The Ryan Budget

Do you support the Ryan Budget?

  • Yes, and I tend to the right.

    Votes: 11 32.4%
  • No, and I tend to the right.

    Votes: 4 11.8%
  • Yes, and I tend to the left.

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • No, and I tend to the left.

    Votes: 18 52.9%

  • Total voters
    34
1) I'll give you this one. The Ryan Budget does not reduce spending below the current amount.
2) Federal budget: CBO says Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare privatization plan would increase costs - Los Angeles Times
3) Many schools are run down, out of date and don't have enough teachers to get class sizes down to manageable levels. Spending more money might help address these issues, and that is debatable, but cutting ALL funding will definitely not help and there is no debating that. Plus, millions of adults need loans to go to college. Getting rid of those loans entirely will not translate to more college graduates and I think we can all agree on that.
4) A few months? From 2001-2003 tax receipts dropped every year.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government has anything to do with education? Please see division and separation of powers...

Article 1, Section 8 and the 14th Amendment.
 
I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I am against the Ryan Budget, even if it is a rough draft or first pass. Here's why:

4) Cutting taxes for those making over $250K a year will not lead to an explosion in revenue, which is what the Ryan Budget is predicting. The last three times taxes have been cut, revenue has dropped.

Every time in our history where we cut taxes the economy boomed (See Calvin Coolidge, Post WWII, JFK, Bush etc.). What do you think those wealthy people do with their money? Stuff it under a mattress? They invest it. If they put it in the bank the inflation would eat them alive. The last three times revenue has dropped? No, revenue was raised if you take in to account the dot com bubble, September 11th, etc. in fact, marginal gains rates, despite having a cut in taxes, showed an increase in revenue.

Here we go again. Someone who thinks 2001-2003 didn't happen.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Yet another non response. What three financial crisiss' happened in that time frame? Oh, and low capital gains rates certainly did increase revenue!
 
1) I'll give you this one. The Ryan Budget does not reduce spending below the current amount.
2) Federal budget: CBO says Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare privatization plan would increase costs - Los Angeles Times
3) Many schools are run down, out of date and don't have enough teachers to get class sizes down to manageable levels. Spending more money might help address these issues, and that is debatable, but cutting ALL funding will definitely not help and there is no debating that. Plus, millions of adults need loans to go to college. Getting rid of those loans entirely will not translate to more college graduates and I think we can all agree on that.
4) A few months? From 2001-2003 tax receipts dropped every year.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government has anything to do with education? Please see division and separation of powers...

Article 1, Section 8 and the 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment? That's funny. See federalist no. 41. Specifically the last 4 paragraphs.
 
Last edited:
He's way too quick to yell, "CHARGE IT" while stealing money from the middle class. He is owned, lock, stock and barrel by Kochs and other Big Business.

Its a shame really.

He sold out a long time ago. Like most other Rs, its all about the money.
 
I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I am against the Ryan Budget, even if it is a rough draft or first pass. Here's why:

2) Asking future seniors to pay more money out of pocket for health care will limit the disposable money those seniors have. This will reduce their purchasing power and demand for goods will drop and that will hurt the economy. The CBO projected the Ryan Budget would have future seniors paying their Medicare voucher plus all their Social Security just to get coverage.



I think printing the money to make Medicare possible (It is completely insolvent) does more to reduce income through inflation than will ever be gained via sticking extra money in the pockets of seniors via failing to adjust for the rising debt it creates. Not to mention the half a trillion dollars raided form Medicare to make Obamacare possible. Though I know you would rather take money from me in order to take care of someone else’s parents, I prefer to help my own parents. And if your mother has to pay more for her health insurance to keep me from paying for it then so be it. She is not my responsibility and if she was worth anything she should have invested her money properly instead of looking toward government to grant her a retirement. But then again, in some circumstances, government schemes can work. In fact, it worked so well in Galveston County, Texas that Democrats voted to prevent every other city/state from being able to do the same, thereby, keeping seniors dependent on Democrats. Which is why they hate the Ryan plan so much. It not only takes away part of the necessity to depend on government, but it works a thousand times better, effectively destroying the ability for Democrats to court the senior vote by making commercials of Ryan dumping them off a cliff.

I am always amazed that when a conversation about budgets and taxes starts up, someone always cries about "you're going to take something from me!" as if the ONLY possible option in tax discussions is to raise YOUR taxes.

There are other options.

For example, in 2011, corporations in America made over $7T in profits. Not revenue. Profits. How much of that did they pay in taxes? 35%? 25%? Nope. 12.1%.
Corporate Taxes As Percentage Of Profits Now Lowest In Decades
If companies ACTUALLY paid 35%, the federal budget would be balanced.

Yeah that's not true at all. We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. You do realize that such a proposition would outsource or destroy the very jobs you want to create? Oh, and taking money from me to pay your mom IS how it REALLY works with respect to SS and MC.

[ame=http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ]YouTube - EAT THE RICH![/ame]

[ame=http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ]YouTube - EAT THE RICH![/ame]
 
Last edited:
Every time in our history where we cut taxes the economy boomed (See Calvin Coolidge, Post WWII, JFK, Bush etc.). What do you think those wealthy people do with their money? Stuff it under a mattress? They invest it. If they put it in the bank the inflation would eat them alive. The last three times revenue has dropped? No, revenue was raised if you take in to account the dot com bubble, September 11th, etc. in fact, marginal gains rates, despite having a cut in taxes, showed an increase in revenue.

Here we go again. Someone who thinks 2001-2003 didn't happen.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Yet another non response. What three financial crisiss' happened in that time frame? Oh, and low capital gains rates certainly did increase revenue!

Low capital gains did not increase revenue. If you honestly believe it did then you should have no problem proving it.

I await your proof.
 
I think printing the money to make Medicare possible (It is completely insolvent) does more to reduce income through inflation than will ever be gained via sticking extra money in the pockets of seniors via failing to adjust for the rising debt it creates. Not to mention the half a trillion dollars raided form Medicare to make Obamacare possible. Though I know you would rather take money from me in order to take care of someone else’s parents, I prefer to help my own parents. And if your mother has to pay more for her health insurance to keep me from paying for it then so be it. She is not my responsibility and if she was worth anything she should have invested her money properly instead of looking toward government to grant her a retirement. But then again, in some circumstances, government schemes can work. In fact, it worked so well in Galveston County, Texas that Democrats voted to prevent every other city/state from being able to do the same, thereby, keeping seniors dependent on Democrats. Which is why they hate the Ryan plan so much. It not only takes away part of the necessity to depend on government, but it works a thousand times better, effectively destroying the ability for Democrats to court the senior vote by making commercials of Ryan dumping them off a cliff.

I am always amazed that when a conversation about budgets and taxes starts up, someone always cries about "you're going to take something from me!" as if the ONLY possible option in tax discussions is to raise YOUR taxes.

There are other options.

For example, in 2011, corporations in America made over $7T in profits. Not revenue. Profits. How much of that did they pay in taxes? 35%? 25%? Nope. 12.1%.
Corporate Taxes As Percentage Of Profits Now Lowest In Decades
If companies ACTUALLY paid 35%, the federal budget would be balanced.

Yeah that's not true at all. We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. You do realize that such a proposition would outsource or destroy the very jobs you want to create? Oh, and taking money from me to pay your mom IS how it REALLY works with respect to SS and MC.

Yeah, I'm sure Huffington Post, the Wall Street Journal and Business Week are all "not true at all".
 
I am always amazed that when a conversation about budgets and taxes starts up, someone always cries about "you're going to take something from me!" as if the ONLY possible option in tax discussions is to raise YOUR taxes.

There are other options.

For example, in 2011, corporations in America made over $7T in profits. Not revenue. Profits. How much of that did they pay in taxes? 35%? 25%? Nope. 12.1%.
Corporate Taxes As Percentage Of Profits Now Lowest In Decades
If companies ACTUALLY paid 35%, the federal budget would be balanced.

Yeah that's not true at all. We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. You do realize that such a proposition would outsource or destroy the very jobs you want to create? Oh, and taking money from me to pay your mom IS how it REALLY works with respect to SS and MC.

Yeah, I'm sure Huffington Post, the Wall Street Journal and Business Week are all "not true at all".

No, go ahead, raise taxes in a recession. Increase regulation. See what happenes. I know you think that they are undeserving of that money, of which, would be better spent a free government goodies for yourself but, I'm here to tell you grow up and take care of yourself. You are not my, or anyone else's, responsibility.
 
Last edited:
That set of commercials moved him into prime time; though the actual budget is absurd, he got the media time he wanted.
 
I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I am against the Ryan Budget, even if it is a rough draft or first pass. Here's why:

2) Asking future seniors to pay more money out of pocket for health care will limit the disposable money those seniors have. This will reduce their purchasing power and demand for goods will drop and that will hurt the economy. The CBO projected the Ryan Budget would have future seniors paying their Medicare voucher plus all their Social Security just to get coverage.



I think printing the money to make Medicare possible (It is completely insolvent) does more to reduce income through inflation than will ever be gained via sticking extra money in the pockets of seniors via failing to adjust for the rising debt it creates. Not to mention the half a trillion dollars raided form Medicare to make Obamacare possible. Though I know you would rather take money from me in order to take care of someone else’s parents, I prefer to help my own parents. And if your mother has to pay more for her health insurance to keep me from paying for it then so be it. She is not my responsibility and if she was worth anything she should have invested her money properly instead of looking toward government to grant her a retirement. But then again, in some circumstances, government schemes can work. In fact, it worked so well in Galveston County, Texas that Democrats voted to prevent every other city/state from being able to do the same, thereby, keeping seniors dependent on Democrats. Which is why they hate the Ryan plan so much. It not only takes away part of the necessity to depend on government, but it works a thousand times better, effectively destroying the ability for Democrats to court the senior vote by making commercials of Ryan dumping them off a cliff.

I am always amazed that when a conversation about budgets and taxes starts up, someone always cries about "you're going to take something from me!" as if the ONLY possible option in tax discussions is to raise YOUR taxes.

There are other options.

For example, in 2011, corporations in America made over $7T in profits. Not revenue. Profits. How much of that did they pay in taxes? 35%? 25%? Nope. 12.1%.
Corporate Taxes As Percentage Of Profits Now Lowest In Decades
If companies ACTUALLY paid 35%, the federal budget would be balanced.

For example, in 2011, corporations in America made over $7T in profits. Not revenue. Profits.

No they didn't, not even close.

If companies ACTUALLY paid 35%, the federal budget would be balanced.

Your math is laughably inaccurate.
 
I think printing the money to make Medicare possible (It is completely insolvent) does more to reduce income through inflation than will ever be gained via sticking extra money in the pockets of seniors via failing to adjust for the rising debt it creates. Not to mention the half a trillion dollars raided form Medicare to make Obamacare possible. Though I know you would rather take money from me in order to take care of someone else’s parents, I prefer to help my own parents. And if your mother has to pay more for her health insurance to keep me from paying for it then so be it. She is not my responsibility and if she was worth anything she should have invested her money properly instead of looking toward government to grant her a retirement. But then again, in some circumstances, government schemes can work. In fact, it worked so well in Galveston County, Texas that Democrats voted to prevent every other city/state from being able to do the same, thereby, keeping seniors dependent on Democrats. Which is why they hate the Ryan plan so much. It not only takes away part of the necessity to depend on government, but it works a thousand times better, effectively destroying the ability for Democrats to court the senior vote by making commercials of Ryan dumping them off a cliff.

I am always amazed that when a conversation about budgets and taxes starts up, someone always cries about "you're going to take something from me!" as if the ONLY possible option in tax discussions is to raise YOUR taxes.

There are other options.

For example, in 2011, corporations in America made over $7T in profits. Not revenue. Profits. How much of that did they pay in taxes? 35%? 25%? Nope. 12.1%.
Corporate Taxes As Percentage Of Profits Now Lowest In Decades
If companies ACTUALLY paid 35%, the federal budget would be balanced.

For example, in 2011, corporations in America made over $7T in profits. Not revenue. Profits.

No they didn't, not even close.

If companies ACTUALLY paid 35%, the federal budget would be balanced.

Your math is laughably inaccurate.

12.1% of $7T is $0.847T. 35% of $7T is $2.45T. A difference of $1.603T, which almost perfectly matches our budget deficit.

Now, I'm sure you will say my numbers are wrong, so I look forward to your link to the numbers you are using.
 
Every elected Republican in Washington is in favour of this budget. Romney has praised it in the past and many on this board have praised it as well. Both liberals and conservatives talk about wanting to discuss the issues, so okay, lets discuss an issue. Lets discuss the Ryan Budget.

If you're in favour of it, why? Specifically, how will it help the country?

If you're not in favour of it, why? Specifically, what don't you like and what would you do instead?

Everyone says they want to talk about the issues, so lets talk.

If you haven't had the chance to read the budget yet, here it is: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget | Budget.House.Gov

Very simple!
Anyone under age 55 will have the right to choose how their SS/Medicare is funded!
Those that want to control their own destiny will be able to direct their and their employer's SS/Medicare payments.
I just wished when I was 25 entering the workforce that over the 40 years I'd been able to put away before taxes the average of $500/month. I would have started with equities and be in bonds today. I would have nearly $1 million then in my SS/Medicare account.
Out of which I would be able to live off the interest. Pay my own health insurance. And when I die leave an estate to my son and family!
BUT I didn't have that choice that Ryan wants to give my granddaughter!

Evidently MOST people HAVEN"T considered the tremendous positive affect on the US economy, the Federal budget such a plan will have!
For example consider 50 million people retiring after accumulating $1 million over 40 years!
That's $50 trillion in ASSETS.
That's $50 trillion that won't be needed to fund SS/Medicare!

OH and you idiot detractors saying what will inflation be at that time???
what is it today? 3%..!
 
Article 1, Section 8 and the 14th Amendment.

14th Amendment? That's funny. See federalist no. 41.

Hmm. One is the law of the land and the other is one man's opinion.

The federalist papers were the arguement for the Constitution. James Madison, who wrote federalist no. 41 is considered to be the father of the US Constitution, having more to do with its outcome than any other member of the convention. That man's opinions as written are perhaps the most quoted among supreme court opinions. Nevertheless, I will ask you the question that no liberal in the history of wacky liberals have been able to answer. You ready? the question is ...

If the term "General Welfare" was meant to give unlimited authority to the federal legislature, then why did they specifically enumerate powers to the Congress?

Especially since chartering banks, economic subsidies, education, and roads were all specifically voted down as enumerated powers of congress during the convention. Not that you've ever read James Madison's notes on the constitutional convention.

Good luck!

You know, at first glance at your response I did a face palm. But then I remember that you support modern liberals and Barack Obama, and therefore, must be forgiven for not knowing the history of the document that liberals generally ignore when passing laws while believing that there is no limit to congressional power from a constitutin, that in their view, magically changes without so much as an amendment approved by the people.

Eat it!

The words of James Madison's Federalis no. 41 before the ratification of the U.S. Constitution: Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare." The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!
 
Last edited:
Here we go again. Someone who thinks 2001-2003 didn't happen.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Yet another non response. What three financial crisiss' happened in that time frame? Oh, and low capital gains rates certainly did increase revenue!

Low capital gains did not increase revenue. If you honestly believe it did then you should have no problem proving it.

I await your proof.

Low capital gains did not increase revenue.

Review & Outlook: Obama's Revenue Soup - WSJ.com

According to this, capital gains in 2003 collected $51.3 billion. In 2007, $137.1 billion.
Even though the rate went from 20% to 15%.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong after going through the budget, but it appears to me that Paul Ryan believes that the bottom 95% should sacrifice a ton while the top gets more breaks.

How is this fair?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong after going through the budget, but it appears to me that Paul Ryan believes that the bottom 95% should sacrifice a ton while the top gets more breaks.

How is this fair?

Considering that 49% of the US population pays zero taxes to the federal government I don't see how you came by your figure.
 
Yet another non response. What three financial crisiss' happened in that time frame? Oh, and low capital gains rates certainly did increase revenue!

Low capital gains did not increase revenue. If you honestly believe it did then you should have no problem proving it.

I await your proof.

Low capital gains did not increase revenue.

Review & Outlook: Obama's Revenue Soup - WSJ.com

According to this, capital gains in 2003 collected $51.3 billion. In 2007, $137.1 billion.
Even though the rate went from 20% to 15%.
What he said.
 

Forum List

Back
Top