With Mr. Ryan getting VP pick for Romney's campaign, that is otherwise devoid of any kind of policy, it is safe to assume that Ryan's budget and economical policy will be what this election is going to be about. So lets talk policy.
Ryan's plan calls for a number of austerity measures with steep cuts in spending, but also proposes a large cuts in already historically low taxes. Tax Policy Center predicts that Ryan's plan will reduce revenue by about $4 trillion over next decade and cut taxes in half for the top 1% . How is that suppose to reduce deficits or help the middle class?
Ryan's plan calls for switching Medicare to voucher system and getting them to buy their own insurance. Big question, is who is going to insure such at-risk population _individually_ ? Now this voucher program is where bulk of savings coming from, if this removed $4 trillion projected deficit will only go up.
So to me this looks like a version of Bush's cut & spend, minus "compassion". Instead it will be mostly throwing elderly under the bush to give cuts to the rich.
What really irks me is Ryan's plan proposed privatization of Social Security. Whatever your political views, you might even think that what I described above is somehow a good idea. One point is undeniable cronyism - Social Security, that you currently cannot opt out of, once privatized will be direct outlay to the Wall Street out of every paycheck of every working individual in the country. Lets call it what it is - Ryan's proposing Goldman Sachs tax.
The Brave and Serious Mr. Ryan. 1) A plan to deal with budget problems that says virtually nothing about military spending is neither brave nor serious. That would be enough to disqualify it from the "serious" bracket, but there's more.
2) A plan that proposes to eliminate tax loopholes and deductions, but doesn't say what any of those are, is neither brave nor serious. It is, instead canny -- or cynical, take your pick. The reality is that many of these deductions, notably for home-mortgage interest payments, are popular and therefore risky to talk about eliminating.
3) A plan that exempts from future Medicare cuts anyone born before 1957 -- about a quarter of the population, which includes me -- is neither brave nor serious. See "canny or cynical: take your pick" above.
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.
5) A plan to reduce the federal deficit by granting big tax reductions to the highest-income Americans, at a time when their tax rates are very low by historic standards and and their share of the national income is extremely high, and when middle-class job creation is our main economic challenge, is neither brave nor serious. See "cynical," above.
6) A plan that identifies rising health-care costs as the main problem in public spending, but avoids altogether the question of how to contain those costs, is neither brave nor serious. This is a longer and more complicated discussion (see below*); but I submit that the more closely anyone looks at the Ryan plan, the less "serious" it will seem on this extremely important front.
7) A plan that reduces, among other things, research on future energy sources and technologies by about 85% may be "brave," but it's also crazy and short-sighted.
What really irks me is Ryan's plan proposed privatization of Social Security. Whatever your political views, you might even think that what I described above is somehow a good idea. One point is undeniable cronyism - Social Security, that you currently cannot opt out of, once privatized will be direct outlay to the Wall Street out of every paycheck of every working individual in the country. Lets call it what it is - Ryan's proposing Goldman Sachs tax.
Honestly I have not read the fine print on the plan. As you put it, I would agree with you. What I am uncertain of at this point is how much control the individual would have over their retirement plan. If there was freedom of investment, you simply *had* to invest something toward retirement... I would be OK with that. Sure, the masses would still fork over cash to Sachs and their ilk... I would be investing in mines, wells, forex and land.
I am pretty certain I can invest for my retirement better than either the Govt or Wall St.
If the privatization of SS was a forced matter though, and you had to funnel your cash to a certain handful of connected Wall St firms ( which is entirely possible that it would work that way sadly enough) then I would tend to agree with you.
Interesting. I need to read the details on Ryans plan sometime, I previously only got the gist not the whole thing.
I am actually very glad Ryan plan will enter national debate, Republican Congress got too many passes for basically proposing this "all you can eat" conservative agenda budget as a fiscally conservative salvation for the nation... all while their plan is nothing but more deficit spending.
One point is undeniable cronyism - Social Security, that you currently cannot opt out of, once privatized will be direct outlay to the Wall Street out of every paycheck of every working individual in the country.
As you put it, I would agree with you. What I am uncertain of at this point is how much control the individual would have over their retirement plan. If there was freedom of investment, you simply *had* to invest something toward retirement... I would be OK with that.
I'd be OK with that too, but wasn't Conservative's #1 objection to Obamacare was individual mandate? How can you reconcile that opposition with what is in the best-case-scenario will end up individual mandate?
If you said something negative about the Dems like you do the Rep I would take you some what serious, the fact that people still reply to you only makes you keep posting left leaning reporting.
And when does it matter what the VP says, none of them have any power to do anything about it.
you keep posting left leaning reporting.
Yes, so much left-leaning reporting, like Ryan's VOTING RECORD.
Did a roving band of Repblicans catch you and rape you one dark night?
Your hate will burn you up.
No, but they are raping US as we speak.
What Paul Ryan’s budget actually cuts — and by how much.Ryan claims he can meet the country’s needs by cutting back on “imprudent, irresponsible, and downright wasteful spending,” though it’s not clear what waste Ryan has in mind.
Waste indeed. Read more for more detailed look into what might get cut.
You know I rarely post on this forum and usually can not stand anyone's un-educated "I speak the facts" opinions.
But I'm scared of this guy... I would say I'm a bit more liberal than conservative but this guy is extreme nazi style conservative. While I may not appreciate every aspect of Obama and Romney... but this VP choice has to be as bad as Sarah Nailin Pailin.
Yikes!
So, what is your conclusion?
Liberals are mostly right, but newer versions of Ryan's plan are less harsh on poor than earlier versions.
Don't many of these quotes directly refute the arguments you've made in the past?
"...Some of the cuts affect discretionary spending, which does benefit low-income people, even if it's in an inefficient way...
...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...
...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...
...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..."
Don't many of these quotes directly refute the arguments you've made in the past?
Not really.
>>> 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...
>>> 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...
>>> 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...
>>> 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..." [/quote]
>>> 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
>>> 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.
>>> 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?
>>> 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?
Kaotic, do you really care to know nuances of discretionary spending? If you insist...
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/Discretionary.htmhttp://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/paul-ryans-budget-games.htmlall of the government’s discretionary spending (including the defense budget) would account for less than four per cent of G.D.P. Since defense spending in the postwar era has never been less than three per cent of G.D.P., and since Romney has said during the campaign that he doesn’t want defense spending to be below four per cent of G.D.P., this means that the only way for Ryan’s numbers to work would be to effectively eliminate nearly all non-defense discretionary spending, including not just much of the social safety net but infrastructure spending, R. & D. investment, federal support for education, air-traffic control, regulatory and public safety spending, and so on.
Paul Ryan’s Fairy-Tale Budget Plan by David Stockman A true agenda to reform the welfare state would require a sweeping, income-based eligibility test, which would reduce or eliminate social insurance benefits for millions of affluent retirees. Without it, there is no math that can avoid giant tax increases or vast new borrowing.
Instead, it shreds the measly means-tested safety net for the vulnerable: the roughly $100 billion per year for food stamps and cash assistance for needy families and the $300 billion budget for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor and disabled.
Likewise, hacking away at the roughly $400 billion domestic discretionary budget (what’s left of the federal budget after defense, Social Security, health and safety-net spending and interest on the national debt) will yield only a rounding error’s worth of savings after popular programs (which Republicans heartily favor) like cancer research, national parks, veterans’ benefits, farm aid, highway subsidies, education grants and small-business loans are accommodated.
Thank you for making my point by refusing to address my questions directly and deflecting.
Thank you for making my point by refusing to address my questions directly and deflecting.
/roll eyes
If you take exact wording of that specific sentence and literally interpret it, then yes they would claim that it would indirectly benefit poor people and they would be wrong is making such statement.
Please defend your statement.
Read post #103214 and #103216
Those are defenses. That's you linking to other partisan sources. I want you to defend your position in your own words like the rest of us do.
Really?
Discretionary spending consist of large number of social outlays, like education and research grants, that not only directly benefit society, but also invest in the future of our nation. While technically correct, that by cutting discretionary spending there will be less taxes for everyone, including poor, cutting it in a way Ryan's plan proposes is not a good idea. Claiming it will be beneficial for the poor is disingenuous.
So is this the point where you and fellow conservatives go into complete denial mode due to absolute indefensibility of Ryan's positions? I linked all this material in vane hopes that maybe Derid and couple more people realize what exactly they are going to vote for and feel bad about it, it isn't like I expect anyone to actually change vote despite this being clear example of another crony conservative-in-name-only selling US public interest to the highest bidder.
You're projecting again. I'm not defending anyone. I've only advocated for what I perceive to be our best path forward (which you steadfastly refuse to do) not a particular candidate. Obviously anyone chosen by the right will have flaws, just like anyone chosen by the left has flaws, and it's possible that you're right and Romney and Ryan are the antichrist and will be the death of us all. But I know that Obama, with a second term, will push us closer to the socialist utopia that both you and he want. So, in this case, I may be choosing the devil I don't know over the one I do, but that's only because I am certain of where the one I know is taking us, and I don't want to go there.
You know I rarely post on this forum and usually can not stand anyone's un-educated "I speak the facts" opinions.
But I'm scared of this guy... I would say I'm a bit more liberal than conservative but this guy is extreme nazi style conservative. While I may not appreciate every aspect of Obama and Romney... but this VP choice has to be as bad as Sarah Nailin Pailin.
Yikes!
if you are afraid of Ryan, and think he's a nazi, you are either
a) stupid
b) uninformed
c) not "leaning", but "actually", a bead-sucking hippie. like Sinij
I'm picking "C"
There is so much smoke in this thread its hard to find the fire. Ryans plan is far from perfect, but it at least addresses some of the major problems.
What did Obamas budget do? how did obamas budget do? 419-0 I believe.
You libs can demogoge this all you want; its far easier to tear down something than make your own. didnt lil timmy geitner the tax cheat say "we dont have a plan, but we dont like yours"?
guess what? no one is going to like it. cutting back always sucks.
so go ahead and vote for obama and his genius sidekick biden. the thought of people actually doing that is hilarious to me
if you are afraid of Ryan, and think he's a nazi, you are either
a) stupid
b) uninformed
c) not "leaning", but "actually", a bead-sucking hippie. like Sinij
I'm picking "C"
Nice to see that Ryan still appeals to uninformed and/or ignorant conservative demographic.
Tea Party and GOP Are Now In Sync Deficit spending Ryan Plan - CHECK.
No-exceptions anti-abortion plank - CHECK.
VP with YES! voting record for every Bush spending spree - CHECK.
I know some of your Tea Partiers like to preach that you are not a front for GOP, but TP actions don't support such claims.
One day you will get over your zealotry, and I will still be here. Love you sinij.
Tea Party and GOP Are Now In Sync Deficit spending Ryan Plan - CHECK.
No-exceptions anti-abortion plank - CHECK.
VP with YES! voting record for every Bush spending spree - CHECK.
I know some of your Tea Partiers like to preach that you are not a front for GOP, but TP actions don't support such claims.
![[clap]](/images/graemlins/default/t2019.gif "[clap]")
Its pretty simple, when the Dems come up with leadership/platform that is even remotely sensible then lots of TP leaning folk will reconsider.
When the Dems are led by the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Obama and Wasserman-Schultz.... having to share a tent with abortion extremists and men of weak principles like Ryan is basically just the cost of doing business.
Because the alternative is far worse. The left simply focuses on the warts of the tent associated more with fiscal conservatism and common sense, because it has no compelling vision or competent leadership.
Its pretty simple, when the Dems come up with leadership/platform that is even remotely sensible then lots of TP leaning folk will reconsider.
When the Dems are led by the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Obama and Wasserman-Schultz.... having to share a tent with abortion extremists and men of weak principles like Ryan is basically just the cost of doing business.
Because the alternative is far worse. The left simply focuses on the warts of the tent associated more with fiscal conservatism and common sense, because it has no compelling vision or competent leadership.
![[yes]](/images/graemlins/default/89.gif "[yes]")
One day you will get over your zealotry, and I will still be here. Love you sinij.
Keep your nonsense contained to one thread please.
So how far would you go in your "cost of doing business" ?
You are willing to compromise on fiscal conservatism, small government and individual rights. Whats left? Irrational hate of social programs?
One day you will get over your zealotry, and I will still be here. Love you sinij.
Keep your nonsense contained to one thread please.
You sir can tell me what todo, as well as understand I can ignore you. And as such I can and will call you a zealot, till I see post from you attacking elements from the left.
So how far would you go in your "cost of doing business" ?
You are willing to compromise on fiscal conservatism, small government and individual rights. Whats left? Irrational hate of social programs?
And yet you are not willing to compromise on anything. So that makes you as bad as Karl Rove.
One day you will get over your zealotry, and I will still be here. Love you sinij.
Keep your nonsense contained to one thread please.
