400 Independent Economists Support Romney's Plan

400 Independent Economists Support Romney's Plan

Well this must confirm enough support for Romney !!

400 economists is not small potatoes.

Even Five Nobel laureates are among the group.

Over 400 independent economists signed a statement at the website Economists for Romney in support of what they call the Republican presidential candidate's "bold economic plan for America."

Five Nobel laureates (Gary Becker, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Myron Scholes) signed the statement which, in part, reads, “We enthusiastically endorse Governor Mitt Romney’s economic plan to create jobs and restore economic growth while returning America to its tradition of economic freedom.”

The economists also denounced Obama's economic ideas, claiming they led to an "an anemic economic recovery and high unemployment." They further assert, "his future plans are to double down on the failed policies, which will only prolong slow growth and high unemployment."............

Romney Points:

These economists note that Romney would:

• Reduce marginal tax rates on business and wage incomes and broaden the tax base to increase investment, jobs, and living standards.
  
  
• End the exploding federal debt by controlling the growth of spending so federal spending does not exceed 20 percent of the economy.
  
  
• Restructure regulation to end “too big to fail,” improve credit availability to entrepreneurs and small businesses, and increase regulatory accountability, and ensure that all regulations pass rigorous benefit-cost tests.
  
  
• Improve our Social Security and Medicare programs by reducing their growth to sustainable levels, ensuring their viability over the long term, and protecting those in or near retirement.
  
  
• Reform our healthcare system to harness market forces and thereby reduce costs and increase quality, empowering patients and doctors, rather than the federal bureaucracy.
  
  
• Promote energy policies that increase domestic production, enlarge the use of all western hemisphere resources, encourage the use of new technologies, end wasteful subsidies, and rely more on market forces and less on government planners.
  

Obama Points:

The economists note that Obama has:

• Relied on short-term “stimulus” programs, which provided little sustainable lift to the economy, and enacted and proposed significant tax increases for all Americans.
  
  
• Offered no plan to reduce federal spending and stop the growth of the debt-to-GDP ratio.
  
  
• Failed to propose Social Security reform and offered a Medicare proposal that relies on a panel of bureaucrats to set prices, quantities, and qualities of healthcare services.
  
  
• Favored a large expansion of economic regulation across many sectors, with little regard for proper cost-benefit analysis and with a disturbing degree of favoritism toward special interests.
  
  
• Enacted health care legislation that centralizes health care decisions and increases the power of the federal bureaucracy to impose one-size-fits-all solutions on patients and doctors, and creates greater incentives for waste.
  
  
• Favored expansion of one-size-fits-all federal rulemaking, with an erosion of the ability of state and local governments to make decisions appropriate for their particular circumstances.
  

400 Independent Economists Support Romney's Plan

It appears that Obama is a failure plain and simple

What's in YOUR Wallet ?

reply to post by xuenchen


There really is something deeply wrong with governments borrowing money, to be spend today, to be later paid off by future generations.

If Romney or Obama really wanted to do something useful, they would introduce a law into the constitution in which the government is not allowed to spend more than it raises in tax and revenues except in times of national emergency.

reply to post by ollncasino


Yep !!

The national debt is now at $15.97 Trillion !!

Time Bomb !

reply to post by ollncasino


But the communists want to destroy america, ask Buster.

Originally posted by xuenchen
Yep !!

The national debt is now at $15.97 Trillion !!

Time Bomb !

Debt is what finished off the British empire.

Interest payments on debt were so high, relatively little was left to actually spend on defense and other government expenditure.

Some of these 400 economist wouldn't be the same economist who sit on TV and tell us everything is fine would they? Or the same economist who never saw the Housing Crisis coming?

Yeah, I'm sure they are all on point

reply to post by xuenchen


Dear xuenchen,

Thanks I needed a good laugh. Did you pay 13% in income tax last year, anyone that made over a hundred paid 35%; but, not if you got your money from your mommy and daddy and put it in stock. Oddly enough that gets charged less and it is no different than gambling which pays a higher tax rate.

Go to his website and tell me how many jobs he will create in the United States for us and what his plan is. There is none. Don't get me wrong, Obama is just as useless. Romney just flat out told us that he doesn't represent the poor or labor class, he also said that the Republicans only cared about people that wanted to be rich. I thought hard work and loyalty were what we cherished as morals.

You know, I have problem, you failed to mention how much these economists make, the 400 as opposed to the tens of thousands of economists in the world and who pays them. 400 people on Godlike Productions spoke to me because I am a salami sandwich. The truth is not determined by who agrees with you, especially in a world of sell outs, what is the proof, who benefits and is it fair? Was LIBOR fair?

