Where Will Romney Get the Money?

[Sunstone]

It seems to me Romney's plan to spend 4% of the GDP on defense would torpedo many domestic programs. For one thing, Romney does not seem to have a plan to pay for the huge sums he plans to spend on defense.

Instead, he plans to cut taxes 20% on individuals and 30% on corporations. His laughable claim that he will pay for the tax cuts by closing loopholes in the tax code is BS because he refuses to specify which loopholes he will close. Thus, no one can check his math -- which is apparently how he wants it.

So where do you think the money to pay for Romney's defense build up will come from? From Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Other programs?

Source

 

[Debater Slayer]

It seems to me Romney's plan to spend 4% of the GDP on defense would torpedo many domestic programs.

Is he seriously planning this?

Yeah... if that's true, it's because the US definitely needs more arms at its disposal. Clearly, a trillion dollars and over a decade's worth of war show that more arms should be at the top of the next US President's priorities.

 

[Sunstone]

Is he seriously planning this?

Yeah... if that's true, it's because the US definitely needs more arms at its disposal. Clearly, a trillion dollars and over a decade's worth of war show that more arms should be at the top of the next US President's priorities.

From 2013 to 2022, Romney is proposing to spend on defense over two trillion dollars more than is Obama. And, so far as I know, even the Department of Defense doesn't want the additional money.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is Harvey S Rosen's analysis.
(I can't vouch for it, but it addresses your question.)

http://www.princeton.edu/ceps/workingpapers/228rosen.pdf

I ran across it in this article.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/princeton-obama-tax-study/2012/10/08/id/459073

Criminy! All this talk makes me wish i stayed in the defense industry.

 

[Sunstone]

This is Harvey S Rosen's analysis.

Is that the same Harvey S. Rosen who headed George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers during the ramp up to the Great Recession of 2008? At any rate, it doesn't seem his paper addresses whether benefits such a Social Security or Medicare will be cut back to pay for Romney's plan.

 

[crossfire]

Is that the same Harvey S. Rosen who headed George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers during the ramp up to the Great Recession of 2008? At any rate, it doesn't seem his paper addresses whether benefits such a Social Security or Medicare will be cut back to pay for Romney's plan.

More deficit spending. Can't be shorting the gamblers on Wall Street of their supply of US Treasury Bonds to play with.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is that the same Harvey S. Rosen who headed George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers during the ramp up to the Great Recession of 2008?

I don't know. Do you?

At any rate, it doesn't seem his paper addresses whether benefits such a Social Security or Medicare will be cut back to pay for Romney's plan.

It addresses the plausibility that his plan would be paid for by increased revenue due to economic recovery.
Don't expect a candidate to propose an economic plan, & also a back-up plan in case the primary one falls short.
Right now they're both trying to sell a bill of goods. And a distracting contingency plan has no place in puffery.

 

[fantome profane]

It seems to me Romney's plan to spend 4% of the GDP on defense would torpedo many domestic programs. For one thing, Romney does not seem to have a plan to pay for the huge sums he plans to spend on defense.

Instead, he plans to cut taxes 20% on individuals and 30% on corporations. His laughable claim that he will pay for the tax cuts by closing loopholes in the tax code is BS because he refuses to specify which loopholes he will close. Thus, no one can check his math -- which is apparently how he wants it.

So where do you think the money to pay for Romney's defense build up will come from? From Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Other programs?

Source

Don't worry about, he can just get the money from Big Bird.

 

[Alceste]

I don't know. Do you?

It addresses the plausibility that his plan would be paid for by increased revenue due to economic recovery.
Don't expect a candidate to propose an economic plan, & also a back-up plan in case the primary one falls short.
Right now they're both trying to sell a bill of goods. And a distracting contingency plan has no place in puffery.

Faith based governance. Why not just NOT cut taxes and increase spending when you're trying to eliminate a deficit? That's the obvious choice isn't it? "Oh, we have a deficit and borrowing problem. I have an idea! Let's spend more! And collect less tax!"

These people are idiots.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Is that the same Harvey S. Rosen who headed George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers during the ramp up to the Great Recession of 2008? At any rate, it doesn't seem his paper addresses whether benefits such a Social Security or Medicare will be cut back to pay for Romney's plan.

Many of the advisers Romney has are from the old Bush guard. He's got advisers he says he's never met but his staff corrects him on this......

