Obama v. Romney: A $6 trillion difference

[bulgron]

In today's Wall Street Journal I found an article that pretty much sums up this year's election for me. I know that other people will vote for reasons having nothing to do with the Federal Government's budget, but to me those issues are all a side show. This is what matters.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

I know most people don't have WSJ subscriptions, so I'll summarize the article before I discuss it.

In essence, the two men have a spending vision for the 10 years that are $6 trillion apart. That is, Obama wants to spend $6 trillion more than Romney over the next 10 years. Put another way, it's 22.5% of the country's gross national product vs. 20%. In discussing the difference, the Journal says:

In the view of Obama partisans, it's the difference between a government that keeps its promise to senior citizens counting on Medicare and one that doesn't, and the difference between a country that invests in the education, infrastructure and basic research needed to be competitive, and one that falls behind the Chinese and the other roaring new economic powers.

In the eyes of Romney partisans, it's the difference between a country that trims spending close to the average of recent decades rather than one that eats up resources on government programs, and between a nation that relies on the private sector for a new wave of economic growth and one that slides toward European socialism and declining personal freedom.

...

Indeed, the difference between the two approaches is so striking precisely because, in a time of an aging population, almost two-thirds of the budget is devoted to spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (as well as interest on the national debt). The Congressional Budget Office says spending on such big health programs and Social Security will jump over the next generation to almost 16% of GDP from 10% now. That leaves relatively little for everything else. Even Mr. Obama's budget calls for reducing spending on all those other domestic programs over the next decade. If you add in Mr. Romney's call for higher military spending than the president envisions, the squeeze on other domestic programs becomes sharper, though Mr. Romney hasn't specified exactly where cutbacks would come.

So there you have it: the real difference between these two men. In my opinion, Obama's numbers will rapidly result in national bankruptcy. In fact, I believe that Obama's numbers are worse than Romney's because in the end Obama will bring us to the point of complete collapse. Under Obama, the economy will grind to a halt as capital and jobs flee the country, seeking a haven from the death-spiral of increasing taxes that his policies would almost certainly require (and which, morally, he believes we have an obligation to impose). Eventually the Federal Government's debt will become so large that it will no longer be able to find people to loan it money. At that point, the government shuts down hard, in a kind of a crash that will throw millions of retirees into complete financial desperation. Obama claims his plan is better for the elderly, but what he doesn't do is admit to the looming problem that the world is only going to loan money to the government for just so long, and that business leaders and entrepreneurs are going to be willing to put up with threats of punitive taxation for only so long, before they look elsewhere in the world to invest their wealth. And it's a big world, too.

Under Romney, we have a chance. Just a chance. Frankly, I don't think his plan goes far enough because his plan still leaves us with massive deficit spending. Under Romney, we're still bleeding, but not quite as much. The idea from the Romney camp is that we slow the rate of government spending to more or less what we did prior to Obama, and that will encourage private investment to flourish in this country, which will put people back to work, which will ultimately raise tax revenues. My opinion is that Romney's plan is just trickle-down revised. I'm no big fan of trickle-down economics because I've observed that the wealthy don't actually spend that extra money in this country. Instead, they spend it in China and India and other developing nations. But at least under Romney we aren't gushing arterial blood like we will be under Obama. Romney's plan will eventually bring us to national bankruptcy too, but that will be somewhere down the road. In the meantime, we as a nation can become used to belt tightening. It's a gradual descent into austerity, one that gives people (retirees) time to adjust to a reality in which the government is not able to take care of their every need.

If this was another election, and if Romney had competition from a more fiscally prudent politician, this might not be such an easy decision to make. But, really, what we have here is a decision between someone who wants to aggressively open major arteries just because he disapproves of the way the patient has lived his life and so deserves to bleed out for the greater good, and someone who's trying to keep a patient from bleeding out using a not-very-large bandaid. In that scenario, I'll take the guy who's trying to stem the damage, even though he probably isn't going to be very effective. At least he isn't actively trying to make matters worse.

I'm not a big fan of Romney's, who seems posed to engage in Trickle Down Economics, Part II. With NEW! And IMPROVED! packaging and branding. What we should be doing is pursuing taxation and economic policies that encourage growth in small and medium sized business, even as we use the tax code to punish multinationals who send jobs out of this country. Right now, the way things work is that small and medium sized businesses create jobs, then the multinationals buy the little companies, suck them dry of all their assets, and outsource all the jobs, even as they do everything they can to avoid paying taxes. This is what's causing tax receipts to fall, and that combined with out of control, excessive deficit spending is what is causing our national economic decline.

But an economic policy that focused on building up small and medium sized businesses, which would employ more of the middle class, which is where the bulk of our tax receipts actually come from (accounting for all taxes: income, sales, and other fees), would actually improve the government's revenue picture. It isn't Trickle Down, so much as Trickle Out.

Unfortunately, I don't think that Romney is the guy who can see that this needs to be done. He's part of the 1%, and so has spent his life drinking the 1%'s koolaid on Trickle Down. Ultimately, he will fail.

But Obama? Obama is doing surgery by maliciously hacking at the patient in a frenzy of retribution. Obama Disapproves, and so he is going to Punish Us by making everyone pay and pay and pay and pay, even as he kills the economy entirely.

In the end, I have to vote for Romney.

But I don't have to like it.

[Triton]

In today's Wall Street Journal I found an article that pretty much sums up this year's election for me. I know that other people will vote for reasons having nothing to do with the Federal Government's budget, but to me those issues are all a side show. This is what matters.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

I know most people don't have WSJ subscriptions, so I'll summarize the article before I discuss it.

In essence, the two men have a spending vision for the 10 years that are $6 trillion apart. That is, Obama wants to spend $6 trillion more than Romney over the next 10 years. Put another way, it's 22.5% of the country's gross national product vs. 20%. In discussing the difference, the Journal says:



So there you have it: the real difference between these two men. In my opinion, Obama's numbers will rapidly result in national bankruptcy. In fact, I believe that Obama's numbers are worse than Romney's because in the end Obama will bring us to the point of complete collapse. Under Obama, the economy will grind to a halt as capital and jobs flee the country, seeking a haven from the death-spiral of increasing taxes that his policies would almost certainly require (and which, morally, he believes we have an obligation to impose). Eventually the Federal Government's debt will become so large that it will no longer be able to find people to loan it money. At that point, the government shuts down hard, in a kind of a crash that will throw millions of retirees into complete financial desperation. Obama claims his plan is better for the elderly, but what he doesn't do is admit to the looming problem that the world is only going to loan money to the government for just so long, and that business leaders and entrepreneurs are going to be willing to put up with threats of punitive taxation for only so long, before they look elsewhere in the world to invest their wealth. And it's a big world, too.

Under Romney, we have a chance. Just a chance. Frankly, I don't think his plan goes far enough because his plan still leaves us with massive deficit spending. Under Romney, we're still bleeding, but not quite as much. The idea from the Romney camp is that we slow the rate of government spending to more or less what we did prior to Obama, and that will encourage private investment to flourish in this country, which will put people back to work, which will ultimately raise tax revenues. My opinion is that Romney's plan is just trickle-down revised. I'm no big fan of trickle-down economics because I've observed that the wealthy don't actually spend that extra money in this country. Instead, they spend it in China and India and other developing nations. But at least under Romney we aren't gushing arterial blood like we will be under Obama. Romney's plan will eventually bring us to national bankruptcy too, but that will be somewhere down the road. In the meantime, we as a nation can become used to belt tightening. It's a gradual descent into austerity, one that gives people (retirees) time to adjust to a reality in which the government is not able to take care of their every need.

If this was another election, and if Romney had competition from a more fiscally prudent politician, this might not be such an easy decision to make. But, really, what we have here is a decision between someone who wants to aggressively open major arteries just because he disapproves of the way the patient has lived his life and so deserves to bleed out for the greater good, and someone who's trying to keep a patient from bleeding out using a not-very-large bandaid. In that scenario, I'll take the guy who's trying to stem the damage, even though he probably isn't going to be very effective. At least he isn't actively trying to make matters worse.

I'm not a big fan of Romney's, who seems posed to engage in Trickle Down Economics, Part II. With NEW! And IMPROVED! packaging and branding. What we should be doing is pursuing taxation and economic policies that encourage growth in small and medium sized business, even as we use the tax code to punish multinationals who send jobs out of this country. Right now, the way things work is that small and medium sized businesses create jobs, then the multinationals buy the little companies, suck them dry of all their assets, and outsource all the jobs, even as they do everything they can to avoid paying taxes. This is what's causing tax receipts to fall, and that combined with out of control, excessive deficit spending is what is causing our national economic decline.

But an economic policy that focused on building up small and medium sized businesses, which would employ more of the middle class, which is where the bulk of our tax receipts actually come from (accounting for all taxes: income, sales, and other fees), would actually improve the government's revenue picture. It isn't Trickle Down, so much as Trickle Out.

Unfortunately, I don't think that Romney is the guy who can see that this needs to be done. He's part of the 1%, and so has spent his life drinking the 1%'s koolaid on Trickle Down. Ultimately, he will fail.

But Obama? Obama is doing surgery by maliciously hacking at the patient in a frenzy of retribution. Obama Disapproves, and so he is going to Punish Us by making everyone pay and pay and pay and pay, even as he kills the economy entirely.

In the end, I have to vote for Romney.

But I don't have to like it.

I have to say that I pretty much agree with this post. I would take it a little further and note that Romney has also pledged to roll back unsustainable government programs (obamacare) and is more likely to rein in out of control federal agencies (like the epa) both things that will also help the bottom line. In short, just spending is not the whole story.

[BG42EDGE]

...though Mr. Romney hasn't specified exactly where cutbacks would come.

Well, there you are.

Isn't this the way it always goes? Big promises and utter failure (but wonderful excuses).

And this?

Put another way, it (the difference in spending) is 22.5% of the country's gross national product vs. 20%.

Huh?

Not much difference in amount, but who gets the benefits of that spending is another question.

If history is any guide......it will be the wealthy......no matter who wins the election.

[trey999]

Read my lips, no new taxes! Sorry, just had a weird flashback. The Republicans always do what they say.

[jdm61]

And the man who said that won a war, was non-controversial and yet still was a one term President and that promise came back to haunt him in the campaign. So does this mean that because President Obama has been unable to deliver on his promises, he too should be a one term President?He talked about hope, yet the same number of Americans (35%) say that they are comfortable with their financial position as did in 2008. Not much change or hope for that matter in 3 1/2 years.

Read my lips, no new taxes! Sorry, just had a weird flashback. The Republicans always do what they say.

[BG42EDGE]

Read my lips, no new taxes! Sorry, just had a weird flashback. The Republicans always do what they say.

LOL! Yes, he was a loser and the truth was not in him.

But the question we should perhaps be asking is: are the democrats any better?

And what do we have to do to get better politicians?

[quietmike]

And what do we have to do to get better politicians?

Wrong question. What can we do to get better statesmen? Elect Libertarians.

[Codger_64]

Wrong question. What can we do to get better statesmen? Elect Libertarians.

As long as we allow one group of professionals to control all three estates of our government, nothing will change.

[powernoodle]

If history is any guide......it will be the wealthy......no matter who wins the election.

Thats right. Having half of their income confiscated - under threat of imprisonment - by the central bureaucracy certainly constitutes "winning".

[ttoney83]

So the only real choice is who will increase the debt less......Sounds too much like voting for the lesser of two evils again.......

The Republic, as such, is not broke. The Federal Reserve is broke, and the Federal Reserve is a private banking "cartel" which loans us money. This is counter to the proscription of the Constitution anyway, hence the appropriate push by some to "end the Fed."

The only proper way to solve our economic problems is to declare the Federal Reserve bankrupt, because it is, and reorganize it into the 3rd National Bank of America, with the power to "coin the money and regulate the value thereof" put BACK into the hands of Congress, where it belongs Constitutionally.
(Virtually all major Banks are bankrupt as a result of their gambling orgies from 1999 to present in the derivatives/securities/futures "markets.")

Along with this it is a requirement that we reestablish a Two Tier Banking system as was established by the enactment of the Glass Steagall Act in 1933. This effectively kept our economy stable for 66 years, with no major booms/busts during that time because banks could be EITHER a commercial lender OR an "investment banker" NOT BOTH.....Glass Steagall would have prevented those too big to fail banks from becoming too big to fail.

Unless the issues of Banking and control of the Public Credit (as addressed by Hamilton in his 1st Report on the Public Credit) are addressed, there can be no REAL stabilizing of the debt OR deficit spending.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/hist...ts/ch08_02.htm

The last paragraph of Hamilton's 1st Report on the Public Credit is most informative as to the intention of the Credit and Banking system intended at the founding of this Republic.

Persuaded as the Secretary is, that the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national blessing: Yet he is so far from acceding to the position, in the latitude in which it is sometimes laid down, that "public debts are public benefits," a position inviting to prodigality, and liable to dangerous abuse,—that he ardently wishes to see it incorporated, as a fundamental maxim, in the system of public credit of the United States, that the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment. This he regards as the true secret for rendering public credit immortal. And he presumes, that it is difficult to conceive a situation, in which there may not be an adherence to the maxim. At least he feels an unfeigned solicitude, that this may be attempted by the United States, and that they may commence their measures for the establishment of credit, with the observance of it.

