Paul Ryan will be unvieling the FY2012 budget tomorrow: $4T in cuts

[Patranus]

Where were the Republicans when Bush was in power for 8 years?

Oh that's right, spending like drunken sailors.

Fuc#^^$)g hypocrites

If you didn't notice, the spending was ramped up after the 2006 election.
(Can't quite remember what happened in that one.....)

 

[Darwin333]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/03/news/economy/federal_budget_house_republicans/?section=money_latest


Mandating me to buy a private product... Where have we seen this?

What happens if you don't take the vouchers and do not purchase the private product? If it is a mandate I assume there are .gov imposed consequences like fines or possibly jail time.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Where were the Republicans when Bush was in power for 8 years?

Oh that's right, spending like drunken sailors.

Fuc#^^$)g hypocrites

And to think you help put Bush in the Whitehouse not once but twice.

 

[werepossum]

You understand that we are comparing Ryan's plan to cut taxes to Obama's plan to raise taxes?

We don't really know how much money the rich would save compared to what they pay today because those figures aren't provided.

We're arguing about one failed plan vs. another as if it really maters. It doesn't. Neither plan went into effect and now we have to wait for details of Ryan's new plan before we can talk about something meaningful.

This. Anything that comes from ThinkProgress is an advertisement for socialism, no different than a commercial for toenail fungus medicine except in the product being pitched.

Where were the Republicans when Bush was in power for 8 years?

Oh that's right, spending like drunken sailors.

Fuc#^^$)g hypocrites

That's true of both parties, but in the Republicans' case, it's not only the same party but in many cases it's the same individuals. The Republican Congress did a great job under Clinton; Clinton only vetoed bills when he thought Congress needed to spend more, not less, and the consensus was that the Pubbies had won the battle by making Clinton accept their fiscal responsibility. Many of these same individuals lost all sense of fiscal responsibility once they had a Republican President, which is why so many people have such a hard time believing them now.

The question is now: Are the Republicans ever so slightly better (well, less worse) than the Democrats? Or is whichever party gains Congress inexorably better than the next?

 

[Darwin333]

The one persistent and consistent message from the repubs, no matter what proposed/passed legislation or crooked deal or exposed crime or proven lie or debunked campaign promise and deviously worded Rove inspired propaganda message reveals itself, is that given the slightest opportunity, as witnessed from the last election cycle, they will single-mindedly do everything and anything within their power to make the rich ever more powerful and ever more richer.

The latest overt and blatant grab for more riches and power exploiting the depressed economy they themselves created is all the evidence anyone needs for proof.

This budget proposal is just more fuel being thrown on the fire.

The rich and powerful, who made sure they were well-insulated from the financial mess they put our nation in, are making sure our economy stays in a depressed state until they bring our nation back to the glory days of Bush and Cheney when they will truly turn the screws on the middle class and poor and "get it right" this time around.

Just look what the repubs have done so far given the House and a few more governorships. They've made it very clear what their intentions are and how they're exploiting the sad state of the economy that their buddies created to attack the middle class and the poor.

Balance the budget only now that they've managed to practically ruin it given the six year run they had when they could have done it then, but instead drove us so deep down the hole that it'll take us a whole lot longer than that to fix? And now that they've got some power back they're going to "fix" it by making the rich even richer off the backs of the middle class and the poor?

Good plan.....for the select few. Screw everybody else.

Unfortunately the Dems currently in power are doing the exact same thing. Why do you think those that fraudulently and illegally fucked us out of all that money you talk about not only got to keep their illgotten gains but haven't even come under indictment?

Why do you think they are allowed to continue operating outside of the law?

I hate to break your heart buddy but both parties are owned by the same masters.

 

[Darwin333]

This. Anything that comes from ThinkProgress is an advertisement for socialism, no different than a commercial for toenail fungus medicine except in the product being pitched.


That's true of both parties, but in the Republicans' case, it's not only the same party but in many cases it's the same individuals. The Republican Congress did a great job under Clinton; Clinton only vetoed bills when he thought Congress needed to spend more, not less, and the consensus was that the Pubbies had won the battle by making Clinton accept their fiscal responsibility. Many of these same individuals lost all sense of fiscal responsibility once they had a Republican President, which is why so many people have such a hard time believing them now.

The question is now: Are the Republicans ever so slightly better (well, less worse) than the Democrats? Or is whichever party gains Congress inexorably better than the next?

IMO the only thing we can reasonably hope for is split rule. The opposite party controlling Congress as the party that is in the WH. Oh how sweet gridlock in DC is...

OTOH, in recent history when a single party controls both the WH and Congress all kinds of shit gets fucked up.

 

[Tom]

Good.

The bottom 47% are not paying anything right now.
They need to broaden the tax base.

You really think a person who makes $13000 a year should pay an additional $1600 a year in taxes ?

While a person who makes $1,400,000 pays $215,000 less ?

 

[manimal]

You really think a person who makes $13000 a year should pay an additional $1600 a year in taxes ?

While a person who makes $1,400,000 pays $215,000 less ?

but they are small business owners!!


redistribution of what?


ya....

 

[Naeeldar]

You really think a person who makes $13000 a year should pay an additional $1600 a year in taxes ?

While a person who makes $1,400,000 pays $215,000 less ?

Yes. If you only make $13,000 a year, you are a drain on society. At least this way they'll have to pay some money in order to be a drain on a society.

Most entitlement programs are used by the poor but they pay nothing. I'd rather kick them out of the country. Of course that would make me a heartless robot who lacks compassion but that's more or less true too.

 

[Throckmorton]

Yes. If you only make $13,000 a year, you are a drain on society. At least this way they'll have to pay some money in order to be a drain on a society.

Most entitlement programs are used by the poor but they pay nothing. I'd rather kick them out of the country. Of course that would make me a heartless robot who lacks compassion but that's more or less true too.

WOW. So this is how Republicans think. If you work for an employer creating value and profit for him, but only make $13000 because that's what the employer generously bestows upon you, you are a drain on society. Interesting how that works.

Disgusting.

 

[Tom]

Yes. If you only make $13,000 a year, you are a drain on society. At least this way they'll have to pay some money in order to be a drain on a society.

Most entitlement programs are used by the poor but they pay nothing. I'd rather kick them out of the country. Of course that would make me a heartless robot who lacks compassion but that's more or less true too.

Is there a time of day when you do something that's actually productive ? Because your post is of no real consequence and is therefore a drain on society.

You know that we aren't gong to kick poor people out of the country. And if we did it would cost money to do so. So saying that isn't productive.

You also should know that there aren't many jobs that only pay $13000 a year that aren't in the private sector, which means they are being employed by someone who is profiting from their work. So how is that a drain on society ?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Where were the Republicans when Bush was in power for 8 years?

Oh that's right, spending like drunken sailors.

Fuc#^^$)g hypocrites

Where were the Democrats when Bush was in power? Oh they were spening MORE.

Get over yourself. You live in some la-la land where You'll defend the actions of Democrats even though you're not smart enough to understand what you are saying. You parrot what the Huffington Post or Washing Post tells you.
Where to the point now where we can't kick the can any further down the road. We've reached a brick wall. Spending cuts have to be made. All that will happen though is, Republicans will try to pass cuts, Democrats will not go along and only scream and yell that the republicans are doing it to smite the poor black/brown people in an attempt to get votes.
It's fucking pathetic how sad the Dem party has become. Argueably the most prominant Dem said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
Now the Democrat motto is "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask how they can tax someone else so you don't have to pay for your own shit."

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

How is comparing one party's proposal to the other's not fair? Are the numbers incorrect?

Well if you want to use the term fair. It is completely fair. The rich don't use social services, the poor do. Therefore the poor need to pay more for those services.

That is what fair is. Make the people that use a product pay for it. Those that don't use it, shouldn't pay for it.


But most people like you would rather tax the rich so you don't have to pay your own way. Using justifications like: They're rich, they can afford it.
It's nothing more than jealousy.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Is there a time of day when you do something that's actually productive ? Because your post is of no real consequence and is therefore a drain on society.

You know that we aren't gong to kick poor people out of the country. And if we did it would cost money to do so. So saying that isn't productive.

You also should know that there aren't many jobs that only pay $13000 a year that aren't in the private sector, which means they are being employed by someone who is profiting from their work. So how is that a drain on society ?

These $13,000 a year jobs aren't meant to pay for a family of 4. These are entry level jobs doing very basic tasks. Things for 15-17 year olds to do after school.

I've seen how these "low income" people opperate.
I've witnessed many times people "working" and tell their boss in the checkout line that they can't work any more hours because they'll make to much money and loose out on their government money.

 

[werepossum]

WOW. So this is how Republicans think. If you work for an employer creating value and profit for him, but only make $13000 because that's what the employer generously bestows upon you, you are a drain on society. Interesting how that works.

Disgusting.

