So Mittens says that his economic plan will get us to a balanced budget in 8 to 10 years. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/romney-amends-budget-goals-assails-obamas-record Okay, but Ryan, who in an interview with Faux assures us that he supports the Romney plan, states that they haven’t run the numbers on it and he can’t tell us when if ever it might result in a balanced budget. http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2012/08/15/25986/fnc-sr-20120814-ryanbudget So if they haven’t run the numbers where does Mittens get his eight to ten years? And if they have run the numbers why does Romney’s choice for VP say they haven’t? And what kind of budget plan do you have if you haven’t run the numbers on it? If we’d taken that kind of “plan” to our bank to support our request for a loan we wouldn’t have lasted five minutes. But here we have the well-known practical, experienced business guy and the noted fiscal policy wonk trying to sell us a plan that they don’t appear to understand themselves. Even Faux in the Ryan interview seems to think it’s a little lame.
- I will go through the budget line by line.... - I will reduce the deficit by 50%... - Unemployment will not go over 8%... - Amassing $1 trillion in debt is unpatriotic... Where were your questions then?
You're not allowed to know until after Romney is elected but it isn't hard to guess where he plans to get the money. Like he did in Massachusetts, he'll add "fees" for the mentally retarded, the blind, and people with TB, because those people have too much disposable income already. All you have to do is look at his record as Governor of Massachusetts and ask yourself two things: 1) Why does he avoid talking about his record as Governor? 2) Why did he not even bother running for a second term? Answer 1: As pointed out during the primary by every one of his rivals, his record was abysmal by every measure. In fact, his only claim to fame was lowering the unemployment rate from 2002 to 2006 but statistics prove that many people just left the state to find work they could find in Massachusetts. Answer 2: He would have lost the election in a landslide and didn't want to risk his political career.
"Oh yeah, well why aren't you complaining about Obama?!" That's the best you can do? That's a stirring defense of The Mittens Plan, isn't it? Don't want to talk the fact that Super Capitalist and the Policy Wonk don't know what they're talking about? I can understand why. As for Obama, if you've read what I've posted here in the past regarding Our Leader you'll know that I'm not exactly a fan. His lame economic half measures and Corporatist ties coupled with the fact that Rethugs block everything he proposes and then claim that it doesn't work have made for lackluster performance. I don't think he's achieved George Bush's record of 500,000 job losses a month. Probably takes a Rethug to do that. But he hasn't been terribly impressive when it comes to moving things in the other direction either. Not a fan at all. Does that make you feel better? Now about your Bain Capital wonder boy. The guy who says he'll sort all this out. Anything?
Is that sort of like Pelosi's statement, "We have to pass the health care bill so you can find out what's in it"?
I am dubious of any plan that talks about what will happen after the President's first term is over (I'm looking at you too Obamacare). Tell me what happens the first 4 years before you are drummed out of office or no longer have to worry about being re-elected ever again. Most projections are a bunch of BS anyway, though. That is why our current projections don't look as bad a the reality actually is. For instance, I am pretty sure the CBO has to use existing legislation in their projections. Existing legislation says all these tax cuts and stimulus expire all at once in 2012. Yeaaaaahhh Riiiiiight.
