In his “The Case for Romney,” Jonah Goldberg suggests that, because Mitt Romney is not particularly ideological, he’d make for a controllable — and grateful — President:
Many conservatives argue that Romney’s stiffness is a superficial objection, and that he’s a solid conservative who can appeal to moderates and independents. Other conservatives think Romney’s lack of fluency is a real problem, not because it proves he’s faking his conservatism but because it would put him at a severe disadvantage in the general election in the same way authentic but stiff liberals such as Gore and John Kerry suffered from their inability to comfortably interface with carbon-based life.
And others simply think Romney’s a big faker.
It’s this last group of anti-Romney holdouts I’d like to address. First, let me say: I feel your pain. The Tea Party arose in no small part out of a delayed allergic reaction to the rhetorical and, to a lesser extent, policy problems of George W. Bush’s presidency and the deep resentment that came with having to vote for John McCain in 2008. These disappointments were visited upon the conservative base by something the naysayers (often problematically) call “the Republican establishment.”
[…]
Let me try to offer some solace. Even if Romney is a Potemkin conservative (a claim I think has merit but is also exaggerated), there is an instrumental case to be made for him: It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you.
A President Romney would be on a very short leash. A President Gingrich would probably chew through his leash in the first ten minutes of his presidency and wander off into trouble. If elected, Romney must follow through for conservatives and honor his vows to repeal Obamacare, implement Representative Paul Ryan’s agenda, and stay true to his pro-life commitments.
— except, if you’ll allow me a brief interjection here, we’ve already heard from one of Romney’s advisors, Norm Coleman, that the promise to repeal ObamaCare is a disingenuous: like the GOP House leadership, Romney will make overtures about repeal, but he hasn’t the stomach to fight for anything more than “conservative” tweaks to the big government institutional coup ObamaCare represents, and every technocrat, regardless of party, slavers over (recall, at crucial moments, the GOP House leadership scuttled or suppressed legislative attempts by TEA Party conservatives to defund ObamaCare’s implementation architecture). Too, we’ve seen that, in Massachusetts, Romney was willing to turn on a dime with respect to his new-found pro-life promises, embracing and elevating the bureaucratic state’s illegitimate authority over something so constitutionally seminal as respecting religious freedom.
So why on earth would we believe he’d do what he says he’d do while he’s forced to try to appeal to the conservative base? That is, on what evidence are we to believe that, if Romney is in fact our Presidential pet, he’s been effectively housebroken? Continues Goldberg:
Moreover, Romney is not a man of vision. He is a man of duty and purpose. He was told to “fix” health care in ways Massachusetts would like. He was told to fix the 2002 Olympics. He was told to create Bain Capital. He did it all. The man does his assignments.
In this light, voting for Romney isn’t a betrayal, it’s a transaction. No, that’s not very exciting or reassuring for those who’d sooner see monkeys fly out their nethers than compromise again. But such a bargain may just be necessary before judgment day comes.
Or, put another way, it may not feel good to settle, but hey, settling isn’t so bad if you just resign yourself to settling.
The problem with such an argument — beyond the rather obvious one of being asked yet again to settle (which, funny how the Beltway insiders are never asked to settle, isn’t it?) — is that Goldberg would have us believe that, should we relent and throw our support behind Romney’s “inevitable” candidacy, a President Romney will be in our eternal debt, and will therefore understand his elevation to the presidency as a mandate for carrying out the conservative / TEA Party agenda.
But in truth, it won’t be to conservatives that Romney will be indebted, but rather to the very GOP Establishment that’s been so keen on seeing a technocratic squish reach office and “manage” the Leviathan (while the GOP, they hope, controls all the committee chairmanships, etc.) that they’ve shown themselves far more willing to smear, attack, and destroy conservative candidates than they’ve ever shown themselves willing to take it to Obama on his rank personal and professional history, such as it is.
That is, Romney will have to answer to his “compassionate conservative” GOP handlers, who have shown themselves to be anything but conservative, and whose “compassion” consists largely of showing Democrats that, when Republicans are in power, they, too, can pander and spend. Only with lower taxes.
Who he won’t have to answer to, once he reaches the Oval Office, is the unsophisticated ideologues to whom he is now so unconvincingly trying to pander.
A President Romney in the debt of the GOP Party elite is precisely the kind of power play the party leaders are hoping for, because it is meant to show the TEA Party types who is really in charge, and how politics in DC really work, despite the best efforts of conservatives to organize and galvanize against the status quo. It is meant to assert the dominance of the ruling class over the voters who they wish to show they can ultimately control.
