Heaven forbid we ever have a president that's actually had to use their own two hands to produce something of value in order to get where they were. Anyone, and I do mean anyone, can become wealthy by playing games with peoples *lives. It's not hard to do. In fact it's the single easiest way to make money.
There are very few people left in the world that actually produce something of value. And those that do aren't about to sit and be lectured by those that don't. How can politicians who've never taken responsibility for so much as their words, ever understand that? They can't, and that's why our economy is failing.
Romney Economics
*Mahogany Goddess
2012/07/05 14:20:27
|
|
|||||
|
16 votes
|
|
36% | ||
|
8 votes
|
|
18% | ||
|
7 votes
|
|
16% | ||
|
14 votes
|
|
31% | ||
Before I hear a bunch of whining Far Rightwing Conservatives; I'm not for Obama either and have already done a post on his failing economic policies.
http://www.barackobama.com/romney/economics/ma-record/ma-reco...
Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts promising more jobs, decreased debt, and smaller government.
Here’s what Massachusetts got instead:
- Jobs: 47th out of 50 states in job creation
- Taxes and fees: Increased by $750 million per year
- Long-term debt: Increased more than $2.6 billion
Watch the video to see why Romney economics didn't work then, and won't work now:
The U.S. economy was growing in 2001 and creating jobs by July 2003. Romney served during a nationwide economic expansion, and when he took office Massachusetts’ unemployment rate had been below the national average for nearly a decade.
But the recovery was slower in Massachusetts: Under Romney, the economy was not at the top or even in the middle, but close to the bottom of all the states. The state lost jobs through the end of 2003, lagging behind the rest of the country by six months. And by the time he left office, the state’s unemployment rate was above the national average.
“As Mitt Romney pursues his bid for the presidency, his record as Massachusetts governor will come under scrutiny, including how the state’s economy performed during his administration. Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country.”
Stagnant job growth:
During Governor Romney’s term, Massachusetts fell from 36th to 47th out of 50 states in job creation, while the overall U.S. economy grew. Of the jobs that were created in Massachusetts, state government jobs grew at six times the rate of private sector jobs.
BOSTON GLOBE, 7/29/07
Declining manufacturing: By the end of Governor Romney’s term, Massachusetts had lost more than 40,000 manufacturing jobs—a rate twice the national average.
Higher taxes:
GoveWhen he talks about a turnaround, we really haven’t had a turnaround.
—Michael Widmer, president of the nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation
New York Times, 3/16/07
Mitt Romney promised to bring his experience from the corporate boardroom to Massachusetts, the same promise he’s making now as a presidential candidate. But Romney economics isn’t about creating jobs or helping the middle class. By the time Romney left office, state debt had increased, the size of government had grown, and Massachusetts had fallen behind almost every other state in job creation.
Mitt Romney wears magic underwear.
Warren Harding dropped the top rate from 78% to 15% and taxes actually received by the government dramatically increased.
Why? When one invests and makes a profit, s/he actually received only 22 cents out of every dollar earned, but when s/he loses, s/he loses the entire dollar. So from 1916-1920 large investors purchased tax free municipal bonds, which did nothing to help the economy or create jobs. After Harding's tax cuts, those people moved their money into investments that stimulated the economy and created jobs.
Harding realized that cutting taxes and spending, then doing nothing, was the best thing he could do. In that case, "Less was More". He let the free market economy work with as few fetters as possible. Coolidge carried in the same manner after Harding died. Then along came Progressive Republican Hoover to muck up the works, followed by FDR, perhaps the worst POTUS of the 20th Century.
BTW, I am not a fan of JFK. He was mediocre at best.
But in Reagan's case, the economic recovery was caused by the plummeting price of world oil, not his policies. Cheap energy stimulates the economy like nothing else.
His polices succeeded in Tripling the national debt, something that had never happened before except during wartime.
Here's a link to a more accurate description of events.
http://my.firedoglake.com/cap...
Oh by the way, did you know that Mitt Romney wears magic underwear?
He thinks it protects him against evil.
And that brings up a question. Do we really want a President who wears magic underwear?
Do we want the nation to go in that direction?
