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.


Nobel Winner Stiglitz Sees More Recession Odds in Romney

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 06:53 PM
Intereresting insight into the Presidential race
at bloomberg
“The Romney plan is going to slow down the economy, worsen the jobs deficit and significantly increase the likelihood of a recession,” said Stiglitz, who served as chairman of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1995 to 1997.
In contrast, President Barack Obama “recognizes the need to stimulate the economy,” Stiglitz said.

Being that the source is faily reputable I thought this might be an interesting topic,
sorry if i mucked things up it's my first thread
I know he's from the other camp so he's comments have to be taken with a grain of salt
but interesting all the same.
edit on 4-6-2012 by wondera because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:37 PM
ordering people to make you money because you hold their paycheck in your hands doesn't make you an expert on the economy like romney likes to claim he is.

just like hiring someone to lay bricks for you doesn't make you a master mason.

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:48 PM
there's a reason the call it "trickle down"

if tax breaks for the rich worked, it would be called "cascading down"

romney would be a disaster

and of course, the republican talking heads would claim congress would be to blame, as they are all powerful and a president is powerless vs congress

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 12:18 AM
Someone who served as chairman of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers couldn't POSSIBLY be spinning a political message, could he?

Larry Summers who served on Obama's Council of Economic Advisers thinks that government spending fixes the debt problem?!?! Serving on a President's council in no way means you know what you're talking about, especially when it comes to PhDs.

Obama is about to continue his stubborn and boisterous march to an economic cliff.

Obama Attacks and Distracts as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to

...January of 2013, when "taxmageddon" arrives, as former Treasury Secretary John Snow calls it. That's when the 2003 tax law expires, and payroll taxes will go back up. President Obama wants to raise taxes on every taxpayer, increase the highest federal income tax rate by 20 percent, double the capital gains tax rate, triple the tax on dividends, and add a new tax on capital earnings. He's also proposing the Buffett Rule, which would raise the income tax rate on millionaires to no less than 30 percent. Add to that scheduled budget cuts in domestic spending and you've got what the Washington Post calls a "New Year's budget bomb." Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says it's a "fiscal cliff." The great hope in Washington is that the lame-duck Congress will negotiate a new budget deal in time to avert disaster.

The president has done nothing to head us away from the cliff.

There you have it from the Idiot-in-Chief.

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 01:56 AM
When it comes to a pure austerity, GDP tends to crash and burn
Gradual cuts, better management, and both sides of politics willing
to negoiate the in the house and senate are the only way to get
cohesive government, and thus greater confidace markets. knock
down drag'em out winner takes all will never get good results.
but unity and not degrading govenance to hores **it politics will
yeild better results, the lack of confidance people have in politicans is
well diserved.

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 12:15 PM
Both Romney and Obama are going to push the economy further down the slope than it already is if they get in. Obama is already planning a bailout for JP Morgan's derivatives game which will cost the taxpayers somewhere around $20 billion or more, and Romney will do no different, and how else are they going to get the money to do it if they don't raise taxes? They can't take any more loans because then that would ultimately drop the US credit rating even further and would cause a collapse on its own, so it will fall squarely on the shoulders of the American taxpayers... unless the "too big to fail" JP Morgan is finally allowed to fail (which is what only Ron Paul would allow). How can the public possibly see any positive outcome in all of this? And furthermore, the only candidate who would provide a level-headed solution is looked at as some kind of nut for even suggesting it. In my opinion "too big to fail" completely undermines a true capitalist system because in essence it stifles competition. If you are making high stakes risks assuming that other people are going to bail you out of your mess, you DESERVE to fail, and you deserve to face the consequences yourself, no bailout, no consolation prize. Greed is not a virtue, and should not be rewarded. Ron Paul knows this, and that's why he wants to put a stranglehold on the FED before they do even more damage to an already hurting economy.

top topics

log in