The Ryan Budget

[Black_Label]

This is why I support thr Ryan budget. Though it does not go far enough. So what does Obama have? How long has it been since democrats proposed a budget? Who voted for Obamas budget?

The Ryan Budget proposes trillions in tax cuts for those making over $250K a year. We would balance the budget faster without those.

That is complete bullshit.

100% facts. The Ryan plan is like all others on the hard right which are "take for the poor to give to the rich"

 

[hortysir]

Every elected Republican in Washington is in favour of this budget. Romney has praised it in the past and many on this board have praised it as well. Both liberals and conservatives talk about wanting to discuss the issues, so okay, lets discuss an issue. Lets discuss the Ryan Budget.

If you're in favour of it, why? Specifically, how will it help the country?

If you're not in favour of it, why? Specifically, what don't you like and what would you do instead?

Everyone says they want to talk about the issues, so lets talk.

If you haven't had the chance to read the budget yet, here it is: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget | Budget.House.Gov

This is why I support thr Ryan budget. Though it does not go far enough. So what does Obama have? How long has it been since democrats proposed a budget? Who voted for Obamas budget?

The Ryan Budget proposes trillions in tax cuts for those making over $250K a year. We would balance the budget faster without those.

Balance what ******* Budget?


****'n A

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I am against the Ryan Budget, even if it is a rough draft or first pass. Here's why:
1) Cutting spending means laying off workers, and we don't need to be firing people in this economy. Ryan's Budget would cut government spending as a percentage of GDP from 12% to about 3%. That's a lot of lay offs.

Oh how I long for the Calving Coolidge days when government spending war far less than 1% of GDP, taxes were dramatically lowered and gave rise to the roaring 20’s. Or perhaps the post WWII days when all the Keynesian economist said that reducing spending would lead us in to another depression, but instead, we got a 50’s boom.
Nevertheless, more spending means more printing/borrowing, which means, higher inflation. Sure, government workers will keep their inefficient and unnecessary jobs, no doubt making the public sector unions happy, however the rise in inflation means a rise in prices, and therefore, a pay reduction for everyone else who works a real job and whose pay is not taken in to consideration with respect to the increase in inflation. Hardly a benefit to the middle class huh? This prevents economic recovery as the inflation out paces the ability of businesses to adapt and any workers hired get much less than a liveable wage.
Just look what happened to the stimulus. The stimulus went to projects the states were going to implement with or without that money. So instead of the extra spending that was supposed to bring us out on this recession, (below 8% remember?) the stimulus fell flat. Did you understand that?
As for long term stimulus projects and investments like high speed rail, the states cannot afford to operate them when completed and the costs are way over initial estimates.

As far as bailing out/ granting privileged loans companies who fail to compete in the open market without government assistance like GM or Solyndra, such measures on delay the inevitable. Besides, the U.S. Constitution, (Not that you’ve ever read it) says that bankruptcies shall be uniform throughout the United States. Such a bankruptcy, (remember that bankruptcy does not mean to go out of business) would have allowed restructuring, private investment, and renegotiation of union contracts. Make no mistake about it, the GM bailout was done in order to preserve the unions, not to make the industry stronger. That why Obama put the union members in front of investors.

And then there is Obamacare. I could write forever on this one and no serious person now disputes that it is and will be way over its initial budget. However, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who seriously believes that (1) you will be allowed to keep your insurance if you want when it is more cost effective to dump healthcare for your employees, (2) The cost of insurance will go down when people cannot be denied for preexisting conditions and spend waaaaay less on the individual mandate than an actual insurance policy, and (3) It is sustainable when it is full of double counting and gimmicks.
Finally, government incentives like cash for clunkers showed us all, that while there is a temporary increase in car buying, it is offset by the temporary dip in car sales after the program has ended, thereby, accomplishing nothing that the market would not have done itself. I will stop here but theres waaaay more!

In the end, government cannot bring us out of a recession or create a single job. People do this despite government, not because of it. Any politician who says that government can create private jobs is full of it. Any politician who says that government can create an environment of liberty and individual prosperity, and therefore, an environment that encourages job creation, should be given a shot. Does Obama do this? No. Barriers to entery, regulation, taxation, wealth redistribution, and deamonization, is no way to foster prosperity.

