Ryan's budget. WTF?

[Dot Com]

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.

 

[Meister]

This political satire is 'spot-on'

And this is the evidence that you use?

 

[Article 15]

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.

 

[kiwiman127]

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&#8217;s tax provisions would be highly regressive compared with the current tax system. Relative to current law&#8212;and assuming that taxpayers choose their preferred tax system&#8212;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

 

[Meister]

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.

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.

 

[Article 15]

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.

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.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

This is true. Thats why Greenspan said all taxes should revert back to Clinton-era rates ystrdy on Meet the Press.

 

[kitty]

Meister - proof, please? The Canadian system isn't perfect by any means, but all of their citizens have access to health care. Canadians with cancer aren't dying because their insurance companies are denying claims. Will you wait 6 months in Canada for a knee replacement? Depending on where you live, maybe. But you won't wait 6 months for cancer treatment.

Mr Liberty - Obama certainly has changed some things. The health care bill was probably the largest though I'm not happy with the way it expanded the role of insurance companies. To bring down health care costs, insurance companies must have a far smaller role than they have right now. We all have to pay for that unnecessary layer of administrative costs and profits. I'm not a big fan of added costs with little to no benefit.

 

[editec]

This political satire is 'spot-on'

Yes it is good satire.

For the corporatists to accuse people seeking changes in the way we tax of being CLASS WARRIORS is a perfect example of the pots calling the kettle black.

Every tax law is has different outcomes on different classes. There is simply no denying that fact.

So in that respect every change in the tax laws is a CLASS WAR EVENT.

CAlling FOR cutting social services that the lower classes depend on in order that we can continue giving tx breaks to billionaires is obviously a CLASSIST ACT.

CAlling for NOT cutting social services that the lower classes depend on, and demanding that therefore we must DIScontinue giving tax breaks to billionaires is also obviously a CLASSIST ACT.

Pretending that either position is a class-neutral event is ignorant.

 

[hortysir]

Sorry, whore-teaser, I don't read anything from a partisan website, left or right.

Midnight - Yes, I do need to read the Ryan budget rather than just the CBO score.

It's only partisan because it's the budget as proposed by Republicans.
Just as Obama's budget proposal is made by a Democrat.

There may be another site you can download it from but that's EXACTLY the problem with your messiah and his minions.
"Oh, nose...I ain't listening to what they have to say.....thare ronnnnng"

 

[hortysir]

The USMB righties flocked to my thread like moths to a flame. Ryan's budget gets ALL of its savings w/o asking the uber-wealthy for jack-squat.

Please point out who is flaming? Looks like a debate to me. If you want a flame let me know, okay?

I said "flocked" to my thread.....

BTW- here is the Ryan budget "unplugged":
The Man Behind Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Got the Tax Cuts Wrong, Too - Tina Dupuy - Politics - The Atlantic

So you're depending on the opinion of a columnist and automatically dismissing the plan because of who helped with the data.
Have you actually read the plan yourself?
Can you point to a paragraph that supports your claim that the "uber-wealthy" pays "jack squat"?

 

[Meister]

Meister - proof, please? The Canadian system isn't perfect by any means, but all of their citizens have access to health care. Canadians with cancer aren't dying because their insurance companies are denying claims. Will you wait 6 months in Canada for a knee replacement? Depending on where you live, maybe. But you won't wait 6 months for cancer treatment.

Mr Liberty - Obama certainly has changed some things. The health care bill was probably the largest though I'm not happy with the way it expanded the role of insurance companies. To bring down health care costs, insurance companies must have a far smaller role than they have right now. We all have to pay for that unnecessary layer of administrative costs and profits. I'm not a big fan of added costs with little to no benefit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html
Private Insurance In Canada - In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option - Los Angeles Times
Timely Medical Services
Canada Sees Boom in Private Health Care Business - FoxNews.com
CBC News In Depth: Health care
Calgary's private medical clinic restarts debate
Find Private Clinics in Canada for Walk in Clinics in Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver

 

[hortysir]

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 ****'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

 

[Dot Com]

Fact is Ryan doesn't ask the wealthy to contribute. He achieves his savings on the backs of the poor & the middle class. How patriotic of him.

 

[hortysir]

So that's a "No"......

 

[kiwiman127]

Here's an article written by former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett;

Imbalanced Budget: Ryan Gives Wealthy A Free Pass

<snip>

Crunching the Numbers
Ryan got around this problem by ignoring the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress&#8217;s official revenue-estimating agency, and instead asking the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation to crunch the numbers for him. Its analysis says that economic growth would be so extraordinary from enactment of the Ryan plan that the unemployment rate would fall two full percentage points next year alone, and continue to fall to less than 3 percent by 2020 &#8211; a level not seen since 1953. This massively higher growth leads to higher federal revenues &#8211; $58 billion more next year alone over those that would be collected without the Ryan plan.

A number of respected public finance economists quickly ridiculed the Heritage numbers as grossly implausible. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber said, &#8220;The Heritage numbers are insane.&#8221; In response to such criticism, Heritage simply deleted some of the more extravagant figures from its analysis.

Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would be shredded to pay for them. Even as an opening bid to begin budget negotiations with the Democrats, the Ryan plan cannot be taken seriously. It is less of a wish list than a fairy tale utterly disconnected from the real world, backed up by make-believe numbers and unreasonable assumptions. Ryan&#8217;s plan isn&#8217;t even an act of courage; it&#8217;s just pandering to the Tea Party. A real act of courage would have been for him to admit, as all serious budget analysts know, that revenues will have to rise well above 19 percent of GDP to stabilize the debt.

Why Ryan

In other words, Ryan threw out a bunch of unrealistic numbers to see if they would stick.
Secondly, how can people trust Ryan based on his history. The man voted for Medicare Part D including making it illegal for the government to negotiate lower pricing from the pharmaceutical companies, this added cost for the taxpayers. The Drug Program's estimated cost equals that of Obamacare.
Secondly, Ryan voted for TARP which doesn't exactly fall into being a spend-thrift.
And NOW he's the champion of the far right? Me thinks somebody is getting fooled.

 

[Dot Com]

I don't trust him what w/ his high pitched, Heritage-inspired, voice. Heritage LOL. Hoyer (D-Md) punked him & the Repubs the other day on a budget Amendment too Ryan almost lost it

 

[hortysir]

Here's an article written by former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett;

Imbalanced Budget: Ryan Gives Wealthy A Free Pass

<snip>

Crunching the Numbers
Ryan got around this problem by ignoring the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress&#8217;s official revenue-estimating agency, and instead asking the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation to crunch the numbers for him. Its analysis says that economic growth would be so extraordinary from enactment of the Ryan plan that the unemployment rate would fall two full percentage points next year alone, and continue to fall to less than 3 percent by 2020 &#8211; a level not seen since 1953. This massively higher growth leads to higher federal revenues &#8211; $58 billion more next year alone over those that would be collected without the Ryan plan.

A number of respected public finance economists quickly ridiculed the Heritage numbers as grossly implausible. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber said, &#8220;The Heritage numbers are insane.&#8221; In response to such criticism, Heritage simply deleted some of the more extravagant figures from its analysis.

Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would be shredded to pay for them. Even as an opening bid to begin budget negotiations with the Democrats, the Ryan plan cannot be taken seriously. It is less of a wish list than a fairy tale utterly disconnected from the real world, backed up by make-believe numbers and unreasonable assumptions. Ryan&#8217;s plan isn&#8217;t even an act of courage; it&#8217;s just pandering to the Tea Party. A real act of courage would have been for him to admit, as all serious budget analysts know, that revenues will have to rise well above 19 percent of GDP to stabilize the debt.

Why Ryan

In other words, Ryan threw out a bunch of unrealistic numbers to see if they would stick.
Secondly, how can people trust Ryan based on his history. The man voted for Medicare Part D including making it illegal for the government to negotiate lower pricing from the pharmaceutical companies, this added cost for the taxpayers. The Drug Program's estimated cost equals that of Obamacare.
Secondly, Ryan voted for TARP which doesn't exactly fall into being a spend-thrift.
And NOW he's the champion of the far right? Me thinks somebody is getting fooled.

I just know that soon, very soon, I'm going to hear someone from the left say, "They're the party of NO and they can't present any ideas" The left and right now both have proposals. Let's start the negotiating.

 

[peach174]

Fact is Ryan doesn't ask the wealthy to contribute. He achieves his savings on the backs of the poor & the middle class. How patriotic of him.

What part of the poor don't pay taxes don't your get?
I think it should stay that way for our poor.
If the tax code wasn't so complicated the middle class could have their right offs too. Middle class does not have an army of tax consultants to help them with right offs like the rich do. Many just pay the full amount or most of the full amount, so they are getting soaked.

 

[Mr Liberty]

Meister - proof, please? The Canadian system isn't perfect by any means, but all of their citizens have access to health care. Canadians with cancer aren't dying because their insurance companies are denying claims. Will you wait 6 months in Canada for a knee replacement? Depending on where you live, maybe. But you won't wait 6 months for cancer treatment.

Mr Liberty - Obama certainly has changed some things. The health care bill was probably the largest though I'm not happy with the way it expanded the role of insurance companies. To bring down health care costs, insurance companies must have a far smaller role than they have right now. We all have to pay for that unnecessary layer of administrative costs and profits. I'm not a big fan of added costs with little to no benefit.

Actually, Bush did. In 2005 he worked on tort reform to reduce cost.
Bush pushes tort reform in Illinois - Politics - msnbc.com

These are the things that were done during the Bush presidency.

Nation health care is promoted by Progressives. There are progressives in both parties. This idea of socialized medicine has been push on us since Teddy Roosevelt.
2003
President George W. Bush signs the Medicare Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA), creating a voluntary, subsidized prescription drug benefit under Medicare, administered exclusively through private plans, both stand-along prescription drug plans and Medicare Advantage plans.


2005
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 makes significant changes to Medicaid related to premiums and cost sharing, benefits, and asset transfers.


2006
Medicare Part D Drug benefit goes into effect in January.

National health care spending totals $2.2 trillion or $7,421 per person and 16.2 percent of the economy, a federal report concludes.

2007
Census Bureau estimates 45.6 million uninsured (15.3% of the population) in 2007.

President Bush announces health reform plan that would replace the current tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance with a standard health care deduction. Proposal is not acted upon by Congress.


2008
Mental Health Parity Act amended to require full parity.

Presidential campaign focuses early on national health reform, overshadowed later by housing crisis and economic downturn, yet remains a key pocketbook issue throughout the campaign. Both major party candidates announce comprehensive health reform proposals.

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.