Ryan budget/Tea Party toxic for GOP

[Liberty]

How would you go about balancing the budget and saving Medicare?

Do away with all welfare.

End the drug war.

Get rid of the Department of Education.

Just do away with the socialist crap that's put us in this mess.

Which is "getting government out of everything it shouldn't be in".

People that think the tea partyers are fading away must not pay taxes, and must love our police state for some reason.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't really think it's an accurate analysis to take the % of GDP Singapore or France pays on healthcare and say that if we adopt something similar to that our numbers will suddenly drop to exactly that low.

I Don't think that would be fair to say of any reform. The results are never immediate.

 

[Rationalist]

You completely misunderstand the thread topic. Go back and read it again.


BTW, the cuts I proposed do reduce the budget.

Yeah right... without any significant spending reductions, except for the military. Just tax increases.

Tax increases wouldn't concern you, though, since you do not have an income.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Yeah right... without any significant spending reductions, except for the military. Just tax increases. Tax increases wouldn't concern you, though, since you do not have an income.

Doltaire gets it wrong, again.




Cut foreign aid in half


Eliminate earmarks


Eliminate farm subsidies


Reduce nuclear arsenal and space spending


Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe


Reduce Navy and Air Force fleets


Cancel or delay some weapons programs


Reduce noncombat military compensation and overhead


Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000 by 2013


Enact medical malpractice reform


Reduce the tax break for employer-provided health insurance


Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes


Tighten eligibility for disability


Use an alternate measure for inflation


Return the estate tax to Clinton-era levels


Return investment tax rates to Clinton-era levels


Allow expiration of the Bush tax cuts for income above $250,000 a year


Payroll tax: Subject some incomes above $106,000 to tax


Millionaire's tax on income above $1 million


Eliminate loopholes, but keep taxes slightly higher


Reduce mortgage deduction and others for high-income households


Bank Tax

 

[Rationalist]

I guess Doltaire was scared to take the NYT budget challenge.

It's not because I'm scared - it's because I'm not retarded. If you believe that the NYT app is reflective of reality, you're a moron. No, wait a minute, I take that back - you're a moron regardless.

And of course Mott conveniently ignores my request for more information. Maybe because he pulled those figures out of his ass?

I've said before that I'd be okay with raising taxes on the wealthy under certain conditions. First and foremost, there must be a genuine commitment in Congress to slash spending across the board, equally. Liberals who want to gut the military are no better than those on the right who only want to cut social programs. Concessions must be made, and sacrifice shared.

 

[Rationalist]

Hey \(\(\(\/)/)/, what do you do for a living?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Care to back up those figures with actual data?

First off, there's no way in hell creating a giant new entitlement (single-payer) would save money.

Secondly, when the renewal of the Bush tax cuts was being debated, it was estimated that allowing the cuts to expire on the wealthy would generate about $70 in additional revenue -- plus about $200 billion if middle class tax cuts were allowed to expired. Are you in favor of raising taxes on the middle class? Furthermore, where do you get the $700 billion figure? Please explain "additional progressive tax increases."

You're very obviously making up this shit as you go along. No real solutions, just bigger government and higher taxes. No thanks.

Boy you're not to fucking bright. I answer your challenge in specific detail and you're response is to show that not only do you have a reading comprehension problem but your response is some ideological fucking nonsense.

First, try reading carefully, my numbers are supported by the "CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE" and since I'm reasonably sure you've never heard of them you should know that the CBO is a non partisan organization.

Second, your ideological response is beyond stupid, it's asinine partisan right wing ideological, head up your ass, ignore reality at all cost non-sense. Here's the facts my cognitively challenged friend, solving this problem is going to require a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to solve. If you're not grown up enough to realize this then you need to come back when you grow up.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I guess Doltaire was scared to take the NYT budget challenge.

Not only that. He can't even read.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It's not because I'm scared - it's because I'm not retarded. If you believe that the NYT app is reflective of reality, you're a moron. No, wait a minute, I take that back - you're a moron regardless.

And of course Mott conveniently ignores my request for more information. Maybe because he pulled those figures out of his ass?

I've said before that I'd be okay with raising taxes on the wealthy under certain conditions. First and foremost, there must be a genuine commitment in Congress to slash spending across the board, equally. Liberals who want to gut the military are no better than those on the right who only want to cut social programs. Concessions must be made, and sacrifice shared.

OK, please explain to me Mr. Wingnut, how is cutting military spending back to 1999 levels is "Gutting the military"? Please explain to me how the combination if huge spending cuts I outlined is "bigger government"? How comes you convienantly ignore that I stated my information came from the CBO or is your reading skills that bad?

Your just a small time partisan hack who doesn't have that first fucking clue about what the source of this problem is nor do you have the foggiest notions as to a solution. You're just standing back, and throwing right wingnut hand grenades and making your self look like an illiterate noob.

I answered your challenge and you showed me and everyone else what I all ready knew when I answered your challenge. That you don't know what the hell your talking about.

 

[Nemo]

I am dismayed by the attitude of our Republican friends on the issue of the national debt in this period of recovery from the longest recession since the great depression. What sense is it to cut spending when that is precisely what is needed to stimulate the economy? And to extend tax cuts for the wealthy while cutting benefits for the needy makes no sense at all. It represents a view that is both selfish and shortsighted - an attitude so prevalent among our policymakers today. To put the blame for our improvident spending on Social Security and Medicare only begs the question of our priorities. What else is the purpose of government but to provide for such things? To cut spending on these seems unworthy of the greatest nation of the world.

Whenever I find myself looking narrowly at some social welfare program, I think of the Preamble to the Constitution, which always puts my views in proper perspective. It is “We the People” - not me, me, me. Need must it be so, for the true greatness of a nation, and its moral progress, is not measured by its wealth or power, but by the manner in which it provides for the welfare of its people.

 

[Liberty]

Hey \(\(\(\/)/)/, what do you do for a living?

Good luck on this question.

 

[Nemo]

These so-called “Tea Party” activists are an odd lot - always bringing up the Constitution and the founding fathers. No doubt few of them have even read the Constitution, much less have any understanding of its provisions. “We want our country back!” they cry. It’s laughable. They are like evangelical Christians misquoting the gospels, and asking, insipidly: “What would Jesus do?” The Republican party would do well to disavow these fringe fanatics.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Hey \(\(\(\/)/)/, what do you do for a living?

... why are you so obsessed with my profession? is your boyfriend beating you so bad that you have to obsess over some anonymous POLITICAL board member's profession? good lord .....does it really matter what i do for a living? i'm not interested in you, so you can stop trying to figure me out.

.

 

[Rationalist]

OK, please explain to me Mr. Wingnut, how is cutting military spending back to 1999 levels is "Gutting the military"? Please explain to me how the combination if huge spending cuts I outlined is "bigger government"? How comes you convienantly ignore that I stated my information came from the CBO or is your reading skills that bad?

In the past, you've argued that military spending should be cut to 2001 levels and THEN cut in half. That is effectively a 70% reduction in military spending.

As for single-payer saving money, I challenge you to name one entitlement program that has stayed within its projected costs. By 1990, the cost of Medicare was eight times the projection made by the House Ways and Means Committee in 1966. How am I to believe single-payer would be any different?

Your just a small time partisan hack who doesn't have that first fucking clue about what the source of this problem is nor do you have the foggiest notions as to a solution. You're just standing back, and throwing right wingnut hand grenades and making your self look like an illiterate noob.

I answered your challenge and you showed me and everyone else what I all ready knew when I answered your challenge. That you don't know what the hell your talking about.

No, you didn't answer my challenge. You said repealing the Bush tax cuts would generate $700 billion in revenue. That's a lie.

solving this problem is going to require a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to solve. If you're not grown up enough to realize this then you need to come back when you grow up.

I've been saying that for months. Would you like me to point out the number of times I've called for higher taxes on the super wealthy? That said, unlike you I do not support a combination of wimpy spending cuts and enormous tax increases on the middle class. We're going to have to cut spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, and the sacrifice must be shared -- no program should be exempt.

 

[Rationalist]

Mott, upon Googling the $700 billion figure I found that you were correct - allowing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire would generate an additional $700 billion in revenue... over the next 10 years. Annually, it would result in $69 billion in additional revenue. This would certainly help (which is why I'm in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy), but let's be honest, it would barely make a dent in the deficit.

 

[Rationalist]

Mott, upon Googling the $700 billion figure I found that you were correct - allowing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire would generate an additional $700 billion in revenue... over the next 10 years. Annually, it would result in $69 billion in additional revenue. This would certainly help (which is why I'm in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy), but let's be honest, it would barely make a dent in the deficit.

So even assuming everything else you said is true (e.g. about single-payer), you'd be left with a $500 billion deficit. How would you go about closing that, Mott?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

#4. Allow the Bush era tax cuts to expire and consider modest additional progressive tax increases, if required, to balance the budget and pay down the debt.

Step #4 would generate about 700 billion annually in additional revenue.

Where did you get those numbers? You know, our current income tax takes in about 1 trillion a year. If we completely repeal the tax cuts (something that no one with any power is even talking about), that's about 5% more from each bracket. That isn't going to come close to 700 billion. Complete repeal would, maybe, produce 200 billion or so a year. Partial repeal of the tax breaks for the highest bracket alone would probably take in less than 100 billion a year.

To get 700 billion a year, we'd probably have to do something like double the tax brackets, or introduce a 20% VAT. Very very dramatic measures that, of course, aren't even in the universe of being politically possible. That's why most rational plans are based on hoping that revenue increases as the recession fades. Revenue is currently about 15% of GDP, the lowest it's been since the 40's. Usually it's around 20%. With the wars winding down, revenue (hopefully) increasing back to around 20% of GDP, and the stimulus money fading out, we will hopefully be in a more reasonable position by around 2015. Attempting to solve the entire current deficit immediately would require measures that aren't politically possible.

 

[Rationalist]

Of course, Mott is incapable of admitting his error.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

If you believe that the NYT app is reflective of reality, you're a moron. . .

What's wrong with the NYT app?

Can you be specific?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople
OK, please explain to me Mr. Wingnut, how is cutting military spending back to 1999 levels is "Gutting the military"? Please explain to me how the combination if huge spending cuts I outlined is "bigger government"? How comes you convienantly ignore that I stated my information came from the CBO or is your reading skills that bad?

In the past, you've argued that military spending should be cut to 2001 levels and THEN cut in half. That is effectively a 70% reduction in military spending.

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.

As for single-payer saving money, I challenge you to name one entitlement program that has stayed within its projected costs. By 1990, the cost of Medicare was eight times the projection made by the House Ways and Means Committee in 1966. How am I to believe single-payer would be any different?

Here's someone who explains your error better than I.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6176555 Why are you SO apt to believe in the Ryan budget as accurate? What makes the Ryan budget near religion for you, given your demonstrated skepticism on budget projections?

Your just a small time partisan hack who doesn't have that first fucking clue about what the source of this problem is nor do you have the foggiest notions as to a solution. You're just standing back, and throwing right wingnut hand grenades and making your self look like an illiterate noob.

I answered your challenge and you showed me and everyone else what I all ready knew when I answered your challenge. That you don't know what the hell your talking about.

No, you didn't answer my challenge. You said repealing the Bush tax cuts would generate $700 billion in revenue. That's a lie.

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

solving this problem is going to require a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to solve. If you're not grown up enough to realize this then you need to come back when you grow up.

I've been saying that for months. Would you like me to point out the number of times I've called for higher taxes on the super wealthy? That said, unlike you I do not support a combination of wimpy spending cuts and enormous tax increases on the middle class. We're going to have to cut spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, and the sacrifice must be shared -- no program should be exempt.

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