Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Rep. Ryan's Budget Proposal: Bold, backwards, or both?

Apr 6, 2011#1

Tress

For those who may have missed it, Rep. Paul Ryan (R - Wis.) has proposed a new budget with enormous changes to entitlement, especially Medicare and Medicaid.

The plan includes some interesting ideas, and many controversial ones. The primary hot point include basically gutting Medicare by shifting costs back to the elderly (born after 1956... everyone else gets a pass) and slashing taxes for the highest percentage of wage earners (from roughly 36% now to 25%). Ultimately the budget would slash around 6 trillion from the budget by the end of the decade, but does not balance the deficit.

So yeah.

There are some serious complaints and doubts about the validity of the plan, summarized well in this opinion piece. On the other hand, who would argue that the budget deficit isn't a serious problem? Something is needed, and this is the first serious attempt I've seen at solving the budget problem. I'm sure there are many other sources discussing this at the moment. What do you all think?

Apr 6, 2011#2

jwhouk

On behalf of the rest of the people of the state of Wisconsin, I'm sorry.

Apr 6, 2011#3

Krisken

I think jwhouk pretty much said it all.

Apr 6, 2011#4

Tress

Thing is, I don't think it's entirely bad. I disagree with some of the specifics, but this is the first serious budget that actually tackles the budget problem rather than squabble over a small fraction of funds. This could be a useful starting point for a true national discussion. I would rather the public didn't outright reject this due to not liking the details. The how and where can be changed later, so long as we actually start working on the problem.

Apr 6, 2011#5

Dave

If they are trying to save money why are they cutting taxes for the uber rich. Give me a good reason and I might agree. As it stands it props up the coffers of big business and the very rich on the backs of those who can least afford it.

And yet redneck idiots will look at this and vote for it like it's in their best interest when it is, in fact, directly AGAINST their interests.

Apr 6, 2011#6

Krisken

Where do I have problems with it? Cutting entitlement programs which benefit the poorest of us, those who actually spend the money they get, and give tax breaks and incentives to the rich, who are less likely to spend it, is one of the reasons we have such a miserable economy to begin with. Reduce Medicare/Medicaid programs and you increase emergency room visits.

I don't think these are just details. I think doing the rich tax cut thing again worked so poorly for us in the Bush era, I have a problem taking it seriously. I mean, I could look at the rest of it, but am I going to find anything less ridiculous?

Apr 6, 2011#7

Tress

Jesus, you're in attack-mode today so I'll make it even simpler.

I dislike the plan. I do like the idea of coming up with a solution to the budget. Even though I think this is a bad plan, I applaud the fact that someone even tried in the first place. That's more than anyone else is doing in Congress.

Apr 6, 2011#8

Krisken

I'm not Jesus!

Apr 6, 2011#9

AshburnerX

He's right. He's House, not Jesus.

Apr 6, 2011#10

Krisken

It's the beard that causes so much confusion.

Apr 6, 2011#11

Krisken

Sorry, Tress, I do get a bit funky sometimes. Not trying to be mean, just having a hard time taking Paul Ryan seriously. He gathered a bunch of numbers from The Heritage Foundation, which then gets erased at the Heritage Foundation site. They seem to think that by doing what is in the budget the Unemployment rate will be lower than it has been in 50 years and the housing market will magically correct itself and be back to levels of 5 years ago. As soon as people start sifting through the budget proposal, we're going to discover that the numbers in his proposal are simply not realistic.

Apr 7, 2011#12

Tress

Krisken said:
Sorry, Tress, I do get a bit funky sometimes. Not trying to be mean, just having a hard time taking Paul Ryan seriously. He gathered a bunch of numbers from The Heritage Foundation, which then gets erased at the Heritage Foundation site. They seem to think that by doing what is in the budget the Unemployment rate will be lower than it has been in 50 years and the housing market will magically correct itself and be back to levels of 5 years ago. As soon as people start sifting through the budget proposal, we're going to discover that the numbers in his proposal are simply not realistic.

I agree completely. I just hoped it might kick off a movement for a serious attempt at fixing the budget.

