Just going to give a few thoughts.
Romney's plan is basically to cut taxes dramatically while increasing spending and reducing the deficit. Which is kind of like losing weight while eating more bacon and ice cream. He says the positive, popular things he will do (bacon and ice cream are yummy), but then refuses to say how he will actually pay for any of it (you will have to do nine million jumping jacks a day and eat only one meal) because that would be unpopular, then just lies and says it won't increase the deficit (bacon and ice cream aren't really fattening) when in the short term at the very least it would have to. Even if tax cuts were the magic tonic to cure the economy overnight, they would still add to the deficit just like the stimulus did. And by the way, part of the stimulus was the largest tax cut in US history and we're still not out of the woods, so call me crazy but I doubt the magical economy-healing power of tax cuts.
I would also like to point out again that romney claims he has a plan to create 12 million jobs over the next 8 years only now that economists predict the economy is on track to create exactly that many jobs in exactly that time frame even if no one does anything for the next 8 years. Which romney has actually said would help, so long as it's him doing nothing. From the hidden camera fund raiser tape:
"If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends, of course, which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but 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."
He then continued:
"If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected."
So yeah. Anyway, I thought the president did much better from a not being full of shit perspective, but romney did better in a "lie about your opponent so rapidly they don't have time to rebut all your claims and it looks like a net win" department. I thought romney made some good jabs like saying obama was a hypocrite for wanting to cut a few billion because he spent 90 billion on clean energy - which is not actually true the real figure is about a third of that (not all of which has even been spent) most of the rest of the 90 billion went to weatherizing homes and other things - and the spending was from the stimulus which was meant to inject cash quickly into the economy to stop job losses (which it did). The claim that half of the companies that got "green" energy stimulus money are out of business is also a lie, only four of the 23 companies that received money have gone under or been sold since the stimulus passed.
But yeah, people said this debate was so impressive for romney because he showed he could talk about specifics and specific policies and figures, but he outright refused to give specifics on key issues like tax policy and gave a lot of "specifics" that were specific, but not actually accurate.
For instance, 57% of the claims romney made have been ranked untrue by 5 of the leading non-partisan fact-checking organizations. Is that the case? I don't know. But it sure is specific, so you should rec' this blog, and vote for mitt romney.
| ||Posted 10/4/2012 8:47 AM - 613 Views - 40 eProps - 40 comments|
Give eProps or Post a Comment