Rick Perry's economic plan: Can he balance the budget?

[candycorn]

When has raising taxes balanced the budget? Just ask people in MI, CA, and NJ. The answer is never. It just provides more opportunity for spending.
Which section of the budget has experienced the most increase over the last 10 years? That's right, social services/transfer payments. There's where cuts need to be made. WE can start with eliminating Fan/Fred and turning student loans back over to private lenders.

You couple the tax increases with discipline. That is what was missing.

As for the student loans; if you want the loans to not be made in the first place...you have a good idea. If you're interested in moving the country forward; you have a bad idea. What were the odds of that?

Discipline? Really? LOL!!! You're kidding, right? When has Congress, or any legislature, been disciplined? Never happened, will never happen.

In that case, there is no point at all in even issuing the plan since it would have to be approved and maintained by that body.

As for student loans, if you mean moving the country forward to bankruptcy, you're right. But I want to avoid bankruptcy. Why should the gov't give student loans?

[/QUOTE]

The government doesn't give student loans by and large. It does give grants. But the loans are usually in the form of the Government guaranteeing the loan for the student.

 

[The Rabbi]

You couple the tax increases with discipline. That is what was missing.

As for the student loans; if you want the loans to not be made in the first place...you have a good idea. If you're interested in moving the country forward; you have a bad idea. What were the odds of that?

Discipline? Really? LOL!!! You're kidding, right? When has Congress, or any legislature, been disciplined? Never happened, will never happen.

In that case, there is no point at all in even issuing the plan since it would have to be approved and maintained by that body.

As for student loans, if you mean moving the country forward to bankruptcy, you're right. But I want to avoid bankruptcy. Why should the gov't give student loans?

The government doesn't give student loans by and large. It does give grants. But the loans are usually in the form of the Government guaranteeing the loan for the student.[/QUOTE]

Shockingly wrong on both counts.
Faced with big deficits Congress will vote for cuts, or at least is more likely to. Without that pressure they will not. Again, look at moves to raise taxes to cut the deficit in the states and they always result in more spending, not less.
ON the second, you must have missed Obama's takeover of the student loan industry.
Obama's Student-Loan Plan: A Tame Government Takeover - TIME

You are batting 1000 here. Time to give up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, it's a rebuttal to people who would bad mouth Perry's plan no matter what it was, even without understanding it.
Like you.

I understand it better than you do since I've read an actual analysis of it. You were sucking his dick before he even had a plan.

The Tax Policy Center's analysis clearly shows that Perry has no chance of balancing the budget with his stupid plan.

And Obama's plan is?
You can't beat something with nothing.

The topic of the thread was can his tax plan balance the budget.

If his tax plan when fully implemented by 2015 is in the neighborhood of 700 - 900 billion less in revenue than the current projections under the status quo, his budget cuts would have to be 700 - 900 billion greater than whatever else he'd have to cut to get rid of whatever the projected deficit is under the status quo (according to the tax policy center that's about 600 billion).

And since if I'm not mistaken Perry is not about to put defense on the table, so what is he going to cut?

 

[Full-Auto]

I understand it better than you do since I've read an actual analysis of it. You were sucking his dick before he even had a plan.

The Tax Policy Center's analysis clearly shows that Perry has no chance of balancing the budget with his stupid plan.

And Obama's plan is?
You can't beat something with nothing.

The topic of the thread was can his tax plan balance the budget.

If his tax plan when fully implemented by 2015 is in the neighborhood of 700 - 900 billion less in revenue than the current projections under the status quo, his budget cuts would have to be 700 - 900 billion greater than whatever else he'd have to cut to get rid of whatever the projected deficit is under the status quo (according to the tax policy center that's about 600 billion).

And since if I'm not mistaken Perry is not about to put defense on the table, so what is he going to cut?

First of all Perry doesnt have a prayer.

Second where is obumbles plan.

Weve heard about the extra 70billion a year from the rich , however with democrats insisting that spending increase WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PLAN?

Yes I know what the thread is about.

Whiny little democrats.

 

[The Rabbi]

I understand it better than you do since I've read an actual analysis of it. You were sucking his dick before he even had a plan.

The Tax Policy Center's analysis clearly shows that Perry has no chance of balancing the budget with his stupid plan.

And Obama's plan is?
You can't beat something with nothing.

The topic of the thread was can his tax plan balance the budget.

If his tax plan when fully implemented by 2015 is in the neighborhood of 700 - 900 billion less in revenue than the current projections under the status quo, his budget cuts would have to be 700 - 900 billion greater than whatever else he'd have to cut to get rid of whatever the projected deficit is under the status quo (according to the tax policy center that's about 600 billion).

And since if I'm not mistaken Perry is not about to put defense on the table, so what is he going to cut?

The growth in the economy under his plan will be phenomenal. Keep in mind revenues have been low for the past three years due to Obama's poor handling of the economy. People and companies make less money so less goes for taxes. Just getting rid of the Obama "stealth tax" would generate billions in new revenue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And Obama's plan is?
You can't beat something with nothing.

The topic of the thread was can his tax plan balance the budget.

