Ryan's budget. WTF?

[Dot Com]

There you go again idiot, obamaturd has done us in, stop blaming Bush.

Why are you picking on a female named kitty. She wanted Bu$h II's wars to be paid-for. I also wanted him to put them on his budget requests which he didn't. You realize that the cost of those wars is still going on don't you? Didn't think so.

Yeah I do. It is just I don't like socialists ruining this great country. Obamaturd is much worse than Bush. Everybody wants to blame Bush, go cry a river. Bush did what he had to after we were attacked. Even the dimwits in congress agreed with him at first until they got scared and started worrying about their political careers. Oh by the way, 9-11 is a direct result of that baffoon clinton cowardice.

ZZZzzz. Why did you drop out of high school? The only people who use the word "turd" are 7th graders. BTW- whats the last book you read aside from say something by Levin?

Defense spending is an obvious choice since it takes up more than 20% of our budget. Switch to a single-payer system so that the costs of health care drop. That's two for starters.

How much do you want to cut out of the military?
Better check the numbers of single payer in healthcare.....real numbers, and then you need to check how much taxes will rise from it....from everyone. Single payer countries have a lot of their wealth taken from them on all levels. Ask yourself why Canada is starting private practices again.

Canadians could always see their own doctors, in their own private practices. They have a single-payer system, and they like it (warts and all).

Poll: Canadians like their health care despite grumbles | McClatchy

New Ipsos-McClatchy online polls find that patients in Canada are indeed much more frustrated by waiting times to see medical specialists than patients in the United States are, and slightly less happy with the waiting times to see their family doctors.

However, they're much more likely to say that they have access to all the health care services they need at costs they can afford, by a margin of 65 to 49 percent.

I have relatives in Ontario, and they say the same thing.

Wasn't one of Payland's children born in Canada?

 

[MaggieMae]

B. Hussein Obama admitted that federal spending is out of control and so did the nut case that passes for senate majority leader when they made a deal to cut spending. When did democrats realize that federal spending is out of control? When Americans sent about 65 democrats packing in the last election? You gotta wonder why democrats would fight to keep taxpayer funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion industry when Obamacare apparently covers the manslaughter. The short answer is that democrats don't give a damn about the future of this Country. All they care about is pandering to the criminal base that funds their next campaign.

Interestingly, you provide no evidence. Typical.

Of course there is <wink wink>

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...l-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/

"This statement is not intended to be an actual factual statement."
John Kyle

 

[MaggieMae]

It looks to me that the righties on this thread know as little about Ryan's plan as Kitty knew about Obama's.
By the way, the Atlantic piece linked by Dot Com is an interesting read.

Here's an interesting read from the Tax Policy Center;

Preliminary Revenue Estimate and Distributional Analysis of the
Tax Provisions in A Roadmap for America’s Future Act of 2010

<snip>
The Roadmap’s tax provisions would be highly regressive compared with the current tax system. Relative to current law—and assuming that taxpayers choose their preferred tax system—the Roadmap would reduce taxes for most people, but the largest reductions would go to those with the highest incomes. After-tax income would rise by 1.5 percent for households in the bottom quintile (the 20 percent with the lowest incomes) but change little for the next two quintiles and go up just 0.6 percent for the fourth quintile. In sharp contrast, the top quintile would see their after-tax income jump 11 percent. Within that group, the top 1 percent would gain an average of 26 percent and the top 0.1 percent a whopping 36 percent. The share of total taxes paid by the bottom 80 percent would rise from 35 percent to 42 percent, while the share paid by the top 1 percent would fall by nearly half from 25 percent to 13.5 percent.
Taxpayers at the top of the income distribution gain most because they get the bulk of capital income, which the Roadmap would exempt from taxation. The change in average tax rates reflects that situation. While average rates would change little among the bottom 80 percent, they would fall dramatically at the top. For example, the average tax rate for the top 0.1 percent would plummet from 30 percent under current law to just 11 percent under the Roadmap.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412046_ryan_taxplan.pdf

What a surprise.

 

[MaggieMae]

14 trillion is the debt. The deficit is $1.7 trillion?

Popping the top bracket a couple of points will put much a bigger dent in the deficit than defunding PP or NPR.

Deep cuts in social and defense spending and yes tax increases are what it is going to take to get the deficit under control.

Before I sign on to tax increases, I want to see those deep spending cuts, Art. I don't think there is a politician out there that is really on board with it....except for the tea party members.