Inflation is lower now than under Bush, so your fears are unfounded.
Current Inflation Rates | Monthly and Yearly Chart, Graph and Table: 2002-2012 Data - US Inflation Calculator

Interest rates are lower now than under Bush, so your fear of crowding out is unfounded.
Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates

The policies of the 20s gave rise to the Depression of the 30s. Maybe you've heard of it?
Great Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Government can, does and has created jobs and ended recessions and if you want to choose to believe otherwise, there's nothing I can do to help that.

 

[candycorn]

Wrong, 5 GOP members voted against it in the Senate.

One was Rand Paul.

Next!

I never said they all voted for it.

Every elected Republican in Washington is in favour of this budget.

Either say something and don't twist it or don't say anything at all. Either you go by the actual votes or you pretend you know everyones personal opinion of Rayn's budget.

"In favor" doesn't mean vote for apparently.

And these are supposed to be the ones who are going to give "straight talk" to the American people.

 

[Dick Tuck]

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I am against the Ryan Budget, even if it is a rough draft or first pass. Here's why:

2) Asking future seniors to pay more money out of pocket for health care will limit the disposable money those seniors have. This will reduce their purchasing power and demand for goods will drop and that will hurt the economy. The CBO projected the Ryan Budget would have future seniors paying their Medicare voucher plus all their Social Security just to get coverage.

I think printing the money to make Medicare possible (It is completely insolvent) does more to reduce income through inflation than will ever be gained via sticking extra money in the pockets of seniors via failing to adjust for the rising debt it creates. Not to mention the half a trillion dollars raided form Medicare to make Obamacare possible. Though I know you would rather take money from me in order to take care of someone else’s parents, I prefer to help my own parents. And if your mother has to pay more for her health insurance to keep me from paying for it then so be it. She is not my responsibility and if she was worth anything she should have invested her money properly instead of looking toward government to grant her a retirement. But then again, in some circumstances, government schemes can work. In fact, it worked so well in Galveston County, Texas that Democrats voted to prevent every other city/state from being able to do the same, thereby, keeping seniors dependent on Democrats. Which is why they hate the Ryan plan so much. It not only takes away part of the necessity to depend on government, but it works a thousand times better, effectively destroying the ability for Democrats to court the senior vote by making commercials of Ryan dumping them off a cliff.

I am always amazed that when a conversation about budgets and taxes starts up, someone always cries about "you're going to take something from me!" as if the ONLY possible option in tax discussions is to raise YOUR taxes.

There are other options.

For example, in 2011, corporations in America made over $7T in profits. Not revenue. Profits. How much of that did they pay in taxes? 35%? 25%? Nope. 12.1%.
Corporate Taxes As Percentage Of Profits Now Lowest In Decades
If companies ACTUALLY paid 35%, the federal budget would be balanced.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I am against the Ryan Budget, even if it is a rough draft or first pass. Here's why:

4) Cutting taxes for those making over $250K a year will not lead to an explosion in revenue, which is what the Ryan Budget is predicting. The last three times taxes have been cut, revenue has dropped.

Every time in our history where we cut taxes the economy boomed (See Calvin Coolidge, Post WWII, JFK, Bush etc.). What do you think those wealthy people do with their money? Stuff it under a mattress? They invest it. If they put it in the bank the inflation would eat them alive. The last three times revenue has dropped? No, revenue was raised if you take in to account the dot com bubble, September 11th, etc. in fact, marginal gains rates, despite having a cut in taxes, showed an increase in revenue.

Here we go again. Someone who thinks 2001-2003 didn't happen.

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[Dick Tuck]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/opinion/krugman-pink-slime-economics.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

For on Thursday Republicans in the House of Representatives passed what was surely the most fraudulent budget in American history.

And when I say fraudulent, I mean just that. The trouble with the budget devised by Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, isn’t just its almost inconceivably cruel priorities, the way it slashes taxes for corporations and the rich while drastically cutting food and medical aid to the needy. Even aside from all that, the Ryan budget purports to reduce the deficit — but the alleged deficit reduction depends on the completely unsupported assertion that trillions of dollars in revenue can be found by closing tax loopholes.

