The Ryan budget, Part I: Social Security

“House Republicans today released a budget plan drafted by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, that claims to cut government spending by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, lower the top tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans to 25 percent, cut the debt by $4.4 trillion, raise real GDP by $1.5 trillion over the next decade, restore Social Security and Medicare to solvency and bring the unemployment rate down to 4 percent by 2015.”

So what’s Obama’s budget plan? Oh that’s right, he and the Democrats never proposed one.

• Link
• Report this comment

“lower the top tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans to 25 percent”

Actually it lowers the top tax rate on ALL Americans to 25%.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Actually it lowers the top tax rate on ALL Americans to 25%”

Really? If you “lowered” MY taxes to 25% that would be a tax RAISE for me.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay….

Screen cleaner please…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone – you’d be shocked by the volatility of the net worth and income of those in the upper income brackets.

In other words, people often wildly succeed, then rapidly lose that capital. It is both an argument for a flatter tax system and a solid social safety net for those that are the least fortunate.

The middle class does not need a social safety net, they can build their own if they so choose. Not that Republicans are even 1/2 proposing removing the safety net. But I’m in favor of a stronger safety net, but one a little bit lower to the ground.

• Link
• Report this comment

Does Ryan’s plan include getting rid of the charitable contribution tax deduction, like Georgia’s Republicans did.

• Link
• Report this comment

Is jm Nancy Pelosi’s long lost step sister.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yet you find forcing everyday Americans to pay $5 a gallon “bold and forthright” since that is merely supposed to “force other people to come up with a plan?”

As usual Gay, how very hypocritical of a Neo-Comm.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, how much does Obama budget cut? I don’t time to read the entire thing. Thanks.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, lets I remind you of some earlier posts:

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/02/16/two-budget-fights-loom-one-that-matters-and-one-that-doesnt/

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/01/27/a-1-5-trillion-deficit-ought-to-be-cause-for-compromise/

• Link
• Report this comment

“The budget should be balanced on the back of those responsible for the economic meltdown….”

OK, let’s tax liberals more.

• Link
• Report this comment

I figured he’d know off the top of his head. No need to be a jackass, Doggone.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ryan and his GOP colleagues can’t have it both ways.

Jay! How can you say such a thing!

• Link
• Report this comment

@hahaha -

BINGO!

• Link
• Report this comment

“He used the Heritage Foundation to “score” his plan.

I wonder why.”

Because the Heritage Foundation has smarter people working their mailroom than Congress has in their Budget Office?

• Link
• Report this comment

Most of the evil rich that you lefties hate don’t get paid their millions in the form of a salary. They make it from dividends and investments. So the SS cap is kinda moot.

I still don’t know why the employee’s contribution was lowered this year. That was a dumb move.

• Link
• Report this comment

If the farleft nutjobs really thought government was the end all, be all answer to the world then they would gladly tax themselves 75% like good little Marxists and give it all to Uncle Sam

• Link
• Report this comment

WOW keep digging….

• Link
• Report this comment

“I figured he’d know off the top of his head.”

And YOU need to get it out of your head that Jay hangs around here just WAITING to answer inane questions from you.

• Link
• Report this comment

NOTICE chart on page 7 of the “Roadmap” CBO score. (from the link at 2:42)

• Link
• Report this comment

“And YOU need to get it out of your head that Jay hangs around here just WAITING to answer inane questions from you.”

Again, sorry you’re having bad day(obviously). No need to be a jackass.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thanks Keeps….I wouldn’t let old whats’ his name use the fainting couch….just let him hit the floor and we’ll work around the lump..

I’m a nasty nasty Granny…..Mr. G you lucky dawg….

• Link
• Report this comment

“Bernie Sanders: “This plan does away with every trace of security that working people have fought for over last 70 years”.

Yep, straight up common sense right there.”

Really? So all traces of security were done away with in the Democrat-controlled budget of 2008, LWM? Because that is the spending level the Ryan Plan starts with.

I do believe that Screw-Loose Sanders voted for that budget, did he not?

• Link
• Report this comment

“And I want my grubby little socialist hands on that money … ”

Socialists. Always wanting what they didn’t earn.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Ryan Plan for cutting one trillion dollar in Medicaid costs:

The 16 million seniors and people with disabilities now on Medicaid would likely be at the greatest risk from these cuts. They constitute just under one-quarter of Medicaid beneficiaries but account for two-thirds of all Medicaid spending because of their greater health care needs and because Medicaid is the primary funder of long-term care services and supports, including nursing home care.

Dump ‘em. Dump ‘em all. Look at the savings! That Ryan’s really lookin’ out for us. Ain’t he a sweetheart. And that just the beginning of the GOP plan to save us from ourselves via their group rate death panels. How civil.

• Link
• Report this comment

“From 1983 to 2011, the trust fund collected more in Social Security taxes than it paid out in Social Security benefits,” he acknowledges. “But the government borrowed all of these surpluses and spent them on other government programs unrelated to Social Security.”

So the deadbeats owe $2.6 trillion dollars and plan on lying and cheating their way out of paying off the debt?

A deadbeat by any other name is a dadbeat.

• Link
• Report this comment

@left wing

“And I want my grubby little socialist hands on that money … ”

At least you admit it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R: “Really? So all traces of security were done away with in the Democrat-controlled budget of 2008, LWM? Because that is the spending level the Ryan Plan starts with.”

It’s about the revenue, Dave, the revenue, not the spending. As any freshman in a business management class knows, the key is the revenue.

Hey listen up:

According to a Wall St Journal / NBC News poll, the percentage of people who support the following:

Placing a surtax on federal income taxes on people earning over one million dollar a year: Totally support (55%), Mostly acceptable (26%), Mostly unacceptable (11%), Totally unacceptable (6%).

I don’t know righties, looks like the American people got them a mean case of wealth envy.

• Link
• Report this comment

We could just stick with Obama’s projected 1.6 trillion dollar deficit for 2011 and his own administration’s projected deficits through 2020. If we do that then we can just solve govt runaway spending by saying “Yes.We can!” and “hopey changey” and “Change you can believe in!”. Just repeat these slogans over and over and everything will be all right!

• Link
• Report this comment

JB: Republicans are just trimming around the edges
R’s: You have to start somewhere.
JB: But you’re not meaningfully doing anything
R’s: Well we’re going to cut discretionary first, then go after the bigger fish.
JB: Well now you’re destroying all those good things, our seed corn, etc.
R’s: Too bad. Not everything is seed corn. Some of it is just corn syrup.
JB: Well, you’re still not doing anything about the big budget pieces.

A month Later….

JB: You’re cutting those uber important safety nets and invalidating the SS Trust fund!?!?!
R’s: We said we’d get to it.
JB: But you can’t cut that, and if you want to fix SS, you should just tax the rich more by raising the cap.
R’s: We’re not going to do that, we’re going to make minor adjustments and grandfather in existing and close to retirees 55 and over.
JB: Well that will just destroy people.
R’s: You said you wanted us to address the big items.
JB: But not by hurting people
R’s: There’s a $1.5+ Trillion deficit Jay.
JB: Well isn’t the trust fund worth something?
R’s: Nope

Jay, I’m sorry to parody all this. But do you see how ridiculous this line of argumentation the left is making is? Everyone from the moderates to the right does.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] Read more [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, as I mentioned the other day, the media’s rhetoric (yours included) is not helping solve the problem. Judgment should be reserved until a final plan is crafted and up for a vote. Then you can shed all the light on it that you want.

In the meantime, you and your brethren should let those on the left and right that are trying to save our country proceed in as much sanity and breathing room as you can stand to give them.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ryan’s road map is essentially to treat the Medicaid recipients like road kill and to push them off on the side of the road for the buzzards to feast on. Then again, we would not want the GOP to go hungry, would we.

• Link
• Report this comment

This will be a bunch of mumbo jumbo over a piece of legislation that will never be enacted. Wasted energy…

• Link
• Report this comment

jm,

I’m sure Ryan thought long and hard about his plan to toss the Medicaid recipients to the buzzards and it is quite obvious to anyone reviewing Ryan’s piece of work that the buzzards won, hands down.

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxPayer – hyperbole much?

• Link
• Report this comment

However, if you accept that harsh reality, how do you justify exempting income above $106,000 from those taxes? If the money really isn’t going into Social Security, then why do working and middle class Americans have to pay it while more affluent Americans are largely protected?”"

Good question….now, all y’all who keep carping about how “unfair” the taxes on the upper income brackets are…doesn’t this fit the paradigm? If not so, how?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R: “And you have it completely backwards as usual,. We don’t have a revenue problem. We have always had a spending problem.”

C’mon Dave, why did Ryan sidestep the issue of continuing lavish subsidies to utility industries even as we roll back taxes even further on the top brackets?

It’s cause he’s a little mouse peeking out from somebody’s coat pocket, that’s why. A little mouse in the pocket of the big man who writes the checks. A mouse with a clipboard and calculator and who knows his figures.

So don’t tell me about the Republicans governing not by polls but by principle. The previous president touted that – but was there ever a more slavish cow towing to polls: surreptitiously, stealthily, slavishly.

Here’s what’s gonna happen right here I bet: those principled, pint-sized revolutionaries you call your side are gonna be the ones to take a haircut when that carpet bomb they’ve been carrying around finally goes off in their suitcase. They’ll be soot-covered and teeth all a clattering when this one blows up, just watch.

• Link
• Report this comment

“continuing lavish subsidies to utility industries ”

You must mean the solar power and wind companies.

• Link
• Report this comment

Can anyone on the left explain why going back to 2008 spending levels is allegedly “Draconian”

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama is such a utter and complete pansy it is ridiculous. For all W’s faults, he wasn’t a pansy.

• Link
• Report this comment

“To this day, it has been proven that banks and wall st. caused the recession”

Wherehow? mm, you have your head screwed on backwards.

If home buyers hadn’t defaulted on their loans, there would not have been the recession we had. Instead, government subsidized housing policies caused the collapse.

• Link
• Report this comment

“This will be a bunch of mumbo jumbo over a piece of legislation that will never be enacted. Wasted energy…”

Not so, SoCo. Here’s what I think will happen. Hope & Punt won’t do anything (as usual) and let the Senate do his blocking for him in 2011 and 2012. November 2012 comes around and the people see who is really blocking fiscal reform and boot out more than enough Democrats from the Senate to control that body as well as the House. I think you and others are completely mis-reading the electorate’s angst about deficits and debt.

If Hope & Punt does get re-elected, he might see the tea leaves (pun intended) and go along, or he becomes a lame duck for the next 4 years. The last thing he wants to be is dismissed as irrelevant. His ego couldn’t take that. So maybe he jumps on board the fiscal bandwagon so as to attach his name to it.

Or maybe he doesn’t get re-elected after all. Either way, the GOP still control both houses of Congress and reconciliation (budgetary item, you know) is used to pass the plan.

• Link
• Report this comment

“u must mean the solar power and wind companies.”

And General Electric:

“The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-2010/story?id=13224558

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh, and mm, we don’t spend $1.2 Trillion on defense. Try 1/2 that.

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxPayer 3:17 – see this

“beginning in 2011, Medicaid spending per beneficiary would grow at a prescribed rate.1″

Translation: no cuts, just actually trying to manage the rate of growth.

• Link
• Report this comment

But to answer you on the 2008 spending levels : “Really? So all traces of security were done away with in the Democrat-controlled budget of 2008, LWM? Because that is the spending level the Ryan Plan starts with.”

In word, yes, the security was already in grave danger then with the Bush tax time-bomb ticking away. Well, it just went off. And instead of facing it head on, our president dove under the couch, taking a rain check on all-out ideological war. Well, the wolf’s at the door again.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Democratic Party’s idea of a great budget = $1 trillion annual deficits into perpetuity. WINNING!

• Link
• Report this comment

LWM: I’m placing bets that if the economy recovers enough and the GOP RECOGNIZES that, then the argument will be “The tax cuts saved the economy, so we should keep them!” in stark contrast to their argument that they absolutely had to have them continued now because the economy needs to recover and THEN we can let them expire.

• Link
• Report this comment

jm

And how do the rich NOT benefit…? It would seem to me a bunch of homeless and destitute old folks hanging about would certainly put a crimp in the lifestyle. That line of logic is simply more of the limited vision of those who cannot see beyond their own pocketbook when it comes to the concept of social stability.

Secondly, if it weren’t for the working classes producing, where would the rich get their money?

• Link
• Report this comment

Hell, they’ve got Medicaid in place forever, through the year 2090.

I’m sure those in hell would love for forever to end in 2090.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Secondly, if it weren’t for the working classes producing, where would the rich get their money?”

“If there were no customers, there would be no NationWide” (from advertisement on TV)

• Link
• Report this comment

jm: “If home buyers hadn’t defaulted on their loans, there would not have been the recession we had.”

Are you tripping?

The house of cards collapsed because it had to, it had a time-bomb inside it. The adjustable junk mortgages started resetting at higher rates after initial low interest introductory terms expired and the music stopped with the seemingly automatic home appreciation the whole ponzi scheme was predicated on, from which point it simply spiraled out of control.

C’mon bubba, keep up now.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone: Sometimes I feel many companies only see the customer/company relationship in the abstract. It’s good to think about but it doesn’t really MEAN anything, not like cold cash does.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Odds on Obama

By Mark Penn (Huffpissed writer)

If in the next year America sees a strong president firmly leading the country to solve its big problems and “winning the future,” it won’t matter who the Republican opponent is, he will win. And if they don’t see that, a billion dollars or more won’t stop the tide.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/05/the_odds_on_obama_109456.html

• Link
• Report this comment

josef nix 3:23 – sorry, I’m not going to respond. To suggest that old folks lying on the street is their plan, and that that would put a crimp in their “lifestyle” is such a disgusting idea as to not really merit a response more than what I’ve just written.

as for your second point. It’s funny, it generally seems the truly wealthy could be dropped in any scenario and do just fine. so that argument doesn’t work either. And for the rubes that inherited their money and don’t actually know how to run a business, it would be nice if a recession would wipe them out, but D’s seem to prefer bailing them out.

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam – true, but I used that quote (it’s become a favorite) because of the MANY times I’ve been called an idiot for saying that very same thing…whenever someone asks (more or less) “which came first, the business or the customers?”

• Link
• Report this comment

josef nix

If you have a job, you are rich in the eyes of the wealth envy left wingers.

“I see Mr Ryan’s budget also includes a couple of nifty little gifts to wWall Street….”

You mean like BP, GE and GM that are Obama’s biggest donors?

• Link
• Report this comment

Well MM, if you want to end the DOE, the State Department, and others the DVA, the DHS, among others, go ahead. You’ll have lots of R supporters.

But to argue that all those expenses are “military expenses” is such a specious argument as not merit more than an absolute dismissal.

• Link
• Report this comment

Don’t be so modest, Doggone. You’ve been called an idiot for sooooo many other gems as well.

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxPayer – as a % of GDP is used as a reference point to show that we can get government spending under control relative to the size of our economy. THAT METRIC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUANTITY, QUALITY, OR AVAILABILITY OF MEDICAID SERVICES. Such services would instead be completely preserved and funding increased every year, albeit at a slower pace than preivously

• Link
• Report this comment

mm wants to cut and / or eliminate the TSA. What a joke.

• Link
• Report this comment

jm

Rather long for a no answer, I’d say…

Did I say at any point that that was their plan? You said the rich don’t “benefit” and, as is often the case for those who think only in terms of what’s jingling in their pockets, the social benefits from which all profit does not seem to enter into the equation. WITHOUT social security, that secenario and that crimp are not so far fetched…that “crimp in lifestyle” is not, you know, just money.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Why cut the taxes and the money just trickles down to the workers and not to CEO and special shareholder wealth.’

Keep never took ECON 101 nor has he ever been in charge of a budget. Keep doesn’t realize that the CEO makes the big decisions within the company.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Not to mention any plan he has provided so far, they are either ignoring, not listening to, or genuinely not keeping up enough to know that he HAS provided a plan.”

Perhaps you’d like to provide us with a list of Hope & Punt’s current plans in Congress for us to peruse . . .

• Link
• Report this comment

TaxPayer – nope. the point is, government spending gets under control relative to the size of the economy. Which is desperately needed. why don’t you go perp some fraud somewhere else

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep never took ECON 101 nor has he ever been in charge of a budget. Keep doesn’t realize that the CEO makes the big decisions within the company.

Another statement of ignorance without fact or knowledge of the truth. More childish noise without content. tick…tick…tick…

• Link
• Report this comment

“Another statement of ignorance without fact or knowledge of the truth. ”

So what business have you owned and operated, Keep? LOL

• Link
• Report this comment

This does get frustrating.

Rep Ryan’s contention there is no SS trust fund because the money’s been spent on other things is…. well, I think he knows better.

In years in which SS takes in more than it pays out, the SS Administration buys Treasuries. US Treasury bonds. There is a fund that grows because of interest. In years there’s less coming in then going out, bonds are redeemed. Seems simple.

What’s frustrating is seeing how Ryan constructs all this. It’s inherently contradictory, as Jay pointed out.

It’ll be a needless distraction. Like I said, Rep Ryan must know better. So, what’s his reason for putting it the way he has?

• Link
• Report this comment

ok i’m out things to do. burn our country liberals, then we can all be equally poor!

• Link
• Report this comment

Thirdly–$106,800 constitutes “rich?” Comfortable middle class, maybe, but rich?

It depends on where you live. That would definitely be rich in one of these places
http://www.faqs.org/shareranks/2641,Cities-with-Lowest-Per-Capita-Income

Probably not so “rich” in these places…
http://www.localdatabase.com/top-lists/income/highest_percapita/

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam: “I’m placing bets that if the economy recovers enough and the GOP RECOGNIZES that, then the argument will be “The tax cuts saved the economy, so we should keep them!” in stark contrast to their argument that they absolutely had to have them continued now because the economy needs to recover and THEN we can let them expire.”

Definitely. That has been the cynical reading all along – meaning, the one that’s almost 100% guaranteed to be right as an explanation of Republican strategy. There was even talk that the benefits from the tax cut / “mini-stimulus” last Christmas should run out more or less smack dab in the 2012 election season, meaning the economy should start to lose wind again. Of course, if it can get sucker-punched in the mean time, i.e. through a shutdown, all the better. They can count on further sinking poll numbers for Obama. That’s for the super-cynical explanation. Now if they go so far as to play Russian roulette with the debt ceiling this summer, then the bullet goes off in all our heads, theirs included.

jm: Concerning tax subsides to industries like solar and wind.

Yes, certainly, as it’s the proper role of government to provide a boost to fledgling industries, particularly when there are good reasons geopolitically, not to mention environmentally, to do so.

• Link
• Report this comment

jm,

You seem to be having difficulties accepting your own linkee, your perper of fraud. Here is the text from your linkee, fraudulent one:

A detailed analysis of your proposal for Medicaid is beyond CBO’s capabilities for
long-term modeling. After discussions with your staff, CBO analyzed a modification
to the Roadmap based on an assumption: Beginning in 2011, total Medicaid spending
grows with the sum of the rate of population growth and the average of the
growth rates of the CPI-U and the CPI-M. Under that assumption, federal spending
for Medicaid under the Roadmap is projected to fall slightly, from less than 2 percent
of GDP in 2020 to just under 1 percent in 2080 (see Figure 3 on page 11).8

Notice their use of the word, “fall”, fraudulent one. Now go perp yourself, jm.

• Link
• Report this comment

JM, Did’nt you read the D.C. papers yesterday? I did! Do your research and get the facts before calling people names.

• Link
• Report this comment

SoCo

Point well made.

Did you see the same thing in that list of lowest that I did?

• Link
• Report this comment

josef

I noticed there were no MS, AL, KY, or WV cities on that list. Kinda took me by surprise given the general welfare of parts of the population in those states.

• Link
• Report this comment

Did we expect anything different from the gop?

Surprised they documented this before an election.

Are people going to vote to take money from themselves to give to corporate donors?

cons will.

If we want to collapse the economy again to lose your jobs, this will do it.

• Link
• Report this comment

There are variables, but the notion that business is crippled by tax rates is not entirely supportable. Here’s a link to taxe rates over the last half century. Remember the halcyon days of the 1960s?
http://www.mymoneyblog.com/historical-federal-tax-rates-by-income-group.html

• Link
• Report this comment

“wow, i choose to ignore your silliness.”

Ok, so you haven’t a clue as to how a business is run. Thanks for proving my point, Keep!

• Link
• Report this comment

Sorry Hamilton, tax rates are not a fair metric unless you account for changes in what is allowed to be deducted from income.

Take a look at taxes collected as a percentage of GDP. Regardless of the rates, we have rarely collected more than 20%. Yet the Democrats want 23-25% spending rates indefinitely. It’s a plan that can’t possibly succeed.

• Link
• Report this comment

Of course the party of irresponsibility has offered up nothing in the form of a plan. Why they couldn’t even pass a budget when they controlled both chambers of Congress. Hopefully, the Republicans will stand firm against these idiots in the White House and in congress who deny the financial crises this country faces.

