Romney Agrees With Progressives: You Can't Do Spending Cuts Alone

[editec]

Cutting government spending WILL also decrease overall economic activity.

On that point he is absolutely right.

 

[The T]

No intelligent conservative thinks cutting alone works.

Idiot.

So how, specifically, would the 'intelligent' conservative balance the budget from where it is right now, i.e.,

we're borrowing 40% of what we're spending.

Let's hear the high IQ genius conservative plan on that, in detail.

Grow the economy, you idiot. More revenue coming without a tax hike, less expenditures going out. I tried to dumb it down for ya.

Unproductive people on welfare sure as Hell aren't growing anything.

 

[FA_Q2]

Cutting government spending WILL also decrease overall economic activity.

On that point he is absolutely right.

A lot of that depends on where and how you cut not to mention where you can shift some of the funds to after cutting other, more wasteful spending.

 

[JoeB131]

No intelligent conservative thinks cutting alone works.

Idiot.

BUt not a one of them every says, "Hey, we need to repeal the Bush Tax cuts!"

Romney is calling for MORE tax cuts.

For the Wealthy.

Because the poor dears don't have a thing.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Unproductive people on welfare sure as Hell aren't growing anything.

And what makes you say that people receiving benefits aren't productive? How do you know they don't have jobs, which simply don't pay enough?

 

[Greenbeard]

No intelligent conservative thinks cutting alone works.

Idiot.

The problem is there are none.

Not in the party of "cut, cap and balance" anyway. Except Romney, it seems.

 

[editec]

Cutting government spending WILL also decrease overall economic activity.

On that point he is absolutely right.

A lot of that depends on where and how you cut not to mention where you can shift some of the funds to after cutting other, more wasteful spending.

True enough, FA_Q2

There are good cuts and bad cuts, just like there is good stimulus spending and bad stimulus spending.

From my POV we've made some bad cuts and we've done some ineffective stimulating, too.

But any cuts in spending will have the effect of reducing the GNP in thee immediate term.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So let's say you trim the military budget, just in one area, as one example, by ending or canceling a weapons program.

You save billions of dollars. But, say, a thousand people are now out of work because that was their job, building those weapons.

Where do they go to work? How did you grow the economy by cutting spending?

On the other hand, we could eliminate the war on drugs, the various programs that buy military grade weapons and vehicles for small towns, and stop buying ice shavers for people that don't ask for them, or even the ones that do. Or did you assume that the entire defense budget goes to the military?

So your answer is what? You don't know?

There are tens of thousands of PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS in the US that are currently being financed in significant amounts by US government deficit spending.

When you get rid of the deficit spending, there is no longer the need for those jobs, or there is much less need for them.

Where do those people then work?

 

[Oddball]

Cutting government spending WILL also decrease overall economic activity.

On that point he is absolutely right.

No more than removing a leech from your neck will reduce overall blood circulation.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK

No intelligent conservative thinks cutting alone works.

Idiot.

OK. Then we re-instate the complete tax schedule that we had under Clinton, plus a surtax on incomes above 1,000,000. We raise the tax on unearned income to equal that of earned income, giving the average working stiff equal footing with the very wealthy.

Now that is a reasonable schedule to start with, and then we can consider cuts. Cuts like holding our military spending to a level equal to the military spending of the next seven highest spending countries. Go to a full Universal Health Care System. That would eliminate both MediCare and Mediaid. And lower our per citizen cost to that of other industrial nations. Maybe even bring our results up to match theirs, instead of matching third world nations.

 

[hortysir]

So how, specifically, would the 'intelligent' conservative balance the budget from where it is right now, i.e.,

we're borrowing 40% of what we're spending.

Let's hear the high IQ genius conservative plan on that, in detail.

Grow the economy, you idiot. More revenue coming without a tax hike, less expenditures going out. I tried to dumb it down for ya.

Unproductive people on welfare sure as Hell aren't growing anything.

Weed

 

[Oddball]

OK

No intelligent conservative thinks cutting alone works.

Idiot.

OK. Then we re-instate the complete tax schedule that we had under Clinton, plus a surtax on incomes above 1,000,000. We raise the tax on unearned income to equal that of earned income, giving the average working stiff equal footing with the very wealthy.

Then we go back to the spending levels under Clintoon, which includes repealing Obunglercare, Medicare D, DHS, TSA, NCLB, etcetera.

 

[California Girl]

No intelligent conservative thinks cutting alone works.

Idiot.

The problem is there are none.

I see you get your 'opinions' from the HuffPuff. Let me know when you reach the intellectual level of a house plant. It's a long road for you, but I'm sure you can get there.

