Online Now 2857

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

On this Board 180
Record: 3425 (1/27/2013)

Online now 2519
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

How Do Ryan/Romney Slash Deficts?

  • Paul Krugman adds up the Ryan/Romney numbers for the next ten years - here is what he calculates....

    Tax Cuts -------- $4.7 Trillion
    Spending Cuts - $1.7 Trillion

    (Spending cuts include the 700 Billion in MediCare Savings Ryan/Romney say they will roll back so that reduces spend cuts to $1 Trillion)

    So what is Paul missing oh Conservatives?

    Is a $3 Trillion Dollar increase in the debt somehow a debt reduction in Ryan/Romney world?

    An Unserious Man - NYTimes.com

    So much for the real debate we were supposed to have once Paul Ryan joined the ticket. What we have instead is the triumph of style over substance.

    www.nytimes.com

    Lurking on tRCMB since 1996

    TrapperGus

  • TrapperGus said...

    Paul Krugman adds up the Ryan/Romney numbers for the next ten years - here is what he calculates....

    Tax Cuts -------- $4.7 Trillion Spending Cuts - $1.7 Trillion

    (Spending cuts include the 700 Billion in MediCare Savings Ryan/Romney say they will roll back so that reduces spend cuts to $1 Trillion)

    So what is Paul missing oh Conservatives?

    Is a $3 Trillion Dollar increase in the debt somehow a debt reduction in Ryan/Romney world?

    Besides the fact that Krugman is working with a false premise (that reducing taxes results in less revenue coming into the government), the reality is that both Mitt and Obama are going to run huge deficits. Nobody except for Ron Paul has proposed true deficit reduction proposals. With that said, clearly with Obama running a 1.5 trillion deficit and believing that it's the governments job to take care of everyone, deficits under Obama are going to be larger than they will be under Mitt. Neither is exactly a good choice, but comparatively speaking it's pretty clear deficits will be higher under Obama.

    Compound 2

  • They'll close all Planned Parenthood locations - hello surplus!

    Narwhal

  • Compound 2 said...

    Besides the fact that Krugman is working with a false premise (that reducing taxes results in less revenue coming into the government), the reality is that both Mitt and Obama are going to run huge deficits. Nobody except for Ron Paul has proposed true deficit reduction proposals. With that said, clearly with Obama running a 1.5 trillion deficit and believing that it's the governments job to take care of everyone, deficits under Obama are going to be larger than they will be under Mitt. Neither is exactly a good choice, but comparatively speaking it's pretty clear deficits will be higher under Obama.

    All the evidence to date have shown that reducing tax rates reduce revenue to government. It is only in whack a mole Conservative land that is questioned. Agreed there can be an increase in the economy if the economy is being constrained by a lack of capital (right now this is not the problem in the US) the growth has not replaced the revenue lost from the taxes.

    However if Ryan/Romney are assuming that they are not showing how much will be replaced. You wouldn't accept such pig in a poke behavior from Liberal proposals, so why are you defending Ryan/Romney?

    Edit - let me add to this that the studies I have seen say that the multipler for tax cuts is just under one dollar of additional economic activity for one dollar of tax cuts. Assuming that government spending is cut by the same amount we are reducing the GNP slightly with the spending reduced by the same amount as the revenue reduction. In addition the taxes will be lower by the amount of the tax cuts with no additional economic activity to tax. Thus no increase in tax revenue.

    This post was edited by TrapperGus on 8/20/2012 at 2:15 PM

    Lurking on tRCMB since 1996

    TrapperGus

  • TrapperGus said...

    All the evidence to date have shown that reducing tax rates reduce revenue to government.

    Oh Reeeeally??

    Play

    Obama's Capital Gains Tax "Fairness"

    Obama isn't interested in increasing government revenue, he is interested in punishment and income redistribution under the guise of "fairness". http://DrunkTrader.com/

    http://www.youtube.com/v/c4iy2OfScQE

    Compound 2

  • Compound 2 said...

    Besides the fact that Krugman is working with a false premise (that reducing taxes results in less revenue coming into the government), the reality is that both Mitt and Obama are going to run huge deficits. Nobody except for Ron Paul has proposed true deficit reduction proposals. With that said, clearly with Obama running a 1.5 trillion deficit and believing that it's the governments job to take care of everyone, deficits under Obama are going to be larger than they will be under Mitt. Neither is exactly a good choice, but comparatively speaking it's pretty clear deficits will be higher under Obama.

    Thats pretty much true.

    No matter which is elected, you can count on more lip service that anything substansive getting done.
    Both are poor choices, a turd is a turd, they both stink.

    Mudjin harbor

  • Trapper does it again. lol

    Carolina Sparty

  • Obviously they are slashing deficits by pledging medicare spending. Because...um...there's some premise that applies here. Help me out compound.

    John Dewey ●

  • Compound 2 said...

    Oh Reeeeally??

    You should be aware by now that I don't do video so this can only mean that you are afraid to seriously engage on this topic.

    Lurking on tRCMB since 1996

    TrapperGus

  • Carolina Sparty said...

    Trapper does it again. lol

    Since I don't do video and Compound knows it what does this video say that refutes what I said?

    I don't suppose any of you brainacs were smart enough to see what I actually said...

    Lurking on tRCMB since 1996

    TrapperGus

  • TrapperGus said...

    You should be aware by now that I don't do video so this can only mean that you are afraid to seriously engage on this topic.

    lol

    Hillary and Obama are debating in 2008. Interviewer runs through a bunch of times when reducing tax rates INCREASED revenues and mentioned that when tax rates were increased, revenue to the federal government went down. So he asked Obama, in light of this information, why do you want to increase tax rates if it means less revenue is likely to come in to the federal government. Obama's answer was because it's an "issue of fairness".

    The point being however, that the moderator ran through a bunch of times when lowering rates increased revenue, and neither Hillary or Obama denied that fact. So your position that reducing tax rates reduces revenue is false.

    Compound 2

  • TrapperGus said...

    Since I don't do video and Compound knows it what does this video say that refutes what I said?

    I don't suppose any of you brainacs were smart enough to see what I actually said...

    Trapper, why don't you join the 20th century (as Biden calls it) and get some video on your internet. We all shouldn't have to customize our arguments in a media format for everyone else's weird issues.

    Compound 2

  • Compound 2 said...

    lol

    Hillary and Obama are debating in 2008. Interviewer runs through a bunch of times when reducing tax rates INCREASED revenues and mentioned that when tax rates were increased, revenue to the federal government went down. So he asked Obama, in light of this information, why do you want to increase tax rates if it means less revenue is likely to come in to the federal government. Obama's answer was because it's an "issue of fairness".

    The point being however, that the moderator ran through a bunch of times when lowering rates increased revenue, and neither Hillary or Obama denied that fact. So your position that reducing tax rates reduces revenue is false.

    Okay, however - without knowing which examples which were used I will chose 3 of my own...

    1 - Reagan reduced tax rates and increased spending at the same time while Volkner broke the back of inflation. If that example was used there is clearly an argumement that it was the government goosing the economy with defict spending that caused the economy to improve which caused part of the tax cuts to be nmade up with increased economic activity$

    2 - Clinton increased taxes. This was offset by greater economic activity. If there was direct cause and effect connection between taxes and economic activity this would have caused as reduction, not an increase.

    3 - Bush did what Reagan did. Both Bush and Reagan did more to prove Keyne's point about the effect of defict spending than they did about the effect of tax cuts.

    What Ryan-Romney are proposing is defict neutral supposably...so this does not provide the additional defict spending which would increase economic activity but simply is a reduction in government spending which is in theory replaced by the same spending in the private sector, except that tax cuts do not historically result in 100% replacement as some is just not spent, so this in theory reduces the GNP slightly and reduces the tax rates on that smaller GNP...how do you get replacement revenue from that?

    Lurking on tRCMB since 1996

    TrapperGus

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports