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.
You are just ignoring actual conservative positions. But I'll play your game.
Let's look at the Paul Ryan Budget that conservatives supported.
Paul Ryan’s budget would spend $5.3 trillion less over the next decade than President Obama’s budget. Part of this is health care: Ryan would trim Medicare and Medicaid for a portion of his savings. But he’d also spend $2.2 trillion less on everything else. So what, specifically, is Ryan planning to cut?
Over the next decade, Ryan plans to spend about 16 percent less than the White House on “income security” programs for the poor — that’s everything from food stamps to housing assistance to the earned-income tax credit. (Ryan’s budget would authorize $4.8 trillion between 2013 and 2022; the White House’s would spend $5.7 trillion.) Compared with Obama, Ryan would spend 25 percent less on transportation and 13 percent less on veterans. [Update:See below for more on veterans.] He’d spend 6 percent less on “General science, space, and basic technology.” And, compared with the White House’s proposal, he’d shell out 33 percent less for “Education, training, employment, and social services.”
I asked Third Way’s budget expert David Kendall if he could update some of his numbers for Ryan’s budget. Under Ryan’s plan, for instance, spending on transportation would be 26.1 percent lower in 2014 than it is today. If that size cut was applied to, say, air-traffic control programs, Kendall notes, “there would be 3,092 more flight cancellations and 68,683 delays annually. At the U.S. average of 49 passengers per flight, that’s enough to strand 151,503 more people at the gate and make 3,365,685 more people late every year.”
Likewise, spending on natural resources and the environment would be 14.6 percent lower under Ryan’s budget in 2014 than it is today. Assuming those cuts hit all programs in this category equally — and, again, this is for illustration purposes — then this is how it would affect weather forecasting. “Our weather forecasts would be only half as accurate for four to eight years until another polar satellite is launched,” estimates Kendall. “For many people planning a weekend outdoors, they may have to wait until Thursday for a forecast as accurate as one they now get on Monday. … Perhaps most affected would be hurricane response. Governors and mayors would have to order evacuations for areas twice as large or wait twice as long for an accurate forecast.”
CUTS FOOD STAMPS BY $133 BILLION: Ryan’s budget would send the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) back to the states as a block grant and cut the program by $134 billion. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “an average of almost 10 million people would have to be cut from the program in the years from 2016 through 2022 to achieve the required savings.” If the cuts were to come from benefits, rather than kicking families out of the program, “All families of four — including the poorest — would see their benefits cut by about $90 a month in fiscal year 2016, or more than $1,100 on an annual basis.” Ryan continually claims that the food stamp program is “unsustainable,” even though the numbers show that’s simply not the case.
2. CUTS MEDICAID BY 1/3: Ryan would treat Medicaid in the same way: transform the exiting matching-grant financing structure into a pre-determined block grant that will not keep up with actual health care spending and send it back to the states. 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 reductions to Medicaid kick in right away: between 2013 and 2022, the budget makes $1.4 trillion in cuts to Medicaid —a 34 percent reduction. 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.
. CUTS PELL GRANTS FOR 1 MILLION STUDENTS: Ryan consistently claims that increases in financial aid are driving up the cost of higher education, even though evidence doesn’t back him up. The budget Ryan authored, according to an analysis by the Education Trust, would eliminate Pell Grants entirely for one million students. In 2011, 74 percent of Pell Grant recipients had family incomes of $30,000 or less. These cuts would come despite the fact that the price of a college degree has skyrocketed 1,120 percent over the last three decades.
I'm not playing a game. I'm pointing out that a substantial portion of the American population describe themselves in one way or another as conservatives, and yet they aren't in lockstep, they don't agree on every conservative policy. You want to paint them all with the same tar. That isn't logical or reasonable.
It's not any more reasonable when we have conservatives who try to say that all liberals think exactly the same about a certain topic. They don't.
By the way, if you aren't Brad Plumer, you should be crediting him for the article you lifted from the Washington Post.
I pretty much agree with Mr Plumer's assessment of the budget. While I applaud Mr Ryan's desire to trim waste from the budget, which I do think is endemic in the bloated bureaucracy we call a government, I think his assumptions that he can make up his shortfalls by trimming the waste is a pipe dream. He hasn't even devised a plan where he's going to find this "waste". The example given by Mr Plumer regarding transportation, though, is not legitimate, it's for illustration purposes only. When someone is dissecting someone else's work, illustration purposes is code for spin purposes. Mr Ryan's cuts in transportation were about putting off improvements and repairs to the transportation infrastructure, much like a homeowner puts off replacing things that are still working, though the improvements are needed in the long run. Air-traffic control would not have been impacted by a 26.1 percent cut.
As for weather forecasts, you must live in a very predictable climate if you can rely on Monday's forecast for the upcoming weekend. Currently, I would never rely on a Monday forecast for the upcoming weekend.
Food stamps. As the economy recovers, fewer families should be forced to rely on food stamps. Correct?
Pell Grants. I completely disagree with Ryan. Education must be made more affordable, and I've seen nothing that supports his contention that financial aid is driving up the costs of education. While I do think the government needs to approach the problem of financing higher education from both sides. We need to find strategies to contain the costs, and we need to find ways for people to be able to afford an education without crippling themselves financially for years with student loans. I don't have answers to this problem. I think the schools themselves do have answers, though. For instance, MIT's offering of courses on-line. If they can afford to offer courses, and other schools will follow suit, wouldn't it be incredible if someone could sit at home in Arkansas and design their own education, with instructors from MIT, and Berkeley and the University of Chicago giving them feedback? Technology in part has driven up the costs of higher education, and technology can be part of the solution for bringing the costs down.
I'm not playing a game. I'm pointing out that a substantial portion of the American population describe themselves in one way or another as conservatives, and yet they aren't in lockstep, they don't agree on every conservative policy. You want to paint them all with the same tar. That isn't logical or reasonable.
It's not any more reasonable when we have conservatives who try to say that all liberals think exactly the same about a certain topic. They don't.
By the way, if you aren't Brad Plumer, you should be crediting him for the article you lifted from the Washington Post.
I pretty much agree with Mr Plumer's assessment of the budget. While I applaud Mr Ryan's desire to trim waste from the budget, which I do think is endemic in the bloated bureaucracy we call a government, I think his assumptions that he can make up his shortfalls by trimming the waste is a pipe dream. He hasn't even devised a plan where he's going to find this "waste". The example given by Mr Plumer regarding transportation, though, is not legitimate, it's for illustration purposes only. When someone is dissecting someone else's work, illustration purposes is code for spin purposes. Mr Ryan's cuts in transportation were about putting off improvements and repairs to the transportation infrastructure, much like a homeowner puts off replacing things that are still working, though the improvements are needed in the long run. Air-traffic control would not have been impacted by a 26.1 percent cut.
As for weather forecasts, you must live in a very predictable climate if you can rely on Monday's forecast for the upcoming weekend. Currently, I would never rely on a Monday forecast for the upcoming weekend.
Food stamps. As the economy recovers, fewer families should be forced to rely on food stamps. Correct?
Pell Grants. I completely disagree with Ryan. Education must be made more affordable, and I've seen nothing that supports his contention that financial aid is driving up the costs of education. While I do think the government needs to approach the problem of financing higher education from both sides. We need to find strategies to contain the costs, and we need to find ways for people to be able to afford an education without crippling themselves financially for years with student loans. I don't have answers to this problem. I think the schools themselves do have answers, though. For instance, MIT's offering of courses on-line. If they can afford to offer courses, and other schools will follow suit, wouldn't it be incredible if someone could sit at home in Arkansas and design their own education, with instructors from MIT, and Berkeley and the University of Chicago giving them feedback? Technology in part has driven up the costs of higher education, and technology can be part of the solution for bringing the costs down.
You really think I was passing off this analysis as my own?
Me putting in bold faced and italics doesn't signify that it isn't coming from me?
You are playing a game. The positions that conservatives take are as I described. If someone is accurately describing positions that liberals take, that wouldn't bother me.
You ignore the bigger picture Paul Ryan's budget does exactly what I said it does.
His cuts would hurt millions of poor people while it preserves and protects spending for old white people, lowers taxes for rich people, and doesn't get rid any of the tax expenditures that mostly go to married white people. In other words, he doesn't make a single difficult cut not one.
The Democratic budget does make difficult cuts that will anger their base.
conservatives only want to cut government programs that target groups of people they hate. Here is the budget that they support that proves it.
It increases military spending, but cuts food stamps, and the earned income child tax credit that lifts millions of families out of poverty. It keep medicare and social security spending for the 55 and older crowd which is overwhelming white, and cuts funding for education that will hurt millions of students who are increasingly not white.
It cuts taxes for wealthy individuals, but asks the rest of us to get less in Medicare while it privatizes the program.
These are the conservative priorities that you are trying to present as reasonable. All I see is exactly what I said, protecting the interests of some groups while targeting cuts at groups of people they hate.
By voting in another Democrat! We need a good run of 16 years with the presidency to correct the debacle that has become the supreme court...
Yes- voting in another democrat
So.............................given five years, soon to be eight years, of declining incomes, reduced savings, lower standard of living, and higher unemployment, the average liberal will be begging for MORE of this "wonder"?
Remember when Carter was voted out for his disasterous presidency? Now we have America re-electing and craving more failed policy and economic misery for the US!
So.............................given five years, soon to be eight years, of declining incomes, reduced savings, lower standard of living, and higher unemployment, the average liberal will be begging for MORE of this "wonder"?
Remember when Carter was voted out for his disasterous presidency? Now we have America re-electing and craving more failed policy and economic misery for the US!
The idiocy of the nation is astounding.
So you're telling me that the president personally influences your economic situation? I was doing good when Bush was in office and I'm doing better now.
Anyone who claims to be 100% correct has no desire for debate. Set your ideology aside and look at both sides of the aisle objectively. You'll start to notice that there isn't much difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
You really think I was passing off this analysis as my own?
Me putting in bold faced and italics doesn't signify that it isn't coming from me?
You are playing a game. The positions that conservatives take are as I described. If someone is accurately describing positions that liberals take, that wouldn't bother me.
You ignore the bigger picture Paul Ryan's budget does exactly what I said it does.
His cuts would hurt millions of poor people while it preserves and protects spending for old white people, lowers taxes for rich people, and doesn't get rid any of the tax expenditures that mostly go to married white people. In other words, he doesn't make a single difficult cut not one.
The Democratic budget does make difficult cuts that will anger their base.
conservatives only want to cut government programs that target groups of people they hate. Here is the budget that they support that proves it.
It increases military spending, but cuts food stamps, and the earned income child tax credit that lifts millions of families out of poverty. It keep medicare and social security spending for the 55 and older crowd which is overwhelming white, and cuts funding for education that will hurt millions of students who are increasingly not white.
It cuts taxes for wealthy individuals, but asks the rest of us to get less in Medicare while it privatizes the program.
These are the conservative priorities that you are trying to present as reasonable. All I see is exactly what I said, protecting the interests of some groups while targeting cuts at groups of people they hate.
So.............................given five years, soon to be eight years, of declining incomes, reduced savings, lower standard of living, and higher unemployment, the average liberal will be begging for MORE of this "wonder"?
Remember when Carter was voted out for his disasterous presidency? Now we have America re-electing and craving more failed policy and economic misery for the US!
The idiocy of the nation is astounding.
I guess it is easier for you to blame the president rather than take responsibility of your own actions.
What I'd like to know is, what have the Republicans got to offer that will convince anyone to give them a shot? Your last bunch of hopefuls included a guy who thinks the way to deal with a drought is state-sponsored praying for rain and a woman who thinks the US government has been infiltrated by something called the Muslim Brotherhood. The dubious honour of being the Republican candidate ended up going to a guy as phony as a three dollar bill who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a head full of etch-a-sketch sand. These are the people you want in charge of the world's most powerful military and economy?
Yikes. Yes, Americans will want four more years of Obama. Or some other grown up the Democrats can produce. Personally, I wonder what an Alan Grayson presidency would be like. I think he'd do a good job dealing with Republican obstructionism. Obama's too nice.
What I'd like to know is, what have the Republicans got to offer that will convince anyone to give them a shot? Your last bunch of hopefuls included a guy who thinks the way to deal with a drought is state-sponsored praying for rain and a woman who thinks the US government has been infiltrated by something called the Muslim Brotherhood. The dubious honour of being the Republican candidate ended up going to a guy as phony as a three dollar bill who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a head full of etch-a-sketch sand. These are the people you want in charge of the world's most powerful military and economy?
Yikes. Yes, Americans will want four more years of Obama. Or some other grown up the Democrats can produce. Personally, I wonder what an Alan Grayson presidency would be like. I think he'd do a good job dealing with Republican obstructionism. Obama's too nice.
So when we block a bill that prevents the violation of the 2nd Amendment, or legalizing millions of undocumented Democratic voter, or some failed spending project that will put generations unborn in debt its is obstructionism?
You must like Alan Grayson, his is loud and devoid of logic and reason..
Come 2016 The dems will be in trouble, which one one new, no one to attract the coolness of the youth, and 8 years of failed policies.. you guys face a up hill battle in 2014, 2016 does not look any better, factor in Ted Cruz and Rand Paul....need a say more.
I guess it is easier for you to blame the president rather than take responsibility of your own actions.
Many people lack personal responsibility. The president doesn't directly affect my finances. I was doing well when Bush was in office and I'm doing better now.
That's pretty much the same thing you guys were saying in the run-up to the 2012 elections, and we all know how well that worked out for you. So just keep saying it. Over and over, while clicking the heels of your Ruby Slippers. See if that get's you back to Kansas.
The American electorate does not live inside the same right-wing echo chamber you do. Unlike the frothing nabobs at Free Republic or WND, they can tell the difference between a real scandal and an Issa witch hunt; between a recovering economy and an imploding one; between starting unpopular and unnecessary wars and ending them; between pragmatic collaboration and unreasoned obstructionism. They will make their decisions based on what their experience tells them... not what Mitch McConnel does.
The greatest weakness of the current American right is their inability to learn from their own mistakes.
Keep clicking those heels. There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home.
It works in the movies.
Excellent post, would rep ya but got to spread it around first.
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.
