Thread: Mitt Romney's Coffin? Spending Cuts Hurt Economic Growth

Eh, he's right, and the fact that he can't help but to say right things while trying to be a phony is actually kind of endearing. It's like he's a liar, but he's such a bad liar you almost have to forgive him. If he's elected, he'll be a sound non-ideological technocrat, beyond of course the initial promises that he'll have to keep early on, like signing a health care bill repeal.

Romney's record on spending as governor of Massachusetts is decent enough. 5% growth per year with a Democratic legislature ain't bad at all. 3% is what we're looking for, but only Pawlenty achieved that of the candidate field.

Originally Posted by adaher

Eh, he's right, and the fact that he can't help but to say right things while trying to be a phony is actually kind of endearing. It's like he's a liar, but he's such a bad liar you almost have to forgive him. If he's elected, he'll be a sound non-ideological technocrat, beyond of course the initial promises that he'll have to keep early on, like signing a health care bill repeal.

Romney's record on spending as governor of Massachusetts is decent enough. 5% growth per year with a Democratic legislature ain't bad at all. 3% is what we're looking for, but only Pawlenty achieved that of the candidate field.

I can't help but believe this will hurt him with conservatives ... however I haven't heard a media storm yet. Of course that could be expected ... as he was the insiders choice and they will try and protect him.

Well, economic "growth" that relies on governement spending rather than competitive economic structures isn´t the kind of growth that one would call sustainable ? But structure reforms are obviously a bit more complicated
and dangerous for politicians that wish to be elected than calling for cutting or keeping spending.....

Originally Posted by Voland

Well, economic "growth" that relies on governement spending rather than competitive economic structures isn´t the kind of growth that one would call sustainable ? But structure reforms are obviously a bit more complicated
and dangerous for politicians that wish to be elected than calling for cutting or keeping spending.....

I think this is much an acknowledgement of Europe's recent GDP growth problems ... latching onto the last quarter. While not sustainable ... it provides consumers in a consumer driven economy.

Originally Posted by michael h

I think this is much an acknowledgement of Europe's recent GDP growth problems ... latching onto the last quarter. While not sustainable ... it provides consumers in a consumer driven economy.

Well, Europes recent growth problems ( which are growth problems in a number of countries, while others grow solidly) are rooted in structural problems in the countries in question. Such as a lack of competitive products to sell, unflexible labour markets, high labour costs, debt, corruption, bubble economics etc.)
To tackle structural problems is a tough and ungrateful job that may also take years and doesn´t produce immediate results to present. That is why politicians running for elections often find it too hard to sell such measures and why it is always easy to find doom prophets who will explain at every instance why the whole thing doesn´t work. (an example for the latter are Germanys reforms of the last decade). But getting to the underlying structural issues is the only way to put the economy on a sustainable path. You can overdebt, moneyprint, inflate and financebubble for a while, but the problems will always come back, making the inevitable adjustment even more painful. Southern Europeans know a thing or two about that now.

Originally Posted by Voland

Well, Europes recent growth problems ( which are growth problems in a number of countries, while others grow solidly) are rooted in structural problems in the countries in question. Such as a lack of competitive products to sell, unflexible labour markets, high labour costs, debt, corruption, bubble economics etc.)
To tackle structural problems is a tough and ungrateful job that may also take years and doesn´t produce immediate results to present. That is why politicians running for elections often find it too hard to sell such measures and why it is always easy to find doom prophets who will explain at every instance why the whole thing doesn´t work. (an example for the latter are Germanys reforms of the last decade). But getting to the underlying structural issues is the only way to put the economy on a sustainable path.

Romney discusses the need for other measures to counter cuts. However it deviates from the Republican party line and may cost him conservative support.

Originally Posted by michael h

Romney discusses the need for other measures to counter cuts. However it deviates from the Republican party line and may cost him conservative support.

But probably he is trying to fish in the political center with that position ?
As I understand Romney is basically saying that it is necessary to have a plan what you want to achieve, instead of turning screws here and there and economic puzzleplay. Actually nothing more or less than common sense, right ? You think that questioning the value of cuts without such a plan may be enough for Conservatives to dump him ?

It seems Mitt has the economics exactly 100% right. He wants to cut liberal government spending to decrease the mal-investments or artificial churning it creates, and, cut taxes so the private sector can create real, sustainable investment and economic growth. In short, liberal spending down and private spending up is the formula for growth.


It's econ 101, but a liberal won't know it.

Originally Posted by Voland

But probably he is trying to fish in the political center with that position ?
As I understand Romney is basically saying that it is necessary to have a plan what you want to achieve, instead of turning screws here and there and economic puzzleplay. Actually nothing more or less than common sense, right ? You think that questioning the value of cuts without such a plan may be enough for Conservatives to dump him ?

Many conservatives view cuts strongly enough that they don't care what actions precede any cuts. Cut 1st and deal with the consequences later.

Originally Posted by Ted Baiamonte

It seems Mitt has the economics exactly 100% right. He wants to cut liberal government spending to decrease the mal-investments or artificial churning it creates, and, cut taxes so the private sector can create real, sustainable investment and economic growth. In short, liberal spending down and private spending up is the formula for growth.


It's econ 101, but a liberal won't know it.

Unfortunately Ted thats only partly correct. Liberals are noted for higher taxation / social spending and conservatives are noted for lower taxes / spending more on defense as opposed to social agendas.

Originally Posted by michael h

I can't help but believe this will hurt him with conservatives ... however I haven't heard a media storm yet. Of course that could be expected ... as he was the insiders choice and they will try and protect him.

Conservatives already doubt him, I don't think it will matter.

Originally Posted by michael h

Many conservatives view cuts strongly enough that they don't care what actions precede any cuts. Cut 1st and deal with the consequences later.

Many conservatives just want to cut across the board. There are sound policy and political reasons for doing so. The pain is truly shared, and most federal programs are overfunded despite the cries of the employees and beneficiaries who would consider the programs underfunded if funding increased tenfold. Federal programs tend to be increased in an across the board manner, it would make sense that across the board cuts would make equal sense.

However, a debt reduction plan that actually cuts fat first is better policy, so Romney's right about that. It's also more courageous policy. The downside is that the groups feeling the cuts feel singled out, and often they are being singled out.

Originally Posted by michael h

Many conservatives view cuts strongly enough that they don't care what actions precede any cuts. Cut 1st and deal with the consequences later.

Well at least they want to cut spending, apposed to more borrowing and spending, I mean we're headed to 16 trillion in national debt. And what are the consequences of that? Yeah that's right, deal with it latter.