nhboy
06-15-2012, 09:19 AM
Link to original source. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/opinion/the-political-contrast.html?hp)
"There is no meaningful difference between the trickle-down economics of George W. Bush, rejected by the country in 2008, and the plans supported by Mr. Romney and his Republican allies in Congress. All the elements are there, from the slavish devotion to tax cuts for the rich, to a contempt for government regulation, to savage cutbacks in programs for those at the bottom.
“If you want to give the policies of the last decade another try, then you should vote for Mr. Romney,” he (Obama) said. “You should take them at their word, and they will take America down this path. And Mr. Romney is qualified to deliver on that plan.”
Mr. Romney, in fact, helped reinforce the president’s point with his own speech minutes before, in which he denounced virtually all forms of regulation, from ones cleaning the air to those preventing banks from engaging in the same destructive behavior that produced the Great Recession on Mr. Bush’s watch.
If only the government would get out of the way, he suggested, and stop trying to cover those without health insurance, or keep the groundwater clean, then jobs would magically reappear.
Of course, that didn’t happen when Mr. Bush tried it; painfully slow job growth was followed by a recession that shed nine million jobs.
The proposals made by Mr. Obama in Cleveland are more likely to put people back to work: invest more money in education, job training and rebuilding infrastructure. Focus more on developing new energy sources than pulling globe-warming coal from the ground. Lower the deficit through higher taxes on the rich, which could lead to a pact to cut spending responsibly. "
"There is no meaningful difference between the trickle-down economics of George W. Bush, rejected by the country in 2008, and the plans supported by Mr. Romney and his Republican allies in Congress. All the elements are there, from the slavish devotion to tax cuts for the rich, to a contempt for government regulation, to savage cutbacks in programs for those at the bottom.
“If you want to give the policies of the last decade another try, then you should vote for Mr. Romney,” he (Obama) said. “You should take them at their word, and they will take America down this path. And Mr. Romney is qualified to deliver on that plan.”
Mr. Romney, in fact, helped reinforce the president’s point with his own speech minutes before, in which he denounced virtually all forms of regulation, from ones cleaning the air to those preventing banks from engaging in the same destructive behavior that produced the Great Recession on Mr. Bush’s watch.
If only the government would get out of the way, he suggested, and stop trying to cover those without health insurance, or keep the groundwater clean, then jobs would magically reappear.
Of course, that didn’t happen when Mr. Bush tried it; painfully slow job growth was followed by a recession that shed nine million jobs.
The proposals made by Mr. Obama in Cleveland are more likely to put people back to work: invest more money in education, job training and rebuilding infrastructure. Focus more on developing new energy sources than pulling globe-warming coal from the ground. Lower the deficit through higher taxes on the rich, which could lead to a pact to cut spending responsibly. "