Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Paul Ryan

75 posts in this topic

Posted

off track...but here's your boy Krugman

He's completely assinine and pompous.

Lol, you think that's pompous?

:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Too courageous.

What you say in jest rings with truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Lol, you think that's pompous?

:confused:

You're also of the opinion that we, the United States, aren't socialist because we're all racists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You're also of the opinion that we, the United States, aren't socialist because we're all racists?

wow. not even close to what he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You're also of the opinion that we, the United States, aren't socialist because we're all racists?

wow. not even close to what he said.

^ This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm paraphrasing because he adds nuance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm paraphrasing because he adds nuance.

:svengo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

back on the subject...

http://www.slate.com/id/2290509/

Jacob Weisberg...NPR dude...co-author with Robert Rubin...

he's got an opinion on Ryan's endeavor.

For the past 30 years, Republicans have been hypocrites about spending. They've raged against big government without ever proposing the kinds of cuts necessary to bring federal expenditures in line with tax revenues. Democrats have been more fiscally responsible, producing an actual budget surplus during Bill Clinton's second term. But they've been little better than Republicans when it comes to confronting the nation's long-term fiscal imbalance, which is driven by the projected growth in entitlement spending.

now that that's out of the way...

If the GOP gets behind his proposals in a serious way, it will become for the first time in modern memory an intellectually serious party—one with a coherent vision to match its rhetoric of limited government. Democrats are within their rights to point out the negative effects of Ryan's proposed cuts on future retirees, working families, and the poor. He was not specific about many of his cuts, and Democrats have a political opportunity in filling in the blanks. But the ball is now in their court, and it will be hard to take them seriously if they don't respond with their own alternative path to debt reduction and long-term solvency.

And before they reject everything in Ryan's plan, liberals might want to consider whether some of what he proposes doesn't in fact serve their own ultimate goals. Ryan's proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher provides an easy political target. But it's hard to make a principled liberal case for the program in its current form. To do so, you have to argue that government-paid health care should be a right only for people over the age of 65, and for no one else. Medicare covers doctor and hospital bills at 100 percent, regardless of income. This gives doctors and patients an incentive to maximize their use of the system and waste public resources. Choosing to pay 100 percent of Warren Buffett's medical bills while cutting Head Start reflects a strange set of social priorities, to say the least.

Ryan's alternative to Medicare hardly seems as terrible as Paul Krugman makes out. Seniors would enter the health care world the rest of us live in, with co-payments, deductibles and managed care. Eventually, cost control would require some tough decisions about end-of-life care and the rationing of high-tech treatments that have limited efficacy. But starting with a value of $15,000 per year, per senior—the amount government now spends on Medicare—Ryan's vouchers should provide excellent coverage. His change would amount to a minor amendment to the social contract, not a fundamental revision of it.

Krugman's mentioned...

He has his qualms about Ryan's proposal regarding "sleight-of-hand tricks" uses, but he's at least admitting that Ryan's "intelectually serious" plan puts the ball in the democrats court.

Has anyone seen the "serious" future forecasts from the Senate or Obama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This will never fly because rationing health care is socialist and we just can't take that chance now, can we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think the biggest impediment to doing what has to be done is public opinion. If you poll the American people, they say they want to get the debt under control, they want to reduce the deficit. Then you start asking specific question about what might be done. They first of all say "well, don't touch entitlements." That's 60% of federal spending. Next they say "don't touch defense." That's another 20% Then they say "don't touch the revenue side of the equation at all." Even if it's tax reform that lowers rates, they say "don't do that." The only thing that enjoys majority support among the American people in terms of spending cuts is to cut foreign aid. Foreign aid is less than 1% of the federal budget.

Hrmm

Also: This came true too right?

samuelson.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

For the last three decades, nearly all the gains of economic growth have gone to the tiny sliver of people at the top of the income scale. The challenge for policymakers is how to restore opportunity for middle- and lower-income Americans by once again widening the path of prosperity. Unfortunately, Chairman Ryan’s plan would narrow it further.

For the wealthy, Ryan’s proposals are pure gold:

A typical hedge fund manager would benefit from Ryan’s extension of the Bush tax cuts for high-income people; the average person making at least $1 million a year would get $125,000 a year in tax breaks.

Heirs to multi-million-dollar estates would benefit from Ryan’s estate tax proposal, which would let them inherit the first $10 million in estate value entirely tax-free.

High-income investors would benefit from Ryan’s elimination of Medicare taxes on their investment income.

And large numbers of high earners would benefit from Ryan’s call to cut the top rate to 25 percent, the lowest in 80 years.

But for working families, whose living standards have stagnated in recent decades, Ryan’s plan seems designed to make it harder for them to help their children have a better life.

... The Ryan plan would:

slash Pell Grants, which help low- and moderate-income kids pay for college (Ryan says the program has been growing “recklessly”);

slash federal aid to states, which would probably have to respond by imposing large tuition hikes for community colleges and public universities;

and kill recent improvements in the American Opportunity Tax Credit that have made it available to the people who need it most — those from lower-income families.

“Restoring America’s Promise” is the subtitle of Ryan’s plan, but denying economic opportunity to young people striving to prosper is a strange way to go about that.

6a00d83451b33869e2014e874ab576970d-800wi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You realize how much entitlement spending alone is going to be a % of our budget if it's not turned around?

You're not in favor of welfare reform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites