Ryan budget/Tea Party toxic for GOP

Sorry, but since I don't see on this particular thread any connection to what you're accusing Mott of saying, your assertion is baseless and essentially pure supposition and conjecture.
Click to expand...

In case it wasn't obvious, I wasn't talking to you. I was speaking to Mott directly regarding a discussion that took place a few days ago. He knows what I'm referring to, which is why he's chosen to ignore this thread.

If you're really interested, though, this site has a search feature that you're free to use.

Anyway, defense spending in 2001 was $333 billion. Cut that in half, and we're left with about $167 billion. FY 2010 defense spending is $664 billion. If we reduce that to $167 billion, that amounts to a 74% reduction in military spending. Now I'm all for trimming the defense budget, but gutting the military to avoid restructuring entitlement programs is not the answer.

Here's someone who explains your error better than I….
Click to expand...

Nice excuses. The fact remains that more often than not, budget reality dramatically exceeds budget projection, and liberal politicians never, ever seem to have enough money to fund their social programs.

Do some honest research/homework, and you'll see it's not.
Click to expand...

I've done my homework. The official figure from the CBO is that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy cost about $700 billion over ten years, not annually as Mott claimed. To be specific, the CBO estimated that allowing the cuts to expire would generate an additional $69 billion in annual revenue.

Again, I'm not against raising taxes on the wealthy. But raising taxes isn't the miracle cure to our deficit woes. It would barely make a dent. You're just trying to avoid facing the reality we need to get spending under control. Sorry, the party's over.

So you're against the Ryan budget? Because this idiocy of privatizing social services is just that....ideological idiocy
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% in favor of the Ryan budget. It's not nearly aggressive enough. But, it's a start. At least they're trying to do something about it, which is more than can be said of the Democrats, who've chosen to ignore the issue in attempt to capitalize on it.
 
Volt said:
Sorry, but since I don't see on this particular thread any connection to what you're accusing Mott of saying, your assertion is baseless and essentially pure supposition and conjecture.
Click to expand...

In case it wasn't obvious, I wasn't talking to you. I was speaking to Mott directly regarding a discussion that took place a few days ago. He knows what I'm referring to, which is why he's chosen to ignore this thread.

If you're really interested, though, this site has a search feature that you're free to use.

In case you haven't noticed, this is a public forum, so none of your responses posted are "private", and therefore the reader has the option of commenting. So unless you can produce a link that verifys what you've claimed, the discussion could devolve into a childish "yes you did, no I didn't" exchange. That you give the lame dodge of telling the reader to do YOUR work of validating what YOU claim speaks volumes to the dubiousness of your claim.


Anyway, defense spending in 2001 was $333 billion. Cut that in half, and we're left with about $167 billion. FY 2010 defense spending is $664 billion. If we reduce that to $167 billion, that amounts to a 74% reduction in military spending. Now I'm all for trimming the defense budget, but gutting the military to avoid restructuring entitlement programs is not the answer.

Why would we "cut that in half" in order to fit your assertions?

Here's someone who explains your error better than I….
Click to expand...

Nice excuses. The fact remains that more often than not, budget reality dramatically exceeds budget projection, and liberal politicians never, ever seem to have enough money to fund their social programs.

The only excuse here is how YOU avoid the facts given in the link in order to just parrot your previous assertions. Seems you cannot disprove what was stated there...no surprise.

Do some honest research/homework, and you'll see it's not.
Click to expand...

I've done my homework. The official figure from the CBO is that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy cost about $700 billion over ten years, not annually as Mott claimed. To be specific, the CBO estimated that allowing the cuts to expire would generate an additional $69 billion in annual revenue.

Sorry, posted that before I read your response to Mott where you cop to actually approving that.

Again, I'm not against raising taxes on the wealthy. But raising taxes isn't the miracle cure to our deficit woes. It would barely make a dent. You're just trying to avoid facing the reality we need to get spending under control. Sorry, the party's over.

The party is indeed over for the "revoke the New Deal" cabal. No one said that eliminating the Bush tax cuts was the end game, but it sure as hell would put a LOT of revenue back into the coffers to start paying for that perscription drug deal and two wars that weren't paid for or on the budget.

So you're against the Ryan budget? Because this idiocy of privatizing social services is just that....ideological idiocy
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% in favor of the Ryan budget. It's not nearly aggressive enough. But, it's a start. At least they're trying to do something about it, which is more than can be said of the Democrats, who've chosen to ignore the issue in attempt to capitalize on it.
Click to expand...

The sheer idiocy of the Ryan budget has been demonstrated with 30 years of Reaganomics, intensified in the 8 years of the Shrub's reign...replacing social programs with for profit corporations and doing the same to social services that the working people PAY INTO essentially returns the country to pre FDR New Deal days...you know, when the country was on the brink of economic collapse?
 
Taichiliberal said:
The sheer idiocy of the Ryan budget has been demonstrated with 30 years of Reaganomics, intensified in the 8 years of the Shrub's reign...replacing social programs with for profit corporations and doing the same to social services that the working people PAY INTO essentially returns the country to pre FDR New Deal days...you know, when the country was on the brink of economic collapse?
Click to expand...

There's more blame to go around than what you state here.
 
Liberty said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The sheer idiocy of the Ryan budget has been demonstrated with 30 years of Reaganomics, intensified in the 8 years of the Shrub's reign...replacing social programs with for profit corporations and doing the same to social services that the working people PAY INTO essentially returns the country to pre FDR New Deal days...you know, when the country was on the brink of economic collapse?
Click to expand...

There's more blame to go around than what you state here.
Click to expand...

No doubt, as Slick Willy's NAFTA debacle is a prime example...but that doesn't make what I've stated above any less true.
 
Liberty said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
So you're against the Ryan budget? Because this idiocy of privatizing social services is just that....ideological idiocy.
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts on Obama cutting over a 1/2 trillion dollars from medicare?
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from? Here's what the Christian Science Monitor has to say on the subject:

Obama's Medicare proposal: How would it work?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0414/Obama-s-Medicare-proposal-How-would-it-work
 
Taichiliberal said:
No doubt, as Slick Willy's NAFTA debacle is a prime example...but that doesn't make what I've stated above any less true.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard enough details about Ryans plan to give an opinion one way or the other.

Looking at the past,,,, I wouldn't trust most republican politicians.

I do know that the dems are no better.

Honestly,,,, you would have more credibility if you didn't support one (either) of these two factions.
 
The Newtster was against Ryancare before he was for it...


flip-flop.jpg
 
Liberty said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No doubt, as Slick Willy's NAFTA debacle is a prime example...but that doesn't make what I've stated above any less true.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard enough details about Ryans plan to give an opinion one way or the other.

Looking at the past,,,, I wouldn't trust most republican politicians.

I do know that the dems are no better.

Honestly,,,, you would have more credibility if you didn't support one (either) of these two factions.
Click to expand...

I've criticized both major parties, and have started threads criticizing Obama....as a registered Independent, I can do that....and vote for whomever I please sans party primaries. Hell, I supported John McCain before he lost his mind and sold his soul to the neocons for the 2008 Presidential candidate slot.

Bottom line: fair is fair, and in the last 30 years the GOP has done more heinous, dishonest deeds than the Dems for the record. You should indeed read up on Ryan's budget proposal to check to see if what I say has validity.
 
Liberty said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Where did you get that from? Here's what the Christian Science Monitor has to say on the subject:

Obama's Medicare proposal: How would it work?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...-would-it-work
Click to expand...
I guess I got my info from outside the mainstream media, and inside as well.

If what I say was true, would you stand against the taking of funds from medicare to give to Obamacare? Over $500 billion.
Click to expand...

Bottom line: you need to validate your source material by checking it against reputable news services, main stream and other wise....because your previous statement was just totally incorrect. Your proposed question is irrelevent, as the facts don't support your initial statement....and I never thought the CS Monitor was considered MSM...go figure.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Where did you get that from? Here's what the Christian Science Monitor has to say on the subject:

Obama's Medicare proposal: How would it work?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0414/Obama-s-Medicare-proposal-How-would-it-work
Click to expand...

and what it has to say regarding the Obama plan isn't so good.

Indeed, it's the private plans that today cost extra, (yes, meaning the 'elderly poor' can't pay), that are saving seniors from horrors. My parents now both gone 4 and 7 years ago, were able to have the best of care because they were able to purchase a blanket over Medicare.

Now here's the deal. My parents could have paid for coverage without Medicare, as could millions of others. Take them out of play, along with their tax dollars. Leave Medicare for those that need it, even if all workers need to be nicked some to cover the poor, elderly. I doubt anyone would complain. On the other hand, what's going on now is massive taxing for the few that couldn't pay their own and all those that could have. The later group also finding the bridge coverage to be in the best places with the best care. Like my parents.
 
Annie said:
and what it has to say regarding the Obama plan isn't so good. Indeed, it's the private plans that today cost extra, (yes, meaning the 'elderly poor' can't pay), that are saving seniors from horrors. My parents now both gone 4 and 7 years ago, were able to have the best of care because they were able to purchase a blanket over Medicare. Now here's the deal. My parents could have paid for coverage without Medicare, as could millions of others. Take them out of play, along with their tax dollars. Leave Medicare for those that need it, even if all workers need to be nicked some to cover the poor, elderly. I doubt anyone would complain. On the other hand, what's going on now is massive taxing for the few that couldn't pay their own and all those that could have. The later group also finding the bridge coverage to be in the best places with the best care. Like my parents.
Click to expand...




Lil' Annie Fannie, still cryin' about Ryan?


........................................
089.gif



Ryancare lost. Get over it.
toothy2.gif










NewYorkSpecialElection165052--300x300.jpg
 
Taichiliberal said:
I've criticized both major parties, and have started threads criticizing Obama....as a registered Independent, I can do that....and vote for whomever I please sans party primaries. Hell, I supported John McCain before he lost his mind and sold his soul to the neocons for the 2008 Presidential candidate slot.

Bottom line: fair is fair, and in the last 30 years the GOP has done more heinous, dishonest deeds than the Dems for the record. You should indeed read up on Ryan's budget proposal to check to see if what I say has validity.
Click to expand...

Well,,,, I don't see much to disagree with you here.

I trust the McCain thing won't happen again.

While I voted,,,, I didn't vote for McCain, or Obama.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Bottom line: you need to validate your source material by checking it against reputable news services, main stream and other wise....because your previous statement was just totally incorrect. Your proposed question is irrelevent, as the facts don't support your initial statement....and I never thought the CS Monitor was considered MSM...go figure.
Click to expand...

I don't get anything from the CSM, so I wouldn't be able to go to that source.

I have heard that Obamacare has taken over 500 trillion dollars over a certain amount of time,,,,, away from medicare.

I hope this isn't true.

Could you confirm that this isn't true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top