary Johnson's record in New Mexico and financial policies are mixed. His commitment to balancing budgets is encouraging in some ways, and he is keen on eliminating waste. His Fair Tax support is likewise mixed. His look at returning us to a fiat currency is likewise troubling, as it is essentially a look at bolstering commodity exchanges. His idea of reform in the Federal Reserve is likewise a mixed sort of bag of ideas that might turn out to shed some light into some dark places.

I still think that Olympia Snowe is the best hope for the nation, but she hasn't had any ambition in the Presidential races. Smart, shrewd, she's strong on defense, strong on individual rights, and her opposition to NAFTA was the right choice for Maine, and the nation. She has a pragmatic view on taxation, and while she is a consummate player, she regularly votes for the long term interests of the nation, not just the party. Her reservations for the Senate Health Care Reform Bill come not just from party line refusal to support an Obama plan, but from the effects of the spending and impact of the reforms, which she was integral in trying to shape. She is a proponent for small business, and understands that the strength of the nation lies not in multi-national corporate interests, but bolstering local economies, and she guards Maine's vociferously.

They are out there. None really embody everything that I hope for to take the party back, but that's the rub. We have to vote for the candidates that are there, and support the ones that we think will do the best job. Right now, I'm looking at who to support in the Primaries, and then it will be a balance of who will do the best job for the country in the national. It would be nice if I could have a candidate to take all the way to the White House, but that hasn't happened yet in any Presidential election. Dole didn't make it against Clinton. I couldn't vote for GW in any way, shape, or form, and while I supported McCain in 2000, and was glad to be able to vote for him in the Primary last time around, he boned the national vote when he lost all coherence, and proved that he just wasn't ready for the Presidency with his fumbling with positions in the Ossetian issue in Georgia--his obsession with the Russians, who have been preventing genocide in the region for generations now, as the "bad guys" was an inappropriate reading of the situation, and proved him unfit to read international relations.

I wish that we could draft Snowe. I am looking at Roemer and Huntsman in the Primary--Johnson's record is so mixed, that while some of what he does appeals, there is a lot that causes me concern for his ability in the Big Chair.

farkityfarker: And Americans continue to go back and forth between the Dems and the Reps, the two branches of the Corporate Party, while never even thinking of voting in their own interests.

So you're saying that both sides are bad. Whomever should I vote for then?

dlp211: We already have a "trickle up" plan. It's the model that we're using right now. Wealth flows out of communities, and into hubs. Wealth flows out of those hubs, and concentrates further. That is part of the problem. We're essentially mining towns and cities for the cash, and shipping it out, along with the jobs, and sending it far and away from any chain of commerce that would benefit these communities.

We want to stimulate things, we need to increase competition at the local level. We need new players, we need more investment in local economies--beyond just in simple real estate, but in small businesses that have the potential to grow into larger ones. We need to end the monopolist impulses and stop the special interest bingo that sends tax dollars to folks who ship jobs away, and then pats them on the back for it.

We need real competition in the marketplace, not the jiggered sort that we see today, and wildly supported by the folks who have their hands out.

Djkb: This statement conflicts with the position he previously held which, if I remember correctly was: "I'm trying to put money into people's pockets."

At this point the only thing left for Mitt to flip-flop on is to declare that he was never running for President to begin with. Now that I think about it, that might actually be a good idea.

Aar1012: farkityfarker: And Americans continue to go back and forth between the Dems and the Reps, the two branches of the Corporate Party, while never even thinking of voting in their own interests.

So you're saying that both sides are bad. Whomever should I vote for then?

dlp211: I seriously wonder why there isn't a candidate that advocates for a 'trickle-up' plan. Why is it ok to bail out the banks who wrote the bad mortgages, but not the mortgagees? They were both culpable, but the banks more so and they got the money.

Exactly. Instead of rewarding the banks who made or bought the bad loans to begin with, by giving them enough capital to stay afloat, why not give money to or make payments on behalf of the homeowners who took out the bad loans, so that they can keep their houses AND the banks can stay afloat?

The whole idea of rewarding the banks, and continuing to allow them to forclose (thereby getting not only tax-free loans but also the property in question, as well as all the interest-only money paid in to the bank during the first few years of the loan, AND a demand of payment from the (former) homeowner for the difference between the equity (if any) in the home relating to its original loan amount, and the amount the home sold for at foreclosure auction!

Bank: Loans $250,000
Homeowner: Pays $48,000 in interest-only payments for first two years of loan
Bank: Your mortgage rate has now adjusted, that'll be $3,000/month, of which $50 is principal
HO: I don't have that, but here's another $2,000 for this month
Bank: We'll take the $2,000, but you're now a month behind
HO: I still don't have $3,000 this month, but here's another $2,000
Bank: Okay, so we take $1,000 of that and apply to last month, plus a 10% late fee of $200, means you're only paying $800 this month
HO: Okay, I'm still not making enough to pay more than $2,000 this month.
Bank: Okay, so we apply $2200 to last month... Wait, you mean you can't even make last month's payment? You're more than 60 days behind, we're beginning foreclosure proceedings
HO: No chance of a refinance?
Bank: Hell no, your property is now only worth $200,000, and you've paid all of $50 towards the principal.
HO: In the past 27 months, I've given you $54,000 and you're saying I've only given you $50?
Bank: Yes, and who is going to loan you any more money on a negative equity when you're already 60 days delinquent on your existing?
HO: screw you guys, I'm not paying you any more money.
Bank: Foreclosure time!

Six months later, HO is forceably evicted. The house is sold at a foreclosure auction for $125,000, half of what HO paid for it, and about 60% of its current market value. The bank has received $54,000 over the course of less than three years, and applied a grand total of $50 towards the principal of $250,000. The bank claims a loss of $124,950 on the deal, although it has actually lost about $70,000.

The most horrible thing about this is that HO is still on the hook for all $124,950, regardless of the bank bailout.

At least the Obama administration did something about the mess, namely the Make Homes Affordable plan. However, with all the help I gave my former roommate in her BOA loan modification, I can testify that this still shafted the consumer. Her $125,000 (at the time of purchase in 2003) townhouse would have cost her a grand toal of $320,000 under the old mortgage, but under MHA, it's more like $492,000.

hasty ambush: I did not realize it was the role of the Federal Government and more specifically the President to "put money in people's pockets".

It has been the sole function of the Federal Government ever since corporations were defined as "people".

LouDobbsAwaaaay: hasty ambush: I did not realize it was the role of the Federal Government and more specifically the President to "put money in people's pockets".

It has been the sole function of the Federal Government ever since corporations were defined as "people".

BAM. Someone just got told.

clambam: Yeah? So? At least they're real jobs, not $1.6 million "consultant fees." Democrats work for a living; republicans clip coupons.

Come on down to CRAZY DAN'S DEFENSE SYSTEMS! Your #1 superstore for all of you Continental Defense Spending Needs! Grab our voucher in this week's Guns and More Guns for our buy-one-get-one-half-off ICBM special! To celebrate the re-branding of Blackwater, bring in any merchandise sporting the new "XE services" logo, and get 20% off your next civilian bloodshed event you need to blame on subcontractors (remember exemption from UCMJ still applies)! Don't forget to tell 'em Crazy Dan sent you, and get a free flag pin!

/I shouldn't drink this early