Excerpt: "Mr. Romney's campaign is telling lies: claiming that its numbers add up when they don't, claiming that independent studies support its position when those studies do no such thing."
Portrait, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 06/15/09. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)
Snow Job on Jobs
19 October 12
Mitt Romney talks a lot about jobs. But does he have a plan to create any?
You can defend President Obama's jobs record - recovery from a severe financial crisis is always difficult, and especially so when the opposition party does its best to block every policy initiative you propose. And things have definitely improved over the past year. Still, unemployment remains high after all these years, and a candidate with a real plan to make things better could make a strong case for his election.
But Mr. Romney, it turns out, doesn't have a plan; he's just faking it. In saying that, I don't mean that I disagree with his economic philosophy; I do, but that's a separate point. I mean, instead, that Mr. Romney's campaign is telling lies: claiming that its numbers add up when they don't, claiming that independent studies support its position when those studies do no such thing.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
In other words in this labor market employers don't have to hire marginal employees.
But, more to the point about creating jobs by fostering the growth of small businesses:
One of the most significant obstacles is that the social safety net doesn't work. In particular, if someone were to quit their 9-to-5 job to start a business, not only do they need to risk their own savings, but they also are jeopardizing the welfare of their family by giving up the healthcare benefits. If you want to foster growth of a small business, ensure that health benefits would be continuos regardless of whether the venture succeeds, or not.
Nearly every economic and social problem in America can be lessened to some degree by Single payor universal health care. I said nearly? Scratch the word "Nearly".
So the folks without jobs are a bunch of incompetent nitwits that don't deserve to work? Big news, the job market sucks! Show me one plan the Republicans proposed. ONE.
They stole Congress from the Democrats who had plans, not optimal, but plans that would get some results. The Republicans stole it by lying that they would create jobs. Still no plans! Is that promise the party made in 2010 any different than Romney's promise to add 12 million jobs now? Name one area where Mitt said he would propose legislation that would increase jobs in a particular business sector. ONE.
Undecided Fox watching people will vote for Mitt because they put the Democrats story that Obama was blocked by Republican intransigence as BS. So they believe Mitt because, gosh, he ran a business and made lots of money! I might believe Mitt if he ran a pizza parlor, but he ran a business that made profits by classifying employees, their salaries and benefits as fixed costs to be reduced.
When that happens in the government, you end up choosing where and when to deploy your limited security forces in a mostly friendly nation. And people end up dead.
Show me one plan (Job creation)the Republicans proposed. ONE.
Or how about suggesting some yourself. Its almost November, its about time you start letting people in on the secret!
Go check romneytaxplan.c om.
Don't waste yer breath; these reactionary types are as short on ideas as they are long on insults and dumbly-repeated rhetoric.
I quit messing with them a long time ago.
If what you say is correct (and in large part i think it is in so far as Krugman being overly rosy in how he is portraying our progress) this says to me that far from being "so far to the left" he is not even as left as a real Keynsian who would be arguing for a much more massive WPA style jobs program.
The WPS employed millions and the GI bill paid for itself many times over so while your critique of Krugman may be in some ways correct (as far as how much things have improved) but the conclusions you draw are actually the opposite of what needs to be done.
Since Obama's inauguration on Jan. 20 2009, all three major U.S. stock indexes are up more than 60 percent. The Nasdaq Composite alone has soared a whopping 105 percent.
And of course those numbers reflect the recovery from the economic meltdown President Obama inherited, and the Fed also gets some credit, but that meltdown occurred under those supposedly pro-business Republicans.
Even so, the market has performed better during Obama's 43 1/2 months in office than in any of the five prior administrations . In fact, the S&P 500 has outperformed most of the major world indexes during his presidency.
When they reply that this hasn't helped them any, remind them that they've just proven that trickle-down economics doesn't work.
[And that's why R'money (and Reagan) are dead wrong.]
With so much that needs to be done(from rebuilding our infrastructure to retrofitting every building to be energy efficient to providing shelter for all those that are homeless instead of leaving millions of homes vacant while so many then sleep on the streets) it is criminal not to do it
We must ha' been copping different news sources, or be in different time warps. According to the BBC, the Guardian and even the NY Times (12/15/12), the unemployment rate just fell to 7.8% -first time below 8% since 2008, the year Dimwits and his reactionary bosses and handlers left us all except his "Have-Mores-bas e" in the shit so deep that it's been an uphill slog ever since, especially with a congress almost hysterical and cynical about blocking every attempt of Obama's to make a dent in it and damn the county as a whole!
Mind you, I don't believe the published figures as they are always artificially "Adjusted" low but we have to start somewhere.
Oh and BTW, housing starts are up too (source, BBC web page 10/16/2012).
This plan is certain to inspire every pizza shop in town to add pizza bakers, and delivery boys (you know the ladies don't drive too well and have problems reading maps). Even now, company's all over America are writing up help wanted ads in anticipation of the Romney victory!
