Paul Ryan’s contribution is irreplaceable
WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON
The first time Rep. Paul Ryan presented his budget, it was supposed to be fatal for the GOP. Ryan, after all, was not only touching the entitlement third rail but licking it. Even to some ideological allies, it seemed like a dangerous dare.
Now he has dared again. And the absence of an apocalypse is a victory of sorts. Americans are not suddenly enthusiastic about Medicare reform. But Ryan has made a sophisticated case for its necessity. His proposals have been generally embraced by congressional Republicans and by the GOP’s likely presidential candidate. If Mitt Romney manages to win, the presentation of Ryan’s budget in 2013 would kick off a momentous national debate on the size and role of government.
Ryan, pulled to the phone from the House floor, is typically upbeat. “I believe this will turn in our favor,” he says. Ryan is all Wisconsin cheerful earnestness—the Boy Scout earning his federal budget badge. But this manner masks considerable ideological ambition.
“We knew we were defining the movement,” he tells me. By setting out the case against unsustainable entitlement commitments, Ryan forced his GOP colleagues to pick a side—often against their will. The whole Republican Party will now defend and advance Ryan’s budget views—or suffer from their repudiation.
Ryan has no second thoughts.
“It is morally right,” he says, “legally right, politically right.”
He is armed with more than confidence. Despite all the criticisms of Ryan’s budget, it is simply, plainly right on the biggest matter. By the 2030s federal health care commitments, along with interest on the debt, will consume just about all government revenue. Federal health spending is expected to grow from 5.6 percent of GDP to nearly 20 percent of GDP—about the modern average for the whole federal government. Maintaining “Medicare as we know it” and other unreformed health entitlements will make every other function of government as we know it impossible.
Ryan’s proposals to move toward a premium support system in Medicare and a block grant system in Medicaid are controversial, and he has modified them in response to criticism. But their seriousness stands alone.
“President Obama has given us four budgets,” says Ryan, “and four times he has punted on the debt problem.” The Democratic strategy has been “to wait for Republicans to propose solutions then attack them.”
Ryan bristles at the notion that he is unraveling the social safety net. He sees it unraveling of its own accord.
“The poor would be hurt worst in a debt crisis,” he explains, when spending cutbacks would be sudden, drastic and indiscriminate. Reform is required to “make the safety net work, to make it sustainable.” And Ryan’s budget has taken some fire from the tea party right, because it rejects an arbitrary 10-year target to balance the budget—which would demand unrealistic, draconian cuts.
But Ryan’s approach to discretionary spending is also vulnerable to criticism. By decreasing some tax rates, restoring defense spending and protecting current retirees from sudden entitlement changes, the Ryan budget puts tremendous strain on the rest of the budget. Critics have contended this would “savage the poor,” undermine essential government functions and leave Americans vulnerable to “food poisoning and killer diseases.”
The real response is impossible for Ryan to make—or even, at this point, to contemplate. A budget proposal is an initial negotiating position—and increased tax revenues will be part of any final deal. Ryan’s budget already makes some revenue concessions. Currently, federal revenues stand at about 15 percent of GDP. Ryan’s 10-year plan would eventually push this figure up to an average of 18.5 percent of GDP—in line with historical precedent.
If an eventual budget agreement were to include serious entitlement reform, I suspect that most Republicans would reluctantly accept federal revenues at 20 percent of GDP, or even 21 percent—provided these taxes were designed to minimize the drag on economic growth. This would dramatically soften the short- and medium-term effects on discretionary spending.
Any current Republican concession on this point would do nothing but divide the Republican coalition. But a final deal along these lines would vindicate Ryan’s approach. The main priority is not to cut discretionary spending or even to quickly balance the budget. It is to avert a fiscal calamity that would bring an economic catastrophe. This requires health entitlement reform—the real measure of budgetary seriousness and the irreplaceable contribution of Paul Ryan.
Michael Gerson is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group; email michaelgerson@washpost.com.
Apr 4, 2012 at 11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Don't people realize he wants to take away medicare, medicaid and what he is doing to ss, who knows? Do people not realize he will not make the rich pay more, but will give them a tax break of over $250,000? Do people realize he is for the rich and does not care about the elderly, middle income or poor? Come on people, wake up and really hear the lies this man tells you.
Apr 3, 2012 at 10:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
ezoner, I came back to read your facts in support of your claim. . . Are you there? Can you back up what you say?
BTW, did you watch President Obama's address to news correspondents today - live - regarding the proposed budget by the GOP? I am so proud to have a literate and intelligent President.
You can watch it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...
Apr 3, 2012 at 4:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAF said, "Your attempt to camouflage the debt via a wiki page and injection that a "debt ratio" has anything to do with the true debt numbers is typical of your pattern of circular logic."
In case you didn't notice, RAF, that "wiki page" used data (which they cited) from the US Government. Haha, 'injection that a "debt ratio" has anything to do with the true debt numbers,' is priceless! A true RAFism if ever there was one. Economists for decades have used debt ratios to measure national debt -- it is, and has been, the gold standard for measuring national debt.
Let me demonstrate the folly of your method of measuring debt using raw numbers. We have a brand new country that has a gross domestic product (GDP) of $10 the first year and their government runs a deficit of $1 every single year -- adding $1 to the debt every year. The GDP of the country grows by 10% annually.
After the first year, their GDP is $10 and their debt is $1 (10% of their GDP). After 100 years, their their GDP is $125,278 and their debt is $100 (0.08% of GDP). After 200 years, their their GDP is $1,726,411,604 and their debt is $200 (0.000012% of GDP).
RAF would look at this country and say, "This country's debt has increased EVERY year of their existence despite high tax rates! High tax rates don't work!" Any credible economist, and myself, would look at this country and say, "This country's debt as a percentage of GDP has decreased from 10% to 0.000012%." This country could pay off their $200 national debt without blinking an eye if they so desired.
Apr 3, 2012 at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
No2, regardless the size of the economy the debt still increased and has increased every year since 1964. Your attempt to camouflage the debt via a wiki page and injection that a "debt ratio" has anything to do with the true debt numbers is typical of your pattern of circular logic. Unless you have anything relevant to participate with I suspect this conversation has reached it's end.
Apr 3, 2012 at 8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Has Ryan ever worked a regular job?
Apr 3, 2012 at 7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Naughty, naughty RAF. It's not nice telling fibs. You first said, "For over a decade in the 50's..." and not, "It was all of the 50's as I said." Remember, you said "For over a decade in the 50's..." There can't be over 10 years in the 50's and you just counted a total of 17 years for us. 17 > 10.
Oh boy, RAF then asks, "If higher taxes worked why did the national debt increase?" You still don't grasp the difference between the national debt as a percentage of GDP and the national debt, do you? As the article I cited pointed out, "Debt burden is usually measured as a ratio of public debt to gross domestic product." To do otherwise is making the mistake that a dollar in 1963 has the same buying power of a dollar in 1946 and discards our nation's economic growth.
Apr 3, 2012 at 6:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
No2 blathered ""From 1946 through 1963," is the 40's, the 50's and the 60's; not the 50's."
-
poo for a person that wants so terribly to point out errors how do you justify your failure? It was 4 years of the 40's, not the 40's. It was 3 years of the 60's not the 60's. It was all of the 50's as I said. As I stated earlier "No2 as is typical, when you can't discuss the issues you attempt to play english teacher; in a true pathetic nature." Not only did you fail in your facts you failed in your correction...wear it proudly.
Apr 3, 2012 at 6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
" Higher tax rates worked!"
-
If higher taxes worked why did the national debt increase? I suppose when you just want to ignore real debt by trying to justify it you will never see the truth. I guess for that looking for reasons to ignore the truth wiki is your crutch, or you could just look at the real numbers.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repor...
Apr 3, 2012 at 4:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
youkillme, we need to humor RAF on these challenges he has. "From 1946 through 1963," is the 40's, the 50's and the 60's; not the 50's. And RAF continues to use debt data that is not shown as a percentage of GDP.
From [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl... ], "In the United States, national debt is money borrowed by the federal government of the United States. Debt burden is usually measured as a ratio of public debt to gross domestic product."
Look at the chart on the website cited by the above link and study the same period of time RAF is talking about (1946 through 1963). Wow, guess what? Higher tax rates worked! Surprise, surprise! Then Reagan came along with his drastic tax rate cuts and the rest, as they say, is history.
Apr 3, 2012 at 3:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
No2 as is typical, when you can't discuss the issues you attempt to play english teacher; in a true pathetic nature.
Still nothing on the substance? From 1946 through 1963, yep over a decade including the 50's, the top tax rate was over 90%. Yet during that time the debt increased for 15 of those years. If raising taxes fixed the debt one would think a tax rate of over 90% should be enough...
Since that didn't work the obvious problem is spending. Since the 60's, the same decade Medicare started, the nation’s debt has gone up every year.
But those pretending taxes are the answer still fail to see how that has already failed in our nation. Without an administration and congress willing to control spending no matter how high the tax rate, the problem will never be fixed.
Apr 3, 2012 at 1:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAF said to youkillme, "History shows your faulty logic. For over a decade in the 50's..."
youkillme, RAF got a little bit carried away with his stories again. "For over a decade in the 50's...," is as mathematically impossible as, "For 15 of the last 10 years..."
Apr 2, 2012 at 11:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
youkillme stated "It's a Laffer and hoax to think lower taxes will solve our debt and economic problems."
-
History shows your faulty logic. For over a decade in the 50's, this nation had tax rates over 90% and still had deficits and added to the debt. The problem has always been spending; it has never been because we don't tax enough.
Apr 2, 2012 at 2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sounds like the people of Janesville really love this guy. For the alternative, check out ronzerban.com. He has been all over the district talking to people and just may be the way we finally get rid of this Libertarian disguised as a Republican.
Apr 2, 2012 at 2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Expected a real answer from you mouse was asking too much. My bad.
Apr 2, 2012 at 1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
I have never been a fan of Ryans, he moved away for college(OK), but then moved to Washington DC for work. He only associated with S.Wis when he wanted to run for congress. Kind of like the carpetbaggers of old. I have no problem with stopping social security, just pay me what I have paid in, along with the other half my employer paid in, then give me interest(fair for the time it was paid in)and I will live on my own. SS is not insolvent, it is the accounting that makes it that way. SS used to be a seperate entity, but was absorbed into the budget to provide extra "income". Originally set up as a sort of "trust fund" for the working class. We have some serious problems in the country. First, if EVERYBODY paid a true tax rate it would work. Most loopholes favor the wealthy, because the poor cnat afford to influence lawmakers. It is starting to resemble the past. I hope that Ryan does get on the GOP ticket, maybe then he would resign from Congress and we might get a person to acttually represent us. Oh I long for the days of LES ASPIN.
Apr 2, 2012 at 1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
If lower taxes created jobs, our economy would have been booming for the past 10 years. Instead, there have been record corporate profits and a national attack on good wages, benefits and unions while we bailed out the greediest. It's a Laffer and hoax to think lower taxes will solve our debt and economic problems. Ryan is a tool for the wealthy and clueless.
Apr 2, 2012 at 1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
ezoner - data/facts please
Apr 2, 2012 at 1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Good American, I never once hear Ron Johnson call Feingold "sleazy". That bad mouth politics comes from the Democrat side. Catering to the mindless who think Republicans are all evil and want to pollute air and water. Laughable insanity.
Apr 2, 2012 at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
kidsfirst -- Have you seen the corporate t ax rate for the US. Its the HIGHEST in the world. While others are cutting corporate tax rates to attract corporate investment, Dems want to raise them to further drive corporatins off-shore. You might ask why? Maybe because they need high unemployment? Maybe they must have people needing or seeking government depedency to get thier budgetary wishes? What is really at hand? Paul's proposal is AN answer. But them Dem plan grows US debt and pushes employers out.
Apr 2, 2012 at 12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
GoodAmerican
Apr 1, 2012 at 5:49 p.m.
A career politician, a sleazy Washington insider. Yeah, real irreplaceable.
Unlike, Feingold or Obama????? It depends on which side of the fence you sit on.
Apr 2, 2012 at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Your last breath mouse our mine? How, exactly?
Apr 2, 2012 at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Recent editorial comments regarding the budget proposed by Paul: "For on Thursday Republicans in the House of Representatives passed what was surely the most fraudulent budget in American history.
And when I say fraudulent, I mean just that. The trouble with the budget devised by Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, isn’t just its almost inconceivably cruel priorities, the way it slashes taxes for corporations and the rich while drastically cutting food and medical aid to the needy. Even aside from all that, the Ryan budget purports to reduce the deficit — but the alleged deficit reduction depends on the completely unsupported assertion that trillions of dollars in revenue can be found by closing tax loopholes."
The entire piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/opinio...
Apr 2, 2012 at 1:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
MadeinUSA stated "Every dollar spent with Home Depot, AT&T, John Deere etc., is going to support Paul Ryan"
-
Since Home Depot provided money to 149 members of the house and 37 members of the senate how is every dollar going to Ryan?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.p...
Apr 1, 2012 at 6:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
"he never does nothing" sorry, that was a double negative there. I meant to write, "because he does nothing for the district and they want him to do nothing."
Apr 1, 2012 at 6:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
onedayatatime, being that this is Ryan's hometown and endorsing newspaper, most would think that your question would produce a barrage of comments with lists of Ryan's local and district accomplishments covering 14 years. Don't hold your breath waiting. I've asked that question here multiple times myself, only to have the entire thread die away. The one answer I got however was from one of his diehard worshippers who wrote that they support Paul Ryan because he never does nothing for the district and they don’t want to do anything. They were not being sarcastic. Honest! They truly believe that a representative who carries his constituents wishes into congress or does stuff for the public who elected him is pandering and buying votes with favors. Only his wealthy campaign contributors know what he does for them, and as you can see - they ain’t talking.
Apr 1, 2012 at 5 p.m.
Suggest removal
Paul Ryan is a puppet for corporate America. "Rep. Paul Ryan claims health care law "is accelerating our country toward bankruptcy" Rated as mostly false by Poltifact.
"Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote that repealing the health care law would increase the deficit over the next 10 years "in the vicinity of $230 billion." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...
Can any of you people on the right list any of Paul Ryan's accomplishments that have benifited the middle class here in Rock County. I'm not trying to be snied, I honestly want to know. From his voting record he has always voted to the benefit of the Insurance and Financial industry. What has he done for us?
Apr 1, 2012 at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
As we see it, Paul Ryans plan, to gut medicare/medicaid and what is he going to do with the ss? Why does he not bother with cutting from the 1% or cooperations? Are they more important than the people who put into the other plans and now to gut them? Sure can tell he's republican.
Apr 1, 2012 at 1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here is Ryan at his best, ridiculing an elderly gentleman who Ryan's henchman are taking to the ground. Scroll down a bit for the video.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09...
Apr 1, 2012 at 11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
a better idea is to take care of ourselves and our neighbors...this whole "me-centric" attitude only bodes well for the well off...
I am opposed to corporate welfare, and and much more concerned with sustainable resource management, because let's face it, there is no economy without the environment, and people can't eat money or gold :)
Apr 1, 2012 at 11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
so with all of this out of control spending why is non one addressing the real elephant in the room....our population needs control, period...we do not have the resources to provide for those of us who are already here, and making more babies we can't support is a bad idea...birth control for everyone and penalties for people like the Duggars...
Apr 1, 2012 at 8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
luisaly is a plant, put here by somebody to change some Republican voters. Gone after the election.
Apr 1, 2012 at 4:55 a.m.
Mar 31, 2012 at 11:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
As evidenced in Ryan's “Path to Prosperity” budget proposal, the deficit will still grow by $3.1 Trillion. What he has done is upset decades of progress in helping the poor and elderly. He found a way to satisfy the true Libertarian inner self within his soul. He is cutting Medicare and taxes at the same time. Does it reduce our long term debt versus the CBO baseline estimate? The answer is no. Does it do anything to improve the livelihood of the poor or unemployed? The answer is no. Why bother?
