Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[Wendell_E]

Obama is a millionaire, too.

But, unlike Romney, Obama has said "I should pay more taxes, and folks in my income bracket should pay more taxes".

[Leon]

But, unlike Romney, Obama has said "I should pay more taxes, and folks in my income bracket should pay more taxes".

A flawed premise, imo.  I think most people of average intelligence would spend their money much more wisely than what the government does with our hard earned dollars. I say, pay the smallest legal tax bill you can manage.  The less money we give the government, the less harm it can do.

[Karl Henning]

Obama is a millionaire, too.

My distrust of Romney has nothing to do with the fact that he is a millionaire.

I wasn't crazy about him when he was governor; and now, he strikes me as a chameleon, only without even a chameleon's integrity ; )

[Todd]

Says Admiral Ackbar:

It's a trap!

[Brian]

Says Admiral Ackbar:

It's a trap!

Maybe more so than we think. The latest mudslinging theory? That Mitt Romney's tax returns are hiding evidence of voter fraud in 2010.

[eyeresist]

A flawed premise, imo.  I think most people of average intelligence would spend their money much more wisely than what the government does with our hard earned dollars.

Like investing heavily in lottery tickets

[Florestan]

A decentralized monarchy is an oxymoron. 

Really? The Kingdom of Spain (more correctly of Spains, since there were at least three of them), The Holy Roman Empire and the Austrian Empire were as decentralized s it gets. For all its efforts the old French monarchy never had on its constituent provinces, with the exception of Ile-de-France, the iron administrative grip that the Republic has today.

Contemporary Spain and Belgium are federal states.

You see, I might be narrowly Eurocentric but you compensate that by knowing next to nothing about European history. (sorry, couldn't resist...  )

What you describe strikes me as more of a constitutional monarchy, a form of government that has already been tried.  It failed.  How do I know?  It is gone.

No it's not. There are 10 fully functional constitutional monarchies in Europe --- and guess what: bar one, all fare exceptionally well in terms of prosperity. Actually 4 of them are featured regularly in any top 10 most prosperous countries in the world.

Okay, okay, some European governments keep the regent for show, and some other countries keep them for real, but are those the countries anyone wants to emulate?

Oh yes, I'm sure nobody would want to live in such failed states as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium.

Anyway this will be my last post on this subject. Our worldviews are galaxies apart, we're wasting our times. It was my fault from the beginning: preaching monarchy to you of all people is an exercise in futility. 

[Brian]

You know, with the Ryan news, I'm thinking Krugman should be writing some really fun op-eds.

The Krugie Monster finally weighs in!

"...never mind the Tea Party, Mr. Ryan's true constituency is the commentariat, which years ago decided that he was the Honest, Serious Conservative, whose proposals deserve respect even if you don't like him. But he isn't and they don't. Ryanomics is and always has been a con game..."

[Todd]

No it's not. There are 10 fully functional constitutional monarchies in Europe --- and guess what: bar one, all fare exceptionally well in terms of prosperity. Actually 4 of them are featured regularly in any top 10 most prosperous countries in the world.

What utter nonsense.  Modern regents in Europe have no power.  They are there for show, to appeal to a particular type of person, and are, in effect, the ultimate welfare recipients and nothing more.  That is, they are social parasites.  Okay, okay, they can be heads of state.  But who goes to, say, G20 meetings again, heads of state or heads of government or finance ministers?  With whom does a real leader, like say a president, meet when conferring on policy matters, a king or a prime minister?  You're either being disingenuous, or you really don't know.  Perhaps the continuing popularity of monarchs helps explain why true fascists have been doing troublingly well in some recent European elections.

[Todd]

The Krugie Monster finally weighs in!

Pretty much the expected type of response.  It has one rather large incorrect statement: "...and realistically, revenue gain on the scale he claims would be virtually impossible."  It is possible to eliminate a variety of tax deductions, credits, and subsidies and raise literally hundreds of billions (or more) over the next decade.  Some of them are even quite realistic.  That's not to say that Ryan has specified which ones he'd take on (come on, someone start with interest deductions on second homes, that one's easy), but to write that large revenue gains are virtually impossible is inaccurate.

Krugman also veers into the 'only one side is serious' type of argument which he often does.  It's a lazy fallback position for many lefties.

[Florestan]

Modern regents in Europe have no power. 

You don't even know the difference between a regent and a king and to assume you have bothered to read the constitutions of the Scandinavian monarchies would be preposterous... Talking to you is truly a waste of time.

[Todd]

You don't even know the difference between a regent and a king and to assume you have bothered to read the constitutions of the Scandinavian monarchies would be preposterous... Talking to you is truly a waste of time.

Goodness me.  I know the difference between the various titles, but I don't care.  They're all interchangeable.  To a monarchist the differences may be important, but not to anyone else.  Precious few people are monarchists, which is most sensible in the 21st Century.  In the early 19th Century and before, constitutional monarchy was pretty darned sophisticated.  That was 200 years ago.

But please, explain the powers vested in the monarchs of Scandinavia, or elsewhere in Europe, and then explain actual practice.  I confess freely that I do not spend any time contemplating modern monarchical powers in Scandinavia, but even a cursory web search reveals that in practice Their Royal Highnesses perform ceremonial and various formal functions, and that actual political power resides with parliament, where it should.  If one of the monarchs were to actually exercise constitutionally designated powers that contradicted the will of parliament, would the royal edict be adhered to?  In this day and age, one would hope not.  Kings and Queens are relics.  That such a point even needs to be made would be sad were it not so humorous.

Now, to try and tie it to this thread, how are the campaigns for the elections of the Kings and Queens of Europe going?

[Brian]

Now, to try and tie it to this thread, how are the campaigns for the elections of the Kings and and Queens of Europe going?

Queen Beatrix is a dirty dealer. Running a 60-second spot against Juan Carlos I accusing him of accepting bribes from abortion doctors. Of course, Juan Carlos did knock out Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, in the primaries by non-denying that his people floated rumors about Henri fathering an illegitimate Algerian child.

[Gurn Blanston]

Guys,
I have no problem with a reasonable discussion of current and former forms of government. But I really would like to see them brought to their own thread so as to leave this oh-so-objective thread to continue in peace. We have been very OT for quite some time now.

Thanks,
Gurn

[eyeresist]

What utter nonsense.  Modern regents in Europe have no power.  They are there for show, to appeal to a particular type of person, and are, in effect, the ultimate welfare recipients and nothing more.  That is, they are social parasites.  Okay, okay, they can be heads of state.  But who goes to, say, G20 meetings again, heads of state or heads of government or finance ministers?  With whom does a real leader, like say a president, meet when conferring on policy matters, a king or a prime minister?  You're either being disingenuous, or you really don't know.  Perhaps the continuing popularity of monarchs helps explain why true fascists have been doing troublingly well in some recent European elections.

Not wanting to appear to side with a guy who outright says the Road to Serfdom is a good thing but I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment:

As you probably know, Australia is still part of the British Commonwealth, and technically under the Queen. We have a Republican movement who occasionally get some air (there was a defeated referendum a few years ago), but I think the general unspoken attitude is that in practical terms there is a vast number of more important things for the government to concern itself with. In my younger, more rebellious years I went with the idea that the monarchy was an anachronism and a waste of money, if not actually oppressive, and should be got rid of. Now I can see a certain role of value for royalty to play:

Royal families are a national symbol, and ideally, if they follow their implicit obligation to be the most brave, kind, and wise in the land, they serve as objects of emulation. The counter argument here is of course that the royals get into embarrassing situations at approximately the rate of Hollywood glitterati, but on the other hand they also devote themselves to charitable works (they have the time, after all) and serve time in the armed forces. At their best, and because of their unique historical qualities, the royals unite and represent their nation in a positive way.

Another, less obvious, factor: although Western monarchs are technically mere figureheads, their presence in the system means that the ruling politicians are restrained by a sense of humility which perhaps is lacking in the republican system. I can tell you that, in Australia, when a Prime Minister is described as "acting presidential" it's not a compliment.

Way off-topic, sorry.

[Todd]

As you probably know, Australia is still part of the British Commonwealth, and technically under the Queen.

Yes, I know, and I'm sorry.

[eyeresist]

Yes, I know, and I'm sorry.

Sounds like you're accepting the blame

[Florestan]

Not wanting to appear to side with a guy who outright says the Road to Serfdom is a good thing but I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment:

You are putting words in my mouth. I've never said any such thing. Monarchy by itself means no more serfdom than democracy by itself means liberty* --- and you know it very well as shown by the remainder of your post which is most sensible.

* Actually, the democratic USA maintained serfdom (in the worst of its forms, slavery) for almost a century after it had been abolished in most of the Continental European monarchies...

Royal families are a national symbol, and ideally, if they follow their implicit obligation to be the most brave, kind, and wise in the land, they serve as objects of emulation. The counter argument here is of course that the royals get into embarrassing situations at approximately the rate of Hollywood glitterati, but on the other hand they also devote themselves to charitable works (they have the time, after all) and serve time in the armed forces. At their best, and because of their unique historical qualities, the royals unite and represent their nation in a positive way.

Another, less obvious, factor: although Western monarchs are technically mere figureheads, their presence in the system means that the ruling politicians are restrained by a sense of humility which perhaps is lacking in the republican system. I can tell you that, in Australia, when a Prime Minister is described as "acting presidential" it's not a compliment.

Hah!

(My truly very last post on this offtopic topic)

[The new erato]

You don't even know the difference between a regent and a king and to assume you have bothered to read the constitutions of the Scandinavian monarchies would be preposterous...

But as a Norwegian I have, and believe me, they are just for show. And not even a pretty sight a times. :-)

But their roles cannot be interpreted in isolation, their roles must after all be seen as a part of the total governmental structure of the Scandinavian states. The Norwegian prime minister, though parliamentary elected (and thus indirectly), have a role closer to a president in most republics. The royal family is just a facade, though less obnoxious than many politicians, so rather than a new and unpredictable moron fronting the country after each election, the Norwegian people prefer to use the royal family (which actually have been acting rather decent in most situations) in that function. My interpretation, but I think in general that is the common, public stance.

[North Star]

But as a Norwegian I have, and believe me, they are just for show. And not even a pretty sight a times. :-)

But their roles cannot be interpreted in isolation, their roles must after all be seen as a part of the total governmental structure of the Scandinavian states. The Norwegian prime minister, though parliamentary elected (and thus indirectly), have a role closer to a president in most republics. The royal family is just a facade, though less obnoxious than many politicians, so rather than a new and unpredictable moron fronting the country after each election, the Norwegian people prefer to use the royal family (which actually have been acting rather decent in most situations) in that function. My interpretation, but I think in general that is the common, public stance.

Indeed, and the Finnish president isn't much more influential (hasn't been for decades) than the Scandinavian monarchs.