Paul Ryan VP pick

Oh and btw, Ryan's own parish priest says his budget is NOT Christian.

In values.

That who gives a rats ass if the economy is better in 10 years bc of less government spending on the poor if your children have all starved to death.

I know this is really hard for you to comprehend, but some things in life have more value than the 30 trillion dollars worth of assets in off shore bank accounts held by those who can, but won't help those of lesser fortune.

 

How can a budget be Christian? I'm not sure what that even means.

Paul Ryan's budget addresses the two major problems with our economy- entitlement spending and the tax code. The thing people don't realize is that Medicare will stay exactly the same for current seniors and creates a way for our generation to actually have something when we're older. Right now the trustees say that Medicare will be broke by 2024 and Social Security will be broke by 2033. These are the trsutees saying that, not Republicans.

But the platform Romney/Ryan are running on is Romney's plan. His plan is less aggressive on tax cuts, it calls for 20% decrease on marginal tax rates across the board. His plan also says that capital gains tax will be removed only for low and middle income people...NOT the rich.

I'm not even going to address the "children will be starved to death" comment because I'm assuming you just threw that in for shock value and don't actually believe that.

 

Don't be fooled by the 'current seniors won't be effected' charade. The two architects of Ryan's 'premium support' plan, Henry Aaron and Bob Reischauer, both say it won't work. They floated the idea in the 90s, but neither believes it could work under current conditions.

In fact, when Aaron testified in front of the Ways and Means Committee, Ryan outright refused to engage him. Aaron wrote a piece earlier this year for the New England Journal of Medicine entitled "Why Now Is Not the Time for Premium Support": "Is premium support along the lines now being proposed a good idea? Is now the time to be making fundamental changes in Medicare? We believe that the answer to both questions is no." He says, also, “The sort of competitive system that voucher advocates say they want to create already exists. The average Medicare enrollee today may choose among an average of 24 plans, in addition to traditional Medicare, including 10 health maintenance organizations.”

And Reischauer told Ezra Klein around this time last year: “If this is a competition between Ryan and the Affordable Care Act on realistic approaches to curbing the growth of spending...the Affordable Care Act gets five points and Ryan gets zero.”

Its important to remember Paul Ryan is no healthcare expert.

Current law puts caps on out-of-pocket spending. Ryan-Wyden imposes no limits on out-of-pocket spending. The fact is, this premium support mess would bankrupt the system. Simply because the voucher couldn't possibly keep up with healthcare costs. So ordinary medicare recipients would be forced to pay the difference to the tune of $6,400 out-of-pocket.

Further, the major problem with medicare isn't costs but demographics. Hence, says Feder: “[W]hen it comes to what health-care costs per person, Medicare’s growth rate is remarkably low" ... and now, with Obamacare in place, “Medicare premiums, currently estimated to be 11 percent lower than private insurance premiums for the same benefit package, will be about 30 percent lower by the end of the next decade.”

Ryan's medicare overhaul would have the effect of destroying the program for future generations. And don't even get me started on his privatizing social security scheme.

 

"If you think Paul Ryan and his Ayn Rand-worshipping colleagues aren't after your Social Security and Medicare, I am here to disabuse you of your naiveté.[5] They will move heaven and earth to force through tax cuts that will so starve the government of revenue that they will be "forced" to make "hard choices" - and that doesn't mean repealing those very same tax cuts, it means cutting the benefits for which you worked." - Mike Lofgren, Republican Hill staffer of 28 years

 

First, I think we both understand that the fundamental problem is that both systems are going broke by the proposed dates I stated above. Ryan's plan does not touch current Medicare recipients. Medicare will go broke if we do nothing because of all the retiring baby boomers. Ryan's plan gives people age 55 and under the choice of joining traditional Medicare or using Medicare dollars to buy a private health insurance plan.

For Social Security, Romney has said he favors gradually increasing the retirement age, but he opposes tax increases to shore up Social Security. For future generations, Romney would slow the growth of benefits "for those with higher incomes." Paul Ryan has been a leading proponent of allowing workers to divert a portion of their Social Security taxes into personal investment accounts.

Obama hasn't laid out a detailed plan for addressing Social Security. He just says any changes to Social Security should be done "without putting at risk current retirees, without slashing benefits for future generations and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market." Yeah no shit...but how do you want to do that? Obama prefers attacking those presenting solutions because he has no solutions of his own.

 

Here a couple of points for you:

1. The Romney/Ryan ticket are campaigning using Romney's budget plan not Paul Ryan's. But the Democrats like to muddy the waters for people so they keep bringing up Ryan's plan.

2. Ryan's plan does not have any affect on current recipients. The goal is to give options for those in future generations to have the same security. Medicare will be broke by 2024 and Social Security will be broke by 2033.

