Paul Ryan's Absurdly Optimistic Budget Projections Draw Widespread Ridicule

[Modbert]

no, I wasn't pointing so much to the "substance" of his post, the number is clearly ridiculous, no doubt, just that greenbeard would even stick his toe in on this like so..

Well the number is clearly ridiculous. Which is in part why it's absurdly optimistic. The person who created the model that Heritage used cannot figure how they got those numbers. That alone speaks volumes.

The author of the article you posted gives Ryan credit for someone in the GOP finally backing up the rhetoric they've been spouting.

There are, of course, some sleight-of-hand tricks in Ryan's plan. What he claims would restore fiscal balance would do nothing of the kind over the next decade, leaving $400 billion in annual deficits as far as the eye can see. That's because he slips a large tax cut into his "reform," leaving government revenues perpetually two percentage points lower than spending expenditures as a share of GDP. What's needed is not more tax cuts but a modest tax increase, of the kind the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission proposed. That failure is easily remedied, however, by adopting a top rate higher than the 25 percent he proposes, though still lower than the current 35 percent level.

Ryan also evades a lot of difficult particulars. He seldom spells out domestic spending cuts, preferring to kick the can down the road by applying "caps." He skirts the question of which deductions and tax subsidies he'd eliminate to pay for these lower rates. Unfortunately, you don't get big savings unless you eliminate mortgage interest and charitable deductions, which would be politically unpopular. Ryan includes the Heritage Foundation's projections about job growth triggered by his plan—4 percent unemployment in 2015 vs. 5.9 percent without the plan—that are a supply-side fantasy. His anti-bailout rhetoric is silly pandering. I could go on.

The lowering of the tax rates as proposed by Ryan is one of the key components of his plan. He doesn't even touch defense. All his plan is deciding to take a knife to medicare. I said before and I'll say it again, any budget plan that wishes for everyone to make sacrifices except the rich and Pentagon cannot be taken fully seriously.

 

[Annie]

Says he who uses TPM as 'all'. Well please don't ban me for a difference of opinion.

What in the world are you talking about? And why drag my being a moderator into this? Can't actually answer my question so you have to try and attack me? Sad.

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.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Says he who uses TPM as 'all'. Well please don't ban me for a difference of opinion.

What in the world are you talking about? And why drag my being a moderator into this? Can't actually answer my question so you have to try and attack me? Sad.

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.

OUCH!

That hurt modbert, she kinda got you there.

 

[Modbert]

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.

 

[Modbert]

OUCH!

That hurt modbert, she kinda got you there.

See my response above. Just because I decided to post a article from TPMDC doesn't mean that three Conservative sources saying the plan is good suddenly means there isn't widespread criticism of this plan. Even those who like the plan in many cases think it doesn't go far enough or that it goes too far.

 

[The Infidel]

From who? The Dimwits who haven't passed a budget in two years?? Cry us a fucking river whydonchya?

I guess someone just read the title.

yEAH... Its bullshit!

 

[Modbert]

yEAH... Its bullshit!

So the majority love the plan?

 

[Annie]

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.

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?

 

[Trajan]

no, I wasn't pointing so much to the "substance" of his post, the number is clearly ridiculous, no doubt, just that greenbeard would even stick his toe in on this like so..

Well the number is clearly ridiculous. Which is in part why it's absurdly optimistic. The person who created the model that Heritage used cannot figure how they got those numbers. That alone speaks volumes.

The author of the article you posted gives Ryan credit for someone in the GOP finally backing up the rhetoric they've been spouting.

There are, of course, some sleight-of-hand tricks in Ryan's plan. What he claims would restore fiscal balance would do nothing of the kind over the next decade, leaving $400 billion in annual deficits as far as the eye can see. That's because he slips a large tax cut into his "reform," leaving government revenues perpetually two percentage points lower than spending expenditures as a share of GDP. What's needed is not more tax cuts but a modest tax increase, of the kind the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission proposed. That failure is easily remedied, however, by adopting a top rate higher than the 25 percent he proposes, though still lower than the current 35 percent level.

Ryan also evades a lot of difficult particulars. He seldom spells out domestic spending cuts, preferring to kick the can down the road by applying "caps." He skirts the question of which deductions and tax subsidies he'd eliminate to pay for these lower rates. Unfortunately, you don't get big savings unless you eliminate mortgage interest and charitable deductions, which would be politically unpopular. Ryan includes the Heritage Foundation's projections about job growth triggered by his plan—4 percent unemployment in 2015 vs. 5.9 percent without the plan—that are a supply-side fantasy. His anti-bailout rhetoric is silly pandering. I could go on.

The lowering of the tax rates as proposed by Ryan is one of the key components of his plan. He doesn't even touch defense. All his plan is deciding to take a knife to medicare. I said before and I'll say it again, any budget plan that wishes for everyone to make sacrifices except the rich and Pentagon cannot be taken fully seriously.

the article I posted is written by Jacob Weisberg, hello, of Slate mag....

and I have ALREADY said many times and did so in Toros post which I believe was the fist on this topic, that defense is ' touched, has been touched' and will be touched further, alos I said, I would go further and eliminate at least an amoured div. and a infantry div.and, whats more to the nuts of this, the pentagon way is not on a runaway train to take every tax dollar as mandatory spending as medicare is.


thx for posting the critique I spoke too....

 

[Modbert]

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

 

[kyzr]

Ryan's plan is like the Debt Commission's plan, its a starting point for negotiations.
Add in the Clinton era tax rates, and cuts in defense, then add in going after off-shore tax cheats and "drill baby drill" to make an improving economy, and things will improve slowly and steadily.

We need to STOP the whining and get busy.

 

[Modbert]

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.

The only reason I criticized you using those sources was because I thought you were using them as justification that Ryan's plan was good. Otherwise I would have not mentioned them. I apologized for the mistake in my last post and will do so again. When I make a mistake, I have no problem to man up and admit I was wrong.

I was merely pointing out in my last post that your point about the Washington Post not being Conservative has no relevance considering how Conservative the author of the article is. Like I said, I have no problem with you using such a article. I'm merely pointing out that one fact.

Our little argument here seems to be borne out of a silly little mistake. However, at the end of the day, that still doesn't justify your personal attacks against me. Did I attack you personally in this thread when replying to your post? No. I kept my remarks to what you posted. Even now, you make attacks against me.

If you have a problem with the title, take it up with the authors of the article. Like I said previously, I posted the article because it has the insight of the person who crafted the model that the Heritage Foundation used. Also, I rarely change the article titles unless it's too long to put in the title on USMB.

Hopefully this post clears everything up. If you want to take a step back and see that I made a honest mistake when responding to your post and apologized for it, great. If you want to just ignore that and continue attacking me Annie, be my guest. I'm not going to stop you or ban you as you seemingly believe. Though not once have I abused my moderation powers, but that is not a topic for discussion here anywhere and gets away from the point of my post.

In conclusion, I agree with the sentiment of the authors you posted that this makes the budget discussion more serious than ever. I also agree that it's good that at least someone in the GOP finally stepped up to match the rhetoric they been using. However, the plan Ryan has proposed is full of flaws and does nothing to actually get rid of the debt problem this country is currently facing.

If you like, I have no problem discussing this like reasonable adults. The ball is in your court.

 

[Modbert]

Ryan's plan is like the Debt Commission's plan, its a starting point for negotiations.
Add in the Clinton era tax rates, and cuts in defense, then add in going after off-shore tax cheats and "drill baby drill" to make an improving economy, and things will improve slowly and steadily.

We need to STOP the whining and get busy.

Wait, are you proposing we go after offshore drilling?

 

[Imma B Me]

One of the things that frustrate me most about discussions like this is the automatic assumptions that come from labeling a proposal. There will be some that will automatically dismiss or endorse this proposal simply because a republican created it. I think just maybe, politicians should stop labeling themselves just so their "cliches" can know what's "cool" to support and leave citizens no choice but to have to actually understand these proposals to make a decision.

That said, I don't see how any budget that doesn't prioritize maximizing income and addressing major expenses, can be taken seriously. Whatever an individual's position on taxation, taxes are our government's income and is central to the budget. I am no economist but I don't see the common sense in a budget that reduces income when expenses already exceed it. It makes sense to debate about how best to use income more efficiently to reduce expenses but purposely decreasing income while in debt seems absurd to me.

To explain a little of what I mean, I believe this proposal suggests continued extension and even deeper cuts from 2001/2003 tax rates. However, fiscal years 1994-2001 we had some of the smallest gaps between expenses being higher than income, in recent history. So common sense dictates we at least maximize income to those levels by closing tax loopholes, increasing taxes to those levels or some hybrid of both rather than continuing income(tax) policy from fiscal year 2002-present. Although this policy suggests closing tax loopholes, the loophole closure increases are negated by the tax rate decreases. Any radical deviation from the fiscal years 1994-2001 "blueprint" should most likely occur in relation to major expenses not income( taxes) unless a better, proven, fiscal plan is put forth.

 

[Annie]

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.

The only reason I criticized you using those sources was because I thought you were using them as justification that Ryan's plan was good. Otherwise I would have not mentioned them. I apologized for the mistake in my last post and will do so again. When I make a mistake, I have no problem to man up and admit I was wrong.

I was merely pointing out in my last post that your point about the Washington Post not being Conservative has no relevance considering how Conservative the author of the article is. Like I said, I have no problem with you using such a article. I'm merely pointing out that one fact.

Our little argument here seems to be borne out of a silly little mistake. However, at the end of the day, that still doesn't justify your personal attacks against me. Did I attack you personally in this thread when replying to your post? No. I kept my remarks to what you posted. Even now, you make attacks against me.

If you have a problem with the title, take it up with the authors of the article. Like I said previously, I posted the article because it has the insight of the person who crafted the model that the Heritage Foundation used. Also, I rarely change the article titles unless it's too long to put in the title on USMB.

Hopefully this post clears everything up. If you want to take a step back and see that I made a honest mistake when responding to your post and apologized for it, great. If you want to just ignore that and continue attacking me Annie, be my guest. I'm not going to stop you or ban you as you seemingly believe. Though not once have I abused my moderation powers, but that is not a topic for discussion here anywhere and gets away from the point of my post.

In conclusion, I agree with the sentiment of the authors you posted that this makes the budget discussion more serious than ever. I also agree that it's good that at least someone in the GOP finally stepped up to match the rhetoric they been using. However, the plan Ryan has proposed is full of flaws and does nothing to actually get rid of the debt problem this country is currently facing.

If you like, I have no problem discussing this like reasonable adults. The ball is in your court.

Actually I'll agree with you final gist, given all the caveats. Maybe just possibly, the grasshopper is learning.

 

[EriktheRed]

Paul Ryan's Absurdly Optimistic Budget Projections Draw Widespread Ridicule

Better late than never, I guess.

 

[mudwhistle]

From who? The Dimwits who haven't passed a budget in two years?? Cry us a fucking river whydonchya?

I guess someone just read the title.

It didn't matter what the plan was, they still broke out the same old cliche' attacks they used in 1995.

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.

 

[Annie]

From who? The Dimwits who haven't passed a budget in two years?? Cry us a fucking river whydonchya?

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.

 

[Dot Com]

Heritage Foundation? Aren't they the ones that came up w/ the individual mandate for healthcare in the early 90's then flip-flopped?