The Paul Ryan Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='perdition(troy']No one has.[/QUOTE]

But... but... he said they did. And he's a professor. He has to be right... right?
 
awww, someone likes playing semantic sleight of hand. if i defend all of the ideas and principles of the budget, but don't specifically say i like the budget, then i didn't defend the budget.

you are an outstanding toll, i'll give you that much credit.
 
[quote name='Clak'] We didn't all get to go to Wal-Mart University, Bob.[/QUOTE]

grrrr white ivory tower progressive communo muslim fascist!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']awww, someone likes playing semantic sleight of hand. if i defend all of the ideas and principles of the budget, but don't specifically say i like the budget, then i didn't defend the budget.

you are an outstanding toll, i'll give you that much credit.[/QUOTE]

The closest I came to defending anything about this budget was pointing out that the majority of the cuts came from the majority of the budget.... which is a big, fat, "duh."

This budget is a piece of trash and I've pretty much said so, if not in this thread, in others. Obviously, we have our core beliefs as to why we differ on what makes us think this budget is a joke, but I sure as heck am not going to go out of my way to defend a budget that has anyone spending nearly twice their yearly income - even more so when they're already several times their yearly income in debt.
 
Link

Entitlement Hater Paul Ryan Was A Social Security Baby


When Representative Paul Ryan was 16 years old , tragedy struck his family. His 55 year old father had passed away from a heart attack. Young Paul Ryan found his father’s lifeless body and was burdened by the fact that he had to tell his mother and siblings of this horrible situation.
After his father’s passing, young Paul Ryan started collecting social security benefits until the age of 18 years old. He took this benefit and saved it for his college education. Representative Paul Ryan is one example of the millions of people whose lives have depended on our social contract with the American people. Without this benefit, his mother would have had to make even tougher decisions and Representative Paul Ryan may not have been able to pay for his college education. This social contract lifted him and his entire family out of a tough situation.


Many people do not know that 30% of the social security fund goes directly to widows,orphans and the disabled. It is not solely for the benefit of retirees. Unfortunately this social contract is under a regressive attack by the Republicans, including Paul Ryan.
Under Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America budget, he wants to take a portion of social security and funnel it to Wall Street to gamble with, rather than having the current program stand as it is, as an insurance program rather than an investment. Paul Ryan’s plan states,
“Initially, workers are allowed to invest 2 percent of their first $10,000 of annual payroll into personal accounts, and 1 percent of annual payroll above that up to the Social Security earnings limit,”
“Eventually, by 2042, workers will be able to invest 8 percent up to the inflation-adjustment level, and 4 percent of payroll above that, for an account averaging 5.1 percent,
Paul Ryan isn’t the only regressive Republican who’s younger years have benefited from our progressive social contract, United States Senator Scott Brown from Massachusetts benefited from welfare programs also.
The attempt of these regressives is not that they want to reform the system, they do not believe the government should be involved in social programs at all. It is purely ideological, even though it was progressives that lifted them out of dire straits.
Click to expand...
tl;dr : those who suck hardest at the government's teat bitch and whine about it's 'waste' the most. something something self-hatred.
 
[quote name='IRHari']That post trashes the Ryan budget by....[/QUOTE]

Because the Republicans couldn't even manage to cut the 2% they originally claimed they were going to?

When Representative Paul Ryan was 16 years old , tragedy struck his family. His 55 year old father had passed away from a heart attack. Young Paul Ryan found his father’s lifeless body and was burdened by the fact that he had to tell his mother and siblings of this horrible situation.
After his father’s passing, young Paul Ryan started collecting social security benefits until the age of 18 years old. He took this benefit and saved it for his college education. Representative Paul Ryan is one example of the millions of people whose lives have depended on our social contract with the American people.
Click to expand...

Can anyone provide evidence that shows that if his 55 year old father hadn't been paying into Social Security for X amount of years, he wouldn't have put the money into a different type of investment (life insurance policy, perhaps?) that would have paid out for Ryan?

Now, if you come back and tell me that his family sustained themselves on government cheese, that's a different story.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Can anyone provide evidence that shows that if his 55 year old father hadn't been paying into Social Security for X amount of years, he wouldn't have put the money into a different type of investment (life insurance policy, perhaps?) that would have paid out for Ryan?

Now, if you come back and tell me that his family sustained themselves on government cheese, that's a different story.[/QUOTE]
So are you saying that they didn't need the money and that they deserved it or are you saying the mother is a welfare queen. I can't think of any cases where welfare payments were so much that it was able to be used as supplemental to a COLLEGE EDUCATION.

Not bad considering his father was probably pretty involved in the family business. There's nothing quite like generational wealth to have someone pull up their own bootstraps while sucking on the government teat to give someone an entitlement complex...kinda like how you describe actually.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Where does it say he used it to pay for his entire college education?[/QUOTE]
No where because no one did.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']


Can anyone provide evidence that shows that if his 55 year old father hadn't been paying into Social Security for X amount of years, he would have put the money into a different type of investment (life insurance policy, perhaps?) that would have paid out for Ryan?
[/QUOTE]
Works both ways.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Where does it say he used it to pay for his entire college education?[/QUOTE]

Why does it matter? The fact that he used any of it to pay for college flies in the face of his present ideology.

Also, how much do you think a father of four would've really invested if he didn't have to put the money into Social Security?
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...h-debt-problem/2011/04/19/AFoiAH9D_story.html

Some semi-interesting poll results.

-58% disapprove of Obama's handling of the budget deficit, but 64% disapprove of congressional republican's handling of the issue.

-78% disapprove of cutting spending on medicare to chip away at the debt

-69% disapprove of cutting Medicaid

-56% disapprove of cutting military spending

-72% support raising taxes on those making over $250K, with 54% strongly backing the approach. Support for it is 91% among democrats, 68% among independents and 54% among republicans

-53% oppose small across the board tax increases and minor cuts to benefits
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Nothing new. People want to cut the deficit, but when it comes to the details they don't want to cut anything.[/QUOTE]

Well, that's not my reading of it.

Only 56% are opposed to military spending cuts and 53% to across the board tax cuts with minor cuts to entitlements. While a big majority favors increases taxes on the riches.

Seems like there is public support--at least according to this one poll (so we can't be to firm in making conclusions) for trimming some military spending, finding some small cuts to entitlements (eliminate waste) coupled with some tax increases.
 
Break down the military spending cuts to something like "stay out of Libya and humanitarian wars" and the opposition would fall through the floor for liberals, and conservatives would jump ship if militaristic foreign policy in general is questioned.

People want to cut, but not the benefits they or their party butters their bread with.
 
Sure, but the small majorities opposed in that area mean it could be done with out a gigantic uproar--assuming the poll is accurate.

I think most opposition to cuts in military spending are from people worried about layoffs, people not being allowed to re-up, salary freezes etc.

I think there's probably more support for spending less on weapons tech, not getting involved in wars of choice (and putting our servicemen in danger) etc.

As for Libya, most polls I've seen show a majority are/were opposed to military intervention there.

In any case, I was most pleased with the tax increase numbers. Majority support for raising them on the rich across dems, independents and republicans. And only 53% opposed to small across the board increases.

It's impossible to ever get a handle on the deficit without a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.
 
Hogwash. Our foreign policy is up to 1.2 trillion, cut it to $250 billion and there's most of your deficit right there. Cut oil and agriculture subsidies, departments of energy and education, and there's a good chunk of the rest.

Lower the tax rates for the rich and businesses, eliminate their retarded loopholes and you'll get more revenue (sell it as attracting more jobs here - there's no way democrats or republicans could attack this proposal). Then I'd work on eliminating the income tax entirely, leaving capital gains and business taxes.

It just takes balls.
 
Some of it is stuff that just can't be done.

If we're going to stop falling behind Asia and europe we need to spend more, not less on education. Energy spending needs to go up to fund R&D on clean energy technology etc.

Foreign aid, farm subsidies, etc. Yes, I agree those should be be reduced or eliminated.

I can't see getting rid of income taxes or corporate taxes and ever having enough revenue to have the social services the majority want, have a good public education system available to all, be a world leader in research and development, upgrade infrastructure to 21st century levels etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Some of it is stuff that just can't be done.

If we're going to stop falling behind Asia and europe we need to spend more, not less on education. Energy spending needs to go up to fund R&D on clean energy technology etc.

Foreign aid, farm subsidies, etc. Yes, I agree those should be be reduced or eliminated.

I can't see getting rid of income taxes or corporate taxes and ever having enough revenue to have the social services the majority want, have a good public education system available to all, be a world leader in research and development etc.[/QUOTE]

I gave a trillion in cuts to what is typically in America a liberal position - reducing our foreign policy.

If liberals can't get that (which includes elimination of the PATRIOT Act, Gitmo, and all the other Bush era bullshit) and give comparative peanuts elsewhere, I don't know what to tell you. Furthermore, business and capital gains taxes would remain. Income taxes would be eliminated under my plan after a couple years, starting with the first 50k of income. Nobody would be against that.
 
The first point makes little sense--you're suggesting cuts to a traditional liberal position (which happens to include some Bush bullshit) so liberals should be happy to give up more?

It would make sense if you were conceding some typical conservative points like conceding tax raises on the rich etc, and asking liberals to concede some of the things they support. But saying "I cut a trillion from a typical liberal position, so they should be fine giving more elsewhere" makes no sense.


As for no income taxes, or none of the first $50K, I'd be against that. I think almost every citizen should be directly contributing to the government services they receive. I support income taxes going back to the Clinton levels for the lower and middle classes, and going a good bit higher on the $250K and above brackets.

The US has to spend a lot of money on things like education, infrastructure (energy, transportation, technology like broadband etc.), research and development/the sciences etc. if we want to have any chance at remaining a leader in those areas and the world economy. We're already behind some Asian and European countries in those areas.

And paying for it should be a burden shared by all Americans, with the well off paying a larger share as they can afford to bear more of the burden.

Income tax is the most efficient way to do that. Not everyone, especially in the lower classes, has investments to be subjected to capital gains taxes.
 
I remember reading once about how the energy grids in many European countries were better maintained than those here, but of course they pay more for it too. I think that's one of our biggest problems, we want the best of everything but we don't want to pay for it.
 
[quote name='Clak']I think that's one of our biggest problems, we want the best of everything but we don't want to pay for it.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. It's one of the biggest problems facing the country IMO.

People want better broadband coverage, but don't want to pay the taxes to get it in rural areas where it's not a profitable for ISPs to expand on their own.

People want health insurance that doesn't dick them over, but are opposed to a universal system that's designed to provide coverage rather than maximize profits.

People want education improved, but vote down county levies etc.

Drives me nuts. It even effects things like good shopping and dining options as too many go where ever is cheapest, rather than where has the best products and best service.

If you want nice things, you have to be willing to pay for them.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The first point makes little sense--you're suggesting cuts to a traditional liberal position (which happens to include some Bush bullshit) so liberals should be happy to give up more?

It would make sense if you were conceding some typical conservative points like conceding tax raises on the rich etc, and asking liberals to concede some of the things they support. But saying "I cut a trillion from a typical liberal position, so they should be fine giving more elsewhere" makes no sense.


As for no income taxes, or none of the first $50K, I'd be against that. I think almost every citizen should be directly contributing to the government services they receive. I support income taxes going back to the Clinton levels for the lower and middle classes, and going a good bit higher on the $250K and above brackets.

The US has to spend a lot of money on things like education, infrastructure (energy, transportation, technology like broadband etc.), research and development/the sciences etc. if we want to have any chance at remaining a leader in those areas and the world economy. We're already behind some Asian and European countries in those areas.

And paying for it should be a burden shared by all Americans, with the well off paying a larger share as they can afford to bear more of the burden.

Income tax is the most efficient way to do that. Not everyone, especially in the lower classes, has investments to be subjected to capital gains taxes.[/QUOTE]

I thought liberals were against empire? If so, a trillion in cuts to the empire would be a massive 1UP for that position, would it not?

Why do you hate poor people and want to take food from their children, and money that could be used to better their education? In any event, if you want everyone to contribute to the government, eliminate income taxes entirely and install a 1% tax on all goods and services. Since rich people spend more money, they'd contribute the vast majority of the increased revenue. I'd be against it, but it's better than forcing people to labor for services they may not consent to. Especially people who don't have much money, and could use more of it for themselves.

Moving forward with the idea of being the world's leader in technology and economy has given has the stupid subsidies we currently have. How well have those worked out for us? It creates distortions and is a massive boom for the banking and finance cartel and a bust for everyone else.
 
Foreign aid is a mixed bag across party lines. Liberals are opposed to empire as you note, but generally supportive of financial aid, humanitarian relief work etc. to third world countries where people are starving, dying of malaria, AIDS and other diseases etc.

Also, I'm fine on some low incomes not being taxed. Most end up paying nothing after income tax rebates, earned income credits anyway. Just not up to $50k not being taxable, that's too high. I'd go for the first $10-15k of salary not being taxed. $50K is a solid middle class income--especially if it's $50k individual rather than household income, no way those people should be paying no taxes.

I'd also be ok moving to a tax system based totally on sales and property taxes. That could be a viable option to income taxes if it could every be implemented at a level that such taxes raised as much more more tax revenue as currently raised through income taxes. I think it would be difficult to implement though. People would balk at higher price tags despite their take home pay being much higher, so it would probably slow consumer spending dramatically for a quite a while as people adjust and risk a major recession. But I'd be for if it can be done in a way that avoids that. It's one way to get the rich to pay more taxes as they aren't going to stop consuming because prices go up due to the materialistic norms that dominate the upper classes.

As for the technology and economy stuff...subsidies aren't the answer. It's more funding for educations (public and higher education) coupled with reforms to the system. It's funding for public health things to deal with social problems that hurt educational achievement. It's more funding for the various federal agencies that distribute research grant dollars in specific fields so researchers can advance knowledge across the board and not just in areas that are profitable and thus can get private grant dollars. It's funding for things like expanding broad band, public transportation and other things that improve quality of life while not necessarily being profitable--and thus being things the solely profit driven private sector won't invest in. And so on.
 
Speaking of tax refunds/low income taxes - Anyone have any numbers that show much much the government would save if they cut off tax refunds for all incomes (individual and corporate) at the amount of taxes paid in - i.e.: No one would get more back than they paid in?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Speaking of tax refunds/low income taxes - Anyone have any numbers that show much much the government would save if they cut off tax refunds for all incomes (individual and corporate) at the amount of taxes paid in - i.e.: No one would get more back than they paid in?[/QUOTE]

The reason people get "extra money" (IE "making work pay") is to keep them off of welfare and food stamps so that the beloved corporations can still pay shitty wages. I see where you are going with this line of questioning and it's just not helpful.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']The reason people get "extra money" (IE "making work pay") is to keep them off of welfare and food stamps so that the beloved corporations can still pay shitty wages. I see where you are going with this line of questioning and it's just not helpful.[/QUOTE]

I think we're on different wavelengths here. The "Making work pay" cut doesn't really apply to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about situations where individuals manage to get more back in a "refund" check than they ever paid in during the year (usually through a combination of things like the "Earned Income Tax Credit" and such). I.e.: All year long, I paid in $500 in income tax and I get a tax "refund" for $2,000.

If you are talking about that, then I'd like to rephrase what you said. "The reason people get "extra money" from the government is to keep them off programs that give them money from the government.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I think we're on different wavelengths here. The "Making work pay" cut doesn't really apply to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about situations where individuals manage to get more back in a "refund" check than they ever paid in during the year (usually through a combination of things like the "Earned Income Tax Credit" and such). I.e.: All year long, I paid in $500 in income tax and I get a tax "refund" for $2,000.

If you are talking about that, then I'd like to rephrase what you said. "The reason people get "extra money" from the government is to keep them off programs that give them money from the government.[/QUOTE]

First off, social programs are not "extra money".

I don't think we were ever on the same wavelength... my point is that administering and setting up food stamps, welfare programs etc. for people is considerably more expensive than providing an extra large return. If you can give someone 1,500 dollars annually to keep them from needing a plan which costs 2,000 annually, you've saved money.

If we simplified the tax code, raised rates on the wealthy and corporations and increased minimum wage, we wouldn't need excessive returns for the poor.

P.S. Your employer only withheld $500 over the course of the whole year?
 
A.) An income tax "refund" in excess of any income taxes paid in is "extra money".
B.) The $500/$2,000 was an example and not applicable to my personal situation.
C.) Considering the billions that the IRS cost to run, I'd be interested in seeing the costs to administer the "extra money" vs. other social programs.
D.) I'd rather pay $100 to give someone $80 worth of food stamps than pay $80 to give them $80 cash.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/opinion/24stockman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

Decent column outlining the deficiencies of the Ryan plan (no tax increases, largely ignores social security and medicare, puts the burden on the poor through slashing medicaid) and the Obama plan (ignores needed tax increases on the middle class, needed cuts to social security and medicare, focuses on putting burden on the rich).

Basically notes that this is creating a partisan class war over two budget ideas that don't make a lot of sense and neither of which would make much of a dent in the deficit anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To achieve this, unmarried Germans on average pay 52 percent of their income in taxes. Americans average 30 percent, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Click to expand...
And this ties into what I said earlier. We want everything but don't want to pay for it. People complain about the cost of education, the cost of health care etc. but if you tell them that to do something similar here would require the raising of taxes, they'd kill you. Now of course in that article it also mentions that Germans are paid more (and work less for it to boot), so we'd have to somehow get our overlords employers to raise pay too.

I can't help but think that the American sense of individualism has screwed us. I think that being so cut off from the rest of the world has left us with the sense that our way is the only way and the rest of the world are fools. Well, wouldn't you like to work less, get paid more, and know that things like health care and education are taken care of? Of course not, this is America dammit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top