http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plu … _blog.html (dated)
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/19 … y-20120320 (this one is a little dated, but is still illuminating).
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/21/m … ollapsing/ (dated also)
These statements came during the primaries, but they are just now being given attention.
This puts Romney in the position of conceding that presidents usually exert very little influence on the economy, and it would therefore be unfair to blame Obama for the recessionary woes (unless they support policies that deregulate banks that leads to a near financial collapse), or, that Obama's stimulus did have a stabilizing effect and provide a foundation for a recovery to proceed faster than it would've without one.
Romney can't argue Obama has made the recovery slower because the Bush tax cuts have stayed in place. There has been small business tax cuts and tax cuts for low income earners. Corporate profits are also at record levels.
If he concedes position one, which he and his adviser seem to be doing, then voting for Romney would make very little sense. His case has been based on Obama's "failures." If the economy recovers on it's own, what is Romney really going to do at all except sit back and take credit for it at the right time? Obama couldn't "fail" if he had no ability to have a substantial impact to begin with!
Position two would be political suicide.
Either way, he has boxed himself in, and there is no escape.
The catch-22 here is that if this sentiment is correct - then Obama was WAAAAY off base in the 2008 election and is digging himself an even deeper hole by repeating that the economy he inherited from GWB was so bad....it's still affecting the economy.
Bush's deregulatory philosophy is what led to the financial crisis. HOWEVER, the funny thing about it is, CLINTON signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which destroyed the separation between commercial and investment banks. Many analysts think this was one of the major reasons the major banks almost failed.
As for Obama, it's not accurate to blame BUSH alone, but Bush's philosophy is to blame.
One could still argue, even if you don't blame Bush at all, that Obama still inherited everything. This is the worst recession since the Great Depression, worse than the one Reagan dealt with when he was president. It took awhile for unemployment to go down under Reagan in a smaller recession. It would not be surprising if unemployment is high for awhile, regardless of who is president.
I guess if it's okay to blame a predecessor - then it's okay for all. If it's not - it's not.
GWB made some messes.
Obama's made some of his own.
Banking deregulation started with Jimmy Carter - but who's keeping track these days?
My biggest thought - is that they're ALL politicians and they're ALL crooked.
Howard, not ALL but MANY. To reiterate, both Democratic and Republican parties are powerful, well oiled and well runned machines. Politics is a game and the means to make a career move. Politics, particularly in America, has been elevated to celebrity status. Politicians who authentically care about the people he/she is serving and about the sociopolitical issues at hand are extremely few and far in between. The concept of service is almost an extinct issue among many politicians.
Many politicians want to get into politics to advance their careers and to be in the fame game. They are in politics to advance their particular agenda and to serve themselves, not their constituents. The only way to really get America on track is to have a grassroots movement which is not likely to be happening soon.
The problem as I see it is that politicians are drawn to the feeling of power and that's never a beneficial virtue. I completely agree that a grassroots movement would help - but we've become a complacent society - and the movements that arise usually draw only the fringe elements.
I don't know the answers (I wish I did), but but it seems to me that we've outgrown the presidential system. This nation is too big and too diverse for one leader anymore.
I'd like to see a number of Heads of State, from different regions that worked together to take the place of a single president. We still need Congress, but we could then spread the top decision-making around. And if the Heads of State represented a fair division between conservative and liberal viewpoints, we'd likely get more Congressional participation. As it is now - everything is so partisan. And that helps no one.
by Dr Billy Kidd4 years ago
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last week that Obama has a secret agenda for his second term. I'm wondering what that is. Romney did not say. Or is this the old psychological trick of projecting your fault on...
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
The two recent Presidential and one vice-presidential debates have made it abundantly clear that Obama and Biden can not defend their indefensible 4 year record of bad economic and domestic/foreign policies....
by Dr Billy Kidd4 years ago
Turns out that Romney showed the press a partial tax statement for 2010. It was discovered thereafter that a significan section of his tax form is missing. That part, by law, tells what the overseas investments do. For...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both today at rallies on the campaign trail.What do you notice?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … rally.htmlhttp://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/309198-1
by Susan Reid4 years ago
WHat do you think?I think the Dems are finally learning to play in the mud. Yay!Democrats to Romnney: 'Stop whining' over felony remarkPosted byCNN's Kevin Liptak(CNN) – The suggestion this week from a top Obama...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
they saw President Barack Obama as the president of promise and reformation? During President Obama's administration, unemployment and national debt is the HIGHEST it has been. More and more civil...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.