Why Paul Ryan’s budget would explode the deficit

U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, promises that his proposed budget will free America “from the crushing burden of debt now threatening its future.”

It would do no such thing. To the contrary, the Tax Policy Center says that major tax cuts included in the Ryan budget would reduce federal revenue by $418 billion in 2015 alone; by 2019, revenue losses would exceed half a trillion dollars each and every year. That will make the deficit worse, not better.

Ryan disputes such analysis, claiming that he will make up that lost revenue by eliminating various tax credits, deductions and exclusions. However, he refuses to specify what those credits might be and instead asks that we trust him on it. The check’s in the mail, in other words.

Last week, the Congressional Research Service took a look at the 20 tax credits, exclusions and deductions that have the biggest impact on tax revenue. Together, they account for 90 percent of the revenue lost through tax deductions in the code.

Here they are:

deductions

No, which of these will Ryan eliminate to make up for a half-trillion dollars a year in lost revenue, most of it in tax breaks for the rich? Let’s work through the list, starting from the top:

Is he going to eliminate the tax deduction that encourages employers to provide health insurance to their employees?

No, he is not. If he did, hundreds of millions of Americans might lose their employer-based insurance. No Congress will pass such legislation; no president would sign it.

Is he going to eliminate the deduction that employers take for providing pensions to their employees? No, he is not, for the same reasons outlined above.

Is he going to eliminate the mortgage deduction, the single most important deduction to the American middle class? Riiigggghht. Dig a grave for the housing and real estate industries if you do, and dig another for the careers of all the politicians who voted for it.

Is he going to start taxing Medicare benefits as income to its recipients? Uh, no. He’s not. He is not going to make an elderly couple pay income taxes on the $200,000 in health care they got last year. And is he going to raise the rate on capital gains and treat it as earned income?

I won’t even bother to answer that one.

As analysts for the Congressional Research Service drily concluded, “Given the barriers to eliminating or reducing most tax expenditures, it may prove difficult to gain more than $100 billion to $150 billion in additional tax revenues through base broadening.”

And if you were to make all of the changes that might be feasible, the CRS estimates, you could finance “about a one or two percentage point reduction for each bracket.”

Just as a reminder, Ryan proposes a 10-percentage-point deduction for the wealthiest of Americans.

At some point, we do need to seriously address our nation’s financial situation. That point will clearly have to come after the election. But in the meantime, spare us the histrionics. You cannot claim to be serious about the deficit while in the same breath proposing multi-trillion reductions in government revenue.

Politicians who pretend otherwise are playing the American voter for a fool.

– Jay Bookman

284 comments Add your comment

Tommy Maddox

March 30th, 2012
10:59 am

Why bother – the Senate will not approve any budget sent up [unless/until Reid is gone].

stands for decibels

March 30th, 2012
10:59 am

Can’t wait to hear the Goopers sell this brand of stupid to America.

ByteMe - economics goon

March 30th, 2012
11:01 am

Politicians who pretend otherwise are playing the American voter for a fool.

Only certain gullible American voters, that is.

ByteMe - economics goon

March 30th, 2012
11:01 am

Why bother – the Senate will not approve any budget sent up [unless/until Reid is gone].

Budgets don’t matter in Congress. Appropriations bills do. Ryan plan was voted on last year, too, so tell me: how much of that plan was reflected in the Appropriations bills passed by the House?

ByteMe - economics goon

March 30th, 2012
11:02 am

And I get to be an economics goon for a little longer :)

massachusetts refugee thug

March 30th, 2012
11:03 am

ryans “health care plan” — •Provides a refundable tax credit – $2,300 for individuals

swell. that’ll get me and the mrs about 2 months worth.

kayaker 71

March 30th, 2012
11:03 am

Perhaps, just perhaps, the answer is not in tax revenues at all. Maybe, just maybe, it might have something to do with run away spending. Don’t spend so much, don’t need as much revenue. Now that’s not so difficult, is it?

TaxPayer

March 30th, 2012
11:03 am

Politicians who pretend otherwise are playing the American voter for a fool.

Actually they’re speaking to the GOP base.

stands for decibels

March 30th, 2012
11:04 am

Jay, modest typo…

No[w], which of these will Ryan eliminate to make up

excellent piece, you might as well fix its one discernible flaw.

Shawny

March 30th, 2012
11:04 am

What you have in the chart are deductions. What about closing corporate loopholes that allow organizations such as GE to get away with paying next to nothing for taxes? What about closing loopholes that allow companies that are US companies, have their business here, but find a way to show presence in one or more countries allowing them to pay next to nothing for US taxes?

THAT is where it is made up.

Tommy Maddox

March 30th, 2012
11:04 am

“However, he refuses to specify what those credits might be and instead asks that we trust him on it.”

Hate to say it, but this sounds similar to “We have to pass the bill so we can see what’s in the bill”.

Bella Napoli

March 30th, 2012
11:04 am

ByteMe - economics goon

March 30th, 2012
11:05 am

Maybe, just maybe, it might have something to do with run away spending.

Maybe, just maybe, you can point at $500 billion in excess spending you’d be willing to give up for the rest of your life for you and everyone you know including your parents and grandparents and all their friends and neighbors.

ByteMe - economics goon

March 30th, 2012
11:06 am

Hate to say it, but this sounds similar to “We have to pass the bill so we can see what’s in the bill”.

Yes, that was pointed out in the last thread. Hipocrisy, yes?

TaxPayer

March 30th, 2012
11:07 am

I heard the Republicans are getting serious about getting rid of that charitable contribution deduction since they don’t need a tax deduction to be charitable.

ByteMe - economics goon

March 30th, 2012
11:08 am

What about closing corporate loopholes that allow organizations such as GE to get away with paying next to nothing for taxes?

Which loopholes? The ones where foreign subsidiaries in no-tax havens own their IP, and they overpay those subsidiaries (an expense here) for use of the IP? How about the one where a loss in a previous year — and they had lots of losses at GE Capital for a couple of years — offset current year gains?

Please specify.

larry

March 30th, 2012
11:08 am

I have a feeling that Ryan will meet the same fate as the governor of Wisconsin.

Unemployed after Janurary 1st.

Brosephus™

March 30th, 2012
11:08 am

Posted downstairs, but it’s probably just as viable here…

Last year’s “Ryan Plan” claimed to be about fiscal responsibility. Part of the legislation projected the debt limit would eventually reach $23 Trillion. Every GOP House member signed off on that budget as though it was the perfect antidote. However, when it came time to raise the debt limit, they all had Grand Mal seizures as though the world were coming to an end, nevermind the fact that they had just agreed that the limit would have to increase substantially over then next decade.

This year’s “Ryan Plan” stresses the same fiscal responsibility, yet it’s projected to cut deficit spending by the year 2040. Just another attempt at tossing red meat to the party faithful which, by appearances here, seems to have the potential to be very powerful going into the election. The scary part is there is no true way to project how much those additional revenue cuts will hurt us.

marty

March 30th, 2012
11:08 am

Jay, have you pointed this information out to your colleague across the hall?

CHEVY runs deep!!

March 30th, 2012
11:09 am

Adam

March 30th, 2012
11:09 am

So not only does it not solve our deficit problem, it basically guts everything for the poor and most of the stuff for the middle class.

Jefferson

March 30th, 2012
11:09 am

Sure theres plenty of Defense spending to cut.

Peadawg

March 30th, 2012
11:09 am

Generation$crewed

March 30th, 2012
11:10 am

Would this cause the deficit to go up by nearly 5 trillion in just over 3 years?

If not then what’s the big deal?

Why is it that folks from each party only have a problem with massive deficit spending when it is the other party doing the spending?

kayaker 71

March 30th, 2012
11:11 am

ByteMe, 11:05,

We can start with that ridiculous “stimulus” package that wasted over 700B of taxpayer money without creating a dent in our economic woes…… didn’t do a damned thing to correct our problems except save a few financial institutions that could have probably recovered on their own and gave the unions the largest automobile company in the world in exchange for political support. If you support that kind of spending, we really don’t have anything to discuss.

larry

March 30th, 2012
11:11 am

it basically guts everything for the poor and most of the stuff for the middle class.

And throws our economy into a recession.

Of course, most recessions happen under a republican administration.

getalife

March 30th, 2012
11:11 am

Like the rest of our cons, ryan’s ideology is based on fiction.

Zero credibility.

None.

Doggone/GA

March 30th, 2012
11:12 am

“Hate to say it, but this sounds similar to “We have to pass the bill so we can see what’s in the bill”.

Care to provide the name of the person who said that? (Here’s a clue: it was NOT Nancy Pelosi)

JamVet

March 30th, 2012
11:12 am

Ryan disputes such analysis, claiming that he will make up that lost revenue by eliminating various tax credits, deductions and exclusions. However, he refuses to specify what those credits might be and instead asks that we trust him on it. The check’s in the mail, in other words.

Stupid trickle downers.

Always sucking in the Republirubes with “expanded tax base” canards and BS “promises” to eliminate various tax credits, deductions and exclusions.

The neocons love sending their money UP the economic ladder to those who already have the most and biggest advantages/shelters/welfare.

A rising sewer drowns all but the smelliest boats…

Paul

March 30th, 2012
11:12 am

This isn’t theory vs reality.

It’s Wonderland vs reality.

You got specific, Jay. It’s the best antidote for sound bites and ‘trust me’ rhetoric. I don’t see real, specific arguments to counter the specifics.

Which is why much of this thread will be comprised of Sound Biters in Wonderland.

Brosephus™

March 30th, 2012
11:13 am

Jay

One thing to consider, the tax break on employer-provided healthcare will disappear once the GOP finishes off the ACA and we end up with single payer. :)

larry

March 30th, 2012
11:14 am

That ridiculous stimulus package also had payroll tax cuts and tax credits.

stands for decibels

March 30th, 2012
11:14 am

“Hate to say it, but this sounds similar to “We have to pass the bill so we can see what’s in the bill”.

Care to provide the name of the person who said that? (Here’s a clue: it was NOT Nancy Pelosi)

If I were Jay, deliberately misquoting this particular bit would be a bannable offense.

getalife

March 30th, 2012
11:15 am

A sure way to ruin our recovery to lose more jobs and put us back to a recession is to vote gop.

stands for decibels

March 30th, 2012
11:15 am

You guys do realize that the scary-sounding “Trillion with a T” is three grand per person. Yes?

lovelyliz

March 30th, 2012
11:16 am

RAISES THE DEFICIT

Ryan’s Plan Adds $3.1 Trillion to the Deficit; Adds More to the Deficit than Under Current Law. “Ryan’s blueprint, ‘The Path to Prosperity,’ would add $3.127 trillion to the deficit during the decade spanning 2013 to 2022, according to a table on page 88 of the plan. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in its March 2012 projections that if “current laws generally remain unchanged,” the federal government would incur deficits totaling $2.887 trillion from 2013 to 2022. In other words, Congress would save more money over the next decade if it allowed current law to continue than if it adopted Ryan’s budget.”

Tax Expert Called Ryan’s Budget Plan Phony. “He’s a phony,” Robert McIntyre, the director of Citizens for Tax Justice said of Rep. Ryan. “But he’s always been a phony This is all smoke mirrors and no deficit reduction,” McIntyre concludes. “Have you seen the cover? It’s beautiful. That’s the best part. But he is proposing to increase the budget deficit over the long term.”

GIVES TAX CUTS TO THE WEALTHY

Ryan’s Plan Includes Tax Cuts for the Wealthy. “Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, is returning to center stage as the GOP doubles down on his conservative budget priorities — including tax cuts for the wealthy and a new version of his plan for major changes in Medicare.”

$150,000 Tax Break to Millionaires. Ryan’s Plan specifies more than $1 trillion in tax cuts for families making more than $250,000. This equates to an average tax cut of at least $150,000 per millionaire.

$3 Trillion in Tax Cuts for People Earning Over $200,000. Ryan’s Plan calls for cut taxes by roughly $3 trillion, with most of the tax cuts going to people earning more than $200,000.

New York Times Editorial: Ryan’s Plan Would Mean the Rich Pay Less in Taxes. Ryan’s plan “is one where the rich pay less in taxes than the unfairly low rates they pay now, while programs for the poor — including Medicaid and food stamps — are slashed and thrown to the whims of individual states.”

PROTECTS SPECIAL INTEREST LOOPHOLES

Ryan’s Plan Also Encourages Companies to Ship Jobs Overseas. Currently, U.S. companies pay the tax rate of the country where the outpost is located and then, if they bring those profits home, often pay some U.S. taxes as well. Under the Ryan’s proposal, companies essentially would pay just the tax rate of the country where the profits are earned. According to the Tax Policy Center, exempting these offshore earning from U.S. tax liability “might encourage some domestic companies to move more of their operations—and shift both jobs and more reported income– to low tax countries.” Similarly, Citizens for Tax Justice concluded that adopting this type of system would increase the incentives for job offshoring.

stands for decibels

March 30th, 2012
11:16 am

And you realize that people are lending us money at historically low rates?

And that we’d be fools not to take on additional debt to get the country working again?

Paul

March 30th, 2012
11:16 am

kayaker 1

“Maybe, just maybe, it might have something to do with run away spending. Don’t spend so much, don’t need as much revenue. Now that’s not so difficult, is it?”

Given about 40 percent of what we spend is not supported by revenue, but borrowing, yes, it does appear that difficult.

Especially when Ryan and Romney talk of not cutting, but increasing, Defense spending.

kayaker 71 – you were career military. So you know there’s another tax loophole that can be closed – the tremendously high percentage of compensation military members receive that’s tax-free.

ragnar danneskjold

March 30th, 2012
11:17 am

The crickets chirping in the Oval Office on this issue are telling. Apologies for duplicate info, but I just posted below:

I understand Federal spending for FY 2012 is estimate at $3,754,852,000,000 or roughly $12,000 for every man, woman, and child. If our individual tax liabilities reflected anything approaching the Federal spending, there would revolution across the land. The National Defense component of the US FY 2012 spending is 682,683,000,000 approx 20% of the total spending.

Spending is the problem, not insufficient tax revenues.

Congressional Reform Act of 2012

March 30th, 2012
11:17 am

Congressional Reform Act of 2012
1. Term Limits
12 years max, some possible options are below.
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension
Members of Congress receive a salary while in office,
that salary ends when they leave office.

3. Congress members (past, present & future) are to participate in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system
immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with all Americans.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan,
just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system
and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Members of Congress must equally abide by all laws
they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present members of Congress are void effective 4/1/12.
The American people did not make the contract members of Congress enjoy,
Congress made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.
The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators,
so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

ty webb

March 30th, 2012
11:18 am

Jay,
why no “liberal” qualifier for the “Tax Policy Center”, you seem to use “Conservative” quiet frequently(and rightfully so) when using other such groups…just wondering.

Stephenson Billings

March 30th, 2012
11:18 am

Good thing Obama’s didn’t pass (or get a single vote):

“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has. It says that deficit spending under Obama’s budget would be $488 billion in five years (in 2017), $510 billion in six years (2018), $602 billion in seven years (2019), $638 billion in eight years (2020), $678 billion in nine years (2021), and $728 billion in ten years (2022, the last year of his budget). In other words, over the latter half of the president’s budget, our deficit would get higher every year. “

ragnar danneskjold

March 30th, 2012
11:18 am

Do not waste any time attempting to siphon more cash out of the private economy – the spendocrats are wasting most of they they get now. Get the spending under control.

stands for decibels

March 30th, 2012
11:18 am

or roughly $12,000 for every man, woman, and child.

and? so?

Have you even bothered to compare this to what other supposedly civilized nations spend per capita, or are you really that lazy?

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

March 30th, 2012
11:19 am

Why bother – the Senate will not approve any budget sent up [unless/until Reid is gone].

And you can thank GOD for that. If it was back when the repugs ruled everything, we’d already be a 3rd world country.

larry

March 30th, 2012
11:19 am

“trust me rhetoric” . That reminds me, wasn’t there a bank that had to pay out billions to the states for screwing people over during forclosures.

Didnt Georgia get 100 million dollars to help people avoid foreclosures and didnt the state just put in the general fund instead of using it to help people .

I think i heard the great corrupt one say ” we know how best to use those funds”
Somebody needs to look into that.

stands for decibels

March 30th, 2012
11:19 am

All right, I’ll make it simple. Been meaning to post this, and I gotta run, but I’ll put it out there.

A trillion dollars is about three grand per person, give or take a few.

Yes, it sounds scary. Yes, some blame can be spread around as to why it’s up to 16 trillion. But that’s around fifty grand per person, total debt. Whoop de doo.

Some like to talk about what people do with their own personal finances, and try to liken the US government’s economic policy to this. I tend to laugh at such claptrap, but if one insists on dumbing it down to that level, let’s do, shall we?

But instead of a household, I prefer to use a small-ish business analogy. Your business, well, it has been losing money for awhile. But people continue to extend lines of credit to you at incredibly favorable rates. Historically low rates. Rates so low, nobody else gets them. That’s how much faith people with money to lend place in your business’ future viability.

In fact, you pay next to nothing to service *new* debt you take on. Your overall debt service costs haven’t really gone up much as a percentage of your overall worth. And so you’re in hock to the tune of about, oh, two hundred grand. [That’d be what a family of four is on the hook for, if you insist on divvying up the US national debt that way.]

You would like to keep the business going. You want to keep everyone you’ve got on the payroll; they’re good people, like family to you. You might say you’re committed to their “general welfare.”

You can see a point at which you will turn this around, where you will start operating in the black, some years down the road. You might have to take on some more credit; you might have to be in hock to the tune of, oh, around three hundred grand, before you get to break-even, and start making money. But make money you will, and in the meantime, you’ve got your business workin’ its magic, and helping the overall economy around you.

Do you tell those folks who are lending you money for next to nothing “um, no, that’s not gonna work. I’m gonna kick my employees to the curb and scale back the business because, well, just because. The raw dollar amount all of a sudden sounds scary?”

No. you do not. Because you’re not a moron, and you’re not a sociopath, and you’re not a coward.

Unfortunately, many Democrats and Republicans are turning out to be some combination of moron/sociopath/coward on the issue of the debt, and if you’re ever going to understand what a motivates a DFH like me to rail against those who are moronic/sociopathic/cowardly on economic matters, now you have a clue, if you’ve read this far.

(not that I imagine anyone will, but I needed to get it out there. And yes, I’d written this awhile ago, intending to post it earlier. But this seemed a good time.)

/drive-by

Peadawg

March 30th, 2012
11:20 am

“You guys do realize that the scary-sounding “Trillion with a T” is three grand per person.

And you realize that people are lending us money at historically low rates?

And that we’d be fools not to take on additional debt to get the country working again? ”

That’s your reasoning? :lol: Dude, you’re killin’ me over here.

*ring ring*

What’s that? Comedy Central just called for stands for decibels.

Stephenson Billings

March 30th, 2012
11:21 am

Wow, it’s actually more than that:

“The Obama administration’s proposal to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for the middle class will drive up the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO estimates that the President’s FY 2013 budget will increase the deficit by $3.5 trillion between 2013-2022, doubling the projected deficit over the next 10 years.”

http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/03/19/cbo-projects-obamas-tax-cuts-will-add-trillions-to-deficit/

getalife

March 30th, 2012
11:22 am

When the gop can’t even cut big oil welfare, you lose the welfare and deficit arguments cons.

Your ideology is a lie cons.

Wake up out of la la land cons.

Stephenson Billings

March 30th, 2012
11:23 am

“Have you even bothered to compare this to what other supposedly civilized nations spend per capita, or are you really that lazy?”

Like say, Greece? Spain?

ByteMe - economics goon

March 30th, 2012
11:23 am

We can start with that ridiculous “stimulus” package that wasted over 700B of taxpayer money without creating a dent in our economic woes…… didn’t do a damned thing to correct our problems except save a few financial institutions that could have probably recovered on their own and gave the unions the largest automobile company in the world in exchange for political support

You have confused TARP with the Stimulus bill. Which might indeed mean we don’t have much to discuss, since you are having trouble getting basic facts right.

Beverly Fraud

March 30th, 2012
11:23 am

Once again, Jay’s liberal agenda causes him to miss the GENIUS in this plan. Ryan know Newt is IMMINENTLY electable, and a military base on the moon is soon to follow.

From there, America will attack those ANTI-CHRISTIAN elements that have brought America into a moral morass, exporting democracy into the far reaches of the solar system, as well as expanding the FREE MARKET (which we know Jay hates)

The plan is PRACTICAL, and it’s WORKABLE but watch Jay reject it out of hand because it was thought of by conservatives.

Instead, I suggest we reject Jay’s pandering in the name of Jesus.

Amen.

Gator Joe

March 30th, 2012
11:24 am

Jay:
Ryan and most of his Republican cohorts in the House who want to cut things like the food stamp program, and eliminate (yes eliminate) Medicare, fortunately for them, will never need to depend on either program. This is the typical Conservative thought process, “If it doesn’t directly benefit me, then I don’t support it.” The idea that a truly great country cares about, and for, the poor, children, and it’s elderly is anathema to these people.
By the way, check out how defense is treated in his budget, especially weapons programs.

Brosephus™

March 30th, 2012
11:24 am

“The Obama administration’s proposal to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for the middle class will drive up the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO estimates that the President’s FY 2013 budget will increase the deficit by $3.5 trillion between 2013-2022, doubling the projected deficit over the next 10 years.”

And yet, people don’t have a problem with Ryan’s proposal that would not only do the same thing, but he’s proposing additional cuts on top of that.

:roll:

Peadawg

March 30th, 2012
11:25 am

“Whoop de doo.” – All you can say about $16 Trillion is “whoop de doo”.

Stands, you just landed in the loony left group.

ByteMe - economics goon

March 30th, 2012
11:25 am

Like say, Greece? Spain?

How about Germany, which pays more than both of them and is doing quite fine, thank you.

How about Sweden? same thing.

How about something closer to home like Canada or do you look down on them too?

ByteMe - economics goon

March 30th, 2012
11:26 am

And, by the way, they all spend less per person on health care than we do and get more for it.

JamVet

March 30th, 2012
11:26 am

Romney Picks up key endorsement Fiscal Albatross

Washington (CNN) – Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin endorsed Mitt Romney on Friday, ahead of his state’s Tuesday primary.

DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman

March 30th, 2012
11:26 am

Don’t spend so much, don’t need as much revenue. Now that’s not so difficult, is it?

Im surprised you didn’t mention all those subsidies that the lazy and shiftless use to drain our economy! I say get rid of them all– we can start by getting rid of those bloated oil subsidies.

ByteMe - economics goon

March 30th, 2012
11:27 am

Beverly, that’s almost a good Bill Orvis White impersonation.

ty webb

March 30th, 2012
11:28 am

“…we can start by getting rid of those bloated oil subsidies.”

why just those?.. how ’bout all subsidies?

getalife

March 30th, 2012
11:28 am

At least cheney was consistent with deficits don’t matter when the gop can’t cut anything.

stands for decibels

March 30th, 2012
11:28 am

PD, at least read the whole thing if you’re going to comment on it, ‘k pal?

thanks.

/drive-by, really gone for awhile now.

carlosgvv

March 30th, 2012
11:29 am

“playing the American voter for a fool”

This is because they’ve decided the best way to win in November is to appeal to those they consider the most ignorant in America. They believe in that old saying “no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people”. However, their favorite saying is “let them eat cake”.

Peadawg

March 30th, 2012
11:30 am

“PD, at least read the whole thing if you’re going to comment on it, ‘k pal?”

Honestly, I got to “whoop de doo” and stopped. You’re now on the level of Thulsa Doom with regards to credibility on this blog.

Jay

March 30th, 2012
11:30 am

“What about closing corporate loopholes that allow organizations such as GE to get away with paying next to nothing for taxes? What about closing loopholes that allow companies that are US companies, have their business here, but find a way to show presence in one or more countries allowing them to pay next to nothing for US taxes?”

Actually, Shawny, you could not be more wrong. Instead of fixing such problems, Ryan proposes to make them much much worse.

For example, one of the biggest ways that U.S. corporations evade taxes is by hiding the profits overseas. As long as they don’t bring the money back stateside, they don’t pay taxes on it.

Ryan proposes to “solve” that problem by simply abolishing those taxes altogether. Profits made overseas wouldn’t be taxed at all.

Also look at the vote yesterday in the Senate, in which Republicans blocked efforts to end $4 billion in annual tax subsidies to the HIGHLY profitable oil industry. The argument that the GOP is going to raise revenue by stripping corporate America of tax shelters. … well, I know Easter is coming, but I stopped believing in the Easter Bunny a long time ago.

TaxPayer

March 30th, 2012
11:31 am

Republicans should be able to figure out on their own that expenditures must be covered by revenues in order to balance a budget. So for them to proclaim that spending is a problem is really to proclaim that they do not understand what a balance sheet really is. As to balancing that budget and eliminating the debt and deficit, the debt is already spent money. You cannot unspend it. You must have revenues to pay for it and those revenues come from taxes. Pay your taxes, you bunch of Republican moochers and quit trying to pass it off onto future generations. The bulk of that debt was run up during our working lives — not our children’s and grandchildren’s working lives. The Bush tax cuts have to end and there can be no more tax cuts for the wealthiest. The military has to be cut. Social Security just needs minor tweeks. It is not in jeopardy so long as Republicans do not try to divert all payroll taxes to more tax cuts for the wealthiest. Healthcare needs fixing but Republicans refuse to do anything other than continue to be the party of no. Losers.

Beverly Fraud

March 30th, 2012
11:34 am

“Almost” being the operative word ByteMe? LOL

Michael

March 30th, 2012
11:34 am

Peadawg, go take your medicine. The ones that are paid for by medicare.

getalife

March 30th, 2012
11:34 am

“Study: Conservatism ‘linked to low brainpower’… ”

It is a mental disorder based on a fictional book.

Peadawg

March 30th, 2012
11:36 am

“Peadawg, go take your medicine. The ones that are paid for by medicare.” – Hey troll/sfd/whoever you are, I still got 30+ years until I’m eligible. Go back under the bridge, k punkin?

Jay

March 30th, 2012
11:40 am

So … very few to no takers in listing exactly which exemptions, deductions should be eliminated by Ryan to make up that lost half-trillion in revenue.

In the earlier thread, we saw a lot of bold assertions that the tradeoff could and would be made. But once confronted with the choices, things go a little quiet.

