Romney tells millionaires what he really thinks of Obama voters

Why do you believe it was worse when Bush left than when he took office?

GDP was negative when he was sworn in. There were 3.5M jobs added in year 7 of Clinton bringing the unemployment rate to 4.0%, but just 42,000 jobs added in year 8 with unemployment jumping to 4.7% (that's near 20% increase). In spite of a multi $billion stimulus package of his own, plus various other measures, it took 2 years to turn the tide (unemployment went 4.7% -> 5.8% -> 6.0% -> 5.5% and down from there).

The Dot Bomb bubble burst in year 8 of Clinton, costing $7.1T in net wealth to everyone in the economy, as an aggregate. The banking and real estate collapse of 2008 cost $5T. Which was worse?

After 9/11, the airlines industry needed a bailout. American Airlines was forced into bankruptcy. Bush "saved" the entire airline industry as much as Obama saved GM and Chrysler.

Look at the job losses Bush inherited.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-does-not-think-middle-class-starts-181052583.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...b17e52-fe73-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html

 

Greenspan and Clinton did not see eye to eye at all. Clinton kept telling us the economy is "in the sweet spot" while Greenspan talked about "irrational exuberance." He saw the stock market bubble was going on and set out to deflate it by raising interest rates several times in late 1999 and early 2000. He believed he could guide the economy to a "soft landing" but underestimated the Fed's ability to make that happen.

I happen to be a genuine fan of Clinton, FWIW. I think he inherited a recession and the S&L crisis with the housing market collapse that went along with it.

Reagan inherited the most royal of messes, economically, since the Depression. No question about it. High (> 20%) interest rates, inflation in double digits, unemployment approaching double digits and an S&L systematic failure as well.

http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/projects/debt/1990srecession.html

 

I'll quote from the second link...

 

Are you cherry picking blog posts on the internet that drop the words "less than" from what Romney actually said, or what?

Seems you are. And you call the real news organizations that point out he said "less than" shitty cologne.

I understand where you're coming from.

 

They don't benefit ONLY those above 200K. If you cut taxes on the lowest earners from 15% to 10%, it's a 33% tax cut, and if you cut taxes on the highest from 39% to 36%, it's a 15% tax cut. But EVERYONE gets a tax cut, no?

And I'm not a Romney supporter. I'm just really tired of the blame anyone but Obama routine.

 

BTW

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/us/17iht-letter17.html

On taxes, it’s Mr. Romney who’s ducking. He has proposed a tax cut of more than $4 trillion over 10 years, an across-the-board 20 percent reduction in individual income tax rates and the elimination of the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax and taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest for those earning less than $200,000. The corporate tax rate would come down to 25 percent from 35 percent.

He insists this can be achieved without raising revenue, by limiting tax preferences. He refuses to specify any. The candidate cites Republican experts like the Princeton University economist Harvey Rosen. However, Mr. Rosen says this is feasible if Mr. Romney eliminates the popular tax deductions for items like home mortgages and charitable contributions for those making more than $100,000 a year.

...

Promises for a revenue-neutral plan in which the middle class and small businesses get a net tax cut suggest higher overall taxes for either the poor or the rich. The Romney campaign refuses to comment.

...


So. What is more revenue: 1) Tax rate of 90% on the "rich" with generous loopholes to get them to 15% effective rate, or 2) Tax rate of 25% on the "rich" with NO loopholes.

You choose.

 

I do blame congress, but the congress of one party is likely to go along with what its president (of the same party) wants.

And things sure looked pretty good up until the results of the 2006 election kicked in.

Republicans controlled congress from 1994 through 2006. We had... 4 balanced budgets during that time as well as $400B deficits. The last time we had a balanced budget before that was 1969.

And FWIW, I'm not a deficit hawk. I believe some govt. debt is reasonable. Govt. should issue bonds to build a bridge or something. When the bonds are paid off, the debt is gone. Debt is a fine means of financing projects. That said, no organization that borrows to pay its ongoing bills is in good financial shape.