Romney’s Big Fat Wet Kiss to Keynesian Economics (RINO Mitt flops back to liberalism alert)

New York Magazine ^ | May 25, 2012 | Jonathan Chait

[Zakeet]

Not that there's anything wrong with that! Keynes' theories remain the essential guide to understanding recessions.

The real news in Mitt Romney’s interview with Mark Halperin, as Charles Pierce points out, is that Romney openly repudiated the central argument his party has been making against President Obama for the last three years: that he spent too much money and therefore deepened the economic crisis. Indeed Romney himself had been making this very case as recently as a week ago (“he bailed out the public sector, gave billions of dollars to the companies of his friends, and added almost as much debt as all the prior presidents combined. The consequence is that we are enduring the most tepid recovery in modern history.”) But in his Halperin interview, Romney frankly admits that reducing the budget deficit in the midst of an economic crisis would be a horrible idea:

Halperin: You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly?

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.

Of course! Romney says this as if it’s completely obvious that reducing the deficit in the short term would throw the economy back into recession, even though he and his party have been arguing the opposite case with hysterical fervor.

[Jeff Head]

Many people do not even read the article or the full quotes these days. They go by the “Title” and jump to conclusions accordingly...which is exacly what it is supposed to make happen.

Fact is, Rommney will reduce government spending drastically, and particularly as the correct legislation is sent to him by the majority House and Senate we must elect.

To do it all at once would cause harm...and so he will do it in a way to maximize the positive impact on the economy, jobs, inflation, interest, etc.

To try and say that because he s taking a pragmatic, well thought out, and measured approach to setting our house in order somehow means he is going liberal on it is simply disenginuous and meant to try and drive wedges and get people not to vote. Plain and simple.

America at the Crossroads of history
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm

Obama’s Disasterous Firsts as President
http://www.jeffhead.com/obama1sts.htm

[Zakeet]

Biden: We have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt

Romney: If you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.

When you read what Romney actually said in this article, it does not justify the headline. Romney was talking about the rate of deficit reduction. He said that 1 trillion reduction would be too much in a recession. He is probably correct about this.

Unconstrained government spending combined with the borrowing and money-printing necessary to sustain it is the root cause of this country's economic problems. In essence, we are broke and we are rapidly and continuously making the problem worse.

Economic catastrophe will occur if we wait too long. The over-creation of new money causes inflation, which in itself is a form of debt default. Ultimately, debt agreements must be repudiated, and this leads directly to hyperinflation. If this happens, the cost to society is horrible indeed.

Of course, it will cause pain to take the unavoidable cure. Recall that Regan began his term as president with a severe recession as he began to unwind the disasters of the Johnson-Nixon-Carter era. But look at the results Reagan obtained.

The question facing this country at the present time is whether we want to take a painful cure now, or a much worse cure later, or wait until we perish from our spending disease.

Mitt, the Rino, is taking an unambiguous position in this interview.

[Blennos]

Of course, unrestrained spending got us in to this mess. We all know this. Romney knows it too. But he is talking about how fast we can wean ourselves away from the debt addiction. It cannot be accomplished immediately. It took us 50 years to get into this mess. The cure will not be instantaneous. Too slowly and you get hyperinflation. Too quickly and you kill the economy. Going "cold turkey" may kill the patient.

Let's be fair to Romney here. He is NOT advocating continued deficit spending. But he knows that some will be necessary until the economy starts to grow again.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Mitt Romney should get a load of this:

Stimulus by Spending Cuts: Lessons from 1946

[Zakeet]

Let's be fair to Romney here. He is NOT advocating continued deficit spending. But he knows that some will be necessary until the economy starts to grow again.

Let's be fair. You don't begin to reduce debt until you quit borrowing more. Therefore continued deficit spending is exactly what Mitt is advocating.

Moreover, all of the economists that I respect argue that the economy will not start to grow again as long as we continue down the road lavish government spending. If the several trillion dollars of stimulus blown during the Obama-Bernanke regime have not been enough to jump start growth, then how much is?

[Zakeet]

Mitt Romney should get a load of this: Stimulus by Spending Cuts: Lessons from 1946

Exactly.

There are other examples in history. I mentioned Reagan in an earlier post. Coolidge is another good example ... his spending cuts post World War I led this country into a boom while the rest of the world increased deficit spending and fell into a hyperinflationary-depression.

