Paul Ryan's Response to Obama's Speech Yesterday

[ClosedCaption]

Yeah Ryan is a real gem.
All he's doing with his plan is taking programs that help the poor and elderly and cutting them and at the same time giving the savings to the wealthy and powerful.
In other words, the continuation of class warfare and the continuation of the growth of the wealth gap. He is Robin Hood to the monetary elite.
Plutocracy in action.

What is your solution?

dam you didnt even say it was a lie

 

[ScreamingEagle]

1982 was the Reagan Recession, the worst recession since the Great Depression, which came after the 1981 Reagan tax cuts. Starting at the end of 1982 Reagan raised taxes 8 times in 6 years which gave an improving economy until the Bush I recession. Again the GOP tries to take credit for Clinton's success by attributing it to St Ronnie, who screwed up everything he touched.

You just can't admit the fact of the Reagan legacy can you....?

It took a little time for the effect of the tax cuts to kick in....and Reagan was dealt with a spending congress....and Bush I said "read my lips..." but caved in to more taxes anyway...but despite the bumps the Reagan afterglow lasted till 1999...

If you still don't agree i'd like to see proof that it was Clinton's tax hike that charged up the economy...and paid off the deficit...

Reagan had a spending congress but the Dems didn't have the numbers to be veto proof.
Just to clarify, I think Reagan did some really good things and he brought positiveness back to America. I just think his greatness is overstated and blown out of proportion.

The best thing about Reagan is that he attempted to put the money back into the hands of Americans.....after all it's our money....

I mean....most politicians treat our money like it grows on trees....or like we are some sort financial slaves that they can always count on to produce enough money to pay for their shennanigans....look at all the spending that's been done by both parties (icomplained about Bush's spending too)....the money just runs through their fingers....and they accomplish very little with it.....they now spend money we don't even have.....trillions and trillions.....and then stick us with the bill......and then tell us they need to tax us even more.......fuck that................................

...that's why the Tea Party exists today....
....that's why finally a responsible person (Ryan) came up with a rational plan to at least attempt to get us out of this mess......i just hope we can....

 

[Mr Liberty]

Perhaps we should consider a balance budget amendment. This of course means that we would have to accept the federal government shrinking with the private sector.

 

[edthecynic]

Nobody is attempting to dismantle them.

Under Ryan's proposal, will CHIP receive a dime of funding after 2013? (no) Under Ryan's proposal, will the defined public health insurance benefit known as Medicare exist for those who are not grandfathered in? (no) Under Ryan's proposal, will Medicaid cease to be a federal match for state dollars spent on health services but instead be a significantly smaller (in total) lump sum given to states annually, virtually guaranteeing significant losses of coverage? (yes)

To save you time, I've provided the answers for you.

The Republicans should take justifiable offense because they aren't trying to eliminate them. They are trying to reform and preserve for future generations.

Now I'm starting to take justifiable offense. How long are you going to continue pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining?

Both Medicare and Medicaid will continue to exist. I'm not the one pissing on your leg. It's your own urine you feel running down it.

That's a piss poor lie according to the plan Lyin' Ryan submitted for evaluation to the CBO.

The voucher would not be enough to pay for a health care plan for many seniors. There would be no "public option" for seniors to run to, so if they could not find insurance from the private industry they would simply be on their own. If seniors then could not pay out-of-pocket they would presumably be denied care in all non-emergency situations.

Ryan's plan does save the federal government money by reducing its Medicare expenditures, but as the CBO report documents, it basically does so by simply shifting the costs to seniors. If seniors could not pay they would simply have to go without benefits

Ryan's plan essentially forces seniors into the "death panels" of the private market.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11966/11-17-Rivlin-Ryan_Preliminary_Analysis.pdf
Congressman Ryan and his staff recently provided specifications for a proposal that would
substantially change federal payments under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Although an
extensive analysis of that proposal is not feasible in the time available, CBO has conducted a
preliminary analysis of its major provisions—the results of which are summarized here.

Key Features of the Proposal

MEDICARE

People who turn 65 in 2021 or later years would not enroll in the current Medicare program
but instead would receive a voucher with which to purchase private health insurance.

Although the voucher system would not be implemented until 2021, the amount of the
voucher would be calculated by taking the average federal cost per Medicare enrollee in 2012
(net of enrollee premiums) and growing that amount at the annual rate of growth in GDP per
capita plus one percentage point.

o While the voucher program is being phased in, the voucher amount would be adjusted
downward to reflect the fact that eligible individuals would be younger and less
costly than the average Medicare enrollee.

Affected Medicare enrollees who are also eligible for full Medicaid benefits (“dual
eligibles”) would no longer receive assistance from Medicaid with their Medicare premiums
and cost-sharing; instead the federal government would establish a medical savings account
for them and make an annual contribution to it. The amount of the contribution would be
calculated by starting with $6,600 in 2012 and growing that amount at the rate of GDP
growth per capita plus one percentage point.

Starting in 2021, the age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months per year
until it reached 67 in 2032.


For purposes of this analysis, CBO assumed that all individuals projected to enroll in
Medicare would use the proposed voucher. Voucher recipients would probably have to
purchase less extensive coverage or pay higher premiums than they would under current law,
for two reasons. First, most of the savings for Medicare under the proposal stem from
reducing the amounts that the federal government would pay for enrollees on a per capita
basis, relative to the projections under current law. Second, future beneficiaries would
probably face higher premiums in the private market for a package of benefits similar to that
currently provided by Medicare. (For additional discussion of these issues, see CBO’s
January 2010 letter to Congressman Ryan about his “Roadmap” proposal.)

Similarly, reducing federal payments for Medicaid relative to currently projected amounts
would probably require states to provide less extensive coverage, or to pay a larger share of
the program’s total costs, than would be the case under current law.

For both Medicare and Medicaid, the budgetary effects would become larger over time
because federal payments would tend to grow more slowly under the proposal than projected
costs per enrollee under current law. Although the level of expected federal spending and the
uncertainty surrounding that spending would decline, enrollees’ spending for health care and
the uncertainty surrounding that spending would increase.

 

[edthecynic]

You just can't admit the fact of the Reagan legacy can you....?

It took a little time for the effect of the tax cuts to kick in....and Reagan was dealt with a spending congress....and Bush I said "read my lips..." but caved in to more taxes anyway...but despite the bumps the Reagan afterglow lasted till 1999...

If you still don't agree i'd like to see proof that it was Clinton's tax hike that charged up the economy...and paid off the deficit...

Reagan had a spending congress but the Dems didn't have the numbers to be veto proof.
Just to clarify, I think Reagan did some really good things and he brought positiveness back to America. I just think his greatness is overstated and blown out of proportion.

The best thing about Reagan is that he attempted to put the money back into the hands of Americans.....after all it's our money....

I mean....most politicians treat our money like it grows on trees....or like we are some sort financial slaves that they can always count on to produce enough money to pay for their shennanigans....look at all the spending that's been done by both parties (icomplained about Bush's spending too)....the money just runs through their fingers....and they accomplish very little with it.....they now spend money we don't even have.....trillions and trillions.....and then stick us with the bill......and then tell us they need to tax us even more.......fuck that................................

...that's why the Tea Party exists today....
....that's why finally a responsible person (Ryan) came up with a rational plan to at least attempt to get us out of this mess......i just hope we can....

So when Reagan raises taxes and deficit spends that's putting money back in the hands of Americans.

And Cryin' Lyin" Ryan's "rational" plan is to make seniors pay more for health care. Brilliant!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

1982 was the Reagan Recession, the worst recession since the Great Depression, which came after the 1981 Reagan tax cuts. Starting at the end of 1982 Reagan raised taxes 8 times in 6 years which gave an improving economy until the Bush I recession. Again the GOP tries to take credit for Clinton's success by attributing it to St Ronnie, who screwed up everything he touched.

You just can't admit the fact of the Reagan legacy can you....?

It took a little time for the effect of the tax cuts to kick in....

The effect of the Reagan tax cuts kicked in immediately. Loss of revenue and increasing deficits, 10.8% unemployment and the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Reagan then changed course and made the largest tax increase in history and the economy immediately turned around.

