Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?

Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

I don't recall exactly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/29/everything-you-know-about-paul-ryans-budget-is-probably-wrong/

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/baker-does-paul-ryan-know-budget-185617687.html

But Ryan wants to cut the discretionary budget to 3.75% of gdp without cutting military spending. Note that military spending is 4% of GDP. To do this today would require eliminating every discretionary federal program except defense, and still require defense cuts. There would be no money to run the fbi, atf, any form of wellfare, the national parks, the highway fund, even congress and the white house would have to be shut down. The only thing that would be left is Medicare, Social Security and defense.

The Ryan plan is a plan to eliminate the federal government.

[mainiac]

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

I don't think his budget assumes 4% growth.  I don't remember that and I can't find it anyway.  4% of GDP is the amount it holds all non-entitlement spending to, as Nadaka just detailed.  Maybe that's what you are getting it from?  But Ryan's assumptions work equally well whether we suffer a complete economic collapse or achieve the singularity.  That's because his budget isn't an actual budget, it's just setting a percentage.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Colorado hates Texas and Dislikes California. We so need to find out the path to the presidency via state bashing!

[Kon]

Again, we're not debating that it is true that the Senate hasn't passed a budget for three years. We're saying that your conclusion that "Senate can't pass a budget" equates to "Obama is a hardliner and completely unwilling to compromise" is idiotic. I'm honestly not sure if you're ignoring that or what.

If you look at my first post earlier tonight, my point, before responding to insults, was that if Obama wins, he will be inheriting a real mess, but this time he won't be able to complain he inherited the mess from the previous president since he will be the previous president. It was a disgrace to the office of the presidency that he blamed Bush and Republicans over and over and over again despite the fact that he inherited the mess from a democratically-controlled House and a democratically-controller Senate of which he was a member. He could have said as a senator "Wait, if we pass these budgets, the next president will inherit budget deficits." But he voted for the budgets those two years, became president, and then claimed he inherited budget deficits. From whom? Pelosi? Reid? Senator Barrack Obama?

As a senator, I doubt Obama voted against a single bill that Bush signed. I admit, I don't know if this is true, but for Senator Obama to have voted against a bill that Bush signed, House Majority Leader Pelosi would have had to let the bill get through the House that she controlled, Senate Leader Reid would have had to let it get through the Senate that he controlled, and Obama would have had to go against the wishes of the two Democratic party leaders, Pelosi and Reid. So, if Bush signed any bad bills that left the next president in a mess, Obama most likely did not vote against those bills. (I'm being careful not to say he voted for them because he is known for rarely actually voting -- he spent most of his time as senator running for thr presidency).

Now, if he wins, he can't blame the Senate because the Senate has been controlled by democrats for the last six years. He can, and probably will, blame the  House, but the dems have controlled the House for four of the last six years. My point is he will find someone to blame. It is in his nature.

Re-electing Obama as president is like the captain of the Titanic purposely backing up after hitting the iceburg to hit it again. Once is more than enough.

As far as getting into a debate on which side is less willing to compromise, I don't see the point. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, and neither of us can prove we are right and the other wrong.

[Kon]

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

[kaijyuu]

As far as getting into a debate on which side is less willing to compromise, I don't see the point. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, and neither of us can prove we are right and the other wrong.

What.

You do realize that who voted for what is well documented? It's certainly provable who's more partisan (on average) here. That isn't an issue of subjectivity.

I'm not the one to bring out statistics though, since I haven't a clue where to find them.

[Kon]

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?

Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

No, it did not cut spending. Um, who in Congess or the Presidency has a plan to cut spending?

[Leafsnail]

As a senator, I doubt Obama voted against a single bill that Bush signed. I admit, I don't know if this is true

Wait, seriously?  You're not going to spend 3 minutes or so checking this?

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/9490/#.UJMrncUxpqE

It's not true.  In any case the main contributor to the deficit, the Bush Tax Cuts, were passed before Obama was in the Senate.  He can't be blamed for not voting against that.  Same for the major military interventions.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

Oh, it's on.

[Kon]

not realizing that I am right.

whenever I hear someone saying that non-jokingly in an argument, I die inside a little.

Google it.

[Shadowlord]

As a senator, I doubt Obama voted against a single bill that Bush signed. I admit, I don't know if this is true, but for Senator Obama to have voted against a bill that Bush signed, House Majority Leader Pelosi would have had to let the bill get through the House that she controlled, Senate Leader Reid would have had to let it get through the Senate that he controlled, and Obama would have had to go against the wishes of the two Democratic party leaders, Pelosi and Reid. So, if Bush signed any bad bills that left the next president in a mess, Obama most likely did not vote against those bills. (I'm being careful not to say he voted for them because he is known for rarely actually voting -- he spent most of his time as senator running for thr presidency).

http://votesmart.org/bill/4163/12952/9490/emergency-departmental-supplemental-appropriations-bill-of-2007#.UJMthsXfvMg
http://votesmart.org/bill/3391/7824/9490/military-commissions-act-of-2006#.UJMuCMXfvMg

[Kon]

Did it also wildly inflate government spending in several key areas?

Were there even net spending cuts at all? Completely discount the whole "decrease income" bit, just - did it even actually cut spending at all?

I don't recall exactly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/29/everything-you-know-about-paul-ryans-budget-is-probably-wrong/

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/baker-does-paul-ryan-know-budget-185617687.html

But Ryan wants to cut the discretionary budget to 3.75% of gdp without cutting military spending. Note that military spending is 4% of GDP. To do this today would require eliminating every discretionary federal program except defense, and still require defense cuts. There would be no money to run the fbi, atf, any form of wellfare, the national parks, the highway fund, even congress and the white house would have to be shut down. The only thing that would be left is Medicare, Social Security and defense.

The Ryan plan is a plan to eliminate the federal government.

And what is the President's plan for cutting spending?

[Nadaka]

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

You... do realize that we just posted documented evidence that you are wrong. Even before you made this statement.

[Aqizzar]

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

In other words, you know perfectly well that you can't find a damn thing to back up your assertions that isn't Breitbart Media, so you're not going to try.  I didn't even say tax cuts can't stimulate economic growth, although if actually read any posts in this thread you're posting in you'd see quite a few real economists explaining why the idea is bologna.

I'd love to see this enlightenment.  I know perfectly well that I'm not going to.

[Kon]

Note: The only reason the Ryan plan is falsely said to balance the budget is that it assumes that a future congress and president will commit to an even deeper but unspecified round of cuts at some point in the future.

It also presupposes that "tax cuts = economic growth" is so intrinsic that enacting Ryan's budget will lead to thirty years of uninterrupted 4% annual economic growth, a feat unattained by any nation in the history of the world.  Which is exactly why the list of people who insist Ryan's awesome budget will solve everyone's problems does not include the Congressional Budget Office.

Haha. You don't believe that tax cuts result in economic growth? You know nothing, Aquizzar. I could write up several pages enlightening you on economics, but it would be a waste of my time.

why don't you?

if you are so good at economics, prove it. prove that you understand the system far better than any man on earth, or any coordinated group of men that have tried to predict how an economy will turn out.

That's known as a 'straw man.' Shall I Google that for you?

[Leafsnail]

I like how you insist we use Google to help enlighten us on complex economic arguments, but post a completely incorrect point of fact that a Google search would immediately have told you was wrong