The Ryan budget plan, Part III: More trickle-down

In “The Path to Prosperity,” House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan makes it clear that tax increases will not be part of the solution to the nation’s fiscal problems. He intends to address the problem solely through budget cuts, most of them focused on programs affecting the elderly, the sick and the poor. After all, that’s where the money is in the federal budget, especially when you exempt the Pentagon from spending cuts, as Ryan proposes to do.

“The U.S. government is not running sustained deficits because Americans are taxed too little,” the plan states. “The government is running deficits because it spends too much.”

However, that sentiment doesn’t mean that Ryan intends to leave the tax code untouched. Among other things, he proposes to reduce the number of tax brackets from the current six, which would make the income tax flatter and less progressive. He also intends to lower the top tax bracket on individuals and corporations from the current 35 percent to 25 percent.

Inevitably, such changes would have the effect of lowering taxes on corporations and the wealthy, while shifting more of the burden to working and middle-class Americans. When combined with the payroll tax, which Ryan concedes is a surtax on earned income below $106,000, a large number of working class and middle-class Americans would probably end up paying a significantly higher percentage of their income in federal taxes than their wealthier counterparts.

I say “probably” because as far as I can tell, Ryan hasn’t released specifics of his tax reform proposal to the public. He did, however, provide considerable detail to the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis to allow it to project the economic impact of the proposed changes. So let’s see what they have to say.

Overall, Heritage projects, the Ryan budget proposal would produce an outcome that frankly would be nothing short of miraculous, including an increase in economic output of $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. That in turn would help drive down the federal deficit considerably.

But how real is it? Unlike projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Heritage analysis relies on what is called “dynamic scoring.” In other words, it programs its computer models to assume that tax cuts on the wealthy and corporations produce enormous economic growth.

For example, let’s take a look at what dynamic scoring does to the projected unemployment rate. The CBO projects that the unemployment rate next year will average 8.4 percent. The Heritage Foundation, using dynamic scoring, projects that if the Ryan plan passes, unemployment would plummet next year to 6.4 percent.

By 2015, the CBO projects, unemployment will be down to 5.9 percent. Under the Ryan plan, Heritage projects it will fall to a remarkable 4.0 percent, declining still further to 2.8 percent in 2021.

2.8 percent?

Who believes that? Nobody believes that. In fact, those projections are so embarrassingly absurd that Heritage itself has gone back into its study and removed them. They were there in the version I downloaded yesterday; they are gone from the version available today.

In this case, Heritage can make ridiculous claims for the economic benefits of Ryan’s plan — claims that help account for the supposed deficit reduction — without fear of those claims being tested against reality. Nobody believes that the plan will ever be adopted.

Ten years ago, however, the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis ran similar projections for President Bush’s plan to cut taxes, using the same computer model it used to analyze Ryan’s plan.

Heritage claimed that if the Bush tax cuts were approved, the economy would grow so quickly that by 2010, the entire federal debt would effectively be eliminated.

Not only that, “The plan would save the entire Social Security surplus and increase personal savings while the federal government accumulated $1.8 trillion in uncommitted funds from FY 2008 to FY 2011, revenue that could be used to reform the Social Security and Medicare systems and reduce the payroll tax,” Heritage claimed.

Well ….

– Jay Bookman

970 comments Add your comment

josef nix

April 6th, 2011
6:27 pm

getalife

Not exactly, but inquiring minds do want to know…

AmVet

April 6th, 2011
6:27 pm

getalife, you could have been a Republican/NRA speech writer.

Or maybe a family values guy writing for Dan Quayle…

Too funny…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gAPxcF6Rx0

getalife

April 6th, 2011
6:27 pm

“you folks are kidding yourselves if you think they are dumb enough to sit back and let others vote away their money.”

How are others going to vote away their money?

jm

April 6th, 2011
6:28 pm

carlosgvv

April 6th, 2011
6:28 pm

@@

It is my sincere hope you will someday break out of the propaganda induced fog you are in now and clearly see just how corrupt and rotten you beloved Republican Party really is.

Paul

April 6th, 2011
6:28 pm

I trust that after six pages someone along the way has pointed out to those defending the Ryan numbers, that if they made a prime reason for opposing health care reform the idea the the Democrats had CBO use suspect assumptions to produce the numbers…

that they really don’t have a philosophical leg to stand on?

That is, if anyone here is defending the Heritage numbers?

@@

April 6th, 2011
6:29 pm

Hillbilly’s taken a breather on several occasions. As I recall, he once left the mountain to take care of personal business. Never leaves home without his dignity though. That follows him wherever he goes.

josef nix

April 6th, 2011
6:30 pm

@@

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you say you would have voted for Hillary?

getalife

April 6th, 2011
6:30 pm

AmVet,

I have spell checker so I can spell potato.

@@

April 6th, 2011
6:32 pm

carlosgvv:

GOP? For me, it beats the alternative. I’ve been to the other side of the mountain and things were lookin’ down. Got tired of the view.

WOW #10

April 6th, 2011
6:32 pm

This is a great metaphor for what America will do to Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs1HpiEsmUw

@@

April 6th, 2011
6:34 pm

josef:

I voted for her experience in the primary. Can’t say I wouldn’t have voted for her in the general if given the opportunity. It wasn’t meant to be…Obama’s campaign team saw to that. Pulled every trick in the book to get their guy elected.

jconservative

April 6th, 2011
6:35 pm

jm April 6th, 2011 4:16 pm
jconservative – Ryan slashes military spending dude.

No he does not! He endorses the cuts already made by Sec of Defense Gates. And Gates only paid lip service to cuts. His cuts are really just limiting the future increases in Defense.

jm

April 6th, 2011
6:36 pm

jcon – well that was a timely response. Go back and take a look at the WSJ link I posted, look at the chart 1/2 way down the page, and read under “security”

AmVet

April 6th, 2011
6:38 pm

getalife, lots of cons don’t dig education. It’s too liberal for them.

“Never leaves home without his dignity though. That follows him wherever he goes.”

No doubt.

That’s what made HD’s comment last night so extraordinary.

Like most of the rest of us, he’s likely fed up with the unnecessary crappola bombs that have exploded around here recently.

And the truth shall set you free.

One of the world’s greatest alternative lifestyle front-men. Sadly gone much too soon…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKFEjZ98Q4s

Pogo

April 6th, 2011
6:39 pm

What about the Wisconsin judicial race? For weeks now the left has touted that 60 to 70% of that states population was against the law restricting collective bargaining for public employees. And we now find out that that number was bull crap. At least half of that state supports the law. I guess it is too bad that Obama’s out of state union thugs couldn’t have voted, huh?

Adam

April 6th, 2011
6:40 pm

Jeez I finally catch up downstairs and you’re already 7 pages into this one!

getalife

April 6th, 2011
6:41 pm

@@,

I heard Jack Cafferty say he would vote for her now after CNN and him attacked the Clintons last cycle.He thinks we don’t remember but we do.

It was still a epic battle.

Jay

April 6th, 2011
6:41 pm

jm, Ryan embraces the defense cuts already proposed by Obama, and that’s ALL. No further cuts.

jm

April 6th, 2011
6:43 pm

Jay 6:41 – fine roast him on it. In my opinion, there’s more savings to be had….

As long as we’re in a position to defeat China in the event of any engagement, fine by me, cut all day.

AmVet

April 6th, 2011
6:43 pm

getalife, the cons should be thrilled we had FDR.

Otherwise President Clinton would be in his fifth term!

jm

April 6th, 2011
6:45 pm

Jay, of course, it would be fair to keep in mind the DOD cuts already amount to something like 15% of their budget. No one’s come out of the gate saying let’s cut SS and Medicare by 15% TOMORROW. But they essentially are. That’s leadership. Making the tough decisions now before a crisis develops.

Adam

April 6th, 2011
6:45 pm

Did anyone else happen to notice this one: “Heritage claimed that if the Bush tax cuts were approved, the economy would grow so quickly that by 2010, the entire federal debt would effectively be eliminated.”

Well? Any thoughts? Same computer model! Prediction that didn’t come true!

getalife

April 6th, 2011
6:46 pm

AmVet,

He is like the energizer bunny and keeps going, going until he is the President of the World.

That is what tweety calls him.

Dave R.

April 6th, 2011
6:47 pm

AmVet! :)

Although I think if that happened he would have passed on due to some STD or a 9mm cerebral hemorrhage from Hillary.

jm

April 6th, 2011
6:48 pm

Jay. Zoiks, never thought of it this way:

The Odds on Obama
By Mark Penn

Only two Democrats in the last 90 years have been reelected to a second term — Franklin Roosevelt and Bill Clinton. The rest of the Democrats have seen their presidencies cut short, and so the historical odds of Obama winning a second term are at first glance not encouraging. But I do believe President Obama can overcome those odds and win reelection if he takes the right road. Standing in his way are high unemployment numbers that are coming down, trillion dollar deficits, low approval ratings, and a public that still sees the country squarely on the wrong track.

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

getalife

April 6th, 2011
6:48 pm

Who won Pogo?

Dave R.

April 6th, 2011
6:50 pm

“Did anyone else happen to notice this one: “Heritage claimed that if the Bush tax cuts were approved, the economy would grow so quickly that by 2010, the entire federal debt would effectively be eliminated.”

Yeah, junior, already answered about 3 hours ago. That’s what you get for coming in late and skipping the class notes.

It’s called “They didn’t bank on a spend-crazy pack of lunatics in Congress” which is why we’re in the mes we are in right now.

getalife

April 6th, 2011
6:51 pm

jm,

Penn thought the caucuses did not matter.

I don’t listen to him anymore.

AmVet

April 6th, 2011
6:51 pm

Well, there is that, Dave!

Maybe in another couple of terms he would at least have upgraded his harem!

We were talking about meatloaf earlier.

From one the most fun and enjoyable records ever recorded…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fAPEUWowEc

Redneck Convert (R---and proud of it)

April 6th, 2011
6:51 pm

Sure got quiet in the woodshed….

Well, when your butt stings so bad you can’t hardly set down the best thing to do is be real quiet. I almost feel sorry for Harry.

Jay

April 6th, 2011
6:53 pm

no jm, the cuts are not 15 percent of their budget. The savings in question are stretched over a five-year period.

Here’s the Weekly Standard, applauding and defending Ryan for NOT cutting defense:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/paul-ryan-defense-spending_556865.html

Paul

April 6th, 2011
6:53 pm

jm

SecDef Gates proposed $178 billion, $100 billion of that reapplied within DoD for a net cut of $78 billion.

But that’s over five years.

Equalizing that, it’s 15.6 billion a year.

The 2012 DoD budget would still be around $553 billion (not counting the wars) so the yearly savings are 2.8 percent.

And the Defense budget would still be about double what it was in 2001.

jm

April 6th, 2011
6:54 pm

getalife – well, that may be. Doesn’t mean the guy’s an idiot.

getalife

April 6th, 2011
6:54 pm

Come on.

Bill has been a good boy.

The President of Italy, not so much.

Dave R.

April 6th, 2011
6:55 pm

“Bill has been a good boy.”

That we know of. They don’t call them “Secret” Service for nothin’ . . .

getalife

April 6th, 2011
6:56 pm

jm,

“Doesn’t mean the guy’s an idiot.”

I doubt he will get another campaign manager gig.

jm

April 6th, 2011
6:57 pm

Jay 6:53 – fine. In my opinion, 2.5% of GDP should be plenty for the mitary. That’s only $350B, far less than they get now.

jm

April 6th, 2011
6:57 pm

getalife 6:56 :) now that is almost certainly true.