3. Cuts are going to be necessary regardless. Our country is in the same position most Americans are in- they are so in debt that they can't actually move forward. Try to buy a house or car when you have poor credit and not enough income...you can't do it. Countries with public debt above 90 percent of GDP grow by an average of 1.3 percentage points per year slower than less indebted countries. That would mean a loss of 1 million jobs per year. We are in that 90% range currently.

 

So ignore the data and parrot Republican talking points. Sounds like a plan.

And Romney offers no comprehensive plan to address social security. All he seems to do is criticize the program.

Romney's budget is void of any real details. Which is why a right-leaning publication like The Economist lampooned it as “Fifty Shades of Grey” without the sex" since it "ignores virtually all the difficult or interesting questions."

From what analysts can glean from his plan, it would actually increase taxes on middle-income households. A previous iteration of Romney's budget raised taxes by 40% on low-income families. They might be campaigning on Romney's budget but that doesn't mean they will govern that way. Republicans are intent on signing the Ryan budget into law.

Ryan's budget lets current seniors off the hook, not because it would be prudent by any stretch, but because the elderly are the GOP's most reliable voting block.

Social Security isn't 'broke'. There's a $2.7 trillion surplus invested in treasury bonds that cannot be spent by congress. Republicans wax poetic about "opting" out of S.S. and Medicare because they know even partial privatization will force ordinary recipients to pay the difference and this will ultimately destroy these programs.

Cuts will be made to S.S. and we may even raise the retirement age. But what you're advocating is privatizing S.S. That would devastate the program. Imagine Ryan and Bush had their way and S.S. was privatized shortly before the economic meltdown. Where would seniors be? What kept this country afloat before the stimulus was seniors spending their S.S.

There's no evidence we can simply cut our way to prosperity. Robust job growth could solve our debt and deficit problems. But further cutting taxes and ramping up defense spending does nothing to spurn growth. We saw that between 2001-2008 - the weakest economic expansion in 50 years.

 

Paul Ryan and Romney have both put forward budget plans. Romney put out a 52 point plan almost a year ago. Obama has put forward no plan for the future and has actually not even submitted a budget proposal in the last 3 YEARS!!!! Even though the law requires him to submit one every year. But I guess he decided that doesn't apply to him.

Romney's plan calls for cuts in marginal tax rates across the board. The people who will benefit the most and low and middle class families who are one paycheck away from poverty right now under Obama.

Thank God government cannot touch treasury bonds because I guarantee Obama would. If he can print money, raise the debt limit, use bonds he will do it. It is a spending problem and we're mortgaging our future as a country for his political ambitions.

Social Security and Medicare will be fine for those currently on it. We won't need to make changes because the life expectancy for current recipients is much lower. But Obamacare will take $716 billion out of the current Medicare program. So it will most definitely hurt current recipients under Obama. We should have private options for our generation. I'm paying into Social Security and Medicare...for what?? It won't be there for me!!

 

Lol.

I suppose you also think its cool that Romney makes birther jokes.

That $716 billion was given a liar liar pants on fire rating on romneys side. But you still believe it.

How very sad.

 

C'mon bruh. Fibbing, fibbing, FIBBING.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/12/president-obama-sends-american-jobs-act-congress

And the senate passed a budget just a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, Ryan's budget would produce what the CBPP calls the "the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history." He would cut everything from SNAP to STEM training to fund regressive upper-income tax cuts. How could any middle-income American cheer this?

Evidence? The Tax Policy Center found Romney's plan: "would result in lower taxes for high-income households and thus – because of the revenue-neutrality constraint – would require raising taxes on other households."

Well...you're definitely on message.

 

First, it's not fibbing, fibbing, fibbing. They have not submitted a budget in 3 years. What you linked to was the American Jobs Act...something completely separate.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2012/04/29/happy_anniversary_3_years_without_a_budget

Second, Ryan's plan and Romney's plan are two different things. Both would be beneficial to low and middle income people, but Romney's is less aggressive and consequently a better plan. The reason Romney's plan is beneficial to low & middle income people is that it lowers marginal tax rates which allows people to save their money and have more on discretionary spending to boost the economy. Then he removes capital gains tax on low and middle income people. So if they invest in something and make a return, they can keep all their money. He requires high income people to still pay capital gains tax. Conversely, Obama is levying a higher tax on the wealthy which won't help the economy and it won't affect the rich. The rich will be rich under any president. Where Obama really hurts people is that he's leaving tax rates the same and his spending is out of control. The worst possible combination. He's content spending on programs that only give a temporary benefit. Romney/Ryan are trying to create a better economy so people can work instead of people going to get welfare and food stamps to get by.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

 

So let me get this straight. Obama is "levying a higher tax on the wealthy" -but then you say "he's leaving tax rates the same and his spending is out of control." Which is it?

Democrats would clearly rather return to Clinton era tax rates. Republican's don't. They'd like to starve the government of revenue and shred the social safety net.

This idea that 'spending is out of control' is pure fantasy on your part. There's only been a modest increase in spending according to the CBO. And there should be, given we're still recovering from the worst recession in 70 years. And if you look at Factcheck.org they show clearly: "the spending Obama inherited was so high that even modest increases keep it at a level that is extraordinarily lofty by historical standards."

This charts best demonstrates the folly of that argument:



If we had a sustainable level of taxation we could shoulder our current and future spending levels.

I didn't ask for your analysis of Ryan or Romney budget plans. Either provide evidence they do what you say they do, or leave it alone.

Do you even know what a budget is? The Jobs Act projects costs 10 years out. Which is no different from a budget resolution. The senate passed a budget weeks ago. But its an empty gesture without cooperation from the House or 60 votes in the senate.

That's why the party in power hasn't signed a budget into law. You can't filibuster a budget, but the threat of the filibuster requires 60 votes. Democrats don't have 60 votes. And when House Republicans brought up the president's budget for a vote, they removed any language that would make it relevant, left the top-line numbers, then called it the president's budget. Hence why every single Democrat voted against it.

The debt ceiling debacle was a stark reminder the GOP isn't serious. The recovery was on pace in the right direction. And then:



...we have yet to fully recover.

 

Next!

 

Soooo like..

I'm a bit dru bk and stuffs. Went out singing and shit.

But the first chart.. The one with the prezziez last names..

The ones with the lowest spending records?

They were Dems, right?

Because:8!5 repubs believe that they are fiscal hawks or some crap?

I'm so drunk that right now that is:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Fiscal responsibility.

Simone might wabba give those fuckers a dictionary. Cuz words...they mean shit and shit.

 

The answer to your first questions are both yes. Obama wants to levy higher taxes on the wealthy. Even though every economist has said this will have very little affect on anything and will only fund government for 8 days. It's nothing more than political ploy to divide the country. And yes he has left the current Bush tax rates in place while doubling spending. This is not the Republicans fault. Starting in 2007, the Democrats controlled the house and senate and controlled them through the first 2 years of Obama's presidency.

You clearly do not know economics if you think Clinton era tax rates right now will work. Middle class people are one paycheck away from poverty and you think raising taxes on people an additional 5% right now is a good idea?? What Democrats have never seemed to understand is that when you lower rates the economy grows and even though you're collecting a smaller percentage of taxes, it is on a much bigger pie.

The Jobs Act is not a budget. It is a bunch of political talk that Obama wants to do, but has no concrete plan of how to get there. An actual budget outlines what he plans to cut and how to increase revenues to balance a budget. Obama is no different than any other American who doesn't budget. They spend until their heart's content and then 4 years later realizes how far in debt they've gone. Instead of budgeting and sticking to it.

 

Federal income taxes on the top marginal tax bracket have been lowered since 2004(?) and the economy has not grown, it's stagnated then contracted.

Why do conservatives keep saying lower taxes grows the economy??

When in the last 30 years has this actually happened???:-(

 

This chart shows an annualized growth in spending. Obama took spending high since he took office and has maintained his spending levels. So they're isn't a lot of annualized growth.

The Republicans are arguing that this spending is too high

 

Federal income taxes were lowered with the Bush tax cuts. Tax cuts can only work if you maintain low levels of spending. In 2007-2008, the Democrats took control of the house and senate. Spending went through the roof from that point forward. Obama has had a Democratic house and senate since he's been in office, yet still blames Repbulicans for not getting things done. And Democrats love to take credit for Clinton's years. Look at the deficit while Clinton was in office with Republicans in control of the house and senate. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK AND SEE FOR YOURSELF.

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

 

This race will come to and be decided by the millions and millions of single women who love to be dominated by dominants......

 

The economy didn't begin to stagnate in 2007-8. Job growth started its decline during the previous 4-5 years before Obama was elected.
And we were incurring debt at a record pace under Dubya, we put everything on our China credit card after 9/11.

Call me crazy, but I think the Great Recession of 2008 was an economic crisis several degrees greater than the brief ripple caused by the attack on the Pentagon and the WTC.

We had a genuinely bipartisan Congress under Clinton, Dems weren't bullied to follow in lockstep with every piece of GOP legislation.

And there were few instances under CLinton when the ENTIRE Democratic caucus refused to vote for any conservative legislation, which is daily business on Capitol Hill under the Obama administration.