PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues What's in that pipe, Rep. Ryan?


orange
04-06-2011, 01:39 PM
Paul Ryan's Absurdly Optimistic Budget Projections Draw Widespread Ridicule

Benjy Sarlin | April 6, 2011, 9:55AM1129


2.8% unemployment? $150 billon a year in new economic growth? Tax revenues that rise with tax cuts?

All this can be yours -- and more! -- even while cutting trillions of dollars from the federal government and lowering taxes on the wealthy and corporations, according to a giddy estimate of the Republican budget by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Even as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) proudly touted his "fact-based budget" and decried Democrats' "budget gimmicks" yesterday, he prominently cited the think tank's absurdly rosy numbers, drawing widespread mockery from economists, budget experts, and health care wonks. Even the developer of the model that Heritage used to crunch the numbers can't figure out how Heritage reached its conclusions.

"The Heritage numbers are insane," MIT economist Jonathan Gruber said in an interview with TPM.

As Paul Krugman put it, Heritage's take "depends an awful lot on unicorn sightings -- a belief in the impossible."

The numbers stand in stark contrast to analysis from the independent Congressional Budget Office (below), the gold standard used by both parties to determine the costs of legislation, which shows an increase in the deficit's share of the economy in the plan's first decade thanks to its massive tax cuts and then much tougher financial burdens for seniors in future decades as their health care benefits dwindle.

"CBO is what they use on the budget side -- as a matter of procedure, any numbers from the Heritage Foundation or anybody else are essentially worthless," Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, said in an interview. "You can assert whatever you want to assert, but you can always find some half-baked tax think tank that will make up any number you feel like."

"The idea he'd go to Heritage for that kind of support indicates he didn't like what the CBO was going to tell him," Stan Collender, a former budget aide for both the House and Senate, told TPM. "This is the same guy who said his budget has no gimmicks in it turning to the rosiest scenario he could get."

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, pointed to the projections in the Ryan plan that unemployment would decline by 2% in 2012 as fishy even on their own terms.

"I think they just misprogrammed it," he told TPM. "Note that the unemployment rate falls by 2.1 percentage points relative to the baseline in 2012 even though they only created an extra 900,000 jobs. That doesn't make any sense."

By 2021, unemployment would hit 2.8% under their projection, well below the 5% - 6% range that the Federal Reserve considers the maximum desirable rate achievable without dangerous inflation.

The Heritage analysis bases its numbers on a "dynamic" model that it says takes into account the explosive growth unleashed by tax cuts. As a number of commentators have noted, it's the same approach that led them to conclude the Bush tax cuts would reduce the deficit and create millions of new jobs -- instead they exploded the deficit and unemployment worsened, eventually skyrocketing.

But the model they use, which they attribute to analyst IHS Global Insight, appears to be out there even according to its creators. Nigel Gault, the chief economist for Global Insight told the National Journal's Tim Fernholz that he has no idea how Heritage came up with their conclusions.

"I'm not quite sure what assumption ... would deliver 2.8 percent unemployment," Gault said. "We might assume different parameters."

TPM reached out to the Heritage Foundation study's authors to ask about some of the criticism's of their analysis, but did not immediately receive a reply.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/paul-ryans-absurdly-optimistic-budget-projections-draw-widespread-ridicule.php

orange
04-06-2011, 01:41 PM
Brian Beutler | April 5, 2011, 5:45PM3709

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's initial analysis of the House GOP budget released today by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is filled with nuggets of bad news for Republicans.

In addition to acknowledging that seniors, disabled and elderly people would be hit with much higher out-of-pocket health care costs, the CBO finds that by the end of the 10-year budget window, public debt will actually be higher than it would be if the GOP just did nothing.

Under the so-called "extended baseline scenario" -- a.k.a. projections based on current law -- debt held by the public will grow to 67 percent of GDP by 2022. Under the GOP plan, public debt would reach 70 percent of GDP in the same window.

In other words, the spending cuts Republicans would realize in the first 10 years would be outpaced by deficit increasing tax-cuts, which Ryan also proposes. After that, debt projections under the plan improve decade-by-decade relative to current law. That's because 2022 would mark the beginning of the Medicare privatization plan. That's when, CBO finds, "most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system."

If the current Medicare system were allowed to continue, CBO found that an average 65-year-old beneficiary's costs would be only 25 percent of what it'd be in the individual private insurance market. Under the GOP plan, those costs would jump to 68 percent.

In plain English, "the gradually increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the new premium support program [the GOP's Medicare privatization plan] would bear a much larger share of their health care costs than they would under the current program."

Note, that the CBO hasn't reviewed legislative language, so these numbers will likely be revised when an official cost-estimate is completed.

more, including full CBO report: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/cbo-gop-budget-would-increase-debt-then-stick-it-to-medicare-patients.php

chiefsnorth
04-06-2011, 01:43 PM
Widespread ridicule! (from the Marxist blogs I read)

Direckshun
04-06-2011, 01:44 PM
You can't cut the deficit with cuts alone. There must be additional raised revenue.

And assuming the unemployment rating will fall to its lowest level since 1950 may be catnip to people sympathetic with the plan, but it's not realistic. For as much as Obama has put an absurdly positive spin on future growth, this makes the guy look dismally pessimistic.

We're heading for a government shutdown. Primarily because the people we often rely on for the soberest takes on fiscal reality turn, time and time again, into magicians that believe their own magic tricks.

If somebody can explain how Ryan is any different in this manner, I'd love to be proven wrong.

FD
04-06-2011, 01:45 PM
The projections were getting so much ridicule they actually took them out of the online tables, as if people wouldn't notice. Its a fair thing to do, though, the projections were so preposterous they were distracting attention from the policy proposals, which are what really matter.

Direckshun
04-06-2011, 01:50 PM
The projections were getting so much ridicule they actually took them out of the online tables, as if people wouldn't notice. Its a fair thing to do, though, the projections were so preposterous they were distracting attention from the policy proposals, which are what really matter.

Right.

I just don't think Ryan has any idea how to raise revenue.

If you think you can kill a $1.5+ trillion deficit and a $13+ trillion debt on cuts alone, god save you.

Amnorix
04-06-2011, 02:50 PM
Not just spending cuts -- tax cuts!! To raise revenue! Because we're on the wrong side of teh Laffer curve, apparently.

This same goddamn retarded thinking is what helped lead to the Bush tax cuts which ended up, duh, reducing revenues by every standard you care to measure.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/08/cherry-picking_season.html

Jaric
04-06-2011, 02:56 PM
So would you guys say this is more or less effective than the Democrat's plan to resolve the issue?

FD
04-06-2011, 02:59 PM
So would you guys say this is more or less effective than the Democrat's plan to resolve the issue?

I think Ryan's plan is overall pretty crappy, but I must say it is better than what the Democrats have offered.

orange
04-06-2011, 03:07 PM
Any "plan" that relies on being in effect 10, 20 years down the line unchanged is ridiculous to begin with. Governing is an ongoing concern, there is no auto-pilot.

What Ryan's "plan" is, is another effort to slash and burn wildly popular programs from fifty and eighty years ago. And the Democrats' "plan" is quite properly to hold it up to the voters as a campaign issue.

p.s. speaking of Ryan and "plans," aren't you guys a little disappointed that his "Roadmap" is now down to a "Path?"

talastan
04-06-2011, 03:15 PM
Any "plan" that relies on being in effect 10, 20 years down the line unchanged is ridiculous to begin with. Governing is an ongoing concern, there is no auto-pilot.

What Ryan's "plan" is, is another effort to slash and burn wildly popular programs from fifty and eighty years ago. And the Democrats' "plan" is quite properly to hold it up to the voters as a campaign issue.

p.s. speaking of Ryan and "plans," aren't you guys a little disappointed that his "Roadmap" is now down to a "Path?"

:rolleyes: That no one has touched for that time either. Sorry orange but these programs are failing and about to become complete failures if things don't change. No one else has provided anything else, and IMO Rep. Ryan's plan is the best option. You can debate all you want about "wildly popular" programs, but insolvency is just that, insolvency. We are bankrupt and have no way to pay for anything, so keep kicking the can down the road.

orange
04-06-2011, 03:16 PM
Posted by Kate Pickert
Wednesday, April 6, 2011 at 1:00 am 41


House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan's new 2012 budget proposal is clear on a few things.

First, Ryan is very focused on reducing the size of the federal government; his plan would spend some $6 trillion less over the next 10 years than President Obama's budget proposal. Second, the introduction of the plan means Ryan's brand of long-term deficit reduction is now at the front of the Republican agenda — expect this to be a major topic of discussion during the 2012 presidential campaign. Third, costs for Medicare and Medicaid are increasing at rates that will eventually bankrupt the country. Democrats in Congress — and Obama in the White House — have not taken any steps to accept this reality and change it fundamentally. Ryan has.

His plan for Medicare, the insurance program for seniors that's on an unsustainable path and accounts for about 13% of the federal budget, is extreme by any measure. His proposal would turn the program from a guaranteed benefit into a system in which private insurers would cover elderly Americans, whose premiums would be subsidized by the federal government. According to Ryan, this would mean spending about $400 billion less on Medicare over the next 10 years than what Obama has proposed. And he says his plan would cut $700 billion–$800 billion from Medicaid by turning it into a state block grant program. Under Ryan's budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), government spending on mandatory health programs would be reduced from 14% of GDP (under the current trajectory) to 5% by 2050.

But while Ryan has taken a bold step and brought some hard truths into focus, many of the details of his proposal remain fuzzy. Despite its massive cuts to Medicare and redefinition of the program, Ryan's plan — called the "Path to Prosperity" — devotes just 3˝ pages to the changes. I've managed to get a few more key details, which answer some glaring questions, but also raise a lot more. Here's what we now know about how Paul Ryan wants to reshape Medicare and what I'm still dying to find out:

It Makes Medicare Voluntary

Ryan's plan for subsidizing a private Medicare system actually uses the design for nonseniors found in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the health reform law passed by Democrats last year. Seniors would shop in a highly regulated exchange, or marketplace, and select among plans already vetted by the federal government. Each plan sold in the exchange would be required to cover a set of standardized benefits.

The subsidies seniors receive would be based on the value of Medicare at the start of the plan. The subsidies would increase at a rate indexed to the GDP, which is growing much more slowly than health care costs. The upshot? Medicare beneficiaries would spend far more out of pocket under this system than in the current one. In its analysis of Ryan's budget, the CBO makes this point repeatedly.

Under the proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system.

Under the proposal analyzed here, debt would eventually shrink relative to the size of the economy—but the gradually increasing number of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the new premium support program would bear a much larger share of their health care costs than they would under the current program

According to the CBO, a typical 65-year-old with a private health-insurance plan covering standard Medicare benefits could be liable for 61% of his or her total health care costs in 2022 under Ryan's plan. By 2030, the figure could be 68%. Ryan's plan would vary subsidies to seniors based on income and health status — poorer and sicker beneficiaries would get larger subsidies. But the details of this are still unknown. Who determines the health risk, and how is that translated into dollars?

Ryan says the top 8% of earners would receive less Medicare subsidy support and that those qualifying for Medicaid or earning less than 150% of poverty would get extra federal dollars available in a medical savings account. Still, the CBO says:

… costs to individuals (beyond those covered by the premium support payment) would be higher under the proposal than under traditional Medicare, and some individuals would therefore choose not to purchase insurance … the number of older Americans without health insurance would be higher.

So how does Ryan's plan prevent seniors from forgoing insurance? It doesn't. Participating in Medicare would be voluntary. Since we don't know specifically how subsidy levels would be set, we don't know how many seniors would be able to afford private insurance or how many would simply choose not to buy it. Will there be a death spiral with the healthiest, younger seniors staying out of Medicare and causing premiums within it to skyrocket? What are the consequences for federal outlays if 75- and even 90-year-olds remain uninsured? They will, as the uninsured now do, still get care. It just won't be paid for right away by the federal government. But it may well be at some later point, either via Medicaid or hospital charity care reimbursed by the federal government.


It Repeals Obamacare, Sort of

According to Ryan's plan, repealing the Affordable Care Act would save $1.4 trillion by 2022, yet the plan doesn't really call for repealing the law. Rather, Ryan wants to repeal the provisions in the law that cost money, meaning those that expand health insurance coverage to 32 million more Americans. Under Ryan's plan, the subsidies to help low- and middle-income earners buy private insurance would be eliminated, which he says would save $725 billion over 10 years. Nixing the law's additional Medicaid expenditures, including the expansion of Medicaid to all adults earning up to 133% of the federal poverty line, he says, would save $648 billion.

But the revenue raisers in the law? Ryan would explicitly keep the law's cuts to Medicare funding, reinvesting the savings back into the program. No word on whether Ryan would eliminate or maintain the other revenue-generating provisions of the law. Under Ryan's plan, what would happen to the so-called Cadillac tax on high-value insurance plans? How about the fees levied on the insurance industry, pharmaceutical companies and devicemakers? And what about closing the Medicare doughnut hole? The health care law closes the prescription-coverage gap at a substantial cost. Would Ryan reopen the hole? He doesn't say.


It Raises the Medicare Retirement Age

Ryan would repeal the health care law's insurance exchanges and individual mandate, which raises another round of questions. Would he leave in place the provisions that require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions? How about the regulations, set to go into effect in 2014, that say insurers must sell coverage to everyone (guaranteed issue) and end the practice of setting prices on the basis of risk or health status (community rating)? Again, he doesn't say.

If Ryan's plan is adopted as is — and it won't be — absent an individual mandate but with guaranteed issue and community rating, private insurance prices in the individual and small-group market would go through the roof. This would lead to more uninsured Americans.

Even more vexing, however, is how 65- and 66-year-olds would get coverage. Although Ryan doesn't say so in the Path to Prosperity document, which was released on Tuesday, his plan would raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 by 2033. This would save the federal government money, but if these people shop for coverage on the open market, one of two things will happen: insurers will either price them out, or drive up prices for everyone. Again, this depends on what Ryan would propose to do with the health care law's new insurance regulations.


It might not seem fair to expect Ryan's budget proposal to deal with all the complexities of the U.S. health care system. He's pitching a deficit-reduction plan, not social policy per say. But that's the thing about health care. If you change one fundamental element of it, you have to make adjustments all over the place. Ryan's budget does not appear to do this — at least, not yet — and until it does, it will be hard to take him as seriously as everyone might want to.


Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/04/06/the-nitty-gritty-details-of-paul-ryan%e2%80%99s-medicare-plan/#ixzz1ImPQ2JJJ

KC Dan
04-06-2011, 03:16 PM
Any "plan" that relies on being in effect 10, 20 years down the line unchanged is ridiculous to begin with. Governing is an ongoing concern, there is no auto-pilot.

What Ryan's "plan" is, is another effort to slash and burn wildly popular programs from fifty and eighty years ago. And the Democrats' "plan" is quite properly to hold it up to the voters as a campaign issue.

p.s. speaking of Ryan and "plans," aren't you guys a little disappointed that his "Roadmap" is now down to a "Path?"Actually the dems have NO plan. That is the problem. They need to put out their plan (Obama's budget was nothing) so that debate can begin. I think that Ryan's plan leaves a lot to be desired but it is something. Hell, the dems didn't even pass a budget last year....

Entitlements need to be altered now. More defense cuts need to be made. A lot of the "wildly popular" programs are not necessary nor the gov'ts job and need to be trimmed or eliminated. Basically, if they have a gov't shutdown and "non-essential" people are furloughed, they are most likely not needed anyway and should be cut or the program reevaluated.

Amnorix
04-06-2011, 03:22 PM
I'm not keen AT ALL to support a retarded deficit reduction plan based on pie-in-the-sky economic assumptions/analysis and which, as a result supports massive tax cuts. If it worsens the deficit situation -- as the CBO itself says it will -- then I dont' support it, no.

It's worse than doing nothing, according to the CBO.

vailpass
04-06-2011, 03:26 PM
Who here is surprised Orange gets his data from a site calle Talking Points Memo?
FFS dude now you are criticizing efforts to curb the damage obama and his party have done/continue to do to our deficit/economy?

Amnorix
04-06-2011, 03:27 PM
You guys seem to be missing this KEY point

the CBO finds that by the end of the 10-year budget window, public debt will actually be higher than it would be if the GOP just did nothing.

Amnorix
04-06-2011, 03:29 PM
Oh, and make sure you catch this KEY point

the CBO finds that by the end of the 10-year budget window, public debt will actually be higher than it would be if the GOP just did nothing.

vailpass
04-06-2011, 03:29 PM
I'm not keen AT ALL to support a retarded deficit reduction plan based on pie-in-the-sky economic assumptions/analysis and which, as a result supports massive tax cuts. If it worsens the deficit situation -- as the CBO itself says it will -- then I dont' support it, no.

It's worse than doing nothing, according to the CBO.

Is that the same CBO that just stated that obamcare will vastly exceed the cost obama originally stated?

Is there a different plan you can poin to that you consider a better plan than Ryan's?

Amnorix
04-06-2011, 03:29 PM
and did I mention that the public debt will be higher under this dumbass plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office? That's a pretty key point, I think.

FD
04-06-2011, 03:30 PM
You guys seem to be missing this KEY point

the CBO finds that by the end of the 10-year budget window, public debt will actually be higher than it would be if the GOP just did nothing.

Thats before the big Medicare cuts start, this is a long-term document and should be considered on those terms. Regardless of what happens in the 10-year window, in the long-term it achieves a huge amount of cost reduction for the Federal government. Its the first real plan to deal with the long-term cost problems, and while its not a very good plan, at least give it credit for that.

You can also think of it as the opening gambit in a long negotiation process. I don't think he is serious about the huge tax cuts in the plan (or if he is than he isn't serious about the deficit, its one or the other) but he doesn't want to put them in at this point so that they can be a more powerful bargaining chip.

Amnorix
04-06-2011, 03:31 PM
Is that the same CBO that just stated that obamcare will vastly exceed the cost obama originally stated?

Is there a different plan you can poin to that you consider a better plan than Ryan's?

I trust the CBO more than any other economic think tank, that's for certain.

And I can point to a plan better than Ryan's. The one the CBO mentions -- doing nothing.

I'd support his spending cuts, but will NOT support tax cuts that end up putting us in a WORSE position.

I swear, you guys would support ANY tax cut for any reason at any time. Even if we end up defaulting on the public debt, which would basically lead to a worldwide economic disaster.

Amnorix
04-06-2011, 03:32 PM
Thats before the big Medicare cuts start, this is a long-term document and should be considered on those terms. Regardless of what happens in the 10-year window, in the long-term it achieves a huge amount of cost reduction for the Federal government. Its the first real plan to deal with the long-term cost problems, and while its not a very good plan, at least give it credit for that.

You can also think of it as the opening gambit in a long negotiation process. I don't think he is serious about the huge tax cuts in the plan (or if he is than he isn't serious about the deficit, its one or the other) but he doesn't want to put them in at this point so that they can be a more powerful bargaining chip.

I have no problem getting the negotiating going. In fact, we're several years late already...

vailpass
04-06-2011, 03:34 PM
I trust the CBO more than any other economic think tank, that's for certain.

And I can point to a plan better than Ryan's. The one the CBO mentions -- doing nothing.

I'd support his spending cuts, but will NOT support tax cuts that end up putting us in a WORSE position.

I swear, you guys would support ANY tax cut for any reason at any time. Even if we end up defaulting on the public debt, which would basically lead to a worldwide economic disaster.

There is no other plan, not even one offered by the president or any of is party, that you see as better than the Ryan plan?

KC Dan
04-06-2011, 03:40 PM
and did I mention that the public debt will be higher under this dumbass plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office? That's a pretty key point, I think.I'm sorry but was Ryan's output yesterday the full-blown legislation or just the talking points? Right, when you see actual legislation, you can say that the CBO's anaylsis is worth something just like with Obamacare. Let's see a demo counter first...

crickets...

Amnorix
04-06-2011, 03:44 PM
There is no other plan, not even one offered by the president or any of is party, that you see as better than the Ryan plan?

Doing nothing is a plan. It's a horrible and stupid plan, but according to the CBO it's still a better plan than the Ryan plan.

So right now I would support do nothing over the Ryan plan -- not because of the spending cuts mind you, but strictly because of the tax cuts that would put us in a WORSE situation than doing nothing.

Amnorix
04-06-2011, 03:46 PM
I'm sorry but was Ryan's output yesterday the full-blown legislation or just the talking points? Right, when you see actual legislation, you can say that the CBO's anaylsis is worth something just like with Obamacare. Let's see a demo counter first...

crickets...

I hope that Ryan's plan is the beginning of a negotiation/discussion, but it's a pretty f'n stupid starting point. If the Republicans are going to START with a plan that is worse than doing nothing, then I guess the Democrats should come back with a plan INCREASING entitlement spending and INCREASING taxes (but entitlement spending should increase by more than revenues increase as a result of the higher taxation), so, you know, their plan is WORSE than doing nothing. That way, both sides can have some chips to give up at the table.

It is a ******** DUMB AND UNPRODUCTIVE WAY TO RUN THIS COUNTRY!!

vailpass
04-06-2011, 03:46 PM
Doing nothing is a plan. It's a horrible and stupid plan, but according to the CBO it's still a better plan than the Ryan plan.

So right now I would support do nothing over the Ryan plan -- not because of the spending cuts mind you, but strictly because of the tax cuts that would put us in a WORSE situation than doing nothing.

So as horribly bad as you think Ryan's plan is there is not any other plan out there that is better? How does that make you feel about the quality/direction of our presidential leadership and the democratic party?
It fugging discourages me.

Amnorix
04-06-2011, 03:50 PM
So as horribly bad as you think Ryan's plan is there is not any other plan out there that is better? How does that make you feel about the quality/direction of our presidential leadership and the democratic party?
It fugging discourages me.

I think the current President is as pathetic on addressing our budgetary/deficit/debt woes as our former President, and yes it fugging discourages me too.

KC Dan
04-06-2011, 03:50 PM
It is a ******** DUMB AND UNPRODUCTIVE WAY TO RUN THIS COUNTRY!!
So is running it without an actual budget. btw, I thought that was the President's budget - ie. increasing spending although no tax cuts.

BucEyedPea
04-06-2011, 03:55 PM
So as horribly bad as you think Ryan's plan is there is not any other plan out there that is better? How does that make you feel about the quality/direction of our presidential leadership and the democratic party?
It fugging discourages me.

I support the plan to shut down the govt. The economy would probably soar for one.

ROYC75
04-06-2011, 03:57 PM
Right.

I just don't think Ryan has any idea how to raise revenue.

If you think you can kill a $1.5+ trillion deficit and a $13+ trillion debt on cuts alone, god save you.

We all know that will never happen, BTA it does no good to keep spending as the Obama Administration wants to do.

Cave Johnson
04-06-2011, 03:58 PM
I've yet to look yet at the specifics of the Ryan plan. That said, any plan that doesn't means test for benefits, raise taxes, and sig. cut defense spending is non-serious.

But it does kick the debate off.

ROYC75
04-06-2011, 03:59 PM
We could always do the Democratic way, spend more, raise the debt ceiling and not make it look like they went too far over budget.

KC native
04-06-2011, 04:00 PM
Yet more proof, as I've long claimed, that heritage foundation is full of shit. Anything that comes from them isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Cave Johnson
04-06-2011, 04:00 PM
We could always do the Democratic way, spend more, raise the debt ceiling and not make it look like they went too far over budget.

Yes, only the Democrats have done that. ;)

Fair and balanced Roy my ass.

KC native
04-06-2011, 04:01 PM
At this point, it should be painfully obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that tax increases are a necessity to get us out of the position we are in.

Cave Johnson
04-06-2011, 04:05 PM
At this point, it should be painfully obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that tax increases are a necessity to get us out of the position we are in.

