Balance the Budget Using Romney/Ryan promises

[bripat9643]

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 Democrats do care about balancing the budget and reducing the debt? What have the done that lends any credence to that claim?

 

[SniperFire]

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.

You are attempting a filibuster. I won't let you.

Is a Federal cap of 20% GDP a defacto cap on baseline spending, or not?

Is Romney willing to do this, or not?

Did you not state that Romney is not willing to cap the baseline?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

You are attempting a filibuster. I won't let you.

Is a Federal cap of 20% GDP a defacto cap on baseline spending, or not?

Is Romney willing to do this, or not?

Did you not state that Romney is not willing to cap the baseline?

I'm not in the Senate, so I'm not sure that would work even if I were inclined to attempt it. Regardless, I don't believe for one second that Romney intends to cap any spending whatsoever, however, what I stated was that Romney was not willing to cut baseline spending. Without which any talk of balancing the budget or cutting spending is hokum.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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?

cricket....cricket

 

[SniperFire]

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.

You are attempting a filibuster. I won't let you.

Is a Federal cap of 20% GDP a defacto cap on baseline spending, or not?

Is Romney willing to do this, or not?

Did you not state that Romney is not willing to cap the baseline?

I'm not in the Senate, so I'm not sure that would work even if I were inclined to attempt it. Regardless, I don't believe for one second that Romney intends to cap any spending whatsoever, however, what I stated was that Romney was not willing to cut baseline spending. Without which any talk of balancing the budget or cutting spending is hokum.

Well, Romney made balanced budgets happen as a Governor - just as promised, and proved to be a rock star in about every other fiscal challenge he undertook.

Your accusation is baseless and cynical.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are attempting a filibuster. I won't let you.

Is a Federal cap of 20% GDP a defacto cap on baseline spending, or not?

Is Romney willing to do this, or not?

Did you not state that Romney is not willing to cap the baseline?

I'm not in the Senate, so I'm not sure that would work even if I were inclined to attempt it. Regardless, I don't believe for one second that Romney intends to cap any spending whatsoever, however, what I stated was that Romney was not willing to cut baseline spending. Without which any talk of balancing the budget or cutting spending is hokum.

Well, Romney made balanced budgets happen as a Governor - just as promised, and proved to be a rock star in about every other fiscal challenge he undertook.

Your accusation is baseless and cynical.

Your taking Romney at his word is naive, especially when his warmongering rhetoric is enough to expose his lie. Is he really going to tie "national defense" to 20% of GDP along with everything else the federal government has to pay for? Uhh... no.

 

[SniperFire]

I'm not in the Senate, so I'm not sure that would work even if I were inclined to attempt it. Regardless, I don't believe for one second that Romney intends to cap any spending whatsoever, however, what I stated was that Romney was not willing to cut baseline spending. Without which any talk of balancing the budget or cutting spending is hokum.

Well, Romney made balanced budgets happen as a Governor - just as promised, and proved to be a rock star in about every other fiscal challenge he undertook.

Your accusation is baseless and cynical.

Your taking Romney at his word is naive, especially when his warmongering rhetoric is enough to expose his lie. Is he really going to tie "national defense" to 20% of GDP along with everything else the federal government has to pay for? Uhh... no.

That is baseless. Romney made balanced budgets happen as a Governor - just as promised, and proved to be a rock star in about every other fiscal challenge he undertook.

He may indeed fail, since half the Nation wants to just go Greece, but there isn't a better person in America to pull it together and pull it off.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, Romney made balanced budgets happen as a Governor - just as promised, and proved to be a rock star in about every other fiscal challenge he undertook.

Your accusation is baseless and cynical.

Your taking Romney at his word is naive, especially when his warmongering rhetoric is enough to expose his lie. Is he really going to tie "national defense" to 20% of GDP along with everything else the federal government has to pay for? Uhh... no.

That is baseless. Romney made balanced budgets happen as a Governor - just as promised, and proved to be a rock star in about every other fiscal challenge he undertook.

He may indeed fail, since half the Nation wants to just go Greece, but there isn't a better person in America to pull it together and pull it off.

Alrighty. Almost makes me hope Romney gets elected so I can see your response when he inevitably asks Congress to raise the debt ceiling.

 

[SniperFire]

Your taking Romney at his word is naive, especially when his warmongering rhetoric is enough to expose his lie. Is he really going to tie "national defense" to 20% of GDP along with everything else the federal government has to pay for? Uhh... no.

That is baseless. Romney made balanced budgets happen as a Governor - just as promised, and proved to be a rock star in about every other fiscal challenge he undertook.

He may indeed fail, since half the Nation wants to just go Greece, but there isn't a better person in America to pull it together and pull it off.

Alrighty. Almost makes me hope Romney gets elected so I can see your response when he inevitably asks Congress to raise the debt ceiling.

It would take 4 years to cap GDP to 20% in his plan. Nothing is going to happen instantly. It is real world politics.

Perhaps you have bought into the hype of perhaps America's most Inneffective Congressman Ever - Ron Paul - who thinks we can just walk in tomorrow and 'end the Fed.'

LOL

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That is baseless. Romney made balanced budgets happen as a Governor - just as promised, and proved to be a rock star in about every other fiscal challenge he undertook.

He may indeed fail, since half the Nation wants to just go Greece, but there isn't a better person in America to pull it together and pull it off.

Alrighty. Almost makes me hope Romney gets elected so I can see your response when he inevitably asks Congress to raise the debt ceiling.

It would take 4 years to cap GDP to 20% in his plan. Nothing is going to happen instantly. It is real world politics.

Perhaps you have bought into the hype of perhaps America's most Inneffective Congressman Ever - Ron Paul - who thinks we can just walk in tomorrow and 'end the Fed.'

LOL

And then 8 years.. and then the next Administration. Yeah. I'll hold my breath for Romney to cap spending. You also never answered how Romney plans to cap spending and expand his foreign policy at the same time.

Also, Ron Paul never said he'd end the Fed overnight, but you already knew that.

 

[SniperFire]

Alrighty. Almost makes me hope Romney gets elected so I can see your response when he inevitably asks Congress to raise the debt ceiling.

It would take 4 years to cap GDP to 20% in his plan. Nothing is going to happen instantly. It is real world politics.

Perhaps you have bought into the hype of perhaps America's most Inneffective Congressman Ever - Ron Paul - who thinks we can just walk in tomorrow and 'end the Fed.'

LOL

And then 8 years.. and then the next Administration. Yeah. I'll hold my breath for Romney to cap spending. You also never answered how Romney plans to cap spending and expand his foreign policy at the same time.

Also, Ron Paul never said he'd end the Fed overnight, but you already knew that.

As long as we both know who the 'naive' one is here, we cool.

 

[SniperFire]

Alrighty. Almost makes me hope Romney gets elected so I can see your response when he inevitably asks Congress to raise the debt ceiling.

It would take 4 years to cap GDP to 20% in his plan. Nothing is going to happen instantly. It is real world politics.

Perhaps you have bought into the hype of perhaps America's most Inneffective Congressman Ever - Ron Paul - who thinks we can just walk in tomorrow and 'end the Fed.'

LOL

And then 8 years.. and then the next Administration. Yeah. I'll hold my breath for Romney to cap spending. You also never answered how Romney plans to cap spending and expand his foreign policy at the same time.

Also, Ron Paul never said he'd end the Fed overnight, but you already knew that.

Romney's plan targets 4% growth, I believe.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It would take 4 years to cap GDP to 20% in his plan. Nothing is going to happen instantly. It is real world politics.

Perhaps you have bought into the hype of perhaps America's most Inneffective Congressman Ever - Ron Paul - who thinks we can just walk in tomorrow and 'end the Fed.'

LOL

And then 8 years.. and then the next Administration. Yeah. I'll hold my breath for Romney to cap spending. You also never answered how Romney plans to cap spending and expand his foreign policy at the same time.

Also, Ron Paul never said he'd end the Fed overnight, but you already knew that.

As long as we both know who the 'naive' one is here, we cool.

I believe the definition of naive is as follows, "One who takes Mitt Romney at his word."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It would take 4 years to cap GDP to 20% in his plan. Nothing is going to happen instantly. It is real world politics.

Perhaps you have bought into the hype of perhaps America's most Inneffective Congressman Ever - Ron Paul - who thinks we can just walk in tomorrow and 'end the Fed.'

LOL

And then 8 years.. and then the next Administration. Yeah. I'll hold my breath for Romney to cap spending. You also never answered how Romney plans to cap spending and expand his foreign policy at the same time.

Also, Ron Paul never said he'd end the Fed overnight, but you already knew that.

Romney's plan targets 4% growth, I believe.

I'm sure it does.

 

[OKTexas]

2012 US economy: 15.6 T
Tax revenue: 2.5T
Obama Deficit: 1 T

2013: US economy 16.2T
Tax Revenue: 2.8T
Deficit:: 600B

2014: US economy: 17T
Tax Revenue: 3.1T
Deficit: 300B

2015: US Economy 18T
TAx Revenue: 3.4B
Deficit: 0

2016: Romney wins 56 states, Senate Republicans control 52 states, Democrats in House are reduced to 6 from CA and 4 from NY

I guess your using Maobamas 60 state illusion in your post???? How does Romney win 56 states?