Hillbilly Deluxe

April 6th, 2011
6:59 pm

Some of our current problems can be blamed on ol’ Richard Nixon and his Revenue Sharing program. It never really has made sense to me for us to send money to Washington and then have them send it back to us. Interstate Highways and that sort of thing, it makes sense but a lot of it doesn’t. It has long contributed to that “it doesn’t cost us anything, it’s a grant” mentality, that I hear so often these days.

Actually was talking to a neighbor, a while back, about some renovations on a local government building (cosmetic renovations at that). I was opining how I thought it was a waste of money and his reply was, “It’s a grant from the State, didn’t cost us anything”. I said, “And who you reckon pays State taxes?” We see the same thing all the time at the Federal level. Shift some of the Washington spending back to the State and local governments. If people aren’t willing to be taxed at the local level for something, it might not be worth doing.

Would that solve all our problems? Of course not. It might help though.

getalife

I’m not familiar with the Civil War Monument. Somebody’ll have to bring me up to speed.

jm

April 6th, 2011
7:00 pm

Just for the record, we should be prepared for the world to be far more volatile if we pull out of Europe, Japan, the Middle East, etc.

Mary Elizabeth

April 6th, 2011
7:00 pm

From the article above:

“However, that sentiment doesn’t mean that Ryan intends to leave the tax code untouched. Among other things, he proposes to reduce the number of tax brackets from the current six, which would make the income tax flatter and less progressive. He also intends to lower the top tax bracket on individuals and corporations from the current 35 percent to 25 percent.

Inevitably, such changes would have the effect of lowering taxes on corporations and the wealthy, while shifting more of the burden to working and middle-class Americans.”

—————————————————————————————————

Yesteday, on this blog I mentioned the link, below, which shows that the top wealthiest 1% have doubled their wealth in the last few decades. I asked readers to consider posting the link on their Facebook pages, to share with other readers. I will offer it again this evening and make that same request of all readers – who are so inclined.

Mick originally gave this link on this blog. I thank him for it.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=all
—————————————————————————-

Also, I have heard (I cannot recall the TV source now) that if the U.S. were simply to go back to the tax rates established under Clinton – and before the Bush tax cuts were implemented – that the U.S. would decrease the deficit by the amount of trillions it is presently in debt – after 10 years.

Because of the information given in the Vanity Fair article (link above), I am rather distrustful of tax proposals made by the present Republican Party, through Ryan, which I believe have been slanted for some time to benefit the very wealthiest.

Perhaps, some readers will post it on your Facebook pages. I hope so.

jm

April 6th, 2011
7:01 pm

ok, gotta run. Purple Health Plan! (maybe, the plan’s so generic its hard to nitpick at it)

F. Sinkwich

April 6th, 2011
7:02 pm

Even the Czech Republic newspaper Prager Zeitung gets it:

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency…Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

carlosgvv

April 6th, 2011
7:03 pm

@@

I’d say the only mountain you’ve been to, and are still on, is the Republican foggy mountain.

Paul

April 6th, 2011
7:03 pm

So according to the Weekly Standard

“The reality, as Ryan’s budget notes, is that “defense spending as a share of the budget has fallen from 25 percent thirty years ago to around 20 percent today”

As the common vernacular expresses it, ‘well, duuuhhhhh”

Thirty years ago we were in the Cold War. We’d built a military to counter a Soviet (and possibly Chinese) military that were both huge and against whom (the Soviet case) there was real concern we’d end up in a shooting war.

So that’s gone and we’ve decreased Defense Dept spending by only five percentage points?!!?

Article has this gem:

“Ryan adroitly handles accusations that he is leaving a big pot of money at the Pentagon untouched by reminding skeptics that “The first job of government is to secure the safety and liberty of its citizens.”

