New Romney ad: The least we can do

posted at 12:41 pm on September 20, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

The WSJ is reporting that Team Romney is looking to amp up their swing-state appeals in the t-minus seven weeks until the election, and that they’ll be going for more targeted ad blitzes while Romney will be doing a little less fundraising, and a little more on-the-trail campaigning:

Mitt Romney’s plan to rebound from a tough stretch in his bid for the White House rests on stepping up campaigning in swing states, running more television ads and curtailing a fundraising push that has had him spending more time with donors in hotel ballrooms than with supporters at campaign rallies.

Still navigating a series of setbacks, Mr. Romney will hit the campaign trail harder than he has since the party conventions began at the end of August, with public events in Florida, Nevada, Colorado and Ohio in the next week.

They’re also setting specific voting groups in their sights — I thought the “Dear Daughter” ad from earlier this week was a pretty effective appeal to combat that stupid “war on women” meme the liberals have got going — and with seniors most definitely in the mix of clutch voting blocs, they’re bringing Florida Sen. Marco Rubio into the fold to tout Republicans’ Medicare plan. With the senior-and-Latino-heavy Florida’s 29 electoral votes still very much in play for either candidate, bringing in the well-spoken, popular senator to talk about issues that affect seniors can’t be a bad move:

 “Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan get it. Medicare is going broke. That’s not politics, it’s math. Anyone who wants to leave Medicare like it is, is for letting it go bankrupt. My mother is 81 and depends on Medicare. We can save Medicare, without changing hers, but only if younger Americans accept that our Medicare will be different than our parents when we retire in thirty years. But after all they did for us, isn’t that the least we can do?”

Oh wow, sane words about the impending fate of Medicare! It’s so rare to hear those these days, what with everything we hear about the Republicans’ apparently inherent hatred of old people. Sorry, Democrats, but Medicare going broke is a fact. Nobody wants to throw Granny off of a cliff, or even change the plan for current seniors and those quickly approaching retirement — we just want to make the dang thing solvent. Maybe that’s why seniors are actually wise enough to tend to favor Republicans’ Medicare reform plan, and it’s the young people we’re having trouble convincing?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Do you have something to offer in the form of a solution? Since you think such a question is “inane” and you haven’t bothered to offer such as of yet, I’ll take that as a “no”.

Just another blowhard. Thanks for confirming it.

kim roy on September 20, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Simply repeating your question does not reduce its inanity. Perhaps if you were specific, such as, “Do you have a solution to X”? whatever X may be. If you didn’t understand the point of the post and the references within, that’s not my problem.

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 3:13 PM

It isn’t just math: it is demographics.

The Boomer demographics are the death knell of the M&Ms, SSA and the rest of the ‘entitlements’.

If we try really, really hard, cut the rest of the federal government to the bone, get rid of the tax incentives for insurance, block grant out half the M&M money for the States to use and then decrease that over a few years, allow an opt-out for SSA and to put taxation of investment gains out of the reach of the federal government and kill the retirement age completely… that we just might be able to do. If we get rid of other major pieces of the government as well, along with the banking laws involving quasi-federal agencies being in mortgages… cut these off completely along with a number of other agencies that are doing things that States can do better. None of the ‘entitlements’ can be ‘guaranteed’ to those currently IN THEM without major structural reform and getting the federal government out of these areas completely. Get rid of the nice words that lie to the American people about these programs and make them pure taxing and spending problems. They are not piggybanks, lock boxes, or any form of ‘investment’ because they are not real property just promises of spending from future taxation.

Charities, State and local governments are the ones that need to worry about these things, not the US federal government.

Demographics and the rate of increase in life expectancy are outstripping old 20th century and 19th century ideas of ‘retirement’ and even ‘frail old age’. Look at the huge strides of medicine in just the last 20 years and one can see that this is true. The next gen of medical advances will be built upon those, and approaching aging as a disease… a treatable condition that can be slowed, perhaps halted or even reversed. In any of those scenarios the idea of ‘entitlements’ or even of ‘school age’ or having a ‘biological clock’ fly out the window. Time to cut the ties to the old ways of thinking and start to ask ourselves how we can give our children the tools to deal with a life that may require 6, 8 or 10 different careers and constant self-education, and medicine that is no longer tied to doctors, surgeons or anything we have grown accustomed to just because it was what we grew up with. These Progressive notions are tied to a dead past of an expected and relatively short life… time to get with the 21st century where these things aren’t going to be the expectation any more. Weaning ourselves from these programs isn’t just fiscally responsible, isn’t just returning liberty back to the individual and the lowest forms of government, but they will be made obsolete by the things we create.

This means, unfortunately, that we may never get rid of the Baby Boomers.

But we might be able to move off-planet and leave the most backwards looking of them behind.

ajacksonian on September 20, 2012 at 3:16 PM

So it’s totally uncool to seize people’s property for Medicare through coercion and force, but it’s totallly cool to seize people’s property for NASA through coercion and force. one transfer of wealth is uncool, but another transfer of wealth is cool.

