New Republican budget proposal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

kalikshama -> New Republican budget proposal (4/2/2012 7:26:06 AM)

[image]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s720x720/523723_10150717080894238_63811549237_9179948_919426166_n.jpg[/image]

A thank you to Paul Ryan for the Republican budget

Paul Ryan’s slick unveiling of the Republican budget presents Americans with a choice that has Jennifer Granholm fired up!

-TRANSCRIPT-

Paul Ryan’s budget plan was rolled out over the past few days with two slick video trailers — Pretty unusual for a congressional budget committee chairman. Seriously!

The videos had music and beautiful shots and lots of Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan walking down the halls of Congress. Paul Ryan earnestly talking to the camera. Long on Paul but short on details.
On the other hand, Paul Ryan’s budget unveiled today was clear. It presented a choice.

I so love it when choices are clear! He has done us a great favor by putting it all on the table.

So, here is your choice, America:

Guaranteed health care benefits for seniors, or tax cuts for the wealthy?
Food for poor children, or no taxes on offshore profits for multinational corporations?
Increases in defense spending, or 48 million Americans keeping health care?

The trade-offs are very straightforward. Mitt Romney, of course, has endorsed, full-throated, the Ryan plan.

So let me be the first one to say, Paul Ryan: Thank you so much!

Now for the reality check: this budget has absolutely no chance of becoming law.
Everyone knows it will never see the light of day in the senate.

So, Mr. Ryan, remind me: why you did this again?

Oh, of course, silly me, I forgot: you want to be on the Republican ticket as vice president!
Well, call me crazy, but I’m just not sure that putting the GOP nominee in the position of supporting huge cuts to medicare is the way to help your chances.

But hey, what do I know? I’m just a gal who’s grateful for the right to choose.



PatrickG38 -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/2/2012 8:33:55 AM)

I think Ryan is trying to ensure Obama's reelection so he can eventually be part of whatever grand plan emerges and then run for President in 2016. Otherwise this makes no sense.



mnottertail -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/2/2012 8:42:03 AM)

dogshit that wont make it past the neocons and teabaggers, their ineptitude is horrendous, four years without a budget.



subrob1967 -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/2/2012 9:02:12 AM)

Yawn... Granholm totally destroyed Michigan, and she has the balls to criticize anything?

Get back to me when you guys start whining about
quote:

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s budget director said Monday that the president’s new deficit-reduction plan would impose “a lot of pain,” and that is clearly true of White House proposals to cut $320 billion from projected spending on Medicare and Medicaid in the coming decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/politics/medicare-and-medicaid-face-320-billion-in-cuts-over-10-years.html



mnottertail -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/2/2012 9:33:09 AM)

All told, the current dogshit House budget would cut Medicaid by more than $1.4 trillion over 10 years.

Only to pay for tax cuts.

That whiney enough?  Need more or less?



DesideriScuri -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/2/2012 9:38:57 AM)

Aaaaahhhh...it's unfortunate how the lack of change is comforting when we need so very much of it.

http://budget.house.gov/prosperity/#solutions

quote:

Reforms our broken tax code to spur job creation and economic opportunity by lowering rates, closing loopholes, and putting hardworking taxpayers ahead of special interests.


Did anyone else see the missing information from the OP?

Lemme redo that quote, but this time, I'll put the key in bold.
quote:

Reforms our broken tax code to spur job creation and economic opportunity by lowering rates, closing loopholes, and putting hardworking taxpayers ahead of special interests.


I don't doubt that lowering the rates will be a $150k tax cut for the average millionaire+. However, what is the effect of closing the loopholes going to do?

According to Rep. Ryan, coupling the reduction in tax rates (and the reduction to just two tax brackets) with the closing of loopholes doesn't change revenues. They wash each other out. We bring in as much as we are bringing in now. Couple that with spending decreases and you reduce deficits, and, hopefully, debt.

The spending reductions in MedicAid/Care both come from cost decreases from competitiveness and patient choice.

What I have noticed over the past few years is that one Party will only take one aspect of a bill and use it to bludgeon the other Party in the Court of Public Opinion, instead of taking the bill as a whole and giving all the details. Of course the former Party and latter Party are opposite sides of the aisle. The Former Party, which I'm not going to name, either starts with an R or a D, depending, of course, on which Party (D or R) wrote the bill.

Thus, we have the Democrats (this time) railing over one aspect of the Republican (this time) budget, without looking at anything else.

I like the 25% rate. What I would have preferred to see, however, is an initial drop to 30% and then 1% every year after that until we got to 25%. The loophole closures would have gone into place immediately, and in full. Thus, we'd have a more aggressive budget deficit attack for those first 5 years.

Unfortunately, I don't see Paul Ryan's budget plan raising employment massively in the beginning. I think we'd see an initial plateau as IRS workers were shed at the same rate as private employment rose.



thishereboi -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/2/2012 12:34:22 PM)

quote:

Paul Ryan’s slick unveiling of the Republican budget presents Americans with a choice that has Jennifer Granholm fired up!


I didn't have to read any farther than that to know it was a really bad idea. Anything that gets Granholm fired up is bound to be seriously screwed up.



thishereboi -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/2/2012 12:36:59 PM)

quote:

Yawn... Granholm totally destroyed Michigan, and she has the balls to criticize anything?


I guess I read it wrong. I thought she mean fired up, as in really for it. If she thinks it''s bad, I might have to do some more investigating.



bob35 -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/2/2012 4:56:02 PM)

So basically what the chart is saying is if Paul Ryan budget were to pass the democrats would cut essential services first, instead of getting rid of 150,000 worth of crap we don't even need in the budget to begin with?




erieangel -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/2/2012 5:47:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bob35

So basically what the chart is saying is if Paul Ryan budget were to pass the democrats would cut essential services first, instead of getting rid of 150,000 worth of crap we don't even need in the budget to begin with?





No. That chart is saying only what Ryan's budget says. He would pay for his tax cuts to the massively wealthy by cutting those essential services.



erieangel -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/2/2012 5:58:05 PM)

In contrast, we have the budget proposed by the Progressive Caucus. Too bad it will go nowhere.

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Executive%20Summary%20FINAL.pdf




DesideriScuri -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/2/2012 6:44:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bob35
So basically what the chart is saying is if Paul Ryan budget were to pass the democrats would cut essential services first, instead of getting rid of 150,000 worth of crap we don't even need in the budget to begin with?


Actually, what the chart shows is what $150k would pay for. Obviously, they are choosing more popular things to make it seem that much worse. It was like when they railed against the deficit spending by Bush. They railed and railed about the deficits he was racking up and then told us what they would have spent the money on. Forget that if they spent the money, the deficits wouldn't be any less, just spent differently. It wasn't about the deficits to begin with. It was that they weren't in control of the spending.



bob35 -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/2/2012 8:30:33 PM)

If you are of the view that you pay for tax cuts, aren't you basically saying that the money the rich or super rich earn isn't really theres to begin with?


quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel


quote:

ORIGINAL: bob35

So basically what the chart is saying is if Paul Ryan budget were to pass the democrats would cut essential services first, instead of getting rid of 150,000 worth of crap we don't even need in the budget to begin with?





No. That chart is saying only what Ryan's budget says. He would pay for his tax cuts to the massively wealthy by cutting those essential services.





bob35 -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/2/2012 9:05:31 PM)

I know, I was trying to be funny, I mean the budget is over 3 trillion dollars and that's the best they could do...although I would have no problem with cuts in pell grants and failed attempts by the government to make college more affordable which IMO make end up making college less affordable.

It's not just about how the money is spent, but about how and who it is collected from.


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: bob35
So basically what the chart is saying is if Paul Ryan budget were to pass the democrats would cut essential services first, instead of getting rid of 150,000 worth of crap we don't even need in the budget to begin with?


