Originally Posted By: sinij
>>> low-income people are affected <<<"...Some of the cuts affect discretionary spending, which does benefit low-income people, even if it's in an inefficient way...
Key word: BENEFIT

Originally Posted By: sinij
>>> Speculation <<< ...one response to [your claim] is that a strategy that focuses on cutting spending should give you better long-term growth than one that relies on tax increases. Tax increases slow growth more than spending cuts. So, in the long run, [Ryan's plan] makes the pie bigger...
So, if he disagrees with your world view, his ideas are speculation? There is ample proof over the last 3 decades alone, that lowering taxes increases, not only economic growth, but also tax revenues. If you want to ignore that because it doesn't fit your world view, then just say so and we'll quit talking about it.

Originally Posted By: sinij
>>> Agree with the problem, but not solution <<<...Medicare changes [acknowledge] the fact that we clearly have to balance Medicare spending and revenues. It's not responsible to think this is only going to be addressed by spending...
What then do you propose?

Originally Posted By: sinij
>>> I acknowledged this in the post above <<< ...I think [liberals] are focusing too much on the version that included Social Security reforms and the zeroing out of capital gains taxes. Otherwise, I just think there's a tendency to treat existing programs as sacred, and there's no way we can cut them..."
Really? At what point have you ever made allowances for cutting anything other than defense?

Right now in our country nearly half of our citizens pay nothing in federal income taxes. Tell me, who will pay for their social programs when those of us who produce decide we've had enough and take our ball and go home? Or better yet, your utopia is realized and the government manages to regulate every successful enterprise out of business. Who then will pay for medicaid, social security, welfare, etc?

[Linked Image from i30.photobucket.com]