And it isn’t just the GOP leadership, either: as Nancy Pelosi reminds us, many in Congress are longing for the days before the TEA Party uprising, when Party affiliation didn’t much matter, and elections didn’t really matter.
An easily led Romney is a nightmare for conservatives precisely because he will be both indebted and easily led; and while I’m no great fan of Newt’s, at least I believe that he has the instincts and ego to stick it to the GOP ruling elite who has worked so actively and vociferously to destroy and defeat him.
Put another way, if he chewed through his leash, it wouldn’t be conservatives Gingrich would be looking to bite.
And that makes him more palatable than Romney — though I continue to hope that Santorum is able to move conservatives to rally around his candidacy.
(thanks to dicentra)
I’ll have to dig for it, but in one of his G-File’s Jonah said that Romney struck him as one of those patrician type Republican’s who go through the tedious (from their point of view) process of saying what they have to say to get themselves elected in order to govern as they see fit once they do so.
Kind of like George H. W. Bush.
four more years of Obama is a dreary dreary prospect
I’d rather have Romney even
At least we’re not involved or invested in the Democratic primary.
The flaw in Jonah’s thinking is even worse than you’ve stated Jeff:
Romney is not courting the conservative vote. He’s seeking to neutralize it by denigrating the conservative bona fides of the other candidates. His argument is that there are no authentic conservatives in the race, and so conservative Republicans must choose their candidate on other critera. If it’s the case that his claim on conservatives is there are no conservatives in this race —vote for me anyways, and if we accept that claim, and vote for him anyways, doesn’t he in fact then own us, without owing us anything?
The hell with that.
even before Mr. Governor Romney appeared on the scene conservatives had already been boehnerfagged and mcconnelled into haplessness
A President Romney might could help conservatives organize more better and hone a message and agenda that’s in contradistinction to the Romney McCain wing of the party that’s proven so frustrating to them in the past
it could be just the shot in the arm conservatism needs to get back in the game
Vote for Romney: he’ll inspire you to hate him!
You don’t have the first goddamned clue about how party splits work, do you?
the important thing is that we don’t validate the rapist with a second term
the sort of sluggish growth you have when you have a raped economy compounds over time and makes very real alterations to your little country’s horizons
devastatingly real alterations really
If Romney wins, conservatives (& tea partiers in particular) in Congress will either shut the hell up, sell out, or retire.
THAT’S THE GODDAMNED POINT OF A ROMNEY PRESIDENCY.
fortunately though there’s lots of pragmatic things a Romney administration can accomplish that would otherwise not be accomplished if Obama were to remain in office and continue prosecuting his devastating and violent war on jobs
That’s the false hope of believing the Statist crocodile will decide to take a nap before it gets around to gobbling up you and yours.
The only hope is to accept the fact that there is no hope, and act accordingly.
You’re one of those people so afraid of Obama and what he might do in second term, that you can’t fully appreciate what’s already been done, or how we’re pissing away an opportunity to guide the country into choosing a different path even if they choose not to choose that path at this time.
yes it would have been better if a strong and committed pro-freedom fiscal conservative had emerged to beat Romney
but that didn’t happen
I was a lesser of two evils voter until the day I realized that obvious but little remarked on fact. It’s like playing b-ball with a ball hog. After awhile you get sick of running the floor so someone else can have all the fun. Even if you are winning…which for our team, even that is an open question.
You mean like Palin or Bachmann, Happy? Maybe if some on our side hadn’t worked so joyously hard to impune and destroy every limited gov’t potential candidates, then maybe we would have a better field to pick from.
iron308 gets it.
if a job raping Stalinist and four years of trillion dollar deficits isn’t enough to draw a competitive limited government candidate into the race then we have way bigger problems than having to settle for a candidate not to our liking
but four more years of ungodly deficits and brutal job rape isn’t the answer
I’ll take the Statist crocodile over the Stalinist serpent every day of the week and twice on Fridays.
As if the belly of the beast you end up in matters.
Also, you’re choosing to be eaten.
Good. Because that’s going to be your only choice, especially given that you keep telling everyone what your threshold for compromising your principles happens to be.
Finally, and just to throw your appropriation of my analogy back at you: What makes you think Romney is the crocodile? It was the Serpent that tempted Eve.
By the way: the GOP is putting forth a candidate who fundamentally rejects the conservative / libertarian view of the market economy.
