• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Paul Ryan's insane budget proposal

At least give Ryan (and Ron Wyden) credit for addressing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in a serious way. Meanwhile Obama and Senate have not managed to even pass a budget for almost 3 years. What is more insane?

A bunch of democrats in 2010 would be interested to hear they hadn't done anything to tackle the cost of Medicare.

And a budget has been passed, it was called the Budget Control Act, which set budgets over the next 10 years.

Ryan's budget is a political document, much like those on the right called Obama's when he released his. But just because of that it's not that it isn't instructive. People have been all over the 3.75 percent discretionary funding cap and able to draw conclusions (as evidenced above) from that alone. His proposed tax policy is just window dressing at this point.
 
Right... And S&P didn't really downgrade America's credit rating to AA+ because Obama and the Republicans on the Hill couldn't agree to cut $4 trillion over 10 years. Wake me when this nightmare is over...

S&P thought those housing loan packages were a good deal, and perfectly safe.
 
Right... And S&P didn't really downgrade America's credit rating to AA+ because Obama and the Republicans on the Hill couldn't agree to cut $4 trillion over 10 years. Wake me when this nightmare is over...
S&P are a bunch of idiots, and their downgrade was completely irrelevant and ignored.

The reality remains that the only ones tackling the US' long-term fiscal issues in recent history were Obama and the Democrats in 2010.
 
As RandFan has posted before, the Republicans themselves commissioned a study to look at tackling the budget deficit. Its conclusion was that a plan which involved 15% increased revenues and 85% spending cuts was the best mix. The report came out early in 2011, if I recall correctly.

I'm willing to bet that the folks taking potshots at Ryan's proposal will not line up behind an 15%-85% plan either.
 
I'm willing to bet that the folks taking potshots at Ryan's proposal will not line up behind an 15%-85% plan either.
I think it has a far better shot at working toward compromise. When you take all of the chips off of the table you have nothing to bargain with.
 
A Cruel Budget

In February, after embarrassing himself by saying he was “not concerned about the very poor,” Mitt Romney explained that the government’s safety net would take care of them, and he promised to repair any holes in the net. That promise didn’t last very long. On Thursday, House Republicans approved, on a party-line vote, a disastrous new budget that would leave millions of struggling families desperate for food, shelter and health care — and Mr. Romney has embraced it.

The budget, developed by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, would cut $3.3 trillion from low-income programs over 10 years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, even more than the $2.9 trillion in Mr. Ryan’s first disastrous budget last year.

“It’s an excellent piece of work,” Mr. Romney said. (Rick Santorum said it didn’t cut enough.)

The biggest of the cuts would be to Medicaid, the joint federal and state program that is already gasping for money in many states that put a low priority on health care for low-income people. Mr. Romney often talks casually about turning the program over to the states entirely and simply writing a check to dispose of a half-century federal commitment. The Ryan budget exposes just how paltry that check would be: a cut of $810 billion through 2022, one-fifth of current spending, which would lead states to drop coverage for an estimated 14 million to 28 million people.
. . .
In all, 62 percent of the budget’s cuts come from low-income programs, and that’s on top of the substantial cut in spending already in place from last year. But the Ryan budget does contain a substantial tax cut for the rich, which is one of the reasons Mr. Romney said he was “very supportive” of the plan.
 
I'm willing to bet that the folks taking potshots at Ryan's proposal will not line up behind an 15%-85% plan either.


Perhaps not. But the point to me is that the Republicans have disavowed the recommendations of the experts they themselves hired.
 
S&P thought those housing loan packages were a good deal, and perfectly safe.

I've often wondered why everyone panics when a ratings company that have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they don't actually have a clue downgrades anything?

In other news, how much money has google got? Can't you nationalise it? :D
 
At least give Ryan (and Ron Wyden) credit for addressing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in a serious way. Meanwhile Obama and Senate have not managed to even pass a budget for almost 3 years. What is more insane?

Meanwhile the Ryan budget doesn't resolve the debt for 30 years.
 
I'm willing to bet that the folks taking potshots at Ryan's proposal will not line up behind an 15%-85% plan either.

I will when the cuts are equitable and they stop using the social security funds as a source of general revenue.

Seriously the Ryan budget raises defense spending.
 
Most recent Obama Budget defeated 414-0.
Your point?

Current est cost of ObamaCare now at $2.6 trillion and an unfunded $17 trillion liability has been found hidden in ObamaCare.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/30/another-17-trillion-surprise-found-in-obamacare/
At odds with the CBO. However, the CBO can only work with the data given them. So I won't dismiss the claim out of hand.

If true then I say we scrap the program. We will have UHC sooner or later. Let's do it right. The Democrats should have known better than to adopt a GOP invention. I say something with a public option or single payer.

ETA: If the claim made in the Daily Caller is correct, a 5-4 ruling from SCOTUS could be a god send to the Democrats. It would take away a good piece of rhetoric for the GOP. Getting rid of Obama care. Instead of focusing on what's wrong with the ACA the Dems could claim with some believability that ideology resulted in many people not being able to get health insurance. The GOP could be on the defensive. Then again, the GOP could accuse the President of unconstitutional seizing power and taking away freedom. Never mind that it was a product of the Conservative Heritage Foundation.

We will see. Should be interesting regardless. :)
 
Last edited:
I'm willing to bet that the folks taking potshots at Ryan's proposal will not line up behind an 15%-85% plan either.
More likely they would want a little more taken out of the hides of the Koch roaches and the speculators who have deliberately driven up the price of gasoline.
 
At least give Ryan (and Ron Wyden) creditthe bird for addressing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in a serious way.as though those things, funded byt a totally separate revenue stream, were more responsible for our problems than were the war for no good reason in Iraq and the massive tax cuts given to people who were bleeding us dry and stealing our life's savings. Meanwhile Obama and Senate have not managed to even pass a budget for almost 3 years. What is more insane?
Edited to better conform to the realities of this time/space continuum.
 
Last edited:
Why does it have to be all cuts? Only dimbulbs think that cutting is the only way to solve the problem. Going back and shaking down ther greed heads who took advantage of the tax cuts without doing what they were supposed to do would have the same effect as cutting programs that the whiney babies refused to fund.


It was almost all increases the past few years, so why not almost all cuts? Only whiney babies refuse to recognize this.
 
It was almost all increases the past few years, so why not almost all cuts? Only whiney babies refuse to recognize this.
In case you didn't notice, we are trying to pay for a war that some dimbulb started without funding it and with the deterioration of our society resulting from the planned destruction of the middle class by the 1%.
 
It was almost all increases the past few years, so why not almost all cuts? Only whiney babies refuse to recognize this.


You realize your statement about whiny babies include the Republicans? The experts they hired recommended a ratio of 85% spending cuts and 15% increased revenues (i.e. taxes). Which Republicans running for the presidency or are in Congress have publicly endorsed that ratio? How many have stated instead that under no circumstances will any form of increased taxes be acceptable? Indeed, how many have stated a desire for decreased revenue in the form of more tax cuts?

If revenue increases are off the table then the only option is for 100% of the effort to be spending cuts.
 
It was almost all increases the past few years, so why not almost all cuts? Only whiney babies refuse to recognize this.
Bush lowered taxes on the promise that it would stimulate the economy and increase revenue. Fail. That was 10 years ago. It's been a colossal failure. What is the basis for defending the status quo of tax cuts? The Democrats have cut spending and have offered to cut more. The GOP? Well, let's see, they commissioned a report that called for a package of 15% tax increases with 85% spending reduction. And of course they rejected the advice of their experts (economists) and THAT makes the Dems whiney?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom