I found this opinion piece to be enlightening. No Bailouts for Romney’s Intellectual Bankruptcy: Jonathan Alter By Jonathan Alter - Feb 23, 2012 By all accounts, Mitt Romney is a smart businessman with a sophisticated understanding of how economies work. So why is he so tied up in knots over basic questions of government spending in a recession and the limits of the free market? Because he’s running for president in a party that has lost its economic common sense, its political bearings and probably Michigan’s electoral votes. Here’s the Republican candidate off-script (the best way to find out what’s in his head) at a town hall meeting Tuesday in Shelby Township, Michigan: “If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, why, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy, so you have to at the same time create pro-growth tax policies.” This is a classic example of a “Kinsley gaffe” (named for my Bloomberg View colleague Michael Kinsley), which is when a politician accidentally says something that’s true but politically inconvenient. Sure enough, Andy Roth, vice president for government affairs at the fiscally conservative Club for Growth, called Romney’s comments “hogwash.” Roth said the statement “confirms yet again that Romney is not a limited government conservative. The idea that balancing the budget would not help the economy is crazy. If we balanced the budget tomorrow on spending cuts alone, it would be fantastic for the economy.” Ask a Professor Oh, really? If we balanced the budget by immediately cutting $1.3 trillion in spending, as some Tea Party adherents advocate, unemployment would surge. Spending cuts (mostly through entitlement reform) are critical in the medium and long term, but they’re harmful when the economy is weak. If you don’t believe Romney or me on this point, ask any economics professor who isn’t a crackpot. After Romney’s gaffe, a campaign spokesman undertook damage control with a tortured statement that amounted to saying that Romney supports the House Republican “Cut and Grow” economic policy. This is the one that shuns all “investment” as a Democratic codeword for spending (thereby repudiating 150 years of Republican support for infrastructure investments) and says that the route to economic growth is through tax cuts. A preview of Romney’s tax plan making its debut Friday in a speech in Detroit suggests that “Romneynomics” would in effect transfer wealth from the poor and the future old (through draconian cuts in Medicaid and Medicare) to the wealthy (through more tax cuts at the upper end). You may recall that President George W. Bush tried a variant of this with his 2001 tax cuts and the result was the weakest decade of job growth since the 1930s. Romney is trapped in a “theology” (to use Rick Santorum’s word in a different context) that he knows is completely inadequate for addressing our economic problems. We first glimpsed that trap during the 2008-09 economic crisis. Like many in his party, Romney supported the Troubled Asset Relief Program for banks but opposed the portion of TARP devoted to the auto industry. He was sure the auto bailouts would fail and thus he was safe in writing his now famous “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” op-ed article in the New York Times. In fairness to Romney, that piece was written in November 2008, when clueless automakers were asking for money from the outgoing Bush administration with no strings attached. (They got $17.4 billion and flushed it down the same old rat holes.) Romney wrote that government guarantees for warranties and post- bankruptcy financing would be acceptable and these eventually became part of the Obama deal. Intellectually Bankrupt Even so, the premise of that piece, which endorsed a “managed bankruptcy” without direct federal money, was itself intellectually bankrupt. It assumed that the car companies would find new investors after reorganization. But the firm Romney co- founded, Bain Capital LLC, was among many potential creditors that refused to touch any deal involving auto companies. The billions necessary to keep General Motors Co. (GM) and Chrysler alive weren’t available from any place but the government. When CNN moderator John King made this point during Wednesday’s debate among Republican candidates, Romney tried to ignore it. Romney’s approach was popular among many Republicans, who hypocritically argued that the rules of free market capitalism could be suspended to bail out bankers but not workers. Sure, hundreds of thousands of people working for auto companies or their suppliers would lose their jobs, but that was just part of capitalism’s “creative destruction.” This selective approach to conservative principles -- not Romney’s opposition to the auto bailouts -- is what put Romney in trouble with primary voters in Michigan, where Santorum’s consistency in opposing all bailouts has won him conservative support.
