How is Romney's economic plan different from that of GWB and why should one think it will be more effective this time?And this explanation did not bode well for the Obama is worse than Bush argument. Fact Check Explanation
Mitt: My Plan Differs From Bush’s Because ... Uh
Were the Bush Tax Cuts Good for Growth?
How are we going to get the revenue line above the spend line without a combination of cuts and tax increases? Reagan and the Bush's both failed at this. Clinton was the only one that was succeeding. Zfacts Graph
Thoughts?
17 comments:
I think the best reason to vote for Romney is that a Republican Congress would block any Obama proposed initiative to improve the economy for the next four years. Mitt, on the other hand, is capable of putting together a Democratic and non tea party Republican coalition that is more likely at least to form an effective governing coalition. Mitt Romney may also be the best hope for saving Obamacare since he would have at least the prospect of a coalition that could respond to the inevitable problems that will arise. As Nancy Pelosi, I believe, pointed out, we don't know what's in Obamacare right now. We don't know how it will play out. Once we do learn those things, we can find ways to prove it, and Mitt Romney has the potential of being able to do that, because he wouldn't have an automatically obstructionist Congress to deal with.
--Hiram
Mitt has no real economic plan right now. He won't tell us how he would cut spending or what tax loopholes he would close. In other words, he isn't telling us anything that matters, making the political bet that no one will notice. But I am not sure how much that matters. There is not political constituency in either party for addressing America's long term debt problems. Tax increases are off the table, Social Security and health care cuts are off the table. And Mitt Romney wants to increase military spending. Mitt would say he would increase jobs, but the big drag on the economy now is that America is unable to address long term economic problems, which in the political sphere are manifested by those Social Security and health care issues we can't address.
--Hiram
Just to prove that the spirit of Orwellism is alive and well, I thought I would direct your attention to the open markets plank. What Mitt is effectively advocating is the closing rather than the opening of markets, at least to some extent. It's not that I disagree with that policy; it is in fact a policy to the left of where Obama and much of the establishment of the Democratic Party is now. It would put Cory Booker in a tizzy. It's just the use of language that says one thing that means another, I find interesting. Republican rhetoric is often very leftist. Turning over health care to the control of patients and doctors is another idea far to the left of anything Democrats would actually propose or enact.
==Hiram
What I foresee with a Romney win is a budget deficit which increases significantly and a big increase in inequality as well. I expect the senate under GOP control would change the filibuster rules to implement to at least some of the GOP agenda (although there are some parts of their radical agenda they might not mind being blocked)
Hiram, I agree that with the obstructionist congress Obama's hands are nearly completely tied, but I think you give Romney, democrats and the GOP too much credit to expect they will come together and pass helpful legislation. What will happen is large tax cuts for the wealthy, large cuts to the safety net, and the economy will tank again.
I have no hope for our federal govt to deal with the countries challenges because there is no chance of dems regaining control like they had briefly in 2009.
The DFL seemed to squander their 2009/2010 on healthcare. (Ie increasing spending, avoiding revenues)
The GOP historically seems to cut revenues and avoid spending cuts.
Makes sense. Neither spending cuts or tax increases are popular... So let's bury our head in the sand and hope the problem magically disappears. Maybe they are all optimists, or ...
about - "The DFL seemed to squander their 2009/2010 (majority) on healthcare."
from MJ magazine re that majority:
"...Until Al Franken was sworn in on July 7, the Democratic caucus in the Senate stood at 59. After that it was technically up to 60, but Ted Kennedy hadn't cast a vote in months and was housebound due to illness. He died a few weeks later and was replaced by Paul Kirk on September 24, finally bringing the Democratic majority up to 60 in practice as well as theory. After that the Senate was in session for 11 weeks before taking its winter recess, followed by three weeks until Scott Brown won Kennedy's seat in the Massachusetts special election.
So that means Democrats had an effective filibuster-proof majority for about 14 weeks. Did they squander it? I guess you can make that case, but there's a very limited amount you can do in the Senate in 14 weeks. Given the reality of what it takes to move legislation through committee and onto the floor (keeping in mind that the filibuster isn't the minority party's only way to slow things down), I think you might make the case, at most, that a single additional piece of legislation could have been forced through during that period. But probably not much more than that. Democrats basically had a filibuster-proof majority for about three months. That's just not very long."
from wikipedia entry about PPACA:
"...it represents the most significant regulatory overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965...
