More American Politics

[Fazda]

I have just read this.

I will once again sit back and wait for all the Republican Party apologists to try and rip this argument to shreds.

(There are links within the article)

Do Deficits Matter?
Given all the screaming going on that Obama is increasing the national debt, it is enlightening to see that the independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget released a study today that estimates that the economic plans proposed by Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney would increase the debt by between $250 billion and $7 trillion over the next nine years.

Newt Gingrich’s plan would increase the debt by a staggering $7 trillion, taking it to 114% of GDP (it is 70% today and historically averages 40%). And that’s after cutting funding for Medicaid by half. But Gingrich claims that his plan would balance the budget in his first term, because cutting taxes would create jobs. Yeah, we’ve heard that one before.

Rick Santorum’s plan would increase the debt by $4.5 trillion, to 104% of GDP.

The least awful plan is Mitt Romney’s, which only adds $250 billion to they debt, mainly by lowering corporate taxes. But not included in the current analysis is Romney’s new plan, released yesterday, which cuts marginal tax rates for individuals by 20%. This new plan is estimated to raise the debt by $2.6 trillion.

The only Republican proposal that would reduce the debt is the one from Ron Paul. But he does this by eliminating five federal departments, including education, commerce, and energy.

http://politicalirony.com/2012/02/2...mpaign=Feed:+politicalirony+(Political+Irony)

 

[LazyLion]

So now we're crapping on people for stuff that hasn't even happened yet?

 

[Ou grote]

What is your point here?

 

[Nicodeamus]

Not one mention of Ron Paul's plan that would balance with budget in 3 years, he is a republican - o wait that doesn't fit into the OP's frame of reference!

Study: Only Ron Paul's budget plan would cut deficit
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Massive tax cuts proposed by GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would cause the national debt to explode while Mitt Romney's budget plan could generate red ink in line with current projections, according to a new study released Thursday.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington-based budget watchdog group, estimates that the wrenching budget cuts proposed by Ron Paul would lessen the flow of red ink compared with current policies but still leave the government running a sizable deficit.

The candidates' budget plans provide a sharp contrast with President Barack Obama, who released his latest fiscal blueprint just last week. Like Obama, the GOP candidates have the luxury of suspending political reality and assuming lawmakers would quickly enact their ideas into law.

That translates into a tax code in which taxes on investments and capital gains are sharply reduced or eliminated. Each candidate would eliminate inheritance taxes on large estates. And tax rates on individuals would be cut as well -- all in the face of deficits that economists say would eventually cripple the economy.

The results, according to the study, would be higher deficits, except in the case of Paul, whose spending cuts dwarf anything being considered by his three rivals.

According to the study, Gingrich's plan would add $7 trillion to the nation's debt over the coming nine years -- almost doubling the deficits that would be recorded if the government basically ran on autopilot. Santorum's plan would add $4.5 trillion over the period, or about $500 billion to the deficit every year on average.

By contrast, Romney's proposal would add $250 billion to the deficit over nine years, though that estimate was generated before he unveiled a new tax reform plan this week that could add considerably to the deficit.

And Paul, whose budget plans include eliminating five Cabinet departments, immediately ending operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and sharply cutting federal programs like Medicaid and food stamps, would reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion.

 

[RanzB]

Not one mention of Ron Paul's plan that would balance with budget in 3 years, he is a republican - o wait that doesn't fit into the OP's frame of reference!

He is mentioned.

The only Republican proposal that would reduce the debt is the one from Ron Paul. But he does this by eliminating five federal departments, including education, commerce, and energy.

Might want to read the entire article before dismissing it

 

[Alan]

So now we're crapping on people for stuff that hasn't even happened yet?

it's his usual "I just got this email" spam.

It's still less than Obama.....

Try not to choke on your coffee, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the Obama administration policies would dump $9.7 trillion onto the national debt by 2020. The projected national debt by 2020, according to the CBO, would top $20.3 trillion.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/03...of-obamas-national-debt-was-written-on-palin/

 

[copacetic]

So now we're crapping on people for stuff that hasn't even happened yet?

How are are people meant to make decisions about politicians not in power yet?

 

[Ou grote]

How are are people meant to make decisions about politicians not in power yet?

Off topic, but I remember your sig from somewhere.
It's explained here: http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_new_quran/

 

[copacetic]

Off topic, but I remember your sig from somewhere.
It's explained here: http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_new_quran/

But, let me explain why, because I don’t want to give the impression that I support the mutant interpretations of the Qur’an used by the Muslim fanatics who maim and murder in the name of my faith.

Good people get good stuff from any source, bad people get bad stuff from any source, that's the problem.

Which is why people need to stop taking ancient holy texts so damn seriously.

 

[Fazda]

How are are people meant to make decisions about politicians not in power yet?

Actually very simple.

The Republicans have been screaming blue murder about how Obama and the Dems are dropping the USA in the sheeite, and yet the plans proposed by the possible new presidents are taking it even further down that road.

I call that hypocritical in the least - but of course the blind ones such as alan and his merry gang won't see that at all.

 

[The_Assimilator]

Not one mention of Ron Paul's plan that would balance with budget in 3 years, he is a republican - o wait that doesn't fit into the OP's frame of reference!

Yes, Ron Paul will balance the US budget - in much the same manner as cutting off a person's arms will prevent a scraped elbow.

 

[Avenue]

Mitt Romney has proven himself as someone who is able to make the right financial decisions. I would rather give the job of sorting out the national debt to someone who has build up a personal net worth of $200 million +

In our country the government cant see more than one step ahead, and so their only solution to any financial crisis is to increase tax which is what this article seems to be advocating. (if indirectly)

Sometimes lowering tax can have a better effect on the economy because it gives the people more disposable income.

 

[RanzB]

Sometimes lowering tax can have a better effect on the economy because it gives the people more disposable income.

What about raising taxes on people who are extremely wealthy? They certainly don't need lowered taxes to raise their disposable income.

 

[copacetic]

Actually very simple.

The Republicans have been screaming blue murder about how Obama and the Dems are dropping the USA in the sheeite, and yet the plans proposed by the possible new presidents are taking it even further down that road.

I call that hypocritical in the least - but of course the blind ones such as alan and his merry gang won't see that at all.

Yes, that's my point, since these people aren't in power yet, all anyone can do is examine their proposed policies...

 

[Avenue]

What about raising taxes on people who are extremely wealthy? They certainly don't need lowered taxes to raise their disposable income.

I think the whole mindset behind that is to reward rather than penalise people for doing well.

Think about a person like Steve Jobs- how much has he done for the economy already. How many jobs has he created. (im not talking about little stevies running around ) A person like that has contributed more than their share as far as im concerned.

Thats not something we are used to in SA- here we have a lowest common denominator mindset, and I see that a little with Obama

 

[Nicodeamus]

Yes, Ron Paul will balance the US budget - in much the same manner as cutting off a person's arms will prevent a scraped elbow.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. How does cutting 1 trillion from the military, bringing the troops home and getting rid of corporatism and the monopoly on money supply equate to cut of someone's arms!

 

[Ou grote]

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. How does cutting 1 trillion from the military, bringing the troops home and getting rid of corporatism and the monopoly on money supply equate to cut of someone's arms!

Maybe you should explain to him what the long term consequences will be for America and the world, if they cut the military budget and bring back their troops from all over the world.

And how getting rid of corporatism and preventing companies like Apple, Microsoft, General Motors, Banks etc from being created in the first place will benefit America and the world.