GOP budget plan would raise debt, hurt seniors

[WillowTree]

Beyond a shill with no facts, you are absolutely correct.

look up your own facts.

I'm sorry, I could have sworn it was you that was making claims about "stolen" money. If you can't provide FACTS to support your claims, I guess that makes your claims pure ideological bovine feces.

dat be tough shit toodddles

 

[Ravi]

How about waiting until they actually review tha plan?

Note, that the CBO hasn't reviewed legislative language, so these numbers will likely be revised when an official cost-estimate is completed.

Yes, when it will turn out the GOP plan will raise the debt even more.

And since the plan doesn't affect those over 55 your post is an outright lie.

What part of this are you having trouble with?

That's because 2022 would mark the beginning of the Medicare privatization plan. That's when, CBO finds, "most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system."

There are millions of people under 55 that have put money into Medicare for decades and the Republican party wants to break the public trust and take away what was promised to them.

 

[Ravi]

go to you tube,, find the hearing in which Sebilius explains the theft of 960 billion, not used to pay down debt but to fund the 30 million individuals who were un insured. you did that off the backs of seniors so don't fearmonger now.. instead cry us a river.

Are you talking about the cost savings in the ACA that equaled that amount? You'll have to be a little less vague with your claims.

I don't have to be anything.

Of course you don't! There, there, maybe we need to up your allowance for anti psychotics.

 

[Bern80]

As with most issues of this magnitude I think people need to step back and readjust their perspective. To do that people need to see this budget problem isn't something that happened overnight. And the problem is not just the over spending, it's what government spent the money on. Over many decades, starting basically with FDR, government has spent and expanded more and more social entitlements. Entitlements make up an enormous part of the budget. If any meanigful dent in the budget and/or the debt is going to be made than some entitlements will have to be cut.

And the truth is most of the opposition's criticism to these cuts is right and 'the right' might do well to just admit it and start being brutally honest with the American people. We have a decision to make. Do we make entitlements the one sacred cow that we don't touch and try to get rid of this debt some other way? Or do we agree that there can be no sacred cows in trying to solve the debt problem, meaning some entitlements may get scaled back or done away with altogether. If it's the later than maybe the GOP needs to admit that, yes, doing so is going to make life tougher for some people. It's going to make life tougher for the people that are dependent on said entitlements.

 

[Seawytch]

ah, right on cue. here come the Fearmongering.

only thing, they left out how it will HURT the Childeeeeerrrrrrn too.

It's hardly "fearmongering" to point out that the GnOP budget will cut 200,000 children from Head Start programs, kick 150,000 out of childcare and countless numbers will die overseas from malaria.

Republicans: Love the fetus, hate the child...52 after.

last I heard, these types of programs were NOT THE FEDERAL Guberments JOB. I do believe these children have something called, Parents.

So instead of cutting things like corporate welfare that gives subsidies to oil companies and agribusiness, you support cutting programs that help low income families better themselves. Thanks for highlighting what corporatist shills the GnOP has become.

 

[Oddball]

It's hardly "fearmongering" to point out that the GnOP budget will cut 200,000 children from Head Start programs, kick 150,000 out of childcare and countless numbers will die overseas from malaria.

Republicans: Love the fetus, hate the child...52 after.

last I heard, these types of programs were NOT THE FEDERAL Guberments JOB. I do believe these children have something called, Parents.

So instead of cutting things like corporate welfare that gives subsidies to oil companies and agribusiness, you support cutting programs that help low income families better themselves. Thanks for highlighting what corporatist shills the GnOP has become.

Ryan's plan does just that.

Next brain dead cliché blabbering point, anyone?

 

[G.T.]

As with most issues of this magnitude I think people need to step back and readjust their perspective. To do that people need to see this budget problem isn't something that happened overnight. And the problem is not just the over spending, it's what government spent the money on. Over many decades, starting basically with FDR, government has spent and expanded more and more social entitlements. Entitlements make up an enormous part of the budget. If any meanigful dent in the budget and/or the debt is going to be made than some entitlements will have to be cut.

And the truth is most of the opposition's criticism to these cuts is right and 'the right' might do well to just admit it and start being brutally honest with the American people. We have a decision to make. Do we make entitlements the one sacred cow that we don't touch and try to get rid of this debt some other way? Or do we agree that there can be no sacred cows in trying to solve the debt problem, meaning some entitlements may get scaled back or done away with altogether. If it's the later than maybe the GOP needs to admit that, yes, doing so is going to make life tougher for some people. It's going to make life tougher for the people that are dependent on said entitlements.

