Ryan's budget. WTF?

[kiwiman127]

I agree! Years and years of unfunded wars really did us in!

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

To quote Ronald Reagan, "there you go again"!
Anybody and I mean anybody with an understanding of math, economics and facts would know that where we are with our debt is a accumulation of several presidents. And yes, Obama increased the ante by quite a bit, But the debt is no just his baby.
And then there's the future bills left to Obama that are mandated parts of his budget,,,,like Medicare Part D which costs taxpayers as much as Obamacare and it's in the budget every year, just like Obamcare will be in every budget every year. How about Iraq and Afghanistan,,,,,in the budget for years to come.
Man, some people are so, so, so,,na I'm not going to say it.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

But...but....but....GEORGE BOOOOOOOSH!....andand....KARL ROOOOVE!....andand....HALLIBURTON!....andand...DIEBOLD in OHIO!...andand....FOX NEWS!...andand....DICK CHENEY running the SHADOW GUBMINT in the BASEMENT OF WAL-MART!!!

Can't stand it, can ya...

 

[MaggieMae]

Interesting that Obama care was presented with what, 2309 pages and his budget plan had a measly 7 pages of smoke and hyperbole.

So .. exactly what is Obama's priority here... ya think...

The Executive Branch (the President) doesn't write the bills.

 

[MaggieMae]

WOW. My post said nothing about tax cuts. I'm supporting tax increases.

Next you'll be accusing me of rationing health care. Oh wait, that's the insurance companies.

We enjoyed years of tax decreases

So you are in favor of increasing taxes??
For whom, exactly?
Do you fall in that category as well??

I would say change the means test to over one million and raise it to 40%. Then we might get 39% where it was in 1999 and I don't recall any millionaires whining that they would no longer be able to afford that third vacation home.

 

[MaggieMae]

WOW. My post said nothing about tax cuts. I'm supporting tax increases.

Next you'll be accusing me of rationing health care. Oh wait, that's the insurance companies.

Kitty.. Kitty... Kitty so how did... The Obama Budget Plan.... work out for you..?

Something's changed? In fact, things have NOT changed to the point that Social Security recipients didn't see a COLA increase last year. In spite of the economic downfall, other than the unemployed which were largely the victims of the massive greed by investment bankers which forced businesses to close up shop, the average middle-class person has basically seen no change in either wages nor taxes nor prices.

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

Neither is cutting funds for Planned Parenthood or NPR. What will cut the deficit is to bite the bullet and adopt most of the Deficit Panel's recommendations. But of course Congress nixed that immediately because much of it would create a political nightmare for them. Gotta think about getting reelected, you know, as the top priority.

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

The $14 trillion figure is too often bandied about as being the current deficit, when it's an estimate 10 years out. So in fact a combination of spending cuts and increased taxes should reduce that number, at least according to current calculations.

CBO’s Estimate of the President’s Budget

 

[MaggieMae]

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

We could seize ALL wealth - not just income, ALL WEALTH - of the top 2% going all the way back to 2001.... Ten years' worth... And the amount collected wouldn't even put a dent in the debt.

It's the spending, stupid!

I keep hearing that (regarding "all the wealth" meaning nothing), but have yet to see any real calculations.

Certain large spending outlays will always be with us, like interest payments on the debt, the entitlement programs and military spending, but those can be reduced or remedied so that paying down the debt will become manageable, both in the short and long term. I don't think anyone expects it to ever be paid in full, even Ron Paul.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh, I'm all for spending cuts if they make sense.

What makes sense.....39 billion in a 1.2 trillion dollar budget?

That was for the balance of the 2011 budget. They haven't even begun on 2012.

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree! Years and years of unfunded wars really did us in!

I realize you're new here, Kitty, and it seems you may be legitimately concerned about the debt so I'll go easy on ya.

But you're gonna have to bring something more to the table than MediaMatters' talking points and pointing backwards to Boooooosh!!!

And you guys need to bring something more to the table than parroting the Republican mantra:

"We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem."

When you admit that we HAVE BOTH, then let the game begin in earnest.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why would you assume that I'm against spending cuts?

Name some cuts that you'd approve of which don't involve the military.

Not that I don't believe that there are numerous areas of national offense that can't be significantly trimmed...Ask anyone.

Well.....?

I would imagine a lot of cuts could be made in the behemoth Department of Homeland Security where there are huge overlapping responsibilities.

The failed policies costing a fortune for the "war on drugs," which should be taken in a whole new direction of legalizing certain drugs (and taxing them appropriately) and serious rehabilitation, since nothing seems to work in keeping them out of the hands of those who wish to use illegal drugs. Privately run rehab centers are popping up all over the country, but they're enormously expensive for the average person. They don't have to be "by the sea" semi-spas; they could be clean prefabricated housing units in the middle of a desert as long as they're run effectively.

Subsidies for agrifarming, trade guarantees, and the like.

Subsidies for oil, natural gas, nuclear. Everyone screams that the private sector can do energy better than the gubmit, so let them try, all by themselves. And maybe if subsidies were also eliminated to promote "green" stuff, the private sector would also step up for a change. But it seems few private investors are willing to go it alone, without at least some help from Uncle Sam.

I would even prefer that HUD be cut in certain areas, like the Section 8 program IF the private sector would build more low-income housing. But the problem with so-called "welfare" programs like Section 8 is that there are no alternatives, and you can't just pull the rug out from under people who currently depend on those programs for survival.

To be honest, if the USSC hadn't determined that the line item veto was unconstitutional, I think a lot of costly programs never would have gotten off the ground to begin with, grown exponentially over the years, and reached the point of no return now.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

Conceivably, a single-payer health care system would eliminate the need for Medicaid and Medicare and all other subsidized health programs. The folks running health insurance companies would have to look to some other form of employment, just like anyone else whose job is eliminated due to obsolescence.

 

[editec]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MaggieMae]

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

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

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

Poll: Canadians like their health care despite grumbles | McClatchy

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

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

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

 

[MaggieMae]

Defense spending is an obvious choice since it takes up more than 20% of our budget.

It's the obvious choice because you're a liberoidal....Start naming some non-military programs that need to be cut or dropped altogether.

Switch to a single-payer system so that the costs of health care drop.

Name the first thing that the feds involved themselves where the costs were contained, let alone brought down.....Just one.

Why do you always have to be so insulting? Who wants to respond to an asshole like you? I did, and I'm sure you'll have one of your precious ad hominems for me, too.

If you want to be taken as credible, just shut up, Dude. Your "message" gets lost in translation.

 

[MaggieMae]

Actually, I do understand the budget. Do you?

Canada has an excellent health care systems. In most cases, my Canadian friends got treatment for their life-threatening illnesses much quicker than I got mine. And I have top-notch health insurance. Their system WORKS.

Yes, taxes would go up for everyone under single payer. I did a comparison of Canadian federal and provincial taxes, including their sales taxes, to what I pay here. TO make it apples to apples, I had to include my health insurance premiums. I would end up slightly better in Canada.

By the way, I'm not a "liberoidal," I'm a registered Republican.

Believe it or not, most honest Republicans don't have your one-size-fits-all solution to everything.

 

[MaggieMae]

Businesses are hoarding capital because there's no demand.

Wrong. They are hoarding capital because of the idiot leadership in Washington.

That's loosened somewhat and the unemployment rate has come down a bit, since November. Wonder why?

Because they have the hope that they'll be able to increase their pocket money even more.

U.S. companies buy back stock in droves as they hold record levels of cash

Sitting on these unprecedented levels of cash, U.S. companies are buying back their own stock in droves. So far this year, firms have announced they will purchase $273 billion of their own shares, more than five times as much compared with this time last year, according to Birinyi Associates, a stock market research firm. But the rise in buybacks signals that many companies are still hesitant to spend their cash on the job-generating activities that could produce economic growth.

How very "American" of them.

And then a little sidebar in the 4/15/11 issue of "The Week," quoting a USA Today article, "Median pay for CEOs of large U.S. corporations rose 27% in 2010, according to federal data. Three quarters of CEOs received raises in 2010, to a median salary of $9 million, including $2.2 million in bonuses. Pay increaes for all workers in private industry averaged 2.1% in 2010."

Doesn't look like they did all that bad under that "idiot leadership in Washington" after all, eh?

 

[hortysir]

I agree! Years and years of unfunded wars really did us in!

I realize you're new here, Kitty, and it seems you may be legitimately concerned about the debt so I'll go easy on ya.

But you're gonna have to bring something more to the table than MediaMatters' talking points and pointing backwards to Boooooosh!!!

And you guys need to bring something more to the table than parroting the Republican mantra:

"We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem."

When you admit that we HAVE BOTH, then let the game begin in earnest.

Absolutely.
Search my posts. I've said exactly that. I'll contribute more taxes.
Just raise everyone's taxes equally and stop with the class warfare jealous bullshit.
But, I must add, we'll make the biggest dent with spending cuts.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't know who truthmatters is, but truth does matter! Good night!

It doesn't matter to her, or you either obviously.

She has an opinion based on what she sees as truth, just as you do. Why is it you and your ilk always make it appear like anyone who disagrees with you is violating some law of the universe because, well OBVIOUSLY, [we] are right and [you] are not. Have you been appointed by God?

 

[MaggieMae]

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

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always have Paul's support.
The dems live it and breath it.

Oh please. President Bush never vetoed a single spending plan in eight years, and budgets contained billions in unchecked earmarks. He also had his own pet projects to "save families" from divorce, etc., which went largely unreported because of the HUGE expenses of non-budgeted items--the war supplementals.

I agree that spending in general is a problem, BUT, it always has been. So to imply that ONLY Democrats spend like drunken sailors is disengenuous at best, and a lie at worst.