Ryan budegt eliminates loopholes for wealthy, leaves middle-class write-offs in place

[Conservative]

The budget Munster, Paul Ryan, introduced a plan to transfer MORE wealth upwards. That's exactly what are struggling middle class needs, for the rich to get even richer. That's what the American people want, right?

Oops...no it isn't.

Poll: Tax the rich, corporations

explain to us how closing loopholes for the wealthy... taxing ALL income... eliminating shelters... transfers wealth upwards.

We'll wait.

 

[Si modo]

Way to "accentuate the positive" there, Pollyanna. We should just ignore how incredibly horrible the rest of the budget is and just concentrate on that one little thing. Brilliant!

What budget?

The Dems left without one- not doing their job - and they keep blocking one. It's been years now.

Are you having difficulty reading the thread. I was responding to the question about Ryan's budget...the OPs question. You, on the other hand, are just deflecting.

Oh, the Dems in the house DID pass a budget, it languished in the Senate as usual.

The "Democrat majority in the Senate has failed to submit [a] budget in the past 1,000 days."

Politifact rated: Mostly False

There is also the People's Budget passed by the Progressive Caucus I linked to earlier.

Ummmm, no. When the Dems left the Congress they controlled, they had yet to do their jobs - pass a budget.

We have never operated this long on continuing resolutions. Ever.

 

[Conservative]

How is this budget any different than his "Path to Destroy Medicare" from before? Defense...untouched. Tax cuts for the wealthy...still in place. Oh, they didn't try to destroy SS this time...that must be the difference.

defense is not untouched. I showed that in the other thread.

You really need to start thinking for yourself, and not using democrat talking points to make your points... considering most of them are drivel.

 

[Seawytch]

Way to 'accentuate the negative' there, Pollyanna. We should just ignore how good the rest of the budget is and just concentrate on the stuff the Democrats don't like. Brilliant!

See? I can type meaningless drivel too, just like you.

And you do with regularity.

I can only guess, but since I don't believe all conservatives are evil, that the goal of Ryan and his followers is to move our nation into a pure plutocracy.

Simply put, everyone of us will face a major medical crisis - death. Some sooner, some later, but it will come. If Ryan gets his way, every mom and dad who hope to pass on to their children some of what they earned will see those assets disappear once the "health savings account" is exhausted.

Of course the 1% with their windfall of an extra s$150,000 in tax savings will be able to afford comprehensive major medical with a small deductible and no cap. Much like the members of Congress, those Tea Party Patriots who choose to cut the benefits to the hoi polloi yet accept the largess of government largess in salary and benefits as members of Congress.

Add to the Ryan 'reform' the conservatives goal of ending the death tax, the R's are creating a New Nobility to rule our once proud Republic and we will see an actual redistribution of wealth in America. Evil are some, but most are simply callous conservatives myopic at best and ignorant of history.

Americans are armed to the teeth; as expectations for the future for middle income Americans dim, a leader will emerge in defense of their children, and lead the masses in a nationwide OWS movement:

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

The Great Irony is today's conservative is very scared of communism and seem to be doing everything wrong in terms of defending America from the far left. The further right they go, the greater their avarice, bigotry and efforts to censor opinion which differ from their own, the more they feed the monster which they most fear.

please... show me the part of Ryan's budget that gives 'the 1%-ers' $150,000 in tax savings.

Ryan Budget Plan Would Cut Income Taxes for Millionaires by at Least $187,000 Annually and Facilitate Corporate Tax Avoidance

 

[Seawytch]

What budget?

The Dems left without one- not doing their job - and they keep blocking one. It's been years now.

Are you having difficulty reading the thread. I was responding to the question about Ryan's budget...the OPs question. You, on the other hand, are just deflecting.

Oh, the Dems in the house DID pass a budget, it languished in the Senate as usual.

The "Democrat majority in the Senate has failed to submit [a] budget in the past 1,000 days."

Politifact rated: Mostly False

There is also the People's Budget passed by the Progressive Caucus I linked to earlier.

Ummmm, no. When the Dems left the Congress they controlled, they had yet to do their jobs - pass a budget.

We have never operated this long on continuing resolutions. Ever.

