Paul Ryan budget proposal

[gregintenn]

Paul Ryan's budget: What's in the GOP plan? - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

I haven't read it in it's entirety, but to me it sounds like a step in the right direction. What do youj think? Does it have a shot of passing?

[Raoul]

It will never pass in that form. Democratic senate and POTUS guarantee there will be some compromise.

[Mike.357]

they go about the whole thing wrong anyway, the political party does not matter.

Of course this will never happen but instead of trying to decide what to cut, why don't they look at the sum they have to spend and then decide how to spend it.

Once the figure is used up there is no more spending, pretty simple.

[1gewehr]

The problem is that it has become almost impossible to cut a complete program or agency. And THAT is what is needed. Unlike the private sector where you have to show a profit, or your job goes away, there is no measure of 'success' for a government program. Instead, all they can do is point to something that is getting worse and say "We need to spend more money to fix this". Or if there isn't already a government program (unlikely), they will develop a new agency or program to 'fix' the problem, especially if it's one that government regulation created in the first place.

There is a reason that some people say that government is a disease masquerading as it's own cure. The only solution is to quit asking government to 'fix' things. Good luck with that.

[mav]

Yes, it is a step in the right direction, but way more is still needed. Does it stand a chance at passing? Absolutely not, it is DOA in the senate. Once they get all the compromising and negotiating finished, it probably won't be worth a .

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Even if it did get through the senate, Obama promised the veto. Anything that cuts is in the right

direction. Cutting whole departments is a necessity, also. There will have to be a huge majority in

the senate and house in 2012 to get a real budget through. If the majority in both houses turn back

to Democrats our country will have been lost and we will have a civil war on our hands. I think the

senate will go red, but not enough of the country clubbers will be gone. If Obama remains we will

just still be in "Czar" rule. That can't be allowed happen.

The states are going to have to start nullifying federal laws that criminalize all of us. Like Oldsmobile98

said a while back, paraphrasing. Just because a law is passed, doesn't make it valid. There are remedies

and we will have to use them. Too much to lose. BATFE is one that comes to mind. Dept of Education

is another. Nullify and force them to be abolished. Not easy, but it can be done.

[mav]

If the majority in both houses turn back

to Democrats our country will have been lost and we will have a civil war on our hands.

I agree, our country will suffer irreparable damage if that occurs. However, I don't think we will have a civil war on our hands. Society has changed so much that they don't have the stomach for such an action.

What I often think about is what would happen if we regained control of both houses and the White House with a bunch of conservatives and libertarians and started making meaningful cuts. I would not be surprised if the union thugs, statists, and those within society who are glued to the government teat took civil disobedience up several notches. I am quite sure they wouldn't have any problem flying in a bunch of anarchists, like we saw in Europe, to join their cause.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Heard an idea on the radio today and amplified it a bit. I think these numbers are correct, but perhaps there are calculation errors.

Total federal outlays for fiscal 2010 were $3.456 trillion with a deficit of $1.294 trillion. Total federal outlays for fiscal 2009 were $3.520 trillion with a deficit of $1.416 trillion.

Regardless whether the people signing these checks are republican, democrat, or martians-- Put it in easier to understand terms--

Imagine a family whose annual income is 50 thousand dollars. Imagine that they have spent more than they take in, living on credit, for fifty years since the late 1960's, and it is getting worse every year.

In 2009 the family made $50,000 and spent $83,650, taking on $33,650 of new debt that year.

In 2010 the family made $51,378 and spent $82,129, taking on ANOTHER $30,751 of new debt for the year.

In early april 2011 the hubby declares that he has cut the budget by $927, so that they will only have to borrow about $29,824 new debt in 2011. But then the bank audits hubby's figures and discovers that the actual amount that Hubby had cut is only $7.13. SEVEN DOLLARS and THIRTEEN CENTS. And the wife was bitching and moaning about cutting seven dollars, because that much of a cut would starve the kids and pets.

What kind of family could run staggering deficits living on credit cards and loans for 50 years? And what kind of banker would keep loaning the amount of money they've been borrowing lately?

This isn't a situation of occasionally being slightly over budget and having to withdraw from the saving account or leave a temporary balance on the credit card. This is an incredibly pathological situation of sick, sick, sick spendaholics who should have lost all rights to credit many decades ago.

TransUnion does not have a credit rating number low enough for this hypothetical family. This family's credit rating would be something like NEGATIVE ONE MILLION.

[gregintenn]

Even if it did get through the senate, Obama promised the veto.

They should make him veto bills every single day.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He can veto anything he wants to, but he is only going to veto something that doesn't further

his agenda.

mav, I think the civil war will be started by just those people you mention. They are planning to

use Wisconsin tactics everywhere they need to. that could cause an unrest that causes that

civil war, easily. I know we have become a nation of cowards, but I also know there are a lot of

people willing to defend their rights against them. I'm not wishing it, just predicting how it will happen

if things don't change.

[mikegideon]

We're not gonna have a civil war. One of the biggest problems we have in this country is that nobody pays attention, and nobody cares. How are any armies gonna get formed with such a low level of give-a-?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You have a good point, Mike, but it will be those union thugs who will be starting things

and it may get out of hand.

[Guest HvyMtl]

"You have a good point, Mike, but it will be those union thugs who will be starting things

and it may get out of hand."

Um. The days of Hoffa, and the AFL-CIO, are far gone. So are the days of "union thugs." Too few unions with too few members to accomplish anything major.

See what just happened up north? The Unions were unable to do anything, and did not go "thug." And they lost.

Edited April 18, 2011 by HvyMtl

[Guest HvyMtl]

They should make him veto bills every single day.

The GOP does not have the political intestinal fortitude to do so. They know if they tried, it would fail and they would carry the blame.

They tried to push their agenda, and blinked. They will do so again.

Oh, and good luck with the Tea Party if you touch their Medicare.

Edited April 18, 2011 by HvyMtl

[Oh Shoot]

We're not gonna have a civil war. One of the biggest problems we have in this country is that nobody pays attention, and nobody cares. How are any armies gonna get formed with such a low level of give-a-?

Besides, you have to have two sides in a war. What are they?

Anarchy due to societal breakdown maybe, but that is not civil war.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"You have a good point, Mike, but it will be those union thugs who will be starting things

and it may get out of hand."

Um. The days of Hoffa, and the AFL-CIO, are far gone. So are the days of "union thugs." Too few unions with too few members to accomplish anything major.

See what just happened up north? The Unions were unable to do anything, and did not go "thug." And they lost.

So, did I say the AFL-CIO? Not really. The modern day thug variant is more likely SEIU morons.

The ones who bullied that mortgage banker in New York. The New Black Panther Party could be another,

although not a union. when Obama gets his way and gasoline is 10 bucks a gallon and people are wanting

their handouts when not much is left, there is the division, the two sides. And yes, I guess that would be

anarchy, but it would have been started by policy from spoiled rotten union and racially divided thugs that

probably have never earned a dime. The policy makers like Obama's czars will have their hands deep in it, by

then.

Most unions are as benign as tap water, but there are the few troublemakers still around. SEIU is one of them.

Obama is their "titular head". It's just practice time for them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think the two sides in the ongoing socialist "struggle" has been the "haves" and the "have nots" for

probably a hundred years. Maybe it won't be a civil war but the results will have been bad, any way it

goes.

[Guest ab28]

I think the two sides in the ongoing socialist "struggle" has been the "haves" and the "have nots" for

probably a hundred years. Maybe it won't be a civil war but the results will have been bad, any way it

goes.

Yeah, when you see someone buy their 11th gold plated BMW and you can barely feed your kids, it might generate a bit of animosity.

[JayC]

Well imho the problem with the Ryan budget is it doesn't go far enough to solve the problem of a bloated federal government. From the start of this country until the great depression in 1930's, with 2 notable exceptions government spending as part of GDP was below 5% (most of that time is was below 3%)... Those 2 exceptions were the civil war and world war 1. Which only lasted a short period of time above 5%... Then comes the great depression and FDR, and his progressive plan to drastically increase the size of government.

Ryan's plan calls for us to drop the federal budget back to ~20% of GDP, while we should be working to drop the federal budget back to 5% of GDP (or even better yet, 2.5-3%) and reducing tax collections back to 10% of GDP until the federal debt is paid off, then drop the tax burden down to 5% of GDP.

We lived as a nation on 3% or less of GDP for 150 years... why do we need a federal government that is 7+ times as big now?

[1gewehr]

The basic problem is NOT 'haves' and have nots'. There are very few people in the US who actually miss meals. ( I did not say 'none', just 'very few') Statistically, ALL of us have been getting wealthier over the past 50 years. Even poor Americans have color TVs, cell phones, and cars.

Rather the problem is between those who GET state and federal benefit payments, and those who PAY them. If you get Medicare, Medicaid, SSN,or an EBT card, you are on the wrong side. Sure, you can tell yourself that you paid into the system for 30-40-50 years. But your money went to pay someone else's benefits, not yours. It was, very simply 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'. If you are getting benefits, you are robbing someone else for that money. Those who expect to get benefits in years to come will be robbing from their children. Until that cycle is broken, the budget cannot be fixed.

