Subscribe to Money Morning get daily headlines subscribe now! Money Morning Private Briefing today's private briefing Access Your Profit Alerts

Romneynomics: What You Can Expect if Mitt Romney Wins the Election

Yesterday I wrote about what to expect if President Obama wins a second term in office. Today it's Mitt Romney's turn.

I'd like to look at Romneynomics – the policies that are likely headed down the pike if the underdog Mitt Romney wins in November.

As for the horserace, I think it is President Obama's to lose.

But last Friday's weak employment report indicates again that the economy could slow enough to push Romney ahead.

As with an Obama victory, I think the election will be a close one even if Romney emerges the winner. That means the Republicans will not have an overwhelming majority in Congress.

On the other hand, the Republicans might just get the four seats they need to win the Senate; if Romney wins I assume they will accomplish this. That would give them theoretical control of both the presidency and Congress, but with only small majorities.

The Top Priorities of Romneynomics

As with an Obama win, the first order of business will be to sort out the "fiscal cliff" that comes along with expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the automatic expenditure cuts that will also occur at the end of the year.

With Romney set to inhabit the White House, I expect the solution to this to involve genuine spending cuts–perhaps along the lines of the budget presented by Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-WI).

This will be accompanied by an expiration of the Bush tax cuts on high incomes and elimination of some tax loopholes. Romney's first priority will be to eliminate the tax deduction for state and local taxes, which benefits rich Democrats in high-tax states and does nothing for rich Republicans in states like Texas, Nevada and New Hampshire with no state income tax. He will probably limit the home mortgage tax deductions and the charitable tax deduction, but not eliminate them.

In summary, a Romney tax and spending policy will be close to the Simpson-Bowles plan put forward in December 2010, or the compromise plan that appeared close last year.

It will not bear any resemblance to the "flat tax" and draconian spending-cut plans put forward by Republican candidates in the primaries. I would be very surprised also if Romney closed any major government departments — even though the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is economically damaging, Education is largely redundant and energy entirely redundant.

On healthcare, Romney is boxed in by the cries of his base to abolish Obamacare entirely and his own passage of something pretty similar to Obamacare in Massachusetts.

The Congressional session of 2013 will almost certainly see an attempt to pass a replacement for Obamacare, which will keep most of the politically popular parts of that legislation, such as the prohibition against insurance companies rejecting patients because of prior conditions, but eliminate the individual "mandate" forcing people to buy health insurance.

Very likely, it will involve some form of voucher, as proposed by Ryan for Medicare, but extended to the entire working population.

This will need to be expensive in order not to be wildly unpopular, but if it is accompanied by removal of some of the most anti-market provisions in current healthcare legislation, such as the 1986 provision that hospitals have to provide emergency treatment without getting reimbursed, it may slow the growth rate of healthcare spending overall.

Romneynomics: The Winners and The Losers

Energy is an area where a Romney presidency will make a difference. The Keystone pipeline will be completed, and federal barriers to fracking will be removed as far as possible. This will over time make the United States one of the lowest-energy-cost countries in the world, which in turn will make it highly competitive in energy-intensive manufacturing.

With Romney in the White House, it is however likely that "green energy" expenditure will continue in some form. In particular, the CAFE automobile fuel economy standards for 2025, which will impose huge costs on the economy and on our lifestyles if kept in place, may be modified but will not be eliminated.

On monetary policy, it's not clear where Romney will come out. He will not re-appoint Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in January 2014; the man is too unpopular with the Republican base.

However, he is likely to appoint some compromise figure such as John Taylor (inventor of the Taylor Rule for setting interest rates) or former Fed governor Kevin Warsh. They will tighten monetary policy, but very slowly and cautiously, much as Alan Greenspan did in 2004-06.

That will bring modestly higher interest rates, but will not do much to quell the accelerating inflation that is already "baked into the cake."

However, even gradually rising interest rates will almost certainly cause turmoil on Wall Street, where many of the banks and the whole $300 billion agency mortgage REIT industry — think Annaly Capital Management (NYSE: NLY) and American Capital Agency (Nasdaq: AGNC) — will find the rising interest rates destroy their business models and will thus collapse.

