The Island Now

Romney hypocritical on debt

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Monday, November 5, 2012 2:45 pm

With regard to the U.S. presidential candidates’ debates, frankly, the morality of it is irrelevant to the issues that we are facing today, when put in its proper prospective, at least in my humble view.  

 For example, Romney’s immediate Republican predessors famously stated that “Deficits do not matter” while instituting two wars and other programs while concurrently cutting taxes, which failed to stimulate growth in employment.  Republicans were not heard to complain about “immoral” spending then. 

Romney now wants to spend 2 trillion on additional military spending (a stimulus program of the most wasteful sort) so it is foolish to believe that he doesnt believe stimulus spending is “moral.”  He just has other (foolish) priorities for the same spending Obama is proposing. 

However, short-term increases in government debt coupled with long term gradual cutbacks in expenses (as Obama proposes) are the Keynesian solution to our problems - and real “Alternative” policies involving austerity measures (unlike Romneys proposals which are not true alternatives because he will increase spending on the military)  have not proven successful.   

Hence, if we are pretending that Romney does not believe in stimulus spending, and blaming the majority of our debt on Obama, without clearly accounting for all of its original sources in programs supported by both parties - including the infamous policies of Obama’s immediate predecessor, and without acknowledging that Obama’s proposed solutions (including increased stimulus spending on much needed infrastructure that would clearly promote long term growth) - solutions, which have been proven to work here in the USA, albiet slowly, appears foolish. 

Setting aside Romneys hypocritical promotion of more military spending, Romney’s promotion of “cutbacks” in government spending alone has been tried over the last four years in Europe - in England, Ireland, etc and has failed. 

The U.S. (under Obama) is now doing better economically than the rest of the world due to the early stimulus Romney Republicans now  just complain about, and would do better still if more stimulus could get passed by Congress.  

Why should we now view that austerity policies will work here, in the US, when they have been proven to fail in Europe?  Where is the evidence of its success that can be foreseen in the potential near future?

One of my neighbour friends has said as following: ‘When I hear the word austerity many decades ago, I immediately thought of nuns -- plainly dressed, in austere living quarters, with stern expressions..........’

 My another neighbour friend tried to express to me about what he felt when he was in his days of a sixth grader: ‘I remember well my years in Catholic schools taught by nuns.  One school was on the century old grounds of the old Spanish mission at San Juan Capistrano in California, where the church was made of adobe and the alter was covered with gold leaf.  The goldfish looked to weigh ten pounds to my sixth grade memory (as did the rats were there at  that time).’

 Certainly, my latter friend did not imply that the Economy at  the time was Not comparable at all with what we are currently facing; what he tried to express had nothing to do with the National Economical Growth, but merely his own past personal experience with the school when he was in his 6th grade. 

 Once my this friend’s point being clarified,  both empirically and practically, in economics, austerity refers to a policy of deficit-cutting by lowering spending via a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided.

 Do not you feel so?


Bing Tang


More about

More about

More about

Welcome to the discussion.