All about ideas…

The Second Presidential Debate…

with one comment

Romney-Obama 2012 Presidential Campaign

Washington Post’s Wonkblog fact checked each of the assertions of this debate. I’ve yet to go through each of the policy differences as stated during this debate; however, I have followed the campaigns for the last two years so I feel confident as to which candidate has the higher road towards economic recovery and the rebuilding and renewal of our economy. But then I also agree with FDR in this now famous speech

This week Reinhart and Rogoff, the two outstanding economists who wrote the premier book on financial crisis, wrote in Bloomberg View that the US is not different when it comes to financially caused recessions. They wrote that while TARP and ARRA (aka the Stimulus package) stemmed the tide of job losses, prevented a deep depression such as the Great Depression, and lifted the US economy in late 2009 and 2010, the deep debt held in the private sector prevented faster growth as the private sector deleveraged. Plus, political infighting prevented further economic gains.

Recovery from Systemic Banking Crises

So, while Romney and Ryan argue that Obama has not done enough to spur growth and that their policies of tax cuts would spur faster growth, Reinhart and Rogoff argue that they are both wrong. Economic data shows that Romney-Ryan policies would lead to increased deficits and increased taxes on middle income earners while reducing the tax burden on the most wealthy.

Yet, the most wealthy in this country are the ones who rely most heavily on governmental services, from roads and transport systems to courts and trade policies. Nevertheless, these are the same people and companies that Romney-Ryan choose to protect from tax burdens. I’m not asking if their ideas are fair, I’m asking if their ideas are appropriate and moral.

Chrystia Freeland recently has written several essays – and a new book – on the rise of American oligarchy. She should know. She spent several years in Russia, covering the rise of rise of Russian oligarchies after the fall of the USSR. Frankly, I’ll admit to being a fan of Freeland.

But beyond my appreciation of Freeland is a belief that America needs new and different policies to deal with the challenges of a globalized 21st Century. The policies of Reagan no longer apply as Reagan’s Domestic policy adviser, Bruce Bartlett, has written on numerous occasions. Even David Stockman, Reagan’s OMB Director, says GOP policies are wrong…and this from the man who promoted supply-side economics. He even wrote a lengthy editorial taking down Romney’s so-called business experience.

Quite simply I do not believe that Romney and Ryan have the correct prescription for America, unless of course you belong to America’s oligarchy or are among the economically illiterate. Our nation faces numerous serious challenges going forward. Returning to 1890s policies will not resolve our global competitiveness challenges, rebuild the middle class or renew our nation.

While I do not believe that Democrats have all the answers, let along all the correct answers, I do believe that the modern conservative movement and neo-cons that now dominate the GOP would lead our beloved country down a path of less competitiveness as well as decreased social mobility and economic equity.

As a nation, we should and must do better than the last three decades in which Republican policies…and Wall St financialization…dominated our political sphere.

Plainly put, Romney and Ryan – along with Ryan’s budget proposals – are the wrong policies for America’s future. Economics and policy professionals all agree that Romney and Ryan are wrong!

Written by Valerie Curl

October 17, 2012 at 2:51 PM

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Obviously, replying to you is an exercise in nonsensicality since you obviously have no clue regarding the macro-economy or any memory prior to Jan ’09. If you did, you would know that the problems with our economy have been building structurally for decades. And calling me spurious names does not increase the validity of your argument. It only shows how limited your knowledge is and how closed minded you are.

    In addition, I seriously doubt you even read the links I provided to back up my argument. Of course, that would require an open mind and a readiness to learn rather than being just a member of a Republican tribe.

    Today Bruce Bartlett, Reagan’s chief Domestic Policy Adviser, wrote on his NYTimes Economix blog that at this point reducing marginal tax rates, as Romney-Ryan propose, will have negligible effects on the economy as the history of the Reagan tax cuts show. In fact, every reputable, non-partisan economist explains that the Romney-Ryan plans won’t add up and would harm the economy, future growth and competitiveness.

    If we, the American people, are going to save our economy over the long term as well as rebuild and renew our nation for the future, we need to move beyond the current tribalism of political partisanship towards learning more and being open to new ideas from where ever they come.

    I’m not afraid to learn and change my thoughts when new ideas are presented that make economic sense. Are you? Or are you so stuck in whatever ideology you hold that you refuse to see the possibility of new ideas that could change the decades long US macro-economic dynamics that fueled the global recession, reduced both US wages and entrepreneurship, and reduced new business funding?

    As a nation, we can and should do better than put our complete faith in supply side economics when it is patently obvious that it doesn’t work for our current economic dilemma. Yet, that failed policy is exactly what Romney and Ryan propose to exacerbate with their economic plans.

    As a result, I refuse to support or vote for Romney and Ryan. Moreover, I recommend no one else vote for them or any Republican in the upcoming election. The best thing that could happen to the Grand Old Party is to lose spectacularly as I believe it would shake the party up to the degree that they will once again return to being a party of ideas rather than dogmatic ideology.

    Valerie Curl

    October 17, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: