Mitt Romney: Stimulate economy, not government...

[posty 2,822]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/rom...ulus/index.html

 

(CNN) -- These are extraordinary times, and like a lot of Republicans I believe that a well-crafted stimulus plan is needed to put people back to work. But the Obama spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy.

 

We're on an economic tightrope. The package that passed the House is a huge increase in the amount of government borrowing. And we've borrowed so much already that if we add too much more debt, or spend foolishly, we could invite an even bigger crisis.

 

We could precipitate a worldwide crisis of confidence in America, leading to a run on the dollar or hyperinflation that wipes out family savings and devastates the middle class.

 

It's still early in the administration of President Obama. Like everyone who loves this country, I want him to adopt the correct course and then to succeed. He still has a chance to step in and insist on spending discipline among the members of his own party.

 

It's his job to set priorities. I hope for America's sake that he knows that a chief executive can't vote "present." He has to say yes to some things and no to a lot of others.

 

As someone who spent a career in the private sector, I'd like to see a stimulus package that respects the productivity and genius of the American people. And experience shows us what it should look like.

 

First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus. VideoWatch Romney make argument for tax cuts »

 

Second, any new spending must be strictly limited to projects that are essential. How do we define essential? Well, a good rule is that the projects we fund in a stimulus should be legitimate government priorities that would have been carried out in the future anyway, and are simply being moved up to create those jobs now.

 

As we take out nonessential projects, we should focus on funding the real needs of government that will have immediate impact. And what better place to begin than repairing and replacing military equipment that was damaged or destroyed in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

Third, sending out rebate checks to citizens and businesses is not a tax cut. The media bought this line so far, but they've got it wrong. Checks in the mail are refunds, not tax cuts. We tried rebate checks in 2008 and they did virtually nothing to jump-start the economy. Disposable income went up, but consumption hardly moved.

 

Businesses aren't stupid. They're not going to invest in equipment and new hires for a one-time, short-term blip. What's needed are permanent rate cuts on individuals and businesses.

 

Fourth, if we're going to tax less and spend more to get the economy moving, then we have to make another commitment as well. As soon as this economy recovers, we have to regain control over the federal budget, and above all, over entitlement spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare. This is more important than most people are willing to admit.

 

There is a real danger that with trillions of additional borrowing -- from the budget deficit and from the stimulus -- world investors will begin to fear that our dollars won't be worth much in the future. It is essential that we demonstrate our commitment to maintaining the value of the dollar. That means showing the world that we will put a stop to runaway spending and borrowing.

 

Fifth, we must begin to recover from the enormous losses in the capital investment pool. And the surest, most obvious way to get that done is to send a clear signal that there will be no tax increases on investment and capital gains. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts should be extended permanently, or at least temporarily.

 

And finally, let's exercise restraint in the size of the stimulus package. Last year, with the economy already faltering, I proposed a stimulus of $233 billion. The Washington Post said: "Romney's plan is way too big." So what critique will the media have for the size of the Obama package?

 

In the final analysis, we know that only the private sector -- entrepreneurs and businesses large and small -- can create the millions of jobs our country needs. The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.

[NorthernVike 2,097]

So Mitt Romney and RLLD are the same person?

[edjr 6,913]

If you morons had nominated Romney and not McCain, we might have had a chance.

 

We're focked now

[BLS 315]

If you morons had nominated Romney and not McCain, we might have had a chance.

 

We're focked now

 

 

I think you mean Ron Paul.

 

ETA: By the way...how many people were at your Party Nominatinion Caucus?

[RLLD 4,275]

So Mitt Romney and RLLD are the same person?

 

[redtodd 7]

I would have much rather seen Romney get the nomination that McCain.

[MedStudent 56]

I would have much rather seen Romney get the nomination that McCain.

 

Not me. I think integrity is important in a President and McCain was a much better choice than Romney. I'm not really a Republican (do not consider myself a democrat either) though and would have chosen Obama over either.

[KSB2424 3,174]

Will somebody listen to these people please?

 

Repeal the Corporate Income Tax: Repeal would spur investment, improve the transparency of corporate accounting, slash compliance costs, and avoid the distortions caused by the special-interest provisions in the tax code. Repeal can work fast, by raising companies' share prices, increasing cash flow, and allowing corporations to lessen their need for bank lending. Thus repeal provides short-run stimulus and enhances long-run efficiency. Recent estimates suggest that tax cuts are at least as effective as spending increases in raising GDP. The adverse impact on the deficit is likely to be less than the $300-$350 billion in revenue the corporate tax takes in per year, since repeal spurs growth and therefore the revenue from other taxes

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/mir...ulus/index.html

 

ETA: Instead of adding monies to the deficit why not reduce taxes on corporations. You know, those big thingys that employ all those people. Stop spending our money on crap and give it back to us and our companies. It's mutherfocking America GD'it

[jerryskids 7,101]

So what critique will the media have for the size of the Obama package?

