What's new

Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
Republican Tax Plans Won't Stop National Debt From Swelling: Study

Posted: 02/23/12 01:23 PM ET


REUTERS


* Front-runners' tax cuts seen outweighing spending cuts

* Gingrich, Santorum's plans would add most to national debt

* Paul's plan could produce some cuts, but not significant

By David Lawder

WASHINGTON, Feb 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. national debt will continue to swell under the tax-cut plans floated by the top four Republican presidential candidates, according to an independent analysis of their fiscal policy proposals released on Thursday.

Plans put forth by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would pile up the largest increases in debt, while Mitt Romney's would add a smaller amount of debt over the next decade compared with debt growth if tax policies implemented by former President George W. Bush are kept in place.

The report from U.S. Budget Watch, a project of the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, aims to apply a reality check to the claims being made on the campaign trail.

Republicans jockeying for their party's nomination for the Nov. 6 election are promising to fuel growth with tax and spending cuts and bashing Democratic President Barack Obama's calls to raise taxes on the wealthy.

"Are they making proposals that risk making the debt problem worse?" said Alice Rivlin, a former head of the Congressional Budget Office and Federal Reserve vice chairman who now serves on the group's board. "On that score, all of these candidates fail. They all reduce the revenue that is available to the government over time."

The group offered three scenarios for each candidate's proposals - the most pessimistic gives them credit for all vague, non-specific spending cut percentage goals they have put forth. The most pessimistic excludes non-specific and politically unlikely proposals, while a middle scenario provides credit for some of these proposals for discretionary spending cuts.


ANALYSING THE PLANS

The group said the middle path for Gingrich would add $7 trillion to the national debt by 2021 versus the baseline, largely because he has proposed deep tax cuts for individuals and corporations, including an alternative 15 percent "flat tax."

This would boost debt as a share of the overall economy to 114 percent in 2021 from the current level of about 70 percent, compared with an anticipated 2021 baseline level of 85 percent.

The middle scenario for Santorum's plan would add $4.5 trillion to the debt, also due to tax cuts. The scenario excludes a pledge by Santorum "to commit to cut $5 trillion in federal spending within five years" because these cuts were not specified. The debt-to-gross domestic product ratio would rise to 104 percent under this plan.

Romney's middle-path analysis would see a $250 billion increase in debt by 2021 as more of his spending cuts were specified, including deep federal workforce cuts and reducing the Medicaid healthcare program for the poor to a block grant program for the states. The debt-to-GDP ratio would end up at 86 percent under this plan, 1 percentage point above the baseline.

Ron Paul's middle scenario was the only one to reduce debt compared with the baseline - by $2.2 trillion - largely due to deep spending cuts on benefit programs and elimination of five federal departments and many State Department programs.

But the more pessimistic program scenario for Paul shows that it would boost debt by $1.9 trillion. The 76 percent and 93 percent debt-to-GDP ratio under these two Paul scenarios would still be above the current level of 70 percent.

"Unfortunately we're not at a place where we can balance the budget in the short term unless there is tremendous economic growth," said Maya MacGuineas, the group's president. She added that the goal should be to keep the rate of debt accumulation below the economy's growth rate.
 

ShroomDr

CartoonHead
Veteran
when its one person you are going back and forth with, and you keep getting 0 outta 1, the 'anonymous' lacks anonymity.

You cant cut taxes and the deficit, without doing it on the average americans back.
 

zymos

Jammin'!
Veteran
"You may not vote on any more threads today."

I just woke up, and I'm already out of gold stars!? :nono:
 

JJScorpio

Thunderstruck
ICMag Donor
Veteran
If you think Rand "endorsing" Romneys policies by saying "he would be honored to be his VP" doesn't hurt Ron Paul then I have to disagree. But I guess time will tell......



Lol really? Boy I really think their are a lotta scared people. So a media whore clown asks about being considered for VP and Rand is polite and responds as I think anyone and frankly almost every person I've ever seen asked on TV does and its supposes to "mean" something...ya I guess..the missing part of the puzzle that isn't presented is he wouldn't do it..asked by national whore press of course he's very polite and says what anyone would. I believe this is manufactured propaganda not news. Again this is just my opinion. Key thing is I understand their positions and support them, this garbage is being targeted at folks like me as well as potential Paul supporters in an effort to harm his credibility ...to me that seems obvious but if you believe it then ok we'll see. Don't hold your breathe.
 

