PDA

View Full Version : Krugman "Ryan The Ridiculous"



Gayle in MD
04-06-2011, 10:52 AM
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/ryan-the-ridiculous/

April 5, 2011, 4:41 pm
Ryan The Ridiculous
OK, let’s leave the badness of the Medicare plan aside for now, and look at the economic projection the plan is based on. Here’s part of what the people at Heritage are claiming the plan will accomplish:

Heritage Foundation
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/ryan-the-ridiculous/


In case you’re having trouble reading that, here’s the forecast for unemployment (the red line at the right) in the context of the historical record:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/ryan-the-ridiculous/



Except briefly during the Korean War, the United States has never achieved unemployment as low as Ryan and co. are claiming. The Fed believes that the lowest unemployment rate compatible with price stability is between 5 and 6 percent — that is, twice what Ryan is claiming he will achieve.

This is ridiculous; it’s megalomaniacal. If Obama tried to claim that his policies would achieve anything like this, he’d be laughed out of office.

Awesome


Charts here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/ryan-the-ridiculous/

Soflasnapper
04-06-2011, 12:18 PM
Here's Ezra Klein's take on the same question:

Paul Ryan’s funny numbers
By Ezra Klein

Jon Bernstein is right to warn that the numbers in Paul Ryan’s budget look a little funny. For one thing, he’s assuming repealing the Affordable Care Act will save $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says keeping Affordable Care Act saves more than $200 billion over the same period. When asked to explain the discrepancy, Ryan said he was using CBO’s numbers, which is clearly untrue. So something is wrong there.

Then there’s Ryan’s admission, on page 59, that’s he’s using dynamic scoring, which is a scoring model in which the cost of tax cuts is blunted by assumptions about future growth caused by the tax cuts. Ryan doesn’t say much more about the model than that, so it’s hard to know how it’s changing his estimates. It’s a bit like Democrats asking the Center for American Progress to score their budget based on a model in which health-care reform’s delivery-system savings all pan out and it cuts spending by hundreds of billions of dollars more than CBO predicts. My hunch is Ryan wouldn’t react particularly favorably to that trick.

What we do know is that the model is returning some truly off-the-wall results. It assumes, for instance, that Ryan’s budget will bring unemployment down to 2.8 percent in 2021. That’s just bananas. For one thing, the Federal Reserve wouldn’t allow unemployment to go that low, as that would create enormous inflationary pressure (at least in its opinion). Its assumption is that the long-run level of unemployment is likely to hover between 5 and 6 percent. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>As the Economist’s Ryan Avent notes, “fundamentally worthy policies shouldn’t need to promise laughably overoptimistic outcomes to win support.”</span>

We should get some better numbers when the Congressional Budget Office releases its preliminary analysis later today. I’d still expect the deficit reduction in Ryan’s plan to be significant — CBO will score his caps on health-care spending, and his caps on health-care spending save a lot of money — but I’d be very skeptical of some of the more outlandish numbers Ryan released alongside his report.

Gayle in MD
04-06-2011, 01:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's Ezra Klein's take on the same question:

Paul Ryan’s funny numbers
By Ezra Klein

Jon Bernstein is right to warn that the numbers in Paul Ryan’s budget look a little funny. For one thing, he’s assuming repealing the Affordable Care Act will save $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says keeping Affordable Care Act saves more than $200 billion over the same period. When asked to explain the discrepancy, Ryan said he was using CBO’s numbers, which is clearly untrue. So something is wrong there.

Then there’s Ryan’s admission, on page 59, that’s he’s using dynamic scoring, which is a scoring model in which the cost of tax cuts is blunted by assumptions about future growth caused by the tax cuts. Ryan doesn’t say much more about the model than that, so it’s hard to know how it’s changing his estimates. It’s a bit like Democrats asking the Center for American Progress to score their budget based on a model in which health-care reform’s delivery-system savings all pan out and it cuts spending by hundreds of billions of dollars more than CBO predicts. My hunch is Ryan wouldn’t react particularly favorably to that trick.

What we do know is that the model is returning some truly off-the-wall results. It assumes, for instance, that Ryan’s budget will bring unemployment down to 2.8 percent in 2021. That’s just bananas. For one thing, the Federal Reserve wouldn’t allow unemployment to go that low, as that would create enormous inflationary pressure (at least in its opinion). Its assumption is that the long-run level of unemployment is likely to hover between 5 and 6 percent. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>As the Economist’s Ryan Avent notes, “fundamentally worthy policies shouldn’t need to promise laughably overoptimistic outcomes to win support.”</span>

We should get some better numbers when the Congressional Budget Office releases its preliminary analysis later today. I’d still expect the deficit reduction in Ryan’s plan to be significant — CBO will score his caps on health-care spending, and his caps on health-care spending save a lot of money — but I’d be very skeptical of some of the more outlandish numbers Ryan released alongside his report. </div></div>


Thank you, that's a good piece.


The only thing missing from Ryan's ridiculous budget proposals, is the dull grey work suits we'll all be wearing, and that telling, blank stare.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

I wonder where Republicans got the idea, that when they have the majority in house, all other branches of Government must allow them to dictate on everything from social issues, to spending, and everything in between.

Obviously, Ryan know that the president ins't going to sign annything that basically removes President Obama's most impressive legislation win, the Affordable Health Care Act, and it has been clear in polls, that Americans by huge margins do not want the AHCA to be repealed.

I think it's also cler, that the vast majority of Americans, are against removing workers rights to unionize.

Is this what the REpublican version of listening to the American people, looks like...doing whatever the corporate interests need done in order that nthey may continue to scam the public, avoid taxes, and et subsidized whiloe they're gouging all of us left and right, at every turn????

Unbelievable!

Going after the old, the sick and the poor, and using the budget to FORCE their ideologies upon all Americans, their most precious desiree, as we well know, to dictate to all Americans what they may and may not do in their personal lives, at the Doctor's office, in their bedrooms, inside their bodies...

So absurd, that they have the gall to even mention, the Constitution, Freedom, or DEFICIT SPENDING!

It was their own party which drove this country into the ditch, warring, spending, cutting tax revenues, irresponsible borrowing, overlooking every serious warning of every single coming crisis, including their failed policies of deregulation, for the benefit of the Bush "Ownership- Society!"

They led this country directly into an economic crash, which we could barely survive, given the debts left by Bush, and the Republoican blank check majority, if not for this President, we'd have never escaped, without a full fledged Depression!

What a bunch of morally corrupted, lying scam artists they are.

G.

bobroberts
04-06-2011, 02:34 PM
Gayle [/quote]

This is ridiculous; it’s megalomaniacal. If Obama tried to claim that his policies would achieve anything like this, he’d be laughed out of office.

Awesome


Charts here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/ryan-the-ridiculous/

Obama should be laughed out of office. Your the only person who doesn't know it yet.

Qtec
04-07-2011, 03:02 AM
It should be like this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

This is ridiculous; it’s megalomaniacal. If Obama tried to claim that his policies would achieve anything like this, he’d be laughed out of office.

Awesome


Charts here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/ryan-the-ridiculous/</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Obama should be laughed out of office. Your the only person who doesn't know it yet. </div></div>

I'm laughing at you right now because you can't even use the quote function....BTW...its not 'your' its 'you're'. Its an abbreviation for you are.

If you are capable of comprehending this, you learned something.

Those in glass houses and all that....


Q