The cult of tax cuts would beg to differ.

KC native
04-06-2011, 04:08 PM
The cult of tax cuts would beg to differ.

Yea, and they've been wrong for the last 25 years. Their input should be irrelevant.

KC Dan
04-06-2011, 04:08 PM
The cult of tax cuts would beg to differ.I already pay out a check every April 15th so whatever. But, I would start with getting rid of almost ALL non-R&D corporate deductions as well as most deductions for the rest of us. Too many Americans have no financial stake in paying for our gov't except milking off of it to purchase new cars, flatscreens and vacations...

Donger
04-06-2011, 04:13 PM
You can't cut the deficit with cuts alone. There must be additional raised revenue.

Sure you can.

Donger
04-06-2011, 04:14 PM
I'm not keen AT ALL to support a retarded deficit reduction plan based on pie-in-the-sky economic assumptions/analysis and which, as a result supports massive tax cuts. If it worsens the deficit situation -- as the CBO itself says it will -- then I dont' support it, no.

It's worse than doing nothing, according to the CBO.

Do you have a link to the CBO analysis?

ROYC75
04-06-2011, 04:19 PM
Yes, only the Democrats have done that. ;)

Fair and balanced Roy my ass.

Sorry, this was more of a late response to the cuts and only cuts as Direckshun claimed .... guess I should have kept it on the same comment, I should have edited it for you.

ROYC75
04-06-2011, 04:20 PM
At this point, it should be painfully obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that tax increases are a necessity to get us out of the position we are in.

And deficit cuts, one alone does not get us there.

There is no other way!

ROYC75
04-06-2011, 04:21 PM
The cult of tax cuts would beg to differ.

Tax and Spend gets us nowhere either.


But tax and cuts does cut the deficit.

ROYC75
04-06-2011, 04:23 PM
Sure you can.

Sure it can be. Problem is nobody wants their programs cut. Reason I say to tax and cut, cuts into the deficit quicker instead of a slow death the other way.

KC native
04-06-2011, 04:24 PM
And deficit cuts, one alone does not get us there.

There is no other way!

Yes, spending cuts are necessary too. A healthy cut to defense spending, ending our foreign entanglements, and a few tax increases go a long way to putting our country back on the right path.

Donger
04-06-2011, 04:27 PM
Sure it can be. Problem is nobody wants their programs cut. Reason I say to tax and cut, cuts into the deficit quicker instead of a slow death the other way.

Then cut the entire federal budget by 20%. For everyone and everything.

BucEyedPea
04-06-2011, 04:33 PM
Then cut the entire federal budget by 20%. For everyone and everything.

I've suggested that before, myself, True Brit.:thumb:

ROYC75
04-06-2011, 04:38 PM
Then cut the entire federal budget by 20%. For everyone and everything.

I can easily live with this. But politicians want to use a scalpel.

Donger
04-06-2011, 04:43 PM
I've suggested that before, myself, True Brit.:thumb:

Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Thanks.

petegz28
04-06-2011, 04:43 PM
I'm not keen AT ALL to support a retarded deficit reduction plan based on pie-in-the-sky economic assumptions/analysis and which, as a result supports massive tax cuts. If it worsens the deficit situation -- as the CBO itself says it will -- then I dont' support it, no.

It's worse than doing nothing, according to the CBO.

So was Obummercare

mikey23545
04-06-2011, 04:44 PM
I think the current President is as pathetic on addressing our budgetary/deficit/debt woes as our former President, and yes it fugging discourages me too.

Puhleeze, do NOT even compare our last President with this affirmative action megamoron when it comes to deficit spending....

petegz28
04-06-2011, 04:44 PM
the Dems couldn't even pass a budget with both houses yet here they are kicking and screaming. Irony?

BucEyedPea
04-06-2011, 04:44 PM
Imitation is the highest form of flattery. Thanks.

Since you copied me YES!

petegz28
04-06-2011, 04:46 PM
Before 1 tax hike is even brought up I want to see serious spending cuts. We got in this position by spending money we don't have. Until we see spending cuts tax hikes should be off the table.

vailpass
04-06-2011, 05:16 PM
We must maintain defense spending. Not only is it vital to the long term security of our nation it is a vital component of our economy/employment base.

Social services, non-vital programs such as NPR, NEA, et al are good spending cut starts. We need to look at medicaid/medicare to see where fat can be trimmed. Welfare, unemployment, affirmative action are all full of fat that can be cut. government pensions and union benefits need to be re-examined and where necessary aligned with the reality of the current budget situation.
This country cannot afford to support non-producers any longer. It isn't a matter of compassion, it is a matter of capacity.

Bewbies
04-06-2011, 05:25 PM
Then cut the entire federal budget by 20%. For everyone and everything.

Barackshun has already told me this won't lower the deficit. You sir, are a liar.

Donger
04-06-2011, 05:31 PM
We must maintain defense spending. Not only is it vital to the long term security of our nation it is a vital component of our economy/employment base.

I don't agree. If we are going to be serious about this, our military budget must be included. Do more with less, everyone.

BillSelfsTrophycase
04-06-2011, 05:31 PM
Still better than the Dem's plan

Which is?

Donger
04-06-2011, 05:32 PM
Barackshun has already told me this won't lower the deficit. You sir, are a liar.

After re-reading her posts, I going to assume that she either doesn't know what a deficit is or that she simply didn't word her post very accurately.

go bowe
04-06-2011, 05:41 PM
Before 1 tax hike is even brought up I want to see serious spending cuts. We got in this position by spending money we don't have. Until we see spending cuts tax hikes should be off the table.what do "serious spending cuts" look like, pete?

defense, medicare, ss?

exactly how would you cut them?

KC Dan
04-06-2011, 05:44 PM
Then cut the entire federal budget by 20%. For everyone and everything.Donger for President! My solution for years...Absolutely EVERYTHING!!! Do everything with less and smarter. Americans have been doing this for 2 years. It's time for the gov't to do it

vailpass
04-06-2011, 05:45 PM
I don't agree. If we are going to be serious about this, our military budget must be included. Do more with less, everyone.

To define my terms:

Defense spending i.e. troop retention, base upkeep, R&D, technology development, strategic engagement in theatres of value, etc. must be maintained.

Military spending i.e. engagement in protracted wars of little or no strategic value (Iraq), military assistance/involvement with no defined ROI to the American people, maintenance of base/weapons programs that are no longer strategic, etc. can and should be cut.

Donger
04-06-2011, 05:47 PM
To define my terms:

Defense spending i.e. troop retention, base upkeep, R&D, technology development, strategic engagement in theatres of value, etc. must be maintained.

Military spending i.e. engagement in protracted wars of little or no strategic value (Iraq), military assistance/involvement with no defined ROI to the American people, maintenance of base/weapons programs that are no longer strategic, etc. can and should be cut.

As long as the military spending cuts reach 20% :thumb:

Donger
04-06-2011, 05:48 PM
Donger for President! My solution for years...Absolutely EVERYTHING!!! Do everything with less and smarter. Americans have been doing this for 2 years. It's time for the gov't to do it

I can't be POTUS.

KC Dan
04-06-2011, 05:50 PM
I can't be POTUS."Why not? Obama is" - Donald Trump LMAO

FD
04-06-2011, 05:51 PM
Then cut the entire federal budget by 20%. For everyone and everything.

That certainly is the stupidest way to solve the problem.

Donger
04-06-2011, 05:59 PM
That certainly is the stupidest way to solve the problem.

Yeah, it's crazy, isn't it?

petegz28
04-06-2011, 06:00 PM
what do "serious spending cuts" look like, pete?

defense, medicare, ss?

exactly how would you cut them?

Medicare, Medicaid and Defense. Last I heard, Ryan said he was on board with the proposed defense cuts from Obama.

The Rick
04-06-2011, 06:12 PM
Regarding the tax cuts in Ryan's budget...let me explain it to you Dems. :)

Have you ever played that "Lemonade Stand" game? You know, the game where you buy your ingredients, set your price, and see how much money you can make?

