Romney Argues Big Spending Cuts Would Cause 'Depression,' Contrary To Tea Party Activists

Romney Argues Big Spending Cuts Would Cause 'Depression,' Contrary To Tea Party Activists
(huffingtonpost.com)

Romney [...] said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."

He is saying exactly what the Democrats have been saying all along.

Romney's reasoning accepts the basic premise that government spending adds to GDP and leads to economic growth, at least during times when consumer spending and private-sector demand is down.

The economic assertion is supported by the post-recession job creation numbers. Under President Obama, government spending has grown at its slowest rate since the Eisenhower Administration, according to Politifact. Predictably, that has led to a slower recovery and -- ironically for a president who called for belt-tightening as a political response to the Tea Party -- political trouble for his reelection.

In fact, adjusting for inflation, Obama has actually cut spending by 0.1 percent, according to a Politifact analysis.

Obama has cut government spending and slowed government growth more than any of the recent Republican presidents for the last 40 years. When Bush left office, he handed Obama a multi-trillion dollar debt bomb, two unfunded trillion-dollar wars, and an economy in recession on the brink of a depression. Yet Republicans ignore all of that when accusing Obama of running up the debt.

Now we get Mitt, admitting to exactly what the Democrats have been saying. Recklessly slashing spending now would plunge us right back into the recession, maybe even into a depression. FDR realized that the only way to get out of the Great Depression was with government spending. The Japanese figured it out after their 10-yr long recession. Europe is realizing it's austerity plans have kept it locked in a recession. Had we spent the money we wasted invading countries based on lies in our infrastructure or advancing our sciences or rebuilding our industrial base, we would never have gotten here.

Before the knee-jerk reactions come flooding in saying "spending bad", YES, we have to cut spending BUT DO IT SMARTLY, and not the "tea party" version of cutting off the poor and middle class to continue rewarding the billionaires with more tax cuts.

Sadly though, with Mitt Romney, his favorite solution to fixing budget gaps in Mass. was not to raise taxes, but to impose higher service fees on everything, which imposes the greatest level of financial hardship on the working poor and middle classes.

The "Community Pundit" for the article says this:

As Governor Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including those for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses.

He increased a special gasoline retailer fee by two cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue.

(Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.)

Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years and over $300 million for his term. Romney did so in the face of conservative and corporate critics that considered them tax increases.

The LAST thing we need from a President Romney is increased fees. Raising taxes fairly or just requiring the wealthiest to pay their fair share is far less a hardship than fee hikes. And conservatives need to recognize that closing tax loopholes is NOT a tax hike.

Methinks Candidate Romney is starting to realize just what President Obama has been facing since inheriting the 2008 recession.

Romney the flip-floppin fake-righty!!

The jokes on the Tea-Partiers and CONservatives with this JOKER!! He is the SAME puppet as Obama, just MUCH worst when it comes to middle-class America.

If the tea-partiers and CONservatives had any brains, they would be voting for Ron Paul. With Romney you get a worst PUPPET than Obama.

Dummies!!

I think the point is moot.



As seen in the chart above, people started laying employees off when it looked as though Obama would win the presidency. People started saving instead of spending or investing their money.

When Romney gets elected, it'll turn around thus giving no excuse for a reduction in spending. People will invest, spend again.

Of course, this is only my opinion. If Romney doesn't reduce spending, then he'd be just as bad and as wrong as Obama.

Spending cuts, particularly in the military, wouldn't depress me any. Of course it's not my depression he's so concerned about, is it?

reply to post by beezzer

people started laying employees off when it looked as though Obama would win the presidency. People started saving instead of spending or investing their money

Puh-leeze. I seem to recall a little thing called the RECESSION and ECONOMIC COLLAPSE that happened just before Obama ever entered office that did all that. "People started laying employees off when it looked as though Obama would win the presidency" - one of the more idiotic things I've read on this site in a looong time.

The recession in America began in 2008 and is considered a GLOBAL recession. But it was really touched off by the 2007-2012 financial crisis. Both had NOTHING to do with Obama.

2008–2012 global recession
2007–2012 global financial crisis

What drove all those people out of work? What ended many companies? The 2008 recession.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer
You may consider my opinion idiotic, but the idiotic spending and idiotic policies and idiotic excuses provided by the administration and their followers is telling in of itself.

Obama has cut government spending and slowed government growth more than any of the recent Republican presidents for the last 40 years.

Bullcrap

Take a read:

www.politicalmathblog.com...

Hope someone can read they might be illiterate.

reply to post by neo96
Obama has been the poster child for Keynesian Economics for te past 4 years.

Any attempt to continue his failures would just hasten America's demise.

reply to post by beezzer


The credit downgrade,the stimulius, raising the debt celing 3 times spent the tarp money that was repaid and still managed to incur a massive debt and of course current cbo projections put the national debt at over 21 trillion by 2016 well over the initial 10 trillion when he took over.

Keynesian i would agree.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Had we spent the money we wasted invading countries based on lies in our infrastructure or advancing our sciences or rebuilding our industrial base, we would never have gotten here.

You've hit the nail exactly on the head, my friend. It's not that the government needs to cut spending, there needs to be a shift in spending.

reply to post by neo96


But the TARP money wasn't actually really repaid at all- they used more government money to pay the government back. Another Obama triumph ! A shell game. So the reality is actually even worse than it seems !

reply to post by beezzer


I am in no way defending Obama's record or saying he's a good choice (neither for Romney or any other candidate including RP), but I have two sentences in rebuttal:

1)Correlation is not causation.

2)Bear Sterns, Lehman Bros, AIG, TARP, housing bubble burst.

reply to post by seaside sky


TARP was Bush.

Second

BUSINESS March 17, 2011, 8:50 a.m. ET

Six banks repaid nearly half a billion dollars in funds they received from the government bailout of Wall Street, the Treasury Department said, bringing the total bank repayment under the Troubled Asset Relief Program to 99%.

online.wsj.com...

Spent by the Democrats blamed on Bush and apparently lost under Obama.

reply to post by N3k9Ni


Why, ten air craft carriers not enough? You can nuke and pave the planet 3 times over.

Military Idustrial Complex.... thats the problem.

Originally posted by neo96
BUSINESS March 17, 2011, 8:50 a.m. ET

Six banks repaid nearly half a billion dollars in funds they received from the government bailout of Wall Street, the Treasury Department said, bringing the total bank repayment under the Troubled Asset Relief Program to 99%.

online.wsj.com...

Spent by the Democrats blamed on Bush and apparently lost under Obama.

I don't understand your comment; yes, the congress was majority Dem upon TARP passing, but it was also signed and rallied for by Bush et al. Bush did not single-handedly pass TARP, but he did support it and made sure it became law. But your last comment about "lost under Obama" isn't supported by the quote you provide? That's confusing.

reply to post by 00nunya00


Tell me where that Tarp money is now that is what i meant by that.

Anyone know?

If so then that is money they can't tag Bush with and say "spent the most in 40 years".

reply to post by 00nunya00


Look, I'm no fan of Bush either. but Obama isn't any different. He supported TARP, added to it, defended it, and has tried to make a lot of political hay through smoke and mirrors. Just a few :

www.nakedcapitalism.com...

www.nakedcapitalism.com...

www.nakedcapitalism.com...

www.nakedcapitalism.com...

www.zerohedge.com...

www.zerohedge.com...

Again, I agree with your criticism of Bush absolutely, but the problem goes far beyond Republicans=bad, Democrats=good. They are both bad.

My point in making the post regarding TARP is that Obama has used the illusion of the TARP "success" in his bogus figures, and he has continued the same TARP and created his own TARP-style bank bailouts all along.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Obama has cut government spending and slowed government growth more than any of the recent Republican presidents for the last 40 years. When Bush left office, he handed Obama a multi-trillion dollar debt bomb, two unfunded trillion-dollar wars, and an economy in recession on the brink of a depression. Yet Republicans ignore all of that when accusing Obama of running up the debt.

People may disagree when they see the real figures from the White House.

U.S. Government Revenue/Spending Gaps
The 7-Eleven Big GULP !! ….. Wild Obama Binge Spending !!
Year ----- Receipts ------ Outlays ----- (Deficit) ----- Revenue/Spending Ratio

2006 ......2,406,869 .......2,655,050 ...(248,181)…………110.83%

2007 ......2,567,985 .......2,728,686 ...(160,701)…………106.23%

2008 ......2,523,991 .......2,982,544 ...(458,553)……..….118.25%

 

2009 ......2,104,989 .......3,517,677 ...(1,412,688)………167.62%

2010 ......2,162,724 .......3,456,213 ...(1,293,489)………160.19%

2011 ......2,173,700 .......3,818,819 ...(1,645,119)………176.04%

2012 ......2,627,449 .......3,728,686 ...(1,101,237)………141.83%

(numbers in millions)
(2011 and 2012 are “estimates”)

They have MAXED Out the credit limits !!
That's why it appears that Obama has somehow "cut spending" !!
Vote Obama !!!
Vote Thrift !!!

(see pages 23 & 24 in the pdf)
-->from the White House


[url=http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spending_chart_2002_2012USr_12s1li111mcn_F0f]Total Federal Spending

Originally posted by beezzer
I think the point is moot.

As seen in the chart above, people started laying employees off when it looked as though Obama would win the presidency. People started saving instead of spending or investing their money.

When Romney gets elected, it'll turn around thus giving no excuse for a reduction in spending. People will invest, spend again.

Of course, this is only my opinion. If Romney doesn't reduce spending, then he'd be just as bad and as wrong as Obama.

Everyone is just thinking ABO right now. Anybody But Obama

A capitalist will guide us out of this current economic stagnation.

I think Obama is already packing his bags.

He received 3 Pinocchios from the Washington Post this week.