Frequently Asked Campaign Questions, Part III
By Mitch Berg
The first two parts of this series have been so successful (Part 1, Part 2) that it’s time to try out part 3 of this series.
Q: Did you hear that Mitt Romney made teh birther joke? He is teh birther!
A: Right. And Steven Colbert is really a Republican talk show host. By the way, are you better off now than you were four years ago?
Q: Isn’t Mitt Romney going to repeal “Roe V. Wade?”
A: Presidents don’t “repeal” SCOTUS decisions. Now, or four years ago. Speaking of which – are you better off now than you were four years ago?
Q: But Romney opposes abortion rights, doesn’t he?
A: I’m sorry – were you unaware that Republicans largely think abortion is murder? Just like they did four years ago. Speaking of which – are you better off now than you were then?
Q: Where are Mitt Romney’s tax records?
A: Dunno. The fact that the IRS hasn’t slapped a huge lien on him is probably evidence enough that the real answer is “who cares, and are you better off than you were four years ago?”
Q: How about teh tyrannical GOP treating the Ron Paul delegates teh way tehy did?
A: Well, they did better than they did four years ago. The party has every right to focus on the majority and de-emphasize a disruptive minority that hasn’t quite gotten enough clout to change everything yet. Speaking of which – are you better off now than four years ago?
Q: How about Todd Akin?
A: Is he better off than he was four years ago?
Q: Did you see teh poll that shows liberals is smarter than teh conservatives?
A: I asked if you’re doing better than you were four years ago
Q: So is the GOP a big tent, or is it?
A:Who can afford a tent? Are you better off than you were four years ago?
Q: Do you think the GOP has conceded teh Latino vote?
A: Dunno. But a lot of Latinos are doing worse than four years ago; more undocs are leaving the US than coming here. What does that tell you?
Q: Ron Paul refused to endorse Mitt Romney.
A: Finally, something that’s the same as four years ago.
August 27th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
“are you better off now than four years ago?”
I know I’ll get jumped on for this, but shouldn’t the question be “will you be better off four years from now under a Romney/Ryan administration?”
The answer for me is: I’m scared as hell to test it. Romney says he’ll repeal the Affordable Care Act, and that means I’ll instantly have two kids without health insurance (under 26, and we’re saving $5,000 a year under the Obama law by keeping them on our plan). It also means that the child with a pre-existing condition (who is guaranteed health insurance under the ACA) would likely not be able to get insurance at ANY price. So, in this respect my family would be much worse off under Romney/Ryan.
In addition, Ryan’s plan to privatize Social Security and voucher Medicare would likely leave us with lower benefits from those programs. Again, worse off than we are today.
I’m actually better off financially today than I was at the end of the Bush admin for one simple reason: The S&P and Dow Averages are up since Obama took office and value of my investments has grown significantly over these past 3-4 years.
Also, I think we should ask the candidates important questions about their commitment to sustaining the middle class through policy that reduces our trade deficit and supports the manufacturing sector, support for tax reform that restores fairness to personal and corporate tax rates (and Romney won’t even disclose his taxes, which to me is the first step in being transparent and showing honest support for tax reform), support for government investment that helps business and creates jobs (or saves them, as the stimulus plan did when we were crashing toward Great Depression 2.0), support for keeping benefits of US innovation here at home — not outsourced to other countries (Romney and his Bain offshoring/outsourcing is a negative on this point).
Those are my questions, but they are for the candidate, not the voter.
August 27th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Every misleading Democrat talking point in one comment. Mr. “Sanity”, I salute you!
August 27th, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Terry, tell me how my points are “misleading”. Thanks.
August 27th, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Today: Nasdaq 100 positioning for highest close in 11 years.
Business and markets are coming back under Obama admin.
August 27th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
The stock market is flat or has fallen slightly from five years ago. This is Obama’s no-growth-slow-growth policy in action.
August 27th, 2012 at 1:38 pm
“Sanity”:
Not to answer for Terry – I’m sure he’ll be along shortly. But I’ll take a whack at it:
Romney says he’ll repeal the Affordable Care Act, and that means I’ll instantly have two kids without health insurance
a) No repeal would be “instant”.
b) What state do you live in?
So, in this respect my family would be much worse off under Romney/Ryan.
