VectorVictor Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Steven Ratner of CNBC brought this Washington Post article up for discussion this morning. It's interesting in how, based on what each of the GOP campaigns has brought to the public, the deficit is poised to increase substantially, regardless of whoever is elected into office. According to a new report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, none of [Ron] Paul's opponents are even running fiscally conservative campaigns. Quite the opposite, in fact. The article goes on to highlight that in the midst of all of the doublespeak about deficit reduction and the slashing of Federal government staffing, that the only GOP candidate that would put this country in the black is...Ron Paul: Paul is the only candidate whose plan puts him in the black. His cuts to federal spending are incredibly severe, saving $7.5 trillion. Comparatively, his tax cuts cost $5.2 trillion. And though his plan to end the Federal Reserve would rack up $400 billion in transition cost (and, if we're being real about this, untold trillions in market terror and future financial panics), put it all together and he cuts the deficit by $2.2 trillion, and brings debt-to-GDP down to 76 percent. So, for all of the doublespeak coming from GOP candidates about deficit reduction, the only GOP candidate that seems to be able to walk the walk is Ron Paul, to the tune of only (yeah, only...) $2.2 trillion. The elephant in the room that isn't GOP-related? Obama's current budget proposal, left untouched with his tax proposals, beats both what Romney and Santorum have put up for plans, as it actually decreases the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the same timeframe. http://www.washingto...pm_business_pop 3 Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 But . . . but . . . they're conservative! That means that the deficit would be reduced! Damn the facts! Full speed ahead! Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Paul does a decent job per the projection. I wonder how Obama would fare. Link to comment
huskerjack23 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 That thing with Paul is the one that scares me the most. I'd want a guy who can actually walk his talk, but are we too far down the rabbit hole to bite the bullet without taking a MAJOR hit. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 One of these things is not like the others... Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted February 27, 2012 Author Share Posted February 27, 2012 Paul does a decent job per the projection. I wonder how Obama would fare. They showed a chart on CNBC that showed Obama's current budget for the same timeframe was projected to have a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction, so he clocked in second to Ron Paul. If I can find the CNBC chart, I'll post here. Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 And that right there is another reason while I'll most likely be voting for Obama for a second term. I just can't wrap my head around some of Ron Paul's thinking...............I think he's the "best" candidate for the republicans because the others are just another politician, but sadly Paul won't get his shot. The reason I have trouble getting my head around some of his thinking................he takes us in a completely different direction and I think if you do that you set yourself up for failure, but at the same time we may fail as a country with the current road we are taking, but Obama would make smaller changes over time. That seems like a more realistic choice to me. Link to comment
T_O_Bull Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Part or maybe a lot of the problem is that the average voter is uneducated about what the candidates stand for. They listen to sound bites and ads and vote by what they learn from them. We don't hold our senators and congressmen to a high enough standard and all too often just send the same people back to Washington. I would love to see reform concerning the number of people the Federal Government employes but such a reform is seen as political suicide. The Fed. Govt. just employees far too many people and if they think their job is in jeapardy they will vote their reps out of office. T_O_B Link to comment
Chaddyboxer Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Ron is the only one looking to make cuts....and that's just one reason why I am a delegate supporting him in District 20...part of Douglas County. BOOM! Link to comment
carlfense Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Part or maybe a lot of the problem is that the average voter is uneducated about what the candidates stand for. They listen to sound bites and ads and vote by what they learn from them. We don't hold our senators and congressmen to a high enough standard and all too often just send the same people back to Washington. I would love to see reform concerning the number of people the Federal Government employes but such a reform is seen as political suicide. The Fed. Govt. just employees far too many people and if they think their job is in jeapardy they will vote their reps out of office. T_O_B Eh. The federal payroll is a fraction of the total budget . . . and that is including the salaries for our service men and women. Link to comment
Recommended Posts