lowering the projected debt and balancing the budget are miles apart. lowering a projected debt would only take $1 in increased revenue. Balancing the budget would take $1 trillion. NC blasted an entire party's platform and I'm just asking for a quote from one guy who actually said what he claims.
Mobius, Mitt Romney is currently espousing a 5 trillion dollar tax cut that he believes will stimulate the economy so much that it will create 12 million jobs, return us to full employment and, all in one fatal swoop, slash the budget deficit. Reading my last sentence it almost sounds like I am being facetious but I am truly not. It's just that their plan is that ridiculous. You couldn't make this stuff up if you wanted to. This is, historically, the Republican economic platform in a nut shell. While I am not against all tax cuts because they have their place and time, another 5 trillion in tax cuts is the last thing we need right now.
You keep saying that but offer no evidence. What I'm saying is that Mitt Romney claims no such thing. Yes, he favors tax cuts, yes he thinks this will help the economy, yes he thinks this will help employemnt. I'm sure he thinks revenue won't suffer because of a tax cut because of increased employment etc. But he does not believe or claim to believe that we can balance our budget simply by reducing tax rates. No one believes that. You are over simplifying his plan. Entitlement reform and cost cutting measures are also a huge part of Mitt Romney's, and the republicans', platform.
Pride, none of the numbers I have presented are controversial. In fact, as I pointed out, I have been fairly generous with my numbers just to give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt. Further, nothing I have said about the Republican position on taxation as it relates to unemployment or the budget deficit are new news. Bottom line: you either have no idea what the Republican party stands for even though you are going to vote for them or......you have no rebuttal for what I have said. If my numbers are so bad, prove it. Show me where my math is flawed. bet you can't do it.
the Ryan budget link that you provided is a farse. it states very clearly in the first paragraph that "The amounts of revenues and spending to be sued in these calculations for 2012 through 2022 were provided by chairman Ryan and his staff." this makes this analysis invalid. any one can get it right when they insist on using their own "numbers" for ten years as a starter. get real
MITT'S PLAN Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation’s tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy. Individual TaxesAmerica’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform. Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains Eliminate the Death Tax Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) I took this directly from Mitt Romney's web site. He doesn't come right out and say it but if you look at the details of what he is saying, there is a 5 trillion dollar tax cut staring you right in the face. A 20% cut in marginal rates across the board would make the number of tax payers who pay nothing go up to around 60% and effectively give guys like him a free ride on taxes so that the only ones paying taxes would be the middle class. http://shar.es/uAeRZ Here is another link from the Salt Lake Tribune, friendly territory for the Mittster.
That's the thing, mobius. Romney won't detail his plan. Watch this from about 4:00 to about 6:30: http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-rom...-arent-true-105805916--abc-news-politics.html He says that his plan is to "1. not raise taxes 2. encourage growth by bringing down rates 3. simplify the tax code" Is that what you were looking for, mobius? Serious question.
I didn't know the republicans claimed that full employment would solve the deficit. Where did they make that claim? If I recall, full employment is essentially just a theoretical idea, not a goal.
full employment is just a theoretical idea as it has never actually been achieved. i used full employment to illustrate that even under ideal circumstances; actually unrealistically ideal circumstances, tax cuts do not pay for themselves, much less provide enough revenue to close the budget deficit. the Republicans have been openly making this claim since 1980: if we cut taxes it will stimulate the economy which will spur hiring and with the increased tax revenues from lower unemployment the tax cuts will not only pay for themselves, they will actually close the budget deficit. This is no secret and it is also the most glaring flaw in their economic logic. You cannot issue bulk tax cuts, make them permanent and at the same time propose to reduce the budget deficit, much less the public debt.
Depending on where you stand on the Laffer curve, tax cuts either pay for themselves or they don't. Ah, so republican's haven't made the explicit claim, as you made it sound, that returning to full employment will close the deficit. You're saying that this is the logical conclusion of their position on tax cuts?
