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:
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
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
284 comments Add your comment
ByteMe - economics goon
March 30th, 2012
12:03 pm
Beverly, BOW has had more practice at it. Some people still think he’s real and try to argue with him.
Paul
March 30th, 2012
12:05 pm
Mark in midtown
Ryan noted it ‘wasn’t his job’ in the budget process to come up with offsets, that’s the job of the appropriations committee.
Given Ryan’s made himself the leader of the effort, and given the seriousness of the challenges, that strikes me as a cop-out.
I think the entire point of this is to illustrate, even if one eliminated every exclusion and deduction, you can’t get where Ryan says we need to go.
So he punts and says it’s someone else’s job.
Because he knows he’s laid out a Budget to Nowhere.
ByteMe - economics goon
March 30th, 2012
12:05 pm
Funny e-mail from Andy Borowitz. Says that Greece’s Prime Minister travelled to Indiana today to buy lottery tickets because they offered better odds of reducing their debt.
ByteMe - economics goon
March 30th, 2012
12:06 pm
Budget to Nowhere
Ooooo… I feel a trademark coming on.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
March 30th, 2012
12:06 pm
BillyBob
None did. Never intended to.
Political machinations above your pay grade.
That said, think about what is going to be in front of the American Public until the election….Paul Ryans Budget.
You know the one attacked by the right and left.
You know the one that doesn’t eliminate any cabinet level departments, increases the deficit and pushes back a balanced budget for decades.
All over the media for months and months and months.
You are playing chutes and ladders son, the President is still playing chess.
Billybob
March 30th, 2012
12:07 pm
the day reid actually brings something up for a vote is the day i will discuss actual parts of a budget bill…until then leftist liberal speculation can stay with you libs………
JohnnyReb
March 30th, 2012
12:08 pm
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.
_________________________________________
Please see my 12:02 post.
TaxPayer
March 30th, 2012
12:08 pm
If you take Jay’s list from above and sum up everything from Earned Income Credit down to the end of the list, you come up with 493.2 billion. That’s almost enough to cover that lost 500 billion in annual revenues that Ryan has called for. I’m sure Republicans will have no problems getting a majority vote to approve those cuts.
ByteMe - economics goon
March 30th, 2012
12:08 pm
the day reid actually brings something up for a vote is the day i will discuss actual parts of a budget bill
yes, and the day he brings up appropriations bills is the day where the government gets funded and tax policy gets implemented.
Oh, wait, already happened. Oopsie.
Adam
March 30th, 2012
12:09 pm
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).
Yes.
THBAEOSATSQ
getalife
March 30th, 2012
12:09 pm
How did austerity work in the EU?
Are they in a recession?
So, basically not cutting anything right now is the right move but to balance our budget in the future will require some tough choices.
I don’t think this corrupt congress is capable of making the tough choices due to unlimited corporate donations.
JamVet
March 30th, 2012
12:09 pm
More of the “tax breaks for the rich” nonsense fro jay.
As if they don’t exist. (Outside of the GOP’s parallel universe, they do.)
And are enormously counter-productive to American capitalism.
Such is the willful ignorance of the trickle down fake conservative, economic liberals…
Brosephus™
March 30th, 2012
12:11 pm
Paul: I was wondering if Republicans realized they’re proposing a stealth path to single payer.
What better way to do it is there other than having the mandate ruled unconstitutional all the while wanting all the “good” stuff the ACA offers? Add the removal of the tax credit, and it appears like a backdoor to single payer. Of course, the party loyalists will deny it 3 times before the rooster crows.
Paul
March 30th, 2012
12:11 pm
Billybob 12:01
That’s irrelevant to the topic. The topic is, which exclusions, deductions and loopholes need to be cut to pay for Ryan’s tax cuts?
If you don’t know, it’s okay to say so rather than repeating the same diversion.
Jay
March 30th, 2012
12:12 pm
why hasn’t harry reid brought up a budget for a vote in over 1000 days jay?can you answer on simple question?
Sure can, Billybob. The main reason is, because it just doesn’t matter.
It’s easy to get confused, because a congressional “budget” is not the same thing as a corporation’s budget or a family budget. A congressional budget is basically a list of intentions, with no real impact.
More specifically, a budget passed in Congress doesn’t appropriate a dime. It doesn’t raise a dime in revenue. It doesn’t actually DO a damn thing. Over the past three years, Congress and the Senate have passed quite a few appropriations bill and revenue bills, the legislation that actually matters. Contrary to the impression that the “1,000 days without a budget” claim attempts to create, they’re making those decisions all the time.
