The Paul Ryan Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
4) The budget is much more regressive than I thought it would be. In the first 10 years, it has $4 trillion in program cuts, and most of them are coming from programs that primarily serve low-income or otherwise vulnerable Americans. In our previous conversations, Ryan was always been quick to say that government should help the truly vulnerable. This budget evinces none of that compassion.
Click to expand...
Were you guys as surprised about that as I was, show of hands.:roll:

I swear that the veneer these guys try to coat themselves in is wearing thin. Conservatives have absolutely, positively no compassion for anyone but their own kind and those with pockets big enough to fund their campaigns.
 
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/04/07/Wealthy-Get-Free-Pass-in-Ryan-Budget.aspx

Crunching the Numbers
Ryan got around this problem by ignoring the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’s official revenue-estimating agency, and instead asking the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation to crunch the numbers for him. Its analysis says that economic growth would be so extraordinary from enactment of the Ryan plan that the unemployment rate would fall two full percentage points next year alone, and continue to fall to less than 3 percent by 2020 – a level not seen since 1953. This massively higher growth leads to higher federal revenues – $58 billion more next year alone over those that would be collected without the Ryan plan.

A number of respected public finance economists quickly ridiculed the Heritage numbers as grossly implausible. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber said, “The Heritage numbers are insane.” In response to such criticism, Heritage simply deleted some of the more extravagant figures from its analysis.

Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would be shredded to pay for them. Even as an opening bid to begin budget negotiations with the Democrats, the Ryan plan cannot be taken seriously. It is less of a wish list than a fairy tale utterly disconnected from the real world, backed up by make-believe numbers and unreasonable assumptions. Ryan’s plan isn’t even an act of courage; it’s just pandering to the Tea Party. A real act of courage would have been for him to admit, as all serious budget analysts know, that revenues will have to rise well above 19 percent of GDP to stabilize the debt.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would be shredded to pay for them. [/QUOTE]

I don't understand how intelligent people could think the above. The gov't isn't like a childhood Robin Hood, its like a common thief or mobster who takes money from those that have and bribes everyone else to keep quite about it. What obligation is there that high earners should pay more than anyone else? Essentially, discriminated against based on financial standing? Why do you think you can raise yourself up by bringing them down? Why can't you just leave everyone else alone and stop blaming them? And why do you feel entitled to part of someone else's money???!?


Yesterday, a guy asked me at the gas station to pay for his gas. I said fuck no. You are that guy. Expecting people should pay for you and then you get upset when they say no. The government isn't a charity for you.


SOCIAL FREEDOM; FISCAL FREEDOM
 
[quote name='Clak']Were you guys as surprised about that as I was, show of hands.:roll:

I swear that the veneer these guys try to coat themselves in is wearing thin. Conservatives have absolutely, positively no compassion for anyone but their own kind and those with pockets big enough to fund their campaigns.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure that when future generations look back at us the word they will use to describe us is compassionate and I bet they won't curse us for being the people who killed the golden goose and made their lives immeasurably more difficult.
 
[quote name='Clak']Were you guys as surprised about that as I was, show of hands.:roll:[/QUOTE]

4-5-11bud2-f1.jpg


I haven't read much on his proposed budget, but if you were to tell me that a large part of any program cuts came from government social programs designed to help the poor, I wouldn't be too surprised. Anyone have any numbers on what percentage of government spending for social programs go to help "low-income Americans" vs. everyone else?

[quote name='tivo']The gov't isn't like a childhood Robin Hood, [/QUOTE]

The best part about the original Robin Hood stories is that he stole money from the government and gave it back to the people.
 
[quote name='bunck']I'm sure that when future generations look back at us the word they will use to describe us is compassionate and I bet they won't curse us for being the people who killed the golden goose and made their lives immeasurably more difficult.[/QUOTE]

I lol'd. Then I was sad.


[quote name='UncleBob']
4-5-11bud2-f1.jpg


I haven't read much on his proposed budget, but if you were to tell me that a large part of any program cuts came from government social programs designed to help the poor, I wouldn't be too surprised. Anyone have any numbers on what percentage of government spending for social programs go to help "low-income Americans" vs. everyone else?

[/QUOTE]

well, not sure what they include in that little pie graph there, beyond whats listed. but, if you consider social security and medicare programs designed to help the poor, then well over 50% of our budget goes towards them.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']well, not sure what they include in that little pie graph there, beyond whats listed. but, if you consider social security and medicare programs designed to help the poor, then well over 50% of our budget goes towards them.[/QUOTE]

So the majority of the cuts come from the majority of the budget.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Has anyone pointed out that Paul Ryan's budget violates Republican rules on budget neutrality? Just makin sure.[/QUOTE]

Even using fake numbers it violates the rules.
 
[quote name='tivo']I don't understand how intelligent people could think the above. The gov't isn't like a childhood Robin Hood, its like a common thief or mobster who takes money from those that have and bribes everyone else to keep quite about it. What obligation is there that high earners should pay more than anyone else? Essentially, discriminated against based on financial standing? Why do you think you can raise yourself up by bringing them down? Why can't you just leave everyone else alone and stop blaming them? And why do you feel entitled to part of someone else's money???!?


Yesterday, a guy asked me at the gas station to pay for his gas. I said fuck no. You are that guy. Expecting people should pay for you and then you get upset when they say no. The government isn't a charity for you.


SOCIAL FREEDOM; FISCAL FREEDOM[/QUOTE]

Works like this in three different ways and how they're wrong:
Rich pay more taxes because they have higher incomes. This is fact and can't be ignored. Why do they pay higher income taxes as their income goes up? Because as you become outrageously wealthy you no longer consume as much of your income ergo the govt gets it in income tax instead of sales tax.

So how about a flat % tax then? This would placate to the "everyone's fair share" notion, but the reality is that income disparity is so great that "the rich" would pay an even greater share of the taxes than they already do. The math here is pretty easy.

So how about a flat $ tax then? Say your "dues" to the american govt are $5,000 per year. This makes no sense whatsoever because some people only make $30k while the average person amongst that one percent of "the rich" make something like 93 million per year. Now you're taxing someone 1/6th of their income on the bottom end and 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000th of their income on the other end. It's not realistic.

Taxing the wealthy isn't robbing them. The wealthy get a different set of services from the tax code, mainly in the form of protection (cops/fire prevention/etc...) as well as infrastructure to continue generating wealth (roads and rail to ship their products for sales) and research that creates wealth outside of the govt (thank god for NASA). That is the benefit of the wealthy. They also get a viable workforce that has health care provided in the extreme cases before retirement and can use post retirement health plans if they desire to, or keep their fancy coverage with their higher earnings throughout life. This is a benefit to all, not just those
 
Sometimes I get the feeling that if we were all diehard neocons, bob would be the biggest pinko commie liberal any of us had ever seen.
 
[quote name='nasum']In terms of the budget solution, cut EVERYTHING by 10%. This way there isn't any issue with people's pet projects not receiving special treatment.[/quote]

You can't do that, though. Some things (like, say, interest on debt) can't be cut. Obligatory spending. You could say cut all non-obligatory spending by 10%. Now, keep in mind, most social programs (which, of course, benefit the poor) are not obligatory - and most obligatory spending is not in social programs - which means the part of the pie chart that shows what percentage of cuts is from social programs designed to help the poor is going to be disproportionately larger than the other part of the pie chart.

Following that, increase taxes (political suicide) on EVERYONE by 5%. For every dollar you paid in 2011 taxes, you'll now pay $1.05. This creates a shift of 15% which, assuming that revenue remains stable, will close the gap in 7 years.
Click to expand...

I'd love this idea. I'd wholly support increasing taxes if the Federal Government would agree to decrease spending by $2 for every additional $1 in tax revenue (or some formula like this).

After that, taxes go down until govt is in the black again. After that happens, play with spending however you see fit. I would suggest raising up the 10% again.
Click to expand...
No, after that, pass a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget... then you can play with spending.
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...aul-ryan-doesnt/2011/04/08/AFeF9f1C_blog.html

Democrats don’t just have a proposal that offers a more plausible vision of cost control than Ryan does. They have an honest-to-goodness law. The Affordable Care Act sets more achievable targets, and offers a host of more plausible ways to reach them, than anything in Ryan’s budget. “If this is a competition betweenRyan and the Affordable Care Act on realistic approaches to curbing the growth of spending,” says Robert Reischauer, who ran the Congressional Budget Office from 1989 to 1995 and now directs the Urban Institute, “the Affordable Care Act gets five points and Ryan gets zero.”