The biggest problem is if they're doing all of this cutting but still seeing an INCREASE in Debt.

 

[G.T.]

last I heard, these types of programs were NOT THE FEDERAL Guberments JOB. I do believe these children have something called, Parents.

So instead of cutting things like corporate welfare that gives subsidies to oil companies and agribusiness, you support cutting programs that help low income families better themselves. Thanks for highlighting what corporatist shills the GnOP has become.

Ryan's plan does just that.

Next brain dead cliché blabbering point, anyone?

Oh? No big oil subsidies in there?

 

[Stephanie]

It's hardly "fearmongering" to point out that the GnOP budget will cut 200,000 children from Head Start programs, kick 150,000 out of childcare and countless numbers will die overseas from malaria.

Republicans: Love the fetus, hate the child...52 after.

last I heard, these types of programs were NOT THE FEDERAL Guberments JOB. I do believe these children have something called, Parents.

So instead of cutting things like corporate welfare that gives subsidies to oil companies and agribusiness, you support cutting programs that help low income families better themselves. Thanks for highlighting what corporatist shills the GnOP has become.

Oh brother.l..

 

[Oddball]

So instead of cutting things like corporate welfare that gives subsidies to oil companies and agribusiness, you support cutting programs that help low income families better themselves. Thanks for highlighting what corporatist shills the GnOP has become.

Ryan's plan does just that.

Next brain dead cliché blabbering point, anyone?

Oh? No big oil subsidies in there?

It flattens the tax rates and eliminates a lot of the credits and deductions, AKA corporate welfare.

And even though it doesn't eliminate them altogether, it's a damned good start.

 

[StevenC]

How about waiting until they actually review tha plan?

Note, that the CBO hasn't reviewed legislative language, so these numbers will likely be revised when an official cost-estimate is completed.

Yes, when it will turn out the GOP plan will raise the debt even more.

And since the plan doesn't affect those over 55 your post is an outright lie.

What part of this are you having trouble with?

That's because 2022 would mark the beginning of the Medicare privatization plan. That's when, CBO finds, "most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system."

There are millions of people under 55 that have put money into Medicare for decades and the Republican party wants to break the public trust and take away what was promised to them.

Based on what? You are making assumptions without any facts.

 

[Ravi]

As with most issues of this magnitude I think people need to step back and readjust their perspective. To do that people need to see this budget problem isn't something that happened overnight. And the problem is not just the over spending, it's what government spent the money on. Over many decades, starting basically with FDR, government has spent and expanded more and more social entitlements. Entitlements make up an enormous part of the budget. If any meanigful dent in the budget and/or the debt is going to be made than some entitlements will have to be cut.

And the truth is most of the opposition's criticism to these cuts is right and 'the right' might do well to just admit it and start being brutally honest with the American people. We have a decision to make. Do we make entitlements the one sacred cow that we don't touch and try to get rid of this debt some other way? Or do we agree that there can be no sacred cows in trying to solve the debt problem, meaning some entitlements may get scaled back or done away with altogether. If it's the later than maybe the GOP needs to admit that, yes, doing so is going to make life tougher for some people. It's going to make life tougher for the people that are dependent on said entitlements.

The biggest problem is if they're doing all of this cutting but still seeing an INCREASE in Debt.

That's because what they are cutting isn't offset by the tax cuts they plan to give the top 1%. In other words, screw the seniors and the poor and give the wealthy a tax cut. Same song as always.

 

[G.T.]

Ryan's plan does just that.

Next brain dead cliché blabbering point, anyone?

Oh? No big oil subsidies in there?

It flattens the tax rates and eliminates a lot of the credits and deductions, AKA corporate welfare.

And even though it doesn't eliminate them altogether, it's a damned good start.

So you're on record as supporting a budget that potentially INCREASES the Debt? Roger that.

 

[Seawytch]

So instead of cutting things like corporate welfare that gives subsidies to oil companies and agribusiness, you support cutting programs that help low income families better themselves. Thanks for highlighting what corporatist shills the GnOP has become.

Ryan's plan does just that.

Next brain dead cliché blabbering point, anyone?

Oh? No big oil subsidies in there?

and Ryan's budget gives a token nod to agribusiness...but would be SOUNDLY defeated by the republicants who have already voted against cuts to agribusiness.

