Paul Ryan's Absurdly Optimistic Budget Projections Draw Widespread Ridicule

[Modbert]

I'm guessing a Modbert would argue that they're not deep enough. It's a start.

That would be right. I also think that there are better ways going about solving the issue of waste in Medicare, etc.

If I were the one in charge, some of the things I would do immediately:

1.) End the War on Drugs.

This study from the Cato Institute details how much can be saved from getting rid of the War on Drugs.

Cato Study: 'War on Drugs' Squanders $88 Billion a Year | Cato Institute: News Releases

Drug criminalization policies in the United States drain $88 billion annually from state, local and federal government coffers, according to a report released Monday by the Cato Institute.

"The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition," by Harvard economist and Cato Senior Fellow Jeffrey Miron and Katherine Waldock, concludes that current drug policy costs governments $41.3 billion each year to implement, while depriving their budgets of $46.7 billion in potential revenues from taxation of legal drug sales.

That's $880 billion over a decade.

2.) I would cut wasteful programs and programs that are simply earmarks from the defense budget. I would also take a hard look at getting rid of overseas bases. I remember reading at one point that we have just as many troops in Germany and Japan as we do in Afghanistan or Iraq. It was from a good amount of time ago so I'm unsure of the specific details but it was pretty staggering.

3.) I would raise taxes to Clinton era levels including the 39% marginal tax rate for the rich.

4.) I would propose America start "weening" itself off oil consumption in the long run. We cannot currently sustain our growing demand with the supply, never mind internationally with the addition of China and India alone. I would take a hard look at Nuclear power, even despite the current crisis in Japan. France is a fantastic example of Nuclear power done right.

Those are just four things I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure if I had time to sit down and think about it, I can come up with more. I'm also sure I could articulate it better than I currently have.

 

[Greenbeard]

Notice the size of the document. Ryan could hold it in his hand with three fingers. Take the Democrat plans that cover the same areas. Plans that took over 2000 pages each, it took a hand cart to wheel the Dem plans out.

As far as I know, the bill based on this proposal hasn't been written yet. So far all that's been shared is a high-level policy statement that's light on detail; it hasn't yet been fleshed out and written in legislative language. Certainly a conceptual summary of the ACA could also be written in 73 pages.

 

[Yurt]

Talking points memo? LOL! Widespread condemnation? LOL!
Serious, more than can be said of the Democrats...

CSMonitor, Washington Post, and the Editorial page of the Dallas Morning News? Such heavy hitters writers who clearly have no ideological self-interest in the matter. What's next? Going to reference the Heritage Foundation?

Though perhaps you can explain to me Annie how I'm suppose to take such a budget seriously that decides that everyone needs to make sacrifices except the Pentagon and the richest of the rich? Anyone who decides to talk about the budget but won't even cut the defense budget cannot be taken seriously. Simple as that.

did you not just use TPM as your source for the OP?

wtf?

 

[Yurt]

You twit, you post a title, by choice, provide one link, Paul Ryan's Absurdly Optimistic Budget Projections Draw Widespread Ridicule | TPMDC, then a goofy video. I post as you said, CS Monitor, WaPo, and an editorial page from a top 50 US publication and you question my sources. You must think everyone is the idiot to your genius. Get a life. You are one of the few people I've met that appears to become less intelligent with more education. Perhaps it's just becoming more pompous?

As for the moderating bit, that's a function of your behavior, no one else's.

I posted the title of the article. There is plenty of widespread criticism of this plan. However, to try and pass off what is obviously Conservative sources as evidence as the plan being good is a joke. I have no problem with admitting that TPMDC is typically a left-leaning source, I just found the article interesting enough because it has the exclusive thoughts of the person who created the model that the Heritage Foundation used.

I don't know what has you so bitter, but the personal attacks are completely unwarranted and unnecessary.

this post made me laugh the most today....

he bashes annie's sources as right leaning and says....hey, you can't come up with any better sources....and then ADMITS he used ONLY a left leaning source

you should do stand up modbert...though you would have to be unintentional in your comedy

 

[rdean]

Ryan gets his numbers from the "Heritage Foundation". That center of right wing intellectualism.

Notice how right wing "think tanks" tank? They can't seem to get anything right. And yet that doesn't disturb the base. Because they are already both base and disturbed.

 

[Yurt]

Yeah, well except for calling the sources conservative, take a gander at any of their editorials, not too mention just from the get go, WaPo will not be considered conservative, not even by the likes of rdean.

You can't bully your way to credibility, got to earn it. You are failing and as I said before, you did better at 17 and 18 than now, at what? 21?

Except Jennifer Rubin on the other hand:

Jennifer Rubin (journalist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Slate blogger David Weigel called Rubin "one of the right’s most prolific online political writers".[1] The Commentary editor John Podhoretz writes that Rubin "labored daily from her home in suburban Virginia [...] never missing a news story, never missing an op-ed column, reading everything and digesting everything and commenting on everything. She is a phenomenon, especially considering that for the first two decades of her working life, she was not a writer or a journalist but a lawyer specializing in labor issues [..]".[2] In welcoming remarks, The Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt writes that "her provocative writing has become 'must read' material for news and policy makers and avid political watchers."[3]

Rubin's political views are widely characterized as conservative[4] and neoconservative.[5] She was also called a supporter of Tea Party movement,[6] She opposed Barack Obama on multiple occasions, calling him “the most anti-Israel U.S. president (ever),”[7] and writing that “Obama isn’t moderate, doesn’t like the free market, and isn’t interested in waging a robust war on Islamic fundamentalists.”[8]

Let me be clear though. I certainly have no problem with you using such a source. I also certainly have no problem with it being said that this makes the discussion about the budget more serious, because it does. However, there is certainly widespread ridicule for the substance of what Ryan has put out. All of the spending cuts for example are almost eliminated by the tax cuts he is proposing. Never mind the fact under his plan that taxes for the top 10% decline while the lower 90% pay more. What kind of sacrifice is that?

I also owe you a apology Annie for not seeing the very bottom of your post in the first place. If the fact he is being serious was your point, that is a different story and I took your post wrong. However, without that last line at the bottom, it seemed to me that you were trying to say that there isn't widespread criticism of this plan.

That is not to say that I am trying to justify my actions in this thread thus far, however I am merely explaining as to why I reacted the way I did.

However, despite my sarcasm at what I believed to be your justification of his plan through posting those sources, the personal attacks are still unwarranted. Do take note that I have not resorted to doing so.

What is so 'off' here is the fact that my first post was to your claim of widespread ridicule, while only posting 1 link. Two, I wasn't defending Ryan or the plan, not at this point, not in this thread. Then you attacked my sources, even in the last point trying to bring up the WaPo author, a daily contributor, who's political predilections are made clear. Then too one needs to look at what she wrote and the links she supplied. You never did that. Nope. Not serious yourself, even on a messageboard.

modbert likely won't show his face in this thread again

 

[Yurt]

Ryan gets his numbers from the "Heritage Foundation". That center of right wing intellectualism.

Notice how right wing "think tanks" tank? They can't seem to get anything right. And yet that doesn't disturb the base. Because they are already both base and disturbed.

says the guy who gets virtually all his stats/news from left winger sites....

paalease....don't pull a modbert

 

[rdean]

Ryan gets his numbers from the "Heritage Foundation". That center of right wing intellectualism.

Notice how right wing "think tanks" tank? They can't seem to get anything right. And yet that doesn't disturb the base. Because they are already both base and disturbed.

says the guy who gets virtually all his stats/news from left winger sites....

paalease....don't pull a modbert

Wrong, I get lots of stuff from right wing sites. Ever been to the "Heritage Foundation" site? It's hilarious.

Here, check it out:

About | The Heritage Foundation

Many right wingers don't believe what they support. I posted a link to the Texas Republican Party State Platform and right wingers went nuts. Calling me a liar and saying it was an "extremist" site. IT WAS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE PLATFORM.

And don't stop there. Fox posted a story the President went on a trip that cost 200 million dollars a day and there are right wingers still repeating that.

When I posted to Gallup, which showed the Republican Party is 90% white, right wingers complained that Gallup is too "liberal".

