Reply With Quote
lol yr "hey, big spender" take
I could see Romney reeling back regs considerably. If elected, he can basically do that by appointment.
That's classified.
lol yr "hey, big spender" take
I could see Romney reeling back regs considerably. If elected, he can basically do that by appointment.
He's a good looking guy.lol yr "hey, big spender" take
the effect of Romney's squarish good looks on other men, is apparently not negligible, yes.
Yeah, because Fed-created bubbles have been SO great for the goal of building a stable economy....
Bill Black: Romney Takes His Political Inspiration from Europe’s Worst Mistakes
1. Austerity. European austerity has promptly forced the Eurozone back into recession. Romney, channeling Germany’s Prime Minister Merkel, claims that deficits are “immoral” and must be ended. Austerity is pro-cyclical policy that makes recessions far more severe. It has pushed several European nations into Great Depression levels of unemployment, which has reduced income and tax revenues and increased budget deficits. The EU’s Stability and Growth Pact (an oxymoron designed by regular morons) produces instability and negative growth by banning EU nations from using effective counter-cyclical fiscal policies that have proven successful for decades in reducing the severity and length of recessions.
2. Slashing working class wages. Ryan is an implacable opponent of unions and wants to end the minimum wage. Merkel is demanding the repeal of European laws protecting workers and is coercing the periphery to reduce working class wages. Unemployment rates are roughly 25% in Spain and Greece and the unemployment rate for the young is nearly 50%. The old sick joke is true again in Ireland – its leading export is the Irish. Real wages in Europe has fallen and unemployment has increased sharply.
3. Ryan wants to remove the Federal Reserve’s statutory mandate to seek full employment consistent with price stability and have it subject to a solitary mandate to maintain price stability. That mimics the disastrous single mandate of the European Central Bank (ECB). The ECB lacks the legal authority to help the nations of Europe respond to the worst economic catastrophe since the devastation caused by World War II. It is an insane policy. The ECB’s crippled mandate meant that our Federal Reserve had to intervene in Europe to save several European Central Banks from collapse, which could have led to a global depression. Ryan wants to adopt a European policy that has proven grotesquely self-destructive.
4. Romney wants to end any vigorous financial regulation. He is inspired by the now infamous European “lite touch” regulation. The United Kingdom (UK) epitomized lite touch regulation. The failure of most of the UK’s largest banks, the Libor, HSBC, and Standard Chartered scandals and the allegedly rogue operation of JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Office in the City of London cons ute a record of failure and scandal without equal. Romney and Ryan oppose any serious regulation of banking and call for the immediate repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act in its entirety and the re-adoption of European-style “lite touch” regulation.
5. Romney’s lead economic advisor, N. Gregory Mankiw, continues to champion the regulatory “compe ion in laxity” that produced the “race to the bottom” that simultaneously destroyed effective financial regulation throughout the developed world. This perverse dynamic has created the criminogenic environments that drive our recurrent, intensifying financial crises. Mankiw is pushing the “need” for the U.S. to win that race to the bottom against the City of London. The only way to “win” a race to the bottom is to refuse to race, but Mankiw takes his policy inspiration from Europe and the City of London. Mankiw’s advice has caused Romney to ignore the recurrent disasters and the warnings of effective regulators, economists, and white-collar criminologists that his European-inspired anti-regulatory policies are criminogenic.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/...8pZYMFii5Up.99
Quick question..who was the last republican president to actually shrink the government?
Nixon retreating from Vietnam, I think I read somewhere. In terms of real spending anyway . . . dunno about the payroll.
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...the-ryan-plan/With the Romney campaign’s selection of Paul Ryan for the VP slot, the pundits have naturally focused again on the Fiscal Year 2013 House Budget Resolution, or what is popularly known as “the Ryan Plan.” Progressive critics deride the proposal as a merciless product of Randian thinking, but in reality it is quite timid. Even if everything happened exactly as called for in the Ryan Plan, the federal budget wouldn’t be balanced for another twenty-seven years. Indeed, if Romney and Ryan are elected and can implement the Plan with no opposition, they will still add far, far more debt in their two terms than Bill Clinton did. Is this really the work of a serious policy wonk who understands how dire our fiscal situation is?
Before diving into the numbers, let’s refresh our memories as to the reaction from many on the left when the news first broke. To take just one example, here is Ryan Lizza in a New Yorker post from August 11, 2012, the morning of the announcement:
Presumably, Romney’s main reason for picking Ryan is … his more recent rise to celebrity as a crusading policy wonk determined to tame the federal government. Romney, who has been extremely vague about what he would do if elected, will now own Paul Ryan’s ideas, which include privatizing Social Security, turning Medicare into a voucher program, bloc-granting and drastically cutting Medicaid, and reducing discretionary spending to levels that would affect every popular government program. This Ryan agenda will now fill the vacuum created by Romney’s unwillingness to lay out the specifics of his own plan. Even before this (apparent) announcement, Democrats were planning on tying Romney to Ryan’s policy platform. Now Romney has done it for them.Yet the most Absurd Quotation award goes to Jacob Weisberg, whom Paul Krugman cited when Romney picked Ryan. Back in 2011 in his Slate column, Weisberg originally had thought Paul Ryan was a serious policy wonk, but then apologized to his readers for being hoodwinked by the Congressman and dishonest right-wingers:
After my last column, I got pummeled in the liberal blogosphere for asserting that the Ryan budget represented a big step in the direction of conservative honesty. I deserved some of the abuse. Though I criticized Ryan for his unsupported rosy assumptions (shame on you, Heritage Foundation hacks), I reacted too quickly and didn’t sort out just how laughable Ryan’s long-term spending projections were. His plan projects an absurd future, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in which all discretionary spending, now around 12 percent of GDP, shrinks to 3 percent of GDP by 2050. Defense spending alone was 4.7 percent of GDP in 2009. With numbers like that, Ryan is more an anarchist-libertarian than honest conservative.So, is this analysis right? Is Ryan’s budget plan so fiscally conservative, that it actually crosses over into “anarchist-libertarian” territory?
