Romney's budget plans continue to not make any sense

[Lief 🗽]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/15/mitt-romney-tax-cuts_n_1778429.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bolded part is probably the best part, when it comes to summarizing Romney's hypocrisy and dishonesty.

[King]

These liberal "facts" are inaccurate.  Repealing Obamacare would reduce the national debt by 10 trillion dollars and putting G-d back in the classroom would lead to an additional 4 trillion in savings.

[Gass3268]

Romney wants to kill Big Bird

[Landslide Lyndon]

Conservatives and communists at least agree on that one: “If the facts don't fit the theory, so much the worse for the facts.”

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

These liberal "facts" are inaccurate.  Repealing Obamacare would reduce the national debt by 10 trillion dollars and putting G-d back in the classroom would lead to an additional 4 trillion in savings.

Where do you get that from. The Congressional Budget Office says that repealling ObamaCare would actually increase the deficit by a few hundred billions.

[Linus Van Pelt]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

[© tweed]

Conservatives and communists at least agree on that one: “If the facts don't fit the theory, so much the worse for the facts.”

many, Chomsky and myself included, have noted the parallels between the current GOP and 20th-century Communists.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Of course it doesn't. Right now, Mittens is campaigning on cutting both taxes and spending, which sounds all good and dandy but is unrealistic right now, which he probably knows. Any attempt at slashing government spending drastically right now will lead to a deep recession, and cutting taxes will only exacerbate the deficit. Repealing the tax cuts will also have an adverse psychological effect even though we really need to do it. Obamacare won't be repealed, and everyone knows that. Once something that big is put in place undoing it will just cause a huge mess, so that's out too.

The problem is, I don't trust Obama to handle the economy. The Romney plan doesn't make sense on paper, or if it does, it will hurt more than it will help short term, but the fact remains something has to be done because right now, this recovery is pretty weak. I trust Romney's experience in running a business and actually dealing in finance will help him, because I definitely don't trust lawyers with no background in economics to do so.

[Likely Voter]

Of course it doesn't. Right now, Mittens is campaigning on cutting both taxes and spending, which sounds all good and dandy but is unrealistic right now

but it is even worse than that. He is campaigning on balancing the budget while cutting taxes and increasing defense spending and preserving medicare for current retirees.

It is simply impossible, regardless of any growth rate you put in. There just isn't enough in the discretionary non-military budget to do it.

[Cobbler]

These liberal "facts" are inaccurate.  Repealing Obamacare would reduce the national debt by 10 trillion dollars and putting G-d back in the classroom would lead to an additional 4 trillion in savings.

Where do you get that from. The Congressional Budget Office says that repealling ObamaCare would actually increase the deficit by a few hundred billions.

He was being sarcastic.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Of course it doesn't. Right now, Mittens is campaigning on cutting both taxes and spending, which sounds all good and dandy but is unrealistic right now

but it is even worse than that. He is campaigning on balancing the budget while cutting taxes and increasing defense spending and preserving medicare for current retirees.

It is simply impossible, regardless of any growth rate you put in. There just isn't enough in the discretionary non-military budget to do it.

He may be able to do it in the next decade but not anytime soon. The entitlement expenditures are through the roof and more and more people are living off the government than ever before, and until we reign that in, we will be in this mess. I trust Mittens will do a better job with that than Obama, but I don't know if anyone can truly do it.

What he is saying in the campaign trail is not realistic, at least not in this decade anyway, and it will take baby steps in order to fix this mess, which Romney knows but you can't campaign on stuff like that because Americans have to hear feel good stories like Obama talked about 4 years ago. If anyone told the truth about what is really going on, people would panic.

[Likely Voter]

Of course it doesn't. Right now, Mittens is campaigning on cutting both taxes and spending, which sounds all good and dandy but is unrealistic right now

but it is even worse than that. He is campaigning on balancing the budget while cutting taxes and increasing defense spending and preserving medicare for current retirees.

It is simply impossible, regardless of any growth rate you put in. There just isn't enough in the discretionary non-military budget to do it.

He may be able to do it in the next decade but not anytime soon. The entitlement expenditures are through the roof and more and more people are living off the government than ever before, and until we reign that in, we will be in this mess. I trust Mittens will do a better job with that than Obama, but I don't know if anyone can truly do it.

What he is saying in the campaign trail is not realistic, at least not in this decade anyway, and it will take baby steps in order to fix this mess, which Romney knows but you can't campaign on stuff like that because Americans have to hear feel good stories like Obama talked about 4 years ago. If anyone told the truth about what is really going on, people would panic.

The only way to fix it is through a mix of cutting entitlements and revenue increases. Every bipartisan approach has said that. Obama was willing to do that with the 'grand bargain' and it was Paul Ryan and the House GOP who stopped it. Romney also agreed that there can be no revenue raisers regardless of cuts Dems would provide.

I would trust the old Mitt Romney, but the new Mitt Romney appears just as crazy as the rest of the 'my way or the highway' types.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Of course it doesn't. Right now, Mittens is campaigning on cutting both taxes and spending, which sounds all good and dandy but is unrealistic right now

but it is even worse than that. He is campaigning on balancing the budget while cutting taxes and increasing defense spending and preserving medicare for current retirees.

It is simply impossible, regardless of any growth rate you put in. There just isn't enough in the discretionary non-military budget to do it.

He may be able to do it in the next decade but not anytime soon. The entitlement expenditures are through the roof and more and more people are living off the government than ever before, and until we reign that in, we will be in this mess. I trust Mittens will do a better job with that than Obama, but I don't know if anyone can truly do it.

What he is saying in the campaign trail is not realistic, at least not in this decade anyway, and it will take baby steps in order to fix this mess, which Romney knows but you can't campaign on stuff like that because Americans have to hear feel good stories like Obama talked about 4 years ago. If anyone told the truth about what is really going on, people would panic.

The only way to fix it is through a mix of cutting entitlements and revenue increases. Every bipartisan approach has said that. Obama was willing to do that with the 'grand bargain' and it was Paul Ryan and the House GOP who stopped it. Romney also agreed that there can be no revenue raisers regardless of cuts Dems would provide.

I would trust the old Mitt Romney, but the new Mitt Romney appears just as crazy as the rest of the 'my way or the highway' types.

Mittens is subscribing to the idea that raising taxes during a fragile economic condition could have adverse affects on our recovery. I tend to agree. While rolling back the tax cuts on the top earners really won't matter much, psychologically it will and people will begin to look for loopholes and revenues may even drop. That's what he is arguing I'm sure. Even fixing entitlements now would not hurt, and once our economy is a bit more stable, then we can raise taxes.

[Likely Voter]

Returning to 90s era tax levels on the top 2% is not going to destroy the economy, all it will due is reduce the defecit, which should help.

However, Obama is not being honest enough about how in the long term entitlements also have to be cut (or growth has to be slowed, however you want to say it).

Raising taxes alone isn't going to fix it, cutting spending alone isnt going to fix it. You need to do both. At least Obama is the only one so far who tried it. For his credit, Boehner tried too. It was Ryan and Cantor who stopped it, and Romney backed them up.

Romney is campaigning on fairy dust. Nothing new of course, but I wonder if he can make it to November without getting specific.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

It won't destroy it, but it's all psychological. People hear "tax increase" and panic, so no politician will do it because it's bad for their electoral aspirations. Same with entitlements. If someone is being hand fed by the government and all of a sudden a candidate says they want to cut those, what do you think will happen? And if a candidate supports all these entitlements, they will vote for them. Reelection is what drives these politicians. Our real problems rarely concern them, which is why we are in such bad shape.

[All Along The Watchtower]

For starters, they should raise the cap on payroll taxes. The Social Security tax is ridiculously regressive. Much of the population (like the vilified "Boomers") who are set to retire soon have been paying into their SS benefits. Why should those obligations be cut?

The federal government has a huge revenue problem anyway, and a big reason is because the wealthiest Americans don't pay as much taxes as they used to. I'm in favor of some spending cuts, especially on things like corporate welfare and other "pork." And the military budget is way too big, obviously. And I think that there would be more revenue if there was more demand in the American economy (ie higher wages, which would lead to higher incomes=more taxes being collected aka more revenue).

But the most crucial thing is that American workers' wages do not keep pace with inflation. We need to make more investments in education, transportation, infrastructure, energy, health care, and other sectors that have huge potential for job growth- and those jobs will be good jobs. A stronger middle class, more demand in the economy, more revenue for the government to keep its budget obligations and to make long-term investments in the economy-those have a good chance of materializing, if we do this right.

[Politico]

Returning to 90s era tax [spending] levels on the top 2% is not going to destroy the economy; all it will do is reduce the deficit, which should help.

Fixed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only fairy is the Big Government. Like the tooth fairy, the promises of Obama's Big Government are not real. They are unaffordable. We cannot ignore the long-term problems facing Medicare. Kicking the can down the road, pushing the problem onto the next president, is not a solution.

When Reagan was pressured not to allow Volcker to tame high inflation, he famously responded, "if not us, who? If not now, when?" These are the same questions that Romney will ask after somebody advises him not to solve our fiscal problems, rather to kick the can down the road. Romney cares enough about America to sacrifice losing re-election if that's what it takes to make America stronger. I wish I could say the same about Obama.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Returning to 90s era tax [spending] levels on the top 2% is not going to destroy the economy; all it will do is reduce the deficit, which should help.

Fixed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only fairy is the Big Government. Like the tooth fairy, the promises of Obama's Big Government are not real. They are unaffordable. We cannot ignore the long-term problems facing Medicare. Kicking the can down the road, pushing the problem onto the next president, is not a solution.

When Reagan was pressured not to allow Volcker to tame high inflation, he famously responded, "if not us, who? If not now, when?" These are the same questions that Romney will ask after somebody advises him not to solve our fiscal problems, rather to kick the can down the road. Romney cares enough about America to sacrifice losing re-election if that's what it takes to make America stronger. I wish I could say the same about Obama.

And who appointed Volcker?  Carter.  Like many of the things Reagan took credit for, he merely followed Carter's lead.

[krazen1211]

Borrowing $600 billion a year into perpetuity certainly does not make any sense. That's after borrowing $1 trillion a year for 5 years.

Of course, that could be solved by simply repealing Medicaid.

[Lief 🗽]

Borrowing $600 billion a year into perpetuity certainly does not make any sense. That's after borrowing $1 trillion a year for 5 years.

Of course, that could be solved by simply repealing Medicaid.

Am I allowed to call this guy a sociopath yet?