| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Romney's Vision Is Most Conservative Since Reagan | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 25 2012, 08:03 AM (468 Views) | |
| Berton | Oct 25 2012, 08:03 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Romney's Vision Is Most Conservative Since Reagan Under pressure from Mitt Romney, President Obama has finally released his own policy vision for a second term. And yes, it's the same old, same old. Some are calling it a second first term. There isn't a single true economic-growth incentive in this scant plan. There's no serious spending, deficit, and debt reduction, and no attempt to solve the Social Security and health-entitlement problems, which are moving us toward bankruptcy. Nothing. But before getting into details, my basic conclusion is this: Mr. Obama wants to slash defense spending, raise all other spending, and hike taxes to finance the largest government size he can possibly get. In fact, if he had his way, I believe he'd let all the Bush tax cuts expire in order to generate as many revenues as possible to increase the size of government. He might even propose a value-added tax to grab more revenues for government unions and green energy. And he's already said that across-the-board, budget-cutting sequestration won't happen; in other words, a mini-stimulus, like the failed one in 2009. I think this view surfaced during the three debates. And because Mitt Romney calmly, coolly and presidentially set forth his contrasting agenda of smaller government, lower debt and deficits, pro-growth tax reform, and an entitlement fix, he is now riding a popular polling wave toward victory. The two economic visions couldn't be more different. Romney has shown more than 70 million TV viewers that he's not an evil plutocrat robbing the middle class, that he won't kill women whose health-care insurance may have run out, and that he's not the man pushing granny over the cliff. People have listened carefully to his pro-growth, free-enterprise, increase-take-home-pay vision for our anemic economy, which is growing at the slowest pace in modern times going back to 1947. And they've learned about his deal-making experience in the business sector, and can see him reaching across the aisle to find common ground with Democrats in Congress and elsewhere. A huge point. On the other hand, if you take a look at Obama's so-called second-term vision, with more spending on teachers and government unions, more ineffectual job training, more green-energy cronyism, more temporary tax credits (which have no economic-growth consequences at all), and more ObamaCare, it's a safe guess that he'll seek to keep government around the 25% of GDP that he hit in his first two years and would take it higher if he could. In contrast, Mitt Romney has stated time and again that he wants to lower spending to 20% of GDP. Outside of already counted savings from Afghanistan and Iraq and the sequestration that Obama now opposes, you can't find any specific spending cuts anywhere in the president's plan. Using CBO assumptions of both future GDP and 18.5% of GDP revenues over the next ten years, the Obama plan would raise public debt from today's 73% of GDP to 99% of GDP, an increase of about $13 trillion in debt. Romney, by comparison, would reduce the debt to 58% of GDP over the next ten years, a reduction of $10.1 trillion from the current debt baseline. That implies the lowest spending rate of the Romney plan would be $23 trillion less in terms of debt than Obama's high-spend approach. And Romney's 58% debt-to-GDP ratio would not impede economic growth, according to most economists, whereas nearly 100% of GDP debt from Obama certainly would. These are all back-of-the-envelope calculations, but I think they tell an important story. And Mitt Romney has brought that story to light, even during the last debate on foreign policy. In that round, Romney borrowed two key thoughts from Ronald Reagan: First, a strong foreign policy to maintain America's global leadership requires a strong U.S. economy. Second, lower marginal tax rates, especially for the middle class, will significantly increase take-home pay, in addition to adding much-needed incentives for the investment and entrepreneurial classes. I've argued this year that Mitt Romney is the most conservative Republican standard bearer since Reagan. I have also argued that he's the most underrated politician in the country. Nobody's perfect. Nobody gets everything right all the time. But with two weeks to go, Romney is on a roll. LINK |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Oct 25 2012, 08:22 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What a silly title. I'd bet the article is even sillier. Romney is FAR MORE CONSERVATIVE than Reagan. Reagan was sane. Edited by Brewster, Oct 25 2012, 08:23 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Berton | Oct 25 2012, 08:27 AM Post #3 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It is very silly to comment on a article you have not read. Perhaps worse than silly. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Oct 25 2012, 11:48 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Semi-sane. His son reported seeing signs of Alzheimer's while his father was in office. |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Oct 25 2012, 12:13 PM Post #5 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kudlow Bertie is now quoting ex commies? Or maybe he is now a self righteous whore for the right these days. Feeding the loonies pays well. |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Oct 25 2012, 07:40 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 25 2012, 09:35 PM Post #7 |
|
Deleted User
|
and just look what reagan did to the deficit |
|
|
| tomdrobin | Oct 25 2012, 10:14 PM Post #8 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Reagan revived the economy with military spending. Many of the disciples try to claim it was the tax cuts. To his credit, he did reverse course and raise taxes when the deficit started balooning. But, he was the GOP father of the idea that spending is good if it's on bombs and bullets, and you can cut taxes to pay for it. |
![]() |
|
| Berton | Oct 25 2012, 10:17 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Thunder Fan
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Oct 25 2012, 10:23 PM Post #10 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Your continually posting the same thing is getting annoying SFB Bertie. The 2009 stimulus should have been bigger, but it was impossible to get more with the loonie right howling about spending and the deficit. The only way to fix our economic problems is massive stimulus (spent on things that will make us more competitive in the future). And, paid for by liberating some of that huge pile of cash the wealthy are sitting on. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





3:22 AM Jul 12
