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

[Zebo]

How have the GOP been able to convince people to vote against their own best interests for the past 30 years? It is amazing.

I dunno, ask Moonie, he's an expert on self hate.

 

[boomerang]

Why would the people need education? They did jobs that didn't require formal education. Stop trying to compare how things were and then extrapolate out to today how things would be today without big government, how we would all be working in a mine somewhere for $1 / day while all the elderly people were dying on the streets blah blah blah without our government to save us. Its getting so old.
Interesting how the things that the government has a hand in the most all have huge problems, education, SS, healthcare, etc


You know what was hard to afford a long time ago? Almost anything, only the wealthy could afford cars, air conditioners, computers, flat screen tvs, radios, to fly on an airplane etc
Now even the poorest among us can afford them, We didn't have government mandated any of that though? Hmmm... funny how that works?

This is why a prolonged government shutdown would be about the best thing that could happen right now. The big government zombies would freak out to see the sun still rising every morning.

What the government manages turns to shit. That's something the lefties will never understand. It's all unicorns and rainbows to them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ryan plan is released - 6 Trillion in cuts.

"We don't have a tax problem," Ryan said on Sunday. "We have got to stop spending money we don't have."

 

[yllus]

Since the last graph attracted so much comment, here's a piece I again saw on my morning commute in from Yglesias:

Paul Ryan's Tax Plan Based On Discredited Heritage Foundation Analysis That Forecast Bush Boom

One particular laugh line from Paul Ryan’s budget proposal is his citation of the Heritage Foundation as the analytic basis for his claim that it will boost growth:

A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritage’s analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year.

I wonder if the Heritage Foundation has ever looked at the myriad benefits of tax cuts for the rich before. It turns out they have! Specifically, they promised us that George W Bush’s tax policies would lead the country into a brave new era of prosperity:

In fact by the end of 2009, payroll employment in the United States was back down to 2001 levels despite population growth.

Heritage also claimed Bush’s tax cuts would boost tax revenue (“the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010&#8243 when in fact it led to record deficits, and they promised a surge in personal income when in fact we got the worst income performance ever:

So keep in mind that this is the metric by which Paul Ryan wants you to judge him. If you believe George W Bush unleashed an unprecedented economic boom with great jobs performance, rising incomes, and the paying off of the national debt then you’ll find a lot to like about Rep Ryan’s plan.

 

[sunzt]

Quick question:

What are Ryan's qualifications to lead a national economic debt reduction proposal such as this one? I know he has a BA in economics, but that really doesn't say much.

I see that he looked at the costs side of the equation, but did he consider the revenue side as well? Any reasonable debt reduction plan of this scale shouldn't be limited to just cost cutting, and likely won't be practical just through cost cutting.

 

[jonks]

This is why a prolonged government shutdown would be about the best thing that could happen right now.

Gingrich would agree with you, which is odd given the last one essentially cost him any credibility he had, cemented Clinton's fiscal legacy and is credited with propelling his reelection victory.

http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Gingrich-We-won-in-government-shutdown-not-1030538.php

 

[boomerang]

Quick question:

What are Ryan's qualifications to lead a national economic debt reduction proposal such as this one? I know he has a BA in economics, but that really doesn't say much.

I see that he looked at the costs side of the equation, but did he consider the revenue side as well? Any reasonable debt reduction plan of this scale shouldn't be limited to just cost cutting, and likely won't be practical just through cost cutting.

He has said as much and there are videos out there where he states that. Nobody has linked to his plan or posted anything related to it yet except some year old charts. Oh, and some hearsay.

Here, I just found this but don't have time to look at it right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwv5EbxXSmE

 

[sunzt]

He has said as much and there are videos out there where he states that. Nobody has linked to his plan or posted anything related to it yet except some year old charts. Oh, and some hearsay.

Here, I just found this but don't have time to look at it right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwv5EbxXSmE

Link pretty much says he's gonna fix the deficit by spending cuts... no mention of revenue side changes. Maybe he's implying that he will close corporate tax loopholes since he offers to reduce corporate tax rates too? Perhaps that may have a net gain in revenue? Pfft who knows.

Whatever, we're f'd.

 

[Jaskalas]

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

Oh that's right, spending like drunken sailors.

Fuc#^^$)g hypocrites

WITH those 'extreme' cuts, they'd still be spending MORE than Bush.

 

[spidey07]

He's making a bid for Pres I'd guess, and it's going to work. Excellent budget plan.

 

[Carmen813]

A plan that fails to address military spending is neither bold nor courageous.

 

[werepossum]

But at the same time, if the rich got to keep their money instead of paying it to the government in the form of higher taxes, the demand for their products would go down because people have less money to spend and/or the prices of their products would go down to make it affordable. And that would cause the stores owners to lay off employees and/or closing stores. But you'd think that the remaining low-wage-formerly-on-welfare employees would demand and get higher wages, right? Not necessarily. Why? Because now you have all the laid off workers competing for the jobs, and possibly driving down wages more.

Can't argue with that. My argument is with the concept that the rich are better off because government takes their money and gives it to others, which is unarguably not true. Without government redistribution, a storeowner would face lower demand and get only some of what he would normally earn, but he'd always be ahead because he'd start with all of what was previously taken in taxes.

There's a reason it's called theory werepossum. The real world hardly ever works this way. In fact, the people who are wealthiest are those who often produce almost nothing. There are innumerable variables that factor into how wages are set, and how "hard" a person works isn't the dominant one. That's simply the myth of meritocracy.


I think it's misguided to attack government jobs when they often pay less than their private sector counterparts.

The two dominant forces in determining wages are clearly how desirable society finds your job, and how many people can do your job. If you have scarce job skills in something society does not value nor find necessary (e.g. flint knapping) then your pay likely will be low. If you have job skills that society finds valuable but the number of qualified applicants is very high compared to the number required, then your pay likely will be low. However, the article is pointing out that the relative size of government is out of what compared to wealth-producing jobs, not arguing that government jobs are overcompensated. I think however that outside of government or union environments, the value of hard work is overlooked by most people. Far too often people sneer at those who work harder as "sucking up". People who leave at the crack of five o'clock tend to devalue others who work harder.

Look at it this way. There are material things we all need and/or want: Housing, transportation, clothing, food, entertainment devices, medical devices and drugs, infrastructure to make these things operate. The higher the proportion of people within a society who are making these things, the more of them we can all have. There are also services we all need and/or want: Education, personal service (like waiters and tax preparers), paving, house painting, Internet access, medical services. Some of these services (education notably) government provides, but the majority are furnished by the private sector. Again, the higher the proportion of people within a society who are providing these services, the more of them we can all have. Government to a very large degree does not directly provide either the products or the services we want, so the more people employed in government, the fewer goods and services are produced by that society and the poorer that society must be.

 

[Siddhartha]

Since the last graph attracted so much comment, here's a piece I again saw on my morning commute in from Yglesias:

Paul Ryan's Tax Plan Based On Discredited Heritage Foundation Analysis That Forecast Bush Boom

Bump

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Link pretty much says he's gonna fix the deficit by spending cuts... no mention of revenue side changes. Maybe he's implying that he will close corporate tax loopholes since he offers to reduce corporate tax rates too? Perhaps that may have a net gain in revenue? Pfft who knows.

Whatever, we're f'd.

No tax increases.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42433320/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Still, despite cuts already deemed draconian by Democrats, Ryan's plan can't claim a balanced budget by the end of the decade because of promises to not increase taxes or change federal retirement benefits for people 55 and over.

Under 55?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42420994/ns/politics/

The plan would replace the current open-ended system of Medicare payments with one in which the federal government would subsidize people to purchase insurance. In health insurance jargon, this is called “premium support.”

Ryan would set up a system called “the Medicare exchange” in which beneficiaries would choose an insurance plan they preferred.

 

[First]

He's making a bid for Pres I'd guess, and it's going to work. Excellent budget plan.

If healthcare passes the economy will tank. - spidey 2009

Fail.

 

[CitizenKain]

Why would the people need education? They did jobs that didn't require formal education.

Many jobs require an educated workforce. I'm sure you and rest of the people at Jiffylube have managed without however.

 

[QuantumPion]

Fail.

True, the economy was already in the tank. The health care bill just ensured it stayed there.

 

[Tom]

Can't argue with that. My argument is with the concept that the rich are better off because government takes their money and gives it to others, which is unarguably not true. Without government redistribution, a storeowner would face lower demand and get only some of what he would normally earn, but he'd always be ahead because he'd start with all of what was previously taken in taxes.


The two dominant forces in determining wages are clearly how desirable society finds your job, and how many people can do your job. If you have scarce job skills in something society does not value nor find necessary (e.g. flint knapping) then your pay likely will be low. If you have job skills that society finds valuable but the number of qualified applicants is very high compared to the number required, then your pay likely will be low. However, the article is pointing out that the relative size of government is out of what compared to wealth-producing jobs, not arguing that government jobs are overcompensated. I think however that outside of government or union environments, the value of hard work is overlooked by most people. Far too often people sneer at those who work harder as "sucking up". People who leave at the crack of five o'clock tend to devalue others who work harder.

Look at it this way. There are material things we all need and/or want: Housing, transportation, clothing, food, entertainment devices, medical devices and drugs, infrastructure to make these things operate. The higher the proportion of people within a society who are making these things, the more of them we can all have. There are also services we all need and/or want: Education, personal service (like waiters and tax preparers), paving, house painting, Internet access, medical services. Some of these services (education notably) government provides, but the majority are furnished by the private sector. Again, the higher the proportion of people within a society who are providing these services, the more of them we can all have. Government to a very large degree does not directly provide either the products or the services we want, so the more people employed in government, the fewer goods and services are produced by that society and the poorer that society must be.

You have some good points, but for some reason you don't seem to look at government as rationally as you look at other things.

The storeowner is better off paying taxes than not paying taxes, to the extent the government is doing things that benefit him. And mostly, that's what government does.

All government is, is a way to organize people to provide goods and services, mostly services in our world, that people need. Which is also what a private company is.

The biggest difference is a private company works for the benefit of it's owners, and it's success is measured as profit. That makes it a lot less complicated, it's only got to satisfy some people, and it's fairly easy to see if it's working.

Government also provides goods and services, but it does so for the entire society. Which means it does some things that some people need and others dont, or the other way around. And the people who dont need some particular service, see that as waste. Sometimes the benefit isn't direct either. Like providing mental health seems like a waste, until a looney hijacks a plane and crashes it into your house. We don't need food inspectors, until your family member gets sick from rat poo in the peanut butter.

And it isn't always easy to measure the success or failure of government. Like kids not learning in school; is that because government is doing something wrong ? Or is it something about our culture that makes kids unteachable ?

The whole thing can be frustrating, even for someone who believes in government. So I understand people's loathing for government. But the reality is, government is the best way to do some things, and the only way to do some things. And we have to accept that, and pay for it, and stop taking for granted what government does for us while passing on the cost to someone else, like future generations.

 

[Hacp]

You need to cut the line on old people. I'm sorry but their time has gone. If they get cancer and they can't afford the care, guess what? They can't have it! I'm tired of having to pay for the health insurance of old people.

 

[Hacp]

You have some good points, but for some reason you don't seem to look at government as rationally as you look at other things.

The storeowner is better off paying taxes than not paying taxes, to the extent the government is doing things that benefit him. And mostly, that's what government does.

All government is, is a way to organize people to provide goods and services, mostly services in our world, that people need. Which is also what a private company is.

