Bush, Obama, Romney, and Keynes

[Fletch]

When some say "Romney and Obama are the same", I suspect they're leaning on the fact that Romney is very left-leaning for a Republican, as one might expect from a Massachussetts governor.

That means little to nothing to me.

When I say "Romney and Obama are the same", and when I declare that nothing meaningful will change by giving party A control over party B, I'm talking about the fundamental problem of Keynesian economics, the prevailing theory in Washington. It has been destroying us ever since John Maynard Keynes wrote his General Theory and thus gave government a (flawed) theoretical foundation to excuse its profligacy.

When Bush pushed TARP, he was wrong, and I loudly protested to my congresspeople. When BOTH McCain and Obama stepped up and supported it, I knew we were doomed no matter who won the 2008 election. Now Romney has made various statements that indicate his support of the ongoing War on Markets, and I see us in the same position as 2008: the two major candidates have probably never given a second thought to economics, but are at the very least de facto believers in the Keynesian school, and this in spite of its many failings:

The Many Collapses of Keynesianism - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. - Mises Daily

Reagan campaigned on an anti-Keynesian platform. He even talked about reinstituting a gold standard. He said he would cut taxes and let the economy work. Those promises amounted to nothing, but there did seem to be some consciousness at the time that government was not capable of forever leaning against the market winds. The real credit, of course, goes to Carter-appointee Paul Volcker. As head of the Fed, he engineered an actual reduction in the money supply, and broke the back of the crisis. Think of him as the anti-Greenspan or the anti-Bernanke.

At the moment, the ONLY reason I see to vote for Romney is that he claims he will oust Bernanke. I have little doubt that he will nominate yet another "Maestro" under the stupid belief that "surely it will work this time", but at least we'd be rid of one twit. And hey, maybe Ron Paul will have enough influence on Romney or the administration to get another Volcker.

 

[JimmyJames]

You, Sir, are exactly correct.

Of course, every effort will be made to distract from your point. Many will even believe that falling off of a cliff slowly is better than falling off of a cliff quickly while ignoring the fact that gravity has a hand in the matter and will ensure both falls strike the ground just as hard (and just as fast for that matter).

Little to no attention will be paid to other alternatives... such as stepping off of the bus with drivers hell bent on driving over the cliff while the passengers argue about throttle control.

 

[griffin]

At the moment, the ONLY reason I see to vote for Romney is that he claims he will oust Bernanke.

Srsly? Do you think Romney would nominate an Elena Kagan or a Sonia Sotomayor?

 

[JimmyJames]

Srsly? Do you think Romney would nominate an Elena Kagan or a Sonia Sotomayor?

Yes.

What evidence do you have that indicates he would not?

Would the legislative branch give any resistance to the executive branch if the next executive were to nominate a kagan or a sotomayor?

How bout the current chief justice? There is a real stalwart of Liberty, eh?

 

[PINski1015]

Srsly? Do you think Romney would nominate an Elena Kagan or a Sonia Sotomayor?

Judging by the great Contribution from John Roberts maybe.

 

[rambone]

Ben Bernanke "really is the most skilled and capable person to guide us out of the mess we're in." -- Mitt Romney, Jan. 2010

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


Romney supported TARP and the Feds' providing economic "Stimulus."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h4VUjde8aM

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Ben Bernanke "really is the most skilled and capable person to guide us out of the mess we're in." -- Mitt Romney, Jan. 2010

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


Romney supported TARP and the Feds' providing economic "Stimulus."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h4VUjde8aM

But .... but ..... nevermind, it's not worth it

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Fletch -

I agree with your point on Keynes. I want an Austrian school guy in there. I fear that we won't get one. And that stinks.

I would disagree with the notion that that's the only issue. I equally fear the damage that a less literal bunch of Justices in the Supreme Court can do. Just because Roberts botched this decision badly, in my opinion, doesn't take away from the fact that a Kagan or one of the others will go against the grain of the Constitution's intent almost EVERY time.

I also think that a Romney presidency would not invoke class warfare in the same fashing that Obama has. I, for one, think that that is a good thing. And it for dang sure is a difference.

Again - both Obama and Romney listen way too closely to John Maynard Keynes. Agreed. But where they take it from there is two entirely different directions.

 

[Fletch]

Ben Bernanke "really is the most skilled and capable person to guide us out of the mess we're in." -- Mitt Romney, Jan. 2010

Yeah, I'm aware of the flip-floppery. His statement that he'd boot Bernanke is from this year, so I can at the very least cling to the vain hope that he's seen the light, or at least discovered 2 years later that his faith was misplaced.

 

[Fletch]

Srsly? Do you think Romney would nominate an Elena Kagan or a Sonia Sotomayor?

I don't give a rat's ass about the Supreme Court because it is clear to me that the Constitution is nothing but a worthless piece of paper. If you're still holding out hope that it means something tangible, practical, and real... well... good luck to ya.

A lot of folks around here are single-issue (guns) voters. I'm not. I love guns, and I love gun rights, and I love everything we have to say about an armed citizenry, but I see economic freedom as the thing that will make or break us.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I don't give a rat's ass about the Supreme Court because it is clear to me that the Constitution is nothing but a worthless piece of paper. If you're still holding out hope that it means something tangible, practical, and real... well... good luck to ya.

It's more of what you'd call guidelines than actual rules.

 

[rambone]

I would disagree with the notion that that's the only issue. I equally fear the damage that a less literal bunch of Justices in the Supreme Court can do.

Are you satisfied with his appointments as Governor?

Just because Roberts botched this decision badly, in my opinion, doesn't take away from the fact that a Kagan or one of the others will go against the grain of the Constitution's intent almost EVERY time.

I don't buy that.

It was only a few months ago when the Supreme Court ruled to allow anal cavity searches for any arrest, even jaywalking. All the "conservatives" voted for expanding police power, all the "liberal" justices voted for the 4th amendment.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The next President will likely be nominating two Supreme Court Justices. I don't think Romney will knowingly put a Kagan or Sotomayor before the Senate. I also don't think Romney will go around Congress and the Constitution via Executive Order the way the current POTUS is doing.

 

[Fletch]

I also don't think Romney will go around Congress and the Constitution via Executive Order the way the current POTUS is doing.

Given the history of the Oval Office, that seems... optimistic.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It's more of what you'd call guidelines than actual rules.

You have been watching The Pirates of the Caribbean too much!

Thankfully, Captain Barbossa isn't a Supreme Court Justice. Wait, he would probably be better than what we have.

Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner .