What Is Obama's Long-Term Plan to Rival the Romney/Ryan Plan?

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

Democratic Rhetoric

Your point is duly noted. Does Obama have a plan for the long-term or does he just plan on kicking the can down the road?

If Romney loses, at least we can remind everybody in four years that we had a plan for America's long-term while Democrats wallow in their support of the presidential version of Gray Davis.

Two Words: SIMPSON-BOWLES

Two words describe the Simpson-Bowles plan: MORE TAXES

Is Obama ready to double-down on this?

Five more words to describe the Simpson-Bowles plan: LONG TERM BALANCED DEFICIT REDUCTION

Romney/Ryan does that without raising taxes.

Romney/Ryan: Cut taxes, cut spending, restore growth, create incentives for jobs

Obama/Biden: Raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes

Easy choice for America to make. Hope you're braced for a 1980-style loss. Even if you somehow dupe America, you're stuck with another Gray Davis except this time in the White House.

ITEM TWO IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH ITEMS THREE AND FOUR. ITEM ONE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH DEFICIT REDUCTION.

[Yelnoc]

[Iosif]

Lock this thread.

[Torie]

This cap sh**t should just stop. Thanks.

[krazen1211]

Well he obviously want to cut military spending

Lol. Pay no attention to my first 4 years!

He's cut military spending more than Romney ever would.

Now we know you're lying, because his own numbers say he hasn't cut military spending at all.

[mondale84]

Well he obviously want to cut military spending

Lol. Pay no attention to my first 4 years!

He's cut military spending more than Romney ever would.

Now we know you're lying, because his own numbers say he hasn't cut military spending at all.

Yeah and Romney would double to Pentagon budget on the backs of the middle and lower classes.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Lock this thread.

[Lieutenant Governor Clinton1996]

Lock this thread.

[True Federalist]

If Romney loses, at least we can remind everybody in four years that we had a plan for America's long-term while Democrats wallow in their support of the presidential version of Gray Davis.

Vague and unspecified eliminations of tax loopholes in exchange for cutting tax rates does not make a PLAN.  (That's as far as I'm will to go with the typographic idiocy that accompanies the other idiocy in this thread.)

Neither side has a plan, just outlines that let voters fill in the details with ideas attractive to themselves, but incompatible with those of other voters.

This thread needs to be drowned in prayer.

I don't care what it is drowned in so long as it is put out of my misery.  It has added a couple new names to my ignore list tho.

[krazen1211]

Yeah and Romney would double to Pentagon budget on the backs of the middle and lower classes.

Shrug, you're entitled to that prediction for the future. It's of course another story to make up something about defense spending from 2009 to 2012.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Eliminating capital gains, the estate tax, and tax on interest while increasing military spending (in fact he was the only member of Congress from Wisconsin to vote against the recent bill to freeze military spending) sure sounds like fiscal responsibility to me.

[ajb]

The details offered so far in the Ryan plan -- the tax cuts he's described in some detail, the proposed changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the virtual elimination of all federal spending on anything except those three programs and defense --

That is precisely what the Romney/Ryan plan will do. It will maintain obligations towards Social Security/Medicare, defense, law/order and basic infrastructure. Anything that can be pushed onto the states will be pushed onto the states, and the states can decide what is worth paying for and what is not. I've been saying for months that Romney is going to do exactly this while reforming the tax code.

This election is a debate about the type of America we want to have. Romney/Ryan have offered a plan for the long-term that champions free enterprise, strong defense, maintaining obligations towards Social Security/Medicare, and providing law/order. Obama and Co. only offer lies and attacks out of the Gray Davis 2002 playbook. Obama has no plan for the future. His plan is to kick the can down the road. His plan amounts to massive tax hikes down the road to fund worthless government boondoggles that most everybody does not want.

So, where do you think Ryan would eliminate tax loopholes? And how much revenue would he raise in that way?

Tax rates are going to be cut across the board, so most of the loopholes eliminated (and there will be many, although details will be ironed out after the election) will simply offset the rate reduction. The simplification of the tax code will lower accounting costs for individuals and businesses, further reducing costs associated with taxes for those who utilize loopholes/accountants.

The funny part is that the overwhelming majority of loophole/exemption eliminations will only apply to the wealthiest Americans, but Democrats will lie about that.

By the way, you have a red avatar. Can you please tell us about Obama's long-term plan for America? With all of the red avatars on here you would think that at least one person on here could explain Obama's long-term plan or admit that he does not have one.

If you don't like the Tax Policy Center's numbers, give me your own. But be aware that they say that Romney's tax plan would reduce revenue by $360 billion a year, which would require cutting the mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the charitable contributions deduction, the EITC and child tax credit, and other tax credits and deductions, by in the neighborhood of 65%. And Romney's plan merely wants to keep the maximum tax rate for capital gains at 15%, where Ryan actually wants to eliminate taxation of capital gains altogether, so it's clear that Ryan's plans would require even bigger cuts to those deductions.
Like I said, if you or Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney don't like those figures (from a think tank that the Romney campaign itself has frequently cited, mind you), any of you would be perfectly free to present alternative figures, and then we could all discuss whose figures looked most accurate. But if nobody on the Republican side is willing to provide numbers on this front, well, how do you expect the rest of us to take you guys seriously?
And what right, then, do you have to complain that the other guy doesn't have a plan, when your guy clearly doesn't have a plan?

[Senator Clarence]

Milk me of all my cash! That is his long term plan!

[Politico]

The details offered so far in the Ryan plan -- the tax cuts he's described in some detail, the proposed changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the virtual elimination of all federal spending on anything except those three programs and defense --

That is precisely what the Romney/Ryan plan will do. It will maintain obligations towards Social Security/Medicare, defense, law/order and basic infrastructure. Anything that can be pushed onto the states will be pushed onto the states, and the states can decide what is worth paying for and what is not. I've been saying for months that Romney is going to do exactly this while reforming the tax code.

This election is a debate about the type of America we want to have. Romney/Ryan have offered a plan for the long-term that champions free enterprise, strong defense, maintaining obligations towards Social Security/Medicare, and providing law/order. Obama and Co. only offer lies and attacks out of the Gray Davis 2002 playbook. Obama has no plan for the future. His plan is to kick the can down the road. His plan amounts to massive tax hikes down the road to fund worthless government boondoggles that most everybody does not want.

So, where do you think Ryan would eliminate tax loopholes? And how much revenue would he raise in that way?

Tax rates are going to be cut across the board, so most of the loopholes eliminated (and there will be many, although details will be ironed out after the election) will simply offset the rate reduction. The simplification of the tax code will lower accounting costs for individuals and businesses, further reducing costs associated with taxes for those who utilize loopholes/accountants.

The funny part is that the overwhelming majority of loophole/exemption eliminations will only apply to the wealthiest Americans, but Democrats will lie about that.

By the way, you have a red avatar. Can you please tell us about Obama's long-term plan for America? With all of the red avatars on here you would think that at least one person on here could explain Obama's long-term plan or admit that he does not have one.

If you don't like the Tax Policy Center's numbers, give me your own. But be aware that they say that Romney's tax plan would reduce revenue by $360 billion a year, which would require cutting the mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the charitable contributions deduction, the EITC and child tax credit, and other tax credits and deductions, by in the neighborhood of 65%. And Romney's plan merely wants to keep the maximum tax rate for capital gains at 15%, where Ryan actually wants to eliminate taxation of capital gains altogether, so it's clear that Ryan's plans would require even bigger cuts to those deductions.
Like I said, if you or Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney don't like those figures (from a think tank that the Romney campaign itself has frequently cited, mind you), any of you would be perfectly free to present alternative figures, and then we could all discuss whose figures looked most accurate. But if nobody on the Republican side is willing to provide numbers on this front, well, how do you expect the rest of us to take you guys seriously?
And what right, then, do you have to complain that the other guy doesn't have a plan, when your guy clearly doesn't have a plan?

Any and all "revenue losses" will be offset by the combination of spending cuts, elimination of loopholes/exemptions (that right now are largely only applicable to the well-off), and pushing any possible spending back onto the states for them to decide what is worth paying for and what is not. Obviously the details will be worked out after the election. Ryan-Wyden is merely a draft to give some indication.

In short, Romney/Ryan is actually going to walk the walk when it comes to this commitment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv7MZr-JkEM

Obama has discarded the Clinton Doctrine and embraced Big Government while kicking the can down the road. Romney will not kick the can down the road. Romney will end the era of Big Government.

The fundamental choice of this election is Romney's efficient, well-managed, decentralized government versus Obama's inefficient, bureaucratic Big Government. Do we want America to be American, or do we want it to become like Europe? Do we want an America of growth and opportunity, or an America of stagnation and class warfare?

[AmericanNation]

1) Obama is more opposed to Simpson-Bowls, than in favor of it.  So, that obviously isn't his plan.
2) The Ryan plan is the only serious plan(s) with a chance of passage in existence.
3) Obama hasn't outlined anything other than GENERIC BUMPER STICKER RHETORIC and Raising Taxes. 

[ajb]

1) Obama is more opposed to Simpson-Bowls, than in favor of it.  So, that obviously isn't his plan.
2) The Ryan plan is the only serious plan(s) with a chance of passage in existence.
3) Obama hasn't outlined anything other than GENERIC BUMPER STICKER RHETORIC and Raising Taxes. 

Given that Ryan's plan leaves a hole of several hundred billion dollars a year in the budget, it hardly rises to the level of "serious plan."

[Gravis Marketing]

Both Romney and Obama will be working with a very conservative House of Representatives. That informs how much power each would have to pass "their plan." A 100% Obama plan is DOA in Congress so is pointless to talk about.

[AmericanNation]

Both Romney and Obama will be working with a very conservative House of Representatives. That informs how much power each would have to pass "their plan." A 100% Obama plan is DOA in Congress so is pointless to talk about.

Shouldn't a guy who has been running for/actually president (for 5.5 years) have a plan at some point?  regardless of the house's composition.   

[krazen1211]

I found the Democratic plan!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/13/brutal_cnn_torches_dws_on_medicare_falsehoods




God these people need a new chairman.

[pepper11]

I found the Democratic plan!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/13/brutal_cnn_torches_dws_on_medicare_falsehoods




God these people need a new chairman.

Wow. How long does it take one person to admit there are lying when under pressure from Wolf? About 3 minutes 45 seconds apparently.

[Politico]

Both Romney and Obama will be working with a very conservative House of Representatives. That informs how much power each would have to pass "their plan." A 100% Obama plan is DOA in Congress so is pointless to talk about.

Is this a concession that if Obama is re-elected he will be as inept as Gray Davis was in 2003?

The Democrats are bent on turning America into California: A land of lost opportunities.

[Politico]

Both Romney and Obama will be working with a very conservative House of Representatives. That informs how much power each would have to pass "their plan." A 100% Obama plan is DOA in Congress so is pointless to talk about.

Shouldn't a guy who has been running for/actually president (for 5.5 years) have a plan at some point?  regardless of the house's composition.    

That's not how the modern Democrat sees it. They care about gay marriage and gun control rather than maintaining the solvency of Medicare and Social Security.

Romney/Ryan offer solutions for the real problems facing us today, tomorrow, and far into the future.
Obama/Biden offer divisive culture war rhetoric and kicking the can down the road.

[Politico]

I found the Democratic plan!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/13/brutal_cnn_torches_dws_on_medicare_falsehoods




God these people need a new chairman.

As mentioned in that article, the Obama/Biden "plan" is to kick the can down the road and leave their successor to worry about the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. The current path is bankruptcy for Medicare in 2024. That is a little over a decade from now. Furthermore, Obamacare takes resources from Medicare to support better coverage for the poor. It's like Robin Hood; it's Obama Hood: Take from seniors to give to the poor. Put differently, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Maybe America's myopic youth only care about gay marriage, but America's seniors and soon-to-be-seniors, and even people Paul Ryan's age, care about solving our fiscal problems today, tomorrow, ten years from now and onward.

Obama has no plan for the future. Romney does. That's a clear contrast. Part of the reason why Romney chose Ryan is because Ryan is one of the few people in Washington who does NOT want to kick the can down the road. Kicking the can down the road is the road to poverty for America's seniors.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

I found the Democratic plan!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/13/brutal_cnn_torches_dws_on_medicare_falsehoods




God these people need a new chairman.

As mentioned in that article, the Obama/Biden "plan" is to kick the can down the road and leave their successor to worry about the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. The current path is bankruptcy for Medicare in 2024. That is a little over a decade from now. Furthermore, Obamacare takes resources from Medicare to support better coverage for the poor. It's like Robin Hood; it's Obama Hood: Take from seniors to give to the poor. Put differently, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Maybe America's myopic youth only care about gay marriage, but America's seniors and soon-to-be-seniors, and even people Paul Ryan's age, care about solving our fiscal problems today, tomorrow, ten years from now and onward.

Their's some truth to this. But the Ryan Medicare plan is also "Robin Hood" in a sense- it steals from generations X, Y and Z so as to sustain traditional Medicare for the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation.

I could sympathize with the Ryan Medicare proposal(although it would be near the bottom of my list in terms of preferred deficit reduction strategies) if it applied to all generations, but it's simply unacceptable to me that the burden of the senior coverage overhaul should fall entirely on gens X, Y and Z; whilst the Boomers and Silents make no sacrifices whatsoever.

[Politico]

I found the Democratic plan!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/13/brutal_cnn_torches_dws_on_medicare_falsehoods




God these people need a new chairman.

As mentioned in that article, the Obama/Biden "plan" is to kick the can down the road and leave their successor to worry about the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. The current path is bankruptcy for Medicare in 2024. That is a little over a decade from now. Furthermore, Obamacare takes resources from Medicare to support better coverage for the poor. It's like Robin Hood; it's Obama Hood: Take from seniors to give to the poor. Put differently, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Maybe America's myopic youth only care about gay marriage, but America's seniors and soon-to-be-seniors, and even people Paul Ryan's age, care about solving our fiscal problems today, tomorrow, ten years from now and onward.

Their's some truth to this. But the Ryan Medicare plan is also "Robin Hood" in a sense- it steals from generations X, Y and Z so as to sustain traditional Medicare for the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation.

Not necessarily. If Romney/Ryan transform the federal government into the type of small government that is committed to just a few things (i.e., SS/Medicare, defense, law/order, basic infrastructure) rather than continuing the era of Big Government, it may be possible to get our fiscal house in order in such a way to maintain obligations towards Medicare for every American alive today, tomorrow and one hundred years from now. Obviously the trade-off is cutting other programs and shifting as much spending as possible onto the states to decide what is worth paying for and what is not. Such a decentralized approach will lead to lots of experimentation among the states. Who knows what kind of progress and innovations will ensue as a result. Obviously people will be able to vote with their feet, too.

The bottomline: A continuation of the era of Big Government is going to lead to broken promises and dismal results, both of which will be magnified if Obama continues to kick the can down the road. Shifting towards a smaller, more efficient government may still lead to permanent solvency of Medicare and Social Security, though.