Actually, what the chart shows is what $150k would pay for. Obviously, they are choosing more popular things to make it seem that much worse. It was like when they railed against the deficit spending by Bush. They railed and railed about the deficits he was racking up and then told us what they would have spent the money on. Forget that if they spent the money, the deficits wouldn't be any less, just spent differently. It wasn't about the deficits to begin with. It was that they weren't in control of the spending.




DesideriScuri -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/3/2012 5:11:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bob35
I know, I was trying to be funny, I mean the budget is over 3 trillion dollars and that's the best they could do...although I would have no problem with cuts in pell grants and failed attempts by the government to make college more affordable which IMO make end up making college less affordable.
It's not just about how the money is spent, but about how and who it is collected from.
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: bob35
So basically what the chart is saying is if Paul Ryan budget were to pass the democrats would cut essential services first, instead of getting rid of 150,000 worth of crap we don't even need in the budget to begin with?

Actually, what the chart shows is what $150k would pay for. Obviously, they are choosing more popular things to make it seem that much worse. It was like when they railed against the deficit spending by Bush. They railed and railed about the deficits he was racking up and then told us what they would have spent the money on. Forget that if they spent the money, the deficits wouldn't be any less, just spent differently. It wasn't about the deficits to begin with. It was that they weren't in control of the spending.



Sorry I failed to catch the humor. It's the whole sterilized internet thing.

I have a hard time accepting that huge a budget and the length of time it takes to get to a balanced budget. Rand Paul presented a budget (didn't pass) that would be balanced in 5 years. Oddly enough, his budget actually increases Defense Spending. Yeah. I know, right?

I got into an argument with a Lib/Prog fellow HS graduate and asked why revenues had dropped to the mid-teens (%GDP). His answer? "You know, the Recession? Duh."

Yes, I knew. So, I asked him what the solution was. His answer? "Raise taxes."

To sum it up:
    The Problem: the languishing economy is resulting in lower tax revenues

    The Solution: Raise taxes

    How the Solution addresses the Problem: It doesn't.


Shortly after I pointed this out, I got a nice little F-U response.

IMO, when revenues drop, so should spending. I haven't looked thru Ryan's plan completely, but last year's budget capped spending at the previous year's revenues. I think that is brilliant. As the economy grows, our revenues will grow and the following year's spending cap will grow. But, the most amazing part is that as tax receipts grow, we'll have a surplus for that year, and debt reduction. Brilliant. I'm not even sure if the Senate even brought it to the floor for a vote.



DarkSteven -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/3/2012 5:21:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Paul Ryan’s budget plan was rolled out over the past few days with two slick video trailers — Pretty unusual for a congressional budget committee chairman. Seriously!

The videos had music and beautiful shots and lots of Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan walking down the halls of Congress. Paul Ryan earnestly talking to the camera. Long on Paul but short on details.



Odd. it sounds like Ryan is angling for a Veep spot with Romney.



truckinslave -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/3/2012 7:09:30 AM)

Maybe the House will defeat it 414 to nothing.
Oh. Wait.



PatrickG38 -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/3/2012 7:22:56 AM)

It is not a budget until it tells us what loophoels are being closed and what each one raised. He refused to answer this question because everyone who has a mortgage will not enjoy the answer.



PatrickG38 -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/3/2012 7:24:16 AM)

He is just trying to ensure a Romeny loss so that 2016 is open.



DesideriScuri -> RE: New Republican budget proposal (4/3/2012 12:27:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38
It is not a budget until it tells us what loophoels are being closed and what each one raised. He refused to answer this question because everyone who has a mortgage will not enjoy the answer.


And that's some tough shit if they don't like it. If people want loopholes closed, then close the loopholes. That's the only truly fair way to do it. Close all the loopholes and let there be 2 tax brackets.

But, hey, I have to give you credit for actually accepting that there are going to be loopholes closed. At least you're not blowing smoke all over the place about how it's just a tax break for the rich



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125