‘I’ll take ‘budget fantasy’ for a thousand, Alex’

Let’s play Jeopardy!

OK, does everybody have their buzzers ready? Here’s the answer:

jeopardy

The correct question is:

“Who are authors of great works of fantasy, Alex?”

I’ve been reading through Paul Ryan’s latest “budget” document, and I have to say that I’m impressed. The world down the Ryan rabbit hole rivals anything created by the other three fantasy authors listed above. It is a place where the impossible is made real, and where obstacles such as the Great Abyss of Illogic and the Chasm of Implausibility are reduced to mere cracks in the sidewalk by prodigious leaps of imagination and acts of “let’s pretend”.

For example, just as Rowling’s work requires us to believe in witches, and Tolkien’s work in the existence of dwarves and elves, the creator of RyanWorld instructs us to pretend that by 2050, spending on all federal programs other than Social Security and the major health care programs will amount to no more than 3.75 percent of the nation’s GDP. That belief is a fundamental building block for the rest of Ryan’s financial structure.

Now, why is that so implausible? Well, today we spend 12.5 percent of GDP on those programs, so right off the top we’re talking about a 70 percent reduction in the share of our wealth going to such efforts. And I can already see many readers nodding their heads out there, believing that to be a good thing.

But let’s take a closer look, shall we? In addition to such things as veterans’ health care, transportation infrastructure, student loans, the National Parks System and air traffic control, the category in question includes all of our spending on national defense.

This year, spending on defense alone amounts to 4.6 percent of GDP, which makes it rather problematic to reduce total spending in this category to 3.75 percent of GDP.

Or as the Congressional Budget Office drily notes:

“By comparison, spending in this category has exceeded 8 percent of GDP in every year since World War II. Spending for defense alone has not been lower than 3 percent of GDP in any year during that period.”

To make RyanWorld come true, in other words, we would have to eliminate absolutely everything in the federal budget except Social Security, defense and health care. And even after doing all that, we would still be forced to cut the share of national wealth that we devote to defense by almost 20 percent.

But don’t worry: As if to compound the make-believe character of his proposal, Ryan reassures us that national defense will be the nation’s number one budgetary priority and that he intends to block across-the-board spending cuts at the Pentagon agreed to just last year.

Now, let’s turn to the revenue side of the equation.

While slashing federal health subsidies for poor people by some 75 percent, Ryan proposes to lower the top tax rate of 35 percent to 25 percent, a great boon to the richest of Americans.

In addition, he would not just reform but eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was originally designed to ensure that the most affluent taxpayers at least paid something. He also proposes to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent, another boon to the affluent. Finally, he proposes to eliminate corporate taxes on profits earned overseas, which would add another incentive to companies to relocate offshore.

Is anyone sensing a theme here?

Oh, and Ryan would do all that yet somehow not reduce revenue to the federal government. He doesn’t tell us how such magic will be performed, only that it will. He also ordered the CBO to treat that fantasy as reality when it assessed the impact of his plan.

While it followed those orders, CBO made clear in its report that it wasn’t necessarily buying it:

“In particular, CBO has not considered whether the specified paths are consistent with the policy proposals or budget figures released today by Chairman Ryan as part of his proposed budget resolution.”

Again, Ryan has offered no specifics about how he would turn down into up. However, based on what is publicly known, the Tax Policy Center ran the numbers to try to ascertain the fiscal impact of these cuts:

“The Tax Policy Center estimates that a similar corporate rate cut, AMT repeal, and a two-rate individual system would reduce revenues by about $4.5 trillion through 2022, even after accounting for the $5.4 trillion cost of extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts. In 2022 alone, a Ryan-like plan would reduce revenues by about $600 billion.

To put it another way, TPC figures such a tax package would generate revenues of about 15.8 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 2022. His budget aims to collect about 18.7 percent. That means he’d have to find about $700 billion in new revenues by cutting tax preferences.”

Let’s stretch our imaginations still further. Let’s pretend that Ryan is actually serious about cutting tax preferences. Where might he turn to find the missing revenue?

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the single biggest such expenditure is the deduction on mortgage interest. The second largest allows employers to deduct the cost of health insurance. The third largest allows employers to deduct pension contributions.

Who do you think would be hurt hardest by abolishing such deductions? It would be the middle-class taxpayer whom Ryan, in yet another flight of fantasy, claims to be defending.

In “Alice in Wonderland,” the Queen of Hearts bragged that “sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” But even the Queen would be hard-pressed to believe all this.

– Jay Bookman

513 comments Add your comment

Erwin's cat

March 21st, 2012
12:03 pm

Erwin's cat

March 21st, 2012
12:04 pm

Is a fantasy budget better than no budget at all?

Doggone/GA

March 21st, 2012
12:06 pm

“Is a fantasy budget better than no budget at all?”

No, especially since there’s no such thing as “no budget” in the US government

Paul

March 21st, 2012
12:08 pm

Jay

“I’ve been reading through Paul Ryan’s latest “budget” document,”

That’s what separates you from most of the tv and radio talking heads.

Romney wants to increase Defense spending to 4 percent of GDP. So if Romney wins, Ryan’s still going to have a fight on his hands.

“In addition, he would not just reform but eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was originally designed to ensure that the most affluent taxpayers at least paid something. He also proposes to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent, another boon to the affluent.”

Wassamatta, Jay, you think Republicans shouldn’t be in the business of picking winners and losers?

aaaannnnd, I’m hoping this’ll be the topic that Republicans finally defend the Ryan plan and tell Jay where his, the CBO’s and the TPC’s analyses are wrong.

RB from Gwinnett

March 21st, 2012
12:08 pm

At least Ryan has proposed a budget which is more than we can say for the D’s in Washington. Why you libs give them a pass on that I just don’t understand.

mm

March 21st, 2012
12:09 pm

If there’s a republican idea (now there’s a stretch), you know it can’t be good for the middle class or the poor.

Jefferson

March 21st, 2012
12:10 pm

Jay, SS is not spending in reality nor does it cost the federal gov’t. People paid into the program and receive benifits from their premiums. The employer share is part of their pay.

vinny

March 21st, 2012
12:10 pm

Jay,

Can you ever debate an issue without sounding like a total wanker?

mm

March 21st, 2012
12:10 pm

“Why you libs give them a pass on that I just don’t understand.”

We give you righties a pass on perpetuating that lie. Budgets were developed, they were just shot down by the party of NO.

Jay

March 21st, 2012
12:10 pm

Jefferson, the Ryan plan doesn’t touch Social Security.

Butch Cassidy

March 21st, 2012
12:11 pm

Don’t you get it Jay? Ryan is one of those people that believes that the world will end on 12/21/2012. As such, he can put out whatever he wants, safe in the knowledge that it will never come to fruition. Unfortunately, for those of us that live in the real world, his plan is just plain nuts. :)

Jefferson

March 21st, 2012
12:11 pm

RB is an example of misinformation.

Butch Cassidy

March 21st, 2012
12:13 pm

RB from Gwinnett – “At least Ryan has proposed a budget which is more than we can say for the D’s in Washington. Why you libs give them a pass on that I just don’t understand.”

Really? So if the Dems came out with a batshizz crazy plan such as Ryans you’d give them kudos for doing a good job?

USinUK - missing the dogwoods ... not the pollen count ...

March 21st, 2012
12:13 pm

you forgot Ayn Rand!!

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

March 21st, 2012
12:15 pm

Tax cuts — they cure the gout, warts, heartburn and indigestion, the common cold, eczema, seborrhea, and the heart break of psoriasis.

RB from Gwinnett

March 21st, 2012
12:15 pm

Jefferson, are you claiming the D’s “have” passed a budget in the past few years?? If so, please provide proof.

USinUK - missing the dogwoods ... not the pollen count ...

March 21st, 2012
12:15 pm

Kam – 12:15 – you forgot the yellowy wax buildup on their kitchen floor …

Jefferson

March 21st, 2012
12:16 pm

Thanks Jay, I thought (wrongly) it was included what was considered the 12% of GDP spending.

