FIINALLY, President Obama has stated clearly how his economic vision for America stands in stark contrast to that of Mitt Romney and the Republicans. Honestly, this kind of speech was long overdue. What can Mitt Romney say now? Obama answered all the charges and not only gave a strong defense but went on offense. He still needs to give a lot more specifics (which have been desperately lacking so far in this election from either side), and I sincerely hope that he does . But nonetheless this was the starting point. Let’s look at some of the points he made:
“At stake is not simply a choice between two candidates or two political parties, but between two paths for our country. And while there are many things to discuss in this campaign, nothing is more important than an honest debate about where these two paths would lead us.”
This election needs to stop being about stupid finger pointing and constantly playing the blame game and all the irrelevant side issues. It needs to be an honest debate about each candidate’s vision for the economy. I do not expect it to be because if it was Romney would not have any support, but nonetheless Obama needs to hold up on his side.
“We were told that huge tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest Americans, would lead to faster job growth. We were told that fewer regulations, especially for big financial institutions and corporations, would bring about widespread prosperity. We were told that it was OK to put two wars on the nation’s credit card; that tax cuts would create a enough growth to pay for themselves. Over the last few decades the income of the top 1 percent grew by more than 275 percent, to an average of $1.3 million a year. Big financial institutions, corporations saw their profits soar. But prosperity never trickled down to the middle class. From 2001 to 2008 we had the slowest job growth in half a century. The typical family saw their incomes halt.
He needs to continually emphasize (and get into more specifics) about how fewer regulations and tax cuts did not help but hurt the economy and how Romney will continue these same policies that have already been proven to fail. Remember, Romney already embraced Paul Ryan’s budget and Obama needs to emphasize the finer points. Its a budget that claims to reduce our deficit by closing tax loopholes but doesn’t actually specify which loopholes it would close. Its basically cuts taxes for the rich and slashes benefits to the poor, (like that is really what we need now) They are, in fact, even worse than the Bush tax cuts. According to the Tax Policy Center, $4.6 trillion is the cost of these reductions, and they disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Obama needs to attack this attempt to blow smoke up the American people’s “you know whats”
“Now, an independent study said that about 70 percent of this new $5 trillion tax cut would go to folks making over $200,000 a year. And folks making over a million dollars a year would get an average tax cut of about 25 percent. Now, this is not my opinion. This is not political spin. This is precisely what they have proposed.”
The fact is, it is only the Republicans who can spin these numbers. I believe they call begin the spin by using the phrase “demonizing the rich.” I mean they have coined so many buzz phrases (“Demonizing success” is another one) in this election cycle, its gone beyond annoying is just starting to get plain insulting to our intelligence. Folks at the top do not need more spending power. They do not need more tax cuts. It is a lack of demand from the middle and the lower class that is hurting this economy.
In fact, just the other week, one economist from Moody’s said the following about Mr. Romney’s plan — and I’m quoting here — “On net, all of these policies would do more harm in the short term. If we implemented all of his policies, it would push us deeper into recession and make the recovery slower.”That’s not my spin. That’s not my opinion. That’s what independent economic analysis says.
He needs to keep emphasizing that it is the Republicans who want to spin everything, because otherwise they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on with their economic policy. Romney won’t even answer tough questions from the media anymore and is constantly avoiding the press. The reasons are clear. He can only win on the economy by manipulation of the facts. Its terrible. It’s disgusting. It’s immoral that one of our potential candidates wants to manipulate and deceive in order to gain power, but unfortunately this is nothing new to American politics.
So, no, I don’t believe the government is the answer to all our problems. I don’t believe every regulation is smart, or that every tax dollar is spent wisely. I don’t believe that we should be in the business of helping people who refuse to help themselves. (Applause.) But I do share the belief of our first Republican President, from my home state — Abraham Lincoln — that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.
He needs to keep refuting these stupid and untrue Republican talking points like the one smaller government is the cure for everything. We are all in this together, The American people and the American government. Republicans like to forget that we are a community of people and our decisions affect each other, and that there should be no winners and losers. It is basically the premise of why Republican policies will never fix the economy. Businesses are not spending enough because consumers are not spending enough The government is not spending enough, and often it is not spending wisely. And when no one’s spending, unemployment is high. The problem is Americans are not purchasing American products. Total spending is down and if my spending is your income, as Paul Krugman Nobel Prize winning economist puts it, the country falls into depression. Conservatives do not understand that we got out of the Great Depression by Government spending on the World War II effort. People became employed. Incomes Consumer spending rose. Businesses thrived. The problem is that right now we are not making use of our full productive capacity.