If the Weekly Standard wasn’t carrying water for the Pentagon, they just might ask Ryan, “Rep Ryan, according to documents at the Office of Secretary of Defense, the military services have documented billions and billions of critical unfunded requirements, requirements they say they don’t have the money to address and that not meeting these requirements will cause severe mission degradation. If the first job of government is to secure the safety and liberty of its citizens, should not you increase the Defense budget by several tens of billions of dollars next year?”

Jay

April 6th, 2011
7:03 pm

Actually, Dave R., your condescension is misplaced.

If you click on the link for the 2001 Heritage study, you’ll find they predicted federal revenues of $3.3 trillion in 2011.

If you access the OMB’s budget numbers, you’ll see the actual revenues were $2.1 trillion.

josef nix

April 6th, 2011
7:05 pm

Hillbilly

Good evening. Happy to see you, Sir.

Jay

April 6th, 2011
7:05 pm

Sinkwich, that’s so old Europe.

Fascinating, isn’t how, how all things European are supposed to be reviled as effete and socialistic until ….

Dave R.

April 6th, 2011
7:07 pm

“Also, I have heard (I cannot recall the TV source now) that if the U.S. were simply to go back to the tax rates established under Clinton – and before the Bush tax cuts were implemented – that the U.S. would decrease the deficit by the amount of trillions it is presently in debt – after 10 years.”

Then you would be wrong again Mary Elizabeth.

From an analysis of 2008 tax data from the IRS as published in the American Thinker:”f the highest rate of 35% were raised by a factor of 20% to 42%, then the additional tax revenue would be $43.5 Billion, not much of a dent in $1.665 trillion. So, let’s raise the rate by a factor of 50% to 52.5%; the additional revenue would be $108.9 Billion. Still nowhere near enough, so let’s just tax it at a rate of 100%, bringing in an additional $404.8 Billion. Unfortunately the country is still $1.26 trillion in the hole for the year.”

We have a SPENDING problem, not a revenue problem. If you cannot accept that simple, unassailable fact, there is little use in debating this issue with anyone.

Paul

April 6th, 2011
7:07 pm

jm

“Just for the record, we should be prepared for the world to be far more volatile if we pull out of Europe, Japan, the Middle East, etc.”

Oh, I rather think we’ll find countries with regional interests stepping up. Just today, French military forces led a successful attack in the Ivory Coast. French and England stepped right up in Libya. We’re concluding another $60 billion arms deal with the Saudis. F-15s and such. If Iran’s such a threat, I’d put money on the Saudi military. It’d be kinda nice to watch the Sunnis and Shiites go at it and not be caught in the middle, wouldn’t it?

josef nix

April 6th, 2011
7:07 pm

Not too sure how much credence to put in a Czech publication called the Prager Zeitung…but, then, I am judging a book by its cover.

stands for decibels

April 6th, 2011
7:07 pm

Perhaps the strongest evidence against claims of widespread voter fraud is that it would make no sense. Imagine what you’d have to do to perpetrate such a scheme.

This, I have done.

Once I did that, I decided that anyone posting poutrageous stuff about “voter fraud” (i.e., on the part of actual would-be voters casting fraudulent ballots) determining US elections was either stupid or lying.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

April 6th, 2011
7:09 pm

md

April 6th, 2011
7:10 pm

“How are others going to vote away their money?”

Tax increases………we have a few morally bankrupt folks in this country that think it is ok for the wealthy to pay more just because they have it……….

@@

April 6th, 2011
7:10 pm

AmVet:

Like most of the rest of us, he’s likely fed up with the unnecessary crappola bombs that have exploded around here recently.

That’s the difference between you and Hillbilly. Like an adult, he steps away…takes a breather…chooses to avoid, what he calls, the pi$$in’ contests. You, on the other hand, take great pleasure in them.

You’re as big a problem as the ones you complain about. You just refuse to recognize it.

Hillbilly will be back when HE’S ready. You come back because you can’t help yourself. You have no self-control…no self-discipline. You wanna BE the disciplinarian.

Perhaps, one day, you’ll figure it out. I’m not counting on it though. EGO is what drives you.

josef nix

April 6th, 2011
7:10 pm

And there I am at the top of the page again…I gotta be more careful…the counters will be out to get me, too…

AmVet

April 6th, 2011
7:11 pm

And the Defense budget would still be about double what it was in 2001.

Along with decreasing taxes on the super-rich, and BIG business, after trickle down was already long repudiated, that is one of the most unspoken yet mind-boggling aspects about this entire fiscal debacle.

Somebody, in the pro-torture party, should be waterboarded for doing that to this nation.

Hillbilly Deluxe

April 6th, 2011
7:11 pm

Just for the record, we should be prepared for the world to be far more volatile if we pull out of Europe, Japan, the Middle East, etc.

I’d agree with that to a certain extent. If we draw down in some parts of the world, which I’d be in favor of, it’d have to be done gradually, to give the European nations, etc, time to fill the void. Otherwise you’d create a power vacuum and those usually aren’t good.

josef nix

April 6th, 2011
7:11 pm

voter fraud

If it was as widespread as some would like to claim, we’d have better than a barely 50% turnout…

stands for decibels

April 6th, 2011
7:12 pm

another howler from that Heritage projection of the fabulous benefits we’d get from the Bush Tax Cuts of the Aughts:

Proposal #5: Phase out the death tax.

Yep, that’s it. I just thought it funny that this Very Serious Organization actually calls it the “death tax.”

Jay

April 6th, 2011
7:12 pm

Your condescension toward Mary Elizabeth is equally misplaced, Dave R.

“Returning the tax rates to what they were under the Clinton boom” refers not merely to those paying the top rate, but to everybody. And there’s real money there. In the latter half of the ’90s, federal revenue ranged between 19 and 20 percent of GDP. During most of the Bush years, it was in the 16 to 17 percent range.

Bring it back up to what it was during the Clinton years, and boom — you’ve taken a massive chunk out of the deficit.

Doggone/GA

April 6th, 2011
7:13 pm

“was either stupid or lying”

Or both

Dave R.

April 6th, 2011
7:13 pm

“If you click on the link for the 2001 Heritage study, you’ll find they predicted federal revenues of $3.3 trillion in 2011.

If you access the OMB’s budget numbers, you’ll see the actual revenues were $2.1 trillion.”

Jay, it becomes really tiresome to keep schooling you on the lies, damned lies and statistics thing all the time. Apparently an old dog cannot learn new tricks after all. Ya think conditions CHANGED in the 30 years since their prediction was made? The gross overspending by Congresses? 9/11? The 2008 meltdown from 40 years of liberal polices?

When are you and you lib buddies on this blog going to realize that predictions and actions of ANY group mean little when the rules and conditions change every couple of years? It is called reality, not the fantasy world of “he said this in 1990, so it must be true today” crap?

Gotcha journalism only works when the data and actions are recent.

stands for decibels

April 6th, 2011
7:13 pm

If we draw down in some parts of the world, which I’d be in favor of, it’d have to be done gradually, to give the European nations, etc, time to fill the void.

Yep. That’s why, among other reasons, this dirty [bleep]ing hippy isn’t in favor of massive cuts to the DoD anytime soon.

Doggone/GA

April 6th, 2011
7:13 pm

” that think it is ok for the wealthy to pay more just because they have it……….”

because, of course, you can just get SO MUCH MORE from people who don’t have it

Paul

April 6th, 2011
7:13 pm

@@

“You have no self-control…no self-discipline.”

Isn’t my fight, but I’ll gently observe anyone who goes to the gym for a strenuous workout five days a week has a modicum of self discipline. You’re a runner, so I’m sure you understand that.

getalife

April 6th, 2011
7:13 pm

@@

April 6th, 2011
7:15 pm

Oops!