You sir can tell me what todo, as well as understand I can ignore you. And as such I can and will call you a zealot, till I see post from you attacking elements from the left.
Dear RedKGB,
Your repetitive incoherent ramblings and hypocritical raving is interfering with interesting threads. Unfortunately your complete intellectual bankruptcy combined with thorough indoctrination make you rather tedious to debate. Please spare us your dull replies until you master something other than your very very very very repetitious simpleton slanders.
Thank you for understanding,
-Sinij
So how far would you go in your "cost of doing business" ?
You are willing to compromise on fiscal conservatism, small government and individual rights. Whats left? Irrational hate of social programs?
And yet you are not willing to compromise on anything. So that makes you as bad as Karl Rove.
Let me attempt to explain what I meant so maybe you could start participating in this conversation.
When I wrote "are you milling to compromise" , I wasn't seeking or offering compromise with Derid. I was pointing out that by going with Ryan/Romney he is in fact betraying his stated core values to a great extent.
Very simple language - Derid and Ryan/Romney do not believe in the same political ideas.
But Derid and Obama do? Come on man, he as much as said he was choosing the lesser of two evils and the one that more closely aligned with his ideas. The horse is dead, stop beating it.
You sir, can not tell what me threads I can and can not post in. And I shall post in threads as I see fit. While I find your drivel of attacking anything to the right of you on a daily basis, repeative, adds nothing to solveing the problems at hand, negative to the point where I am not the only that sees your attacks as nothing short of blind hate.
You sir truely bring no solutions to the floor. You repeate things that others have said. You post no orginal thoughts. Your repativeness of posting that the GOP is bad, that Tea Party is bad, that anyone that belives in fiscal conservtism is bad, is beyond repative. You have beat that same drum so much that you have had to buy new drums over and over.
When others to provide answers to your questions you disregard, on a daily basis. You do not have open discussion without preamble.
If your comments were to derid and derid alone then they should be taken to pm; but since they are on the forum they are open to all.
So your inability to actully have a talk is over shadow by the fact that 90% choose to insult others then truely work on problems in your owns words.
You call me repative when 90% of your post can be summed up in the following words. "I find no fault with the ideals I follow. I find nothing but fault with ideals of others that do not agree with me. I will attack the ideals of anyone I feel is against my ideals wither I have proff of it or not. If proff is offered that proves me wrong I will ignore it, deflect, and counter attack." That is the nature of your post over and over, and showen when this same logic is applied against you, you retort and insult the person. I have done nothing but use your own process against you.
You have no desire to have others conrtibute to the conversation unless it is to offer support for your stance.
You call me repative when your post are nothing but a cd playing the same song over and over.
So how far would you go in your "cost of doing business" ?
You are willing to compromise on fiscal conservatism, small government and individual rights. Whats left? Irrational hate of social programs?
Well, Obama is certainly worse.
But generally, I was commenting on the state of negative assaults of the left vs the GOP. Some of the criticisms are warranted, others less so or blown way out of proportion. But the reason the left is acting in that manner, is because of its own great lack.
You seemed to want to understand why the GOP still gets some support, despite all of its failings. Well, I answered. The GOP at least has elements of sensibility... and a couple of core constituencies that are working very hard to try and reform the party and make it less of a shithole. As you frequently point out in your various attacks.. there is a lot of work left to be done.. and still plenty of heels and idiots.
But at least in the GOP there are groups actively working for reform even if we have accomplished less than we would have liked. The Dems have no such constituency. As far as I can tell, the entire left is certainly willing to let the current Dem status quo and core leadership continue on its merry path of idiocy, evil and corruption with barely a squeak. I certainly do not think that every leftist or Dem is an idiot, evil or corrupt.. but the leadership I certainly think is... and noone in the party who cares has the gonads to speak up. Its pretty similar to the state of the GOP in 2003~2007.
So you wonder why people associate with the GOP despite all the problems you point out... and that is why.
As far as Mitt Romney goes.. well, nothing Romney has done thus far has really shown him to be a terrible person, unlike Obama. No more terrible than your typical politician anyhow. Does that mean I think he would make a great President? Not particularly. Though I do think the general economic situation would see some relief. He also has a record of dealing with corruption, and possibly enough ego to not want to leave a legacy of federal corruption should he become President.
