Romney has no plan to fix the economy. He says if he wins it will boost itself. But he says he may b

Romney has no plan to fix the economy. He says if he wins it will boost itself. But he says he may be wrong and it will do the opposite.



So he runs on the idea he is a business man and knows how the economy works. But says he does not have to do anything because it will just boost itself. That sounds just like John McCain saying the economy was fundamentally sound as it was crashing in 2008.



So will people pick up on the similarities and will it have the same out come it did with McCain?

The text from the video.

They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening.

"We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy." The key part I see is "without actually doing anything". That means no plans to fix anything.

"Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected." This says he may be wrong and really knows nothing about what the economy will do.

Classic film plot line.

Mitt is supposed to take a dive in round 4 of the fight...

but he is taking dive in the first.

reply to post by JBA2848


That's because Big Business has more money in savings than ever before.

Businesses are afraid of Obama.

They are not going to hire or spend their money until he's gone.

They are afraid if they hire someone.

The business would have to pay for their Healthcare the rest of their lives.

reply to post by zroth


He knows he can make more money off donations if hes losing.
So he has to appear to be crashing for the most to come in.

reply to post by whyamIhere


Truthfully I think they are really waiting for Romney to do away with the minimum wage. That way they can cut the pay in half and hire two for the price of one. Healthcare has always been expensive. If you want to cut their cost talk about general liability and workmans comp.

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by whyamIhere

 

Truthfully I think they are really waiting for Romney to do away with the minimum wage. That way they can cut the pay in half and hire two for the price of one. Healthcare has always been expensive. If you want to cut their cost talk about general liability and workmans comp.

Also the want deregulation.

All these silly new laws are stifling business.

The economy will instantly improve when Romney is sworn in...

reply to post by whyamIhere


So your saying McCain was right and Romney thinks McCain was right. Under Bush in 2008 the economy was just fine. Go back to the good ole days where people can go bankrupt and the vulture capitalist can make a fortune. Funny how this video came from a vulture capitalist house on May 17th, Marc Leder en.wikipedia.org...

Marc Leder's house.

reply to post by JBA2848


That is a pretty overinflated ego. He thinks markets will come back for no other reason than he would be president.

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by zroth

 

He knows he can make more money off donations if hes losing.
So he has to appear to be crashing for the most to come in.

What good does pissing away a billion dollars do anyone? I don't understand.

Romney is fake competition.

Orgy fundraiser at Marc Leder's house.

www.nypost.com...

"The guy hopped in first in his briefs and the girl standing on the perimeter of the pool took her top off," a witness said. "The next thing you know, her bra is off. Then she took her bottom off and was butt-naked and jumped in the pool." Another attendee said, "They were in the pool swimming together. Then they started making out." Multiple witnesses say the naked pair continued their show outside the pool and performed sex acts on a chair in front of astonished guests.

Wow! What a fundraiser. $500,000 for the month mansion, Must be nice.

reply to post by JBA2848
I read this on Mother Jones the other day:

In case you're curious, here's CBO's take on President Obama's proposed budget. The light blue line is their "baseline projection" which assumes that all current laws stay in effect forever and the Bush tax cuts all expire at the end of the year. It shows the federal deficit nearly disappearing by 2017. The dashed line is their "alternative scenario," which assumes extensions of the Bush tax cuts and a few other things as well. It shows the federal deficit improving a bit, but then deteriorating to 6% of GDP by 2022.

The dark blue line is the Obama budget, and it's somewhere in between. But here's an important point that you can't see just from looking at the chart: Obama's budget reaches primary balance in 2018. This means that federal spending is in balance, and the only source of the deficit going forward is interest payments on the national debt. At that point, the debt-to-GDP ratio is stable. That's a big milestone.

The truth is that it's not really that hard to reach long-term balance. If we simply sit back and do nothing, the budget would basically be balanced by 2015. Even if we just allow the Bush tax cuts to expire — all the Bush tax cuts — it would be a huge step forward. Since the economy will probably still be a bit fragile by the end of the year, my preference would be to phase them out over the course of, say, three years. Combine that with spending cuts that Democrats and Republicans have mostly agreed to already and we'd be nearly the whole way there. All that's left then is reining in rising healthcare costs.

But then, that's really all that's ever been left. When it comes to the federal budget, it's all healthcare, baby. It always has been.

Disclaimer, however...the author of this article is declared by Mother Jones to be "a political blogger.' However, he links to CBO data, in this document.


Romney: My Magic Tax Plan Will Repeal Laws of Arithmetic is the other side of the story...

Mitt's economic plan that has been, at best, as featureless as a southern pole ice shelf, has been analyzed with a great deal of speculation due to the lack of details given. In an effort to be fair or at least, if heavy in one direction or the other, the speculation was purposely generous as far as details, even on a few that Mitt has hinted at differently.

Without all the opinion, basically:

He has promised to extend the Bush tax cuts and then reform the tax code in such a way as to hold revenue constant, lower tax rates by 20 percent, and close loopholes. This was a vague enough plan that Romney believed he could get by without making any of the ramifications clear, except the good stuff about cutting tax rates. But the Tax Policy Center ran the numbers and found that, even if you granted Romney a series of optimistic to wildly implausible assumptions, he would have to raise taxes on the middle class, by a lot. The rate cuts would lose so much revenue for the rich that there wouldn’t be enough to gain from reducing deductions.

So one thing Romney HAS said is that he would extend the Bush era tax cuts that, if allowed to expire as planned, would have a significant beneficial effect on the federal balance sheets.

