Skip to comments.The Need to Explain (Sowell on Republicans)
Posted on 11/14/2012 1:22:44 PM PST by jazusamo
click here to read article
What I was getting at there was that he gets caught on tape trying to make that remark in secret, and it worked great for O because MR had no related message to general voters such as the example I made up (in 15 minutes yet), now he comes up with this sore loser stuff after the fact.
All he is doing is causing problems for us with this statement. Its not dignified for a (ex-) POTUS nominee to talk like that. Leave that to talk radio.
Because most people would reply that you SHOULD pay a few more cents for your big MAC to help out some poor black kid who works at McDs whose Mom is on welfare. I know better than to use that argument. Try your arguments with those who dont usually agree with you.
Sowell would say (has said) the the minimum wage is hurting the unskilled worker (the most) who is only qualified for those jobs. In other words it is hurting the poor it claims to help out of compassion. It creates less jobs for them and less opportunity for them to get critical work experience they need to move upward.
That is why Reagan pushed for the earned income tax credit instead of raising the minimum wage.
No one cares if we have to pay more for a Big Mac and fries, or if someone on welfare has to pay more. But how do you get them off welfare if you are killing those jobs?
maybe so, but most people have no ability or desire to think thru the econ model 101 that is minimum wage...
however, anybody who makes $1 above min, can plainly see his *loss* when the min is raised $.75...
*THEN* youve prepared the soil for econ 101...
I put that whole comment together in a few minutes and wanted to finish making that concise point. I could have put it this way.
“ Romney shamed himself and us by running such an empty POTUS campaign about nothing; and now he is making excuses for his failure which is just making him look worse.
Its not dignified for a (ex-) POTUS nominee and losing candidate to talk like you are Mitt. Leave that to talk radio. Go away and stay off TV. You have done enough.“
That is what I am getting at. Few people have been exposed to why we have a capitalistic system and why we allow prices. Sowell is best at explaining that.
More specifically, why gubment compassionate policies do the opposite as they are intended and claimed, by explaining econ 101.
Look, Obama and Dems come out with fancy big word claims that come from ‘the educated experts’ to back up their compassion policies so voters who vote for them can tell themselves that they voted for the smart guy who knows how to fix things, and be 'fair'.
Then they claim that everyone knows that Republican policies dont work citing old W once again.
Time for Rs to stop using simple arguments that are
based on assumptions that they havent proved or even explained to voters, so easy to trash.
1) raising the price of those employees beyond what they are worth to employer.
2) Raising the price of a burger so people buy less, requiring less employees (extends your point)
Dems will counter “ Everyone knows that employers just need/want more ‘demand’ and that only comes from more gubment stimulus and investments (spending)”
They repeat this hundereds of times on TV and not one R has challenged it. I know Dems inside and out and I know econ 101.
I was talking about Romney in this ‘Rs’ reference.
2) Raising the price of a burger so people buy less, requiring less employees (extends your point)
problem is multi fauceted tho...the welfare queen wont believe point 1, as employee *cost* is apparently not a big deal to someone who gets a check for *free*...and point 2 is similar in that when its OPM, the cost of the burger is irrelevant anyways...
years ago i noticed that in the hood, the price of that big mac was a full .10 higher than on the upscale side of town...IOW, it was the minority franchises that seemed to be *price gouging* because they simply knew they could... Dems will counter Everyone knows that employers just need/want more demand and that only comes from more gubment stimulus and investments (spending)
full circle back to my 'laying the field' for econ 101...as even the welfare queen can be enlightened to the fact that when big brutha *spends* money on stimulus, that there is less *pie* for her fat snout to munch upon...
anybody [dem drones] who works to collect a check can be easily shown that they are getting a pay cut when the min is raised, simple math and all...they have to be shown that the fedzillas appetite is never satisfied, and that 'stimulus' requires more of a difference between their 'net' and 'gross' on their stubs... I know Dems inside and out and I know econ 101.
yep, but have you figgured out how to make the blind see ???
i cant articulate this stuff on the fly, so it remains to be seen how to do it wholesale...i get frustrated and wanna smack em in the mouth...politickin and gilbo dont mix...
My points are not targeted to the welfare queen silly. If she votes at all its certainly not for an R, more like Marion Barry LOl.
Mine is for all those middle class voters and even some of those working poor who think its their job to vote compassion and Obama’s lecturing about experts in a confident (arrogant ) tone give them intellectual cover for it.
If Republicans dont start the tuitorals then they will rarely win any battles.
Look at Mitt, he just gives up and says have the gubment raise it and the cheering for him here was deafening from many. Mitt COULD have just said that its the states job to raise it instead of playing Obama-light.
Reagan said he was not an actor and he had thirty movies to prove it.
heh, heh, heh, of course he meant that he wasn’t a wonderful actor, of star quality.
Baring an acceptable way to do it, I would have to agree. And I’m not convinced there is a reasoned way to do it.
Nothing you say is private in a public setting.
My advice would be, you never say anything that you don’t want others to hear when you’re running for office.
Received wisdom. Or rather an old propaganda line of the Left against Reagan. YAWN!
I understand your point. I just responded to your first post.
The sad thing is that Romney could see problem issues, but he couldn’t address them in a manner that connected with the public he wanted to vote for him.
His record was detrimental. His inability to flesh out proper fixes was inadequate. And there was the feeling that he wanted to correct Obama misdeeds with his own brand of misdeeds. “We’ll strike down Obamacare and replace it.” Say what?
We are not inspiring people on our side to go to the polls. We are abandoning too many people in our quest to lead.
I don’t think I saw Romney/Ryan address minority unemployment once during the campaign. I know for sure they weren’t talking about numbers pre Obama post Obama.
There was so much fertile ground that went untouched upon.
My take on that was similar to the other stuff Romney said. He thought it sounded better to the average voter tha total repeal. Obama-care is unpopular but many Dems didn't like it because they wanted single payer instead, not repeal. And other voters didn't like it because of the bribes or other crap in it they heard about.
I don't think Republicans found any general polls where most people in the US thought that the Fed gubmt should do nothing about the uninsured, even though we do.
So I think Romney was just playing the polls song again. And as you say, why would he believe in total repeal given his record? with Romney we will never know.
Thomas Sowell - a political and moral giant and a Great American.
Not really. Being an actor allowed Reagan to reach people at a different level that most politicians.
It was an asset. Politicians used to train with stage performers in order to do the same thing. Part of the reason Reagan was who he was is that he was a veteran stage performer and actor.
B U M P
You do it in ads, and in the debates, and get away from these sterile answers designed not to offend.
You dont run an entire campaign based on the premise that Obama is a nice guy who is simply over his head. You dont agree that he and Biden merely inherited a mess and havent quite gotten us out of it YET.
Why we lost, in a nutshell.
” Finally! Thomas Sowell pointed the finger to the root of the problem - it’s not “demographics” or sudden change of ideology (2010 “shellacking” was not so long ago) - it’s the lack of conservatism in all Republican presidential candidates ever since Reagan left the White House. “
I posted the same on another thread.
” Romney doesn’t need to “apologize for his success” in making money, but it doesn’t make him a “businessman” or a “job creator” and as a politician he was nothing but a failure, from his run for Senate, to his one term as a liberal Governor of MA, to failing to win a nomination against widely despised by conservatives and badly outspent John McCain despite pouring $50M of his own money. No wonder he found such a firm support from GOP-e in the next cycle - he was the most liberal and Bush-like in the bunch.
That leads to stupid mistakes like “I like to fire people” and “47%” (many people who don’t pay income taxes and/or receive some form of permanent or temporary government assistance - e.g., military, temporarily out of work, retired etc. - are not freeloaders) or accusing Obama of “picking losers” (Solyndra, Ener1, A123 etc.), as if government “picking winners”> would be OK - so Obama nailed him with GM and Chrysler who are now declared “winners” because they are in business, with little debt and profitable - courtesy of taxpayers, of course.
