http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop
Printable View
Gots to love the GOP stooge. Rather than link the GOP's op-ed, how about trying to get a more objective view. Such as:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...t/%28page%29/2
Ryan pimping his own plan in the Repug house organ WSJ. yawn
The 5 Worst Things About The House GOP’s Budget
1. SENIORS WOULD PAY MORE FOR HEALTH CARE: Beginning 2023, the guaranteed Medicare benefit would be transformed into a government-financed “premium support” system. Seniors currently under the age of 55 could use their government contribution to purchase insurance from an exchange of private plans or traditional fee-for-service Medicare. But the budget does not take sufficient precautions to prevent insurers from cherry-picking the the healthiest beneficiaries from traditional Medicare and leaving sicker applicants to the government. As a result, traditional Medicare costs could skyrocket, forcing even more seniors out of the government program. The budget also adopts a per capita cost cap of GDP growth plus 0.5 percent, without specifying how it would enforce it. This makes it likely that the cap would limit the government contribution provided to beneficiaries and since the proposed growth rate is much slower than the projected growth in health care costs, CBO estimates that new beneficiaries could pay up to $1,200 more by 2030 and more than $5,900 more by 2050. Finally, the budget would also raise Medicare’s age of eligibility to 67. Some seniors who would no longer be eligible for Medicare would pick up employer coverage—but they would pay more in premiums and cost sharing. And since the budget would scale back or eliminate other coverage options, hundreds of thousands of seniors would become uninsured.
2. ELDERLY AND DISABLED WOULD LOSE MEDICAID COVERAGE: The budget would eliminate the exiting matching-grant financing structure of Medicaid and would instead give each state a pre-determined block grant that does not keep up with actual health care spending. This would shift some of the burden of Medicaid’s growing costs to the states, forcing them to — in the words of the CBO — make cutbacks that “involve reduced eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP, coverage of fewer services, lower payments to providers, or increased cost sharing by beneficiaries—all of which would reduce access to care.” The block grants would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $810 billion over 10 years, decreasing federal Medicaid spending by more than 35 percent over the decade. As a result, states could reduce enrollment by more than 14 million people, or almost 20 percent—even if they are were able to slow the growth in health care costs substantially.
3. THIRTY MILLION AMERICANS WOULD LOSE HEALTH COVERAGE: The budget repeals the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to purchase health insurance coverage, the establishment of health insurance exchanges and the provision of subsidies for lower-income Americans, the expansion of the Medicaid program, tax credits for small businesses that provide insurance coverage. As a result, more than 30 million Americans would lose coverage and the budget would eliminate the new law’s consumer protections, which have already benefited tens of millions of Americans.
4. CORPORATIONS AND THE RICH WOULD GET A $3 TRILLION TAX CUT: By repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax and the investment taxes in the Affordable Care Act and lowering the top income tax rate to 25 percent, the Ryan budget provides the wealthiest Americans with $2 trillion in tax breaks. By lowering the top corporate tax rate and allowing corporations to return profits made overseas to the United States at no cost, he gives corporations more than $1 trillion in tax breaks. Ryan insists his plan will be revenue neutral — he just won’t say how. The CBO’s scoring of the plan, meanwhile, is based on Ryan’s own assertions that the plan would maintain or increase revenue.
5. DEFENSE BUDGET WOULD GET A BOOST, WHILE THE SAFETY NET IS CUT: The Ryan budget protects defense spending from automatic cuts agreed to in last year’s debt deal, then boosts defense spending to $554 billion in 2013 — $8 billion more than agreed upon in the deal. At the same time, it asks six Congressional committees to find $261 billion in cuts. That includes $33.2 billion from the Agriculture Committee, meaning food stamps and other social safety net programs are likely to face cuts, all while the Pentagon remains untouched.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...e-gops-budget/
======
iow, fuck the young, the poor, the old, the 99%, while enriching the UCA, the MIC, the 1%. iow, the standard Repug/VRWC strategy, which is unstoppable and extremely successful.
(although Ryan's 2nd battle plan will die in the Senate, too).
Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill can stop the unstoppable VRWC juggernaut? Interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
VRWC-whore Ryan, or similar whore, will be back, and back, and back. It costs VRWC almost nothing to buy Congresswhores.
The Republican's Social-Darwinist Budget Plan
The real contrast is over what the plan does for the rich and what it does to everyone else. It reduces the top individual and corporate tax rates to 25 percent. This would give the wealthiest Americans an average tax cut of at least $150,000 a year.
The money would come out of programs for the elderly, lower-middle families, and the poor.
Seniors would get subsidies to buy private health insurance or Medicare -- but the subsidies would be capped. So as medical costs increased, seniors would fall further and further behind.
Other cuts would come out of food stamps, Pell grants to offset the college tuition of kids from poor families, and scores of other programs that now help middle-income and the poor.
The plan also calls for repealing Obama's health care overhaul, thereby eliminating healthcare for 30 million Americans and allowing insurers to discriminate against (and drop from coverage) people with preexisting conditions.
The plan would carve an additional $19 billion out of next year's "discretionary" spending over and above what Democrats agreed to last year. Needless to say, discretionary spending includes most of programs for lower-income families.
Not surprisingly, the Pentagon would be spared.
So what's the guiding principle here? Pure Social Darwinism. Reward the rich and cut off the help to anyone who needs it.
"We don't want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency."
Well, I have news for Paul Ryan. Almost 23 million able-bodied people still can't find work. They're not being lulled into dependency. They and their families could use some help. Even if the economy continues to generate new jobs at the rate it's been going the last three months, we wouldn't see normal rates of unemployment until 2017.
And most Americans who do have jobs continue to lose ground. New research by professors Emmanual Saez and Thomas Pikkety show that the average adjusted gross income of the bottom 90 percent was $29,840 in 2010 -- down $127 from 2009 and down $4,842 from 2000 -- and just slightly higher than it was forty-six years ago in 1966 (all figures adjusted for inflation).
They could use better schools, access to higher education, lower-cost health care, improved public transportation, and lots of other things Ryan and his colleagues are intent on removing.
Meanwhile, America's rich continue to grow richer -- and many of them (and their heirs) are being lulled into lives whose hardest task is summoning the help.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...comm_ref=false
Why Democrats are cheering the Paul Ryan Republican budget plan
As they did last year, Democrats are attacking the Republican budget plan released by Rep. Paul Ryan as an 'end of Medicare as we know it.' They think it will help them in November.
The problem for Republicans is that, as was the case last year, they've done little to prepare American voters for the plan.
In 2011, “there was never any effort on the part of Republicans to sort of sell [the budget] first,” says Jennifer Duffy, senior editor at The Cook Political Report. Noting a similar lack of political preparation work this year, Ms. Duffy adds: “If it's the same sort of approach, then they hand Democrats a cudgel.”
The Democrats are eager for a cudgel.
Republicans once bashed President Obama’s health-care reforms, saying they included “death panels” designed to ration care for the elderly. Democrats are trying to use the Ryan plan to create their own policy bogeyman: the death spiral.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...=Google+Reader
What's wrong with social darwinism?
GOP Budget Calls For Fire Sale Of Public Lands While Preserving $40 Billion In Tax Breaks To Big Oil
Sales of Unneeded Federal Assets: In the last year alone, Republicans put forth proposals to sell unneeded federal property. Representative Jason Chaffetz has proposed to sell millions of acres of unneeded federal land. Likewise, Representative Jeff Denham’s bill to authorize the sale of billions of dollars worth of federal assets would save the government money, collect corresponding revenue, and remove economic distortions by reducing public ownership. Such sales could also potentially be encouraged by reducing appropriations to various agencies. If done correctly, taxpayers could recoup billions of dollars from selling unused government property.
