Paul Ryan budget slashes spending by $5.7 trillion to reach 10-year balance

[Parkbandit]

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) unveiled a new budget Tuesday that would cut spending by $5.7 trillion, reduce the top tax rate to 25 percent and balance the budget within 10 years.

The plan would make profound changes to government, bringing spending down from 22.2 percent of the economy to 19.1 percent by 2023. It doubles down on many of the proposals Ryan advanced as his party’s vice presidential candidate in 2012.

"The election didn’t go our way, believe me I know what that feels like," Ryan said Tuesday at a press conference to unveil his proposal. "Does that mean we surrender our principles?"

The budget includes virtually the same Medicare plan that Ryan put forward last year, giving seniors the option of purchasing private insurance on an exchange and receiving "premium support" payments.
People age 54 and younger would see changes starting when they retire in 2024. Ryan had floated applying the changes to those 55 and younger but faced resistance from his caucus.

The Ryan budget once again would make no changes to Social Security but would require the president and Congress to come up with plans to ensure the retirement system remains solvent. Last year’s budget only made that requirement of the president.

In forceful prose, Ryan’s budget calls for Washington to act quickly to address what he describes as a looming national bankruptcy.

“By living beyond our means, we’re stealing from the next generation. By promising a higher standard of living today, the federal government is guaranteeing a lower standard of living tomorrow,” Ryan writes. “Unless we change course, we will have a debt crisis.”

But the budget does not contain language from last year about a “hammock” culture of dependency. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign was severely hurt by his characterization, captured surreptitiously on video, that “47 percent” of Americans are dependent on government and see themselves as victims.

The details of Ryan’s budget are remarkably similar to last year’s blueprint, even though this year’s plan would balance the budget in 10 years instead of 25 years.

Ryan’s budget would cut $5.7 trillion in spending over the next 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office's current baseline. Under a separate baseline devised by Ryan, which unlike the CBO figures does not assume large savings from a reduction in war and disaster spending, Ryan’s budget would reduce spending by $4.6 trillion.

Ryan argues it is a faulty assumption to think that spending will be severely reduced.

The budget would increase defense spending compared to current law by $500 billion over 10 years. Even though Ryan's plan increases defense spending compared to the sequester, the numbers are a cut compared to his last budget.

The budget would also cut the top individual tax rate from 39.6 to 25 percent as part of an overhaul of the tax code that would eliminate breaks within the system. Like last year’s budget, the overhaul would leave two remaining rates at 10 and 25 percent.

The Ryan budget counts the $600 billion in new tax revenue raised under the January “fiscal cliff” deal as budgetary savings. Ryan also counts hundreds of billion in additional revenue being raised due to rosier economic growth projections by CBO.

The main differences from last year's budget are the new revenues from the fiscal-cliff deal, lower healthcare spending measured by CBO, lower pension benefits for all federal workers and an extension of existing budget caps to two additional years at the end of the budget window.

Ryan defended his use of the fiscal-cliff revenue at a press conference. “The law is the law, it is not going to change," he said.

He also admitted that even though he lambasted President Obama for cutting Medicare spending in his healthcare reform law during the campaign, his new budget again assumes the cuts to Medicare. Ryan said that the difference is that the cuts are used to reduce the deficit rather than create a new entitlement. He added that "ObamaCare" is so egregious that it must be repealed.

Senate Democrats are expected to produce their own budget this week — their first in four years. It is not expected to target a date for balancing the budget and is likely to include higher taxes.

"It's the same old approach," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said of the Ryan budget in comments on the Senate floor. "No amount of rebranding can hide that."

The White House immediately took aim at the Republican approach saying that while it aims to cut the deficit, "the math just doesn't add up."

Obama, who campaigned on a populist approach, has said repeatedly that the wealthy must do their share to pay higher taxes which would help pay down the deficit.

"Deficit reduction that asks nothing from the wealthiest Americans has serious consequences for the middle class," White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement on Tuesday. "By choosing to give the wealthiest Americans a new tax cut, this budget as written will either fail to achieve any meaningful deficit reduction, raise taxes on middle class families by more than $2,000 -- or both.

"We've tried this top down approach before," Carney said. "The president still believes it is the wrong course for America."

Carney added that both parties will have to compromise and "make tough choices" to help shrink the deficit.

The details on both the spending and revenue side are sparse, with Ryan deferring to the committees of jurisdiction. For example, it does not spell out what tax breaks would be closed to lower tax rates without adding to the deficit.

Ryan’s budget cuts $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending compared to the CBO’s baseline, which assumes the 10 years of automatic spending cuts known as sequestration remain in effect.

It cuts nearly $1 trillion from “other mandatory” spending and counts $1.8 trillion in savings by repealing Obama’s healthcare reform law, while keeping its cuts to Medicare for deficit reduction.

Ryan argues the spending cuts are “hardly draconian.”

“This budget doesn’t make sudden cuts. Instead it increases spending at a more manageable rate,” his budget states.


Ryan's budget once again would provide block-grant funding to states for Medicaid and food stamps that would be capped. It would eliminate the healthcare law’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility.

In a section entitled “opportunity expanded,” it caps Pell Grant educational subsidies at $5,645 for 10 years.

It would streamline elementary school education programs and job training and cut the federal workforce by 10 percent in two years.

As in past years, the budget attacks Obama’s healthcare reform and clean energy policies as “crony politics.” It calls on the government to stop buying “unnecessary” land so that the space can be opened to energy exploration. It also urges approval of the Keystone oil pipeline.

The budget proposes ending government support for housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and revisiting the Dodd-Frank financial reform law to prevent future bailouts.

It recommends paring transportation funding for high-speed rail and a new farm bill that reduces farm subsidies to the tune of $31 billion.

Other details are vague, but the budget points to an annual Government Accountability Office study to root out government waste.

Ryan says in the budget that he hopes his blueprint could lead to a compromise with Democrats, even as he acknowledges there will be disagreements.

