Romney: Obama Made The Economy Worse -- No, Wait, He Didn't [VIDEO]

Poor Mitt Romney. He’s been accused of a lot of flip flops in his campaign. He was for government mandated health care, then against it, being pro-choice or anti-abortion depending on what office he’s running for.

Now his biggest talking point in his presidential campaign — claiming that President Barack Obama has made the economy worse — is turning into another about face. With the media pointing out that the claim doesn’t statistically hold true, Romney is now trying to say he never said it in the first place.

Via MSNBC:

When NBC producer Sue Kroll asked the former Massachusetts governor why he believes that Obama’s policies have made the economy worse — when the economy is now growing (and not shrinking like it was in 2009), when the Dow is climbing (and no longer in a free-fall like it was in ’09), and when the unemployment rate is down a full percentage point from where it was in Oct. ’09 — Romney gave this answer:

I didn’t say that things are worse.

Romney went on to say:

What I said was that economy hasn’t turned around, that you’ve got 20 million Americans out of work, or seriously unemployed; housing values still going down. You have a crisis of foreclosures in this country. The economy, by the way, if you think the economy is great and going well, be my guest. But the president of the United States, when he put in place his stimulus plan and borrowed $787 billion, said he would hold unemployment below 8% — and 8% seemed like an awfully high number. It hasn’t been below 8% since. That’s failure. We’re over 9% unemployment. That’s failure. He set the bogie himself at 8% ,which strikes me as a very high number and we’re still above that three years later.

But of course, Romney did say it. A lot. So everyone should have seen this video coming.

Photo credit: Photo by Jessica Rinaldi (Mitt Romney Media) [CC-BY-3.0 (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Read more: 2012 presidential election, mitt romney

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Tim P.

1:03PM PDT on Jul 26, 2011

I have a petition on the economy on this link below...

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ridiculous-gas-prices-costing-driving-lessons/

I need at least 1,000 signatures. I could let thousands of more people sign it if it passes the signature goal.

I have both the president and vice president as targets of my petition along with Americans as we have to take responsibility for our own actions. There might as well be other things than greed in businesses that upset the economy.

send a green star

David C.

12:01PM PDT on Jul 8, 2011

Pat I wasn't aware that any part of the 2009 or 2010 stimulus packages went to financial institutions. I thought that all those $$ were part of the 2008 TARP, Bush's last year. I also was under the impression that most banks repaid the loans though I vaguely recall some small banks were having difficulties. In a quick Google of Obama stimulus packages, I saw no mention of banks. I haven't looked for TARP conditions.

Pat V.

9:12AM PDT on Jul 8, 2011

ps: I do realize 40% of the stimulus went to TAX BREAKS to the unknowing, uncaring, undeserving,ungrateful, etc., citizens.... but what of the balance of the $$$ for Wall Street?

9:10AM PDT on Jul 8, 2011

Mr. President... as it appears banks are NOT loaning the funds of the 2010 "Stimulus Package"...for small businesses, etc... can you not "withdraw" or "cancel" that funding?

You must know... this lack of using the funds is an effort to blame you for today's jobs losses and to hold the economy against you personally? Dirty Politics... and to hell with the Country and citizens who are too docile and/or stupid to know or care!

(David C: Do you know why these Stimulus" funds cannot be cancelled, refunded or withheld?) psv
psv

8:02AM PDT on Jul 8, 2011

Laure

I don't dispute that presidential actions can cause effects well into the furure. Some examples include Reagan's short sighted desertion of Afghanistan. Substantial US resources went into supporting resistance against Soviet occupation, But after the Soviets withdrew, the US abruptly withdrew all support for the new government. The after effects are evident. Similarly, the effects of Reagan and Bush tax cuts are still with us. Had either president showed fiscal responsibility, the gross debt would be roughly half of today's. Other examples include Reagan's support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran/Itaq war, Bush1's pusillanimous response to Saddam's pre-invasion threats against Kuwait.

What I do dispute is that Carter left a ticking time bomb. Carter clearly stated that credit quality was not to be compromised. The "bomb" could so easily have been defused by simply regulating the banks and mortgage companies. The federal government had that power.

I really don't understand your point re Social Security number. You think that Social Security was a mistake because SSN has become an ID number? Or you think that assigning an account number was a mistake? How do you think SS earnings and taxes should be tracked? Are you opposed to bank account numbers? I'm mystified.

Laure H.

7:22AM PDT on Jul 8, 2011

Yes, David, I am standing behind my statement that the effects of any Presidency can linger far longer than his term, even beyond 12 years. Look at history. Good or bad, no matter what party, acts both large and small can have huge effects.

Ask yourself why the Social Security number, which was absolutely NOT to be used as a national ID, has somehow become....kinda a national ID. I had to give mine to renew my driver license, to have bank accounts, to go to school.

4:34PM PDT on Jul 7, 2011

Oh come on Laure H "Carter left with a time bomb ticking".

Are you really trying to tell me that 12 years or Republican WH control couldn't defuse a time bomb??? Diane was reduced to telling me the banks misunderstood Carter's strict injunction to maintain lending standards.

As Smart Money pointed out, housing booms and busts in Ireland Spain, the UK occurred simultaneously. All were traceable to Carter? Of course they weren't. There were many contributing factors to the collapse. It is not credible to assign all blame to Dems peripherally involved - though that is a rather Republican thing to do.

A major factor was low interest rates. Investors looked for better returns. Someone got the bright idea of bundling mortgages into collateralized debt obligations (CDO)'s. Gone were the days when you borrowed from a local bank and that bank held the mortgage till it was paid off; in those days the banks checked carefully. As the risk, move further away from the original mortgagee, so also did the care with which documentation of ability to pay was checked. Mortgage brokers had no skin in the game. They got a commission for each loan they processed - absolutely zero risk.

Companies like Countrywide (since bought by Bank of America) skated on the edge of fraud. I could go on but credit defaults swaps, deliberately assembling risky instruments the selling the short were also factors. But I'm approaching my 1500 characters.

3:57PM PDT on Jul 7, 2011

Hmmm. So Carter left office with money in the coffers, but a time bomb ticking away.....
This is why we can't put time limits on the negative economic effects created by different administrations/congresses.

When I was told "how much house we could afford" during my very first house-hunting days, I thought it was ridiculous for a bank to suggest that anyone can afford a home based on current income and expenditure.....there was really nothing left over for the unexpected, for luxuries (large or small), or for paying the silly thing down faster, or adding to retirement.

This sort of policy created a situation in which people were in more house than they could afford, even if very little went wrong or changed.

I appreciate your perspective on real estate in this discussion.

Diane wrote:
DavidC: Carter and Affirmative Action where he "urged" the banks to lower their lending practices because he believed it was every Americans' "right" to own a home. How soon we forget.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/romney-obama-made-the-economy-worse-no-wait-he-didnt-video.html#ixzz1RSiAv3sJ

1:13PM PDT on Jul 7, 2011

Diane, I meant the bubble had reached its peak in 2006, that the stage for collapse was set. If I remmber correctly home prices peaked in 2006. I obviously did not mean that the effects of the failure were over and done with.

I found your comments re my thinking myself intelligent hilarious. Don't you know you have a reputation for condescension?

Diane O.

12:59PM PDT on Jul 7, 2011

DavidC, and you would be wrong in stating that the subprime was already over by 2006....so wrong. It leveled the jobs in the building industry which is still with us today. Foreclosures are still alive and well in at least five of our states. It is the reason that millions of Americans are underwater with their mortgages TODAY and the direct reason why we are facing more foreclosures and more personal bankruptcies.

Again, DavidC, expand your mind and step outside of the box you've placed yourself in because the real estate market in our country is still in the toilet. We see little snippets of it recovering but that is ONLY because the government finally stopped tampering with it. It was always going to recover on its own. The majority of Americans in our country have excellent credit, money in the bank and many without mortgages. These are the very people who would've gone in during that time and bought up the foreclosures as rental income and/or second homes. However, that wasn't allowed to happen because of the red tape/paperwork involved after the government stepped in, shall we say, to help? Foreclosures are sitting in those cities because it was too difficult for people to purchase them.

What else have you got for me?