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM

ALL taxation is a form of wealth transfer. However, we can’t simply do away with all taxes. Despite what libertarians would sometimes have us believe, there does have to be government in some form. The Constitution does, you know, specify things that the federal government is allowed to do.

So, yes, it is perfectly fine to have taxes for some things while arguing against taxes for other things. There is no inherent hypocrisy there. Now, whether NASA should be a part of that role of government is up for legitimate debate. But simply saying “you don’t want to tax me for x, so you can’t think it’s okay to tax me for y” is absurd.

Shump on September 20, 2012 at 3:21 PM

So why can’t you just eliminate it? Give me a good reason that doesn’t involve seizing more money from people.

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 2:41 PM

You have two generations of people who were forced to pay into this system a substantial amount of their earnings. They were forced to pay into it even if they voted for candidates that did not get elected who promised to either make the system solvent or eliminate the system. When you include employer contributions (which could have been salary instead), that’s 15% of peoples’ earnings that could have contributed to a substantial nest egg. Just eliminating the system in one fell swoop and leaving those people with nothing would be criminal given the persistent assurances that those benefits would be there when they retired.

I want to make this perfectly clear so you know my position.

I do not see you as a victim. I do not see 80 year olds as victims. What I see are the very people who are the criminals who voted for ever increasing wealth transfers from younger people to older ones. I grew up in the 80′s with Reagan on the TV. I never imagined there would be money in those accounts to pay for me, and I still do not. I do not count myself as a victim, even if I get nothing in return for the money I paid in TAXES. More than 24 years of them. I work to get rid of them, for 20 of those 24 years. I have written presidents and congressmen on them.

It is you and the current elderly who are the criminals in this, not victims.

astonerii on September 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM

… and I want to make this perfectly clear to you troll, so that you know my position:

How dare you judge me and what I have or have not done when you have no idea who or what I have supported during my working career and political life. You have no clue and your judgmentalism is beneath contempt. Your assumptions of what I have voted for and supported are complete and utter bullshiite. My position is based upon the principled position that once you have implemented something, promised something, and then extorted money from people to pay for those promises, you don’t just suddenly say, “Never mind, we didn’t mean it, good luck on your own!”

Your self-righteous attitude reeks of the same smugness we get from the liberal trolls. I’ve pretty much spent my time scrolling over your endless Paulian rants; I’ll be scrolling that much more quickly in the future. Your post above demonstrates that you have not only no viable candidate, you have no soul.

AZfederalist on September 20, 2012 at 3:26 PM

ALL taxation is a form of wealth transfer. However, we can’t simply do away with all taxes. Despite what libertarians would sometimes have us believe, there does have to be government in some form. The Constitution does, you know, specify things that the federal government is allowed to do.

So, yes, it is perfectly fine to have taxes for some things while arguing against taxes for other things. There is no inherent hypocrisy there. Now, whether NASA should be a part of that role of government is up for legitimate debate. But simply saying “you don’t want to tax me for x, so you can’t think it’s okay to tax me for y” is absurd.

Shump on September 20, 2012 at 3:21 PM

1. Why can we not do away with all taxes?

2. Why does there have to be government in some form?

3. The Constitution is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

And yes, there is hypocrisy in arguing against taxes for one thing but being in favor of taxation for another, especially when the reason given is opposition to wealth transfers.

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 3:34 PM

… and I want to make this perfectly clear to you troll, so that you know my position:

How dare you judge me and what I have or have not done when you have no idea who or what I have supported during my working career and political life.

I DO not have to look at your life to JUDGE its accomplishments on these programs. They are clear. They still exist and you are demanding that some other SUCKER pay for your failure to FIX a problem that has been well known since the INCEPTION of SOCIAL SECURITY in the 1930s. Those who passed it knew it was unsustainable, as was written in their journals which were made public post death.

You have no clue and your judgmentalism is beneath contempt. Your assumptions of what I have voted for and supported are complete and utter bullshiite. My position is based upon the principled position that once you have implemented something, promised something, and then extorted money from people to pay for those promises, you don’t just suddenly say, “Never mind, we didn’t mean it, good luck on your own!”

Very commnedable of you. So what you are saying is the people who had the power to vote for something else are demanding that people who never had the power of the vote, or are just getting the power of the vote are responsible for paying for the policies that your group vote accomplished? Once you promised YOURSELF money from other people’s pockets, it belongs to you? You call me contemptable? It does not matter what your votes were, they failed. You should have used your free speech and convinced people.

Your self-righteous attitude reeks of the same smugness we get from the liberal trolls. I’ve pretty much spent my time scrolling over your endless Paulian rants; I’ll be scrolling that much more quickly in the future. Your post above demonstrates that you have not only no viable candidate, you have no soul.