Oh please...the last GOP president to pass a balanced budget was Nixon so you can climb down off of that high horse already.

Budgets were passed by the House that did not pass in the Senate...just like this one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I read somewhere that the Ryan budget doesn't actually identify the loopholes that would be closed, the credits and subsidies that would be ended, etc.

Is that true?

If that's true, all I can say is,

LOL.

 

[Seawytch]

How is this budget any different than his "Path to Destroy Medicare" from before? Defense...untouched. Tax cuts for the wealthy...still in place. Oh, they didn't try to destroy SS this time...that must be the difference.

defense is not untouched. I showed that in the other thread.

You really need to start thinking for yourself, and not using democrat talking points to make your points... considering most of them are drivel.

Sorry, but I don't read all the threads. Must've missed that one.

Among other things, the Ryan budget would reverse $55 billion in defense cuts mandated for 2013 by the “trigger” agreed to in last year’s budget ceiling deal – and cut this same amount from domestic programs instead. [...]

Sorry, but that’s not a good enough argument for gutting domestic programs while spending $6.2 trillion on defense over the next 10 years – annual spending levels that would be higher, in real terms, than what the U.S. was spending during the Cold War, according to the Project on Defense Alternatives. While the world remains a dangerous place, the U.S. should logically be able to reduce defense spending as a decade of war comes to a close and the power of our terrorist foes wanes.

If Ryan’ budget is praiseworthy, is Romney’ agenda?

That's what you call "touching" Defense? Sorry, but defense needs to be touched in a much more inappropriate manner than that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Way to 'accentuate the negative' there, Pollyanna. We should just ignore how good the rest of the budget is and just concentrate on the stuff the Democrats don't like. Brilliant!

See? I can type meaningless drivel too, just like you.

And you do with regularity.

I can only guess, but since I don't believe all conservatives are evil, that the goal of Ryan and his followers is to move our nation into a pure plutocracy.

Simply put, everyone of us will face a major medical crisis - death. Some sooner, some later, but it will come. If Ryan gets his way, every mom and dad who hope to pass on to their children some of what they earned will see those assets disappear once the "health savings account" is exhausted.

Of course the 1% with their windfall of an extra s$150,000 in tax savings will be able to afford comprehensive major medical with a small deductible and no cap. Much like the members of Congress, those Tea Party Patriots who choose to cut the benefits to the hoi polloi yet accept the largess of government largess in salary and benefits as members of Congress.

Add to the Ryan 'reform' the conservatives goal of ending the death tax, the R's are creating a New Nobility to rule our once proud Republic and we will see an actual redistribution of wealth in America. Evil are some, but most are simply callous conservatives myopic at best and ignorant of history.

Americans are armed to the teeth; as expectations for the future for middle income Americans dim, a leader will emerge in defense of their children, and lead the masses in a nationwide OWS movement:

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

The Great Irony is today's conservative is very scared of communism and seem to be doing everything wrong in terms of defending America from the far left. The further right they go, the greater their avarice, bigotry and efforts to censor opinion which differ from their own, the more they feed the monster which they most fear.

please... show me the part of Ryan's budget that gives 'the 1%-ers' $150,000 in tax savings.

From the link you provided, "It showers huge tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires, paid for by seniors and veterans," he said, claiming the Ryan plan would give the "average" millionaire a tax cut of $150,000."

Now, I've not read the Ryan Budget and I suspect neither have you. Since you posted the link I must infer you wished to prove a point in doing so. Maybe you should read your evidence carefully first, and, If you believe this quote in the article is incorrect feel free to link to a credible source.

 

[Conservative]

And you do with regularity.

I can only guess, but since I don't believe all conservatives are evil, that the goal of Ryan and his followers is to move our nation into a pure plutocracy.

Simply put, everyone of us will face a major medical crisis - death. Some sooner, some later, but it will come. If Ryan gets his way, every mom and dad who hope to pass on to their children some of what they earned will see those assets disappear once the "health savings account" is exhausted.

Of course the 1% with their windfall of an extra s$150,000 in tax savings will be able to afford comprehensive major medical with a small deductible and no cap. Much like the members of Congress, those Tea Party Patriots who choose to cut the benefits to the hoi polloi yet accept the largess of government largess in salary and benefits as members of Congress.

