GOP budget proposals worse than Obama's???

Knoxville-Horn

Knoxville-Horn

1,000+ Posts
A lib friend of mine posted the following article on Facebook. As the lone conservative among my friends that will actually speak up, I am generally the only one that will refute some of the stuff that is posted. I read the article and do not understand what I am missing.

Yes, I do understand that Obama being in favor of dropping the Bush tax cuts does, hypothetically, make his overall budget more favorable. The only thing I can think of is that the article is projecting spending to be the same under all proposals BUT showing Obama's budget as being better due to the end of the Bush tax cuts.

I'd like some opinions and thoughts.

The Big Deficit Lie: Every GOP Debt Plan Leaves Us With More Debt
 
I have to admit watching the debates in Arizona I was amazed when Romney, who seemed the most reasonable of the candidates lesft, proposed massive tax cuts, then was attacked by Santorum because the cuts would be less for the super wealthy. (Class warfare -- Santorum called it -- thought it looks to me like the class war is over and the super wealthy aren't being merciful in dictating terms for peace.) With Republicans in control, I see a Grover Nordquist budget -- with mechanisms in place to make the tax cuts permanent without a super majority -- it looks like an end play to eradicate the nanny state. Government would be broke, paying back the Social Secutiry trust fund an impossiblity. The social safety net would be savaged, Medicaid just about defunded and Medicare reimbursments going to a fraction of costs. And seniors who hadn't saved would join a massive new underclass. But the Koch Brothers should do OK as part of a revered class we call the entreprenneurs and job creators, whether they innovate or create jobs or not.
 
After watching the debate it struck me that Ron Paul may be the only candidate that might have a chance of turning the ship around that is headed toward American bankruptcy. Obama would get us there the fastest but I'm afraid that Romney and Santorum would likely keep us headed in that direction. Newt obviously did well with the budget as Speaker, but he's also proposed a lot of pork during the campaign.
 
I have come to the conclusion that Romney will get this thing fixed. Unfortunately, he is showing himself to be an extraordinarily bad candidate.

Obama is "all hat and no cattle", Romney would appear to be "no hat and all cattle".
 
This article is simply trying to illustrate what we pretty much unanimously agree on throughout the board. Not one GOP candidate OR the president have the cojones to cut the budget where it hurts and in a meaningful way. Paul is the closest and he is marked as a madman, not purely for financial opinions though.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. No one can win the election by saying "we're really in trouble and the only way out is to fire a **** pot of government employees, drastically change/reduce the SS program, drastic cuts everywhere including welfare/medicare/defense, and raise taxes."

That's pretty much the political death sentence.
 
One percent in REAL cuts every year for the next 6 years and you could balance the budget. So, why not make it 2% and get going down the road to real solutions? Two percent should not be so painful.
 
Dheiman: yes. We punish any candidate who has the cajones to tell us the truth by not electing him. We don't want to hear the truth.

Witness Mondale in 1984 re: his debate quote about taxes. He said he'd raise them and that Reagan would raise them, the difference being that he (Mondale) is telling you the truth about it in advance. And Reagan gave us the whole "morning in America" fantasy advertising campaign and landslided Mondale.

Two years later, Reagan signed the biggest tax increase in history. But hey he got re-elected.
 
The main reason Mondale lost 49 states is that the country remembered the results of the Carter administration versus the results of the Reagan administration.

On the bright side he won his home state, which is more than Al Gore can say.
smile.gif
 
The article is full of crap, because it gives equal weight to raising taxes and cutting spending, even though tax increases have a poor history of producing substantial revenue increases. We need economic growth and spending cuts. We don't need to mess with taxes one way or the other unless it's in the context of broad tax reform.

And have you looked at who runs the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget? It's run primarily by former members of Congress and specifically members of the House and Senate Budget, Appropriations, and Ways & Means Committees. In other words, it's the same people who enacted the goofy budget policies we've had over the last 30 years. Most of them were full of crap when they were in office. Why should we trust their judgment now?
 
So if I understand correctly, the article is making the assumption that everything is pretty much the same BUT Obama's budget includes an end to the Bush tax cuts and, thus, more revenue? The proposal by the GOP does not include an end to the Bush tax cuts and, thus, gives the impression that there is less revenue to supply the budget even if budgetary cuts are made?

I guess the argument then retreads back into the "do you essentially raise taxes during bad economic times?".

I just can't believe that the U.S. has solid evidence that extreme deficit spending not only doesn't work but can collapse a nation (Greece) and yet we continue to follow the same path.
 
Shiner, you can deflect about Reagan all you want. What BI said is still facts your Reagan worship can never change.
 
I never said BI was wrong about Reagan. Look, Reagan was a LEADER who brought people together to tackle some difficult and (at the time) very unpopular decisions. How sorely are we lacking that right now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top