This offer will expire as soon as Mr. Romney speaks again on his tax plan.
Just President Bill said. Its arithmetic.
that was not what Obama was proposing.
The proposal in fact was to increase rates/payments on income above $250,000 i.e., all income up to that would be the same as it currently is and would not be increased.
You make a point, but a very small one at that. It would still only let taxes rise to the level they were under Clinton, and small businesses did very well then.
BTW, if a single payer health care act was implemented, it would more than offset the tax rise by removing health care as an expense to small business.
Think about it. That's where we're going. That's what put the European countries' economies back on track after WWII.
The three lowest years for corporate taxes since World War II – 2009, 2010, 2011. "Hiring in the U.S. Still Trails Corporate-Profi t Gains" -this is from a WSJ article. Corporations are doing really well. Their rhetorically 35% tax rate is just a talking point. 2-10% is quite the norm.
I have a small business and you are full of shit.
In fact what remains of my two business consolidated now, which were practically demolished under Dimwits and the crash, has just had it's best few months since 2007 when I had to consolidate.
Keep up the barrage of nonsense; you might even convince yourself eventually!
I want a President, not a boss as someone recently stated, especially a ruthless bully.
You might consider China, where Twit is in the process of moving a successful American company held by Bain Capital, and putting a good proportion of Freeport, Illinois out of work.
Fancy more of that do ya?
a very small percentage of "small businesses" have profits above $250,000 (even small businesses get to deduct expenses so it is not a tax on all income before deducting expenses it is a tax on profits) and here too the proposal was to only increase payments on profits above $250,000 while leaving the rate the same for all profits up to that.
I begin to believe you're making your numbers up.
As President Bill said. It Arithmetic.
Define "Small business".
Try another tack, please.
Yes, and 97% of those small businesses won't be affected.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html
World News Vine in 2010 said, "What has the Bush Era Tax Cuts done for the average American? For an example, someone living in poverty, that is less than $10,000 per year, received an extra 20 cents that is correct 20 cents per day under the plan. The millionaire received $407 dollars a day . . . Just to throw the angle of reality into the fray, the average American earning $50,000 per year received $4.30 per working day based on a work year of 2080 hours. During the Bush heyday, that was not even enough to purchase a gallon of unleaded gas."
http://worldnewsvine.com/2010/12/bush-tax-cuts-vs-unemployment-extensions-the-great-republican-lie/
NOTE: understatement
So WHO has caused all this uncertainty? Obama has proposed and proposed and proposed, without any real response from the nay-sayers who have nurtured uncertainty as their only strategy --- it has been effective. And even now, no one knows if they will be so irrational as to drive us off the cliff. Who would invest with that hanging over your head?
Only if Obama is reelected will this uncertainty be diminished. They can't really run against another Obmama term -- what else can they do? I believe the only chance they will see will be to move to the rational. Compromise on protecting wealth -- compromise on letting the courts decide where religion intersects with personal freedom, rather than hoping to legislate their anti-female views. And then some more progress may take place. Not as quickly as the old days, when you could engage in civil conversations, but one in which the interests of the entire United States, not just the "successful" and morally superior, are give a voice.
That's precisely the plan.
I have no illusions that the rethugs would ever vote to support a Green New Deal type program but that is what is needed in this country. That would be a real jobs plan.
Our national infrastruture is collapsing and no one other than the federal gov't has the resources to rebuild it. You want "energy independence" how about a program that made every building/house i the country energy efficient. These two alone would employ tens of millions of people. That would be a real jobs program.
Unfortunately, the "new democrats" adopted the very same "free market" economics that the republicans have been pushing for decade.
I'm not saying that it would be easy to get such a program through and it would require building a real political movement but this is what needs to be done.
Instead of simply extending unemployment benefits the federal gov't could offer anyone a job that needs one (including the job training they need) to rebuild our infrastructure, build a green economy, teach our kids, etc. Economists have shown how the GI bill paid for itself 7 times over because of they types of things they were investing in (college and mortgages for vets, etc).
So, yes Romney is horrible (and needs to be defeated) but that doesn't mean we need to defend Obama's record on this either.
I agree with your assessment that real public investment in transforming the US into a well educated modern, green country won't fly with voters.
Optimistically, the fact that Obama is not stating exactly what he will do in a second term plus the fact that he ahs stated a preference for all the items you note, makes me (want to?) believe that he may go left if he wins.
Remember, Romney and the Republicans really truly believe that piss on the people economics works.
The GI bill was very popular. so were the New Deal programs (which is not to say that they didn't have fierce political opposition because they did).
One of the problems i think is that the dems don't know how to talk about and confront the race issue. when affirmative action programs were "white" the white working class supported them enthusiasticall y. But, today, when these programs have been presented (falsely) as mainly benefitting "minorities" the repubs and conservative dems have been very effective at turning the white working class against them.