That’s what his automatic increase to the federal minimum wage laws indicates. So go ahead. Pull the lever in favor — that is, giving your one vote to — a GOP candidate who shares with the Left a disdain for the market system, and a belief in a command and control economy.
Then, tell everyone how conservative you are.
stopping violent destructive thugs from throwing more struggling jobs on the pinball machine and having their way with them is a good principle too
This likely won’t go anywhere but if National Party rules trump State Party rules then, unlike what this columnist has up, no delegates have been picked yet as all primaries so far have been held in violation of Republican National Committee rules. I wonder what will become of this at the convention, challenges to delegates? Shades of Chicago ’68.
Okay, one more thing, inspired by Jeff. Thinking the statist Crocodile is better than the Stalinist serpent is exactly the kind of irrational fear of Obama that I’ve been harping on.
The only one making you choose is you.
Yes, that’s precisely what happens with minimum wage laws when they are supported by a Republican. They become magically more pro-growth!
if you have an opportunity like this to help people you have a moral obligation to do so
Obama is actively and remorselessly hurtful to our countrymen… his hatred for America is vicious and unrestrained
Mr. Governor Romney isn’t actively and remorselessly hurtful to our countrymen. He doesn’t appear to hate America.
I’m a do what I can to help these pitiful american bastards, and that means I’m a help defeat the rapist.
To say nothing of Health Care.
if you have an opportunity like this to help people you have a moral obligation to do so
That’s cheap grace. If you want to help people, haul your ass down to the Salvation Army.
I don’t have to go that far to find someone to help this is Los Angeles
Fine. Do it. Then you won’t confuse voting with helping people.
That’s libtard thinking, not Teh Staunch.
By claiming that your tax money is going to support the police.
How very brave and giving of you.
Anyway, it seems like you’re in the rationalizing majority. My constant banging on Romney for not being remotely conservative has driven away traffic, removed me from many a “big boy” conversation, and reduced my fundraising efforts to a kind of sad joke.
well plus also I think these Obama years have been dreary and dull
time to mix it up
#15 Not to overstate the obvious, if you are referring to #13, he/she/it is not on your side.
#17 I think you need the cordwood between the eyes treatment, again. You and #18 should get a room. I don’t think you have suffered enough, because if you had, you would be seriously pissed that you have no chance at resolving your lack of voting choices. Do you want the solution to the problem or just a solution? There is a difference.
#28 “I’m a do what I can to help these pitiful american bastards, and that means I’m a help defeat the rapist.” By helping the other rapist?
#31 “I don’t have to go that far to find someone to help this is Los Angeles” When all is said and done; more will be said, than done.
Two quick points:
1.
#39 I like number one, but could you please re=phrase the second one?
Sorry – something happened that caused my “post” to display before I finished.
Two quick points:
1. I have repeatedly asked Romney supporters on other sites to identify a conservative accomplishment that Mitt Romney can justifiably claim. I have not receieved a single response.
2. What does the scorn and abuse heaped on conservatives by the Romney camp while our votes are still needed tell you about how we will be treated after the election? He’ll respect us in the morning – right?
The only senseless-sense I can make of the Romney campaign is that he is running it the reverse of what normally occurs.
Running to the center during the primary and then pivot to the right during the general. Or worse, this is his idea of running to the right in the primary and in the general his pivot will move to the left of Obama.
As to why. God only knows and he ain’t saying.
#41 IMHO some are Romney supporters and some are not. See my post at #36.
Smoke, back in 2004 I asked a lot of people who were voting Kerry what their reason was for voting for him. I asked and I asked and I asked. Finally, someone admitted that it wasn’t anything about the man, they didn’t even like him. It was that he was not Bush. That was enough reason for them.
No reason at all was reason enough for them. And so it seems with Romney.
I see ‘feets is now playing to his own self-parody. It’s how fall he’s fallen in the race to see how far he can fall.
#39 was the most succinct summation of our predicament I’ve seen in a long time, I thought.
Character, geoffb, just what we need in our hour of deepest despair: He’s a pandering Mormon career pol who’s not apposed to buying the office while holding a wet finger in the air.
That stooge Mike Gallagher says he’s A Changed Man™, probably in that way Clinton was forgavenness his many trespasses and continued to Serve The American People™. That way by their works ye shall not actually know them.
