What Would Mitt Do?

[Guest]

If people really want to understand what the candidates stand for, maybe a look at their own websites might help. Take Romney's website, as an example.

I began looking for what he proposes for the broad fiscal reform of the country, recognized as necessary by almost everyone, but remaining "unplanned" by virtually everyone except the Simpson-Boles Commission. What did I find? Not much really. No where near enough detail for me. Oh, the words all sound like good expanded soundbites, but nowhere near enough detail.

Romney addresses taxes and spending, but with little detail on both. And no explanation of what the effect will be on further deficit spending and the continued growth of the national debt. In fact, what he says on his campaign website would clearly result in continued significant deficit spending and grown of the national debt at an unsustainable rate.

Take taxes as an example. What does Mitt say? What would he do?
Tax policy shapes almost everything individuals and enterprises do as they participate in the economy. With bad design, tax policy can discourage economic activity. With good design, it can encourage it. Yet our current tax system is an accretion of decades of patchwork decisions that came into being with no systematic thought for their implications for job creation or economic growth. Every year, individual taxpayers are forced to confront a Rube Goldberg contraption of bewildering complexity that leads to a range of undesirable outcomes, including the fact that millions of Americans have to pay hundreds of dollars to have their tax returns prepared by a professional who understands the rules. Corporations, for their part, are subject to rules and regulations that all too often encourage tax gamesmanship while discouraging reinvestment in the American economy.
That's Mitt's "problem definition"...a pretty good one in my opinion. But how does he propose to address the problem? With broad tax reform, elimination of unjustified exemptions, deductions, etc.? No, all he does is list a bunch of decreases in taxes that will appeal to almost everyone. There's no expression of how much government revenues would be reduced, deficit and debt increased.

How about reigning in government spending? Romney says he'll try to get spending down to 20% of GDP by the end of his term. Then he proceeds to list a bunch of spending cuts that total only about $300 billion per year. That's less than 10% of government spending, but the effect on the deficit and the growths national debt would be offset by reduced revenues from his proposed tax cuts. It's not hard--it's only addition and subtraction.

How about the effect of his fiscal plans--the overall effect of Romney's proposals on the annal deficit and growth of national debt? Silence. No estimate. Romney says he expects his plans to result in a rate of GDP growth to 4% per year--assuming his proposals on tax and regulatory cuts have any chance whatsoever of getting passed by Congress. Our GDP growth rate is well less than half of that now. Based on Romney's campaign promises, someone will need to be a whole lot more aggressive, more fiscally responsible than Romney is proposing. We're borrowing 42-cents of every dollar we're spending. By my rough calculations, Romney's proposals would cut that by between 5-10 cents. The annual deficit would still be in the muti-trillions of dollars, with the debt growing almost exponentially. If we don't do better than this, China will determine the fiscal reforms we'll have to accept.

Oh how I wish he'd just simplify things and say he embraces the Simpson-Boles recommendations. I wish Obama would, as well.

I'll vote for Romney, but what he's said is nowhere near the amount of fiscal conservatism that I'd like to see in a new president. Based on what he's campaigning on, I have only limited expectations.

[Guest]

perhaps he is demonstrating good judgement from his past Bain business to not commit to anything until such time as he is in charge and knows and understands what can or can not be done in office.

Too many like Obama who are not business oriented or have been in positions most of their lives where accountability is not an issue. As a result they have a tendency to think that when they become "king" there is nothing that they can not do, hence they over promise not knowing how things work and why. They soon find out there are many things that it takes more than just talking about them to make something happen.

So I believe Romney is playing it very close to the vest and not making statements to just get a vot....although we all know that is the life blood of any candidate.

I also think Romney has watched Obama make commitments and not follow through on what was committed. A trait that just would not survive in a Bain capital business mentality.

He may just be following the KISS method....keep it simple stupid.

btk

[Guest]

or he really doesn't have a plan.

[Guest]

btk: My sentiments exactly . Romney is too good a businessman and very professional in his approach. Managers who have worked in corporation understand the completed package concept. they will pull together all the pieces of their proposals tie them in a neat packagae and hand them on up. No one wants to give the opposition or a superior an opportunity to pick at them just because you as a manager left something undone.

I much prefer this appraoch then to hear a politician rant on about a chicken in every pot. what VK outlined satisifies me that Romney understands the problem and that his general approach is logical and sound. His entire profile speaks well of his abilities to govern and lead.

Finally having digested the problems throughout his campaign he will know exactly whom to bring on board to his cabinet to meet his expectations and assist him in the problem solving.

Anyone who believes a man with such an array of experience is dodging an issue doesn't really understand how the corporate world works....somebody like Obama for instance

[Guest]

Mitt Romney is trying to coast to the presidency by never divulging what he would do or what he stands for, except five trillion dollars in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. One poster on here even suggested Romeny would tell us in his state of the union address what he would do. That is the stupidest thought I have ever heard mentioned on here. Just vote for Mitt, and he'll tell you where he stands later. I waited throughout the republican primary to hear what he intended to do, and all I heard was Gingrich stinks, Santorum stinks. Has he ever mentioned where he stands on off-shore drilling?

The posters on here who have been so concerned about President Obama's birth certificate or his college transcripts evidently could care less about Mitt Romney's tax returns. Remember the presidential candidate who wouldn't release his tax returns and when he finally did, it turned out he had nothing to hide? Me neither.

[Guest]

Or maybe Romney thinks it wise to not make promises on specifics that cannot be known until the time comes (like the makeup of the Senate and House in 2013)!!!!!!!

Why put so much weight on campaign promises?!?!?!?

[Guest]

Willard will explain further as soon as the Koch Bros tell him what to do and say.

[Guest]

This seems to be the norm in the Beltway. I do not recall candidate Obama making any specific promises in his 2008 campaign and he does not seem to be getting that specific now. I still am going to vote for Barack Obama this November because he shares a lot of my values and views.

[Guest]

If people really want to understand what the candidates stand for, maybe a look at their own websites might help. Take Romney's website, as an example.

I began looking for what he proposes for the broad fiscal reform of the country, recognized as necessary by almost everyone, but remaining "unplanned" by virtually everyone except the Simpson-Boles Commission. What did I find? Not much really. No where near enough detail for me. Oh, the words all sound like good expanded soundbites, but nowhere near enough detail.

Romney addresses taxes and spending, but with little detail on both. And no explanation of what the effect will be on further deficit spending and the continued growth of the national debt. In fact, what he says on his campaign website would clearly result in continued significant deficit spending and grown of the national debt at an unsustainable rate.

Take taxes as an example. What does Mitt say? What would he do?
Tax policy shapes almost everything individuals and enterprises do as they participate in the economy. With bad design, tax policy can discourage economic activity. With good design, it can encourage it. Yet our current tax system is an accretion of decades of patchwork decisions that came into being with no systematic thought for their implications for job creation or economic growth. Every year, individual taxpayers are forced to confront a Rube Goldberg contraption of bewildering complexity that leads to a range of undesirable outcomes, including the fact that millions of Americans have to pay hundreds of dollars to have their tax returns prepared by a professional who understands the rules. Corporations, for their part, are subject to rules and regulations that all too often encourage tax gamesmanship while discouraging reinvestment in the American economy.
That's Mitt's "problem definition"...a pretty good one in my opinion. But how does he propose to address the problem? With broad tax reform, elimination of unjustified exemptions, deductions, etc.? No, all he does is list a bunch of decreases in taxes that will appeal to almost everyone. There's no expression of how much government revenues would be reduced, deficit and debt increased.

How about reigning in government spending? Romney says he'll try to get spending down to 20% of GDP by the end of his term. Then he proceeds to list a bunch of spending cuts that total only about $300 billion per year. That's less than 10% of government spending, but the effect on the deficit and the growths national debt would be offset by reduced revenues from his proposed tax cuts. It's not hard--it's only addition and subtraction.

How about the effect of his fiscal plans--the overall effect of Romney's proposals on the annal deficit and growth of national debt? Silence. No estimate. Romney says he expects his plans to result in a rate of GDP growth to 4% per year--assuming his proposals on tax and regulatory cuts have any chance whatsoever of getting passed by Congress. Our GDP growth rate is well less than half of that now. Based on Romney's campaign promises, someone will need to be a whole lot more aggressive, more fiscally responsible than Romney is proposing. We're borrowing 42-cents of every dollar we're spending. By my rough calculations, Romney's proposals would cut that by between 5-10 cents. The annual deficit would still be in the muti-trillions of dollars, with the debt growing almost exponentially. If we don't do better than this, China will determine the fiscal reforms we'll have to accept.

Oh how I wish he'd just simplify things and say he embraces the Simpson-Boles recommendations. I wish Obama would, as well.

I'll vote for Romney, but what he's said is nowhere near the amount of fiscal conservatism that I'd like to see in a new president. Based on what he's campaigning on, I have only limited expectations.

Well, you surely took Romney to task again...perhaps because I cant get into Obama's website to see what he says because you need to give information to read it and that is not going to happen.

But what has our President said or done about any of these issues ? He seems bent on destroying Romney as a person before worrying much about our country.

I am not going to defend Romney...he does not need it. All you are doing, if you read the subsequent posts, is giving those folks who support Obama an opportunity to post the feeds and normal clap trap from party headquarters. I would love for those folks to detail for us exactly what the man who is in fact now in charge is going do to and why he hasnt before this....why did he ignore the blue ribbon panel for example.

I am not sure how much more you want him to say at this point in time There has been no convention, no platform and certainly he does not need to add detail to keep up with Obama !

What say you on Obama's plans ? Better are they ? And please tell me where you got them ?

[Guest]

Well, you surely took Romney to task again...What say you on Obama's plans ? Better are they ? And please tell me where you got them ?Again, Bucco, I'm not going to vote for Obama this time around, so I don't much care what he promises. And I don't spend any time researching his position on issues or listening to his ads. (Actually, the ads of both candidates are the same--taking different angles on destroying the other guy, thereby avoiding totally what their plans are if elected.)

But I'm not going to waste my time on what Obama says or does. I'll leave that up to you.

[Guest]

Again, Bucco, I'm not going to vote for Obama this time around, so I don't much care what he promises. And I don't spend any time researching his position on issues or listening to his ads. (Actually, the ads of both candidates are the same--taking different angles on destroying the other guy, thereby avoiding totally what their plans are if elected.)

But I'm not going to waste my time on what Obama says or does. I'll leave that up to you.

I will concentrate on BOTH, as much as you like to suggest otherwise. You obviously misjudge me BY QUITE A BIT. Seems we have been posting together on here, Obama has been on the scene.....to think I am one sided is a mistake on your part. I know better than to get all heated over announce or printed handouts on plans or promises in EARLY JULY. Nothing of any consequences going to coming out of that.

[Guest]

I'm not looking for promises.I'm looking for a plan to add jobs,a foreign relation plan,a plan to deal with healthcare after he gets rid of obamacare,a n energy plan. Some keep using the word promise like its the same as a plan.

[Guest]

How about getting off the billionaire millionaire wagon. Even if the government took all their money, what would it do, run the government for what 10 days. The current occupant of the WH is trying to start class warfare and it seems that he is doing a really great job of creating it.

Want to become a millionaire or billionaire, get off your dead beat butt and work for it.

[Guest]

Just for the record, I am more of anti Obama than a strong supporter of Romney, but watching the developments, he is rapidly winning me over...

Recall, when Romney spoke out on China and the White House mocked him on that and now the President is changing gears and coming to Romney on that issue.

Recall, when Romney mentioned Russia as one of our biggest enemies and he was mocked again by the White House, and on here quite dramatically as I recall. Well Russia has just sent warships to Syria to back the massacre taking place over there.

Recall when Romney talked about revising the tax code and it was pooh poohed....now the President after all these years and a blue ribbon panel needs the tax code reworked.

[Guest]

I'm not looking for promises.I'm looking for a plan to add jobs,a foreign relation plan,a plan to deal with healthcare after he gets rid of obamacare,a n energy plan. Some keep using the word promise like its the same as a plan.

Romney has laid out his plan covering adding jobs, foreign relations, healthcare and energy. You can read it at this link or download it as an e-book from Amazon.

Believe In America: Mitt Romney's Plan For Jobs And Economic Growth (http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/believe-america-mitt-romneys-plan-jobs-and-economic-growth)

[Guest]

Romney has laid out his plan covering adding jobs, foreign relations, healthcare and energy. You can read it at this link or download it as an e-book from Amazon.

Believe In America: Mitt Romney's Plan For Jobs And Economic Growth (http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/believe-america-mitt-romneys-plan-jobs-and-economic-growth)

thanks for this link....I am getting bit nervous about people saying they dont know his plans....I have no difficulty in finding the stuff....actually in addition you can check almost any of the large news sites and they have the plans published perhaps not in the detail you might want, but he is for the cap, trade and balance I believe and I started a thread on some of his stances on foreign affairs that folks on this forum and the WH castigated him on.

[Guest]

Just for the record, I am more of anti Obama than a strong supporter of Romney, but watching the developments, he is rapidly winning me over...

Recall, when Romney spoke out on China and the White House mocked him on that and now the President is changing gears and coming to Romney on that issue.

Recall, when Romney mentioned Russia as one of our biggest enemies and he was mocked again by the White House, and on here quite dramatically as I recall. Well Russia has just sent warships to Syria to back the massacre taking place over there.

Recall when Romney talked about revising the tax code and it was pooh poohed....now the President after all these years and a blue ribbon panel needs the tax code reworked.





I have never, on any blog, board, or website read such a preposterious posting as this.

Obama is coming to Romney on China? Are you serious? Where do you get your information? Romney is listening to the neo-cons, the hard liners. Or, as they are rferred to, the Cheney-ites.

The tax code? Pols, from both Party's have been talking about revising the tax code for at least 2 decades.