Romney/Ryan have never said they’d dump everyone out of insurance. Merely repeal the costly, inefficient, supply-destroying ACA. There are better options, which will provide for everyone and not destroy our healthcare sector.
In addition, Ryan’s plan to privatize Social Security and voucher Medicare would likely leave us with lower benefits from those programs. Again, worse off than we are today.
a) Even if we take your statement at face value – if your choice is between “lower” benefits and “nothing” (which is what the choice will be, sooner or later), what do you choose? Especially since staying the course WILL mean both programs become insolvent, meaning no (or harshly rationed) “benefits” sooner than later.
b) You accept as a given that benefits will be reduced. That is a questionable thesis at best – and to some extent controlled by the consumer.
C) See “A”, since it bears repeating.
I’m actually better off financially today than I was at the end of the Bush admin for one simple reason: The S&P and Dow Averages are up since Obama took office and value of my investments has grown significantly over these past 3-4 years.
a) Tell that to the millions of unemployed people out there.
b) You DO know that the stock markets are not the economy, right? Just measures of the values of selected equities?
c) According to at least one theory, thank Mitt Romney for that. According to that theory, the market is predicting a Romney win, and is factoring that into the market today. If Obama wins and the tax cliff arrives, watch for those investments to plunge.
Also, I think we should ask the candidates important questions about their commitment to sustaining the middle class
Here’s one of those chanting points Terry was talking about, I suspect. Government doesn’t “sustain the middle class”.
support for tax reform that restores fairness to personal and corporate tax rates
Another chanting points. “Fairness” should not be the goal. Competitiveness and productivity should.
(and Romney won’t even disclose his taxes, which to me is the first step in being transparent and showing honest support for tax reform),
Another chanting point. Romney’s rich. If he hasn’t had any actions filed against him by the IRS – and they certainly would have come out by now – then he’s kosher…
…and it’s irrelevant. Romney’s portfolio’s been in a blind trust for over a decade. Before he became governor.
It’s not only a diversionary chanting point, it’s an insult to the intelligence of the people who pay attention.
August 27th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Tell that to the millions of unemployed people out there.
Hello? Real world calling the Democrat party. Is there anyone home?
August 27th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Since “Sanity”‘s only real claim of now v 4 years ago is the stock market, let’s look at that, shall we?
On August 28, 2008 (four years ago), the DJIA closed at 11,715.
Last Friday it closed at 13,157.
That is a 12.1% increase since August 2008.
Then you subtract the inflation from 2008-2012 (6.4%)
So your investment, in a DJIA index fund, would have increased 5.7% in purchasing power since August 2008. If you had million bucks invested in such a fund, and you were trying to live off the interest on it, you would have averaged $14, 250/yr. The current minimum wage is $7.25/hr. Working full time at a minimum wage job would earn you 15,080/yr.
So here is “Sanity”‘s stock market miracle. If you had a million dollars invested in the DJIA four years ago this month, and wanted to live off of your investment, you would be better off taking a minimum wage job.
If you could find one.
Whoo-hoo! Watch out! There’s a freight-train a’heading down Wall Street! Chugga-chugga-chugga!
August 27th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
“Sanity” wrote:
“Business and markets are coming back under Obama admin.”
No, they aren’t.
Virtually every business indicator hit bottom during the Obama administration, you buffoon.
August 27th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
The best example of team Obama’s business failure is the GM bailout. They bought at ~$50, and it’s now it’s less than half that.
They did this, in part, by mandating that GM focus on selling cars with great fuel economy when, before the takeover, the only product lines GM made money on were SUV’s and trucks.
Brilliant! Just brilliant!
“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.”
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/obama-lets-repeat-auto-rescue-with-every-manufacturing-131566.html
August 27th, 2012 at 2:52 pm
“……I’ll instantly have two kids without health insurance (under 26, and we’re saving $5,000 a year under the Obama law by keeping them on our plan).”
Sanity, I’m far-far less concerned with what it’s saving you than what the real cost will be for the rest of us, and our children, and their children, on and on.
August 27th, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Sanity
the DOW today at 13,124.83 is still 968.25 points down, nearly 7% off peak from the Bush years so: Wake Up! You Aren’t Doing Better!
Glad I could clear that up for you.
August 27th, 2012 at 3:12 pm
The umbilical cord should be cut well before they turn 26 for cryin out loud.
August 27th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
“Sanity”‘s tone-deafness on the economy reflects a more general tone-deafness on virtually the entire left today. You have Obama saying that the private sector is “doing fine” when private sector employment gains have been minuscule and composed mostly of part time, low wage jobs, and a strange obsession by lefty pundits on the anger and the GOP (see this for example http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-gop-platform-has-republicans-walking-the-planks/2012/08/24/75df206c-edfc-11e1-b0eb-dac6b50187ad_story.html) at the moment the violent, raging allies of the Democrats, the New Black Panthers and various anarchist groups, are descending on Florida to disrupt the RNC in Tampa.
August 27th, 2012 at 5:54 pm
“The stock market is flat or has fallen slightly from five years ago”
The market collapsed at the end of Bush II’s reign. It has steadily improved since that time, and today we are finally ready to climb the next hill. Lots of progress made . . . and yes, I’m better off than I was four years ago.
August 27th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
“Virtually every business indicator hit bottom during the Obama administration, you buffoon.”
“Manufacturing is expected to see a hiring increase with the sector forecast to add 284,000 jobs in 2011 and 400,000 jobs in 2012.”
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/manufacturing_to_outpace_overall_economic_growth_in_2011_2012_industry_group_says_23933.aspx
When was the last time manufacturing actually ADDED jobs in any year? That’s right, not since 1979.
August 27th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
“…I’ll instantly have two kids without health insurance…”
And the reason we should be paying for your kids’ health insurance is….?
August 27th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
“…support for tax reform that restores fairness to personal and corporate tax rates…”
Define “fairness”. Show your work.
August 27th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Sanity said The market collapsed at the end of Bush II’s reign.
it had stabilized in the 8k range between election day and inauguration day so
lets don’t forget that the market suddenly lost an additional 16% in the 6 weeks after Obama took office
and yes you are correct Jimmy Carter ushered in the end of manufacturing growth in the United States – another successful Dem policy
August 27th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
“…support for government investment that helps business and creates jobs…”
Such as Solyndra?
August 27th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
“The umbilical cord should be cut well before they turn 26 for cryin out loud.”
Apparently you don’t have kids stuck in those low wage, part-time, no benefits jobs that Terry is talking about.
August 27th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
“and yes you are correct Jimmy Carter ushered in the end of manufacturing growth in the United States – another successful Dem policy”
It wasn’t just Carter. NAFTA was supported by both sides of the aisle.
August 27th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
“And the reason we should be paying for your kids’ health insurance is….?”
You aren’t. My employer is. Not the taxpayer.
August 27th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
“…support for government investment that helps business and creates jobs…”
Try roads and bridges. The Transportation bill in Minnesota was the MN Chamber of Commerce’s #1 legislative priority for supporting business.
August 27th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
“the DOW today at 13,124.83 is still 968.25 points down, nearly 7% off peak from the Bush years so: Wake Up! You Aren’t Doing Better!”
Not true. Those of us who continuously invest (payroll deductions every month) to take advantage of dollar cost averaging, which is the way most people invest for example in their 401K’s, we are doing well.
August 27th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
wrong again Sanity,
“You aren’t. My employer is. Not the taxpayer.”
your employer gets a tax break for the medical insurance so yes that is money denied to the federal government that the tax payers have to make up somewhere else. Why doesn’t your employer want to pay his “fair share”? Why don’t you want to pay your “fair share”?
August 27th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
“Sanity, I’m far-far less concerned with what it’s saving you than what the real cost will be for the rest of us, and our children, and their children, on and on.”
Of course, but remember there are several million “Sanity parents” just like me out there. And we vote.
The real cost for our children (of not having health care coverage) could indeed be very high, and could cost them their lives if they aren’t getting proper care for a pre-existing condition, for example. So . . . yeah.
August 27th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
can’t get your facts straight Sanity?
“It wasn’t just Carter. NAFTA was supported by both sides of the aisle.”
NAFTA had its genesis in 1986 – Carter had nothing to do with it and if he had he would have bungled it like everything else in his administration.
August 27th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
“your employer gets a tax break for the medical insurance so yes that is money denied to the federal government that the tax payers have to make up somewhere else. Why doesn’t your employer want to pay his “fair share”? Why don’t you want to pay your “fair share”?”