Vomit.
no actually it’s just not hard to see Romney’s gonna win this why cause he wants it more badly than anyone
so what I’m saying is if I’m presented with a choice between an anti-American job rapist and someone who’s no better or worse than the cowardly cocksucker most of us voted for last time, I’ll go ahead and vote for the cowardly cocksucker and let the rapist go back to Chicago
there’s no reason to get all angsty about it
the prospect of a second term for Obama in which he’d not be concerned with running again, given his proclivity for constitution rape, is very clarifying to reflect upon
what y’all hate is that the marketplace of ideas is telling the extremist religious bigot to go fuck himself
that’s something of a setback for that faction
but it is what it is
And if that doesn’t drive a stake through the heart of electability, chop off the head of he’ll win over the moderates, and stuff the mouth of it’s his turn with garlic, then nothing will save the GOP from the curse of the undead.
At this point your opinion is as irrelevant to classical liberalism as Mitt Romney is, feets.
FTFY.
but another silver lining is that Team R is reasserting its bias towards nominating governors
nominating two congresswhores in a row would have been the beginning of the formation of an ominous pattern
That is, without doubt, the most profoundly stupid thing I have ever read from Jonah Goldberg.
Why would anyone -purporting to be conservative- claim ownership of any particular portion of the electorate? As if, having completed the transaction, he is then forever released from any concern for their concerns. That entire concept is anathema to representative government – particularly so for anyone claiming to be republican.
Such a politician would know that any continued support is entirely contingent upon what he does, not who he claims to be. And no, this does not mean that every office is reduced to perpetual poll driven plebiscites, but it also does not mean we elect avatars.
We elect people we think will act in a manner consistent with the way we would act if we were the one in office.
I simply do not trust Romney to act in any manner I would routinely support.
I’ll continue to hold out hope for a Ceau?escu moment over the summer.
I simply do not trust Romney to act in any manner I would routinely support.
I agree but I trust Obama to act either precisely the way I anticipate, or worse.
Yeah, I slept in. I was up late writing this comment to Jonah’s thread, then writing this to Jeff:
I’d just like to note one response to my comment:
But then there’s this, which reflects most of the comments there:
I still think Romney might be less ideological than the average PW commenter, but Jonah does fail to establish why Romney will owe the conservatives base, given that he’s done his dead-level best to avoid our taint.
I honestly don’t know what Mitt would do in office. I don’t know what Newt would do, either. And it doesn’t look like Santorum will get the chance.
Sweet Meteor of Death 2012
#48 “what y’all hate is that the marketplace of ideas is telling the extremist religious bigot to go fuck himself” I am sure that will make you all kinds of friends. Ask nicely next time. Oh, and nut up cupcake.
Mr. Gulermo we’re talking about the guy eager to win the presidency so he can reinstate DADT.
He’s sort of an acquired taste.
FWIW, Jonah hasn’t shown up at The Corner yet to respond to the objections to his article, which he usually does.
Might have slept in like I did or had other stuff, but I’d be interested to see how he justifies why Mitt will owe conservatives.
Hey, di, you’re abbr. for Mich.? The “M” is upside down!
we’re talking about the guy eager to win the presidency so he can reinstate DADT.
Fortunately for you then that he seems to be lacking in the Will to Power department.
Might have something to do with that religion stuff that you find so extreme and bigoted.
And maybe if you weren’t so bigoted yourself, you’d see why that internal check makes him a more reliable partner for classical liberals and conservative constitutionalists.
what y’all hate is that the marketplace of ideas is telling the extremist religious bigot to go fuck himself
Naw, that’s the marketplace where the purveyors of ideas has got not only its thumb on the scales, but its whole fist.
See: Media frenzy forcing a private charity to spend its dollars the way IT wants.
#58 As if. Does he have the solution to the problems, or not? “He’s sort of an acquired taste.” For you? What possible relavence does that have wrt your perpetual whinging? DADT is the one issue above all issues for you? As I said above, I don’t think you have suffered enough. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.
to be clear Mr. Gulermo sometimes candidates may be more religiousy than I might like, as Mr. Santorum is, but I do believe he would craft much sounder fiscal policies than either Mr. Governor Romney or Obama. And if Mr. Santorum were the nominee I could vote for him with but token misgivings.
But I do believe he has been rejected out of hand by the Team R voters who for their own reason find him ill-suited for the presidency.
Darleen National Soros Radio led the effort to demonize the Komen Foundation right out of the gate, and with a startling vehemence.
