Balance the Budget Using Romney/Ryan promises

[SniperFire]

Prove it. And prove we will get the economic growth that will balance the budget.

Hint: Reagan claimed the same thing. How did that work out?

Easy. From Forbes, an explanation that Romney's plans include GDP growth:

;the critics of the Romney tax plan are missing the point. The only “tax base” that matters is GDP. '

Economic Growth Will Pay For Mitt Romney's Tax Cuts - Forbes

Now, don't you feel a little more stupider than you did a couple minutes ago?

LOL

That's just a biased opinion from an interested party. And, once again, it's just what they said about the Reagan tax cuts.

They were wrong then. Using a theory that never works is not much of an argument.

Tax cuts were used to drive GDP and create record Federal tax receipts every time it has ever been tried by a POTUS.

Ultra-Uber-Libtard-Meme-Failure


ROTFL

 

[Lakhota]

Joe Biden, Mitt Romney Agree That Romney Tax Plan Never Been Tried

 

[NYcarbineer]

Easy. From Forbes, an explanation that Romney's plans include GDP growth:

;the critics of the Romney tax plan are missing the point. The only “tax base” that matters is GDP. '

Economic Growth Will Pay For Mitt Romney's Tax Cuts - Forbes

Now, don't you feel a little more stupider than you did a couple minutes ago?

LOL

That's just a biased opinion from an interested party. And, once again, it's just what they said about the Reagan tax cuts.

They were wrong then. Using a theory that never works is not much of an argument.

Tax cuts were used to drive GDP and create record Federal tax receipts every time it has ever been tried by a POTUS.

Ultra-Uber-Libtard-Meme-Failure


ROTFL

I've already proved you wrong multiple times on this. No Republican has ever balanced the budget by cutting taxes.

BTW,

do you realize that you're arguing that we don't need to cut Medicare or Social Security in order to balance the budget?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Easy. From Forbes, an explanation that Romney's plans include GDP growth:

;the critics of the Romney tax plan are missing the point. The only “tax base” that matters is GDP. '

Economic Growth Will Pay For Mitt Romney's Tax Cuts - Forbes

Now, don't you feel a little more stupider than you did a couple minutes ago?

LOL

That's just a biased opinion from an interested party. And, once again, it's just what they said about the Reagan tax cuts.

They were wrong then. Using a theory that never works is not much of an argument.

Tax cuts were used to drive GDP and create record Federal tax receipts every time it has ever been tried by a POTUS.

Ultra-Uber-Libtard-Meme-Failure


ROTFL

Clinton got record tax receipts AND balanced the budget after raising taxes. No Republican president has ever accomplished that.

 

[SniperFire]

That's just a biased opinion from an interested party. And, once again, it's just what they said about the Reagan tax cuts.

They were wrong then. Using a theory that never works is not much of an argument.

Tax cuts were used to drive GDP and create record Federal tax receipts every time it has ever been tried by a POTUS.

Ultra-Uber-Libtard-Meme-Failure


ROTFL

I've already proved you wrong multiple times on this. No Republican has ever balanced the budget by cutting taxes.

BTW,

do you realize that you're arguing that we don't need to cut Medicare or Social Security in order to balance the budget?

Do tell.

All of the following POTUS' cut taxes to drive productivity and GDP:

Harding, JFK, Reagan and Bush

Which of the above efforts did NOT see the United States of America hit RECORD Federal Tax Receipts shortly thereafter?

The pressure is on, cocksmoke. Don't blow it.


LOL

 

[SniperFire]

That's just a biased opinion from an interested party. And, once again, it's just what they said about the Reagan tax cuts.

They were wrong then. Using a theory that never works is not much of an argument.

Tax cuts were used to drive GDP and create record Federal tax receipts every time it has ever been tried by a POTUS.

Ultra-Uber-Libtard-Meme-Failure


ROTFL

Clinton got record tax receipts AND balanced the budget after raising taxes. No Republican president has ever accomplished that.

Gingrich made Clinton his little bitch and chopped capital gains taxes to free up those greedy rich people to take risks and drive the economy.

You can't win.


LOL

 

[SniperFire]

Stupid fucking Libtards think we can have a prosperous working class without somebody above them getting rich.

 

[Erand7899]

Republicans don't care about balancing the budget or reducing the debt. They just talk shit when they are trying to regain the White House.

If they cared at all they wouldn't have sent out rebate checks and slashed tax rates back when the budget was balanced.

And Barrack Obama does?

Hows that "I'll cut the Deficit in Half" Promise working out for ya?

Did he mean he would do it by the year 2025 or something because it wont happen for the next 10 years according to his own Numbers.

While I agree that cutting it in half was way too aggressive of a goal, it's pretty tough make any headway when your loyal ( ) opposition refuses to compromise and allow any tax increases.

It appears that raising taxes is the only method that Democrats know for balancing a budget. However, tax increases have never resulted in a decrease in the deficit. They always induce increased spending.

If we doubled taxes on everyone, we would still have a deficit, and that means the debt would continue to grow.

The only way out of the hole that our elected officials have dug, is to increase the size of the economy and subsequently increase tax revenues that result from that growth.

 

[SniperFire]

And Barrack Obama does?

Hows that "I'll cut the Deficit in Half" Promise working out for ya?

Did he mean he would do it by the year 2025 or something because it wont happen for the next 10 years according to his own Numbers.

While I agree that cutting it in half was way too aggressive of a goal, it's pretty tough make any headway when your loyal ( ) opposition refuses to compromise and allow any tax increases.

It appears that raising taxes is the only method that Democrats know for balancing a budget. However, tax increases have never resulted in a decrease in the deficit. They always induce increased spending.

If we doubled taxes on everyone, we would still have a deficit, and that means the debt would continue to grow.

The only way out of the hole that our elected officials have dug, is to increase the size of the economy and subsequently increase tax revenues that result from that growth.

And make no mistake - this won't be easy and there is no guarantees. Our other choice, however, is to follow Obama and be like Greece:

Greece's Biggest Company Quits Country

Greece's Biggest Company Quits Country

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

1. A tax cut that is revenue neutral. Therefore you get no new revenue towards lowering the deficit from tax policy;

you only break even.

2. Increase defense spending. Therefore you ADD to the deficit, you don't lower it.

3. Take Medicare off the table for 10 years. That's the Romney/Ryan promise. Therefore you get no savings on Medicare spending.

4. Take Social Security off the table for 5 years. That's an estimate based on Romney's promise not to touch SS for anyone retired or near retirement. Therefore you get no savings from Social Security.

...with all that as pre-conditions,

Tell us how Romney/Ryan balance the budget.

They don't. They're unwilling to cut baseline spending and therefore any talk about balancing the budget is nonsense.

 

[buckeye45_73]

So his tax plan is a push. No tax cuts for his wealthy buddies means no trickle down.

Where's his jobs plan then?

2 things......the rate cuts and killing OBama care
Rate cuts
Obama and Romeny want to cut coporate taxes to encourage big business to grow
Romney wants to lower tax rates on the top bracket, because they are the small businesses that create most of the jobs and they pay the individual rates and not the coporate rate....you close loopholes so you can keep revenue....but the Bush tax cuts increased revenue
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

It took 2 years in to get even....and 3 years to go substantially more tax revenues
so it does work..more people working=tax revenue, higher paying jobs= revenue

Obamacare is a major tax on jobs and business
Thats why you saw a ton of part time jobs created and not many good jobs.....it makes hiring people waaay too expensive

Repealing Obamacare sets the insolvency date of Medicare back to 2016.

Since Romney is promising not touch Medicare for 10 years, i.e, not to change Medicare for anyone 55 or older,

Medicare will be bankrupt in the 3rd year of a Romney presidency.

Ok NY prove that.....he takes $716 billion from medicare.....for Obamacare....so what are they doing to save medicare?

 

[Erand7899]

Why is it when ever you guys Talk about this. You always Fail to account for any Economic Growth at all?

Yet when you Calculate how Much Obama Care will cost, you remember to Account for extremely Optimistic Economic Growth Figures.

Anyone else notice that?

Because 'economic growth' is the bullshit line that every Republican since Reagan has used to claim their economic plans would produce balanced budgets.

My description doesn't exclude economic growth. It doesn't exclude the growth of entitlements and other spending programs either.

So give it a shot. show us how Romney balances the budget under his own conditions, as I described them.

What you have described in not the Romney plan. The bullshit line that you scoff at is a healthy growing economy. If the economy grows at 4% per year, and tax rates remain constant, tax revenues increase by 4% per year. If that growth continues for ten years, the economy is almost 50% larger, and so are tax revenues.

If, during that ten year period, we can also get spending under control, we will be on our way to a balanced budget and fiscal solvency.

 

[SniperFire]

1. A tax cut that is revenue neutral. Therefore you get no new revenue towards lowering the deficit from tax policy;

you only break even.

2. Increase defense spending. Therefore you ADD to the deficit, you don't lower it.

3. Take Medicare off the table for 10 years. That's the Romney/Ryan promise. Therefore you get no savings on Medicare spending.

4. Take Social Security off the table for 5 years. That's an estimate based on Romney's promise not to touch SS for anyone retired or near retirement. Therefore you get no savings from Social Security.

...with all that as pre-conditions,

Tell us how Romney/Ryan balance the budget.

They don't. They're unwilling to cut baseline spending and therefore any talk about balancing the budget is nonsense.

Romney want to see a Federal cap on spending of 20% of GDP within 4 years.

That effectively caps the baseline to match economic output.

 

[Erand7899]

Romney's tax cut is 'revenue neutral' according to Romney,

so it's not really a tax cut at all. How can a non-tax cut tax cut be stimulative when you people believe it's CUTTING taxes that's stimulative?

No, Romney's tax plan is not revenue neutral, and he never said it was. He says it will be revenue neutral for the top earners. They will have lower rates, but will lose most or all of their deductions. The middle class will get a tax cut, and that is where the stimulation takes place.

