Romney: "Cutting Government Spending Would Shrink Economy"

The Heber J Grant quote was not to suggest that what he suggested was the right government, but rather to point out that you can find prophetic or scriptural statements supporting pretty much any political stance.....including Grant's statement that is completely opposite what Benson would later say.

BoiseBYU wrote:

scott715 wrote:
Which Bible passage were you quoting? I would like to think about that.

Basically all of the ones in the Old Testament referring to just weights and balances (Proverbs 20:23, Proverbs 16:11, Leviticus 19:36) as well as Isaiah's condemnation of Israel for introducing dross into it's silver and dilution of wine with water (both were used as currency)(Isaiah 1:21-22). Proverbs 25:4 also counsels against adding dross to silver.



Debasing the currency is the same as adding dross to silver or gold.

JV it is pretty clear you are a smart as well as passionate guy when it comes to this stuff. Smarter and more passionate than me, that's for sure. But I went back and read these scriptures and they do not to my humble eye come close to supporting what you assert. I invite anyone interested to review for themselves. Isaiah does NOT counsel in those verses against adding dross to silver. What he is doing instead is lamenting Israel's wickedness and in metaphor declaring that its righteousness has been diluted and, like adding dross to silver, this is bad. It is NOT that this is what Israel was doing but that its wickedness was like diluting its righteousness. Further Proverbs 25:4 states that if you take away the dross from silver it will be finer, a metaphor again to urging us to purify ourselves. The verse is not condemning per se adding dross to silver. In short, the scriptures cited really do not get into economics and inflationary practices and for you to cite to them to advance your arguments is weak sauce indeed.

The real scriptural basis is in the honest weights and measure reference in Leviticus. Leviticus 19:35-36 is the basis for all of the later scriptures decrying the addition of dross which is a form of stealing. The amount of tin added to silver can be determined with honest weights and measures which prevent one man (or group of men, ie government) from stealing from another. The debasement of the US dollar is the same thing as adding tin to silver (at least I certainly haven't heard any argument to the contrary).

Here's another hypothetical.



Is Big Government wrong, if we could afford it?



Would you cancel social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Military, if money were not an issue? I'm not sure I would. Sure there's waste, fraud, social engineering and dependency issues but overall I venture a guess that many large government programs do more good than harm. The harm they do is largely financial. Enter turnaround expert:



So now suppose Romney found a way to pay for them? He has a proven ability to turnaround financially struggling organizations and still get the job done. If he can do so as POTUS without increasing our tax burden (his current plan involves lowering taxes I believe) then I don't see nearly as much a problem with big government.



I'm sure cuts will be ultimately be involved. But if we can afford it through genuine economic growth, why not provide more services?

Social Security is unnecessary if people properly plan for their futures. If someone truly does need assistance after retirement the government should not be the first place they look for assistance.



Medicare and Medicaid are somewhat different. I think those could be kept if we can find a way to better pay for and administer them.

CougarClaw wrote:
Here's another hypothetical.



Is Big Government wrong, if we could afford it?



Would you cancel social security, Medicare, Medicaid, Military, if money were not an issue? I'm not sure I would. Sure there's waste, fraud, social engineering and dependency issues but overall I venture a guess that many large government programs do more good than harm. The harm they do is largely financial. Enter turnaround expert:



So now suppose Romney found a way to pay for them? He has a proven ability to turnaround financially struggling organizations and still get the job done. If he can do so as POTUS without increasing our tax burden (his current plan involves lowering taxes I believe) then I don't see nearly as much a problem with big government.



I'm sure cuts will be ultimately be involved. But if we can afford it through genuine economic growth, why not provide more services?

Why not write a law nullifying gravity?



Did you not even look at the data? Here you go again -

jvquarterback wrote:
Back on topic. Here is evidence that Romney's (and Obama's) plans for closing GDP gaps as a way to decrease the deficit won't work.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQu7V9pMK48&feature=player_embedded



Here's the Economic study that she cites out of Harvard:



http://www.nber.org/papers/w15438" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes Versus Spending

Alberto F. Alesina, Silvia Ardagna

NBER Working Paper No. 15438

Issued in October 2009

NBER Program(s): POL



We examine the evidence on episodes of large stances in fiscal policy, both in cases of fiscal stimuli and in that of fiscal adjustments in OECD countries from 1970 to 2007. Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. As for fiscal adjustments, those based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to reduce deficits and debt over GDP ratios than those based upon tax increases. In addition, adjustments on the spending side rather than on the tax side are less likely to create recessions. We confirm these results with simple regression analysis.



Published: Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes versus Spending, Alberto Alesina, Silvia Ardagna, in Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 24 (2010), The University of Chicago Press

You may purchase this paper on-line in .pdf format from SSRN.com ($5) for electronic delivery."

-------------------------------------------------------------

Here's Dr. Alesina's Report on this study prepared for a conference in Madrid:



http://www.economics.harvard.edu/app/webroot/files/faculty/2_Fiscal%20Adjustments_lessons.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Do fiscal adjustments always cause recessions?



The answer to this question is a loud no. Starting from the early nineties, several authors have noted how large and decisive deficit reduction policies in several European countries were accompanied by increases in growth, the opposite of the standard Keynesian story."



More at link...

Europe is NOT implementing austerity through spending cuts. They're trying to raise their tax revenue to meet their spending. Not reduce their spending to meet their revenues. You are completely bassackwards on this.



Europe has yet to embrace the austerity measures they've given lip service to.



http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/07/austerity-lives-on-in-our-minds-and-hear" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299425/europe-s-failed-austerity-michael-tanner" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-derugy-austerity-gets-bad-rap-20120517,0,1723259.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpiffCoug wrote:
Europe is NOT implementing austerity through spending cuts. They're trying to raise their tax revenue to meet their spending. Not reduce their spending to meet their revenues. You are completely bassackwards on this.



Europe has yet to embrace the austerity measures they've given lip service to.



http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/07/austerity-lives-on-in-our-minds-and-hear" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299425/europe-s-failed-austerity-michael-tanner" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-derugy-austerity-gets-bad-rap-20120517,0,1723259.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You didn't read the report or watch the video or you would realize that is exactly my point. It is the reason Europe's economy will falter and it is the reason Romney's plan is more likely to fail than Paul's.

And you didn't read mine either.

SpiffCoug wrote:
And you didn't read mine either.

Your newspaper quotes support my argument. Why should I read dummied-down versions of what I posted? The reports I posted use data to show fiscal plans that fail to cut spending (like Romney's) are less likely to produce growth according to the metric used in the study. Yours are a bunch of hogwash newspaper reports (more like editorials) that I scanned - though the LA times article cites the report I posted above.



With the data you cite indicating Romney should cut spending his plan does nothing of the sort. Yet you continue to talk about how he is going to turn things around. By your own account Romney's plan dooms us to repeat the same errors as Europe. What's with the disconnect?

Ok you win. You're right. There would be ZERO difference between a Romney and Obama presidency. In fact, I expect Romney to endorse Barack any day now because how identical their positions and policies would be.



Romney's plan would not doom us to repeat the errors of Europe and I never indicated they would.

Your Harvard link doesn't work.



And I don't want to register to read the other report.



But I do know that the report you linked to stopped in 2007? That was five years ago. The world market place changed considerably in that time period. Europe doesn't seem to have learned anything from that.

If Romney gets elected he will approve the Keystone pipeline project which will create a number of jobs right there. He will remove Obamacare negating uncertainty about immediate healthcare costs. He will not be anti business removing the uncertainty of what the governemnt will do to sucessful businesses. And he will work to elimiate redtape to speed up businesses implementation of their projects. Just those things would jumpstart the economy.

jvquarterback wrote:

And you didn't read mine either.

Your newspaper quotes support my argument. Why should I read dummied-down versions of what I posted? The reports I posted use data to show fiscal plans that fail to cut spending (like Romney's) are less likely to produce growth according to the metric used in the study. Yours are a bunch of hogwash newspaper reports (more like editorials) that I scanned - though the LA times article cites the report I posted above.

So, in sum, the stuff he cited sums up what you cited, but you failed to notice that before you tried to skewer him for not reading your links? Et tu Brute?

Here's Romney's "Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth." It's long, but I don't see how you could read this and think we're in for more Obama-style economic governance.



http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The President gets too much credit when the economy is doing well and too much blame when it is not doing well. Between the Fed, Congress and the fact that we have a $13 trillion economy it is somewhat misguided in my view to argue that the President can or will tank the economy or revive it. That said, in the end, Mr. Romney was 100% correct in stating that cutting government spending would have a negative impact on our economy, at least in the short term. That does not mean we might not want to go ahead and do it. But taking dollars out of the economy (not reallocating them) will have that effect.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Here's Romney's "Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth." It's long, but I don't see how you could read this and think we're in for more Obama-style economic governance.



http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read pages 135-145 and you will see Romney talks a good game but when it comes to actual cuts he is not for them. The most his plan does is to make smaller increases in future spending. This is something that is 1) less likely to work in than cuts and 2) not politically feasible (as demonstrated by Europe).



BTW here is the link in full. Not sure what happened to the other Figured it out when I copied and pasted from the original post it didn't copy the full link:

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/app/webroot/files/faculty/2_Fiscal%20Adjustments_lessons.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



And I did read the newspaper articles you cited.

snoscythe wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
And you didn't read mine either.

Your newspaper quotes support my argument. Why should I read dummied-down versions of what I posted? The reports I posted use data to show fiscal plans that fail to cut spending (like Romney's) are less likely to produce growth according to the metric used in the study. Yours are a bunch of hogwash newspaper reports (more like editorials) that I scanned - though the LA times article cites the report I posted above.

So, in sum, the stuff he cited sums up what you cited, but you failed to notice that before you tried to skewer him for not reading your links? Et tu Brute?

His conclusion was not based on the data.

jvquarterback wrote:
Read pages 135-145 and you will see Romney talks a good game but when it comes to actual cuts he is not for them. The most his plan does is to make smaller increases in future spending. This is something that is 1) less likely to work in than cuts and 2) not politically feasible (as demonstrated by Europe).



BTW here is the link in full. Not sure what happened to the other Figured it out when I copied and pasted from the original post it didn't copy the full link:

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/app/webroot/files/faculty/2_Fiscal%20Adjustments_lessons.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



And I did read the newspaper articles you cited.

That's because, unlike Ron Paul, Mitt actually understands you can't make drastic cuts (like 25% off the top, immediately). You are going to have to use a weeing process to a certain extent. But guess what? If he's able to get to a balanced budget, you will see the cuts you are asking for.

Your Harvard paper was 18 pages of not much. It basically said you can't just cut your way out of deficits and you can't just tax your wait out either. It also said that political will to follow through with measures promised in campaigns is the real culprit.



For instance, if Obama had made good on his promises to cut the deficit in half in his first term and to go through the budget line by line and kill programs that don't work and make the other work more efficiently this election wouldn't even be in doubt.



Your problem is that you don't think Mitt doesn't have the balls to follow through. I happen to think he does. We haven't had a real executive in 25 years in the White House. I think Mitt is greatly poised to be a great leader because I think he can follow through with the decisions that need to be made.

I also fail to see how some can't see that Mitt would be the same as Obama when it comes to the economy. He understands business, Obama clearly doesn't. Obama doesn't even understand the rules he puts in place and how they obstruct business.



See Mitt's response during the TIME interview when it comes to energy policy. I bet Obama never thought that the cost of energy is something businesses need to consider. Obama is oblivious to the cost of business. Mitt isn't.



It is Mitt's experience, knowledge and expertise in economic matters that is going to win him the election.