Remember how at first, you would jack up the price hoping to bring in a lot of money, only to find that you didn't sell much lemonade and you didn't make much money? Then, you quickly learned that by lowering your price, you sold more lemonade and made more money then back when you charged more?

Taxes are like that. When taxes are high, there are less businesses. When there are less businesses, there are less jobs. When there are less jobs, there are less people working. When there are less people working, there are less people paying taxes.

On the other hand, when taxes are low, more businesses open. When more businesses open, more jobs are created. When more jobs are created, there are more people working. And finally, when there are more people working, there are more people paying taxes!

But wait...it gets better! When more people are working, there are less people who need government aid, which means less government spending! Of course, along those same lines, when there are higher taxes and less people working, it means more people need government aid which leads to more government spending.

So, if you think about it, it really is quite simple...much like that "Lemonade Stand" game. :)

FD
04-06-2011, 06:13 PM
Regarding the tax cuts in Ryan's budget...let me explain it to you Dems. :)

Have you ever played that "Lemonade Stand" game? You know, the game where you buy your ingredients, set your price, and see how much money you can make?

Remember how at first, you would jack up the price hoping to bring in a lot of money, only to find that you didn't sell much lemonade and you didn't make much money? Then, you quickly learned that by lowering your price, you sold more lemonade and made more money then back when you charged more?

Taxes are like that. When taxes are high, there are less businesses. When there are less businesses, there are less jobs. When there are less jobs, there are less people working. When there are less people working, there are less people paying taxes.

When taxes are low, more businesses open. When more businesses open, more jobs are created. When more jobs are created, there are more people working. And finally, when there are more people working, there are more people paying taxes!

But wait...it gets better! When more people are working, there are less people who need government aid, which means less government spending! Of course, along the same lines, when there are higher taxes and less people working, it means more people need government aid which leads to more government spending.

So, if you think about it, it really is quite simple.

So in the 1990's when taxes were higher unemployment was also higher? And the economy was growing slower?

The Rick
04-06-2011, 06:17 PM
So in the 1990's when taxes were higher unemployment was also higher? And the economy was growing slower?
And what unique thing happened in the 1990s that caused the economy to grow so much?

FD
04-06-2011, 06:20 PM
And what unique thing happened in the 1990s that caused the economy to grow so much?

You mean the economy is not as simple as your last post claimed?

vailpass
04-06-2011, 06:22 PM
You mean the economy is not as simple as your last post claimed?

Ask EVERY SINGLE business owner you know, EVERY SINGLE business owner on this board, what effect raising taxes has on their headcount and their business.

The Rick
04-06-2011, 06:23 PM
You mean the economy is not as simple as your last post claimed?
Nope, not what I said.

AndChiefs
04-06-2011, 06:24 PM
Ask EVERY SINGLE business owner you know, EVERY SINGLE business owner on this board, what effect raising taxes has on their headcount and their business.

Don't confuse him vailpass. This is tough stuff.

Donger
04-06-2011, 06:26 PM
That certainly is the stupidest way to solve the problem.

So, why is cutting spending stupid?

FD
04-06-2011, 06:28 PM
So, if you think about it, it really is quite simple.



Nope, not what I said.
:doh!:

Anyways, I'm not really trying to play the "gotcha" game. Just pointing out that your gross simplification didn't really add much. The topic here is deficit reduction, and huge tax cuts are directly counterproductive. We also know pretty clearly from recent experience that the difference in job creation between the Clinton tax era and the Bush tax era doesn't support your story one bit.

In fact, Bush's economic team estimated the impact on growth and employment of his tax cuts, and they found that they had almost no effect, anecdotes and cute stories aside.

petegz28
04-06-2011, 06:28 PM
If raising taxes is a good thing then why is San Francisco talking about lowering taxes to keep businesses from leaving?

AndChiefs
04-06-2011, 06:29 PM
So, why is cutting spending stupid?

It's easy to see why cutting 20% straight across doesn't make sense. One agency may be using 90% of their funds efficiently and cutting 20% will stop essential services. Another may be using 70% of funds efficiently. Losing 20% will make them have to be more efficient but still leaves them wasting money.

FD
04-06-2011, 06:30 PM
So, why is cutting spending stupid?

Cutting spending is very smart, but there is a smart and a stupid way to do it. Cutting everything across the board paying no attention to things like cost/benefit analysis is one of the stupidest ways.

Donger
04-06-2011, 06:31 PM
It's easy to see why cutting 20% straight across doesn't make sense. One agency may be using 90% of their funds efficiently and cutting 20% will stop essential services. Another may be using 70% of funds efficiently. Losing 20% will make them have to be more efficient but still leaves them wasting money.

They should all be using the money they take from us efficiently. If cutting 20% of something will "stop essential services," something is horribly wrong to begin with.

petegz28
04-06-2011, 06:31 PM
Cutting spending is very smart, but there is a smart and a stupid way to do it. Cutting everything across the board paying no attention to things like cost/benefit analysis is one of the stupidest ways.

We would be better off blindly cutting 20% across the board than we would be depending on these politicians to weigh cost\bnefit. I mean they have done such a stellar job up to this point in doing so.

Donger
04-06-2011, 06:33 PM
Cutting spending is very smart, but there is a smart and a stupid way to do it. Cutting everything across the board paying no attention to things like cost/benefit analysis is one of the stupidest ways.

Yes, let's have years and years of debate about why this department can't be cut because it is essential. Why not fund a study about it and spend a few billion dollars we don't have in order to find the dead weight?

Jeezus.

The Rick
04-06-2011, 06:34 PM
:doh!:

Anyways, I'm not really trying to play the "gotcha" game. Just pointing out that your gross simplification didn't really add much. The topic here is deficit reduction, and huge tax cuts are directly counterproductive. We also know pretty clearly from recent experience that the difference in job creation between the Clinton tax era and the Bush tax era doesn't support your story one bit.

In fact, Bush's economic team estimated the impact on growth and employment of his tax cuts, and they found that they had almost no effect, anecdotes and cute stories aside.
Sure you are (trying to play the gotcha' game).

The overall concept is simple. As vailpass said, ask ANY business owner what effect raises taxes has on their business?

Now, there certainly can be some complicated variances (the tech bubble in the 90s), but I stand by the fact that the concept is simple. More jobs equals more people paying taxes, more people with money in their pocket, and less people needing a government handout.

Donger
04-06-2011, 06:35 PM
I'll give an example: I went through TSA security at DIA on Tuesday. They had three security lines open. I counted 18 TSA goons just hanging around doing nothing. Nothing.

I helped one of them out by opting out of the backscatter machine, though.

Donger
04-06-2011, 06:37 PM
FD, can you give a few examples of which federal programs have great cost/benefit ratio?

FD
04-06-2011, 06:40 PM
FD, can you give a few examples of which federal programs have great cost/benefit ratio?

I think programs that deliver nutritional help and health care to very young children in poverty have enormous rates of return over the course of their lives (for them and society.) I think there are certain weapons programs that pay for themselves many times over. Surely you agree that there are certain things the federal government does that have very high cost/benefit ratios and certain that have very low ratios?

Donger
04-06-2011, 06:46 PM
I think programs that deliver nutritional help and health care to very young children in poverty have enormous rates of return over the course of their lives (for them and society.) I think there are certain weapons programs that pay for themselves many times over. Surely you agree that there are certain things the federal government does that have very high cost/benefit ratios and certain that have very low ratios?

Honestly, I'm not sure that either of the two rather vague examples that you provided can be quantified. That's the problem, IMO, and why an across the board cut is required. For some, providing health care for poor kids is a waste. For some, a neat weapons system is a great return on investment.

FD
04-06-2011, 06:55 PM
Honestly, I'm not sure that either of the two rather vague examples that you provided can be quantified. That's the problem, IMO, and why an across the board cut is required. For some, providing health care for poor kids is a waste. For some, a neat weapons system is a great return on investment.

So its just a matter of identification? If we could fully identify which programs were most wasteful and which give a good return, you would advocate cutting the wasteful programs first, right?

Donger
04-06-2011, 06:57 PM
So its just a matter of identification? If we could fully identify which programs were most wasteful and which give a good return, you would advocate cutting the wasteful programs first, right?

