romney. hypocrite on government spending.

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Free Thinker, Sep 10, 2012.

  1. But the bill went nowhere, of course, blocked by Republicans in Congress. And now, having prevented Mr. Obama from implementing any of his policies, those same Republicans are pointing to disappointing job numbers and declaring that the president’s policies have failed.

    Think of it as a two-part strategy. First, obstruct any and all efforts to strengthen the economy, then exploit the economy’s weakness for political gain. If this strategy sounds cynical, that’s because it is. Yet it’s the G.O.P.’s best chance for victory in November.

    But are Republicans really playing that cynical a game?

    You could argue that we’re having a genuine debate about economic policy, in which Republicans sincerely believe that the things Mr. Obama proposes would actually hurt, not help, job creation. However, even if that were true, the fact is that the economy we have right now doesn’t reflect the policies the president wanted.

    Anyway, do Republicans really believe that government spending is bad for the economy? No.

    Right now Mitt Romney has an advertising blitz under way in which he attacks Mr. Obama for possible cuts in defense spending — cuts, by the way, that were mandated by an agreement forced on the president by House Republicans last year. And why is Mr. Romney denouncing these cuts? Because, he says, they would cost jobs!

    This is classic “weaponized Keynesianism” — the claim that government spending can’t create jobs unless the money goes to defense contractors, in which case it’s the lifeblood of the economy. And no, it doesn’t make any sense.

    What about the argument, which I hear all the time, that Mr. Obama should have fixed the economy long ago? The claim goes like this: during his first two years in office Mr. Obama had a majority in Congress that would have let him do anything he wanted, so he’s had his chance.

    The short answer is, you’ve got to be kidding.

    As anyone who was paying attention knows, the period during which Democrats controlled both houses of Congress was marked by unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate. The filibuster, formerly a tactic reserved for rare occasions, became standard operating procedure; in practice, it became impossible to pass anything without 60 votes. And Democrats had those 60 votes for only a few months. Should they have tried to push through a major new economic program during that narrow window? In retrospect, yes — but that doesn’t change the reality that for most of Mr. Obama’s time in office U.S. fiscal policy has been defined not by the president’s plans but by Republican stonewalling.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/opinion/krugman-obstruct-and-exploit.html?_r=1&smid=tw-share
     
  2. I think the actual objection is that obama squandered a great deal of time and political capital on Obamacare, even if he had a minimal role in drafting it and ramming it through congress.

    The economy was clearly a more pressing objective than socialized medicine, but Obama had no clue what to do with the economy, other than throw money to democrat pressure groups, ie UAW, government employee unions, ACORN, etc.

    Obama's economic prescription of endless bailouts and endless subsidies for the very groups that were draggin us down was clearly not going to work, so republicans did the right thing to oppose them. At some point, someone was going to have to pay off obama's maxed out credit card, and republicans knew they would be stuck with the bill.

    It is not merely a choice between stimulus and austerity, as some have posited. Obama killed jobs and the economy in numerous ways, eg through Obamacare, taxes, the threat of even higher taxes, onerous regulations, using the EPA to end run congress, his war on the oil industry, etc etc.

    Now we have the fiscal cliff staring us in the face, another gift from congressional democrats who thought they could demagogue the tax issue during the election, which they are doing.
     
  3. you do realize that the only reason there is a fiscal cliff is because republicans will not allow higher tax rates on the rich? something they promised to do 2 times already.

    obama has offered a sensible compromise of $3 in spending cuts for every $1 of new revenue.
     
  4. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    NO idiot that is NOT the only reason we're on the financial cliff.
    Runaway congressional spending and unconstitutional entitlements are why we're on the financial cliff.
     
  5. Brass

    Brass

    Thus spake the constitutional and economics scholar.