Trumps economic plan was on track to make us totally debt free. Then he went soft on us and said he didn't want people dying in the street because they couldn't afford healthcare.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Rubio is Coming
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
Really? He plans to run such a large budget surplus that government could continue to function in any crisis, without selling bonds to willing American citizen buyers?Trumps economic plan was on track to make us totally debt free.
Think about it. What is the best tool or weapon to combat a crippling debt? Even a USA school child in our failing schools can teach you it is a budget surplus.Really? He plans to run such a large budget surplus that government could continue to function in any crisis, without selling bonds to willing American citizen buyers?
Crippling debt?Think about it. What is the best tool or weapon to combat a crippling debt? Even a USA school child in our failing schools can teach you it is a budget surplus.
don't even worry about it. That is a long way off and only occurs when almost the entire revenue goes to paying the interest on the debt. It's just like the Monopoly game. At that point the bank owns everything.Crippling debt?
Marco Rubio's budget math is ridiculous
"Rubio has proposed a tax cut that will reduce federal revenue by $6.8 trillion over 10 years. Numbers that large don't mean anything to people, so for comparison's sake let's say that if we entirely eliminated American military spending over that period we still couldn't quite pay for it.
"But of course Rubio doesn't want to eliminate military spending — he wants to spend more. He also promises to avoid any cuts to Social Security and Medicare for people currently at or near retirement. For good measure, he is also proposing a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. You could eliminate the entire non-defense discretionary budget and you'd still need $100 billion to $200 billion more per year in cuts to make this work.
"This is, of course, totally unworkable. And the process that led Rubio to this point is telling and troubling.
"Rubio entered the Senate at a time when an intellectual movement known as "reform" was hot in conservative circles, which argued that Republicans should concentrate less on supply-side tax cuts and more on tax policy focused on the working class. This originally took the form of a $2.4 trillion tax cut plan crafted by Utah Sen. Mike Lee that Rubio signed on to but then kept transforming into a larger and more regressive tax cut, as Rubio came under pressure from the supply-side wing of the party and it became clear that the constituency for "reform" conservatism was limited to a handful of media figures. Eager to prove that his dalliance with the reformocons was over, he actually ended up proposing to entirely eliminate taxes on investment income, meaning that billionaire captains of industry could end up paying nothing at all.
"The upshot is a plan that is costly and regressive, yet paired with other commitments around entitlements, military spending, and constitutional amendments that make it completely impossible.
"Trump's tax plan is even costlier than Rubio's by most measures. But in his defense, he barely ever talks about it and hasn't compounded the cost problem with a balanced-budget amendment or a firm commitment to enormous quantities of new military spending."
More >>
"Rubio has proposed a tax cut that will reduce federal revenue by $6.8 trillion over 10 years. Numbers that large don't mean anything to people, so for comparison's sake let's say that if we entirely eliminated American military spending over that period we still couldn't quite pay for it.
"But of course Rubio doesn't want to eliminate military spending — he wants to spend more. He also promises to avoid any cuts to Social Security and Medicare for people currently at or near retirement. For good measure, he is also proposing a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. You could eliminate the entire non-defense discretionary budget and you'd still need $100 billion to $200 billion more per year in cuts to make this work.
"This is, of course, totally unworkable. And the process that led Rubio to this point is telling and troubling.
"Rubio entered the Senate at a time when an intellectual movement known as "reform" was hot in conservative circles, which argued that Republicans should concentrate less on supply-side tax cuts and more on tax policy focused on the working class. This originally took the form of a $2.4 trillion tax cut plan crafted by Utah Sen. Mike Lee that Rubio signed on to but then kept transforming into a larger and more regressive tax cut, as Rubio came under pressure from the supply-side wing of the party and it became clear that the constituency for "reform" conservatism was limited to a handful of media figures. Eager to prove that his dalliance with the reformocons was over, he actually ended up proposing to entirely eliminate taxes on investment income, meaning that billionaire captains of industry could end up paying nothing at all.
"The upshot is a plan that is costly and regressive, yet paired with other commitments around entitlements, military spending, and constitutional amendments that make it completely impossible.
"Trump's tax plan is even costlier than Rubio's by most measures. But in his defense, he barely ever talks about it and hasn't compounded the cost problem with a balanced-budget amendment or a firm commitment to enormous quantities of new military spending."
More >>
then vote for Cruz. He will completely eliminate the IRS. All you will need is a post card with no address to mail it to.Marco Rubio's budget math is ridiculous
"Rubio has proposed a tax cut that will reduce federal revenue by $6.8 trillion over 10 years. Numbers that large don't mean anything to people, so for comparison's sake let's say that if we entirely eliminated American military spending over that period we still couldn't quite pay for it.
"But of course Rubio doesn't want to eliminate military spending — he wants to spend more. He also promises to avoid any cuts to Social Security and Medicare for people currently at or near retirement. For good measure, he is also proposing a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. You could eliminate the entire non-defense discretionary budget and you'd still need $100 billion to $200 billion more per year in cuts to make this work.
"This is, of course, totally unworkable. And the process that led Rubio to this point is telling and troubling.
"Rubio entered the Senate at a time when an intellectual movement known as "reform" was hot in conservative circles, which argued that Republicans should concentrate less on supply-side tax cuts and more on tax policy focused on the working class. This originally took the form of a $2.4 trillion tax cut plan crafted by Utah Sen. Mike Lee that Rubio signed on to but then kept transforming into a larger and more regressive tax cut, as Rubio came under pressure from the supply-side wing of the party and it became clear that the constituency for "reform" conservatism was limited to a handful of media figures. Eager to prove that his dalliance with the reformocons was over, he actually ended up proposing to entirely eliminate taxes on investment income, meaning that billionaire captains of industry could end up paying nothing at all.
"The upshot is a plan that is costly and regressive, yet paired with other commitments around entitlements, military spending, and constitutional amendments that make it completely impossible.
"Trump's tax plan is even costlier than Rubio's by most measures. But in his defense, he barely ever talks about it and hasn't compounded the cost problem with a balanced-budget amendment or a firm commitment to enormous quantities of new military spending."
More >>
If you watch cnbc or BTV or read the posts on ET, the number one question people are asking is,"What should I do with my money?"
Bernie is the only candidate who has a clear answer to that problem.
Bernie is the only candidate who has a clear answer to that problem.
Exclusive: Mitt Romney To Endorse Marco Rubio
The establishment wagons are circling
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitt-romney-endorse-marco-rubio_us_56c91e0ae4b0928f5a6c3136
The establishment wagons are circling
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitt-romney-endorse-marco-rubio_us_56c91e0ae4b0928f5a6c3136
Losers endorse Rubio?Exclusive: Mitt Romney To Endorse Marco Rubio
The establishment wagons are circling
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitt-romney-endorse-marco-rubio_us_56c91e0ae4b0928f5a6c3136
What ever happened to that guy who dropped out and endorsed Bush? I saw him smiling behind the withdrawal speech. Oh yeah, Lindsey Graham. "I tried to run and failed, so I endorse Jeb Bush."
Mitt Romney: I didn't have a clue in 2012, so I am endorsing Rubio in 2016.
That carries a lot of weight. I'm on pin cushions waiting for Sarah Palins endoresement.
If I was Hillary I would devote 75% of my budget to Rubio. Talk about fresh meat.
Last edited: