Did Mitt Romney Really Confuse Winston Churchill With John Maynard Keynes?
- Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:58am by
Becket Adams
- Print »
- Email »
This may not be a major gaffe, but it is slightly embarrassing.
Mitt Romney committed a mistake Thursday when he incorrectly attributed a quote to Winston Churchill, a traditional pillar of conservatism. Instead, the quote is often attributed to John Maynard Keynes, a man whose economic theories on government interventionism have been championed by leftists and progressives the world over. But even that is in question.
The moment occurred when Romney was attempting to defend himself from the oft-repeated accusation of being a “flip-flopper.” During his defense, he said, “In the private sector, if you don’t change your view when the facts change, well you’ll get fired for being stubborn and stupid,” according to NBC.
But then he added: “Winston Churchill said, ‘When facts change, I change too, Madam.’”
That was his mistake. Winton Churchill never said that. That quote is often attributed to John Maynard Keynes, a different Englishman of a slightly different political persuasion.
What Keynes is commonly thought to have once said was was “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?”
Whoops. Or is it?
Henry Blodget over at Business Insider points out that it’s not a cold, hard fact that Keynes said that:
But now Jason Zweig of the WSJ has pointed out something startling: Even Keynes may not have said, “When the facts change, I change my mind…”
And Keynes also may not have said the other thing that everyone always says he said: “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”
These two quotes are among the most famous in history, having been cited in print more than half a million times. But Zweig talked to two Keynes experts who say there’s no evidence that Keynes ever uttered either one of them.
So the gaffe is that he uttered a quote not actually said by a big-government economist and that he attributed it to someone who never said it. But hey, at least his gaffe was not as bad as, well, any of these:
- Was it a “breathalyzer” or an “inhalator”?
- Take your pick
- 57 states? Learn something new everyday
- That’s not a soundtrack for your speech
Exit question: What do you think the 2008 election would have been like had news sources such as NBC subjected the presidential candidates (one in particular) to such thorough scrutiny?
Comments (94)
Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 685 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 533 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 440 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 331 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 286 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 293 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 181 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 286 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
teddie888
Posted on October 2, 2011 at 9:52amGovernor of Michigan, George Romney (Mits dad) gave state income tax to Michigan
Gov of Mass., Mitt Romney gave Romneycare to Mass.
Report Post »teddie888
Posted on October 2, 2011 at 9:47amPerhaps he did it on purpose. When u think evryone is dumb then that’s what u do, change the truth yet let everyone know u really do believe in kensyan economics. Romney’s dad was governor of Mich and was the 1 who gave Mich a state income tax for the 1st time.
Report Post »jkduh
Posted on October 1, 2011 at 10:01pmObama confused us of being softies…well his teleprompter did…
Report Post »david3755
Posted on October 1, 2011 at 3:42pmThe issue is if he changes his principles. If he does, he is not fit for public office.
Report Post »sbenard
Posted on October 1, 2011 at 7:48amI wouldn’t have known either! Who cares!?
Report Post »LegendaryPeanut
Posted on October 1, 2011 at 10:08amBecause Winston Churchill was a BAMF, While John Maynard Keynes was purely an economist. Churchill is in my opinion one of the only reasons Britain survived the world wars
Report Post »dontbotherme
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 7:31pmI didn‘t read all of the comments and I don’t really care about the topic. But, did Romney give the bust of Winston Churchill back to England?
Report Post »CROPDUSTER
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:36pmDiapers and Politicians should be changed often.
Report Post »BOTH FOR THE SAME REASON !!!
deerjerkydave
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:29pmHow about real gaffes like Obama’s use of “intercontinental railroad.”
Report Post »Magyar
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:06pmTalk about gaffs—-Corpsman (corpse-man), 57 states? and on and on and on
Report Post »J M
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 1:14pmRomney was just confusing one great man with another. The fact that Keynes’ influence on economic policy has been waning, is one of the most important causes of today’s financial crisis.
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 2:12pmThe person it came from doesn’t matter as The Blaze shown, it may not have even come from Keyes because he was given quotes he never said.
The substance is matters. When they found out the earth was round, people like Christopher Columbus sailed west to find the American Continent. When the ‘facts’ change, we change our opinion.
Report Post »HellPhish89
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 2:16pmkenesian economics is a damn failure
Report Post »JeanneArc
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:19pmRomney is an economic genius. We need hiis knowledge and leadership to defeat Obama and end this unemployment catastrophe created by the Obama White House.
Report Post »J M
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:33pmIt may have been a failure in the eyes of the rich elite and capitalistic fundamentalists like Milton Friedman but it has brought prosperity to the better part of the Western world.
Report Post »missionarydad
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:53pm@MAD_HATTER,
As a Romney supporter I really appreciate the diligence that you go in researching out the facts. If everyone would do that Mitt would be at 70% support right now. I have done a lot of research on Mitt and have found your knowledge spot on. You are very good at communicating rather complicated facts and making it simple to be understood.