Don't Forget
March 30th, 2012
12:13 pm
Santorum is a like a wheel of colby cheese….. not that sharp and holier than thou.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
March 30th, 2012
12:13 pm
What’s that old joke about what the real translation is for
“Trust Me”….
Billybob
March 30th, 2012
12:13 pm
dismiss the vote granny and then claim i am dumb……typcial leftist language and not worthy of another response to you…….when your radical party puts a budget up, it’s been over 1000 days, call me……until then keep your projections going…..more like statist, socialist, fascist, unconstitutional chess………..believing obama is brilliant is the ultimate con of a lifetime from the media………..people see that more and more everyday…..it’s good to be a conservative at this moment in time
Don't Tread
March 30th, 2012
12:14 pm
“You cannot claim to be serious about the deficit while in the same breath proposing multi-trillion reductions in government revenue.”
Well, let’s just forget about “tax brackets”. Raise taxes to 100%. After all, people aren’t “paying their fair share”. When that doesn’t fix it, confiscate all their property too.
Then we will achieve “equality of results” like you liberals want (assuming there are survivors).
Paul
March 30th, 2012
12:17 pm
JohnnyReb
“Please see my 12:02 post.”
And that does address impact on the lower tier. Thank you.
But the real money, the real impact, is in the form of a nearly 30% decrease in the marginal rate for the top tier. That’s why Ryan said it would have to be made up by closing loopholes. It’s also why Jay published them and we see how unrealistic Ryan’s plan is in the face of what’s available to offset.
Jay
March 30th, 2012
12:18 pm
So Johnny, you honestly believe:
A.) It is possible to get Congress to pass a law abolishing the mortgage deduction and
B.) Abolishing that deduction would be a good thing for an economy already dragged down by plummeting real-estate prices and lack of home construction.
Do I get that right?
Brosephus™
March 30th, 2012
12:19 pm
I could care less about either house passing a budget bill. I’d be happy if they could just deal with the appropriation bills in a timely and responsible manner for once.
Billybob
March 30th, 2012
12:19 pm
‘Sure can, Billybob. The main reason is, because it just doesn’t matter.’
the lunatics are officially running the asylum……the reason is reid wants to continue to lock in his budget from 09′ and all the spending that goes with it and he doesn’t want the public to see the huge tax inccreases needed to pay for it before the election……….your comment is so revealing and that shows you are part of the radical leftist wing of the dem party if you actually believe what you wrote………..i love exposing how unintellectual your ilk actually is….nice curse word by the way, please don’t ban yourself….well actually after that comment that it doesn’t matter, you may need a time out for reflection on that…….haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Brosephus™
March 30th, 2012
12:20 pm
Well, let’s just forget about “tax brackets”. Raise taxes to 100%. After all, people aren’t “paying their fair share”. When that doesn’t fix it, confiscate all their property too.
^^^^ Obviously not serious…
My Party has ALL the answers. Your party is full of poopyheads! (formerly That Black Guy)
March 30th, 2012
12:23 pm
from down stairs;
stands for decibels
March 30th, 2012
10:43 am
the leftists – you included – prefer to remain silent
The Congressional Progressive Caucus has a perfectly reasonable, fiscally responsible plan that wouldn’t anally rape this nation.
http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/Executive%20Summary%20FINAL.pdf
Of course you haven’t heard about it. It’s not entirely your fault, the corporate media would just as soon you not know.
_______________________________________________________________________________
It’s been linked on Drudge several times.
ByteMe - economics goon
March 30th, 2012
12:24 pm
Uh, Billybob @ 12:19, you’ve clearly run out of talking points and need to learn how to bring facts to the party. Now go back to the kids table, the adults are talking.
JamVet
March 30th, 2012
12:24 pm
“equality of results”
Who in the wide wide world of sports came up with that goofiness in the first place?
I’ve NEVER seen one non-Republican ever promote getting rid of our progressive tax system.
I’ve seen plenty of them advocate for ending socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of us…
Billybob
March 30th, 2012
12:27 pm
as with husseincare and the budget, when leftist democrats don’t like their constitutional responsibilities, they ignore them…….revealing…….byte me lib 101 i see…….
carlosgvv
March 30th, 2012
12:28 pm
Brosephus – 12:19
Wishing for our elected officials in Washington, especially the Republican ones, to act “in a timely and responsible manner” is like wishing for the moon. Expect them to act in a totally partisian manner, put Party and Big Business first, and let the people get what crumbs from the table are left.