Free advice to GOP, which they won’t hear, won’t see and won’t take - Stop picking losers! “
Hey, how bout that??
The Republican Party has been RUNNING FROM Conservatism since Reagan left office. The only Reason GHWB won is Reagan. The only reason W won twice is 2 HORRIBLE candidates!
Had we gotten Newt Gingrich on the debate with Obama, how differently do you imagine he would have handled it, or even Santorum or Perry?
I mean, it’s moot now, but out of curiosity, do you think any of those gentlemen would have taken FuBO to the woodshed, or would they have played Mr. Nicey-Nice?
Newt would likely have ripped Obama’s head off.
“...Newt would likely have ripped Obamas head off...”
Which, of course, is why “he had too much baggage, just too much baggage” to be President.
Can’t have someone who would actually tell the truth about FuBO.
I’d like to see Gov Scott Walker and LtC Allen West run in 2016, and I’d like to see them start campaigning now to do so, heading off any more GOP-e attempts to foist RINOs on us (hint: Christie, stay home...)
The GOP is controlled by the GOPe/RINO-plex. Unless or until we purge this, we lose.
” Id like to see Gov Scott Walker and LtC Allen West run in 2016”
Do you know who the GOPe is considering already?
I wouldn’t hock a lugie on any of them.
We will be in a depression before 2016, so anything is possible, but if any of the aforementioned run, they will lose.
“...Do you know who the GOPe is considering already?....”
Which is why we the people immediately need to start pushing for the people WE want to run, versus whomever these feckless GOP-e retards want to foist on us.
Walker and West, 2016.
I really like the above comments.
I saw this during the R primary, Romney was the LAST person who could win a debate on redistribution, himself being a rich detached elitist. It was a recipe for disaster. Then he helps Obama with the 47% comments intended to raise R campaign cash while insulting half the country before the election.
The Knee-jerk Republicans fall in line behind the super rich Romney's simply because Dems demonize them.
And did you notice that now when we no longer have to make belief Mitt was a good candidate how many Rs appear to actually believe he was Now even though he lost?
Common sense rule : Don't get high on your own supply.
The 2011 to 2012 Boehner/Tea party house did a great job of delaying the spending cuts till after O was elected(delayed cuts).
Worse yet the prior congress Senate Republican minority in late 2010 won a great victory to keep taxes from going up till AFTER Obama was safely re-elected, go Republicans! You gave Obama an issue. You kept the economy from tanking before the his re-election,
And then Romney picks Ryan. I was never impressed with Ryan but to team him with Romney was absolutely stupid. He had no appeal outside of the R cult. Another boring white guy. HELL, they even lost WI !!! Yet Walker did great in WI even after being targeted by Dems.
Too many things done wrong, then the hoax that all the polls were biased for Dems so it must be voter fraud now.
Don't get high on your own supply (believe your own BS). it just hurts more in the end.
And Romney ran a campaign that was centered around “Obama is just a nice guy whose policies just didn't work out” imagining that his (Romney's) win would be automatic, and many here believed that BS. We never heard “Obama wants you on welfare” from Romney going after his character.
Meanwhile Obama ran the most negative campaign of all time completely destroying Romney's character painting him as a 'Let them eat cake' elitist who hates the voters.
So here we are with Obama going after Bohner with an apparent position of superiority and Republicans in congress terrified of Obama who has not a scratch from Romney.
So we learn anything from this?
“So we learn anything from this?”
So no more Twinkies.
No! Oh the humanity!
I’ll miss Ding Dongs too.
IOW, no. Nothing learned.
” Romney ran a campaign that was centered around Obama is just a nice guy whose policies just didn’t work out imagining that his (Romney’s) win would be automatic, and many here believed that BS. We never heard Obama wants you on welfare from Romney going after his character.
Meanwhile Obama ran the most negative campaign of all time completely destroying Romney’s character painting him as a ‘Let them eat cake’ elitist who hates the voters.”
A smiling, courteous, C. Milquetoast, centi-millionaire with a nice smile doth not a candidate make.
Romney= Asante Samuel.