Paul Ryan's budget proposal

• believer

  

  KnightRyder;748822 wrote:isnt it the largest sub group with 80 plus members. so in order for a plan to work it would have to be more mainstream? is that why we need to settle for the flaw filled nightmare of a plan ryan dreamed up? that show how incompetent are, they will just settle for a bad mainstream plan rather than a good plan that isnt mainstream.

  Why isn't the alleged CPC "plan" officially on the table? I have a hunch the reason is that it's probably a fiscal hocus-pocus plan designed to veil even more Big Government spending.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Adding a public option to "cut" costs? Are you kidding me?
  
  If you think that will cut costs, you're delusional. A public option will EXPLODE costs, and make what "marginal" tax increases the progressives are talking about worthless. Guess what? They are, anyway.
  
  We have a SPENDING problem, not a revenue problem. Continuing to raise taxes will only result in MORE SPENDING.
  
  How do I know that? Because EVERY time the government has been given more money, they've spent it.
  
  Every. Damn. Time.
  
  Why would you believe it's going to be different now? It's not.
  
  Add to that the fact that you're creating yet another entitlement program we cannot afford right now -- even with tax increases -- and one that will most likely explode into even higher costs down the road.
  
  How do I know that?
  
  Because just about every entitlement the government has EVER created, has gone on to grow exponentially, and suck more and more money out of the taxpayers.
  
  The plan by the Progressives is worthless. It is like a CBO projection: garbage in, garbage out.
  
  I know the true liberals in Congress would love nothing more than to gut the defense budget and call it a day, but that's not going to happen, either. Defense needs a solid cutting...but it needs to be done responsibly IN ADDITION TO other cutbacks and adjustments to the most expensive entitlement programs.
• KnightRyder

  

  Writerbuckeye;748883 wrote:Adding a public option to "cut" costs? Are you kidding me?
  
  If you think that will cut costs, you're delusional. A public option will EXPLODE costs, and make what "marginal" tax increases the progressives are talking about worthless. Guess what? They are, anyway.
  
  We have a SPENDING problem, not a revenue problem. Continuing to raise taxes will only result in MORE SPENDING.
  
  How do I know that? Because EVERY time the government has been given more money, they've spent it.
  
  Every. Damn. Time.
  
  Why would you believe it's going to be different now? It's not.
  
  Add to that the fact that you're creating yet another entitlement program we cannot afford right now -- even with tax increases -- and one that will most likely explode into even higher costs down the road.
  
  How do I know that?
  
  Because just about every entitlement the government has EVER created, has gone on to grow exponentially, and suck more and more money out of the taxpayers.
  
  The plan by the Progressives is worthless. It is like a CBO projection: garbage in, garbage out.
  
  I know the true liberals in Congress would love nothing more than to gut the defense budget and call it a day, but that's not going to happen, either. Defense needs a solid cutting...but it needs to be done responsibly IN ADDITION TO other cutbacks and adjustments to the most expensive entitlement programs.

  
  A public option will EXPLODE costs, and make what "marginal" tax increases the progressives are talking about worthless? now that is just flat out nonsense. the plan ny the CPC is far more in touch with reality that smoke screen to give the wealthy a even bigger tax break. is there a spending problem? yea did it start today? no it started with GWB you know that felon you elected. he was the one that laid the groundwork for disaster. but we also have a revenue problem thanks to GWB's tax breaks. by the way those tax breaks were supposed to create jobs , well 10 years later where is this deluge of jobs? fact is this country lost more jobs in that span. with ryans plan defense spending will more than triple. the bottom line here taxes will have to increase. ryans plan taxes will only increase for the dwindling middle class. and that class will dwindle even more, thus less revenue. ryans plan is plan for disaster.
• believer

  

  KnightRyder;748930 wrote:yea did it start today? no it started with GWB you know that felon you elected.

  When your rhetoric includes calling Bush a felon and using the same tired "tax breaks for the rich" class warfare argument, you lose 95% of your credibility.
  
  Let's be honest shall we? Government over-spending has been around a lot longer than George Bush. If we want to get technical about it, I'd say it's fair to claim that it all began with FDR's New Deal.
  
  As Writer accurately points out, EVERY TIME there's a tax increase at the Federal level it is simply a catalyst for even more over-the-top government spending. It NEVER gets applied to paying down our national debt. NEVER
  
  I've said this before and I'll say it again, if the Feds want to increase taxes it needs to be fair, across-the-board, and GUARANTEED by law to be applied only to paying down the debt. This also needs to be coupled with GUARANTEED across-the-board spending cuts...YES defense spending as well.
• BGFalcons82

  

  believer;748940 wrote:As Writer accurately points out, EVERY TIME there's a tax increase at the Federal level it is simply a catalyst for even more over-the-top government spending. It NEVER gets applied to paying down our national debt. NEVER

  
  Writer, you and I have been beating this drum for quite some time. It NEVER sinks in. One other point...if taxes are raised, do you think those in the crosshairs will pay more or less in total revenue? Warren Buffet brags that he only pays the capital gains rate of 15% and we should feel sorry for his under-paid secretary who pays a higher rate. If he's not paying the top rate now, how in the hell will he pay more if the tax rates are raised x%???? If the evil rich aren't paying their "fair share" now, how in the hell will raising their rates get them to pay more? The answer lies in the folks who are really the focus of the D's, and that would be small business owners and those "rich fat cats" making $250 to $300K. That's who's going to be hit, not the millionaires. Jobs won't be created and people will ask, why not? This idiocy gets repeated time after time.
• believer

  

  BGFalcons82;748959 wrote:If the evil rich aren't paying their "fair share" now, how in the hell will raising their rates get them to pay more? The answer lies in the folks who are really the focus of the D's, and that would be small business owners and those "rich fat cats" making $250 to $300K. That's who's going to be hit, not the millionaires. Jobs won't be created and people will ask, why not? This idiocy gets repeated time after time.

  Very true statement. Our absurd and obscenely complicated "progressive" tax system was written by the best attorneys and public financial "experts" money can buy. Full of loopholes and write-off's the tax code punishes the small business owners and evil corporate managers who earn incomes over $250,000 per year.
  
  So what will happen if a tax increase is implemented is that the folks who do the largest amount of hiring in this country will pay more so the dumbasses in DC can redistribute that new wealth to the "new poor." In other words welfare, Food Stamps, and unemployment checks to the folks the small business owners will let go or refuse to hire.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  When a poster basically says, "It's GWB's fault" they lose me and everyone in here except for the most strident and delusional Bush haters.
  
  There was an article posted someplace (not sure if it was here or another board I haunt ) but it talked about how if you confiscated all the wealth of the top 5 percent (or more) taxpayers, you'd only be able to run the government for a short time, and it wasn't enough to pay off the debt.
  
  That's just one example of why this drumbeat to rape the rich even more (they already pay a highly disproportionate part of the taxes) is so shallow to anyone who has half a brain working.
  
  It's the same crowd that either doesn't know that about half the people in this country pay NO taxes, or they simply don't give a damn because they're so wrapped up in the whole class warfare argument.
  
  UNTIL WE STOP OVERSPENDING nothing we do on the revenue side is going to make the significant difference needed to get off this precipice.
  
  Let me repeat that: UNTIL WE STOP OVERSPENDING it doesn't matter how many taxes we raise, the compounding debt is going to eventually bankrupt us and put us in the company of the former USSR, Greece, Portugal, Ireland and a few others who are tottering on that brink.
• KnightRyder

  

  believer;748940 wrote:When your rhetoric includes calling Bush a felon and using the same tired "tax breaks for the rich" class warfare argument, you lose 95% of your credibility.
  
  Let's be honest shall we? Government over-spending has been around a lot longer than George Bush. If we want to get technical about it, I'd say it's fair to claim that it all began with FDR's New Deal.
  
  As Writer accurately points out, EVERY TIME there's a tax increase at the Federal level it is simply a catalyst for even more over-the-top government spending. It NEVER gets applied to paying down our national debt. NEVER
  
  I've said this before and I'll say it again, if the Feds want to increase taxes it needs to be fair, across-the-board, and GUARANTEED by law to be applied only to paying down the debt. This also needs to be coupled with GUARANTEED across-the-board spending cuts...YES defense spending as well.

  
  GWB was a felon in his days at Harken Energy he was guilty of the same shit that landed martha stewart in prison. the only difference martha stewarts daddy wasnt president. and really do you think for one minute that i care what you and writer think? both cut from the same cloth, weak minded conservatives that are afraid somebody will get something for nothin and it aint gonna be you. what tax increase led to GWB's over top spending that put the country into a recession? you act like these tax breaks to the wealthy are something new. well there not and they have never worked.
• believer

  

  KnightRyder;749035 wrote:and really do you think for one minute that i care what you and writer think? both cut from the same cloth, weak minded conservatives that are afraid somebody will get something for nothin and it aint gonna be you.

  You enjoy having your intellectual and political ass kicked and keep coming back for more. You're just too delusional to stop.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Here's a great piece by Linda Chavez calling Obama and other hypocritical limousine liberals to put their money where their mouths are with all their talk about taxing the wealthy more.
  
  http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2011/04/18/obama-should-put-his-money-where-his-mouth-is.html?sid=101
• stlouiedipalma

  C'mon, writer, that's the Distort, I mean Disturb, I mean the Dispatch.
  
  I miss the good old days when the C-J gave them some competition.
• fish82

  

  KnightRyder;749035 wrote:GWB was a felon in his days at Harken Energy he was guilty of the same shit that landed martha stewart in prison. the only difference martha stewarts daddy wasnt president. and really do you think for one minute that i care what you and writer think? both cut from the same cloth, weak minded conservatives that are afraid somebody will get something for nothin and it aint gonna be you. what tax increase led to GWB's over top spending that put the country into a recession? you act like these tax breaks to the wealthy are something new. well there not and they have never worked.

  It's a shame we can't all be "strong-minded" liberals like you, huh?
  
  I'm afraid you're just not very good at this.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  stlouiedipalma;749097 wrote:C'mon, writer, that's the Distort, I mean Disturb, I mean the Dispatch.
  
  I miss the good old days when the C-J gave them some competition.

  
  First of all, Chavez is a national columnist -- secondly, how about responding to the content that clearly shows Obama and his ilk are major hypocrites in their class warfare rhetoric.
• KnightRyder

  

  believer;749044 wrote:You enjoy having your intellectual and political ass kicked and keep coming back for more. You're just too delusional to stop.

  
  you would think that because think your opinion is the only one that matters. but if that was the case Mc Cain would be president.
• KnightRyder

  

  fish82;749099 wrote:It's a shame we can't all be "strong-minded" liberals like you, huh?
  
  I'm afraid you're just not very good at this.

  
  i dont think you could be a strong minded anything
• believer

  

  KnightRyder;749146 wrote: but if that was the case Mc Cain would be president.

  And Nancy Pelosi would no longer be Speaker of the House....oh wait, she isn't.
• fish82

  

  KnightRyder;749147 wrote:i dont think you could be a strong minded anything

  
  
  Ouch...please stop, I beg you. Who could possibly match wits with the likes of you?
  
  :rolleyes:
• KnightRyder

  

  believer;749223 wrote:And Nancy Pelosi would no longer be Speaker of the HouseQUOTE]
  
  and sarah palin would be vice president

• Writerbuckeye

  

  KnightRyder;749479 wrote:

  believer;749223 wrote:And Nancy Pelosi would no longer be Speaker of the HouseQUOTE]
  
  and sarah palin would be vice president

  
  Yep. And STILL smarter than our current VP.

• KnightRyder

  

  Writerbuckeye;749569 wrote:

  KnightRyder;749479 wrote:
  Yep. And STILL smarter than our current VP.

  
  thats your opinion. which is basically insignificant

• QuakerOats

  KnightRyder;750542 wrote:

  Writerbuckeye;749569 wrote:
  thats your opinion. which is basically insignificant

  
  Well, how about a couple of FACTS then: obama has piled on more deficit spending than all the presidents combined from George Washington thru Ronald Reagan; he is the largest debt creator in world history. How's that working for ya?

• Writerbuckeye

  

  Weird how this site credits quotes to the wrong people if things aren't done perfectly.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  WB, it all started in post 190 when K.Ryder fubar'd his post lol
• jhay78

  

  Looks like there's been some much-needed debate among Republicans about Ryan' budget vs. one proposed by Senator Pat Toomey recently:
  
  http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267388/ryan-vs-toomey-andrew-stiles?page=1
  
  Some are saying that Ryan's budget, while it makes sense and would go a long way at solving problems, is too politically risky. Others seem to think the public is ready for the debate over entitlements, and are standing by Ryan's plan.
  
  This to me is the bottom line:
  

  At the end of the day, the GOP is having a vigorous debate as to how to get the country’s fiscal future back on track, which is more than can be said about the Democrats, who have now gone nearly 750 days without passing a budget in the Senate, which they control. Or, as Ryan spokesman Conor Sweeney told NRO: “Republicans agree we need to fix our fiscal mess, whereas Democrats can’t even agree that the government needs a budget

• WebFire

  jhay78;771188 wrote:Some are saying that Ryan's budget, while it makes sense and would go a long way at solving problems, is too politically risky.

  This right here is what is ruining our country.