TPC examined his promises — cutting rates by 20 percent, not raising taxes on investment income, and not reducing revenue below Bush tax cut levels — and found they could only add up if you raise effective tax rates on income under $250,000 a year.
(...)
Now Romney is saying he won’t raise taxes on any families earning less than a quarter million. But that just means his plan is completely mathematically impossible.

I guess it all depends on whether he does nothing or goes along with Plan A of the GOP:

The basic problem for Republicans is that their highest policy priority is to cut the effective tax rate paid by the richest 1 percent of Americans, but the vast majority of the voters don’t share that goal. Handling that problem is the single biggest challenge the Republican party faces.

Originally posted by JBA2848
The text from the video.

They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening.

"We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy." The key part I see is "without actually doing anything". That means no plans to fix anything.

"Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected." This says he may be wrong and really knows nothing about what the economy will do.

edit on 17-9-2012 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)

You show you have no clue how the economy works. Romney is 100% correct. Presidents do not create jobs, they do not create the economy. They can however stifle it, which is what Obama has done.

Romney wants to let the business world know it's ok to spend again. The rock foundation is solid again, you have 4 years of consistency.

The best thing a President can do for the economy is get out of the way. Want to know what spurred the housing collapse? Government interference.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by JBA2848

 

That is a pretty overinflated ego. He thinks markets will come back for no other reason than he would be president.

Corporations have a higher share of cash on their balance sheets than at any time in nearly half a century, as businesses build up buffers rather than invest in new plants or hiring.

online.wsj.com...
www.cnbc.com...
No, it's a fact. Obama creates an air of uncertainty. In uncertain times people and companies hoard cash. As soon as Obama is gone Romney can allay corporate fears and get the money moving. THAT will spur the economy most likely. As Romney said, there are no guarantees, only good plans and bad plans. His is a good one.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by JBA2848

 

That is a pretty overinflated ego. He thinks markets will come back for no other reason than he would be president.

Corporations have a higher share of cash on their balance sheets than at any time in nearly half a century, as businesses build up buffers rather than invest in new plants or hiring.

online.wsj.com...
www.cnbc.com...
No, it's a fact. Obama creates an air of uncertainty. In uncertain times people and companies hoard cash. As soon as Obama is gone Romney can allay corporate fears and get the money moving. THAT will spur the economy most likely. As Romney said, there are no guarantees, only good plans and bad plans. His is a good one.

Yep if Romney wins, suddenly companies will have millions of new customers because of nothing he did and then they will be certain they can hire people.

That is such a cool fantasy not even remotely based in any kind of reality.
I love coming here to read what I heard on Sean Hannity last week and Rush last month and Medved 4 days ago talking point talking point empty talking point.

reply to post by wascurious


Romney did not say it was magic nor did he say it would happen overnight. I love how you twist things and do not respong to hard facts and numbers.
FACT: Companies have record amounts of cash
FACT: They are not creating jobs.

Obama creates uncertain economic climates, remove the uncertainty and businesses will START the process of healing the economy. No faeries. No Magic. No instant gratification.

It will take time, but right now we are trending in the wrong direction. 384,000 people stopped looking for work last month. More obama business as usual.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


I just do not get you people. You people (REPUBLICANS) will try to defend anything that man says. You go so far as to say the plan he has is good. IT ISN'T A PLAN. He hasn’t said anything definitive that he will do. It is nothing but arrogance.

The one tax plan he put forth he quickly backtracked on because it was mathematically impossible and everyone called him out on it.

He is out of touch with over half of America for god’s sake he doesn’t even know who the middle class are.

His plans have lacked in substance and his campaign has only been about how bad Obama is.

Bain capital is an off limits subject for him. When the company was outsourcing he says he didn’t work there yet he was taped clearly talking about when he visited a factory in china they were outsourcing too.

His idea of spreading the American way is sending jobs to those factories. (One of his supporters claims that not me in another thread.)

He is using his business experience as part of his platform while his business practices are part of the problem with this country.

His Taxes are off limits subject for him. He didn’t even release all the tax records for those two years. He left out his overseas accounts. (He looks guilty because he will not release them and it is his own fault.)

He has flip-flopped on every issue. His credibility is shot.

His very own statements have been the most damning thing to his campaign.

Everything I just wrote I can put a source up for with Romney proving my point. I could probably list another 20 things.

I am middle class and an independent I have voted for republicans, democrats and of course independents.

Romney has not given me one good reason to vote for him.


(Your wall street journal source you listed I cannot read because you have to pay for it and I am not signing up for it.)

I could look past his arrogance the fact his statements have been insulting to the middle class hold my nose and vote for him if he had a plan that was feasible that would set this country strait.

I was pulling for a couple republicans during the primary but Romney is who they chose and he is probably the worst candidate I have seen in a very long time.
I have really questioned if the GOP intended to lose and wondered if their only real intention was to change the rules for their own benefit in the GOP. It is like Romney has been intentionally sabotaging himself.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Actually I am not a Republican. I grew up in a liberal, Democrat household, and have decided both parties are complete garbage. I hated Clinton, I did not like Bush, I thought Obama would be possibly the worst president of my lifetime and he has not dissapointed, I despised Kerry as well as McCain, Romney I have to admit I like.

I love how he is labelled a flip flopper who says what people want to hear, and then the same person will make a post about Romney saying unpopular things. Which is it?

I am sorry, but Romney is right. The best thing to do is create an environment where businesses feel safe enough to spend the money they are hoarding. I have posted time and again actual facts and numbers that support Obama is a clueless lame duck President.

Here's a question, how do you support Obama's desire to INDEFINITELY detain US citizens? The only blind one here is you.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Google the WSJ title and you can read it, works for a lot of publications that make you pay. I quoted it anyways I think.