CNN Money: 3 of 4 GOP candidates would add to deficits

[Fuzzy]

NEW 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.

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



Thoughts?

[Governor Scott]

I've known this for a very long time.

[Lief]

The GOP is the party of deficits. The Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. That's been the case since the 1950s.

[TheGlobalizer]

Speculative, but if you take the words at face value, yes.  Ron Paul is the only remaining GOP candidate who is an actual fiscal conservative.

[Progressive Realist]

The GOP is the party of deficits. The Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. That's been the case since the 1950s.

We have two parties in America, a conservative "big-tent" party and a party whose constituency consists of fundamentalist Christians and people who either are rich or desperately want to be.

Guess which is which.

[TheGlobalizer]

The GOP is the party of deficits. The Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. That's been the case since the 1950s.

That's because the Democrats haven't been able to elect a programmatic Democrat...until Obama.  For the past 40 years, the US has elected Republicans and anti-Republicans, not Democrats*.

(* - Clinton is a bit of a special case - he was a true Democrat in 1992 but 1994 pushed him to the center and made him a relatively non-partisan centrist.  He should thank Gingrich for his legacy.)

[ajb]

The GOP is the party of deficits. The Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. That's been the case since the 1950s.

That's because the Democrats haven't been able to elect a programmatic Democrat...until Obama.  For the past 40 years, the US has elected Republicans and anti-Republicans, not Democrats*.

(* - Clinton is a bit of a special case - he was a true Democrat in 1992 but 1994 pushed him to the center and made him a relatively non-partisan centrist.  He should thank Gingrich for his legacy.)

Raising taxes helped. Of course, that led to the horrible economic stagnation that was the 1990's.

[Gustaf]

The relevant way to measure deficits is of course as percentage of GDP and due to that the main effect of economic policy is typically its effects on growth.

[Likely Voter]

but they arent factoring in how the magical tax cut faeries will grow the economy at a profound rate never seen before resulting in tons of new revenue!

Remember when Newt finally exposed the non-partisan CBO as a cabal of socialists for not facting in any growth figure he pulled out his erudite derriere, so why should we trust the evil left wing media?

[angus]

Thoughts?

Join the rEVOLution.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Thoughts?

Join the rEVOLution.

Did they even bother to run the numbers on Paul's?

[angus]

ha!  Don't know.  I just read the quoted part. 

but from the Ron Paul campaign website, we have a surplus of 13 billion dollars per year beginning in Year 3, 19 billion in year 4.

See http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Scroll down the page for comparisons to Obama.

[Politico]

Romney is the only one who knows what it means to budget. As Romney puts it, if you're not a fiscal conservative in business, you go out of business.

[Politico]

(* - Clinton is a bit of a special case - he was a true Democrat in 1992 but 1994 pushed him to the center and made him a relatively non-partisan centrist.  He should thank Gingrich for his legacy.)

Actually, Clinton owes Dick Morris more anybody else. Without Clinton's adoption of Morris' Triangulation, Clinton would have been a spectacular failure of a president. But I agree with your other sentiments. I also find it mind-boggling how some Democrats act like Clinton was a quintessential Democrat. That's only true for 1993-1994. Youngsters don't know any better, but older Democrats should not be pushing revisionist history and they know it.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Romney is the only one who knows what it means to budget. As Romney puts it, if you're not a fiscal conservative in business, you go out of business.

If so, then it's unfortunate how that part of his mind appears to have atrophied over the years.

[CathKhan]

The GOP is the party of deficits. The Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. That's been the case since the 1950s.

Seriously? Eisenhower was the one trying to reduce the deficit and his monetarist policies even contributed to his unpopularity in 1958. LBJ on the other hand was mister guns 'n' butter. At least say since the 70's. Attaching LBJ to fiscal responsibility and Eisenhower to fiscally liberal republicans is entirely false.

[ajb]

The debt-GDP ratio fell in every year of LBJ's presidency. In fairness, the same did happen under Eisenhower as well. It kept falling through Nixon's term, rose slightly under Ford, fell slightly again under Carter, then soared under Reagan.

[Progressive Realist]

The GOP is the party of deficits. The Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. That's been the case since the 1950s.

Seriously? Eisenhower was the one trying to reduce the deficit and his monetarist policies even contributed to his unpopularity in 1958. LBJ on the other hand was mister guns 'n' butter. At least say since the 70's. Attaching LBJ to fiscal responsibility and Eisenhower to fiscally liberal republicans is entirely false.

wat.

Monetarism didn't exist as policy until the 70s.

[For Oklahoma]

Go Ron Paul

[Simfan34]

I've wondered if one could make the case that Clinton was more non-socially conservative than Reagan.

[Politico]

The GOP is the party of deficits. The Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. That's been the case since the 1950s.

Seriously? Eisenhower was the one trying to reduce the deficit and his monetarist policies even contributed to his unpopularity in 1958. LBJ on the other hand was mister guns 'n' butter. At least say since the 70's. Attaching LBJ to fiscal responsibility and Eisenhower to fiscally liberal republicans is entirely false.

This is true. LBJ practically perfected tax-and-spend liberalism.

[True Federalist]

Romney is the only one who knows what it means to budget. As Romney puts it, if you're not a fiscal conservative in business, you go out of business.

Romney the candidate also seems to understand that sometimes you have to spend money to get what you want.

[ajb]

The GOP is the party of deficits. The Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. That's been the case since the 1950s.

Seriously? Eisenhower was the one trying to reduce the deficit and his monetarist policies even contributed to his unpopularity in 1958. LBJ on the other hand was mister guns 'n' butter. At least say since the 70's. Attaching LBJ to fiscal responsibility and Eisenhower to fiscally liberal republicans is entirely false.

This is true. LBJ practically perfected tax-and-spend liberalism.

Which is why the debt-to-GDP ratio declined constantly under his presidency. It only began to soar under the Reagan era's "don't-tax-but-spend-anyway" conservatism.

[shua]

Thoughts?

Join the rEVOLution.

Did they even bother to run the numbers on Paul's?

Yes, here's the report.
 


They counted repeal of the Health Care Law as a net revenue loss, so make of that what you will.