Romney Picks Ryan for Veep...Bye-Bye Socialism....

It's a false assumption to believe that tax cuts always result in more employment.

According to a 2009 CBO study, based upon the $ 9 trillion national debt that year, projected a 1/3rd reduction in GDP growth at the end of 10 years because of the burden of the national debt. That 1/3rd reduction represents millions and millions of jobs over time because it compounds annually. Tax cuts only work to create jobs if we don't have an overwhelming national debt and we don't have that situation today.

The national debt today is far greater than at any time in our history. People, including experts, compare it to the GDP but that is an invalid measurement. Like with a person the debt needs to be compared to income (revenue) and in the case of the US government that is general tax revenue (FICA/Payroll taxes are dedicated and don't service the national debt). Basically we a $15 trillion national debt but only have about $1.5 trillion in general revenues to our debt to income ration is about 10:1 and that isn't sustainable.

If, for example, we have interest rates go up to the early 1980's levels and the US government credit rating drops then the US government could easily see the annual interest on the national debt exceed all general revenues. At that point the country literally goes bankrupt.

As noted, Paul Ryan's budget is projected to generate $6 trillion in deficit spending. If anything, based upon history, it's more likely to generate far more in deficits than that. These projections are always based upon the most optimistic of circumstance and those never, ever, come to pass.

 

"Buy the elite" .... Was that meant to be a clever wordplay? 'Cause... I like it!

 

Forgot your link.

 

Whether they do or not is irrelevant, they were held to certain constraints when doing they're analysis, constraints that were absolutely unrealistic. It was stupid napkin math and yes, I'm going to take the word of a bank of some of the best economist in our country over a bureaucrat pandering for votes with a pie-in-the-sky plan.

I'd rather have neither. I won't get that and I have no reason whatsoever to believe that Romney is going to change anything. This year, not matter what, we get status quo.

That it's possible can't be explained logically, lets say we live in utopia and that the only thing that's taxed are rents. This doesn't detract at all from economic activity and thus wouldn't increase unemployment. This doesn't only exist in the fantasy world I just described, but it's just meant to attack the "always" argument. Asking for evidence though is certainly warranted.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/taxes-and-employment/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2011/05/03/do-tax-cuts-create-jobs/

 

I asked for the link for 2 reasons. One. When a poster states a lot of "facts" and leaves out the link, it usually means that their link has some information that does not support their contention. Two. My own info has Ryan's 10 year deficit at 3.1 trillion - less than half pbama's 6.7 trillion. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/14/fact-check-ryan-budget-plan-doesnt-actually-slash-budget/

 

Which most certainly makes sense, but there's a great deal of information to support this position.

I'm sorry, the objectives and criteria required for the Ryan plan to succeed are entirely unrealistic. It'd require federal entitlement spending to drop below 4% of GDP, the military accounts for half of that, which would mean that medicare/medicaid and social security would need to plummet some 91% over the next 30 years, at a time when we have an aging population and the elderly are the group who consumes most of those benefits. It's the reason the CBO report has the preface.

 

Tax cuts will not create jobs because US does not present a good investment opportunity to the rich in their discretionary spending.

http://crooksandliars.com/ian-welsh/tax-cuts-rich-create-jobs-outside-us

Secondly, even Republicans are beginning to acknowledge that the libertarian approach of giving the rich all the money is not going to work. Kansas has become the epicenter of free market libertarianism, and what extreme republicans like Ryan, support.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4822065...epublicans-war-over-ryan-plan-style-tax-cuts/

 

Absolutely ridiculous and has nothing whatsoever to do with why or how tax cuts affect employment.

I must have missed all the times I heard the wealthy crying about not having anywhere to spend or invest.

 

Apple has 74 billion dollars in foreign banks which it will spend here as soon as Romney gives them a repatriation holiday. Goggle says they have some bucks too. They are simply storing it so they don't have to pay the 30% tax in order to bring the money to America.

 

Here is a proper explanation to convey what that post really means as it pertains to tax cuts and employment:

The logic of this is simple enough. If you have money to invest, you're going to invest it where it'll return the most. Right now and in the past couple decades that is either in leveraged financial games, or it is in economies which are growing fast and have low costs. The US does not have high growth compared to China or Brazil or many other developing countries. It has high costs compared to those countries as well.

If you can build a factory overseas which produces the same goods for less, meaning more profit for you, why would you build it in the US?

 

If the US put high import tariffs on goods from China that would solve that problem.

 

You forgot the link.

Unrealistic? Where is the "realistic" budget plan? Gary Johnson? Now, I really like Gary Johnson but neither his budget nor his chances are realistic.

I swear I missed it. Is there a link somewhere to this CBO report? Is this it? http://www.cbo.gov/publication/22085

 

Actually, I don't even remember Obama's responding to the little twit. He just sat there looking at him like he would a talentless child trying to be a standup comic. This was, of course, the best resaponse to the little snot.