If I pay the insurance then I get the tax break (and I pay at a higher rate than corporate tax rates, so the government and you are out more money if I pay the bill). So . .. I’m not biting on this one . . . the government gets more tax revenue if my employer pays it vs. me paying and getting a greater deduction.
August 27th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
“NAFTA had its genesis in 1986 – Carter had nothing to do with it and if he had he would have bungled it like everything else in his administration.”
That’s right. It was later, but my point was that Carter wasn’t the only one who cut trade deals to negatively impact manufacturing in US. Those deals were ongoing, and supported by both sides of the aisle, dem and repub admins, over these past 40-50 years.
August 27th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
individuals don’t get to deduct health insurance because they aren’t covered by ERISA (among other laws) so if you pay $5k a year for insurance as individual you also pay the income tax that that $5k represents.
August 27th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
“individuals don’t get to deduct health insurance because they aren’t covered by ERISA (among other laws) so if you pay $5k a year for insurance as individual you also pay the income tax that that $5k represents.”
Individuals get to deduct healthcare costs if they exceed 7.5% of adjusted gross income. Trust me, paying for two kids insurance on the open market (one with a pre-existing condition that would make the rate sky high, well over $5,000) would put us into that category.
August 27th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
I’ve probably confused you. The $5,000 was COBRA rates. When the pre-existing condition kid goes off COBRA the rates soar on the regular insurance market (if it’s possible to get insurance at all for that one). That’s why the ACA guarantee that all can get insurance coverage, regardless of pre-existing condition, is so important. Romney has said he will repeal ACA. Other Republicans (Bachmann, for example) have been very vocal about their support for complete repeal of ACA.
August 27th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Correction Sanity,
Individuals get to deduct only those healthcare costs that exceed 7.5% of adjusted gross income.
you still pay taxes on that first 7.5% which not coincidentally is calculated to be enough to include your health ins.
August 27th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
“you still pay taxes on that first 7.5% which not coincidentally is calculated to be enough to include your health ins.”
That depends on how high your ADJUSTED gross income is (high level of deductions here). If adjusted gross income is 100,000 for example, that means that medical expense must be north of $7,200 to begin deducting. Let’s say you run through $3,000 in deductibles (easy to do, we’re doing that right now) and pay another 20K for insurance for those kids (remember, one has a pre-existing condition and the insurance company whacks you for that). That gives you around a 16K deduction (23K minus 7K). A 16K deduction at 100,000 adjusted gross income level (25% tax bracket) will give mean $4,000 off the tax bill. How many companies pay 25% taxes at federal level? Not sure, but I do know that some, like GE, pay zero in taxes. So the employee at GE in this situation is better off letting the company pay because the government gains $4K over them paying.
August 27th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
“Those of us who continuously invest (payroll deductions every month) to take advantage of dollar cost averaging, which is the way most people invest for example in their 401K’s, we are doing well.”
Fer crissakes, “Sanity”, you have enough money to pack the extra into a 401K and you still think the rest of us should pick up the tab for your kids’ insurance?
What a chiseler!
August 27th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Oh Sanity,
starting in the 2012 tax reporting year; Individuals get to deduct only those healthcare costs that exceed 10% of adjusted gross income.
This is a 2.5% Obama tax increase ( one of many scheduled to pop up in coming tax years) that directly targets the middle class. Are you still doing better than you were 4 years ago?
August 27th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
“Fer crissakes, “Sanity”, you have enough money to pack the extra into a 401K and you still think the rest of us should pick up the tab for your kids’ insurance?
What a chiseler!”
No, I think I’m being responsible by planning for my retirement, and making sacrifices now to save a set amount each month, so I don’t have to live on welfare in my old age. Just like you I give up vacations, eating out, discretionary purchases, and live below my means so that I can save something for the future. That’s my right.
BTW, I’m not asking anyone else to pick up the tab for my kid’s insurance, and in fact the taxpayers do NOT and have never paid for my kid’s healthcare.
For the record, my kids are insured by employer, not the taxpayer. ACA makes it possible for them to have insurance at all (especially the pre-existing condition kid) going forward, in the open market, at an affordable rate.
What does it cost us as a nation when people don’t have access to basic healthcare?
Everything costs something, and not having basic services also carries a cost to us as a society.
August 27th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
Hate to tell you this, “Sanity”, but what I wrote:
“Virtually every business indicator hit bottom during the Obama administration, you buffoon.”
