Dateline: Atlanta, GA. Turner Stadium.
Thoughts on Romney's debate victory[ Twitter:"Obama had more good points against Clint Eastwood!!"] For all the hype and hoop-la over the bodyslam that my new boy Mitt put on the president Wednesday night, I thought the one thing missed or overlooked that still haunts the GOP is this argument over that pesky '5-trillion dollar tax cut' that Obama kept serving up (3 times in a row--causing Mitt to retaliate with the now-famous, "I have five boys so I know what's it like to have a kid say to me the same thing over and over hoping I'll finally believe it," response. Basically calling the prez a child, with childish ways of thinking/debating).
Here's what Romney has got to pound home--with almost the same repetitiveness of his 5 boys: a tax cut, done right, in most cases DOESN'T 'COST' the government. It generates revenues.
Please read that again. Counter-intuitive? Impossible? A myth? Totally nuh-uhh? You see I'm afraid that for most voters, it is. For them they hear tax cut and they assume--like Pavlov's pets--it's exactly like government spending--an expense--a deficit enhancer. Hell, for me it was until I was given a lesson in basic economics, post-graduate level (i.e. Ronald Wilson Reagan).
In the debate, Mitt made references to wanting the tax cuts to come back to govt. as new taxable revenues (spending, upward tax bracket mobility, new jobs, new ex-unemployed folks, and all the like); and even Obama at times mentioned that tax cuts targeted @ middle-class workers quote, put money their pockets (implication: good for business, therefore, good for economy, therefore good the growth, therefore good for deficit reduction); but but but but that's where GOP candidates everywhere have got to grab hold and bite/fight back with a quick education about why we do believe in lower taxes explicity TO GET the deficit down.
Clinton didn't have surpluses b/c of his tax raising. "He" (we) had them almost exclusively b/c of the volcanic boom of the internet and all the new business generated thereby.
* * *
Remember Red-Lining? I bet William Mowrer, Jeff Lack, Joe Stillman, Larry Swindle, and Brad Carter do. Was those same 1990's. Janet Reno was hollering about threats to banks (private businesses,remember) that if they didn't show an increase in home loans to minority low-income folks that she'd fine/prosecute them. Banks. Private businesses. Pretty radical stuff. But govt wanted more homes built and more minorities living/buying.
Lesson of good intentions gone bad.
I was convinced it was terrible by one statement made by a Chicago bank president.
"We don't discriminate. Proof? Easy. Here's the default #'s for minorites. Here's the default #'s for caucasians. They are exactly the same. We're pretty (damn) good at predicting a good loan risk. It's what we do. "
It's what's we do. And I would add, "Or we fail as a private business. "
So the banks were forced at gunpoint to make bad home loans. Read that again.
Guess what? A few years in,these businesses were therefore forced at stockholders' gunpoints to find ways to make money--lose less money on these dogs. They bundled them and sold them as investment paper.
Hello 2008 housing crisis. Caused by Bush? Caused by over-excessive laisez faire capitalism? Wall Street?
I even thought so. Sat on my chaize louge in Santa Monica in '07 and '08 and wrote about why/how capitalism had maybe been proven fatally wrong. Maybe.
Flipping back now.
Also in 1999 as we've discussed it was Clinton who unshackled banks to let them dip their beaks into riskier investing.
* * *
Redbirds. One thought. If after tonight's play-off-in game you're still among those wondering why Kyle Loshe started in lieu,say, of Adam Wainwright, here's a hint: Google Image his left forearm. Now Google Image his right forearm.
Olive Oil meet Popeye.
Braves meet Popeye.
From 'the A.T.L.',
Your Inky (and if STL wins 12 in '12, even right forearm inkier!!) Servant