By Bill Maher
Let's say you're a deficit hawk, as it seems almost everyone is these days. I give you a choice: Candidate A wants to reform entitlements, cut defense spending, and raise revenues. Candidate B wants to reform entitlements, raise defense spending, and lower revenues. Also, Candidate A's party has a history of lowering deficits, and Candidate B's party exploding them. Who would you trust more on the deficit?
Obviously, Obama is Candidate A, and Romney is Candidate B. It's really not that complicated to determine who would be better on deficit reduction. You don't even have to look at their specific proposals, just the broad approach. Lowering deficits by raising defense spending and lowering tax revenues is simply impossible.
Yet, look at this ABC/Washington Post poll. Asked "who you trust to handle" Medicare, international affairs, taxes, a crisis, the economy, and health care, Obama gets the edge. But what's the one area where Romney has a big edge? Handling deficits.
Economists say Romney wants to increase defense spending by $2 trillion. Where do they get that? He's said repeatedly that defense spending has to be at least 4% of GDP, and that's a $2 trillion charge on the credit card. My first thought was, Romney's not serious; saying defense spending should be at least 4% of GDP is completely arbitrary and stupid. But what if he is serious, and that's his stimulus? Obama's stimulus was only $800 billion, and it included things that actually reduce government spending in the long run, like making all federal buildings more energy efficient.
If this is Romney's stimulus, it's EXACTLY what Reagan did -- nibbled at spending on social programs, while massively increasing defense spending. There's only one problem with it: as Bill Clinton would say, arithmetic. Something's got to give -- and it's the national debt.
Let's say you're a deficit hawk, as it seems almost everyone is these days. I give you a choice: Candidate A wants to reform entitlements, cut defense spending, and raise revenues. Candidate B wants to reform entitlements, raise defense spending, and lower revenues. Also, Candidate A's party has a history of lowering deficits, and Candidate B's party exploding them. Who would you trust more on the deficit?
Obviously, Obama is Candidate A, and Romney is Candidate B. It's really not that complicated to determine who would be better on deficit reduction. You don't even have to look at their specific proposals, just the broad approach. Lowering deficits by raising defense spending and lowering tax revenues is simply impossible.
Yet, look at this ABC/Washington Post poll. Asked "who you trust to handle" Medicare, international affairs, taxes, a crisis, the economy, and health care, Obama gets the edge. But what's the one area where Romney has a big edge? Handling deficits.
Economists say Romney wants to increase defense spending by $2 trillion. Where do they get that? He's said repeatedly that defense spending has to be at least 4% of GDP, and that's a $2 trillion charge on the credit card. My first thought was, Romney's not serious; saying defense spending should be at least 4% of GDP is completely arbitrary and stupid. But what if he is serious, and that's his stimulus? Obama's stimulus was only $800 billion, and it included things that actually reduce government spending in the long run, like making all federal buildings more energy efficient.
If this is Romney's stimulus, it's EXACTLY what Reagan did -- nibbled at spending on social programs, while massively increasing defense spending. There's only one problem with it: as Bill Clinton would say, arithmetic. Something's got to give -- and it's the national debt.
11 comments:
As a Canadian watching the American election I am wondering if either party has noticed that the cupboard is bare while making their promises. Like a family with over-extended credit cards it takes sacrifice for many years to reduce debt. Like Canada and many countries in Europe the USA desperately needs a VAT (value added sales tax on most goods and services) when government debt gets out of control. This is a tax that the rich cannot escape paying when they buy their estates and luxury cars and yachts. The only catch is if the government will actually use it for debt reduction. Either a VAT or big reductions in spending and increases in other taxes can eliminate the huge yearly deficits. The fantasy of big economic growth is just that, a fantasy, in this age of global competition with it's cheap overseas wages. Slow growth is actually more stable in the long run leading to mild recessions instead of crashes. If the above advice is ignored, well just look at Greece for a glimpse of the future.
Unrelated but I'm dying for you to see this Bill:
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-pot-activist-wins-25m-lottery-prize-1.1033123
Hi Bill
You said in your 9th Nov real time that you couldn't understand why the reds were banging on about liberty but couldn't get how what you do with your body is a liberty issue. They can't because they want to be told what to do with their bodies and souls - they don't want government interfering, but they do want the church, they absolutely want the church telling them what to do and when to do it, so if they do well enough they get points then eveyone will like them. Then they freak when people don't like them and can't understand why. The church keeps your mind in a child's head.
I love your show and think you're doing a great job.
Sarah, England :)
HAHAHAHA Election 2012 HEHEHEHE HAHAHAHA HOOHOHOHOHOHO HUEEEHUEEEHUEEEE Republicans spending 4 years trying to destroy Obama HAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHEHEHE AND BWAHAHAHAHAHA BWOHOHOHOHOHAHAHHOOOHEHEHEHEEEE... Gosh, I am having so much fun I can hardly stand it...
On the other hand if Candidate A has murdered countless people in countries he isn't even pretending to be at war with and Candidate B says he wants to do the same (but is a notorious flip flopper) which one would you choose? You chose A to the tune of a million, Bill, and I imagine you can sleep at night because he talks purty and doesn't have a fake Texas accent.
Why is it that the poorest states vote for the party of the rich? I just finished a correlation of presidential voting versus income per capita state by state. All but two of the 15 lowest ranked states by GDP per capita voted for Romney. The states voting Obama on average had income levels 15% higher than states voting Romney. Source: Bureau of Business Economic Research //bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm
Why would poor states vote for the party that will give tax cuts to the rich and reduce entitlements for the poor thus making their state poorer? In my mind, it has to be belief and fear, the misogynist,racist, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-science lines spouted by those at Faux News to portray Obama as the communist anti-Christ who will take our guns away leaving us defenseless for when those bull dykes come to carry our daughters off to marry them! Those same fears that strengthen the base scare the living shit out of centrist, libertarian conservatives. But seriously, doesn't this FACT that the richest states are voting for Democrats just add to the problems facing the Republicans? People migrate based on economic opportunity, away from poor states into rich states. As well, on a policy basis the Republicans are clearly the party of the rich yet over and over again, on a voting basis they are the party of the poor. How do you deal with that existential contradiction and how long does it take before your voters wake up and say "Hey WTF, you guys have been playing us for patsy's all these years, my cousin Clem don't like that and he got a gun"!
The real Republican bubble has burst, sort of.
And so Bill needs to officially and dramatically burst the republican bubble on Real Time. Just put a Romney look-alike in there and then jab the bubble with a "Latino pen of truth" or some such poking device.
Bill,
Please, please, please get Steve Keen on the show - we really need to hear what he has to say about what happened to the economy and how to get out of this mess. That's my plea. Peace
Maybe Mitt thought being a shape shifting pony was being better than a one trick one ... kinda hard to believe he didn't realise they are pretty much one in the same.
This to Bill,man you outta take the bet $ with plastic hair and finance a run for the porchmonkeys seat in '14 I & many,many others would vote for you!
Post a Comment