PDA

View Full Version : Ludicrous and Cruel



Qtec
04-17-2011, 03:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Ludicrous and Cruel
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Many commentators swooned earlier this week after House Republicans, led by the Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, unveiled their budget proposals. They lavished praise on Mr. Ryan, asserting that his plan set a new standard of fiscal seriousness.

Well, they should have waited until people who know how to read budget numbers had a chance to study the proposal. For the G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all. Instead, <u>itís simultaneously ridiculous and heartless.</u>

How ridiculous is it? Let me count the ways ó or rather a few of the ways, because there are more howlers in the plan than I can cover in one column.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>First, Republicans have once again gone all in for voodoo economics</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'> ó the claim, <u>refuted by experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves.</u></span>

Specifically, the Ryan proposal trumpets the results of an economic projection from the Heritage Foundation, which claims that the planís tax cuts would set off a gigantic boom. Indeed, the foundation initially predicted that the G.O.P. plan would bring the unemployment rate down to 2.8 percent ó a number we havenít achieved since the Korean War. After widespread jeering, the unemployment projection vanished from the Heritage Foundationís Web site, but voodoo still permeates the rest of the analysis.

In particular, the original voodoo proposition ó the claim that lower taxes mean higher revenue ó is still very much there. The Heritage Foundation projection has large tax cuts actually increasing revenue by almost $600 billion over the next 10 years.

A more sober assessment from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells a different story. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It finds that a large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go, not to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts. In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade the plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law.</span> </div></div>

read on (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=2&smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the past, Mr. Ryan has talked a good game about taking care of those in need. But as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, of the $4 trillion in spending cuts he proposes over the next decade,<u> two-thirds involve cutting programs that mainly serve low-income Americans.</u> And by repealing last yearís health reform, without any replacement, the plan would also deprive an estimated 34 million nonelderly Americans of health insurance.

So the pundits who praised this proposal when it was released were punked. The G.O.P. budget plan isnít a good-faith effort to put Americaís fiscal house in order; <span style='font-size: 17pt'>itís voodoo economics, with an extra dose of fantasy, and a large helping of mean-spiritedness.</span> </div></div>

Q

LWW
04-17-2011, 04:55 AM
Why do you cling to the lie after all of this?

Just recently you took a brutal intellectual beat down on this issue ... self inflicted by your own "PROOF" ... and here you are parroting the lie all over again.

Qtec
04-17-2011, 05:42 AM
When you make a claim, provide a link.

Q

LWW
04-17-2011, 05:51 AM
Fair enough. (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=348204#Post348204)

Qtec
04-17-2011, 07:32 AM
LOL

You provided a link that shows without doubt that your statement,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His chart showed federal revenue falling before the tax cuts and then rising after them </div></div>

....is total fantasy.

I provided REAL evidence, not opinion, that showed revenue rising every year until 2001.
I provided evidence, NOT opinion, that revenue FELL for years until 2005 when it came back to where it was 5 years before!

The Bush tax cuts for the rich was a complete failure, and now today's GOP want more of the same.

Bush BORROWED the money, today;'s GOP want the MC to pay for it.


Q

LWW
04-17-2011, 07:44 AM
And, again, you hide in denial that makes the inner party members truly proud of your blackwhite skills.

LWW
04-17-2011, 07:55 AM
Please read and study this graph that you posted:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Federal_individual_income_tax_receipts_2000-2009.png/800px-Federal_individual_income_tax_receipts_2000-2009.png

until you have at least a rudimentary understanding of it.

To help you out, the tax cuts were phased in between 2001 and 2003.

Please answer these questions honestly:

- Does the graph show revenue lower in 2001 compared to 2000?

- Does the graph show tax revenue continuing to fall through 2004?

- Does the graph show revenue accelerating upwards in 2005 one the tax cuts had taken hold?

- Does the chart show that revenue continued to increase, reaching an all time record, through 2007 when the democrooks took control of congress?

- Does the graph show revenue falling every single year after that calamitous event?

- Does the graph show revenue as a percentage of GDP rising after the tax cuts were implemented?

- Does the graph show revenue as a percentage of GDP falling off the cliff after the thugocracy took power?

Here's a hint ... the answer is yes to all of these questions.

Now, dance for us.

Gayle in MD
04-17-2011, 09:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Ludicrous and Cruel
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Many commentators swooned earlier this week after House Republicans, led by the Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, unveiled their budget proposals. They lavished praise on Mr. Ryan, asserting that his plan set a new standard of fiscal seriousness.

Well, they should have waited until people who know how to read budget numbers had a chance to study the proposal. For the G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all. Instead, <u>itís simultaneously ridiculous and heartless.</u>

How ridiculous is it? Let me count the ways ó or rather a few of the ways, because there are more howlers in the plan than I can cover in one column.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>First, Republicans have once again gone all in for voodoo economics</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'> ó the claim, <u>refuted by experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves.</u></span>

Specifically, the Ryan proposal trumpets the results of an economic projection from the Heritage Foundation, which claims that the planís tax cuts would set off a gigantic boom. Indeed, the foundation initially predicted that the G.O.P. plan would bring the unemployment rate down to 2.8 percent ó a number we havenít achieved since the Korean War. After widespread jeering, the unemployment projection vanished from the Heritage Foundationís Web site, but voodoo still permeates the rest of the analysis.

In particular, the original voodoo proposition ó the claim that lower taxes mean higher revenue ó is still very much there. The Heritage Foundation projection has large tax cuts actually increasing revenue by almost $600 billion over the next 10 years.

A more sober assessment from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells a different story. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It finds that a large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go, not to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts. In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade the plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law.</span> </div></div>

read on (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=2&smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the past, Mr. Ryan has talked a good game about taking care of those in need. But as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, of the $4 trillion in spending cuts he proposes over the next decade,<u> two-thirds involve cutting programs that mainly serve low-income Americans.</u> And by repealing last yearís health reform, without any replacement, the plan would also deprive an estimated 34 million nonelderly Americans of health insurance.

So the pundits who praised this proposal when it was released were punked. The G.O.P. budget plan isnít a good-faith effort to put Americaís fiscal house in order; <span style='font-size: 17pt'>itís voodoo economics, with an extra dose of fantasy, and a large helping of mean-spiritedness.</span> </div></div>

Q </div></div>



From your link:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And about those spending cuts: leave health care on one side for a moment and focus on the rest of the proposal. It turns out that Mr. Ryan and his colleagues are assuming drastic cuts in nonhealth spending without explaining how that is supposed to happen.

How drastic? According to the budget office, which analyzed the plan using assumptions dictated by House Republicans, the proposal calls for spending on items other than Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid ó but including defense ó to fall from 12 percent of G.D.P. last year to 6 percent of G.D.P. in 2022, and just 3.5 percent of G.D.P. in the long run.

That last number is less than we currently spend on defense alone; itís not much bigger than federal spending when Calvin Coolidge was president, and the United States, among other things, had only a tiny military establishment. How could such a drastic shrinking of government take place without crippling essential public functions? The plan doesnít say.

And then thereís the much-ballyhooed proposal to abolish Medicare and replace it with vouchers that can be used to buy private health insurance.

The point here is that privatizing Medicare does nothing, in itself, to limit health-care costs. In fact, it almost surely raises them by adding a layer of middlemen. Yet the House plan assumes that we can cut health-care spending as a percentage of G.D.P. despite an aging population and rising health care costs.

The only way that can happen is if those vouchers are worth much less than the cost of health insurance. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2030 the value of a voucher would cover only a third of the cost of a private insurance policy equivalent to Medicare as we know it. So the plan would deprive many and probably most seniors of adequate health care.

</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">SOUND LIKE DEATH PANELS???

Conservatives Without Conscience!

Is it just me, or does Ryan look like a Vampire?</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
04-17-2011, 09:59 AM
Sounds like spoon fed hyper-partisan pap to me:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The payment scheme would be adjusted so that wealthier beneficiaries would receive a lower subsidy, the sick would receive a higher payment if their conditions worsened and lower-income seniors would receive additional assistance to cover out-of-pocket costs.</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/12/ryans-medicare-medicaid-plan-a-game-changer-in-ben/)

cushioncrawler
04-17-2011, 05:51 PM
"....First, Republicans have once again gone all in for voodoo economics ó the claim, refuted by experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves....."

I thort madmac woz the first to coin "voodoo krappynomix".
Krappynomix iz certainly religion-like -- a sort of Godma -- az are Voodoo and Zombyfykation.
Anyhow i still reckon i sayd it first.
Not happy.
mac.

Gayle in MD
04-18-2011, 09:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Ludicrous and Cruel
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Many commentators swooned earlier this week after House Republicans, led by the Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, unveiled their budget proposals. They lavished praise on Mr. Ryan, asserting that his plan set a new standard of fiscal seriousness.

Well, they should have waited until people who know how to read budget numbers had a chance to study the proposal. For the G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all. Instead, <u>itís simultaneously ridiculous and heartless.</u>

How ridiculous is it? Let me count the ways ó or rather a few of the ways, because there are more howlers in the plan than I can cover in one column.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>First, Republicans have once again gone all in for voodoo economics</span><span style='font-size: 17pt'> ó the claim, <u>refuted by experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves.</u></span>

Specifically, the Ryan proposal trumpets the results of an economic projection from the Heritage Foundation, which claims that the planís tax cuts would set off a gigantic boom. Indeed, the foundation initially predicted that the G.O.P. plan would bring the unemployment rate down to 2.8 percent ó a number we havenít achieved since the Korean War. After widespread jeering, the unemployment projection vanished from the Heritage Foundationís Web site, but voodoo still permeates the rest of the analysis.

In particular, the original voodoo proposition ó the claim that lower taxes mean higher revenue ó is still very much there. The Heritage Foundation projection has large tax cuts actually increasing revenue by almost $600 billion over the next 10 years.

A more sober assessment from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells a different story. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It finds that a large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go, not to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts. In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade the plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law.</span> </div></div>

read on (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=2&smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the past, Mr. Ryan has talked a good game about taking care of those in need. But as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, of the $4 trillion in spending cuts he proposes over the next decade,<u> two-thirds involve cutting programs that mainly serve low-income Americans.</u> And by repealing last yearís health reform, without any replacement, the plan would also deprive an estimated 34 million nonelderly Americans of health insurance.

So the pundits who praised this proposal when it was released were punked. The G.O.P. budget plan isnít a good-faith effort to put Americaís fiscal house in order; <span style='font-size: 17pt'>itís voodoo economics, with an extra dose of fantasy, and a large helping of mean-spiritedness.</span> </div></div>

Q </div></div>

Additionally, none other than Alan Greenspan continues to tell America, that tax cuts do not pay for themselves!

AND, the eight years of BUSH, proved, they also don't create JOBS!

I'm so glad Repiglicans are showing their true, fascist, Shock Doctrine, stripes!

G.

LWW
04-18-2011, 03:45 PM
The economic and political and historical ignorance displayed by the far left in this country cannot be accidental.