On Ryan’s fantacy, you look stupid to ask for a Corvette for your 16th birthday if your total family income in say $50k a year. I mean it ain’t going to happen.

Peadawg

March 21st, 2012
12:17 pm

This really caught my eye – “Finally, he proposes to eliminate corporate taxes on profits earned overseas, which would add another incentive to companies to relocate offshore.”

Oy the stoopid. It’s like a 24 hour brain freeze.

Becky

March 21st, 2012
12:17 pm

Jay-you rock, I love your columns. Keep putting the screws to the repubs please.

Jefferson

March 21st, 2012
12:17 pm

Congress passes budgets, not parties.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

March 21st, 2012
12:18 pm

USinUK

My bad.

getalife

March 21st, 2012
12:19 pm

“Jefferson, the Ryan plan doesn’t touch Social Security.”

They lost the Senior vote for trying the first time.

Good to read they learned that lesson.

JamVet

March 21st, 2012
12:19 pm

Kids still use the word wanker?

Oh well.

Growing up in the era before PCs and endless channels of trash TV, I devoured books of all kinds, including the fantasy stuff from Carrol and OF COURSE, Tolkien. I was also a big fan of Jonathan Swift, Robert Louis Stevenson and Homer among many others.

The difference between their fantasy and the neocon/Paul Ryan stuff is that it was interesting, sometimes fascinating, as well as humorous and intelligent…

Butch Cassidy

March 21st, 2012
12:19 pm

Maybe Ryans hoping for a Gingrich victory. Afterall, it should be relatively easy to defend the moon base, so technically you wouldn’t have to spend as much on defense. :)

larry

March 21st, 2012
12:20 pm

Its pretty hard to pass a budget when one side keeps filabustering the other. From Jan. 2009 to Jan.2011 , a record 112 fiabusters by the Republicans in the Senate.

Erwin's cat

March 21st, 2012
12:20 pm

Good point Pea…how would eliminating taxes on overseas profits be an incentive to move overseas?

Paul

March 21st, 2012
12:21 pm

vinny

“Can you ever debate an issue without sounding like a total wanker?”

In addition to learning how to spell the President’s name as a step in gaining credibility, the next step is to actually address the points and provide reasons for disagreeing.

See, it’s generally accepted here that when you lead with a personal insult, you have no idea how to engage in rational debate and have conceded the issue to the opposition.

Step three will likely come after your next post -

getalife

March 21st, 2012
12:21 pm

pea,

That is called corporate welfare.

I am a big fan of insourcing and bringing our jobs back to our country.

Jimmy62

March 21st, 2012
12:21 pm

At least it’s a fantasy that attempts to solve our budget problems. Lest we forget, the Democrats have a legal responsibility to pass a budget each year, but have not the last three, thus they have been running the country on what is quite literally a fantasy budget. And their fantasies extend to such things as, “The way to reduce the deficit is to spend more money we don’t have” and that somehow things will just magically fix themselves as long as we make more people dependent on government.

larry

March 21st, 2012
12:22 pm

“Jefferson, the Ryan plan doesn’t touch Social Security.”

Yeah, he got an earful last August when he went home to host townhall meetings.

I have a feeling he will get another earful this August when he goes home.

Mick

March 21st, 2012
12:22 pm

Even rb can only offer up the faint praise of at least ryan proposed a budget. The reality here is that we need to look at 1992-2000 and admit what worked and re-apply those lessons learned…

RB from Gwinnett

March 21st, 2012
12:22 pm

That’s what I thought, Jefferson. Shuck and jive, smoke and mirrors, right?

You’re a liar Jefferson. Go waste somebody else’s time.

Peadawg

March 21st, 2012
12:22 pm

“how would eliminating taxes on overseas profits be an incentive to move overseas?” – You may want re-read that. No taxes on overseas profits would be a pretty big incentive to move overseas.

Jefferson

March 21st, 2012
12:23 pm

All of Congress should be blamed if they can’t get something done. To blame a party would be misinformation. Between point a and point b lies success, otherwise there is failure. No extra points for sucking up.

Butch Cassidy

March 21st, 2012
12:24 pm

Erwins Cat – “how would eliminating taxes on overseas profits be an incentive to move overseas?”

Because labor is 100 times cheaper there than it is here. By eliminating the taxes, there is absolutely no reason not to move operations overseas, becuase at that point everything outside of operating cost is profit.

Jm

March 21st, 2012
12:24 pm

A. 2050 is a long way away. Given the desire by liberals to make america third rate, we won’t need a military anymore
B. Jay should be applauding ryan’s willingness to shrink military spending
C. Military spending doesn’t necessarily have to grow in proportion to the economy so it could very well be less, much less
D. Which leaves rooms for all the things jay says would be eliminated, which Ryan doesn’t eliminate

Jefferson

March 21st, 2012
12:25 pm

RB your time is worthless, it can’t be wasted.

Fetus on a stick

March 21st, 2012
12:25 pm

Or we can spend like a whore in a sex shop and hope that somehow the recession goes away… All the obscene spending has done over the past 3 years has done and lengthened the recession. Spending’s not a bad thing unless you have to borrow money from your enemies to do it, then it’s a real bad thing.

Fetus on a stick

March 21st, 2012
12:26 pm

And you forgot Keynes in your fantasy list. That guy was high all the time.

Don't get it...

March 21st, 2012
12:26 pm

“Finally, he proposes to eliminate corporate taxes on profits earned overseas, which would add another incentive to companies to relocate offshore.”
You realize that other countries have taxes, too? And as we’ve seen many liberals telling us, other countries have much higher corporate tax rates. So if a company is doing business in some other country, and paying taxes to that other country, then we shouldn’t double tax them. Just like a foreign company that does business here will get taxed here and should not be double taxed on those earnings by their home country. I’m just not sure why wanting to do business in other countries means you should be double-taxed. And if some other countries have higher corporate taxes, too, why would paying their higher tax rates be an incentive to move more operations out of the US?

Jm

March 21st, 2012
12:27 pm

Mortgage and health deduction eliminations were proposed by Obama

I guess Ryan is a liberal

USinUK - missing the dogwoods ... not the pollen count ...

March 21st, 2012
12:28 pm

“Given the desire by liberals to make america third rate”

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, the blowhard’s back …

getalife

March 21st, 2012
12:28 pm

rb,

Our President presented his budgets that was killed in the Senate.

You should be attacking corrupt congress and our corrupt system and stop calling people here liars hypocrite

You and the truth are not friends..

Butch Cassidy

March 21st, 2012
12:28 pm

Jimmy62 – “At least it’s a fantasy that attempts to solve our budget problems.”

Wow, so that’s all it takes to make you happy and gain your blind loyalty? Alright then, I propose to eliminate traffic congestion by having flying cars that operate on garbage A.K.A. Mr Fusion. Now, worship me!!!

David Granger

March 21st, 2012
12:28 pm

Jay, I’ll agree with you completely that the budget Ryan proposes is absolute fantasy. But the budgets that President Obama has proposed (and President Bush before him) are equally ludicrous. I’m not a fan of Ryan, but at least he TRIES to tackle some hard issues, instead of just kicking the can down the road.
We need to drastically cut spending, and raise revenue (yes, that includes tax increases) to have a legitimate, serious budget that begins to cut into (and dare we say “even pay off?”) some of our enormous debt. And neither party wants to do that.

Common Sense isn't very Common

March 21st, 2012
12:30 pm

There is a difference between outsourcing and offshoring.

Not all outsourced jobs go offshore. But many outsourced jobs that are given to US companies have labor components (IT, helpdesks, etc.) in India, China, etc.

Think Haliburton in Houston while their corporate headquarters is in Dubai.

getalife

March 21st, 2012
12:31 pm

stick,

You need to change your name.

the practical one

March 21st, 2012
12:31 pm

where in the Constitution does it say it’s the gov’ts job to have a safety net? how much of a federal gov’t do you want Jay? Good grief

Paul

March 21st, 2012
12:31 pm

So far, the efforts on this blog to support, justify and defend the Ryan’s plan and to refute Jay’s analysis consist of

“yeah, well, at least he submitted something and the Democrats haven’t even done that!!!”

is that correct?