Don't Forget
March 30th, 2012
12:29 pm
Brosephus™
March 30th, 2012
12:20 pm
Well, let’s just forget about “tax brackets”. Raise taxes to 100%. After all, people aren’t “paying their fair share”. When that doesn’t fix it, confiscate all their property too.
^^^^ Obviously not serious…
Actually, it’s childish IMO.
TaxPayer
March 30th, 2012
12:31 pm
Households with incomes between $40,000 and $75,000 receive, on average, $523 from the mortgage interest deduction. Households with incomes above $250,000 receive $5,459, or more than 10 times as much.
I don’t think Republicans will go for that one even though they would be able to get some middle and lower class families to suffer more. They would have to figure a way of preserving that tax benefit for the wealthiest in order to do anything with that deduction.
ByteMe - economics goon
March 30th, 2012
12:31 pm
Actually, it’s childish IMO.
It’s like when your spouse gets annoyed at you and then says “You ALWAYS…” or “You NEVER…” just to make the argument even bigger and more defensive. Silly.
Moderate Line
March 30th, 2012
12:31 pm
The reason I don’t believe the Rep or Ryan will control the deficit is the main driver for the deficit is medicare. The percentage of people over 65 is going to increase in this country from about 13 to 18%. Yikes!. Also the reduce birthrate is may even make this worse. Japan has 22.9% of it’s population over 65.
Both parties are in denial. It is shame partisan pick on one party instead of the other. Ryan is in denial but so is left. It helps both avoid reality and deal with the actual problem.
Right now the United States is in better condition than other countries because we have a high immigration rate and lower entitlements. However, I don’t think the high immigration rate will continue. Mexico’s where most of our immigrants come from both legal and illegal birth rate is dropping. Also, we seem to be continual creating new entitlements. Now, unemployment seems indefinite and universal health care coverage.
ByteMe - economics goon
March 30th, 2012
12:32 pm
Turns out Billybob could reach for a few more talking points that ignore reality. Woo-hoo!! Good for you!
Paul
March 30th, 2012
12:32 pm
Don’t Tread
“Then we will achieve “equality of results” like you liberals want (assuming there are survivors).”
I do realize once you hear something that sounds really neat and sparkly it’s difficult to let go, but can you give us just one cite from Pres Obama’s presidency where he’s spoken of ‘equality of results’?
(Note: ‘equality of results’ may sound a lot like ‘equality of opportunity’ but one little word does make a pretty big difference).
ByteMe - economics goon
March 30th, 2012
12:33 pm
The reason I don’t believe the Rep or Ryan will control the deficit is the main driver for the deficit is medicare
This is not true. Medicare spending is not a driver for current deficits. If you compare spending levels, they’re pretty much about where you’d expect. However revenue went from about 18% of GDP to less than 15% in 2009. That’ll blow a hole in any budget.
JamVet
March 30th, 2012
12:34 pm
Corporate tax contributions as a percent of the overall federal revenue stream have been declining for fifty years and now stand at 7.4% despite massive record profits.
Tiny taxes (a fraction of the conventional retail sales percentage) on stock, bond, and derivative transactions can produce tens of billions of dollars a year and displace some of the taxes on work and consumer essentials.
Sol Price, founder of the Price Clubs (now merged into Costco) is one of several wealthy people in the last century who have urged a tax on wealth. Again, it can be at a very low rate but raise significant revenues.
http://tinyurl.com/bslu3tg
No more giveaways to the super-rich.
No more handouts to the very wealthy.
No more letting the tax dodgers in corporate America get off scott free.
No more soft-on-crime/pro-crime Republicanism.
JohnnyReb
March 30th, 2012
12:35 pm
Jay, if a lower tax bracket can be achieved by eliminating the mortgage interest rate, then yes. It does not matter that one cannot deduct the interest if he actually has the same or more money. More money in your pocket is always better, plus it let’s you purchase more.
Paul
March 30th, 2012
12:37 pm
Taxpayer
I can see limiting the mortgage interest deduction to the first $500,000 or so and eliminating it altogether on nonprimary residences.
