At the Democrat Convention last week, former President Clinton defended President Obama's proposal to impose higher taxes on the rich. Mr. Clinton stated that during his term of office, economic growth was good and the rich were paying higher marginal tax rates.
In an article entitled "What Obama Didn't Learn From the 1990s" (Wall Street Journal. Aug. 3, 2012) written by Edward Conard, a former managing director of Bain Capital, states: "The economic growth of the 1950s, the 60s and the Clinton years had many causes. But one of them wasn't high marginal tax rates".
According to the author, the causes of economic growth are "successful investment and rising equity values." Furthermore: "The notion that the robust economy of the 1950s, 60s and 90s proves that historically high government spending and taxes have little, if any effect on growth is naive-----today's endless increases in government spending with no discernible improvement in our infrastructure or educational outcomes makes it painfully obvious that politics and special interests have undercut its benefits".
During the last four years, we have seen the results of Obama's economic policies:
*Unemployment of over 8% for the last 43 months.
*63.5% of the civilian labor force working, the worst outcome in 31 years.
*Anemic economic growth averaging just above 2%.
*A $16 trillion debt and still growing.
*Continuing low numbers of jobs added (96000 in August).
*Just over half the total number of jobs added in this "recovery"than in each of the last nine recoveries since WWII.
President Obama's campaign calls for a continuation of his presidency and for the country to stay on the same track. His call cannot be taken seriously given his track record.
We have a better choice. Mitt Romney has a proven record and experience in the private sector, in running the Winter Olympics and as governor of Massachusetts. Granted he does not speak in flowery terms, but he is the candidate best suited to fix our ailing economy and the candidate that I will vote for.
In an article entitled "What Obama Didn't Learn From the 1990s" (Wall Street Journal. Aug. 3, 2012) written by Edward Conard, a former managing director of Bain Capital, states: "The economic growth of the 1950s, the 60s and the Clinton years had many causes. But one of them wasn't high marginal tax rates".
According to the author, the causes of economic growth are "successful investment and rising equity values." Furthermore: "The notion that the robust economy of the 1950s, 60s and 90s proves that historically high government spending and taxes have little, if any effect on growth is naive-----today's endless increases in government spending with no discernible improvement in our infrastructure or educational outcomes makes it painfully obvious that politics and special interests have undercut its benefits".
During the last four years, we have seen the results of Obama's economic policies:
*Unemployment of over 8% for the last 43 months.
*63.5% of the civilian labor force working, the worst outcome in 31 years.
*Anemic economic growth averaging just above 2%.
*A $16 trillion debt and still growing.
*Continuing low numbers of jobs added (96000 in August).
*Just over half the total number of jobs added in this "recovery"than in each of the last nine recoveries since WWII.
President Obama's campaign calls for a continuation of his presidency and for the country to stay on the same track. His call cannot be taken seriously given his track record.
We have a better choice. Mitt Romney has a proven record and experience in the private sector, in running the Winter Olympics and as governor of Massachusetts. Granted he does not speak in flowery terms, but he is the candidate best suited to fix our ailing economy and the candidate that I will vote for.
Right on Norm......The question which has become the elephant in the room is; will voters understand the facts of the situation facing our country or will they again fall for Obama's skilled rhetoric?
ReplyDeleteUpon some reflection, I think that Obama's main goal in this campaign and during the convention was not only to draw the public's attention from his sorry record but to sow confusion as to he really was. For instance, he attempted to conflate Bill Clinton's presidency with his own. To paraphrase another politician, we know Bill Clinton and Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton knew when to compromise when he had to and got things done--a politician yes but he knew how to govern. As a result, he arguably had a successful presidency. Barack Obama is an ideologue, the true radical and obstructionist in this election. He governed from the far left and cannot and will not move to the center like Clinton did--it's too late for him to do it now and I don't think he's capable of it. Thus the attempt to sow confusion and muddy the waters. If the Republicans can provide the clarity needed as to the real issues, they'll improve their chances of winning the election.
ReplyDelete