The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - Ryan announces 6.2 Trillion cut in spending proposal

It’ll be big news all day tomorrow after they formally roll it out on the Hill so familiarize yourself with the broad strokes now. Paul Ryan was coy yesterday when Chris Wallace pressed him for a firm number, but here it is: $4.4 trillion less in spending over 10 years if we’re going by CBO’s numbers or, if you prefer to use Obama’s cynical, unserious, catastrophic budget proposal as the baseline, it’s $6.2 trillion over the next decade. Just a few hours ago, the Treasury Department warned that the U.S. will hit the debt ceiling no later than May 16, with a do-or-die date of July 8 if the first deadline is missed and Treasury has to use “extraordinary measures” to extend it. So at long, long, long, long last, we’re finally going to have that “adult conversation” on entitlements that both parties have been promising us for decades — with a federal default bearing down on us, no less.

How long do you suppose the tenor of the conversation will stay “adult”? Over/under is 36 hours.

Quote:

The president’s recent budget proposal would accelerate America’s descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23% of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs, and no leadership.

Our budget, which we call The Path to Prosperity, is very different. For starters, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president’s budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt. Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion.

A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritage’s analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year…

This budget would focus on growth by reforming the nation’s outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25%. It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all.

Read it all. Everything is on the table: Medicare, Social Security, even “Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon.” Peter Robinson calls it “the most important domestic proposal of our lifetimes” and “the first concerted, credible effort to shrink the federal government since the birth of the welfare state seven decades ago.” TPM calls it, well, you can guess. I keep hoping against hope that The One will gradually realize that signing on to this plan, or some version of it, is actually in his interest politically. There’s literally nothing he could do to alienate the left to the point where they won’t vote for him — most of them trust his judgment more than they trust their own, an unforeseen side effect of Hopenchange messianism — so he could win over independents by coopting Ryan’s plan and have nothing to fear about losing liberals in the general election. There’d be nothing much to fear from seniors, either: I think Ryan and Boehner are so sincere about tackling this problem that they’ll give O whatever bipartisan cover he needs to get this done. (Boehner has promised as much.) And needless to say, whoever the GOP nominee ends up being, there’ll be no complaints from him/her that Obama and the GOP have cut too much. Take the deal, champ.

I predict it will be a short conversation.

This budget would focus on growth by reforming the nation’s outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25%. It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all.

They have this very odd thinking that if you destroy jobs, it actually makes more. Lolbertarians.

I am somewhat skeptical of their claim of 2.5 million additional private sector jobs. Cuts to Medicare/Medicaid means a shitload of private sector jobs in health care are lost.

Xequecal wrote:

I am somewhat skeptical of their claim of 2.5 million additional private sector jobs. Cuts to Medicare/Medicaid means a shitload of private sector jobs in health care are lost.

I am very skeptical of any government claim to create jobs in either the public or private sectors.

Hopwin wrote:

Xequecal wrote:

I am somewhat skeptical of their claim of 2.5 million additional private sector jobs. Cuts to Medicare/Medicaid means a shitload of private sector jobs in health care are lost.

I am very skeptical of any government claim to create jobs in either the public or private sectors.

Oh, I fully trust them to be able to creat public sector jobs.

About two-thirds of United States senators were millionaires in 2008, according to a recent analysis of politicians’ fortunes conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics....In the House, 240 legislators were worth at least $1 million.

Our country was founded as a republic in hopes the government would act in our best interest even when the general population was retarded.

I keep hoping against hope that The One will gradually realize that signing on to this plan, or some version of it, is actually in his interest politically. There’s literally nothing he could do to alienate the left to the point where they won’t vote for him — most of them trust his judgment more than they trust their own, an unforeseen side effect of Hopenchange messianism — so he could win over independents by coopting Ryan’s plan and have nothing to fear about losing liberals in the general election. There’d be nothing much to fear from seniors, either: I think Ryan and Boehner are so sincere about tackling this problem that they’ll give O whatever bipartisan cover he needs to get this done. (Boehner has promised as much.) And needless to say, whoever the GOP nominee ends up being, there’ll be no complaints from him/her that Obama and the GOP have cut too much. Take the deal, champ.

