hkellick | (Reply)

From:

It's possible the Romney could do better by arguing abt the economy, but I'm not sure he would have. Early in the campaign a reporter asked how Romney's plan to manage the economy was different than Bush' and the answer was that there weren't any significant differences. I'm not sure that the argument, "This thing that didn't work before? Yeah, we're going to do it again." (no, I know they would have tried to put it differently) is an effective strategy. Romney's tax plan is good for him, but not anyone else, which doesn't seem to be going over well. And his (well the Republican party's really) stance on "job creators" doesn't seem well founded either. Supply and demand is basic economics. If you are making more spoons than are strictly necessary and no one is buying more spoons, there is very little motivation to make even more spoons. Why would CEOs "create more jobs" purely for the sake of it? If their current employees are making enough product, why wouldn't they stick any excess they get back in taxes into their own pockets? Economically, it makes more sense of the government to flush money through the middle class in order to restart consumerism which would create increased demand for product, causing companies to need to hire more people. Unfortunately Bush screwed up the nation debt by not paying off his wars during flush times, so there isn't much room for governmental spending now.

And the answer of basically "Magic" to the question of how Romney's plan will work to improve things isn't helping either.

As far as the teacher's strike in Chicago, I'm betting it was a long time in coming. I would bet that AC in the classrooms has been an issue every year and that Illinois has been not dealing with it for, oh, the last 30-40 years, and then Emmanuel decided to muck around with things (he hates teacher's unions and doesn't seem fond of public schools in general) and disrupted a fragile balance and now the camel's back has finally broken.