New Paul Ryan Budget

[Jack V Savage]

This comment makes no sense and defies logic.

Why would the poor and middle class Tea Partiers support "big business and wealth at the top"? How does that possibly help them? I'll answer that... it doesn't.

Yes, that's exactly what BA and HN were saying. You're saying that it is impossible for anyone to irrationally support policies, which is obviously not the case.

Could it be more that they are concerned about massive entitlement spending and Government fiscal irresponsibility? Its the ideological concept between big and small government.

But aren't "massive entitlement spending" and "Gov't fiscal irresponsibility" mostly meaningless phrases that propagandists use in place of doing serious analysis to answer real questions (Should taxes be higher or lower? What taxes? Should any specific programs be cut? Why or why not? Etc.)?

I like the name calling from the left... "morons" , "stupid".

"Stupid" isn't a name; it's an adjective. And, yes, bumpkins who are conned by Ryan are generally not the cognitive elite here.

Also whats worse... Ryan actually proposing a partisan budget or the Democratic Senate NOT releasing a budget for FOUR years?

Weird question. Ryan's doing what he does. Obviously his proposal is not serious, but it sets the agenda for his party and markets him to Republicans. Nothing wrong with him doing that, and nothing wrong with noting its unseriousness or opposing that agenda. And it makes no difference at all if the gov't is getting funded through CRs or budgets. Like, literally. There's no difference.

 

[TheComebackKid]

vote for your own interests or you are stupid. wouldn't you agree?

Sure but determining what is in ones best interests depends in part on the scope that person is using. If the scope is only on yourself and what is good for you today, this very moment...well yeah, maybe we should all just vote ourselves money and benefits every election. But if your scope is a little bigger and you're thinking about your country as a whole and what the country will be in 10, 20, 30 yrs when your kids and grand kids are living in it then its probably not in your best interest to vote yourself money and benefits every election if you believe it will eventually become a detriment to the country as a whole.

Plus I've seen you state a few times that you make $250k, or something like that, a year. Why aren't you voting Republican then...you stupid or something?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sure but determining what is in ones best interests depends in part on the scope that person is using. If the scope is only on yourself and what is good for you today, this very moment...well yeah, maybe we should all just vote ourselves money and benefits every election. But if your scope is a little bigger and you're thinking about your country as a whole and what the country will be in 10, 20, 30 yrs when your kids and grand kids are living in it then its probably not in your best interest to vote yourself money and benefits every election if you believe it will eventually become a detriment to the country as a whole.

Plus I've seen you state a few times that you make $250k, or something like that, a year. Why aren't you voting Republican then...you stupid or something?

He'd have to be making a lot more than that to benefit from Republican policy. But more to the point, it doesn't cut both ways. If someone favors a party that hurts 99% of Americans and he's not part of that 99%, he's probably being duped. If someone favors policy that benefits 99% of the population and he's not in that group, yeah, he's probably just civic-minded.

 

[Denter]

No, hence the thread. If Republicans were really concerned about fiscal responsibility we wouldn't see proposals to cut taxes for the wealthy and for big business, proposals to increase or maintain this astronomical level of defense spending, subsidies for big oil, etc. etc..

And the budget includes things like cutting welfare spending by $5b over ten years. It's obviously immaterial but it gets right wingers hard when they screw over poor people.

Fiscal responsibility my ass.

You think current defense spending is astronomical?

 

[Denter]

vote for your own interests or you are stupid. wouldn't you agree?

Wouldn't it be in your interest to impose a 90% wealth tax on the "rich" and give it to the "poor", thus elevating those poor people into the "middle class" which everyone knows is the backbone of real prosperity. If you tax the rich enough, 100% of the population can be middle class. Who wouldn't vote for that?

 

[Denter]

Paul Ryan's budget is and always will be a PR tool to further his political career. It has a snowballs chance in hell of passing. He knows it, we know it, everyone knows it. But as long as it gets enough media attention and plays well with the right constituencies then it has served its purpose until next year.

Like Obama's election year budget?

 

[Jack V Savage]

You think current defense spending is astronomical?

It's all relative, isn't it? It's certainly much higher, fattier and less useful than the stuff that Ryan wants to cut.

Wouldn't it be in your interest to impose a 90% wealth tax on the "rich" and give it to the "poor", thus elevating those poor people into the "middle class" which everyone knows is the backbone of real prosperity. If you tax the rich enough, 100% of the population can be middle class. Who wouldn't vote for that?

It's not in anyone's interest to be playing a constant shell game with wealth. But we did have a 90% income tax, and it did lead to a huge expansion of the middle class. People aren't actually advocating that, for a variety of reasons, but it's funny that you say that given our history as a nation.

Like Obama's election year budget?

Um, sort of. Would you expect people to disagree with that?

 

[kpt018]

You think current defense spending is astronomical?

Relative to our overall spending and the defense spending of other countries, yes, the defense budget is astronomical.

Don't get me wrong, I do think we should have a powerful military and strong defense. But Republicans won't put defense spending on the table, at all it seems.

 

[__Big_D__]

The tea party is absolutely pathetic. These guys need to be kicked out of office.

 

[djacobox372]

It's strange that people see the deficit as a only spending problem, debt is only created if you spend more than you take in. So there's always two ways to solve a debt problem.

If you look at federal spending vs. GDP you'll see that we're currently spending at about the same levels as we did throughout the conservative 1980's. The fact that we're running more severe deficits is due to less taxation.

