Romney: "Cutting Government Spending Would Shrink Economy"

Let me sum all y'all up.



here you go



http://mittromneycentral.com/uploads/Romney-v-Obama1.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

CougarClaw wrote:
Let me sum all y'all up.



here you go



http://mittromneycentral.com/uploads/Romney-v-Obama1.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

That's all I need to know.

SpiffCoug 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.

Of course you can make the cuts and you only need the executive office for many of them. 25% decreases in US federal government outlays occurred twice in the 20th century as I mentioned before (in the early 1920s and at the end of WWII) both times resulting in enormous growth.



Romney's plan, if you care to read what you posted above, calls for a 5% reduction in non-military spending. If you dig further you will find that Romney is unclear as to whether he is calling for a 5% decrease in spending or a 5% decrease in future increases in spending. If we are to believe what Romney has said about decreasing government spending in other instances it should be clear he does not favor any decreases in actual spending and only "wants" decreases in rates of future spending (if he can be believed at all). According to the data this approach is much less likely to succeed in producing economic growth than actual decreases in government spending.



In fact Romney's is the same plan Obama favors.

I would very much agree that a 5% decrease in actual spending is much preferential to a simple decrease in the increase.



I guess we're arguing degrees. You think if you're going to 1% in (Romney) you may as well go 100% in (Obama). I don't.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I would very much agree that a 5% decrease in actual spending is much preferential to a simple decrease in the increase.



I guess we're arguing degrees. You think if you're going to 1% in (Romney) you may as well go 100% in (Obama). I don't.

Too bad Romney doesn't agree. His proposal is only for decreases in future increases. And it isn't even a 5% decrease in future increases - he excludes military spending so it is only 3.8%.



More importantly you are as far from integral in you argument as you can possibly be. If 25% cuts are such a bad thing then so is a 5% cut. At least Romney is consistent (and with Obama) on the economics.

I don't consider 5% to be drastic. 25% would be.

We are at a point that something "drastic" (I think of it as logical) has to be done. Cut spending now and prevent future starvation and additional loss of liberty. We are becoming a slave to our debt and we are also continually putting that burden on future generations because we have become a society that can only stomach cutting back an out of control budget by 5%???



Let's step into reality, when you have over 15 trillion in debt, 5% cut is not going to get the job done. Especially when it doesn't even provide a 5% cut as jvquarterback outlined. Drastic spending cuts or drastic tax increases are going to have to happen eventually (anyone notice what the USA's S&P rating is?), or I guess the US could just become part of the UN who I'm sure would "solve" all of our problems.



As I've said before, Romney is probably a swell guy, but I think a lot of you are defending his position simply because he's Romney. The defence of a democrat on this board would not be nearly as fierce if he/she were proposing a wimpy 5% spending decrease. This is Romney being typical Romney, he's saying what he thinks will attract the most voters. He's a career politician with a history of pandering to certain groups when it's convenient. Which is why I don't think things will change when/if he's elected.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-07/krugman-anti-austerity-jab-irks-budget-champ-estonia.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Well it is working for Estonia

of course it is.

BroncoBot wrote:
We are at a point that something "drastic" (I think of it as logical) has to be done. Cut spending now and prevent future starvation and additional loss of liberty. We are becoming a slave to our debt and we are also continually putting that burden on future generations because we have become a society that can only stomach cutting back an out of control budget by 5%???



Let's step into reality, when you have over 15 trillion in debt, 5% cut is not going to get the job done. Especially when it doesn't even provide a 5% cut as jvquarterback outlined. Drastic spending cuts or drastic tax increases are going to have to happen eventually (anyone notice what the USA's S&P rating is?), or I guess the US could just become part of the UN who I'm sure would "solve" all of our problems.



As I've said before, Romney is probably a swell guy, but I think a lot of you are defending his position simply because he's Romney. The defence of a democrat on this board would not be nearly as fierce if he/she were proposing a wimpy 5% spending decrease. This is Romney being typical Romney, he's saying what he thinks will attract the most voters. He's a career politician with a history of pandering to certain groups when it's convenient. Which is why I don't think things will change when/if he's elected.

You're assuming a lot.

Feel free to point out my assumptions (if assumptions aren't your cup of tea, is a site like this worth reading?), I won't be offended.

I just heard an ad paid for by Obama on Pandora. HE claimed that Massachusetts under Romney fell to 47 of 50 states in the nation as far as economy goes.



Funny that Barack is criticizing Romney for doing the same thing he has done the last 4 years.

Would someone please put this thread out of its misery.