So, forced to decide between the two.. its an easy choice. I think every incumbent who has shown poor performance should be removed. If Mitt turned out to be as bad as some people think he will, then I absolutely hope that he would get booted out of office in 4 years as well. Mitt absolutely does not stand for much of what I do, but by the same token the Dems need to take a severe beating like the GOP did in 2008 so hopefully some sane voices will start to speak out.
That being said, as I have previously mentioned there is at least a 50% chance I will just vote 3rd party. Its a tough call.
You seemed to want to understand why the GOP still gets some support, despite all of its failings. Well, I answered. The GOP at least has elements of sensibility... and a couple of core constituencies that are working very hard to try and reform the party and make it less of a shithole.
I smiled when I read about Ron Paul supporters heckling GOP platform and Ryan plan at the convention. I'd be Ron Paul's supporter if they managed to ditch social baggage.
Looking from the outside, unless you are Ron Paul supporter you have no place calling yourself a conservative. What even stranger is that Ron Paul and Tea Party don't seem to get along. Can you explain this to me Derid? This is an honest question.
You seemed to want to understand why the GOP still gets some support, despite all of its failings. Well, I answered. The GOP at least has elements of sensibility... and a couple of core constituencies that are working very hard to try and reform the party and make it less of a shithole.
I smiled when I read about Ron Paul supporters heckling GOP platform and Ryan plan at the convention. I'd be Ron Paul's supporter if they managed to ditch social baggage.
Looking from the outside, unless you are Ron Paul supporter you have no place calling yourself a conservative. What even stranger is that Ron Paul and Tea Party don't seem to get along. Can you explain this to me Derid? This is an honest question.
"I find no fault with the ideals I follow. I find nothing but fault with ideals of others that do not agree with me. I will attack the ideals of anyone I feel is against my ideals wither I have proff of it or not. If proff is offered that proves me wrong I will ignore it, deflect, and counter attack."
Stop spamming Red. This is second time I am asking you.
Stop spamming Red. This is second time I am asking you.
You accuse me of repeating myself over and over, and yet you post the same attacks over and over. If you notice I do not post my statement of your apporach on post that you show a true oppion and your own words.
Paul Ryan and the Post-Truth Convention Speech Small: telling the sad story of the closing of the Janesville GM plant, and clearly implying that this was one more casualty of the Obama-unemployment era. Whereas of course the plant was shuttered before Obama even took office.
Medium: telling that story on the assumption that no one would say, "Wait a minute: wasn't Obama the guy who was pushing the big auto-industry bailout, which your nominee and your party opposed? So wouldn't there have been a lot more closed plants if you'd had your way?"
Large: blasting Obama for not enacting the outlook of the Simpson-Bowles commission, without noting that Ryan himself was on the commission and voted against its recommendations because they included tax increases as well as spending cuts.
Large: blasting Obama for proposed cuts in Medicare without noting that Ryan has proposed those same cuts and much more.
Hands down making national political speech and knowingly misstating policy/debate facts. He went out and knowingly lied to nation's face and didn't resign afterwards.
Hands down making national political speech and knowingly misstating policy/debate facts. He went out and knowingly lied to nation's face and didn't resign afterwards.
so you agree its biden?
I agree that your partisanship is the root cause of your disconnect from the reality. What surprising is that you would try to justify Ryan in such clear-case.
More on Ryan, looks like he is compulsive... marathon claims now surface, where he again made up something easily verifiable as false. Alone "marathon" claims isn't a big deal, but it does show the pattern of reckless claim-making.
I agree that your partisanship is the root cause of your disconnect from the reality. What surprising is that you would try to justify Ryan in such clear-case.
More on Ryan, looks like he is compulsive... marathon claims now surface, where he again made up something easily verifiable as false. Alone "marathon" claims isn't a big deal, but it does show the pattern of reckless claim-making.
I didn't know Ryan was a Democrat.
Paul Ryan Cuts $120 Million In Wasteful Spending From Romney Campaign Back on the campaign trail this weekend following the Republican National Convention, vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan recommended more than $120 million in cuts to what he called the "excessive, wasteful, and frankly irresponsible" amount of money being spent to elect Mitt Romney.
UPDATE: Brendan Buck, a spokesperson for the Mitt Romney campaign, responded to this story by claiming that this "grant program was created by President Bush, not Obamacare. This... type of misinformation is what you get from gotcha reporting on liberal blogs." Ryan's letter directly requests money from the HRSA-11-017 New Access Points program announced in August of 2010. This New Access Points grant program that Ryan requested money from is funded fully by the Affordable Care Act, a fact made clear on multiple government websites. The claim that Bush "created" this program is also unfounded. Federally-funded health centers were created through the Public Health Services Act, legislation signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944. New Access Point grants have existed well before the Bush administration came to office.
So, it wasn't a Bush thing, it was an FDR thing, but it also wasn't Obamacare so the article is now moot, but we put the update at the very bottom, hoping that folks will only read the headline and maybe the first paragraph.
No one has claimed that Ryan is perfect and without fault. For fuck's sake, he's a politician. Even the libertarian lion, Ron Paul, does whatever he can to get money for his district.
But, please, continue to beat this dead horse. It's not going anywhere, but you seem to enjoy the flagellation.
Kansas City loophole and deduction cuts a new web video stringing clips of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan being questioned on their tax plan and highlighting the GOP nominees' vagueness on which tax loopholes they would eliminate if elected.
Taking apart Ryan's plan I am surprised media isn't hammering more on this.
Ryan's plan isn't fiscally conservative, nor even possible in its entirety .
Taking apart Ryan's plan I am surprised media isn't hammering more on this.
Ryan's plan isn't fiscally conservative, nor even possible in its entirety .
the media isnt hammering obama for having no plan, or even for failing to pass a budget in three years. i am not surprised.
so is ryans plan worse than having no plan? what effect do you think eliminating the bush tax cuts will have on the economy?
what effect do you think eliminating the bush tax cuts will have on the economy?
It will increase revenue and as a result decrease deficit.
what effect do you think eliminating the bush tax cuts will have on the economy?
It will increase revenue and as a result decrease deficit.
according to this, a left wing source, letting the bush tax cut expire will raise 1 trillion over the next 10 years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/08/24/bush-era-tax-cuts-revenue-expire_n_1828657.htmlso thats like 100 billion a year
according to this article here,
http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?...mp;videofeed=39 ,
the deficit since 2008 is 4.9 trillion, or 1.2 trillion per year. by the way, this article also points out that 4 years under obama has cost us more than 8 under bush.
so letting the bush tax cuts lapse will cut the average yearly deficit from 1.2 trillion to 1.1 trillion, and cost the average taxpayer $5700. that seems like a good idea?
http://m.cnbc.com//id/48674247/How_Much_Will_It_Cost_You_If_Bush_Tax_Cuts_End_A_Lot
so letting the bush tax cuts lapse will cut the average yearly deficit from 1.2 trillion to 1.1 trillion, and cost the average taxpayer $5700.
Without looking at your numbers, this is how cutting tax deficits works. Cutting from 1.2 to 1.1 trillion is not trivial, that is almost 10% of deficit! Other 90% will have to come from somewhere, like defense and social program cuts.
How about we make the first 90% of cuts before we ask the American people to pay more? The government needs to prove to us all that they are serious about cutting the deficit before we can get behind greater confiscation of our income.
How about we start paying the bills right now, and not when some arbitrary "standard of excellence" is met. All of these "how about" are usually nothing more "but I don't want to pay".
Like I have said before, it comes down to trust. Trust that the money would be applied towards the deficit, for example... and not simply dissapear into some random "emergency appropriations bill" , or invoked clause of a prior bill or etc.
Trust that govt wouldnt use the additional money to invade Syria or Iran. Trust that Bernanke would stop the dollar printing presses. Trust that the money is not just dissapearing into the void.
Trust that the govt, whether run by Dems or GOP wouldn't instantly shovel any new revenue to some new form of corporate welfare.
Whether we pay first or whether we cut first is sort of immaterial, the basic problem is trust. Both parties have shown over the prior decade that they absolutely cannot be trusted to show even a basic level of honesty, decency, or good sense. Something needs to happen to restore some level of trust, before many people are going to voluntarily open their wallets to govt - whether or not it is needed to address the fiscal issues. Because all many people hear when the govt says "we need more" is "we need to spend more" , regardless of what the pols say the money is for. Pols may say "its to reduce deficit" , but at this point - many of us just assume they are flat out lying,and no such thing will occur.
Trust? Well, I don't trust your (plural use) kind to not leave my kind, and our children, with unpaid bills. The bills is due right now, pay up.
How about we start paying the bills right now, and not when some arbitrary "standard of excellence" is met. All of these "how about" are usually nothing more "but I don't want to pay".
