Cry Baby Romney
Awww, poooor Mitt. Womney had a very lackluster debate performance last night.
Here’s the boxer (new feature!) to this post, to summarize in short detail what this blog post entails
My favorite line: “”You seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s … the social policies of the 1950s and economic policies of the 1920s.” Directed at Romney, Obama succinctly described the policies of Romney’s that a true American historian can agree with. If Republicans still think that things like trickle-down, monopolistic-style, minimized government will STILL fix the United States, and frankly the current state of Washington D.C., I beg to differ.
Let’s tackle the Mitt Romney Five Points. Since he mentioned in the debate that we should go to his website and Obama said the false facts are all there… Well okay, I researched. Obama, paraphrased, “Yes, the American people will go to your website. And they will find your lack in explanation,” of how you will manage our country with actual policy. Obama was very confident in last nights debate. I encourage you to read the entire plan (6 pages in length to make 5 points. Not bad!). So here’s the one-page summary:
Yes, these are his debate talking points, his stump speech, whatever. I’ll give you some facts from the full read and lets see what you think about those “facts” up there:
- “Our economy usually recovers quickly from recessions, and the more severe the recession, the faster the subsequent catch-up growth.”
False: Although Obama’s projections of robust growth in jobs, GDP rate of growth, and long-run economical theory, his stance is quite insightful. He knows Change is difficult. Jobs have been created, and the rate of losing jobs is steadily decreasing. Hell, Mitt Romney is NOT going to make 12 million jobs in his four-year hypothesis, and lets say he’ll just imitate Obama like in last night’s debate in most policies, achieving the same result of job growth. Obama on the other hand, knows that variables in the growth of the economy change over time as growth occurs. So jobs are created, GDP still rises at a steady rate, and ultimately, we have a balanced economic approach to help all of American industry/consumption, supply/demand, to level out. Right now, this is what we need because the recession years showed sliding across the board. Rates of growth decreased from 2007-2008/2009 (we had a slight bump due to QE1 in 2010). Obama turned our trajectory towards an upswing.
- This brings me to my next direct quote: Romney “will also [foster] sustainable growth in the long run. The Romney taxreform plan will increase GDP growth by between 0.5 percent and 1 percent per year over thenext decade. These long-run gains from tax and budget reform have been the subject of significant study by economists. [ ] We view these estimates as conservative as they fail to capture important, but hard-to-model, output gains from improved regulation, more certainty about the path of policy, and the aggressive agenda that Governor Romney has put forward with respect to energy, trade, education, human capital, and labor policy. Combined, and bolstered by sound monetary policy, we estimate that the Romney economic program will enable the private sector to create an additional 7 million net new jobs over the next decade beyond the improvement in employment from a more robust cyclical recovery in the short-term as a consequence of the Romney economic program.” – Whoa. So Romney said 7 million net jobs will be created over the next decade. How is he creating 12 millions jobs within his first term? And he does not describe any policy towards those he supposedly “put forward with respect to.” The government, being as minimized under his administration, will fail to improve the public sector of job growth. You cannot create jobs in a failing bureaucracy where, ahem, stamp prices are rising due to lack of the US Postal Service subsidies, for example (The public sector gas price; Heheh). Plus sizable cuts, given the USPS’s roughly 574,000 career employees and $70.6 billion operating expenses in 2011. This happens across so many public sector firms. Obama has created jobs mostly within that sector, and still gets criticized that jobs are being lost in the private sector ultimately stagnating job growth. Okay, well private sector jobs are being manipulated by corporations themselves. Well-off CEOs are taking bonuses and downsizing their companies to remove jobs from the private sector. Obama achieved one of the greatest stunts in the Midwest revival of the auto-industry. Wow, a whole private sector industry that has created 263,000 jobs since 2009. Damn, that’s a lot of jobs in a long-term growth system. Romney wants to keep it short-term. A consequence as he describes above, is the cyclical recovery in his first term. George W. Bush performed similar subsidizing and tax reform to garner a cyclical short term recovery. Too much debt arose, and spending on the wrong things prevented our country from producing a healthy cycle of growth. Romney says he is aggressive about those very important topics of energy, trade, education, human capital, and labor policy, however he offers no plan to regulate them!! That is the minimization of government influence in these extremely domestic-producing sectors. If we focused on those areas of concern, we could build the country from inside. Subsidize, not two wars where thousands of soldiers have died for trillions of dollars in spending, to a failed mission of democratic ideals and economic trade prosperity with the region. Subsidize our homeland securities. And I’m not referring to anti-terror in the USA with this, but our securities of energy, education, export trade, human capital, and labor policy. Guess who is talking about these things in the educated way? Obama.
- Which brings me to my next point. Okay, I’ll make a case for Romney here. He takes Obama’s word-for-word policy regarding the Keystone XL pipeline. Romney wants it built, without doubt, from Canada to Texas. It would carry alllll of the natural gas he wants to pump into the veins of the American fuel system. Obama wants it to be built in the Southern US, alone, cutting off the major supply from the Canada. Why did he build it at all? He wanted to appease the rising natural gas industry electorate. They would not vote for him otherwise, as he plans to eradicate this dangerous resource utility and move forward towards alternative energy supply. This was a purely political move which I disagree with. Even in my home state, Governor Cuomo (who plans on a 2016 presidential bid) teeter-totters with fracking in upstate NY, one of the largest basins of Natural Gas. I do not support fracking personally because of its environmental malpractice by the “frackers,” who cannot prevent natural gas from infiltrating the surrounding water supply. Lets just stop this appeasement (both candidates) with yet another industry who takes advantage of the lacking regulations imposed by government. We do not need their vote, but the general support of the American people (at least 99.4% of us). Another example of how we need to reduce subsidies to corporations abusing the system. I will only support Natural Gas when the Obama-advocated technology makes it safe enough to harness. The environmental side-effects are to be considered heavily as well.
This is my first glance at Romney’s plan, so I will study up on it more. I suggest you read the rest of Romney’s plan, seriously considering the points that interest you. Glance at it at least! Do it with Obama’s, as well: Forward
My next political post will be after Election Day. Go vote. Be informed.