The problem with Romney is, regardless of what you think of his personal knowledge about the economy, his policies ARE DESIGNED to continue the 40-year Republican plan to destroy the middle class. The recipe is very simple. Destroy labor unions, destroy the social safety net by making it impossible to pay for in the face of more and more needless defense spending and more and more useless tax cuts to the most wealthy. De-fund and privatize public education so, in the end, only the rich get good educations and the non-rich stay ignorant and divided by social issues, racial politics, bogus economic arguments. Shovel more and more money to the top 1% -- through tax cuts and privatizing government functions. Essentially, merge the government with the major corporate conglomerates so they are essentially indistinguishable from each other, ensuring perpetual Republican/corporate rule.
The proof of this is in the policies. In the face of a massive recession, what are Republicans and Romney proposing? Cutting spending, austerity. This makes sense only if you regard America as a corporation that needs to protect its investors, ie, the richest 1%. They propose this, even as we can all see the result of that very plan unfold in England. It has been a clear, unmitigated disaster over there. Why would it not be that way here? Every sane economist has learned from the example of the Great Depression and Europe's recent problems, that during times of economic decline, cutting spending is the exact OPPOSITE of what you need to do as a government to help the general population. The result of such policies is further economic decline and lower growth, and larger deficits.
In fact, during times of economic decline, the government absolutely must step in and SPEND MUCH MORE to make up for the lack of demand in the private sector. This was the idea behind the Stimulus, which saved the economy from a great depression, but was just too small to rescue us from a deep recession. The time to cut the government, of course, is ONLY during a boom period, which is what Clinton did. (Though, I would argue, he did too much of that).
The fact that Romney and the Republicans are proposing austerity at this time proves they either do not know THE FIRST THING about how the economy works, or that they are simply full of shit. I for one believe the Republican party to be essentially a coalition of both types. That is to say, the party is little more than a group of con men (who secretly believe in maintaining a feudal aristocracy) heading a herd of willfully ignorant, know-nothing morons right off of a cliff.
This 40-year plan to destroy the two major bases of support of their chief rival (unions and the middle class), the Democratic Party, has been largely successful. And, as you know, in the face of this assault, the Democratic party had to go corporate and seek out their own fat cats to fund their campaigns. Barack Obama – despite all the bogus, unsupported by fact rhetoric about his hostility to business, is quite friendly with the corporate powers that be. He is no suck up, as Mitt Romney would clearly be. But, as we have seen, a complete corporate suck up does not even enforce basic mathematical and sane rules of the game that keep the economy alive. Why should he, if that only hastens the demise of the middle class, right? After all, that goal supercedes all others for a Republican leader.
Romney instead, seeks to make sure socialism works for the too big to fail banks and large business interests -- they get bailed out no matter how bad they screw up or break the law. Why? Because they are allowed to be too big to fail. Would Romney change that? Even Obama wouldn't, sadly -- well, not until his second term. And as long as Mitt Romney had a say in it, these too big to fail companies would NEVER be regulated to prevent such crashes from happening again. He will make sure of all this, all while making sure that members of the middle class have nothing to rely on from the government. That way they can ONLY rely, in fact, on their fealty to their overlord boss, and upping their "productivity.
This kind of socialism for corporations alone has a specific name and it is "fascism." Saudi Arabia is a great example of the kind of society Mitt Would love to preside over, as a ruling Shiek.
Remember Bush's economy would have also been dramatically recessionary as well for the shrinking middle class were it not for the artificial housing bubble Bush allowed to ge inflated (to disastrous results) by not enforcing and/or enacting appropriate regulation of credit default swaps and the corrupt stock rating agency practices, like those of AIG.
Obama's main fault is that he listened too much to folks like Mitt Romney (Laurence Sommers, Geitner, etc.) when he first came into office instead of folks like Paul Krugman and Robert Riech. He should have been pounding the podium and using the bully pulpit to call for a much more MASSIVE STIMULUS. He should have explained to the American people that now is not the time to worry about government spending. Instead, he adopted the Republican frame that we needed to worry about it.
He should have repeatedly explained that the lack of regulation is what got us in the mess in the first place.
So the idea that the economy is bad because we are over-regulated is quite laughable on its face.
Even now, Obama continues to brag that -- in fact (even given the stimulus and the bailouts) -- he's spent LESS than any other president when compared to GDP. In that sense, he also doesn't get it. He shouldn't be bragging about that.
But Romney's so-called solutions are MUCH MUCH worse, since they go in the exact opposite direction we need to go. In fact, they would – by design -- lead to worse job prospects in the future for the average worker.
In fact, I submit to you that a Romney election -- if it happens, which I highly doubt, would be the coup de grace in terms of ending what little Democracy we have left. His administration would merely solidify and make permanent the complete hostile takeover of our government by state-less, multinational corporations which have no loyalty to the people or to the traditions of this country. He would in fact preside over the last gasp of the middle class as it transformed into little more than the cowering "working poor."