For us as investors, a Romney presidency should probably make us look at oil companies exploring in and offshore the U.S., and at pharmaceutical companies. However, the financial sector and the stock market in general are likely to suffer as higher interest rates kick in.

Overall, in 2017 the government will still be bigger than it was in 2009, though not as big as it would be under four more years of President Obama. Taxes will also be higher than today.

In short, it won't be smooth sailing. In fact, the financial crash of 2014 or 2015 will be extremely painful, as will the subsequent recession.

On the other hand, the relaxation of regulation and the modest improvements in the healthcare industry may significantly improve long-term U.S. growth prospects.

As is the case in Europe, for voters here in the U.S. there just won't be any easy answers.

Related Articles and News:

Join the conversation. Click here to jump to comments…

  1. John M. McConeghey | May 9, 2012

    And can you take time to consider what happens under a Ron Paul presidency? On the basis that Warren G. Harding won with only 6.67% of the republican convention first delegate vote, and went on the largest recorded presidential victory in U.S. vote history, Ron Paul is a real potential. ( Especially if the Euro and dollar tank before August.) Cut one trillion first year, etc., should be interesting.

  2. romney is a joke | May 9, 2012

    if romney wins the election
    1>he will cut vital domestic spending and increase defense spending, since domestic spending is small % of budge pie, debt borrowing will only go up.
    2>he will definitely touch healthcare. outcome, see massachusetts healthcare mess he created. it is a joke. i should know, i am from boston.
    3>tax cut for high income, that is a definite, digging bigger hole into debt borrowing. and tons of limitation or elimination of tax deduction off tax form. high income doesnt need deduction, but regular people need deduction, yep, romney will screw tons of regular people for high income people.

    how is horror picture printed by romney for regular american? heheh…

    • Henry Peterson | May 14, 2012

      How can you think anyone would be worse than obama?

  3. Phil Steinschneider | May 9, 2012

    Mr. Hutchinson,

    Your two pieces were superb. There's no doubt you've once again proven your clairvoyance.

    Now, please tell us more about the financial crash of 2014 or 2015.

    While you’re at it, maybe you could explain a question that continues to perplex me to no end: Given Robert J. Shiller’s superb work on historical home prices, which made it quantitatively clear that the housing bust would be cataclysmic, combined with Kenneth Rogoff’s extraordinary research in “This Time is Different,” why are these two great economists still espousing Keynesian solutions to the current crisis in the press?

    Shiller wants move government intervention, while at the same time indicating that housing prices could yet decline 20%, while Rogoff (like Krugman) states that a “little more inflation” wouldn’t be a bad thing. What are these guys smoking?

    Since the media and most people appear to be listening to the likes of Krugman and Stigitz, how screwed are we? (Maybe my frustrations are the underpinnings of your financial crash prediction.)

  4. martin levit | May 9, 2012

    I am a senior ciizen and very much interested in "entitlements" which I thought would be guitted. Yet you are silent Its a puzzlement.
    I hope you are misaken about deductability of state and local taxes. Isnt this a tax inrease which I thought he would be opposed to.?
    do you reply to replies?
    thank you for your column

  5. Debra Hamilton | May 9, 2012

    I'm always amazed that people forget that mammalian life is not possible without green plants. It is that simple and there is no denial of that possible. Stating EPA' regulations have reduced the U.S.'s productivity is unbelievable (I seem to remember multiple reports about the loss of the blue collar workers with the MBA fad of the 1970s and the prediction that the US's productivity would drop significantly with in the next 30 years.). There are significant long term costs to greedy mis management of natural resources that this author obviously does not realize. A great counter argument would be to state the agricultural, marine (how much did the Valdez, Gulf of Mexico semi-clean ups cost?) and health care costs resultant from poor natural capital management and waste by products (e.g. contaminants, green house gasses, CFCs, excess nitrogen,etc.). We use the natural resources of this planet in the same way as a person downs a gallon of whiskey and forgets about the resulting hangover.

