Romney: Big Spending Cuts Will Cause Recession

Because we are underestimating the size of the mess that Bush left the country in. Compare current economy in US to the rest of the world and it would be near the top in terms of recovery. Compare that with the European countries that tried to curb spending and they are far worse off.

I don't think there's any reason to trust Romney's judgment. He claims to be a job creator by while he was Governor, in terms of job creation, his state ranked 47th out of 50. No one benefited under Romney there except the elite. Lots of people there hate him. Check out this letter to Romney from former Governor of Michigan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/dear-mitt-you-did-nothing_b_1501626.html

In terms of his record at Bain, he had a record of just buying companies, leveraging them to the hilt and then withdrawing as much as he could through dividends and fees by concentrating only on the short term. Efforts that ensured the companies could not stay competitive in the long term. Eventually the debt got so bad that they went bankrupt. He made a mint while the workers got screwed. That's the same problem we have in US today. Is he going to do the same to the US? Make the debt situation even worse, ensure his cronies get all the revenue while the poor and middle class experience job loss after job loss. Eventually, as with companies he took over, the country goes bust. Do you want that?

By the way his most successful enterprises, Domino's and Staples. Bain was only a minority shareholder in one and the other was taken over by Bain just before Romney left was the Olympics so he probably had a hand in neither. So how could he claim credit for either. I have nothing against venture capitalists and they are quite necessary and to be honest, the field fascinates me. However, how Bain practiced it, particularly under Romney was horrendous. It was all about short term-ism and maximizing your own wealth while the workers were robbed off their jobs and dues. No way for a business to operate successfully in the long run. Here's an interesting read. A bit biased possibly, but good at understanding how Bain really worked with Romney at charge:
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-04-19/news/mitt-romney-american-parasite/
Since Romney left, I don't think they have been as vulturous although don't really have all the information to say for sure. It could also account for the successes they had like Staples and Domino's.

 

No, Obama and the Dems want to shrink spending, but not at the expense of the recovery. In fact, if they had not made effort to shrink spending and to shrink government employment, the recovery would have been stronger and unemployment would be much lower!

 

They ask for the right things ? What, like handing trillions to bankers to "save" us from economic catastrophe ? Regulations that eliminate competition for the wealthiest among us ? Pardon me while I laugh.

 

I wouldn't expect you to understand how businesses work and how they act in the absence of regulation. Libertarians and governments just don't get it. Read the relevant history.

 

there is no absence of regulation in the "relevant history".
Regulation has been successfully implemented, to the corporatist's benefit. And now, they will enact even more competition eliminating regulations, and you will cheer your own demise.

 

me and you both.lol.

 

Romney is a black Obama.People have their heads buried in the sand with that ostrich so much though that they just dont get it that he wont make a freaking difference cause he is part of the NWO establishment just like Obama and Bush before him and NOTHING will change.

 

Last time Republicans controlled spending, 1. They HAD a budget, 2. They spent $2728 trillion. 3. That was $160.7 billion more than they took in.

Under Democrat control of spending, 1. Average spending is $3.5 trillion. 2. They REFUSE to pass a REQUIRED budget. 3.That is an average of more than $1.3 trillion in excess of income.

Every time libs mention Republican spending, they sound more stupid than the previous time.

Present national debt, $15.75 trillion. When Democrats took control, 10/01/2007, $9.007 trillion. In less than 5 years DEMOCRATS have increased the debt by $6.743 trillion.

When Bush took office, $5.728 trillion. The debt increased by $3.279 trillion in the 6 years and 10 months before Democrats took control and went insane.

 

Might be the only time mittens has ever told the truth.
Spending huge amounts of money worked for ronnie raygun, and you cons LOVE him, why the problem now?

 

The truth!

 

Are you sure you understand the definitions spending, GDP, deficit, and stimulus? I don't think many people do.

When the Federal government is spending, 80+% of that money is going into salaries. GDP is a measure of the value of all economic activity. So if you cut spending, you're cutting salaries, which cuts money spent at Starbucks, etc. So "yes", if you took a trillion $ out of Federal spending, 80+% of that would directly impact the GDP.

But not all jobs are the same, and that is the key that Liberal loonies seem to overlook. A Federal employee is a cost, i.e. not productive, - they don't add any value. A Starbucks employee adds value to the coffee they sell. So what Romney would ultimately want to do is increase private sector employment while holding Federal employment steady or slightly declining. Even Clinton understood that and did it.


