Reply With Quote
It doesn't divert money directly to the lenders but it allows people to buy bigger, more expensive homes and take out larger loans. Homebuilders and related industries will scream the loudest.
It doesn't divert money directly to the lenders but it allows people to buy bigger, more expensive homes and take out larger loans. Homebuilders and related industries will scream the loudest.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...le.php?ref=fpa"CBO is what they use on the budget side -- as a matter of procedure, any numbers from the Heritage Foundation or anybody else are essentially worthless," Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, said in an interview. "You can assert whatever you want to assert, but you can always find some half-baked tax think tank that will make up any number you feel like."
Neither the lenders or the homebuilders would be screaming as loudly as the middle class.
No . That deduction is a major player in my returns.
Paul Ryan’s Multiple Unicorns
Gosh. For a plan that supposedly sets a new standard of seriousness, Paul Ryan’s vision (pdf) depends an awful lot on unicorn sightings — belief in the impossible. Let me review the top three unicorns.
First, the plan assumes that tax cuts will set off a literally unprecedented boom. Here’s again, is what is assumed about unemployment:
House budget proposal
So Ryan is claiming that unemployment will plunge right away; that by 2015 it will be down to the levels at the peak of the 1990s boom (and far below anything achieved under the sainted Ronald Reagan); and that by 2021 it will be below 3 percent, a level we haven’t seen in more than half a century. Right.
Then there’s the Medicare business. According to the CBO analysis, a typical senior would end up spending more than twice as much of his or her own income on health care as under current law. As Dean Baker points out, this means that seniors would end up paying most of their income for health care. Again, right.
But in a way, the worst part isn’t the Medicare plan: it’s the fact — which so far has not penetrated the debate — that the biggest source of supposed savings in the plan isn’t actually health care, it’s an assumption that federal spending on everything except health and Social Security can somehow be squeezed, as a percent of GDP, to a small fraction of current levels. Here’s the table, from Ryan’s own report:
Notice the marked area at the bottom: Ryan is assuming that everything aside from health and SS can be squeezed from 12 percent of GDP now to 3 1/2 percent of GDP. That’s bigger than the assumed cut in health care spending relative to baseline; it accounts for all of the projected deficit reduction, since the alleged health savings are all used to finance tax cuts. And how is this supposed to be accomplished? Not explained.
This isn’t a serious proposal; it’s a strange combination of cruelty and insanely wishful thinking.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...gman&seid=auto
Ryan Budget: Voodoo Economics Redux
any hope that Ryan would rise above party politics and seek compromise with Democrats or even the moderates in his own party has been dashed by this proposal. At bottom, his plan is an ideological platform for the 2012 campaign—a Tea Party manifesto clothed in some nice rhetoric and sprinkled with a few good ideas.
http://www.democracyjournal.org/argu...mics-redux.php
==============
Will Barry and Dems be ballsy and clever enough to slaughter the Repugs in the major battle in the Class War?
(echo in here?)
lolzPaul Ryan’s Multiple Unicorns
Gosh. For a plan that supposedly sets a new standard of seriousness, Paul Ryan’s vision (pdf) depends an awful lot on unicorn sightings — belief in the impossible. Let me review the top three unicorns.
First, the plan assumes that tax cuts will set off a literally unprecedented boom. Here’s again, is what is assumed about unemployment:
House budget proposal
So Ryan is claiming that unemployment will plunge right away; that by 2015 it will be down to the levels at the peak of the 1990s boom (and far below anything achieved under the sainted Ronald Reagan); and that by 2021 it will be below 3 percent, a level we haven’t seen in more than half a century. Right.
Then there’s the Medicare business. According to the CBO analysis, a typical senior would end up spending more than twice as much of his or her own income on health care as under current law. As Dean Baker points out, this means that seniors would end up paying most of their income for health care. Again, right.
But in a way, the worst part isn’t the Medicare plan: it’s the fact — which so far has not penetrated the debate — that the biggest source of supposed savings in the plan isn’t actually health care, it’s an assumption that federal spending on everything except health and Social Security can somehow be squeezed, as a percent of GDP, to a small fraction of current levels. Here’s the table, from Ryan’s own report:
Notice the marked area at the bottom: Ryan is assuming that everything aside from health and SS can be squeezed from 12 percent of GDP now to 3 1/2 percent of GDP. That’s bigger than the assumed cut in health care spending relative to baseline; it accounts for all of the projected deficit reduction, since the alleged health savings are all used to finance tax cuts. And how is this supposed to be accomplished? Not explained.
This isn’t a serious proposal; it’s a strange combination of cruelty and insanely wishful thinking.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...gman&seid=auto
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...5&postcount=26
lol Krugman
His gripe that Ryan includes a few rosy assumptions seems legit to me. 2.6% unemployment?
don't tell darrins
A boom in housing? Unlikely.
they would have to grandfather it. It would kill the real estate market.
Tax cuts leading to more government revenue? How'd that work out the last 10 years?
Projected health care savings paying for the tax cuts? Robustly optimistic.
Did anything else happen in the last 10 years that might negatively impact revenue?
You don't think some of those projections seem a little optimistic?
It does sound a little bit too optimistic. How does the Dems' budget compare?
Thanks for proving that projections out to 2050 are re ed.
Sure, but isn't Krugman the guy that thinks we should double-down an on even bigger stimulus?
the bush tax cuts?
What budget?
exactly
Nothing else?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