And if corporations buy homes, I can support eliminating the deduction altogether (if they get it) , along with deprecation and whatever other breaks they get.
TaxPayer
March 30th, 2012
12:38 pm
Aw what the heck. Give JohnnyReb the mortgage deduction. That’s 100 billion of Ryan’s 500 billion annual revenue shortfall. What next.
Generation$crewed
March 30th, 2012
12:38 pm
Jay
March 30th, 2012
12:12 pm
So what ur saying is u wrote this entire piece about what you say is meaningless, and that doesn’t matter if passed?
So again your entire point of your opinion piece is to simply make republicans look bad, and about an issue that you say doesn’t matter.
Somehow I assumed you were more professional than that.
Brosephus™
March 30th, 2012
12:40 pm
Don’t Forget
Yeah, that too. I just found it funny to reference somebody’s quote about being serious and respond with something like that.
Don't Forget
March 30th, 2012
12:40 pm
I still say we should tax foreign corporate income the same as domestic corporate income with deductions for taxes paid to foreign governments. This would remove the incentives to keep income overseas without preventing corporations from taking advantage of favorable business conditions and it would eliminate a lot of the competitive advantages that some foreign governments give through subsidies. Take your best shot.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
March 30th, 2012
12:41 pm
BillyBob
Bless your heart!
Hope to meet you at the Ilk Lodge bratwurst fest.
Paul
March 30th, 2012
12:42 pm
Generation$crewed
As numerous op-ed columnists and political observers have pointed out, Ryan’s proposal will become a key factor in defining the differences between Pres Romney and Gov Romney, so yes, it is important.
And I’ll bet Romney’s really happy with Ryan and House Republicans for saddling him with it.
Adam
March 30th, 2012
12:42 pm
Paul: I do realize once you hear something that sounds really neat and sparkly it’s difficult to let go, but can you give us just one cite from Pres Obama’s presidency where he’s spoken of ‘equality of results’?
(Note: ‘equality of results’ may sound a lot like ‘equality of opportunity’ but one little word does make a pretty big difference).
I’m laying down $100 that no one even attempts to answer this without a deflection or goal post movement.
Paul
March 30th, 2012
12:43 pm
Oops, Generation, that’s Pres Obama.
Nothing Freudian there, I can assure you -
JohnnyReb
March 30th, 2012
12:43 pm
TaxPayer – I don’t have a mortgage, but then again I’m 65 years old. One should strive not to have a mortgage when he retires and I’m lucky enough to have achieved that.
I used the mortgage interest deduction as an example, however, the same theory applies to any on the list. If the lower tax rate let’s you keep 5K in your pocket, but the deduction eliminations cost you 3K, you are still 2K better off.
Dr evil's assistant
March 30th, 2012
12:45 pm
Paul Ryan is the man. Keeping u down.
Paul
March 30th, 2012
12:48 pm
Adam
I’m counting on silence, myself.
Or maybe deflection, moving goal posts, then silence.
Just like the responses to Jay’s questions in the lead-off piece.
JamVet
March 30th, 2012
12:50 pm
Paul Ryan – the Republican Czar of Right Wing Social Engineering.
As Newt says, “Sorry, Rush! I take it back! I’ll kiss your ring and make it all better!”
stands for decibels
March 30th, 2012
12:51 pm
Your analogy assumes all of your employees are working hard doing the right things and carrying their weight of the company.
When in reality u have a group of workers who do nothing by choice, another group who does nothing and produces nothing because of a lack of anything to do. A large chunk who does what is expected and nothing more. Then u would have a group of employees who were responsible for a huge chunk of sales and product/service production.
Gen$, first off, thanks for at least reading what I’d posted; that’s more than the guy who’d originally brought up my “lunacy” was willing to do.
And while I disagree vehemently with your contention about these folks who supposedly “do nothing” and such, I will instead take this opportunity to say that this is what’s WRONG with using household budget analogies, or small business analogies.
A government is not a family, and it is not a business. The US government isn’t even just a run-of-the-mill industrialized nation (although we’d do well to at least look harder at what other industrialized nations do, methinks); it is the largest, most powerful economic player on the planet ever.
The point of my analogy, flawed as it was, was to bring a little sanity to the ranting and raving by both sides over scary sounding numbers. If one has an idea of what a dollar is supposed to represent, roughly, than one ought to be able to have an idea of what (say) tens of thousands of dollars of debt, per capita, represents.