The biggest difference is a private company works for the benefit of it's owners, and it's success is measured as profit. That makes it a lot less complicated, it's only got to satisfy some people, and it's fairly easy to see if it's working.

Government also provides goods and services, but it does so for the entire society. Which means it does some things that some people need and others dont, or the other way around. And the people who dont need some particular service, see that as waste. Sometimes the benefit isn't direct either. Like providing mental health seems like a waste, until a looney hijacks a plane and crashes it into your house. We don't need food inspectors, until your family member gets sick from rat poo in the peanut butter.

And it isn't always easy to measure the success or failure of government. Like kids not learning in school; is that because government is doing something wrong ? Or is it something about our culture that makes kids unteachable ?

The whole thing can be frustrating, even for someone who believes in government. So I understand people's loathing for government. But the reality is, government is the best way to do some things, and the only way to do some things. And we have to accept that, and pay for it, and stop taking for granted what government does for us while passing on the cost to someone else, like future generations.

No problem with government here. I do have a problem with overpaid government employees(almost all of them) and also welfare programs that transfer wealth. Police and firefighters? Sure, we need them but don't pay them 100K plus and a pension and give them free healthcare. That is too much.

 

[First]

You need to cut the line on old people. I'm sorry but their time has gone. If they get cancer and they can't afford the care, guess what? They can't have it! I'm tired of having to pay for the health insurance of old people.

You don't pay for anything, you leech off mom and dad.

 

[Siddhartha]

Many jobs require an educated workforce. I'm sure you and rest of the people at Jiffylube have managed without however.

The US can import educated people from India and China or even better, import all jobs requiring higher education to China and India.

 

[First]

True, the economy was already in the tank. The health care bill just ensured it stayed there.

The 2M+ jobs created since then says you're wrong.

 

[Tom]

No problem with government here. I do have a problem with overpaid government employees(almost all of them) and also welfare programs that transfer wealth. Police and firefighters? Sure, we need them but don't pay them 100K plus and a pension and give them free healthcare. That is too much.

I agree government can get out of whack, and we need to apply forces to keep costs down to make up for the lack of profit motive for controlling costs.

"Transfer of wealth". Every transaction that occurs is a "transfer of wealth" of some sort. Anybody who's rich, has had wealth transferred to them, somehow.

I object to the use of that phrase, not by you particularly but by anyone, when what they really mean is, it's poor people's fault they are poor, leave me alone.

 

[Red Dawn]

You don't pay for anything, you leech off mom and dad.

And his roommate

 

[jonks]

Why would the people need education? They did jobs that didn't require formal education.

Why is education a good? That's your question? Really? Why is history important? Why is social mobility important? Why is class mobility important? Everyone should just do the job their father did? This is what you are really asking? Man, if you're the product of public schooling I think I really do need to reevaluate my position on it.

Stop trying to compare how things were and then extrapolate out to today how things would be today without big government, how we would all be working in a mine somewhere for $1 / day while all the elderly people were dying on the streets blah blah blah without our government to save us. Its getting so old.
Interesting how the things that the government has a hand in the most all have huge problems, education, SS, healthcare, etc

You're so right. In 1959 35% of seniors lived in poverty and today an albeit imperfect SS system has lowered that number to under 10%. It's so old hearing that shit. I know, we should pretend it never happened. Let's imagine a world where we did nothing and in 1961 all the old people won the lottery and lived happily ever after. Yay!!! That was fun!

You know what was hard to afford a long time ago? Almost anything, only the wealthy could afford cars, air conditioners, computers, flat screen tvs, radios, to fly on an airplane etc
Now even the poorest among us can afford them, We didn't have government mandated any of that though? Hmmm... funny how that works?

Yes, it's funny how the wealth inequality in this country (which skyrockets under republicans) has continued to splinter until the top 400 people have wealth equivolent to the bottom 50 million people. Funny how that works. Why you think this is sustainable or even preferable is not comprehensible to me.