Bold mine.

"The creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment....." This statement implies the creation of debt ONLY as investment in infrastructure or physically productive enterprises which will,or can, increase revenues through greater productivity in the economy in general; in other words, to finance, or help to finance those projects which will improve the general Welfare of the Republic. (General Welfare clause as it relates to regulation of commerce clause.)

I say again, unless the issues of Banking and control of the Public Credit (as addressed by Hamilton in his 1st Report on the Public Credit) are addressed, there can be no REAL stabilizing of the debt OR deficit spending. I see neither of these two candidates doing anything at all to ACTually improve the condition of our finances and we will be faced with the same arguments in another 4 years; Which of the next batch of devils is the lesser devil....I agree with quietmike, We the People must learn to identify and vote into office the STATESMEN among us, and stop voting in the "politicians.."

[mctrinket]

Speaking as someone who had Thurston Howell (a.k.a. Romney) as the governor of his state for several years, I feel qualified to say he is as full of hot air as Obama. Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry.

[timcsaw]

Thats right. Having half of their income confiscated - under threat of imprisonment - by the central bureaucracy certainly constitutes "winning".

I'm gonna' be straight up with you powernoodle... I've always thought your theories about leftests/liberals/progressives were just a bit overstated and a bit harsh... I thought, "their can't REALLY be leftists/liberals/progressives out their that are so driven by greed and envy that all of their opinions and actions stem from those vile emotions", but you know what? I was wrong, you were/are right.

Of late here in the PA, we have had an example that I would say PERSONIFIES and PROVES exactly what you have been saying and now I see that your theory is SPOT ON.

I sincerely apologize for having taken your theory "with a grain of salt" in the past... You might just be a GENIUS!!!

[quietmike]

As long as we allow one group of professionals to control all three estates of our government, nothing will change.

I disagree. The libertarian conspiracy says libertarians want to take over the government.............
and leave everyone alone.

A look at libertarian platforms makes this entirely plausible.

[jdm61]

Tim, like I said earlier, leftists are just as greedy as anyone else, but their "currency" is POWER. The bennies of power come later.

I'm gonna' be straight up with you powernoodle... I've always thought your theories about leftests/liberals/progressives were just a bit overstated and a bit harsh... I thought, "their can't REALLY be leftists/liberals/progressives out their that are so driven by greed and envy that all of their opinions and actions stem from those vile emotions", but you know what? I was wrong, you were/are right.

Of late here in the PA, we have had an example that I would say PERSONIFIES and PROVES exactly what you have been saying and now I see that your theory is SPOT ON.

I sincerely apologize for having taken your theory "with a grain of salt" in the past... You might just be a GENIUS!!!

[Codger_64]

I disagree. The libertarian conspiracy says libertarians want to take over the government.............
and leave everyone alone.

A look at libertarian platforms makes this entirely plausible.

I was speaking of lawyers.

[bulgron]

I disagree. The libertarian conspiracy says libertarians want to take over the government.............
and leave everyone alone.

A look at libertarian platforms makes this entirely plausible.

Power corrupts.

Libertarians would not leave everyone alone. Rather, the people who insist on sticking their nose in other people's business would simply become libertarians, and then join the government.

[jdm61]

Perhaps, but i suspect that I am not the only Republican who has admitted under their breath that we would have been a hell of a lot better off had the older and wiser 2008 version of Hillary Clinton won like she was supposed to. The fact of the matter is that even if you consider Romney the "lesser of two evils", it is still LESSER!! Losing a fingernail in a car door is always better than losing a finger, knowwhatImean, Vern?

Speaking as someone who had Thurston Howell (a.k.a. Romney) as the governor of his state for several years, I feel qualified to say he is as full of hot air as Obama. Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry.

[MVF]

"The creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment....."

Wait, what? That just makes too much sense.

[Danbo]

Speaking as someone who had Thurston Howell (a.k.a. Romney) as the governor of his state for several years, I feel qualified to say he is as full of hot air as Obama. Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry.

Yeah, but he's still better than The Obamanator.

[ttoney83]

Power corrupts.

Libertarians would not leave everyone alone. Rather, the people who insist on sticking their nose in other people's business would simply become libertarians, and then join the government.

Power easily corrupts the easily corruptable. Power corrupts the corruptable. But power is not garaunteed to corrupt all persons. I agree though that simply because one governs under a Libertarian banner does not mean that they are necessarily uncorruptable.