Sure. What's your formula?

HonestChieffan
04-06-2011, 06:58 PM
Widespread ridicule! (from the Marxist blogs I read)

So true. Krugman has been getting crazier by the week. Yet lefties fall at his feet. Amazing is it not?

FD
04-06-2011, 07:00 PM
Sure. What's your formula?

Something just a little more carefully thought out than 20% across the board cuts.

HonestChieffan
04-06-2011, 07:04 PM
Actually the dems have NO plan. That is the problem. They need to put out their plan (Obama's budget was nothing) so that debate can begin. I think that Ryan's plan leaves a lot to be desired but it is something. Hell, the dems didn't even pass a budget last year....

Entitlements need to be altered now. More defense cuts need to be made. A lot of the "wildly popular" programs are not necessary nor the gov'ts job and need to be trimmed or eliminated. Basically, if they have a gov't shutdown and "non-essential" people are furloughed, they are most likely not needed anyway and should be cut or the program reevaluated.

The dems. the far left dems have a plan. Keep doing what they are doing only more. Its amazing really.

Jobs are created and eliminated based on business needs for human resources.

The dems answer is to not fix the issues impacting business, its spend more at government level. No attempt to address the fundamental issues, just spend. Spend madly, and if it doesnt work, spend more.

And to get the money tax. Tax the hell out of anyone they can find. Its absurd. The left and their moron approaches have failed and will continue to fail because they never address real issues, just political opportunities.

Insanity among leftists will grow more shrill.

Donger
04-06-2011, 07:04 PM
Something just a little more carefully thought out than 20% across the board cuts.

I don't understand. You are the one who brought up a good cost/benefit. Please provide an example in quantifiable terms.

Thanks.

FD
04-06-2011, 07:07 PM
I don't understand. You are the one who brought up a good cost/benefit. Please provide an example in quantifiable terms.

Thanks.

Do you really need a fully specified alternative to realize why an across the board cut with no thought put into it is a stupid way of doing things?

Look at Paul Ryan's plan, there is a plan with a lot more thought put into it.

Donger
04-06-2011, 07:11 PM
Do you really need a fully specified alternative to realize why an across the board cut with no thought put into it is a stupid way of doing things?

It's not stupid at all. As you've shown, one man's great program is another man's POS. You can't quantify the cost v. benefit of "caring for a sick child" v. "a really cool new weapon system."

If you want equal pain, cut them all equally. Hence, my post.

Look at Paul Ryan's plan, there is a plan with a lot more thought put into it.

Works for me.

thecoffeeguy
04-06-2011, 07:57 PM
What a surprise....Orange here copying and pasting Democratic rhetoric bullshit.

petegz28
04-06-2011, 08:06 PM
I'm listening to a Dem right now on Fox Business say Ryan's plan is a payday for the Health Insurance companies. Really? Isn't forcing everyone to buy health insurance a payday for health insurance companies??

petegz28
04-06-2011, 08:07 PM
Now he is yelling about the oil companies yet the head of GE pals around with Obama and guess how much GE paid in taxes?

FD
04-06-2011, 08:16 PM
I'm listening to a Dem right now on Fox Business say Ryan's plan is a payday for the Health Insurance companies. Really? Isn't forcing everyone to buy health insurance a payday for health insurance companies??

Isn't that what Ryan's plan does? Privatize Medicare and push seniors into health insurance companies.

petegz28
04-06-2011, 08:18 PM
Isn't that what Ryan's plan does? Privatize Medicare and push seniors into health insurance companies.

And it would be more effecitvely managed. If the Fed Gov managed health care in a good way it wouldn't be broken, now would it?

This is the whole point, FD. The people who caused all these problems now want to be the ones to tell everyone else they don't know WTF they are talking about. Nevermind the piss-poor results of the decisions D.C. has made, they know best, just ask them.

FD
04-06-2011, 08:25 PM
And it would be more effecitvely managed. If the Fed Gov managed health care in a good way it wouldn't be broken, now would it?

This is the whole point, FD. The people who caused all these problems now want to be the ones to tell everyone else they don't know WTF they are talking about. Nevermind the piss-poor results of the decisions D.C. has made, they know best, just ask them.

Well your reply really didn't have anything to do with what I posted. I was just pointing out that he was right, that the Ryan plan is an enormous payday for health insurance companies.

petegz28
04-06-2011, 08:28 PM
Well your reply really didn't have anything to do with what I posted. I was just pointing out that he was right, that the Ryan plan is a payday for health insurance companies.

Yes but he is the pot calling the kettle black. He supports everyone buying insurance from these companies but only so long as the Fed Gov gets theirs. He wants to force everyone to insurance companies then tell the insurance companies how to run their business. After what I have seen of the Congress, I don't think they have any businnes telling anyone how to run their business.

So Ryan is essentially saying lets do it the right way by letting the people who know how to run the business, run the fucking business.

The Dem has no room to bag on Ryan for this at all. Not one iota of a anything that looks like a leg to stand on.

FD
04-06-2011, 08:30 PM
Yes but he is the pot calling the kettle black. He supports everyone buying insurance from these companies but only so long as the Fed Gov gets theirs. He wants to force everyone to insurance companies then tell the insurance companies how to run their business. After what I have seen of the Congress, I don't think they have any businnes telling anyone how to run their business.

So Ryan is essentially saying lets do it the right way by letting the people who know how to run the business, run the ****ing business.

The Dem has no room to bag on Ryan for this at all. Not one iota of a anything that looks like a leg to stand on.

So you think that not only should Medicare be replaced by a private insurance market, but that that market should be completely unregulated. Do you know much about how insurance markets work? Do you not see why this would completely fail?

petegz28
04-06-2011, 08:35 PM
So you think that not only should Medicare be replaced by a private insurance market, but that that market should be completely unregulated. Do you know much about how insurance markets work? Do you not see why this would completely fail?

Unregulated? Sheesh, how about less regulated. Look at where the regulation has brought us? I swear it amazes me how sometimes people can ignore the facts in front of their very face. If you think this would fail then why is medicare broken now and why would doing more of the same suddenly be better? To say Ryan's plan would break medicare is pure speculation. To say the current Meidcare and Obummercare mods to it will fix it is to ignore facts and realilty. We have to try something new and imo, it would be a mix of privitaziation coupled with some government regulation.

petegz28
04-06-2011, 08:38 PM
So you think that not only should Medicare be replaced by a private insurance market, but that that market should be completely unregulated. Do you know much about how insurance markets work? Do you not see why this would completely fail?

To elaborate a little more, privatizing it would immediately rid a lot of waste and fraud in Medicare. While we will never remove the politics out of medicare we need to remove the managment of medicare and medicaid away from the politicians.

FD
04-06-2011, 08:39 PM
Unregulated? Sheesh, how about less regulated. Look at where the regulation has brought us? I swear it amazes me how sometimes people can ignore the facts in front of their very face. If you think this would fail then why is medicare broken now and why would doing more of the same suddenly be better? To say Ryan's plan would break medicare is pure speculation. To say the current Meidcare and Obummercare mods to it will fix it is to ignore facts and realilty. We have to try something new and imo, it would be a mix of privitaziation coupled with some government regulation.

Oh, like Medicare Advantage.

petegz28
04-06-2011, 08:42 PM
Oh, like Medicare Advantage.

Somewhat. We have to try something new and different. Everything the Fed Gov has done to this point hasn't worked because it is the Fed Gov who runs it. They are the common denominator.

petegz28
04-06-2011, 08:45 PM
Oh, like Medicare Advantage.

Let me ask you this, HTF is raising taxes on brand name prescription drugs and medical devices supposed to make health care cheaper? When will people accept the fact that control trumps efficiency when it comes to politicans? Efficiency is what drives costs down. D.C. is the antethesis of efficiency so why would we want them running just about anything and expect it to be the best way?

FD
04-06-2011, 08:46 PM
Let me ask you this, HTF is raising taxes on brand name prescription drugs and medical devices supposed to make health care cheaper? When will people accept the fact that control trumps efficiency when it comes to politicans? Efficiency is what drives costs down. D.C. is the antethesis of efficiency so why would we want them running just about anything and expect it to be the best way?