When I posted that PEW Research published findings that found only a measly 6% of scientists are Republican, the right wing went nuts. All you have to do is read what right wingers ON THIS VERY SITE post about science and scientists and education to know the 6% number may be a little high. In fact, I thought it was hilarious that one right winger called "evaporation" a "wild liberal theory".

 

[GWV5903]

Ryan gets his numbers from the "Heritage Foundation". That center of right wing intellectualism.

Notice how right wing "think tanks" tank? They can't seem to get anything right. And yet that doesn't disturb the base. Because they are already both base and disturbed.

says the guy who gets virtually all his stats/news from left winger sites....

paalease....don't pull a modbert

They can't help it....

They believe good intentions deserve more than hard work....

 

[Mr Liberty]

The number one cause of bankruptcy in this country are medical bills. Republicans see this as a "good thing"?

The whole point of budget cuts is so the whole country won't have to go bankrupt. The country will probably go broke anyway. Socialize health care will make it a certainty.
In 08 the democrats had control of both houses and a 60% majority in the Senate. Led by a democratic President went on a spending spree unparalleled in American history. You create more and more social programs that do not work. The American can't afford them anymore.

The republicans are no better. Yes, you support the current cutting but it is too little to late. the mission of the U.S. military is to defend the United States. Why do we need to have bases in 130 countries. We should not be defending other countries. Let the Japanese, South Koreans and others provide for their own defense. We can't afford it anymore.

The presidency of George Bush was no better than President Obama. Between the both of them we are now involved in three wars in the middle east. None of them were necessary, all expensive. I cannot see a difference in their foreign policy. The only change I can detect is their rhetoric.

the only reason that the massive spending has not caused a complete collapse of our monetary system is because, the U.S. dollar is the global reserve currency. Russia and China are holding talks aimed at creating a new gold backed currency to replace the US dollar as a reserve currency.

If they are successful, our dollar will crash and we will face inflation like the Germans of the 1930s and the Yugoslavians of the 1990s. Don't think it can happen to us? Don't thing it can happen to you? People never do. What kind of country will we have left. Will we have a country. Will individual liberty be valued?

OK, I'm done. You can all go back to blaming each other again and calling names.

 

[mudwhistle]

I guess someone just read the title.

It didn't matter what the plan was they still broke out the same old cliche' attacks.

Notice the size of the document. Ryan could hold it in his hand with three fingers. Take the Democrat plans that cover the same areas. Plans that took over 2000 pages each, it took a hand cart to wheel the Dem plans out. It seems Ryan also saved alot of trees as well.

I think Modbert made his points and concessions. With that said, Ryan brought some points up for discussion, something both the Democrats and the administration haven't done. Now they will or they won't. But a discussion has begun with the people.

Obviously some will dismiss it out of hand, see above. Others will see it as a place to advance their arguments from. Ryan's includes cuts to defense, I'm guessing a Modbert would argue that they're not deep enough. It's a start.

Seems the only way we can reverse the debt is to operate at a surplus.

Ding, ding, ding. What a novel idea!!!!

The Dems want to raise the Debt-ceiling so they can raise taxes. They need to do it once they lose control of the White House and the Senate in about two years. Taxes will have to go up if they do. It's called 'Spreading the wealth while spreading the blame'.

It's a choice between being responsible or irresponsible.

 

[rightwinger]

Paul Ryans budget is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth

$5.8 trillion in spending cuts which he turns around and gives back as a $4 trillion tax cut

Take money away from grandmothers, young children and college students and give it to billionaires

 

[mudwhistle]

Paul Ryans budget is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth

$5.8 trillion in spending cuts which he turns around and gives back as a $4 trillion tax cut

Take money away from grandmothers, young children and college students and give it to billionaires

And don't forget starving children that never will get fed without our tax dollars.

 

[rightwinger]

Paul Ryans budget is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth

$5.8 trillion in spending cuts which he turns around and gives back as a $4 trillion tax cut

Take money away from grandmothers, young children and college students and give it to billionaires

And don't forget starving children that never will get fed without our tax dollars.

Billionaires won't go hungry though....will they?

 

[editec]

The heritage foundation is full of beans.