The Affordable Care Act holds Medicare’s cost growth to GDP plus one percentage point, which makes a lot more sense. It’s the target Ryan’s Medicare plan originally used, back when it was called Ryan-Rivlin. But the target is not really the important part. The important part is how you achieve the target. And the Affordable Care Act actually includes reforms and new processes for future reforms that would help Medicare — and the rest of the medical system — get to where the costs can be saved, rather than just shifted.
 
http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/2011/04/06/is-it-politics-or-ideology/

If so, let us be clear that the ideology of the Tea Party and Paul Ryan is not “fiscal conservatism.” Fiscal conservatism is supposed to mean the reduction of budget deficits, paying for what you spend, matching tax revenue to expenditure. Someone who was sincere about eliminating the budget deficits that we have inherited would propose a long-term plan that included roles for raising tax revenue and cutting defense spending, in addition to slowing the growth of entitlements and domestic spending. But the Ryan plan in fact cuts taxes and loses revenue almost equal to its spending cuts. In other words, it mostly uses the cuts in federal medical care spending to pay for more tax cuts. (The loss in tax revenue is explicit. But the plan just ignores that repealing Obamacare would add to the deficit, according to CBO’s ruling.)

This pattern is not new. The supposed fiscal conservatives who were elected to Congress last November have increased the budget deficit. Their insistence on renewing the Bush tax cuts (for the rich, as usual) has added hundreds of billions of dollars to the current deficits, outweighing all the specific spending cuts that they have proposed, combined. Other ways they are adding to the deficit include trying to cut funding for IRS enforcement and trying to repeal the Obama reforms that would encourage hospitals to reduce needless infections and unnecessary medical procedures. These choices follow the tradition of those “fiscal conservatives” Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush whose fiscal policies created the majority of the national debt we have to live with today.
 
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/serious/

So, we have a plan that proposes to cut spending to Calving Coolidge levels, without explaining how it will do that; that includes $2.9 trillion in tax cuts, but asserts that it will make that up by broadening the base — yet says literally nothing about what that means; and has as its centerpiece a Medicare plan that will collapse as soon as seniors start getting their grossly inadequate vouchers.

Oh, and it directs us to a totally ludicrous Heritage Foundation analysis for support.

There’s nothing serious about this plan. And the way our pundit class swooned over this fantasy document suggests that all those people lecturing the American people about our unwillingness to face up to reality and make hard choices should spend some time looking in the mirror.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Has the democratic party released a proposed budget that cuts spending and balances the budget in any reasonable way?[/QUOTE]
Aren't you interested in hearing dem. ideas that cut the budget by cutting spending AND raising revenue???

Here is one: healthcare reform, reinvestment in infrastructure, taxing the rich not only at a higher %, but change the tax code so that they actually have to PAY taxes, and change the tax code so that we can actually tax companies like GE that make billions but don't pay a dime in taxes.

That I owe the fed's taxes and GE does not fucking boggles me.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Aren't you interested in hearing dem. ideas that cut the budget by cutting spending AND raising revenue???[/quote]

I'm familiar with their ideas for raising revenue. Taxes, taxes, taxes.

The reason I ask was I read reading over this article (which, granted, is a few days old...)

There is one piece of the Republican push that I do agree with; there is no plan from the Democrats, yet.
Click to expand...

Here is one: healthcare reform, reinvestment in infrastructure, taxing the rich not only at a higher %, but change the tax code so that they actually have to PAY taxes, and change the tax code so that we can actually tax companies like GE that make billions but don't pay a dime in taxes.
Click to expand...

...so that individuals can enjoy the new higher prices on GE products that GE will use to pay for these new taxes? :D
 
I'm not interested in cutting much spending besides defense and clear waste. We need to cut corporate tax loopholes, get taxes on the wealthy back up to, or near, the pre Reagan levels etc.

Cut spending dramatically and you further disenfranchise the lower class, further undermine our education system and let us fall even further behind the rest of the world in science, math, research etc. and eventually become nothing more than a middle of the pack member of the world economy. And it's nothing more than we deserve if we let a bunch of undereducated, anti-intellectual conservative bible thumpers dictate the future of the country.