Hillbilly:

Apologies for talkin’ bout you during, what I thought, was your absence.

(ISH)

stands for decibels

April 6th, 2011
7:15 pm

Bring it back up to what it was during the Clinton years,

if we had grown ups running our government, we would be well on our way to doing just that already, instead of continuing to dick around with snake-oil spending-cut proposals.

@@

April 6th, 2011
7:16 pm

Paul:

No self-discipline in the blog world.

Dave R.

April 6th, 2011
7:16 pm

Jay, in case you missed in some pot-induced haze, we’re not in the ’90’s anymore.

It is the difference between reality, and fantasy.

getalife

April 6th, 2011
7:16 pm

Dave,

It’s a gop think tank.

Of course, they guessed wrong..

Have they ever been right?

md

April 6th, 2011
7:17 pm

“Standing in his way are high unemployment numbers that are coming down, trillion dollar deficits, low approval ratings, and a public that still sees the country squarely on the wrong track.”

Along with soaring gas prices, a devalued dollar, and the more than likely higher inflation resulting from the two…..

stands for decibels

April 6th, 2011
7:18 pm

we have a few morally bankrupt folks in this country that think it is ok for the wealthy to pay more just because they have it…

yep, those are the first words that come to mind when I size up the character of Dwight Eisenhower: morally bankrupt.

Kamchak

April 6th, 2011
7:18 pm

Looks like another good night for a meltdown.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

April 6th, 2011
7:18 pm

getalife — “GOP think tank” well theres your problem. Failure to abide by Truth in labeling.

josef nix

April 6th, 2011
7:19 pm

“W. Todd Groce, president of the Historical Society, said the site was picked because it is where the burning took place”

Well, duh…

Jay

April 6th, 2011
7:19 pm

Dave, it’s not a question of fantasy. It’s a question of hard data. The issue was whether returning to the Clinton era tax rates would eliminate all or most of the deficit.

And the answer — based on math and hard data — is yes they would.

Paul

April 6th, 2011
7:19 pm

sfd

Eisenhower? Wasn’t he one of those midwestern socialists back in the 30s?

Hillbilly Deluxe

April 6th, 2011
7:22 pm

getalife

After reading the article, I don’t really see a reason for them to be upset. History is history, good or bad, and should be remembered. It’s basic human nature that every generation thinks the world started anew, with them. That’s why we make the same mistakes, over and over.

I know many times, in traveling around Georgia and other states, I’ve seen a historical marker of some sort, and it peeked my interest on a subject I knew little or nothing about. From that, I made it my business to find out what it was about.

getalife

April 6th, 2011
7:22 pm

Death tax is like ryan’s death cuts.

md

April 6th, 2011
7:23 pm

“If we draw down in some parts of the world, which I’d be in favor of, it’d have to be done gradually, to give the European nations, etc, time to fill the void. ”

I say we offer our mercenary capabilities prior to bailing out…….we’ll stick around if they pay for it.

Doggone/GA

April 6th, 2011
7:23 pm

“Wasn’t he one of those midwestern socialists back in the 30s?”

Nah…he was a Texan

stands for decibels

April 6th, 2011
7:24 pm

Wasn’t he one of those midwestern socialists back in the 30s?

Could be. One of my favorite podcast commentators from the left side of the aisle, Sam Seder, currently opens his show with a series of tasty soundbites from Presidents past–JFK, FDR and, of course, Ike.

(to a backing track of the Sex Pistols doing “Pretty Vacant,” live. As the good Lord intended.)

Dave R.

April 6th, 2011
7:24 pm

“And the answer — based on math and hard data — is yes they would.”

Only if you don’t know math. And use faulty data. But you excel at that. See: Your FairTax series to the right.

Doggone/GA

April 6th, 2011
7:25 pm

“we’ll stick around if they pay for it.”

I’ve said that too

md

April 6th, 2011
7:25 pm

“because, of course, you can just get SO MUCH MORE from people who don’t have it”

As I said……………

How about spending only what you do have vs using the just because argument…………

Paul

April 6th, 2011
7:26 pm

Doggone/GA

(pssst…. that’s Abilene, Kansas, not Abilene, Texas. Only socialists Texas produces are ones who wear green uniforms with five stars on each shoulder…)

md

April 6th, 2011
7:26 pm

Last I checked, we ALL live here………yet so many want to focus only on the money aspect of the equation………screw choices, sacrifices, motivation, etc etc…….what a crock.

getalife

April 6th, 2011
7:27 pm

HD,

Josef taught me about the Hart that Hart county was named for.

Fascinating reading.

She tricked some British troops to surrender in our revolution.

Love that story.

Hillbilly Deluxe

April 6th, 2011
7:28 pm

“we’ll stick around if they pay for it.”

There is that option. We’d have to be careful not to get caught up in their entanglements, though.

F. Sinkwich

April 6th, 2011
7:29 pm

Hi, Jay:

“Sinkwich, that’s so old Europe.”

Isn’t the Czech Republic new Europe? I believe Rumsfeld said so.

TaxPayer

April 6th, 2011
7:29 pm

Clearly, what we need is a 2.8% unemployment rate. Then and only then can the fairytale world of Ryan be reached via the Heritage Road to nowhereland. We simply must find that yellow brick road. I know it is around here somewhere.

Doggone/GA

April 6th, 2011
7:29 pm

“How about spending only what you do have vs using the just because argument”

Sounds good to me. Let’s stop the borrow and spend. But the bottom line is that it’s TOO LATE. We’ve borrowed our way into massive debt and we cannot cut enough spending to get back out. Sooner or later it’s going to take raising taxes.

Mary Elizabeth

April 6th, 2011
7:29 pm

Dave R @ 7:07

I would never claim to be an expert in taxes or even economics, but I do try to keep my layperson’s mind open and thinking about what is happening economically, and otherwise, in our nation. And I did hear that statement made about the deficit could be wiped out by returning to Clinton tax rates, by a reputable commentator of economics, probably on CNN.

Just googling now, here is something I have just read – I had googled “Krugman” but found only an unknown blogger. Nevertheless, I will share what this blogger said because it is worth weighing I think:

“The economic theory that Bill Clinton operated under was a Democratic party theory. Have a fair tax system which helps essential infrastructure which in turn helps grow the economy FOR EVERYONE, not just the top 2-5%. The Republican theory is that tax cuts fuel econimc growth and rich people buy enough yachts to trickle it down to everyone else.”

It does not seem to me, Dave, that much has “trickled down” to most Americans even before the Recession, so I have to question, esp. in light of the Vanity Fair article, why have so many of the very top become so wealthy in the last decades in relation to the middle/working classes, and why have so many in the middle/working class had their financial wherewithal getting worse.

Please read the Vanity Fair article. It will make you wonder, too, I do believe.

Doggone/GA

April 6th, 2011
7:30 pm

Paul

“Born in Texas in 1890, brought up in Abilene, Kansas”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/dwightdeisenhower

Paul

April 6th, 2011
7:30 pm

sfd

Could you please repost the link? Couldn’t get it to work.

BTW – I’ve a good-sized framed mat on my wall – letter from his son John (commanding general of 79th Division) with a dollar bill that was in Pres Eisenhower’s wallet when he passed on.

Nice keepsake

Hillbilly Deluxe

April 6th, 2011
7:30 pm

getalife

Up on Lake Hartwell there is an area called, King’s Bench. According to what locals have told me, that’s an area where Tories used to meet during the Revolution. I’m not really up on it but it makes sense.

@@

The hummingbirds, on the cam, have flown the nest.

josef nix

April 6th, 2011
7:31 pm

If you ask the Czech Romany, it’s Old Europe…