PDA

View Full Version : Obama WSJ: Obama's toxic speech


chiefsnorth
04-14-2011, 07:57 AM
WSJ: Obama's toxic speech and even worse plan for deficits and debt.


Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama's extraordinary response to Paul Ryan's budget yesterday - with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions - was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama's fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.

The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.

Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," he said, supposedly pitting "children with autism or Down's syndrome" against "every millionaire and billionaire in our society." The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.

Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship - which "starts," he said, "by being honest about what's causing our deficit." The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest, even by modern political standards.

***

The great political challenge of the moment is how to update the 20th-century entitlement state so that it is affordable. With incremental change, Mr. Ryan is trying maintain a social safety net and the economic growth necessary to finance it. Mr. Obama presented what some might call the false choice of merely preserving the government we have with no realistic plan for doing so, aside from proposing $4 trillion in phantom deficit reduction over a gimmicky 12-year budget window that makes that reduction seem larger than it would be over the normal 10-year window.

Mr. Obama said that the typical political proposal to rationalize Medicare's gargantuan liabilities is that it is "just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse." His own plan is to double down on the program's price controls and central planning. All Medicare decisions will be turned over to and routed through an unelected commission created by ObamaCare—which will supposedly ferret out "unnecessary spending." Is that the same as "waste and abuse"?

Fifteen members will serve on the Independent Payment Advisory Board, all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If per capita costs grow by more than GDP plus 0.5%, this board would get more power, including an automatic budget sequester to enforce its rulings. So 15 sages sitting in a room with the power of the purse will evidently find ways to control Medicare spending that no one has ever thought of before and that supposedly won't harm seniors' care, even as the largest cohort of the baby boom generation retires and starts to collect benefits.

Mr. Obama really went off on Mr. Ryan's plan to increase health-care competition and give consumers more control, barely stopping short of calling it murderous. It's hardly beyond criticism or debate, but the Ryan plan is neither Big Rock Candy Mountain nor some radical departure from American norms.

Mr. Obama came out for further cuts in the defense budget, but where? His plan is to ask Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen "to find additional savings," whatever those might be, after a "fundamental review." These mystery cuts would follow two separate, recent rounds of deep cuts that were supposed to stave off further Pentagon triage amid several wars and escalating national security threats.

Mr. Obama rallied the left with a summons for major tax increases on "the rich." Every U.S. fiscal trouble, he claimed, flows from the Bush tax cuts "for the wealthiest 2%," conveniently passing over what he euphemistically called his own "series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs." Apparently he means the $814 billion stimulus that failed and a new multitrillion-dollar entitlement in ObamaCare that harmed job creation.

Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the "cost" of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets—and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.

Mr. Obama sought more tax-hike cover under his deficit commission, seeming to embrace its proposal to limit tax deductions and other loopholes. But the commission wanted to do so in order to lower rates for a more efficient and competitive code with a broader base. Mr. Obama wants to pocket the tax increase and devote the revenues to deficit reduction and therefore more spending. So that's three significant tax increases—via higher top brackets, the tax hikes in ObamaCare and fewer tax deductions.

Lastly, Mr. Obama came out for a debt "failsafe," which will require the White House and Congress to hash out a deal if by 2014 projected debt is not declining as a share of the economy. But under his plan any deal must exclude Social Security, Medicare or low-income programs. So that means more tax increases or else "making government smarter, leaner and more effective." Which, now that he mentioned it, sounds a lot like cutting "waste and abuse."

Mr. Obama ludicrously claimed that Mr. Ryan favors "a fundamentally different America than the one we've known throughout most of our history." Nothing is likelier to bring that future about than the President's political indifference in the midst of a fiscal crisis.

donkhater
04-14-2011, 11:09 AM
From Obama's speech:

So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That’s 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean...

....The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.

These two lines from Obama's speech speak the truth about the liberal view of wealth in America. That it is the government's money and they ALLOW you to keep it through tax cuts and credits. That is the basis of their fiscal belief. Anyone who believes that the Democrats are serious about cutting spending and shrinking the size of government, let that soak in and ponder that for a moment.

Now, I don't believe the Republicans are really all that serious about cutting government either (so far), but at least they have the fundamental belief that a person's wealth is THEIRS and that the ability to aquire wealth and keep what you EARN is key to freedom and liberty.

chiefsnorth
04-14-2011, 11:36 AM
His designs only vary between the status quo and slamming on the gas in the direction we are already headed. I dont think there are many voters out there dumb enough to think he cares about reducing spending.

It's questionable he even cares about non-government jobs or inflation. None of his agenda seems to be aimed at dealing with these.

His agenda seems to mostly be focused on sidestepping the public's wish that government get its finances under control while adding as much permanent spending as possible.

Chief Henry
04-14-2011, 11:36 AM
Its a joke that people and Obama refers to tax cuts as spending...The money earned and saved by tax payers is the tax payers money NOT the federal governments money.

Chief Faithful
04-14-2011, 12:02 PM
His designs only vary between the status quo and slamming on the gas in the direction we are already headed. I dont think there are many voters out there dumb enough to think he cares about reducing spending.

It's questionable he even cares about non-government jobs or inflation. None of his agenda seems to be aimed at dealing with these.

His agenda seems to mostly be focused on sidestepping the public's wish that government get its finances under control while adding as much permanent spending as possible.

All Obama has to say, "the rich need to pay their fair share" and the logical brain process of his base shuts down and they believe anything he says. Dumb or smart has nothing to do with it his base just chooses to believe.

alnorth
04-14-2011, 12:21 PM
Its a joke that people and Obama refers to tax cuts as spending...The money earned and saved by tax payers is the tax payers money NOT the federal governments money.

The simple fact is, we currently have the lowest tax burden in modern US history, and Ryan's stupid plan (which relies on fantasyland assumptions like an unemployment rate lower than we've ever had, so his projected savings on the debt is a lie) proposes to take taxes lower. You don't have to like it, the country can't afford more tax cuts. Ryan's plan is not a serious attempt to reduce the deficit, its an attempt to exploit a crisis for political gain.

Medicare and Social Security need to be revised to account for modern life expectancies and save money, but to solve the entire deficit problem only on the poor and elderly, after we took the money they paid in, all to fund record-low taxes for everyone else is immoral.

mikey23545
04-14-2011, 12:43 PM
The simple fact is, we currently have the lowest tax burden in modern US history, and Ryan's stupid plan (which relies on fantasyland assumptions like an unemployment rate lower than we've ever had, so his projected savings on the debt is a lie) proposes to take taxes lower. You don't have to like it, the country can't afford more tax cuts. Ryan's plan is not a serious attempt to reduce the deficit, its an attempt to exploit a crisis for political gain.

Medicare and Social Security need to be revised to account for modern life expectancies and save money, but to solve the entire deficit problem only on the poor and elderly, after we took the money they paid in, all to fund record-low taxes for everyone else is immoral.

The reason the tax burden is so low is because nearly half of all Americans no longer have to pay any income tax at all, not because the top 1% are paying a third of all tax revenues, you moron.

donkhater
04-14-2011, 12:44 PM
The simple fact is, we currently have the lowest tax burden in modern US history, and Ryan's stupid plan (which relies on fantasyland assumptions like an unemployment rate lower than we've ever had, so his projected savings on the debt is a lie) proposes to take taxes lower. You don't have to like it, the country can't afford more tax cuts. Ryan's plan is not a serious attempt to reduce the deficit, its an attempt to exploit a crisis for political gain.

Medicare and Social Security need to be revised to account for modern life expectancies and save money, but to solve the entire deficit problem only on the poor and elderly, after we took the money they paid in, all to fund record-low taxes for everyone else is immoral.

