It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
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.



Keynesian economics will never be tried again.

It all failed spectacularly.




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
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".


Ah, okay. I think they're both responsible, and both d-bags. They both spent it and lost it, hand in hand.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by seaside sky
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.



Yeah, totally agree with this. Both are the same thing, they're no different in the end. Look at Romney's comments now about not cutting spending very drastically so we don't recess again-----same frigging thing Dems have been saying for 4 years now, but not the solution.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


You mean a capitalist like Romney who now says we can't cut spending very much or we'll go into another depression? Yeah, how's that working for us?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00nunya00

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.


Yes, that is what happens sometimes when you have a POTUS with the opposite party controlling BOTH Houses of Congress. But people still want to blame Bush for everything that Congress did, including Barney Frank's notorious oversight of Fannie and Freddie.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


To be honest, this is Keynesian speak and Obama holds to it too, whether he likes it or not. Obama is principally a Marxist economically, but if he wants the world movers and shakers to back him, he has to ummm do what they want to some degree.
edit on 26-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by beezzer
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.



Keynesian economics will never be tried again.

It all failed spectacularly.


oh hahaha I posted without reading the other posts. Yep Keynesian for sure.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Exactly, like they're making Obama out to be the sole person responsible for our credit rating falling, when it was Congress dithering that was cited as the cause. I get that. Like I said in another post, they all led us off the cliff hand in hand, both sides, all positions.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Maybe you should read what he actually said, rather than the spin.


"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."

"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy,'

"Big spending cuts would be great," Mitchell said. "So Romney's rhetoric is worrisome. But if he is willing to restrain the growth of spending, so that it grows slower than the private sector, that would be a modest step in the right direction."


All Romney is saying is that you can't just all of a sudden cut all your spending, if you do it will cause a depression. Example. What happened when EVERYONE tried to withdraw all their money instantly from their bank account. Great Depression.

Romney wants to cut spending gradually to get down to the level we need to be at. Akin to people slowly taking their money out of their bank accounts over time rather than overnight.

Not at all what Democrats want, nor is he saying that Government spending is the way to increase GDP, he is saying it DOES have an impact, a very inefficient one though. So we need to gradually change to a more efficient use of the money. But hey why try to understand when you can just bash.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 




[color=limegreen]Maybe you should read what he actually said, rather than the spin.




"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."

"If you just cut, if all you're thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you'll slow down the economy,'

"Big spending cuts would be great," Mitchell said. "So Romney's rhetoric is worrisome. But if he is willing to restrain the growth of spending, so that it grows slower than the private sector, that would be a modest step in the right direction."






Good Point


I agree
















edit on May-27-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
It depends on what is cut. "Deep cuts" is pretty broad. "Deep cuts to military spending" is much less so. As is "deep cuts to giving money to oil companies". I really like those last two. Do you think either Obama or Romney are going to do that?

/TOA



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


I hate to say this, but in this case he's correct. Austerity measures are one of the top end enemies of economic growth. Of course he's just saying it to have a backdoor when he doesn't cut military spending and continues to subsidize his oil industry buddies...but still, economically his statement makes sense.

Keep in mind I HATE "corporations are people my friend" Romney, so it's not easy for me to admit when he's correct. I guess even a blind chicken finds a piece of corn once in a while


Btw, I wouldn't hold my breath. Of the last few presidents, the GOP ones were always responsible for the largest spending increases. In fact, the highest increase by a Democrat (Clinton) is still much lower (about half) of the smallest increase by a GOP president...and that includes Obama. Kinda ironic if you think about it given that the GOP always pretends to be the fiscally responsible party.

And no, measuring the deficit growth instead of real spending growth isn't correct given the deficit depends on many factors outside of the president's control.
edit on 27-5-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
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.



Spending under Obama increased the least of all the past 4-5 presidents



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
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.


How is running a deficit of over 40 percent a year mean we just need to shift spending? It does not matter how the money is spent it will still be a huge deficit. Are you really trying to suggest that the 800 billion a year spent on defense will turn into 1.4 trillion in tax revenue if spent to stimulate the economy?

You are aware of course that a large portion of that spending already does stimulate the economy by employing thousands of soldiers, and defense workers right. You are also aware that the average tax rate is right about 20 percent, so that means that 800 billion of spending needs to produce 7 trillion in new GDP to eliminate the deficit. So all you have to do is not only come up with a government stimulus plan that actually has a net gain in stimulus, you have to come up with one that is equivalent to turning sand into gold.

Back to the topic, Romney and anyone else that is arguing we have to spend our way out of this recession is either an idiot or a liar. Their is no way we can ever get out of this debt hole we are in without massive spending cuts, it is simply impossible to grow our way out. They are pretending that cuts can be avoided by continued borrowing but they can't because their is a limit on the amount you can borrow. Once you hit that limit you can run a deficit of zero.

I don't think Romney and all his advisors are idiots, they just know that the citizens cannot accept the truth, the government spending gravy train is ending and soon.



edit on 27-5-2012 by proximo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Not at all what Democrats want,


You're right, Dems wanted $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. "Gradual spending cuts" was not at all what Dems wanted, but it's EXACTLY what a BS politician will tell you is appropriate when they're being funded by the very corporations that GET those tax dollars the Dems wanted to cut.

Here we go with the Romney defenders; it doesn't matter how ludicrous or antithetical to conservative values it is, if the guy who isn't Obama says it, defend it at all costs, right? You will be the same ones to say "I never supported Romney" in 2 years just like you do with Bush.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 



All Romney is saying is that you can't just all of a sudden cut all your spending, if you do it will cause a depression. Example. What happened when EVERYONE tried to withdraw all their money instantly from their bank account. Great Depression.

Romney wants to cut spending gradually to get down to the level we need to be at. Akin to people slowly taking their money out of their bank accounts over time rather than overnight.

Not at all what Democrats want, nor is he saying that Government spending is the way to increase GDP, he is saying it DOES have an impact, a very inefficient one though. So we need to gradually change to a more efficient use of the money. But hey why try to understand when you can just bash.


First of all, spending under Obama has been lower than any other president in the last 40 years. Obama's term has resulted in the SMALLEST growth in government spending. He has slashed spending and shrunk the public sector/government.

What has been shown now is that with the economic collapse of 2008/9, the GDP has retreated, the tax base shrank, as did the private sector, all factors that occurred prior to his coming into office.





What Romney is advocating is PRECISELY the plan implemented by the Democrats and Obama, and yes it is working but it will TAKE TIME to gain momentum. The economy plunged off a cliff in 2009 and it had a lot of momentum heading towards the bottom. Reversing that momentum has been a herculean task. Most "tea party" Republicans just wanted to take the easy way out - cut off all funding for social programs that were designed as a safety net for those thrown out of work from the Great Recession.

The CBO makes it's projections of government spending based on it's obligations, and the CBO projections were much higher than Obama's actual spending.

What Obama (AND now Romney) are saying, is we can't just cut off government spending without plunging the economy back into a severe recession or even depression. Obama has shown he is weening spending down, and his growth rate is by far the lowest seen in decades, and Romney is basically saying he'll do the same.

Compared to his predecessor, Obama has been a scrooge.




FTR, government spending increases projected by the CBO take into account interest accumulation and all it's obligations as well as the increase in social spending due to the job losses from the recession.

It's at this point we should realize that tax breaks to corporate America for sending jobs overseas and job outsourcing is one of the driving factors in preventing restoring our job base.

IF Obama can keep up this pace then the tax revenue (with tax rates at their lowest levels in decades as well) will begin to surpass the spending and we'll be seeing a budget surplus, much as we had under Clinton, which can begin paying down the debt. If we go back to the Republican scheme, as under Bush, spending will far outstrip tax revenue and budget deficits will skyrocket.

