Paul Ryan Turns RINO. Higher Spending, Higher Taxes. future 'cuts' - budget deal

[michal1980]

Isn't Ryan simply doing what most politicians up on the hill have been doing for like forever...well, up until the Tea Party managed to get a firm grip around Boehner's neck and held him personally accountable for not towing the extremist conservative line in Congress?

It's been really interesting seeing the time honored tradition of pandering to one's base and then elegantly stabbing them in the back with side room deals, horse trading and doublespeak being eschewed in lieu of all-out hard line divisive partisan bickering that we have going on at the moment.

The Repubs had propagandized themselves into the far right wing corner of the room and have painfully found out that it's almost impossible to barter and deal their way out of it without enraging the very far right base they created for themselves during the insanely enflamed campaigning against Obama's run for the presidency.

This battle that gave birth to the Tea Party and their far right legislative class of 2010 has been, imo, the demise of "doing business as usual".

I see Ryan's manuevering as a step toward reverting back to the time when each side of the aisle could get some of what they wanted but not all of it, which to me signals a renewed era of real politicking.

I really do think this gives the Repubs a better chance at taking back the Senate and keeping the House. However, I think getting back the presidency is beyond their reach at this time due to the lingering and yet powerful sway the Tea Party has over the Primary selection process.

Kudos to Ryan. It looks like he's not stuck on stupid like I thought he was. Well, there's still time for him to snap out of it. lol

Kudo's for what?

continueing to spend more money?

What a difficult choice.

a) Cut somethings, including the military
b) raise taxes, err 'fees', and spend more money.

Democrats always go with B.

RINOs talk about A, but do B.

We need people in government that will actually do A.

 

[Jhhnn]

Courting the most reactionary elements in their base helped Repubs win elections, and has for 30 years, maybe more. OTOH, letting the inmates take over the asylum is suicide. It won't sell to swing voters.

As recent events show, much of the Teahad zeal is astroturf driven by billionaire financing of various media manipulators. They may yet succeed in destroying the Repub party, given that they're really the RINO's, reactionary zealots out to redefine the party even more than they already have over the last few decades.

 

[Sonikku]

Ryan became a RINO the moment he was willing to have a negotiation with Dems that didn't balance the budget solely on cutbacks to their own liberal agenda.

 

[berzerker60]

And see how many people have their lives ruined by debt? Same applies at the federal level.

No it doesn't. Unless you mean person debt that's issued by internal components of yourself, that you owe mostly to yourself, and that no one in the world has the ability to force you to pay; and also personal debt that you can print your own money to pay off. In that case, sure, federal debt is just like personal debt.

Edit: Also your income is cyclically related to your spending, and you live forever, and people are happy to lend you money even at negative real interest rates because you're super trusted. Just like your household budget.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dget-deal-House-conservatives-scuttle-it.html

so spend billions more today. raise taxes, but don't call them taxes. And then 10 years from now expect that congress to honor some reduction in spending.

Its phatic we can't even cut 45 billion from a budget of nearly 1 trillion dollars.

I lost faith in turn coat Ryan a long time ago. But never thought he'd get this stupid.

This happened last time they were negotiating the tables for a budget. The instant it said "Increase military spending" was the instant I knew Paul Ryan should go fucking drown in a bath rub. Retard.

He must have a lot of corporate junkies under the table I'm guessing. As much as others want us to pass a budget for the sake of passing a budget, I SINCERELY hope that the house votes this bullshit out.

 

[Jhhnn]

As much as others want us to pass a budget for the sake of passing a budget, I SINCERELY hope that the house votes this bullshit out.

Heh. Not likely, now that elected Repub leaders are standing up to their biggest threat, a radicalized out of control cohort in the HOR with sympathizers in the Senate, backed by reactionary billionaires through various think tanks & Institutes. After indulging them in this last little shutdown tantrum, the leadership correctly analyzed the results as ruinous, and are acting accordingly.

It's perfectly OK by me if the Teahadists come out on top- it'll destroy the Repub Party at the national level. They're just so caught up in the astroturfed fallacies of Faith that they're blind to it.

 

[Matt1970]

At least someone on the right is agreeing to raise taxes. Throw in some real spending cuts and we might have something.

 

[Moonbeam]

The war between the most brain defective conservatives against the partially damaged ones has begun. May the battle be engaged until the victory of the last standing lunatic.

Come round come round my conservative friends and bring your finest guns. Let's party as we assemble our circular firing squad.

Don't you just hate it when the next guy isn't quite as insane as you?

 

[himkhan]

Why is being a RINO such a bad thing Mike? Do you want more extremists or centrists in your America?

 

[himkhan]

Chalk one up for a moderate republican that's not afraid to work things out with the opposing party.

Pretty much this. See my above post. 🙂

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

"work things out with the opposing party" ?

Do you not fucking realize what he is saying? Since when did liberals run around proclaiming they want to increase military spending? Seek mental help 🙄

 

[fskimospy]

It's hard to understate just how small this deal is, and I think it speaks to the epic polarization in Washington that such a tiny deal even makes the news. There is a small part of me that hopes that as Republicans continue to radicalize the more moderate ones will join with House Democrats in order to pass some legislation. The sooner they toss the crazies overboard the better it will be for everyone, but that would accelerate the split within the party. Could get ugly!

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It's hard to understate just how small this deal is, and I think it speaks to the epic polarization in Washington that such a tiny deal even makes the news. There is a small part of me that hopes that as Republicans continue to radicalize the more moderate ones will join with House Democrats in order to pass some legislation. The sooner they toss the crazies overboard the better it will be for everyone, but that would accelerate the split within the party. Could get ugly!

So you agree that we need an increase in military spending? You are effectively stating that by supporting this in any way shape or form.

Or do I need to quote 10 posts from you boasting how we spend more on military than the next 16 countries?

 

[fskimospy]

So you agree that we need an increase in military spending? You are effectively stating that by supporting this in any way shape or form.

Or do I need to quote 10 posts from you boasting how we spend more on military than the next 16 countries?

Huh? Agreeing with a deal doesn't mean you agree with all parts of it, it just means that you think that making the deal is overall better than not making it. Given the deal's size it is not a particularly big deal, but it's better than nothing.

While I think that US military spending should be dramatically reduced in the future, at this point almost anything that increases government spending from it's currently disastrously low level is probably an economic plus. You have to remember that we have a LOT of foolish austerity to undo.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Liberal mindset at its finest Well, "it's better than nothing".

/facepalm.

 

[Fern]

It just seems like an extension of the status quo. Shrug.

I'm basing that on this article: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...your-guide-to-the-budget-deal-compromise?lite

Balancing the budget won't happen. I've run the numbers myself and it's simply not possible without great upheaval. It's not going to happen. We're simply in too big of a financial mess for it to be fixed any time soon.

I suppose it's fair for those that at least want to begin reigning in the annual deficit to be angry. But personally, I wouldn't expect the Repub party to have much success since they only hold the House.

As for taxes, all I saw were two tax increases that of the 'user fee' type (increase in airline fees for security and PBGC). I don't have any real problems with those (although I do think airline security is a joke, and a wasteful one at that).

Also appears that the Repub's political calculus is too remove budget haggling as an issue for the time being.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Liberal mindset at its finest Well, "it's better than nothing".

/facepalm.

How is that a 'liberal' mindset? That's called a 'rational' mindset.

Less of a bad thing is better than more of a bad thing. Would I prefer the spending to go on more useful things such as unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc? Of course. You take what you can get though.

 

[fskimospy]

I suppose it's fair for those that at least want to begin reigning in the annual deficit to be angry. But personally, I wouldn't expect the Repub party to have much success since they only hold the House.

This is a really odd thing to say. The annual deficit has decreased at one of the fastest paces in all of US history over the last few years. Like, this has been 'end of World War 2' pace of deficit reduction.

The idea that people would be upset that our deficit has only been going down at a close to all time record pace would simply show how radical those individuals really are when it comes to deficit reduction.

 

[nehalem256]

Huh? Agreeing with a deal doesn't mean you agree with all parts of it, it just means that you think that making the deal is overall better than not making it. Given the deal's size it is not a particularly big deal, but it's better than nothing.

While I think that US military spending should be dramatically reduced in the future, at this point almost anything that increases government spending from it's currently disastrously low level is probably an economic plus. You have to remember that we have a LOT of foolish austerity to undo.

So when is the economy going to tank due to austerity again?:hmm:

 

[Fern]

This is a really odd thing to say. The annual deficit has decreased at one of the fastest paces in all of US history over the last few years. Like, this has been 'end of World War 2' pace of deficit reduction.

The idea that people would be upset that our deficit has only been going down at a close to all time record pace would simply show how radical those individuals really are when it comes to deficit reduction.

Well, we must be looking at different data.

Check this: http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

In any case claiming recent deficit reductions is bogus since it depends entirely upon 2009, an extreme outlier year.

Check the inflation adjusted numbers throughout the 90's and 00's and compare to 2013's deficit. 2013 is WAY above any average (or even highest outlier) in the 90's and 00's.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

So when is the economy going to tank due to austerity again?:hmm:

Uhmm, where have you been? Analysis of austerity measures in the US estimate that they have subtracted somewhere around 1% from GDP growth every year for the past 3 years, which at this point is nearly an entire year's worth of economic growth at normal rates.

Now you might be used to being left a year behind, but the rest of us aren't.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

How is that a 'liberal' mindset? That's called a 'rational' mindset.

Less of a bad thing is better than more of a bad thing. Would I prefer the spending to go on more useful things such as unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc? Of course. You take what you can get though.

Because this is the EXACT same thing you complain about: Kicking the can down the road. Never addressing the problems until the volcano actually erupts.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, we must be looking at different data.

Check this: http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

Yes, you are looking at outdated data. (you can tell this as its source is using a FY2013 projection as opposed to the actual results) US federal deficit for 2013 was $680 billion, down from about $1,089 billion in FY 2012. That is a 38% year on year decrease, which is enormous.

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2197.aspx

In any case claiming recent deficit reductions is bogus since it depends entirely upon 2009, an extreme outlier year.

Check the inflation adjusted numbers throughout the 90's and 00's and compare to 2013's deficit. 2013 is WAY above any average (or even highest outlier) in the 90's and 00's.

Fern

That's a nonsensical statement. You're saying that deficit reduction doesn't count if your deficit was large to begin with.

If someone was arguing that current deficits were small then your argument would have a point, of course no one has argued that. You said that people who 'wanted to begin' reigning in the annual deficit would be angry when by any rational measure the annual deficit has been being 'reigned in' at a historic pace.

 

[shadow9d9]

So you admit that Dems don't care about budgets at all, and will spend like drunken sailors.

They've spent much, MUCH less since 2009 than in the Bush years. 1 Trillion on 2 endless occupations, medicare D giveaway, and the Bush tax cuts were insane. The ACA is a trillion over ten years and the stimulus is split responsibility.

 

[Fern]

Yes, you are looking at outdated data. (you can tell this as its source is using a FY2013 projection as opposed to the actual results) US federal deficit for 2013 was $680 billion, down from about $1,089 billion in FY 2012. That is a 38% year on year decrease, which is enormous.

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2197.aspx

$680 billion is still far in excess of any inflation number from the 90's or 00's.

In any case claiming recent deficit reductions is bogus since it depends entirely upon 2009, an extreme outlier year.

Check the inflation adjusted numbers throughout the 90's and 00's and compare to 2013's deficit. 2013 is WAY above any average (or even highest outlier) in the 90's and 00's.

Fern

That's a nonsensical statement. You're saying that deficit reduction doesn't count if your deficit was large to begin with.

No ma'am.

Your using an outlier as your baseline thus giving life to Samuel Clemens' observation that "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

We're well above recent national averages, even adjusted for inflation. Jacking the holy f*ck out of the deficit in one year and then trying to claim subsequent years are great, even though still far higher than normal, is bush league BS.

Fern