Most of the media is balls deep with Obama's package.

[KSB2424 3,174]

Hello Uncle Sam? You listening. How-a-bout we stop spending instead of increasing it.

 

Eliminate Wasteful Spending: Most discussion of the stimulus focuses on areas where, according to proponents, government spending should be higher. Much current expenditure, however, is wasteful.

 

Examples include agricultural subsidies, bloated transportation projects like the Big Dig in Boston, misguided infrastructure projects like the New Orleans levees (why encourage people to live below sea level?), ineffective weapons systems, pork barrel spending, and subsidies for Amtrak and the Post Office (buses are more efficient than railways, and Fedex is more efficient than the Post Office).

 

Everyone knows the U.S.'s long-run deficit picture is dismal. We should address this by cutting inefficient spending now.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/mir...ulus/index.html

[Greedo 13]

Hello Uncle Sam? You listening. How-a-bout we stop spending instead of increasing it.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/mir...ulus/index.html

ETA: Instead of adding monies to the deficit why not reduce taxes on corporations. You know, those big thingys that employ all those people. Stop spending our money on crap and give it back to us and our companies.

 

 

For 42 cents, you can get a piece of mail anywhere in the US within days. FedEx has sky-high costs by comparison. Can't disagree on the other stuff.

 

Romney quoted:

In the final analysis, we know that only the private sector -- entrepreneurs and businesses large and small -- can create the millions of jobs our country needs. The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.

 

This conservative fallacy drives me nuts. The private sector is shedding jobs by the millions, while government can be counted on to increase its size under repubs and dems. The invisible hand of the market just shredded our economy, and only government intervention has stopped a total collapse.

[RLLD 4,275]

They should put Palin on it, she can stimulate anything.....

[swamp dog 0]

mitt romney is heartless, piece-of-shiat cyborg.

[swamp dog 0]

ETA: Instead of adding monies to the deficit why not reduce taxes on corporations. You know, those big thingys that employ all those people. Stop spending our money on crap and give it back to us and our companies.

For 42 cents, you can get a piece of mail anywhere in the US within days. FedEx has sky-high costs by comparison. Can't disagree on the other stuff.

 

Romney quoted:

In the final analysis, we know that only the private sector -- entrepreneurs and businesses large and small -- can create the millions of jobs our country needs. The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.

 

This conservative fallacy drives me nuts. The private sector is shedding jobs by the millions, while government can be counted on to increase its size under repubs and dems. The invisible hand of the market just shredded our economy, and only government intervention has stopped a total collapse.

 

 

true story: the other day a buddy of mine gets a postcard from UPS--delivered to his front door by the US Postal Service--that says UPS can't deliver his package because they can't find his address.

 

yeah, the private sector is soooo much better than anything the government runs.

[jerryskids 7,101]

ETA: Instead of adding monies to the deficit why not reduce taxes on corporations. You know, those big thingys that employ all those people. Stop spending our money on crap and give it back to us and our companies.

For 42 cents, you can get a piece of mail anywhere in the US within days. FedEx has sky-high costs by comparison. Can't disagree on the other stuff.

 

Romney quoted:

In the final analysis, we know that only the private sector -- entrepreneurs and businesses large and small -- can create the millions of jobs our country needs. The invisible hand of the market always moves faster and better than the heavy hand of government.

 

This conservative fallacy drives me nuts. The private sector is shedding jobs by the millions, while government can be counted on to increase its size under repubs and dems. The invisible hand of the market just shredded our economy, and only government intervention has stopped a total collapse.

No it didn't. If you are referring to the mortgage crisis, that was driven by government policies which mandated the provision of loans to people who had no business getting them. But, you work for a bank, so you know this.

[swamp dog 0]

No it didn't. If you are referring to the mortgage crisis, that was driven by government policies which mandated the provision of loans to people who had no business getting them. But, you work for a bank, so you know this.

 

oh, bullshiat! even the talking retards on fox blame corporate greed for the mess. greedy greedy ceos and suits. on wall street. not in washington. get a clue.

 

lol...

[MedStudent 56]

No it didn't. If you are referring to the mortgage crisis, that was driven by government policies which mandated the provision of loans to people who had no business getting them. But, you work for a bank, so you know this.

 

Credit default swaps had a lot more to do with it than the morons who defaulted on their loans.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Mitt Romney is a fraud. He lied to my face before he ran for Govenor of MA. I will never forget that.

 

He would make changes that would look good initially, but would bankrupt the country in short order. His solution to solving the fiscal crisis in MA was to keep revenues the same (i.e. not cut taxes, even though he promised it), but cut aid to all of the towns. It gave a short-term boost to the Commonwealth's books, but it crippled the entire state. Towns had to go for overrides in order to maintain level services and we are still digging ourselves out of the mess that the lack of reduction in state spending (read: Big Dig, Turnpike, etc.) has caused.

