If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Romney's ideas wouldn't fix our long term economic problems but on the bright side they also wouldn't fix our short term economic problems   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 58
    More: Obvious, economic problems, Macroeconomic Advisers, advice columnist, sovereign debt crisis  
•       •       •

752 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jun 2012 at 11:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-08 11:01:24 AM
Firms don't add people for the heck of it. They add people to produce additional goods and services, because they expect that there's demand for their product out there."

How many decades is it going to take for people to learn that lesson?
 
2012-06-08 11:28:26 AM
What are his ideas? Other than tax cuts for the Cock Bros?
 
2012-06-08 11:28:57 AM

Bag of Hammers: What are his ideas? Other than tax cuts for the Cock Bros?


I think his "not being black" idea is pretty good.
 
2012-06-08 11:31:07 AM
A pro-business Republican with ideas that improve corporate profits to the detriment of the world? You don't say...
 
2012-06-08 11:31:25 AM

sweetmelissa31: Bag of Hammers: What are his ideas? Other than tax cuts for the Cock Bros?

I think his "not being black" idea is pretty good.


But do we honestly think he can deliver?
 
2012-06-08 11:32:17 AM
We just need to trickle down harder!
 
2012-06-08 11:32:39 AM

sweetmelissa31: Bag of Hammers: What are his ideas? Other than tax cuts for the Cock Bros?

I think his "not being black" idea is pretty good.


I just had this incredible mental image of Romney in blackface
 
2012-06-08 11:32:49 AM
romney has ideas?

I should rtfa
 
2012-06-08 11:34:22 AM
Will Rogers said it best many years ago.

"The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn't know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow's hands."
 
2012-06-08 11:34:27 AM

Jackson Herring: I just had this incredible mental image of Romney in blackface


If we could somehow convince him it would make him poll a couple of percent higher, I'd love to see the results.
 
2012-06-08 11:35:44 AM

TrollingForColumbine: romney has ideas?


It's a grey area. They're more like notions or feelings right now. Once Fox and Rush weigh in, we should see more detail.
 
2012-06-08 11:36:09 AM
You want proof Romney's ideas won't work? Look at the last 11 years. NEXT!
 
2012-06-08 11:36:18 AM
FTA: "But right now is not a good time to apply sharp fiscal austerity. It doesn't seem to me that anyone thinks there's going to be a sovereign debt crisis in the next 10 years. Investors do not see Treasury debt as a dangerous asset."
 
2012-06-08 11:36:35 AM
Now now, that's not true. Romney's ideas today wouldn't fix either the short- or long-term economic problems, but Romney's ideas as soon as he gets elected probably would. Anybody who thinks the GOP won't immediately swing back to favoring economic stimulus over deficit reduction if he were elected is stupid and completely ignorant of history.
 
2012-06-08 11:38:27 AM
Putting people to work in the energy industry sounds good. We really should be re-vamping our entire power infrastructure, all the way down to new, more robust power lines on up to a decentralized network of small nuclear power plants being supplemented by alternative energy farms, like solar and wind. A major effort like that would hire all sorts of people, skilled and un-skilled, and while making energy cheaper (and more reliable) in the long run, would eventually be pretty profitable. Public works projects like that are a good source of employment during a recession, and have long-term dividends which make deficit spending wise during a time of need.

But I don't think that's what Romney means. I think Romney means opening wildlife preserves for more oil drilling.
 
2012-06-08 11:39:13 AM
Supply side is never going to die, is it? It's like a zombie that doesn't kill you, it just rapes you slowly, it's hot, swampy breath in your ear as its rotting dick punishes your asshole. I hate this state of affairs.
 
2012-06-08 11:39:26 AM
Long story short: Romney would resume Bush's policies, which caused the recession in the first place.
 
2012-06-08 11:39:27 AM

Bag of Hammers: What are his ideas? Other than tax cuts for the Cock Bros?


i2.cdn.turner.com

His ideas are radically increase government spending and handouts to the defense companies that give millions in lobbying money to Republicans. Dramatically cut taxes for the richest who are funding his CPACs. Blame the resulting deficit on the Democrats, and use the Republican noise machine to convince the mindless that it's true.

In other words, the Republican handbook for the last 30 years.
 
2012-06-08 11:41:34 AM

Mugato: Firms don't add people for the heck of it. They add people to produce additional goods and services, because they expect that there's demand for their product out there."

How many decades is it going to take for people to learn that lesson?


I know people of above average intelligence who cannot grasp that supply-side must have a demand-side component to work. They insist that supply-side in and of itself is sufficient to make a society more prosperous.

So my guess is a long time, especially with all the misinformation being put out 24/7.
 
2012-06-08 11:41:36 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Supply side is never going to die, is it? It's like a zombie that doesn't kill you, it just rapes you slowly, it's hot, swampy breath in your ear as its rotting dick punishes your asshole. I hate this state of affairs.


Not to put too fine a point on it, but if my healthy, strong and unbleached asshole can't clench enough to repel a rotting, structurally unsound undead cock, I deserve to be raped by that zombie.
 
2012-06-08 11:41:42 AM

palelizard: Putting people to work in the energy industry sounds good. We really should be re-vamping our entire power infrastructure, all the way down to new, more robust power lines on up to a decentralized network of small nuclear power plants being supplemented by alternative energy farms, like solar and wind. A major effort like that would hire all sorts of people, skilled and un-skilled, and while making energy cheaper (and more reliable) in the long run, would eventually be pretty profitable. Public works projects like that are a good source of employment during a recession, and have long-term dividends which make deficit spending wise during a time of need.

But I don't think that's what Romney means. I think Romney means opening wildlife preserves for more oil drilling.


And eliminating job-killing regulations, so the cleanup costs can be passed on to the taxpayers.
 
2012-06-08 11:42:42 AM
TPC estimates that on a static basis, the Romney plan would lower federal tax liability by about $900 billion in calendar year 2015 compared with current law, roughly a 24 percent cut in total projected revenue. That translates into a revenue loss of $9.1 trillion over the next ten years. Link

Over the ten-year period 2013-2022 the Romney plan would increase core defense spending to $7.9 trillion. Link

People making over $1 million a year would receive an average tax cut of $250,000 in 2015 - an increase of nearly 12 percent in their after-tax income - on top of the large tax cuts they would get from making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts first enacted under President Bush permanent, which themselves would provide average tax reductions for these people of about $130,000 a year.

People making between $10,000 and $20,000 would receive an average tax increase of $174, while those below $10,000 would face an average tax increase of $113.Link

He's a serious candidate. This is a serious plan.
 
2012-06-08 11:44:03 AM

odinsposse: We just need to trickle down harder!


i47.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-08 11:44:42 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: TPC estimates that on a static basis, the Romney plan would lower federal tax liability by about $900 billion in calendar year 2015 compared with current law, roughly a 24 percent cut in total projected revenue. That translates into a revenue loss of $9.1 trillion over the next ten years. Link

Over the ten-year period 2013-2022 the Romney plan would increase core defense spending to $7.9 trillion. Link

People making over $1 million a year would receive an average tax cut of $250,000 in 2015 - an increase of nearly 12 percent in their after-tax income - on top of the large tax cuts they would get from making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts first enacted under President Bush permanent, which themselves would provide average tax reductions for these people of about $130,000 a year.

People making between $10,000 and $20,000 would receive an average tax increase of $174, while those below $10,000 would face an average tax increase of $113.Link

He's a serious candidate. This is a serious plan.


Well, now I'm just depressed.
 
2012-06-08 11:44:49 AM

Serious Black: Now now, that's not true. Romney's ideas today wouldn't fix either the short- or long-term economic problems, but Romney's ideas as soon as he gets elected probably would. Anybody who thinks the GOP won't immediately swing back to favoring economic stimulus over deficit reduction if he were elected is stupid and completely ignorant of history.


If by 'economic stimulus' you mean going to war with another country, sure you are probably right. The only government spending Republicans support is money spent on improving ways to kill other people.
 
2012-06-08 11:46:24 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: TPC estimates that on a static basis, the Romney plan would lower federal tax liability by about $900 billion in calendar year 2015 compared with current law, roughly a 24 percent cut in total projected revenue. That translates into a revenue loss of $9.1 trillion over the next ten years. Link

Over the ten-year period 2013-2022 the Romney plan would increase core defense spending to $7.9 trillion. Link


The problem is obviously that they didn't use dynamic scoring to figure out the effect of these tax cuts and defense spending hikes on economic growth. Top men have informed me that our GDP would instantly start growing 50% a year with these policy changes, so in reality, revenues would grow so fast that the entire federal debt would be paid off by 2015.
 
2012-06-08 11:47:32 AM
But the rich would get richer and then they'd share their wealth through kindness....you see we feed on the table scraps of the super rich. The best way for everyone to prosper is to feed the rich more so they drop more food on the ground. I know my dog gets to eat more if I buy a T-Bone as apposed to a NY Strip.
 
2012-06-08 11:47:45 AM

ghare: palelizard: Putting people to work in the energy industry sounds good. We really should be re-vamping our entire power infrastructure, all the way down to new, more robust power lines on up to a decentralized network of small nuclear power plants being supplemented by alternative energy farms, like solar and wind. A major effort like that would hire all sorts of people, skilled and un-skilled, and while making energy cheaper (and more reliable) in the long run, would eventually be pretty profitable. Public works projects like that are a good source of employment during a recession, and have long-term dividends which make deficit spending wise during a time of need.

But I don't think that's what Romney means. I think Romney means opening wildlife preserves for more oil drilling.

And eliminating job-killing regulations, so the cleanup costs can be passed on to the taxpayers.


Well, yeah, it's public land. Why should a private corporation be forced to pay?
 
2012-06-08 11:49:20 AM

Citrate1007: But the rich would get richer and then they'd share their wealth through kindness....you see we feed on the table scraps of the super rich. The best way for everyone to prosper is to feed the rich more so they drop more food on the ground. I know my dog gets to eat more if I buy a T-Bone as apposed to a NY Strip.


They're going to be so fat and tasty when it comes time to eat them. They'll be like somebody took boxed veal and wrapped it in foie gras then fried the whole thing in lard. I will enjoy eating their livers.

(the rich, not your dogs)
 
2012-06-08 11:50:35 AM

Gwyrddu: Serious Black: Now now, that's not true. Romney's ideas today wouldn't fix either the short- or long-term economic problems, but Romney's ideas as soon as he gets elected probably would. Anybody who thinks the GOP won't immediately swing back to favoring economic stimulus over deficit reduction if he were elected is stupid and completely ignorant of history.

If by 'economic stimulus' you mean going to war with another country, sure you are probably right. The only government spending Republicans support is money spent on improving ways to kill other people.


Yes, that is probably what they would do, but why wouldn't nuking the entire Middle East from orbit stimulate our economy? We'd have to replace all those missiles, stat!
 
2012-06-08 11:51:40 AM
Well that convinced me. I'm no longer voting for Romney. (Is the sarcasm evident enough?)
 
2012-06-08 11:51:54 AM

qorkfiend: FTA: "But right now is not a good time to apply sharp fiscal austerity. It doesn't seem to me that anyone thinks there's going to be a sovereign debt crisis in the next 10 years. Investors do not see Treasury debt as a dangerous asset."


It's crazy. A 10 year t-note has had its own interest rate dip below 1.5% THE LOWEST IN HISTORY. Imagine you could get loans at 1.5% right now. Our government can. We should be rebuilding our country with that money because in order to ride out the European fiscal crisis, people are going to be investing heavily in the safest security in existence: The USA.

(that is, of course, if some dumbfarks don't decide to arbitrarily not pay back our creditors because they're not getting things their way in our congress)
 
2012-06-08 11:53:29 AM

ghare: palelizard: Putting people to work in the energy industry sounds good. We really should be re-vamping our entire power infrastructure, all the way down to new, more robust power lines on up to a decentralized network of small nuclear power plants being supplemented by alternative energy farms, like solar and wind. A major effort like that would hire all sorts of people, skilled and un-skilled, and while making energy cheaper (and more reliable) in the long run, would eventually be pretty profitable. Public works projects like that are a good source of employment during a recession, and have long-term dividends which make deficit spending wise during a time of need.

But I don't think that's what Romney means. I think Romney means opening wildlife preserves for more oil drilling.

And eliminating job-killing regulations, so the cleanup costs can be passed on to the taxpayers.


