Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
cut backs to avoid a 1929 crash are inevitable. but the american people have been getting it all for free and lots of it for a long long time. the change will be unpleasant for reelection hopes of politicians and for voters alike. the 3rd rail is about to be touched. i see kelly girl looming big in the future of teachers, firemen, police, & managers very soon.
A 1929 crash already happened in 2008-2009.
In 1929 the stock market went from a peak of about 350, to a trough of about 200.
In 2008 it went from a peak of 14,000 to a trough of about 6,600.
It doesn't need to pass any test... it doesn't need to be realistic. It only needs to be insane enough to motivate a significant chunk of the voting bloc and personally benefit from it.
Of course.....no one that made the claim Ryan's budget predicts 2% unemployment actually backed it up with any sources or proof.
Of course.....no one that made the claim Ryan's budget predicts 2% unemployment actually backed it up with any sources or proof.
So who knows IF it even says that?
Quote:
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.
...
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.
Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, pointed to the projections in the Ryan plan that unemployment would decline by 2% in 2012 as fishy even on their own terms.
“I think they just misprogrammed it,” he told TPM. “Note that the unemployment rate falls by 2.1 percentage points relative to the baseline in 2012 even though they only created an extra 900,000 jobs. That doesn’t make any sense.”
By 2021, unemployment would hit 2.8% under their projection, well below the 5% - 6% range that the Federal Reserve considers the maximum desirable rate achievable without dangerous inflation.
What you've posted is other people's interpretation (I'm being generous there instead of saying Liberal SPIN).
What I'm asking for is either Paul Ryan himself saying that, or Paul Ryan writing that.
I don't really trust what Krugman claims his budget says...I want to see HID budget predicting that.
It's just too far-fetched that Paul Ryan himself ever made such a claim.
Is that the way you want to play it, jt? Have you ever posted a primary source yourself, or anything that wasn't a conservative website? Do you want us to go into Paul Ryan's plan, read it in detail, make our own charts comparing with CBO analysis, and get back to you so that we can get the approval of an anonymous internet poster like yourself?
The first mistake is to assume that Ryan's budget is a rational plan that just needs a little tweaking. If one wants to cut costs in health care, the route one should take is single-payer universal coverage. We tried this private method with Medicare Advantage and it was a complete failure. All other western nations have some form of universal coverage that provides better care at a lower cost than ours. Adopt France's system, problem solved.
If Ryan's plan is to reduce deficits, it also fails at that. It cuts top-rate taxes from 35%-25% and eliminates capital gains and interest/dividend income tax. It further relies upon unspecified deduction cuts to close the gap, which means it raises taxes on the middle-class.
Then there is the savage spending cuts, mostly to the poor and middle class.
What the Ryan plan boils down to is a radical shift in the tax burden downward, that also guts social programs and doesn't even reduce the debt, because the only way it sells that is by making absurd economic assumptions.
And you completely ignore that tax rates would be cut for quite a lot of the middle class and that Ryan has stated that deductions and expenditures which would be eliminated as a part of the plan would be those primarily for the wealthy.
Paul Krugman should always be blindly trusted and followed. It's not like he has an agenda.
And you completely ignore that tax deductions and expenditures would be eliminated as a part of the plan.
Paul Krugman should always be blindly trusted and followed. It's not like he has an agenda.
Hey, what ARE these mysterious tax deductions and expenditures that will be eliminated? If you know, please tell us, because our fearless leader Paul Krugman didn't know.
Hey, what ARE these mysterious tax deductions and expenditures that will be eliminated? If you know, please tell us, because our fearless leader Paul Krugman didn't know.
Ryan has said specifically that Congress needs to decide the deductions and expenditures to be eliminated. He believes there should be a discussion and the people should have input.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
