PDA

View Full Version : CNN Money on Candidates Fiscal plans



revelarts
02-24-2012, 06:05 PM
3 of 4 GOP candidates would add to deficitsNEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Newt Gingrich's economic plan would do a lot of things. But reducing the debt and balancing the federal budget aren't among them.

Same goes for Rick Santorum's and Mitt Romney's economic plans.
Indeed, a preliminary analysis by the independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget released Thursday estimates that the three candidates' plans could add between $250 billion and $7 trillion of debt over the next nine years.
By contrast, the proposals of Ron Paul could reduce the debt by $2.2 trillion, the group estimated.
The estimated changes in debt were made relative to what the CRFB calls a realistic baseline, in which the Bush-era tax cuts are made permanent, scheduled payment cuts to Medicare doctors are prevented and $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts are waived.
Under that scenario, debt held by the public will rise to 85% of GDP by 2021, up from about 70% today. Both are well above the country's historical average of 40%.


Newt Gingrich's plan:

Debt over next decade: Adds $7 trillion, increasing debt to GDP to 114%.
Costliest proposal: Create an alternative flat tax of 15%, which would increase debt by $3.4 trillion.
Biggest cost saver: Turn means-tested federal programs such as Medicaid into block grants to states and cut federal funding for these programs in half, saving $2.4 trillion.
Interest costs on the debt: Raises it by $900 billion.
The Gingrich campaign, in a statement, essentially dismissed the CRFB analysis "because they show no comprehension of how to score the impact of economic growth in helping to balance the budget."
The campaign maintains that his plan (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/23/news/economy/romney_gingrich/index.htm?iid=EL) would create 6.6 million jobs in the first two years and balance the budget in his first term.



Rick Santorum's plan:

Debt over next decade: Adds $4.5 trillion, increasing debt to GDP to 104%.
Costliest proposal: Reduce and reform (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/18/news/economy/santorum_tax_plan/index.htm?iid=EL) individual income taxes, at a cost of $3.6 trillion.
Biggest cost saver: Transform various social programs into block grants to states and capping their growth, saving $950 billion.
Interest costs on the debt: Raises it by $640 billion.



Mitt Romney's plan:

Debt over next decade: Adds $250 billion, increasing debt to GDP to 86%.
Costliest proposal: Reduce corporate taxes (http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/23/news/economy/romney_gingrich/index.htm?iid=EL), which would increase debt by $1 trillion.
Biggest cost saver: Reduce federal workforce costs, saving $530 billion.
Interest costs on the debt: Raises it by $40 billion.
The CRFB said it will update its analysis to include the revised tax plan (http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/22/news/economy/romney_taxes/index.htm?iid=EL) that Romney released on Wednesday. He said he wanted to cut marginal tax rates for individuals by 20%, among other things.
While Romney said his tax plan would not add to the deficit, he didn't offer specifics as to how he'd pay for his newly proposed tax cuts. Absent those offsets, the CRFB roughly estimates that his plan could add $2.6 trillion in debt, boosting debt to 96% of GDP by 2021.



Ron Paul's plan:

Debt over next decade: Reduces it by $2.2 trillion, lowering debt to GDP to 76%.
Costliest proposal: Get rid of various income taxes, such as the Alternative Minimum Tax and taxes on investment income, Social Security benefits and tips, at a cost of $2.5 trillion.
Biggest cost saver: Reduce many parts of non-defense spending, such as eliminating five federal departments including education, commerce and energy, saving $4.5 trillion.
Interest costs on the debt: Lowers it by $300 billion.



http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/23/news/economy/gop_candidates_deficits/

<object width="384" height="356" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/.element/apps/cvp/4.0/swf/cnn_money_384x216_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=/video/news/2012/01/09/n_ron_paul_economic_plan.cnnmoney" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/.element/apps/cvp/4.0/swf/cnn_money_384x216_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=/video/news/2012/01/09/n_ron_paul_economic_plan.cnnmoney" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="384" wmode="transparent" height="356"></embed></object>

fj1200
02-24-2012, 07:18 PM
All statically scored and useless as far as actual numbers go.

revelarts
02-24-2012, 09:29 PM
All statically scored and useless as far as actual numbers go.


Useless if you don't like the results.

fj1200
02-24-2012, 10:57 PM
Useless if you don't like the results.

No, the results are bogus so they are thus useless. Of course RP is going to better in all respects, he's cutting and slashing.

revelarts
02-25-2012, 07:16 AM
No, the results are bogus so they are thus useless. Of course RP is going to better in all respects, he's cutting and slashing.
yes, His is Better, harsher but better.

How are they useless FJ? i'm not following you. they are estimates, everyone has to make projections to conclude a plan will do x or y. what's missing , in your view, in the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget's projection. What Statistic/s do you object to?

here's the whole 51 page deal explaining where they get there numbers.
http://crfb.org/document/primary-numbers-gop-candidates-and-national-debt

download it here
http://crfb.org/sites/default/files/primary_numbers.pdf

fj1200
02-25-2012, 02:22 PM
yes, His is Better, harsher but better.

How are they useless FJ? i'm not following you. they are estimates, everyone has to make projections to conclude a plan will do x or y. what's missing , in your view, in the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget's projection. What Statistic/s do you object to?

I'm guessing at the below but I'm probably correct.


All statically scored and useless as far as actual numbers go.

Better is not better if he won't get elected and he suffers a huge setback when Congress rebels.

You'll be much better off playing the Rand Paul card next go-round and not have Ron screw it up this time.

revelarts
02-28-2012, 09:22 AM
If we want small gov't Ron paul is the man. everyone us is more of the same.
If you want someone you'd like to have a beer with or looks good on tv against the left then you've got a choice.


Ron Paul vs. Republican Identity Politics I’ve made the point occasionally in my columns (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2011/06/20/identity-vs-philosophy/) over the years that what often drives politics is not necessarily having the correct philosophy but political identity. This frustrates those of us who care about the size of government, reducing the national debt and restoring the Constitution. Ron Paul has a limited government record second to none. A recent study (http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/23/news/economy/gop_candidates_deficits/) showed that out of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Paul, only Paul would actually reduce the debt as president. Here’s the breakdown:
Newt Gingrich’s plan
Debt over next decade: Adds $7 trillion, increasing debt to GDP to 114%…
Rick Santorum’s plan
Debt over next decade: Adds $4.5 trillion, increasing debt to GDP to 104%.
Mitt Romney’s plan
Debt over next decade: Adds $250 billion, increasing debt to GDP to 86%…
Ron Paul’s plan
Debt over next decade: Reduces it by $2.2 trillion, lowering debt to GDP to 76%.
Now, one would think that reducing the national debt–and candidates who would actually reduce that debt–might be a top priority for conservative Republicans. Yet too often there seem to be other priorities. Yelling at CNN’s John King during a debate delivered my home state of South Carolina to Newt Gingrich by a commanding 41%, because Newt seemed on “our” side to Republicans and “against” the media. Gingrich’s actual conservative record is abysmal (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/22/newt-gingrich-is-not-a-conservative-recap-parts-1-14/) but in that primary it didn’t matter much. For Republicans at that time, Newt was “one of us.”

Rick Santorum’s record is just as abysmal (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/06/red-state-on-big-government-conservative-rick-santorum/). Here’s a guy who admits to being George W. Bush’s wingman (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/23/santorum_on_supporting_no_child_left_behind_suppor t_sometimes_you_take_one_for_the_team.html), helping to implement some of the most big government programs in American history.
“Politics is a team sport” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/santorum-politics-is-a-team-sport-126/2012/02/23/gIQArff4VR_video.html) says Santorum. He’s more right than he knows, as voters have largely “identified” with Santorum recently precisely because they think he’s more part of the Republican “team” than Romney. Writes The American Spectator’s (http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/27/michigan-momentum-with-santoru) Quin Hillyer (a Santorum supporter):
Cultural identification matter. That’s what allows Santorum to survive mistakes, or distorted attacks on his record, when others can’t: People identify with him.
The “distorted attacks” (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/) on Santorum’s record (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/22/rick-santorum-food-stamps-and-big-government-conservatism/)means people (http://reason.com/archives/2005/12/01/goodbye-to-goldwater)are simply discussing (http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2012/02/21/rick-santorum-was-senate-point-man-for-lobbyist-legislator-revolving-door/) Santorum’s record. It’s horrible. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287068/santorum-s-big-government-conservatism-michael-tanner)If Santorum is actually better than Romney or Gingrich it is a marginal difference, and that margin is so slim that there is essentially no difference at all. These guys are three peas in a big government pod and no amount of mental gymnastics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/02/02/three_cheers_for_romneycare_272728.html) from their supporters (http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/20/rick-santorums-part-d-vote) can erase their career-long (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/gingrichs-big-government-manifesto/)statist records.
The Tea Party was supposed to be a movement that eschewed the politics of old, demanding strict fiscal conservatism and rejecting conventional big government Republicans. The only candidate in this race that fits what the Tea Party originally desired is Ron Paul. This is not arguable. If cutting government and reducing the debt is the Tea Party’s primary goal, only Ron Paul fits the bill, whether judging by his past record or his current budget plan. (http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/ron-pauls-budget-plan-is-the-real-deal) Every other candidate–Romney, Santorum, Gingrich–fails the Tea Party’s fiscal conservative litmus test, whether judging by their past records or even their proposed budget plans, all of which cut nothing and add to our debt significantly. (http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/30/study-on-spending-cuts-most-gop-candidates-light-on-details/#ixzz1mMpoUja4)
But people “identify” with these candidates, some say? Republicans once “identified” with George W. Bush. A majority of Americans “identified” with Barack Obama in 2008.
To the degree that Republicans reject conservative philosophy to comfort themselves with identity politics is also to the degree that all of us will have to continue to endure big government.

fj1200
02-28-2012, 09:26 AM
If we want small gov't Ron paul is the man. everyone us is more of the same.

Most don't. RP has so far been unsuccessful in being encompassed by the window. ;) He may have moved it but he's not in it. He and Rand need to start thinking big picture before they sell out their party.

revelarts
02-28-2012, 11:28 AM
Most don't. RP has so far been unsuccessful in being encompassed by the window. ;) He may have moved it but he's not in it. He and Rand need to start thinking big picture before they sell out their party.

Why not thinking more ideological big picture than party picture. the Tea party says it wants small gov't, and are willing to chuck party hacks, guess they are not reeeaally serious about it.

jimnyc
02-28-2012, 11:29 AM
RP's numbers would matter IF he had a chance in hell of getting the nod. Considering he has NO CHANCE, the numbers ARE useless.

fj1200
02-28-2012, 11:35 AM
Why not thinking more ideological big picture than party picture. the Tea party says it wants small gov't, and are willing to chuck party hacks, guess they are not reeeaally serious about it.

Because less people care about ideology than party. Goldwater didn't get elected but Reagan did.

revelarts
09-17-2012, 06:44 AM
Because less people care about ideology than party. Goldwater didn't get elected but Reagan did.

Without Goldwater there would have never have been a Reagan

fj1200
09-17-2012, 12:20 PM
Without Goldwater there would have never have been a Reagan

I'm pretty sure that was my point.

Didn't you bring up some "window moving" concept a long time ago?