Pro-labor policies pushed by President Herbert Hoover after the stock market crash of 1929 accounted for close to two-thirds of the drop in the nation's gross domestic product over the two years that followed, causing what might otherwise have been a bad recession to slip into the Great Depression.
The policies, which included both propping up wages and encouraging job-sharing, also accounted for more than two-thirds of the precipitous decline in hours worked in the manufacturing sector, which was much harder hit initially than the agricultural sector.
Hoover's approach is unlikely to be considered today as a means of responding to economic crisis, but it does illustrate the perils of ill-conceived government policies in times of economic upheaval and confusion.
Then came Progressive FDR who took Hoover's Depression and FDR caused it to become the Great Depression.
Each Progressive POTUS since has done further damage to America.
Deficits/Surpluses From 1940 Until 2012 (*fiscal years)
1* - Presidential control
2* - Senate control
3* - House control
D = Democrat R = Republican
Year Nominal Dollars Inflation Adjusted 1 2 3000
1940 $2.9 Billion Deficit $47.54 Billion Deficit D D D
1941 $4.9 Billion Deficit $76.56 Billion Deficit D D D
1942 $20.5 Billion Deficit $288.73 Billion Deficit D D D
1943 $54.6 Billion Deficit $728 Billion Deficit D D D
1944 $47.6 Billion Deficit $618.18 Billion Deficit D D D
1945 $47.6 Billion Deficit $610.26 Billion Deficit D D D
1946 $15.9 Billion Deficit $187.06 Billion Deficit D D D
1947 $4 Billion Surplus $41.24 Billion Surplus D R R
1948 $11.8 Billion Surplus$112.38 Billion Surplus D R R
1949 $0.6 Billion Surplus $5.77 Billion Surplus D D D
1950 $3.1 Billion Deficit $29.52 Billion Deficit D D D
1951 $6.1 Billion Surplus $53.98 Billion Surplus D D D
1952 $1.5 Billion Deficit $12.93 Billion Deficit D D D
1953 $6.5 Billion Deficit $56.03 Billion Deficit R R D
1954 $1.2 Billion Deficit $10.26 Billion Deficit R R D
1955 $3 Billion Deficit $25.64 Billion Deficit R D D
1956 $3.9 Billion Surplus $32.77 Billion Surplus R D D
1957 $3.4 Billion Surplus $27.64 Billion Surplus R D D
1958 $2.8 Billion Deficit $22...
Deficits/Surpluses From 1940 Until 2012 (*fiscal years)
1* - Presidential control
2* - Senate control
3* - House control
D = Democrat R = Republican
Year Nominal Dollars Inflation Adjusted 1 2 3000
1940 $2.9 Billion Deficit $47.54 Billion Deficit D D D
1941 $4.9 Billion Deficit $76.56 Billion Deficit D D D
1942 $20.5 Billion Deficit $288.73 Billion Deficit D D D
1943 $54.6 Billion Deficit $728 Billion Deficit D D D
1944 $47.6 Billion Deficit $618.18 Billion Deficit D D D
1945 $47.6 Billion Deficit $610.26 Billion Deficit D D D
1946 $15.9 Billion Deficit $187.06 Billion Deficit D D D
1947 $4 Billion Surplus $41.24 Billion Surplus D R R
1948 $11.8 Billion Surplus$112.38 Billion Surplus D R R
1949 $0.6 Billion Surplus $5.77 Billion Surplus D D D
1950 $3.1 Billion Deficit $29.52 Billion Deficit D D D
1951 $6.1 Billion Surplus $53.98 Billion Surplus D D D
1952 $1.5 Billion Deficit $12.93 Billion Deficit D D D
1953 $6.5 Billion Deficit $56.03 Billion Deficit R R D
1954 $1.2 Billion Deficit $10.26 Billion Deficit R R D
1955 $3 Billion Deficit $25.64 Billion Deficit R D D
1956 $3.9 Billion Surplus $32.77 Billion Surplus R D D