If his tax plan when fully implemented by 2015 is in the neighborhood of 700 - 900 billion less in revenue than the current projections under the status quo, his budget cuts would have to be 700 - 900 billion greater than whatever else he'd have to cut to get rid of whatever the projected deficit is under the status quo (according to the tax policy center that's about 600 billion).

And since if I'm not mistaken Perry is not about to put defense on the table, so what is he going to cut?

The growth in the economy under his plan will be phenomenal. Keep in mind revenues have been low for the past three years due to Obama's poor handling of the economy. People and companies make less money so less goes for taxes. Just getting rid of the Obama "stealth tax" would generate billions in new revenue.

That is exactly the kind of baseless speculation that both Reagan and Bush Jr. tossed out when they claimed their tax plans wouldn't bust the budget.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And Obama's plan is?
You can't beat something with nothing.

The topic of the thread was can his tax plan balance the budget.

If his tax plan when fully implemented by 2015 is in the neighborhood of 700 - 900 billion less in revenue than the current projections under the status quo, his budget cuts would have to be 700 - 900 billion greater than whatever else he'd have to cut to get rid of whatever the projected deficit is under the status quo (according to the tax policy center that's about 600 billion).

And since if I'm not mistaken Perry is not about to put defense on the table, so what is he going to cut?

First of all Perry doesnt have a prayer.

Second where is obumbles plan.

Weve heard about the extra 70billion a year from the rich , however with democrats insisting that spending increase WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PLAN?

Yes I know what the thread is about.

Whiny little democrats.

Obama can't pass any 'plan' with a Republican house.

 

[freedombecki]

You're kidding, right? Do you have any idea what the practical implications of an "optional flat tax" - two different tax regimes - would be? This would be a boon to accountants and IRS bureaucrats! Every year, people would do their taxes both ways, then decide to pay the lower. The idea that it would decrease bureaucracy is a laughable fairy tale sold to a gullible base that still believes cutting income taxes raises revenues. lol If you're going to have a flat tax, have a fucking flat tax! I might even support it! But not this weird pick-whatever-tax-regime-you-want.

Anyways, Perry has been getting raked over the coals by some conservatives for his plan.

Rick Perry's Tax Plan Would Be A Disaster For America | Fox News

Rick Perry’s MAXTAX vs. Stephen Moore’s MAXTAX - By Reihan Salam - The Agenda - National Review Online

Well, Toro, there are businesses that are very popular who run tv ads saying "We beat all competitor's rates."

What's so different about a government plan offering everyone to choose which rate they want--the high one or the low one?

Everybody will pick the low one.

As a tv adman would say, "Do you hear me now?"

Some people don't like others to have choices. Rick Perry gives you the choice.

If you want to hire more people, you take the lower rate and hire people with the savings.

If you want to be Lord Beneficent Foundation, you can feel good about giving more than you had to give when you're not condescending about all your brains, hot cars, hot chicks, super great stuff, etc.

See? There's a choice for everyone. Rick Perry is just reflecting the times, and it's about time you can get a bargain basement tax if you want one.

Well, if choice is a good thing, then why not more than two choices? Why not 10 or 20 different tax regimes to choose from?

Well, Toro, if you get the same thing for $5,000, $4,000, $3,000, $2,000, or $500, which payment receipt will be written up for you?

See, the idea is for you, the taxpayer, to keep as much of your own hard-earned money as possible. Why give a spendthrift like Barack Obama $5,000. to lavish on his Solyndra pals when $500 will payout a savings of $4,500, spend no money on frivolous waste to Nancy Pelosi's starving family of nephews who want gold dust paint jobs on their Ferrari motor cars?

For a fraction of the cost, America can improve life for everybody and put a dent into unemployment with Rick Perry's sure-fire method for taking the unemployed off the bench and putting them back in the game.

The libbies want to see Rick Perry back on the bench, because they don't know how insistent conservative Americans are for taking that real figure economists are saying are unemployed--20%--which includes the hard-core unemployed (people who have been out of work over 6 months) and giving them a job to do.

Some of those jobs WILL command terrific salaries, dependent on that almost forgotten shibboleth called hard work and the American work ethic.

 

[The Rabbi]

The topic of the thread was can his tax plan balance the budget.

If his tax plan when fully implemented by 2015 is in the neighborhood of 700 - 900 billion less in revenue than the current projections under the status quo, his budget cuts would have to be 700 - 900 billion greater than whatever else he'd have to cut to get rid of whatever the projected deficit is under the status quo (according to the tax policy center that's about 600 billion).

And since if I'm not mistaken Perry is not about to put defense on the table, so what is he going to cut?

The growth in the economy under his plan will be phenomenal. Keep in mind revenues have been low for the past three years due to Obama's poor handling of the economy. People and companies make less money so less goes for taxes. Just getting rid of the Obama "stealth tax" would generate billions in new revenue.

That is exactly the kind of baseless speculation that both Reagan and Bush Jr. tossed out when they claimed their tax plans wouldn't bust the budget.

I would take the economic performance of Bush and Reagan over that of Obama. I venture most people would.