Analysis: Romney's Plan Will Balloon The Deficit And Radically Increase Debt

[Ryan]

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-romney-plan-will-affect-debt-2012-9?op=1
Even in the best case scenario...Romney's plans increase debt beyond current projections. It also drags drags down GDP:

Obama could sit in the White House, simply extend the Bush tax cuts and do nothing more...and he would still outperform Romney.....lulz.

 

[Phokus]

I think ATPN republicans really believe deficits/debt doesn't matter when they cheer on these tax cuts. It's like they completely forgot the Bush presidency. Idiots.

 

[Agent11]

Yes GWB was betrayed by his big business buddies.
They think the people are idiots and the system easily subverted. Now they want us to believe that if we try their plan again with Romney they will actually make jobs here this time instead of in china. I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Jhhnn]

Romney's Plan Will Balloon The Deficit And Radically Increase Debt

No shit, Sherlock. It's a no-brainer, but that pretty much covers the segment of the population who'll actually vote for him...

 

[nehalem256]

Lies. Stop implying Romney has a plan!

 

[cybrsage]

Lib 1: "Obama failed...quick, we must divert attention to something else! Wait, I know, rather than continue to say Romney does not have a plan, lets instead say he does but it is not nearly as horrible as Obama's plan!"

Lib 2: "Great idea...wait, you mean not as bad as Obama's plan, right?"

Lib 1: "Oops, got confused between reality and our diversion, sorry, yes, that is it!"

In agreement, Lib 1 and Lib 2 go forth to tell the other libs what they must think and say this week.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Lib 1: "Obama failed...quick, we must divert attention to something else! Wait, I know, rather than continue to say Romney does not have a plan, lets instead say he does but it is not nearly as horrible as Obama's plan!"

Lib 2: "Great idea...wait, you mean not as bad as Obama's plan, right?"

Lib 1: "Oops, got confused between reality and our diversion, sorry, yes, that is it!"

In agreement, Lib 1 and Lib 2 go forth to tell the other libs what they must think and say this week.

Keep squirming instead of saying anything about the topic at hand. I guess that's all you have left at this point.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Lib 1: "Obama failed...quick, we must divert attention to something else! Wait, I know, rather than continue to say Romney does not have a plan, lets instead say he does but it is not nearly as horrible as Obama's plan!"

Lib 2: "Great idea...wait, you mean not as bad as Obama's plan, right?"

Lib 1: "Oops, got confused between reality and our diversion, sorry, yes, that is it!"

In agreement, Lib 1 and Lib 2 go forth to tell the other libs what they must think and say this week.

Trolling, trolling, trolling....get your doggies trolling, TROLLHIDE!

Yes, you are.

 

[cybrsage]

Keep squirming instead of saying anything about the topic at hand. I guess that's all you have left at this point.

What else do you do in a parody thread. You do not think the OP is serious, do you?

 

[cybrsage]

Yes, you are very attractive.

Thank you.

 

[sandorski]

Facts? Romney don't need Facts.

 

[SheHateMe]

Well...when 47% of American's think they are entitled to food, welfare, and healthcare...the deficit goes up...

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

What else do you do in a parody thread. You do not think the OP is serious, do you?

Quick say more silly stuff surely it'll work this time even though it didn't last time!

 

[berzerker60]

Well...when 47% of American's think they are entitled to food, welfare, and healthcare...the deficit goes up...

I was reading something the other day arguing that we have a right to life, liberty, AND the pursuit of happiness!! Can you imagine the sort of welfare queenery that will generate? Life requires food, it usually requires housing, it certainly requires healthcare, and 'pursuit of happiness' sounds like liberal buzzwords for equal opportunity in education and reducing employee discrimination and unequal pay for equal work!

 

[cybrsage]

Quick say more silly stuff surely it'll work this time even though it didn't last time!

Sure thing, but be warned, it is horribly silly stuff!

"Ask Bin Laden and Gaddafi what they think of the differences between Bush's foreign policy and Obama's... Oh right... "


I warned you, it is terribly silly!

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Sure thing, but be warned, it is horribly silly stuff!

"Ask Bin Laden and Gaddafi what they think of the differences between Bush's foreign policy and Obama's... Oh right... "


I warned you, it is terribly silly!

Lol, bring the topic of other threads into this one like it means something here, but you're still just squirming and it's transparent.

 

[Hacp]

We also did not accept Romney's premise that he will cut federal spending to 20% of GDP by 2016 from the current 24%.

Key phrase there. This is not analysis. This is changing Romney's plan altogether if you don't count the 4% reduced spending.

​

 

[K1052]

Key phrase there. This is not analysis. This is changing Romney's plan altogether if you don't count the 4% reduced spending.

​

"We also did not accept Romney's premise that he will cut federal spending to 20% of GDP by 2016 from the current 24%. Again, Romney has not identified a single government program that he wants to cut (other than general non-defense discretionary spending, which is already at an all-time low as a percent of GDP). We assumed instead that Romney will reduce government spending to about 22% of GDP, not all the way to 20%."

They met him half way, which seems generous given that he has given no specifics on how he plans to reach that level of spending cuts.

 

[Hacp]

"We also did not accept Romney's premise that he will cut federal spending to 20% of GDP by 2016 from the current 24%. Again, Romney has not identified a single government program that he wants to cut (other than general non-defense discretionary spending, which is already at an all-time low as a percent of GDP). We assumed instead that Romney will reduce government spending to about 22% of GDP, not all the way to 20%."

They met him half way, which seems generous given that he has given no specifics on how he plans to reach that level of spending cuts.

Romney knows which programs he wants to cut, but won't say so due to political reasons. With some luck, we might be able to get rid of Social Security and Medicare all together, as well as a large part of our military budget. Those three make up a significant portion of our federal spending, they constitute most of the fat.

More beef I have with the analysis. It states that they will assume accelerating growth. They they state they will assume steady growth. Finally, they have steady growth in their calculations. Do these guys even know what accelerate means?

Bottom line is that these back of the envelope economic analysis are pointless. It is all made based on assumptions made without any backbone, and in this case, 1 or 2% in growth make all the difference in the world.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Romney knows which programs he wants to cut, but won't say so due to political reasons. With some luck, we might be able to get rid of Social Security and Medicare all together, as well as a large part of our military budget. Those three make up a significant portion of our federal spending, they constitute most of the fat.

Mr. Romney proposes to increase military spending to at least 4% of GDP.

 

[cybrsage]

Lol, bring the topic of other threads into this one like it means something here, but you're still just squirming and it's transparent.

You asked me to post something silly...so I did. If you did not want something silly posted, you should not ask for something silly to be posted.

 

[Hacp]

Mr. Romney proposes to increase military spending to at least 4% of GDP.

You forget that Romney was in charge of Bain. He probably has an alternative revenue source for the military planned up to self fund the increase.

 

[cybrsage]

The US already spends 4.7% of its GDP on its military...at least according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

 

[First]

No one particularly well informed is surprised his plan increases the deficit. Granted, his plan has very few specifics, so who the hell can really be sure.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Lib 1: "Obama failed...quick, we must divert attention to something else! Wait, I know, rather than continue to say Romney does not have a plan, lets instead say he does but it is not nearly as horrible as Obama's plan!"

Lib 2: "Great idea...wait, you mean not as bad as Obama's plan, right?"

Lib 1: "Oops, got confused between reality and our diversion, sorry, yes, that is it!"

In agreement, Lib 1 and Lib 2 go forth to tell the other libs what they must think and say this week.

Back to your false equivalence tricks again I see.