.26 GDP equals B; .20 GDP equals xB. Solve for x. Or you can just realize that redkucng spending to 20% of GDP from 25% means cutting spending a full 20% (percentate 5 bears to 25). Paul Ryan said that under a Romney/Ryan administratin, spending woud be cut to 20% of GDP. He lies. Ryan also said that time is running out: that we con't have much time left. In terms of any URGENCY in his ACTIONS, or proposed spending cut in the Hous GOP budget, or romney saying that his administratin will "move toward a balanced budget", Ryan LIES again.
Doubt me? Never, ever do that. It jsut mkaes lyu ylook like a fool. Note that gettng down to 20% of GDP does NOT mean "cutting' PROJECTED spending by 20%. It means REAL CUTTING of PERSENT SPENDING by 20%. Now "growth" in GDP might give you a ittle extra, but very little. We now have spending this year of at least 3.7 TRILLIOIN. What is 20% of that? It is 740 BILLION in ONE YEAR. And, in the deceptive world of Washington, the "cut' would have to be considerably GREATER than that, since "cuts" are figured on PROJECTED spending (growing much greater than the present "growth" in GDP).
If I believed Romney and Ryan would actually CUT the prsent level of spending by 740 BILLIONI in ONE YEAR, I would vote for the. I don't believe it, and will NOT vote for them. (or Obama, who is--at least in theory, if not in practice--considerably worse than Romney/Ryan).
So far, the House GOP has not passed a budget--no Ryan budget--that has proposed anything close to 740 billion in spending cuts in one year. In fact, as you know, the GOP has not "cut" ONE DIME in spending so far, despite lthe POWER to do so (IF they had the courage to force Democrats to either accept spending cuts or shut the government down, which they don't). The House has to VOTE FOR every DIME of spending, and this last year they have.
None of this Soviet-style "ten year plan" crap. Did you not just hear from Ryan that we are RUNNING OUT OF TIME. Exactly hwere, in the budgets he and the House GOP have proposed, and the spending they have voted for, do you see this sense of URGENCY. Instead, Ryan and the House GoP have boght fully into this FRAUD of taking "cuts" (that may never take place) over TEN YEARS, and counting that as "cutting spending" TODAY. When you listened to Ryan, did yu get the idea that he was talking about TEN YEARS? His rehtoric says we don't HAVE ten years. His ACTIONS indicates the exact opposite. This rehetoric is correct. We do NOT have ten years.
Take HALF. Have Romney, Ryan or the House GOP given any indicatin that they will "cut" 370 BILLION, in ONE YEAR, from present spending? Not a chance. The GOP has proposed NO such cuts, and Romney/Ryan DO NOT INTEND TO. Again, IF I believed that Romney/Ry;an would actually CUT 370 BILLION from yearly spending EACH of the next two years, I would vote for them. But it is as close to certain as things get that they have NO INTENTION of doing that. In fact, Ryan has said his--the House GOP--budget would "balance the budget" by 2040. Huh? Is Ryan, again, not saying we do NOT HAVE THE TIME. If Romney and Ryan weer actually to CUT current spending (not jsut projected spending) by 740 BILLIN, even by the END of Romney's first term, would it really take until 2040 to "balance the budget". Nope. Remember, Ryan said we should reduce spending to 20% of GDP, or BELOW, and that we had NO TIME. But his ACTIOINS indicae that he, like all politicians in Washington, thinks we have ALL OF THE TIME IN THE WORLD, and that all we have to do is spin tales of "ten-year plans" and people will be satisfied.
Are we really going to be spending 740 billiion dollars LESS a year, in real terms, by the end of a Romney/Ryan firt tem? Not a chance. This "across-the board" "compromise" that Ryan and the GOP HAILED as a "deal' out of the deb limit farce is something they are now CRING AOUBT. I know that they are mainly--except Ron and Rand Paul--crying abut "defense cuts", but these "automatic" spending cuts in this "forced sequestratin" are SMALL in comparsion to what we NEED to actualy get spending to 20% of GDP, or BELOW (lol).
No. Ryan and Romney are both playing the usual Washington game, where actual spending "cuts' jsut NEVRE HAPPEND: are ALWAYS ten years or so in the future.
So much for Paul Rayn. I can't vote ffor him. I could not vote for him for PRESIDENT. And Romney is even LESS reliable on actualy "cutting' spending. Romney is a Big Government Guy. So is Ryan, but Ryan is sometimes willing to talk specific numbers, even if things like the limit to 20% of GDP are LIES. Romney will not really even talk like he believes the LIES. Sorry. No sale.
Better than Obama? IN THEORY, if they could wave a magic wand and do EVERYTHING they want. In practice? Not much, if any, and tahere is some possibility that a Romney/Ryan administratin will be WORSE (because theer is ot the vigoous oppositon you can expect if Obama is re-elected by a small margin).
P. S, No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).