To avoid increasing deficits you don’t have to generate an equivalent amount of revenue. You can also cut an equivalent amount of spending. And that’s what Romney is going to do.
It's a biased study that doesn’t even consider cutting spending.
Really?
Has Romney ever actually given any indication as to what he'd supposedly cut? (other than "Obamacare" and repealing Obama's Freedom Tax or whatever).
AFAIK Romney has said he'll increase defense spending (including more battleships for some bizarre reason) and to maintain benefits for seniors, as outlined in this
article on Bloomberg.
How on earth is this study "biased", incidentally? I don't understand.
It's basic mathematics.
I think we can conclude that Romney isn't serious about reducing expenditure - for all his many faults, including having the sheer contempt for the public to propose this thing as if it's a reasonable suggestion, he's not an idiot, and he's already admitted that spending cuts in the middle of a massive recession, especially on
anywhere near the level that'd be required for this moronic idea to break even, would plunge the country into another recession.