Another 400 delusional people then IMHO.

Given the fact that almost everything that can be brought up against Mitt Romney so far has to do with the fact he *CAN* make money and a lot of it, this sounds quite reasonable and I'll have to spend some time reading more about his ideas for specifics....

It certainly is true that we've seen...well, most of us have been around to see...a few different systems now. Reagan went a bit far to the Trickle stuff..but didn't do too bad for having been handed a catastrophe of an economy after Mr. Peanut.

Daddy Bush got a hard lesson out the door for taxes and American's attitudes about being lied to, right to our faces.

Clinton ..all things considered and even coming from me... just has to honestly be described as an effective and successful president. He DID bring surplus to the budget for annual numbers. NOT National Debt, but annual deficit, and I doubt we'll ever see it again.

Then 9/11 came and we got to see 8 years of War Economy with almost no Presidential focus ahead of the curve for anything that didn't go bang, look sexy in a public demo or kill things. Well, I'm feeling just a little screwed from that system, I don't know about anyone else.

Now....Almost 4 years of a Capitalist....Socialist....Communist....Something or other with Obama's own special sauce of personal philosophy thrown-inism.........and I'm left with nothing BUT hope for change.

Let's see what a Mormon that even Ted Kennedy allowed to be the Governor of His state has in mind.

reply to post by MrWendal


You obviously don't read any real news. Turn off your t.v.and MSNBC, get some facts. Informed people have seen this mess coming for a long time, even before the 2008 debacle.

400 GOP fanboys and Koch associates

Yayyyyyyyy lets spend more on military, just what we need!

Top Romney Aide Can’t Explain How Romney Will Pay For His Plan To Increase Military Spending

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Not that I'm 100% pro-republican, I'm not, but I am 100% anti-democratic party, but Clinton's presidency went well because he won due to Perot running and splitting the Rep vote, and he also ushered in the first Rep House and Senate and could not pass any of his communist proposals - like Hillary Care.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Do you know anything about George Soros? Do you know he just cashed in all of his billions on financial stock assets and bought physical gold?

Our financial system is just about to crash. Can you comment on George Soro's affiliations?

At least the Koch Brothers make toilet paper.

reply to post by RealSpoke


You do realize that the people that are going to be hurt worse are the welfare people and the working poor when the dollar fails?

What's going to happen when, in the inner-city, the welfare and debit cards for food stamps aren't filled, and the truckers delivering food aren't going to be working?

reply to post by RealSpoke


People like you make George Soros laugh with glee.

Could someone please show me the 400 economists that endorse Obama's fiscal plan for America.

Waiting.

reply to post by Happy1

I've added a link to my thread with the stats on the Presidents to my signature which helps in this specific case because I really disagree on Clinton. At worst, he did no harm...and things improved only a little over 8 years. In the better categories, he did quite well and GDP is certainly one example.

As much as it would make me happy to say Clinton was a crappy President, it just isn't true in economics or in the standards I learned they use to set the 'ratings' on such things. He was vane, personally corrupt and morally repugnant...but then, show me someone who reached the level of President in the last several decades who wasn't, outside Eisenhower. The war hero status of a 5 Star General got him that one. lol

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Given the fact that almost everything that can be brought up against Mitt Romney so far has to do with the fact he *CAN* make money and a lot of it

Why not just elect billionaires every election then? Using that sound logic of yours.

reply to post by bl4ke360

Most of the Presidents have been...actually...and it doesn't piss me off if someone else is rich, as long as I'm not poor to make that happen. Economically.. Well... Heck.. The rich Presidents happen to have had the better terms, as it just so happens.

Don't blame me... It just worked out that way... lol.. Obama came from grinding poverty though and his rock-star approach to the office with wild costume parties, beer bashes and all this other nonsense when the nation is going through it's hardest times in a century, shows it.

Honestly, I really don't want to see another poor man in the White House again. Seeing the near Hero worship and deference Obama has shown other leaders is deeply embarrassing. I don't expect other leaders to show that to our President, but never has a President not stood as a proud equal to any other leader.

So.. to answer your question and make all kinds of enemies for saying it... Yup. I do want a President too rich to be influenced or bought with the sums any single groups could muster to tempt it.

Originally posted by beezzer
Could someone please show me the 400 economists that endorse Obama's fiscal plan for America.

Waiting.

Can't find the links right now.

But some of the https end with

.cn

.sa

.kp

.il