OK. So you think it's stupid. But instead of recognizing that a stake has been set and work from there to change the parts he doesn't like, Obama basically scolded Ryan in front of nation. How does that embolden anything? Yes, I know the Republicans do it too, but someone has to move off this dialouge for SOME movement to happen to fix the debt. Why is it unreasonable to think the POTYS should be the one guy to do that?

Honestly, not raising the debt ceiling is the ONLY way we will see any cuts whatsoever. Our representatives and president has basically shown that they will NOT do anything meaingful about the debt if they aren't forced to.

InChiefsHell
04-14-2011, 12:45 PM
The simple fact is, we currently have the lowest tax burden in modern US history, and Ryan's stupid plan (which relies on fantasyland assumptions like an unemployment rate lower than we've ever had, so his projected savings on the debt is a lie) proposes to take taxes lower. You don't have to like it, the country can't afford more tax cuts. Ryan's plan is not a serious attempt to reduce the deficit, its an attempt to exploit a crisis for political gain.

Medicare and Social Security need to be revised to account for modern life expectancies and save money, but to solve the entire deficit problem only on the poor and elderly, after we took the money they paid in, all to fund record-low taxes for everyone else is immoral.

So it IS moral to take people's money away from them to pay for past government stupidity. Is there any room to cut spending or transfer Medicare and Medicaid to the states?

InChiefsHell
04-14-2011, 12:47 PM
OK. So you think it's stupid. But instead of recognizing that a stake has been set and work from there to change the parts he doesn't like, Obama basically scolded Ryan in front of nation. How does that embolden anything? Yes, I know the Republicans do it too, but someone has to move off this dialouge for SOME movement to happen to fix the debt. Why is it unreasonable to think the POTYS should be the one guy to do that?

Honestly, not raising the debt ceiling is the ONLY way we will see any cuts whatsoever. Our representatives and president has basically shown that they will NOT do anything meaingful about the debt if they aren't forced to.

Barry does not have it within him to "rise above the fray"...he IS the fray...

Amnorix
04-14-2011, 12:54 PM
The WSJ in an Op-Ed piece doesn't agree with a Democratic President's economic initiatives?!? Shocking!!!

Dave Lane
04-14-2011, 01:02 PM
The WSJ in an Op-Ed piece doesn't agree with a Democratic President's economic initiatives?!? Shocking!!!

Fox is fair and balanced it's says so right on their logo. So there.

Chief Henry
04-14-2011, 01:35 PM
After reading some of the post on here for years and years along with this thread, liberal democrats think the money that is earned by tax payers is the politicians money FIRST - BEFORE it becomes the workers and tax payers money.

What a sad state of affairs we are in :huh:

patteeu
04-14-2011, 01:45 PM
The simple fact is, we currently have the lowest tax burden in modern US history, and Ryan's stupid plan (which relies on fantasyland assumptions like an unemployment rate lower than we've ever had, so his projected savings on the debt is a lie) proposes to take taxes lower. You don't have to like it, the country can't afford more tax cuts. Ryan's plan is not a serious attempt to reduce the deficit, its an attempt to exploit a crisis for political gain.

Where do you get your analysis that the tax reform section of the Ryan plan is a net tax cut? The bipartisan commission recommended tax reforms much like those included in the Ryan plan (broadened base, lower rates) and frankly they are long overdue. The shape of the tax code is far more important here than any specific numbers Ryan used.

Medicare and Social Security need to be revised to account for modern life expectancies and save money, but to solve the entire deficit problem only on the poor and elderly, after we took the money they paid in, all to fund record-low taxes for everyone else is immoral.

I'm looking forward to seeing where you come up with this "record-low" nonsense. You shifted from "lowest in modern history" (by which I assume you mean the last 2 or 3 decades) to "record-low" which is absurd.

When Medicare is the primary source of the problem, Medicare should be the primary source of the solution. And as for the poor, beggars can't be choosers. It's not immoral to reduce your charitable donations from one year to the next. The donees need to be grateful for whatever you give because you don't owe it to them.

patteeu
04-14-2011, 01:46 PM
The reason the tax burden is so low is because nearly half of all Americans no longer have to pay any income tax at all, not because the top 1% are paying a third of all tax revenues, you moron.

This is a fantastic point. The distribution of that lower tax burden has been shifting toward greater progressivity for most of the period of "modern history" that alnorth is focused on.

chiefsnorth
04-14-2011, 01:52 PM
The WSJ in an Op-Ed piece doesn't agree with a Democratic President's economic initiatives?!? Shocking!!!

Obama went on TV accusing detractors of wanting to starve grandmas and disabled kids, before proposing we amp up the hostility to business and job creation as a means of raising revenue. Shocking.

If anything, this was our greatest example in a while of how small Obama is compared to his office. One could hardly be less presidential.

suzzer99
04-14-2011, 01:54 PM
Class Warfare!!!

Good to see republicans have finally dropped the scare-mongering buzzwords and moved to civilized public discourse.

Jaric
04-14-2011, 02:00 PM
The WSJ in an Op-Ed piece doesn't agree with a Democratic President's economic initiatives?!? Shocking!!!

Hopefully Orange will be along shortly to enlighten us with the Huffington Post's take on the matter.

patteeu
04-14-2011, 02:00 PM
Obama went on TV accusing detractors of wanting to starve grandmas and disabled kids, before proposing we amp up the hostility to business and job creation as a means of raising revenue. Shocking.

If anything, this was our greatest example in a while of how small Obama is compared to his office. One could hardly be less presidential.

http://i931.photobucket.com/albums/ad158/FrankRob/BHOShrinking.jpg

vailpass
04-14-2011, 02:17 PM
:( *sigh* It hurts my heart to see our highest office disgraced so.

donkhater
04-14-2011, 02:27 PM
There are other reasons that give me absolutely no hope that this mess will get settled.

Take Medicare. Democrats (and most Republicans) think it can be 'fixed'. But the core of the problem is that it is a third party payer. Under this arrangement, the patient has no motivation seek out the best price or the best treatment that they can afford. doctors just charge the max, knowing Medicare isn't going to reimburse them fully anyway and the rest of us NOT on Medicare make up the difference, which keeps getting greater and greater.

Medicare is DRIVING the higher cost of health care. It is not a solution to higher costs. That is the fundamental disconnect that is politcally too poisonous to confront. Medicare 'reform' doesn't exist.

alnorth
04-14-2011, 02:35 PM
The reason the tax burden is so low is because nearly half of all Americans no longer have to pay any income tax at all, not because the top 1% are paying a third of all tax revenues, you moron.

Fine, here's the top marginal income tax rate. Note where it was during the 90's.

http://markmaynard.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/taxthresh3-300x238.png

Oh and by the way, I wasn't hostile, political, nor did I call anyone names, so don't be a jackass.

alnorth
04-14-2011, 02:41 PM
OK. So you think it's stupid. But instead of recognizing that a stake has been set and work from there to change the parts he doesn't like, Obama basically scolded Ryan in front of nation.

He was scolded because he deserves to be scolded. His plan is a dishonest fraud that relies on a bunch of stupid projections that have no chance of happening. Among other things, he assumes:

1) Unemployment will fall below 3%, to a level never seen since the Korean war, and even then it was brief before shooting back up again. This in spite of firing hundreds of thousands of government workers and contractors. (and maybe they need to be fired, but don't lie to yourself and to us with phony projections)

2) We will have an enormous housing boom soon, in the face of common sense.

3) College tuition costs will stop rising by cutting the pell grant, even though tuition averages ten times the grant.

4) Insurance companies will figure out a way to slow down medical costs, the historical record be damned.

If Obama proposed a steaming turd which relied on such hilariously unlikely assumptions, he'd be laughed out of the room. Frankly, I'm shocked that the GOP point-man on the budget failed to propose a more responsible budget than one of the most liberal presidents in recent history. That is a damning indictment of how serious the GOP is (not) on the deficit, and I'm a little pissed about it.

Paul Ryan's plan will not, in reality, save much of anything on the deficit, and what little savings do happen will be squarely on the backs of the elderly.

donkhater
04-14-2011, 02:46 PM
He was scolded because he deserves to be scolded. His plan is a dishonest moronic fraud that relies on a bunch of stupid projections that have no chance of happening. Among other things, he assumes:

1) Unemployment will fall below 3%, to a level never seen since the Korean war, and even then it was brief before shooting back up again. This in spite of firing hundreds of thousands of government workers and contractors. (and maybe they need to be fired, but don't lie to yourself and to us with phony projections)

2) We will have an enormous housing boom soon, in the face of common sense.

3) College tuition costs will stop rising by cutting the pell grant, even though tuition averages ten times the grant.

4) Insurance companies will figure out a way to slow down medical costs, the historical record be damned.

If Obama proposed a steaming turd which relied on such hilariously unlikely assumptions, he'd be laughed out of the room. Frankly, I'm shocked that the GOP point-man on the budget failed to propose a more responsible budget than one of the most liberal presidents in recent history. That is a damning indictment of how serious the GOP is (not) on the deficit, and I'm a little pissed about it.

Paul Ryan's plan will not, in reality, save much of anything on the deficit, and what little savings do happen will be squarely on the backs of the elderly.

Oi.

He invites him to the speech only to beat him down? You can't possibly think that helps anything can you?

alnorth
04-14-2011, 02:49 PM
So it IS moral to take people's money away from them to pay for past government stupidity. Is there any room to cut spending or transfer Medicare and Medicaid to the states?

No, try again. What I said, is that it is immoral to BLATANTLY STEAL money from the elderly, spend it on tax breaks, defense, and other toys, then significantly slash and burn the benefit that they paid for with a lame excuse of "oops, we spent it. Tough luck. Oh hey, let's cut taxes even further!"

Now, social security and medicare need to be revised to be actuarially sound because people are living longer and should be expected to work longer, but you and I and everyone else still took their money and spent it.

alnorth
04-14-2011, 02:52 PM
When Medicare is the primary source of the problem, Medicare should be the primary source of the solution. And as for the poor, beggars can't be choosers. It's not immoral to reduce your charitable donations from one year to the next. The donees need to be grateful for whatever you give because you don't owe it to them.

Where's the massive cut (and I really mean massive) for defense? Why do we need the ability to fight wars on three fronts?

suzzer99
04-14-2011, 02:53 PM
:( *sigh* It hurts my heart to see our highest office disgraced so.

If the economy keeps improving he's going to win in a landslide. You might want to leave the country for your heart's health.

vailpass
04-14-2011, 03:34 PM
If the economy keeps improving he's going to win in a landslide. You might want to leave the country for your heart's health.

1. stfu n00b
2. You live in LA therefore your opinion is void
3. stfu n00b
4. The fact that you defend obama, the worst President this country has ever seen, speaks ill of you, your parents, your gender transition counselor and your parole officer.
5. stfu n00b

Chief Henry
04-14-2011, 03:46 PM
According to alnorth, its the governments money FIRST !!!

alnorth
04-14-2011, 03:52 PM
According to alnorth, its the governments money FIRST !!!

I'm interested in balancing our budget so that the interest we pay to China doesn't skyrocket. Treasury sales are already faltering and our credit rating is looking more and more questionable. Are you serious about reducing our deficit, or not?

Because if you endorse Paul Ryan's plan, then whether you realize it or not, you are not serious about reducing our deficit.

patteeu
04-14-2011, 03:53 PM
Fine, here's the top marginal income tax rate. Note where it was during the 90's.

http://markmaynard.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/taxthresh3-300x238.png

Oh and by the way, I wasn't hostile, political, nor did I call anyone names, so don't be a jackass.

Marginal rates alone don't support your earlier claims. The President's commission on the deficit recommends and Paul Ryan proposes a reduction in marginal rates COMBINED WITH an elimination of deductions. Such a combination could very well end up being a tax increase depending on the specifics.

vailpass
04-14-2011, 03:53 PM
I'm interested in balancing our budget so that the interest we pay to China doesn't skyrocket. Treasury sales are already faltering and our credit rating is looking more and more questionable. Are you serious about reducing our deficit, or not?

Because if you endorse Paul Ryan's plan, then whether you realize it or not, you are not serious about reducing our deficit.

Do you feel obama has offered a better plan than Ryan's? Are you confident obama will lead us to substantive deficit reduction through spending cuts?

patteeu
04-14-2011, 04:01 PM
He was scolded because he deserves to be scolded. His plan is a dishonest fraud that relies on a bunch of stupid projections that have no chance of happening. Among other things, he assumes:

1) Unemployment will fall below 3%, to a level never seen since the Korean war, and even then it was brief before shooting back up again. This in spite of firing hundreds of thousands of government workers and contractors. (and maybe they need to be fired, but don't lie to yourself and to us with phony projections)

2) We will have an enormous housing boom soon, in the face of common sense.

3) College tuition costs will stop rising by cutting the pell grant, even though tuition averages ten times the grant.

4) Insurance companies will figure out a way to slow down medical costs, the historical record be damned.

If Obama proposed a steaming turd which relied on such hilariously unlikely assumptions, he'd be laughed out of the room. Frankly, I'm shocked that the GOP point-man on the budget failed to propose a more responsible budget than one of the most liberal presidents in recent history. That is a damning indictment of how serious the GOP is (not) on the deficit, and I'm a little pissed about it.

Paul Ryan's plan will not, in reality, save much of anything on the deficit, and what little savings do happen will be squarely on the backs of the elderly.

I'm sure there are some rosy projections involved here. What a huge surprise.

That said, your criticism seems wildly inaccurate itself when you end it by claiming that any savings fall "squarely on the backs of the elderly" despite the fact that Ryan grandfathers the elderly into the current system specifically to prevent the impact you claim.

Chief Henry
04-14-2011, 04:01 PM
I'm interested in balancing our budget so that the interest we pay to China doesn't skyrocket. Treasury sales are already faltering and our credit rating is looking more and more questionable. Are you serious about reducing our deficit, or not?

Because if you endorse Paul Ryan's plan, then whether you realize it or not, you are not serious about reducing our deficit.


Washington DC needs to prove to us that they will CUT spending before asking for more.

We read and watched way to long that many people and Obama and the DEMS call tax cuts a COST tot he gov't...thats BS except to Liberals. The MONEY is OURS first - NOT the gov't's.

Can Washington DC (both sides) PROVE they can make meaningful cuts across the board ? We'll find out by the 2012 elections.

orange
04-14-2011, 04:06 PM
The reason the tax burden is so low is because nearly half of all Americans no longer have to pay any income tax at all, not because the top 1% are paying a third of all tax revenues, you moron.

This is a fantastic point. The distribution of that lower tax burden has been shifting toward greater progressivity for most of the period of "modern history" that alnorth is focused on.

Actually, it's a terrible point. While I expect it from mikey23545, I'm shocked that you stepped on this steaming pile.

Tell me, what percentage of Social Security and Medicare is paid from Income Tax?


Hopefully Orange will be along shortly to enlighten us with the Huffington Post's take on the matter.

They seem to be torn. Most of the far leftists are at a loss on how to claim he's abandoning them.

patteeu
04-14-2011, 04:17 PM
Where's the massive cut (and I really mean massive) for defense? Why do we need the ability to fight wars on three fronts?

Duh, the answer to your last question should be obvious given that we're involved in several hotspots (present and near-past) around the world. We don't have the capability to fight 3 major wars, but we absolutely need to be able to fight on multiple fronts simultaneously.

It's ridiculous to propose massive cuts in defense without any concept of the requirements driving our defense budget. Defense isn't a big piggy bank from which you withdraw funds to pay for government overspending elsewhere.

To use a variation of your earlier argument, defense spending is as low as at anytime during modern history as a share of the federal budget. In this case, "modern history" goes back at least to WW2. As the defense share of the budget has dramatically decreased, entitlement's share of spending has exploded at an unsustainable rate. Let's fix the problem (entitlement spending) rather than enable it (by breaking all our piggy banks open for short term relief from the problem).

Chief Henry
04-14-2011, 04:17 PM
Tell us, who's money is it first Orange ?

KC Dan
04-14-2011, 04:19 PM
Tell me, what percentage of Social Security and Medicare is paid from Income Tax?


They seem to be torn. Most of the far leftists are at a loss on how to claim he's abandoning them.
Very good question on where paid from as I would think SS paid from the incoming SS tax cash and too a much smaller degree the Medicare tax cash since that system is so woefully funded via taxes.

For this other point, they are hypocrits just like the other side - see War Protesting and anti-war coverage/rhetoric prior to 2009. The left absolutely hate much of what Obama is or has done both economically and foreign policy acts but just can't bring themselves to loudly condemn his actions. The love affair is too great.

alnorth
04-14-2011, 04:25 PM
Marginal rates alone don't support your earlier claims. The President's commission on the deficit recommends and Paul Ryan proposes a reduction in marginal rates COMBINED WITH an elimination of deductions. Such a combination could very well end up being a tax increase depending on the specifics.

Simplification of the corporate income tax is not a bad thing. Obama is at least on the record as saying the simplification of the corporate tax structure should be revenue neutral so that domestic companies pay fewer taxes than today and are at less of a disadvantage to international american companies who keep profits offshore.

Paul Ryan makes no such promise of revenue-neutrality, and aside from corporate tax rates, he wants to slash the top personal marginal income tax rate to 25%. I simply will not believe that he'll revoke enough deductions to make up for that, unless it actually happens. Why not? Most deductions are already progressive. There are so many phase-outs of deductions, that its already a reasonably simple return for the wealthy. What's really left? Home Mortgage and Charity? What kind of a home mortgage deduction do you really have when you are making hundreds of thousands of dollars? To make this revenue-neutral his reduced deductions would have to disproportionately hit the middle-class. People in his own party would scream bloody murder at a net middle-class tax increase. Therefore, I don't believe it is reasonable to assume it'll be at or above neutral.

Aside from that, his plan for medicare is also horrid and doomed to fail. Older people who paid payroll taxes for their entire lives simply will not accept a huge premium increase, and after they revolt at the ballot box, where will we be then? Still stuck without a deficit fix, that's where. Medicare must be fixed, but to ask older people to pay money they do not have is not a politically viable option. Old people, even otherwise republican old people, are simply not going to let us turn over health care for the elderly to insurance companies, who probably aren't wildly excited to have that business anyway. All we can really do is attack expenses directly, means-test medicare, and/or change payroll taxes.

Tax cut aside, Paul Ryan's plan is, unbelievably, worse deficit-wise than a plan by one of the most liberal presidents in recent history, because he seems to care more about the tax code and policy issues than he does about the debt.

HonestChieffan
04-14-2011, 04:28 PM
He was scolded because he deserves to be scolded. His plan is a dishonest fraud that relies on a bunch of stupid projections that have no chance of happening. Among other things, he assumes:

1) Unemployment will fall below 3%, to a level never seen since the Korean war, and even then it was brief before shooting back up again. This in spite of firing hundreds of thousands of government workers and contractors. (and maybe they need to be fired, but don't lie to yourself and to us with phony projections)

2) We will have an enormous housing boom soon, in the face of common sense.

3) College tuition costs will stop rising by cutting the pell grant, even though tuition averages ten times the grant.

4) Insurance companies will figure out a way to slow down medical costs, the historical record be damned.

If Obama proposed a steaming turd which relied on such hilariously unlikely assumptions, he'd be laughed out of the room. Frankly, I'm shocked that the GOP point-man on the budget failed to propose a more responsible budget than one of the most liberal presidents in recent history. That is a damning indictment of how serious the GOP is (not) on the deficit, and I'm a little pissed about it.

Paul Ryan's plan will not, in reality, save much of anything on the deficit, and what little savings do happen will be squarely on the backs of the elderly.

Some would say you are as full of shit as a Christmas goose. You may accept your appraisal. Here is probably a better look at the facts:


APRIL 14, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Paul Ryan vs. the Mythmakers
From the May 2, 2011 issue of NR.

If you’ve been following the debate over the House Republican budget proposed by Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, you have probably heard that it savagely cuts programs for the poor in order to fund tax cuts for the rich, that its numbers don’t add up, and that in the short run it expands the deficits. These claims, though asserted confidently, either depend on highly contestable assumptions or are demonstrably untrue.

• David Frum writes in The Week that Ryan’s “debt reduction plan actually increases the debt over the medium term — by even more [than] President Obama’s budget would.”

The CBO’s actual projections for the Ryan plan show a debt level in 2021 that is $4.7 trillion lower than its projections for Obama’s budgets. Ryan’s plan is designed to rapidly stabilize federal debt as a share of the economy: That percentage peaks in year three and then starts falling. The CBO projections for Obama’s budgets just show the number rising higher and higher over the decade.

•“In fact, the [Congressional Budget Office] finds that over the next decade the [Ryan] plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law,” writes Paul Krugman in the New York Times.
What Krugman doesn’t mention is that current law includes automatic tax increases, including middle-class tax increases that both parties have consistently said they want to avoid. Current law includes cuts in payments to Medicare providers that both parties oppose and have acted against in the past. It includes the expansion of the Alternative Minimum Tax to hit more and more middle-class taxpayers, which — well, you get the idea. Krugman is comparing the Ryan plan with an alternative that is both unrealistic and much more painful than he lets on.

• Jonathan Chait writes in The New Republic: “[Ryan] is making a choice — not just [to] cut Medicare to save Medicare, but also to cut Medicare in order to cut taxes for the rich.” Krugman, again, cites the CBO to write that “a large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go, not to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts.”

These claims are misleading in two ways. First, Ryan’s plan assumes that Congress enacts a tax reform that keeps revenues slightly above historic averages. It is “revenue neutral” with respect to the tax code as it exists following Bush’s tax cuts. Current law automatically raises the tax rates to pre-Bush levels in 2013. So if you’re comparing the tax level with current law, including that automatic tax hike, Ryan’s plan represents a tax cut. If you’re comparing it with today’s tax rates, on the other hand, it’s not a tax cut. If you adopt the latter perspective, what Ryan is proposing is to restrain the growth of Medicare and other spending programs in order to reduce deficits and avert a tax increase.

Second, Chait’s claim that Ryan’s plan “includes a massive, regressive tax cut” is certainly true only on a very specific definition of “regressive.” The plan assumes that the tax reform reduces tax breaks and lowers the top tax rate to 25 percent. If you’re among the very richest Americans — in the Forbes 400, for example — then your tax bill will certainly fall. You’ll lose some tax breaks, but you’ll gain more from keeping a higher share of your income above the threshold for the top tax bracket. On the other hand, a lot of Americans who are well-off could end up paying more under such a reform. Progressives who care about the distribution of the tax burden between the richer half of taxpayers and the poorer half will have to wait and see what tax plan the Ways and Means Committee devises before making a judgment about it. Progressives who primarily worry about how the super-rich are doing relative to the upper middle class, on the other hand, already know what they need to know. But it’s not at all clear that this definition of “regressive” is the most important one.

• Annie Lowrey writes in Slate: “The theory is straightforward enough: Tax cuts to wealthy Americans foster prosperity that moves millions of (less wealthy) Americans back to work, with increasing wages. High earnings and employment bolster tax revenue. When combined with huge cuts in domestic spending and radical changes to Medicaid and Medicare, the budget balances out in about 20 years.” She says that Ryan’s plan “relies” on economic forecasts that are too optimistic.

Which they almost certainly are. But that has nothing to do with whether Ryan’s plan reduces the debt as he says it will. The plan’s projections for debt reduction do not assume that any extra revenue comes in from higher economic growth. The CBO applies the same economic assumptions to Ryan’s plan that it applies when making projections about Obama’s budget and current law. Lowrey and like-minded critics have identified a flaw in the plan’s marketing, not its design.

• David Brooks, who finds many things to like in Ryan’s proposal, criticizes it because it “doesn’t have an answer to rising health care costs.” On “controlling health-care costs,” writes Ezra Klein in the Washington Post, “the reality is that Democrats have a plan and Ryan doesn’t.” The Democratic plan to which Klein refers is to allow all the allegedly cost-saving reforms in the new health-care law to take effect.

Ryan’s plan could have gone further in controlling health-care costs by, for example, changing the tax treatment of health insurance. But its reform of Medicare (and to a lesser extent Medicaid) could impose quite a bit of cost control by encouraging the senior citizens of tomorrow to be more cost-conscious. James Capretta makes this case in detail elsewhere in this issue.

The Congressional Budget Office assumes that Medicare will go bankrupt in 2021 even if the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare) remains the law. It certifies that the Ryan plan prevents bankruptcy. In a January hearing, Rick Foster, the chief actuary of Medicare, was asked about the relative potential of Obamacare and Ryan’s plan to control costs: “I would say that the Roadmap” — Ryan’s plan, that is — “has that potential. There is some potential for the Affordable Care Act price reductions, although I’m a little less confident about that.”

• William Galston complains in The New Republic that the Ryan plan does not allow the governmental share of the economy to rise with the aging of the population and that it shrinks the discretionary share of the budget to unacceptably low levels.

Note the sleight of hand. Entitlements as a share of GDP should grow because the population is aging, but at the same time discretionary spending as a share of the budget should not fall below some arbitrary number. In other words, as the population ages, the correct amount of federal spending on roads, Head Start, and everything else should rise. Why? Other, that is, than because the growth of government is a positive good?

• According to too many sources to quote, the plan is cruel to the poor. Replacing Medicaid with capped block grants to the states will force states to reduce benefits for some low-income people and end them entirely for others.

There are many assumptions involved here. One is that either Washington would enact the Ryan plan but shrink from enacting other conservative reforms to make health insurance more affordable to the working poor, or these reforms would prove ineffective. Another is that states would engage in a “race to the bottom” in benefit levels. That is the exact claim that opponents of welfare reform made when that program was converted into a system of block grants to the states in 1996, and they threw around terms such as “cruel” and “heartless” as well. They were wrong then, and they could be wrong now. It is worth remembering that patient outcomes show no difference between having Medicaid benefits and having no health insurance at all.

• Dana Milbank writes in the Washington Post that Ryan’s plan “isn’t a serious budget proposal because it fails at the central mission of ending the deficit and taming the debt”: It adds to the debt over the next decade and ends the deficit only in future decades. He compares it with the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission’s plan, which would “reduce deficits by $4 trillion through 2020, stabilize the debt by 2014, and keep Social Security solvent for 75 years.”

Milbank gets one thing right here: Ryan’s plan doesn’t address Social Security, and probably should. But the rest of his critique is unserious. The plan does indeed “tame” the debt by stabilizing it by 2014 — just like Bowles-Simpson. The Bowles-Simpson plan doesn’t end the deficit until the 2030s, just like Ryan’s plan. Bowles-Simpson achieves more deficit reduction early because it has front-loaded tax increases, while Ryan relies on phased-in spending cuts. But Bowles-Simpson’s spending cuts are left vague. And there is no bipartisan plan — and certainly no Democratic plan — that reduces the deficit and the debt more aggressively than Ryan’s does over the long run.

Milbank also suggests, as many other commentators have, that if deficit reduction were really Ryan’s primary concern he would raise taxes. But deficit reduction isn’t Ryan’s stated primary concern: American prosperity is. That’s why he calls his plan “the path to prosperity.” He doesn’t want to raise taxes, because he believes doing so would at best address his secondary concern at the expense of his primary one. Perhaps he has also reviewed research by Kevin Hassett, Andrew Biggs, and Matt Jensen of the American Enterprise Institute, which shows that tax increases have played little role in successful budget-balancing efforts abroad (“successful fiscal consolidation consisted, on average, of 85% spending cuts”).

• Too many commentators to quote, again, have argued that Ryan’s plan shows the need to raise taxes.

The government could, of course, raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for somewhat higher benefits for the middle class and the poor than it could otherwise afford. But to really protect future benefit levels for middle-class retirees we would have to raise taxes on today’s middle-class workers — and it is not at all obvious that it makes sense to do so. It is even less obvious that, stated honestly and directly, this point of view would prove popular among the middle-class people involved, many of whom would surely prefer to pocket the money themselves and save it for their own retirements.

One argument against the Ryan plan falls in a special category for bad faith. This is the criticism that Ryan unfairly exempts today’s senior citizens from cuts. Who can doubt that if he cut their benefits, too, most of the people who have made this claim would add it to their indictment of him as extreme? They would say that it is unfair to cut benefits for people who had been given no time to prepare for the policy change — and they would have a point. None of the liberals who have made this criticism have spoken a word in rebuke to those Democrats who have done everything in their power to convince today’s senior citizens that the Ryan plan is an abomination because it cuts their benefits. Allyson Schwartz (Pa.), the second-ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, wrote an op-ed on the Ryan plan accurately summarized by its headline: “Seniors, Say Goodbye to Your Healthcare.” Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the new head of the DNC, says the plan would “literally be a death trap for seniors.”

It’s bad enough that Ryan’s critics do not have good ideas of their own for solving the country’s fiscal problems. For the most part, they don’t even have solid criticisms. If they prevail politically, it won’t be because of the strength of their arguments.

— Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review. This article originally appeared in the May 2, 2011, issue of National Review.

alnorth
04-14-2011, 04:30 PM
Do you feel obama has offered a better plan than Ryan's? Are you confident obama will lead us to substantive deficit reduction through spending cuts?

In order: yes, and yes/no depending on what you mean by "substantive". Obama's plan is better, but that is damning with faint praise because it still doesn't go far enough. I'm mostly pissed that Paul Ryan didn't offer up a better plan than Obama. He seems more obsessed with flattening the tax code and a doomed plan to privatize medicare than he is about fixing our deficit.

alnorth
04-14-2011, 04:33 PM
Some would say you are as full of shit as a Christmas goose. You may accept your appraisal. Here is probably a better look at the facts:

Your article relies heavily on the CBO, but the CBO analysis says up, down, and sidewise, repeatedly in the report that they are using several assumptions that Paul Ryan asked them to assume but did not explain how he would accomplish, not by analyzing any specific legislation. That is not surprising, because Paul Ryan has often disagreed with the CBO's conclusion when they actually do analyze a specific bill.

patteeu
04-14-2011, 05:15 PM
Actually, it's a terrible point. While I expect it from mikey23545, I'm shocked that you stepped on this steaming pile.

Tell me, what percentage of Social Security and Medicare is paid from Income Tax?

I fail to see the relevance of your question but I'll answer it anyway. The simple answer is that the income tax is separate from the social security and Medicare systems. The reality is that, much like the different foods on your plate, it all goes to the same place.

donkhater
04-14-2011, 05:20 PM
Just consider this for a moment, alnorth.

Obama is as deep with corporate America as the Republicans. His health care 'bill' funneled millions of people to private insurance companies. He bailed out GM and has a relationship with the CEO of GE (Immelt) which can only be described as a conflict of interest (How do you feel about GE paying no taxes this year while reaping record profits?)

