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.
MTA if you want to know what is going on stop reading the Times editorials.
Ryan's plan does not go far enough to pander to the conservative base. He only cuts the budget by 13% more than Obama by 2022. Obama is the one decimating Medicare for the seniors that are currently on it. Ryan's plan does not effect current seniors. Giving the medicare money to the states to spend is not taking away the program. It will make it more efficient. Nothing is less efficient than the federal government. Why can't we use the Ryan plan as a starting point. Let the senate make their changes; increase taxes, cut defense spending and then send it back to the house. That is the way our government used to work.
There’s an important disclaimer in the very first paragraph of the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of Paul Ryan’s budget plan.
Quote:
The calculations presented here represent CBO’s assessment of how the specified paths would alter the trajectories of federal debt, revenues, spending, and economic output relative to the trajectories under two scenarios that CBO has analyzed previously. Those calculations do not represent a cost estimate for legislation or an analysis of the effects of any given policies. In particular, CBO has not considered whether the specified paths are consistent with the policy proposals or budget figures released today by Chairman Ryan as part of his proposed budget resolution.
Translated out of CBO-ese, what that means is that CBO hasn’t looked at whether Ryan’s budget will achieve the results Ryan says it will. Rather, it looked at what will happen assuming Ryan’s budget achieves the results that Ryan says it will.
On the third page, CBO writes, “Chairman Ryan and his staff specified rules by which revenues and spending would evolve.” They then detail what those rules were:
Ryan tells CBO to assume his tax plan will raise revenues to 19 percent of GDP and then hold them there.He tells them to assume his Medicare plan will hold cost growth in Medicare to GDP+0.5 percentage points.He tells them to assume that spending on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program won’t grow any faster than inflation.He tells them to assume that all federal spending aside from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will fall from 12.5 percent of GDP in 2011 to 3.75 percent of GDP in 2050. [in other words, completely unrealistic assumptions.]
It’s that last assumption, perhaps, that shows most clearly how unlikely Ryan’s specified budget path is. He’s saying that in 2050, spending on defense, on food stamps, on infrastructure, on education, on research and development, on the federal workforce, and everything other non-entitlement program combined will be less than four percentage points of GDP.
Consider that defense spending has never fallen below three percentage points of GDP, and Mitt Romney has promised to keep it above four percentage points of GDP. Ryan has not outlined a realistic goal.
... And the savings he touts — which, as you can see in the graph atop this post, are quite dramatic — rely on the level of success he assumes. If he can’t bring all non-entitlement spending down to 3.75 percent of GDP, and he can’t keep Medicaid to inflation, then he can’t achieve the deficit reduction he’s promising.
"If the president put out a budget with this level of detail and these kinds of assumptions,” says Michael Linden, who directs tax and budget policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, “people would be up in arms about how ridiculous it is."
Once again, the only way Ryan achieves his goals is with smoke and mirrors not realistic assumptions.
The new Ryan proposal is so vague that one can't determine that at all.
His budget calls for huge tax cuts, supposedly offset by closing loopholes and ending tax expenditures -- except that he neglects to name a single tax expenditure that he would cut. It assumes drastic cuts in discretionary spending, basically eliminating everything except defense. And over the medium term, of course, it’s a plan to savage the poor while giving big tax breaks to the rich. Of course, the Senate will reject it and if it magically got through the Senate, President Obama would veto it.
But if this is what the GOP calls a serious solution for the nation, let this be a referendum on what it would look like if the GOP controlled the government again.
Ryan's plan, like Simpson/Bowles increases revenue by closing loopholes. The tax rates are progressive 10% and 20%. He doesn't spell out every detail. it would take a thousand pages to do that. His plan is an outline. Where is the democrat plan to eliminate the debt? "Eliminating everything"? Give me a break. Let the senate propose a plan of their own or modify Ryan's. They won't because they are not concerned about unlimited debt. Obama's idiotic millionaires tax doesn't raise even a drop in the bucket to reduce our debt.
Ryan's plan, like Simpson/Bowles increases revenue by closing loopholes.
How can anyone say that when Ryan's proposal doesn't even state where the tax-brackets are drawn?
Moreover, if you read post#113, it becomes clear that the Ryan Budget can't possibly reduce deficits, as it relies upon fake, unrealistic assumptions. A real budget relies upon fiscal assumptions pillared in the real world.
What I find disturbing is that you take with absolute faith something that doesn't withstand the most rudimentary level of inspection.
The Tax Policy Center looked into the revenue loss associated with House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan to cut the tax code down to two rates of 10 percent and 25 percent. They estimate the changes would raise $31.1 trillion over 10 years, or 15.4 percent of GDP. That’s $10 trillion less than the tax code would raise if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire, and $4.6 trillion less than it would raise if all of the Bush tax cuts were extended.
The Republican conressman says he’ll “broaden the tax base to maintain revenue...consistent with historical norms of 18 to 19 percent.” So let’s say Ryan needs to find close-enough deductions and loopholes to hit 18.5 percent of GDP. That means he’d need to close about $6.2 trillion in tax deductions and loopholes over 10 years.
That will not be easy. And, as of now, he has not named even one deduction or loophole that he would close.
Yes. Doubling down on a bad position, not a good idea, well, for the GOP.
Good. Now maybe we can discuss the specifics of the plan instead of just hurling generalities.
What, specifically don't you like?
What, if any, things do you like?
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.