• Link
• Report this comment

SoCo

You know what they say, out of sight, out of mind…

• Link
• Report this comment

Why look, Messiah Ryan has channeled Jimmy Carter…but this time it must be true.

And it encourages the development of American-made renewable and alternative energy sources, including nuclear, wind, solar, and more, affirming the position that environmental stewardship and economic growth are not mutually exclusive goals.
____________________

wow… and you choose to dobule down on your post of acknowledged ignorance. lol. My point ws that you were ignorant and I did indeed prove that.

• Link
• Report this comment

At least the Republicans have the guts and the man berries to deal with the problem head on… whine all you want libbies, where is the democratic solution and leadership to reduce the $14 trillion debt that this country currently faces. I’ll tell you where, it is doesn’t exist. The democrats could not even pass a budget before the 2010 election as they were scared to….what a bunch of whimpy assed losers…….

• Link
• Report this comment

“That might’ve been a political calculation to gain Republican support for cutting Defense. About the only way some might go along is if they say it was SecDef Gates’s idea.”

Or, maybe because Ryan’s plan cuts $1 TRILLION from defense over the next 10 years, that $100 billlion pales in comparison.

• Link
• Report this comment

“wow… and you choose to dobule down on your post of acknowledged ignorance. lol. My point ws that you were ignorant and I did indeed prove that.”

That doesn’t even make any sense, Poop!

• Link
• Report this comment

A person making 70k per year would have to work approximately 14,000 years to make the income of one of the hedge fund managers who claimed $1b in income last year. That means that a person making 35k would have to work approx. 28,000 years to make that same amount.

We need to drastically raise taxes on the super rich.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R

Do you have a link for that? I read in DefenseNews that his budget preserves the DoD budget for 2012. That means he’s what, got to come up with $900 billion over ten years in addition to the Gates proposal? Or am I missing something?

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife

April 5th, 2011
3:53 pm
Did we expect anything different from the gop?

Surprised they documented this before an election.”-getalife

getalife,

What planet are you living on? “Surpised they documented this before an election?” What??? The next election is almost 2 years away. Almost 2 years buddy. If you think we’re too close to an election to discuss anything than we might as well just never discuss anything because its always going to be 2 years from an election whether midterm or presidential. Good grief!

• Link
• Report this comment

someone else ought to come up with a plan

vs

to be determined later with input from others

mmmmmmm, looks like a duck…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Jaybo

I did read YOUR column and YOUR assessment of Ryan’s plan. I stand by what I said, where precisely is that democratic budget again? Maybe you know where it is, is it in Pelosi’s G5 or perhaps Reid left it in his saddlebag at the cowboy poet club or then again maybe it’s in Obama’s golf bag

• Link
• Report this comment

So we’re 14 trillion in debt and its growing by billions literally every day.

The dem solution? They have none.

Their strategy? Criticize real solutions by complaining with the usual slogans- hurting the poor, tax breaks for the wealthy, the wealth envy card, blah, blah, blah.

• Link
• Report this comment

Definition of the dirty word “ENTITLEMENTS” –Any program paid for with American taxpayer dollars for services to and a direct benefit for same taxpayers AND NOT used for pork, earmarks, or graft.
NO WONDER OUR POLITICIANS THINK IT IS A DIRTY WORD!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Get Real…did you look at the comments on page 1. Jay posted the link to Obama’s 2012 budget proposal. Is the problem that you were reading another blog?

• Link
• Report this comment

So the Dems are okay with us borrowing 40 cents for every dollar that we spend?

They are okay with imminent bankruptcy. Well at least we know where you stand now.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Obama administration’s projected deficit for FY 2011. 1.6 TRILLION DOLLARS. Nuff said!

• Link
• Report this comment

Riddle me this: Why will the Republican leadership never again debate Mr. Obama while the camera’s are rolling? See healthcare debate 2009 Obama vs GOP Leadership. Remember when Mr. Cantor pulled out a stack of papers and Mr. Obama stated, “I see you brought your props.”

• Link
• Report this comment

back to work

• Link
• Report this comment

So the Dems are okay with us borrowing 40 cents for every dollar that we spend?

Nope, we feel as bad about that as you do about making folks homeless, hungry , uninsured and unemployed….

Oh wait a minute….

• Link
• Report this comment

They are okay with imminent bankruptcy

Another drama queen….. the US is not bankrupt. But you were not concerned about bankruptcy when you argued for the extension of the Bush Tax Cut for the rich or even the original Bush tax cuts. We have an acknowledged debt issue but the issue is how do we address. Everyone is discussing the timing of addressing it and the manner (both parties). A little less drama queen and a little more real discussion would help.

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny 4:27

That was really good…

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep…your precious democrats never passed a budget for FY11; that runs 10/1/10 through 9/30/11. I am not talking about next fiscal year, I am talking about the one we are in at the present time…

• Link
• Report this comment

Thulsa Doom

April 5th, 2011
4:29 pm
Granny,

Nobody makes someone else homeless, hungry, etc.

People make themselves homeless, hungry, etc. by virtue of their own life choices.

Try again Granny since you still have problems making a logical point.

Bull Dookey

Shame on you.

• Link
• Report this comment

Good Grief,

Granny and Paul are of the opinion that govt and Republicans MAKE people homeless, hungry, etc. Did Repub operatives show up at someone’s house, physically remove them and physically take away their food. Did Repubs physically show up at someone’s job site and fire them? Ya’ll come up with the craziest statements.

• Link
• Report this comment

jm

I still don’t quite grasp where you get the idea that I think that that’s what the rich want. Like everybody else, there are those with a moral compass and there are those without. The point I keep trying, ever how inarticulately, to make is that when we go messing around with those programs aimed at providing for social security and social welfare we are completely missing the meaning of the words “security” and “welfare.” Without such programs and without funding them, those at the top would be a lot less secure and their welfare a lot less cicumspect.

And at the risk of bringing out some rather nasty commentary from some, it isn’t the rich or the poor who get on my nerves, but the bourgeois who are scared sh*tless they’ll find themselves thrown in with the former whom they feel ever so superior to and at the same time are clawing trying to curry favor from the rich in order to obtain an entree into a segment of society they have the mistaken idea are “better.” It’s not healthy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep, I said a budget that addressed the deficit and dealt with entitlements. We haven’t seen one with those ingredients to compare.

• Link
• Report this comment

Btw Dave R, this: The Ryan Plan for saving SS is to be determined later with input from others.

IS CALLED PUNTING

• Link
• Report this comment

Granny Godzilla,

Booo hooo! Them evil ole Repubs are driving around town stealing people’s houses, stealing their food, making them dumb by forcibly keeping them from going to school, plying them with drugs and alcohol, making them dependent on all these govt free goodies.

And of course none of these people are at all responsible for their own plights are they granny?

• Link
• Report this comment

Must going to be a full moon tonight. I see the Obama sheep Zombies are loose

• Link
• Report this comment

While I do not wish bad luck on anyone, I would almost like to see some of the arrogant “I’ve got mine” or “they’re poor because they choose to be” types lose it all and then see whose “fault” it is…

• Link
• Report this comment

“If Ryan’s plan ALSO dealt with entitlements and dealt with other things that the Obama plan DOES deal with, then you might be right.”

Adam, the problem with your argument is that Obama’s plan does not deal with those issues.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oooops. I voted libertarian last election. Somehow or another I musta directly made a Democrat homeless, hungry, and unemployed according to granny godzilla. Shame on me.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep, why don’t you tell me or better yet tell the Democrats so they’ll be able to make an argument against the Ryan plan instead of just attempting to criticize it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep……Oh Plezzzz, you had a super majority in both the Senate and the House…don’t give me excuses…man up, just like the democrats should do but will not or the truth is they simply cannot…

• Link
• Report this comment

The wealthy can have their tax break…level the playing field…but cap mortgage interest to homes under $500,000 and no break for 2rd homes and watch them squirm. What is not fair about that…everyone. The top 10% would pay WAY more taxes than they do now. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN….because the GOP will protect these people at ALL COST, so when they realize this will raise their “taxable income”, we will suddenly hear that it would “cost jobs” for the rest of us unworthy, needy bums.

• Link
• Report this comment

From Jed Lewison at DK and a most excellent point….

So House Republicans claim their long-term fiscal plan will create millions of new jobs, citing as evidence economic projections from the privately-funded Heritage Foundation that were released as a part of their plan.

In response, Matt Yglesias asked a good question: have Republicans previously used Heritage forecasts to defend their fiscal policy proposals? The answer, he reports, was a resounding yes: Republicans touted Heritage forecasts that the Bush tax cuts would generate an economic boom, boosting employment by roughly 6.5 million jobs.

Of course, despite the Heritage prediction, there wasn’t job growth, median income fell, debt levels exploded, and Bush left office with the economy in tatters.

And now Paul Ryan wants you trust the same analysts that were so wrong the last time around.

not so much eh?

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam…why don’t you try growing a pair and quit the “woe is me” crying…

• Link
• Report this comment

” I have laid out enough evidence for you to actually address it, but you’re not.”

Actually, you have not – as usual. We know you don’t like it, but you mysteriously have nothing in the way of factual data to make your claim or dispute his assertions.

“Because you know I’m right.”

I know you’re never right, that’s true.

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s a joke as expected from the gop.

It is being laughed at because it is a joke.

Only cons will vote to steal their own ss and medicare.

Yeah, they are that smart.

Just ask them.

• Link
• Report this comment

Del: First of all, entitlements don’t need to be “dealt with” per se. They need to be addressed from an administrative standpoint rather than a fiscal one. The way to solve any fiscal shortfall there is through taxes that have been cut too much. The Obama plan deals with other things and really should be considered an opening bid to come up with a better plan. However, Ryan’s plan is not that “better plan.” So far, all I’m seeing is that the plan takes Obama’s plan, and tacks on privatization of medicare and “maybe someday we will deal with social security.” I do not call this a serious plan either.

• Link
• Report this comment

I see Ryan also wants to throw people on food stamps under the bus in order to save us a little bit more in tax dollars so we can afford to give the wealthiest yet another tax cut. Food stamp outlays tend to track very well with those in poverty and so the people in need of food for their children when they are down and out would need to turn to charitable contributions or face starvation but the Republicans wanted to cut the tax deduction for charitable contributions which in turn would cut charitable contributions and so the poor not only get poorer, they get hungrier under the Ryan rocky road map. One has to wonder, what is Ryan’s true plan — perhaps it is to patch potholes with the bodies of those he throws under the bus in order to save on fed highway funds in preparation for his next round of tax cuts for the poor rich. How thoughtful.

• Link
• Report this comment

Get Real: I have no woe is me. I have a great job. But I didn’t have it handed to me, I had to work for it. And there were many many obstacles in the way that were choices made by other people. If it were all about my choices I would have had this job handed to me on a silver platter like the silver spoon-fed populace.

• Link
• Report this comment

call it

You may want to read the following, “About The Social Security Trust Fund”

Forget the author, just concentrate on the concepts.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/about-the-social-security-trust-fund/

• Link
• Report this comment

The gop have played childish games since the collapse .

They will are irresponsible children and not serious about any issues.

They just vote to make their donors happy.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m seeing reports in WI of 75 to 80% voter turn out….

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul,

doom knows everything so we listen to doom.

He knows two people so ……….

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’m seeing reports in WI of 75 to 80% voter turn out…”

walker fired them up and they are ready to vote..

• Link
• Report this comment

Del: The Heritage Foundation is not something I would consider as “objective.” Try again.

• Link
• Report this comment

Get Real…now you do realize that the Dem 60 vote supermajority ended in January 2010 right? So there was no “supermajority” for the 2011 budget discussion. Do try to be real.

• Link
• Report this comment

75 to 80% voter turnout. Is that a record.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mother Therese – Most people on these AJC blogs have nasty pet names for either side of the debate. What would be impossible to find here are people who base their votes on who is best for the job. Only someone completely mindless would look at their ballot and choose all R or D. Country over Politics is a great idea, but politicians have most people brainwashed into “Insult the people you disagree with” and it is sickening to see. An uneducated voter on either side will go to great lengths to defend their point of view and rather than admit the other side may have a good point they hurl insults toward the person, party or idea.
Jay could write a blog that encourages civil debate in the comment section and it would last for maybe the first 2 or 3 comments, then you guys will all start insulting each other and any rational voice that provides ideas is lost in the shuffle.
I imagine that if our founding fathers could have seen what their political process has turned into they would be sickened. We do not have a government of, by and for the people.

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife

My ex-sister-in-law’s first cousin knew a lady whose neighbor knew somebody who…

• Link
• Report this comment

Doom knows two people, yes, but he also knows OF even two more people. Awesome.

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife

April 5th, 2011
4:52 pm
Paul,

doom knows everything so we listen to doom.

He knows two people so ……….

getalife,

Its pretty obvious that I know substantially more than you. You probably didn’t even graduate college. Your statements and appalling lack of knowledge regarding the field of economics pretty much prove it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam, how about Barrons, The Wall Street Journal. Sorry, but The Huffington Post, Media Matters or even The Brookings Institute wouldn’t influence me.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thulsa Doom

I forgot to add, in response to your question of how many people I know in those circumstances and how many, in addition to the two you cited, to prove the point:

Well, see, Thulsa, we have over 300 million people in this country. That’s why we make policy decisions, not on who we know or what our families have done, but on data gleaned from reliable sources regarding the numbers of people who may be in various categories.

Not based upon what we’ve seen in our home or on our block -

• Link
• Report this comment

Thulsa: “Its disturbing to me that you believe other people control your life. That is just weak. Now if other people contol you and your life then that’s just too bad. Now go and do something about it!”

This is not what I was saying. This further proves though that you see any acknowledgement that other people do have influence on your life as some sort of weakness. That is not the case. It’s called REALITY. Now I do have control over my life, how I react, etc, but I don’t have a divine magic wand that makes everything go my way just because I made “right” choices.

So, what I am saying is, you can make all the wrong choices and still have an awesome life, and you can make all the right choices and have a really crappy one. Most of us are in the middle. Acknowledging that your own choices don’t determine ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING is called REALITY, not weakness.

That said, again, I have control over my life and my reactions and my own choices but I do NOT have control over the choices of others, whether or not those choices affect me directly or indirectly. No man is an island. Now GET REAL and stop being an idiot and thinking that all you have to do is make right choices and everything will just go your way.

BTW, you missed me saying earlier that I have an awesome job and I am quite happy with my life. I’m not making excuses, I’m speaking of philosophical arguments here.

• Link
• Report this comment

Good grief Paul, The people who end up homeless due to mental illness are about the only people that have no choice in their lives due to their illness. That’s it. Everyone else pretty much has the free will to make choices that determine their lives in respect to their career choices, education, work ethic, etc. You act like their are millions of mentally ill homeless people walking around everywhere. How utterly ridiulous. Seriously? Is that all you got?

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam …I have also worked extremely hard to be where I am and no one handed me anything. I have made my own breaks but the simple facts are there are a huge number of people that have come to expect the government to support them; it is their right/entitlement. In some cases, it has been carried on to the 3rd generation and the free lunch has got to wind down.

Now are there people that truly deserve assistance as their lot in life is not of their own making…absolutely. I am all for helping the helpless but I do not want a single dollar of my taxes going to help the clueless….it’s only enabling bad/stupid behavior..

• Link
• Report this comment

Headin’ upstairs.

• Link
• Report this comment

Del: That “failed policy” worked just fine before the 80s.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep…..stand corrected on the super majority as I forgot about Brown in MA but I do not recall a budget even coming up for a vote. The democrats never wanted to pass a budget before the 2010 election which is the bottom line to my entire point. They were scared to do it before the election….period

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay

April 5th, 2011
2:26 pm
jm, I quote from the “full, detailed plan,” available at the link.

But I’m a little curious about your claim — are you saying we have to wait until it’s implemented until we learn what’s in it?

Jay, if it was good enough for Pelosi, which you supported, then it should be good enough for the Repubs.

I guess it’s something like the Obamacare paying for itself,snark,snark

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R: I see that you can’t even follow your own idea of presenting evidence. I mean, I did exactly what you did to make my case, and my case wasn’t good enough, so yours must not be either.

• Link
• Report this comment

Let’s say your spouse or child comes down with thyroid cancer or bone cancer. Your health insurance policy doesn’t begin to cover the costs. You find treatment will cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.- Paul

Paul,

Absolute and total BS. I know because I own an insurance agency. I deal with all the big insurance plans and every single one of them would pay. First of all if you have a high deductible its not like car insurance- you pay the deductible after treatment- not upfront.

Secondly all of the plans will work out a payment plan with you on the deductible and any applicable co-insurance.

Thirdly, even with a super high deductible $5k and typical 20% co-insurance you would owe $7500 on a 300k bill and the payments would be worked out. And if you couldn’t even pay small amounts towards that there are charities that will step in and assist.

You’ve been busted huge time Paul. You have not a single clue as to what the hell you are talking about even with a hypothetical.

• Link
• Report this comment

Although I share the same self-directed spirit as Thulsa Doom, it would be naive to believe that one has total control over every aspect of one’s life. If I had the power to kick Wall Street’s a** over the decisions that resulted in a 40% hit on my portfolio in 2008-09 (along with most everyone else’s), believe me, I’d do it. I plan for the best, prepare for the worst, but at no time am I so delusional to believe that I have complete power over every aspect that intersects with my universe.

• Link
• Report this comment

Abrazos,

There will always be things such as stock market performance that we don’t have total control over. I’m simply making the point that our stations in life are largely self determined.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Fire in the hole” !!!

• Link
• Report this comment

LWM,
the fact that you agree with what bernie ‘the socialist’ sanders has to say and his ideas, that exculdes you from any ’serious’ ideas about our capitalist economy…..just trying to be serious like bookman wants.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay- At least Ryan is trying to address the most serious issue confronting the federal government today. I( cannot say that for anything Pelosi and Reid did or are proposing.
What is missing in the plan is serious cut backs in military bases and expenditures overseas with no return compensation by countries that shoild be rpaying us like Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, etc.. Why do we still have over twenty five bases in Germany? Isn’t World War II over? also no one addresses the unfunsded mandates passed by Republican Presidents that morph into budget busters out of control. Like EPA (Nixon) ; EMTALA-free hospital care for everyone (Reagan); ADA -Bush 41; Medicare Part D (Bush 43). All were passed to get votes and have created beuracracies and mandatory spending by states, hoispitals , transportation authorities, etc. that are budget busters. And we will not even talk about other out of control military programs over the years for unnecessary weapons and adventures. We spent over a trillion dollars by now in Iraq and Afghanistan- what do we have to show for it as repayments or security?How much did we waste on that invisible fence with Mexico?
And then we get companies like GE that pay no taxes because of loopholes they helped create. Oh yeah the Republicans claim lowering the tax rate for companies will solve the problem. Well Ireland tried that – the multi nationals fled there and Ireland is now totally bankrupt. Great idea -huh? How about a mandatory flat tax rate for all companies and taxing there overseas income if they want government contracts?

• Link
• Report this comment

Force policymakers to come to the table and enact common-sense reforms to keep the program solvent for current beneficiaries and make it stronger for future generations. Social Security must be reformed to prevent severe cuts in future benefits.

Good idea but just how is he going to do it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Man, if it wasn’t for Jay I would still beleive that Republicans lie. I am clear on it now though, it is the democrats that are the jackasses.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hard to figure: is Ryan a liar, a fool, or both?

Good point about the FICA taxes.

The outrageous thing is that when right-wingers pontificate about how politicians can any day simply take away Social Security they’re talking about themselves. They are the ones who would take it away and they are the ones who desire to take it away.

• Link
• Report this comment

You want “common sense reform”? I’ll give you “common sense reform.” As follows.

Compute the next year’s Social Security benefits exactly as is done now. Then make a long-term forward projection for the status of Social Security, just as is done now. If that projection (say for 40 years into the future) shows the system in the black for the entire time go ahead and implement the benefit increase for the next year. If any time in that projection period the balance goes negative reduce the benefits for the next year to 99% of what was computed (but not less than the current level.) That is, if done, a benefit reduction. The design intent is to preserve, forever, the self-financing (FICA taxes cover all benefits) nature of Social Security. A 1% reduction doesn’t seem like much but if needed it will, over the years, compound to a sizable reduction.

The people, through Congress, would always have the option to implement a benefit increase (along with balancing revenue increase) to keep retirees from being thrown into abject poverty. The suggestion above keeps the system solvent without requiring constant tweaking by Congress.

• Link
• Report this comment

“T hose taxes were just an income tax by another name. That’s the real effect of Ryan’s claim.”

I believe that is also what the Supreme Court has been saying since about 1938…

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] for corporations indefinitely, and lowering the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. As Jay Bookman notes in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Ryan offers no concrete plans to address Social Security’s [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] for corporations indefinitely, and lowering the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. As Jay Bookman notes in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Ryan offers no concrete plans to address Social Security’s [...]

• Link
• Report this comment