I believe it was Fed monetary policy (Carter's Chairman Volker tried to control inflation) that caused the steep '82 recession...not the tax cuts...the economy rebounded and the stagflation of the Carter years became a thing of the past...

Unemployment declined from 7% in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988.

Reagan was at odds with Congress over tax increases....and the Dem congress was at odds with Reagan over spending cuts....

Reagan reduced the marginal tax rates from 70% to 28%.

 

[edthecynic]

You just can't admit the fact of the Reagan legacy can you....?

It took a little time for the effect of the tax cuts to kick in....

The effect of the Reagan tax cuts kicked in immediately. Loss of revenue and increasing deficits, 10.8% unemployment and the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Reagan then changed course and made the largest tax increase in history and the economy immediately turned around.

I believe it was Fed monetary policy (Carter's Chairman Volker tried to control inflation) that caused the steep '82 recession...not the tax cuts...the economy rebounded and the stagflation of the Carter years became a thing of the past...

Unemployment declined from 7% in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988.

Reagan was at odds with Congress over tax increases....and the Dem congress was at odds with Reagan over spending cuts....

Reagan reduced the marginal tax rates from 70% to 28%.

You've got it backwards as usual. Volker's monetary policy brought down inflation and that brought about the economic rebound. Reagan increased unemployment from 7.6% in 1980 to 10.8% in 1982 with 10 consecutive months of double digit unemployment.

Reagan always takes credit for everyone else's hard work.

Reagan cut the progressive income tax and increased all the regressive taxes he could as well as beginning the taxing of SS benefits. As a result the rich paid less in taxes and the middle class paid more in overall taxes.

 

[The Rabbi]

Still clueless as Obama, huh Rabbi?
I said I'd cut taxes for the middle class. Why do hate the middle class and have your nose up the top percentile's posterior?
Middle Class spending would jump start the economy more than giving the uber rich a tax cut that cuts their rate by half and eliminates the Capital Gains/Dividend tax who pocket the windfall.
Please stop being a reactionary and read the post before you go on one of your fanatical rants!
Thanks

No yuou've already posted that. And I responded as to why that doesn't work. Merely repeating your position is not arguing or defending it.
Middle class spending will not do anything. If it did we would be having a terrific economy right now as the gov't has pumped billions of dollars into all kinds of boondoggles.
Tax policy should stimulate at the margin, meaning that it changes people's incentives to work and invest. It is investments that spur the economy, not consumer spending. This has been shown time and time again.

Got anything from a non partisan resource to back up your claims?

Do Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Create Jobs?

Do Tax Cuts for the Wealthy Create Jobs? - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic

The answer is yes, but not as big as a tax cut for the middle class does.

Yiu ought to read the article, which relies on CBO scoring, which is notoriously off.

 

[sinister59]

Who wouldn't be offended when someone, anyone implies that you want to harm old people and children?

How dumb would you have to be to think that that accusation is true?

you wouldn't be dumb, you would just have to realize that the rich don't think that having health care is a right and it should be tied to affordability of citizens ability to pay. We all know that if medicare was allowed to end that it would lead to a large portion of our population having to make choices to take care of their families and their needs vs paying for health care. Now there isn't a choice, it's provided and you can't make that choice. Under the Republicans it would once again become a choice which means that most likely a person will do without before they will spend what they have to spend, unless of course your one of the those who money isn't a problem and they would just take the money from the govt as part of the cost they could pay anyway.

allot already have to make choice between medicine and heat or food . now the teabaggers want more from them ,

I can see a break off point that if you retire with wealth ,no SS ,

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The effect of the Reagan tax cuts kicked in immediately. Loss of revenue and increasing deficits, 10.8% unemployment and the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Reagan then changed course and made the largest tax increase in history and the economy immediately turned around.

I believe it was Fed monetary policy (Carter's Chairman Volker tried to control inflation) that caused the steep '82 recession...not the tax cuts...the economy rebounded and the stagflation of the Carter years became a thing of the past...

Unemployment declined from 7% in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988.

Reagan was at odds with Congress over tax increases....and the Dem congress was at odds with Reagan over spending cuts....

Reagan reduced the marginal tax rates from 70% to 28%.

You've got it backwards as usual. Volker's monetary policy brought down inflation and that brought about the economic rebound. Reagan increased unemployment from 7.6% in 1980 to 10.8% in 1982 with 10 consecutive months of double digit unemployment.

Reagan always takes credit for everyone else's hard work.

Reagan cut the progressive income tax and increased all the regressive taxes he could as well as beginning the taxing of SS benefits. As a result the rich paid less in taxes and the middle class paid more in overall taxes.

At least you agree the economy improved during Reagan's terms...that's a start....however regarding the 1982 recession....

Volker Hits Brakes; Recession Follows

1982 In a widely announced policy move, Paul Volker and the Fed slowed the rate of growth of the money supply to curtail the recent inflationary spiral. Although some mathematical proofs exist that anticipated monetary policies have no real effects, the U.S. unemployment rate increased from 7.5% in 1981 to over 9.5% in 1982.

It would be hard to label the 1982 as anything less than intentional. Tight monetary policy increased the Federal funds rate, which was about 11% in 1979, to 20% by June 1981. The prime lending rate hit 21.5%, and long-term government bond yields topped out at over 15%. The ensuing recession began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982.

Victory over inflation came at a cost in terms of unemployment, but the outcome was unmistakable. Inflation as measured by the consumer price index was 13.3% in 1979, 12.5% in 1980, 8.9% in 1981, and 3.8% in 1982. The CPI inflation rate did not get above 4% until 1987.

Volker Causes Recession

 

[NYcarbineer]

Clinton may have raised taxes (after he promised NO taxes)....to supply more spending money.....what really helped more was the Repub Congress that reined in the excessive SPENDING....mainly through welfare reform...

as for the Reagan afterglow...

1982 was the Reagan Recession, the worst recession since the Great Depression, which came after the 1981 Reagan tax cuts. Starting at the end of 1982 Reagan raised taxes 8 times in 6 years which gave an improving economy until the Bush I recession. Again the GOP tries to take credit for Clinton's success by attributing it to St Ronnie, who screwed up everything he touched.

You just can't admit the fact of the Reagan legacy can you....?

It took a little time for the effect of the tax cuts to kick in....and Reagan was dealt with a spending congress....and Bush I said "read my lips..." but caved in to more taxes anyway...but despite the bumps the Reagan afterglow lasted till 1999...

If you still don't agree i'd like to see proof that it was Clinton's tax hike that charged up the economy...and paid off the deficit...

That is mentally handicapped nonsense. All we got from Reagan's policies were massive unprecedented peacetime deficits. Reagan made massive deficits politically acceptable. Reagan almost singlehandedly destroyed America's long held tradition of fiscal responsibility.

 

[Annie]

"Exploiting people's emotions of fear, envy, and anxiety is not hope, is not change, it is partisanship." You can tell in the video Ryan is truly pissed off and downright offended by Obama's antics.

All Republicans need to follow Ryan's lead and act that way - downright offended. Republicans on the Hill need to take justified offense at what the Democrats are claiming Republicans want to do. It's disingenuous and downright disgusting. This isn't about taking health care away from anyone, it's about fixing these programs now so that they don't swallow our debt in the future. As Ryan says, it's about saving these programs so that they can be maintained. Delaying action with rhetoric about killing Grandma and hating children is not a solution.

YouTube - Paul Ryan Expresses Disappointment At President's Irresponsible Lack of Leadership​

The Reps need to take umbrage every time the Dems come out with their BS and thow it right back in their faces. Killing grandma and the kids?? Jeese what a load of horseshit.

I think Ryans plan will save these programs but I don't think the Dem controlled Senate is gonna go with it.

The Dems seem to worry about only one section of the population. That being the 40% who produce nothing and pay for nothing.It seems everyone else is here to provide the revenue to take care of the freeloaders.

Yep, the hypocrisy is astounding:

Throw Grandma From the Train - Political Punch

Throw Grandma From the Train

April 13, 2011 3:18 PM

President Obama at the GOP House retreat, January 2010:

“We're not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, ‘Well, you know, that's -- the other party's being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z.”​

President Obama today:

“One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates…This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.”​

-Jake Tapper

 

[EriktheRed]

The Reps need to take umbrage every time the Dems come out with their BS and thow it right back in their faces.

Like "Death Panels"?

 

[edthecynic]

I believe it was Fed monetary policy (Carter's Chairman Volker tried to control inflation) that caused the steep '82 recession...not the tax cuts...the economy rebounded and the stagflation of the Carter years became a thing of the past...

Unemployment declined from 7% in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988.

Reagan was at odds with Congress over tax increases....and the Dem congress was at odds with Reagan over spending cuts....

Reagan reduced the marginal tax rates from 70% to 28%.

You've got it backwards as usual. Volker's monetary policy brought down inflation and that brought about the economic rebound. Reagan increased unemployment from 7.6% in 1980 to 10.8% in 1982 with 10 consecutive months of double digit unemployment.

Reagan always takes credit for everyone else's hard work.

Reagan cut the progressive income tax and increased all the regressive taxes he could as well as beginning the taxing of SS benefits. As a result the rich paid less in taxes and the middle class paid more in overall taxes.

At least you agree the economy improved during Reagan's terms...that's a start....however regarding the 1982 recession....

Volker Hits Brakes; Recession Follows

1982 In a widely announced policy move, Paul Volker and the Fed slowed the rate of growth of the money supply to curtail the recent inflationary spiral. Although some mathematical proofs exist that anticipated monetary policies have no real effects, the U.S. unemployment rate increased from 7.5% in 1981 to over 9.5% in 1982.

It would be hard to label the 1982 as anything less than intentional. Tight monetary policy increased the Federal funds rate, which was about 11% in 1979, to 20% by June 1981. The prime lending rate hit 21.5%, and long-term government bond yields topped out at over 15%. The ensuing recession began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982.

Victory over inflation came at a cost in terms of unemployment, but the outcome was unmistakable. Inflation as measured by the consumer price index was 13.3% in 1979, 12.5% in 1980, 8.9% in 1981, and 3.8% in 1982. The CPI inflation rate did not get above 4% until 1987.

Volker Causes Recession

Your own pull quote belies your claim and supports mine. The 1981 Reagan recession began BEFORE Volker's 1982 monetary policy change, and ended AFTER it, thanks to it. Reagan then tries to steal the credit.

Geezzz, only a CON$ervative could be gullible enough to read it and copy and paste it and still swallow that what came after CAUSED what came before!!!

 

[Greenbeard]

The voucher would not be enough to pay for a health care plan for many seniors. There would be no "public option" for seniors to run to, so if they could not find insurance from the private industry they would simply be on their own. If seniors then could not pay out-of-pocket they would presumably be denied care in all non-emergency situations.

You've made two key points here that seem to be lost on some here. Medicare, at its core, is primarily two things: a public insurance plan and a guaranteed health benefit. Both of these are destroyed under the Ryan proposal. What you're left with is a shrinking check to try and go buy an Anthem plan (or, for some unlucky seniors, perhaps something like a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware plan), which I take it we're now supposed to call "Medicare" and breath a sigh of relief that, thank goodness, perhaps the program's name has been saved. The reality, of course, is that eventually no will be allowed to have Medicare (insurance) anymore. It will simply no longer exist. And with it goes the guaranteed benefits America's elderly have enjoyed for more than 45 years.

Tack on the end of CHIP and giant cuts to Medicaid and you've got a pretty savage "plan." There's a very good reason the Republican leadership deliberately hid their intentions before the elections last fall.

Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, the minority leader, has praised Mr. Ryan but said the Roadmap would not be a part of the Republican agenda this fall.

 

[sinister59]

The voucher would not be enough to pay for a health care plan for many seniors. There would be no "public option" for seniors to run to, so if they could not find insurance from the private industry they would simply be on their own. If seniors then could not pay out-of-pocket they would presumably be denied care in all non-emergency situations.

You've made two key points here that seem to be lost on some here. Medicare, at its core, is primarily two things: a public insurance plan and a guaranteed health benefit. Both of these are destroyed under the Ryan proposal. What you're left with is a shrinking check to try and go buy an Anthem plan (or, for some unlucky seniors, perhaps something like a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware plan), which I take it we're now supposed to call "Medicare" and breath a sigh of relief that, thank goodness, perhaps the program's name has been saved. The reality, of course, is that eventually no will be allowed to have Medicare (insurance) anymore. It will simply no longer exist. And with it goes the guaranteed benefits America's elderly have enjoyed for more than 45 years.

Tack on the end of CHIP and giant cuts to Medicaid and you've got a pretty savage "plan." There's a very good reason the Republican leadership deliberately hid their intentions before the elections last fall.

Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, the minority leader, has praised Mr. Ryan but said the Roadmap would not be a part of the Republican agenda this fall.

as most all teabagers /repigs do ryan lied , SS is solvent up to 2026

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the government would pass out billions of dollars of worth of vouchers to seniors for them to use ONLY on buying insurance in the private sector?

Isn't that a textbook case for skyrocketing insurance costs, based on skyrocketing demand?

 

[sinister59]

So the government would pass out billions of dollars of worth of vouchers to seniors for them to use ONLY on buying insurance in the private sector?

Isn't that a textbook case for skyrocketing insurance costs, based on skyrocketing demand?

WOW
where were you fore the past 20 years ?

when flat screens TVS came out look how much they were same for VCR when they came out they were 500 buck , now DVDs are around one hundred , supply and demand works if there's enough sales .
insurance , you pay for every non-insured person that use the emergency room , now , you're insurance pays most .

thats now , if we all pay for insurance it will go down .

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You've got it backwards as usual. Volker's monetary policy brought down inflation and that brought about the economic rebound. Reagan increased unemployment from 7.6% in 1980 to 10.8% in 1982 with 10 consecutive months of double digit unemployment.

Reagan always takes credit for everyone else's hard work.

Reagan cut the progressive income tax and increased all the regressive taxes he could as well as beginning the taxing of SS benefits. As a result the rich paid less in taxes and the middle class paid more in overall taxes.

At least you agree the economy improved during Reagan's terms...that's a start....however regarding the 1982 recession....

Volker Hits Brakes; Recession Follows

1982 In a widely announced policy move, Paul Volker and the Fed slowed the rate of growth of the money supply to curtail the recent inflationary spiral. Although some mathematical proofs exist that anticipated monetary policies have no real effects, the U.S. unemployment rate increased from 7.5% in 1981 to over 9.5% in 1982.

It would be hard to label the 1982 as anything less than intentional. Tight monetary policy increased the Federal funds rate, which was about 11% in 1979, to 20% by June 1981. The prime lending rate hit 21.5%, and long-term government bond yields topped out at over 15%. The ensuing recession began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982.

Victory over inflation came at a cost in terms of unemployment, but the outcome was unmistakable. Inflation as measured by the consumer price index was 13.3% in 1979, 12.5% in 1980, 8.9% in 1981, and 3.8% in 1982. The CPI inflation rate did not get above 4% until 1987.

Volker Causes Recession

Your own pull quote belies your claim and supports mine. The 1981 Reagan recession began BEFORE Volker's 1982 monetary policy change, and ended AFTER it, thanks to it. Reagan then tries to steal the credit.

Geezzz, only a CON$ervative could be gullible enough to read it and copy and paste it and still swallow that what came after CAUSED what came before!!!

Geezzz only a LIBtard is retarded enough to assume that the number 1982 label means that's when Volker made his monetary changes....it's called "the 1982" recession....even in paragraph two (if you got that far) it refers to "the 1982"....that's when the recession was at its worst (it officially ended Nov'82) and that's probably why it is labelled "the 1982".....altho the recession actually began in 1980...before Reagan was even elected....(Volker started his new policies in 1979)

The 1982 recession was the result of tightening monetary policies....not the Reagan tax cuts as you claim....things got bad in the process of breaking the back of inflation inherited from the Carter era but Reagan allowed Volker to do it because it was necessary....


Educate Yourself - Paul Volker - Part 2

 

[Doc Jerry]

If Ryan did anything, he moved the ball down the court unlike the other Republicans and Dems who have no cahones at all. He's got to be given credit for that at least. And he forced Pres. Obama to show his hand.

News, Views and Tattoos