# Thread: The future of the Republican party

1. Originally Posted by BAJ
Demonstrate the math as a formula.
(Long-Run Deficit as a % of GDP / Long-Run Nominal Growth Rate of GDP) = Debt as % of GDP

Current Deficit as % of GDP = ~7%

Long-Run Nominal Growth Rate of GDP = ~5% (hopefully)

If we can achieve that growth rate, then getting Long-Run Deficit down to ~3% of GDP will yield 60% Debt as % of GDP.

All the versions of Romney's and Ryan's Plans accomplish this goal.

Originally Posted by BAJ
I typed: "Romneys plan for a balanced budget with deficit repayment" into bing, and I posted the articles that came up.
I'm not reading those articles right now, cuz I'm doing other stuff, and I already know what the plans entailed.

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/201...budget-details

2. Originally Posted by lowtech redneck
1.) So long as such states keep voting for politicians with an anti-federalist, high tax and high spending agenda, I have no sympathy for them....they're getting exactly what they asked for.
But the problem is that the states which at the state level apply low tax and low spending policies are the ones that take the lion's share of federal funding. This is because it turns out their people really want stuff that takes a lot of money.

3. Originally Posted by Zarathustra
(Long-Run Deficit as a % of GDP / Long-Run Nominal Growth Rate of GDP) = Debt as % of GDP

Current Deficit as % of GDP = ~7%

Nominal Growth Rate of GDP = ~5% (hopefully)

If we can achieve that growth rate, then getting Long-Run Deficit down to ~3% of GDP will yield 60% Debt as % of GDP.

All the versions of Romney's and Ryan's Plans accomplish this goal.
I emphasize the words hopefully and if. And perhaps you should mention at what year the deficit will be within 3% of the GDP.

For my part, I concede there is technically a mathematical way to achieve this goal, it just involves eviscerating the budget outside of defense spending, and all versions of Romney's and Ryan's plans accomplish that.

4. Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan
But the problem is that the states which at the state level apply low tax and low spending policies are the ones that take the lion's share of federal funding. This is because it turns out their people really want stuff that takes a lot of money.
They take the lions share of federal funding due to their socio-economic demographics and federal-level tax and spending policy....if the blue states in question object to this dynamic, they should vote for politicians in favor of lower federal taxes, lower federal spending, and the federalization of welfare/entitlement programs. National voting patterns seem to indicate that its the blue states that are in favor of the status quo....they have no one to blame but themselves for the disparate results.

5. Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan
I emphasize the words hopefully and if. And perhaps you should mention at what year the deficit will be within 3% of the GDP.
I'm not exactly sure what year it would happen, but I wouldn't expect debt as a % of GDP to be down to 60% til after 2020.

This doesn't really bother me, tho, as I think, realistically, we are in Great Depression II, and this is what happens in these scenarios.

You run up your debts during this time, but need to restructure your society for long-term sustainability.

In this case, the restructuring that needs to happen is entitlement reform.

Which is what the Ryan and Romney Plans accomplish.

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan
For my part, I concede there is technically a mathematical way to achieve this goal, it just involves eviscerating the budget outside of defense spending, and all versions of Romney's and Ryan's plans accomplish that.
Best way to think about it:

\$150B = ~1% of GDP

If you subscribe to my 3:1 cuts to revenue increases formula described earlier (which you should):

If you get \$150B of revenue increase in a year, then you accept \$450B in cuts.

That's \$600B in a year, which is equal to ~4% of GDP.

Our deficit is currently ~7% of GDP.

7% of GDP deficit - 4% of GDP reduction = 3% of GDP new deficit

3% of GDP new deficit / 5% of GDP nominal growth rate = 60% of GDP debt

You do this over the next 6-8 yrs, and you get what Ray Dalio has called "The Most Beautiful Deleveraging."

6. Originally Posted by lowtech redneck
They take the lions share of federal funding due to their socio-economic demographics and federal-level tax and spending policy....if the blue states in question object to this dynamic, they should vote for politicians in favor of lower federal taxes, lower federal spending, and the federalization of welfare/entitlement programs. National voting patterns seem to indicate that its the blue states that are in favor of the status quo....they have no one to blame but themselves for the disparate results.
You're largely right. What you're saying would be the right thing to say to some very state focused liberal Democrat griping over the funding going to red states. The thing is, in my experience, state focused liberal Democrats practically don't exist. They tend to think very nationally, very federally. And in my experience, when people bring up all these charts, they aren't trying to make the point that Alabama should stop taking money from them, they're making the point that Alabama should stop bitching about federal taxing and spending because they're getting the best deal out of it. Do you see the difference?

If a Californian Democrat wanted to stop being a donor state, then yes, that person should change the way he or she votes. But that is not typically what they want. They want a very big role for the federal government and they want Alabama to stop messing that up, so they're making the point that nobody has less of a reason to eject the federal government than Alabama.

7. Originally Posted by Zarathustra
Best way to think about it:

\$150B = ~1% of GDP

If you subscribe to my 3:1 cuts to revenue increases formula described earlier (which you should):

If you get \$150B of revenue increase in a year, then you accept \$450B in cuts.

That's \$600B in a year, which is equal to ~4% of GDP.

Our deficit is currently ~7% of GDP.

7% of GDP deficit - 4% of GDP reduction = 3% of GDP new deficit

3% of GDP new deficit / 5% of GDP nominal growth rate = 60% of GDP debt

You do this over the next 6-8 yrs, and you get what Ray Dalio has called "The Most Beautiful Deleveraging."

That's great and all, but being generous enough to not even question any part of what's written there, I'll just ask about what isn't written there. Where are those cuts coming from and what effect will they have on the economy and the nation in general?

8. Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan
Do you see the difference?
I see the difference, but I don't think its as effective a point that they seem to think it is; both sides seem to be voting out of principle rather than (strictly monetary) self-interests.

9. Originally Posted by lowtech redneck
Secondly, California in particular also has a younger population than other states, and therefore pays less for things like social security and medicare.
Yet, CA spends a disproportionate amount of its money on welfare. In fact, CA carries 1/3 of the nation's welfare load. A third! Yet we only have 12% of the nation's population in this state. Think about that! 12% of the nation, yet 1/3 of the nation's welfare recipients.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/...the-us/?page=1

SACRAMENTO — When Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature overhauled the state’s welfare program last month, some people learned a jarring fact for the first time: California has one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients.

That California has a lot of people on welfare was not a secret. In addition to its size, the state has a long history of heavy focus on social services, in part because of years of Democratic dominance in Sacramento.

But the size of California’s welfare rolls is disproportionate when you consider the state has only 12 percent of the nation’s population. Some of it has to do with the benefits being more generous than in many other states, but experts also point to various economic and social factors.

There’s more to support the notion that this is the welfare state. California:

• Pays out one of the highest maximum monthly cash grants to the average family on welfare, \$638.

• Continues aid for children even when the parents lose eligibility.

• Provides benefits even to some who find a job and helps with child care and transportation while attending school or training.

On the flip side, California is not the land of endless “Cadillac” benefits:

• The actual average cash grant for the typical family of three is \$463.

• Welfare payments have been cut twice since 2009 while 18 states have provided nominal increases.

• The high cost of housing eats up more of the aid than in other states with smaller grants.

People in California will start moving off welfare more quickly due to changes made by the governor and lawmakers, even though their primary goal was to save money and help chip away at a huge budget deficit. They imposed a shorter benefit period, but avoided making cuts in grants in the state’s \$6.7 billion welfare-to-work program, called CalWORKS. (Federal taxpayers do pick up \$3.7 billion of the tab.)

California by far spends more than any other state on welfare. But broken down on a per-capita basis, the story is a little different.

That overall figure amounts to \$179 annually for every man, woman and child in California. That trails New York (\$256) and Hawaii (\$233). Two large states among the lowest in per capita spending are Texas (\$32) and Florida (\$44). The national average is \$99.

The figures for the states do not include other support, such as food stamps, known as CalFresh in California, or Medicaid, known as Medi-Cal in California.

The amount California spends and the level of its benefits have been central to the long-running debate over why so many people here are on welfare.
Is California a magnet?

In the 1990s, then-Gov. Pete Wilson, the former San Diego mayor, famously declared that welfare benefits lured poor people to California. Some experts say there wasn’t solid evidence to support that notion then — or now....

10. Originally Posted by Zarathustra
(Long-Run Deficit as a % of GDP / Long-Run Nominal Growth Rate of GDP) = Debt as % of GDP

Current Deficit as % of GDP = ~7%

Long-Run Nominal Growth Rate of GDP = ~5% (hopefully)

If we can achieve that growth rate, then getting Long-Run Deficit down to ~3% of GDP will yield 60% Debt as % of GDP.

All the versions of Romney's and Ryan's Plans accomplish this goal.

I'm not reading those articles right now, cuz I'm doing other stuff, and I already know what the plans entailed.

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/201...budget-details
This is interesting. However, Romney is not Ryan, and they had lots of differences. Further, it appears that Ryan wants to cut the deficit to something like 62% of GDP or something by 2022, and Romney said he would cut it to 20% of GDP in four years, but he doesn't explain how. Anyone can make promises using wishful thinking.

I counter your article with this one:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82829.html

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•