Hey, but that's more jobs and since it is a horrible ecological disaster the GOP base doesn't derp out on non DOD government spending.
 
2012-06-08 11:56:12 AM
The article does not seem to understand that Mittens is not interested in fixing OPP. He just wants to get into office, remove cap gains tax, retire and live tax free. This is not about you people...
 
2012-06-08 11:57:56 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: TPC estimates that on a static basis, the Romney plan would lower federal tax liability by about $900 billion in calendar year 2015 compared with current law, roughly a 24 percent cut in total projected revenue. That translates into a revenue loss of $9.1 trillion over the next ten years. Link

Over the ten-year period 2013-2022 the Romney plan would increase core defense spending to $7.9 trillion. Link

People making over $1 million a year would receive an average tax cut of $250,000 in 2015 - an increase of nearly 12 percent in their after-tax income - on top of the large tax cuts they would get from making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts first enacted under President Bush permanent, which themselves would provide average tax reductions for these people of about $130,000 a year.

People making between $10,000 and $20,000 would receive an average tax increase of $174, while those below $10,000 would face an average tax increase of $113.Link

He's a serious candidate. This is a serious plan.


This may explain why the current GOP is bending over backwards to keep racist, religeous, tea party, and all other horrible factions placated. They need the ignorant to stay ignorant to swallow this pill. Similar things could be said about the Dems, but at least they aren't trying to tell me what I can do in my bedroom or trying to force my child to learn about their skywizard creating the earth 2000 years ago.
 
2012-06-08 11:58:30 AM

tcan: Well that convinced me. I'm no longer voting for Romney. (Is the sarcasm evident enough?)


If, with everything you already know about him, you are still voting for him there is no hope for you.
 
2012-06-08 11:59:40 AM

monoski: The article does not seem to understand that Mittens is not interested in fixing OPP. He just wants to get into office, remove cap gains tax, retire and live tax free. This is not about you people...


You down with OPP?
 
2012-06-08 12:00:55 PM

Citrate1007: This may explain why the current GOP is bending over backwards to keep racist, religeous, tea party, and all other horrible factions placated. They need the ignorant to stay ignorant to swallow this pill. Similar things could be said about the Dems, but at least they aren't trying to tell me what I can do in my bedroom or trying to force my child to learn about their skywizard creating the earth 2000 years ago.


I'm really really looking forward to the debates. I want to see Romney try to sell this plan to the American people - the same (actually more extreme) policies that got us into this mess. Obama, if he's on his game, will destroy him.
 
2012-06-08 12:05:05 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: I'm really really looking forward to the debates. I want to see Romney try to sell this plan to the American people - the same (actually more extreme) policies that got us into this mess. Obama, if he's on his game, will destroy him.


In a real way, Romney's going to be easier to debate than McCain. McCain had a certain grumpy old man wisdom to his delivery even if he mostly just talked nonsense.

Romney, on the other hand, just oozes used car salesman. You know between the unconvincing smile and the stilted, unfunny jokes, the wheels are turning as he works out a way to fark you on the deal.

Obama's much smoother and a better poker player.
 
2012-06-08 12:05:22 PM
I don't think Romney gives a sh*t about us little people in the slightest. I can't believe I am saying this because it is super derpy...but I kinda hope Romney wins so the Republicans that voted for him can eat sh*t when absolutely nothing changes. The rich get richer and things continue to chug along. They do not give a f*ck about us. The government is working just fine for the big boys. Anti-abortion bills and fighting marriage equality are just distraction after distraction...arguing over double entendres and other silly comments just to keep us from the real issues. Everybody is so keyed up and excitable, it is madness really. And they all just laugh and laugh and laugh.


Fixing the country and caring for other people is now socialism so....whatever. Tax cuts for the super rich.
 
2012-06-08 12:20:51 PM

Mugato: Firms don't add people for the heck of it. They add people to produce additional goods and services, because they expect that there's demand for their product out there."

How many decades is it going to take for people to learn that lesson?


what do you mean they cant flood the market with cheap crap and tons of advertising while expecting others to pay people who will buy your product?
 
