Romney's Economic Model compared to austerity in Europe

Everyone discredits the first 6-7 years of his presidency where we had great job growth and GDP growth. Everyone looks at the last year and bases their judgement on that. Even though the downturn had more to do with the Federal Reserve leaving rates too low, banks engaging in poor lending practices, etc. He could have cut spending a little bit more in his second term, but that's when Democrats took over the house and senate.

 

I you want real change and economic growth, you'd better hope if Obama is elected the Democrats win a filibuster proof majority in the House and Senate.

The problem isn't the WH, it's Congress.

I'm going to take a break from this debate because too many of your 'facts' usually check out as false.
Reagan inherited a 7.5% unemployment rate when he was elected in 1980, which ROSE to 10.8% by Dec. 1982, little over a year into Reagan's first term.

 

Yeah that's what we need...Democrats in the WH, House, and Senate. Then they can all sit around and decide how to spend your money. When they start to run out, they can just increase taxes again and get more money. It's brilliant!

Despite promises that the unemployment rate would be 5.6% today with the passage of the 2009 stimulus bill, it’s actually at 8%. Many have pulled out of the labor market entirely. From the end of the 1981-82 recession through the end of of 1985 — the first 37 months of the Reagan recovery — the U.S. created 9.8 million net new jobs. In total, he created 16.7 million jobs. Obama has created a net 100,000 jobs.

 

The 1980's are over. You can't compare Reagan who didn't have china coming into power and europe(germany in particular) on good footing as compared to to back in Reagan's era.

Reagan wasn't handed a huge deficit as this. What Reagan was handed was much better than what Obama got with less competition worldwide. Let's just keep it real.

Bush is the best example and he didn't do a good job.

 

You right...you can't compare them. If Reagan had this technology, labor force, and population size he would have created 4 million more jobs than he did in the 80's. So that would make the comparison to Obama even more ridiculous.

Bush actually holds the record with 52 straight months of economic growth.

 

Reagan would never have been elected!

Unless you are blind to reality, no republican would have been elected due to how toxic the republicans were to the country during the end of the bush era.

There would be no jobs from Reagan because he wouldn't have won.

Secondly,Bush had all of the advantage over reagan and he still screwed up.
Bush is the comparison because Bush had a closer adminstration to Obama.
Russia is not a super power in both Bush and Obama's era. China is a rising power in both of their era's. Germany is together from the start of both of these guy's adminstration.

 

Dude I don't want to us to create an atmosphere that would make you feel like you're being ganged up on because honestly you are the most eloquent voice for the right that we have and I don't want to make you feel alienated. With that said you can't make ridiculous statements like Reagan came into a economy worst that Obama and he some how turned it around in his first term. I should you the real numbers. It was more like 9.7 to 7.5 in his first term then down to 5.3 in his second. Obama has brought it down to 7.8 not to mention with a completely uncooperative congress. So like you've admitted before it would only be fair to compare their first terms instead of Obama's first term up against Reagan's two. Shit like that makes you sound ignorant or purposely avoiding the truth to support an ineffectual argument.
And also to be fair when he was campaigning and running for president he wasn't running on "I'll fix the economy" so saying he signed up to do that is just untrue.
He also isn't the one to point out he inherited a mess. Usually his supporters remind us of that, not Obama. So painting him as some whiny kid who keeps screaming it ain't fair is bs as well. He has done a great job with what he was given but unfortunately this fast food nation of under educated impatient ass hats truly expected this man to waive a magic wand and it would be 2007 again. This mess took nearly a decade to create. I agree that is was also a result of poor regulation of the Federal Government as well as FDIC insuring bank accounts that made it less likely for people to monitor bank activities, but again lets be fair your party LOVES as little regulation as possible. Let the markets handle everything and then when the shit hits the fan "where the hell was the regulation"
One thing I know is that under Romney things will not get better. He could give a fuck less about this country. Guarantee this dude will double his networth while in office if he wins.

 

What are the parameters of this growth, because I'll say again it case you didn't read it before. Consumption is not the only indicator of growth especially if its done on a credit card. So if you show me more Americans were buying more houses and cars and at the same time car loans and mortgage loans are through the roof, that's not real growth since those numbers will cause a deficit later if the loan barer can't pay it back.