 

Romney is worse than a used-car salesman. He is a lawyer for insurance salesmen for used-cars (that is a metaphor for you retards). Fock him and his bullshit ideas.

[tikigods 76]

Mitt Romney can stimulate his touch-hole with a big rubber d!ck.

[KSB2424 3,174]

Credit default swaps had a lot more to do with it than the morons who defaulted on their loans.

There is a lot of blame to go around, but I'm still trying to find your point.

 

The bailout was crap. This "stimulus" is crap. The banks should have been let to fail. No more money should have been magically made, we should start the systematic withdrawl from Iraq, the stimulus package should have ZERO pork, and part of the package should be cutting corporate taxes and more importantly stop wasteful spending before we start spending more which is what this package will do.

 

In tough times you trim the fat (cut wasteful spending / pork) before you buy more steak.

 

And old southern metaphor that my mom used to say when someone wouldn't fix the root of a problem, rather try to fix it by just doing more of the same: "If you don't sweep the kitchen floor before you mop, it only makes a bigger mess".

[Voltaire 5,497]

I agree that spending should be targeted at things that are short term and end when a project is completed. Something that provide jobs and improves the nation's infrastructure.

 

While the rest is completly different, I'm not sure it's any better than the Dems' plan. If we're accepting that we're going to blow up the deficit either way, I suppose weather you prefer massive new spending or massive new tax cuts is a matter of opinion. Since the Dems who now have the prerogative to chose, it'll be massive spending.

 

As for Romney, now would be a convienient time to convert to Southern Baptist or Pentecostal.

[pimptastic69 0]

I agree that spending should be targeted at things that are short term and end when a project is completed. Something that provide jobs and improves the nation's infrastructure.

 

While the rest is completly different, I'm not sure it's any better than the Dems' plan. If we're accepting that we're going to blow up the deficit either way, I suppose weather you prefer massive new spending or massive new tax cuts is a matter of opinion. Since the Dems who now have the prerogative to chose, it'll be massive spending.

 

As for Romney, now would be a convienient time to convert to Southern Baptist or Pentecostal.

 

Who gives a fock about this spending on infrasructure? Yeah, it would be cool in the end, but I'm not a construction worker, nor do I wish to be one. I'd rather have a tax cut. If I have more money in my pocket, I'm going to spend it.

[Voltaire 5,497]

Who gives a fock about this spending on infrasructure? Yeah, it would be cool in the end, but I'm not a construction worker, nor do I wish to be one. I'd rather have a tax cut. If I have more money in my pocket, I'm going to spend it.

 

Money circulates in the economy. Maybe the construction worker will order a Big Mac at the McDonalds where you mop the floor when you're not focking off posting at FFtoday thanks to the new wireless internet he put up. Then when you go home you can have a smooth ride on the new interstate his buddy just finished. Wouldn't want that AMC Gremlin to blow a tire.

[pimptastic69 0]

Money circulates in the economy. Maybe the construction worker will order a Big Mac at the McDonalds where you mop the floor when you're not focking off posting at FFtoday thanks to the new wireless internet he put up. Then when you go home you can have a smooth ride on the new interstate his buddy just finished. Wouldn't want that AMC Gremlin to blow a tire.

 

I guess you could call it trickle over economics then?

[Voltaire 5,497]

I guess you could call it trickle over economics then?

 

Maybe. The more money circulating in the economy the better.

 

Also thanks for not getting upset that I focked with you a bit.

[pimptastic69 0]

Maybe. The more money circulating in the economy the better.

 

Also thanks for not getting upset that I focked with you a bit.

 

It's difficult to be taken serious with a name like mine.

[BLS 315]

oh, bullshiat! even the talking retards on fox blame corporate greed for the mess. greedy greedy ceos and suits. on wall street. not in washington. get a clue.

 

lol...

 

 

You're totally ignorant. You know that, right?

Did your mom teach you this garbage?

[swamp dog 0]

You're totally ignorant. You know that, right?

Did your mom teach you this garbage?

 

did sean hannity teach you? blow off.

[BLS 315]

did sean hannity teach you? blow off.

 

 

Suck a c0ck.

[Flipper 70]

The private sector knows what they're doing. They shipped jobs held in the US to the low-cost labor countries. Now the money once stimulating the US economy is now stimulating other economies.

 

If our elected-chief has a brain in his head he will tax the bejeezus out of any employer with employees overseas. Make it so bad that they have no choice but to employ Americans for a change.

 

Put money in the pockets of Americans - and they will stimulate the economy.

 

Maybe instead of tax cuts these fools should slash the debt of every American in half. Maybe freeing-up the money people may still have will stimulate the economy. When it starts to flow - jobs will happen.

 

Tax cuts and government stimulus will ONLY get into the pockets of the filthy rich.