Ryan's Marvelous Budget

[Big Fitz]

Not when they have no intention of making any real cuts.

Maybe, maybe not. I'll tell you this though, they don't get religion about making real cuts, they won't be given the choice. It will happen regardless of our or their desires and nothing they can do will stop it then.

Not sure what you're saying here.

Cuts are coming. They're either going to be happening because of legislation willingly or not, or they are going to come because of default, credit collapse, governmental failure and civil chaos that will follow.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Going from 90 MPH to 80 MPH towards the cliff isn't much of an improvement. We need a budget that actually cuts baseline spending, and not simply proposed increases in spending. This Ryan budget is a sham. The same type of nonsense the GOP has been doing for years.

You guys keep saying that, but no one ever says why we need to do it.

Interesting.

The debt and deficit come to mind.

You think that because debt and deficits exist we need to cut spending?

Wow. Your threshold for "radical" keeps moving farther and father.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Maybe, maybe not. I'll tell you this though, they don't get religion about making real cuts, they won't be given the choice. It will happen regardless of our or their desires and nothing they can do will stop it then.

Not sure what you're saying here.

Cuts are coming. They're either going to be happening because of legislation willingly or not, or they are going to come because of default and governmental collapse and civil chaos that will follow.

That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. The point is that it'd be nice if it didn't come to that, and these little sham budgets aren't going to cut it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You guys keep saying that, but no one ever says why we need to do it.

Interesting.

The debt and deficit come to mind.

You think that because debt and deficits exist we need to cut spending?

Wow. Your threshold for "radical" keeps moving farther and father.

Is that it, or is it that you're just purposefully misconstruing my point?

 

[Dr.Drock]

At least it's hitting the breaks. It's better than slamming the accelerator like P-BO wants. Any decrease in speed towards disaster only increases our chance of economic survival.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is how low the standards are for americans and their parties of choice, and yet they STILL vote for them.

Oh trust me, I well know we need to make a lot more radical cuts across the board, ban automatic increases and cut loose millions of people from the public tit. This budget doesn't do all that right now, and I know it. But it's a start, and even a start of doing the right thing is better than the continuation of accelerating doing the wrong thing which we've been doing now for far too long.

That's one way to look at it, another way is that it's just political posturing.

I'm cynical based on recent history, reps with basically no one standing in their way skyrocketed spending from 2001-2007. They like spending as much as dems like it, they just pretend not to in order to get votes. Same way the dems pretend to care about taxing the rich, or that they're anti war, just jibberish they can say and get away with when they aren't in power.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Obama calling Ryan's budget "radical" is a joke. More like pointless posturing that doesn't actually cut anything.

I expect better than this from you Kevin.

Better than what? Pointing out that Ryan's budget is nowhere in the ball park of "radical," and that Obama is merely characterizing it as such for political points? Of course the same could be said of Paul Ryan and the Republican Party as well. Paul Ryan's budget doesn't balance until 2040, which is to say that it never balances, and it increases spending. There's nothing radical about that in any sense of the word.

I agree, Ryan's budget is one more example of kicking the problem down the road. Another way to characterize the Ryan budget is, it is an effort to return American to the decades before the New Deal, an effort Reactionaries have long coveted.

The problem today, in a nutshell, is that Republicans (state and federal) are unwilling to raise revenue and continue to demagogue on the issue of taxes. Obama's speech today was political, but he also framed his vision of a balanced response to economic policy.

I don't understand how anyone can judge Romney's rhetoric as anything but demagoguery and Ryan's Budget speaks of cuts but fails to define them - that seems dishonest to me. Obama is up front and advocates the wealthiest Americans pay more in taxes; Ryan does not tell us how much more the burden will shit to the poor, aged and infirm under his plan.

 

[Big Fitz]

Not sure what you're saying here.

Cuts are coming. They're either going to be happening because of legislation willingly or not, or they are going to come because of default and governmental collapse and civil chaos that will follow.

That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. The point is that it'd be nice if it didn't come to that, and these little sham budgets aren't going to cut it.

Yes, I know that, but it at least moves the argument towards serious fiscal responsibility instead of pretending these little do-little cuts are earth shattering and radical like the left perceives ANY reduction in government size or control.

we're at the point where we may need a 30% across the board all departments cut and let the departments work it out for how it happens and gut out the consequences.

I keep hoping Winston Churchill was right when he said Americans always do the right thing, after all other options have been tried.

 

[Big Fitz]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is how low the standards are for americans and their parties of choice, and yet they STILL vote for them.

Oh trust me, I well know we need to make a lot more radical cuts across the board, ban automatic increases and cut loose millions of people from the public tit. This budget doesn't do all that right now, and I know it. But it's a start, and even a start of doing the right thing is better than the continuation of accelerating doing the wrong thing which we've been doing now for far too long.

That's one way to look at it, another way is that it's just political posturing.

I'm cynical based on recent history, reps with basically no one standing in their way skyrocketed spending from 2001-2007. They like spending as much as dems like it, they just pretend not to in order to get votes. Same way the dems pretend to care about taxing the rich, or that they're anti war, just jibberish they can say and get away with when they aren't in power.

probably some of both.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The debt and deficit come to mind.

You think that because debt and deficits exist we need to cut spending?

Wow. Your threshold for "radical" keeps moving farther and father.

Is that it, or is it that you're just purposefully misconstruing my point?

Well, you would have to present a point before I could misconstrue it, right?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I expect better than this from you Kevin.

Better than what? Pointing out that Ryan's budget is nowhere in the ball park of "radical," and that Obama is merely characterizing it as such for political points? Of course the same could be said of Paul Ryan and the Republican Party as well. Paul Ryan's budget doesn't balance until 2040, which is to say that it never balances, and it increases spending. There's nothing radical about that in any sense of the word.

I agree, Ryan's budget is one more example of kicking the problem down the road. Another way to characterize the Ryan budget is, it is an effort to return American to the decades before the New Deal, an effort Reactionaries have long coveted.

The problem today, in a nutshell, is that Republicans (state and federal) are unwilling to raise revenue and continue to demagogue on the issue of taxes. Obama's speech today was political, but he also framed his vision of a balanced response to economic policy.

I don't understand how anyone can judge Romney's rhetoric as anything but demagoguery and Ryan's Budget speaks of cuts but fails to define them - that seems dishonest to me. Obama is up front and advocates the wealthiest Americans pay more in taxes; Ryan does not tell us how much more the burden will shit to the poor, aged and infirm under his plan.

The problem is that you can correctly identify Romney and Ryan's nonsense, but not Obama's. Then you engage in your own demagoguery with the "reactionary pre-New Deal" nonsense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You think that because debt and deficits exist we need to cut spending?

Wow. Your threshold for "radical" keeps moving farther and father.

Is that it, or is it that you're just purposefully misconstruing my point?

Well, you would have to present a point before I could misconstrue it, right?

Oh boy you got me.

 

[Oldstyle]

And yet overall it increases spending.

Baby steps still move the body forward.

Going from 90 MPH to 80 MPH towards the cliff isn't much of an improvement. We need a budget that actually cuts baseline spending, and not simply proposed increases in spending. This Ryan budget is a sham. The same type of nonsense the GOP has been doing for years.

To use your car analogy...at the very least the Ryan budget has a foot on the brake...Obama has had the accelerator BURIED since taking office with no sign of letting up as we speed towards that cliff.

Obama and Democrats in the Senate won't do a budget because they know that if they put down on paper how much they intend to spend that the American people would be horrified. How can you say that we need a budget that cuts baseline spending while supporting people who won't make cuts in spending? THAT is nonsense, my friend.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

I heard the speech he gave a year or so back, where he attacked Ryan's initial budget. So tell me, do you think this is actually helpful? Does it qualify as good leadership in your opinion? Doesn't to me.

Leadership? Well, it depends how one defines leadership. In my opinion a leader has a vision, is able to express that opinion and has the personality to convince others it is worth their support.

What President Obama is doing is helpful. He is expressing his vision, clearly and in the context of and in contrast to the Republicans proposed priorities and the on going debate on economic policy.

Romney offers tax cuts, regulatory cuts, and cutting of the Federal Government in the context of "ain't it awful what Obama has done". None of his rhetoric is framed in leadership as defined by me.

His vision seems limited to obtaining the title of POTUS;
He has not been able to offer a vision for a post Obama America;
He has not been able to convince most Republicans.

Perhaps all Romney need do is promise Hope and Change.........for the simple minded vote

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Baby steps still move the body forward.

Going from 90 MPH to 80 MPH towards the cliff isn't much of an improvement. We need a budget that actually cuts baseline spending, and not simply proposed increases in spending. This Ryan budget is a sham. The same type of nonsense the GOP has been doing for years.

To use your car analogy...at the very least the Ryan budget has a foot on the brake...Obama has had the accelerator BURIED since taking office with no sign of letting up as we speed towards that cliff.

Obama and Democrats in the Senate won't do a budget because they know that if they put down on paper how much they intend to spend that the American people would be horrified. How can you say that we need a budget that cuts baseline spending while supporting people who won't make cuts in spending? THAT is nonsense, my friend.

80 MPH is still accelerating towards the cliff. No foot on the brake.

Support people who won't make cuts? Not me. I support Ron Paul whose budget cuts $1 trillion in one year.

 

[G.T.]

I'm waiting for someone to let me know why the Debt matters. It's never gone down in 60+ years. Millions have lived entire lives and died and it was of no consequence. Zero.

It's 2012.

Humans shouldn't even be using a monetary system any more to begin with. Jesus christ we-need-a-real-visionary.

 

[G.T.]

Going from 90 MPH to 80 MPH towards the cliff isn't much of an improvement. We need a budget that actually cuts baseline spending, and not simply proposed increases in spending. This Ryan budget is a sham. The same type of nonsense the GOP has been doing for years.

