Why should Romney be president?

[rb336]

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.

Even the right-wing mouthpiece Wall Street Journal acknowledges that spending growth under Obama is the slowest it's been in the last 60 years. Spending increases, despite of what republicrits keep trying to convince us, have been severely higher under Republican administrations

[Zacha341]

The "Bush did X" justification is in part why president Obama has been given a PASS on some of his policy. Many of Bush's policies spent us to the moon. Obama should've been cautious to not surpass Bush's record. He was not.

Instead president Obama benefited and followed the 'our turn' mantra of his constituency and party. He authored and signed the stimulus bill; budget spending onward, expanding government beyond sustainability, continued that fiscal mess with Synagro etc...

We're 'um quite far along in Obama's presidency. He must own his own decisions and choices, as the Bush factor[[s) recede. And NO! I am not voting for Romney either! So the 'you must want/ like/ love Romney/ right wing...' construct does not apply.

A life-long dem, but I refuse the requisite 'shape-shifting' and adapting of core values and beliefs to follow any 'politician' around the corners they take to stay in office.

ACTUALLY, you did suck me in there with the "Bush did X so Barry can do X too" thing.

....Because Bush or Clinton or Reagan did something, does not give Barry a pass to waste our tax dollars.

[vetalalumni]

Kind of a silly question vetalalumni. You know the only answer you're going to get is: "He's not Obama."

Is there not anyone that is part of the DYes community who stands with Romney for reasons other than simply "He's not Obama."?

[vetalalumni]

Because he can afford to buy the office, thanks to Citizens United, instead of being legitimately elected to the office. Don't be surprised if Romney doesn't care about voters' opinions.

Goodbye democracy, hello legalized bribery & graft, the quiet means of only those who can afford to corrupt.

Here comes the best presidency money can buy, brought to you by the best Supreme Court that money can buy.

The best government bought is by definition the worst government because it is itself intrinsically ungoverned.

Anything else? Something like offering quality arguments affirming a Romney presidency?

[Jimaz]

I think this 21-second clip explains why you're not going to get many answers to your question:

Rich Lowry - Mitt Romney Has "Great Allergy To Specifics"

Note that that's from a National Review editor.

[jerrytimes]

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.

Even the right-wing mouthpiece Wall Street Journal acknowledges that spending growth under Obama is the slowest it's been in the last 60 years. Spending increases, despite of what republicrits keep trying to convince us, have been severely higher under Republican administrations

I never said that I was happy with the Repubs spending, it was actually something that I hated about Bush. But it is fact that Obama has spent more than any president ever, and he hasn't even finished a single term.

[Crumbled_pavement]

Didn't Omaba get elected because "He's not Bush!"?

Obama must be kicked to the curb. Reason number one, Bush spent something like 5 Trillion in 8 years which is disgusting. Obama in less then four years makes that number look small, he's surpassed 8 Trillion I believe. Obama is absolutely clueless. He gets elected, works on a bill making it illegal to not buy health insurance which isn't the health care regulation needed. If he worked half as hard on creating jobs in this country as he did on that 'health' bill the unemployment would be under 8%. [[It was under 8% for all of Bushs presidency).

Romney [[while not who I wanted to run) is a better choice for president than Obama ever was. [[So is Hillary Clinton). Romney knows what to do the create jobs, and he has the guts to try those things. He will instill confidence in the economy which will lead current companies to expand. He also won't blow billions on these 'green' companies that have almost all gone under. If Obama had taken the money that he gave to Solyndra, and just given it to the poor instead, we would be better off. Now, all that money of OURS is gone. That's great, I'm glad I worked for that money. THANKS OBAMA! Another 4 year president.

Like I said: "He's not Obama"

[jerrytimes]

Like I said: "He's not Obama"

? I said more than 'he's not Obama' thank you.

[Crumbled_pavement]

? I said more than 'he's not Obama' thank you.

Not much more. That majority of what you said was basically: He's not Obama. In fact, you even threw in Romney is not your choice and even Hillary would be better than Obama. The question was why Romney, so the fact that you made those statements underscore what I said before. So therefore, I'll say it again...

Repubs: "He's not Obama!"

[Zacha341]

Again, I am not endorsing Romney [[I'm not voting for Obama or Romney) but even the non right-wing sites are revealing the economic short falls of the Obama Administration and some misinformation regarding Romney's record:

Obama’s Economic Sleight of Hand

In Cleveland, President Barack Obama claimed he created more private-sector jobs in the past 27 months than President George W. Bush created “during the entire seven years before this crisis.” But that’s like comparing apples and mangoes.
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-...eight-of-hand/

Obama Twists Romney’s Economic Record

A new ad from the Obama campaign takes aim at Mitt Romney’s performance as governor of Massachusetts, claiming he had “one of the worst economic records in the country.” But the ad overreaches with several of its claims.
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-t...onomic-record/

Obama’s Spending: ‘Inferno’ or Not?

Spending is high by historical standards -- but rising slowly. And revenues are low.
http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-...nferno-or-not/

[firstandten]

I never said that I was happy with the Repubs spending, it was actually something that I hated about Bush. But it is fact that Obama has spent more than any president ever, and he hasn't even finished a single term.

Are you sure about that statement ?

Look both parties spend. I won't go into the nuances of the politics involved in the who spends more claims that the Repubs like to make or the condition of the economy in 08 and now. I'll let you do that research.

If you take a look at this fact check article it gives more context on the spending claims

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-...nferno-or-not/

[ghettopalmetto]

The "Bush did X" justification is in part why president Obama has been given a PASS on some of his policy. Many of Bush's policies spent us to the moon. Obama should've been cautious to not surpass Bush's record. He was not.

Instead president Obama benefited and followed the 'our turn' mantra of his constituency and party. He authored and signed the stimulus bill; budget spending onward, expanding government beyond sustainability, continued that fiscal mess with Synagro etc...

We're 'um quite far along in Obama's presidency. He must own his own decisions and choices, as the Bush factor[[s) recede. And NO! I am not voting for Romney either! So the 'you must want/ like/ love Romney/ right wing...' construct does not apply.

A life-long dem, but I refuse the requisite 'shape-shifting' and adapting of core values and beliefs to follow any 'politician' around the corners they take to stay in office.

By focusing on only one concept--"spending"--and without using any numbers, at that, you demonstrate a very unsophisticated understanding of macroeconomics.

Spending didn't cause the recession, and a balanced budget won't fix it. Focusing on "spending" at the expense of unemployment, GDP growth, infrastructure, and education is foolhardy and idiotic, at best.

Because, like it or not, our nation is aging. Since the federal government is essentially an insurance company with an army [[based on expenditures), and our population is aging, you're going to see a lot more money shelled out for Medicare and Social Security in the future. This is independent of any policy decisions, tax cuts, economic stimulus, spending reductions or anything else. IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, whether you like it or not.

In other words, you're going to have to get over your fixation on "spending" as the root of all evil, and figure out how to constructively balance competing interests. But that takes brainpower, which we really don't value much in our political discourse anymore.

[oladub]

The percentage of federal spending grew at a faster rate during the Bush administration than during the Obama administration largely because of Bush’s Wall Street bailout funded in his last budget and enthusiastically supported at the time by Senator Obama. However, in increase of actual dollars, Bush added about $.5T during his first term, $.7T during his second term, and Obama added about $.7T projected into his fourth budget. So it is accurate to say that Obama almost leveled off spending not including his support for Bush’s Wall Street bailout in Bush’s last budget. Remember too that some of those bailout expenses have been paid back during Obama’s tenure helping his numbers look better.

However, the federal debt has increased more in Obama’s first 3.5 years in office than Bush’s 8. About a third of that can be attributed to Bush’s tax cuts on the rich that Obama extended in a deal to extend unemployment benefits to 3,200,000 US workers.

The tax cuts for the rich and the extended unemployment benefits are scheduled to end at the end of the year. It will be interesting to see how the unemployed Americans without unemployment will take to Obama handing out working permits to “up to 800,000” [[Obama’s numbers) illegal aliens. Also, from the Factcheck article, “Spending under Obama remains at a level that is quite high by historical standards. Measured as a percentage of the nation’s economic production, it reached the highest level since World War II in fiscal 2009, and has declined only slightly since.
And there’s more spending to come: The health care law Obama signed in 2010 calls for a new wave starting in 2014, to subsidize coverage for millions who wouldn’t otherwise have it. That will be adding an estimated $110 billion to federal outlays in fiscal 2015, and more in later years."

[ghettopalmetto]

The percentage of federal spending grew at a faster rate during the Bush administration than during the Obama administration largely because of Bush’s Wall Street bailout funded in his last budget and enthusiastically supported at the time by Senator Obama. However, in increase of actual dollars, Bush added about $.5T during his first term, $.7T during his second term, and Obama added about $.7T projected into his fourth budget. So it is accurate to say that Obama almost leveled off spending not including his support for Bush’s Wall Street bailout in Bush’s last budget. Remember too that some of those bailout expenses have been paid back during Obama’s tenure helping his numbers look better.

However, the federal debt has increased more in Obama’s first 3.5 years in office than Bush’s 8. About a third of that can be attributed to Bush’s tax cuts on the rich that Obama extended in a deal to extend unemployment benefits to 3,200,000 US workers.

The tax cuts for the rich and the extended unemployment benefits are scheduled to end at the end of the year. It will be interesting to see how the unemployed Americans without unemployment will take to Obama handing out working permits to “up to 800,000” [[Obama’s numbers) illegal aliens. Also, from the Factcheck article, “Spending under Obama remains at a level that is quite high by historical standards. Measured as a percentage of the nation’s economic production, it reached the highest level since World War II in fiscal 2009, and has declined only slightly since.
And there’s more spending to come: The health care law Obama signed in 2010 calls for a new wave starting in 2014, to subsidize coverage for millions who wouldn’t otherwise have it. That will be adding an estimated $110 billion to federal outlays in fiscal 2015, and more in later years."

Did you just take a string of stand-alone statements and try to fit them into paragraphs? I'm scratching my head as to what point you're trying to make.

[oladub]

Did you just take a string of stand-alone statements and try to fit them into paragraphs? I'm scratching my head as to what point you're trying to make.

They were sort of stand alone. The first paragraph agreed with the Factcheck article up to a point. The second paragraph is about increasing federal debts; where Obama really shines. The third paragraph raises a question about what will happen to both spending and debt levels when two big ticket items come to an end after the election no matter who wins.

[ghettopalmetto]

They were sort of stand alone. The first paragraph agreed with the Factcheck article up to a point. The second paragraph is about increasing federal debts; where Obama really shines. The third paragraph raises a question about what will happen to both spending and debt levels when two big ticket items come to an end after the election no matter who wins.

Debt is not really as big of an issue as some people make it--the United States is able to borrow money at record-low interest rates. The US had comparable levels of debt after World War II [[you know, with all that government spending during the war). Of course, it became less and less of an issue as the GDP of the nation grew in the postwar era. Mind you, the top marginal income tax rate at the time was 90%.

We need to focus on growing the economy so that the debt-to-GDP ratio decreases. Right now, revenues are still at record lows as a percentage of GDP. There is no way on God's green earth we can cut federal spending to 15% of GDP--not with an impending boom in folks reaching Social Security and Medicare age.

The Eurozone nations have proven that austerity alone cannot grow an economy.

If you take the return-on-investment of government spending in areas like infrastructure and education, and compare it to the current interest rates, our nation is actually LOSING money by NOT investing in these areas. But the GOP would have you believe that "spending = bad", without any regard to principles of economics. They're counting on your ignorance this November!

[firstandten]

The Repubs want you to believe that gov't should be run like your checking account. The Repubs and not just Bush but even going back to Reagan liked to spend the only difference is that they gave you a bit of a tax cut to make it feel like you're ahead of the game.