Dude, you seriously need to understand basic economic theory. Your salary is not something your employer randomly bestows on you out of the generosity (or lack thereof) of his heart. It's the intersection of what you can demand (and will accept) on the labor market and what your employer has to (and can afford to) pay to get you. If there are lots of people who can do your job, your pay will generally be low no matter where you are employed. Dry wallers are a case in point; within the last two decades dry wallers' wages in my area have been cut almost in half by the influx of illegal aliens who can do drywall with roughly equal results. A ticket booth operator might take in $500/hour, but a huge number of people can do that job with roughly equal results. So outside of government, that's going to be a low paying job. You can increase that pay in various ways - you can work unusually hard (therefore producing more than would be expected); you can develop new, more marketable job skills (thereby reducing your competition while increasing your value); or you can unionize and force your employer to pay more. The last is obviously the worst for society as it creates no additional wealth although it may be a good thing if some other force is acting to slew the market. Coal mines, for instance, used to be literally the only employer in coal towns and had horrible safety records. Weavers in Flanders circa late eighteenth/early nineteenth century were artificially handicapped by the merchant class' virtual monopoly on cloth production.)

If you produce more for your employer than would another person (i.e. you work harder or are smarter or faster) then your employer may pay you more than he'd pay another to do your job. Similarly, an employer may pay more for an employee with a particular non-marketable skill. For instance, a secretary in a law office might be paid more if she has good people skills than her typing and filing ability would otherwise warrant, because she makes the office a better environment. But generally speaking, your pay in a non-government job depends on how many people can do your job. If your skills are quite rare, then you'll make good money even if you produce no profit. A leadburner for instance produces no profit, but makes a ton of money because it's a very rare skill set, so when an employer has to have the services of a leadburner he knows he'll have to pay out the nose.

 

[fskimospy]

Well if you want to use the term fair. It is completely fair. The rich don't use social services, the poor do. Therefore the poor need to pay more for those services.

That is what fair is. Make the people that use a product pay for it. Those that don't use it, shouldn't pay for it.

But most people like you would rather tax the rich so you don't have to pay your own way. Using justifications like: They're rich, they can afford it.
It's nothing more than jealousy.

Or of course you could understand the basic economic principle that the fortunes of the rich in our country are inextricably tied to the fortunes of the poor, and that keeping everyone within some basic level of living standards benefits ALL of society, the rich included. Crime for example, is highly correlated with economic distress, a lack of which we all get something out of.

It's also a frankly bizarre assumption that our system rewards all people equally as to the benefit they provide to society. If that were the case, then your complaint about other people living off the backs of the rich would be much more valid, but it's pretty blindingly obvious that our system doesn't work that way.

Ah well, someday people will realize that putting ever greater amounts of our economic output in the hands of the richest few percent isn't a path to prosperity for us all, but sadly it may take a few more decades of being hit over the head with it until it gets through.

 

[her209]

Well if you want to use the term fair. It is completely fair. The rich don't use social services, the poor do. Therefore the poor need to pay more for those services.

That is what fair is. Make the people that use a product pay for it. Those that don't use it, shouldn't pay for it.

But most people like you would rather tax the rich so you don't have to pay your own way. Using justifications like: They're rich, they can afford it.
It's nothing more than jealousy.

The rich definitely benefit from social services. For example, lets take lots of someones making $13,000 and is on welfare. If the poor people on welfare didn't have enough money to buy food from the grocery store, do you think the rich person or people who own the grocery store make as much money? Of course not.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The rich definitely benefit from social services. For example, lets take lots of someones making $13,000 and is on welfare. If the poor people on welfare didn't have enough money to buy food from the grocery store, do you think the rich person or people who own the grocery store make as much money? Of course not.

The dirty little secret is the rich have figured out they can make more profit on less revenue. So they rather keep poor folks priced out of the market altogether than keep prices low enough to get those sales. It's the same story in trying to keep tax revenue that would otherwise go for social services that would allow poor folks to buy their products.

 

[werepossum]

The rich definitely benefit from social services. For example, lets take lots of someones making $13,000 and is on welfare. If the poor people on welfare didn't have enough money to buy food from the grocery store, do you think the rich person or people who own the grocery store make as much money? Of course not.

Since the rich (or at least high wage earners) pay a huge fraction of income taxes, it's going to be hard to argue that rich people are benefiting from having their money taken and a portion of it later returned in exchange for goods or services, since before the taxes the rich had all their money.

Personally I'm all for setting up society to make labor much more attractive and outsourcing much less so. I'm also very much against government seizing money and redistributing it. Unfortunately those with the resources to benefit from importing cheap labor and using cheap out-sourced labor are also the people who have the money to buy politicians.

 

[Throckmorton]

The red box is a comparison between Rand's proposal and Obama's. Not exactly a fair comparison, unless you are a Democrat of course.

How about a comparison between the current system and Rand's which might be a little more honest.

Yes, we should compare the GOP's tax proposal to Khadafi's. It's only fair.

