Very very interesting observation here. The author suggests a Romney win would lead to more stimulus and a better recovery than an Obama win because, while both are likely to propose a stimulus, only Romney's will have a chance of passing (because the GOP in congress won't go along with Obama on anything). I find it hard to disagree with that.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/rom...omics.html

Quote:The real news in Mitt Romney’s interview with Mark Halperin, as Charles Pierce points out, is that Romney openly repudiated the central argument his party has been making against President Obama for the last three years: that he spent too much money and therefore deepened the economic crisis. Indeed Romney himself had been making this very case as recently as a week ago (“he bailed out the public sector, gave billions of dollars to the companies of his friends, and added almost as much debt as all the prior presidents combined. The consequence is that we are enduring the most tepid recovery in modern history.”) But in his Halperin interview, Romney frankly admits that reducing the budget deficit in the midst of an economic crisis would be a horrible idea:

Halperin: You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.

Of course! Romney says this as if it’s completely obvious that reducing the deficit in the short term would throw the economy back into recession, even though he and his party have been arguing the opposite case with hysterical fervor. Republicans have committed themselves to Austrian economic notions and other hoary doctrines justifying the position that reducing deficits is a helpful way out of a liquidity trap.

So you'll stop criticizing him now, right?

This does make me distrust Romney a little less.

(05-30-2012 01:54 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  This does make me distrust Romney a little less.

Sucker.

(05-30-2012 01:51 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  So you'll stop criticizing him now, right?

Not until November 7.

I think while he may be more successful at a Keynesian stimulus to spur growth, a Romney administration would repeal or just not enforce regulations and would sow the seeds for another crisis by letting the financial sector run rampant again, destroy our planet and screw consumers, cut taxes on the rich, and judging from his rhetoric he might start a few hot wars (Irana and Syria) and a new cold war with Russia. So no I haven't changed my vote.

Which I why I'm not a huge Romney fan. Then again, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so anybody but Obama.

(05-30-2012 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Which I why I'm not a huge Romney fan. Then again, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so anybody but Obama.

And then you will turn on Romney?

Remember the enemy of Hitler was Stalin who was our "friend".

Not surprised. Romney and Obama are two sides of the same coin. Both are going to be big Statists who deficit spend, fight more wars, increase the size of government, and generally lead us down the path of financial destruction. Nearly all politicians are keynesians because it allows them to increase their personal power at the expense of others wealth and freedom.

Quote:Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.

Wow, what a wet kiss. It's a shame he stopped right there.

But wait...he didn't!!! What a shock a liberal rag tried to make it seem he did.

The rest of the story.

Quote:What you do is you make adjustments on a basis that show, in the first year, actions that over time get you to a balanced budget. So I’m not saying I’m going to come up with ideas five or ten years from now that get us to a balanced budget. Instead I’m going to take action immediately by eliminating programs like Obamacare, which become more and more expensive down the road – by eliminating them, we get to a balanced budget. And I’d do it in a way that does not have a huge reduction in the first year, but instead has an increasing reduction as time goes on, and given the growth of the economy, you don’t have a reduction in the overall scale of the GDP. I don’t want to have us go into a recession in order to balance the budget. I’d like to have us have high rates of growth at the same time we bring down federal spending, on, if you will, a ramp that’s affordable, but that does not cause us to enter into a economic decline.

Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2012/05/23/the-c...z1wOeAaKkU

The word is "context." Seek to embrace it.

(05-30-2012 05:00 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Which I why I'm not a huge Romney fan. Then again, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so anybody but Obama.

And then you will turn on Romney?

Remember the enemy of Hitler was Stalin who was our "friend".

Romney is better than Obama. I'll take what I can get. And yes I'll probably criticize him about as strongly as I did Shrub. If you want to call that turning on him, I won't argue the point.

We have no good choices. At least none with a realistic chance to win

Romney deliberately mentioned a trillion, because that is Ron Paul's plan. $1T year one. Bam. REAL cuts.

