Mitt Romney doesn't not want to put money in your pockets

[Dinner]

Last month Romney was for extending the payroll tax reduction as a way to help the economy but this week he suddenly changed his mind and wants to let it expire. The man, like the rest of his party, is practically trying to push the economy back into recession. The payroll tax reduction isn't huge stimulus but it does put around $120 billion extra per year into the pockets of people who have jobs and that has to help the economy as, unlike millionaires, they'll actually spend it.

[giblets]

He wants to lead the nation so he can 'not break anything' is what you're saying? Wow that is inspiring.

Yes, at last a president who doesn't think there is such a thing as a government policy that makes the public better off.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes, at last a president who doesn't think there is such a thing as a government policy that makes the public better off.

You know, I get that it's easier to make fun of someone when you exaggerate their positions, but really, can you do better than this?

[giblets]

You know, I get that it's easier to make fun of someone when you exaggerate their positions, but really, can you do better than this?

Government is not a vehicle for making people more prosperous. I think I understood it perfectly

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, at last a president who doesn't think there is such a thing as a government policy that makes the public better off.

Why is this a strange concept to you?

Running out the clock

[kentonio]

If the current GOP primary field has shown us anything, it's that exaggeration is most definitely not necessary to make fun of them.

[Hauldren Collider]

Government is not a vehicle for making people more prosperous. I think I understood it perfectly

It's not like he believes in anarchy. He thinks government is currently too big and should be scaled back. Thus, at the moment, government is not the vehicle to prosperity. That doesn't mean it never is--obviously there is a point along the spectrum where additional government can mean greater prosperity, and Romney understands that.

[kentonio]

It's not like he believes in anarchy. He thinks government is currently too big and should be scaled back. Thus, at the moment, government is not the vehicle to prosperity. That doesn't mean it never is--obviously there is a point along the spectrum where additional government can mean greater prosperity, and Romney understands that.

This is the same man who brought in Romneycare, right?

[Hauldren Collider]

This is the same man who brought in Romneycare, right?

Yeah, that was a bad law. Obviously he has to defend it, but at least it was a state law and not a federal law. It's a very popular law in Massachusetts, as well, whereas Obamacare isn't really all that popular anywhere--including Massachusetts.

I don't think Romney still believes that it's a good law, but he can't just come out and say "whoops, my bad!" He at least has a reasonable federalism argument for it.

[giblets]

It's not like he believes in anarchy. He thinks government is currently too big and should be scaled back. Thus, at the moment, government is not the vehicle to prosperity. That doesn't mean it never is--obviously there is a point along the spectrum where additional government can mean greater prosperity, and Romney understands that.

Using a linear spectrum sounds kind of silly. There are obviously places where Republicans want more government, like banning abortions so fetuses can prosper.

[Hauldren Collider]

Using a linear spectrum sounds kind of silly. There are obviously places where Republicans want more government, like banning abortions so fetuses can prosper.

Define it however you like. The point stands that Romney's positions are neither extreme nor unintelligent, although you are free to disagree with them.

[kentonio]

Yeah, that was a bad law. Obviously he has to defend it, but at least it was a state law and not a federal law. It's a very popular law in Massachusetts, as well, whereas Obamacare isn't really all that popular anywhere--including Massachusetts.

I don't think Romney still believes that it's a good law, but he can't just come out and say "whoops, my bad!" He at least has a reasonable federalism argument for it.

So despite being hugely popular in the place it was enacted, and despite his unconditional support for it at the time, its now a 'bad law' and he knows it? Do you think that had Obamacare never existed that it would still be a 'bad law' that he no longer supported?

[Hauldren Collider]

So despite being hugely popular in the place it was enacted, and despite his unconditional support for it at the time, its now a 'bad law' and he knows it? Do you think that had Obamacare never existed that it would still be a 'bad law' that he no longer supported?

I don't know or care. His position on Romneycare would be utterly irrelevant if not for Obamacare, so wondering what it would be otherwise is a completely pointless hypothetical. It doesn't really matter to me what laws Massachusetts passes for itself or how stupid they are. It's only important as a rhetorical point on the debate of Obamacare.

[giblets]

Define it however you like. The point stands that Romney's positions are neither extreme nor unintelligent, although you are free to disagree with them.

No one said he was stupid or extreme. I think the charge was that he doesn't want to get more money in your pockets.

[Hauldren Collider]

No one said he was stupid or extreme. I think the charge was that he doesn't want to get more money in your pockets.

The OP has been already identified as a misunderstanding, willful or otherwise, of a legitimate point made by Romney. Do you still feel like discussing it?