Thus far, including the 2008 campaign, it seems that the best that Obama has got is that he isn't Bush - even though he has continued, if not accelerated, every Bush policy during his presidency and Bush was never on the ballot.
He's doubled Bush's rate of adding to the national debt (he managed to add over $5 Trillion in under 4 years - an amount he alleged made his predecessor "unpatriotic" and that it took Bush 8 years to achieve), Gitmo is still open, the Patriot Act hasn't been repealed, terrorists are not being tried in civilian courts, unemployment hasn't dropped below the 8% figure that SwindleUs was sold as the means to avoid surpassing, the Bush Tax cuts are still in place, the border is still porous, drug cartels are killing citizens of the States, guns were walked into the hands of said drug cartels, citizens of the States are subjected to assassination without due process of law, his signature piece of legislation, enacted against the will of the people, is days away from dismissal as being in violation of the Constitution (a document he swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend), the "recovery" of the economy is the most anemic one seen since the Great Depression, employment is still below what is was the day he was sworn in . . . what is it exactly that we should be excited about 4 more years of again?
Putting PrintSmith's parallel universe aside (where does he get theses numbers? He never tells us) I still would like to know if the conservatives here are OK with an economic plan that takes the deficit from 3.1% of GPS to 5%?
archer wrote: Putting PrintSmith's parallel universe aside (where does he get theses numbers? He never tells us) I still would like to know if the conservatives here are OK with an economic plan that takes the deficit from 3.1% of GPS to 5%?
Mitt's doesn't think it will take the GDP from 3.1% to 5%. He believes the economy will expand once Obama is fired by America, and the expanded economy will actual lower debt as a percentage of GDP.
So Archer, do you support a President that has reduced employed Americans from 62% to 58%? Yes, hard to believe, but more Americans were working under "W" than BHO.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
archer wrote: Putting PrintSmith's parallel universe aside (where does he get theses numbers? He never tells us) I still would like to know if the conservatives here are OK with an economic plan that takes the deficit from 3.1% of GPS to 5%?
Speaking of parallel universes, what one are you in that you believe our current budget deficit is only 3.1% of our GDP? Best case scenario for this year is going to be between 8.5% and 9% - and that's if the federal government somehow keeps the deficit spending for fiscal 2012 to "only" $1.327 Trillion as projected. Do you happen to know what our GDP would have to be in order for $1.327 Trillion to be 3.1% of our GDP archer? Try $42.8 Trillion a year. If you think our current GDP approaches $43 Trillion each year, I am not the one living in a parallel universe.
Printsmith, I am more likely to believe a writer for The Wall Street Journal than I am to believe your unsubstantiated numbers
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.
FredHayek wrote: Mitt's doesn't think it will take the [deficit as a percentage of] GDP from 3.1% to 5%.
:Koolaid:
Oh, well, there you have it... "Mitt doesn't think...." Well, that certainly sews it up for me... I'll vote for Not-Obama because he thinks all of the GAO numbers and the economic models are wrong and it really won't go from 3.1% to 5%... Dang! What was I thinking....
archer wrote: Printsmith, I am more likely to believe a writer for The Wall Street Journal than I am to believe your unsubstantiated numbers
This is another opinion piece from the same guy who tried to make the case that spending growth under Obama has been smaller than under any president since FDR or some such nonsense, right? I know you are more likely to agree with someone who espouses what you already wish to believe archer, the problem here is that Rex Nutting is one who perverts the truth in the interest of forwarding a political agenda.
"The old saying is that “figures will not lie,” but a new saying is “liars will figure.” It is our duty, as practical statisticians, to prevent the liar from figuring; in other words, to prevent him from perverting the truth, in the interest of some theory he wishes to establish." - Carroll D. Wright, 1889
archer wrote: Anyone care to answer the original question....are you OK with Romney's plan that will increase the deficit?
We have already told you. Your model is incorrect. Your model assumes there will be no changes in the economy if you lower taxes. Of course there will be changes if you lower taxes, there will also be changes if Obama repealed the Bush tax cuts.
And has been demonstrated by the last three years of the Obama-recession, anyone can do better with this economy than BHO.
BTW, your hero is playing his 100th round of golf today. About a month of his term has been spent on the links. (600 hours including transit time.) Probably plays more than VL.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
BTW, your hero is playing his 100th round of golf today. About a month of his term has been spent on the links. (600 hours including transit time.) Probably plays more than VL.