National Debt Increased by 75% under Bush:
2001 - $5.871 trillion
2008 - $10.640 trillion

National Debt Increased 25% Under Obama:

Jan 31st 2009 = $10.569-tr­­illion
Jan 31st 2011 = $14.131-tr­­illion

But of the $3.56-tril­­lion increase, 98% was carry over from Bush programs:

Bush: $910-billi­­on = Interest on Debt 2009/2011
Bush: $360-billi­­on = Iraq War Spending 2009/2011
Bush: $319-billi­­on = TARP/Bailo­­ut Balance from 2008 [[as of May 2010)
Bush: $419-billi­­on = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes
Bush: $190-billi­­on = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2011
Bush: $211-billi­­on = Bush Medicare Part-D 2009/2011
Bush: $771-billi­­on = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2011

Bush's contributi­­on:
2001 to 2008: $4.769-tri­­llion
2009 to 2010: $3.181-tri­­llion
Total: $7.950-tri­­llion
Increase Since 2001 = $14.131 - $5.871 = $8.26-tril­­lion

Bush's contributi­­on: $7.950-tri­­llion / $8.26-tril­­lion = 96%
Increase caused By Bush's Programs: 96%
Increase caused by Obama’s Programs: 4%

And Bush increased the size of Federal government by 82%

[rb336]

The Eurozone nations have proven that austerity alone cannot grow an economy.

actually the EU nations have proven that austerity during a recession makes things worse. Every country that has imposed severe austerity programs is in worse shape now than before implementation

[Zacha341]

Must you always be so confrontational and condescending? Not need to answer... we ALL know the answer. SMH... zzzz-ZZZZ-zz....

By focusing on only one concept--"spending"--and without using any numbers, at that, you demonstrate a very unsophisticated understanding of macroeconomics.

Spending didn't cause the recession, and a balanced budget won't fix it. Focusing on "spending" at the expense of unemployment, GDP growth, infrastructure, and education is foolhardy and idiotic, at best.

Because, like it or not, our nation is aging. Since the federal government is essentially an insurance company with an army [[based on expenditures), and our population is aging, you're going to see a lot more money shelled out for Medicare and Social Security in the future. This is independent of any policy decisions, tax cuts, economic stimulus, spending reductions or anything else. IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, whether you like it or not.

In other words, you're going to have to get over your fixation on "spending" as the root of all evil, and figure out how to constructively balance competing interests. But that takes brainpower, which we really don't value much in our political discourse anymore.

[ghettopalmetto]

Must you always be so confrontational and condescending? Not need to answer... we ALL know the answer. SMH... zzzz-ZZZZ-zz....

I'm sorry that you find empirical evidence to be so... confrontational and condescending.

That you [[and others) consistently advocate ideas that fly in the face of history and sound science indicates that you, in fact, don't know the answer.

[oladub]

Firstandten, Sorry, but I was raised by an immigrant family that regarded personal debt as something akin to sloth and incurred servitude. It’s difficult for me to fantisize that what is usually not good for individuals and families is somehow great for government. I just read that Taiwan has become debt free. Imagine all the ways people in Taiwan, or their elected government, can now advance themselves instead of paying interest to bankers. Maybe, for instance, they will improve health care or education at a personal or government level. China has over a trillion US dollars it doesn’t quite know what to do with, instead of debt, so it is buying up Canadian oil companies, African farm land, and Brazilian forests. Bush and Obama would rather our children service Goldman Sachs debt it seems.

After WWII, the world was at our door buying our products to rebuild their own factories. That restored our economy. Your reference to WWII would work if we were in a similar situation; the last country standing with factories. The Eurozone has been militarily subsidized by US taxpayers and still has higher taxes than we do. The Eurozone is now having severe economic problems. If they want to print money to hide the problem for awhile, that is their right. By “principles of economics” you may be suggesting “belief in Keynesianism”. I don’t think they are compatible.

RE: statistics.

Bush was a lousy president. As you pointed out, he raised the national debt by a large percentage. What will be more significant to our kids though, since they will foot the bill, is the amount of the bill they will be burdened with. Each $1T debt equals over $3,100 of debt per American. In 3.5 years, Obama has managed to rack up more absolute debt than Bush took 8 years to accumulate. Obama is on track, over eight years, to incur $11T of debt to Bush’s $5T of debt. Their economic ball and chain will be about 2/3 attributable to Obama and 1/3 to Bush. Regarding the rest of your statistics, if some of Obama’s expenses and reduced federal income and expenses are attributable to Bush then Obama had or has the choice to either shut down those programs or own them. He has chosen to own them.

[Zacha341]

Nonsense. Sadly, both your 'empiricism' and 'evidence' are sacrificed at the throne of your presentation. Therefore, fairly un-compelling.

zzzz-ZZZZ-sss-zzz-sss-Zph-zz.....

SMH... At least you're consistent........ have a grand evening....

I'm sorry that you find empirical evidence to be so... confrontational and condescending.

That you [[and others) consistently advocate ideas that fly in the face of history and sound science indicates that you, in fact, don't know the answer.

[Zacha341]

Compelling points Oladub, refreshingly absent of the "Chef Ramsey-Hells Kitchen!" tone that's the chronic style of some who post/ and respond here relative to this subject. You point out the fiscal folly of Bush which is inarguable, even the die-hard repubs have to see that, or not.

Unfortunately, I think the fiscal crisis is 'gonna' have to get worse, therefore less defensible re. those who have caused it, and of more personal impact to those who minimize its consequences and outworkings.

...RE: statistics.

Bush was a lousy president. As you pointed out, he raised the national debt by a large percentage. What will be more significant to our kids though, since they will foot the bill, is the amount of the bill they will be burdened with. Each $1T debt equals over $3,100 of debt per American. In 3.5 years, Obama has managed to rack up more absolute debt than Bush took 8 years to accumulate. Obama is on track, over eight years, to incur $11T of debt to Bush’s $5T of debt. Their economic ball and chain will be about 2/3 attributable to Obama and 1/3 to Bush. Regarding the rest of your statistics, if some of Obama’s expenses and reduced federal income and expenses are attributable to Bush then Obama had or has the choice to either shut down those programs or own them. He has chosen to own them.

[ghettopalmetto]

Firstandten, Sorry, but I was raised by an immigrant family that regarded personal debt as something akin to sloth and incurred servitude. It’s difficult for me to fantisize that what is usually not good for individuals and families is somehow great for government.

Recession macroeconomics does not adhere to the same "rules" as economics in a growth period. If your paycheck goes down, you can cut your expenses. But does any of that help you get a better job with higher pay? Most likely not. All cost-cutting does is help you subsist at a bare bones level for the time-being. In fact, it can stunt long-term growth, because you're focusing only on the present moment and not making long-term investments. Growth in income and interest on that income are permanently foregone for the sake of being "debt-free".

Your immigrant parents, and my immigrant grandparents, despite all their good intentions, didn't know a whole lot about money. If they had, they wouldn't have paid their mortgages off ASAP. There is bad debt, and there is good debt. And right now, the United States government can borrow at record-low rates [[i.e. good debt) that can be used to improve infrastructure and create jobs. Instead, we keep laying off tax paying public servants and making things worse.

I just read that Taiwan has become debt free. Imagine all the ways people in Taiwan, or their elected government, can now advance themselves instead of paying interest to bankers.

Bully for Taiwan. Do they get a free toaster from their bank for being debt-free? What's the significance of this?

After WWII, the world was at our door buying our products to rebuild their own factories. That restored our economy. Your reference to WWII would work if we were in a similar situation; the last country standing with factories. The Eurozone has been militarily subsidized by US taxpayers and still has higher taxes than we do. The Eurozone is now having severe economic problems. If they want to print money to hide the problem for awhile, that is their right. By “principles of economics” you may be suggesting “belief in Keynesianism”. I don’t think they are compatible.

The fact is, for whatever reason, growth of the economy reduced the debt as a percentage of GDP. I don't think you're arguing this point. What we have to do, in order to deal with debt, is to grow the economy again--WHATEVER that may entail! Yes, it would be foolish to assume that conditions are identical to the post-WWII era. But I also believe that that American worker can manufacture the finest industrial products in the world--if given the opportunity to do so. And let's not even use labor costs and taxation as an excuse--we're still the number one manufacturing nation on earth, and Germany is not far behind.

I understand that, in the long-term, high amounts of debt are unfavorable. But we're still in the midst of recession economics. Even a casual glance at unemployment numbers and interest rates will tell you that.

Let's illustrate with an example. Let's say there is a student who just graduated from high school and is considering what to do with his life. It's assumed this student wants to put himself in the best economic position possible in the long run. What does he do?

Does he take out $100,000 in loans at a low interest rate and get a college degree, leading to a professional career?

Or does he conclude that DEBT = BAD, sit at home, and balance his checkbook?


The fact is, Romney hasn't proposed anything to improve the economy. He thinks we need to keep laying off teachers, firefighters, and police officers. He thinks we need to cut taxes on the wealthiest [[yet again). As if the results will be different this time. He's having a real Underpants Gnome problem, which looks like:

1. Cut taxes and spending
2. ????
3. Economic growth

[TKshreve]

Originally Posted by oladub
...RE: statistics.

Bush was a lousy president. As you pointed out, he raised the national debt by a large percentage. What will be more significant to our kids though, since they will foot the bill, is the amount of the bill they will be burdened with. Each $1T debt equals over $3,100 of debt per American. In 3.5 years, Obama has managed to rack up more absolute debt than Bush took 8 years to accumulate. Obama is on track, over eight years, to incur $11T of debt to Bush’s $5T of debt. Their economic ball and chain will be about 2/3 attributable to Obama and 1/3 to Bush.

I think you're missing his point. F&T is suggesting that Obama has not raised the debt as much as you would lead us to believe. Here is the pertinent part of his post, which should be the focus of your rebuttal.

But of the $3.56-tril..lion increase, 98% was carry over from Bush programs:

Bush: $910-billi..on = Interest on Debt 2009/2011
Bush: $360-billi..on = Iraq War Spending 2009/2011
Bush: $319-billi..on = TARP/Bailo..ut Balance from 2008 [[as of May 2010)
Bush: $419-billi..on = Bush Recession Caused Drop in taxes
Bush: $190-billi..on = Bush Medicare Drug Program 2009/2011
Bush: $211-billi..on = Bush Medicare Part-D 2009/2011
Bush: $771-billi..on = Bush Tax Cuts 2009/2011

And then you gloss over the beef of f&t's statistically supported post with this gem:

Regarding the rest of your statistics, if some of Obama’s expenses and reduced federal income and expenses are attributable to Bush then Obama had or has the choice to either shut down those programs or own them. He has chosen to own them.

His statistics suggest that bush is responsible for an overwhelming majority of the debt we have to date. The information also suggests that a good deal of the $$ spent was already earmarked by Bush admin, but implemented after Obama took office. Which of those items should Obama not "own"? Should he not pay interest on money borrowed by former administrations? How about an immediate blind pullout of Iraq altogether upon assuming office to avoid continued spending? Or cut medicare benefits to millions of seniors? Or unilaterally raising taxes to make up for lost revenue?

Which of those options should he not "own" and still expect to win another term? Oh.... I see, even though his hand was apparently forced on those particular issues of spending, you expect him to sit down at his desk upon inauguration and proceed to make extremely unpopular decisions in order to appease the right. It seems that is what you're implying.

I think this thread would provide better value if we stuck to the facts and disposed of the posturing and opinion.

Here's what I'm thinking:

Whose decision was it to spend what money? I don't care who was in office, and when? It all comes down to who decided it would be in the best interest of the county to spend X dollars on a particular liability/program. Which POTUS inked it?

And... Which items of spending have had the greatest impact, and which the least? Bailing out the auto industry, good idea. And we we're paid back. Secretly handing out [[tr)billions of dollars to the financial industry..... I kinda feel that was not done efficiently. But I need to understand that situation a little better.