Adam

March 21st, 2012
12:33 pm

I disagree with this, Jay. I think you should only have put mediocre fantasy authors in the same category as Paul Ryan, like Ayn Rand.

Moderate Line

March 21st, 2012
12:33 pm

It is great to say Paul Ryan is in a fantasy world but we are living in one now. Since 2007 revenues are down 16.8% and expendtures are up 22.3%. So you hear Rep say it is an expenditure problem and the Dem say it is a revenue problem. The truth is it is both.

2007 18.5 19.7
2008 17.6 20.8
2009 15.1 25.2
2010 15.1 24.1
2011 15.4 24.1

Jay

March 21st, 2012
12:34 pm

David, Obama has at least SAID that he is willing to both raise taxes and cut spending. Whether and by how much he is actually willing to do so has yet to be tested.

And why hasn’t it been tested? Because the Republicans insist that tax increases are impossible. In Ryan’s case, and in the case of every remaining GOP presidential candidate except Paul, they insist on spending cuts AND major revenue cuts, which makes it impossible to take them seriously when they whine about the debt and deficit.

getalife

March 21st, 2012
12:34 pm

is that correct?

No.

Our President submitted budgets killed in the Senate.

I think after they passed w’s budgets and the end result of our deficit has them spooked.

Butch Cassidy

March 21st, 2012
12:34 pm

Paul – ““yeah, well, at least he submitted something and the Democrats haven’t even done that!!!”

is that correct?”

Apparently so. It appears that realistic solutions to complex problems have become a thing of the past. The way to appease the party faithful has now devolved into the “Throw it against the wall and see if it will stick” methodology.

Don't Forget

March 21st, 2012
12:34 pm

Well, if the Ryan plan still uses medicare vouchers it might make some sense. The folks that can’t supplement what the voucher doesn’t cover will not get the healthcare they need and they will die earlier. This will lower healthcare costs and will also reduce social security outlays. Since these folks are beyond their productive years there will be little to no loss of GDP. It’s machiavellian but what would you expect from these guys?

RB from Gwinnett

March 21st, 2012
12:35 pm

Getaclue, we all know the senate led by Harry Reid is the culprit. So why aren’t any D’s asking for his removal from his post? Why hasn’t Obama said a single cross thing about it instead of calling the rest of us names? Do you think maybe they’re working together in their shell game with the people? Better question, do you think at all?

Paul

March 21st, 2012
12:35 pm

Jm

“B. Jay should be applauding ryan’s willingness to shrink military spending
C. Military spending doesn’t necessarily have to grow in proportion to the economy so it could very well be less, much less”

You do know the cons here are going to start calling you an Obummer-loving RINO liberal socialist, don’t you?

practical one

Couldn’t tell from your post if you think all safety nets should be eliminated or just some. Which is it?

Adam

March 21st, 2012
12:36 pm

Erwin: Is a fantasy budget better than no budget at all?

Let me shortcut to the end of the argument here:

Obama has his budget, Romney has his, Paul Ryan has his. None shall pass. Pretending that one will pass is a flight of fancy. Therefore, for the purposes of argument, everyone has a plan. You can choose which plan is best, maybe, IF Congress has any hope of passing any of them, which is not the case.

Adam

March 21st, 2012
12:37 pm

Really? So if the Dems came out with a batshizz crazy plan such as Ryans you’d give them kudos for doing a good job?

THIS

Jay

March 21st, 2012
12:37 pm

Don’t, the Ryan plan does still include vouchers. By 2022, the CBO reports, the voucher would be worth an average of $7,500 in 2022 dollars.

As a 66-year-old, try to buy decent health insurance for $7,500 even in TODAY’s dollars. Of course, Ryan tells us he’s doing this to “save Medicare.”

