The money being borrowed and the interest paid to cover wars and wall street far exceeds whatever you might consider the Moochers might drain from the economy.
I don't have it at hand, what does the entire US social safety net (which includes the moochers and the deserving) cost come to, as a percent of the annual federal budget, 13%?
wow that is a totally unbiased analysis, especially considering that everyone on the left has continuously ridiculed mitt for not having provided details.. it is 100% all about what he can get through Congress. please stop posting total bullshit and thinking it has any effect on anyone. ok thanks.
To arrive at that conclusion, and to do it without details, they assumed the BEST for Romney/Ryan's plan.
No they didn't, read their assumptions, they are not accounting for spending cuts, spending cuts are key. If spending comes down significantly and revenue stays anywhere within the realm of neutral after the proposed tax cuts the deficit will disappear. Assuming any growth we 'could' run surpluses and begin to chew up the debt. Of course these are all pipe dreams until they get through Congress. At least he has a plan, what is obama proposing to do about the debt/deficit?
Grow them exponentially. But that's OK, retard Ricter lives in a fantasy world where everyone forgives everyone's debt.
It will not, though. Government is an important (sometimes the only) customer to thousands of businesses. This is why actual observation of austerity, present and historical, shows revenue falling after spending cuts. Now if you want to bring the deficit and debt down in the long term, you can with gradual adjustments including cuts, but it's not an effect Romney/Ryan would see anyway. Edit: to answer your latter question, and don't forget Obama signed spending controls into law: <img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2012/0504-biz-charts/0505-biz-webCHARTS.png">