Don't get me wrong: Obama has been a great president. During most of the 2009-2012 period, the economy was in the toilet and the president aggressively raised spending and lowered taxes in order to get demand flowing again. This strategy has been largely successful. We would be much deeper in the hole today if not for all the stimulus. However, this also had the unfortunate effect of skyrocketing the deficit. US government debt as a percentage of GDP has risen more during Obama's presidency so far than it did during the full eight years of Bush. The debt is currently a staggering 102% of annual GDP and rising. During the 2013-2016 period, we can expect a much-improved economy as we continue to recover. Government stimulus will not be so crucial anymore. So, will Obama change course, focusing on the debt crisis instead of the recession crisis during his second term? If the last State of the Union Address is any indication, the answer is no. In that speech, Obama did not put forward any large or aggressive deficit reduction program, mostly ignoring the debt issue. In contrast, the debt seems to be all Mitt Romney ever talks about. Mitt Romney would have been a terrible president from 2009-2012, but he's exactly what we need from 2013-2016. Sure he's hopelessly wrong on a host of other issues, but the debt is more important than anything else right now.
if someone would be a terrible president, why would you want him or her in office? to focus on the debt? such a person would mishandle the work.
Please provide proof for the bolded statement. Surely you wouldn't state it as fact without proof. I fully agree with the other statement.
In their desperation to defend Obama's record, they escape to an alternate reality where McCain won in 2008. They bring back the record of his Presidency to our dimension, and compare it with Obama's. It's with this evidence that they make such claims as the one bolded above.
If you think massive debt spending, expansion of the police state, assassinating American citzens without due process, starting multiple military conflicts, murdering innocent children in Pakistan, repetitively violating the Constitution, and raping the free market amounts to being a "good President", then I would agree with you. Keynesian economics always boosts economic growth now at the expense of growth later. We haven't paid for it yet, and put off our economic problems for a later date. So your analysis is flawed. Government spending doesn't create wealth, it simply transfers it. Keynesian economics was adapted by governments all over the world because it legitimizes and justifies the reckless action of endless wasteful big government spending. The only thing that can be successful is real, permanent economic growth: ie. the free market. Baseless claim. Romney wants to cap government spending at 20% of GDP. Let's assume for the sake of argument that he is actually serious about implementing this type of plan, and not just lying to get votes. And let's also assume that the big government Tea Party and Liberal Congress actually vote to implement a plan to reduce the rate of growth of government. GDP is projected to be $19261.1 by 2016. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals Table 1.12) That means that under Romney's plan, government spending will be at $3.85 trillion by 2016. Compared that to Obama's current level of $3.6 trillion. Romney is promising to increase spending from current Obama levels by the end of his term. By voting for either of the two, you're voting to increase government spending. At least Obama is honest about the fact that he wants to increase government spending. Romney is deceitful in that he tries to hide the fact that he intends to increase spending from current Obama levels. A balanced budget is certainly not going to happen under a Romney presidency.
He has a history of handling his work pretty well. Successful businessmen are, at the very least, not morons. Though they are sometimes Mormons. Sure. (If that wasn't clear, I was referring to the recession, not the debt.) He signed some massive debt spending, but it was worth it. I only heard of one case of killing a US citizen (the citizen in question had strong ties to Al-Qaeda). How did he ramp up the police state? He sent more troops to Afghanistan, he expanded drone operations, and he's adding US bombs to NATO's Libyan involvement, but he didn't _start_ any significant military conflicts as far as I've heard. He's definitely done more harm than good in Pakistan. He's never violated the Constitution as far as I can tell, with the possible exception of not getting a declaration of war from Congress before the Libya thing (previous presidents have ignored the declaration of war clause in similar fashion). And 'raping the free market' might be a minor overstatement. This is more or less true. However, in most cases it's better to have a debt problem next year than a terrible downturn this year. Lol, I find that both depressing and hilarious. Anyway, I haven't checked your numbers, but assuming they're accurate, Romney would still raise spending a lot less than Obama would.
our dictators already preselected Romney to be president. They probably don't even count our votes anymore, but throw all the paper ballots in a pile, light it on fire and put the children they sacrifice in there.
I think you mean successful corporate raider. ROmney has never ran a business in his life. All he's ever done is steal others' businesses and sold them for scrap. He has cost countless workers their jobs and stole their pensions...
Consensual stealing in which money is exchanged is generally referred to as "buying". And buying and selling businesses is generally referred to as "investment". Investing in other companies is a legitimate and challenging business model. You have to be pretty savvy to succeed at it, whether you're managing a mutual fund or a private equity firm. So, I conclude that whether his policies are right or wrong, Mitt is certainly not stupid or incompetent.
Investing in other companies involves helping them succeed........Dain went bankrupt and the employees lost everything, but Romney sold all his stock because ne knew about the bankrupcy beforehand (Which is called insider trading, and is a federal crime), and made off which millions....... If you are saying he would be a good president because he is bvery good at (*)(*)(*)(*)ing over the working class, well, from a republicans POV guess that is a president's job. They praised Bush for it.
politically Romney and Obama are both so far center either one would be good for the country, now if Romney picks another Palin, he may as well through in the bag as the people do not was far right or left fanatics
Two things here. Firstly, investing in other companies sometimes involves helping them succeed and sometimes just screws over companies that don't know what they're doing. A good private equity firm takes advantage of both types of business. And secondly, insider trading laws are rather inconsistent. They control some types of trading and not others for often arbitrary reasons. The kind of trading Romney used to do is, for whatever inexplicable reason, legally OK; he's not a criminal.
Insider trading laws has one thing always. Anytime an executive sells his stock to avoid a loss, before the general stockholders are told, it is illegal.
They're both fascists. Sure they throw some socialism in there so it goes down on the people more smoothly. But Fascism, that's what both parties are peddling.
For better or for worse, the law is far more complicated than that. In fact, most of the development of insider trading law has been the result of court decisions that attempted to clarify it. I'm not clear on the specifics of the law (really, few people are), but I'm positive that no court would prosecute Romney for selling his cut of Bain.
They convicted Martha Stewert for doing the same thing, selling stock in her company before a big drop......Romney did the exact same thing as she did.
Ah, but the stock Stewart sold wasn't for her own company: she sold ImClone shares, not MSLO shares. And Stewart was convicted of actually having inside information, which Romney has not been proven to have. The courts consider these to be two very different cases.
It's the same thing. Romney knowingly misled lower level investors and workers into thinking that Bain was doing great, to make sure stock price was high when he sold his. All the while, he was selling off company assets and causing the bankrupcy itself.
actually wasn't she charged with lying to investigators and not actually charged with insider trading?