Erwin's cat

March 21st, 2012
12:39 pm

Pea – If they a company moves overseas they are no longer be an American company and would pay zero US taxes…so if I open up shop in China and sale my goods in japan, pay taxes in japan on those sales and send the remainder home to the US as profit…Why does uncle sam have a right to any of that money? and if he insists, why wouldn’t I then move my HQ to japan…the lack of taxes here would encourage my company to stay here…..or we could tax the heck outta them and push more jobs/companies overseas, like HQ and then get zero taxes in the US….two sides of the same coin.

Jm

March 21st, 2012
12:39 pm

Paul

I could care less what you, the liberals, or the cons think

Given that liberals don’t think, I’m definitely not worried about them :)

Mick

March 21st, 2012
12:39 pm

paul

Absolutely correct sir! Next jeopardy answer, american politics for $1000, simple solutions to complex problems, and the question is?

Adam

March 21st, 2012
12:39 pm

how would eliminating taxes on overseas profits be an incentive to move overseas?

Because, dude, they can be secure in the knowledge that all they have to do to avoid taxes entirely is be offshore. No U.S. land taxes, property taxes, or any other taxes associated with actually being here. All profits can be earned overseas in some country that also won’t charge them to be there, or very little, and can be brought here with no tax.

JamVet

March 21st, 2012
12:40 pm

You need to change your name.

I’m thinking, dip on a stick.

“2050 is a long way away.”

Is that really how bad GOP prospects for taking the White House have become? (grin)

Jm

March 21st, 2012
12:40 pm

Medicare is broke by 2024 by the governments own estimates

Adam

March 21st, 2012
12:40 pm

I forgot. Hayek should be on that list. Laffer too.

Jm

March 21st, 2012
12:41 pm

Obama proposed 3/4 tax increases and 1/4 spending cuts

Per orszag

Adam

March 21st, 2012
12:42 pm

Moderate Line: The truth is it is both.

Correct!

RB from Gwinnett

March 21st, 2012
12:42 pm

Paul, I haven’t read Ryan’s plan so I can’t tell you if it has merit or not. I can promise you I won’t base my opinions of it on anything Bookman posts. I can guarantee anything he posts will be extremely left wing slanted and include only part of the story.

Where is jays rant about the Senate budget plan?

Jm

March 21st, 2012
12:43 pm

Adam u should be on that list

Find something actually funny or relevant to say

Doggone/GA

March 21st, 2012
12:43 pm

“Where is jays rant about the Senate budget plan?”

blogspot.com is ready when you are

Fetus on a stick

March 21st, 2012
12:44 pm

getalife, you need a face lift.

Adam

March 21st, 2012
12:45 pm

Jm: Find something actually funny or relevant to say

That’s rich coming from you.

Welcome to my ignore list. Have fun in your bubble.

Jm

March 21st, 2012
12:45 pm

Jm

March 21st, 2012
12:46 pm

Adam don’t worry, you’ve been on ignore for months

Peadawg

March 21st, 2012
12:46 pm

Erwin’s cat
March 21st, 2012
12:39 pm

The point is to keep American companies over here so they can employ Americans.

Doggone/GA

March 21st, 2012
12:46 pm

“Adam don’t worry, you’ve been on ignore for months”

“I’m calling you to tell you I’m giving you the silent treatment”

Peadawg

March 21st, 2012
12:47 pm

Giving them more tax credits will just make them move more jobs overseas. I.E. higher unemployment here.

Jay

March 21st, 2012
12:47 pm

RB, in congressional parlance a budget doesn’t mean the same thing it means in private life. It’s more a broad list of agreed-upon targets; it is not the document that actually appropriates money.

The appropriations process continues as before.

Of course, I also recognize that this explanation won’t slow you down in the slightest in trying to make this into some kind of big deal. I offer it for the benefit of others who might actually want to know how such things work.

RB from Gwinnett

March 21st, 2012
12:47 pm

Jay, the D’s crammed healthcare down our throats and couldn’t bring a budget with their tax increase and spending cuts to a vote when they held the H, S, and WH??

Go float your BS boat somewhere else, jay. We were paying attention.