... The Congressional Budget Office projected that PPACA will lower both future deficits[7] and Medicare spending.[8]
The PPACA legislation is hardly "squandering" and the dems have a much better history than the GOP in paying for their programs.
You forget, they didn't need to pass anything to get a tax increase. All they needed to do was let time pass. Instead they voted to extend the "Bush" tax cuts. And here they are trying to pass extending most of them again.
As for the cost and quality impact of Obamacare. Only time will tell, I see good and bad in it.
about - "they voted to extend the Bush" tax cuts." the "they" of course refers to both parties in congress and also Obama.
When the Bush tax rates were extended in 2010 60% of economists surveyed advocated this policy (to not further weaken the economy.)
For anyone with the time and interest for this stuff here is a detailed history of the Bush-Era Tax Cuts that could provide some indication as to which party is more serious about taking action to reduce the budget deficit.
Given our totally gridlocked, minority control form of government, it's hard to know what each party/candidate prefers to do or who to blame when you don't like the outcomes.
"The revenue stakes were huge. Ending the tax cuts for the rich would bring additional revenues to the government of more than $678 billion through 2020, the administration has projected. Keeping in place the tax cuts for everyone else would cost nearly $4 trillion, and more counting the interest on that increase to the federal debt."
If I am reading this correctly, the DFL wants to tax the Rich to get a small portion of the revenues that could be gained, while maintaining the higher spending and leaving most of the revenues uncollected. It certainly would seem popular to the masses, though not too effective on closing the gap.
And you may be correct, maybe I am being too hard on the GOP. Maybe they would fix the problems if they weren't blocked in their attempts.
I don't think Romney will get together with Democrats, just that it is a possibility. The problem is that Mitt isn't much of an out of the box theater and not a competent politician. Certainly nothing in his political life has shown any indication of the political courage he would need to stand up to the nuts in his own party.
If only Mitt Romney weren't so pathetic, it would be possible to support him.
--Hiram
In terms of cutting spending, I would certainly be willing to look at health care costs. But that's off limits for us, since any attempt to do so would be attacked as Socialism, rationing, death panelism, etc. You note that conservative changes end us costing more rather than less. The elimination of the portions of Obamacare carried out by the Supreme Court will increase the bill for health care significantly.
I personally don't like looking at cuts in Social Security because that would have such a direct negative effect on the lives of so many people.
As for the military, the other thing we spend money on, well, I would be willing to take a look at that but there isn't much of a political constituency to cut military expenditures.
So while I wait to see any good reason to vote for Romney here is another link with many reasons for voting against him: Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
about - maybe the GOP would fix the problems if they weren't blocked in their attempts- They need to win the presidency first and a super majority in the senate or they could relearn how to compromise.
I have to agree with the GOP that compromise may be a 4 letter word in politics.
From 1776 until the mid 1930's (~160 yrs), the USA was pretty much a highly Capitalistic society. One benefitted from their own personal efforts, and you suffered if you chose not to work and strive.
Then the compromises began... The New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment insurance, Disability insurance, etc, etc, etc. Each one of these kept/keep moving us from a society that rewards personal effort and punishes sloth, to a society that takes from those that show personal effort to enable sloth in others.
For better or worse the GOP has compromised for the past ~75 yrs to land us in this somewhat Socialistic mess, and then the DFL accuses them of not being willing to compromise and being too extremist.
I have to wonder when the DFL will be satisfied that we are Socialistic enough?
Is it when everyone has excess food, excellent healthcare, a 3 bedroom home, etc no matter their effort, choices, degree of responsibility, etc.
Will we have then compromised far enough to the Left? Or will they want more? Maybe everyone deserves a vacation home that is paid for by someone else?
Is this what the DFL sees as adequate compromise?DSA Link
An interesting piece from the Strib.Evolution of the New Left
I think you may have helped me to remember why I hope GOP. For all their flaws, they seem to believe in self empowerment and personal responsibility. Whereas the DFL seems to support people getting stuff for free. Which definitely leads to a dark place. Atlas Shrugged
This is a trick question, right?
I understand the Conservative reason... He is the GOP candidate and he is not Obama.
I assume there are more.
Post a Comment