PDA

View Full Version : The GOP don't care about the deficit......proof.



Qtec
07-08-2011, 12:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Paul Ryan's response to David Brooks is gibberish to all but Randian ears
<span style="color: #3333FF">I disagree.</span>

So David Bobo Brooks wrote a column about the debt ceiling deal that is either scolding or praising (or who knows what's in his brain) the GOP for their part in the debt-ceiling fiasco up to this point, but saying they should jump on what's been offered as the deal of the century. You knew the wingers would be up in arms over it.

Well, Ayn Ryan responded as well in the only way he knows:


<span style="color: #990000">RYAN: What happens if you do what he’s saying, is then <u>you can’t lower tax rates.</u> So it does affect marginal tax rates. In order to lower marginal tax rates, you have to take away those loopholes so you can <u>lower those tax rates.</u> If you want to do what we call being revenue neutral … If you take a deal like that, you’re necessarily requiring tax rates to be higher for everybody. You need <u>lower tax rates </u>by going after tax loopholes. If you take away the tax loopholes without lowering tax rates, then you deny Congress the ability to lower everybody’s tax rates and you keep people’s tax rates high.</span></div></div>

watch it (http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/paul-ryans-gibberish-response-david-bro)

What he is saying is any savings will be used to lower tax rates on the rich, not pay off the deficit.

ie, all this 'we must reduce the deficit' is all a load of crap.

Thanks Ryan for making that clear.

Q

LWW
07-08-2011, 04:16 AM
So which is it ... you claimed minutes ago that they were going to blow out the nation's brains by not increasing the debt, and now you complain they are increasing the debt?

Doublethink in it's purest form.

Soflasnapper
07-08-2011, 06:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So which is it ... you claimed minutes ago that they were going to blow out the nation's brains by not increasing the debt, and now you complain they are increasing the debt?

Doublethink in it's purest form. </div></div>

You want an example of doublethink, look at the GOP in this case.

The deficits are so horrible, and the debt so large, that they think they should not raise the debt ceiling at all. Even though their own plans include raising the national debt by $5 trillion.

But WAIT! They'll balance the budget even with the ever largening holes they put in the budget with more tax cuts, by eliminating the whole government or something. Because you could totally cancel the non-defense discretionary budget and still not achieve a balanced budget, BEFORE they get their new tax cuts. Afterwards? Cloward-Pivin, baby.

Qtec
07-09-2011, 02:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So which is it ... you claimed minutes ago that they were going to blow out the nation's brains by not increasing the debt,</div></div>

I said they were threatening to, yes.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> and now you complain they are increasing the debt?</div></div>

Am I? What I said was,

<span style="color: #3333FF">[ Ryan ] is saying thats any savings will be used to lower tax rates on the rich, not pay off the deficit.

ie, all this 'we must reduce the deficit' is all a load of crap.</span>





Any economist will tell you, when in a recession, don't slash govt spending. It kills any economic recovery.

Q

LWW
07-09-2011, 05:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You want an example of doublethink, look at the GOP in this case.

The deficits are so horrible, and the debt so large, that they think they should not raise the debt ceiling at all. Even though their own plans include raising the national debt by $5 trillion.</div></div>

When you start with wrong data I guess it's excusable that you come up with wrong conclusions.

LWW
07-09-2011, 05:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What I said was,

<span style="color: #3333FF">[ Ryan ] is saying thats any savings will be used to lower tax rates on the rich, not pay off the deficit.

ie, all this 'we must reduce the deficit' is all a load of crap.</span>





Any economist will tell you, when in a recession, don't slash govt spending. It kills any economic recovery.

Q </div></div>

When you start with wrong data I guess it's excusable that you come up with wrong conclusions.

Soflasnapper
07-09-2011, 02:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You want an example of doublethink, look at the GOP in this case.

The deficits are so horrible, and the debt so large, that they think they should not raise the debt ceiling at all. Even though their own plans include raising the national debt by $5 trillion.</div></div>

When you start with wrong data I guess it's excusable that you come up with wrong conclusions. </div></div>

Back atya!

Ryan's plan increases the national debt by $5 trillion over 10 years, because as Q said, the cuts in increased spending he proposes are mainly to allow the loss of revenue from the tax cuts he's proposed.

That is, cut a whole lot, and still not achieve debt or deficit reduction much, cause besides bailing out the boat, you're drilling holes in the hull.

LWW
07-09-2011, 05:06 PM
Here's a good one for you ... what's $5T divided by 10?

Here's a hint ... $0.5T.

Next ... what's the deficit now?

Here's a hint ... +/- $1.5T.

Last question ... which is a larger deficit, $1.5T or $0.5T.

Now ... what exactly is your point?

Soflasnapper
07-09-2011, 07:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a good one for you ... what's $5T divided by 10?

Here's a hint ... $0.5T.

Next ... what's the deficit now?

Here's a hint ... +/- $1.5T.

Last question ... which is a larger deficit, $1.5T or $0.5T.

Now ... what exactly is your point? </div></div>

Here's the trick. Ryan's main way of showing reduced spending compared to baseline projections is a fraud.

Why? Because CBO is constrained to project out war spending indefinitely (well, for the next 10 years anyway, since they have to show what is currently in law and practice, not what is almost certainly going to happen).

Actually, the plans already in place and already being stated and implemented will vastly reduce that spending in the future. Already by ending combat operations on the timetable in place from W's commitment, Iraq's costs are down.

Ryan books those savings (which are probably accurate, though we'll only know as those years come to pass), into his spending projections, whereas CBO cannot do that.

Once you take THOSE savings out, Ryan's plan offers quite negligible savings.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Ryan Budget Plan Produces Far Less Real Deficit Cutting than Reported
Plan’s $4.3 Trillion in Program Cuts, Offset by $4.2 Trillion in Tax Cuts, Yield Just $155 Billion in Deficit Reduction

PDF of this report (4pp.)

By James R. Horney

April 8, 2011
Related Areas of Research

Budget — Federal
Congressional Action
Deficits and Projections

On April 9, the House Budget Committee announced corrections to Chairman Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget resolution. The Center’s April 13 blog post updates the data reflected in this report to account for the committee’s correction.

Even some critics of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan have praised his “courage” and his willingness to make “hard choices” to address looming deficits. But, upon closer inspection, Chairman Ryan’s widely reported claim that his plan produces $1.6 trillion in deficit reduction proves illusory. In fact, the numbers in his plan show that his budget produces just $155 billion in real deficit reduction over ten years (see graph).</div></div>

Report linked here (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3458)

Qtec
07-09-2011, 08:24 PM
Good link S.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">$4.3 Trillion in Program Cuts, Offset by $4.2 Trillion in Tax Cuts </div></div>

If this isn't wealth redistribution on a grand scale, I don't know what is. Ita Robin Hood in reverse.

Q

LWW
07-10-2011, 03:22 AM
Possibly true because you don't seem to know anything.

LWW
07-10-2011, 03:31 AM
If your report is that the Ryan plan doesn't go far enough, I concur ... but I doubt that this was your point.

Let me make this simple. The runaway spending has to, and will, cease. That is unavoidable. In the coming analogy ... consider that the steel reinforced concrete barrier.

Now, if we are hurtling down hill towards the steel reinforced concrete barrier and certain doom, there are a few choices:

1 - The Obama - democrook plan which is to solve the problem by pressing the accelerator pedal to the floor and hitting the steel reinforced concrete barrier as hard and as soon as possible.

2 - The Ryan plan which is to at least stop accelerating as we go down hill and then hope for the best, leaving us hitting the steel reinforced concrete barrier later and not as hard.

3 - The hard core libertarian approach which is to stomp the brake pedal so hard that the passengers (CITIZENS) are launched head first through the windshield and avoid death from hitting the steel reinforced concrete barrier by incurring death from hitting the pavement head first.

4 - The LWW plan which is to apply steady pressure on the brakes and stop short of the steel reinforced concrete barrier without launching the passengers, then do a U turn and head back up the hill and away from the steel reinforced concrete barrier.

Soflasnapper
07-10-2011, 07:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good link S.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">$4.3 Trillion in Program Cuts, Offset by $4.2 Trillion in Tax Cuts </div></div>

If this isn't wealth redistribution on a grand scale, I don't know what is. Ita Robin Hood in reverse.

Q </div></div>

We've all been giving Ryan too much credit, mistaking his claimed $5 trillion (slightly less, but close) reduction in SPENDING as the figure for his deficit reduction as well.

And of course, we knew better, since we knew there were the offsets of nearly the same amount of money being forsaken the government in these extra tax cut amounts.

It's not a new scam, as Newt tried this in the budget battles of his day (to his eventual Waterloo, btw). In that case, he wanted about $245 billion in MC spending cuts, supposedly to balance the budget, but really to offset his approx. $250 billion in tax cutting.

Newt's numbers were too close, and not complicated enough in his plan, to hide the nature of what he was doing, and it helped Clinton and Co. stop this attempt.

Ryan's plan was complicated enough that few people went into the weeds to figure this out.

Soflasnapper
07-10-2011, 08:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If your report is that the Ryan plan doesn't go far enough, I concur ... but I doubt that this was your point.

Let me make this simple. The runaway spending has to, and will, cease. That is unavoidable. </div></div>

The Ryan plan doesn't do anything close to what it claims. It is a witting fraud on the public. The only reason he has to trim spending so much is that his tax cutting is so large, and it's a one-to-one tradeoff: take away scheduled baseline spending that goes to Joe Average, to 'afford' giving about the same to Richie Rich. And netting out the war savings that he puts in, but the CBO cannot by rule, it doesn't even reduce the baseline projected deficit over a 10 year period by more than .25 trillion.

This almost indicates that even he doesn't see a problem with this level of increased indebtedness, as his program takes it down a bare fraction more than the war spending decreases already would. Maybe that's a clue.

Thanks for characterizing the hard core libertarian program the way you do, btw. I agree with that analogy. People have NO IDEA how screwed they would be by adopting that general course of governance. Not that they are wrong to say that ending our military imperialism would save huge monies, and ending the war on drugs, very large monies as well. They are correct, in part.

But let's look at 'runaway spending.' Right now, we are spending the same in non-defense discretionary spending as in 2001, if you adjust for inflation and capitation. There has been NO rise there. The stimulus has come and gone, and doesn't exist in the budget going forward.

Where we've gone nuts is by tripling military spending against a far smaller foe than the USSR, a stateless foe with no national resources, or any military assets to speak of. This is gouging and fraud, waste and abuse, at a level to make the gods cry out.

We've also hugely increased tax expenditures, to where their total amount about equals or exceeds our national deficit.

A balanced and sensible approach would be to look at the areas where the spending has exploded, and curb those excesses. Instead, they want to decimate the non-defense discretionary expenditures, mainly out of ideological opposition to their whole premise (i.e., not out of getting significant spending reduction totals).

Qtec
07-11-2011, 03:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is a witting fraud on the public. </div></div>

Too right! The problem is they can go on tv - any channel- and spout lies as fact and never be challenged on it.
When the press fail to do their job, [ie hold politicians feet to the fire,] propaganda becomes a real problem. Especially when one of the 2 parties has its own tv/propaganda channel.

A step in the right direction would be to emulate the UK's PM question time. You ask a Q, you get a reply and you get to follow up.

Q

LWW
07-11-2011, 03:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The stimulus has come and gone, and doesn't exist in the budget going forward.</div></div>

That is a false statement.

The increased level of spending under the stimulus leads to a new baseline ... and much of the proposed "DRACONIAN CUTS" are simply eliminating the increases the stimulus has wrought.

Qtec
07-11-2011, 05:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The stimulus has come and gone, and doesn't exist in the budget going forward.</div></div>

That is a false statement.

The increased level of spending under the stimulus leads to a new baseline ... and much of the proposed "DRACONIAN CUTS" are simply eliminating the increases the stimulus has wrought. </div></div>

We really value your OPINION....eh NOT.
I think you are FoS. My opinion is equal to yours.

LOL


Q

Qtec
07-11-2011, 05:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is a false statement. </div></div>


Proof?

Q........pathetic...a 4 year old is probably writing your posts for you.

Soflasnapper
07-11-2011, 02:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The stimulus has come and gone, and doesn't exist in the budget going forward.</div></div>

That is a false statement.

The increased level of spending under the stimulus leads to a new baseline ... and much of the proposed "DRACONIAN CUTS" are simply eliminating the increases the stimulus has wrought. </div></div>

Let's see if that makes sense.

1/3rd of the stimulus, roughly, went to subsidize states' budgets, and prevent layoffs of their work forces. Is that still in effect? Why no, and we see the results of that money having dried up with increasing state layoffs the result, now up to 500,000 layoffs. Is that a new baseline amount of spending? No, it's ended.

Of the approx. 1/3rd of it for actual infrastructure project jobs, did that continue in the baseline? No, it did not. The money was spent over the two year period, and anything more to be spent is the left overs from the original authorizations.

CBO takes the baseline to be what the law says it is. What you may be referencing is a TALKING POINT about cuts from the jacked up spending amounts due to various parts of the stimulus. But a talking point is not a baseline figure, even if it is claimed to be.

LWW
07-11-2011, 03:55 PM
That was actually a half fast job of Alinskism.

The money doesn't have to be in a particular program to be a part of the baseline, it was in the total of gubmint expenditures and any reduction in gubmint expenditures will yield the same wailings and gnashing of teeth from the left.

Qtec
07-12-2011, 04:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Misinformed Tea Party Movement
Bruce Bartlett, 03.19.10, 12:01 AM EDT

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>For an antitax group, they don't know much about taxes.</span>


In short, no matter how one slices the data, the Tea Party crowd appears to believe that federal taxes are very considerably higher than they actually are, whether referring to total taxes as a share of GDP or in terms of the taxes paid by a typical family.

Tea Partyers also seem to have a very distorted view of the direction of federal taxes. They were asked whether they are higher, lower or the same as when Barack Obama was inaugurated last year. More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today, and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same.


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president.</span> And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.</span> </div></div>


Tax day Tea Party (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbyFeFhUTmI)

A classic clip.

Q

LWW
07-12-2011, 04:23 AM
Only a moron believes that welfare transfers to people paying no taxes is somehow a tax cut.

Soflasnapper
07-12-2011, 06:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only a moron believes that welfare transfers to people paying no taxes is somehow a tax cut. </div></div>

That would be Reagan and the EITC he championed.

Please remember 'taxes' include payroll taxes as well as income tax.

LWW
07-12-2011, 07:05 AM
If your point is Reagan was a statist, I concur.