Of course the 80's aren't the model for spending, as deficits were run every year--the 90's are a better model, but the difference between the two was more revenue based than spending based. Revenue in the 90's was the result of two things, a booming economy AND higher taxes. If the paul ryan's of the world had their way in the early 90's we would have never balanced the budget.

 

[Denter]

It's all relative, isn't it? It's certainly much higher, fattier and less useful than the stuff that Ryan wants to cut.



It's not in anyone's interest to be playing a constant shell game with wealth. But we did have a 90% income tax, and it did lead to a huge expansion of the middle class. People aren't actually advocating that, for a variety of reasons, but it's funny that you say that given our history as a nation.



Um, sort of. Would you expect people to disagree with that?

You think that 90% tax rate is what lead to the middle class, not a massive increase in spending and manufacturing during WW2 and its aftermath?

Red: Defense definitely has utility, like insuring the safety of international shipping and maintaining world peace. Its probably too high, but it's usefulness is hard to measure, like insurance or something; when you need it, you absolutely need it. When you don't need it, its a waste of money.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You think that 90% tax rate is what lead to the middle class, not a massive increase in spending and manufacturing during WW2 and its aftermath?

It was a contributor, for sure. As was the GI Bill was another big contributor and the WWII expansion, sure. Wasn't the whole story, but it was an important part of it. I thought your comment was kind of funny in that light.

Red: Defense definitely has utility, like insuring the safety of international shipping and maintaining world peace. Its probably too high, but it's usefulness is hard to measure, like insurance or something; when you need it, you absolutely need it. When you don't need it, its a waste of money.

"Defense" certainly has utility, but did you notice when I said "less" "ers" and "than"? That was to indicate that I was comparing it to something. Does anyone really--really--think that an extra $50 billion in defense spending would go further than an extra $50 billion in educational aid or safety net spending? Or that cutting $50B from defense would have a bigger negative impact than cutting $50B in those other things?

 

[UpaLoompa]

If you look at federal spending vs. GDP you'll see that we're currently spending at about the same levels as we did throughout the conservative 1980's. The fact that we're running more severe deficits is due to less taxation.

Are we running more severe deficits relative to GDP?

 

[Denter]

It was a contributor, for sure. As was the GI Bill was another big contributor and the WWII expansion, sure. Wasn't the whole story, but it was an important part of it. I thought your comment was kind of funny in that light.



"Defense" certainly has utility, but did you notice when I said "less" "ers" and "than"? That was to indicate that I was comparing it to something. Does anyone really--really--think that an extra $50 billion in defense spending would go further than an extra $50 billion in educational aid or safety net spending? Or that cutting $50B from defense would have a bigger negative impact than cutting $50B in those other things?

It depends- if a 50 billion defense program that is essential to winning the next war is cut now, it will have a much bigger effect than throwing another $50 billion on education, which shows very little RoI when money is thrown at it.

 

[o'dubhlaoich]

I'm all for getting our deficit cut, but why take money from low income people and not freeze congressional and senate wages? Or cut foreign aid to terrorists? Or cut government pensions?

I see welfare, the pell grants, and the like as the only bone low income people get thrown all the while big business is always sitting pretty.

Yup. But the idiots who vote for them will see the words budget and cuts and think winner.

 

[Rhood]

It depends- if a 50 billion defense program that is essential to winning the next war is cut now, it will have a much bigger effect than throwing another $50 billion on education.

Oh shut up!
Winning the next war? What "next war" are you talking about?

Why don't you a quit being a Soviet Communist and start becoming an American Patriot for once in your life.

 

[Denter]

Oh shut up!
Winning the next war? What "next war" are you talking about?

Why don't you a quit being a Soviet Communist and start becoming an American Patriot for once in your life.

?

Red: Whichever war happens to occur. Do you think there will be no more wars?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Are we running more severe deficits relative to GDP?

At the peak, it was higher than in any year during the 1980s. Last year's 4.1% was lower than a lot of the '80s. The CBO is projecting 2.1% in 2015 (note that if deficits are smaller than *nominal* GDP growth, that means that the misleading debt/GDP ratio that everyone loves is falling), and I'm not sure if it got that low during the '80s (for some reason, I can only find the info on the '80s in chart form, and the scales and labeling make it tough to read).

It depends- if a 50 billion defense program that is essential to winning the next war is cut now, it will have a much bigger effect than throwing another $50 billion on education, which shows very little RoI when money is thrown at it.

Um, OK. So you're saying that it's hypothetically possible for $50B in defense spending to be more impactful than $50B in another kind of spending I didn't ask about. What about my question?

BTW, good piece on the Ryan budget from the CBPP:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4115

 

[UpaLoompa]

At the peak, it was higher than in any year during the 1980s. Last year's 4.1% was lower than a lot of the '80s. The CBO is projecting 2.1% in 2015 (note that if deficits are smaller than *nominal* GDP growth, that means that the misleading debt/GDP ratio that everyone loves is falling), and I'm not sure if it got that low during the '80s (for some reason, I can only find the info on the '80s in chart form, and the scales and labeling make it tough to read).

Thanks.

 

[Denter]

Um, OK. So you're saying that it's hypothetically possible for $50B in defense spending to be more impactful than $50B in another kind of spending I didn't ask about. What about my question?

You asked if anyone really believed that 50 billion in defense spending could be more impactful than 50 billion in education spending. I think it is a reasonable opinion to believe it is. Education spending is peaking while test scores are much lower than when fewer dollars were spent on it.

Defense is always a judgment call. If we knew there would be no wars in the next century, having an army bigger than Swedens would be a waste of money. Defense is like insurance- its hard to measure how valuable it really is.