And honestly, I'm getting past the point of caring if that happens. With my education and connections I have plenty of options for working in other countries if things go down that road and would enjoy laughing at the US getting knocked off its undeserved pedestal as world leader.
 
Yeah let's not increase taxes on rich people because they'll always increase the price for products and middle class people will end up paying for it.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Yeah let's not increase taxes on rich people because they'll always increase the price for products and middle class people will end up paying for it.[/QUOTE]

Wait - are companies people or not? I get confused - it seems some only want to classify a corporation as a person when it's convenient to their side, otherwise, they don't...
 
You people who think each year each party puts out full budget proposals, and that, say, they don't originate in the house/senate budget committees are drivin' me mad. You don't know how government works.

This isn't some kind of hobby of Paul Ryan's, it's his budget proposal because he's the chair of the fucking House Budget Committee. Threee guesses as to what they work on, folks.

4) A plan to reconcile revenue and spending, which rules out axiomatically any conceivable increase in tax rates, is neither brave nor serious. Rather, it is exactly as brave and serious as some opposite-extreme proposal that ruled out axiomatically any conceivable cut in entitlement spending or discretionary accounts.
Click to expand...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/the-brave-and-serious-mr-ryan/237008/

Great article.
 
I just seem to remember all the complaining in the Health Care Reform debate about how the Republicans were bad because they had no coherent proposal - only ideas (which were unpalatable to the other party) and all they could do was criticize the Democratic plan...
 
Still waiting for a reasonable conservative to come out and defend Paul Ryan or his plan.

There are concrete examples of him outright lying and his plan being based on numbers so far out of the realm of reality I can see why no one has stepped up.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Point me in the direction of the House Health Care Committee, troll.[/QUOTE]

It's okay. I get your point now.

Only people on the budget committee can be the ones to come up with budget ideas. Ever. Period. There's probably some kind of law where if you're not on the budget committee and you propose anything, it's punishable by death or having to watch Fox News or something.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's okay. I get your point now.

Only people on the budget committee can be the ones to come up with budget ideas. Ever. Period. There's probably some kind of law where if you're not on the budget committee and you propose anything, it's punishable by death or having to watch Fox News or something.[/QUOTE]

The ACA languished in committee and on congressional floors for well over a year before it was passed in March of 2009.

Ryan's budget was first published 6 days ago.

Shut the fuck up.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The ACA languished in committee and on congressional floors for well over a year before it was passed in March of 2009.

Ryan's budget was first published 6 days ago.

Shut the fuck up.[/QUOTE]

Ah. Got it. I can see how the Democrats might not have bothered to prepare any budget ideas for a 2011 budget. I mean, really? There probably wasn't room in previous budgets to provide members of Congress with calendars. How could they be expected to know when 2011 would actually come? Time is such a vague and informal thing and all.
 
Do we really need to know specifics? We know what each side wants to cut and what they won't touch. Democrats aren't going to cut social welfare programs and the Republicans aren't going to cut defense spending or increase taxes on the wealthy. The point is that each side negotiate until a budget can be agreed upon.
 
[quote name='Clak']Do we really need to know specifics?[/quote]

Personally I feel it would be nice.

But no, we don't need specifics because conservatives don't give a fuck if their "plans" have anything to do with reality anyway.

They know they can't be honest because they would be tarred and feathered.
 
I should actually correct that a bit, because at least Obama himself seems to have no problem with cutting welfare programs, I'm not sure the party as a whole agrees with that. in fact I would say Obama's proposal is to give Republicans practically everything they want.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Ah. Got it. I can see how the Democrats might not have bothered to prepare any budget ideas for a 2011 budget. I mean, really? There probably wasn't room in previous budgets to provide members of Congress with calendars. How could they be expected to know when 2011 would actually come? Time is such a vague and informal thing and all.[/QUOTE]

I now recall I was enjoying my life much more considerably when I was ignoring your down's syndrome-infused socratic approach to discourse.

Back to that, then.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I now recall I was enjoying my life much more considerably when I was ignoring your down's syndrome-infused socratic approach to discourse.

Back to that, then.[/QUOTE]

It's all good... I totally understand why you'd have a problem with me pointing out how the inconsistency of your posts tend to ride along party lines...
 
If Ryan had his way Seniors (and more or less everyone else who is ill and not rich) would be at the mercy of the market and be unable to purchase health insurance or receive much in the way of health care.

Why is that acceptable? It isn't about deficit reductions.

Something I have said and will say again to certain trolls (plural) in this thread is that the people for these cuts are relatively young and apparently imagine themselves insulated from illness or need of a safety net.

And although I hope it never happens, they would change their tunes in a second if anything life changingly bad were to happen to them or someone close to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2063967,00.html

I don't blame Ryan for trying to put a positive spin on his plan, rather than acknowledging that it would abolish Medicare and replace it with subsidies that won't keep up with health inflation. People like Medicare. And I can understand why he'd open a budget negotiation with fantasy numbers that depend on 2.8% unemployment in 2021 and "dynamic scoring" that can't pass a laugh test, rather than real numbers that would require much tougher choices. It's smart politics. I just don't understand how it became the political equivalent of the bayonet charge at Fredericksburg.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2063967,00.html#ixzz1J3gICSEJ
 
From the comments in that second Time link:

"[Calling Ryan's proposal courageous] is like bringing a large rock to a potluck and saying 'well at least i brought something.'"

:rofl:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']From the comments in that second Time link:

"[Calling Ryan's proposal courageous] is like bringing a large rock to a potluck and saying 'well at least i brought something.'"

:rofl:[/QUOTE]

Man, that sounds familiar...

[quote name='UncleBob']You're on a sinking ship with two other people.
One wants to wait and see if the ship will stop sinking on it's own or if help will come, in spite of the fact nothing appears to be changing.
The other has the idea of drilling holes in the bottom of the ship to let the water out.

I guess we should all listen to the second guy because - at least - he's wanting to do *something*?[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Wait - are companies people or not? I get confused - it seems some only want to classify a corporation as a person when it's convenient to their side, otherwise, they don't... [/QUOTE]Since they apparently get to have the benefits of personhood and they have an enormous amount of influence on elections, they should probably be subject to all the faults of personhood as well. Like culpability.
 
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51586147-82/ryan-plan-already-care.html.csp

Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” runs through various fantasy lands, envisioning that large tax cuts, mostly for the rich, and huge spending cuts, mostly in programs that benefit the poor and middle class, will lead to unprecedented booms in hiring, homebuilding and other economic activities.

Ryan’s plan is mostly a means to shelter those who have already benefited from a half-century of fiscal irrationality and dump the burden on those who are to come later. Under Ryan’s plan, traditional Medicare will only be available to people who are already on it or less than 10 years away. Ensuing generations would instead be given government vouchers and tossed out into the very health insurance market that has gobbled huge portions of the private economy and given us the worst health-care outcomes in the developed world.
 
I'd like to say a class war is coming, but half the people who would be screwed by that wouldn't know it anyway. Instead we'd get poor people on the right defending this, even though they probably know nothing about it, then when they releazied they're screwed they'll blame it on that damn muslim socialist, because their own party would never screw them over.
 
Yep, I had the same thought briefly. That these cuts could lead to a class war as the lower class gets screwed by cuts, while the rich are seeing more tax breaks etc.

But then I had the same realization, half of the lower class would not realize they're being screwed, or blame the wrong side etc. Maybe just grin and bear it on their principles that people should have to work for themselves and not get "handouts." But I don't think many who say that stuff turn down food stamps when their families are going hungry or medicaid when they hit tough financial times and are sick themselves or have sick family members etc. It's easy to stand by your principles when you're own livelihood isn't effected by them.

That said, it could still rile up the urban poor and protest in major cities down the road is what would have major impact. The rural poor couldn't do much more than have tea party like impact like they're doing now as they're spread out all over the place in fly over states no one cares about etc. They can influence local and state politics for sure, and definitely US house races and the occasional Senate race. But just not enough to really change national politics.
 
Yeah and that's why you don't see Tea Partiers not burning their Medicare cards, you see Ronald Reagan's family working because of New Deal programs, you see Ayn Rand secretly seeking Social Security and Medicare payments.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Yeah and that's why you don't see Tea Partiers not burning their Medicare cards, you see Ronald Reagan's family working because of New Deal programs, you see Ayn Rand secretly seeking Social Security and Medicare payments.[/QUOTE]

2pq89w0.jpg


Still my favorite thing on the internet, no matter how fond I am of everythingbutt.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top