A letter on Sept. 16, “Choice this year between bad economics and hope,” claims Mitt Romney does not understand the purpose of the supposedly successful stimulus.

Let’s remember why it was needed.

1. Housing crisis? Created by government rule changes, forcing mortgage companies to approve unaffordable loans. It wasn’t “fair” that people could not own houses financially out of their reach, so I was made to help pay.

2. Finance crisis? Byproduct of No. 1 when foreclosures occurred. Also created by government. I was forced to invest in a finance company of which I wanted no part.

3. Auto crisis? Created by slow demand because of mismanagement — overmanufacture of gas-guzzling SUVs. Somebody is driving a car I helped purchase.

None of the above is “fair.”

Government presented itself as the solution — through forced consumerist taxation.

The predictable response was for people to save their money, resulting in so-called slower-than-expected recovery.

Let the free market system of supply and demand operate, and all of the above eventually would have worked itself out — without billions of tax dollars. I would have more of my own money to spend on what I wish, therefore validating the company’s product — all without government intervention.

Would there be pain? Yes, but our children wouldn’t have to solve problems we avoided.

No matter how much stimuli are injected, if corporations cannot sell their product, they cannot thrive. History will repeat.

Spending one’s way out of poverty is never successful. We now have $16 trillion of increased debt, up 56 percent from $9 trillion in four short years, thanks to stimuli-like programs.

Romney understands all this; apparently the letter writer does not.

P.S. Read about government’s response to the stock market crash of the early 1920s. Amazing contradiction.

Greg Paquet

Smithfield