Comments on: Mitt Romney’s 5 Point Plan is the Same Plan as McCain in ’08 and Bush in ’04

By: A Walkaway

A Walkaway — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 02:01:46 +0000

The big mistake you’re making is that economic theory has changed greatly over the years, and the understanding has grown far beyond what the early thinkers said. 18th century theory rarely has any validity when confronting 21st century reality. It’s like trying to predict food supplies using purely Malthusian ideas – it just doesn’t work.

The fact is, the rich are greedy and crooked, and you have to FORCE them to turn loose of their wealth, so that the money stays in the system and does good for everyone. They don’t make jobs, they don’t do much of anything good – they’re just a drain on the whole thing.

That’s boiling a whole lot of science down into a short blurb.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Shiva (Moderator)

Shiva (Moderator) — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 01:10:13 +0000

You do that. But the rest of us want results not more war

What do you think? 0 0

By: David Mulroney

David Mulroney — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:43:02 +0000

First if all I get tired of Dems and Reps claim they know more about how to runs things theb the other. I would put my Faith in GOD not Government.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Lisa Stalcup

Lisa Stalcup — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 19:15:24 +0000

Both campaigns accuse each other of proposing economic plans that will result in monstrous increases in the national debt and budget deficit (and of “increasing taxes on the middle class” for that matter) and it’s entirely possible both are partially correct, given the history of the last 12 years. Both campaigns accuse the other of destroying small business, Obama through burdensome taxation and Romney through promoting cutthroat competition with larger more powerful companies.

The truth is that both of these issues are red herring — national debt and deficits do not work the same way household debt does, and small businesses are simply not the pathfinders to economic recovery nor are they even the most important constituent of the economy. When either campaign brings up these platitudes, it’s best to take whatever they say with a large grain of salt.

What do you think? 0 0

By: Lisa Stalcup

Lisa Stalcup — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 19:12:20 +0000

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Romney’s third point in his plan has also been shared by Obama. Mittens pledged to “make trade work for America by forging new trade agreements.”

Certainly he didn’t mean replacing NAFTA, which has had such ruinous effects on workers in the US as well as Mexico, with something more fair. After all, no rational businessman would want to be forced to hire American workers who might demand pensions or safe workplaces when he could hire Mexicans willing to work for a pittance since being forced off their farms. And we do know that Romney is a rational businessman, willing to drive a mile to save fifty cents on paperclips as we heard last night. So we can presume that any new trade agreements will be more of the same — “free” trade that eliminates protective tariffs and allows for easy movement of capital (but not labor!) across borders.

The thing is, the four years of the Obama administration have seen exactly that, with trade deals being signed with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama over the protests of domestic unions and foreign workers. A proposed free trade agreement covering much of the Pacific basin, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, is also being negotiated.

What do you think? 0 0