“We understand that not everyone shares our view. And we respect that difference of opinion. Last year, the American people chose divided government. So this year, we have to make it work. We offer this budget in recognition of that need — and in a spirit of good will,” he writes.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/287547-ryan-budget-slashes-spending-by-57t-to-reach-10-year-balance#ixzz2NMTRGURJ

[Back]

Ryan's plan makes some big assumptions and is inequitable across all government departments.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/Screen%20Shot%202013-03-12%20at%2010.21.51%20AM.png

[Warriorbird]

Basically a "Let me show you my conservative cred" bill again. Nothing that will really happen. Worth reading the actual cuts.

[Fallen]

I've read many repubs/conservatives don't like it because it includes the Obama tax raise. Go figure.

[Parkbandit]

I've read many repubs/conservatives don't like it because it includes the Obama tax raise. Go figure.

I'm not sure why it wouldn't.. given that it's now the law.

My issue is that it's cutting Obamacare. You lost seats in the House and don't have the Senate or WH.. so how exactly are you budgetting the elimination of Obamacare?

Be fucking serious and make a realistic budget.

[Fallen]

I'm not sure why it wouldn't.. given that it's now the law.

No idea. Here is the link to the article.

http://mobile.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-12/the-right-wing-case-against-paul-ryans-budget


They had great hopes for Ryan’s new budget, hopes that were dashed when it turned out he planned to keep the $624 billion in tax increases from the fiscal cliff deal.

[Latrinsorm]

Paul Ryan grandstanding pointlessly? Inconceivable!

[Some Rogue]

Paul Ryan grandstanding pointlessly? Inconceivable!

What is he, a Democrat??

[Latrinsorm]

He's pro-Obama tax hikes, so yes. Blue dog RINO former.

[Tgo01]

Paul Ryan grandstanding pointlessly? Inconceivable!

It's only pointless if you allow it to be pointless.

[Fallen]

To be fair, it is as much pointless grandstanding as the Democrat budget, which apparently has Republicans agreeing to nearly 1 trillion dollars in tax hikes and doesn't actually balance the budget. How can you have a wish list type budget and not even fucking balance it?

Edited to add: I like Politico. This article presented both budgets fairly: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/dueling-budgets-key-takeaways-88774.html?hp=t1_3

[Latrinsorm]

If you're suggesting I stalk Representative and Chairman Ryan, surgically remove his face, surgically remove my own face, and switch faces with him, I'm sorry Terrence but that is just disgusting.

C-c-c-yeah, disgusting, baby.

[Warriorbird]

How can you have a wish list type budget and not even fucking balance it?

Ask Mitt Romney.

[Androidpk]

Ryan doesn't give a fuck. It's good enough for him just to be able to say "I put together a plan." and use that as a talking point of how awesome he is.

[Candor]

There are obviously major problems with Ryan's plan, but what I don't see is a reasonable alternative from the Democrats. Or did I miss that (please say yes...)?

[Parkbandit]

Ryan doesn't give a fuck. It's good enough for him just to be able to say "I put together a plan." and use that as a talking point of how awesome he is.

I disagree. He's the Chairman of the House Budget Committee... so it's not out of his realm of responsibilities.

I'll grant you that he probably doesn't honestly believe anything will come from this budget proposal... or the Democrat one.. and especially not Obama's.

I would honestly like to see a budget type outline from someone like Rand Paul.

[Parkbandit]

There are obviously major problems with Ryan's plan, but what I don't see is an alternative from the Democrats. Or did I miss that (please say yes...)?

Yes:

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats will offer a budget plan Wednesday that will call for $1.85 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years through a 50/50 split of more revenue and spending cuts, according to an outline supplied by a Democrat close to the budget talks.
The plan, which will be announced by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., chairwoman of the Senate Budget Committee, would raise the extra $975 billion in revenue over 10 years by eliminating tax breaks for various industries. The source spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been released officially.
Murray's plan calls for replacing the $86 billion in mandatory spending cuts triggered March 1 with more targeted cuts that would allow the Obama administration more flexibility in determining what programs would be cut more than others. As it stands, the mandatory cuts hit defense with a 9% across-the-board reduction and 13% for other agencies.
The Senate proposal follows a House Republican budget plan released Tuesday by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Budget Committee and the 2012 GOP nominee for vice president. That plan calls for $4.6 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years with a balanced budget at the end of that period. It would do so without raising taxes, Ryan said Tuesday, and by cutting spending on Medicare.
Senate Democrats say they will not cut Medicare spending and will not change the system to require future retirees to buy health insurance on their own through a voucher program.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/12/dueling-budget-plans-opening-gambits-in-bigger-fight/1982555/

And Obama's budget (Due February 4, 2013......) will supposedly be arriving in April.

[Jarvan]

Ryan doesn't give a fuck. It's good enough for him just to be able to say "I put together a plan." and use that as a talking point of how awesome he is.

Sounds like someone else in Politics..

Campaigner in Chief maybe?

[Androidpk]

Sounds like 99.99% of people in politics.

[Methais]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LT3Px11xN-0

:lol:

Too bad that Obamacare is already destroying the health care system.

[Candor]

What I want to see from the Democrats is a long-term plan that will have the US spending only as much as it takes in. Yeah a...<dramatic pause for you liberals> balanced budget.

We cannot keep borrowing indefinitely. We can argue how long and how much the US can keep borrowing, but sooner or later it will stop either due to common sense or due to the fact that other countries will not lend us any more money.

I am not saying that Ryan's plan is the answer, but at least he has one. What is the Democratic long-term plan/approach/strategy to balance the budget?

[Methais]

What is the Democratic long-term plan/approach/strategy to balance the budget?

MAKING THE RICH PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!!!!!!1

Wait...didn't they start making the rich pay their fair share on January 1? Or was that fair, but just not quite fair enough?

I'm sure that if we raise taxes just one more time, all of our problems will be solved.

[Parkbandit]

I am not saying that Ryan's plan is the answer, but at least he has one. What is the Democratic long-term plan/approach/strategy to balance the budget?

1) Tax the rich people more
2) Tax corporations more
3) Tax oil/coal/gas companies more

We don't have a spending problem.. We have a wealth fairness problem in this country!!!!!

[Androidpk]

Would taxing corporations really work? They already do everything they can to avoid taxes and store their excess cash in overseas banks.

[Parkbandit]

Would taxing corporations really work? They already do everything they can to avoid taxes and store their excess cash in overseas banks.

"Fix" the "loophole" that allows them to avoid taxes.

[Methais]

"Fix" the "loophole" that allows them to avoid taxes.

And then call them evil and greedy when they pass it on to the consumers and/or raise prices.

[Methais]

Taxing the "evil rich people" may not be the one solution to the problem, but it's definitely understandable when you consider how lopsided income is in America, especially considering it's only accelerating, and economic mobility is decreasing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Anyone who comes from nothing and still gets rich pretty much destroys any "wealth inequality" argument.

Perhaps it doesn't happen as much as before because there's more government in the way now.

Nah, it must be those evil capitalists just being their evil selves I'm sure, doing anything they can to keep others from being successful, even if those other people aren't doing something that would consider them competition.

[Androidpk]

"Fix" the "loophole" that allows them to avoid taxes.

The "loophole" is Congress and every other politician in DC.

[Parkbandit]

Taxing the "evil rich people" may not be the one solution to the problem, but it's definitely understandable when you consider how lopsided wealth is in America, especially considering it's only accelerating, and economic mobility is decreasing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

It's like I have ESP...

[Back]

When republicans say the democratic plan is purely an attack on capitalism and wealth it makes sense that the republican plan is protect the rich at all costs. The only problem is the democratic plan is NOT an attack on capitalism and wealth so republicans are over reacting to a false premise. Everyone is knows that the republican plan is to protect the wealthy at all costs so it is a constant battle to gain some fair ground for everyone else.

[Candor]

1) Tax the rich people more
2) Tax corporations more
3) Tax oil/coal/gas companies more

We don't have a spending problem.. We have a wealth fairness problem in this country!!!!!

Then tell your Democratic representatives to take this approach, create a plan with realistic numbers, and create a bill.

Don't tell me the bill will be DOA in the house - that hasn't stopped the Republicans in the past. IMHO we need options that need to be discussed. No doubt whatever the Democrats come up with will have a flaws (you can't create something this complex and get it perfect the first time), but at least there will be an option to talk about.

Besides, this would be great campaign strategy for 2014. You're not going to win back the House just by screaming how evil the Republicans are. You need to have your own plan.

[Ryvicke]

Then tell your Democratic representatives to take this approach, create a plan with realistic numbers, and create a bill.

Don't tell me the bill will be DOA in the house - that hasn't stopped the Republicans in the past. IMHO we need options that need to be discussed. No doubt whatever the Democrats come up with will have a flaws (you can't create something this complex and get it perfect the first time), but at least there will be an option to talk about.

Besides, this would be great campaign strategy for 2014. You're not going to win back the House just by screaming how evil the Republicans are. You need to have your own plan.

Democrats won the House popular vote in Nov. They'll never win back the House without massive redistricting. Or until the Latins take over Murrica.

Long story short: combination of spending cuts, revenue increase and some entitlement reform. Same obvious need for five years, no agreements.

[Fallen]

Long story short: combination of spending cuts, revenue increase and some entitlement reform. Same obvious need for five years, no agreements.

Yep.


Does anyone dispute the figures in Ashliana's message? Saying nothing for what it suggests, does anyone think it is flat-out inaccurate?

[Parkbandit]

Yep.


Does anyone dispute the figures in Ashliana's message? Saying nothing for what it suggests, does anyone think it is flat-out inaccurate?

What figures?

[Fallen]

What figures?

The wealth distribution illustrated in the graphs/charts as well as the public perception of wealth distribution also described.

[Parkbandit]

The wealth distribution illustrated in the graphs/charts as well as the public perception of wealth distribution also described.

To believe in that theory requires you to also believe that the wealth in this country is net 0 and that someone or some group has stolen your share of that wealth.

I don't subscribe in the "it's not fair" economic principle.

[Bobmuhthol]

To believe in that theory requires you to also believe that the wealth in this country is net 0 and that someone or some group has stolen your share of that wealth.

I don't subscribe in the "it's not fair" economic principle. You just made the very big mistake of saying the size of the pie doesn't matter. You wouldn't be making the same statements if the Fed announced that they were doubling the money supply and giving all the new money to a randomly selected group of 500 people, but it's the same thing.

[Bobmuhthol]

Anyone who comes from nothing and still gets rich pretty much destroys any "wealth inequality" argument.Yeah, dude, totally. I'm picking up what you're putting down, man. I'm glad we both think that people who are the right combination of lucky and smart to be the tiny minority that succeed completely undermine the radical notion that there is "wealth inequality" in this most socialist country.

[Parkbandit]

You just made the very big mistake of saying the size of the pie doesn't matter. You wouldn't be making the same statements if the Fed announced that they were doubling the money supply and giving all the new money to a randomly selected group of 500 people, but it's the same thing.

I don't even know what point you are attempting to make.

Wealth in this country is not a net 0 game.. meaning that because I have more than $X, I must have taken someone else's share.

America is the land of equal opportunity.. Not equal outcome.

[Bobmuhthol]

Wealth in this country is not a net 0 game. I absolutely agree. You can add more to yourself without taking anything from anyone else. But now that person's fraction of total wealth, and therefore financial position, has been compromised. So if I don't have the opportunity to increase my wealth as fast as you because my tax rate is higher than yours, even though your income is higher than mine, you keep getting not only more individual wealth, but also a disproportionately high fraction of the total wealth, until in the limit you own practically all of it. If there are 2 groups in the country, split evenly, and they all have the same wealth, let's say 1000 units each, and now you give one group another 1000 units and the other group nothing, what happens? Two otherwise identical groups now have a 2:1 wealth ratio. But you didn't take anything away from the other group, and they're worse off, how can this be??????????????????

[Parkbandit]

Wealth in this country is not a net 0 game. I absolutely agree. You can add more to yourself without taking anything from anyone else. But now that person's fraction of total wealth, and therefore financial position, has been compromised. So if I don't have the opportunity to increase my wealth as fast as you because my tax rate is higher than yours, even though your income is higher than mine, you keep getting not only more individual wealth, but also a disproportionately high fraction of the total wealth, until in the limit you own practically all of it. If there are 2 groups in the country, split evenly, and they all have the same wealth, let's say 1000 units each, and now you give one group another 1000 units and the other group nothing, what happens? Two otherwise identical groups now have a 2:1 wealth ratio. But you didn't take anything away from the other group, and they're worse off, how can this be??????????????????

So, you believe that each individual should be guaranteed a certain percentage of the pie.. regardless of effort, intelligence, skill, luck, etc..?

[Bobmuhthol]

No. The magic of dismantling your argument is that I don't need to have one in its place. I just have to prove that yours is invalid. You claim that there is no harm to individuals who are not given free money compared to those who are on the basis that they haven't lost any money. Money isn't the proper numeraire. Purchasing power is. When you give more wealth to certain people (this is not the same thing as when certain people simply earn more money), the people who do not benefit from that extra wealth have lost purchasing power. They absolutely are worse off by all measures except number of dollars in their pocket. But prices went up.

[Jarvan]

Wealth in this country is not a net 0 game. I absolutely agree. You can add more to yourself without taking anything from anyone else. But now that person's fraction of total wealth, and therefore financial position, has been compromised. So if I don't have the opportunity to increase my wealth as fast as you because my tax rate is higher than yours, even though your income is higher than mine, you keep getting not only more individual wealth, but also a disproportionately high fraction of the total wealth, until in the limit you own practically all of it. If there are 2 groups in the country, split evenly, and they all have the same wealth, let's say 1000 units each, and now you give one group another 1000 units and the other group nothing, what happens? Two otherwise identical groups now have a 2:1 wealth ratio. But you didn't take anything away from the other group, and they're worse off, how can this be??????????????????

How exactly is the second group worse off? Did the Units become worth less? Does it now take 2x as many units to buy a burger?

If not, then they are not worse off at all. Nothing has changed for them. I think you are hung up on wealth. You think everyone is simply trying to accumulate as much wealth as possible at all times, and if one person amasses money faster, it somehow isn't fair.

The funny thing is, what you are saying, and any proposal you have for it likely would never work. You have said before you would like to see a tax system that basically scales with how much you make. I could imagine you being all for a tax of 90% if you make 100+ million a year. The thing is, even an income of 10 million a year will still be to much to you when compared to the "middle class"

Money amasses money. It's like a snowball rolling downhill. You may think taxing the rich to the point where they basically can't make money anymore would solve the income gap, but it won't. Someone that doesn't want to work hard, doesn't have skills, doesn't go to school, and hell, doesn't even show up half the time for work will NEVER under any circumstances, unless you are advocating paying everyone the same wages, come close to bridging any gap in income levels. Nor should he.

A person that pours drinks in a bar, should not be making the same amount, if not more, then the bar owner. If they is, the bar owner is doing something wrong.


No. The magic of dismantling your argument is that I don't need to have one in its place. I just have to prove that yours is invalid. You claim that there is no harm to individuals who are not given free money compared to those who are on the basis that they haven't lost any money. Money isn't the proper numeraire. Purchasing power is. When you give more wealth to certain people (this is not the same thing as when certain people simply earn more money), the people who do not benefit from that extra wealth have lost purchasing power. They absolutely are worse off by all measures except number of dollars in their pocket. But prices went up.

But you are not saying prices went up, you are saying the first group just has more money. Not the same thing.

[Bobmuhthol]

How exactly is the second group worse off? Did the Units become worth less? Does it now take 2x as many units to buy a burger?Same argument I gave before. You especially would have the worst fucking temper tantrum the world has ever seen if the Fed started handing out free money for everyone except you. Implicitly it's because you understand that it makes you worse off. So why the hell are you trying to convince me that it's not true?
But you are not saying prices went up, you are saying the first group just has more money. Not the same thing.Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Parkbandit]

No. The magic of dismantling your argument is that I don't need to have one in its place. I just have to prove that yours is invalid. You claim that there is no harm to individuals who are not given free money compared to those who are on the basis that they haven't lost any money. Money isn't the proper numeraire. Purchasing power is. When you give more wealth to certain people (this is not the same thing as when certain people simply earn more money), the people who do not benefit from that extra wealth have lost purchasing power. They absolutely are worse off by all measures except number of dollars in their pocket. But prices went up.

Fantastic!!

[Latrinsorm]

To believe in that theory requires you to also believe that the wealth in this country is net 0 and that someone or some group has stolen your share of that wealth.

I don't subscribe in the "it's not fair" economic principle.I know I say this a lot, but this is a really fascinating response. Fallen asked whether a number was accurate, specifically adding "stating nothing for what it suggests", you respond about belief in a theory. I mean, it's hard to even call that a response in anything but the syntactic sense. What was your thought process here?

[Ryvicke]

Taxing the "evil rich people" may not be the one solution to the problem, but it's definitely understandable when you consider how lopsided wealth is in America, especially considering it's only accelerating, and economic mobility is decreasing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

Wow that video is fucking amazing. We are so close to socialism guise!!!!!1

4710

[Parkbandit]

This isn't the same video.. it's a discussion on issue of wealth inequality.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p047te7AWzY

[Parkbandit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcsvAT4JT-g

[Jarvan]

Same argument I gave before. You especially would have the worst fucking temper tantrum the world has ever seen if the Fed started handing out free money for everyone except you. Implicitly it's because you understand that it makes you worse off. So why the hell are you trying to convince me that it's not true?Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

So what you are saying that if every person in the country was given free money but me. I would be worse off then I was, because I wasn't given free money.

Actually, I would be EXACTLY the same, UNLESS all prices also increased.

The rich getting richer doesn't increases prices on it's own you know. Yes, the fed creating more money out of thin air WOULD likely lead to inflation, but you are using that as a hyperbole, not an actual situation.

