Obama Economic Plan: $25.4 trillion Deficit In 10 Years

That's because Republicans don't want to negotiate with themselves. If 10-1 was offered, I guarantee it would be accepted. 5-1 would probably be accepted.

Republicans mostly aren't opposed to revenue increases, they are opposed to rate increases. That's not an official policy, mind you, but that's what they were willing to agree to in the grand bargain negotiations. Close some loopholes, end some needless tax subsidies. Something like 6% of GDP is spent on tax expenditures, so we're not even close to the point where rate increases are necessary.

francois60 said:

That's because Republicans don't want to negotiate with themselves. If 10-1 was offered, I guarantee it would be accepted. 5-1 would probably be accepted.

Republicans mostly aren't opposed to revenue increases, they are opposed to rate increases. That's not an official policy, mind you, but that's what they were willing to agree to in the grand bargain negotiations. Close some loopholes, end some needless tax subsidies. Something like 6% of GDP is spent on tax expenditures, so we're not even close to the point where rate increases are necessary.

Click to expand...

I think you're delusional. They have virtually all signed a pledge not to raise taxes one cent, and that includes eliminating loopholes.

They agreed not to raise taxes, not to avoid raising revenues. Grover Norquist interprets his pledge to be against all revenue increases, but many Republicans see it differently. And many of course will just break the pledge.

But just as Democrats aren't going to run around promising to cut Social Security and Medicare, Republicans aren't going to run around promising to raise taxes. It's understood that if the election causes divided government, both sides will have to give up something.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/b...-leave-if-75-tax-rate-is-passed.html?_r=2&hpw

I have a new plan for the Democratic Platform. :thumbs:

iguanaman said:

Even more telling is a comparison of Romney's plan that increases defense spending while cutting his taxes even more. Plus the repeal of AHC that will cost another trillion. He's on track with the other Republicans for further massve deficit increases. This chart shows it quite clearly. How the GOP has a reputaion for cutting spending is beyond reason.

Click to expand...

So if debt is bad, why does Obama want to take us further?

francois60 said:

They agreed not to raise taxes, not to avoid raising revenues. Grover Norquist interprets his pledge to be against all revenue increases, but many Republicans see it differently. And many of course will just break the pledge.

But just as Democrats aren't going to run around promising to cut Social Security and Medicare, Republicans aren't going to run around promising to raise taxes. It's understood that if the election causes divided government, both sides will have to give up something.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between not promising to raise taxes and signing a pledge NEVER to raise taxes. :roll:

American said:

So if debt is bad, why does Obama want to take us further?

Click to expand...

Chemotherapy is bad, but it beats the alternative.

It does not matter who is in office or from which party - I guarantee you that by the 2016 election, the national debt will have risen by at least $4 trillion...probably much more.

Don't the masses get it?

Neither party has ANY intention of remotely balancing the budget until the electorate literally force them to.

Why would they? Imo, 90+% of politicians from BOTH parties LOVE these massive deficits - though they have to claim otherwise in public. For as long as the public lets them spend like mad, the politicians get to do the two things they love more then anything - spending money and gaining power. And the more money they have to spend - the more power they have.

It's foolproof (politically).

If it works (which I guarantee you it will not) - they are 'heros'.

If it doesn't (correction 'when' it doesn't) - they can blame the electorate because they can rightfully say that they were only doing what the masses told them to do.

And if these gigantic deficits eventually cause great instability in the country - these politicians are taken care of...they will each have gigantic golden parachutes to land in whatever safe haven they wish and ride out the mess that is to come sometime within the next 10-15 years or so (if not much sooner).

Anyone that seriously believes Romney will do much better then the pathetic job Obama has done in so far as spending is concerned is naive in the extremis, imo.

He will do what all 'smart' politicians do - look busy and do nothing.

America's politician's have discovered a wonderful thing for them - massive deficit spending. It gives them unprecedented power at virtually no political cost (so long as they stick together on it and con - er - convince Americans it is best for them). And they will ride this train as long as they possibly can.

Assuming a decent economy, the debt over the next four years should actually come in at under $4 trillion, more like $3 trillion. The only reason that isn't likely to happen is because the Democrats want to maintain spending at its currently high baseline of 23% of GDP, whereas Republicans would let it fall naturally to 21% over the next four years.

Normally there's little difference between the parties on spending, but given the huge increases we've seen, I don't think Republicans are making a bold promise by saying they'll cut back to 2008 levels. Even 2008's spending was elevated. It's not so much that the GOP has become fiscally conservative, so much that Democrats have run up spending so much under cover of recession that the GOP's natural inclinations lead them to be substantially more conservative in this cycle.

of course, that assumes the GOP won't be idiots and cut taxes. We're already at 15% of GDP in revenues, cutting taxes now makes no sense.