Beverly Fraud

March 30th, 2012
11:42 am

I’m not sure why Jay can’t just read the 11:23 post and see that men like Ryan and Newt are men of VISION, while Jay is of the “limited mindset” of the liberal agenda.

The difference between Jay and Ryan? Jay looks at the numbers and sees a MASSIVE deficit ahead, but visionaries like Newt and Ryan see POSSIBILITIES.

If THEY ran this blog, EVERY Friday’s musical interlude would be Lee Greenwood’s ‘Proud to be an American’

It’s what Jesus would do.

Amen.

Stephenson Billings

March 30th, 2012
11:42 am

“How about Germany, which pays more than both of them and is doing quite fine, thank you.

How about Sweden? same thing.”

And just look at their tax rates. Don’t know about you, but I’d have a hard time working as hard as I do and only being able to keep about half my money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

TaxPayer

March 30th, 2012
11:44 am

In short, Ryan’s yellowbrick roadmap is only 215 pages because it does not include anything of substance. Just his usual hyperbole. Just bold proclamations of clicking one’s heels together and chanting, “there’s no place like home…”

Paul

March 30th, 2012
11:44 am

Shawny

“What about closing loopholes that allow companies that are US companies, have their business here, but find a way to show presence in one or more countries allowing them to pay next to nothing for US taxes?

THAT is where it is made up.”

Not in the Republican plan, it isn’t.

Tommy Maddox

“Hate to say it, but this sounds similar to “We have to pass the bill so we can see what’s in the bill”.”

Nope. We could see what was in the bill if we wanted to read it.

We can read the Ryan proposal, but won’t find anything.

getalife

“Like the rest of our cons, ryan’s ideology is based on fiction.”

And “The Hunger Games” opened to record numbers. It’s a twofer for fiction received with adoration by the fans.

Brosephus

“One thing to consider, the tax break on employer-provided healthcare will disappear once the GOP finishes off the ACA and we end up with single payer.”

I was wondering if Republicans realized they’re proposing a stealth path to single payer. As soon as they realize it, you can bet that’s one deductions that’s going to stay right where it is.

St Simons - we're on Island time

March 30th, 2012
11:46 am

Do they even HAVE accountants on that side anymore?

Or are they still using those root doctors from voodoo land
that roll chicken bones & rub pennies?

RB from Gwinnett

March 30th, 2012
11:46 am

More of the “tax breaks for the rich” nonsense fro jay. Geez. You should be charged with misleading people who obviously can’t think for themselves.

getalife

March 30th, 2012
11:47 am

I think we should stick to arguing with republicans like Paul because our cons can’t deal with reality.

We know the gop will never cut corporate welfare and the dems will never cut SS and Medicare so they have to cut defense.

Generation$crewed

March 30th, 2012
11:48 am

Your analogy assumes all of your employees are working hard doing the right things and carrying their weight of the company.

When in reality u have a group of workers who do nothing by choice, another group who does nothing and produces nothing because of a lack of anything to do. A large chunk who does what is expected and nothing more. Then u would have a group of employees who were responsible for a huge chunk of sales and product/service production.

The current call and model being used by the owners (administration) actually calls for the group who chooses to do nothing and the group who has nothing to do would get the highest percentage of a raise. The group doing just enough would get a raise or stay the same. While the group producing and selling thus making money for you fanatasy company well you would give them a pay cut for their effort. All of this you would be doing by borrowing even if at no interest. Now how do you expect to repay any amount of money by reducing the incentive ($) from those who have been your highest producers, while at the same time giving incentive to those who have been of no profitability to continue to do the same. While u would do as the gov always does and allow the biggest chunk of middle of the bell curve remain unchanged

Boy that sounds like a winning business model

Paul

March 30th, 2012
11:50 am

Jay

“In the earlier thread, we saw a lot of bold assertions that the tradeoff could and would be made. But once confronted with the choices, things go a little quiet.”

And now it’s gone a LOT quiet.

Beverly Fraud

March 30th, 2012
11:51 am

So … very few to no takers in listing exactly which exemptions, deductions should be eliminated by Ryan to make up that lost half-trillion in revenue.

TOTAL red herring, that does NOT take into account the economic stimulus all but guaranteed by Newt’s moon base proposal.

Ryan gets it.

Don't Forget

March 30th, 2012
11:53 am

The Ryan plan is just another political gimmick.

Billybob

March 30th, 2012
11:54 am

jay,
how many in the house voted for obama’s budget a day or two ago?
i’ll answer for you…..ZERO, not even one democrat voted for the only dem budget put forth…….your radical dem leader in the senate will not even bring a budget up for a vote……over 1000 days now jay……….your radical party and you are so disingenuous with regard to ryan’s budget or ANY budget………..the do nothing senate led by radical leftist harry reid is being exposed through this and it’s time to call out him and you for your bold faced lies while your radical leftist democratic party puts forth nothing else……keep talking bookman………it’s getting easier and easier to expose your hypocrisy and radical view for this country………nov 7th is going to hurt liberalism for at least a decade and you deserve everything your brought on yourself…….this is fun…….

Billybob

March 30th, 2012
11:56 am

why hasn’t harry reid brought up a budget for a vote in over 1000 days jay?can you answer on simple question?

TaxPayer

March 30th, 2012
11:56 am

Do the Republicans go into some sort of “I don’t have anything of value to add and my handlers have not given me any new talking points yet” form of hibernation when confronted with the task of doing something other than bleat the party mantra while waiting for their next e-mail or whatever format they get their talking points in (all of them claim to not even listen to AM radio or FOX “news” so who knows how they get their stuff). Come on, Republicans. We can all go through that Ryan proposal together if that would help.

getalife

March 30th, 2012
11:56 am

At least corrupt congress learned the lesson after passing w’s budgets to blow out our deficit..

Wild Eyes

March 30th, 2012
11:57 am

Jay I think you just ran into the “Take it so long as it doesn’t affect me” Wall in regards to your question.

Mark in mid-town

March 30th, 2012
11:57 am

Paul Ryan is one of the more serious and intellectually honest politicians in Washington DC. That’s why the Democratic Party feels the need to deploy its hacks in them msm to attck him every time Ryan proposes something. Before attacking him, why not wait until it becomes clear which loopholes are to be eliminated.

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

March 30th, 2012
11:57 am

I think Ryan’s budget is comedy gold.

So does the Club for Growth….big fat liberals that they are…
(Per Hot AIr)

Two leading Tea Party freshmen, Reps. Tim Huelskamp and Justin Amash, went so far as to vote against their chairman in committee and Two leading Tea Party freshmen, Reps. Tim Huelskamp and Justin Amash, went so far as to vote against their chairman in committee.
(Per the American Spectator)

re: the vote on the President’s budget…that other bastion of big fat liberals The Washington Times called it “a vote Republicans arranged to try to embarrass him and shelve his plan for the rest of the year.”

Here we have a case of swallowing anything from the jammed down their throats gang.

And they will choke on it.

TaxPayer

March 30th, 2012
11:58 am

Perhaps a Republican here can splain to us why they believe the Senate should pass Ryan’s budget when the default cuts and hikes from the existing bipartisan legislation will do more to reduce the debt and deficit than the Ryan proposal will?

getalife

March 30th, 2012
11:59 am

mark,

They refused to cut big oil welfare so there are no loopholes eliminated.

You got punked by the gop.

Billybob

March 30th, 2012
12:00 pm

re: the vote on the President’s budget…that other bastion of big fat liberals The Washington Times called it “a vote Republicans arranged to try to embarrass him and shelve his plan for the rest of the year.”

how many voted for obama’s budget granny? so obama’s budget was embarassing for democrats?

Paul

March 30th, 2012
12:00 pm

Billybob

The vote on Obama’s budget does not address which deductions, exclusions and credits should be cut to pay for Ryan’s tax cuts. Now… which of those the Congressional Research Service listed (Jay cited them above) do you say should be cut to pay for Ryan’s tax cuts?

TaxPayer

March 30th, 2012
12:01 pm

Before attacking him, why not wait until it becomes clear which loopholes are to be eliminated.

But Ryan’s proposal has already passed the house so you Republicans should know what’s in it by now. Besides, it’s only 215 pages.

Billybob

March 30th, 2012
12:01 pm

paul, how many voted for obama’s budget?

JohnnyReb

March 30th, 2012
12:02 pm

If all that happened was to change to two tax brackets, visions of ruin might occur. However and for example, if a couple is in the 15% bracket and enjoys the mortgage interest deduction, they could be tax neutral or better if the deduction is eliminated and they are in the 10% bracket.

But no, Libs just know Republicans will screw everyone but high income owners.

getalife

March 30th, 2012
12:02 pm

The ryan vs is doa in the Senate and that is a good thing.

Lets stop the lies of the gop cutting anything.

They can’t even cut low hanging fruit like big oil welfare.

Billybob

March 30th, 2012
12:02 pm

Enter your comments here