    • Fred Stork | May 12, 2012

      Debra — thank you, I was just going to write a nasty letter to Hutch, sorry i have to call him that, as suddenly he lost some of respect i had for him.
      This is the second time he is bashing EPA (mind you i am NOT defending EPA, i am defending the task they have), without any further clarifications. Like cleaning up our environment is "economically damaging". Maybe he didn't move here before the big scandal in Niagara region exploded, the whole fields full of the most deadly toxins buried underground, and "nobody was responsible".
      I suspect Martin thinks, in the tradition of the British caste system, that when he cruises around in his Rolls Royce, the environmental horrors unveiling before us, here and now, will somehow not affect him – only the riff raff.

  6. Phil Steinschneider | May 9, 2012

    Also, I'd like to note that yesterday was F. A. Hayek's birthday (May 8). No Google doodle for him. Maybe they'll do Keynes on June 5.

    • Fred Stork | May 12, 2012

      Who in the world is F.A. Hayek, I only know Selma Hayek (not bad)
      You are not, by any chance bringing up some Keynesian, are you — it's a joke in itself. It wold be too embarrassing for you, haven't you observed what has happened in several decades, like the debacle of Reaganomics?

  7. Jim | May 9, 2012

    It is sad that we really don't have any good choices in the presidential election. In my opinion the only way to fix the mess we are all in. We need to take a stand and FIRE the whole government and start over new. We need to put business people in that know how to run business properly. We need a government that is for the people not there own party. This is so far out of control it is sad. We use to look in the world as a great nation and a SUPER POWER UNITED STATES. Now we are just laughed at around the world. It is so sad that are government bailed out the billion air companies and let the people go down the toilet because of the billion air companies. That was B.S. and we are still getting screwed by the billion air companies. The government keeps filling there own pockets why the american people keep going on a never ending down hill ride. We need to start over new because of what is going on now will never change.

    • tw | May 9, 2012

      Jim, I agree with you 100%. We need to also get rid of the CEO's in the BANKS AT THE CORPORATE LEVEL and CEO'S AT FANNIE/FREDDIE. They blame the banks for robosigning but I'm sure somebody in those two entities went along with it too. I does not make since that with managers over seeing employees conduct, that these kinds of fraudulant issues get passed management. There are individuals in these 2 entities NO DOUBT surely getting KICKBACK!!! I'm pretty sure that's why DE MARCO WON'T PASS THE MORTGAGE PRINCIPLE REDUCTION, because he is one of the BIGGEST KICKBACK CROOKS!!! Anyway, in reading all this proposal CRAP for the presidential nomination, it appears Romey is only making minor changes but not enough to really make a big different in this economy. We need him to KEEP THE RATES LOW (PERFERRABLY AT 3.5 WITH A CAP AT 4% AT ALL TIMES), DIFFINATELY NO MORTGAGE TAX INCREASES WHAT SO EVER AND HAVE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES REDUCE ALL THEIR POLICY PREMIUMS TO WHAT A LEVEL WHERE LOW INCOME INDIVIDUAL CAN ALSO AFFORD. Surely, if the hospitals can start turning people away again, then we will have a bundle of sick people roming the streets affecting others with deseases. I do not really think in my deepest heart that Romey will be able to really fix everything and it will be a matter of time when he will get sick and tired and give in and join the CROOKS as all politicians do. Bottomline, they all want to PLAY GOD but have no clue as to how to do it…LOL I think they need to open the REAL BOOK OF INSTRUCTIONS AND READ GOD'S LAW AS IT SHOULD BE!!!

  8. David | May 9, 2012

    Any information on whether Romney has signed, or would sign, the Grover Norquist anti-revenue anti-tax pledge?

  9. Al Smith | May 9, 2012

    I too would like to know about this impending financial crash of 2014/2015

  10. H Craig Bradley | May 9, 2012


    Its fine to talk local politics but China has a plan to. China is attempting to get enough of the G-20 countries to boycott U.S. Treasury Debt Auctions to force America to stop printing dollars. Call it a "buyers strike". If successful, a bond market crisis would develop during midterm 2014.

