The Ryan budget is about ideology, not finances

Today, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan will release a budget proposal that alleges to balance the federal budget by 2024. However, the true goal of his proposal is not fiscal in nature. His true goal is ideological, and in an op-ed published Monday in the Wall Street Journal, Ryan makes that point pretty plainly:

120813_paul_ryan_ap_605

“A budget is a means to an end, and the end isn’t a neat and tidy spreadsheet. It’s the well-being of all Americans. By giving families stability and protecting them from tax hikes, our budget will promote a healthier economy and help create jobs. Most important, our budget will reignite the American Dream, the idea that anyone can make it in this country.”

However, dramatically slashing food stamps, as Ryan proposes, will not “give families stability” or open doors to pursue the American dream. Slashing Medicaid, which provides health care for poor families, is not going to offer stability either. Slashing federal aid to education, including student loans, will undermine rather than improve the ability of young people of lesser means to advance. Turning Medicare into a private voucher program will make senior citizens more vulnerable, not less. In an era in which working people enjoy less and less of the nation’s bounty, such steps will leave them even more desperate, with fewer resources to draw upon.

Again, let’s be clear: The Ryan budget is not a response to our fiscal situation. It uses that situation as an excuse to continue a philosophical debate reaching back at least 80 years in this country, back to the founding of Social Security. The Republican Party fought Social Security back then, and since then it has tried repeatedly to kill the program, most recently with President Bush’s effort to privatize it.

“Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers and to prevent any possibility of the employers providing work for the people,” one GOP congressman said in 1935, referring to Social Security. The party’s basic message and rhetoric — government enslavement, economic ruin, etc., — hasn’t changed much since.

In the early ’60s, to cite another example, Republicans fought bitterly against the creation of Medicare, and then Medicaid as well. Ronald Reagan railed that Medicare would lead to socialism and predicted government would soon claim the power to dictate where doctors could live and practice.

And from there, Reagan asked?

“All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it’s a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay. And pretty soon your son won’t decide, when he’s in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do….”

Utter and complete nonsense.

In his op-ed, Ryan makes it quite clear that much of the burden of his proposed $4.6 trillion in budget cuts is intended to fall on the poor. Not to worry, though. It will be good for them:

“After the welfare reforms of 1996, child poverty fell by double digits. This budget extends those reforms to other federal aid programs. It gives states flexibility so they can tailor programs like Medicaid and food stamps to their people’s needs. It encourages states to get people off the welfare rolls and onto payrolls. We shouldn’t measure success by how much we spend. We should measure it by how many people we help. Those who protect the status quo must answer to the 46 million Americans living in poverty.”

Again, we see the Randian implication that government assistance creates poverty, and that withdrawal of assistance will reduce poverty. But let’s look more closely at Ryan’s evidence, contained in the claim that “after the welfare reforms of 1996, child poverty fell by double digits.” He is clearly trying to suggest welfare had kept people trapped in poverty, and that reducing welfare reduced poverty.

However, the data show that the decline in child poverty mentioned by Ryan had begun in 1993, well before welfare reform was enacted; the improvement was driven by the longest economic expansion in our nation’s history, not by withdrawal of government aid. In fact, by 2000, just four years after passage of the welfare reforms mentioned by Ryan, child poverty began rising again, and it rose steadily throughout the next decade.

But today, even in this tough economy, it remains well below levels of the early ’60s, before most anti-poverty programs were enacted. Among black children, for example, the poverty rate has fallen from 65 percent in 1965 to 38.6 percent in 2011.

So here’s the bottom line: In a society in which the gap between the rich and everybody else grows larger by the day, Ryan proposes to make that gap larger still through a reduction in government programs and tax changes that benefit the wealthy. We just went through an election fought out on just those issues, an election in which Ryan played a prominent role, and which he and his party lost.

But apparently, the message hasn’t stuck yet.

– Jay Bookman

757 comments Add your comment

Welcome to the Occupation

March 12th, 2013
10:06 am

Ah, that’s better. Now we can get back to pretending that Jay Bookman is an ideological ally.

Just kidding. :)

Doggone/GA

March 12th, 2013
10:07 am

“But apparently, the message hasn’t stuck yet.”

Is it because we’re too stupid to understand their message? OUR message doesn’t HAVE to “stick” with them, THEY just have to figure out how to get “the stupids” to understand what they are saying

/snarc

Fred ™

March 12th, 2013
10:08 am

I wonder how many times Dixie will be allowed to call Mick stupid and to spam the same post over and over?

Mick

March 12th, 2013
10:09 am

Ryan plan for america – DOA!!!

stevie ray

March 12th, 2013
10:10 am

Jay

BIG news day is that your hero is gonna take an unprecedented trip to the hill. First of three. Very big deal. Too bad his arrogance kept him from using this time trusted tactic until now..

Seems to me that only things we know are welfare has become more of an enabler that encourages perpetuation of a single family home and other similar issues as a result. Any data re numbers of folks moving up from poverty from assistance?

Aquagirl

March 12th, 2013
10:11 am

Ryan might be right—if he hadn’t collected gub’mint benefits maybe he would have gotten a real job. He’d be working somewhere and we’d be spared the idiocy from his flapping pie-hole.

ATL Tiger

March 12th, 2013
10:12 am

Jay,

I agree that pulling back on Government assistant (welfare) programs at this time would be irresponsible and damaging to a majority of Americans. The current problem is that the economy isn’t growing, the labor force participation is at it’s lowest in 50 years, wages aren’t going up, tax revenues as a % of GDP are lower than the historical average of 18%. Our country has increased Government assistance (welfare) since the economy tanked in late 2008, and has maintained an historical high governement assistance spending since.

We are divided by ideology which is directly impacting our economic recovery. Gov assistance (welfare) doesn’t create jobs or improve the economy (possibly in the short run), and gutting gov assistance during low economic output won’t create jobs or improve the economy.

stands for decibels

March 12th, 2013
10:12 am

giving families stability and protecting them from tax hikes

aaand I stopped reading.

Recon 0311 2533

March 12th, 2013
10:12 am

Of course the Jay Bookman leftist message is to do nothing other than levy more tax on 10% of the population, so more money can be spent to further enslave Americans into government reliance. The message is to continue enslaving Americans until the nations bankrupt and can no longer function, but up until then they think they can win national elections.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

March 12th, 2013
10:12 am

The Ryan plan is the GOP porn, a letter to the Penthouse starting “I live in a small Midwestern town and I never thought it would happen to me…..”

Welcome to the Occupation

March 12th, 2013
10:12 am

“A budget is a means to an end, and the end isn’t a neat and tidy spreadsheet. It’s the well-being of all Americans. By giving families stability and protecting them from tax hikes ..

The words of a terrorist.

Doggone/GA

March 12th, 2013
10:14 am

“The current problem is that the economy isn’t growing, the labor force participation is at it’s lowest in 50 years, wages aren’t going up”

And that’s how business likes it. When unemployment is high, wages are low…because it’s a “buyers market” And business is the “buyer” of labor.

stevie ray

March 12th, 2013
10:14 am

More good news. Ezra Klein says problemis the deficitis not large enough. Y’all should run with that ball…

JamVet

March 12th, 2013
10:14 am

Three words for the trickle down neocons – stay the course.

And better luck in 2032…

JF McNamara

March 12th, 2013
10:16 am

Aside from helping him politically, this move helps no one. It doesn’t help solve the sequester and it doesn’t help the growing partisan divide. Not that I would ever have voted for him, but I’m almost certain to vote against him now, no matter who the candidate.

stands for decibels

March 12th, 2013
10:18 am

From that late-term abortion of a WSJ editorial, this week:

Government is trying to do too much, and when government does too much, it doesn’t do anything well. So a balanced budget is a reasonable goal, because it returns government to its proper limits and focus. By curbing government’s overreach, our budget will give families the space they need to thrive.

I think he put it better here, c. October 2012, about a minute forty in:

I’ll cut ya social safety net
You losers ain’t got nothin’.

DannyX

March 12th, 2013
10:19 am

“Too bad his arrogance kept him from using this time trusted tactic until now..”

Seriously Stevie???? His arrogance? Maybe the thing that kept him from going to the Hill was the “Our goal is to make Obama a one term president,” tactic the Republicans used for 4 years.

Welcome to the Occupation

March 12th, 2013
10:20 am

By the way, Stands, in response to your earlier comment about “making Ryan suffer”, sorry to say but as long as people have the ability to get a forum in places like the WSJ and here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/12/read-rep-paul-ryans-2014-budget/) there’s not much pain that you can inflict on him.

Fred ™

March 12th, 2013
10:20 am

You got that schtick down pretty good Keep. Is that YOU who has been writing all them letters all these years? :mrgreen:

stands for decibels

March 12th, 2013
10:21 am

Seems to me that only things we know are welfare has become more of an enabler

What’s this “we” sh-t, white man?

stands for decibels

March 12th, 2013
10:22 am

there’s not much pain that you can inflict on him.

Well, a guy can think out loud. Up to a point… until the guys in suits and sunglasses show up at the door wanting a quiet word, guess.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

March 12th, 2013
10:22 am

willie lynch

March 12th, 2013
10:22 am

It’s the failure to live in reality that is killing the Republicans. Paul Ryan was part of the losing ticket in 2012. Like your previous article on Rand Paul as the future (not) Paul Ryan is in the same category. While Paul and Ryan are young and photogenic neither of them has the qualities necessary to be the leader of America. But this is the country that elected Ronald Reagan sooooo…

King of Planet Kolob

March 12th, 2013
10:23 am

I bet there are some tax expenditures for campaign contributors buried somewhere in there. They are bankrupt of new ideas.

Mary Elizabeth

March 12th, 2013
10:24 am

This article tells the truth, in depth. Thank you for it.

Fred ™

March 12th, 2013
10:24 am

What’s this “we” sh-t, white man?

Punch line to probably the best joke of all time. It has SO MANY practical uses in real life…….

stevie ray

March 12th, 2013
10:24 am

So he proposes to reduce 10 year spending by 5 trillion while allowing growth in spend of 3.4%. Good start for negotiation. No budget in 1400 daze. Maybe we can get

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

March 12th, 2013
10:24 am

Well, this young Ryan feller ain’t the first one to pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

If he wants to see a real change in America, just let him whack SS and Medicare and Medicaid. He’ll need about 5,000 bodyguards to get from the Capitol to his house. A whole bunch of people in this country are law-abiding. But alot of them are at the end of their rope. It won’t take too much more to get a revolution going.

This ain’t the standard Conservative message you expect to hear from me, but I’m like alot of people that are fed up with seeing the big money go to the richest people while everybody else prays not to get sick and broke. Here we got this young punk that wouldn’t even be where he is if SS hadn’t of been there to bail his family out when his Daddy died and he wants to whack the benefits of poor and working people. And tell us not to worry about it, he’ll only shaft the people that are younger than 55 or so. Like we’re suppose to say OK to seeing our working kids take it up the rear end.

That’s what I mean when I talk about peeing on my leg and telling me it’s raining.

Have a good Tuesday everybody.

td

March 12th, 2013
10:25 am

Having babies should not be a ticket into the entitlement smorgasbord of benefits. As I posted yesterday, we are spending more on means tested entitlement programs per year as on our national defense and the only thing one has to do to access these benefits is to have a baby.

The “Great society/war on poverty” has been a failure and we still have the same % of poor in this nation as we had in 1964. It is time to end the Federal governments role in poverty and give those functions back to the churches with the safety net being the state.

willie lynch

March 12th, 2013
10:25 am

stevie ray

March 12th, 2013
10:14 am

So what will happen if the deficits get larger? And what real effect will it have on our children and grandchildren?

Bob Loblaw

March 12th, 2013
10:27 am

Ryan’s budget is akin to a leg amputation to fix a bad knee.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

March 12th, 2013
10:27 am

Fred, you’ll have to check the video. ;)

RB from Gwinnett

March 12th, 2013
10:27 am

Geez… We’re supposed to listen to liberals about budget issues when they haven’t passed a budget in 4+ years, have piled more onto the national debt in 4 years than any administration in history, and whose whole plan going forward is doubling down on stupid???

I don’t think so….

willie lynch

March 12th, 2013
10:27 am

Maybe someone can tell me what the “Budget” actually does in real terms for the country.

stevie ray

March 12th, 2013
10:28 am

Maybe we can get a budget that is halfway sensical when you combine tax increases as part of package. Jay, your whining and scare tactics ive seen elsewhere. Anybetter approach? Something new and improved perhaps?

gator joe

March 12th, 2013
10:30 am

Ryan is typical of the Right Wing, especially the well-off Right Wing. They encact, and propose policies, which cut programs they and their friends and family will never be affected by. Think Ryans, and the Pauls, or the Romneys will ever have anything but the best of healthcare? Love to see Ryan having to live for a month on food stamps, or better yet in the military, in Afghanistan. I suspect, and there’s plenty of evidence Ryan is not as bright as he would have us believe. Clever yes, intelligent no, and there is a difference.

TBS

March 12th, 2013
10:30 am

“It is time to end the Federal governments role in poverty and give those functions back to the churches with the safety net being the state.”

Who legally took what from the church? Were these states or federal law and regs that did this? Please cite the actual laws you are referring to?

stevie ray

March 12th, 2013
10:30 am

Willie,

I think the guy is politically driven and is full of bs…be prepared for libs to used this as more fodder for divide and scare bs

lovelyliz

March 12th, 2013
10:31 am

Blame it on the conservative’s [rosperity gospel

lovelyliz

March 12th, 2013
10:31 am

Prosperity gospel

td

March 12th, 2013
10:31 am

willie lynch

March 12th, 2013
10:27 am

“Maybe someone can tell me what the “Budget” actually does in real terms for the country.”

It is a road map as to how appropriations are to be made. Does not always work but without the road map no one really knows the direction to take.

George P. Burdell

March 12th, 2013
10:32 am

The real problem with Social Security wants to talk about is its devastating impact on the middle class. Low income households get more value out of every dollar paid in. High income households get much less value but with the income limit on SS tax, it becomes a smaller issue as income increases and these households typically save more for retirement anyway. The middle class falls in between and 12.4% of your income being taken away each year that you will not see a dollar for dollar value on is devastating. That is in the best case scenario where you don’t have to worry about the government going broke or delaying your retirement age. I’d much rather they be straightforward about it and let each individual have an account that belongs to them. Even if the return component is different depending on income level, that would be much more honest about what the true costs are and would make it easier to do long-term planning. That will never happen because then it is clear that it helps low-income families more and would be seen as a subsidy. That is exactly what happens in reality but since when is DC interested in that?

Welcome to the Occupation

March 12th, 2013
10:32 am

td, 10:25: “The “Great society/war on poverty” has been a failure and we still have the same % of poor in this nation as we had in 1964″

RB from Gwinnett: “We’re supposed to listen to liberals about budget issues when they haven’t passed a budget in 4+ years, have piled more onto the national debt in 4 years than any administration in history”

To read these excuses for “thoughts” is to be convinced that conservatism for the mass consumer is the sheer absence of thought, an utter voiding of the capacity for cognition about the world.

Normal, Plain and Simple

March 12th, 2013
10:32 am

Paul Ryan is a special interest puppet who is controlled by many hands. he must have a really big orifice…

lovelyliz

March 12th, 2013
10:33 am

When you take your marching orders from ALEC and the Koch Bros instead of your constituents, this budget is what you get

Jm

March 12th, 2013
10:33 am

Let me translate the Bookman blog for people

If it is Republican, criticize it

That summary has a 99.5% prediction reliability rating

Welcome to the Occupation

March 12th, 2013
10:33 am

In short, conservatism in its mass consumer form amounts to the state of being completely brain dead.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

March 12th, 2013
10:33 am

M

March 12th, 2013
10:34 am

His budget also assumes the repeal of Obamacare…which they’ve tried and failed to repeal over thirty times now. Oh, and the President ran on it as one of his greatest achievements and WON a substantial majority of the vote.

So STFU already, Ryan.

HDB

March 12th, 2013
10:34 am

td

March 12th, 2013
10:25 am

‘ It is time to end the Federal governments role in poverty and give those functions back to the churches with the safety net being the state.”

Problem is….the churches can’t handle the VOLUME….and the states (particularly the red states) are cutting aid to the poor in favor of cutting business taxes while simultaneously RAISING the sales tax which adversely affects the poor to a greater degree!!

Where would assistance to the poor come from???

Gale

March 12th, 2013
10:34 am

“Are there no workhouses?” The poor need to toughen up and grasp the opportunities available to all Americans in this great country. Wow.

I agree that welfare and medicaid have problems and fraud is rampant, but eliminating them will not cure the problems.

Jimmy Harrison

March 12th, 2013
10:34 am

Sometimes I think the Republican party will not be entirely happy until the American system is similar in nature to a third world country–where a very small handful of people own everything–and, the vast majority of the rest of the poplulation is desperately poor, has no hope of moving out of poverty and only serves the interest of those handful of super rich. It is the illussion of moving up into the upper class that keeps the populace molified.

Welcome to the Occupation

March 12th, 2013
10:35 am

If there is not a breakthrough in this political deadlock, then what is to be done becomes very clear.

We are going to have to start confiscating wealth from those who are hoarding it.

jeffrey

March 12th, 2013
10:36 am

It was in my WSJ today not yesterday. You must have saw it on the computer.

stevie ray

March 12th, 2013
10:36 am

kamchak

This issue is the fix not blame assignment. This fall back position and low thought deflection getting more lame by the minute…can we expect more or more of the same from you?

Paul

March 12th, 2013
10:37 am

“The Ryan budget is about ideology, not finances”

Well of course it is. And Ryan’s reliance on assertions, slogans and platitudes, devoid of data to back it up – aside from slogans with numbers – does just that.

Let’s get this out of the way: despite Republican insistence on cutting, which many people take to mean “less that it is now” – Ryan’s budget does no such thing. It INCREASES spending year after year, so that overall spending will double before toddlers get out of college. I predict none of the Obama supporters will address that uncomfortable fact.

When Ryan said “The U.S. corporate tax is the highest in the industrialized world. ” he knew full well that does not reflect what was actually paid, as he’s supported the laws that makes what corporations report as taxes are merely for shareholder accounting. They were not paid, as Congress lets corporations defer taxes paid for years and years and years.

GAO just released another report on the F-35 fighter, 70 percent over budget with expected costs now of nearly $400 Billion and annual costs of nearly $13 billion a year for decades – what the GAO deemed an unprecedented demand on the procurement budget. Will Ryan’s plan go after such a vast amount of money in a runaway program? Most doubtful. Will his budget treat those who make their money from producing the same as those who make their money by investing? Most doubtful. Will he emphasize cuts to programs affecting kids, seniors and the most vulnerable? We already know the answer to that.

Welcome to the Occupation

March 12th, 2013
10:38 am

td, hdb: “‘ It is time to end the Federal governments role in poverty and give those functions back to the churches with the safety net being the state.”

But the obvious problem with that solution is that it’s a CHURCH. Duhhh.

A church is a fundamentally religious organization, operating within the narrow bounds of civil society, and has no business doing the fundamentally atheistic work of building social solidarity on a broad scale.

Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)

March 12th, 2013
10:38 am

The budget is not reality-based.

Conservatives = fiscally conservative in a unicorn-like way.

Jm

March 12th, 2013
10:39 am

“And pretty soon your son won’t decide, when he’s in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do….”

Meh pretty much true, not nonsense.

The businesses creating jobs are the ones subsidized by the government at the expense of the overall economy and job market

The government may not use an iron fist

But it does use at least a slap

Don’t work for coal, work for a solar company

Don’t work for private business, work for the government

Etc etc

JohnnyReb

March 12th, 2013
10:39 am

First, the election results. Yes, Obama won but not a mandate. The number who oppose his plans is too large to use the election results to justify socialism.

Next, our history is full of example after example of how Progressive policies have not worked. We have for example spent billions to rid poverty with no improvement.

Social Justice – one word for you – Detroit.

While the Right’s plan may not be perfect, the Left’s is suicide. You don’t sink the boat by taking on too many passengers.

clem

March 12th, 2013
10:39 am

ga senate folks trying to push consumption tax to make the wealth divide even greater….ga deserves better. a 6% income tax has served the state well and is not onerous.

Fred ™

March 12th, 2013
10:41 am

Certainly it’s up to the churches, but what will the poors do with half a million dollars worth of jet fuel?

Use it as heating oil in the winter? Talk about some high speed space heaters……….

Paul

March 12th, 2013
10:41 am

Make that ” I predict none of the Obama OPPONENTS will address that uncomfortable fact.”

M

March 12th, 2013
10:41 am

mandate (n): Politics the support or commission given to a government and its policies or an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory

Class of '98

March 12th, 2013
10:41 am

I wonder if Jay Bookman considers Obama’s decision to stop White House tours to be a result of ideology or finances.

DannyX

March 12th, 2013
10:42 am

“and give those functions back to the churches”

Angel Food Ministries from right here in Georgia is a great example of giving those functions back to the church. Of course the people that ran that charity are now in jail.

Not all hope is lost. Maybe the Catholic church will sell some of their gold and treasure and help out a bit.

stevie ray

March 12th, 2013
10:42 am

Jimmy

So does that mean they are really gonna throw granny off he cliff or otherwise realize all those scary allegations?

td

March 12th, 2013
10:42 am

HDB

March 12th, 2013
10:34 am

td

March 12th, 2013
10:25 am

‘ It is time to end the Federal governments role in poverty and give those functions back to the churches with the safety net being the state.”

Problem is….the churches can’t handle the VOLUME….and the states (particularly the red states) are cutting aid to the poor in favor of cutting business taxes while simultaneously RAISING the sales tax which adversely affects the poor to a greater degree!!

Where would assistance to the poor come from???

I submit that if we turned those functions back over to the churches, charities or the state then we would not have as big a problem because people would not have babies just to get onto the entitlement train. If there was no incentive to remain single and have children then women would be a little less willing to give it up without commitment and men will do whatever it takes to get it. You cut your poverty rates in half within 10 years.

Jm

March 12th, 2013
10:43 am

Jay

A compromise solution is unlikely

And America will suffer due to democrat intransigence on entitlement reform

Obama is ultimately to blame, not because he won’t compromise. But because he won’t push the stubborn senate democrats to compromise

Democrat do nothings

stevie ray

March 12th, 2013
10:43 am

Class

Here here! Lets see what sacrifices bo is willing to make for his lifestyle. Great leadership opp.

Paul

March 12th, 2013
10:44 am

JohnnyReb

“Obama won but not a mandate. ”

What would the margins be for a mandate? Especially in light of the last few presidential elections?

If that was just another talk-radio repeat, you don’t have to answer.

jeffrey

March 12th, 2013
10:44 am

Maybe Ryan doesn’t remember he ran for vp. Maybe he thinks if he keeps bringing his plan up over and over again it will someday pass. He’s been hawking it since 06 right? I give him an E for effort.

Fred ™

March 12th, 2013
10:45 am

I wonder if Jay Bookman considers Obama’s decision to stop White House tours to be a result of ideology or finances.

You forgot to add….. but but but but ………. BENGHAZI. I mean as long as you are being irrelevant go all the way. Don’t half ass it.

Welcome to the Occupation

March 12th, 2013
10:45 am

Forced redistribution of wealth back to those from whom it was initially expropriated, THAT is where we are headed if these people do not figure out a way to save capitalism from itself. And who knows, maybe the wonderboy Paul Ryan really is the best they can do. After all, we appear sometimes to be well beyond the point where any mere reformism will be sufficient to address all the systemic problems of this capitalist order.

Even the capitalists seem to know it. And that’s why they’ve given up just about any pretense now of trying to put forward a vision of the system that can be minimally workable for the bulk of the population — whatever you want to say about the Tech Boom of the 90s, it was at least an effort to create mass well being and investment in the system, while all we get today is security state measures and austerity, dismantling of social programs and education for all. But even the capitalists know that this is a fool’s game.

Dark days await us, I’m afraid.

st simons

March 12th, 2013
10:46 am

god, can’t somebody put these relics and their failed idiotology away?

YouLibs

March 12th, 2013
10:47 am

I always had this gnawing suspicion that redneck might not actually be a convert.

Jury’s still out on wrasslin’, though.

dixie normous

March 12th, 2013
10:47 am

jay is just one of many far left nouthpieces for obama and his radical agenda.

HDB

March 12th, 2013
10:47 am

RB from Gwinnett

March 12th, 2013
10:27 am

“Geez… We’re supposed to listen to conservatives about budget issues when they have TRIPLED the national debt from 1981-1993…then DOUBLED the same debt from 2002-2009, plunging this nation into economic decline, and whose whole plan going forward is doubling down on stupid, cutting revenue even further, and creating a more draconian society???

I don’t think so….”

There…fixed your statement………..

