Romeny on the "failed" Socialist Countries of Europe

[Steve R.]

Romney (in running as a candidate for the US Presidency) has been lambasting the economies of Europe as an example of the failure of socialism. He is doing this, of course, to hold Europe up as an example of a failed economic system so that he can implement a capitalistic based rescue plan to restore the US economy to its former glory. I suspect that Romney's assertions are incorrect. So for those who live in Europe, what is your reaction?

Romney's assertions that economies of Europe are failures seems incorrect for several reasons. One, the populations of many European countries, to my knowledge, are in decline; so there is limited need for economic growth. Two, the populations of many European countries may be growing older. Older people do not consume as much as younger people. The lack of consumption means less need for production (economic growth). Based on demographics there may simply be NO demand for "endless" consumption that requires unrestrained economic growth.

On health care, I have heard conflicting analysis on whether the European health system is better/worse than the US health system. But from the Romney perspective, if it is socialized, it must be bad by definition. But is it?

The US economy itself provides some perspective. Romney views "stagnant" European economic grow as a sign of failure. That would appear to be wrong based on the fact that the US economy itself failed. Under blame Bush the US economy was over-stimulated and we over-consumed. The bubble then burst. The US went into a recession. So I find it somewhat disingenuous for Romney to hold Europe out as an example of failure when the US economic system itself failed.

Your thoughts?

 

[ColinEssex]

I can't see how anyone can vote for a person who's name is "Mitt" - I also believe there is another one called "Newt"

They have to be a joke surely? Is that their real names? How can you take someone with a name like that seriously?

As far as the UK is concerned, it got a passing mention on the BBC news the other day, other than that, most people (I suspect), have no idea or care what happens in the USA elections.

We were a bit surprised that the US, with it's well known dislike of couloured people actually voted in a tanned person last time. Mind you, his Mrs is a bit of a looker - maybe she'll do a turn.

It's obvious now, that the US is aching for a war now that Iraq and Afghanistan are quieter. That's why the US is rattling sabres at Iran - oil being the key factor yet again.

Col

 

[Fifty2One]

Just some insite from your neighbour to the north - it seems strange that the leadership race is again based on failure rather then success. I would think that with the current economic status of USA the politicing would be directed at getting the wheels unstuck and perhaps out of the muck it is mired in, rather then pointing out who might be in the mud a little bit deeper.

Perhaos the administration could give Stephen Harper a call. We could lend you Jim Flaherty for a few weeks I suppose, to show how to balance the books. Probably could spare Leona Aglukkaq for a while to get the health care system actually caring about health rather then finances, seeing as the finances is also muddled up they would make a good team of advisers.

 

[Steve R.]

Just some insite from your neighbour to the north - it seems strange that the leadership race is again based on failure rather then success. I would think that with the current economic status of USA the politicing would be directed at getting the wheels unstuck and perhaps out of the muck it is mired in, rather then pointing out who might be in the mud a little bit deeper.

Perhaos the administration could give Stephen Harper a call. We could lend you Jim Flaherty for a few weeks I suppose, to show how to balance the books. Probably could spare Leona Aglukkaq for a while to get the health care system actually caring about health rather then finances, seeing as the finances is also muddled up they would make a good team of advisers.

Short answer, I think that our elections are more about ego than actual commitment to run the country. Campaign "promises" are unfortunately empty rhetoric.

The slightly longer answer. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats have a clear ethical compass. Judge Napolitano of Freedom Watch considers them to be one party where one "wing" takes periodic orchestrated jabs at the "other side" to give the appearance of democracy in action.

I suspect that the November 2012 election will be another instance of the "lesser of two evils".

 

[ColinEssex]

I knew his name would be a problem - I notice that Steve can't even spell it correctly in this thread's title.

Oh, and Fifty - it's "insight" not "insite". I won't bore you with your other grammatical errors.

Col

 

[Fifty2One]

Perhaps they should allow more then one party to make it a true democratic process rather then a couple of older law university frat boys and girls taking media shots at eachother's reputations.
Seems to be more like it is the 1%er's popularity contest rather then selecting an administration worthy of properly running a country. Of course there are many moments then not that Canada's elected officials fall very short of the mark.

Short answer, I think that our elections are more about ego than actual commitment to run the country. Campaign "promises" are unfortunately empty rhetoric.

The slightly longer answer. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats have a clear ethical compass. Judge Napolitano of Freedom Watch considers them to be one party where one "wing" takes periodic orchestrated jabs at the "other side" to give the appearance of democracy in action.

I suspect that the November 2012 election will be another instance of the "lesser of two evils".

 

[Vassago]

I know who I'm voting for today in the Primary, Ron Paul.