I do commend you and with the distortions and much higher standard that Mitt is being held to it sounds like he could sure use you on the campaign trail. Keep fighting the good fight. You are awesome!
Report Post »bmwrider
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 5:41pmIts funny that economically illiterate conservatives, who can’t even understand a basic IS-LM model, claim that Keynesian economics have failed, based on a COMPLETE misunderstanding of Keynesian theory. What conservatives believe about Keynesian policies and what actual Keynesian polices consist of are two entirely different things. I guess this is bound to occur when you let intellectual heavyweights like Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann think for you.
Report Post »red1
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 7:09pm@BMWRIDER
What precisely is our misunderstanding of Keynesian economics?
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:21pmBMW Rider,
Your comments are typical of the liberal elitist mentality. All at once pretending to be so full of knowledge while talking down to the unwashed, uneducated masses. The fact that your beloved Keynesian model has failed everywhere and everytime it has been tried matters little to you. In your simple mind, it just hasn’t been tried by the right people or allowed to go unchecked for long enough to bear fruit. Hog wash, 40 years was enough, Reaganomics kicked it’s a$$. Obama’s 2011 redux has also failed miserably. Are there any economic numbers that you can torture and manipulate to explain the current moribund economy wholly dependent on government stimulus spending?
It is obvious in your post that you are a theorist regurgitating socialist talking points espoused by some pointy headed college professor. Join the real world, get some experience and you may actually learn a few things about economics.
Your future ex-boss,
Ookspay
Report Post »J M
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:51pmI don’t see how recovery from the ruins of the 1930s financial crisis and WWII into the golden 60s can be considered a failure. Keynesian insights were always highly regarded in academic circles (an institution that ‘Ookspay’ from the previous post clearly looks down on), but the Chicago School (for example Hayek and Friedman) tried to put them in a bad light. These corporatist fundamentalists, who wanted to abolish all government interference in the economy whatsoever, weren’t to be taken seriously, but succeeded in spreading their ideas because large companies spent tons of money on them. It really started to go wrong as president Reagan, a mere spokesman for big business, implemented the deregulatory strategies proposed by the Chicago School. The trend of deregulation is what eventually led to the financial crisis that started in 2008, just like the absence of regulation is what led to the Wall Street crash of 1929. By the way, Keynesian economics are not socialist but a compromise between right-wing and left-wing. There used to be no shame in that.
Report Post »Pigpen
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:15pm@BMWRIDER “Its funny that economically illiterate conservatives, who can’t even understand a basic IS-LM model, claim that Keynesian economics have failed, based on a COMPLETE misunderstanding of Keynesian theory. What conservatives believe about Keynesian policies and what actual Keynesian polices consist of are two entirely different things. I guess this is bound to occur when you let intellectual heavyweights like Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann think for you.”
I just gots a state school edication, massuh, but I thinks I recalls that one of the criticisms of the IS/LM Model is that there deficit spending by the guvment “crowds out” private investment and given that our Bankses has been gettins low interest lowns from that there Fed and STILL the big bankses ain‘t a lendin’ kind of, beggin yo pahdun suh, proves that maybe Keynes was just a big crock, suh.
Report Post »bmwrider
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:50pmWhat got us into this mess, including running budget deficits and continued low interest rates during an economic expansion, are the polar opposite of Keynesian policies.
Report Post »bmwrider
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:55pm@Pigpen- you must have been absent for a couple days of class. What you described is the equlibrium IS in a closed economy. In an open economy, like the US, desired savings need not equal desired investment because of the ability to run a capital account surplus or deficit.
Report Post »Ookspay
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:23pm@BMW Rider,
Well haven’t we beeen a busy little sufer. Posting antiquated “theory” of macroeconomics is how you get your kicks? Really? When one turns to questions of policy, looking towards the future instead of the past, the use of equilibrium methods is still very suspect. The first problem was that it presents the real and monetary sectors as separate, something Keynes attempted to transcend. In addition, an equilibrium model ignores uncertainty – and that liquidity preference only makes sense in the presence of uncertainty. For there is no sense in liquidity, unless expectations are uncertain. A shift in the IS or LM curve will cause change in expectations, causing the other curve to shift. Most modern macroeconomists see the IS/LM model as being at best a first approximation for understanding the real world.
Government intervention in markets foment and exacerbate economic downturns, worsening and deepening their effects. Give me Hayek and ABCT, any day. A truly free and un-regulated market economy has not been seen in this country for more than a hundred years. ZZZzzzz.
Report Post »bmwrider
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:40pm@ookspay- Do you happen to be praising the possible welfare-queen FA Hayek? Well good news! Journalists have just filed a FOIA request to discover if Hayek, like hypocrite Ayn Rand, had fed at the government troughs.
http://www.thenation.com/article/163672/charles-koch-friedrich-hayek-use-social-security
Report Post »bmwrider
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:44pmAlso @ookspay: you should also try to be original before lifting passages from John Hicks/ Wikipedia.
Report Post »red1
Posted on October 1, 2011 at 3:18amI think you all have missed the point. It is not Keynesian economic theory to which many conservatives object.. As has been pointed out, few people are capable of explaining the nuances of the Keynesian model. The objection is to the application of the Keynesian model to public policy. It does not require a PHD in economics to understand that if you borrow money your disposable income will be greater in the short term; but in the long term you will have to pay that money back.
As an econometric model, Keynesian theory predicts the world fairly well, but so do all of the many other models. That is because aggregate income can be accurately modeled using only a few variables. The models differ only in their explanation of the relation these variables have in predicting income and, while important for understanding the world, are only of interest to economists.
The core assumption of the Keynesian approach is that government can successfully direct investment through deficit spending in order to increase economic growth and that this growth will be larger than the cost of the deficit spending. One needs no understanding of Keynesian economics to intuitively reject the notion that the government can, through central planning, cause economic growth. We have many real-world examples of its failure and even when it has had some success, there have been other costs that are not easily measured.
Report Post »J M
Posted on October 1, 2011 at 10:00amSelling out public services in times of crisis makes it even worse. The debts need to be repaid in times of expansion. Why is nobody complaining about deficit spending since Reagan? @Ookspay: Hayek’s sponsors are very happy with the crisis as it has made them even richer and more powerful. It sets the agenda for more of their neoconservative policy, which will further privatize what is left of the state. This comes down to a corporatist coup, which reduces democratic sovereignty. Hayek‘s sponsors have spent a fortune discrediting Keynesianism and now it’s paying off.
Report Post »usaywhat
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:23amThanks for this article. All candidates must be vetted. Romney has escaped serious vetting thus far, and it must begin now, rather than later. Romney is the perfect “foil” candidate for Obama to run against, if Obama’s current “class warfare” strategy is the one he ends up using. Romney’s version of job creation is to buy companies, tear them apart, and export jobs overseas. And Romney is a billionaire who fits Obama’s class warfare foil point to point. A Cain, Perry, Palin, Bauchmann,Gingrich or the others would not be such delightful class warfare targets. Vetting Begin!!
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:59amRomney already has been vetted through 2008 and 2012. Mostly in 2008, not much has stuck except RomneyCare which has already been explained, as he tried to implement it, was a deregulation and small govt influence in the health care industry, which was destroyed by the 85% liberal legislator which he vetoed most of their additions and they voted them back in.
His position on pro-choice has as well. He has changed his mind… over 16 years ago.
Go ahead and try to vet him more. If you listen to everyone politics Romney is the worse person to go against for Obama, especially when it comes to ObamaCare, Romney know the problems with the health care system, more than any other candidate we have. Though I like them all for their own strengths.
Romney is our best chance to beat Obama and I would be proud to support him and his small government design. Maybe he can take the government and strip it down to something that works and follows the constitution.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:11pmI am for Herman Cain, but I agree with Mad Hatter that Romney is the most vetted candidate in the field.
Report Post »slr4528
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:34pmFrom your comment it is quite clear you do not understand business development and venture capital. Romney took fat failing companies(much like our government) and converted them by streamlining their processes to improve efficiencies and profits, by creating a firm foundation for the company to grow verses fail. Romney probably helped create 10,000 jobs during his tenure at Bain. Some of those companies may have expanded into foreign markets like many companies who have offices on the Pacific Rim. So what is the big deal?????? If anything we need this type of leader in the white house.
You forgot to mention that he turned around the Salt lake city Olympics. When Mitt took over it was 400 million in the Red at the end the Olympics made a profit of 100 million. By the way Mitt did not take a salary for his work in the Olympics or as governor of Massachusetts.
Report Post »be1776
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:20pmRomney has been vetted and there is nothing there, no trips to Pakistan, no buddies who blew up buildings, and he can say he loves America with a straight face. If that was all, America would be ahead but if America is good enough to vote for this good man, we also get a guy who actually created and saved jobs (sometimes by firing others, that’s life), who understands how to lead when he had an 85% democratic legislature (imagine what he could do with both a house and congress at least a little less progressive), and who brought Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, and Mark Rubio to the attention of his supporters and gave contributions and his support. I have met him and he is a good man who loves his family and his country. I look forward to Mitt in 2012.
