Ron Paul Only GOP Candidate to Cut Debt

[cheguevara]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/report-ron-paul-only-gop-candidate-cut-debt

Over the course of this year’s primary, all of the GOP candidates have paid lip service to the idea of tackling the debt. But according to a new report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, only one candidate’s overall combination of tax reforms and spending cuts would actually reduce the total federal debt over the next decade. That candidate is Ron Paul.

CRFB’s estimates indicate that Ron Paul’s policies would reduce the debt by about $2.2 trillion by 2021 under an intermediate-debt scenario, which interprets the candidate’s policies in a way that assumes neither extremely aggressive nor particularly lax policy and implementation choices. Under the same scenario, Rick Santorum’s proposed policies would lift total federal debt by $4.5 trillion. Newt Gingrich’s plans, taken all together, would hike federal debt by about $7 trillion.

Mitt Romney’s headline numbers are better than those posted by Gingrich and Santorum, but only in the sense that they are less bad: CRFB estimates that the former governor's policies would lift the debt by $250 billion by 2021 relative what it would otherwise be.

But Romney’s proposals are missing the sort of detail necessary to really know how they might work. His campaign has suggested it will close a number tax loopholes in order to help fund tax reform, but hasn't said which ones. And although he’s named targets for domestic and defense spending reductions, he hasn’t said exactly what he’ll cut in order to achieve those reductions. (As I’ve noted before, we have a better idea about how Mitt Romney will not cut federal spending than we do about how he would.)

How is it that Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich would end up increasing the federal debt? It’s pretty simple, really: They would cut taxes, but wouldn’t cut spending to match. Santorum’s policies would reduce spending by a little more than $2 trillion, but would cut taxes by $6 trillion. Gingrich would cut slightly more in spending—about $2.7 trillion—but would cut taxes by $7 trillion and actually add $1.6 trillion in spending to overhaul Social Security, among other policy changes. Romney’s vague plans score better, but wouldn’t reduce the debt, and would probably push it slightly higher than it otherwise would have been.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, would cut taxes, but he’d cut spending even more. His tax cuts would reduce the tax burden by $5.2 trillion; meanwhile, he would reduce spending by $7.2 trillion.

(These numbers are produced under what the report’s authors call a “realistic baseline,” which includes policies that are not currently law but are expected to eventually pass, like the extension of the Bush tax cuts, are included.)

[boutons_deux]

Randian Paul's cutting spending is dead in the water. Paul ain't gonna accomplish shit, ain't gonna pass shit about anything.

[cheguevara]

this link is dedicated to Dumpster :lmao

http://rt.com/usa/news/debt-paul-santorum-budget-053/
Ron Paul's plan: the only one that cuts debt, study shows

Under President Ron Paul, the US could see around $2 trillion taken off of future borrowing, explains the group.
Taking into account several scenarios of varying risk, Paul repeatedly comes out as the true fiscal conservative in the group’s report. Estimating the debt impact of each candidate in an “intermediate-debt scenario,” the group says Congressman Paul would be the only candidate to decrease that statistic. Under a Paul plan, America could expect to see the debt impact in relation to the country’s gross domestic product decrease by 9 percent, while on the other side of the spectrum, a Gingrich White House would increase that impact by 30 percent.

[cheguevara]

Randian Paul's cutting spending is dead in the water. Paul ain't gonna accomplish shit, ain't gonna pass shit about anything.

The knock on the candidate comparison is that Ron Paul’s plans aren’t realistic. But letting the debt continue on its current unsustainable trajectory—or rise by trillions, as Santorum and Newt likely would—isn’t realistic either.

[Blake]

Did they factor in the moon colonies when they figured Newt's numbers?

[ChumpDumper]

this link is dedicated to Dumpster :lmao

http://rt.com/usa/news/debt-paul-santorum-budget-053/
Ron Paul's plan: the only one that cuts debt, study shows

Under President Ron Paul, the US could see around $2 trillion taken off of future borrowing, explains the group.
Taking into account several scenarios of varying risk, Paul repeatedly comes out as the true fiscal conservative in the group’s report. Estimating the debt impact of each candidate in an “intermediate-debt scenario,” the group says Congressman Paul would be the only candidate to decrease that statistic. Under a Paul plan, America could expect to see the debt impact in relation to the country’s gross domestic product decrease by 9 percent, while on the other side of the spectrum, a Gingrich White House would increase that impact by 30 percent.You never showed how VOA spreads pro-Obama propaganda.

You should dedicate a link showing that to me.

I'm still waiting.

[Jacob1983]

We already knew this but it's good to see. Hopefully, people will open their eyes and see the truth.

[boutons_deux]

Here's some troof!

