ROMNEY ANNOUNCES HIS ECONOMIC PLAN: He Calls It "BUSH ON STEROIDS" !

[Rich Romney Relative]

Plus, GOPhers emit gas as Chrysler continues its amazing post-bailout
turnaround!

Romney hopes you forgot he urged U.S. to allow car maker to go
bankrupt!

--------------------------
“President Clinton can take apart the economic policies that turned
his record surplus into a record deficit and lead to the worst
economic crisis since the Depression,” said a Clinton adviser. “He can
also validate the decisions President Obama has made to rebuild the
economy from the middle out, not the top down, because he made those
same decisions. ”

=============================

"Why Barack Obama needs Bill Clinton"

Op-Ed
By Chris Cillizza
July 30, 2012



The news that former President Bill Clinton will play a central role
in next month’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte is an
acknowledgment by President Obama and his inner political circle of
two things. First, that there is no better economic messenger in the
party than the former president. And, second, that Obama needs
Clinton.

In this June 4, 2012 file photo, President Barack Obama and former
President Bill Clinton wave to the crowd during a campaign event at
the New Amsterdam Theater in New York. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

“[Clinton] is incredibly effective at talking about the economy and
reminds Americans of our last period of prosperity,” explained Howard
Wolfson, the deputy mayor of New York City and a former senior adviser
to then Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid. Added
another former senior Clinton adviser: “He’s the best speaker in the
party and wildly popular with independents.”

With the economy dominant, the unemployment rate too high (and
stagnant) and President Obama struggling to convince undecided voters
that he has a plan to make things better, much will fall on Clinton to
make the case for why economic-minded voters — particularly downscale
whites in the Rust Belt — should choose the Democratic party.

In short: President Obama (and his team) know that they need Bill
Clinton and, to their credit, they aren’t letting past conflicts get
in the way of acknowledging that necessity.

The role of economic cheerleader-in-chief is one Clinton is intimately
familiar with, having steered the nation’s economy for eight years
during the 1990s and keeping a hand in the party’s economic messaging
ever since.

Clinton has been a regular advice-giver to Obama on the economy
throughout his term and has been particularly outspoken as it relates
to the best way to drive a contrast on the issue with former
Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

It was Clinton, for example, who came up with the description of
Romney’s economic plan as George Bush “on steroids” — a line that both
President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have come to use in their
stump speeches.

“President Clinton can take apart the economic policies that turned
his record surplus into a record deficit and lead to the worst
economic crisis since the Depression,” said a Clinton adviser. “He can
also validate the decisions President Obama has made to rebuild the
economy from the middle out, not the top down, because he made those
same decisions. ”

For a president and a party who must find a way to win an election
where the unemployment rate looks almost certain to remain above eight
percent and where a majority of the public disapproves of the
incumbent’s handling of the economy, Clinton’s ability to frame the
economic argument — and, in particular, make the case against Romney —
is of critical importance.

The symbolic effect of placing Clinton in such an elevated role is one
that both sides downplay but will not be lost on anyone within the
Democratic party — or the political commentariat.

Clinton was clearly perturbed during the 2008 primary campaign at what
he perceived to be Obama running against his (successful) approach to
politics during the 1990s and let that anger slip on several occasions
— most notably in the runup to and aftermath of the South Carolina
primary.

Clinton allies note that such things have long been water under the
bridge, pointing out that the former President not only spoke at the
2008 convention in support of Obama but has also been a regular
presence on the fundraising circuit for much of the president’s first
term in office.

All that being said, there will be some (many?) who see the decision
to deputize Clinton so prominently as an attempt by the Obama team to
finally heal old wounds by admitting that, yes, after all, they do
need Bubba.

Given the economic hill that Obama has to climb in order to win a
second term in 99 days, he’s going to need all the help that he can
get — an odd position for a politician who has built his career as a
solo artist.

Putting Clinton in such a critical role is a recognition of Obama’s
new political reality — this ain’t 2008, after all — and, his team
hopes, a way to put their best players on the field in the final
moments of the campaign.

“Clinton on stage is not just a sign of party unity,” said Mo
Elleithee, a Democratic consultant and former aide to Hillary
Clinton’s presidential bid. “It’s a sign that we’re pumped, fired up
and ready to go.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-barack-obama-needs-bill-clinton/2012/07/30/gJQABJ8dKX_blog.html

=============

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/chrysler-ceo-warns-against-over-confidence-after-turnaround/article4449467/

[Mitt's Half-Brother Glover]

Loading Image...

[Mitt's Institutionalized Half-Wit Son]

"Mr. Romney’s tax cuts would not affect everyone equally. The study
showed that the net effect would be a tax cut for high-income
households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households.
This is because there are just not enough tax breaks to close for the
rich, and the big money is in those for middle-income taxpayers."

==========================

"Mitt Romney’s tax plan falls short"

Editorial
The Washington Post
August 4, 2012



EARLIER IN the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney included a section
called “tax” in his economic plan, “Believe in America,” that posed
two sensible questions: “How will we generate sufficient revenue to
balance our budget without discouraging economic activity, and will
the burden of taxation fall equitably on all Americans?” Mr. Romney
argued that the tax code is a “Rube Goldberg contraption of
bewildering complexity” and called for a “fundamental redesign” of the
system with lower rates and a broader base.

Mr. Romney’s point about the need for an overhaul is certainly true.
Major tax reform would be a good opportunity not only to simplify the
tangled mess of the code but also to align revenue and spending, which
are now catastrophically out of whack.

Mr. Romney has also pledged to lower tax rates by 20 percent in a way
that would not add to the budget deficit. But how? One approach would
be to eliminate a wheelbarrow full of tax breaks. Another would be to
slash more spending. Both are painful, yet neither has been fleshed
out in detail by the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Mr.
Romney has offered the feel-good temptation of lower taxes without the
harsh medicine to follow.

Last week, a research group in Washington attempted to fill in some of
the blanks. The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings
Institution and the Urban Institute, took the basic provisions
outlined by Mr. Romney and ran them through an economic model. The
center kept Mr. Romney’s pledge to be “revenue neutral,” not adding to
the budget deficit, and to preserve incentives for investment. It also
incorporated other ideas Mr. Romney has suggested. In some cases where
the Romney campaign has failed to be specific, the group added its own
assumptions, but not unreasonable ones.

The study reached two important conclusions. The first is that Mr.
Romney’s plan to lower tax rates would take $360 billion out of
federal tax revenue in 2015. Offsetting that — keeping the plan
revenue neutral — would require eliminating a whopping 65 percent of
today’s $551 billion in available tax breaks. That could mean deep
reductions in popular benefits such as the mortgage tax deduction, the
tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance and the deduction
for charitable contributions. Politically, it sounds impossible. But
those are the numbers.

The Romney campaign responded by saying, vaguely, that tax cuts will
lead to more economic growth and thus more revenue. But will they be
enough? Not likely.

The other conclusion was that Mr. Romney’s tax cuts would not affect
everyone equally. The study showed that the net effect would be a tax
cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-
income households. This is because there are just not enough tax
breaks to close for the rich, and the big money is in those for middle-
income taxpayers.

The bottom line of this exercise is that Mr. Romney has a hole in his
balance sheet. He’s certainly right to want a major overhaul of the
tax code, but offering the promise of lower rates while ignoring a
huge revenue shortfall is not responsible stewardship. He needs to
fill in the blanks in his tax policy, and soon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romneys-tax-plan-falls-short/2012/08/04/34075ffe-dda0-11e1-9ff9-1dcd8858ad02_story.html