hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 6, 2011 14:16:18 GMT -5
Cut (gut) Medicare and Medicaid, programs which benefit the elderly and the poor. Cut the top tax rate for the rich to 25%. So typical.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 6, 2011 14:31:17 GMT -5
Cut (gut) Medicare and Medicaid, programs which benefit the elderly and the poor. Cut the top tax rate for the rich to 25%. So typical. Characterize and demonize everything the GOP does. So typical. Let's compare your post against the liberal checklist: 1. accuse Republicans of slashing Medicare and Medicaid - check. 2. accuse Republicans of being against old people - check. 3. accuse Republicans of being against poor people - check. 4. accuse Republicans of being against minorities - nope. 5. accuse Republicans of favoring the rich - check. You scored 80%. That's pretty good. That's high enough to be a firefighter in New Haven.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 6, 2011 14:57:52 GMT -5
Cut (gut) Medicare and Medicaid, programs which benefit the elderly and the poor. Cut the top tax rate for the rich to 25%. So typical. Characterize and demonize everything the GOP does. So typical. Let's compare your post against the liberal checklist: 1. accuse Republicans of slashing Medicare and Medicaid - check. 2. accuse Republicans of being against old people - check. 3. accuse Republicans of being against poor people - check. 4. accuse Republicans of being against minorities - nope. 5. accuse Republicans of favoring the rich - check. You scored 80%. That's pretty good. That's high enough to be a firefighter in New Haven. If the shoe fits, kc... Reduce spending on education, food safety, and transportation to below inflation levels. I could go on. And on. Serious on the budget? Worried about the debt? That sham argument went out the window with the additional tax cut for the wealthy.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 6, 2011 15:03:49 GMT -5
I don't know what everyone's all concerned about.
All we need to do is raise everyone's taxes 88% and we don't have to worry about any debt or deficit or entitlement programs.
Sheesh, it's pretty damn simple.
That won't hurt the economy, will it?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 6, 2011 15:34:55 GMT -5
Characterize and demonize everything the GOP does. So typical. Let's compare your post against the liberal checklist: 1. accuse Republicans of slashing Medicare and Medicaid - check. 2. accuse Republicans of being against old people - check. 3. accuse Republicans of being against poor people - check. 4. accuse Republicans of being against minorities - nope. 5. accuse Republicans of favoring the rich - check. You scored 80%. That's pretty good. That's high enough to be a firefighter in New Haven. If the shoe fits, kc... Reduce spending on education, food safety, and transportation to below inflation levels. I could go on. And on. Serious on the budget? Worried about the debt? That sham argument went out the window with the additional tax cut for the wealthy. You do realize that with the proposed reduction in tax rates, that certain deductions and loopholes will be eliminated? And the proposal is not to reduce spending below inflation levels, it's to reduce how much the spending increases.
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Apr 6, 2011 15:38:40 GMT -5
I don't know what everyone's all concerned about. All we need to do is raise everyone's taxes 88% and we don't have to worry about any debt or deficit or entitlement programs. Sheesh, it's pretty damn simple. That won't hurt the economy, will it? I am not worried. CBO says pretty soon there won't be an economy given the current trajectory. Go ahead and tax away. Why not?? Just don't cut anything so no one feels any pain. cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-ryan-obama-s-budget-path-do-nothing
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on Apr 6, 2011 16:06:34 GMT -5
Characterize and demonize everything the GOP does. So typical. Let's compare your post against the liberal checklist: 1. accuse Republicans of slashing Medicare and Medicaid - check. We're not talking about cost of living changes here, we're talking about a Republican budget proposal that actually does kill Medicare. It's not hyperbole to state it as such when the plan is to actually slash Medicare and Medicaid. It's akin to calling Obama a socialist - if he proposed a tax code which instituted caps on personal wealth, I think that sort of claim would cease being hyperbole and you would be okay to say that.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Apr 6, 2011 16:31:20 GMT -5
"Yet there is at least one big way in which the plan isn’t daring at all. It asks for a whole lot of sacrifice from everyone under the age of 55 and little from everyone 55 and over. Representative Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who wrote the plan, calls the budget deficit an “existential threat” to the United States. Then he absolves more than one-third of all adults from responsibility in dealing with that threat." NY TimesI'm still a little unsure how Ryan gets from "the rising cost of Medicare has continued unabated. Today, Medicare spending is growing at a rate of 7.2 percent every year. This is more than twice as fast as this nation’s economy is growing. The unchecked growth of the Medicare program cannot be sustained – eventually, it will threaten not just the affordability of coverage for seniors, but also the security that comes with knowing that coverage can be obtained at any price" to "can't touch this for a decade."
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 6, 2011 17:17:12 GMT -5
I'm still a little unsure how Ryan gets from "the rising cost of Medicare has continued unabated. Today, Medicare spending is growing at a rate of 7.2 percent every year. This is more than twice as fast as this nation’s economy is growing. The unchecked growth of the Medicare program cannot be sustained – eventually, it will threaten not just the affordability of coverage for seniors, but also the security that comes with knowing that coverage can be obtained at any price" to "can't touch this for a decade." Really? You're unsure? Umm, maybe you should read the posts on this page (as a starting point) that skewer Ryan for killing Medicare and then maybe you'll realize that he's trying to propose something that's a compromise -- don't change what old people have now, but modify what future old people will get. This is why no one in DC wants to deal with these issues. You propose changes to Medicaid and Medicare, and Nancy Pelosi accuses you of killing old people. You try to compromise, and the NY Times says your plan is not daring enough. You work with a Democrat OMB director, and she backs off because she can't be seen as supporting a Republican plan.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 6, 2011 18:40:20 GMT -5
One question: where's the Democrats proposed program to even start to solve the debt and deficit problem? Neither the president not the Democrats in congress have even endorsed the president's debt commission recommendations that included cuts and tax increases.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 6, 2011 19:05:31 GMT -5
In fairness to the Democrats*, I'm pretty sure Chris Van Hollen said that they would be coming out with something later this month.
(*House Democrats anyway. You want to ask me where the Senate Majority Leader or President are, I don't really have an answer for that. Not leading out in front, that's for sure.)
But if Democrats want to show they're on the side of the poor and the minorities and seniors, I've got an idea. The administration could announce that they're opening up more areas of OCS and opening ANWR to oil and gas production.
Low income people in this country spend about 23-24% of their monthly budget on energy, compared to the American average of about 11%. Minorities are disproportionally in this group (a larger problem, granted). Seniors have the highest energy consumption of all demographics.
Obama's answer on energy costs in a speech today? Uhh, I can't really do much in the short term.
Total BS. Regardless of the number of years it would take for new supply to come to market, if they announced today that they were opening these areas for exploration and production, gas prices, and other energy costs, would go down tomorrow. Tomorrow.
But he (OK, not he alone, but he is the President) is hooked on this religious belief that we're somehow going to get to a clean energy future -- oh and reduce foreign oil imports -- without domestic oil and gas as necessary fuels for the next 50 - 100 years (if not longer).
Sorry, I probably should have put that rant in the global warming thread.
[/soap box]
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Apr 6, 2011 23:41:17 GMT -5
I'm still a little unsure how Ryan gets from "the rising cost of Medicare has continued unabated. Today, Medicare spending is growing at a rate of 7.2 percent every year. This is more than twice as fast as this nation’s economy is growing. The unchecked growth of the Medicare program cannot be sustained – eventually, it will threaten not just the affordability of coverage for seniors, but also the security that comes with knowing that coverage can be obtained at any price" to "can't touch this for a decade." Really? You're unsure? Umm, maybe you should read the posts on this page (as a starting point) that skewer Ryan for killing Medicare and then maybe you'll realize that he's trying to propose something that's a compromise -- don't change what old people have now, but modify what future old people will get. This is why no one in DC wants to deal with these issues. You propose changes to Medicaid and Medicare, and Nancy Pelosi accuses you of killing old people. You try to compromise, and the NY Times says your plan is not daring enough. You work with a Democrat OMB director, and she backs off because she can't be seen as supporting a Republican plan. Perhaps "unsure" was a poor word choice. I'm just pointing out that the logical conclusion of 7.1% annual growth is not to punt it ten years down the road. I'm well aware that there's a substantial population who's quite eager to lock in their benefits, pay for as little of it as possible, pull the ladder up behind them, and congratulate themselves on the back for putting America's future on the right track. You'd think that if we could find $771B in Medicaid, you could probably find more than $30B in Medicare, though, wouldn't you? But he (OK, not he alone, but he is the President) is hooked on this religious belief that we're somehow going to get to a clean energy future -- oh and reduce foreign oil imports -- without domestic oil and gas as necessary fuels for the next 50 - 100 years (if not longer). Sorry, I probably should have put that rant in the global warming thread. [/soap box] Speaking of medium term solutions, Ryan's plan still runs a deficit for the next 30 years -- I'd have admired his plan a lot more if he had the balls to stand by the VAT and possibly even hinted that tax increases in the medium term might be a solution to a long-term debt problem. Also, all charts need to be kept to a 25-year maximum in either direction -- this 1940-2080 stuff is out of control.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 7, 2011 8:41:57 GMT -5
Is it just me, or does this percentage seem really, really low to everyone? tinyurl.com/5wk5v32Hopefully, we can all get a small bipartisan chuckle/weep out of that one.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 8, 2011 11:35:41 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 8, 2011 12:16:27 GMT -5
"To extend the long-term solvency of Social Security, it would propose dramatically increasing payroll taxes on both the employer and employee side, and funneling the money into even more generous benefits." Yes, let's increase the benefits we pay out. I fail to see what's wrong with raising the retirement age to 70.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Apr 8, 2011 13:07:14 GMT -5
I fail to see what's wrong with raising the retirement age to 70. I've heard that the People's Budget incorporates this in 2036 as a compromise.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Apr 9, 2011 11:00:23 GMT -5
Good for Ryan. It's about time somebody in the GOP grew a pair and actually started proposing what they've been espousing.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as Defense spending, Medicare/caid, and Soc Sec are off the table, we're not even having a reasonable debate. Cutting domestic discretionary spending to fix the deficit/debt are like me having one less beer a week to pay off my law school loans.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Apr 9, 2011 11:02:20 GMT -5
"To extend the long-term solvency of Social Security, it would propose dramatically increasing payroll taxes on both the employer and employee side, and funneling the money into even more generous benefits." Yes, let's increase the benefits we pay out. I fail to see what's wrong with raising the retirement age to 70. I agree with you, kc. People are living A LOT longer and are valuable (and protected) in the workplace longer than they were in the 60s, much less the 30s. Raise it to 70. Hell, raise it to 72.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 9, 2011 14:50:12 GMT -5
Unless I win the lottery, which seems unlikely as I don't buy lottery tickets, I'm pretty damn sure I won't be retiring before 70.
Makes sense to me.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 10, 2011 2:21:54 GMT -5
|
|