PDA

View Full Version : Paul Ryan...outed!



Qtec
11-19-2011, 05:51 AM
link (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/18/372492/rep-paul-ryan-votes-against-balanced-budget-amendment-because-it-doesnt-ruin-the-constitution-enough/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rep. Paul Ryan Votes Against Balanced Budget Amendment Because It Doesn’t Ruin The Constitution Enough

By Ian Millhiser on Nov 18, 2011 at 2:50 pm

Earlier this afternoon, just 261 members of the House voted in favor of a balanced budget amendment — far fewer that the two-thirds majority necessary for the amendment to move forward. One somewhat surprising “no” vote was House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI). Ryan is the House GOP’s chief Chicken Little on the deficit — Ryan spent the last two years of his life running around the country warning that the sky would fall unless we phase out Medicare and enact a long list of equally draconian budget reforms.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Yet, today, when Chicken Little had the opportunity to write a balanced budget amendment into the Constitution, he ran away screaming that the amendment wouldn’t do enough to transform the Constitution into a Tea Party fantasy:</span>

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ryan-no-on-bba.jpg

The backstory here is that, just a few months ago, Ryan and his fellow congressional Republicans were pushing a permanent austerity amendment that would effectively lock Tea Party fiscal policy in place permanently. Among other things, amendment would make it functionally impossible to ever raise taxes, while simultaneously requiring the federal government to balance its budget entirely through spending cuts.

Were Paul Ryan’s fantasy scenario — a balanced budget achieved entirely through cuts — to actually play out, it would “throw about 15 million more people out of work, double the unemployment rate from 9 percent to approximately 18 percent, and cause the economy to shrink by about 17 percent instead of growing by an expected 2 percent.”

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The amendment Ryan rejected today, by contrast, contains no provision preventing the budget from being balanced through higher taxes — possibly even on rich people!</span> This would allow Congress to save a percentage of these jobs by shifting the cost of deficit reduction to people who can afford it, but it would not protect the interests of the very wealthiest Americans. <u>So Ryan voted it down.</u>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>Let’s be completely clear about what this means. </u>Given the choice between an option that would kill 15 million jobs & drive the nation into another great depression, and a different option that could kill fewer jobs but would also not guarantee that David Koch and Paris Hilton pay low taxes, <u>the House GOP’s top budget policymaker decided that he would rather protect poor Paris and hold out for the option that would force millions of American families into utter destitution.</u></span> </div></div>

Typical. Just reinforces the fact that the GOP are a bunch of lying fakes.


Q

Q

Gayle in MD
11-19-2011, 07:07 AM
If their lips are moving, they're lying.

G.

LWW
11-19-2011, 04:54 PM
Your moonbat source lost all credibility right here:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet, today, when Chicken Little had the opportunity to write a balanced budget amendment into the Constitution, he ran away screaming that the amendment wouldn’t do enough to transform the Constitution into a Tea Party fantasy: </div></div>

How did he have the opportunity to write something he ran away from?

Qtec
11-19-2011, 08:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But there was one surprise: Rep. Paul Ryan — <u>who is constantly portrayed as the deficit-fighting conscience of the GOP</u> and who authored the controversial Medicare overhaul plan that House Republicans almost unanimously embraced earlier this year — <span style='font-size: 14pt'>actually voted against it. </span><u>Why? Ryan told NBC News that “this version will lead to a much bigger government fueled by more taxes.”</u>

This may have been his way of saying he prefers the version put forward by Senate Republicans earlier this year, <u>which would cap total government spending at 18 percent of GDP <span style='font-size: 14pt'>and require a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate for any future tax increases. </span></u> </div></div>

Ryan has shown that his agenda is not so much about balancing the budget, its about slashing public spending while preserving low taxes for the 1%.

Q

Soflasnapper
11-19-2011, 08:23 PM
Correct. Plus the fact is that this BBA would make his budget illegal as well (with its huge tax cuts, which as you mention are the real reason for his budget's details in the first place).

His stated reasons are hypocritical, since the claim on that side is that revenues will come piling in at record rates due to the supply-side nature and dynamic scoring effects of the tax cuts.

Somehow, he doesn't consider that alleged huge additional revenue from his proposal as a problem, perhaps because he knows it won't happen.

LWW
11-20-2011, 03:38 AM
Give me an example of this "SLASHING" to which you refer?

LWW
11-21-2011, 05:43 AM
So you don't actually have an example?

Imagine that.

Qtec
11-21-2011, 06:31 AM
Take your pick. easy to find (http://www.google.nl/search?q=rick+scott+slashes+spending&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&client=firefox-a)

Q

LWW
11-21-2011, 06:44 AM
Paul Ryan is in the US H of R.

Rick Scott is a state gubner.

Nobody thought you had an example.

This is where you flail about wildly hoping nobody notices what a fool you have made of yourself.

Again.