Former Reagan Budget Director Blasts Ryan

[Toro]

This piece spells out many of the problems with Ryans philosophy.

"Mr. Ryan showed his conservative mettle in 2008 when he folded like a lawn chair on the auto bailout and the Wall Street bailout. But the greater hypocrisy is his phony “plan” to solve the entitlements mess by deferring changes to social insurance by at least a decade."

"The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for “job creators” — i.e. the superwealthy — to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base. Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends. The crony capitalists of K Street already own more than enough Republican votes to stop that train before it leaves the station."

"In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.'



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

All true. So how's that different from the current occupant who sells the illusion that we don't need to do anything other than tax the rich?

 

[Pheonixops]

Hmmm, interesting.

I wonder why that didn't get the same spotlight as someone blasting Ryan.

So the fact that a person who was appointed by a person who you may have a LOT of ideological differences with (Obama), especially fiscally approves of Ryan's plan, makes you happy? Okay......................

The fact that Obama appointed this guy BECAUSE no one disputes Bowles' knowledge of his field combined with the fact that Obama utterly ignored his suggestions combined with the fact that Obama's alternative was shunned by literally EVERYONE in the Senate makes ME happy.
Not much you can do to dress up a train wreck like that. So, as the many threads on these boards suggest, most liberals will do everything they can to avoid the subject entirely.

Really? Why didn't his plan pass?
"The Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction plan went down to a crushing defeat in the House late Wednesday night in a vote that damages the one bipartisan proposal that just a few months ago had seemed like a possible solution to the country’s debt woes.

The 382-38 defeat, with just 16 Republicans and 22 Democrats voting for it, marks a bad end to what began nearly two years ago, when President Obama tapped former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, to lead a deficit-reduction committee.

Their report has popped up in every deficit discussion since then, but had never gotten a vote in either chamber until this week, when opponents prevailed.

“This doesn’t go big. This doesn’t tackle the problem. This doesn’t do the big things,” said Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the Budget Committee. “You can never get the debt under control if you don’t deal with our health care entitlement programs."

"The reason Obama didn’t back Simpson-Bowles is much simpler: it’s a big tax hike on the middle class. The President made a campaign promise not to raise taxes on families making $250,000 or less—98 percent of all American families. Though he has signed a couple of bills that violate that promise at the edges (raising the cigarette tax and, arguably, imposing an individual health care mandate) he has made a clear decision that it would be against his political interest to endorse any broad-based income or payroll tax increase on middle-income families. He could not endorse Simpson-Bowles because Simpson-Bowles is unpopular."

This si the guy you conservatives "respect" and whose fiscal views you advocate?

 

[HUGGY]

This piece spells out many of the problems with Ryans philosophy.

"Mr. Ryan showed his conservative mettle in 2008 when he folded like a lawn chair on the auto bailout and the Wall Street bailout. But the greater hypocrisy is his phony “plan” to solve the entitlements mess by deferring changes to social insurance by at least a decade."

"The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for “job creators” — i.e. the superwealthy — to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base. Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends. The crony capitalists of K Street already own more than enough Republican votes to stop that train before it leaves the station."

"In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.'



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

Stockman doesn't like Ryan?
That's a relief. If that weasel liked him, I'd be worried.

The article doesn't say if Stockman likes Ryan. It says that Ryan's policies are bullshit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This piece spells out many of the problems with Ryans philosophy.

"Mr. Ryan showed his conservative mettle in 2008 when he folded like a lawn chair on the auto bailout and the Wall Street bailout. But the greater hypocrisy is his phony “plan” to solve the entitlements mess by deferring changes to social insurance by at least a decade."

"The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for “job creators” — i.e. the superwealthy — to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base. Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends. The crony capitalists of K Street already own more than enough Republican votes to stop that train before it leaves the station."

"In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.'



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

Stockman doesn't like Ryan?
That's a relief. If that weasel liked him, I'd be worried.

The article doesn't say if Stockman likes Ryan. It says that Ryan's policies are bullshit.

Stockman doesn't like Ryan's Plan?
That's a relief. If that weasel liked it, I'd be worried

 

[candycorn]

Good thing Obama's appointed co-chair on his Committee On Fiscal Responsibility sees things differently.

Erskine Bowles: Ryan budget is "sensible...honest, serious" - YouTube

So, as a taxpayer, you are OK with "slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like"?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but if Romney/Ryan cut those tax breaks, I (middle class) would see one helluva a tax increase?

You're overlooking the closing of all the tax loopholes that all those "evil rich guys" so frequently take advantage of. Republicans have been pushing those for years but if it's not a direct increase on the wealthy, Obama has no use for it.

Is one of the "loopholes" to be closed the off-shore tax shelters?

 

[Dot Com]

 

[bripat9643]

David Stockman is a notorious RINO who has been attacking Republicans ever since Reagan gave him the boot. No genuine Republican gives a shit what Stockman has to say.

This piece spells out many of the problems with Ryans philosophy.

"Mr. Ryan showed his conservative mettle in 2008 when he folded like a lawn chair on the auto bailout and the Wall Street bailout. But the greater hypocrisy is his phony “plan” to solve the entitlements mess by deferring changes to social insurance by at least a decade."

"The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for “job creators” — i.e. the superwealthy — to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base. Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends. The crony capitalists of K Street already own more than enough Republican votes to stop that train before it leaves the station."

"In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.'



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

 

[courseofhistory]

Politifact says Romney's statement about Obama not passing a budget is mostly false:

Our ruling

In his speech, Romney faulted Obama for failing to pass a budget. He was correct that the two times Congress voted on the president’s budget requests, both times they were voted down. But the job of passing a budget resolution is not the president’s. That responsibility falls to Congress, and even then the president doesn’t sign it. As Ellis, our expert, put it: "The president has no role in passing a budget. The president can cajole Congress about passing a budget and advocate for positions and funding levels, but in the end, Congress approves the budget resolution for their own purposes." That’s the difference between this and other claims we’ve rated which blamed Congress for inaction on the budget.

Romney’s statement contains a grain of truth, in that two of Obama’s budget requests failed to pass. But citing those votes leaves a wrong impression -- namely that the votes were anything more than political theater. Romney omitted the more critical information that passing a federal budget is the job of Congress. Given all that, we rate his statement Mostly False.

Regarding Congress not passing the budget with a 414-0 vote:

Such votes are taken "just as a means of embarrassing the president and his party," said Patrick Louis Knudsen, a senior fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

...

And Norman Ornstein, a scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, "it doesn’t mean a damn thing. It’s only a symbolic gesture."

It's politics, folks! Obama has submitted a budget every year BUT Congress can ignore his budget (which they did with their symbolic vote) and still pass their own budget! Also, if you want to get nit picky, they didn't pass Ryan's budget either.

 

[Chris]

When a person states he is going to reduce the debt by raising military spending and tax cuts to the wealthy and slashing medical care for the elderly, and quotes a materialistic brown nosing ex-Russian sycophant like Ayn Rand as his heroine, he is hardly someone I would vote for or support. He needs to have his little pin head examined.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Politifact says Romney's statement about Obama not passing a budget is mostly false:

Our ruling

In his speech, Romney faulted Obama for failing to pass a budget. He was correct that the two times Congress voted on the president’s budget requests, both times they were voted down. But the job of passing a budget resolution is not the president’s. That responsibility falls to Congress, and even then the president doesn’t sign it. As Ellis, our expert, put it: "The president has no role in passing a budget. The president can cajole Congress about passing a budget and advocate for positions and funding levels, but in the end, Congress approves the budget resolution for their own purposes." That’s the difference between this and other claims we’ve rated which blamed Congress for inaction on the budget.

Romney’s statement contains a grain of truth, in that two of Obama’s budget requests failed to pass. But citing those votes leaves a wrong impression -- namely that the votes were anything more than political theater. Romney omitted the more critical information that passing a federal budget is the job of Congress. Given all that, we rate his statement Mostly False.

Regarding Congress not passing the budget with a 414-0 vote:

Such votes are taken "just as a means of embarrassing the president and his party," said Patrick Louis Knudsen, a senior fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

...