As for armed violence, just see what happens when benefits are stopped or government checks bounce. That will make previous rioting look like a kindergarten quarrel.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I was using the "haves and have not's" phrase as a trick the progressives have been using to polarize people against

each other. Otherwise, it total nonsense.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The basic problem is NOT 'haves' and have nots'. There are very few people in the US who actually miss meals. ( I did not say 'none', just 'very few') Statistically, ALL of us have been getting wealthier over the past 50 years. Even poor Americans have color TVs, cell phones, and cars.

Rather the problem is between those who GET state and federal benefit payments, and those who PAY them. If you get Medicare, Medicaid, SSN,or an EBT card, you are on the wrong side. Sure, you can tell yourself that you paid into the system for 30-40-50 years. But your money went to pay someone else's benefits, not yours. It was, very simply 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'. If you are getting benefits, you are robbing someone else for that money. Those who expect to get benefits in years to come will be robbing from their children. Until that cycle is broken, the budget cannot be fixed.

As for armed violence, just see what happens when benefits are stopped or government checks bounce. That will make previous rioting look like a kindergarten quarrel.

In total agreement.

[Guest ab28]

The basic problem is NOT 'haves' and have nots'. There are very few people in the US who actually miss meals. ( I did not say 'none', just 'very few') Statistically, ALL of us have been getting wealthier over the past 50 years. Even poor Americans have color TVs, cell phones, and cars.

Rather the problem is between those who GET state and federal benefit payments, and those who PAY them. If you get Medicare, Medicaid, SSN,or an EBT card, you are on the wrong side. Sure, you can tell yourself that you paid into the system for 30-40-50 years. But your money went to pay someone else's benefits, not yours. It was, very simply 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'. If you are getting benefits, you are robbing someone else for that money. Those who expect to get benefits in years to come will be robbing from their children. Until that cycle is broken, the budget cannot be fixed.

As for armed violence, just see what happens when benefits are stopped or government checks bounce. That will make previous rioting look like a kindergarten quarrel.

I agree that the spending is out of control. The problem is not that poor people have TVs, it is more that services are expensive and stuff is "cheap", Doctor visits, ect. A poor person having a TV doesn't say much, because decent ones are fairly inexpensive now. I'm "poor" and have a computer I built. I remember building PCs when I was a kid. They cost a lot more for a lot less, relatively speaking. What I mean is that I built a decent gaming system for about $1100. That isn't bad for a complete PC anymore. When I was a kid, building a good comp was closer to $3K than 1.

[JayC]

I agree that the spending is out of control. The problem is not that poor people have TVs, it is more that services are expensive and stuff is "cheap", Doctor visits, ect. A poor person having a TV doesn't say much, because decent ones are fairly inexpensive now. I'm "poor" and have a computer I built. I remember building PCs when I was a kid. They cost a lot more for a lot less, relatively speaking. What I mean is that I built a decent gaming system for about $1100. That isn't bad for a complete PC anymore. When I was a kid, building a good comp was closer to $3K than 1.

Doctors visits are expensive because the government interferes in the market place. Do all Doctors need 8 years of education? Plus 1 to 4 years of a residency program? I'd say no... while some high level specialties probably do need that level of education and training surgeons for example, giving you flu shots, etc, probably don't require that level of education and training.

Also, by the government limiting the number of "medical student programs" through government regulation - and allowing medical associations to create an artificial scarcities of doctors and nurses instead of allowing the market to determine the right mix... We end up with a very expensive system to provide basic medical care.

Heart transplants are expensive, and would probably still be expensive under an unregulated system, but getting your local Doctor to give you a prescription for a simple aliment shouldn't cost $75 for the Doctor to see you.

And don't even get me started on the government interference in the market of hospitals and getting their permission to build a hospital in a community.

You'll find that the cost of a lot of "professional" services are artificially increased because of government regulation designed to protect a special interest groups already established business.... Under the guise of "protecting" people.

[Guest ab28]

Doctors visits are expensive because the government interferes in the market place. Do all Doctors need 8 years of education? Plus 1 to 4 years of a residency program? I'd say no... while some high level specialties probably do need that level of education and training surgeons for example, giving you flu shots, etc, probably don't require that level of education and training.

Also, by the government limiting the number of "medical student programs" through government regulation - and allowing medical associations to create an artificial scarcities of doctors and nurses instead of allowing the market to determine the right mix... We end up with a very expensive system to provide basic medical care.

Heart transplants are expensive, and would probably still be expensive under an unregulated system, but getting your local Doctor to give you a prescription for a simple aliment shouldn't cost $75 for the Doctor to see you.

And don't even get me started on the government interference in the market of hospitals and getting their permission to build a hospital in a community.

You'll find that the cost of a lot of "professional" services are artificially increased because of government regulation designed to protect a special interest groups already established business.... Under the guise of "protecting" people.

Yeah, there should be a criteria of treatment. Nurses know plenty, and could probably treat most ailments a lot cheaper. Anything questionable could be passed on up.