Hardly. The first jaw-dropping fact—in light of the commentary above—is that Ryan’s plan doesn’t even call for a balanced budget until the year 2040. Don’t believe me? Read it for yourself on page 84 of the actual proposal [.pdf]. There, the analysis proudly declares: “The CBO estimates that this budget [i.e. the Ryan proposal] will produce annual surpluses by 2040 and begin paying down the national debt after that.”
Indeed, if you look at Table S-1 (p. 88), you will see that the Ryan budget estimates that over its first ten years, it will add $3.1 trillion to the federal debt held by the public. Over that decade, the lowest the deficit gets (in absolute dollar terms) is $166 billion in Fiscal Year 2018, and at the end of the decade—i.e., in FY 2022—the Ryan Plan projects the federal budget deficit will have risen back up to $287 billion. Remember everyone, this estimate of a $287 billion federal budget deficit occurs in the tenth year after the Ryan Plan kicks in.
Another interesting fact: Over the first decade of reform, the Ryan Plan calls for federal spending to average 20.0% of real GDP. Yet as the below chart from the St. Louis Fed shows, the ratio of Net Federal Outlays over GDP has typically been far less:
As the chart shows, federal spending exceeded 20 percent of GDP from the Carter years onward, with the notable exception of the Bill Clinton presidency (perhaps because of the Republican Congress). Speaking of the Clinton years, during his tenure (from FY 1993 to FY 2001), the federal debt held by the public increased a grand total of…$72 billion. (See Appendix F in the CBO’s recent fiscal outlook. Remember that there were a few on-budget surpluses during these years.) Compare this to the Ryan Plan, which during its first eight years calls for an increase in the public debt of $2.7 trillion.
In conclusion, regardless of whether the Ryan Plan is specific enough about its revenue forecasts and spending provisions, the simple fact is that even on its own terms the budget resolution is woefully inadequate. It doesn’t even pretend to balance the budget for almost three decades. Far from being “anarchist-libertarian,” it shouldn’t even qualify as serious or conservative.
"shouldn’t even qualify as serious or conservative"
AC sounds just like Krugman who also said Ryan was unserious (but his article on Ryan was much more aggressive and deNIGRAting).
Ryan is being welcomed as great financial/policy guru by Repugs (but they always push fraud and lies).
Ryan himself admits he "hasn't run the numbers"
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-23-2012 at 01:48 PM.
AC is itself a joke because it concentrates on the deficit rather than how Ryan increases the deficit by $5T+ while cutting 1%/corporate taxes by about the same $Ts, pushing Gecko taxes (on declared income, not the evaded stuff overseas) down to about 1%.
so then, you agree to agree with AC, which btw mentions the swelling deficit under the Ryan plan in the posted.
exactly, and if not for the war you'd probably have to go back further...Point being that there really aren't any choices anymore in terms of a republican president who would actually shrink government
It seems that government will perpetually grow, regardless of who is in power.
And right-wing hacks continue to talk about small government, reducing this and reducing that, when none of those things actually happen. Or, if they do, they're offset by expansions in other areas. It's appalling to me, and why I can't see myself ever voting republican again.
What happens to a balloon if you keep filling it with air and it keeps expanding?
but they don't mention his $5T in 1% + corp tax cuts (aka, a "revenue problem"), which AC supports without hesitation. they only hawk about the "spending" and deficit problem.
I'd say that any plan that projects 30 years out should be laughed at on principle. What plan lasts even 10 years, let alone 30, in Congress?
we can look at the last 10 years of Repug tax cuts and how they have cratered the deficit with a revenue problem, and easily, reliably predict that Ryans' $5T in tax cuts will make the deficit worse.
Easily.
bull . i'll need a cite for that. AC is down on corporate welfare, bot.
bot's don't cite. Just cut n paste parrot food.
bull , I'll need a cite for that.
lol deflection.
You made the initial assertion...up to you to support it.
We know you can't, tho. So, don't bother.
Here. Use this: http://www.essaygenerator.com/
It's quick and makes more sense than your usual mishmash of blog points.
The thing with that chart. Historical numbers tell us that 18.3% is the level at which we can run no deficit.
if we grant that for the sake of argument, what does it tell you that Ryan plans to cut spending to 20% of GDP and no further?
LOL...
Good one...
Parrot food...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