2012-06-08 12:26:38 PM

Mercutio74: Dusk-You-n-Me: I'm really really looking forward to the debates. I want to see Romney try to sell this plan to the American people - the same (actually more extreme) policies that got us into this mess. Obama, if he's on his game, will destroy him.

In a real way, Romney's going to be easier to debate than McCain. McCain had a certain grumpy old man wisdom to his delivery even if he mostly just talked nonsense.

Romney, on the other hand, just oozes used car salesman. You know between the unconvincing smile and the stilted, unfunny jokes, the wheels are turning as he works out a way to fark you on the deal.

Obama's much smoother and a better poker player.


The right wing rhetoric is way too trollable. Romney will either be forced to take the bait and get his @ss handed to him or he'll have to avoid it and alienate his base. I can't wait until the healthcare debates.
 
2012-06-08 12:29:13 PM
Romney's ideas aren't really intended to solve underlying problems. They're largely to deal with the fallout of previous bad ideas. Doggy on the roof crapping itself in terror? Wash away the crap. Do nothing about the terrified dog itself. Health insurance crisis? Make it illegal to not have health insurance. Do nothing about the affordability of health insurance.
 
2012-06-08 12:31:29 PM

Citrate1007: The right wing rhetoric is way too trollable. Romney will either be forced to take the bait and get his @ss handed to him or he'll have to avoid it and alienate his base. I can't wait until the healthcare debates.


Those won't be much fun. It will just be Obama quoting Romney and Romney saying "No, what I meant to say was..." for an hour or two.

Foreign policy will be the real fun one. Romney has no clue about it and it's Obama's strongest suit. Romney has to try and criticize him but he just doesn't know enough to do it well. It will be a real one-sided beating.
 
2012-06-08 12:48:42 PM

odinsposse: Citrate1007: The right wing rhetoric is way too trollable. Romney will either be forced to take the bait and get his @ss handed to him or he'll have to avoid it and alienate his base. I can't wait until the healthcare debates.

Those won't be much fun. It will just be Obama quoting Romney and Romney saying "No, what I meant to say was..." for an hour or two.

Foreign policy will be the real fun one. Romney has no clue about it and it's Obama's strongest suit. Romney has to try and criticize him but he just doesn't know enough to do it well. It will be a real one-sided beating.


Even Bill O'reilly has nice things to say about Obama's foreign policy, though I think that will change once Fox News tells him that cutting defensive spending is bad. What I'm not looking forward to is the freaking ad bombardment sh@tstorm comming....I live in a "battlegound" state.
 
2012-06-08 01:05:06 PM
Hopkins: "The reality is that you're talking about people only in energy producing states. If you double the amount of people working in the industry over the next four years it doesn't move the needle a whole lot."

Ahh, I see only direct job results count. People in other states obviously only contribute to their own states and don't sell anything such as materials and equipment to anyone in any other state. Unless of course its the car companies then its 11ENTY BILLION JOBS that will be effected.
 
2012-06-08 01:12:38 PM

Mercutio74: Obama's much smoother and a better poker player.


I actually read an article about that during the 2008 election. Basically it broke down the difference between how McCain and Obama gambled. But basically, yes, Obama literally is a really good poker player, Obama is a cautious player and knows the odds well. McCain btw plays things like Roulette or craps, games where he can been seen and flash some money.
 
2012-06-08 01:19:57 PM
You know what would fix the economy? Stop allowing the wealthy to move all the jobs out of the United States to countries that pay slave wages without facing a financial penalty, as was once the case.

There was this guy who warned America that both parties were selling us out when they began the bipartisan drive to allow this. Something about a giant sucking sound.

dl.dropbox.com

/Miss me yet?
 
2012-06-08 01:43:15 PM

Sabyen91: tcan: Well that convinced me. I'm no longer voting for Romney. (Is the sarcasm evident enough?)

If, with everything you already know about him, you are still voting for him there is no hope for you.


There you go talking about Obama again.
 
2012-06-08 01:51:12 PM

tcan: Sabyen91: tcan: Well that convinced me. I'm no longer voting for Romney. (Is the sarcasm evident enough?)

If, with everything you already know about him, you are still voting for him there is no hope for you.

There you go talking about Obama again.


That's weird because several policies Obama pushed for have benefited me personally or expanded rights I have been legally denied under previous administrations.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report