Mitt Romney will rebuild the foundations of the American economy on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation. His plan seeks to reduce taxes, spending, regulation, and government programs. It seeks to increase trade, energy production, human capital, and labor flexibility. It relinquishes power to the states instead of claiming to have the solution to every problem. [Taken from an Internet Romney campaign page]

(JS) He isn’t going to rebuild anything. That is hyperbole. How can he “rebuild” something based on a plan that says it will “reduce”? How will he rebuild without taxes? Without “spending”? He wouldn’t be rebuilding. He would not be actively doing rebuilding, or doing anything. In the actual sentence he is reducing. This sentence above is cynical garbage that makes little sense. It is quite Orwellian.
He will just “reduce.” Taxes, spending, and government whatever. Um—programs. OK, we want fewer programs. Why is that called “rebuilding” though? I don’t get the “rebuilding” part. Is it is OK to say these things? It sounds to me like deliberate lying. This, I think, is what these persons do. What cynicism in the sentence! “Mitt Romney will rebuild the foundations of the American economy.” The writer of the sentence was not concerned with telling the truth. Telling the truth is what never crosses his mind, or else he would have noticed his sentence doesn’t make much sense because you do not generally rebuild by reducing.
Mitt Romney isn’t going to rebuild anything. It is just a garbage sentence. The writing seems to me deceptive. Personally, I think they are lying intentionally. I cannot prove it. It is just my opinion. I think they want to lie. I think that is all they are good for. The are not furthering government or serving the public at all. The writer has not the slightest intention of telling the truth. The whole idea is to lie and lying is all they know how to do. I am very sorry about that. I can see that the author of that campaign blurb I reproduced is trying to write something that “sounds good,” but what I do not see is any intention to check to see whether his language makes any sense or not, since “rebuild” is so quickly followed by “reduce.” So, I conclude that probably we should consider that maybe these persons are liars. And that is a serious thing to say.
They are disseminating crap to their country. He is not checking his words. The writer does not even bother to do that. And there is another point of interest. Where are the “foundations” there? I do not see where Romney is getting down to the foundations of anything. Anyone can utter these well-known phrases like free enterprise and so forth. That is a drill the writer could easily commit to memory. Somehow, he is going to get down to the “foundations” of everything, and somehow he is going to “rebuild.” That seems to be the idea, but how do we know he will do anything like rebuilding  foundations? The paragraph above only says that there would be an increase in trade, etc. not that Romney rebuilt any foundations. Business itself would be doing that, not Romney. What would Romney be doing? It is supposed to just happen from Romney’s getting out of the way, that is their conservative-type philosophy, their thinking. That is a rebuilding that would come from the American people. Even if that were true, where is Romney building any foundations? Why should we think that he can or will do any such thing? The plan is just to get out of the way, to do nothing. As a result, the American people, in the form of business, is supposed “increase” the different phenomena noted, like trade and so forth. The idea is that the American people will express themselves in terms of business but I do not know why that should be true. Why will the American people just spring to life suddenly? There is no reason to believe this will happen without a cause. And why would it happen just from “reducing” things? There is no reason to think he is really doing anything foundational, or causing anything to happen, or causing the American people to spring into action.

We seem to think that our own rhetoric, old garbage ideas and words, are automatically going to amount to something real. We talk, and think we are geniuses, simply because we remember how to talk. But that is just our “generative grammar” anyways. Chomsky explains how children learn to speak. But what Chomsky never explains is how we learn to speak so cynically. The generative grammar is there. The writer certainly knows how to make a sentence. It is just that he is not interested in writing one that makes any sense.

The sick mentality of doing anything to win – that is the phrase that comes into my mind when I think about Romney’s choice. Romney does not seem to agree ideologically with his own choice for VP. Ryan is a good-looking conservative. Or he just looks good because he markets himself. In any case, either way he looks good. Actual facts do not seem to have much to do with it. He looks good. For example, to his voters. Usually he wins, over the opposing Democrat, by something on the order of 2-1. So, he looks good to them, that I was correct about.

So what about it? -what’s with Ryan? His is a face that is fresh and new. He is capable of drawing up budget plans. He was elected to Congress in 1998. Since then, what he has done is to put extreme conservative views into a a package that seems to either make sense, or look good. Is there any actual difference? Is Ryan just a superficial appearance, or is there something there? Economist Paul Krugman has called Ryan’s economic numbers “fraudulent.” I just thought I would mention that.

If the numbers are fraudulent then we are down to considering philosophy. What are Ryan’s ideas? In trying to lend plausibility to his views, the most extreme varieties of socially-allowable conservatism, views like those of former employers Jack Kemp and William Bennett, at “Empower America,” which then becomes “FreedomWorks,” in the conservative marketing timeline, Ryan combines number-crunching prowess in economics with the kind of grass-roots conservative wisdom that calls for less government. Less government, more individual pluck and initiative. That is pretty weak – one fraudulent, the other facile. Individual self-reliance, anyone? Poof! The guy just goes up in a puff of smoke. Doesn’t he? When you examine him?

But he seems like something good, he sounds good, and he looks good. He appears as something fresh. And we are a society that likes products. Could it be that Ryan is all about marketing? According to the internet that was Ryan’s first job, out of college. He worked for a family firm as “a marketing consultant.”¹

Hey, I guess Ryan just has a healthy fantasy life. I have a healthy fantasy life, too. I write for My FDL, don’t I? I like rhetoric, too. I like advertising as much as the next guy. Ryan was once in the marketing field. There is a question, however. I think what we are looking for here is a deeper, more genuine sincerity. How does this work when it bumps into reality, or life, or governance? Well, you never know until you elect him, only that wouldn’t be reality either, as he would be the vice-president. So where exactly does that leave us? Exactly nowhere.

How do people (members of trading societies) get money? Do they do so socially–or individually?

I am at the university, here in the library, looking over the shoulder of a young gal shoppin’, apparently. Lookin’ over a list of hotel rooms an’ this gal’s prices are like 6 or seven hundred of the dollar and I be just wonderin’ how persons in capitalism get their money.

Just individualistically or by their social interactions with others? Do you get money by being a socially disconnected person? Is that how capitalism grew?