Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, March 22, 2019

Seeking applause from a right-wing audience in Michigan, Mitt Romney vowed on Saturday: “I will cut spending, I will cap spending and I will finally balance the budget,” saying that he will end federal funding for all the usual Republican budgetary scapegoats — the Public Broadcasting System, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. He has said much the same thing many times in recent months, hoping to woo the Tea Party extremists who keep rejecting his candidacy.

But Romney must think these “conservatives” very stupid if he’s promising to balance the federal budget by eliminating nominal amounts spent on the nation’s cultural programs. And he must think they’re even dumber if they believe he can do that while delivering the massive tax cuts and defense increases he has also promised. As a former corporate investor and state governor he certainly knows that his numbers simply don’t work.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 0

9 responses to “Romney's Budget-Balancing For Dummies”

  1. got2watch4 says:

    Joe, You know: Power currupts, Absolute Power currupts absolutely.Goes to show you what some politicians will do to get to the seat of power. they all tell fib’s they figure: why not lie, those A-hole voters wont remember what I said anyway.

  2. Michael H. Prosser says:

    Feb. 26, 2012
    Yes, indeed, Romney certainly promises big! But, still not well liked by the “severely” conservative folks! So, he wins this vote and gets nominated, and then what? Will he move back to the center? The first century Roman poet Horace said that you can’t steer the ship too far out into the sea, lest it capsize in the rough waters and you can’t steer it too close to the shore, lest it get destroyed by the rocks (as the recent cruise ship did). Basically, the key is moderation, not extremism, either on the right or left. So what is left for Romney when people do add up the math (an inconvenient truth) and find that the Emperor has no clothes?
    There are many admirable features for Romnet, but if jobs and the economy are the two primary domestic problems to be fixed, it looks as though in reality, he can’t fix them. Perhaps, like many candidates, he is illusional? or delusional?
    It’s a pity that our political candidates cannot call for shared sacrifice, just as the Europeans are being called to do, to save the Euro and the European Union.
    For a long, long time, when the US government needed to fight a war, or bring economic stability, its leaders recognized that new taxes would be needed. Of course, this would also mean a thorough reconsideration of the entire tax code. But no realism? Romney, if you are going to be the Republican nominee, can you be honest with us? Can you expect that American people are smart enough to follow honest talk about the debt, job creation, and the economy in general? (Note, dear Mitt, I will actually not vote for you, Santorum, Gingrich, nor Paul, so whatever you are saying will not bring me to your sides.) But still, you all should be honest with the American voters. What if you get elected and are even worse than the last Republican president? This would not only be terrible for the US but also for the world more broadly. Moderation, moderatioon, not extremism.

  3. Howz 1 says:

    The Tea Party is a group that constantly advocates for policies against their own self interest, parents interest and that of their children. So what would you call that,smart? They have been manipulated to believe that Wall St. works in their interest, and tax cuts for the rich will generate jobs. During the Bush tax cut years approximately 2.9 million jobs have been shipped out of the country, and middle class wages were flat. But you can tell these prople this, because the dullards in the Tea party don’t understand that, and want to go back to the same policies that caused the financial meltdown. I’ve seen Tea Party rallies and this is a group that is in dire need of health care, since they are mostly over weight people, with chronic diseases. So what do they want to cut? Health care reform, and go back to when insurance companies could drop you for pre existing conditions, raise your rates at will, and kick your kids off the plans. Obamacare as they deride it insured over 1 million kids that just graduated from college. Their kids! They want to cut medicare and social security for themselves and families. They also support an assult on the environment by removing laws that clean the air for their own children, and will pollute the drinking water that their families use. Why? Because the energy companies who made windfall profits are greedy and want more. They say they are Evengelical but are ok with 15 million homeless children, yet want to make the rich, richer. Does anyone call this smart thinking? This is why the canidates in the GOP race get away with the insane things they say. Each one trying to dumb down their platform so these nuckle heads can understand it. Thankfully there will be a general election where thinking people that have the best interests of themselves and their families wil vote.

  4. politicalhack says:

    Ever since I can remember, and that is quite a few years, All american voters have been voting against their own self interests, or for completely off the wall reasons. Although Kennedy was the right choice, his narrow margin was probably because of his appearance on black and white television – no five oclock shadow, then eight years later, although he had revealed his megalomaniac tendencies they voted in Richard Nixon. The inspector general program was relatively new, but was effectively identifying fat pockets in the bureaucracy. Its real enemy was the seniority system. However it was working to bring about answerability, accountability, and budget reductions. Then, in 1980, a Californian ex movie star, who talked about government waste in terms of the Rural Electrification Commission and the Birch Corporation, two minor expenditures, was voted into the presidency……Ronald Reagan came in and his cohort, Stockman started swinging his budgetary axe, indiscrimintely cutting much needed programs. The DOD was of course, untouched. Reagan also sold the electorate on the concept of trickle down economics, which never happened.

    Ever since I can remember, Republicans have been talking about balancing the budget.
    But in recent history, only two presidents have succeeded in doing so, both Democrats – Johnson and Clinton.

    The tea party began as a grass roots movement calling for budgetary reform but apparently was subverted by corporate interests, so it is no wonder that they act against their own self interests and listen to illogical claims from their Republican leaders.