Do you think monopsony power can drive costs down?

petegz28
04-06-2011, 08:54 PM
Do you think monopsony power can drive costs down?

Typical fear tactic. How can you even say that with a straight face when the current and future laws\regulations\plans have driven us to the breaking point? Only the Left believes that raising costs and spending more will somehow make things cheaper. Why they believe that I have no idea. It is about control with them. That's why they are handing out waivers for Obummercare left and right now because they didn't bother to read the bill, went for the power grab, got their ass kicked in historical proportions and now are looking for a way to make themselves electable so they can rinse and repeat.

Very little of what D.C. does has our best interest as the primary interest. It is about control and power. You know this. The lasws that have been passed regardind health care and are trying to be passed regarding other things are evidence of that. That's why at the Helathcare Summit not 1, not 1 single Dem presented anything of statistical fact. All they could do, every single one of them, was spout off sob stories of people having to steal teeth from others and what not.It's because they know they are full of shit when it gets down to it but they were flushed with power and they wanted more. Which is why the Pelosi led house was handed one of the biggest ass kickings when it came to elections. The people were smart enough not to believe the bullshit.

FD
04-06-2011, 08:57 PM
Typical fear tactic. How can you even say that with a straight face when the current and future laws\regulations\plans have driven us to the breaking point? Only the Left believes that raising costs and spending more will somehow make things cheaper. Why they believe that I have no idea. It is about control with them. That's why they are handing out waivers for Obummercare left and right now because they didn't bother to read the bill, went for the power grab, got their ass kicked in historical proportions and now are looking for a way to make themselves electable so they can rinse and repeat.

Very little of what D.C. does has our best interest as the primary interest. It is about control and power. You know this. The lasws that have been passed regardind health care and are trying to be passed regarding other things are evidence of that. That's why at the Helathcare Summit not 1, not 1 single Dem presented anything of statistical fact. All they could do, every single one of them, was spout off sob stories of people having to steal teeth from others and what not.It's because they know they are full of shit when it gets down to it but they were flushed with power and they wanted more. Which is why the Pelosi led house was handed one of the biggest ass kickings when it came to elections. The people were smart enough not to believe the bullshit.

How is my question about monopsony power a fear tactic? Do you not think its relevant to cost control?

Bewbies
04-06-2011, 08:58 PM
Ask EVERY SINGLE business owner you know, EVERY SINGLE business owner on this board, what effect raising taxes has on their headcount and their business.

Duh. They hire more people, make more money, and rainbows shoot out of their ass.

petegz28
04-06-2011, 09:01 PM
How is my question about monopsony power a fear tactic? Do you not think its relevant to cost control?

I think with the current laws you are right. I think if we did things Obummercare should have done, like open up competition across state lines, etc., this would be not much of an issue. Sure there would still have to be some government regulation and I am not opposed to that depending on what it is and the extent to which it goes. But everything the Left has thrown up has been proven one way or the other, even by their own actions in some cases, that what they want will not work. So WTF would we keep doing more of the same? I think Einstein said something about repeating the same thing and expecting a different outcome is insane.

banyon
04-06-2011, 09:38 PM
I don't understand. You are the one who brought up a good cost/benefit. Please provide an example in quantifiable terms.

Thanks.



Here's an example of a program that's stupid to gut:

Poison Control's Bitter Budget Pill

The debate in Washington is still far from decided, but 57 poison control and information centers across the country are anxiously waiting to find out if their federal funding will soon cease.

There is currently a proposed $27 million dollar cutback being debated in Congress, and in the case of the Arizona Poison Control and Information Center, federal money accounts for about 15 percent of their total budget.

The American Association of Poison Control Centers describes itself as a non-profit, national organization founded in 1958 that represents the poison control centers of the U.S. and the interests of poisoning prevention and treatment.

The AAPCC helped to establish the first nationwide 800 number to help anyone with poison or drug reaction questions, 1-800-222-1222. Callers to that number are then re-directed to their nearest local Poison Control, a system that Dr. Keith Boesen, the managing director of the University of Arizona College of Pharmacy's Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center, says works very well.

If the proposed federal cutback occurs, many local Poison Controls will vanish, unable to stay financially afloat. Boesen is concerned that this will cripple the kind of fast, informed response that callers can currently expect from Arizona's call center, which is staffed 24/7 by licensed pharmacists with special training in toxicology.

With nowhere else to turn, studies say that those callers will instead become emergency room patients, which can cause much greater delays in their receiving proper medical treatment.

The question remains: will eliminating an ounce of poison control prevention require more than a pound of cure?

http://www.azpm.org/health/story/2011/4/5/20-poison-controls-bitter-budget-pill/

chiefzilla1501
04-06-2011, 11:12 PM
So its just a matter of identification? If we could fully identify which programs were most wasteful and which give a good return, you would advocate cutting the wasteful programs first, right?

ROI. The fundamental of private sector business. You don't invest in anything that doesn't give you some kind of a return. Something you don't see in socialized business, which is mind-numbingly stupid.

Perfect example: the Postal Service. Heard Rachel Maddow go on a rant about how stupid it was to propose cuts to the Post Office because 80% of Americans like it. Give me a fucking break. The Post Office is losing billions of dollars a year in taxpayer money. Billions. Guess who pays for that? Me. If I buy stock, I as a shareholder demand accountability if they lose money on my investment. Why shouldn't I get the same on my tax money?

ROI. I agree that the value of certain projects is hard to gauge. But what I am EXTREMELY happy to see is that: 1) Conservatives are forcing the conversation about whether public sector programs could be run just as efficiently in the private sector (without forcing taxes on me); 2) Putting pressure on unions to realize who they're bargaining against (me and all other taxpayers).

patteeu
04-07-2011, 12:26 AM
Not just spending cuts -- tax cuts!! To raise revenue! Because we're on the wrong side of teh Laffer curve, apparently.

This same goddamn retarded thinking is what helped lead to the Bush tax cuts which ended up, duh, reducing revenues by every standard you care to measure.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/08/cherry-picking_season.html

My understanding is that he's not simply proposing tax rate cuts, but instead doing what the President's deficit commission recommended which is lowering marginal rates while eliminating deductions (i.e. closing loopholes). If this is correct, you don't have to be on the right side of the Laffer Curve to increase revenue with a decrease in rates. I'm not sure whether this specific proposal does that or not, but it's certainly a possibility. Am I missing something?

redsurfer11
04-07-2011, 04:19 AM
Right.

I just don't think Ryan has any idea how to raise revenue.

If you think you can kill a $1.5+ trillion deficit and a $13+ trillion debt on cuts alone, god save you.

How much revenue has the Commie in Charge raised? ZERO is the correct answer. Oh wait. Negative-3,000,000,000,000.00 is the answer.

HonestChieffan
04-07-2011, 06:28 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RBksu0Qx1WA/TZ2ioCRc6zI/AAAAAAAAuXg/15eU7gdKo3g/s400/theo3.jpg

Lzen
04-07-2011, 09:19 AM
What a surprise....Orange here copying and pasting Democratic rhetoric bullshit.
:LOL:
Exactly why I can't bring myself to read it. If everything he posted weren't so biased to the left, maybe I would give it some time.

orange
04-07-2011, 12:07 PM
:LOL:
Exactly why I can't bring myself to read it. If everything he posted weren't so biased to the left, maybe I would give it some time.

And yet, not a single person here is defending Heritage's LUDICROUS model; even Heritage Foundation itself has abandoned it, because it was BULLSHIT.

ROFL


Some of you CP dweebs will clearly eat any grade of fertilizer the right feeds you.

orange
04-07-2011, 12:20 PM
... even Heritage Foundation itself has abandoned it, because it was BULLSHIT ...

Heritage Has New Unemployment Projections for the Ryan Budget
Posted Wednesday, April 06, 2011 4:22 PM | By David Weigel

I just talked to Bill Beach at Heritage's Center for Data Analysis, who tells me that the team re-ran part of its model for the Path to Prosperity. The unemployment projections, which predicted sub-7 percent unemployment in 2012 and sub-3 percent unemployment in 2020, were too low.

"We adjusted the full employment unemployment variable," said Beach. "Nothing else changes as a result of that, but the employment number changes."

The new numbers -- 7.89 percent unemployment in 2012, and 4.27 percent unemployment in 2020.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/04/06/heritage-has-new-unemployment-projections-for-the-ryan-budget.aspx?wpisrc=obinsite

But CP rightards will continue to believe the fairy tale because, as we all know, Slate is a liberal site.

KC Dan
04-07-2011, 12:39 PM
But CP rightards will continue to believe the fairy tale because, as we all know, Slate is a liberal site.Nothing like the CP Libtards since we passed the stimulus bills and unemployment never got above 8% right?

orange
04-07-2011, 12:43 PM
Nothing like the CP Libtards since we passed the stimulus bills and unemployment never got above 8% right?

I don't recall anyone ever saying unemployment didn't go above 8%. Not anyone.

Who in the hell are you thinking of?

go bowe
04-07-2011, 12:48 PM
hell, if heritage is right and there is 7.89 percent unemployment in 2012obama will gain an easy victory for a 2d term...

KC Dan
04-07-2011, 12:49 PM
I don't recall anyone ever saying unemployment didn't go above 8%. Not anyone.

Who in the hell are you thinking of?Chistina Romer, Obama's chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser. Please see the chart in their report.

Page 4, January, 2009


http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

patteeu
04-07-2011, 12:54 PM
hell, if heritage is right and there is obama will gain an easy victory for a 2d term...

Then he should embrace the Ryan proposal. That's essentially the argument Ed Morrissey made a day or two ago on the HotAir blog.

go bowe
04-07-2011, 12:58 PM
Then he should embrace the Ryan proposal...doesn't that assume that his proposal could bring unemployment from 9.9 down to less than 8 within the next year?

that would take a bit of magic and a firm application of austrian economics...

orange
04-07-2011, 01:00 PM
Chistina Romer, Obama's chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser. Please see the chart in their report.

Page 4, January, 2009


http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

Okay, so:

1 - you are actually talking about a projection, not a denial of actual facts which is what you said, "unemployment never got above 8%."

2 - they also projected a peak unemployment of only 9% with NO stimulus. Clearly they did not appreciate how serious a downturn Bush handed them.

3 - nevertheless, I bet they included the "full employment unemployment variable" in their model.

4 - "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity."

.

5 - and finally and most importantly, what do they - Romer and Bernstein - have to do with CP rightards?

go bowe
04-07-2011, 01:04 PM
...what do they - Romer and Bernstein - have to do with CP rightards?banyon is really the screen name of romer and you are the online id of bernstein, that's what...

go bowe
04-07-2011, 01:05 PM
banyon is really the screen name of romer and you are the online id of bernstein, that's what...you're just pretending to be liberals for the purpose of bedeviling your colleagues...

like kotter, sort of...

patteeu
04-07-2011, 01:30 PM
2 - they also projected a peak unemployment of only 9% with NO stimulus. Clearly they did not appreciate how serious a downturn Bush handed them.

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Obama's economic team doesn't understand nearly enough about the economy. And when you're selling the people on an unprecedented level of spending with arguments about future economic performance, I don't think saying that you just didn't understand the economic conditions under which you were operating is much of an excuse.

And they didn't just miss the number by a little bit, they missed it by 25%. No one should ever trust this administration on their economic predictions again.

orange
04-07-2011, 01:43 PM
I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Obama's economic team doesn't understand nearly enough about the economy. And when you're selling the people on an unprecedented level of spending with arguments about future economic performance, I don't think saying that you just didn't understand the economic conditions under which you were operating is much of an excuse.

And they didn't just miss the number by a little bit, they missed it by 25%. No one should ever trust this administration on their economic predictions again.

The guy I voted for insisted that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong" on Black Monday. ROFL

How about you?

vailpass
04-07-2011, 01:45 PM
There are pro-bamas that are still blaming Bush better than 2 years into the current administration. Pathetisad for this great country of ours.

chiefsnorth
04-07-2011, 01:47 PM
:LOL:
Exactly why I can't bring myself to read it. If everything he posted weren't so biased to the left, maybe I would give it some time.

I have him on ignore because it greatly reduces the scrolling you have to do in threads.

Besides, if you want to know what he thinks you do the same thing he does when he wants to know what he thinks... Go read talkingpointsmemo and huffpo

orange
04-07-2011, 01:51 PM
I have him on ignore because it greatly reduces the scrolling you have to do in threads.


Oh, yeah!? Well...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-p1lk17o_iHE/TZDaW7IuJ3I/AAAAAAAAEtE/4KSC7MSrf8I/s640/tongue-18123.jpg

Cave Johnson
04-07-2011, 02:22 PM
Chistina Romer, Obama's chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser. Please see the chart in their report.

Page 4, January, 2009

http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

a) I, for one, thought unemployment would go much higher than 8%.

b) Part of the job of a President is to reassure markets and the public (e.g., W after 9/11 telling us to spend). If the administration threw out a projection that indicates employment is going to go to hell in a handbasket, that might have compounded the problem/been a self-fulfilling prophecy.

KC Dan
04-07-2011, 02:24 PM
5 - and finally and most importantly, what do they - Romer and Bernstein - have to do with CP rightards?They don't they are Libtards, nice spin. Nobody of any intelligence is buying it. They said in their "projection" to get approval support that the rate would not exceed 8%. No matter how much you spin or play word games will discount the fact.

KC Dan
04-07-2011, 02:25 PM
b) Part of the job of a President is to reassure markets and the public (e.g., W after 9/11 telling us to spend). If the administration threw out a projection that indicates employment is going to go to hell in a handbasket, that might have compounded the problem/been a self-fulfilling prophecy.Thus, you mean lie....He really is Bush then I guess in your eyes...:banghead:

orange
04-07-2011, 02:30 PM
They don't they are Libtards, nice spin... No matter how much you spin or play word games will discount the fact.

No matter how much YOU spin, you said CP Libtards.

Nothing like the CP Libtards since we passed the stimulus bills and unemployment never got above 8% right?

What's the matter, can't find any?

Cave Johnson
04-07-2011, 02:35 PM
Thus, you mean lie....He really is Bush then I guess in your eyes...:banghead:

Yelling fire in a crowded theater has been positively correlated with panic.

Also, if you look at the polls, most people want more government spending (or entitlements as is) but don't want to pay for it. Given the magical thinking that "the public" engages in, perhaps we don't want to know how bad shit actually is.

KC Dan
04-07-2011, 03:15 PM
What's the matter, can't find any?Find any what? The Presidents own Council of Economic Advisers out the 8% number out there. They work for him. The buck supposedly stops with him. If he didn't agree with their number, he should have said so. He didn't. Continue your work parsing......

orange
04-07-2011, 03:29 PM
Find any what?

Ahem ...

... CP Libtards ...

You know, the guys here whom you said think unemployment hasn't gone over 8%.

KC Dan
04-07-2011, 03:33 PM
You know, the guys here whom you said think unemployment hasn't gone over 8%.Last thing I have to say on this: I meant those CP Libtards that believe that the President didn't have anything to do with or disagreed with his own Council of Economic Advisors graph stating that unemployement would not exceed 8% if his stimulus was passed..Which the President obviously agreed with because he has never stated that it was a bullsh*t number put out just to get his stimulus passed......jeesus

FD
04-07-2011, 03:55 PM
Last thing I have to say on this: I meant those CP Libtards that believe that the President didn't have anything to do with or disagreed with his own Council of Economic Advisors graph stating that unemployement would not exceed 8% if his stimulus was passed..Which the President obviously agreed with because he has never stated that it was a bullsh*t number put out just to get his stimulus passed......jeesus

The numbers CEA was using at the time were similar to almost every other economic forecasting group. Economists as a whole didn't anticipate how bad the recession would be, its not a partisan issue. The fact that it was worse than anticipated strengthens the argument for fiscal stimulus, too.