GOP candidates’ economic pitches avoid specific solutions

[TomCADem]

Source: Washington Post

The Republican presidential candidates are offering a series of one-size-fits-all economic pitches that fall short of addressing important nuances and competing demands posed by the nation’s diverse fiscal landscape, analysts say.

* * *
As the candidates seek to harness the economic anxiety eating away at President Obama’s popularity, they have focused on items central to Republican orthodoxy: reducing taxes, cutting government spending, jettisoning regulations and promoting free trade.

“So far, the candidates have been playing it a little bit safe and have been tapping into the general anxiety that people feel,” said Fergus Cullen, former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party. “They have been mostly sticking to Republican canon.”

* * *
Factory workers in critical swing states such as Michigan and Ohio have been buoyed by the Obama administration's auto bailout, which helped reverse the car industry’s long slide. For many of them, the idea of government intervention is a good thing.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-candidates-economic-pitches-avoid-specific-solutions/2011/10/06/gIQAycegYL_story.html

---

I do wonder whether this is really true. For example, is there any doubt that all of the Republican canddiates would try to repeal Health Care Reform and Financial Reform, cut taxes to the rich further, and slam on unions?

In other words, Republicans will suddenly forget their anti-deficit message, and give away freebies to the rich in the name of economic growth just like Dubya. Also, is there any doubt that they would aggressively push for an invasion of Iran to create a distraction for their giveaways to the rich?

[Confusious]

1. what we've been doing for the past 30 years

Seems to me we're going down the tubes because of low taxes, no regulations, cutting government and promoting free trade.

To do the same thing over and over and expect different results is insanity

[provis99]

9. they DON'T expect different results. They like the results they are getting.

Concentration of wealth in the hands of the 1%.

[No Elephants]

10. They? Republicans have not been in sole control for the past 30 (or 40) years.

[SoapBox]

2. RepublicCONS are THE worst, at managing America's money.

Worst!!!

I would never let one of the Cons take care of my money. America, why will you let them do it?!

[valerief]

3. They DO have specific solutions. For the 1%. nt

[Historic NY]

4. Really......they just use fear as a message.

[necso]

5. "items central to Republican orthodoxy"

Not only orthodoxy, but litany (a form of ritual prayer, worship).

And this orthodoxy simply doesn't bear examination. I mean, what are the cons going to say: "We just want to free the powerful from the inconvenience of being restrained from freely poisoning your air, water and food; treating workers, society, civilization and the environment like these don't matter; and otherwise doing pretty much whatever they want to, whenever, wherever and however they want to, without any risk of penalty or restriction. Moreover, while we like to pretend that this will mean more and better jobs, lower prices, better living standards, and more freedom for the people, of course the actual effects will be the exact opposite of this. ... Suckers."

[Populist_Prole]

6. Of course! They don't need to elaborate on their plutocratic othadoxy

They always had the top money dogs in their hip pockets. All they had to do is throw out hunks of red meat to their mush-brained "values voter" types to string together enough votes to win.

[DallasNE]

7. Of Course Deficits Don't Matter To Republicans

Just look at the deficit record of Reagan, Bush and Bush.

And just look at what Romney just proposed -- "a muscular foreign policy". Central to that was a proposal to increase by 50% the Navy ships built each year -- from 9 to 15. That requires substantial Navy manpower increases. He doesn't spell out what is the need for these ships, how much his muscular foreign policy would cost nor how he would pay for any of it. In other words, just more George W. Bush borrow and spend. Oh, on top of that he would also speed up Star Wars spending, again without paying for it. Been there, done that ---- no thanks.

[DallasNE]

8. Should Proof Read First

The increase in ships is 2/3, not 50% as I said -- making it even worse.