It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Economist Endorses President Obama

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 06:31 PM

America could do better than Barack Obama; sadly, Mitt Romney does not fit the bill

I thought I'd feed the political fishbowl with this new article by The Economist. Now, this publication hasn't always been very fond of President Obama, so I was a little shocked to see this endorsement.

Here are some bits from the article:

Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further). At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises. Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more.

A little bit more:

As a result, this election offers American voters an unedifying choice. Many of The Economist’s readers, especially those who run businesses in America, may well conclude that nothing could be worse than another four years of Mr Obama. We beg to differ. For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don’t believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.

The Economist

Overall this article dovetails quite nicely with the other topic that I started here:
No Mr. Romney, Rich People Do Not Create Jobs

That discussion had it's ups and downs, but I felt very good as it petered out that many people were actually researching and digging into the core issues instead of the frontman.

It would seem that if the economy is your #1 election issue, voting for Obama is the lesser of two evils.

I'd like to hear ATS's thoughts on this well-respected publications recent announcment.
edit on 1-11-2012 by MystikMushroom because: Added more content

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:57 PM
I have to say that article pretty much says what I have been thinking.

Good find OP S&F and you say the source hasn’t been very supportive of Obama in the past.

You do know the ABO crowd will be here anytime now trying to discredit this.

edit on 1-11-2012 by Grimpachi because: Punctuation

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:54 AM
It looks like this one is going un-noticed.

I'm not surprised the Republican/GOP supporters aren't responding, but the Pro-Obama crowd should at least be picking up on this.

The Economist has often been very critical of Obama -- and the source article mentions and points this out. The very fact that they are endorsing Obama over Romney is quite telling.

"The Economist" for those that apparently haven't heard of it:

Mission statement:

On the contents page of each newsmagazine, The Economist's mission statement is written in italics. It states that The Economist was 'First published in September 1843 to take part in "a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress".

The Economist is an English-language weekly news and international affairs publication owned by The Economist Newspaper Ltd. and edited in offices in London. Continuous publication began under founder James Wilson in September 1843.


This is a very respected publication.

It has long been respected as "one of the most competent and subtle Western periodicals on public affairs."


Like I said, this will probably become buried because the actual article isn't full of gossip, speculation, bias, rumor and slander.

Well, at least I tried to contribute.
edit on 2-11-2012 by MystikMushroom because: Citation

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:04 AM
I'll add some more of the original article for those to lazy to click on the article link:

Indeed, the extremism of his party is Mr Romney’s greatest handicap. The Democrats have their implacable fringe too: look at the teachers’ unions. But the Republicans have become a party of Torquemadas, forcing representatives to sign pledges never to raise taxes, to dump the chairman of the Federal Reserve and to embrace an ever more Southern-fried approach to social policy. Under President Romney, new conservative Supreme Court justices would try to overturn Roe v Wade, returning abortion policy to the states. The rights of immigrants (who have hardly had a good deal under Mr Obama) and gays (who have) would also come under threat. This newspaper yearns for the more tolerant conservatism of Ronald Reagan, where “small government” meant keeping the state out of people’s bedrooms as well as out of their businesses. Mr Romney shows no sign of wanting to revive it.

Sometimes it's nice to get an outside perspective from highly educated people that don't have their pockets in either party.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:15 AM
reply to post by MystikMushroom

The Economist is basing their endorsement on what Obama is saying he'll do, not on what he has done.

And on the lighter side, Obama has invited the Economists's editorial panel to DC to help in their endorsement.
(pic here)

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:24 AM
reply to post by beezzer

Haha, good one!

Did you actually read the entire article? They broke down what Obama has done, and compared what Romney and Obama claim they will do.

They'd rather go with, (their line, not mine) -- "The Devil we know".

With Romney flip-flopping so much, it's hard for anyone objectively to say what Romney will do. Who knows which Romney we'll see 2 months after he's elected. Who knows which Romney we'll see tomorrow for that matter. That has plagued his campaign from the beginning.

Romney simply cannot define himself.

Star for getting involved in the discussion!

edit on 2-11-2012 by MystikMushroom because: spelling

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:29 AM
reply to post by MystikMushroom

Yes I did read the article, what confused me is what Obama has done has done has been keynesian economics. What he said he will do is the direct opposite (except for raising taxes).

Obama said, taxes will not go up one dime for people making under 250K year. This flys in the face of everything that has followed (re:Obamacare (ACA) and the current tax issues we are facing.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:53 AM
Pretty much agree with the entire article, and I think the economy has improved albeit slowly but it has gotten better.

In 4 years Obama is not going to fix everything, not when he has an obstructionist party to fight.

Also as the election gets closer Obama's position in the polls and in swing states seems to be getting stronger and stronger.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:33 AM
reply to post by MystikMushroom

Hey, the Economist is just the house organ of the US Communist party, so how can you believe anything it says? If it ain't printed in the Washing Times or the NY Post, it ain't true.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:46 AM

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by MystikMushroom

Yes I did read the article, what confused me is what Obama has done has done has been keynesian economics. What he said he will do is the direct opposite (except for raising taxes).

Obama said, taxes will not go up one dime for people making under 250K year. This flys in the face of everything that has followed (re:Obamacare (ACA) and the current tax issues we are facing.

When did Obama ever say he wouldn't apply Keynesian policies? What do you think a stimulus is?

As for his "taxes won't got up on people making under $250k", he's talking about income tax. What don't you get about that?

You just twist facts, prevaricate, obfuscate and re-direct. That's your entire tool kit, as you don't have the facts on your side.

The Economist, a fairly well-regarded and fairly establishment magazine has endorsed Obama over your charlatan and fraud, Romney. Romney has refused to say in specifics what his economic plan would be and he has flip-flopped time and time again on what he would do. Up until this week he was for doing away with FEMA; now he is all for FEMA. There's no knowing what he's for or what he'll do. That reason enough not to vote for him.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:24 PM
How about use common sense and don't vote for either one.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:43 PM
If Romney increased defense spending by getting more people to enlist, that would lessen the unemployment problems we have but build government. Having a strong military is important, but by purchasing high tech equipment at super high costs it does nothing to lower the unemployment rate.

Obama should have redone the CETA program instead of constantly renewing unemployment benefits. This would have given people a sense of worth and they would try to better themselves instead of just collecting a check. That was not a good thing to do. People need to work, energy needs to be busy. If you are working, you are not spending money either.

The WPA was created back in the last depression and it served it's purpose. Why can't proven things be used anymore, is it because people think they are better than our ancestors? We are not better, we are the same. Sure there were crazy people back then but there are crazy people today. We need to understand that we are not more intelligent as a society than the society of fifty years ago. We are more knowledgeable but not more intelligent.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:52 PM

Not a Christian!

I wish that was true.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:55 PM
reply to post by MrInquisitive

Thank you for your reply!

I agree, Romney hasn't presented anything that will actually improve the lives of people like myself that gross less than 60k a year.

It seems that we've seen many "versions" of Romney -- can anyone be absolutely sure which version they are going to get?

Look, if a typically anti-Obama and pro-Fortune 500 company media outlet is this honest, how can there be any debate for the future of this country?

12 million jobs will be created in the next term regardless of who is president.

First of all, 12 million is not impressive. Really. That’s because between 9 million and 12 million jobs are going to be created anyway. No matter what. Even considering the so-called fiscal cliff. Those estimates are according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, Moody’s Analytics and Macroeconomic Advisors. So Romney’s promise is empty—zero more jobs than expected.

In The Times

Politics at it's core is about economics. I like Obama's take on economics more than Romney's. Rich people do not create jobs, plain and simple. I have, as well as other forum members, proven and shown that in my other discussion topic (linked in the OP).

I have never voted for a Democrat before in my life. Today, however, I'm seriously considering.

new topics

top topics


log in