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/...ks-to-big-oil/
GOP OP Ed huh.if you even clicked on the link, you would have saw it was an OP Ed by Ryan. But why actually read the subject you are commenting on.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
David Hasselhoff recently attended Knightcon, a convention of Knight Rider fans.
He also has started his own social networking website, named in a manner similar to Myspace, called Hoffspace.
There is a possibility that someone will find these two events to be immenent signs of a coming apocolypse. In the event this happens, there is a further chance that David may attempt to start a website called the Hoffpocolypse.
The NSDAP was neither socialistic, nor democratic.Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
Representative Paul Ryan is a Republican from Wisconsin.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
As chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, he is the primary author of the currently proposed Republican version of the Budget.
As the senior Republican responsible on the committee responsible for assembling, proposing, and vetting budget proposals, most analysts regard him as the singular authority on such matters for his party in the House.
His essay in the Wall Street Journal, used the plural first person "we", not "I" when discussing the point of view of the essay.
Paul Ryan has no recorded instances of referring to himself using what is commonly referred to as a royal "we".
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Both the Republican budget, and the Obama budget as proposed are considered unpassable by experts.
Both have been described as "opening bargaining positions", and are considered to represent a budget philosophy more than actual proposals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts
Quote:
fact noun \ˈfakt\
: a thing done: as
a obsolete : feat
b : crime <accessory after the fact>
c archaic : action
2
archaic : performance, doing
3
: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4
a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>
b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact
: in truth
See fact defined for English-language learners »
See fact defined for kids »
Examples of FACT
Rapid electronic communication is now a fact.
The book is filled with interesting facts and figures.
He did it, and that's a fact.
Origin of FACT
Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
First Known Use: 15th century
http://www.merriam-webster.com/Quote:
1fail verb \ˈfāl\
Definition of FAIL
intransitive verb
1
a : to lose strength : weaken <her health was failing>
b : to fade or die away <until our family line fails>
c : to stop functioning normally <the patient's heart failed>
2
a : to fall short <failed in his duty>
b : to be or become absent or inadequate <the water supply failed>
c : to be unsuccessful <the marriage failed>; specifically : to be unsuccessful in achieving a passing grade <took the exam and failed>
d : to become bankrupt or insolvent
transitive verb
1
a : to disappoint the expectations or trust of <her friends failed her>
b : to miss performing an expected service or function for <his wit failed him>
2
: to be deficient in : lack <never failed an invincible courage — Douglas MacArthur>
3
: to leave undone : neglect <fail to lock the door>
4
a : to be unsuccessful in passing <failed chemistry>
b : to grade (as a student) as not passing
— fail·ing·ly adverb
See fail defined for English-language learners »
See fail defined for kids »
Paul Ryan forgot to present his budget when the GOP controlled congress... or maybe the GOP didn't want to know anything about it then...
Ryan is the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and sponsor of the GOP proposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursncowboys
I read a little bit of it, looked at the graph, took a mental jog back in time as to what the history of the 'budget' during Obama's presidency has been, laughed, and then went to other sources that over the years I have come to feel make an attempt at objective journalism.
You're posting sales brochures again.
I am trying to be nice but I really recommend you revisit how you come to decisions on who you want to lead you. Blind obedience is fine in the Army where honor for the most part actually means something and where its necessary in combat.
You didn't even look to see who Ryan was, man. You can do better than that.
:lol @ that GOP OP Ed post followed up by a post with the definition of fail.
I literally LOLed.
That is so adorable. Good for you and God bless.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Paul Ryan’s Plan for American Decline
Certainly Ryan and his Republican colleagues will deny that their new budget—like their old budget—would cripple the federal government and render the United States unrecognizable over the coming decades, if implemented. Yet the calculations released by the CBO, a nonpartisan arm of the Congress, permit no other conclusion.\
Is all this starting to sound slightly weird? That is certainly one way to describe the Ryan budget, which evokes the utopian fantasies of both Karl Marx, who predicted the “withering away of the state” after communism, and Ayn Rand, whose hatred of modern government inspired anarchist (or “minarchist”) fantasies among many of her admirers. What is truly bizarre is to watch a major political party produce such a document not once but twice—and then to hear this absurd exercise hailed by venerable Washington commentators as “bold” and “patriotic.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/print...ine_201203221/
So Paul Ryan posted his opinion.
Is that it?
Am I supposed to be swayed now?
Heard any Repugs having the balls and common sense to object to Ryan?
It's the Repug budget objective if they win enough seats to force it through.
The Ryan Plan is just another bottom to top redistribution of wealth, more of what we don't need..
http://special.registerguard.com/web...-cuts.html.cspQuote:
Ryan would cut $770 billion over 10 years from Medicaid and other health programs for the poor, compared with President Obama’s budget. He takes an additional $205 billion from Medicare, $1.6 trillion from the Obama health care legislation and $1.9 trillion from a category simply labeled “other mandatory.”
Pressed to explain this magic asterisk, Ryan allowed that the bulk of those “other mandatory” cuts come from food stamps, welfare, federal employee pensions and support for farmers.
Taken together, Ryan would cut spending on such programs by $5.3 trillion, much of which currently goes to the have-nots. He would then give that money to America’s haves: some $4.3 trillion in tax cuts, compared with current policies, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.
Ryan’s justification was straight out of Charles Dickens. He wants to improve the moral fiber of the poor. There is, he told the audience at the conservative American Enterprise Institute later Tuesday, an “insidious moral tipping point, and I think the president is accelerating this.” Too many Americans, he said, are receiving more from the government than they pay in taxes.
nothing wrong with streamlining things, but not raising taxes and even lowering taxes now is insane..
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...erms-prove-it/Quote:
Matt Continetti provides the most ridiculous spin of the day:
The template for the Ryan budget, the Roadmap for America’s Future, became an election issue in 2010 when the president singled out Ryan for attack. That did not stop Republicans from winning a huge victory in the fall. Many of the candidates linked to the Roadmap, including Marco Rubio in senior-laden Florida, came under heavy fire. Rubio won, and he was not alone. Nationwide, the Republican share of the senior vote went from 48 percent in 2008 to 58 percent in 2010.The Republican tilt among seniors was driven almost entirely by the GOP’s successful use of a tactic that they have since derided as “Mediscare,” and Republicans benefited even more from this because of the above-average midterm turnout of voters 65+. One of the main Republican attacks on the health care legislation focused on its cuts to Medicare, and Republican leaders demagogued those cuts for all they were worth. The changes that the ACA made to Medicare were among its most unpopular provisions, elderly voters were the most opposed to the ACA of any age group, and Republicans in Congress did their best to exploit that unpopularity. Prior to the midterms, Republican leaders were running away from Ryan and his proposals as quickly as they could. The political lesson to be drawn from this is that making significant changes to Medicare is a major political liability. Entitlement reform is necessary, and Ryan might be on the right track, but there is no use pretending that it is not dangerous for the party that attempts it. Using the 2010 results as evidence to the contrary is preposterous.
Romney Is (Literally) Correct About Ryan
Mitt Romney defends the House Republican budget, saying it "does not balance the budget on the backs of the poor and the elderly." Steve Benen objects, pointing out that more than 60 percent of the budget cuts come from the small fraction of federal spending targeted to the poor. But Romney is actually right about this: the Ryan budget does not balance the budget on the backs of the poor. That's because it doesn't balance the budget at all.
Or, at least, it doesn't balance the budget until 2040, and this is assuming it can produce trillions upon trillions of dollars by eliminating unspecified tax deductions, and will reduce the non-entitlement portion of the federal budget to less than what Romney wants to spend on defense alone.
So possibly this is one of those carefully-crafted Romney statements designed to be technically correct but in a fashion his audience could not anticipate.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/03...bout-ryan.html
Bruce Bartlett:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Column...ity.aspx#page1