Romney's comment shows he is far more Democrat than Republican.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Obama is the Last of the bigtime spenders (hopefully)


Year ----- Revenue ------ Spending ----- (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%


[color=cyan]The wild drunken binge spending started here:

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%


[color=cyan]Highest Spending in History !!

2009: money spent=$3.52 Trillion

2010: money spent=$3.46 Trillion

2011: money spent=$3.82 Trillion (est)

2012: money spent=$3.73 Trillion (est)



figures from The White House !!!!!!

(see pages 23 & 24 in the pdf)
[url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf]-->from the White House



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



Obama is the Last of the bigtime spenders (hopefully)


You keep parading this chart out but it doesn't prove your case at all. We all know spending increased in 2009 because mass ranks of workers lost their jobs and went on welfare/unemployment, the government also made several stimulus payments. In fact Bush did that too, more than Obama did. The safety net kicked in and blaming the increased spending on the safety net instead of the 30 years of BS 'trickle-down' theory wont bring back those jobs. Romney is admitting something that every economist knows, cutting government spending on stimulus and worker's aid only drastically prolongs a recession, or worse, creates a full-blown depression.

Fix the economy and restore jobs FIRST, get the tax revenues back where they need to be, THEN AND ONLY THEN start slashing spending.

Since 1980, the only two bigtime spenders we had in the whitehouse have been Reagan and Bush Jr. and both ballooned the deficit badly, and free trade made sure the jobs went away, maybe never to return.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by oxykerfluffle
reply to post by xuenchen
 



Obama is the Last of the bigtime spenders (hopefully)


You keep parading this chart out but it doesn't prove your case at all. We all know spending increased in 2009 because mass ranks of workers lost their jobs and went on welfare/unemployment, the government also made several stimulus payments. In fact Bush did that too, more than Obama did. The safety net kicked in and blaming the increased spending on the safety net instead of the 30 years of BS 'trickle-down' theory wont bring back those jobs. Romney is admitting something that every economist knows, cutting government spending on stimulus and worker's aid only drastically prolongs a recession, or worse, creates a full-blown depression.

Fix the economy and restore jobs FIRST, get the tax revenues back where they need to be, THEN AND ONLY THEN start slashing spending.

Since 1980, the only two bigtime spenders we had in the whitehouse have been Reagan and Bush Jr. and both ballooned the deficit badly, and free trade made sure the jobs went away, maybe never to return.





We all know spending increased in 2009 because mass ranks of workers lost their jobs and went on welfare/unemployment
How much exactly did all that amount to ?
Was it more than the increased spending by Obama ?
 



In your humble opinion,

What was the reason for the massive Increase in spending under Obama ??

Especially the 2011 and 2012 numbers.

Look up the figures and post some supporting information like real numbers.

Obama has out spent Eisenhower by 6 times over (inflation adjusted dollars) !!!!!

Obama has outspent Reagan almost 2-fold (inflation adjusted dollars) !!!!!



(see pages 23 & 24 in the pdf)
[url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf]-->from the White House



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by oxykerfluffle
 


But you see, by the math we're screwed either way. At this rate of "progress" we're talking about 10, maybe 20 years to get back to "optimal levels of tax revenues" and by then we've racked up how many tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars in debt? If we're running at a 1.5 trillion deficit for 10 years.....I can't even do that kind of compounded-interest math (because it's not just 1.5Tx10, it's all the borrowing to pay the interest). It's insane. If we slash spending to current tax levels now, we go into a depression now. If we rack up debt until tax levels are pre-2008 collapse, we go into a depression later. There's no saving us at this point; if we don't cut spending to a level our taxes can support NOW, or switch to a sovereign [non-Fed] dollar (in the case of the US), we will all, inevitably, default. Period.
edit on 27-5-2012 by 00nunya00 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join