AZfederalist on September 20, 2012 at 3:26 PM

My Paulian rants? what kind of reading comprehension do you have? I am not a libertarian in any way the word is used these days. Your dependence on government and demand that other people who have no responsibility at all towards you pay for that dependence is certainly a LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE troll.

astonerii on September 20, 2012 at 3:35 PM

You have two generations of people who were forced to pay into this system a substantial amount of their earnings. They were forced to pay into it even if they voted for candidates that did not get elected who promised to either make the system solvent or eliminate the system. When you include employer contributions (which could have been salary instead), that’s 15% of peoples’ earnings that could have contributed to a substantial nest egg. Just eliminating the system in one fell swoop and leaving those people with nothing would be criminal given the persistent assurances that those benefits would be there when they retired.

AZfederalist on September 20, 2012 at 3:26 PM

It was criminal to take their money to begin with. It is no less criminal to take money from others’ in order to give it to the first group. So try again: Give me a good reason why it can’t be eliminated at once that doesn’t involve seizing more money from people.

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 3:36 PM

You never see anyone work harder for money than a leech, AZfederalist, trying to hold onto their electorally stolen wealth transfers.

astonerii on September 20, 2012 at 3:38 PM

ALL taxation is a form of wealth transfer. However, we can’t simply do away with all taxes. Despite what libertarians would sometimes have us believe, there does have to be government in some form. The Constitution does, you know, specify things that the federal government is allowed to do.

So, yes, it is perfectly fine to have taxes for some things while arguing against taxes for other things. There is no inherent hypocrisy there. Now, whether NASA should be a part of that role of government is up for legitimate debate. But simply saying “you don’t want to tax me for x, so you can’t think it’s okay to tax me for y” is absurd.

Shump on September 20, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Oh, and FYI, since you’re confused about libertarianism, libertarians favor there being a government. Anarchists do not. True, anarchism is the logical conclusion for libertarianism, but it doesn’t change the fact that libertarians believe there should be a government in place.

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Simply repeating your question does not reduce its inanity. Perhaps if you were specific, such as, “Do you have a solution to X”? whatever X may be. If you didn’t understand the point of the post and the references within, that’s not my problem.

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Here is your hysterical and nonsensical post (of which I was being polite giving it the status of a complaint rather than a mental illness breakdown):

Paul Ryan voted for Medicare Part D, the greatest entitlement expansion in decades.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

RYAN IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE

and the sheep swallow it whole

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 1:55 PM

So I asked you a rational question of “what’s your solution” to the above hysterical rant. I can see how you’d confuse a sedate and benign question of “what’s your solution” to the above because it isn’t the equivalent of setting my hair on fire and running into traffic, but okay.

Continue on, blowhard. You are quick to complain, extremely slow to actually produce a useful answer/solution.

kim roy on September 20, 2012 at 3:55 PM

A man sitting at his usual spot at the bar. A man comes up to him and whispers in his ear… He stands up and beats the living hell out of him, eventually throwing him out the bar. The bar tender is like, man, I never seen you get so worked up, what was that all about. I dunno, something about a job…

I think old people need to keep or get a JOB!

astonerii on September 20, 2012 at 3:57 PM

kim roy on September 20, 2012 at 3:55 PM

You are in the habit of using words without knowing their meaning, nonsensical and rant being just two of them. Like I said, if you don’t understant the point and the references within the post, that’s not my problem.

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 3:58 PM

I live in Virginia one of the three largest swing states. I also live in the most populous area i.e. northern VA. I have seen an Obama add more that a dozen times, maybe more than two dozen. The TV add states that duning Bush’s last term the country had more layoffs than any time since Hoover and that During Obama’s term there have been a few million jobs created. Neither of these statements is very meaningful. As far as I know, both statements are true. The obvious wrong conclusion is that Obama is good and Bush is terrible.

A more meanigful comparison would be net jobs. The most meaningful comparison is the percentage of the population of the proper age range that is fully employed.

This add has been arround for about two weeks. It never gets answered.

The truth is that Bush was very bad and Obama is terrible.

burt on September 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM

This is not the case. My wife is 53. This would also affect her in 10 or 12 years not 30. She has been working and paying in since she was 18 and the Ryan plan makes her nervous.

Dennis D on September 20, 2012 at 1:41 PM

It “makes her nervous”? You should be a hell of a lot more nervous if nothing is done with Medicare. Try finding a doctor today that will take Medicare. That’s going to get much worse because little Bammie is stealing from Medicare to fund Obamacare, and millions more will be going to doctors expecting to get Medicare-level rates with their Obamacare card.

Medicare’s not worth a damn if no doctor will take it.

slickwillie2001 on September 20, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Dante on September 20, 2012 at 3:01 PM

I would call you an idiot, but that would be an insult to idiots.

Wolftech on September 21, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Comment pages: 1 2