archer wrote: I like the honesty...it's refreshing. I have never agreed with the philosophy that doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing. Better to spend the time working on the right solution than waste time on the wrong one. There is an old construction saying....if you don't take the time to do it right the first time, what makes you think you will have time to do it over? This country cannot afford to experiment with Ryan's radical ideas...we need to do what is right.
Ryan's radical idea? Actually planning the future, instead of kicking the can down the road another 10 yrs? Each year we delay with a fix, the fix will be more and more painful. It shocks me that anyone under 30 would vote for Obama. Yeah, we can "save" ss, medicare, etc for all those over 40, but nothing will be there for the younger generation. It needs to be fixed NOW. Ryan's plan doesn't effect anyone who will retire in the next 10 yrs. They keep what they have now.
Come on...we elect people to lead, and fix problems. Not continue to kick the can down the road.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Oh, I agree. Obama and the democrats have tried to get congress to compromise on a plan to address the deficit and the budget, but as long as the Republicans refuse to compromise on revenue increases it isn't going to happen. The democrats have ,compromised on spending cuts, why can't they all give a little?
Ryan's plan is social Darwinism... Screw the middle-class/elderly, and do it by giving more tax-breaks to the wealthy. That's not a "plan"...That's passing off "bat-sh*t-crazy" as a platform talking-point.
archer wrote: Oh, I agree. Obama and the democrats have tried to get congress to compromise on a plan to address the deficit and the budget, but as long as the Republicans refuse to compromise on revenue increases it isn't going to happen. The democrats have ,compromised on spending cuts, why can't they all give a little?
We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. We can't raise enough in taxes to cover our spending increases, especially those that are coming in the next 20 yrs.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Democracy4Sale wrote: Ryan's plan is social Darwinism... Screw the middle-class/elderly, and do it by giving more tax-breaks to the wealthy. That's not a "plan"...That's passing off "bat-sh*t-crazy" as a platform talking-point.
You obviously haven't read the plan. It changes nothing for those who are 55 now, but it does change it to make it sustainable so there still is a plan when those who are 30 now reach retirement age.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Democracy4Sale wrote: Ryan's plan is social Darwinism... Screw the middle-class/elderly, and do it by giving more tax-breaks to the wealthy. That's not a "plan"...That's passing off "bat-sh*t-crazy" as a platform talking-point.
You obviously haven't read the plan. It changes nothing for those who are 55 now, but it does change it to make it sustainable so there still is a plan when those who are 30 now reach retirement age.
That's a lie.
If you're on Medicaid (instead of Medicare), and over-55 it screws you. EVERY SENIOR, regardless of Medicare/Medicaid would see their drug-costs (donut-hole) re-established and could cost them thousands; all of the wellness-screening/preventative-care would go away.
Thanks for your irrelevant talking-point about "it doesn't change anything for those who are over-55 now." Boy, facts are pesky things aren't they?
And that's just the Obamacare part... Here's the rest:
archer wrote: Oh, I agree. Obama and the democrats have tried to get congress to compromise on a plan to address the deficit and the budget, but as long as the Republicans refuse to compromise on revenue increases it isn't going to happen. The democrats have ,compromised on spending cuts, why can't they all give a little?
We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. We can't raise enough in taxes to cover our spending increases, especially those that are coming in the next 20 yrs.
We have BOTH a spending and a revenue problem, and only by working on both sides of the ledger will we make any headway.
Paul Krugman doesn't think Paul Ryan's budget plan should be taken seriously.
"This is just a fantasy, not a serious policy proposal," Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning Princeton economics professor and New York Times columnist, wrote in a blog post Monday:
Look, Ryan hasn't 'crunched the numbers'; he has just scribbled some stuff down, without checking at all to see if it makes sense. He asserts that he can cut taxes without net loss of revenue by closing unspecified loopholes; he asserts that he can cut discretionary spending to levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge, without saying how; he asserts that he can convert Medicare to a voucher system, with much lower spending than now projected, without even a hint of how this is supposed to work.
[...]
He's a hard-core conservative, with a voting record as far right as Michelle Bachman's [sic], who has shown no competence at all on the numbers thing.
Ryan's budget would slash all federal spending -- outside of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- by 70 percent by 2050, perhaps an unrealistic assumption considering that Romney has promised to keep defense spending above those levels, according to Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein.
Ryan also has proposed cutting individual and corporate tax rates and getting rid of taxes on corporate income, capital gains, estates, interest and dividends, according to Bloomberg. Ryan's budget proposal also promised to close tax loopholes, but declined to specify which ones.
Ryan's budget is generous to the wealthiest Americans. Romney, for example, would have paid an effective 0.82 percent tax rate in 2010 under Ryan's budget, thanks to the elimination of the tax on capital gains, the Atlantic's Matthew O'Brien notes.