Obama is going to need every vote! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4nvhAZ0vr0

 

Is this an attempt at comedy? NO previous president EVER had a deficit of even ONE HALF of a TRILLION dollars. Obama has never had a deficit less than 120% of a trillion.

Debt increase by over $5 trillion in 3 years and you laughingly claim they want to cut spending! Ridiculous!

 

In short from an economic philosophical standpoint Romney and Obama are identical twins. Keynesian economic policy is the problem with the US economy and not the solution. We have over $15 trillion in national debt based upon what is really a distorted application of Keynesian economic policy. Keynes proposed saving during the "good times" to pay for the "bad times" but our government under both Republicans and Democrats simply spends during both good and bad times.

It's time for Americans to realize that as long as they continue to elect Democrats and Republicans the problems only get worse.

 

Geez. You don't do it ALL at once!! Any financial expert will tell you that would risk another recession or worse. It doesn't need to be done all at once however. Start by cutting the planned increases.....you know, those things Democrats refer to as cuts??? Freeze gov't pay. Cut the corporate tax or do away with it altogether for at least a few years....so they can compete with the rest of the world....as we have the highest corporate tax rate. Take the chains of all these heavy regulations off of companies......make the Bush tax cuts PERMANENT! Just those things to start with....and we would start seeing some immediate differences and improvement. Companies have been sitting on some cash....so once they feel better about things and most of the uncertainty is removed, they'll be more likely to invest, produce, and expand.

 

Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved.

 

Where are the spending cuts promised by the candidate obama in 08? "I will cut the deficit in half!" Said the lying candidate, b.o., that instead has increased the debt by more than any president in history in multiple terms in office.
OVER $5 trillion in less than 4 years.

 

"I am a capitalist" says the man who signed single payer health care reform into law in MA.

 

Neither Mitt Romney or President Obama have proposed a budget that would be "balanced" within the next four years (i.e. the term of office for the president) and both have proposed virtually the identical deficit spending for 2013 of over $800 billion. Additionally neither candidate has proposed how to pay off the debt that has accumulated just since 2001 of about $10 trillion.

Neither of these idiots should be elected because both of them are intent on bankrupting America.

 

Does this mean that you have NO answer for the unending lies of obama?

 

I don't believe anyone has an answer to the unending lies by either Obama or Romney.

 

obama's lies are proven, Romney's are yet to be seen.

 

Okay, how about we just address Romney's blatant threats against civil liberties and his threat of continuing the huge deficit spending by the US government that takes us further down the road to national bankrupcy identical to Obama's fiscal policies for our government.

 

Yet to be seen? What world are you living in.

[video=youtube;EQwrB1vu74c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu74c&feature=g-vrec&context=G2d748e0RVAAAAAAAABQ[/video]

 

are you defending one dope by pointing out another dope ?

 

Here's the problem with both Romney and Obama. According to the experts on Wall Street today the current slowdown in the US economic recovery is because of the financial problems in Europe and China. They are external, not internal problems, and the real problem internally are the deficits and increased national debt.

Romney and Obama hold the position that the US budget cannot be balanced immediately and that is false. If Congress does nothing then both the Bush era tax cuts and the FICA/Payroll tax cuts expire in December. These tax cuts only address those that are working today and those that are working are not in dire straits financially. We can afford those taxes and the expiration of those tax cuts are not draconian and they would roughly generate an additional $500 billion in federal revenues. All of this based upon the Congress doing nothing. Both of these tax cuts were temporary and they can be allowed to expire. They are not a tax increase but instead the ending of tax cuts that were scheduled to expire.

The projected deficit for 2013 is about $900 billion and $500 billion in additional revenue cuts that down to about $400 billion that would need to be trimmed from the federal budget. That equates to only 12% of projected spending and that is not a draconian reduction. To say we can't trim perhaps $200 billion from the DOD budget, considering that no nation threatens the United States today, is doable. Cutting an additional $200 billion or more from other government programs is also very doable. These reductions will NOT negatively affect the US economy.

The problem isn't that the US can't have a balanced or even a surplus budget in 2013 but instead of an unwillingness of our elected officials to be fiscally responsible. Only one candidate promises to address balancing the budget and that is Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. Romney and Obama both promise a continuation of BIG GOVERNMENT and there is virtually no difference between the two.