And we’re talking about a lot of loophole-closing. As Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out, to make his numbers work Mr. Ryan would, by 2022, have to close enough loopholes to yield an extra $700 billion in revenue every year. That’s a lot of money, even in an economy as big as ours. So which specific loopholes has Mr. Ryan, who issued a 98-page manifesto on behalf of his budget, said he would close?

None. Not one. He has, however, categorically ruled out any move to close the major loophole that benefits the rich, namely the ultra-low tax rates on income from capital. (That’s the loophole that lets Mitt Romney pay only 14 percent of his income in taxes, a lower tax rate than that faced by many middle-class families.)

Much more at the link.

 

[Darkwind]

Every elected Republican in Washington is in favour of this budget. Romney has praised it in the past and many on this board have praised it as well. Both liberals and conservatives talk about wanting to discuss the issues, so okay, lets discuss an issue. Lets discuss the Ryan Budget.

If you're in favour of it, why? Specifically, how will it help the country?

If you're not in favour of it, why? Specifically, what don't you like and what would you do instead?

Everyone says they want to talk about the issues, so lets talk.

If you haven't had the chance to read the budget yet, here it is: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget | Budget.House.Gov

I'm in favor.

Its a budget.....Something the liberals haven't done in over 4 years.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Every elected Republican in Washington is in favour of this budget. Romney has praised it in the past and many on this board have praised it as well. Both liberals and conservatives talk about wanting to discuss the issues, so okay, lets discuss an issue. Lets discuss the Ryan Budget.

If you're in favour of it, why? Specifically, how will it help the country?

If you're not in favour of it, why? Specifically, what don't you like and what would you do instead?

Everyone says they want to talk about the issues, so lets talk.

If you haven't had the chance to read the budget yet, here it is: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget | Budget.House.Gov

I'm in favor.

Its a budget.....Something the liberals haven't done in over 4 years.

It's a budget that counts on $700 billion a year by closing tax loopholes, without naming a single one. It's a joke.

 

[hortysir]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/opinion/krugman-pink-slime-economics.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

For on Thursday Republicans in the House of Representatives passed what was surely the most fraudulent budget in American history.

And when I say fraudulent, I mean just that. The trouble with the budget devised by Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, isn’t just its almost inconceivably cruel priorities, the way it slashes taxes for corporations and the rich while drastically cutting food and medical aid to the needy. Even aside from all that, the Ryan budget purports to reduce the deficit — but the alleged deficit reduction depends on the completely unsupported assertion that trillions of dollars in revenue can be found by closing tax loopholes.

And we’re talking about a lot of loophole-closing. As Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out, to make his numbers work Mr. Ryan would, by 2022, have to close enough loopholes to yield an extra $700 billion in revenue every year. That’s a lot of money, even in an economy as big as ours. So which specific loopholes has Mr. Ryan, who issued a 98-page manifesto on behalf of his budget, said he would close?

None. Not one. He has, however, categorically ruled out any move to close the major loophole that benefits the rich, namely the ultra-low tax rates on income from capital. (That’s the loophole that lets Mitt Romney pay only 14 percent of his income in taxes, a lower tax rate than that faced by many middle-class families.)

Much more at the link.

Like a Dem Budget proposal?????

 

[Samson]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/opinion/krugman-pink-slime-economics.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

For on Thursday Republicans in the House of Representatives passed what was surely the most fraudulent budget in American history.

And when I say fraudulent, I mean just that. The trouble with the budget devised by Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, isn’t just its almost inconceivably cruel priorities, the way it slashes taxes for corporations and the rich while drastically cutting food and medical aid to the needy. Even aside from all that, the Ryan budget purports to reduce the deficit — but the alleged deficit reduction depends on the completely unsupported assertion that trillions of dollars in revenue can be found by closing tax loopholes.

And we’re talking about a lot of loophole-closing. As Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out, to make his numbers work Mr. Ryan would, by 2022, have to close enough loopholes to yield an extra $700 billion in revenue every year. That’s a lot of money, even in an economy as big as ours. So which specific loopholes has Mr. Ryan, who issued a 98-page manifesto on behalf of his budget, said he would close?

None. Not one. He has, however, categorically ruled out any move to close the major loophole that benefits the rich, namely the ultra-low tax rates on income from capital. (That’s the loophole that lets Mitt Romney pay only 14 percent of his income in taxes, a lower tax rate than that faced by many middle-class families.)