What Romney fails to realize, or worse yet doesn't have the balls to say, is that money spent in the private sector is ALWAYS put to better and more efficient use than money spent in the public sector ... where it goes to bailout friends and give special benefits and buy votes.

And bizarrely, the OP could be right that Romney would be far more Keynesian than Obama would be, because the RINOs would gleefully roll along with big government "conservatism" like they did under Dubya. Really, the only argument for Romney what-so-ever is Supreme Court appointments ... and let's be honest, he's no automatic home run on that either.

Ron Paul 2012 until the bitter end ...... and then Gary Johnson 2012.

D's and R's don't differ in that one is Keynesian and the other is not. The top economic advisers to both are neo-Keynesians. That's why there's not a dimes worth of difference between them. It's also why our economy is working so well now.

(05-30-2012 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Which I why I'm not a huge Romney fan. Then again, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so anybody but Obama.

You are on record for Johnson. Remember.

(05-30-2012 05:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 05:00 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Which I why I'm not a huge Romney fan. Then again, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so anybody but Obama.

And then you will turn on Romney?

Remember the enemy of Hitler was Stalin who was our "friend".

Romney is better than Obama. I'll take what I can get. And yes I'll probably criticize him about as strongly as I did Shrub. If you want to call that turning on him, I won't argue the point.

We have no good choices. At least none with a realistic chance to win

Devil you know........

I will vote for Johnson. Texas won't be close enough for my vote to matter, so registering my protest is the best use of that vote.

But I will clearly prefer that Obama lose. I'd much rather take my chances with the devil I don't know than the one that I do.

(05-30-2012 10:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I will vote for Johnson. Texas won't be close enough for my vote to matter, so registering my protest is the best use of that vote.

But I will clearly prefer that Obama lose. I'd much rather take my chances with the devil I don't know than the one that I do.

Same for me. I'm in Florida, but right now it looks like we're go for Romney. Especially if Rubio gets picked as VP. Nearly every single person I encounter dislikes Obama in Florida. They're either going to vote for Romney as a vote against Obama or going to stay home. No one seems excited about Obama.

(05-31-2012 06:58 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 10:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I will vote for Johnson. Texas won't be close enough for my vote to matter, so registering my protest is the best use of that vote.

But I will clearly prefer that Obama lose. I'd much rather take my chances with the devil I don't know than the one that I do.

Same for me. I'm in Florida, but right now it looks like we're go for Romney. Especially if Rubio gets picked as VP. Nearly every single person I encounter dislikes Obama in Florida. They're either going to vote for Romney as a vote against Obama or going to stay home. No one seems excited about Obama.

Funny, I've noticed the exact opposite living in Florida. Weird how statements like that can differ greatly from person to person.

(05-31-2012 07:12 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 06:58 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 10:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I will vote for Johnson. Texas won't be close enough for my vote to matter, so registering my protest is the best use of that vote.

But I will clearly prefer that Obama lose. I'd much rather take my chances with the devil I don't know than the one that I do.

Same for me. I'm in Florida, but right now it looks like we're go for Romney. Especially if Rubio gets picked as VP. Nearly every single person I encounter dislikes Obama in Florida. They're either going to vote for Romney as a vote against Obama or going to stay home. No one seems excited about Obama.

Funny, I've noticed the exact opposite living in Florida. Weird how statements like that can differ greatly from person to person.

Probably has to do with regions of the states and kinds of people you know.

(05-30-2012 10:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I will vote for Johnson. Texas won't be close enough for my vote to matter, so registering my protest is the best use of that vote.

But I will clearly prefer that Obama lose. I'd much rather take my chances with the devil I don't know than the one that I do.

I'm in Ohio which I expect to be close............so I'll pull the lever for "not Obama" which is Romney. Hopefully, if more conservatives get elected to Congress, they can help push Romney in a more fiscally sane direction - with Obama, no chance.

If the tea party gets control, there will be nothing but abortion and gay marriage legislation. They can not be trusted.