Yes, we have to be concerned about overall debt; yes, we should work to develop plans that get us in the neighborhood of a balanced budget, ultimately. We shouldn’t kill ourselves getting there. That’s all I’m saying.
Don't Forget
March 30th, 2012
12:52 pm
Granny Godzilla – Union Thugette
March 30th, 2012
12:41 pm
BillyBob
Bless your heart!
Hope to meet you at the Ilk Lodge bratwurst fest.
The Benevolent and Protective order of Ilks…………. sweet!
Fish Sandwich should approve!
Generation$crewed
March 30th, 2012
12:54 pm
I had not read that Romney was endorsing the ryan plan?
Are we now to a point that we view and judge as a KEY factor who and how one will govern based on the proposals of other people in their party?
I’m not prepared to do that, it is not my feeling I should judge people by others they are associated with action.
Especially since according to our host its meaningless anyway.
The plan won’t be passed therefore have no effect upon our country.
But judging from your written words it is obvious the likes of you and Jay are not interested in what is best for the country, but instead wish to use political games, about things that are meaningless, to further divide us from each other.
Find a mirror look deep into it and feel proud!
JamVet
March 30th, 2012
12:54 pm
Tea party favorite Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, often touted as a top possibility to be No. 2 on a GOP ticket, endorsed Romney on Wednesday, telling Fox News, “It’s evidently and increasingly clear that Mitt Romney is going to become the Republican nominee. We have to come together behind who I think has earned the nomination, and that’s Mitt Romney.”
He also said, “And if you think I’m gonna be the next Sarah Palin, I want what you are smoking!”
Doggone/GA
March 30th, 2012
12:57 pm
“It’s evidently and increasingly clear that Mitt Romney is going to become the Republican nominee. We have to come together behind who I think has earned the nomination, and that’s Mitt Romney.”
Well! That was a ringing endorsement…I don’t think.
Mr Right
March 30th, 2012
12:57 pm
Jay, lets see your thoughts on Obama’s open mic blunder! Oh wait, he is a Dem so it will not happen here!
JamVet
March 30th, 2012
12:58 pm
What blunder is that?
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
March 30th, 2012
12:58 pm
dismiss the vote granny and then claim i am dumb……typcial leftist language and not worthy of another response to you…….
IOW – I gots nothing! But hopefully you won’t notice…..
when your radical party puts a budget up, it’s been over 1000 days, call me……
not this lie AGAIN!!
Ok click below for the truth. you can thank me later…
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/mar/14/johnny-isakson/isakson-democrats-failed-submit-budget-1000-days/
Don't Forget
March 30th, 2012
12:59 pm
The choice of VP for Romney may become VERY difficult if his polling and negatives don’t improve. The reason? Being the VP on a losing ticket is very harmful to your political career. The best candidates know this.
Scooter
March 30th, 2012
1:01 pm
Let’s compare it to the Democrat’s budget.
My Party has ALL the answers. Your party is full of poopyheads! (formerly That Black Guy)
March 30th, 2012
1:02 pm
Moderate Line
March 30th, 2012
12:31 pm
Both parties are in denial. It is shame partisan pick on one party instead of the other. Ryan is in denial but so is left. It helps both avoid reality and deal with the actual problem.
______________________________________________________________________________
How dare you!
Even though it’s the truth, how dare you say it publicly.
One party proposes a budget that they KNOW will go NOWHERE and it’s a BRILLIANT chess move.
The other proposes a budget that they KNOW will go NOWHERE and it’s the beginning of ARMAGEDDON!!!!!!!!!
It’s not important that NEITHER side is HONESTLY trying to work together.
It’s important to be able to DISHONESTLY blame the other side for POLITICAL GAIN.
Paul
March 30th, 2012
1:02 pm
Generation
I didn’t say Romney endorsed the Ryan plan. I said he was saddled with it.
Its premises, assumptions and goals will be used to define the difference between Republicans and Democrats in the election. Romney would have a tough time distancing himself from any of it.
Generation
Just looked up whether or not Romney endorsed Ryan’s plan. From Politico:
“At a campaign event in Chicago, he gives a big thumbs-up to Paul Ryan’s budget plan:
I’m very supportive of the Ryan budget plan. It’s a bold and exciting effort on his part and on the part of the Republicans and it’s very much consistent with what I put out earlier. I think it’s amazing that we have a president who three and a half years in still hasn’t put a proposal out that deals with entitlements. This president’s dealing with entitlement reform — excuse me — this budget deals with entitlement reform, tax policy, which as you know is very similar to the one that I put out and efforts to reign in excessive spending. I applaud it. It’s an excellent piece of work and very much needed.”
Generation$crewed
March 30th, 2012
1:04 pm
stands for decibels
March 30th, 2012
12:51 pm
Just to be clear by the “do nothing” was simply referring to actual income tax obligations, as that is what the budget discussion was mostly about. Didn’t indicate actual work.
As I hope u saw I made a point to include there are those who wish to contribute more, but forwhatever reason are unable to. I also think it is unfair to pretend there is not a segment of our population content to be taken care of financially by the government, simply for being. There is disagreement about the amount or percentage of those but there certainly is that segment to the population.
JamVet
March 30th, 2012
1:04 pm
I guess the cat has got Mr. R’s tongue.
Scooter, no. Let’s discuss whether this plan is fatally flawed or not. You have the floor…
Thomas
March 30th, 2012
1:05 pm
A little Friday afternoon fact. You bitter folks have a great time blogging your hate.
In the meantime you may ask yourself, “self, what can I do for my neighbors- blog or go create a business?”
According to analysis released this month by the Brookings Institution, child poverty has risen 4% in the past five years. That’s an addition of 3 million impoverished kids, most of them added in the time Obama has been in office. The state with the highest rate: Mississippi, in the Gulf Coast – the very region in which many of the Keystone XL’s quarter-million jobs would have been created, and where the Obama administration’s six-month deepwater drilling moratorium cost Americans tens of thousands of jobs. T.V. talk show host – and Obama supporter – Tavis Smiley said recently, “Many of the ‘new poor’ are the former middle class.”
Brosephus™
March 30th, 2012
1:06 pm
Paul
Sounds like Romney just took a big bite of it. Hope it doesn’t cause indigestion.
JamVet
March 30th, 2012
1:06 pm
Tavis Smiley said recently, “Many of the ‘new poor’ are the former middle class.”
Yes.
And tonight the sun will set in the west. (For all of you out there who tend to “overlook” the obvious…)
Paul
March 30th, 2012
1:08 pm
Brosephus
Some had hoped Romney was saying what he needed to say to get thru the nomination and would change once he had it wrapped up or was elected.
His campaign manager left the door open with his ‘reset for the general election’ comment.
Romney appears to have flushed all those hopes down the toilet.
Scooter
March 30th, 2012
1:09 pm
JamVet, no.
Brosephus™
March 30th, 2012
1:09 pm
most of them added in the time Obama has been in office.
Yep, it’s all because of Obama. That whole global meltdown where about 8 million jobs were reportedly lost. That recession happened because people saw Obama was about to get elected president and just gave up the ghost.
Don't Forget
March 30th, 2012
1:11 pm
Well, Doomy said he was gonna cut loose last night and catch a good buzz. Looks like he made good on the claim.
http://uberhumor.com/haters-gonna-hate-9
Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)
March 30th, 2012
1:12 pm
Being the VP on a losing ticket is very harmful to your political career.
Unless you are a proven moose hunter from Alaska!
Brosephus™
March 30th, 2012
1:12 pm
Paul
That’s why I don’t trust him. Romney’s using the old method of trying to ride the popular wave into office. His mistake? He’s riding the popular wave of one party as opposed to trying to ride the popular wave of the country. He would have been better off running as an independent as opposed to a Republican. The Republican primay makes one go so far right to get nominated that it’s going to be hard to convince moderate independents that you didn’t mean all that stuff in the primaries that you agreed with.
Paul Ryan | NewsTrendr
March 30th, 2012
1:12 pm
[...] Ryan endorses Mitt RomneyCBS NewsPaul Ryan Endorses Romney for PresidentNew York Times (blog)Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -msnbc.com (blog)all 2,642 news [...]
JamVet
March 30th, 2012
1:14 pm
OK, you’ve got nothing of substance to contribute on either topic.
Just confirming the obvious.
Why Ryan’s plan is more of the same failed favor the rich and screw the middle class:
“Unearned income” (dividends, interest, capital gains) should be taxed at the same rate or even higher than earned income, or work, inasmuch as one involves passive income, including inheritances and windfalls, while the latter involves active effort with a higher proportion of middle and lower income workers relying on and working each day, some under unsafe conditions, for these earnings.
Doggone/GA
March 30th, 2012
1:14 pm
“Unless you are a proven moose hunter from Alaska”
She still has a political career? Not so’s you’d notice!
Generation$crewed
March 30th, 2012
1:15 pm
Paul
March 30th, 2012
1:02 pm
The reason it will define anything is because of people like you, jay, rush, sean… Who take things they know and even say are meaningless, but know it will score cheap political points. Again feel proud to contribute to that.
As far as campaign events if u decide to judge candidate by what they say to base to raise money or who gives it to them, how can anyone with a clean conscience vote for anyone?
Dr evil's assistant
March 30th, 2012
1:15 pm
Paul Ryan is an oppressor
Misty Fyed
March 30th, 2012
1:15 pm
Then we need to review the proposed Democrat budget…DHoh…wait. Is there such a thing?
JamVet
March 30th, 2012
1:16 pm
BTW, that last paragraph is what i advocate, NOT Paul Ryan.
Those clowns won’t touch the topic of sheltering money for the rich only…
Misty Fyed
March 30th, 2012
1:17 pm
It still boggles my mind that Jay with a straight face can complain about a republican budget proposal and give the democrats a pass on 5 trillion in debt.
Doggone/GA
March 30th, 2012
1:18 pm
“DHoh…wait. Is there such a thing?”
Talk about being a day late and a dollar short!
JamVet
March 30th, 2012
1:18 pm
Paul Ryan is an oppressor
Guiltiness (talkin’ ’bout guiltiness)
Pressed on their conscience. Oh yeah.
And they live their lives (they live their lives)
On false pretence everyday -
each and everyday. Yeah.
These are the big fish
Who always try to eat down the small fish,
just the small fish.
I tell you what: they would do anything
To materialize their every wish. Oh yeah-eah-eah-eah.
Say: Woe to the downpressors:
They’ll eat the bread of sorrow!
Woe to the downpressors:
They’ll eat the bread of sad tomorrow!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP3VsZ7QD08
Thulsa Doom with his boot on liberal throats
March 30th, 2012
1:19 pm
Brocephus,
The W recession officially ended in March of 2009- about 40 days into Obama’s presidency. Nobody blames him for a recession that wasn’t his fault and which had largely ended anyway shortly after his arrival into office.
What he is blamed for is presiding over the weakest, most anemic recovery from a recession since the great depression. Typically the steeper and the worse the recession the greater the upside for economic growth and recovery post recession.
But under this president’s leadership that recovery has been nothing short of abysmal by any economic measuring stick. And that is not an opinion. It is a fact backed up by any measuring stick of empirical data.
JamVet
March 30th, 2012
1:19 pm
Misty, can you explain to me why Ryan’s plan is not fatally flawed?
Paul
March 30th, 2012
1:20 pm
Brosephus
Yeah, but look what happened to Huntsman…..
Generation
How is taking the Ryan plan, noting it’s the plan Republicans wholeheartedly endorse (going by the House vote), citing Romney’s endorsement of it and saying it parallels what he has been saying,
an effort to score cheap political points?!!?
stands for decibels
March 30th, 2012
1:21 pm
I also think it is unfair to pretend there is not a segment of our population content to be taken care of financially by the government, simply for being. There is disagreement about the amount or percentage of those but there certainly is that segment to the population.
Sure–I don’t doubt that’s the case. I also don’t doubt that this is somewhat akin to shrinkage in retail parlance–you devote some resources to security (or in the case of our economy, auditing and accountability) but you recognize that it’s going to happen, and you plan around it.
Other countries have their layabouts too. Some are better at handling it than others. I don’t see any reason to discontinue a social safety net just because some might be good at gaming it.
Whatever
March 30th, 2012
1:21 pm
I’m usually put in the GOP camp but am more moderate than the TEA party and other far righters…..
We need to cut spending and raise some revenue. It’s not rocket surgery. My kids could draw out some simple numbers on a napkin and tell you this. Both sides are nuts.
1. Quit deficit spending.
2. Raise revenue to pay the debt.
3. Celebrate being debt free.
The problem is that even if we took all of the income of the rich we are still in a big hole:
“The 1.4 million Americans in the IRS’ top taxpayer category in 2009 reported nearly 17 percent of all the country’s taxable income. From those filers, the IRS collected $318 billion or almost 37 percent of all the individual taxes paid in 2009.” – http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/top-1-percent-earn.aspx
That’s if we tax the rich at 100%! We have serious issue that just taxing the rich will not help. If we raise rates on the rich by 10% we are still only talking $32 billion/year. That’s a drop in the bucket.
Balance the budget and raise revenue to pay off the debt. Neither side has the guts.
Fred ™
March 30th, 2012
1:23 pm
@Johnny Reb: As stated below, you are in the 1% (which as we both know isn’t exactly the same as being a Paris Hitlon or Koch Brother lol). Just out of curiosity what percentage of your income did you pay in taxes for 2011? Not how much, but a percentage if you will. Also, at 65 your are still making over $347,000 a year in income? Sweet.
With your house paid off and no kids in school that money goes a long way. I hope you are really enjoying it. I know what a blessing it will be when my mortgage is paid off (damn thing WOULD have been 5 years ago but “Honey” decided we needed to move ITP) and we didn’t spend so much on our child’s education. Hell the school bill alone would buy us a new (decent) car every year or a high end luxury model every three years lol.
Defense
March 30th, 2012
1:24 pm
“Is he going to eliminate the tax deduction that encourages employers to provide health insurance to their employees?
No, he is not.”
Speculation!!
Erwin's cat
March 30th, 2012
1:24 pm
“At some point, we do need to seriously address our nation’s financial situation. That point will clearly have to come after the election.”
why wait for the Republicans to come into power to do that
Doggone/GA
March 30th, 2012
1:24 pm
“Balance the budget and raise revenue to pay off the debt. Neither side has the guts”
Baloney. Democrats have proposed just that, several times…what they don’t have is the VOTES.
Mighty Righty
March 30th, 2012
1:24 pm
The last year Bush was president the Administration spent 4.923 trillion dollars. Spending for fiscal 2012 will be 6.282 trillion dollars. Obama has increased annual federal spending by 1.359 trillion dollars. Seems to me a return to the Bush spending levels more than balances Ryans budget. Again, our budget/deficit problems are caused by spending not by taxation. Remember Barack Obama pledged and promised to cut the Bush deficit in half. That defict was 400 billion or one third what Obama’s defict is.
Talking Head
March 30th, 2012
1:24 pm
Come Sunday we’ll have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Expect more jobs to be shipped overseas.
Doggone/GA
March 30th, 2012
1:26 pm
“Speculation!!”
Back at ya. If he was going to try to eliminate it…he would have proposed it. He didn’t.
Whatever
March 30th, 2012
1:26 pm
Doggone,
Where has Obama proposed to balance the budget? A serious proposal?
Defense
March 30th, 2012
1:26 pm
“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.”
More speculation your honor!
Brosephus™
March 30th, 2012
1:26 pm
Doom
Tell that to your fellow conservative up there ^^^. I wasn’t the one talking about how more children fell into poverty under Obama. Also, you should know that things, such as employment, lag behind. Seems that Wall Street has recovered rather well since March 2009. According to trickle down theory, Main Street should see some semblance of getting wet now.
You and others can talk about a weak recovery all you want, but if you’re basing it on our last few recoveries, then I’d rather have what we see now. Instead of having a bubble inflate things only to cause issues later on, I’d rather have a recovery built on something solid for a change. We haven’t had that in over 30 years.
Regarding the president’s leadership, one thing that nobody ever brings up is how he has worked with a less than fully staffed administration since he was sworn in.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/senate-confirms-scores-of-administration-nominees/2012/03/29/gIQA39WujS_blog.html
The Senate Thursday confirmed scores of administration nominees for top government jobs, clearing a backlog that had been building for months as GOP members vowed to block nominees in retaliation for President Obama’s controversial recess appointments earlier this year of a consumer watchdog and three members of the National Labor Relations Board.
We should all question why ANY president is getting nominations approved in the election year after he’s been in office for 3 years. Congress should have taken care of that in the first year. When somebody’s sandbagging you, it’s that much harder to get anything accomplished. You can’t claim somebody’s not showing leadership when you don’t even allow him to fill his roster. That would be like letting Saban put 5 people on defense and faulting him for losing to LSU.
Oscar
March 30th, 2012
1:26 pm
We should eliminate the mortgage tax deduction Not immedieately but phase it. Grandfarther in all existing loans. Start with eliminating deductions of all loans over 200,000.00. This deduction has a regressive effect, and subsidizes people to build McMansions. Get rid of it.