It has always been mostly full of beans.

It is a STINK TANK designed as an scholarly apologist for the continued RAPE of the American economy.

 

[mudwhistle]

Paul Ryans budget is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth

$5.8 trillion in spending cuts which he turns around and gives back as a $4 trillion tax cut

Take money away from grandmothers, young children and college students and give it to billionaires

And don't forget starving children that never will get fed without our tax dollars.

Billionaires won't go hungry though....will they?

They have accountants. Nothing Obama does will even come close to effecting them.

This is all about raising everyone's taxes. Billionares will just move to Brazil.

 

[MarcATL]

Wrong, I get lots of stuff from right wing sites. Ever been to the "Heritage Foundation" site? It's hilarious.

Here, check it out:

About | The Heritage Foundation

Many right wingers don't believe what they support. I posted a link to the Texas Republican Party State Platform and right wingers went nuts. Calling me a liar and saying it was an "extremist" site. IT WAS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE PLATFORM.

And don't stop there. Fox posted a story the President went on a trip that cost 200 million dollars a day and there are right wingers still repeating that.

When I posted to Gallup, which showed the Republican Party is 90% white, right wingers complained that Gallup is too "liberal".

When I posted that PEW Research published findings that found only a measly 6% of scientists are Republican, the right wing went nuts. All you have to do is read what right wingers ON THIS VERY SITE post about science and scientists and education to know the 6% number may be a little high. In fact, I thought it was hilarious that one right winger called "evaporation" a "wild liberal theory".

You are 111% SPOT on!

They are a senseless, mindless mob of followers that bend to the whims of Big Corp.

Facts, truth and justice are their enemies.

 

[mudwhistle]

The heritage foundation is full of beans.

It has always been mostly full of beans.

It is a STINK TANK designed as an scholarly apologist for the continued RAPE of the American economy.

Heritage is partly responsible for the wealth this country has enjoyed for the last 70 years. It 's why we are the only country that can afford to be the world's policeman. Now even we can't afford to thanks to Obama and friends. We have to become Germany and Japan.

Maybe once the world starts to burn people will realize this.

 

[Yurt]

Except Jennifer Rubin on the other hand:

Jennifer Rubin (journalist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Let me be clear though. I certainly have no problem with you using such a source. I also certainly have no problem with it being said that this makes the discussion about the budget more serious, because it does. However, there is certainly widespread ridicule for the substance of what Ryan has put out. All of the spending cuts for example are almost eliminated by the tax cuts he is proposing. Never mind the fact under his plan that taxes for the top 10% decline while the lower 90% pay more. What kind of sacrifice is that?

I also owe you a apology Annie for not seeing the very bottom of your post in the first place. If the fact he is being serious was your point, that is a different story and I took your post wrong. However, without that last line at the bottom, it seemed to me that you were trying to say that there isn't widespread criticism of this plan.

That is not to say that I am trying to justify my actions in this thread thus far, however I am merely explaining as to why I reacted the way I did.

However, despite my sarcasm at what I believed to be your justification of his plan through posting those sources, the personal attacks are still unwarranted. Do take note that I have not resorted to doing so.

What is so 'off' here is the fact that my first post was to your claim of widespread ridicule, while only posting 1 link. Two, I wasn't defending Ryan or the plan, not at this point, not in this thread. Then you attacked my sources, even in the last point trying to bring up the WaPo author, a daily contributor, who's political predilections are made clear. Then too one needs to look at what she wrote and the links she supplied. You never did that. Nope. Not serious yourself, even on a messageboard.

modbert likely won't show his face in this thread again

so far my prediction is holding

 

[Toro]

Talking points memo? LOL! Widespread condemnation? LOL!

Paul Ryan's plan for entitlements: A profile in courage? - CSMonitor.com

The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
Editorial Board Blog
Paul Ryan's plan for entitlements: A profile in courage?

Paul Ryan, the Republican congressman from Wisconsin, offered a detailed plan for entitlement reform on Tuesday, putting a political bulls-eye on his back. Would he fit John F. Kennedy's criteria for a 'profile in courage'?

By Clayton Jones
posted April 6, 2011 at 2:20 pm EDT

In 1956, then-Sen. John F. Kennedy released a book under his name entitled "Profiles in Courage," detailing the acts of eight senators in US history "whose devotion to principle lead them to unpopular courses," as he put it. The book was a big hit, winning him the Pulitzer Prize and launching Kennedy to the presidency.

Now some media and politicians are wondering if Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, would be a "profile in courage" for his bold and detailed plan to reform Medicare and Medicaid. Or is his plan, released Tuesday, an act of political folly, like putting a bull's-eye on his back for daring to reform popular social programs?

Mr. Ryan is one of the few politicians that President Obama is said to both admire and fear for his intellect, and perhaps his courage. Mr. Obama himself, by running for the White House as a black man, is widely respected for his courage, even if his own intellect sometimes makes him appear professorial.

Ryan's courage may be seen simply in the context of the lack of courage within his own party. Republicans have long been afraid to be very specific about reform of the big social programs, especially Social Security. Even Ryan didn't include the retirement program in his reform plan, partly because it is still perceived as the "third rail" of politics and partly because it is in less dire need of financial reform than the two big health programs.

If his plan should be remembered for its courage, it is in saying that America's fiscal black hole is the most important issue facing the country, more important than any specific spending program. The deficit can't be taxed away or merely chipped away, but needs wholesale change, he is saying.

Like Martin Luther, Ryan has now had a "here I stand" moment, achieving a high profile, at least. It can make him either a forgotten martyr someday or perhaps lead to a chapter about him in a future "Profiles in Courage" book – perhaps written when another Kennedy runs for office.

Paul Ryan favors substance over gimmicks - Right Turn - The Washington Post

Posted at 09:45 AM ET, 04/06/2011
Paul Ryan favors substance over gimmicks
By Jennifer Rubin

Rep. Paul Ryan (R- Wis.) resisted the urge to budget by headline or to resort to gimmicky process. In putting together a very serious budget document, one so serious that liberal critics could only mischaracterize the bill or shriek. We heard plenty of “Repeal the 20th century!” “Destroy government!” “Starve six million old people !”

There were exceptions to the hysteria. The Post editorial board raised legitimate questions about the details of the Medicare reform proposal. Meanwhile over at Slate, Jacob Weisberg wrote:

And before they reject everything in Ryan’s plan, liberals might want to consider whether some of what he proposes doesn’t in fact serve their own ultimate goals. . . . t’s hard to make a principled liberal case for the program in its current form. To do so, you have to argue that government-paid health care should be a right only for people over the age of 65, and for no one else. Medicare covers doctor and hospital bills at 100 percent, regardless of income. This gives doctors and patients an incentive to maximize their use of the system and waste public resources. Choosing to pay 100 percent of Warren Buffett’s medical bills while cutting Head Start reflects a strange set of social priorities, to say the least.​

...

Editorial: Ryan budget plan gives America its serious starting point | Dallas Morning News Editorials - Opinion and Commentary for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

Editorial: Ryan budget plan gives America its serious starting point

Published 05 April 2011 04:50 PM

Paul Ryan isn’t always right, and he may not be right about everything now.

What he is, though, is serious. The House Budget Committee chairman’s comprehensive proposal would cut more than $6 trillion in spending from President Barack Obama’s plan and, Ryan says, reduce the nation’s public debt by nearly $5 trillion over 10 years.

If you quibble with his methods, don’t dismiss them as madness.

Ryan, with this proposal, steps into a leadership vacuum. Obama effectively stiffed his own bipartisan debt commission, ignoring its recommendations on reforming the tax code and, most urgently, the big three entitlements — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — that are splashing red ink over federal budgets far longer than any of us can imagine...

Serious, more than can be said of the Democrats...

I agree with this, though its true of most Republicans too.

We have to have a serious conversation about the deficit. The American political class has been sticking their head in the sand over the deficit. This is a problem that, at some point, will be dealt with, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Its better that we deal with it voluntarily. And we can't deal with it until we start talking about it.

Ryan gives us a starting point. Now, let's hear what the Democrats and maybe other Republicans would do. But "raise taxes on the rich" and "nothing" aren't serious answers.