*reason* plural I mean
As for me, I WILL NOT VOTE A NEGATIVE. You can and should do what your conscience dictates. Bigoted statements such as “what y’all hate is that the marketplace of ideas is telling the extremist religious bigot to go fuck himself” won’t win you the support you need. And you need the SoCons to elect any Republican candidate.
so enjoy the next four years as obama rips the catholic church a new asshole
“And if Mr. Santorum were the nominee I could vote for him with but token misgivings.” Then why are you s****ing in the punch bowl?
it’s a flaw
#67 “so enjoy the next four years as obama rips the catholic church a new asshole” I am not the one whinging and complaining.
I’m not the one in abject denial of the horrific consequences what will attend the re-election of a rapist anti-christ
#69 No s**t, Sherlock. I don’t know you well enough to discuss your problems.
Bigoted statements such as “what y’all hate is that the marketplace of ideas is telling the extremist religious bigot to go fuck himself” won’t win you the support you need.
It’s a well-known fact ’round these parts that happyfeet is a Big Time Marketing Genius. I’m not sure where you come off telling him that his “bend over and take my electric hamster cock” message won’t sell.
#71 “I’m not the one in abject denial of the horrific consequences what will attend the re-election of a rapist anti-christ” WRT DADT? Is that what the drama is about?
I see Jonah is worried about his Beltway invites. Gotta cover those bases, just in case.
you tell him Mr. Squid
I wish for Jonah to be berated in his dreams by the ghost of Bill Buckley.
#73 “message won’t sell.” Not my place to tell him anything. I am a no sale. WRT the Catholic Church, I would not be surprised if they have their self interests covered. When they need my help they will ask, probably without the denigration and curseing.
I see Jonah is worried about his Beltway invites. Gotta cover those bases, just in case.
I wish for Jonah to be berated in his dreams by the ghost of Bill Buckley.
Blake, leigh, Jonah’s made this kind of argument before. The last time was back in ’08 Giuliani was running. He reasoned that maybe a pro-choice Republican who was promising to appoint strict constructionist judges, was more likely to keep his promise to you than a flip-flopper like Mitt Romney who was telling you wanted to hear.
He tends to be a let’s look for the bright side kind of guy. I don’t think he’s selling out, he’s just wrong is all.
I will agree that he’s wrong, Ernst. He’s wrong a lot. He’s a go along to get along kind of a guy.
Which, come to think of it, makes him kind of a sell out.
Gulermo, the secret to “happyfeet” is that “happyfeet” is an abusive, hate-filled troll. He masks his bile with baby-talk, but it’s still there.
Politically, he’s a far, far leftist. He’s on conservative sites in order to fault-find every possible candidate, stir up shit, and generally make the place unpleasant. The fewer conservatives want to communicate, the better he’s done his job.
To give you a clue, there was once a potential candidate who actually governed in line with “happyfeet’s” stated preferences — didn’t give a rat’s ass about gays and vetoed a law that would have barred them from receiving spousal benefits. The “happyfeet” thug’s treatment of this candidate has been to refer to her endlessly as a “cum slut hoochie” and heap more abuse upon the candidate and her supporters.
He’s thug, a moron, and should be ignored as such.
and we were having such a nice conversation
Hey, di, your abbr. for Mich.? The “M” is upside down!
D’oh!
But really, what’s the diff? They’re like CO and WY, the square states, or NDak and SDak.
Liberal Fascism is a good book and an important work.
That buys Jonah Goldberg a tremendous amount of goodwill in my book.
GACK NOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Also, JG is too interested in the ideas and intellectual pedigrees of thinkers on the right to fall completely into the pragmatist trap.
Ernst, perhaps Mr. Goldberg is engaging in a little “whistling past the graveyard?”
The Forgotten Man – Jon McNaughton
Big Food-Stamp and Little Food-Stamp.
I like Wisconsin but Michigan and Florida are the only two States you can make out the outlines of from way out in space.
I told you all: he’s a griefer.
@90 ak and hi do not agree
that’s a very harsh assessment I think Mr. Jeff
it’s the consensus based on the pw marketplace of ideas.
well be that as it may I think we have fewer social con-averse voices around here than we used to and I’m happy to help pick up the slack
Maybe the site has just evolved right past you.
Ironic, eh? Evolved?
Yes it is.
maybe I guess
nr, you’re right, I was thinking lower 48.
oh you 48ter
The even bigger irony? Happyfeet himself is driving the evolution.
perhaps Mr. Goldberg is engaging in a little “whistling past the graveyard?”
If he is, the tune he’s whistling is Always Look on the Bright Side of Life.
now I’m feelin so fly like a g6
Dicentra.
If you are correct in your assessment in #56 then I don’t understand his primary strategy. I get that he has positioned himself as the “moderate” in the race, perhaps because there were so many on the right. I can see that that position would also give him some slack from the media which were sure to go after the more conservative candidates.
But why not at least throw a bone to the tea party side? He did after all pour money and his own time into getting Haley and Rubio elected so he should know of the issues and concerns that are there. As Ace pointed out, how hard would it be to go nuclear on Fast&Furious?
Not that I have any say in anything with my vote as MI will go for Romney in the primary and who knows in the general.
“as MI will go for Romney in the primary”
we shall see
That faction includes people who’ve kept up the concepts that are vital to this little nation’s success, ‘feets. To exclude religious values from our society by demeaning the value of those who try to keep ’em somewhat intact only speeds what we’re seeing: our society’s obvious decline; the lessening of the worth of human stock (without souls, men are but animals); and eventually the loss of our little nation (that was founded on these now-decaying values that were vital to our success). We are falling out of grace by allowing this system of LeftLibProgg experimentation to become ascendent in our culture.
But you’re obviously enjoying the ride down the slope, no?
St. Augustine was all about the values. On and on he went about the Christian values this and the family values that, the culture, the charisma, the totalitarianisms, on and on and on.
feehoo, didja see all those feathers floating down?
Yeah, that St. Augustine and his songs to his mother, Monica. Those were real family values, right there.
that St. Augustine and his songs to his mother, Monica. Those were real family values, right there.
Okay. I’ll bite: What are you talking about?
Let’s just say Freud would have a field day with them.
I do not enjoy the ride down the slope I think there are reasons that Mr. Santorum is in no danger of leading the Team R pack and I offered one
Let’s not unless you’ve got a citation for me. Are we talking about the Confessions or something else?
This is what the GOP insiders really think of you.
I’d note, too, that many big “conservative” blogs have taken to using the very same “true conservative” snark label, as if it’s a magic talisman that’s going to make us ashamed of noting that, yes, “conservative” does require certain political beliefs and no, Mitt Romney isn’t a fucking conservative.
#109 Jog my memory. Freud had a few problems of his own. Glass house and brick. Some assembly required.
#110 Its not the fall, but the landing that gets you.
Gulermo, somebody’s taking something out of context, but we won’t know what or whom until an exemplar and accompanying citation is produced.
“This is what the GOP insiders really think of you.”
a former demonrat who lost out to the commies is my inspiration for leadership too.
#112 As to his Bona Fides; admiring FDR makes one a Republican? Who knew?
I want to say it’s in Confessions but I can say for certain. He authored over one hundred texts.
#117 Newt knew.
It’s not out of context, Ernst. It is allegorical, though. I remember talking about it in undergrad.
“I remember talking about it in undergrad.”
that’s so definitive
#119 I was a Newt once. I got better.
Well, let me know when you track it down. My suspicion is that you (or whomever it is you’re relying on) are attributing to Augustine quotations drawn from other works (probably of the Psalms) and used by him.
Which isn’t to claim that he wasn’t a mama’s boy.
this is probably close to what you’re remembering leigh yeah it is in Confessions
oh noes nyt with a shot
Gingrich’s Deep Ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
“conservative” does require certain political beliefs
Does it?
It was just a little over a week ago Mitch Daniels made means testing medicare and social security the official position of Team R. A position Mr. Governor Romney most surely shares.
This means that one day when we get social security checks or use medicare, we’ll be on de facto welfare, most of us. They’re committed to dropping the pretense that these are systems people pay into in exchange for benefits later.
Bam. Redistributive justice. A conservative value.
“Mitch Daniels made means testing medicare and social security the official position of Team R.”
jeez mitchey be high flying dude no one knows. some one tell reeses pieces at rnc
“This means that one day when we get social security checks or use medicare, we’ll be on de facto welfare”
yea since the 1940’s you stupid pickachu
there’s a huge difference in degree Mr. newrouter… once the means-testing framework is established the definition of too-rich-to-deserve-benefits becomes an entirely arbitrary caprice subject to the whims of congresswhores and presidents
it’s a sad sad rubicon what we’ve begun to cross
Santorum is an enthusiastic means-tester too btw
“it’s a sad sad rubicon what we’ve begun to cross”
crossed before
link
“Santorum is an enthusiastic means-tester too btw”
prove it don’t bs it
Rand Paul is also for means testing Social Security. Probably because he’s not very conservative, and not very serious about being elected — which you can only do if you promise not to try to fix shit. And work to tear down any conservative who tries to find workable fixes that don’t require magic.
It’s all about the spendings, we’re told. Just not if you’re actually serious about it. Especially if you believe in the Jesus.
Staunch!
“what is essentially an insurance program”
Ha! That’s a laugh. And a lie.
yes Mr. Jeff it’s a paradigm shift that was my point… “conservative” does require certain political beliefs, and one of them is that “rich people” should be taxed for to pay other people’s social security, and forego their own
this is new
oh noes a 10ther
“SANTORUM: Means testing for Social Security. To subsidize high-income seniors doesn’t make any sense to me. Food stamps is another place. We got to block grant it, send it back to the states just like I did on welfare reform. Do the same thing Medicaid & housing programs, block grant them, send them back to the states, require work, and put a time limit. You do those three things, we will help take these programs, which are now dependency programs, which people are continually dependent upon, and you take them in to transitional programs to help people move out of poverty. “
I’m not reading him as being a tenther on social security Mr. newrouter – he doesn’t mention medicare in that respect either
“and one of them is that “rich people” should be taxed for to pay other people’s social security, and forego their own
this is new”
yellow is affecting your thinking or little debbies
Bullshit. It’s an emergency measure to try to keep a system solvent that many people relied upon but which is going to go belly up without some sort of fix that doesn’t require magical thinking. It’s not that it’s conservative to desire means testing; it’s that the system itself is a giant progressive Ponzi scheme that, if we wish to keep from collapse, is going to require certain concessions be made in the short term.
One on offer is raising the retirement age and means testing. This is out of necessity. Conservatives have been warning for years the system was unsustainable, and now they are going to be tasked with trying to keep the “I told you so” from being quite so dramatic.
“he doesn’t mention medicare in that respect either”
block grants to states block pickachu
– Means Testing: The GOP’s Surprising Class Warfare
One on offer is raising the retirement age and means testing.
Mitch only embraced one of those in his speech
it’s not little debbies for sure
No. It’s not. FICA is a regressive tax. In fact it’s the only regressive tax that’s truly regressive and not just flat. See if you can figure out why.
“For those who wish to redistribute government support towards the bottom and for those who wish to redistribute sacrifice towards the top, ”
does bill gates need ssi? does the ceo of fortune 500 need ssi? does the pizza shop owner need ssi? does the trucker with a 401k need ssi? does the pickachu in lalaland need ssi?
FICA is a regressive tax.
yes Mr. Ernst that is what is acknowledged at #133 … but means testing isn’t “regressive” it’s nakedly redistributive
not much different than the Buffett Rule really
does bill gates need ssi?
I don’t know… what I know is that in the future the Rand Pauls Romneys Santorums and Mitch’s will tell us who needs ssi
“what I know is that in the future the Rand Pauls Romneys Santorums and Mitch’s will tell us who needs ssi”
hey a world without ponzi schemes
Oooh! Oooh! Mr. Schreiber! Pick me!!
Would the answer be that only the first $106,800 dollars of income is subject to FICA? So whether you make $110,000 or $110,000,000, you pay the same FICA?
for reals all that’s at the link in #133… here’s how they put it
if this is a huge problem well don’t worry Team R will well and truly fix it by simply taking money from people they choose to define as high-earners and giving it to the ones they choose to define as low earners – who may not even be earners at all
It should be interesting to compare and contrast the speeches at CPAC.
Plus the added spice of the AFL-CIO organized occupod people.
I think it’s pretty obvious that Crawford has happyfeet down pat.
Yeah, the yahoos are good for firing up the foot soldiers but you don’t want to have to eat dinner with them. On and on with the Constitution, the Randian capitalism, the “Obama is Evil” simplicity.
-David Brook’s un-descended left testicle, enjoying a bracing Earl Grey alone while reading the NY Times cover CPAC
Mitt in mouth. via Dan Riehl.
Listen you stupid shite. The reason those earning the most end up paying a lower percentage is because They won’t be eligible to collect Social Security. Social Security is already means tested.
means testing is simply a tax increase Mr. Ernst – instead of reforming social security on its own merits Team R wants to fix it by extracting even more monies from the private sector, focusing on the wealthy
it’s that simple
think of it like this
if you tax Alphonso 10K and then later you give Alphonso 10k in benefits, there’s no net loss of capital from the private sector
but if you tax Alphonso 10K and put it towards a pension outlay that is now smaller cause you’ve told Alphonso he’s not gonna get the 10K back, you’ve dug a 10K hole in the private sector
and that’s the same as a tax increase
but the real numbers are much larger unfortunately
Yeah. How could, say, Rand Paul ever prove to be as knowledgeable about the problems — and as blind to the workable staunch solutions — as you? You are the staunchest of them all!