Pres Randian Paul would be very indebted to this guy, who is of course buying Randian Paul as any politician is bought

Ron Paul Wants to Abolish the CIA; His Largest Donor Builds Toys for It

If there’s one thing that distinguishes Ron Paul from the rest of the GOP field, it’s his principled stand against American empire and his ardent defense of individual liberties. Paul’s opposition to wars, bloated defense budgets and government espionage of US citizens has made him a hero among some young conservatives. His seemingly rock-solid principles and radicalism has even drawn some on the left; unlike even left-wing Democrats, Paul has said he wants to abolish both the CIA and the FBI to protect individual “liberty.”

So it should come as a shock and disappointment to his followers that Ron Paul’s single largest donor—his Sheldon Adelson, as it were—founded a controversial defense contractor, Palantir Technologies, that profits from government espionage work for the CIA, FBI and other agencies, and which last year was caught organizing an illegal spy ring targeting American political opponents of the US Chamber of Commerce, including journalists, progressive activists and union leaders. (Palantir takes its name from the mystic stones used by characters in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings to spy one another.)

According to recently filed FEC disclosure documents, Ron Paul’s Super PAC has received nearly all of its money from a single source, billionaire Peter Thiel. So far, Thiel has contributed $2.6 million to Ron Paul’s Super PAC, Endorse Liberty, providing 76 percent of the Super PAC’s total intake.

http://www.thenation.com/article/166421/ron-paul-wants-abolish-cia-his-largest-donor-builds-toys-it

[SA210]

Here's some troof!

Pres Randian Paul would be very indebted to this guy, who is of course buying Randian Paul as any politician is bought

Ron Paul Wants to Abolish the CIA; His Largest Donor Builds Toys for It

If there’s one thing that distinguishes Ron Paul from the rest of the GOP field, it’s his principled stand against American empire and his ardent defense of individual liberties. Paul’s opposition to wars, bloated defense budgets and government espionage of US citizens has made him a hero among some young conservatives. His seemingly rock-solid principles and radicalism has even drawn some on the left; unlike even left-wing Democrats, Paul has said he wants to abolish both the CIA and the FBI to protect individual “liberty.”

So it should come as a shock and disappointment to his followers that Ron Paul’s single largest donor—his Sheldon Adelson, as it were—founded a controversial defense contractor, Palantir Technologies, that profits from government espionage work for the CIA, FBI and other agencies, and which last year was caught organizing an illegal spy ring targeting American political opponents of the US Chamber of Commerce, including journalists, progressive activists and union leaders. (Palantir takes its name from the mystic stones used by characters in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings to spy one another.)

According to recently filed FEC disclosure documents, Ron Paul’s Super PAC has received nearly all of its money from a single source, billionaire Peter Thiel. So far, Thiel has contributed $2.6 million to Ron Paul’s Super PAC, Endorse Liberty, providing 76 percent of the Super PAC’s total intake.

http://www.thenation.com/article/166421/ron-paul-wants-abolish-cia-his-largest-donor-builds-toys-it

So are you saying he really doesn't plan on ending the CIA?

[boutons_deux]

Randian Paul ain't gonna start or end anything, not the CIA, not the FDA, not the EPA, not SEC, etc, etc.

I don't care what what he says he wants to do, he won't ever accomplish any of it.

[boutons_deux]

More proof that Repugs campaign on the disinterest and ignorance of their base.

After screaming about deficits (exclusively caused by Barry's excessive spending, of course), a fat, white Southern asshole blurts:


Former GOP Governor Dismisses Romney’s Budget-Busting Tax Cuts: ‘Voters Aren’t Analysts’

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/26/432562/gop-governor-dismiss-romney-tax-cuts/

===============

Three GOP Candidates' Plans Would Increase Debt

GOP presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are touting policies that would push the debt beyond current projections - largely because their proposed tax cuts would outweigh spending cuts. Only Ron Paul's plans would begin to sharply decrease the debt, according to a report Thursday from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The analysis shows how difficult it will be for any president to change the trajectory of the debt. And it underscores the need for bipartisan efforts to increase revenue and curb spending, particularly as an aging population is about to drastically drive up Medicare costs, the group said.

"I don't think cutting revenues further is the responsible thing to do - and they all do it," said Alice Rivlin, referring to the Republican candidates. Rivlin, the founding director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, is a director of the budget watchdog group that released the analysis.

"We're not going to be able to absorb this tsunami of seniors and their need for health care with the revenue we have," she said.

http://www.truth-out.org/print/12927

=========================

and of course, the 0.001%-er takes care of himself, at least he didn't bother lying about trickle down:

Romney’s New Tax Plan Gives The Richest 0.1% A $264,000 Tax Cut

Romney had said that he’s not concerned about the very rich and is “proposing no tax cuts for the rich.” But during this week’s GOP primary debate, he reneged on that position, saying, “number one, I said that we’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent.”

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20taxtable.png

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/24/431844/romney-tax-cut-half-benefits-rich/

========

Where's The Beef about Deficits? :lol

[spursncowboys]

None of Paul's ideas would clear Congress.