No one said anything about any standard of excellence. All I said is that the government has to prove that its willing to do its 90% part before we are willing to do our 10% part (since we've been footing the bill for the past century). You still haven't provided any reason that won't work.
How about this? Government can raise our taxes by 1% for every 10% of actual, real money (not accounting tricks), budgetary cuts.
Trust? Well, I don't trust your (plural use) kind to not leave my kind, and our children, with unpaid bills. The bills is due right now, pay up.
I just dont understand why you want to focus on the taxpayer, instead of on honest govt. If the govt decides to take our money, we dont have much choice in the matter. However, since we are basically, for most intents and purposes as far as fiscal matters go, a one-party system now... getting anyone in govt to uphold their word is a seeming impossibility.
Since you yourself admit that govt is responsible for 90% of the share... instead of mindless snark at people who think getting the govt to actually perform the 90% of its share is important.. it would seem logical that your efforts would be focused on getting the 90% fixed ASAP instead.
/shrug
If the govt decides to take our money, we dont have much choice in the matter.
We actually do. Especially your side voted in a bunch of bozos that made the worst and most inept congress in the history of congress, the same guys that would rather see US default or run us off the fiscal cliff than collect more taxes.
How about we make the first 90% of cuts before we ask the American people to pay more? The government needs to prove to us all that they are serious about cutting the deficit before we can get behind greater confiscation of our income.
B I N G O
If the govt decides to take our money, we dont have much choice in the matter.
We actually do. Especially your side voted in a bunch of bozos that made the worst and most inept congress in the history of congress, the same guys that would rather see US default or run us off the fiscal cliff than collect more taxes.
Nah, the most inept congress in history was the 2008/2010 congress. After that congress I dont see how anyone could ever hate gridlock ever again. Reid and Pelosi had to be stopped at any cost, and thats just a plain fact.
If the govt decides to take our money, we dont have much choice in the matter.
We actually do. Especially your side voted in a bunch of bozos that made the worst and most inept congress in the history of congress, the same guys that would rather see US default or run us off the fiscal cliff than collect more taxes.
Nah, the most inept congress in history was the 2008/2010 congress. After that congress I dont see how anyone could ever hate gridlock ever again. Reid and Pelosi had to be stopped at any cost, and thats just a plain fact.
+1 by any standard of measurement
spent the most in history? check
zero budgets passed? check
nationalization of 1/6 US economy? check
biggest single cut to medicare in history? check
richest member of congress as speaker of the house? check
tied for shortest term as speaker? check
also, now that obama has officially raised the debt more in 4 years than bush did in 8, get off your high horse. or give him equal time in your bitchfests
It is amazing to watch mental gymnastic these so-called "fiscal conservatives" would go to avoid paying taxes.
This just in - you are no fiscal conservative unless you are willing to address revenue side of the deficit.
/scratches head
I dont really understand where you are coming from with this.
Honestly.
If I was a congresscritter and someone proposed a bill to return to Clinton era levels of spending and taxation I would vote for it in a heartbeat.
You asked why people were resistant to handing the current crop of crooks more money. I explained it. If we could find people in either party who acted more like statesmen and less like crooks, people would feel better about trusting them with more money.
If govt cut spending to match current income, I would have no problems with then paying more taxes as surplus to pay down the debt. I dont think many people would.
I did, based on your percentages and you're deflecting.
Here are just a few examples of what most of us consider frivolous spending. You wouldn't continue to give your child money if he repeatedly demonstrates that he will waste it. You would sit him down and explain fiscal responsibility to him, and then require him to go out and earn his own money so that he will understand the value of a person's efforts. But, when its your government you're perfectly ok with them wasting money. /boggle O_o
This just in - you are no fiscal conservative unless you are willing to address revenue side of the deficit.
you dont even know what a fiscal conservative is, obviously.
your attempts to pass judgement in this case fail, AGAIN.
alinsky rule #4 doesnt work any more, ya nub
"Look! What's that over there?!?!" exclaimed Sinij, "I sure hope no one noticed that I'm deflecting again."
If the details in this story are accurate, then his actions are deplorable. Having said that, this kind of dishonesty happens from both sides, all the time. If you find this behavior exceptional, given the caliber of politician we have to choose from today, then you're not paying attention.
That certainly doesn't make it acceptable, but we have to pick one, or rise up in arms. Since the later option won't be good for anyone, except the hardened criminals who have plenty of practice, I'll choose the former option for now.