Much more at the link.

Like a Dem Budget proposal?????

I believe their last budget was proposed before Al Gore invented the internets.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Ryan Budget proposes trillions in tax cuts for those making over $250K a year. We would balance the budget faster without those.

That is complete bullshit.

100% facts. The Ryan plan is like all others on the hard right which are "take for the poor to give to the rich"

Current policy is that the Obama tax cuts will expire at the end of the year. Even Obama does not want current policy to continue.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Anyone that says Obama has done anything besides increase the debt. Should go see a doctor. They might need a head exam.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I never said they all voted for it.

Every elected Republican in Washington is in favour of this budget.

Either say something and don't twist it or don't say anything at all. Either you go by the actual votes or you pretend you know everyones personal opinion of Rayn's budget.

"In favor" doesn't mean vote for apparently.

And these are supposed to be the ones who are going to give "straight talk" to the American people.

I am still trying to figure out what in favor of actually means since I know at least one Republican who completely opposes it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Every elected Republican in Washington is in favour of this budget. Romney has praised it in the past and many on this board have praised it as well. Both liberals and conservatives talk about wanting to discuss the issues, so okay, lets discuss an issue. Lets discuss the Ryan Budget.

If you're in favour of it, why? Specifically, how will it help the country?

If you're not in favour of it, why? Specifically, what don't you like and what would you do instead?

Everyone says they want to talk about the issues, so lets talk.

If you haven't had the chance to read the budget yet, here it is: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget | Budget.House.Gov

I'm in favor.

Its a budget.....Something the liberals haven't done in over 4 years.

It's a budget that counts on $700 billion a year by closing tax loopholes, without naming a single one. It's a joke.

The guy that, obviously, did not read the budget claims it doesn't say something it actually does.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I am against the Ryan Budget, even if it is a rough draft or first pass. Here's why:

1) Cutting spending means laying off workers, and we don't need to be firing people in this economy. Ryan's Budget would cut government spending as a percentage of GDP from 12% to about 3%. That's a lot of lay offs.

2) Asking future seniors to pay more money out of pocket for health care will limit the disposable money those seniors have. This will reduce their purchasing power and demand for goods will drop and that will hurt the economy. The CBO projected the Ryan Budget would have future seniors paying their Medicare voucher plus all their Social Security just to get coverage.

3) Eliminating virtually all support for all levels of education will not assist people in achieving the American Dream. Education is the #1 way to advance higher in life. The Ryan Budget cuts spending on education, head start programs and student financial aid for college.

4) Cutting taxes for those making over $250K a year will not lead to an explosion in revenue, which is what the Ryan Budget is predicting. The last three times taxes have been cut, revenue has dropped.

I am sure it comes as no surprise that you are an idiot, here is why.

1. The Ryan budget does not cut spending. It projects an increase in spending of $1 trillion over the next 10 years. That is less than what Obama's budget calls for,m but that does not equal a cut.
2. The CBO projected no such thing. What they projected, which may or may not be right, is an increase in medical spending. No one knows how accurate that projection actually is, nor do they know how the shared spending will fall out vis a vis government spending and individuals.
3. Since the federal government started throwing money at our schools we have gone from one of the best school systems in the world to one of the worst. Why, exactly, do you think spending federal dollars on education is a good thing?
4. The last three times taxes were cut there was an immediate drop in tax revenue, and an increase in GDP, which led to total revenues actually increasing within a few months.

1) I'll give you this one. The Ryan Budget does not reduce spending below the current amount.
2) Federal budget: CBO says Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare privatization plan would increase costs - Los Angeles Times
3) Many schools are run down, out of date and don't have enough teachers to get class sizes down to manageable levels. Spending more money might help address these issues, and that is debatable, but cutting ALL funding will definitely not help and there is no debating that. Plus, millions of adults need loans to go to college. Getting rid of those loans entirely will not translate to more college graduates and I think we can all agree on that.
4) A few months? From 2001-2003 tax receipts dropped every year.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

 

[candycorn]

We're going to see more of that...unfortunately for the Governor.

 

[kyzr]

1) I'll give you this one. The Ryan Budget does not reduce spending below the current amount.
2) Federal budget: CBO says Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare privatization plan would increase costs - Los Angeles Times
3) Many schools are run down, out of date and don't have enough teachers to get class sizes down to manageable levels. Spending more money might help address these issues, and that is debatable, but cutting ALL funding will definitely not help and there is no debating that. Plus, millions of adults need loans to go to college. Getting rid of those loans entirely will not translate to more college graduates and I think we can all agree on that.
4) A few months? From 2001-2003 tax receipts dropped every year.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government has anything to do with education? Please see division and separation of powers...

 

[Publius1787]

I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I am against the Ryan Budget, even if it is a rough draft or first pass. Here's why:
1) Cutting spending means laying off workers, and we don't need to be firing people in this economy. Ryan's Budget would cut government spending as a percentage of GDP from 12% to about 3%. That's a lot of lay offs.

Oh how I long for the Calving Coolidge days when government spending war far less than 1% of GDP, taxes were dramatically lowered and gave rise to the roaring 20’s. Or perhaps the post WWII days when all the Keynesian economist said that reducing spending would lead us in to another depression, but instead, we got a 50’s boom.
Nevertheless, more spending means more printing/borrowing, which means, higher inflation. Sure, government workers will keep their inefficient and unnecessary jobs, no doubt making the public sector unions happy, however the rise in inflation means a rise in prices, and therefore, a pay reduction for everyone else who works a real job and whose pay is not taken in to consideration with respect to the increase in inflation. Hardly a benefit to the middle class huh? This prevents economic recovery as the inflation out paces the ability of businesses to adapt and any workers hired get much less than a liveable wage.
Just look what happened to the stimulus. The stimulus went to projects the states were going to implement with or without that money. So instead of the extra spending that was supposed to bring us out on this recession, (below 8% remember?) the stimulus fell flat. Did you understand that?
As for long term stimulus projects and investments like high speed rail, the states cannot afford to operate them when completed and the costs are way over initial estimates.

As far as bailing out/ granting privileged loans companies who fail to compete in the open market without government assistance like GM or Solyndra, such measures on delay the inevitable. Besides, the U.S. Constitution, (Not that you’ve ever read it) says that bankruptcies shall be uniform throughout the United States. Such a bankruptcy, (remember that bankruptcy does not mean to go out of business) would have allowed restructuring, private investment, and renegotiation of union contracts. Make no mistake about it, the GM bailout was done in order to preserve the unions, not to make the industry stronger. That why Obama put the union members in front of investors.

And then there is Obamacare. I could write forever on this one and no serious person now disputes that it is and will be way over its initial budget. However, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who seriously believes that (1) you will be allowed to keep your insurance if you want when it is more cost effective to dump healthcare for your employees, (2) The cost of insurance will go down when people cannot be denied for preexisting conditions and spend waaaaay less on the individual mandate than an actual insurance policy, and (3) It is sustainable when it is full of double counting and gimmicks.
Finally, government incentives like cash for clunkers showed us all, that while there is a temporary increase in car buying, it is offset by the temporary dip in car sales after the program has ended, thereby, accomplishing nothing that the market would not have done itself. I will stop here but theres waaaay more!

In the end, government cannot bring us out of a recession or create a single job. People do this despite government, not because of it. Any politician who says that government can create private jobs is full of it. Any politician who says that government can create an environment of liberty and individual prosperity, and therefore, an environment that encourages job creation, should be given a shot. Does Obama do this? No. Barriers to entery, regulation, taxation, wealth redistribution, and deamonization, is no way to foster prosperity.

Inflation is lower now than under Bush, so your fears are unfounded.
Current Inflation Rates | Monthly and Yearly Chart, Graph and Table: 2002-2012 Data - US Inflation Calculator

Interest rates are lower now than under Bush, so your fear of crowding out is unfounded.
Daily Treasury Yield Curve Rates

The policies of the 20s gave rise to the Depression of the 30s. Maybe you've heard of it?
Great Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Government can, does and has created jobs and ended recessions and if you want to choose to believe otherwise, there's nothing I can do to help that.

Yeah, this is a non answer. So much for that debate you wanted to have. And inflation, oh you haven't seen inflation as of yet! Thanks be to the banks for not lending!