    Another financial crisis would force-up interest rates (alot) to attract bidders in the primary market. In the process, the stock market and real estate markets would go into depression and the Federal budget would explode with much higher interest payments squeezing out everything else. So, unless Romney has a plan for that, we should just let Obama self-destruct in a second term.

    Be warned: everyone will lose something ($) with during a second Obama term, especially the poor.

  11. Don | May 9, 2012

    While differences do exist, so much is similar and the differences are only in the extent of the similarities. With that said and the perception Romney has in the general public , I don' see this election being even close. Something extream has to happen in order for Obama to lose. His public
    image as a watchdog for "little people " will in the end carry the day.

  12. Dan | May 9, 2012

    If this were a monopoly game it would be one where there is a clear winning party who has corrupted the banker and has him in their pocket. Now this winning player does not want the game to end because while they are winning they are in control but if they actually "win" the game ends and they have to start over and in that case they really lose their power. So instead they instruct the banker to give out handouts to the other players to stay in the game, just enough to keep playing but not enough to get ahead. That way they stay in power and they keep the other players just able to hang on. But at some point there will be a tipping point where the other players realize that the banker is being manipulated and that they have no chance of getting ahead and at that time they will decide that the game needs to end. We are fast aproaching that tipping point and what happens when we get there will be historical. Greed, Power, and Corruption have brought us here not entitlements, that people have paid into their whole lives. The last time the gap between the elite wealthy and everyone else was this large was right before the great depression. The "banker" I speak of is our elected officials on both sides of the isle. But just remember replacing the "banker" will only reset the game into a fair game if there are also some consequences doled out to the "controlling" player(S) as well.

    • john mills | May 9, 2012

      I've thought for some time that we've had a bought and paid for congress.

      I saw a politcal cartoon that showed a picture of congress with all the big money corporations
      represented by characters, with the caption below it reading,

      "thats the Best little congress that money can buy"

  13. tw | May 9, 2012

    As I previously replied to jim agreeing that we should start all over again and replace all politicians from office. There are too many brown nosers within. As for Romney, he is only making very small changes that will not make a big difference in this economy. Yes better he than Obama… The real issues: 1. to keep the mortgage rates down at 3.5% with 4% cap at all times. Increasing the rates gradually in this economy is not doing any one any good. 2. GET THE CROOKS OUT OF FANNIE/FREDDIE AKA (DE MARCO and others) who are probably on the list of CEO's getting KICKBACKS from the banks to keep the PRINCIPLE REDUCTIONS FROM HAPPENING. 3. Allowing the hospitals to turn away emergency patients is only going to put 1000's of people roaming around in the streets affecting other innocent people with diseases. 4. We need a law having medical insurance companies to create a policy with a very low basic premiums that the low income people can afford for emergency and surgical procedures,medical check ups and dental. This way the hospitals can get paid and won't have to turn people away. All the issues above if addressed correctly, will also lower the filing of people getting on state aide supplement (CASH AIDE/MEDI-CAL) which is where most people who have lost their jobs and homes are turning to. We the people have to come together and protect ourselves from these political monsters. The PROBLEM IS these politicians want to PLAY GOD but have no clue how to go about it and have already accepted the MARK OF THE BEAST. If they would just open the BOOK OF GOOD NEWS (THE BIBLE), they would known exactly how they should have handled all these issues in the first place. PEOPLE WAKE UP…WAKE UP…WAKE UP… WE ARE IN A SPIRITUAL WAR FAR and if we don't do something about it now, the nation will eventually be forced to do the same. We are heading towards a NEW WAY OF COMMUNISM and we need to stop it in its tracks. Anyway, if their is any shame and people laughing in our faces from other countries, we are to blame for not doing anything about it.

    • Fred Stork | May 12, 2012

      How do you propose to replace the government, I am willing to bet the government will "replace" you, long before you replace it.
      BTW, haven't you ever heard of separation of church and state, keep your Bible out of this, it doesn't belong here, you are on the wrong website.

