Skip to comments.Romney’s Big Fat Wet Kiss to Keynesian Economics (RINO Mitt flops back to liberalism alert)
Posted on 05/26/2012 5:53:09 AM PDT by Zakeet
The real news in Mitt Romneys interview with Mark Halperin, as Charles Pierce points out, is that Romney openly repudiated the central argument his party has been making against President Obama for the last three years: that he spent too much money and therefore deepened the economic crisis. Indeed Romney himself had been making this very case as recently as a week ago (he bailed out the public sector, gave billions of dollars to the companies of his friends, and added almost as much debt as all the prior presidents combined. The consequence is that we are enduring the most tepid recovery in modern history.) But in his Halperin interview, Romney frankly admits that reducing the budget deficit in the midst of an economic crisis would be a horrible idea:
Halperin: You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if youre elected why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that youd like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?
Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So Im not going to do that, of course.
Of course! Romney says this as if its completely obvious that reducing the deficit in the short term would throw the economy back into recession, even though he and his party have been arguing the opposite case with hysterical fervor.
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
It didn't take the Rino long to abandon conservatism after his opposition dropped out of the race
This is shaping up to be 2008 all over again. The lesser of 2 evils. The sad part is if we had a conservative (not Newt) who can make the case and who’s quick enough to counter all the mud that AxelGrease and the DNC will throw at him, he’d be walking away with it.
As long as the powers that be believe this we are doomed. Keynesian 'solutions' have never been applied more enthusiastically than by FDR and Obama. They have resulted in the two worst economic records in the nation's history.
The 2012 GOP platform for conservatives: close your eyes, hold your nose, plug your ears, shut your mouth, and turn off your brain.
You misspelled Kenyan.
Romney is not endorsing Keynesian economics here. This is a hit job designed to discourage conservatives (who do not read what he said).
“Its the Economy, Stupid”
Surprise, surprise, surprise! A hit job. Who’da thunk it?
I will never vote for romney.
Some of us have seen through Mutt from the beginning. No significant economic change of the type we need will happen in a Romney presidency.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
I’m glad you pointed this out. The article is deliberately misleading and is a hit job for people who read no further than the headline and first paragraph.
Government spending is false GDP.Real GDP comes only from the private sector.
You one of those post-before-reading FReepers?
After all the build up, the actual thing said by Mitt quite underwhelms our expectation that he is going to out himself at any moment as another huge tax and spend liberal. He wants to retire the deficit at a rate more slowly than 5% of GDP per year until the recession is over. And Mitt never says anything about Keynesian economics at all. My what an economic liberal Mitt is!
Romney is my 2nd-to-last choice for POTUS, followed only by Obama. However, this article is a cheap shot, and isn’t worthy of being posted.
Folks who cheer it are Obama-bots.
I think we need to embrace Myth and push him to the right.......
However, he also likes big government programs, which would seem to contradict his supply side talk. He sounds a lot like a guy places less importance on the philosophy behind a government program than in the person running the program.
Many people do not even read the article or the full quotes these days. They go by the “Title” and jump to conclusions accordingly...which is exacly what it is supposed to make happen.
Fact is, Rommney will reduce government spending drastically, and particularly as the correct legislation is sent to him by the majority House and Senate we must elect.
To do it all at once would cause harm...and so he will do it in a way to maximize the positive impact on the economy, jobs, inflation, interest, etc.
To try and say that because he s taking a pragmatic, well thought out, and measured approach to setting our house in order somehow means he is going liberal on it is simply disenginuous and meant to try and drive wedges and get people not to vote. Plain and simple.
America at the Crossroads of history
Obama’s Disasterous Firsts as President
When you read what Romney actually said in this article, it does not justify the headline. Romney was talking about the rate of deficit reduction. He said that 1 trillion reduction would be too much in a recession. He is probably correct about this.
Biden: We have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt
Romney: If you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So Im not going to do that, of course.
Unconstrained government spending combined with the borrowing and money-printing necessary to sustain it is the root cause of this country's economic problems. In essence, we are broke and we are rapidly and continuously making the problem worse.