Is not contradicted by:
“Manufacturing is expected to see a hiring increase with the sector forecast to add 284,000 jobs in 2011 and 400,000 jobs in 2012.”
You guys can’t argue. Cuz’ you got nothin’. The article you link to is 18 mos. old and it opens with this:
“The Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI Quarterly Economic Forecast predicts that inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) will expand by 3.2% in 2011 and by 3% in 2012.”
The GDP grew by 2% in 2011 and is expected to grow by 1.5% this year.
There will come a time, “Sanity”, when you look at your own arguments and say “Garsh! This ain’t right! I’m totally wrong! I really have to let smarter people make decisions for me! I really am a buffoon, just like Terry said I was!”
August 27th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
http://www.bls.gov/ces/ceshighlights072012.pdf
See page 7. Employment in manufacturing chart from Bureau of Labor Statistics
“Over the past 12 months (up to July 2012), the industry has added 222,000 jobs, most of them in durable goods manufacturing.”
August 27th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
From Forbes (May 24, 2012):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/05/24/seattle-is-leading-an-american-manufacturing-revival/
“In this still tepid recovery, the biggest feel-good story has been the resurgence of American manufacturing. As industrial production has fallen in Europe and growth has slowed in China, U.S. factories have continued an expansion that has stretched on for over 33 months.”
August 27th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
A good quote from the article:
“From 2010 through March [2012], manufacturers added 470,000 jobs and enjoyed a rate of job growth 10% faster than the rest of the private economy.”
Not bad.
August 27th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
‘ “And the reason we should be paying for your kids’ health insurance is….?”
You aren’t. My employer is. Not the taxpayer.’
…and you are therefor concerned because…?
August 27th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
“Are you still doing better than you were 4 years ago?”
Yes, for the reasons I previously listed.
August 27th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
Read your own link, “Sanity”, and you’ll see that Obama began his administration by losing almost a million manufacturing jobs in 2009 and he is nowhere near replacing those, even with a 212,000 positive in the last year.
THERE IS NO RECOVERY IN OBAMA”S ECONOMY. THERE IS NO LIGHT AT THE END OF TUNNEL IN OBAMA”S ECONOMY.
August 27th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
“…and you are therefor concerned because…?”
I have a child with a pre-existing condition, and under ACA she cannot be denied insurance. If it is repealed all bets are off. Health insurance companies can deny her coverage under the pre-ACA system. This is my biggest concern right now.
August 27th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
“Read your own link, “Sanity”, and you’ll see that Obama began his administration by losing almost a million manufacturing jobs in 2009”
Those were a result of Bush era financial collapse and previous policies. He inherited the muck from the previous admin . . . and he is digging us out of the crater Bush put us in. It will take some time. It took time to engineer the collapse (which happened near the end of Bush admin), and it will take time to get out. That’s how it works. The economy doesn’t turn on a dime. It steers more like the Titanic.
August 27th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
“Read your own link, “Sanity”, and you’ll see that Obama began his administration by losing almost a million manufacturing jobs in 2009”
Those were a result of Bush era financial collapse and previous policies. He inherited the muck from the previous admin . . . and he is digging us out of the crater Bush put us in. It will take some time. It took time to engineer the collapse (which happened near the end of Bush admin), and it will take time to get out. That’s how it works. The economy doesn’t turn on a dime. It steers more like the Titanic.
August 27th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
“I have a child with a pre-existing condition, and under ACA she cannot be denied insurance. If it is repealed all bets are off. Health insurance companies can deny her coverage under the pre-ACA system.”
So, to my original point, we should be paying for your kid’s insurance because…?
August 27th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
“So, to my original point, we should be paying for your kid’s insurance because…?”
You don’t. And you won’t. We or she will pay for her own insurance. ACA guarantees that she’ll have ACCESS to insurance! Before ACA insurers could all deny her insurance, leaving her with no access to affordable healthcare and ensuring that she’d be one crisis away from bankruptcy at any time. With no healthcare security she could end up broke and homeless . . . she was in a situation where she was forced to make the choice to find a mail order husband in Canada or Britain or any other country that has guaranteed universal healthcare. She’d like (and we’d like) for her to be able to live in the United States. She has been a citizen here since birth, and we’d like to stay here too vs. moving to another country to keep our family together.