I'm so sick of the same old corporate controlled rhetoric from the other candidates, Obama included. I was very surprised when Obama quashed SOPA. Did anyone see the responses he got for refusing to sign it into law if it passed a vote? Hollywood was "very disappointed" that someone they paid a lot of money to in the campaign would not sign that into law, regardless of the negative impact it would have had on ecommerce. If that doesn't speak volumes about the special interests of campaigns and politics, I don't know what does.

 

[Rx_]

I like Ron Paul because he voted exactly the way he promised. He is a medical doctor and has served on the Banking Committee for many years. He is very outspoken about the very wealthy bankers and the private monolopy called the Federal Reserve Board. He understands health care and finance better than any other candidate.
That is why he won't be elected. Jimmy Carter was a Nuke Engineer. There were only a cople of higher educated Presidents elected before that. Americans perfer actors.
There is only a pretend Two Party system in the US. The bankers (and Federal Reserve) run the show for both parties. Ron Paul would also bring our troops home from occupying over 50 countries around the world. This is why the news media here basically censors his existence. The media is run by the same wealthy bankers.
While I would vote for Ron Paul (if somehow that was possible), outside of that I will vote for the most incompentent unpopular candidate that can do the least harm. At least I vote. Only a small percent of citizens here will vote because they understand that it really doesn't matter. Our political system is based on the model of the
world wrestling federation - while mildly entertaining - it is completely fake - but extremely profitable for those running it.

 

[Steve R.]

I was very surprised when Obama quashed SOPA.

I was too. Obama did that for show. He saw a populist uprising and went with the wind. It's an election year, he needs to make false prostrations to get the votes. Once the uproar dies down, he will restore SOPA/PIPA as a "number one priority".

 

[Steve R.]

I know who I'm voting for today in the Primary, Ron Paul.

You had better get the vote out for Ron. He'll need everyone.

... He understands health care and finance better than any other candidate. .... Ron Paul would also bring our troops home from occupying over 50 countries around the world. ...

Ron clearly understands the separation of powers, federal/state responsibilities, and the limits of government concerning liberty.

The remaining Republican candidates, despite gratuitous references to smaller limited government, are really still big government types. Gingrich would have a pre-crime unit. Santorum would have National "family value" laws. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum seem ready to go to war. All they need is an excuse.

Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum want a big military, but they don't want to raise taxes. They also claim to want a balanced budget. They have yet to explain how they propose pay for the military and balance the budget. I suspect that will come out of entitlement programs, such as social security - but they will never admit to it.

Since I am at it. NO politician should ever promise or claim that they can create (private industry) jobs. They can't. This is particularly ridiculous with the Republican candidates. The Republicans assert that they want the Government out of the private sector, that they want smaller government, and they don't want a Nanny State. So why do they insist that as President that they will do those very things they say they are against? Hypocrisy.

Before ending, I will reiterate, Obama's economic policies are nothing more than "Bread and Circuses". I suspect that tonight's State of the Union address will be nothing more than a simply list of largess to be thrown out to the electorate to "buy" votes.

Looks like I am subverting my own thread.

 

[Steve R.]

I was very surprised when Obama quashed SOPA.

Another shocker, seems that Marco Rubio was a supporter of SOPA/PIPA!!!

Senator Marco Rubio Dropping His Co-Sponsorship Of PIPA

SOPA and PIPA protest power: why Marco Rubio backed off piracy bill

Any insight on this?

 

[Vassago]

Another shocker, seems that Marco Rubio was a supporter of SOPA/PIPA!!!

Senator Marco Rubio Dropping His Co-Sponsorship Of PIPA

SOPA and PIPA protest power: why Marco Rubio backed off piracy bill

Any insight on this?

Yep, I've never liked Rubio. I sent him a letter about his decision to sponser PIPA. I like to think that my letter helped lead him to his decision to drop his support.

 

[Vassago]

That is why he won't be elected.

It's that kind of talk and attitude that will make sure he isn't elected. The way I see it, he has the largest following by young voters at the moment. Obama falls in second among young voters. There is no way any other Republican candidate has a chance of winning. We will either see Obama in for a second term or Ron Paul come into office. I don't see any other options.

If Ron Paul wins the primary, many far right Republicans will vote Obama just to keep their big government and corporate control, but the young voters have a pretty good chance of making up for that. A large amount of independents are Ron Paul supporters.

If anyone but Ron Paul wins the primary, I hope he runs independent. He will probably have the largest number of votes for a candidate not running Republican or Democrat in history. He would have a pretty good chance against two other candidates because the far right will vote for their guy and the far left will vote for their guy, leaving those in the middle. I think many of those votes will go in Paul's direction.

Most young voters will not support Newt or Mitt. It's out of the question.

 

[tehNellie]

On health care, I have heard conflicting analysis on whether the European health system is better/worse than the US health system. But from the Romney perspective, if it is socialized, it must be bad by definition. But is it?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Sorry.