Apr 7, 2011#13

SpecialKO

The CBO says that GOP plan will be worse for the country than if the GOP sat on their hands and did nothing.
Added at: 10:31
Erik Kain on why the Ryan budget is much more politically-motivated than a serious attempt at budget reconciliation.

Apr 7, 2011#14

Espy

Tress said:
I agree completely. I just hoped it might kick off a movement for a serious attempt at fixing the budget.

Whoa, whoa, whoa now. Lets not get carried away.

I'm going to be honest here. I haven't read this. I heard some analysis on NPR yesterday that seemed to imply that while not a good solution it's probably the only real (meaning actually make a meaningful difference) solution anyone has put forward so far (of course that doesn't mean it's a good solution they were quick to point out). Now, what they said next I totally agreed with so get ready. Prepare to freak out.
They said it's hopefully going to open the door to potential compromising that could lead to a few things that must include both severe cutting of entitlement spending and tax raises on higher incomes. Because, at least according to their analysis it would take some serious amounts of both of those to get things under control.
And I am for that. Even the higher taxes.

There. I said it. Take away my anti-taxes card now.

Apr 7, 2011#15

Krisken

Man, Forbes is so liberal.

Apr 7, 2011#16

SpecialKO

Krisken said:
Man, Forbes is so liberal.

To be fair, Erik Kain is a bit more of a liberaltarian than the average Forbes opinionator. He's a hardcore free marketeer, of course (you have to be to write for Forbes), but he's also very pro-labor, as he sees it as a potential check against monopolistic/oligopolistic practices.

Apr 7, 2011#17

Hailey Knight

Dave said:
And yet redneck idiots will look at this and vote for it like it's in their best interest when it is, in fact, directly AGAINST their interests.

Can anyone explain to me why this happens, seemingly often? I feel like I knew the answer a couple years ago, but I seem to have forgotten now how the Republicans get the poor to blindly vote for them over and over as they continue getting screwed by the GOP's policies.

Apr 7, 2011#18

Tress

escushion said:
Can anyone explain to me why this happens, seemingly often? I feel like I knew the answer a couple years ago, but I seem to have forgotten now how the Republicans get the poor to blindly vote for them over and over as they continue getting screwed by the GOP's policies.

It's the "American Dream." People always assume that they will one day be among the top 1% of wage earners. One day, someday, they will be billionaires. So, it's important that they make sure the tax rates are nice and low for their eventual rise to uber-wealth. This is the same reason the South was so pro-slavery in the 19th century, despite the fact that only 10% or so of white people owned slaves.

Apr 7, 2011#19

The Lovely Boehner

Any serious plan at fixing the budget should have tax raises for the top 1% AT FUCKING LEAST.

Apr 7, 2011#20

Krisken

Not sure about raise, but at least remove the Bush tax cuts.

Apr 7, 2011#21

The Lovely Boehner

Krisken said:
Not sure about raise, but at least remove the Bush tax cuts.

I'm not sure what the difference is between a raise and removing cuts

Apr 7, 2011#22

Krisken

Things like the Bush tax cuts actually had an expiration date. It was never meant to be permanent.

Apr 7, 2011#23

Tress

I did like one thing in this plan: closing all tax loopholes. I think everyone can agree on that.

Apr 7, 2011#24

Krisken

Absadoodle

Apr 8, 2011#25

Espy

YUP.

Apr 8, 2011#26

Shakey

escushion said:
Can anyone explain to me why this happens, seemingly often? I feel like I knew the answer a couple years ago, but I seem to have forgotten now how the Republicans get the poor to blindly vote for them over and over as they continue getting screwed by the GOP's policies.

I don't know about the poor, but if you're talking about the "redneck idiots", it's mostly because of their push for smaller government. They're usually very independent and just want the government to leave them alone. Many of them don't want, and don't participate in, government programs even if they could help them. They also don't like to be told what guns they can and can't have, which isn't exactly in line with the Democrats.

Apr 8, 2011#27

Covar

I think that's the first time I've ever heard anyone say the poor vote Republican.

Apr 8, 2011#28

Krisken

Covar said:
I think that's the first time I've ever heard anyone say the poor vote Republican.

That's because people ignore that there are poor white people.

Apr 8, 2011#29

Dave

Shakey said:
I don't know about the poor, but if you're talking about the "redneck idiots", it's mostly because of their push for smaller government. They're usually very independent and just want the government to leave them alone. Many of them don't want, and don't participate in, government programs even if they could help them. They also don't like to be told what guns they can and can't have, which isn't exactly in line with the Democrats.

Bull. And by bull I mean that these people want government to intrude in lives - just not theirs. They want the government to stop people from getting a legal medical procedure. They want the government to outlaw same sex marriage. They want Christianity to be made the de facto religion. They want English to be made the national language. They want prayer in school and the separation of church and state to be abolished.

At the same time, they are too stupid to realize that the right panders to these undereducated idiots to get votes that do not benefit anyone except the politicians, their donors and the corporations who own everything.

Republicans have become evil and our country is too stupid to see it even though the Republicans are not even trying to hide it any more.

Apr 8, 2011#30

Krisken

I don't think evil is the right word for Republican lawmakers. Short sighted and greedy, sure, but it's not like they are rampaging in the streets or dropping bombs on us.

The small government/big government schism in that party has existed for a long time and has been perpetuated by the media narrative, along with the supporting the troops.

Apr 8, 2011#31

Shakey

Dave said:
Bull. And by bull I mean that these people want government to intrude in lives - just not theirs. They want the government to stop people from getting a legal medical procedure. They want the government to outlaw same sex marriage. They want Christianity to be made the de facto religion. They want English to be made the national language. They want prayer in school and the separation of church and state to be abolished.

At the same time, they are too stupid to realize that the right panders to these undereducated idiots to get votes that do not benefit anyone except the politicians, their donors and the corporations who own everything.

Republicans have become evil and our country is too stupid to see it even though the Republicans are not even trying to hide it any more.

I'm not saying it's right, because it's not, I'm just saying that's how they see it. They don't want what the social programs the Democrats are offering, and they're isn't enough diversity around them to see how banning same sex marriage and the separation of church and state really hurts other people. So why should they be expected to vote for them? Republicans give them less gun control and less involvement in their day to day lives, so in their eyes it does benefit them.

Just writing them all off as uneducated idiots isn't going to do anything to change their mind. They'll just keep pushing in the farther to the right.

Apr 8, 2011#32

Adammon

If I can throw my two cents in here as a 'conservative' voter.

When it comes to that specific legal medical procedure (Abortion), I don't believe in its use as an "Oopsy". As someone who can't have kids, it breaks my heart that every day, instead of taking responsibility for our actions, we can just go down to PP and have that potential life ripped out of us. I want that baby. I would have given anything for that opportunity. That said, I still believe abortion should be safe, legal...but rare! Use birth control for crying out loud!

On the gay marriage stuff, I'm torn. I have a gay brother, I'm MCing my gay friends' wedding in two weeks. Do I think gay couples should have the same rights/privileges that straight couples have when it comes to a formal 'joining' as it were? Yes. Is marriage traditionally more of a religious construct than a legal one. Yes. I say give marriage to the religious and civil unions for all. (Of course, gay couples have to fight for civil unions even...which is retarded)

I think one language makes sense economically. Canada has English and French and it's just a disaster of costs and rules.

I used to say the Lord's Prayer in school and I don't remember bursting into flames. If you have a different prayer, I think you should be allowed to say it at the same time. Or if you have no prayers, ditto. Separation of church and state is a given - however that doesn't mean taking "In God We Trust" off of money or taking the Ten Commandments out of a courthouse. As long as rational decisions are made vis-a-vis legal/political/social matters, God doesn't really factor into it.

Conservatives/Liberals - neither group is trying to destroy the country. They just have opposing views on how to make a country better. Paul Ryan's proposal is nonsense unfortunately. 2.8% unemployment *guffaw*

/soapbox

Apr 8, 2011#33

Dave

I stick by my evil statement. Republicans have become Tea Bagging, Koch sucking monsters who would ruin as many people in the United States as it takes for them to get more and more money and power. None of their moves are made for the betterment of the country. They are to line their own pockets. What possible justification can there be for lowering the tax rate on the mega-rich and corporations? None.They say they are trying to balance the budget? Bullshit. Like Wisconsin where they gave away the treasury to the rich and then used the deficit that made to break the unions, Republicans in Washington are using the same tactics to try and privatize Medicare and get rid of Medicaid altogether.

Today the government will be shut down and it ALL THE REPUBLICAN'S FAULT! They added a shitload of riders to the fucking thing that the President can NOT allow. So when he vetos it they can point their greasy fingers and say "OBAMA DID IT!!" and the unwashed idiots will buy it! Want to see the riders?

http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/OMB_Watch-HR1_Policy_Riders.pdf

Let's see, get rid of Net Neutrality. Defund Planned Parenthood. De-nut the EPA.

Big business wins? Check. Women's rights curtailed? Check. Anti-environment? Check.

Evil is as evil does.

Apr 8, 2011#34

Krisken

Ok, after looking at that document, I guess I can go along with Evil-lite.

Notice how almost nothing was done to the Legislative branch.

Apr 8, 2011#35

SpecialKO

Adammon said:
When it comes to that specific legal medical procedure (Abortion), I don't believe in its use as an "Oopsy". As someone who can't have kids, it breaks my heart that every day, instead of taking responsibility for our actions, we can just go down to PP and have that potential life ripped out of us. I want that baby. I would have given anything for that opportunity. That said, I still believe abortion should be safe, legal...but rare! Use birth control for crying out loud!

I don't want to pick apart your words too much, Adammon, because they were very reasonably stated, but it sounds like you think that pro-choice people, by default, see Abortion as an "oopsy". It also sounds like you think PP is primarily in the service of providing abortions. Is that correct, and if it is, is there a reason why you see it that way?

Apr 8, 2011#36

Dei

Calling Republicans evil, I think, is getting a little drastic. Calling the Tea Party a bunch of psycho idiots less so.

From what I can see, the Republican majority in the House is getting fucked by these first term Tea Partiers who have no clue how the government should be run whatsoever, but they have just enough of a representation to make it nearly impossible for a sensible compromise to even start to form. Of course, Democrats and Republicans are both playing chicken right now it seems, to see who can hold out the longest before making a last minute decision to keep the government from shutting down. (Of course, the fact that the government is even allowed to shut down at all is also completely ridiculous to me, gg poor planning)

Apr 8, 2011#37

Krisken

I love planned parenthood. Simply by providing womens services and preventing unplanned pregnancies for people who can't afford birth control methods, they save millions of dollars in medical fees to the states.

Planned Parenthood site said:
Our Clients

Planned Parenthood provides sexual and reproductive health care, education, and information to more than five million women, men, and adolescents worldwide each year.
Three million women and men in the United States annually visit Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers for trusted health care services and information.
Seventy-nine percent of Planned Parenthood health care clients in the U.S. are age 20 and older.
One in five women in the U.S. has visited a Planned Parenthood health center at least once in her life.
Our Work

Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention: 83 percent of our clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 612,000 unintended pregnancies each year.
Planned Parenthood provides nearly one million Pap tests and more than 830,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer.
Planned Parenthood provides nearly four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.
Planned Parenthood affiliates provide educational programs to nearly 1.2 million young people and adults each year.
Planned Parenthood has more than four million activists, supporters, and donors working for women's health and safety and our fundamental reproductive rights.

Apr 8, 2011#38

Dave

But see, Dei, here's the thing. Boner and his spineless Democratic counterpart got together and pounded out a pretty good deal. They both agreed and they were there. Reid came back and said, "We are very close to a deal. It was productive and I feel GREAT!!" (paraphrasing)

Then Boner took the plan back to his people. The TEA BAGGERS said, "Nope!" and they turned the whole thing down. Why? These riders. Because compassion, charity and cooperation are not in their vocabulary. Because they REFUSE to back down AT ALL and compromise even ONE IOTA of their points. And Boner and the Republicans just go along with it, making them just as culpable as those whom you have called psycho idiots.

Apr 8, 2011#39

SpecialKO

Dave said:
And Boner and the Republicans just go along with it, making them just as culpable as those whom you have called psycho idiots.

Hey now, don't blame Charlie for this mess! :awesome:

Apr 8, 2011#40

Sara_2814

Krisken said:
Notice how almost nothing was done to the Legislative branch.

"Almost nothing?" My God, man! They've prohibited the upgrading of Congressional committee rooms! Isn't that enough? How much more suffering and hardship must our poor Congressmen endure during this shutdown?!

Apr 8, 2011#41

drifter

escushion said:
Can anyone explain to me why this happens, seemingly often? I feel like I knew the answer a couple years ago, but I seem to have forgotten now how the Republicans get the poor to blindly vote for them over and over as they continue getting screwed by the GOP's policies.

Actually got this from the comments section from SpecialKO's link about raycess 'ssippians; I suppose this explanation works as well as any other.

"...it is simply a movement to maintain white Christian cultural hegemony."

Apr 8, 2011#42

Dave

And I apologize for my tone, but I am frustrated at the idiots, angry at the lies and political posturing those in power are taking and the fact that even though this is getting reported people are being WILLFULLY IGNORANT about what is going on! I live in a very red state and the things I hear around me are just fucking lies and spins of the truth and these people just don't CARE!

ARGH!!

Apr 8, 2011#43

Covar

I say they leave the taxes alone, and cut say 15% across the board. loddy-doddy-everybody. Not enough? I'd be up for cutting more.

Apr 8, 2011#44

Dei

I think it comes down to the idea that spending needs to be reined in, everyone KNOWS it needs to be reined in, and we are now at the point where we waited too long, and the extremists are in a place to disrupt everything. Quite frankly I'm sick of the whining blame game going on. Honestly I would be pretty shocked if the government does make it to the point of shutdown, but I really do feel both parties are to blame, just because they both let crazy spending go on to the point where the a group like the Tea Party could get into positions of actual power.

Apr 8, 2011#45

Covar

Krisken said:
That's because people ignore that there are poor white people.

There's poor white people?

huh. They say you learn something new everyday.

Apr 8, 2011#46

Adammon

SpecialKO said:
I don't want to pick apart your words too much, Adammon, because they were very reasonably stated, but it sounds like you think that pro-choice people, by default, see Abortion as an "oopsy". It also sounds like you think PP is primarily in the service of providing abortions. Is that correct, and if it is, is there a reason why you see it that way?

I don't think pro-choice see it as an oopsy. I think that a culture is being created where it's used as a solution for an oopsy. Having an abortion 4 or 5 times, aside from the harm it does to your body, is a bit much. Kinda like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer and wondering why you start getting headaches.
PP performs about 1/5th of the abortions in the US. However, they also do adoption placement and referrals, provide counselling and birth control. I just used PP in the example of an action, not to single out PP as the big bad.

Apr 8, 2011#47

Espy

Adammon said:
I don't think pro-choice see it as an oopsy. I think that a culture is being created where it's used as a solution for an oopsy. Having an abortion 4 or 5 times, aside from the harm it does to your body, is a bit much. Kinda like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer and wondering why you start getting headaches.
PP performs about 1/5th of the abortions in the US. However, they also do adoption placement and referrals, provide counselling and birth control. I just used PP in the example of an action, not to single out PP as the big bad.

And not to open an abortion debate here but different people are going to view different reasons for getting the procedure as "oopsy" reasons. For one person using it as birth control instead of condoms would qualify and for another doing it because you don't think you can afford another kid would qualify. No matter where you stand though there is a obvious line between convenience and medical necessity, which really only underlines the need for more and better instruction about birth control and family planning (I know, I know, as a conservative I'm not supposed to advocate for that stuff...)

Apr 8, 2011#48

Adammon

Espy said:
And not to open an abortion debate here but different people are going to view different reasons for getting the procedure as "oopsy" reasons. For one person using it as birth control instead of condoms would qualify and for another doing it because you don't think you can afford another kid would qualify. No matter where you stand though there is a obvious line between convenience and medical necessity, which really only underlines the need for more and better instruction about birth control and family planning (I know, I know, as a conservative I'm not supposed to advocate for that stuff...)

