handbook, the libs have done extensive research into paranoia and other mental health issues; those in need always do.

Ah yes..only liberals can make inferences that people have a mental condition..how tolerant of them....it is not any wonder they are despicable people who bathe in immorality and sin and yet they blame society's problems on others... and they want others to pay for their irresponsible behaviors..

MBHammer, coverage for paranoia and other mental health issues is greatly improved under Obamacare.

"In 2014, mental health and substance use disorder services will be part of the essential benefits package, a set of health care service categories that must be covered by certain plans, including all insurance policies that will be offered through the Exchanges, and Medicaid." [ http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2010/08/m... ]

poobah/pharm same person?

MBHammer, stick to the stale concepts that cost Republicans the 2012 presidential election and more than a couple 2012 senate elections. Several Republican strategists and leaders see what you fail to see -- Obamacare is here to stay.

"House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) is facing criticism for his new budget proposal from an unexpected source: conservative policy wonks.

Virtually all of them found something to like in his plan. But they voiced substantial critiques in three flavors: lament that the entitlement reforms don’t go far enough, arguments that Obamacare repeal and a 10-year balanced budget are not feasible, and worries that the plan fails to broaden the GOP’s reach among voters.

The criticisms reveal a divide between conservative thinkers, who are hungry for policy innovation in the Republican Party, and its top policy guru, who remains wedded to a set of ideas that served his party badly in the 2012 elections." [ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/... ]

pharm, Obama will win the unfavorable category after people start to pay their "affordable" healthcare tax payments each month.

"Seniors Would Pay More For Health Coverage
Under Ryan's "Path to Prosperity," senior citizens would have to pay as much as 68 percent of their health care coverage, up from 25 percent today, CBS News reports. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19...
"Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is viewed favorably by just 35 percent of American voters, according to a Rasmussen poll released Monday. Fifty-four percent view him unfavorably."

Discretionary spending is that portion of the federal budget that has to be approved by Congress, as opposed to mandatory spending, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the national debt. "Historically, half of discretionary goes to the military and half goes to such non-military programs as government operations, law enforcement, education, transportation, national parks, research, and welfare assistance. It is this non-defense discretionary spending that is projected to reach its lowest level since 1962."
http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-...

I am still waiting for Washington's redefinition of the word affordable. It will be interesting to see the applause drop off for the president.

And the poo spin cycle is back in action...yet again. Deflect, deflect deflect...anything but the topic at hand.

RetiredAirForce said, "...she has no idea what a real hypocritical position is."

Readers of your comments are in no danger of that; they are regularly exposed to real hypocritical positions.

poo's vision of personal finances clearly shows a socialist vision, claiming not taking a persons money, via taxes, is somehow tax payer-funded. Clearly she is confused about her own hypocrisy so much that she has no idea what a real hypocritical position is. Because of her confusion and being identified for her inconsistent positions her default tactic is the alinsky approach to deflect from the topic at hand and her misguided view points.

RetiredAirForce said, "She has continually brought up one, singular, issue with Wisconsin tax law she doesn't like."

I've never stated I don't like the income tax exemption for military retirement pensions. It's just another taxpayer-funded program that at least one retired military person benefits from as they criticize taxpayer-funded programs that other people benefit from. What's wrong with that picture?

I wouldn't want to needlessly cause anyone to experience gender disappointment with me, so if referring to me (a male) using feminine pronouns helps then please continue.

A person ignoring the hypocrisy of their comments against taxpayer-funded programs while benefitting from taxpayer-funded programs.

Any clue about what's wrong with that picture, RetiredAirForce?

poo has a problem with Wisconsin tax law; at least for veterans. She has continually brought up one, singular, issue with Wisconsin tax law she doesn't like. In her alinsky style focus she ignores all the other similar tax laws in Wisconsin in her faux attempt to point out what others have that she doesn't.

poo still waiting for you to contact your local lawmakers in this state to have this great injustice, you consistently whine about, fixed.

Red I see once again you stepped off the truth bridge and jumped into rhetoric land. The current obamacare law, as stated by party leaders from the left, is a stepping stone toward single payer; their intended goal. They purposely didn't reform the cost structure, that would defeat their intended goal. There were a great many things that could have been done to make the system competitive and drive costs lower, something most American's wanted, but was left out of the legislation to enable their end goal. Pretending opposing the current legislation (law) is absent a different approach is as misleading as saying amendments not passed "silences" politicians.

PanamaRed correctly said, "Republican legislators criticize and want to take away from us the exact same policies THEY use to cover health care for themselves. I think RAF refers to that as hypocrisy."

Very similar to retired military personnel that have available to them taxpayer-funded healthcare benefits and a taxpayer-funded pension (that is exempt from Wisconsin income tax) while being critical of other taxpayer-funded healthcare and pension programs.

"On the Bill Maher show the other night, I pointed out that contrary to the talking point that government spending is spiraling out of control, it in fact went up only 0.6%, 2009-2012. Whenever I say that, I get emails from people who don’t believe it, and not just complaining conservatives. Many progressives can’t believe that’s the case given the hair-on-fire rhetoric about Obama’s alleged ongoing spending spree."
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/

"...like a budget kills....utterly clueless."
-
Sort of like the argument conservatives made that the Health Care Reform bill would result in a "death panel" that would lead to the untimely death of countless Americans. I remember RAF claiming how clueless Republican were then.
-
Conservatives are ready and willing to destroy programs designed to benefit millions of Americans and put NOTHING in its place. Why is it Republicans must destroy these policies instead of amending them to fulfill their intended purpose? Republican legislators criticize and want to take away from us the exact same policies THEY use to cover health care for themselves. I think RAF refers to that as hypocrisy.

pharm, You have failed to identify the type of smoke you use.

"The organ failing caused the death not the budget"
Without the budget cuts the organ would have been changed. Continue with your ridiculous argument if you want. For every action there is a consequence.

The organ failing caused the death not the budget.

In pharm's strawman since govt hasn't outlawed the use of automobiles or payed for everyone to be professional chartered around they are responsible for the deaths of over 35,000 deaths per year in traffic accidents. Since govt has outlawed hands and feet the govt is responsible for the deaths of over 2,000 people a year killed with hands and feet. Because govt hasn't outlawed heart ailments they are responsible for the death of over 100,000 people a year.

Due to the fact pharm, and those who share his/her meme, fail to recognize the silly argument they raise over a budget proposal actually SPENDS more each year than we currently do they are left with silly strawman remarks like a budget kills....utterly clueless.

Again, just because RAF says something does not make it true.
In Arizona, people on a waiting list for transplants died when budget cuts forced the cancellation of their surgeries.

Nice strawman pharm, missed training "killed".

Try sticking to facts. If that story was correct, the water killed (plus the situation that resulted in it). Taking your LAME strawman to the logical conclusion EVERYONE that failed to get trained, all citizens around the situation, killed that person.

Funny how you ignore the budget you claim kills people still spends more every year than the current LACK of budget spends...yet you are silent on the faux claims of killing from having no budget...

pharm, Obum can't stop spending.

"In less than a week Ryan has gone from hide the women and children because the debt crisis is coming to kill us all, to someday we will be facing a debt crisis if we don’t get a jump on this.

Ryan’s change of course echoed John Boehner’s agreement with President Obama that there is no immediate debt crisis. What Rep. Ryan did today was trash his own budget. The entire idea behind his “Path to Prosperity” budgets is that the nation has to take dramatic action now, or else the country is doomed.

The debt crisis that Paul Ryan told us that we faced on Tuesday doesn’t really exist by Sunday.

Ryan, Boehner, and other congressional Republicans are trying to shift their base because they want to do a budget deal with Senate Democrats. In order to try to make a deal tolerable, the debt crisis that Ryan campaigned on while running for vice president last year can’t exist anymore.

Paul Ryan’s reality challenged budget isn’t even a good starting point for negotiations, so it had to go."
http://www.politicususa.com/paul-ryan-tr...

"More unfortunate news of how irresponsible budget cuts kill people. A man drowned yesterday – as firefighters and first responder just watched from shore. The firefighters couldn’t help the man because they didn’t have training or cold-water gear thanks to budget cuts back in 2009. Earlier this year – deadly fires were sparked in Chicago and New York with first responders showing up late also because of budget cuts"
Studies have shown not having health care has contributed to deaths also.
"How many people are we talking about? Estimates of the number of people who will die because they are uninsured vary, from about 500 to 1,000 for every one million who lack coverage."
Again, just because RAF says something does not make it true.

Facts pharm? Really? The title of your quoted piece starts out with false rhetoric....a budget killing people.

What we need to do is fix Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Social Security, etc. Quit giving freebies to those that do not deserve it. IE: Lazy people who produce children to get more financial aid, people who are constantly trying to find ways to not work and go on comp all the time, people who are NOT United States citizens, etc, etc.

Bash the source because you can`t dispute the facts RAF? I believe you once called another poster on the carpet for doing that very thing.

I have always stated that the only way to do things fairly is to have our representatives in government recieve the same benefits, etc. that they claim we all should recieve. What they pass into law for the citizens of the United States should apply to them also.

Yep a person from salon who also peddles on huff post... gospel for the left fringe.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/17/paul_rya...
"The parts of Obamacare that Ryan doesn’t repeal underscore his cynicism. Ryan would keep the $716 billion in Medicare spending reductions over a decade, which he railed against when he was running for vice president. In his debate with Joe Biden, Ryan called the Medicare changes a “piggybank” for Obamacare, which would cause hospitals and nursing homes to close and lead to seniors losing benefits. None of this is true, as Biden pointed out. So now Ryan is using that $716 billion in savings to help him reach his goal of balancing the federal budget instead of what those savings were intended for: increasing Medicare benefits under Obamacare and expanding coverage to millions of Americans.

Remarkably, Ryan also keeps the other tax increases in Obamacare, some $1 trillion raised mostly from upper income taxpayers and various medical providers and insurers. Ryan is using money raised to provide life-saving health coverage to millions of people, taxes he and other Republicans railed against, to meet his fantasy target of balancing the budget in 10 years.

I’ve grown tired of providing a veneer of respectability to people in power –people with good health insurance, coverage that provides them with access to the best medical care, and pays most of their bills – who deny their constituents a basic human right. Governors and state legislatures who won’t expand Medicaid even though the federal government will pay virtually all of the cost. Members of Congress whose health coverage is largely paid for by their constituents who still make political hay by demagoging against Obamacare."

"I know you are not supposed to write in hyperbole, but sometimes the truth needs to be told. Paul Ryan’s budget, which kills Obamacare and cripples Medicare and Medicaid, would kill tens of thousands of people. Every year.

I have trouble with putting policy glosses on proposals that would deny health care coverage to millions of people and make care much more expensive to millions more. Because when more people lack health coverage, more people die. And when health costs prevent people from getting the care they need, they get more seriously ill.

How many people are we talking about? Estimates of the number of people who will die because they are uninsured vary, from about 500 to 1,000 for every one million who lack coverage. Repealing Obamacare would block promised coverage for 32 million people, so that would mean somewhere from 16,000 to 32,000 each year who will die prematurely. Of course, since some Republican governors and legislatures are not implementing the expansion of Medicaid coverage in their states, some of those deaths are already on their hands."
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/17/paul_rya...

" Each year, the government doles out tax breaks worth $1.1 trillion. That is more than the cost of Medicare and Medicaid combined. It is more than Social Security. It tops the defense budget, and it tops the budget for nondefense discretionary programs, which include most everything else.

Tax breaks work like spending. Giving a deduction for certain activities, like homeownership or retirement savings, is the same as writing a government check to subsidize those activities. Functionally, they mimic entitlements. Like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, they are available, year in and year out, in full, to all who qualify. Yet in budget talks, Republicans ignore tax entitlements, which flow mostly to high-income taxpayers, while pushing to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinio...

I was talking to a different poster about her backing of liars because she felt the Dems lied. All politicians lie, and to stop believing one set of liars, and back another is where the hypocrisy is. If you were ever honest you ....well, what can I say.

pharm is that just more of your hypocrisy? Whine about those who backed proven liars while you do...

Just more of the same from the sheeple of the party of do as I say not as I do.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/...
Impressive Mitt!

What was that about proven liars?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/...

So you feel victimized by Obama, and choose to back proven liars. Makes sense to me.

But, I was there. I know what it's like to be a blind follower of Democrat lies and half truths. It's amazing to me now to look back and say - wow - how could anybody be so stupid?
I trusted Clinton as I trusted Obama in 2008. Then you realize Democrats recycle the same tire old music box. They turn the handle and turn the handle and hope a new generation of fools don't look back at their history of policy and poverty.

Yea, okay pharm. And Obama also campaigned on a marriage as 1-man, 1-women (not), 100% transparency (not), no new taxes on any family making 250K or less (not), 5 days of public viewing before all bills signed (not), removing earmarks from bills (not), end income tax on seniors making 50K or less (not), Obamacare open on C-span (except now we have to read the bill to see what's in it), no lobbyist in Obama admin (not), cut deficeit in HALF (BIG NOT) unite the nation. (most polarizing pres ever, worse then Bush)

So why would you believe the smoke and mirrors now? After 4 years? Really? This is the best they've got?

Hal Rogers says Paul Ryan's budget 'cuts too much' but would vote for it

by Ryan Alessi
From Frankfort

U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Somerset, isn’t impressed with the budget plan introduced this week by his Republican colleague, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan.

Rogers represents Kentucky’s 5th District that’s among the poorest areas in the country. And while he said he has concerns with some of the structural changes Ryan’s budget plan makes to programs like Medicaid and Medicare and other cuts, he said he will support it. That conversation starts at 3:00 of the interview.

“I’ll be voting for it. It’s not exactly to my liking. There are a lot of things that I’m not happy with, including the overall big number,” he said. “It cuts too much spending, frankly, from the discretionary side of the budget. Most people don’t realize that we only appropriate 1/3 of federal spending … and we’ve cut that by $100 billion over the last two years.”
http://mycn2.com/politics/congressman-ha...
Sheep?

And the dems are great? Not!

Anytime the GOP propose anything you can pretty much answer it with the words of the wise Chris Wallace of Fox News:
"Well that's never gonna happen."

"You probably never heard that Mitt Romney had a plan to raise taxes on the middle class, but it's true.

Just ask the Wall Street Journal editorial board. This pretty interesting fact apparently occurred to them a few weeks after Romney lost the election, as they were tackling the subject of entitlement reform.

Progressive indexing of Social Security benefits — an approach embraced by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan — "is tantamount to a tax increase," the WSJ said in no uncertain terms."
SSA evaluated a virtually identical plan from ex-Utah Sen. Robert Bennett and found it would have cut benefits for an average earner ($45,000 a year in 2012 wages) by 24% and a top earner's benefits by 35% after 40 years.

Now consider that an average earner, by setting aside 1% of pay a year, investing in Treasuries and cashing it all in for an annuity, could offset a 10.3% benefit cut. That same 1% of pay saved could replace 16.8% of a top earner's benefits, a reflection of Social Security's progressive benefit structure.

This means a 24% benefit cut amounts to an annual tax hike of 2.3 percentage points for an average earner — a $1,100 tax hike — and 2.1 percentage points for someone earning the maximum wage level subject to Social Security taxes. For someone earning $1 million a year, whose wage income above $113,700 isn't taxed by Social Security, the implied annual tax hike is 0.24 percentage point.

Keep in mind that even with the toughest version of progressive indexing, which is assumed here, the plan would only have erased about 55% of Social Security's trust fund gap (and about 45% of the gap between the program's dedicated tax revenue and outlays). That means roughly half of the gap would still have to be closed with tax revenue or adding to the debt"
http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-...

Bowlgal, just for you.
"Her plan would raise $975 billion in new revenue in the next decade by closing tax breaks that benefit upper-income households and corporations. Democrats plan to match the new taxes with $975 billion in spending reductions. They would lower spending on domestic programs by $493 billion, cut $240 billion from defense spending and count on $242 billion in savings from lower interest payments on the federal debt. "
Jeez! It sounds like exactly what they campaigned, and won, on!

"And as conservative Congressman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said of defense contractors in 1986:

They are the new welfare queens, isolated from competition and the consequences of their mistakes and with the government always ready to bail them out….

(Here are some specific examples of welfare handouts to defense contractors, which total many hundreds of billions of dollars per year.)

And see this and this."
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/c...

Thank you pharm

Senate Democrats release first budget in four years, includes $1 trillion in tax increases

MORE TAXES by Democrats.
Now there's a headline worth waiting for.

MBHammer

Its funny..they create all these jobs to save society but when they cut these jobs they blame the other side..wow...liberals are truly sick people...

Government is bloated. ABC news reported when Hillary was on her way out she was saying goodby to 70,000 employees. Why would she need that many?

Bowlgal, please keep up.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/...

"And that seems like a perfect segue into a recent Center for Economic and Policy Research report that projects a government savings of up to $541 billion over the next ten years if Medicare could negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. Even on the low end, the CEPR reports a savings of at least $230 billion, which would cover half of the funds needed for the health insurance subsidies over the next decade. But on the high end, the savings from allowing Medicare to negotiate drug pricing (the way it does with other services, and the way other industrialized countries do) would more than offset the funds needed for the health insurance subsidies.

It seems like a no-brainer. Medicare gets a better deal on meds, and the follow-the-leader effect that Medicare has on healthcare would mean that private health insurance carriers and consumers would also get a better deal on meds. People would still get the medications they need, and low- and middle-income families would get the subsidies they need in order to afford health insurance, without having the country go through a year of political wrangling in order to secure the necessary funds (I know it’s not as simple as taking money from one spot and assigning it elsewhere, but the overall balance would be better than it is with the current no-negotiation policy in place). Pharmaceutical company profits might take a bit of a hit, but it’s a hit they can well afford, given that their profits as a percentage of revenues are almost always at least in the mid teens (about three to four times as much as health insurance carriers)."
A very good idea that the Republicans rejected when they passed the unpaid for Medicare Part D program.

Democrats are, afterall, 2/3rds of the Executive branch. To blame Republicans after 5 years is to blame your arm for not being able to walk. It's ridiculous.

Well said Joker.

Until the Democrats put forth a 4 year overdue budget, America can not expect to recover from Obama executive policies. The man is a wrecking ball with Reid as his chain.

The Republicans are doing their jobs. You may not like all of it, but Democrats need to stop throwing tantrum in the aisle and come sit down at the table.

once again fearfullrhetoric skips right over the issue where members of both parties FULLY rejected the presidents plan 2 years in a row. The dems fully rejected the house plans for 2 years in a row. The dems having rejected the presidents ideas and the republican ideas in the house FAILED to act at all in bringing any plan to the table. Seems running and hiding is what the sheeple of the dem party admire most.

"Round and round we go. Same old tired BS arguments from the samne tired posters, and the same tired politicians." Fear, you words not mine, have you seen the shrinking numbers for Obama lately?

Fear where oh where is the Senate Democrats version of a budget? Keep blaming the House Republicans. How can a reconciliation ever be done unless both branches pass a version. People are finally waking up. Your fear and rhetoric is not working anymore. Not all people are dummies, unlike some that post here

Usually when you see posts like that its very easy to see how ridiculous people are, thanks nemesis, what a piece of work!! Nothing of truth 100% garbage post. What I don't get is where do you people get this stuff? President has been in office 4+ years and your life individually has changed how?

"Please, continue"

Oh so the Republicans passed a budget based 100% on partisan ideology THAT makes them honest? This is all pagentry and you people fall for it. The difference here? Republicans are Zombies that march lockstep and do what theyre told.
What is the difference of a budget proposal not getting a vote, or one getting passed by one house of congress by ONE party that every single person voting FOR it knows good and well has ZERO chance of passing and becoming law. Pagentry doesnt make you a budget/defecit hawk it just makes you a politician who is into posing for pictures. Similar meaningless votes held over 30 times to overturn Obamacare. Like the public didnt get it the first 25 timesthey voted to repeal it? Get over it, its law. Instead of wasting time maybe Mr Ryan and his disciples could actually attempt to do SOMETHING of substance, anything. Photocopy, rinse, repeat. Havent we alreadty done this? Lets do it again next ear, listen to Republicans do the very thing RAF always has disliked. Predict the future of the country based on......projections. Ryans assertion that in 10 years HIS plan will work. Never knew Republicans could predict the future. Unfortunately for rhetoric monkeys like RAF, he only hates DEMS that do it, while HIS tribe does the same thing, they earn high esteem from the Zombies. Round and round we go. Same old tired BS arguments from the samne tired posters, and the same tired politicians. What a waste of time, all for a beauty pageant, to convince their already shrinking block the EXACT same BS that they tried last year. Cost you an election against a very beatable incumbent. No you risk falling into the realm of irrelavance. Like the president said,"Please, continue"

"He just wants to spend more of his time coming up with new regulations using the EPA, DOJ, ICE, and a few other federal agencies to turn this country into a socialist utopia under his control."

Do you have a reference for this or is it your right-wing opinion?

Obama think he doesn't need to make a budget - He even said so. He just wants to spend more of his time coming up with new regulations using the EPA, DOJ, ICE, and a few other federal agencies to turn this country into a socialist utopia under his control.

"Ryan, speaking to reporters Tuesday, acknowledged that he had kept the tax revenue generated by the “fiscal cliff’ deal a couple of months ago, which raised taxes on wealthy Americans. What is less well-noticed is that Ryan also pocketed the taxes raised by the president’s health-care plan, a.k.a. “Obamacare,” while at the same time pledging to repeal the law to generate significant budget savings. As we noted this week, the health-care law includes about $1 trillion in taxes.

You have to look hard to find this detail. The 2014 budget document simply shows a line of zeroes for new taxes (table S-2). But the current budget plan is missing the harsh complaints in previous years about the “job-destroying tax hikes” in the health-care taxes.

Here’s what the 2012 budget plan declared as part of its summary: “Keeps taxes low so the economy can grow. Eliminates roughly $800 billion in tax increases imposed by the President’s health-care law.”

Instead, the 2014 plan merely says that repeal “turns off the new gusher of taxpayer money for those special interests that were powerful enough to ensure themselves a seat at the table when the 2,700 page law was being written.” The problem with the health-care taxes apparently is not that they are job-killers, but that they are being used for the wrong purposes; there is no explicit pledge to repeal them.

In other words, the new Ryan budget plan incorporates not only the fiscal cliff tax hikes but also the revenue generated by the health-care plan — all for future use by the tax-writers on the Ways and Means Committee as they seek to overhaul the tax code"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/...

2700 page bill and 18,000 pages of rules and regulations to control you. That is liberal government working it's magic.

And still no Democrat Budget. They don't want you to know what they do with you money.

"There's something breathtaking about any Paul Ryan budget. There are the savage cuts to healthcare and safety-net spending for the young and poor. The deep cuts to education, research, and infrastructure. The way current seniors are spared from any of this fiscal pain. The increased defense spending. And the tax cuts -- heavily tilted towards the rich, of course -- that will supposedly be paid for by eliminating loopholes.

It's this last bit that might be the most breathtaking. Ryan wants to radically simplify the tax code, and radically reduce rates in the process. His plan shrinks our seven brackets into two -- 10 and 25 percent -- while eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, the Obamacare taxes, and the expanded tax credits from the stimulus. On the corporate side, he wants to move to a territorial system, and lower the rate from 35 to 25 percent. Oh, and he wants revenue to average 18.8 percent of GDP for the next decade. The only way to do all of this is to radically cut tax expenditures too. But Ryan doesn't name a single expenditure he wants to cut. Instead, he bridges the gap with a magic tax reform asterisk.

This isn't a new magic trick for Ryan. It's just a bigger one. His tax plan hasn't changed from its previous iteration, but his revenue goal has. Ryan wants to keep the higher revenue level from Obamacare and the fiscal cliff deal without keeping those tax rates. That means his magic asterisk needs to be even more magic.

How much more magic? About a trillion dollars more.

Ryan's tax cuts would reduce revenue to a very low 15.5 percent of GDP over the next decade, according to the Tax Policy Center. But his revenue target for last year was 18.3 percent of GDP. Ryan said he would make up the difference by killing $5.6 trillion or so in tax breaks that he couldn't name. That was magical enough. But now he says he wants the same tax cuts and an extra 0.5 percent of GDP in revenue. That's about a $6.7 trillion hole. And remember, Ryan says his total budget -- tax reform and spending cuts -- will save $4.6 trillion the next 10 years. In other words, Ryan's magical savings are 146 percent of his overall savings.

This isn't a good trick. As Michael Linden of the Center for American Progress points out, there are only about $2 trillion worth of itemized deductions over the next decade. Ryan would also have to cut the big exclusions and preferences that litter the tax code to make his numbers add up."
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...

The RWNJ,s in the house need to resign. They are wasting the taxpayers money. Bring the same worthless budget proposal up again is the definition of insanity.

Obamacare enforcement is saving taxpayers money: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/he...

Jcommon says.."then the public school system has failed you."

As if it has not failed us already? Most current curriculum is hand picked liberal ideals that is shoved down our childrens throats! This coupled with a healthy daily dose of liberal media as they plop down in front of the TV for 8 hours after school is out for the day. Scary!

I didn't say Sen. RoJo said anything about Ryan's budget. I just stated a fact about what Senator RoJo said about agreeing on facts.

fordfan,
More half-truths?
Ron Johnson said Obamacare was bad for the US, where did he say anything about the Ryan budget proposal?

Sentor Ron Johnson on Sunday said that we have to agree on facts before we can make progress working together. Can't we all just agree on the fact that Ryan's budget is bad for all but the wealthy and is an embarrassment to come out of south central/south eastern Wisconsin?

Good...so on that basis, please continue the discussion.

"Let's Duet"

poo... You and garyprimer singing a duet? Or is there an echo on this blog?

What the heck is wrong with you people? Obama has spent more than anyone else in the history of the US and your happy? He is spending YOUR money. Your taxes will go up in his budget. He wants more revenue. What is it that you don't understand...if you would like to give more, tax time is coming up, give all your savings. I want a BALANCED budget. If you all spent like Obama, you would be broke. Paul Ryan is trying to help this country out, but if this comment section is anything like the rest of the country, it is no wonder the country doesn't have a balanced budget. Go back to economics 101. If you want proof of how socialism and liberal ideas work, take a good look at Detroit. How does that city look? It has been run by Democrats for over 50 years. If you can't understand this, then the public school system has failed you.

donnaw said, "if you don't like capitalism and prefer socialism why don't you move to another country"

Thank you for your demonstration of support for our first amendment.

"Paul Ryan believes the U.S. has a looming inflation problem. The reality is that Ryan has an economic credibility problem.

The latest iteration of the Wisconsin representative’s budget for the U.S. government spells out what he sees as a major threat to the economy: “Pressed for cash, the government will take the easy way out: It will crank up the printing presses. The final stage of this intergenerational theft will be the debasement of our currency. Government will cheat us of our just rewards. Our finances will collapse. The economy will stall.

It’s a stark forecast, in which the driving force is “debasement of the currency,” which is simply a rhetorically loaded term for inflation. Ryan’s views on the economy are premised on his forecast that the country is headed for a central-bank induced monetary disaster.

This sort of fear-mongering sells well among gold bugs, doomsday preppers and other Tea Party types. But it rests on very shaky ground. So shaky, in fact, that either Ryan is being dishonest or he’s placed himself on the Spam-hoarding radical fringe, far outside any standard approach to monetary economics.

For instance, the latest projections from the Federal Reserve’s policy-setting Open Market Committee suggest that long-run inflation will average 2 percent"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12...

I found an interesting read on how some sort of Socialism is practiced in our daily lives that we may not be even aware of.

www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/29/107885...

Move to a country that has freedom of speech!

poo...if you don't like capitalism and prefer socialism why don't you move to another country that believes in and practices your philosophies. (Now watch for name calling coming at me.)

Cherry pick some more poo, if that makes you feel better. You skipped right passed the part where there is no private ownership, as all is community controlled. Since you never want to have real discussion based on issues and facts without trolling in the weeds and deflecting what is it that you really want...this time pooooo.

RetiredAirForce, perhaps you could point out the principles of the Socialist Party [ http://socialistparty-usa.net/principles... ] that you are so adamantly opposed to. Is it the following? "We are dedicated to the abolition of male supremacy and class society, and to the elimination of all forms of oppression, including those based on race, national origin, age, sexual preferences, and disabling conditions."

Or perhaps this one? "Under welfare capitalism, a reserve pool of people is kept undereducated, under-skilled and unemployed, largely along racial and gender lines, to exert pressure on those who are employed and on organized labor. The employed pay for this knife that capitalism holds to their throats by being taxed to fund welfare programs to maintain the unemployed and their children. In this way the working class is divided against itself; those with jobs and those without are separated by resentment and fear. In socialism, full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work."

Or maybe this? "People around the world have more in common with each other than with their rulers. We condemn war, preparation for war, and the militaristic culture because they play havoc with people's lives and divert resources from constructive social projects. Militarism also concentrates even greater power in the hands of the few, the powerful and the violent. We align with no nation, but only with working people throughout the world."

Use of the term "his wonkish role" pretty much gives away which direction the author is leaning.

Why do you people continue to vote for this idiot?

Insurance (or lack of) isn't the problem, health care costs are! We pay $25.00 per week for insurance, then a $35.00 co pay to see the Doctor. That is IF the deductible is met. How much does the Doctor actually get out of this? A couple years back a Doctor mentioned $35.00 (there was also an article then about a Doctor who would see you for the same amount cash). Who gets the rest of what is actually paid? The insurance companies and the costs associated with processing the claims!

jansevillean your attempt to declare others are unaware is typical of the liberals, who "try" to be elitist, when the fact is the exact opposite. The socialist movement in this country is not only easy to see it is easy to read...

http://socialistparty-usa.net/principles...

Oh by the way where is the Pres wish list this year? he's late. No he is campaining rather than doing his job yet again.

fear Yes the Pres did submit his budget. The house passed their budget. Harry would not let one on the floor of the Senate. Where oh where is the Senate version? no reconciliation can be done until both branches pass a version. Let the Dems pass a $2 budget or a 2 trillion budget. Then and only then can a budget actually come to pass. You want to tell me how a budget is passed. Read instead of throwing around your rhetoric.

"Socialists", n. An epithet little understood by Republicans and trotted out whenever they have no substantive response.
.
Really, it is very telling how often economic and physical violence are linked. The visceral, deadly violence of the Iraq War, for instance, turned out to be incredibly expensive, and now the poor are being asked to pay for it by giving up their life-sustaining services. What did we win in the war, anyway? Did we win?

"economic violence"
-
What socialists say when people don't bend over and give away all their money.

And this year, obama is late sbmitting his budget yet again...

fear conveniently ignores all members of the house and senate, from both parties, voted against the obama proposed budget the last two years. The house voted and passed budget frameworks every year obama has been in office. The senate, under dem control, has failed to put forth a budget for over 1400 days. The result of the failure of this admin and dem controlled senate has resulted in no national budget for almost 4 years.

Try to spin it any way you want, using your fearfulrhetoric, facts are still facts.

Your statement should be aimed at the inefficiency of congress not the president, he HAS done hi job and has presented a budget each year in office. This republican talking point should be aimed at BOTH parties in CONGRESS.
You can call Obama's budgets pie in the sky, but the exact same could be said of Paul Ryans waste of time. He essentailly just photocopied the last one. So enough of this "t least Paul Ryan has...." CRAP because thats what it is, crap.

How the budget happens

The federal budget doesn’t get enacted the way other laws do. The process starts with the president submitting his budget request to Congress early in the year. That voluminous document is partly a presidential wish list, but it also gives Congress a framework.

"The ‘PresBud,’ as it is called, forms the basis of the fiscal year budget that starts the following October," according to this post from the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense.

In Congress, the House and Senate have budget committees tasked with creating concurrent budget resolutions, using the president’s budget as a guide. As Taxpayers for Common Sense wrote, "The legislation they draft is for Congressional use only: it doesn't go to the President, it isn't law, it just helps Congress keep its budgetary ducks in a row."

So there is the first problem with Romney’s statement. The president doesn’t "pass" a budget. That’s Congress’ job.

In Obama’s case, he has submitted his budget request each year he has been in office.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...

At least Ryan has presented a budget. Obama has done what? Gives us Ryan supporters a budget to compare his to. It's been 4 freakin years the Dems have refused to do their job. Write a budget for us to look at. Obama care is a failed idea. Social Security is taking in one dollar for every three it spends. Duh? We need a realistic budget, and Paul Ryan has submitted one.

Who do you want to balance for checkbook? Ryan or Obama? Easy answer ....Ryan. Peace

BostonBill-yes, Ryan is out of touch with reality, but what scares me are those who think his plans are good plans...

Ryan is still out of touch with reality.

Economic violence, resulting from legislation. kills people just as surely as other forms of violence. Unfortunately, the legislators responsible for the economic violence are never tried for the economic violence that their legislation perpetrates.

It's an appropriate headline given the economic violence against low income persons that is an integral part of the Ryan GOP budget.

Look at the violent rhetoric in the AP headline ---TARGET---

Have the liberals not learned anything from the rabid claims they made that symbols can incite people to terrible acts?

What part of YOU ARE A LOSER doesn't Paul Ryan understand...
Go back to the big Cities that voted you back in, after you made a fool of yourself running for VP..
We don't want you, or want to listen to you here in Janesville anymore...

It's about time someone takes away some of the benefits the elderly and others get.
Stuff like being able to afford medication. Those old people don't need that.

Then there is the costly trips to the doctors.
Make it harder for them to go to the doctor and maybe they won't live as long and therefore drain the government of our money.

Then there are those stupid college students who get aid by borrowing our money or grants. I say make those wothless wanna be college kids work at Mac Ds for a living.

Yep Mr Ryan and the rest of the rich folk are going to make darn sure there is enough money in the system for their Health care, Pension, and security for their families for the rest of their lives.

Maybe if the democrats had done a budget sometime in the 1413 days, the United States wouldn't be facing a fiscal crisis NOW.

Mr. Ryan must think everyone has forgotten what he said the first time because he is repeating the same ideas again. Hopefully the next time he runs for office people will have very long memories and remove him from office and elect someone who represents the working person not the tax avoiding, free loading, multinational corporations who have funded him in the past.

"GOP budget takes aim again at Obamacare, Medicaid"

GOP budget? Does that mean the original Ryan GOP budget that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops found to be immoral or the Ryan flip-flop GOP budget version 2 or the Ryan flip-flop GOP budget version 3 or the Ryan flip-flop GOP budget version 4?

Feb. 25, 2010: Ryan Against Medicare Cuts

April 5, 2011: Ryan For Medicare Cuts

August 16, 2012: Ryan Against Medicare Cuts

March 10, 2013: Ryan For Medicare Cuts

[ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/... ]

Yes - Paul Ryan has the courage to say what the right wing really wants. His statement?

"This is something we will not give up on because we are not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people."

A Display of Courage?

"Chairman Ryan has at times received praise for having the courage to propose these policies. In reality, this budget reflects more of a lack of courage than an abundance of it.

Is it courageous to propose tax cuts but not identify a single tax expenditure to rein in? Is it courageous to target your deepest cuts on the poorest Americans, who vote in lower numbers and provide little in campaign contributions? Is it courageous to camouflage hundreds of billions in cuts for the poor and disadvantaged in broad budget categories without identifying the programmatic cuts, so that analysts, journalists, and other policymakers can’t identify the specific cuts and assess their impacts?

What stands out, above all else, is Chairman Ryan’s unwillingness to propose anything that would upset his party’s base of supporters or, in particular, its ideological opposition to any revenue increases.

Paul Ryan is a smart and engaging individual. But, make no mistake: his budget is extreme. And, in its reverse Robin Hood policies, its ideological rigidity, and its calculated vagueness, it sadly reflects some of the worst features of American politics at this crucial time."

# # # #

"The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization and policy institute that conducts research and analysis on a range of government policies and programs. It is supported primarily by foundation grants."

That you Paul Ryan for introducing this budget. It re-confirms that you have learned nothing and have not changed from the drubbing that you got in the last presidential election where your state, your district, your county, your city and your neighborhood all rejected the swill that you are still selling. You have reconfirmed that you are still the idol of the Tea Party HateRiots and thus you will go nowhere.....again. Voters - take note of Ryan.

HandbookHarry, You act like Obama and his administration invented Food stamps and all the other entitlement programs. And nemisis, only 60 millionpeople voted for R&R but still lost which means the majority voted for Obama and WANTS healthcare.Get over it for gosh sakes. Isn't that what all you righties are saying about Walker winning in Wisconsin.

To bad the Nixon Healthcare Plan didn't go thru, oh wait, the Dems didn't like it, but Obama did so he patterned his plan along the same lines except Obama made the individual instead of the corporation responsible for the insurance. The insurance companies, the Dems and the unions fought it, so it went into the trash to be resurrected by a Dem.

"We're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people."

The song remains the same.

Nvgrf

I can't wait until this abomination of a president recognizes that this law will quadruple in costs just like every other welfare program in history. Just watch. You think prices are high now..wait until all the freeloaders line up for welfare healthcare. When its free and subsidized the lines will form. Ever notice how they run things in Illinois? This is on a much larger scale.

"Ryan you and you buddy Romney lost because the majority of American voters weren't buying the fascist utopia you were selling."

I guess this means you bought the food stamp request system brought to you by the gangland Chicago street gang Obama crew.

60 million people voted for Romney/Ryan. That means 60 million people did not want Obamacare. All the left-wing koolaid drinkers who voted for the socialist utopia Obama promised see where those ideas are taking us. And it isn't the road to prosperity. If anything Obama got the presidency through having friends in the media and the billionaire George Soros.

It's the law Paulie. Get over it and find something new to whine about.

Is this guy dense or what? His first budget proposal was rejected by even his own party. Now he submits the same old same old. They keep trying to repeal Obama care when the majority of the public has made it abundantly clear they want Obama care. Then again 66% of the citizens of Wisconsin said they did not want the mining bill passed. They don't care what the people they are supposed to representing want. Republicans represent the wealthy (themselves) and will sell their souls and our state to benefit their own personal finances and political careers. Paul Ryan represents the insurance companies, that is the only reason he wants to repeal Obama Care. Look at who his contributors are, insurance and financial companies. WE ARE NOT STUPID PAUL. Paul Ryan couldn't even win his own hometown if it were not for gerrymandering he would not have won re-election.

Ryan you and you buddy Romney lost because the majority of American voters weren't buying the fascist utopia you were selling.

ryan....you lost because most of the people didn't like your ideas. Everyone knows your only fighting for the super rich so forgetaboutit. Have you spotted rmoney's tax reterns yet?

Eliminating deductions is raising taxes.

Balance the budget in 10 years? Reagan promised to do it in 8 (Oh - that resulted in record deficits didn't it?).