Report Post »wmmcpherson
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:50amI am getting tired of hearing the worn out arguments of flip-flopping. Perry’s lame attempt at bringing that up at the debate was just that. If Perry wants to make this a contest to see who has the biggest flip-flops then I’m afraid Mitt Romney will have to concede that contest. Perry’s flip-flops are very difficult for any of the Republican field to beat. You see, Mitt Romney was never a registered Democrat. Perry was. Mitt Romney never thought Al Gore was was a conservative. Perry did. Mitt Romney certainly never campaigned for Al Gore to be President of the United States. Perry did.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:02amJust today, I read that Romney has the most campaign donations from WALLSTREET than any other candidate. Ron Paul has the most donations from veteran/active military than all candidates combined.
I don’t care about slight mis-quotes. Look at the BIG ISSUES!
Report Post »realindependent
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:12amThats your candidate folks. get used to it. and used to getting your arse’s kicked come election day.
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:05pmWhat’s wrong with those on Wall Street supporting a certain candidate. Could it be that they believe Romney can get us out of this mess and stop the over regulation of the govt… MAYBE
Report Post »slr4528
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:50pmWhich Republican candidate would you prefer Wall Street to donate their money?,,or would you prefer they give their money to Obama?
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:39amHey Mitt, if the facts change, were they ever facts to begin with?
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:57amObviously not but remember, it was ‘fact’ that the world was flat. When they learned otherwise, Christopher Columbus was able to sail to the Americas. ‘Facts’ change, we change. As long as its not ‘HOPE AND CHANGE’
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:04amRomney is a conservative and has done conservative things. They fact that he was an independent who believed in women’s choice 16 years ago is like Romney or Perry moving from a Democrat to a Republican… people change/get converted from their ideology everyday. The fact that he changed his views so long ago is a good thing, it shows that Conservativism is based on true and right principles and he has seen the light. So many years ago.
Any question of what he has done, look at this interview: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2011/sep/romney_budget_veto.html
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:24amFortunately this was the one rule of science . “We hold the option to change the facts at any time” So as it turns out..they are just the facts as we know them. YHWH/God has been known to make fools of anyone that he wants, lest they be wise in their own conceit.
Report Post ». That is why there are so many scientists today who are “Christians” praise be to God.
Islesfordian
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 1:52pmDon’t confuse facts with truth. Truth never changes. Facts change all the time. It is the fact that the White House is run by socialists. This fcat we hope to change, sooner rather than later.
All principles have to be applied to the known facts.
An ideologue is one who thinks no adaptation is required to apply his principles to the facts.
A principled pragmatist is one who looks for the best adaptation of his priciples’ application to deal with the facts and maintain his principles.
An unprincipled pragmatist is one who shifts his principles to best take personal advantage of the changing facts.
I see Ron Paul as close to the first type. Santorum, Cain and Bachman as being of the second. I wonder whether Romney is closer to the third or the second.
Report Post »marthaclanton
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:12amWell, he is well read, even if he didn’t cite the source correctly. I wonder if any other politician can say the same?
Report Post »Rached Madcow SHOW
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:40amFact is, he was pandering to a conservative crowd, so he changed the source of the quote.
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:58amThe fact is he is a small government, less regulation, less spending politician…. sounds like a conservative… wouldn’t you say.
Report Post »DarthMims
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:36amMis-quotes like this are common. I have often heard the quote “People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people” attributed to Thomas Jefferson when the quote was actually from a Brit, John Basil Barnhill, in 1914.
Report Post »SilentReader
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:19amIt only goes to show if you quote someone you’d better get it right.
I would go for a Cain/West ticket.
Of course, my first pick for President would be Congressman (Ret LTC) Allen West. He’s really the man for the times. However, Cain is looking better and better to me as well. As long as he doesn’t cave on getting rid of all the treasonous Muslim Brotherhood hate-spewing entities in America, starting with Hamas-linked sugar-coated treasonous CAIR. And, after seeing this Khilafah Conference special that Glenn Beck had on GBTV yesterday I would also advocate outlawing Hisb ut-Tahrir in America for it’s treasonous call to overthrow our American Government and our U.S. Constitution and replace it with a totalitarian Caliphate and brutal Sharia.
It is important to understand that these Supremacist agressors are committing treason on our soil when they advocate the overthrow of our American government and it’s time to charge them and their Leftist collaborators-in-crime with treason.
Treason is still a capitol offense in America! It’s time to exercise it before it is too late and these breakers of laws and spewers of hatred and creators of chaos are thrown in prison where they belong.
Report Post »cayenne523
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:33amI agree Cain-West 2012 Let’s drive the liberal media nuts. Let’s see how they would go after two black men that have done good things with their lives. How many blacks would vote for Cain-West?