    • DaudM | July 19, 2012

      You were going along good, peaking my interest, leading me to think you may have some valid points, then you went over the cliff. Mark of the Beast? Now I have do discount everything, everything you had to say. Thanks for dashing my hopes of a coherent, concise and intelligent conversation.

  14. Jerry Johnson | May 9, 2012

    Talk facts to us, please! Tax increases are a no-no but reality tells us the more we want the greater expenditures. We like to say that we want less governent but that does not mean that we want less from government.

    Gov. spending since Reagan through the Bush admins. always increase, under Obama that is not the case.

    • Richard | May 9, 2012

      Jerry, overall government spending has increased under every administration since WWII. Obama has been the most spendthrift of all as he has little or no understanding of macroeconomics. Plus, he appears to want to cut down the U.S. to be more like the Europeans. Clearly that provides a sad scenario. Europe has stagnated because of their severe Socialistic tendencies. We need to make some drastic changes here in the U.S. to prevent that same situation happening in the greatest country the world has ever known.

  15. N2AuAgPt | May 9, 2012

    These were interesting commentaries, although I believe Romney's prospects are better than given credit for by Mr. Hutchinson. Still, the course of the economy will dictate the electoral outcome, and on that account alone, I believe Romney's prospects improve daily.

    The main takeaway I have from both commentaries is that precious metals will continue to be an excellent place to park one's wealth for the foreseeable future, as will oil. I'm interested in learning more about the "2014-16 financial crash", which, in terms of cycles, may be the beginning of a new bull market in equities? Or not?

  16. Ross Harrison | May 9, 2012

    The extremes of both parties are going to kill us. If we keep electing these people, it will always be a deadlocked Congress on balanced legislation. We cannot expect to improve this economy and get people back to work again if we push for extreme measures that either add to the National Debt or raise taxes by taking away tax deductions, never mind taking the focus away from the real issues. Somehow we need to find a way to talk to each other, reach real balanced legislation that supports all of us not just one half or the other. Everyone has a position I get it, but realize that doing nothing is not a solution to a problem. The reality check, is reducing energy costs, modernizing and rebuilding our National Electrical Grid, keeping our transportation system viable, making changes to our social security program maybe even phasing it out in favor of an investment program that has a better chance of providing real security without government replacing saved dollars with an IOU, a health care system that really is fair and affordable for everyone (medical insurance should be competitive across the USA not just within a state) approaching a Balanced National Budget where programs can be paid for with tax revenue not borrowed money, putting on the table an acceptable plan to pay down the National Deficit, working on legislation that really does something to make the American worker not only more productive, but more competitive on the world marketplace, focusing more on America's issues and not someone else's accept in cases where is is beneficial to our National interests. Scrubbing all Federal Programs to eliminate wasted tax dollars. We have too much oversight at a high level for these programs that do nothing to improve cost inefficiencies, those tax dollars would be more effectively used to improve our balance sheets. Some things are more effectively managed by industry where market forces and strong leadership would do more to keep costs in check. There are a lot of issues, so stop the bickering and start producing meaningful outcomes.

  17. Rbama | May 9, 2012

    The problem is the true issues destroying our economy are not even being discussed.

    Taking from the poor is not the answer and could have serious consequences beyond our imagination. Leveling the playing field on trade and giving the people in our country a fighting chance is where our opportunities lie. I am afraid we are in a fight that we simply choose to deny or ignore.

    A common currency for countries participating in international trade is a good place to start. Cleaning up Wall Street would be another a good project. Creating an energy policy which makes sense and making it happen would be nice to see.

    Our politicians are carrying to much baggage, not salvageable, and most should be voted out of office.

  18. Frank Silvestri | May 9, 2012

    OK, Why are you people hiding the Shale finds thruout the country, You know as well as me that It could be Our countries way out of the mess that our so called brain children in congress created.

  19. dordan | May 9, 2012

    now that you have fried my brain i would like to say that eventually all empires crumble

  20. Ken Oden | May 9, 2012

    Since both OurBumma and RobMe are just Establishment lackeys—the differences and changes will amount to trimming around the edges ONLY. The Establishment New World-One World Govt-promoting welfare- WARfare Liberal Socialist Democrat-Republican combined Big Govt Party in Washington today doesn't care who wins – just so long as it is NOT Ron Paul. He will do just exactly what we need – cut off the fuel supply of the Establishment by Ending The FED. Along with Ending The WarS and Ending The Foreign Aid and heading us back to the way we were when our REPUBLIC was great and strong and growing—Libertarian, how our founding fathers set things up.

    • Deborah Andrews | May 14, 2012

      Reply to Ken,
      Yes, I agree with what you say; however, Ron Paul would never be elected, because he makes too much sense. Some of his foreign policy is questionable, but overall he really could pass a budget where our country could eventually end up in the black. Even if he was elected, I believe he would be assassinated just like Kennedy, King, and Lincoln!

      However, I will have to vote against Obama no matter who gets the nomination.

  21. Robert in Canada | May 9, 2012

    People on the left need to give a long honest look at what leftist governments do to their people.

    Look at Greece, Venezuela, Argentina, Spain, and others that have been destroyed by left wing governments.

    The destruction doesn't happen overnight. Left wing policies can take a few years to work thru the system, but the results are always the same. Misery and ruin for everyone.

  22. Ken K | May 9, 2012

    Republicans in the Senate have made use of the filibuster standard procedure so as to thwart Obama as much as possible. Even if Republicans regain a majority in the Senate it won't do them much good because I suspect that Democrats will figure that turnabout is fair play and will block all of Romney's plans.

    • Deborah Andrews | May 14, 2012

      Dear Ken,
      The first two years both the House and the Senate were controlled by the Dems and left the Republicans in the bleachers to observe. All of the things passed during those first 2 years were so negative that even Obama doesn't want to mention them anymore. If both the Republicans and the Democrats don't start working together there won't be a USA to pay their salary anymore. Then won't they be happy!

  23. Thomas | May 9, 2012

    It is absolutely amazing to me, it sounds like you yourself still also tend to side with the Democrats. For me personally, being roughly right wing conservative as Rush Limbaugh might call it. for the last four years now, I really can actually testify to the fact that Obamanomics still has not worked for me. I am even more in debt now than I was before. I have not had a decent steady job now since Obama moved in, when is it going to end? If I could actually afford health care that might be cool, but I have to praise God for the few still operating free health care clinics out there where the qualified physicians actually donate about two or three hours of their free leisure time just for helping out the more less fortunate. This is a big beautiful world from an interstellar and astronauts perspective, why can't everyone just get along? Sometime Socialism really does work, but on the other hand it also tends to breed more loafers. Truth be told no effective system works any better than the humans who actually run things. Nevertheless, "He who has the gold always seems to still make the rules."

  24. Gary | May 10, 2012

    Interesting perspective…in other words, basically another President who's is unable to do much except for some special interest groups, and then the economy nose-dives in 2014-2015.

    Seems like there's a certainty to "the financial crash of 2014 or 2015". What's Romney's economic strategy with regard to pulling us out of the subsequent recession? Will he or won't he commit trillions in deficit spending to kickstart the economy or will he just let the free market work it out by just cutting more taxes to Big Business while the rest of us suffer through the new version of the Thirties?

  25. Paul | May 10, 2012

    An interesting comparison of Obama and Romney. I have taken from your articles that there is basically not going to be much of a difference whoever gets elected.

    There is however one point in your article which I find both shocking and disturbing. You write: "In fact, the financial crash of 2014 or 2015 will be extremely painful" You know this already but nobody appears to be considering any measures which will make it any less painful.

    Why don't any of you look at the German model for getting through financial crises? Do you think it was just by chance that Germany was out of recession long before the U.S. or any of it's european partners? When the GFC came, German companies put their workers onto short time with the remainder of their wages covered by a special government package instigated by Angela Merkel's centre-right coalition(!).

    This meant that when the recession was over, there was no delay in having to look for people with the right skills as happened in the U.S. but the workforce was still there, with the right skills, eager to get back to full production. As the orders rolled in and the workforce gradually got back to work, the help from the government gradually decreased.

    I know you probably think of this as being communism(especially tw above), but then who is looking forward to an extremely painful financial crash in 2014/5? I know where I would rather be in 2014/5 and I also know which country I'd rather be investing in. Just to make it clear: I am not German and never will be.

    @tw please stop bashing the Bible and referring to new ideas as communism. There is nothing else which makes people from other countries laugh in Americans' faces more.

  26. Daniel K | May 10, 2012

    People are economic ignorants as long as the many have there three beers and a boob tube to watch what do they know or care? The same is true of all of the occupy wall Streeet crowd. Heck they are not even smart enough to come in ..out of the rain. Job ? why work when food stamps age given away indefinately as long as you vote for the Democrat-socialist. The problem occurs
    when the Federal tax base further shrinks below the 53% now paying Federal taxes. (Note, back when the income tax was first instituted about 94% of all workers actually paid Federal taxes.)
    But in a few years when even more giveaways and more money is spent paying the bills for ILLEGALS , our Federal tax pase will shrink to 40% which will be much like that of Greece. Then we too will be bankrupt and the U.S. dollar , like the British Pound will be consigned to the trash heap .
    And American's will rue the day they voted for Obummer and his socialism.

  27. Benton H Marder | May 13, 2012

    I will simply quote The Mogambo Guru: "We're freakin' dommed!"

  28. Kenneth Roberts | May 13, 2012

    Having to work and pay taxes,ok,If I had a million I'd be glad to pay more in taxes to help the poor and this GREAT COUNTRY,GOD BLESS USA,help our LEADERS.GAS PRICES hurt the poor,not the RICH,CONGRESS&every one ought to work together to benefit every one who is a legual citizen.I loved to work and gave 120% everyday I could untill a ciropractor pinch my spinal cord,did not sue,everyone makes mistakes.Now live on disablity,hate to say but the truth.Union helped some jobs,hurt others,lost a lot of jobs to oversea,other countries too.Still a GREAT COUNTRY,BUT HAVE TO WORK, to reach goals that benefit all. God bless us all.

  29. Josh | May 17, 2012

    Republicans are absolute evil. If you were going to write an epic story, you would easily put everything the republicans stand for under the villain. Letting sick people die, certain citizens get less rights because of how they are born and lets not forgot to kill of as much of the environment as we can as long as there is monitary profit involved.

    They keep complaining of fiscal responsibility when they have never ever even come close to doing such a thing. They lower taxes and start wars. How in the hell is this fiscal reponsiblity? They hate the bank bailouts but their deregulation led to the banks disaster and then Bush bailed them out! It wasn't Obama. Bush initiated the bail out, Obama just didn't stop it. Look it up.

    My point is that the vast majority of the countries problems have been started under republicans and now they are further to the right than ever! What are people thinking? Ill tell you what; they dont think. They simply react to their ignorance, bigotry, racism and cling to their archaic tribal myths. They get told what to believe and then they obey.

    If republicans get the white house and congress there will be hell to pay for us all. But I guess if our population is really so ignorant, bigoted and gullible to buy what they are selling then we really do get what we deserve. God help us.

    • Allison | May 22, 2012

      I don't know how people like you (Republican haters) can over simplify where we are right now by calling it all the Republicans fault. The bailouts may have started under George Bush but no Republican would have driven up the defecit to 13 trillion. Obama just can't admit that his plan to spend our way out of the Recession is not working. When the US can't even make interest payments to the Chinese and the dollar gets greatly devalued, how are you going to blame that on the Republicans? The Republicans are at least addressing our huge debt and preposing a plan, although painful, at least creates a chance to save the American economy from ruin for our children's future.

  30. R Parker | May 30, 2012

    The idea that Americans are expendable to the corporations that subsist from the banks is highly flawed because it is we that create and that toil fight and suffer it and to discount this attribute sets the stage for the falsity presently propping up our economy; it is being steered so awry by the Fed that we find our country in so much hardship and you can be sure this imposition was unwarranted

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Some HTML is OK