http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-campaign-idUSBRE87P01H20120831
For as long as I can remember every politician, every campaign, both sides of the aisle has promised they know how to create jobs! jobs! jobs!
I’ve become thoroughly convinced that not a one of them have a single clue as how to do it.
Some economists do. But not enough pols will listen to them.
Yeah…But, I think Mitt’s claim is still probably unique in the extent to which it is based on utter ideological fantasy, devoid of even a marginal connection to the science of economics and the reality of the economic circumstances.
Good!
I wouldn’t follow Paul Krugman through the front door of my own fucking house!!!
doesnt really mater if Im disillusioned with Obama (Im not since I understood exactly what he was when I voted for him or rather voted against Mccain/idiot pantslady). Romney and the Republican party that would in large part control him are so much worse that I have to vote for Obama again. So so so much worse.
You want to reform the political system so we can get someone up there that represents what most Americans want and I’ll even join the effort and canvass for them. Until then all these attacks on Obama are pretty much besides the point coming from a candidate and party who want nothing more than to sell us out to multinational corporations and create a wealth aristocracy of family inheritances.
Obama is in money’s pockets too. Just not as badly and by the moneyed interests who believe that an economic contract between the domestic populations and themselves needs to be slightly more civil to keep their necks off the block.
But President Obama and his Keynesian policies have failed to get the economy back on track.
The unemployment rate is over 8% and economic growth is slow at 1.5%. The CBO says there could be a recession early next year.
Doesn’t change the fact that Romney would be much worse.
Romney would be different. Not worse.
What Keynesian policies? The stimulus including the biggest tax cut ever was a far cry from what was needed to fill the slowdown gap. Look up Paul Krugman. What we got was Keynes-lite, and it wasn’t enough.
Says who? Gray’s Sports Almanac? Show me how you know this. We’ll meet at the track. ANY track. Your insight of the future intrigues me and has potential!!!
What, exactly, is Obama going to do in the next 4 years that will make the last 4 years convince me that the next 4 years will be better under him?
The only way the Republican philosophy on economics works is if you replace the world markets with a tic tac toe grid and they get to take two consecutive turns in every contest. (That is how they would like it to work for them and their super-wealthy entrenched families vs everyone else of course, and does to a large extent already.)
(I’ll give you points for a sweet BTTF ref of course)
The federal government has been running budget deficits of over $1 trillion for past 3 fiscal years probably another trillion dollar deficit in FY 2013.
Is this not Keynesian-ism?
For good or ill, we have a consumer economy. We are our own best customers. If the consumer does not have money, we have no economy. If you have to borrow money to hire people so they have money, you do it. Because if you have no economy, you couldn’t pay down the deficit if it were a dollar.
Exactly.
And we’re gonna have to fix shit anyway, right? The materials we have to buy to fix shit aren’t going to get cheaper. If we have some recovery, those materials will become more costly. And the people we need to hire will have other jobs. At least, we hope so, yes? Which means that hiring them will be more expensive.
This way our skilled workers keep their skills up to date, keep their tools from rusting. Make and spend money. Projects end, they have an economy to got back to, and find work.
A gamble? Sure. But if the bet is five dollars, and the odds two to one against, its not good. Unless the payoff is five hundred dollars. Then, if you don’t bet against the odds, you are an idiot.
That is why we need more tax cuts which is what Romney is proposing. Consumers will have more money spend which will get the economy moving. A healthy and growing economy will produce more government revenue which will reduce the deficit.
It’s funny… you wrote “consumers” but every time I read it, I hear “rich folks”.
When you give tax breaks to rich folks, they spend money on yachts, golf courses, wine cellars, and art collectibles.
When you give tax breaks to poor folks, they buy groceries, gasoline, medications, and pay rents.
Guess which class of spending actually benefits the economy? (Hint: how many yacht repairmen do you know?)
I think you should get your terminology straight. A tax cut that increases government revenues is an oxymoron by definition. Think about it.
Ok now that you thought about it, let me inform you that a big drop in government tax rates tends to cause inflation, something that a yuppie on a salary like me can afford because i can negotiate raises. Old folks on fixed pensions and retirement funds arent so lucky.