If Donald trump makes 250 Million dollars in 2013 and I may 25k, when last year he made 125 million and I made only 20k, his increase in obviously greater then mine, so by your logic, I am now worse off then I was the year before. This is not the case.

I just think it's funny I guess, I would love to see people like you run a business. I am sure your janitors would be making the same as you as CEO. I mean, got to be fair right?

BTW.. anyone ever ask Back if he pays his employees the same wage he earns? I mean, he want's to be "fair" right?

[Parkbandit]

What I want to see from the Democrats is a long-term plan that will have the US spending only as much as it takes in.

Well.. it won't be in the next 10 years:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/budget.preview.png

[Bobmuhthol]

So what you are saying that if every person in the country was given free money but me. I would be worse off then I was, because I wasn't given free money.

Actually, I would be EXACTLY the same, UNLESS all prices also increased.

The rich getting richer doesn't increases prices on it's own you know. Yes, the fed creating more money out of thin air WOULD likely lead to inflation, but you are using that as a hyperbole, not an actual situation.

If Donald trump makes 250 Million dollars in 2013 and I may 25k, when last year he made 125 million and I made only 20k, his increase in obviously greater then mine, so by your logic, I am now worse off then I was the year before. This is not the case.One of us has a degree in economics. One of us does not.

[Ryvicke]

The funny part is dudes like PB think they "got cash" but are getting fucked more than anyone else.

From my experience with assholes in hedge funds, if you're rich and you pay more than 10% in taxes, you're not rich.

[Methais]

The funny part is dudes like PB think they "got cash" but are getting fucked more than anyone else.

From my experience with assholes in hedge funds, if you're rich and you pay more than 10% in taxes, you're not rich.

If someone has significantly more money than me, particularly if they're in the millions, they're "rich" and "got cash" in my eyes, even if they were paying 99.9999% in taxes. Even if they have a really bad coke habit.

[Tgo01]

From my experience with assholes in hedge funds, if you're rich and you pay more than 10% in taxes, you're not rich.

Warren Buffett paid 11% in taxes.

[Back]

Senate Democrats release first budget in four years, includes $1 trillion in tax increases



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/13/senate-democrats-release-first-budget-in-four-years-includes-1-trillion-in-tax/#ixzz2NWo7snX6


The Senate on Wednesday presented its first budget in four years, a proposal by leaders of the Democrat-controlled chamber that calls for nearly $1 trillion in tax increases but includes no strategy to make federal revenue match spending in the coming years.

The plan calls for $975 billion in new tax revenue through closing loopholes and ending deductions and credits benefiting corporations and the country’s highest wage earners.

It also calls for $100 billion in new stimulus spending while cutting $1.85 trillion from the deficit over 10 years. The rest of the savings would come through spending cuts.


I love the doublespeak where closing tax loopholes means tax increases from the Ministry of Fair and Balanced Propoganda.

[Methais]

Senate Democrats release first budget in four years, includes $1 trillion in tax increases



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/13/senate-democrats-release-first-budget-in-four-years-includes-1-trillion-in-tax/#ixzz2NWo7snX6



I love the doublespeak where closing tax loopholes means tax increases from the Ministry of Fair and Balanced Propoganda.

You say that as if MSNBC or whoever wouldn't consider a new loophole as a "tax decrease for the rich".

[Back]

You say that as if MSNBC or whoever wouldn't consider a new loophole as a "tax decrease for the rich".

I do not watch MSNBC. But if you can find anywhere on their site where they make that claim I would be interested in seeing it.

[Parkbandit]

The funny part is dudes like PB think they "got cash" but are getting fucked more than anyone else.

From my experience with assholes in hedge funds, if you're rich and you pay more than 10% in taxes, you're not rich.

It's cute how you think you know my personal finances.

I have plenty of cash.. and here's the part you can't wrap your tiny head around.. I don't care about what other people have or don't have. As long as I can live comfortably and help my family.. I'm happy. My happiness doesn't hinge on what the Jones are making and how unfair life is if they have more than me.

[Methais]

I do not watch MSNBC. But if you can find anywhere on their site where they make that claim I would be interested in seeing it.

Whoosh?

[Parkbandit]

Senate Democrats release first budget in four years, includes $1 trillion in tax increases



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/13/senate-democrats-release-first-budget-in-four-years-includes-1-trillion-in-tax/#ixzz2NWo7snX6



I love the doublespeak where closing tax loopholes means tax increases from the Ministry of Fair and Balanced Propoganda.

If you are paying more in taxes.. It's a tax increase.

I'm concerned how this confuses you.

[Methais]

I'm concerned how this confuses you.

I couldn't help but notice how you didn't say you were surprised though.

[Back]

Whoosh?

I love it when some moron fails at trying to make some witty remark to one of my comments then uses a "whoosh" to try and cover it up when I call them on it. I know exactly what you meant and it was a stupid comment.

[Methais]

I love it when some moron fails at trying to make some witty remark to one of my comments then uses a "whoosh" to try and cover it up when I call them on it. I know exactly what you meant and it was a stupid comment.

Explain how it was a stupid comment, considering how that's exactly what those lefty networks would do. Whether you watch them yourself or not is irrelevant.

[Back]

Explain how it was a stupid comment, considering how that's exactly what those lefty networks would do. Whether you watch them yourself or not is irrelevant.

Then it should not be hard to find an example and post it here.

[Methais]

Then it should not be hard to find an example and post it here.

So by me not giving a shit enough to go search around for it and post it to satisfy you, that means it must not exist, or that it could ever happen in the future, should some new tax loophole be introduced.

Which brings me to the difference between past, present, and future. As far as I know, no new loopholes have been introduced anytime recently. Considering how I don't exactly keep up with that kind of shit to begin with, mainly because I'm neither an accountant nor am I rich, that statement may or may not be true. Either way, it's impossible to go into the future after some new loophole comes out, and then link the snippet from the future news article where they refer to it as a tax cut for the evil rich. Which by the way would most likely only be labeled as such if it happened under a Republican president.

The point is in illustrating the double-standard mentality of the mainstream media, which you appear to be in completely denial of, unsurprisingly.

[Ryvicke]

It's cute how you think you know my personal finances.

I have plenty of cash.. and here's the part you can't wrap your tiny head around.. I don't care about what other people have or don't have. As long as I can live comfortably and help my family.. I'm happy. My happiness doesn't hinge on what the Jones are making and how unfair life is if they have more than me.

I've really never been concerned with your opinions of those that have more than you, but I think you're being disingenuous in downplaying your concerns about wealth--it's been a common theme in your posts here for years. That said, you seem to have a good attitude about those with more than you, how about those with less?

ALSO: I don't think I've ever talked about rep I get but I just fucking loved the red I got on that post. Self-referential PC gossip is one of my favorite parts of posting here--I wish all the "faggot" reps I get could be as personalized and insider-y as that.

[Tgo01]

ALSO: I don't think I've ever talked about rep I get but I just fucking loved the red I got on that post. Self-referential PC gossip is one of my favorite parts of posting here

Don't tease us, share!

[Parkbandit]

I've really never been concerned with your opinions of those that have more than you, but I think you're being disingenuous in downplaying your concerns about wealth--it's been a common theme in your posts here for years.

So.. Now you not only know about my personal finances.. but now you can read my thoughts across the Internet?

Lets just say: I live comfortably with what I have.


That said, you seem to have a good attitude about those with more than you, how about those with less?

I have a normal attitude about other people's wealth... which is contrary to people like you.

As far as people who have less.. I'll put my charitable giving against yours any day.


ALSO: I don't think I've ever talked about rep I get but I just fucking loved the red I got on that post. Self-referential PC gossip is one of my favorite parts of posting here--I wish all the "faggot" reps I get could be as personalized and insider-y as that.

Hit too close to home?

And no.. it wasn't me. I'm back in Winter Haven today and can't give rep on Tapatalk.

[Fallen]

It's cute how you think you know my personal finances.

I have plenty of cash.. and here's the part you can't wrap your tiny head around.. I don't care about what other people have or don't have. As long as I can live comfortably and help my family.. I'm happy. My happiness doesn't hinge on what the Jones are making and how unfair life is if they have more than me.

Using the above logic, you would not be for or against a tax increase on those with more wealth than you could ever hope to obtain. Is that a correct assumption?

[Back]

So by me not giving a shit enough to go search around for it and post it to satisfy you, that means it must not exist, or that it could ever happen in the future, should some new tax loophole be introduced.

Well then you are just talking out of your ass with nothing to back up your false claims.

[Tgo01]

Remember that one time Back accused everyone of talking out of their asses because they didn't provide links, then about 5 people provided links, then Back dismissed all the links as "rumors" started by one man and kept up his bullshit?

[Methais]

Well then you are just talking out of your ass with nothing to back up your false claims.

No, you're just being you.

[Back]

Remember that one time Back accused everyone of talking of their asses because they didn't provide links, then about 5 people provided links, then Back dismissed all the links as "rumors" started by one man and kept up his bullshit?

Yeah. You all latched on to a rumor and started claiming it as fact. If it were such a widespread problem you would have seen it on every major news site.

[Tgo01]

Yeah. You all latched on to a rumor and started claiming it as fact. If it were such a widespread problem you would have seen it on every major news site.

See?

[Methais]

Yeah. You all latched on to a rumor and started claiming it as fact. If it were such a widespread problem you would have seen it on every major news site.

Are you saying that you don't think a lefty mainstream news channel would try to dress up a new loophole as a tax cut, particularly under a Republican president? You never did answer that part.

[Parkbandit]

Using the above logic, you would not be for or against a tax increase on those with more wealth than you could ever hope to obtain. Is that a correct assumption?

Your "logic" is flawed.

Want to attempt it again?

[Back]

Are you saying that you don't think a lefty mainstream news channel would try to dress up a new loophole as a tax cut, particularly under a Republican president? You never did answer that part.

Thats not the poiint. I posted a link to a democratic budget reported by FOX. I made the comment that the way they phrased the title was disingenuous towards the truth of the actual article itself. You claim MSNBC or any other site does the exact same thing except opposite. I ask you to show me where. You avoid doing so and play games.

I have no point to prove here.

[Parkbandit]

Are you saying that you don't think a lefty mainstream news channel would try to dress up a new loophole as a tax cut, particularly under a Republican president? You never did answer that part.

Why would MSNBC want to put a positive spin on a policy change for a Republican?

[Parkbandit]

Thats not the poiint. I posted a link to a democratic budget reported by FOX. I made the comment that the way they phrased the title was disingenuous towards the truth of the actual article itself. You claim MSNBC or any other site does the exact same thing except opposite. I ask you to show me where. You avoid doing so and play games.

I have no point to prove here.

Can you explain what impact closing these tax loopholes would have on someone's taxes?

1) Taxes go up.
2) Taxes go down.

It's either a tax increase or a tax cut... but you avoid saying which it is and play games...

[Fallen]

Your "logic" is flawed.

Want to attempt it again?

No, not without an explanation of what you found flawed about it.*

[Ryvicke]

Your "logic" is flawed.

Want to attempt it again?

UGH -- I knew you would punt answering this. Try it again, but wait till you're not on tapatalk so you can give a real meaty paragraph of bullshit.

Here are the quotes again in case you forgot:


I have plenty of cash.. and here's the part you can't wrap your tiny head around.. I don't care about what other people have or don't have. As long as I can live comfortably and help my family.. I'm happy. My happiness doesn't hinge on what the Jones are making and how unfair life is if they have more than me.


Using the above logic, you would not be for or against a tax increase on those with more wealth than you could ever hope to obtain. Is that a correct assumption?

[Candor]

Well.. it won't be in the next 10 years:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/budget.preview.png

And this is what really bothers me. We're going to tax people and corporations to pay for all this?

OK Dems, time to cough up some numbers. Show us how exactly we're going to get all this money...let's have a detailed plan...

...or we could...yeah I know it's tough to comprehend...let's say it slowly....s p e n d...l e s s...

At least Ryan has a plan to balance the budget. Yes it's flawed, but at least he has one. Where is the Democratic plan...with numbers...showing when the US starts spending only as much as it takes in...

[Kastrel]

I don't understand. In what justifiable scenario should we be spending MORE money than we are now?

[Jarvan]

One of us has a degree in economics. One of us does not.

So you can't argue that I am wrong, you just are going to use the "I have a degree, you do not" line, huh? If a degree on it's own makes people right, then why do economists disagree on things?

[Fallen]

I don't understand. In what justifiable scenario should we be spending MORE money than we are now?

I agree. With the wars ending we should at least be able to to stay at a neutral level of spending. Health care costs keep going up, but beyond that i'm not sure what would be driving spending upwards like crazy. The military is certainly cutting back. Education reimbursement for active duty soldiers is on the way out. Standing army size is decreasing as well.

[Kastrel]

I agree. With the wars ending we should at least be able to to stay at a neutral level of spending. Health care costs keep going up, but beyond that i'm not sure what would be driving spending upwards like crazy. The military is certainly cutting back. Education reimbursement for active duty soldiers is on the way out. Standing army size is decreasing as well.

I want to know what we need an extra 2 trillion a year for that we aren't already covering now (without the money to back it up).

[Jarvan]

Remember that one time Back accused everyone of talking out of their asses because they didn't provide links, then about 5 people provided links, then Back dismissed all the links as "rumors" started by one man and kept up his bullshit?

Remember that one time people asked Back to prove something he said and he said he didn't have to prove anything, we all had to prove him wrong instead.


I want to know what we need an extra 2 trillion a year for that we aren't already covering now (without the money to back it up).

Solar power?

[Tgo01]

I want to know what we need an extra 2 trillion a year for that we aren't already covering now (without the money to back it up).

When in doubt, blame Bush.

[Parkbandit]

No, not without an explanation of what you found flawed about it.*

My happiness with my level of income isn't based upon how I rank in comparison to others.

My political leanings aren't based upon my wealth, but on my beliefs of what the relationships between government and citizens is or should be.

Using your logic, you base your income happiness on not what you have, but how much money you have compared to other people.. and if someone had more money than you, then you are more happy when some of their income is confiscated.

[Kastrel]

Solar power?

If renewable energy is the answer, then that sucks, but I can accept it as a poorly handled investment rather than just "wtf".


When in doubt, blame Bush.

I think there is tons of stuff Bush can be blamed for, but "deciding" 8 years after the fact to spend 2 trillion more "ten years from now" (or 18 years after Bush) has nothing to do with him anymore.

Honestly, I just want to know where the money is going. Why in "crunch time", we are spending more.

[Parkbandit]

UGH -- I knew you would punt answering this. Try it again, but wait till you're not on tapatalk so you can give a real meaty paragraph of bullshit.

Here are the quotes again in case you forgot:

I don't expect you to understand it.. but I'm willing to give Fallen the benefit of doubt.

[Methais]

Thats not the poiint. I posted a link to a democratic budget reported by FOX. I made the comment that the way they phrased the title was disingenuous towards the truth of the actual article itself. You claim MSNBC or any other site does the exact same thing except opposite. I ask you to show me where. You avoid doing so and play games.

I have no point to prove here.

Wrong, as usual.

What I said was this:



You say that as if MSNBC or whoever wouldn'tconsider a new loophole as a "tax decrease for the rich".

I bolded, underlined, and increased the size of the key word that you're either unable to comprehend the meaning of, or are trying to twist what I say, thinking I either won't remember my own words, or am not aware of how forums work, particularly when it comes to being able to see or quote earlier posts.

That said, please choose one of the following:

1. Answer the very simple opinion based question I asked
2. Stfu
3. Loosen your scarf to increase bloodflow to your brain
4. Rent or lease a fully functional brain of your own

[Parkbandit]

I don't understand. In what justifiable scenario should we be spending MORE money than we are now?

Every plan, so far, has increased spending every year.. Even after the "draconian" "cuts" of sequester. (Which only cuts the amount of increased spending)

[Kastrel]

Every plan, so far, has increased spending every year.. Even after the "draconian" "cuts" of sequester. (Which only cuts the amount of increased spending)

Equally unacceptable. How is it a cut if you spend more? Is our national income increasing at even a slightly equivalent rate to account for it?

[Parkbandit]

If renewable energy is the answer, then that sucks, but I can accept it as a poorly handled investment rather than just "wtf".



I think there is tons of stuff Bush can be blamed for, but "deciding" 8 years after the fact to spend 2 trillion more "ten years from now" (or 18 years after Bush) has nothing to do with him anymore.

Honestly, I just want to know where the money is going. Why in "crunch time", we are spending more.

Many people who subscribe to this extra spending theory don't honestly believe this is "crunch time" yet.. and that by increasing spending by the government and increasing taxes on the rich will pull us out of this economic stagnation.

[Parkbandit]

Equally unacceptable. How is it a cut if you spend more? Is our national income increasing at even a slightly equivalent rate to account for it?

It's a cut in the amount of increased spending.

I don't subscribe to this belief.. I'm just explaining it.

It's all a bunch of bullshit IMO. The last thing they (both parties) want is actual spending cuts.. because that takes away their power.

[Bobmuhthol]

So you can't argue that I am wrong, you just are going to use the "I have a degree, you do not" line, huh? If a degree on it's own makes people right, then why do economists disagree on things?I already argued that you were wrong. You didn't understand and said a bunch of wrong things at me in response. Why bother? If you understood economics, you wouldn't argue these points with me.

Utility derives from consumption, not from nominal counting devices. Saying you are happy because you have $X is pointless, because I can just make $X worth 0 consumption and suddenly you're not happy anymore. It's the wrong numeraire.

[Jarvan]

It's not about you both being on opposite sides of an issue, and him being correct simply because he has a degree. It's that he's making an argument, and you don't understand the underlying concepts well enough (i.e., purchasing power) to have a reasoned position on either side.

LOL

I understand purchasing power well enough to understand that unless inflation outpaces my growing income, it doesn't matter if the top 1% gets 100,000x what I get in income. I also know that the fact they do make that more more then me does not directly change prices.

Remember Ashliana, this is the guy that said that 463 billion is less then 81.5 billion.

[Jarvan]

I already argued that you were wrong. You didn't understand and said a bunch of wrong things at me in response. Why bother? If you understood economics, you wouldn't argue these points with me.

Utility derives from consumption, not from nominal counting devices. Saying you are happy because you have $X is pointless, because I can just make $X worth 0 consumption and suddenly you're not happy anymore. It's the wrong numeraire.

So what you are saying is that in your mythical world you can just make money worthless and therefore those with less money are not happy anymore. Yet those with more money wouldn't be happy either. Maybe those with more would still have their boat, but.. they couldn't sell their boat, since money isn't worth anything.

It's really funny Bob, yes you can make money worthless, but in the real world, it doesn't happen. Sorry. I forget that you live in the Liberal Elite world of "what I think is right land". Please Bob, come to the real world, learn how real people live. Learn that money doesn't suddenly become worth 0 just so you could make a point.

[Bobmuhthol]

Like I said, you don't understand economics.

[Jarvan]

Like I said, you don't understand economics.

So you are saying, that an economist can make my yearly pay disappear and become worthless by making money worth zero?

[Latrinsorm]

And this is what really bothers me. We're going to tax people and corporations to pay for all this?

OK Dems, time to cough up some numbers. Show us how exactly we're going to get all this money...let's have a detailed plan...

...or we could...yeah I know it's tough to comprehend...let's say it slowly....s p e n d...l e s s...

At least Ryan has a plan to balance the budget. Yes it's flawed, but at least he has one. Where is the Democratic plan...with numbers...showing when the US starts spending only as much as it takes in...You are convinced that a balanced budget is (literally) necessary. Other people look at our long, long, long history of not having one and are not convinced. Not getting into who is right or wrong, just pointing out why you will not be satisfied.
I want to know what we need an extra 2 trillion a year for that we aren't already covering now (without the money to back it up).Consider that at 3% inflation, $3.6 today is $5.0 in 2023. You know what Einstein said about compound interest, same principle.

Only the remaining $0.7 are spending increases, which over 10 years is only in the tens of billions per year. Beware sensationalism.
Many people who subscribe to this extra spending theory don't honestly believe this is "crunch time" yet.. and that by increasing spending by the government and increasing taxes on the rich will pull us out of this economic stagnation.How do you measure economic stagnation?

[Tgo01]

You are convinced that a balanced budget is (literally) necessary. Other people look at our long, long, long history of not having one and are not convinced. Not getting into who is right or wrong, just pointing out why you will not be satisfied.

I actually have no problem that we borrow money. It's just like when I play Sim City (see games CAN be educational) I can either not borrow money and save the interest I would have paid if I did borrow money or I can borrow money and put that money to good use for my people by building them police stations, roads and schools so they can in turn be happy, get a better job and pay more in taxes so I have money to pay that interest.

It's the same principle for people too. People borrow money to buy a house, car, an education, 10,000 dollar super computers so they can enjoy life right now and get a better benefit out of their money over a longer period of time. Waiting until you have the money to pay for college would actually do less for you then just borrowing the money first and paying it back with a little bit of interest.

Of course lately it seems the US is borrowing money a lot faster than the economy is growing. Because aliens.

[Kastrel]

Consider that at 3% inflation, $3.6 today is $5.0 in 2023. You know what Einstein said about compound interest, same principle.

Only the remaining $0.7 are spending increases, which over 10 years is only in the tens of billions per year. Beware sensationalism.How do you measure economic stagnation?

Well, let me ask you this . . . considering the various currency and markets all over the world, is this 3% inflation just dismissed as "its inflation, don't worry about it"? Or let me put it this way, if your spending increases by 2 trillion mostly due to inflation, can you safely say "its irrelevant, its just inflation"?

Even so, why is the budget STILL increasing, inflation or otherwise?

EDIT: Also, at what point do we just divide the worth of our currency by 10 and call it a day? Or pull a Trigun and use double dollars.

[Latrinsorm]

Well, let me ask you this . . . considering the various currency and markets all over the world, is this 3% inflation just dismissed as "its inflation, don't worry about it"? Or let me put it this way, if your spending increases by 2 trillion mostly due to inflation, can you safely say "its irrelevant, its just inflation"?Everything I have seen about inflation suggests that it is very useful and very harmless in small, controlled doses. People worrying about the Weimar Republic (not saying you're one of them) have no sense of scale: they saw trillion to one in a three year period, we've seen less than 30 to one in a hundred.

It is interesting to wonder what would happen if we were the only ones who inflated or otherwise had malleable currency (or whatever the real term is), but the strengths of doing so are so apparent that it seems like everybody uses it.
Even so, why is the budget STILL increasing, inflation or otherwise?Always remember China: there is no finish line for civilization, no point to declare "once I was, now I can rest". You're either still running or you're falling behind. Suppose we responded to the economic crisis of the 70s by creating prohibitive barriers to new kinds of spending. It's a great slogan, but it would have resulted in a government with no modern computerization. Now suppose we respond to our current budgetary issues with the same concept. What will we miss out on? Can we afford to? Ask Methais, you can't say something definitely won't happen in the future, therefore I'm right. :)
EDIT: Also, at what point do we just divide the worth of our currency by 10 and call it a day? Or pull a Trigun and use double dollars.They definitely used iles, but I swear they had another corrupted unit. Am I wrong? Anyway, psychology. If I tell you a dollar tomorrow will be worth $1.03 of today's, who cares. Gradual changes are meaningless to humans. If I tell you a dollar tomorrow will be worth $10 of today's, outrage outrage, Rojo puts Showal in a cage before ramming that cage through a brick, mass hysteria.