Paul

March 21st, 2012
12:47 pm

Jm

“I could care less what you, the liberals, or the cons think”

You could?

How much less?

Mick!

“simple solutions to complex problems, and the question is?”

Tax Cuts!

No Regulations!

and, for Ryan budget supporters, it’s the first four seconds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5TQ4GF8rNI#t=00m36s

It never gets old, Mick -

Adam

March 21st, 2012
12:48 pm

Mick

March 21st, 2012
12:48 pm

rb

The problem with republicans is that they are the protectors of the rich, the very people who get the most out of this system every time. Why in the world would a hardworking middle class person choose them? Sure, the dems have their issues, but by and large, at least there is some pretense of support for the working stiff. With the repubs – nothing, zero, zilch, nada…

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

March 21st, 2012
12:48 pm

Adam don’t worry, you’ve been on ignore for months

Is that the same ignore that you promised getalife?

USinUK - missing the dogwoods ... not the pollen count ...

March 21st, 2012
12:48 pm

Paul – 12:35 – asking him a question and expecting a straight answer???

hope springs eternal …

Fetus on a stick

March 21st, 2012
12:49 pm

Have you seen the revised CBO estimates on that communist health plan??? Holy Cow. They previously misunderestimated it, by half. Fat load of good they are.

Adam

March 21st, 2012
12:49 pm

RB: Go float your BS boat somewhere else, jay.

What’s worse, he’s actually seriously making this statement as if it makes a difference.

And yet, Jay is a nice enough guy not to ban him for being such a douche in HIS house.

Butch Cassidy

March 21st, 2012
12:51 pm

Jay – “RB, in congressional parlance a budget doesn’t mean the same thing it means in private life.”

Dammit Jay, you’ve just destroyed the argument of every poster who’s tried to compare the U.S. economy to the family budget. Now where am I going to get to hear “If I’m spending more than I make, I just spend less” mantra?

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

March 21st, 2012
12:51 pm

…the D’s crammed healthcare down our throats…

I have found that those who complain the most about having something crammed down their throats, are the same ones who will swallow anything.

Peadawg

March 21st, 2012
12:52 pm

“Have you seen the revised CBO estimates on that communist health plan??? Holy Cow. They previously misunderestimated it, by half. Fat load of good they are.”

Yes we know. Both sides are sucking big doo-doo right now. To me though, the Republicans are a lot more loopy then the Democrats. How much more can they cut education? My goodness….

Mick

March 21st, 2012
12:52 pm

paul

Congrats! You hit the daily double!!

Jefferson

March 21st, 2012
12:52 pm

Cat- let them move the corp office, A foriegn company should be in a foreign country. Let them worry about dictators and defense.

RB from Gwinnett

March 21st, 2012
12:53 pm

No, Mick, the R’s are protectors of the people who actually work and earn the money they have in the bank.

Butch Cassidy

March 21st, 2012
12:53 pm

Mick – “Why in the world would a hardworking middle class person choose them?”

Not all of them do. If you look at Romneys tracking numbers, he usually does well with the $100,000 + crowd. However, he’s failed to get the love of the $50,000 to $100,000 crowd. And in a country where the median income is $48,000, it’s going to be a pretty hard sell come election time.

Paul

March 21st, 2012
12:54 pm

USinUK

:-)

Kamchak 12:51

You get post of the day for that.

Jm

March 21st, 2012
12:54 pm

“How much less?”

Budumpching

Paul that is some dry humor you have there Texan. Do you tell that one at the rodeo? You like your Texas toast burnt dry?

Common Sense isn't very Common

March 21st, 2012
12:54 pm

Peadawg

How much more can they cut education? My goodness….
——————————————

Rhetorical question, right?

They can keep cutting it till everyone automatically votes (R) :-)

No thought needed

Butch Cassidy

March 21st, 2012
12:56 pm

RB from Gwinnett – “the D’s crammed healthcare down our throats”

I think the GOP obsession with “throat cramming” really explains a lot when you look at their views towards Birth Control and Womens Reproductive Rights. :)