Fred ™

March 12th, 2013
10:47 am

If there was no incentive to remain single and have children then women would be a little less willing to give it up without commitment

Wow. Stupidity has just reached a new low. I can’t believe anyone would actually write that and MEAN it. I think I lost 10 IQ points just reading that post.

I need a bath now.

JamVet

March 12th, 2013
10:48 am

In the six presidential elections between 1992 and 2012, the Democratic party has regained the solid popular vote majority it enjoyed during the New Deal/Great Society era (1932-64) but relinquished in the six elections between 1968 and 1988.

Since losing in 1988, Democrats have carried the popular vote in five of six elections and won the Electoral College in four. Of the two close elections in the current era (2000 and 2004), Republicans won the presidency in both. The four Democratic victories, by contrast, came by comfortable popular margins of 5.6, 8.5, 7.3, and 3.9 percentage points (in order, the two Clinton and two Obama wins). These Democratic showings were good for 370, 379, 365, and 332 electoral votes, while George W. Bush’s two wins featured 271 and 286 electoral votes, just slightly above the 270 needed for election.

In 2012 Barack Obama became the first president since Ronald Reagan to win two popular majorities. (52.9 percent in 2008 and 51.1 percent on November 6).

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/losing-streak_699207.html

Welcome to the Occupation

March 12th, 2013
10:48 am

JohnnyReb: “While the Right’s plan may not be perfect, the Left’s is suicide”

Whoah! Mark it down folks. A right winger on these boards actually let a hint of a concession slip in, for just one brief moment.

DannyX

March 12th, 2013
10:50 am

Funny stuff, Republicans. Paul Ryan voted YES for everything during the Bush years now he’s supposed to be some kind of a budget God!

He even voted YES for the unfunded “socialist” Medicare Part D that sent poor Ronnie a spinnin’ in his grave. You guys crack me up.

barking frog

March 12th, 2013
10:50 am

Ryan is an ambitious political hack just like Rand Paul.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

March 12th, 2013
10:53 am

This issue is the fix not blame assignment.

Translation: Don’t look behind the curtain

Your deficit hawkishness didn’t manifest itself until 20 January 2009, and now you want to get all butt-hurty about it.

JohnnyReb

March 12th, 2013
10:53 am

Paul – according to Politico, the popular vote was 62,611,250 Obama vs 59,134,475 Romney. A spread of 3,476,775 favor Obama.

24 States went for Romney, 26 for Obama.

No matter how you cut it, the number against Obama and his policies is very large.

Reagan won 49 states in the 1984 election – that’s a mandate.

Fred ™

March 12th, 2013
10:54 am

Here here! Lets see what sacrifices bo is willing to make for his lifestyle. Great leadership opp.

Exactly. He should IMMEDIATELY stop al;l State dinners, screw those leaders from other Country’s. If he needs to go somewhere then by dammit Air Tran economy class and no checked luggage. If he can’t pack it in his carry on he doesn’t need it. Hell, just wear a polyester suit to summits, it won’t need pressing and he can wear the same one for a week.

Screw the Presidential limo, he can buy a Hyundai with his OWN moeny dammit and buy his own gas too. Get rid of the chef and cleaning staff, Michele can get back in the kitchen where she belongs and it’s about time those two bratty girls started earning their keep instead of lolly gagging around on the tax payer dime. And put them in PUBLIC school. Cut the security details for them too while we are at it. Just think, some nutcase or terrorists kidnaps them we won’t have to pay to feed them any more.

Speaking of food, the Eater in Chief can just buy his own damn groceries. He can mow the White House grass on Saturdays. That whole damn mooching family needs to take responsibility.

td

March 12th, 2013
10:54 am

Fred ™

March 12th, 2013
10:47 am

If there was no incentive to remain single and have children then women would be a little less willing to give it up without commitment

Wow. Stupidity has just reached a new low. I can’t believe anyone would actually write that and MEAN it. I think I lost 10 IQ points just reading that post.

I need a bath now.

So you think that we are freaking animals and can not control our actions? When actions go back to having consequences and one has to be responsible for ones actions then decision making will change. When women realize that their actions could result in them having to struggle their entire lives to take care of a child then they will make a better decision. When men realize that the milk is not free then they will make better decisions.