Economic catastrophe will occur if we wait too long. The over-creation of new money causes inflation, which in itself is a form of debt default. Ultimately, debt agreements must be repudiated, and this leads directly to hyperinflation. If this happens, the cost to society is horrible indeed.
Of course, it will cause pain to take the unavoidable cure. Recall that Regan began his term as president with a severe recession as he began to unwind the disasters of the Johnson-Nixon-Carter era. But look at the results Reagan obtained.
The question facing this country at the present time is whether we want to take a painful cure now, or a much worse cure later, or wait until we perish from our spending disease.
Mitt, the Rino, is taking an unambiguous position in this interview.
Let's be fair to Romney here. He is NOT advocating continued deficit spending. But he knows that some will be necessary until the economy starts to grow again.
Let's be fair. You don't begin to reduce debt until you quit borrowing more. Therefore continued deficit spending is exactly what Mitt is advocating.
Moreover, all of the economists that I respect argue that the economy will not start to grow again as long as we continue down the road lavish government spending. If the several trillion dollars of stimulus blown during the Obama-Bernanke regime have not been enough to jump start growth, then how much is?
There are other examples in history. I mentioned Reagan in an earlier post. Coolidge is another good example ... his spending cuts post World War I led this country into a boom while the rest of the world increased deficit spending and fell into a hyperinflationary-depression.
this is not the lesser of two evils... this is the same evil times two... romney... fubo... same thing different packaging...
just remember, when the road to socialism is not closed, or even the speed limit not reduced, I will be able to say with a clear consience, that I did not lend my support in any way shape or form..
screw all socialists, and that includes romney
Actually he said the same way back in the debates.
Romney’s been bad news in plain sight all along.
The 5% decrease in GDP would only be for the first year, GDP would grow after that based on the real baseline. No balls, Romney is a joke.
I know that conservatives of good faith will disagree, but electing Myth would be a bigger disaster than Zer0.
Imagine 80% of Zer0’s policies... spending, gutting the military, amnesty... sailing through Congress because Myth proposed it.
The Blubbery Boehnner and McConnell won’t fight it. Myth is the head of their party.
The Dims won’t fight it. IT’S WHAT THEY WANT.
Just watch as Myth Etch-A-Sketches his way up to the election, then amplify. Zer0-Lite, with the power to persuade the only thing that has been holding Zer0 back — the GOP Congress.
Seriously, this scares the crap out of me.
Good post. It is obvious that if you just slashed government spending by “$1 Trillion” (the example in the article) GDP would suffer significantly. Just look at the estimates for the “fiscal cliff”. Thing is that absolutely nobody is suggesting we take $1 Trillion out of the budget next year.
The issue is that the private economy is completely stagnant as we are all wonder what’s the next business killing regulation is coming next. E also have no idea how to plan for taxes. Uncertainty is the killer.
Obama is tacking to the right, trying campaign as a conservative. The Liberal media is at work again, influencing all the simple minded folk out there.
Some Obama loons on FR are lapping up everything their media dogs spit at them.
Balanced approach? LOL. Mitt's approach will favor the State. What we need is an "unbalanced" approach. Government needs to be drastically cut in power and scope. Read what Harding did in his term.
Mitt's approach is a joke. Do you realize that the RATs and the RINOs will push him easily to the left.
It's all words with Mitt right now. His actual record in MASS shows someone who is very much at ease with increasing the power of the State.
To those who think Mitt will turn our Republic towards Liberty and prosperity I have only this to day -- prepare to be very disappointed.
Throughout his entire term, the MSM and the RATS will be yelling see how the far right-wing Mitt is not improving things." And they will be right as far as not improving things. Conservatives will be marginalized by Mitt and his vile staff. The RATs will easily win in 2016 to continue our push towards rabid Socialism.
A Mitt will will NOT change our destination of Socialism.
Romney will campaign on taxes, but not on reducing Gov't. We are going broke, and yet 'they' promote growth in certain areas, ie financial, Gov't contracting, Defense, and put it on our backs in the form of debt. If your not in those sectors your a nobody.
Yes, cutting the spending would initially raise the unemployment rate and reduce the GDP. But, those things need to happen in order to reach a healthy economy.