I am very staunch it’s true
good night Mr. jeff I’m a lie down now
Incidentally, in 1994 Santorum was pushing for an increase in the eligibility age. Almost as if he saw the coming problem. He later supported voluntary privatization. But then, he’s all Jesusy, so fuck him.
Listen: I think ultimately if the conservatives look more closely at this they’ll end up with a plan to raise the eligibility age and index Social Security’s base pension formula to inflation and not wages. And maybe they’ll be a voluntary privatization option.
In the meantime, the point is that they recognize that something must be done. Interestingly, Gingrich is one of the few who has opposed means testing.
Here’s more on Santorum and Social Security reform over the years.
You can either means test benefits or you can ask younger people to pay tax rates you never paid when you were younger.
Way higher taxes. Way higher.
Nothing says American exceptionalism like strangling your very own grandchildren in the crib.
We’re gonna feel some pain here, right? So let’s stop fucking around.
X-ers pay more. Boomers get less.
Past this, people will do what they will and maybe they see a better tomorrow. Like we used to promise our children before we all became welfare babies.
Bobby fucking Orr.
My understanding is they tax Medicare to the last dollar earned. I don’t have a problem with them treating the Social Security contribution the same way. I would be against means testing Social Security any more than they are already doing. The question is not whether Bill Gates needs SS, the question is why would we allow Bill Gates to be treated under law differently than Joe Six Pack.
My understanding is that I was never going to see a nickel of my Social Security payments.
Kinda sucks. Hey, maybe we can pull another generation in though. Ha!
BH
30 years ago i never thought i would see a dime of it either. 5-7 years from now we will see if that is true.
In the meantime, my apologies on behalf of the boomers for leaving you with quite a mess to straighten out.
Let me know how I can help.
You can help out by agreeing to a bit less while I agree to paying a bit more without any future payments, BT.
Let’s you and I do that and then we’ll both be able to live with ourselves when we try to go to sleep at night.
Past that?
Fuck us. We’re the problem.
“You can help out by agreeing to a bit less while I agree to paying a bit more without any future payments, BT.
Let’s you and I do that and then we’ll both be able to live with ourselves when we try to go to sleep at night.”
Deal pending the details.
we have to unite to save the safety net
Fixed.
good catch
I don’t know about raising the retirement age. It would depend on the kind of work the person in question does. If you’ve been working in a machine shop or other heavy manual labor, like plumbing and wiring houses, asking someone to work until they are 70 or older seems to me to be asking a lot.
If you’ve managed to snag a tenured professorship, on the other hand, you could work until you drop dead behind the lecturn.
heh. I suspect some of the younger set are slowly enlightening to the “drop dead” part as a viable solution.
When social security was instantiated, most people died before they could collect. The equivalent age now would probably be at least 75 years old, but one can actually start getting it at 62 if one will accept reduced benefits.
As far as what job one has and its prospects for being able to work when older, that’s on the person who chose the work, not anyone else.
As far as what job one has and its prospects for being able to work when older, that’s on the person who chose the work, not anyone else.
Many industries have gone away or suffered tremendous layoffs. It’s not so easy to waltz into a comparable job (in salary and prestige) at 50+ as it is at 30 or even 40.
Thread maybe dead but anyways….
Came across this which seemingly goes to dicentra’s thesis in comment #56.
that would make a great Lifetime movie
Romney is not a bad guy, as we measure such things. In fact, he’s what he likes to tell us Obama is; a good but mistaken guy. He’s wrong about that too.
I’d hire him as a manager. But he’s no POTUS.
we could do worse
Well that’s a pretty fucking low bar for leader of the free world…
it’s a post-Obama thing
it makes sense in that light
Chop, chop.
Dearest ching chong ling ling ting tong,
Today I walked over and tried the acai berry tea at Panera! It was very tasty and unsweetened so it only had zero calories.
Also I checked out the Laemmle which I never been to but I’m excited that it’s right there where I can walk to it. It’s a movie theatre! I could go there for to see Hugo maybe tomorrow night at 7 but that’s not super likely. But still I’m glad it’s there.
It remains unseasonable warm to where I’m using the air conditioner a lot.
okeydokey love you bunches write back when you can,
happy
ling *long* I mean
Comment in the link @ #188: