PDA

View Full Version : Reality check: Paul Ryan's budget balances in...



Soflasnapper
03-22-2012, 12:23 PM
2040.

That's 28 years from now, according to my calculations (corrections welcome).

Each and every year in the meantime the national debt will be increased as each year finds us in deficit.

Even this pitiful result requires about an 80% reduction in discretionary spending, reducing it from 8-10% of gdp to under 2%.

cushioncrawler
03-22-2012, 03:19 PM
Thats the trubble with krappynomix.
Krappynomicysts talk about it. Sniff it. Praps taste it. But they wont aktually swallow.
I wish the usofa would swallow it proply. The smell of dead christians would probly permeate down under.
mac.

LWW
03-22-2012, 04:00 PM
And the demokrook alternative is ... ?

Soflasnapper
03-22-2012, 04:29 PM
Not sure, but I think their alternative is to eventual lower and STABILIZE the annual deficit at about 2% of gdp, and leave it at that, which is a better concept than either a balanced budget or, heaven forfend, paying off the national debt.

LWW
03-23-2012, 02:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not sure, but I think their alternative is to eventual lower and STABILIZE the annual deficit at about 2% of gdp, and leave it at that, which is a better concept than either a balanced budget or, heaven forfend, paying off the national debt. </div></div>

That's been the promise since they inherited a <span style='font-size: 26pt'>$160B</span> deficit and shrank it to <span style='font-size: 8pt'>$1,600B</span>.

See how much smaller a tiny <span style='font-size: 8pt'>$1,600B</span> is compared to a massive <span style='font-size: 26pt'>$160B</span>.

Qtec
03-23-2012, 02:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">they inherited a $160B deficit and shrank it to $1,600B. </div></div>....and?

What else did Pres Obama inherit from GW?

Where did all the money go?

Q

Qtec
03-23-2012, 03:08 AM
link (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/22/450392/ryan-budget-millionaires/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Analysis: House GOP Budget Gives $187,000 Tax Cut To Every Millionaire

By Travis Waldron posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Mar 22, 2012 at 8:00 pm

ThinkProgress reported Tuesday that the House Republican budget, authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), would give away $3 trillion in tax breaks to corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Roughly $2 trillion of those breaks are aimed at the rich, thanks to the repeal of multiple taxes that primarily affect the rich and the dropping of the top marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent


While Rep. Ryan does not specify which tax provisions he would repeal, these calculations assume he would repeal all itemized deductions, all tax credits, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance, and the deduction for health insurance for the self-employed.

Even under these assumptions, over 92 percent of these very high-income taxpayers would enjoy a net tax cut, and the average income tax change for these taxpayers would be a reduction of $187,000 in 2014. </div></div>

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/RyanTaxes-1024x275.jpg

Q

LWW
03-23-2012, 03:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What else did Pres Obama inherit from GW?

Q </div></div>

Good question.

When Obama was first seated in DC the UE rate was 4.6% ... by inauguration day 2007 he and his party had blessed us with over a 50% increase. All the way to 7.3%. In short order they took it over 10% with full control of the gubmint. Even with a new (R) house the UE rate still stands at 8.3% ... and thats with cooked number. It still represents a massive 81% increase in the UE rate.

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate)

LWW
03-23-2012, 03:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not sure, but I think their alternative is to eventual lower and STABILIZE the annual deficit at about 2% of gdp, and leave it at that, which is a better concept than either a balanced budget or, heaven forfend, paying off the national debt. </div></div>

So you admit that Bush/(R) fiscal policy ... which had the deficit at 2.1% of GDP ... was responsible while the demokrook fiscal policy is not?

BRAVO!

Qtec
03-23-2012, 03:40 AM
What else?

Think.

Here's a clue.

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>"USA on the brink of economic disaster.!!????????"

"Banking system on the verge of collapse!???????????"
</span>

Q

Soflasnapper
03-23-2012, 08:58 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">Not sure, but I think their alternative is to eventual lower and STABILIZE the annual deficit at about 2% of gdp, and leave it at that, which is a better concept than either a balanced budget or, heaven forfend, paying off the national debt. </div></div>

That's been the promise since they inherited a <span style='font-size: 26pt'>$160B</span> deficit and shrank it to <span style='font-size: 8pt'>$1,600B</span>.

See how much smaller a tiny <span style='font-size: 8pt'>$1,600B</span> is compared to a massive <span style='font-size: 26pt'>$160B</span>. </div></div>

I think you are onto something here! Anything to divert attention away from Paul Ryan's total failure, when he is the current Pied Piper for the GOP, supposedly a serious person, maybe the Veep in a while.

Paul Ryan's plan is the best the GOP can do?

He goes through the yeoman's work of proposing (roughly) about $4.5 trillion in cuts from the baseline spending, only to BLOW ALL THAT SAVINGS almost entirely in that same amount of revenue LOSSES from additional TAX CUTS (favoring the top brackets)?

The main point is that even the draconian Paul Ryan and his merry band of acolytes on the right (you know, they're very serious people!), in their best, newest plan, DEFER budget balance for 28 freaking years, evidently thinking the economy needs the stimulus of the deficits lest it re-crash.

That, and Mr. Ryan's plan to institute what amounts to Obamacare FOR THE SENIORS, to SAVE MEDICARE, begin to indicate a certain.... incoherence... shall we say, in their supposed criticisms of current policies.

That's been the promise since they inherited a $160B deficit and shrank it to $1,600B.

See how much smaller a tiny $1,600B is compared to a massive $160B.

Just how phony is this claimed small deficit is made clear from looking at the growth in the national debt for those years.

2004 (a)7,379 7,355
2005 (a4)7,933 7,905
2006 (a5)8,507 8,451
2007 (a6)9,008 8,951

Total debt as of the end of the stated fiscal year, 1st column from Treasury, the 2nd column is OMB's number.

To remind you of how these fiscal years run, as of the late 2006 election when the Democrats took back the House, FY 2007 had already begun a month before. The debt grew over $500 billion from FY '06 to the end of FY '07, just as it had the previous years as well.

So you are hiding the borrowing from the SS surplus, and the cost of the two wars off-budget, and pretending those were not deficit spending because of technical rules that only change how the deficit gets stated, not its actual size.

LWW
03-24-2012, 07:59 AM
BRAVO!

You either had the courage to, or were tricked into, actually discussing the truth.

Now, let's began class shall we ... be seated.

Please.

The R's took control of congress in 1995. Their first budget started in 1996. The current US debt is $15,578,252,701,196.00.

Their last was in 2007.

During those 10 years the US accumulated $3,782,842,433,126.75 in new debt. That averaged $378,284,243,312.68 per year in new debt.

From 2007 until now the D's have been in control.

That's $6,570,599,328,933.52 in new debt in only 5 years ... or roughly $1,314,000,000,000.00,per year.

Now, and you may use a calculator if you wish, which is greater ... $378B per year in new debt, or $1,314B per year in new debt?

If this confuses you, p;ease contact Obama For America to receive a party approved reply.

Soflasnapper
03-24-2012, 11:39 AM
And with a quick duck and pivot, you try to obscure how false your claim of only a $160 billion deficit really was, when it was really at least triple that figure (over $500 billion)?

You know, the fact I busted you on? You compliment my courage to discuss the truth, and then duck the fact I mention? Wise, if cowardly, since there is really no rebuttal, except an appeal to ignorance, and of course, pointing at the official, but artificially calculated, formal number. But the year to year increases of the national debt give the lie to that claim.

So, to further 'rebut' my complaint that in no way was any Bush 43 budget as low as a $160 billion deficit level in any year, you NOW perhaps correctly do the math to say that for over a 10 year period of R control of Congress' majority, they AVERAGED... OVER $378 BILLION... PER YEAR... of new debt... EACH AND EVERY YEAR OVER A DECADE???

Which actually understates their last years in that string trajectory of debt increase, as it was far lower than that in each of the 4 last Clinton years that Gingrich likes to describe as 'in balance.' (The first couple of those years were only 'in balance' by borrowing the SS surplus.) So, much HIGHER than that subsequently, meaning after Clinton left office, and the difference was... different president, different tax structure (which he pushed through), and of course, the two multi-trillion total cost wars (which he pushed through as well).

As we've seen, despite the 'low' (??!?!?!) average of $378 billion for those 10 years, the last couple they were in charge saw $500 billion + annual increases in the national debt.

Unfortunately, under the fiscal and war policies of the W era that have been continued and in some cases extended for differing reasons (the tax cutting, eg), the doubling of the entire national debt that occurred in the 00s is indeed on track to quickly re-double (and etc.).

It's a classic case study in exponential growth of compounded interest and fiscal overreach in imperial war making, and the bid for global military hegemony, which additional costs in national debt increase are due at a 90% level to the prior administration's policies put into effect and still in effect. O's additional contributions are slight, except for the continuation of those prior policies.

LWW
03-24-2012, 05:00 PM
You are truly pathetic.

Yes, the law allows the budget to be underestimated.

Yes, the best way to compare is to actually view how much the total debt actually rises.

Yes, this proves that there was in fact never a Clinton era surplus.

Yes, this proves that the demokrokk congress has destroyed what little fiscal responsibility existed in DC.

Yes, you have proven yourself to be a slavish shill of the regime.

Yes, you have ... once again ... went on a campaign of deflect/deny/defemd to hide this from your fragile psyche.

No. you haven't fooled anyone.

Soflasnapper
03-24-2012, 07:05 PM
So, finally, but indirectly, you agree your claim of any W Bush deficit at only $160 billion is rubbish. About time, but why do you use that profoundly false number, repeatedly?

I did not initiate your side road detour; that was you, choosing that instead of responding to the point of this thread, concerning Paul Ryan's faux budget balancing, which as you know, is being lapped up as we write and read on this thread by lying Republicans, who are nominating him for sainthood.

One thing they have correct about him-- he has tremendous courage to pretend there is anything worthy in his proposals.

Now I guess you pretend HIS failure to show the slightest fiscal restraint is, again... wait for it... the fault of the Democrats! Of course!! Has to be, just as the coming home to roosts of the W war and fiscal policies, DURING his terms and as of the final fiscal year he was involved in, is.... yes, of course! the Democrats' fault once again.

They even made you LIE that Bush had small deficits, and that the GOP when in charge of the Congress, had small deficits, when they AVERAGED $386 billion a year x 10 years.

And when I point this out, you say I have a fragile psyche? Talk to the man in the mirror.

I'm calling out the fraud known as Paul Ryan, and his own slavish GOP idolators who worship his lies, not defending the Obama administration. By your reaction, I guess you are among his idolators as well.

Qtec
03-25-2012, 04:22 AM
Its dead simple. There was no George Bush. 2001 to 2009 has been wiped from history.

Obama inherited a situation that has not been seen since the Great depression. Its not a surprise that not one single republican ever says "but Bush said..."

Q

Soflasnapper
03-26-2012, 09:02 AM
In the aftermath of such total failure, I guess they have few choices. Having no defense, it's gotta be 'this new guy is a bum, and why hasn't he fixed the Democrat-caused mess sooner?'

Thankfully, even with the short attention span theater that is the American public, most still remember the prior administration and its multiple debacles, and afix blame appropriately.

eg8r
03-26-2012, 10:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Having no defense, it's gotta be 'this new guy is a bum, and why hasn't he fixed the Democrat-caused mess sooner?'
</div></div>Well things were certainly moving along much better during the Rep-lead Congress.

Most logical thinking Americans understand that Obama cannot do even a 10th of what he professed on the campaign trails. All that "hope and change" has amounted to is "more debt and more lies". What I don't understand is why you guys aren't man enough to admit it. Just because Bush turned out to be nothing close to a Conservative doesn't mean we cannot point out Obama's massive short-comings.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
03-27-2012, 08:27 AM
From Politifact (front page down on the right side), they keep a running count of:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Promises of Barack Obama
</span> (campaign promises and afterwards)

How's he ACTUALLY doing, according to their grading?

174 Promise Kept

53 Compromise

63 Promise Broken

67 Stalled

149 In the Works

2 Not yet rated

If curious, they DO show their work and why they say those things, by the list of promises.

By your off-hand claim, he must have made more than 1740 promises, or you'd be wrong about that 10%. He didn't; you are.

eg8r
03-27-2012, 09:02 AM
I am not wrong about anything. The man's "hope and change" never came to fruition. He lies every time he opens his mouth and it is your duty to believe him. LOL, he has lied or stalled almost as much as the promises politifact thinks he kept. That is not a great record but we see you are fine with a close to 50/50 truthful man as long as he is a Dem.

eg8r