 

Just admit that you were suckered by the "Hope and Change" mantra and you now realize that Obama isn't the man for the job. The fact is the Republican party holds the record for job creation and economic growth. Clinton had a Republican House and Senate in his second term so he can thank us too.

You can't argue with Republicans success with the economy. You can argue that the Democrats have done more for social issues and you would have a much better case.

 

I think you are rewriting dubyas presidency facts.

George W Bush placed 40th in economic management. He beat out the father of the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover, but couldn't quite get past the guy who died after only a month in office (William Henry Harrison). This is unfair to Hoover, in reality, since Hoover came into office seven months before the Wall Street Crash of 1929, while Bush had nearly eight years before his disaster. Hoover simply bungled the management of the Depression, while Bush played an active role in triggering the Great Recession.

 

The country grows because of debt. This is why America has such a huge debt bill. If people couldn't borrow money for a mortgage, then nobody would own homes. Only rich people who have $250,000 in cash to spend on a home. Businesses couldn't expand or grow their business without taking loans from the bank.

 

The numbers I posted are actual numbers from his presidency. Job creation was great for six years. I do believe Bush abandoned the Republican principle of low spending in his second term and that played a part in the recession. But the Federal Reserve and banks share the bulk of the blame of the recession with interest rates and poor lending practices.

Obama has doubled the amount of spending that Bush did and did not even touch taxes in his first four years. How do we expect to get out of this mess by spending more and offering no breaks for people? I hope Obama has an accountant managing his personal finances.

 

First of All, I didn't expect him to correct everything in 4 years. I was grounded from the get go. He may have been naive at how bad republican policies were in the bush era. If the republicans can try to kick a man out of office for lying about a blow job, then It was not out of the realm of republicans blocking Obama in congress.
What sources are you looking at for job creation?
I see big Bill as number one. Curious, how you are already guraded on Big Bill!

Secondly, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 was passed without a single republican vote. Just because you show up doesn't mean you did anything for the economy. I'm tired of republicans acting all buddy-buddy with Bill like they weren't trying to kick him out of office.

What are you talking about.

The only person in United States history to eliminate the U.S. debt was a Democrat.
Reagan couldn't do it
Lincoln couldn't do it.

FDR another democrat who had the worse economy in U.S. history brought us out of that and served more times than any president ever.


You know about Bill.

 

So your assertion is that consumption no matter the sustainability of that growth is the only indicator of economic growth? Where the hell are you getting your degree?.

 

The same with the difference with the defense spending.

 

Yadda yadda yadda Obama is going back to the White House. Any person with an iota of commonsense will be embarassed that a caricature like Mittens is their presidential candidate. The guys is a flip flopping bare faced liar who would say anything to win power. There is Mitt the candidate in the primaries and Mitt the candidate now and thankfully people who dont have their heads far up their ass would see this charlatan for what he is.

 

Somewhere applied math is not required. lmao

 

u know they know better than buffett geez

what have you been smoking?. he got the most prestigous janitoral job ever and now its time for the next guy to claim it got it done. like they tried to do with osama....hey give credit to bush he set it up for you. he was just playing about not chasing him

we also no longer thrive on manufacturing anymore its technology now.

too much like accurate

 

Bill Clinton was able to reduce the debt for a multitude of reasons. He was a business friendly President who brought in NAFTA and did not view corporations as the enemy like Obama does. Clinton also had a Republican house and senate during his second term and he went against party lines and sided with Republicans on many economic issues. Lastly, he was able to raise taxes because of his reduction in spending. Obama wants to raise taxes, but he doesn't want to make the spending cuts necessary that the Republicans are requesting.

If Reagan came in with unemployment at 5% and a stable economy, then you could argue that he didn't eliminate the debt. But instead he got unemployment from 10.6% to 5.4% and created 16 million jobs...I think he did a pretty good job considering the circumstances.

 

No my point is that debt is necessary for growth. Without lending and access to capital, you do not have an economy of our size. If you are talking about sustainability, this falls on the Federal Reserve. They need to manage rates to keep the economy stable. This was a problem in Bush's second term. Greenspan admittedly left rates too low for too long.

Side note- My degree is in economics and I interned at the Federal Reserve. I'm not some Nobel Prize winning PhD economist, but I can speak with some credibility on this issue.