And Norman Ornstein, a scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, "it doesn’t mean a damn thing. It’s only a symbolic gesture."

It's politics, folks! Obama has submitted a budget every year BUT Congress can ignore his budget (which they did with their symbolic vote) and still pass their own budget! Also, if you want to get nit picky, they didn't pass Ryan's budget either.

But the job of passing a budget resolution is not the president’s.

I like that he doesn't even bother to submit a budget. Being President is harder than voting present, isn't it?

Such votes are taken "just as a means of embarrassing the president and his party,"


Especially when his own party contributes zero votes.

Obama has submitted a budget every year

Link?

 

[auditor0007]

This piece spells out many of the problems with Ryans philosophy.

"Mr. Ryan showed his conservative mettle in 2008 when he folded like a lawn chair on the auto bailout and the Wall Street bailout. But the greater hypocrisy is his phony “plan” to solve the entitlements mess by deferring changes to social insurance by at least a decade."

"The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for “job creators” — i.e. the superwealthy — to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base. Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends. The crony capitalists of K Street already own more than enough Republican votes to stop that train before it leaves the station."

"In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.'



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

As I've said many times before, Reagan would not do well in today's Republican Party because he was too much of a pragmatist. Yes he wanted smaller government and lower tax rates, but he wasn't a moron; he knew you had to have enough revenue to run the government and he knew he couldn't just stop spending on every single program he didn't like. Reagan today would be as close to Obama as he is to most Republicans, right in the middle.

 

[buckeye45_73]

When a person states he is going to reduce the debt by raising military spending and tax cuts to the wealthy and slashing medical care for the elderly, and quotes a materialistic brown nosing ex-Russian sycophant like Ayn Rand as his heroine, he is hardly someone I would vote for or support. He needs to have his little pin head examined.

What is your hardon for Raynd? We get it you dont like the free market. You're upset she left Soviet Russia and preferred capitalism....sorry most people do.

 

[buckeye45_73]

This piece spells out many of the problems with Ryans philosophy.

"Mr. Ryan showed his conservative mettle in 2008 when he folded like a lawn chair on the auto bailout and the Wall Street bailout. But the greater hypocrisy is his phony “plan” to solve the entitlements mess by deferring changes to social insurance by at least a decade."

"The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for “job creators” — i.e. the superwealthy — to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base. Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends. The crony capitalists of K Street already own more than enough Republican votes to stop that train before it leaves the station."

"In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.'



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

As I've said many times before, Reagan would not do well in today's Republican Party because he was too much of a pragmatist. Yes he wanted smaller government and lower tax rates, but he wasn't a moron; he knew you had to have enough revenue to run the government and he knew he couldn't just stop spending on every single program he didn't like. Reagan today would be as close to Obama as he is to most Republicans, right in the middle.

That's a negative, REagan would be a conservative, he was pro life, pro family, not for gay rights, for tax cuts, pro business, pro growth, sure he made deals, we get that, Bush did too, he had Ted Kennedy write the Education bill, so what exactally would Reagan be against, maybe illegal immigration, because he did pass amnesty, but wait, he would have seen it NOT WORK and say NOT AGAIN! The man was not stupid.

 

[American_Jihad]

He was, he said, "taken to the woodshed" by President Reagan, and though he stayed at OMB through Reagan's reelection, he never recovered his stature.
What is "Disgruntled" Alex...

 

[Toro]

David Stockman is a notorious RINO who has been attacking Republicans ever since Reagan gave him the boot. No genuine Republican gives a shit what Stockman has to say.

This piece spells out many of the problems with Ryans philosophy.

"Mr. Ryan showed his conservative mettle in 2008 when he folded like a lawn chair on the auto bailout and the Wall Street bailout. But the greater hypocrisy is his phony “plan” to solve the entitlements mess by deferring changes to social insurance by at least a decade."

"The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for “job creators” — i.e. the superwealthy — to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base. Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends. The crony capitalists of K Street already own more than enough Republican votes to stop that train before it leaves the station."

"In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.'



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

I suppose Stockman - Reagan's budget director - pointing out Republican Party economic fairy tales over the past 30 years does make him a RINO. Stockman believes in many tenants of the Austrian school of economics, such as hard money, low taxes, low government spending and less regulation. Too bad the Republican Party does not.

But - But! - if we are going to have social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and a strong defense, we must pay for it. And to pay for it, we must pay for it through taxes. That the Retard Wing of the GOP adheres to this myth that Tax Cuts Solve Everything where math is abstract and inconvenient, being a RINO of Stockman's ilk to those people is a badge of honor.

 

[Bfgrn]

Good thing Obama's appointed co-chair on his Committee On Fiscal Responsibility sees things differently.

Erskine Bowles: Ryan budget is "sensible...honest, serious" - YouTube

So, as a taxpayer, you are OK with "slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like"?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but if Romney/Ryan cut those tax breaks, I (middle class) would see one helluva a tax increase?

You're overlooking the closing of all the tax loopholes that all those "evil rich guys" so frequently take advantage of. Republicans have been pushing those for years but if it's not a direct increase on the wealthy, Obama has no use for it.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan



Obama Unveils Proposal to Cut Corporate Tax Rate

THE PRESIDENT’S FRAMEWORK FOR BUSINESS TAX REFORM

Introduction

America’s system of business taxation is in need of reform. The United States has a relatively narrow corporate tax base compared to other countries—a tax base reduced by loopholes, tax expenditures, and tax planning. This is combined with a statutory corporate tax rate that will soon be the highest among advanced countries. As a result of this combination of a relatively narrow tax base and a high statutory tax rate, the U.S. tax system is uncompetitive and inefficient. The system distorts choices such as where to produce, what to invest in, how to finance a business, and what business form to use. And it does too little to encourage job creation and investment in the United States while allowing firms to benefit from incentives to locate production and shift profits overseas. The system is also too complicated—especially for America’s small businesses.

For these reasons, the President is committed to reform that will support the competitiveness of American businesses—large and small—and increase incentives to invest and hire in the United States by lowering rates, cutting tax expenditures, and reducing complexity, while being fiscally responsible.

This report presents the President’s Framework for business tax reform. In laying out this Framework, the President recognizes that tax reform will take time, require work on a bipartisan basis, and benefit from additional feedback from stakeholders and experts. To start that process, this report outlines what the President believes should be five key elements of business tax reform.


PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FIVE ELEMENTS OF BUSINESS TAX REFORM

I. Eliminate dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, broaden the base and cut the corporate tax rate to spur growth in America: The Framework would eliminate dozens of different tax expenditures and fundamentally reform the business tax base to reduce distortions that hurt productivity and growth. It would reinvest these savings to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, putting the United States in line with major competitor countries and encouraging greater investment in America.

II. Strengthen American manufacturing and innovation: The Framework would refocus the manufacturing deduction and use the savings to reduce the effective rate on manufacturing to no more than 25 percent, while encouraging greater research and development and the production of clean energy.

III. Strengthen the international tax system, including establishing a new minimum tax on foreign earnings, to encourage domestic investment: Our tax system should not give companies an incentive to locate production overseas or engage in accounting games to shift profits abroad, eroding the U.S. tax base. Introducing a minimum tax on foreign earnings would help address these problems and discourage a global race to the bottom in tax rates.

IV. Simplify and cut taxes for America’s small businesses: Tax reform should make tax filing simpler for small businesses and entrepreneurs so that they can focus on growing their businesses rather than filling out tax returns.

V. Restore fiscal responsibility and not add a dime to the deficit: Business tax reform should be fully paid for and lead to greater fiscal responsibility than our current business tax system by either eliminating or making permanent and fully paying for temporary tax provisions now in the tax code.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

David Stockman is a notorious RINO who has been attacking Republicans ever since Reagan gave him the boot. No genuine Republican gives a shit what Stockman has to say.

This piece spells out many of the problems with Ryans philosophy.

"Mr. Ryan showed his conservative mettle in 2008 when he folded like a lawn chair on the auto bailout and the Wall Street bailout. But the greater hypocrisy is his phony “plan” to solve the entitlements mess by deferring changes to social insurance by at least a decade."

"The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for “job creators” — i.e. the superwealthy — to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base. Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends. The crony capitalists of K Street already own more than enough Republican votes to stop that train before it leaves the station."

"In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.'



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

I suppose Stockman - Reagan's budget director - pointing out Republican Party economic fairy tales over the past 30 years does make him a RINO. Stockman believes in many tenants of the Austrian school of economics, such as hard money, low taxes, low government spending and less regulation. Too bad the Republican Party does not.

But - But! - if we are going to have social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and a strong defense, we must pay for it. And to pay for it, we must pay for it through taxes. That the Retard Wing of the GOP adheres to this myth that Tax Cuts Solve Everything where math is abstract and inconvenient, being a RINO of Stockman's ilk to those people is a badge of honor.

Stockman believes in many tenants of the Austrian school of economics, such as hard money, low taxes, low government spending and less regulation.

Those all sound great, but all I've ever heard Stockman push for is higher taxes.
If he was more vocal for lower spending, maybe he'd get less abuse?

 

[Toro]

David Stockman is a notorious RINO who has been attacking Republicans ever since Reagan gave him the boot. No genuine Republican gives a shit what Stockman has to say.

I suppose Stockman - Reagan's budget director - pointing out Republican Party economic fairy tales over the past 30 years does make him a RINO. Stockman believes in many tenants of the Austrian school of economics, such as hard money, low taxes, low government spending and less regulation. Too bad the Republican Party does not.

But - But! - if we are going to have social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and a strong defense, we must pay for it. And to pay for it, we must pay for it through taxes. That the Retard Wing of the GOP adheres to this myth that Tax Cuts Solve Everything where math is abstract and inconvenient, being a RINO of Stockman's ilk to those people is a badge of honor.

Stockman believes in many tenants of the Austrian school of economics, such as hard money, low taxes, low government spending and less regulation.

Those all sound great, but all I've ever heard Stockman push for is higher taxes.
If he was more vocal for lower spending, maybe he'd get less abuse?

Stockman's position is if we are going to have all this spending, then we need to raise taxes. If we are going to have social security, Medicare and defense, we have to pay for it. That's simple math.

I don't see many Republicans saying we should slash social security, Medicare and defense.

 

[freedombecki]

I suppose Stockman - Reagan's budget director - pointing out Republican Party economic fairy tales over the past 30 years does make him a RINO. Stockman believes in many tenants of the Austrian school of economics, such as hard money, low taxes, low government spending and less regulation. Too bad the Republican Party does not.

But - But! - if we are going to have social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and a strong defense, we must pay for it. And to pay for it, we must pay for it through taxes. That the Retard Wing of the GOP adheres to this myth that Tax Cuts Solve Everything where math is abstract and inconvenient, being a RINO of Stockman's ilk to those people is a badge of honor.

Stockman believes in many tenants of the Austrian school of economics, such as hard money, low taxes, low government spending and less regulation.

Those all sound great, but all I've ever heard Stockman push for is higher taxes.
If he was more vocal for lower spending, maybe he'd get less abuse?

Stockman's position is if we are going to have all this spending, then we need to raise taxes. If we are going to have social security, Medicare and defense, we have to pay for it. That's simple math.

I don't see many Republicans saying we should slash social security, Medicare and defense.

There are other ways to save money, Mr. Toro.

If this truly is a republic of the people, by the people, and for the people, everyday citizens should tell their congressmen and senators enough spending, that they can and will get someone else to represent them if they don't stop spending money like drunken sailors.

If the grassroots citizens are vocal enough, spending stops. I know. I lived in the Equality State where people actually attend public meetings and speak against every spending idea that comes to the table.

Taxes are low there for some reason, and the bills get paid and the budget gets balanced. I wonder why...

 

[hipeter924]

I just want to see a budget that doesn't result in either:
a) Bankruptcy and the collapse of the US government.
b) Dictatorship and an end of the republic.
c) Martial law and civil war.