Santorum tried to use that consistency to his advantage in Wednesday’s debate. Like so much else about his performance, he failed. Could it be that free market fundamentalists have been consistently wrong for three years? They are the “little minds” Ralph Waldo Emerson had in mind when he savaged the “hobgoblin” of “foolish consistency.” Every so often, history renders a clear verdict. However noxious and debatable the particulars, the TARP bank bailouts averted a global run on American banks and a depression. They helped to stabilize the global economy. Almost all of the money has been paid back. The auto bailouts? The reduction in Michigan’s unemployment rate from 14.1 percent in 2009 to 9.3 percent today isn’t a matter of opinion or differing economic philosophy. It’s a happy reality that should make any open-minded conservative acknowledge that dogmatic adherence to abstract principles usually ends badly. Romney’s core problem is that he doesn’t have the courage of his pragmatic impulses. If he did, he’d stick with his view that cutting spending sharply in the short term is a bad idea, and that in extremely rare circumstances we must hold our noses, put principles aside and let Washington prop up vital industries. Of course he can’t say that, which means that winning Michigan is all but out of reach for him or any other Republican candidate this fall. (Jonathan Alter is a Bloomberg View columnist and the author of “The Promise: President Obama, Year One.” The opinions expressed are his own.)
I personally can't tell much difference between Romney and Obama. We need some better choices; like the Bear; Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf for instance. Someone who says what he means and means what he says.
Let's not forget Romney's statement (in Detroit, I believe), it was to the tune of: I own a ford mustang and a chevy truck, and my wife drives two cadillacs.... Does he have no common sense?
I think it was yesterday he said he doesn't know any nascar fans but knows many team owners. Way to connect with the blue collar people there genius.
Romney had a commercial with him driving a Chrysler 300(made in Canada) and showing a picture of him and his Dad in Detroit. The picture was actually taken in NY at the world fair. If Romney did not have to ***** himself out to tea party he would be a decent canidate. If you read his book he is really good guy. He likes Michigan because the "Trees are the right height" LOL
I just wish someone would stand up and speak his mind without the filter being whether people like it or not or agree or not or whether people will vote for him or not. I am sick of voting for someone and getting someone else. Ron Paul has taken the approach of being brutally honest and he seems intelligent and likeable enough but just not very electable and he certainly would struggle with support for his policies. Where have all the Teddy Roosevelts gone.
Not a huge Romney fan but any opinion piece by a wack job lefty like Alter has no credibility with me.
I do not think that is the filter that they speak through. Candidates these days speak through a special interest/coporate filter. That's where the money is and money is what gets you elected. Nowadays I don't think the party of the winner matters much. Who ever wins does the same things as the previous winners so that the same powerbrokers stay in power.
Honestly, I had no idea whether he is left or right and don't remember reading anything else by him. Ididn't see anything in this piece that was unreasonable or lacked credibility. Which part of the article is not credible?
Okay, better said. I am just tired of poll numbers determining a candidate's position on an issue. Something I teach my son... "Integrity is almost never popular." Point is; we will never find a candidate with integrity who values popular opinion more than principles. That does not mean a leader cannot change his mind because sometimes changing one's mind is necessary.
Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen. Albert Einstein (1952)
I thought that may happen. Actually these are not ideologies in conflict at all but are quite complimentary. "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." -- Winston Churchill Explanation: Foolishness is wrapped up in the mind of a person who stubbornly holds fast to an ideology that has been proven ineffective, obsolete and or misguided. It may also be wrapped up in the mind of a person who refuses to seek and heed wise counsel. Every great leader comes to the point where he can say I was wrong or we need to change course, even when it is unpopular to do so. That is usually what makes a leader a great leader. Additionally, when he is right and he knows he is right, he must hold unswervingly to his principles and not be swayed by popular opinion. When he speaks, he doesn't need to mince words or play the spin game with Fox , ABC, CNN or MSNBC. Allowing oneself to be swayed by popular opinion instead of principle is what transforms a would be great leader into a buffoon. Only a fool holds unswervingly to a course when people are telling him there are icebergs ahead. Or plans a surprise attack such as Little Bighorn when his own scouts are reporting they are riding into an ambush.
Your answer is perfect.. exactly what I was looking for. So.. according to your answer.. explain to me how Obama is so terrible. Remember.. according to your answer. What did the current president promise and not deliver and why.. and what didn't he promise and deliver and why. Your last statements on "only a fool" are perfect for former president Bush by the way.. knowing the economy was showing terrible signs of trouble and doing nothing about it for years until spending just before he left office.
Wow! I think my only mention of Obama was that I see no real difference between Romney and Obama. My answer was concerning the Republican candidates. I personally am not an Obama supporter for many reasons. Primarily because, I do not believe that a large centralized government is good for the future of American. As far as Obama trying to accomplish what he said he would do, I must agree, he has done that, however misguided. I also think both Republicans and Democrats are both way off base and for the life of me, I can't understand why Ron Paul is running as a Republican. What I see is this: Republicans want to collect unauthorized taxes from Americans and spend the money on whatever it is that best butters their bread. Democrats want to collect unauthorized taxes from Americans and spend the money on whatever it is that butters theirs. But no one except unelectable Paul, seems to be asking the question concerning what taxes are constitutionally authorized. To provide for the common defense... okay. I think we have hugely overstepped that authorization on many occasions but okay. Ref: [The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States[/B] (i.e. everyone pays their fair share.) Anyway, back to your question about President Bush. I didn't vote for him after his first term though I personally liked him and respected him. He was handed a ticking time-bomb that was bound to go off in the hands of whomever was holding it, just like Jimmy Carter was. President Clinton's administration had Osama Bin Laden dead to rights after the first attack on the WTC but did nothing. We could easily lay the blame on Clinton for 911 but I won't because he had no way of knowing what was coming later and he wasn't the one who flew those airplanes. Despicable Radical Islamic cowards did that. We don't blame one another... that is the goal of terrorists. It was wasn't George W Bush but Bush Senior who initiated NAFTA though it wasn't fully ratified until the Clinton administration. Ross Perot warned America that if that gets passed, "the Giant Sucking Sound we hear will be American Jobs leaving for other countries." That is exactly what happened. It was during Bush W's reign that interest rates were lowered below face value(when inflation is factored) and which encouraged many Americans to foolishly purchase houses way beyond their means because rates were so affordable. So countless Americans naively sold their paid off or nearly paid off homes and bought homes which were grossly overvalued. The result was that their equity was erased and they ended up in homes they can't sell for what they purchased them for and the banks (guranteed by the feds) are eating the losses while the politicians who approved this plan scramble to distance themselves and point fingers at Freddy and Fanny. We are today all paying the price for the stupidity of both the Democrats and the Republicans who approved this nonsense. Not to mention the TARP money which was used to pay excrutiatingly absurd bonuses to executives who lost billions. And in my opinion much of it all began with NAFTA; That was and remains a really bad idea. Now, who was it that opened free trade with Communist China? Last I checked, China isn't any where near North America. Both Clinton and George W. agreed that lifting the ban on trade with Communist China would make them a free society. Okay they are now freely communistic and we have become subservient to them. Wow, that worked well. The future is not very bright for our own children and the Chinese children are working in sweat shops because we need Nike tennis shoes in order to pay Allen Iverson $200,000,000 dollars to dribble. And, sadly, none of the candidates except Ron Paul and Santorum, to a lesser degree, is even remotely questioning these issues that are not being addressed because no one wants to pull their heads out of the sand. Why? Because they are being led around by opinion polls instead of wise principles sourced, not in the media but in the Constitution. By the way, check the sources of Obama's statements and you may discover his thinly veiled principles fall neatly in line with two very unconstitutional and anti American documents; The Communist Manifesto and the Humanist Manifesto. Now I am not a Political Scientist, my degrees are in Psychology, Leadership and Divinty so maybe I have a bit different perspective. But Obama's ideologies are clearly linked to some less than savory and very dangerous sources. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=115&type=issue
Poll numbers are made up figures.... I've never been polled nor asked a political question. Nor I've never been asked to do a survey. Yet I'm consistently asked before entering a grocery store between the hours of 11:00am and 6:00pm would you like to buy some or would you like to give to the... Far as taxes and these D.Bags I prefer the Fair Tax.