In addition, he says he will roll back a lot of the regulations put in place over the last ten years. He will repeal Dodd/Frank and replace it with a law that reins in the big banks and wall street, but does not cripple the small banks. Reducing burdensome regulations and loosening up credit from the small banks will go a long way to putting us back on the road to sustainable growth.

The people with money are holding back waiting for common sense to return to the federal government. Romney will provide that common sense, and people will be willing to risk their money again. That will help put us on the track to sustainable growth.

 

[courseofhistory]

Romney's budget is snake oil:

I called Professor John Diamond at Rice University, whose tax study Romney has cited in recent days, to ask him whether the math begins to add up when the promised military spending is included. “If you’re going to increase military spending and you’re going have to revenue-neutral tax cuts, you have to either cut spending or raise taxes somewhere else,” Professor Diamond said. “There aren’t real complicated problems—there are only two choices.”

LINK

A non-partisan analysis from the Tax Policy Center found that there is no way to pay for the tax rate reductions Romney has proposed without raising taxes on the middle class. Those rate reductions would cost $5 trillion, according to the analysis, and Obama characterized Romney's plan as a $5 trillion tax cut during the debate. That statement that has drawn fire from conservatives who note that Romney has also proposed closing loopholes and ending deductions in the tax code, and the Romney campaign is currently running a television ad accusing Obama of misrepresenting Romney's plan by using the $5 trillion figure.

LINKhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/07/robert-gibbs-mitt-romney-budget_n_1946214.html

 

[SniperFire]

Libtard thinks normal people are going to click HuffPo links.

LOL

 

[Erand7899]

That's just a biased opinion from an interested party. And, once again, it's just what they said about the Reagan tax cuts.

They were wrong then. Using a theory that never works is not much of an argument.

Tax cuts were used to drive GDP and create record Federal tax receipts every time it has ever been tried by a POTUS.

Ultra-Uber-Libtard-Meme-Failure


ROTFL

Clinton got record tax receipts AND balanced the budget after raising taxes. No Republican president has ever accomplished that.

You poor fool. Clinton got record tax receipts, but he also got record spending, and the deficits were increasing, until the Republicans took control of the congress and forced welfare reform. That is the move that allowed for a balanced budget. Reduced spending.

 

[Erand7899]

1. A tax cut that is revenue neutral. Therefore you get no new revenue towards lowering the deficit from tax policy;

you only break even.

2. Increase defense spending. Therefore you ADD to the deficit, you don't lower it.

3. Take Medicare off the table for 10 years. That's the Romney/Ryan promise. Therefore you get no savings on Medicare spending.

4. Take Social Security off the table for 5 years. That's an estimate based on Romney's promise not to touch SS for anyone retired or near retirement. Therefore you get no savings from Social Security.

...with all that as pre-conditions,

Tell us how Romney/Ryan balance the budget.

They don't. They're unwilling to cut baseline spending and therefore any talk about balancing the budget is nonsense.

Don't cut the teapartiers too short. They just might do away with the baseline approach to budgeting. But, they need control of the senate to do that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

1. A tax cut that is revenue neutral. Therefore you get no new revenue towards lowering the deficit from tax policy;

you only break even.

2. Increase defense spending. Therefore you ADD to the deficit, you don't lower it.

3. Take Medicare off the table for 10 years. That's the Romney/Ryan promise. Therefore you get no savings on Medicare spending.

4. Take Social Security off the table for 5 years. That's an estimate based on Romney's promise not to touch SS for anyone retired or near retirement. Therefore you get no savings from Social Security.

...with all that as pre-conditions,

Tell us how Romney/Ryan balance the budget.

They don't. They're unwilling to cut baseline spending and therefore any talk about balancing the budget is nonsense.

Romney want to see a Federal cap on spending of 20% of GDP within 4 years.

That effectively caps the baseline to match economic output.

GDP doesn't mean anything since it rises when the federal government spends money. Even assuming that it does matter, however, and assuming that Romney would restrain himself to that figure which is highly unlikely, that's the best case scenario and a lot of wishful thinking. It also ignores the fact that we're already how many trillions of dollars in the hole? The official number is around $16 trillion, but we all know that's a laugh. Without actually cutting spending from the baseline you're not being serious.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

1. A tax cut that is revenue neutral. Therefore you get no new revenue towards lowering the deficit from tax policy;

you only break even.

2. Increase defense spending. Therefore you ADD to the deficit, you don't lower it.

3. Take Medicare off the table for 10 years. That's the Romney/Ryan promise. Therefore you get no savings on Medicare spending.

4. Take Social Security off the table for 5 years. That's an estimate based on Romney's promise not to touch SS for anyone retired or near retirement. Therefore you get no savings from Social Security.

...with all that as pre-conditions,

Tell us how Romney/Ryan balance the budget.

They don't. They're unwilling to cut baseline spending and therefore any talk about balancing the budget is nonsense.

Don't cut the teapartiers too short. They just might do away with the baseline approach to budgeting. But, they need control of the senate to do that.

If that were the case then the House would have already passed a budget that actually cut baseline spending. They didn't.