  5. rustacus21 says:

    … of “Terror” was ‘terrorized’ by Fox, starting Jan 20, 2009 & hasn’t yet ceased. Consequently, the last administration was ‘BOUGHT’ time in the media, to disappear & get a breather, while heap upon blame was piled atop Prez Obama & administration. The affect of this is in the person of the entire “T” Party, whom I shall now refer to as the “Terror” party, for their shameless fear of reality & the future. Smaller government is impossible at this modern stage of history. It worked in the context of 13 colonies, but the ‘ideal’ of “smaller”, as advanced by Paul to Romney is assinine, insulting yes, STUPID, if Conservatives expect ALL Americans to respond to his NONSENSE w/a vote to him for prez. There will be supporters for sure, based on ideology, religion, economics & race. But as for voting on the bases of what’s best for the nation, Romney & company are wasting their time & money. God willing, the American people, if nothing else, have grown more intelligent as a result of the last 4 years. AND – hopefully our PRESIDENT as well…

  6. Obozo Must Go says:

    How stupid to think that we should balance our budgets? How dumb can they be to expect fiscal restraint and responsibility? I mean really!!!

  7. rustacus21 says:

    … & still live in U’r mother’s basement, U’d never know that as a working person, U’r NEVER (effectively) OUT of debt. The same goes for the government. W/both past & FUTURE financial/fiscal obligations, certain “expenditures” stay on the books, for ‘relative’ perpetuity. Small-minded, immature & shallow Ron Paul, Gingrich, Santorum & Romney supporters have NO idea what that means!!! Their simple-minded approaches have been tried already – from 2001-2009, 1981-1992 & 1969-1976. These were years of smallest (economic) growth & growth of the largest deficits in the nations history!!! Please check the FIGURES, do the MATH U’R SELF, in order to understand the ‘con’ in Con-servative is about making fools & suckers out of their supporters – ESPECIALLY the likes of ‘Obozomust…’ & others like him, whose subterrainian thinking sees only in color (White), amounting only to pennies of a dollar!!! Maturity + common sense = Liberal/Progressivism. The nation has a WHOLE LOT of growing up 2 do, if ‘Obozomust…’ is any indication…

  8. rustacus21 says:

    … & APOLOGIES TO ‘OBOZOMUSTGO’, for mis-identifying him as a Conservative/Republican!!! I was quoting a previous article & got the name (of the commentor) wrong!!! If I offended, please 4give me!!! I will be more PRECISE in future (is doesn’t pay to do these in a hurry!!!)…

  9. Obozo Must Go says:

    FYI… I was being facetious. Anyone that supports out of control spending and national debts beyond our GDP is simply not capable of simple math. And the fact is that both parties have been horrible, in general, at managing our public finances for the past 100 years. I dont see these problems as dem vs. repub. I see it as a math problem, and a weak political class incapable of telling the truth to Americans. I laugh at people that say tax revenues are too low without ever admitting that the other half of the budget is spending. And it is in the spending where the politicians buy their votes after skimming a huge percentage off the top to feed their beauracracy. We are now at a point in America where nearly 50% of the people pay no federal income tax, and a large majority of those are NET TAKERS of benefits. These are facts from the IRS and are not disputable. The main difference, as I see it, between conservatives and liberals is that liberals believe in a fixed economic pie and that government controlled income redistribution from the top to the bottom is best way to address what they perceive as an unfair world where some are lucky to have a bigger piece. Lefties see government as the great playing field “leveler”. Equality of results is the objective. Conservatives on the other hand believe that the economic pie is always growing. They believe in an environment where those that have resources should be incented to invest those resources (which creates more jobs) and individuals should have maximum liberty and freedom of economic choice. Whatever you subsidize (meaning increasing incentive or reducing costs), you tend to get more of. Whatever you punish (meaning reducing incentive or increasing costs), you tend to get less of. Therefore, economic policies that increase incentives for wealth creation within a free market are the best ways to accomplish a growth economy. Conservatives are more focused on equality of opportunity than equality of results. Things are certainly more complex in reality, but that’s the basic fundamental differences. I am very conservative, but I dont dispute the need for some measure of a social safety net. But I also know that safety nets become a way of life for generations of people. I dont dispute that some people are still racist, or homophobes, or whatever derogatory name a lefty will throw out. But that number of people is very low, and their influence outside of their own 4 walls is nil. I dont see the world as some sort of unfair and wicked place where only government can be the instrument to “perfect man” by legislating and enforcing away human flaws in order to create some sort of utopia where everyone is exactly the same. I see freedom as the only true way to allow people to become what they want, believe what they want, and respect the freedom of others. An oppressive government that invades every aspect of life by telling me what kind of medical care, retirement funds, lightbulbs, toilets, cars, refrigerators, washers, dryers, food, employment relationship, etc. etc. etc. is a government that’s gone too damned far and costs too damned much. The government is already in every single aspect of our lives. Yes, certainly we need some regulation to protect the common good, but I think the argument is one of degree, not of none vs. any. I think the argument is over the proper role of government, not the existence of or lack of government. And the point at which government begins to consume way too much of the economic output for regulatory and redistributionist purposes is the point at which we know they have gone too far. And Obozo and his band of leftist radicals are pushing that envelope too far. That’s why Obozo must go! Have a nice day!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.