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.
Ummmm, I belive that Ryan budget was passed by the house both in 2009 and this year....what happened to them? will this years be voted on bythe Senate or tabled like the 2009 budget?
Previous Ryan budgets were rightfully killed by the Senate -- and a good thing too.
The 2009 one (pdf) (http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2007/pr20090401_gopbudget.pdf - broken link) was clearly a flim-flam, using this graph below to supposedly compares "Democratic Budgets" and the Republican Alternative based on spending as a percentage of GDP between 1980 and 2080.
Of course, there has been no analysis that runs through 2080. There isn't a "CBO Long-Term Alternative Fiscal Scenario" -- Ryan's staff just made that up.
Paul Ryan is just making another crazy assumption that no one has to take seriously.
What is suspected is that Paul Ryan and his staff just took the CBO projections (below) that ended in 2019 and drew a random line, extending upward at about a 45 degree angle, until 2080. There's no real attempt to make it look scientific.
This passes for budget seriousness?
The Tax Policy Center analyzed all of the Ryan Plans and found that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers that Ryan said spending would be cut, you get a much larger deficit ($1.3 trillion in 2020) than President Obama's budget.
The TPC looked at the current Ryan Plan and concluded:
Quote:
Ryan’s budget would add $4.6 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, even after extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts, which would add another $5.4 trillion to the deficit.
The TPC also looked at the tax distribution:
Quote:
TPC found that in 2015, relative to today’s tax system, those making $1 million or more would enjoy an average tax cut of $265,000 and see their after-tax income increase by 12.5 percent. By contrast, half of those making between $20,000 and $30,000 would get no tax cut at all. On average, people in that income group would get a tax reduction of $129. Ryan would raise their after-tax income by 0.5 percent.
Thus, if one is SERIOUS about lowering the deficit and you are looking at Ryan as the savior, you should be looking elsewhere. President Obama's budget proposals lower the deficit more than Ryan's. His merely cuts upper-income tax-rates to a level that hasn't existed in the U.S. for over 100 years and pays for them partly by cruel cuts to government services and the rest is just added to the debt.
GOP lawmakers forced the vote on Obama's plan as a tactical move aiming at embarrassing Democrats. The Democrats have defended Obama's budget priorities, but they largely voted "no" Wednesday night.
Republicans said Democrats were afraid to vote for Obama's proposed tax increases and extra spending for energy and welfare. Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama's budget that contained only its numbers, not the policies he would use to achieve them.
The budget was offered by Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., to show how few votes the president's budget might get.
House Republicans last tried this same tactic in 2000 on President Clinton's budget.
It's not a matter of Obama's plan being "too radical" as it is largely the same budget as the last three presidents. It's simply a matter that the GOP placed a poison pill in the budget that Democrats couldn't accept.
Why Ryan's Folly is the wrong approach. I know this book has White House in the title and that will immediately make some think "Commie", but it is anything but. It holds the WH to task as well. It's very informative and can lead to thought.
White House Burning Traces Current Debate over Debt to Nation (http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-burning-traces-current-debate-over-debt-040100382.html - broken link)
Last edited by florida.bob; 04-04-2012 at 02:54 PM..
A government agency gets a 10% increase in their budget every year. You tell them they are getting a 6% increase instead of 10%. First thing out of the democrats mouth is - draconian cuts. National parks will close. Nobody will be working at the FBI. The water and air will get dirty.
btw- can anyone direct me to a site where I can view the U.S. Senate budget of the last 3 years so I can compare it to Ryan's budget?
A government agency gets a 10% increase in their budget every year. You tell them they are getting a 6% increase instead of 10%. First thing out of the democrats mouth is - draconian cuts. National parks will close. Nobody will be working at the FBI. The water and air will get dirty.
Except that what you described is not the Ryan budget. It's clear that you did not read what the Ryan budget does.
According to Fox:
Quote:
The Ryan plan calls for reducing individual income tax rates to 10 percent and 25 percent from the current top rate of 35 percent and he also reduces the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.
The Wisconsin Republican claims his budget offsets the tax dollars lost to the tax cuts for upper-income Americans by eliminating tax loopholes, tax shelters and many tax deductions estimated at an incredible $4.6 trillion over 10 years. But while Ryan specifies the cuts in tax rates, he never identifies the giant tax breaks he wants to kill.
...
By lowering the tax brackets, Ryan will have to find a stunning $4 trillion in cuts to loopholes and deductions to avoid adding to deficit spending. But he did not identify one such cut.
Leaving that much spending on the rich in place at a time when the rest of the nation is still anxious about its economic future is a fatal political stand.
'Did not identify one cut' That's because there are no cuts. There's a reduction in the rate of increases. Democrats call that a cut in spending. That's what the president said TODAY.
If your boss promised you a $100 raise but gave you only a $50 raise, you would tell your friends that your boss CUT your salary.
'Did not identify one cut' That's because there are no cuts. There's a reduction in the rate of increases. Democrats call that a cut in spending. That's what the president said TODAY.
If your boss promised you a $100 raise but gave you only a $50 raise, you would tell your friends that your boss CUT your salary.
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.