The answer to this last question is simple. He wants to get rid of a president who produced a real budget; a budget that spends more upfront but starts to invest in areas like alternative energy, education, and health care where it will really make a long term difference.
Some of President Obama’s policy proposals started to infringe on the well being of some very wealthy people. For this reason, the GOP’s big donors simply want our president out of office and have made Ryan the poster boy for Republican change. I think he is going to need a new career when Rob Zerban, his Democratic opponent in the fall election, puts him out of work.
Mar 31, 2012 at 9:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here are some new reasons and some old reasons Christians will not vote for Mitt Romney
: http://tinyurl.com/6vxat33 ---
http://tinyurl.com/7pd4t8m ----
http://tinyurl.com/83d7s9u ---
( open link, scroll down to Romney )
WITHOUT THESE VOTE NO ONE CAN BE POTUS ! If Gingrich or Santorum were ORDAINED PRIESTS , the MEDIA would divulge it in the FRONT PAGES MULTIPLE TIMES !
Mar 31, 2012 at 9:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ed Decker
It seems like the Republican field of presidential candidates is narrowing down to a few select candidates. Among these several professed Christians, among whom Mitt Romney sits with apparent success. However, Mitt Romney is an active member of the Mormon Church, a cult with doctrines that are far from its claim to be a true Christian faith.
He was long ago, promoted to the Melchizedek Priesthood (a title, which according to the Bible,BELONGS TO JESUS CHRIST ALONE) .
I ask you to read the following article and give you permission to pass it on to all you know for Love of USA !
http://tinyurl.com/http-www-worldviewwee...
The candidate with a REAL god complex------------
Here are some new reasons and some old reasons Christians will not vote for Mitt Romney: http://tinyurl.com/6vxat33 http://tinyurl.com/7pd4t8m WITHOUT THESE VOTE NO ONE CAN BE POTUS ! If Gingrich or Santorum were ORDAINED PRIESTS , the MEDIA would divulge it in the FRONT PAGES MULTIPLE TIMES !
Mar 31, 2012 at 8:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
LambandDove 3/29/12 -- 6:43 PM- Journal Sentinel
The people of Wisconsin have the rare opportunity to help derail the establishment steamroller within the Republican Party by voting for Rick Santorum instead of Mitt Romney.
Rick Santorum is a fiscal conservative who helped pass the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, who opposed the Wall Street bailouts, who sponsored the balanced budget amendment, and who has repeatedly called for ObamaCare to be repealed.
Rick is a social conservative who is solidly pro-life and who bears the politically scars of fighting for family values.
Santorum believes in a strong national defense. He is very strong on Second Amendment issues and is a life member of the NRA.
Rick has called for a less intrusive role for government in economic matters, including reduced taxation, reduced spending, and reduced regulation.
Santorum has been consistent. He has not been a flip-flopper on the issues. Even those who disagree with him respect him for having the courage of his convictions. Unlike some politicians, you know where Rick stands.
Please use this rare occasion of Wisconsin being able to be a deciding vote in the outcome of the Republican nomination. Make a difference for our country. VOTE FOR RICK Santorum.
---------------
Mar 31, 2012 at 8:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mitt Laughs About Layoffs- Not a funny Story
http://tinyurl.com/764hcee
This is another example of the gap between Rev, Romney and us common people .
His HANDLERS advise him " to act human' , The robot has only the power that money generates
We The People, hope the WISCONSONIANS will GIVE THE BILLIONAIRES A UNFORGETTABLE LESSON ! AND WILL GIVE, GOOD BRAVE HEART SANTORUM THE VICTORY HE DESERVES.
Mar 31, 2012 at 8:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
VITAL FOR OUR USA !
WISCONSONIAN:
THINK FOR YOUR SELF, DO NOT BE MESMERIZED BY THE NEGATIVE COMMERCIALS-
GOOGLE THE TRUTH, BELIEVE in YOU ! NOT THE SUPERPACS !
“The Romney campaign and Restore Our Future are not functionally separate,”
The Romney campaign and Restore Our Future,, together have poured about $50 million into television ads in the primary campaign so far. GREAT ALERT !
Restore Our Future are the Romney's rabid SUPER PAC MERCENARIES whose SOLE mission is cleverly deceiving YOU if YOU LET THEM, by painting the former Pennsylvania senator as an unprincipled deal-maker and an outspoken champion of home-state spending projects known as earmarks.
“I’m very proud of all the earmarks I put in bills,” Santorum is shown saying in ONE MALICIOUS ad. BUT CHECK THE THE REALITY
http://tinyurl.com/6slum7g ------
On found tape Romney confesses he did the same he is accusing Sanrtorum of, and much MORE ! Even taking FROM the Department of EDUCATION !
In Wisconsin, which holds its primary April 3, Restore our Future is spending $2.3 million WOW ! on ads AGAINST Santorum, including ONE that begins and ends with a clip of him saying “I don’t care what the unemployment rate’s going to be. It doesn’t matter to me.” ( Chosen ISOLATED sentence )
Santorum made that remark at a campaign appearance earlier this month in Illinois. SANTORUN 's CAMPAIGNG was about FREEDOM from an intrusive government, not JUST monthly jobless FIGURES.
BUT ROMNEY IS COUNTING YOU WILL BE BAMBOOZLED !
We The People hope YOU WON'T ! We are the living commercials fighting the LIES.
The people's candidate can not pour millions in television ads to counter de deception AIMED AT YOU !
SEARCH HE TRUTH, GOOGLE IT ! do not reward VILIFICATIONS WITH YOUR VOTE !
IF THE MERCENARY PACs SUCCEED IN 'purchasing' the nomination for the Rev, Romney, we will have 4 more Obama years. ---
http://tinyurl.com/7cm9rvu ----
Romney once argued his only connection to GOP was party registration
Repost at will
Mar 31, 2012 at 7:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
MadeinUSA-Great idea. Boycott American companies because they gave donations to Paul
Ryan. Aren't some of those union shops? Don't most companies donate to candidates?
Unions donate to candidates too. If you don't like Ryan (hate might be a better word) don't vote for him. Boycotting hurts the wrong people. You've started nothing.
Mar 31, 2012 at 7:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
No, 916WI, Medicare is sustainable. It's problem lies in the fact it is open ended and it does not use it's buying power to improve prices. It is in face, completely sustainable with some minor changes, one of which is saying no to certain procedures. Currently, Medicare pays for everything.
When conservatards scream "Medicare is insolvent", what they are wanting is to privatize it, or converted to some kind of voucher system, neither of which will lower the cost of Medicare as a whole.
The only meaningful way to make Medicare and healthcare as a whole more affordable is to control costs. How are you going to do that?
-------
Furthermore, the if you are a member of the wealthiest 10% in America, where are a good majority of your assets or savings tied up?? In the stock market. In the last two years, we've seen a nearly $1.5 trillion dollar increase in it's value.
--------
On the flip side, if you are a member of the 90% of Americans on the bottom half, where is the majority of assets tied up in?? Your house. How is the housing market doing? Nationwide, home values are down 1/3 and went down again this year. Do some of you actually believe the things you are writing here? What planet are you living on? Check out Earth, it's where the rest of us are.
Mar 31, 2012 at 5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Many years ago(too many) I remember a guy by the name of John Kennedy saying "Ask not what your country can do for you ,ask what you can do for your country". This what the Ryan budget plan says to me. He's trying to do what he believes is the right thing to do before it's too late. Nobody else wants to face the facts of what is going on right now. It's not about personal glory, far from it. He's saying this is what the country needs knowing that he is going to be vilified and as shown on these posts, hatred. Only history will tell the real story of if his plan worked or didn't. We do now what happens if nothing is done.
Mar 31, 2012 at 3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Medicare is unsustainable.
Social Security is unsustainable.
In doing nothing, the democrats want to destroy Medicare.
In doing nothing, the democrats want to destroy Social Security.
Mar 31, 2012 at 2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Paul Ryan wants to destroy Medicare.
Paul Ryan wants to destroy Social Security.
Mar 30, 2012 at 11:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
""You people are so stuck on stupid it's ridicules"
Huh? I thought it was ridiculous? Who's stuck on stupid?
Rick , I know the generalization of "spending more" is great fodder for the republicans and you have obviously bought in, and I don't disagree that we need to watch how money is spent. That being said, much of what is under attack by republicans and T-partiers is necessary social programs that are and always have been a HUGE part of what we like to refer to as SOCIETY.
When you pay taxes the government spends it on something, so tax and spend is what is supposed to happen. I like you and most of America just wosh that the people in charge of our tax dollars were more responsible, but the attacks that so many conservatives have launched against Medicare/medicaid, public ed , etc.... is pompous and RIDICULOUS. Lets look a little deeper into what Government spends money on and who it helps and who it doesnt before we look at what to cut. Hows about the unnecessary wars and military bases all over the world. Maybe you guys should be listening to Ron Paul not Mittens.
Mar 30, 2012 at 4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
ykm- bebe gets off on that sort of name calling. Oustide predictable rhetoric thats all IT has. Never any real points or any type of intellectual discussion.
Name calling and labelling, anyone recognize that tactic?? woner what IT listens to and watches? Ever been Hannitized??
Mar 30, 2012 at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
bebe53 ...calling someone stupid. Life's a charm. *sigh*
Mar 30, 2012 at 3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Budget bills have to originate in the House of Representatives. It will not get on the House agenda because the majority party and its leader (Johh Boehner) control the agenda.
Mar 30, 2012 at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh my God! Didn't I say this was a SUMMARY of the Democratic budget? Here's a link to the Democratic budget bill:
http://democrats.budget.house.gov/sites/...
Mar 30, 2012 at 1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dusty -- thats not a budget. Thats a claim that they have something. Where is it? They want you to vote on a blacnk document and they will of course fill it in WINK WINK after its passed. Plus -- they offer no change to the current path. More debt, Upon the existing debt and more freebees.
Mar 30, 2012 at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here's a link to a summary of the Democratic Party's 2013 budget:
http://democrats.budget.house.gov/sites/...
Mar 30, 2012 at 1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Stop Paul Ryan from destroying America.
Vote Rob Zerban!
Mar 30, 2012 at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Paul Ryan's budget proposals are a sham and unworkable even during economic booms. Republicans know it but they like a tool like Ryan because he provides us with a punching bag diversion while they continue to obstruct progress and assault our freedoms.
Pray for America if Ryan or his budget are ever taken seriously.
Save America and restore respresenataion to our district. Vote Rob Zerban!!
Mar 30, 2012 at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dusty -- So because I cant get what I want -- I will propose nothing. Lets see the dem plan and let the public compare and see what solution in preferred. Ohhh cant do that -- they have no plan.
Mar 30, 2012 at 12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
I always wonder where paul's credibility comes from. He come from wealthy family, but went to a second tier college. I think he has an accounting degree and he is not an economist. He is similar to mark neuman on his fiscal policies and most of the main stream republicans I know think mark is goofy. So the ryan worship has always confused me.
Mar 30, 2012 at 12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Democrates can't pass a budget because they don't have 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate. What part of that equation don't you understand?
Mar 30, 2012 at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Would you right-wingers like the Democrats to provide a political budget proposal so the Republicans can mock it and prevent its passage? Probably, which is why they're not going to do it."
You have to love that sense of leadership, pride, and responsibility. Really must make you Democrats proud.
Funny thing is, that's exactly what the Republicans HAVE done under Paul Ryan's leadership, in marked contrast to cowardly Dems who haven't even passed a legally required budget in the Senate for 3 years!
It's no wonder that this country is headed off a financial cliff: The Democrats are in charge of 2/3 of the budget process!
Mar 30, 2012 at 11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ryan can be replaced by any other rubberstamping
republican thug.
Mar 30, 2012 at 10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ryan's budget is a political document, not a budget. It does not contain suffient information to know which programs will be cut and what the actual impact on the federal budget deficit will be. It has no chance of passing. Would you right-wingers like the Democrats to provide a political budget proposal so the Republicans can mock it and prevent its passage? Probably, which is why they're not going to do it.
Mar 30, 2012 at 10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Paul Ryan is the only grown up in the room of him and Obama. 3 years with no Democrat Senate Budget and no intentions of bringing one to the floor. How do you run an economy with no budget? Answer in 3 years-you can't
And the Democrats answer to to the Ryan budget is to cut a "bro mance" commercial. How childish.
....Where are YOUR solutions? Where is YOUR budget?
The Democrats are not serious. They are not the answer, they are the problem.
Mar 30, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ryan's budgets are written by ALEC. Let's vote out this corporate syncophant and get someone that has some origional thought.
Mar 30, 2012 at 10 a.m.
Suggest removal
I love how people that have no understanding of economics and fairness -- unless something is given to them -- want to declare fairness from the robinhood principle of economics . It is absollutely rediculous. Go Paul Go.
Mar 30, 2012 at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
One more thing, since I can't edit posts here. Tax reform is highly needed, and what needs to be addressed are tax loopholes and capital gains taxes. In the end, those things are more important that harping on income tax.
Mar 30, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
What you are seeing here, by the way, are the creeping arms of fascism and the perpetuation of a plutocracy. Repubs are giddy at the thought of rolling back the ideas of the New Deal, or in other words, destroying the process that helped bring America back from the depths of The Depression, created jobs for rural folks, and built the foundations of what would be some of the most prosperous times of any nation in recorded history. Think about that.
Mar 30, 2012 at 9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
"The Ryan budget includes a number of specific tax cuts, on top of making the Bush tax cuts permanent. All of its new tax cuts are both expensive and tilted toward high-income households. It would cut the top individual tax rate to 25 percent, the lowest level since the Hoover Administration more than 80 years ago. It would cut the corporate rate to 25 percent and eliminate both the Alternative Minimum Tax and the Affordable Care Act’s increase in the Medicare tax for high-income people.
A new TPC analysis finds that people with incomes above $1 million would receive a $265,000 average annual tax cut just from the new Ryan proposals (i.e., not counting what they would also receive from extension of the Bush tax cuts). Middle-income taxpayers — those with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 — would receive $1,045, on average.[4]"
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie...
------
If you make 1 million dollars, your taxes decrease by nearly 27%. If you make 50k, your taxes decrease by a little over 2%. Once again, when we talk about "fiscal responsibility", people are not paying attention. This is classic "starve the beast" mentality from Repubs. Pile money on defense systems and personnel for costly pre-emptive wars, the bogey man of the USSR, and a general belief that propping up the military industrial complex is one of the 10 commandments is and has been the modus operandi of Republicans for decades. Now, because tax revenues are down, social programs "must" be cut because we are "broke".
End the war on drugs, and tax them. How is marijuana more or less damaging than alcohol? It isn't, if one is legal, the other should be. Morality? Paul Ryan, please. My side aches from my guffaws at your budgetary attempts at "morality". All I see in your budget are entitlements for the wealthy and elite. You claim that Democrats are engaging in "class warfare" against the elite. You, Mr. Ryan, are engaging in class warfare against the poor. Is your life boiled down to dollars and what you can contribute to an economy? Maybe we should just all chisel our net worth into our headstones when we check out. It seems that is the only thing that matters.
Mar 30, 2012 at 8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Santorum speech at the Armory. What was that Rick, I didn't quite catch it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...
Mar 30, 2012 at 7:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
made...then no budget plans will be proposed by anybody because ALL PEOPLE IN CONGRESS GET CAMPAIGN DONATIONS FROM MANY SOURCES, including companies, unions, PACs, etc. What's your point?
Mar 30, 2012 at 6:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Like Rick said, either tell us your better idea or shut up!
Mar 30, 2012 at 6:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
paul ryan is an absolute menace who is just giddy at the thought of the poor getting poorer, even more people losing health care insurance and the poverty stricken - starving. disgusting little man.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.