Report Post »On tv the other night I heard some guy say the bumper sticker should read “Cain vs Not Able”
AzCowboy
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 7:50amI’m sorry but, Mitt is a politician pure and simple (as is Perry). We don’t need talk. Cain/West
Report Post »oldguy49
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 7:54amhave you noticed that the powers that be…..republican party and news sources are pushing perry and romney and trying to ignore cain and others that we really need…………….just saying
Report Post »Pappypatriot
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:01amMitt is far from a typical politician. Politicians make their living at the public trough. Mitt took exactly $1 a year for a grand total of $4. as Governor of Mass. In the LDS faith public service and duty to ones country are a very big part of the faith. Mitt served as Governor as a public service and Mitt with his renowned expertise at turning around huge economic messes and tackling almost impossible problems feels called as his patriotic duty to run for President. He has said on more than one occasion that if he thought someone was more up to the task of fixing the problems America faces that he would step aside and let him/her have at it.
Report Post »Pappypatriot
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:12amActually OLDGUY49, no I haven’t noticed that in relation to Mitt. What I have noticed is that they are hell bent on getting anyone they can in the race to defeat Mitt Romney, hence the anyone but Mitt campaign. They shouted from the rooftops of Cain winning the Florida straw poll and in the meantime Mitt won the Michigan Straw poll with a much larger margin and a poll in NH by a huge margin as well and these were almost totally ignored. Mitt won several straw polls in 2008 and it was downplayed so much that I do not blame him for not participating in them this year. I agree that they held off as long as they could vetting Perry and they certainly were a cheerleader for McCain in 08 until he won the GOP nomination. With Mitt they hold him to a much higher standard than any other candidate. They pretty much overlook a lot of flip flops, mandates, and things other candidates do but anytime Mitt sneezes wrong he gets hammered over and over and his victories always downplayed.
The truth is they know Mitt only makes campaign promises he is very committed in keeping and is not going to load his administration with CFR and Trilateral Commission insiders like all Presidents have done including Ronald Reagan for all of our life times. Mitt is the real deal, he is our very best bet to get our country back.
Report Post »IntransigentMind
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:20amMitt Romney‘s real problem is that he’s no conservative:
Report Post »http://markamerica.com/2011/07/29/mitt-romneys-enduring-problem/
bread and circuses
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:22amFACTS do not change, only theories change
Report Post »BecksTheMan
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:36amStop the presses! Run with this story, make sure it makes the rounds on all networks, newspapers, radio shows, blogs ect ect. We finally have something we can say against Mitt other than all of the other stuff he has given very reasonable explanations for we have something fresh…actually as a strong Mitt Romney supporter I do not mind this nit picking at all as it serves to keep Mitt on his A game. But I really wish the media would hold others especially Barack Hussein Obama to the same very high standard of scrutiny. If that were done besides the fact Obama would have never made it no where close to the Presidency but if they would have just held him to that standard since taking office they would now have enough to talk about for weeks every time he opened his mouth. Only the very biggest things ever see the light of day with Obama.
Hopefully this coddling has finally began to play itself out as Obama is doing a better job than everyone else combined to completely expose what a democratic and Obama propaganda machine our lamestream media has beoome.
Report Post »slr4528
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:01amOLDGUY49-I have noticed the opposite-News sources specifically Fox and the Blaze and Glenn Beck have been pushing Perry and as Perry flames out they start hyping Christie and now they are going gaga over Cain.When they report on Romney the reports are usually sprinkled with underhanded digs.
I am a conservative and I really think it is lousy how people are trying to assign all of the liberal policies of MA to Mitt Romney. No one can touch Romney’s record of accomplishments specifically his ability to restructure companies to make them once again profitable. If one takes the time to evaluate Mitt’s actions and record you will see he is just as conservative, if not more conservative that many of the GOP candidates. Look at Gingrich,he tossed 2 wives overboard,committed adultrey and he is heralded as a great conservative. Mitt loves his wife and has 5 sons who are quite successful in their own right but he is mocked as a RINO.
The majority of people on this site are now for Cain with his 999 consumption tax plan so the majority of people on this site must be business owners or wealthy trust fund babies. I am just a conservative middle class person who can not afford to pay consumption taxes on everything.
Report Post »So maybe Fox,Blaze and Beck are truly, as the liberals say, only for the wealthy because this consumption tax will strangle the middle class and prevent them from getting ahead financially
nationalcalvin
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:50pm@SLR
If the corporate tax rate is over 30% now, and it’s lowered by over 20%. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that businesses would lower the prices of the products to stay competetive with other businesses. So actually you wouldn’t see an increase in the price of the products you purchase.
Report Post »slr4528
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 1:06pm@National Calvin-Business‘s will have consumption taxes to pay as well and business’s are going to try and keep the prices as high as they can in order to maximize profits. I believe Cain‘s plans will encourage businesses to grow but that doesn’t necessarily mean salaries will increase. Bottom line I do not want to see the American tax structure transform into the European tax structure where there is an income tax and a VAT tax. Cain’s intentions are probably to keep the rates low but once you introduce a national sales tax it will never go away and the potential for the rates to increase is extremely high under future administrations.
Report Post »nationalcalvin
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:17pm@SLR
No offence, but you are wrong about the 9% consumption tax. It’s not a VAT tax, it’s a sales tax. Two entirely different things. You only pay the sales tax once and that’s at the retail level. So your assertion that business is going to have to pay a 9% sales tax all the way down the lines of production is wrong.
Your other point about business trying to maximize it’s profits by keeping the price of goods artificially high is also wrong. Lets say you ran a business and your competitor was charging the same prices as you were charging, wouldn’t it make sense to lower your prices in order to sell more products than your competitor. You would better maximize your profits by offering lower prices and moving more inventory.
Report Post »loneindividual
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 7:47amfacts, opinions, and times may change, but the Truth never does.
Report Post »DeannaRae
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 7:30amSomeone should tell Mitt that “facts” never change, only one’s knowledge or perception of those facts.
Report Post »aggiebrewer
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 7:37amLet’s be careful here. The fact is facts can change.
Report Post »I was 21 years old. Now I am 42 years old. The fact of my age changed.
Not defending Mitt by any stretch but he was correct on that.
marvlus
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 7:50amThe fact is I voted Democrat and was a Democrat when I was eligible to vote for the first time. That fact changed after I saw what Democrats were during the Carter Administration.
Report Post »bread and circuses
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:26am@MARVLUS
Report Post »I fail to follow your “logic”…………how did the fact that you voted democrat the first time change ???
Do you have a time machine…………..maroon ???
slr4528
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:19amWhat are you talking about? So a person has to have the same views they held in college or else they will be a flip flopper??? I was raised pro-life and in college I switched to pro-choice,soon after college I switched to pro-life after reading about partial birth abortions. I was raised in a Republican Christian conservative home and in college I campaigned for a Democrat and when I graduated college I became a solid Republican-voting straight R tickets. So according to you people can not grow intellectually and transition their views because of new available information. Wow-how closed minded of you….do you reside in a cave?
Report Post »lel2007
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 7:14am“In the private sector, if you don’t change your view when the facts change, well you’ll get fired for being stubborn and stupid,” ~ Mitt Romney
Report Post »No need to dress that statement up or reinforce it with quotes from historical figures.
Pappypatriot
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:15amI agree the statement is very true and stands solidly on it’s own merits.
Report Post »slr4528
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:37amWow…great distortions!
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:46am1. Well lets look at his ‘support’ of TARP. He supported TARP like Glenn Beck supported TARP, on the principle and then when they learned the implementation they fought against it.
2. Social Security is a safety net for many. But he wants to change it, fix it. And he is probably the one to fix it. He wants to do many things including creating an option for private accounts, much like everyone elses talks about. His only ‘flaw’ on that subject is that he doesn‘t want to call it a ’Ponzi Scheme’ because it looks bad when you come out to debate Obama. And look, even Perry backed away from it, he won’t mention Ponzi Scheme anymore.
3. RomneyCare has been proven to be a program that was designed to deregulate the health care market in Mass. Even its mandate was proven to be based off libertarian principles, ‘you pay for insurance or you pay the bill. And it has been proven time and time again that the 85% Congress destroyed the original bill. He also vetoed 7 full sections of the bill, put in there by the legislator and they voted them back in after Romney signed it. By you saying it needs to be changed make you want to change a states sovereign right to govern itself (from Mark Levin). You can find all this information by reading the billand reading the Heritage Foundations reports on it.
4) He never raised taxes, he raised fees, for departments such as DMV, because the state was subsidizing the departments to large sums. State subsidy vs. paying more for a serv
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:55am5. He cut spending more than any other candidate running today. He went from a $3 Billion dollar deficit to a $2 billion dollar rainy day fund. That is a $5 billion turn around. The only years that Massachusetts increased spending while he was there was the year he came in and the year he left. Both times he only controlled the budget half the year and the legislature had one bill already in place to take effect in 2002 that increased spending which Romney was able to cut a portion of it. (Club for Growth)
6) Long term debt, he had a rainy day fund of $2 billion dollars. Unlike Perry who is now using his to balance his budget. Mitt created his and did not touch it.
7) Why wouldn’t you hire someone with experience… the Bush adviser was there and knew more than any of us what was happening in the White House. If I am going to run a company I want someone on my staff that has run it before.
8) Romney fought for the auto companies to go through bankruptcy. He wrote it in his op-ed. He then threw it in Obama’s face when when Obama said he saved the auto companies. Romney was right to call for bankruptcies, especially to get a hold of the contracts of the unions. Romney has fought the unions for longer than Chris Christie has been around and he is the only one with a labor policy to give the people more rights.
Get your ‘facts’ right. These facts have not changed just people distorting them.
Report Post »slr4528
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:59amWhen Romney became governor in Jan 2003, MA was running a deficit and was losing jobs when Mitt left in Jan 2007 the state had a 2 billion dollar rainy day fund and employers were hiring again. Mitt also cut taxes 19 times in MA. Mitt aggressively enforced immigration law as well. Mitt also reformed and reorganized state government by merging departments and he balanced the budget 4 years in a row. Mitt is a strong advocate for the Cut,Cap and Balance Plan.
Mitt signed in Romneycare(R/care) in April of 2006. Mitt did not implement the bulk of R/care because he left office in January 2007. In 2007 Heritage foundation cited R/care as a solid piece of conservative legislation. The purpose of R/care was to force the 8% of the deadbeats to purchase insurance so the tax payer wouldn’t have to foot the bill. R/care was a state solution and the majority of MA citizens wanted R/care. R/care however was implemented by a liberal governor and a liberal legislature who then added additional amendments which significantly affected the over all cost structure such as insuring non U.S. citizens.
I truly wish people would not accept the media’s disparaging one word or one line comments regarding Romney and do their own research. Less than two months ago, I thought I would be a Perry supporter until I did my research. I really wish people on this site would give Romney some consideration and read his books-”no apologies,his 59 point plan and his book on how to fix Social Security.
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:34am4, 5. Sorry those income tax rate increases were from local municipalities, not the state. Some critics falsely assert that Romney raised capital gains tax rates. In truth, the tax increase was enacted before Romney was elected governor but took effect during Romney’s term after having been tied up in court for several years. Critics are unable to point to any tax increases from Romney. Moreover, they fail to note that Romney repeatedly proposed tax cuts, which were shot down by the Democratic MA legislature, starting as soon as he began to turn around the economy, prompting the liberal Boston Globe to complain after Romney’s first year in office, “The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut.”(Boston Globe)
5. Fees are not taxes. I work for a state. The governor came out and told multiple departments that they have to be self sustaining. They had to raise fees to take care of themselves, they always zero out their books at the end of the year. The state does not subsidize the department in order for it to keep running. That would be like the US Post Office getting the bailout the democrats want to give them. It is not sustainable they need to fix things.
6. Bush may have been but Romney wasn’t. Just saying he hired a Bush adviser tells you nothing about how Romney would run his Oval Office. But as I said before, who better to know what was going on behind the scenes than someone that was already the
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:53am#6 was suppose to be #7.
5 & 6. State Taxes and Spending did not go up under Romney they went up due to legislator. (See above for fees) He even cut two departments of the state and slimmed down others. As for debt…
6. McCain tried to use that rhetoric during the 2008 debate but could not source it to Romney, the only thing he could source it to was the health care bill which was more than projected… thanks to the Dem Legislator but it was paid for in the end, it did not end up as debt. No debt has ever been able to be connected to anything Romney did as governor. McCain had to drop the claim during the last election. Can you prove McCain right?
7. Answered already.
8. He didn’t want a bailout for the auto industry he wanted them to go through Chapter 11 bankruptcy and readjust the contracts with the unions. Look it us there are two op-eds stating his position. One before the bailout and one after.
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:03pmBelieve me I have researched this guy, read his original health care bill, read everything that anyone has about him and I know he is our best chance to get rid of Obama and the best chance we have to fixing this economy. I too voted for him in 2008, I did most of my research back then and now that ObamaCare came up I researched his health care bill more.
HAVE YOU READ THE BILL… What have you read to research him, read all anti material with out reading the anti-anti-material.
I have read the things from those that knew and worked for him, whether they liked him or not. This is why I will most likely vote for him, depending on who still enters the race. But you accusations are false.
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:20pmWait Shane, are you saying that closing tax loopholes is a bad thing? There are plenty of loopholes that should not be there, wouldn’t you agree. There are plenty of ways corporations get out of paying taxes that shouldn’t be there… aka GE. Closing tax loopholes is different than raising taxes. See I though you said ‘raising taxes’ in your last post. You just proved Romney to be good at closing loopholes. Thanks. You didn’t list the tax loopholes Romney cut. Are you saying that GE shouldn’t pay taxes, when everyone else does.
As for local municipalities: You claim that Romney’s cuts in state spending forced local communities to raise their taxes, but the fact is they were under no obligation to raise taxes. Romney also closed loopholes in existing tax law, allowing the state to collect taxes from those who had been using schemes to reduce income reported on state tax returns (Greenberger, Scott S. “Romney Rethinking New Powers for Tax Aide.” The Boston Globe 2 Mar. 2005).
THESE ARE NOT TAX INCREASES DUE…
Great sourcing, FactCheck.org is a liberal fact checking group. But that is good info that came from them. Though their claim on locals munis doesn’t hold water.
Yes you proved my point when it comes to the fees that needed to be raised so the state and tax-payers didn’t have to subsidize it. You want a service you pay the fee, that is conservative, if not libertarian. Though to be libertarian it would be why register for any of those services?