 

[California Girl]

OK

No intelligent conservative thinks cutting alone works.

Idiot.

OK. Then we re-instate the complete tax schedule that we had under Clinton, plus a surtax on incomes above 1,000,000. We raise the tax on unearned income to equal that of earned income, giving the average working stiff equal footing with the very wealthy.

Now that is a reasonable schedule to start with, and then we can consider cuts. Cuts like holding our military spending to a level equal to the military spending of the next seven highest spending countries. Go to a full Universal Health Care System. That would eliminate both MediCare and Mediaid. And lower our per citizen cost to that of other industrial nations. Maybe even bring our results up to match theirs, instead of matching third world nations.

You have no idea what damage a UHC would do to this country... or maybe you just don't care.

 

[Oddball]

OK

No intelligent conservative thinks cutting alone works.

Idiot.

OK. Then we re-instate the complete tax schedule that we had under Clinton, plus a surtax on incomes above 1,000,000. We raise the tax on unearned income to equal that of earned income, giving the average working stiff equal footing with the very wealthy.

Now that is a reasonable schedule to start with, and then we can consider cuts. Cuts like holding our military spending to a level equal to the military spending of the next seven highest spending countries. Go to a full Universal Health Care System. That would eliminate both MediCare and Mediaid. And lower our per citizen cost to that of other industrial nations. Maybe even bring our results up to match theirs, instead of matching third world nations.

You have no idea what damage a UHC would do to this country... or maybe you just don't care.

Yeah...And notice his "solution" consists of raising taxes and increasing spending and bureaucracy....Like that has any chance of working.

 

[Inthemiddle]

OK

No intelligent conservative thinks cutting alone works.

Idiot.

OK. Then we re-instate the complete tax schedule that we had under Clinton, plus a surtax on incomes above 1,000,000. We raise the tax on unearned income to equal that of earned income, giving the average working stiff equal footing with the very wealthy.

Now that is a reasonable schedule to start with, and then we can consider cuts. Cuts like holding our military spending to a level equal to the military spending of the next seven highest spending countries. Go to a full Universal Health Care System. That would eliminate both MediCare and Mediaid. And lower our per citizen cost to that of other industrial nations. Maybe even bring our results up to match theirs, instead of matching third world nations.

Actually, I'd advocate to simply start with the Clinton tax schedule, effective immediately. The bit about tax on unearned income might not be a bad idea. But I'd suggest having that take effect two years from now. And would want a clear cut definition of "unearned" income.

 

[LibertyForAll]

If people have more money they can spend more money. There are many people out there who find creative ways to tap into the expendable income markets. Have faith in them and know that jobs will be created. There are many things I would like to spend money on if I had it to spend. The government letting me have my money back would be a good place to start.

 

[Zander]

This is the way it works in DC folks: Republicans, in the spirit of "Bi-partisanship" agree to "tax increases" in return for the Democrats agreeing to make * "spending cuts". The media applauds!! The President calls it "historic". The "tax increases" begin immediately or even retroactively. The "spending cuts" never occur, ever.

* "spending cuts" are not even actual cuts! They are reductions in the rate of growth.....pathetic.

 

[California Girl]

OK

OK. Then we re-instate the complete tax schedule that we had under Clinton, plus a surtax on incomes above 1,000,000. We raise the tax on unearned income to equal that of earned income, giving the average working stiff equal footing with the very wealthy.

Now that is a reasonable schedule to start with, and then we can consider cuts. Cuts like holding our military spending to a level equal to the military spending of the next seven highest spending countries. Go to a full Universal Health Care System. That would eliminate both MediCare and Mediaid. And lower our per citizen cost to that of other industrial nations. Maybe even bring our results up to match theirs, instead of matching third world nations.

You have no idea what damage a UHC would do to this country... or maybe you just don't care.

Yeah...And notice his "solution" consists of raising taxes and increasing spending and bureaucracy....Like that has any chance of working.

An honest assessment of any country's 'UHC' would, with some critical thought, very clearly show what a clusterfuck it would be in the US.

This 'raising taxes' is just Democrat smoke and mirrors, much the same as Obama's tough talk about 'windfall taxes'.... windfall taxes don't do anything other than drive up the price... because the customer always pays it in the end. And the Dems don't want to raise taxes on the rich.... they know it won't actually do anything other than further damage an already fragile economy.... they use it to drive wedges between liberals and conservatives. Nothing more. It's smoke and mirrors.

 

[Zander]

Tax rate increases result in less revenue....

50p tax rate 'failing to boost revenues’ - Telegraph