Add to the Ryan 'reform' the conservatives goal of ending the death tax, the R's are creating a New Nobility to rule our once proud Republic and we will see an actual redistribution of wealth in America. Evil are some, but most are simply callous conservatives myopic at best and ignorant of history.

Americans are armed to the teeth; as expectations for the future for middle income Americans dim, a leader will emerge in defense of their children, and lead the masses in a nationwide OWS movement:

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

The Great Irony is today's conservative is very scared of communism and seem to be doing everything wrong in terms of defending America from the far left. The further right they go, the greater their avarice, bigotry and efforts to censor opinion which differ from their own, the more they feed the monster which they most fear.

please... show me the part of Ryan's budget that gives 'the 1%-ers' $150,000 in tax savings.

From the link you provided, "It showers huge tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires, paid for by seniors and veterans," he said, claiming the Ryan plan would give the "average" millionaire a tax cut of $150,000."

Now, I've not read the Ryan Budget and I suspect neither have you. Since you posted the link I must infer you wished to prove a point in doing so. Maybe you should read your evidence carefully first, and, If you believe this quote in the article is incorrect feel free to link to a credible source.

Actually, I did read his budget proposal, as you'd know if you looked at the other thread where I linked to it.

As for the first statement you just made, here's the ENTIRE section from my link...

White House senior adviser David Plouffe told "Fox News Sunday" that Ryan's plan "fails the test of balance, fairness and shared responsibility."

"It showers huge tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires, paid for by seniors and veterans," he said, claiming the Ryan plan would give the "average" millionaire a tax cut of $150,000.

Rather than actually show me in Ryan's plan where this happens, you took the word of a White House adviser. Way to make up your own mind, dufus.

 

[Conservative]

How is this budget any different than his "Path to Destroy Medicare" from before? Defense...untouched. Tax cuts for the wealthy...still in place. Oh, they didn't try to destroy SS this time...that must be the difference.

defense is not untouched. I showed that in the other thread.

You really need to start thinking for yourself, and not using democrat talking points to make your points... considering most of them are drivel.

Sorry, but I don't read all the threads. Must've missed that one.

Among other things, the Ryan budget would reverse $55 billion in defense cuts mandated for 2013 by the “trigger” agreed to in last year’s budget ceiling deal – and cut this same amount from domestic programs instead. [...]

Sorry, but that’s not a good enough argument for gutting domestic programs while spending $6.2 trillion on defense over the next 10 years – annual spending levels that would be higher, in real terms, than what the U.S. was spending during the Cold War, according to the Project on Defense Alternatives. While the world remains a dangerous place, the U.S. should logically be able to reduce defense spending as a decade of war comes to a close and the power of our terrorist foes wanes.

If Ryan’ budget is praiseworthy, is Romney’ agenda?

That's what you call "touching" Defense? Sorry, but defense needs to be touched in a much more inappropriate manner than that.

just as an aside, I have repeatedly posted on this board that we need to cut 'unnecessary' defense spending. While Ryan's budget does not leave defense untouched, I do agree more cuts could be made without sacrificing US security interests.

 

[Si modo]

Are you having difficulty reading the thread. I was responding to the question about Ryan's budget...the OPs question. You, on the other hand, are just deflecting.

Oh, the Dems in the house DID pass a budget, it languished in the Senate as usual.

The "Democrat majority in the Senate has failed to submit [a] budget in the past 1,000 days."

Politifact rated: Mostly False

There is also the People's Budget passed by the Progressive Caucus I linked to earlier.

Ummmm, no. When the Dems left the Congress they controlled, they had yet to do their jobs - pass a budget.

We have never operated this long on continuing resolutions. Ever.

Oh please...the last GOP president to pass a balanced budget was Nixon so you can climb down off of that high horse already.

Budgets were passed by the House that did not pass in the Senate...just like this one.

That's a BALANCED budget.

I said BUDGET, balanced or otherwise.

We have NEVER gone this long without a BUDGET. Period. We have NEVER gone this long on continuing resolutions, alone.

 

[editec]

Democrats should love this. why don't they? Because a Republican proposed it.

GOP Budget Would Strip Loopholes For Top Earners, Rep. Paul Ryan Says | Fox News

The Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee said Sunday that his controversial budget proposal would target high-income Americans, by specifically eliminating deductions and loopholes for the wealthy while leaving "middle-income tax writeoffs" in place.

"Take away the tax shelter, subject all of their income to taxation, and get more revenue -- and we can lower everybody's tax rate in return," Ryan, R-Wis., said.

The devil is in the details, I'll wager.

Misrepresenting the point of proposed bills is de rigor in US politics.


And typically the way that is done is to give that bill a noble sounding title while hiding its evil intent in the details they know neither media nor the general public is every going to read.

Seriously, don't you fucking partisans EVER get tired of being duped?

 

[Wry Catcher]

please... show me the part of Ryan's budget that gives 'the 1%-ers' $150,000 in tax savings.

From the link you provided, "It showers huge tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires, paid for by seniors and veterans," he said, claiming the Ryan plan would give the "average" millionaire a tax cut of $150,000."

Now, I've not read the Ryan Budget and I suspect neither have you. Since you posted the link I must infer you wished to prove a point in doing so. Maybe you should read your evidence carefully first, and, If you believe this quote in the article is incorrect feel free to link to a credible source.

Actually, I did read his budget proposal, as you'd know if you looked at the other thread where I linked to it.

As for the first statement you just made, here's the ENTIRE section from my link...

White House senior adviser David Plouffe told "Fox News Sunday" that Ryan's plan "fails the test of balance, fairness and shared responsibility."

"It showers huge tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires, paid for by seniors and veterans," he said, claiming the Ryan plan would give the "average" millionaire a tax cut of $150,000.

Rather than actually show me in Ryan's plan where this happens, you took the word of a White House adviser. Way to make up your own mind, dufus.

I call your dufus and raise you a negative rep for being an incivil bore. I'm not about to read budgets; my experience is that budgets are only plans, and plans change as circumstances change. I suggest the next time you post a link you read it and if something in the link makes your arguament weak deal with it in the context of your post.

 

[kaz]

Using this logic, the RW should love Obamacare...they proposed the mandate after all...

Sadly Republicans did propose it. But they weren't RW. No conservative would support such a Constitutional abomination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

please... show me the part of Ryan's budget that gives 'the 1%-ers' $150,000 in tax savings.

From the link you provided, "It showers huge tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires, paid for by seniors and veterans," he said, claiming the Ryan plan would give the "average" millionaire a tax cut of $150,000."

Now, I've not read the Ryan Budget and I suspect neither have you. Since you posted the link I must infer you wished to prove a point in doing so. Maybe you should read your evidence carefully first, and, If you believe this quote in the article is incorrect feel free to link to a credible source.

Actually, I did read his budget proposal, as you'd know if you looked at the other thread where I linked to it.

As for the first statement you just made, here's the ENTIRE section from my link...

White House senior adviser David Plouffe told "Fox News Sunday" that Ryan's plan "fails the test of balance, fairness and shared responsibility."

"It showers huge tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires, paid for by seniors and veterans," he said, claiming the Ryan plan would give the "average" millionaire a tax cut of $150,000.

Rather than actually show me in Ryan's plan where this happens, you took the word of a White House adviser. Way to make up your own mind, dufus.

If you've read his budget then it shouldn't be hard for you to link us to all the loopholes, subsidies, credits that will be closed that will show us how this budget is NOT a big tax cut for the Rich.

So do that, please.

 

[Conservative]

From the link you provided, "It showers huge tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires, paid for by seniors and veterans," he said, claiming the Ryan plan would give the "average" millionaire a tax cut of $150,000."

Now, I've not read the Ryan Budget and I suspect neither have you. Since you posted the link I must infer you wished to prove a point in doing so. Maybe you should read your evidence carefully first, and, If you believe this quote in the article is incorrect feel free to link to a credible source.

Actually, I did read his budget proposal, as you'd know if you looked at the other thread where I linked to it.

As for the first statement you just made, here's the ENTIRE section from my link...

White House senior adviser David Plouffe told "Fox News Sunday" that Ryan's plan "fails the test of balance, fairness and shared responsibility."

"It showers huge tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires, paid for by seniors and veterans," he said, claiming the Ryan plan would give the "average" millionaire a tax cut of $150,000.

Rather than actually show me in Ryan's plan where this happens, you took the word of a White House adviser. Way to make up your own mind, dufus.

If you've read his budget then it shouldn't be hard for you to link us to all the loopholes, subsidies, credits that will be closed that will show us how this budget is NOT a big tax cut for the Rich.

So do that, please.

you left out the word 'proposal', dipshit. The details need to be worked out...

JUST like the details in the last PROPOSAL that Obama submitted need to be worked out.

Of course, libtards like you fail to whine about Obamas budget proposal lacking specifics... only the GOP needs to include specifics. If it's a Dem plan, by definition it must be perfect and good and wonderful

 

[Conservative]

From the link you provided, "It showers huge tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires, paid for by seniors and veterans," he said, claiming the Ryan plan would give the "average" millionaire a tax cut of $150,000."

Now, I've not read the Ryan Budget and I suspect neither have you. Since you posted the link I must infer you wished to prove a point in doing so. Maybe you should read your evidence carefully first, and, If you believe this quote in the article is incorrect feel free to link to a credible source.

Actually, I did read his budget proposal, as you'd know if you looked at the other thread where I linked to it.

As for the first statement you just made, here's the ENTIRE section from my link...

White House senior adviser David Plouffe told "Fox News Sunday" that Ryan's plan "fails the test of balance, fairness and shared responsibility."

"It showers huge tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires, paid for by seniors and veterans," he said, claiming the Ryan plan would give the "average" millionaire a tax cut of $150,000.

Rather than actually show me in Ryan's plan where this happens, you took the word of a White House adviser. Way to make up your own mind, dufus.

I call your dufus and raise you a negative rep for being an incivil bore. I'm not about to read budgets; my experience is that budgets are only plans, and plans change as circumstances change. I suggest the next time you post a link you read it and if something in the link makes your arguament weak deal with it in the context of your post.

where's all the whining from libtard asshats like you about Obamas budget proposal lacking the same detail you cry that Ryan did not include???

jackwagon.

 

[Claudette]

Actually, I did read his budget proposal, as you'd know if you looked at the other thread where I linked to it.

As for the first statement you just made, here's the ENTIRE section from my link...


Rather than actually show me in Ryan's plan where this happens, you took the word of a White House adviser. Way to make up your own mind, dufus.

I call your dufus and raise you a negative rep for being an incivil bore. I'm not about to read budgets; my experience is that budgets are only plans, and plans change as circumstances change. I suggest the next time you post a link you read it and if something in the link makes your arguament weak deal with it in the context of your post.

where's all the whining from libtard asshats like you about Obamas budget proposal lacking the same detail you cry that Ryan did not include???

jackwagon.

Don't hold your breath.

Anything Barry does is OK with the left. Of course it hasn't helped much but what the hey.

As for his budget his own Dems kicked that to the curb. Wonder why?? LOL

 

[Wry Catcher]

Actually, I did read his budget proposal, as you'd know if you looked at the other thread where I linked to it.

As for the first statement you just made, here's the ENTIRE section from my link...


Rather than actually show me in Ryan's plan where this happens, you took the word of a White House adviser. Way to make up your own mind, dufus.

I call your dufus and raise you a negative rep for being an incivil bore. I'm not about to read budgets; my experience is that budgets are only plans, and plans change as circumstances change. I suggest the next time you post a link you read it and if something in the link makes your arguament weak deal with it in the context of your post.

where's all the whining from libtard asshats like you about Obamas budget proposal lacking the same detail you cry that Ryan did not include???

jackwagon.

You've lost any credibility you might have had by acting out as a punk. It seems in your case that's not an act. If you had integrity you would accept valid criticism or counter it with a reasoned argument or humor. Instead you default to the profane and mendacity - a common occurance on this forum.

I have never commented on Obama's budget proposal, I have supported his policy ideas which may or may not have been part of a future budget, but as I posted I don't 'read' budgets. Apparently members of Congress don't either.

 

[Seawytch]

Since when is it the President's job to propose budgets?