1957 $3.4 Billion Surplus $27.64 Billion Surplus R D D
1958 $2.8 Billion Deficit $22.22 Billion Deficit R D D
1959 $12.8 Billion Deficit $100.79 Billion Deficit R D D
1960 $0.3 Billion Surplus $2.33 Billion Surplus R D D
1961 $3.3 Billion Deficit $25.38 Billion Deficit D D D
1962 $7.1 Billion Deficit $53.79 Billion Deficit D D D
1963 $4.8 Billion Deficit $36.09 Billion Deficit D D D
1964 $5.9 Billion Deficit $43.7 Billion Deficit D D D
1965 $1.4 Billion Deficit $10.22 Billion Deficit D D D
1966 $3.7 Billion Deficit $26.24 Billion Deficit D D D
1967 $8.6 Billion Deficit $58.9 Billion Deficit D D D
1968 $25.2 Billion Deficit $165.79 Billion Deficit D D D
1969 $3.2 Billion Surplus $20 Billion Surplus R D D
1970 $2.8 Billion Deficit $16.57 Billion Deficit R D D
1971 $23 Billion Deficit $129.94 Billion Deficit R D D
1972 $23.4 Billion Deficit $128.57 Billion Deficit R D D
1973 $14.9 Billion Deficit $76.8 Billion Deficit R D D
1974 $6.1 Billion Deficit $28.37 Billion Deficit R D D
1975 $53.2 Billion Deficit $226.38 Billion Deficit R D D
1976 $73.7 Billion Deficit $297.18 Billion Deficit R D D
1977 $53.7 Billion Deficit $203.41 Billion Deficit D D D
1978 $59.2 Billion Deficit $208.45 Billion Deficit D D D
1979 $40.7 Billion Deficit $128.39 Billion Deficit D D D
1980 $73.8 Billion Deficit $205.57 Billion Deficit D D D
1981 $79 Billion Deficit $199.49 Billion Deficit R R D
1982 $128 Billion Deficit $304.04 Billion Deficit R R D
1983 $207.8 Billion Deficit $478.8 Billion Deficit R R D
1984 $185.4 Billion Deficit $409.27 Billion Deficit R R D
1985 $212.3 Billion Deficit $452.67 Billion Deficit R R D
1986 $221.2 Billion Deficit $462.76 Billion Deficit R R D
1987 $149.7 Billion Deficit $302.42 Billion Deficit R D D
1988 $155.2 Billion Deficit $300.78 Billion Deficit R D D
1989 $152.5 Billion Deficit $281.89 Billion Deficit R D D
1990 $221.2 Billion Deficit $388.07 Billion Deficit R D D
1991 $269.3 Billion Deficit $453.37 Billion Deficit R D D
1992 $290.4 Billion Deficit $474.51 Billion Deficit R D D
1993 $255.1 Billion Deficit $404.92 Billion Deficit D D D
1994 $203.2 Billion Deficit $314.55 Billion Deficit D D D
1995 $164 Billion Deficit $246.62 Billion Deficit D R R
1996 $107.5 Billion Deficit $157.16 Billion Deficit D R R
1997 $22 Billion Deficit $31.43 Billion Deficit D R R
1998 $69.2 Billion Surplus $97.33 Billion Surplus D R R
1999 $125.6 Billion Surplus $172.76 Billion Surplus D R R
2000 $236.4 Billion Surplus $314.78 Billion Surplus D R R
2001 $127.3 Billion Surplus $164.9 Billion Surplus R D R
2002 $157.8 Billion Deficit $201.02 Billion Deficit R D R
2003 $374 Billion Deficit $466.33 Billion Deficit R R R
2004 $413 Billion Deficit $501.21 Billion Deficit R R R
2005 $319 Billion Deficit $374.41 Billion Deficit R R R
2006 $248 Billion Deficit $282.14 Billion Deficit R R R
2007 $162 Billion Deficit $179.2 Billion Deficit R D D
2008 $455 Billion Deficit $484.56 Billion Deficit R D D
2009 $1416 Billion Deficit $1512.82 Billion Deficit D D D
2010 $1294 Billion Deficit $1360.67 Billion Deficit D D D
2011 $1299 Billion Deficit $1324.16 Billion Deficit D D R
2012 $1330 Billion Deficit $1330 Billion Deficit D D R
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...
For them, anybody with any sense is a Socialist.