To use your car analogy...at the very least the Ryan budget has a foot on the brake...Obama has had the accelerator BURIED since taking office with no sign of letting up as we speed towards that cliff.

Obama and Democrats in the Senate won't do a budget because they know that if they put down on paper how much they intend to spend that the American people would be horrified. How can you say that we need a budget that cuts baseline spending while supporting people who won't make cuts in spending? THAT is nonsense, my friend.

80 MPH is still accelerating towards the cliff. No foot on the brake.

Support people who won't make cuts? Not me. I support Ron Paul whose budget cuts $1 trillion in one year.

What cliff?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

To use your car analogy...at the very least the Ryan budget has a foot on the brake...Obama has had the accelerator BURIED since taking office with no sign of letting up as we speed towards that cliff.

Obama and Democrats in the Senate won't do a budget because they know that if they put down on paper how much they intend to spend that the American people would be horrified. How can you say that we need a budget that cuts baseline spending while supporting people who won't make cuts in spending? THAT is nonsense, my friend.

80 MPH is still accelerating towards the cliff. No foot on the brake.

Support people who won't make cuts? Not me. I support Ron Paul whose budget cuts $1 trillion in one year.

What cliff?

Default. Insolvency. Bankruptcy. Take your pick.

 

[Big Fitz]

Going from 90 MPH to 80 MPH towards the cliff isn't much of an improvement. We need a budget that actually cuts baseline spending, and not simply proposed increases in spending. This Ryan budget is a sham. The same type of nonsense the GOP has been doing for years.

To use your car analogy...at the very least the Ryan budget has a foot on the brake...Obama has had the accelerator BURIED since taking office with no sign of letting up as we speed towards that cliff.

Obama and Democrats in the Senate won't do a budget because they know that if they put down on paper how much they intend to spend that the American people would be horrified. How can you say that we need a budget that cuts baseline spending while supporting people who won't make cuts in spending? THAT is nonsense, my friend.

80 MPH is still accelerating towards the cliff. No foot on the brake.

Support people who won't make cuts? Not me. I support Ron Paul whose budget cuts $1 trillion in one year.

It'd be nice to see that happen. But it won't, and I'm not sure if such a radical change won't cause other unintended consequences, like locking up the brakes on a car will cause it to skid and potentially lose control before crashing and rolling. Controlled braking is best.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Better than what? Pointing out that Ryan's budget is nowhere in the ball park of "radical," and that Obama is merely characterizing it as such for political points? Of course the same could be said of Paul Ryan and the Republican Party as well. Paul Ryan's budget doesn't balance until 2040, which is to say that it never balances, and it increases spending. There's nothing radical about that in any sense of the word.

I agree, Ryan's budget is one more example of kicking the problem down the road. Another way to characterize the Ryan budget is, it is an effort to return American to the decades before the New Deal, an effort Reactionaries have long coveted.

The problem today, in a nutshell, is that Republicans (state and federal) are unwilling to raise revenue and continue to demagogue on the issue of taxes. Obama's speech today was political, but he also framed his vision of a balanced response to economic policy.

I don't understand how anyone can judge Romney's rhetoric as anything but demagoguery and Ryan's Budget speaks of cuts but fails to define them - that seems dishonest to me. Obama is up front and advocates the wealthiest Americans pay more in taxes; Ryan does not tell us how much more the burden will shit to the poor, aged and infirm under his plan.

The problem is that you can correctly identify Romney and Ryan's nonsense, but not Obama's. Then you engage in your own demagoguery with the "reactionary pre-New Deal" nonsense.

Don't get petulant. It is fact that most conservative Republicans want to dismantle Social Security and Medicare, have all Americans pay the same percentage of Federal Income Tax, tax income earned by a persons labor at a higher level than income derived from interest and dividends and eliminated the "death tax". All of which when combined with CU v. FEC is a recipe for a radical remake of our society into a Plutocracy.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Going from 90 MPH to 80 MPH towards the cliff isn't much of an improvement. We need a budget that actually cuts baseline spending, and not simply proposed increases in spending. This Ryan budget is a sham. The same type of nonsense the GOP has been doing for years.

To use your car analogy...at the very least the Ryan budget has a foot on the brake...Obama has had the accelerator BURIED since taking office with no sign of letting up as we speed towards that cliff.

Obama and Democrats in the Senate won't do a budget because they know that if they put down on paper how much they intend to spend that the American people would be horrified. How can you say that we need a budget that cuts baseline spending while supporting people who won't make cuts in spending? THAT is nonsense, my friend.

80 MPH is still accelerating towards the cliff. No foot on the brake.

Support people who won't make cuts? Not me. I support Ron Paul whose budget cuts $1 trillion in one year.

Its is odd that those of us who support the only person who wants to decrease out of control spending are viewed as radicals.

Kudos to the 2 mainstream parties and the media for their victory over common sense.