MadBuddhaAbuser

Kush, Sour Diesel, Puday boys
Veteran
Republican Tax Plans Won't Stop National Debt From Swelling: Study

Posted: 02/23/12 01:23 PM ET


REUTERS


* Front-runners' tax cuts seen outweighing spending cuts

* Gingrich, Santorum's plans would add most to national debt


Ron Paul's middle scenario was the only one to reduce debt compared with the baseline - by $2.2 trillion - largely due to deep spending cuts on benefit programs and elimination of five federal departments and many State Department .

"Unfortunately we're not at a place where we can balance the budget in the short term unless there is tremendous economic growth," said Maya MacGuineas, the group's president. She added that the goal should be to keep the rate of debt accumulation below the economy's growth rate.

Its weird seeing even reuters with a slant, they admit only ron pauls plan would lower debt, but try to offset that by showing only rons pessimistic analysis.

I'm sure the other candidates would have d some startling numbers on a pessimistic analysis.
 

bentom187

Active member
Veteran

Attachments

  • obamadstar.jpg
    obamadstar.jpg
    54.4 KB · Views: 9

gaiusmarius

me
Veteran
the thing about RP's plan is that it involves shoring up social security with a realistic plan while doing all the other stuff about cutting foreign aid etc and bringing US soldiers home to spend their salaries at home and spend their time doing useful stuff for the actual US. non of the others plans even addresses how to finance bankrupt programs like social security. the more i hear him go into details, the more i like his ideas. but as soon as i watch main stream news and listen to the talking heads tell me what Ron Paul stands for and what he will do, i think oh no, that will never work, or is a bad idea. but then when i finally find him speaking on the subject all of a sudden it all makes sense. this is because they lie and misrepresent his ideas as much as they can get away with in the msm. so before you think you know his exact stance on anything thats important to you, i would highly suggest to look up his most recent speeches where he covers the subjects. you will see it's all in the detail. when you see how he wants to implement his ideas, to what effect, he ends up being the only one with a real plan. apart from anything else, do we really want to have the US in perpetual war with multiple nations, that's what every other candidate is offering. don't assume you know his stance unless you heard it from his mouth.

don't we want to see an end to the unjust war waged on the population of the planet in the name of fighting drugs. Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to stop the war on drugs and release non violent drug offenders. are we not sick of having the governments of the world waging war on their people to appease the US drug hypocrisy? the cia imports the shit and the justice department locks you up if they find some on you after they sell it to you.

this is like a chance in a life time to have a real man in the office of US president. one who still has empathy for his fellow man in his heart. not like the cold hearted mass murdering monsters we've had in that office for the last i don't know how many years.
 

draztik

Well-known member
Veteran
New Video! Veterans for Ron Paul DC March
[YOUTUBEIF]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_i_moQMsM9I[/YOUTUBEIF]
 

dagnabit

Game Bred
Veteran
Bottom line...
Had we elected the good doc in any of our last presidential runs we would be better off today. Why would this time be any different?
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
the thing about RP's plan is that it involves shoring up social security

You think? Ron Paul would wax SS if the electorate would allow it. W tried to privatize SS and the electorate said no. And this was years before the Wall Street mortgage security bust.

When a conservative tells you they'll shore up SS, they're talking private sector. Whether it's totally private where you're contributions are earned and lost in the stock market, all the way down to private vouchers that are virtually dimes to dollars.

Americans aren't stupid. We know there are more retirees than workers at this point. We also know we pay for Social Security and it doesn't add to the deficit or the national debt. We know that qualified bean counters can manipulate the payout so that SS is solvent for our children and their children.

We know that SS doesn't work for conservatives because conservatives don't likey. It's got little to do with the shortfall. It has everything to do with the idea that government shouldn't be doing this.

So rather than trust a guy who doesn't want SS, I'll trust math and ask folks like Ron Paul to stop raiding the SS trust.

with a realistic plan
Is it published?

while doing all the other stuff about cutting foreign aid etc and bringing US soldiers home to spend their salaries at home and spend their time doing useful stuff for the actual US.
As of Sept 2011, there are more than 1.2 million active troops in the military. Where would we put em?

non of the others plans even addresses how to finance bankrupt programs like social security.
Not exactly true. One party is philosophical against SS and wants to end it. Maybe you too?

the more i hear him go into details, the more i like his ideas. but as soon as i watch main stream news and listen to the talking heads tell me what Ron Paul stands for and what he will do, i think oh no, that will never work, or is a bad idea. but then when i finally find him speaking on the subject all of a sudden it all makes sense. this is because they lie and misrepresent his ideas as much as they can get away with in the msm.
I don't personally feel that media misrepresents the guy. IUn fact, Ron's such a hyper speaker, it takes a virtual slo-mo replay to pick up the gist because Ron covers the gambit of talking points, no matter the question.

For example, last night Paul declared that the pill isn't immoral. Sounds like he's disagreeing with the most chaste candidate ever to take the debate stage - Rick Santorum. But he goes on to best Santorum by declaring it's the sex that's immoral and that's the crux for the pill. We're not talking right to life, we're talking contraception.

And the country's currently most popular libertarian is saying you are immoral if you have sex with no intent of procreation. He's even said he'd like the government to stop all abortions. IMO, conflicts with libertarianism. RP is a Republican.

so before you think you know his exact stance on anything thats important to you, i would highly suggest to look up his most recent speeches where he covers the subjects.
This was mentioned earlier. Depending on the audience, Ron's right at home discussing the Kennedy conspiracy and or the 911 conspiracy as government plots. Or, he's lambasting Jake Tapper for inquiring on national television. :chin:

you will see it's all in the detail. when you see how he wants to implement his ideas, to what effect, he ends up being the only one with a real plan.
"Will" is the key word. I'll admit, Ron Paul has THE most dynamic stump. Yet there are no details past "end the fed", "gold standard" and "bring home the troops". The president isn't a dictator. In most cases the president has a congress to drag along, not sure how 1 in 620 will work out.

apart from anything else, do we really want to have the US in perpetual war with multiple nations, that's what every other candidate is offering. don't assume you know his stance unless you heard it from his mouth.
I'd add I wouldn't assume how he'll do it - because he's never broached that part.

don't we want to see an end to the unjust war waged on the population of the planet in the name of fighting drugs.
And waiting until terrorists show up on our shores to do anything about it might be too little too late. Might there be a happy medium where we indeed cull our excess military while simultaneously addressing threats? After all, the guy doesn't address what we do when bringing home our troops doesn't end transgressions.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to stop the war on drugs and release non violent drug offenders. are we not sick of having the governments of the world waging war on their people to appease the US drug hypocrisy? the cia imports the shit and the justice department locks you up if they find some on you after they sell it to you.
I'm all for weed reform. I'm not for legalizing all drugs to get it. Why do we require bookend solutions? I'm not sure I want my (or your) kids having to broach the subject of whether they'll experiment with legalized hard drugs. I know when I was growing up, being illegal had something to do with not going there. Take that away and I might have reconsidered. I've heard Paul say, "we're adults" but I was a kid then.

this is like a chance in a life time to have a real man in the office of US president. one who still has empathy for his fellow man in his heart. not like the cold hearted mass murdering monsters we've had in that office for the last i don't know how many years.
The impression I get is that Ron Paul is currently playing surrogate for Mitt Romney. Romney has enough money to buy out Newt and Rick and it's apparent Mitt's not going after Ron. It's apparent Ron's going after the possible frontrunner, so long as the frontrunner is Santorum. If the frontrunner's Mitt, where's Ron's negative ads? His own son said he'd be honored to be considered as VP - for Mitt Romney? I know that was the question but Mitt just happens to be running against his own dad.:chin:
 

draztik

Well-known member
Veteran
It would be a epic battle Romney vs. Obama. Goldman Sachs vs. Goldman Sachs I wonder who will win? Not the American people.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
Gay slurs?
Wtf are ya on about?

reality

here's the thread closer, one of multiple gay themed slurs

"Now do you scry with stones?
entrails?

does the guild know you are dabbling in this type of thing?"


You're a minor aggravation here. There, you were a troll on a mission. You didn't likey so you played the fool.
 

draztik

Well-known member
Veteran
DB if you have a disagreement with him do it through private message. We want to keep this thread open because we need it as a movement and a country.
 

zymos

Jammin'!
Veteran
DB if you have a disagreement with him do it through private message. We want to keep this thread open because we need it as a movement and a country.

I'm curious- is there anyone that is reading this thread and is going to vote for Ron Paul that hadn't already decided to before they read all this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top