It's incredible isn't it?

As compared to Romney's military plan with will increase spending by around a trillion over that same period? Honestly, I don't understand why you don't get it? Bringing spending back to 20% doesn't mean jack in terms of the debt and deficit. Romney's only plan to accomplish even that paltry goal is to pray that the economy improves so much that it happens despite his massive spending increases. Romney is clearly the worst of the two when it comes to spending. In fact, he's by far the worst because Republicans in congress will shed any sense of fiscal responsibility the moment an R is in the whitehouse.

What? It cuts the deficit in half. If Obama restored all the Bush Tax cuts your looking at about 2 percent of GDP(1)

(1) I think, I read a CBO report that said 3.3T per 10 years.

:thumbsup:

lol riverman.

Your choices are that Obama is responsible or that he's a complete wuss who is responsible because he's a complete wuss. Feel free to choose on your own.

CUTTING 100b LET ALONE 500b IS IMPOSSIBLE IF YOU DONT SLASH THE OFFENSE BUDGET

wat? No it doesn't. the deficit and %spending of GPD are not directly linked. There's a correlation, but when you reduce revenues via tax cuts, increase spending, and (hopefully) grow the economy with the net result being government spending equals 20% of GDP it doesn't add up to the deficit being cut in half.

Current deficit is 1.3T. Current GDP 16T. Four percent of GDP is 640B, or half of deficit.

Let me know if I am wrong I am watching the thunder bitches.

Oh and sorry, I misstated the amount Mittens plans to increase the defense budget. It's 2.1 Trillion dollars above the current increase in planned spending over the next ten years. So we're talking about a 3 or so trillion dollar increase in defense spending over the next decade.

That would be amazing if math stopped at the fifth grade level. You're forgetting to add in a some variables though. Such as reduced taxes and huge increases in base spending levels, but he's a fiscal conservative.

He says he will hold tax revenues constant in terms of GDP. My 5th grade map>your made up math.

but a conservative businessman can do it, for he is a god among the mortals who shrink from the challenge. why you may ask, can they do as no other man has ever been able too. because they have a special relationship with numbers, good god fearing Christian conservative numbers, or in this case good honest god fearing Mormon numbers.

you realize he's not actually saying how he will do any of the "goals" he says he will do?
Thats cuz its ****ing impossible.

I have a goal to **** Kate Upton in the ass which I will work towards accomplishing by 2016.

The only true reduction in spending/deficit etc that will happen in the next 4-8 years will be by a Pres who has an opposing house/senate...they ain't going to be Romney

You need a President that thinks the deficit is an issue that needs to be addressed. I think both candidates will be pushed on this issue and I will be very interested to see how they respond.

Are you Wolf Blitzer irl?

No, that's not what he says. Well, he might have said it once or twice, but that's not what his plan says. He says his plan will be revenue neutral. Counting on an increasing GDP to maintain a revenue neutral tax system means that revenues must go down as a percent of GDP.

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

You truly are blinded on this issue. Romney intends to maintain a "revenue neutral" (lulz at this btw, but lets go with it) tax system while increasing expenditures at a rate faster than any of Obama's plans. Yet you still see Romney as some sort of economic white knight. This is insane, any fiscal conservative who buys into this blatant BS deserves to be lied to. It's such a fundamental and obvious fraud that anyone with even moderate critical thinking skills can see through it.

Romney is not going to do a god damn thing about the deficit. The only person you are kidding is yourself, lou.

I mean is it ever going to get through to ppl that this mess cannot be fixed without

Defense cuts
Tax increases
Entitlement reform

All 3 are of course off the table.