And that's what I believe PP's mandate should be. And they do a relatively good job of it with a few bad eggs (Which are in any organization)

Apr 8, 2011#49

MindDetective

Cigarettes are not birth control, Republican baby! I know you're really a shill for Philip Morris!

Apr 8, 2011#50

sixpackshaker

I still want to know where Bachman's drive thru abortion clinic is...

Then the Fox News set eat that rhetoric up.

Apr 8, 2011#51

Espy

MindDetective said:
Cigarettes are not birth control, Republican baby! I know you're really a shill for Philip Morris!

Apr 8, 2011#52

MindDetective

Am I ready for MSNBC now?

Apr 8, 2011#53

Espy

MindDetective said:
Am I ready for MSNBC now?

Apr 8, 2011#54

Adammon

MindDetective said:
Am I ready for MSNBC now?

You already have more viewers than Keith Olbermann

Apr 8, 2011#55

Krisken

Adammon said:
You already have more viewers than Keith Olbermann

And not just because he no longer works there, eh?

Apr 8, 2011#56

Adammon

Krisken said:
And not just because he no longer works there, eh?

Apr 8, 2011#57

Zappit

So we pay into Social Security all our lives, then we can't get it when we need it? And we get to give it to the rich folks who don't need it as tax breaks? Sign me up and brain me with a brick!

God help us come 2012 if the Tea Party keeps up its insane momentum. They'll screw us all back to 1902. Hopefully, the sane will turn out in record numbers and reject these nutjobs.

Apr 8, 2011#58

DarkAudit

When folks like Rand Paul start speaking out against miner safety regulations as overly restrictive on coal operators, and so ignorant of the labor history of his OWN STATE, I can't really think of him as evil. That would require actual thought.

Someone like that can no longer even be considered as human. They are cyborg simulacrums who can only spout preprogrammed talking points provided by their corporate masters.

After the 1968 Farmington disaster, WV miners had to defy the government and their own union to stand up for mine safety regs that wouldn't kill them before age 50 *if they were lucky*. Folks like Paul would send us back to those dark days.

Apr 8, 2011#59

Covar

Zappit said:
So we pay into Social Security all our lives, then we can't get it when we need it? And we get to give it to the rich folks who don't need it as tax breaks? Sign me up and brain me with a brick!

God help us come 2012 if the Tea Party keeps up its insane momentum. They'll screw us all back to 1902. Hopefully, the sane will turn out in record numbers and reject these nutjobs.

You actually expect to receive Social Security when you get older? How long have you held onto that notion?

Apr 8, 2011#60

Krisken

Covar said:
You actually expect to receive Social Security when you get older? How long have you held onto that notion?

I do until the Republicans get their way and give it to Wall Street.

Apr 8, 2011#61

Covar

Please at the rate their going, it's either going to be gone, privatized or require recipients to be 93 or older.

Apr 8, 2011#62

Krisken

Covar said:
Please at the rate their going, it's either going to be gone, privatized or require recipients to be 93 or older.

That bastion of Liberalism, Rueters, doesn't agree.

Social Security benefits are not gobbling up the U.S. economy. Benefits are equal to 4.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) this year, and will rise to just 6.2 percent in 2035, when all baby boomers will be 65 or older, according to last year’s Social Security trustees’ report. After 2035, Social Security expenditures are projected to stay around that percent of GDP through 2085, according to Virginia Reno, vice president for income security at the National Academy of Social Insurance.

Social Security had a $2.5 trillion surplus in 2009, a number that will hit $3.8 trillion in 2020, according to the Economic Policy Institute. The surplus has been accumulating since implementation of the last Social Security reform measures in 1983.

What does this mean? If greedy bastards keep their grubby fingers off of it, it will be fine.

Apr 8, 2011#63

Zappit

Krisken said:
What does this mean? If greedy bastards keep their grubby fingers off of it, it will be fine.

BIG if.

Apr 8, 2011#64

The Lovely Boehner

Eat the rich.

Forums