Not only ALL of that, he passed the extension of the Bush tax cuts for "the wealthy" while he had majorities in both Houses. Why would he do that? Because he wanted to. Then a mere 3 months later, WHEN HE KNOWS THE HOUSE WILL NOT VOTE FOR TAX INCREASES he 'changes his mind' so he can demagogue the other side.

How can you possibly back this snake? He has no shame whatsoever.

mikey23545
04-14-2011, 05:30 PM
Actually, it's a terrible point. While I expect it from mikey23545, I'm shocked that you stepped on this steaming pile.

Tell me, what percentage of Social Security and Medicare is paid from Income Tax?




They seem to be torn. Most of the far leftists are at a loss on how to claim he's abandoning them.

You get more stupid all the time.

You want to separate SS, Medicare, and income taxes (a completely idiotic notion anyway)? Fine.

How much SS and Medicare benefits are current "poor" retirees drawing right now compared to how much they paid in? That's right, they're even bigger mooches than they looked like when just discussing income taxes.

And please don't start about how "Social Security doesn't work that way!" It doesn't work, period.

vailpass
04-14-2011, 06:17 PM
In order: yes, and yes/no depending on what you mean by "substantive". Obama's plan is better, but that is damning with faint praise because it still doesn't go far enough. I'm mostly pissed that Paul Ryan didn't offer up a better plan than Obama. He seems more obsessed with flattening the tax code and a doomed plan to privatize medicare than he is about fixing our deficit.

Fair enough. I can't agree that obama has offered anything of substance whatsoever. Nor do I have the slightest confidence that he will suddenly sprout the characteristics needed to direct us to the path of fiscal solvency but I appreciate your answer.

MagicHef
04-14-2011, 06:34 PM
Just a random question, and I'm putting it here just because I have nowhere better to ask it, what would happen if we just announced that all the debt we owed China, et al. was canceled, and we weren't going to pay it? Would they attack us? Would we just get a stern talking to? Trade embargoes?

FD
04-14-2011, 06:43 PM
Just a random question, and I'm putting it here just because I have nowhere better to ask it, what would happen if we just announced that all the debt we owed China, et al. was canceled, and we weren't going to pay it? Would they attack us? Would we just get a stern talking to? Trade embargoes?

China only owns about 10 percent of our debt, the increase in rates on the other 90% would destroy our economy.

ChiefaRoo
04-14-2011, 06:52 PM
The reason the tax burden is so low is because nearly half of all Americans no longer have to pay any income tax at all, not because the top 1% are paying a third of all tax revenues, you moron.


It was a mistake to eliminate taxes for a portion of the population. We all need to be taxed proportionally the same. Otherwise it creates a divide in the population.

prhom
04-14-2011, 07:17 PM
Just a random question, and I'm putting it here just because I have nowhere better to ask it, what would happen if we just announced that all the debt we owed China, et al. was canceled, and we weren't going to pay it? Would they attack us? Would we just get a stern talking to? Trade embargoes?

Well, I imagine none of that would be necessary. The resulting reduction in demand for treasuries would be a spectacular disaster. Besides, why go through all of that when you can just devalue the currency through quantitative easing. It so much easier to do politically.

orange
04-14-2011, 07:32 PM
I fail to see the relevance of your question but I'll answer it anyway. The simple answer is that the income tax is separate from the social security and Medicare systems. The reality is that, much like the different foods on your plate, it all goes to the same place.

Here's the relevance right here.

How much SS and Medicare benefits are current "poor" retirees drawing right now compared to how much they paid in? That's right, they're even bigger mooches than they looked like when just discussing income taxes.

i.e. Lower income people who "only" pay FICA and Medicare taxes are "mooches" when they get it back.

http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/wp-content/uploads/thestupiditburns.jpg

patteeu
04-14-2011, 07:38 PM
Simplification of the corporate income tax is not a bad thing. Obama is at least on the record as saying the simplification of the corporate tax structure should be revenue neutral so that domestic companies pay fewer taxes than today and are at less of a disadvantage to international american companies who keep profits offshore.

Paul Ryan makes no such promise of revenue-neutrality, ...

Paul Ryan's tax reform is supposed to be revenue neutral too.

... and aside from corporate tax rates, he wants to slash the top personal marginal income tax rate to 25%. I simply will not believe that he'll revoke enough deductions to make up for that, unless it actually happens. Why not? Most deductions are already progressive. There are so many phase-outs of deductions, that its already a reasonably simple return for the wealthy. What's really left? Home Mortgage and Charity? What kind of a home mortgage deduction do you really have when you are making hundreds of thousands of dollars? To make this revenue-neutral his reduced deductions would have to disproportionately hit the middle-class. People in his own party would scream bloody murder at a net middle-class tax increase. Therefore, I don't believe it is reasonable to assume it'll be at or above neutral.

Ronald Reagan "slashed" marginal rates to a much greater degree than Ryan proposes. The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission recommended "slashing" marginal rates. I see this as a highly desirable move to remove tax code obstacles from the economy, not a negative.

It's interesting that you say that "most deductions are already progressive". It never really used to be that way. To the extent that it's true, it's a case of the rich already contributing a share to the solution. They paid at the office, so to speak, but now you want to come along and hit them up again.

I'm sorry alnorth, but you're not serious about deficit reduction unless you recognize that the middle class is where the solution to this problem lies. You can either reduce their entitlement benefits or increase their taxes (or both), but you can't solve it by increasing taxes only on those who make more than $250k and fiddling around the edges with entitlement parameters like the retirement age.

Aside from that, his plan for medicare is also horrid and doomed to fail. Older people who paid payroll taxes for their entire lives simply will not accept a huge premium increase, and after they revolt at the ballot box, where will we be then? Still stuck without a deficit fix, that's where. Medicare must be fixed, but to ask older people to pay money they do not have is not a politically viable option. Old people, even otherwise republican old people, are simply not going to let us turn over health care for the elderly to insurance companies, who probably aren't wildly excited to have that business anyway. All we can really do is attack expenses directly, means-test medicare, and/or change payroll taxes.

Tax cut aside, Paul Ryan's plan is, unbelievably, worse deficit-wise than a plan by one of the most liberal presidents in recent history, because he seems to care more about the tax code and policy issues than he does about the debt.

I'm blown away by the idea that you give this president any credit at all for being concerned about the debt. Have you been in a coma for the past 2+ years? Obama spent 2 years with friendly majorities in both houses of Congress without lifting a finger to restrain spending. He had the opportunity to raise taxes during that period too, but decided to punt. The only two things this President is concerned with are establishing an unprecedented new baseline level of spending and getting re-elected.

patteeu
04-14-2011, 07:43 PM
Here's the relevance right here.



i.e. Lower income people who "only" pay FICA and Medicare taxes are "mooches" when they get it back.

http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/wp-content/uploads/thestupiditburns.jpg

First, that statement hadn't been made when you asked your question so I don't see how it establishes the relevance of the question.

Second, lower income people get disproportionately more out of entitlement programs like SS than other contributors because there's a wealth transfer (i.e. welfare) component built into the benefit calculation.

BWillie
04-14-2011, 08:03 PM
Well you know a very simple solution would be to cut the military by 50%, even 25%. Especially parts of it that could have private business investments to replace it. But you know, we have to have tons of missiles, bombs, 1.2 million dollar camouflage toilet seats, troops and s***.

We spend almost 5% of GDP on military expenditure and it keeps going up. This is way more than most of the wealthy countries in the world. Way more. It's retarded.