The challenge is how to build a mult-racial working/middle class coaliton. to do this though we need to be able to have a much more open and honest discussion about race and class (including the "fears" of the white working class that has seen its standard of living erode over the last 40 years and confronting those that continue to exploit these fears such that these folks now blame blacks, immigrants, the poor, "welfare queens" etc as being the ones who are responsible). Not an easy task I grant you but we have to start somewhere.
Remember the firestorm that Holder started when he said we need to have more open and frank discussions about race? And he is nowhere near as radical as that Van Jones guy (sic).
Yeah, sadly white progressives still have a real hard time knowing how to openly and honestly talk about this one. but it's not just "us" as I think Obama too has had a really hard time dealing with this one (though i understand the tight rope he needs to walk here)...e.g., i thought his "beer summit" with the cop that arrested Henry Gates in his own home was a travesty...also his handling of the shirley sharrod case...think in some ways he's been better on the trevon martin case but overall i don't think he has found a way to talk about this (which is a shame because since he is bi-racial in some ways he is the perfect person to initiate such a conversation).
Since race has always been used in this country to divide the black and white working class (and its been pretty successful unfortunately) its something i think the progressive/rad ical whatever movement has to be much better at being able to raise this one.
I would understand if he were not to kick the anthill.
Actually, Romney has said that—just not to the voters. In the video where he made his “47%” remarks, he also said, “. . . my own view is, if we win on November 6th there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back, and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy.”
I was just watching CPAITALISM A LOVE STORY again and you should too just to refresh your memory about how screwed we all are by the banks, wall st, the corporations and those reps who we vote for that don't work for us. We are being screwed in every way by the powerful and rich. If we don't get our sht together we the people are done for. We can kiss the middle class and the "American Dream" good-bye.
NO IT IS NOT.
It particularly bothers me as a business person because in business providing details and being flexible go hand in hand. Providing details allows you to say here is my idea but if other honorable people have other and perhaps even better ideas, I am happy to listen. I mean I just finished a presentation where I gave a detailed layout to a CEO and then made changes to my recommendations based on comments from him and others in the room.
The illogical excuse that Romney can't provide details really bothers me as a thinking person. And as a business lawyer and CPA, it is even worse because providing details while being flexible is exactly my job and that of any business person which Romney claims to be as the basis for his entire campaign.
Once revealed, only trivial, cosmetic changes are allowed.
I think the problem is his plan really does not add up and he has nothing to reveal.
What Romney & Co. are relying on is winning and having a Republican Congress that will sign up to anything he wants. That way, he can cut taxes for the rich, destroy social security, medicare and medicaid, borrow the money to pay for the tax cuts (thus saddling the public with even more debt), and then ride off into the sunset when he's done, leaving the rest of us with the dregs. Isn't that what he did at Bain?
Remember the old adage, "a leopard doesn't change its spots".
It was also exactly George W Bush's argument in 2000. That is after impeaching Clinton because he was a Dem, Bush and Repugs claimed that electing a Repug would "change the tone."
While looked what happened. Dems did work better with Bush than Repugs did with Clinton and 911 happened, surpluss was turned to the greatest defeicts ever, America was lied into war, New Orleans was destroyed as money for levee maintenance and repair was given to millionaires who also got tax cuts for moving jobs offshore, regulation was either repealed or not enforced allowing for everything from pollution to preditory home leanding resulting in an economic collapse.
Rewarding a child who should not get their way for whatever reason by giving them there way is bad parenting and even worse governing. I mean we have already seen what happens when we make a spoiled child president and now Romney wants us to do it again for the same reasons: Repugs are throwing tantrums and not letting America move forward.
Who really thinks by giving spoiled Repugs and Romeny their way and making them president, America will be better off.
I doubt it, and the magnitude of the necessary changes are large enough so that nothing can get through the government fences of the very rich who created government exactly to keep all of us out and just take advantage of the tendency for people to get distracted by everyday life, especially the harsher it is.
The only people who support this system are those are wired into it monetarily and feel like they are benefitting from it and those that are scared to lose what we already have.
I can understand everyone's feelings from every side, but we are fighting in a burning building so to speak.
Actually it is we who are fighting, but the ones in the burning building are our future selves or our children and descendants.
The fact that none of us ... "us", being any subset of a political majority knows what the truth is or can predict the future, and most of the people managing the information that gets to us distort it in some way.
And by the way, what is "we"?
"We" -a good question in these fragmented states, where much of the proletariat (or working people and their dependents) is persuaded by constant barrages of negative propaganda and lying by the plutocrats and their Super-PACs.
Hell I could go on at some length on this as I'm sure most of us could.
In short, almost anybody but Twit!
RSS feed for comments to this post