Cheney Adviser Guided Romney 'Hard Line' China Position | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/06/28/507926/cheney-romney-china/)

[Guest]

I have never, on any blog, board, or website read such a preposterious posting as this.

Obama is coming to Romney on China? Are you serious? Where do you get your information? Romney is listening to the neo-cons, the hard liners. Or, as they are rferred to, the Cheney-ites.

The tax code? Pols, from both Party's have been talking about revising the tax code for at least 2 decades.

Cheney Adviser Guided Romney 'Hard Line' China Position | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/06/28/507926/cheney-romney-china/)

" From 2008 to 2010, U.S. trade with China alone cost about 450,000 American jobs because of the growth of Chinese exports, said Robert E. Scott, a pro-labor advocate at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. That figure was less than in previous years, but the decrease was probably tied to the U.S. economic slowdown, which crimped demand for imports.

“I think he has walked away from the campaign commitments,” said Scott, the institute’s director of trade and manufacturing policy research. “He has done far too little to improve U.S. trade.”

Of course, that’s one take. There are more objective numbers:

According to a study by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, large American companies in 2010 barely added any workers in the United States, increasing their numbers by 0.1 percent, while they expanded their foreign workforce by 1.5 percent. That was business as usual — between 2004 and 2010, the bureau reported, foreign affiliates hired 2 million workers while 600,000 were added by the companies at home.

Outsourcing Games - By Patrick Brennan - The Corner - National Review Online

This is what Romney was upset about when Obama had an opportunity to call out China but did not.....and now he plays politics with it.....

"The Obama administration ramped up its hard line on trade with China today, filing an complaint with the World Trade Organization to challenge new Chinese tariffs on American-made cars and SUVs.

The announcement conveniently coincides with President Obama's two-day swing through auto-manufacturing towns in northern Ohio and western Pennsylvania, a region where Chinese trade issues are high on a list of voter priorities"


Read more: Obama Files Complaint Against China Over Auto Tariffs - Business Insider

Does this little political game sound famaliar, like the illegals immigrant thing...the marriage act, etc.

And got to tell you....President Obama early on, and I supported him on it, appointed a blue ribbon committe to give recommendations to him and congress on tax , and guess what happened with this two or more year old study....made headlines and then the committe was told, thanks but no thanks. There was also total control over congress for two years and NOT EVEN AN ATTEMPT at tax revision.

[Guest]

Romney has laid out his plan covering adding jobs, foreign relations, healthcare and energy. You can read it at this link or download it as an e-book from Amazon.

Believe In America: Mitt Romney's Plan For Jobs And Economic Growth (http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2011/09/believe-america-mitt-romneys-plan-jobs-and-economic-growth)It's pretty good reading. Everyone should download it and read it. But the piece is sorely short on numbers. He makes the point that the national debt has grown more under President Obama than under all preceding presidents. But where does he say, where does he present a number, projecting how big the deficits will be if his plans are enacted? How much will the growth of the national debt slow? When might we actually begin to pay down the outstanding and growing debt?

Maybe it's just me, the retired banker in me, but all these enticing words don't mean a thing unless we understand in more detail how he will accomplish his glowingly general proposals. I agree with most of the words. Let's see the numbers.

[Guest]

...This is what Romney was upset about when Obama had an opportunity to call out China but did not.....and now he plays politics with it.....Bucco, as far as "playing hard ball" with China, I'm going to repeat a saying taught to me by a revered, older banker that took me under his wing when I was starting my career in banking. He called it the Banker's Golden Rule. It's really easy to remember...

"He who has the gold rules."

We are simply not in a very good position to challenge China on anything. Economically, if we do things that aren't very thoughtful--like Donald Trump's proposal to slap a duty on everything imported from China--we'd better understand the consequences. If we did something like that, as an example, how much would prices increase on commonly-used good purchased by the American public? What would the effect be on our rate of inflation?

As far as "hurting" China, let's say a move by the U.S., a duty or even a prohibition on the import of certain goods, really effected our balance of trade with China, really cut into their exports to us. It follows, doesn't it, that their economy would slow, more Chinese would be unemployed, and China would have less cash at the government level to make investments. With more limited money available, would they continue to invest in buying U.S. debt, or might they concentrate more limited resources on investing in China to further improve their own productivity and economic growth?

If that were the case, if we try to play economic hard ball with China, I think it's pretty easy to see that we lose! If we need China to keep buying our debt to finance our government spending, what do we do if they slow or stop such investments? Remember, we borrow 42-cents of every dollar our government spends, most of it from China. And another large chunk of our debt is purchased by our own Treasury, with new money that they printed for the purpose of buying our own debt!

Like the man said...he who has the gold rules.