Hope Ryan's budget an April Fool's joke

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, is the face of the GOP who recently wrote an alternative to President Barack Obama's budget. In it, in the midst of the worst economic downturn in 80 years, he proposed a five-year spending freeze.

On top of that, he also proposed a 10 percent cut in taxes for the top income earners. And the icing on the cake is that he also wants to privatize Medicare. You can't make this stuff up.

Ryan believes that the way to get out of our current recession is to cut funding for education, police, health care, infrastructure and research, while cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans even more. Somewhere Herbert Hoover is smiling.

Appleton is known for Harry Houdini. Waukesha is known for Les Paul. Baraboo can claim the Ringling Brothers. Now Janesville's claim to fame is that their native son is the author of the most bizarre budget in American history.

Let's hope this was just an April Fool's Day joke that Ryan has not yet let us in on.

-- Jeff Simpson, Cottage Grove

moe:

Did I say that Sudan offered him directly to the US? But the opening statement is very good.
+
The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.
+

might want to check the fact there andre:

Sudan never offered Bin Laden to the United States. They allegedly offered Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. From the Washington Post (October 3, 2001):

"The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries. .

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at a Rosslyn hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

Sudan expelled bin Laden on May 18, 1996, to Afghanistan. From there, he is thought to have planned and financed the twin embassy bombings of 1998, the near-destruction of the USS Cole a year ago and last month's devastation in New York and Washington. . .

Clinton administration officials maintain emphatically that they had no such option [to accept Bin Laden] in 1996. In the legal, political and intelligence environment of the time, they said, there was no choice but to allow bin Laden to depart Sudan unmolested.

"The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States," said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn...

From the 9/11 Commission Report:

"In late 1995, when Bin Ladin was still in Sudan, the State Department and CIA learned that Sudanese officials were discussing with the Saudi government the possibility of expelling Bin Ladin. U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney encouraged the Sudanese to pursue this course. The Saudis, however, did not want Bin Ladin, giving as their reason revocation of his citizenship. Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding." (The 9/11 Commission Report, authorized edition, 109-110).

If Clinton would have captured bin laden when the Sudanese offered him up, 9-ll might not have happened. What might have, and what might not have happened, is something that you can speculate over and never really acquire the true answer. If Clinton had not allowed the inspectors to be kicked out of Iraq by saddam, we might have had better intelligence data. Speculation is simply that, speculation.

William K. Black, Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri and former senior regulator in the S&L crisis of the '80s, alleges fraud by Geithner, Paulson and the power elite:

"Now Black is focused on an even greater scandal, and he spares no one — not even the President he worked hard to elect, Barack Obama. But his main targets are the Wall Street barons, heirs of an earlier generation whose scandalous rip-offs of wealth back in the 1930s earned them comparison to Al Capone and the mob, and the nickname 'banksters.'" -- http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/040320...

kiowamohican, what you suggest about the CIA is against the law, but Mr. Bush didn`t let that stop him the last eight years, so go for it! As for oil companies, they make a lot of money, but only have a ten percent profit margin. Pharmaceutical companies make almost twice that, but people don`t get as outraged for some reason, maybe because they like those Viagra/Cialis, commercials! Oh, one other thing about big oil and their ten percent profit margin, they pay only eight percent for taxes

As far as Saddam goes; if the US had not had it's intelligent agencies so severely crippled over the past 3 decades, this would have never been an issue. All you needed to do was send in some CIA operatives to covertly take him out, and then instigate a peoples uprising to overthrow the remaining portions of the Bath government. Unfortunately our intelligence agencies have been made toothless by congress over the past 2-3 decades, and the only thing you are left to do is invade the country, or simply turn your head the other way when sanctions are violated; like Clinton did for 8 years.

zoom:
The cost of the Iraq war is estimated in the $2 trillion range over the 7 years we have been there. Obviously you can't put any price on human life. My point was the $$$ we spent in the war was equaled in a few short months bailing out the banks. Both are colossal wastes of $$$ that will have devastating effects on the monetary system down the road.
.
As far as tax breaks for big oil, I'm all for it! The less any company pays to government the better. Even with w/e breaks they may be getting they are still paying BILLIONS in taxes to fund all the ridiculous social projects of government that are complete failures. So you really should be thanking big oil. At least they are paying billions in tax $$$'s even if they are getting these "breaks". At least big oil knows how to turn PROFIT. That's far more then you can say for the auto's , banks, or anything government is running (or soon will be running). Perhaps big oil can just stop paying taxes all together. That would give them a seat smack dab in the Obama cabinet, no doubt!

Paul Ryan is all hype and full of gripe!!!!

Paul Ryan was lost during the elections! So what in the world makes him so special now!!!! Oh, because of the failure of those that was put before him! Try and try again till you get it right?

"truthfully answer this question, if 9-11 hadn`t happened would we have invaded Iraq when we did? The answer is no, it would not have happened!"
-
Had Iraq had followed the sanctions following the first gulf war (the one where Sadam invaded Kuwait) and had not been firing at US warplanes for a decade after would the US invaded after 9-11? The answer is also no.

If Paul Ryan is the ranking Republican today then why didn't Mr. Bush call on him yesterday!!!!! If he is “ALL THAT” then he would have been put up front right off the get go!!!!!! So save the best for last!!!! Come on!!!

Here is a good description of what was happening at the time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118...

"Another false statement from the left. It was never claimed that Iraq had direct ties to the "event" of 9-11."

Bush couldn't directly link Iraq and 9/11, but he sure did intimate it. Bush mentioned Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentance many times during speaches to the country. By saying 'Iraq' and '9/11', or 'Sadaam' and '9/11' together so many times, the majority of the public linked the two. I talked to many people, years after the war started, that still didn't realize that Sadaam didn't have anyting to do with 9/11. These were just average folks, who didn't follow politics closely, so they didn't know the truth.

RetiredAirForce, truthfully answer this question, if 9-11 hadn`t happened would we have invaded Iraq when we did? The answer is no, it would not have happened!

"in the name of patriotism to Invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, and we`ve been paying for it ever since."
-
Another false statement from the left. It was never claimed that Iraq had direct ties to the "event" of 9-11.

andre, we`ll see how much progress there is after we leave. We could have gone in, taken out Saddam and his cronies, left, and the situation would have been settled by now. Some leader would have taken over, and the loss of life on both sides would have been less. Now it will erupt when we leave, and they will have their civil war anyway. The Republicans, and Democrats, let themselves be sold a bill of goods, lied to, cajoled, fooled, in the name of patriotism to Invade a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, and we`ve been paying for it ever since.

kiowamohican, I never said you supported the Iraq war. You said a whole lot about financials, but nothing about the cost of the Iraq war. The fact is, the cost of the Iraq war is not just we spend on bullets and butter. The human cost is much higher. That's what people are objecting to. By the way, that doesn't mean I'm happy about TARP either.

We haven't had a "free market system" in your or my lifetime. The government has been subsidizing industries that are aligned with its political views for a very long time. The difference being that Republicans do it with tax breaks for oil companies, no bid contracts for Halliburton and billions for military contractors that make products that don’t seem to work.

However, when the benefits of such policies are for working people then conservatives scream “Socialism!”.

In truth, both libertarianism and communism both don’t work. Both are ideologies that don’t fit the complexities of human societies. As always, the best fit is something in the middle of the two extremes.

Pharm:
So, we are not talking about the current situation, we are talking about the status four years ago. Will democrats never admit to progress in the war in Iraq?

What a fresh concept from Mr. Ryan!!! Let me translate, the Grand Old Party wants the same old crap, and the country is in perfect financial condition thanks to former President Bush.

andre, 1/15/2005, Fox News, "CIA says Iraq top terrorist training ground." 1/13/2005, Washington Post, "Iraq replaces Afghanistan as top terror training ground."

Also zoom:
I never supported the Iraq war. My views are libertarian. I was a Ron Paul supporter. I'm also never apologetic about making "the next buck". Making the next buck is how capitalism works; and how America became great. I realize we are now moving to a Socialist state, but I will always be a free market capitalist, and never apologize for making $$$$ from the wonderful free market system our founding fathers blessed us with.

zoom:

What dream world are you living in?? I hope you seriously buy into those talking points that the $$$ is actually going to be paid back! That's pretty darn funny.
.
Sure some of the smaller banks that took a few million in TARP bailouts will pay it back, or have all ready given it back as you point out, but the the GIANTS like AIG and citi...HAHAHA. That $$$ is GONE; as in it will NEVER be paid back. My God; AIG was INSURING the risk of CDO's with NO collateral! They are so far beyond bankrupt it's ridiculous. It will be a thousand years before they can pay off their debt, and then be able to repay any TARP "loan". Hell; they have been given over $200 BILLION. Their market capitalization is only about $3 billion. Citi was given about $180 billion, and the are worth about $15 billion in capitalization. That is literally what the company is worth at this moment on the open market. They were given so much that they could have been bought OUTRIGHT 10-50 times over with the "loans" they were given!
.
The $$$ is LONG LONG GONE. This was one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on the American tax payer. This is nothing like the S&L's of the 80's. This was one massive scam done by corporate giants, who then scammed the idiots on Capitol hill to bail them out when their house of cards came crumbling down. You will NEVER see any returns on the billions "loaned" to AIG, citi, and many of the others, trust me on that one. That $$$ is as gone as the $$$ wasted in Iraq.

pharm:

I'm sorry but a blog is not going to work. Blogs are someones opinions very rarely backed up by facts. What has transpired in Iraq since the fall of saddam has been an insurgency. A lot like what happened in Germany after the fall of the Nazi party. There was an on going resistance there for many years following the end of ww2. I seem to be a little confused by your comment. Are you equating training with actual combat engagement? In other words, if a person takes a weapon and engages in a combat situation without prior training does that now constitute having trained?

andre, americablog.com/2007/05/bush-created-terrorist-training-ground.html and defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=2849

"There are no guarantees from the TARP; as with all loans there are risks of non-payment."

My point was that comparing TARP to the Iraq war is just ignorant. Over four thousand of our brave soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. Over a hundred thousand Iraqis have lost their lives (a low estimate by some). Over thirty thousand U.S. soldiers have been wounded in Iraq, not to mention the thousands mentally scarred. What is the true human cost? How much will it really cost to care for these wounded soldiers for decades to come? Considering how long we will have a presence in Iraq, what will the final cost be? People like kiowamohican are so glib about making the next buck, they don't see the bigger picture.

The fighting in Iraq has been much heavier than in Afghanistan, by pure reason you have to say more training has been done. Just by sheer volume of combat alone. The fighting in Afghanistan is being done mainly by the Taliban, not outside terrorists like Iraq. Remember all the news stories the past six years about "proud Muslim fighters going to Iraq to fight?"

...oops...I.E.D.

"To your notion that the war provided the/a training ground for radicals is false considering we were attacked by radicals throughout history before and after wars."

Your illogic is astounding. The war in Iraq has provided to be a prime training ground for radicals. There weren't any suicide bombers or I.U.D.'s going off in Iraq before we invaded. I never said there weren't other training grounds, but Iraq has turned into one.

pharm:
Is that an assumption on your part, or do you have any data to back that comment up? Have you been to Iraq, or spoken to anyone that has been there?

RetiredAirForce, you train where most of the fighting is, and that was not Afghanistan.

"Iraq has proven to be the biggest training ground"
-
How do you know Afghanistan was not?

"biggest training ground for terrorists ever!"
-
An assumption not proven.

RetiredAirForce, Iraq has proven to be the biggest training ground for terrorists ever! Radicals from all parts of the world flocked there after we invaded, and they have been honing their crafts ever since.

"We will eventually get paid back for the loans to the banks. Some of them are already either paying it back, or giving the money back because they don't like the strings attached. The war is a massive sink hole that isn't over, and has made us less safe by providing a training ground for radicals."
-
We will get back? There are no guarantees from the TARP; as with all loans there are risks of non-payment. To your notion that the war provided the/a training ground for radicals is false considering we were attacked by radicals throughout history before and after wars.

"Of course a republican administration shouldn't enter into a war of any kind."

I never said that. Another straw man argument. The incursion into Afghanistan, for instance, was the right decision by Bush after 9/11, because it was the true training ground for extremists. That was bungled by Rumsfeld by not sending in enough troops, and later stretching our military too thin by trying to fight two wars at the same time.

"I love how the left brings up the trillion $$ cost of the war over 7 years; when we spent more then that bailing out the banks in 6 months..."

We will eventually get paid back for the loans to the banks. Some of them are already either paying it back, or giving the money back because they don't like the strings attached. The war is a massive sink hole that isn't over, and has made us less safe by providing a training ground for radicals.

Of course a republican administration shouldn't enter into a war of any kind. What was I thinking. Only democrats are allowed to decide when our country will engage an enemy. The democrats decided for the first world war. They were in charge for the second world war. They were in charge for the Korean war. They were in charge for the Vietnam war. They were in charge when troops were sent to Bosnia, Somalia and of course we have the Carter debacles in the Middle East. What the heck was I thinking?!?!

It's interesting to hear about the balanced budgets under Clinton and the Gingrich lead congress. Bush probably would have been able to keep those budgets balanced if he did not so foolish go into Iraq, and did not have to increase the size of government after 9/11 ( creating the Dept homeland security, ext). What I always get a laugh from is that much of the actual revenues that came into the treasury under both Clinton, and Bush, were tax revenues propped up by a house of cards in the private sector. With Clinton you had the whole tech/dot com boom. A massive bubble that created all sorts of false wealth (which is all taxed, and = massive revenues to the US treasury). Then with Bush you had a massive real estate/housing bubble that again created all sorts of false revenues yet again. So much of the tax revenues to the US treasury has been propped up by a giant pyramid scheme the past 20 years. With all the bubbles essentially flattened now; one can see the huge problem that exists, in that there is simply not enough $$$ to support this massive government that has been created over the last few decades.

yeah; I love how the left brings up the trillion $$ cost of the war over 7 years; when we spent more then that bailing out the banks in 6 months, and wasting over $800 billion in pork projects....errrr; stimulus.
.
The real cost of this recklessness will NOT be seen in taxes on your income. The real cost will be seen in the massive inflation down the road as the dollar becomes devalued. Inflation is a regressive tax that will be FAR worse then any tax on income.
.
If you are sitting on $$$ right now, you should stock up on all the staple goods you can in this deflationary environment we are in right now. A few years down the road you will see the price of everything at levels you would have never imagined possible.
.
It's WAY WAY easier to hit the public with inflation that is a massive regressive tax on everyone, than it is to tax their income. That is EXACTLY what these policies will do down the road with their dramatic increase in deficit spending.

correction:

Those infractions were never used as justification to invade Iraq.

"saddam continuously violated the cease fire he agreed to after the first gulf war. He continued to fire on our aircraft in the no fly zones. How would you have responded to those infractions?"

Not by invading Iraq, that's for sure. None of those actions were a threat to the U.S. Those infractions were never justification for war. Bush and his cronies started a preemptive war, on the "possibility" of WMD's, of which their were none. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, no matter how much you try to rewrite history. It doesn't matter who agreed to go to war. They were all horribly wrong.

andre, Saddam was in no way involved in 9-11, that is all we have to know. You cannot use that as an excuse. About the WMD`s, the UN inspectors said there weren`t any that were usable, and we didn`t find any either. What we did find were junk and useless. We shouldn`t be there because of 9-11.

Invade a country that had nothing to do with, what? saddam continuously violated the cease fire he agreed to after the first gulf war. He continued to fire on our aircraft in the no fly zones. How would you have responded to those infractions?Quote "Saddam was no threat to the US at that time". At what time do you deem he was a threat to the US? And before someone gives me the "WMD's" line, here are a list of democrats that also said there were WMD's:
+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjcofMFH...
+
As far as your assertion that he was "our" person, alliances have been made and broken throughout history. There is a saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
+

eetech, I for one, can tell you how I would have reacted to 9-11, and it would not have been to invade a country that had nothing to do with it. Afghanistan should have been the priority because of bin-ladens presence there. It probably woud`ve been resolved by now if we hadn`t wasted time, lives, and a probable total of $3 trillion. Saddam was a terrible person, he was our person, we kept him in power, but he was no threat to the US at that time.

All of you are part of the problem. None of you is willing to listen to the other side one bit. News flash for all of you, neither plan is very good. Some of the cuts in Ryan's proposal are a bad idea just like it would be creating this huge deficit with Obama's plan. There has to be some middle ground. Our government is broke and it feels like there is nothing we can do to fix it. I voted but in the end that doesn't really matter. Not one candidate was right for this country and unfortunately Mr. Obama thinks he as a credit card with no limit on it. Is everything that Bush did right? Of course not, he made many mistakes, just as most presidents do. I would however challenge any one of you to tell me how you would have reacted to 9-11. Guess what, the terrorists accomplished their goal of destroying our financial system. All of you are like lemmings jumping off the cliff right after one another. We need to work together to get out of this mess not against one another and I'm not talking about our stupid leaders.

I agree RAF. If I could opt out of a program that I can't I would. Theoretically, I would be so rich right now, irregardless of reality. We call this Bushonomics. Think of it as Mission Accomplished for the economy.

Where were Rep. Ryan and the rest of these so-called deficit hawks during the past eight years?

There were balanced budgets under the Clinton WH and Republican Congress.

More tax cuts for the wealthy what makes more sense that that? A five year freeze on discretionary spending would mean that schools for example, when adjusted for inflation ,as well as new enrollments, would have less money each year. The Republicans are hoping to brainwash the public into thinking them "darn tax cuts for the rich folks "are a stimulus to the economy.

“The problem with Ryan's 'option' of diverting funds to a privately managed s.s.fund that he….”
-
You’re basing this on the program being solvent until when? Diverting (your claim) funds are hardly true unless everyone admits the basis for SS is a Ponzi scheme to begin with. The idea behind creating a program to protect the elderly in their latter years is admirable. But the program is broken and has been for decades; politicians as a whole do not have the political will to fix it. The plan of letting you control your own “mandated” SS funds at least puts ownership somewhere…currently it is nowhere. No investment is ever safe from decline as no government is ever safe from insolvency. To claims that funds would have been lost during the market decline; yes they would have just like many people dollars from 401k plans. These same 401k plans even after losing money will still pay out more to the retired than many will get via SS anyway. If the government keeps spending at this radical pace there will be no SS for anyone and all the “mandated” deposits will be gone. If given the choice today I would still opt out of SS and invest on my own.

"why don't all the people who voted for George Bush man up and pay for the war you backed."
-
According to the Congressional Research Service the Iraq war from beginning to now has cost less than the TARP bill. The stimulus bill combined with the omnibus spending plan is bigger than both the cost of the war and the TARP bill. Is one better than the other, of course not.

Excellent comments GANDOLF - Any reader that has not read his comments should. Paul Ryan is part of the problem and the last 8 years has put us in this mess.

lynda:
i will agree that not all smokers voted for "THE ONE."
However, those that did are enjoying the fruits of their efforts -- a 62 cent increase in the pack of smokes.
those who didn't vote for him knew he would do this (despite several statements that assured everyone making less would receive NO tax increases - or any kind). and we tried to warn all of you. alas, you all thought we were crazy and THE ONE would never do such a thing.
i'm fairly certain my comments DID make sense (seems others got what i was saying).
obama and jimmy d supports who smoke: enjoy the expensive cigs.

Booch11 - Start saving your UPC's, I'm sure we'll all qualify for the 62c/pack tax credit!

Here is Obama's FIRM pledge, Read my lips!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V......

I would rather my taxes paid for a war that helped people get out from under a brutal dictator than pay for people like this:
+
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090401/ap_o...
+

Yes, Kay5 I see that the party of personal responsibility isn't responsible for anything. If you could be more irrelevant it would be funny. They're not taxing everyone, just whiny Republicans who cry like little girls about how they are taxed all the time. Poor baby. I have an idea why don't all the people who voted for George Bush man up and pay for the war you backed. Oh wait that would mean you're being responsible for your actions.

The majority of Americans, and a large majority of people in Rock County, already voted against Ryan's "plan" last November.

When more businesses close up or move out because of higher taxes and regulations and more are on the dole, just maybe the Obumiacs will see the light.
Then Ryan can say "I told you so".
Right now Obama is paying back his debt to the unions and banking friends for the campaign funds they gave him. Paying back with our money of course.

wait until they have to start paying for the cap and tax (trade) bill. We ALL are going to be taxed, taxed to death. Of course the dems will call it a fee but it is still money out of our paychecks. The withholding for SS will be raised too.
As long as we taxpayers, no matter what the income is, are paying for others houses and soon cars too, heck lets all go out and buy over our heads, let some one else pay for them and blame it on the banks for making the loans in the first place.
dems love to tax and spend. The nit wits always thinks its going to be the other guy who is going to get hit and are too ignorant to see how it's them too.
Wait until there's another emergency like 9/11 and tornados, which cost us billions and they get to spend more. But first they will have to blame it on Bush. Sorry kids, this is Obamas economy now. Will you gain back your retirement funds in time to retire or will you be working until you drop dead? You have to work forever to pay off Obamas debt so I doubt it.

Another key the Democrats' plan for long-term propserity: placing more debt on our kids in the next 5 years than the country has in the previous 230. It's for the children!!!

Again all talk IMO The economy needs something and it didn't get done in the past 8 years and if my mind is correct he was part of the party that has us where we are and 2 or 3 months is not the time needed to make a difference Anything that helps is what is needed not the bs that has been promised the last 8 years. I would like to see something that changes where we are at and get on on the road back. I don't think ryan has anything to help as he didn't before, What makes you think he has now? Of course he can try and pitch his priorities and line the pockets of those that the resources to stay afloat IMO he sure isn't
for the ones that don't have the resources,

The Ryan supporters here don't understand that the Obama plan lays groundwork for long-term prosperity by:

1. Tripling deficits that they previously said were "irresponsible." Forever. $1 trillion per year, every year.

2. Ramming through the largest tax increase in American history on every single American: small businesses that create 70% of new jobs, electricity users, natural gas users, gasiline users, those with health insurance, those without, etc.

3. In spite of the gargantuan tax increases, they will ALSO increase deficits. $1 trillion per year. Forever.

4. In ten years, they plan on spending four times as much on interest as education, energy, and transportation. Combined. Soon after, the nation will spend more on interest than the entire defense budget.

5. In so doing, they plan on placing our children and grandchildren into a form of indentured servitude to China as they are forced to pay the Chinese interest on the debt the Democrats incurred instead of investing in American jobs and education.

If you can't see how this lays the groundwork for long-term prosperity, then welcome to the Republican party!

I'm pretty sure the Democrates march in lockstep also. Just wanted to give them the same credit also. Oops, sorry, didn't mean to say anything bad about them. Forward. March. Left, Right, Left, Right, Left, Right.

I'm thinking about becoming a member of the democrat party. It appears that you don't have to pay your taxes, unless you get tapped for a leadership position in the democrat controlled administration. Then you just say oops, and pay them after you are caught.

***correction**
I meant to say the "the barack Obama agenda now"...I often get the two mixed up!

This is just political.
Everyone knows the plan will go no where. Just sets Ryan up to say he offered an alternative plan when the current budget BOMBS. There is no stopping the Hugo Chavez agenda now.

It's very apparent that Congressman Ryan is positioning himself for a Republican leadership position with his April Fool's budget plan, which will thankfully go nowhere. The significant effort that went into this sham is proof that he is shamefully pursuing his own partisan interests rather than the interests of his constituents. This should come as no surprise because he has been a shill for the Republican Party and the Bush administration policies at every turn during the past 8 years. He has become almost as much of an embarrassment as Mark Neumann used to be. Ryan's tried and failed ideas clearly show that he is part of the problem and not part of the solutions.

Of greater concern, Professor, is the part of this plan that would have the effect of directing the insured toward purchase of individual policies. Last evening's "Frontline" provided insight into the realities of individual health insurance policies.

By the way, if anyone is interested, here is info on Paul Ryan's 2008 campaign financing: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/s...

booch..I wouldn't think that all smokers are for Obama, therefore, your statement makes absolutely no sense.

RAF--The problem with Ryan's 'option' of diverting funds to a privately managed s.s.fund that he refused to acknowledge that such a diversion would end up defunding the traditional s.s. plans for those who did not want the 'option'. Not only would that eventually kill the traditional s.s. plan (thus leaving the ONLY 'option' being the stock investment), but after a stock market crash like the one we just had, people who took the 'option' would not have the protection that the system was designed for in the first place. In the end, Ryan supported many of the Bush budget proposals that put us where we are today--and that's not even including the 'fudged' bugets that didn't include the war spending, etc. Ryan can't run from that now--not and maintain any crediblity, anyway.

Here is Obama's firm pledge, Booch11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V...

Just wondering how you Obama voters who smoke are enjoying the new 62 cent federal tax on cigarettes. Plus isn't jimmy d going to raise state cigs tax another 75 cents?

Oh, give me a break....Ryan from the great Janesville (a city who thinks an expensive tunnel in what we need right now...lol!) is going to figure this out!? The reason people trust Obama is because he tried something different! McCain lost because he was a rude nasty greedy politician! It does give me hope that someone with common respect is in charge!!!
When I never hear hear Republicans talk of the man who gives them their cheeseburger, cleans their sheets, or works in the many factories that build the things they uses on a daily basis it sickens me!! If it wasn't for the "lower class" who would take care of all those small things they have learned to take for granted? Yes, they are uneducated, BUT they are the ones willing to take care of the dirty work!
Whatever the budget ends up being or whoever ends up writing it, I am confident Obama will be fair to the hard working class!

RAF, get a life.

tallman i agree to some but the biggest deficit was left by none other then hmmmmmmmmm..Now this country was deep in debt long before this last election and geez I wonder what party was doing the spending and borrowing at that time, Ryan can talk a good talk but actions are needed and will his budget be for the big guys again? well us little guys need a break and he isn't the one I would want representing my future. IMO Ryan would not support anything that would help the little guy and most likely propose another take from the needed program and give tax breaks where they won't help the economy anyway... Just my 2 cents

I forgot to add, when they figure their deficits, they expect everyone to choose to pay the higher rate of taxes. We are all patriotic to a fault!

I doubt anybody, including Ryan, expects this to be considered by the current congress. It seems more likely that this is something he's doing to brag about, or just to argue back against Obama's challenge, perhaps to use as a talking point during a future presidential bid.

Yippee! You get to choose how much tax you want to pay. Be patriotic and pay 10% more, or go long form and pay less. They use CBO charts from 2007 and 2008 for some of their projections. People that make $50,000-$100,000 could end up paying more taxes. They propose dropping the capital gains tax to 0% for two years(yeah! right!) They completely leave out Mr. Bush`s last deficit of $1.26 trillion when making comparisons to the Obama budget. They freeze spending except for defense and VA benefits, and require people 54 and under to be covered by revamped Medicare/Medicaid to be funded from the government, a certain amount not specified. They say SS will be broke in 2041, which is a lie, it will have to start paying out less then if something is not done, but it won`t be broke. It will be interesting to see if even one of their proposals will garner enough support to get into a budget. And, with all their monetary sleight-of-hand, the deficits will still climb over $6 trillion!

Paul Ryan isn't just wrong he is wronger than wrong. First, currencies become debased because there is nothing to back them when printed, we have any number of commodities from corn, to land to Nuclear Weapons to back our currency. Reagan used wheat to back our currency when he took our country into debt. Second, our currency is the gold of currencies. Other countries use our currency to back their currency.

He is wrong on the historical issue. We borrowed far more to defeat the Nazis and the Japanese Empire and get out of the Great Depression. It appears as though, if the Republicans were in charge then, we would all be speaking German now.

For Paul Ryan's next demonstration he will demonstrate irrelevance. Here before you is a budget that no one will vote on, won't ever have to be implemented and is too late. You can always rely on Republicans for a good laugh.

Who really cares where Ryan sided in the past, if this plan looks like it will work then it should be considered. Quit with the partisan politics! I am a republican but if a democrat writes something that makes sense then go with it.

10% cut for first $100,000 made, and 25% cut for those who make more?
Wait that's tax cuts for the rich again.
Wait that's thinking that trickle down economics might work this time.
Stop the borrowing?
We are borrowing to pay off the spending that got us no where in the past 8 years.
We do need a mix of both plans, but this "which party is right" crap will destroy us all.

Congressman Ryan is right on. Just did a quick read and this is exactly what America needs.

And before ya all label me a republican, I am neither republician nor democrat. I am a proletariat. Not a socialist proletariat, but a capitalist proletariat.

Since there is no election on the horizon, shall we presume that Congressman Paul Ryan, the blindly loyal Republican lemming is writing this budget proposal and not his benevolent twin, candidate Paul Ryan the economic conservative watchdog?

Maybe it depends on which party's emperor happens to be wearing the clothes at the time. On the other hand, might he finally be tired of playing his oh-so-transparent game of politics? We can only hope.

"My side RAF? I don't have a side...and you have to resort to personal attacks rather than addressing the issue that YOUR SIDE didn't put numbers on THEIR budget proposal. RAF, your a joke."
-
You don't have a side? Go back and read your comments, I did. As for the personal attacks you have no room to wave that flag on this site.

My side RAF? I don't have a side...and you have to resort to personal attacks rather than addressing the issue that YOUR SIDE didn't put numbers on THEIR budget proposal. RAF, your a joke.

"Democratic...proposal he would support no matter how rational."
-
You mean like when Ryan and Fiengold worked together for a line item veto? http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/416882...

"guy who wanted to put our Social Security funds in the stock market"
-
He wanted to give YOU the option to put your money there...not make you do it.

Why would anyone trust in a plan put forth by the SAME guy who wanted to put our Social Security funds in the stock market?!?!?! Ryan has never met a GOP spending plan he didn't love, nor any Democratic Party proposal he would support no matter how rational.

"over trillion dollars left behind by Clinton "
-
What Trillion?

"Yeah, maybe this one will have numbers on it..."
-
If there are numbers and no pictures most on your side won't be able to understand it anyway.

Congressman Ryan talks fiscally conservative, but he voted YES on Medicare Part D, (the biggest entitlement spending since the new deal), YES on Bush's stimulus package, and YES on the trillion dollar corporate banker bailout.
-
Ryan talks a good game, but is part of the partisan politics problem. That is, the illogical rhetoric that Bush deficit spending, government growth, and foreign occupations were good, but Obama's deficit spending, government growth, and foreign occupations are not good. The only difference, generally speaking, between Dems and Reps is that Dems are better and faster at growing government.

Ryan didn't do crap while Bush-Chaney were blowing the over trillion dollars left behind by Clinton and trillions more on unjustified wars, lining the pockets of the rich. Ryan is such a hypocrite. This is all about politics and empty promises. He stood by, allowed tax breaks for the richest americans, deregulate financial institutions and wall street, ignored warning after warning in written form by those knowing this whole finnacial distruction was about to happen and the list goes on and on. If ryan knows so much and was on the finance committee why then didn't he speak up along time ago?? He was protecting his rich colleagues and donors simple as that.

Two countries people need to study. Zimbabwe, and Brazil. If ya want to know where we are headed..."The way to crush the Bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstone of taxation and inflation"... Vladimir Lenin

Yeah, maybe this one will have numbers on it...

Go Paul Ryan!! We do need an alternative to what the dems are proposing. But they are in power now and it probably won't go through. although some of the dems are having second thought about Obama's budget proposal, so maybe it will. All I know is that we are in trouble and the President and his administration are making it worse. We need all the help we can get!!!