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:32pmI never said he is a libertarian I said he had policies he fought for that had libertarian parts, small governments parts. The CATO institute is a great place with great information, I have read their research as well and most of it is attacking Romney for being Conservative and not libertarian. You should also try the Heritage Foundation who can give you the background on RomneyCare plan. They helped design it. I recommend ‘Mitts Fit’ and the one that gives a timeline of how the Democrats destroyed the plan, fully sourced. I have also read parts of the CAFR but they don’t give the whole picture of what happens when it happens. Such as the fees that were raised. Anyone would say that is raising taxes, but when the state subsidizes you to get a marriage license or drivers license in the hundreds of millions of dollars and the governor tells the department to be more self sustaining, the CAFR can’t tell you that. If you want a service to be done why should the tax payers pay for that service. That is a liberal principle saying the tax-payers can pick up the bill. See that is what the CATO institute misses. They would agree that if you want a service you pay for that service, not the taxpayers.
To say Romney‘s views haven’t changed any since 1994(approx) when he went against Kennedy would be a disasterous thought to anyone that has repented for things they have done in the past. To say they are flip flopping over things they said 17 years ago is a disservice to man.
Report Post »slr4528
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:47pmAll I have to say is why is the bar raised so so so high for Romney. No GOP candidate, especially with his list of successful accomplishments has been so intensely scrutinized by the Republican Party?
His accomplishments are more or just as significant as those on Reagan’s resume. What’s wrong with the GOP? Do they realize that he can‘t be bought and he can’t be sold on crony business deals like Perry! Fox had already anointed Perry as the king of the GOP,a man with no private sector experience and no major accomplishments besides getting elected as governor, before the world saw him for what he really was a dunderhead.
Report Post »slr4528
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 1:18pmSHANEMMC-Do you realize a flat tax structure includes a VAT tax. I was on the Heritage site yesterday and they highlighted the differences between the Fair Tax and the Flat Tax. The flat tax includes a VAT where as the Fair Tax includes a consumption tax at the point of purchase. I am for neither because I feel that they will negatively impact the middle class and they will also encourage an underground barter system.
I do agree with Cain in that the 49% who do not pay taxes should pay something or else they just vote for candidates who encourage freebies and entitlements.
By the way, I do not just read candidates talking points. I research their plans and their track record in order to make my decision on who I will support. I often go to Heritage,Cato and I google their legislative record and their hometown newspapers in order to reach my conclusions.
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 1:20pmNo a libertarian would get rid of those licenses, as I said. But if they are going to be there why should the tax-payers pay for the services you want.
From what you are saying we shouldn’t raise fees for services I ask for. Its like asking for a cheese burger and saying I want to pay a quarter and let the tax payers pay for the rest. I will enjoy the benefits of a full stomach and you can pick up the bill.
Sorry, letting you pay for the whole burger is the conservative thing to do.
P.S. I didn’t ask for a list of the fees that he raised, you already provided that with that website. I wanted the tax loop holes he got rid of.
Comparing tax loop-holes to Obama’s tax loopholes is ad hominem. GE got out of paying any taxes because of tax loopholes. I agree with you on revamping the tax code except I have not found a plan that would keep tax cuts for charitable contributions which you mentioned. The flat tax and fair tax have the same flaw, they get rid of the reason for businesses to donate to charitable organizations. If we can figure out that problem I am all for the flat/fair tax option. But everyone pays taxes and to say someone can get out by using schemes, lobbyists, and high paid accountants doesn’t make the tax program flat or fair. GE should pay if we have to pay or fix the tax structure. What is the alternative for Romney, let them get away with paying no taxes. Its not raising it making them pay their taxes.
LIST HIS TAX LOOPHOLES CUT….
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on September 30, 2011 at 2:21pmFees across the board are never good because it doesn’t look at the problem. When you seperate them into which departments are under and look at how to fix them, before increasing the fees that is always best. It would depend on which fee we are looking at. Most of them, the service oriented ones, where you look at the department first, I agree. There are probably some I don‘t agree with but I don’t know the full reason behind them. That is the problem with us or CATO making assumptions.
My whole point of this discussion is that not everything is as it seems when it comes to the person. We always need to look into people’s background but we need to be careful at discounting because of something that comes from one side. CATO has a lot of good points but have a lot of things that are seen from one side. And I bet if they could change that they would but it is hard sometime to see both sides or the full picture with the limited information we have.
I will be happy if Romney becomes the nominee and I will vote for him against Obama… proudly. But is he my candidate yet, I am still waiting to see who come in. I would be excited to vote for a business man who has experience fixing businesses and government much like Romney or even Cain. Sadly the only concern with Cain is the lack of history to look into when it comes to politics.
Report Post »