From the NY Times...

The House budget also seeks to overhaul the current farm-subsidy structure by slicing "the fixed payments that go to farmers irrespective of price levels" and ending what Ryan's team referred to as "open-ended" agriculture supports.

Cutting those agriculture benefits is a longstanding goal of fiscal hawks who hotly anticipated today's GOP budget. But the ultimate reshaping of farm payments rests with the Agriculture Committee, as Ryan's plan notes, and is not expected to begin until the next farm bill takes effect -- giving industry interests ample time to lobby for the current system to remain in place.

House GOP's 2012 Budget Promises Overhaul of Energy, Environmental Goals - NYTimes.com

 

[StevenC]

As with most issues of this magnitude I think people need to step back and readjust their perspective. To do that people need to see this budget problem isn't something that happened overnight. And the problem is not just the over spending, it's what government spent the money on. Over many decades, starting basically with FDR, government has spent and expanded more and more social entitlements. Entitlements make up an enormous part of the budget. If any meanigful dent in the budget and/or the debt is going to be made than some entitlements will have to be cut.

And the truth is most of the opposition's criticism to these cuts is right and 'the right' might do well to just admit it and start being brutally honest with the American people. We have a decision to make. Do we make entitlements the one sacred cow that we don't touch and try to get rid of this debt some other way? Or do we agree that there can be no sacred cows in trying to solve the debt problem, meaning some entitlements may get scaled back or done away with altogether. If it's the later than maybe the GOP needs to admit that, yes, doing so is going to make life tougher for some people. It's going to make life tougher for the people that are dependent on said entitlements.

The biggest problem is if they're doing all of this cutting but still seeing an INCREASE in Debt.

What "cutting?"
They haven't cut crap yet.

 

[G.T.]

As with most issues of this magnitude I think people need to step back and readjust their perspective. To do that people need to see this budget problem isn't something that happened overnight. And the problem is not just the over spending, it's what government spent the money on. Over many decades, starting basically with FDR, government has spent and expanded more and more social entitlements. Entitlements make up an enormous part of the budget. If any meanigful dent in the budget and/or the debt is going to be made than some entitlements will have to be cut.

And the truth is most of the opposition's criticism to these cuts is right and 'the right' might do well to just admit it and start being brutally honest with the American people. We have a decision to make. Do we make entitlements the one sacred cow that we don't touch and try to get rid of this debt some other way? Or do we agree that there can be no sacred cows in trying to solve the debt problem, meaning some entitlements may get scaled back or done away with altogether. If it's the later than maybe the GOP needs to admit that, yes, doing so is going to make life tougher for some people. It's going to make life tougher for the people that are dependent on said entitlements.

The biggest problem is if they're doing all of this cutting but still seeing an INCREASE in Debt.

What "cutting?"
They haven't cut crap yet.

Was this post even necessary, really? ^

 

[StevenC]

Oh? No big oil subsidies in there?

It flattens the tax rates and eliminates a lot of the credits and deductions, AKA corporate welfare.

And even though it doesn't eliminate them altogether, it's a damned good start.

So you're on record as supporting a budget that potentially INCREASES the Debt? Roger that.

Where do you get this crap? How would it increase debt?

 

[StevenC]

The biggest problem is if they're doing all of this cutting but still seeing an INCREASE in Debt.

What "cutting?"
They haven't cut crap yet.

Was this post even necessary, really? ^

Yes. You keep on making claims like others without any facts.

 

[G.T.]

It flattens the tax rates and eliminates a lot of the credits and deductions, AKA corporate welfare.

And even though it doesn't eliminate them altogether, it's a damned good start.

So you're on record as supporting a budget that potentially INCREASES the Debt? Roger that.

Where do you get this crap? How would it increase debt?

CBO's score shows it increasing the Debt.

 

[Oddball]

Oh? No big oil subsidies in there?

It flattens the tax rates and eliminates a lot of the credits and deductions, AKA corporate welfare.

And even though it doesn't eliminate them altogether, it's a damned good start.

So you're on record as supporting a budget that potentially INCREASES the Debt? Roger that.

What....Did you expect that all the overspending was all going to go away overnight?

Deeply as I myself would cut spending, I'm not so naïve believe that DC politics aren't in play here.

Even so, it's a start -you do have to start somewhere- and a dam sight better than anything anyone with that (D) by their name is proposing.