New York Times wrote:

1. Someone really needs to explain how they can expect the government to remain revenue neutral despite cutting the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 25%. This statement is frankly absurd, that cut alone cuts federal income tax revenues by at least 25%.

Quote:

Ah, logic. If only Obama sees it...

As a side note, if the president actually does sign on to this plan, it officially makes him the Obamessiah and the best executive the USA has had in decades. (Of course, he won't sign on.)

Author:	Dash [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:13 am ]
Post subject:	Ryan announces 6.2 Trillion cut in spending proposal
The conversation on entitlements is upon us, maybe? http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/04/n ... -10-years/ Quote: It’ll be big news all day tomorrow after they formally roll it out on the Hill so familiarize yourself with the broad strokes now. Paul Ryan was coy yesterday when Chris Wallace pressed him for a firm number, but here it is: $4.4 trillion less in spending over 10 years if we’re going by CBO’s numbers or, if you prefer to use Obama’s cynical, unserious, catastrophic budget proposal as the baseline, it’s $6.2 trillion over the next decade. Just a few hours ago, the Treasury Department warned that the U.S. will hit the debt ceiling no later than May 16, with a do-or-die date of July 8 if the first deadline is missed and Treasury has to use “extraordinary measures” to extend it. So at long, long, long, long last, we’re finally going to have that “adult conversation” on entitlements that both parties have been promising us for decades — with a federal default bearing down on us, no less. How long do you suppose the tenor of the conversation will stay “adult”? Over/under is 36 hours. Quote: The president’s recent budget proposal would accelerate America’s descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23% of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs, and no leadership. Our budget, which we call The Path to Prosperity, is very different. For starters, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president’s budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt. Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion. A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritage’s analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year… This budget would focus on growth by reforming the nation’s outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25%. It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all. Read it all. Everything is on the table: Medicare, Social Security, even “Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon.” Peter Robinson calls it “the most important domestic proposal of our lifetimes” and “the first concerted, credible effort to shrink the federal government since the birth of the welfare state seven decades ago.” TPM calls it, well, you can guess. I keep hoping against hope that The One will gradually realize that signing on to this plan, or some version of it, is actually in his interest politically. There’s literally nothing he could do to alienate the left to the point where they won’t vote for him — most of them trust his judgment more than they trust their own, an unforeseen side effect of Hopenchange messianism — so he could win over independents by coopting Ryan’s plan and have nothing to fear about losing liberals in the general election. There’d be nothing much to fear from seniors, either: I think Ryan and Boehner are so sincere about tackling this problem that they’ll give O whatever bipartisan cover he needs to get this done. (Boehner has promised as much.) And needless to say, whoever the GOP nominee ends up being, there’ll be no complaints from him/her that Obama and the GOP have cut too much. Take the deal, champ.

Author:	Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:38 am ]
Post subject:
I predict it will be a short conversation.

Author:	Aizle [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Arathain Kelvar wrote: I predict it will be a short conversation. This, because it's not what the population wants.

Author:	darksiege [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:50 am ]
Post subject:
The people are too stupid to have an opinion on the subject. If they caanot see that we are **** then screw them. It is just as much their fault this is happening

Author:	Xequecal [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:51 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Ryan announces 6.2 Trillion cut in spending proposal
They might be able to sell Social Security cuts by telling people that they're really not getting less money than the people before them, they're just living longer. Medicaid cuts will probably go through because it's really easy to hate on poor people who are "obviously" that way because they're stupid/lazy/criminal whatever and thus don't deserve anything. Medicare, however, is a sacred cow and will never be touched. But honestly, this is the death knell: Quote: This budget would focus on growth by reforming the nation’s outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25%. It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all. Corporations and rich people pay good money buying Congressmen to ensure they pay no taxes, so this proposal is dead before it starts.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Ryan announces 6.2 Trillion cut in spending proposal https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5901	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:21 am ]
Post subject:
This will never happen. Too many government jobs would be lost if they made severe cuts.

Author:	Xequecal [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:24 am ]
Post subject:
It doesn't really cut many government jobs. The proposal is revenue neutral, it just caps the growth of the entitlement programs. I am somewhat skeptical of their claim of 2.5 million additional private sector jobs. Cuts to Medicare/Medicaid means a shitload of private sector jobs in health care are lost.

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:27 am ]
Post subject:
They have this very odd thinking that if you destroy jobs, it actually makes more. Lolbertarians.

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:09 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Lex Luthor wrote: They have this very odd thinking that if you destroy jobs, it actually makes more. Lolbertarians. What is wealth?

Author:	Hopwin [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:20 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
Xequecal wrote: I am somewhat skeptical of their claim of 2.5 million additional private sector jobs. Cuts to Medicare/Medicaid means a shitload of private sector jobs in health care are lost. I am very skeptical of any government claim to create jobs in either the public or private sectors.

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:25 am ]
Post subject:
Hes using the right words "help to create jobs" instead of "create jobs". The government can only get out of the way of the market and this is what he is doing - freeing up more funds to allow the market to use them.

Author:	Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:52 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Hopwin wrote: Xequecal wrote: I am somewhat skeptical of their claim of 2.5 million additional private sector jobs. Cuts to Medicare/Medicaid means a shitload of private sector jobs in health care are lost. I am very skeptical of any government claim to create jobs in either the public or private sectors. Oh, I fully trust them to be able to creat public sector jobs.

Author:	Hopwin [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Arathain Kelvar wrote: Hopwin wrote: Xequecal wrote: I am somewhat skeptical of their claim of 2.5 million additional private sector jobs. Cuts to Medicare/Medicaid means a shitload of private sector jobs in health care are lost. I am very skeptical of any government claim to create jobs in either the public or private sectors. Oh, I fully trust them to be able to creat public sector jobs. I trust them to transfer jobs from the private to the public sector but I wouldn't consider that creation.

Author:	Wwen [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:56 pm ]
Post subject:
I doubt it'll happen. I think I have plenty of reason to be pessimistic.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Khross [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ryan announces 6.2 Trillion cut in spending proposal
Our country was founded as a republic in hopes the government would act in our best interest even when the general population was retarded.

Author:	Wwen [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:45 pm ]
Post subject:
It's hard to get re-elected that way. There's no incentive, most senators are millionares or some **** anyway. They'll never have to pay for their choices. Argh, typos.

Author:	Rorinthas [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:37 am ]
Post subject:
I'm not aware of the net worth of any senators. While they have to by nature raise large amounts of other peoples money for campaigning, I don't think many them are that wealthy. Some might be but not enough to be most.

Author:	RangerDave [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:27 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Ryan announces 6.2 Trillion cut in spending proposal
New York Times wrote: About two-thirds of United States senators were millionaires in 2008, according to a recent analysis of politicians’ fortunes conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics....In the House, 240 legislators were worth at least $1 million.

Author:	Hopwin [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:09 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Ryan announces 6.2 Trillion cut in spending proposal
Khross wrote: Our country was founded as a republic in hopes the government would act in our best interest even when the general population was retarded. The assumption behind that was the idea that the general population can't be retarded all the time. Oh well, time for a new social experiment.

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:35 am ]
Post subject:
Does "millionaire" just mean your net assets are over a million, including retirement funds and real estate? That's not that much. Hell I probably have 60k and I graduated college 1-2 years ago.

Author:	Talya [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Ryan announces 6.2 Trillion cut in spending proposal
Quote: I keep hoping against hope that The One will gradually realize that signing on to this plan, or some version of it, is actually in his interest politically. There’s literally nothing he could do to alienate the left to the point where they won’t vote for him — most of them trust his judgment more than they trust their own, an unforeseen side effect of Hopenchange messianism — so he could win over independents by coopting Ryan’s plan and have nothing to fear about losing liberals in the general election. There’d be nothing much to fear from seniors, either: I think Ryan and Boehner are so sincere about tackling this problem that they’ll give O whatever bipartisan cover he needs to get this done. (Boehner has promised as much.) And needless to say, whoever the GOP nominee ends up being, there’ll be no complaints from him/her that Obama and the GOP have cut too much. Take the deal, champ. Ah, logic. If only Obama sees it... As a side note, if the president actually does sign on to this plan, it officially makes him the Obamessiah and the best executive the USA has had in decades. (Of course, he won't sign on.)

Author:	Rorinthas [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ryan announces 6.2 Trillion cut in spending proposal
RangerDave wrote: New York Times wrote: About two-thirds of United States senators were millionaires in 2008, according to a recent analysis of politicians’ fortunes conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics....In the House, 240 legislators were worth at least $1 million. fair enough.

Author:	Xequecal [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ryan announces 6.2 Trillion cut in spending proposal
I'm pretty sure you can't trust anything that's been put forth in this proposal. 1. Someone really needs to explain how they can expect the government to remain revenue neutral despite cutting the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 25%. This statement is frankly absurd, that cut alone cuts federal income tax revenues by at least 25%. 2. Their projected unemployment rate is just bullshit and isn't even consistent with itself, note how they're claiming that the unemployment rate drops over 2% relative to 2012 while they only claim to create 900,000 jobs. It frankly reminds me of Obama promising 6% unemployment if we pass his stimulus package.

Author:	Ladas [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ryan announces 6.2 Trillion cut in spending proposal
Xequecal wrote: 1. Someone really needs to explain how they can expect the government to remain revenue neutral despite cutting the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 25%. This statement is frankly absurd, that cut alone cuts federal income tax revenues by at least 25%. Not sure how you don't understand the entire concept, but the stated "tax rate" is not actually indicative of the rate of taxes paid compared to proceeds, income or profit. The tax "rates" listed in the brackets are applied to net income, not gross, with the difference between your net and gross being the myriad of deductions you might qualify to claim. For example, moving this to the family level and out of the morass of company tax codes, take the amount you actually paid in taxes for any given year and compare that amount to the actual amount of money you made (pre, not post deductions). Chances are nearly 100% that the ratio of taxes you actually paid is much less than your designated tax bracket percentage. So, a family who's income might put them into the 29% tax bracket actually pays around 18% compared to their gross income. The concept then is to reduce (eliminate will never happen) the number of factors that deviate your gross income from the calculated net income. By doing so, they can "lower" the stated tax rates while collecting the same amount of tax revenue. You might call that a wash, but one of the strong benefits to such a system is consistency, not only for the agency dependent on these collections for their operating income, but on those responsible for paying the taxes. You don't have to fiddle with your withholding every year trying to balance what you pay over time with the final bill in April. At the corporate level, it also removes one of the special interest that cause problems.... companies trying to angle tax deductions/breaks for themselves at their competitions detriment.

Author:	Vindicarre [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Ryan announces 6.2 Trillion cut in spending proposal
Talya wrote: Quote: I keep hoping against hope that The One will gradually realize that signing on to this plan, or some version of it, is actually in his interest politically. There’s literally nothing he could do to alienate the left to the point where they won’t vote for him — most of them trust his judgment more than they trust their own, an unforeseen side effect of Hopenchange messianism — so he could win over independents by coopting Ryan’s plan and have nothing to fear about losing liberals in the general election. There’d be nothing much to fear from seniors, either: I think Ryan and Boehner are so sincere about tackling this problem that they’ll give O whatever bipartisan cover he needs to get this done. (Boehner has promised as much.) And needless to say, whoever the GOP nominee ends up being, there’ll be no complaints from him/her that Obama and the GOP have cut too much. Take the deal, champ. Ah, logic. If only Obama sees it... As a side note, if the president actually does sign on to this plan, it officially makes him the Obamessiah and the best executive the USA has had in decades. (Of course, he won't sign on.) Agreed and agreed.