April 5, 2011

"House Republicans on Tuesday unveiled a far-reaching budget proposal that cuts $5.8 trillion from anticipated spending levels over the next decade..."

The NYT reports:
The ambitious plan, drafted principally by Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who chairs the Budget Committee, proposes not only to limit federal spending and reconfigure major federal health programs, but also to rewrite the tax code, cutting the top tax rate for both individuals and corporations to 25 percent from 35 percent, reducing the number of income tax brackets and eliminating what it calls a “burdensome tangle of loopholes.”...

Democrats... say the emerging proposal amounts to a conservative ideological manifesto showing that Republicans intend to cut benefits and programs for the nation’s retirees and neediest citizens while protecting corporate America and the wealthiest people from paying their share of taxes....
Well, it is a conservative ideological manifesto, isn't it? Do the Republicans deny that? Do you like ideological clarity, or would you move away from the party that wears its ideology openly and seems committed to following it? Ideologues scare me.

ADDED: Here's Ryan's WSJ column on the plan.

356 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 356 of 356
PaulV said...

J, jeremy and garage here is the 2010 report of the SS Trustees.
They admit thet SS Trust Fund is currently running a deficit. With tyhe failed stimulus it will get worse.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/
trsum/index.html
Read it and stop spreading disinformation.

Michael said...

FLS: You are aware that the income tax was not introduced until the early part of the last century? How did we survive without it?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Actually all of this discussion is pointless. We have plenty of money. The Fed has this machine where they press a button and money comes out thats why we can't go bankrupt.

Honest to God. I was told this by one of the smartest commenters on Althouse.

Jeremy said...

Corn Cob - So John Kerry being wealthy has something to do with any of this?

How about the Koch brothers? Murdoch?

Brian Brown said...

We had absolutely NO problems with Social Security during the Bush years, no problems to colve, not solutions proposed.


Bozo:

President Bush proposed a solution.

Republicans have been talking about Social Security reform for more thatn 20 years.

Idiot like you have pretended there is not a problem the entire time.

garage mahal said...

I want all to the left of center to state with a straight face that the Social Security "lock box" which consists of IOU's is a tangible, spendable assest...
so much so that you would be will to trade in the value of all of your assets (house, savings) and replace them with these IOU's


So can we then just tell all these Japanese banks and Chinese banks "oops! sorry! these U.S. bonds are just worthless IOUs. You shoulda known better!"

Jeremy said...

PaulIV - Running a deficit doesn't mean "broke."

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Most Americans - including the poor and the elderly - would largely be left to purchase insurance on their own with a voucher or tax credit in an insurance market that would remain largely unreformed.

And?

In particular, insurance companies could continue to charge people much higher premiums based on age, gender, or health status.

This would be bd, why?

Under the Ryan plan, the burden of reducing health care expenditures would fall primarily on beneficiaries,

Yes just as the burden of providing my housing, my food, my clothing and my car fall upon me the beneficiary, too….the difference being the Gub’mint isn’t “hep’ping” with them, but instead a free-ish market, operates, offering me choices of housing, food, clothing and cars. Oddly enough there doesn’t seem to be a shortage of housing, food, cars, or clothes….where there ARE problems in these areas, they tend to be from government “helping”…with bio-fuel mandates driving up costs, or corporate welfare protecting the sugar industry…or the government causing the housing meltdown….

former law student said...

I want all to the left of center to state with a straight face that the Social Security "lock box" which consists of IOU's is a tangible, spendable assest...

Reagan raided workers' piggybanks to fund his tax cuts; W. made it worse.

Brian Brown said...

Jeremy said...
PaulIV - Running a deficit doesn't mean "broke."



Um, when the country is $14 trillion in debt, yeah, it kind of does.

Watching the economic illiteracy of you clowns is kind of disturbing.

Brian Brown said...

Reagan raided workers' piggybanks to fund his tax cuts;

Hysterical.

Please, keep the hyperbole going.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


So can we then just tell all these Japanese banks and Chinese banks "oops! sorry! these U.S. bonds are just worthless IOUs. You shoulda known better!".
THOSE are not quite the same instruments in the SS Trust Fund…of course, QE2 is designed to clip them, too…and hence the dollar’s weakness….

PaulV said...

The Bush tax cuts have expired. Why do all thye Obama supporters hate the Obama tax cuts? Yes the deficits increased withe the Reid Pelosi Congress. Bush was unable to reform Fannie and Freddie which owned half on the mortgages which caused financial crises. Every attempt to control those GSEs were opposed by your lovable democrats and Friends of Angelo. Now Obama wants to name corrupt Jamie Gorelick to big government position. Have J, Jemery & garage no shame?

garage mahal said...

The Fed has this machine where they press a button and money comes out thats why we can't go bankrupt.

For the 10th time, I explained to you how they "spend" money. [They don't print it up in the basement].

They do it with this really weird, newfangled thing, called....a.....ready????.....computer!

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Reagan raided workers' piggybanks to fund his tax cuts; W. made it worse.
Explain, please…INFLATION rob’s worker’s piggy-banks…a growing economy does not…so by this Carter was the piggy-bank thief, not Reagan…

You’ve fallen into clich├ęs and hyperbole here recently, has the MadCity so disarranged your thinking?

former law student said...

FLS: You are aware that the income tax was not introduced until the early part of the last century? How did we survive without it?

Bring back the tariffs!!!

The Civil War was funded largely through a tax on beer.

The average Joe did not have to file an income tax return to WW II -- the zero bracket amount was teh huge.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Corn Cob - So John Kerry being wealthy has something to do with any of this?

No I was making a joke about yachts. Senator Kerry had a nice yacht that he was berthing in Connectitcut I believe was the state in order to avoid paying a few hundred thousand dollars in Massachusetts taxes.

I'm not aware of any taxes the Kochs or Murdoch have avoided paying.

Hoosier Daddy said...

For the 10th time, I explained to you how they "spend" money.

I know you did garage and it keeps getting funnier every single time you do it too!

PaulV said...

Jeremy said...
"PaulIV - Running a deficit doesn't mean "broke.""
On the way to being broke a lot quicker than you mistakenly asserted. Since Kennedy the federal government has used SS surplus to disquise what the real deficit was. These SS deficits will add to burden of taxpayers who already bear too much burden.
But you just do not care because you are an immature giveme, giveme, giveme blood sucker.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Reagan raided workers' piggybanks to fund his tax cuts; W. made it worse.

Explain, please


Certainly. Tax cuts (letting wage earners keep more of the fruits of their labor) must be paid for.

Spending doesn't have to be paid for.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Matt said...

The bottom line is Paul Ryan is a cynical politician. Just last year he complained that 'Obama's' health plan raided and cut Medicare. Now he proposes a plan that even does more than that.

Again, just a cynical politician looking for opportunism where he can get it.

Michael said...

FLS: And many on the left would agree that tariffs are a nifty idea, the higher the better.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Running a deficit doesn't mean "broke."

You don't say. That's funny because when I was a kid and had to borrow money from my parents it was because I spent all the money I had and I needed more to pay for more things. Last time I checked that was the definition of broke.

PaulV said...

Any of you libs upset that the Koch brothers supported ACLU has bashed Obama for holding military tribunals for the terrorists? Hypocrit liberals again.

former law student said...

Running a deficit doesn't mean "broke."

You don't say. That's funny because when I was a kid and had to borrow money from my parents it was because I spent all the money I had and I needed more to pay for more things. Last time I checked that was the definition of broke.


You wanna know what's even funnier? When I bought my house it cost me three times my yearly take home pay. But oddly enough, I still had enough money to eat and buy gas to get to work. How could that be, when I was "the definition of broke"?

former law student said...

Since Kennedy the federal government has used SS surplus to disquise what the real deficit was.

The increase in retirement age and in workers' deductions under Reagan were supposed to put Social Security on a sound actuarial basis till 2037.

And it would have, too, except for the pile of Reagan and Bush(es) IOUs

Scott M said...

@FLS

How could that be, when I was "the definition of broke"?

Did you require additional loans each and every month to provide the mortgage payments, utilities, and food? If not, your analogy fails.

Matt said...

Ryan and the GOP have no problem with pushing Seniors into the streets. Or punishing the children of Seniors who will have to foot the bill once Medicare is gone.

Is that fair? Should YOU have to pay for the health care of YOUR parents? Should YOUR children have to one day pay for YOUR hospital bills and all the wonderful costs that YOU will one day have? The answer the GOP says is YES.

And if you say, "Well, I'm not sure that is completely fair. I mean, we're talking thousands of dollars. We will have to put a lien on our house. We will have to go into further debt on our credit cards, which will really put a strain on our family."

To which the GOP will say, "Well that's too bad. You should have got a higher paying job buddy." Or "Your parents should have not paid for your college education but instead saved for their future ill health."

To which you say, "but Medicare was only 1.45% of my pay check. I could afford that. But this is too much."

To which the GOP says, "Hey, but we have a nice plan you can buy into. And the insurance companies will take credit. And I'm sure your doctor will let you work out a payment plan. But gee don't we have the best health care and doctors in the world!"

Hoosier Daddy said...

You wanna know what's even funnier? When I bought my house it cost me three times my yearly take home pay. But oddly enough, I still had enough money to eat and buy gas to get to work. How could that be, when I was "the definition of broke"?

Allow me to enlighten you.

You clearly did not fit the definition of broke as you were able to meet your costs (mortgage, food and transportation) with the money that you had.

Now if for example, after paying for your mortgage and food you had to borrow money from your Chinese neighbor to pay for gas then you were broke.

Right now the Federal government is borrowing 40 cents on every dollar just to function. That's called being broke.

I hope this helps. I can provide a more detailed syllabus upon request.

Sofa King said...

And it would have, too, except for the pile of Reagan and Bush(es) IOUs

Really? So what, pray tell us, would you have had the SSA do with the revenue surplus? Fill a vault full of dollar bills?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


The increase in retirement age and in workers' deductions under Reagan were supposed to put Social Security on a sound actuarial basis till 2037.
Actually it HAS succeeded, but that “fix” has run out…we are closing in on 2037 and bankruptcy.

Matt said...

You again tell the GOP that this will put a strain on the family’s finances. And the GOP says, “Well better a strain on the individual than on the entire country." To which you reply, ‘But isn’t the country made up of individual people and families as a whole?” To which the GOP says, “Well, when we say country we mean private business not people. See, we need to run the country like a private business.”

And then you say "But private business is only interested in profit. Isn’t that antithetical to healthcare?" To which the GOP will say, "No, no quite the contrary. Your health has a dollar value and just like a car or a house the more you spend on it the better it is and the healthier you are." But then you point out, “Yeah but elderly people or people with disabilities or cancer spend a lot of money on healthcare yet they aren’t really healthier. They are closer to death.” And the GOP will say, ‘Ha ha, yes, well death costs too you know. I’m sure you are looking for an inexpensive funeral too?”

Phil 314 said...

Well blogger just ate my big response so I'll simply state:

the math isn't partisan. If you agree with the math but still want to claim its all about the tax revenue then you are ignoring the long term obligations that can't be "taxed" away.

dbp said...

"garage mahal said...

Comrade X "Jeremy, the fact is that the government already spent the SS surplus."

Really? The trustees report says there is 2.4 Trillion sitting in it."

In keeping with the garage method of wealth-building, over the last 20 years I have spent every cent that comes in. No problem though, I wrote myself IOU's for all of it! Now if I can just get myself to redeem these IOU's, I'll have a Million Dollars!

former law student said...

"Bush bought freedom for Iraqis and bailed out Wall Street, and all I got was this lousy Social Security IOU"

garage mahal said...

U.S. Treasury Bond same as worthless IOU. And people all over the world keep buying em!

chickelit said...

madawaskan said...
You do know that Althouse trolls.....
It's her version of ice fishing.


Heh. Althouse bores ice holes.

Automatic_Wing said...

U.S. Treasury Bond same as worthless IOU. And people all over the world keep buying em!

Not the ones in the SS Trust Fund, schmuck. As has been explained to you umpteen times, the trust fund bonds are special paper that isn't traded anywhere. Those bonds move between SSA and Treasury, period.

Original Mike said...

Garage - When the SSA redeems the bond, WHERE does the Treasury get the money to pay them back? Any other comment is avoiding answering the question. Where do they get the money?

garage mahal said...

Those bonds move between SSA and Treasury, period.

And? Your slam dunk is.........???? You don't have one do you?

chickelit said...

I thought there was enough cruel irony in this to retweet this this AM: link.

dbp said...

Bush racked-up 2.5 Trillion in 8 years and was rightly criticized for it.

Obama has managed 3.25 Trillion in only two years. I think people are right to be in freak-out mode right about now.

Original Mike said...

"U.S. Treasury Bond same as worthless IOU. And people all over the world keep buying em!"

Sigh. An IOU from someone else is an asset. You have to worry about their ability to pay, but that's not the issue.

An IOU from someone else is an asset.

An IOU to YOURSELF is just a piece of paper.

Do you really not see the difference?

dbp said...

The "Trust Fund" bonds are held exclusively by the trust fund and are not sold to any other entity.

If they were to be sold to the Chinese then that would bring in money that could be spent, but then we really would have to pay it back. If we ever wanted to issue debt again.

The trust fund is an accounting fiction since it is just one part of the government owing another part of the same government money.

surely, it is easy to see the distinction between owing yourself money and owing someone else money--this is hardly a subtle difference.

Original Mike said...

"surely, it is easy to see the distinction between owing yourself money and owing someone else money"

You would think ...

garage mahal said...

An IOU from someone else is an asset.

An IOU to YOURSELF is just a piece of paper.


If your bank goes under, who backs your money at the bank? .

Does a Chinese bank think the U.S. bonds they purchase are just worthless IOUs? If they are worried about our solvency why do they keep buying them? Why are the bond auctions always over prescribed?

Jeremy said...

Jay "Um, when the country is $14 trillion in debt, yeah, it kind of does. Watching the economic illiteracy of you clowns is kind of disturbing."

So, according to you, the deficit basically means our country is...broke?

Was it also "broke" during the deficits of Reagan or Bush, Sr. or G.W.?

Or are just broke now...because we have a president you didn't vote for or currently support?

We all know the answer to that.

hombre said...

Matt whimpered: Is that fair? Should YOU have to pay for the health care of YOUR parents? Should YOUR children have to one day pay for YOUR hospital bills and all the wonderful costs that YOU will one day have? The answer the GOP says is YES.

And, of course, Matt believes if the government pays for it with tax dollars confiscated from US that WE are not really paying.

And that's part of the delusion resulting from living a life filled with straw men aka lefty talking points.

chickelit said...

An IOU to YOURSELF is just a piece of paper.

garage just sloughs it off to future generations of taxpayers.

Remember, in their eyes the unborn have no rights.

Jeremy said...

Corn Cob - "No I was making a joke about yachts. Senator Kerry had a nice yacht that he was berthing in Connectitcut I believe was the state in order to avoid paying a few hundred thousand dollars in Massachusetts taxes."

Arnie the Republican terminator governor of California supported just such a loophole in the tax laws for wealthy yacht owners.

So are Republicans governors assholes, too?

garage mahal said...

The trust fund is an accounting fiction since it is just one part of the government owing another part of the same government money

At the end of the day, the gov would owe the trust fund the same amount of money, and pay the same interest as if they borrowed it from another source. Which they would do. There is zero difference.

former law student said...

The trust fund is an accounting fiction since it is just one part of the government owing another part of the same government money.

surely, it is easy to see the distinction between owing yourself money and owing someone else money--this is hardly a subtle difference.


What a relief -- people were making it sound like the government could not cover its social security payment obligations! I see that this was nonsensical.

Original Mike said...

Seriously, garage, stop avoiding the question.

When the SSA redeems the bond, WHERE does the Treasury get the money to pay them back?

chickelit said...

Does a Chinese bank think the U.S. bonds they purchase are just worthless IOUs? If they are worried about our solvency why do they keep buying them? Why are the bond auctions always over prescribed?

Don't be such a dolt garage. The Chinese have no interest in suddenly disrupting a scheme they've bought into so deeply. But haven't you paid attention-they are wanting to diversify their assets into other denominations.

Jeremy said...

PaulV - "But you just do not care because you are an immature giveme, giveme, giveme blood sucker."

What exactly are you or any of the other teabagging weasels here "giving" me?

Are you saying that you don't take advantage of anything provided via the big bad "government" you and others constantly whine about?

G.W. expanded "government" more than any previous president.

Why aren't you whining about that?

PaulV said...

fls, are you too stupid to realize that your lender has ewuitable title to a real asset (house) while the no assets back those special SS bonds? What is the value of a promise to pay from a government running trillion dollar deficits? Printing money worked so well for Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe. There were two brothers in the Weimar Republic. One saved a good percentage of his earnings, while the other was a drunk who tossed his bottles in the corner of his one room deposit. After inflation the deposit on the drunk's bottles were worth far money than the brother's savings account.

hombre said...

Jeremy wrote: Was it also "broke" during the deficits of Reagan or Bush, Sr. or G.W.?

Only if you think incurring a debt we can pay is the moral and financial equivalent of incurring a debt we can't pay.

Jeremy said...

dbp - Once again, for those of you who evidently do not read: The recession began ins December of 2007.

Not the day president Obama took office.

As an example: If you buy or take over a business that is failing or buried in debt or is in freefall...and have to spend money to save it...you go deeper in debt until you revive the business.

How is it so many here, especially Mikey The money grubbing teacher, doesn't understand this?

Why would so many think we could pull out of a massive worldwide recession over the course of two years?

What "economic" theory or historical basis would you be basing that on?

dbp said...

To the extent that the feds do pay-off on the Social Security trust fund bonds; all they are really doing is converting bonds that don't really have to be honored into ones that do--ones held by entities other than the Federal government.

It would be a lot smarter to abolish the trust fund and adjust Social Security payouts to match what is coming in from the program.

We will end-up in the same place eventually. When we default on real bonds (held by others) then nobody will buy them and we will have to live within our means.

garage mahal said...


When the SSA redeems the bond, WHERE does the Treasury get the money to pay them back?


I'm not sure if your question is in regards to the gov borrowing from the trust fund, or in general how funds are invested. Which by law they must be.

Jeremy said...

Original Mike "Seriously, garage, stop avoiding the question. When the SSA redeems the bond, WHERE does the Treasury get the money to pay them back?"

Good lord...you're STILL harping on this?

Move on, Dude.

Jeremy said...

hombre said..."Only if you think incurring a debt we can pay is the moral and financial equivalent of incurring a debt we can't pay."

And how do you know we can't or will not "pay" our debts? During all previous recessions (or, hey...how about that Great Depression thingie?)...did we not pay our debts or recover?

What would you be basing this on...other than the president being Obama?

*Did Mikey The money grubbing Teacher tell you this?

garage mahal said...

Don't be such a dolt garage. The Chinese have no interest in suddenly disrupting a scheme they've bought into so deeply.

hehe. I think it's called investing chickelit.

chickelit said...

Why would so many think we could pull out of a massive worldwide recession over the course of two years?

It's not potus's job to pass the budget or to fund things. If you don't like the present congressional plans to cut spending, elect your own majority.

Michael said...

Jeremy: You are right. All the problems began with George Bush. No Republican did anything about it. Only now under Obama are people aroused. Great. You win.

Now, here is the problem. We have gotten a bad biopsy. It is malignant. We have ignored it for years. It is bad now. really bad.

Do you want to do anything about the cancer or should we just say that we have had it for years so no problem. Really, what would you have us do?

chickelit said...

hehe. I think it's called investing chickelit.

OK garage, I'll play along...how come the Chinese are losing interest in that great investment called American debt?

Michael said...

Garage: Lehman Brothers never once defaulted on their debt. They do not exist today. They are gone. Why? They could not pay their bills. They could not borrow any more money. No one wanted to invest any more money w/ Lehman Brothers. Why will China continue to buy our bonds? What happens if they stop? Where then do we raise our capital? Try to think these things out because this reality exists for Obama and for future generations.

garage mahal said...

OK garage, I'll play along...how come the Chinese are losing interest in that great investment called American debt

According to....? The bond auctions? They be full.

Original Mike said...

Garage - It's not a trick question. You would agree that the Treasury gets money out of the general fund to hand over to the SSA when they show up at the door wanting to redeem a bond, right? I mean, there's no magic pot of cash somewhere. They get that money the same place they get all the other money, from either taxes or borrowing (i.e. selling another bond). Right?

And given that that's the case, what purpose does that bond the SSA held for all those years serve?

(I'm off to vote now. Will be back later.)

Jeremy said...

Why isn't anyone here, especially The Queen or Needy...complaining about this?

A report from Wisconsin suggests that the son of a major donor to GOP Gov. Scott Walker may have benefited from the latter.

Despite being a college dropout with two DUIs and little or no relevant experience, twentysomething Brian Deschane scored a $81,500 gig overseeing environmental and regulatory matters and dozens of employees.

He’s even received a 26 percent raise during his two-month tenure.

Deschane’s father Jerry gave almost $122,000 to Walker’s campaign.

garage mahal said...

O.M.
Hold your nose and vote for you know who ;-)

Brian Brown said...

So, according to you, the deficit basically means our country is...broke?

I didn't say "deficit" I said debt.

It is quite revealing you don't understand the difference.

I also think you should go on pretending the Obama deficit is the same as Bush's deficit, you silly little belcowner.

chickelit said...

@garage: Don't give me that "according to whom" bullshit. Up your game a little. Take your pick: link

Jeremy said...

Michael "Why will China continue to buy our bonds?"

Are you saying you think they won't?

Really?

Is that what you think?

Or is that just what Glenn Beck and other nutcases throw out there to stir the teabagger waters you're swimming in?

Duh.

Brian Brown said...

As an example: If you buy or take over a business that is failing or buried in debt or is in freefall...and have to spend money to save it...you go deeper in debt until you revive the business.

Hilarious.

Um, in case you missed it, Obama and the Democrats didn't "save" the business. They borrowed $4 trillion and it is running just as poorly as before.

Keep on pretending.

Jeremy said...

Jay - "So, according to you, the 'debt' basically means our country is...broke?"

Is that what you think Jay?

The country is broke?

PaulV said...

Jeremy said...
"PaulV - "But you just do not care because you are an immature giveme, giveme, giveme blood sucker."
What exactly are you or any of the other teabagging" (Homopobic rhetoric) "weasels here "giving" me?"

Are you saying that you didn't take advantage of anything provided via the big bad "government" you and others constantly whine about?

G.W. expanded "government" more than any previous president.i/>
Did you pay your taxes at the old tax rates or did you take advantage of the Bush (now Obama) tax cuts?
LBJ started Medicare after his advisors told him it would cost a billion dollars a year. FDR picked 65 as the SS retirement age because most people did not live that long. How much did the government expand under FDR. How much did the federal government expand under FDR? Did you love the inflation under Carter that destroyed peoples' lives and savings. Are you so dense to blame Bush for FRD's & Johnson's actions? I know you are too dishonest to answer my questions honestly

bagoh20 said...

The idea that cutting government voluntarily through a democracy will ever go too far is ridiculous. By nature, our system will always be asked to do too much at too high a cost. That's the inherent weakness of democracy. The ideologues that encourage that dysfunction are the dangerous ones, like enablers to an addict.

Brian Brown said...

Matt said...

Ryan and the GOP have no problem with pushing Seniors into the streets


Dude, you're so 1993.

That's how long the Republicans (at least) have been talking seriously about entitlement reform.

And that's how long silly, ignorant people like you have been responding with silly emotion.

PaulV said...

Jeremy, yes the country is broke unless wiser people than you take action to right the ship of state. Are you too selfish to join in this action? If so, why?

Jeremy said...

Jay "Um, in case you missed it, Obama and the Democrats didn't "save" the business. They borrowed $4 trillion and it is running just as poorly as before."

I never said Obama or anybody "saved" anything.

I said that when you take over an economy buried in a deep recession, it takes time and spending to right the ship.

As for the economy, it is most certainly "running" better than it was when president Obama was elected.

You need to read more and listen to Beck and the teabaggers here less.

*And think about taking a business course or actually running a business. It will do wonders for your understanding of how business works.

Brian Brown said...

The country is broke?

Um, yeah.

Right now, the Fed is creating $75 billion a month to help finance government operations.

This isn't rocket science, bozo.

Phil 314 said...

Here's the graph/math that should be non-partisan

But if you haven't had good relationships with your kids and grandkids you probably won't be too upset with them having to deal with such an economic catastrophe.

But if that's so
why are you so worried about global warming?

Brian Brown said...

t takes time and spending to right the ship.

Hilarious.

Of course there are no facts to back up this idiotic assertion.

As for the economy, it is most certainly "running" better than it was when president Obama was elected.

When Harry & Nancy were sworn in, the unemployment rate was 4.6% and the deficit was under $300 billion.

Yes, the Democrats have done a bang up job.

Jeremy said...

PaulIV - The country is not "broke."

You and others here have your heads up your asses.

garage mahal said...

chickelit
You made a clarifying statement. I can't ask where you got that information from? Sheesh.

dbp said...

Original Mike said...

And given that that's the case, what purpose does that bond the SSA held for all those years serve?

Financially, there was no purpose. It did give Al Gore a reason to intone, in his most serious tones, lockbox, lockbox lockbox!

Brian Brown said...

I never said Obama or anybody "saved" anything.

You assuredly inferred it.

And think about taking a business course or actually running a business.

You've never done either, so what is your point?

bagoh20 said...

"*And think about taking a business course or actually running a business. It will do wonders for your understanding of how business works."

Is that's why you like Obama, for his business experience and lernin'?

Michael said...

Jeremy: Of course the Chinese will borrow for us forever. Just like the Japanese....oh, wait.....

You really don't know anything. Every time you show you know absolutely nothing.

MikeR said...

Matt - "The bottom line is Paul Ryan is a cynical politician. Just last year he complained that 'Obama's' health plan raided and cut Medicare." Have you been following this at all? Paul Ryan published a plan last yet that did exactly this to Medicare. He publicized it at the time of the health care reform debate. His criticism of the Obama health care plan wasn't that it cut Medicare. He was also in favor of reforming Medicare, as I said. His complaint was that it was double-counting, either failing to meet Medicare obligations - failing to meet them now, not after ten years - or pretending to cut them to make the HCR bill look deficit-balanced.

Really, you're accusing him of cynicism and hypocrisy because he's proposing the same idea he proposed last year? I hope you're ignorant, because otherwise you're slanderous.

Jeremy said...

Jay "Of course there are no facts to back up this idiotic assertion."

Once again; you really need buy yourself a failing business and tell us how you right the ship without spending any money or allowing the time to make things right.

Maybe you could provide us with your recipe for saving a failing business (or a country buried in a deep recession) without either?

Oh, and when president Obama took office, the unemployment rate was at 7.6%...and at 8.2% three weeks later.

The recession began in December of 2007...and the president was little Georgie.

Brian Brown said...

you really need buy yourself a failing business and tell us how you right the ship without spending any money or allowing the time to make things right.

Um, the federal government is not a business and neither is the US Economy.

But keep beclowing, this is always fun.

Brian Brown said...

Oh, and when president Obama took office, the unemployment rate was at 7.6%

And that was after 2 years of Democrats controlling the Congress by large margins.

Brian Brown said...

Maybe you could provide us with your recipe for saving a failing business (or a country buried in a deep recession) without either?

Laugh out loud funny.

Seriously, keep going.

Jeremy said...

Michael "Jeremy: Of course the Chinese will borrow for us forever. Just like the Japanese....oh, wait....."

I never said any of that.

I asked if you actually think the Chinese will stop buying our bonds.

Do you, believe that?

hombre said...

Jeremy twaddled: And how do you know we can't or will not "pay" our debts? ... What would you be basing this on...other than the president being Obama?

H-m-m. Let's see. The Brookings Institute, Alan Greenspan, 10 ex-chairs of the Pres's Council of Economic Advisors, The Heritage Foundation, Ben Bernanke, the CBO, etc., have all characterized the federal deficit as "unsustainable."

The term "unsustainable" is popular among lefties, so I'll assume you know what it means.

But why should we rely on them when you and your instincts tell us otherwise? LOL

bagoh20 said...

"you really need buy yourself a failing business and tell us how you right the ship without spending any money or allowing the time to make things right."

Where to begin?

1st) I've turned around businesses a number of times. The first and most important (crucial) step is to cut spending. Often that is all it takes, but always at least that and that first.

2nd) The U.S. is not a company and Obama is not a CEO.

Ryan's job is to do what he is doing. It's also Obama job to help him to do it. Someone needs fired, but like I said, it's not a company, or Obama would already have his pink slip.

Brian Brown said...

folks, there is no problem.

FLS has assured us there is a Social Security IOU.

Jeremy read about a business once and knows the government is not broke.

$8.7 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years?

No problem!

Jeremy said...

Jay "You assuredly inferred it." (That Obama saved...)

You're lying through what few teeth you still have in your pointy little head:

I said this:

As an example: "If you buy or take over a business that is failing or buried in debt or is in freefall...and have to spend money to save it...you go deeper in debt until you revive the business.

Why would so many think we could pull out of a massive worldwide recession over the course of two years?"

There's nothing in that relating to anything being "saved."

I merely feel he's doing a good job of what is expected of him.

We had eight years of Bush, burying us in debt, asleep at the switch as the recession loomed, leaving behind two tremendously expensive wars, unemployment already at 7.6%...and all the teabaggers here can do is whine and bitch about president Obama...and why he hasn't gotten everything back on track. after two years in office.

It disingenuous and just plain stupid.

dbp said...

Jeremy,

It is true that Obama inherited the recession, but he was president two months after it began and it continued for another 16 months. The end of it has been a recovery so weak plenty of people would argue we are still in recession.

Bush inherited a recession at the start of his first term too. It was shallow and over in 8 months. It was followed by 6 years of pretty good growth.

Jeremy said...

Jay - I've had more businesses than you've had friends.

Anybody who actually thinks that reviving a business or a country's economy can be accomplished without allowing time and spending money is a fucking dolt.

And constantly throwing out inane, snarky comments about how wrong I must be, because you disagree, or posting comments about what you say I previously posted, but in fact did not, makes you nothing more than a liar.

Phil 314 said...

And constantly throwing out inane, snarky comments about how wrong I must be, because you disagree, or posting comments about what you say I previously posted, but in fact did not, makes you nothing more than a liar.

Pot, meet kettle.

CIVILITY PLEASE

Original Mike said...

"Jay - I've had more businesses than you've had friends."

I'm not surprised.

Jeremy said...

dbp - The recession Bush inherited was nothing like what Obama inherited.

And you know it, too.

I would also assume that we are indeed still in a recession...wouldn't you?

Jeremy said...

Original Mike said..."I'm not surprised."

So now you're upset that I've owned and operated businesses?

Businesses that employ other Americans? Pay benefits?

What the fuck is wrong with you...other than being a money grubbing teacher who's ruining America's children's futures?

You don't sound very smart, Mikey.

Jeremy said...

Phil 3:14 - I have no problem with snarky comments, Phil.

I just think that if you're going to counter an opinion, you should add something of relevance to the snark.

Jay doesn't appear to understand the basics of business or economics.

Jeremy said...

dbp "Jeremy, It is true that Obama inherited the recession, but he was president two months after it began and it continued for another 16 months."

He wasn't president two months after it began.

He was elected in 2008 and took office in 2009.

The recession began in December of 2007.

dbp said...

"I would also assume that we are indeed still in a recession...wouldn't you?"

I believe we are technically out of the recession, but the recovery is so weak it could double dip. I'm not sure how the economists would score it if that were to happen. One long recession or two back-to-back ones?

Jeremy said...

bagoh20 said..."I've turned around businesses a number of times. The first and most important (crucial) step is to cut spending. Often that is all it takes, but always at least that and that first."

Sometimes, sure, but sometimes it's not possible to "cut spending."

And I have a hard time believing you turned your businesses around without additional spending.

No upgrades in equipment? Marketing? Advertising? Sales staff? Administration?

You just cut spending and everything got better?

I-don't-think-so.

*Oh, and the economy is quite a bit like a "business" and the president is also quite a bit like a CEO.

Jeremy said...

dbp - Right now the double dip threat is real and probably what most economists are worried about.

The real estate market could be the driving force behind it happening, and inflation is always hovering.

dbp said...

I think most people, myself included, see the recession (or at least awareness of it) centering around the Fall of 2008. That is when everything seemed to be melting down.

Economists do a bit of "aft-casting" that is interesting from an intellectual point of view, but ultimately, government and business response only happens once awareness of the situation has hit. I place that awareness sometime in the Fall/early Winter of 2008.

knox said...

Ideologues scare me.

There must be something here I'm not getting? This is a bizarre reaction to the very pragmatic Ryan proposal.

Brian Brown said...

We had eight years of Bush, burying us in debt,

Hilarious.

The deficit declined in FY 2007, idiot.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated Friday that the U.S. federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2007, which ended Sunday, was about $161 billion, or 1.2% of gross domestic product. That’s down from the $248 billion shortfall recorded in fiscal 2006

Then Harry & Nancy took over.

asleep at the switch as the recession loomed, leaving behind two tremendously expensive wars,

The Democrats controlled the fiscal policy of the US Government as of Jan 2007.

The Democrats voted to authorized the use of force against Afghanistan & Iraq, and as a majority spent billions on those wars.

You're not real big on accountability (or how the government functions) there clown.

Brian Brown said...

Jeremy said...

Jay - I've had more businesses than you've had friends.


Considering you're a silly little dipshit in their 20's, hardly.

But keep flailing.

Donald Trump, is that you???

bagoh20 said...

"Sometimes, sure, but sometimes it's not possible to "cut spending."

You know, that's what I was told every time. It was wrong every time.

"And I have a hard time believing you turned your businesses around without additional spending.

No upgrades in equipment?
Marketing? Advertising? Sales staff? Administration?"


Nope, sold off much of the equipment, and cut all those other things to the bone.

There is no money in a failing company and in a bad economy, nobody wants to lend it to a failing company. When the economy is bad you size the company to the revenue you can get, not the revenue you would like. Then you get money through profit or loans, but not before that.

"You just cut spending and everything got better?"

That's what counts, because that's the problem. You only want it to be something else.

In addition, you have to also get people re-motivated, and that requires a plan that makes sense and shows how the future will be different and why.

"
*Oh, and the economy is quite a bit like a "business" and the president is also quite a bit like a CEO."


Like I said, if it was, he would be fired becuase after over 2 years, he has failed to do the simple things I refer to above.

It's all hope and no change. That's a fail in business or any other leadership role.

Almost Ali said...

Interesting, about turning around a failing business. Because after all, the USA is first and foremost a business.

The interesting part about the USA is that virtually anyone can spot the problems from a mile away. I mean, if you were a consultant, a turnaround specialist - you might first go through the garbage, or infiltrate the operation, or go over the books. But here, in the USA, you just take a DC elevator down into the bowels - and lo' and behold, there's Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, and the living, breathing ghost of Chris Dodd.

But just above the bowels on the sewer level, there's the whole Democrat Party eating away at the foundation like millions of ravenous maggots.

Nope, no need for Harvard or Wharton to figure this one out - just take the elevator. Down. And don't be fooled by the jive-turkey operator, who'll tell down is up, then bum a cigarette.

Jeremy said...

knox "There must be something here I'm not getting? This is a bizarre reaction to the very pragmatic Ryan proposal."

Your idea of "pragmatic" is just that: "your idea."

To others, Ryan's proposal looks less than pragmatic.

Jeremy said...

Jay "Considering you're a silly little dipshit in their 20's, hardly."

Yeah, I wish I was in my 20's.

You sound like you're about twelve.

Jeremy said...

bagoh20 - Every business is different.

If you were able to cut spending, get rid of everyhting you didn't need, and in turn, make the business improve, that's fine.

But in general, cutting spending is just one element of saving a failing business.

As for your statement regarding Obama as CEO: "Like I said, if it was, he would be fired becuase after over 2 years, he has failed to do the simple things I refer to above."

Then you must also feel Reagan should have been fired?

The Reagan tax cuts resulted in the federal deficit going from 2.7% of GDP in 1980 to 6% of GDP in 1983...would you have fired him then?

And other than when at war, it was the biggest largest deficit in history...and it was still at 5% of GDP in 1986...now would you have fired him??

Then of course, he reversed field and raised payroll taxes, and other "sin" taxes to recoup what was lost in his inital ill-advised tax cuts for the wealthy when it damn near busted the budget.

During the Reagan years the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans, and by the the end of the 80'sd middle-class incomes were barely higher than a decade before, oh...and the poverty rate was also higher.

Revenant said...

If a person tells you Social Security is solvent, point out that the government lent itself the money and then spent it.

If they still insist that counts as "solvent", stop talking to them. They're not worth your time.

george said...

Meade: Honey, I have looked at our credit card bill and it is higher than our entire net worth. I think we should look at cutting back a little. I think we can get things under control in about twenty years if we follow this plan I have.

Althouse: Oh Meade, you scare me when you talk that way. You sound so ---- ideological.

Meade: Huh?

Althouse: Why don't you go buy some nice, long pants to calm yourself down.

This is essentially the conversation we are having. Ryan's plan will get us back to where we were last year with debt as a percentage of GDP in about twenty years time. Does anyone think our government can stay on track for that long? Me neither.

I am surprised anyone would fall for something so transparent as the "extreme meme". So, if taking twenty years to get our fiscal house back in as good an order as it was just last frickin' year is "scary" and the desire or plan to do so is ideologically driven then just what the hell is spending trillions of dollars we don't have every year and adding to a debt that already exceeds our GDP? Well here's the punchline... it's normal.

Orwell could not come up with such an inversion.

So here is the dirty little secret that everyone knows but no one will say out loud. Whatever plan we come up with, it is going to have to go further and act faster than Ryan's. And the longer we wait the deeper we will have to cut. Ryan makes a good start but it is not nearly enough.

Hoosier Daddy said...

So are Republicans governors assholes, too?

Some are yes. I mean if you're looking for me to defend Ahnold, you're a bigger fuckwit than I thought.

Original Mike said...

@Rev - Yeah, it was a fool's errand.

Brian Brown said...

During the Reagan years the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans, and by the the end of the 80'sd middle-class incomes were barely higher than a decade before,

Epic fail:

During the Reagan recovery, real median family income increased by $378 in the first year alone. Median family income rose $965 in the second year of the Reagan recovery and another $484 in Year 3. Overall, real median family income was $1,827 higher after the first three Reagan expansion years.

PS, Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s

Keep it up, bozo. Keep it up...

garage mahal said...

If a person tells you Social Security is solvent, point out that the government lent itself the money and then spent it.

Uh, that's what you do when you borrow money. You spend it! And you pay it back. There is zero difference in borrowing to go to war, and paying that back, versus borrowing from the trust fund, and paying that back.

What is so fucking hard to understand in such a simple transaction?

Brian Brown said...

PS,

Between 1981 and 1989, real median household income rose 11%, from $37,000 to $41,000 (Census Bureau, 2008 Statistical Abstract of the United States, Tables 670 and 671).

Jeremy, we can now officially call you "Opposite Guy" because whatever you say is clearly the opposite of the truth.

Brian Brown said...

What is so fucking hard to understand in such a simple transaction?

Hilarious.

You do realize we're not paying anything back, right?

Brian Brown said...

There is zero difference in borrowing to go to war, and paying that back, versus borrowing from the trust fund, and paying that back.


Well, except for the fact that there is no "trust fund" and no money is being paid back.

garage mahal said...


You do realize we're not paying anything back, right?


I borrowed from 401k years ago. I paid it back, with interest. Its the same concept. I could have borrowed from another source, yielding the same identical results.

chickelit said...

"The easiest way to make money is to forget who loaned it to you"

mariner said...

An ideologue is someone who sticks to principles you don't like.

Principled is sticking to principles you like.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

insurance companies could continue to charge people much higher premiums based on age, gender, or health status.

Yes? And so???? That is the definition of insurance. Offsetting risk with premiums. The higher the risk you are the higher the premiums.

You don't understand what insurance is...do you?

Investing has this same risk/return concept. You probably don't understand investments either.

garage mahal said...


Yes? And so???? That is the definition of insurance. Offsetting risk with premiums. The higher the risk you are the higher the premiums


So tell us how the Randroid fantasy of giving an 84 yr old person a voucher to go shop for private insurance works out.

"good luck!" ?

Brian Brown said...


I borrowed from 401k years ago. I paid it back, with interest. Its the same concept. I could have borrowed from another source, yielding the same identical results.


Which has nothing to do with the fact that the government is not paying back any loans.

Brian Brown said...

insurance companies could continue to charge people much higher premiums based on age, gender, or health status.

Yes, and here comes the benevolent government to save the day!!!!

With health care rationing no less!

Brian Brown said...

Uh, that's what you do when you borrow money. You spend it! And you pay it back.

Not when you're a Democrat running the federal government.

You just borrow, borrow more to pay interest, then keep borrowing more & more.

But you took out a loan once and that like makes it all o-kay and stuff...

alwaysfiredup said...

"Jeremy said...

As of 2009, the "average" cost of health insurance for a single American costs $4,824.

As of 2009, the "average" cost of health insurance for a "family" was $13,375.

4/5/11 11:39 AM"

Yes, it is. I pay over $1,000 a month for a family plan. I also have to pay both the employer and employee portions of SS and Medicare on the $75K income my spouse and I make. It's very, very difficult to do. I would dearly love to stop paying for public health care when it is obvious I am capable of paying for it entirely by myself.

former law student said...

It would be a lot smarter to abolish the trust fund and adjust Social Security payouts to match what is coming in from the program.

But we workers were sold a bill of goods: Thirty years ago FICA taxes were increased to build up a surplus that we could draw from in the future. Reagan and the Bushes distributed it to their fat cat buddies.

former law student said...

fls, are you too stupid to realize that your lender has ewuitable title to a real asset (house) while the no assets back those special SS bonds?

No assets back any US government bonds except the power to tax.

Sofa King said...

But we workers were sold a bill of goods: Thirty years ago FICA taxes were increased to build up a surplus that we could draw from in the future. Reagan and the Bushes distributed it to their fat cat buddies.

I'll repeat my question to you: if, as you imply, the problem was malfeasance by Reagan and Bush, what *exactly* would you have had the SSA do with the surplus? I await your reply.

former law student said...

Bush inherited a recession at the start of his first term too. It was shallow and over in 8 months. It was followed by 6 years of pretty good growth.

It was followed by six years of illusory growth caused by the housing bubble his policies inflated.

former law student said...

what *exactly* would you have had the SSA do with the surplus?

NOT
SPEND
IT

cubanbob said...

Jeremy said...
cubanbob - "Obama's average monthly deficits are larger than the average annual deficits in those years. That is why the urgency. By the way there was talk of these things during that time frame but the democrats being in sufficient number to block any consideration of these things in those years they blocked any consideration or vote on these items."

I see.

You don't see because you don't want to see. But inconvenient facts are simply set aside by you. I am not saying that republicans are saints, they to have have plenty of guilty in this fiscal situation but the reality is that in spite of a near depression avoided in the immediate financial panic after 911, the recession of 2000 Bush inherited, the bubble created by the federal reserve and the democrat housing disaster the Bush administration never even came close to Obama's idiocy. And you say Bush is responsible for Obama's disastrous policies? What color is the sky on your planet?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Thirty years ago FICA taxes were increased to build up a surplus that we could draw from in the future. Reagan and the Bushes distributed it to their fat cat buddies.

I had no idea the President had power over the purse strings. When I took US civics in school I was taught that Congress had that authority.

I guess thats what happens when you have a union teacher.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Bear in mind when discussing economics with garage and FLS is that garage believes the Fed has a special computer that prints out money which is why we won't go bankrupt. FLS believes that having to borrow money after paying all your bills doesn't really mean you're broke.

I am convinced that liberals never took a Home Econ course let alone Econ 101.

cubanbob said...

garage mahal said...
If a person tells you Social Security is solvent, point out that the government lent itself the money and then spent it.

Uh, that's what you do when you borrow money. You spend it! And you pay it back. There is zero difference in borrowing to go to war, and paying that back, versus borrowing from the trust fund, and paying that back.

What is so fucking hard to understand in such a simple transaction?

4/5/11 6:35 PM

You do realize that a private company doing this would be hammered flat by the government.

Revenant said...

There is zero difference in borrowing to go to war, and paying that back, versus borrowing from the trust fund, and paying that back.

Sure. But there's a world of difference between saying "oh, Social Security is solvent" and saying "Social Security will be solvent provided the government raises taxes by $60 trillion over the next couple of decades so it can pay itself back".

Because people are going to have a few questions about that tax increase. Questions like "what the fuck?" and "no, seriously, what the fucking fuck?".

Synova said...

I'm way to late to even talk about this. Drat.

BTW, are the "cuts... from anticipated spending levels" the same old "cuts" in the planned increases?

In other words... no cuts at all, but increases that aren't quite as high as someone else wanted to make?

chickelit said...

So tell us how the Randroid fantasy of giving an 84 yr old person a voucher to go shop for private insurance works out.

Such a person is already healthier than average and is not the reason for the current problems. The problems are people like Stanley Dunham who never paid into the system at all and then expected it healthcare to be there at the end. Her well-off offspring were put off by the notion of paying for her too BTW.
Another reason the system is in trouble is because fewer people die younger and suddenly. Those "payers but not payees" are slowly disappearing. And yes, more people expect to be kept alive as a matter of right.

Synova said...

"The bottom line is Paul Ryan is a cynical politician. Just last year he complained that 'Obama's' health plan raided and cut Medicare. Now he proposes a plan that even does more than that."

Only maybe Ryan isn't lying about it?

Obama was claiming that the health plan didn't cost anyone anything at all.

PaulV said...

Garage said,

Garage, don't you have to cut spending somewhere to pay it back?
Is thaT a concept too complicated for your puny mind?

PaulV said...

Obama's conceit is that he is able to rob Medicare of money when there is no money there to rob. Either he is lying or it wants thee poor to suffer as he guts medicare.
Ryan is honest enough to admit that Medicare is unsubstainable and that changes must be made if there is any hope for medicare to survive.

former law student said...

Paul Ryan's implicit argument is that health insurance (e.g. Medicare) will cost even less when part of the cost must be allocated as profit. There will be no death panels under the GOP system because there will be no money to pay for them.

Unknown said...

Paul Ryan's implicit argument is that health insurance (e.g. Medicare) will cost even less when part of the cost must be allocated as profit.

After all, just because everything ELSE is cheaper when provided by the private sector doesn't mean medicine will be.

The reason private-sector costs are lower despite that horrible, evil profit is that the DESIRE for profit compels private sector providers to keep costs low -- the lower the cost, the more customers they attract and the more money they make.

The government has no incentive to keep costs low, since it simply grabs all the money it wants from the private sector. This is why government costs soar higher and higher every year.

former law student said...

After all, just because everything ELSE is cheaper when provided by the private sector doesn't mean medicine will be.

Medicine is provided by the public sector right now. The for-profit groups are the big losers.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 356 of 356   Newer› Newest»