Facts from The Economist

[tw]

From The Economist of 3 Nov 2012:

But Mr Romney seems too read to bomb Iran, too uncritically supportive of Israel and cruelly wrong in his belief in "the Palestinians not wanting to see peace". The bellicosity could start on the first day of his presidency, when he has vowed to list China as a currency manipulator - a pointless provocation to its new leadership that could easily degenerate into a trade war ...

Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy, while dramatically increasing defense spending. Together those measures would add $7trillion to the ten year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea ...) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America's poor (a bad idea ...) ...

Mr Obama ... has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises. Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected the ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters more.

Mr Romney's more sensible supporters explain his fiscal policies away as necessary rubbish, concocted to persuade the fanatics who vote in the Republican primaries: the great flip-flopper, they maintain, does not mean a word of it. Of course, he knows in current circumstances, no sane person would really push defense spending, projected to fall below 3% of GDP, to 4% ...

Indeed, the extremism of his party is Mr Romney's greatest handicap.

Cloud-cuckoo-land? Flip-flopper? He does not mean a word of it? $7trillion more debt? The Economist makes a damning conclusion by simply doing the math. This from a conservative British publication.

A Romney supporter must either ignore reality (ie Tea Party, Limbaugh, or Adak). Or must say Romney was never serious about tax cuts, increased military spending, being a conservative, destroying Romneycare, or any other campaign promise. So Romney has been constantly lying? That makes him presidential material?

What we know since Hoover (pre WWII). A Republican president results in a lower stock market. As stated here when George Jr was first elected - before George Jr set a new standard for economic harm. We *know* tax cuts and enriching the rich creates more jobs - if you come from cloud-cuckoo-land. Facts from the Economist should make voting easy and obvious.

Romney must lie. Because the people who he brings to power are that wacko extremist.