 

[georgephillip]

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?

For generations the US investor class (~10% of the population) needed the US middle class to provide the goods and services and drive 70% of US GDP with their purchases.

That seems to have gone by the wayside since US investors today have a much larger middle class rising in China, India, and Brazil.

Rising Economic Growth would seem to favor the middle classes in those countries at the expense of the majority of Americans?

Good gawd, no.

As the American standard of living exploded in the last century, did standard of livings drop around the world?

Economic output is not a zero sum game.

We are only 5% of the world population and could never hope to have the number of bodies to service opportunities throughout a world as they gain disposable incomes.

But that takes leaders who don't hate and envy our wealth and job creators.

Do you believe the outsourcing of US jobs has been beneficial for the US middle class over the past four decades?

Cato does:

"Could outsourcing of U.S. jobs actually be good for Americans?

"The number of U.S. jobs lost to low-wage countries has never been officially calculated — U.S. companies are not legally mandated to report such statistics.

"Boston-based global research and advisory firm Forrester predicts that more than 400,000 service jobs have been moved offshore since 2000 — and that number will rise to 3.3 million by 2015. More than 2 million manufacturing jobs have been outsourced abroad since 1983.

"Economists estimate that the number of jobs leaving the U.S. ranges between 12,000 to 20,000 per month.

"Relocated U.S. jobs end up going to workers in developing nations like China and India, countries that pay their employees much less than their American counterparts.

"Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the libertarian think-tank Cato Institute, argues that low-skill jobs (such as product assembly and call centers) are not cost effective for U.S..."

Outsourcing Is Good For America: Cato

 

[SniperFire]

For generations the US investor class (~10% of the population) needed the US middle class to provide the goods and services and drive 70% of US GDP with their purchases.

That seems to have gone by the wayside since US investors today have a much larger middle class rising in China, India, and Brazil.

Rising Economic Growth would seem to favor the middle classes in those countries at the expense of the majority of Americans?

Good gawd, no.

As the American standard of living exploded in the last century, did standard of livings drop around the world?

Economic output is not a zero sum game.

We are only 5% of the world population and could never hope to have the number of bodies to service opportunities throughout a world as they gain disposable incomes.

But that takes leaders who don't hate and envy our wealth and job creators.

Do you believe the outsourcing of US jobs has been beneficial for the US middle class over the past four decades?

Cato does:

"Could outsourcing of U.S. jobs actually be good for Americans?

"The number of U.S. jobs lost to low-wage countries has never been officially calculated — U.S. companies are not legally mandated to report such statistics.

"Boston-based global research and advisory firm Forrester predicts that more than 400,000 service jobs have been moved offshore since 2000 — and that number will rise to 3.3 million by 2015. More than 2 million manufacturing jobs have been outsourced abroad since 1983.

"Economists estimate that the number of jobs leaving the U.S. ranges between 12,000 to 20,000 per month.

"Relocated U.S. jobs end up going to workers in developing nations like China and India, countries that pay their employees much less than their American counterparts.

"Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the libertarian think-tank Cato Institute, argues that low-skill jobs (such as product assembly and call centers) are not cost effective for U.S..."

Outsourcing Is Good For America: Cato

Of course! The material standard of living has shot thru the roof for poor and middle class since 1980 - both enjoying about a 50% increase.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are attempting a filibuster. I won't let you.

Is a Federal cap of 20% GDP a defacto cap on baseline spending, or not?

Is Romney willing to do this, or not?

Did you not state that Romney is not willing to cap the baseline?

I'm not in the Senate, so I'm not sure that would work even if I were inclined to attempt it. Regardless, I don't believe for one second that Romney intends to cap any spending whatsoever, however, what I stated was that Romney was not willing to cut baseline spending. Without which any talk of balancing the budget or cutting spending is hokum.

Well, Romney made balanced budgets happen as a Governor - just as promised, and proved to be a rock star in about every other fiscal challenge he undertook.

Your accusation is baseless and cynical.

No he didn't. In Massachusetts the legislature had a veto-proof Democratic majority. Romney did nothing that the Democrats in the legislature didn't want to do.

In fact Romney vetoed 800 bills in MA while governor and almost every one of them was overridden and passed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

'If' is not an economic plan, it's a guess.

 

[JimH52]

So if Willard is elected he will begin his tax cuts, at the same time the GOP Congress pushes its Balanced Budget Amendment....so, the tax cuts are BS and the GOP Balanced Budget Amendment will be meaningless.