Posted on 09/02/2012 9:32:27 PM PDT by deek69
Here is a very basic, simple definition of Supply Side Economics:
“Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
Romney proposes a 5 step plan with the 5th step described as:
“And fifth, we will champion small businesses, America’s engine of job growth,” he will say. “That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business the most. And it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare.”
So, exactly how did he NOT address supply-side, market oriented economic policy? How much more detail did you want him to get into?
I agree. But someone should've told them. Ann Romney's speech was a totally wasted slot only put in there to try to pander to women. Not to mention pandering lines like Mitt's about what his wife did being "more important" than what we did.
I liked Ryan's speech and Martinez' and Rice's. Didn't see Mia Love's. Rubio's was all fluff, almost no discussion of what the heck we supposedly elected him to do or any of the contrast between the parties. Mitt's went in one ear and out the other, and I couldn't get through the whole thing without falling asleep. Every time he would start to sound like he was going to get into specifics either about his own life or his policies, he slipped right back into vague, boring platitudes.
I can't really separate the performance aspect of it from the content. Romney delivered his lines in a weird, unnatural tone of voice with an awkward lilt. Romney seemed distant and cold, while Ryan seemed warm, natural and likable. As Kudlow says, as the Presidential candidate it was Romney that had to make the sale, and from what I'm hearing, his was one of the least liked speeches of the week.
” Did he convince people who are living at the margin or unemployed and discouraged that he has the answers to the economy? Frankly, I don’t think so.”
What I got from the speeches at the convention, including Romney’s, is that for those who thought Obama was going to be the “hope and change” for the world, and were disappointed, it’s okay not to vote for him again.
They weren’t racist when they voted for him, and they won’t be racist when they vote for Romney.
However, I thought having the Red State governors speaking about the economic turn around in their states was very powerful.
THAT was proof that his plan would work.
And................THAT’S what this election is all about.
I’m sorry that Kudlow didn’t really watch the convention.
This picture is getting really old...What is your point???
“After all, the Convention was an ideal platform to lay it all out and make the sale, wasn’t it? So, why would he hold back?”
The independents will decide the election — Romney already sent a strong message to conservatives by selecting Ryan as his VP, the purpose of his speech at the convention was to persuade independents.
MSM is already against us. We sure as hell do NOT need our so called allies, the “conservative” pundits bitching about our candidate as well.
Sara you seem so assured. You hate Romney. Fine. I don’t thiink he is perfect bty annnny stretch. However, tell me who are you going to vote for that will get barry oustered?
Given that the gender gap with RR needing more female voters, the speech served the purpose. A speech doesn’t need to have grandiose contents like Kudlow wants. The one that moves people emotionally (I remember seeing several women in the audience wiped their tears when Romney talked about the flower next to his parents’ bed) is similarly if not more powerful. He mentioned the 5 points, it’s enough for now.
Why is there always an “and” in there, Chgocal? Repeal Obamacare...and replace. It’s not getting rid of regulations, it’s “modernizing” them. Supply-siders don’t talk out of both sides of their mouth like that. Cutting taxes is what we expect from Republicans, but Bush 2 did that, and it didn’t stop him from expanding government and having the 2nd highest amount of czars other than Obama. Let’s keep in mind Romney is the guy who said he wanted to index the minimum wage to inflation in the primaries. Just one example among many as to why he needs to work a lot harder if he’s going to convince conservatives that he’s a supply-sider. The mealy-mouthed lip service to supply-side economics isn’t going to cut it from the man who openly repudiated the Reagan administration as he began his political career.
God everyone here knows I hate Romney (very much dislike...I don’t hate anyone), but Romney picked Paul Ryan...Thank Goodness.
Bingo
Finally, a FReeper who understands strategy!!!!!
TY, I was giving up hope.
: )
I couldn't disagree more. Politics as "team playing" is what will be the death of this country. Romney only got reluctant support from his detractors on the condition that conservatives were going to continue "holding his feet to the fire." When they stop doing that, we'll end up with an unchecked northeastern moderate/liberal president. The "rah, rah, go team R" mentality is a simplistic and dangerous one. Honesty remains the best policy.
Sale?
Romney is no sale.
Romney is collecting on our Constitutional Insurance Policy.....
Also Eastwood did his part in reaching out to independents and some wavering Democrats. It can only help.
“it would not have been wise for Romney to reveal specifics at the GOP convention, only to have the Dems exploit it at the Dem convention. Pay attention. He was right.”
No matter who the GOP candidate or what the plan is, I agree. It’s better to let them guess. Has anyone else noticed how the media keeps trying to get certain answers from the Romney camp,, as if they/we are expected to march to the timing of the media-bots? I think it’s great how R/R are setting their own pace (at least it looks that way).
Which is where Kudlow says he probably failed. He didn't provide real specifics on why his economic policy is better than Obama's for those people. It's not as simple as saying conservatives like conservative policy, and no one else needs to hear about it. The independents need to be told specifically why conservative policy works and creates a better life for them. Something Reagan did easily and often in his speeches.
“Repeal Obamacare...and replace”
It means just that. Repeal the monstrosity social program that is Obamacare, and replace it with something reasonable.
Tort reform and being allowed to purchase insurance across state lines would be a start.
But, I don’t think you would disagree that something has to be done to reign in health care costs, would you?
Bad mouthing supply-siders, too?
” The mealy-mouthed lip service to supply-side economics isn’t going to cut it from the man who openly repudiated the Reagan administration as he began his political career.”
Key words...”as he BEGAN his political career.”
I don’t know about you, but my views have changed over the years. I’ve become more conservative, so I will wait and see what he says before I judge him.
This is coming from one for whom Romney was her last choice.
But, this choice is much better than the alternative.
You can argue all that you want, but it is what it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.