Australia 1.8%
UK 2.4%
Brazil 1.4%
Canada 1.1%
France 2.2%
China 1.9%
Japan 0.9%
Mexico 0.4%
Netherlands 1.4%
Norway 1.3%
Sweden 1.3%
Turkey 2.5%
Germany 1.3%
Italy 1.7%
India 2.3%

I mean do we clearly not give a f*** about spending less money?

chiefsnorth
04-14-2011, 08:08 PM
Well you know a very simple solution would be to cut the military by 50%, even 25%. Especially parts of it that could have private business investments to replace it. But you know, we have to have tons of missiles, bombs, 1.2 million dollar camouflage toilet seats, troops and s***.

We spend almost 5% of GDP on military expenditure and it keeps going up. This is way more than most of the wealthy countries in the world. Way more. It's retarded.

Australia 1.8%
UK 2.4%
Brazil 1.4%
Canada 1.1%
France 2.2%
China 1.9%
Japan 0.9%
Mexico 0.4%
Netherlands 1.4%
Norway 1.3%
Sweden 1.3%
Turkey 2.5%
Germany 1.3%
Italy 1.7%
India 2.3%

I mean do we clearly not give a f*** about spending less money?

If we had the same place in the world as Italy or Norway or Mexico then sure, we could keep a military like theirs around.

How about the 50% of the budget that is spent on handouts and not the 5% keeping the world safe for civilized nations?

Ericgoodchief
04-14-2011, 08:08 PM
Yawn. Same old tax and spend.

patteeu
04-14-2011, 08:12 PM
Well you know a very simple solution would be to cut the military by 50%, even 25%. Especially parts of it that could have private business investments to replace it. But you know, we have to have tons of missiles, bombs, 1.2 million dollar camouflage toilet seats, troops and s***.

We spend almost 5% of GDP on military expenditure and it keeps going up. This is way more than most of the wealthy countries in the world. Way more. It's retarded.

Australia 1.8%
UK 2.4%
Brazil 1.4%
Canada 1.1%
France 2.2%
China 1.9%
Japan 0.9%
Mexico 0.4%
Netherlands 1.4%
Norway 1.3%
Sweden 1.3%
Turkey 2.5%
Germany 1.3%
Italy 1.7%
India 2.3%

I mean do we clearly not give a f*** about spending less money?

No it doesn't. The trend has been down since the early 1950s when defense spending was 10% or more of GDP.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size-graph.php?meas=GDP

No one in their right mind would trade our military capabilities for those of Turkey or France, much less Mexico. The defense budget is not a piggy bank.

prhom
04-14-2011, 08:26 PM
Well you know a very simple solution would be to cut the military by 50%, even 25%. Especially parts of it that could have private business investments to replace it. But you know, we have to have tons of missiles, bombs, 1.2 million dollar camouflage toilet seats, troops and s***.

We spend almost 5% of GDP on military expenditure and it keeps going up. This is way more than most of the wealthy countries in the world. Way more. It's retarded.

Australia 1.8%
UK 2.4%
Brazil 1.4%
Canada 1.1%
France 2.2%
China 1.9%
Japan 0.9%
Mexico 0.4%
Netherlands 1.4%
Norway 1.3%
Sweden 1.3%
Turkey 2.5%
Germany 1.3%
Italy 1.7%
India 2.3%

I mean do we clearly not give a f*** about spending less money?

This is almost the only area in the federal budget that I don't have a problem with. Every penny we spend on "defense" is worth it. We're the only country in the world that can carry out multiple military operations anywhere in the world for as long as we choose to do so. There is a distinct economic advantage to having this kind of military power and influence. It would be far more expensive for us (in a macroeconomic sense) to not have this kind of influence.

Chiefshrink
04-15-2011, 08:15 AM
Limbaugh stated this yesterday: Here is my paraphrase.

If you notice this speech was not given at prime time. It was given at this time to avoid the majority of America (We The Tea Party) and cowtow to his base who are not employed who watch TV all day and night because this speech was not only a campaign speech but revealed who Obama really is a Marxist Socialist who believes in the "collective" and America would not be great unless we had these "entitlements"(a la Soc Sec and Medicare etc.....)

Obama by having Ryan and the rest of the Repubs sitting up front was orchestrated to 'bitch slap" these guys personally.

Chief Henry
04-15-2011, 08:19 AM
Limbaugh stated this yesterday: Here is my paraphrase.

If you notice this speech was not given at prime time. It was given at this time to avoid the majority of America (We The Tea Party) and cowtow to his base who are not employed who watch TV all day and night because this speech was not only a campaign speech but revealed who Obama really is a Marxist Socialist who believes in the "collective" and America would not be great unless we had these "entitlements"(a la Soc Sec and Medicare etc.....)

Obama by having Ryan and the rest of the Repubs sitting up front was orchestrated to 'bitch slap" these guys personally.

I would have loved to have seen Ryan get up slowly and walk out as the president was speaking.

suzzer99
04-15-2011, 09:04 AM
1. stfu n00b
2. You live in LA therefore your opinion is void
3. stfu n00b
4. The fact that you defend obama, the worst President this country has ever seen, speaks ill of you, your parents, your gender transition counselor and your parole officer.
5. stfu n00b

Care to make a bet that if unemployment is under 8% Obama gets re-elected?

vailpass
04-15-2011, 09:33 AM
Care to make a bet that if unemployment is under 8% Obama gets re-elected?

Care to make a bet that you are a limp-wristed liberal, a low-income social services recipient and/or a member of a specific demographic that would vote for the current president regardless of the issues?

RNR
04-15-2011, 09:40 AM
Care to make a bet that if unemployment is under 8% Obama gets re-elected?

Yes enough people will have run out of unemployment insurance by then. Anyone who thinks they are getting a real % is naive to say the least~

suzzer99
04-15-2011, 09:43 AM
Care to make a bet that you are a limp-wristed liberal, a low-income social services recipient and/or a member of a specific demographic that would vote for the current president regardless of the issues?

Lol the funny thing is I actually would vote for a republican. I voted for Arnie. Whereas you are the one who literally thinks Obama is a socialist devil bent on destroying America and handing the ruins over to the poor, and probably barely even knows the issues beyond the fear-mongering buzzwords.

Have you ever even been to Europe?

suzzer99
04-15-2011, 09:44 AM
Yes enough people will have run out of unemployment insurance by then. Anyone who thinks they are getting a real % is naive to say the least~

Who cares? The bet is whether or not Obama will be re-elected, not whether or not unemployment will be under 8% (however they calculate the numbers).

KC Dan
04-15-2011, 09:45 AM
Have you ever even been to Europe?What is your point here? I spend a lot of time in numerous European countries and am interested in where you are going with this

suzzer99
04-15-2011, 09:47 AM
Because the people who seem to take for granted the idea that the entirety of Europe is some socialist hell that's going bankrupt and on an unsustainable path - often haven't been there.

KC Dan
04-15-2011, 09:48 AM
Because the people who seem to take for granted the idea that the entirety of Europe is some socialist hell that's going bankrupt and on an unsustainable path - often haven't been there.Not all of Europe but a good part of it is. What do you think would happen in the U.S. if for example, our gas prices were $8/gallon?

vailpass
04-15-2011, 09:49 AM
Lol the funny thing is I actually would vote for a republican. I voted for Arnie. Whereas you are the one who literally thinks Obama is a socialist devil bent on destroying America and handing the ruins over to the poor, and probably barely even knows the issues beyond the fear-mongering buzzwords.

Have you ever even been to Europe?

Typical attempt at condescension by the liberal left. Because I don't agree with the current administration and have the temerity to point out the fact that the emperor has no clothes I "probably barely even know the issues beyond the fear-mongering buzzwords."

Disagreeing with the president driving our economy into the ground, our debt through the ceiling and our international image into the toilet translates into
"literally thinks obama is a socialist devil bent on destroying America and handing the ruins over to the poor."

The only thing that could have made you sound like any more of a pewling, candy-ass LA liberal would have been if you had asked me if I had ever been to Europe.

Cave Johnson
04-15-2011, 09:53 AM
Not all of Europe but a good part of it is. What do you think would happen in the U.S. if for example, our gas prices were $8/gallon?

High gas prices work over there because a) less urban sprawl, b) shorter distances to travel, and c) much more readily available public transportation.

No one, excluding moron radicals, is proposing $8/gallon gas here.

Jaric
04-15-2011, 09:53 AM
Comparing European Culture to American Culture for any purpose is a fail idea anyway. It's not even apples to oranges.

KC Dan
04-15-2011, 09:54 AM
High gas prices work over there because a) less urban sprawl, b) shorter distances to travel, and c) much more readily available public transportation.

No one, excluding moron radicals, is proposing $8/gallon gas here.You don't have to propose it, it is well on its way to happening. But, those "moron radicals" are proposing a VAT. Put that on top of the other 375 taxes that you pay and see how you like it.

patteeu
04-15-2011, 10:08 AM
High gas prices work over there because a) less urban sprawl, b) shorter distances to travel, and c) much more readily available public transportation.

No one, excluding moron radicals, is proposing $8/gallon gas here.

Yeah, but that's a problem when you elect one of them POTUS.

suzzer99
04-15-2011, 10:56 AM
Typical attempt at condescension by the liberal left. Because I don't agree with the current administration and have the temerity to point out the fact that the emperor has no clothes I "probably barely even know the issues beyond the fear-mongering buzzwords."

Disagreeing with the president driving our economy into the ground, our debt through the ceiling and our international image into the toilet translates into
"literally thinks obama is a socialist devil bent on destroying America and handing the ruins over to the poor."

The only thing that could have made you sound like any more of a pewling, candy-ass LA liberal would have been if you had asked me if I had ever been to Europe.

Would you vote for Palin?

Also lol at you taking the high road and talking about condescension all of a sudden, when you're one of the worst perpetrators of personal attacks I see on here.

suzzer99
04-15-2011, 10:59 AM
If the economy keeps improving he's going to win in a landslide. You might want to leave the country for your heart's health.

1. stfu n00b
2. You live in LA therefore your opinion is void
3. stfu n00b
4. The fact that you defend obama, the worst President this country has ever seen, speaks ill of you, your parents, your gender transition counselor and your parole officer.
5. stfu n00b

Btw my only point here before you got me sidetracked with the juvenile attacks - is that when an incumbent is running people (swing voters anyway) are going to vote based on what the economy is doing pretty much every time.

vailpass
04-15-2011, 01:13 PM
Would you vote for Palin?

Also lol at you taking the high road and talking about condescension all of a sudden, when you're one of the worst perpetrators of personal attacks I see on here.

Objecting to your using the liberal SOP of attemtping to paint anyone who disagrees with obama as being too ignorant to understand the issues is taking the high road?
Please.
Take your tired act elsewhere.
As to personal attacks: perhaps you would be more comfortable on the huffpo site or maybe rainbowbridgeforlibs.com

vailpass
04-15-2011, 01:15 PM
Btw my only point here before you got me sidetracked with the juvenile attacks - is that when an incumbent is running people (swing voters anyway) are going to vote based on what the economy is doing pretty much every time.

No arguement here.

Jaric
04-15-2011, 02:37 PM
Would you vote for Palin?It would depend on the other contestents in the wet t-shirt contest, but I think I probably could.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2011, 04:02 PM
Because the people who seem to take for granted the idea that the entirety of Europe is some socialist hell that's going bankrupt and on an unsustainable path - often haven't been there.

I've been there. 'Cept for Switzerland their standar of living didn't see really high to me where I went there. I also think this about the place too. But you don't have to be there to know about. Not everyone can have first hand knowledge or experience. That's what reading is for.

RNR
04-16-2011, 06:44 AM
Who cares? The bet is whether or not Obama will be re-elected, not whether or not unemployment will be under 8% (however they calculate the numbers).
You made a comment about unemployment which I merely replied to because it is clear you do not know not what you are talking about on the subject~

Chiefshrink
04-16-2011, 07:50 AM
Care to make a bet that if unemployment is under 8% Obama gets re-elected?

Care to make a bet that if gas is 'still' over 5 $$ a gallon he still gets re-elected?:shrug:

Hell it will be at 5 $$ by Memorial Day this yr:thumb:

Make that bet?

The Mad Crapper
04-16-2011, 09:03 AM
http://www.moonbattery.com/obama-budget-plan.jpg

Baby Lee
04-16-2011, 09:41 AM
I'm not bangin' your sister, I've added vaginas to my family plan.

BWillie
04-22-2011, 08:21 PM
No it doesn't. The trend has been down since the early 1950s when defense spending was 10% or more of GDP.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size-graph.php?meas=GDP

No one in their right mind would trade our military capabilities for those of Turkey or France, much less Mexico. The defense budget is not a piggy bank.

I like how you conveniently found a graph that cuts out at the 2002-2003 mark. And then you use the 40's and 50's to show what we spent at that time which was completely different. Does it come to any surprise that during 97-2000 we were closer to balancing the budget? And per your graph we spent the least amt of the military at that time. We don't have to be global watchdogs, we just think we have the right to be. It ends up being counterproductive anyway, pisses off other countries, crazy towelheads, and produces more fuel to the fire, which in turn more conflict that we have to bump up military spending again. If we weren't so involved in foreign affairs and donate so much money to anti-muslim countries do you think we would be targeted by extremists as much? Should be a rhetorical question

patteeu
04-22-2011, 09:10 PM
I like how you conveniently found a graph that cuts out at the 2002-2003 mark.

What seems convenient is the way you criticize that as if the post-2003 data is going to show a dramatically different picture without bothering to demonstrate that with data of your own. I'll fix that. Here's a somewhat more current graph (you'll have to provide your own if 2008 data isn't recent enough for you):

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/4d6d21504bd7c83d40040000-547/but-even-with-those-wars-defense-spending-is-still-below-its-average-as-a-percent-of-gdp-for-the-past-60-years.jpg

Not only does this add data to the recent end of the timeline, but it deletes the ginormous WWII spike. And lo and behold, it still tells the same story. Virtually flat spending, if not an overall declining trend, since WWII.

And then you use the 40's and 50's to show what we spent at that time which was completely different.

What was completely different about it other than the fact that we spent a shitload more on defense back then than we do now as a share of GDP?

Does it come to any surprise that during 97-2000 we were closer to balancing the budget? And per your graph we spent the least amt of the military at that time.

No it doesn't come as a surprise at all. The Clinton administration (along with Republicans and democrats in Congress) irresponsibly used our defense budget to help finance their spending instead of fixing entitlements and cutting other unnecessary spending when the fix would have been much less painful. As a result, btw, just a couple short years later we found ourselves, as Donald Rumsfeld said, going to war "with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have".

We don't have to be global watchdogs, we just think we have the right to be. It ends up being counterproductive anyway, pisses off other countries, crazy towelheads, and produces more fuel to the fire, which in turn more conflict that we have to bump up military spending again. If we weren't so involved in foreign affairs and donate so much money to anti-muslim countries do you think we would be targeted by extremists as much? Should be a rhetorical question

I'm thankful that your pollyannish view of foreign policy is still a minority view. We absolutely have a right to act globally in our interests. I think it would be absolutely foolish to withdraw from the world to the extent it would be necessary to stop muslim extremists from targeting us.

What anti-muslim countries are you talking about?

Silock
04-23-2011, 12:11 AM
Fine, here's the top marginal income tax rate. Note where it was during the 90's.

http://markmaynard.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/taxthresh3-300x238.png

While that's true, tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are relatively stable, remaining around 7% for virtually the entire time period in which we have had a federal income tax.