[joe fonebone]

this is not the lesser of two evils... this is the same evil times two... romney... fubo... same thing different packaging...

just remember, when the road to socialism is not closed, or even the speed limit not reduced, I will be able to say with a clear consience, that I did not lend my support in any way shape or form..

screw all socialists, and that includes romney

[9YearLurker]

Actually he said the same way back in the debates.

Romney’s been bad news in plain sight all along.

Sigh.

[central_va]

Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.

The 5% decrease in GDP would only be for the first year, GDP would grow after that based on the real baseline. No balls, Romney is a joke.

[Ocean_Living]

It would seem that the OP was so desperate to find something he thought would make Romney look bad, he posted this article without the slightest clue as to what was being said.

Gov. Romney is 100% correct and proves that he truly understand economics.

A balanced approach to paying off the deficit is exactly what's needed. We need to keep as much money in the private sector as we can. Then pay off the deficit with the surplus created from growth.

He's got my vote!

[Ocean_Living]

Let's be fair to Romney here. He is NOT advocating continued deficit spending. But he knows that some will be necessary until the economy starts to grow again.

Well said. We gotta nurse the economy back to health first.. you have to have income before you can pay the bills.

[VictoryGal]

I know that conservatives of good faith will disagree, but electing Myth would be a bigger disaster than Zer0.

Imagine 80% of Zer0’s policies... spending, gutting the military, amnesty... sailing through Congress because Myth proposed it.

The Blubbery Boehnner and McConnell won’t fight it. Myth is the head of their party.

The Dims won’t fight it. IT’S WHAT THEY WANT.

Just watch as Myth Etch-A-Sketches his way up to the election, then amplify. Zer0-Lite, with the power to persuade the only thing that has been holding Zer0 back — the GOP Congress.

Seriously, this scares the crap out of me.

[Wyatt's Torch]

Good post. It is obvious that if you just slashed government spending by “$1 Trillion” (the example in the article) GDP would suffer significantly. Just look at the estimates for the “fiscal cliff”. Thing is that absolutely nobody is suggesting we take $1 Trillion out of the budget next year.

The issue is that the private economy is completely stagnant as we are all wonder what’s the next business killing regulation is coming next. E also have no idea how to plan for taxes. Uncertainty is the killer.

[o2bfree]

Obama is tacking to the right, trying campaign as a conservative. The Liberal media is at work again, influencing all the simple minded folk out there.

Some Obama loons on FR are lapping up everything their media dogs spit at them.

[sand88]

A balanced approach to paying off the deficit is exactly what's needed.

Balanced approach? LOL. Mitt's approach will favor the State. What we need is an "unbalanced" approach. Government needs to be drastically cut in power and scope. Read what Harding did in his term.

Mitt's approach is a joke. Do you realize that the RATs and the RINOs will push him easily to the left.

It's all words with Mitt right now. His actual record in MASS shows someone who is very much at ease with increasing the power of the State.

To those who think Mitt will turn our Republic towards Liberty and prosperity I have only this to day -- prepare to be very disappointed.

Throughout his entire term, the MSM and the RATS will be yelling see how the far right-wing Mitt is not improving things." And they will be right as far as not improving things. Conservatives will be marginalized by Mitt and his vile staff. The RATs will easily win in 2016 to continue our push towards rabid Socialism.

A Mitt will will NOT change our destination of Socialism.

[Theoria]

I have yet to see a Party or President reduce Gov't spending. None.

Romney will campaign on taxes, but not on reducing Gov't. We are going broke, and yet 'they' promote growth in certain areas, ie financial, Gov't contracting, Defense, and put it on our backs in the form of debt. If your not in those sectors your a nobody.

Yes, cutting the spending would initially raise the unemployment rate and reduce the GDP. But, those things need to happen in order to reach a healthy economy.

[Ocean_Living]

What we need is an "unbalanced" approach. Government needs to be drastically cut in power and scope.

Ok, what would you drastically cut?... Give us a run down on your budget.

Mitt's approach is a joke.

What's your advanced degree in?
Your response seems a bit on the hyperbolic side to be honest.

Mitt has rightly said there's a difference between Fed powers and state powers.

Seeing as how it's a two man race and you're "LOL" at my support for Mitt. I can only guess you'd like for me to vote for that other guy then. Mitt might not be perfect, but that other guy (I can't bring myself to say his name)should be in jail...much less being allowed to run again.