Yeah....this sounds like a plan.........for economic disaster
Romney’s budget plan doesn’t add up
Commentary: Three structural problems would be worsened by GOP plan
By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – Mitt Romney says he wants to balance the federal budget within eight to 10 years, but he doesn’t have a credible way to get there.
Indeed, Romney doesn’t have a specific proposal at all. But based on the best analysis of what it includes and about what he leaves out, his plan doesn’t add up.
Romney’s budget wouldn’t balance because he’d cut taxes even more than he’d cut spending.
Of course, President Barack Obama doesn’t have a plan for balancing the budget either. But, unlike Romney, he’s never promised to do so.
<snip>
Romney’s plan would reduce federal revenue by nearly half a billion dollars in 2015 below what it would be if current policy continued. That would put revenue at about 15% of GDP, compared with spending of around 20%. The deficit would be about 5% of GDP, compared with 3.1% under Obama’s budget.
<snip>
Romney’s budget would be hundreds of billions of dollars in the red, even after cutting a big chunk out of government spending.
archer wrote: Yeah....this sounds like a plan.........for economic disaster
Romney’s budget plan doesn’t add up
Commentary: Three structural problems would be worsened by GOP plan
By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – Mitt Romney says he wants to balance the federal budget within eight to 10 years, but he doesn’t have a credible way to get there.
Indeed, Romney doesn’t have a specific proposal at all. But based on the best analysis of what it includes and about what he leaves out, his plan doesn’t add up.
Romney’s budget wouldn’t balance because he’d cut taxes even more than he’d cut spending.
Of course, President Barack Obama doesn’t have a plan for balancing the budget either. But, unlike Romney, he’s never promised to do so.
<snip>
Romney’s plan would reduce federal revenue by nearly half a billion dollars in 2015 below what it would be if current policy continued. That would put revenue at about 15% of GDP, compared with spending of around 20%. The deficit would be about 5% of GDP, compared with 3.1% under Obama’s budget.
<snip>
Romney’s budget would be hundreds of billions of dollars in the red, even after cutting a big chunk out of government spending.
archer wrote: What happened to the right's complaints about the deficit being 3% of GDP? Is Romney's plan to raise it to 5% of GDP OK?
What happened is that it morphed into the Tea Party which is booting GOP incumbents. What happened to the lefts integrity?
What happened to answering a question when asked? Do you think Romney's plan is OK?
I don't follow your first answer.....what morphed into the Tea Party? Are they the only one's complaining about the deficit being 3% of GDP......if so, they aren't going to be happy with Romney.
It is hard to win an election when you give specifics on what is being cut. Gov. Romney will hopefully cut spending more than what is laid out. But any cutbacks have to be more than Obama who is keeping the Bush tax cuts with massive spending increases.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: It is hard to win an election when you give specifics on what is being cut. Gov. Romney will hopefully cut spending more than what is laid out. But any cutbacks have to be more than Obama who is keeping the Bush tax cuts with massive spending increases.
You can't make this stuff up...
Yes, I guess it's hard to win an election when you tell people the TRUTH about what you intend to cut? rofllol Oh, well, the GOP hasn't told the truth about anything yet...Why start now?
archer wrote: What happened to the right's complaints about the deficit being 3% of GDP? Is Romney's plan to raise it to 5% of GDP OK?
As opposed to the present double digit percent of GDP under Obama ($1.56 Trillion deficit on $15.1 Trillion GDP)? I'd call that a vast improvement over the current situation even if it falls short of what would otherwise be deemed barely acceptable. Is it OK? No, it's not OK. Federal spending should be below the tax capacity of the union (average of 18% of GDP over the last 80 years), not in excess of it. To go above the demonstrated tax capacity should require an affirmative vote of at least a 3/5 and preferably a 2/3 majority of both chambers of Congress before it is allowed to move forward to the executive's desk for their signature.
What both major parties have demonstrated is that they are more than willing to seek the support of those who vote for their living in their quest for power at the expense of the taxpayers. As they have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not capable of restraining themselves it is up to the citizens of the States to compel their restraint before they destroy the union entirely. Yes, it will hurt short term, but it will hurt the current generations and liberate the posterity from the debt that we seem to be willing to saddle them with paying that is being incurred for our benefit.
FredHayek wrote: It is hard to win an election when you give specifics on what is being cut. Gov. Romney will hopefully cut spending more than what is laid out. But any cutbacks have to be more than Obama who is keeping the Bush tax cuts with massive spending increases.
You can't make this stuff up...
Yes, I guess it's hard to win an election when you tell people the TRUTH about what you intend to cut? rofllol Oh, well, the GOP hasn't told the truth about anything yet...Why start now?
Pretty sad really. Reduced to saying, "I'm rubber, you're glue!"
I will bet you 1000 internets that Obama if he wins re-election will be unable to repeal the Bush tax cuts. (And his people know that.)
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
And you STILL don't have any answers other than "He's not Obama"....I wonder if Gov "I'm Not Obama" realizes that running on "I'm not Obama" is not going to be enough...since apparently he doesn't have a single idea that isn't recycled George W. Bush drivel that's been proven not to work?
I realize it's so hard to come up with pro-Gov Etch-a-Sketch talking points, when they change hourly, depending on who he is talking to.
Oh, well, the GOP hasn't told the truth about anything yet...Why start now?