HDB

March 12th, 2013
10:55 am

td

March 12th, 2013
10:42 am

“I submit that if we turned those functions back over to the churches, charities or the state then we would not have as big a problem because people would not have babies just to get onto the entitlement train. If there was no incentive to remain single and have children then women would be a little less willing to give it up without commitment and men will do whatever it takes to get it. You cut your poverty rates in half within 10 years.”

Actually, you’d exacerbate the problem because the churches couldn’t handle the volume…and unless you’re advocating a theocracy, you’d have no chance in changing human behavior via your methodology. What you would do, by creating a Darwinian society, is INCREASE the crime rate because the inequalities! Note how the crime rate, particularly in the category of property crimes, has slowly increased due to the economic downturns!!

TBS

March 12th, 2013
10:57 am

td

You keep asserting something about giving “it back to the churches”……..

What was taken? When did this occur? And was it done by the states or Feds?

JohnnyReb

March 12th, 2013
10:57 am

I have been trying to make the point that yes, Obama won but only had a popular vote margin less than the size of metro Atlanta.

The House is Republican Controlled.

The propaganda from the Left that Obama won, has the majority of people behind his policies, etc. is just that – propaganda.

The system is working as the founders intended.

What was not intended by the founders is the mess that passed Obamacare.

td

March 12th, 2013
10:58 am

JohnnyReb

March 12th, 2013
10:53 am

Paul – according to Politico, the popular vote was 62,611,250 Obama vs 59,134,475 Romney. A spread of 3,476,775 favor Obama.

24 States went for Romney, 26 for Obama.

No matter how you cut it, the number against Obama and his policies is very large.

Reagan won 49 states in the 1984 election – that’s a mandate.

Even with a 49 state landslide win Reagan had to COMPROMISE on many of his principles (raising taxes) to work with a Democratic controlled House of Reps to get anything accomplished.

So just what is wrong with this statement....

March 12th, 2013
10:58 am

…”We shouldn’t measure success by how much we spend. We should measure it by how many people we help. Those who protect the status quo must answer to the 46 million Americans living in poverty.”

Erwin's cat

March 12th, 2013
10:59 am

Kam – This issue is the fix not blame assignment.

Translation: Don’t look behind the curtain
——————————————
Not sure I agree, the first priority should be to get the donkey out of the ditch. Then we can assign blame and preventative measures…wasting time arguing on how the donkey got there or who’s fault it is is second only to getting the donkey out of the ditch healthy and safe

M

March 12th, 2013
10:59 am

“The propaganda from the Left that Obama won, has the majority of people behind his policies, etc. is just that – propaganda.”

what is this I don’t even

Fred ™

March 12th, 2013
11:00 am

Really td? Yeah 14 year old kids going through puberty are ALL about rational decisions and consequences. That’s why we let them drive and enter into legal contracts and such………..

Do you even read the stuff you write? I KNOW you don’t think beforehand……..

DannyX

March 12th, 2013
11:00 am

“I wonder if Jay Bookman considers Obama’s decision to stop White House tours to be a result of ideology or finances.”

Can you imagine the right wing explosion if Obama had canceled the annual White House Easter egg hunt?

Fox and Friends, Drudge, and O’Reilly would have gone bezerk with the liberal War on Easter.

TBS

March 12th, 2013
11:00 am

“The propaganda from the Left that Obama won, has the majority of people behind his policies, etc. is just that – propaganda.”

Reb: No offense, but almost 5M more votes does mean that he has the majority of those who voted behind him. Granted he must work with Congress, which either does well in my opinion, but he does have the majority of those who voted behind him. That is fact. Anything else is spin

dixie normous

March 12th, 2013
11:01 am

In light of all of the voter fraud in the last election:

Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud. -Sophocles

td

March 12th, 2013
11:01 am

TBS

March 12th, 2013
10:57 am

td

You keep asserting something about giving “it back to the churches”……..

What was taken? When did this occur? And was it done by the states or Feds?

Giving back the primary responsibility of caring for the poor. It was the role of the church from the beginning of the nation until the 1930’s and was totally taken over by the state in 1964. The Federal government should have no role in the day to day care of the people.

Aquagirl

March 12th, 2013
11:02 am

Another day for td….people aren’t animals, but men are and it’s a women’s job to say no.