[Goran Dragic]

None of Paul's ideas would clear Congress.
lol regurgitating Rick Santorum's arguments
lol neoconservative puppet
lol gone but not forgotten

[Wild Cobra]

None of Paul's ideas would clear Congress.
Probably so, but how many spending packages from congress would be vetoed?

[SA210]

Probably so, but how many spending packages from congress would be vetoed?

:tu

[boutons_deux]

'spending packages from congress would be vetoed"

Repugs blocked and will continue to block job creation spending, infrastructure spending, general stimulus spending.

[SA210]

He would stop war spending

[boutons_deux]

no, he wouldn't stop war spending, the MIC is out of control and out of civilian control

[Wild Cobra]

'spending packages from congress would be vetoed"

Repugs blocked and will continue to block job creation spending, infrastructure spending, general stimulus spending.
You cannot spend your way into job creation. That no longer works because we are in a global economy.

[boutons_deux]

"You cannot spend your way into job creation."

Propose cutting the defense budget recently, and the Repugs screamed about the 1000s of jobs that would be lost (in their own districts and states). Defense and other govt spending porked into their own districts and states creates jobs that gets Congresscritters votes.

[boutons_deux]

Four Fiscal Phonies

Mitt Romney is very concerned about budget deficits. Or at least that's what he says; he likes to warn that President Obama's deficits are leading us toward a "Greece-style collapse."

So why is Mr. Romney offering a budget proposal that would lead to much larger debt and deficits than the corresponding proposal from the Obama administration?

Of course, Mr. Romney isn't alone in his hypocrisy. In fact, all four significant Republican presidential candidates still standing are fiscal phonies. They issue apocalyptic warnings about the dangers of government debt and, in the name of deficit reduction, demand savage cuts in programs that protect the middle class and the poor. But then they propose squandering all the money thereby saved - and much, much more - on tax cuts for the rich.

And nobody should be surprised. It has been obvious all along, to anyone paying attention, that the politicians shouting loudest about deficits are actually using deficit hysteria as a cover story for their real agenda, which is top-down class warfare. To put it in Romneyesque terms, it's all about finding an excuse to slash programs that help people who like to watch Nascar events, even while lavishing tax cuts on people who like to own Nascar teams.

O.K., let's talk about the numbers.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget recently published an overview of the budget proposals of the four "major" Republican candidates and, in a separate report, examined the latest Obama budget. I am not, by the way, a big fan of the committee's general role in our policy discourse; I think it has been pushing premature deficit reduction and diverting attention from the more immediately urgent task of reducing unemployment. But the group is honest and technically competent, so its evaluation provides a very useful reference point.

And here's what it tells us: According to an "intermediate debt scenario," the budget proposals of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney would all lead to much higher debt a decade from now than the proposals in the 2013 Obama budget. Ron Paul would do better, roughly matching Mr. Obama. But if you look at the details, it turns out that Mr. Paul is assuming trillions of dollars in unspecified and implausible spending cuts. So, in the end, he's really a spendthrift, too.

( iow, Randian Paul is as lost in his libertarian fantasy land in economics as he is everywhere else )


Is there any way to make the G.O.P. proposals seem fiscally responsible? Well, no - not unless you believe in magic. Sure enough, voodoo economics is making a big comeback, with Mr. Romney, in particular, asserting that his tax cuts wouldn't actually explode the deficit because they would promote faster economic growth and this would raise revenue.

And you might find this plausible if you spent the past two decades sleeping in a cave somewhere. If you didn't, you probably remember that the same people now telling us what great things tax cuts would do for growth assured us that Bill Clinton's tax increase in 1993 would lead to economic disaster, while George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 would create vast prosperity. Somehow, neither of those predictions worked out.

So the Republicans screaming about the evils of deficits would not, in fact, reduce the deficit - and, in fact, would do the opposite. What, then, would their policies accomplish? The answer is that they would achieve a major redistribution of income away from working-class Americans toward the very, very rich.

Another nonpartisan group, the Tax Policy Center, has analyzed Mr. Romney's tax proposal. It found that, compared with current policy, the proposal would actually raise taxes on the poorest 20 percent of Americans, while imposing drastic cuts in programs like Medicaid that provide a safety net for the less fortunate. (Although right-wingers like to portray Medicaid as a giveaway to the lazy, the bulk of its money goes to children, disabled, and the elderly.)

But the richest 1 percent would receive large tax cuts - and the richest 0.1 percent would do even better, with the average member of this elite group paying $1.1 million a year less in taxes than he or she would if the high-end Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire.

There's one more thing you should know about the Republican proposals: Not only are they fiscally irresponsible and tilted heavily against working Americans, they're also terrible policy for a nation suffering from a depressed economy in the short run even as it faces long-run budget problems.

Put it this way: Are you worried about a "Greek-style collapse"? Well, these plans would slash spending in the near term, emulating Europe's catastrophic austerity, even while locking in budget-busting tax cuts for the future.

The question now is whether someone offering this toxic combination of irresponsibility, class warfare, and hypocrisy can actually be elected president.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=919833&f=28&sub=Columnist