 

[Throckmorton]

Since the rich (or at least high wage earners) pay a huge fraction of income taxes, it's going to be hard to argue that rich people are benefiting from having their money taken and a portion of it later returned in exchange for goods or services, since before the taxes the rich had all their money.

Personally I'm all for setting up society to make labor much more attractive and outsourcing much less so. I'm also very much against government seizing money and redistributing it. Unfortunately those with the resources to benefit from importing cheap labor and using cheap out-sourced labor are also the people who have the money to buy politicians.

How about this-- without the taxes being used for social services, infrastructure, public education, etc, the rich would be living in a third world nation, and they would be much less rich... if at all.

 

[matt0611]

How about this-- without the taxes being used for social services, infrastructure, public education, etc, the rich would be living in a third world nation, and they would be much less rich... if at all.

Because we could not possibly educate ourselves without the government right? please...

They've done a bang up job with education haven't they?

 

[Naeeldar]

WOW. So this is how Republicans think. If you work for an employer creating value and profit for him, but only make $13000 because that's what the employer generously bestows upon you, you are a drain on society. Interesting how that works.

Disgusting.

I'm actually an independent. I vote for whoever will enact the least amount of change. My preference is to have the entire govt in a deadlock with a nice mix of Republicans and Democrats. With more repubs in congress and possibly in the senate now, I'd rather have Obama relected again even if I'm not a huge fan. Too much power in any single party is bad. They are both slaves to their parties.

As to my comment - I wonder how much of the $13,000 in income is wellfare type progams. $13,000 a year is just plain sad. I brought in that much working during junioir/senior year of high school.

Anyway I warned you my post lacked compassion. I don't have any. Life is tough deal with it.

 

[Throckmorton]

Dude, you seriously need to understand basic economic theory. Your salary is not something your employer randomly bestows on you out of the generosity (or lack thereof) of his heart. It's the intersection of what you can demand (and will accept) on the labor market and what your employer has to (and can afford to) pay to get you. If there are lots of people who can do your job, your pay will generally be low no matter where you are employed. Dry wallers are a case in point; within the last two decades dry wallers' wages in my area have been cut almost in half by the influx of illegal aliens who can do drywall with roughly equal results. A ticket booth operator might take in $500/hour, but a huge number of people can do that job with roughly equal results. So outside of government, that's going to be a low paying job. You can increase that pay in various ways - you can work unusually hard (therefore producing more than would be expected); you can develop new, more marketable job skills (thereby reducing your competition while increasing your value); or you can unionize and force your employer to pay more. The last is obviously the worst for society as it creates no additional wealth although it may be a good thing if some other force is acting to slew the market. Coal mines, for instance, used to be literally the only employer in coal towns and had horrible safety records. Weavers in Flanders circa late eighteenth/early nineteenth century were artificially handicapped by the merchant class' virtual monopoly on cloth production.)

If you produce more for your employer than would another person (i.e. you work harder or are smarter or faster) then your employer may pay you more than he'd pay another to do your job. Similarly, an employer may pay more for an employee with a particular non-marketable skill. For instance, a secretary in a law office might be paid more if she has good people skills than her typing and filing ability would otherwise warrant, because she makes the office a better environment. But generally speaking, your pay in a non-government job depends on how many people can do your job. If your skills are quite rare, then you'll make good money even if you produce no profit. A leadburner for instance produces no profit, but makes a ton of money because it's a very rare skill set, so when an employer has to have the services of a leadburner he knows he'll have to pay out the nose.

I was being sarcastic... Republicans seem to think wages are charity and we should be praying at the feet of the rich because they 'create jobs' out of divine benevolence.

My point is that the person is employed because he's providing a valuable service for someone. That's not leeching on society.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm actually an independent. I vote for whoever will enact the least amount of change. My preference is to have the entire govt in a deadlock with a nice mix of Republicans and Democrats. With more repubs in congress and possibly in the senate now, I'd rather have Obama relected again even if I'm not a huge fan. Too much power in any single party is bad. They are both slaves to their parties.

As to my comment - I wonder how much of the $13,000 in income is wellfare type progams. $13,000 a year is just plain sad. I brought in that much working during junioir/senior year of high school.

Anyway I warned you my post lacked compassion. I don't have any. Life is tough deal with it.

Ahh the life of an internet tough guy. Although I don't believe you when you say you lack compassion (much more likely you just haven't been shown the consequences of such a decision for everyone), but your ideas are terrible from a straight policy standpoint, compassion is not necessary to see why implementing them would be a catastrophically bad plan.

Oh, and since we're talking about taxes, the answer for that income is none of it. Welfare payments aren't taxable income.