Why aren't the GOP candidates serious about reducing the debt?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Seriously, all of their plans (except Paul's, but he doesn't count ) would increase the debt by trillions. They refuse to raise revenue and their spending cuts to 'entitlements"  will be offset by tax cuts and spending on the military.

What is with this idiocy?

[ajb]

Seriously, all of their plans (except Paul's, but he doesn't count ) would increase the debt by trillions. They refuse to raise revenue and their spending cuts to 'entitlements"  will be offset by tax cuts and spending on the military.

What is with this idiocy?

Because, while cutting taxes and saying the words "deficit reduction" are popular, cutting entitlements and/or defense spending by enough to balance the budget are extremely unpopular. Raising taxes on higher-income earners is popular, but not an option for Republican candidates.

Personally, I think starting with tax cuts shows bad faith on deficit reduction. Here's a modest proposal: have an honest national discussion about what the proper role of government should be (at all levels), then work on developing a tax policy that raises enough revenue to allow government to do what we've decided it should do.
That way, liberals and libertarians and everyone else can make their case, for example, about how much money the various levels of government should spend on public schools, and then, once we've agreed on a level of support, we'll fund that level.
Instead of which, Republicans cut taxes first, saying that doing so will stimulate growth and thus increase revenue. Then, when revenue doesn't increase, they say we need to cut spending to fit the tax cuts they brought in.

[Badger]

You've apparantly been in a coma since 1980. Welcome, my friend, TO THE FUTURRRRRE!!!

[Politico]

Romney will make deficit/debt reduction the top domestic issue in his first State of the Union Address.

[cavalcade]

Because the median voter cares about reducing the debt...but they also care about helping people.

[RI]

No one really cares about the debt.

[opebo]

Because reducing the debt and rectifying america's problems would involve returning tax rates on the parasitic class to 70% or more.  This is directly opposed to the purpose of the GOP - sacrificing the majority for the benefit of said parasitic class.

[Cobbler]

Romney will make deficit/debt reduction the top domestic issue in his first State of the Union Address.

Did he tell you this?

[All Along The Watchtower]

The best deficit reduction would be economic growth...which is done in America's consumption economy by stimulating demand.

Demand-side economics, yo.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Neither party wants to reduce the debt and that is simply because short term political interests run contrary to the long term national interests and the politicians of all stripes are more concerned with the short term then they have ever been before.

[memphis]

Because this is their role model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron

[greenforest32]

The Republican's main mission for government is to use it to give more money to the wealthy and owning class, everything else (people, fairness, budgets, etc) be damned.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Personally, I think starting with tax cuts shows bad faith on deficit reduction. Here's a modest proposal: have an honest national discussion about what the proper role of government should be (at all levels), then work on developing a tax policy that raises enough revenue to allow government to do what we've decided it should do.
That way, liberals and libertarians and everyone else can make their case, for example, about how much money the various levels of government should spend on public schools, and then, once we've agreed on a level of support, we'll fund that level.
Instead of which, Republicans cut taxes first, saying that doing so will stimulate growth and thus increase revenue. Then, when revenue doesn't increase, they say we need to cut spending to fit the tax cuts they brought in.

It's at times like these that I wish we could take over the government. I mean, most of us are probably competent, intelligent people who understand what's going on. Atlas Revolution 2012: The Beginning of the Beginning, as I call it.

[Хahar 🤔]

Because they don't care.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Seriously, all of their plans (except Paul's, but he doesn't count ) would increase the debt by trillions. They refuse to raise revenue and their spending cuts to 'entitlements"  will be offset by tax cuts and spending on the military.

What is with this idiocy?

Simple.  Without a considerable increase in taxes, reducing the deficit significantly can only be achieved by a major cut to a major area of the federal government.  Only if the Federal Government is ever headed to a Greek-style default are we ever going to cut current spending on Social Security and Medicare and longer-term reforms to those programs that might be politically possible won't even begin to have a noticeable effect on the budget until after a candidate's second term is over, so won't be something worth mentioning on the campaign trail.  Medicaid conceivably could get dinged hard, but doing so would hit the States hard and expose State-level politicians for the Federal-gravy train-addicts they pretend they are not.  As for defense, Republicans these days worship Reagan, not Eisenhower, so don't expect them to trim the military-industrial complex much, nor can the Democrats be relied upon here as it's a source of a lot of pork and good union jobs.

In short, the deficit is not going to be solved on the campaign trail by either party, as deficit solutions involve political pain.  We need a period of responsible government: a period in which one party is in control and is unable to blame the other.  To do that, we need to eliminate the filibuster, which I am dubious will happen any time soon.