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Is he seriously planning this?

Yeah... if that's true, it's because the US definitely needs more arms at its disposal. Clearly, a trillion dollars and over a decade's worth of war show that more arms should be at the top of the next US President's priorities.

Right....and if you're American (I'm not sure you are)....you're like plenty of other Americans out there ready to cast their ballot for this guy. Many of them have no idea but it's something we Lefties have been saying for a while in the media and on social networks.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Right....and if you're American (I'm not sure you are)....you're like plenty of other Americans out there ready to cast their ballot for this guy. Many of them have no idea but it's something we Lefties have been saying for a while in the media and on social networks.

I'm not American, and even if I were, I'm not sure I'd vote for Romney. Not that I have in-depth knowledge about what he or the other people running for president are planning to do, though; my estimation is based on what I've read about him (e.g., his seeming support for more US intervention in the Middle East).

The post wasn't meant to be taken seriously, by the way. I actually think it's ridiculous that he would even think about spending that much money on arms when war in Afghanistan and Iraq wasted over a trillion dollars and brought nothing but destruction in those countries.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm not American, and even if I were, I'm not sure I'd vote for Romney. Not that I have in-depth knowledge about what he or the other people running for president are planning to do, though; my estimation is based on what I've read about him (e.g., his seeming support for more US intervention in the Middle East).

The post wasn't meant to be taken seriously, by the way. I actually think it's ridiculous that he would even think about spending that much money on arms when war in Afghanistan and Iraq wasted over a trillion dollars and brought nothing but destruction in those countries.

I agree. We were involved in two unfunded wars and now that Iraq has come a close we desperately need to get out of Afghanistan.....

 

[Falvlun]

I used to think that conservatives at least were more realistic when it came to the budget. The liberals' fault was that they were too idealistic, they had their hearts in the right places, but there just wasn't enough money to do everything they wanted to do.

A shift has occurred. The republican party is just as unrealistic about their budget dreams as the liberals, and the fact that they still claim the side of fiscal conservative would be downright laughable, if so many people still didn't believe it.

And I think their priorities suck.

 

[Alceste]

I used to think that conservatives at least were more realistic when it came to the budget. The liberals' fault was that they were too idealistic, they had their hearts in the right places, but there just wasn't enough money to do everything they wanted to do.

A shift has occurred. The republican party is just as unrealistic about their budget dreams as the liberals, and the fact that they still claim the side of fiscal conservative would be downright laughable, if so many people still didn't believe it.

And I think their priorities suck.

I think if you look at the facts, by which I mean the actual size of budget deficits under Republican and Democrat administrations, you will find that one party is definitely more wildly irresponsible than the other when it comes to spending, and it's not the democrats. I also don't think there's any reason to refer to the democrats as "liberals".

 

[Sunstone]

And I think their priorities suck.

So, what do you have against trillions spent on endless wars? Anything substantial, or is this just more Liberal bellyaching?

 

[Penumbra]

In the VP debate Paul Ryan kept talking about wanting to strengthen the military, that it projects weakness, etc.

It's already by far the largest military in existence in terms of money spent and overall power projection capabilities. Nearly a dozen carrier fleets, 20 billion-dollar bombers that can fly half way around the world non-stop, advanced fighters, missile systems and defenses, huge R&D spending, etc.

Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower would be doing a facepalm over this.

I'm in favor of the sequestration occurring, and a smaller portion of GDP going to defense.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In the VP debate Paul Ryan kept talking about wanting to strengthen the military, that it projects weakness, etc.

It's already by far the largest military in existence in terms of money spent and overall power projection capabilities. Nearly a dozen carrier fleets, 20 billion-dollar bombers that can fly half way around the world non-stop, advanced fighters, missile systems and defenses, huge R&D spending, etc.

Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower would be doing a facepalm over this.

I'm in favor of the sequestration occurring, and a smaller portion of GDP going to defense.

I agree.

 

[crossfire]

I used to think that conservatives at least were more realistic when it came to the budget. The liberals' fault was that they were too idealistic, they had their hearts in the right places, but there just wasn't enough money to do everything they wanted to do.

A shift has occurred. The republican party is just as unrealistic about their budget dreams as the liberals, and the fact that they still claim the side of fiscal conservative would be downright laughable, if so many people still didn't believe it.

And I think their priorities suck.

:clap I totally agree! I look at the "budget" and think both sides are crazy!