Paul Ryan's A Roadmap to America's Future

[mogrovejo]

Didn't see a thread about this, so here's a heads-up.

I've already mentioned it in a couple of threads, will be back for a more detailed analysis.

www.americanroadmap.org (http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/)

[SouthernFried]

Everyone means well. He means well...they all "mean" well.

None of them have a clue.

The key to our future...is not govt actions, it's more govt inaction.

EXAMPLE:

He wants govt to offer a tax "credit" that is used soley for health care.

A perfect example of trying to control where people spend their money. They all "mean" well...but, they all want control, and they have no idea what they're doing.

Do you reduce costs in Health care, by giving people a credit to only use for healthcare?

No.

That is govt intervention...and govt intervention always drives costs up. "I have 3000 dollars to only use for healthcare"...how many programs will all of a sudden appear and cost $3000?

"But that's much better than I'm paying now!!"

Not the point. It's people who don't understand free markets...interfering in them for some "noble" purpose. Why are costs so much higher now...you can almost find a 1 to 1 correlation with the increase cost of healthcare and the increasing amount of govt involvement in healthcare.

There is no one out there, that has a plan to "NOT" do something. To "NOT" control some aspect of our lives. To "NOT" control or direct some aspect of Healthcare. Not Democrats, not Republicans.

And neither party know what they are doing. They just feel they need to do "something." None of them have a clue to what they're doing.

And that's why they need to stay out...including this guy.

It's about power and control...it always has been, and it always will be. What do you want in return for giving them that power?

...just ask.

[mogrovejo]

The key to our future...is not govt actions, it's more govt inaction.

Yeps.


Do you reduce costs in Health care, by giving people a credit to only use for healthcare?

No.
Agreed. It's an incentive to spend on health-care, so you're probably increasing costs. All tax exemptions should be terminated.


It's people who don't understand free markets...interfering in them for some "noble" purpose. They don't understand controlled and hyper-regulated markets either. The problem is that free-market solutions aren't perfect - and people generally struggle with the idea that perfection or improvement can't be achieved. That's why you hear so much "yeah, but can the free-market solve this or fix that?", which is, in itself, an absurd question. But people just don't want to deal with the fact that some stuff is simply unfixable by making use of political arrangements or some extraordinary knowledge. Immanentize the eschaton.



There is no one out there, that has a plan to "NOT" do something. To "NOT" control some aspect of our lives. To "NOT" control or direct some aspect of Healthcare. Not Democrats, not Republicans.

And neither party know what they are doing. They just feel they need to do "something." None of them have a clue to what they're doing.
True.


And that's why they need to stay out...including this guy.Unfortunately, politics is the art of possible. This guy compares very favourably with the majority of the republicans, let alone with big government nutjobs like Gingrich or Obama.

[ElNono]

I guess Ryan was one of those guys the Republicans completely ignored when they passed things like Medicare part D, or started unnecessary wars....

I'm sure he means well. I actually read part of the report of the CBO on his 'roadmap'. The problem is that cutting spending the way it's proposed is very difficult to do with the politics involved. And by that I include both Democrats and Republicans.

[Winehole23]

Immanentize the eschaton. http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/08/agog_over_bushs_comments_on_go.html

[ElNono]

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/08/agog_over_bushs_comments_on_go.html

http://skepacabra.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/facepalm.jpg

[Galileo]

Didn't see a thread about this, so here's a heads-up.

I've already mentioned it in a couple of threads, will be back for a more detailed analysis.

www.americanroadmap.org (http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/)

I'm from Wisconsin and Paul Ryan is a complete fraud. He voted for all the bailouts. He is a borrow and spend neocon warmonger. And when he spends, it is on giant banking organizations and the military industrial complex.

[mogrovejo]

I guess Ryan was one of those guys the Republicans completely ignored when they passed things like Medicare part D, or started unnecessary wars.....

How is that relevant, care to explain? It's about the message, not the messenger. The idea that politicians or political parties are unqualified because of errors in the past may sound nice but has no practical value and is nothing more than a rhetorical trick for those who don't want to engage in conversation about the issue - hence the typical "ah, Bush did it too" of these days. I'm going to start noticing if you make this previous statement about democrats as well.

Just out of curiosity, which unnecessary wars? Are you including Afghanistan (I'm not saying it was a necessary war, just wondering)?



I'm sure he means well. I actually read part of the report of the CBO on his 'roadmap'. The problem is that cutting spending the way it's proposed is very difficult to do with the politics involved. And by that I include both Democrats and Republicans.

What's the alternative? Either one is serious about cutting spending and is willing to vote for cutting the funding of popular programs or it's just lip service. Here's an opportunity to find out who is on either side.

In any case, I don't think his proposals are completely unrealistic. I think they can very well be a roadmap for a GOP controlled congress and that a sizeable part of them can get enough popular support to pass on Congress and force Obama to veto.

[ElNono]

How is that relevant, care to explain? It's about the message, not the messenger.

My post had nothing to do with the messenger. It had everything to do with the message.


Just out of curiosity, which unnecessary wars? Are you including Afghanistan (I'm not saying it was a necessary war, just wondering)?

I'm including Afghanistan not because I don't think it was necessary, but because it was started and then it was both underfunded and pretty much forgotten up until about a year ago. So if they didn't have a complete plan for it, there was no reason to start a war there in a half-assed way at that time. So starting it in that way was completely unnecessary.


What's the alternative? Either one is serious about cutting spending and is willing to vote for cutting the funding of popular programs or it's just lip service. Here's an opportunity to find out who is on either side.

That's what that roadmap is. If the TARP voting didn't tell you who those guys are listening to, then you're pretty naive.


In any case, I don't think his proposals are completely unrealistic. I think they can very well be a roadmap for a GOP controlled congress and that a sizeable part of them can get enough popular support to pass on Congress and force Obama to veto.

I think they are well thought out and like I said, he probably means well. But have you ever heard of the 'if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is' mantra? This is lip service to try to shore up part of the electorate, nothing more, nothing less.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/08/agog_over_bushs_comments_on_go.html

So he was more of a classic Uplifter.

[ElNono]

Paul Ryan: I Voted for TARP Because of Jonah Goldberg’s ‘Liberal Fascism’ (http://washingtonindependent.com/76412/paul-ryan-i-voted-for-tarp-because-of-jonah-goldbergs-liberal-fascism)

By DAVID WEIGEL 2/11/10 12:30 PM

An interesting admission in Benjy Sarlin’s interview (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-10/paul-ryans-sacred-cow-slaughter/2/) with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the GOP’s brainy ranking member on the House Budget Committee who’s been targeted by Democrats for his entitlement-cutting proposals.



Ryan said his vote for the bailout was influenced by Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism, a popular book among conservatives that argues that Nazism and other fascist movements were actually left wing in origin, and his belief that a second Depression would threaten capitalism—and rescue Obama’s presidency.

“I’m a limited-government, free-enterprise guy, but TARP… represented a moment where we had no good options and we were about to fall into a deflationary spiral,” he said. “I believe Obama would not only have won, but would have been able to sweep through a huge statist agenda very quickly because there would have been no support for the free-market system.”

I’ve had other Republican members of Congress with impeccable fiscal conservative credentials explain their votes in similar terms — I’m thinking Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) — but the citing of Goldberg is a first.

[Marcus Bryant]

It's awkward to say openly, but now-departed President Bush is a religious crackpot, an ex-drunk of small intellect who "got saved." He never should have been entrusted with power to start wars.

The Bush as stupid meme is a bit tired and dated, IMO. You don't pull off what he did without having a fair degree of intelligence, and at any rate his was on par with another Yale graduate, Kerry, if we want to use SATs and grades of the sons of the well-connected at an ivy league institution as a proxy. But the piece is correct in that he had some kind of savior complex.

Though the last sentence quoted is precisely the one every partisan should burn into their memory when they find themselves justifying the expansion of federal power, and, in particular, executive power. It's all roses until the other side takes over, and then you realize just how much has been given up.

[Marcus Bryant]

Goldberg's book was fine, though the main problem was the extent to which he reverted to standard partisanship in critiquing modern left-wing US presidents while largely excluding right-wing ones. It felt as though he knew the truth, but was content to pour it on the left.

[ElNono]

Goldberg's book was fine, though the main problem was the extent to which he reverted to standard partisanship in critiquing modern left-wing US presidents while largely excluding right-wing ones. It felt as though he knew the truth, but was content to pour it on the left.

Did the book convince you that voting for the TARP was the right thing to do, though?

[Marcus Bryant]

Did the book convince you that voting for the TARP was the right thing to do, though?

No, of course not. But voting for something that was classically corporatist in order to head off further corporatism is a bit ironic, no?

[Marcus Bryant]

Though Goldberg was on to something, that which we Americans don't want to accept, which is the degree to which the influence of nationalism and socialism which infected Europe also took root in the US as well. In some respects it was germinated here (*adjusts foil hat*).

[ElNono]

No, of course not. But voting for something that was classically corporatist in order to head off further corporatism is a bit ironic, no?

I just can't fathom a true fiscal conservative finding a reason to vote for that bailout. I have the highest of respect for those that voted No that day.

[Marcus Bryant]

I just can't fathom a true fiscal conservative finding a reason to vote for that bailout. I have the highest of respect for those that voted No that day.

There were three parties that day in the Congress: the left-wing people's party, the right-wing people's party, and the establishment's party.

[mogrovejo]

My post had nothing to do with the messenger. It had everything to do with the message.

I find it hard to believe that your post would have been the same if A Roadmap to America's Future had been written by, say, me or some guy unknown to you.


That's what that roadmap is. If the TARP voting didn't tell you who those guys are listening to, then you're pretty naive. I think they are well thought out and like I said, he probably means well. But have you ever heard of the 'if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is' mantra? This is lip service to try to shore up part of the electorate, nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe, that's why I think they should put it to a vote. He's putting it out there and publicly defending some hugely unpopular measures, like cutting entitlement programs. Compare this with Gingrich's WSJ article, for example. It's like night and day. That difference shall be noted. At least this guy has the courage to publicly defend some tough, unpopular measures that while not entirely conservative are less worse than the alternatives.



Paul Ryan: I Voted for TARP Because of Jonah Goldberg’s ‘Liberal Fascism’ (http://washingtonindependent.com/76412/paul-ryan-i-voted-for-tarp-because-of-jonah-goldbergs-liberal-fascism)

By DAVID WEIGEL 2/11/10 12:30 PM

An interesting admission in Benjy Sarlin’s interview (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-10/paul-ryans-sacred-cow-slaughter/2/) with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the GOP’s brainy ranking member on the House Budget Committee who’s been targeted by Democrats for his entitlement-cutting proposals.


I’ve had other Republican members of Congress with impeccable fiscal conservative credentials explain their votes in similar terms — I’m thinking Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) — but the citing of Goldberg is a first.

Yes, it was a rationale used by plenty of them and I can understand it (but it's we. I don't see those votes as an error of principle, rather as a prudential one. They bough the gloom&doom hype.

[ElNono]

I find it hard to believe that your post would have been the same if A Roadmap to America's Future had been written by, say, me or some guy unknown to you.

Considering your fandom for anything conservative, I would have written exactly the same. You repeat the same message than a lot of these guys munster, but when push come to shove, they do none of that. And it really has little to do with parties. Dems are just as guilty of the same.
I actually would have given you the benefit of the doubt, because you obviously are not into Washington politics (yet), but my conclusion as to the impossibility of carrying such a plan would have most likely been the same.


Maybe, that's why I think they should put it to a vote. He's putting it out there and publicly defending some hugely unpopular measures, like cutting entitlement programs. Compare this with Gingrich's WSJ article, for example. It's like night and day. That difference shall be noted. At least this guy has the courage to publicly defend some tough, unpopular measures that while not entirely conservative are less worse than the alternatives.

I'm sorry if you think I'm incredibly pessimist that his intention is any of that. I think the current topic du-jour is the economy, deficits and federal spending, and so this 'roadmap' is exactly what his base wants to hear. If Fantasy Games would be the hot-button item, I'm sure we would be seeing a study on the feasibility of pink elephants.

[mogrovejo]

Considering your fandom for anything conservative, I would have written exactly the same.

Exactly my point; that's your mistake. Because I didn't support the wars or the TARP. Having a strict partisan world-view leads us to that kind of silly mistakes.


I actually would have given you the benefit of the doubt, because you obviously are not into Washington politics (yet), but my conclusion as to the impossibility of carrying such a plan would have most likely been the same.

I've written plenty about Public Choice Theory, for example. I'm well aware of how difficult it to cut spending. I don't have illusions about a serious reform of the government without deep institutional reforms, for example.


I'm sorry if you think I'm incredibly pessimist that his intention is any of that. I think the current topic du-jour is the economy, deficits and federal spending, and so this 'roadmap' is exactly what his base wants to hear. If Fantasy Games would be the hot-button item, I'm sure we would be seeing a study on the feasibility of pink elephants.

That's beyond the point. Defending good ideas is a good idea by itself. The fact that federal spending has become the plat du jour is good in itself. As Prof. Weaver would say, ideas have consequences.

[ElNono]

Exactly my point; that's your mistake. Because I didn't support the wars or the TARP. Having a strict partisan world-view leads us to that kind of silly mistakes.

How is it my mistake? I wrote that those guys that started the unnecessary wars or passed Medicare part D did not listen to this guy. They were big spenders, this guy pretends not to be (and I'm fairly positive you're not an advocate for expanded spending either).


I've written plenty about Public Choice Theory, for example. I'm well aware of how difficult it to cut spending. I don't have illusions about a serious reform of the government without deep institutional reforms, for example.

I agree, but I don't see how you could pull out deep institutional reforms with the current institutions.


That's beyond the point. Defending good ideas is a good idea by itself. The fact that federal spending has become the plat du jour is good in itself. As Prof. Weaver would say, ideas have consequences.

I'm more of a realist. I don't mind listening to all ideas, but their plausibility is what determines my attention span on them.

[Winehole23]

Congressman Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future (http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/)—his sweeping entitlement and budget proposal—would cut Medicare. It would cut Medicare by a lot—more, as Paul Krugman notes (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/having-it-both-ways-on-medicare/), than even ObamaCare would cut it. Indeed, that's exactly the point, and the virtue of the proposal: In its current form, Medicare is unsustainable. Unlike ObamaCare, Ryan's proposal would fix that. And unlike ObamaCare, it would not plow funds generated from those cuts back into propping-up and expanding a failing, third-party-payer, employer-provided insurance system that pretty much everyone dislikes. But yes, it would cut Medicare significantly.


That's a good thing, except that the Republican party is going to have a tough time fully embracing it. The problem is that by using opposition to Medicare cuts to build opposition to ObamaCare, the GOP has rendered itself unable to seriously deal with the program's long-term problems.


I've called out Michael Steele (http://reason.com/blog/2009/10/06/michael-steeles-medicare-mista) for this on a number of occasions, but he's not the only one. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned (http://mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=2c18f37f-2ec9-4948-b113-82e07cf7733a) against Medicare cuts earlier this week. And yesterday, Newt Gingrich offered (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704820904575055190217079952.html?m od=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular) "ten GOP health ideas for Obama." One item on the list: "Don't cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong." That's the same Newt Gingrich who shut down the government in 1995 because then-president Bill Clinton wouldn't agree to cuts in Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995) , among other programs.


There's room to disagree over the mechanisms that Ryan has proposed, but even White House OMB director Peter Orszag has called it a legitimate plan. Yet legitimacy only goes so far when much of the rest of the party seems less interested in workable policy and more interested in short-term political advantage.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/11/the-gops-medicare-problem

Looks like there's a bit of daylight between GOP bigwigs and Rep. Ryan.

[EVAY]

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/08/agog_over_bushs_comments_on_go.html

I had never read this anywhere before tonight. Dear God, that is so frightening that I am actually glad that the MSM never picked it up too much. It is just too embarassing for the nation.

[Marcus Bryant]

Ryan stated the obvious, so naturally he will be ostracized and will not advance any farther in national politics.

[Winehole23]

His plan sure didn't. Apparently it was kryptonite to party bigwigs.

[Winehole23]

here's the coda: "the delta between the budget Ryan proposed in 2016 and the reality under Trump is 800 billion dollars a year"


1075044302479351810

[Winehole23]

roadmap to austerity, tbh

[Winehole23]

1075041685653123072

[boutons_deux]

roadmap to austerity, tbh

austerity for non-oligarchy, and $Ts in tax cuts, corporate welfare for the oligarchy