I think you have to go pretty far east through Europe and into China to find a health care system that's as exclusive if not as expensive and ineffective as what's on offer in the US. If you've got the money I'm sure you can have a real life Dr House at your beck and call with all the latest gadgets, but what happens if you're on minimum wage with no health insurance?

Give it a year or two of the Tories' meddling and ask me again if I've changed my mind about the ability of running health care as a for profit business rather than as a universally available service for those that need it. My suspicion is that I wont.

 

[pbaldy]

I've been familiar with Ron Paul for 20-25 years. His message has remained consistent throughout. In the caucuses 4 years ago, there were 3 of us that strongly supported him out of about 10-12 people in the precinct. The other 2 were young men in their 20's (I'm 50's), which speaks against a point made earlier that the young wouldn't support him.

I'll be surprised if he makes it, given that he is against the "big government" supported by both Dem's and Rep's, but I'll support him regardless. If he doesn't get the Rep nomination and runs independently, I'll vote for him. If that kind of support causes the Rep's to lose the election, so be it. I can't in good conscience vote for another "big government" candidate anyway. I'm tired of the "lesser of two evils" choices. It would be nice to have someone in government actually follow the Constitution that they swear to uphold.

 

[Vassago]

I've been familiar with Ron Paul for 20-25 years. His message has remained consistent throughout. In the caucuses 4 years ago, there were 3 of us that strongly supported him out of about 10-12 people in the precinct. The other 2 were young men in their 20's (I'm 50's), which speaks against a point made earlier that the young wouldn't support him.

I'll be surprised if he makes it, given that he is against the "big government" supported by both Dem's and Rep's, but I'll support him regardless. If he doesn't get the Rep nomination and runs independently, I'll vote for him. If that kind of support causes the Rep's to lose the election, so be it. I can't in good conscience vote for another "big government" candidate anyway. I'm tired of the "lesser of two evils" choices. It would be nice to have someone in government actually follow the Constitution that they swear to uphold.

That's my position exactly! I changed my party affiliation last month to Republican just so I could vote for him in the Primary, which I did yesterday in early voting. If he runs in November, I will vote for him again. He is the ONLY choice I see myself voting for. I'm seeing much of the younger crowd lending support for Ron Paul. Unfortunately, many are not registered Republican, so cannot vote in the Primary in Florida.

 

[Jacob Mathai]

In the general election in Nov 2012, a vote for a third party candidate (Ron Paul) is a vote for Obama.
In 1992, Ross Perot helped Bill Clinton victory.
In 2000, Ralph Nader helped George W. Bush victory.

Republicans are praying that Ron Paul will not run as a third party candidate.

My observation is this: USA is moving away from an 'opportunity' society to an 'entitlement' society. People will vote for the candidate who will promise them maximum entitlements.

I am reading that in countries like Greece and Italy, people do not pay taxes and underground economy is flourishing. Socialism is great for these people. Also, if you have connection to powerful people in Government, you got it made. I am thinking of moving to Greece, so I can have a good and easy life.

 

[Steve R.]

I've been familiar with Ron Paul for 20-25 years. His message has remained consistent throughout. In the caucuses 4 years ago, there were 3 of us that strongly supported him out of about 10-12 people in the precinct. The other 2 were young men in their 20's (I'm 50's), which speaks against a point made earlier that the young wouldn't support him.

I'll be surprised if he makes it, given that he is against the "big government" supported by both Dem's and Rep's, but I'll support him regardless. If he doesn't get the Rep nomination and runs independently, I'll vote for him. If that kind of support causes the Rep's to lose the election, so be it. I can't in good conscience vote for another "big government" candidate anyway. I'm tired of the "lesser of two evils" choices. It would be nice to have someone in government actually follow the Constitution that they swear to uphold.

We need to have Ron Paul elected to pop-the-bubble of "big government". Obama made it clear last night, in the State of the Union Address, that the era of "big" government is alive and well.

My observation is this: USA is moving away from an 'opportunity' society to an 'entitlement' society. People will vote for the candidate who will promise them maximum entitlements.

Exactly, that was the theme last night of Obama's State of the Union Address. "Bread and Circuses".

Once again he failed to adequately disclose how these "promises" would be paid for. We will have to wait for the release of the proposed budget. More deficit spending, I would surmise.

 

[Vassago]

In the general election in Nov 2012, a vote for a third party candidate (Ron Paul) is a vote for Obama.

I disagree. I think the ideals people believe in has changed. I think people are waking up and seeing the errors of the two party system. I expect to see much more diverse voting.

 

[Steve R.]

I was very surprised when Obama quashed SOPA.

Found it. Soon SOPA/PIPA II "It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated." <--From Obama's State of the Union Speech. The remark could also be in reference to an equally bad trade agreement that is being proposed; ACTA. New Petition Asks White House To Submit ACTA To The Senate For Ratification. We had better hope that Ron Paul wins so that these onerous laws/agreements can be defeated.