 

Ryan belongs to a party of free market capitalism, they would not use communism to influence business choices, tariffs are a tool for communists. NAFTA was passed with bipartisanship, because both parties support capitalism to create employment.

Our plan is to raise income taxes on the wealthy, in an effort to limit their discretionary spending for outsourcing, which would spur GDP and employment while still keeping free market fundamentals in place.

 

Raising taxes on the welathy will do nothing of the sort.

 

The tax issue illustrates a fundamental difference between the candidates. Pbama sees money as belonging to the govt. Many of his supporters do too. "Mustn't let the evil rich people keep their own money".

In fact, it's not about who's money it is. It's about leaving it in the private sector. Raising taxes on anyone stifles growth, stifles creativity, stifles investment, and stifles spending. Pbama knows this.

 

Ryan's plan for the economy involves saving 2 million jobs, which are scheduled to be cut by January (if Obama gets his way), and reducing the cuts Obama wants to make to medicare. He's a very smart man, and brings Obama's worst nightmare to the Romney campaign, someone who can actually add and subtract large numbers.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/08/ryan-boosts-romney-prepares-for-campaign-against-obama-in-iowa/

 

How, by increasing the costs for the American People while costing us US jobs? Remember that tariffs are recepricated between nations. If the US slaps a 10% tariff on Chinese goods then the Chinese will slap a 10% tariff on US goods. Both the Chinese and Americans will simply pay more with the respective governments raking in more revenue.

And what happens related to our exports to China where we're competing with other nations. If a Boeing airplane costs 10% more then China will buy from Airbus. China is a significant purchaser of airliners and losing those exports would cost literally thousands of high paying US manufacturing jobs.

 

Are these the same 2 million mythical jobs that Obama claims to have saved with the Stimulus Package? Heck, if it wasn't for mythical jobs being saved by our government none of us would have a job. LOL

Please note that President Obama did not propose cutting Medicare expendatures. He claimed that something like $500-700 billion would be magically saved with the passage of the ACA ("Obamacare") but everyone knows that was a myth. No money will be saved at all and actually costs have gone up dramatically especially since the Democrats voted to continue the protections for the drug companies from foreign competition and exclude them from the anti-trust laws. Prescription drug prices increased by 9% on 2009 alone after these monopoly protections were extended by the Democrats in Congress.

Paul Ryan's proposal for Medicare and Social doesn't "save" any money but does dramatically reduce benefits for those under 55. It's a "screw the next generation" proposal right in line with the very foundation of both Social Security and Medicare when created by the Democrats. Today it's always about "screw the next generation" when these programs are addressed by Republicans.

 

Apparently Paul Ryan believes our children's money belongs to the US government. He doesn't propose a balanced budget and instead proposes adding at least $6 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. Theoretically, if all of the "assumptions" being made by Ryan in his 2013 budget come true, which they won't, the US wouldn't have a balanced budget until 2040 and the national debt will be double what we have today.

We can't afford Paul Ryan's budgets. They're based upon mythical assumptions and double the national debt over time. Of course we can't afford Obama's either so for Americans there really is only one choice and that's Gary Johnson.

 

Post #254.

This part:

That I already said.
Though you like corroboration so...

Willian Saletan:

Source

I get the argument that's it's a starting point, but you're starting very far in left field... err right field. As I already said, the US population is aging, the idea that we're going to reduce SS, Medicare and Medicaid by those margins at this point is simply not going to happen.

Nope, never made the claim they were.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43023

From the preface that I referred to:

So as long as you stay on my yellow brick road, look how great things are...

 

One of the most ardent supporters of leftism on this site, as seen in the support of income taxes, saying protectionism is a tool of communism. LMAO. Globalization is a tool of communism, nation redistribution, the high profits from exploited workers on both ends simply the honey on the trap for industrialists to walk right into world government. As if our founders were communists. Pfft.

 

There are 28 pages to this thread. If you posted a link on one of them, I missed it. I did, however, post a link refuting your $6 trillion deficit.

Argue principles. Argue the Constitution. Argue the law or standards or even truth. But using words like "mythical" or "realistic" while arguing for Gary Johnson just make your post sound like satire.

 

I read too many posts without looking to see who wrote them. I didn't realize you were using Krugman. Not exactly an Austrian, is he?

Stay out of the witch's forest.

 

No, he isn't. But more importantly, the quote wasn't from Krugman, it was William Saletan, who at one time wrote:

Why I Love Paul Ryan

How are you going to get SS, MC/MC down below 2% of GDP with an aging population? Oh and let's hope the military doesn't also increase as it has or else it'd need to be even lower. Maybe the problem is you don't realize where these numbers are now. Public spending accounts for slightly less than 20% of GDP Source, the majority going to the big 3 I mentioned above. So please, tell me at what divining rod do we need to pray at for this to occur?

So now I've shown I, a writer from Slate and Krugman agree on something. Will you continue to evade the critique to attack the source?