Oh, politicians are on board with cutting spending just not spending they like. This is why if Obama was any kind of a leader he would task the GOP to put forward legit defense cuts and the Dems to put forward legit social spending cuts. Force them to make the tough decisions on their own sacred cows.

I think that's what the Gang of Six will determine in the coming weeks. It's impossible to forge any kind of agreement that all 535 members will sign on to, but they will once they see a legitimate, sensible plan. A working "plan" is what's really been missing all along.

 

[MaggieMae]

It looks to me that the righties on this thread know as little about Ryan's plan as Kitty knew about Obama's.
By the way, the Atlantic piece linked by Dot Com is an interesting read.

Here's an interesting read from the Tax Policy Center;

Preliminary Revenue Estimate and Distributional Analysis of the
Tax Provisions in A Roadmap for America’s Future Act of 2010

<snip>
The Roadmap’s tax provisions would be highly regressive compared with the current tax system. Relative to current law—and assuming that taxpayers choose their preferred tax system—the Roadmap would reduce taxes for most people, but the largest reductions would go to those with the highest incomes. After-tax income would rise by 1.5 percent for households in the bottom quintile (the 20 percent with the lowest incomes) but change little for the next two quintiles and go up just 0.6 percent for the fourth quintile. In sharp contrast, the top quintile would see their after-tax income jump 11 percent. Within that group, the top 1 percent would gain an average of 26 percent and the top 0.1 percent a whopping 36 percent. The share of total taxes paid by the bottom 80 percent would rise from 35 percent to 42 percent, while the share paid by the top 1 percent would fall by nearly half from 25 percent to 13.5 percent.
Taxpayers at the top of the income distribution gain most because they get the bulk of capital income, which the Roadmap would exempt from taxation. The change in average tax rates reflects that situation. While average rates would change little among the bottom 80 percent, they would fall dramatically at the top. For example, the average tax rate for the top 0.1 percent would plummet from 30 percent under current law to just 11 percent under the Roadmap.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412046_ryan_taxplan.pdf

OMG!!!!


BULLSHIT!!!!!


HOW DARE THEY?!


Why in fuck's sake should hard working Americans be allowed to keep more of the money they've earned?
The NERVE, I say!


If we can make deep and significant cuts in spending, thus getting Big brother out of our day-to-day lives, why can't we have more money in our pocket?
The opposite would be to cut only enough government to look like you're doing something then say. "Okay we've cut spending now you need to pitch in by paying higher taxes"......




fundamental difference in ideology

What will it take to make you guys see the inequities in those numbers? Why on earth you support the highest earners getting off paying the least amount in taxes is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Vanquish]

It's hilarious that just because it rolls off the tongue easily (due to alliteration) the "Blame Booosh" retort / meme has sufficed as a defense for conservatives who don't have anything else to answer.

"Blame Booosh" "Blame Booosh" - yeah I do, Blame Bush. And everyone else who came before him too, actually.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It looks to me that the righties on this thread know as little about Ryan's plan as Kitty knew about Obama's.
By the way, the Atlantic piece linked by Dot Com is an interesting read.

Here's an interesting read from the Tax Policy Center;

Preliminary Revenue Estimate and Distributional Analysis of the
Tax Provisions in A Roadmap for America’s Future Act of 2010

<snip>
The Roadmap’s tax provisions would be highly regressive compared with the current tax system. Relative to current law—and assuming that taxpayers choose their preferred tax system—the Roadmap would reduce taxes for most people, but the largest reductions would go to those with the highest incomes. After-tax income would rise by 1.5 percent for households in the bottom quintile (the 20 percent with the lowest incomes) but change little for the next two quintiles and go up just 0.6 percent for the fourth quintile. In sharp contrast, the top quintile would see their after-tax income jump 11 percent. Within that group, the top 1 percent would gain an average of 26 percent and the top 0.1 percent a whopping 36 percent. The share of total taxes paid by the bottom 80 percent would rise from 35 percent to 42 percent, while the share paid by the top 1 percent would fall by nearly half from 25 percent to 13.5 percent.
Taxpayers at the top of the income distribution gain most because they get the bulk of capital income, which the Roadmap would exempt from taxation. The change in average tax rates reflects that situation. While average rates would change little among the bottom 80 percent, they would fall dramatically at the top. For example, the average tax rate for the top 0.1 percent would plummet from 30 percent under current law to just 11 percent under the Roadmap.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412046_ryan_taxplan.pdf

OMG!!!!


BULLSHIT!!!!!


HOW DARE THEY?!


Why in fuck's sake should hard working Americans be allowed to keep more of the money they've earned?
The NERVE, I say!


If we can make deep and significant cuts in spending, thus getting Big brother out of our day-to-day lives, why can't we have more money in our pocket?
The opposite would be to cut only enough government to look like you're doing something then say. "Okay we've cut spending now you need to pitch in by paying higher taxes"......




fundamental difference in ideology

What will it take to make you guys see the inequities in those numbers? Why on earth you support the highest earners getting off paying the least amount in taxes is beyond my comprehension.

Every report I've read states that the top 10 percent of income earners pay at least 70 percent of federal income taxes.

Now how can you sit there and say that the rich are paying the least?

Or is that you just can't help from lying?

 

[Vanquish]

Apparently you're not reading the right reports. It's the 55-200k earners that do the lion's share of the paying, chief.

 

[MaggieMae]

I believe Obama's health care will fail. It is unpopular and has Constitutional problems. I am oppose to all federal health care. The federal government should only regulate interstate commerce. So if I want to buy a cheaper insurance in another state, I should be able to.
Health care should be done at the state level. This way if you want health care you can move to a state that offer it. If you don't want to pay for it move to a state that doesn't have it. I like having choices.

Everybody likes choices. Unfortunately, many have no choices, mainly the middle class citizens who don't meet the income formula for Medicaid, yet earn too little to afford any private health insurance. (And that's what this is all about.)

Maybe this is a good spot to add regarding Ryan's solution of vouchers for elders in lieu of Medicare, I wonder who can name a health insurance company that would be willing to insure a person in his/her 70's and in failing health whose $15,000 voucher would be spent within three or four months.

 

[MaggieMae]

The point you're missing is that I'm supportive of tax increases regardless of its effect on me. None of us paid for the wars and it's time we finally did.

You can pay as much money to the government as you want at any time.

My taxes don't need to be raise just because you feel guilty.

BTW I paid over 60 grand in taxes and that's just federal tax.

Sure you did.

 

[MaggieMae]

Maggie actually hit on a problem that few people recognize would come if an universal Single Payer HC (USPHCI) system was established.

Private HC companies are not very efficient. Government run HC systems are VERY efficient.

So if we went with that plan, many many people currently working as admin drones for private HC insurers would be out of work.

The net saving that this nation enjoyed as a result of that policy would in large part be paid personally by those who lost their jobs.

FYI, Medicade/Medicare uses only about 2% of its total budget from admin.

Private insurance companies use about 25% of their budget for admin.

My point here is that the numbers of people who would be looking for work would be a rather considerable number.

But at least they wouldn't be unskilled, like so many who hit the unemployment lines and had jobs they held for 25+ years which will never come back. If the private sector took on all the things I mentioned, it would mean tens of thousands of new jobs. But they don't seem to want to take risks, invest in new industries here, so the government steps in and either gives them a push (seed money/subsidies) or takes over altogether.

 

[Dot Com]

I believe Obama's health care will fail. It is unpopular and has Constitutional problems. I am oppose to all federal health care. The federal government should only regulate interstate commerce. So if I want to buy a cheaper insurance in another state, I should be able to.
Health care should be done at the state level. This way if you want health care you can move to a state that offer it. If you don't want to pay for it move to a state that doesn't have it. I like having choices.

Everybody likes choices. Unfortunately, many have no choices, mainly the middle class citizens who don't meet the income formula for Medicaid, yet earn too little to afford any private health insurance. (And that's what this is all about.)

Maybe this is a good spot to add regarding Ryan's solution of vouchers for elders in lieu of Medicare, I wonder who can name a health insurance company that would be willing to insure a person in his/her 70's and in failing health whose $15,000 voucher would be spent within three or four months.

You can burn through that in a day or two. Remember when Limbough went to the hospital in Hawaii w/ chest pains last year? they gave him all the tests, released him, and gave him a bill for $20,000 LOL A claller on his show challenged him as to the cist and he said "Oh, half the avg price of a used SUV". When pressed firther, he stated it was $20K. I'm thinking it was more LOL
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001070030

 

[MaggieMae]

OMG!!!!


BULLSHIT!!!!!


HOW DARE THEY?!


Why in fuck's sake should hard working Americans be allowed to keep more of the money they've earned?
The NERVE, I say!


If we can make deep and significant cuts in spending, thus getting Big brother out of our day-to-day lives, why can't we have more money in our pocket?
The opposite would be to cut only enough government to look like you're doing something then say. "Okay we've cut spending now you need to pitch in by paying higher taxes"......




fundamental difference in ideology

What will it take to make you guys see the inequities in those numbers? Why on earth you support the highest earners getting off paying the least amount in taxes is beyond my comprehension.

Every report I've read states that the top 10 percent of income earners pay at least 70 percent of federal income taxes.

Now how can you sit there and say that the rich are paying the least?

Or is that you just can't help from lying?

Obviously the dollar amounts are higher, but their share of the tax burden becomes the lowest the way the system is currently set up.

 

[digger]

Didnt Obama and the Democrats bailout Wall St., Goldman Sachs, European banks and give tax breaks to Billionaires?



Democrats are not bright

Intentional misdirection or just bland ignorance? TARP was created by a Republican Congress, and the first $350 billion was spent under Bush II. If you hate it, you have both parties equally to blame for it. So it's not a very good partisan issue unless you're into distortion...

 

[Twofox]

Set tax rates where they were before the Bush tax cuts. Would it affect me? I don't know.

You do realize that taxing the rich isn't going to make a dent into the 14 trillion dollar deficit, right?

14 trillion is the debt. The deficit is $1.7 trillion?

Popping the top bracket a couple of points will put much a bigger dent in the deficit than defunding PP or NPR.

Deep cuts in social and defense spending and yes tax increases are what it is going to take to get the deficit under control.

The old "We'll make cuts if you let us increase taxes". So taxes go up, but the cuts never come. This would be the 3rd time this has been proposed. Make the cuts first, prove to us that you can stop the insane spending, THEN we'll agree to raising taxes.

I am soooo pissed off at all the politicians right now. I wonder if I can stop paying any taxes until they learn how to not spend so damn much? They're like teenagers on a spending spree. Time to cut off their money.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But at least they wouldn't be unskilled, like so many who hit the unemployment lines and had jobs they held for 25+ years which will never come back. If the private sector took on all the things I mentioned, it would mean tens of thousands of new jobs. But they don't seem to want to take risks, invest in new industries here, so the government steps in and either gives them a push (seed money/subsidies) or takes over altogether.

In the alleged mind of the leftist, government creates all things..

Say Maggie, what were the most profound advances in the 20th century?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obviously the dollar amounts are higher, but their share of the tax burden becomes the lowest the way the system is currently set up.

So they pay the most, but they pay the least because, um, well, OBAMA AKBAR, OBAMA AKBAR....

Are there 12 total IQ points in the entire fascist democratic party?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Intentional misdirection or just bland ignorance? TARP was created by a Republican Congress,

The fuck it was, liar.

Both houses were controlled by the fascist democrats. Further more, your Messiah® was so intent on looting the public on behalf of Goldman Sachs and AIG that he left the campaign trail to vote for TARP.

You fascists are such fucking liars, seriously.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What will it take to make you guys see the inequities in those numbers? Why on earth you support the highest earners getting off paying the least amount in taxes is beyond my comprehension.

Every report I've read states that the top 10 percent of income earners pay at least 70 percent of federal income taxes.

Now how can you sit there and say that the rich are paying the least?

Or is that you just can't help from lying?

Obviously the dollar amounts are higher, but their share of the tax burden becomes the lowest the way the system is currently set up.

That's a load of horseshit!

The top earners pay the bulk of federal taxes. Now how in the hell can you say they don't have a heavier tax burden?

Before 2003, the top 1 percent of taxpayers earned about 19 percent of all earnings and paid 31 percent of taxes. After Bush’s tax reform, their share rose to 37 percent of total taxes paid. The top 10 percent of taxpayers didn’t do any better; they had paid 63 percent of taxes before 2003 and paid 68 percent after. The people who benefited the most were the bottom 50 percent of wage earners. They paid 11 percent of taxes before 2003. Now, after the Bush tax reform they pay only 2.89 percent of taxes.

 

[MaggieMae]

But at least they wouldn't be unskilled, like so many who hit the unemployment lines and had jobs they held for 25+ years which will never come back. If the private sector took on all the things I mentioned, it would mean tens of thousands of new jobs. But they don't seem to want to take risks, invest in new industries here, so the government steps in and either gives them a push (seed money/subsidies) or takes over altogether.

In the alleged mind of the leftist, government creates all things..

Say Maggie, what were the most profound advances in the 20th century?

The Interstate Highway System, funded by the federal government.

The Apollo space program, and all space exploration thereafter, funded by the federal government.

To name the biggest ones that CREATED a job CREATION frenzy among the private sector.

And of course there were a few boondoggles that the federal government spent billions on that never, literally, got off the ground: The Star Wars defense shield (Reagan) and the Supercollider (Bush Sr.)

Next question?